NOTES ET MATÉRIAUX
Michael AVIOZ Bar-Ilan University
GEOGRAPHY IN JOSEPHUS’S ANTIQUITIES 5-7
“Places in the narrative are not merely geographical facts, but are to be regarded as literary elements in which fundamental significance is embod- ied.” Thus wrote the late Shimon Bar-Efrat.1 Geography functions within a narrative in various ways; sometimes, it is employed to add historical weight to a story; sometimes, it is used for etiological reasons; places may also be the main subject of a narrative.2 Different scholars, of course, have different views of what constitutes “geography.” Some draw a distinction between history and geography, while others argue for their mutual relationship.3 Some tend towards a some- what dry cataloguing of factual details of border outlines, river routes, topo- graphical features and distances, and so on. Strabo’s geography, however, is far richer; following Greek tradition, it encompasses a wider range of information such as local history and mythology, ethnography and politics.4
* I would like to express my gratitude to the Beit Shalom fund in Japan for their generous support. 1. Sh. BAR-EFRAT, Narrative Art in the Bible, Sheffield, 1989, p. 194. 2. J. A. BECK, God as Storyteller: Seeking Meaning in Biblical Narrative, St. Louis, MO, 2008. 3. K. CLARKE, Between Geography and History: Hellenistic Constructions of the Roman World, Oxford, 1999. 4. D. DUECK, “The Geographical Narrative of Strabo of Amasia”, in K. A. RAAFLAUB and R. J. A. TALBERT (eds.), Geography and Ethnography: Perceptions of the World in Pre- Modern Societies, Malden, MA and Oxford, 2010, p. 249. See also J. M. VONDER BRUEGGE, Mapping Galilee in Josephus, Luke, and John: Critical Geography and the Construction of An Ancient Space, Leiden and Boston, 2016, 46-50.
Revue des études juives, 178 (1-2), janvier-juin 2019, pp. 133-143. doi: 10.2143/REJ.178.1.3286070 134 GEOGRAPHY IN JOSEPHUS’S ANTIQUITIES 5-7
Josephus does not provide a methodological explanation of his use of geography. However, since he relies in many places on Polybius,5 it may be that Polybius’ introduction may suit Josephus as well. Polybius writes in Histories 5.23: I would not want any reader to find my account confusing and obscure just because he is unfamiliar with the region, so I shall describe its natural features and their relative positions – as I intend to throughout my work, by constantly comparing and correlating unknown places with those which are familiar and long known. Since defeat in military engagements on land or at sea is usually due to geographical factors, and since knowing how an event happened is always more interesting to us than just knowing that it happened, topographical descriptions are important whatever kind of event is being talked about, and especially important for military events.6
Josephus’s works contain many significant geographical materials, such as the borders of the Land of Israel and identification of various sites with contemporary locations. This paper will examine the geographical materials in the fifth, sixth and seventh books of Antiquities, which include his adapta- tions of the books of Samuel. We shall deal with the following questions: What significance does Josephus see in the biblical sites mentioned in Sam- uel? What were his sources? What are the differences between Antiquities and his other works with regard to the use of geography? Were his site identifications accepted?
