nodet2000

8/12/2019 nodet2000

1/27

July 2000 tienne NODET

JEWISH FEATURES IN THE SLAVONIC WAROF JOSEPHUS

There has been in the past much controversy about the attribution to Josephus ofthe strange features of the Slavonic, or Old Russian, version of theJewish War1,made in the 11th century. Leaving aside the so-called Christian interpolations,this paper aims at renewing the discussion about the Josephan authenticity of thesource (in Greek) of this version, by presenting the reader with two kinds of facts :

first, some peculiar pieces of ancient Jewish exegesis preserved only in this ver-sion ; second, some stylistic features which have an unmistakable Jewish flavor2.

I ANCIENT BIBLICAL INTERPRETATIONS

In the Biblical paraphrase of the Jewish Antiquities, Josephus displays idiosyn-

cratic interpretations, as is well known, but sometimes drawn from Jewish lore.Besides these he witnesses many legal views which are not his own. This is ob-vious in his summaries of the laws in books 3 and 4, where he brings togethereverything he knows and is very careful to stand above any controversy. Some-times, however, he mentions incidentally some rules that cannot have been ac-cepted by all. Let us see this from three examples, before moving to peculiar inter-

1.The available editions and modern translations are : Alexander BERENDTS& Konrad GRASS,Flavius Josephus, Vom Jdischen Kriege Buch I-IV, nach der slavischen bersetzung deutsch

herausgegeben und mit dem griechischen Text verglichen, Dorpat, 2 vol., 1924-1927 ; thisGerman translation was never completed. Viktor M. ISTRIN, Andr VAILLANT& Pierre PASCAL,

La Prise de Jrusalem de Josphe le Juif, Paris, Institut dtudes slaves, 2 vol., 1934-1938,with the text and its apparatus, a French translation and a short commentary. A better edition ofthe text is given by N. A. METERSKIJ, Istorija iudeskoij vojny Josifa Flavija, Moscow &Leningrad, 1958, who shows that the translation was made in the 11th century from a Greekoriginal. A new English translation has been prepared by Bernard ORCHARD (ed.), Josephus

Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version. A Synoptic Comparison(AGAJU), Leiden, Brill, in press.2. A full-scale discussion of the Josephan authenticity of the Slavonic version of the War is

given as an appendix of Henry St. J. THACKERAY, Josphe, lhomme et lhistorien, adapt delanglais (Josephus, The Man and Historian, 1929) par tienne NODET, avec un appendice sur laversion slavone de la Guerre, Paris, d. du Cerf, 2000, p. 129-247.

8/12/2019 nodet2000

2/27

8/12/2019 nodet2000

3/27

BIBLICAL EXEGESIS BY JOSEPHUS 3

which is content with two witnesses in any case.This sample shows a consistent pattern : when Josephus follows the wording of

the Bible, he tries to remain faithful to it, but when it is not before his eyes, he mayspeak quite otherwise. Another example, taken from Abrahams story, will supplyan interesting connection with the Slavonic.

1. TRADITIONS ABOUT ABRAHAM

Josephus gives two different accounts of Abrahams migration : inAnt.1:154 hefollows Gen 11-12 and says : At the age of seventy-five (Abraham) left Chaldaeawhen God bade him to move to Canaan. Then he adds that Abraham, a phi-losopher, discovered monotheism, and that for this reason the Chaldeans and otherMesopotamians fell into discord against him, so that he decided to emigrate in ac-

cordance with the will and assistance of God. This addition is connected with theancient view, shared by Josephus, that Abraham is the one who brought wisdomand pure science to Egypt3. But later, as he freely paraphrases another passage, hegives another interpretation. In Gen 23:13, during Jacobs dream God introduceshimself I, YHWH, am the God of Abraham your father, and the God of Isaac, butJosephus says (Ant.1:281) I led Abraham hither from Mesopotamia when he wasbeing driven out by his kinsmen, and I made your father prosperous. This can beseen as another story of Abrahams expulsion from Mesopotamia, but remainsdifficult to extract from the Bible as it stands.

Now in the Slavonic is given another account of Abrahams expulsion, connec-ted somewhat loosely with the trial and condemnation of Herods son Antipater4

(War1:641) :

Therefore it is fitting to marvel at divine Providence, how it requites evil forevil, but good for good. Ant it is impossible for man to hide before5his almightyright hand, either for the just or for the unjust. But more still does his mightyeye look upon the just. And indeed Abraham, the forefather of our race, was ledout of his land, because he had offended his brother in the division of their ter-ritories. And whereby he sinned, even thereby he received also his punishment.

And again for his obedience, (God) gave him the Promised Land.

3. See Steve MASON (ed.) Flavius Josephus. Translation and Commentary, Vol. 3 : JudeanAntiquities 1-4, Translation and Commentary by Louis H. FELDMAN, Leiden, Brill, 2000, p. 58.

4.The translations of the Slavonic given here depend on the excerpts prepared by THACKERAY

and printed in the LOEBedition of the War, and on VAILLANTs French translation. We are grate-ful to K. SARZALA, a student at the cole biblique fluent in Russian, for some spot checks on theoriginal, for VAILLANT, when the text was corrupted or difficult to render, worked under the as-sumption that the Slavonic translator was summarizing the Greek Waras we know it.

5.I. e.from (semitism).

8/12/2019 nodet2000

4/27


This legend, otherwise unknown, explains Abrahams migration as a meritedpunishment : he wanted to deprive his brother (Haran ?) of his share of land, andeventually lost his own. There is obviously something in common with theprevious expansions, and it may be taken as their core, before any embellishment.It seems quite foreign to the biblical narrative, but some remote clues can be

detected : first, Gen 11:28 says that Haran died in the presence of his father Terahin their native land, Ur of the Chaldaeans, which may have implied someinheritance problems, but later on Harans son Lot was with Abraham, and onreturning from Egypt they shared quite fairly the promised land, which may havebeen a reverse statement ; second, according to v. 31, it was in fact Abrahamsfather Terah who left Ur with his whole family to go to the land of Canaan, but hedied in Haran ; so in another story he may have been the one who was expelledfrom Ur, for he resembles a refugee ; third, in Gen 12:5 Abraham looks like arefugee, who continued his fathers move with all the possessions of the family ;fourth, it seems that the call and blessings of God (v. 1-3) are just the reversal ofthe meaning of this painful story. In any case, the narrative of the Slavonic, whichincludes some semitisms, cannot be deduced from the canonical Genesis, and it ishard to hold it as a Christian interpolation.

In another passage, Josephus offers a strange mixture of Biblical fragments.Commissioned by the Romans to urge the Jews besieged in Jerusalem to surrender,he gives his own speech, in which he claims that their war is futile, since God isnow on the Roman side. Then he draws some lessons from Biblical history (War

5:380-381 ; the Slavonic, slightly shorter, has no significant change) :Necho, also called Pharaoh, the reigning king of Egypt, came down with a

prodigious host, and carried off Sarah, a princess and the mother of our race.What action, then did her husband Abraham, our forefather, take ? Did heavenge himself on the ravisher with the sword ? He had, to be sure, three hun-dred and eighteen officers under him, each in command of a boundless army.Or did he not rather count these as nothing, if unhelped by God, and uplifting

pure hands towards this spot, which you have now polluted, enlist the invincibleally on his side ? And was not the queen, after one nights absence, sent back

immaculate to her lord, while the Egyptian, in awe of the spot which you havestained with the blood of your countrymen and trembling at his visions of thenight, fled, bestowing silver and gold upon those Hebrews beloved of God ?

