AnnetteWeissenrieder Aroadmap to heaven: High-priestly vestments and the Jerusalem Temple in Flavius Josephus In this chapter,Iexamine the architecture of the Jerusalem temple and of priest- ly vestments as loci of religious innovation, which were embedded in Josephus’ complex political and religious agenda.Ialso offer an exploration of Josephus’ ekphrastic treatment of the architectural complexities of the First and Second Temple and the vestments of the priests and high priests. As Imaintain, not only do the priestly and high priestlyvestments represent the Jewish cult of pu- rity,and reflect the orderofthe cosmos to summon the presenceofGod as cre- ator of heaven and earth, but they are alsoofgreat political significance. “When the Romans entered on the government [of Judea], they took possession of the vestments of the highpriest,and […]the captain of the guard lights alamp there every day”.¹ This is the description givenbythe Jewishhistorian Flavius Josephus² of the special vestments worn by the high priests when they enter the HolyofHolies once ayear,onthe DayofAtonement.The highpriesthood was the most important institution of Judaism with regardtoreligious life and governmental powers.Since the Hasmonean John Hyrcanos I(134–104 BCE), the highpriest’svestments had been laid up at the tower on the north sideof the temple.³ Seven days before the festival the vestments were delivered to the priestsand after having purified the vestments, the high priests madeuse of them. The tower was rebuilt by Herod, who named the tower ‘Antonia’ in honour of his friend Marcus Antonius, and the garments were kept there during his reign, as well as thatofhis son Archelaos until Judea came under the direct con- trol of the Romanadministration (4BCE-6CE; AJ 18.93). Joseph. AJ 18:93; some scholars assume that these vestments were also used at Pessach, Scha- vuot and Sukkot.Ihave used the version of the Greek text of Josephus established by Thackeray, Marcus,Wikgren, and Feldman in the Loeb Classical Library (1927–1965), which is essentially that of Niese’sed. minor (1888–1895). Josephus never himself mentionsthat his gentilicium was Flavius;itisfound onlyinlater Christian authors. The name change can first be found in the Codex Parisinus 1425 (see Clem. Al. Strom.1.147.2). Forfurther information, see Schürer (1973). Joseph. AJ 15.403;18.91–92. DOI 10.1515/9783110448184-007, ©2017 Annette Weissenrieder,published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative CommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs3.0 License. 158 AnnetteWeissenrieder The Romans housedthe vestments in astone-chamber under the seal of the priests(οἴκῳλίθοις οἰκοδομηθέντι ὑπὸ σφραγῖδι τῶν ἱερέων).⁴ Stone was con- sidered aparticularlypure building material in Judaism (mKel. 5.11;10.41 etc.), afact which ‒ accordingtoJosephus ‒ seems to have been known to the Ro- mans. By explaining that the captain of the guard lights alamp in front of the vestments, Josephus indicates that the guard now takes over the dailylighting of the Menorah of the Temple which had been the duty of the priestsand highpriests (Exod. 27:21; 30:8; Lev. 24:3 – 784; 2Chron. 13:11; Gussmann, 2008); as aresult, the guard pays homagetoGod as represented by the garment.One thing is clear: the highpriestly vestmentsrepresent acultic power in amanner that goes beyond mere symbolic meaning. As an aristocratic chief priest himself, Josephus describes the office of the highpriest and its holdersfrom personal experience.⁵ As such, he was interested in the proceedingsofthe cults and the Temple,yet his work shows familiarity with Roman concerns. Neither aspect should surprise us. This multifaceted writ- er served as aJewishgeneral, aclient of the Flavian emperors, and an apologist of the Jewishpeople. Josephus’ literaryuse of highpriestlyvestments reflects his own involvement in the Jewishcultic world and in the Roman political world. Josephus proves to be aunique witness to aJewishpriesthood of the Jerusa- lem temple⁶ that has at the time of his writingsalreadybecome powerless and without aspecific function.The cultic and ritual purity laws, the calendar of religious holidays and the temple offeringscould no longer be properlyfulfilled, because the Jewish temple in Jerusalem had been destroyed as asymbol of unity and purity and as the representation of God’spresence. ForJosephus it is clear that God’spresencehad left the temple (BJ 6.299). However,Josephus describes the priesthood and the temple in the present tense, in otherwords as if the tem- ple werestill being used as aJewish temple and the priesthood werestill being exercised. Not onlydothe temple and (high) priestlyvestments represent the Jewishcult of purity and reflect the order of the cosmos,but they are also of po- litical