Earlier research
Josephus’s importance as an ancient source was highlighted by Louis Feldman, who writes: “[Josephus] is our most important guide to the geog- raphy, topography, and monuments of Palestine, so that the archaeologist must dig with a spade in one hand and a copy of Josephus in the other.”7 Scholars such as Avi-Yona and Safrai8 have dealt mainly with Josephus’s
5. See Ant. 12.135-137, 358-359; Ag. Ap. 2.84. See A. M. ECKSTEIN, “Josephus and Poly- bius: A Reconsideration”, Classical Antiquity 9/2 (1990), p. 175-208; Y. SHAHAR, Josephus Geographicus: The Classical Context of Geography in Josephus, Tübingen, 2004. 6. R. WATERFIELD (trans.), Polybius, The Histories, Oxford and New York, 2010. 7. L. H. FELDMAN, “Introduction”, in L. H. FELDMAN and G. HATA (eds.), Josephus, the Bible, and History, Detroit, 1989, p. 18. 8. M. AVI-YONAH, Historical Geography of Palestine from the End of the Babylonian Exile up to the Arab Conquest, 3rd ed., Jerusalem, 1962 (Hebrew); Z. SAFRAI, “The Descrip- tion of the Land of Israel in Josephus’s Works”, in FELDMAN and HATA (eds.), Josephus, the Bible, and History, p. 295-324. GEOGRAPHY IN JOSEPHUS’S ANTIQUITIES 5-7 135 reliability and sources. These questions are also the focus of Per Bilde,9 who claims that Josephus’s geographical excursuses are his own unique work and not derived from any other source, as they are consistent with other passages that are unquestionably Josephan compositions. In his book, Yuval Shahar focuses on Josephus’s geographical descriptions in War, but does not ana- lyze Josephus’s biblical adaptations in Ant. 1-11.10 Möller and Schmitt11 do not relate to most of Josephus’s geographical references in Ant. 1-10. One of the biblical commentator’s tasks is to identify the geographical sites mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. As Varenda writes: The geography of the historical oeuvre of Flavius Josephus can be divided into two distinct parts. The first refers to the geographical realities which influence historical action. The second has the purpose of fitting historical events in a suitable setting, so that the event described appears embodied in an earthly reality.12
A full list of geographical names mentioned in Ant. 5-7 is provided in Begg’s commentary on Josephus’s Antiquities.13 There are more than ninety place names in Ant. 5-7, out of 475 mentioned throughout his adaptation of the Hebrew Bible. While other parts of Josephus’s Ant. 1-11 have been discussed by earlier scholars, books 5-7 have not generated enough scholarly interest. My paper seeks to fill in this gap.
What kind of geography does Josephus use?
Ben Zion Rosenfeld distinguishes between “realistic” and “national” geography.14 The former definition can be applied to the books of Samuel. Josephus does not deal with the geographical borders of the Land of Israel in his rewriting of Samuel; he only refers to certain sites.15
9. P. BILDE, “The Geographical Excursuses in Josephus”, in F. PARENTE and J. SIEVERS (eds.), Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period; Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, Leiden, 1994, p. 247-262 (repr. in P. BILDE, Collected Studies on Philo and Josephus, Göttingen, 2016, p. 89-104). 10. SHAHAR, Josephus Geographicus. 11. C. MÖLLER and G. SCHMITT, Siedlungen Palästinas nach Flavius Josephus, Wiesbaden, 1976. 12. P. VILLALBA Y VARNEDA, The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus, Leiden, 1986, p. 121. 13. C. T. BEGG (trans.), Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Volume 4: Judean Antiquities 5-7, ed. S. MASON, Leiden, 2005, p. 366-370. 14. B. Z. ROSENFELD, “Josephus and the Mishnah: Two Views on the Outline of the Map of Palestine in the First Two Centuries A.D.”, REJ 163 (2004), p. 415-428 (esp. 418). 15. On the borders of the Land of Israel in Josephus’s works, see E. BEN ELIYAHU, Between Borders: The Boundaries of Eretz-Israel in the Consciousness of the Jewish People in the 136 GEOGRAPHY IN JOSEPHUS’S ANTIQUITIES 5-7
Josephus is well-suited to this task. According to his own testimony, he was raised in Jerusalem, lived a few years in the Judean desert (Life 11-12), and spent many years in the Galilee (Life 30-406). He is familiar with the administrative division of Judea (War 2.94-99).
Jerusalem as a geographical reference point in Ant. 5-7
Josephus mentions Jerusalem more than twenty times throughout Ant. 5-7. He knows Jerusalem quite well, as is apparent from his description of the city, mainly in War. According to Feldman,16 Josephus’s connection with Jerusalem moves him to use it as a geographical reference point:
1. He locates the King’s Valley (2 Sam 18:18) as being two stades away (Ant. 7.243) from Jerusalem. 2. In his rewriting of 2 Sam 23:14, he writes that Bethlehem is twenty sta- des away from Jerusalem (Ant. 7.312). 3. He adds that during Absalom’s rebellion, Jonathan and Ahimaaz were sighted (2 Sam 17:18) two stades away from the city of Jerusalem (Ant. 7.225). 4. After Absalom’s rebellion, David returns to the Jordan (2 Sam 19:15); Josephus changes this to Jerusalem (Ant. 7.263). 5. In 2 Sam 23:13, a delegation approaches David at the cave of Adullam in southern Israel during harvest time; once again, Josephus changes this to Jerusalem (Ant. 7.311).