Then Josephus proceeds with the exodus from Egypt and other events selectedfrom the usual Bible. On the contrary, this version of Sarahs kidnapping by Pha-raoh, if compared with the Biblical version of Gen 12:10-20, looks rather fanciful :Necho was a king of Egypt, who did invade the country to meet the king of Assyriaat the river Euphrates, but at a much later date (609 BC), by the time of king Josias,

who tried to intercept him and was killed at Megiddo (2 Kings 23:29). Now before

8/12/2019 nodet2000

5/27


invoking Josephus well known sloppiness to explain away the confusion, we mayobserve that again the Biblical narrative itself significantly hints at another story :first, the very name Chaldaeans given to the inhabitants of Ur, which is reallyanachronistic if we follow the Biblical dating of Abraham, fits very well Josiastime (late Israelite monarchy) ; second, the fact that Sarah was taken into Pharaohs

household by his officials (Gen 12:16) would imply that Abraham was a mansomewhat more established than a starving refugee, unable to settle in Canaan.

To sum up, Josephus witnesses non-biblical traditions about Abraham. Theirorigin may be rooted earlier than the final editing of the canonical text, reflectingsome of its raw material. But he does not stand alone in this respect : in 1 Macc12:19-23 the high priest Jonathan quotes an interesting letter sent by Areios, aformer king of the Spartans, to Onias, who was the high priest of Jerusalem forsome time before the Maccabaean crisis (167-164 BC) :

It has been discovered in records regarding the Spartans and Jews that theyare brothers, and of the race of Abraham Our own message to you is this :your flocks and your possessions are ours, and ours are yours, and we areinstructing our envoys to give you a message to this effect.

Besides a chronological problem about king Areios, it is difficult to imagine astatement by Greeks claiming they are brothers of Barbarians. So this is mostprobably a Jewish diplomatic fiction. Its background is twofold : first, the Spartanconnection may refer to Onias origin, as we learn through his brother Jason, whowas compelled to flee and traveled to Sparta, hoping that, for kinships sake, hemight find harbor there (2 Macc 5:9). Second, sharing flocks with Spartans fromGreece may look out of place, but it suffices to consider a Spartan colony in Egypt,from the time of Alexander or later : the very name Onias recalls On, the Egyp-tian name of the sun (and sun worship, see Exod 1:11 LXX), and it is stated in1 Macc 12:9 that this high priest, appointed in Jerusalem by the Seleucid king, didnot have the sacred books. Now if we focus on Egypt, the problem of the flocksmakes sense for nomads in the desert (Negeb, Sinai). This way we get closer to thenarrative of Gen 13:6-7, when Abraham and Lot, coming back from Egypt, had

too many possessions to live together ; dispute broke out between the herdsmen ofAbraham and those of Lot. So there was a real problem of flocks. In any case, thecontent of the letter cannot have been extracted from Genesis as it stands, but theremay have been some common origin.

2. CAN HEROD THE GREAT HAVE BEEN THE MESSIAH ?

Epiphanius of Salamis6 declares that Jews have stubbornly persisted in reco-

6. EPIPHANIUS, Panarion, 20.2 ; see EUSEB,HE1.6.1. This view is mentioned by later Byzantine

8/12/2019 nodet2000

6/27


gnizing Herod the Great instead of Jesus as the Messiah or the king announcedby the prophets. Of course, rabbinical tradition does not allude to this kind of idea,even remotely. In Matt 2:5, when Herod enquires about the Messiah, the chiefpriests and the scribes are far from giving him this title. InAnt.15:373, Josephusintroduces Menahem, an Essene who once saw Herod when he was a child and

saluted him as the future king of the Jews. Young Herod rebuked him, but Mena-hem insisted that he would become king, according to Gods will, but later hewould forget piety and eventually be punished for his wrongdoings. Obviously, thistimely recognition by some Essenes, with no hint at fulfilling Scripture, does notamount to a general acceptance of Herod as the Messiah. Some additions of theSlavonic, however, provide a clue, in connection with other events.

In War 6:310, Josephus explains that the Jews lost the war, for they did notunderstand that God had moved to the Roman side. They had failed to understandan ambiguous oracle saying that one from their country would become the ruler ofthe world : they thought of one from their own race, but in fact the oracle signifiedthe sovereignty of Vespasian, who was proclaimed Caesar when he was in Judaea.Tacitus and Suetonius do have sayings to the same effect7, and the commentatorshave been at a loss, for the source of the prophecy and even its Jewishness are notobvious.

About this ambiguous oracle, the Slavonic has a useful addition : There areabout it several interpretations. Some understood that this meant Herod, others thecrucified wonderworker8, others again Vespasian. According to this, the same

oracle, i. e.the same scriptural prophecy, was deemed to be fulfilled in more thanone occasion.Now we may come back to Herod, for whom the Slavonic has an important

addition, with discussions involving the Law and the Prophets. After a ferociouscivilian war, Herod has recovered his kingdom (37 BC). But after a short time, heleft Jerusalem for a new war against the Arabs. The addition follows (after War1:370) :

At the time, the priests mourned and grieved to one another in secret, for

writers.7.TACITUS,Hist.5.13 :pluribus persuasio inerat antiquis sacerdotum litteris contineri, eo ipso

tempore fore ut valesceret Oriens profectique Judaea rerum potirentur ; quae ambages Vespa-sianum ac Titum praedixerat, sed vulgus more humanae cupidinis sibi tantam fatorum magni-tudinem interpretati ne adversis quidem ad vera mutabantur; SUETONIUS, Vespasian, 4 :

percrebruerat Oriente toto vetus et constans opinio, esse in fatis ut eo tempore Judaea profectirerum potirentur. Id de imperatore romano, quantum postea eventu paruit, praedictum Judaei adse trahentes rebellarunt. Nothing is said of the origin of this opinio, but the statements about themistake of the Jews are similar to Josephus, which may point to a common source.

8.I. e.Jesus. The passages mentioning NT characters are not dealt with in this paper, but theyare discussed in my Appendix to THACKERAY(see n. 2).

8/12/2019 nodet2000

7/27


they did not dare to do so openly, out of fear of Herod and his friends. Theysaid : Our law bids us to have no foreigner for king (Deut 17:159), and wewait for an anointed one (Messiah), of Davids line (Amos 9:1110), who shouldbe meek (Zech 9:911). But of Herod we know that he is an Arabian, uncircum-cised12. The Anointed will be called meek, but this is the one who has filled our

whole land with blood. Under the Anointed the lame should walk, the blind see(Is 35:5), the poor become rich (Is 61:1). But under this man the hale havebecome lame, the seeing are blinded, the rich have become beggars. What isthis ? Or have the prophets lied ? The prophets have written that there shall notwant a ruler from Judah, until the coming of the one to whom the task is givenup ; the Gentiles do hope for him (Gen 49:1013). But is this man the hope for the

9. Deut 17:15 The king whom you appoint to rule you must be chosen by Y HWHyour God ;the appointment of a king must be made from your own brothers ; on no account must you

appoint as king some foreigner who is not a brother of yours. There were serious discussionsabout the Jewishness of Herod : the Galilaean zealots (brigands) never recognized it (Ant.14:421 f.), contrary to the Essenes (or at least Menahem) who did not take into account thegenealogy.

