The Rephidim Episode According to Josephus and Philo

0606-07_ETL_2007/4_05_Begg 20-02-2008 09:57 Pagina 367

The Rephidim Episode according to Josephus and Philo

Christopher T. BEGG The Catholic University of America

In the narrative of the Book of Exodus, “Rephidim” (Exod 17,1) is Israel’s fourth halting-place (after “Marah” [15,23], “Elim” [15,27], and “the wilderness of Sin” [16,1]), following their departure from the Red/Reed Sea in 15,22. This new stopping-point becomes the setting for the dramatic “water miracle” related in Exod 17,1-71. In this essay I wish to examine the retellings of the Rephidim episode by two approximately contemporary ancient Jewish authors, i.e. Josephus in his Antiquitates judaicae (hereafter Ant.) 3.33-382 and Philo in his De Vita Mosis (hereafter Mos.) 1.210-2133. My study of these two relectures of Exod 17,1-7, in turn, will take into account both the various text-forms (MT, LXX, the Targums) of the biblical passage and its treatment elsewhere in early Jewish (e.g., Wisd 11,4- 14; the Mekilta, Exodus Rabbah, Midrash Tanhuma Yelammedenu) and Christian (e.g., 1 Cor 10,4, Origen, “Homilies on Exodus” 11) tradition4.

1. Josephus

Exod 17,1 provides the exposition for the following story: in accordance with the word of the Lord, the Israelites proceed “by stages” from the “desert of Sin” to Rephidim (LXX ¨Rafidín)5, where they find no water. Josephus’

1. On Exod 17,1-7, see the detailed discussion in C. HOUTMAN, Exodus II (COT), Kampen, 1989, pp. 320-331. 2. For the text and translation of this passage I use Josephus. IV: Jewish Antiquities Books I-IV (LCL, 242), tr. H.St.J. THACKERAY, Cambridge, MA – London, 1930, pp. 334- 337. I have likewise consulted the text of the passage in E. NODET, Flavius Josèphe, Les Antiquités juives, Livres I à III. I: Introduction et texte, Paris, 1990, pp. 114-115 and the translation and notes on this in ID., Flavius Josèphe, Les Antiquités juives, Livres I à III. II: Traduction et notes, Paris, 1990, pp. 137-138, as well as the annotated translation of L.H. FELDMAN, Judean Antiquities 1-4, Leiden, 2004, pp. 240-241. On Ant. 3.33-38, see also the summary remarks of G. BIENAIMÉ, Moïse et le don de l’eau dans la tradition juive ancienne: Targum et midrash (AnBib, 98), Rome, 1984, pp. 85- 87. 3. For the text and translation of Mos. 1.210-213, I use F.H. COLSON, Philo VI (LCL, 289), Cambridge, MA – London, 1935, pp. 384-387. 4. On this material overall, see L. GINZBERG, The Legends of the Jews III, Philadel- phia, PA, 1968, pp. 50-52; ID., VI, pp. 20-21, nn. 119-124; BIENAIMÉ, Moïse (n. 2), pp. 59-76. 5. Tg. Ps.-J. and Tg. Onq. Exod 17,1 append an extended explanatory notice to the site name “Rephidim” that they take over from their Hebrew Vorlage: “… a place where their hands neglected the commandments of the Law, so that their wells dried up”. This 0606-07_ETL_2007/4_05_Begg 20-02-2008 09:57 Pagina 368

368 c.T. BEGG

rendition (Ant. 3.33a) highlights the severity of the people’s plight at their new stopping place:

When, departing thence6, they reached Raphidin (¨Rafideín)7 in extreme agony (talaipwpjqéntev)8 from thirst – for having on the earlier days lit upon some scanty springs9, they then found themselves in an absolutely waterless region – they were in sore distress10 …

The next section of the Rephidim pericope, Exod 17,2-3 features an ini- tial complaint by the people (v. 2a), a rejoinder in the form of a double question by Moses (“Why do find fault with me? Why do you put the Lord to the proof?”, v. 2b), and a new, intensified challenging of their leader on the people’s part (v. 3). Josephus (3.33 in fine) reduces the people’s double

comment presupposes an understanding of “Rephidim” as consisting of the words rpw and ydym, “they slackened their hands”, i.e. in observing the law, with the resultant punishment that their water gave out. One finds similar comments concerning “Rephidim” elsewhere in Jewish tradition; see, e.g., b. Sanh. 106a; Mek. Vayassa¨ (on Exod 17,1); Midr. Tanh. Yelammedenu 25 (in the first and third of these sources, Israel’s slackening off in its obser- vance of the Torah at Rephidim is said to have called forth punishment in the form of Amalek’s assault upon the people at the site as cited in Exod 17,8). On the whole topic, see BIENAIMÉ, Moïse (n. 2), pp. 63-67. According to Origen (“Homily on Exodus” 11.1; see M. BORRET, Origène Homélies sur l’Exode [SC, 321], Paris, 1985, p. 326) “Raphidin” means “sound judgment” (sanitas iudicii; as HOUTMAN, Exodus II [n. 1], p. 324, points out, Origen comes to this rendering by resolving the place name into its [purported] com- ponents, i.e. apr and fid), while S. ‘Olam Rab. 5.1 states that Israel left Elim for Rephidim on the 23rd day of the month Iyyar. 6. In Exod 17,1 the people arrive at Rephidim from “the wilderness of Sin”, after jour- neying from “Elim” (Exod 16,1), where they had experienced the double feeding miracle of the manna and the quail (16,2-36). In Josephus, the people’s preceding itinerary is a different one: leaving “Mar” (see Ant. 3.3 = “Marah”, Exod 15,22), they arrive at “Elis” (= “Elim”, Exod 15,27) in 3.9 and remain there until their departure for “Raphidin” in 3.33. Thus in Josephus, in contrast to the Bible, the feeding miracles of Exodus 16 (described by him in 3.25-32) take place, not “in the wilderness of Sin” (as Exod 16,1 indicates), but rather in Elis/Elim. From his reproduction of the itinerary notice of 17,1, Josephus omits the indication that the people’s advance was “according to the commandment (literally: mouth [ip] of the Lord”. 7. Josephus’ form of the place name corresponds to that of LXX Exod 17,1; MT reads “Rephidim”. 8. This verbal form harks back to the same term used by Josephus in connection with the people’s arrival at Mar(ah) in Ant. 3.3 (“worn out [tetalaipwpjménoi]) with cease- less marching and lack of food”); see also the cognate noun in 3.11 (at “Elis”, the people blame Moses “for their misery” [talaipwrían]). The term will recur in reference to the people’s situation at Rephidim in 3.37; see below. 9. The above indications concerning the extremity of the people’s plight vis-à-vis every- thing they have suffered hitherto lack a parallel in 17,1 (I italicize such Josephan [and Philionic] elaborations of the biblical account in this essay). Compare Mek. Vayassa¨ on Exod 17,3 which declares that at Rephidim the people experienced the affliction of thirst in its fullness, in contrast to their experience at Marah (see Exod 15,23) where they did at least find water, albeit of a non-potable quality. 10. Once again (see n. 9), Josephus goes beyond Exod 17,1 in accentuating the severity of the people’s plight. 0606-07_ETL_2007/4_05_Begg 20-02-2008 09:57 Pagina 369

