Ethnicity and Jewish Identity in Josephus

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021949/00001

Material Information

Title: Ethnicity and Jewish Identity in Josephus
Physical Description: 1 online resource (297 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008


Subjects / Keywords: ethnicity, jewish, josephus
Classics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Classical Studies thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation


Abstract: Flavius Josephus was a Jewish historian who lived in the first century CE. When the First Jewish War began in 66 CE, Josephus was given a leading role in the defense of Galilee in northern Palestine. He was captured by the Roman forces and accompanied them to Jerusalem where he witnessed the fall of the city in 70 CE. After that Josephus was taken to Rome where he wrote an account of the Jewish war with Rome (the Bellum Judaicum), a history of the Jews (the Antiquitates Judaicae), a short autobiography (the Vita), and a defense of the antiquity of the Jews (the Contra Apionem). All of these works were intended for a non-Jewish audience. Josephus wrote at a time when anti-Jewish sentiments were common, and the recent defeat at the hands of Rome only exacerbated the negative image ascribed to Jews. It is the thesis of this dissertation that Josephus produced his literary works not simply to satisfy the curiosity of interested Gentiles concerning Jewish origins and customs, but to craft and negotiate an ethnicity for the Jews that would portray them as a people worthy of Roman respect. Ethnic identity is a social construct that is shaped in a complex matrix of psychological and social factors, and often in response to a perceived crisis that threatens a person?s or group?s sense of social belonging. Josephus lived under the kinds of conditions in which groups typically feel the need to adjust and reassert their social identity. I suggest that this lens can provide a useful way of reading Josephus, and can account for the shape and purpose of his works. Josephus' strategy for creating this ethnic portrait was to depict the Jews as having essentially the same qualities of the noble Greeks of the past, whom the Romans respected. In this undertaking Josephus was participating in a long-standing debate within Jewish circles over the limits and extent of Hellenization among them. What was new was that Josephus used the vehicle of Greek historiography to accomplish his purpose. All of his literary works drew heavily on well-known Greek historiographical models for their presentations of the events, their characterizations of the Jewish people, and their refutations of Gentile slanders. The result was a picture of Jewish history and piety in which the Jews are seen to embody well-respected Greek ideals. It is not known how widely Josephus? works circulated in his own day or shortly thereafter, nor do we know how successful they were in their purpose of creating a bold, new picture of Jewish identity. There are indications that Josephus? works did not effect much change in how Gentiles viewed Jews in the Roman empire. However, the success of the project (measured in terms of social acceptance) is not the object of this study, nor is it a criterion for judging the importance of what Josephus wrote. One of the enduring values of Josephus? works is that they demonstrate, in antiquity, an attempt by a marginalized group to negotiate an ethnicity, and thus they provide an important window into the complexities of Jewish life in the Roman empire.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Kapparis, Konstantin.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0021949:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021949/00001

Material Information

Title: Ethnicity and Jewish Identity in Josephus
Physical Description: 1 online resource (297 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008


Subjects / Keywords: ethnicity, jewish, josephus
Classics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Classical Studies thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation


Abstract: Flavius Josephus was a Jewish historian who lived in the first century CE. When the First Jewish War began in 66 CE, Josephus was given a leading role in the defense of Galilee in northern Palestine. He was captured by the Roman forces and accompanied them to Jerusalem where he witnessed the fall of the city in 70 CE. After that Josephus was taken to Rome where he wrote an account of the Jewish war with Rome (the Bellum Judaicum), a history of the Jews (the Antiquitates Judaicae), a short autobiography (the Vita), and a defense of the antiquity of the Jews (the Contra Apionem). All of these works were intended for a non-Jewish audience. Josephus wrote at a time when anti-Jewish sentiments were common, and the recent defeat at the hands of Rome only exacerbated the negative image ascribed to Jews. It is the thesis of this dissertation that Josephus produced his literary works not simply to satisfy the curiosity of interested Gentiles concerning Jewish origins and customs, but to craft and negotiate an ethnicity for the Jews that would portray them as a people worthy of Roman respect. Ethnic identity is a social construct that is shaped in a complex matrix of psychological and social factors, and often in response to a perceived crisis that threatens a person?s or group?s sense of social belonging. Josephus lived under the kinds of conditions in which groups typically feel the need to adjust and reassert their social identity. I suggest that this lens can provide a useful way of reading Josephus, and can account for the shape and purpose of his works. Josephus' strategy for creating this ethnic portrait was to depict the Jews as having essentially the same qualities of the noble Greeks of the past, whom the Romans respected. In this undertaking Josephus was participating in a long-standing debate within Jewish circles over the limits and extent of Hellenization among them. What was new was that Josephus used the vehicle of Greek historiography to accomplish his purpose. All of his literary works drew heavily on well-known Greek historiographical models for their presentations of the events, their characterizations of the Jewish people, and their refutations of Gentile slanders. The result was a picture of Jewish history and piety in which the Jews are seen to embody well-respected Greek ideals. It is not known how widely Josephus? works circulated in his own day or shortly thereafter, nor do we know how successful they were in their purpose of creating a bold, new picture of Jewish identity. There are indications that Josephus? works did not effect much change in how Gentiles viewed Jews in the Roman empire. However, the success of the project (measured in terms of social acceptance) is not the object of this study, nor is it a criterion for judging the importance of what Josephus wrote. One of the enduring values of Josephus? works is that they demonstrate, in antiquity, an attempt by a marginalized group to negotiate an ethnicity, and thus they provide an important window into the complexities of Jewish life in the Roman empire.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Kapparis, Konstantin.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0021949:00001

This item has the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101111_AAAABI INGEST_TIME 2010-11-11T13:58:50Z PACKAGE UFE0021949_00001
26951 F20101111_AAAXYT mcclister_d_Page_093.QC.jpg
63039 F20101111_AAAYVM mcclister_d_Page_080.pro
27436 F20101111_AAAXLI mcclister_d_Page_049.QC.jpg
96752 F20101111_AAAYIB mcclister_d_Page_262.jpg
6652 F20101111_AAAZSG mcclister_d_Page_263thm.jpg
5950 F20101111_AAAXYU mcclister_d_Page_078thm.jpg
53085 F20101111_AAAYVN mcclister_d_Page_081.pro
2524 F20101111_AAAXLJ mcclister_d_Page_288.txt
101086 F20101111_AAAYIC mcclister_d_Page_263.jpg
27899 F20101111_AAAZSH mcclister_d_Page_265.QC.jpg
131915 F20101111_AAAXYV mcclister_d_Page_095.jp2
54240 F20101111_AAAYVO mcclister_d_Page_082.pro
2176 F20101111_AAAXLK mcclister_d_Page_157.txt
96848 F20101111_AAAYID mcclister_d_Page_266.jpg
28258 F20101111_AAAZSI mcclister_d_Page_268.QC.jpg
1053954 F20101111_AAAXYW mcclister_d_Page_154.tif
59069 F20101111_AAAYVP mcclister_d_Page_084.pro
54210 F20101111_AAAXLL mcclister_d_Page_221.pro
91300 F20101111_AAAYIE mcclister_d_Page_268.jpg
28761 F20101111_AAAZSJ mcclister_d_Page_269.QC.jpg
2267 F20101111_AAAXYX mcclister_d_Page_149.txt
59559 F20101111_AAAYVQ mcclister_d_Page_085.pro
F20101111_AAAXLM mcclister_d_Page_280.tif
92813 F20101111_AAAYIF mcclister_d_Page_269.jpg
6759 F20101111_AAAZSK mcclister_d_Page_272thm.jpg
118950 F20101111_AAAXYY mcclister_d_Page_051.jp2
56547 F20101111_AAAYVR mcclister_d_Page_086.pro
48699 F20101111_AAAXLN mcclister_d_Page_248.pro
91808 F20101111_AAAYIG mcclister_d_Page_271.jpg
27410 F20101111_AAAZSL mcclister_d_Page_276.QC.jpg
2237 F20101111_AAAZFA mcclister_d_Page_239.txt
2303 F20101111_AAAXYZ mcclister_d_Page_009.txt
54730 F20101111_AAAYVS mcclister_d_Page_087.pro
2197 F20101111_AAAXLO mcclister_d_Page_089.txt
91681 F20101111_AAAYIH mcclister_d_Page_272.jpg
22814 F20101111_AAAZSM mcclister_d_Page_278.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAZFB mcclister_d_Page_241.txt
55597 F20101111_AAAYVT mcclister_d_Page_088.pro
135385 F20101111_AAAXLP mcclister_d_Page_257.jp2
86584 F20101111_AAAYII mcclister_d_Page_275.jpg
6919 F20101111_AAAZSN mcclister_d_Page_289thm.jpg
2272 F20101111_AAAZFC mcclister_d_Page_242.txt
54282 F20101111_AAAYVU mcclister_d_Page_089.pro
126953 F20101111_AAAXLQ mcclister_d_Page_176.jp2
72183 F20101111_AAAYIJ mcclister_d_Page_278.jpg
29912 F20101111_AAAZSO mcclister_d_Page_291.QC.jpg
2131 F20101111_AAAZFD mcclister_d_Page_244.txt
44186 F20101111_AAAYVV mcclister_d_Page_092.pro
65029 F20101111_AAAXLR mcclister_d_Page_070.pro
105421 F20101111_AAAYIK mcclister_d_Page_280.jpg
7160 F20101111_AAAZSP mcclister_d_Page_292thm.jpg
2009 F20101111_AAAZFE mcclister_d_Page_246.txt
58483 F20101111_AAAYVW mcclister_d_Page_094.pro
63118 F20101111_AAAXLS mcclister_d_Page_292.pro
96621 F20101111_AAAYIL mcclister_d_Page_281.jpg
26301 F20101111_AAAZSQ mcclister_d_Page_293.QC.jpg
2374 F20101111_AAAZFF mcclister_d_Page_247.txt
58418 F20101111_AAAYVX mcclister_d_Page_096.pro
6658 F20101111_AAAXLT mcclister_d_Page_261thm.jpg
95370 F20101111_AAAYIM mcclister_d_Page_282.jpg
29358 F20101111_AAAZSR mcclister_d_Page_295.QC.jpg
1987 F20101111_AAAZFG mcclister_d_Page_248.txt
75033 F20101111_AAAYVY mcclister_d_Page_098.pro
F20101111_AAAXLU mcclister_d_Page_240.tif
100537 F20101111_AAAYIN mcclister_d_Page_283.jpg
1993 F20101111_AAAZFH mcclister_d_Page_249.txt
56486 F20101111_AAAYVZ mcclister_d_Page_099.pro
F20101111_AAAXLV mcclister_d_Page_086.tif
90551 F20101111_AAAYIO mcclister_d_Page_284.jpg
2001 F20101111_AAAZFI mcclister_d_Page_251.txt
2566 F20101111_AAAXLW mcclister_d_Page_292.txt
94102 F20101111_AAAYIP mcclister_d_Page_285.jpg
2569 F20101111_AAAZFJ mcclister_d_Page_252.txt
2162 F20101111_AAAXLX mcclister_d_Page_265.txt
106146 F20101111_AAAYIQ mcclister_d_Page_289.jpg
2181 F20101111_AAAZFK mcclister_d_Page_254.txt
103049 F20101111_AAAYIR mcclister_d_Page_292.jpg
2527 F20101111_AAAZFL mcclister_d_Page_255.txt
95344 F20101111_AAAXLY mcclister_d_Page_140.jpg
95553 F20101111_AAAYIS mcclister_d_Page_294.jpg
2213 F20101111_AAAZFM mcclister_d_Page_256.txt
129650 F20101111_AAAXLZ mcclister_d_Page_209.jp2
98606 F20101111_AAAYIT mcclister_d_Page_295.jpg
2720 F20101111_AAAZFN mcclister_d_Page_257.txt
1513 F20101111_AAAWUA mcclister_d_Page_267thm.jpg
2277 F20101111_AAAZFO mcclister_d_Page_259.txt
31896 F20101111_AAAWUB mcclister_d_Page_055.QC.jpg
63243 F20101111_AAAYIU mcclister_d_Page_297.jpg
2228 F20101111_AAAZFP mcclister_d_Page_261.txt
21312 F20101111_AAAYIV mcclister_d_Page_001.jp2
92442 F20101111_AAAWUC mcclister_d_Page_233.jpg
63477 F20101111_AAAYIW mcclister_d_Page_004.jp2
2521 F20101111_AAAZFQ mcclister_d_Page_263.txt
27298 F20101111_AAAWUD mcclister_d_Page_181.QC.jpg
1051976 F20101111_AAAYIX mcclister_d_Page_005.jp2
2345 F20101111_AAAZFR mcclister_d_Page_264.txt
F20101111_AAAWUE mcclister_d_Page_173.tif
117619 F20101111_AAAYIY mcclister_d_Page_009.jp2
2317 F20101111_AAAZFS mcclister_d_Page_266.txt
112941 F20101111_AAAWUF mcclister_d_Page_121.jp2
160635 F20101111_AAAYIZ mcclister_d_Page_010.jp2
2221 F20101111_AAAZFT mcclister_d_Page_268.txt
F20101111_AAAWUG mcclister_d_Page_265.tif
2261 F20101111_AAAZFU mcclister_d_Page_273.txt
135885 F20101111_AAAWUH mcclister_d_Page_020.jp2
2143 F20101111_AAAXRA mcclister_d_Page_270.txt
2160 F20101111_AAAZFV mcclister_d_Page_274.txt
73751 F20101111_AAAWUI mcclister_d_Page_008.jpg
90320 F20101111_AAAXRB mcclister_d_Page_270.jpg
2110 F20101111_AAAZFW mcclister_d_Page_275.txt
F20101111_AAAWUJ mcclister_d_Page_062.tif
6413 F20101111_AAAXRC mcclister_d_Page_229thm.jpg
2210 F20101111_AAAZFX mcclister_d_Page_277.txt
2394 F20101111_AAAWUK mcclister_d_Page_139.txt
27905 F20101111_AAAXRD mcclister_d_Page_169.QC.jpg
1757 F20101111_AAAZFY mcclister_d_Page_278.txt
6252 F20101111_AAAWUL mcclister_d_Page_068thm.jpg
2217 F20101111_AAAXRE mcclister_d_Page_271.txt
2360 F20101111_AAAZFZ mcclister_d_Page_279.txt
27673 F20101111_AAAWUM mcclister_d_Page_122.QC.jpg
59715 F20101111_AAAXRF mcclister_d_Page_091.pro
111118 F20101111_AAAWUN mcclister_d_Page_205.jp2
897659 F20101111_AAAXRG mcclister_d_Page_006.jp2
56822 F20101111_AAAWUO mcclister_d_Page_016.pro
2536 F20101111_AAAXRH mcclister_d_Page_107.txt
1051956 F20101111_AAAYOA mcclister_d_Page_288.jp2
6453 F20101111_AAAWUP mcclister_d_Page_293thm.jpg
139250 F20101111_AAAXRI mcclister_d_Page_175.jp2
138970 F20101111_AAAYOB mcclister_d_Page_289.jp2
93173 F20101111_AAAWUQ mcclister_d_Page_207.jpg
F20101111_AAAXRJ mcclister_d_Page_014.tif
115214 F20101111_AAAYOC mcclister_d_Page_293.jp2
27526 F20101111_AAAWUR mcclister_d_Page_056.QC.jpg
25271604 F20101111_AAAXRK mcclister_d_Page_006.tif
129135 F20101111_AAAYOD mcclister_d_Page_294.jp2
28868 F20101111_AAAWUS mcclister_d_Page_077.QC.jpg
6754 F20101111_AAAXRL mcclister_d_Page_101thm.jpg
130089 F20101111_AAAYOE mcclister_d_Page_295.jp2
2327 F20101111_AAAXEA mcclister_d_Page_211.txt
31157 F20101111_AAAWUT mcclister_d_Page_027.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAXRM mcclister_d_Page_278.tif
50510 F20101111_AAAYOF mcclister_d_Page_296.jp2
2314 F20101111_AAAXEB mcclister_d_Page_042.txt
23663 F20101111_AAAWUU mcclister_d_Page_092.QC.jpg
94994 F20101111_AAAXRN mcclister_d_Page_011.jpg
F20101111_AAAYOG mcclister_d_Page_002.tif
105736 F20101111_AAAXEC mcclister_d_Page_248.jp2
6373 F20101111_AAAZLA mcclister_d_Page_061thm.jpg
6846 F20101111_AAAWUV mcclister_d_Page_253thm.jpg
2152 F20101111_AAAXRO mcclister_d_Page_056.txt
F20101111_AAAYOH mcclister_d_Page_005.tif
6587 F20101111_AAAXED mcclister_d_Page_089thm.jpg
6570 F20101111_AAAZLB mcclister_d_Page_171thm.jpg
6719 F20101111_AAAWUW mcclister_d_Page_140thm.jpg
25769 F20101111_AAAXRP mcclister_d_Page_083.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAYOI mcclister_d_Page_007.tif
123247 F20101111_AAAXEE mcclister_d_Page_196.jp2
31721 F20101111_AAAZLC mcclister_d_Page_023.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAWUX mcclister_d_Page_171.tif
F20101111_AAAXRQ mcclister_d_Page_088.txt
F20101111_AAAYOJ mcclister_d_Page_008.tif
125345 F20101111_AAAXEF mcclister_d_Page_128.jp2
6537 F20101111_AAAZLD mcclister_d_Page_228thm.jpg
92884 F20101111_AAAWUY mcclister_d_Page_099.jpg
49581 F20101111_AAAXRR mcclister_d_Page_004.jpg
F20101111_AAAYOK mcclister_d_Page_010.tif
117443 F20101111_AAAXEG mcclister_d_Page_239.jp2
30059 F20101111_AAAZLE mcclister_d_Page_065.QC.jpg
6637 F20101111_AAAWUZ mcclister_d_Page_123thm.jpg
29210 F20101111_AAAYBA mcclister_d_Page_243.QC.jpg
6638 F20101111_AAAXRS mcclister_d_Page_244thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAYOL mcclister_d_Page_012.tif
1051967 F20101111_AAAXEH mcclister_d_Page_042.jp2
7268 F20101111_AAAZLF mcclister_d_Page_055thm.jpg
6792 F20101111_AAAYBB mcclister_d_Page_218thm.jpg
64103 F20101111_AAAXRT mcclister_d_Page_238.jpg
F20101111_AAAYOM mcclister_d_Page_019.tif
6560 F20101111_AAAXEI mcclister_d_Page_225thm.jpg
6868 F20101111_AAAZLG mcclister_d_Page_294thm.jpg
2296 F20101111_AAAYBC mcclister_d_Page_110.txt
123390 F20101111_AAAXRU mcclister_d_Page_084.jp2
F20101111_AAAYON mcclister_d_Page_020.tif
90841 F20101111_AAAXEJ mcclister_d_Page_102.jpg
28093 F20101111_AAAZLH mcclister_d_Page_087.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAYBD mcclister_d_Page_164.tif
F20101111_AAAXRV mcclister_d_Page_244.tif
F20101111_AAAYOO mcclister_d_Page_021.tif
95420 F20101111_AAAXEK mcclister_d_Page_008.jp2
6234 F20101111_AAAZLI mcclister_d_Page_136thm.jpg
90765 F20101111_AAAYBE mcclister_d_Page_005.jpg
28602 F20101111_AAAXRW mcclister_d_Page_071.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAYOP mcclister_d_Page_024.tif
27104 F20101111_AAAXEL mcclister_d_Page_114.QC.jpg
6253 F20101111_AAAZLJ mcclister_d_Page_133thm.jpg
6561 F20101111_AAAYBF mcclister_d_Page_080thm.jpg
6822 F20101111_AAAXRX mcclister_d_Page_163thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAYOQ mcclister_d_Page_029.tif
121667 F20101111_AAAXEM mcclister_d_Page_214.jp2
6961 F20101111_AAAZLK mcclister_d_Page_095thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAYBG mcclister_d_Page_046.tif
F20101111_AAAXRY mcclister_d_Page_078.tif
F20101111_AAAYOR mcclister_d_Page_031.tif
28428 F20101111_AAAXEN mcclister_d_Page_074.QC.jpg
6489 F20101111_AAAZLL mcclister_d_Page_057thm.jpg
2202 F20101111_AAAYBH mcclister_d_Page_233.txt
56341 F20101111_AAAXRZ mcclister_d_Page_169.pro
F20101111_AAAYOS mcclister_d_Page_038.tif
F20101111_AAAXEO mcclister_d_Page_245.tif
6521 F20101111_AAAZLM mcclister_d_Page_227thm.jpg
57508 F20101111_AAAYBI mcclister_d_Page_150.pro
F20101111_AAAYOT mcclister_d_Page_039.tif
28900 F20101111_AAAXEP mcclister_d_Page_094.QC.jpg
28549 F20101111_AAAZLN mcclister_d_Page_118.QC.jpg
85729 F20101111_AAAYBJ mcclister_d_Page_159.jpg
F20101111_AAAYOU mcclister_d_Page_040.tif
6526 F20101111_AAAXEQ mcclister_d_Page_118thm.jpg
24271 F20101111_AAAZLO mcclister_d_Page_153.QC.jpg
2105 F20101111_AAAYBK mcclister_d_Page_155.txt
F20101111_AAAYOV mcclister_d_Page_041.tif
30054 F20101111_AAAZLP mcclister_d_Page_015.QC.jpg
61623 F20101111_AAAYBL mcclister_d_Page_031.pro
F20101111_AAAYOW mcclister_d_Page_044.tif
6912 F20101111_AAAXER mcclister_d_Page_269thm.jpg
6601 F20101111_AAAZLQ mcclister_d_Page_237thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAYBM mcclister_d_Page_209.tif
F20101111_AAAYOX mcclister_d_Page_047.tif
68687 F20101111_AAAXES mcclister_d_Page_105.pro
6359 F20101111_AAAZLR mcclister_d_Page_156thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAYOY mcclister_d_Page_051.tif
115685 F20101111_AAAXET mcclister_d_Page_082.jp2
6884 F20101111_AAAZLS mcclister_d_Page_254thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAYBN mcclister_d_Page_003.tif
F20101111_AAAYOZ mcclister_d_Page_052.tif
1979 F20101111_AAAXEU mcclister_d_Page_045.txt
5973 F20101111_AAAZLT mcclister_d_Page_187thm.jpg
88101 F20101111_AAAYBO mcclister_d_Page_063.jpg
6738 F20101111_AAAXEV mcclister_d_Page_235thm.jpg
28458 F20101111_AAAZLU mcclister_d_Page_041.QC.jpg
2716 F20101111_AAAXXA mcclister_d_Page_118.txt
6411 F20101111_AAAYBP mcclister_d_Page_050thm.jpg
1172 F20101111_AAAXEW mcclister_d_Page_002.QC.jpg
6787 F20101111_AAAZLV mcclister_d_Page_195thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAXXB mcclister_d_Page_183.tif
52567 F20101111_AAAYBQ mcclister_d_Page_229.pro
2214 F20101111_AAAXEX mcclister_d_Page_133.txt
92832 F20101111_AAAXXC mcclister_d_Page_277.jpg
3500 F20101111_AAAYBR mcclister_d_Page_005.txt
88541 F20101111_AAAXEY mcclister_d_Page_231.jpg
28247 F20101111_AAAZLW mcclister_d_Page_294.QC.jpg
120463 F20101111_AAAXXD mcclister_d_Page_086.jp2
85303 F20101111_AAAYBS mcclister_d_Page_205.jpg
67509 F20101111_AAAXEZ mcclister_d_Page_058.pro
29966 F20101111_AAAZLX mcclister_d_Page_266.QC.jpg
27532 F20101111_AAAYBT mcclister_d_Page_136.QC.jpg
26163 F20101111_AAAZLY mcclister_d_Page_275.QC.jpg
6501 F20101111_AAAXXE mcclister_d_Page_097thm.jpg
6829 F20101111_AAAYBU mcclister_d_Page_268thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAZLZ mcclister_d_Page_276thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAXXF mcclister_d_Page_100.tif
F20101111_AAAYBV mcclister_d_Page_273.tif
28662 F20101111_AAAXXG mcclister_d_Page_206.QC.jpg
27883 F20101111_AAAYBW mcclister_d_Page_200.QC.jpg
2187 F20101111_AAAXXH mcclister_d_Page_024.txt
116811 F20101111_AAAYBX mcclister_d_Page_135.jp2
27593 F20101111_AAAYUA mcclister_d_Page_004.pro
111062 F20101111_AAAXXI mcclister_d_Page_189.jpg
62946 F20101111_AAAYBY mcclister_d_Page_195.pro
85057 F20101111_AAAYUB mcclister_d_Page_005.pro
F20101111_AAAXXJ mcclister_d_Page_109.tif
122631 F20101111_AAAYBZ mcclister_d_Page_124.jp2
45663 F20101111_AAAYUC mcclister_d_Page_007.pro
98233 F20101111_AAAXXK mcclister_d_Page_054.jpg
50065 F20101111_AAAYUD mcclister_d_Page_013.pro
30315 F20101111_AAAXXL mcclister_d_Page_048.QC.jpg
69725 F20101111_AAAYUE mcclister_d_Page_015.pro
90789 F20101111_AAAXKA mcclister_d_Page_213.jpg
7242 F20101111_AAAXXM mcclister_d_Page_001.pro
56704 F20101111_AAAYUF mcclister_d_Page_017.pro
114250 F20101111_AAAXKB mcclister_d_Page_197.jp2
103354 F20101111_AAAXXN mcclister_d_Page_219.jpg
49948 F20101111_AAAYUG mcclister_d_Page_019.pro
27148 F20101111_AAAXKC mcclister_d_Page_128.QC.jpg
6354 F20101111_AAAZRA mcclister_d_Page_128thm.jpg
61822 F20101111_AAAXXO mcclister_d_Page_097.pro
70549 F20101111_AAAYUH mcclister_d_Page_021.pro
28414 F20101111_AAAXKD mcclister_d_Page_258.QC.jpg
6681 F20101111_AAAZRB mcclister_d_Page_130thm.jpg
2284 F20101111_AAAXXP mcclister_d_Page_115.txt
58719 F20101111_AAAYUI mcclister_d_Page_025.pro
2215 F20101111_AAAXKE mcclister_d_Page_060.txt
7031 F20101111_AAAZRC mcclister_d_Page_131thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAXXQ mcclister_d_Page_043.tif
59228 F20101111_AAAYUJ mcclister_d_Page_026.pro
2251 F20101111_AAAXKF mcclister_d_Page_216.txt
28792 F20101111_AAAZRD mcclister_d_Page_145.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAXXR mcclister_d_Page_030.tif
57731 F20101111_AAAYUK mcclister_d_Page_029.pro
2426 F20101111_AAAXKG mcclister_d_Page_059.txt
16411 F20101111_AAAZRE mcclister_d_Page_146.QC.jpg
112267 F20101111_AAAXXS mcclister_d_Page_229.jp2
59867 F20101111_AAAYUL mcclister_d_Page_030.pro
2046 F20101111_AAAXKH mcclister_d_Page_158.txt
80370 F20101111_AAAYHA mcclister_d_Page_203.jpg
6721 F20101111_AAAZRF mcclister_d_Page_147thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAXXT mcclister_d_Page_022.tif
69399 F20101111_AAAYUM mcclister_d_Page_032.pro
88839 F20101111_AAAXKI mcclister_d_Page_052.jpg
78294 F20101111_AAAYHB mcclister_d_Page_204.jpg
6795 F20101111_AAAZRG mcclister_d_Page_165thm.jpg
2403 F20101111_AAAXXU mcclister_d_Page_132.txt
54477 F20101111_AAAYUN mcclister_d_Page_033.pro
29281 F20101111_AAAXKJ mcclister_d_Page_062.QC.jpg
94551 F20101111_AAAYHC mcclister_d_Page_206.jpg
6249 F20101111_AAAZRH mcclister_d_Page_168thm.jpg
54152 F20101111_AAAXXV mcclister_d_Page_035.pro
51847 F20101111_AAAYUO mcclister_d_Page_036.pro
2827 F20101111_AAAXKK mcclister_d_Page_296thm.jpg
100358 F20101111_AAAYHD mcclister_d_Page_209.jpg
29614 F20101111_AAAZRI mcclister_d_Page_175.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAXXW mcclister_d_Page_152.tif
62650 F20101111_AAAYUP mcclister_d_Page_038.pro
6451 F20101111_AAAXKL mcclister_d_Page_207thm.jpg
95609 F20101111_AAAYHE mcclister_d_Page_211.jpg
6826 F20101111_AAAZRJ mcclister_d_Page_178thm.jpg
68003 F20101111_AAAXXX mcclister_d_Page_012.pro
53217 F20101111_AAAYUQ mcclister_d_Page_039.pro
110546 F20101111_AAAXKM mcclister_d_Page_032.jpg
95667 F20101111_AAAYHF mcclister_d_Page_214.jpg
29419 F20101111_AAAZRK mcclister_d_Page_179.QC.jpg
118350 F20101111_AAAXXY mcclister_d_Page_172.jp2
57836 F20101111_AAAYUR mcclister_d_Page_044.pro
7034 F20101111_AAAXKN mcclister_d_Page_179thm.jpg
82335 F20101111_AAAYHG mcclister_d_Page_215.jpg
14893 F20101111_AAAZRL mcclister_d_Page_180.QC.jpg
2350 F20101111_AAAZEA mcclister_d_Page_193.txt
89317 F20101111_AAAXXZ mcclister_d_Page_221.jpg
50055 F20101111_AAAYUS mcclister_d_Page_045.pro
29903 F20101111_AAAXKO mcclister_d_Page_034.QC.jpg
89680 F20101111_AAAYHH mcclister_d_Page_223.jpg
29088 F20101111_AAAZRM mcclister_d_Page_193.QC.jpg
2182 F20101111_AAAZEB mcclister_d_Page_194.txt
53533 F20101111_AAAYUT mcclister_d_Page_050.pro
6692 F20101111_AAAXKP mcclister_d_Page_185thm.jpg
88061 F20101111_AAAYHI mcclister_d_Page_225.jpg
6126 F20101111_AAAZRN mcclister_d_Page_197thm.jpg
2241 F20101111_AAAZEC mcclister_d_Page_198.txt
56988 F20101111_AAAYUU mcclister_d_Page_051.pro
107137 F20101111_AAAXKQ mcclister_d_Page_260.jpg
87185 F20101111_AAAYHJ mcclister_d_Page_228.jpg
6511 F20101111_AAAZRO mcclister_d_Page_201thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAZED mcclister_d_Page_199.txt
62114 F20101111_AAAYUV mcclister_d_Page_054.pro
28294 F20101111_AAAXKR mcclister_d_Page_177.QC.jpg
89200 F20101111_AAAYHK mcclister_d_Page_232.jpg
6973 F20101111_AAAZRP mcclister_d_Page_202thm.jpg
2122 F20101111_AAAZEE mcclister_d_Page_200.txt
54350 F20101111_AAAYUW mcclister_d_Page_056.pro
113933 F20101111_AAAXKS mcclister_d_Page_057.jp2
107217 F20101111_AAAYHL mcclister_d_Page_234.jpg
23407 F20101111_AAAZRQ mcclister_d_Page_204.QC.jpg
2568 F20101111_AAAZEF mcclister_d_Page_201.txt
61230 F20101111_AAAYUX mcclister_d_Page_059.pro
F20101111_AAAXKT mcclister_d_Page_289.tif
95633 F20101111_AAAYHM mcclister_d_Page_235.jpg
5508 F20101111_AAAZRR mcclister_d_Page_204thm.jpg
1887 F20101111_AAAZEG mcclister_d_Page_204.txt
61005 F20101111_AAAYUY mcclister_d_Page_062.pro
2547 F20101111_AAAXKU mcclister_d_Page_080.txt
91315 F20101111_AAAYHN mcclister_d_Page_236.jpg
6545 F20101111_AAAZRS mcclister_d_Page_210thm.jpg
2084 F20101111_AAAZEH mcclister_d_Page_205.txt
54122 F20101111_AAAYUZ mcclister_d_Page_063.pro
6944 F20101111_AAAXKV mcclister_d_Page_134thm.jpg
86505 F20101111_AAAYHO mcclister_d_Page_237.jpg
6783 F20101111_AAAZRT mcclister_d_Page_211thm.jpg
2248 F20101111_AAAZEI mcclister_d_Page_206.txt
5814 F20101111_AAAXKW mcclister_d_Page_001.QC.jpg
89332 F20101111_AAAYHP mcclister_d_Page_240.jpg
6599 F20101111_AAAZRU mcclister_d_Page_221thm.jpg
2456 F20101111_AAAZEJ mcclister_d_Page_209.txt
89420 F20101111_AAAYHQ mcclister_d_Page_241.jpg
27488 F20101111_AAAZRV mcclister_d_Page_228.QC.jpg
2114 F20101111_AAAZEK mcclister_d_Page_212.txt
F20101111_AAAXKX mcclister_d_Page_095.tif
87704 F20101111_AAAYHR mcclister_d_Page_244.jpg
28827 F20101111_AAAZRW mcclister_d_Page_230.QC.jpg
2171 F20101111_AAAZEL mcclister_d_Page_213.txt
29203 F20101111_AAAXKY mcclister_d_Page_029.QC.jpg
96120 F20101111_AAAYHS mcclister_d_Page_245.jpg
6703 F20101111_AAAZRX mcclister_d_Page_231thm.jpg
2273 F20101111_AAAZEM mcclister_d_Page_214.txt
27882 F20101111_AAAXKZ mcclister_d_Page_061.QC.jpg
6693 F20101111_AAAZRY mcclister_d_Page_232thm.jpg
2533 F20101111_AAAZEN mcclister_d_Page_219.txt
121183 F20101111_AAAWTA mcclister_d_Page_022.jp2
96272 F20101111_AAAYHT mcclister_d_Page_247.jpg
F20101111_AAAZRZ mcclister_d_Page_233.QC.jpg
2209 F20101111_AAAZEO mcclister_d_Page_220.txt
85301 F20101111_AAAYHU mcclister_d_Page_249.jpg
2196 F20101111_AAAWTB mcclister_d_Page_138.txt
97320 F20101111_AAAYHV mcclister_d_Page_253.jpg
2055 F20101111_AAAZEP mcclister_d_Page_224.txt
6993 F20101111_AAAWTC mcclister_d_Page_111thm.jpg
91933 F20101111_AAAYHW mcclister_d_Page_254.jpg
2094 F20101111_AAAZEQ mcclister_d_Page_225.txt
F20101111_AAAWTD mcclister_d_Page_226.tif
92422 F20101111_AAAYHX mcclister_d_Page_256.jpg
2201 F20101111_AAAZER mcclister_d_Page_226.txt
30990 F20101111_AAAWTE mcclister_d_Page_260.QC.jpg
105460 F20101111_AAAYHY mcclister_d_Page_257.jpg
2097 F20101111_AAAZES mcclister_d_Page_228.txt
53412 F20101111_AAAWTF mcclister_d_Page_156.pro
92153 F20101111_AAAYHZ mcclister_d_Page_258.jpg
2087 F20101111_AAAZET mcclister_d_Page_229.txt
113198 F20101111_AAAWTG mcclister_d_Page_081.jp2
2227 F20101111_AAAZEU mcclister_d_Page_230.txt
2454 F20101111_AAAWTH mcclister_d_Page_143.txt
123470 F20101111_AAAXQA mcclister_d_Page_079.jp2
2123 F20101111_AAAZEV mcclister_d_Page_232.txt
28157 F20101111_AAAWTI mcclister_d_Page_156.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAXQB mcclister_d_Page_208.tif
2780 F20101111_AAAZEW mcclister_d_Page_234.txt
18142 F20101111_AAAWTJ mcclister_d_Page_003.jp2
43945 F20101111_AAAXQC mcclister_d_Page_008.pro
2331 F20101111_AAAZEX mcclister_d_Page_235.txt
28447 F20101111_AAAWTK mcclister_d_Page_089.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAXQD mcclister_d_Page_051.txt
2177 F20101111_AAAZEY mcclister_d_Page_236.txt
97800 F20101111_AAAWTL mcclister_d_Page_154.jpg
F20101111_AAAXQE mcclister_d_Page_294.tif
1508 F20101111_AAAZEZ mcclister_d_Page_238.txt
35112 F20101111_AAAWTM mcclister_d_Page_006.pro
7014 F20101111_AAAXQF mcclister_d_Page_183thm.jpg
100657 F20101111_AAAWTN mcclister_d_Page_097.jpg
132862 F20101111_AAAXQG mcclister_d_Page_031.jp2
6811 F20101111_AAAWTO mcclister_d_Page_274thm.jpg
29845 F20101111_AAAXQH mcclister_d_Page_132.QC.jpg
114649 F20101111_AAAYNA mcclister_d_Page_241.jp2
134980 F20101111_AAAWTP mcclister_d_Page_058.jp2
119627 F20101111_AAAXQI mcclister_d_Page_165.jp2
121644 F20101111_AAAYNB mcclister_d_Page_242.jp2
F20101111_AAAWTQ mcclister_d_Page_018.tif
29183 F20101111_AAAXQJ mcclister_d_Page_218.QC.jpg
125522 F20101111_AAAYNC mcclister_d_Page_245.jp2
51694 F20101111_AAAWTR mcclister_d_Page_122.pro
F20101111_AAAXQK mcclister_d_Page_087.tif
108045 F20101111_AAAYND mcclister_d_Page_246.jp2
114834 F20101111_AAAXDA mcclister_d_Page_043.jp2
54956 F20101111_AAAWTS mcclister_d_Page_061.pro
F20101111_AAAXQL mcclister_d_Page_048.tif
109100 F20101111_AAAYNE mcclister_d_Page_249.jp2
28280 F20101111_AAAXDB mcclister_d_Page_157.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAWTT mcclister_d_Page_124.tif
F20101111_AAAXQM mcclister_d_Page_013.tif
110295 F20101111_AAAYNF mcclister_d_Page_250.jp2
93921 F20101111_AAAXDC mcclister_d_Page_150.jpg
2654 F20101111_AAAWTU mcclister_d_Page_058.txt
64998 F20101111_AAAXQN mcclister_d_Page_291.pro
135095 F20101111_AAAYNG mcclister_d_Page_252.jp2
6833 F20101111_AAAZKA mcclister_d_Page_264thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAXDD mcclister_d_Page_168.tif
F20101111_AAAWTV mcclister_d_Page_153.tif
2752 F20101111_AAAXQO mcclister_d_Page_105.txt
118451 F20101111_AAAYNH mcclister_d_Page_254.jp2
6604 F20101111_AAAZKB mcclister_d_Page_047thm.jpg
139272 F20101111_AAAXDE mcclister_d_Page_291.jp2
F20101111_AAAWTW mcclister_d_Page_250.tif
57095 F20101111_AAAXQP mcclister_d_Page_152.pro
131025 F20101111_AAAYNI mcclister_d_Page_255.jp2
6852 F20101111_AAAZKC mcclister_d_Page_098thm.jpg
2191 F20101111_AAAXDF mcclister_d_Page_148.txt
F20101111_AAAWTX mcclister_d_Page_207.tif
117304 F20101111_AAAXQQ mcclister_d_Page_194.jp2
122057 F20101111_AAAYNJ mcclister_d_Page_259.jp2
F20101111_AAAZKD mcclister_d_Page_159thm.jpg
25019 F20101111_AAAWTY mcclister_d_Page_170.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAXQR mcclister_d_Page_032.tif
119833 F20101111_AAAYNK mcclister_d_Page_261.jp2
29013 F20101111_AAAXDG mcclister_d_Page_176.QC.jpg
30323 F20101111_AAAZKE mcclister_d_Page_106.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAWTZ mcclister_d_Page_094.tif
56377 F20101111_AAAYAA mcclister_d_Page_271.pro
125138 F20101111_AAAXQS mcclister_d_Page_104.jp2
125794 F20101111_AAAYNL mcclister_d_Page_262.jp2
2098 F20101111_AAAXDH mcclister_d_Page_223.txt
30910 F20101111_AAAZKF mcclister_d_Page_058.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAYAB mcclister_d_Page_254.tif
F20101111_AAAXQT mcclister_d_Page_026.tif
117289 F20101111_AAAYNM mcclister_d_Page_265.jp2
114703 F20101111_AAAXDI mcclister_d_Page_232.jp2
6907 F20101111_AAAZKG mcclister_d_Page_143thm.jpg
68569 F20101111_AAAYAC mcclister_d_Page_106.pro
65186 F20101111_AAAXQU mcclister_d_Page_146.jp2
21533 F20101111_AAAYNN mcclister_d_Page_267.jp2
1504 F20101111_AAAXDJ mcclister_d_Page_001thm.jpg
7006 F20101111_AAAZKH mcclister_d_Page_044thm.jpg
93305 F20101111_AAAYAD mcclister_d_Page_259.jpg
56463 F20101111_AAAXQV mcclister_d_Page_041.pro
118033 F20101111_AAAYNO mcclister_d_Page_271.jp2
419 F20101111_AAAXDK mcclister_d_Page_001.txt
28629 F20101111_AAAZKI mcclister_d_Page_272.QC.jpg
93710 F20101111_AAAYAE mcclister_d_Page_273.jpg
137435 F20101111_AAAXQW mcclister_d_Page_234.jp2
120098 F20101111_AAAYNP mcclister_d_Page_272.jp2
11229 F20101111_AAAXDL mcclister_d_Page_296.QC.jpg
6853 F20101111_AAAZKJ mcclister_d_Page_079thm.jpg
62191 F20101111_AAAYAF mcclister_d_Page_288.pro
117113 F20101111_AAAXQX mcclister_d_Page_047.jp2
120925 F20101111_AAAYNQ mcclister_d_Page_273.jp2
F20101111_AAAXDM mcclister_d_Page_080.tif
27830 F20101111_AAAZKK mcclister_d_Page_043.QC.jpg
102328 F20101111_AAAYAG mcclister_d_Page_107.jpg
52873 F20101111_AAAXQY mcclister_d_Page_114.pro
114650 F20101111_AAAYNR mcclister_d_Page_274.jp2
84489 F20101111_AAAXDN mcclister_d_Page_069.jpg
7008 F20101111_AAAZKL mcclister_d_Page_014thm.jpg
136255 F20101111_AAAYAH mcclister_d_Page_166.jp2
F20101111_AAAXQZ mcclister_d_Page_157.tif
93901 F20101111_AAAYNS mcclister_d_Page_278.jp2
116464 F20101111_AAAXDO mcclister_d_Page_181.jp2
28888 F20101111_AAAZKM mcclister_d_Page_115.QC.jpg
26151 F20101111_AAAYAI mcclister_d_Page_068.QC.jpg
125228 F20101111_AAAYNT mcclister_d_Page_279.jp2
F20101111_AAAXDP mcclister_d_Page_025.tif
27723 F20101111_AAAZKN mcclister_d_Page_221.QC.jpg
27276 F20101111_AAAYAJ mcclister_d_Page_279.QC.jpg
128481 F20101111_AAAYNU mcclister_d_Page_281.jp2
90250 F20101111_AAAWZA mcclister_d_Page_181.jpg
28580 F20101111_AAAZKO mcclister_d_Page_286.QC.jpg
370 F20101111_AAAYAK mcclister_d_Page_003.txt
131950 F20101111_AAAYNV mcclister_d_Page_283.jp2
28201 F20101111_AAAWZB mcclister_d_Page_210.QC.jpg
101383 F20101111_AAAXDQ mcclister_d_Page_143.jpg
28308 F20101111_AAAZKP mcclister_d_Page_160.QC.jpg
64218 F20101111_AAAYAL mcclister_d_Page_095.pro
116506 F20101111_AAAYNW mcclister_d_Page_284.jp2
2116 F20101111_AAAWZC mcclister_d_Page_081.txt
51941 F20101111_AAAXDR mcclister_d_Page_158.pro
6968 F20101111_AAAZKQ mcclister_d_Page_288thm.jpg
125783 F20101111_AAAYNX mcclister_d_Page_285.jp2
1983 F20101111_AAAWZD mcclister_d_Page_188.txt
F20101111_AAAXDS mcclister_d_Page_119.tif
28505 F20101111_AAAZKR mcclister_d_Page_222.QC.jpg
135227 F20101111_AAAYAM mcclister_d_Page_167.jp2
131928 F20101111_AAAYNY mcclister_d_Page_286.jp2
129263 F20101111_AAAWZE mcclister_d_Page_290.jp2
29302 F20101111_AAAXDT mcclister_d_Page_124.QC.jpg
6785 F20101111_AAAZKS mcclister_d_Page_031thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAYAN mcclister_d_Page_243.tif
104990 F20101111_AAAWZF mcclister_d_Page_108.jpg
28475 F20101111_AAAXDU mcclister_d_Page_271.QC.jpg
6012 F20101111_AAAZKT mcclister_d_Page_248thm.jpg
26454 F20101111_AAAYAO mcclister_d_Page_069.QC.jpg
140670 F20101111_AAAYNZ mcclister_d_Page_287.jp2
86556 F20101111_AAAWZG mcclister_d_Page_224.jpg
106456 F20101111_AAAXDV mcclister_d_Page_184.jpg
6765 F20101111_AAAZKU mcclister_d_Page_086thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAXWA mcclister_d_Page_235.tif
F20101111_AAAYAP mcclister_d_Page_286.txt
116766 F20101111_AAAXDW mcclister_d_Page_270.jp2
136723 F20101111_AAAXWB mcclister_d_Page_108.jp2
F20101111_AAAYAQ mcclister_d_Page_296.tif
26920 F20101111_AAAWZH mcclister_d_Page_182.QC.jpg
121603 F20101111_AAAXDX mcclister_d_Page_076.jp2
30816 F20101111_AAAZKV mcclister_d_Page_154.QC.jpg
92246 F20101111_AAAXWC mcclister_d_Page_226.jpg
106334 F20101111_AAAYAR mcclister_d_Page_286.jpg
6725 F20101111_AAAWZI mcclister_d_Page_054thm.jpg
94570 F20101111_AAAXDY mcclister_d_Page_242.jpg
26625 F20101111_AAAZKW mcclister_d_Page_067.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAYAS mcclister_d_Page_234.tif
27653 F20101111_AAAWZJ mcclister_d_Page_186.QC.jpg
6430 F20101111_AAAXDZ mcclister_d_Page_135thm.jpg
27299 F20101111_AAAZKX mcclister_d_Page_159.QC.jpg
27392 F20101111_AAAXWD mcclister_d_Page_137.QC.jpg
48826 F20101111_AAAYAT mcclister_d_Page_083.pro
54872 F20101111_AAAWZK mcclister_d_Page_133.pro
6458 F20101111_AAAZKY mcclister_d_Page_192thm.jpg
6425 F20101111_AAAXWE mcclister_d_Page_174thm.jpg
2050 F20101111_AAAYAU mcclister_d_Page_250.txt
2815 F20101111_AAAWZL mcclister_d_Page_161.txt
26294 F20101111_AAAZKZ mcclister_d_Page_246.QC.jpg
94597 F20101111_AAAXWF mcclister_d_Page_084.jpg
F20101111_AAAYAV mcclister_d_Page_099.tif
49574 F20101111_AAAWZM mcclister_d_Page_251.pro
2299 F20101111_AAAXWG mcclister_d_Page_025.txt
6722 F20101111_AAAYAW mcclister_d_Page_208thm.jpg
6812 F20101111_AAAWZN mcclister_d_Page_115thm.jpg
87083 F20101111_AAAXWH mcclister_d_Page_276.jpg
56833 F20101111_AAAYAX mcclister_d_Page_100.pro
F20101111_AAAYTA mcclister_d_Page_252.tif
2145 F20101111_AAAWZO mcclister_d_Page_192.txt
118393 F20101111_AAAXWI mcclister_d_Page_090.jp2
97183 F20101111_AAAYAY mcclister_d_Page_092.jp2
F20101111_AAAYTB mcclister_d_Page_253.tif
126995 F20101111_AAAWZP mcclister_d_Page_010.jpg
87509 F20101111_AAAXWJ mcclister_d_Page_155.jpg
125837 F20101111_AAAYAZ mcclister_d_Page_059.jp2
F20101111_AAAYTC mcclister_d_Page_255.tif
53205 F20101111_AAAWZQ mcclister_d_Page_225.pro
53672 F20101111_AAAXWK mcclister_d_Page_121.pro
F20101111_AAAYTD mcclister_d_Page_256.tif
F20101111_AAAWZR mcclister_d_Page_109thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAXWL mcclister_d_Page_116.tif
F20101111_AAAYTE mcclister_d_Page_258.tif
6596 F20101111_AAAXJA mcclister_d_Page_270thm.jpg
32382 F20101111_AAAWZS mcclister_d_Page_032.QC.jpg
59278 F20101111_AAAXWM mcclister_d_Page_042.pro
F20101111_AAAYTF mcclister_d_Page_261.tif
F20101111_AAAXJB mcclister_d_Page_199.tif
91505 F20101111_AAAWZT mcclister_d_Page_174.jpg
48940 F20101111_AAAXWN mcclister_d_Page_203.pro
F20101111_AAAYTG mcclister_d_Page_267.tif
F20101111_AAAXJC mcclister_d_Page_128.tif
2163 F20101111_AAAWZU mcclister_d_Page_066.txt
6534 F20101111_AAAZQA mcclister_d_Page_033thm.jpg
121016 F20101111_AAAXWO mcclister_d_Page_152.jp2
F20101111_AAAYTH mcclister_d_Page_268.tif
83598 F20101111_AAAXJD mcclister_d_Page_045.jpg
2100 F20101111_AAAWZV mcclister_d_Page_276.txt
F20101111_AAAZQB mcclister_d_Page_043thm.jpg
125597 F20101111_AAAXWP mcclister_d_Page_139.jp2
F20101111_AAAYTI mcclister_d_Page_269.tif
6746 F20101111_AAAXJE mcclister_d_Page_220thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAWZW mcclister_d_Page_079.tif
26840 F20101111_AAAZQC mcclister_d_Page_050.QC.jpg
114263 F20101111_AAAXWQ mcclister_d_Page_221.jp2
F20101111_AAAYTJ mcclister_d_Page_270.tif
48760 F20101111_AAAXJF mcclister_d_Page_188.pro
30876 F20101111_AAAWZX mcclister_d_Page_131.QC.jpg
6407 F20101111_AAAZQD mcclister_d_Page_056thm.jpg
121229 F20101111_AAAXWR mcclister_d_Page_269.jp2
F20101111_AAAYTK mcclister_d_Page_272.tif
74888 F20101111_AAAXJG mcclister_d_Page_023.pro
2593 F20101111_AAAWZY mcclister_d_Page_108.txt
26359 F20101111_AAAZQE mcclister_d_Page_063.QC.jpg
95810 F20101111_AAAYGA mcclister_d_Page_164.jpg
2348 F20101111_AAAXWS mcclister_d_Page_091.txt
F20101111_AAAYTL mcclister_d_Page_275.tif
6309 F20101111_AAAXJH mcclister_d_Page_045thm.jpg
84626 F20101111_AAAWZZ mcclister_d_Page_068.jpg
F20101111_AAAZQF mcclister_d_Page_065thm.jpg
92639 F20101111_AAAYGB mcclister_d_Page_165.jpg
104912 F20101111_AAAXWT mcclister_d_Page_118.jpg
F20101111_AAAYTM mcclister_d_Page_276.tif
124533 F20101111_AAAXJI mcclister_d_Page_094.jp2
25464 F20101111_AAAZQG mcclister_d_Page_066.QC.jpg
102806 F20101111_AAAYGC mcclister_d_Page_167.jpg
58308 F20101111_AAAXWU mcclister_d_Page_235.pro
F20101111_AAAYTN mcclister_d_Page_277.tif
57348 F20101111_AAAXJJ mcclister_d_Page_028.pro
6894 F20101111_AAAZQH mcclister_d_Page_072thm.jpg
87011 F20101111_AAAYGD mcclister_d_Page_168.jpg
66351 F20101111_AAAXWV mcclister_d_Page_260.pro
F20101111_AAAYTO mcclister_d_Page_279.tif
1610 F20101111_AAAXJK mcclister_d_Page_116.txt
6686 F20101111_AAAZQI mcclister_d_Page_073thm.jpg
91896 F20101111_AAAYGE mcclister_d_Page_169.jpg
F20101111_AAAXWW mcclister_d_Page_156.tif
F20101111_AAAYTP mcclister_d_Page_281.tif
2291 F20101111_AAAXJL mcclister_d_Page_078.txt
6630 F20101111_AAAZQJ mcclister_d_Page_077thm.jpg
79991 F20101111_AAAYGF mcclister_d_Page_170.jpg
116893 F20101111_AAAXWX mcclister_d_Page_033.jp2
F20101111_AAAYTQ mcclister_d_Page_282.tif
30200 F20101111_AAAXJM mcclister_d_Page_091.QC.jpg
28937 F20101111_AAAZQK mcclister_d_Page_080.QC.jpg
94428 F20101111_AAAYGG mcclister_d_Page_171.jpg
28746 F20101111_AAAXWY mcclister_d_Page_226.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAYTR mcclister_d_Page_283.tif
111249 F20101111_AAAXJN mcclister_d_Page_069.jp2
27355 F20101111_AAAZQL mcclister_d_Page_084.QC.jpg
92086 F20101111_AAAYGH mcclister_d_Page_172.jpg
7003 F20101111_AAAXWZ mcclister_d_Page_214thm.jpg
2310 F20101111_AAAZDA mcclister_d_Page_136.txt
F20101111_AAAYTS mcclister_d_Page_284.tif
6935 F20101111_AAAXJO mcclister_d_Page_164thm.jpg
29109 F20101111_AAAZQM mcclister_d_Page_086.QC.jpg
2344 F20101111_AAAZDB mcclister_d_Page_140.txt
F20101111_AAAYTT mcclister_d_Page_286.tif
F20101111_AAAXJP mcclister_d_Page_060.tif
107047 F20101111_AAAYGI mcclister_d_Page_175.jpg
6502 F20101111_AAAZQN mcclister_d_Page_087thm.jpg
2776 F20101111_AAAZDC mcclister_d_Page_141.txt
F20101111_AAAYTU mcclister_d_Page_287.tif
6888 F20101111_AAAXJQ mcclister_d_Page_230thm.jpg
97864 F20101111_AAAYGJ mcclister_d_Page_176.jpg
6756 F20101111_AAAZQO mcclister_d_Page_088thm.jpg
2144 F20101111_AAAZDD mcclister_d_Page_142.txt
F20101111_AAAYTV mcclister_d_Page_288.tif
28087 F20101111_AAAXJR mcclister_d_Page_274.QC.jpg
90913 F20101111_AAAYGK mcclister_d_Page_177.jpg
6939 F20101111_AAAZQP mcclister_d_Page_091thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAZDE mcclister_d_Page_144.txt
F20101111_AAAYTW mcclister_d_Page_290.tif
87496 F20101111_AAAXJS mcclister_d_Page_050.jpg
94780 F20101111_AAAYGL mcclister_d_Page_179.jpg
6849 F20101111_AAAZQQ mcclister_d_Page_094thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAZDF mcclister_d_Page_145.txt
F20101111_AAAYTX mcclister_d_Page_297.tif
28987 F20101111_AAAXJT mcclister_d_Page_217.QC.jpg
87652 F20101111_AAAYGM mcclister_d_Page_182.jpg
6924 F20101111_AAAZQR mcclister_d_Page_099thm.jpg
1204 F20101111_AAAZDG mcclister_d_Page_146.txt
864 F20101111_AAAYTY mcclister_d_Page_002.pro
80112 F20101111_AAAXJU mcclister_d_Page_153.jpg
102921 F20101111_AAAYGN mcclister_d_Page_183.jpg
29173 F20101111_AAAZQS mcclister_d_Page_100.QC.jpg
2424 F20101111_AAAZDH mcclister_d_Page_147.txt
7173 F20101111_AAAYTZ mcclister_d_Page_003.pro
92872 F20101111_AAAXJV mcclister_d_Page_041.jpg
89156 F20101111_AAAYGO mcclister_d_Page_186.jpg
6897 F20101111_AAAZQT mcclister_d_Page_102thm.jpg
2259 F20101111_AAAZDI mcclister_d_Page_150.txt
79435 F20101111_AAAYGP mcclister_d_Page_187.jpg
31488 F20101111_AAAZQU mcclister_d_Page_103.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAZDJ mcclister_d_Page_151.txt
29553 F20101111_AAAXJW mcclister_d_Page_031.QC.jpg
83356 F20101111_AAAYGQ mcclister_d_Page_188.jpg
6602 F20101111_AAAZQV mcclister_d_Page_104thm.jpg
1914 F20101111_AAAZDK mcclister_d_Page_153.txt
54529 F20101111_AAAXJX mcclister_d_Page_047.pro
99248 F20101111_AAAYGR mcclister_d_Page_191.jpg
19571 F20101111_AAAZQW mcclister_d_Page_116.QC.jpg
2361 F20101111_AAAZDL mcclister_d_Page_154.txt
67457 F20101111_AAAXJY mcclister_d_Page_101.pro
6541 F20101111_AAAZQX mcclister_d_Page_117thm.jpg
2121 F20101111_AAAZDM mcclister_d_Page_156.txt
2032 F20101111_AAAXJZ mcclister_d_Page_159.txt
88699 F20101111_AAAYGS mcclister_d_Page_192.jpg
6740 F20101111_AAAZQY mcclister_d_Page_124thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAZDN mcclister_d_Page_165.txt
90102 F20101111_AAAYGT mcclister_d_Page_194.jpg
6656 F20101111_AAAZQZ mcclister_d_Page_125thm.jpg
119235 F20101111_AAAWSA mcclister_d_Page_041.jp2
87434 F20101111_AAAYGU mcclister_d_Page_197.jpg
2580 F20101111_AAAZDO mcclister_d_Page_167.txt
F20101111_AAAWSB mcclister_d_Page_177.txt
93029 F20101111_AAAYGV mcclister_d_Page_198.jpg
52727 F20101111_AAAYZA mcclister_d_Page_237.pro
2236 F20101111_AAAZDP mcclister_d_Page_169.txt
F20101111_AAAWSC mcclister_d_Page_137.tif
93999 F20101111_AAAYGW mcclister_d_Page_199.jpg
37865 F20101111_AAAYZB mcclister_d_Page_238.pro
2252 F20101111_AAAZDQ mcclister_d_Page_174.txt
6730 F20101111_AAAWSD mcclister_d_Page_127thm.jpg
89090 F20101111_AAAYGX mcclister_d_Page_200.jpg
55182 F20101111_AAAYZC mcclister_d_Page_241.pro
2801 F20101111_AAAZDR mcclister_d_Page_175.txt
105429 F20101111_AAAWSE mcclister_d_Page_101.jpg
101512 F20101111_AAAYGY mcclister_d_Page_201.jpg
57723 F20101111_AAAYZD mcclister_d_Page_242.pro
F20101111_AAAZDS mcclister_d_Page_176.txt
63431 F20101111_AAAWSF mcclister_d_Page_129.pro
104755 F20101111_AAAYGZ mcclister_d_Page_202.jpg
55762 F20101111_AAAYZE mcclister_d_Page_243.pro
2634 F20101111_AAAZDT mcclister_d_Page_183.txt
69528 F20101111_AAAWSG mcclister_d_Page_046.jpg
F20101111_AAAZDU mcclister_d_Page_184.txt
3063 F20101111_AAAWSH mcclister_d_Page_010.txt
91854 F20101111_AAAXPA mcclister_d_Page_088.jpg
50217 F20101111_AAAYZF mcclister_d_Page_246.pro
2346 F20101111_AAAZDV mcclister_d_Page_185.txt
133199 F20101111_AAAWSI mcclister_d_Page_219.jp2
131392 F20101111_AAAXPB mcclister_d_Page_129.jp2
2166 F20101111_AAAZDW mcclister_d_Page_186.txt
50542 F20101111_AAAYZG mcclister_d_Page_249.pro
F20101111_AAAWSJ mcclister_d_Page_027.tif
53105 F20101111_AAAXPC mcclister_d_Page_182.pro
1902 F20101111_AAAZDX mcclister_d_Page_187.txt
52064 F20101111_AAAYZH mcclister_d_Page_250.pro
27549 F20101111_AAAWSK mcclister_d_Page_135.QC.jpg
29691 F20101111_AAAXPD mcclister_d_Page_101.QC.jpg
2969 F20101111_AAAZDY mcclister_d_Page_189.txt
64490 F20101111_AAAYZI mcclister_d_Page_255.pro
16287 F20101111_AAAWSL mcclister_d_Page_267.jpg
95437 F20101111_AAAXPE mcclister_d_Page_264.jpg
2380 F20101111_AAAZDZ mcclister_d_Page_190.txt
57422 F20101111_AAAYZJ mcclister_d_Page_259.pro
F20101111_AAAWSM mcclister_d_Page_230.tif
55831 F20101111_AAAXPF mcclister_d_Page_172.pro
59884 F20101111_AAAYZK mcclister_d_Page_262.pro
F20101111_AAAWSN mcclister_d_Page_084thm.jpg
2142 F20101111_AAAXPG mcclister_d_Page_117.txt
63258 F20101111_AAAYZL mcclister_d_Page_263.pro
F20101111_AAAWSO mcclister_d_Page_084.tif
6971 F20101111_AAAXPH mcclister_d_Page_167thm.jpg
147841 F20101111_AAAYMA mcclister_d_Page_189.jp2
59095 F20101111_AAAYZM mcclister_d_Page_266.pro
42377 F20101111_AAAWSP mcclister_d_Page_046.pro
30249 F20101111_AAAXPI mcclister_d_Page_014.QC.jpg
124906 F20101111_AAAYMB mcclister_d_Page_190.jp2
8291 F20101111_AAAYZN mcclister_d_Page_267.pro
28782 F20101111_AAAWSQ mcclister_d_Page_216.QC.jpg
58990 F20101111_AAAXPJ mcclister_d_Page_245.pro
115785 F20101111_AAAYMC mcclister_d_Page_192.jp2
56510 F20101111_AAAYZO mcclister_d_Page_269.pro
6869 F20101111_AAAWSR mcclister_d_Page_129thm.jpg
86935 F20101111_AAAXPK mcclister_d_Page_212.jpg
130395 F20101111_AAAYMD mcclister_d_Page_195.jp2
2195 F20101111_AAAXCA mcclister_d_Page_243.txt
54789 F20101111_AAAYZP mcclister_d_Page_270.pro
133011 F20101111_AAAWSS mcclister_d_Page_280.jp2
66827 F20101111_AAAXPL mcclister_d_Page_131.pro
120084 F20101111_AAAYME mcclister_d_Page_198.jp2
5843 F20101111_AAAXCB mcclister_d_Page_162thm.jpg
55884 F20101111_AAAYZQ mcclister_d_Page_272.pro
6675 F20101111_AAAWST mcclister_d_Page_026thm.jpg
6723 F20101111_AAAXPM mcclister_d_Page_157thm.jpg
122222 F20101111_AAAYMF mcclister_d_Page_199.jp2
118258 F20101111_AAAXCC mcclister_d_Page_148.jp2
54917 F20101111_AAAYZR mcclister_d_Page_274.pro
51892 F20101111_AAAWSU mcclister_d_Page_093.pro
118977 F20101111_AAAXPN mcclister_d_Page_243.jp2
116005 F20101111_AAAYMG mcclister_d_Page_200.jp2
25882 F20101111_AAAZJA mcclister_d_Page_019.QC.jpg
55395 F20101111_AAAXCD mcclister_d_Page_022.pro
55934 F20101111_AAAYZS mcclister_d_Page_277.pro
58310 F20101111_AAAWSV mcclister_d_Page_048.pro
66678 F20101111_AAAXPO mcclister_d_Page_040.pro
133946 F20101111_AAAYMH mcclister_d_Page_201.jp2
6990 F20101111_AAAZJB mcclister_d_Page_058thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAXCE mcclister_d_Page_187.tif
F20101111_AAAYZT mcclister_d_Page_281.pro
F20101111_AAAWSW mcclister_d_Page_233.tif
F20101111_AAAXPP mcclister_d_Page_042.tif
1051977 F20101111_AAAYMI mcclister_d_Page_202.jp2
29228 F20101111_AAAZJC mcclister_d_Page_273.QC.jpg
88887 F20101111_AAAXCF mcclister_d_Page_265.jpg
56435 F20101111_AAAYZU mcclister_d_Page_282.pro
F20101111_AAAWSX mcclister_d_Page_292.tif
28326 F20101111_AAAXPQ mcclister_d_Page_256.QC.jpg
102857 F20101111_AAAYMJ mcclister_d_Page_204.jp2
24776 F20101111_AAAZJD mcclister_d_Page_203.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAXCG mcclister_d_Page_110.tif
53959 F20101111_AAAYZV mcclister_d_Page_284.pro
59097 F20101111_AAAWSY mcclister_d_Page_136.pro
113560 F20101111_AAAXPR mcclister_d_Page_036.jp2
121217 F20101111_AAAYMK mcclister_d_Page_208.jp2
6024 F20101111_AAAZJE mcclister_d_Page_203thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAXCH mcclister_d_Page_055.tif
61788 F20101111_AAAYZW mcclister_d_Page_286.pro
6851 F20101111_AAAWSZ mcclister_d_Page_175thm.jpg
29660 F20101111_AAAXPS mcclister_d_Page_161.QC.jpg
124209 F20101111_AAAYML mcclister_d_Page_211.jp2
7038 F20101111_AAAZJF mcclister_d_Page_242thm.jpg
85641 F20101111_AAAXCI mcclister_d_Page_250.jpg
66378 F20101111_AAAYZX mcclister_d_Page_287.pro
29092 F20101111_AAAXPT mcclister_d_Page_140.QC.jpg
117191 F20101111_AAAYMM mcclister_d_Page_213.jp2
6963 F20101111_AAAZJG mcclister_d_Page_209thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAXCJ mcclister_d_Page_025thm.jpg
65073 F20101111_AAAYZY mcclister_d_Page_289.pro
96961 F20101111_AAAXPU mcclister_d_Page_094.jpg
104838 F20101111_AAAYMN mcclister_d_Page_215.jp2
6879 F20101111_AAAZJH mcclister_d_Page_243thm.jpg
56054 F20101111_AAAXCK mcclister_d_Page_060.pro
59369 F20101111_AAAYZZ mcclister_d_Page_295.pro
F20101111_AAAXPV mcclister_d_Page_271.tif
120770 F20101111_AAAYMO mcclister_d_Page_217.jp2
4606 F20101111_AAAZJI mcclister_d_Page_116thm.jpg
122610 F20101111_AAAXCL mcclister_d_Page_127.jp2
6727 F20101111_AAAXPW mcclister_d_Page_060thm.jpg
121542 F20101111_AAAYMP mcclister_d_Page_218.jp2
6803 F20101111_AAAZJJ mcclister_d_Page_148thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAXCM mcclister_d_Page_178.txt
28112 F20101111_AAAXPX mcclister_d_Page_227.QC.jpg
117482 F20101111_AAAYMQ mcclister_d_Page_220.jp2
23720 F20101111_AAAZJK mcclister_d_Page_007.QC.jpg
54187 F20101111_AAAXCN mcclister_d_Page_265.pro
113763 F20101111_AAAXPY mcclister_d_Page_156.jp2
115617 F20101111_AAAYMR mcclister_d_Page_223.jp2
6357 F20101111_AAAZJL mcclister_d_Page_052thm.jpg
99116 F20101111_AAAXCO mcclister_d_Page_064.jpg
F20101111_AAAXPZ mcclister_d_Page_160.tif
114460 F20101111_AAAYMS mcclister_d_Page_225.jp2
5182 F20101111_AAAZJM mcclister_d_Page_046thm.jpg
118763 F20101111_AAAYMT mcclister_d_Page_226.jp2
28925 F20101111_AAAZJN mcclister_d_Page_196.QC.jpg
104497 F20101111_AAAXCP mcclister_d_Page_166.jpg
115649 F20101111_AAAYMU mcclister_d_Page_227.jp2
1977 F20101111_AAAWYA mcclister_d_Page_215.txt
6947 F20101111_AAAZJO mcclister_d_Page_154thm.jpg
115024 F20101111_AAAXCQ mcclister_d_Page_231.jp2
111503 F20101111_AAAYMV mcclister_d_Page_228.jp2
60673 F20101111_AAAWYB mcclister_d_Page_190.pro
29141 F20101111_AAAZJP mcclister_d_Page_280.QC.jpg
121908 F20101111_AAAYMW mcclister_d_Page_230.jp2
F20101111_AAAWYC mcclister_d_Page_017.tif
148427 F20101111_AAAXCR mcclister_d_Page_023.jp2
6685 F20101111_AAAZJQ mcclister_d_Page_051thm.jpg
118104 F20101111_AAAYMX mcclister_d_Page_233.jp2
46613 F20101111_AAAWYD mcclister_d_Page_180.jpg
137436 F20101111_AAAXCS mcclister_d_Page_134.jp2
29303 F20101111_AAAZJR mcclister_d_Page_257.QC.jpg
7041 F20101111_AAAWYE mcclister_d_Page_112thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAXCT mcclister_d_Page_291.tif
29206 F20101111_AAAZJS mcclister_d_Page_150.QC.jpg
84656 F20101111_AAAYMY mcclister_d_Page_238.jp2
142088 F20101111_AAAWYF mcclister_d_Page_161.jp2
113947 F20101111_AAAXCU mcclister_d_Page_244.jp2
6773 F20101111_AAAZJT mcclister_d_Page_259thm.jpg
116012 F20101111_AAAYMZ mcclister_d_Page_240.jp2
91737 F20101111_AAAXCV mcclister_d_Page_024.jpg
116432 F20101111_AAAXVA mcclister_d_Page_210.jp2
65611 F20101111_AAAWYG mcclister_d_Page_027.pro
2400 F20101111_AAAXCW mcclister_d_Page_295.txt
5531 F20101111_AAAZJU mcclister_d_Page_267.QC.jpg
137725 F20101111_AAAXVB mcclister_d_Page_040.jp2
126400 F20101111_AAAWYH mcclister_d_Page_062.jp2
87942 F20101111_AAAXCX mcclister_d_Page_036.jpg
6497 F20101111_AAAZJV mcclister_d_Page_155thm.jpg
95538 F20101111_AAAWYI mcclister_d_Page_124.jpg
2318 F20101111_AAAXCY mcclister_d_Page_127.txt
6038 F20101111_AAAZJW mcclister_d_Page_126thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAXVC mcclister_d_Page_092.tif
27836 F20101111_AAAWYJ mcclister_d_Page_033.QC.jpg
55688 F20101111_AAAXCZ mcclister_d_Page_220.pro
3829 F20101111_AAAZJX mcclister_d_Page_146thm.jpg
110900 F20101111_AAAXVD mcclister_d_Page_021.jpg
121301 F20101111_AAAWYK mcclister_d_Page_028.jp2
6902 F20101111_AAAZJY mcclister_d_Page_177thm.jpg
122842 F20101111_AAAXVE mcclister_d_Page_164.jp2
57622 F20101111_AAAWYL mcclister_d_Page_053.pro
29858 F20101111_AAAZJZ mcclister_d_Page_095.QC.jpg
29664 F20101111_AAAXVF mcclister_d_Page_209.QC.jpg
6965 F20101111_AAAWYM mcclister_d_Page_184thm.jpg
116921 F20101111_AAAXVG mcclister_d_Page_138.jp2
104011 F20101111_AAAWYN mcclister_d_Page_163.jpg
125154 F20101111_AAAXVH mcclister_d_Page_253.jp2
F20101111_AAAYSA mcclister_d_Page_204.tif
28306 F20101111_AAAWYO mcclister_d_Page_028.QC.jpg
51974 F20101111_AAAXVI mcclister_d_Page_168.pro
F20101111_AAAYSB mcclister_d_Page_205.tif
6590 F20101111_AAAWYP mcclister_d_Page_241thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAXVJ mcclister_d_Page_137.txt
F20101111_AAAYSC mcclister_d_Page_206.tif
F20101111_AAAWYQ mcclister_d_Page_262.tif
27445 F20101111_AAAXVK mcclister_d_Page_158.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAYSD mcclister_d_Page_210.tif
74137 F20101111_AAAWYR mcclister_d_Page_189.pro
6805 F20101111_AAAXVL mcclister_d_Page_222thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAYSE mcclister_d_Page_212.tif
57880 F20101111_AAAXIA mcclister_d_Page_290.pro
101919 F20101111_AAAWYS mcclister_d_Page_113.jpg
6660 F20101111_AAAXVM mcclister_d_Page_193thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAYSF mcclister_d_Page_213.tif
F20101111_AAAXIB mcclister_d_Page_023.tif
2954 F20101111_AAAWYT mcclister_d_Page_023.txt
89494 F20101111_AAAXVN mcclister_d_Page_239.jpg
F20101111_AAAYSG mcclister_d_Page_214.tif
2475 F20101111_AAAXIC mcclister_d_Page_195.txt
2141 F20101111_AAAWYU mcclister_d_Page_227.txt
29939 F20101111_AAAZPA mcclister_d_Page_064.QC.jpg
27846 F20101111_AAAXVO mcclister_d_Page_231.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAYSH mcclister_d_Page_215.tif
2362 F20101111_AAAXID mcclister_d_Page_290.txt
62101 F20101111_AAAWYV mcclister_d_Page_209.pro
27970 F20101111_AAAZPB mcclister_d_Page_076.QC.jpg
64527 F20101111_AAAXVP mcclister_d_Page_107.pro
F20101111_AAAYSI mcclister_d_Page_216.tif
F20101111_AAAXIE mcclister_d_Page_137thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAWYW mcclister_d_Page_102.tif
5960 F20101111_AAAZPC mcclister_d_Page_284thm.jpg
98639 F20101111_AAAXVQ mcclister_d_Page_190.jpg
F20101111_AAAYSJ mcclister_d_Page_217.tif
6744 F20101111_AAAXIF mcclister_d_Page_213thm.jpg
2382 F20101111_AAAWYX mcclister_d_Page_120.txt
29617 F20101111_AAAZPD mcclister_d_Page_070.QC.jpg
106526 F20101111_AAAXVR mcclister_d_Page_251.jp2
F20101111_AAAYSK mcclister_d_Page_218.tif
28684 F20101111_AAAXIG mcclister_d_Page_235.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAWYY mcclister_d_Page_147.tif
F20101111_AAAZPE mcclister_d_Page_152thm.jpg
102069 F20101111_AAAYFA mcclister_d_Page_111.jpg
55485 F20101111_AAAXVS mcclister_d_Page_024.pro
F20101111_AAAYSL mcclister_d_Page_220.tif
1954 F20101111_AAAXIH mcclister_d_Page_083.txt
2404 F20101111_AAAWYZ mcclister_d_Page_077.txt
F20101111_AAAZPF mcclister_d_Page_021thm.jpg
105384 F20101111_AAAYFB mcclister_d_Page_112.jpg
F20101111_AAAXVT mcclister_d_Page_145.tif
F20101111_AAAYSM mcclister_d_Page_222.tif
2106 F20101111_AAAXII mcclister_d_Page_182.txt
4722 F20101111_AAAZPG mcclister_d_Page_297thm.jpg
87512 F20101111_AAAYFC mcclister_d_Page_114.jpg
55538 F20101111_AAAXVU mcclister_d_Page_254.pro
F20101111_AAAYSN mcclister_d_Page_224.tif
27963 F20101111_AAAXIJ mcclister_d_Page_016.QC.jpg
5589 F20101111_AAAZPH mcclister_d_Page_092thm.jpg
95730 F20101111_AAAYFD mcclister_d_Page_115.jpg
90976 F20101111_AAAXVV mcclister_d_Page_135.jpg
F20101111_AAAYSO mcclister_d_Page_225.tif
F20101111_AAAXIK mcclister_d_Page_165.tif
19811 F20101111_AAAZPI mcclister_d_Page_297.QC.jpg
86024 F20101111_AAAYFE mcclister_d_Page_117.jpg
93647 F20101111_AAAXVW mcclister_d_Page_218.jpg
F20101111_AAAYSP mcclister_d_Page_228.tif
6263 F20101111_AAAXIL mcclister_d_Page_110thm.jpg
6704 F20101111_AAAZPJ mcclister_d_Page_160thm.jpg
108186 F20101111_AAAYFF mcclister_d_Page_119.jpg
6951 F20101111_AAAXVX mcclister_d_Page_107thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAYSQ mcclister_d_Page_229.tif
52293 F20101111_AAAXIM mcclister_d_Page_212.pro
F20101111_AAAZPK mcclister_d_Page_015thm.jpg
97164 F20101111_AAAYFG mcclister_d_Page_120.jpg
26519 F20101111_AAAXVY mcclister_d_Page_250.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAYSR mcclister_d_Page_232.tif
28249 F20101111_AAAXIN mcclister_d_Page_241.QC.jpg
6945 F20101111_AAAZPL mcclister_d_Page_247thm.jpg
90530 F20101111_AAAYFH mcclister_d_Page_123.jpg
F20101111_AAAXVZ mcclister_d_Page_216.jp2
F20101111_AAAZCA mcclister_d_Page_082.txt
F20101111_AAAYSS mcclister_d_Page_236.tif
15002 F20101111_AAAXIO mcclister_d_Page_004.QC.jpg
28512 F20101111_AAAZPM mcclister_d_Page_178.QC.jpg
96894 F20101111_AAAYFI mcclister_d_Page_125.jpg
2368 F20101111_AAAZCB mcclister_d_Page_085.txt
F20101111_AAAYST mcclister_d_Page_237.tif
F20101111_AAAXIP mcclister_d_Page_089.tif
27615 F20101111_AAAZPN mcclister_d_Page_224.QC.jpg
94867 F20101111_AAAYFJ mcclister_d_Page_126.jpg
2169 F20101111_AAAZCC mcclister_d_Page_087.txt
F20101111_AAAYSU mcclister_d_Page_238.tif
28795 F20101111_AAAXIQ mcclister_d_Page_051.QC.jpg
6053 F20101111_AAAZPO mcclister_d_Page_083thm.jpg
95433 F20101111_AAAYFK mcclister_d_Page_127.jpg
2226 F20101111_AAAZCD mcclister_d_Page_090.txt
F20101111_AAAYSV mcclister_d_Page_241.tif
56908 F20101111_AAAXIR mcclister_d_Page_072.pro
28697 F20101111_AAAZPP mcclister_d_Page_165.QC.jpg
94955 F20101111_AAAYFL mcclister_d_Page_128.jpg
1780 F20101111_AAAZCE mcclister_d_Page_092.txt
F20101111_AAAYSW mcclister_d_Page_242.tif
F20101111_AAAXIS mcclister_d_Page_257.tif
F20101111_AAAZPQ mcclister_d_Page_295thm.jpg
99114 F20101111_AAAYFM mcclister_d_Page_129.jpg
2301 F20101111_AAAZCF mcclister_d_Page_094.txt
F20101111_AAAYSX mcclister_d_Page_248.tif
129803 F20101111_AAAXIT mcclister_d_Page_080.jp2
6294 F20101111_AAAZPR mcclister_d_Page_246thm.jpg
108369 F20101111_AAAYFN mcclister_d_Page_131.jpg
2520 F20101111_AAAZCG mcclister_d_Page_095.txt
F20101111_AAAYSY mcclister_d_Page_249.tif
26937 F20101111_AAAXIU mcclister_d_Page_057.QC.jpg
6615 F20101111_AAAZPS mcclister_d_Page_285thm.jpg
87270 F20101111_AAAYFO mcclister_d_Page_133.jpg
2496 F20101111_AAAZCH mcclister_d_Page_097.txt
F20101111_AAAYSZ mcclister_d_Page_251.tif
6839 F20101111_AAAZPT mcclister_d_Page_132thm.jpg
94086 F20101111_AAAYFP mcclister_d_Page_136.jpg
3007 F20101111_AAAZCI mcclister_d_Page_098.txt
90124 F20101111_AAAXIV mcclister_d_Page_222.jpg
6698 F20101111_AAAZPU mcclister_d_Page_062thm.jpg
91424 F20101111_AAAYFQ mcclister_d_Page_137.jpg
2250 F20101111_AAAZCJ mcclister_d_Page_100.txt
120439 F20101111_AAAXIW mcclister_d_Page_150.jp2
446463 F20101111_AAAZPV UFE0021949_00001.xml FULL
F20101111_AAAZCK mcclister_d_Page_101.txt
93625 F20101111_AAAXIX mcclister_d_Page_217.jpg
29239 F20101111_AAAZPW mcclister_d_Page_011.QC.jpg
89242 F20101111_AAAYFR mcclister_d_Page_138.jpg
F20101111_AAAZCL mcclister_d_Page_102.txt
F20101111_AAAXIY mcclister_d_Page_219.tif
6871 F20101111_AAAZPX mcclister_d_Page_017thm.jpg
97548 F20101111_AAAYFS mcclister_d_Page_139.jpg
3022 F20101111_AAAZCM mcclister_d_Page_103.txt
F20101111_AAAXIZ mcclister_d_Page_219thm.jpg
6460 F20101111_AAAZPY mcclister_d_Page_022thm.jpg
92378 F20101111_AAAYFT mcclister_d_Page_145.jpg
6726 F20101111_AAAZPZ mcclister_d_Page_029thm.jpg
2444 F20101111_AAAZCN mcclister_d_Page_104.txt
113333 F20101111_AAAWRA mcclister_d_Page_237.jp2
92865 F20101111_AAAYFU mcclister_d_Page_149.jpg
2681 F20101111_AAAZCO mcclister_d_Page_106.txt
30627 F20101111_AAAWRB mcclister_d_Page_112.QC.jpg
95561 F20101111_AAAYFV mcclister_d_Page_151.jpg
47501 F20101111_AAAYYA mcclister_d_Page_187.pro
2814 F20101111_AAAZCP mcclister_d_Page_109.txt
59279 F20101111_AAAWRC mcclister_d_Page_125.pro
90705 F20101111_AAAYFW mcclister_d_Page_157.jpg
59066 F20101111_AAAYYB mcclister_d_Page_191.pro
2582 F20101111_AAAZCQ mcclister_d_Page_112.txt
2320 F20101111_AAAWRD mcclister_d_Page_245.txt
86385 F20101111_AAAYFX mcclister_d_Page_158.jpg
53770 F20101111_AAAYYC mcclister_d_Page_192.pro
2499 F20101111_AAAZCR mcclister_d_Page_113.txt
110389 F20101111_AAAWRE mcclister_d_Page_287.jpg
93729 F20101111_AAAYFY mcclister_d_Page_160.jpg
55244 F20101111_AAAYYD mcclister_d_Page_194.pro
2648 F20101111_AAAZCS mcclister_d_Page_119.txt
59547 F20101111_AAAWRF mcclister_d_Page_154.pro
88508 F20101111_AAAYFZ mcclister_d_Page_162.jpg
2054 F20101111_AAAZCT mcclister_d_Page_122.txt
97645 F20101111_AAAWRG mcclister_d_Page_193.jpg
56690 F20101111_AAAYYE mcclister_d_Page_198.pro
F20101111_AAAZCU mcclister_d_Page_123.txt
59692 F20101111_AAAWRH mcclister_d_Page_196.pro
98537 F20101111_AAAXOA mcclister_d_Page_130.jpg
56852 F20101111_AAAYYF mcclister_d_Page_199.pro
2465 F20101111_AAAZCV mcclister_d_Page_128.txt
6364 F20101111_AAAWRI mcclister_d_Page_151thm.jpg
1906 F20101111_AAAXOB mcclister_d_Page_170.txt
53639 F20101111_AAAYYG mcclister_d_Page_200.pro
2526 F20101111_AAAZCW mcclister_d_Page_129.txt
31166 F20101111_AAAWRJ mcclister_d_Page_021.QC.jpg
117140 F20101111_AAAXOC mcclister_d_Page_103.jpg
63872 F20101111_AAAYYH mcclister_d_Page_201.pro
F20101111_AAAZCX mcclister_d_Page_130.txt
26202 F20101111_AAAWRK mcclister_d_Page_126.QC.jpg
49296 F20101111_AAAXOD mcclister_d_Page_018.pro
66055 F20101111_AAAYYI mcclister_d_Page_202.pro
2620 F20101111_AAAZCY mcclister_d_Page_131.txt
F20101111_AAAWRL mcclister_d_Page_016.tif
111543 F20101111_AAAXOE mcclister_d_Page_141.jpg
56758 F20101111_AAAYYJ mcclister_d_Page_206.pro
2175 F20101111_AAAZCZ mcclister_d_Page_135.txt
112897 F20101111_AAAWRM mcclister_d_Page_276.jp2
116647 F20101111_AAAXOF mcclister_d_Page_074.jp2
56344 F20101111_AAAYYK mcclister_d_Page_207.pro
60002 F20101111_AAAWRN mcclister_d_Page_253.pro
2477 F20101111_AAAXOG mcclister_d_Page_111.txt
56963 F20101111_AAAYYL mcclister_d_Page_208.pro
99000 F20101111_AAAWRO mcclister_d_Page_062.jpg
28757 F20101111_AAAXOH mcclister_d_Page_088.QC.jpg
127269 F20101111_AAAYLA mcclister_d_Page_130.jp2
54528 F20101111_AAAYYM mcclister_d_Page_210.pro
2147 F20101111_AAAWRP mcclister_d_Page_240.txt
F20101111_AAAXOI mcclister_d_Page_011.tif
139755 F20101111_AAAYLB mcclister_d_Page_131.jp2
58692 F20101111_AAAYYN mcclister_d_Page_211.pro
100541 F20101111_AAAWRQ mcclister_d_Page_080.jpg
77551 F20101111_AAAXOJ mcclister_d_Page_007.jpg
126833 F20101111_AAAYLC mcclister_d_Page_132.jp2
55054 F20101111_AAAYYO mcclister_d_Page_213.pro
131260 F20101111_AAAWRR mcclister_d_Page_113.jp2
65957 F20101111_AAAXOK mcclister_d_Page_108.pro
114792 F20101111_AAAYLD mcclister_d_Page_133.jp2
25213 F20101111_AAAXBA mcclister_d_Page_248.QC.jpg
58026 F20101111_AAAYYP mcclister_d_Page_214.pro
F20101111_AAAWRS mcclister_d_Page_227.tif
21825 F20101111_AAAXOL mcclister_d_Page_046.QC.jpg
121436 F20101111_AAAYLE mcclister_d_Page_136.jp2
89803 F20101111_AAAXBB mcclister_d_Page_047.jpg
48942 F20101111_AAAYYQ mcclister_d_Page_215.pro
119434 F20101111_AAAWRT mcclister_d_Page_053.jp2
5956 F20101111_AAAXOM mcclister_d_Page_251thm.jpg
118846 F20101111_AAAYLF mcclister_d_Page_137.jp2
F20101111_AAAXBC mcclister_d_Page_222.txt
57128 F20101111_AAAYYR mcclister_d_Page_218.pro
30734 F20101111_AAAWRU mcclister_d_Page_098.QC.jpg
2275 F20101111_AAAXON mcclister_d_Page_124.txt
114658 F20101111_AAAYLG mcclister_d_Page_142.jp2
29925 F20101111_AAAZIA mcclister_d_Page_113.QC.jpg
123968 F20101111_AAAXBD mcclister_d_Page_140.jp2
63831 F20101111_AAAYYS mcclister_d_Page_219.pro
2231 F20101111_AAAWRV mcclister_d_Page_099.txt
28064 F20101111_AAAXOO mcclister_d_Page_047.QC.jpg
130546 F20101111_AAAYLH mcclister_d_Page_143.jp2
27642 F20101111_AAAZIB mcclister_d_Page_212.QC.jpg
136907 F20101111_AAAXBE mcclister_d_Page_184.jp2
54812 F20101111_AAAYYT mcclister_d_Page_222.pro
55964 F20101111_AAAWRW mcclister_d_Page_009.pro
F20101111_AAAXOP mcclister_d_Page_030thm.jpg
116210 F20101111_AAAYLI mcclister_d_Page_144.jp2
28720 F20101111_AAAZIC mcclister_d_Page_024.QC.jpg
55670 F20101111_AAAXBF mcclister_d_Page_256.pro
53078 F20101111_AAAYYU mcclister_d_Page_223.pro
27314 F20101111_AAAWRX mcclister_d_Page_035.QC.jpg
115258 F20101111_AAAXOQ mcclister_d_Page_089.jp2
121992 F20101111_AAAYLJ mcclister_d_Page_149.jp2
29329 F20101111_AAAZID mcclister_d_Page_044.QC.jpg
89099 F20101111_AAAXBG mcclister_d_Page_156.jpg
51976 F20101111_AAAYYV mcclister_d_Page_224.pro
6728 F20101111_AAAWRY mcclister_d_Page_038thm.jpg
67368 F20101111_AAAXOR mcclister_d_Page_257.pro
124585 F20101111_AAAYLK mcclister_d_Page_151.jp2
27990 F20101111_AAAZIE mcclister_d_Page_234.QC.jpg
6406 F20101111_AAAXBH mcclister_d_Page_186thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAYYW mcclister_d_Page_226.pro
2120 F20101111_AAAWRZ mcclister_d_Page_093.txt
F20101111_AAAXOS mcclister_d_Page_263.tif
102428 F20101111_AAAYLL mcclister_d_Page_153.jp2
29168 F20101111_AAAZIF mcclister_d_Page_147.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAXBI mcclister_d_Page_155.tif
56752 F20101111_AAAYYX mcclister_d_Page_230.pro
81861 F20101111_AAAXOT mcclister_d_Page_297.jp2
114471 F20101111_AAAYLM mcclister_d_Page_155.jp2
6763 F20101111_AAAZIG mcclister_d_Page_011thm.jpg
80795 F20101111_AAAXBJ mcclister_d_Page_018.jpg
53589 F20101111_AAAYYY mcclister_d_Page_232.pro
57733 F20101111_AAAXOU mcclister_d_Page_124.pro
117556 F20101111_AAAYLN mcclister_d_Page_157.jp2
28758 F20101111_AAAZIH mcclister_d_Page_208.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAXBK mcclister_d_Page_195.tif
67999 F20101111_AAAYYZ mcclister_d_Page_234.pro
6538 F20101111_AAAXOV mcclister_d_Page_144thm.jpg
112092 F20101111_AAAYLO mcclister_d_Page_159.jp2
6925 F20101111_AAAZII mcclister_d_Page_176thm.jpg
55813 F20101111_AAAXBL mcclister_d_Page_052.pro
62729 F20101111_AAAXOW mcclister_d_Page_143.pro
121805 F20101111_AAAYLP mcclister_d_Page_160.jp2
6969 F20101111_AAAZIJ mcclister_d_Page_161thm.jpg
2132 F20101111_AAAXBM mcclister_d_Page_221.txt
99755 F20101111_AAAXOX mcclister_d_Page_195.jpg
114401 F20101111_AAAYLQ mcclister_d_Page_162.jp2
29950 F20101111_AAAZIK mcclister_d_Page_255.QC.jpg
64553 F20101111_AAAXBN mcclister_d_Page_252.pro
43676 F20101111_AAAXOY mcclister_d_Page_278.pro
133976 F20101111_AAAYLR mcclister_d_Page_163.jp2
6831 F20101111_AAAZIL mcclister_d_Page_236thm.jpg
21073 F20101111_AAAXOZ mcclister_d_Page_005.QC.jpg
111442 F20101111_AAAYLS mcclister_d_Page_168.jp2
6524 F20101111_AAAZIM mcclister_d_Page_169thm.jpg
63769 F20101111_AAAXBO mcclister_d_Page_113.pro
120296 F20101111_AAAYLT mcclister_d_Page_169.jp2
27680 F20101111_AAAZIN mcclister_d_Page_282.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAWXA mcclister_d_Page_175.tif
52679 F20101111_AAAXBP mcclister_d_Page_276.pro
123488 F20101111_AAAYLU mcclister_d_Page_179.jp2
F20101111_AAAZIO mcclister_d_Page_006thm.jpg
92554 F20101111_AAAWXB mcclister_d_Page_076.jpg
101710 F20101111_AAAXBQ mcclister_d_Page_288.jpg
59836 F20101111_AAAYLV mcclister_d_Page_180.jp2
29266 F20101111_AAAZIP mcclister_d_Page_292.QC.jpg
60088 F20101111_AAAWXC mcclister_d_Page_247.pro
2513 F20101111_AAAXBR mcclister_d_Page_038.txt
135893 F20101111_AAAYLW mcclister_d_Page_183.jp2
29575 F20101111_AAAZIQ mcclister_d_Page_247.QC.jpg
6589 F20101111_AAAWXD mcclister_d_Page_119thm.jpg
63756 F20101111_AAAXBS mcclister_d_Page_034.pro
F20101111_AAAZIR mcclister_d_Page_020thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAWXE mcclister_d_Page_033.tif
5653 F20101111_AAAXBT mcclister_d_Page_007thm.jpg
123773 F20101111_AAAYLX mcclister_d_Page_185.jp2
26627 F20101111_AAAZIS mcclister_d_Page_078.QC.jpg
29501 F20101111_AAAXBU mcclister_d_Page_059.QC.jpg
114607 F20101111_AAAYLY mcclister_d_Page_186.jp2
99219 F20101111_AAAWXF mcclister_d_Page_173.jpg
56267 F20101111_AAAXBV mcclister_d_Page_090.pro
106459 F20101111_AAAYLZ mcclister_d_Page_188.jp2
6691 F20101111_AAAZIT mcclister_d_Page_076thm.jpg
113427 F20101111_AAAWXG mcclister_d_Page_055.jpg
F20101111_AAAXBW mcclister_d_Page_101.tif
127663 F20101111_AAAXUA mcclister_d_Page_193.jp2
6479 F20101111_AAAZIU mcclister_d_Page_035thm.jpg
90248 F20101111_AAAWXH mcclister_d_Page_144.jpg
2266 F20101111_AAAXBX mcclister_d_Page_171.txt
26859 F20101111_AAAZIV mcclister_d_Page_155.QC.jpg
92057 F20101111_AAAWXI mcclister_d_Page_243.jpg
54427 F20101111_AAAXBY mcclister_d_Page_227.pro
F20101111_AAAXUB mcclister_d_Page_141.tif
6483 F20101111_AAAZIW mcclister_d_Page_142thm.jpg
91735 F20101111_AAAWXJ mcclister_d_Page_220.jpg
3564 F20101111_AAAXBZ mcclister_d_Page_180thm.jpg
26767 F20101111_AAAXUC mcclister_d_Page_168.QC.jpg
29465 F20101111_AAAZIX mcclister_d_Page_054.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAWXK mcclister_d_Page_160.txt
93136 F20101111_AAAXUD mcclister_d_Page_208.jpg
6796 F20101111_AAAZIY mcclister_d_Page_206thm.jpg
54328 F20101111_AAAXUE mcclister_d_Page_186.pro
6462 F20101111_AAAWXL mcclister_d_Page_250thm.jpg
6432 F20101111_AAAZIZ mcclister_d_Page_122thm.jpg
154378 F20101111_AAAXUF mcclister_d_Page_103.jp2
6103 F20101111_AAAWXM mcclister_d_Page_063thm.jpg
119157 F20101111_AAAXUG mcclister_d_Page_277.jp2
1051778 F20101111_AAAWXN mcclister_d_Page_055.jp2
F20101111_AAAXUH mcclister_d_Page_150.tif
F20101111_AAAYRA mcclister_d_Page_162.tif
6514 F20101111_AAAWXO mcclister_d_Page_265thm.jpg
117885 F20101111_AAAXUI mcclister_d_Page_268.jp2
F20101111_AAAYRB mcclister_d_Page_166.tif
6429 F20101111_AAAWXP mcclister_d_Page_158thm.jpg
30458 F20101111_AAAXUJ mcclister_d_Page_202.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAYRC mcclister_d_Page_167.tif
54822 F20101111_AAAWXQ mcclister_d_Page_197.pro
5937 F20101111_AAAXUK mcclister_d_Page_170thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAYRD mcclister_d_Page_169.tif
97449 F20101111_AAAWXR mcclister_d_Page_290.jpg
118994 F20101111_AAAXUL mcclister_d_Page_258.jp2
F20101111_AAAYRE mcclister_d_Page_170.tif
29896 F20101111_AAAXHA mcclister_d_Page_190.QC.jpg
6789 F20101111_AAAWXS mcclister_d_Page_199thm.jpg
37610 F20101111_AAAXUM mcclister_d_Page_296.jpg
F20101111_AAAYRF mcclister_d_Page_172.tif
F20101111_AAAXHB mcclister_d_Page_285.tif
58354 F20101111_AAAWXT mcclister_d_Page_264.pro
1965 F20101111_AAAXUN mcclister_d_Page_203.txt
F20101111_AAAYRG mcclister_d_Page_174.tif
108257 F20101111_AAAXHC mcclister_d_Page_068.jp2
F20101111_AAAWXU mcclister_d_Page_140.tif
26335 F20101111_AAAZOA mcclister_d_Page_188.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAXUO mcclister_d_Page_193.tif
F20101111_AAAYRH mcclister_d_Page_176.tif
115611 F20101111_AAAXHD mcclister_d_Page_061.jp2
96405 F20101111_AAAWXV mcclister_d_Page_185.jpg
31377 F20101111_AAAZOB mcclister_d_Page_189.QC.jpg
105920 F20101111_AAAXUP mcclister_d_Page_134.jpg
F20101111_AAAYRI mcclister_d_Page_177.tif
27466 F20101111_AAAXHE mcclister_d_Page_075.QC.jpg
28903 F20101111_AAAWXW mcclister_d_Page_185.QC.jpg
6916 F20101111_AAAZOC mcclister_d_Page_277thm.jpg
61913 F20101111_AAAXUQ mcclister_d_Page_280.pro
F20101111_AAAYRJ mcclister_d_Page_178.tif
129881 F20101111_AAAXHF mcclister_d_Page_111.jp2
140961 F20101111_AAAWXX mcclister_d_Page_109.jp2
27465 F20101111_AAAZOD mcclister_d_Page_036.QC.jpg
128120 F20101111_AAAXUR mcclister_d_Page_037.jp2
F20101111_AAAYRK mcclister_d_Page_180.tif
2309 F20101111_AAAXHG mcclister_d_Page_164.txt
2369 F20101111_AAAWXY mcclister_d_Page_281.txt
7066 F20101111_AAAZOE mcclister_d_Page_103thm.jpg
89858 F20101111_AAAYEA mcclister_d_Page_061.jpg
124521 F20101111_AAAXUS mcclister_d_Page_266.jp2
F20101111_AAAYRL mcclister_d_Page_181.tif
29454 F20101111_AAAXHH mcclister_d_Page_042.QC.jpg
7076 F20101111_AAAWXZ mcclister_d_Page_291thm.jpg
6598 F20101111_AAAZOF mcclister_d_Page_042thm.jpg
97903 F20101111_AAAYEB mcclister_d_Page_065.jpg
332 F20101111_AAAXUT mcclister_d_Page_267.txt
F20101111_AAAYRM mcclister_d_Page_182.tif
94810 F20101111_AAAXHI mcclister_d_Page_279.jpg
34864 F20101111_AAAZOG mcclister_d_Page_010.QC.jpg
86568 F20101111_AAAYEC mcclister_d_Page_066.jpg
2154 F20101111_AAAXUU mcclister_d_Page_197.txt
F20101111_AAAYRN mcclister_d_Page_184.tif
F20101111_AAAXHJ mcclister_d_Page_103.tif
30498 F20101111_AAAZOH mcclister_d_Page_173.QC.jpg
86774 F20101111_AAAYED mcclister_d_Page_067.jpg
120175 F20101111_AAAXUV mcclister_d_Page_207.jp2
F20101111_AAAYRO mcclister_d_Page_185.tif
116296 F20101111_AAAXHK mcclister_d_Page_222.jp2
F20101111_AAAZOI mcclister_d_Page_216thm.jpg
104033 F20101111_AAAYEE mcclister_d_Page_070.jpg
140130 F20101111_AAAXUW mcclister_d_Page_106.jp2
F20101111_AAAYRP mcclister_d_Page_186.tif
119262 F20101111_AAAXHL mcclister_d_Page_236.jp2
1097 F20101111_AAAZOJ mcclister_d_Page_003thm.jpg
92038 F20101111_AAAYEF mcclister_d_Page_073.jpg
F20101111_AAAXUX mcclister_d_Page_151.tif
F20101111_AAAYRQ mcclister_d_Page_188.tif
F20101111_AAAXHM mcclister_d_Page_223.tif
29026 F20101111_AAAZOK mcclister_d_Page_038.QC.jpg
90256 F20101111_AAAYEG mcclister_d_Page_074.jpg
136231 F20101111_AAAXUY mcclister_d_Page_112.jp2
F20101111_AAAYRR mcclister_d_Page_189.tif
61630 F20101111_AAAXHN mcclister_d_Page_283.pro
462 F20101111_AAAZOL mcclister_d_Page_002thm.jpg
98198 F20101111_AAAYEH mcclister_d_Page_077.jpg
6616 F20101111_AAAXUZ mcclister_d_Page_258thm.jpg
2623 F20101111_AAAZBA mcclister_d_Page_040.txt
F20101111_AAAYRS mcclister_d_Page_191.tif
144267 F20101111_AAAXHO mcclister_d_Page_021.jp2
29360 F20101111_AAAZOM mcclister_d_Page_263.QC.jpg
90074 F20101111_AAAYEI mcclister_d_Page_078.jpg
F20101111_AAAZBB mcclister_d_Page_041.txt
F20101111_AAAYRT mcclister_d_Page_196.tif
52035 F20101111_AAAXHP mcclister_d_Page_205.pro
26861 F20101111_AAAZON mcclister_d_Page_142.QC.jpg
95508 F20101111_AAAYEJ mcclister_d_Page_079.jpg
2126 F20101111_AAAZBC mcclister_d_Page_043.txt
F20101111_AAAYRU mcclister_d_Page_197.tif
6845 F20101111_AAAXHQ mcclister_d_Page_024thm.jpg
28251 F20101111_AAAZOO mcclister_d_Page_009.QC.jpg
90359 F20101111_AAAYEK mcclister_d_Page_082.jpg
F20101111_AAAZBD mcclister_d_Page_044.txt
F20101111_AAAYRV mcclister_d_Page_198.tif
114743 F20101111_AAAXHR mcclister_d_Page_114.jp2
7271 F20101111_AAAZOP mcclister_d_Page_032thm.jpg
81970 F20101111_AAAYEL mcclister_d_Page_083.jpg
1701 F20101111_AAAZBE mcclister_d_Page_046.txt
F20101111_AAAYRW mcclister_d_Page_200.tif
111603 F20101111_AAAXHS mcclister_d_Page_275.jp2
28839 F20101111_AAAZOQ mcclister_d_Page_120.QC.jpg
97151 F20101111_AAAYEM mcclister_d_Page_085.jpg
2245 F20101111_AAAZBF mcclister_d_Page_047.txt
F20101111_AAAYRX mcclister_d_Page_201.tif
100456 F20101111_AAAXHT mcclister_d_Page_034.jpg
5044 F20101111_AAAZOR mcclister_d_Page_238thm.jpg
89175 F20101111_AAAYEN mcclister_d_Page_089.jpg
2286 F20101111_AAAZBG mcclister_d_Page_049.txt
F20101111_AAAYRY mcclister_d_Page_202.tif
6948 F20101111_AAAZOS mcclister_d_Page_273thm.jpg
91491 F20101111_AAAYEO mcclister_d_Page_090.jpg
2219 F20101111_AAAZBH mcclister_d_Page_052.txt
F20101111_AAAYRZ mcclister_d_Page_203.tif
113669 F20101111_AAAXHU mcclister_d_Page_182.jp2
6850 F20101111_AAAZOT mcclister_d_Page_064thm.jpg
99095 F20101111_AAAYEP mcclister_d_Page_091.jpg
F20101111_AAAZBI mcclister_d_Page_053.txt
1499 F20101111_AAAXHV mcclister_d_Page_006.txt
F20101111_AAAZOU mcclister_d_Page_286thm.jpg
2438 F20101111_AAAZBJ mcclister_d_Page_054.txt
6966 F20101111_AAAXHW mcclister_d_Page_252thm.jpg
29831 F20101111_AAAZOV mcclister_d_Page_253.QC.jpg
74750 F20101111_AAAYEQ mcclister_d_Page_092.jpg
2828 F20101111_AAAZBK mcclister_d_Page_055.txt
7187 F20101111_AAAXHX mcclister_d_Page_023thm.jpg
28581 F20101111_AAAZOW mcclister_d_Page_172.QC.jpg
85349 F20101111_AAAYER mcclister_d_Page_093.jpg
F20101111_AAAZBL mcclister_d_Page_057.txt
F20101111_AAAXHY mcclister_d_Page_181.txt
5801 F20101111_AAAZOX mcclister_d_Page_153thm.jpg
100324 F20101111_AAAYES mcclister_d_Page_095.jpg
6376 F20101111_AAAXHZ mcclister_d_Page_138thm.jpg
6737 F20101111_AAAZOY mcclister_d_Page_279thm.jpg
96285 F20101111_AAAYET mcclister_d_Page_096.jpg
2186 F20101111_AAAZBM mcclister_d_Page_061.txt
113477 F20101111_AAAYEU mcclister_d_Page_098.jpg
2385 F20101111_AAAZBN mcclister_d_Page_062.txt
31193 F20101111_AAAZOZ mcclister_d_Page_166.QC.jpg
92470 F20101111_AAAYEV mcclister_d_Page_100.jpg
2431 F20101111_AAAZBO mcclister_d_Page_064.txt
95651 F20101111_AAAYEW mcclister_d_Page_104.jpg
57338 F20101111_AAAYXA mcclister_d_Page_149.pro
2378 F20101111_AAAZBP mcclister_d_Page_065.txt
109266 F20101111_AAAYEX mcclister_d_Page_105.jpg
59395 F20101111_AAAYXB mcclister_d_Page_151.pro
2249 F20101111_AAAZBQ mcclister_d_Page_067.txt
109786 F20101111_AAAYEY mcclister_d_Page_109.jpg
47449 F20101111_AAAYXC mcclister_d_Page_153.pro
2060 F20101111_AAAZBR mcclister_d_Page_069.txt
91327 F20101111_AAAYEZ mcclister_d_Page_110.jpg
2602 F20101111_AAAZBS mcclister_d_Page_070.txt
54908 F20101111_AAAYXD mcclister_d_Page_157.pro
2207 F20101111_AAAZBT mcclister_d_Page_071.txt
51441 F20101111_AAAYXE mcclister_d_Page_159.pro
F20101111_AAAZBU mcclister_d_Page_072.txt
2645 F20101111_AAAXNA mcclister_d_Page_260.txt
57629 F20101111_AAAYXF mcclister_d_Page_160.pro
2167 F20101111_AAAZBV mcclister_d_Page_073.txt
96667 F20101111_AAAXNB mcclister_d_Page_042.jpg
71501 F20101111_AAAYXG mcclister_d_Page_161.pro
F20101111_AAAZBW mcclister_d_Page_074.txt
F20101111_AAAXNC mcclister_d_Page_218.txt
51481 F20101111_AAAYXH mcclister_d_Page_162.pro
2482 F20101111_AAAZBX mcclister_d_Page_075.txt
7149 F20101111_AAAXND mcclister_d_Page_012thm.jpg
68684 F20101111_AAAYXI mcclister_d_Page_163.pro
F20101111_AAAZBY mcclister_d_Page_076.txt
99079 F20101111_AAAXNE mcclister_d_Page_007.jp2
58821 F20101111_AAAYXJ mcclister_d_Page_164.pro
F20101111_AAAZBZ mcclister_d_Page_079.txt
7402 F20101111_AAAXNF mcclister_d_Page_010thm.jpg
55846 F20101111_AAAYXK mcclister_d_Page_165.pro
127083 F20101111_AAAXNG mcclister_d_Page_247.jp2
65270 F20101111_AAAYXL mcclister_d_Page_166.pro
124285 F20101111_AAAWQO mcclister_d_Page_077.jp2
6753 F20101111_AAAXNH mcclister_d_Page_139thm.jpg
133355 F20101111_AAAYKA mcclister_d_Page_070.jp2
65784 F20101111_AAAYXM mcclister_d_Page_167.pro
90096 F20101111_AAAWQP mcclister_d_Page_210.jpg
2077 F20101111_AAAXNI mcclister_d_Page_168.txt
120773 F20101111_AAAYKB mcclister_d_Page_072.jp2
47156 F20101111_AAAYXN mcclister_d_Page_170.pro
F20101111_AAAWQQ mcclister_d_Page_013thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAXNJ mcclister_d_Page_088.tif
118877 F20101111_AAAYKC mcclister_d_Page_078.jp2
57531 F20101111_AAAYXO mcclister_d_Page_171.pro
F20101111_AAAWQR mcclister_d_Page_226thm.jpg
2717 F20101111_AAAXNK mcclister_d_Page_032.txt
106261 F20101111_AAAYKD mcclister_d_Page_083.jp2
87188 F20101111_AAAXAA mcclister_d_Page_116.jp2
61932 F20101111_AAAYXP mcclister_d_Page_173.pro
54731 F20101111_AAAWQS mcclister_d_Page_239.pro
104384 F20101111_AAAXNL mcclister_d_Page_018.jp2
125267 F20101111_AAAYKE mcclister_d_Page_085.jp2
F20101111_AAAXAB mcclister_d_Page_096.tif
57353 F20101111_AAAYXQ mcclister_d_Page_174.pro
26554 F20101111_AAAWQT mcclister_d_Page_192.QC.jpg
6279 F20101111_AAAXNM mcclister_d_Page_019thm.jpg
117429 F20101111_AAAYKF mcclister_d_Page_087.jp2
38081 F20101111_AAAXAC mcclister_d_Page_006.jpg
61049 F20101111_AAAYXR mcclister_d_Page_176.pro
54323 F20101111_AAAWQU mcclister_d_Page_057.pro
90389 F20101111_AAAXNN mcclister_d_Page_071.jpg
117946 F20101111_AAAYKG mcclister_d_Page_088.jp2
28992 F20101111_AAAZHA mcclister_d_Page_149.QC.jpg
2313 F20101111_AAAXAD mcclister_d_Page_125.txt
55744 F20101111_AAAYXS mcclister_d_Page_177.pro
89443 F20101111_AAAWQV mcclister_d_Page_043.jpg
27328 F20101111_AAAXNO mcclister_d_Page_081.QC.jpg
127338 F20101111_AAAYKH mcclister_d_Page_091.jp2
30622 F20101111_AAAZHB mcclister_d_Page_141.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAXAE mcclister_d_Page_025.QC.jpg
58804 F20101111_AAAYXT mcclister_d_Page_178.pro
6644 F20101111_AAAWQW mcclister_d_Page_200thm.jpg
30497 F20101111_AAAXNP mcclister_d_Page_119.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAYKI mcclister_d_Page_093.jp2
6824 F20101111_AAAZHC mcclister_d_Page_282thm.jpg
57835 F20101111_AAAXAF mcclister_d_Page_285.pro
58089 F20101111_AAAYXU mcclister_d_Page_179.pro
25094 F20101111_AAAWQX mcclister_d_Page_018.QC.jpg
7035 F20101111_AAAXNQ mcclister_d_Page_108thm.jpg
124257 F20101111_AAAYKJ mcclister_d_Page_096.jp2
6701 F20101111_AAAZHD mcclister_d_Page_149thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAXAG mcclister_d_Page_247.tif
26467 F20101111_AAAYXV mcclister_d_Page_180.pro
29037 F20101111_AAAWQY mcclister_d_Page_139.QC.jpg
2184 F20101111_AAAXNR mcclister_d_Page_210.txt
128647 F20101111_AAAYKK mcclister_d_Page_097.jp2
25618 F20101111_AAAZHE mcclister_d_Page_013.QC.jpg
28745 F20101111_AAAXAH mcclister_d_Page_289.QC.jpg
53574 F20101111_AAAYXW mcclister_d_Page_181.pro
F20101111_AAAWQZ mcclister_d_Page_118.tif
54607 F20101111_AAAXNS mcclister_d_Page_240.pro
120377 F20101111_AAAYKL mcclister_d_Page_099.jp2
29195 F20101111_AAAZHF mcclister_d_Page_211.QC.jpg
2194 F20101111_AAAXAI mcclister_d_Page_258.txt
66446 F20101111_AAAYXX mcclister_d_Page_183.pro
61449 F20101111_AAAXNT mcclister_d_Page_130.pro
120405 F20101111_AAAYKM mcclister_d_Page_100.jp2
26104 F20101111_AAAZHG mcclister_d_Page_045.QC.jpg
104576 F20101111_AAAXAJ mcclister_d_Page_203.jp2
64963 F20101111_AAAYXY mcclister_d_Page_184.pro
118269 F20101111_AAAXNU mcclister_d_Page_256.jp2
137932 F20101111_AAAYKN mcclister_d_Page_101.jp2
7185 F20101111_AAAZHH mcclister_d_Page_189thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAXAK mcclister_d_Page_123.tif
58753 F20101111_AAAYXZ mcclister_d_Page_185.pro
6964 F20101111_AAAXNV mcclister_d_Page_255thm.jpg
118811 F20101111_AAAYKO mcclister_d_Page_102.jp2
28075 F20101111_AAAZHI mcclister_d_Page_283.QC.jpg
6029 F20101111_AAAXAL mcclister_d_Page_018thm.jpg
124930 F20101111_AAAXNW mcclister_d_Page_025.jp2
138694 F20101111_AAAYKP mcclister_d_Page_105.jp2
6689 F20101111_AAAZHJ mcclister_d_Page_016thm.jpg
2059 F20101111_AAAXAM mcclister_d_Page_068.txt
80853 F20101111_AAAXNX mcclister_d_Page_248.jpg
118648 F20101111_AAAYKQ mcclister_d_Page_110.jp2
28400 F20101111_AAAZHK mcclister_d_Page_082.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAXNY mcclister_d_Page_191thm.jpg
121274 F20101111_AAAYKR mcclister_d_Page_115.jp2
31231 F20101111_AAAZHL mcclister_d_Page_219.QC.jpg
61015 F20101111_AAAXAN mcclister_d_Page_120.pro
F20101111_AAAXNZ mcclister_d_Page_065.tif
109901 F20101111_AAAYKS mcclister_d_Page_117.jp2
5631 F20101111_AAAZHM mcclister_d_Page_008thm.jpg
53720 F20101111_AAAXAO mcclister_d_Page_231.pro
137048 F20101111_AAAYKT mcclister_d_Page_118.jp2
6776 F20101111_AAAZHN mcclister_d_Page_100thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAWWA mcclister_d_Page_190.tif
56778 F20101111_AAAXAP mcclister_d_Page_216.pro
136960 F20101111_AAAYKU mcclister_d_Page_119.jp2
6433 F20101111_AAAZHO mcclister_d_Page_049thm.jpg
2063 F20101111_AAAWWB mcclister_d_Page_162.txt
F20101111_AAAXAQ mcclister_d_Page_127.tif
126043 F20101111_AAAYKV mcclister_d_Page_120.jp2
F20101111_AAAZHP mcclister_d_Page_120thm.jpg
53308 F20101111_AAAWWC mcclister_d_Page_155.pro
87882 F20101111_AAAXAR mcclister_d_Page_227.jpg
30336 F20101111_AAAZHQ mcclister_d_Page_040.QC.jpg
58906 F20101111_AAAWWD mcclister_d_Page_127.pro
98225 F20101111_AAAXAS mcclister_d_Page_075.jpg
112169 F20101111_AAAYKW mcclister_d_Page_122.jp2
28704 F20101111_AAAZHR mcclister_d_Page_152.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAXAT mcclister_d_Page_067.tif
119127 F20101111_AAAYKX mcclister_d_Page_123.jp2
2353 F20101111_AAAWWE mcclister_d_Page_253.txt
F20101111_AAAXAU mcclister_d_Page_179.tif
124465 F20101111_AAAYKY mcclister_d_Page_125.jp2
24426 F20101111_AAAZHS mcclister_d_Page_162.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAWWF mcclister_d_Page_049.tif
95494 F20101111_AAAXAV mcclister_d_Page_048.jpg
122636 F20101111_AAAYKZ mcclister_d_Page_126.jp2
27606 F20101111_AAAZHT mcclister_d_Page_223.QC.jpg
29052 F20101111_AAAWWG mcclister_d_Page_262.QC.jpg
20695 F20101111_AAAXAW mcclister_d_Page_238.QC.jpg
29244 F20101111_AAAZHU mcclister_d_Page_017.QC.jpg
6906 F20101111_AAAWWH mcclister_d_Page_172thm.jpg
86577 F20101111_AAAXAX mcclister_d_Page_121.jpg
2419 F20101111_AAAXTA mcclister_d_Page_173.txt
6827 F20101111_AAAZHV mcclister_d_Page_196thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAWWI mcclister_d_Page_194.tif
2590 F20101111_AAAXAY mcclister_d_Page_166.txt
127418 F20101111_AAAXTB mcclister_d_Page_064.jp2
28726 F20101111_AAAZHW mcclister_d_Page_072.QC.jpg
87063 F20101111_AAAWWJ mcclister_d_Page_142.jpg
1048 F20101111_AAAXAZ mcclister_d_Page_180.txt
89920 F20101111_AAAXTC mcclister_d_Page_293.jpg
6324 F20101111_AAAZHX mcclister_d_Page_066thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAWWK mcclister_d_Page_115.tif
3867 F20101111_AAAXTD mcclister_d_Page_003.QC.jpg
28174 F20101111_AAAZHY mcclister_d_Page_022.QC.jpg
52696 F20101111_AAAWWL mcclister_d_Page_275.pro
66595 F20101111_AAAXTE mcclister_d_Page_020.pro
6544 F20101111_AAAZHZ mcclister_d_Page_234thm.jpg
61311 F20101111_AAAWWM mcclister_d_Page_037.pro
F20101111_AAAXTF mcclister_d_Page_293.tif
6484 F20101111_AAAWWN mcclister_d_Page_114thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAXTG mcclister_d_Page_074.tif
F20101111_AAAWWO mcclister_d_Page_237.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAXTH mcclister_d_Page_114.tif
F20101111_AAAYQA mcclister_d_Page_107.tif
52465 F20101111_AAAWWP mcclister_d_Page_293.pro
107713 F20101111_AAAXTI mcclister_d_Page_012.jpg
F20101111_AAAYQB mcclister_d_Page_108.tif
55200 F20101111_AAAWWQ mcclister_d_Page_148.pro
142735 F20101111_AAAXTJ mcclister_d_Page_141.jp2
F20101111_AAAYQC mcclister_d_Page_111.tif
98157 F20101111_AAAWWR mcclister_d_Page_132.jpg
57243 F20101111_AAAXTK mcclister_d_Page_217.pro
F20101111_AAAYQD mcclister_d_Page_113.tif
92157 F20101111_AAAWWS mcclister_d_Page_230.jpg
28291 F20101111_AAAXTL mcclister_d_Page_144.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAYQE mcclister_d_Page_117.tif
81566 F20101111_AAAXGA mcclister_d_Page_251.jpg
53864 F20101111_AAAWWT mcclister_d_Page_043.pro
108737 F20101111_AAAXTM mcclister_d_Page_106.jpg
F20101111_AAAYQF mcclister_d_Page_120.tif
2113 F20101111_AAAXGB mcclister_d_Page_050.txt
90543 F20101111_AAAWWU mcclister_d_Page_022.jpg
6496 F20101111_AAAXTN mcclister_d_Page_039thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAYQG mcclister_d_Page_121.tif
F20101111_AAAXGC mcclister_d_Page_085thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAZNA mcclister_d_Page_198thm.jpg
6452 F20101111_AAAWWV mcclister_d_Page_009thm.jpg
23019 F20101111_AAAXTO mcclister_d_Page_008.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAYQH mcclister_d_Page_122.tif
29431 F20101111_AAAXGD mcclister_d_Page_102.QC.jpg
28196 F20101111_AAAZNB mcclister_d_Page_270.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAWWW mcclister_d_Page_259.tif
60929 F20101111_AAAXTP mcclister_d_Page_104.pro
F20101111_AAAYQI mcclister_d_Page_125.tif
6508 F20101111_AAAXGE mcclister_d_Page_081thm.jpg
7017 F20101111_AAAZNC mcclister_d_Page_048thm.jpg
124045 F20101111_AAAXTQ mcclister_d_Page_264.jp2
F20101111_AAAYQJ mcclister_d_Page_126.tif
6141 F20101111_AAAXGF mcclister_d_Page_188thm.jpg
28840 F20101111_AAAWWX mcclister_d_Page_277.QC.jpg
6979 F20101111_AAAZND mcclister_d_Page_096thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAXTR mcclister_d_Page_112.tif
F20101111_AAAYQK mcclister_d_Page_129.tif
F20101111_AAAXGG mcclister_d_Page_163.tif
96152 F20101111_AAAWWY mcclister_d_Page_178.jpg
29047 F20101111_AAAZNE mcclister_d_Page_198.QC.jpg
83280 F20101111_AAAYDA mcclister_d_Page_013.jpg
83483 F20101111_AAAXTS mcclister_d_Page_246.jpg
F20101111_AAAYQL mcclister_d_Page_130.tif
F20101111_AAAXGH mcclister_d_Page_036.tif
102713 F20101111_AAAWWZ mcclister_d_Page_170.jp2
6518 F20101111_AAAZNF mcclister_d_Page_182thm.jpg
102609 F20101111_AAAYDB mcclister_d_Page_014.jpg
28432 F20101111_AAAXTT mcclister_d_Page_060.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAYQM mcclister_d_Page_131.tif
94312 F20101111_AAAXGI mcclister_d_Page_029.jpg
6920 F20101111_AAAZNG mcclister_d_Page_141thm.jpg
109630 F20101111_AAAYDC mcclister_d_Page_015.jpg
27663 F20101111_AAAXTU mcclister_d_Page_285.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAYQN mcclister_d_Page_132.tif
113269 F20101111_AAAXGJ mcclister_d_Page_212.jp2
6788 F20101111_AAAZNH mcclister_d_Page_190thm.jpg
93365 F20101111_AAAYDD mcclister_d_Page_016.jpg
107422 F20101111_AAAXTV mcclister_d_Page_045.jp2
F20101111_AAAYQO mcclister_d_Page_133.tif
F20101111_AAAXGK mcclister_d_Page_072.tif
F20101111_AAAZNI mcclister_d_Page_280thm.jpg
91865 F20101111_AAAYDE mcclister_d_Page_017.jpg
F20101111_AAAXTW mcclister_d_Page_037.tif
F20101111_AAAYQP mcclister_d_Page_135.tif
31885 F20101111_AAAXGL mcclister_d_Page_012.QC.jpg
30366 F20101111_AAAZNJ mcclister_d_Page_111.QC.jpg
81265 F20101111_AAAYDF mcclister_d_Page_019.jpg
5307 F20101111_AAAXTX mcclister_d_Page_278thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAYQQ mcclister_d_Page_136.tif
F20101111_AAAXGM mcclister_d_Page_192.tif
6643 F20101111_AAAZNK mcclister_d_Page_090thm.jpg
105859 F20101111_AAAYDG mcclister_d_Page_020.jpg
112336 F20101111_AAAXTY mcclister_d_Page_158.jp2
F20101111_AAAYQR mcclister_d_Page_138.tif
6318 F20101111_AAAXGN mcclister_d_Page_239thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAZNL mcclister_d_Page_264.QC.jpg
112996 F20101111_AAAYDH mcclister_d_Page_023.jpg
92385 F20101111_AAAXTZ mcclister_d_Page_086.jpg
21568 F20101111_AAAZAA mcclister_d_Page_296.pro
F20101111_AAAYQS mcclister_d_Page_142.tif
5360 F20101111_AAAXGO mcclister_d_Page_002.jp2
29309 F20101111_AAAZNM mcclister_d_Page_099.QC.jpg
96702 F20101111_AAAYDI mcclister_d_Page_025.jpg
87 F20101111_AAAZAB mcclister_d_Page_002.txt
F20101111_AAAYQT mcclister_d_Page_143.tif
3770 F20101111_AAAXGP mcclister_d_Page_004thm.jpg
29981 F20101111_AAAZNN mcclister_d_Page_214.QC.jpg
96259 F20101111_AAAYDJ mcclister_d_Page_026.jpg
1142 F20101111_AAAZAC mcclister_d_Page_004.txt
F20101111_AAAYQU mcclister_d_Page_144.tif
27325 F20101111_AAAXGQ mcclister_d_Page_117.QC.jpg
6317 F20101111_AAAZNO mcclister_d_Page_205thm.jpg
92923 F20101111_AAAYDK mcclister_d_Page_028.jpg
1997 F20101111_AAAZAD mcclister_d_Page_007.txt
F20101111_AAAYQV mcclister_d_Page_148.tif
28606 F20101111_AAAXGR mcclister_d_Page_026.QC.jpg
7010 F20101111_AAAZNP mcclister_d_Page_266thm.jpg
100047 F20101111_AAAYDL mcclister_d_Page_031.jpg
1753 F20101111_AAAZAE mcclister_d_Page_008.txt
F20101111_AAAYQW mcclister_d_Page_149.tif
7069 F20101111_AAAXGS mcclister_d_Page_105thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAZNQ mcclister_d_Page_224thm.jpg
90026 F20101111_AAAYDM mcclister_d_Page_033.jpg
2319 F20101111_AAAZAF mcclister_d_Page_011.txt
F20101111_AAAYQX mcclister_d_Page_158.tif
30589 F20101111_AAAZNR mcclister_d_Page_287.QC.jpg
89060 F20101111_AAAYDN mcclister_d_Page_035.jpg
2659 F20101111_AAAZAG mcclister_d_Page_012.txt
F20101111_AAAYQY mcclister_d_Page_159.tif
68405 F20101111_AAAXGT mcclister_d_Page_116.jpg
6801 F20101111_AAAZNS mcclister_d_Page_113thm.jpg
98500 F20101111_AAAYDO mcclister_d_Page_037.jpg
2022 F20101111_AAAZAH mcclister_d_Page_013.txt
F20101111_AAAYQZ mcclister_d_Page_161.tif
89940 F20101111_AAAXGU mcclister_d_Page_274.jpg
30429 F20101111_AAAZNT mcclister_d_Page_108.QC.jpg
2489 F20101111_AAAZAI mcclister_d_Page_014.txt
124181 F20101111_AAAXGV mcclister_d_Page_282.jp2
27886 F20101111_AAAZNU mcclister_d_Page_053.QC.jpg
64001 F20101111_AAAXZA mcclister_d_Page_014.pro
101671 F20101111_AAAYDP mcclister_d_Page_038.jpg
2741 F20101111_AAAZAJ mcclister_d_Page_015.txt
F20101111_AAAXGW mcclister_d_Page_239.tif
28986 F20101111_AAAZNV mcclister_d_Page_129.QC.jpg
57988 F20101111_AAAXZB mcclister_d_Page_279.pro
87462 F20101111_AAAYDQ mcclister_d_Page_039.jpg
2240 F20101111_AAAZAK mcclister_d_Page_016.txt
6267 F20101111_AAAXGX mcclister_d_Page_249thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAZNW mcclister_d_Page_283thm.jpg
6887 F20101111_AAAXZC mcclister_d_Page_082thm.jpg
106309 F20101111_AAAYDR mcclister_d_Page_040.jpg
880 F20101111_AAAXGY mcclister_d_Page_296.txt
5520 F20101111_AAAZNX mcclister_d_Page_005thm.jpg
55535 F20101111_AAAXZD mcclister_d_Page_258.pro
95755 F20101111_AAAYDS mcclister_d_Page_044.jpg
2229 F20101111_AAAZAL mcclister_d_Page_017.txt
30976 F20101111_AAAXGZ mcclister_d_Page_105.QC.jpg
55985 F20101111_AAAXZE mcclister_d_Page_233.pro
93101 F20101111_AAAYDT mcclister_d_Page_049.jpg
F20101111_AAAZAM mcclister_d_Page_018.txt
29847 F20101111_AAAZNY mcclister_d_Page_143.QC.jpg
28693 F20101111_AAAXZF mcclister_d_Page_151.QC.jpg
91960 F20101111_AAAYDU mcclister_d_Page_051.jpg
2006 F20101111_AAAZAN mcclister_d_Page_019.txt
26460 F20101111_AAAZNZ mcclister_d_Page_197.QC.jpg
91715 F20101111_AAAYDV mcclister_d_Page_053.jpg
2596 F20101111_AAAZAO mcclister_d_Page_020.txt
F20101111_AAAXZG mcclister_d_Page_034.tif
88069 F20101111_AAAYDW mcclister_d_Page_056.jpg
55726 F20101111_AAAYWA mcclister_d_Page_102.pro
2732 F20101111_AAAZAP mcclister_d_Page_021.txt
2306 F20101111_AAAXZH mcclister_d_Page_048.txt
87887 F20101111_AAAYDX mcclister_d_Page_057.jpg
76085 F20101111_AAAYWB mcclister_d_Page_103.pro
2198 F20101111_AAAZAQ mcclister_d_Page_022.txt
F20101111_AAAXZI mcclister_d_Page_281thm.jpg
105738 F20101111_AAAYDY mcclister_d_Page_058.jpg
F20101111_AAAZAR mcclister_d_Page_026.txt
29809 F20101111_AAAXZJ mcclister_d_Page_037.QC.jpg
91208 F20101111_AAAYDZ mcclister_d_Page_060.jpg
69642 F20101111_AAAYWC mcclister_d_Page_109.pro
2555 F20101111_AAAZAS mcclister_d_Page_027.txt
F20101111_AAAXZK mcclister_d_Page_272.txt
57384 F20101111_AAAYWD mcclister_d_Page_110.pro
2270 F20101111_AAAZAT mcclister_d_Page_028.txt
27341 F20101111_AAAXZL mcclister_d_Page_284.QC.jpg
62960 F20101111_AAAYWE mcclister_d_Page_111.pro
2293 F20101111_AAAZAU mcclister_d_Page_029.txt
121541 F20101111_AAAXMA mcclister_d_Page_029.jp2
29561 F20101111_AAAXZM mcclister_d_Page_245.QC.jpg
66082 F20101111_AAAYWF mcclister_d_Page_112.pro
F20101111_AAAZAV mcclister_d_Page_031.txt
91161 F20101111_AAAXMB mcclister_d_Page_087.jpg
70044 F20101111_AAAXZN mcclister_d_Page_141.pro
57587 F20101111_AAAYWG mcclister_d_Page_115.pro
2485 F20101111_AAAZAW mcclister_d_Page_034.txt
F20101111_AAAXMC mcclister_d_Page_274.tif
F20101111_AAAXZO mcclister_d_Page_191.txt
40917 F20101111_AAAYWH mcclister_d_Page_116.pro
2137 F20101111_AAAZAX mcclister_d_Page_035.txt
27755 F20101111_AAAXMD mcclister_d_Page_239.QC.jpg
27894 F20101111_AAAXZP mcclister_d_Page_052.QC.jpg
52052 F20101111_AAAYWI mcclister_d_Page_117.pro
F20101111_AAAZAY mcclister_d_Page_037.txt
F20101111_AAAXME mcclister_d_Page_086.txt
2359 F20101111_AAAXZQ mcclister_d_Page_262.txt
67857 F20101111_AAAYWJ mcclister_d_Page_118.pro
F20101111_AAAZAZ mcclister_d_Page_039.txt
97016 F20101111_AAAXMF mcclister_d_Page_147.jpg
68652 F20101111_AAAXZR mcclister_d_Page_175.pro
66956 F20101111_AAAYWK mcclister_d_Page_119.pro
28304 F20101111_AAAXMG mcclister_d_Page_104.QC.jpg
53445 F20101111_AAAXZS mcclister_d_Page_228.pro
55995 F20101111_AAAYWL mcclister_d_Page_123.pro
125998 F20101111_AAAXMH mcclister_d_Page_075.jp2
125035 F20101111_AAAYJA mcclister_d_Page_011.jp2
F20101111_AAAXZT mcclister_d_Page_015.tif
58542 F20101111_AAAYWM mcclister_d_Page_126.pro
135685 F20101111_AAAXMI mcclister_d_Page_292.jp2
139688 F20101111_AAAYJB mcclister_d_Page_012.jp2
6421 F20101111_AAAXZU mcclister_d_Page_075thm.jpg
61006 F20101111_AAAYWN mcclister_d_Page_128.pro
F20101111_AAAXMJ mcclister_d_Page_096.txt
109495 F20101111_AAAYJC mcclister_d_Page_013.jp2
F20101111_AAAXZV mcclister_d_Page_090.QC.jpg
61124 F20101111_AAAYWO mcclister_d_Page_132.pro
6655 F20101111_AAAXMK mcclister_d_Page_106thm.jpg
134103 F20101111_AAAYJD mcclister_d_Page_014.jp2
128626 F20101111_AAAXZW mcclister_d_Page_173.jp2
65034 F20101111_AAAYWP mcclister_d_Page_134.pro
28278 F20101111_AAAXML mcclister_d_Page_073.QC.jpg
141827 F20101111_AAAYJE mcclister_d_Page_015.jp2
6166 F20101111_AAAXZX mcclister_d_Page_275thm.jpg
54979 F20101111_AAAYWQ mcclister_d_Page_135.pro
102318 F20101111_AAAXMM mcclister_d_Page_027.jpg
119312 F20101111_AAAYJF mcclister_d_Page_016.jp2
F20101111_AAAXZY mcclister_d_Page_231.tif
54777 F20101111_AAAYWR mcclister_d_Page_137.pro
F20101111_AAAXMN mcclister_d_Page_050.tif
119266 F20101111_AAAYJG mcclister_d_Page_017.jp2
F20101111_AAAZGA mcclister_d_Page_280.txt
54980 F20101111_AAAYWS mcclister_d_Page_138.pro
55656 F20101111_AAAXMO mcclister_d_Page_236.pro
108067 F20101111_AAAYJH mcclister_d_Page_019.jp2
F20101111_AAAXZZ mcclister_d_Page_202.txt
2522 F20101111_AAAZGB mcclister_d_Page_283.txt
60140 F20101111_AAAYWT mcclister_d_Page_139.pro
F20101111_AAAXMP mcclister_d_Page_105.tif
118256 F20101111_AAAYJI mcclister_d_Page_024.jp2
2179 F20101111_AAAZGC mcclister_d_Page_284.txt
59440 F20101111_AAAYWU mcclister_d_Page_140.pro
6618 F20101111_AAAXMQ mcclister_d_Page_067thm.jpg
125118 F20101111_AAAYJJ mcclister_d_Page_026.jp2
2341 F20101111_AAAZGD mcclister_d_Page_285.txt
53757 F20101111_AAAYWV mcclister_d_Page_142.pro
F20101111_AAAXMR mcclister_d_Page_134.tif
126386 F20101111_AAAYJK mcclister_d_Page_030.jp2
2691 F20101111_AAAZGE mcclister_d_Page_287.txt
55222 F20101111_AAAYWW mcclister_d_Page_144.pro
2242 F20101111_AAAXMS mcclister_d_Page_208.txt
146639 F20101111_AAAYJL mcclister_d_Page_032.jp2
2669 F20101111_AAAZGF mcclister_d_Page_289.txt
55955 F20101111_AAAYWX mcclister_d_Page_145.pro
26609 F20101111_AAAXMT mcclister_d_Page_110.QC.jpg
131948 F20101111_AAAYJM mcclister_d_Page_034.jp2
2107 F20101111_AAAZGG mcclister_d_Page_293.txt
29036 F20101111_AAAYWY mcclister_d_Page_146.pro
54231 F20101111_AAAXMU mcclister_d_Page_074.pro
115980 F20101111_AAAYJN mcclister_d_Page_035.jp2
F20101111_AAAZGH mcclister_d_Page_294.txt
59205 F20101111_AAAYWZ mcclister_d_Page_147.pro
87559 F20101111_AAAXMV mcclister_d_Page_122.jpg
131297 F20101111_AAAYJO mcclister_d_Page_038.jp2
29669 F20101111_AAAZGI mcclister_d_Page_030.QC.jpg
6932 F20101111_AAAXMW mcclister_d_Page_040thm.jpg
113434 F20101111_AAAYJP mcclister_d_Page_039.jp2
28269 F20101111_AAAZGJ mcclister_d_Page_261.QC.jpg
28163 F20101111_AAAXMX mcclister_d_Page_290.QC.jpg
123831 F20101111_AAAYJQ mcclister_d_Page_048.jp2
28062 F20101111_AAAZGK mcclister_d_Page_281.QC.jpg
91898 F20101111_AAAXMY mcclister_d_Page_072.jpg
121219 F20101111_AAAYJR mcclister_d_Page_049.jp2
30077 F20101111_AAAZGL mcclister_d_Page_109.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAYJS mcclister_d_Page_050.jp2
28523 F20101111_AAAZGM mcclister_d_Page_148.QC.jpg
78824 F20101111_AAAXMZ mcclister_d_Page_010.pro
116566 F20101111_AAAYJT mcclister_d_Page_052.jp2
28492 F20101111_AAAZGN mcclister_d_Page_220.QC.jpg
27506 F20101111_AAAWVA mcclister_d_Page_138.QC.jpg
128063 F20101111_AAAYJU mcclister_d_Page_054.jp2
26841 F20101111_AAAZGO mcclister_d_Page_133.QC.jpg
86707 F20101111_AAAWVB mcclister_d_Page_229.jpg
30035 F20101111_AAAZGP mcclister_d_Page_079.QC.jpg
104058 F20101111_AAAWVC mcclister_d_Page_291.jpg
115201 F20101111_AAAYJV mcclister_d_Page_056.jp2
27541 F20101111_AAAZGQ mcclister_d_Page_121.QC.jpg
119311 F20101111_AAAYJW mcclister_d_Page_060.jp2
132237 F20101111_AAAWVD mcclister_d_Page_263.jp2
113352 F20101111_AAAYJX mcclister_d_Page_063.jp2
6492 F20101111_AAAZGR mcclister_d_Page_053thm.jpg
2139 F20101111_AAAWVE mcclister_d_Page_121.txt
125719 F20101111_AAAYJY mcclister_d_Page_065.jp2
30424 F20101111_AAAZGS mcclister_d_Page_191.QC.jpg
109569 F20101111_AAAWVF mcclister_d_Page_066.jp2
117253 F20101111_AAAYJZ mcclister_d_Page_067.jp2
7181 F20101111_AAAZGT mcclister_d_Page_027thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAWVG mcclister_d_Page_196.txt
6254 F20101111_AAAZGU mcclister_d_Page_036thm.jpg
28962 F20101111_AAAWVH mcclister_d_Page_085.QC.jpg
2134 F20101111_AAAXSA mcclister_d_Page_231.txt
28194 F20101111_AAAZGV mcclister_d_Page_236.QC.jpg
98453 F20101111_AAAWVI mcclister_d_Page_059.jpg
54891 F20101111_AAAXSB mcclister_d_Page_268.pro
30658 F20101111_AAAZGW mcclister_d_Page_167.QC.jpg
2211 F20101111_AAAWVJ mcclister_d_Page_269.txt
F20101111_AAAXSC mcclister_d_Page_114.txt
25776 F20101111_AAAZGX mcclister_d_Page_215.QC.jpg
118872 F20101111_AAAWVK mcclister_d_Page_145.jp2
93088 F20101111_AAAXSD mcclister_d_Page_216.jpg
27223 F20101111_AAAZGY mcclister_d_Page_039.QC.jpg
6699 F20101111_AAAWVL mcclister_d_Page_150thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAXSE mcclister_d_Page_266.tif
27650 F20101111_AAAZGZ mcclister_d_Page_123.QC.jpg
53093 F20101111_AAAWVM mcclister_d_Page_244.pro
9005 F20101111_AAAXSF mcclister_d_Page_006.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAWVN mcclister_d_Page_001.tif
104209 F20101111_AAAXSG mcclister_d_Page_252.jpg
F20101111_AAAWVO mcclister_d_Page_056.tif
29139 F20101111_AAAXSH mcclister_d_Page_194.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAYPA mcclister_d_Page_053.tif
F20101111_AAAWVP mcclister_d_Page_271thm.jpg
6733 F20101111_AAAXSI mcclister_d_Page_194thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAYPB mcclister_d_Page_054.tif
72551 F20101111_AAAWVQ mcclister_d_Page_055.pro
F20101111_AAAXSJ mcclister_d_Page_126.txt
F20101111_AAAYPC mcclister_d_Page_057.tif
2759 F20101111_AAAWVR mcclister_d_Page_163.txt
2204 F20101111_AAAXSK mcclister_d_Page_172.txt
F20101111_AAAYPD mcclister_d_Page_058.tif
90661 F20101111_AAAWVS mcclister_d_Page_148.jpg
92138 F20101111_AAAXSL mcclister_d_Page_046.jp2
F20101111_AAAYPE mcclister_d_Page_059.tif
F20101111_AAAXFA mcclister_d_Page_085.tif
125599 F20101111_AAAWVT mcclister_d_Page_154.jp2
F20101111_AAAXSM mcclister_d_Page_295.tif
F20101111_AAAYPF mcclister_d_Page_061.tif
123277 F20101111_AAAXFB mcclister_d_Page_178.jp2
123898 F20101111_AAAWVU mcclister_d_Page_235.jp2
28013 F20101111_AAAXSN mcclister_d_Page_097.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAYPG mcclister_d_Page_063.tif
F20101111_AAAXFC mcclister_d_Page_064.tif
30983 F20101111_AAAZMA mcclister_d_Page_134.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAWVV mcclister_d_Page_071thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAXSO mcclister_d_Page_030.txt
F20101111_AAAYPH mcclister_d_Page_066.tif
F20101111_AAAXFD mcclister_d_Page_223thm.jpg
26449 F20101111_AAAZMB mcclister_d_Page_205.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAWVW mcclister_d_Page_035.tif
F20101111_AAAXSP mcclister_d_Page_221.tif
F20101111_AAAYPI mcclister_d_Page_068.tif
29386 F20101111_AAAXFE mcclister_d_Page_242.QC.jpg
6706 F20101111_AAAZMC mcclister_d_Page_074thm.jpg
118067 F20101111_AAAWVX mcclister_d_Page_174.jp2
30482 F20101111_AAAXSQ mcclister_d_Page_252.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAYPJ mcclister_d_Page_069.tif
58097 F20101111_AAAXFF mcclister_d_Page_049.pro
6398 F20101111_AAAZMD mcclister_d_Page_121thm.jpg
149511 F20101111_AAAWVY mcclister_d_Page_098.jp2
56363 F20101111_AAAXSR mcclister_d_Page_261.pro
F20101111_AAAYPK mcclister_d_Page_070.tif
6985 F20101111_AAAXFG mcclister_d_Page_059thm.jpg
6995 F20101111_AAAZME mcclister_d_Page_287thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAWVZ mcclister_d_Page_264.tif
F20101111_AAAYCA mcclister_d_Page_004.tif
30477 F20101111_AAAXSS mcclister_d_Page_107.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAYPL mcclister_d_Page_071.tif
F20101111_AAAXFH mcclister_d_Page_211.tif
27256 F20101111_AAAZMF mcclister_d_Page_229.QC.jpg
28664 F20101111_AAAYCB mcclister_d_Page_207.QC.jpg
121152 F20101111_AAAXST mcclister_d_Page_206.jp2
F20101111_AAAYPM mcclister_d_Page_073.tif
F20101111_AAAXFI mcclister_d_Page_201.QC.jpg
6778 F20101111_AAAZMG mcclister_d_Page_217thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAYCC mcclister_d_Page_139.tif
28430 F20101111_AAAXSU mcclister_d_Page_259.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAYPN mcclister_d_Page_075.tif
F20101111_AAAXFJ mcclister_d_Page_093thm.jpg
27626 F20101111_AAAZMH mcclister_d_Page_174.QC.jpg
6523 F20101111_AAAYCD mcclister_d_Page_212thm.jpg
117742 F20101111_AAAXSV mcclister_d_Page_073.jp2
F20101111_AAAYPO mcclister_d_Page_076.tif
27767 F20101111_AAAXFK mcclister_d_Page_225.QC.jpg
29335 F20101111_AAAZMI mcclister_d_Page_127.QC.jpg
28369 F20101111_AAAYCE mcclister_d_Page_288.QC.jpg
111548 F20101111_AAAXSW mcclister_d_Page_224.jp2
F20101111_AAAYPP mcclister_d_Page_077.tif
F20101111_AAAXFL mcclister_d_Page_145thm.jpg
26952 F20101111_AAAZMJ mcclister_d_Page_249.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAYCF mcclister_d_Page_254.QC.jpg
2651 F20101111_AAAXSX mcclister_d_Page_291.txt
F20101111_AAAYPQ mcclister_d_Page_081.tif
50745 F20101111_AAAXFM mcclister_d_Page_146.jpg
31310 F20101111_AAAZMK mcclister_d_Page_020.QC.jpg
59634 F20101111_AAAYCG mcclister_d_Page_294.pro
96459 F20101111_AAAXSY mcclister_d_Page_030.jpg
F20101111_AAAYPR mcclister_d_Page_082.tif
6195 F20101111_AAAXFN mcclister_d_Page_215thm.jpg
6890 F20101111_AAAZML mcclister_d_Page_037thm.jpg
46648 F20101111_AAAYCH mcclister_d_Page_204.pro
6774 F20101111_AAAXSZ mcclister_d_Page_262thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAYPS mcclister_d_Page_083.tif
59314 F20101111_AAAXFO mcclister_d_Page_011.pro
24594 F20101111_AAAZMM mcclister_d_Page_187.QC.jpg
87229 F20101111_AAAYCI mcclister_d_Page_081.jpg
F20101111_AAAYPT mcclister_d_Page_090.tif
121035 F20101111_AAAXFP mcclister_d_Page_171.jp2
6611 F20101111_AAAZMN mcclister_d_Page_070thm.jpg
2127 F20101111_AAAYCJ mcclister_d_Page_237.txt
F20101111_AAAYPU mcclister_d_Page_091.tif
7039 F20101111_AAAXFQ mcclister_d_Page_173thm.jpg
28754 F20101111_AAAZMO mcclister_d_Page_171.QC.jpg
29783 F20101111_AAAYCK mcclister_d_Page_096.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAYPV mcclister_d_Page_093.tif
F20101111_AAAXFR mcclister_d_Page_207.txt
6757 F20101111_AAAZMP mcclister_d_Page_181thm.jpg
57525 F20101111_AAAYCL mcclister_d_Page_273.pro
F20101111_AAAYPW mcclister_d_Page_097.tif
6334 F20101111_AAAZMQ mcclister_d_Page_069thm.jpg
117961 F20101111_AAAYCM mcclister_d_Page_177.jp2
F20101111_AAAYPX mcclister_d_Page_098.tif
25426 F20101111_AAAXFS mcclister_d_Page_251.QC.jpg
28386 F20101111_AAAZMR mcclister_d_Page_125.QC.jpg
2271 F20101111_AAAYCN mcclister_d_Page_179.txt
F20101111_AAAYPY mcclister_d_Page_104.tif
F20101111_AAAXFT mcclister_d_Page_009.tif
30636 F20101111_AAAZMS mcclister_d_Page_183.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAYPZ mcclister_d_Page_106.tif
92436 F20101111_AAAXFU mcclister_d_Page_009.jpg
29583 F20101111_AAAZMT mcclister_d_Page_195.QC.jpg
103473 F20101111_AAAYCO mcclister_d_Page_187.jp2
137863 F20101111_AAAXFV mcclister_d_Page_260.jp2
28594 F20101111_AAAZMU mcclister_d_Page_199.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAXYA mcclister_d_Page_246.tif
109686 F20101111_AAAYCP mcclister_d_Page_161.jpg
60138 F20101111_AAAXFW mcclister_d_Page_193.pro
6997 F20101111_AAAZMV mcclister_d_Page_166thm.jpg
2373 F20101111_AAAXYB mcclister_d_Page_084.txt
99628 F20101111_AAAYCQ mcclister_d_Page_255.jpg
29673 F20101111_AAAXFX mcclister_d_Page_164.QC.jpg
30661 F20101111_AAAZMW mcclister_d_Page_184.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAXYC mcclister_d_Page_282.txt
6866 F20101111_AAAYCR mcclister_d_Page_290thm.jpg
125477 F20101111_AAAXFY mcclister_d_Page_191.jp2
122086 F20101111_AAAXYD mcclister_d_Page_044.jp2
6653 F20101111_AAAYCS mcclister_d_Page_028thm.jpg
35746 F20101111_AAAXFZ mcclister_d_Page_297.pro
6573 F20101111_AAAZMX mcclister_d_Page_233thm.jpg
55051 F20101111_AAAXYE mcclister_d_Page_073.pro
1070399 F20101111_AAAYCT mcclister_d.pdf
29234 F20101111_AAAZMY mcclister_d_Page_130.QC.jpg
344068 F20101111_AAAYCU UFE0021949_00001.mets
6998 F20101111_AAAZMZ mcclister_d_Page_260thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAXYF mcclister_d_Page_260.tif
29077 F20101111_AAAXYG mcclister_d_Page_163.QC.jpg
61859 F20101111_AAAYVA mcclister_d_Page_064.pro
2282 F20101111_AAAXYH mcclister_d_Page_217.txt
18967 F20101111_AAAYCX mcclister_d_Page_001.jpg
92794 F20101111_AAAXYI mcclister_d_Page_152.jpg
3426 F20101111_AAAYCY mcclister_d_Page_002.jpg
60672 F20101111_AAAYVB mcclister_d_Page_065.pro
2065 F20101111_AAAXYJ mcclister_d_Page_036.txt
14066 F20101111_AAAYCZ mcclister_d_Page_003.jpg
53137 F20101111_AAAYVC mcclister_d_Page_066.pro
122944 F20101111_AAAXYK mcclister_d_Page_147.jp2
55084 F20101111_AAAYVD mcclister_d_Page_067.pro
116345 F20101111_AAAXYL mcclister_d_Page_071.jp2
50352 F20101111_AAAYVE mcclister_d_Page_068.pro
F20101111_AAAXLA mcclister_d_Page_045.tif
27699 F20101111_AAAXYM mcclister_d_Page_232.QC.jpg
51222 F20101111_AAAYVF mcclister_d_Page_069.pro
133352 F20101111_AAAXLB mcclister_d_Page_107.jp2
6672 F20101111_AAAXYN mcclister_d_Page_041thm.jpg
55842 F20101111_AAAYVG mcclister_d_Page_071.pro
F20101111_AAAXLC mcclister_d_Page_063.txt
27557 F20101111_AAAZSA mcclister_d_Page_240.QC.jpg
137473 F20101111_AAAXYO mcclister_d_Page_027.jp2
60385 F20101111_AAAYVH mcclister_d_Page_075.pro
1462 F20101111_AAAXLD mcclister_d_Page_297.txt
6614 F20101111_AAAZSB mcclister_d_Page_240thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAXYP mcclister_d_Page_146.tif
56491 F20101111_AAAYVI mcclister_d_Page_076.pro
F20101111_AAAXLE mcclister_d_Page_152.txt
27285 F20101111_AAAZSC mcclister_d_Page_244.QC.jpg
F20101111_AAAXYQ mcclister_d_Page_034thm.jpg
59185 F20101111_AAAYVJ mcclister_d_Page_077.pro
95363 F20101111_AAAXLF mcclister_d_Page_196.jpg
6918 F20101111_AAAZSD mcclister_d_Page_245thm.jpg
F20101111_AAAXYR mcclister_d_Page_028.tif
56328 F20101111_AAAYVK mcclister_d_Page_078.pro
2595 F20101111_AAAXLG mcclister_d_Page_134.txt
6724 F20101111_AAAZSE mcclister_d_Page_256thm.jpg
2159 F20101111_AAAXYS mcclister_d_Page_033.txt
57779 F20101111_AAAYVL mcclister_d_Page_079.pro
28097 F20101111_AAAXLH mcclister_d_Page_213.QC.jpg
93288 F20101111_AAAYIA mcclister_d_Page_261.jpg