10. Amos 9:11 On that day, I shall rebuild the tottering hut of David, make good the gaps init then the rest of humanity (LXX, from ; MT vocalizes Edom) will look for (LXX, from

; MT inherit) YHWH, (quoted in Acts 15:15). This verse, with the reading Edommay explain, first, some acceptance of Herod, an Idumaean by birth (see n. 12), and second, whyhe is called Arabian here, once he is not deemed any more to fulfill Scripture.

11. Zech 9:9-10 Look, your king is approaching, he is just and victorious, humble He will

proclaim peace to the nations, his empire will stretch from sea to sea.12.I. e.Nabataean. His friend Nicolaus of Damascus claims that Herods father Antipater was adescendant of the first Jews to return from Babylon (Ant. 14:9), but for Josephus this is plainflattery, and he says (War1:123) that Antipater was an Idumaean of noble descent, but this toomay be an embellishment : 1. according to the Slavonic, he was only the first of the Idumaeansby his wealth and power, without significant descent ; 2. EUSEBIUS, HE 1.7.11 quotes sourcesindicating that he was carried off as a boy by the Idumaeans in a sack of the Apollo temple inAshqelon, and then grew up with them ; in other words, his background was rather lowly. So wemay understand Arabian here. On the other hand, the wording Arabian uncircumcised seemsto be an oxymoron, but it is to be taken in a Jewish perspective uncircumcised the eighth day.Again, this contradicts the facts that the Idumaeans were judaized (circumcised) by John Hyrca-

nus, but here the intended meaning is only non-Jewish descent.13. In spite of the mention of the prophets, the reference is obviously the blessing of Juda in

Gen 49:10 The scepter shall not pass from Juda, nor the rulers staff from between his feet untilShiloh comes (so MT ; LXX until what is set apart [ ] for him comes, Onqelostargum until the Messiah comes, to whom is the kingdom) and the nations will render himobedience. Interestingly, the priests follow the targumrendering, which may have had a Hebrewbackground, for the MT ( ) yields no tolerable meaning, and for its part the LXXrefers to something new for Juda (and not to someone). JUSTIN, Dial.120:3-4 and IRENAEUS,

Haer. 4:10 (as well as some LXX mss) read until comes the one to whom it(the scepter) is set apart, close to the Targum. These renderings imply a different Hebrew :

or . So the verse becomes clear, but it can be understood in two oppositeways : the one to whom the scepter of Juda is set apart and who is to be recognized by the nations

8/12/2019 nodet2000

8/27


Gentiles ? For we hate his misdeeds. Will the Gentile perchance set their hopeson him ? Woe unto us, because God has forsaken us, and we are forgotten ofhim (Is 49:1414) ! And he will give us over to desolation and to destruction, andnot as under Nebuchadnezzar and Antiochus. There were then prophets to teachthe people, and they made promises concerning the captivity and the return

15.

And now there is neither anybody whom one could ask, nor anybody from whomone may receive consolation.

Ananus the priest answered and spoke to them : I know all of Scripture16.

When Herod fought beneath the city wall17, I never had a thought that God

would permit him to rule over us. But now I understand that our desolation isnigh. Study you the prophecy of Daniel. He writes (Dan 9:24 f.) that after thereturn (from Babylon) the city of Jerusalem shall stand for seventy weeks of

years, which are 490 years, and after these years it shall be desolate18. Andwhen they (the others) had counted the years, they were 34 years19. But Jona-than answered and spoke : The number of the years are indeed as we have

may be either the last king from Juda or a newcomer after the last Jewish (Judaean) king,provided that he appears in Juda (Judaea). This way one can understand how Herod (after theHasmonaean dynasty) or Vespasian (after the shaky Herodian dynasty) may have been seen asthe one to come.

14. Is 49:14 Zion was saying : YHWHhas abandoned me, the Lord has forgotten me. Fromthis passage it can be seen that the later view that God is on the Roman side does not lack

scriptural background.15. The reference should be to the written prophecies of Jeremiah and Daniel (see Ananusreply), but it may imply, and the context suggests, that for them Daniel (or the seer, i. e.one ofthe sources of the book) was living by Antiochus IV Epiphanes time, since Jeremiah lived inNebuchadnezzars time. We may observe that in his first account of the Maccabaean crisisJosephus does not follow the books of the Maccabees, but a source connected with Daniel, for hesays that Antiochus plundered the temple and interrupted, for a period of three years and sixmonths, the regular course of the daily sacrifices (War1:32), as stated in Dan 9:27 (one half-week) and 11:21-39 (see below).

16. Or all the books, referring perhaps to more than Scripture. Ananus point here is to stressthat only Scripture matters, and not living prophets (see previous note), and he does move to the

prophecies of Daniel.17.When he besieged in 37 BC Antigonus, the king of Jerusalem appointed by the Parthians

(War1:343-353).18. This statement seems to contradict the prophecy of Daniel, but it is explained below by

Jonathans saying.19. This seems to mean that there were still another 34 years to run of the 490, and B ERENDTS

takes it to mean Herod has 34 years to reign, i. e.from the capture of Jerusalem in 37 to hisdeath in 4 BC. But this fits poorly the context and would imply that the priests were also pro-phets. It makes more sense to follow VAILLANT, who understands 434 years, i. e. 7x62 or 62weeks of years. Indeed, according to Dan 9:26, after the 62 weeks an anointed one (Messiah)will be put to death, the city and sanctuary ruined, by a prince who is to come. The end of thatprince will be catastrophe, and until the end there will be war and all the devastations decreed.

8/12/2019 nodet2000

9/27


said. But the Holy of Holies20, where is he ? For Daniel cannot call the Holyone this Herod who is bloodthirsty and impure21.

But one of them, by name Levi, wishing to outwit them, spoke to them whathe got with his tongue, not out of the books, but in fable. They, however, beinglearned in the Scriptures, began to search22 for the time when the Holy one

would come, and they execrated Levis speeches, saying : Soup is in yourmouth, a bone in your head. They said this because he breakfasted beforedawn and his head was heavy with drink as if it were a bone. But he, overcomewith shame, fled to Herod and informed him of the speeches of the priests,which they had spoken against him. But Herod sent by night and slew them all,without the knowledge of the people, lest they should be roused. And he ap-

pointed others.

The context is a series of political events, while this passage focuses on the ful-

fillment of Scripture. Its origin, most probably learned traditions, is different fromdiplomatic archives, but its clumsy insertion at the very beginning of Herods reignmakes much sense, as a summary of controversial discussions. The relationshipsbetween Herod and the Jewish religious leaders (priests, scribes, and sanhedrins)are difficult to assess, for Josephus mentions the topic only incidentally. He saysthat when Herod had received the kingdom he slew all the members of the (Jeru-salem) Sanhedrin (Ant. 14:175), but he was always anxious for recognition as alegitimate Jewish king, and used to convene several ad hocsanhedrins for variouspurposes.