THE REPHIDIM EPISODE ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS AND PHILO 369

complaint to a single one, likewise eliminating the intervening response by Moses11: “… and again12 vented their wrath on Moses”13. The central moment in the Rephidim story comes in Exod 17,4-6a, the exchange between Moses and the Lord concerning the recalcitrant people. That exchange opens in v. 4 with Moses “crying out” to the Lord in words that betray his dis- orientation in the face of the people’s verbal assault on him: “What shall I do with this people? They are almost ready to stone me”. The Josephan Moses appears more self-possessed (and altruistic) in the appeal he addresses to the Deity in 3.34, focussing as he does, not on his own difficult situation, but rather on what he is asking God to do for the people and the rationale for this14:

But he, shunning for a while the onset of the crowd15, had recourse to prayer (êpì litàv16 trépetai17), beseeching God18, as He had given them meat in their

11. Josephus’ non-utilization of this element of the source text might be prompted by the consideration that, taken in the context of 17,2-3, it seems to depict Moses as an ineffectual speaker, whose attempt to reason with the people only exacerbates their ques- tioning of his leadership (see their response to his intervention in v. 3). 12. With this adverb, Josephus harks back to 3.11 where he cites the people’s “accus- ing and denouncing their general [Moses]” at “Elis” due to the paucity of resources they encounter at the site. 13. With this brief phrase Josephus conflates the people’s double complaint in 17,2a (“give us water to drink”) and 3 (“why did you bring us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst?”). On the historian’s penchant for recasting biblical direct as indirect address, see C.T. BEGG, Josephus’ Account of the Early Divided Monarchy (BETL, 108), Leuven, 1993, pp. 12-13, n. 38. 14. With this feature of the Josephan Moses’ prayer as compared with that cited in the Bible, compare Mek. Vayassa¨ which, commenting on Moses “crying out” in Exod 17,4, remarks: “This declares the excellence of Moses. For he did not say: ‘Since they are quar- relling with me, I am not going to ask mercy for them’, but ‘and Moses cried onto the Lord’…”. (In the continuation of its comment, this midrash [see also Midr. Tanh. Yelamme- denu 22] has Moses aver that God, in the face of the death with which the people are threat- ening him, is telling him not to be angry with them, and then goes on to state that on this occasion God soothed Moses’ anger towards the Israelites, while in connection with the Golden Calf episode it was Moses who placated God’s wrath against the people; see Exod 32,10-11.) 15. This inserted preface to Josephus’ rendition of Exod 17,4 reflects the fact that in his presentation Moses does not (inefficaciously) address the crowd as he does in 17,2b (see n. 11). Rather than wasting time in this way with the crowd that is not disposed to listen to him, the Josephan Moses directs himself immediately to the one who can do some- thing about the parlous situation, i.e. God. 16. The noun litß is hapax in Josephus. 17. Note the historic present here – a form often used by Josephus in his biblical paraphrase where the LXX has the aorist (in Ant. 3.33-38 alone he employs the form no less than six times: trépetai [3.34], üpisxue⁄tai [3.35], keleúei [3.35], déontai [3.35], paragíne- tai [3.36], and plßttei [3.37]). On the topic, see BEGG, Josephus’ Account (n. 13), pp. 10- 11, n. 32 and the literature cited there. 18. According to MT and LXX Exod 17,4, Moses “cried out to the Lord”. Josephus’ turning his initiative into a “prayer” has a counterpart in the Targums which speak of his “praying before the Lord” (iii jdq … ilov). On Josephus’ virtually complete avoidance of the term “Lord (LXX Kúriov)” as a divine title, this likely due to its non-currency in sec- ular Greek in that usage, see BEGG, Josephus’ Account (n. 13), p. 45, n. 218. 0606-07_ETL_2007/4_05_Begg 20-02-2008 09:57 Pagina 370

370 c.T. BEGG

need19 so now to afford them drink, for their gratitude for the meat20 would perish (diafqeiroménjv)21 were drink withheld22.

The divine response to Moses’ “cry” commences in 17,5 with God’s giving him a four-part instruction: he is to “pass on23 before the people”, take with him “some of the elders of Israel”24 as well as the “rod” with which he had struck the Nile25

19. This allusion harks back to the immediately preceding account of God’s feeding the people with quail and the manna in Ant. 3.25-32 (// Exodus 16). 20. This is THACKERAY’s rendering of the Greek phrase t±v êpì trof±Ç xáritov. FELD- MAN, Judean Antiquities (n. 2), p. 240, renders similarly: “their gratitude for nourishment”. NODET, Flavius Josèphe II (n. 2), p. 137 and n. 6 understands the term xáriv in the above phrase as referring rather to a divine “benefit”, and so translates “… recevoir de la nourriture”. 21. This use of the verb diafqeírw establishes a terminological link with both the preceding and following contexts of our pericope, given its presence in Ant. 3.5,18,39. Throughout the entire segment 3.1-50 then the people, in Josephus’ presentation are con- stantly in danger of being “destroyed” by various threats, all of which, however, they sur- vive with God’s help. 22. In the above rendition of Moses’ words the leader’s allusion to the people’s being on the point of “stoning” him of 17,4 disappears. Two considerations may be of relevance in this connection: First, in their words to Moses in 17,2a and 3 the people do not in fact actually threaten his life in this way, such that Moses’ claim on the matter in 17,4 might appear exaggerated/ unwarranted. Secondly, Josephus has made prior use of the “stoning charge” in his account of the interaction between leader and people at “Elis” in 3.9-32 (// Exod 15,27-16,36); see 3.12 (the people are eager “to stone” Moses whom they hold responsible for their lack of provisions) and 3.22 (Moses restrains the people’s “impulse to stone him”). Compare Exod. Rab. 26.2 where Moses’ assertion about the people’s readiness to stone him is turned into a question by him asking God “whether they intend to slay me or not”. On Moses’ prayer in 3.34, see further T. JONQUIERE, Prayer in Josephus (Dissertation Utrecht, 2005), pp. 81-84, who (p. 83) calls attention to the fact that whereas in Exod 17,4 Moses’ “prayer” is focussed on his own difficult situation, in Josephus’ version Moses concentrates exclusively on the people’s plight, saying not a word about their words against himself. She sees this change as reflecting the principle enunciated by Jose- phus in C. Ap. 2.196 according to which the prayers offered on public, sacrificial occasions are to be made in first place “for the welfare of the community” rather than “for ourselves”, this on the grounds that “we are born for fellowship, and he who sets its claims about his private interests is specially acceptable to God”. 23. Jewish tradition records a variety of interpretations concerning the meaning of Lord’s command that Moses “pass on before (inpl rby) the people” here. Mek. Vayassa¨, e.g., cites no less than four possible understandings: pass over their words; pass on ahead of them so as to procure water for them; pass by their sin; and pass on in front of them in order to give anyone with a grievance the chance to make this known. 24. Mek. Vayassa¨ and Exod. Rab. 26.2 affirm that the elders are to be taken as “wit- nesses” lest the people subsequently claim that the water they are about to receive was not provided miraculously but from wells present at the site (of whose existence Moses would have been aware all along). Origen (“Homily on Exodus” 11.3) gives this understanding of the witnessing function of the elders a Christian, Christological twist: Not only Moses (the Law), but also the prophets, the patriarchs, and the entire Old Testament lead to the “rock” of 17,6 (which, following 1 Cor 10,4, Origen identifies with Christ). In place of MT’s “elders of Israel”, Tg. Onq. 17,5 has Moses told to take with him “some of the wise men (aiimike) of Israel”. 25. Jewish tradition provides various additional indications concerning this object. Mek. Vayassa¨ states that it was made of “sapphire”, while Zohar 2.64a avers that the rod, which 0606-07_ETL_2007/4_05_Begg 20-02-2008 09:57 Pagina 371