2008 David McClister

To the memory of my father, Dorval L. McClister, who instilled in me a love of learning;
to the memory of Dr. Phil Roberts, my esteemed colleague;
and to my wife, Lisa, without whose support this dissertation, or much else that I do,
would not have been possible.


I gladly recognize my supervisory committee chair (Dr. Konstantinos Kapparis, Associate

Professor in the Classics Department at the University of Florida). I also wish to thank the other

supervisory committee members (Dr. Jennifer Rea, Dr. Gareth Schmeling, and Dr. Gwynn

Kessler as a reader from the Religious Studies Department). It is an honor to have their

contributions and to work under their guidance. I also wish to thank the library staff at the

University of Florida and at Florida College (especially Ashley Barlar) who did their work so

well and retrieved the research materials necessary for this project. I also wish to thank my

family for their patient indulgence as I have robbed them of time to give attention to the work

necessary to pursue my academic interests.

BWGRKL [Greek] Postscript Type 1 and TrueTypeT font Copyright 1994-2006

BibleWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. These Biblical Greek and Hebrew fonts are used with

permission and are from BibleWorks, software for Biblical exegesis and research.



A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ..............................................................................................................4

ABSTRAC T .......................................................................... 7


1 INTRODUCTION ............... ................. ........... ................................ .9

Josephu s and H is W ritings...................................................................... ......................... 9
The Bellum Judaicum ............................................................ ........ .... 13
T he A n tiquita tes Judaicae ............................................ ............................................. 19
The Vita and the Contra Apionem ............................................................................. 25
A Brief H history of Research ............................................................................ 29
The Present Study and Its C ontribution................................................................................40

2 ETHNICITY, SELF-DEFINITION, AND THE ANCIENTS ............................................47

T h e C on cept of E th n city ............................................................................. ....................4 7
Greek Ethnicity and the Rom an W orld ............................................................................ 67
Josephus and E ethnicity .......................... ...................... .. .. .... ........ ........... 84
C o n c lu sio n ............ ..................... ................. ....................... ................ 8 9

3 THE MILIEU IN WHICH JOSEPHUS LIVED AND WROTE............................... 93

M istreatm ent of Jew s in Greco-Rom an Society ......................... .................. ..................93
Josephu s' O w n E experiences ............................................... ...................... ......................110
C o n clu sio n ...... ... ................... ......... .......................................................1 14

4 HELLENISTIC CULTURE AND JEWISH ACCULTURATION ...............................1.17

The Q question of Jew ish H ellenization .................................................................................117
C o n c lu sio n ................... ......................................................... ................ 14 4

5 JEWISH ETHNICITY IN JOSPEHUS' BELLUMJUDAICUM................................. 147

The Bellum Judaicum and the Greek Tradition of Historiography .................................... 147
Some Greek Elements Within the Bellum Judaicum ............................... ..................167
C on clu sion ......... .. ......... ....... ......... ....... ........................................................17 8


The Fluid Nature of Foundational History/Myth................ .... ...............181
Examples of Josephus' Positive Portrayal of Jews and Jewish History
by M eans of G reek M odels............................................... .................................. 188

Use of Greek Forms, Paradigms, and Terms .............. ............ ..................... ..........188
Exempla ............. ...... ... .................. ........... ............... 204
Stories of Positive Impressions on Non-Jews ......... .......................... ......213
Management of Negative Impressions ................................. ........................... 217
C o n c lu sio n ........................................... .. .............................................................................2 3 7


T h e V ita .............. ............................................................................................ ............. ..... 2 3 9
The C ontra Apionem ............................ ........................ ..... ............ .. ............. 244
C o n clu sio n ................................64.............................

8 SUM M ARY AND CONCLUSION S............................. .. ............................................. 268

REFERENCE LIST ............................. .................................. 279

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ............................................................................. ....................297


Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy



David McClister

May 2008

Chair: Konstantinos Kapparis
Major: Classical Studies

Flavius Josephus was a Jewish historian who lived in the first century CE. When the First

Jewish War began in 66 CE, Josephus was given a leading role in the defense of Galilee in

northern Palestine. He was captured by the Roman forces and accompanied them to Jerusalem

where he witnessed the fall of the city in 70 CE. After that Josephus was taken to Rome where he

wrote an account of the Jewish war with Rome (the Bellum Judaicum), a history of the Jews (the

Antiquitates Judaicae), a short autobiography (the Vita), and a defense of the antiquity of the

Jews (the Contra Apionem). All of these works were intended for a non-Jewish audience.

Josephus wrote at a time when anti-Jewish sentiments were common, and the recent defeat

at the hands of Rome only exacerbated the negative image ascribed to Jews. It is the thesis of this

dissertation that Josephus produced his literary works not simply to satisfy the curiosity of

interested Gentiles concerning Jewish origins and customs, but to craft and negotiate an ethnicity

for the Jews that would portray them as a people worthy of Roman respect. Ethnic identity is a

social construct that is shaped in a complex matrix of psychological and social factors, and often

in response to a perceived crisis that threatens a person's or group's sense of social belonging.

Josephus lived under the kinds of conditions in which groups typically feel the need to adjust and

reassert their social identity. I suggest that this lens can provide a useful way of reading

Josephus, and can account for the shape and purpose of his works.

Josephus' strategy for creating this ethnic portrait was to depict the Jews as having

essentially the same qualities of the noble Greeks of the past, whom the Romans respected. In

this undertaking Josephus was participating in a long-standing debate within Jewish circles over

the limits and extent of Hellenization among them. What was new was that Josephus used the

vehicle of Greek historiography to accomplish his purpose. All of his literary works drew heavily

on well-known Greek historiographical models for their presentations of the events, their

characterizations of the Jewish people, and their refutations of Gentile slanders. The result was a

picture of Jewish history and piety in which the Jews are seen to embody well-respected Greek


It is not known how widely Josephus' works circulated in his own day or shortly

thereafter, nor do we know how successful they were in their purpose of creating a bold, new

picture of Jewish identity. There are indications that Josephus' works did not effect much change

in how Gentiles viewed Jews in the Roman empire. However, the success of the project

(measured in terms of social acceptance) is not the object of this study, nor is it a criterion for

judging the importance of what Josephus wrote. One of the enduring values of Josephus' works

is that they demonstrate, in antiquity, an attempt by a marginalized group to negotiate an

ethnicity, and thus they provide an important window into the complexities of Jewish life in the

Roman empire.


Josephus and His Writings

Joseph ben Matthias, more commonly known by his Roman name, Flavius Josephus, was

born in Jerusalem in 37/38 CE.1 He grew up among the Jewish aristocracy and dabbled in the

various Jewish religious sects, ultimately deciding to identify himself with the Pharisees. When

he was twenty-six years old (c. 63/64 CE), he participated in a delegation to Rome to plead for

the release of Jewish priests who had been imprisoned by the procurator of Judea, Marcus

Antonius Felix. There he came into contact with influential people in Roman society and

government, including Poppea, Nero's wife. He returned to Palestine and became caught up in

the early stages of the First Jewish War, and in the fall of 66 CE he was put in charge of the

defense of Galilee. Vespasian and the Roman fifth, tenth, and 15th legions arrived in Galilee from

Syria and laid siege to the town of Jotapata where Josephus was serving as general. The town fell

but Josephus was spared because he predicted that Vespasian, as well as his son Titus, would

become emperor. Josephus then accompanied the legionary forces to Jerusalem and witnessed

the fall of the city in 70 CE. After that he was removed to Rome, granted citizenship, and wrote

several literary works.

Josephus' first literary product was an account of the First Jewish War in seven books; his

Jewish War ('IoTopia 'Iouc''Kou TroXEiou T rp6b 'Po~aiou; known later by the Latin title Bellum

Judaicum) was written between 75 and 81 CE,2 possibly under imperial patronage. This work

1 The first year of the emperor Gaius. Vit. 2; BJ 1.3.
2 M. Brighton, The Sicarii in Josephus' Judean War (PhD Diss. University of California,
Irvine, 2005) 58. In Vit. 361 Josephus says amrolt ieTr~6)K TOro ccuTOKpcropot T~& PLPXL'a [d6vov
o v TwV 'pyOv ')i PETro T vV ("I gave the books to the emperors themselves while the events
were all but still being seen"). Parts of the work thus must have been finished before the death of
Vespasian in June of 79 CE. The book seems to show signs of later revision. S. Schwartz, 'The

was first written in an Aramaic version, which has not survived, but Josephus then composed a

version of it in Greek.3 Next he wrote a history of the Jewish people, the Antiquities of the Jews

('Iou6iL'Kfi 'ApXLcaooyL( ; later known by the Latin title Antiquitates Judaicae), in twenty

books, which was published in 93 or 94 CE.4 Josephus' autobiographical work, the Life

('IwooFTrou PLo(; later known as the Vita), which mostly deals with his time as commander in

Galilee, was written between 94 and 96 CE5 and made an appendix to the Antiquitates Judaicae.

The purpose of this short treatise was to defend himself and his conduct during the war against

criticisms that had been leveled by a political rival, Justus of Tiberias. His last literary

production,6 a polemical apologetical treatise in two books, came to be called Against Apion

(Ilepi 'ApXaLTrL6TO 'Iou6aia)v Aoyo; later known by the Latin title Contra Apionem). While

this later Latin title singles out Apion (a well-known Egyptian scholar and literary critic; died c.

45 CE) as the object of the work's response (&vTLpprlotL), he is actually only the subject of the

Composition and Publication of Josephus' "Bellum Judaicum" Book 7', HTR 79 (1986) 373-86.
All translations in this study are my own unless otherwise noted.
3 Josephus says TrpouOietrlv y ToL Karc rilv 'PoU4caov YE0ioviLav 'EXXU&6L yXooi.
[EtrapcPXV 'a TOL &v) pappapoL TO TrccrpL'c ouvrTacL U'VE'TrE4i*a TrpoTEpov 4rly'lo(xoUca ("I
have proposed to relate in the Greek language, for those under Roman rule, translating those
things which I formerly sent to the upper barbarians, having first laid them out in my native
language"). However, e'trapcLdv here is best understood as rewriting instead of translating. The
Greek reads like an original composition and not simply a translation from an Aramaic source.
G. Hata, 'Is the Greek Version of Josephus' "Jewish War" a Translation or a Rewriting of the
First Version?', JQR 66 (1975) 90-6.
4 In AJ20.267, Josephus says "the present day" (Tfj v6v ... Tl~ppa) was the 13th year of
Domitian and Josephus' 56th year. Some scholars working with source-critical tools have
suggested that the AJmay have gone through more than one edition, but the internal evidence for
two editions is slim. D. Barish, 'The "Autobiography" of Josephus and the Hypothesis of a
Second Edition of His "Antiquities",' HTR 71 (1978) 61-71.
5 Barish 75.
6 It has sometimes been suggested that AJ 20.267 indicates that Josephus intended to
write another account of the First Jewish War. The context, however, shows that Josephus was
speaking of the Vita. H. Petersen, 'Real and Alleged Literary Projects of Josephus', AJP 79
(1958) 259-62. Josephus then mentioned (20.268) plans for a theological treatise. Petersen (263-
5) identified it with the Contra Apionem, but Feldman thinks a different work was envisioned (L.
Feldman, Josephus, 9: Jewish Antiquities Books 18-20 (Cambridge, MA 1969) 531.

second book. The treatise addresses claims of several critics of Jews and of Judaism that were

circulating in Josephus' own day, of whom Apion was the most outspoken. As the Greek title

indicates, the basic focus of the work is a defense of the antiquity of the Jewish people, a topic

that had already been addressed in the Antiquitates Judaicae.

The writings of Josephus were transmitted in antiquity by Christian scribes (as all classical

works were), and the edition of Niese, published in seven volumes from 1885 to 1895, has

generally remained the standard scholarly critical edition to the present day. Later editions have

not strayed far from Niese in spite of the fact that his text relied too heavily on too few textual

witnesses. In particular, Niese relied heavily on Codex Palatinus Graecus 14 (P; Vaticanus, 10th

century) for the Vita, and did not give enough consideration to later manuscripts that appear to

have preserved better readings. Similarly, he basically relied on Codex Parisinus Graecus 142

and Codex Ambrosianus (A; Mediolanensis), both from the 10th century, for the Bellum

Judaicum, and Codex Regius Parisinus (R; 14th century) and Codex Oxoniensis (15th century) for

the Antiquitates Judaicae. 8 The Contra Apionem survives in a single exemplar, Codex

Laurentianus (L), which lacks 2.52-113. The missing section is extant in an Old Latin translation

produced under Cassiodorus, c. 550 CE, which has yet to be fully exploited for purposes of

textual criticism of the Greek text.9 The present study uses the Niese edition, and consults the

7 Flavii, Josephi, Opera. Edidit et apparatu critic instruxit Benedictus Niese. 7 vols.
(Berlin 1885-1895). This was the first truly critical Greek text of Josephus. A concise history of
editions appears at the end of E. Schiirer, 'Josephus, Flavius' in S. Jackson (ed.), Schaff-Herzog
Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 6 (Grand Rapids 1953) 236.
8 L. Feldman, 'Flavius Josephus Revisited', in ANRWII.21.2 (New York 1984) 765. The
new commentary on Josephus published by Brill (not yet complete) is based on the Niese text
with few emendations.
9 G. Richards and R. Shutt, 'Critical Notes on Josephus' Antiquities', CQ 31 (1937) 170-

eclectic text of Thackeray, which generally follows Niese and the Teubner edition by Nabero1

and is printed in the Loeb volumes of Josephus.11

Josephus' literary output has secured him a prominent place in later Greek historiography.

The Vita is the only extant pre-Christian autobiography.12 The Bellum Judaicum is our sole

source for most of our knowledge of the First Jewish War,13 and has also long been of interest to

historians for its portrayal of the political situation behind the revolt, to scholars of Judaism and

Jewish history as an important source of information for a key moment in that history and for the

diverse nature of Judaism in the first century CE, and to New Testament scholars as a source of

information for an important period of earliest Christianity. The monumental Antiquitates

Judaicae is the only complete, full-scale secular account of Jewish history to survive antiquity14

and was a remarkable attempt to introduce Jewish history and religion to the Gentile world. The

Vita and Contra Apionem provide striking examples of direct apologetic confrontation with

Hellenistic culture. Together the writings of Josephus provide us with an invaluable and wide

view of the complexities of Jewish life within the Roman empire. Most significant for this study

is the fact that Josephus stands in a unique place among the ancient Hellenistic historiographers

because he had a foot in three different worlds at the same time: Jewish, Roman, and Greek.

10 S. Naber, Flavii losephi opera omnia. 6 vols. (Leipzig 1888-1896).
11 H. Thackeray, R. Marcus, and L. Feldman (trans.), Josephus. 9 vols. (Loeb Classical
Library; Cambridge, MA 1956-1969). Of this text, Feldman says "there have been few reasons
for challenging, in any substantial way, the readings of that text." L. Feldman, Judean Antiquities
1-4: Translation and Commentary (Leiden 2000) xxxvii.
12 S. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome. His Vita and Development as a Historian
(Boston 2002), 101.
13 Dio Cassius' description of the siege of Jerusalem (66.4.1-7.2) is the only other
substantial account. Tacitus has a short account of the war in Hist. 5.1-13, and Suetonius'
biographies of the Flavian emperors mention scattered details. A summary of the non-Josephan
data is in S. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 243-60.
14 The only other work that comes close is the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum by Pseudo-
Philo, written some time in the first century CE, and which selectively covers the Biblical
narrative from Genesis to the death of king Saul.

The Bellum Judaicum

The questions of the original target audience of Josephus' works, and why he felt

compelled to write them, are complicated. Josephus says that the Aramaic version of the Bellum

Judaicum was written roLt &vvo pUppUdpoL; ("to the upper barbarians").15 These people could be

the same ones mentioned a few lines later, Ii&p0ouv ptv Ka~ BapuXwovouo 'Ap&pov rU Toi~

TroppWordTo K~L TOb irTp Ei6ppdnTrv 6[6()uXov tiiv 'A6Laprlvot; ("the Parthians and the

Babylonians, the farthest Arabians and our fellow-countrymen beyond the Euphrates, and the

Adiabenenes").16 It seems easier to believe that Josephus wrote his original account in Aramaic

for Palestinian Jews, since that was their (and his) native language, and to conclude with Rajak

that "We have, then, to take it that Josephus is fancifully exaggerating or engaging in a certain

amount of wishful thinking when he extends his prospective readership beyond his own people

to the oriental world at large.""17

Josephus never specifically identifies the intended audience of his Greek version of the

Bellum Judaicum other than to say that KdyG) l)v &VXOA[Lc4aoL KcdL TrOvoL 4teyioLTOL d&XXduXoO

c(3v "EXX1iOL TE KUCL 'PW4icLOL rTi4v ~vTI~Tri T^iV KaropOWaciTov &'v(OerlIOL ("I, with great

expenses and labors, being a foreigner, am presenting this record of accomplishments to both

Greeks and Romans")18 and TrpouOiTrlv EyY TotoL Kar& Tiv 'PoLacaov liy't~ovav ("I have set

forth [an account] for those under Roman rule").19 Mason has suggested a Roman audience was

particularly in view,20 and Josephus says that the emperor Titus himself gave the work his

15 BJ1.3.
16 BJ 1.6.
17 T. Rajak, Josephus: The Historian andHis Society (Philadelphia 1983) 181.
18 BJ 1.16. He similarly mentions both Greeks and Romans as his target audience in 1.6.
19BJ 1.3.
20 S. Mason, Josephus and the New Testament (Peabody 1992) 64.

approval.21 However, a wider audience cannot be ruled out and, in fact, seems warranted.

Josephus was well aware of the differences between Greeks and Romans; he distinguished

between them often enough in his writings. Thus when he says that he wrote for both Greeks and

Romans, it must mean that he had more than just a Roman audience in mind. He aimed his work

at the general Hellenistic reading public made up of both groups. It is most reasonable to believe,

then, that the Bellum Judaicum was intended generally for the Greek-speaking world of the

Roman empire which would include Romans, Greeks, and Josephus' own people, the Jews, most

of whom were conversant in Greek as well.22 The fact that the emperor gave it his approval need

not mean that Josephus' account was aimed only at a Roman audience. It simply means that the

emperor judged it to be appropriate reading for the general public of the empire.

What purpose was the Bellum Judaicum intended to serve? Josephus does not explicitly

say why he wrote his first, Aramaic account. Many earlier scholars believed it was written to

discourage further rebellion in the east,23 and that the Greek version of the Bellum Judaicum

served the same purpose for Palestinian Jews. However, this view has increasingly come to be

questioned by modem scholars. The approach that the Bellum Judaicum served as Roman

imperial propaganda first does not do justice to the nature of Josephus' account, which does not

portray the revolt as stemming from the Jewish people generally nor from the Jews in Palestine

as a whole. Josephus lays the blame for the war on a minority of Jews who were bent on causing

21 Ap. 1.50-52; Vit. 1.363.
22 Rajak concludes that "the Jewish Diaspora was always the primary setting for Josephus
as a writer" and "what Josephus wrote was a report on a tragic event, issued for those who were
interested" (Josephus: The Historian and His Society 178 and 184).
23 Thackeray's suggestion was typical: "Josephus was commissioned by the conquerors
to write the official history of the war for propagandist purposes. It was a manifesto, intended as
a warning to the East of the futility of further opposition and to allay the after-war thirst for
revenge, which ultimately found vent in the fierce out-breaks under Trajan and Hadrian." H. St.
John Thackeray, Josephus: The Man and the Historian (New York 1929) 27.

trouble and who defiled the Jewish temple in doing so. He also depicts the Romans as having had

good relations with the Jews until the war, and reluctant to destroy the city during the war.24

Even more, the Bellum Judaicum was designed to show that Judaism and Roman power were not

incompatible, as the Jewish God used the Romans to punish the rebels in Jerusalem. This is

hardly imperial propaganda.25 These considerations make it unlikely that his account was

designed for application to politics on the larger level of the client kingdom26 or for application

to those nations that had hostile intentions toward Rome.

