Flavius Josephus Against Apion John M G Rtl

Barclay download

https://ebookbell.com/product/flavius-josephus-against-apion-
john-m-g-rtl-barclay-1816612

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

The Antiquities Of The Jews Translated By William Whiston Flavius

Josephus

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-antiquities-of-the-jews-translated-
by-william-whiston-flavius-josephus-2190576

The Wars Of The Jews Or The History Of The Destruction Of Jerusalem

Flavius Josephus

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-wars-of-the-jews-or-the-history-of-
the-destruction-of-jerusalem-flavius-josephus-49184948

The Works Of Flavius Josephus Flavius Josephus

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-works-of-flavius-josephus-flavius-
josephus-50747016

The Great Romanjewish War Flavius Josephus

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-great-romanjewish-war-flavius-
josephus-51448130
The Antiquities Of The Jews The War Of The Jews Flavius Josephus

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-antiquities-of-the-jews-the-war-of-
the-jews-flavius-josephus-54730282

Flavius Josephus Collection 3 Books Flavius Josephus

https://ebookbell.com/product/flavius-josephus-collection-3-books-
flavius-josephus-55368642

Antiquities Of The Jews Flavius Josephus

https://ebookbell.com/product/antiquities-of-the-jews-flavius-
josephus-42476404

The Antiquities Of The Jews Flavius Josephus

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-antiquities-of-the-jews-flavius-
josephus-54730280

The Complete Works Of Flavius Josephus Flavius Josephus

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-complete-works-of-flavius-josephus-
flavius-josephus-54730284
FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS
VOLUME 10

AGAINST APION
FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS
translation and commentary
EDITED BY

STEVE MASON

VOLUME 10

AGAINST APION
TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY
BY

JOHN M.G. BARCLAY

BRILL
LEIDEN • BOSTON
2007
 This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Detailed Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data are available on the

Internet at http://catalog.loc.gov

ISBN 10: 90 04 11791 1

ISBN 13: 978 90 04 11791 4

© Copyright 2007 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill,
Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written
permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal

use is granted by Brill provided that
the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright
Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910
Danvers MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.

PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

introduction v

For

Joel Marcus

an outstanding Mensch,
scholar, and friend
vi introduction
introduction vii

CONTENTS

Series Preface: The Brill Josephus Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Abbreviations and Sigla . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii

Josephus, Against Apion

Book 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Book 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Appendix 1: Manetho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335

Appendix 2: Pseudo-Hecataeus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
Appendix 3: Exodus Narratives in Cultural Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
Appendix 4: The Judeans and the Ass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350
Appendix 5: The Sources of the Apologetic Encomium (2.145-286) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
Appendix 6: Judaism in Roman Dress? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371

Indices
Ancient Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391
Places and Names mentioned by Josephus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
Greek and Latin Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424
Modern Scholars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425
viii abbreviations and sigla
series preface: the brill josephus project ix

SERIES PREFACE

THE BRILL JOSEPHUS PROJECT

Titus (?) Flavius Josephus (37–ca. 100 CE) was methods. Philo’s goals were not those of the author
born Joseph son of Mattathyahu, a priestly aristo- of Qumran’s Commentary on Nahum or of the
crat in Judea. During the early stages of the war Church Father Origen. In order to assist the reader
against Rome (66-74 CE), he found himself of this series, the Brill Project team would like to
leading a part of the defense in Galilee, but by the explain our general aims and principles. Our most
spring of 67, his territory overrun, he had basic premise is that we do not intend to provide
surrendered under circumstances that would the last word: an exhaustive exegesis of this rich
furnish grounds for endless accusation. Taken to corpus. Rather, since no commentary yet exists in
Rome by the Flavian conquerors, he spent the English, we hope simply to provide a resource that
balance of his life writing about the war, Judean will serve as an invitation to further exploration.
history and culture, and his own career. He Although we began with the mandate to prepare
composed four works in thirty volumes. a commentary alone, we soon realized that a new
If Josephus boasts about the unique importance translation would also be helpful. Keeping another
of his work (War 1.1-3; Ant. 1.1-4) in the fashion existing translation at hand would have been
of ancient historians, few of his modern readers cumbersome for the reader. And since we must
could disagree with him. By the accidents of comment on particular Greek words and phrases,
history, his narratives have become the indis- we would have been implicitly challenging such
pensable source for all scholarly study of Judea existing translations at every turn. Given that we
from about 200 BCE to 75 CE. Our analysis of needed to prepare a working translation for the
other texts and of the physical remains unearthed commentary in any case, it seemed wisest to
by archaeology must occur in dialogue with include it with the commentary as an efficient
Josephus’ story, for it is the only comprehensive point of reference. A few words about the trans-
and connected account of the period. lation, then, are in order.
Although Josephus’ name has been known Granted that every translation is an inter-
continuously through nearly two millennia, and he pretation, one can still imagine a spectrum of
has been cited extensively in support of any options. For example, the translator may set out to
number of agendas, his writings have not always follow the contours of the original language more
been valued as compositions. Readers have tended expressly or to place greater emphasis on idiomatic
to look beyond them to the underlying historical phrasing in the target language. There is much to
facts or to Josephus’ sources. Concentrated study in be said for both of these options and for each inte-
the standard academic forms—journals, scholarly rim stop in the spectrum. Accuracy is not neces-
seminars, or indeed commentaries devoted to sarily a criterion in such choices, for one might
Josephus—were lacking. The past two decades, gain precision in one respect (e.g., for a single
however, have witnessed the birth and rapid growth word or form) only at the cost of accuracy else-
of “Josephus studies” in the proper sense. Signs of where (e.g., in the sentence). Homer’s epic poems
the new environment include all of the vehicles and provide a famous example of the problem: Does
tools that were absent before, as well as K. H. one render them in English dactylic hexameter, in
Rengstorf ’s Complete Concordance (1983), Louis looser verse, or even in prose to better convey the
Feldman’s annotated bibliographies, and now a sense? One simply needs to make choices.
proliferation of Josephus-related dissertations. The In our case, the course was suggested by the
time is right, therefore, for the first comprehensive constraints of the commentary. If we were pre-
English commentary to Josephus. paring a stand-alone translation for independent
The commentary format is ancient, and even in reading, we might have made other choices. And
antiquity commentators differed in their aims and certainly if Josephus had been an Athenian poet,
x series preface: the brill josephus project

other considerations might have weighed more into separate sentences and also varied the
heavily. But Greek was his second or third translation of the form, thus: “After X had done Y,”
language. His narratives are not great literature, “When [or Once] X had occurred,” and so on.
and they vary in quality considerably from one part Again, although in a very few cases Josephus’
to another. Since the commentary bases itself upon “historical present” may find a passable parallel in
his particular Greek words and phrases, it seemed colloquial English, we have generally substituted a
necessary in this case that we produce a translation past tense. Thus we have not pursued literalness at
to reflect the patterns of the Greek as closely as all costs, but have sought it where it seemed
possible. We can perhaps tolerate somewhat less feasible.
clarity in the translation itself, where the Greek is In the case of Josephus’ personal names, we have
ambiguous, because we intend it to be read with the used the familiar English equivalent where it is
commentary. close to his Greek form. Where his version differs
We happily confess our admiration for the Loeb significantly from the one familiar to Western
translation, which has been the standard for some readers, or where he varies his form within the
time, begun by Henry St. John Thackeray in the same narrative, we have represented his Greek
1920s and completed by our colleague on the Brill spelling in Roman characters. That is because his
Project (responsible for Ant. 1-4) Louis H. Feldman unusual forms may be of interest to some readers.
in 1965. For us to undertake a new translation In such cases we have supplied the familiar English
implies no criticism of the Loeb in its context. The equivalent in square brackets within the text or in a
older sections of it are somewhat dated now but it footnote. Similarly, we keep Josephus’ units of
still reads well, often brilliantly. measurement and titles, giving modern equivalents
The chief problem with the Loeb for our purpose in the notes.
is only that it does not suit the needs of the com- We do not pretend that this effort at literalness is
mentator. Like most translations, it makes always more accurate than an ostensibly freer
idiomatic English the highest virtue. It renders rendering, since translation is such a complex
terms that Josephus frequently uses by different phenomenon. Further, we have not always been
English equivalents for variety’s sake; it often able to realize our aims. Ultimately, the reader who
injects explanatory items to enhance the narrative cares deeply about the Greek text will want to
flow; it collapses two or more Greek clauses into a study Greek. But we have endeavored to provide a
single English clause; it alters the parts of speech translation that permits us to discuss what is hap-
with considerable freedom; and it tends to homo- pening in the Greek with all of its problems.
genize Josephus’ changing style to a single, ele- The commentary aims at a balance between what
vated English level. Since we have undertaken to one might, for convenience, call historical and
annotate words and phrases, however, we have literary issues. “Literary” here would include
required a different sort of foundation. Our goal matters most pertinent to the interpretation of the
has been to render individual Greek words with as text itself. “Historical” would cover matters related
much consistency as the context will allow, to to the hypothetical reconstruction of a reality
preserve the parts of speech, letting adjectives be outside the text. For example: How Josephus
adjectives and participles be participles, to preserve presented the causes of the war against Rome is a
phrases and clauses intact, and thus to reflect literary problem, whereas recovering the actual
something of the particular stylistic level and tone causes of the war is the task of historical recon-
of each section. struction. Or, understanding Josephus’ Essenes is a
Needless to say, even a determined literalness matter for the interpreter, whereas reconstructing
must yield to the ultimate commandment of basic the real Essenes and their possible relationship to
readability in English. Cases in which we have Qumran is for the historian—perhaps the same
relinquished any effort to represent the Greek person, but wearing a different hat. These are not
precisely include Josephus’ preference for serial hermetically sealed operations, of course, but some
aorist-participle clauses. Given the frequency of such classification helps us to remain aware of the
complicated sentences in Josephus, as among most various interests of our readers.
of his contemporaries, we have dealt quite freely To assist the reader who is interested in
with such clauses. We have often broken a series recovering some sense of what Josephus might
series preface: the brill josephus project xi

have expected his first audience to understand, we only be explored by reference to outside texts and
have tried to observe some ways in which each part physical evidence. Alongside questions of
of his narrative relates to the whole. We point out interpretation, therefore, we routinely discuss such
apparently charged words and phrases in the problems as they appear in particular passages.
narratives, which may also occur in such signifi- In preparing a commentary on such a vast cor-
cant contexts as the prologues, speeches, and pus, it is a challenge to achieve proportion. Some
editorial asides. We look for parallels in some of stretches of narrative naturally call for more
the famous texts of the time, whether philo- comment than others, and yet the aesthetics of
sophical, historical, or dramatic, and whether publication requires a measure of balance. We have
Greco-Roman, Jewish, or Christian. We observe set attempted to maintain both flexibility and a broad
pieces (topoi) and other rhetorical effects. Even consistency by aiming at a ratio between 4:1 and
apparently mundane but habitual features of 8:1 of commentary to primary text. This com-
Josephus’ language and style are noted. Where mitment to a degree of symmetry (cf. Ant. 1.7!) has
puzzling language appears, we discuss possible required us to avoid too-lengthy discussion of
explanations: rhetorical artifice, multiple editions, famous passages, such as those on Jesus or the
unassimilated vestiges of sources, the influence of Essenes, while giving due attention to easily
a literary collaborator, and manuscript corruption. neglected sections.
A basic literary problem is the content of the text A different kind of challenge is posed by the
itself. Although we decided against preparing a new coming together of ten independent scholars for
Greek edition as part of the project, we have paid such a collegial enterprise. To balance individual
close attention to textual problems in translation vision with the shared mission, we have employed
and commentary. The translation renders, essen- several mechanisms. First is simply our common
tially, Benedictus Niese’s editio maior, since it mandate: Having joined together to produce a
remains the standard complete text with apparatus. balanced commentary, we must each extend
But we have tried to take note of both the signifi- ourselves to consider questions that we might not
cant variants in Niese’s own critical apparatus and have pursued in other publishing contexts. Second,
other modern reconstructions where they are each completed assignment is carefully read by two
available. These include: the Loeb Greek text, the experts who are not part of the core team, but who
Michel-Bauernfeind edition of the Judean War, the assist us in maintaining overall compliance with
current Münster project directed by Folker Siegert our goals. Third, each assignment is examined by
for Josephus’s later works, and the ongoing French the same general editor, who encourages overall
project led by Étienne Nodet. Niese’s reconstructed consistency. Finally, for the War and Antiquities we
text in the editio maior is famously conservative, use a system of double introductions: the general
and we have felt no particular loyalty to it where editor introduces each of Josephus’ major works, to
these others have proposed better readings. provide a coherent context for each segment; then
Under the “historical” rubric fall a variety of each principal contributor also introduces his own
subcategories. Most important perhaps are the assignment, highlighting the particular issues
impressive archaeological finds of recent decades arising in that section. The Life and Against Apion
in places mentioned by Josephus: building sites, have only one introduction each, however, because
coins, pottery, implements, inscriptions, and other in those cases the individual assignment corre-
items of material culture. Reading his stories of sponds to the entire work.
Masada or Herodium or Gamala is greatly enriched Thus uniformity is not among our goals. Com-
by observation of these newly identified sites, mittees do not create good translations or
while in return, his narrative throws light on the commentaries. We have striven rather for an
history of those places. The commentary attempts appropriate balance between overall coherence and
to include systematic reference to the relevant individual scholarly insight—the animating
archaeology. Other major historical categories principle of humanistic scholarship. The simple
include the problems of Josephus’ own biography, Greek word Ioudaios affords an example of the
his social context in Rome, and the historical diversity among us. Scholars in general differ as to
reconstruction of persons, places, events, and social whether the English “Judean” or “Jew” comes
conditions mentioned by him. These issues can closest to what an ancient Greek or Roman heard
xii series preface: the brill josephus project

in this word, and our team members reflect that even as we announced unavoidable delays with
difference. Some of us have opted for “Judean” as much of the publishing schedule. More recently,
a standard; some use both terms, depending upon Loes Schouten, Jan-Peter Wissink, Anita Rood-
the immediate context; and others use “Jew” nat, and Ivo Romein have absorbed these delays
almost exclusively. For the modern translator, as for with grace, working with us patiently, flexibly
Josephus himself, any particular phrase is part of and with unflagging professionalism to ensure
an integrated world of discourse; to coerce the success of this important project.
agreement on any such point would violate that Finally, in addition to expressing the entire
world. We hope that our readers will benefit from group’s thanks to these fine representatives of a
the range of expertise and perspective represented distinguished publishing house (not least in
in these volumes. Josephus) I am pleased to record my personal
It remains for the team members to thank gratitude to the various agencies and institutions
some central players in the creation of this work, that have made possible my work as editor and
amici in scholarship whose names do not contributor, alongside other demands on my
otherwise appear. First, many scholars in time. These include: York University, for a Fac-
Josephan studies and related fields have offered ulty of Arts leave fellowship and then successful
encouragement at every step. Though we cannot nomination as Canada Research Chair (from
name them all, we must express our debt to 2003), along with encouragement from various
those who are reading our work in progress, directions; the Social Sciences and Humanities
without thereby implicating them in its faults: Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) for fund-
Honora Howell Chapman, David M. Golden- ing throughout the project; the Killam Founda-
berg, Erich Gruen, Gohei Hata, Donna tion of Canada, for a wonderful two-year leave
Runnalls, and Pieter van der Horst. fellowship in 2001-2003; and both All Souls
Second, we are grateful to the editorial staff at College and Wolfson College for visiting fellow-
Brill for initiating this project and seeing it ships in Oxford during the Killam leave.
through so professionally. In the early years,
Elisabeth Erdman, Elisabeth Venekamp, Job Lis- Steve Mason, York University
man, and Sam Bruinsma provided constant General Editor, Brill Josephus Project
encouragement as the first volumes appeared,
abbreviations and sigla xiii

ABBREVIATIONS AND SIGLA

In general, the abbreviations are those used by the SBL Handbook of Style For Ancient Near
Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies, ed. P.H. Alexander et al. (Peabody: Hendrickson,
1999). Additional abbreviations are as follows:

BJP Brill Josephus Project. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary,

general ed. Steve Mason (Leiden: Brill, 2000-)
Boysen C. Boysen, Flavii Iosephi Opera ex Versione Latina Antiqua. VI: De Iudaeo-
rum Vetustate sive Contra Apionem (Vienna: Tempsky, 1898)
Blum L. Blum, author of French translation in T. Reinach, Flavius Josèphe, Contre
Apion (Paris: Société Edition “Les Belles Lettres,” 1930)
Calabi F. Calabi, Flavio Giuseppe: In Difesa degli Ebrei (Contro Apione) (Venezia:
Marsilio, 1993)
DK H. Diels and W. Kranz, Fragmente der Vorsokratischer (6th edition; Berlin:
Weidmann, 1952)
Gutschmid A. von Gutschmid, Kleine Schriften. Vol. IV (ed. F. Rühl; Leipzig: Teubner,
1893)
Labow D. Labow, Flavius Josephus Contra Apionem, Buch 1. Einleitung, Text, Text-
kritischer Apparat, Übersetzung und Kommentar (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,
2005)
Müller J.G. Müller, Des Flavius Josephus Schrift gegen den Apion. Text und Erklä-
rung aus dem Nachlass von J.G. Müller (eds. C.J. Riggenbach and C. von
Orelli; Basel: Bahnmeier, 1877)
Naber S.A. Naber, Flavii Iosephi Opera omnia (Leipzig: Teubner, 1896)
Niese B. Niese, Flavii Josephi Opera edidit et apparatu critico instruxit. Vol. 5: De
Iudaeorum Vetustate sive Contra Apionem libri II (Berlin: Weidmann, 1889)
= Niese maior
Niese minor B. Niese, Flavii Josephi Opera recognovit. Vol. 5: De Iudaeorum Vetustate
sive Contra Apionem libri II. (Berlin: Weidmann, 1889)
Münster F. Siegert, H. Schreckenberg, and M. Vogel, Flavius Josephus, Über das
Alter des Judentums (Contra Apionem) (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006)
PCG R. Kassel and C. Austin, Poetae Comici Graeci (2 vols.; Berlin: de Gruyter,
1983-)
Reinach T. Reinach, Flavius Josèphe, Contre Apion (Paris: Société Edition “Les
Belles Lettres,” 1930)
Schürer revised E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175
B.C.–A.D. 135). Revised and edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black, and
M. Goodman (3 vols., Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973-87)
Stern M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism 3 vols. (Jerusalem:
The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974-84)
Thackeray H. St.John Thackeray, Josephus. Vol. I: The Life / Against Apion (Loeb Clas-
sical Library; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1926)
Troiani L. Troiani, Commento storico al ‘Contro Apione’ di Giuseppe. Introduzione,
Commento storico, traduzione e indici (Pisa: Giardini, 1977)
Whiston W. Whiston, The Works of Josephus (New updated edition, Peabody, Mass,:
Hendrickson, 1995; first published 1736).
xiv abbreviations and sigla

E Codex Eliensis (15th century)

ed. princ. Editio princeps (Arlenius, 1544)
Excerpta Excerpta Constantiniana (10th century; ed. Büttner-Wobst, 1906)
L Codex Laurentianus 69, 22 (11th century)
Latin Latin translation (6th century; ed. Boysen, 1898)
S Codex Schleusingensis (15th /16th century)
abbreviations and sigla xv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The origins of this volume lie in earlier research enabled an exceptionally happy and intellectu-
on Diaspora Judaism: of all the texts I studied ally fertile period of research. Since then, a move
in that connection, the one that intrigued me to a new academic context, at Durham Univer-
most was Josephus’ Against Apion. I was fortu- sity, has brought me into the orbit of wonder-
nate to hear at that time of the Brill Josephus fully supportive colleagues, whose interest and
Project, and then to be commissioned by its edi- gentle enquiries about “Apion” have kept me
tor, Steve Mason, to write the Apion commen- pressing on. Throughout this period, I have
tary. Steve and a succession of Brill editors have been in touch with the Münster Josephus pro-
been patiently waiting for this outcome ever ject, led by Folker Siegert. We have shared
since, and I am immensely grateful to them for drafts of our work on Apion, and I am extremely
granting me the privilege of joining the Jose- grateful to the Münster team for kindly sending
phus team and for bearing with me through me preliminary versions of their text, a major
countless missed deadlines. Steve’s editorial ad- new advance in Apion scholarship and the basis
vice, encouragement, and scrutiny have been for the new translation here. For numerous other
outstanding. He has read every sentence in this matters, Josephan and other, I gratefully ac-
book with extraordinary care, and he has gener- knowledge the advice and help of Paul Spils-
ously supplied good advice on translation and bury, Jamie McLaren, Stephen Moore, and two
commentary, and many corrections of my er- Durham postgraduates, Matthew Scott and Nao-
rors or misunderstandings. At the same time, I mi Jacobs. Another postgraduate, Dean Pinter,
have been exceptionally fortunate to have Erich has kindly assisted me with the indices—a her-
Gruen read the whole work, in the midst of all culean task.
his other academic duties. I could not have There have been many times when this large
asked for a more knowledgeable or more judi- and demanding project has threatened to over-
cious critic, whose encouragement has also sus- whelm me. That it has not (quite) is in large
tained me along a lengthy and sometimes dis- measure thanks to the support, patience, and
piriting road. Both these readers have helped me good humor of my family, who have suffered
to correct and improve much; for my remaining from my preoccupation with Josephus more
errors, and my stubbornness in holding to con- than I like to think. To my wife, Diana, and my
troversial judgments, I remain solely respon- children, Robert, David, and Frances, I express
sible. my deepest thanks; they will be as relieved as I
The project was started while I worked at am that “Josephus” is done. Finally, a special
Glasgow University, and was aided by support word of thanks is due to Joel Marcus, a one-
from the Arts and Humanities Research Board time colleague and long-time friend. At a diffi-
(now Council), which provided an extra semes- cult period in my career Joel stood by me and
ter of leave. That time was spent in the conge- gave me the best possible advice. Without his
nial context of the University of Otago (New support this project would probably have col-
Zealand), where the friendship of Paul Trebilco lapsed, and I am pleased to dedicate this vol-
ume to him with the deepest respect and the
warmest thanks.
xvi abbreviations and sigla
book one xvii