This passage indicates that for some Herod was deemed to be the Messiah, atleast at the beginning of his reign, the reference verse being Gen 49:10 as under-

20.Dan 9:24 reads Seventy weeks (= 490 years) are decreed for your people and your holy

city for anointing the Holy of Holies. Jonathan confirms Ananus reckoning : the 490 yearscorrespond to the beginning of Herods reign. This is the span of time allowed to (discover and)anoint the Holy of Holies ; in the case of a failure, desolation is to follow quickly. In otherwords, the prophets have not lied, but put a challenge. As for the other priests, they focus on the62 weeks, and conclude too that a catastrophe is imminent, but it is not clear whether they see

Herod as the Messiah to be put to death, or as the prince who is about to meet his end, but thediscussion itself suggests the former view : some saw Herod as the Messiah, and then led adiscussion about their delusion.

21. We may observe that Daniels prophecy of the weeks is not used in the NT. Mark 24:15only quotes the end of Dan 9:27 So when you see the appalling abomination, of which theprophet Daniel spoke, &c. Incidentally, we may note that this prophecy of Daniels obviouslyrefers to the Maccabaean crisis, but this fact does not prevent its use (i. e. its fulfillment) in othercircumstances (see below).

22. This contradicts the previous discussions, for the search cannot but refer to Daniels pro-phecies. There may have been two different sources or traditions which grew up from the sameevent. The context suggests that for this Levi Herod was actually the Messiah, and that his oppo-nents are not prepared to accept his arguments from Scripture, probably the same Gen 49,10.

8/12/2019 nodet2000

10/27


stood by the targum(see footnotes above) : the scepter of Juda has been set apartfor the Messiah, which does not imply any Jewish or Judaean descent. This ex-plains how it could have been attached to such different characters as Herod, thewonderworker (Jesus) or Vespasian. The move to Daniels prophecies and theirobscure reckoning intends to reject this messianic interpretation. Incidentally, we

may observe that the New Testament does not connect these verses to Jesus.As for the obvious objection that according to Deut 17:15 the king should be

one of your own brothers, i. e.an Israelite, the answer is that this verse is goodfor a normal king, but is outweighed for the Messiah. In other words, if Herod isnot the expected Messiah, he cannot be a legitimate king either, at least for thesepriests. In fact, during his reign, he never solved the problem of his ownlegitimacy. He was afraid of his opponents, and slew them.

Besides biblical technicalities, one may wonder how some learned Jews mayhave conceivably seen Herod as the Messiah. From Ananus words above we mayconclude that he stopped considering him as the Messiah when he saw him leadinga civil war around Jerusalem, but this occurred in 37 BC, three years after he wasappointed by the Senate, in 40. Now, if we move to Rome at that time, we see thesigns of a new era, after a period of civil wars. Octavian gets reconciled with MarkAntony, who marries his sister and whose expected son will be son of gods. Atthe same time Vergil in his fourth Eclogue tells his sponsor Asinius Pollion thatany prosecution, any fear will disappear when the infant lives like a gods son.Moreover, Josephus stress that Herod was a close friend of the same Asinius Pol-

lion (Ant. 14:388, 15:343). This gives us a clue : Herods appointment can havebeen seen by some as a sign of this new hope for the Jews, or even the epiphany ofthe true son of god(s), with some relevant biblical background. Roman religiousinfluence upon the Jews even the Essenes was heavy, but it was always care-fully judaized23. But later on, in Galilee and Judaea, bloodthirsty Herod failed tomeet the expectations attached to such a recognition.

Let us venture a last remark : it seems really difficult to see these very JewishBiblical discussions about Herods messianity and fate in Roman time as aChristian forgery.

3. DID JOSEPHUS WRITE 4 MACCABEES ?

The so-called Fourth Book of the Maccabees is a discourse to Jews, to showthem that it is not difficult to lead a pious life if they follow the precepts ofreligious reason, hence the other ancient title of the book, On the Sovereignty of

Reason. The theme is expounded in a philosophical way, and then illustrated from

23. As shown recently by IsraelKNOHL, The Messiah Before Jesus, Tel Aviv, Schocken, 2000(Hebrew title ; an English translation is forthcoming).

8/12/2019 nodet2000

11/27


Jewish history, and especially through the martyrdom of old Eleazar and then ofseven brothers and their mother. The main source for this narrative is 2 Macc 6:18-7:41, with minor discrepancies. Its dating is not very clear, but most probably in themiddle of the first century AD24, and it may have been written and pronounced at Antioch.

Eusebius, HE 3.10.6, says that Josephus wrote it and gives both titles On theSovereignty of ReasonandBook of the Maccabees, the latter being secondary. Onecentury later, Jerome stated the same authorship in two different places (Vir. illustr. 13 and Contra pelag.2:6), and then many others followed them25, but with nofurther evidence. Modern scholars have rejected this attribution, for several goodreasons, chiefly : 1. Josephus does not know 2 Macc ; 2. the style is different.

But we may ask in the reverse way : On which grounds can it have been as-signed to Josephus ? Some reasons have been adduced : he was the only Jewishhistorian of the period, venerated by Christian writers for his impartiality aboutJesus ; he was fond of philosophy, especially of common stoicism ; he values thecourage and faithfulness of the Essenes, Zealots and others when they face per-secution, etc.

An addition of the Slavonic provides us with another argument. King Herod haderected over the great gate of the Temple, in a Greek fashion, a golden eagle, whichwas forbidden by Mosaic Laws. At the end of his life, two renowned doctors, ex-perts in the Law, told their friends and disciples that this was the moment to pulldown these sacrilege structures, even if the action proved hazardous. Then the

Slavonic adds a speech by the two rabbis (summarized in War1:650) :It is easy to die for the law of our fathers, for immortal glory will follow

those who die thus, while for their souls there awaits eternal joy. But those whodie in unmanliness, loving their body, not desiring a manly death, but findingtheir end in sickness, these are inglorious, and will suffer unending torments inthe underworld. Forward, you Jewish men ! Now is the time to play the man.We will show what reverence we have for the Law of Moses, in order that our

people may not be put to shame26, in order that we may not offend our lawgiver.For an example of heroism we have Eleazar first, and the seven brothers, the

Maccabees, and their mother, who acted manfully. For Antiochus, who had

24. Elias BICKERMAN, The Date of Fourth Maccabees, in : Studies in Jewish and ChristianHistoryI, Leiden, Brill, 1976, 276-281, points out that besides stylistic considerations, the titlegiven to Apollonius, strategos of Syria, Phoenicia and Cilicia (4:9), gives a clue, for thesethree regions were put under one governor only for the short period AD 20-54.

25. Andr DUPONT-SOMMER, Le Quatrime livre des Machabes(Bibl. de lcole des Hautes-tudes, 274), Paris, Libr. H. Champion, 1939, p. XIX, n. 2 gives some references to Churchfathers.