The Greek version of the Bellum Judaicum did not have a (Roman) propagandist purpose

either, as Josephus' own statements in his introduction show. Josephus was well aware that

historiography could be, and regularly was, written for purposes other than recording the events,

or was exploited for political purposes. He notes:

ol iv ou TrUxpUXTuXO6vTE TOL; Trpcy[txoJLV ULXX' C(KOT oUXXEyovTE EKiC(L Kc(L &Cdt(XOVX
6LTryilJXTaa CO0LOTLKG;) 'VxypUd(OU)OLV, ol TrcapayEv1JEvo L 6e KOXCaKiEL- T TI Trp6(
Poaicaou "i [JLLOCEL TO) TrTp6 'Iou6aLOUi Kaa(XEU6OvTaXL 'TUV TTpayt(Xl)v TTEPLE'XEL 6 ai)TOiL
O7TOIu tV KaTIryopLCav O"TrOu 6e E'yKG 4Lov rTC ouyypY[aL4Ua TO 6' 'lKpLPe Ttr LoopTaPL(X

("Those who were not present for these events, but having gathered random and discordant
bits from rumor, write narratives sophistically, and those who were present, either for

24 See, e.g., BJ 1.10.
25 M. Goodman, "Josephus as Roman Citizen," in F. Parente and J. Sievers (eds.),
Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smithi
(Studia Post-Biblica 41, Leiden 1994) 337-8.
26 Cf Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society, 181: .. it is hard to see how
Josephus' subject-matter could ever have served to deliver a short, sharp message to the east. It is
hardly plausible that the news of Rome's effective suppression of a petty province in revolt
would have much impressed the ruler of a great empire like Parthia." Thus when Josephus says
(3.108) Tac0Ca ev olv 6t &e0XOv ou 'PPoucLouI E'Trcavioa( Trpoa(pokU[evo; TOOOUTOV Ooov 'EL; T
TrOapa uOLav TWoV KEXELp OEvov) KL EL( UTroTroTriV Tv T VEw veo tpLCt(6ov ("I have therefore
recounted these things, not as preferring to commend the Romans, but for the comfort of those
who have been conquered and for the prevention of those who make insurrection"), we should
probably understand this to mean that he hoped any surviving radical faction in Judea would not
attempt a second revolt.

flattery to the Romans or hatred against the Jews, falsely report the events, and their
writings contain either accusation or encomium, but nowhere historical accuracy").27

In the Antiquitates Judaicae, he referred to the Bellum Judaicum saying EpLUo'rIv EK6Lr y oacoacL

6tL Tobi) v TO yp)eitLv AuLcatvopvoui trv d~&XOLtav ("I was compelled to set out the truth in

detail on account of those who are doing harm in their writings"). He therefore made a careful

point that he was aware of the extremes to which historiography was subject. While he claimed

that T6v 'Iou6calv Trp6b 'Po4Uioui TrOlXElov ouoTivr 4[EYLoTov ou 46vov TGrV KcO' 'i4i& oXE66v

6 KcL o)v d(KOT TrcapELXl4 ~tv ev Ti TroXEWv Trpb6 Tr6OXEL( ij EOvc6v 'EOveoL ouppcayvuov ("the war of

the Jews with Rome constituted the greatest war, not only of those which have been in our time

but also nearly the greatest of which we have received a report, either of city fighting with city or

nation with nation"),28 he also criticized other historians and their accounts of the war saying

pouAovTcaL Fev y&p teyay'ou Toib 'Pwoicaou dULTro6ELKVUtLV KaWErapXXouoLV 6i dU'L Tr& 'Iou6i5 v

KaL TaTrTLvoOUoLV ouX 6opG 6E TrT(; aV ELvaCL t 5EYdXOL 6OKOEV OiL LKpOi) VEVLKrIK6OtE ("they

wish to demonstrate Roman greatness, but they constantly put down and lessen the actions of the

Jews, but I do not see how those who have defeated the little might be considered to be great").29

He gives further notice that Ob pT iv ey T otL ; eTTrpouoiL & .'Paio.CLv VTL..XOVELKG)V cuELv T&

TU6V 64io01Xvv 6Li~yvV ("I for my part have determined not to exalt the deeds of my fellow-

countrymen out of jealousy against those who exaggerate the deeds of the Romans"). It seems

clear that Josephus did not see himself as writing military or political propaganda for either side.

The theory that Josephus wrote to discourage rebellion also puts him in a compromising

position personally, since he himself participated in the rebellion in Palestine, and discouraging

rebellion would make him look like a traitor to his own people. There was definitely a tension in

27 BJ 1.1-2.
28 J 1.1.
29 BJ 1.7-8.

which Josephus found himself as he wrote under Roman sponsorship. He had to take care not to

offend his imperial patron, and at the same time he felt loyalty to his people and homeland. The

degree to which this compromised Josephus' portrayal of things is an ongoing debate. However,

it is clear that Josephus himself was aware of this tension, and he addressed it at the beginning of

his work. He says Toik 6' EiTr TO p&yTpayc CL X6youi &d(miOT1 L r 6iacOeoEL KcL TOlt( EiauTro

TrOaeoL 6i60Ob) oTT~opeoOcaL Ti T~i rarpL6oa ou( opait ("but I attribute my words on the

events to my disposition and to my own feelings, being given over to lament for the calamities of

my homeland")30 and el 6' TuL; oca Trpbc Toi) rupavvouv ij ~b orpoTLKbV CdmTV KCrTIyopLKw(5

XEYOL[EV "i TOL 6U5OT)UXULCxo L Trf| TrrXpL6o0 ETTrLoiTEvovUE ouiKO4)vVTOLrT 6L66T r Trap&U TObv Tr

LoTopiCLa v6Lov ouyyvylv rv Tc TracOEL ("if indeed there should be someone who with complaint

might slander what we might say accusingly about the tyrants or their piracy or the ill fortune of

my homeland, let him give sympathetic indulgence for what is outside the standard of the

historian").31 Either Josephus was feigning patriotism, or he truly lamented the recent calamity.

And if he was a traitor, then why write an account that attempted to absolve the majority of Jews

of blame? The nature of the account itself suggests that Josephus was no traitor to his people. He

thought that the best policy for him was not to deny that his closeness to the events affected his

portrayal of them. Josephus was aware of his delicate position, personally and politically, and

thought of himself neither as a traitor to his people nor as the author of imperial propaganda.

Josephus' purpose in the Greek Bellum Judaicum was instead corrective and apologetic.

The passages quoted above repeatedly refer to inaccuracies of other accounts of the war due

largely in part to a desire either to flatter the Romans or to denigrate the Jews (or both). Of other

accounts he says KaclOL ye LGoopiap a(c M& TTLypdeLVL T'OXtLooLV E v ale Trpopbc TO~ ti6ev iyLi~

30 BJ 1.9.
31 BJ1.11.

6rlXouv KcL TOl GKOTrOU 6OKOUOLV 'E'OLyE 6LaUaprUveLv ("Although they [other historians of the

war] presume to entitle their accounts 'histories,' in which additionally they set forth nothing that

is sound, they seem to me to miss their own mark completely").32 He also remarks &roTrov

Tyrlodivo[EVO TrepLL6tLV TrXCa(o[ivv EiTrI TirrLKOuToL( TrpUy4Uao[ L Triv &XAd'OELcv ("I thought it

improper to ignore the straying from the truth on such great matters")33 and r& p v 'ipya ErT'

U&KpLPELXa &0q oTEpov Gi EEL[L ("I am setting forth the deeds of both sides with precision").34

Such bold claims invite public scrutiny and are not the kinds of things one would normally

propose if he were writing slanted political propaganda knowingly filled with historical


Josephus may have been refuting a wide-spread view that the Jewish populace of Palestine

as a whole started and actively participated in the war, or that Jews everywhere were the enemies

of the Romans. As cases in point, Tacitus prefaced his account of the Jewish revolt with a

polemic against Jewish character (Hist. 5.5), and in Philostratus' biography of Apollonius of

Tyana we hear Euphrates say EKELVOL [EV y&p TraXca 4eorTaoLV oi [6ovov TPwo[laov, UXX& Kc d

Trrowv T vOpGpTrwov ("For they [Jews] have long been in revolt not only against the Romans, but

against all men").35 Josephus was careful to note that this idea, that all Jews everywhere were

united in anti-Roman sentiment, belonged to the rebels alone, and it never materialized: TrEL6il

'IouGaio6 L [iv &Trrcv TO iTrrp Ei)4p&Trlv 6d6ul)XOv ouveTrrpO'CFEoeoca o LoV iVrrLocav ("these Jews

hoped that all their kinsmen beyond the Euphrates would join with them"),36 and in the

Antiquitates Judaicae he says TOv TreEuraETov KovrE Trpboc 'P[uLaioUc KaCTorIoav ("[the Jews]

32 BJ 1.6.
33 BJ1.6.
34 BJ 1.9.
35 5.33.
36 BJ 1.5.

unwillingly engaged this last [war] with the Romans").37 His sympathetic, almost forgiving

picture of Titus further suggests that Josephus was also hoping to temper Jewish attitudes toward

Rome.38 Such an apologetic approach fits well with what we know about Josephus' other

writings (discussed below) and with the conclusion drawn above about the intended audience of

the account. I will suggest below that there is another function of this account, but it is necessary

to discuss Josephus' other writings first.

The Antiquitates Judaicae

Concerning the Antiquitates Judaicae, Josephus claimed that he wrote for interested

persons in the Greek-speaking world: TaUcrlv 6' Ti~v E'veoT oav EYKEXELpLoCaL TrpayarTEiav

vopI(ov iTracoL axvetLoUa L TotL "EEXXTIrOL &&iav oTrou6fji ("I have taken this present work in

hand believing that it will appear worthy of attention to all the Greeks").39 In 16.8 he says

leXXouoLV aL T'L)V it[ETEPov TTrpOEWV Ud'vyp'cL TrO TrXEov eL Tuoik "EXrlXvaw L~EivL ("the

records of our deeds are intended to be mostly for the Greeks"), and at the end of that work he

says again X'yo) 6i OQapoa ca iM6rl 6tL Tiiv TGOv TrpoteO vrov ouvri eLtLV OT6L r6eti; v 'eTEpo(

Ti6uv-'Oir OEXA'-oca iT "r 'Iou56XLo( 4t'iT E XXOdiuXo( Triv Trpxy4xiEL'xv TaTUTr-v oT1 UwV ULKpLP63(; EL

"EXArvaX EeveyKEiV ("I indeed say boldly now at the completion of this task that no one else

could be so willing, neither among Jews or foreigners, to carry out this undertaking so accurately

for the Greeks").40

An examination of the introduction to the Antiquitates Judaicae reveals Josephus' purpose

for the work. The first thing the reader encounters is a different kind of statement of the motive

for writing the history from that found in the Bellum Judaicum. In that previous work there were

37 AJ 1.6.
38 Cf Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 61.
39AJ 1.5.
40 AJ20.262.

several references to faulty accounts of the war with Rome, and Josephus said he wrote to correct

them. Here in the Antiquitates Judaicae, however, there are no explicit references to other works

that stand in need of correction. What Josephus emphasized instead for the Antiquitates Judaicae

is that he wrote to meet a public interest in Jewish history. He reports that others, including his

patron, Epaphroditus, also encouraged the work: 'oav 6E TLve o1' Tro6Go Tf(; i[oopia, iTr' aUrnv

tE TrpoU'pETrOV KUCL 4t x.LOTc 61 Tra Tov 'ETrrapdGLTro( ("There were some who, with desire for

our history, urged me upon it, and especially more than all, Epaphroditus").41 Besides this,

Josephus added' TL KUCKELVU Trp6o TotL; elpT[livot; XoyLtodtevoc 0o Tr(pEpyi)o TrEpi T TOJv

T14ieTEpov TrpoyOvov EL ET 6L6OVUcL TUJV ToLoUlOV ijOEXov KMIL TrEpi TJ;v 'EXX'Avov E'L TLVEt

amtuv yvcvaLt T& Trap' rt\iv EavoroG6aav ("and in addition to these reasons I was thinking not

cursorily about whether our ancestors wished to share these things and about whether some of

those among the Greeks were eager to know the things concerning us").42 In fact, Josephus

portrayed himself as responding to the same kind of interest in Jewish things and the general

Hellenistic love of knowledge43 that supposedly prompted the production of the Septuagint in the

third century BCE for Gentile readers, and drew a parallel between himself and the Antiquitates

Judaicae on the one hand, and Eleazar the priest and the Septuagint on the other hand.44

41 AJ 1.8. Epaphroditus is mentioned as the patron of the AJ, Vit., and Ap. His identity
cannot be correlated with certainty with others of the same name who are known to us from
antiquity. See H. Cotton and W. Eck, 'Josephus' Roman Audience: Josephus and the Roman
Elites', in J. Edmondson et al (eds.), Flavius Josephus andFlavian Rome (Oxford 2005) 49-52.
42 AJ 1.9.
43InAJ 1.12 he says Ev6OiLto ... T( paotCLXE 6e Tro oi0u 6oiLGX) iUTroXapetL KMaL V)V ELvaL
LXo[ao^OELt ("and I likewise thought ... to suppose that, there are many even now who, like the
king, are lovers of learning").
44 AJ 1.10-12. Josephus knew the so-called Letter ofAristeas, which purports to narrate
the circumstances behind the production of the Greek Torah in Alexandria in the time of Ptolemy
II. He gives his version of the story, closely following the Letter, in AJ 12:11-118. According to
the Letter, Eleazar was the name of the Jewish high priest whom Ptolemy contacted in order to

Josephus even suggested that his service to the Greek-speaking world in the Antiquitates

Judaicae was greater than that of the Septuagint, since the Septuagint produced under Eleazar

contained only the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, but his own account covered the entire

history of the Jews.45

All of this was certainly an ambitious picture given that Gentiles were, by all indications,

generally uninterested in the history or customs of the Jews. As Tcherikover noted, "the

translation of the Holy Scriptures into Greek made no impression whatsoever in the Greek world,

since in the whole of Greek literature there is no indication that the Greeks read the Bible before

the Christian period."46 We may therefore characterize Josephus' picture of a general public that

is hungry to learn of Judaism as a rhetorical touch designed to generate interest in his account. It

is the same kind of ambitious promotion of his work that was noticed above in the Bellum

Judaicum.47 However overstated this was, it is clear that Josephus wrote the Antiquitates

translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Since Josephus was himself a priest, the comparison
no doubt seemed natural.
45 AJ 1.12-13.
46 V. Tcherikover, 'Jewish Apocalyptic Literature Reconsidered,' Eos 48 (1956) 177. Cf
also J. Barclay, 'Apologetics in the Jewish Diaspora,' in J. Bartlett (ed.), Jews in the Hellenistic
Roman Cities (London 2002) 141.
47 The claim may be exaggerated but not wholly untrue. Some Gentiles in Rome were
interested in Judaism, for Tacitus mentions Jewish proselytes in Rome in Hist. 5.5. Philo and
Josephus both speak of proselytes with sufficient regularity to give the impression that they
could be found everywhere, and proselytism was the reason given for Jewish expulsions in Rome
in 139 BCE and 19 CE (D.C. 57.18.5a). Mason says that the evidence shows that "the only
reasonable hypothesis seems to be that gentile attraction and also full conversion to Judaism
were easily observable phenomena during Josephus' residency in Rome at the end of the first
century." S. Mason, "The Contra Apionem in Social and Literary Context: An Invitation to
Judean Philosophy," in L. Feldman and J. Levison (eds.), Josephus' Contra Apionem: Studies in
its Character and Cniieii\ ith a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek (Leiden
1996) 193. It was one of the paradoxes of the ancient world that Judaism held an attraction for
some and a repulsion for others. J. Sevenster, The Roots ofPagan Anti-Semitism in Ancient
Times (NovTSup 41, Leiden 1975) 191-218; L. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World
(Princeton 1993) 288-382.

Judaicae for a general audience, mostly Gentile, whom he assumed, or at least hoped, would find

his account worth the reading.

Although Josephus did not explicitly say so in the Antiquitates Judaicae, a case can be

made that it was written to address then-current misconceptions about Judaism.48 His own

narrative comments throughout the work "suggest he is concerned to address a real threat to the

Jews: denigration of them as a people."49 Josephus composed the work in Rome where there

were significant anti-Jewish sentiments based on superstitious misconceptions about Judaism.

One example of such misconceptions may be found in the description of Tacitus (fl. c. 75-120

CE), who feared foreign influences in Rome and whose views must have reflected a segment of

popular opinion. He described Jewish customs in general as "sinister and disgusting" (sinistra,

foeda), he said that they harbor hatred and enmity toward all other people (adversus omnis alios

hostile odium), and that among themselves nothing was considered unlawful (inter se nihil

inlicitum). Because the Jews believed in an invisible God, Tacitus charged that they disdained

anyone who worshipped an image of a god made from perishable materials in human form

(profanos qui deum imagines mortalibus materiis in species hominum effingant), and for this

same reason they had no statues in their cities and refused to pay honor to their kings or to the

emperor (Igitur nulla simulacra urbibus suis, nedum templis sistunt, non regibus haec adulatio,

non Caesaribus honor)50 -a complaint Josephus also took up later in his Contra Apionem. F. F.

Bruce has suggested that Tacitus preferred to paint the Jews in the worst possible light because

"Tacitus simply shared a widespread prejudice, as did his younger contemporary Juvenal."51

48 1 will attempt to establish this context more thoroughly in a subsequent chapter.
49 J. McLaren, Turbulent Times?: Josephus and Scholarship on Judea in the First
Century CE (JSPseudSup 29, Sheffield 1998) 108.
50 Hist. 5.5.
51 'Tacitus on Jewish History', JSS 29 (1984) 33, 40.

Furthermore, the Jews had been expelled from Rome twice, once under Tiberius in 19 CE out of

fear of the foreign nature of Jewish religious rites,52 and later under Claudius in 49 CE for

rioting.53 Such moves on the part of the emperor surely must have fueled popular suspicion, if

not ill-will, towards the Jews in Rome.

That Josephus wrote to counter and correct such a negative public image of Judaism seems

apparent in light of his expressed aim to show, through the Antiquitates Judaicum, that Judaism

was all about a just God who rewards the faithful and punishes the disobedient. He says:

Tb ouvoXov 65 [4UXLOT' TLt &V EK Ta Srl. tx0oL ~fi [ToTopL'aX OEX AoaF acr'iv 6LEXOEtLV OTL
TotL; p v OEo0 yvoi)1 KaTUCKOXUOOUOBL KUCL T& Ka L0( votOETrlO9evTRx 4i1 TOtX14oL
TrCapapLaVELV TrTVTr Karopou0ca T rEpa TrLOTE'C( KCL yipac eUUL6aLtovLa TTpoKELTcL Trap& OEO6
KaO' ooov 6' &v C(TTOOTTOL Tr~| TOUTO6V (lKpLPOuf EiTrtLEXELc cta Tropa [Lv yLVETC'(L ~r TrOCpLLa'
TpiTrE'tra 6e el; out4)op&c &vKrlKeOOui 3 TL TroT' &v e & ya96bv 6pav oTrou6oG)otLV

("On the whole, whoever especially wishes to go through it would learn from this history
that for those who obey the purpose of God and do not dare to transgress the appropriately
ordained things, they succeed in all things beyond belief, and good fortune lies ahead as a
reward from God; but to whatever extent they withdraw from exact attention to these
things, the possible becomes impossible and whatever they are zealous to do as good turns
into incurable calamities").54

This portrait of the God of the Jews is then set in contrast to what can only be a reference to the

gods of the Greeks and Romans: oi ptev y&p XXoiL vo[o00tat ToiL [6uOoLt kE$aKOXOUvO'aUvTE TUV

dvOp(o)Trriv(v U&dxp[Trlt(o T)v EL( ToI0 OEoib TU; XA6yQ TiV cLoOXvrlv tieTUOEoav KC K TroXXiv

iUTroLtirloLV TOiL TTovTIpotL 'EOKCKV ("But other legislators, following myths, have in their account

52 Tac. Ann. 2.85; Suet. Tib. 36; D.C. 57.18.5a.
53 Suet. Cl. 25.4.
54 AJ 1.14. Josephus was not alone in this view among the ancient Jews. The same
approach to respect for divine institutions drives the history of 2 Maccabees. Cf especially 2
Mac 4:16-17: 6'v KUCL XptLv TrepEioX'v acVJroiU X~lXE.eTi TrepLOTrCOL KKCL Uv i(rouv Tm&e dayoya
KCL KaO' &TrUv ijOEXov E'OtoLoBO9eL TO6rTOUI TrOXELiOU KCL TL (oprIT&( 'ioXov doCepeLV y&p EL'
Toi) OELoui v6Otou) o0 p6tLOV &lXX& Tau6Ta 6 &KodlOUOOG KtLpbC 65iXWAoeL ("For this reason a
painful circumstance overcame them, and those whom they emulated wished to assimilate their
culture in every way became their enemies and punishers. For it is not a light matter to be
impious toward the divine laws-and the following period will make these things clear"). This
was the general view of the rabbis as well.

ascribed to the gods the shame of human sins and have given the wicked much excuse").5 By

such a portrait of God, set so starkly against the Hellenistic gods, Josephus would hope to show

that the Jews themselves were not the scoundrels they were commonly thought to be but were

actually the devoted people of a respectable and noble deity, a deity more upright than those of

the Gentiles. Given this picture of God, goodness consists first of all in piety toward God, which

can regularly be seen in Jewish praxis when it is understood correctly and divorced from

slanderous prejudice.56 If the Gentiles could see this, Jewish religious practices and customs

would then be viewed in an entirely different light. If pagans could see the true nature of the God

of the Jews, they would also see the true character of the Jews themselves. The means to

accomplish this understanding was a full-scale presentation of the history of Judaism,

highlighting the origin of its customs, its laws, its great figures, and above all, the nature of its


The second major work of Josephus thus also, like the Bellum Judaicum, had an apologetic

purpose. In the Bellum Judaicum Josephus wrote to correct faulty accounts and impressions of

the war with Rome, but especially those that denigrated the Jews and himself. In the Antiquitates

Judaicae he wrote to correct misconceptions about the Jewish people that came as a result of

misinformation about Jewish origins, customs, and laws. What united both works was a common

concern to present a positive picture of the Jewish character to the world. It is important to note

that in the Antiquitates Judaicae Josephus shows no sign of distancing himself from the

particular view of God he has come to hold as a Jew (and more particularly, as a Pharisee). For

example, there is no attempt to identify the God of the Jews with a Hellenistic deity. He had no

intention of assimilating Jewish ways to others, but of explaining them. His refusal to

55 AJ 1.22. Cf Ap. 2.239.
56 AJ 3.49. EUoe PLa and its cognates appears 110 times in the AJ. Cf Ap. 2.171.

compromise on this essential point further refutes any idea that Josephus' personal situation led

him to compromise himself, his people, or his religion before the Romans.

The Antiquitates Judaicae gave Josephus a different kind of platform for his apologetic

concerns, and allowed him to present a much more comprehensive apologetic than was possible

through a vehicle like the Bellum Judaicum alone. Josephus thus wrote both a contemporary

history (the Bellum Judaicum) and a history of the distant past (the Antiquitates Judaicae), for

each could provide a unique way of demonstrating Jewish character, and together the

combination of literary topoi afforded him a larger canvas on which to paint his picture of the

Jewish people. In undertaking both kinds of accounts he actually anticipated his younger

contemporary Tacitus, who wrote both a history of recent times of war (the Histories) and later

an account of the formative period before his own day (the Annales).

The Vita and the Contra Apionem

The Vita was written primarily in response to charges from Justus of Tiberias, a rival who

had written an account of the First Jewish War (published perhaps in the early 90's CE,57 but

now lost) that was critical of Josephus and his conduct during the war. Because of the nature of

the accusations, the Vita concentrates on the period of Josephus' life, spanning about six months,

when he commanded Jewish rebel forces in Galilee. Justus' account was apparently designed to

discredit Josephus before his Roman patrons and before leading Jews in Palestine. Josephus does

not quote any direct accusations from his rival, but a mirror reading of the Vita suggests that he

was accused of actively promoting the revolt in Galilee, especially in the city of Tiberias, as a

kind of corrupt renegade who lacked both the support of the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem and

57 Based on Josephus' statement in Vit. 359 that Justus had delayed the publication of his
account until after the deaths of Vespasian, Titus, and the Jewish ethnarch Herod Agrippa II.
Agrippa either died or was deposed in 88/9 CE. See A. Kushner-Stein, 'The Coinage of Agrippa
II', Scripta Classica Israelica 21 (2002) 123-31.

popular support in Galilee, and of using his position as military leader for personal gain.58 The

target audience, therefore, of the Vita must have been a wide one, including the Roman imperial

household with its network of patrons and clients, Justus and his supporters, and Jews who may

have been exposed to stories of Josephus' treason and impiety.

The fact that this work was appended to the Antiquitates Judaicae is significant. What was

at stake in the slanders of Justus was not just Josephus' own reputation, but the credibility of the

accounts he wrote. For ancient historians, credibility was a matter of the historian's character.

Marincola speaks of

the importance in antiquity of character in rhetoric and real life: the highly stratified
societies of Greece and Rome cared a great deal about the status of the speaker. The proof
that things are as the historian says they are depended not a little on the audience's
perception of the narrator's character: to believe an historical account, it was necessary to
believe the historian himself59

For Romans, this consideration was more important than it was for Greeks.60 Josephus' self-

defense is therefore a defense of the history he wrote.

The Contra Apionem was Josephus' last literary work, published in two books perhaps

near the end of Domitian's reign. Its original title is uncertain. Eusebius refers to it as On the

Antiquity of the Jews,61 and Porphyry knew it as Against the Greeks.62 Jerome seems to have

been the one who gave it the title Contra Apionem.63 The treatise is generally a defense of the

antiquity of the Jewish people, but responds to many other charges against the Jews as well.

Authors of works on Egyptian history (Manetho, Chaeremon, and Lysimachus) who had

58 H. Attridge, "Josephus and His Works" in M. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the
Second Temple Period (CRINT 2.2, Philadelphia 1984) 190; T. Rajak, "Justus of Tiberias," CQ
n.s. 23 (1973) 354-8; S. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee andRome 126.
59 J. Marincola, Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography (Cambridge 1997) 6.
60 Marincola 130.
61H.E. 3.9.4.
62 De abst. 4.11.
63 Adv. Iou. 2.14, where he quotes Porphyry and replaces Porphyry's title with this one.

transmitted outlandish stories about the Jewish people are mentioned, and answered, in the first

book. Manetho (fl. third century BCE) was a native Egyptian who wrote a history of Egypt in

Greek which has survived only in fragments quoted in other authors.64 Chaeremon of Alexandria

was a Stoic philosopher, a tutor of Nero, and also wrote a history of Egypt in Greek, again

known only in fragments.6 Lysimachus was a Greek grammarian and mythographer66 who

flourished some time after the second century BCE and wrote treatises on Jewish history and

laws.67 Apion was an Alexandrian rhetorician, literary critic, and outspoken detractor of the Jews

in the first century CE, who also wrote a history of Egypt. He attracted Josephus' ire by telling

the same kinds of stories about the origins of the Hebrews as the other authors he refutes, but

also by maligning the Jews as a low, rebellious people who refused to worship the same gods as

most others in the Hellenistic world. He also represented the Alexandrians before Caligula

against the Jews in the delegation that went to Rome over ethnic riots in that city in 38 CE. In the

Contra Apionem, then, Josephus was directly responding to leading sources of anti-Jewish

rhetoric and polemic, especially those who had maligned the Jews using historiography. The aim

of this work was therefore in keeping with the aims of both the Antiquitates Judaicae and the

Bellum Judaicum in that it shared a concern to present a positive picture of the Jewish people in

64 R. Laqueur, 'Manethon', in A. Pauly and G. Wissowa, et al (eds.), Paulys
Realencyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft: neue Bearbeitung (Stuttgart 1894-
1980) 1060-1106.
65 M. Frede, 'Chaeremon der Stoiker', inANRWII.36.3 (1989) 2067-103.
66 G. Damschen, 'Lysimachos [6]', in H. Cancik and H. Schneider (eds.), Der neue
Pauly. Enzykloptdie der Antike. Das klassische Altertum und seine Rezeptionsgeschichte, 7
(Stuttgart 2003) 608.
67 Josephus says 'ETrEL 6e KUCL 'ATroXX6UVLo0 6 M6OWov K(CL AUOi ( LXO KUL TLVE( XXoiL T&
tv 6TT' CyvoLiac T TrXE- tloTov 6e Kar& 6U5oiEVEtLaV TrEpL TE TOi vot.oQr aOav'oUO ti.ttV MowFO
KUCL Trepi Th)V v6O')V TTrTTOLrIVT(XL X6you OiT 6LKcaOUi Oi"TE (dXT)r9eL ... ("And since Apollonius
Molon and Lysimachus and some others, partly from ignorance and mostly from enmity, have
produced treatises which are neither fair nor true concerning both our lawgiver Moses and the
laws ..."). Ap. 2.145.

light of popular suspicions and to correct inaccurate elements in then-circulating reports about

the Jews. He addressed his work to TawicTX 6OOoL T&Xrl9Oe el6Eiva po6UovTra Trepi Tr T i ETEripac

px(cat6TrlTO ("all who wish to know the truth concerning our antiquity").68

How widely Josephus' works actually circulated in his day cannot be determined. In

antiquity books were mostly read by and circulated among a limited group within (local)

society.69 Authors normally wrote under patronage, and their works would have been most well-

known by the patron, the people within his social circle, and his other clients. However, Josephus

says that his account of the Jewish war had circulated among Romans who had participated in

the campaign and that he sold copies of the work to some fellow-Jews, including Julius

Archelaus and Herod Agrippa II.70 In the Antiquitates Judaicae he refers to the Bellum Judaicum

as if it were commonly available and as if his readers were acquainted with it.7 We may assume

that proselytes72 in Rome and elsewhere were interested in his works, and it has been suggested

that Tacitus and Suetonius used Josephus as their source for the idea that the Jewish Scriptures

predicted the rise of a great world leader from Judea.73 Given what is known about the

publication of books in antiquity, it is not unlikely that Josephus' works were first, and perhaps

mainly, read by those in literary circles in Rome. Yet we may certainly believe that any author

68 Ap. 1.3.
69 L. Reynolds and N Wilson, Scribes and Scholars (3rd edn, Oxford 1991) 19; S. Mason,
'Of Audience and Meaning: Reading Josephus' Bellum Judaicum in the Context of a Flavian
Audience', in J. Sievers and G. Lembi (eds.), Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and
Beyond (SupJSJ 104, Leiden 2005) 71-91.
70 Ap. 1.51.
71AJ1.4, 203; 13.72, 298; 18.11; cf Vit. 413.
72 As noted (n.47 above). Proselytism was apparently successful enough to warrant
imperial attention. Sevenster, The Roots ofPagan Anti-Semitism, 195-9.
73 Bruce 42. Tacitus mentions this in Hist. 5.13.4f, and Suetonius in Ves. 4.5. Josephus
describes the prophecy in BJ6.312f.

hoped that his work would eventually attain a much wider circulation, as Josephus' own words

have already shown.

This brief survey of Josephus' publications shows that, in contrast to the great amount of

Jewish literature that had been produced since the Maccabean revolt and into Josephus' time, his

Greek writings were not aimed exclusively at fellow-Jews. He does not engage in an "inside"

conversation, but in all his works he writes for a wider audience. In fact, none of his works in

Greek could be described as having been written primarily for fellow-Jews. They were instead

written with non-Jewish readers in mind first. Additionally, his works were written with the

purpose of informing the general public about the facts concerning the recent war with Rome, the

Jewish religion, and the general character of the Jewish people. His writings reveal that he was

perhaps the leading apologist for Judaism of his day. This dissertation is an inquiry into a

particular aspect of this larger purpose, and how Josephus went about accomplishing it.

A Brief History of Research

In order to describe the contribution of the present inquiry it is necessary to sketch briefly a

history of investigations into the writings of Josephus that have examined his purpose and

methods. Since Christians took interest in Josephus' works soon after their publication, Josephan

studies have a long history. Much of that history, however, involved the use of Josephus in anti-

Jewish theological polemics.74 This is sadly ironic, for as I have shown above, Josephus hoped

that his writings would present a positive picture of the Jews to his readers. Nevertheless the

Bellum Judaicum proved to be an irresistible proof text for Christians who wished to demonstrate

the superiority of Christianity over Judaism through the results of the First Jewish War. Having a

contemporary Jewish author declare that God was on the side of the Romans against the Jews in

74 See Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 8-24; H. Schreckenberg, 'The Works of
Josephus and the Early Christian Church', in L. Feldman G. Hata (eds.), Josephus, Judaism, and
Christianity (Detroit 1987) 315-21.

that war was an admission that lent itself easily to pro-Christian politics and propaganda. It was

not until the modem era that Josephus began to be read seriously as an author in his own right.

Modem scholarship on Josephus went through a mostly negative phase in the late 1800s

and early 1900s, with an emphasis on source criticism that resulted in the view that Josephus'

own contribution to his works was minimal.75 The cue for this came from Josephus himself, who

mentioned that he used assistants in connection with writing the Bellum Judaicum: Tmor|C [oiL TT;

Trpxy[LXTELX( EV TTrUpaoKEUr yeyev'rLevrT1 XprToci4Ev6OU TLOL Trp6o tiv 'ErXX|v5(xa ()VTiv ouVEpyoiL

oiUTWr ETOLroctrv LV TTpeowV Tiv TT apl600Lv ("when all my materials were prepared, I made

use of some assistants for the Greek language, and thus I prepared the account of the events").76

He also admitted for the Antiquitates Judaicae that Xp6vou 6' Trpo'6vroV iTrep Lx~e To UL


6dOEeoLv el[; &XX0o6UTrrv t41v KCCL Evrv 6La EiKTou ouvAOELav ("as time went on, as it likes to

take hold of those who contemplate great things, there developed for me a hesitation and delay to

translate such a great purpose into a usage of language that is foreign and strange to us").77

Thackeray's studies emphasized the role he believed the literary assistants had,78 and many

scholars, following his lead, came to view Josephus merely as a redactor who relied heavily on

written sources and literary assistants instead of as an author in his own right. Scholars also

viewed Josephus with great suspicion personally for two main reasons: 1) it was generally

believed that Josephus' patronage by the imperial Flavian family stood at odds with his loyalties

to the Jews, and 2) the accounts in the Bellum Judaicum and Vita seem to give two different

pictures of Josephus' loyalties during the First Jewish War. Josephus was thus seen not only as a

75 Bilde calls this the "classic conception of Josephus." 'Main Trends in Modern Josephus
Research', Nordisk Judaistik. .\kA, Inlin, vi iii Jewish Studies 8 (1987) 74-6.
76 Ap. 1.50.
77 AJ 1.7.
78 Thackeray, Josephus: The Man and the Historian 100-24.

plunderer of other works, but also as an opportunist who manipulated his circumstances to his

favor without regard for personal integrity. Representatives of this view were Bentwich,79 von

Destinon,80 Holscher,81 Laqueur,82 and Foakes-Jackson.83 One of the products of this phase of

research was a high degree of skepticism concerning the historical reliability of Josephus' works

(since Josephus himself was viewed as a scoundrel), and vestiges of this view and its conclusions

remain in the works of some scholars of the present day.

There has been a shift in the direction of Josephan studies since the mid-1900s. Many

scholars today are more open to seeing Josephus as an independent author with creative skills of

his own. The way for this new direction was paved by the studies of scholars such as Druner,84

E. Stein,85 Richards,86 and Shutt,87 who argued for the linguistic and stylistic unity of Josephus'

writings. This perspective suggested that Josephus did much more than simply excavate material

from other sources. A notable contribution was Attridge's 1976 Harvard dissertation on the

Antiquitates Judaicae, which argued that Josephus was adding his own individual (and

theological) perspective to the forms and categories of Greek historiography that were current in

79 N. Bentwich, Josephus (Philadelphia 1914). "Josephus hardly merits a place on his
own account in a series of Jewish Worthies, since neither as a man of action nor as man of letters
did he deserve particularly well of his nation" (p.5).
so J. von Destinon, Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus in der Jidische Archaeologie, Buch
xii-xvii (Kiel 1882).
8G. Holscher, 'Josephus', in Pauly A. and G.Wissowa, et al (eds.), Paulys
Realencyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft: neue B,-arbleitulng. 9 (Stuttgart 1894-
1980) 1934-2000.
82 R. Laqueur, Der jidische Historiker Flavius Josephus. Ein biografischer Versuch auf
neuer Quellenkritischer Grundlage (Geissen 1920).
83 F. J. Foakes-Jackson, Josephus and the Jews (Grand Rapids 1977).
84 H. Druner, Untersuchungen fiber Josephus (Marburg 1896).
85 E. Stein, De Woordenkeuze in het Bellum Judaicum van Flavius Josephus (Amsterdam
86 G. Richards, 'The Composition of Josephus' "Antiquities"', CQ 33 (1939) 36-40.
87 R. Shutt, Studies in Josephus (London 1961).

his day so that the result was anything but a mere cutting-and-pasting of sources.88 The result of

this new approach is that Josephus is generally now given more credit as a skillful author who

shaped his sources for definite aims. Pessimism concerning Josephus' personal motives

continues in the work of S. Cohen,89 Schalit is severe in his judgment of him as a person in his

Encyclopedia Judaica article,90 and O'Neill has defended Thackeray's thesis that Josephus'

assistants (and later editors) played a major role in the composition of his works.91 Nevertheless,

several attempts have been made to see Josephus as operating with purer motives. Farmer

compared Josephus with Polybius and concluded that the pro-Roman elements of Josephus'

works were an outgrowth of his zeal to serve his own people.92 Braun read the Bellum Judaicum

as Josephus' own attempt to explain (like a theodicy) the destruction of Jerusalem and the

temple.93 Both scholars attributed to Josephus a nobler aim that absolved him of outright

duplicity. In a similar way, Rajak, Bilde, and Jossa have each proposed that Josephus' role in the

Jewish revolt in Galilee is not presented in two different ways in the Bellum Judaicum and Vita.

Instead, these scholars argue that the differences in the accounts are due to the different natures

and purposes of those works, and that together they present the same picture in principle.94 Such

views tend not to see Josephus as an unscrupulous manipulator of his circumstances. Bilde has

88 H. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of
Flavius Josephus (Harvard Dissertations in Religion 7, Missoula 1976).
89 S. Cohen, Josephus in Gallee andRome.
90 A. Schalit, 'Josephus, Flavius', in Encyclopedia Judaica, 10 (Jerusalem 1972) 251-65.
91 J. O'Neill, 'Who Wrote What in Josephus' Contra Apionem?', in J. Kalms and F.
Siegert (eds.), Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Brissel 1998 (Minster 1998) 270-77.
92 W. Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus: An Enquiry into Jewish Nationalism in
the Greco-Roman Period (New York 1956).
93 M. Braun, 'The Prophet Who Became a Historian', Listener 56 (1956) 53-7.
94 Rajak, Josephus: The Historian andHis Society, 183-222; see also her "Justus of
Tiberias," 351-4; P. Bilde, Flavius Josephus Between Jerusalem andRome (JSPseudSup 2;
Sheffield 1988) 176-82; G. Jossa, 'Josephus' Action in Galilee During the Jewish War', in F.
Parente and J. Sievers (eds.), Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in
Memory of Morton Smilh (Studia Post-Biblica 41, Leiden 1994) 265-78.

also concluded, after carefully examining Josephus' various statements about the causes of the

First Jewish War, that "Josephus cannot be reduced to an apologist for the Romans, or even the

Flavian dynasty. It is completely wrong then to see his main concern as primarily apologizing

and justifying his own dubious activities during the war."95 Moehring's portrait of Josephus in

his 1984 ANRW essay is also positive along the same lines.96 He attempts to break away from the

older pessimistic approach and to understand Josephus on his own premises. He sees the ancient

historian as being motivated by an issue with which Josephus wrestled personally, namely, a

desire to reconcile Jerusalem and Rome. The result is a view of the man and his works that does

not posit a fundamental contradiction at the foundation.

Two more things may be added to the observations of these scholars. First, the writings of

Josephus themselves do not support the view that Josephus's personal circumstances

compromised him personally or as a historian. As noted above, Josephus' writings show him to

be a staunch apologist for Judaism. If he was the Roman collaborator and lackey that he has so

often been made out to be,97 he surely would not have spent a good portion of his life trying to

present a positive picture of Jewish character to outsiders. We would expect him to have

abandoned his heritage and taken up literary themes that were more laudatory of the Romans.

Rather than see his situation as compromising his veracity, the texts themselves show that

Josephus used his situation to the advantage of his people. His position in Rome became a pulpit,

as it were, for the defense of Judaism. There is no personal compromise here.

95 P. Bilde, 'The Causes of the Jewish War According to Josephus', JSJ 10 (1979) 201.
96 H. Moehring, 'Joseph ben Matthia and Flavius Josephus: the Jewish Prophet and
Roman Historian', in ANRW II.21.2 (1984) 864-944.
97 Cf S. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee andRome, 86: "If any historian was a Flavian
lackey, it was Josephus."

Second, there is nothing inherently odd nor suspicious about a non-native speaker of Greek

seeking assistance with Greek composition. No one today would charge that an author writing in

a language not native to him was not the true author of what he wrote because he had editorial

assistance. Josephus' use of assistants in Greek composition should not, therefore, lead us to

assign a minimal role to Josephus himself in shaping the character of his publications. In fact, if

large tracts of Josephus' works were mostly the product of his presumably non-Jewish

assistants,98 it would be difficult to explain the thoroughly pro-Jewish, apologetic nature of those

works. Feldman has examined several of the stories in the Antiquitates Judaicae and has shown

they are often cast in a way to make them more amenable to Hellenistic audiences, by reshaping

the characters and their actions to conform to Hellenic models.99 None of this would be expected

from texts written largely by outsiders unless we are prepared to say that Josephus cared little

for, or was unable to control, the final character of the works bearing his name, or that the

assistants are in the end solely responsible, even quite apart from Josephus' own aims, for the

thoroughly Greek character of the accounts. Josephus tells us that he took pains to acquaint

himself with Greek language and literature.100 For an author living in Rome, this would have

been a personal necessity, not something delegated to subordinates. Attributing much of the

98 Thackeray was noted for having claimed to have detected the work of at least two
different assistants in the AJ. Josephus: The Man and the Historian, 100-24. He nowhere
ventures a guess about the ethnicity of these assistants, but what he attributes to them would be
most fitting only for Greek assistants.
99 See especially his Studies in Josephus' Rewritten Bible (SupJSJ 58, Atlanta 1998) and
Josephus'Interpretation of the Bible (Hellenistic Culture and Society 27, Berkeley 1998).
100AJ20.263: ... KUc (;Lv 'EXXTIVLK(;v 65 ypUct/[rov EoETroU5xoa tE TcoX^eLC V lUiv
yp lLtuK1iV Ei'TrELpLcUv dVLXAapcwv 5 Tv 6E TrEpi trTv Trpogop&cv UKpLPELUav rcrpLox E'Ko6)uoEV
ouvwlOELa ("... and I was eager to share in the writings and the scholarly experience of the
Greeks, although my ancestral usage hindered my acquiring precision concerning the

character of Josephus' works to his assistants only creates more difficulties than it purports to


An important contribution to the question of Hellenistic Jewish literature was

Tcherikover's 1956 essay "Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered," where he argued that

Jews, not pagans, were reading this literature, because pagans would not have been interested in

it in the first place.101 The result for Josephus studies was that an attempt was made to understand

his works in light of a Jewish audience. A few scholars have followed this lead, but it does not fit

Josephus' own statements about his target audience (noted above), nor does it explain why

Josephus was constantly explaining Jewish customs to his readers. Most modem scholarship has

concluded, instead, that Josephus was writing for non-Jews. What remains, however, is

Tcherikover's important question of why Josephus thought non-Jews would have been interested

in Jewish history and customs. The usual answer is that his works answered an implicit and

ongoing public debate over the value of Judaism. That is, Josephus' works were primarily

apologetic in character and purpose. Mason has noted, however, that this solution does not

answer all the questions. If, for example, the Antiquitates Judaicae is designed to refute slanders

about Jewish origins and customs, then why does that topic not take up more of the work? And

why would Josephus write an account that is only implicitly, but not explicitly, apologetic? And

what Gentile would have waded through 60,000 lines on the subject?102 Clearly, more research

can be done.

The modern positive view of Josephus has led to a more serious study of how Josephus

crafted his literary works. Several studies, in which the emphasis is on Josephus in his cultural

101 See n.46 above.
102 S. Mason, '"Should Any Wish to Enquire Further" (Ant. 1.25): The Aim and
Audience of Josephus' Judean Antiquities', in S. Mason (ed.), Understanding Josephus: Seven
Perspectives (JSPseudSup 32, Sheffield 1998) 68-72.

and literary context, have investigated his works in comparison with classical Greek literary

paradigms. Many scholars have demonstrated clear Thucydidean influences on the Bellum

Judaicum.103 Rajak argues that the Antiquitates Judaicae shares many common elements with

Livius, Diodorus Siculus, Manetho, Hecataeus of Abdera, and Berosus,104 and Eckstein has

demonstrated Josephus' conscious use of Polybius in the Bellum Judaicum.l05 In fact,

comparison of Josephus and earlier Greek historiographers has become a well-explored facet of

Josephan studies. Also, as noted above, Feldman has investigated the Hellenistic shape of many

of the Biblical stories in the Antiquitates Judaicae. As a result of such studies, recent scholarship

on Josephus is less concerned with attempting to reconstruct (and condemn) Josephus' personal

motives, or to discover the sources he used. Instead scholars are concerned with Josephus'

shaping of his materials according to the traditions of Greek historiography and the results this

shaping produced.

The interplay between Josephus' apologetic concerns and his shaping of his material was

explored in a 1981 dissertation at Rutgers University entitled "Apologetics in Josephus" by J.

Daniel. He argued that Josephus wrote the Antiquitates Judaicae with an eye on enhancing the

image of Jews and Judaism before the Greco-Roman culture at large, and this involved extensive

reshaping of the materials of the Biblical stories to the point that the resulting picture of the Jews

is hardly recognizable compared to the stories in the Hebrew Bible. Daniel also emphasized the

cultural situation in which Josephus wrote his works and claimed that intense anti-Jewish

sentiments in the Greco-Roman world motivated Josephus.

103 E.g., Mader, Stein, Thackeray, and Druner.
104 'Josephus and the "Archaeology" of the Jews', JJS 33 (1982) 465-77.
105 A. Eckstein, 'Josephus and Polybius: A Reconsideration', CA 9 (1990) 175-208.

Daniel's work is, in a way, typical of how scholars continue to view Josephus. While there

has been a shift in how Josephus himself has been viewed, investigations into Josephus'

extensive use of Greek literary topoi have produced their own skepticism about the historical

value of the end results, often suggesting that the models are more important for Josephus than

historical accuracy. As Rhodes has observed, however, just because an author employs a well-

known topos does not mean that he is somehow being insincere or untruthful.106 It is true that

anyone who would use Josephus as a source for the events in Palestine in the first century CE

must acknowledge that in Josephus we have a tightly woven and highly selective combination of

fact and interpretation.107 It is, after all, Josephus' version of the events. On the whole, however,

recent scholarly work on Josephus has a higher regard for the historical credibility of his writings

(or of scholarship's ability to get to the unbiased historical facts) than those of the early twentieth

century.108 Yet, as the survey of Josephus' work presented above has shown, modern scholarship

generally agrees that there is more than a simple reporting of facts going on in Josephus.

It has come to the attention of some modem scholars that Josephus' efforts to present the

Jews favorably to a Hellenistic audience can also be viewed as an exercise in self-definition. In

particular, Sterling's study, Historiography and Self-Definition, argues that Josephus was writing

in a genre he identified as apologetic historiography. He argues that this genre has roots going

back to the sixth century BCE and has these characteristics:

All of the authors [in this genre] were natives or "insiders" who related the story of their
own group in an effort to offer a self-definition of that group (function). The texts were
addressed to outsiders in some cases and to members of the same group in others. The
common element in all cases was the need that each author felt to relate his/her group to

106 P. J. Rhodes, 'In Defense of the Greek Historians', G&R 41 (1994) 157-8.
107 McLaren 179-218.
108 Some noted problems in Josephus' BJ are discussed in T. Ilan and J. Price, 'Seven
Onomastic Problems in Josephus' "Bellum Judaicum"', JQR 84 (1993) 189-208.

the larger world. The works are therefore apologetic, but may be either directly or
indirectly apologetic depending upon the primary audience.109

By "self-definition" Sterling meant:

... the attempt of an author to provide identity for the group to which the author belongs in
contrast to outside perceptions. It is not intended to convey the impression that the author's
proposal was normative for the group, but that the author offered it as a normative
understanding. In each instance, this definition represents a shift from previously held
views since the group in question is now seen as a subgroup within a larger body rather
than as an isolated unit. The phrase thus connotes an effort to shape as well as to

Sterling's discovery of the genre of apologetic historiography is significant for the present

study. By the first century CE, Greek historiography already had a long association with

ethnography. The works of Hecataeus and Herodotus in particular devoted much of their space to

description of foreign people and their customs. Historiography easily became the venue by

which a people could be described or by which a people could describe themselves in relation to

others. That is, it became a vehicle for presenting, or constructing, an ethnic identity. That

construction could also have an apologetic purpose. Concerning apologetics, Kasher notes

"From the viewpoint of the literary genre and especially from the psychological viewpoint, the

use of apologetics may at times be interpreted as an expression of lack of confidence, the

manifestation of a position of weakness and inferiority relative to the rival, as if it were an

excuse with some regret or as if it were conciliatory in nature."111 Kasher also observes that

"there is usually a direct connection between apologetics and controversial personal or social

phenomena in certain circumstances of time and place, and ... apologetics is intended to defend

109 G. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts, and Apologetic
Historiography (NTSupp 64, Leiden 1992) 17.
110 Sterling 17.
111 A. Kasher, 'Polemic and Apologetic Methods of Writing in Contra Apionem', in L.
Feldman and J. Levison (eds.), Josephus' Contra Apionem: Studies in Its Character and Context
i ith a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek (Leiden 1996) 145.

persons or groups in respect of their actions or opinions and views."112 When apologetics are

undertaken on the group level, this collective apologetics has close connections with ethnical


Sterling's study, and to a certain extent also Daniel's, anticipated a growing interest in the

subject of how peoples in ancient times viewed and portrayed themselves, particularly in literary

texts. Such studies draw upon the phenomenon of ethnicity. The study of ethnicity, or the way in

which people define themselves, is a modern one. However, scholars have begun to apply

questions about ethnicity to peoples in ancient times, and to read ancient texts with an eye to

discerning their ethnic components or ethnic information. Hall's book Ethnic Identity in Greek

Antiquity was first published in 1997,113 and has become regarded as a kind of benchmark in its

field. Other examples of such studies are R. Laurence's essay "Territory, Ethnonyms, and

Geography: The Construction of Identity in Roman Italy,"114 the volume edited by A. Bulloch,

E. Gruen, A. Long, and A. Stewart entitled Images and Ideologies: Self-Definition in the

Hellenistic World,115 and Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt, edited by P. Bilde, T. Engberg-Pedersen,

L. Hannestad, and J. Zahle.116

Study in the self-definition particularly of Jews in ancient times has been encouraged by

long-standing scholarly interests in the character of formative Judaism and the conditions

surrounding the rise of early Christianity. Josephus is an important source for both, and he also

fits Sterling's model of an author who wrote apologetic historiography. Also, as noted above,

Josephus has a foot in three worlds at the same time. The matters of ethnicity and self-definition

112 Kasher, 'Polemic and Apologetic Methods', 146.
113 J. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (Cambridge 1997).
114 In R. Laurence and J. Berry (eds.), Cultural Identity in the Roman Empire (London
1998) 95-110.
115 (Berkeley 1994).
116 (Aarhus 1992).

are a large part of the man and his circumstances, and several streams of modem scholarly

inquiry therefore converge in Josephus.

The Present Study and Its Contribution

It is common in the scholarship on Josephus for his writings to be described as an

apologetic retelling of traditional Jewish stories in order to make them more amenable to a Greek

audience. This retelling has often been viewed as a degrading of those stories,17 motivated by

missionary zeal.118 There are at least three problems, however, with this approach. First, such a

description of his writings assumes the perspective of an insider whose chief concerns were

primarily religious in nature, and further tends to assume a dichotomy between an imaginary and

monolithic "normative" Judaism and a corrupted, Hellenized form of it-assumptions that can

hardly stand.119 Josephus' literary portraits of the Jews looked like rewritings only if one knew

what the originals looked like (which his Gentiles readers did not), and it is questionable whether

we should assume that religious zeal was the primary concern of people like Josephus120 or that

anti-Jewish sentiments centered around Jewish religion. Second, it is not generally agreed that

Judaism was a missionary religion in Josephus' day, nor does writing in the mode of apologetics

117 E.g., J. Daniel, 'Apologetics in Josephus' (PhD Diss. Rutgers University, 1981) iii,
212-15; M. Hengel, Judaism andHellenism, trans. J. Bowden (Philadelphia 1981) 1.313.
118 A. Kraabel refers to this as the "old consensus," characterized by paganizing Jewish
religion to make it more attractive to Gentiles and by a longing for the ancestral homeland, and
viewed primarily as a religious endeavor. 'The Roman Diaspora: Six Questionable
Assumptions', in J. Overman and R. MacLennan (eds.), Diaspora Jews and Judaism: Essays in
Honor of and in Dialogue / i/h, A. Thomas Kraabel (Atlanta 1992) 5-6.
119 S. Jones, 'Identities in Practice: Towards and Archaeological Perspective on Jewish
Identity in Antiquity', in S. Jones and S. Pearce (eds.), Jewish Local Patriotism and Self-
Identification in the Graeco-Roman Period (JSPseudSup 31, Sheffield 1998) 29-30.
120 S. Cohen, 'Respect for Judaism by Gentiles According to Josephus', HTR 80 (1987)
423: "In his view Judaism is not a missionary religion." Some scholars, however, still defend the
idea that Josephus' aim was to win adherents to Judaism. Cf S. Mason, "The Contra Apionem in
Social and Literary Context', 208-16.

necessarily imply a missionary purpose.121 The question of how successful Judaism was in

winning converts in the first century CE is still open, and the lack of a definitive answer

precludes using it as a basis for suggesting that Josephus had a missionary purpose in his literary

works. Third, the word "apologetic" has been so stretched in scholarly usage that it is barely a

useful term any more.122

The known facts point in another direction. Two things in particular stand out. First, there

is more than defense of Jewish religious customs going on in Josephus. Although Josephus knew

how to defend his people from misconceptions and wild derogatory rumors, his writings also

went well beyond these kinds of apologetics. Gruen's observation about Jewish Hellenistic

literature is especially appropriate to the works of Josephus: "These works go beyond what is

conventionally termed apologetic writing. They do not represent mere defensive, rear-guard

action by a beleaguered minority in an alien world. What stands out is the aggressive

inventiveness of the stories."123 Second, Josephus' Greek writings were qualitatively different

from the majority of works produced by Jews from Maccabean times to his own day in that he

wrote about Jewish history and culture to inform non-Jewish readers. All of his literary works

had a non-Jewish target audience, but a Jewish subject-matter.

What might these facts tell us about the purposes of those works? Surely there is a

connection between the intended audience of Josephus' writings, the nature and subject of those

writings, and the context in which he wrote them. Any interpretation must take into consideration

that his writings were a response to what Josephus saw as the practical concerns of the situation,

121 Barclay, 'Apologetics in the Jewish Diaspora', 136, 147f.
122 Barclay, 'Apologetics in the Jewish Diaspora', 135.
123 E. Gruen, 'Fact and Fiction: Jewish Legends in a Hellenistic Context', in P. Cartledge
et al (eds.), Hellenistic Constructs: Essays in Culture, History, and Historiography (Hellenistic
Culture and Society 26, Berkeley 1997) 87.

namely the enormity of anti-Jewish sentiment in the Roman world. The Romans had drawn a

clear line between Hellenes (in which the Romans included themselves) and Jews, and Josephus

was trying to re-draw it. The recent war with Rome had exacerbated a long-standing negative

image of Jews in the ancient world, an image of Jews as rebels and, ultimately, losers. That

image needed repair, and the ideology that had fueled the rebels in the recent war with Rome,

and that had bred a perception of wide-spread Jewish animosity toward Rome, needed to be

repudiated and replaced.

To an outsider (to whom the texts were aimed), Josephus' writings were literary portraits

of Jewishness that were intended to be normative for understanding all Jews, and the nature of

these portraits is that they are not wholly, or even primarily, religious in character. The sum

effect of Josephus' writings, which always had non-Jews in view, was to shape a positive picture

of Jews not only religiously, but also historically and socially. Josephus was well-aware of the

sentiments of Gentiles towards Jews in his day. He knew that the rebels who had, in his view,

caused the war had promoted an image of Jewishness that led directly to violence,124 and he

aimed to replace that view with one that was more amenable to Roman tastes. He knew the

rumors and the popular unkind interpretations that had been placed on the behavior and customs

of his people, and he wrote to confront and to correct the untruths and misconceptions. He did

this not only by offering counter-facts, but also by crafting a new cultural portrait of Jews.

Furthermore, in constructing this new positive image he used the paradigms of the very people

who had created, received, and fostered the negative rumors and misconceptions. These

124 For this phenomenon, see J. Fearon and D. Laitin, 'Violence and the Social
Construction of Ethnic Identity', International Organization 54 (2000) 845-77. One may
compare this with the ethnic constructions behind the riot in Alexandria in 38 BC. See K.
Goudriaan, 'Ethnical Strategies in Graeco-Roman Egypt', in P. Bilde et al (eds.), Ethnicity in
Hellenistic Egypt (Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 3, Aarhus 1992) 79-95.

paradigms were often secular, not merely religious, in character, and by using them Josephus

demonstrated that he had more than Gentile religious sympathy in view. He had a larger, social


Josephus' circumstances, and the content of his writings, suggest that his works were

designed to present a positive image of Jewish culture which served as a correction to the

prevailing, mostly negative image. The present investigation stands in the trajectories of recent

Josephan studies and of explorations into the ethnicities of ancient peoples and the texts that

reflect them. I propose that, given the historical context in which Josephus wrote, Josephus was

attempting a transformation in the way non-Jews viewed and understood Jews. That is, Josephus

was not simply accommodating Jewish history and customs to pagan points of view so they

could understand it or that they would be attracted to it. He was instead accommodating Jewish

ethnicity to Hellenism so that the Jews would be perceived as a people who possessed Greek

qualities. This was more than explaining the Jewish way of life to outsiders, and it was more than

simple apologetics. Josephus was re-inventing Jewish identity to conform with Greek identity.

The best way to describe this is that he was in the business of constructing an ethnicity for the

Jewish people of his day through his literary works.

The construction of an ethnicity is more than an exercise in self-defense125 (even though

ethnicities can be, and often are, constructed in response to some perceived social

marginalization), let alone religious self-defense. It is instead to make a claim in the world, to

make a statement about "who we are," to provide a rationale for fitting into a larger society. The

goal of the present study is to read and describe Josephus' literary works from the perspective of

ethnicity. I wish to view his writings not from the Jews' perspective simply as a retelling of

125 Cf E. Gruen, 'Cultural Fictions and Cultural Identity' TAPA 123 (1993) 13.

traditional stories, nor primarily as a religious undertaking with a missionary purpose, but as

carefully crafted products for Gentile readers whose aim was to broker a respectable social

position for Jews within Greco-Roman society at large in the first century. Specifically, I will

attempt to explore the writings of Josephus to discern the picture of Jewish self-definition and

ethnicity that emerges from them. This study will also, following the lead of modern Josephus

scholarship, look into how Josephus used Greek literary models to craft his works. The

combination of these two perspectives will construct the basic thesis of this dissertation, that

Josephus used these models to create a picture of Jewish ethnicity and self-definition that hoped

to present the Jews to the Greco-Roman world at large as having the best characteristics of the

noble Greeks of the past.

Josephus was not the only, nor first, Jew in ancient times to attempt to show that Jews

exhibited qualities that were essentially Greek in character. Philo of Alexandria (f/. first century

BCE) attempted to show the compatibility between the teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures and

those of Greek philosophy.126 Josephus' contribution lay in building a large-scale ethnicity

through the tool of historiography. It was not, in Josephus' view, only that Jewish theology could

compete with the best of pagan philosophy (the basic approach of Philo). Josephus wanted his

audience to see that the Jews also shared the Greek spirit in their experiences and in their great

historical figures, and historiography was the vehicle of choice for presenting these ideas. He

saw fertile opportunities in the rich diversity of Jewish history to demonstrate the essentially

Greek character of his people (the ethnic thrust of the Antiquitates Judaicae), he told the story of

their war with Rome in such a way that a reader would see Greek qualities in the Jews and their

experiences (the ethnic thrust of the Bellum Judaicum), and he demonstrated that the Jews and

126 P. Borgen, 'Philo of Alexandria', in M. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second
Temple Period (CRINT 2.2, Philadelphia 1984) 233-82.

their religious beliefs are every bit as old as (and even older than) those of the Greeks, and

wholly compatible with them (the ethnic thrust of the Contra Apionem).

Josephus' foray into historiography must no doubt be seen as an ambitious move on his

part. Even if it was commonly expected for authors of accounts of wars to imitate Thucydides,

and to engage in mimesis of the tradition as a whole,127 to put oneself in such famous company

was surely always a bold step. Yet even here we may be witnessing another aspect of Josephus'

overall plan. It appears that Josephus hoped to present the Jews as possessing the respected

elements of the Greek cultural heritage, including a preeminent national historian: himself. He

presented himself, therefore, as the Jewish Thucydides (even to the point that, just like

Thucydides, he was criticized concerning his actions in the war), the Jewish Herodotus, the

Jewish Polybius, but also more: a Jewish prophet whose understandings were divinely guided.

Given the political and cultural climate in which he wrote, this must have been an audacious step

indeed. However, we can see Josephus' posturing of himself as the great historian of a people

whom he wanted to compare favorably to the Greeks as completing the broad picture he aimed to

present. Of course, it also served the function of presenting himself favorably to his patron and

the literary elite of Rome.

I will not argue that the construction of an ethnicity was the exclusive purpose of Josephus'

works. There is plenty of self-encomium and nationalistic propaganda in them as well. However,

reading Josephus's writings from the perspective of ethnicity reveals another important

dimension of them. To my knowledge, while it is well-known that Josephus presented the Jews

to his readers in Greek models, no study has yet interpreted this phenomenon in terms of

127 Marincola 12.

ethnicity.128 What I propose to do, then, is to use the insights of modem studies of ethnicity as a

way of interpreting the overall aim and purpose of Josephus' literary output. I hope to

demonstrate that this method can provide a satisfactory answer for the questions of what

Josephus was doing and why he was doing it. I do not presume that this approach explains

everything about Josephus' editorial activity, because it is probably not possible to argue that

Josephus followed a single rationale consistently.129 His works are complex materials generated

in a complex situation. I do hope to show, however, that approaching Josephus from the

perspective of ethnicity can provide a new perspective on his works.

The approach of this dissertation also shares the concern of recent scholarship to read

Josephus as seriously as possible in his own right and to locate Josephus firmly within the

Hellenistic cultural and literary milieu. It is within that milieu that we can expect to find not only

evidence of Josephus' method but also the reason that prompted the effort and the concern

Josephus addressed and hoped to answer, namely, the wide-scale social rejection of Jews in the

Greco-Roman world and the corresponding desire, at least among Jews like Josephus, to find a

legitimate, accepted place within that culture.

128 Rajak authored a short essay on 'Ethnic Identities in Josephus', but it is only a sketch
of how Josephus views the difference between Greeks and Jews. The Jewish Dialogue i/ il
Greece andRome (Boston 2002) 137-46.
129 S. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome 37.


The Concept of Ethnicity

The word "ethnicity" was coined in modern times,1 but the concept has a history going

back into ancient times. The English word is derived from the Greek word 'evo(, which

originally referred to a group of people (or even animals) who lived together, and then acquired

the sense of a group of people who comprise a nationality (i.e., they lived together as a nation),

whether it was stated positively (a group of people belonging to the same nation) or negatively (a

group of people not belonging to a particular nation under consideration). In this latter usage, T&

EOvrl came to mean "foreigners." Among Greeks, therefore, the term could mean "non-Greek."

Similarly, Jewish literature in Greek regularly refers to Gentiles as T& 'evrl. The word could also

be used in a narrower sense to denote the people who comprised smaller social units, and could

be applied to groups such as guilds, classes of people, the people in a geographical area such as

"the provincials," or the people under a particular ruler.2 The basic idea was of a group that

shared some common characteristics, especially some level of social life together. An EOvo( was

a geographical, political, or cultural group.3

Even though the phenomenon of ethnicity has become the object of modern scholarly

inquiry only relatively recently, approaches to this subject have changed over recent years as the

social and political climate in which modern scholars' work has changed. The result is that

debate persists over several issues in the study of ethnicity. It is beyond the scope of the present

1 In 1953, according to J. Hall 34. The term did not enter English dictionaries until 1972.
N. Glazier and D. Moynihan, Ethnicity: Theory and Experience (Cambridge, MA 1975) 1.
Ground-breaking discussions were E. Leach, Political Systems ofHighland Burma (London
1954) and F. Barth, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries (Boston 1969).
2 LSJ480.
3 C. Jones, '"Ovo( and y'vo( in Herodotus', CQ 46 (1996) 316.

study to attempt to formulate a new critical theory of ethnicity that is in dialogue with current

scholarly viewpoints or to attempt a new working model. I will instead attempt the more modest

task of taking a current, generally-accepted understanding of ethnicity and applying it to the

works of Flavius Josephus in the context of the world of the first century BCE.

The term "ethnicity" denotes a socio-political self-understanding. The subject of this self-

understanding may be an individual or a group of people. Although Weber despaired that the

term was so nebulous that it ought to be abandoned,4 most modern scholars are more optimistic,

and there is widespread agreement that the basis of an ethnic community is a shared belief in a

common descent. So Weber proposed that "We shall call 'ethnic groups' those human groups

that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent because of similarities of physical type

or custom or both, or because of memories of colonization or migration; ... it does not matter

whether or not an objective blood relationship exists ...."5 This is what others have called a

putative myth of shared descent.6 Ethnicity is not an objective category, but a subjective one. A

person lays claim to an ethnicity on the basis of what he or she believes, whether that claim is

grounded in (historical) fact or not. "Ethnicity is based on mythical beliefs about the

genealogical facts, not the genealogical facts themselves."7 The story of shared descent may

indeed have basis in historical fact or in blood relationships, but it need not have. Belief in this

story is chosen, not necessarily innate, and the basis for choosing to believe for oneself one story

of origins over another is complicated by many factors, not all of which are rational. "This belief

is of course never finished but always subject to reinterpretations and adjustments, depending on

4 M. Weber, Economy and Society: An Outline ofInterpretive Sociology (New York
1968) 385.
5 M. Weber 389.
6 Cf G. Bentley, 'Response to Yelvington', Comparative Studies in Society andHistory
33 (1991) 169.
7 A. Abizadeh, 'Ethnicity, Race, and a Possible Humanity', World Order 33 (2001) 25.

the present circumstances. In that sense, ethnicity is dynamic, changeable, and socially


This understanding of ethnicity means that a person or group may define themselves as

they choose. Since ethnicity is not purely a function of actual genealogy, but of the adoption of a

wider set of symbols, a person or group may construct their ethnicity more broadly than

nationalistic or genealogical lines alone would allow.9 Some people prefer to define themselves

more narrowly, as they may refer to themselves as African Americans, Irish Catholics, or French

Canadians. This was also common in the ancient world, as in the designation "Hellenistic Jews."

Ethnicity, then, has no fixed essence or boundaries that are somehow inherent to a particular

people. Instead the boundaries of ethnicity are mutable, subject to revision, adaptation, or

abandonment in favor of other ones. "... ethnicity is a bundle of shifting interactions rather than

a nuclear component of social organization. ... The primary characteristics of ethnic boundaries

is attitudinal. In their origins and in their most fundamental effects, ethnic boundary mechanisms

exist in the minds of people."10

The creation or adoption of an ethnicity is an act of self-definition. It allows a person or

minority group to situate themselves within the larger world and create a unique identity for

themselves. "Ethnic identity can be a fundamental element of self-understanding, rooted in

notions of loyalty and a sense of consistency across time and contexts."11 As noted above, Weber

8 M. Verkuyten, The Social Psychology of Ethnic Identity (New York 2005) 75.
9 Cf "Fewer Americans Call Themselves Multiracial" USA Today < http://www.usa
today.com/news/nation/2007-05-04-multiracialN.htm?csp=34 > 4 May 2007. Although the
article title suggests that it is reporting on racial identification, the fact that this phenomenon is
changing (based on comparison with earlier Census Bureau data) suggests that this is also a
matter of ethnicity.
10 U. Ostergird, "What is National and Ethnic Identity?," in P. Bilde et al (eds.), Ethnicity
in Hellenistic Egypt (Aarhus 1992) 36-7.
11 Verkuyten 78.

also included in his definition the idea that ethnicities are accompanied by a sense of sharing in

visible things like physical types or customs. His "or" reflects that there is more than one way

into a specific ethnicity. However, the inclusion of customs in the definition means that a person

who does not share physical characteristics associated with a particular ethnicity may still lay

claim to that ethnicity by belief in some kind of connection with the origins of those in the group,

and also by adopting the customs that have come to be associated with the ethnic group. In this

way ethnicities are negotiable. However, most sociologists today would probably agree that

Weber's inclusion of custom unnecessarily limits the concept of ethnicity, because customs are

themselves a negotiable element in the construction of an ethnicity.

Fundamental to the idea of an ethnicity, as reflected in Ostergird's words above, is the

drawing of a boundary that either demarcates "us" from "them" or that identifies "us" with

"them" (or that does both simultaneously). I will discuss below what factors serve to achieve that

demonstration. The fact that an ethnicity is a social construct that is chosen by a group or

individual means that the composition and maintenance of any ethnicity, that is, of the boundary,

is a task that confronts each successive generation. Every generation must decide what to do with

the ethnicity it has inherited, whether it be to change it, abandon it, or reaffirm it. Because people

chose an ethnicity, there is nothing about an ethnicity itself that is self-maintaining; ethnicities

must be maintained-boundary-lines must be determined-by the people who adopt them. The

decisions a group makes concerning the maintenance of its ethnicity are collectively called an

ethnical strategy.12

Since the myth of shared descent that lies at the heart of an ethnicity can be real or

mythical, ethnicity has been viewed either in a primordial way or in an instrumental way. The

12 Goudriaan 76.

primordial view sees ethnicity as "a basic and natural unit of history and humanity,"13 often with

a deterministic role in things. Those who view ethnicity in this way see it as a kind of force of

nature, almost biological. The instrumentalist view sees ethnicity as a tool that social groups use

for the pursuit or advancement of their political and economic agendas or interests. As such it

has a situational quality. That is, the primordialist view emphasizes the emotional attachment

generated from actual blood ties, while the instrumentalist view sees the adoption of an ethnicity

as a means to political or economic ends, leaving the truth of any claims to common origin as

another matter. Which approach is the better description of how ethnicity actually operates is a

matter of current debate.14 Given the phenomenon of ethnic malleability, the instrumentalist

approach seems to be able to mount the stronger case and is the predominant view among

modern sociologists. However, the two approaches need not be understood as exclusive of each

other, as most sociologists would also argue that ethnicity has roots in nationality. Smith has

therefore suggested that ethnicities are best described as having both historical and symbolic-

cultural attributes.15 That is, ethnicity and concepts of race or "nation" can be, and often are,

related, but they need not necessarily be.

There is a dialectic between the social and individual levels in the construction of ethnicity.

From the level of society, it is clear that sociocultural circumstances and structures are an

important part of the dynamics of ethnicity. People are affected by their social environment.

However, individuals are also strong forces in the matrix of factors that go together to forge an

ethnicity. When approached from this perspective, it is equally clear that "people are not passive

13 J. Hall 17.
14 See G. Bentley, 'Ethnicity and Practice', Comparative Studies in Society andHistory
29 (1987) 25-7.
15 A. Smith, Nationalldentity (Reno 1991) 20. Cf Verkuyten (88): "Primordial and
circumstantial approaches ... are complimentary rather than contradictory."

victims of circumstance. They are able to think about their situation, do something about it,

reflect, assert, react, and create."16 Forces from both levels must therefore be recognized.17

People function in, and in response to, specific socio-political contexts, but these same people

are also contributors to those contexts. The dynamic and negotiable nature of ethnicity and the

multi-dimensional character of ethnicity-building does not mean, however, that all elements in

the matrix of factors are capable of the same kind or level of manipulation. The role of individual

choice is, nonetheless, "important among ethnic minority groups with a more collectivist cultural


The way that individuals can posture themselves within society is limited by the more

stable nature of social institutions. "The continuous negotiation on the level of everyday

interactions does not imply a similar level of flexibility and variability on the level of society."19

In other words, change at the institutional and cultural level does not occur easily. It is, generally,

the nature of institutions to resist change. What this means is that there can be a real difference in

how an individual chooses to define himself, and how the society into which he hopes to fit

perceives his attempt. The social nature of ethnicity means that an ethnical strategy is practiced

within a dialogue with a society that is "other," and that "other" may not view an ethnic group

the way the group views itself. The differences between those two views can create tension.

These two factors-the dynamic, negotiable quality of ethnicities, and the resistance of

social institutions to change-have a bearing on the success of a given ethnic agenda. Together

they make ethnicities especially susceptible to falsification. Negotiation into an ethnicity, if it

16 Verkuyten 17.
17 See S. Jones, 'Discourses of Identity in the Interpretation of the Past', in P. Grave-
Brown, et al, (eds.), Cultural Identity andArchaeology: The Construction ofEuropean
Communities (London 1996) 67-8.
18 Verkuyten 25.
19 Verkuyten 25.

hopes to be accepted, requires some semblance of credibility. Verkuyten has observed that ethnic

constructions must not stray too far from reality if they are to serve as emotionally convincing

and satisfying self-definitions.20 One cannot invent, or attach oneself to, an ethnicity out of thin

air. As an exercise in historical reconstruction, an ethnicity must ostensibly be believable,

especially by the larger group into which an ethnic group seeks admission. Since the purposes of

constructing or attaching oneself to an ethnicity are to enjoy a sense of unique identity and to

provide a means by which others may view and understand oneself or the group, the ethnicity

has to maintain some kind of connection with the real world. Ultimately, the success of the

enterprise relies on the quality of the dialectic between the larger social level and the smaller

individual or minority group level. "Ethnic identities are not simply the products of ethnic

assignments imposed by others or assertions made by people themselves, but the result of the

interaction between the two."21

The drive to situate oneself (as an individual or a minority group) within the larger social

context involves psychological factors, especially the sense of self-esteem. Here Verkuyten notes

that "People prefer identifications that bring positive social identities, and thereby positive

collective self-esteem. ... Identification and self-esteem are assumed to be closely related, and

often they are not distinguished but taken as indicators for each another."22 Also relevant to this

study is his observation that "A sense of identity implies an awareness not only of who and what

one is, but also of the value, recognition, and respect that particular identities bring. Self-esteem

20 "Justification ... is necessary both for in-group members and for outsiders. Ethnic
claims have to be 'proven' if they are to become meaningful identities. Many things are possible
here, but not every possibility is intellectually plausible and morally acceptable. Although ethnic
identities are malleable, they are not complete fabrications." Verkuyten 75.
21 Verkuyten 18.
22 Verkuyten 67.

develops in interaction with others and is strongly dependent on the esteem granted socially."23

While these observations do not constitute absolute "rules" of how ethnic identities must, or

always, develop, they acknowledge the important fact that the need to feel accepted, to achieve a

sense of belonging, is a legitimate factor in the formation of an ethnic identity. Furthermore, the

degree to which one thinks ethnic identity is negotiable is directly related to one's current

position in the larger society. "... members of marginalized and minority groups are more likely

to hold a constructionist point of view in which empiricist claims are criticized and multiple

interpretations of reality are considered valid."24

Ethnicity is not the same thing as what we might loosely call nationalism25 or patriotism.

Nationalism is a sense of pride in one's perceived heritage, or "the attitude that the members of a

nation have when they care about their national identity."26 Nationalism often carries with it the

sense of promotion and defense of one's heritage in the face of some perceived crisis or threat,

whereas patriotism "denotes an identification with a loyalty towards a peculiar combination of

territory and nation."27 The two, are however, closely related. When these are driven by a

perceived threat, that threat may come from outsiders whose different values and lifestyles are

seen as a menace to the survival and the very existence of the group, or the perceived threat to

the heritage may come from within the group itself, from members who are judged to have

compromised key elements of the group's collective identity. It may even involve both, when

23 Verkuyten 68.
24 Verkuyten 28. Cf J. Hall 18.
25 I am not using the term in the same way some anthropologists use it, to describe an
attitude of which the goal is the formation of a political nation-state. I am using the term here
more in accordance with its popular usage.
26 'Nationalism', Stanford Encyclopedia ofPhilosophy. < http://plato.stanford.edu/
entries/nationalism/ > 23 May 2006.
27 S. Pearce and S. Jones, 'Introduction: Jewish Local Identities and Patriotism in the
Graeco-Roman Period', in L. Grabbe and J. Charlesworth (eds.), Jewish Local Patriotism and
Self-Identification in the Graeco-Roman Period (Sheffield 1998) 22.

some members of a group see other members as having compromised or identified with an

external threat. Since nationalism may be ignited by the perception of others within the same

ethnic group, nationalism is not ethnicity. This is not to say that nationalistic concerns are

unrelated to ethnic self-definitions. Indeed, they are.28 It is instead to say that nationalism should

be viewed as an element or catalyst in the formation of an ethnicity.29

A significant study of ethnicity among the ancient Greeks is Ethnic Identity in Greek

Antiquity by Jonathan Hall, who proposes that ethnicity is characterized chiefly by three things:

1) a putative myth of shared descent, 2) a dynamic, negotiable quality, and 3) expression through

written and spoken discourse.30 This description follows the basic understanding of ethnicity laid

out above, that what chiefly makes for ethnicity is the belief or the assertion shared by a group of

people that they have a common origin. The putative character of this basic element of ethnicity

makes it dynamic and negotiable. Also, like others, Hall posits that ethnicities are maintained

through a dialectic between the individual and a collectivity.31 What he adds to the discussion

here is that ethnicity can be negotiated through texts (oral or written) that create a narrative

28 "Specific social identities can also become overwhelming or unidimensional when the
society obliges people to place a particular identity in the forefront of their minds and central in
their behavior. A simple example is a nation at war when national identity forcibly takes
precedence to almost all other ones." Verkuyten 52.
29 Modern discussions of national identity are identical in many ways to discussions of
ethnicity, and some scholars have not differentiated clearly between the two. This is because
there seems to be general agreement that national identities are rooted in ethnicities. See A.
Smith, National Identity, 19-42. Similarly, B. Anderson referred to nations as "imagined
communities," yet the attributes of "nation" as he described them are much the same as the
attributes of ethnicity (Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism (London 1983)). The same is true of M. Bruner's description of the formation of
national identity in Strategies ofRemembrance: The Rhetorical Dimensions ofNational Identity
Construction (Columbia 2002) 1-11. Nevertheless, ethnicity and nationhood are different
(although related) social constructs. The perspective of this dissertation is not that Josephus was
forging a national identity for Jews. They already had that. Instead, Josephus was forging a new
ethnic identity for Jews.
30 J. Hall 2.
31 J. Hall 29.

connection of shared origin, in the past, between people. Texts create and communicate a

narrative thought world that is interpretive of the myth of descent of the people who use and

transmit those texts. The creation of texts (whether they be deme membership lists, literary texts,

genealogies, etc.) is thus a significant moment in the creation of an ethnicity. Through these texts

elements of identity can be described, denied, or polarized in relation to competing or alternate

elements. However, while recognizing the role of texts in the construction of ethnicity, we

should not go to the extreme of reducing ethnicity solely or purely to a function of self-

definitional literary discourse. While an ethnicity may utilize texts, ethnicity is not a literary

construct. The realities are more complex and flexible than that, and self-definition is

accomplished in specific contexts that bring varied and unique collections of circumstances to

bear on the shape and outcome of the exercise and that affect how an ethnicity actually translates

into a mode of being. "Whilst ethnicity always involves active processes of performance and

interpretation in the objectification of cultural difference, it is still constituted in the context of

specific cultural practices and historical experiences which provide the basis for the perception

of similarity and difference."32

A fuller description of ethnicity is offered by Smith, who has suggested that there are six

characteristics of the ethnic group as opposed to other kinds of social groups: 1) a collective

name, 2) a common myth of descent, 3) a shared history, 4) a distinctive shared culture, 5) an

association with a specific territory, and 6) a sense of communal solidarity.33 This description

adds precision to those of Weber and Hall. Smith's description recognizes the importance of a

collective name for the ethnic group. Names have always been one of the most powerful means

32 Jones, "Discourses of Identity', 56.
33 A. Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations (New York 1987) 22-46.

of self-definition known to people, arguably more so among the ancients than among peoples in

modern times.

Smith's description also adds to the fundamental notion of a shared myth of origins the

important idea that an ethnicity includes a shared history that enjoys a traditional status among

those who subscribe to it. This is not contradictory to the fact that the putative myth is subject to

modification or revision, because traditions are themselves fluid things, and a shared history may

certainly change over time as it is transmitted and retold for new generations. However, even as

the story may take new nuances or shapes, the thing that survives is the ethnicity codified or

institutionalized in the story. This results in what Smith calls the paradox of ethnicity, viz., "its

mutability in persistence, and its persistence through change."34 Although the precise contours of

an ethnicity change over time, the ethnicity itself remains viable. Furthermore, it is easy to see

how this role of tradition works hand-in-hand with the presence of literary texts. As the texts are

preserved and transmitted, the ethnicity they portray comes to have a codified, or institutional,

quality that eventually becomes tradition.

Smith further suggests that an ethnic group will have a distinctive shared culture. This is

not, however, to equate ethnicity with culture. To say that ethnicity is the product of a perceived

or believed, and hence negotiable, putative myth of common descent is to say that ethnicity is

neither determined nor necessarily expressed by symbols of material culture. No ethnic group is

defined by markers (including cultural ones) that are objectively absolute, because ethnicity is a

social construct. Hall therefore distinguishes between ethnic criteria and ethnic indicia. The

former are those attributes that are chosen by the group as deterministic of membership within

the ethnic group. The latter are merely operational attributes "which people tend to associate

34 A. Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations 32.

with particular ethnic groups once the criteria have been established."35 These kinds of identifiers

can change over time and thus are not formally determinative of ethnicity. More importantly,

both the criteria and the indicia may vary from one group to the next. Thus, for example, a

specific religion may be a criteria for one ethnicity, but religion may serve only as an indicia in

another ethnicity. Or, use of a specific language may be a criteria for one ethnicity, but language

may not be crucial to the ethnicity of another person or group.36 The determinative factor is

whether or not something contributes to the creation and maintenance of the putative myth of

common descent that lies at the heart of the ethnicity.37 It is thus also context-sensitive.

The existence of a shared culture within an ethnicity is a product of the fact that ethnicity is

a subset of culture. Culture, like ethnicity, is an attempt at identification, but is conceptually

different38 and broader. There are usually various ethnicities within a culture. Friedman

delineates the two thusly: "If cultural identity is the generic concept, referring to the attribution

of a set of qualities to a given population, we can say that cultural identity that is experienced as

carried by the individual, in the blood, so to say, is what is commonly known as ethnicity."39

Ethnicity thus involves how an individual, or a group, appropriates the elements of their culture

into their own contexts. As Verkuyten describes it,

Acculturation as the process of becoming more similar culturally does not have to imply a
change of group membership and self-definition .... People often hold on to their ethnic
group identity, to what they feel is a continuity with the past, although their culture

35 J. Hall 21.
36 For example, J. Hall argues (168-81) that even among the ancient Greeks, dialectical
differences were not determinative of ethnic groups.
37 Verkuyten 75. It is for this reason that it is methodologically unsound to attempt to
determine the ethnicity of a people solely or primarily from the archaeological examination of
material cultural remains. See S. Jones, The Archaeology ofEthnicity: Constructing Identities in
the Past andPresent (New York 1997); idem, "Identities in Practice', 48.
38 S. Jones, 'Discourses of Identity', 67. She notes that the realization that ethnic groups
are self-defined "reveals a critical break between culture and ethnicity."
39 J. Friedman, Cultural Identity and Global Process (London 1994) 26.

becomes intermingled with that of others. Contact between ethnic groups almost always
leads to an exchange of cultural characteristics and mutual adjustments, but at the same
time it often results in enhanced ethnic consciousness and stronger group differentiation.
... Cultural content and ethnic identity are, to an important degree, functionally

So a person or group may assimilate elements of a culture near to them, but these assimilated

elements do not essentially change a group's understanding of their own ethnicity. In fact, such

cultural elements are often redefined to attain a new and special meaning within a particular, new

ethnic context. It is in this sense, then, that an ethnicity will have a distinctive shared culture.