THE REPHIDIM EPISODE ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS AND PHILO 371

and “go”26. The Lord then continues (17,6aba), informing Moses that he will position himself on the rock27 “at Horeb”, which Moses is to “strike”28, causing water to come forth from the rock that the people may drink. Josephus’ rendition of this sequence in 3.35 modifies it significantly, effectively eliminating the four- fold directive of 17,5 (as well as the reference to God’s positioning himself on the rock at Horeb, 17,6aa)29. In place of these omitted items, he introduces various elements that serve to highlight the magnitude of the benefit God is about to confer upon the people in response to Moses’ appeal:

had the divine name engraved upon it, was originally a “serpent” (the midrash makes this connection by combining Exod 17,6 where Moses is told to strike the “rock” [rvo] with his rod and Prov 30,19 where among the four things that the author declares “too wonderful” for him is “the way of a serpent on a rock [rvo]”). 26. Tg. Ps.-J. Exod 17,6 appends a concluding indication as to why Moses is to “go” staff in hand, i.e. “because of their [the people’s] murmuring” (fvehmyrvh jdq fm). In Exod. Rab. 26.2 and, more expansively, in Mek. Vayassa¨ one finds a further development of the targum’s idea that Moses’ taking of his rod is intended to counteract the people’s complaints. The latter document states that the people had asserted that the three cultic items associated with their time in the desert, i.e. the incense, the ark, and Moses’ staff were all (exclusively) used by God as means of punishment. In each instance, God acted in such a way as to make clear that the given item was a means of deliverance as well. In the spe- cific case of the Mosaic staff, Mek. Vayassa¨ declares that, whereas the people thought of it merely as the means whereby God effected punishment upon the Egyptians, Moses’ use of it in bringing forth water at Rephidim revealed that it also had a beneficent character. 27. In Tg. Ps.-J. and Tg. Onq. Exod 17,6 mention of “the rock at Horeb” where God is going to “stand before” Moses is preceded by the phrase “at the place where you will see the trace of a foot”. Similarly, Mek. Vayassa¨ and Midr. Tanh. Yelammedenu 22 paraphrase God’s opening words in Exod 17,6 as “Wherever you find the mark of a man’s feet, there I am before thee”. On this rendering, see BIENAIMÉ, Moïse (n. 2), pp. 75-76, who sees it as a way of attenuating the anthropomorphism of the MT formulation. A similar such toning down of the anthropomorphism of the original might be seen in Tg. Neof. I Exod 17,6 where God announces that “my word” (irmm) will stand before Moses. Over against such inter- pretative moves stands that of Zohar 2.64a, which, with reference to Deut 32,4, where the term “the rock” (rvoe) is used as a title for God, affirms that “the rock” (rvoe) spoken of in 17,6 is God himself, that (self-) designation highlighting both God’s severity and his mercy. Analogously, Paul in 1 Cor 10,4 identifies the “spiritual rock” ([êk] pneumatik±v pétrav) from which all drink with Christ. 28. Exod. Rab. 26.2 interprets God’s command that Moses strike “the rock” of 17,6 as indicating that the people could choose whichever rock they wished for Moses to smite and this would produce water for them, thus accentuating the miraculous character of the happening. 29. Explanations for various of these “omissions” by the historian might be suggested: the injunction about Moses’ “passing on before” the people in 17,5aa is obscure (see n. 22), the directive about his taking the “elders” with him in 17,5ab detracts from the centrality of Moses himself, while the reference to God’s intended standing on the rock at Horeb “before” Moses in 17,6aa involves a crass anthropomorphism of the kind that Josephus (and postbiblical Jewish tradition generally; see n. 26) tends to avoid. (In fact, God’s word here seems to entail a double anthropomorphism: not only will he place himself on a rock, he is also going to “stand before” [MT: çinpl dmy] Moses there – a posture often used in the Old Testament in reference to one person’s serving another – see HOUTMAN, Exodus II [n. 1], p. 327). In this connection, it might further be noted that Josephus never uses the biblical place name “Horeb”, invariably calling the site by its alternative name of Sinai. 0606-07_ETL_2007/4_05_Begg 20-02-2008 09:57 Pagina 372

372 c.T. BEGG

Nor did God long defer this boon (dwreán)30, but promised Moses that He would provide a spring with an abundance of water (pl±qov Àdatov)31 whence they looked not for it32; He then bade him strike with his staff (t¬ç báktrwç)33 the rock (plßzanta t®n pétran)34 which stood there before their eyes35, and from it accept a plenteous drought of what they needed; for He would moreover see to it that this water would appear for them without toil or travail (m® sùn pónwç mjdˆ êrgasíaç36)37.

The biblical Rephidim narrative moves immediately from God’s directives to Moses regarding the rock (Exod 17,5-6aba) to a summary notice on their realization by Moses (17,6bb) that does not explicitly mention the outcome: “And Moses, did so, in the sight of the elders (Tg. Onq. the wise men) of Israel”. Josephus precedes his rendition of Exodus’ fulfillment notice with an extended sequence (3.36-37a) concerning the intervening interaction between leader and people:

(3.36) Moses, having received this response from God, now approached the people38, who were expectant and had their eyes fixed upon him, having already observed

30. This inserted “preface” to Josephus’ version of Exod 17,5-6aba underscores the alacrity of God’s response to Moses (and conversely the efficacy of the latter’s appeal). 31. BIENAIMÉ, Moïse (n. 2), p. 86 points out that this expression is reminiscent of the related passage Num 20,11 where, once Moses strikes the rock, “water came forth abundantly” (LXX:… Àdwr polú). 32. The above sequence represents Josephus’ amplified version of Exod 17,6ba where God assures Moses that “water shall come out of it (the rock)”. The historian’s amplifica- tion of this source element accentuates the extraordinary character of the benefit: God will provide much water, and do so from an unexpected source. Compare the reminiscence of Exod 17,1-7 in Wisd 11,7: “… thou [God] gavest them [the Israelites] abundant water unexpectedly (∂dwkav aûto⁄v dacilèv Àdwr ânelpítwv)”. 33. Josephus’ only other use of the term báktron is in Ant. 2.273 where Moses’ “rod” (baktjrían, 2.272) after being turned into a serpent, reverts to being a “stick” (báktron); elsewhere the Mosaic “rod” is called a baktjría by him also in Ant. 2.287, 334; 3.37 (see below). In LXX Exod 17,5 the term used for this object is t®n Åábdon. Josephus leaves aside the qualification of the rod found in 17,5b, i.e. “with which you smote the Nile”. This omission is likely due to the fact that in his version of the water-into-blood plague of Exod 7,14-24 in 2.294-296 he does not utilize the biblical references to the use of Moses’ (or Aaron’s) rod as the instrument whereby this plague is brought about. He likewise has no equivalent to the various embellishments regarding the Mosaic rod (e.g., its being made of sapphire and having the divine name engraved upon it) found elsewhere in Jewish tradition (see n. 25). 34. Compare the Lord’s direct address injunction to Moses in LXX Exod 17,6aa patázeiv t®n pétran. Once again (see n. 13), Josephus converts source direct address into indirect. 35. This qualification of the “rock” takes the place of the indications concerning it found in Exod 17,6aa, i.e. God himself will stand on this rock that is itself located “at Horeb”. 36. This collocation occurs only here in Josephus. 37. The above conclusion to Josephus’ rendition of Exod 17,5-6aba continues the embellishment of the Lord’s words of 17,6abba (“water shall come out of it [the rock], that the people may drink of it”), accentuating the copiousness of what God will provide without any corresponding human effort being required (in this respect, the Rephidim water miracle as portrayed by Josephus is a still greater one than that accorded the people at “Marah”, where according to Josephus’s [“non-biblical”] presentation in Ant. 3.7-8, the people had to exert themselves in order to obtain the potable water God promises them). 38. This indication picks up on Josephus’ – likewise interjected – reference to Moses’ “shunning for a while the onset of the crowd” and directing himself immediately to God 0606-07_ETL_2007/4_05_Begg 20-02-2008 09:57 Pagina 373