INTRODUCTION

Josephus’ Against Apion1 is the last, the short- many otherwise obscure. Above all, we discover
est, but in many respects the most skillful of his the apologetic substance of a Judean author cul-
three major compositions. Settled in Rome after turally aware and politically experienced in late
the debacle of the Judean Revolt (66–70 CE), first-century Rome. Josephus’ proof that the Ju-
Josephus devoted himself to writing on behalf deans were an independent and ancient people,
of his fellow Judeans, composing first the 7- his refutation of cultural slurs and political accu-
book account of the Judean War and then, with sations, his demonstration of the superior “con-
extraordinary dedication, the enormous Judean stitution” enjoyed by Judeans—each of these re-
Antiquities (21 books, including its appendix, veals much about ancient competitions for
Life). Neither of these works is, in its own terms, cultural honor and how Judeans could position
incomplete, but Josephus did not consider his and advance their own tradition under the hege-
life’s work finished. He proceeded to write an mony of “Greek” canons of knowledge and Ro-
additional treatise, the 2-volume Apion, in a dif- man political power. Josephus’ treatise, capped
ferent, apologetic genre. Here he responds to by his sparkling encomium of the Judean consti-
doubts about Judean antiquity, puncturing in- tution (2.145-286), is the finest sample of Judean
flated claims for Greek historiography and pro- apologetics from antiquity, and stands as a bril-
viding, in reply, a long parade of “witnesses,” liant finale to his long literary career.
Egyptian, Phoenician, Chaldean, and Greek
(1.6-218). He then turns to his second task, the
1. Structure
refutation of insults levelled against the Judean
people. He first demolishes derogatory versions
Apion is designed as a single rhetorical com-
of Judean origins (as leprous or polluted refu-
plex, its various arguments gathered in the con-
gees from Egypt), found in Manetho, Chaere-
clusion (2.287-96). Since interpretation depends
mon, and Lysimachus (1.219-320), then rounds
on comprehending each segment within the
on Apion, citing an array of accusations and
framework of the whole, it is important that we
scurrilous stories, and answering his opponent
establish, at the outset, the structural design of
with bitter invective (2.1-144). Finally, in re-
the treatise.2
sponse to further critics, he composes an enco-
Josephus signals the topics of his treatise in
mium on the Judean constitution, with a sum-
his exordium (1.1-5) and describes the structure
mary of its laws, crafted to show its superiority
of the work in his secondary introduction at
over the very best in the Greek tradition (2.145-
1.58-59. Responding to those who doubt the
286).
antiquity of Judeans (1.2), he sets out to prove
In this work we encounter Josephus at his rhe-
the malice and falsehood of detractors, and to
torical best: he displays an impressive cultural
correct and instruct the ignorant (1.3). He prom-
range in knowledge of Greek history, historiog-
raphy, and philosophy, and his interlocking ar- ises to employ reliable witnesses and to explain
guments in defense of Judeans are spiced with the comparative silence of Greek authors, while
acute literary analysis and clever polemics. From
Apion we also learn precious information about
2
the reputation of Judeans in antiquity through Of course the observations here offered “at the
the critics and commentators cited by Josephus, outset” represent conclusions drawn from examination
of each segment of the text in context. Structural analy-
sis and detailed exegesis operate in a hermeneutical
circle, and the value of this structural overview can be
proved (or disconfirmed) only in the commentary to
1 Hereafter, Apion. On its title, see below, § 4. follow.
xviii INTRODUCTION

highlighting those who mentioned Judeans (1.4- 1.219–2.144: refutation of slanders: Manetho
5). At the same time he will show that “those (1.227-87), Chaeremon (1.288-303),
who have written about us slanderously and Lysimachus (1.304-20), and Apion (2.1-
falsely are convicted by themselves” (1.4). It is 144)
not easy to discern any structure in this jumble
of themes, though two main topics are clearly What remains less clear, and still contested, is
present—evidence for the antiquity of Judeans the status of the material in 1.6-59 (more pre-
and refutation of slander directed against them. cisely 1.6-56) and in 2.145-286. The role of the
The topics become more clearly distinguished first is not clearly signalled by Josephus, and
when the structure of the work is described in the second is seen by many as a new departure,
1.58-59. There Josephus signals the order of his even a new main topic in the treatise, previously
material. First he will reply briefly to those who unannounced. However, neither is as awkward
argue from Greek silence to the late establish- as is sometimes thought.
ment of the Judean people; then he will cite evi- a) 1.6-56: In this passage Josephus exposes
dence of Judean antiquity from the literature of the inadequacies of Greek historians (1.6-26)
others, before demonstrating that those who and argues for the superiority of non-Greek his-
slander Judeans are devoid of reason. From this toriography, especially that practiced by Judeans
point it is not difficult to trace where the prom- (1.27-46). This latter discussion moves seam-
ised discussions take place, or at least begin. lessly into a description and defense of Jose-
The first occupies 1.60-68 (Greek silence is phus’ own historiography, especially in his com-
based on Greek ignorance). The second com- position of War, regarding which he answers
prises 1.69-218 (evidence for Judean antiquity personal criticisms (1.47-56). He draws his con-
from the literature of others). The start of the clusion on comparative historiography (1.58) in
third is clearly signalled at 1.219: “one topic still apologising for a “digression” (1.57). Although
remains from those proposed at the start of my it has been suggested that this “digression” is
argument: to prove false the libels and insults constituted by the whole of 1.6-56,3 it is better
that certain people have aimed at our people, to limit the “digression” to Josephus’ defensive
and to invoke their authors as witnesses against remarks (1.53-56?),4 with the larger opening
themselves.” This clearly echoes 1.4 and 1.59, segment (1.6-56) forming the extended intro-
while the reference to one remaining topic sug- duction (prolegomenon) to the discussion of
gests that all that follows in this treatise is meant Judean antiquity. Before citing the evidence
to fall under this head. 1.219–2.144, at least, (1.69-218), Josephus needs to establish why the
clearly does so: it contains detailed refutation, in vaunted Greek testimony (the presenting issue in
turn, of Manetho, Chaeremon, Lysimachus, and 1.2) is actually the least significant for the topic
Apion. The transition from book 1 to book 2 of Judean antiquity. In the same cause 1.60-68
does not interrupt this flow or mark any change further punctures the balloon of Greek self-im-
of topic; at the start of the second book, portance. Thus, all of 1.6-68 lays the foundation
Josephus summarizes the contents of the first for the argument for Judean antiquity, moving
(2.1) and promises to “refute the rest of the au- readers from the presumption that the (compara-
thors who have written something against us” tive) silence of Greek historians about Judeans
(2.2). The treatment of Apion (2.1-144) thus is damaging to Judean honor to the conviction
falls under the heading of 1.219. that they are more likely to hear the truth from
Thus far, the structure of the work is clear non-Greek sources. It thus justifies the propor-
and relatively uncontroversial: tion in the evidence to be cited in 1.69-218: far

1.60-68: reasons for Greek silence on Judeans

1.69-218: evidence for Judean antiquity: subdi- 3 See, e.g., Mason 1996: 209; 2003a: 132-33. But it
vided into Egyptian (1.73-105), Phoe- would be an unusual procedure to begin a treatise with
nician (1.106-27), Chaldean (1.128- a self-designated “digression.”
60), and Greek (1.161-214) 4 See note to “digression” at 1.57.
INTRODUCTION xix

more from non-Greeks (1.73-160) than from Despite such evidence, there are strong rea-
Greeks (1.161-214). sons to resist this separation of 2.145-286 from
b) 2.145-286: It is frequently noted that the the preceding sequence of refutations, at least as
style, tone, and content of this segment of the signalled by Josephus’ rhetoric. To distinguish
treatise are different from the preceding seg- 2.145-286 as a third main section (Hauptteil)
ments, a shift summarized in the perception that would leave this climactic segment of the work
here, after being defensive, Josephus offers a unannounced in 1.1-5 and in 1.58-59; more se-
“positive” portrayal of the Judean tradition, its riously, it would mean that the explicit an-
constitution and laws. The differences are cer- nouncement of one remaining task (1.219) was
tainly striking. In the preceding response to crit- incorrect, since there were in fact two, one nega-
ics (1.219–2.144), Josephus had cited the crit- tive (1.219–2.144) and one positive (2.145-
ics’ narratives or answered their charges in detail 286).6 When he comes to summarize the work
and in sequence. Here, after initially naming (2.287-95), Josephus indicates no category dis-
Apollonius Molon and others as his target tinction between the material in 2.145-286 and
(2.145-50), larges swathes of the following text the earlier parts of the treatise. He says he has
pass without explicit reference to such oppo- successfully refuted doubts on the antiquity of
nents. Indeed, Josephus rarely here answers the Judeans (2.287-88), answered slanders on
criticism of Judeans directly: most of the text is their supposedly Egyptian origin (2.289), and
spent in eulogy of the Judean constitution, and countered insults against the legislator and his
the critical remarks are mostly those issued by laws (2.290-91): all of these are described as his
Josephus himself, against others. In fact, al- response to critics. In fact, these concluding
though he seems reluctant to name it so, the comments (2.290-91) mirror the introduction to
tone is that of an encomium (2.147, 287) in 2.145-286, which is ushered into the treatise not
praise of Moses, his unique constitution, and the as a “positive portrayal” of the constitution, but
virtues inherent in his laws. Josephus also as a response to additional slanders levelled by
broaches topics hitherto unannounced and Apollonius Molon, Lysimachus, and others
largely unrelated to what has gone before. The (2.145, 148). Apollonius is explicitly compared
virtues enshrined in the constitution become the with Apion (2.148),7 and the language of “libel”
chief focus of discussion, while the antiquity of and “insult” (2.145, 148) matches the an-
Moses seems suddenly uncontroversial (2.156). nouncement of the “one remaining” topic in
For such reasons, and since this segment seems 1.219. Thus, whatever the origin and original
largely self-contained, lacking reference to the focus of his material, Josephus labors hard to
preceding segments but equipped with its own introduce 2.145-286 as a continuation of the
introduction (2.145-50), scholars regularly treat defensive apologetic begun in 1.219. Indeed, he
this as the third main part of the treatise, after
the first on Judean antiquity (1.6-218) and the
second on the refutation of slanders (1.219–
2.144). 5 in 2.287-95. Bilde (1988: 117-18) and Levison &
Wagner (1996: 5) divide 2.145-286 into two sections,
with the break between 2.219 and 2.220. This obscures
5 See especially Gerber 1997: 67-70, 94-99, with the inner coherence of 2.145-286 and leaves unclear the
many acute observations on the paucity of inner cross- relationship of the whole to the earlier parts of the trea-
reference within Apion and on the tensions between the tise. On whether the language of 2.144 suggests that
arguments deployed by Josephus in different parts of the treatise, in an earlier version, finished there, see note
the work. She labels 2.145-286: “Dritte Hauptteil: to “end” at 2.144.
Verteidigung des Judentums anhand seiner Gesetze”; 6 Gerber (1997: 95, n.5) rightly recognizes this prob-

cf. Labow 2005: lxxvi—lxxxi. Mason also distin- lem, but overrides it in distinguishing 2.145-286 as a
guishes this segment, but as a “Peroration” (2003a: separable entity.
133). But, as Gerber notes (1997: 70, n. 24), this is an 7 Cf. 2.2, which promises treatment of “the remain-

unusual label for so long and significant a segment, ing authors [plural] who have written something
which introduces new material; the true “peroration” is against us.” This implies that Apion will not be the last.
xx INTRODUCTION

explicitly labels it an a)pologi/a (2.147), and it Judean antiquity (1.6-218) and the refutation of
seems unwise to ignore his rhetorical signals by slanders (1.219–2.286). 2.145-286 is neither a
isolating this segment as a new and unan- third part, previously unannounced, nor, in its
nounced departure. Nor is his effort to integrate present form, the introduction of a new genre; it
this segment confined to the introduction: refer- is the refutation of slanders issued by Apollo-
ence to critics or criticism of Judeans recurs nius Molon and others.
throughout 2.151-286 (see 2.156, 161, 182, The internal structure of 2.145-286 is perhaps
236-38, 255, 258, 262, 270, 278, 285), and is the hardest to unravel: only the introduction
completely absent only from the summary of (2.145-50) and the summary of the laws (2.190-
the laws (2.190-218). In some cases, to be sure, 218) are clear in their limits and focus.9 The
the mention of critics (Apollonius Molon and discussion of the merits of the constitution
others) may be relatively superficial, a rhetori- (2.151-189) is sometimes difficult to divide into
cal excuse for an argument shaped by other fac- paragraphs, not least because Josephus often
tors. Certainly, the odium potentially caused by closes one paragraph by mentioning the theme
Josephus’ comparative boasts can be more eas- of the next. After the summary (2.190-218), the
ily deflected if others are accused of forcing him multiple comparisons between the Judean and
into this strategy (2.150, 236-38). But elsewhere other constitutions could be variously grouped,
the apologetic motif cannot be removed by lit- but there are good reasons to distinguish 2.219-
erary surgery: in 2.236-86 the whole argument 35 (on the virtue of endurance) from the follow-
revolves around the refutation of a specific ac- ing lengthy discussion of Judean religious dif-
cusation (2.258). Thus, even if Josephus’ con- ference (2.236-86), whose core and originating
tent is sometimes only loosely connected to its cause is Apollonius’ charge of Judean separat-
present apologetic use, this is not always the ism (2.258).10
case, and even if it were, our understanding of We may conclude that the treatise is best un-
the work in its final, Josephan form must pay derstood according to the following structure:11
primary attention to his depiction of his aims
and argumentative structure.8 The fact that he, to
some degree, forces other types of material into
an apologetic mold is itself significant for our
understanding of the genre of the treatise and its
rhetorical purpose (see below, §§ 5 and 7).
Thus the treatise, as designed by Josephus,
has only two main parts: the discussion of
9 Even the latter is disputed; for my reasons for re-
garding the summary as concluded at 2.218 (not, with
the consensus, at 2.219), see note to “now” at 2.219.
10 See note to “sort” at 2.236.
11 I omit here the refinement that descends to the
8
My reference to “final, Josephan form” is an ac- level of individual sections, or to subdivisions beyond
knowledgement that a good deal of the material in the third level; for those, see the opening paragraphs of
2.151-286 may be derived from earlier sources; see the “Reading Options” that introduce each major seg-
Appendix 5. Even so, there is no reason to think that ment. In some cases it is a tiny difference in judgment
Josephus has adopted material wholesale or without whether to take transitional sections as belonging to
reflection: whatever he has used he has adapted and what precedes or to what follows. For the interpretation
supplemented for his own ends. Josephus’ use of the of the treatise as a whole what matters is not such trivial
segment as a whole (2.145-286) may parallel his use of drawing of lines, but decisions on the larger context to
material within it: he is not solely responsible for its which whole arguments belong. For other structural dia-
content and shape, which transcend his immediate pur- grams see Bilde 1988: 117-18; Levison & Wagner
poses in this treatise, but he still exercises some rhetori- 1996: 2-5; Kasher 1997: 6-8; Gerber 1997: 68-70;
cal control, and bends it, to varying degrees, to his own Dormeyer 2001: 250, 253; Labow 2005: lxxxi; Siegert,
ends. Schreckenberg, & Vogel 2006: 10.
INTRODUCTION xxi

1.1-5: Introduction (exordium)

1.6-218: Part One: The Antiquity of the Judeans

1.6-56: Prolegomenon: Comparative Historiography
1.6-27: The inadequacies of Greek historiography
1.28-56: The superiority of non-Greek/Judean historiography
1.57-59: Preliminary Conclusion and Announcement of Agenda
1.60-68: Reasons for Greek Ignorance of Judeans
1.69-218: Evidence for Judean Antiquity
1.69-72: Introduction
1.73-105: Egyptian evidence
1.106-27: Phoenician evidence
1.128-60: Chaldean evidence
1.161-214: Greek evidence
1.215-18: Conclusions

1.219–2.286: Part Two: Refutation of Slanders

1.219-26: Introduction
1.227-87: Manetho
1.227-31: Introduction
1.232-51: Manetho’s story
1.252-87: Josephus’ reply
1.288-303: Chaeremon
1.288-92: Chaeremon’s story
1.293-303: Josephus’ reply
1.304-20: Lysimachus
1.304-11: Lysimachus’ story
1.312-20: Josephus’ reply
2.1-144: Apion
2.1-7: Introduction
2.8-32: Apion on the exodus
2.33-78: Apion on Alexandria
2.79-144: Apion on temple ritual and other rules
2.145-286: Apollonius Molon and others
2.145-50: Introduction
2.151-89: Moses and the structure of the constitution
2.190-218: Summary of key laws
2.219-35: Judean endurance for the law
2.236-86: Judean religious difference and its rationale

2.287-96: Conclusion (including peroratio)

In the commentary, the following nomenclature “segment” refers to a subdivision of the text
is employed: smaller than a Part but larger than a section.
“Part” refers to the two main Parts into which In most cases this correlates with the second-
the treatise is divided (see above); level divisions outlined above (i.e.,2.1-144 is
“section” refers to Niese’s division of the text one segment, 2.145-286 another), but in the
into numbered sections (320 in book 1, 296 case of the Part on Judean antiquity I have
in book 2); subdivided the collection of evidence into
xxii INTRODUCTION

four segments (Egyptian, Phoenician, Chal- of many narratives in his account of the Revolt
dean, Greek). This does not override the and its aftermath (e.g., War 2.152-53, 169-77;
above structural analysis, but has been adopt- 7.341-88, 416-19). This latter is symptomatic of
ed for the convenience of the commentary a consistent characteristic of Apion: motifs that
and the provision of introductory overviews were earlier placed in a narrative context are
along the way. At the start of most segments, here dehistoricised and portrayed as general
the commentary is interrupted by an introduc- Judean virtues (e.g., endurance and contempt
tion labelled “Reading Options” (on whose for death, 2.146). At the same time, the internal
rationale, see below, §13). These segment Judean divisions, both political and religious,
introductions occur at eight points: 1.6, 1.73, which were so strikingly illustrated in War are
1.106, 1.128, 1.161, 1.219, 2.1, and 2.145; here smoothed over with the impression of total
“paragraph” is used occasionally to refer to a Judean harmony (2.179-81) and aversion to
portion of the text within a segment that is factionalism (2.294).14 Josephus thus never re-
demarcated in the translation as such. fers to the content of War, even when mention-
ing the “occupation” of the temple (e.g., Apion
2.82); for his present purposes, portraying con-
2. Apion in the Context of Josephus’ Literary
cord between Judeans and Romans (2.61, 73,
Career
134), it would not be wise to dwell on memories
of the Judean Revolt.
Although Apion is very different in content and
By contrast, Apion shows a much closer rela-
genre from his first work, the Judean War,
tionship to Antiquities, to which it is expressly a
Josephus draws attention to that historical trea-
sequel (1.1) and with which it shares its dedica-
tise in the context of his opening remarks on
tee, Epaphroditus (1.1; 2.1, 296; cf. Ant. 1.8-9).
comparative historiography (1.47-56). Using
Josephus introduces Apion as a response to
himself as a model of Judean historiography, he
doubts attending his claims in the earlier work:
insists on his eyewitness credentials and his care
although he had there shown sufficiently both
in ascertaining the facts, as was recognized by
the integrity and the antiquity of the Judean
the recipients of his work. A strong note of per-
people, some had doubted his claims on the
sonal defense creeps into this account, as he al-
basis of the Greek historians’ silence on the sub-
ludes to criticisms levelled against his account of
ject (1.1-2). Similarly, at the very end of his
the war (1.53-56). It is clear from this passage,
work, Josephus refers back to Antiquities for a
and from the parallel apologetic in his Life (336-
fuller depiction of the laws; here he has cited
67), that Josephus remains sensitive to criticisms
only what was necessary to answer critics
of his historiography.12 In this respect, and to
(2.287). By bracketing the treatise in this way,
this degree, an element of personal apologetic is
Josephus indicates that the two works are
wrapped up within his wider apologetic on be-
closely linked: he claims here not to supplement
half of the Judean people.13 Further motifs in the
what he has previously achieved (as if it were
context contain echoes of War: the sharp critique
insufficient) but to refocus his arguments for a
of Greek historiography (1.6-26) extends the
particular purpose. In between, he makes occa-
polemics of War 1.13-16, while the praise of
sional reference to Antiquities as an example of
Judean heroics unto death (1.42) is reminiscent

12 On the relationship between the two passages

14 If the Essenes are, in some respects, idealized
(that in Life directed against Justus of Tiberias, that in
Apion against unnamed critics), see note to “history” at Judeans in War (see War 2.119-61), demonstrating the
1.53. philosophical ideals of frugality, endurance, the shun-
13 Cf. Gruen 2005, though he exaggerates the per- ning of pleasure, and commitment to the common life,
sonal element as a proportion of the whole, since he those ideals, in modified form, now characterize the
finds the defense of the Judean people largely artificial; laws, and thus all Judeans, in Apion 2.145-286; see
see further below, § 7.2. Mason (forthcoming c).
INTRODUCTION xxiii

his accurate historiography (1.54) and for its full earlier. In Antiquities Josephus was sensitive to
account of Judean history (1.127) and Judean narratives depicting Judeans as Egyptians,
cultural heroes (2.136). Although he does not evicted because of their leprosy (Ant. 2.177;
presume knowledge of the contents of Antiqui- 3.265-68); he was likewise concerned to dispel
ties, he portrays Apion as a wholly complemen- notions that Moses was a charlatan (Ant. 2.284-
tary addition to his earlier composition. 87; cf. Apion 2.145, 161). Judean citizenship
However, this rhetorical depiction understates of Alexandria, and other eastern cities, was
the degree of overlap between the two works claimed in terms equally strong (and equally
and simultaneously masks the difference in their exaggerated) as those used in Apion (2.33-42;
depiction of Judean law and life. There are a cf. Ant. 12.119-26; 19.278-91), while the special
number of passages in Apion that more or less friendship between Judeans and Romans (e.g.,
repeat material previously used in Antiquities. Ant. 14.185-267) is part of the same strand of
For instance, several of the sources that political apologetic (Apion 2.61-64, 73-77, 125-
Josephus employs as evidence for Judean antiq- 34). The specific charges of Judean impiety
uity had earlier been cited in Antiquities: he re- (“atheism,” Apion 2.148) and misanthropy
uses without acknowledgement his citations or (2.121, 148, 258) are also known and refuted,
paraphrases of Menander and Dios (1.112-20; even directly, at particular points in the narrative
cf. Ant. 8.141-49), Megasthenes and Philostratos of Antiquities (e.g., Ant. 3.179-80; 4.137-38;
(1.144; cf. Ant. 10.227-28), Herodotus (1.169- 8.116-17; 11.212; 16.41-42).15 On all these
71; cf. Ant. 8.262), and Agatharchides (1.209- points Apion is, as one might expect, more di-
212; cf. Ant. 12.6). Elsewhere, arguments used rect in addressing and more fulsome in answer-
in Apion substantially repeat the reasoning ing the criticisms concerned. On one point, and
found in Antiquities, such as the proof from that very central, it introduces an issue that we
Moses’ leprosy laws that he could not himself could not have expected from the earlier work.
have been a leper (1.279-83; cf. Ant. 3.265-68), That the Judeans’ extreme antiquity was in
or the evidence of the Septuagint project that doubt, and from the direction of Greek histori-
Ptolemy II was interested in Judean culture ography (1.1-2), is not something we might have
(2.45-47; cf. Ant. 1.10-11; 12.11-118). At nu- guessed from Antiquities; even when he there
merous other points Josephus could have re- cited corroborating evidence, Josephus had
ferred back to narratives in his Antiquities, but given no indication that the biblical account of
we can hardly be surprised if he did not do so. Judean history was subject to fundamental
The silences just noted reflect his desire to doubt. We shall have to consider (below, § 6) to
maintain the integrity of each work; the narra- what extent this doubt was real and to what ex-
tives of Antiquities 12-20 rarely refer back to tent artificially concocted for the sake of this
War even on points of substantial overlap, and new treatise.
Life only twice declares its close relationship to But it is in the depiction of the constitution
War (Life 27, 412). But in this case there may be and the summary of the law (2.145-286) that
a special reason to maintain silence: if a treatise Josephus differs most substantially from Antiq-
ostensibly on the same subject as its predeces- uities, although this is the point at which their
sor (1.1) substantially reduplicates its content, its subject matter coincides the most. In describing
composition is hard to justify. In fact, it adds the structure of the constitution (2.151-89),
very much more material than it copies, but Josephus coins the term “theocracy,” a label for
Josephus understandably declines to draw atten- the government of God understood primarily in
tion to those occasions when it duplicates the philosophical rather than political terms.16 This
previous work. is not incompatible with his depiction of the
At the same time, Apion differs from Antiqui-
ties not only in its focus and genre, but also in
its emphases, even, indeed especially, when
both offer summaries of the law and the consti- 15 See further Spilsbury 1996 for a survey of the
tution. To some degree, the apologetic interests continuities in Josephus’ apologetic.
16 For Josephus’ use of this term, and its relation to
of the later work are already adumbrated in the
xxiv INTRODUCTION