Though I fully concur with Feldman that Jerusalem was indeed central for Josephus, I find his supporting arguments problematic. Many of the examples he cites may be considered exegetical: Josephus locates biblical sites in relation to a well-known city for orientational purposes. Ancient geographers typically used familiar objects or sites to serve as a geographi- cal reference for unfamiliar ones.17
Time of the Second Temple and in the Mishnah and Talmud Period, Jerusalem, 2012 (Hebrew), p. 96-117. 16. L. H. FELDMAN, “The Importance of Jerusalem as Viewed by Josephus”, in id., Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered , Leiden and Boston, 2006, p. 677-693. 17. DUECK, “The Geographical Narrative”, p. 247. GEOGRAPHY IN JOSEPHUS’S ANTIQUITIES 5-7 137
Was Josephus dependent upon the LXX?
The question of Josephus’s dependence upon the LXX is a well-debated scholarly issue.18 The following table compares Josephus’s terms for some biblical sites mentioned in Josephus’s Ant. 6 and 7 with the equivalent terms that appear in the MT and the LXX.
MT LXX Josephus (Sam 8) Βηρσάβεε Βερσουβεί (6.32 1) באר שבע Sam 13:5b) LXXB: Μαχεμάς; Μαχμά (6.98, 103)19 1) מכמש LXXL: Μαχμάς (Sam 17) Σοκχώθ Σωκώ (6.170 1) שוכה .(Sam 21:2) Νόμβα Ναβά (Ant. 6. 242 1) נוב Sam 21:11) Γεθ Γίτταν διέφυγε τὴν 1) גת Παλαιστίνων (6.245) (Sam 22:1) ᾿Οδολλάμ ᾿Αδολλάμη (6.247 1) עדולם (Sam 22:5) Σαριχ Σάρισ (6.249 1) חרת (Sam 23:1) Κειλα Κιλλανοι (6.271 1) קעילה Sam 23:15) ἐν τῇ Καινῇ Ζιφ Καινὴν καλουμένην τῆς 1) חְֹר ָשה Ζιφήνης (6.275) (Sam 24:1) ᾿Ενγάδδει (LXXL: Γαδδ) Ἐνγεδηνη (6.282 1) עין גדי (Sam 24:22) Μεσσαρα Μασθηρα (6.291 1) מצודה (Sam 25:2) Μααν Ἐμμᾶν (6.295 1) מעון (Sam 3:26) LXXB: τοῦ φρέατος τοῦ Βησηρᾶ (7.34 1) בור הסירה Σεειράμ LXXL: τοῦ φρέατος Σεειρά Sam 16:5) 3:6: Βαρακεί Χώρανος (7.207; Niese and 1) בחורים 16.5: Βουρείμ; LXXL: Marcus) Χορράμ 17:18: Βοκχόρος 17:18 +19:17(16): Βαορείμ LXXL: Βαιθχορρών
18. See L. H. FELDMAN, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible, Berkeley, 1998, p. 23-36; J. D. H. NORTON, Contours in the Text. Textual Variation in the Writings of Paul, Josephus, and the Yaḥad, London, 2011, p. 67-81. 19. On Eusebius’ version, see S. TIMM, Eusebius und die Heilige Schrift. Die Schrift- vorlagen des Onomastikons der biblischen Ortsnamen (TU 166), Berlin, 2010, p. 272-273. 138 GEOGRAPHY IN JOSEPHUS’S ANTIQUITIES 5-7
This chart illustrates that Josephus chooses place names that show either: 1. Full or partial agreement between Josephus and the MT. 2. Full or partial agreement between Josephus and the LXX. 3. Deviation from both the MT and the LXX. It is evident from this chart that Josephus makes use of both the MT and the LXX in addition to his own formulation; the same is true throughout Josephus’s biblical adaptation in Ant. 5-7. As Gregory Sterling writes: “It is impossible to make a firm case for a specific textual tradition.”20 This brings us to the transliteration of place names.