The last two of Smith's elements, association with a specific territory and a sense of

communal solidarity, prove to be flexible in practice. Concerning territory, it is entirely possible

for a person or group to maintain their ethnicity outside of their ancestral homeland and retain

only the most nominal connection with it. For example, it is commonplace among many native-

born U.S. citizens that they know where their ancestors came from outside of the U.S., but they

have never visited those ancestral homelands and have no personal ties to them. Yet they often

still proudly claim a heritage from outside U.S. territories. A group may even adopt a place as a

new homeland. The myth of Aeneas leaving Greek lands to establish a people in Latium

immediately comes to mind, as well as the fact that many people in Roman imperial times lived

in lands other than their ancestral homelands. There were several diasporas in antiquity, caused

by war, famine, and other such things. The Jewish diaspora was one of these. However, many of

these diasporas managed to adjust their understanding of their relation to an ancestral homeland

in such a way as to survive well outside of it. Smith's last element, communal solidarity, is a

difficult thing to define. It should not be surprising, therefore, if it proves to be quite variable in

its application. However, he states that one form in which this element of ethnicity is manifested

is in institutional philanthropic expression. The power of this element is that it may overcome

40 Verkuyten 77.

things such as territorial dislocation or internal factionalism or sectarianism. Community

solidarity provides a sense of togetherness which can override internal social stratifications or

ideological disputes.41

Organized religion can play a particularly powerful role within an ethnicity in that it is able

to reinforce an ethnicity in a unique way. Some would even go as far as to say that a shared

religion is a fundamental element of an ethnicity.42 Smith has identified three aspects of the

relationship between organized religion and ethnicity that make the combination especially

potent.43 First, religions often embody some kind of story of origins, often in close connection

with a creation story. These stories of origins are closely related to ethnicity's myth of common

descent, and serve to define that myth in cosmic terms so that the people who subscribe to the

ethnicity feel that they have a special place in the cosmos, leading to a sense of separation and

superiority. Second, religions regularly succumb to political and cultural agendas. Even those

religions which are in theory universalistic and teach a salvation that transcends ethnic, social, or

national boundaries regularly become associated, in time, with specific communities and

succumb to forces that forge new forms and contents for the religion, with the result that the

religion and the specific ethnic community become closely linked. Third, organized religion

often has a ready-made apparatus for the diffusion of ethnic myths and symbols. Typically this

apparatus consists of things like a priesthood and channels of communication (such as regular

assemblies of the social group) through which groups are regularly taught the symbols. In

addition, religious clergy (whether they are called such or not) serve to guard and codify sacred

41 A. Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations 30.
42 C. Renfrew, "Prehistory and the Identity of Europe," in P. Grave-Brown, et al (eds.),
Cultural Identity and Archaeology: The Construction ofEuropean Communities (London 1996)
43 A. Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations 34-7.

texts and legal codes which reflect the self-understanding of the group. Religion becomes

especially important for diaspora communities: "Religion here plays a dual role, at once

conservative as with resident ethnic, and innovatively adaptive to meet a variety of changing

conditions while retaining its central promise."44

It must be understood that the description of ethnicity I have given above is a composite

construct. The model is descriptive, not prescriptive. Not all of the elements need to exist for a

people to have an ethnicity, nor must they formally recognize them in order for their ethnicity to

be genuine. All that is essential is some sense of "us" that is construed as being in some sense

different from "them." The sociological study of a people's ethnicity may therefore, for the sake

of description, impose categories on that people which they themselves do not actually use to

define themselves. It is in this sense that Renfrew says that "ethnicity is a matter of degree."45

However, the formal elements are useful as analytical tools if it is remembered that they are

theoretical, categorical descriptions that do not necessarily directly reflect how a people thinks or

speaks about themselves.

Whenever an ethnic group is confronted (by whatever means) with another, dominant

culture, a crisis in self-understanding often results. "A crisis of confidence often develops in a

less developed community when it comes into prolonged cultural contact with a more developed

power. Imperial expansion, for example, carries an almost magnetic attraction for the threatened

or conquered peoples in its path."46 In such a situation that weaker group has limited options for

maintaining its ethnicity.47 One option is to effectively ignore the dominant culture altogether

44 A. Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations 114.
45 Renfrew 130.
46 A. Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations 56.
47 J. Hall 31; cf G. Bohak, 'Ethnic Continuity in the Jewish Diaspora in Antiquity', in J.
Bartlett (ed.), Jews in the Hellenistic Roman Cities (London 2002) 180.

and reject things that would be considered ethnic dilution. There is more than one way to do this.

One method would be to continue to speak one's native language, or to continue to reckon time

by the calendar of one's homeland. Another method would be to create new dimensions of

comparison with the dominant group that enable the disadvantaged group to bypass its social

dislocation.48 If possible, a group may attempt to reacquire its traditional territory and

homeland,49 or it may try to reestablish itself by placing renewed emphasis on genealogical

legitimation.50 Such circumstances may even breed apocalypticism. The practical difficulties

involved in implementing such strategies often result in the failure to maintain this stance as a

permanent option. A second option is to assimilate culturally with the dominant group on the

largest scale possible. This entails a breach of the group's ethnic boundaries in order to adopt

new ones that are acceptable to the dominant culture, and often requires some kind of

management of a subjective or intellectual transcendence of nationality. The ancient Thracians

are an example of this. They flocked into Egypt in droves as mercenaries for Ptolemy II and

Ptolemy III and within a few generations had taken up Greek names, and typical Thracian names

(like Seuthes) eventually passed into the stock of common Greek names. They so fully

assimilated to Greek culture that they erased their own distinctive ethnicity. "In the end, there

was no cultural feature left by which they could (or, for that matter, would) distinguish

themselves from the Greeks. At that moment they vanished from history."51 The chief problem

48 J. Hall 31.
49 This was one of the goals of the Zealot party among the Jews. A. Smith, The Ethnic
Origins of Nations 57. We should remember that land-holding, especially in the Roman
provinces, was a form of economic power, although the land also had a religious significance for
ancient Jews.
50 A. Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations 50-3.
51 Goudriaan 79. Cf also S. Honigman, 'The Birth of a Diaspora: The Emergence of a
Jewish Self-Definition in Ptolemaic Egypt in the Light of Onomastics', in J. Cohen and E.
Frerichs (eds.), Diasporas in Antiquity (Brown Judaic Studies 288, Atlanta 1993) 102-4.

with pursuing this option is that it will, if pursued fully, result in the subversion and loss of one's

original identity by the complete absorption into the dominant group.

The third option is to attempt to establish some kind of dialectic in which one negotiates

some self-definitional elements that will be shared with the surrounding culture while keeping

other elements intact. In practical terms, this may entail living in a new place, in a different

culture, but retaining certain ethnic markers from one's homeland, making trips back to the

homeland,52 maintaining correspondence with others in the homeland, continuing to practice

traditional religion, becoming bilingual, etc. Some ethnic markers that are negatively perceived

in the dominant culture are thus remodeled or adapted and presented positively. In this option,

existing ethnic markers are conserved (but not in pristine condition). Depending on which

strategy the group adopts, identities may be obliterated, transformed, or revived. However, the

strong force of assimilation operative in the ancient world meant that groups that adopted the

first option probably began a process by which their descendants would eventually practice the


For those who pursued the third option, especially for a prolonged period of time, the

phenomenon of ethnicity was further complicated when self-definition was practiced in the

context of an overarching imperialistic politico-commercial structure (such as the Roman

empire). In such a context

As the accumulation and possession of abstract wealth plays a central role in the definition
of social position, ascribed ethnic categories are not directly constitutive of the social order
.... Ethnic categories cannot function as categories of social structure in a system were
social position is not ethnically described, but economically and politically achieved. It is

52 There are several reports in the ancient literature of Jewish pilgrimages to Palestine in
Roman times. Cf. Philo, De Provid. 2.64; Euseb. PE 8.14.

in such circumstances that ethnicity or cultural identity becomes salient, insofar as it is
clearly separate from social position.53

Ethnic groups that lie outside of the political and economic mainstream therefore find that their

ethnicity, no matter how well-defined it is, is insufficient to purchase them a place within the

social structures where power is brokered. The ethnicity that perhaps once served as a powerful

marker of social status becomes relativized and marginalized within a larger, "foreign" system

where social position is determined otherwise. A people's sense of ethnicity may be a comfort to

them in other ways, but it certainly can be divorced from social status. Of course, this would be

more acute for those who were once considered elites within their own (previous) ethnic self-

understanding. Indeed, radical changes of status on many levels are possible in such a scenario,

and the rise of an apocalyptic mindset to interpret the changes of the present is sometimes not far


Modem scholarship in post-colonial theory has explored the complex negotiation between

a group and the structure of power that has come to dominate it. When one culture dominates

another, the result is often a kind of hybrid situation which entails "the ambivalence of the new

cultural formation which results from cultural contact in conditions of unequal power."55 Both

the dominant culture and the dominated culture experience change in this process. The contours

of this change are not static, and thus many possibilities for confrontation, compromise,

assimilation, syncretism, or dialogue become possible all at once. Authors within the dominated

culture may "negotiate complex paths of self-expression through the adapted medium of the

53 J. Friedman, "Notes on Culture and Identity in Imperial Worlds," in P. Bilde et al
(eds.), Religion and Religious Practice in the Seleucid Kingdom (Studies in Hellenistic
Civilization 1, Aarhus 1990) 30.
54 J. Sorensen, 'Native Reactions to Foreign Rule and Culture in Religious Literature', in
P. Bilde et al (eds.), Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt (Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 3, Aarhus
1992) 164, 180.
55 J. Barclay, 'Josephan Rhetoric in Flavian Rome', in J. Edmondson et al (eds.), Flavius
Josephus and Flavian Rome (Clarendon 2005) 317.

dominant discourse"56 resulting in what some have called transculturation. The permeability and

mutability of ethnic boundaries thus becomes both a means of survival for an ethnic group and at

the same time a threat to its unique identity or even its existence. On the one hand, this

permeability makes it possible for one ethnic group (like the Jews) to assimilate and lay claim to

a status within a larger dominant culture (such as Hellenistic culture) and, in the process, to

change that culture to some degree. On the other hand, this same openness to culture carries with

it a certain dilution of the existing ethnic identity (which was a concern of some ancient

Romans). Too little assimilation keeps the group on the "outside," and too much assimilation can

make for the disappearance of the distinctive of the group altogether. Decisions about what

elements are to be retained as ethnic criteria and which ones may be reduced to the status of

ethnic indicia are often complex and hotly debated. This is to be expected, because a traditional

self-understanding is at stake. The situation is further complicated by the fact that language of

assimilation or acculturation may mask a subversive, revolutionary spirit.57

An ethnicity has political dimensions to the extent that it is a declaration of how a person

or group wishes to be perceived or treated by others with regard to social power. Ethnicity can

become a powerful motivator in political causes when an ethnic group believes its political rights

are being denied or suppressed so as to produce a situation of inequality or oppression, and

especially when the denial of those rights or privileges runs counter to elements of one's

ethnicity. To the extent that ethnicity can lay claim to a place or status within a larger culture, the

assertion of ethnicity can amount to a reaffirmation of political status. Sometimes the struggle

may be for political power without the element of inequality, and sometimes the goal may simply

56 Barclay, 'Josephan Rhetoric', 318.
57 N. Elliot, 'The "Patience of the Jews": Strategies of Resistance and Accommodation to
Imperial Cultures', in J. Anderson et al (eds.), Pauline Conversations in Context: Essays in
Honor of Calvin J. Roetzel (JSOTSup 221, London 2002) 32-41.

be equality, not superiority. The modern term for this phenomenon is "identity politics."

Verkuyten describes it this way:

Identity politics is about the recognition of one's status as rightfully belonging and the

public manifestation of modes of belonging. In addition, identity politics is about recognition by

others of who and what one is.... It is concerned with the emancipation from repressive, ignored,

or denied social identities, and with the equal value of groups and the equal respect to which they

are entitled. For many, this does not simply imply equal treatment but rather that specific

experiences, histories, cultures, and contributions of groups are publicly affirmed and


The following points summarize the features of the concept of ethnicity I have described:

* The term "ethnicity" denotes a socio-political self-understanding held either by individuals
or groups. The term is modern, but the concept is a historical phenomenon.

* The fundamental element of ethnic self-understanding is a putative myth of common

* Ethnicities are constructed and maintained in a dialectic, or matrix of relationships,
between the individual or minority group and the larger society. However, not all elements
in the matrix are equally malleable.

* As a social construct based on a putative myth, an ethnicity is negotiable, yet it must
maintain some semblance of credibility within a dialogue between insiders and outsiders.
This is a function of the dialectic in which an ethnicity works.

* Ethnicity is not the same thing as race, nationalism, or patriotism.

* Ethnic criteria are not static. Instead they are chosen because they support in some
significant way the putative myth of common origin.

* Cultural elements may be assimilated in the service of an ethnicity, but ethnic identity and
acculturation are separable.

* Ethnicity can be expressed through texts, which often impart an institutional and traditional
quality to the ethnicity.

58 P.69.

* Religion can be a powerful force in the maintenance of an ethnicity, especially for diaspora

* Ethnic groups are sometimes called upon to manage their self-understanding in the face of
a larger, dominant culture. They may manage this by ignoring the dominant culture, by
completely assimilating to it, or by attempting to negotiate some level of participation in it
while retaining elements or markers of their own distinctive self-definition.

* Ethnicity does not necessarily buy power within a social structure. In fact, it may buy

* The negotiable quality of ethnicity creates a situation in which the negotiation risks the
loss (through assimilation or otherwise) of elements that some may have considered as
ethnic criteria.

* One motive for constructing an ethnicity is the psychological need for self-esteem and a
sense of belonging. "Identity politics" is the politicizing of this psychological need.

Greek Ethnicity and the Roman World

Questions of ethnicity may be applied to ancient peoples, and have been so applied by

classical scholars for some time (although the sociological models and definitions of ethnicity

have changed throughout the history of classical scholarship on this subject). This becomes a

useful way to explore what people in ancient times thought of themselves, and may help explain

historical processes, events, and literature.

Ethnic self-understandings were just as flexible in the ancient world as they are in our

world today. Multiple ethnic designations were certainly possible in ancient Greco-Roman

society. Josephus spoke of one group of Jews saying *oav 6~ 'IouWaloL AlyUTrroL ("they were

Egyptian Jews").59 These Jews had survived in Egypt and had maintained a high degree of

separateness from the larger culture of which they were a subset, enough to still call themselves

Jews, but had also managed a degree of assimilation by which they could be called "Egyptian."

Bohak cites60 as other examples the 'EXXT1vooK6O0L (Greco-Scythians), the ALPULOLVLKOL (Libyan

59 BJ 1.190.
60 P.189.

Phoenicians),61 the EupoOL'VLKOL (Syro-Phoenicians),62 the Gallograeci (Phrygian Gauls,

Galatians),63 and the Celtiberi (Iberian Celts, in Hispania).64 Of special interest are the

OOLVLKcLyuTrTLOL (Phoenician Egyptians),65 the 'EXX1votE4L cLa (Greco-Memphites),66 and the

KapotE4(iL at (Carian Memphites), all of whom were neighbors of the Jews whom Josephus

designated as 'Iou6aiot A'yUirroL. All of these groups had been allocated land and had

permission to build temples for themselves. That is, Egypt became their new homeland, and this

important element of ethnic identity became transposed, as it were.67

In spite of the fact that some people managed to achieve a kind of dual-ethnicity, the norm

was that most people continued to be associated with a single ethnicity, whether that association

was hereditary or negotiated. Thus in Euripides' Phrixus, we hear of a (fictional) man who left

Sidon and settled in Thebes, and Fotvi TrEUKU5, EK 6' d&cEL ETcL yEvoc 'EXXrIVLK6v ("having

been Phoenician originally, he changed his genos to Greek"),68 and in Heliodorus' Aethiopica a

Tyrian character offers to exchange his cilinm and hispatris for another ('vo5 6e KaL Trarp~6a

tiv 6~terpav &XXdo'cLat) if it means he can marry the Egyptian girl with whom he has fallen in

love.69 Strabo's opinion in the early first century CE was that the Greek cities of the part of Italy

known to him as Magna Graecia (except Tarentum, Rhegium, and Naples) had become

completely barbarized (EKPEtPPappacooat) and thus lost their Greek character.70 In a similar vein,

61 The term is used by Polybius (e.g., 3.33.15), whose works were known by Josephus.
62 Used in the New Testament, Mark 7.26.
63 E.g., Tac. Ann. 15.6; Caes. Civ. 3.4; Liv. 38.12.1. The Greek version of the word
appears in D.S. 5.32.
64 E.g., Caes. Civ. 1.38.
65 PSI 5.53 1.1.
66 PSI 5.531.6.
67 Bohak 190.
68 Fr. 819.
69 5.19.
70 6.1.2.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, a generation earlier, spoke unapprovingly of Greeks who had

forgotten their Greek heritage, ceased speaking the language, and no longer acknowledged the

ancient gods.71 To him, they were no longer Greek. In Ptolemaic Egypt, Jews took on the

designation "Macedonian" when they joined the military unit that was originally comprised of

ethnic Macedonians,72 a point which Josephus was eager to mention.73 Similarly, he mentions

the case of queen Helena: Karc& Tofov 6' 6vTV KcLpov iTv 'A6LTpr|vi4v pa3oLt; 'EEXvrli KCL 6

Trcimc a&Tfji 'IC(~rln EL rT& 'Iou6calov 'rl bv T 1V ov letripovX ("about this time Helena, queen of

the Adiabenenes, and her son Izates, changed their life to the custom of the Jews"),74 and KaL

"ilv 'EX ivrv OLtLoc 6d4' eCTpou TLVOb 'Iou6Gaou 6L6X6Oa-Lav EeL TOUc EKEKdLv)

eTCaKeKOp[o0a0L v6oiouc ("and Helena likewise was taught by another Jew and was brought over

to their laws"),75 IIu06t1evoc 6i TrTvu TOTL 'Iou6caov 'eeoLv Xa(peLV Tiv V riTpaE Tiv EauTou

eoTrEuoE KUL amoUT ELc EKElva Ut eTixeo9(L VOLLC(,)V TE 4il &v ELvaL pEPUpaLG 'IoU6cao( El 'iLr

TrepLTEivoLTo TrpTTELV Iv 'vTOL[Lo ("when he [Izates] learned that his own mother was quite

happy with the Jewish customs, he also changed to them, and thinking that he would not truly be

a Jew unless he was circumcised, he was ready to do it").76 A similar case appears in 3

Maccabees 1.3: Aooi'O Ap ou APydLtEvob TO YEvoc Iou6aioc borUpov 6' terapaUXOv r&

VO4Lta KCL Tv TrarpLowv 6oyTi t v dXTrrlXorTpLo~w vo ("Dositheos, the one called the son of

Drimulus, later changed his customs and estranged himself from the ordinances of his fathers").

The fact that ethnicities could be changed or adopted is also reflected in a statement

recorded in Arrian's Discourses ofEpictetus, concerning Jews:

71 1.89.4.
72 Tcherikover, CPJI.14; II nos. 142 and 143.
73 BJ2.487f; AJ 12.8. Ap. 2.35f.
74 AJ20.17.
75 AJ20.35.
76 AJ20.38.

TL oUVv CO)LK6V ,XEyEL oe(aurOV, TL Ea, TaTcLT TOki TiroXOUi, TL UTioKpivr 'Iou6(iov (c3v
"EXXriv; oui 6pac vuc, 'KEoLTO XAEyETca 'Iou)5do(, Trr;) h'vpoc, Trr;) ALyUlTrTLo; KCUi omv
OTCV 5' xvaUXpiP T6 Tra'o0 T6 TOU PEpaUiEvoU KMIL TipTr1ivoU, TOTE KCL 'EOTL T6) OVTL KUL
KXEALT LL 'Iou( 0Lo(.

("Why, then, do you say you are a Stoic, why do you deceive the majority, why do you
play the part of a Jew although you are a Greek? Do you not see how each is called a Jew,
a Syrian, or an Egyptian? For whenever we see someone acting both ways, we customarily
say 'He is not a Jew, but he is only playing the part.' But whenever he takes up the pathos
of the of who has been immersed and joined it, then he is called by the name 'Jew'.")77

Four things stand out about this statement. First, it shows that adopting a different ethnicity for

oneself was common enough that it could be used as a real-life illustration of Epictetus' point

about the need for consistency between one's profession and one's practice. Interestingly, the

statement apparently reflects Jewish proselytism. Second, it shows that a person could present

himself before others in any way he chose. What makes a person an Egyptian is not his physical

parentage, but that he adopts and lives by Egyptian customs; so also for Syrians and Jews

respectively. Third, at the core of the matter, a person becomes a "Jew" when he consciously

adopts the mentality (TraOo) of a Jew. It is a conscious, deliberate choice to define oneself, and to

be known by others, in a particular way and according to an already-known ethnicity. Fourth,

simply imitating the ethnicity of another, while holding on to customs or practices normally

associated with a different ethnicity, or while thinking in a way incongruous with that imitation,

was considered disingenuous. Being Jewish and merely acting Greek (or vice versa) fooled no

one. To become a Jew is to take up the Jewish pathos, not merely to participate in external ethnic


77 2.9.19-20. W. Oldfather ((trans.), Epictetus: The Discourses as Reported by Arrian, the
Manual, and Fragments, 1 (Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA 1956) 272) notes that the
reading TI 6UTOKpLVI 'IouGaiov c3v "EEXXIrv; is an emendation, "for the MS. says 'the part of
Greeks when you are a Jew'." For the purposes of this study, the point is made either way.

Smith's six elements of ethnicity were noted above. By the first century, all of these

elements were in place for the group commonly called the "Greeks." 1) They had a group name,

"Greeks." 2) They believed in a common myth of descent, which extended back into the heroic

past. The fact that the Greeks themselves seem to have been mostly uninformed about the

historical particulars of their own national history much prior to the beginning of the first

millennium BCE does not diminish anything. As I noted above, it is the belief, not necessarily

the proof, of common descent that lies at the heart of an ethnicity. What matters was not that they

knew all the details of their common descent, but that they believed they had one and were

conscious of it. 3) They had a shared history that had been well-chronicled in its latter days

through literary historiographies. 4) Greek culture was distinctive, and well-known and well-

recognized into and through the Roman period. 5) The Greeks had a long association with a

particular geographical place, and it could be argued that they had created 6) a sense of

communal solidarity among themselves. While it might be a matter of debate as to the level and

success of this solidarity, this seems to be what Aristotle had in mind as he described Greek life

together: IIodIL tiev oiv OLKLd)V TrXr6 Od( OTL KUCL XOpci KCL KT~[rL4Tov aUumpKE Trpb6 TO eU

rCTV. (Exvepb6v 6E" (orav yap [i4 6UVwU5oI CoL To'TAOU O 'UYXyVELV, 56LVueTaL KI '. KOLVvia. 'ETL


ouoa ("By a Nation we mean an assemblage of houses, lands, and property sufficient to enable

the inhabitants to lead a civilized life. This is proved by the fact that when such a life is no longer

possible for them, the tie itself which unites them is dissolved. Moreover, it is with such a life in

view that the association is originally formed; and the object for which a thing exists and has

come into being is in fact the very essence of that particular thing").78

78 Oec. 1.1.2. Armstrong's translation.

The existence of these six elements is not to say that there was anything like a standard

uniformity across the ancient world of how Greek ethnicity was perceived, experienced,

practiced, or described. What does seem fairly constant, however, is that the cultural aspect of

this ethnic identity was particularly strong. This was due in part to the great power of classical

Greek culture. Ironically, it was so pervasive that the concept of Greek identity became diluted.

This is reflected as early as c. 380 BCE in Isocrates, Panegyricus 50: Tb uT;v 'EXXT~w)v 6vo[a

TrETTrroirlKe tilKE4iTL TO) yEVOUi &WlXC Ter 6LCLVO'iac 6KKEtV ELVCUL, KCL t[L&Xov "EErlv(XJV KcLXEiLOcL

TOi) Tr TrL(aL6toCeo ) Tr T,'rETEpca r" TOi) Tr~ KOLVf( (jMuO)eGx lE't0rovTc( ("the name of the

Greeks seems to have been made no longer the name of the nation, but of the thought, and those

who share our learning are called 'Greek' rather than those who share a common nature"). Nor

am I suggesting that Smith's six elements are a precise description of the way the ancients

viewed and described themselves. Their categories were not completely the same as ours. For

example, Herodotus speaks of Tb 'EXX1VLKbV 6v o0i4aL4iV TE KCL 64LdyX(oooO KCL OE(0V

L6piXT, d TE KOLV& KCa BOuoiL (iiOE& TE 646tpoTra ("the kinship of Greeks in the same blood, and

the same language, and their common shrines of the gods, and customary sacrifices, and habits")

(8.144). I am instead saying that it is possible to see Smith's six elements among the ancient

Greeks. Furthermore, by the time of Josephus Greek ethnicity was mediated through widespread

Hellenism, and there were many variants of what could be called "Greek" as these elements of

ethnicity took on local colorings. However, it is clear that the semantic field of the word "Greek"

was sufficiently defined in antiquity, the term was readily understandable as denoting an

ethnicity, and it can be described in terms of these six elements.

As I noted above, ethnical strategies are often born in situations where an ethnicity is

confronted with a more powerful social reality that threatens it in some way. For example, the

causes of war often involve some element of ethnicity, but questions of ethnic self-understanding

are also prompted by other, and larger, phenomena. The rise of Hellenism in the ancient,

classical world was such a phenomenon. With the influx of Greek culture throughout the ancient

world, many peoples found themselves in need of reaffirming their unique identities, and much

of their literature in the Hellenistic period reflects a consciousness of the need for self-definition.

The growth and eventual domination of Roman power throughout the ancient world occasioned

another, and simultaneous, crisis for many peoples. By Roman times, although Hellenism was

arguably the most prominent feature of the larger socio-political situation, it was mediated

through the experience of Roman imperium. Long-standing political structures and hierarchies

were dismantled or relativized by Roman conquest. Groups needed to maintain some sense of

identity in the face of the new situation. As social structures changed, ethnicities needed

modification, revision, and renegotiation. In classical antiquity, this renegotiation of ethnic

identity was expedited partly because ancient culture was characterized by assimilation in almost

every aspect of life.

The power of the Greek cultural heritage, coupled with both a thorough-going assimilation

within society and the plastic, negotiable nature of ethnicity, enabled Greek culture and ethnicity

to survive in the Roman world. There was, however, a change in the notion of "Hellenic" as

Greek power weakened and Roman power grew. So, "...the Romans of the Republic and later

were usually content with the term Graecus to denote both ethnic Greeks and Hellenised peoples

of non-Greek origin."79 As I noted above, in the negotiation of an ethnicity within the context of

a dominant culture, both the dominant culture and the minority culture experience change. Greek

ethnicity was able to survive through means of an extensive and influential dialogue with Rome.

79 N. Petrocheilos, Roman Attitudes to the Greeks (Athens 1974) 18.

In that dialogue the Roman world was profoundly affected by Greek culture, but the definition of

Greek identity changed also. Furthermore, this change was imposed from without, by a new and

dominant culture. This resulted in wide-scale changes in how people were defined by others and

in how they defined themselves. This is not the place to enter into a discussion of how Romans

defined themselves vis-a-vis Greeks. The approach, as well as the answer, to that question is

complicated, but it remains that the Roman world of the first century was a world largely adapted

from Greek models.

This is not to say, however, that Greek culture was static over its history in ancient times.

The Hellenistic world had witnessed great political and cultural changes. As early as 405 BCE

Aristophanes (in The Frogs) was lamenting the end (in his opinion) of high Athenian culture

with the passing of Euripides and Sophocles, and the sense of Greek superiority generated in the

wake of the Persian wars was relativized by the conquests of Alexander III and their aftermath.

"From the point of view of the Greeks, or at least the majority of them, the rise of Macedonia

and the conquest of the East was not a victory of Hellenism over the barbarians; they could not

identify themselves with the Macedonians and their kings."80 As Polybius tried to point out to his

fellow-Greeks, there simply was no stopping Roman imperialism. By the time of Cicero, the

orator could speak of Athens as "weakened and virtually broken."81 Control of Greek affairs

moved from Greece to new Hellenistic centers of power (places like Pella, Alexandria, and

Antioch), and with the coming of Roman imperialism power shifted again to Rome. Yet in spite

of the political decline of Greece, Greek things were still highly respected in the Roman world,

and Greek ethnicity itself survived.

8o A. Giovannini, 'Greek Cities and Greek Commonwealth', in A. Bulloch et al (eds.),
Images and Ideologies: Self-definition in the Hellenistic World (Berkeley 1993) 265.
81 QFr. 1.1.28.

... despite these vicissitudes and misfortunes, the Greeks were able to preserve their
identity remarkably well. Even in the worst conditions, even as exiles or as slaves, they
preserved the awareness that they were the heirs to a great culture that was different from
all others. They were proud of their way of living and thinking. The humiliation of
economic and political decline was to a certain degree compensated for by the admiration
for Greek civilization. Hellenism was extraordinarily attractive, and the Greeks were
conscious of this attractiveness.82

Conscious, but also guarded. The Roman admiration for Greek culture did not run in the opposite


This feeling was not reciprocated. Some Greeks might admire the political wisdom of the
Romans and all were impressed by their military power, but they never ceased to regard
them culturally as barbarians. The Greeks were supremely satisfied with their own
language and literature, and, except for a few antiquarians like Plutarch, who were curious
about Roman history and institutions, felt no call to learn the barbarous Latin tongue or
read its uncouth and imitative literature. The result was that the Greeks had no impulse to
Romanize themselves, and the Roman government felt no mission to impose their
civilization on the East.83

The basic effect of Roman domination was to make the maintenance of an ethnicity outside

of its original context even more difficult. The dominant culture was always quick to remind

such people that they were outsiders. "...foreign immigrants could expect their host society ... to

note their peculiar appearances, customs and accents, and to remind them of their 'barbarian'

origins."84 With Greeks in the Roman world this difficulty was strongly mitigated by the fact that

their culture was the source of much that was now called Roman. Greeks thus had fewer reasons

to feel like outsiders. In fact, the Romans seem to have extended sympathy toward contemporary

Greeks out of a sense of Roman debt to Greek culture. "The former glories of Greece are seen as

still compensating for its reduced state, and ... the achievements and services of Athens in

82 Giovannini 267.
83 A. H. M. Jones, 'The Greeks Under the Roman Empire', Dumbarton Oaks Papers 17
84 Bohak 178-9.

particular, and of the other old states in some degree, are held to justify, and indeed to demand,

specially considerate treatment of the contemporary Greek world."85

The Roman stance toward the Greeks, although mostly positive, was an uneasy one. As

noted earlier, ethnicity does not necessarily buy status, even if that ethnicity has managed to

pervade a large part of the larger society. The Greeks were a conquered people and received the

scorn normally accorded to those who were vanquished. The Latin verb pergraecor acquired a

contemptuous nuance ("self-indulgent"),86 as did the term Graeculus ("Grecian"),87 which was

accompanied by such adjectives as levis ("capricious"), loquax ("talkative"), insulsus ("boring,

stupid"), andfallax ("deceitful").88 Latin authors ascribed to Greeks the qualities of volubilitas

("too talkative"), ineptia ("immoderate behavior or speech"), arrogantia ("haughtiness"),

impudentia ("shamelessness"), levitas ("instability"), as well as deceit, luxury, and a lack of

manliness.89 None of this rhetoric, however, could hide what was obvious, and, in truth, only

sarcastically confessed it: that the Romans owed a tremendous debt to Greek culture in almost

every way. Cato the Censor (M. Porcius Cato; c. 243-149 BCE) was famously opposed to the

influx of Greek things in his day, fearing them as a corrupting influence.90 Gruen has argued,

however, that it would be a mistake to see in Cato's invectives some kind of wholesale

repudiation of Hellenic excellence. He was, after all, quite knowledgeable in all things Greek

himself. Instead, Cato was interested in asserting Roman superiority over Greek culture. "Cato's

knowledge of Greek and Greek culture, on the one hand, and his disparaging attitude, on the

85 Petrocheilos 67.
86 As in P1. Mos. 64. Cf J. Balsdon, Romans andAliens (Chapel Hill 1979) 38.
87 This word was used to express a variety of attitudes towards Greeks, "from the mildly
patronising to the openly contemptuous." Petrocheilos 53.
88 H. Hill, 'Dionysius of Halicarnassus and the Origins of Rome', JRS 51 (1961) 90.
89 Petrocheilos 35-48.
90 Plu. Cat. Ma.

other, were mutually reinforcing."91 By criticizing Greek achievements, the surpassing quality of

the Roman achievements in the same areas would become more apparent. That is, Cato objected

not to philhellenism in general, but to a philhellenism that suggested Roman inferiority.

Post-Cato rhetoric against Hellenism seems to have softened considerably. After the

second century BCE, "Romans tended to idolize not only Greece's past glory, but those Greeks

whose creation it was, as well,"92 and "the anti-Greek current in Republican Rome perished

virtually without a trace."93 Cicero was an admirer of Greek culture and styled himself a

philhellene.94 He expressed regret that Corinth had been destroyed (146 BCE),95 and he spoke

approvingly of Greek cities of his day as cultural centers96 as well as the cultural superiority of

Athens.97 This is no surprise, since Cicero himself received a Greek education. Guite has

surveyed Cicero's references to Greeks and has concluded, however, that Cicero's praise of

Greek things is also tempered by his patriotism.

He was fighting, as Scipio had fought, to give the Roman spirit a chance to declare itself in
letters as well as in life. It was the Greeks who had made him aware of what Roman
literature could be, it was they who had nourished its earliest growth; it was they who even
now furnished his mind, exercised his intelligence, and sharpened his pen. And yet it was
these same Greeks who by their terrible dominance were preventing Roman literature from
ever achieving its rightful stature.98

Here we see that a strong sense of Roman ethnicity continued to play a formative role in the face

of the power of Greek culture and dominated the dialogue, just as it had in Cato the Censor's

criticisms of Greek culture. As much as Cicero was indebted to Greek culture, he envisioned the

day in which Romans would know an even better culture built on its foundations. Until that day

91 E. Gruen, Culture and Identity in Republican Rome (Ithaca 1992) 74.
92 A. Henrichs, 'Graecia Capta: Roman Views of Greek Culture', HSCP 97 (1995) 244.
93 Henrichs 246.
94 Att. 1.15.1.
95 Off 1.35.
96 QFr. 1.1.27-8.
97 Flac. 62.
98 H. Guite, 'Cicero's Attitude to the Greeks', GR 9 (1962) 157.

dawned, Cicero seems to have harbored a kind of love-hate relationship with Greek culture. The

often-quoted line about literature by Horace, Graecia captaferum victorem cepit et artis intulit

agresti Latio ("captured Greece seized her fierce conqueror and brought the arts into uncivilized

Latium"), latently admits an inferiority to Greek things, an attitude that apparently was both

widespread and humiliating at the same time.99 Vergil, a contemporary of Horace, also paid

hesitating homage to Greek culture in Aeneid 6.847-53:

Excudent alii spirantia mollius aera
(credo equidem), vivos ducent de marmore vultus,
orabunt causa melius, caelique meatus
describent radio et surgentia sidera dicent:
tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento
(hae tibi erunt artes), pacisque imponere morem,
parcere subiectis et debellare superbos

("Others will fashion more softly-breathing bronzes
(I truly believe), and will bring out fresh faces from marble,
they will plead their cases better, and the movement of the heavens
they will trace with a rod and designate the rising stars:
you, Roman, remember to rule peoples with supreme power
(these will be your arts), and to establish the order of peace,
to spare those who have been subjected and to subdue the arrogant").100

Again, the Greek heritage is summoned only to become the foil for Roman excellence. While the

Greeks had excelled in artistic achievements, they did not achieve anything like the Roman

empire with its impressive display of political power. In the comparison, Rome wins.

Rome's debt to Greece was undeniable, and yet the Romans despised the implication that

Greece was therefore the greater culture, and they detested certain qualities among the Greeks.

99 The statement appears in Ep. 2.1.156-7. Hill (92) refers to the sentiment of these words
as "the conventional theory" in its day. Saunders suggests that Horace was echoing the words of
Cato ('The Nature of Rome's Early Appraisal of Greek Culture', CP 39 (1944) 209). Cf Liv.
100 However, the Aeneid still reflects a good amount of tension between Greece and
Rome. See Hill 90-2.

This tension was managed in three ways.101 One strategy was to claim that Greeks throughout the

ages possessed both good qualities and bad ones.102 Another strategy made a distinction between

the Greeks of the past and the Greeks of the present, the former being noble, the latter being

contemptible.103 Yet another way around the tension was to distinguish between good ones and

bad ones among contemporary Greeks.104 It could be argued that the second of these approaches

was the most common. By Roman imperial times, Greek things, especially from the golden age

of Athens, were considered, in many ways, to represent an ideal. This was especially apparent in

the influence Greek culture had on Roman art, architecture, and literature. Many of the temples

in Rome were built using Greek craftsmen and after archaic Greek models, Roman villas were

built in Greek style,105 and Greek works of art had flooded Italy since the second century BCE.106

With the coming of the Augustan age and the flowering of a truly national literature, there was

little, if any, doubt that Roman culture, and thus an increasing sense of Roman ethnicity which

was different from that of the Greeks, had come into its own. Yet even in that time many of

Rome's best literati still looked back to Greek culture with a sense of debt, as evidenced by the

lines from Horace and Vergil quoted above. And there were other, more general, indicators that

Greek culture and ethnicity survived well under Roman domination. In imperial times literature

continued to be written in Greek, even literature designed for the eyes of Roman elites who daily

conversed in Latin, and within the Greek language itself there was an Atticizing movement

which attempted to mimic the style and rhetoric of classical Athens. Josephus wrote in the time

of the Second Sophistic, a kind of renaissance of Greek culture. What is important here is that

101 Balsdon 38-40.
102 Cic. Flac., 9.
103 Cf Cic., De Orat. 3.197; D.Chr., Or. 31.157-60.
104 Cic. Ver., 2.2.7.
105 P. Zanker, The Power oflmages in the Age ofAugustus (Ann Arbor 1990) 25-31.
106 E. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming ofRome (Berkeley 1984) 259.

there was among some a distinction to be drawn between contemporary Greeks and Greeks of

the past. The ideal lay with the latter, not the former.107 Furthermore, Romans spoke well of

Greek culture because they saw themselves as standing on the shoulders of that culture, as it

were, and having surpassed it. "A widespread consensus held that command of Greek learning

was not only respectable but fundamental in projecting Rome's own cultural ascendancy."108

Greek ethnicity was thus able to survive the Roman crisis in large part because the Romans

themselves had a use for it, even if ultimately to claim superiority to it.

Hellenistic authors, presumably driven by the wants and needs of their audiences, found

legitimation in establishing connections between themselves and the mythic, heroic Greek past.

That is, ethnicities were reinvented by appeal to the epic age. "... in the competitive atmosphere

of the Hellenistic world, a claim to heroic associations became one ritual means by which to

articulate local histories and local strengths to outside authorities."109 This is another way of

speaking of re-casting an ethnicity in a Greek mold. Alcock goes on to speak of

...the yearning on the part of Hellenistic communities for a history, either real or
"invented." ... Stress was laid upon recovering and celebrating origin myths and legends,
on establishing pedigrees running back into the mists of time. In part, this self-
consciousness appears a product of the threat to the independent life of small cities, a threat
rooted in Hellenistic times which grew apace under the Roman empire. The right to
privilege, the very right to existence, increasingly had to be demanded upon historic
grounds. ... Ancestries and origins, invoked through myth and ritual, could be used to
claim kinship with other cities, to establish status, and to secure identity.110

Historians such as Polybius, a native Greek who lived in Rome for several years and

tutored Scipio, no doubt did much to foster and feed philhellenism in Rome,111 as did Augustus'

107 Petrocheilos 63-7.
108 Gruen, Culture and National Identity 270.
109 S. Alcock, 'The Heroic Past in a Hellenistic Present', in P. Cartledge et al (eds.),
Hellenistic Constructs: Essays in Culture, History, and Historiography (Hellenistic Culture and
Society 26, Berkeley 1997) 33.
110 Alcock 33.
111 See Saunders 212-3.

decision to adopt a Greek mythological progenitor for the subject of the national epic.112 By the

turn of the first century CE, the mood of uneasy recognition of Greek culture seems to have

shifted sufficiently that Dionysus of Halicarnassus could contrive a Greek origin for the Romans

and proclaim that Rome should rightly be called a Greek city.113 He also produced explanations

of the Greek origins of clientship and the Senate, he found Greek elements in various features of

Roman religion, and he had several characters who are either portrayed as aware of the Greek

political models or as consciously imitating famous Greeks.114 Hill has suggested that Dionysius

was consciously opposing the anti-Hellenic undercurrent of sentiment in his day.115 Even if that

assessment goes to far, Dionysius still stands as a confession (even if it is overdone) of the

enduring power of Greek culture in his day.

It was also noted above, from Hall, that among the ancients, ethnicity was expressed in

texts. Historiography after the Greek model was, by Josephus' time, a nearly-ideal vehicle for the

expression or construction of an ethnicity, since it was capable of dealing with the subjects of

origins as well as portraying the defining characteristics of a people as revealed through their

words, actions, and customs. Greek historiography developed initially from the epic tradition,

and the power of the Iliad and the Odyssey as a definition of Greek identity was and is well

known. Both of those works communicated a strong sense of ouYyyEveL (in spite of the personal

disagreements between major characters) and strong ties to the homeland. Greek historiography

acquired an interest in geography and the cultures of other lands from the influence of Hecataeus

of Miletus and his nIpLpyiFroL; FIle, a work that combined a survey of geography with

ethnography. It was left for Herodotus to take the next step and turn ethnography into history.

112 Hill 90, 92.
113 1.89.1.
114 Hill 89.
115 Hill 92-3.

"Ethnography was subsequently either subsumed under the banner of history or became more

historically oriented."116 Greek historiography became a medium by which the cultures of others

served to highlight what was essentially Greek by way of contrast and comparison. Even as the

Mediterranean world fell under Roman rule, the Roman admiration for Greek things meant that

historiography in the Greek vein continued to be written-witness Polybius and Dionysius of

Halicamassus, and in a different genre, the Aeneid of Vergil. In these writers we see that Greek

culture was still the latent benchmark of comparison, even when the subject was the history of

Rome. Although Greek culture was now the foil for Roman culture, the shape of the expression

was still Greek.

My discussion of Greek ethnicity has, so far, drawn from sources in the world around

Josephus. But what did Josephus himself mean when he said that something, or some one, was

"Greek"? What was his concept of Greek ethnicity? This has a significant bearing on what

Josephus thought he was doing and how he tried to do it. As it turns, out, Josephus does not seem

to have had a clearly-defined idea of Greek identity. Nowhere did he discuss the matter

explicitly, and often "Greek" in Josephus simply means "non-Jewish." In the Bellum Judaicum,

the term regularly appears as part of an "us" versus "them" dichotomy in which those who are

not "us" (Jewish) are often (but not always) hostile to Jews.117 Herein lies a significant clue to

Josephus' literary aims. His use of the word "Greek" to denote what is non-Jewish (often with

hostility) betrays his view of the world in which he lived, a world in which Jews were "other,"

not part of mainstream society. He operated on the basis of a perceived wide-scale social

rejection of his people and he wrote to get them "inside." As I have shown above, this is typical

of scenarios in which ethnicities are created. Josephus fits the model well. At any rate, Josephus'

116 Sterling 52.
117 Rajak, The Jewish Dialogue, 139, 142.

failure to lay down explicit criteria for what he means by the word "Greek" can be interpreted to

mean that he operated on the idea of Greek identity that was common in his day. No explication

was needed, because everyone knew what it was. If this assumption is correct, then we are

justified in understanding Greek identity in the way I have outlined above, as drawn from the

ancient sources.

Rajak has also noted that Josephus sometimes distinguishes between Syrians and Greeks.

In Palestine this distinction would not have been easy to maintain, especially if "Syrian" simply

reflects the Roman provincial designation of the area in which these people lived. Surely they

were thoroughly Greek in their culture, so the difference between Greeks and Syrians is

puzzling. Rajak has suggested, tentatively, that "Greek" refers to people who were citizens of

Greek-style cities, presumably with their own constitutions, and "Syrian" refers to those who

lived in towns or villages, but whose culture was Greek also.118 The suggestion is viable. If it is

correct, it provides an important clue about what Josephus thinks a Greek is: he is one who is a

recognized part of an established Greek city.

At least one thing does seem clear: Josephus operates on the basis of a cultural idea of

Greek identity. "... at the time of writing the Jewish War, Josephus was on the way to forming a

conception of a Greek culture as something distinct from the people who were contemporary

Greeks, or would-be Greeks."119 Framing the matter in this way is what would allow Josephus an

opportunity to attempt to negotiate a way in for the Jews. If Greek identity was a matter of

culture, Josephus could argue that Jews are Greek in this way, even though Jews had no blood

ties to Greeks.

118 Rajak, The Jewish Dialogue, 140f.
119 Rajak, The Jewish Dialogue, 143.

Josephus and Ethnicity

As there was a Greek ethnicity in Roman times, there was also a Jewish ethnicity in place.

Smith's six elements of ethnicity existed for the Jews. In addition to 1) their communal name

('IouGio L),120 they possessed 2) a national, canonized literature (the texts of the Hebrew Bible)

that detailed a myth of common descent and 3) a more recent literature (such as the books of the

Maccabees) that continued to tell their shared history. Strongly ingrained in that name and

history was their religion. It is probably true that, in antiquity, to say that someone was Jewish

always included the idea that they practiced Judaism in some form or to some extent.121 This

does not, however, warrant the idea that the religious component was necessarily the dominant

one signified by the word 'IouGLdoi. It would be correct to say, however, that in the first century

CE religion was a criterion for Jewishness and not merely an indicium. It was also well-known

that Jews had 4) a distinctive shared culture, that 5) their ancestral home was considered to be

Palestine (and especially its capital, Jerusalem), and 6) that they not only perceived but also

practiced a strong sense of communal solidarity. Items 1, 4, 5, and 6 were often noted by pagan


While Greek ethnicity fared well under Roman domination, Jewish ethnicity did not.

Greek culture became such a powerful force that it was considered the norm, and non-Greek

cultures were considered inferior. As Verkuyten describes it,

Ethnicity and race can develop into stigma identities, which provide a chronically salient
distinction or a master status that cannot be ignored and serves to define the essential
character of those who are classified. An example of this is the identity 'Gypsy' in many

120 The meaning of the name 'Iou6lioo changed over time. It was originally, and
predominantly, an ethno-geographic term. After the Maccabean period the Judean cilum,,
changed and the term acquired a wider meaning, denoting anyone who followed a Jewish way of
life. S. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness (Berkeley 1999) 69-70, 78-9.
121 S. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness 135-97.
122 I will demonstrate this in chapter 3.

east European countries. A person can be a doctor, an engineer, or a teacher, but as soon as
she or he is known to be a Gypsy, this identity tends to become the definitive one.123

The same situation prevailed for Jews in the Roman empire. Some of the most abundant

evidence for Jewish engagement in ancient society has come from Egypt, where it appears that

Jews pervaded almost every level of ancient Hellenistic society. Some served as soldiers (of

various ranks, until the Roman period), some were money lenders, some were tradesmen,

contractors, horse dealers, tax-farmers, artisans, merchants, vine-dressers, weavers, potters,

musicians, doctors, etc., and more often than not they bore Greek names in addition to their

national names. "A general conclusion emerging from the surviving records is that the economic

and occupational status of Egyptian Jewry under the Ptolemies was normal to the extent that they

were represented in all callings, well represented on the land, in the armed forces and in the

government services,"124 and evidence from other places suggests that Egypt was not an

anomalous situation for the Jews under Roman rule. Jews were not distinguished from Gentiles

by their occupations,125 and even in Rome itself they appear to be regular parts of public life.

Cicero noted their presence in his public defense of Flaccus,126 and Suetonius mentions their

presence among those who mourned the death of Julius Caesar.127

Yet in spite of this thorough penetration into the institutions of the ancient world, the Jews

were viewed as different from the rest of the Greco-Roman world in every one of Smith's six

elements of ethnicity. In the next chapter I hope to describe the extent and severity of this public

perception of the Jews in the time of Josephus. For now, the point is that the perceived Roman

123 P.52.
124 S. Applebaum, 'The Social and Economic Status of Jews in the Diaspora', in S. Safrai
and M Stem (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century (CRINT 1.2, Philadelphia 1976) 703-
4. Cf Tcherikover, CPJI.16-19; also M. Williams, The Jews Among the Greeks and Romans: A
Diasporan Sourcebook (Baltimore 1998) 19-26.
125 S. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness, 37.
126 Flac. 28.
127 Jul. 84.5.

political and cultural realities of the first century CE meant that the Jews were in need of revising

and renegotiating their ethnicity if they hoped to enjoy a respected place within the larger

cultural realm. The motive for this was, as noted above, rooted in a psychological need for some

sense of self-esteem and belonging.

What was Josephus' understanding of Jewish ethnicity? For him, the term 'Iou)6ido simply

means "Jewish," and he used it in both an ethno-geographic sense and as a religious term. When

used as an ethno-geographic term, it can refer to all the inhabitants of the country called "Judea,"

or it can refer more narrowly to the people who live in the southern part of that country (as

opposed to Samaritans or Galileans).128 In fact, Josephus regularly distinguishes Jews from both

Samaritans and Idumeans ethnically, and the "boundaries of what may count as Jewish do thus

appear relatively non-negotiable."129 The phrase 'Ioua6doio T y'vo0 basically means "Judaean by

birth," and S. Cohen has argued that the phrase does not necessarily have a religious implication

for Josephus. It means that a person was born in Judea.130

One area in which Jewish ethnicity was especially vulnerable to change was in the

association of Jews with the homeland and the capital city of Jerusalem. By the time of Josephus,

it seems that "Judea" was becoming less and less of an ethnic criterion for Jews because their

territorially dislocated situations often made strong ties to the homeland difficult or nearly

impossible. The political situation contributed greatly to this condition. Josephus wrote during

the Flavian dynasty of Rome, in which broad political changes were being effected in the Roman

east. The Roman experiment with client kingdoms in the east had, in a word, failed, having

128 S. Cohen, "IOYAAIOE TO FENOE and Related Expressions in Josephus', in F.
Parente and J. Sievers (eds.), Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in
Memory of Morton S.milh (Studia Post-Biblica 41, Leiden 1994) 25-32.
129 Rajak, The Jewish Dialogue 138.
130 S. Cohen, "IOYAAIOE TO FENOE', 36-38.

resulted in too much instability. When Vespasian came to the throne, eastern client kingdoms

were dismantled and replaced by direct Roman oversight. Aristobulus, king of Lesser Armenia,

had his kingdom annexed to the province of Galatia in 71 or 72 CE; Antiochus IV, king of

Commagene, was deposed in c. 73 CE and had his kingdom annexed to the province of Syria;

Sohaemus lost his throne as king of Emesa and his territory was also attached to Syria in the

early 70's CE; Vespasian refused to reinstitute the Herodian dynasty of southern Palestine when

he declined to appoint Herod Agrippa II as king over Judea, and Traj an annexed the kingdom of

the Nabateans in southern Palestine in 106 CE. As more and more territory came under direct

Roman administration, concepts of homeland were harder to maintain. Palestine in particular saw

more than its share of Roman manipulation. ... within a time span of 132 years (63 BCE-

70CE), Palestine was divided and redivided many times, given to local dynasts, and taken from

others by the Roman oppressor."131 The imposition of Roman rule in 63 CE permanently

changed the character of the Jewish homeland. Jews saw it as becoming more and more pagan,

and it eventually lost much of its value as a political national symbol.

The terminology in the surviving texts is also telling, since "almost no one in the Flavian

period calls the Jews 'Judeans'; that is, almost no one links the ludaioi to Judea."132 The term for

the ancestral homeland becomes, among non-Jews, either Idumea or Palestina, and when pagan

authors speak of ludaioi, they do not link them with Judea. Among Romans, Judea as an

ethnographic place was, in effect, disappearing,133 and this made the religious indicium more

131 D. Mendels, The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism (New York 1992) 252.
132 D. Schwartz, 'Herodians and loudaioi in Flavian Rome', in J. Edmondson et al (eds.),
Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome (Oxford 2005) 69.
133 A similar thing happened with Greek culture. The Romans referred to Greece as
Achaea, not as Hellas.

prominent.134 Schwartz notices that "if one compares the War and the Antiquities, Josephus'

usage seems to show a growing notion of the Jews as people defined not by virtue of their

relationship to a place, but, by virtue of their relationship to a religion."135 In fact, Josephus

downplayed the significance of the Jewish homeland in his narrative of Biblical history,

Antiquitates Judaicae 1-11. In the canonical Biblical texts, the land of Palestine belongs to the

Jews by a covenantal promise from God. As Josephus tells the stories, however, he often omits

repetitions of that promise and instead turns the occupation of the land into a prophecy (and

uttered by a pagan prophet at that).136 Similarly, he omits God's order to Joshua to conquer the

land, and he regularly omits the divine promise of return to the land after the Babylonian exile.

"He simply does not portray the land as the heart of the Jewish experience."137 Josephus seems to

have acknowledged that, in the face of the political realities of his day, a strong sense of

connection with Palestine was not a viable criterion of Jewish ethnicity.

The religious dimension of Jewish ethnicity was a sensitive issue for a person in Josephus'

situation. On the one hand, Josephus remained Jewish in his religious convictions throughout his

literary works. Nowhere did he assimilate the Jewish God with a pagan god, nor offered a way

by which Jews could worship pagan gods, and he went to great lengths to explain how the

customs which seemed so odd to non-Jews were actually expressions of great piety when

understood correctly. For Josephus, being Jewish meant worshipping and living according to

Torah and Jewish customs respectively. His idea of Jewish identity is TLVE OvrTEE E pxfi

'Iou0ioU L KM TiOL XprloTjCEvoL TUOXCL i4' O'L) TE TrcaL6uOeiv'VE vo0ioOi ~r T rpbo EUO' pELav

("who Jews were from the beginning, and what fortunes they have experienced, and by what

134 D. Schwartz 69-70.
135 D. Schwartz 77.
136 AJ 4.101ff, Balaam.
137 B. Amaru, 'Land Theology in Josephus' "Jewish Antiquities"', JQR 71 (1981) 229.

lawgiver they were taught the things of piety").138 Josephus was basically invoking what Smith

identifies as a shared history. These things were not for sale, they were non-negotiable. On the

other hand, Jewish refusal to integrate into pagan religion and to give up foreign customs was

commonly interpreted as kind of malevolence against the world at worst, or a strange aloofness

at best. A large part of Josephus' task was to try to convince his Greek (i.e., Hellenistic) readers

that the Jews were sufficiently Greek culturally that these other aspects of their self-identity

should not pose a significant obstacle to full membership in Hellenistic society.


Josephus wrote in the milieu where older Greek things were viewed with a kind of

idealism, where Jewish things were viewed as foreign, and in which the Jews were struggling

with affirming, or renegotiating, their self-definition. It was also a time when the Jews had been

publicly defeated by Roman power, their homeland was ceasing to function as an element of

their self-understanding, and the Roman east was becoming more tightly controlled directly by

Rome. Before Josephus wrote the Bellum Judaicum, other accounts of the war either flattered the

Romans or denigrated the Jews,139 and Josephus repeatedly mentioned Roman hatred of the

Jewish nation as an important part of the background to the war.140 The public perception of

Jewish ethnicity was suffering terribly. However, Josephus also stood in a tradition of openness

to Hellenism.141 From this collection of circumstances an opportunity presented itself. Josephus

had at his disposal a literary vehicle by which he could construct an ethnicity for the Jews:

historiography in the Greek tradition. Through this genre he would contribute to the dialogue

138 AJ 1.6.
139 BJ 1.2.
140 Cf BJ3.133, 140; 4.135; 5:451, 556; 6:214, 263; etc. BJ7:47 sums it up: TO 6 Kara
uTV 'Iou6aLG)v rap& Tr&CoLv iKLaE 4t [^oo( ("hatred of the Jews by all men was at its height").
141 This is the subject of the next chapter.

about how to perceive Jewish identity in the world of the first century CE. From its roots in

Homer and on through the work of Herodotus, Greek historiography had long possessed strong

ethnic qualities and Josephus chose to exploit this function of the genre for the crisis in which he

envisioned his people. His plan was to write Jewish historiography in the Greek vein for the

purpose of negotiating a renewed definition of Jewish ethnicity in the Roman world. He himself

was well-suited to the task, since he was a Jew who lived in Rome and enjoyed Roman

citizenship and literary patronage. He immersed himself in Greek literature for the task that he no

doubt thought would redeem his people in the arena of public opinion and provide them with a

new sense of self-understanding that would carry them into the foreseeable future.

S. Cohen has argued that "the Hellenistic world not only served as the foil against which

the Jews redefined themselves, but also provided the conceptions that were essential to the new

Jewish self-definition." 142 This comports to what was noted above, that an ethnic group often

hopes to define itself in terms of the symbols of the dominant culture around it. Josephus was

keenly aware of this fact and used the conceptions, and the means for expressing them, of his day

to accomplish this redefinition. Dionysius' positive presentation of Hellenism is significant for

the present study. Dionysius was a native of Halicarnassus (east of Rome) who came to Rome c.

29 BCE after a war (the civil war in Rome) and wrote a national (Roman) history in twenty

books. He felt indebted to the Romans for the benefits of his life in Rome143 and wrote to educate

Greeks about Roman history which he felt they knew only incorrectly.144 His history concerns

ethnicity in that he set out to correct and change (for the better) the perceptions of one people

142 S. Cohen, "Religion, Ethnicity, and 'Hellenism' in the Emergence of Jewish Identity
in Maccabean Palestine" in P. Bilde et al (eds.), Religion and Religious Practice in the Seleucid
Kingdom (Aarhus 1990) 204.
143 1.6.5.
144 1.4.2.

about another. To this extent he was opening the dialogue that makes the establishment of an

ethnicity possible. All of this is remarkably similar to Josephus, who came to Rome from the east

after a war only a couple of generations later and who, it is generally acknowledged, knew the

Roman Antiquities of Dionysius145 and wrote a national (Jewish) history in twenty books that

was designed to dispel false understandings of Jewish origins and customs.146 Both authors were

engaged in the business of constructing an ethnicity for peoples of their own day. While neither

were ready to surrender either a fundamental Roman or Jewish identity respectively, both

labored to show that those identities had strong and old affinities with Hellenism. Again, we may

not suppose that Dionysius' Roman Antiquities represents the view of every Roman, but its

publication argues for a continuing acknowledgement of the Roman debt toward the Greeks and

Greek culture, even if in the end the Romans viewed themselves as better by the comparison.

More importantly, as Saunders has observed, "The philhellenes seem to have been slow to

relinquish any part of their Roman birthright. Yet from the introduction of Greek philosophy at

Rome there did slowly emerge a mingling of Greek and Roman ideals which resulted in a more

cosmopolitan view of men and of life."147 Indeed, the classic Greek distinction between Greeks

and barbarians had no counterpart in the Roman view.148 This more cosmopolitan view, which

stands behind Dionysius' work, along with ever-expanding notions of what it meant to be Greek,

opened a window of opportunity for Josephus to negotiate for the Jews a favorable place within

the sentiments of his day in Rome which were increasingly favorable toward Greek culture.

145 Cf L. Feldman, 'Hellenizations in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities: The Portrait of
Abraham', in L. Feldman and G. Hata (eds.), Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (Detroit 1987)
146 P. Collomp, 'Der Platz des Josephus in der Teknik der Hellenistichen
Geschichtsschreibung', in A. Schalit (hg.), Zur Josephus-Forschung (Darmstadt 1973).
147 Saunders 217. Cf also Balsdon 41.
148 F. W. Walbank, 'Nationality as a Factor in Roman History', HSCP 76 (1972) 158.

As Josephus undertook his literary works he was therefore engaging in a project of ethnic

self-definition that was in keeping with the concerns of other literary works in his own day. He

was also participating in a long-standing Jewish concern to re-affirm who they were in the face

of a changing world. How to do this, however, had been, and was still, debated in Josephus'

time. The Jewish literature that arose in the period from the fourth century BCE to the first

century CE (known as the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha) proposed different strategies that

spanned a wide range of possibilities. Josephus' choice was to attempt to define Jews in Greek

terms. That he did not chose to align Jews with Roman excellence is significant. As I have noted,

the Romans respected Greek culture but at the same time felt that they had surpassed it. By

choosing to align the Jews with Greek excellence, Josephus was careful not to claim any kind of

equal footing with Roman ascendancy.149 No one would have believed it, especially in light of

the humiliating defeat of 70 CE. Instead, Josephus chose the more humble option of aligning the

Jews with that Greek culture with which the Romans had already made peace, a culture they

could respect and despise at the same time. For Josephus, if the Jews could attain to some

semblance of the respect the Romans offered the Greeks (even if it was offered in

condescension), that would have been enough. This approach was markedly different from the

violent apocalypticism that had culminated in the First Jewish War. It was, instead, an approach

that emphasized sameness and compatibility.

149 Goodman, 'Josephus as Roman Citizen', 336-38.


Why did Josephus feel the need to produce texts that, among other things, reconstructed

Jewish ethnicity? This question is not fully answered by the observation noted in chapter two,

that a psychological sense of self-esteem and belonging is an important factor in the development

of an ethnicity. The question may be taken further: what precipitated a sense of low self-esteem

and rejection that led Josephus and others like him to propose new ways of understanding the

relationship between the Jews and Hellenistic culture? What was going on that created a sense of

crisis calling for the reassertion of Jewish self-understanding? The answer to this question is

important because it establishes a motive, within historical conditions, for the ethnographic

feature of all of Josephus' works. People do not produce statements of ethnicity, or literary

works heavy with ethnic apologetics, spontaneously or randomly. Ethnicities need revision and

renegotiation in the face of challenge and perceived crisis that affect self-esteem. Ethnicities are,

by their nature, responses. In this chapter I hope to reconstruct a historical context for Josephus'

works that explains why concerns of ethnicity and self-definition would have been on his mind,

as well as demonstrate his awareness of them.

Mistreatment of Jews in Greco-Roman Society

I noted in the previous chapter that the Jews appeared different to their neighbors in every

way, if we use Smith's description of ethnicity as a way of comparing two groups. Even worse,

attempts by Jews in ancient times to maintain those differences in practice by conserving

traditional customs and refusing to adopt customs of the people around them (thus adopting what

appeared to be a strategy of ignoring the dominant culture) made them appear not just different,

but conceited and hostile to the rest of society. This "strangeness" was, perhaps more than

anything else, the prime factor behind anti-Jewish sentiments.1 In addition to this, the Jews of

Josephus' day had most recently been defeated by the Romans (by Pompey, who subjugated

Judea in 64 BCE, and again, of course, in the First Jewish War, 66-70 CE). Therefore this ethnic

group, which was already seen as odd and hostile, now had the added stigma of having been

humiliated in military defeat, twice within recent memory. As a result of previous conquests (at

the hands of Assyrians, Babylonians, and Greeks), by the first century CE Jews had been

dispersed all over the ancient world (commonly called the Jewish diaspora). A people who were

displaced because of war, unrest, famine, etc. now also found themselves in even more difficult

circumstances: they were a minority in a foreign place, and they generally were among the

poorer people in that place.

The picture that emerges from the ancient sources is that Jews were regularly subjected to

unfair or harsh treatment by Roman society at large, and that the Roman governmental machine

was hardly sympathetic at local levels. In what follows I will attempt to review briefly, in

chronological order, a series of events that demonstrates this picture.

Unfair economic policies toward Jews predated Roman control of the east. In the late-

second and early-first centuries BCE, a wave of nationalism swept through Egypt as the

Ptolemaic regime weakened and economic difficulties arose.2 Under this movement the Egyptian

Jews did not fare well, and the Seleucid king Seleucus IV Philopater (187-175 BCE) tried to

confiscate the temple treasury in Jerusalem for the Seleucid coffers.3 By the first century BCE,

1 Sevenster, The Roots ofPagan Anti-Semitism, 143-4. Z. Yavetz wisely suggests that
anti-Jewish sentiments in antiquity should not be viewed as a unique phenomenon but should be
understood against the wider context of antibarbarism in general. 'Judeophobia in Classical
Antiquity: A Different Approach', JJS 44 (1993) 13.
2 E. Gabba, 'The Growth of Anti-Judaism or the Greek Attitude Towards the Jews', in W.
Davies and L. Finkelstein (eds.), The Cambridge History ofJudaism, 2 (Cambridge 1989) 635.
3 2 Mac 3:1-40.

Egyptian anti-Judaism had transcended its local setting and combined with misinformation in

Greek authors and anti-Jewish propaganda from the Seleucids to create a wider anti-Jewish

environment in the ancient world.4 When Roman rule began in 31 BCE, changes in Egyptian

governmental administration resulted in Jews basically disappearing from civil service positions

in society, which probably suggests that not many of them were economically affluent at that

time.5 This significance of this is that in the ancient world, social mobility was basically

available through the network of civil service positions which contributed to the maintenance of

social homogeneity.6 In addition to being cut off from positions from which they might better

themselves, most Egyptian Jews were also subjected to heavier taxation than Greeks.7 In a

similar move, after the conflagration of 70 CE, Vespasian imposed a tax for a newfiscus

ludaicus on all Jews in the empire.8

It was well-known in many places that, prior to the First Jewish War, Jewish communities

outside of Jerusalem (the Diaspora) levied a tax among themselves and sent the sum to Jerusalem

every year.9 For example, Tacitus mentions it in his Histories (5.5) as part of his description of

the customs of the Jewish people. The problem was that it was a constant challenge for Jews to

keep these funds safe for their intended destination. For example, in Antiquitates Judaicae

4 Gabba 636, 646.
5 Applebaum, 'The Social and Economic Status', 704-5.
6 See N. Purcell, 'The Apparitores: A Study in Social Mobility', Papers of the British
School at Rome 51 (1983) 125-73.
7 The evidence is collected in CPJI nos. 60-2.
8 C.D. 65.2.
9 J. Liver, 'The Half-Shekel Offering in Biblical and Post-Biblical Literature,' HTR 56
(1963) 173-98. Josephus mentions the practice as being that of all Jews everywhere. "Oau4gUon'
6e [Lr6L5 EL' TOOOUTOC 'v TrXO&Uoc Ev T6) T1[ETEpcQ LEpG) Tr 'VTh)V TWV KarU TTlv OLKOUiEvrfv
'IouiL5G)v Kca oepo0Evo)V Tv tOE6V iL 65 KUaL TV &7rb fil( 'AoFaic KacL rfil EUipWSTrfl dcEL acrb
ou4epo6vTv EK TrOXX(Lv TTrvu XpovOw." ("And let no one wonder that there was such wealth in
our temple, since all the Jews throughout the empire, and those who worshipped God, even those
of Asia and Europe, have been sending their contributions to it from very ancient times.") AJ
14.11. Tacitus knew about it as well: Hist. 5.5.

14:112f, Josephus quotes the Historica Hypomnemata of Strabo of Cappadocia as evidence of

this problem. Strabo documented that in the course of the war in 88 BCE wrEri~c 6a MLOpL5pTir

[El( K6o] 'E' ap T&C Xp iUp 'ra' TrapEOeTO EKEl K XEOTra(Tp PC OLaXLoUooC KMcL T& T 5V 'Iou6ad)v

OKTrCKOOLC rXaXavTu ("Mithridates sent to Cos and took the funds which queen Cleopatra had put

there, and eight hundred talents of the Jews"), to which Josephus adds the explanation: "i ~tv 6'

65r46oLa0 xp 0r'aT obUK 'EOTLV T i6va r1 TOU OEoC KMIL 65Xov OTL rMfta t.t r vyK0Uav Ecu K(;) U&

XpiTart oL Ev ur 'Ao(L 'Iou6(XLOL 6L& Tbv MLOpL6Trou dO6pov" ("For we have no funds but only

those that are God's, and it is clear that the Asian Jews had sent these funds to Cos out of fear of


Confiscating these funds was a relatively easy thing to do and was one of the most

common actions taken against Jewish communities. In the ancient literature we hear several

complaints that these funds had been seized by local officials. In 59 BCE Lucius Valerius

Flaccus, the imperial legate in Asia in 62-61 BCE, was tried for maladministration over a

complaint by the Jews of Asia that he had confiscated their funds which were intended for

Jerusalem. He was defended by Cicero. The Roman Senate had banned the export of gold and

silver to foreign countries, but the Jews had always been granted an exemption in order to pay

their temple tax.10 Flaccus, however, ignored the exemption and put the money into the Roman

publicum. Cicero's defense was to admit that the charges were true and that his client was acting

dutifully, following Roman law in prohibiting the export of the funds. In the course of the

defense, Cicero shows little restraint in denigrating the Jews. He says:

Quis est, iudices, qui hoc non vere laudare possit? Exportari aurum non oportere cum
saepe antea senatus tum me consule gravissime iudicavit. Huic autem barbarae
superstition resistere severitatis, multitudinem Iudaeorum flagrantem non numquam in
contionibus pro re public contemnere gravitatis summae fuit. ... Stantibus Hierosolymis

10 E. Smallwood, The Jews Under Roman Rule From Pompey to Domitian (Leiden 1976)

pacatisque Iudaeis tamen istorum religion sacrorum a splendore huius imperi, gravitate
nominis nostri, maiorum institutes abhorrebat; nunc vero hoc magis, quod illa gens quid de
nostro imperio sentiret ostendit armis; quam cara dis immortalibus esset docuit, quod est
victa, quod elocata, quod serva facta.

("Who is there, judges, who cannot truly praise this? The senate had most seriously ruled
often before, while I was consul, that gold ought not be exported. But to resist this
barbarous superstition was to be strict, and to disregard the multitude of Jews, who were
inflamed in the assemblies about public business, was an act of the highest dignity ...
While Jerusalem was standing and the Jews were peaceful, the religion of that detestable
people was adverse to the splendor of this empire, the dignity of our name, and the
customs of our ancestors; now it is more truly detestable, since that people have shown
with arms what they think about our empire; and just how dear it was to the immortal gods
has been shown, because it was conquered, farmed out for taxes, and has become

The defeat of Jerusalem to which Cicero referred was that of Pompey in 64/3 BCE, which

brought Judea under Roman control. Cicero's speech was delivered in 59 BCE, so the memory

of that defeat was still fresh in Roman minds. Cicero seemed confident that he could easily

arouse anti-Jewish sentiments among the jurors, whom he was attempting to persuade to see the

issue from the Roman side. To deny the Jews an exemption was simply to hold them to the

demands of law; Flaccus was acting properly, Cicero explains. According to him, the Jews had

proven themselves to be troublemakers both in Rome and in Jerusalem, and this latest incident

was another example of their rebellion against Roman law. He therefore argued that they

deserved to have their requests ignored. Furthermore, he added, the inferiority of the Jews as a

people was evident in the results of the recent conflict. The gods obviously did not favor them. In

another place in the same speech, he referred to Jerusalem as suspiciosa ac maledica civitate ("a

suspicious and slanderous city").12 Yet we probably ought not make too much of Cicero's

rhetoric here. It was his common practice, in such judicial settings, to incriminate the national

11Flac. 69.
12 Flac. 68.

character of opponents.13 When we take this rhetorical practice into account, "there is little left of

Cicero's supposed anti-Semitism."14 In the rest of Cicero's extant works the Jews are

conspicuously ignored, so he does not seem to have been particularly troubled by, nor interested

in, them. Yet a case can be made that Cicero was playing upon current anti-Jewish sentiments,

and that "... Cicero counted on arousing anti-Jewish prejudice in the jurors' minds to colour their

consideration of the charges against Flaccus."15

Another example dates from 14 BCE and comes from Josephus:

T6OT 6e Trepi trv 'IviLAv brUTp V yEvoiHeov dV roiX TrXniOo 'Iou6gcav Titd Tro6XEL o)KEL
TrPOo~tEL KcLpo Kca Tr cppeOLca( E~TrELXTI 44EVOL KtCL T& ErTrPELCa 'e yov a ieTrrpO e COVuTO
eV EUOUvovTOV iv L'V paiLs y 14eipauLe KCoL TV dEL 'IEpoooXuha pl xpratov advattLOEiwvov
5(TrcLvcv Th)V LEpG)V Vp6r')VPav 4Lv (X)eLcrdoav 'PUe' 4ocaov XITOL( ETrLUpE*,vrov KaTU

("Then when they [Agrippa and Herod] were in Ionia, a great multitude of Jews who
inhabit their cities came, seizing the opportunity and courage, and related the abuses they
were suffering, that they were not allowed to have their own laws, that they were forced to
present their lawsuits, by the abuse of the judges, on the holy days, and that they were
deprived of the funds that had been set aside for Jerusalem, having been forced to
participate in campaigns and public services and to spend the sacred funds for these things,
from which they were always released by the Romans, who had allowed them to live
according to their own laws.")16

The litany of complaints reveals a situation of frequent interference in their way of life and, even

more, being forced to do things that were against their religion. The fact that they had lawsuits in

13 To cite one example, Cicero used similar language defending Fonteius against the
Celts. He said: ceterae pro religionibus suis bella suscipiunt, istae contra omnium religiones; illae
in bellis gerendis ab dis immortalibus pacem ac veniam petunt, istae cum ipsis dis immortalibus
bella gesserunt ("others undertake wars on behalf of their religions, but they wage war against
the religion of all; others when waging war beg for peace and pardon from the immortal gods,
but they have waged war with the immortal gods themselves"). Pro Font., 30. See also Walbank
14 M. Stern (ed.), Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem 1984) 194.
See also A. Marshall, 'Flaccus and the Jews of Asia (Cicero 'Pro Flacco' 28.67-69)', Phoenix 29
(1975) 141-2.
15 Marshall 142.
16 AJ 16.27-8.

the public courts suggests that they had been defrauded in some ways and needed to seek redress

in the local legal system. They were, however, forced to conduct legal business on Saturdays in

violation of their practice of not working on the Sabbaths. The choice they were given was either

to violate the Sabbath and get some legal relief, or keep the Sabbath and suffer injustices. Their

temple contributions were also confiscated and spent on public works, and they were pressed

into military service in spite of the fact that it was well-known that the Sabbath regulations

forbade Jews from taking up arms on that day.17 In fact, it seems that Jews were regularly

granted exemption from Roman military service for this very reason.18

Later in the same book, Josephus relates in a lengthy section (16.160-173) that Jews in

Asia and Cyrene were experiencing, among other things, further interference with their

collection of money for the Jerusalem temple, and they appealed to Augustus for help. All

Josephus says is that kv 6 'r TO TE 6L' E'TrTpeLa( EXO6vov TGxv 'EXXlvowv abUTroi 6' KKCL

XprlUToV iLep)v c caLpeoRLv ("at that time the Greeks mistreated them so far that they took their

sacred funds").19 The Jews sent envoys to Augustus to complain about this treatment, and

Augustus ruled in their favor. Josephus then quotes the decree Augustus made about this matter

and proceeds to quote five more such decrees: one by Augustus addressed to Gaius Norbanus

Flaccus, the proconsul of Asia, one by Agrippa addressed to the people of Ephesus, another by

Agrippa to the people of Cyrene, one by Flaccus to the magistrates of Sardis, and one by the

proconsul Julius Antonius to the people of Ephesus, all to the same effect, that the money the

Jews collected for the Jerusalem temple was not to be touched. The picture that develops is that

seizure of Jewish Diaspora funds intended for the Jerusalem temple was not an uncommon

17 Cf AJ 14.226.
8 S. Applebaum, 'The Legal Status of the Jewish Communities in the Diaspora', in The
Jewish People in the First Century (CRINT 1.2, Philadelphia 1974) 459-60.
19 AJ 16.160.

occurrence in the cities where Jews lived, and that the Jews complained about it often. The

overall purpose of these stories, which are a major and distinctive part of the Antiquitates

Judaicae, was to establish that Romans had always sided with Jews when it came to practicing

their customs,20 although this falls far short of any official "charter" of Jewish privilege across

the empire.21 Josephus' overall appeal for ethnic toleration of the Jews was not new. The fact that

he felt compelled to rehash the matter suggests, however, that anti-Jewish sentiments had risen

and now required that his audience be reminded of the long-standing friendly disposition of

Rome towards the Jews.

Perhaps one of the most famous incidents of Jewish mistreatment happened in Egypt

during the tenure of Aulus Avilius Flaccus (32-8 CE), an event that has come to be called the

first pogrom. Philo of Alexandria was a witness to the scene. In 38 CE Herod Agrippa I (who

was a friend of the emperor Gaius) visited Alexandria on his way to take his new position as

"king" of part of Palestine, and on his visit he was publicly insulted by anti-Jewish Greeks in that

city. The incident quickly spilled over into the synagogues and the Jewish sections of the city.

Many Jews were killed or tortured, their homes ransacked and their possessions looted. Philo laid

the blame for the riot at the feet of the Roman governor Flaccus, who, he charges, was paranoid

with suspicion that Agrippa was out to topple him.22 The governor failed to restrain the violent

mob and, according to Philo, even encouraged its actions. The groundwork for this violence had

been laid in the time of Augustus, when he confirmed the special privileges the Jews already

enjoyed and at the same time denied the Alexandrians' request for a senate.23 The Jews had long

shown loyalty to Rome, but Alexandrians were anti-Roman. Action against the Jews therefore

20 S. J. Case, 'Josephus' Anticipation of a Domitianic Persecution', JBL 44 (1925) 14.
21 T. Rajak, The Jewish Dialogue i/ ith Greece and Rome (Leiden: Brill, 2002) 301-11.
22 Ph., In Flaccum 10-20.
23 CPJ II no. 150.

became a convenient way for Alexandrians to vent their dislike of Rome.24 Flaccus eventually

fell victim to the political intrigues of the day, resulting in banishment and execution, but the

Jews found no redress in the emperor Gaius who treated their delegation scornfully at Rome.

When Claudius came to the throne, the Jews appealed once more for reparations, but all they got

was an order not to push the situation either in Alexandria or in Rome any farther.25

We should not develop the impression that Alexandria was the norm.26 Of course, Jews

coexisted peacefully with their pagan neighbors in many places. For example, there was a large

Jewish population in Syrian Antioch (estimated at 65,000 persons), many of whom probably

enjoyed civic privileges equal to those of Greeks, and they constituted a TroXLtuEta--an ethnic

group from abroad that constituted a self-contained, but not autonomous, political community

and that enjoyed a pleasant existence there.27 Furthermore, Dio Cassius portrays the

Alexandrians as a people who did not get along with anyone28-an exaggeration, but probably

indicative of the volatile situation that seems to have been characteristic of that city. However,

24 H. Bell, 'Anti-Semitism in Alexandria', JRS 31 (1941) 4.
25 The text of the decree is in CPJII no. 153 and A. Hunt and C. Edgar (trans.) Select
Papyri II (Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA 1963) 79-89.
26 As J. Collins has suggested, the rioting in Alexandria in 38 CE was the product of
specific circumstances in that city and not the product of a general hatred of Jews. 'Anti-
Semitism in Antiquity?: The Case of Alexandria', in C. Bakhos (ed.), Ancient Judaism in its
Hellenistic Context (SupJSJ 95, Leiden 2005) 18.
27 C. Kraeling, 'The Jewish Community at Antioch', JBL 51 (1932) 130-60; CJP 1.6.
There is scholarly debate over whether Jews constituted a TroXruT.LT in any of the cities where
they lived. J. Meleze-Modrzejewski denies that the Jews had such a status ('How to be a Greek
and Yet a Jew in Hellenistic Alexandria', in S. Cohen and E. Frerichs (eds.), Diasporas in
Antiquity (Brown Judaic Studies 288, Atlanta 1993) 77-80). However, the Letter ofAristeas
(310) refers to Alexandrian Jews by this term, and two inscriptions from Berenice in Cyrenaica
(1st cent. CE) mention 'E60o TroiL pXouoL KCL T~ TroXLTEU't'TL T()v 'v BepEviLK 'IouaG& v. E.
Schirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 3.1 (rev. and ed. G. Vermes
et al, 3 vols.; Edinburgh 1986) 88.
28 65.8.

the evidence is broad enough to conclude that Jews regularly and frequently suffered various

forms of harassment from their neighbors, even if it was not universal.

Within Palestine, a well-known Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, incurred the displeasure

of Jews more than once for actions they considered to be willfully offensive. Josephus reports in

Antiquitates Judaicae 18.55-59 that Pilate set up images of Tiberius in Jerusalem. He also tells

the story in Bellum Judaicum 2.169-174. That the same story appears in both works suggests that

our author saw this as important for his purposes. The date was probably Pilate's first year in

office, 26 CE, and the images were most likely the signa of the Roman cohort in Judea, which

had representations of the emperor.29 In the Antiquitates Judaicae Josephus calls them Trporo[L&a

Kaoaapo a rU oiTaiaic Tr poToIoav ("busts of Caesar, which were attached to the ensigns"), in

the Bellum Judaicum &e KcxCalpo w E'LKOva at aU TitCaL KcXOwVTr L ("the images of Caesar which

are called ensigns"). The exact nature of the Jewish objection is unclear, because there was

nothing in Biblical Jewish law that would have prohibited this.30 Nevertheless, the Jerusalem

Jews objected that this action on Pilate's part violated a Jewish prohibition of idols within the

city. Pilate received the Jewish objectors in the stadium at Caesarea Maritima, and stationed

soldiers in the wings who, at his signal, advanced on the crowd. The procurator eventually

backed down, but the incident reflected a willingness on his part to use force, instead of legal

procedures, to settle complaints about the violation of Jewish religious sensibilities.

As it stands, this story is an example of an unprovoked and undeserved affront against

Jewish piety. The occasion for bringing the signa to Jerusalem was that Pilate had moved Roman

troops to Jerusalem for the winter. In the version of the story in the Antiquitates Judaicae,

29 C. Kraeling, 'The Episode of the Roman Standards at Jerusalem', HTR 35 (1942) 263-
30 Feldman, 'Flavius Josephus Revisited', 818.

Josephus says IILM&To 6' 6 Ti 'Iou6aiL ';YEti v orpar'CLv EK KEaLoCpEUEL &'yay(yv KKL

eGL6puoca XELcU56LoUo V ouv Iv 'poooo0XuOL; EiTrL KTA6&UOU L iTV VOIL'O)V iTv 'Io6U'CLKG;v

04p6vr1oe ("Pilate, the governor of Judea, intended the abolition of Jewish customs when he led

the army from Caesarea and wintered it in Jerusalem"). Caesarea Maritima, thirty five miles

away, was the normal residence of the procurator. Pilate certainly would have felt at home there,

for the city was thoroughly Romanized. According to Josephus, then, the reason Pilate made this

invasive move to Jerusalem for the winter was that he willfully intended to violate and do away

with Jewish customs. In other words, the Jews were innocent victims of a man who had no

respect for their religion and who was bent on causing trouble. Given the pluralism of Roman

religion, this is surely designed to strike the reader as odd and sinister.

Josephus also relates a mistreatment of Jews by the same governor only a year or so later.

He says

'Y6T rov 6e EircUyoyWYiv tEL T& 'IEpooAu[LcL 'EirpcLEV 6avTrUVT1J TWV LEpU)V XPTr1 Po)V EKXPcLp.v
T rv UapX1rv TOU pe'uiccTOr Ooov &6(TO o6LCHoV 6LCKooLG)v ol 6' OUK T'y&cTrr)v TOLt &4oi Tb
i56op 6pG~iEvoL; TroXXca TE upLu6 ~de &vOp&Trrv ouvEXO6ovrT KatEPo()v crToO TrrauoaoGc
TOU ETrL TOLo6oUTOL TpoOu4ouL EoV TLve 65E KUCL A0OL60opL Xp6ievoL i'ppLov el; T0V cv6pa
ola 6T tLXEL TTpaooeLV oiiLXo0. 6 6 e aOTOXT Tt EKELV(OV TroA TTrXfiO orparuTioL v
a4rEXo 6vov O'L E0 E POVO oKUTA(LXC 6UT T(Li OTOAXoCL 6LaLrEi~' EL Trde EpLEXOOLEv a(o6U;
aU6t EKE XEUuoev Vc(vaopeLV TWV 6e (pPrLKOl h)v dEL TO6 OL60peLV TTro66LcXOL TToL

EXpvrTo TrXTiyaL; TOU6; TE OopupouvTra ev 'LOaC KUCL 4i Kol(Covrt e ol 6' ELoe4)poTro
aacXK6v ou 6Ev odOTE &oTrXOL XAivr|OTeV iUTr' Uav6p6Cv EK TxapoKEUTe E( TL()eP0poiEV(V TrOXXOL
i v "UT(V TUC/UT1 KCL cdTr'OvrTIKOV ol 6e KUCL Tpaua4TL'L oVEX6JprT1oav KCL oU5T) Tr o6EU L Ti

("He [Pilate] made a supply of water for Jerusalem, taking for its expense the sacred funds,
for the head of the stream was two hundred stadia away. But they [the Jews] were not
pleased with the things that had been done regarding the water, and many ten thousands of
men got together and complained to him to stop such a desire. And some attacked him with
verbal abuse and insulted the man, just as a crowd likes to do. But he, covering with their
robes a great multitude of soldiers, who carried clubs under their robes, and sending them
to where they might surround them [the Jews], himself ordered the Jews to leave, but when
they began to insult him, he gave to the soldiers the signal which had been previously
arranged. They gave much more blows than Pilate had ordered, punishing equally the
troublemakers and those who were not, and they brought on nothing mild so that unarmed

people were seized by armed men, and many of them who were attacked in this way even
died, and the wounded ones withdrew, and thus the revolt ended.").31

Given the other examples reviewed above, it is clear that Pilate was acting in a way that other

Roman officials had acted toward Jews in other parts of the empire. His seizure of Jewish funds

was not unprecedented. Funds in Jerusalem must have been especially tempting. The annual

temple tax sent from Jews in the provinces made the temple rich and had made it a target more

than once. For example, Crassus plundered the Jerusalem temple during his Parthian

expedition.32 How much money was taken in this particular incident we do not know, but it

seems that the knowledge that a sizeable sum of money was sitting in Jerusalem proved an

irresistible temptation for a procurator who wished to engage in public works as part of a

program to honor the emperor and stay in his favor.33 Josephus reports the incident as a misuse

of Roman imperium and a breach of good will with the client subjects, the Jews.