26. In 4 Macc 6:29, Eleazar prays God Let my blood purify the people, and accept my soul asa ransom for theirs ; again, this is stressed in the conclusion (17:22).

8/12/2019 nodet2000

12/27


defeated and captured our country and domineered over us, was defeated27bythose seven young men and by their aged teacher, and by the gray-haired wo-man. We, too, will show ourselves like them, that we may not appear weakerthan the woman. But should we also be tortured for our zeal for God, then ourgarland will be better wreathed. But should they even kill us, then will our

souls, after quitting the dark abode, pass over to the forefathers, where Abra-ham is and those (descended) from him28.

This speech has much in common with 4 Macc, especially for the philosophicaltenets (see the footnotes), which are viewed as common Judaism, and not specificto any school or party. As for the narrative details, the two episodes of 2 Macc6:18-31 (Eleazar) and 7:1-12 (the seven brothers) are unconnected, and kingAntiochus is present in the latter only, while in 4 Macc he is present to both ; theyoung men call Eleazar their teacher (9:6). In other words, the speech looks like a

faithful summary, albeit very brief, of 4 Macc.Many Church fathers used 4 Macc for homiletic purposes (among them Gregoryof Nyssa, Chrysostom, Ambrose of Milan), as a model of inalterable faith tillmartyrdom. Thus, one could surmise that the present speech is a Christian inter-polation, artfully worked, stressing the need of resisting any worship of Roman em-blems. But this would have been a purely literary exercise, somewhat purposeless,for the passage is devoid of any hint at Christianity, something that never occurswhen ancient Christian writers mention Jewish realities or virtues. The reverseassumption, that Josephus authored it, is much less unlikely, and offers a very

simple explanation of the attribution to him of 4 Macc. The fact that he ignored2 Macc does not imply that he never saw 4 Macc, written before the Great War.Given the style of 4 Macc, one may add that it was much easier for him to composea shortened speech on a glorious past than to insert the story of the martyrs in thenarrative of the Maccabaean crisis, for his approach to the event is purely political :in War1:34-35, he says that the most eminent Jewish defaulters were massacred bythe Greeks until the extravagance of the crimes provoked the victims to venture onarmed reprisals, which began with Mattathias of Modein.

One detail of the Slavonic, however, remains suspicious : the very use of the

term Maccabaean to designate the seven brothers. The word never appears in4 Macc, and the evidence of 1-2 Macc (and even of Josephus himself) shows thatthe only true Maccabaean was Judas, who fought against Antiochus Epiphanesand can hardly be viewed as a martyr. We saw above that according to Eusebius

27.So 4 Macc 1:11, 8:15, etc. they defeated his (Antiochus) tyranny.28. So 4 Macc 18:23 Now the sons of Abraham, as well as their victorious mother, are gather-

ed at the place where the Fathers are, for God has granted them pure and immortal souls. Luke16:22 says that the righteous are carried away into Abrahams embrace, a frequent metaphor(see references in STR.-BILLERBECKa. l.)

8/12/2019 nodet2000

13/27


the name Maccabees given to the book was secondary. It may have resulted quitenaturally from the insertion of the book into the Greek Bible : two major uncialmanuscripts (Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus) call it , hence theChristian denomination Maccabaean attached to the martyrs. So we may conject-ure that here the word Maccabaean is a copyists gloss, or perhaps a comment by

the Slavonic translator : someone noticed the unmistakable relationship betweenthe speech and the book.

4. MORE ABOUT DANIELS PROPHECIES

After the destruction of Jerusalem, Josephus comments that it was caused by themisdeeds of the Jews, who were blind and unaware of the plain meaning of someprophecies (War6:310) : Reflecting on these things one will find that God has a

care for men, and by all kinds of premonitoring signs shows his people the way ofsalvation, while they owe their destruction to folly and calamities of their ownchoosing. The Slavonic adds :

For God has let appear signs of wrath, so that men may understand thedivine wrath, stop their wrongdoings and thus change Gods mind.

This addition follows the typical pattern of most prophecies, which are above allwarnings : the Prophets call the people to conversion, in order that God cancel histhreats. This reflects the Biblical view, that God lives and changes within history.

This cannot be accepted by Greek philosophy, for which God is necessarily abovetime, because time and change mean decay. It rather speaks of fate, and so doesJosephus in many places,29but not without inconsistency, for it would remove freewill and moral responsibility.

After this introduction, Josephus proceeds and explains specific prophecies, butthe Slavonic has a different wording.

N. B. The excerpts are disposed in synoptic tables, with the Slavonicon the left, in italicsandthe Greek on the right (adapted from the Loeb edition).

(parallel below)

(6:311) Thus the Jews, after the de-

molition of the Antonia (tower), redu-ced the temple to a quadrangle30,

Although there was by the Jews aprophecy that the city and the templewould be destroyed by the quadrangleshape,

although they had it recorded in theirprophecies that the city and the sanc-tuary would be taken when the templewould become a quadrangle.

29. See George Foot MOORE, Fate and Free Will in the Jewish Philosophies According to Jose-phus,HTR22 (1929), p. 371-389.

30. four-angled. The usual meaning is square, sometimes quadrilateral.

8/12/2019 nodet2000

14/27

8/12/2019 nodet2000

15/27


writers did not use it, though they were anxious to prove that the cause of thedestruction of Jerusalem was Jesus death (they do not specify crucifixion). Forinstance, Origen, Contra Celsum, 1:47, looks for the cause of the ruin of Jerusalemand the destruction of the temple : he claims that Josephus should have said that itwas Jesus death. This statement is instructive : for some reason, he connects the

idea with Josephus, but cannot find any relevant passage in his works as he knowsthem. The simplest hypothesis would be that the oracle, in its fuller Slavonic form,was indeed a Josephan production, which was in public domain for a short time,and then disappeared for an unknown reason, but which left behind, at least insome circles of learned scholars, the floating idea that Josephus had much to sayabout Jesus.

As for the prophecies of Daniel, Josephus is conversant with them, for they playan important role in theAntiquities. After his account of the purification of the tem-ple by Judas Maccabee, three years after its desecration by the Greeks, Josephusadds that all this occurred according to Daniels prophecy, which was given 408years before (Ant. 12:322) ; this refers to Dan 11:21-45, a detailed account ofAntiochus persecutions, where no mention is made of the half-week of years(9:27, see n. 15). In legends33reported inAnt.11:337, Josephus tells us that kingAlexander came to Jerusalem and worshipped God, in accordance with a previousvision ; then he was showed the book of Daniel and read that one of the Greekswould destroy the Persians (8:3-8.20-22) ; eventually he thought he was fulfillingthe prophecy himself. Incidentally, we may observe that this interpretation is closer

to the plain meaning of the prophecy of the horns. But for Josephus, the richera prophecy, the more fulfillments it allows.Much more important is Josephus use of Daniel at the time of the deportation

of the Jews by Nebuchadnezzar (Ant. 10:188-280). He stresses that he has onlyundertaken to describe past history, and not to unveil future things, for which heinvites the reader to scrutinize the book itself (210). He lets him understandthat he has done the job but does not want to share his discoveries. More generally,one cannot help thinking that he views himself as another Daniel, a freed slave in aforeign, pagan kingdom, who has qualified prophetic skills and strives to save his

nation34

.In view of this importance for Josephus of the prophet Daniel, we may ask whythis book, which according to its own dating is more ancient than some of theminor Prophets (Zechariah, etc.), is not a Prophet in the Massoretic Bible, but only

33. In the same way, Josephus explains (Ant. 11:5) that Cyrus read Isaiahs prophecies con-cerning him (the release of the Israelites to rebuild the temple), and was anxious to fulfil them.