THE REPHIDIM EPISODE ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS AND PHILO 373

him hastening from the hill (t±v skop±v)39. When he arrived, he told them that God would deliver them from this distress (ânagk±v) also and had even vouchsafed (kexarísqai)40 to save (swtjrían)41 in unexpected wise (oûdˆ êlpisqe⁄san)42; a river (potamón)43 was to flow (Åußsesqai) for them out of the rock. (3.37a) And while they were at this news aghast (kataplagéntwn) at the thought of being forced (ânágkj)44, all spent (tetalaiwpjménoiv)45 as they were with thirst and travel, to cleave (kóptein) the rock46...

in Ant. 3.34. His introduction of the people here and of Moses’ dealings with them prior to the occurrence of the miracle likewise serves to reinforce the parallelism between the Marah and Rephidim happenings as presented by him, since in the former account as well one finds a preliminary (non-biblical) interaction between leader and people (see Ant. 3.7) preceding their obtaining the water in 3.8. 39. A “hill” is not mentioned in Exodus (or in Josephus’ own previous presentation) as the site for the encounter between God and Moses spoken of in 17,5-6aa// Ant. 3.35. Jose- phus may have been inspired to introduce the allusion by the mention of (Mount) “Horeb” in 17,5 and/or by the subsequent biblical depiction of a mountain (i.e. Mount Sinai) as the locus of contact between the Deity and Moses. In addition, the injected reference to the presence of a “hill” at Rephidim on which Moses has his colloquy with God and from which he returns to the people establishes a parallel between this episode and the preceding story of events at “Elis” (3.9-32); see 3.23 where Moses “mounts a certain eminence (êpí tina skop®n … póron)” to make his appeal to God, whence (3.24) “he descended to the multitude” to report the outcome to them. 40. This verbal compound echoes the noun form xáritov in 3.34. It likewise picks up on uses of cognate terminology in the two preceding episodes of Antiquitates 3, i.e. those set at Mar(ah) (3.1-8) and Elis (3.9-32); see xárin (3.7) and xarihómenon (3.31). 41. On this term and its verbal and adjectival cognates in Greek literature generally, see C. SPICQ, Notes de lexicographie néo-testamentaire: Supplément (OBO, 22/3), Fribourg – Göttingen, 1982, pp. 629-643 (= Lexique théologique du Nouveau Testament, Fribourg – Paris, 1991, pp. 1481-1495). The term constitutes another verbal link with Josephus’ preceding story of the Marah water miracle (Ant. 3.1-8); see 3.6 where the Israelites implore Moses “to procure them some means of salvation (swtjríav)”; cf. also the double use of the verb sÉçhw by Moses in his address to the people at “Elis” in 3.18, reminding them of how God had repeatedly acted to “save” them in the past. 42. This qualification of the manner of the water’s delivery recalls God’s informing Moses that he intends to “provide a spring with abundance of water whence they looked not for it” in 3.35. 43. This designation for the water that is about to emerge from the rock accentuates its copiousness in line with God’s announcement of an “abundance of water” and “a plenteous draught” in 3.35. BIENAIMÉ, Moïse (n. 2), p. 86 sees in Josephus’ use of the term here a possible reminiscence of Ps 105,41 “He [God] opened the rock, and water gushed forth; it flowed through the desert like a river (LXX Ps 104,41: potamoí)”. BIENAIMÉ (ibid.) likewise notes that the verb Josephus uses of the river’s “flow”, i.e. Åußsesqai (see above), has a counterpart in LXX Ps 104,41a where waters “flow” (êrrúnjsan) once God opens the rock. 44. The use of this term generates an effective wordplay with 3.36 where Moses informs the people of God’s promise “to deliver them from this distress (ânágkjv)”. In the face of this assurance of divine deliverance from their “necessity”, the recalcitrant people can only think of the “necessity” they suppose is being imposed of them, i.e. to exert themselves to break open the rock; see above. 45. This participial form picks up on the reference to the people’s being “in agony” (talaipwrjqéntev) from thirst in 3.33, thereby reminding readers that the Israelites’ ini- tial, parlous situation still prevails; see n. 8. 46. The people’s balking here at the thought of their having to perform any kind of exertion in order to obtain the promised water contrasts with their stance in 3.8, where in 0606-07_ETL_2007/4_05_Begg 20-02-2008 09:57 Pagina 374

374 c.T. BEGG

It is only after the long, inserted interlude of 3.36-37a that Josephus finally comes, in 3.37b, to give his version of the fulfillment notice of Exod 17,6bb: “… Moses struck it with his staff (t±Ç bakpjríaç [compare t¬ç báktwç 3.35; see n. 32])…”47. In the Bible, the outcome of Moses’ “doing so” (17,6bb) is not spelled out. Rather, the Rephidim episode ends in 17,7 with the site being given48 a double new name, i.e. “Massah” and “Meribah”49, that, in turn, is doubly motivated in terms of the Israelites’ “faultfinding” and their “putting the Lord to the proof” with their question “Is the Lord among us or not?”. Josephus leaves aside this negative ending to the biblical story with its highlighting of the people’s inveterate recalcitrance. In its place, he supplies a more “upbeat” conclusion (3.37 in fine-38) of his own that first describes the outcome of Moses’ smiting the rock and the positive effects of this upon the people, and then calls attention to the existence of a document attesting to the truth of this happening:

… whereupon it [the rock] opened and there gushed out (êzéblusen)50 a copious stream of most pellucid water (Àdwr polù51 kaì diaugéstaton52). (3.38) Amazed (kataplágjsan)53 at this marvelous prodigy (paradózwç), the mere sight of which

response to Moses’ informing them that God water will give them water “provided they executed His orders… with alacrity” (3.7), they immediately “ask what they must do to procure the amelioration of the water”, and then proceed to act on the laborious directives Moses gives them. The contrast between the two scenes highlights both the people’s physical and spiritual deterioration (as well as their failure to learn from their previous experience). At the same time, the mention of the people’s helplessness in the Rephidim scene serves to magnify the subsequent miracle which, this time, God effects without any involvement by the people. 47. Compare “And Moses did so, in sight of the elders (LXX: sons: Tg. Onq. wise men) of Israel” in Exod 17,6bb. Josephus’ formulation spells out, on the basis of the divine order of 17,6ab, what it is that Moses “did” on this occasion. As in the case of 17,5ab (see 3.35 and cf. n. 23), he leaves aside the Bible’s mention of the “elders” as Moses’ designated com- panions at his working of the miracle. 48. The formulation of Exod 17,7 does not specify the subject of its opening phrase “and he called”. Jewish tradition (e.g., Midr. Tanh. Yelammedenu 22; Mek. Vayassa¨) records a disagreement on the matter, some authorities affirming that the “namer” was Moses, others that it was the Lord himself. 49. The versions translate these Hebrew place names, LXX, e.g., with Peirasmòv kaì Loidórjsiv. 50. Josephus’ only other use of the verb êkblúzw occurs in the near context of 3.38; see 3.10 where he states that such steams as did exist at “Elis” (3.9) were, of themselves, “impotent to gush forth (êkblúsai)”. By contrast, due to God’s intervention, copious water now “gushes out” of the rock at Rephidim. 51. This phrase occurs in LXX Num 20,11 in reference to the outcome of Moses’ double smiting of the rock with his staff; see n. 31. The phrase further recalls God’s promise of “a spring with an abundance of water (pl±qov Àdatov)” in 3.35. 52. Josephus uses the adjective diaugßv twice elsewhere: Ant. 12.81; 17.169. This is the only occurrence of the superlative form in his corpus. 53. Josephus used this same verb (kataplßssw, kataplßttw) just previously in 3.37 of the people’s being “aghast” at the thought of their having to exert themselves to obtain the water. That negative state of mind of theirs now becomes a positive wonderment in the face of the miracle that God, working through Moses, has just effected, without any involvement on their part. 0606-07_ETL_2007/4_05_Begg 20-02-2008 09:57 Pagina 375