Josephus himself had a first-hand experience with unfair treatment of Jews at the hands of

Romans when, at the age of 26 (63/64 CE), he participated in a delegation to Rome to appeal to

Nero on behalf of some Jewish priests from the homeland of Judea (remember, Josephus was

such a person himself) who had been imprisoned and sent to Rome for trial. The details of this

are sketchy. He says

MET' ELKOOTOV 6e KcL `KTOV EvL duTrv dEL 'PPo[Trlv [0oL OUVETrEOeV &vcVOxpvL 6L& T OIv
XEXOTrloo4EVTirv aUL'iav KaU' ov xp6vov "XAL Trfl 'Iou1)aia[ EiTrETpoTrEUEv 'LEpElt TLVC(;
ouv OELG E4iol KXaXOb) KxyaUOOk) 6L& tLLKP(V Kca TT1v TUXOUUoav caLLav 65'oa(C EL'( tlv
'PGjtTIv 'ETrE*t XO 6yov 6iE'ovTa (; Kcaoapi oi Ey'Y Tropov EUpEoOaCL pouXt0oEVOc
ooWtTrpLTaL dUXLora 65 TrTuOe6lvo OTL KcaUTrEp EV KC(KOLc jOVTE OUK ETrEX'.OOVto Trfl| E' T6
OeLov EUIo1EPELca ..'. dOLK6iTIv el tilv T'PotTIrv ... 6i& 4LALX(wU 4LK6OtTIv 'AXLTU6pQ
tLtotXoyofo 6' rIv omocU t&XLOTFCa TCo NEpovi KaTaLLOtLLo 'IouGa)xo( T6 yEvo( KaL 6t' amTo6
nIoTrraLC TT Tof Ka[oappo( yuvaLKL yvooO et. Trpovo3) Oe TdXLoTa TrxapaKaUEoaC aUrTiv

31 AJ 18.60-2.
32 AJ 14.105-9.
33 J. Taylor, 'Pontius Pilate and the Imperial Cult in Roman Judea', NTS 52 (2006) 555-

TOi( 'LEpELc XUOAVCI L 9 [EyXOV 6e 5PE;G)GV Trp6o T) EUEPYEoLc TMVUTl TuXcv Trapc& TrU
noTTrcLa(X UTrECioTpE4oV E'rl TiTi1v o'iKEiav.

("When I was in my 26th year, it fell to me to go up to Rome for the reason that will now
be stated: At the time when Felix was procurator of Judea, some priests who were close
friends to me, and fine and good men, were bound for a small and indefinite reason and
sent to Rome to furnish a defense to Caesar, men for whom I was desiring to find a means
of rescuing, especially since I learned that although they were living in hardships, they did
not forget piety toward the divine being .... I arrived at Rome ... and through friendship I
became known to Aliturus, a Jew by race but who was especially mindful to Nero, and
through him I became known to Poppea, Caesar's wife. I gave thought as quickly as
possible, calling on her for help that the priests be released; and having gained great gifts
from Poppea, in addition to this service, I returned home").34

We do not know what these priests had done to land them in this trouble. The picture Josephus

gives us is that the procurator's actions were motivated out of spite against Jews rather than out

of any serious legal offense. The charges against them, Josephus says, were trivial. Whether this

assessment of the situation is historically correct or not, we will never know, but it is not out of

line with the way other Roman officials sometimes treated Jews, especially those officials who

were assigned to Judea. These priests may have done nothing more than irritate the procurator

with some complaint of a civil nature, enough that the procurator could accuse them of causing

civil unrest. The fact that the matter was resolved so easily suggests that no serious infraction of

Roman law was involved. We may also surmise that these Jews had already had a hearing before

the procurator and had appealed to Rome. Felix was recalled from office some time in the late

50's CE. Josephus says he joined the delegation to Rome in his twenty-sixth year, or 63-64 CE.

Therefore the Jewish priests Felix had sent to Rome had been held in custody on minor charges

for between six and ten years without a hearing before the emperor. The wheels of justice had

been turning slowly for these people.35

34 Vit. 1.13-14, 16.
35 In the New Testament's Acts of the Apostles (12.1-12, 25) a similar scene is described
as another Jew, Paul, stood trial before Felix's successor, Porcius Festus. Felix had left Paul's
case unresolved for two full years. Festus admitted that he could not discern that Paul had

The events reviewed above paint a general picture of frequent harassment of Jews at the

local level in the provinces, an harassment that was frequently instigated by Roman officials

themselves. It was not official persecution, but it was not kind treatment either. Daniel correctly

observes that "The Greek and Roman attitude toward them was more one of contempt than of

hatred,"36 and Gruen notes that "Romans showed little understanding of Judaism, but were

hardly inveterate bigots. The texts reveal neither intolerance nor racism. And nothing in them

suggests that Romans were bent on persecution."37 These actions did, however send the message

that the Jews were not considered social equals.

The kinds of harassment noted above reflect in actions the derogatory comments we hear

about the Jews in the ancient literature.38 Apollonius Molo (first cent. BCE), a famous

rhetorician whose pupils included Cicero and Caesar, referred to the Jews as cowards, godless,

witless, hostile to other men, the vilest of all men, and having contributed nothing to

civilization.39 Similarly, according to Augustine, Seneca called the Jews sceleratissimae gentis

committed any crime but indicated that he was willing to sacrifice Paul (and turn him over to his
enemies) for the sake of initial good relationships with the local client authorities, and so Paul
exercised his right toprovocatio. This incident took place in 57 CE, when Porcius Festus began
his procuratorship in Judea, only six years before Josephus made his trip to Rome. When the
account in Acts ends, Paul had sat in custody in Rome for two more years, still waiting for his
trial before the emperor (28.30). One is also reminded of the group of Greeks of which Polybius
was a part. They were sent to Rome in 168 BCE on charges of opposition to the sovereignty of
Rome and held for seventeen years without trial. Hata has suggested, in a highly speculative
article, that Josephus' story is fictitious. G. Hata, 'Imagining Some Dark Periods in Josephus'
Life', in F. Parente and J. Sievers (eds.), Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period:
Essays in Memory of Morton Smnith (Studia Post-Biblica 41, Leiden 1994) 314.
36 J. Daniel, 'Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic-Roman Period', JBL 98 (1979) 53.
37 E. Gruen, 'Roman Perspectives on the Jews in the Age of the Great Revolt', in A.
Berlin and J. Overman (eds.), The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology
(London 2002) 37.
38 For a full treatment, see Stem, Greek andLatin Authors.
39 As reported by Josephus in Ap. 2.148, 236.

("a most wicked people").40 The poverty of many Jews also made them despised, as when

Martial describes a matre doctus ... rogare ludaeus ("the Jew taught by his mother to beg").41

These opinions were based largely on misinformation or malicious interpretations about

actual Jewish practices. Most Greek and Latin authors do not seem to have investigated these

matters much at all, and simply repeated common (and malevolent) stories about Jewish

practices, their origins, and their meanings that were demonstrably incorrect. For example,

Horace, Tacitus, Juvenal, Petronius, Seneca, and Dio Cassius all viewed the Sabbath observance

as the practice of idleness and a waste of time.42 Pliny the Elder described Judaism as a kind of

magic,43 and Pompeius Trogus said the Jews came from Damascus,44 while Strabo repeated a

story that said the Jews were Egyptians.45 Even when Varro, the great scholar and forerunner of

the Augustan religious restoration, commended Jews for worshipping an aniconic deity, he was

nevertheless misinformed when he said that the Jews worshipped the Roman god Jupiter.46 The

transmission of such stories, careless by modern historical standards, is indeed partially

attributable to the nature of historiography in the ancient Hellenistic world. Much of it sounds

like stereotyping and it cannot be taken at face value. However, the creation and propagation of

stereotypes reflects a prejudice that was willing to believe such outrageous stories about Jews in

the first place. Furthermore, as Gruen has pointed out, what is interesting is that anti-Jewish

40 De civ. D. 6.11.
41 12.57.13, as noted by Daniel, 'Anti-Semitism', 52.
42 Hor. Satires 1.9; Tac. Hist. 5.4.; Juv. 14.105-6; Petr. Satyr. frag. 37; Seneca, as
reported in August., C.D. 6.11; D.C. 37.17. Older Greek writers such as Agatharchides of Cnidus
believed the same thing (quoted to this effect by Josephus in Ap. 1.209-12).
43 HN 30.11: Est et alia magices factio a Mose et lanne et Lotape ac Iudaeis pendens, sed
multis milibus annorum post Zoroastren ("There is another branch of magic, derived from Moses
and Jannes and Lotapes and the Jews, but coming many thousand years after Zoroaster").
44 In Justin's epitome of the Historiae Philippicae bk. 36 (epitome 2.1).
45 From Strabo's lost Historica Hypomnemata, quoted by Josephus AJ 14.118.
46 In August., De Consensu Evangelistarum 1.22.30, 31; 1.27.42.

sentiments seem to be the same both before and after the War.47 That is, the sentiment remained

constant, apparently well-rooted in the Roman psyche.

A clearer example is the slander that appears to have been widespread in the first century,

that the Jews worshipped the head of an ass in the Jerusalem temple. Tacitus mentions it,48 and

Josephus includes it in his list of things to refute in his Contra Apionem.49 A sense of the

animosity some Greeks felt toward the Jews is related in another story, apparently also widely-

circulated,50 that the reason the Jewish temple in Jerusalem was off-limits to everyone was

because the Jews kept a Greek captive there and fed him liberally in order to use him as a human

sacrifice and to eat his flesh.51 According to the story, the eating of the victim's entrails was

accompanied by an oath in which the Jews vowed to hate Greeks. What is especially interesting

about the story is that the Greeks are the yearly object of Jewish hatred. Similarly, the Suda

lexicon reports that an otherwise unknown author Damocritus (late first century BCE or early

first century CE) related a story that the Jews hunted down and captured a foreigner every seven

years, and killed him by shredding his flesh.52 The stories emphasize the extreme "otherness" of

the Jews as perceived by pagans, a cultural distance that was interpreted as hostility. Such tales

47 E. Gruen, 'Roman Perspectives', 28-9.
48 Hist. 5.4.
49 Ap. 2.80ff The story was as old as the third century BCE, probably originated in
Egypt, and eventually existed in three versions. B. Bar-Kochva, 'An Ass in the Jerusalem
Temple-The Origins and Development of the Slander', in L. Feldman and J. Levison (eds.),
Josephus' Contra Apionem: Studies in its Character and Context i/th a Latin Concordance to
the Portion Missing in Greek (Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Antiken Judentums und des
Urchristentums 34, Leiden 1996) 310-26. The fact that it is recorded in Mnaseas, Apollonius
Molon, Posidonius, Damocritus, Apion, Plutarch, and Tacitus is evidence that anti-Jewish
slanders were wide-spread in antiquity and probably more numerous than the extant evidence
betrays. Sevenster, The Roots ofPagan Anti-Semitism, 8-11.
50 Josephus says that Apion was acting as spokesman for others (propheta vero aliorum
factus est Apion) Ap. 2.91.
51Ap. 2.91-5.
52 FgrHist 730. The mention of "every seven years" is possibly a gross misunderstanding
of the Jewish cycle of Sabbath years.

were designed to portray the Jews as barbarians, the enemies of civilized society, people who

were not fully human and who, worst of all, in the worst kind of deception hid their hostility in

the guise of religious piety. 53

Jews were generally regarded as a backwards, foreign (i.e., un-Roman) people whose ways

and beliefs were strange. As Daniel has noted, "A survey of the comments about Jews in the

Hellenistic-Roman literature shows that they were almost universally disliked, or at least viewed

with an amused contempt."54 Furthermore, their strict monotheism, coupled with privileges that

exempted them from Roman institutions like the emperor cult and the fact that they often

willfully segregated themselves from others in the cities where they lived, made them appear

aloof and, even worse, hostile to the rest of society. Such was the impression of Philostratus,

Diodorus Siculus, and Juvenal.55 Some of the most vitriolic statements are found in Tacitus. In

one place he says:

Hi ritus quoquo modo inducti antiquitate defenduntur: cetera institute, sinistra foeda,
pravitate valuere. Nam pessimus quisque spretis religionibus patriis tribute et stipes illuc
congerebant, unde auctae Iudaeorum res, et quia apud ipsos fides obstinata, misericordia in
promptu, sed adversus omnis alios hostile odium. Separati epulis, discreti cubilibus,
proiectissima ad libidinem gens, alienarum concubitu abstinent; inter se nihil inlicitum.
Circumcidere genitalia instituerunt ut diversitate noscantur. Transgressi in morem eorum
idem usurpant, nec quicquam prius imbuuntur quam contemnere deos, exuere patriam,
parents liberos fratres vilia habere.

("This worship [the Sabbath], however it was introduced, is defended by its antiquity; the
other customs, perverted and disgusting, are superior in their depravity, for the worst
among all other people, scorning the religions of their homelands, piled up contributions
and presents there, from which the wealth of the Jews was augmented; and among
themselves they are resolutely loyal, displaying compassion, yet they show hostile hatred
against all others. They are separate at feasts, they sleep apart, they are a nation most
abandoned to lust, and they abstain from intercourse with foreign women; among
themselves nothing is unlawful. They instituted circumcision that they might be known as
different, and those who have gone over to their custom practice it; nor do they give any

53 J. Rives, 'Human Sacrifice among Pagans and Christians,' JRS 85 (1995) 71-2.
54 Daniel, 'Anti-Semitism', 46.
55 Philostr., VA 5.33; D.S.,34.1; 40.3-4; Juv. Satires 14.102-4.

instruction first than to despise the gods, to disown their country, and to consider parents,
children, and brethren worthless.")56

When seen in the light of these kinds of remarks, actions by local officials that disregarded

Jewish rights are not surprising.

Josephus' Own Experiences

We must not ignore Josephus' personal experience with anti-Jewish sentiments, for these

were surely powerful forces that factored into his writing plans. In Palestine Josephus knew well

the tensions between Jews and the native Syro-Greek populations, and he cited these tensions as

a fundamental contributing factor in the start of the First Jewish War.7 There were several more

opportunities to experience similar tension in Rome. At first glance, Josephus' situation in Rome

seems to have been comfortable if not privileged. Vespasian granted Josephus citizenship, an

apartment in the emperor's house on the Quirinal hill (in regio VI of Rome), and a pension.58

The emperor also gave him land in Judea, which Domitian later declared tax-exempt.59 However,

closer examination reveals that there was little of elite treatment here. Vespasian's palace was on

the Palatine hill, so Josephus was being kept at a distance from emperor even if he did enjoy a

free room from him. By 94 CE the house on the Quirinal hill was demolished by Domitian to

build the temple of the gens Flavia, and we may suppose that Josephus was either evicted or

56 Hist. 5.5.
57 Bilde, 'The Causes of the Jewish War', 189-90: "An important aspect of this conflict,
in the view of Josephus, was the ethnic composition of the Roman auxiliaries in Palestine,
because these were dominated precisely by natives among the non-Jewish inhabitants. According
to Josephus this state of affairs was a direct contributory cause of the war." Of these people
Josephus said do Kci ~TOT( ETrLOUoL XpovoL; [EyV tyLorT)V 'Iou65aoL; eyevovro outiopG1v apx
TOU KarCT cJDXpov TTroXE4o oTrippara paXd6OVT ("who in the following times were those who
became the greatest hazards to the Jews, sowing the seeds of the war beginning at the time of
Florus") (AJ 19.364).
58 Vit. 423.
59 Vit. 425, 429.

relocated, presumably to a less prominent place.60 The Flavians actively promoted eastern nobles

in their administration, so Josephus' treatment was nothing special, nor was the gift of tax

exemption by Domitian, who gave the same privilege to all teachers of grammar and rhetoric.61

There is no indication that Josephus knew anyone within the imperial family except Titus, and

even then there is no indication of familiarity. It is not even certain, contrary to common

assumption, that the emperors commissioned Josephus' works62 (Epaphroditus is named as his

patron for Antiquitates Judaicae, not the emperor), nor is there any evidence that Josephus had

any important connections in Roman society with anyone from the equestrian order or above. An

author who was not reluctant to sing his own praises surely would have mentioned such social

connections if he had them. He mentions one Catullus, the TlyE4tv of Cyrene, who implicated

Josephus in the riots in Alexandria.63 The exact identity of this Catullus is problematic, but even

without such details all that can be said is that Josephus was prominent enough to become the

target of anti-Jewish rhetoric by a member of the Roman aristocracy.64 All Josephus could say

about his own status was that he had been granted Roman citizenship by the emperor, but in the

first century CE this was nothing uncommon either; "there is nothing to distinguish Josephus'

status and role as an imperial client from that of hundreds if not thousands of other imperial

clients with the name Flavius."65 This is a far cry from any notion that he kept and maintained a

network of social contacts among the elite and powerful in Rome. Price has also suggested, with

60 Cotton and Eck 39-41. This corresponds with evidence that suggests that the latter part
of Domitian's principate was characterized by increased emphasis on Roman nationalism
(specifically, the imperial cult) and a stricter policy toward Jews. E. Smallwood, 'Domitian's
Attitude toward the Jews and Judaism', CP 51 (1956) 1-13.
61 S. Mason, '"Should Any Wish to Enquire Further"', 75f.
62 S. Mason, '"Should Any Wish to Enquire Further"', 77.
63 BJ7.437-53.
64 Cotton and Eck 48.
65 J. Price, 'The Provincial Historian in Rome', in J. Sievers and G. Lembi (eds.),
Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond (SupJSJ 104, Leiden 2005) 106.

plausibility, that Josephus probably never did any public recitations of his works, given his poor

spoken Greek, and so he was not a regular among the literary figures in Rome in his time.66 He

seems only to have enjoyed the ordinary beneficia that emperors were generous to give anyway,

and nothing more, and by all evidence he was basically ignored by the elite in Rome.

Furthermore, during Josephus' own lifetime Rome was being transformed by the Flavian

dynasty into a place and an administration that proclaimed the Roman victory over Jerusalem

through its public institutions and architecture. Previous victories over the Jews in Palestine had

been publicly celebrated,67 but the attention given to the Roman victory in 70 CE outstripped

them all. Triumphal arches commemorating Titus' victory in Jerusalem were set up, one at the

circular end of the Circus Maximus,68 and the other on Via Sacra on the slope of the Velia

(where it still stands). The extant arch displays in its inner panels the looting of the Jerusalem

temple and Titus riding in triumphal procession. These were, of course, not memorials of war in

the modern sense. They were public political statements. "War monuments that perpetuate

victory and glory are another means of converting military achievement into political power."69

In addition to these arches, according to the work of Alfoldy, the Flavian amphitheater originally

66 J. Price, 'The Provincial Historian in Rome', 105.
67 Coins proclaimed Pompey's victory, and Sosius celebrated a triumph in Rome after his
defeat of the Hasmonean Antigonus in 37 BCE, and the victory was proclaimed on coins and on
the Fasti Triumphales Capitolini inscription (CIL 1.2 (1893): 50, 70). D. Edwards, 'Religion,
Power, and Politics: Jewish Defeats by the Romans in Iconography and Josephus', in J. Overman
and R. MacLenna (eds.), Diaspora Jews and Judaism: Essays in Honor of and in Dialogue i ilh,
A. Thomas Kraabel (Atlanta 1992) 294-99.
68 This arch is no longer extant, but was dedicated in 81 CE. It is depicted on the Severan
Marble Plan of Rome and stood at least until the 9th century CE, for its inscription is recorded in
the manuscript known as the Anonymous Einsiedlensis (published in CIL VI.944), and its
foundations were discovered in modem excavations. See F. Millar, 'Last Year in Jerusalem:
Monuments of the Jewish War in Rome', in J. Edmondson et al (eds.), Flavius Josephus and
Flavian Rome (Oxford 2005) 120.
69 Holscher 15.

bore an inscription that proclaimed it had been built from the spoils of Jerusalem.70 An arch of

Isis also proclaimed the Roman victory.71 The spoils from the temple (specifically the golden

menorah and the table) were put on public display in Vespasian's new Temple of Peace, and the

temple torah scroll and purple wall hangings from the Jerusalem sanctuary were taken to his

palace.72 For the next 12 years Vespasian and Titus minted coins, which were circulated

throughout the empire, bearing the inscription IUDAEA CAPTA, and a new tax, for a newfiscus

ludaicus, was levied on Jews in place of the collection they had formerly taken up for the

Jerusalem temple.73 The tax funded the new temple of Jupiter Capitolinus and its yearly

collection reminded the Jews that the money once used for their own God was now being given

to a Roman deity. The destruction of Jerusalem provided a much-needed foundational myth for

the fledgling Flavian dynasty and allowed it to compare itself favorably to the first principate

that brought stability after a time of civil strife.74 While Rome conquered other places during this

period, no conquest was given as much resources or as much public attention as that of

Jerusalem. "... never had Jews as a nation and as an ethnos had to deal with symbolism that

singled out their defeat with consistent iconographic and rhetorical displays across the breadth of

70 G. Alfoldy, 'Eine Bauinschrift aus dem Colosseum', ZPE 109 (1993) 195-226. See
also L. Feldman, 'Financing the Colosseum', BibArchRev 27 (2001) 20-31, 60-1, which mostly
summarizes Alfoldy. The stone that originally bore the inscription is currently on display in the
gallery in the upper level of the Colosseum.
71 Edwards 304.
72 BJ 7.158-62.
73 BJ7.218; D.C. 66.7.2.
74 T. Barnes, 'The Sack of the Temple in Josephus and Tacitus', in J. Edmondson et al
(eds.), Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome (Oxford 2005) 129.
75 While the conquest of Jerusalem was not the largest conflict the Romans ever engaged,
they did pour tremendous resources into it. It was arguably the longest siege against any city in
the first century CE (it lasted five months), and employed four legions, parts of two others,
twenty infantry cohorts, eight mounted regiments, and 18,000 foot soldiers supplied by client
kings. This was more than was sent for the invasion of Britain in 43 CE. Millar 101.

the Roman empire for the better part of twelve years."76 As much as 15 years after the event,

when Domitian needed to legitimize his reign, he turned once again to the conquest of Jerusalem

for political capital and re-issued the IUDAEA CAPTA coins to tie him to that great victory.

Reminders of the denigrated position of Jews in Roman eyes were, literally, all around Josephus.

His own experience was that Judaism was under exceptional pressure.


As I have shown in the previous chapter, expressions of ethnicity, especially literary ones,

are the result of a perceived crisis of identity and a sense of alienation. The need for self-esteem

and social acceptance is a powerful force in driving the creation of an ethnicity. So what was the

perceived crisis behind the literary works of Josephus? The answer, in short, was a wide-spread

anti-Jewish sentiment in the Greco-Roman world in which Josephus lived. This sentiment was,

for Josephus, recently further exacerbated by the humiliating defeat of the Jews by the Romans

in the First Jewish War, reminders of which were everywhere around him in Flavian Rome. The

Jews had become a veritable symbol of the uncooperative, and even hostile, foreigner whose

exclusion from the vitality, wealth, and power of the Roman world was considered just and right.

The Jews were subject to mistreatments of various kinds in the ancient world because they

were seen as outsiders who refused to demonstrate local civic pride and as a people whose

practices seemed judgmental against others or simply foreign. It would, of course, be a mistake

to think that the Jews were the only ethnic, social, or religious group who experienced such

mistreatments.78 There was in Josephus' day a general prejudice against all things and people

who did not conform to the Roman ideal, and this prejudice found expression in various ways.

76 Edwards 306.
77 Goodman, "Josephus as Roman Citizen," 338.
78 Sevenster, The Roots of Pagan Anti-Semitism, 42-48.

For example, the senate expelled some Greek philosophers from Rome in 162 and 155 BCE,79 as

did Nero in 65 CE, 80 Vespasian in 72 CE,81 and Domitian in 90 CE82 and again in 93 CE.83

Political interests manipulated the personal fears or paranoia of the emperors, and criticisms of

the emperors were treated harshly.84 But the fact that the Jews were not alone in being perceived

as cultural misfits does not diminish the nature of what they experienced.

The situation of the Jews in the Hellenistic world was complicated by the fact that

perceptions of the Jews and their place in that world were different on the "inside" (majority)

than they were on the "outside." The insiders, the client peoples of the Roman empire who

worshipped the traditional gods of Greece and Rome and who acknowledged the imperium

Romanum, saw Jews in an either/or way: they could be Jews (i.e., practice Judaism), or they

could assimilate themselves into Greco-Roman society and culture, along with the identity it

implied, but they could not do both. It was assumed that Judaism and full participation in

Hellenism were opposites. From the ancient texts we hear no overtures from the pagans to the

Jews, inviting them or instructing them how to become part of their world. What we hear instead

from the "insiders" is a constant rehearsal of stereotypes and negative images that shouted "stay

away." Full Jewish participation in the institutions that marked off Greek and Roman identity

was considered impossible. The nature of the Jewish people and their religion made it so,

according to the "insiders." There were, of course, proselytes, and some of them were even

79 Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming ofRome, 257.
80 Tac. Ann. 15.71.
81 D.C. 65.9.
82 This first banishment is implied by Dio Cassius' statement in 67.13 that Domitian
banished philosophers again. It probably occurred in connection with the conspiracy of
Saturninus. J. Toynbee, 'Dictators and Philosophers in the First Century A.D.', G&R 13 (1944)
83 D.C. 67.13; Suet. Dom. 10.2; Aulus Gellius 15.11.4. See R. Harte, 'The Praetorship of
the Younger Pliny', JRS 25 (1935) 53.
84 Toynbee 43-58.

influential or well-known people. On the whole, however, their presence does not mitigate the

general exclusion Jews faced from society. One of the great driving forces at work in this tension

was the connection between culture and religion. As long as the Jews had a different God and a

different understanding of the relationship between religion and secular culture, and refused to

acknowledge in any meaningful way the gods of the Greeks and Romans, getting "inside" was

going to be impossible. Josephus, however, was convinced that one of the problems was that the

Greeks and Romans fundamentally misunderstood Judaism and its God, and he wrote the

Antiquitates Judaicae to explain it properly. In approaching the problem from the standpoint of

overcoming misunderstandings, Josephus had landed on one of the fundamental aspects of that

problem85 and was taking a positive track and going beyond mere apologetics.

85 On the role of cultural dissonance in the tensions between Jews and Romans, see S.
Stern, 'Dissonance and Misunderstanding in Jewish-Roman Relations', in M. Goodman (ed.),
Jews in a Graeco-Roman World (Oxford 1998) 241-50. In ancient times it seems that, in spite of
much contact, there was little real understanding of other cultures outside of one's own. J.
Teixidor, 'Interpretations and Misinterpretations of the East in Hellenistic Times', in P. Bilde et
al (eds.), Religion and Religious Practice in the Seleucid Kingdom (Studies in Hellenistic
Civilization 1, Aarhus 1990) 66-78.


In the previous chapter I explored several lines of evidence that shows that Jews were,

generally, objects of contempt in Roman Hellenistic culture at large. The kind of crisis that

would typically give rise to some kind of attempt at, or assertion of, self-definition was in place.

But did the Jews feel compelled by this crisis to respond in this way? Is there any indication that

Jews wanted to fit into the Hellenistic culture around them? Is there evidence to suggest that they

cared to be seen as "insiders"? The answer is that the Jews were not only eager to fit in, but they

had also been trying this very thing for a long time when Josephus arrived on the scene. Josephus

shared the hopes of many of his fellow-Jews, that they could negotiate a respected place within

the culture of his day, and the ethnographic, or ethnicity-creating, character of his writings was

yet another attempt to achieve this. Josephus was actually participating in, and advancing, a

long-standing project among Jews in the ancient world.

If all we had were the statements of outsiders about how Jews refused to assimilate into the

society at large in their day, we might think that the Jews resisted assimilation in every facet of

their lives, for the outsiders typically complained of how Jews remained (in their perception)

aloof from Hellenistic culture in critical ways. However, the fact is that Jews in various places

attempted assimilation into Greco-Roman society to varying degrees and on a broad scale. The

evidence leads us to ask not if the Jews had tried to be Hellenistic, but instead the extent to which

Jews in ancient times assimilated Hellenistic institutions as markers of their own identity.

The Question of Jewish Hellenization

By terms such as "Hellenism," "Hellenistic," and "Hellenization" I mean what Hengel

said, "a complex phenomena which cannot be limited to purely political, socio-economic,

cultural or religious aspects, but embraces them all,"1 and further "it cannot be restricted to

Greekpaideia, philosophy and rhetoric, even less to syncretism and mystery religions."2 This fits

well with Friedman's description: "Hellenism is not simply about the spread of Greek cultural

forms to Asia. It is about conquest and the establishment and transformation of political and

economic structures in a wide region. It is, not least, about the colonial establishment of Greeks

in Asia and the consequences of this phenomenon for cultural change."3 It was a pervasive

influence4 of the Greek culture on the cultures of the Orient, but this influence did not displace

native traditions. Grabbe summarizes

Hellenization was a long and complex phenomenon. It cannot be summarized in a word or
a sentence. It was not just the adoption of Greek ways by the inhabitants of the ancient
Near East or of Oriental ways by Greeks who settled in the East. Hellenistic civilization
was sui generis and must be considered from a variety of points of view, for it concerned
many different areas of life: language, custom, religion, commerce, architecture, dress,
government, literary and philosophical ideals. Hellenization represented a process as well
as a description of a type of culture.5

Levine casts the net a little wider:

Hellenization constituted more than simply the dissemination of Greek social mores,
language, and institutions throughout the East; .... What took place was a much a process
of selection, adoption, and adaptation as it was of conquest and subjugation. Moreover,
without denying the dominant role of Greek civilization, we should recognize that
Hellenization was far more complex than merely the impact of the West on the East. ....

1 Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism 3.
2 M. Hengel, 'Judaism and Hellenism Revisited', in J. Collins and G. Sterling (eds.),
Hellenism in the Land ofIsrael (Notre Dame 2001) 9.
3 J. Friedman, 'Notes on Culture and Identity', 25.
4 Some scholars (such as W. Tar, Hellenistic Civilization (London 1947)) thought of
Hellenism as a dominance of Greek culture and institutions, but this is not necessary to the idea
of Hellenism.
5 L. Grabbe, 'The Jews and Hellenization: Hengel and His Critics', loudaios <
ftp://ftp.lehigh.edu/pub/listserv/ioudaios-l/Articles/lghellen > 15 May 2006. The idea of
Hellenization was coined by J. Droysen in Geschichte des Hellenismus (2 aufl., Gotha 1877-78).
Debate continues over whether Hellenism produced a melting-pot of cultures or a two-tiered

In this light, therefore, Hellenization is ... the interplay of a wide range of cultural forces
on an oikoumene defined in large part-but not exclusively-by the Greek conquests of
the fourth and third centuries B.C.E.6

What is important for this study is that the kind of acculturation that happened in Hellenization

"is primarily a process of change in identity and not simply a question of the learning of codes."7

Hellenization entailed much more than simply learning the Greek language, doing public

construction with Greek architectural models, etc. It involved a redefinition of many peoples on

many levels.

Any inquiry into the phenomenon of Hellenization among the Jews of antiquity is

complicated by at least three factors. First, there is the diversity within ancient Judaism itself.

Most scholars today prefer to speak of the Judaisms of antiquity rather than portray Judaism as a

monolithic, homogeneous thing. Pearce and Jones summarize the position of modern scholarship

well by saying

We have seen a move away from the understanding of Judaism and Jewish identity as
normative, homogeneous phenomena, .... Notions of 'essence' and homogeneity have
been abandoned and an alternative model has been widely adopted which stresses the
existence of a plurality of Judaisms and Jewish identities in antiquity that made up
complex and variegated social phenomena in both the Land of Israel and the Diaspora.8

Various sects existed within ancient Judaism, and these sects had different views, sometimes

widely different, on a range of topics from Hellenistic acculturation to the prospects of the

liberation of Palestine from Roman rule. Each group had different responses to the question of

what defined a Jew, and each had different agendas for the nation. And certainly, individuals

6 L. Levine, Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity (Peabody 1998) 18-19.
7 Friedman, 'Notes on Culture and Identity', 25.
8 P. 15. See also M. Smith, 'Palestinian Judaism in the First Century', in M. Davis (ed.),
Israel: Its Role in Civilization (New York 1956) 68-78. This understanding is a product of the
nature of the evidence and not of the claims made in the evidence. When ancient Jewish authors
wrote of Judaism, "they tended to assume that there was only one Judaism" (i.e., theirs). M
Goodman, 'Jews and Judaism in the Mediterranean Diaspora in the Late-Roman Period: The
Limitations of the Evidence', in C. Bakhos (ed.), Ancient Judaism in its Hellenistic Context
(SupJSJ 95, Leiden 2005) 182.

within each group did not agree with each other in every detail of their shared attitudes or in their

level of conviction concerning them. This phenomenon is a function of the fact that ethnicities

are chosen by a people and not inherent to them. It is not even clear from the extant materials if

any of the ancient Jewish sects represented the theological views of the average Palestinian Jew

(the am ha-aretz).9 The variety within ancient Judaism therefore makes it impossible to speak of

ancient Jewish ethnicity or the adoption of ethnic markers in such a way that would describe all

Jews of antiquity.

The second factor is the varying degrees with which Jews had contact with Hellenism in

different places. Jerusalem and its firmly entrenched customs provided a strong resistance to

Hellenism. Once outside of Jerusalem and its immediate environs, one could find significant

contact with Hellenism mediated through Roman imperialism in places within Palestine such as

Caesarea Maritima or Sebaste. However, we should not suppose that Palestine was as thoroughly

Romanized as it is sometimes thought. Even in Galilee in the north, the fact is that evidence of

widespread Romanization in the first century is lacking until after the outbreak of the First

Jewish War.10 Outside of Palestine rabbinic influence was probably not great1 and the Roman

mediation of Hellenism for Jews was generally more powerful and successful.12

9 M. Smith 68-73.
10 See M. Chancey, Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus (SNTSMS 134,
Cambridge 2005) 221-9; A. Berlin, 'Romanization and anti-Romanization in pre-Revolt Galilee',
in A. Berlin and J. Overman (eds.), The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology
(London 2002) 69.
11 M. Goodman, 'Jews and Judaism in the Mediterranean Diaspora', 178-9.
12 Even here, however, we must guard against supposing that the differences were drastic.
"... the religion and theology of the Jews seems to have been basically the same character in
Palestine and in the Diaspora. ... Of course, the absence of the Temple in the Diaspora caused
the cultic, ritual and religious life to be different." P. Bilde, 'The Jews in the Diaspora of the
Roman Empire', Nordisk Judaistik. .kA, \i. hlit ',vi t Jewish Studies 13 (1992) 117.

The third factor is the differing attitudes of Jews in various places toward the culture

around them. The fact is that, within the groups that constituted ancient Judaism, many voices

were competing to be heard concerning the relationship of Jews to Greco-Roman society at

large. The Jewish literature of the Hellenistic period13 shows much diversity when it comes to

attitudes toward Gentiles and their cultures. The provenance, purpose, and intended audience of

much of this literature is sometimes hard to ascertain, and thus we may only speak of the

propagandistic or apologetic functions of this literature provisionally. It does seem, however,

judging from the volume and diversity of literature that has survived, that Jewish authors

believed they could inform and persuade their fellow-Jews to adopt some particular aspect of

self-understanding. The diversity of the surviving literature thus again suggests that the

boundaries of Jewish ethnicity in ancient times were debated and not fixed.

These factors resulted in a situation that was in no way uniform in every place for every

Jew. As noted above, the ancient world was a world in which forces of assimilation operated

powerfully. These forces were so strong that Bohak has argued that it is not possible to speak of

any kind of ethnic continuity among diaspora Jews. If it existed, he claims, it was the exception,

not the rule.14 This seems, to me, an overstatement, or perhaps an overly narrow use of the term

"continuity." Most, if not all, Jews were apparently influenced by Hellenism in some way,15 and

most, if not all, Jews were comfortable with some degree of Hellenization, and they still

considered themselves Jews by some set of standards even if the assimilation and acculturation

was not uniform in every place where Jews lived.

13 It suffices for this study to restrict our use of this terminology to Jewish literature that
was written in Greek.
14 Bohak 175, 191.
15 So V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (New York 1977).

Most notably, Jews in many places used the Greek language, even if they continued to use

a local or native language alongside it. As noted in chapter two, language can serve as an ethnic

indicium. Accordingly, adoption of the Greek language by ancient Jews was more than just a

concession to the political and economic realities around them. Admittedly, some facility in

Greek was necessary for commerce and communication with foreign magistrates, so use of the

Greek language by itself would not necessarily comprise evidence of Hellenization among Jews.

It is, however, evidence when viewed in the larger context in which other elements of Greek

culture were also adopted into Jewish culture. In that larger context it indicated a degree of

acceptance of Hellenism and a desire to be counted as part of that social world. The strength of

this fact is more obvious when we contrast the scene in 2 Maccabees 7.8, where one of the seven

brothers voiced his refusal to eat pig's flesh u T CarpLC
and in Second Jewish War, the Bar-Kochba Revolt (132-135 AD), when the leaders of the revolt

mandated the used of Hebrew as an expression of nationalistic solidarity.16 Similarly, in Luke's

Acts (14.8-18) we hear of the people of Lystra in the interior of Asia Minor speaking in the

Lycaonian language, not Greek, and Paul chose to address a hostile Jewish crowd in Jerusalem in

Aramaic (21.40), not Greek. In some contexts, choice of language reflected a conscious ethnic


A command of the Greek language was necessary at a minimum for anyone who wished to

carve out a place for themselves in the Hellenistic world, and refusal to use the language

indicated a rejection of Hellenism to some extent and a preference for some other ethnic

16 A. Berlin and J. Overman, 'Introduction', in A. Berlin and J. Overman (eds.), The First
Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology (London 2002) 10.

tradition.17 Hengel notes that "anyone who sought social respect or even the reputation of being

an educated man had to have an impeccable command of it. The word k~XX viL'EL primarily

meant 'speak Greek correctly', and only secondarily 'adopt a Greek style of life'. Impeccable

command of the Greek language was the most important qualification for taking over Greek

culture."18 Diodorus Siculus could say in the mid-first century BCE EupUPXXEcaL 6' aiUrTr Kac

Trrp6 XO6you 6U5LvqLV, ou KCUXXLOV 'ETepOV OUK &V TL pq65LG EUijpOL. TO&U0 y&p ol 4ev "EXXTrVE(

TG(V P PPUp'POv, ol 6( TrETrUX6LE~UL voL T )v dTraUL6EU6)v TrpoieouoL, Trp6c 65 TOUT Lo 6& 40dvou

To6Uou 6wvadr6v EorLv eva 'w V TTOXX&)v TrEpLyevEoOaL ("But it [history] also contributes to the

power of speech, and one cannot easily find another, better thing than that. For in this matter the

Greeks surpass the barbarians, and the educated surpass the uneducated, and by this power alone

one man is able to rise above the many").19 Similarly, the LXX was produced initially not for

pagans, but for the Jews of Alexandria who were so immersed in Greek culture that many of

them could not read their Scriptures in the original Hebrew.20 The fact that the Hebrew

Scriptures now took on Greek dress is significant. The Alexandrian Jews were presenting

themselves, by means of the LXX, as a people whose religion was not foreign to the Hellenistic

world around them.21 There is a scholarly consensus that many Palestinian Jews were conversant

17 Cf the fact that the Roman senate did not allow anyone to address it in any language
other than Latin, or that L. Aemilius Pallus delivered Rome's terms to Amphipolis (at the end of
the Third Macedonia War) in Latin even though his Greek was impeccable (Livy 45.29.3). This
was a conscious distancing of themselves from Greek culture. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and
the Coming of Rome 267.
18 Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism 58.
19 1.2.5-6.
20 P. Green, Alexander to Actium: The Historical evolution of the Hellenistic Age
(Hellenistic Culture and Society 9, Berkeley 1990) 317.
21 CPJI.41f.

in Greek as well.22 Jews of the Diaspora were taking Greek names since the third century BCE,

documents in Greek were among those found in the Jewish manuscript caches at Qumran,

Murabbat, Nahal Hever, Nahal Seelim, Nahal Mishmar, the so-called Cave of the Letters, and

Masada, and hundreds of Greek inscriptions of Jewish origin (funerary inscriptions, ostraca, etc.)

have been found both in Palestine and in the Diaspora.23 The widespread use of Greek by Jews in

antiquity should thus be interpreted as an indicator of their willingness to be understood to some

extent along the lines of Greek culture.

While it might be easy to think of the situation of the ancient Jews vis-a-vis Hellenism as

creating an either/or proposition for them, this does not appear to have been the case even in

Palestine where Jewish nationalism flared up at times. Concerning Palestinian Jews, the

landmark study of Hengel, Judaism andHellenism, challenged any such dichotomy. Many

ancient Jews apparently did not see themselves as caught between being Jewish on the one hand,

or compromising their Jewishness and adopting Hellenistic culture on the other hand. Hengel

argued that the Hellenization of Jews in Palestine was a long process that had begun even before

the conquests of Alexander and that resulted, by the first century, in a thorough saturation of

Greek culture among Jews throughout the ancient world. He asserted that "the usual distinction

between Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism needs to be corrected. ... From about the middle of

the third century BC all Judaism must really be designated 'Hellenistic Judaism' in the strict

sense ...." 24 Another way of saying this is that the evidence seems to suggest that the ancient

Jews readily found in Hellenism new means for self-definition. The thoroughness of the

22 See J. Sevenster, Do You Know Greek? (Leiden 1968), and J. Fitzmyer, 'Languages of
Palestine in the First Century A.D.', CBQ 32 (1970) 501-31.
23 G. Mussies, 'Greek in Palestine and the Diaspora', in S. Safrai and M Stern (eds.), The
Jewish People in the First Century (CRINT 1.2, Philadelphia 1976) 1042-51.
24 Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism 104.

Hellenization of the ancient Jews suggests that they were eager to find a place for themselves in

the broader Hellenistic culture.

Hengel's picture of ancient Judaism stirred scholarly debate,25 but generally it has

prevailed. Yet it does seem that Hengel went too far in parts of his thesis. For example, in

making his case for pervasive Hellenization of the ancient Jews, Hengel downplayed the

difference between Palestinian Judaism and the Jews of the Diaspora. This was a methodological

mistake that blurred the great amount of diversity that actually appeared within Judaism. A better

corrective to Hengel's picture of a massive, thorough penetration of Hellenism into Judaism

(including in Palestine) is the study by Green, Alexander to Actium: The Historical Evolution of

the Hellenistic Age, where he argues that Hellenism did not spread evenly or even easily

throughout the areas affected by Alexander's conquests. Instead, Green argues, Alexander

succeeded in establishing pockets or islands of Hellenism, and Hellenistic influence on

surrounding non-Greek cultures was often met with varying degrees of acceptance, if not with

resistance. It would not be accurate to think that people in remote areas were regularly

conversant in Greek or adopted Greek culture.

Although Hengel's conclusions need to be nuanced more, it seems unavoidable that

Hellenism indeed made inroads, sometimes substantial ones, into many quarters of Judaism. This

became more apparent as one moved away from Palestine and into territory that was not the

Jewish homeland. In fact, the majority of Jews in ancient times lived and flourished outside of

25 Most notably by L. Feldman, 'Hengel's Judaism and Hellenism in Retrospect', JBL 96
(1977) 371-82; his Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World; and his 'How Much Hellenism in the
Land of Israel?', JSJ33 (2002) 290-313; and by A. Momigliano, in his review of Hengel's book,
'Hengel, M. "Judentum und Hellenismus: Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer
Berucksichtigung Palatinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jh. v. Ch.".', JTS n.s. 21 (1970) 151. Momigliano
called for a more judicious treatment of the phenomenon in his Alien Wisdom: The Limits of
Hellenization (Cambridge 1975).

Jerusalem in the Diaspora, where Hellenism was the culture. Generally, the current scholarly

discussion is not about the possibility of Hellenistic influence on Judaism (including in

Palestine), but about the level of penetration. Gruen has argued that there is, in the thinking of

some, a simplistic dichotomy of "either resistance to assimilation and longing for Jerusalem, or

conformity to and embrace of the alien environment" and that this dichotomy

did not face the Jews who dwelled in Greco-Roman communities in the Second Temple
period. ... The Jews abroad had chosen there residence voluntarily and (in many cases) had
been there for generations. They had no cause to ache for Jerusalem. Nor, by contrast, were
they obliged to adopt a new guise and sacrifice their identity to blend in with their

He goes on to note that

We can therefore abandon simplistic dichotomies. Diaspora Jews did not huddle in
enclaves, isolated and oppressed, clinging to a heritage under threat. Nor did they
assimilate to the broader cultural and political world, compromising their past, ignoring the
homeland, and reckoning the Book (in Greek) as surrogate for the Temple. The stark
alternatives obscure understanding. A complex set of circumstances, diverse and dependent
on local conditions, produced a mixed, ambiguous, and varied picture.27

As I noted above, as one moved away from Palestine, Hellenistic influence was much

more apparent in the Jews of the Diaspora than among the Palestinian Jews. In the Diaspora we

see a wide range of assimilation and accommodation to Greek culture. Thus

There is growing recognition that Jews in antiquity experienced very different social and
political conditions, and correspondingly engaged in their local political, social and
cultural environments in many different ways. Several recent studies of the Jewish
communities of the Diaspora generally indicate that there is good evidence for many Jews
integrating at a local level and expressing a real sense of identification with the local
environment while maintaining their Jewish identity.28

26 E. Gruen, Diaspora: Jews Amidst Greeks andRomans (Cambridge 2002) 5.
27 E. Gruen, Diaspora 6.
28 Pearce and Jones 17.

Within Palestine, the aristocracy was the group most interested in Hellenism partly because it

offered them a means of maintaining their economic status.29 At the same time it seems correct

to recognize that there were some substantial differences between the Judaism of Palestine and

that of the Diaspora,30 without falling into the false either/or dichotomy of a normalized Judaism

(Palestine) versus a compromised Judaism (in the Diaspora). It would not be an

oversimplification to say that Jerusalem was the greatest pocket of conservative or orthodox

Judaism in the ancient world, but this does not mean that one would regularly encounter Jews

who were not zealous for their religion outside of Jerusalem. The difference between Palestinian

Judaism and Diaspora Judaism was not the religion, the zeal for the religion, the purity of the

religion, etc. The difference may be better described as lying in the approach to and construction

of the ethnicity, and the choices of what would count as ethnic indicia. Concerning the presence

and power of Hellenism, however, there is no doubt. The question is not if Hellenism penetrated

Palestine, but instead the question is one of how much resistance did a particular person or group

offer to it31 and how a Jew or a local group of Jews managed their self-understanding, how they

constructed their ethnicities, in light of it.

Hellenization had occurred even among Palestinian Jews, yet at the same time we must

recognize that the religious criterion always played a powerful role in their lives and ethnic self-

understanding. That dominance of religious concerns did not, however, prevent even Palestinian

Jews from absorbing Hellenism to a great degree. Jerusalem itself bore many marks of

Hellenization in the first century. Levine's survey of the evidence led him to conclude that "The

29 Hengel, Judaism andHellenism 1.56. Surely we must attribute much of Josephus' own
affection for Hellenism to his association with the aristocracy.
30 J. Collins, 'Cult and Culture: The Limits of Hellenization in Judea', in J. Collins and G.
Sterling (eds.), Hellenism in the Land of srael (Notre Dame 2001) 52.
31 Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World 44.

impact of Hellenism on the Near East in general, and on Judaea and Jerusalem in particular, was


The origins of the Hellenization of the capital city of Jerusalem have proven to be a

controversial topic in modem scholarship. Some questions about the so-called Seleucid

enforcement of Hellenization are still open.33 However, even the Jewish account in 2 Maccabees

reveals that Hellenization was not initially forced upon the Jews by the Seleucids, but that Jason

(note the Greek name), out of personal ambition to become high priest, bargained with Antiochus

IV to secure the priesthood and to turn Jerusalem into a Hellenistic city. The bargain involved a

promise of a substantial increase in tribute revenues from the Jews to the Seleucid king-an

additional 440 talents of silver, with another 150 to come if permission was granted to build a

gymnasium-and enrolled the men of Jerusalem as citizens of the capital city, Antioch.34 The

author of 2 Maccabees clearly was not pleased with Jason. He reported that

TIv 6' oimUU aKt.r TL0K 'EAXXTIVL[Oto KMcL Trp6op3ooL UXXO OuXLO[LOI 6L& Tiiv ToU U'oCEPOu KUc
OUK U(PXLEPEWG 'ICaowvoc UTrEPP.AXX.ouocv avaLyvELaV U(OTE rlKETiL TrEpi T ( TOU
9)OLUoirpoi) L(-oXELTOpyLX( TrpoOUtLOui E[VcL UTOi) [lEp .LXXcL TOt) Le-v vEG) KXTUI))povoUVrtE
KUCL TU(V OUOL(V c&4EXOUVTE 'E oTrEU6oV 4UE'TXELV Tf( Ev' TrcXaL aXOTUp1 Trapavco0ou xoprlyni(X

("There was such a high degree of Hellenization ('EXXr11Lot6() and increase in the
adoption of foreign ways (&XX0ouXLo[L6;) because of the surpassing wickedness of Jason,
who was impious and not high priest [legitimately], that the priests were no longer intent
upon their service at the altar, but despising the sanctuary and neglecting the sacrifices,
they hastened to participate in the unlawful spectacle in the wrestling arena after the
invitation to the discus.")35

The author of 2 Maccabees thought that Jason's predecessor, Onias, was a model of

righteousness, and he has imposed a religious overlay upon the politics of the situation. Yet even

32 Levine 38.
33 cf E. Gruen, 'Hellenism and Persecution: Antiochus IV and the Jews', in P. Green
(ed.), Hellenistic History and Culture (Berkeley 1993) 238-73.
34 2 Mac 4:8-9.
35 2 Mac 4:13-14.

this anti-Hellenistic author conceded that at first Hellenism was not forced upon the Jews. It was

Jason's idea, not that of the Seleucids.

Interestingly, the author of 1 Maccabees was pro-Roman and anti-Greek. He described a

Jewish delegation to Rome saying

Ui EIrEXEwrTO Iou56a O6v Euir6otXeov Uo[bv IUavvou To6 AKKG) KCL 'IUoova uLbv
EXEUCccpou KCL T Eo'rTELXEV XIU)TOib ELd 'P5t.rl1v oTiFTOCL (LXcCv KUCL aouviticXiav KUCL TOi 6pcaL
Tbv Cuy6v TTr' abULov OUL eL6OV TTiV pcFOLXELcV u;v 'EXX'vov KaXTa6OuXou[)Evoui T6bv
IopCLFPi 6oulXEL

("So Judas chose Eupolemus the son of John, son of Accos, and Jason the son of Eleazar,
and sent them to Rome to establish friendship and alliance, and to free themselves from the
yoke; for they saw that the kingdom of the Greeks was completely enslaving Israel.")36

But the authors of these books are giving an opinion of Hellenization that, as far as we can tell,

proceeded with no opposition in Jason's own day. There are no reports of contemporary riots or

dissentions over Jason's initiatives,37 and none of the Jewish literature written shortly after the

event criticized the initiative.38 The books of Maccabees look back at that time with disdain and

identified Jason's behavior as a horrible mistake, but that is a later perspective, and it cannot be

identified as a majority view. Ironically, the books of the Maccabees were written in Greek.39

Problems came when another contender for the priesthood, Menelaus, offered Antiochus a

greater sum for the priesthood, effectively out-bidding Jason. Antiochus agreed, and to raise the

money Menelaus took vessels from the Jerusalem temple and sold them in the markets near Tyre

(2 Mac 4:23-42). This caused rioting in Jerusalem. Apparently the Jews of Jason's day were able

to distinguish between civic elements (ethnic indicia) of their identity and religious elements

36 I Mac 8:17-18.
37 L. Grabbe, 'The Hellenistic City of Jerusalem', in J. Bartlett (ed.), Jews in the
Hellenistic and Roman Cities (London 2002) 13.
38 J. Goldstein, 'Jewish Acceptance and Rejection of Hellenism', in E. Sanders (ed.),
Jewish and Christian Self-Definition: Volume Two: Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman
Period (Philadelphia 1981) 81.
39 1 Maccabees was originally written in Hebrew, but that text did not survive antiquity.
What survived was the Greek translation. Goldstein 18.

(ethnic criteria) without difficulty. Stealing from the temple crossed the line, but Hellenizing the

city did not. When Menelaus made his power play, Antiochus was away (in 168 BC, fighting in

Egypt). With the Syrian ruler away, the riots over Menelaus' looting of the temple encouraged

Jason to retake his position by force. When Antiochus returned to Palestine, he saw what looked

like a general revolt, and it is at this point that the Seleucid king began to forbid the practice of

Judaism. It was not long after this that the Maccabean War for independence began. However,

the problem is far too camplex to describe with the simple solution that Jason's introduction of

Hellenism was the cause, as the authors of I and 2 Maccabees have postulated.40 Again,

however, the problem was not that the Jews of Jerusalem were opposed to Hellenization, but that

they jealously and zealously valued their ancestral worship. Only when Hellenization interfered

with that did the Jews revolt. Otherwise some notable monuments in Jerusalem were built in this

time, namely the tomb of the Bene Hezir in Jerusalem's Kidron Valley, and Jason's tomb west of

the city, both featuring Doric architectural style, and Hasmonean coins were minted bearing

symbols common in the Hellenistic world at the time-except there are no images of living


Within Palestine, a good indicator of the extent of Jewish Hellenization into the time of

Josephus is the nature of the client kingdom of Herod the Great, who ruled from 40-1 BCE.42

Herod filled Palestine with Hellenistic material culture.43 Three notable examples were the cities

40 N. Hyldahl, 'The Maccabean Rebellion and the Question of "Hellenization"', in P.
Bilde et al (eds.), Religion and Religious Practice in the Seleucid Kingdom (Studies in
Hellenistic Civilization 1, Aarhus 1990) 194.
41 Levine 44.
42 I am here using the revised dates of J. Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (rev.
edn., Peabody 1998) 291-300. Others put the death of Herod at 4 BCE.
43 Hellenism was not the only influence on Herodian architecture, for Herod was also
affected by his affinities for the cultures of Rome and the east. But "Hellenistic architecture was
obviously the most vigorous cultural determinant on Herod's buildings." P. Richardson, Building

of Caesarea Maritima, Banias, and Sebaste (formerly Samaria). All three cities had temples

either pagan deities, to Rome, or to Augustus in the first century.44 Caesarea Maritima was only

about 60 miles from Jerusalem, and there was a significant Jewish population there, enough that

an offense against the Jews of Caesarea Maritima is cited by Josephus as the event that started

the Revolt of 66 CE.45 However, Caesarea Maritima looked so much like a Greek city that the

Gentile inhabitants argued that it belonged to them, and cited as proof the presence of statues and

temples which Jews would not have built.46 The temple to Augustus at Banias closely resembled

a temple to Augustus at Pola.47 Most interesting is the fact that Herod especially concentrated on

making the capital city of Jerusalem as Hellenistic as he could. In Jerusalem itself he built pools,

and a theater (possibly out of wood48). This theater was adorned with inscriptions honoring

Caesar and was the site of athletic games, involving contests between animals and condemned

prisoners, in honor of Augustus on a five year cycle. According to Josephus, Herod tried his best

to make the games equal in prestige with those that were celebrated in other parts of the empire

Jewish in the Roman East (Waco 2004) 226-7. See also G. Foerster, 'Art and Architecture in
Palestine', in S. Safrai and M. Stern (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century (CRINT 1.2,
Philadelphia 1976) 971-1006.
44 At Banias, the temple to Zeus Heliopolitanus was built near the end of the first century
CE. A temple to Pan and the nymphs had been built near it in the earlier part of the first century
CE. Herod the Great also built a temple to Augustus there in 19 BCE. Josephus BJ 1.404-6; AJ
15.359, 363-4. See A. Berlin, 'Where Was Herod's Temple to Augustus?', BibArchRev 29
(2003) 22-4. Caesarea Maritima had a temple to Rome and Augustus sitting atop a prominent
platform facing the harbor. Josephus mentions it in AJ 15.339; BJ 1.417. See R. Bull, 'Caesarea
Maritima: The Search for Herod's City,' BibArchRev 8 (1982) 24-41. A temple of Augustus
stood at Sebaste, the stairs and platform of which are still there. BJ 1.403; AJ 15.298. See D.
Barag, 'King Herod's Royal Castle at Samaria-Sebaste', Palestine Exploration Quarterly 125
45 BJ2:282ff
46 BJ 2.266.
47 D. Jacobson, 'Herod's Roman Temple', BibArchRev 28 (2002) 18-27.
48 See J. Patrich, 'Herod's Theater in Jerusalem-A New Proposal', Israel Exploration
Journal 52 (2002) 231-9.

by offering large prizes by which he hoped to attract the most well-known athletes of the day.49

He also built an amphitheater somewhere outside the city5 and rebuilt the citadel north of the

temple and renamed it the Antonia.51 All of this gave an unmistakably strong Hellenistic, and

especially Roman, flavor to the city.52

Herod's renovation of Jerusalem aroused some complaints among the local inhabitants.

Just as it had been in the days of the Maccabean revolt, the Jerusalem Jews still drew a line

between the two spheres of culture and cult.53 Many Jews were tolerant of many Greek things in

their local cultures, but they were especially sensitive and resistant to anything that was

perceived as a threat to or compromise of the exclusive worship of their ancestral God, Yahweh,

and hence to their identity as Jews. Josephus prefaces his account of these things saying AL&

TOUTO KL i&XXOV EE-'iULEv,'eV TVU'v TXTpi)v e- ;v KUcL tEVLKOL( E'TLTT6EU ljuacLV i)TT6L&e(ELpEv Tiiv

TrcXaL KUU(J'T(OJLV XTraPEYXELPTprTov oVUaOv EV cWv o0 ,LKp( KUCL Trpoc TOyV aU OL Xp6vov

r6LKiO r4lEV a&LEXTrOivrv Voa Trp6~opov EirL Trv EUJopepLaV Tiyev Toi)b 6XOou n ("On account of

this he departed even more from the ancestral customs, and through foreign pursuits he gradually

corrupted the ancient way of life that was inviolable; from which things we were harmed not a

little and at a later time as well, as whatever things that formerly led the masses to piety were

49 AJ 15.268-70.
50 Possibly the same as the hippodrome mentioned in BJ2.44 and AJ 17.255.
51 BJ 1.401. See the list of Herod's buildings in P. Richardson, Herod. King of the Jews
andFriend of the Romans (Columbia 1996) 197-202. From this same time is the non-Herodian,
but still Hellenistic, so-called tomb of Absalom dated to the first century CE and featuring
engaged Ionic columns. L. Rahmani, 'Ancient Jerusalem's Funerary Customs and Tombs: Part
Three', Biblical Archaeologist 45 (1982) 47.
52 Yet we should be careful to distinguish Herod's use of Hellenistic architectural models
from the idea that Herod was acting as an agent for Hellenization. Richardson, Building Jewish,
53 Collins, 'Cult and Culture', 55. As I have suggested, however, the Jews did not always
agree about where the line was to be drawn.

being neglected.").54 Josephus thought the Hellenization of the city had, in some areas, gone too

far so as to corrupt Jewish religious values, which in turn led to a general impiety towards their

God.55 Nor was he alone in this view. He reports that the locals complained that having athletic

contests between wild animals or between animals and men was clearly contrary to Jewish

customs. daoepPec [Ev y&p EK Trpo6 'Xou KarTeaLveo OrlpLOL ; &vepTrrouv iUTroppLTrTrLV EiTr TpjEL

Trif &vOpGpTrG)v Oka dUoEep'e 65 EVLKOiL ETTLT16E65UaCoLV E XaX&TTELv Toib( iLoLGo6v ("For it

appeared as blatant impiety to throw men to wild beasts for the enjoyment of men as spectators,

and also as impiety to change their customs for foreign practices").56 Just how strong this

protection of Jewish identity markers was in Jerusalem became clear when the trophies for these

contests were displayed in public. To many of the locals, they appeared to be presented as

objects of worship containing human likenesses on standards adorned with weapons, which [ti1

TrUTpLov TIv abrTOt T& TOLCMUTC oepeLV ("it was not their ancestral practice to venerate such

things").57 When it became clear that these had provoked significant consternation, Herod invited

a dialogue, the purpose of which Josephus saw as trying to persuade them to abandon their

religious convictions (KaL TrTaprIyopeEL T i 6ELLOL6aL[LoVL u &caLpoLevo.vO).58 It turns out that they

were not images at all, and only when they inspected the trophies closely did they cease their

objection. Even this, however, did not alleviate everyone's suspicions:

TLVe; 6' (UXUTGV ETrEiEvov TT 6uaoXEpLp' T;v OUK E E'ouV ET[rLVrT5EVu(TT)v KMIL T6
KUCTcXUiaOcL T& TraU rpLa tEYLXov i lyou'4EVOL fdp~flv KCKGUV OiOLOV ilrOloCFav .TrOKLV6UVEUOa L
&cXXOV ri 65OKElV E'aXaLTTO4 ovrlT at(UTO T T rOXLTELX;a T rEpLop&v 'HpG6rTlv Trp6o pLav
ETrELoCyYOVra T& il 6L' 'EOoui 6vVTC KC(L A6yo tv pcOLAXE' T 65' 'Epyo TrOXEitLOV

54 AJ 15.267.
55 Cf also Case 15-17.
56 AJ 15.275.
57 AJ 15.276.
58AJ 15.277.

("But some of them persisted in dissatisfaction with the practices that were not customary,
and they thought that such dismissal of the ancestral ways would lead to the beginning of
great evils, and that it was better to make a bold attempt than to seem to overlook the
changes Herod had made in their state, bringing things in by force which were not
customary, and that he was a king in pretext but in deed appeared as the enemy of all the

Ongoing objections did not, however, put an end to the presence of Hellenism in Palestine.

After Herod's death, his son Herod Antipas continued in the same direction. "The rebuilding of

Sephhoris and establishment of Tiberias allowed the client king to demonstrate his enthusiasm

for the mingling of Greek, Roman, and local cultures that was taking place throughout the

Levant."60 In addition, a basilica was built in Beth-she'arim and a hippodrome was built in

Magdala.61 Krauss has shown that the rabbinic literature contains over three thousand Greek and

Latin loanwords,62 and Stein demonstrated suggestive parallels between the Seder and Passover

Haggadah on the one hand, and Greco-Roman symposia on the other hand.63 B. Cohen has

suggested points of contact between the legal corpora of Romans and Jews,64 and Daube

explored the influence of Hellenistic rhetoric on rabbinic Biblical interpretation.65 The overall

picture that emerges is that Hellenism was a substantial presence in the institutions of the Jews

within Palestine.

59 AJ 15.280-1. Out of sensitivity to Jewish religious concerns, Herod generally avoided
the use of images of living things in his buildings within Judea. He was more liberal outside of
Judea. Richardson, Building Jewish, 238-9.
60 Chancey 221.
61 Chancey 223.
62 S. Krauss, Greichsiche undLateinische Lehnworter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum
(Berlin 1899).
63 S. Stein, 'The Influence of Symposia Literature on the Literary Form of the Pesah
Haggadah', JJS 8 (1957) 13-44.
64 B. Cohen, Jewish and Roman Law: A Comparative Study (New York 1966). A more
moderate assessment was provided by B. Jackson, 'On the Problem of Roman Influence on the
Halakah and Normative Self-Definition in Judaism', in E. Sanders et al (eds.), Jewish and
Christian Self-Definition 2. Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman Period (Philadelphia 1981)
65 D. Daube, 'Rabbinic Methods and Interpretation and Hellenistic Rhetoric', HUCA 22
(1949) 239-64.

How did Diaspora Jews, those outside of Palestine, see themselves? Did they see

themselves as aliens in foreign lands, strangers to the culture around them? Did they see their

Jewishness constantly challenged by the Greek culture around them? Were they forced to live in

some kind of reluctant compromise with Judaism? Did they long for the homeland? Did they, in

essence, see themselves as living in some kind of exile? Or were they comfortable with many of

the elements of Hellenism? Again, there is no single picture that emerges from the ancient

evidence. Instead we find that Jewish feeling about life in the Diaspora ran a gamut of reactions.

"There is evidence that at least some Diaspora Jews of the Greco-Roman period understood

themselves as living in an ongoing 'exile' which would be remedied by an eventual return to the

Land."66 Some saw the destruction of the temple and the taking of Jews into foreign slavery as a

prelude to the coming of the Messiah.67 Others, however, did not define themselves in these

ways. Gruen concludes "It is not easy to imagine that millions of ancient Jews dwelled in foreign

parts for generations mired in misery and obsessed with a longing for Jerusalem that had little

chance of fulfillment. ... To assume that they repeatedly lamented their fate and pinned their

hopes on recovery of the homeland is quite preposterous."68 Even among those who did define

their Jewishness in terms of exile, the definitions are not consistent. For example, in the Book of

Jubilees, written in the second century BC, the role of the Israelite homeland is downplayed in

favor of a definition of Jewishness that emphasized the nation's moral purity and closeness with

66 J. Scott, 'Exile and the Self-Understanding of Diaspora Jews in the Greco-Roman
Period', in J. Scott (ed.), Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions (Leiden 1997)
67 B. Chilton, 'Salvific Exile in the Isaiah Targum', in J. Scott (ed.), Exile: Old
Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions (SupJSJ 56, Leiden 1997) 239-47.
68 Diaspora, 234.

God.69 While the homeland could be a part of a Jew's self-definition, nothing said it had to be,

and most were apparently quite content without it playing a central role in their self-

understanding. The Zealots were, of course, the striking exception. But even Josephus does not

seem to think of the Diaspora in Hellenistic times in negative terms. He does not speak of either

the deportation by the Assyrians or by the Babylonians as an exile (vuyi ), nor does he speak of

his own removal to Rome as an exile. In fact, he seems to speak of the spread of the Jews

throughout the ancient world with pride.70 He sees no inherent problem with either the Diaspora

itself or its Hellenization. This corresponds with what I have pointed out in a previous chapter,

that the ethnographic character of Palestine for Jews was virtually disappearing in the first

century CE. In fact, some Jews in the Diaspora went to considerable lengths in appropriating

local culture. An inscription from lasos dated to the second century BCE lists a Jew, a certain

"Nicetas, son of Jason, a Jerusalemite," as a contributor to the Dionysia.71 Jews had reserved

seats in the theater at Miletus72 and Aphrodisias, and they participated in trade guilds in

69 B. Halpern-Amaru, 'Exile and Return in Jubilees', in J. Scott (ed.), Exile: Old
Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions (Leiden 1997) 143-4. Interestingly, the book of
Jubilees was written in Hebrew.
70 L. Feldman, 'The Concept of Exile in Josephus', in J. Scott (ed.), Exile: Old Testament,
Jewish, and Christian Conceptions (Leiden 1997) 147-61.
71 E. Hicks, 'Iasos', JHS 8 (1887) 102. Whether he contributed willingly or under
compulsion, we do not know. M. Hengel, Jews, Greeks, and Barbarians (trans. J. Bowden,
Philadelphia 1980) 105.
72 According to the inscription on the fifth row of seats concerning a group called uov
OEooePLov. CIJII no. 748. Even if the inscription refers to Jewish sympathizers and not ethnic
Jews, it still evidences close contact between Jewish and pagan cultures. See J. Gager, 'Jews,
Gentiles, and Synagogues in the Book of Acts', HTR 79 (1986) 91-9. Philo attended the theater
performances in Alexandria (On Drunkenness 177).

Hierapolis.73 Inscriptional evidence shows that some Jews were among the gymnasium graduates

at Cyrene.74 In death, they used Greek funerary epithets.75

Jews in Hellenistic Egypt assimilated Greek culture to a relatively high degree, at least as

far as the matter can be judged from literary evidence. The Jewish historian Demetrius ("the

Chronographer"; c. late third century BCE) wrote a history of the Jewish monarchy that

employed the Greek literary device of aporialusis, indicating a thorough acquaintance with the

critical methodologies of his day.76 Artapanus, an Egyptian Jew of the mid-second century BCE,

wrote a work Concerning the Jews in which he retold Biblical stories in the genre of the

historical romance. He claimed that Moses was the teacher of Orpheus and that he was called

Hermes by the Egyptian priests.7 Artapanus was clearly interested in reconciling Jewish and

Hellenistic Egyptian religious claims, and the general tone of his work was pro-Egyptian.

Ezekiel the tragedian wrote The Exodus in iambic trimeter, following Greek tragic poetry

(especially Euripides and Aeschylus).78 Aristobulus (fl. mid-second century BCE) employed

allegory in his exegesis of Jewish scripture along lines similar to those of the Stoics, and the

surviving fragments of his work show evidence of interaction with the Stoic and Pythagorean

philosophies.79 He claimed that Greeks knew the teachings of Moses, thus implying that the

Jewish traditions were older. The Letter ofAristeas, of Egyptian provenance, described the

73 A. Kraabel, 'Impact of the Discovery of the Sardis Synagogue', in J. Overman and R.
MacLennan (eds.), Diaspora Jews and Judaism: Essays in Honor of and in Dialogue I ith, A.
Thomas Kraabel (Atlanta 1992) 275.
74 M. Williams (ed.) 107, 113f.
75 M. Williams (ed.) 126-28.
76 C. Holladay, 'Jewish Responses to Hellenistic Culture in Early Ptolemaic Egypt', in P.
Bilde et al (eds.), Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt (Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 3, Aarhus
1992) 140.
77Holladay 141, 145.
78Holladay 141.
79 Holladay 142.

Septuagint as originating in Hellenistic Egyptian interest in and respect for the Jewish sacred

texts, and portrayed the production of the translation as a model of Jewish-Egyptian cordiality.

The account followed the rhetorical canons of the progymnasmata in creating a work in the

Greek genre of diegesis.80 "Such willingness to experiment with new literary forms, especially to

this extent, suggests a rather significant level of engagement with Hellenistic culture."81 The

Letter stops short, however, of any sense of full assimilation of Hellenistic values. For all its

conciliatory tone, the author defends strict monotheism over against the polytheism of the culture

around him.82 However, he is willing to treat Jewish food laws-which were always a major

difference between Jews and their pagan neighbors-allegorically.83 The Third Sibylline Oracle,

produced in Egypt in the mid-second century BCE, took a more conservative stance. It was

critical of pagan religion, but it stopped short of expressing hostility and was, after all, in a Greek

literary form (pronouncements from a sibyl). At the other end of the spectrum, Philo of

Alexandria, who lived a generation before Josephus, was practicing an allegorical approach to

the Jewish scriptures to show the basic compatibility of Jewish beliefs and Greek philosophy. All

of this shows that some Egyptian Jews were doing what Josephus would do in Rome in the first

century CE: using Greek literary models to forge an essentially Greek ethnicity for Jews.

On the whole, these works are evidence of the willingness of Egyptian Jews to participate

in the intellectual life of the Hellenistic culture around them, and to express their ethnicity in new

ways. Holladay notes

Jewish engagement with Hellenistic culture, as represented in these writings, represents
both an exercise in ethnic promotion as well as ethnic self-preservation. ... Their
appropriation of these new forms suggests not only that Hellenistic culture was speaking to

80 Holladay 142.
81 Holladay 143.
82 Sections 134-8.
83 Sections 151-2.

them, but that they were speaking to Hellenistic culture. Yet these new literary forms are
also serving to reinforce ethnic identity by providing ways for making both Jewish
scripture and tradition more credible to Jews themselves.84

Similarly, Gabba notes that "The emergence of a Jewish literature in Alexandria, at the end of

the third century BCE, does not betoken a missionary or apologetic campaign directed towards

Greek readers, but rather an internal need of the Jewish community itself, since it aims to

strengthen the Jews' own consciousness of their religion and nationality."5 The Jews of

Alexandria maintained their specifically Jewish customs as they lived in that city. They had

synagogues, they followed the dietary restrictions, and they had their own governing council.

They were, to use the Greek term, a TrOXiEu[LTa.86

Whether in or out of Palestine, a degree of Jewish acculturation with Hellenism was

regularly observed. Even that most solid criterion of Jewishness, Jewish religion, was

significantly affected. Three examples will illustrate this point broadly. First, the Torah was

common to all Jews, even if only nominally. Collins notes that "The Torah provided a common

basis for postexilic Judaism in the sense that all forms of Judaism related to it in one way or

another.87 Yet he goes on to note that in spite of the unifying character of the Torah, "It did not

provide a definitive norm in the sense of prescribing a single orthodox way of being Jewish."88

However, the fact remains that the Jews had something that few other people in antiquity had: a

single document to which they could appeal for their self-identity. Within this one document, the

Torah, was contained both the narratives of Israel's founding fathers as well as the laws which

framed the Israelite covenant with their God. Himmelfarb notes that the Torah "was a central

84 Holladay 144.
85 Gabba 637.
86 A. Kasher, 'The Civic Status of the Jews in Ptolemaic Egypt', in P. Bilde et al (eds.),
Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt (Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 3, Aarhus 1992) 117.
87 J. Collins, Between Aithen and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora
(2nd edn, Grand Rapids 2000) 20.
88 Collins, Between A iien, and Jerusalem 20.

institution for Jews in the hellenistic period" and that this institutionalized document attained

such a powerful status that it enabled Jews to maintain a grip on their ethnic heritage sufficient to

withstand the leveling force of Hellenism.89 However, even the Torah itself could be subjected to

a thoroughly Hellenistic treatment (in addition to having been translated in Greek). The works of

Artapanus and Ezekiel the Tragedian had already taken a step in this direction.

Second, many Jews considered circumcision the defining characteristic of a Jew, and

apparently many non-Jews considered it the same way.90 Whenever Petronius mentioned Jews,

he saw circumcision as their defining custom.91 In Luke's Acts of the Apostles, converted Jewish

Pharisaic teachers who wished to interpret Christianity along the lines of Pharisaic Judaism

insisted that Gentile converts be circumcised according to the covenant demand of the Jewish

Torah.92 This emphasis on the symbol of circumcision was not unique to Palestinian Jews. Yet

discussions over the necessity of observing the practice are frequent enough in the ancient

literature to suggest that many doubted whether it was essential to Jewish self-definition. By no

means is it clear that basically all Jews in the Hellenistic period saw it that way. Josephus himself

sometimes omits references to it in his retelling of Biblical stories,93 and some Jews had the

surgical procedure known as epispasm performed to reverse their circumcision. The reason for

this was that it was considered unacceptable to appear in a public bath or gymnasium

circumcised. The author of 1 Maccabees recalls with disdain how this was done even during the

89 M. Himmelfarb, 'The Torah Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Difference in
Antiquity', in C. Bakhos (ed.), Ancient Judaism in its Hellenistic Context (SupJSJ 95, Boston
2005) 114, 121-2.
90 Hadrian's later prohibition of the practice suggests that it was interpreted as a clear
sign of the practice of Judaism. Scriptores historiae Augustae: Hadrian 14.2.
91 Satyricon 68.8; 102.13-14; frag. 37.
92 Acts 15.1, 5.
93 E.g., in the story of Joshua, AJ5.1, and in the story of the demands of Jacob's sons on
the Shechemites, AJ 1.340.

time of Jason: KCi cLKO6Ot rlolcv yU[LV /oLo v 'v TIpoooXu[ioLt KXT( Tr& VO[LL[Lc T()V 'Ov()V K CL

ETrOirjoav EauTOtL dLKpopuoTLCa ("and they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem according to the

customs of the Gentiles, and they made themselves uncircumcised").94 The fact that some Jews

went to this length to participate in that most important Hellenistic institution, the gymnasium,

speaks volumes about the degree of Hellenistic acculturation among the ancient Jews. 95 It is

further indication of how the elements or markers of Jewish ethnicity were not considered fixed.

Third, many Jews, and apparently many non-Jews, in the Hellenistic period thought that

Sabbath observance was a chief identifying mark of Jews. Josephus himself seems to brag that it

was known throughout the Greek world.96 If there was an element that was a near-universal

marker of Jewish identity, the Sabbath came close to it. Sabbath-keeping among the Jews of

Rome is mentioned by Horace,97 Tibullus,98 Ovid,99 Pompeius Trogus,100 Seneca,101 Petronius,102

94 1.14-15.
95 On a related point, it has been claimed that the Letter of Claudius to the Alexandrians
indicates that Jews of that city were trying to gain access into the gymnasium. Roman
reorganization of Egypt had led to the gymnasium becoming one of the most elite social
institutions in the country's metopoleis (R. Alston, 'Philo's "In Flaccum": Ethnicity and Social
Space in Roman Alexandria', G&R 44 (1997) 167-9). Entrance was admitted only to ephebes. In
the aftermath of the riot in 38 CE, Claudius told the Jews, among other things rl65 E'TrLOTrraLLV
yuVCvaoLapXLKOK~ i KOOG4TITLKO- &y(C)OL ("not to intrude into the games put on by the
gymnasiarchoi or the cosmetai"; line 93). The reading EiTrLTrcapeLv has been suggested instead of
E~TrotraeLv, which would mean that the Jews were told not to oppose or harass the games (A.
Kasher, 'The Jewish Attitude to the Alexandrian Gymnasium in the First Century AD',
American Journal of Ancient History 1 (1976) 152-6). Exactly what the Jews were doing with
reference to the gymnasium in Alexandria is unclear either way, and Kasher's suggestion is
based on an incorrect understanding of the Jewish population's status as a Tro Ltutxa (see Collins,
Between Aihden and Jerusalem, 120-2). Since this evidence is ambiguous, I have not included it
as evidence of Jewish assimilation of Hellenism in antiquity.
96 Ap. 2.282.
97 Satires 1.9.
98 Eleg. 1.3.13ff.
99 Ars Amat. 1.3, 11; Rem. Amat.219-20.
100 As reported in the Epitome ofPompeius Trogus by Marcus Junianus Justinus, bk 36.
101 As reported in August., De Civ. D. 6.11.
102 Fragmenta 37.

Marital,103 Juvenal,104 and Tacitus.105 In fact, the Jewish practice of refraining from labor on the

Sabbath was so well-known that it evidently gave rise to a belief that Jews even refrained from

eating on the Sabbath.106 As noted in the previous chapter, this custom was interpreted as being

alien and was treated with ridicule. Williams suggests that the Sabbath played a special role in

the lives of Jews in Rome, since most of those Jews were descendants of people who had been

sent to Rome as slaves after Pompey's subjugation of Judea in 63 BC and Sosius' recapture of

Jerusalem from the Parthians in 37 BC. On both occasions, the historians say that Jerusalem fell

to the invaders on a Sabbath. The Sabbath, then, was for Roman Jews a day of remembrance of

their present exile.107 In other words, its praxis served a role in their ethnicity.

Yet even this essential Jewish institution acquired Hellenistic features. Closely related to

the Sabbath was the institution of the synagogue, where Sabbath assemblies were convened and,

in the Diaspora, the Scriptures were read in Greek. The existence of synagogues throughout the

ancient world is a well-known fact, and Hellenistic influence is apparent in their architecture.

Synagogues were typically built according to the style of the country in which they existed,108

and many examples of synagogues built in good Hellenistic style survive, including in Palestine.

Levine notes that based upon both architectural remains and literary descriptions, in Galilee and

the Golan it was almost impossible to distinguish a synagogue from a non-Jewish edifice merely

103 4.4.
104 14.96-106.
105 Hist. 5.4.
106 J. Michael, 'The Jewish Sabbath in the Latin Classical Writers', American Journal of
Semitic Languages and Literature 40 (1924) 124.
107 M. Williams, 'Being a Jew in Rome: Sabbath Fasting as an Expression of Romano-
Jewish Identity', in J. Barclay (ed.), Negotiating Diaspora. Jewish Strategies in the Roman
Empire (London 2004) 15-18.
108 Levine 139-79.

by its exterior.109 Outside of Palestine there is the striking example of the synagogue in Sardis,

which was part of a massive urban complex that comprised the public gymnasium.110 The only

way into the synagogue is through the entrance on the outside street; no entrance from the

gymnasium complex was available. In the main hall of the synagogue was a heavy table that

probably served as the lectern. The supports of this table carry carved depictions of Roman

eagles clutching thunderbolts, and the table itself is flanked by two pairs of stone lions, which

were prominent in the local mythology of Sardis.111 The entrance to the synagogue had a public

fountain, the floors were done in mosaics, and Greek inscriptions lined the walls surrounding the

aedicules which probably housed the Torah scrolls. The impression is one of a wealthy Jewish

community that felt comfortable with its Hellenistic surroundings and its symbols, yet at the

same time maintained a measure of distance.112 Thus even an institution as significant for self-

definition as the Sabbath was subjected, in the synagogue, to considerable Hellenistic influence.

The picture that develops is that there was no corner of ancient Judaism that was not

affected by Hellenism, even in Palestine. Even those ethnic markers that were considered most

characteristic or even essential to Jewish self-definition were affected by Hellenism in some

ways. There was no single, monolithic entity of Judaism in the first century CE. The ethnic

boundaries were never clearly or firmly fixed, nor was there agreement among Jews as to level

of acculturation with Hellenistic culture was and what was not acceptable, or what degree of

109 P.143.
110 The synagogue apparently became part of the complex after it was rebuilt and
remodeled in the second century CE. A. Kraabel, 'Paganism and Judaism: The Sardis Evidence',
in J. Overman and R. MacLenna (eds.), Diaspora Jews and Judaism: Essays in Honor of and in
Dialogue i/ ith, A. Thomas Kraabel (Atlantal992) 242.
111 Kraabel, 'Paganism and Judaism', 245-6.
112 Goodman ('Jews and Judaism', 193-7) has suggested, based on the unusual features of
the site, that the building might have been not a synagogue, but a place where Gentiles ("God-
fearers") worshipped the Jewish God. This interpretation has not gained general acceptance.

assimilation constituted a compromise of Jewish identity. Instead, there was a general dialogue

of Jews with Hellenism that was going on simultaneously in different places, and at different

levels, and with different convictions about what constituted an acceptable degree of

acculturation. It is clear that Hellenism provoked a crisis in Jewish self-definition, and that crisis

was met with varying responses.

Yet the great abundance of evidence suggests more than the fact that Hellenism merely

penetrated Judaism. It suggests also that among most Jews in antiquity, there was a perceived

need to fit into Hellenistic culture at large. The Jews were, at various levels, eager to see

themselves in Greek terms. Hellenization on the part of the Jews was intentional. It was, as we

have seen, more than the presence of Greek elements in native non-Greek societies. Hellenism

necessitated peoples' redefinition of themselves, and the Jews actively participated in this

process. The significance of this fact for the present study is that it helps us to see more clearly

the character of Josephus' works.


I discussed in the previous chapter that a strong anti-Jewish sentiment pervaded the Roman

world of Josephus' day, and this was sufficient to provoke a sense of a need for self-definition

among Jews. In this chapter I have shown that many Jews attempted to overcome this negative

perception by embracing Hellenism, often to great lengths. In other words, Hellenism was widely

perceived to be the solution to the problem. The outsiders (in this case, Jews) were trying to get

in by adopting, as much as they could, cultural identity markers belonging to the insiders (those

identified by Hellenistic criteria). This was, to be sure, a balancing act in which the goal was to

get "inside" without sacrificing those things that expressed their own self-understanding as

Jewish (which made them "outsiders" in the first place). To be both thoroughly Jewish and

thoroughly Hellenistic was surely a difficult thing to attempt, and it is doubtful if many Jews

ever really succeeded at convincing other peoples of the Roman world that they had

accomplished it. The persistence of rejection from the Greco-Roman society at large in spite of

sweeping adoption of Hellenistic identity markers on the part of Jews confirms this.

The point to see is that the Jews themselves saw no problem in being both Jewish and

Hellenistic. This was because they were able intellectually to divorce certain expressions of

Greco-Roman culture from religion. This was a different mindset than operated among most

others. Most public buildings in the Greco-Roman world, including places like public baths, had

close religious associations bound up with them. It does not seem that the Jews could have, or

would have, denied a connection between culture and religion. The ancient world was saturated

with this kind of thinking, and the Jews were no exception. In their way of thinking, however,

the connection was between culture and religion (in general), but not necessarily with Greco-

Roman religion in particular. It is precisely at this point that Josephus found a way "in." He

proposed to define Jewishness as equal to, but without being identical to, the cultural and

religious heritage of the Greeks and Romans. In this way he preserved what was specifically

Jewish and at the same time hoped to negotiate a place within the dominant culture around him.

Given the dilemma of defining Jews in terms of what was unique to them or what was

compatible with Hellenistic culture, Josephus made his case on the Greek side of self-definition,

since the Romans had admired and patterned much of their own culture after that of the Greeks.

In portraying the Jews as he did, Josephus was participating in an on-going dialogue and, at the

same time, advancing it through new means historiographyy in the Greek vein).

Of course, this line of reasoning involved a problem. Josephus hoped that Jews and

Judaism would find a place in the larger Roman society, that it would be accepted and respected

because it shared many of the virtues the Romans had long admired among the Greeks. In other

words, Josephus was hoping that Roman cultural and religious pluralism would be large enough

to embrace the Jews and their religion. The problem, however, was that the pluralistic sentiment

did not run the other way. Josephus was unwilling to compromise what he understood to be

essential elements in Judaism in order to bridge the gap between "inside" and "outside."

Fundamental among these elements was monotheism. The difference between Jew and Gentile

was, for Josephus, a real one. He neither ignored it nor dismissed it. Everyone knew better.

However, syncretism of the kind needed to fully assimilate Judaism into the Roman world was

not possible. This would prove to be the deal-breaker. "Jewish faith bred an anti-social

clannishness which in turn cast suspicion on them as citizens."113 Yet Josephus hoped he could

get around this by emphasizing the good qualities that already existed within his people.

Josephus hoped to present a broader picture of Judaism which revealed that it was consonant

with peoples the Romans already admired and accepted.

113 J. Daniel, 'Anti-Semitism', 58.


The Bellum Judaicum and the Greek Tradition of Historiography

In his first literary work, the Bellum Judaicum, Josephus consciously stepped into the

world of Greek historiography and crafted a narrative that not only read or sounded like Greek

history, but that also portrayed the Jews as being a people similar in many ways to the ancient

Greeks. Scholarship on Josephus has long explored his use of Greek models in it. Some scholars

(e.g. Holscher, Bilde, Horsley, Feldman) have suggested that Josephus' use of these models is

merely formal and conventional, but others (e.g., Shutt, Mader) have argued that it is functional.

If the use of these models is simply conventional, then it remains to explain why they had to be

used at all. Of course it is certainly possible, even probable, that this is part of a strategy to win

an initial reading of his account. After all, why would a Greek or Roman reader be inclined to

read something written in a mode foreign to them? It would be much better to tell the story in a

way that did not tax the reader up front. Furthermore, all historians after the classical period felt

compelled to imitate Herodotus and especially Thucydides to some extent. Marincola notes that

the literary tradition of classical antiquity-including the writing of history-was
conservative and, ... had as its central technique the employment of mimesis, the creative
imitation of one's predecessors. The idea that one should imitate one's great predecessors,
and look to them for the proper way to treat almost any task is a fundamental aspect of
ancient literary creation and criticism. Already established by the fourth century BC,
imitation of one's predecessors never ceased to exert an influence on ancient writers of
both poetry and prose.