34. As pointed out by S. MASONin his Introduction to Louis H. FELDMANsJudean Antiquities(see n. 3), Josephus suggests, too, in the same historical context, that he is another Jeremiah, theprophet persecuted by his own nation.

8/12/2019 nodet2000

16/27


a Writing. A Talmudic passage may give a clue. According to b.Megila 3a, Jo-nathan b. Uzziel made the targumof the Prophets, but at some point there was anearthquake, and a voice from heaven (bat qol)was heard asking : Who is unco-vering my (Gods) mysteries ? Jonathan stood up and explained that he wanted todo it to avoid controversies in Israel. This saying is quite instructive, for it seems to

be an exact reply to Josephus prolific exegesis : first, Jonathan was supposed to beHillels first disciple (Herods time, or a little later). Second, the translations of allthe Prophets are extant, and attributed to him by rabbinical tradition. Consequently,the earthquake occurred when he tried to translate a prophetic book that does notbelong any more to the list of the MT Prophets. So it is difficult not to concludethat the allusion refers to the book of Daniel, which thus was removed from theProphets by the Rabbis, in order to reduce its authority. A connected saying indi-cates that one book contains hidden secrets about the messianic end. This toosurely refers to Daniel.

II JEWISH STYLE

In some instances the Slavonic has another wording than the usual Greek War,which looks much more Jewish. Broadly speaking it is much shorter, but in thesecases it may have some minor additions.

1. MISCELLANEOUS

We first present three minor examples, which indicate that the Slavonic displaysa more accurate knowledge respectively of Judaism, Hebrew and Aramaic.

1. In 37 BC, three years after his appointment as a king, Herod eventually wonover Antigonus and entered Jerusalem, his capital, with all his allies.

Now Romans andaliens wanted to get into the temple andlook at the holy places.

(1:354) Now master of his enemies,Herods next task was to gain mastery

over his foreign allies. For this crowd ofaliens rushed to see the temple and theholy things of the sanctuary.The king expostulated, threatened, so-metimes even had recourse to weaponsto keep them back,

Herod had a hard time,for he thought to be defeated, shouldthey have a look into the sanctuary.

deeming victory more grievous thandefeat, if these people should set eyes

on any objects not open to public view.

8/12/2019 nodet2000

17/27


The Law forbids seeing the Invisible,even to circumcised servants outside the

priests in function.So he expostulated, etc

For the Greek version, Herod wants to prevent these aliens from religioustourism : some beautiful, attractive objects are not open to public view, which iscommon cultic custom ; no specific authority is given. On the contrary, the Sla-vonic does not mention the holy things, but focuses on the Biblical prohibition ofseeing God (Exod 19:21-22), i. e.the inner part of the shrine, which is protected bya curtain.

2. During Antipaters trial in the presence of the Roman legate Varus, his fatherHerod charges him. At some point, his emotion prevents him to speak any more

and he signals to his friend Nicolas of Damascus to continue stating the evidence.But now Antipater, who lay prostrated at his fathers feet, raised his head and criedout his defense. Here is a part of his speech :

How can you call my piety hypo-crisy ?

How can you call me a serpent, if I donot know the past and future things?

How could I, cunning in all else, have

been senseless in so serious a matter ?How could I have not perceived, inconcocting so atrocious a crime, that itwould remain concealed from man ?

And how to hide it from the judge inheaven ?

(1:630) You call my filial pietyimposture and hypocrisy.

How could I, cunning in all else, have

been so senseless as not to perceivethat, while it was difficult to concealfrom man the concoction of so atrociousa crime, it was impossible to hide itfrom the judge in heaven, who sees all,who is present everywhere ?

In his accusation, Herod calls Antipater a foul monster in the Greek(324), but the Slavonic puts a serpent. In Antipaters reply, the foulmonster is not mentioned in the Greek any more, but the Slavonic retains the

serpent as an addition, in which Antipaters argument is that he cannot be calleda serpent, for he is not a soothsayer. The reasoning is obvious in Hebrew only, forthe same word ( , with a shift of the stress) has both meanings. But we mayobserve that it is not self-evident that this kind of wordplay is a good device in sucha difficult defense before a Roman official. There may have been somewhere amistake or a mistranslation. In any case, it is hard to view the addition of theSlavonic as a Christian interpolation.

Agrippa I decided to build a wall to enclose some later additions to the city,

8/12/2019 nodet2000

18/27


especially in the north. Josephus gives a name, and explains it :

Agrippa had added to the fortifica-tion new walls and called them Bezetha,

or New Town.

(5:151) The recently built quarterwas called in the vernacular Bezetha,which might be translated into Greek as

New Town.The Greek has an obvious mistranslation : Bezetha is an Aramaic compound

word which has nothing to do with new town, but means literally house ofolives, i. e.orchard of olive trees. The Slavonic gives simply the two names, butdoes not venture to say that the latter is a translation of the former35.

In War2:530 the Greek says more correctly : the district called Bezetha andalso New Town, which is close to the previous Slavonic. Here, the latter has :Cestius put fire to Bezetha and New Town and the surroundings.

In these three casual details, the Slavonic looks much closer to Jewish culturethan the Greek in secondary issues, with no consequences upon the sense and goalof the narrative.

2. JOSEPHUS ESSENES AND THE QUMRAN PEOPLE

The Essenes have always been known through the notices of Philo, Josephusand Pliny the Elder. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) and the excav-

ations of the site of Qumran has given an exciting opportunity to consider themmore closely, because theRule of the Community(1 QS)and other legal documentsdisplayed many similarity with the tenets of the Essene way of life. But the con-sensus never remained unchallenged36, for there are obvious differences, the first ofwhich is the plain fact that no Hebrew or Aramaic equivalent of Essene is to befound in the DSS. Things have got even more complicated, for the most detailedaccount on the Essenes, Josephus notice in War2:119-166, has a close parallel inHippolytusRefutation of All Heresies9:18-29, written in the 3rd cent., but withdiscrepancies significant enough for some to have surmised that both depend on a

common source, unknown to us.The Slavonic has Josephus notice, with some changes, discussed below. They

are interesting, for the general conclusion will be that from a legal point of viewthey put the notice much closer to the laws and customs witnessed in the DSS.

35. The parallel inAnt.19:326 mentions this new town as a noun, but gives no name.36. A detailed account of the scholarly discussion is given by Steve MASON, What Josephus

says about the Essenes in the Judaean War, in : Stephen G. WILSON and Michel DESJARDINS(eds.), Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter

Richardson, Waterloo, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, p. 434-67.

8/12/2019 nodet2000

19/27


There are by the Jews three religiousorders37.