Judean state in his Antiquities, but the emphasis, from the Hellenistic Judean tradition (Hypo-
in its philosophical generalization, is quite dif- thetica; Ps.-Phocylides; Philo, Moses book 2), a
ferent from the descriptions given in Antiquities phenomenon discussed elsewhere (Appendix 5).
4 or elsewhere. Similarly, Josephus’ discussion There is good reason to think that Josephus has
of the nature and providence of God (2.166-68, been influenced by such texts (including many
179-81, 190-92) shows an interest in philosophi- we cannot now trace), but we should not imag-
cal matters that had remained only on the mar- ine him adopting passages wholesale. Even
gins of Antiquities (e.g., 1.15, 18-21; 10.277-80). where the evidence for influence is most strong,
Even in passages that show some debt to Antiq- he appears to have adapted and supplemented
uities, Josephus adds a new twist: the regular his inheritance in his own hand (see Appendix
hearing of the law that is so essential to the con- 5: Conclusions). His argument with Apion (2.1-
stitution is now not every seven years (Ant. 144) may also be influenced by Alexandrian
4.209-11) but every seven days (Apion 2.175- sources, but Josephus’ own imprint is evident
78). Even in the summary of the law (2.190- throughout (e.g., 2.33-47, 102-9). Josephus’
218), Josephus does more than select and rear- cultural range in Apion is certainly impressive,
range laws previously collected in Ant. but not so extensive as to deny that he could
4.196-301, although there are many laws in have acquired this knowledge himself or learned
common. In his arrangement of the material and it from assistants.18 His style is sophisticated and
his emphases (e.g., on inexorable capital pun- his polemics nicely turned, a contrast to the sty-
ishment; on openness to strangers), Josephus listic simplicity of the near contemporary Life;
strikes out in fresh directions, and there are some but variations in style are evident throughout his
laws listed here that have no parallel in his pre- work and open to various explanations. While
vious work (e.g., on sharing fire and water, pray- Apion contains a number of hapax legomena in
ing first for the community, and not picking up the Josephan corpus (240 all told), many of
what one did not put down, 2.196, 208, 211). these derive from the new sources he cites, or
Thus the impression given in 2.287 that Jose- the new topics he addresses; others reflect his
phus has merely selected material from the new polemical genre, or show an increasing
fuller exposition in Antiquities is hardly correct. confidence in the flexible range of the Greek
We are bound to ask why this should be so. language.19 None of these facts requires us to
Two answers suggest themselves: that he has in-
corporated new sources beyond the material he
wrote or used in Antiquities, and/or that he has rating tiny snippets of Josephus’ own work. The argu-
developed new ideas. It has often been claimed ment depends largely on incongruities in the text (cf.
that Apion is largely made up of sources that Jo- Gerber 1997: 97-99), which suggest only that Josephus
sephus has derived from Alexandrian Judeans. was not the tidiest author or editor of his work.
Josephan scholarship in the early twentieth cen- O’Neill’s solution is ingenious, until it comes to ex-
tury frequently made such claims, which survive plaining why such an unlikely task was undertaken in
to this day.17 There are certainly striking paral- Josephus’ name. On the linguistic distinctiveness of the
lels between parts of 2.145-286 and texts known work, see below.
18 S. Schwartz (1990: 23) exaggerates in his asser-

tion that if Apion were attributed to Josephus “it would

show that in the few years separating the publication of
AJ [Antiquities] from that of CAp [Apion], Josephus
his earlier depictions of the Judean constitution, see became a master of classical tradition on par with an
note to “theocracy” at 2.165. On the political thought Athenaeus or a Plutarch.” Whatever we conclude about
of Apion in relation to Josephus’ earlier works, see his use of “collaborators” in the writing of War (see
Rajak 2002: 195-217. note to “language” at 1.50), he surely could have
17 See, e.g., Hölscher 1916: 1994-97; Belkin 1936; accessed advisers on Greek history after living in Rome
1936-37; Cohen 1987: 425-26; S. Schwartz 1990: 21, for 25 years.
23, 56 n.127. An even more radical version is advanced 19 For the distinctive language of Apion see van der

by O’Neill 1999: that most of our treatise was assem- Horst 1996. Of the 240 hapax legomena, 79 appear in
bled by “schoolmen” after Josephus’ death, incorpo- his citations, and many others are technical terms re-
INTRODUCTION xxv

conclude that the treatise is “closely based on cal” (li/an filo/sofoj, Ant. 1.25), and immedi-
one or two Alexandrian-Jewish apologetic pam- ately thereafter alludes to Philo’s explanation for
phlets probably written during the Jewish-Greek the wording of Gen 1:5 (Ant. 1.29). His claim
disturbances of the thirties and forties.”20 elsewhere that the work would discuss the “es-
Josephus remains the author of this text in a sence” (ou)si/a) of God (20.268) points in the
strong sense, however influenced by other ma- same direction. Such notices indicate that, while
terials. writing Antiquities, Josephus was becoming in-
Some light on this influence, and the direc- terested in the tradition of philosophical (moral
tion of his thought, may be shed by Josephus’ and metaphysical) explanations of Judean be-
descriptions of a project he earlier intended but liefs and customs. While including small ele-
(as far as we know) never brought to completion. ments of that tradition already within his de-
Several times during Antiquities 1-4, and once at scription of the laws (e.g., Ant. 3.179-87), he
its very end, he declares that he intends to write reserves till later a full-dress treatment of Judean
another work “after this.”21 His description of culture in these terms.22
this work is somewhat varied: it will concern the As far as we know, Josephus never wrote this
laws (Ant. 3.223), or the sacrifices (3.205, 230), projected work, and Apion is too different in
“customs and reasons” (4.198), or the essence genre and focus to be precisely the project en-
of God and the reasons for commands and pro- visaged in Antiquities.23 Interestingly, while writ-
hibitions in the law (20.268, in four books). A ing Apion (after Antiquities) he no longer looks
common thread running through most of these forward to the proposed work. But the two
notices, however, is that of etiology: whatever projects are not entirely unconnected. Within
the subject matter, it will be treated with a view Apion, and especially within 2.145-286, Jose-
to explanation (Ant. 1.25, 29; 3.143, 257, 259; phus offers his most “philosophical” treatment
4.198; 20. 268, in many cases using ai)ti/a). of Judean beliefs and laws: concerning God’s
Thus, if Antiquities is concerned mostly with the nature (2.165-68, 180-82, 190-92, including
description of Judean laws and customs, the fol- reference to his ou)si/a, 2.167); concerning the
lowing work will seek to give the sense of such laws regarding worship and sacrifice (2.192-98);
rules—a practice well developed in Hellenistic concerning the purity rules (2.202-3, 205); and
Judaism and traceable back at least as far as the concerning the rationale for sabbath rest (2.174,
second century BCE (Letter of Aristeas). At one 234).24 These are gestures, rather than full eti-
point Josephus hints that the mode of explana- ologies, but they indicate a development in
tion will be “philosophical”: in relation to the Josephus’ thinking or a new set of sources that
forthcoming project, he speaks of enquiry into answered to his interests. Other features link
the reasons for the law as “extremely philosophi- Apion especially closely to the preface to Antiq-

22 For discussion of Josephus’ knowledge of Judean

literature in Greek at the time of writing Antiquities, see
lated to his new subject matter (e.g., a)mblo/w, 2.202; S. Schwartz 1990: 51-55; he rightly disputes the thesis
dei=moj, 2.248; mu/droj, 2.265) or terms appropriate to that Josephus had direct knowledge of Philo at this
his new polemical style (e.g., eu)xe/reia, 1.57, 301; time.
katage/lwj, 1.212; fluari/a, 2.22). The increasing 23 Pace Petersen 1958: 263-65. The partial overlaps

confidence is manifested in the adoption of compound in content are instructive (see below), but the four-book
words (e.g., a)napolo/ghtoj, 2.137; kainologe/w, work envisaged as recently as Ant. 20.268 is hardly
1.222; sumpla/ssw, 1.298), or even their invention identical to our Apion; see Feldman 1981: 143, n. d.
(qeokrati/a, 2.165). 24 Here is the measure of truth in Altshuler’s claim
20 S. Schwartz 1990: 23.
(1978-79) that Josephus redeemed his promises of an
21 Unambiguous references to this work (citing it as
additional work in writing Apion (and in his own addi-
a separate work and/or with a title) are made at Ant. tions to Antiquities at 3.224-86 and 4.67-75); but he
1.25, 29; 3.94, 205, 223, 230, 259; 4.198, 302; 20.268. exaggerates the extent to which Apion meets Josephus’
Possible references (mentioning future intentions) oc- expectations of the projected work, and overlooks its
cur at Ant. 1.192, 214; 3.143, 218, 257, 264. chief characteristic, the provision of ai)ti/ai.
xxvi INTRODUCTION

uities, suggesting a common strand of more in Ant. 20.267 Josephus dates the conclusion of
theological interests only partly expounded in the work to the 13th year of Domitian and the
his historiography and awaiting development in 56th year of his own life, that is, 93/94 CE.27
subsequent work.25 A little source-critical detec- What is unclear is how great an interval we
tive work indicates some of the reading that should allow between the publication of Antiq-
Josephus has undertaken prior to writing Apion: uities and the completion of Apion. Josephus
Aristobulus, Philo, and other Hellenistic Judean speaks of negative reaction to the claims of his
traditions shared with Hypothetica and Ps.- Antiquities (Apion 1.2), but we do not know how
Phocylides (see Appendix 5). He has also learn- quickly this set in, if indeed it was real and not
ed a good deal about Plato, especially his Laws, merely a rhetorical construct (see note to “histo-
either directly or at second hand.26 These surely rians” at 1.2). As we have seen (above), Jose-
guided, or stimulated, his “philosophical” inter- phus had originally planned to write a different
ests. If he decided to abandon his plans for his work (a four-volume explanation of Judean be-
four-volume treatise on Judean beliefs and laws, liefs and laws) immediately after his Antiquities
he found a way to incorporate relevant material, (20.268). Thus we must allow some time for this
reflecting some of his interests, in the summary plan to be changed and a rather different writ-
of the constitution that he offered in response to ing project to take shape in his mind and in ac-
Apollonius Molon (2.145-286). Apion is thus tuality. If he took (roughly) 12-13 years to write
both a natural sequel to Antiquities and a (par- the 20 books of the Antiquities, he was clearly
tial) substitute for the once-planned treatise on able to write speedily, though how long it took
philosophical etiology; and it reveals the breadth to research and gather the materials in Apion we
of the new sources to which Josephus was ex- cannot tell. It is possible to imagine the comple-
posed during and after the composition of his tion of Apion before the death of Domitian (18th
Antiquities. September 96 CE), though this would require a
rapid change of plan and fairly swift composi-
tion. It is equally possible that the work came to
3. Date
completion after this date, either during the brief
reign of Nerva (from 18th September 96 CE to
Four criteria have been used in the dating of
27th January 98 CE) or during the reign of
Apion. As we shall see, only the first provides
Trajan (from 27th January 98 CE to 8th August
any degree of certainty, and that only for a ter-
117 CE). The terminus ante quem is simply the
minus post quem. But all four are canvassed
death of Josephus; if he was 56 in 93/94 CE, he
here since they have surfaced in debate and
is unlikely to have lived long into the second
raise important questions about the context of
century, but we have no means of fixing this
the treatise, to which we will return (below, § 6).
date.
1. The relationship to Antiquities. As noted
2. The relationship to Life. Since Josephus’
above, Apion expressly locates itself in the after-
Life is clearly an appendix to his Antiquities, it is
math of Antiquities (1.1; 2.287), as its sequel and
reasonable to consider whether Apion can be
supplement. Fortunately, we know very precisely
dated in relation to it. Unfortunately, the dating
from Antiquities itself the date of its composition:
of Life is a complex and controversial matter.
One fixed point is its assumption that Agrippa
II is no longer alive (Life 359), but the date of
25 his death is a matter of some uncertainty. Pho-
In the preface, Josephus speaks of the special sig-
nificance of “piety” (eu)se/beia, Ant. 1.6, 21), Judean
tius, summarizing Justus of Tiberias, states that
obedience to the laws (1.14), the proper conception of Agrippa died in the 3rd year of Trajan (100 CE),
the nature of God, free from mythology (1.15, 19, 22),
God’s omniscience (1.20), and inexorable punishment
(1.23). All of these themes are prominent in Apion
27 For the calculation here, and the uncertainty as
2.145-286.
26 For a full assessment of this matter see Gerber to which side this falls in our calendrical reckoning of
1997: 226-43. the years 93 and 94 CE, see Mason 2001: xv, n. 1.
INTRODUCTION xxvii

but this is a late and unreliable source.28 The of Domitian’s death we should date Life. And for
hard, external, evidence is supplied by coins and our purposes, in dating Apion, this is not, in any
inscriptions, but here much depends on what case, decisive. Although he refers to Antiquities,
one presumes to anchor the dating of these Josephus makes no allusion to the contents of
coins, the varying start-point of Agrippa’s reign Life in the course of Apion; while his self-de-
(in some cases 61 CE, in others 56 or even 49 fense (1.47-56) bears many similarities to his
CE). After decades of dispute on this matter, the digression against Justus in Life 336-67, it is not
balance of the ambiguous evidence seems to fall clear which is prior to the other. Thus it is not
on an early dating of Agrippa’s death, perhaps certain that Apion must have been written after
around 88/89 CE.29 This puts no obstacle in Life: if there was an interval between Antiquities
placing Life immediately after Antiquities,30 but and Life, and even if Life was written after 96
there are other factors that complicate the issue, CE, it is possible that Apion was written within
not least Josephus’ remarks about the patronage that interval and before Domitian’s death.
he received from Domitian and Domitia (Life 3. The patron Epaphroditus. Apion shares the
429). Since he mentions no subsequent imperial same patron, Epaphroditus, with Antiquities and
patronage, and since the reputation of Domitian Life (Apion 1.1; 2.1, 296; cf. Ant. 1.8-9; Life
plummeted after his death (the Senate decreed a 430). Considerable debate has taken place on
damnatio memoriae), such remarks might be the identity of this Epaphroditus, and since one
best placed within the lifetime of Domitian. But possible candidate was exiled from Rome by
it is not impossible that they could be written Domitian and then killed in 95 CE, this issue is
after 96 CE, and Justus’ attack on Josephus, potentially important for the date of our trea-
which lies behind Life, might be best dated after tise.32 However, since we cannot identify Jose-
Josephus’ imperial patron had died.31 Thus it phus’ Epaphroditus with any certainty, this can-
remains unclear on which side of the watershed not be used as a criterion for dating Apion; there
are perfectly good options for a patron called
Epaphroditus who outlived Domitian.33 To date
Apion and Life by the identity and life-span of
28 Photius, Bibliotheca 33 (9th century CE); for his Epaphroditus is to attempt to fix one unknown
possible confusion with Clement’s death in this same by means of another.
year, learned from Jerome, see Schürer (revised) 1.481- 4. Social and political conditions reflected in
82, n. 47. Apion. Given the lack of hard evidence, can we
29 The evidence is fully discussed in Schürer (re-
infer from the contents of Apion the social and
vised) 1.480-83; cf. Smallwood 1981: 572-74. For more
political circumstances in which it was written?
recent discussion, see Mason 2001: xvi-xix. Kokkinos
(1998: 396-99) gives a spirited defense of the alterna-
As we shall see (below, § 6), the years around
tive view, that Photius was right in placing Agrippa’s and after the publication of Antiquities were tur-
death no earlier than 100 CE. In the latest twist to the bulent times in Rome. Besides expelling phi-
debate, the dating of the coins has been wholly reas- losophers whom he suspected of political oppo-
sessed by Kushnir-Stein 2002, on which C. Jones 2002 sition (93 CE), Domitian put on trial some
relies in dating Agrippa’s death as early as 88/89 CE. prominent members of his own court, notably
This would also make sense of a series of remarks in the
last books of Antiquities, which seem to imply that
Agrippa was no longer alive, or at least no longer pow-
32 For the identity of Epaphroditus, and the two
erful (e.g., Ant. 17.28; 18.128, 145-54; 20.143-46, 211-
18). main options canvassed in scholarship, see note to
30 The later dating of Agrippa’s death (in 100 CE) “Epaphroditus” at 1.1.
33 E.g., M. Mettius Epaphroditus, who lived into the
would require a considerable interval, to which some
have connected the possibility of a second edition of reign of Nerva; see note to “Epaphroditus” at 1.1; see
Antiquities. At least in their present form, the two works Jones 2002: 114-15, cautioning against fixing the dates
are very closely related (Ant. 20.266; Life 430). of Josephus by reference to either of the well-known
31 See Krieger 1999, with the contrary, but cautious Epaphroditi, considering the numerous other possible
conclusions of C. Jones 2002: 118-20. candidates.
xxviii INTRODUCTION

Flavius Clemens and Flavia Domitilla, on a Judeans and had been by Apollonius? Does
charge of “atheism,” the same charge levelled Josephus take care to tone down his use of
against others who “drifted into Judean cus- philosophical language in relation to Judean
toms” (Dio 67.14.1-2). In the same context, culture in view of Domitian’s action against phi-
Domitian appears to have encouraged legal pro- losophers, or do his remarks about “tyrants”
ceedings against people accused of dodging the (2.158-59) reflect a safer period after Domitian’s
“Judean tax” (fiscus Iudaicus), an issue which death?35 Do Josephus’ descriptions of the
he pursued with “special severity” (acerbissime, temple, in the present tense (e.g., 2.193-98), re-
Suetonius, Dom. 12.2). This appears to have flect a rise in hopes for its reconstruction, with
caught out not only Judeans who pretended not the new post-Flavian era inaugurated by Nerva?
to be so, but also non-Judeans whose lifestyle Or do they reflect a timeless conception of the
could be considered “Judaizing” to some de- temple as integral to the constitution?36 One has
gree. In the atmosphere of terror encouraged by to conclude that all such chronological infer-
Domitian and in this heyday of informers, slurs ences are extremely precarious; none can be
against Judean culture may have been par- ruled out altogether, but they point in different
ticularly common, and sympathy with Judean directions and are weakened by the lack of ref-
practices politically charged. All this changed erence in Apion to present political circum-
dramatically in September 96 CE when Domi- stances, whether oppressive or not. While a rea-
tian was assassinated. Nerva signalled the sonable case could be made for reading the text
change of regime by, among other things, abol- as influenced by the difficulties of 95-96 CE, it
ishing all proscriptions on the charge of “impi- is equally plausible to see it as responding to
ety” or “Judean lifestyle” (Dio 68.1.2); and he chronic issues concerning the reputation of
advertised the end of the tax-trials, and their Judeans in Rome, not a specific period of crisis.
perversions of justice, by issuing coins with the We are left with a simple, though disappoint-
legend FISCI IUDAICI CALUMNIA SUBLATA ing conclusion. Only one criterion is certain in
(“The cessation of malicious accusations con- dating Apion, and that is its backward reference
cerning the Judean tax”). to Antiquities. Apion was certainly written no
Knowing these circumstances, we might scan earlier than 94 CE; how much later than that, we
the contents of Apion to find contemporary al- simply cannot tell.
lusions, reflecting conditions either before or
after the death of Domitian. Unfortunately, 4. Title
whatever inferences we might draw from the text
are too weak to help us fix the date. One might A literary work in antiquity acquired a “title”
conclude from Josephus’ decision to write this when given such by its author, by readers, by
apologetic treatise, instead of his intended copyists, or by cataloguers; there was rarely an
project, that he was influenced by the hostile indication within the work itself as to what its
conditions at the end of Domitian’s reign.34 On “proper” or “authentic” title should be.37 Look-
the other hand, his relatively confident tone, not
least in parading the adoption of Judean cus-
toms by non-Judeans (2.282-86) might lead one
to conclude that the treatise was written after the 35 For the first option, see Haaland 2005; for discus-
death of Domitian. Does his dismissal of slurs
sion of the second, Goodman 1999: 50 and Mason
against Judeans, such as the charge of “atheism” 2003b: 581-88.
(2.148), indicate that these were a live (legal) 36 The Nerva option is canvassed by Goodman
issue, or that they had been in the recent past, 1999: 50, 57; on the use of tenses with regard to the
or simply that they could be levelled against temple, see note to “God” at 2.193.
37 For cases where titles were lacking, see PWSup

12.1108-9 (regarding Thucydides); on the addition of

titles to the manuscript of a book, see Schreckenberg
1996a: 75 (with reference to Schubart). Titles might be
34 So Troiani 1977: 26-29. needed when two or more works were collected in a
INTRODUCTION xxix

ing back on his War and Antiquities, Josephus ics he has handled in response to critics, with-
gives them names, though the fact that these la- out any single overarching label. In his very last
bels vary slightly indicates that even he had not statement, he dedicates the work to Epaphroditus
given them precise titles.38 In the case of Apion, and to those who wish to know “about our
Josephus never refers to the work by any label, people” (peri\ tou= ge/nouj h(mw=n, 2.296).
and thus the work has no “original” title. In such Schreckenberg has recently suggested that
cases, books were generally labelled by readers this final statement indicates Josephus’ own title
or others in accordance with their perceived for his work, “On our People.”39 But as a title this
genre and content, though attention might be would be somewhat misleading, suggesting a
paid to authorial statements about the work at its more comprehensive discussion of the Judean
beginning or end, or at strategic places in be- people than Apion actually provides; moreover,
tween (e.g., transitions between books). In the as it happens, none of the known early readers
case of Apion, in the absence of Josephus’ own of this treatise used this phrase in entitling the
designation, readers could be drawn to the be- work. The four (or five?) early readers who re-
ginnings of book 1 (1.1-5) and book 2 (2.1-2), ferred to this work by some title did so as fol-
and the very end of the work (2.296). Unfortu- lows:
nately, these do not give unambiguous signals. Tertullian? (died ca. 240 CE) alludes to our trea-
1.1-5 begins by describing the contents not of tise in Apology 19 when giving the sources of
the present treatise but of Antiquities, including evidence for the antiquity of the Judeans: after
the great age of the Judean people, its integrity, a list of authors closely matching those in Apion
and its manner of acquisition of the land (1.1). he refers to “the Judean Josephus, the native
Then, after outlining the doubts he faces, Jose- vindicator of the Judean antiquities” (antiqui-
phus says he will write briefly “on all these mat- tatum Iudaicarum vernaculus vindex), who re-
ters” (1.3). At the end of the statement of pur- futed or authenticated the others. This must be
pose (1.3) he specifically mentions “our an allusion to our Apion and this language might
antiquity” (h( h(mete/ra a)rxaio/thj), and that indicate that the work was known to him by a
term will recur at transition points throughout title such as “Judean antiquities.”40
the first Part of the treatise (1.59, 93, 160, 215, Origen (died 253/4 CE) refers to our work
217). Book 2 begins by recapping the evidence on two occasions as peri\ th=j tw=n )Ioudai/wn
produced for “our antiquity,” but also signals the a)rxaio/thtoj (“On the Antiquity of the
second main task of the treatise, Josephus’ Judeans,” Cels. 1.16; 4.11). This clearly picks up
“counter-statement” (a)nti/rrhsij) to Manetho, the term Josephus uses for the subject matter of
Chaeremon, and others (2.1), now to be supple- the first Part of his work, and it is natural for
mented by a “counter-statement” to Apion (2.2). Origen to highlight this since his argument with
This indicates that the treatise has two main foci Celsus is on this theme.
(see above, § 1), such that either label, “on an- Porphyry (233–305 CE) cites Josephus’ works
tiquity” or “counter-statement,” would be inad- (Abst. 4.11) as “Judean History” (I)oudai/kh
equate on its own (and the latter would need i(stori/a), “Ancient History” (a)rxaiologi/a),
clarification of its target[s]). In the conclusion and “Against the Greeks” (pro\j tou\j (/Ellhnaj,
(2.287-95) Josephus rehearses the various top- in two books). Although he cites from Apion
2.213, this label may derive from the opening
segment (1.6-56).41 That he used a title for War

single codex, or when rolls or codices were placed on

library shelves.
38 For War, see Ant. 1.6, 203; 13.72, 173, 298; 39 Schreckenberg 1996a: 75-77; cf. idem 1998: 778.
18.11, 259; Life 27, 412, 413; normally “War” or He cites other uses of ge/noj in the treatise, though its
“Judean War.” For Antiquities, see Ant. 20. 259, 267; first use (1.1) refers to the contents of Antiquities, not
Life 430; Apion 1.1, 54, 127; 2.136, 287; normally, but of Apion, and it is absent from the statement in 2.1-2.
not always, a)rxaiologi/a, better translated “Ancient 40 See S. Price 1999: 115.

