There is an obvious anthropomorphism in the biblical statement, retained in the Septuagint, that G-d smelled the sweet savor of Noah’s sacrifice (Gen. 8.21). Philo removes the anthropomorphism by explaining that the word “smelled” means “accepted,” “for G-d is not of human form (ανθρωπομορφος), nor has he need of nostrils or any other parts as organs” (De Congressu Quaerendae Eruditionis Gratia 21.115). Likewise, Pseudo-Philo removes the anthropomorphism by paraphrasing “and it was accepted” (acceptum est) by the L-rd as “an odor of rest” (odor requietionis) (3.8). Josephus once again avoids the problem by omitting this detail (Ant. 1.92) and by stating simply that Noah sacrificed to G-d and that G-d, Who loved him for his righteousness, signified to him that He would grant his prayers (Ant. 1.99). (Louis H. Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible [Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 58; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1998], 30-31)
Jethro the Non-Proselyte
Josephus was clearly aware that the Romans were sensitive to the great expansion of the Jewish population, especially through proselytism. In the Bible, as we have noted when Moses tells Jethro all that the L-rd has done to Pharaoh and the Egyptians, Jethro rejoices for all the good which G-d has done to Israel, he blesses G-d for having delivered them from the Egyptians, he declares that he now knows that the L-rd is greater than all gods because of His saving the Israelites, he offers a sacrifice to G-d and Aaron comes with all the elders to eat bread with him (Exodus 18:8-12). What is striking in this brief passage is that Jethro is brought into immediate juxtaposition with the mention of G-d no fewer than six times, as we have noted. It is not surprising, consequently, as we have remarked, that according to rabbinic tradition, especially in view of Jethro’s outright statement that the L-rd is greater than all gods, Jethro is represented as having become a proselyte to Judaism. Consequently, Josephus, in his sensitivity to the proselyting movement, quite carefully omits Jethro’s statement about G-d’s greatness.
Moreover, the biblical narrative actually states that Jethro offered a burnt offering and sacrifices to G-d (Exodus 18:12), an act that would seem to indicate, as some of the rabbis noted above deduced, that he had come to accept the belief in the Israelite G-d. Josephus, sensitive to the Romans opposition to proselytism by Jews, has quite obviously made a deliberate change in having Moses offer the sacrifice (Ant. 3.63). (Augustine [Locutionum in Heptateuchum 82] suggests that perhaps Jethro handed over the sacrifice to Moses so that the latter might offer it to G-d; but there is no hint of this in the text).
Furthermore, in distinct contrast to Jethro’s outright taking the lead in his blessing of G-d in the Bible (Exodus 18:10) and his offering of sacrifices to G-d (Exodus 18:12) and in contrast to the clearly subordinate role of Aaron in merely coming with the Israelite elders to eat bread with Jethro (Exodus 18:12), Josephus, in the apparent realization that such a role would, in effect, make Jethro a convert to Judaism, makes Aaron the prime mover in chanting hymns to G-d as the author and dispenser of salvation and liberty to the Israelites (Ant. 3.64). Jethro’s role is clearly subordinate; Aaron merely gets him to join him (προσλαβομενος). (Louis H. Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible [Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 58; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1998], 50-51)
Josephus on Korah’s Rebellion as an Attack on the Priesthood
When Moore remarks that Josephus is a somewhat disappointing source for the religion of his times and had little interest in the religion for its own sake, what he is referring to is the fact that Josephus tells us less about religious beliefs and theological issues than we might expect (Moore 1927, 1:210). Surely, Josephus had a tremendous interest in religion; but the point to be made is that for him the central focus of the Jewish religion was the Temple and the priesthood of which he was such a proud member that this is the very first point that he makes in his autobiography, namely his proud status as a priest of the first of the twenty-four orders of priests (Life 1).
