' (REAL) PORTRAITS OF DEBORAH AND GIDEON: A READING OF ANTIQUITIES 5.198-232

BY

MARK RONCACE Emory University

In recent years, Louis Feldman has produced numerous books and arti- cles that examine Josephus' interpretation of the Bible in his Antiquitates Judaicae (hereafter A _7).' Much of Feldman's work is devoted to analy- ses of Josephus' portrayal of biblical characters. His approach is to ask how (with what techniques) and why Josephus has retold the biblical account of a given character and to compare that depiction to those found in the rabbinic tradition, Pseudo-, and other ancient writ- ers. While Feldman's efforts have brought to light many important features of his redactional and comparative approach, which he executes with unrelenting consistency, is of limited value for character analysis and can at times yield faulty conclusions. A better approach when assaying Josephus' portraits of biblical figures concentrates care- fully on the details of Josephus' plot and characterization, the liter- ary/narrative nature of the text. Despite the voluminous scholarship on Josephus, there have been, in fact, relatively few such narrative analy- ses of AJ.2 Thus, basic literary (surface) features are left unobserved.

' See Louis Feldman, Studiesin Josephus'Rewritten Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1998) and Josephus'sInterpretation of theBible (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998) and the bibliography there. Feldman has investigatedJosephus' portrayal of Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Jethro, Moses, Aaron, Korah, Balaam, Ehud, Jepthah, Samson, Joshua, Samuel, Ruth, David, Solomon, Saul, Joab, Absalom, Jeroboam, Rehoboam, Asa, Ahab, Elijah,Jehoshephat, Jehoram of Israel, Elisha,Jehu, Hezekiah, Isaiah,Jonah, Manasseh,Josiah, Jehoiachin, Zedekiah, Gedialiah, Ezra, Nehemiah, Ahasuerus, Esther, and Daniel. ' See, in addition to the volumesin n. 1, Louis Feldman,Josephus and Modem Scholarship (1937-1980)(Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984) and JosePhus:A SupplementaryBibliography (: Garland, 1986). Christopher Begg has recently done much detailed work on Aj. For a partial list of his publications, see the bibliography in Feldman, Studiesin Josephus' RewrittenBible. 248

This lacuna is surprising given the fact that is, after all, "the old- est systematic commentary on the historical books of the Bible"3 and that Josephus is a gifted historian who has carefully crafted his work.' Accordingly, I propose that there is much to be gained by analyzing A7 on its own terms, considering carefully character and plot devel- opment. To be sure, one can hardly avoid reading the Bible alongside A7, and comparisons between the two are instructive, but one can go a step further by asking questions about the construction of Josephus' narrative independent of other versions. In what follows, then, I offer my reading alongside Feldman's of Josephus' accounts of Deborah and Gideon. An analysis of two stories, rather than only one, provides a better test case to compare Feldman's approach to one that focuses more carefully on Josephus' story itself. Indeed, if Feldman's work is in both cases found to be deficient, there are, given his importance in the field, significant implications for Josephan scholarship. First, it is necessary to summarize Feldman's general project. In view of comments that Josephus makes in Against Apion and in light of Josephus' mainly Greek audience and Greek influences on Josephus, Feldman observes a number of redactional techniques in For instance, as an apologist, Josephus cites the supporting evidence of non-Jewish writers to help establish the historicity of the biblical events, rehabili- tates non-Jewish leaders, depicts non- as praising Jews, tones down the denunciation of intermarriage, appeals to the political interests of his audience (especially in emphasizing the consequences of civil strife), stresses the theme of liberty and denounces tyranny, and avoids pro- pagandizing proselytism. Concerning style, Josephus generally omits difficult or embarrassing passages, clarifies ambiguous or obscure state- ments, explains chronological difficulties, avoids exaggeration, adds a num- ber of dramatic motifs (notably the concept of increases suspense, heightens implicit irony, introduces romantic motifs, downplays the role of women, inserts psychologizing (explaining motives) and philosophiz- ing remarks, downgrades the role of God, and tones down miracles.5

3 L. Feldman, Studiesin Josephus'Rewritten Bible, xix. Feldman frequently refers to Josephus' care and creativity in retelling the biblical stories (7osephus'sInterpretcation of the Bible, 215-17). Many others have made similar observ- ations. See, for instance, Christopher Begg,Josephus' Account of the EarlyDivided Monarchy 8, 212-420): Rewritingthe Bible(Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993) 286; and Thomas Franxman, Genesisand the Antiquities"of FlaviusJosephus (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979) 289. 5 Feldman's discussion of these rewriting techniques can be found in many places. See, most recently, Josephus'sInterpretation of the Bible, 132-220.