History.” 41 Niese (1889a: iii) suggests that Porphyry applies

xxx INTRODUCTION

different from Josephus’ own indicates the free- there was no such convention in labelling the
dom of readers to label literature according to work or describing its contents. There was
their own interpretation of its contents. clearly a problem. The treatise has two distin-
Eusebius (260–340 CE) twice in his Praeparatio guishable Parts (see above, § 1), and any label
evangelica quotes from Apion under the label which fits one does not obviously suit the
peri\ th=j [tw=n] )Ioudai/wn a)rxaio/thtoj (“On whole. It is even unclear what one might label
the Antiquity of (the) Judeans,” 8.7.21; 10.6.15), the second Part, since “counter-statement”
the same as that used by Origen. Elsewhere he (a)nti/rrhsij) requires some description of tar-
gives the same title, but supplements it by say- get, and although Apion is the largest target se-
ing that in this work Josephus issued a)ntirrh/- lected by Josephus (2.1-144) he is not the only
seij against Apion the grammarian (Hist. eccl. one. Since Josephus himself gives no compre-
3.9.4). This clearly echoes Apion 2.1-2, and re- hensive title for the work, we are left to select a
flects Eusebius’ awareness that the single label partial title (“On the Antiquity of the Judeans”;
“On the Antiquity of the Judeans” did not cover or “Against Apion”), or combine the two (as in
the full contents of the work. Jerome, or the Latin manuscript tradition, De
Jerome (died 420 CE) displays a similar ambi- Iudaeorum vetustate sive contra Apionem), or
guity (regularly missed in discussions of this invent one of our own. If we take the last option,
topic). In Epist. 70.3 (CSEL 54, 704), Jerome we may follow Porphyry (“Against the Greeks”),
writes: Iosephus antiquitatem adprobans Iudaici or Schreckenberg (“On our People”), or Niese
populi duos libros scribit contra Apionem. This (“On behalf of Judeans,” u(pe\r )Ioudai/wn,
represents the same duality as found in Euse- 1889a: iv). But all of these are interpreters’ con-
bius, though it puts equal weight on both ele- structs and none is clearly signalled by Josephus
ments (proof of antiquity and response to himself; since the work has no “original” title,
Apion). It is not clear that Jerome intends the we may retain, for convenience, that which is
phrase contra Apionem to be the “title” of the now most commonly used (Against Apion), in-
work, though he does take both books as di- adequate as it is.
rected against Apion. Elsewhere (Vir. ill. 13) he
says that Josephus scripsit autem et …duos
5. Genre
[libros] a)rxaio/thtoj adversus Apionem gram-
maticum Alexandrinum. Here the two themes are
The discussion of the genre and rhetorical mode
again juxtaposed, and the use of the Greek term
of Apion is entangled with disputes about the
might suggest that Jerome also knew this work
place of 2.145-286 within the treatise as a
primarily under that title.42
whole, and is beset by the vagueness of the la-
We may conclude that Apion was most com-
bel “apologetic.”43 There is also often confusion
monly known in Christian circles (even by
between the rhetorical genre of the treatise (the
Jerome) under the title “On the Antiquity of the
way the argument is packaged and presented)
Judeans,” but it was recognized that this re-
and its pragmatic purpose (what Josephus in-
flected only part of its content, and the opening
tended to be its effect). The former (rhetorical
statement of book 2 justified adding some ref-
genre) is a feature of the text itself, the latter (its
erence to its element of response (to Apion).
purpose) concerns what lies behind the text, the
Porphyry indicates that in non-Christian circles
intentions of the author in the context of its
composition. In the ancient world, it was well
recognized that a gap might exist between rheto-
ric and reality, between what an author said he
to Josephus’ treatise the title “against the Greeks” that was doing (as a rhetorical performance) and
he knows for works from the Christian tradition.
42 The use of adversus Apionem in this case, rather

than contra Apionem, also suggests that contra

Apionem was not Jerome’s standard label for the work, 43 For an important attempt to address this latter is-
though it is used in his other reference to the treatise, at sue, see the (varied) essays in Edwards, Goodman, and
Jov. 2.14 (PL 23, 343, col. 317). Price 1999. See further below.
INTRODUCTION xxxi

what he was really doing (in the production and Although, as we shall see, the first Part (1.6-
circulation of the text). He might speak, for in- 218) is only lightly colored in such terms, this
stance, in another’s voice, or to a fictive audi- introduction will be matched by a conclusion
ence, while intending this exercise to address a (2.287-95) that describes each part of the trea-
real audience different from that inscribed in the tise as a reply to critics.
text. Our discussion here concerns the rhetorical Part One (1.6-218): Josephus’ tone in the
(and literary) genre of the text; later we will prolegomenon (1.6-56) is aggressive, challeng-
assess Josephus’ audience and purpose (§ 7), af- ing what he portrays as the self-importance
ter we have established the historical and cul- of Greeks and their empty claims to historical
tural context of the work (§ 6). knowledge (e.g., 1.6, 15, 44-45). Although he
Before deciding the appropriateness of the does not portray the doubts on Judean antiquity
disputed label “apology,” we must first trace the as “charges” (see the neutral terms of 1.58), he
signals of the text itself. When referring to the does include within this segment a strong ele-
work as a whole, Josephus uses rather bland la- ment of self-defense against accusations and
bels. As a written document it is simply a “text” slanders directed against his own historiography
(grafh/, 2.147, 288), in two “books” (bibli/a, (1.47-56), using the classic language of
1.320; 2.1, 296); as a rhetorical event, it is an “charge” (kathgori/a, 1.53) and “insult” (dia-
“argument” (lo/goj, 1.219; 2.144). As we shall bolh/, 1.53). This gives to the whole discussion
see, he uses more precise language in two of historiography an air of legal conflict (note
places, speaking of his provision of a “counter- the “witnesses” on Josephus’ side, 1.50, 52),
statement” (a)nti/rrhsij, 2.1, 2) and “defense” matching the language of “accusation” and
(a)pologi/a, 2.147). But before fixing on these “proof ” used of disputes among Greek histori-
terms, it is best to trace his language in se- ans themselves (1.18, 25). Thus when he comes
quence through the treatise, following the struc- to cite the evidence from “barbarian” and Greek
ture outlined above. literature (1.69-218), Josephus uses a legal
Introduction (1.1-5): one would expect au- metaphor, repeatedly referring to such material
thors to give the clearest signals of their genre, as “witness” or “testimony” (marturi/a and cog-
raising reader-expectations, at the very outset of nate terms). After opening remarks that use this
the work (and again at its conclusion). Here language (1.59, 69, 70), Josephus introduces
Josephus indicates that the work is a response, Manetho very explicitly as if he were “bringing
in particular to doubts about the antiquity of the him into court as a witness” (kaqa/per au)to\n
Judean people (1.2). These could have been in- e)kei=non paragagw\n ma/rtura, 1.74). Thereaf-
troduced as merely intellectual doubts, requiring ter the “witness” language recurs in every seg-
correction and instruction; indeed, of his three ment of this Part (Egyptian: 1.93, 104; cf. 1.227;
statements of purpose (1.3), the second and Phoenician: 1.106, 112, 115, 127; Chaldean:
third concern the correction of ignorance and 1.129, 160; Greek: 1.200, 205; cf. 2.1; in sum-
the instruction of those who desire to know the mary: 1.217, 219; 2.288).44 Thus even though
truth. But more importantly, and more promi- this Part is only lightly touched by references to
nently, the doubts are placed in the context of hostility (e.g., 1.70, 72, 214), the witness lan-
hostility: they arise because “a considerable guage keeps alive the sense that this treatise
number of people pay attention to the slanders concerns a matter of quasi-legal dispute. And the
(blasfhmi/ai) spread by some out of malice whole parade of witnesses is prefaced by the
(dusme/neia)” (1.2). Thus, the first task is to claim that this takes the ground from under the
“convict those who insult us (tw=n loidorou/-
ntwn) of malice and deliberate falsehood” (1.3);
and it is suggested that even the “ignorance” of
some is feigned, a product of prejudice (1.5). 44 Cf. the use of tekmh/rion (“proof”) in 1.2, 26, 69,
This sets the tone for the work as a whole: it is 213 (later, 2.183, 261). The “witness” language recurs
not simply an intellectual exercise in establish- in the second Part, but much less frequently (witness for
ing the truth (though it is that, cf. 2.296), but is the Judeans: 2.53, 61, 62, 84, 107; witness to Moses’
set within a conflict, a response to antagonism. doctrine or virtue, 2.168, 279, 290).
xxxii INTRODUCTION

feet of the Judeans’ “detractors” (oi( baskai/- if he were defending a multifaceted legal case;
nontej) and “the case they have against us” (h( within this context he also uses the language of
pro\j h(ma=j a)ntilogi/a, 1.72). “defense” in insisting that some of Apion’s
Part Two (1.219-2.286): here the polemical charge might be best left “undefended” (a)na-
tone is notably heightened, and the language of polo/ghta, 2.137; cf. defensio, 2.73). While the
“slander” and “insult,” prominent in the intro- defense sometimes takes the shape of a counter-
duction, is again at the forefront (1.219-22; cf. narrative, extolling the merits of the Judean
1.59). In the introduction, Josephus places the people (e.g., 2.42-64), Josephus’ focus is on a
slanders against Judeans in the context of an- set of “accusations,” refuted one by one, with
cient polemics between city-states: Theopompos’ frequent personal invective against the “Egyp-
assault on Athens, Polycrates’ attack on Sparta, tian” Apion.
etc. (1.221-22). He locates these within the The final segment of Part Two (2.145-86; see
genre of historiography (1.220), though he does above, § 1) is introduced as a further stage in
not cite any examples of response to such slan- Josephus’ response to “accusation” and “insult,”
ders comparable to his own on behalf of Ju- this time from “Apollonius Molon, Lysimachus,
deans. In responding to the stories of Manetho, and others” (2.145, 147, 148). Most of the con-
Chaeremon, and Lysimachus (1.227-320), Jose- tent of this segment concerns the merits of
phus uses the general language of “slander” and Moses, his constitution, and his laws; as Jose-
“insult” rather than specifically legal terms phus himself signals (2.148), he does not deal
(1.223, 279, 319); in truth, the stories at issue with accusations here in the same way as before,
hardly concern legal matters, but the honor of and only rarely does he engage in direct polem-
Judeans and their supposedly ignominious ori- ics against his opponent (e.g., 2.270). In extol-
gin.45 With Apion, however (2.1-144), the lan- ling the Judean constitution, Josephus gives a
guage becomes notably more legal. While Jose- summary of the laws (2.190-218) without expli-
phus gives a “counter-statement” (a)nti/rrhsij) cit reference to “accusations” and often engages
to Apion, as he had to the others (2.1-2), he in comparisons with other constitutions or city-
explicitly presents Apion’s comments as legal states, to show the superiority of Judeans (e.g.,
accusations: “he has composed a charge against 2.171-78, 219-35, 255-75). As Josephus himself
us as if in a lawsuit” (kathgori/an h(mw=n half-acknowledges, this gives to this segment of
a)/ntikruj w(j e)n di/kh| gegrafo/ta, 2.4). In this the treatise the flavor of an “encomium” (2.147,
context the language of “accusation” is ex- 287), but he insists that his real purpose is to
tremely prominent (kathgori/a and cognates: defend his people against scurrilous attacks, and
2.4, 7, 33, 117, 132, 137, 142; e)gkale/w, 2.137, describes his strategy as “the most just form of
138; accuso and cognates: 2.56, 63, 68, 79), defense” (dikaiota/th a)pologi/a, 2.147). It ac-
alongside that of “slander” (blasfhmi/a and cords with this that he intersperses his portrayal
cognates: 2.5, 32, 143; blasphemia, 2.79, 88) of the virtues of Judeans with frequent reference
and “insult” (loidori/a and cognates: 2.4, 30, to Apollonius Molon or other “accusers” (2.156,
32, 34, 49, 142, 144; cf. impropero: 2.56, 71; 161, 182, 236-38, 255, 258, 262, 270, 278,
calumniator: 2.56; derogo and cognates: 2.73, 285) so that the apologetic character of this seg-
89; detraho: 2.90, 111). Some of this may derive ment is never lost from view. This strategy may
from the fact that elements of Apion’s remarks owe much to rhetorical convenience: it was well
about the Judeans (their citizenship and their recognized in antiquity that self-praise, particu-
relationship to Rome) originated in real legal larly if it involved comparison with others, was
proceedings before the emperor (cf. Ant. an obnoxious procedure, liable to evoke envy
18.257-60). But Josephus lets the legal language and hatred rather than admiration.46 A standard
spread across the whole of Apion’s material, as way to avoid this problem was to wrap self-

45 There is a remote legal echo in 1.275 with the use 46 See Plutarch’s tractate De Laude Ipsius (espe-
of e)gkale/w (parallel to o)neidi/zw). cially, Mor. 540c-f); cf. Demosthenes, Cor. 3-4.
INTRODUCTION xxxiii

praise within rhetorical defense, to portray one- content (and perhaps in origin), it is presented
self as having to trumpet one’s merits as the only within a unifying structure as a response to slan-
means of self-defense.47 Josephus more than ders against the Judean people. Taken out of that
once signals this tactic, blaming Apollonius framework, the citation of evidence for Judean
Molon for instigating the strategy of (invidious) antiquity (1.6-218) could have been read simply
comparison, which requires him to reply in as proof of a historical fact, and the description
equal terms (2.150, 236-38). But the fact re- of the law (2.190-218) could have been under-
mains that Josephus packages his laudatory ac- stood merely as a summary of the Judean con-
count of Judean culture within the wrapping of stitution. In isolation, such material would de-
apologetics: however much the encomiastic fea- mand a rhetorical classification germane to its
tures might appear to strain the apologetic struc- own character (historical proof, or encomium),
ture, Josephus’ self-description signals clearly but within this treatise all the material is pre-
enough his chosen rhetorical genre.48 sented, more or less successfully, as response to
Conclusion (2.287-96): in summarizing his critics or slanderers.
achievements, Josephus presents all he has done 2. The criticisms addressed are sometimes de-
as response to “accusations” (kathgori/ai, scribed in legal terms as “accusations,” and the
2.285-88) and “insults” (loidori/ai, 2.290, 295). work is sometimes enlivened by a legal meta-
Now even the first Part, on antiquity, is de- phor, in relation to “witnesses” (Part One),
scribed as response to “accusers” (kath/goroi) or, most forcefully, in response to Apion’s
who charged that the Judean people were very “charges” (2.1-144). Often the legal vocabulary
recent (2.288). The second Part has replied to of “accusations” (kathgori/ai, etc.) is juxta-
claims that the Judeans were Egyptians, lies re- posed with non-legal language of “slanders”
garding their departure from Egypt, and insults and “insults,” so that the specifically forensic
regarding Moses and his laws (2.289-90). Thus character of the work is of variable prominence.
the whole work has “refuted” (e)cele/gxw) the Similarly, although the work is clearly addressed
Apions and Molons who delight in lies and in- to people outside the debate between Josephus
sults (2.295).49 The conclusion thus makes clear and the critics named (2.296), they are not ex-
what was suggested in the introduction and be- plicitly allocated the role of judge. These facts
came increasingly clear as the work progressed, do not undermine the fact that the whole work is
that it is to be understood primarily as a re- in some sense a “defense” (a)pologi/a), but they
sponse to a varied set of criticisms and accusa- mean that the legal connotations of this term are
tions. sometimes strong, sometimes comparatively
We may draw two conclusions from this sur- weak. But, as we shall see, even a fairly tight
vey of the rhetorical signals in the treatise: definition of “apologetic” can encompass this
1. Although the material in Apion is varied in extension of the original legal context of the
genre.
In terms of rhetorical genre, this survey thus
supports the conclusions of those scholars who
47 Plutarch recommends this as one way of making characterize our treatise as primarily a work of
self-praise bearable (see previous note). Isocrates’ defense.50 The inclusion of other (e.g., enco-
speech Antidosis is an extended narrative of self-praise
wrapped up in the (explicitly fictional) genre of self-
defense (see Antid. 8-13). On the symbiosis of apolo-
getic and encomium, see further below. 50 See especially van Henten & Abusch 1996: 295-
48 This case for the apologetic character of the
308; Gerber 1997: 78-88, in disagreement with Mason
whole treatise has been made extensively and well by 1996, who considers the work “protreptic.” I would here
Gerber 1997: 78-88, 250-52; cf. eadem 1999: 259-64. revise my earlier analysis in Barclay 1998a: 196-200.
49 For the use of e)le/gxw and compound verbs ear-
Mason and I reached different conclusions as to
lier in the treatise, see 1.3, 4, 15, 23, 73, 105, 253, 303; whether the work is primarily deliberative or epideictic,
2.2, 5, 30, 138, 149, 183, 194 [in a legal context], 238, but both of us perhaps gave too much weight to the
280, 287. content of 2.145-286 (as against its rhetorical context),
xxxiv INTRODUCTION

miastic) material within this structure does not From its origin in this legal setting, the apolo-
alter this judgment, and a decision about Jose- getic genre (direct response to accusations)
phus’ real intentions (to encourage Judean read- could encompass not just legal charges, but also
ers, to win converts, or whatever, see below, § slurs, insults, and slanders, and it could be ap-
7) is not determined by, and cannot itself deter- plied to contexts where what was at stake was
mine, this decision about the rhetorical genre of not the legal standing of the debaters but, more
the work. To what extent this places the work broadly, their honor. Even in legal contexts, ref-
within a genre (rhetorical or literary) that could erence to “charges” (kathgori/ai or ai)ti/ai) was
be called “apologetic” is a matter to which we often juxtaposed with mention of “slanders”
now turn. (blasfhmi/ai), “insults” (loidori/ai), and “li-
The rhetorical genre of “apology” (a)polo- bels” (diabolai/),53 and in non-legal contexts all
gi/a) has its origins in the legal defense speech, such terms could be mixed. While individuals
the response of the accused to the charges or might defend their reputation in apologetic
suspicions raised by the prosecution.51 From mode (e.g., Isocrates, Antidosis), the genre was
here it became a literary form both by straight also influential on the way that city-states com-
transference (defense speeches written up as lit- peted for honor. As we have seen, Josephus
erary works, such as those of Demosthenes, places his work in the context of the polemics
Cicero, and Apuleius) and by imitation (e.g., of the ancient world, particularly those between
Lysias’ artificial defense speeches; Isocrates, Greek city-states (Apion 1.220-22), and in that
Antidosis). Plato’s hugely influential Apology context we find numerous cases of self-promo-
also demonstrated how a legal defense speech tion that also defend the relevant city against
could be expanded and manipulated into a slurs and accusations. Thus Isocrates’ panegyric
wider defense of a (philosophical) way of life, on Athens rebuts Spartan accusations against the
as much positive promotion of a cause as nega- Athenian empire, and in an extended compari-
tive refutation of its detractors. Given the popu- son with Sparta levels charges against Sparta in
larity of forensic rhetoric as a form of entertain- return (Panath. 37, 61-73, 88-111). Dionysius
ment, and as a training exercise for budding of Halicarnassus opens his eulogy of the city of
orators, it is not surprising that set-piece defense Rome with reference to hostile claims that it was
speeches found their way into numerous literary founded by barbarians and vagabonds (Ant.
genres, including historical narratives and nov- rom. 1.4.2; 1.5.2-3; cf. 1.89.1), claims that he
els.52 rebuts with a long alternative narrative.54 Simi-
lar apologetic elements appear in Aristides’ de-
fense of Athens (Or. 1.282, 302-12). In this ex-
and both could have distinguished more clearly be- tended, non-legal, sense, “apologetic” seems a
tween the question of the author’s intentions (whether suitable label for such explicit and direct re-
to gain converts or to win sympathy/support) and that sponse to rhetorical assault, although in all these
of the rhetorical genre. For a clear analysis of the dis- works it is only one element within a larger (en-
tinction between authorial intention and rhetorical/lit- comiastic) whole, not the defining characteristic
erary genre, see Alexander 1999 (in relation to Acts). of the text as a whole.
51 See the definition and discussion in Ps.-Aristotle

[Anaximenes], Rhet. Alex. 1426b 22–1427b 11. The

question here is not whether Apion precisely fits a
53 E.g., Demosthenes, Cor. 3-8; Ps.-Aristotle
standard category, but the extent to which it partici-
pates in, and expands, the tradition of “apologetics” [Anamimenes], Rhet. Alex. 1436b–1438a. Within a
established in rhetorical and literary practice. Josephan passage, note the juxtaposition of ai)ti/a (Ant.
52 For a survey, see Veltman 1978; there are exam- 16.100, 104, 117, 119) and diabolh/ (Ant. 16.101, 108,
ples in Acts, in Chariton, Chaereas, and in Josephus, 112, 113, 121, 134); cf. Apion 1.53 (kathgori/a kai\
Antiquities (e.g., Ant. 16.100-26). See further Berger diabolh/).
54 See Balch 1982, though he exaggerates the ex-
1984: 1287-91, with discussion of apologetic letters,
defined by Demetrius as “that which adduces, with tent to which this account of Rome’s origins is apolo-
proof, arguments that contradict charges that are being getic. Apart from this opening comment, references to
made” (cited in Stowers 1986: 167). critics of Rome are extremely rare (cf. 2.8.3-4).
INTRODUCTION xxxv

Although it is common for scholars to use the By the nature of the case, works that are pri-
term “apologetic” in looser and more nebulous marily apologetic (as defined above) are likely
ways, it seems sensible to operate with a tighter to contain elements of polemics and encomium
definition along the lines discussed thus far. (“propaganda”). As rhetoricians recognized, an
When the term becomes used for any form of effective method of self-defense is to go on the
self-justification or explanation, whether ad- offensive against one’s accusers, such that
dressed to outsiders or to one’s own group, it has apologetic will often include invective (though
become too vague to be useful.55 It seems best not all invective is “apologetic”). It was also rec-
to define “apologetic” as defense that is a) di- ognized that to stand always on the back foot,
rectly formulated against explicit accusations defending oneself against criticism, could be
(legal charges or non-legal slurs), and b) di- seen as a sign of weakness; sometimes it was
rected towards observers (rather than “insid- appropriate to take a more positive stand and to
ers”), at least at the level of the rhetoric (the promote or eulogize what the opposition had
actual or intended audience is another matter).56 attempted to denigrate.58 Thus, although “apol-
We should note that, in these terms, “apolo- ogy” and “encomium” were distinct rhetorical
getic” motifs/passages may be present within a genres, as part of a total apologetic strategy it
text that is not itself defined by this genre; only was not surprising to find defenders of a cause
where a text is dominated by this strategy of waxing lyrical on whatever was under attack.59
defense is it suitable to describe it as an “apol- With these observations, and on the basis of
ogy” in the proper sense.57 this definition, we may conclude that Apion, as
analysed above, may be classified as an example
of “apology.” That it contains polemics and an
extended passage whose content is most like an
55 Mader 2000: 147-57 speaks of War as “two-way encomium (2.145-286) is no obstacle to this
apologetic” (to both Romans and Judeans), but only in classification; the work as a whole is placed
the broad sense that it addresses their various miscon- within the framework of, and dominated by, de-
ceptions. F. Young 1999 operates with an extremely fense against explicit accusations (some legal,
broad definition in order to include all the products of some not), and is directed, at the rhetorical level,
the Christian Greek “apologists” of the second century; at “outsiders” (1.3; 2.296). It stands in the tradi-
but it would be better to clarify that many of them did tion of the defense speech (real or fictional), as
not write “apologies” in anything like the technical
adapted for use in the rivalries between city-
sense. Sterling’s definition of “apologetic historio-
graphy” (in which he includes Josephus’ Antiquities) is
states of the Mediterranean world, though it is
similarly broad: “the story of a subgroup of people in
an extended prose narrative written by a member of the
group who follows the group’s own traditions but them, and in so doing continually change them. Texts
Hellenizes them in an effort to establish the identity of may participate in more than one genre, just as they
the group within the setting of the larger world” (1992: may be marked in an exaggerated or in a deliberately
17). This has lost touch with the core notion of response subtle fashion” (2003: 12). Nonetheless, in order to
to criticisms or charges. Cf. the discussion in Schröder appreciate this flexibility and creativity, one has to
1996: 138-41. identify first the genre(s) in which the relevant text
56 S. Price 1999 insists on this “exoteric” criterion participates.
58 See again, Demosthenes, Cor. 3-4; cf. Quintilian,
as essential for a work to be classed as “apologetic.”
This makes good sense, as it stays close to the context Inst. 5.13.53 (first refute the opposition, then present
of the defense speech before a judge or jury, though we one’s own case). Plato’s Apology spends as much time
should note that such address to outsiders may be a fic- advocating Socrates’ philosophy as defending him
tion constructed by the text. But it is possible to argue against charges. Josephus reports the combination of
that this second criterion is not essential to the notion “apology” and “encomium” in Nicolas’ account of the
of “apologetic.” life of Herod (Ant. 16.86).
57 Of course, the passion for classification can itself 59 Conversely, an encomium could contain many

become a straightjacket. As Newsom comments: “Texts elements of apologetic; Isocrates complained that
do not ‘belong’ to genres so much as participate in Gorgias’ Encomium of Helen would be better termed an
them, invoke them, gesture to them, play in and out of “apology” (Hel. Enc. 10.14).
xxxvi INTRODUCTION