However, mere use of traditional vocabulary or imitation of style was not enough. "... the writer

must appropriate the spirit of his model or models and breathe new life into them .... the goal of

ancient composition was not to strike out boldly in a radical departure from one's predecessors,

but rather to be incrementally innovative within a tradition, by embracing the best in previous

1 Pp.12-13.

performers and adding something of one's own marked with an individual stamp."2 There is

ample evidence that Josephus was aware of what good Greek history was supposed to look like,

and yet it is also clear that Josephus did not simply go about his work in a merely mechanical

way.3 He even stated explicitly that he was aware of the "rules" for the production of a proper

historical account. In Bellum Judaicum 5.20, while lamenting the fate of Jerusalem, Josephus

says a&X&' KUcOEKTeOV y&p K TCi C& TrCTrl r|c v Toco TT|( ypc))f WU OUK 6XO(UP[pLoGv OLKEL'V 6

KcLpOd; &,' &iry1oe'Wg uTpay~~mov ("but it is necessary by the rule of composition to refrain

from such emotions, as not being the time for personal lamentations but the narrating of events").

In other words, he followed the models, but not slavishly, and gave his own personal cast to the


Precisely how much of this modeling and borrowing was due to Josephus himself has been

debated, for, as I have noted, he admits that he had help with Greek composition. Some modern

scholars have gone as far as to suggest that Josephus' literary assistants were responsible for

much of the finished result. Thackeray believed that these "hacks" (as he calls them) were

trained in the Thucydidean school which is mentioned by Cicero and Lucian4 and were therefore

responsible for the good Atticistic style of the work, although they were, in Thackeray's opinion,

far inferior in style to the master, Thucydides. Thackeray even thought he could distinguish

different assistants in different parts of the Antiquities. This may be more than the evidence can

bear, for style is a difficult criteria to define and use in source criticism. Shutt correctly observes

that Josephus' statement about "assistants with the Greek language" does not mean that Josephus

was mostly ignorant of the language and that the assistants therefore basically did much of the

2 Marincola 14.
3 This was established in Attridge's dissertation.
4 Cic. Orat. 9.30; Lucianus Hist.Conscr. 15.21-3.
5 Josephus: The Man and the Historian 107-116.

actual composition, but that Josephus was conversant in the vernacular Koine and simply needed

help in producing a more refined, polished written Greek in the Atticistic style.6 Even with help,

Josephus was the final judge of what was produced under his name, and the thoroughly Greek

cast of the work was still ultimately the product of its author. As Raj ak has noted, "It would be

rash ... to suppose that he would not be fit, when eventually he came to the Greek War, at the

very least to collaborate fruitfully with his assistants, and to take the ultimate responsibility for

substance and style alike."7

There is a sense in which war was the first, and always the greatest, theme of Greek

historiography. This goes back to the epic tradition institutionalized in Homer's Iliad, and it is

also the main theme in Herodotus (the Persian War), Xenophon (the expedition of Cyrus),

Thucydides (the Peloponnesian War), and Polybius (the Roman conquest of Greece). Similarly,

the conflict of Greeks versus barbarians, or east versus west (Herodotus), became emphatic

aspects of the typical narrative. The treatment of warfare never lost sight of its epic roots, and by

the first century CE there was an observable "intermeshing between historical narratives and epic

in the area of warfare."8 Josephus' use of Greek historiographical models for the account of a

great war can be understood as a facet of his program of building a Greek-looking ethnicity for

Jews. Rajak recognizes this when she notes that "what is striking and even bold in Josephus is

the very fact that he had introduced a distinctive Jewish interpretation into a political history

which is fully Greek in form, juxtaposing the two approaches."9 The fact that the Jews had

participated in a war that was billed by the Flavian dynasty as one of the greatest wars of recent

6 Pp.59-68.
7 Josephus: The Historian andHis Society 62-3.
8 R. Ash, 'Epic Encounters? Ancient Historical Battle Narratives and the Epic Tradition',
in Clio and the Poets: Augustan Poetry and the Traditions ofAncient Historiography
(Mnemosyne 224, Leiden 2002) 255.
9 Josephus: The Historian andHis Society 79.

memory naturally presented Josephus with an opportunity to compare the Jews and the Greeks in

their experience of an epic war. His choice to write on the theme of a great war also had a direct

relationship with his agenda of ethnicity-building, because "War defines opposition between

one subject group and others, and between a collective self and a collective enemy. It is the most

extreme form of realizing identity and otherness."10 Josephus' account, which explicitly aimed to

correct then-current interpretations of the war, would attack head-on the idea that most Jews

were confirmed enemies of Hellenistic culture and Roman society. In effect, he would use a

story about a conflict to disarm the perceptions of cultural hostilities that the conflict had


In the ancient Roman culture of honor and shame, character and credibility went hand-in-

hand, and an historian's credibility rested to a large extent on the public perception of his own

character. It is not surprising, therefore, that Josephus engages in what appears to us today to be

an inordinate amount of self-flattery for the purpose of establishing his own authority and thus

the authority of his account. Josephus no doubt saw himself (or at least saw an opportunity to

portray himself) as similar to noted Greek historians and thus as standing in a legitimate role as a

Greek historiographer. For example, both Thucydides and Josephus were commanders in the war

in which they participated, both lost the engagements in which they were involved, and both

received the criticism of their fellow-countrymen for it.1 Concerning Polybius and Josephus,

both men served in military positions in their own home countries, both came under the

protective sponsorship of powerful Roman families, both witnessed the destruction of great cities

10 T. Holscher 4.
11 It is a curious coincidence that many Greek historiographers were exiles from their
own cities: Herodotus, Thucydides, Ctesias, Theopompus, Philoistus, Timaeus, Polybius,
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Posidonius. A. Momigliano, 'Greek Historiography', History
and Theory 17 (1978) 9. To this list we may add Josephus.

that were dear to them (Corinth and Jerusalem), and both wrote histories concentrating on

Roman power in which they defended their own behavior.12 Concerning Xenophon and

Josephus, both served as military leaders (neither of high rank), both served a foreign army

(albeit in different capacities), both witnessed a decisive military engagement in their day, both

wrote an account of their experiences, and both had to deal with the image of being a traitor.13 It

is likely that Josephus realized that his own experiences had paralleled many of the experiences

of the great Greek soldier-historians and that he stood in an ideal position to write the account of

the Jewish War.

In the course of the account Josephus presented himself as an ideal general who had the

status of a hero among the Jews, whose capture all but guaranteed Roman victory, and whom

Vespasian praised as "the most sagacious of his enemies."14 The need for this characterization

was exacerbated in Josephus' case by the fact that he had a personal detractor, Justus of Tiberias,

who had also written an account of the war that portrayed Josephus as the enemy of Rome.15

However, Josephus was also consciously following the Greek historiographical tradition by

presenting himself so positively. S. Cohen has noted that Josephus' self-portrayals follow

familiar Greek models.16 His self-description mirrors the kinds of stock descriptions of good

12 Eckstein 175.
13 There are, of course, significant differences between the two. Xenophon witnessed a
battle fought on a battlefield (Cunaxa), whereas Josephus witnessed the siege of a city
(Jerusalem). Xenophon claims that when he joined the expedition of Cyrus, he did not know its
purpose. When Josephus joined the Roman side, however, it was because he was convinced that
God was on the side of the Romans. In a twist of irony, Josephus says that in his case, it was the
Romans who were ignorant of the nature of the fight they entered. Also, Xenophon fights his
way back home, but Josephus remains in Rome.
14BJ2.568, 3.143-4, 341, 435-6; Attridge, 'Josephus and His Works', 188.
15 Josephus' response to Justus appears in Vit. 1:336-67.
16 S. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee andRome 91-7.

generals found in authors such as Cicero and Onasander,17 and he attributes to himself the use of

the same kinds of military tactics that are described in Thucydides, Herodotus, and other sources.

For example, raising the height of the walls and erecting animal-skin coverings over his men (BJ

3.171-4) was done at Plataea in the Peloponnesian War (Th. 2.75), and hanging out wet objects

to make the enemy think the defenders have plenty of water inside the city (BJ 3.186-9) was

done by Thrasybulus of Miletus (Hdt. 1.21.1-22.3). S. Cohen puts all of this down to Josephus'

ego and claims that it was counter to Josephus' apologetic purpose.18 I would suggest, however,

that two other considerations apply here. First, Josephus was engaging in an aspect of the Greek

tradition by his self-advertisement. "That the ancient historian was concerned with his own fame

and wrote history to achieve renown is not to be doubted."19 Second, this characterization formed

the perfect complement to his presentation of his own people, the Jews, as similar to the ancient

Greeks in this experience. Just as the Greeks had a tradition of war and great historians, so the

Jews had the First Jewish War and Josephus.

From a literary point of view, Josephus stood in a great stream of tradition of prose

Hellenic historiography, and he consciously incorporated many conventions from that tradition

into his own history. This was recognized as early as the fourth century CE, when Jerome

described Josephus as "the Greek Livy."20 Casting stories in Greek molds for the benefit of

Greek readers was part of this tradition, traceable back to Xanthus.21 In particular, authors of

histories regularly acquainted themselves with the histories of other authors and felt obliged to

17 Cic. De Imperio Cn. Pompei 13.36-48; Onasander 1.1, 2.2.
18 S. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome 95-7.
19 Marincola 61. cf A. Momigliano: "Adulation, rather than propaganda, was the
insidious tempter of the classical historians" ('Tradition and the Classical Historian', History and
Theory 11 (1972) 286).
20 Ep. XXII adEustochium, 35.
21 Momigliano, 'Greek Historiography', 3.

imitate their style and work, but also to advance upon them in some way (including correcting

them). As noted above, the ideal was to pay homage to the tradition and yet not be completely

bound by it. It was also customary to offer some kind of criticism of one's predecessors and their

treatment of events. This element in the historiographical tradition goes back to Hecataeus of

Miletus, and was perhaps most famously sounded in Thucydides' criticism of Herodotus (1.20).

Josephus engaged in all of these aspects of the tradition. He was acquainted with the works of

Thucydides, Herodotus, Polybius, Dionysius of Halicamassus, and Nicolaus of Damascus at a

minimum-of whom the first three were considered the standard models for Hellenistic

historians22 (although he specifically mentions none of them in the Bellum Judaicum). Yet he

made it clear that he was also making an original contribution: LX6ATrovovC 65 oi( 6 eXTraTrOLUv


KaTROKEUU CV 'i"Lov ("The industrious one is not he who remodels the arrangement and order of

another but who, along with reporting new things, prepares his own body of history").23 He also

complained that Greek historians had neglected Jewish history almost completely,24 that he was

aware of other histories of the Jewish War, and that he set out to correct what he thought were

glaring inaccuracies in them.25 This last complaint is, in fact, arguably the most emphatic theme

in the introduction to the Bellum Judaicum, but it is also quite Thucydidean as well, since

Thucydides registered the same kinds of complaints about the historian Hellanicus.26

22 Momigliano, 'Tradition and the Classical Historian', 280.
23 BJ1.15.
24 BJ 1.13.
25 BJ 1.1, 6-9.
26 1.97.

Another part of the Greek historiographical tradition was an ongoing debate over the value

and purpose of history,27 whether it was for entertainment or for a didactic purpose. A didactic

purpose required accuracy and emphasis on truth, whereas history as entertainment participated

in conventions from tragedy (paradox, crisis, suspense, intervention of the gods, myth, etc.).

Thucydides was considered the model for didactic history, and later also Polybius. Herodotus

was more the story-teller, but Cicero called him "the father of history" because he was the first to

differentiate clearly between myth and history in his account, and his expressed aim was to

preserve the memory of the glorious deeds of the past: ) [rE Ti yevo[ievc kE &dvOPpd)rv TO

XpoV(o E'LTrM ax yEvrrTaL, TirtE 'Epy'a [EYUaAX TE KUL Go&iao u& Eiv "Eir|OL 'U 5& papppoLoL

dTro6EXOE8VTr d&KXE& yEvrTLca ("so that the things done by men might not be forgotten in time, nor

the great and marvelous works, some displayed by the Greeks and some by the barbarians, might

become inglorious").28 In good Herodotean style, Josephus claims KdyG) ... Tv LV 'iLrv TLV

KaropOWLt)TWV dTvac(OrlLt ("I am setting forth the memorial of great achievements"). However,

the Greek historiographical tradition was strongly indebted to Greek tragedy from Herodotus

onwards, and this element of it never disappeared.29 Therefore, although Josephus stated that his

account of the Jewish war was not designed for entertainment, but for those who seriously

wished to know the facts about it,30 he did not ignore the rhetorical, dramatic side of history-

writing. Eusebius had long ago recognized the tragic nature of the Josephus' account of Herod,31

and G. M. Paul noted that Josephus used past unreal conditional sentences, probably imitated

from Homer and introducing an unexpected event that dramatically reverses the situation in the

27 Momigliano, 'Tradition and the Classical Historian', 291.
28 Hdt. 1.1.
29 These two aims are not necessarily exclusive, as Rhodes has noted (p. 166).
30 BJ 1.6, 16.
31 He calls it a TpayLKi 6pacaroupyLa in H.E. 1.8. Thackeray notes several dramatic
elements in that story in his preface to the Loeb edition of Josephus, II xvi-xvii.

narrative, in order "to present Titus in particular in a dramatic way."32 Chapman has shown that

Josephus employed the device of spectacle and the language of Greek tragedy to describe the

siege of Jerusalem and other stories in his account,33 and R. Hall has demonstrated a

correspondence between Josephus' method in the Contra Apionem and the canons of Roman

rhetorical inquiry.34

As the Greek tradition of historiography developed, there came to be an emphasis on

contemporary history. Even those who wrote about the ancient past brought the narrative down

to their present day. There developed a general reluctance to re-hash what others had already said

about the past because of the belief that the past was unavailable historically. The difference

between heroic and historical times was basically introduced by the work of Hecataeus. This

distinction was already accepted and assumed by the time of Herodotus, and an emphasis on

contemporary history began in earnest with Thucydides. There came to be a realization that the

past was, in a real sense, beyond the historian's grasp and therefore there was nothing new to

add. Opportunity and fame as a historian lay instead in writing on new things. Of course,

Josephus wrote of a war that happened within his own lifetime and within his own experience.

He sharply criticized Greek historians who had neglected such a great war in favor of simply re-

hashing the histories of older times, some for which they had no data.35

32 G. M. Paul, 'The Presentation of Titus in the "Jewish War" of Josephus: Two Aspects',
Phoenix 47 (1993) 57.
33 H. Chapman, 'Spectacle and Theater in Josephus' Bellum Judaicum' (PhD Diss.
Stanford University 1998).
34 R. Hall, 'Josephus, Contra Apionem and Historical Inquiry in the Roman Rhetorical
Schools', in L. Feldman and J. Levison (eds.), Josephus' Contra Apionem: Studies in Its
Character and Cniexi\ n i//h a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek (Leiden 1996)
35 BJ 1.14-16.

The craft of the ancient historian lay in the discernment and description of change and its

causes. This theme fascinated the ancients of the classical world, especially the Ionian pre-

Socratic philosophers. Behind all things they searched for the underlying principles and causes.

This quest for identifying causes of historical events appeared prominently in Herodotus and

Thucydides, but was well-alive in later Greek historians also. In fact, the themes of change and

war often went hand-in-hand, because wars were often the means by which great societal

changes were effected.36 Accordingly, Josephus' choice of a war as the subject of his first book

was thus a natural foray into Greek historiography, and he spent a large section of his account

(1.1-2.283, or 956 sections of the text as it has come to be divided) describing the political

context that, in his view, led to the First Jewish War.37 Josephus' descriptions of the several

smaller events that cumulatively led to the great revolt cannot help but remind us of the same

kind of presentation in Thucydides.

Another fascination for the Greek historians was foreign lands and peoples. The

ethnographic emphasis in the tradition goes back to Homer's Odyssey and is prominent also in

the travel digressions in Hecataeus, Herodotus, and Theopompus. However, it was the Greek

experience of war against foreign enemies that brought the differences between Greeks and

barbarians into sharpest focus. What was essentially Greek became clearer through the

exploration of the customs, laws, and governments of other peoples, and through the accounts of

conflict with them, so this element of the tradition served a role in the construction, or

affirmation, of Greek ethnicity. Similarly, Josephus acted as if his Greek and Roman readers

36 Momigliano, 'Tradition and the Classical Historian', 283.
37 In fact, Josephus seems to have been especially aware of the complex nature of the
causes of this war. Bilde, 'The Causes of the Jewish War', 197-202.

were naturally interested in matters of Jewish history,38 which was probably a rhetorical touch on

his part. The assumption, however, bought into the paradigm neatly. It added to the sense that

one was reading legitimate Greek historiography.

Literary artistry was considered another hallmark of proper Greek history-writing. It

remained that good, respectable history was first and foremost supposed to be factual and

truthful, yet all historians felt the need for their accounts to be written in a way that was engaging

(following the high style of Thucydides). Josephus explicitly distanced himself from merely

rhetorical accounts in Bellum Judaicum 1.1, where he spoke of other accounts that had been

written "sophistically" (oodLjoTLK(Ji). Some modern scholars would judge this to be mere lip-

service on Josephus' part, since his account is fairly heavy with rhetorical flourishes.39 However,

it is not the truth of the claim that is ultimately important, but the impression that claim makes on

the reader. In this same vein, Josephus was also careful to note in Bellum Judaicum 1.13-14 that

excellence of literary style ought not be the primary standard of good history either. In fact, in

that passage Josephus implicitly compares his own account with the accounts of the classical

historians, and against contemporary Greek authors. In doing so he was participating in the

Roman practice, noted before, of distinguishing between the noble Greeks of the past and

contemporary Greeks of lesser achievements, and comparing himself favorably with the former.

The personal observation of what was studied (autopsy), participation in the events one

narrated, or having seen sites personally was considered a requirement for any Greek historian

who wished to be judged as competent. Thucydides had participated in the Peloponnesian War,

and Polybius experienced Roman conquest himself and even claimed to have visited the site

38 BJ 1.3, 16; cf. AJ 1.9.
39 Cf S. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee andRome, 90: "BJ is a good representative of
rhetorical historiography."

where Hannibal crossed the Alps. This emphasis on eyewitness testimony was another part of the

tradition's heritage from Greek pre-Socratic philosophy. In good Greek fashion, Josephus thus

placed his claim to be an eyewitness at the front of his account: 'I)orlTrroc Ma 0(ou wrTra c e

'IEpooo3iuwv ilpeuc; awvOC Te 'P-vi[C 'rroUC erToaqi(w Tv Trp2a KCm TOIC iuoepov

Trapaawuv e' &v'yK|l ("I myself, Joseph son of Matthias, a priest from Jerusalem, fought the

Romans at first and was forced to be present for what happened later").40 Similarly, a good

historian was expected to maintain some semblance of neutrality and objectivity and refrain from

excesses of either praise or blame in his account. This is evident as early as Homer. Similarly, in

Herodotus barbarians are generally portrayed sympathetically, not as inherently evil. In keeping

with this aspect of the tradition, Josephus presented his claim to objectivity in Bellum Judaicum

1.9: Ou0 [Ufv ey4 TOIC ETraLpouoL vm 'Pw[aiLv lVTL4)LjOVELKG)V yuioELV T T63pv 6Oo4~u.. .v

6LEyvGov diU T [I pev 'epya [LE' CKpLpeLa f poTdpTpgv 6L'etiteL ("Now I have resolved not

to magnify the deeds of my countrymen out of jealously against those who exalt the Roman

deeds, but I am recounting the deeds of both with accuracy").

There is, in Greek historiography, a precedent for establishing the authority of the

historical account in some way. Marincola observes that whereas in myth the authority is

guaranteed by the muse, in history the authority is vouchsafed by the author himself.41 How this

was achieved in practice varied. Herodotus constantly appears in the first person in his narrative

to provide testimony to what is presented, but Thucydides rarely interjects himself into his

account. His method instead was instead to write a seamless account that has the appearance of

being the presentation of the facts. "The narrative homogeneity of Thucydides is meant to inspire

40 BJ 1.3.
41 Pp.4-5.

confidence."42 Polybius appears as a mixture of these two methods. "The Polybian narrator

combines a largely unobtrusive narrative of the deeds with a highly intrusive explicator of that

narrative."43 Close to Thucydides' method was Xenophon, who is so unobtrusive in his Anabasis

as to be nearly anonymous.44 Josephus followed a path somewhere between that of Xenophon

and Polybius. Outside of the introduction to the Bellum Judaicum, Josephus does not often speak

in the first person. He preferred, like Xenophon, to treat himself in the third person as a true

character in the narrative. Yet Josephus was not adverse to interjecting explanations and

comments, like Polybius, and thus presented himself as the fairly typical Greek author.

While the foregoing discussion does not exhaust the list of things that were common to,

or defined, Greek historiography, it shows that Josephus was consciously tapping into that

tradition. No educated reader in his day would have missed the fact that Josephus was presenting

his account according to the standard form for Greek historiography. Given the circumstances in

which Josephus wrote (specifically, the anti-Jewish climate), and the thorough-going nature of

his use of these models, surely more was involved in the Bellum Judaicum than an author paying

lip-service to a literary genre. My contention is that Josephus saw in the use of the paradigm of

Greek historiography a way of fitting the Jews into the larger, well-accepted cultural paradigm of

the ancient noble Greeks.

Josephus went beyond adopting the formal elements of the Greek historiographical

tradition. He also adopted specific situations from it as types for his presentation of the Jews. For

example, he adopted from Herodotus the paradigm of a clash between a superpower and an

underdog. For Herodotus, the superpower was Persia, who threatened the Greek homeland and

42 Marincola 9.
43 Marincola 10.
44 Marincola 10.

its smaller forces. Polybius engaged this same paradigm as he chronicled the rise of Rome over

the Greek states, arguing that resistance was futile and Roman domination was inevitable. For

Josephus the superpower is Rome, and the underdog is the Palestinian Jews. There was some of

this in Thucydides as well, in the well-known Melian dialogue in 5.17 of his History. There the

Athenians demanded that the island of Melos capitulate to them, underscoring their demand with

a reminder that the Athenians possessed the greater military force on that occasion. The

Athenians portrayed themselves as a much greater power which the Melians could never

withstand. The dialogue there was echoed in the speech which Josephus himself delivered to the

Jerusalem Jews, on behalf of the Romans, in Bellum Judaicum 5.367. Another example appears

in Bellum Judaicum 1.373ff, where Josephus has Herod making a speech to his troops who were

discouraged over a military defeat and the havoc wreaked by an earthquake. This is similar to the

scene in Thucydides (2.60ff) where Pericles delivered a speech to the Athenians after they had

suffered invasion of their homeland and a devastating plague.45 Also, the account of the report of

the news that Jotapata had fallen to the Romans46 is reminiscent of the account in Thucydides

(8.1) of the failure of the Sicilian expedition,47 and Josephus' description of the nature of the

OTUdOL in Jerusalem "is clearly inspired by" Thucydides' description of the orTOL( in Corcyra

(3.82f).48 In fact, Mader has argued that Thucydides' narrative of the Corcyrean affair "shimmers

like a subtext through BJ often enough to suggest that it provides a stable point of reference."49

45 Thackeray notes this in vol. 2 of the Loeb edition of Josephus, p. xvii, as does Mader 6.
46 BJ 3.432.
47 Thackeray's Loeb edition, II xvii. This kind of borrowing also appears in the AJ, where
the description of Herod's disease (17.167ff) closely follows Thucydides' description of the
symptoms of those who suffered in the plague in Athens (Th. 2.49.2-6). D. Ladouceur, 'The
Death of Herod the Great', CP 76 (1981) 28-30.
48 Eckstein 178.
49 Mader 56.

More specific examples are available. It is well-known that the Bellum Judaicum has

several clear verbal or paradigmatic echoes of Thucydides' History, so much so that recent

treatments of Josephus no longer bother to cite the parallels. It is useful for the present study,

however, to rehearse some of these briefly. There are close verbal parallels as Josephus gives an

overview of the political context of the war:


1.1 ... KLiCOVUrE rTe fToCV Eg aLrUTv
c6oTepoL TrcpaoCKEu TT TC KOT KCL T6O ao
'EXXTIVLKbv 6po3v UVLOTCFlevov TrpbO EK(TEpou
Tb ietv EvuO,, TO 6E KCaL 6Lavoo6tEVOV. KLVT1OLc
[tEpL 'tLVL TVTV paPUppov, .

(" both sides were complete in all the
preparations for it, and seeing the other Greeks
united against the others, some immediately,
others contemplating it. Indeed this was the
greatest uproar among the Greeks and among a
certain part of the barbarians .")

Josephus Bellum Judaicum

1.4 yevoi.Evou yap 03 'i E'v eyloroou To6e
OLKELL 'IOUic(L)V 6OE TOb vE(orpLov OT
TETapay[iEvoL; ETravEioTr TOL( KCLpOL; UK[COV.

("For when, as I said, this greatest of uproars
happened, of the internal affairs of the Romans
were in disorder, and the revolutionary party of
the Jews then arose and flourished when the
times were ripe.")

A few more verbal similarities appear as both authors claim that the war of which they wrote was

the greatest in the world's history:


1.2 KLVTIOL( y&p ai'rU 61 [teyLorTi TOiL
EXXTiOLv EYEveto ~ipEL TLV VTov pUppppov,
We 6e EL'TrELV KUL ETrrL TrXELoTov xvOpG)TrU)v. TC&
yap Trpb aucJUTV KoL T& 'E"T TrcXLcaTEPpac oa(xO)
iEv eupelv 6Lt Xpovou TrXOo9 ao6UvaCTOV 'v,
EK 6i TtEKpipLP ) V 6v' ETri tcKpTraTov
vol') yevEioOUL ouTE KaT& TOi( Troxiqoui
OUTE E( TCU cXxca.

("For this was the greatest upheaval that
happened among the Greeks, and among a
certain part of the barbarians, and as one might
say, the majority of mankind. For it has been
impossible to discern the full picture, because
of the passing of time, concerning the things

Josephus Bellum Judaicum

1.1 'ETrEL6j TOb 'IoU6Uai)v Trpb6 'PowaULouI
roXE0ov ouoTaCVTC 4lytLoTov o0 .6vov TWV
KcUO' 't4 C oXE6ov 6e KCL o'v U(KOI
TrcPELX'4L[EV t ie TrToXEoV Trpb6 TrO6tXEL i ieOv(;v
'iOveoL ouppcyyvTtov .

("Since the war of the Jews with the Romans
has been the greatest ever engaged, not only of
those that have been in our times, but nearly of
all those that we have heard of; either of those
of cities fighting against cities, or nations
against nations .... ")

before these events and the more ancient
things; but by my considering proofs to the
fullest extent it has turned out that I have come
to believe that I do not think greater things
have happened either in wars or other

Thackeray lists six more cases where it is clear that Josephus has borrowed the vocabulary of

Thucydides, nine cases of verbal indebtedness to Herodotus, six for Xenophon, six for

Demosthenes, and others for Homer, Sophocles, and Virgil.5S

As for paradigmatic parallels, Josephus follows Thucydides in claiming that his account

rises above the normal tendencies of exaggeration and only reports the truth:


Josephus Bellum Judaicum

1.21.2 KCL 6 TrroqtExo OUUTo, KaULTrp T~6v
U&vOp6rrTrv ev c 6i'v &v TrOXE(tG)OL T6V TrapovTwa
aLEL [lEyLoTov KpLvovrov Trauoa Fivov 6E TC&

("And so this war, although the men who fight
in it always judge it to be the greatest one, and
it f

when it is over they wonder more at earlier
ones, from observation of their deeds it will be
clear that it was much greater than those that
happened before.")

1.2, 12 oi TrUapayevo4tevoL 6'e i KOXaKdE TT,
Trpo6 'P ULCtaOU Ti LLO EL TTp66 'Iou6aLoul

out6ax4o0 .. yohv irrdtvrov dtrr' (aL3voh
dTuXlcTaXa Trp6j T& 'Iou6ai)5 v TiTrfO9aL 60KG)

("Those who were present, either for flattery to
the Romans or for hatred against the Jews, lie
about the events, and the things written by
them contain either accusation or encomium,
but nowhere the historical truth. The
misfortunes of all men from the beginning of
the world seems to me to be inferior, by
comparison, to those of the Jews.")

And in a similar way Josephus follows Thucydides in defending the writing of a factual account

that may read dryly over an account written for entertainment:

50 Loeb edition, II xvii.


Josephus Bellum Judaicum

ThcyId JoehsB/ur uacr

1.22.4 KaL E' iev d(KpoaoLv 'LOGW TOb T
Lu0GO56E AUciTV l~TEpTrEoTEpoV oaVETw a i0sOL
6e poia r'ooVTL T)oV TE Ye yvoiEvov TO oha()
E oeOcL, ()EaXL, KpLVELV alji a pKoU VTW
EEL. KTri[W TE Ec U(LEl [i&LXXOV iT &yUvLoLa Ec

(" ... And likewise the lack of what is
mythological will appear, to the hearing,
boring; but if as many as wish to know the
exact truth about the things that have
happened, and of such things and similar
things that will happen again according to
human experience, judge these things to be
beneficial, it will be enough. It has been
written as a possession for all time rather than
as a show-piece for momentary hearing.")

1.15-16, 30 T6 ye [iT1v [viptn rT
TrpOiTOpr ooeVTs 6L6OVimL KfO TC&o TwV 6Lo)V
Xpoveov r^or is a task ouv' ofv prais 'an
KUCL L(XpTupLC CLOV .. TLo(,o ) 65i Trrap'
"EXXtiroLv .TeiErleTL ... yE TrtV XicA i'OELiv
UycUTrcOLV L XX&L tp6 T rp6 15ov'iv dvEypcaUc.

("Offering the memory of what has not been
previously recorded, and putting together the
affairs of one's own time for those who come
afterward, is a task worthy of praise and
declaration. ... Yet let that which is true in
history be preferred by us, since it has been
neglected among the Greeks ... and I have
written it for those who love the truth but not
for those who love pleasure.")

Mader notes additional correspondences in Bellum Judaicum 4.131-4 (= Th. 3.82-3), 4.319-21 (=

Th. 2.65), 5.367 (= Th. 1.72.2 and 5.105.2), and 6.136-40 (= Th. 7.44).51 E. Stein has catalogued

allusions to Greek authors at the rate of between two and four allusions per page in the Bellum

Judaicum,52 and Druner's examination of the evidence led him to conclude that Josephus' use of

Thucydides was deliberate.53

It is possible that Thucydides served as more than a verbal or paradigmatic template for

Josephus, because aspects of ethnicity also played a role in Thucydides' presentation of the war.

Price notes that "... the Hellenes fighting the war engaged in radical redefinition of the entity

Hellas, to which they all claimed proprietary rights in a way which excluded their opponents."54

This is typical of how ethnicities are constructed, especially for imperialists. To say that

51 P.6.
52 Pp.58-68.
53 P.34.
54 J. Price, Thucydides andInternal War (Cambridge 2001) 328.


Josephus Bellum Judaicum

Josephus saw this feature of Thucydides' work and adopted it for his own ends might beg the

question of how much Josephus actually knew and understood the History. However, the

consensus of modern scholarship is that Josephus was himself well acquainted with the work of

Thucydides,55 and it is not inconceivable that this feature of the History was not lost on Josephus.

At the very least it shows that Josephus' purpose was not inherently contradictory to his models

and therefore it was not out of line for Josephus to use Thucydides as a model for describing a

war in which cultural identity played a role.

Eckstein thinks Josephus used Polybius as his primary model.56 He argues that Josephus

used Polybius on both the conceptual and the verbal levels. Specifically, Josephus' description of

the Roman army in Bellum Judaicum 3.70-109 (which contributes nothing to the narrative itself)

draws heavily on Polybius' description in 6.19-42. Josephus emphasizes the importance of a

historian having political and military experience and being an eyewitness to and participant in

the things he relates; he is willing to overlook the failure of another historian to tell all the truth

of a matter; he is willing to tell the whole story even though it may prove embarrassing to his

own people; he is conscious that his emotional involvement in the story he relates may interfere

with the proper telling of history; he blames the loss of the conflict on the ineptness of some of

his own fellow-countrymen; he writes about a conflict that engulfs the entire Mediterranean

basin; he writes contemporary history (in the Bellum Judaicum); he provides a table of contents

at the beginning of the work; he writes for those who "are lovers of truth"; he has a resignation

and a conciliatory tone towards Rome and its power; he blames the irrational youth of some of

his countrymen for the start of the war; he appeals to u-Xrl as a factor in the rise of Rome's

55 Mader 5.
56 P.207. Similarly, Petersen (266-72) has suggested that in six places in the AJwhere
Josephus claims that a topic has been covered, when in fact it has not (AJ 12.390; 13:36, 61, 108,
119, and 186), the referent is to coverage in Polybius.

prominence, and he says that that Roman success was inevitable. All of these features of the

Bellum Judaicum have direct parallels in Polybius, and Eckstein argues that in some of them,

Polybius can be the only model Josephus could have followed. He observes that "Polybius

revealed to Josephus a good Hellenistic explanation of events, one that would obviously be

acceptable to a Greek-speaking audience, and one that carried the additional advantage of

exonerating much of the Jewish population from responsibility for the Revolt."57

Champion has shown that Polybius portrays the Romans as in keeping with the best

traditions of the ancient Greeks. "Romans are incorporated as part of the Hellenic cultural

commune, and Polybius presents them with didactic and admonitory lessons for preserving their

polity in its optimal condition."8 Josephus, like Polybius, wrote to demonstrate that a group that

had come to be hated by some (for Polybius, the Romans; for Josephus, the Jews) in fact

exhibited some of the best ideals of that model of nobility, the ancient Greeks. Both authors were

holding up a nation as worthy of respect and awe because of its affinities to Greek ideals. In

doing so, both authors interjected ethnicity into their presentations.

Debate over whether Josephus' primary model was Thucydides or Polybius is not crucial

for this study. It is possible, if not likely, that no one author served as primary model for the

Bellum Judaicum. I have already noted that Josephus drew on a number of themes from several

Greek historians. What is important is the implication of Josephus' extensive use of Greek

historical models. Are these examples simply a case of a later historian paying homage, through

mimesis, to his literary predecessors according to Hellenistic convention? Or is there more to it

than this? I suggest that Josephus wrote not simply to discourage anti-Jewish sentiment, but to

make a positive statement about the Jews, and in doing so he tapped into a characteristic of

57 P.93.
58 C. Champion, Cultural Politics in Polybius' Histories (Berkeley 2004) 99.

Greek historiography that was in vogue in his day. The remarks of Mader summarize the point

well. After referring to a few of Josephus' uses of Thucydides and Polybius, Mader says:

Intertextual allusion of this kind is not just a matter of formal ornatus, but implies also an
interpretive intent: Josephus by invoking recognizable frames and models suggests
analogies and parallels in a manner which would engage his Greco-Roman readers in their
own cultural terms, and which thus adds subtle nuance to his narrative. From this
perspective the 'Hellenizing glass' serves as a medium for implied authorial comment,
predisposing the reader to a particular interpretation of the historical data.59

In light of the fact that the Jews of the first century were struggling for acceptance in the wider

Hellenistic culture, and that Josephus was writing for the Greek-speaking world of his day, it

would seem that more than mimesis is going on here. Josephus is instead characterizing. These

phenomena suggest that Josephus had a purpose in mind for how he wanted his account, and the

people in it, to be understood.60 The clear echoes from the opening of Thucydides' Histories

immediately brings the reader to think of the conflict of the ancient Greeks and the story in the

Bellum Judaicum in the same terms, and to see the people (the Jews) of the Bellum Judaicum as

in some way parallel to the ancient Greeks. This becomes even more apparent in light of the fact

that this frequent use of the Greek historiographical tradition was not consistent across Josephus'

writings. In particular, his Antiquities have an observable "Isocratean-Dioysian slant," whereas

the Bellum Judaicum has "a conscious Thucydidean-Polybian orientation."61 The use of the

Thucydidean-Polybian model in the Bellum Judaicum seems to be deliberate and suggests that it

was designed to invite implicit comparison between Josephus' subject and that of Thucydides.

As Mader notes, "Josephus brings to bear the classical categories ... on his Jewish narrative

apparently with an eye to informed readers (Greeks, Romans, Hellenized Jews) and in a manner

59 P.9; he alludes to Rajak, Josephus: The Historian andHis Society, 103. Although
Mader is arguing for a different use of the Greek historiographical tradition than we are arguing
in this paper, he bases his approach on this same intertextual phenomenon.
60 Cf Mader 5.
61 Attridge, 'The Interpretation of Biblical History', 44-50.

that activates prior knowledge and associations, and so steers (or at least potentially affects)

reader-response through allusion to common frames of reference ...."62 Whereas Mader suggests

that Josephus' use of Thucydides and the Greek historiographical tradition in general serves to

give the impression of rationality to an account that is really nothing more than subjective

polemic,63 I suggest that Josephus' employment of that tradition alternately, or additionally,

served to provide an ethnicity for Hellenistic Jews.

Some Greek Elements Within the Bellum Judaicum

Is there anything to which we might look in Josephus that would demonstrate that

Josephus' wrote with a specifically ethnic slant or purpose? Three examples stand out. First, as

noted above, Josephus, like his model Polybius, appeals to u'64 as a factor in Rome's success.

In fact, 'Irl appears twenty-two times in the narrative. In Bellum Judaicum 1.45 Josephus

reports that TrXA OEL 6i uTrEepEXovr oL PCFOLALKOL KCO L 6E L& XpriodCtvoL UX1T KpcrouoL ("the

king's forces, being larger and having luck on their side, were victorious"). For a Jewish writer,

this is amazing for at least two reasons. First, Josephus tells us that the Pharisees ascribed all

events to destiny and to God.65 As a Pharisee, we would expect Josephus to have been satisfied

with taking this course in explaining the Jewish defeat, but he was not. Second, Josephus'

introduction of r~6r into the account is amazing especially in light of the fact that Josephus had

62 Mader 8.
63 Mader 4.
64 ',uUI came into Greek historiography through the influence of Greek tragedy. C.
Fornara, The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome (Berkeley 1983) 125-7.
65 BJ2.162. Greek: et Lcp4i TE K EL ( o TrpooTrrTOUOL TrwVTX. Cf. AJ 13.172: o o pev ov
cJapLodo(LL TLVO KCL 0ou TraLV lx 'Urf E[4UP4EVTc EYOpyoV E[vaL XEAyoUOLV ULV& 6' E4' Ea'UUoic
uTrPXEtLV oulpacUVELV TE KMIL [4i1 yLvEOUcL ("The Pharisees say that some things, but not all things,
are the work of fate, and some things happen by our own doing and do not come about [by
fate]"); cf 16.398. The two were perhaps not necessarily seen as exclusive, but understanding
Josephus' descriptions, and the relationship between these two forces, has proved difficult. Cf G.
Moore, 'Schicksal und freier Wille in der jidischen Philosophie bei Josephus', in A. Schalit
(ed.), Zur Josephus-Forschung (Wege der Forshung 84, Darmstadt 1973) 167-89.

another, competing factor in place in his account to explain the Roman victory at Jerusalem: the

favor of the God of the Jews. It is a major theme in the Bellum Judaicum that the Jews lost the

war because fanatical rebels angered God by their pollution of the temple, and thus God favored

the Romans and gave them victory as punishment for the rebels' impiety. OE6; 6' iv &pac 6

'Pt0icdOL T& Frc XLXaov TraOIrl XapLC6(d0vo ("It was God favoring the Romans for the calamities

of the Galileans").66 Josephus himself warned the inhabitants of Jerusalem saying OE6( &ppa bOE6

acb'6 EiPryEL [E 'PU4a4ico v KccapoLV cXUr~c Tr"wp KUCL Triv ToooUToV [LLUXO[LTo)V yEtiouoaCV Tro'XLV

avapTrrdCt ("It is indeed God, God himself, urging on with the Romans a cleansing fire for

himself, and he is plucking up the city that is full of such defilements").67 In fact, Josephus

presented himself as the prophetic author of this explanation, for which reason the Romans

spared his life at Jotapata. That is, Josephus presented this explanation as coming from God.

Now Josephus already had a perfectly good explanation for the Roman victory at

Jerusalem, one that Jewish readers would have found to be perfectly orthodox, especially

because a similar theology was found already in the canonical book of Jeremiah, which

discussed the Babylonian destruction of the city.68 Even for non-Jewish readers, the concept of

the gods being on the side of the victor had a long history, going back to Homer, as part of the

religious milieu of the ancient world. It would have made good sense to a non-Jewish reader if

Josephus had left the matter as a case of victory by the help of a deity. Therefore Josephus did

not need to tap into the concept of Trl in order to explain the outcome of the war either to Jews

66 BJ 3.293.
67 BJ 6.110. He puts the same sentiment in the mouth of Agrippa II in 2.390-94.
68 S. Cohen, 'Josephus, Jeremiah, and Polybius', History and Theory 21 (1982) 370-7.

or Gentiles. Yet Josephus added this element to his account, creating tension with the other

explanations.69 Why?

Perhaps Josephus thought that a theological explanation of the war's outcome would have

been ultimately unsatisfying to his pagan readers. After all, Josephus presents the war not just as

another war, but as an event comparable to the Peloponnesian War, a war that forever changed

the world. Momigliano has observed that "Though Tyche might appeal to a pagan historian, no

personal god was ever invoked to explain the course of history."70 After Herodotus, gods play no

direct role in historical explanation. Instead the gods became the instrument of overriding rX.71

So perhaps the idea of a world-changing war directly determined by the personal God of the

Jews was, in Josephus' judgment, too Jewish of an explanation. UXTrl provided a less personal

explanation and even made the presentation somewhat Thucydidean, since in Thucydides there

was a thread that decisions made by human beings were also part of a larger divine plan.72

Squires has noted that a concept of divine providence can be discerned in the classical historians,

and that Josephus' Jewish theological views enabled him to capitalize on this theme,73 but

appealing to XTrl aligned his description with Greek conventions. In short, an appeal to uXxT

would have made better sense to his Hellenistic readers. Whatever the reason, Josephus' use of

this term that had a well-known place in Greek thought shows that Josephus was deliberately

casting the story in specifically Greek terms, thus making the story appear closer to Greek

experience than it could have been portrayed otherwise. By interjecting u'Xrl into the account,

69 S. Cohen notes ('Josephus, Jeremiah, and Polybius', 372) that Josephus' use of the
term tuy r is not consistent.
70 Momigliano, 'Tradition and the Classical Historian', 284.
71 Price, 'The Provincial Historian in Rome', 116-7.
72 Rhodes 158.
73 J. Squires, 'Hellenistic Historiography and Philosophy in Josephus' Account of the
Jewish History', Australian Journal of Jewish Studies 4 (1990) 148-54.

Josephus was explicitly painting the Jews in Greek dress, and implicitly declaring that the

experiences of the Jews paralleled those of the Greeks. The Jews, for literary purposes, have

become Greeks.

A second indicator of the specifically ethnic function of Josephus' use of Greek

historiographical models can been seen in how he seemed to downplay those things that were

specifically and uniquely Jewish. While this program is most noticeable in the Antiquitates

Judaicae, rewriting for the purpose of making the material appear more Greek also characterizes

the Bellum Judaicum. For example, the various sects of the Jews are presented as philosophies74

to make them appear more Greek. Specifically, the Essenes are said to live the same kind of life

as the Greek Pythagoreans,75 the Pharisees are said to be like the Stoics,76 and his descriptions of

the Sadducees and Epicureans have much in common.7 Closer inspection reveals, however, that

the Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, and Essenes had little in common with the classical Greek

notions of philosophy. The term LXooo(L a of course had a long history and had come to denote

Greek speculative thought on the nature of the world and existence (including the role of the

gods). The Jews, however, historically shunned such speculation since they believed their sacred

texts provided answers to the kinds of questions the Greeks asked. Josephus' choice of terms, in

spite of the fact that they did not accurately describe the institutions of Jewish culture, indicates

his desire to paint the Jews with a Greek brush politically and socially. In fact, Josephus could

have cited Greek approval for his choice of terms. Theophrastus, Aristotle's successor in the

74 BJ 2.119ff.
75 AJ 15.371.
76 Vit. 12.
77AJ 10.277f and Ap. 2.180.

Peripatetic school, referred to the Jews as "a philosophical race."8 In Josephus' defense, the

term "philosophy" was broad enough that it could encompass the peculiar theological traditions

of the Jews. There was no single word in the ancient world that comprehensively denoted what

our word "religion" denotes. "Philosophy" was the closest term,79 but at the same time its use by

Josephus did not denote quite what it meant among Greeks.80 Josephus took advantage of this

ambiguity to create the impression of alignment between Greek and Jewish culture on this point.

This technique of painting the Jews with a Greek brush is seen to be all the more bold

when one notes that Jews and Greeks were significantly different in many ways. The Jews

classically were a nation who lived in a territory with a capital city, Jerusalem. The Greeks,

however, classically had no capital city. Instead the Greeks lived in several independent TrodIEL.

Jewish religion was monotheistic and centered in one place in the ancient world (Jerusalem), but

Greek religion was polytheistic and had shrines everywhere. The Jews had a Torah, revealed by

their God, that dictated morality. For the Greeks, the gods were not sources of moral instruction.

Ethics was instead the purview of speculative philosophy. Jewish law contained dietary strictures

that applied to everyday life, most notably abstinence from pork. The Greeks had no such

customary restrictions. The Greeks were a seafaring people, but the Jews were not. The

differences can easily be multiplied. Josephus consistently smoothed over or ignored significant

differences between Jewish and Greek ethnicities and recast the former to look as much as

possible like the latter.

78 In Porph. Abst. 2.26. From the fragment it does not seem that Theophrastus had
anywhere near an accurate knowledge of Jewish beliefs and customs. W. Jaeger, 'Greeks and
Jews: The First Greek Records of Jewish Religion and Civilization', JR 18 (1938) 131-4.
79 M. Smith 79.
80 Cf Green 501: "Hellenistic Greeks...thought of Jews as a race of philosophers (a view
sustainable only by the failure to read anything they actually wrote...)."

Both of the examples above show that Josephus was making conscious choices about his

presentation of the Jews. In the former example, Josephus was adding an element of explanation

to the story that was unnecessary from a Jewish point of view, but one that would have greatly

increased the Hellenic characterization of the story and its peoples by its addition. In the latter

example Josephus was suppressing elements of Jewish ethnicity that one would otherwise expect

to find in a Jewish description of Jewish culture, elements that would have made the Jews appear

un-Greek, and has instead re-cast a major component of Jewish ethnicity in purely Greek terms.

These techniques, along with his heavy use of the Greek historiographical tradition throughout,

led the ancient reader to see the Jews in much the same way as that same reader would have

encountered the Greeks in the works of the recognized, authoritative Greek historians.

Perhaps the most noticeable evidence within the Bellum Judaicum that Josephus was trying

to bridge the divide between Roman and Jewish relationships appears in his treatment of the

emperor Titus who, at the time of the Jewish revolt, was the officer in charge of finishing the

campaign. As I have tried to demonstrate in chapter three, Roman-Jewish tensions were high in

the first century CE. Josephus needed to soften Roman views of Jews and to present a view of

Titus that was not antagonistic toward Jews if there was to be a successful negotiation on the part

of Jews into Roman society. The former of these tasks involved explaining that the war was

started and prosecuted by a handful of Jews who were bent on making trouble.81 The rest of the

populace involved in the conflagration was, according to Josephus, quite unwilling to be in that

situation. This may have been an attempt to counter a notion that Jews in general across the

Roman empire were eager for a revolt. In 1.5 we hear what sounds like an echo of this rumor:

eTTrL6T 'Iou6XiLOL iJ V rraVv Tb 33r0 p EipcTirv 6[L6u)Xov oUVTrcUpOrtoeoOcaL O4LAOLV ijXTrLoav ("For

81BJ 1.10; 2.290, 330; etc.

the Jews hoped that their fellow-country from beyond the Euphrates would join with them"). The

insurrectionists apparently envisioned this as a great war of east versus west, and mention of this

little fact is reminiscent of the Herodotean presentation of groups in terms of polarities.

Discrediting this idea of a war of Jews versus the world required presenting Titus as God-fearing

and pious, respectful of the Jews and their great religious institution, sympathetic and unwilling

to bring calamity on the Jews. In short, Josephus needed to show that, from the point of view of

an authoritative Jewish historian, Jews did not view Titus as their arch-enemy. If this point could

be established, Roman perceptions of Jews could be softened.82

According to Josephus, Titus did not want to destroy the Jewish temple. In the introduction

to the Bellum Judaicum Josephus set the tone for the reader and said that the Romans attacked

the Jews unwillingly (XE^pac LKo6oaUc) and Katoap TLro( kv TravuCi Tro~ toit bA v pev 6fiov

EXEToca UTTr6 To)V OCaoLCTcoL V ppoupou06iVOV TTOUXXKLK 65 EK6)v T V cUXOvLV a Tfl TrOTXEWo

UTrEpTLOEi4VOc KCL 6L6Oib TZ TrOXLOpKi' XPOvov E'L [lETUVOLtV TiGV aLrOVv ("Titus Caesar

throughout the whole war pitied the people who were being held by the rebels, and often

willingly held off the taking of the city, and gave time for repentance for those who started it

while the siege was underway").83 In fact, he set this tone twice in the preface, to make sure that

the reader understood that this was the proper interpretive grid through which the history was to

be read. After telling how he will describe the coming of the Roman army, the activities of the

rebels, and the place where all this happened, he says: "ETrELTa LGeiEL[L Tr'v TE ()V UUPUvvOa

TTpo6 Troi( 6[o6.Xo u. P406TrrTx Kc( Titv 'P(icaov )4EL66 Trpo aroi O iXXO~Xouv KCL OO(JKLt

TLTro( oCocaL Tliv TroX LV KCL Tbv vaUv EUiTL.uLv ETrIr 6ESLc, TOi~) OaCOLUOV'c TrPKrrpoUKKaXEoaCo.

82 In exonerating the Roman general (and by implication, the army) of much of the
blame, Josephus anticipates Livy, who exonerates Rome of guilt in the Second Punic War and is
generously favorable to Titus Quinctius Flaminius, who ended that war with a crushing victory.
Cf M. Grant, Greek and Roman Historians (London 1995) 72-3.
83 BJ 1.10.

("Then I will recount the fierceness of the tyrants against their own fellow-countrymen, and the

forbearance of the Romans to the foreigners, and how often Titus, wanting to save the city and

the temple, offered the rebels assurances").84 Similarly, in 6.215f, during the siege, Josephus

portrayed Titus as having been left no other choice but to destroy the temple and to press the

revolt to a violent end: Katoap 65 dUTrEXoyeiTO KiL TrEpi TOOU 'T~ r OEc; 4c LOKG)V Trap& ['v a"UroU

'IouaLoL( ELlp'qvirv KCaL CJUOVOiLC'V Trpor'tLveoacL KCaL TU'VTo V U4vrTOTLUcv TWV TETOX4TrLiEvov

Troi 6e UCVT!L 4iLv 6[0ovoi0a O(TCOLV CdVTL 6e ELp'vrc TrOX6eLov Trpo Kopou 6E KCaL EurOTIVLCa XLLbv

("but Caesar exonerated himself before God concerning this, saying that peace and independence

had been offered to the Jews by him, and amnesty for all the wrongs they had done, but instead

of instead of harmony they preferred rebellion, instead of peace they chose war, and rather than a

measure of abundance they chose famine"). In 5.456 he has Titus practically begging the Jews

not to force him to destroy the city, and in 6.95 we are told that Titus even offered to send

Josephus into the city to offer the daily sacrifice (since at this point those who regularly did this

were now dead) and that he had no intention of destroying the temple and offending its God.

Instead he wanted it to stand because it was worthy of admiration as a great foreign edifice,85 and

he expressed regret that it had to end as it did.86 Perhaps even more amazing is the comment that

Titus despaired at the crucifixions of so many Jews who were caught escaping the city,

crucifixions that he himself had ordered for the purpose of instilling fear in those who remained


Lco/TLyouOLeVOL 6T KaCL TrpopaocavLCo(dvoL TOD Oavdrou Tr&oa (LKLCaV aveoTofupoUVTo TO
TeLXoul &uVTLKpU. TLT tav oiv oLrKrp6v T TrO vOo0 Ka(TE acLVETO Tr(EvrTKOOL(ov EKdOTdrl
EV60oUL Trpo TT1V OjJLV E'XTUrCia amUcOU EL [ill TrcLpaUoLEv Oo0LU TrELoo0EvoufU

84 BJ 1.27.
85 BJ 6.228.
86 BJ7.112-13.

("having first been whipped and tormented to the point of death with every kind of torture,
they were crucified opposite the walls. The suffering brought pity to Titus, as every day
five hundred Jews were being caught, and sometimes more; ... The main reason he did not
hinder it was that he was hoping they might possibly give in at the sight of it, fearing lest
they might suffer the same things").7

What are we to make of all this positive, generous characterization of Titus? Is it true?

Since the corresponding sections of Tacitus have been lost, we have no other contemporary

ancient source by which we may compare it. However, the lost parts of Tacitus were known to

both Sulpicius Severus and Orosius, fourth-century Christian authors, and their accounts of this

event were built on them.88 Both of these later historians reported that Titus deliberated with his

advisers concerning whether or not to destroy the temple (which Josephus confirms in 6.236-43).

The texts are pertinent here. Severus says

Fertur Titus adhibito consilio prius deliberasse an templum tanti operis everteret. Etenim
nonnullis videbatur aedem sacratam ultra omnia mortalia illustrem non oportere deleri,
quae servata modestiae Romanae testimonium, diruta perennem crudelitatis notam
praeberet. At contra alii et Titus ipse evertendum in primis templum censebant ...

("It is said that Titus summoned a council first, to consider whether he should destroy a
temple of such great work. Indeed, it seemed to some that destruction of a holy, illustrious
temple beyond all human achievement was not required, whose preservation was a
testimony of Roman restraint, and whose destruction would offer a lasting mark of cruelty.
Against this, others and Titus himself determined that the temple especially had to be
destroyed ...")89

And Orosius reports

quod tamen postquam in potestatem redactum opere atque antiquitate suspexit, diu
deliberavit utrum tamquam incitamentum hostium incenderet an in testimonium victoria
reservaret ... itaque Titus, imperator ab exercitu pronuntiatus, templum in Hierosolymis
incendit ac diruit.

("after it had been forcefully taken and he had admired its works and antiquity, for a long
time he deliberated whether he should burn it as an incitement of the enemy or preserve it

87 BJ5.449-50.
88 This was demonstrated by J. Bemays, Ueber die Chronik des Sulpicius Severus (Berlin
1861) ii.81-200, as noted by Barnes 133-4.
89 Chronicorum Libri duo 2.30.6-7; text as quoted in Barnes 134-5. The text also appears
in the preface to the Loeb edition of Josephus, II xx.

as a testimony to his victory ... Thus Titus, having been proclaimed imperator by the
army, burned and destroyed the temple in Jerusalem")90

The picture from both authors is that in the end the decision was reached that the temple ought to

be destroyed. Interestingly, Josephus tells us that the final decision was to let the temple stand: 6

65 TLro( ou6' &v ETLPLvrtE ETr' aUTOb TarOXE [o oLV 'IOU&oL LOL TC~ UVTL TW;V dlV6p&)V dUcUVEta0LCL

T& cUlu"( o0U6i KXTa()E)AELV Tro0Th TrXALKOTo0V 'Epyov 'Po4LLo)V yap 'eoeocaL TrTv PALPTriv o5rtEp

KCL K6a ov T fT TYE4LovL (a aCfTro pivovron ("But Titus was saying that even if the Jews should

advance upon it and fight from there, the fighting should not be against inanimate things instead

of men, nor should there ever be a burning of so great a work by the Romans, for that would be

harmful, and it would also be an adornment of their abiding empire").91

So what is the truth here? Barnes believes that "Tacitus' version of the destruction of the

temple must surely be preferred to that of Josephus."92 Given the prevalence of anti-Jewish

sentiment in the Roman world, it certainly seems incredible that a battle-hardened commander

like Titus should be so reluctant to press for a decisive victory in such circumstances. In fact,

Rives has suggested that it might even be possible to detect here the application of a Flavian

policy towards foreign cults that threatened loyalties to Rome and Roman identity. Vespasian, he

argues, would not have seen Jerusalem as the center of a religion as we would see it, but as the

center of a cult that threatened the peace and security of the empire by virtue of its claim to an

alternate authority.93 This, however, may be going too far. As Gruen has noted, the extant

evidence does not support the notion that the Romans felt threatened by the Jews.94 More

90 Historiae adversum Paganos 7.9.5-6; text as quoted in Barnes 135.
91 BJ6.241.
92 Barnes 143. So also W. Weber, Josephus and Vespasian: Untersuchungen zu dem
Judischen Krieg des Flavius Josephus (Hildesheim 1973) 72-3.
93 J. Rives, 'Flavian Religious Policy and the Destruction of the Jerusalem Temple', in J.
Edmondson et al (eds.), Flavius Josephus andFlavian Rome (Oxford 2005) 145-66.
94 Gruen, 'Roman Perspectives on the Jews', 29-37.

realistic, it seems, is the notion that Titus, and Romans in general, were shocked and angered at

the ingratitude the revolt communicated. The Romans had no vested interest in the destruction of

Jews or Judaism, and had bent over backwards to accommodate this unusual people. Now the

Palestinian Jews had started a war, in spite of good treatment from Rome, and there was no way

the Romans were about to let it go unpunished.

The incredulity of Titus' behavior in Josephus' account thus highlights just how far

Josephus was willing to go to present the Romans and Jews as being on favorable terms with

each other. This literary "handshaking" can be interpreted as evidence that Josephus was

attempting to negotiate a way into Roman culture for the Jews. Titus is presented as a pious,

God-fearing man who wished to avoid bloodshed and the destruction of the Jerusalem temple,

but was forced into both by the rebels. Likewise, the majority of Jews are presented not as

victims not of outright Roman hatred, nor as fighting out of hatred for the Romans themselves,

but as trapped by the insane determination on the part of the rebels to fight until the very end.

This distancing of Titus from the decision to destroy the temple also served to put the matter in

God's hands, where Josephus claimed the matter lay from the beginning.

Whether Josephus was simply capitalizing on what appeared to be hesitation on Titus' part

(and Josephus was simply inferring that this meant that Titus did not want the temple destroyed),

or Titus was at one point actually opposed to the temple's destruction, or Josephus felt political

pressure to present his patron in the best light possible and thus simply invented the outcome of

the council, or he willingly contradicted the facts, it is clear that Josephus was manipulating his

material here. Of course, this sympathetic portrait of Titus has contributed greatly to the

perception that Josephus was a traitor to his own people who was simply touting the imperial

propaganda. However, I suggest that if we read Josephus from the point of view of ethnicity,

another agenda emerges that is not so derogatory to Josephus nor as complementary to Titus.95

The picture that Josephus was trying to create was that no one wanted this war except the

minority that made up the insurrectionists, and that both groups were peace-loving people who

had every intention and prospect of getting along otherwise. Titus' reluctance to destroy the

temple in Josephus' telling of the story stands as a gesture of good will toward the Jews

proceeding from the emperor himself. The action is far more significant than a glimpse into

military deliberations in a great war. It becomes a symbol of the imperial attitude toward the

Jews, employed by Josephus to fit his literary aim of demonstrating Roman acceptance of Jews.

It also absolves Josephus of much of the characterization of shamelessly praising his imperial



It is clear that Josephus followed the Greek tradition of historiography as he composed

his Bellum Judaicum. He imitated that tradition in adopting as his basic subject the theme of a

great, contemporary war between peoples who were foreigners to each other. Like a good Greek

historian he criticized his predecessors and claimed that his work was written as a monument of a

great event for serious seekers of the truth. He wrote from his own personal experience in the

events he related, he established himself as a trustworthy interpreter of the war, he paid careful

attention to the antecedents of the war, and he included tragic elements within the narrative-all

in good Greek fashion. He followed Greek form in laying out the introduction to his work, often

step-by-step with Thucydides, he engaged in verbal echoing or borrowing from well-known

95 Cf McLaren, who has shown that Josephus does not follow stock descriptions of a
good military commander current in his day. 'Josephus on Titus: The Vanquished Writing About
the Victor', in J. Sievers and G. Lembi (eds.), Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and
Beyond (SupJSJ 104, Leiden 2005) 279-95. He argues that there is implicit criticism of Titus in
this, but it may well also be that Josephus was simply not familiar enough with the stock
conventions to employ them.

Greek authors such as Thucydides and Polybius, and he cast some of the stories in his narrative

in ways that were clearly reminiscent of the types of stories he found in these authors as well.

The Greek historiographical tradition was Josephus' paradigm on several levels. In addition,

Josephus downplayed the Jewish character of some things by putting them in Greek dress. The

Jewish sects became philosophies, and the outcome of the war was determined not by God

alone-which would have been a perfectly acceptable explanation for both Jewish and pagan

readers-but also by the Greek element of u'rT. In the sensitive issue of hostility between

Romans and Jews, Josephus nearly stretched the limits of credibility as he basically absolved

Titus of responsibility in the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. The Roman commander was

portrayed as having been forced, against his personal sentiments, piety, and pleas to the contrary,

to act as he did by the obstinate determination of the rebels. The rebels were to blame, not a

general Roman hatred of Jews or a general Jewish hatred of Romans. The two nations are both

depicted as victims of the rebels' actions; otherwise they would not have fought with each other.

How is all of this to be understood? Scholarship has wrestled with this question and has

produced different answers. Some have suggested that Josephus' use of Greek models is merely

formal, and that nothing more should be read into it. Others have suggested that his use of these

models is part of an integral strategy on Josephus' part, but there is disagreement over what that

strategy was. I believe that Mader was correct in noting that all of this Hellenism was designed to

create and manage a deliberate impression on the reader, and I suggest that one way to interpret

the matter is that Josephus was attempting to build a new ethnicity for Jews in his day. Following

an instrumentalist understanding of ethnicity, it is possible to see these features of the Bellum

Judaicum as Josephus' attempt to negotiate a place for the Jews within the larger (Roman)

culture of his day. Specifically, he was establishing, through a literary construct, a solidarity with

the Greek cultural heritage, thereby attempting assimilation into the Roman world, and engaging

in what modern sociologists call identity politics. A reader of the Bellum Judaicum in ancient

times would certainly have been impressed with how Greek the Jews appear in that narrative,

and how Greek the narrative itself sounded. That reader would have thought that he was reading

a Greek historiography of a people who were like the ancient Greeks themselves in many ways.

By adopting the Greek tradition to tell his story, Josephus was hoping to convince his target

audience (readers in the Greek world) that the Jews were, in substantial ways, just like the

Greeks of the past. If they were just like them, then they ought to be regarded with the same kind

of openness and respect. This mode of reading Josephus need not be exclusive. Josephus was

skilled enough to manipulate his materials for other purposes also, but the desire to design an

ethnicity along Greek lines explains the phenomenon well.


In the late 80s or early 90s CE, Josephus undertook his most extensive literary project, the

Antiquitates Judaicae. Here he presented a version of Jewish history for a Hellenistic audience.

In this chapter I hope to show that Josephus has manipulated the presentation of this history to

suit an agenda of ethnicity-building. The literature that has arisen in connection with the

Antiquitates Judaicae is vast,1 and a comprehensive look at the Antiquitates Judaicae is neither

possible nor necessary for the present purposes. I hope instead to cite elements of the

Antiquitates Judaicae that demonstrate how it addresses concerns of Jewish ethnicity and to look

at two basic aspects of that work: 1) Josephus' positive presentation of Jewish history and its

great characters, 2) and his management of negative elements. In this latter aspect I will

concentrate on his presentation of the part of that history that was contemporary to him and his

audience (basically the history of the Herodian dynasty in Palestine and Roman rule through


The Fluid Nature of Foundational History/Myth

It is important to realize that as Josephus was aligning Jewish piety with Greek in the

Antiquitates Judaicae, at the same time he was preserving elements of Jewish uniqueness.

Josephus accomplished this latter objective by a staunch refusal to compromise anything that

was, in his judgment, essentially Jewish. Nowhere did Josephus attempt to align the God of the

Jews with a pagan deity. Likewise, some institutions which were uniquely Jewish-such as

Sabbath observance-were neither downplayed nor aligned with any practice from paganism.

Josephus had no intention of completely assimilating Judaism into Hellenism (a feat he could

1 Cf L. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937-1980) (Berlin 1984). The
topical bibliography of works between 1937 and 1980 covers nearly 900 pages, approximately
600 of which relate to the AJ.

have attempted if he so desired), of completely surrendering Jewish identity for a Greek one.

Instead he was doing what everyone else did with stories of national origins: he was taking

advantage of the flexible, plastic nature of those stories in order to craft a particular perception or

to serve a particular end. As I noted in chapter two, the fluid nature of traditions is one of the

things that makes the creation and maintenance of an ethnicity possible.

Myths in the ancient world were incredibly elastic and capable of a wide latitude of

treatment and even of transformation, as the needs allowed and demanded. A cursory look at any

compilation of ancient Greek and Roman myths shows that many variants of the stories existed,

often side-by-side historically. Furthermore, the more remote the myth, the more it came to attain

a symbolic quality and not that of historical fact (cf Herodotus' wrestling with the problem in his

History). The remote antiquity of many of the stories at Josephus' disposal easily lent them, in

the Greco-Roman milieu in which he wrote, to adaptation. Even if a Roman reader knew the

details of these stories from the LXX (which is highly doubtful), he would not have thought it

strange to hear slightly different versions of those stories from Josephus, nor would he have

necessarily thought that Josephus was being deceptive by changing elements of the story for his

audience. "Roman writers, well aware that they were working with legendary material and

malleable traditions, felt free to redesign and embellish within the general framework. They

found no virtue in mere reproduction of predecessors, nor did they regard themselves as

promoting a canonical tale. Their presuppositions had little in common with modern


Josephus took a similar approach to the Biblical stories he retold in the Antiquitates

Judaicae. If he wanted his readers to hear a "standard" version of any of them, he simply could

2 Gruen, Culture and National Identity, 32.

have pointed them to the LXX, easily available in his day, or he could have simply reproduced

the LXX stories as closely as he wished. But in fact he did neither. Instead he chose to relate

those stories in his own words, casting them in ways more easily digested by his Greco-Roman

audience, while still claiming that he was faithful to the canonical ("orthodox") versions of those

stories. In Antiquitates Judaicae 1.17 Josephus therefore says T& ttv oiv &KpLPt TyV kv av mi

Uavaypa^ icLL Trpo*i'v 6 X6yo( KarT TrV OLKELCV Ta Lv ori[avEi TOUTro y&p 6L& ra UrTTl TOLTotLV

rT TrpayTXarTELX iETTrryyELXicU4rv ou6ev Trpoo t; ou6' adu TrUapuXLTrr G ("As I go on, the story of the

things contained in the records will tell accurately, according to the proper order, for I have

promised to do this throughout this treatise, adding nothing nor neglecting anything"). Similarly,

in 10.218 he says

EyKcLXeoT6 6E [OL rLT6'iL ouT 'EKCXTaora TOUToV ULTrayyEXXovTL 6L& Tr|( ypX(fj( ie v TOLi
UpxaioiL EUpLOKG) PLPVioL KCML ycap EU'Ou kv Up^T) Trf LOTTOpLO) Terpk U TO LCOrT'UOVTUX(
TL TTrp'i T' V TpXy[JTGJi)V "i [4E4[o[EVOU 10Fo)xaLOCX4lV [LOVOV TE [ETUX)pxCLELV Tf& 'EPpCLxov
PiPXoui E'LTrGv EL' Trv 'EXX56a yXWTLrav KCL TM(UX 6T(XG )roeLV fiTE TreVpooTLOE TOL(
TrpUy[CaoLV aJUT6ob L56LC( t.rT' 'dUaLpC)v UiTrELoFXriEvoc

("But let no one accuse me for relating every one of these things throughout the work as I
find them in our ancient books. For directly in the beginning of my history, I have been
careful, against those who were seeking something about these matters or who were
finding fault with me, only to translate the Hebrew books, saying them in the Greek
language, and promising to reveal these things neither adding my own ideas to these
matters nor taking anything away.")

Either Josephus lied outrightly (which is hard to believe), or he did not see his presentations of

the Biblical stories as containing any substantial violations with respect to the shapes they bore

in the canonical Hebrew Bible. In fact, Josephus described his Antiquitates Judaicae as a

translation of the Bible.3 I noted above that he presented himself as the analogue to Eleazar in

the Letter ofAristeas, and thus implied that his Antiquitates Judaicae was the analogue to the

LXX. The fact that Josephus presented himself as a prophet also created the impression that

3 Ap. 1.54 (tEOep[4rVEUELv, but interestingly ouyypPcpELV in 1.1); AJ 1.5 (tEOEprTLveltUL);
10.218 ([eraTUp(CELv); cf. 20.261.

Josephus' translation was divinely inspired (which claim was also made for the LXX) and thus

as reliable as the prophetic literature of the Bible itself4 By "translation" Josephus did not

understand a literal rendering, but a dynamic one. The Jews agreed that the truth lay in their

sacred books. What they did when they wrote about them was to interpret, contemporize, and

actualize them.5

There is good indication that Josephus was already aware of variations in the materials he

knew. In the Antiquitates Judaicae Josephus repeatedly demonstrated his knowledge of Hebrew

as he cited and explained the Hebrew words that describe Jewish traditions. Modern research has

concluded, however, that Josephus was basically following the LXX in the Biblical parts of his

Antiquitates Judaicae.6 If this is correct, then Josephus must have known that the LXX versions

of many Biblical stories were not identical in every respect with their Hebrew versions.

Variations in names, geographical details, numbers, genealogies, and details of stories abound

between the two collections. Josephus already stood in the stream of a tradition that knew more

than one version of traditional stories.

As a Pharisee Josephus was also well aware of the many variants or additional details of

the Biblical stories that circulated through the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical literature and

other traditions. These alternate stories were highly esteemed by many Jews. The Pharisees in

4 P. Bilde, 'Contra Apionem 1.28-56: An Essay on Josephus' View of His Own Work in
the Context of Jewish Canon', in L. Feldman and J. Levison (eds.), Josephus' Contra Apionem:
Studies in Its Character and Cniie\i n i/th a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek
(Leiden 1996) 103-8.
5 Bilde, 'Contra Apionem 1.28-56', 108-9.
6 K. Krieger, 'Die Funktionen der Septuaginta-Legende in Flavius Josephus' Werken
Antiquitates Judaicae und Contra Apionem,' in Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium (1999)
246-261. Cf also J. Fischer: "Josephus, who in the first four books of his Antiquities gives a
paraphrased and annotated version of the Pentateuch, composed in Greek, relied heavily on the
Septuagint version, as is evident from the many parallel passages." 'The Term DESPOTHS in
Josephus', JQR 49 (1958) 133. There is debate over how much he consulted the Hebrew text,
and if he consulted an Aramaic Targum. S. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee andRome, 35f.

particular accepted more than what was contained in the written Torah and the Jewish sacred

canon. Their adherence to and defense of the oral Torah, which some of them claimed had

authority equal to that of the written Torah, is well known. Although we in modern times have

trained ourselves, when coming to such a variety of traditions, to ask critical questions about

sources, or kernels of historical truth, etc., many Jews of antiquity did not come to these stories

with the same kinds of concerns, at least initially. Since Josephus already believed that the

stories in the Hebrew Bible were not necessarily complete, and that other trusted versions of the

stories existed, it was not difficult for him to reshape those stories for an audience who would

have had trouble appreciating the (Jewish) cultural nuances of the originals.

Josephus was far from alone in this kind of handling of materials from his Jewish tradition.

From a survey of Jewish literature of Hellenistic times Gruen concludes

For Hellenistic Jews writing in Greek, the Scriptures provided stimulus for ingenuity and
creativity. The concept of a fixed and unalterable tradition had not yet taken hold. ...
Composition and interpretation proceeded concurrently, and the idea of established texts
was still in process of formation. The fluidity of the tradition may frustrate modern
scholars. But it gave impetus to writers eager to reshape and revivify narratives long
familiar but conveniently adaptable.

In fact, Jewish authors (including Josephus) were adopting the same kind of approach that the

Romans themselves had taken concerning their own foundational myth, the story of Aeneas. In

another study, Gruen has shown that the myth of Rome's origins was a complicated tangle of

stories that knew many variants. Some of these variants emphasized a Greek origin for the

Romans (which Dionysius of Halicamassus was able to exploit), and indeed that element of the

story never disappeared. "The notion of Rome as a Greek foundation or one with a substantial

Greek component remained alive and well, even at a time when Aeneas might otherwise have

7 E. Gruen, Heritage andHellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley
1998) 110.

held the field."8 In fact, the retention of the Greek element of the story proved an important part

of the myth for the purposes of Roman self-definition. "It enabled Rome to associate itself with

the rich and complex fabric of Hellenic tradition, thus to enter that cultural world, just as it had

entered the wider political world. But at the same time, it also announced Rome's distinctiveness

from that world."9 The preservation of the Greek element in the myth allowed the Romans to

both compare and contrast themselves to the Greeks at the same time. Otherwise, however, the

details of the story were always somewhat negotiable. Even when Roman historiographical

literature began to flourish, the Aeneas story was not cast in an unalterable form. "... it was

accepted practice at a time when traditions were fluid and particulars susceptible to

manipulation. ... The connection itself delivered the vital message. All the rest was malleable."10

Josephus was taking advantage of this kind of approach to ancient traditions as he set out to

relate Jewish history for his non-Jewish audience in the Antiquitates Judaicae.

Another element that made Josephus' task easier was the fact that it was common

practice in Hellenistic historiography for an author to rewrite his sources extensively. It can be

observed in Aeschines' handling of material from Andocides, Livy's use of Claudius

Quadrigarius, Diodorus of Sicily's incorporation of Agatharcides, and Plutarch's appropriation

of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. "An author was expected to take some liberties with his source.

... He was expected to recast the narrative, to place his own stamp upon it, to use the material for

his own purposes, to create something new. But on the whole he was faithful to the content and

sequence of the original."11 This practice was itself a reflection of the larger phenomenon of

s Gruen, Culture andNational Identity, 19.
9 Gruen, Culture and National Identity, 31.
10 Gruen, Culture and National Identity, 35.
11 S. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 31.

Hellenistic historiography, which was, in this sense, largely a creative endeavor,12 and Josephus

stood firmly within the stream of such creative historical writing for the purpose of creating a

national identity-which is another way of speaking of creating a putative myth of shared

descent for purposes of ethnicity. This creative type of historiography was a wide-spread reaction

to the power of Hellenism that confronted many peoples with a need to define themselves anew

in light of the cultural changes and new cultural forces that had appeared after Alexander the


With this flexible approach to both ancient history and to his own method of writing

history, Josephus was cleverly attempting to broker a place for Jews within the Roman world. As

I noted in chapter two, Romans paid homage to their debt to Greece even if only to use the

greatness of Greek accomplishments as the backdrop that set Roman accomplishments in even

greater relief. Roman philhellenism had a double edge. Too much praise of Greek things sounded

like an admission that Roman things were inferior. In a similar way, Josephus was both aligning

the Jewish heritage with the Greek, yet at the same time keeping a measured distance from it. His

approach was neither apathetic aloofness from Roman sensitivities nor shameless surrender of

Jewish cultural values. He needed to establish enough Hellenic qualities in Jewish culture to

create a sense of admiration for it, yet be careful not to overdo it lest it appear as a slight against

Roman greatness or as a competitor to it. Within this strategy was room for display of those

things that were also uniquely Jewish.

12 Although there were dissenting voices such as Polybius and Ephorus, who took a more
rationalist approach. Collomp 287.
13 Mendels 37-45.

Examples of Josephus' Positive Portrayal of Jews and Jewish History
by Means of Greek Models

The Antiquitates Judaicae may be thought of as the foundation for Josephus' program of

ethnicity-building. In order to make the case that Jews ought to be given a respected place within

Roman culture, Josephus needed to demonstrate that Jewish culture embodied the very ideals

that the Romans already respected: those of the ancient Greeks. In this way the presentation of

Jewish culture along the lines of things the Romans already respected became an argument, as it

were, that the Romans ought to extend their respect to the Jews. In fact, if an awareness of the

extensive similarities between Jewish and Greek cultures, institutions, great figures, histories,

etc. did not prompt the Romans to revise their attitudes toward Jews, then the Romans would

have to face the idea that they were being inconsistent at the least, or patently hypocritical at the


Use of Greek Forms, Paradigms, and Terms

The form of Josephus' work is the first suggestion that he was aligning the Jews with the

Greeks: an apxCatooyLca of the Jews14 in 20 books, a clear reminiscence of Dionysius of

Halicamassus' 'PG 4OLK-i apxcatooyL'a also in 20 books. The name and arrangement of the work

announced to its ancient audience that this was Jewish history cast in Greek form, following the

forms and conventions of Greek historiography. Furthermore, as noted above, Dionysius of

Halicamassus attempted to establish the closest possible relationship between the Greeks and the

Romans, so far as to posit a Greek origin for the Romans. While Josephus did not go this far with

the Jews, he hoped to show as many congruencies between Jews and Greeks as he could without

sacrificing his own notion of Jewishness.

14 This is how Josephus describes his work in AJ 1.5.

The arrangement-or rearrangement, as it turns out-of Josephus' material also betrays a

conscious effort to imitate Greek historiography which was, in his day, influenced by rhetorical

theory. In Antiquitates Judaicae 4.196-7 he stated that the legal materials concerning Moses in

the Jewish canon were not in the best arrangement as they stood in the sacred texts, and that he

deliberately set them out in a different order:

Bo6uXoica 6e TrV TrOXLEL'rLav TrpoTEpov ELTrG)v Tc; TE MouoEoc &OLG[LwrL Tri U'pETf|
dMvaXoyouoav KCaL aOE-Lv TrUapE'ov 6L' aX ITTFr TOL( EVTEU[OtEV0 OL Oa T KaO' rti't4 x1pX9OEV
,v E ir Ti rv iV &XXW ov paTrEo ca 6iL'IyrTIoL. yEypaTrca 65 Tra'vO' d) EKELVo0 Ka eXLTrEV
VEVEWo'pLOT(L 6' Tl^tLV TO KTXT( yEvo; EKKaoTa TacL OTropdc6r1lv y&p U'Tr' EKELvou KWTEXEL')Tir
ypaEw'vT KCL e' / EKaocOV TL Trap&c Tof OEo Tru0oLTo TOUTOu X'pLV awvayKCiLOV 'iyrio0CFriv
Trpo6LxoCTEL'Xo9OXL [iT KCCL TL( ^iLV Trapc& TiOv 6 XoVXA Gv evTuy6vmov r T ypaj) li'lL '
6LTitCxpUTijKIOoL yevTX tL.

("But I wish first to discuss the government, relating what is proper to the virtue of Moses,
and to supply learning to those who encounter through it the things that were according to
our antiquity, and then turn to the narrative of other things. They are all written as he left
them, nothing being added by us by way of ornament nor anything besides what Moses
left. But it has been changed by us, to set in order each according to its kind, for it was left
by him having been written in a in scattered way and as he learned each thing from God. I
thought it necessary to explain this freely beforehand, lest there might be someone from
my countrymen bringing a charge that we have erred with respect to the Scripture.")

In doing so, Josephus was demonstrating a sensitivity to the rhetorical concerns of mrt,

OLKOVO[LCa, and 6LateotL to make his narrative materials more orderly and readily understandable.

In particular, the term oLKOVo[LaC was used by Greek authors to describe the orderly presentation

of material that imparts a sense of continuity to a narrative and makes it easier to follow.15 It is

even possible to detect here the traces of Josephus' further indebtedness to Dionysius of

Halicamassus, who had much to say on the arrangement and development of rhetorical

material.16 That Josephus had Greek rhetorical practice in mind here is clear from the fact that

15 W. Wuellner, 'Arrangement', in S. Porter (ed.), Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the
Hellenistic Period (Leiden 2001) 51-87.
16 Lys. 15; Isoc. 4; Dem. 15; Comp. 6; Th. L. Feldman, 'Rearrangement of pentateuchal
narrative material in Josephus' Antiquities Books 1-4', HUCA 70-71 (1999-2000) 133-4.

while there was a sense among Jewish authors that foundational stories were elastic, few of them

strayed from the order in which events were presented in the canonical Biblical texts. For

example, Philo of Alexandria, for all of his extensive treatment of the Biblical materials, never

changed the order of the Biblical details. Josephus stands almost alone in taking liberty at this

point, and certainly was unique in the extent to which he was willing to practice it.17 It is thus

another indicator of how Josephus made the Biblical materials fit into a Greek mold.

One overall impression Josephus seems to have been crafting was that the Jewish people

had long been objects of scorn not because they were irreligious, but because they were highly

religious. The problem lay not in the Jews but in the irreligious character of their neighbors, who

did not appreciate their high view of God. This of course, only worked to the shame of these

neighbors, the latest of whom was Rome. Much of the narrative was therefore designed to

highlight the high moral and religious character of Jewish culture.

The first move in Josephus' strategy of building a positive image of Jews was to lay out the

proper understanding of the Jewish God and his role in history. Hence in 1.14 Josephus

explained the controlling idea: the God of the Jews is concerned, above all, with moral virtue,

specifically (&pEr'; 1.20, 23). This virtue is spelled out in the Jewish Law, we are told, and was

demonstrated in the lives of great Jewish historical characters. Those who conform to God's

demand of moral virtue are rewarded and those who refuse to conform to it are punished, and

these rewards and punishments are not reserved for the afterlife but are experienced in the

vicissitudes of the present.18 The destruction of the Jerusalem temple was already interpreted in

17 There are a few exceptions in Pseudo-Philo and the midrashic literature. L. Feldman,
'Rearrangement of pentateuchal narrative material', 132.
18I am not arguing that Josephus' view of God, or his theological outlook, was in some
sense "correct," normative, etc. Josephus' Pharisaic outlook colors his view, to be sure, and his
view was only one of several such competing views among his Jewish contemporaries. In fact,

exactly this way in the Bellum Judaicum-God's retribution against the rebels who desecrated

the holy precincts. Of course, &peti was a quality that had a long and lofty history among the

Greeks,19 if not a diverse one.20 The Greek word had, by Hellenistic times, developed a Semantic

range large enough to encompass many subordinate ideas and was capable of describing the

morality inculcated in the Hebrew Bible without doing much violence to either the word itself or

to Jewish ethics. It is arguably one of Josephus' favorite words, appearing nearly 300 times in his

writings. That it is consciously used for its significance in Hellenic culture is suggested by the

fact that the LXX rarely used the word in the canonical books (seven times total, and never in the

Pentateuch). Josephus was not following the LXX here by this choice of terms. By concentrating

on the moral virtue of Jewish religion, and using a highly-visible Greek keyword for it, Josephus

was able to align the Jews with the same kinds of virtues the Romans already knew from the

Greeks and at the same bypass those elements of religion in which the Jews looked so foreign.

Furthermore, as I have suggested, this becomes an argument: if the Romans are a religious

people, then they ought to respect the high virtue of the Jewish God.

In constructing his ethnic portrait of Jews, Josephus was aware that those religious

elements that were uniquely Jewish were going to be the parts of the story that would be the least

likely to be accepted or appreciated by his Greco-Roman audience, a noble portrait of the Jewish

deity notwithstanding. His strategy in dealing with these things was, time and time again, simply

to convert them to Greek models and effectively eliminate the differences between Jewish and

Greek cultures that had become such obstacles for winning respect for Jewish culture. I have

Josephus' interpretations of Jewish laws or customs are sometimes singular. B. Revel, 'Some
Anti-Traditional Laws of Josephus', JQR 14 (1924) 293-301.
19 See W. Jaeger, Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture Vol. 1 (New York 1945), 3-14.
20 See M. Finkelberg, 'Virtue and Circumstances: On the City-state Concept of Arete',
AJP 123 (2002) 35-49.

already noted in my discussion of the Bellum Judaicum that Josephus chose to use the term

(LXooo(LaX to describe Jewish theology. This practice continued in the Antiquitates Judaicae as

well.21 In the introduction to the Antiquitates Judaicae, Josephus said that an inquirer into the

details of Jewish theology would find the endeavor to be "exceedingly philosophical" (XLav

LX6oo0o0).22 He portrayed Jewish envoys to Alexandria as perfectly competent to answer

difficult philosophical questions23 to the point that they gained the admiration of the Alexandrian

philosopher Menedemus.24 In a similar way Josephus portrayed Solomon, whom the Biblical

tradition says was expert in all matters of the natural world (1 Kings 4.29-34), as a philosopher

(he says that Solomon iQLX0oo6rloE "did philosophy"),25 and claimed that the Queen of Sheba

was interested in meeting Solomon because she was a student of philosophy herself.26 This made

Solomon's philosophical ability appear even greater, since the queen was portrayed as one who

would not have been impressed with pseudo-intellectualism.

A glimpse of how Josephus tended to downplay things that were uniquely Jewish may be

seen in his choice of terms for his own people. The designation "Hebrews" occurs 319 times in

his writings, all demonstrably in contexts where Josephus, or a character in his narrative, is

referring to Jews in remote antiquity. In contrast, the term "Jews" appears 1,241 times in his

writings, occasionally side-by-side with the term Hebrews, but most frequently in his history of

his people from the Seleucid period onwards. Harvey has suggested that the term "Hebrews" in

21 AJ18.11, 23; cf. Ap. 1.54.
22 AJ 1.25.
23 AJ 12.99.
24 AJ 12.101.
25 AJ 8.44. Even here, however, Solomon was not engaged in the same kind of activity as
the Greeks had classically pursued, for Solomon's knowledge of the natural world was the
product of the gift of oo(xa from God, a point that Josephus dutifully mentions (8.42) but does
not emphasize.

Josephus' day meant "one who is a good Jew," a Jew who is religiously orthodox and

traditionally pious.27 That is, the term "Hebrew" had a strong ethnic demarcation attached to it

and suggested a separateness from the Gentile world-the very picture Josephus was trying to

dismantle. So, while he did not completely dissociate contemporary Jews from the ancient

Hebrews, he kept the ethnically-loaded term "Hebrews" in the background, in the portion of the

narrative dealing with the distant past.