The first is named Pharisees, thesecond Sadducees, the third Essenes.

(2:119) Jewish philosophy, in fact,takes three forms. The followers of thefirst are Pharisees, of the second Saddu-cees ; the third, which is reputed to, and

certainly does, behave with dignity, iscalled Essenes.

They are Jewish by nation, and showa greater attachment to each other thando the other sects.

The Greek has two peculiarities, which do not appear in the Slavonic. First,Josephus stresses the pious reputation of the Essene and their philanthropy, whichis a major line of his apologetics (Apion2:146). Second, the mention Jewish by

nation seems to be a pleonasm, since Josephus just said it. Many hypotheses havebeen ventured to explain Josephus insistence38. The simplest is to consider thatthis is a kind of wishful thinking, for it is not obvious that the Essenes are necessa-rily Jewish by birth : in 120 Josephus says that they disdain marriage, butthey adopt other mens children and mould them in accordance with their ownprinciples (the Slavonic adds : They teach them Scripture). This indicates thatfor them only education matters, not genealogy. Later on he says, about the fourclasses of Essenes (150) : So far are the junior members inferior to theseniors, that a senior if but touched by a junior must take a bath, as after contact

with an alien ( ). In other words, non-Jews and junior members(neophytes) convey the same legal impurity, which indicates that circumcision isunimportant. Of course, Josephus cannot accept this, for in his paraphrase of Gen17:8 he says (Ant.192) : Because God wished his (Abrahams) posterity to remainunmixed with others, he ordered that the genitals be circumcised on the eighthday after birth.

The same features can be seen in the DSS : some Samaritan traces have beenfound. Genealogy is unimportant, at least from a priestly point of view39. Aboveall, the Covenant is not attached to circumcision, but to the success of the purific-ation pedagogy, marked by baptisms, and concluded by the full admission into the

37. The underlying Greek had probably , which occurs in the Greek version about theschools, and specifically five times for the Essenes.

38. See the review of Shaye J. D. COHEN, Y and Related Expressions inJosephus, dans : Fausto PARENTE & Joseph SIEVERS (Eds.), Josephus and the History of theGreco-Roman Period. Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (Studia Post-Biblica, 41), Leiden,Brill, 1994, p. 23-38.

39. Daniel R. SCHWARTZ, On Two Aspects of a Priestly View of Descent at Qumran, in : Lau-rence H. SCHIFFMAN,Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scroll, Sheffield Academic Press,1990, p. 157-180.

8/12/2019 nodet2000

20/27


community.

Oil they consider defiling. (123) Oil they consider defiling,and anyone who accidentally comes incontact with it scours his person ; for

they make a point of keeping a dryskin40.

A defilement cannot be removed only by a bath (see above). Wiping off a stainis by no means a purification ; the explanation of the Greek, which involves thehygienic properties of oil (in Greek culture) is out of place, from a Jewish point ofview, and is inconsistent with the numerous purification baths mentioned in thesequel.

They occupy no one city, butsettle in every town.

Everyone, where he wants, enrolls somecompanions and builds a house anddwells there.

(124) They occupy no one city, butsettle in large numbers in every town.

On the arrival from other cities of un-known people from other communities,

but of the same observance,they go to them as to their community,and they are not refused food and drink.

On the arrival of any of the sect fromelsewhere, all the resources of thecommunity are put at their disposal, justas if they were their own ;

and they enter the houses of men whomthey have never seen before as thoughthey were their most intimate friends.

For the Greek, the whole Essene reality is one united, large, network, with over-all spontaneous fraternity and sharing. But the Slavonic has both additions andomissions that definitely alter the picture, which becomes much less idealized :there is not oneEssene community, but many, with clear-cut borders. Incidentally,

this suggests a really simple explanation of the very word Essene. Scholars agreethat its two Greek forms (essaios, essenos)are transcriptions of the two Aramaicplural forms ashaya/ashain. The Hebrew equivalent is assidim, which does notmean pious, saint, righteous but faithful to, i. e. disciples of. Thus eachcommunity has its own founder (master) and his faithful or disciples. Of course,all the communities have the same general pattern, but they certainly have minordifferences in their customs.

All this may throw some light upon another small difference between the two

40.Or to remain unwashed ( ).

8/12/2019 nodet2000

21/27

8/12/2019 nodet2000

22/27


The Greek version seems to imply some worship of the sun, which has intriguedthe commentators, for this seems to be the idolatry scorned in Ezek 8:16 : They (i.e. the sinners) had their backs to YHWHs sanctuary and their faces towards theeast ; they were prostrating themselves to the east, before the rising sun. Further-

more, in 148 the sun is identified with God : (for going to stool) they dig atrench and wrapping their mantle about them, that they may not defile the rays ofthe Deity, they sit above it. But all this may be attributed to Josephus own viewsor at least to his spontaneous phraseology, for a little later he claims that the Zeal-ots polluted the Deity when they left corpses unburied beneath the sun42 (War4:382-383).

The Slavonic says only that these Zealots transgressed both divine and naturallaws when they laughed at the sight of stinking corpses under the sun. In thatversion the passage about digging a trench reads that they may defile neither the

sun nor the divine rays. Now from the Slavonic addition above it is clear that forthe Essenes the rising sun is important, but it is not God, whom they have wor-shipped by night. So the rising sun is just a sign that God has agreed the prayer and gives a new day. The same feature can be seen in Zechariahs blessing (Luke1:78), which mentions Gods love in which the rising sun has come from on highto visit us, a strange metaphor indeed. We may add that the Jerusalem Temple,too, is open towards the east (Ant.4:305), and that Josephus explains that Moses inthe desert positioned the Tabernacle so as to catch the suns first rays (3:115). Butthe Essenes reject the Temple, and consider the congregation as the shrine itself, so

it makes sense that they embody some of its features.The addition of the Slavonic about the night prayer has been viewed as a typical

interpolation made by Christians, maybe by the monks who translated the text, butagain there is a parallel custom in the DSS. TheRule of the Communitysays (1 QS6:7-8) : And the many shall be on watch together for a third of each night of theyear in order to read the book, explain the regulation and bless together. Thesimilarity is obvious43.

The one anxious to join their lifeis not immediately admitted

but they let him live in premises in frontof the door.

(137) The ones anxious to jointheir sect are not immediately admit-ted. For one year,during which he remains outside.

42. As noted by S. MASON, art. cit. (n. 36), who observes also that in Ant 1:282-283 Godparallels his watching over the earth with the suns.

43. As remarked by Marc PHILONENKO, La notice du Josphe slave sur les essniens, Semitica6 (1956), p. 69-73.

8/12/2019 nodet2000

23/27


If (the candidate) appears worthy,they enroll him in their community.

(138) If he is found worthy,he is enrolled in the society.

But before they enroll him,they bind him by

tremendous oaths,

and he standing before the door44

pled-ges himself with tremendous oaths, invo-king the living God and calling to witnesshis almighty right hand and the Spirit of

(139) But before he may touch thecommon food, he is made to sweartremendous oaths :

God, the incomprehensible, and the Se-raphim and Cherubim, who have insightsinto all, and the whole heavenly host, that he will be pious, etc. first that he will practice piety, etc.