the only known example of such inter-state ri- that the implied audience, constructed in the
valry that is dominated by this defensive stance text, is different from the intended audience (the
and classifiable, as a text, as an “apology.”60 We people whom Josephus really hoped to hear or
know of no Judean precursor: none of the frag- read this work). Such matters cannot be judged
ments of Philo (?) sometimes mentioned in this adequately from within the text itself, whose
connection would fit our definition of “apol- constructed world might or might not corre-
ogy.”61 Of later Christian works, the closest par- spond to social reality. To approach such ques-
allel is Origen’s Contra Celsum, in its direct re- tions, we need to know about the historical con-
buttal of specific accusations, though some text in which Apion was written, and the likely
other works bear more or less “apologetic” fea- intentions of its author within that context.
tures.62
To class Josephus’ Apion as an “apology” is
6. Political and Social Context in Rome
not yet to say anything about the reality of the
charges here addressed, or of the audience here
Given the uncertainty concerning the date of
implied. In principle it is quite possible for an
Apion (see above, § 3), its political context cer-
author to invent accusations in order to rebut
tainly includes, but cannot be limited to the last
them, or to rake up old issues that have no cur-
years of Domitian (94-96 CE). Attention must
rent impact, for the sake of a rhetorical treatise;
also be paid to the reign of Nerva (96-98 CE)
such was the staple of rhetorical exercises
and the early years of Trajan (98-117 CE) since
(controversiae) in the schools. It is also possible
the treatise could have been written at any time
between 94 and ca. 105 CE. In the absence of
precise chronological markers, the work must be
60 One could speculate why: would it have appeared placed in a general context regarding the per-
a sign of weakness to spend so much of one’s time re- ception of Judeans in Rome since the Judean
futing accusations against one’s city or nation? The
Revolt. Thus our discussion will include the spe-
appearance of whole texts dominated by this strategy,
such as Apion and some later Christian examples, may
cial place of Judeans within Flavian ideology,
be a reflection of the vulnerability of the causes they the particular circumstances of Domitian’s rule,
represent. the changes after his assassination, and the repu-
61 We know nothing about the work Eusebius enti- tation of Judeans in Rome throughout this pe-
tles “On Behalf of Judeans” (Hist. eccl. 2.18.6). Euse- riod.
bius introduces a passage from Philo on the Essenes The Flavian dynasty, founded by Vespasian
(Praep. ev. 8.11.1) as derived from his “apology on (69-79 CE) after the chaos of the Civil War,
behalf of the Judeans” (8.10.19), but nothing in the text drew considerable political capital, even a de-
cited even remotely fits the genre (there is no mention gree of its legitimacy, from the military success
of criticisms at all). Fragments from the Hypothetica (on of Vespasian and Titus in the Judean War. Al-
their authorship, see Appendix 5) are introduced by the though the War had not expanded the empire’s
claim that Philo makes this argument “on behalf of
boundaries but merely suppressed a provincial
Judeans as if towards their accusers” (u(pe\r )Ioudai/wn
w(j pro\j kathgo/rouj au)tw=n, Praep. ev. 8.5.11), but
revolt, the lavish celebration of a triumph in
this may be Eusebius’ own loose categorization of the Rome in June 71 CE (fully described by Jose-
work. The fragments themselves display a diatribe style phus in War 7.123-62) indicates the importance
(raising possible objections in the form of “you may of this War in establishing the new imperial era.
say” or “you may ask,” e.g., 6.2; 7.11). There is one The Flavians exploited to the full the propa-
report of insults against Moses (6.2), but the author does ganda benefits of the victory in Judea. The is-
not speak as an advocate of the Judeans (they are spo- sue of Judea Capta coins, the celebration of the
ken of in the third person, not the first), and the work War in prose and poetry, the construction of the
does not seem to be structured or dominated by re- Temple of Peace (75 CE), in which were dis-
sponse to criticism. The genre is that of a philosophical played the objects from the Jerusalem Temple,
dialogue, not an apology. See Keeble 1991: 44-52; the construction of a triumphal arch in the Cir-
Goodman 1999: 48-49.
62 See the essays by Rajak, Young, Price, Frede, and cus Maximus, whose inscription lauded Titus’
Edwards in Edwards, Goodman, and Price 1999.
subjugation of the Judean people, and of a sec-
INTRODUCTION xxxvii

ond triumphal arch to Titus on the Velia (very are highly problematic, being written mostly in
near to the Forum), with its panel depicting the hindsight, out of grievance, in the aftermath
triumph and the apotheosis of Titus, even the of a damnatio memoriae, and in justification
construction of the Colosseum “from the spoils of a new regime interested in exaggerating the
of war”—all these signal how Flavian honor was crimes of a discredited “tyrant.” It is even hard
built on the foundation of Judean defeat.63 This to establish a sense of chronology: for some
is not to say that every Judean shared equally in sources there are turning points, after which the
the disgrace. Agrippa II continued to be honored regime descended into a reign of terror, for oth-
in the imperial court, the Herodian princess ers Domitian’s rule constituted one long 15-year
Berenice was favored by Titus (until he became era of “slavery.”66 It is likely that Domitian’s
emperor, 79 CE), and Josephus himself was meticulous and sometimes oppressive attention
given minor favors by Vespasian, continued by to detail was a constant feature of his reign, but
his successors, no doubt for predicting Vespa- his sense of insecurity and his autocratic reac-
sian’s rise to power and assisting the Romans at tion to hints of criticism probably increased in
the difficult siege of Jerusalem.64 But Josephus’ the last years of his rule.67 For our purposes, two
effort to write a more “balanced” account of the phenomena are of particular importance, the
Judean War was occasioned, at least in part, by exaction of the fiscus Iudaicus and the high-
the strong current of vilification that Judeans profile trials and executions of the last years of
endured in the aftermath of the Revolt (War the regime.
1.2). Although Domitian was not personally in- In humiliating the Judean people after the
volved in the War, his accession to power (81 Revolt, Vespasian had diverted the annual Ju-
CE) did not lessen the Flavian bias in this re- dean temple tax to the coffers of the fiscus Iu-
spect: he had written poetry on the destruction daicus, and made it now payable by all Judeans,
of Jerusalem (Valerius Flaccus, Arg. 1.12-13), male and female, throughout the empire.68 Ac-
was responsible for completing and dedicating cording to Suetonius, Domitian took care to ap-
the arch to Titus on the Velia, and energetically ply this mode of taxation with great severity
propagated the mythologies of the Flavian (acerbissime, Dom. 12.2) and used informers to
gens.65 The political atmosphere did not favor root out those who had hitherto evaded it.69
respect for the Judean people and their culture. Suetonius mentions two categories of supposed
The particular conditions of Domitian’s rule tax-dodgers: i) those considered to live the
(81-96 CE) are not easy to evaluate: our sources “Judean life” without admitting themselves to be
Judeans (qui inprofessi Iudaicam viverent vitam);
and ii) those who hid their origins to avoid the
63 See now Millar 2005 for a full discussion. Barnes
describes the Judean victory as providing “the equiva-
lent of a foundation myth for the Flavian dynasty”
66 Tacitus, Agr. 2-3. Suetonius, Domitian, divides
(2005: 129).
64 On the Herodians in Flavian Rome, see D. the reign into two parts, with the revolt of Saturninus
Schwartz 2005; on Agrippa II and Berenice, Dio Cassius (89 CE) as the turning point. The notorious senatorial
66.15.3-4; 18.1 (Barclay 1996a: 308-9). Josephus’ own executions, which Suetonius groups into a single list
privileges are listed in Life 422-29 and discussed by (Dom. 10), may have been spread more evenly across
Mason 2001 ad loc. Apart from political protection the period than he suggests.
67 For recent discussion see Jones 1992; Southern
against a number of opponents, they amount to rela-
tively little in terms of imperial favor (citizenship, land, 1997; Griffin 2000a. Jones 1996 provides an historical
house, and pension; see Mason 1998: 74-78; Cotton commentary on Suetonius, Domitian.
68 Josephus, War 7.218; Dio Cassius 66.7.2; see
and Eck 2005: 38-40). Josephus was known to Roman
authors as the Judean who predicted Vespasian’s rise to Barclay 1996a: 76-78.
69 He relates the trial and stripping of a 90-year old
imperial power (Suetonius, Vesp. 5.9; Dio 66.1.4). On
his relationship to Titus, see Yavetz 1975. man (to see if he was circumcised) when he himself was
65 On his temples to the Flavian gens, the Templum adulescentulus; since he was an adulescens in 88 CE,
Vespasiani et Titi, and the Templum Divorum see Grif- this probably suggests that the tax regime was tightened
fin 2000a: 57. from the mid 80s (Jones 1992: 76; Williams 1990: 204).
xxxviii INTRODUCTION

tax levied on their people (dissimulata origine cient number of the Roman population to be
imposita genti tributa non pependissent). Al- widely known and considered (retrospectively)
though these two categories have been variously a public scandal.73 During Domitian’s principate
interpreted, it is most likely that the first includes it appears that the adoption by Romans of
people who adopted Judean customs, with how- Judean customs (in appearance or reality) could
ever great or little interest in Judean culture, or be costly, both financially and socially.
could be conveniently charged with doing so; This impression is strengthened by some as-
the second seems to embrace Judeans by birth pects of the trials and executions that took place
who had become apostates.70 The rigorous ex- at the end of Domitian’s reign. There can be no
action of this tax may have something to do doubt that the motivations for these trials was
with Domitian’s passion for administrative effi- primarily political: Domitian was particularly
ciency and the financial needs of a regime that ruthless in snuffing out threats to his rule or criti-
had greatly increased military pay and was com- cisms of his person. At possibly quite an early
mitted to massively expensive building works.71 point in his principate he had T. Flavius Sabinus
But that this tax was so enthusiastically pursued, executed; as a cousin and the husband of Titus’
and applied to those suspected of being closet daughter, he was a potential rival for power.74
Judaizers, indicates an atmosphere in which After the revolt of Saturninus (January 89 CE),
Judean culture was the target of particular and Domitian had good reason to fear a challenge to
hostile attention, and where it was no longer a his power, and his position as the childless repre-
joke to be thought of as “Judean” by abstaining sentative of a dynasty now losing popularity
from pork or not working on the sabbath/day of began to look dangerously similar to that
Saturn.72 When we find Nerva issuing coins im- of Nero. The trials in 92/93 CE of Arulenus
mediately after his accession (96 CE) celebrat- Rusticus and Herennius Senecio, both senior
ing the end of malicious accusations relating to senators, concerned their publication of eulogis-
this tax (FISCI IUDAICI CALUMNIA SUBLATA), tic biographies of Thrasea Paetus (condemned to
it becomes clear that informers’ enthusiasm for death by Nero) and Helvidius Priscus (executed
“unmasking” non-payers had affected a suffi- by Vespasian); any advocacy of opposition to
the principate could be heard as opposition to its
present occupant.75 By the same token, philoso-
phers who took their Stoicism to license “free-
70
dom of speech” or withdrawal from the political
For further discussion, see Barclay 1996a: 311; domain came under suspicion, and a number
Smallwood 1956; 1981: 371-75; Williams 1990. An
were expelled from Rome in the early 90s.76 A
alternative reading of Suetonius, which has both cat-
egories refer to circumcised peregrini and apostate farce taken to be a criticism of the emperor’s
Judeans (who hid either their Judean practices or their
Judean origins) has been advanced (Thompson 1982,
followed by Goodman 1989), but makes less sense.
71 Suetonius places the Judean tax issue in the con- 73 For the coins, see Mattingly 1936 (nos. 15, 17,
text of Domitian’s economic policies (Dom. 12.1). On 19); for recent discussion, Goodman 2005.
Domitian’s finances, see Jones 1992: 72-79; Griffin 74 Suetonius, Dom. 10.4; see Jones 1992: 44-47,

2000a: 69-76. 187; 1996: 94-95; Southern 1997: 42-44; on the date,
72 The point is rightly emphasized by Williams
Syme 1983: 131.
1990. In an earlier age Augustus could quip that he 75 Suetonius, Dom. 10.3; Tacitus, Agr. 2.1; 45.1-2;

fasted on the sabbath as rigorously as a Judean Dio 67.13.2. Cf. the banishment and execution of
(Suetonius, Aug. 76.2). In a more hostile atmosphere, Epaphroditus, the freedman of Nero who had helped
Seneca’s father was worried lest his son’s vegetarianism him commit suicide (Suetonius, Dom. 14.4; Dio
be interpreted as sympathy with a foreign cult (Ep. 67.14.4-5; see note to “Epaphroditus” at 1.1).
108.22). On the persistent possibilities for confusion 76 Suetonius, Dom 10.3; Tacitus, Agr. 2.2; Aulus

between the Judean sabbath and “Saturn’s day” (in- Gellius, Noct. att. 15.11.4 (Epictetus); Pliny, Ep. 3.11.3
creasingly regarded as an unlucky day for work), see (Artemidorus). For the date (perhaps 93 CE), see Jones
Barclay 1996a: 296-97. 1992: 119-20, 189; 1996: 93. As Jones points out,
INTRODUCTION xxxix

marriage, criticism of his gladiators, even jokes at issue here, they were a pretext for trials moti-
about his baldness, could be punished severely vated by political insecurity.79 But when Dio
by an increasingly sensitive and capricious em- adds later that Nerva released those who were
peror.77 on trial for a)se/beia (Latin equivalent: maiestas)
In this context we should understand the tri- and forbade accusations regarding either a)se/-
als of T. Flavius Clemens and his wife Flavia beia or “the Judean life” ( )Ioudaiko\j bi/oj,
Domitilla (95 CE), and the exile then execution 68.1.2), we have the sense that a number of
(95 CE) of M. Acilius Glabrio, as a reflex of treason trials in the last years of Domitian’s reign
the emperor’s political vulnerability. Flavius Cle- were bound up in some way with accusations of
mens was another cousin of Domitian’s, and closet Judaizing.
married to Flavia Domitilla, Domitian’s niece; The precise connection here is not easily dis-
more importantly, two of their sons had been cerned. Was it charged that Judaizing encour-
adopted by Domitian as his heirs, placing their aged refusal to recognize the Roman Gods, and
parents in a precariously prominent position. thus also the imperial cult assiduously cultivated
Clemens was made consul at the start of 95 CE by Domitian?80 Or was adoption of Judean cul-
(for the second time), but later that year was ture regarded as an affront to the representative
executed, according to Suetonius “on the slight- of a dynasty that had come to power by defeat-
est of suspicions” (ex tenuissima suspicione, ing these rebellious subjects? In any case,
Dom. 15.1). We owe to Dio the notice that the amidst the political (and perhaps financial) mo-
charge against them was of “atheism” (a)qeo/- tivations for such trials, we must include the
thj), a charge on which many others were con- perception by informers and imperial agents that
demned who drifted into Judean customs (e)j ta\ the emperor found “Judean customs” a despi-
tw=n )Ioudai/wn h)/qh e)coke/llontej, 67.14.1-2). cable attribute of high-status Romans.81 Litera-
In the same connection, Dio adds reference to
the execution of Glabrio, who was accused of
“the same crimes as most of the others” and of
fighting with wild beasts as a gladiator.78 It is 79 Williams suggests (1990: 208, n. 89) that Sue-
hard to make much of such disparate remarks, tonius’ comment on Clemens’ contemptissima inertia
though it seems that if “Judean customs” were may reflect some tenuous connection with the observ-
ance of the Judean sabbath; cf. Jones 1992: 47-48, 117-
18 and Griffin 2000a: 68, who also take the connection
with Judean customs to have been relatively superficial.
80 a)se/beia could reflect any sleight to the dignity
Domitian was opposed not to philosophy as such, but
of the emperor. a)qeo/thj suggests a disavowal of Ro-
to the use of Stoicism as a vehicle for insolence or a
man cults, but we do not know how this was connected
rationale for defiance (1992: 121-22; cf. Griffin 2000a:
to charges of “Judean customs,” especially when the
67). For this reason, the argument of Haaland (2005)
victims were senators or even consuls who regularly
that Josephus toned down use of “philosophical” lan-
displayed their loyalty to Roman rites. But Tacitus’
guage in describing Judean culture in Apion, in reac-
perception that proselytes learned (among other things)
tion to the Roman atmosphere in the last years of
Domitian’s reign, is not wholly convincing. contemnere deos (Hist. 5.5.2) may be relevant here; see
77 The farce was composed by Helvidius Priscus further below. On Domitian’s cultivation of the Flavian
(younger), of notorious senatorial pedigree (Suetonius, gens, see above; he was also particularly devoted to the
Dom. 10.4; Jones 1996: 93-94). For criticism of goddess Minerva (Jones 1992: 99-100). To what extent
Domitian’s gladiators, see Pliny, Pan. 33.3-4; of his he promoted recognition of his own divinity (“Domi-
baldness, Suetonius, Dom. 18.2. But such stories, em- nus ac Deus”) is a matter of some dispute (Jones 1992:
phasizing trivial causes of offense, may have been in- 108-9; Griffin 2000a: 81-82); the issue may have been
vented or exaggerated when it became politically exaggerated by later sources.
81 See the cogent analysis of Williams 1990, who
opportune to contrast “freedom” under the new regime
with the “slavery” endured under its predecessor. points out that the treason trials, in which lives were
78 Dio 67.14.3; cf. Suetonius, Dom. 10.1-2 (sus- lost for “drifting into Judean ways,” concerned people
pected of revolutionary intentions); see Jones 1992: of a very different social level than those affected by
184; 1996: 88. the tax-trials for the fiscus Iudaicus.
xl INTRODUCTION

ture produced during the reign of Domitian to It reassured senators that their private lives
flatter or amuse the emperor bears out this im- would not be subject to the same scrutiny, or
pression: Martial makes persistent mockery of charges trumped up against them, but there was
Judeans, and especially their habit of circumci- no change in imperial policy towards Judeans as
sion,82 while Quintilian, tutor to Domitian’s such: the fiscus Iudaicus continued to be col-
adopted heirs, remarks on the hatred directed at lected (without the use of “malicious charges”),
Moses, the founder of “the Judean supersti- and the Jerusalem temple remained in ruins. It
tion,” who formed a people “ruinous to others” is hard to imagine a sudden swelling of Judean
(perniciosa ceteris, 3.7.21). We do not have to hopes. Although Nerva was not bound to the
postulate some imperial conspiracy against Ju- Flavian celebration of the Judean War, he was
deans, but may still surmise that the emperor hardly likely to allow the reconstruction of the
harbored and encouraged a “deep antagonism temple in Jerusalem, a central focus for Judean
towards the Jews and their ways.”83 national loyalty whose reconstruction could di-
The assassination of Domitian (18th Septem- minish the assimilation of Judeans throughout
ber 96 CE) and the installation of Nerva as the empire.85 In any case, everyone knew that
emperor brought some immediate changes, ad- the ageing Nerva was a temporary stop-gap, and
vertised by the new emperor in condemnation of when he adopted his heir, Trajan, as early as
his predecessor. Many of those expelled (e.g., November 97 CE, Judeans could hardly antici-
philosophers) were recalled, the tax-trials for the pate bias in their favor: the coming emperor was
fiscus Iudaicus were halted, with public an- the son of M. Ulpius Trajanus, a legionary com-
nouncement on imperial coinage (see above) mander in the Judean War alongside Titus.86
and, according to Dio, Nerva “released all who We have two main literary sources for conser-
were on trial for a)se/beia and restored the exiles, vative opinion about Judeans in Rome during
… and no persons were permitted to accuse the last years of the first century CE and the
anybody of a)se/beia or of a Judean mode of beginning of the second: the satirist Juvenal and
life” (68.1.2). This public reversal of policy was the historian Tacitus. For all their differences
part of the dramatic repudiation of the “tyrant” they reveal in common an attitude of scorn and
Domitian, but it does not appear to represent a amused disdain, sometimes shading into resent-
particularly favorable stance towards Judeans.84 ment directed at the “contrary” and “absurd”

successors, Nerva and Trajan (Griffin 2000b: 98, 106-

82
For Martial on circumcision, see especially the 8).
poems in Book 7 (dedicated to Domitian): 7.30.5; 35.3- 85 See Rives 2005 on the rationale for the Roman

4; 82.5-6. Williams rightly emphasizes the prevalence policy towards the Jerusalem temple. The notice in
of his abuse of Judeans, male and female, in relation to Barn. 16:3-4 regarding future reconstruction of the tem-
the destruction of Jerusalem, the sabbath, and poverty, ple has been taken by some to reflect Judean hopes
as well as circumcision (1990: 197, 205). during the reign of Nerva (e.g., Carleton Paget 1994:
83 Williams 1990: 211. The rabbinic evidence con-
17-28). But the hopes expressed there seem vague, and
cerning the vulnerability of a proselyte, Onkelos, the the connection with Nerva is made only via a question-
death of a senator, Keti’ah bar Shalom, and the visit of able reading of Barn. 4:3-5. Nerva’s cessation of the
four rabbis to Rome (on hearing of a threat to expel all trials did not signal the end of the tax itself, which
Judeans from the Roman empire) is discussed in seems to presuppose the non-existence of the temple in
Smallwood 1956: 8-10. Its historical value is doubtful, Jerusalem (to which the equivalent tax was formerly
but it may reflect the memory of an atmosphere in directed). For general Judean hopes regarding the tem-
Domitian’s Rome particularly hostile to Judeans. ple, see note to “God” at 2.193.
84 On Nerva’s wide-ranging reversals of his pred- 86 See Goodman 2005: 176-77. The father was made

ecessor’s abuses, the advertised arrival of “Libertas a consul by Vespasian and governed Syria 73-77 CE;
Restituta,” and his cherished reputation for “mildness,” the son gained military experience in the East (as mili-
see Griffin 2000b: 84-88. But the propagandistic em- tary tribune) under his father during the early 70s. On
phasis on change masks the degree of continuity be- Nerva’s reign and the question of succession, see
tween the principate of Domitian and that of his Grainger 2003.
INTRODUCTION xli