THE REPHIDIM EPISODE ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS AND PHILO 375

already slaked their thirst, they drank and found the current (tò n¢ma)54 sweet and delicious (™dù kaì glukú)55 and all that was to be looked for in a gift of God (qeoÕ tò d¬ron56 dóntov)57. Therefrom too they conceived an admiration for Moses58, so high in God’s esteem (üpò toÕ qeoÕ tetimjménon)59, and they offered sacrifices60 in return for God’s care for their welfare (prónoian)61. A writing (grafß) deposited in the temple (ên t¬ç ïer¬ç) attests that God foretold to Moses that the water would thus spring forth from the rock62.

54. Compare the use of the term “river” (potamón) in Moses’ words to the people about the water they will receive from the rock in 3.36. Both terms accentuate the copiousness of the water provided. 55. This collocation occurs only here in Josephus. Its second component is twice used by him (see Ant. 2.295 and 3.17) in reference to the Nile’s remaining “sweet” for the Hebrews even as it becomes undrinkable for the Egyptians, a contrast made also in Wisd 11,5-6. 56. Josephus uses the above expression, “gift of God”, also in C. Ap. 1.167 and Ant. 8.23 (in the plural). Compare also the reference to God’s “not long deferring this boon” (dwreán) in 3.35. 57. BIENAIMÉ, Moïse (n. 2), p. 86 points out that in Tg. Ps.-J. Num 21,18 in fine the “well” spoken of in vv. 16-18 is said to have been given to the people “as a gift” (enhml; compare MT which reads a place name “to Mattanah”). 58. This “admiration for Moses” contrasts with the people’s “venting their wrath” against him in 3.33. As a result of the Rephidim water miracle, the people have come to a new appreciation of their leader. 59. The verb timáw is often used by Josephus of humans’ “honoring” God. His here making God the subject and the man Moses the object of the verb highlights the exalted status of the latter. Already earlier (see 3.33b) Josephus attenuated the asperity of the confrontation between leader and people recorded in Exod 17,2-3. Now at the end of his version, he replaces 17,7’s reminiscence of that conflict with a reference to the people’s new-found appreciation of Moses. 60. In the account of Exodus, sacrificial activity occurs in the post-Red Sea period for the first time at a later point; see Exod 18,12 where Jethro “offers a burnt offering and sacrifices to God”. Josephus’ having the people sacrifice already at this juncture highlights the renewed piety that God’s miraculous intervention has called forth from them. 61. Prónoia, a key term of Stoic philosophy, is also an important concept in Josephus’ account of Jewish history. On his employment of the term, see: H.D. ATTRIDGE, The Inter- pretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (HDR, 7), Missoula, MT, 1976, pp. 71-106; P. SPILSBURY, The Image of the Jew in Flavius Josephus’ Paraphrase of the Bible (TSAJ, 69), Tübingen, 1998, pp. 72-74; JONQUIERE, Prayer in Jose- phus (n. 22), pp. 78-80. The term occurs in the near context of 3.38 in 3.19 where, in the face of the people’s complaints over their waterless plight at “Elis” (3.9), Moses urges them not to “despair even now of His providence (prónoian)”; see also 3.23, where in response to Moses’ appeal to him at the site, God promises to “take care (pronoßsein) of them [the people]”. Here in 3.38, as a result of God’s intervention at Rephidim, the people do what Moses asks them in 3.19, acknowledging divine providence with their sacrifices. 62. THACKERAY, Josephus IV (n. 2), pp. 336-337, n. a points out that Josephus uses similar formulations concerning documents dealing with some matter cited in the Bible and preserved in the temple in Ant. 4.303 (Moses’ poem “in hexameter verse [likely to be iden- tified with the Song of Moses of Deuteronomy 32] … containing a prediction of future events”) and 5.61 (“Scriptures [grammátwn] laid up in the temple” attest to the lengthen- ing of the day [at the word of Joshua; see Josh 10,12-14]). THACKERAY (ibid.) holds that in all three instances Josephus is alluding “not to the Scriptures generally, but to a separate collection of chants made for the use of the temple singers”, the particular “chant” to which the reference in 3.38 alludes being, according to him, the “Song of the Well” cited 0606-07_ETL_2007/4_05_Begg 20-02-2008 09:57 Pagina 376

376 c.T. BEGG

Having completed my close reading of Ant. 3.33-38 in relation to its biblical Vorlage, I shall now attempt to synthesize my findings regarding the historian’s handling of the Exodus text and the distinctiveness of his version that results therefrom. Josephus’ rewriting of the Rephidim episode is characterized, as we have seen, above all by his extensive additions to the source data: his embellished reference to the people’s lack of water (compare 3.33a and 17,1) and the biblically unparalleled exchange between Moses and the people reported in 3.36-37a. In the same line, Josephus several times replaces Exodus’ content with a (generally amplified) presentation of his own: compare Moses’ prayer of 17,4 and that given in 3.34, the reformulation of the divine response of 17,5-6aba in 3.35, and the completely new conclusion for the incident in 3.37 in fine-38 vis-à-vis the etiological notice of 17,7. Conversely, he does notably compress the conflictual interaction between Moses and the people (17,2-3) in 3.33b. In addition, he sys- tematically replaces the Bible’s direct with indirect discourse (see n. 13), avoids its divine title “(the) Lord” (see n. 18), and introduces a series of historic presents where LXX has past forms (see n. 17), just as he incorporates numerous terminological reminiscences of the preceding Mar(ah) and “Elis” episodes of 3.1-8 and 3.9-32, respectively. The above rewriting techniques generate a Josephan version of the Rephidim episode that differs rather notably from its biblical prototype. In that version the “elders of the people” cited in 17,5 and 6b disappear, as do the negatively charged place names “Massah” and “Meribah” of 17,7. Overall, the conflict between the people and Moses (and ultimately God himself) is significantly attenuated, given Josephus’ non-use of 17,7 and compression of 17,2-3 in 3.33b. In place thereof, Josephus provides the story with a “happy ending” (3.38a) in which the people attain a new level of insight about both Moses and the Deity. As for Moses, Jose- phus retouches his portrayal in various aspects, all designed to give a still more positive depiction of him: whereas in 17,2-3 Moses appears ineffectual in his response to the people’s complaints, in 3.34 he turns immediately (and effica- ciously) to God in a prayer that displays a more altruistic character than that of his biblical counterpart (see n. 14). His elimination of any mention of the “elders” (17,5-6), for its part, serves to focus all attention on Moses in the accomplishment of the miracle. Before proceeding to effect this (3.37b// 17,6bb), Moses, moreover, delivers an extended address to the expectant people which reflects his (justified) assurance that God will indeed act through him. The realization of what he promises the people, in turn, evokes their “admiration” for him as one “so high in God’s esteem”63. The Gottesbild conveyed by Josephus’ also presents several distinctive features: The anthropomorphism of God’s “standing before Moses” on the rock of 17,6a, with its possible connotations of the former’s readiness to serve the latter (see n. 29), disappears. Conversely, Josephus here, exceptionally,

in Num 21,17-18. For more surmises on the matter, see BIENAIMÉ, Moïse (n. 2), p. 86 and n. 104; NODET, Flavius Josèphe II (n. 2), p. 138, n. 1; FELDMAN, Judean Antiquities 1- 4 (n. 2), p. 241, n. 78. In any case, Josephus’ reference to a temple document – whatever this might be and whether or not it did in fact exist – testifying to God’s announcement to Moses about the water that is to flow from the rock would serve to endow this happening with a heightened credibility for his readers, as L.H. FELDMAN, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible, Berkeley, CA, 1998, pp. 431-432 notes. 63. On the Josephan portrait of Moses overall, see FELDMAN, Josephus’s Interpretation (n. 62), pp. 374-442. 0606-07_ETL_2007/4_05_Begg 20-02-2008 09:57 Pagina 377