Schwartz has noted in Josephus a number of pro-priestly revisions of both the legal and narrative portions of the Bible (S. Schwartz 1990, 88-90). In particular, we may note that Josephus states that the priests alone rather than the Levites were permitted to carry the ark (Ant. 3.136, 4.304); that the king may do nothing without consulting the high priest and the Gerousia (Ant. 4.224); that Moses consigned the holy books to the priests alone (Ant. 4.304); and that Moses gave equal portions to the priests and the Levites from the booty taken from the Midianites (Ant. 4.164), whereas the Bible states that Moses assigned to the Levites ten times as much as he gave to the priests (Numbers 31:27-30).
As a priest Josephus is particularly sensitive to the attempt of the Levites to usurp the status of the priests (Numbers 16:10). In his version of Korah’s revolt Josephus may well be thinking of the incident, during the procuratorship of Albinus (62-64 C.E.), in which those Levites who were singers of hymns succeeded in persuading King Agrippa II to convene the Sanhedrin and to secure permission of rhythm to wear linen robes like the priests (Ant. 20.216-18). This, says Josephus, was contrary to the ancestral laws, and he ominously declares that such transgression was bound to make the Jews liable to punishment, presumably by G-d himself (Ant. 20.218). (Louis H. Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible [Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 58; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1998], 100)
a. Good Birth
The importance for the Greeks and Romans of genealogy may be seen especially in Herodotus’ history and in Cornelius Nepos’ and Plutarch’s biographies of famous heroes. The importance of good birth for Josephus is manifest from the very beginning of his autobiography where he traces his ancestry to the Hasmonean kings and to the very first of the orders of the priests (life 1-6). At the very beginning of the Korah episode Josephus stresses his eminence by reason of his good birth (Ant. 4.14). Others whose genealogy is elevated are Abraham (Ant. 1.148), Rebekah (Ant. 1.247), Jacob (Ant. 1.288-90), Joseph (Ant. 2.9), Amram (Ant. 2.210), Moses (Ant. 2.229), Aaron (Ant. 4.26), Korah (Anti. 4.14), Gideon (Ant. 5.213), Jephthah (Ant. 5.257), Samson (Ant. 5.276), Saul (Ant. 6.45), Shallum (Ant. 10.59), Gedaliah (Ant. 10.155), and Esther (Ant. 11.185). (Louis H. Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible [Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 58; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1998], 546)
On λογιζομαι in Josephus
. . . Josephus, apparently aware that the average reader, like the Talmudic rabbis (Ta’anit 4a), would understand that Jephthah actually vowed to offer up as a burnt offering the first thing that would greet him, explicitly declares that Jephthah proceeded to sacrifice her as a burnt-offering (ωλοκαυτωσεν) (Ant. 5.266). Furthermore, just as the Bible seeks to draw a parallel between Jephthah’s daughter and Isaac, both of whom are to be sacrificed by their fathers (Ant. 1.225, 5.266) and both of whom are referred to as an only child (Genesis 22:2: yeḥideka, Septuagint αγαπητον; Judges 11:34: yeḥidah, Septuagint μονογενης), so Josephus reinforces this parallelism by referring to Jethphah’s daughter (Ant. 5.264) by the same term, μονογενης, which he uses of Isaac (Ant. 1.222), thereby drawing, by implication a stark contrast between Abraham and Jephthah.
Thus, in a rare move, Josephus, who clearly, as we have noted, had aggrandized the character of Jephthah, proceeds to criticize him openly for lacking two of the five virtues, namely wisdom and piety. Specifically, he remarks that Jephthah “had not by reflection (λογισμω, ‘calculation,’ ‘reasoning’) probed (διαβασανισας, ‘weigh carefully’, ‘test thoroughly’) what might befall or in what aspect the deed would appear to them that heard of it” (Ant. 5.266). In other words, before making his vow, Jephthah should have used his reasoning powers and been wise enough to calculate that the first entity to greet him after his victory would be his own daughter; or he should have realized that his vow was actually invalid as, indeed, the rabbis declare. Incidentally, in Philo the term λογισμος refers to human reasoning (that is, the rational faculty), coupled with insecure conjectures, and is contrasted with faith (πεπιστευκεναι) in G-d (Legum Allegoria 3.81.228).