The addition of the Slavonic has a flavor of ritual Hebrew formulae, to beuttered by the neophyte : living God, almighty right hand, etc. The wholeheavenly court is called to witness, but the angels remain unnamed, as stipulatedlater (146). The Rule of the Community (1 QS 1-2) has too an admissionritual, with lengthy formulae. The general outline is different : first, the neophytesconfess their sins (as well as their forefathers45) and praise Gods grace ; so theycut away family ties. Then the priests pronounce a blessing and the levites cursethe sinners and threaten the neophytes if they go astray : May he (God) hand youover to dread into the hands of all those carrying out acts of vengeance. Accursed,

without mercy, for the darkness of your deeds and sentenced to the gloom ofeverlasting fire, etc. And the neophytes reply after them Amen, amen. The onesentitled to punish in the name of God are angels, but here too their names areveiled, at least in writing.

Here Hippolytus has a good contact with the Slavonic, for he says that thecandidates eat their meals in another house. In other places he has some minorpluses and minuses in common with the Slavonic, but he does not know its majoradditions and features, and conversely the Slavonic ignores his peculiarities (on thewomen, the love of enemy, the division into classes, endurance and resurrection).

44. The idea and rite of admission by entering, dimmed in the Greek, is very clear too in 1 QS1:16 And all those who enter in the Rule of the Community shall establish a covenant beforeGod in order to carry out all that he commands, and in order not to stray from following him forany fear, dread or grief. Here the covenant is concluded personally by the neophyte ; it isdeemed to be stronger than any fear, which amounts to the terrible oaths of Josephus.

45.In the ritual of the feast of the Booths (m.Sukkot5:4) there is too a confession of the sins ofthe fathers, who turned their backs to the Temple and worshipped the rising sun (after Ezek 8:16quoted above), but now the people turn towards the Temple. The reference is not to the remotesinners of Ezekiels time, but to some Essene-like recent ancestors (see above note 41, about theorigins of the Rabbinical traditions).

8/12/2019 nodet2000

24/27


So no useful conclusion can be drawn from his account.

They are very strict in the observance of the seventh

day,

the seventh week, the seventh monthand the seventh year.On Saturday they do not prepare their

food,they do not kindle any fire,they do not remove any vessel,they do not go to stool.

(147) They are stricter than all Jewsin abstaining from work on the seventhday46,

for not only do they prepare their foodon the day before,to avoid kindling a fire on that one, butthey do not venture to remove any vesselor even to go to stool.

The Greek has two peculiarities : first, what is called here seventh day is

actually sevens, which conveys a strange, unjustified ambiguity (see the note) ;second, the expression do not venture to remove implies some fear of a kind ofmagical punishment, but this is no more than one of the many rules of the Essenes.

The Slavonic removes both stylistic flaws, and adds interesting details, espe-cially the seventh week, i. e.the Pentecost, which is really important in the DSS.First, it is the main festival47: the feast of the Covenant (represented by the com-munity itself), the day of receiving new members, the feast of the first fruits (ofthe Holy Land). Moreover, the seventh day (Sabbath) and the seventh year(sabbatical year) are perpetual cycles which rest upon Biblical authority. This

suggests the same for weeks and months. Some DSS (4 QMMT, 11 QT)showthat the solar calendar includes at least for the relevant communities a cycle ofPentecosts or pentacontads, which always fall on Sunday. Each one celebrates thefirst fruits of the main crop of the time, but prepared for human consumption :bread (in May-June), new wine (July-August), olive oil (September-October), andperhaps other ones later. The Therapeuts described by Philo have too a cycle ofpentacontads, but no other details are given48.

As for the seventh month, nothing significant emerges. One may observe,somewhat artificially, that starting from Nisan, the first month of the festival year,which contains Passover, the seventh month is Tishri, with the Day of Atonement

46. every seven ; the word means a number of seven, which is hereambiguous, for it may refer to days, weeks, months or years. The context does not even suggestspecifically the seventh day, for the very word Sabbath occurs elsewhere (War1:147, 2:365,450, 518). Anyway, the translation has to restore it, because of the well-known Jewish custom(Biblical law).

47. A fuller statement is given in NODET-TAYLOR, The Origins(see note 41), p. 392-399.48. PHILO, De vita contemplativa65. They have a special gathering every seven weeks,

and stress the meaning of the square of the week (7x7), but no mention is made of first fruits.

8/12/2019 nodet2000

25/27


(the utmost Sabbath) and the Feast of the Booths ; and starting from Tishri, thefirst month of the Creation (ordinary) year, the seventh month is Nisan49. But thiscomment is no more than a lame play on the numbers, with does not add to theBible any specific Essene or DSS reworking.

To sum up, it is clear that for Josephus the Essenes are a model of Jewish life.This is more obvious in the usual Greek version, where their main qualities arestressed : piety, philanthropy and unity. In Apion Josephus insists on thesesqualities as typical of Judaism, and it has been pointed out that some of the lawsand penalties have much in common with Essene tenets. In other words, he has anapologetic bias.

The Slavonic version is less embellished (no unity !) and does have more ritualand legal contacts with the DSS. But even so Josephus Essene can by no means beequated with the Qumran community, far away from any city and unable to extractany first fruit from the soil of the Promised Land. But some remarks should bemade to qualify this community : 1. the DSS have been written by hundreds ofcopyists, which suggest they came from a much larger area ; 2. at Qumran, theexcavations have unearthed some unbroken bones of sheep and goats, properlyburied in clay pots, which indicates that some holiness was attached to them ; thesimplest explanation proposed so far is that these are the remains of Passoverlambs50; 3. the Biblical idea of a new foundation of the Covenant in the desert isemphasized by the DSS, but it does not entail permanent life in the desert ; a com-

memoration may suffice. The model is Joshua : from the desert he brought the Is-raelites across the Jordan river into the Promised Land, then renewed the Covenant,celebrated Passover and let the people eat some first fruits. Now Qumran is quiteclose to the Jordan river, and it would make much sense to have there some facil-ities for a kind of Passover pilgrimage, on the spot or in the vicinity51.

III A TENTATIVE EXPLANATION

The material of the Slavonic version of the Warpresented in this paper has been

49. These two beginnings of the year, which are Biblical, are explained by Josephus, AJ1:81and 3:239-248, and by m.Rosh haShana1:1.

50. Jean-B. HUMBERT, Espaces sacrs Qumrn,RB101 (1994), p. 161-214.51. Dominique BARTHLEMY, Notes en marge de publications rcentes sur les manuscrits de

Qumrn, RB59 (1952), p. 199-203, cites Al-Biruni, an Arab historian of the 11th cent., whoquotes DSS discovered around AD 800 ; one of them states that Passover must be celebratedwithin the Land of Israel, but does not mention any specific holy place.

8/12/2019 nodet2000

26/27

8/12/2019 nodet2000

27/27


authors around Antioch (Chrysostom, Theodoret), and has noteworthy contactswith Josephus Bible. In this case too there are, before and after Lucian, seriousgaps in the manuscript traditions, which remain unexplained.

Jerusalem, July 2000 tienne Nodet.

nodet2000

Documents

Transcript of nodet2000