Judean customs that they took so little trouble to other cultures (5.4.1). Indeed, it is this sense of
understand.87 Juvenal associates Judeans with contrariety that is most prominent throughout
the “effluent” from the East, and typecasts them Tacitus’ account: the Judeans regard as profane
as impoverished beggars and fortune-tellers all that “we” hold sacred, and permit all that
(Sat. 3.10-18, 296; 6.542-47). The Herodian “we” abhor (5.4.1). Sabbath rest (indolence),
family are in a different social class, but they fasting, abstention from pork, anti-Egyptian
too can be mocked for their peculiar customs rites, and worship of the ass are all brought un-
regarding sabbaths and pork (6.153-60). In a der this heading, and connected via ludicrous
neat vignette (14.96-106), Juvenal weaves a etiology to an Egyptian account of the exodus.
composite critique of Judean peculiarity: they Other features, too, emphasize Judean isolation-
worship nothing but the heavens, abstain from ism: they use circumcision only to distinguish
pork, laze around on the sabbath, and practice themselves from others (5.5.2), and they forti-
circumcision. All of these customs Juvenal fied Jerusalem heavily in anticipation of the
traces to Moses and his “arcane volume” of law wars that would arise from their policy of differ-
that teaches Judeans to be hostile to anyone ence (5.12.2). This difference is in fact a sign of
apart from themselves (14.103-4), and induces hostility: they will neither eat nor sleep with oth-
converts to despise the Roman laws.88 ers, being extremely loyal to one another, but
Tacitus raises all these issues, and adds displaying towards all others an aggressive ha-
more.89 He opens his mini-ethnography (written tred (sed adversus omnes alios hostile odium,
ca. 107 CE) with an account of Judean origins, 5.5.1). In this connection, Tacitus particularly
a topic of not merely “academic” interest, since excoriates the “worst people” (pessimus quis-
certain versions conferred honor, while others que) who abandon their own traditions and used
(including the one he describes at length) depict to send money to Jerusalem: such change from
a diseased offshoot of the Egyptian people, ancestral customs, repudiating the Gods and
whose desert wanderings explain bizarre cus- disowning country and family, was bound to
toms such as worship of an ass and abstention shock a conservative mind that put such pre-
from the scabrous pig (Hist. 5.2-4).90 Tacitus’ mium on religious, national, and familial tradi-
report is not all invective: he inserts subtle ad- tion (5.5.2).
miration of the more “philosophical” features of It would be misleading to suggest that such
Judean religious tradition (their contempt for xenophobia and snide disdain were directed
death and imageless worship of God, 5.5.3-4). uniquely, or even to an atypical degree, against
But he shows no respect for Moses, who sneak- Judeans. One could cite more and equally dam-
ily gained unique influence over future genera- ning comments about Egyptians, Greeks, and
tions by introducing customs totally at odds with Germans: in fact, almost any ethnic group could
form a convenient target for satirical ire or con-
servative outrage.91 Nor should we assume that
the hostility towards Judeans displayed by these
87 See Barclay 1996a: 313-15; Schäfer 1997a: 183- sources was representative of Romans in gen-
92. Gruen (2002: 41-53) rightly questions whether eral. From the very fact that it caused them an-
these sources express fear or alarm about Judeans, but noyance, we can tell that there were other Ro-
notes their mocking tone. mans who found Judean customs attractive, who
88 Cf. the fortune-teller’s interpretation of “the laws
observed sabbaths, abstained from pork and
of Solyma” (Sat. 6.564). The contemporary Epictetus
even, after a time, got themselves circumcised
also notices Judean food laws (Diss. 1.11.12-13; 22.4;
cf. Plutarch, Quaest. conv. 4.5). (to become proselytes). It is often difficult to tell
89 Besides the commentary in Stern, see Bloch 2000 how much such “Judaizing” was actual and how
with further bibliography. much simply the interpretation of others (hostile
90 Of the six version he outlines, only this last is

treated at length and implicitly accorded credence, in

explaining Judean customs. Of the other options, men-
tion by Homer (as the famous “Solymi”) would give the 91 See Isaac 2004 on the range of ancient prejudice
Judeans an “illustrious origin” (clara initia, Hist. 5.2.3). (though his label “racism” is anachronistic).
xlii INTRODUCTION

charge or wishful thinking), and where it was and purer form of wisdom, however enigmati-
actual, to what degree it expressed genuine at- cally expressed.93 If Judeans were merely an
traction to Judean culture and to what degree a offshoot of the Egyptian populace, they had no
skin-deep, selective, or socially convenient fash- independent claim to wisdom; if they were a
ion. But we need not doubt that there was a pen- distinct ancient nation, their challenging cultural
umbra of supportive non-Judeans in Rome, and claims had the right to be treated very seriously.
some real proselytes, the fruit of a sustained and In other words, Judean antiquity and origins
profound engagement with Judean culture. Nev- were not merely a matter of historical interest,
ertheless, the witness of Juvenal and Tacitus, but carried significant implications for the value
following the evidence from the principate of of the Judean tradition as a whole.
Domitian, suggests that there was a strong intel- 2. Judean customs: Judean cultural difference
lectual current of hostility towards Judeans, that was certainly noted in Rome, often derided, and
it was socially respectable to ridicule Judean sometimes regarded as a sign of moral deprav-
culture, and that there was no sea-change in this ity. As we have seen, certain customs were stock
mood after the death of Domitian, however topics for comment: sabbath-observance, ab-
much the change of emperor brought to an end stention from pork, fasting, aniconic worship,
particular causes of nuisance or danger. and circumcision. These could be variously ex-
We may conclude from this and from other plained, by reference to the exodus or to the
relevant evidence that Judean culture was most peculiar Judean penchant for difference. While
interesting, and most controversial, in Rome in they could bear a harmless interpretation, they
relation to three topics: were vulnerable to negative judgment: the sab-
1. Judean origins: Tacitus’ canvassing of six bath rest could be represented as mere laziness,
variants regarding Judean origins indicates that aniconic worship a snub to the Gods. Moral op-
multiple versions circulated in intellectual cir- probrium could fall on Moses, the founder of the
cles, many convenient because they served etio- nation and originator of these laws, or on his
logical purposes, “explaining” unusual or amus- contemporary followers who were stupid or con-
ing Judean habits (see Appendix 3). Behind trary enough to maintain his traditions. In either
Tacitus’ account we can detect the influence of case, Judean culture was an alien phenomenon,
Egyptian tales regarding a diseased element of always potentially laughable, and sometimes the
the Egyptian population, stories with long pedi- object of moral disgust.
grees and complex accretions that are also 3. Judean exclusiveness: That Judeans were
partly visible in Josephus’ Apion. These tales not only different, but were deliberately so, was
could be significant simply for the honor or dis- noted, and sometimes resented, by Roman ob-
honor they conveyed, but they could also bear servers. This could rankle at various levels. So-
the burden of a particular philosophical concern. cially, their isolationism, in meals and marriage,
There is patchy but sufficient evidence to sug- could be taken to represent rank incivility, a
gest that the late first century CE witnessed an stubborn rejection of normal rules of social in-
upsurge of interest in purportedly ancient east- tercourse; the rumor could circulate that Judeans
ern nations, whose records could predate and could never be trusted to show you the way.
correct those of Greece: alternative accounts of Politically, their famous aniconism could pass
the Trojan War were circulating in Josephus’ life- unnoticed, or could be turned against Judeans as
time, and Philo of Byblos (64–141 CE) gained a sign of their insubordination: not paying re-
credence for his claim to “discover” an ancient
Phoenician source.92 For contemporary Stoic
philosophers this was a matter of particular im-
portance: ancient peoples might preserve a truer 93 For Chaeremon, see Frede 1989. The point is de-
veloped, in application to Judeans, in Boys-Stones
2001, who shows that this development in Stoic phi-
losophy has direct relevance to the questions about
92 See Bowersock 1994: 43-48; Attridge & Oden Judean antiquity lying behind Apion; see further note
1981. to “historians” at 1.2.
INTRODUCTION xliii

spect to the emperors in the normal way (non dence for Josephus’ dependence on previous
Caesaribus honor, Tacitus, Hist. 5.5.4) may not sources (see Appendix 5), and thus some
be treated as a gross offense by Tacitus, but it grounds for suspecting that his choice of topics
could be turned into a charge of “atheism” or is influenced by issues important in another time
maiestas in hostile political circumstances, or and place.
used as evidence of Judean disaffection from the Nonetheless, a moderate case can be made for
Roman state. The change required of pros- the claim that Apion is partially attuned to con-
elytes—their adoption of utterly new loyalties temporary issues affecting Judeans in Rome, as
and laws—suggested that Judeans were intracta- outlined above:
bly unassimilable in the Roman empire, repre- i) As Tacitus indicates, there were several ver-
sentatives of laws and customs that could not be sions of Judean origins current in Rome, but that
“Romanized” and might be regarded as funda- most widely believed (Hist. 5.3.1) related an
mentally “unRoman.” expulsion from Egypt by a diseased segment of
Placed in this context, Josephus’ Apion is population. The tradition that Josephus discusses
clearly of some contemporary relevance, even if (represented by Manetho, Chaeremon, Lysima-
not evenly or always directly so. We cannot as- chus, and Apion) was thus of contemporary in-
sume that every issue addressed by Josephus is tellectual importance (there are especially close
of live importance to his contemporaries: the parallels between Tacitus’ version and that of
rhetorical practice of apologetic can thrive Lysimachus) and not simply an antiquarian or
through the construction of artificial or outdated “Alexandrian” phenomenon.
targets. Indeed, there are several features of the ii) Even the question about Judean antiquity,
text that might make us suspect that Josephus’ though unattributed in Josephus’ text, can be
“critics” are sometimes straw men, and his po- shown to be more than an artificial construct
lemics manufactured.94 Those accused of doubt- (even if it is rhetorically manipulated). The ques-
ing Judean antiquity (1.2) are suspiciously tion of honor that it entails, and its philosophi-
anonymous, and their charge (that Judeans were cal importance for contemporary Stoics, are
not worthy of mention, or that they were “re- both of general relevance in Josephus’ day.95
cent” or “very recent,” 1.2, 58; 2.288) is vari- iii) Both Chaeremon and Apion were active
ously worded. The inclusion of an encomium on and influential in Rome in the mid first-century
Judean culture within the genre of apologetic CE. As well as channeling their versions of
(2.145-286) lends itself to the concoction of Egyptian legends into Roman literary circles,
possibly spurious “charges,” justifying a reply they both brought Alexandrian complaints about
and otherwise invidious comparisons (see 2.150, Judeans, social and political, to the attention of
236-38). None of the critics named in the trea- Roman figures of power.96 Moreover, Alexan-
tise (most prominently Manetho, Chaeremon, drian issues continued to concern Roman politi-
Lysimachus, Apion, and Apollonius Molon) was cians in the aftermath of the Judean War, as can
alive in Josephus’ day, and none were Roman; be dimly perceived in the fragmentary “Acts of
some of the authors he cites in his defense were the Pagan Martyrs.”97
remarkably obscure. Some of the issues ad-
dressed in reply to them (e.g., the legend of an
annual ritual slaughter of a Greek, 2.89-96) had, 95 See note to “historians” at 1.2.
as far as we can tell, no currency in Josephus’ 96 On the roles of Apion and Chaeremon in
context, and some of the issues noted above, as Alexandrian delegations to (respectively) Gaius and
of live interest in Rome (notably circumcision, Claudius, see note to “scholar” at 2.2 and to “Chaere-
food laws, and sabbath) receive little direct treat- mon” at 1.288.
ment in this apology. Moreover, there is evi- 97 See Musurillo 1954 ; these might suggest a grow-

ing exasperation in Rome with Alexandrian civic lead-

ers, lending persuasive force to Josephus’ denigration
of Apion and dismissal of his complaints against
94 See Goodman 1999: 52-53; Gruen 2005. Judeans.
xliv INTRODUCTION

iv) As we have seen, Judean customs were the deans and “atheism,” there is very immediate
target of amusement and moral critique in relevance in Josephus’ citation of this charge in
Josephus’ Rome: the opinion of Apollonius relation to Apollonius Molon (2.148) and his
Molon that the Mosaic law taught vice rather lengthy response (2.236-86). At the same time,
than virtue (2.145) was very relevant to Jose- his glowing account of those who adopt Judean
phus’ contemporaries. In some cases, Josephus customs in every city of the world (2.282-86)
spends less time than we might expect on the clearly had contemporary relevance in Rome,
hottest topics of debate. Circumcision is not though it is impossible to tell whether this was
treated as a Judean distinctive because Josephus written when such Judaizing could render indi-
is here committed to Herodotus’ view that it was viduals liable to the fiscus Iudaicus (i.e., before
derived from Egypt (1.168-71; 2.142). Criticism September 96 CE), or represents a rise in confi-
of Judean food laws, including abstention from dence after that date.
pork, is alluded to (2.137), but is wrapped up All this suggests that when Josephus decided
more generally within the discussion of Judean to write and publish Apion, rather than the pro-
discipline in the daily habits of the home (2.174, jected four-volume work on Customs and
232-35). Sabbath observance is discussed in the Causes (see above, § 2), he was not simply re-
same context (2.174, 234), but is also defended hashing older material irrelevant to his contem-
in relation to Agatharchides’ critique of Judean porary context. But the argument should not be
passivity (1.209-12). On neither issue is Jose- pushed too far in the other direction. As we have
phus as defensive as we might expect; rather, he seen, Josephus does not often address Roman
is pleased to point out how such customs (in- issues directly: he cites no Roman historians in
cluding fasting) have been adopted by others his discussion of historiography,98 mentions no
(2.282). Roman critic of Judeans, compares Judeans with
v) Judean exclusiveness, a matter of serious no Roman legislation or constitution, and dis-
critique in Rome, is addressed directly by cusses the social location of Judeans in Alexan-
Josephus in the course of his treatment of the dria, not Rome. The text appears to be located
constitution (2.145-86). There he sets himself to partly in the social and political conditions of
answer Apollonius Molon’s charge that Judeans late first-century Rome, and partly in debates
are “misanthropes” and “atheists” (2.148) and and problematics of a different era and different
the last third of this segment (2.236-86) is de- place.99 Such ambivalence should keep us alert
voted to a philosophical and historical defense to the possible contemporary relevance of all
of Judean policy towards non-Judeans and their aspects of the treatise, but not driven to prove
Gods. Correspondingly, the notable emphasis that every detail has a Roman slant. This will
on Judean filanqrwpi/a in the summary of the help us recognize the influence of earlier Helle-
laws (2.209-14) places stress on Judean open- nistic issues, and earlier Judean responses,
ness to outsiders who wish to share their cus- within Josephus’ work, while also noting its spe-
toms, in full accord with the basic rules of civil- cial resonances within a Roman and a late first-
ity in everyday life (2.211). century context. It will also be germane to our
vi) The political sensitivities of Judean ab- reconstruction of the audience and purpose of
stention from the imperial cult are handled in the work, a matter to which we now turn.
connection with Apion’s complaints (2.71-78),
and some effort is made to align Judeans with
Rome and the interests of the Roman empire
(e.g., 1.66; 2.33-64, 125-34). More generally,
there is evidence of a partial alignment in
Josephus’ presentation of Judean culture to the 98 Reference to any Roman authors is rare in the
values and virtues of Romanitas (see Appendix Josephan corpus as a whole, but not wholly absent (cf.
6), indicating awareness of the particular Roman Livy in Ant. 14.68). It is questionable to what extent
context in which this apologetic is staged. Josephus was able to read Latin; cf. Mason 2003b: 566.
99 Cf. the balanced conclusion on the relevance of
vii) Given the sensitivities at the end of Do-
mitian’s reign to the association between Ju- 2.145-286 in Gerber 1997: 224-25.
INTRODUCTION xlv

7. Audience and Purpose Since the question of audience and intention

are logically separable, though related, I shall
Even when we have defined, as closely as pos- discuss the issue of audience first; that should at
sible, the social and political context of Apion, it least clarify, and may reduce, the options re-
is another matter to determine its audience garding Josephus’ possible intentions.
(readers and/or hearers).100 To what circles did
Josephus have access in promulgating his work? 7.1 Audience
For which of these did he write it? And for what
If we distinguish, as we should, between the
purpose? These are remarkably difficult ques-
world of the text (the implied author speaking to
tions to answer, and not just because of the pau-
an implied audience), and the world outside the
city of information about Josephus himself and
text (the real author with intentions to speak to
his social location in Rome. Although the logi-
a real audience), we must immediately clarify
cal intentions of the treatise are reasonably
the different kinds of audience to which this
clear—to prove the antiquity of Judeans, and to
treatise may be directed. As a text strongly in-
answer a range of criticisms and derogatory sto-
fluenced by the rhetorical conventions of “apo-
ries—its pragmatic intentions (whom it was de-
logetic,” we should expect it to function with
signed to persuade of these matters, and for
many layers of address: it may address oppo-
what reason) are much harder to deduce. Con-
nents directly through rhetorical apostrophe, but
temporary readers have offered widely differing
may also speak beyond them to the “audience
suggestions. Was Apion written to the Gentile
as jury,” who are invited to judge the case being
world in general, or specifically to Roman read-
discussed. Since the trial here is fictional, this
ers, or rather to fellow Judeans (in each case,
address to “the jury” may construct readers with
primarily or exclusively)? Was it designed to
some freedom, choosing a particular set of val-
remove the doubts and criticisms current among
ues and perspectives to shape an ideal implied
non-Judean readers and to defend a beleaguered
audience. And this implied audience may or may
Judean population in Rome against anti-Judean
not correspond to the intended audience, those
slanders? Or was its purpose primarily positive,
Josephus the writer actually hoped might hear/
to sing the praises of the Judean tradition, and
read this text.102 Ancient readers were entirely
to earn it respect and admiration? Was it de-
familiar with such a multilayered phenomenon:
signed to bolster the confidence of Judeans, and
it was obvious that those addressed in the text
provide them with replies to their critics? Was it
(in its dramatic or fictional setting) were not nec-
to demonstrate the superiority of the Judean
essarily those addressed by the text (in the
constitution and to win proselytes? Or does the
text have a personal agenda, in self-defense
against critics and skeptics?101
the Jewish people and their values”; to head off slander
against Judeans in “government and administrative cir-
100 The oral production of texts (normally read cles throughout the Roman empire”; and to provide
aloud) reminds us that “audience” involves “hearers” as Hellenized Judeans throughout the Greco-Roman world
well as “readers.” But it is not clear that Josephus with “a guide in their arguments with enemies of the
moved in sufficiently exalted circles to have his works Jews.” A specifically Roman focus is suggested by
“published” in literary readings, as was common in the Goodman 1999; a proselytizing purpose by Mason
case of elite literature; see J. Price 2005: 104-5 and, on 1996; a more personal agenda by Gruen 2005. We shall
the “publication” of literature in Rome, Fantham 1996. return to these options below. For what follows, see also
101 Kasher 1996b: 150-57 (cf. Kasher 1997: 8-12) Gerber 1997: 89-93, although, in common with others,
proposes an extremely wide set of possible audiences she wrongly assumes that the implied audience and the
and purposes: to refute “the libelers of Jews in intended audience are one and the same.
102 Of course, in the event, none of these might cor-
Josephus’ day”; to correct readers adversely affected by
such libels; to instruct the innocent who did not know respond to the actual audience, a matter beyond the
the facts; to inform sympathetic Gentiles, by providing power of the text or of the author to determine; that is
“propaganda” about Judaism; to supply elite Judean certainly important for the afterlife of this text, but it is
readers with “a manual of instruction in the defense of a topic we can defer till later, § 8.
xlvi INTRODUCTION

real-life world of the author).103 We should thus this form of direct address extremely rarely; only
distinguish at least three layers, or types, of au- once does he construct a dialogue between
dience, and will initially leave open the question Apion and himself (2.65-67; cf. 1.314). Other-
of the extent to which they did or did not coin- wise he speaks of the critics always in the third
cide: person: he is speaking about them to others. The
– the declared audience: those addressed by work is dedicated to Epaphroditus (1.1; 2.1, 296)
the text, or spoken about as readers in the who is addressed as one who “especially loves
third person; the truth” (2.296); but appended is a dedication
– the implied audience: the ideal readers pre- “on your account, to those who may likewise
supposed or “constructed” by the text wish to know about our people” (2.296). This is
through its assumptions about readers’ prior a category of outsiders (they are not “our
knowledge, interests, and values; people” themselves), but they are given no eth-
– the intended audience: those whom Josephus nic definition and their expected stance is sim-
hoped would read this treatise, either imme- ply a desire “to know” about Judeans. This is
diately or in the course of time. strikingly vague, but it corresponds with the
It will be noted that the first two are deduced opening statement of the aims of the text (1.2-
from, indeed products of, the text; they concern 3), which more or less declares what readers it
what is encoded in the text, which is logically is expecting. Here Josephus notes that “a con-
distinct from (though it may overlap with) a real siderable number of people” pay attention to
audience, as anticipated by the author. To de- slanders and disbelieve his account of Judean
duce the third, the evidence of the text itself is history, so he has written: i) “to convict those
uncertain (the implied audience could be an ar- who insult us as guilty of malice and deliberate
tificial construct); here we need to step out of falsehood”; ii) “to correct the ignorance of oth-
the text into the real world and (with all due cau- ers”; and iii) “to instruct all who wish to know
tion) into the mind of the author. Thus for the the truth on the subject of our antiquity.” From
first two our evidence will be purely text-imma- the first it is clear that “those who insult us” will
nent; for the third, our reconstruction (above) of be the object of discussion, but their conviction
the historical and social context of the work will will take place before an audience of others
be important, as will our assessment of Jose- who will be led to judge them rightly convicted
phus’ relationship to that context. Since the (e)le/gxw; cf. 2.295).104 The second and third
relationship between the implied audience and aims appear more or less identical (distinguished
the intended audience is not certain, since an for the sake of the rhetorical tricolon); the “ig-
author’s real intentions are always a matter of norant” constitute the only category of readers
conjecture, and since Josephus’ relationship to here envisaged, “those who wish to know the
his environment is, as we shall see, somewhat truth” on Judean antiquity.105 Thus 1.3 and
unclear, this third audience, the intended audi- 2.296 concur in declaring the audience to be
ence, will be subject to the greatest uncertainty.
But since it is immediately relevant to the ques-
tion of purpose, some attempt at reconstruction
must be made. We may take each of these audi-
104 Cf. 1.58-59; 2.238, 287-88, where the “slander-
ences in turn.
A. The Declared Audience. The apologetic ers” or critics are similarly spoken of as the objects of
refutation, but not as the direct recipients of this work.
genre naturally lends itself to dramatic apostro-
1.160 anticipates readers who are “not excessively con-
phe, a direct retort to critics as if standing to- tentious.” Kasher’s claim that the treatise is directly
gether in the same court. In fact, Josephus uses addressed to “the libelers of Josephus’ day,” unnamed
out of convenience or cowardice (1996b: 151-52), mis-
reads such data.
105 While detractors of the Judean people can be
103 The distinction in apologetics between the text’s convicted in their absence, the “ignorant” and those
implied audience and its real situation is rightly empha- “who wish to know the truth” can be instructed only if
sized by Alexander 1999: 20-23. they themselves encounter this text.
INTRODUCTION xlvii

(Epaphroditus and) non-Judeans who do not ception.107 Apion presupposes understanding of

know but want to learn “the truth” about the Greek at a moderately advanced level. It also
Judean people. displays a broad cultural and historical range,
On one occasion the text makes an explicit only some of whose items are provided with
appeal to readers: “I appeal to those who will explanation. Thus it mentions a number of
peruse this text to conduct their reading without Greek historians, and the disputes between them
envy” (2.147: mh\ meta\ fqo/nou poiei=sqai th\n (1.15-27), and implies that readers will be as
a)na/gnwsin). The context is an explanation of well, even better, informed on these matters
the fact that what follows is more or less an en- (1.16). It similarly presupposes familiarity with
comium of the Judean constitution, an exercise famous cities and events in ancient Greek his-
that would clearly cause no offense to Judeans, tory. No explanations are offered regarding
but might annoy others (cf. 2.287). This con- Sparta or Athens, or their legislators Lycurgus
firms the signals given elsewhere, that the text and Solon, and allusions are made, without elu-
is declared to be for non-Judeans. Whether this cidation, to the Spartans’ system of military
declared audience is a rhetorical fiction or cor- training, their reputation for courage, and their
responds to Josephus’ real intentions is, of famous military defeats (2.225-31). In criticiz-
course, another matter.106 ing Greek mythology (2.239-49), Homeric and
B. The Implied Audience. Every text implies a other myths are alluded to as if well-known;
certain type of readership, through the language there are no names given to identify the deities
used and the knowledge, interests, and values involved, and stories are evoked with the slight-
presupposed. These consciously or uncon- est detail. It is assumed that Pythagoras, Socra-
sciously construct a certain kind of audience, tes, and Plato are familiar names, and even
which can be deduced by observation of what lesser-known philosophers (Anaxagoras, Dia-
the text takes for granted for its successful re- goras, Protagoras) are given minimal introduc-
tion or none at all (2.168, 262-67, including the
obscure case of Ninos). Roman history is also
taken as known. No introductions are given to
106 War and Antiquities make slightly more explicit “Pompey the Great” or Quintilius Varus (1.34);
declarations about their audience, though in both cases the battle of Actium is alluded to as if thor-
these are (usually) said to be non-Judeans. War is of-
oughly familiar (2.59), and the scandals affect-
fered “to the subjects of the Roman empire” (1.3), espe-
ing Cleopatra’s life are discussed with the mer-
cially to “the Greeks and those of the Romans who were
not involved in the campaign” (1.6). Antiquities is, like est allusions (2.56-60).
Apion, dedicated to Epaphroditus (1.8-9; cf. Life 430), Some of the more obscure authors cited by
but is also declared to be aimed at “all Greeks” (1.5) or Josephus are given an introduction (e.g., Me-
just “Greeks” (20.262), of whom Ptolemy II stands as a nander [1.116], Berosus [1.129], Choerilus
model “lover of learning” (1.10-12). Within the body [1.172] and Hieronymus [1.213]), and topics
of the text, the indicators are more mixed: the history is concerning “eastern” culture and history are
for the sake of the ignorant (14.1-3), has the interests of sometimes explained: the implied readers need
Greek readers in mind (1.128-29), and is chiefly (to\ to be informed about Artaxerxes (1.40) and
ple/on) designed to reach “the Greeks” (16.174); but it Nabopalassar (1.131). Regarding Judean culture
is meant to remove causes of hatred from both non- and history, while the Judean War is presumed
Judeans and Judeans (16.175), and once explicitly
to be known (1.36; 2.82), the name “Galilean”
raises the possibility that “someone from [my] fellow
is taken to be strange (1.48), Noah needs an in-
countrymen” (tij para\ tw=n o(mofu/lwn) may read this
work and find fault with it (4.197). The potential dis- troduction (1.130), and the Corban oath is given
parity between the declared audience and the intended some explanation (1.167). In general, the sum-
audience is indicated by the fact that War, declared to
be written for non-Judeans and non-participants in the
War (1.6), was then given or sold to both Judeans and
Romans, including some who were participants (Life see Gerber 1997: 89-91; regarding War, see Mason
361-63; Apion 1.51). 2005a. For fuller discussion of each of the passages
107 For discussion of this topic in relation to Apion,
cited below, see commentary ad loc.
xlviii INTRODUCTION