In an incident highly reminiscent of Jephthah’s vow, we find the lack of this same quality of λογισμος on the part of Saul in that, in the flush of victory, he invokes a curse upon anyone who would desist before nightfall from slaughtering the Philistine enemy and take food (Ant. 6.117); in that case, as in that of Jephthah, it turns out that it is his own child, Jonathan, who has breached the oath and whom he determines to slay (Ant. 6.126); and it is only the sympathy of all the people for Jonathan that prevents him from doing so. There, too, according to Josephus it is loss of control of reason (λογισμου) which leads Saul to invoke his rash curse (Ant. 6.116). (Louis H. Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible [Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 58; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1998], 185-86)
37. De-emphasis on G-d’s Role in History
In an effort to place greater stress on the achievements of the human characters in the history, Josephus de-emphasizes, in general, the Divine role. Thus to highlight Gideon’s own role in his exploits he omits the statement that the spirit of the L-rd clothed Gideon (Judges 6:34). Most extraordinarily, though the biblical account of Ruth mentions G-d seventeen times, Josephus mentions Him only at the very end (Ant. 5.337). In the Jonah pericope he omits the theological lesson of the qiaayon (Jonah 4:6-11).
When, on the other hand, Josephus does not de-emphasize the role of G-d, as in his portrait of Moses, this would seem to be because the Greeks believed that great leaders, such as Lycurgus, had to be divinely directed. Again, if he stresses the role of G-d in the Deborah pericope this is because his misogyny leads him to avoid building up her character. Likewise, the fact that Josephus does not downgrade the role of G-d in the case of Hezekiah is apparently due to his eagerness not to unduly aggrandize the personalty of Hezekiah himself because the latter did not accommodate himself to the superpower of his day, Assyria. Again, the reader may wonder why, if, as is true, the Book of Esther had not a single mention of the name of G-d, Josephus has introduced such mention into his narrative on thirteen occasions. The reason may be that Jospehus in this pericope is following the Septuagint, which does mention G-d many times; and because of the apparent popularity of the book in its Greek version and for the sake of those in his audience who are Jewish he includes it.
38. De-emphasis on Miracles
Because one of the stock charges against the Jews is excessive credulity (e.g., Horace, Satires 1.5.97-103), Josephus tends to downgrade miracles or to present scientific-like explanations to give the reader the choice as to how to interpret them. Thus, he makes the miracle of the crossing of the Sea of Reeds more credible by pointing to an actual incident in Greek history, namely the case where Pamphylian Sea returned before the advance of the army of Alexander the Great (Ant. 2.348). Again, he presents the miracle of the earth opening her mouth and swallowing up Korah and his followers as an earthquake (Ant. 4.51). Likewise, instead of an angel appearing to Gideon we have a specter (φαντασμα) (Judges 6;11 vs. Ant. 5.214). Moreover, Josephus omits Gideon’s challenge to the angel to produce miracles (Judges 6:13 vs. Ant. 5.214). The Apocryphal Addition (D 13) states that Esther fainted when she saw Ahasuerus as an angel; Josephus says not that she saw him as an angel, but rather that he looked great, handsome, and terrible (Ant. 11.240).
Josephus tones down the miracle of the feeding of Elijah by the ravens (1 Kings 17:2-4) by omitting G-d’s command to the ravens and by stating instead that the ravens brought food to him every day, presumably of their own accord (Ant. 8.319). He scientifically explains the miracle of the fire licking up the water at Mount Carmel by saying that the water came up as a steam (Ant. 8.342). Instead of the miracle of Elijah’s ascension in a whirlwind in a chariot of fire (2 Kings 2:11-12) he says simply that Elijah disappeared without giving any further details (Ant. 9.28).