THE REPHIDIM EPISODE ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS AND PHILO 377

accentuates the miraculous element of God’s intervention in response to Moses’ appeal, highlighting, e.g., the alacrity of the divine response, as well as the copiousness and pleasing taste of the water God provides from so unexpected a quar- ter, i.e. a rock64. (Indeed, this feature is so underscored in Josephus’ presentation that he seems to have felt the need, at the very end of this, to append mention [3.38c] of a document in the temple attesting to the veracity of what he has just related.) Nor in Josephus’ presentation does God’s initiative fail to have a beneficial – albeit temporary – effect on the people’s stance towards him, as the reference to their “offering sacrifices in return for God’s care for their welfare” in 3.38b indicates. Finally, as pointed out over the course of my above reading, Josephus’ version is characterized by its many terminological links with what precedes (the Mar[ah] and Elis stories in 3.3-8 and 3.9-32, respectively) and what follows (the battle with Amalek, 3.39-60). The historian’s introduction of such “link words” serves to meld, still more so than is the case with the biblical parallel material of Exod 15,22–17,16, the whole segment Ant. 3.1-60 into a unified complex that revolves around the multiple threats to Israel’s survival and well-being once it left the Red Sea, all of which it overcomes, thanks to God’s interventions that themselves come in response to the appeals of their leader Moses.

2. Philo

Philo’s retelling of the Rephidim episode appears as part of his two-book, fairly literalistic treatise De Vita Mosis65 in Mos. 1.210-213. Philo begins his rendition of the biblical narrative at the start of 1.210 with a version of 17,1 that leaves aside the source place names (“wilderness of Sin”, “Rephidim”) while interjecting a transitional phrase, alluding back to the preceding double feeding miracle (the manna and the quails, recounted by him in 1.191-209 (// Exodus 16)66. This reads: “Though this supply of food never failed and continued to be enjoyed in abundance, a serious scarcity of water again (pálin)67 occurred”.

64. Elsewhere, by contrast, Josephus generally downplays the divine and miraculous element in his retelling of Israel’s history, doing this likewise in the case of the Mosaic period; see FELDMAN, Josephus’s Interpretation (see n. 62), pp. 205-214.425-433. 65. For a summary orientation to this work, see K. SCHENCK, A Brief Guide to Philo, Louisville, KY, 2005, pp. 99-101. Elsewhere in his corpus, Philo confines his references to Exod 17,1-6 to comments on the philosophical/theological significance of LXX’s rendition of the Lord’s statement of 17,6aa where the MT phrase çinpl dmy seems to have local sense (“stand before, in front of you”) by means of a temporal formula, i.e. (∂stjka) pró se, concerning which see the discussion in A. LE BOULLUEC – P. SANDEVOIR, L’Exode (La Bible d’Alexandrie, 2), Paris, 1989, p. 189. Philo’s developments around this reading – which he does not reproduce in his rendering of Exod 17,1-6 in Mos. 1.210-213 itself – occur in Conf. 138; Leg. 3.4; Migr. 183; Sacr. 67-68; and Somn. 1.241;2.221. 66. Like Josephus (see n. 6), Philo seems to localize the feeding miracles at “Elim” (where the people arrive according to Mos. 1.183// Exod 15,27), since he too does not reproduce the itinerary notice of Exod 16,1 about the people’s leaving Elim for “the wilderness of Sin”, the site of the feeding miracles in the Bible’s presentation, from which they then proceed to “Rephidim” in 17,1. 67. Philo’s interjection of this adverb serves to connect the new water crisis with an earlier such happening at a site that in Philo’s presentation (Mos. 1.181-187) remains nameless, 0606-07_ETL_2007/4_05_Begg 20-02-2008 09:57 Pagina 378

378 c.T. BEGG

The lack of water at Rephidim gives rise, in Exod 17,2-3, to an exchange between leader and people in which the people complain, Moses responds, and the people renew their complaint. Philo (1.210b) reduces this sequence to an allusion to the Israelites’ state of mind in the face of their water crisis: “sore pressed by this, their mood turned to desperation (âpógnwsin … swtjríav)68…”. In Exod 17,4-6, the core of the biblical account, ones hears of Moses’ querulous address to God (v. 4), the Deity’s directives in response (17,5-6ba), and Moses’ acting on these (17,6bb). Philo’s rendition (1.210c) of this sequence evidences both rearrangement and compression: “… whereupon Moses, taking the sacred staff (ïeràn baktjrían) with which he accomplished the signs (sjme⁄a) in Egypt69, under inspiration (qeoforjqeív)70 smote the steep rock with it (t®n âkrótomon71 pétran paíei)”72. As noted above, Exodus 17 itself does not explicitly recount the outcome of Moses’ acting on God’s order to smite the rock as he does in v. 6bb. Philo fills this lacuna at considerable length in Mos. 1.211. He begins this paragraph by proffering (1.211a) two alternative scenarios – one more “naturalistic”, the other more “miraculous” – that might account for Moses’ blow having the effect on the rock that he will subsequently describe:

but which the biblical parallel text Exod 15,22-26 calls “Marah”. (In contrast to Josephus, who [Ant. 3.9-10] speaks of an intervening water emergency at “Elis”, Philo, taking his lead from Exod 15,27’s reference to the twelve springs and seventy palm trees the Israelites found at “Elim”, speaks [Mos. 1.188] of Elim as “well wooded and well watered … irrigated by twelve springs besides which rose young palm-trees, fine and luxuriant, to the number of seventy”). 68. This Greek term has a counterpart in Ant. 3.36 where Moses informs the people that God has “vouchsafed to save (swtjrían) them”. 69. The above formulation represents a transposition into narrative of the command given Moses by the Lord in Exod 17,5ba (“take in your hand the rod [LXX t®n Åádon] with which you smote the Nile”); it likewise generalizes the source qualification of the rod in terms of the single action performed by Moses, turning this into a reminiscence of a whole series of “signs” perpetrated by Moses in Egypt by means of his staff (With this generalization concerning the staff, compare Exod. Rab. 26.2 which represents Moses in his dia- logue with God at Rephidim referring to the rod God has told him to take [Exod 17,5ba] as “the rod of punishment, for it caused the waters of Egypt to stink, and it brought the ten plagues on the Egyptians”.) 70. This single term represents Philo’s summary allusion to the extended divine word of Exod 17,5-6aba; by means of it he makes clear that in taking his rod and smiting the rock Moses was, in fact, acting at God’s direction rather than on his own initiative. The above verb qeoforéw occurs a total of 11 times in Philo’s corpus (Ebr. 99; Her. 46,69; Somn. 1.2; 2.232; Mos. 1.210,283, 2.69,250,264,273); see P. BORGEN, et al., The Philo Index, Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge, UK, 2005, s.v. 71. COLSON, Philo VI (n. 3), p. 385, n. c, points out that this same Greek term is used in LXX Deut 8,15 where Moses refers to the Lord’s bringing water for the people “out of the flinty rock (êk pétrav âkrotómou)”, a passage cited by Philo in Leg. 2.84 and Somn. 2.222. While recognizing that the term might be rendered “flinty” also in our text, Colson opts for the above translation (“steep”) in view of the fact that in the context of his two citations of Deut 8,15 Philo introduces a wordplay between that text’s adjective (âkrotómou) and the noun ãkrov (“summit”), the latter term being used by him in reference to God’s height/elevation. 72. Compare God’s order to Moses in Exod 17,5ab (“you shall strike the rock [LXX: patázeiv t®n pétran]”). Once again (see n. 69), Philo turns a biblical divine directive to Moses into a notice of what Moses did (albeit “under inspiration”), thereby accentuating the leader’s stature. 0606-07_ETL_2007/4_05_Begg 20-02-2008 09:57 Pagina 379