Another example surfaces in how Josephus repeatedly referred to the Jewish political

system by the Greek term TroXi u.L t or TroXLTELa, spelled out in a 6Lira4Li. The LXX, however,

regularly described the Jewish religious charter as a 6La rKTrl, a covenant with God. For his

account, Josephus suppressed the use of the term that was regular for the LXX, a term that was

not ordinarily used of political charters in the secular Greek of his day. In fact, the word 6LeT9'KT)

does not appear in the Antiquitates Judaicae until 13.349 when Josephus is covering the

background of the Herodian client kingdom, and there it has the ordinary, secular sense of a

"will." It never appears in his retelling of the Biblical story, although the LXX he followed used

the word well over 300 times to denote the special agreement between the Jews and their God.

Josephus decided instead to use a word that was more commonly and more readily

understandable and, even more importantly, culturally connected to Hellenism.28 In doing so,

however, he arguably altered the picture of Jewish government as it stood in the LXX and gave

the Jewish political arrangement a Greek character. This becomes even more significant in light

27 G. Harvey, 'Synagogues of the Hebrews: "Good Jews" in the Diaspora', in S. Jones
and S. Pearce (eds.), Jewish Local Patriotism and Self-Identification in the Graeco-Roman
Period (JSPseudSup 31, Sheffield 1998) 132-47.
28 A similar phenomenon appears as Josephus described Jewish synagogues as oavo6oL, a
term used regularly for the associations and guilds in Graeco-Roman cities. A. Fitzpatrick-
McKinley, 'Synagogue Communities in the Graeco-Roman Cities', in J. Bartlett (ed.), Jews in
the Hellenistic and Roman Cities (London 2002) 63.

of the fact that Josephus took pains to explain other words that were particularly Jewish, such as

the Hebrew words "Sabbath" (as in AJ 1.33), "Israel" (AJ 1.333), and "Adonai" (AJ 5.121) as

well as many Hebrew personal names throughout the narrative. Josephus could have explained

that the Jewish political system was different from what regularly prevailed in Hellenic culture,

and that it was commonly called a 6LaO rKrl, translating the Hebrew term berith. Instead he

presented the matter to his reading audience as if the Hebrew and Greek political arrangements

were the same. The result is that the suggestion that the Jews enjoyed a privileged and exclusive

relationship with God (making them appear aloof and negatively critical) is gone.

Beyond using Greek terms for Jewish institutions, it seems that Josephus stretched the

facts to create the impression that Jews were regular citizens in Greek cities. I briefly mentioned

earlier that the riots in Alexandria in 38 CE were the subject of a response by Claudius in 41 CE,

who demanded that the public disturbances stop and that the Jews not press for more privileges

than they already enjoyed. It is clear from the imperial letter that the emperor did not believe that

Jews were citizens of Alexandria, as he described them as Ev dXX.oTpL( Tr6dXEL TrepLouoLca ("living

in a city not their own").29 The keys to the situation are that citizenship in Alexandria was

considered to be Roman recognition of Greek ethnicity, and, as I have shown earlier, Josephus

seemed to operate on the idea that a Greek was one who was a citizen, or at least a recognized

part, of an established Greek city. In commenting on the emperor's response, Josephus quotes

Claudius as saying that the Alexandrian Jews 'L(io TnrOXLTELa' Trap& TOv pacoLXiv TETEuXOTcd

KaUcLO 4(VEpb6v EYEVETO EK T)oV ypcqi4[Lro)v 'TV Troap' XbJUTOL( Kc(L TOv 6LcaUytU[Lov ("possessed

equal citizenship from the kings. This is clear from the records they have and from their edicts").

29 "The Letter of Claudius to the Alexandrians," in CPJII no. 153 (p.41, line 95).

So, by Josephus' ideas of Greek identity, the Jews of Alexandria were Greeks, and Claudius

himself said so.

The problem here is that isopoliteia was a relationship between Greek cities in which

citizenship in one city was granted reciprocal recognition in the other.30 It is impossible that this

relationship existed between Jews and native Alexandrians, for at least two reasons: 1) there is

no evidence that Greek cities had isopoliteia with non-Greek cities,31 and 2) the Jews lived in the

same city with the Alexandrians.32 Most modern scholars have therefore resorted to attributing a

different sense to Josephus' 'oTIo TroXLTEL('. H. Jones suggested that the Alexandrian Jews

possessed a status between that of full Alexandrian citizens and ordinary aoil, and that the

peoples of such an intermediate group had full civil rights, but not citizenship.33 In other words,

the Jews constituted a (foreign) Tro~reuxa, and they could be called TroXLTcL of that TroxLTEU[a,

but they were not technically TroiTcaL of Alexandria. Josephus, however, would apparently have

us to believe that Claudius' words admitted all Alexandrian Jews into citizenship of that city, and

thus they enjoyed recognition of Greek ethnicity by the Romans.34

Josephus attempted the same thing in other places. In Antiquitates Judaicae 14.185-267 he

cited a long list of documents which were adduced to show that the Romans had always been

friendly and respectful toward the Jews. In one of these citations Josephus referred to a public

inscription, in bronze, set up by Julius Caesar in Alexandria that declared the Jews to be citizens

30 A. Chaniotis, Die Vei i/age zwischen kretischen Poleis in der hellenistischen Zeit.
(Heidelberger althistorische Beitrage und epigraphische Studien 24, Stuttgart 1996) 101-8.
31 Applebaum, "The Legal Status of the Jewish Communities', 438.
32 In the response, Caesar rebuked the Jews for sending their own embassy to him as if
they lived in a separate city.
33 'Claudius and the Jewish Question at Alexandria', JRS 16 (1926) 29.
34 Some Jews were able to manage their way into full Alexandrian citizenship. However,
it also appears that their status as citizens was precarious. CPJII no. 151 is a letter of an
Alexandrian Jew complaining to the Roman governor that his status as a citizen of Alexandria
had been unfairly downgraded.

of Alexandria (Kcdocap 'IoiUXLto Trot; v 'AXExav6peL( 'Iou6aoLot; TrotiocaX XaLXKv C r Xrlv

e i'6G)oev OL 'AXExav6pE'v TroXltaL eloLv).35 He did not, however, quote the inscription. The

omission of a quotation of such a crucial piece of evidence suggests that Josephus was being

quite liberal in his interpretation of the inscription. In that same list of documents Josephus has

the people of Sardis referring to the Jews as citizens.36 But Josephus seems to betray himself

when he says in another place that an Alexandrian stele recorded Jewish rights (rd

6LKaL0w[TxR),7 and of Alexander he says that to the Jews' E'6KEv Tb TETOLKEiV KaTr TriV TTroXLV S

'LOou 4olpac Trp6b roTo "EXXirvaX ("he granted for them to reside in the city in equal portion with

the Greeks")-an ambiguous phrase. Neither 6LKUcaG LtX nor k 'i'ou [oiLpac amounted to

Alexandrian citizenship. The best interpretation is that the Roman emperors confirmed the

Jewish status as a TrOVLi uia, but nothing more.38

Josephus also betrayed the real situation when he quoted Strabo as saying that in Cyrene

TETTrrpE 6' 'CaFv kv rT TrTO/XL uT5v Kuprivcaov TE rT rUTv TOXLTr5)V KCL Ti r0TV yE(py&)v rpLirl 6'

Ti To)V tEUOLKKOV TerTrdprr 6' i rTov 'Iou6aicv ("there were four groups in the city of the

Cyrenaicans: the citizens, the farmers, the resident aliens, and the Jews"). It should be

remembered that Cyrene was one of the places where the Jews' temple contributions had been

confiscated. It is clear from Strabo's words that the Jews did not fit into any native political

category in Cyrene, so they were not citizens of that city. Their vaguely-defined status may have

35 AJ 14.189. Similarly, in 12.8 he says Alexander the Great rote MaKE66 LV kv
'AXE av6peLU vrotiL ac [aoTroXilaTC ("made them equal citizens with the Macedonians in
36 14.259: oL KWTOLKOVTEo iLv Ev Tr TrOdr6L Tr' a'pXfl 'IouGaioL Tro~^LTaL ("The Jews
who live in this city from the beginning are citizens").
37 Ap. 2.37.
38 CPJ 1.56. This was simply a political expedient on the part of the Romans. The
dissolution of the Ptolemaic government left the status of minority ethnic groups in question, and
Rome simply confirmed the status they had previously enjoyed.

even been the pretext for the locals' confiscation of their temple contribution.39 Further

confirmation of their non-citizen status appears in Augustus' response to the Jewish complaint in

Alexandria. He granted the Jews ivsotelei/a, which meant that they had a status between that of

metics and citizens and thus were not liable to the same taxes as metics. Similarly, Philo of

Alexandria never spoke of Jews as possessing full citizenship in the po,lij of Alexandria, and the

Jews were subjected to the laographia by Rome (beginning in 4 CE), indicating that Rome did

not count them as citizens of Alexandria either, and thus they were not considered true

Hellenes.40 On the whole, Applebaum concluded "We have not discovered in the course of our

investigation evidence that in any Greek city in the Hellenistic or early Roman period the Jews

possessed citizenship as a body."41 Yet Josephus often seems to give the impression that Jews

regularly enjoyed citizenship status. The picture that develops is that Josephus was playing fast

and loose with the terminology in such a way that implied the Jews were citizens. This is striking

in light of the fact that Josephus later criticized Apion for trying to pass as a native Alexandrian

when he was not.42 Furthermore, Josephus was playing with fire as he attempted to get the Jews

into Alexandrian citizenship. Egypt, to Roman ears, conjured up the image of Cleopatra. So

39 Applebaum, 'The Legal Status of the Jewish Communities', 444.
40 CPJ 1.59-64. For purposes of the poll tax, the Jews were not even considered
metropolitan, which would have recognized them as people of Greek education but not citizens
of the polis, and which would have given them a discount on the tax liability.
41 Applebaum, 'The Legal Status of the Jewish Communities', 449. He goes on to note
that there was no precise and comprehensive Roman legislation concerning Jewish rights empire-
wide. What existed was a series of imperial confirmations of Jewish privileges in local places
42 Ap. 2.29.

Josephus was careful to press for recognition of Jews as citizens of the Greekpolis of

Alexandria, but at the same time kept a distance from Egyptians.43

Applebaum further notes "However small the prospects of success for the average Jew, the

claim to civic equality might become significant from a psychological, fiscal, and judicial point

of view."44 His notice of the psychological motive fits well with the approach of this dissertation,

that a perceived crisis in self-esteem motivated Josephus to portray the Jews in terms of the

Greeks. In the matter of political terminology it appears that he either thought the terms were

fluid enough to include Jews as citizens of major Greek cities, or he himself used the terms

imprecisely. Either way it is clear that Josephus was eager to posit citizenship of Diaspora Jews,

for this would certainly have made them look like insiders, equal to Greeks in many ways. The

question of the status of Jews in Alexandria was an old one in Josephus' day. However, his aim

was not simply to contribute an opinion about that particular problem. Instead he made the case

for Jewish equality on a much larger scale. The Jewish struggle for civic status also reveals

another dimension of the situation. Bilde noted that the most important feature of the Western

Jewish Diaspora was its struggle for equal civic rights and cultural recognition, "And this

struggle was, and had to be, fought against their Greek fellow citizens."45 Roman ascendancy,

however, meant that the struggle the Jews had engaged with their Greek neighbors was now

taken to a Roman audience for adjudication.

Beyond things such as adopting a Greek paradigm for the title and number of books for his

work, and using Greek terms where they did not precisely fit, Josephus also made connections

43 J. Barclay, 'The Politics of Contempt: Judaeans and Egyptians in Josephus' Against
Apion', in J. Barclay (ed.), Negotiating Diaspora: Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire
(London 2004) 109-27.
44 Applebaum, 'The Legal Status of the Jewish Communities', 451.
45 Bilde, 'The Jews in the Diaspora of the Roman Empire', 106.

between ancient Greeks and Jewish history. Overall, Josephus cited 55 Greek authors in his

works, 21 of them in the Biblical section ofAntiquitates Judaicae in 36 citations.46 For example,

in Antiquitates Judaicae 7.67, as Josephus related the capture of Jerusalem from the Jebusites by

David, he paused to note that y&p 'Apptqoou Tof Trpoyovou 4itLv E6u0a4 EaKcXdTEO [ETr& Trac' 6

auTTIv CXaoL TLVEW OTL KcaL "OrLTIpo0 TaXIT' jvo[taoEv 'IEpoooCu[Fa TO y&p LEpou Kara T~iV

'Eppalov yAXGTrav Ojvo[aoce vr & 26u1a orTL doGdXELtaa ("For it was called Soluma at the time

of Abraham our forefather, but after these things some say that Homer also called it Jerusalem,

for the temple is called, according to the Hebrew language, Soluma, that is, 'stability'").47 The

reference is possibly to Odyssey 5.283, which mentions the Solymian hills. This connection is

probably incorrect,48 but Josephus was using a well-known method among the ancients (seen

especially in Herodotus) to connect ancient places with places known to contemporary readers.

The fact that Tacitus made the same possible identification of the Jews with the Solymi in

Jerusalem in his Histories (5.2) may mean that Josephus was drawing on a fairly well-known

idea (unless Tacitus got the idea from Josephus). It was the connection with Homer (or epic

poetry in general) that was significant for Josephus, and not whether the connection could

withstand all criticism. By making this connection Josephus hinted at two things: 1) the antiquity

of Jewish culture and its capital city (and antiquity was a well-respected quality among the

Romans), and 2) that the greatest poet of ancient Greece apparently knew of the Jews and graced

them with mention in his immortal composition. The connection was designed to give his

46 J. Bowley, 'Josephus' Use of Greek Sources for Biblical History', in J. Reeves and J.
Kampen (eds.), Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor ofBen Zion Wacholder (JSOTSup 184,
Sheffield 1994) 202-4.
47 The part of the text that mentions Homer is disputed. Marcus' opinion (Loeb edition V
394) is that "these words are probably a gloss."
48 Jaeger 127-8.

narrative more credibility and to offer a broader perspective which took in non-Jews.49 Josephus

was arguably following the model of Herodotus, whose account was famous for its inclusion of

stories about foreigners. Even more, such stories "provided a convenient means whereby the

Jews could reinvent themselves in a Hellenistic context"50-that is, they provided a way to

construct a Greek ethnicity for Jews.

There was also a thread that connected the Jews with Sparta. In 2 Maccabees 5.9 is the

story that in 168 BCE the high priest of the Jews, Jason, fled to Sparta when he could find no

refuge in Egypt. The reason he chose Sparta was 6t& riv ouyyEveLcv ("on account of their

kinship"). Another story related how the high priest Jonathan sent letters to Rome and to Sparta

asking for renewal of friendship with those states. The letter to Sparta is recorded in 1

Maccabees 12.5-18, and a copy of the response from king Areus of Sparta follows (verses 19-

23). In those letters the Jews and Spartans mutually acknowledged each other as &6 4oi(.

Josephus related this latter story in a shortened form in Antiquitates Judaicae 12.225-7, and had

the Spartan king say to the Jews that EvTuXovre ypUaw ULVL EipO[iEV )) E kg E'bq LEEV yEvouU

'IouGUioL KciL AUKE6 Ld6vLOL KCL EK rij( Trp6o "Appacov OLKELOTrlTTO ("by coming across a

certain document we have found that Jews and Spartans are of one genos and are of kinship to

Abraham"), and then referred to the Jews saying &6fOoui0; 6ti&a 6vawC ("since you are

brethren"). After Jonathan died, the Spartans also sent an offer of alliance to his successor,

Simon (I Mac 14.20-3). Earlier, in Antiquitates Judaicae 1.240-1 Josephus quoted the historian

Alexander Polyhistor (first century BCE), who himself cited an author named Cleodemus

Malchus, that two of Abraham's sons accompanied Heracles in his Libyan expedition. The

daughter of one of these sons married Hercules and bore Diodorus, who fathered a son named

49 Bowley 207.
50 E. Gruen, 'Fact and Fiction', 78.

Sophon, from whom the Sophacians derived their name. Plutarch (Sert. 9.8-10) speaks of a son

of Heracles named Sophax, and relates that Sparta was founded by Heracles and that the city was

ruled by his descendants for several generations. Herodotus reported (7.208) that Leonidas was

descended from Heracles.51 So a connection between Abraham and Heracles made Jews and

Spartans brethren. Josephus never made the direct connection himself, but, as it was in the case

of his reference to Homer, it was unnecessary to do so. The suggestion was enough.

Sometimes Josephus was fortunate enough to find a reference in a Greek author that fit his

Jewish topic precisely. For example, in Antiquitates Judaicae 1.107-8 Josephus was dealing with

the long lifespans of people in the primeval age, specifically the age of Noah. The Biblical text

says that Noah died at the age of 950 years.52 This, of course, required some kind of defense, and

Josephus found it in the works of Greek historians. He said:

IcprTpoUoL 6E IOU T'O X6yc Tirc'VTE; oL Trap' "EXXTIOL KCL pcppcLpoL; ouyypaUi4EvoL T&C
cpXUaLoXoyLc Kcai y&p KcL McavEWov 6 triv A'yuTrruL'v TOLtrlociUevo0 ccvcypa~i v KUL
BilpGo6( 6 T0& Xa c6a'K& ouvUcyc6ylv KCL M ;6 TE KCIL 'EEoTLCLO( KUCL Trpboc To~oOOL 6
"E0opo0 KCL NLK6Oao oG LTopoUtL Toik UpXCaLoul C'oUvraVt 'eTir XLXLC Trep'i [V TOUTi)V 6(

("All those from the Greeks and the barbarians who have composed Archaeologies testify
about my statement, for even Manetho who produced the Egyptian history, and Berosus,
who collected the Chaldean evidences, and Mochus, and Hestiaius, and with these the
Egyptian Hieronymus and those who composed the Phoenician records, agree with the
things said by me, and Hesiod, Hecataeus, Hellanicus, and Acusilaus, and with these
Ephorus and Nicolaus, record that the ancients lived a thousand years. But concerning
these things, let each one consider them as he pleases.").

51 In making these connections I have followed L. Feldman, 'Josephus' Moses and
Plutarch's Lycurgus', in J. Edmondson et al (eds.), Flavius Josephus andFlavian Rome (Oxford
2005) 212-3. See also Gruen, 'Cultural Fictions and Cultural Identity', 9-10.
52 Gen. 9.29.

What is most interesting is the comment at the end (cf also 2.348, 3.81, et al) which echoed

well-known statements in Greek historiographers53 and "became a commonplace in Hellenistic-

Roman historiography."54 This offer to allow the reader to judge for himself was an obvious

Greek touch in an account that was otherwise strongly apologetic. In this same vein, Josephus

sometimes mentioned Herodotus in order to disagree with him.55 By the first century fault-

finding with Herodotus had become a minor convention in historiography,56 and Josephus

participated in it like any other contemporary Greek author would.

Many Greek paradigms made impressions on the Antiquitates Judaicae, and sometimes

particular elements within the traditional materials with which Josephus worked lent themselves

quite easily to Greek presentations. For example, the creation story in the Biblical account

described a primordial world surrounded by water, which Josephus implicitly connected with the

mention of the four-headed river of Genesis 2.10 to become a river that encircles the whole

earth.57 This sounds just like the Greek Oceanos that surrounded the earth and was the source of

all life.58 That this was purely an attempt to make the Biblical account conform to Greek models

is made clearer by the fact that the rabbinic reading of the Biblical creation story posited no such

53 E.g., Hdt. 2.123; Th. 6.2.1; D.H. 1.48.
54 S. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee andRome, 39. The practice is recommended explicitly
in Lucian, Hist.Conscr. 60.
55AJ8.253ff, 10.19f.
56 Bowley 211-2. cf the famous passage in Thucydides, 1.20, and Plutarch's On the
Malice ofHerodotus. Josephus later says in Ap. 1.16 TrEptLpyo 6' &v E'rlV EyYo Toik ktoi ti&.Xov
Oocc 65 6LopoTao L Trbv 'HoL'oov 'AKO)OLAuoXg r TiLVCa rpoTrov "E(opog piv 'EXX&VLKOV EV TOiL
irXELorotL; *Eu66devov ETTirL6KVUOLV "E(opov 6a TiatLOc KaL TL'(aLov oL 4 e' E'KEVOV
yeyovOTe; 'Hp66oTov 6 Tr vavrT ("I would be over-doing it if I were to teach them what they
know, what a great disagreement Hellanicus has with Acusilaus about genealogies, how
Acusilaus sets Hesiod straight, or in what way Ephorus demonstrates Hellanicus a liar in most of
his history, as Timaeus then does to Ephorus, and the succeeding writers do to Timaeus, and all
do to Herodotus").
57AJ 1.38.
58 Cf. I1. 18.607, 21.194; Hdt. 4.8; Arist. Metaph. A3.983b27.

thing.59 At other times Josephus expanded a Biblical narrative to incorporate Greek features that

were not originally there in his source materials. Thus although the canonical Biblical picture did

not describe the life of the first man, Adam, as blissful, Josephus used this language to enlarge on

the Biblical account and thus made the narrative conform to Greek ideal of the past Golden Age

as found in Hesiod and many other classical authors.60 In particular, Hesiod said that in the

Golden Age men were free from ills (KCKoL) and toil (Tr6vo(), in contrast to a life of misery in

which men grow old quickly (KaT ayrlpoKo).61 Josephus had God say that Adam's life was KUKOU

TcrvTOb d&Trrac~ ("free from every evil"), that Adam was able to live Xopit u[4eTepou Trovou

("without your own toil") which otherwise would have only brought on old age sooner (cWv

Tcap6vrowv yrpdX T8 rov).62 Alternately, sometimes Josephus inserted key terms that would

make a reader think of a Biblical story in terms of a similar Greek story. So in telling the story of

the flood Josephus said that Noah built an ark, a XApvc. The LXX used a different word

(KLPWT6(), but Josephus chose to use the word that was used by Apollodorus63 and Plutarch64 in

telling the Greek tradition of the flood and the story of Deucalion. Thus either by adding details,

by capitalizing on features of his material that had Greek parallels, or by changing the

vocabulary to suggest Greek parallels, Josephus told the ancestral Jewish stories in a particularly

Greek way.

59 Feldman, Studies in Josephus' Rewritten Bible 1.
60 Feldman, Studies in Josephus' Rewritten Bible, 3-4.
61 Op. 113-115, 90-93.
62 AJ 1.46. Note that Josephus has used the Attic spelling (0&8Tov) instead of the spelling
more common in the Koine, O&ooov.
63 Bibliotheca 1.7.2.
64 De soll. an., 13.


The Hellenistic canons of Greek historiography also made impressions on Josephus'

account of Jewish history. By Josephus' day historiography was becoming more biographically-

oriented. It had long been a method within Greek historiography to present leading figures in

historical episodes as exempla of character traits, virtues, and conduct to be emulated.65 The

technique was already discernible in Aristotle, Isocrates (his Evagoras), and Thucydides.66 It

received further impetus in Xenophon's Hellenica and his biography of Agesilaus,67 and in the

hands of Polybius exempla became prime vehicles for his purposes of modeling political utility.68

Plutarch's Parallel Lives (which he himself called "histories") represented a culmination of this

process of transformation from history as a record of events, led along the way by great historical

figures, to history mostly as the biography of an exemplar. Interestingly, Plutarch's biographies

were apologetic in nature, designed to demonstrate that great Greeks were equal to great

Romans.69 Josephus' presentation of Jewish history in the Antiquitates Judaicae was similarly

driven by exempla, and their stories were crafted to make them similar to prominent Greek

characters. A few examples may suffice.

The founding father of the Jews was Abraham, and Josephus crafted his presentation of

this leading Jewish exemplar after the model of a Greek philosopher. Josephus says that

Abraham 6ELV6c (C3v ouvelvai T TrEpi Tru'VTr V KCL TirLOUV6( TOT( (KpoW4ivoL( ("was clever,

65 Momigliano, 'Tradition and the Classical Historian', 289.
66 Feldman, 'Josephus' Moses and Plutarch's Lycurgus', 209-11.
67 J. Bury, The Ancient Greek Historians (New York 1958), 153.
68 Fornara 107-113.
69 Grant 73.

knowing all things and able to persuade those who heard him").70 His ability to persuade, that is,

to use rhetoric effectively, cast him in good Greek fashion. Josephus also presented Abraham as

having higher conceptions of &peTi than others and as being the first proponent of monotheism,71

having arrived at this conclusion not by divine revelation (as the Biblical story might suggest),

but by use of his ability to reason.72 In fact, the Abraham of Josephus uses a form of the

teleological argument that is based on Platonic and Stoic models.73 "More simply, we may say

that Josephus has taken Cleanthes' third argument from the irregularity of sublunar phenomena

and extended it to the heavens themselves. Josephus was apparently the first to do so, and

Abraham is thus depicted as a philosophic innovator."74 The portrait also included statements

that Abraham won the respect of the Egyptians as being a man of the greatest intelligence

(ouvetrTTro;o), that he (again) possessed a superb ability to persuade, and was the one who taught

the Egyptians arithmetic and astronomy,7 and that when he went to Egypt at a time of famine in

Palestine it was not simply to get food, but also to converse with the Egyptians on philosophical

matters and to correct their thinking, unless theirs proved superior to his.76 He was superbly

intelligent and yet fair-minded, and most importantly, open to serious and substantial dialogue

with others. This strongly positive portrayal of Abraham no doubt was designed to counter the

popular image that Jews were closed-minded and intolerant of all that was not Jewish. Abraham

70 AJ 1.154. Feldman notes that d&Kpodo[at was used of students listening in the
philosophical schools. L. Feldman, 'Abraham the Greek Philosopher in Josephus', TPAPA 99
(1968) 145.
71 AJ1.155.
72 AJ 1.155-57.
73 Feldman, 'Abraham the Greek Philosopher', 146-7.
74 Feldman, 'Abraham the Greek Philosopher', 149.
75 AJ 1.167.
76 AJ 1.161.

was portrayed as a veritable Jewish Aristotle, a Hellenistic "renaissance man." With such a great

exemplar at the head of their family tree, how could one not respect the Jews?

In Greek thought, the nobility of a body of law was partly a function of the nobility of the

lawgiver.77 Thus it was necessary for Josephus to present a positive-and Greek-portrayal of

the great lawgiver of the Jews, Moses, who was apparently the most well-known Jewish

character among Gentiles.8 A positive, Greek portrayal of Moses would (in Josephus' opinion at

least) have contributed significantly to the building of a Jewish ethnicity along Greek lines. Hata

has argued that Josephus' treatment of Moses "reveals the intention of its author and the hidden

current running under its narrative only when it is read within the context of the anti-Semitism

that is attacked in Against Apion."79 One of the most obvious attempts to align Moses with

Greeks is when Josephus says that the so-called Song of Moses-the poem celebrating the

deliverance of the Israelites at the Red Sea and the simultaneous defeat of the Egyptians (Exodus

15)-was composed in hexameter verse,80 and that Moses later composed another work in

hexameter,81 which by its description apparently refers to a section of the canonical

Deuteronomy. There is no such regularly discernible thing as hexameter in Hebrew poetry, nor

does the LXX text of Exodus 15 render the Song of Moses as hexameter; this was a purely Greek

characterization on Josephus' part. It did, however, make Moses look like that famous ancient

Greek historian-poet, Homer.

77 Cf Y. Amir, 'Josephus on the Mosaic "Constitution"', in H. Reventlow et al (eds.),
Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature (JSOTSup 171, Sheffield 1994)
78 There are at least 24 separate references to Moses or the exodus in pagan literature
contemporary with Josephus. G. Hata, 'The Story of Moses Interpreted within the Context of
Anti-Semitism', in L. Feldman and G. Hata (eds.), Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (Detroit
1987) 180f.
79 Hata, 'The Story of Moses', 182.
o AJ2.346.
81 AJ4.303.

A more subtle approach is taken concerning the presentation of Moses' deeds. Feldman

has observed that the contours of Josephus' portrayal of Moses follow closely the contours of

Plutarch's portrayal of the Spartan lawgiver Lycurgus. For example, both are portrayed as

reluctant to take hold of the reins of power, as the objects of envy, as men who sought wisdom

from abroad, as military leaders, as survivors of rebellions led by relatives, and as men

characterized by moderation and piety.82 Similarly, the bodies of law that came from each are

described as having similar features. Both came from deity, both created councils of elders to

assist in governance, both discouraged the visual arts, both forbade consultation of soothsayers,

both demanded an offering of the first fruits of crops, both paid particular attention to details of

child-rearing, and both demanded that the laws not be changed.83 In other ways, Josephus

presented Moses as a Stoic philosopher. For example, Josephus borrowed a Stoic phrase, Tr6vov

KcUrapovCoEL ("despising exertion") to describe the greatness of Moses in Antiquitates Judaicae

2.229.84 The account also has dramatic touches with motifs and phrases from the Greek


Whether or not Josephus knew Plutarch or his writings is debatable, so the question of

borrowing is hard to decide. Feldman argues that it is possible, if not likely, that the two men at

least knew of each other if they did not actually know each other.86 However, both authors were

acquainted with the elements of encomia commonly advocated in the rhetorical practices of the

day. Thus even if they did not have direct access to each other's work, they shared a common

paradigm for writing about great historical figures. Either way, Josephus' portrait of Moses

82 Feldman, 'Josephus' Moses and Plutarch's Lycurgus', 216-22.
83 Feldman, 'Josephus' Moses and Plutarch's Lycurgus', 222-30.
84 L. Feldman, 'Josephus' Portrait of Moses. Part Three', JQR 83 (1993) 321.
85 Feldman, 'Josephus' Portrait of Moses. Part Three', 322-5.
86 Feldman, 'Josephus' Portrait of Moses. Part Three', 231-7.

clearly shared many similarities with Plutarch's presentation of Lycurgus. In fact, "Moses is

modeled in Platonic fashion after the founder of a Greekpolis, whose laws form the constitution

(TroXLo~Lra) of the state."87 In this way, Moses was presented as reflecting Greek virtues almost

transparently. Such a thoroughly Greek picture of the Jewish lawgiver was designed not only to

present yet another great exemplar for which the Jewish people as a whole ought to be respected,

but also to impart a similar respect to the law which came through Moses. This was an important

part of the project for Josephus, given the low view many pagans had about things such as

Jewish Sabbath observance and dietary restrictions.

Certain foreigners in the Biblical stories, or stories of Jews in foreign contexts, were

especially important for Josephus because they presented opportunities to show favorable

relationships between Jews and non-Jews. Again, such incidents become arguments imbedded

within the narrative. If other foreigners could respect the Jews and their culture, and treat them

favorably, then so could the Romans. In fact, in light of stories of favorable relationships

between Jews and other nations, the Romans would appear out of step, as if every other nation

found admirable qualities in the Jews except the Romans. So Josephus had Jethro, a foreigner

(Midianite), adopt Moses as his son,88 something the canonical Biblical story did not posit. Most

importantly, Joseph rose to prominence in Egypt, and Daniel was a Jew who served the

Babylonian court in the Jewish diaspora in Babylon itself. Since such narrative situations were

important for presenting a positive picture of Jews in the diaspora in the Roman world, Josephus

gave considerable space in his work to these two figures. In fact, both of these figures would

87 Feldman, 'Josephus' Portrait of Moses. Part Three', 215-6. Cf A. Droge ('Josephus
Between Greeks and Barbarians', 126) commenting on the similar treatment of Moses in the Ap.:
"The presentation of Moses in this passage owes more to Plato's Laws than it does to the book of
8 AJ 2.263.

have been an important characters for Josephus personally, since they, like Josephus, were

prophets living outside of their homeland who predicted favorable things of the pagans they

served and who were the object of jealousy on the part of rivals. In each of these cases Josephus

expanded the Biblical accounts to enhance the idea of a positive reception of Jews by non-Jews

which was only latent in the Biblical texts.89

Josephus paid special attention to the account of the Jewish patriarch Joseph. The

canonical Hebrew text of Genesis spent 585 lines to tell his story, but Josephus used 1172 lines.90

In Josephus' hands, Joseph was presented as having the best qualities of a Hellenistic hero.

Josephus emphasized Joseph's good looks, a quality that reminds us of great Greek characters

renowned for their handsome appearance such as Hector in the Iliaf1 or the statement in Plato's

Phaedrus that leaders ought to be handsome.92 In addition to good looks, Josephus also claimed

that Joseph possessed a keen mind, evoking the semblance of Roman characters such as

Romulus and Remus who are described in the same way.93 In fact Josephus went out of his way

to stress the wisdom of Joseph, using no less than five different words (ooLaX, oUveowL, 6ELOrnI,

(p6vr|oL; / Op6virLa, and XoyLov6() for wisdom or intelligence in the account.94 His wisdom was

manifested in several ways. For example, Joseph is presented as being skilled in the art of

persuasion in a way that is quite different from the presentation in the Biblical text. In the scene

89 It may be that Josephus also emphasized these stories out of self-defense. As prophets
in foreign courts, Joseph and Daniel serve as paradigms for Josephus himself. Although the
Greeks and Romans were well familiar with the idea of inspired poets, they were unfamiliar with
the idea of inspired historiographers. As I noted in chapter two, Josephus' status as a prophet
(respected in Jewish culture) would have been radically relativized under the social structure of
Roman culture. Perhaps these stories therefore also served as an apologetic for Josephus' self-
designated role in his Roman situation.
90 L. Feldman, 'Josephus' Portrait of Joseph', RB 99 (1992) 380-1.
91 22.370.
92 279.
93 Dion. Hal. 1.79.10.
94 As noted by Feldman, 'Josephus' Portrait of Joseph', 392.

where Potiphar's wife propositions Joseph, in the Biblical account the young man refuses on

moral grounds alone (Genesis 39:8-9). In Josephus' account, however, Joseph attempts to avert

the woman's advances with rational argument. In fact, in Josephus' telling of the story,

Potiphar's wife was just as attracted to Joseph because of his intellect as she was by his good

looks.95 In a similar way, although the Biblical text reports that the king of Egypt consulted his

magicians in the attempt to interpret his dreams, in Josephus' telling of the story the magicians

are not mentioned and the story becomes a contest between the wise men of Egypt and the wise

Joseph.96 Furthermore, in the Biblical text Joseph suggested that the pharaoh appoint someone to

manage the harvests in light of the coming famine, but in Josephus' version the pharaoh asked

Joseph to do this job without having it suggested to him first, which gave the impression that the

pharaoh was impressed with Joseph's wisdom already. Generally, foreigners in Josephus' telling

of the story (Potiphar, his wife, the king of Egypt, etc.) regularly noticed Joseph's intellect.

More importantly, Josephus drew significant attention to Joseph's wisdom in his ability to

interpret dreams, a skill widely revered in the ancient world, including among the Greeks.

Dreams were important for Josephus; he recorded 35 of them in his works.97 Like other ancient

peoples, the Greeks generally believed that dreams were communications from gods,98 and the

ability to interpret them was considered a special talent. In fact, it was generally acknowledged

that the interpretation of dreams was a talent that belonged only to people who were spiritual99

and who possessed a high degree of piety and goodness.100 Alternately, some in the ancient

95 AJ2.41.
97 Feldman, 'Josephus' Portrait of Joseph', 396.
98 Cf. I. 1.62-3; Hes. Theog. 211-13; Crito 44.A2-B5.
99 P1. Smp. 203A.
100 P. Athanassiadi, 'Dreams, Theurgy, and Freelance Divination: The Testimony of
lamblichus', JRS 83 (1993) 116.

world (e.g., the Epicureans) believed that the interpretation of dreams was the proper domain of

philosophers.101 Either way, Joseph was in good company. That one of the founding figures of

the Jewish people had significant experiences with dreams (either receiving them or interpreting

them) that led him from one land to another immediately makes us think also of Aeneas and his

dream in Aeneid 3.147-71, where he is told to go to Italy.102 Of course, not everyone in ancient

times believed that dreams were auspicious. Thucydides ignored them, and among some people

in Roman times, dreams were considered only deceptive and insubstantial, things that concerned

only those who were simplistically superstitious.103 Yet in spite of skeptics, belief in the divine

nature or divine origin of dreams persisted in the ancient world. Even Aristotle believed that they

had some significance although he was able to deny intellectually that they were sent by gods.104

Josephus was not necessarily arguing philosophically about their significance one way or the

other. It seems that instead Josephus saw in this feature of the Joseph story an element that

resounded with the culture of his day, one that made the Jews look much like Greeks and

Romans. In fact, the time in which Josephus wrote was a time when dreams were being given

more and more credence in the culture at large. The abundance of documents about dreams and

their interpretation from the Greek East and Egypt led Clay to refer to the second century CE as

"an age of dreams,"105 and Harris remarks that "the epigraphical evidence suggests at least the

possibility that dream prophecies gained an extra degree of importance from Flavian times or

after 100 AD."106 The Joseph narrative lent itself quite easily to the sentiments of the day.

101 See D. Clay, 'An Epicurean Interpretation of Dreams', AJP 101 (1980) 342-65.
102 Cf A. Weston, 'Three Dreams of Aeneas', CJ32 (1937) 229-32.
103 E.g., Theophrastus (Char. 16.11) and Diogenes of Sinope (Diog. Laert. 6.43). See W.
Harris, 'Roman Opinions About the Truthfulness of Dreams', JRS 93 (2003) 18-34.
104 Arist., Div. Somn. 1.462b14-15, 463a5-6; 2.463b12-464b6.
105 Clay 343.
106 Harris 31.

In the story of Joseph we see another quality of the Hellenistic hero, viz. that he comes

from good stock. This too was part of the Greek convention of historiography Josephus chose to

emulate. The Hippias maior, ascribed to Plato, dictated that one of the things that ought to

receive due attention in an dpxcaLOXoyL, is the matter of genealogy.107 Glaucus and Diomedes

exchanged genealogies when they meet on the battlefield in the Iliad to establish their status as

great men.108 Tacitus related the ancestry of Agricola in his biography of that well-known

legate,109 and Herodotus traced the lineage of the Spartan king Leonidas.110 Dionysius of

Halicarnassus emphasized this quality in Romulus and Remus when he noted that oi 65

xav6pWOeivTe yLVOvraL KaME TE (L(G)OLV 4op4fl( KdL 4pov '[XTO[ O"yKov ou oo0(oppoLC KMCL


6LaLtdvG)v oTrop&( yevioOaL vooiiXLotivou ("when they became men, they appeared both in

elegance of form and elevation of thought not as pig-herders or cattle-herders, but as those whom

one might consider as born of royal lineage and thought to be offspring of the gods").111 The

ancient novel likewise gave due attention up front to the genealogy of the main character.112 Yet

Josephus did not use genealogies in his stories to connect the Jews to the Greeks. Instead he used

them to connect great Jewish figures with the Greek value of having a good ancestry.

Josephus' presentation of the Jewish prophet Daniel makes the same basic impression as

the Joseph story. In general, Josephus tried to emphasize a core set of values about many of the

Biblical characters he treated. "When we examine the key figures in Josephus' paraphrase of the

Biblical narrative, we see that, in almost every case, in addition to the external qualities of good

107 285D.
108 6.123-231.
109 Ag. 4.
110 7.204.
111 1.79.10.
112 G. Schmeling, Xenophon ofEphesus (Boston 1980) 21.

birth and handsome stature, he places great stress on the four cardinal virtues of

character-wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice-and on the spiritual quality of piety."113

Josephus used the literary convention of the exemplar not only in imitation of Greek

historiographical style, but also to present Jewish characters as people who embodied Greek


To say that Josephus portrayed Jews as having Greek characteristics, or that he used Greek

models in telling Jewish history, is not to say that Josephus necessarily did it well. The fact that

he was a newcomer to the Greek literary tradition showed itself from time to time. One of the

most obvious problems was that in the part of the Antiquitates Judaicae that dealt with Biblical

history (books 1-11), he sometimes mixed the genres of myth and historiography (as when he

compared Moses to Homer). The history of the Hebrews as contained in the canonical books of

the Hebrew Bible114 was written as history, as a detailed account presented as a continuum. In

this way the Jews had long been different from the Greeks, who had myths (in poetry) for their

ancient past and histories (in prose) for their recent past. When Josephus attempted to cast

Hebrew "historical" characters into forms that made them resemble Greek mythical characters,

he was blurring a well-known line in his day.115 The result does not look typically Greek in some

ways and thus paradoxically made the finished product look foreign in these aspects, not


Stories of Positive Impressions on Non-Jews

Just as foreigners in the Biblical stories are often heard acknowledging Jewish piety,

Josephus also knew of another document that bolstered this image. Thus Josephus paid special

113 Feldman, 'Josephus' Portrait of Joseph', 390. Cf also L. Feldman, 'Josephus' Portrait
of Jacob', JQR 79 2/3 (1988-1989) 106.
114 The contents of his Bible are described in Ap. 1.38-40. The Hebrew canon was
considered closed in Josephus' day.
115 M. I. Finley, 'Myth, Memory, and History', History and Theory 4 (1965) 281-302.

attention to the story of the LXX itself. A particular document, the so-called Letter ofAristeas,

explained the origin of the translation and suited Josephus' purposes well. Just how important it

was for Josephus may be gauged from the amount of space he devoted to it in his work. Pelletier

claims that "After the Bible, it is the document that Josephus cites most extensively."116 From it

Josephus presented the LXX as a bonafide piece of Greek literature, produced at the request of

an pagan ruler (Ptolemy Philadephus) who is portrayed as interested in Jewish laws and customs

and whose invitation to produce the translation was a tacit invitation for the Jews to participate in

the Hellenistic cultural world.

The story was particularly well-suited to Josephus' aims, because the Letter placed the

production of the LXX within the context of the birth of the Hellenistic age and in a place that

was indisputably one of the greatest centers of Hellenistic learning, Alexandria. The picture was

that from the beginning of the Hellenistic age, the Jews had been recognized as having

something important to contribute and were invited inside. A Hellenistic scholar, with the

agreement of the king, thought that the books of the Jews ought to have a place in the great

library. Their inclusion there was a confession, as it were, that the LXX was worth reading by the

Greeks. This point was guaranteed by the fact that the LXX had been produced under the

patronage of no less than the king of Egypt in consultation with one who was arguably the

greatest scholar of the day, the keeper of the Royal Library of Alexandria, Demetrius of

Phalerum. This story, however, betrays evidence of editing that was sensitive to the tastes of a

Roman audience. The Letter ofAristeas had been transmitted among the Jews (obtaining a place

in the collection known as the Apocrypha), but it was written in the Koine Greek of the second

and third centuries BCE, and that style "did not reflect the literary tastes of the early Roman

116 A. Pelletier, 'Josephus, the Letter of Aristeas, and the Septuagint', in L. Feldman and
G. Hata (eds.), Josephus, The Bible, andHistory (Detroit 1989) 102.

Empire."117 So rather than quote from the document, Josephus paraphrased it. Similarly, details

of the story that would have bored Romans are omitted, and he has simply extracted the material

that made for the best narrative.118

Foreign rulers or other powerful figures who had favorable experiences with Jews were

also important for Josephus' purposes, and their stories were similarly enhanced to emphasize

their good will toward Jews. Balaam, the Mesopotamian prophet who was hired to curse the

Israelites but who instead blessed them, thus became an important figure for Josephus, and he

devoted a third more space to the account than the LXX did. The picture of Balaam in Josephus

is not that of the classical arch-enemy of Jews, as the rabbis depicted him. Josephus instead

softened the picture by adding such things as Balaam's offering a sacrifice before he

prophesied119 and the prophet's hospitality toward the envoys from the Moabite king Balak.120

Even more importantly, here Josephus had a story of a non-Jew blessing the Jews. However,

with the prophet's blessing in the Biblical text came the characterization that the people of Israel

"will dwell alone" (Numbers 23:9), which could potentially only serve to underscore perceptions

of Jewish aloofness from the rest of the world. So Josephus had the prophet predict instead that

the Jews would become the happiest of all people.121

In a similar vein, Josephus was able to capitalize on the fact that the Letter ofAristeas

portrays Ptolemy Philadelphus as having such a favorable disposition towards the Jews and such

high regard for their piety that he released all Jews from slavery within his domain, at

considerable expense (700 talents) to the royal treasury, and that the invitation to come to

117 Pelletier, 102-3.
118 Pelletier, 103-6.
120 AJ4.105.
121AJ4. 114.

Alexandria and work on the translation was accompanied by beautiful furnishings for the

Jerusalem temple. What a contrast there was between the magnanimous and respectful treatment

of Ptolemy on the one hand, and the treatment Jews received from Romans on the other hand.

Ptolemy supplied a table for the temple, the Romans had taken a table out of the temple when

they sacked it. Ptolemy released Jewish slaves, the Romans made slaves of Jews. Ptolemy

invited the Jews to be part of Hellenistic culture and for the written expressions of their culture to

have a place on of the most important institutions of the day, the library of Alexandria. The

Romans, however, generally kept the Jews at arm's length. Surely these contrasts were not

totally lost on Roman readers of the Antiquitates Judaicae, and were designed to make them

rethink their stance toward the Jews.

One of the most important stories for Josephus' purpose of aligning Jews with Greeks was

his account of the meeting between Alexander the Great and the Jews in Jerusalem.122 As it

stands the story appears to be a compilation of three original stories,123 which Josephus himself

combined.124 The tale is surely apocryphal, dating perhaps from the Maccabean period.125

Neither Arrian nor Plutarch nor any other credible Greek source mentions a visit to inland

Palestine by Alexander, neither on his way to nor from Egypt. The only other literature in which

the story is mentioned is late and Jewish in origin. Greek history knew nothing about a meeting

of Alexander with Jerusalem Jews. Nevertheless, the value of this story for Josephus' purposes

of ethnicity was immense. The Jewish reception of Alexander at Jerusalem is related as a typical

122 AJ 11.302-47.
123 A. Btichler, 'La relation de Josephe concernant Alexandre le Grand', Revue des etudes
juives 36 (1898) 1-26.
124 S. Cohen, 'Alexander the Great and Jaddus the High Priest According to Josephus',
AJSReview 7 (1982) 43; see also R. Marcus' appendix C in vol. 6 of the Loeb edition of
125 A. Momigliano, 'Flavius Josephus and Alexander's Visit to Jerusalem', Athanaeum 57
(1979) 442-8.

Greek adventus story, in which a monarch is given a grand welcome by the inhabitants of a

city.126 Alexander was dutifully and clearly acknowledged for the great leader he was. The story

goes on to relate that after his adventus Alexander honored the Jewish God with a sacrifice and,

most importantly, the Jews freely capitulated to Alexander's authority, and Alexander confirmed

their right to practice their ancestral customs. Jewish acceptance of Greek culture is thus

underscored, as is Greek approval of exclusivistic Jewish monotheism, an approval from the

hand of one no less than the founder of the Hellenistic world himself. Furthermore, the story also

shares in the qualities of a epiphany tale where a god appears to an important figure in a dream,

the result of which is the salvation of a city from destruction.127 Here both Alexander and the

Jewish high priest Jaddus received dreams, thus doubly insuring the city's safety. The potential

aggressor Alexander was prevented from attacking the city, and the guardian priest Jaddus was

encouraged about the city's safety. Most importantly, the story also served as a foundation for

Josephus' multiple assertions that the Jews enjoyed Greek civic rights from Alexander himself.

Management of Negative Impressions

It is one thing to present an ethnic group as positively as possible using the conventions of

the dominant social structure to argue for a basic compatibility between that structure and the

ethnic group. It is another thing to deal with negative perceptions satisfactorily. It is to this latter

problem, as it presented itself to Josephus in telling the material of Jewish history, that I now

turn. Because of the milieu in which he lived and wrote, it was impossible for Josephus to ignore

the many criticisms that had been leveled against Jews and Judaism. The risk, however, was

always that bringing these matters up only tended to magnify them and keep them in the

forefront unless they could be given a truly satisfying treatment.

126 S. Cohen, 'Alexander the Great and Jaddus the High Priest', 45-9.
127 S. Cohen, 'Alexander the Great and Jaddus the High Priest', 49-53.

One tactic available to Josephus was simply to avoid making things worse for himself and

omit elements of stories that proved to be problematic. For example, the Biblical story of the

flood has God punishing the world because God "repented" of having made man. This has long

proved to be a thorny text and Josephus apparently anticipated that it would have raised

considerable problems for his readers. It was not as if there was a lack of attempts to make sense

of the Biblical statement; several were at hand to Josephus in the rabbinic traditions. The

problem was that a pagan audience that was generally unsympathetic toward Judaism in the first

place was not in a position to appreciate any of them. So Josephus' solution was to omit the

statement from the history altogether.128 Here we see Josephus at work, picking and choosing

which elements of his material can or cannot, in his judgment, manage the impression he hoped

to create. This was not, however, a standard nor preferred practice for Josephus. It was risky,

because anyone who wished to check the LXX could have seen that Josephus had conveniently

left out details that were potentially embarrassing or philosophically problematic. Josephus'

preferred approach instead was to recast the stories in such a way that they were more intelligible

for a Hellenistic audience,129 or to add materials to make them more palatable. "If we examine

other passages which Josephus totally omits, we see that the overwhelming majority of them fall

into two categories: either the omission is to protect the reputation of a character, ... or the

passages in question are such as would impugn the Jews' reputation for tolerance .. and offered

ammunition to Jew-baiters in his non-Jewish audience."130 Either way, omission seems to have

been the solution of last resort. However, the Hebrew primeval history seems to have been one of

the most problematic parts of Scripture for Josephus, no doubt because many parts of it sounded

128 Feldman, Studies in Josephus' Rewritten Bible, 21-2.
129 Feldman, Studies in Josephus' Rewritten Bible, 61.
130 Feldman, Studies in Josephus' Rewritten Bible, 62.

strange to Greeks. N. Cohen has noted that Josephus made more changes to the Biblical stories in

this part of the history than in the rest of it.

"In AJ I-V the material has been entirely recast with the object of bringing the Biblical
narratives into conformity with the style and psychology of the Greek novel. The
genealogies have been paraphrased in the Greek style, the narratives embellished with long
speeches in the traditional manner of the contemporary historiographer, and much
additional matter culled from non-Biblical sources has been added, ...."131

Sometimes Josephus encountered the opposite problem in the Biblical materials: not

enough information to suggest alignment between Jews and Greeks. Instead of a negative

impression, such material simply constituted a non-impression. When this happened, Josephus,

with his fluid understanding of the nature of traditional stories, embellished and added details to

make a story sound more Greek. For example, one of the most impressive displays of dedication

to God in the Hebrew Bible is the aqedah, Abraham's "offering" of Isaac at the command of

God (Genesis 22). The Biblical narrative was sparse on details in a way that was not typical of

Greek stories. So Josephus "hellenized the Biblical narrative so that it acquires precisely those

qualities that are missing in the Bible-clarity, uniform illumination, and lack of suspense."132 In

the process he also downplayed the theological element of the story and used terminology that

echoed Homer's description of Priam. For example, Isaac is described in Antiquitates Judaicae

1.222 as EirT yYp ow oi566c KarT &6opE&v a~6c To OO eo yevo'[evov ("who was as a gift to him

[Abraham] from God on the threshold of his old age"), and Homer described Priam, who was

about to lose his son Hector, as uTrL yfpcao oiu6 (II. 22.60).133 Similarly, Josephus' presentation

of Isaac has affinities with Euripides' presentation of Iphigenia; both are portrayed as being the

delight of their parent, but also willing to be offered and rejecting any notion of acting against

131 N. Cohen, 'Josephus and Scripture: Is Josephus' Treatment of the Scriptural Narrative
Similar Throughout the "Antiquities" I-XI?', JQR 54 (1964) 319.
132 L. Feldman, 'Josephus as a Biblical Interpreter: The "Aqedah"', JQR 75 (1985) 213.
133 Feldman, 'Josephus as a Biblical Interpreter: The "Aqedah"', 213, 215.

the will of a god.134 Yet the story of the aqedah had its own problem: it could read to a pagan

like a story of child sacrifice, something that was taboo in Hellenistic times.135 So in Josephus'

account we hear the explanation: ou y&p rutUioUI aiLaTroc d&vOpTrrivou Trlv oGcay ~v cabU

Trpoor c a cTO TrratL6 'E'Xeev ("for it was not that he [God] was desiring human blood that he

ordered the slaying of the child by him")136-an addition to the Biblical account.

The Jewish right to the land of Palestine was a touchy issue for Josephus. I noted in a

previous chapter that land is a prominent ethnic criterion by most accounts, but that ethnic

element was bearing less and less weight for Jews in the first century CE, mostly due to the fact

that many of them lived outside the traditional homeland, client kingdoms of Rome in the east

were being replaced by direct Roman oversight, and in 70 CE their center of worship in the

ancestral homeland was destroyed. In light of these factors (especially the last one), it would

have been difficult for Josephus to maintain some kind of Jewish theological claim to the

traditional homeland with any kind of credibility. In post-70 CE, Jerusalem was a symbol of

Jewish defeat and Roman supremacy, and a theology of possession of Palestine by divine right

would have sounded ludicrous. This created a problem for Josephus as he told the Biblical story

to outsiders, because the canonical Biblical texts have as a prominent theme the giving of the

land of Palestine to Israel by covenant promise from God. So rather than have Abraham leave

Chaldea for Palestine at the command of God, Josephus has him leave because of the religious

intolerance of the Mesopotamians, and Abraham's descendants will get the land as fulfillment of

a prophecy but not as the guarantee of a covenant with God.137 There are many places in the

canonical narrative where the land and the covenant with God are explicitly connected, but

134 Feldman, 'Josephus as a Biblical Interpreter: The "Aqedah"', 219, 221, 233.
135 Cf Plutarch, Pelopidas 21.4.
136 AJ 1.233.
137AJ 1.185.

Josephus regularly ignored or minimized them. The land theology of the Jews has thus been

suppressed at the least, and denied at the most.

There were probably many reasons that presented themselves to Josephus for suppressing

the land aspect of the canonical narrative. As I have noted, the land theology in the canonical

texts simply would not have been believable in light of the historical facts, especially those of

66-70 CE. Also, Josephus was probably distancing himself from the kind of Jewish nationalism

(such as that of the Zealots) that made possession of the land of Palestine one of the key

contentions between Jerusalem and Rome. "He deleted the theology of covenanted land because

he did not want the land to be a focal point, as it was for Davidic messianism, with all its

revolutionary implications in Josephus' day."138 In fact, Josephus has instead read, and

presented, the Biblical story to expound a rationale for the Jewish Diaspora of his own day. He

has the pagan prophet Balaam (an outsider, from the story in Numbers 22-23) predict that the

piety of the Jews would result in their filling the earth and sea. "It is not a portrait true to the

classical Biblical end of days; rather it is a reflection of the Hellenistic world."139

Scenes in the Hebrew Bible where Jews suffered under the treatment of foreign monarchs

would also prove a difficult subject for Josephus if he wanted to smooth out Jewish-Roman

relationships in his day. It would not serve his purpose to repeat stories about mean-spirited

foreigners, for such stories could easily be seen as representing analogues to the Romans.

Furthermore, stories of Jewish mistreatment by foreigners would only serve to demolish the

portrait of a long history of good relationships with foreigners that he presented elsewhere. It was

in the interest of Josephus' plan, therefore, to remove the harsh edges of characters who, in the

Biblical texts, came across as villains. So the Pharaoh of Joseph's time is portrayed much more

138 Amaru 229.
139 Amaru 228.

positively in Josephus than he is in the Biblical text, and he repeatedly heaps praise upon Joseph

(in contrast to the more reserved picture in the Biblical text).140 Similarly, the Pharaoh of the

exodus, in scenes foreign to the Bible, tenderly holds the baby Moses in his arms141 and later

entrusts Moses to lead an Egyptian expedition against Ethiopia.142 The idea to kill Hebrew babies

as a means of population control and prevention of uprising came from Pharaoh in the Bible, but

in the account of Josephus it comes from one of Pharaoh's scribes. In this way the Pharaoh's

characterization was softened in a way similar to that of the treatment of Titus in the Bellum

Judaicum. The ruler was not depicted as callously harsh toward Jews, and the hardships that

came on the Jews in his time were seen as the work of underlings who lacked the king's

appreciation for the Jews and their piety.

Other difficult parts of Biblical stories lent themselves more readily to reception by ears

accustomed to hearing the Greek tales, and only needed the appropriate key words inserted into

them to make the connections more apparent. For example, the Biblical flood story raises the

question of why God would create man and then turn around and destroy him. For this question

there was an answer more amenable to the philhellenic spirit: it was the i pp[L of man that

precipitated the flood.143 With this word, which is not used in the LXX version of the story,

Josephus subtly tapped into the Greek tragic tradition and provided a solution that a Hellenic

audience would have found perfectly satisfactory. In fact, Josephus laid the groundwork for this

explanation previously in Antiquitates Judaicae 1.66, where he accused Cain and his descendants

of U1ppl(3v. He provided a similar explanation for God's confusing the languages at the Tower of

Babel. There man's prosperity led to i[ppL, and iUppiL led to punishment. This follows a fairly

140 Feldman, Studies in Josephus' Rewritten Bible, 83-4.
141 AJ2.232f.
142 AJ2.238-53.
143 AJ 1.100, using the verb Euppi().

typical pattern in Greek tragedy.144 Coloring the story in this way helped Josephus' readers

overcome a potential problem with the story and thus enabled Josephus to manage negative

impressions that could have arisen from the traditional materials.

Another kind of difficulty presented itself with the story of Solomon, who is portrayed in

the Bible as being corrupted by his attraction to foreign gods. In the Biblical story, the ruin of

Solomon's kingdom is directly tied to his participation in and support of foreign religious cults

among his foreign wives. This was problematic for Josephus, for it reinforced the negative

stereotype of the religiously intolerant Jew who looked upon non-Jews as defiled. Jewish refusal

to participate in Greco-Roman religion was one of the most persistent pagan criticisms leveled

against Jews in Josephus' day. Josephus therefore softened the Biblical picture in several ways.

Human speakers replace God, so the rebuke against Solomon does not come directly from the

deity. Josephus' telling of the Solomon story also has a more erotic emphasis, as well as an

emphasis on Solomon's advanced age, which serves to excuse his offense to some degree.

Furthermore, in the Josephus version, Solomon does not build high places for worship of foreign

gods. His offense instead is that he used a few features of foreign iconography in his own


The interesting thing here is that Josephus could have chosen to follow the account in

Chronicles, which does not mention Solomon's offenses. Instead he chose to use, with

modifications, the more embarrassing version from Kings. Why? Begg has suggested that the

story held two attractions for Josephus. First, it highlighted his theme of the moral excellence of

God, and how God rewards the good and punishes the evil (AJ 1.14). Second, the story has tragic

features (a character whose good life is ruined by hubris) which Greek readers would have found

144 Feldman, Studies in Josephus' Rewritten Bible, 28.

congenial.145 This corresponds with what I will demonstrate next about other stories in the

Antiquitates Judaicum: Josephus manages potentially negative stories as exempla of high moral


It is in the latter part of the Antiquitates Judaicae that some of the most difficult problems

for the construction of an ethnicity appeared. Many Greek or Roman readers would have been

largely ignorant of ancient Jewish history, but would have been more familiar with the negative

stories associated with the Jews within recent memory. Books 14-20 of the Antiquitates Judaicae

center around the client kingdom of Herod the Great in Palestine, and its legacy. It is clear that

Josephus was not an admirer of Herod the Great. Among the things Josephus said about him are

that he had no rightful claim to rule the Jews, he came to prominence by killing his rival

Aristobulus, he was gripped by an insane jealousy and paranoia that drove him to acts of

immense cruelty, he was a hypocrite inasmuch as he criticized the Arabs for the very things he

himself did, it was his idea to kill his son Hyrcanus, and he killed his own wife because he

suspected that she had turned against him and had encouraged his children to do the same. The

latter act caused Herod considerable personal anguish, because he loved Mariamne greatly. In

fact, in Josephus' portrait Herod loved all women yet was quick to condemn rival kings on

rumors of their adultery. Herod also corrupted the kingdom's piety, he looted the tomb of the

revered king David, and he executed his sons on the belief that they had plotted to overthrow

him. He was a tyrant at home, but in the presence of the Roman emperor he gave every

impression of being fair, just, and loyal to Roman interests. He was power-hungry and

manipulated everyone and everything around him in order to enhance or maintain the power he

145 C. Begg, 'Solomon's Apostasy (1 Kgs. 11,1-13) according to Josephus', JSJ28 (1997)

had accumulated. Herod's wife, Mariamne, fares little better. Although she eventually lost her

life at her husband's command, she had plenty of vices of her own.

How could such an embarrassing portrait of his homeland's most famous king and his wife

serve any good purpose for building a positive view of Jews in the Roman world? A partial

answer is suggested in 16.395-8, where Josephus briefly entertained the idea that it might be that

the forces of uuIrl and a&v&yKTr, which is also called dE'apiEvrl, were at work. As in the Bellum

Judaicum, Josephus allowed this Greek explanation a place in his history even though he had

clearly stated in the preface of his work that the history he relates is controlled by the fact that

God rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked.146 Josephus had a perfectly good and

consistent explanation for why the house of Herod was plagued by such internal turmoil. In fact,

he charged Herod with impiety in 16.188 (he looted the tomb of David), so the suggestion of the

role of urX is again all the more surprising, since we would expect Josephus' theology of

retribution from a just God to explain the matter instead. The use of the UXTl here is another sign

that Josephus was crafting his narrative in such a way as to reflect a sharing in perspectives and

experiences that were typically Greek.

Another part of the answer surely lies in Josephus' theology of divine retribution. The

story of Herod's horrible end displays the justice of God. Yet another aspect of the answer may

lie in Josephus' description of the famous Egyptian queen Cleopatra in 13.328-43 and 15.77-258.

She was, Josephus says, a scheming, murderous woman allied with a man (Antony) whose

loyalties to his own homeland were compromised in the pursuit of personal power, who meddled

in the affairs of other governments in the attempts to expand her own power, and who had driven

her own son from Egypt. Josephus was buying into the standard Roman view of Cleopatra here.

146 AJ 1.14.

In addition, Josephus had good reasons for animosity against Cleopatra as a Jew, for the

Egyptian monarch had no respect for Jewish political concerns and traded Jewish interests like

pawns in her political game (by intervening in the intrigues within the family of Herod she hoped

to give control of Idumea to Antony; 15:62ff). The Jews and the Romans therefore had a

common enemy in Cleopatra. Both could rightly complain about how she had acted against their

sovereignty. In some ways, Herod and Mariamne were analogues to Antony and Cleopatra.147

Both Romans and Jews had endured rulers who were self-serving tyrants. In this way Josephus

demonstrated a solidarity between Jews and Romans in that both had similar experiences with

unscrupulous Hellenistic client kings.

As I have shown in chapter three, Josephus gave considerable attention in the latter part of

his Antiquitates Judaicae to stories of how Jews were mistreated by those in Greco-Roman

culture at large, and in particular how Jewish funds meant for the temple were often confiscated

by Roman officials or with their knowledge. These stories played a significant apologetic role in

the Antiquitates Judaicae in at least two ways. First, the significance of these stories in terms of

ethnicity is that they portray precisely the kind of institutional philanthropic expression that

manifests the sense of solidarity which Smith posited as a fundamental element in ethnic self-

definition. Monetary contributions to the temple in the ancestral homeland were a public

expression of Jewish solidarity. The fact that Josephus related several instances of the violation

of these funds suggests that he found in this problem a particularly menacing threat to a practice

that, in his view, lay at the heart of Jewish self-understanding. His repeated attention to this

particular problem is a strong indicator that he saw this as a violation of the Jewish way of life

itself. For Josephus, an important element of Jewish ethnicity was at stake. Second, if the Roman

147 Interestingly, one of Herod's nine wives was named Cleopatra (AJ 17.21).

people prided themselves at all on being pious and religious, then stories of their interference in

Jewish religious matters should cause them to reconsider their attitudes and actions. As I have

shown in chapter five, Josephus supported the idea that the Romans were religiously sensitive.

His portrayal of Titus' reluctance to destroy the Jerusalem temple emphasized this quality. This

was not a matter of cowering to the imperial ego, as it has often been interpreted in the history of

Josephan studies. Instead Josephus was affirming Roman religious sensibilities in order to build

a case that the Jews ought to be respected for the greatness of this same quality among

themselves. This depended, of course, on also demonstrating that Judaism enshrined

considerably noble ideals itself, which is the very thing the Antiquitates Judaicae is designed to

do. Yet as always, this presentation was crafted in such a way to show that the Jewish religion

participated in the good qualities that were also recognized and admired in Greek culture. With

such a portrait, Josephus could hope to lift the stigma that Judaism was a foreign, "eastern" (i.e.,

suspicious) religion.

The stories which Josephus told about Jewish mistreatment are those that were likely

circulated as proof of the foreign and rebellious nature of Jews. Therefore Josephus chose to

address the very stories that were used to fuel anti-Jewish sentiments, in order to demonstrate

that they had been misinterpreted. He was attacking the problem of anti-Jewishness head-on. The

tactic here was the same as in the Bellum Judaicum, where Josephus said that he wrote his

account to set the record straight against other accounts that denigrated both him and the Jewish

people. In doing so Josephus was careful in how he told the stories, and in choosing which

elements of the stories got emphasis.

The story about Pilate's placement of images of Tiberius, on military signa, in Jerusalem

was one of the stories Josephus told to illustrate how Jews had been treated unfairly. There are,

however, a few things amiss with this story. First, it would have been cooler in Jerusalem (in the

mountains of Judea, elevation approximately 2,550 feet above sea level) in the winter than in

Caesarea, which sits on the coast. That Pilate would have moved himself and a Roman cohort to

a colder place for the winter does not make sense by itself. Much more likely is that Pilate

anticipated problems in Jerusalem, or that he simply wanted to assert his presence in the capital

city as the new procurator and the local embodiment of Roman power. It could well have been an

introductory display of power designed to remind the locals just who was in control. Alternately,

it could have been a routine, or even friendly visit to the city. In the Acts of the Apostles, Luke

relates that Porcius Festus, upon taking office in Judea, visited Jerusalem to meet the local

leaders.148 Either way, it seems more plausible that Pilate's visit to Jerusalem had to do with

asserting Roman authority and keeping the peace more than it did with the suitability of

Jerusalem as winter quarters for troops. Second, since Pilate would have been personally

accountable to Rome for anything he did that stirred up unrest among the client peoples, it is

hard to believe that he went to Jerusalem specifically with the intention of undoing Jewish

customs, as Josephus claims he did. It is unthinkable that Pilate could not have known about the

sensitivity of Palestinian Jews concerning Jerusalem itself. Third, this was a risky story for

Josephus to tell, because it portrayed the Palestinian Jews as religiously and culturally intolerant,

which is one of the perceptions that stigmatized them in the Hellenistic world in the first place. It

was normal Roman practice for Roman troops to set up their standards wherever they camped.

Like raising one's flag at an embassy or in an occupied town, it was indeed a political statement

(that, in its day, also included religious overtones). The act itself was not necessarily

148 Acts 25.1.

inflammatory, and may have been nothing more than a display of the procurator's loyalty to

emperor, yet the Jerusalem Jews took great offense at it.

Josephus crafted the presentation of this story carefully for his own apologetic purposes.

The episode has been narrated in such a way so as to maximize both the sense of unfairness

within it and the high piety of the Jews. Josephus saw in this incident a prime example of how

Jews were treated unfairly, how their religious beliefs were discounted by Romans, and how

their protests against such treatment were summarily dismissed or, worse, interpreted as their

causing trouble. The Jewish opposition to the Roman ensigns was presented as an objection

arising from the greatest kind of piety and religious dedication. Josephus wanted his readers to

think that it was only because the Jews were such good, religious people that this was a problem

for them. His agenda is clear, and the difficulties in his story are completely overshadowed by

the characterization of the incident as a willful affront against a pious people. In the end,

Josephus thought it was worth the risk to tell this story because it highlighted Jewish piety and

innocence. This was important in the face of accusations that the Jews were &oepet L and &OEoL.

Similar considerations apply to the story of Pilate's confiscation of temple funds to build

an aqueduct. Stern notes that if there was more money in the temple treasury than was actually

needed for temple expenditures, the surplus was used for other things including the municipal

needs of Jerusalem.149 Pilate may not have thought he was out of line and that such use of the

funds were at his discretion. While the fact that he again used armed troops to end the discussion

does not encourage optimism concerning his motives, his actions need not be interpreted as

wholly malicious either. As Josephus told the story, however, only one conclusion seemed


149 Stem, Greek and Latin Authors 198.

The event related in Antiquitates Judaicae 16, where Jews of Asia and Cyrenaica

complained to Herod and Agrippa in Asia, is also problematic. There was, again, a risk involved

in presenting things in this way. Josephus' repeated appeals to official documents and decrees

that gave the Jews exemptions ran the risk of emphasizing Jewish non-conformity and special

treatment. Decree after decree testified to the existence of a privilege that made the Jews look

foreign and unlike their neighbors, but the risk was offset first by the apologetic value these

stories held, and second by the fact that the decrees Josephus listed were tangible "proof"

(depending on one's perspective, of course) of Rome's kind disposition toward Jews. As

Josephus saw it, the decrees constituted official Roman recognition of the great piety of the

Jewish people everywhere. Even when their practice of sending money to Jerusalem cut across

Roman law, the highest officials in Roman government had consistently ruled that this

expression of Jewish piety was extraordinary and was not to be violated. This in turn became a

compliment to the Romans themselves for having recognized and upheld such piety among a

client people, and a reproach upon those who had tried to violate it. Allowing the Jews to collect

and send money to Jerusalem demonstrated the Roman recognition of the God of the Jews as a

legitimate deity whose worship and favor needed to be maintained. Seen in this way, the Jewish

collection for Jerusalem was not so much a case of special pleading and privilege (i.e., otherness,

non-Roman), but an act of religious piety respected by the emperor himself, thoroughly in

keeping with Augustan ideals of religious piety, and thus thoroughly Roman.

After listing the various decrees that allowed the Jews to maintain their practice, Josephus

says TrLoo at 65 TTOXXUKLK CLUTW;V TrV [v [rlTv EiTrL6LXXLTThU)V TC& yEvir K Tc T E'47rE()l)KUL'X( TOiL

&XoyorToL t~<6^V TE KdaKELVOV 4LiaOU) aLTLiac uTrE cLpou[evoc ("I make frequent mention of them

[the decrees] to bring the nations to reconciliation and to remove the causes of hatred that have

clung to those who are unreasonable among us and them").150 The problem, he says, was social

and cultural dissonance, not immorality. Josephus pleaded that the Jews were good people, and

this goodness made them just like other respected peoples, especially the Greeks. 66L KCL ratra

Trap' EKELwvov T'ltV cTrLTTITOV KUCL 6Eov OUK ev T) 65cLopcL TGV ETrLr 16Eu wI ) V oLteaOUL T6

XX 6TpLov AXX' kv T~ Trp6( KcUoKayaOLev ETrLT16E5Lwi 'EXELv ("therefore these things are more

expected from them concerning us, and it is necessary for them not to suppose hostility in the

difference of practices, but that there is a careful disposition to goodness").151 This is an

important statement, because it reveals that Josephus knew the attitude of the inhabitants of the

provinces toward Jews, and their perception of them. He appealed to the Hellenistic society at

large for a more beneficent interpretation, not only of the former Jewish collection for Jerusalem,

but of all Jewish customs. The fact that the Jews had large sums of money which they had not

invested in the local cities where they lived no doubt made them appear to be unconcerned,

aloof, and willfully disengaged from civic life and their neighbors. Josephus tried hard to explain

that this was not a proper interpretation and that the collection of this money ought to be seen as

one way Jews had of honoring their God. It was an act of piety, he suggests, not of ill-will

against the cities in which they lived.

Rajak has noted that Josephus had to engage in a kind of slight-of-hand to make this

argument work. The decrees which Josephus cited are haphazardly listed, and none of them

would have constituted an official Roman legal charter for Jewish privileges. They were instead

responses to particular incidents, over particular problems, in various places and would not have

been meant, nor interpreted at Rome, as empire-wide precedents.152 Yet that was exactly the

150 AJ 16.175.
151AJ 16.178.
152 Rajak, The Jewish Dialogue i ith Greece and Rome 304-18.

impression Josephus left from his handling of them. Their precise legal content has been

summarized-that is, generalized-in order to milk them for political capital.

In Antiquitates Judaicae 16.178 Josephus admitted that there was at least one scandal

involving a collection of funds for Jerusalem. An unnamed Jew who was in trouble with the law

in Palestine came to Rome and presented himself as a teacher of Jewish wisdom. He managed,

with three partners, to convince an affluent Roman woman, Fulvia, who was a proselyte, that she

had to send purple and gold to the temple in Jerusalem, which he and his friends would be glad

to deliver for her. She gave them the contribution, and they put it in their own pockets. The

woman feared she had been duped, told her husband what had happened, and he reported the

matter to the emperor. The result was that Tiberius ordered all the Jews to leave Rome.153 The

date was 19 CE.

In an account designed to portray the Jews in the best possible light to outsiders, this story

stands out as a shining example of avarice and greed. Why did Josephus tell this story? Why tell

a story that seemed to communicate the very impression of Jews that Josephus was trying to

correct? Why not just skip this story, as he did with other things? There are at least three

answers. First, as I noted in chapter two, Romans acknowledged both good and bad among

Greeks, and the Greeks themselves were sometimes critical of various sub-groups within their

own ethnicity.154 Josephus was thus not doing anything unusual here. Second, it would have been

unwise and unrealistic if Josephus had ignored well-known examples of Jewish shortcomings.

He had to avoid presenting the Jews as the perfect people, because no one would have believed

it. As I also noted in chapter two, the construction of an ethnicity must adhere to some semblance

153 AJ 18.81-4.
154 cf a Rhodian's criticism of other Greeks in Livy, 45.23.14-16, and Cicero
distinguishes between good ones and bad ones in Ver. 2.2.7.

of credibility if it is to succeed. Third, Josephus depicts the majority of Jews as victims here,

suffering for the actions of a few who were unscrupulous and greedy. This is exactly how he

depicted the Jews of Jerusalem in his account of the First Jewish War, where he said that the war

was caused by a minority who were bent on rebellion and that the rest of the Jews of Palestine

were innocently caught up in, and suffered in, the war. Similarly, here Josephus ended the story

saying KmL oL iev 65i 6L& KCKLCV T'ooapov d&v6p6v TlXULUvovro Tif TrO6XEWo ("So for the

wickedness of four men they [the Jews] were banished from the city").155 This story seems

designed to serve as a prime example of the prejudices Jews constantly faced, and the unfairness

of the actions that resulted from them. As the story stands in Josephus, it strikes the reader that

the punishment here (banishment of all Jews) does not fit the crime (the deception of four of

them). It was presented as a story of wide-scale unfair treatment of Jews. Such, according to

Josephus, was the world in which Jews lived. It was a world in which lurid stories about Jews

abounded, a world in which tales of Jewish offenses against society and culture circulated freely,

and a world in which those tales were believed and used as justification for widespread

mistreatment of Jews and for interference in Jewish religious practices. That is, even though the

present story was embarrassing, Josephus risked telling this story to make another point, a point

consonant with his overall portrayal of Jews to Greeks and Romans: that this should not be

understood as a story that describes typical Jewish behavior. This was not the action of the

majority, but of a few.

However, this story of the expulsion of the Jews in 19 CE is also related by Suetonius, Dio

Cassius, and Tacitus, where we learn that there were other factors at work. Suetonius says

Extemas caerimonias, Aegyptios ludaicosque ritus compescuit, coactis qui superstition ea
tenebantur religiosas uestes cum instrument omni comburere. Iudaeorum iuuentutem per

155 AJ 18.84.

species sacramenti in prouincias grauioris caeli distribuit, reliquos gentis eiusdem uel
similia sectantes urbe summouit, sub poena perpetuae seruitutis nisi obtemperassent.
Expulit et mathematics, sed deprecantibus ac se artem desituros promittentibus ueniam

("He abolished foreign cults, especially the Egyptian and the Jewish rites, compelling all
who were addicted to such superstitions to burn their religious vestments and all their
paraphernalia. Those of the Jews who were of military age he assigned to provinces of less
healthy climate, ostensibly to serve in the army; the others of that same race or of similar
beliefs he banished from the city, on pain of slavery for life if they did not obey. He
banished the astrologers as well, but pardoned such as begged for indulgence and promised
to give up their art").156

The classification of Judaism along with Egyptian rites and (eastern) astrology is telling,

According to Suetonius, the emperor apparently thought that the Jews were part of a larger influx

into Rome of foreign practices and eastern influences which were viewed as socially and

culturally unhealthy. The expulsion of the Jews was, it could have been argued, an act of

Tiberius' zeal for the traditional gods of Rome and for Roman society in general. Tacitus, who

also feared any non-Roman influences, wrote of this incident:

.... actum et de sacris Aegyptiis ludaicisque pellendis factumque patrum consultum ut
quattuor milia libertini generis ea superstition infecta quis idonea aetas in insulam
Sardiniam veherentur, coercendis illic latrociniis et, si ob gravitatem caeli interissent, vile
damnum; ceteri cederent Italia nisi certam ante diem profanos ritus exuissent.

("....There was a debate too about expelling the Egyptian and Jewish worship, and a
resolution of the Senate was passed that 4000 of the freedmen class who were infected
with those superstitions and were of military age should be transported to the island of
Sardinia, to curb the brigandage of the place, a cheap sacrifice should they die from the
pestilential climate. The rest were to leave Italy, unless before a certain day they repudiated
their impious rites.").157

This corresponds to a mention of an earlier expulsion in 139 BCE. Valerius Maximus reported:

Chaldaeos igitur Cornelius Hispalus urbe expulit et intra decem dies Italia abire iussit, ne
peregrinam scientiam venditarent. Iudaeos quoque, qui Romanis tradere sacra sua conati
erant, idem Hispalus urbe exterminavit arasque privatas e publicis locis abiecit.

156 Tib. 36.
157 Ann. 2.85.

"Cornelius Hispalus therefore expelled the Chaldeans from the city and ordered them to
leave Italy within ten days, and that they should not sell their foreign knowledge. The Jews
also, who had tried to pass their sacred things on to the Romans, the same Hispalus
banished from the city and he threw their private altars out of public places."

The Romans had a long history of being suspicious of foreign influences. It makes much more

sense to interpret the expulsion of Jews from Rome in 19 CE in this light than it does to interpret

it as the result of one incident of fraud that affected one Roman family. Dio Cassius sheds further

light on the incident as he reports To;v TE 'Iou a6ov TroXXv iI. T v 'POGrlv V ouvEXOOVT)ov KCL

ouXvoi (;x LV ETTLOLpLiv T& oGETEpa 'EOv t EOL Favov, Toi~ TrXEL(iovca E'AXLaoEV ("As many

Jews came to Rome in great numbers and were converting many of the natives to their ways, he

banished most of them").158 Apparently the Jews had become successful enough at proselytizing

that Judaism was making inroads into Roman society, and this aroused the emperor's suspicion.

Proselytizing could itself be viewed as an activity that proclaimed the Jewish rejection of the

Roman gods and the Roman way of life.159 Tacitus complained of converts to Judaism: Nam

pessimus quisque spretis religionibuspatriis tribute et stipes illuc congerebant, unde auctae

ludaeorum res ("For whoever are the worst people, having scorned their ancetral religions, kept

giving tribute payments and offerings, from which the wealth of the Jews increased").160 The

combination of success at proselytizing plus the sense that Jews were part of a suspicious eastern

influx into Rome made them ripe targets for imperial expulsion. As the Romans told this story,

then, the emperor's actions were about maintaining Roman purity. It had certain ethnic overtones

and depicted the Jews as foreign and unwelcome.

The way in which Josephus chose to relate this story, however, provided the scenario of

unfairness and innocence he was trying to communicate to his Hellenistic audience. Gone from

158 D.C. 57.18.6a.
159 Daniel, 'Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic-Roman Period', 62-4.
160 Hist. 5.5.

his account are any suggestions that the Jews were introducing non-Roman things into Rome or

pushing a foreign religion. That would have only reinforced the popular view of Jewish

otherness. The lack of this information in Josephus' version instead made the Jews appear just

like any other inhabitants of Rome. On the literary level, Josephus presented the Jews as insiders

who, for reasons that were completely unfair, were treated like outsiders. The harsh nature of the

punishment, as it is portrayed, also bespeaks the attitude Josephus was addressing, that of

popular prejudice against Jews. The banishment of all Jews over this incident makes sense only

if there is already a strong suspicion against all Jews within the social and cultural context. How

many scams were foisted in the name of religious contributions to Jerusalem we cannot know.

Surely there were others, and even if they were not common, the emperor's harsh reaction seems

to suggest that the action of these Jews only served to confirm what was already the prevailing

public impression of Jews among the inhabitants of Rome, viz. that Jews were maliciously

deceptive, that they were a threat to the well-being of Romans everywhere, and that they were up

to no good.

Even when it was risky, Josephus presented those stories in the relation between Jews and

Rome wherein true Jewish religious devotion could be seen. In fact, it was quite bold on

Josephus' part to address his apologetic agenda in this fashion. Rather than downplay or ignore

episodes that tended to demonstrate characteristics of Jews that were deemed foreign and un-

Roman, Josephus told those stories but advised his readers, through his narrative presentation,

that it would be a mistake to see in them supposed elements of alienation. Instead, he argued,

they demonstrate the best qualities of these people. This double public persona of being pious yet

at the same time being accused of all kinds of evil, is reflected in Satire 14 of Juvenal (who was

Josephus' contemporary) which says Romanas autem soliti contemnere leges ludaicum ediscunt

et seruant ac metuunt ius, tradidit arcano quodcumque volumine Moyses ("they are in the habit

of disregarding Roman laws, yet they memorize and guard and fear Jewish duty, all that Moses

handed down in his secret book").161


Josephus intended his Greek readers to see leading Jewish historical figures as equal to

great figures in Greek history. To a Hellenistic reader unfamiliar with the LXX accounts, and

who read only Josephus' versions of the stories, the impression would have been basically

straightforward. From the title of the work, to its concerns for order, to connections with well-

known Greek figures, to its use of exempla, such a reader would have felt basically at home with

much in the Antiquitates Judaicae. Some particularly Jewish elements in the stories were

preserved because, in Josephus' judgment, they highlighted virtues that were unique to the Jews

in the ancient world, even when those stories ran the risk of touching on negative stereotypes of

Jews. Other elements of the stories were either ignored (like the Jewish practice of circumcision),

downplayed (like the Jewish claim to the land of Palestine), or transformed by casting them in

Greek forms (as seen in his use of particular Greek terms to describe facets of Jewish culture).

He was able to adapt his stories in this way partly because the traditions he knew, and the milieu

in which he wrote, allowed him some flexibility. His rewriting of those stories was in step with

the historiographical conventions of his day, and the fluid nature of foundational myths gave

Josephus room to emphasize, or create, dimensions of his traditional materials to suit his aim of

aligning Greek and Jewish ethnicities, or to omit elements of the tradition that did not serve his


Confirmation that it was his specific intention to create this alignment of Jewish and Greek

characteristics comes in a statement Josephus himself made about the Antiquitates Judaicae later

161 Lines 100-02.

in the Contra Apionem. Apion had charged that the Jews had no great intellectuals in their

history. 'AAA& Oau[aocoiu Uv6pac o01 TrapeoXCKcEa v o[ov Ov TEXv C TLvCoV eiperT&fc i ooLa

6LtaEpovUTa KmL KaaptLOUpLL oKKpfTlIV KML Z'vova KaL KXE&VOTrv KaL TOLOi6ou( TLV(U ... TrepiL

6'e T)V Trap' T1^iLV dLV6pcdv yEyovToWv o U6EVO6 ]TUTOV E'TrCLVOU YuyXUVELV wLoV 'L(oCaoLv oL TCaLL

T14ETE paL; apXaLoLoyLaL; EvTuylXdvovtUe ("But [he says that] we have not provided illustrious

men such as inventors of any arts or men distinguished in wisdom, and he enumerates Socrates

and Zeno and Cleanthes and some other such ones. ... Those who have read my Archaeologies

know, concerning the men we have produced, that there has been no one found less worthy of

praise").162 The Jews deserved the same praise as Greeks because they were, in Josephus' hands,

basically the same people culturally.

The Antiquitates Judaicae was more than Jewish history for Greek readers. That was

already available to the Hellenistic world in the LXX. Josephus went well beyond simply telling

the stories. He re-made the history and, in the process, re-made the people who were its subject.

Through the vehicle of historiography Josephus was re-inventing Jewish identity, he was re-

drawing the ethnic lines that separated Jews from others, he was creating a Jewish ethnicity

which (he hoped) would allow Jews a regular place in Hellenistic society.

162 Ap. 2.135f.


Josephus' Vita and his Contra Apionem were both written to answer criticisms. In the

former, he reacted mostly to criticisms about his own conduct during the war. In the latter, he

answered derogatory statements about the Jews made by intellectuals of his day. The nature of

these works meant that there was more apologetic and polemic in them than would appear in an

historical account, and subsequently there is less of the program of ethnicity-building than

appears in the Bellum Judaicum or the Antiquitates Judaicae. The fact that these two later works

had to be written at all was something of an admission on Josephus' part that his major works

had failed to persuade his readers concerning Josephus' role in the war (for the Bellum

Judaicum) and his portrait of Jewish culture (for the Antiquitates Judaicae). "Josephus believes

that it is his 'duty' (6tev) to defend his people, but his persistence is nothing other than a

confession that he has failed in his attempt, and it confirms the vigor of the anti-Semitism

existing in Rome."1 Both of these lesser works still, therefore, had non-Jewish readers in mind,

and in both works he continued to depict himself and the Jews in ways that were essentially


The Vita

Josephus' Vita, written after both the Bellum Judaicum and the Antiquitates Judaicae, was

not a full-scale autobiography, but was a response to an assault on his character brought by a

rival, Justus of Tiberias, who had written an account of the war that slandered Josephus. The Vita

begins with Josephus' genealogy, a claim that he was something of a child prodigy, his religious

1 G. Hata, 'The Story of Moses', 195. cf also Spilsbury, 'Contra Apionem and
Antiquitates Judaicae: Points of Contact', in L. Feldman and J. Levison (eds.), Josephus' Contra
Apionem: Studies in Its Character and Cuiie\ x i /h a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing
in Greek (Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 34, Leiden
1996) 367.

experimentation, and a story of his participation in a delegation to Rome when he was 26 years

old. The purpose of this prefatory material was to argue that Josephus had been an upright,

respectable person all his life. After that the account is absorbed with his personal conduct during

the First Jewish War. Because the Vita centers around Josephus personally, there are fewer

indications of his view of the ethnicity of Jewish people as a group. However, Hellenistic

standards served as part of the conceptual foundation for the work as well as provided models for

specific responses.