The transliteration of place names
As is also true of Josephus’s treatment of personal names, the place names he uses sometimes deviate significantly from the biblical record when he translates the name into Greek. This may be due to one of several reasons. Larry Lincoln, who explores the issue of personal names in Josephus,21 sug- gests several explanations for these deviations: they may be due to errors by copyists or Josephus himself; to the Hellenization of Hebrew names; or to different versions of the MT at Josephus’s disposal, among other rea- sons.22 We may connect this issue to the broader question of Josephus’s Vorlage, an issue that may never be resolved. A comparison between Jose- phus’s use of the MT and the Septuagint shows that Josephus was not neces- sarily indebted to either source. .אבל בית מעכה Thus, the name Abelochea may simply be an error for Ekron–Akkaron simply follows the Septuagint, a case of misspelling a place that was not yet vocalized. Josephus refers to biblical Hebron as Nabro (1.170), Nebron, Gibron (with a gamma), Hebron (aspirated) and Chebron (with a χῖ).23
20. G. E. STERLING, “The Invisible Presence: Josephus’s Retelling of Ruth”, in S. MASON (ed.), Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives, Sheffield, 1998, p. 109. See also E. NODET, Flavius Josèph, les Antiquités juives, vol. 3: Livres VI et VII, Paris, 2010, p. XXVI. Nodet refutes Ulrich’s argument that Josephus had a Greek text at his disposal, rather than a Hebrew text. See E. C. ULRICH, “Josephus’s Biblical Text for the Books of Samuel”, in FELDMAN and HATA (eds.), Josephus, the Bible, and History, p. 81-96. 21. L. R. LINCOLN, “The Use of Names as Evidence of the Septuagint as a Source for Josephus’s Antiquities in Books 1 to 5”, in J. COOK (ed.), Septuagint and Reception, Leiden and Boston, 2009, p. 179-194. 22. See also R. J. H. SHUTT “Biblical Names and Their Meanings in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Books I and II, 1-200”, JSJ 2 (1967), p. 167-182. 23. Jewish Antiquities, Books I-IV, ed. and tr. H. St. J. THACKERAY, Cambridge, MA, 1967, p. 84, note a. GEOGRAPHY IN JOSEPHUS’S ANTIQUITIES 5-7 139
Why doesn’t Josephus mention all the place names in Samuel?
Josephus does not discuss the identification of sites mentioned in Samuel. 24 He also avoids mentioning the distance between the different sites, only doing so towards the end of Antiquities.25 This lack of geographical information is atypical of Josephus, who gener- ally provides much interesting material regarding the identification of the biblical sites in his time.26 In Against Apion he tells of Edomea, which includes south Hebron and the Negeb, areas described in the Books of Sam- uel. Josephus is so interested in geography, that even in his apologetic book, Against Apion, he tells of Edomea,27 which includes south Hebron and the Negeb, areas described in the Books of Samuel. We would have expected him to share this information, which he already knows, in his Antiquities as well. Josephus was undoubtedly familiar with most of these places, especially those in the Judean desert. Josephus probably relied on the fact that he had already provided details of the different parts of the Land of Israel in his earlier works, mainly in War.28 Josephus may have been unable to identify the biblical sites mentioned in 1 Samuel 21 onwards, and thus just followed the biblical text. This differentiation between War and Ant. may imply that his audience for War is pagan while his audience for Ant. is Jewish, and for that reason Josephus may have elaborated on geographical issues in War, while abridg- ing them in Ant. However, the question of Josephus’s intended audience is much more complicated.29 Another possibility may be that the genre of the two compositions affects the quality of the geographical descriptions: while War was intended as a historical book, Antiquities was presumably intended as an adaptation of the Hebrew Bible, where geography played a less prominent role. When
24. In fact, this assertion holds true concerning other sites mentioned in the book of Samuel (see, e.g. Josephus’s retelling of 1 Sam. 9; 1 Sam. 17). In the place names given in Josephus’s retelling of 1 Sam. 13 there are errors in copying. See BEGG, Flavius Josephus, p. 125, n. 372. 25. In Ant. 9.7, Josephus refers to Ein Gedi: it is located 300 stadia from Jerusalem. For other measures, see Ant. 7.34, 225, 243, 312. 26. See SAFRAI, “The Description of the Land of Israel”. 27. Ag. Ap. 116. 28. In War 5.51, he identifies Gibeath Saul as being “about thirty furlongs” from Jerusa- lem. This identification has been accepted by various scholars. 29. See R. PUMMER, The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, Tübingen, 2009, p. 62-64, with earlier literature. 140 GEOGRAPHY IN JOSEPHUS’S ANTIQUITIES 5-7
Josephus wrote historical material, he used external sources that helped him fill the gap. But in regard to biblical geography, Josephus may have lacked such sources.30
General observations without identification