THE REPHIDIM EPISODE ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS AND PHILO 379

It may be that the rock contained originally a spring and now had its artery clean severed, or perhaps that then for the first time a body of water collected in it through hidden channels was forced out by the impact73.

Following this interlude, he proceeds, in 1.211b, to highlight the profusion of water yielded by the smitten rock:

Whichever is the case74, it opened under the violence of the stream and spouted out its contents, so that not only then did it provide a remedy for their thirst but also abundance of drink for a longer time for all these thousands. For they filled all their water vessels, as they had done on the former occasion75, from the springs (pjg¬n) that were naturally bitter but were changed and sweetened (pròv tò glúkion)76 by God’s directing care (êpifrosúnjÇ77 qeíaç)78.

The biblical Rephidim narrative concludes in Exod 17,7 with the etiological notice on the two negatively-charged names (“Massah” and “Meribah”) given the site in remembrance of the people’s outburst against Moses and God there. For this “downbeat” source conclusion, Philo substitutes one of his own in which he addresses, with an appeal to divine omnipotence, the question of the credibility of the happening he has just recounted. This long segment (1.212-213) commences (1.212a) with the following affirmation:

If anyone disbelieves these things, he neither knows God nor has ever sought to know Him; for if he did he would at once have perceived – aye, perceived with a firm appre- hension – that these extraordinary and seemingly incredible (parádoza … kaì paráloga)79 events are but child’s-play to God (qeoÕ paígnia)80.

73. With the above alternative explanations of the emergence of the water from the rock, compare Philo’s similarly interjected remark (Mos. 1.185) in his version of the biblical “Marah story” (Exod 15,22-26) concerning the “tree” that Moses is instructed by God (see Exod 15,25) to cast into the water: “(a tree) … possibly formed by nature to exercise a virtue which had hitherto remained unknown, or possibly created on this occasion for the service which it was destined to perform”. 74. In his use of this transitional formula, Philo shows himself non-committal vis-à-vis the alternative scenarios previously presented by him: such explanations of the happening are, in any case, less important than the event itself. 75. Philo’s allusion here is to Mos. 1.187 where – there too in an extra-biblical remark – he states that following the earlier “healing” of the water (at “Marah” according to Exod 15,22-26) the people “filled their water vessels”. 76. Philo’s wording here concerning the “sweetening” of the “springs” represents another (see n. 75) verbal echo of his account of the water miracle at Marah; see Mos. 1.186 where, following Moses’ casting of the tree into the water, “the springs became sweet” (pjgaì glukaínontai). See also Josephus’ reference (Ant. 3.38) to the people’s finding “the current” released from the rock “sweet (glukú) and delicious”. 77. The noun êpifronsúnj occurs a total of 22 times in Philo’s corpus; see BORGEN, et al., Philo Index (n. 70), s.v. 78. With this allusion to the divine solicitude evidenced by the appearance of the water, compare Ant. 3.38, where Josephus cites the people’s offering sacrifices “in return for God’s care for their welfare (prónoian)”. 79. With this double qualification of the Rephidim miracle, compare Josephus’ reference (Ant. 3.38) to the people’s amazement “at this marvelous prodigy (paradózwç)”. 80. The word paígnion is hapax in Philo. 0606-07_ETL_2007/4_05_Begg 20-02-2008 09:57 Pagina 380

380 c.T. BEGG

In support of this affirmation, Philo next (1.212b) proceeds to declare “He [the non-believer of 1.212a] has but to turn his eyes to things which are really great and worthy of his earnest contemplation”, of which things he then provides an extensive listing, featuring a range of cosmic phenomena (“the creation of heaven and the rhythmic movements of the planets and the stars … and other beauties innumerable”) in the remainder of 1.212b. Indeed, as the Alexandrian goes on to avow in 1.213a, such marvels are so “innumerable” that not even a (more than ordinary) life-span would suffice to recount them. Finally, in 1.213b he sums up the whole forgoing discussion of the credibility of the just related water miracle with a remark about the opposing effects of the familiar and the unusual upon human consciousness:

But these things [the cosmic phenomena cited in 1.212b], though truly marvellous (qaumásia) are held in little account because they are familiar. Not so with the unfa- miliar; though they be but small matters, we gave way before what appears so strange, and drawn by their novelty, regard them with amazement (katapljttómeqa81 t¬ç filokaínwç)82.

In summing up on Philo’s rendition of Exod 17,1-7, one might say, first of all, that this is marked by two recurrent, interconnected tendencies. On the one hand, Philo in 1.210 takes the liberty of either omitting biblical data entirely (the exchange between leader and people [17,2-3], Moses’ prayer [17,4], and the concluding etiological notice [17,7]) or drastically abbreviating these (the Lord’s words to Moses of 17,5-6aa become a brief allusion to the leader’s acting “under inspiration” when smiting the rock [1.210 in fine]). On the other hand, he does not simply compress the Bible’s presentation; rather, he introduces extensive material of his own composition in place of what he leaves out, i.e. the entire segment 1.211-213; see also the transitional notice at the opening of 1.210 which replaces the itinerary indications of 17,1. Our comparison between them likewise brought to light Philo’s double transposition (1.210) of the divine words to Moses cited in 17,5-6 into statements about what Moses did (see nn. 69, 72) and his “generalization” of the reference in 17,5 to Moses’ previous use of his staff (see n. 69). The application of the above rewriting techniques by Philo generates a version of the Rephidim episode that diverges from its prototype in many and marked respects. The biblical “preliminaries” to the culminating moment of Moses’ initiative in 17,6bb (i.e. the people’s journey to Rephidim, the exchange between them and Moses, the latter’s appeal to God, and the Deity’s reply [17,1-6aba]) all get very short shrift from him, just as the etiological notice of 17,7 disappears without a trace in his presentation. Such a “reductionistic” approach to the source material naturally has a significant effect on Philo’s representation of the charac- ters of the Bible story. Of these, “the elders of Israel”, cited twice in 17,5-6 as

81. This verb is used twice by Josephus in reference to the people’s varying states of mind during the Rephidim episode; see Ant. 3.37,38 and cf. n. 53. 82. Philo’s one remaining use of the term filókainov is in Ios. 36. With the above psychological remark, compare the comment Philo attaches to his mention of the people’s grumbling over their lack of water at their first stopping place (“Marah” according to Exod 15,23) in Mos. 1.181 (in fine): “For under the onset of the present terror, we always lose sense of the pleasantness of past blessings”. 0606-07_ETL_2007/4_05_Begg 20-02-2008 09:57 Pagina 381