The fact that Josephus wrote an apologetic autobiography itself reflects a point I have

already noted, that the credibility of an ancient Greek historian's work was measured in part by

the character and conduct of the historian himself. In Jewish culture and literature, however,

credibility was usually established on other grounds. Jewish authors writing in a Jewish vein

often emphasized some notion of divine authority, themselves fading into the background as

divine instruction took over, or they established credibility by assuming a pseudonym (especially

of a Biblical character) or by advertising their reputation as defenders of their ancestral faith

(either through apology, polemic, or expertise in the Torah). The fact that Josephus defended

himself, even though he claimed to be a prophet and an expert in the Torah, suggests that he was

writing with Greek standards of credibility in mind, not Jewish ones. In other words, the mode

by which Josephus here establishes his credibility is Greek, not Jewish. In this way he continued

to portray himself like a Greek historian, suggesting to his reader that the history he produced is

to be read according to that form.

This appeal to an historian's personal life as the basis for the credibility of his work is also

reflected in Josephus' criticisms of Justus of Tiberias. Justus' account has not survived, but

Rajak has reasoned that it must have portrayed Josephus as two-faced, a man playing to Roman

interests yet all the while an insurrectionist at heart, and that Josephus' piety may have been

questioned as well.2 In Vita 338-67 Josephus launched his specific rebuttals of Justus. He got to

the heart of the matter when he said (as if Justus were present before him) KCL ciL 4tE TCrm a 6i

T'roXLTELCL oou o0(X))(- E[4laVL'OUOLV TO6 V T PLOV Tbv UXXov KMCL OTjL 0) C iTrV TTrcXpL5~6 'P)LPa ,oV

dT~TEorTlocU ("and your political dealings after these things clearly show your life differently, and

that it was you who led the revolt against the Romans").3 This statement summarizes several

specific criticisms raised in the following sections of the Vita. In the end, Josephus claimed that

Justus' personal behavior discredited him. The thing to note is that Josephus was holding Justus

to a Greek standard of credibility.

Justus' lost account no doubt largely focused on the revolt in Galilee and also contained a

description of the siege of Jerusalem. In chapter five I noted that one of the criteria of a good

Greek historian by the first century CE was that he was an eyewitness of the things he reported.

In Vita 358 Josephus charged that Justus' account of the revolt in Galilee surely must be suspect,

because it failed to meet this criterion. Justus was not present in the places where key parts of the

history unfolded. According to Josephus, Justus was in Berytus4 at the time and thus was in no

position to say what happened in Galilee, at Jotapata (the city Josephus defended against the

Romans), or in Jerusalem. Justin's account was therefore to be rejected by the general reading

public because Justus failed to meet the Greek standard of a good historian.

In the account of his religious experimentation, Josephus relates that he finally settled

upon the sect of the Pharisees, which, he says Trapakrr Ao eL6o Cu T Tr cap' "EXXi)rOLv TO"LKK

2 Rajak, 'Justus of Tiberias', 357.
3 Vit. 344.
4 Vit. 357. Berytus is modern-day Beirut, Lebanon. In Josephus' day it was in the
Phoenician region of Syria. It is approximately 60 linear miles from the Sea of Galilee.

Aeyo[ev 1 ("which is nearly the same as that which is called the Stoics by the Greeks").5 We see

here the same kind of approach that characterized certain depictions in the Antiquitates Judaicae:

describing Jewish institutions with familiar Greek terms, yet stopping short of equating the two.

In this way what was uniquely Jewish was not lost, but was accommodated to Hellenistic

standards. A fuller explanation of the beliefs of Pharisees, as Josephus understood them (or at

least as he wanted them to be understood) appeared in Bellum Judaicum 2.162-3, 166 and

Antiquitates Judaicae 18:12-15.6 Here in the Vita he could have easily either rehearsed them or

he could have simply referred his reader to the pertinent section of his previous works (as he

does in Antiquitates Judaicae 13.173 and 18.11). Instead he chose now to go further and

compare them closely to a philosophical sect within Hellenistic culture. The comparison counted

on the assumption that the reader did not know much about the Pharisees in the first place,

because a closer examination would have revealed several significant differences between

Pharisees and Stoics. Josephus' description basically erased the line between Jewish culture and

Hellenistic culture, and a non-Jewish reader who was unfamiliar with Jewish sectarianism would

have been under the impression that Pharisees and Stoics held to the same basic beliefs. Jewish

institutions were again brought into Roman culture through the door of Hellenism.

As noted before, at age 26 Josephus participated in a delegation to Rome to secure the

release of some Jewish priests who had been sent there on charges by the procurator of Judea, M.

Antonius Felix. The account appears in Vita 1.13ff. A noteworthy feature of this story is that

Josephus was careful to trace the network of social and political connections that got him to

Poppea and that enabled him to secure the release of the priests. He made a special point that

5 Vit. 12. The precise nuance of TrapUaTrr A.oLo is hard to determine from this context. The
word can mean "nearly resembling," "about the same," "similar," or "about equal to." LSJ 1321.
6 See alsoAJ 13.172.

there was a Jew, Aliturus (an actor), who was well-liked by Nero, and through this fellow-Jew he

was able to approach Poppea. The fact that there was a highly respected Jew among Nero's

friends was important for Josephus. Aliturus was a good example of a Jew who had successfully

made the transition from outsider to insider. He acts within the story as any other insider would,

able to use his influence for his friends. His appearance in the narrative is itself an apologetic for

Jewish mobility within Roman society. Then Josephus himself took on the role of the insider. He

formed connections with important people, and through them he was able to secure favors for

others. His language does not necessarily indicate that he got a personal audience with Poppea,

and Josephus probably would have made a bigger point of this had it actually happened.

Nevertheless, Josephus (at least on a literary level) had made the transition from outsider to

insider, a role in which he portrayed himself consistently as the account goes on. That the story

concerned Romans in the highest levels of civic life was not insignificant, for it bolstered the

image of friendly relations between Romans and Jews.

We would like to know about some of the periods in Josephus' adult life which he does not

cover in the Vita, especially the two-year period between his return to Palestine after

participating in the delegation to Nero and the time he was appointed commander of Jewish

forces in Jotapata.7 For example, how is it that the rulers in Jerusalem, who were priests and

Sadducees, asked Josephus, a priest who had rejected the sect of the Sadducees and chose to live

according to the sect of the Pharisees, to represent their concerns in Galilee, a place that

foreseeably was going to be absolutely crucial in the war? Some things about the picture do not

add up, and given what we know about the way in which Josephus suppressed unflattering

information in the Antiquitates Judaicae, we are suspicious about what Josephus has not told us

7 Cf G. Hata, 'Imagining Some Dark Periods in Josephus' Life', 309.

in the Vita. What we do have, however, is a picture of Josephus meeting the requirements of a

Greek historian and an Hellenistic "insider,"and that was what counted for him.

The Contra Apionem

The Contra Apionem was ostensibly written in response to criticisms leveled against the

Jews by well-known Greeks. While the Alexandrian grammarian Apion received much of the

attention, the introduction makes it clear that the real target audience of the Contra Apionem was

a nebulous "them" who had read, and rejected, Josephus' explanation of Jewish culture in his

Antiquitates Judaicae: 'IKv(; 4iv Uv i TOXUapvU) K0CL 6L& TTF Trepi triv apX aLOXoyL av ouyypa f;

Kp'ULOTE v6p6v 'ETrap6dLr TOL( EwvrTEUo0~VOL; CabUT TrETrOLrIKE'vcL 4Oavep6v Trepi TOD yivouv

T)t4V ix;V 'Iou6a&iv 6OL KCaL TraaLd6aTccv ETL ("I take it that it has been made sufficiently clear,

through the narrative of the Archaeology, most excellent Epaphroditus, to those who have read it,

concerning our Jewish race, that it is also most ancient").8 In the next section he mentions an

anonymous ouXvo ("large number of people") who had rejected what they read in the

Antiquitates Judaicae, and then in 1.3 he said it was his aim uTv p v XOL6opo6vro v Tiiv

6uoFiEVeLxLV KUcL TrV EKOUOLOV EXE yaLL lEU6 XOYLOV iLUv T 6 ie V &yvOLav LraUvopejoaoULa ("to

disprove those who accuse us of ill will and voluntary lies, and to correct the ignorance of

others"). Furthermore, it is clear that this ouXvoL are Greeks, for Josephus says his aim was to

answer them by producing literary witnesses who were esteemed by the Greeks: XpiooicaL 65


TOv 'EXXAvwv KEKpL iVOL; ("I will use for the things I have said the witnesses who are judged by

the Greeks to be most trustworthy concerning all antiquity)9-on the assumption that Greek

critics would be silenced by Greek evidence. If we are correct in our thesis that one of the

sAp. 1.1.
9 Ap. 1.4.

burdens of the Antiquitates Judaicae was to show the essentially Greek character of Jewish

ethnicity, then the rejection of the Antiquitates Judaicae must mean that Greeks readers, for

whom it was intended, had rejected that characterization of Jewish ethnicity.

The significance of this observation is that, as I have suggested, the Greeks were the very

group to which Josephus wished to join the Jews culturally. Their rejection of Josephus' program

needed serious attention. It would have been one thing to convince Romans that Jews were just

like Greeks culturally, but what if the Greeks were not buying it? What if Greek literati rejected

the comparison between Jews and Greeks? The Greeks knew what was Greek, and if they did not

see Jews as possessing Greek qualities, Josephus' enterprise was doomed to fail. Perhaps this

accounts for why the Contra Apionem had to be written, from Josephus' perspective.

Although Josephus called the Contra Apionem an arTroXoyLa,10 a notable difference between

this work and his other literary productions is that whereas there is a definite apologetic thread

running throughout all of them, the Contra Apionem added polemics to apologetics. This gave

the work an added sense of urgency, even beyond that which was seen in the Antiquitates

Judaicae. If the Antiquitates Judaicae was eager to show the Greek qualities of Jewish culture

(to the point of making strained comparisons), then the Contra Apionem was almost desperate to

do so. "What was set out obliquely in the national history of the Jews is set out more directly in

the CA."11 The difference between apologetics and polemics may be a fine line, but the terms

may be understood as suggesting that polemics is a more rhetorically-heightened form of

apologetic response. One of the purposes of polemics is "to change the opinions of the distant

10Ap. 2.147. o0 y&p EyK6c) Lov 'GiL v a~U[ d V Trpoe LdrlTvi ouyyp I eLV aUlX TroX& Kcd
EU6T5 KrTflyopouiEvoLt; rivLv MarUTrV UaTroXoyLav 6LKcL0oTLTrvV EL'vca vo C( ) ("I do not propose to
write an encomium about ourselves, but I consider this to be a most reasonable apology against
the many and false things that have been charged to us").
11 Spilsbury 367.

and the opposed (at least to cast doubt in their minds), and to arouse interest among the

indifferent and the uninvolved, with a view to eventually convincing them as well."12 Polemics

was the tool Josephus needed to forge a new Jewish ethnicity for Greeks (and their sympathetic

audience) who had rejected Josephus' proposal about the fundamentally Greek character of

Jewish identity. The apologetic nature of his major works expressed a psychological need to

conciliate Jews to the Hellenistic world, but polemics were needed to persuade those readers in

whom Josephus perceived a hostile rejection of his claims for Jewish ethnicity. I have noted in

chapter two that a psychological need for belonging, and posturing oneself for acceptance, are

hallmarks of an ethnical strategy. In the Contra Apionem we have it taken to the next level,

through polemics, because of the nature of the situation, viz. outspoken rejection of Jewish

claims to fit into Greek culture.

At the beginning of the Contra Apionem Josephus rehearsed the kinds of accusations that

prompted his response. They were 1) the charge that the history of the Jews did not go into

ancient times, as evidenced by the fact that the Jews were basically ignored by the Greek

historians who covered those times (the assumption being that if the Greek historians did not

mention it, it was not to be taken as fact13), 2) the charge that the Jews were not a pure race of

people, and 3) that they came to inhabit Palestine in an underhanded way. The first of these

charges received most of Josephus' attention, which indicates that something important was at

stake in it. "For Josephus the allegation of "lateness" was equivalent to the assertion of cultural

dependence and historical insignificance. ... Simply put, nothing could be both new and true."14

12 Kasher, 'Polemic and Apologetic Methods', 144.
13 SeeAp. 1.161.
14 Droge 125.

The Romans generally respected what was ancient.15 To say that Jewish culture was not ancient

was therefore to say that it deserved no respect. What is interesting here, as Gruen has noted, is

that this was not a typical Greek complaint concerning other peoples.16 This suggests that

Josephus may have been dealing more with perceived sentiment than an actual one, and that

the real issue that concerned him was not the antiquity of the Jews but the Greek assessment of

Jews. In responding to the charge of lateness, Josephus echoed and amplified the criticism he

offered in Bellum Judaicum 1.13-16, that Greek historiography was overrated as far as coverage

of the remote past was concerned. He established this in the Contra Apionem by applying the

standards of Greek historiography to the Greek historians themselves. In particular, Josephus

pointed out that the oldest Greek historians and philosophers did not belong to the remote past

themselves and were indebted to other sources for their information.17 They were not

contemporaries of the events they reported, and since the Greeks themselves did not keep

historical records very well, the historians had no reliable Greek eyewitness testimony to which

they could appeal.18 In short, they did not meet their own standards for good historiography. The

result was that Greek historical knowledge of the distant past (specifically, prior to the Persian

invasions) was a mess, and there was little agreement among the Greek historians concerning it.

In raising this defense, Josephus was actually echoing Plato's Laws, where Clinias

admitted that Greek civilization was, in Plato's day, relatively recent.19 Clinias there, speaking of

the events of ancient times, says ) 'E~roc dETrErv &6 Kcd Trpwdrv yeyovora ("they happened, so to

15 Cf the statement made by Tacitus about Jewish Sabbath observance, noted earlier: Hi
ritus quoquo modo inducti antiquitate defenduntur ("This worship, however it was introduced, is
defended by its antiquity") (Hist. 5.5).
16 E. Gruen, 'Greeks and Jews: Mutual Misperceptions in Josephus' Contra Apionem', in
C. Bakhos (ed.), Ancient Judaism in its Hellenistic Context (SupJSJ 95, Leiden 2005) 40.
17 Ap. 1.7-14, 44-6.
1 Ap. 15-22.
19 3.677d; cf. Timaeus 22ac.

speak, only yesterday and the day before"). Josephus said iXOXe 6"i Kcdi rpclrv ... (aLvovrat

yeyovoTe ("they appear to have happened yesterday or the day before").20 Herodotus likewise

made it clear that Egyptian history went much further back than Greek history21 and explicitly

admitted that the Greeks did not learn of the origin of their gods "until yesterday or the day

before, as they say" (obK TiTrLorta&o piXpt oi TrpGrlv TE KcdL E fi ( LTrEiL AO6y).22 "In the

Hellenistic period the same point would be made again and again by native writers who had

learned to compose history in Greek fashion."23 Pointing out the lack of Greek knowledge of

ancient times was thus a Greek thing to do, and Josephus appeared quite Greek in doing it.

There were other reasons the Jews did not appear in the Greek historians. Josephus argued

that the Jews had no significant contact with the Greeks because they were not a seafaring

people, and thus the Greek historians naturally knew little about them, just as they also knew

little about other great nations such as the Iberians or the Romans.24 He added that the lack of

historical accuracy among the Greeks was due to the fact that the Greek historians were too

preoccupied with literary style and not enough with veracity, that the former interfered with the

latter because inventiveness was valued over truthfulness,25 and that general malice toward the

Jews also explained why no Greek writer mentioned them.26 With these replies, Josephus

excused the Jews from attaining a prominent place in the works of Greek historians.

The standards that made Greek historiography look bad when it came to the distant past

made Jewish history look good. Josephus claimed that the Jews had always treated the

20 Ap. 2.154.
21 2.143.
22 2.53.
23 Drodge 120.
24 Ap. 1.60-8.
25 Ap. 1.24-7.
26 Ap. 1.213-4.

documents of the Biblical canon with the greatest respect (in contrast to the nearly indifferent

attitude of Greeks toward their historical records), and that it contained "the record of all time"

(Toi5 Trcv6; 'ExovUra Xpvou Utrv Avaxypaxlv),27 spanning about 5000 years.28 That is, if one used

conventional Greek standards of historical trustworthiness, the Jews outdid the Greeks

themselves. The same kind of favorable comparison appears later in 2.171f, where Josephus

claimed that the Jewish legal approach combined the best qualities of both Athenian and Spartan

laws: the Athenian system emphasized legal prescription, and the Spartan system emphasized

practical training, but the Jewish system had both. In both cases the point was that the Jews had

achieved the ideal the Greeks had proposed but themselves failed to reach.

For reliable information on the remote past, Josephus argued that one would have to read

the ancient records of the civilizations of the Egyptians (via Manetho), the Babylonians (via

Berosus), and the Phoenicians (via an otherwise unknown author named Dius), all of which he

quoted at length.29 Unlike the Greek records, these accounts went far into the past, and they

clearly established the antiquity of the Jews. Even while he was busy defending this particular

point, however, the business of connecting the Jews with the Greeks was never far behind. If the

authorities he had already cited were not enough to satisfy a Greek reader, Josephus then cited

two lists of Greek names to show that the Greeks had known about the Jews for a long time. The

first list names Pythagoras, Theophrastus, Herodotus, Choerilus, Aristotle, Hecataeus, and

Agatharchides, and the second list names Theophilus, Theodotus, Mnaseas, Aristophanes,

Hermogenes, Euhemerus, Conon, Zopyrion, Demetrius Phalarus, Philo the elder, and Eupolemus

27Ap. 1.38.
28 Ap. 1.1; cf. AJ 1.13.
29 Ap. 1.69-160.

-the last three of which are especially commended.30 These lists of Greek names were surely

intended to be impressive. The sense is that there was a kind of familiarity between the ancient

Greeks and Jews.

Josephus wanted to have the best of both worlds, and this created a problem that appears in

two ways. First, he provided perfectly good explanations for why the Jews did not appear in

Greek history, but then he adduced these two lists of references to Jews in the works of Greek

historians. Apparently it did not occur to Josephus that these two approaches might be mutually

exclusive. This same technique appeared in Josephus' major works, where he juxtaposed a

Jewish theology of retribution with a Greek view of XrlT to explain historical events. Here as

well as there, two different lines of reasoning created an unresolved tension in the argument.

Second, Josephus criticized Greek historical knowledge for its inability to go into the distant

past, but then he cited two lists of Greek authors as evidence in his argument for the antiquity of

the Jewish people. If the antiquity of the Jews was the main concern, the argument is self-

contradictory. If, however, the main concern was to create the impression of a close agreement

between Jews and Greeks culturally, then the evidence has a different function, namely to re-

affirm the close cultural connections between Greeks and Jews. This inconsistency in Josephus'

method serves to confirm our suspicion, noted above, that the real issue for Josephus in the

Contra Apionem was not the antiquity of the Jews, but the Greek rejection of Jewish claims to be

the cultural equals of Greeks.

The actual evidence that comes from these lists is mostly speculative over-reaching if not

incorrect. As factual arguments they leave much to be desired. On the first list, for the authors he

explicitly quotes, his "evidence" is less than sure. For example, his so-called evidence of

30 Ap. 1.161-218.

Herodotus' knowledge of the Jews is the historian's notice of the "Syrians of Palestine who

practice circumcision" (2.104.3).31 However, this is a reference to Philistines, not Jews.32

Similarly, Josephus cites the poet Choerilus as a witness, but the evidence consists of the poet's

mention of yvoc 0auctaoTbv '6ioOcaU yXl)ooav piv FoLvLoocv &7r LOOoro[)V & roiE'Vo (")KEOV 6'

Ev OXU[L( potpEotL TrXaTwri Trap XL[VTI aucbXadXEOL KOPuI & TpOXOKOUpdeG aUj~&p icTrepOev i'LrTr v

6apT& TrpoowTr' iE6pouv EoKAXrTKdOT KaTVV C ("a race wonderful to see, uttering the Phoenician

language from their mouths. They were living in the Solymian mountains, by a broad lake,

having dark heads shaved around, and above them they wore smoke-dried skins stripped from

horses' heads"),33 concerning which Josephus says 6il ov oiv orTLV ~ol(~a' Trr~oLv i TrV v aUr~6v

eLvfloOUL ("I think it is clear to all that he had us in mind").34 However, Choerlius used

Herodotus (7.70) as his source for these people, and Herodotus was describing Ethiopians, not

Jews. The Solymian mountains are similarly mentioned in connection with the Ethiopians in the

Odyssey 5.282f.35 Josephus misunderstood the reference, blinded by his zeal to make

connections between Jews and Greeks. To those who knew the works of Herodotus or Choerlius

better, this blunder would surely have cast doubt on Josephus' scholarship.

The second list of authors is even more problematic. The way Josephus summarily cites

them by name only, but with no quotations to prove his point, is suspicious. "...none of these

writers can be identified with absolute certainty. ... Josephus is able to give an illusory

impression of scholarship, but it remains doubtful whether he knew any of these historians at

31 Quoted in Ap. 1.169.
32 Gruen, 'Greeks and Jews: Mutual Misperceptions', 42.
33 Ap. 1.173.
34 Ap. 1.174.
35 Gabba 655-6.

first hand."36 Gruen is even more skeptical. Concerning the last three names on the list, whom

Josephus especially commends, he says:

We may be confident that each of these writers was, in fact, a Jew, writing under a Greek
pseudonym. That is surely true of Hecataeus and almost as surely of Philo, Demetrius, and
Eupolemus. Josephus ought to have known this-and probably did. ... he was perfectly
happy, even proud, to parade Greek authors, or what he took to be Greek authors, as
confirming the favorable impressions and the prestige that Jews enjoyed among the
intelligensia of the Mediterranean world.37

In spite of the fact that Josephus was probably speaking past the facts, he was doing what Jewish

apologists normally did, looking for any possible allusion to Jews in Greek authors.38

It is in this attempt to connect the Jews with the Greeks as closely as possible that we

encounter one of the most fabulous stories in Josephus' works. In Contra Apionem 1.176-182,

Josephus tells a story, gleaned from the writings of Clearchus of Soli, of how Aristotle once met

with a Jew, presumably at Assos,39 and was favorably impressed with him. Quite significant for

Josephus' purposes were the words Clearchus put in Aristotle's mouth about the Jewish fellow:

oiro v oUv 06 vOpUroo EiTrLevotEvoEV TE TroXXoL~ KU(K ix;V v6 TOiTOrV dEL Toib Ei'O9Xrraarrou

6TOKKaTpcavov *'ErTVLK 6( v ou 06 T6LCtIxKTo [Lvov &dX& KCiL T JuXi ("This man, being

shown hospitality by many, and having come down from the upper regions to those which are by

the sea, was Greek not only in language but also in spirit").40 According to Clearchus, Aristotle

even admitted to his followers that the Jew taught him more than he was able to teach the Jew.41

36 Droge 124-5.
37 Gruen, 'Greeks and Jews: Mutual Misperceptions', 42-3.
38 Here he was following in the steps of Demetrius, Pseudo-Eupolemus, and Artapanus.
Gabba, 'The Growth of Anti-Judaism', 618, 638-41.
39 H. Lewy, 'Aristotle and the Jewish Sage According to Clearchus of Soli', HTR 31
(1938) 207; also B. Bar-Kochva, 'The Wisdom of the Jew and the Wisdom of Aristotle', in J.
Kalms and F. Siegert (eds.), Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Brissel 1998 (Minster 1998)
40 Ap. 1.181.
41 Greek Trapi606ou tL i&AXXov v ELXEv. Bar-Kochva ('The Wisdom of the Jew', 245-47)
has argued that the passage cannot mean this, however. Instead, he argues, the passage should be

The Jew was received warmly among the Ionian Greeks and had no less a figure than Aristotle

himself to testify to the excellence of Jewish philosophy and moral virtue.

It stretches credibility to think that the story is true as it stands. For one thing, it contains a

factual error. In the story Clearchus described the Jews as descendants of the Indian Kalanoi, but

there was no such caste.42 Furthermore, the form of the quotation-prefaced and ended with a

warning that material will be omitted, and picking up in the middle of the story-suggests that

Josephus has been highly selective from his source and has omitted details that would have made

the Jewish character seem more foreign.43 As I have shown, this was standard practice for

Josephus as he carefully managed negative impressions. The story probably tells us more about

Clearchus' musings about Jews than anything else, for it reflects a common ancient Greek belief

that easterners had a strange and wonderful kind of wisdom and philosophy, but it also served to

demonstrate Josephus' contention that the Jews were not a recently-derived race of people

(contra Apion). Most of all, it has a well-respected Greek referring to a Jew as one who was

Greek in his language and in his spirit. A better endorsement of Jewish intellectual culture would

have been hard to imagine, yet Josephus was careful not to over-play the story. As it stands the

story hints that some of Aristotle's brilliance was due to his encounter with this Jew, and hence

with Jewish intellectualism, but it does not belabor the notion.

Further alignment of Jews with Greeks was achieved when Josephus compared the two on

the matter of national slanders: OEOTro'irro p'ev Trv 'AOirvaim v trv 65 AXKE&6LovVLGV

read as "he rather conveyed something of the things he had," taking i&xxov in an absolute sense
instead of as a comparative. Reading the words this way results in the passage asserting that this
Jewish fellow had integrated himself enough into Greek culture sufficiently to engage Aristotle
in conversation on substantial philosophical topics. This is how Clement understood the passage,
Strom. 1.15.
42 Bar-Kochva, 'The Wisdom of the Jew', 247.
43 Lewy 223-6; Gabba, 'The Growth of Anti-Judaism', 621.

noXuKpwr(1 6( 6' 5r6v TpLTro.XLLK6v ypa'*cU ou y&p 6 1 OEO6Trolrr61 -OTLV (v o'iOVTUC TLVE- KcML

Triv OT1Pcdov Tr6OXLV TrpooaCEapEV TroX&a 65 KaL TitcaLO Ev TXLL LoTopcL'LK Trepi iTGV

TrpoeLprtievov K0CL Trepi AloXXv pepX oaifll4Kev ("Theopompus slandered Athens, Polycrates

slandered Sparta, and the one who wrote the Tripoliticus (for he certainly was not Theopompus

as some think) fastened upon Thebes, and Timaeus in his histories slandered many of those just

mentioned and others also").44 The Jews were in good Greek company here, even if what they

had in common was that they both had been the victims of malicious literary defamation. This is

reminiscent of the implicit comparison noted in the Bellum Judaicum, where the impression was

created that the Jewish experience in the First Jewish War was much like the experience of the

Greeks at the hands of their enemies. Another function of the story was that it put the Jews side-

by-side with the Greeks in popular sentiment. I noted in chapter three that Roman admiration of

the Greeks was also tempered with contempt, so even in their experience of contempt, the Jews

had something in common with the Greeks. In Contra Apionem 2.130 he again compared the

Jews' national misfortunes with those of the Greeks as he refuted the slander that Jewish history

was full of defeats. So was the history of others, Josephus replied, including the Greeks. Defeat,

says Josephus, does not mean the victims were inferior people. ouvdei.j wvnei,disen tau/ta toi/j

paqou/sin ("No one reproached those who suffered these things").45 In the same passage he

latently compared the destruction of the Jerusalem temple to the destruction of the famous

shrines in Athens, Ephesus, and Delphi. Again, the Jews were in very good Greek company here.

I have noted that Josephus, in his major works, used Greek terms to describe various

aspects of Jewish culture even when those terms did not precisely fit (terms such as LXooocao').

In the Contra Apionem, however, Josephus went even farther and actually invented a new word:

44Ap. 1.221.
45 Ap. 2.131.

OEoKpariLa. It appears in his explanation of the Mosaic legal code: 6 6' TI[erEpo voio0eirt; e'l

[Ev TOUvTo)V OU60oTLOuV cdTrEiL6v o 6' &v TL( E'LTrOL pLc CFcU4vo TO6V X,6yov OEoKpUccL'v cdTrE6ELE Tb

TrOXLLTEUa cO OE T iv &p~iv Kcd Tb KpaTO( &vacOEL; ("But our legislator envisioned none of these

[other kinds of governments], but he created the government which one might call by a strained

expression a Theocracy, attributing authority and power to God").46 The fact that he used the

word prefaced by a kind of apology (it is "a strained expression") surely indicates that Josephus

coined this word.47 There was no term in either Hebrew or Aramaic that was equivalent to it. The

Jewish TrOXLuL tca is a OEOKparci, Josephus says.

As ingenious as this was, again the term does not exactly seem to fit. There are at least two

problems here. First, the picture from the canonical Biblical texts is that God delivered the law to

Moses, who then taught it to the people. A law of divine origin was a common-enough idea in

the Ancient Near East,48 but not necessarily in Hellenic culture. The Greek concept of a

TrOXLUtEUia involved a different idea, that of a legislator (a vo[oo&erit) who assigned specific roles

to various parts of the state.49 Josephus changed the Biblical picture to fit a Hellenistic mold. The

problem is that, technically, Josephus has Moses as the author of the TroULtEUIia, who then assigns

God the role of chief legal authority.5o In attempting to describe the Jewish "constitution" as a

TrOXLTEUiaU of the great lawgiver Moses, he therefore actually had God in a subordinate role,

46 Ap. 2.165.
47 Amir, 'Josephus on the Mosaic "Constitution"', 20.
48 For example, the famous stele that records the Code of Hammurabi depicts, at the top,
the king in the presence of the god Shamash, receiving symbols of authority (a rod and a ring).
The implication is that the laws Hammurabi published had divine authority behind them, if not
divine origin. Shamash was, among other things, a god of justice.
49 Some (like Plato) claimed divine origin for laws, but most Greeks seem to have viewed
this as a ploy to get people to obey them. Cf Str. 16.2.39: TCB0T y&p OTr(o Twrori AXTrlOeL' 'EiXL,
Trcap& ye TOtL; avpoiTrOLt ETrErTOTEUTO KUCL EVEV'LLoro ("For these things, whatever truth they
have, are believed and enacted by men").
50 Amir, 'Josephus on the Mosaic "Constitution"', 22.

"which seems to be the consequence of grafting a religious concept onto a secular

background."51 As I noted concerning the Antiquitates Judaicae, sometimes Josephus' zeal to

relate the Jews to the Greeks resulted in an anomaly. Second, Josephus explicitly distanced the

Mosaic TrOXLTiEUx from three other forms of government that were well-known to his readers:

monarchies, oligarchies, and republics.52 In doing so he mimicked Plato, who similarly rejected

all other forms of government for a unified system that bore the name of the god who provided

its justice.53 This conscious distancing of Jewish culture from Hellenistic culture, even though

following a Greek model (Plato) to do it, seems unusual for an author who otherwise strained to

make Jewish institutions look as Greek as possible, but it is understandable when we remember

that there are some things about Judaism that Josephus was not at all ready to surrender to

Hellenism, and chief on that list was always Jewish religious practices and ethics. Josephus saw

the Jewish TroXL EuLa as inextricably bound up with Jewish religion. To describe the government

in purely secular terms would have been to give up the unique religious content of it, and this he

would not do. We have here, therefore, a place in which Josephus seems to have been caught

between managing a Hellenistic impression for his readers on the one hand, and preserving his

Jewish religious sensibilities on the other hand. His solution, technically, failed at both. In an

ironic way, however, Josephus' invention of this word managed to answer another criticism that

had been leveled against the Jews, namely that the Jews had nothing innovative in their history.54

Another criticism Apion leveled against the Jews was that they settled in a poorly-chosen

place in Alexandria:

51 Amir, 'Josephus on the Mosaic "Constitution"', 22.
52 Ap. 2.164.
53 Pl., Lg. 4.713a. cf Y. Amir, 'Theokratia as a Concept of Political Philosophy', Scripta
Classica Israelica 8-9 (1989) 83-105.
54 Ap. 2.135.

EKpoXacLa ("they settled at the harborless sea, near the pounding of the waves"),55 and he

expressed surprise that the Jews there should even be acknowledged as Alexandrians. Clearly

Apion had portrayed the Jews as outsiders in an extreme way, not even worthy of association

with the city in which they lived. Josephus' rebuttal to this quickly turned into a discussion of

Jewish privileges not only in Alexandria but in other major centers of the Hellenistic world. The

Jewish presence in that part of Alexandria was, according to Josephus, due to the grant of

Alexander himself and was further confirmed by the Ptolemaic monarchs,56 public monuments,

and Caesar. The combination of both Greek and Roman recognition is emphatic. Public

recognition of the Jews' rightful place in this leading Hellenistic city was an important matter,

especially for Josephus' program of ethnicity-building. According to him, then, the Jews rightly

bore the title of "Alexandrians" just as was the custom in other places:

6LUE)ppOLV 76T O T(V OLKL'OTGV TOV TTpoor(yopL'(V Xa cpcVOUoLV. KU1 iL 6EL TrEpi U(V
c"XXov aX.eyLV CUI clV y&p toiav ol uyv 'AVuL6XOtLa Kar0OLKO0VTE( 'AvrLoXEdt vomLonCova TcL
Trsv y&p oTrOXLTULcV tahuTO E'6(l)KEV 6 KTLiOTrh T e XEUKO 60io Ai oL Ev 'Eiocr KS L KUrc( trlv
"XXIrv '(oviav TOLT aUUOLyEvEoL TroTX iTLL 6o)VUOUiOLV TOiTO T0rapaoCX6vTv WaVUoi, O ,V
6Lx560Xv. '5 6 t 'PG)4L,)V LXavOp&Urri Tr T&LV ouv tLLKpOu 6eLV G T| U I(,U)V TrTporTyopL(0X

("For all who are called to any colony, even if they are greatly separated from one another
in their own race, take their appellative from their founders. And why is it necessary to
speak of others? For the Jews living in Antioch are called Antiochenes, for Seleucus the
founder gave them citizenship, just as the Jews living in Ephesus and the rest of Ionia share
the same name with the native citizens, this granted also to them by the royal successors.
And the benevolence of the Romans has extended still further, that their appellative has
been bestowed not only on men but also on entire great nations, so even those who were
formerly Iberians, and Tyrians, and Sabines are called Romans").5

55 Ap. 2.33.
56 Cf. AJ 12.8, where Josephus claimed that Ptolemy I (Soter) gave the Jews the status of
57 Ap. 2.38-40.

This was important evidence, for it showed Jews both enjoying and being viewed as regular

members of major Hellenistic cities. Alexandria, Syrian Antioch, and Ephesus were among the

largest and most important Hellenistic cities in Josephus' day, so it was not as if the Jews'

political status was recognized only in backwater towns. Josephus made an emphatic point that

he was not merely citing a political theory (KacL i 6el Trepi T v &XXWv XEYELv). The fact was,

according to Josephus, that in the greatest cities of the Roman world the Jews had been treated

exactly like any other group within Hellenistic culture. Moreover, they bore the same local

names as the natives in the old Greek heartland itself, the western coast of Asia Minor, and he

implies that the Jews were certainly included under the umbrella of "Roman."58 It is the Greek

recognition of Jews, however, that gets the most attention from Josephus. After the statement

quoted above Josephus goes into a short history of benevolent treatment of the Jews by

Alexander III, Ptolemy I (Soter), Ptolemy II (Philadelphus), Ptolemy III (Euergetes), and

Ptolemy VI (Philometor), a history which emphasizes the loyalty and service of the Jews to

Greek rulers of Egypt. The trouble with Cleopatra found the Jews on the side of the Romans, and

Josephus duly noted that this loyalty was attested by both Julius Caesar and Augustus. Again,

both Greeks and Romans had acknowledged the Jews as a significant constituency and ally.59

At Contra Apionem 2.145 Josephus finished his refutation of the criticisms of Apion and

turned to other slanders from other authors, namely Apollonius Molon and Lysimachus, whose

slanders concerned Moses. While he said ou y&p EyKOc4Ltov cTu4(Xv v TrpoELXOidTrv ouyypt4EL

58 Josephus' statement about the Iberians is probably to be taken as a generalization. Not
all communities in Roman Hispania enjoyed Roman citizenship. See T. Mommsen, The
Provinces of the Roman Empire (Chicago 1968) 71. See also n."a" in Thackeray's Loeb
translation, 1:308.
59 Josephus repeats this important fact in Ap. 2.72.

("I do not propose to write an encomium about ourselves"),60 he again turned to Greek models

for comparison. Specifically, Josephus claimed that Moses surpassed the greatest names in Greek

legal history. rlt'i roivuv Tbv ti~TeTpov voLo0eTirlv iTv 6Trou65rl ooTv [V1[rLovEuo[0evodv

votoOeTrTv TrpoUyetLV pXaULOT6lL AuKoipyoL y&p KCaL E6owVE KCL Z&AEUKO0 6 TV v AOKpoV KCL

TriVTE o i OaugcuCt(6o4voL Trap& ToL "EXX)iotILV EXOe 6 KCL TTpdorlv o, Turp6o EKEiVOV

TUapcapcA~ovotL (aCvoVTtL ("Thus I say that our lawgiver surpasses in antiquity all the known

lawgivers anywhere. For Lycurguses and Solons and Zaleucus of the Locrians and all those who

are marveled at by the Greeks have appeared only yesterday or the day before in comparison to

him").61 Similarly, he explicitly compared Moses with Minos: otoL6roX p'tv 6U1 TL [a6&r6] Tl iv

6 voioOQ&irl o0 yO6r1 oi)6' a(TCratUv (TrrEp XoL60opo0vret XEyouoLV &6iKWX UaXX' o ouq vrap&a oti

"EXX)rotL aoxow V6Lv Mivo yeyovivEL KCaL [eT& TraTa Toi( 0(XXou( voTo0e(uao ("such a one

was indeed the kind of person our lawgiver was; not a swindler, nor a cheat, which is the very

thing the revilers unjustly say, but such a one as Minos had been among the Greeks, and the

other lawgivers afterwards"),62 and went on to extol the Jewish legal charter as the best that

could be imagined. What is surprising is that Josephus' description of the Jewish politico-

religious system in the Contra Apionem does not so much follow the contours of the description

in the canonical Biblical account, but follows the one in Hecataeus of Abdera, a Greek author.63

In 2.168 he came even closer to claiming explicitly that the Jews were the source of

Greek wisdom. He says:

MTUTa TrEpi OEO (povELV o'L oocjTaTroL Trap' "EXXrotLv O6L p~v E6L6t&XOioCUv EKELVOU T&(
apXcLX; 1TrapaoX6vTro EG) v6v XyetLV OTL 6' EorL KfXCL KfCL rpiTrV tvra TOUD OEO ()U'OEL KCL
EycUaXLOTi'TL o(66ppa E apTup'lKcOL' KCL y&p IiuIcayo6pc( KCL 'Avaaypc(p KCaL InXrTov oi

60 Ap. 2.147.
61 Ap. 2.154. See pp.248-9 above for Josephus' appropriation of the phrase "yesterday or
the day before" from Greek literature.
62 Ap. 2.161.
63 Droge 137.

TE [ET' EKELVOv &(TO TTr OTO&( ()LXOF6o()OL KC(L [LKPOu 6ELv (TdCavTEc oiUmw aivovTaL TrEpi
Tfl( Toi OEO UoCE T epovTiK6OIT

("I now leave off from saying that the wisest of the Greeks learned these things about God
because they were taught by him [Moses] who provided the principles, for they testify
greatly that they are good and fitting to the nature and majesty of God. For Pythagoras, and
Anaxagoras, and Plato, and those philosophers who came after him from the Stoa, and
nearly all others, exhibited as much, having thought about the nature of God").

Josephus was in a bold mood here. Josephus says he would not make the explicit claim that the

Jews were in fact the source of Greek intellectualism (although his words produce that same

effect), but would allow the evidence to speak for itself. If the Jews had these ideas about God

first, and then the Greeks had similar ones, the implication was that the Jews were the source for

the Greeks. As if he could hold it in no longer, and convinced he has made his case, he finally

said in 2.281: TrproTOL [ev y&p o0L Trap& Tol; "EXXTIrL iLXooo0'oCvT(E TcO [iev 6OKelV TrC& irpLa

6Lt~eUXTT ov Ev 6e TOL TTrpUyaOL Kcd TU () LXoooC(FLV EKELVG) KrXTiKoOOuiOTr0oUv ("The earliest

philosophers among the Greeks, while they seemingly observed their ancestral customs, in their

deeds and in their philosophies they followed him [Moses]"). Josephus seems to have failed to

keep his promise of avoiding encomium, yet he was sharing in a particular apologetic that Jews

had been advancing for nearly 300 years. "In addition to Aristobulus, the Jewish historians

Eupolemus and Artapanus presented Moses and the patriarchs as culture-bringers to the

Egyptians, Babylonians, and Phoenicians, who in turn civilized the Greeks."64 The cue for this

was actually, again, the Greek Hecataeus of Abdera, who had established a paradigm of great

civilizations branching off from Egypt. Droge notes:

Hecataeus had produced a model and, more importantly, had established a relationship
between Egyptians, Greeks, and Jews which would become the standard for nearly three
centuries. Both Josephus' method of cultural comparison and his representation of Judaism
remain in thrall to Hecataeus' ethnographic model. To insist, as he does at the beginning of
his treatise, that the first Greek philosophers were 'disciples' of the Egyptians and
Babylonians, was to say nothing new. ... Whether as native Egyptians or as resident aliens,

64 Droge 128.

the Jews had been linked to a prestigious source which conferred on them an enviable
antiquity and pedigree. In this sense, then, the Jews were called upon to perpetuate their
own myth in the terms in which the Greeks had invented it.65

The result was that not only were the Jews in Josephus' presentation quite Greek in their legal

traditions, but the Greeks turned out to be quite Jewish, and, more importantly, if Droge's

assessment is correct, Josephus was bringing his Greek readers back to a well-established

understanding of Jewish origins that was well-rooted in Greek thought. The malicious versions

of Jewish origins circulated by anti-Judaic writers such as Apion were thus seen to be a

perversion of a Greek story that originally complimented the Jews.

Josephus' defense of Jewish law culminated with another comparison to Athenian and

Spartan traditions. As Josephus had expounded the virtues and excellencies of Jewish law for

Greek readers, he was aware that he had painted a picture that probably seemed too good to be

true, a picture of a nation of people who had the highest philosophical concept of God, who lived

according to the highest moral standards, who found unity in all things that were good, and who

had a long history of faithfulness to their original laws. The problem, of course, was that the

more he elevated Jewish piety, the more it began to sound like a criticism of non-Jews, and that

brought to the fore again the matter of Jewish exclusivity. Josephus' answer was that Plato's high

ideals (which Josephus claims did not reach as high as Jewish ones) evoked the same kind of

criticism. 66 That is, the Jewish religion was comparable to some of the loftiest thoughts in the

Greek philosophical tradition, including the response they both drew. If that were not enough,

Josephus then conceded that some found the Spartans to be the better legal and moral example,

for they long remained faithful to the laws of Lycurgus. Even here, however, the Jews prove to

be the better ones, Josephus argued, because the Spartans abandoned their legal faithfulness

65 Droge 133.
66 Ap. 2.220-35.

when times got tough.67 The Jews, on the other hand, had remained faithful to their law when

they were persecuted (or so Josephus claimed). So again, the Jews had out-Greeked the Greeks

themselves. Josephus was using a rhetorical technique of defending an apparent transgression as

an expression of loyalty to tradition,68 something Greek readers surely would have noticed.

The implicit criticism of pagan religion became explicit in 2.236-249, where Josephus

entered the well-known Greek tradition of criticism of the morality of the ancient gods,

following the oL LOL of Greeks such as Xenophanes of Colophon, Heraclitus of Ephesus, Timon

of Philus, and Greek skepticism in general.69 He defended his attack on Greek religion by

appealing to the Greeks themselves. TL' y&p TuOv Trap& Tot; "E'EXrTOLv Eirr oo4LX EteOau[Cao~ive)V


iOL OL6UTXj a 660ac Trep'iL E00v k apXf TrotL TrXrlOEoLV EityKtroTrELpav ("For who of those

admired by the Greeks for wisdom did not rebuke the most famous of the poets and the most

trusted of the legislators because they sowed from the beginning such estimates of the gods

among the multitudes?").70 These Tteau1Cao[EvoL are later called oL 4pov'oreL SLaUEpoVTEc ("those

who are superior in thought").71 The point is that if the high character of Judaism came across as

a criticism of Greek religion, this criticism itself was a Hellenic kind of thing because the noblest

among the Greeks themselves criticized their ancestral religion. Thus again the Jews were

standing well within the thought and practice of the noble Greeks of the past.

67 Ap. 2.227.
68 As seen in Aelius Theon, Exercises 8: "Whenever we seek forgiveness we shall have
starting points from the following: first, that the action was unintentional, either through
ignorance of chance or necessity; but if it was intentional, one should say that it was reverent,
that it was customary, that it was useful." In G. Kennedy (trans.), Progymnasmata: Greek
Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric (Atlanta 2003) 49.
69 Josephus had mentioned this feature of Greek religion briefly before, in AJ 1.22.
70 Ap. 2.239.
71 Ap. 2.242.

Jewish refusal to assimilate to Greek religion was, of course, at the core of the Jewish

social problem. Apion had put his finger on the problem when he asked, concerning the Jews of

Alexandria, quomodo ergo ... si sunt cives, eosdem deos quos Alexandrini non colunt? ("how

then is it ... if they are citizens, that they do not worship the same gods as the Alexandrians?"),72

and the issue was raised again by Apollonius Molon. Interestingly, nowhere did Josephus say

that the practice of Judaism entailed the rejection of the pagan gods,73 and however numerous

proselytes were, Josephus consistently downplayed their presence.74 Instead, Josephus' response

was that it was a mark of piety that Jews remained faithful to the laws which Moses gave them

from God. He argued that what contemporary critics viewed as a fault in the Jews was actually a

virtue when seen in the light of classical Greek practice. Plato, the Spartans, and the ancient

Athenians prized the same attitude toward laws and moral behavior as proved by their treatments

of Socrates, Anaxagoras, Diagoras, and Protagoras.75 If such a virtuous attitude was judged to be

intolerance, then the Greeks themselves were guilty of the same offense. Josephus put forth the

case of Ninus as additional evidence:

v0oG) 6' ~v TOUTO Trap' UUXTOL( KEKo)XU4Evov KMCL TL[opLa Kar& TV v eov LoayOVTov OE6V
,pLoOTo Ovvatro0 oL 6e TOLOUt VO'[G XP6)iEvoL 65rXov OTTL TOi)b (;) LXXWV OU'K EVOiL(Lov
E VaL 9eo0U o01 yp S&v X~f i LV TOL; T',OV UOTrOXAUaELV 'Oi1oUv

("For they executed Ninus the priestess, since someone accused her, that she lulled people
to the custom of strange gods. This had been forbidden by them, and a punishment of death
had been determined for those who bring in a strange god. Now those who act by such a

72 Ap. 2.65.
73 S. Cohen, 'Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew', HTR 82 (1989) 27.
74 S. Cohen, 'Respect for Judaism by Gentiles', HTR 80 (1987) 427-8. Similarly, C.
Gerber suggests that Josephus' depiction of proselytes in the Ap. is largely a literary device. 'Des
Josephus Apologie fur Judentum', in J. Kalms and F. Siegert (hg.), Internationales Josephus-
Kolloquium Bruissel 1998 (Munster 1998) 265.
75 Ap. 2.255-268.
76 An emendation from viv in the manuscripts.

law make it clear that they do not consider the gods of others to be gods, otherwise they
would not have begrudged themselves to enjoy more gods").77

So again, the Jews were actually like the Greeks in this regard. The Greeks were not an intolerant

people, but were simply zealous to preserve the purity of their religious customs. If that was a

good Greek quality, then the Jews lacked nothing in that regard.


Perceived criticism against the Jews provided Josephus with further opportunities to

construct his Greek ethnicity for the Jewish people. The program that characterized his earlier,

major works continued in his later, minor works. There is less of this collective program

discernible in the Vita because that work concentrated on Josephus himself and not on the Jewish

people as a whole. Even so, Josephus described his own affiliations and conduct in way that

depicted him as an insider who was in touch with Hellenistic culture and politics, and he latently

used Greek standards for historians to portray himself favorably to his readers and to discredit

his detractors.

The collective program of ethnicity-building is more visible in the Contra Apionem, where

broad slanders against the Jews allowed Josephus further opportunities to align Jews with

Greeks. The extent to which Josephus went to achieve this alignment in the Contra Apionem is

paralleled only in the Antiquitates Judaicae,78 and in some ways exceeds it. In the Contra

Apionem Josephus compared the Jews and Greeks by using Greek standards of historiography,79

by citing several famous Greek figures who were acquainted with the Jews (culminating in a

story concerning Aristotle and a Jew), by comparing the misfortunes of both Jews and Greeks,

77 Ap. 2.267-8. She is mentioned in D. Adv. Boeot. 39.2.
78 Spilsbury (348-67) has noted the extensive similarities between the Contra Apionem
and the Antiquitates Judaicae.
79 My own reading has confirmed the view of S. Cohen in this regard, who has noted that
in the Contra Apionem "Josephus attacks the Greeks with their own weapons." S. Cohen,
'History and Historiography in the Against Apion of Josephus', History and Theory 27 (1988) 5.

by using Greek terms to describe Jewish institutions (including one Josephus invented), and by

emphasizing the political status Jews had enjoyed, especially under Greek rulers. He also

managed negative impressions of Jews by reverting to the same theme that characterized the

Antiquitates Judaicae, namely the lofty nature of Jewish piety. Even here, however, the

apologetics were accompanied by comparison with a Greek notion of piety.

The Contra Apionem has a more aggressive presentation of Jewish ethnicity than does

Josephus' other works. This is due to the nature of the work itself and the circumstances which

prompted its origin. Continued anti-Jewish polemics, in spite of Josephus' thoroughly Greek

depiction of them in the Antiquitates Judaicae, called for strong rebuttal. Moreover, it would

seem that Jewish-Roman relations took a downward turn in the reign of Domitian. A shortage of

cash prompted Domitian to collect the Jewish tax with more rigor,80 and the emperor was taking

his deity more seriously all the time, especially against those (like Jews81 and Christians82)

whose religious scruples or philosophical ideas conflicted with acknowledging his divine

status.83 It is possible to see in Josephus' writings a growing sense of apprehension about the

nature of Jewish-Roman relations.84 The significance of this for the present study is that the

deterioration of this relationship would have prompted increased efforts on Josephus' part to

assert a Jewish ethnicity that called for acceptance in the Roman world, and this is exactly what

we see.

However, a note of caution is appropriate here. We should not jump to the conclusion that

Josephus' portrayal of things necessarily reflects the social realities of his day accurately. "It is

80 Suet., Dom. 12.
81 Cf D.C. 67.14, where the philosopher Juventius Celsus was threatened with
banishment and escaped by acknowledging the emperor as "master and god."
82 Cf the New Testament's Apocalypse of John (the Book ofRevelation).
83 Cf D.C. 67.13.
84 Case 10-20.

notoriously unwise to rely on a group's self-description to produce an accurate picture of that

group."'8 This is rhetorical polemic, not objective history. As I have noted, there are several

oddities about Josephus' method in the Contra Apionem. He does not tell us who was

complaining that the Jews were not an ancient culture. He denigrated Greek history when it

appeared to criticize the Jews, but piled up names of Greek historians when he thought he saw in

them references to Jews, and the main charge he set out to refute does not sound like a typical

Greek complaint about foreigners. He was not accurate when he used the Greek historians, and

his use of Greek terms to describe Jewish institutions was dubious. A good case can be made that

Josephus was dealing more with his own perception of anti-Jewish sentiments than with real

ones.86 After all, he began the treatise by mentioning that several people had criticized his

Antiquitates Judaicae. He then took that to be a criticism of Jewish culture and ethnicity

generally. It is not that widespread anti-Jewish perceptions could not have existed. I have argued

above, in chapter three, that the Roman world had its share of anti-Jewish sentiment, and surely

Josephus' perceptions were grounded in his actual social situation. He could not have invented

these objections wholesale, written a book to refute them, and expected people to take the result

seriously. But the Contra Apionem does not necessarily reflect its historical context in a purely

objective way. The fact that Josephus' personal situation compromised his objectivity and

sometimes interfered with his larger purpose will always be a factor in reading his works, and to

insist on deciding between him writing out of personal motives or out of national interests is to

create a false dichotomy. Both played a part, but how to weight them will be a matter of ongoing

debate. For the purposes of this study, however, a stance is not necessary. Ethnicities are not

necessarily driven by the realities of the situations in which they are proposed, but by a perceived

85 Goodman, 'Jews and Judaism in the Mediterranean Diaspora', 182.
86 Gruen, 'Greeks and Jews: Mutual Misperceptions', 39-50.

crisis on the part of those who propose them. Whether the perception accurately reflects the

reality is beside the point. What we see is that the factors that typically motivate people to forge

and promote an ethnicity were in place for Josephus, and the Contra Apionem makes sense when

read in this light.


The literary works of Flavius Josephus were addressed to non-Jews. This is our first clue

concerning the nature and purpose of these works. Josephus was not engaging in an inside

conversation among Jews over how, or to what extent, Hellenism compromised Jewish religious

principles or Jewish ethnic identity (the two were closely related). He was instead initiating a

dialogue with the larger Roman-Hellenistic world of his day. This dialogue was prompted by a

wide-spread and persistent anti-Jewish sentiment in Hellenistic society, a sentiment that had

originated in Egypt, but by the first century CE had spread to many other places. Diaspora Jews

were often subjected to unfair treatments of various kinds and were the objects of literary

slanders. They were seldom in a position to access the means by which upward social mobility

could have been attained, and they often had their temple contributions confiscated while local

Roman officials either looked on or encouraged it. As a result, they often felt antagonized by

Roman imperium. Their exclusive dedication (which they viewed as the expression of piety) to

their own religion was interpreted as malice towards all others, and those who did not understand

Jewish customs often put a malicious spin on them. More than anything else, the First Jewish

War had ended in a crushing defeat of the Jews that was institutionalized in the political

machinery of the Roman empire and that was used to bolster the image of the Flavian dynasty at

Jewish expense. The Jewish social and cultural image had suffered greatly in Josephus' day.

They had been marginalized and discounted in almost every way.

It is not as if the Jews had deliberately isolated themselves culturally from the rest of the

world. Indeed, they had a long history of Hellenization going back to the Seleucid period in

Palestine. Of course, this was not uniform for Jews everywhere, since Hellenization was not a

uniform phenomenon, nor was Judaism a monolithic social entity. However, in many places and

in many ways the Jews had deliberately assimilated Hellenistic culture. There was a widespread

use of the Greek language on their part, and the evidence suggests that this was not simply due to

the practical exigencies of the day. The LXX was the Bible of most Jews in the first century CE.

They used Greek architectural styles for their public buildings (especially synagogues), and they

were integrated into the work force of the ancient world across the spectrum of usual

occupations. The Greek literature produced by Jewish authors such as Artapanus, Aristobulus,

and Ezekiel the Tragedian, as well as the anonymous authors of the Jewish Sibylline Oracles and

the Letter ofAristeas thoroughly incorporated Greek literary motifs in their works. Even in

southern Palestine, where the presence of the Jerusalem temple offered strong resistance to

Hellenism, Greek culture within Jewish institutions was apparent. Herod the Great had left

public buildings throughout his domain, most of which prominently bore explicit Hellenistic

features. We have argued that the evidence reveals a picture of the Jews not as a people who

found Hellenism imposed on them and who reluctantly tolerated it, but as a people who were

willing to adapt to the social forces around them and who did not see the Hellenization as

inherently consisting in a compromise with their collective identity.

What was the subject of the dialogue Josephus initiated with the Hellenistic world? A close

look at Josephus' literary methods holds an answer: the subject of the dialogue was the Greek

quality of the Jewish people. Throughout his writings Josephus portrayed Jews as sharing in the

qualities and experiences of the noble Greeks of the past. In the Bellum Judaicum, Josephus

recounted the First Jewish War following the Greek models of Herodotus, Thucydides, and

Polybius in particular, but also participating in the conventions of the Greek traditions of

historiography in general. It was "the greatest war ever," it was fought between a superpower

and much smaller nation, people found themselves unwilling participants in it, and its record was

provided by one who fought in the conflict and witnessed much of it firsthand. This mimesis was

not merely a formal exercise meant to be a token gesture toward the conventions of the day.

Instead it lay at the heart of Josephus' narrative and colored almost everything in it, including

Josephus' presentation of himself as an historian after the Greek paradigm. In addition to

adopting the formal elements of the tradition, Josephus also used specific scenes from Greek

history as types for his depiction of the Jews, and he even used elements of the Greek

historiographical tradition when did they not fit well with his own story (as in his use of uuXrlI).

Complementary to this was his suppression of things (like the Jewish sects) that were uniquely

Jewish and recasting them in Greek terms, or the suppression of things that would have reminded

his readers of Roman animosity (as seen in his favorable portrait of Titus). In the Antiquitates

Judaicae, Josephus used an &pxcaLoXoyLc of the past as a vehicle for presenting the essential

agreement between the Jews and the ancient Greeks culturally. The fluid way in which

foundational stories were treated and understood in his day allowed him the flexibility to do this.

Around the central facet of a holy God Josephus told the stories of the Jewish Biblical tradition

in such a way that Jewish piety resembled Greek virtue. He changed the vocabulary of the stories

to echo Greek stories, he used Greek terms to describe Jewish cultural or political institutions

(even though the terms did not always fit), he downplayed or ignored aspects of the stories that

would have seemed especially foreign for a Greek reader, and he labored to establish

connections between the Jews and the Greeks in the past. He presented major figures in Jewish

history like Greek exempla who embodied Hellenistic ideals, he emphasized those episodes in

the tradition where Jews made positive impressions on Greeks, and he manipulated the

presentation of stories that presented the Jews in a bad light, or that presented theological

problems, in order to minimize those aspects of Jewish culture that would have seemed foreign

or hostile to Hellenistic society and to highlight the aspect of Jewish piety or innocence in them.

What was the purpose of the dialogue Josephus initiated with the Hellenistic world? There

were other accounts of the First Jewish War circulating in Josephus' day. The problem was in the

way they depicted the Jews, and Josephus in particular. Similarly, there was already an account

of Jewish history written in Greek (the LXX) for any Gentile who may have wished to know the

facts of that history and the origins of Jewish culture. For Josephus, however, the problem with

the LXX seems to have been that although it was written in the Greek language, it was not Greek

in its spirit or presentation, and its characters did not look like Greeks, not to mention that it was

a collection of fairly disparate materials that lacked literary and linguistic cohesion. That is, the

Jews still looked strange and aloof from the world in that telling of the story. Like those other

accounts of the First Jewish War, the problem with the LXX lay also in the way it depicted the

Jews. Furthermore, the LXX did not extend its history down to the present day, and thus did not

fit the literary expectations of a Greek reader in that regard either. In Josephus' view, the Jews

were suffering socially and culturally under the malicious perceptions of others, and there was

nothing to which Gentiles could turn to see it differently. The customs, the history, and the

version of the war they knew obscured (if not downright perverted), in Josephus' opinion, the

true identity of the Jewish people. Therefore Josephus set out to fill the void, to provide a

presentation of the Jews that showed them in the light in which Hellenistic society ought to see


The point, then, of the Bellum Judaicum was not simply to provide a Jewish account of the

war, but to provide a corrected account of the war that presented the Jews in the proper way. The

other accounts of the war had presented the Jewish people (as a group) as hostile foreigners, but

Josephus wanted them to be viewed as a people who embodied those features that had already

been accepted (even if grudgingly) in the Roman world: those of the ancient Greeks. The Bellum

Judaicum thus showed how closely the Jews had paralleled Greek experience in their own. This

point was made on a larger scale in the Antiquitates Judaicae. Its purpose was not to explain

Jewish culture to Greek readers, for if Josephus simply wanted to explain the various facets of

that history and culture as they appeared in the LXX, he could have done so easily. The problem

with explanation is that while it may address misunderstandings or provide a rationale for what is

mysterious, it leaves its object as what it is. An explanation of foreign customs still leaves the

reader with foreign customs. But the perception of Jews as a people of strange, foreign (and thus

hostile) ways was the problem. More than simple explanation was needed. Thus the purpose of

the Antiquitates Judaicae was to show its intended non-Jewish readership that the essential

features and characters of Jewish culture and history were, for all practical purposes, Greek.

Josephus was re-describing Jewish identity for his readers. Like most Jews, Josephus was able to

feel at home personally in the Hellenistic world, but he perceived that non-Jews did not

reciprocate the feeling. His two major literary productions were an attempt to bridge the gap of

negative perceptions for non-Jews, to show them that they could view the Jews in the same way

they viewed Greeks, because they both had the same qualities. He found the seeds of such a use

of historiography within the Greek tradition already, for Greek historiography had long

contained ethnographic elements.

It has been common in the scholarship on Josephus to refer to his writings as apologetic.

While this description is correct, it does not go far enough. There is more than ordinary

apologetics going on here. The thorough-going nature of his application of Greek models to

Jewish things, resulting in omission of old materials or invention of new elements, shows that

more than defense was involved. Josephus engaged in a re-writing of the traditional materials in

order to present the Jewish people in a different way. The result, while not perfect, would have

been fairly straightforward for his target audience. As they read about the Jews in Josephus'

writings, readers would have come away with the impression that the Jews were remarkably

similar to the ancient Greeks in many ways. The better way to describe this is that Josephus was

constructing an ethnicity for the Jews. "From a 'bird's eye view' the construction of ethnicity is

likely to be manifested as multiple overlapping boundaries constituted by representations of

cultural difference, which are at once transient, but also subject to reproduction and

transformation in the ongoing process of social life."820 This describes succinctly, and exactly,

what Josephus was doing as he applied Greek models to Jewish history.

An ethnicity is a dynamic social construct by which a person, or group, defines themselves

in relation to others out of a basic psychological need for self-esteem. The need for such self-

definition often arises out of a sense of crisis that threatens one's established self-understanding.

The crisis can consist of almost anything, including war or large-scale social forces (such as

Hellenism) that confront a social group in a way that is perceived as threatening. At the heart of

such a construct is a putative myth of shared descent. This myth may be understood literally, as

referring to an actual blood tie, but more often it is construed in other ways. Other elements of an

ethnicity are typically things like a shared history, a distinctive culture, a homeland, and a sense

of community solidarity. Not everything needs to be negotiable, and not everything that is

available for negotiation needs to be negotiable to the same extent, nor does every element of an

ethnicity have to bear equal weight. Some elements, such as claim to a homeland, prove to be

expendable in practice. Many factors will determine the course of an ethnical strategy, such as

820 S. Jones, 'Discourses of Identity in the Interpretation of the Past', 70-1.

the power of religious institutions. The nature and value of any particular ethnic identifier

(whether at the level of criteria or indicia) is determined by the socio-historical context in which

the ethnic dialectic is pursued.

As Josephus undertook his reinvention of Jewish ethnicity, he faced all the limiting factors

that any ethnicity faces. He had to negotiate it in the face of a dominant, "other" culture and its

conservative, resistant institutions. He had to make the end result plausible. In the end, an

ethnicity is a proposal for how a certain people are to be understood in relation to the rest of

society. For that reason, the "success" of an ethnicity is ultimately not determined by the people

who forge it, but by the people who are asked to accept it. Josephus' program of building a new

ethnicity for the Jews, of re-inventing Jewish identity for Gentile readers, proved difficult as

evidenced by the fact that he had to follow up his major literary works with two smaller works,

both of which pressed the ethnic agenda again. The credibility of his portrait of Jewish ethnicity

in the Bellum Judaicum was questioned, mostly because of critics who cast aspersions on his

character, and he responded with the Vita, a defense of his own conduct. Greek readers were also

hesitant to accept his picture of Jewish culture and ethnicity in the Antiquitates Judaicae, and he

responded with the Contra Apionem, in which he zealously pressed his case further.

In his literary works Josephus produced an ethnicity for Jews that was unique in its time in

terms of its scope. However, the verdict of history seems to be that Josephus' proposed ethnicity

for the Jews was rejected by both his own people and the Roman world around them. Quotations

from his works do not appear until the end of the second century, where he is first cited by the

Christian author Theophilus of Antioch.821 Josephus is mentioned by Suetonius (Vesp. 5.6) and

Dio Cassius (65.1), but no pagan author apparently cited Josephus until Porphyry, at the end of

821 In Autol. 3.20-3.

the third century CE,822 and no Jewish author cited him until the Middle Ages.823 It is possible,

but not certain, that Dio Cassius used Josephus as a model.824 Eusebius825 in the fourth century

CE said that copies of Josephus' works had been deposited in a library in Rome, but who put

them there we do not know. Later Christians used Josephus generally for their own theological

purposes (which were often anti-Jewish), but not for understanding Jewish ethnicity. We will

close with a few suggestions about why it did not work.

First, neither the Jews nor the Romans were ready for it.826 The Jews were still feeling the

sting of defeat in war, and the Romans were not done manipulating its value to them. Neither

party was in a position to re-think Jewish identity in such a way that the barriers of the past could

be removed. The Roman literary scene was probably not ready for a Jewish Thucydides either.

The problem was that too many other considerations were in play. As J. Hall notes, "... ethnic

identity can sometimes be a matter of an achieved status which vests itself in the garb of an

ascribed one. This happens where an individual manages successfully to persuade his or her

peers that s/he fulfills the criteria for ethnic inclusion, regardless of any objective

considerations."27 However, the objective considerations were too powerful to overcome at the

time the ethnicity was proposed. The context of Roman imperial power made the successful

prosecution of new ethnicities virtually impossible. J. Yinger notes that "In some developing

states, of course, ethnicity has been accepted as an organizing principle, to some degree because

822 In Abst. 4.11.2-14.2.
823 Droge 141.
824 M. Eisman, 'Dio and Josephus: Parallel Analyses', Latomus 36 (1977) 657-73.
825 H.E. 3.9.2.
826 cf Droge 141: "In the end it was an experiment that failed, or perhaps we should say,
an experiment whose time had not yet come. Not even his coreligionists were persuaded."
827 P.28.

no ethnic group has had sufficient power to declare itself the core."828 The opposite, however,

was true in Josephus' context, and Roman identity politics prevailed over Jewish ethnic myth.

Second, the Romans' cultural patience for the Jews had already been exhausted.829 The

differences between Jews and others were perceived as too great to allow them a place on the

inside. The Romans were generally tolerant toward native cultures and were perfectly willing to

extend citizenship to those who adopted Roman mores.830 However, Josephus' proposals were

too little too late. There were just too many things about the square peg of Jewish culture that

could not fit into the round hole of Hellenistic society. In a sense, Josephus' sense of his own

culture, and his aim topreserve it (even though he was trying to put it in Greek guise), was his

biggest obstacle.

Third, we noted in our chapter on ethnicity that any ethnical strategy must attain some

semblance of credibility if it hopes to succeed. There were many elements of Josephus' ethnicity,

however, that failed at precisely this point. Would any Roman really have believed that a Roman

general like Titus was shocked and moved to tears at the sight of his enemies getting what they

deserved? Would they have believed that the expulsion of Jews from Rome in 19 CE was really

caused only by the actions of four men, and that the emperor would be that unfair? Would any

Greek really have believed that Aristotle learned philosophy from a Jew? Would any

Alexandrian have agreed that the Jews in that city were on an equal political footing with the

Alexandrians themselves? In these and similar other places Josephus was trying too hard and

crossed the line of believability. In others ways as well, the project must have seemed like an

attempt to justify a contradiction. If the Jews really were just like the Greeks in Hellenistic

828 'Ethnicity', AnnualReview of Sociology 11 (1985) 169.
829 Yavetz 15-18.
830 Walbank 155.

society, then why did they not participate in the local cults, or why did they send their money to

Jerusalem instead of investing it in the cities where they lived? In some ways, it must have

appeared as an attempt to integrate without compromise.

Fourth, and related to the third reason, is that in some places Josephus' employment of

Greek paradigms comes across as ham-fisted and unsatisfying. As we have noted above, he

crossed a well-known boundary between history and myth when he compared Moses and Homer.

In his attempt to describe the Jewish governmental system in Greek terms he has Moses, not

God, at the head of the Jewish state. He made the Roman army the tool of the Jewish God, and

he admitted his personal bias up front in the Bellum Judaicum (1.9-12), something no self-

respecting Hellenistic historian would have done.831 It certainly made him look inept and not

worth the reading. There were also important features of the Greek historiographical tradition

that an ancient reader would have noticed were lacking in Josephus' major works. For example,

we noted in our study of Josephus' Bellum Judaicum that change and its causes was a major

theme of the Greek historians, and that a war was one manifestation of it. However, Josephus has

a war, but no change. At the beginning of the story Rome ruled the world, and at the end of the

story the world is still securely under Roman control. Similarly, the theme of change is

completely absent from the Antiquitates Judaicae. Instead it sought to justify Jewish traditional

customs by comparison with Greek ones. But in using historiography in this way, Josephus was

acting against a major element of the convention he was trying so hard to employ. "The Greek

and Roman historians were not supposed to be the keepers of tradition."832

Fifth, Josephus' reputation was apparently a continual obstacle to both groups. His

reputation as a Roman sympathizer generally prevented Jews from accepting his literary works.

831 J. Price, 'The Provincial Historian in Rome', 110-11.
832 Momigliano, 'Tradition and the Classical Historian', 284.

That this was an ongoing problem is evidenced by the fact that he had to write the Vita, in

defense of his character and in response to a fellow-Jew, some fifteen years after the publication

of the Antiquitates Judaicae. The problems with his own reputation may even account for why

the Aramaic version of the Bellum Judaicum did not survive antiquity.833 Josephus' Greek

writings appear to have been completely ignored by the Jews of his day. "Understandably, the

cozier he [Josephus] became with the Romans-the conquerors of the Jews-the more detestable

he became to his people. ... His name does not appear in either version of the voluminous

Talmud, which was finally edited in the fifth and sixth centuries, or in any other early Jewish

writing."834 The fact that Josephus apparently did not maintain contact with Jews in Palestine

after settling in Rome probably did not help matters.835 To the Romans Josephus probably

always appeared as little more than a member, however noble in person,836 of that defeated

people who had caused so much trouble in the recent past. It would be a long time before the

Jews recovered from the black eye received in their defeat in 70 CE. Neither group, then, had

much use for him, and in the end his program for Jewish ethnicity was too simplistic to handle

the complicated nature of the situation it was designed to address.

833 Feldman, 'Flavius Josephus Revisited', 839.
834 Mason, Josephus and the New Testament 25. This is due also in part to the fact that
the rabbis generally avoided references to the war.
835 Moehring 865.
836 Suetonius referred to him as a nobilis captivus (Vesp. 5.6).


Abizadeh, A. "Ethnicity, Race, and a Possible Humanity." World Order 33 (2001) 23-43.

Alcock, S. "The Heroic Past in a Hellenistic Present." In Hellenistic Constructs: Essays in
Culture, History, and Historiography, edited by P. Cartledge et al, 20-34. Hellenistic
Culture and Society 26, Berkeley: University of California Press 1997.

Alfoldy, G. "Eine Bauinschrift aus dem Colosseum." ZPE 109 (1993) 195-226.

Alston, R. "Philo's 'In Flaccum': Ethnicity and Social Space in Roman Alexandria." G&R 44
(1997) 165-75.

Amaru, B. "Land Theology in Josephus' 'Jewish Antiquities'." JQR 71 (1981) 201-29.

Amir, Y. "Josephus on the Mosaic 'Constitution'." In Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and
PostbiblicalLiterature, edited by H. Reventlow and Y. Uffenheimer, 13-27. JSOTSuppl.
171, Sheffield: JSOT Press 1994.

--. "Theokratia as a Concept of Political Philosophy." Scripta Classica Israelica 8-9 (1989) 83-

Anderson, B. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread ofNationalism.
London: Verso 1983.

Applebaum, S. "The Legal Status of the Jewish Communities in the Diaspora." In The Jewish
People in the First Century, edited by S. Safrai et al., 420-63. CRINT 1.1, Philadelphia:
Fortress 1974.

--. "The Social and Economic Status of the Jews in the Diaspora." In The Jewish People in the
First Century, edited by S. Safrai and M. Ster, 701-27. CRINT 1.2, Philadelphia:
Fortress 1976.

Ash, R. "Epic Encounters? Ancient Historical Battle Narratives and the Epic Tradition." In Clio
and the Poets: Augustan Poetry and the Traditions ofAncient Historiography, edited by
D. Levene and D. Nelis, 253-73. Leiden: Brill 2002.

Athanassiadi, P. "Dreams, Theurgy, and Freelance Divination: The Testimony of lamblichus."
JRS 83 (1993) 115-30.

Attridge, H. "Josephus and His Works." In Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, edited
by M. Stone, 185-232. CRINT 2.2, Philadelphia: Fortress 1984.

--. The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae ofFlavius Josephus.
Harvard Dissertations in Religion 7, Missoula: Scholars Press 1976.

Balsdon, J. Romans andAliens. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1979.

Bar-Kochva, B. "An Ass in the Jerusalem Temple-The Origins and Development of the
Slander." In Josephus' Contra Apionem: Studies in Its Character and Ciiex\i n ith a
Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek, edited by L. Feldman and J.
Levison, 310-26. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Antiken Judentums und des
Urchristentums 34, Leiden: Brill 1996.

--. "The Wisdom of the Jew and the Wisdom of Aristotle." In Internationales Josephus-
Kolloquim Brissel 1998, edited by J. Kalms and F. Siegert, 241-50. Munsteraner
Judaistische Studien 4, Miinster 1999.

Barag, D. "King Herod's Royal Castle at Samaria-Sebaste." PEQ 125 (1993) 4-8.

Barclay, J. "Apologetics in the Jewish Diaspora." In Jews in the Hellenistic Roman Cities, edited
by J. Bartlett, 129-48. London: Routledge 2002.

--. "Josephan Rhetoric in Flavian Rome." In Flavius Josephus andFlavian Rome, edited by J.
Edmondson et al, 315-32. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005.

--. "The Politics of Contempt: Judaeans and Egyptians in Josephus's Against Apion." In
Negotiating Diaspora: Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire edited by J. Barclay,
109-27. Library of Second Temple Studies 45, London: Clark 2004.

Barish, D. "The 'Autobiography' of Josephus and the Hypothesis of a Second Edition of His
'Antiquities'." HTR 71 (1978) 61-75.

Barnes, T. "The Sack of the Temple in Josephus and Tacitus." In Flavius Josephus andFlavian
Rome edited by J. Edmondson et al, 129-44. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005.

Barth, F. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Boston: Little, Brown 1969.

Begg, C. "Solomon's Apostasy (1 Kgs. 11,1-13) according to Josephus." JSJ28 (1997) 294-313.

Bell, H. "Anti-Semitism in Alexandria." JRS 31 (1941) 1-18.

Bentley, G. "Ethnicity and Practice." CSSH29 (1987) 24-55.

---. "Response to Yelvington." CSSH 33 (1991) 169-75.

Bentwich, N. Josephus. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America 1914.

Berlin, A. "Romanization and anti-Romanization in pre-Revolt Galilee." In The First Jewish
Revolt: Archaeology, History, andIdeology, edited by A. Berlin and J. Overman, 57-73.
London: Routledge 2002.

--. "Where was Herod's Temple to Augustus?" BAR 29 (2003) 22-4.

--- and J. Overman. "Introduction." In The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and
Ideology, edited by A. Berlin and J. Overman, 1-14. London: Routledge 2002.

Bilde, P. "Contra Apionem 1.28-56: An Essay on Josephus' View of His Own Work in the
Context of Jewish Canon." In Josephus' Contra Apionem: Studies in Its Character and
COuei\ i /th a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek, edited by L. Feldman
and J. Levison, 94-114. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Antiken Judentums und des
Urchristentums 34, Leiden: Brill 1996.

-. Flavius Josephus Between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works, and Their Importance
JSPSS 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 1988.

-. "Main Trends in Modem Josephus Research." Nordisk Judaistik. .,kanihua1vi a Jewish
Studies 8 (1987) 73-105.

-. "The Causes of the Jewish War According to Josephus." JSJ 10 (1979) 179-202.

-. "The Jews in the Diaspora of the Roman Empire." Nordisk Judaistik. .tA,\h/,u/i/i/ri/ t, Jewish
Studies 13 (1992) 103-24.

Bohak, G. "Ethnic Continuity in the Jewish Diaspora in Antiquity." In Jews in the Hellenistic
Roman Cities, edited by J. Bartlett, 175-92. London: Routledge 2002.

Borgen, P. "Philo of Alexandria." In Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, edited by M.
Stone, 233-82. CRINT 2.2, Philadelphia: Fortress 1984.

Bowley, J. "Josephus' Use of Greek Sources for Biblical History." In Pursuing the Text, edited
by J. Reeves, 202-15. JSOTSuppl. 184, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 1994.

Braun, M. "The Prophet Who Became a Historian." Listener 56 (1956) 53-7.

Brighton, M. The Sicarii in Josephus' Judean War. PhD Diss. University of California, Irvine

Bruce, F. "Tacitus on Jewish History." JSS 29 (1984) 33-44.

Bruner, M. Strategies ofRemembrance: The Rhetorical Dimensions ofNational Identity
Construction. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press 2002.

Bichler, A. "La relation de Josephe concemant Alexandre le Grand." Revue des etudesjuives 36
(1898) 1-26.

Bull, R. "Caesarea Maritima: The Search for Herod's City." BAR 8 (1982) 24-41.

Bulloch, A., E. Gruen, A. Long, and A. Stewart, eds, Images andIdeologies: Self-Definition in
the Hellenistic World. Berkeley: University of California Press 1993.

Bury, J. The Ancient Greek Historians. New York: Dover 1958.

Case, S. "Josephus' Anticipation of a Domitianic Persecution." JBL 44 (1925) 10-20.

Champion, C. Cultural Politics in Polybius' Histories. Berkeley: University of California Press

Chancey, M. Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee ofJesus. SNTSM 134, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press 2005.

Chaniotis, A. Die Ve i nage zwischen kretischen Poleis in der hellenistischen Zeit. Heidelberger
ahititli i 1 he Beitrige und epigraphische Studien 24. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag

Chapman, H. "Spectacle and Theater in Josephus' Bellum Judaicum." PhD Diss. Stanford
University 1998.

Chilton, B. "Salvific Exile in the Isaiah Targum." In Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian
Conceptions, edited by J. Scott, 239-47. JSJSuppl. 56, Leiden: Brill 1997.

Clay, D. "An Epicurean Interpretation of Dreams." AJP 101 (1980) 342-65.

Cohen, B. Jewish and Roman Law: A Comparative Study. New York: Jewish Theological
Seminary 1966.

Cohen, N. "Josephus and Scripture: Is Josephus' Treatment of the Scriptural Narrative Similar
Throughout the 'Antiquities I-XI'?" JQR 54 (1964) 311-32.

Cohen, S. "'IOYAAIOE TO FENOE and Related Expressions in Josephus." In Josephus and the
History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton S.mith edited by F.
Parente and J. Sievers, 23-38. Studia Post-Biblica 41, Leiden: Brill 1994.

-. "Alexander the Great and Jaddus the High Priest According to Josephus." AJS Review 7
(1982) 41-68.

-. "Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew." HTR 82 (1989) 13-33.

-. "History and Historiography in the Against Apion of Josephus." History and Theory 27/4
(1988) 1-11.

-. Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian. Boston: Brill 2002.

-. "Josephus, Jeremiah, and Polybius." HT21 (1982) 366-81.

-. "Religion, Ethnicity, and 'Hellenism' in the Emergence of Jewish Identity in Maccabean
Palestine." In Religion and Religious Practice in the Seleucid Kingdom, edited by P.
Bilde et al, 204-23. Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 1, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press

-. "Respect for Judaism by Gentiles According to Josephus." HTR 80 (1987) 409-30.

-. The Beginnings of Jewishness. Berkeley: University of California Press 1999.

Collins, J. "Anti-Semitism in Antiquity? The Case of Alexandria." In Ancient Judaism in Its
Hellenistic Context, edited by C. Bakhos, 9-30. Suppl.JSJ 95, Leiden: Brill 2005.

--. Between Aithen and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. 2nd ed. Biblical
Resource Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2000.

--. "Cult and Culture: The Limits of Hellenization in Judea." In Hellenism in the Land ofIsrael,
edited by J. Collins and G. Sterling, 38-61. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press

Collomp, P. "Der Platz des Josephus in der Technike der hellenistischen Geschichtsschreibung."
In Zur Josephus-Forschung, edited by A. Schalit, 278-93. Wege der Forshung 84,
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1973.

Cotton, H., and W. Eck, "Josephus' Roman Audience: Josephus and the Roman Elites." In
Flavius Josephus andFlavian Rome, edited by J. Edmondson et al, 37-52. Oxford:
Oxford University Press 2005.

Daniel, J. "Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic Roman Period." JBL 98 (1979) 45-65.

---. Apologetics in Josephus. Ph.D.Diss. Rutgers University 1981.

Damschen, G. "Lysimachos [6]." In Der neue Pauly. Enzyklopadie der Antike, edited by H.
Cancik and H. Schneider, 7.608. Das klassische Altertum und seine
Rezeptionsgeschichte, Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler 2003.

Daube, D. "Rabbinic Methods and Interpretation and Hellenistic Rhetoric." HUCA 22 (1949)

Destinon, J von. Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus in derJiddische Archaeologie, Buch xii-xvii- Juid. KriegBuch I Kiel:
Lipsius and Tischer 1882.

Droge, A. "Josephus Between Greeks and Barbarians." In Josephus' Contra Apionem: Studies in
Its Character and Cneiwi\ i /th a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek,
edited by L. Feldman and J. Levison, 115-42. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Antiken
Judentums und des Urchristentums 34, Leiden: Brill 1996.

Droysen, J. Geschichte des Hellenismus. 2 aufl. Gotha: F. A. Pethes 1877-78.

Druner, H. Untersuchungen fiber Josephus. Marburg 1896.

Eckstein, A. "Josephus and Polybius: A Reconsideration." CA 9 (1990) 175-208.

Edwards, D. "Religion, Power and Politics: Jewish Defeats by the Romans in Iconography and
Josephus." In Diaspora Jews and Judaism: Essays in Honor of and in Dialogue i /h,
Thomas A. Kraabel, edited by J. Overman and R. MacLennan, 293-310. Atlanta: Scholars
Press 1992.

Eisman, M. "Dio and Josephus: Parallel Analyses." Latomus 36 (1977) 657-73.

Elliot, N "'The Patience of the Jews': Strategies of Resistance and Accommodation to Imperial
Cultures." In Pauline Conversations in Context: Essays in Honor of Calvin J. Roetzel,
edited by J. Anderson et al. 32-41. JSNTSuppl. 221, London: Sheffield Academic Press

Farmer, W. Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus: An Enquiry into Jewish Nationalism in the
Greco-Roman Period. New York: Columbia University Press 1956.

Fearon, J., and D. Laitin. "Violence and the Social Construction of Ethnic Identity."
International Organization 54 (2000) 845-77.

Feldman, L. "Abraham the Greek Philosopher in Josephus." TPAPA 99 (1968) 143-56.

--. "Financing the Colosseum." BAR 27 (2001) 20-31, 60-1.

--. "Flavius Josephus Revisited: The Man, his Writings, and his Significance." In ANRWII.21.2,
763-862. New York: de Gruyter 1984.

--. "Hellenizations in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities: The Portrait of Abraham." In Josephus,
Judaism, and Christianity, edited by L. Feldman and G. Hata, 133-53. Detroit: Wayne
State University Press 1987.

--. "Hengel's Judaism and Hellenism in Retrospect." JBL 96 (1977) 371-82.

--. "How Much Hellenism in the Land of Israel?" JSJ33 (2002) 290-313.

--. Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.

--. Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984.

--. "Josephus as a Biblical Interpreter: The "Aqedah'." JQR 75 (1985) 212-52.

--. Josephus' Interpretation of the Bible. Hellenistic Culture and Society 27, Berkeley:
University of California Press 1998.

--. "Josephus' Moses and Plutarch's Lycurgus." In Flavius Josephus andFlavian Rome, edited
by J. Edmondson et al, 209-242. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005.

--. "Josephus' Portrait of Jacob." JQR 79 (1988) 101-51.

--. "Josephus' Portrait of Joseph." RB 99 (1992) 379-417, 504-28.

--. "Josephus' Portrait of Moses. Part Three." JQR 83 (1993) 301-30.

--. Judean Antiquities 1-4: Translation and Commentary. Leiden: Brill 2000.

--. "Rearrangement of Pentateuchal Narrative Material in Josephus' Antiquities, Books 1-4."
Hebrew Union College Annual 70-71 (1999-2000) 129-51.

--. Studies in Josephus' Rewritten Bible. Suppl.JSJ 58, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature

--. "The Concept of Exile in Josephus." In Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian
Conceptions, edited by J. Scott, 145-72. Suppl.JSJ 56, Leiden: Brill 1997.

Finegan, J. Handbook of Biblical Chronology. Revised edition. Peabody: Hendrickson 1998.

Finkelberg, M. "Virtue and Circumstances: On the City-state Concept of Arete." AJP 123 (2002)

Finley, M. I. "Myth, Memory, and History." History and Theory 4 (1965) 281-302.

Fischer, J. "The Term DESPOTES in Josephus." JQR 49 (1958) 132-8.

Fitzmyer, J. "Languages of Palestine in the First Century A.D." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 32
(1970) 501-31.

Fitzpatrick-McKinley, A. "Synagogue Communities in