1. Josephus does not provide any information about the location of Maha- naim. According to Josephus, the meaning of the Greek Manalis- Mahanaim is “camps” (Ant. 7.10), and the Hebrew toponym Mahanaim is a dual form, generally translated as “camps”. However, we cannot blame Josephus for not supplying a more specific identification. The site of Mahanaim has not been conclusively identified, though a number of archaeological ruins have been suggested for its location, including Tall adh-Dhahab.31 2. Josephus provides the general information that Jabesh-Gilead is a “metrop- olis” in Gilead (Ant. 6.5.1).32
Unidentified Biblical sites – then and today
Josephus lacks certain geographical knowledge in regard to certain bibli- cal sites, but modern Samuel scholars who live 2000 years after Josephus are not necessarily better informed. Several modern commentators33 refer to the following sites mentioned in Samuel as “unknown”: Atach (1 Sam 30:30); Beth Car (1 Sam 7:11); Ephes-Damim (1 Sam 17:1); Helam and Gei Melach (2 Sam 10); Hill of Hakilah (1 Sam 23:19; 26:1, 3); Horeth (1 Sam 22:5); Mitzpeh Moab (1 Sam 22:3); Nahal ha-Besor (1 Sam 30:9); Ramoth Negev (1 Sam 30:27) Sechu (1 Sam 19:22); Zelzah; Ziklag;
30. On the latter point, see Z. KALLAI, “The Biblical Geography of Flavius Josephus”, in Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies, vol. 1, Jerusalem, 1967, p. 203-207. 31. See B. MACDONALD, “East of the Jordan”: Territories and Sites of the Hebrew Scrip- tures, Boston, 2000, p. 140-141. 32. Eusebius locates Jabesh-Gilead in the mountains at a village called Iabeis Galaad in the vicinity of the sixth milestone from Pella on the Roman road to Gerasa (= Jarash) (110: 11-13). See S. R. NOTLEY and Z. SAFRAI, Eusebius, Onomasticon: A Triglott Edition with Notes and Commentary, Leiden, 2005, p. 106. 33. R. BERGEN, 1, 2 Samuel (The New American Commentary), Nashville, TN, 1996, p. 280; cf. D. T. TSUMURA, The First Book of Samuel (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), Grand Rapids, 2007. GEOGRAPHY IN JOSEPHUS’S ANTIQUITIES 5-7 141
Telaim (1 Sam 15:4); Socho and Azeka (1 Sam 17); Brook Besor (1 Sam 30:9); Atach (1 Sam 30:30).
Sites that Josephus mentions in Ant. and discusses in other places
1. Josephus mentions that David is born in Bethlehem, but does not locate it in relation to Jerusalem. In Ant. 5.139, he says that it is located thirty stades from Jerusalem, but in Ant. 7.312, he gives a different number (20 stades) for this distance. While there may not be any reason to men- or מצודה tion Jerusalem in his rewriting of 1 Sam 16, in 1 Sam 23 the citadel is mentioned, as well as Emek Rephaim, which are two places that are adjacent to Jerusalem. 2. Little information about Hebron is provided in Ant., but Josephus dis- cusses Hebron’s location in War, book 4: “According to the statements of its inhabitants, Hebron is a town of greater antiquity not only than any other in the country, but even than Memphis in Egypt, being reckoned to be two thousand three hundred years old. They further relate that it was there that Abraham, the progenitor of the Jews, took up his abode after his migration from Mesopotamia, and from here that his posterity went down into Egypt” (War 4.530-31). 3. Ashkelon features in several places in Samuel (1 Sam 6:17; 2 Sam 1:20). Josephus mentions Ashkelon but does not identify it (Ant. 6.5). In War 3.9-10, he notes that it is five hundred and twenty furlongs from Jerusa- lem, about a hundred kilometers. 4. Beth-Horon: In his rewriting of 1 Samuel, Josephus does not mention this place, although it features in the MT version of 1 Sam 13:18. One can argue that he already mentions it in his rewriting of Joshua 10 (Ant. 5.60). However, Josephus does provide more information about this place in his description of Judas Maccabeus (Ant. 12.289); and of Nicanor and Jonathan (Ant. 12.408). 5. Seneh: One of two mountain peaks of the Michmash pass mentioned in 1 Sam 14:4; the other is Bozez. The first peak is said to be “on the north in front of Michmash” and the second “on the south in front of Geba” (14:5). Josephus (War 5.51) mentions a “Valley of Thorns” near Gabeah of Saul that may be the source of this mountain’s name:34 scholars
34. P. M. ARNOLD, Gibeah: The Search for a Biblical City, Sheffield, 1990, p. 104. On Josephus’ references to Geba/Gibeah, see E. REGEV, “Josephus on Gibeah: Versions of a Top- onym”, JQR 89 (1999), p. 351-359. 142 GEOGRAPHY IN JOSEPHUS’S ANTIQUITIES 5-7
suggest that the name Seneh (“thorny”?) might be etymologically related to Josephus’s location of “Gibeah of Saul” in the “Valley of the Thorns”, as well as to the present Arabic name Wadi es-Swenit, “Valley of the Thorn-Tree”. The description of Jonathan’s climb up the precipitous slope toward the Philistines (14:13) also reflects the treacherously steep sides of the ravine immediately east of the wadi pass. 6. Josephus identifies Beth-shean with Scythopolis in Ant. 6.374 (cf. Ant. 5.83; 12.348; 13.188), but only in War (3.446) does he add that it is close to Tiberias.