THE REPHIDIM EPISODE ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS AND PHILO 381

those designated by God to accompany Moses to the rock, are simply passed over by him. The people, in Philo’s rendering, appear less refractory than do their biblical counterparts: Exodus’ recurrent references to their complaints against both Moses and God (see 17,2.3b.7) are all subsumed under the allusion to their “mood turning desperate” in 1.210. As for Moses, Philo eliminates both his ineffectual attempt to soothe the people (17,3a) and his querulous, self-centered address to the Deity (17,4), even as he magnifies the leader’s initiative-taking by turning God’s directives to him into notices on what Moses himself did (compare 17,5-6 and 1.210c). Likewise the Exodus portrayal of God himself undergoes modification at Philo’s hands: the divine speaking and directive role featured in 17,5-6aba is reduced by him to a mention of Moses’ acting “under inspiration” which does not even make explicit mention of God (1.210c). On the other hand, in the lengthy “commentary” that he attaches to his retelling of the actual episode in 1.212-213, Philo repeatedly highlights the power and solicitude of God displayed in the water miracle – the occurrence of which, he in contrast to the Bible, does explicitly recount (see 1.211b) – as well in so many other, still more wondrous phenomena (see 1.212-213a). Philo, it thus appears, has little interest in a literal reproduction of the Rephidim episode. At the same time, he does not subject its component elements to an alle- gorizing re-interpretation of the kind found so often elsewhere in his corpus83. His interest here lies rather in demonstrating the credibility of the biblical story by adducing a variety of considerations, i.e. (more or less) “naturalistic” scenarios that might account for the water’s sudden emergence (1.211a) appeal to divine omnipotence that would make such a happening easy for God to accomplish (1.212-213a), and a religio-psychological reflection (l. 213b) about how it is that humans, who are surrounded by far greater displays of God’s power, should be so nonplused by a miracle of the sort related in Exodus 1784.

3. Conclusion

I conclude this essay with a summary comparison of Josephus’ and Philo’s retellings of the Rephidim episode that I have just considered individually. The two authors, first of all, have in common their overall approach to the Exodus text, whose particulars they abbreviate or compress to a marked extent, while also intro- ducing much material of their own. More specifically, the two pass over some of the same source items (the reference to “the wilderness of Sin” [17,1], Moses’ [ineffectual] reply to the people [17,3a], the double mention of the “elders of Israel” [17,5-6]), the Lord’s statement about his positioning himself before Moses “on the rock at Horeb” [17,6aa], and the etiological notice of 17,7). Both likewise notably compress the people’s double complaint of 17,2.3b, reducing this to an allusion to the Israelites’ agitation when faced with a renewed lack of water (see 3.33; 1.210). These shared omissions/ compressions result, in both versions, in the elimination of the biblical anthropomorphism and a portrayal of the crowd

83. See, e.g., his equating of the water-yielding “flinty rock” of Deut 8,15 with “the wisdom of God … from which He satisfies the thirsty souls that love God” in Leg. 2.86; see further n. 71. 84. On the complex issue of Philo’s stance towards (biblical) miracles, see H.A. WOLF- SON, Philo I, Cambridge, MA, 1948, pp. 347-356. 0606-07_ETL_2007/4_05_Begg 20-02-2008 09:57 Pagina 382

382 c.T. BEGG

as less refractory and obstinate then it appears in Scripture. Josephus and Philo both moreover fill a lacuna left by their source, i.e. its failure to spell out what hap- pened once Moses acts in accord with the Lord’s directives, as he is said to do in 17,6bb. In the face of this narrative “gap”, both writers explicitly mention Moses’ actual striking of the rock and expatiate on the abundant, good-tasting water that flows forth when he does so (see 3.37b-38a and 1.211b). In their different ways (see below), each evidences as well a concern to render the happening credible in the eyes of his readers, as also an interest in tying that happening more closely to preceding (and following) events, doing this by means of the terminological links with the latter they introduce into their telling of the former. At the same time, the Josephan and Philonic retellings of the Rephidim incident diverge in many respects. Overall, Josephus devotes greater space to the reproduction of the component elements of the biblical story than does Philo (whose utilization of these is effectively limited to a single paragraph, 1.210). Thus, the historian cites Moses’ appeal to God (17,4; compare 3.34) and, in line with 17,5-6aba, gives God a extended discourse in reply, whereas Philo has no equivalent to the former item and limits himself to an allusion to Moses’ acting under a (not further specified) “inspiration” in striking the rock. Likewise unparalleled in Philo’s version are a whole series of additional, “non-biblical” elements introduced by Josephus into his rendition: the emphasis on the unexpected source of the water and the gratuity with which God will bestow it, apart from any human exertion (3.35-36), the exchange between Moses and the people prior to his smiting the rock (3.36), the people’s admiration for Moses and their sacrificing to their provident God in response to the water miracle (3.38b), and the allusion to the temple document attesting to the miracle (3.38c). Philo, for his part, also incorporates into his version a variety of elements without equivalent in Josephus (or the Bible) that serve, inter alia, to give this a highly reflective character in which the “facts” of the story seem overwhelmed by the philosopher’s commentary upon them. These distinctive elements include: the suggested alternatives about how Moses’ blow might have released water from the rock (1.211a), the lengthy appeal to divine omnipotence, manifest in an innumerable series of awe-inspiring phenomena, in support of the credibility of the water miracle (1.212-213a), and the concluding psychological observation about what does and does not evoke humans’ wonder (1.213b). In their respective rewritings, Josephus and Philo both attempt to make “some- thing more” (and different) of the relatively brief and simple biblical Rephidim story. In their doing so, the two authors converge and diverge in a variety of ways, as this essay has shown. It would be of interest to extend the comparison made here to other biblical episodes jointly treated by them to see what kinds of con- vergences and divergences between them emerge in those instances85.

The Catholic University of America Christopher T. BEGG 620 Michigan Ave., N.E. Washington, DC 20064 U.S.A.

85. On the question of Josephus’ knowledge/use of the older author Philo (whom he does mention by name in Ant. 18.259-260), see FELDMAN, Josephus’s Interpretation (n. 62), pp. 51-54. 0606-07_ETL_2007/4_05_Begg 20-02-2008 09:57 Pagina 383

THE REPHIDIM EPISODE ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS AND PHILO 383

ABSTRACT. — Exod 17,1-7 relates a water miracle accomplished through the use of Moses’ staff at a desert site called “Rephidim”. This article offers a close reading of the rewritings of this story by Josephus (Ant. 3.33-38) and Philo (Mos. 1.210-213) and a concluding comparison of their two versions. Both authors, it emerged, eliminate such features of the Scriptural account as Moses’ ineffectual response to the refractory people, God’s declaration about his “standing before” Moses on the rock at Horeb, and the closing etiological notice of Exod 17,7 with its “downbeat” emphasis on the people’s recalcitrance. Both likewise introduce explicit mention of Moses’ actual striking the rock and highlight the miraculous effects of this, i.e. the emergence of plentiful good water. On the other hand, Jose- phus makes fairly detailed use of the biblical data, utilizing, e.g., its citation of Moses’ appeal to the Deity and the latter’s reply to him which Philo, respectively, simply omits or reduces to a passing allusion. Philo’s focus, by contrast, is not on the “facts” of the story, but rather on the (theological and psychological) reflec- tions these suggest and to which, in fact, he devotes the bulk of his rendition.