significance.Hemakes this clear in both works by using the rhetorical technique of ekphrasis,⁷ “adescription that places the subject before the Schwartz (2006,347), suggests that this is atransliteration. Gussmann (2008, 396). His father was apriest of the ‘line’ of Jehoiarib and his mother was adescendant of the Has- monean highpriests and kings whohad ruled Jerusalem until the time of Herod. Grave and synagogueinscriptionsfromthe time after 70 CE give the impression of apriest- hood in diaspora that is no longer based on apriestlylineage,but on asolid understanding of the Torah; see Levine (2005,523–525). Forthe application of the term ekphrasis to this aspect of Josephus’ work see also Gussmann, (2008). However,itisnot clear how he defines the term. High-priestly vestments and the Temple in Flavius Josephus 159 eyes”.His aim however is different in each case. In Bellum Judaicum BJ he em- phasises the dividing walls and the different court-yards, and in doing so makes use of Greco-Roman technicalterms, apparentlywith the aim of protecting the sanctuary from strangers. In Antiquitates AJ on the other hand his detailed de- scription of the tabernacle and the temple of Solomon focuses on the architec- ture and the vestments, apparentlywith the aim of idealising the past and pro- tectingGod’sindwelling in the sanctuary.However,inreferringtoSolomon’s temple prayer,Josephus suggests the possibilityofGod’spresenceinheavenin- stead of the temple. By analysinghis terminology, we find that he presents var- ious aspectsofthe exotic elements in different ways.Indescribing the high priests’ vestments, for example, he transliterates Aramaic terms which are main- ly hapax legomena;indescribing the holyand the profane and the inside of the temple, like the altars and the Menorah, which are not mentioned in the Septua- gint (and the New Testament writings), he uses vocabulary known to us partly from the leges sacrae;and, in describingthe building of the temple,heintrodu- ces Greek and Roman architectural terminology.Afurther point should also be noted: these details are found almost exclusively in Antiquitates (AJ)and rather seldom in the earlier Bellum Judaicum (BJ). Nevertheless,the overall conception of the highpriestly vestmentsinAJ and BJ is the same: the vestmentssymbolise the universe and the heavenlyworldinorder to summon the presenceofGod as the creator of heavenand earth. It is the minute description of materials and col- ours that acts as the vehicle of the symbolicreference: The priests’ vestments and the temple signal the presenceofGod. 1. Ekphrasis: ‘Placing the subject beforethe eyes’⁸ “Ekphrasis is adescriptive speech”,claims Theon in his mid- to late-first century ce Progymnasmata, “which vividly(ἐναργῶς)bringsthe subject shownbefore On ekphrasis, Elsner (1995,125–155); Pollitt (1974); see also Stewart (1993, 130 –174); and Mé- traux (1995), whoidentifies acorrelation between medical success with regardtobodilyfunction and artistic development, especiallyinsculpture. The ancient term ἔκφρασις (Lat. descriptio) covereddescriptions of persons, things,situations,orplaces. Webb (2009); Webb (1997, 112– 127), areespeciallyhelpful sourceswith regardtodifferent descriptions;see also Egelhaaf (1997, 942–950). 160 AnnetteWeissenrieder the eyes”.⁹ By this he means the rhetoricalmethodofdescription “of persons and events and places and times”¹⁰ whereby one creates images with words.¹¹ Nicolaos of Myra (fifth century ce)isexplicit about this:¹² “Descriptiveness is considered aparticular feature of ekphrasis since it is this characteristic which most clearlydistinguishes ekphrasticwriting from mere repeating; the latter namelycontains onlyamere description of the object,whereas the former tries to make the listeners /readers into spectators”.¹³ The question of whether the descriptions are to be traced back to ancient art‐works must remain open and is, as far as the ancientauthors are concerned, not important.¹⁴ However,itismainlyinthis narrow sense of adescription of an existing imageorbuilding that ekphrasis has been taken up in New Testament exegesis.¹⁵ In my view,however,ekphrasis needstobeseen in amore complex setting of culturalideas about vision. The rhetorical objectiveofekphrasis was not to imitate or represent the world of the viewer but rather to produce a viewing subject who is thereby induced to question his or her ordinary assumptions about the world. Ekphrastic descriptions by Cebes, Lucian, or Philostratus seem to share acommon conception, formulatedasfollows by Pseudo-Hermo- genes: “The virtues of ekphrasis are aboveall clarity and vividness; for the ex- pression should almostbring about sight through the sense of hearing.One should also make the style like the subject matter:ifthe subject is flowery,let the style