mary of the constitution and laws (2.145-286) and their animal cults presumes automatic as-
presumes no prior knowledge of Judean culture, sent and minimal sympathy for Egypt. The con-
and while the Judean “sacred books” are often demnation of Greek pretensions in historio-
referred to and assumed to be authoritative (see graphy implies readers at least open to
below), biblical knowledge is not presupposed. persuasion on this front (probably not self-iden-
Regarding Josephus himself, the work begins tifying as “Greeks”), while the automatic honor
with no self-introduction (only partially pro- accorded to Greek “wisdom” (e.g., 1.51, 73)
vided in 1.54-55).108 While referring back to his suggests respect towards some aspects of the
previous works (see above, § 2), nothing in Hellenistic intellectual tradition. In particular, the
Apion is incomprehensible for those who have “philosophical” heritage of Greece is treated as
not read them. The work thus appears to presup- evidently superior to her myths and even her
pose some prior knowledge about Josephus (or laws (2.239, 250). It is assumed to be to Moses’
at least sufficient interest to read/hear this work), credit that “the wisest of the Greeks” (i.e., phi-
without presuming familiarity with his prior pub- losophers) learned from him (2.168), and
lications. readers are expected to acknowledge, without
Regarding interests, attitudes, and values, argumentation, that Plato and others were correct
Apion implies a complex stance on the part of to censor Greek mythology (2.236-57). At the
its audience. It is implied that they are interested same time, Romans are always treated with the
to learn about the Judean people (2.296): they greatest of respect (see Appendix 6), and no
are willing to recognize their own ignorance and justification needs to be made for claims about
consider the evidence supplied in the text— Roman “benevolence” and “magnanimity”
something that cannot be presupposed of all (2.40, 75). A Roman perspective on Cleopatra is
non-Judeans (1.5). The evidence for Judean an- presupposed in 2.56-60, and no faults are ever
tiquity they need to learn is that derived from found in Roman laws or customs (cf. 2.74, 252).
non-Judean sources (they will not be persuaded Regarding Judean culture, the text presup-
by a repetition of the biblical evidence), with poses that the readers need to have doubts as-
some premium on the Greek material (a pre- suaged and criticisms answered, but also that,
sumption Josephus acknowledges, partly com- on some matters at least, they are open to rela-
bats, and partly accommodates, 1.3-5, 58, 161). tively simple forms of persuasion. None of this
The citation of obscure “barbarian” sources, treatise would be necessary if no questions or
with long lists of names and dates (1.73-160), criticisms needed to be overcome; but in the
demands considerable patience in the reader, means used to provide the defense the text
although the explicit adoption of a more “popu- seems to presuppose a relatively easy conquest.
lar” rhetorical technique, in the response to The assault on Greek historiography anticipates
Apion (2.3-5), indicates awareness of the need little resistance, and far-reaching claims for the
for a more accessible style. The text thus implies accuracy of Judean records, and the inspiration
a sympathetic non-Judean stance, needing per- of the scriptures by God (1.37-41), are ad-
suasion on non-Judean grounds, but open to it vanced with no justification. Often the argumen-
and ready to enjoy the text’s polemical tirades tation of the text seems valid only for those al-
against a variety of critics. To be more specific, ready willing to grant it credence. To accept the
the easy and repeated denigration of Egyptians identification of Manetho’s Hyksos with the
Judeans, on the grounds supplied here; to hear
reference to Solomon’s temple and superior wis-
108 Of course, it would be difficult to dedicate one’s dom in Menander and Dios, on Josephus’ word,
work to a patron and at the same time introduce oneself against the evidence of the cited texts; to find
as if unknown; Josephus’ self-introductions (War 1.3; reference to the Jerusalem temple, as Josephus
Life 1-6) take place in contexts where no dedications claims, in the witness of Berosus; to take Choe-
are present. But the fact that Josephus opens Apion with rilus’ tonsured warriors as Judeans; to accept
a dedication, and not a self-introduction, seems to im- some of the specious arguments advanced by
ply an audience who already know of him, perhaps Josephus against Apion—all of these require an
through Epaphroditus himself (cf. 2.296). audience willing to be persuaded, even allowing
INTRODUCTION xlix

for the logical shortcuts employed by rhetoric in ferent group, to be its actual readers. In relation
the ancient world. More strikingly, in the course to the knowledge presupposed, the text might
of citing witnesses on his side, Josephus in- display a range of allusions for rhetorical show,
cludes events or Judean characteristics that or might wish to flatter readers as if they knew
might provide strong ammunition for deter- more than is likely, without damaging the core
mined opponents: the Hyksos’ (that is, Judeans’) elements of the argument.109 For this reason, it
aims in Egypt were genocidal (1.82); the may be more revealing of the author’s intentions
Judeans’ king, Solomon, was a “tyrant” (1.114); to note what information has to be explained,
they destroyed pagan temples and altars (1.193); than what remains unexplained; and, as we have
and they let an invader capture Jerusalem be- noticed, the text does explain a few details that
cause of their total inactivity on the sabbath a Judean audience would not need to be told.
(1.205-11). Only in the last case does the text But in general, because of the rhetorical factors
acknowledge a problem in the representation of at play on the surface of the text, this criterion
Judeans, but its brief response implies that the of “knowledge presupposed” may be less re-
issue is not particularly pressing (1.212). At vealing of the author’s intentions than the more
some points, argumentation relies on accepting basic assumptions of the text regarding sympa-
the credibility of the Judean scriptures (e.g., thy and interest. Here, if its author was a com-
1.279-86, 299). And the fulsome praise of the petent communicator, one might expect that he
Judean land (1.273) and the Judean constitution would shape the text, consciously or subcon-
(2.145-296), including its imitation by non- sciously, by reference to the attitudes he would
Judeans (2.282-86), suggests confidence in a anticipate in his intended readers. We must pro-
sympathetic audience, who would not find such ceed cautiously here. If an author presupposes
Judaizing a scandalous or disreputable phenom- more sympathy than he/she is likely to receive,
enon. the text could badly misfire, as readers might
One may conclude that the text constructs an fail to accord the text the interest or support it
implied audience familiar with many famous expects. On the other hand, if an author presup-
features of the Greco-Roman tradition, impress- poses less sympathy than he/she is likely to re-
ed by its “philosophical” traditions, more likely ceive, the text will win its audience easily
to identify with “Romans” than with “Greeks” or enough, while pretending to persuade a more
“Egyptians,” and generally sympathetic to the extensive range of readers.
strong claims and sometimes tenuous arguments If Josephus’ literary instincts were correct, our
advanced. The text does not anticipate a hostile study of the declared and implied audiences
audience, nor does it set out to persuade a thor- suggests that:
oughly skeptical opposition. Neither does it im- a) Josephus is unlikely to be writing for a truly
ply that its audience is Judean, although such hostile audience;
readers might fit within its parameters of atti- b) his intended audience is likely to fall within
tudes and interests. In fact, the text constructs the parameters of the sympathy and interest out-
something very similar to its declared audience: lined above;
a non-Judean readership that wishes to know c) we cannot yet tell whether the intended audi-
“the truth” about the Judean people, and is will- ence fits precisely the implied audience (sympa-
ing to take this text as their guide. thetic, interested non-Judeans) or whether it is
C. The Intended Audience. We should note, actually (or also) another group within those
again, that we cannot draw simple conclusions
regarding the intended audience from the obser-
vations above. There is always a potential gap
between the audience implied by the text, and 109 If it draws on prior materials, the text might sug-
that intended by the author. An author might gest more knowledge in the author himself than he ac-
wish to portray an argument as directed to one tually possesses. Did Josephus really know about
target, for rhetorical impact, while only expect- Thermus’ arrival in Egypt (2.50), or has he learned this
ing a small subset of that group, or even a dif- only from Apion’s argument?
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
en lang Tid constitueret Stiftamtmand i Christiania og døde samme
Sted som Conferentsraad i sit 67de Aar. Endnu findes en Descendent
af Slægten i lige nedstigende Linie paa Gaarden Stensrud i Give
Sogn, Soløer, en i sin Ælde eiendommelig Hovedbygning af Træ, der
foruden øvrige Værelser bestaaer af en usædvanlig rummelig,
fiirkantet Storstue, hvis Loft, et Spærtag, bæres af et mægtigt
Mastetræ, hvorpaa der forhen fandtes en Indskrift, som meddeelte,
at Bygningen var opført i Aaret 1324. Paa Væggen i denne Storstue
hænger en Tavle med Inscription fra 1779 af Sorenskriveren
Schiermann, en Danskfødt, hvilken Omstændighed maa tilskrives, at
han nævner en dansk Konge, skjøndt Norge paa nævnte Tid havde
sin egen Drot, Magnus den 5te Eriksøn.

»Da Menveds Broder bød i Nord den sjette Sommer,

nedlagdes første Steen til dette Klippehuus.
Gid sidste Barnebarn, som af Colbjørnsen kommer,
bo her, til »stjernet Bjørn, nedslingres næsegruus!«

Slægtens senere Led vedbleve paa fremragende Viis at bære Navnet

berømmeligt til Efterkommerne. Saaledes indtoge de to Brødre Jacob
Edvard og Christian Colbjørnsen høie Pladser i vor Kulturhistorie som
Justitiarii i dansk Høiesteret. Efter vor berømte Lovkyndige Anders
Ørsteds Vidnesbyrd har Jacob saaledes stor Fortjeneste af den
videnskabelige Lovkyndighed. Hans Afhandling til Doctorgraden om
den danske Selveierbonde vakte megen Opsigt. Han døde som
Conferentsraad 1799.
Broderen, Christian Colbjørnsen, var ligeledes Justitiarius i Høiesteret
og døde som Geheimekonferentsraad og Storkorsridder i sit 65de
Aar. Han skal have været i Besiddelse af en overordentlig
Veltalenhed. Rahbek siger saaledes, at han var lige Mester i
Epigrammet som i Panegyriken, lige øvet i at svinge Lynstraaler og
Blomsterkrandse. Foruden at have foreviget sit Navn ved forskjellige,
udmærkede Lovgivningsarbeider, virkede han som Secretair i
Landbrugskommissionen, og Stavnsbaandets Løsning skyldes for en
stor Deel hans Varme og Iver for Bondefrihedens Sag. Om disse
Brødre findes ogsaa et Epigram:

Brødre af Fødsel ei blot, men Brødre af Aand og af

Kløgt
Fædreland Troskab de svoer, tjente som dygtige Mænd
Forfædres Navn og Rang de hævded' ved fædrelandsk
Idræt,
og som de hædrede Nor, hædred' hans Ros dem igjen.

Da Kong Frederik den Sjette vilde ophøie Christian Colbjørnsen i

Adelstanden, frabad han sig denne Naade og svarede Kongen, at
»han ligesom sine Forfædre intet andet Adelskab ønskede end
Bevidstheden om at have virket til Kongens og Statens Gavn.«
Endvidere blev en Datter af den bekjendte krigerske Magister Kjeld
Stub gift med en Colbjørnsen. Stub tog efter endte Studier ved
Kjøbenhavns Universitet Tjeneste som Soldat i Nederlandene, hvor
han hurtig svang sig op til Ingenieurofficeer. Efter Hjemkomsten blev
han ansat som Præst i Christiania, og her berettes, at en gammel
Krigskammerat gjenkjendte ham midt under Prædikenen og udbrød
høilydt: »Kilian, wer Teufel hat Dich auf der Cantzel geführt?«
Denne berømte Præst, der som Landoberst deeltog i Krigen med
Sverrig 1643 og udmærkede sig ved sin Nidkjærhed og militair
Indsigt, blev Bedstefader til de for deres Tapperhed og Høisind
velkjendte Søskende Hans, Peder og Anna Colbjørnsen, som
hovedsagelig udgjøre vort Bekjendtskab til Slægten, og hvis modige
Bedrifter vi lære at kjende i vor Fædrelandshistorie. Det var saaledes
saavel paa Fædrene- som Mødreneside et tappert og ædelt Blod,
som bragte disse Søskendes Hjerte til at banke for deres Land i
Farens Dage.
Den danske Professor Jens Møller skriver derfor med Rette:
 Stoltere Brødrepar vist ingensteds findes paa Jord;
høiere lued' end ei i Miltiades' Dage
Fædrelandskjærlighed, Mod, Borgeraand, Snildhed i
Pagt.