To be sure, Josephus does include Balaam’s speaking ass (Ant. 4.109), but this may not have been so incredible to students of Homer, who mentions Achilles’ speaking horse (Iliad 19.4017); and, in any case, at the end of the entire Balaam pericope Josephus adds his familiar disclaimer: “On this narrative readers are free to think what they please” (Ant. 4.158). If he does mention Elisha’s miracle of cursing the waters of Jericho (2 Kings 2:19-23), he explains it by natural means, and this too only in the War (4.462-64), where his intended audience consisted of Jews (War 1.3), rather than in the Antiquities where his readership consisted primarily of non-Jews. Ast to the miracle whereby, due to Elsha, the widow’s empty vessels are filled with oil, he disclaims responsibility by asserting “they say” (Ant. 9.47-50). Furthermore, he omits completely Elisha’s greatest miracle, the revival of the dead child of the Shunammite woman (2 Kings 4:34). If he includes the miracle of Jonah’s remaining alive for three days in the belly of the big fish (Jonah 1:17), he is careful to present it as a story (λογος, Ant. 9.213); and, in an obvious disclaimer, he adds that he has simply recounted the story as he had found it written down (Ant. 9.214). Interestingly, in the Antiquites, addressed as it is primarily to non-Jews, Josephus ascribes Sennacherib’s withdrawal to a plague (Ant. 10.21); and in the War (5.388), addressed primarily to Jews, he cites the role of an angel.
39. Resolution of Theological Problems
That Josephus was concerned with resolving theological problems is clear from the fact that he tells us that he intended to write a work on customs and causes (Ant. 4.198, 20.268). Though he did not actually write such a work, he copes with a number of such problems in the Antiquites, perhaps because anti-Jewish intellectuals had pointed them out. Thus, the reader of the Bible might well ask why G-d, being perfect, should have changed his mind and repented that He had created man. Josephus solves this problem by omitting the passage altogether (Ant. 1.73). One might also have expected that G-d would give mankind some warning before destroying the world, but there is none such in the Bible. Josephus, like the Rabbis (Sanhedrin 108a-b), describes Adam as urging his fellow men to repent (Ant. 1.74).
Sometimes Josephus seeks to avoid anthropomorphisms. For example, the Bible says that G-d breathed the breath of life in man’s nostrils (Genesis 2:7), a seemingly grotesque anthropomorphism. Josephus avoids this by saying that He instilled into man spirit and soul (Ant. 1.34). For similar reasons Josephus omits the statement that G-d smelled the savor of Noah’s sacrifice (Genesis 8:21 vs. Ant. 1.92).
There are a number of instances in the Bible which raise the question of G-d’s justice. Thus, one might well ask why G-d should have punished Pharaoh after he Himself had hardened his heart. Here Josephus, as it his wont, simply omits all mention of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (e.g., Ant. 2.288). (Louis H. Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible [Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 58; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1998], 567-69)
One of the anomalies of Jewish law is that in the case of the prohibitions of blasphemy, murder, and theft, the Noachides (“Sons of Noah,” that is, Gentiles) are subject to greater legal restrictions than are Jews. Thus, for example, the killing of a fetus by a non-Jew is regarded as murder but is not so regarded if one by a Jew (Sanhedrin 57b). To be sure, the Septuagint renders Genesis 9:6: “He that sheds a man’s blood, instead of his blood shall his own be shed,” but the rabbinic interpretation, as applicable to Gentiles, punctuates the verse differently: “He who sheds the blood of man within a man [i.e., am embryo], shall his blood be shed” (Sanhedrin 57b). Elsewhere, as we have noted, Josephus was amply aware of rabbinic tradition; but here he avoids such an interpretation and renders simply: “I [G-d] exhort you to refrain from shedding human blood, to keep yourselves pure from murder and to punish those guilty of such crimes” (Ant. 1.102). It would have been embarrassing, presumably, to have G-d expect more of Gentiles than of Jews, and hence Josephus omits any such interpretation. On the contrary, Josephus goes so far as to declare that abortion is prohibited for Jews (Ag. Ap. 2.202), going beyond the rabbis themselves, who, while opposing abortion by Jews did not regard it as a variety of murder. (Louis H. Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible [Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 58; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1998], 32-33)