Josephus’s sources
Josephus does not include any charts, diagrams, or maps in his works.35 He relies mainly upon words and ideas that he finds in his “Bibles”, prob- ably the Greek and the Hebrew. His undertaking is to express and explain the concrete and sometimes quantitative facts of the physical world through words; that is, to narrate geography. Only in a few places is he able to rely on actual eyewitness testimony.36
Conclusion
In Against Apion, Josephus writes that ideally, historians should have witnessed the events they narrate with their own eyes.37 This may be true for War. However, for Antiquities it is certainly irrelevant. One may cite Schlatter’s assertion that Josephus is accurate when he was not present and inaccurate when he was.38 While Josephus can certainly be excused for failing to identify sites that remain unidentified to this day, we may still wonder why he did not discuss
35. Scholars speak of “mental maps”. See P. S. ALEXANDER, “Geography and the Bible (Early Jewish)”, in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 2, New York, 1992, p. 978. Scott writes: “We must no doubt content ourselves with generating mental maps, which, with some notable exceptions, is all the ancients themselves normally had at their disposal”. J. M. SCOTT, Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity: The Book of Jubilees, Cambridge, 2002, p. 174. Cf. K. COBLENTZ BAUTCH, A Study of the Geography of 1 Enoch 17-19: “No One Has Seen What I Have Seen”, Leiden, 2003, p. 160-190. 36. See DUECK, “The Geographical Narrative”, p. 236. On the significance of the eyewit- ness testimony in Josephus, see SHAHAR, Josephus, p. 192-193. 37. See Life 357; Ag. Ap. 1.45-49, 56; War 1.2-3. 38. A. SCHLATTER, Die hebrä ischen Namen bei Josephus, Gü tersloh, 1913. GEOGRAPHY IN JOSEPHUS’S ANTIQUITIES 5-7 143 certain sites that were certainly familiar to him firsthand. The answer may be related to the genre of his various works: the sites mentioned in War appear in a historical work, and one may expect an elaborated discussion of places in the Land of Israel, when they are relevant to the description of the war between Rome and Judea. However, Antiquities, at least books 1-11, is classified as Rewritten Bible. Here Josephus focused mainly on interpreting Scripture and unless he thought there is great significance of certain places, he did not give an elaborated discussion on each place. Josephus condemns Greek historians who are willing to write about events when they were neither present nor had any access to those with firsthand knowledge. Some, he complains, write about the war without hav- ing been there, and he considers their accounts inadequate and unreliable. In contrast, Josephus says, he was actually present, and he alone understood the Jewish refugees and wrote the information down; his accusers did not know the Jewish side of the story. Josephus himself was not present for most of his Antiquities or parts of his War, but he did draw upon eyewitnesses or early sources whenever possible. Despite the fact that geographical materials are sometimes crucial to the understanding of the structure and meaning of a given narrative, Josephus does not always provide his readers with sufficient geographical data in Ant. 5-7. Instead, he focuses on other exegetical matters, and it is this focus that marks him as one of the earliest interpreters of the Hebrew Bible. Books 5-7 do not represent Josephus’s general geographical interest in Ant. 1-11, given that geographical topics are more central in other biblical books: the Pentateuch, for example, emphasizes the borders of the Land of Israel, while the book of Joshua discusses the allotments of the tribes (see e.g. Ant. 5.75-89). The Book of Samuel differs from these books in its genre and purpose, and Josephus was aware of this difference.
Michael AVIOZ [email protected]