At fremhæve denne Slægts enkelte Medlemmer er som sagt at

belyse deres Lands Kultur og Krigshistorie; vi have derfor i Korthed
fremhævet disse Personligheder, af hvilke Peder Colbjørnsen
forekommer i denne Fortælling.
Peder Colbjørnsen stod nu her i »Den forgyldte Nøgle«s Krostue og
saae sig om, mens Forsamlingen ventede i Taushed.
»Kjære Medborgere og Venner,« sagde han, og slog op med
Haanden, »jeg har i Fædrelandets Navn sat Eder Stævne her i Aften.
— Vi ere Alle i dette Øieblik opfyldte af stor Kjærlighed til vort Land,
en Følelse, der ofte er kommen til Ytring i vor gamle Stad under vore
berømmelige Forfædre. Kjærlighed og Mod er i Dag hos os Alle
steget til en altopofrende Høide. — Har jeg Ret eller Uret?«
»Ret!« snurrede det tordnende gjennem Rummet.
»Vi ere enige, og vi ville nu, om Herren beskikker os den Lykke, gaa
med til Mandsgjerninger, der skal indskrive Norges Folk blandt
Europas tapreste Nationer.«
»Vi ere med!« raabte Borgerne.
Dødsstilhed indtraadte øieblikkelig atter.
»Godt. Herved hverver jeg Eder til Frederikshalds frie Corps, og vi
sværge at ville gjøre Fjenden alt muligt Afbræk i hans Forehavender
og hverken agte Liv eller Gods, men heller afbrænde vor gode Stad
og Hjem end taale ham i vor Rede!«
»Vi sværge!« lød det som et rullende Tordenbrag, medens Arme fra
Gamle og Unge fore i Veiret med oprakte Fingre, et høitideligt
Øieblik, der indeholdt Forjættelse om ubrødelig Troskab mod deres
hellige Sag; Liv i Selvstændighed eller Død.
Da de Andre atter sænkede Armene, beholdt Skipper Daniel sin i
Veiret med tre vidt udspilede Fingre og gjentog med Gravrøst:
»Vi Sømænd sværge ogsaa at ofre Skude og Ladning til
Fædrelandets Frelse! — Jeg kan allerede melde, at der er noget galt
paa Færde ude paa Søen.«
Colbjørnsen betragtede ham og spurgte:
»Hvad mener Du?«
»Svenske Fartøier ere gaaede til Ankers foran vort Havneløb — jeg
har siddet paa Udkig lige siden i Morges. De landsætter bestandig
Folk mellem Skjærene; deres Pramme komme hvert Øieblik ind med
flere.«
»Det veed jeg,« sagde Colbjørnsen. »Har Du mere at sige?«
»Ja saa — De veed det? Det kunde De jo have sagt strax, for saa
veed De vel mere, end jeg veed,« ytrede Daniel stødt og lod sig
dumpe ned paa Bænkesædet.
»Jeg modtager Eders Ed i Norges Navn,« sagde Peder Colbjørnsen
henvendt til Forsamlingen. Dermed var Pagten sluttet og
Frederikshalds Frikorps oprettet.
»Amen,« sagde Værten Jonasson, der sad i sin høie Halmstol henne
foran Disken paa den Side, hvor Pressesylten stod, med Hænderne
foldede om Skaftet paa sin store Forskjærerkniv. »Heida,
Kjældersvend, den Skaal maa drikkes i gammel norsk Mjød fra salig
Farfars egen Tønde. Bring en Omgang af Fadet med de fire Kryds.«
Papegøiens Skoggerlatter lød pludselig gjennem Stilheden ved Lyden
af Værtens kjendte Stemme.
Henne ved Væggen sade to Mænd som tause Tilhørere. Da
Colbjørnsen havde talt, reiste de sig, traadte frem og stillede sig ved
den modsatte Bordende. Den Ældres brede og mægtige Skikkelse
med den høie, furede Pande og det gjennemtrængende Blik under
det buskede Bryn tiltrak sig de Omkringstaaendes Opmærksomhed.
Bagved ham kom en yngre, slank Skikkelse til Syne med gult, krøllet
Haar og to spillende blaa Øine. Han syntes et nøiagtigt
Miniaturaftryk af den store Mand, hvis Stilling og Holdning han søgte
at efterligne paa bedste Maade.
»Jeg hører her megen god og ærlig, norsk Tale,« raabte Bjørnstad
— det var ham og hans Søn. — »Svensken er brudt ind i vort Land,
og vi skal nu til at værge os, ja vel! Men hvad gjør vi saa ved
Dansken bagefter? Er han ikke lige saa vel brudt ind i vort Land og
har opkastet sig til vor Hersker? Vil I bag efter være med til at jage
ham ud, naar vi ere færdige med Svensken? Hvorfor vil Colbjørnsen
derhenne værge os mod den ene Fremmedherre og adlyde den
anden? Det gad jeg nok vide. — Hvem svarer?«
»Ja, det gad vi nok vide,« sagde en Stemme bag Bjørnstad; ung
Halvor lo og viste sine hvide Tænder. Han kastede Hovedet tilbage,
som Faderen gjorde, stak Haanden ind paa Brystet og saae sig om
med en freidig og efter hans Mening uhyre overlegen Mine, som han
yderligere forhøiede ved at skræve ud med Benene og vugge
Overkroppen frem og tilbage.
»Ja, I seer paa hverandre; men mærk Jer mine Ord: vi have nøiagtig
samme Ret til vor Selvstændighed som Dansken til sin og
Svenskerne til deres,« vedblev Bjørnstad med en Stemme, der steg i
Kraft for hver Sætning, han udslyngede.
»Manden er ikke langt fra at have Ret,« sagde en Borger og satte sit
Kruus haardt i Bordet.
»Jeg skal sige Jer, hvad det er, vi nu have for,« vedblev Bjørnstad.
»Dette er en jammerlig Broderkrig; vi æde jo hinanden op som
forsultne Rotter. Alle vi tre nordiske Smaalande ere usselt Fattigfolk
hver for sig; bleve vi enige, vare vi en Kæmpe, der kunde tale med i
Stormagtslaget. Ja vist, bort med Svensken, som vil mesterere os,
og bort med Dansken, som regjerer os! Vi er Norge, hverken svensk
eller dansk eller nogen anden udenlandsk Provinds; vi er blot —
Norge. Nu er Krigen her; vi har ikke fornærmet eller udæsket; men
Krigen er her alligevel, ubuden, uretfærdig. Vi ere her ogsaa,
mandsenige, villiestærke for at møde den. Men bagefter, hvad saa?
Hvem jager saa Dansken ud og gjør os til et enigt Norden, til den
kloge, mægtige Frue, Dronning Margrethes Norden? Er det dette,
Colbjørnsen vil os, saa melder jeg mig til hans Frikorps og giver ham
mit Liv.«
»Og jeg giver mit,« sagde ung Halvor med et kraftigt Nik.
Kjøbmand Walck havde lagt sin Pibe fra sig paa Bordet, da han saae
Bjørnstad træde frem ved Bordenden. Medens han talte, vinkede
Kjøbmanden til sin Svend, der sad ved et andet Bord, og hviskede
ham nogle Ord i Øret. Svenden forsvandt gjennem Døren.
»Hvem er den Mand, som fører saa store og stærke Ord?« spurgte
en anden Borger med runde Øienbryn. »Det var besynderligt, at han
holdt op med at snakke, før han blev heelt færdig. Han skulde vist
lige til at erklære Dansken Krig og udnævne os en ny Konge.«
»Jeg skal sige Jer, hvem Manden er,« sagde Raadmand Walck og
reiste sig. »Det er Bjørnstad fra Fossegaarden, og han har ingen Ret
til at tale med her blandt Frederikshalds hæderlige Borgere.«
»Bjørnstad! — Fossemanden!« lød det rundt om.
»Det er mig,« svarede Bjørnstad og bøjede sin Kæmpeskikkelse
fremover i Tranlampens osende, usikre Skjær, som for at vise Alle sit
furede, veirslagne Ansigt. »See kun ret paa mig: saadan seer Halvor
Brönnelsen Bjørnstad ud!«
»Han er en Voldsmand, som staaer udenfor Loven, ligesom han i
dette Øieblik opfordrer os til Opsætsighed mod vor lovlige og milde,
danske Regjering,« sagde Walck, som nød stor Anseelse i Byen, og
hvis Ord altid bleve hørte og fulgte. »Han tager vort Tømmer af
Fossen og stabler det op paa sin Grund deroppe i Fjeldet. Han er i
Aar og Dag stævnet for Lov og Ret uden at give Møde. Han er en
fuglefri Mand; vi ville ikke have med ham at skaffe; Norge har nok af
hæderlige Sønner til at forsvare sig. — Bort med ham dèr!«
Aarerne stode spændte i Kjøbmandens fyldige Pande, medens han
pegede mod Døren.
»Ja, bort med ham!« lød det fra flere Sider.
»Saa Du er Bjørnstad?« spurgte Colbjørnsen fra den øverste
Bordende.
»Jeg lyder Navnet,« svarede den Tiltalte.
»Saa have vi ingen Brug for Dig for Øieblikket,« ytrede Colbjørnsen
og betragtede ham med et koldt Blik.
Bjørnstad foer op; de to Nordmænds Blikke mødtes, og medens de
forskende betragtede hinanden, glattedes de rynkede Bryn.
»Naar Krigen er endt, skal jeg søge Dig, om jeg da lever; vi To skulle
saa i Fred og Mindelighed prøve paa at klare et og andet, som for
Byens Øine maa tage sig mærkeligt ud,« sagde Colbjørnsen og
vinkede med Haanden.
Bjørnstad syntes ikke at høre disse velmeente Ord. Hans Blikke
søgte tilbage til Forsamlingen, overalt mødte han spottende og
haanlige Øine, man lo ad ham og talte høit om ham. Han støttede
sine knyttede Hænder mod Bordpladen; de rystede under ham og
røbede, at hans rolige Mine skuffede.
»Saaledes ere I, gode Borgerfolk, i Dag som i Gaar, som I blive ved
at være,« sagde han med et haanligt og spottende Smil. »I Dag
trænger Norge til alle sine Sønner; men I viser en af dets kraftige
Mænd bort, fordi han ikke passer i Jeres Kram.«
»I viser to bort,« sagde Sønnen høitideligt.
»Uretfærdighed og Selviskhed, det er Jert Løsen i Dag som for fem
og tyve Aar siden, da I joge mig fra Gaard og Hjem,« vedblev
Bjørnstad.
Medens han talte, traadte Raadmand Walcks Svend hen til sin Herre
og stak ham en Papirrulle i Haanden. Kjøbmanden reiste sig og
aabnede Papiret med stor Værdighed.
»Halvor Brönnelsen Bjørnstad, bosiddende Gaardeier paa
Fossegaarden i Id Sogn, har i Aar og Dag trodset sin Landsøvrighed,
har ladet haant om alle Rettens Stævninger og vedbliver paa ulovlig
Viis at tage sig selv til Rette i vort, Frederikshalds Borgeres,
Indkomme og Eiendom, vort Tømmer, der passerer Fossen, som fra
Arilds Tid var Alfarvei. Bemeldte Bjørnstad tilsiges herved at give
Møde i Frederikshald Stad den 1ste Marts for at udsone den ham
idømte Straf af tre Maaneders Fængsel i vor Raadhuuskjælder samt
tilpligtes at udrede en Bøde af 200 Daler til Stadens Fattigkasse for
ovennævnte Lovovertrædelse. Dersom bemeldte Bjørnstad ei er at
antræffe i sin Bolig, ei heller adlyder ovennævnte Befaling, vil han
fra 1ste April dette Aar at regne blive lyst fredløs, og enhver god,
norsk Borger opfordres at hjælpe Øvrigheden med at tage ham til
Fange, død eller levende, og bringe ham til vor Stad Frederikshald,
for at nærmere over ham kan besluttes.«
Kjøbmand Walck oplæste dette Dokument med høi og
gjennemtrængende Stemme. Da Læsningen var endt, sænkede han
Papiret og tilføjede:
»Med denne ærede Forsamling af velfornemme Kjøbmænd og
Borgere som Vidner, har Bjørnstad nu paa lovlig Viis modtaget
Stævning, hvorefter han sig haver at rette.«
Bjørnstad havde ligbleg, med opreist Pande hørt Stævningen tilende.
»I sammenrottede Partifæller og Tallerkenslikkere, I som krybe for
Jeres Herrers Hundepisk, svinge den skamløst over jeres egne
Landsmænd, der endnu ikke have lært at bøie Nakken under
Aaget!« raabte han med Tordenrøst og trykkede Hatten fast paa
Hovedet, bøiet frem over Bordet. »See, dette er jer Samfundsret!
Jeg væmmes ved jert hele Mummespil. I undsige mig? Nu vel, værer
saa Alle mod mig, som jeg er mod Eder Alle. Første Gang jog I mig
fra min Gaard, i Aften jage I mig af min Fædrenestad. Vogt Jer! Vi
sees vel igjen oppe i Skovene — eller deroppe, hvor Retfærdigheden
boer. Maatte I da Alle, som jeg, have gjort Jer Pligt mod
Fædrelandet!«
Bjørnstad blev et Øieblik overlegen og udfordrende staaende overfor
den sydende og bølgende Menneskemængde, med oprakt knyttet
Haand, medens hans Øine skøde Lyn under de sammendragne Bryn.
Saa vendte han Forsamlingen Ryggen og skred mod Døren. Sønnen,
som var traadt frem til Bordenden ved Faderens Side, fremtog
Oberst Bryggemanns Skriin af et rødtærnet Tørklæde og skjød det
midt ind paa Bordet.
»Der har I vort første Krigsbytte, som vi alene toge fra Svensken!«
raabte han; »det reddede Bjørnstads Søn, mens I laa i jeres lumre
Dyner. Farvel herinde i Stanken; nu gaaer Far og jeg.«
»Er Du den unge Bjørnstad, saa kan Du blive hos mig,« sagde
Colbjørnsen. »Jeg giver Dig Plads i vort Frikorps.«
»Jeg bliver hos min Far og ikke hos Jer,« raabte Drengen, medens
han baglænds drog sig tilbage mod Døren. »Troer I, jeg vil traske
om og lade mig snøfle af Jer i jeres trange Gyder, hvor I har
forpagtet al Ret og alt Solskin fra os, mens saadan en tyk
Hvalsildsluger som ham dèr« — han nikkede over mod
Kjøbmændene — »sidder hernede og snyder sig fra at betale os vore
ærlige Bropenge fra Fossen.«
Ung Halvor stod nu henne hos Faderen i den aabne Dør, hvorudenfor
skimtedes brændende Fakler i Gaden og mørke Skikkelser, der
færdedes frem og tilbage i det flakkende Skin. Hans lysende Øine
saae udfordrende ud over Forsamlingen, ikke ulig Michel Angelos
David, hvis Haand famler efter Slyngen, mens han søger Fjenden
med sit glødende Vredesblik.
I det Døren lukkede sig efter den gamle og unge Bjørnstad, lød atter
Papegøiens skjærende Skrig gjennem den ophidsede Brummen, som
blev tilbage i »Den forgyldte Nøgle«s Krostue.
Da Fader og Søn vare komne udenfor og gik gjennem den smalle
Gyde mod Broporten, hvor klaprende Trin gjenløde i Mørket, hørte
de en Stemme gjentagende raabe deres Navn, og en Mand kom i
Løb ned efter dem.
»Stop lidt, Morbror Halvor!« lød Skipper Daniels Stemme.
Drengen standsede, og Skipperen indhentede ham stønnende.
»Her er et Brev til Bror Jørgen deroppe i Mors Hytte fra Søster Ulle,«
sagde han og drog et stort Papir frem af Koftelommen. »Jeg lovede
forgangen at bringe ham det i Hænde. Hun har forskaffet Olaug en
god Plads — det Pigebarn ligger hende svart paa Sinde. — Vil Du fly
Jørgen det snarest?«
»Det skal blive besørget,« svarede Halvor. »Men siig mig, hvorfor
gav Du os det ikke derinde? Du stod jo lige ved Siden af mig i
Krostuen.«
»Jeg turde begribeligviis ikke tale til Jer derinde i Gjæsternes
Paasyn,« svarede Daniel og spyttede en Skraa henad Gaden; »jeg
kunde jo komme til at vanære mig selv og mit gode Navn og Rygte,
naar de Gavtyve fik Rede paa, at vi ere saa nær i Familieskab
sammen. Det gjælder at holde sin Skude flot, naar man er i Braad
og Brænding, min Gut!«
Ung Halvor vendte ham Ryggen og indhentede Faderen ved Broen,
der om kort Tid skulde blive Skueplads for Krigens blodige Rædsler.
Han gik hen ved hans Side og sagde:
»Nu veed jeg, hvad Du er, Far.«
»Hvad mener Du?« spurgte Bjørnstad barsk.
»Du er af Bjørneslægt!« svarede Halvor med ubeskrivelig Stolthed.
»Veed Du ogsaa, hvem j e g er?«
Bjørnstad standsede og maalte ham med et strengt Blik.
»Jeg er din Søn!« sagde Drengen og saae ham ind i Øiet.
Faderen rakte ham Haanden. Sønnen beholdt den i sin, og de skrede
tause videre opad mod Fjeldet.
Oppe i Hjemmets Dør stod en Kvinde, bøiet og stum og lyttede ud i
Natten. Vilde de strenge Herrer dernede i Staden tage det Sonoffer,
som hendes kjække Dreng havde vundet, og Faderen nu bragte
Byens Øvrighed? Vilde de modtage den Haand, han i Dag rakte dem,
fredsommelig i Hu? Ja, vilde Freden nu endelig komme efter de
lange, bitre Kampens Aar?
 BRÆNDETYVEN.
Nogle Dage efter at denne Begivenhed fandt Sted i Frederikshald
Gjæstgivergaard, den 25de Marts, som var en Onsdag og Fruedag i
Fasten, drog Mads Wærn, Lieutenant i Colbjørnsens Frikorps, op i
Tistedalen, for at exercere med det nye og uøvede Compagni, samt
tegne flere Frivillige blandt Dalfolket. Colbjørnsen betalte af egen
Kasse hver vaabendygtig Mand tolv Skilling daglig, naar han var i
Tjeneste, og otte Skilling til Underhold, naar han ikke gjorde
Tjeneste, eftersom Tistedølernes daglige Næring ved Savbrugene
var ophævet i denne besværlige Krigstid. Somme Folk turde dog ikke
i Begyndelsen modtage disse Penge af Frygt for derved at blive
hvervede som regulaire Soldater, uagtet det var deres Agt at forsvare
Konge og Land, saalænge der »var varmt Blod i dem«.
Charakteristisk for Folkets fædrelandskjærlige, men antimilitaire
Sindelag er følgende Træk:
Fjenden sendte nogle Dage senere Colbjørnsens Fricorps den Hilsen,
at dersom han fik fat paa nogen Partigjænger, vilde han flux hænge
ham op eller gjøre ved ham det, som værre var, fordi en Deel af
Corpset under Truel Wigs Anførsel havde skudt atten af hans Folk og
gjort saadan Allarm, at den svenske General Aschenberg ved
Herrebroen havde maattet lade sine Folk sidde til Hest den hele Nat.
Corpset nægtede alligevel at efterkomme Fæstningskommandant
Bruns Opfordring at stille for ham og aflægge Krigsed, for saaledes
at faae Ret til at dømmes som Krigsfolk og ikke som løse
Partigjængere. Alle som een svarede, at de vare frivillige Mænd, der
kun paatoge sig Byens Forsvar af Kjærlighed til Land og Hjem; de
havde svoret indbyrdes aldrig at give sig som Fanger, men gjøre
Modstand til sidste Mand; det var den eneste Ed, de brød sig om at
sværge, altsaa frygtede de ikke at blive tagne levende til Fange.
Det bragede og drønede oppe i Vinterskoven i de trange Bjergpas.
Var det Fjeldkaststormen, denne strenge Vintervind, der
sammentrænges oppe i Fjeldenes snævre Dale, hvor den tvinges og
knibes sammen, til den pludselig med Magt brister ud gjennem en
Aabning og i sin fulde Vælde farer ned over Fjordene til Skræk for
Sømanden, der ikke i Tide har mindsket sine Seil? Hør, hvor den
søger at bøie de gamle, rødstrimede Fyrretræer med deres mørke,
bredpandede Kroner, der endnu med Stammen halvt begravet i Snee
syntes at staae og drømme om Sommerens rosenrøde Solskin,
medens Solgangsvinde blæse i Luur for dem, denne blide Vind, der
hører Norge til, og som har faaet sit Navn, fordi den med det
opgaaende Dagslys blæser fra Øst og trofast følger Solen, til den om
Aftenen sender sin Brise fra Vest.
Denne Morgen var det imidlertid tunge og taktfaste Øxehug, der
gjenløde i det snævre Skovpas, mens nu og da et Brag forkyndte, at
en af Skovkæmperne sank om, opfangedes af Fosterbrødres stærke
Arme, der varlig sænkede den Faldne mod Klippegrunden.
»Det var, min Tro, en Kraftgubbe, den!« raabte ung Halvor, tørrede
Panden med sit Trøieærme og satte Foden paa den harpixduftende
Kæmpestub, om hvilken lyse Splinter dækkede Sneen i flere Alens
Omkreds.
Den ældre Bjørnstad lagde Øxen til Roden af det næste Træ.
»Veed Du hvad, Fader?« vedblev Sønnen. »Jeg læste i Aftes i Norges
Kongekrønike om den svenske Bonde Thorgny, ham med det lange,
hvide Skjæg, der reiste sig paa Thinge og sagde til svenske Kong
Oluf: »Den Konge vi nu har, han vil ikke taale, at nogen Mand, som
snakker ei ham efter Munden, mæler et Ord, og i den Heltegjerning
sætter han sin hele Ære. Norge derimod, hvorefter ingen af de
fremfarne svenske Konger lod sig lyste, det er han grisk efter og
volder dermed til ingen Nytte mangen Mands Fortræd.« Og saa
sagde Thorgny videre til Svenskekongen: »Men see nu, Kong Oluf,
har vi svenske Bønder besluttet, at Du skal gjøre Fred med Kong
Olav den Digre af Norge og give ham Prindsesse Ingegerd tilægte.«
Og saa gav Prindsessen norske Kongen en Pelskaabe, rigt baldyret
med Guld, og sit eget Hjerte, — saadan skal det være, vort eget
norske Kongepar, — sippedeja!«
»Det var vel sagt,« sagde Bjørnstad og hvilede mod Øxen. »Det er
en god Læsning. Bliv ved, til den Bog er slut, og læs den saa om
igjen. Skal vort Land blive, hvad det fik Evne til, stateligere end
noget andet viden om, da maa vort eget Herskerhuus være
stateligere end noget andet heromkring, lad os saa selv om Resten,
da gro vi Nordmænd iveiret, saa der skal undres og spørges Nyt over
Landene.«
»Nei,« raabte Halvor, »vi vælge den stærkeste Mand i vort Land, og
det er Du, Fader.«
»Snak,« sagde Bjørnstad, »det er der ingen Samlingskraft i, og uden
den kan ingenting bestaa. Stridene ville strides. Kampene maa
kæmpes, men vor Konge, der bærer vort Folks egen Krone, rager
høit derover. Derfor vælge vi vor Hersker af det stouteste Kongehuus
i Norden. Lad ham kun være svensk Kongesøn, der ruller jo
Helteblod i det Folks Aarer, — lad vor Dronning kun være dansk
Kongedatter, der flyder jo reent og fromt Blod i de Kvinders Hjerter,
Blomsten af begge Huse, de bleve snart norske i Sind og i Tanke,
dem kaare vi og bære op til vort Folks egen Trone, saa først bliver
Norge vort Norge, først saa svulmer Tryghedsfølelsen frem, først da
kan en Nordmand trøstig gaa frem til Tronen, først da bøie Knæ og
lægge sin Sag og sig selv i sin Konges Haand og sige: »Konge, jeg
er din Søn, jeg har feilet, og de andre har feilet, døm os nu imellem
efter vor egen Lov, og den Dom skal være hellig.««
Bjørnstad havde ladet Øxen falde, han strakte Hænderne ud for sig
og saae vidt omkring, som om han talte til et heelt Folk.
»Den Kongstanke er den eneste, som der er noget ved,« raabte
Halvor og svang Øxen. — »Hvad sidder Morbror Svendsen dèr og
tænker paa, mens vi Andre arbeide?«
Bjørnstads Svoger, Klokker Ole Svendsen Bakke, sad paa en Stub
med Bøssen over Skulderen og saae til. Han var iført
Faareskindskofte med to Pistoler fastgjordte i Læderbæltet; paa
Hovedet bar han en Pelshue, under hvilken et tæt, mørkt Haar
strittede frem. Han var middelhøi og undersætsig; hans milde, blaa
Øine lyste frem under en tænksom Pande.
»De Tanker kommer mig i denne Tid ofte i Sinde,« svarede
Klokkeren fra Id, »at ogsaa jeg, skjøndt jeg er Kirkens Mand, maa
gjøre noget til Landets Nytte. Jeg gik derfor i Gaar ned til Peder
Colbjørnsen.«
»Jog han ogsaa Dig bort?« ytrede Bjørnstad haanlig. »Norge har jo
Sønner nok til at værge sig, mener han.«
»Han gav mig Ærinde til de Svenske for at ansee deres Leilighed, al
den Stund Byfolket ikke veed Besked om, hvor Fjenden egentlig
befinder sig.«
»Det veed jeg!« raabte Halvor ivrig og kastede Øxen. »Jeg kan føre
Morbror midt ind i Kong Carls Kvarteer, uden at en Hund skal gjøe ad
os. — Aa, tag mig med, kjære Morbror, saa skal jeg tjene Jer tro og
villig alle mine Levedage!«
»Tag kun Drengen med Dig, Klokker,« henkastede Bjørnstad. »Som
Du vel har hørt, kommer jeg ikke selv til at deeltage i dette Felttog;
men det giver Minder, som enhver ung Nordmand har godt af at
eie.«
»Du er en mærkelig Mand, Bjørnstad,« sagde Klokkeren; »Du ofrer
heller dit Liv og dines Velfærd i denne frugtesløse Kamp mod
Landets Øvrighed, den, Du kalder vor Voldsherre, end giver en
Tomme efter, og saa banker dit Hjerte dog saa varmt for alt godt og
stort.«
»Du mener maaskee, at jeg skulde gjøre Bod som en gammel
Kjærling og sidde udenfor Kirkedøren og male Haandkværn eller
lade mig forvise til en eller anden Landsby oppe nordenfjelds?«
spurgte Bjørnstad spottende.
»Den Plads, jeg bød Dig i Gaar som Opsynsmand ved Hollen
Malmgruber i Telemarken, kan ikke kaldes Landsforviisning. Tro mig,
Du m a a herfra, Bjørnstad; Du staaer som den Forlisende paa Vraget
og seer den nære Strand, men vil ikke redde Dig over ved et
Spring.«
»Det Spring skiller mig ved mig selv, derfor springer jeg ikke,«
svarede Bjørnstad. »Skuden, jeg styrer, er min egen. Heroppe paa
Fjeldet er norsk Frihed, og den skylder jeg alene mig selv. Her er mit
Land.«
»Dit Land —,« gjentog Klokkeren tøvende med et sørgmodigt Smil.
»Men hvor ere dine Landsmænd?«
»Ja, hvor er Landets andre Sønner? De er dernede i de trange
Gyder; de krybe og svandse for fremmede Embedsmænd. Jeg er en
Søn, der ikke har svigtet mit Land, og først gjennem saadanne
Sønner faaer et Land Aande og Stenen Røst. Heroppe er nu min
Kirke, her er jeg bleven eet med vor store, mægtige Natur, her er
Fossen, som aldrig tørrer ud, her er jeg!« Bjørnstad greb i sit Bryst
og blottede det, bredt og haarrigt. Vinden legede med hans
graasprængte Haar, hans skjæggede Læber blottede to Rækker
stærke Tænder; den hele Mand syntes et Udtryk for det, han sagde:
en Jætte, sprungen ud af Fjeldet, Fossemanden, dukket frem af
Fossen, Bjergaanden fra de Skakter, hvor Malmen hugges.
»Det staaer sørgeligt til for Dig, Bjørnstad,« sagde Klokkeren og
rystede paa Hovedet. »Du alene paa denne Side Fossen, hjertebred,
kneisende — javel. De staae blot Alle derovre. I drage begge i den
samme Lænke; slipper Du ikke Taget, styrter Du i Fossen, gaaer til
Bunds og Mari med Dig.«
»Faaer at være,« svarede Bjørnstad mørk. »Forstaaer Du, Svoger
Klokker: den Kvinde hører mig til, hun følger mig, til Døden, om jeg
byder. Den Tanke gjør mig stærk; hun svigter ikke, derfor staaer jeg
saa støt her paa Fjeldet.«
»Mari har forandret sig meget i den sidste Tid,« bemærkede
Klokkeren sørgmodigt. »Maatte hendes Kræfter række til i din Strid!
— Den er en Steen, Du sigter mod Andre, den rammer hende og Dig
selv. Hvis nu Byfolket dernede gjør Alvor af Truselen og fælder Dig
som fredløs Mand, hvad saa?«
»Hvad saa?« svarede Bjørnstad haanligt; »saa blev de mig værst,
som jeg vilde bedst, — saa er der en Nordmand mindre.«
»Og to Martyrer mere,« sagde Klokkeren og reiste sig. »Med Guds
Hjælp skal det ikke komme saa vidt; Mari og jeg ville redde Dig med
eller mod din Villie.«
»Mari?« spurgte Bjørnstad og studsede. »Tag Dig i Agt, Klokker!
Lokker Du hende over, svigter hun, saa vogt Jer Alle!«
Ved en Omdreining af Veien, som bugtede sig ind mellem Klipperne
og dannede et naturligt befæstet Pas mod Øst, kom pludselig en
broget Skare Mænd til Syne; nogle bare Vaabenfrakker, andre
trekantede Hatte og brede Læderbælter med Pistolhylstre; atter
andre vare iførte gammeldags Rustningsstykker; men Alle havde de
Bøsser over Skulderen. Anføreren, som bar Officeersuniform, traadte
frem foran de andre og nærmede sig forsigtig til Brændehuggerne.
»God Dag og Gud hjælp! Har I seet noget til Svensken i Dag?«
spurgte han og saae paa de fældede Træer.
»Javist, Svensken er allevegne,« svarede Halvor og skrævede
udfordrende ud med Benene. »Det maa jeg sige ham paa, at han
seer stateligere ud som Soldat end I brogede Bykarle. — Sikke
Handsker Svensken har med Kraver af gult Læder og med
Gedeskinds Hænder, og sikken rød Halskrave paa de blaa
Klædesfrakker med Messingknapper baade paa Bryst og Ærmer, ikke
at tale om deres Skydevaaben og Dyrendaler i Skindskede. Og
sikken han dèr seer ud!« — Halvor pegede paa en svær Borger med
et skægget, rødt Ansigt og klædt i en langskjødet Bluse. — »Han har
jo en Fork paa Nakken og sin Oldefars Brystpantser paa. Vi maa jo
skamme os, naar I nu om lidt møder Svensken heromme ved
Broen.«
»Staaer han saa nær herved?« spurgte en velnæret Borger med
usikker Stemme.
»Han halshuggede for en Time siden tre Tistedøler og en Kalv og lod
deres Blod Løbe ud i Fossen,« svarede Halvor fripostig. »De bad
gudsjammerlig for deres Liv. Det var et grufuldt Syn; Fossen saae ud
som det røde Skum længe efter.«
Lieutenant Wærn pegede paa de fældede Stammer.
»Hvad er det for Hærværk I bedriver her i Frederikshalds Skove?«
spurgte han barsk, henvendt til Bjørnstad. »Mens vi Andre ere ude
at værge Landet, har I Tanke for at bjerge Tømmer.«
»Om kort Tid er den ganske Egn her svensk, nu er den dansk,«
sagde Bjørnstad haanlig og hvilte paa Øxen; »hvem vil saa tage en
norsk Mand ilde op, om han bjerger det Par norske Træer i Tide til
fælles Bedste.«
»Brændetyveri er det, han har for,« sagde Kjøbmand Truelsen heftig.
»Men af ham kan man ikke vente bedre Sindelag.«
Bjørnstad maalte den Talende med et spottende Blik og gav sig i
Færd med et nyt Træ uden mere at ændse Byens Folk.
»Brændetyveri?« raabte Halvor. »I Diskespringere, der snyder
hinanden en Søsling fra, om I seer jert Snit dertil!«
»Pas dit Arbeide, Dreng,« sagde Bjørnstad.
Halvor adlød, spyttede i Hænderne og lod sine Øxehug regne over
Træstammen, saa Splinterne føg viden om. Da Fricorpset var
kommet et Stykke henad Veien, slog han en høi Latter op.
»Aa Fatter, hold paa mig — see, nu trasker de Krambodkarle mod
Kong Karl, — og see, hvor de holde paa deres Dyrendaler, som om
de skulde til at snyde paa Maalet med deres Alenstok —! — Jeg
holder det ikke ud, jeg holder det, Herren evig, ikke ud — for jeg vil
saa gjerne med dem i Krigen!«
Han sukkede og saae længe efter Colbjørnsens Folk, lyttede ogsaa
efter deres hendøende Skridt i Naaleskoven.
Nogle Timer senere, da Mørket faldt, hørtes en heftig Geværild i den
Retning, hvor Mændene vare forsvundne. Lyden drog sig nærmere
ned mod Passet; kort efter saaes de samme Folk, der om
Formiddagen droge mod Svensken, skyndsomt springe fra Træ til
Træ, idet de søgte Dækning for at affyre Bøsserne og ile videre. En
Trop af Kong Carls Ryttere kom til Syne i Huulveien; deres Karabiner
lyste i Maaneskinnet, der sitrende gled ned mellem Træernes
Stammer. Pludselig gjorde den fjendtlige Trop Holdt. Midt i det
snævre Pas skimtedes i Tusmørket en mørk Masse. Øverst paa
denne stod Klokkerens og Bjørnstads brede Skikkelser med Bøssen i
Haanden. — Det var en saakaldet Hærbraade, en Forskandsning,
bestaaende af fældede Træstammer, hvis afhugne, tilspidsede Grene
bleve lagte mod Fjenden og saaledes frembød en Hindring, vanskelig
at overvinde, naar de norske, sikre Skytter laa paa Vagt bag
Stammerne og sendte de Fremtrængende en dræbende Ild i Møde.
Bjørnstad og hans Folk havde reist denne Forhugning i Passet, hvor
Veien var smallest, og hvor Fjenden paa Grund af Klippevæggen og
den høie Snee langs Siderne blot kunde ride to Mand ved hinandens
Side. Det var til denne Forhugning, at Bjørnstad og hans Folk om
Morgenen fældede Træer, vel vidende, at Svensken tidligere eller
senere maatte frem gjennem Passet.
Da Haldenserne naaede herned og tvivlraadige standsede udenfor
Forhugningen, hørtes Bjørnstads dybe Røst:
»Hurtig — ind tilhøire, dèr er Gjennemgangen. Lad saa Bøsserne;
men I fyrer blot een ad Gangen. Naar I hører mig skyde, saa tager
Hvermand sin.«
Da Byfolkene vare komne om bag Forhugningen, stængede
Bjørnstad og hans Karle efter dem med Træstammer. I det samme
bevægede den fjendtlige Trop sig frem gjennem Huulveien.
Maanelyset strømmede ned over Anførerens sølvtressede Hat.
Hesten steilede. I det samme faldt Svendsen Bakkes Skud, den
svenske Officeer tabte sin Sabel og gled ned af Hesten. Da
Colbjørnsens uøvede Folk saae Fjenderne samle sig til Angreb,
glemte de imidlertid Bjørnstads Formaning og fyrede alle paa een
Gang med den Virkning, at de to forreste af Fjendens Flok segnede
af Hestene. De Andre droge sig tilbage bag et Klippeforspring og
raadsloge.
»Lad Bøsserne paany,« lød Bjørnstads Røst gjennem Stilheden.
I Stedet for at adlyde denne Befaling forlode de uvante, norske
Krigsfolk skyndsomst Forhugningen, for at benytte det Forspring,
som Fjendens Tøven gav dem, til at sprede sig mellem Fjeldene og
ad Omveie at naae hjem til Staden.
»Vil I see, I blive!« raabte Halvor rasende og søgte at stille sig i
Veien for de Flygtende, mens han pegede op mod Faderen, der stod
øverst paa Forhugningen synlig for Alle i Maanelyset. »See, deroppe
staaer han, som I skjældte for Brændetyv, og værger Jer Alle, mens
I smøre Haser — Der har vi Svensken!«
Dette Udraab spredte Partigjængerne som Avner for Vinden.
Klokkeren, Bjørnstad, Lieutenant Wærn og Halvor stode alene
tilbage i Skandsen, medens Fjenden rykkede frem paany.
»Giv Agt, Manne — de bageste Geleder holde sig færdige!«
kommanderede Lieutenanten med høi Røst.
De forreste Ryttere reve Tømmerne til sig og vendte om, skuffede af
denne List.
»Tilbage, Gossar — Skoven er fuld af Jyder!« raabte den svenske
Anfører.
Rytterne gave sig blot Tid til at tage deres Døde op paa Hestene og
satte af Sted tilbage gjennem Huulveien. Skoven laa atter stille og
forladt i det blege Maanelys.
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com