Abimelech, King of Shechem According to Josephus

ABIMELECH, KING OF SHECHEM ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS

Introduction

No one less than the arch-critic J. Wellhausen himself expressed admiration, if not for the person of the villain Abimelech, then at least for the story about him as told in Judges 91. In this study I purpose to investigate Josephus’ retelling of the Abimelech story in Antiquitates Judaicae (hereafter Ant.) 5,233-2532 in comparison with its Biblical source as exemplified by the following major witnesses: MT (BHS)3, the Codices Alexandrinus (hereafter A) and Vaticanus (hereafter B)4 and the Lucianic (hereafter L)5 of LXX6, plus Targum Jonathan on the Former Prophets (hereafter TJ)7. I undertake this comparative study with the following questions in mind: Which text-form(s) of Judges 9 did Josephus utilize in composing his own Abimelech story? How and why has he modified the data of the source narrative? What is the overall, cumulative effect of his various modifications upon Josephus’ version of the Abimelech episode vis-à-vis the Biblical one? To facilitate my proposed comparison I break down the relevant material into five segments as follows: (1) Abimelech introduced (Ant. 5,233-234 // Judg 8,29–9,6); (2) Jotham’s Address (Ant. 5,235-239 // Judg 9,7-21); (3) the She- chemites vs. Abimelech (Ant. 5,240-242 // Judg 9,22-29); (4) Abimelech’s

1. See his statement, Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte, Berlin, 1894, p. 28: “er (Abimelech) hat … einen Erzähler gefunden, der Sinn für die Energie des Bösen besass”. On the Abimelech story, see in addition to the commentaries: V. FRITZ, Abimelech und Sichem in Jdc IX, in VT 32 (1982) 129-144; E. WÜRTHWEIN, Abimelech und der Untergang Sichems. Studien zu Jdc 9, in ID., Studien zum Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (BZAW, 227), Berlin – New York, 1994, pp. 12-28. 2. I use the text and translation of H.St.J. THACKERAY, et al. (eds.), Josephus (LCL), Cambridge, MA – London, 1926-1965. Ant. 5,233-253 is found in Vol. V where the translation and notes are by R. MARCUS. I have likewise consulted the text and apparatus of Ant. 5,233-253 in B. NIESE, Flavii Iosephi Opera, I, Berlin, 1885. 3. Qumran Cave I yielded fragmentary portions of Judges 9; these have been published by D. BARTHÉLEMY – J.T. MILIK, Qumran Cave I (DJD, 1), Oxford, 1955, pp. 62-64. 4. For A and B I use the double text printed by A. RAHLFS, Septuaginta, I, Stuttgart, 1935. 5. For L I use the text printed by P. DE LAGARDE, Librorum V.T. Canonicorum Graece pars prior, Göttingen, 1883 and the apparatus of A.E. BROOKE – N. MCLEAN – H.St.J. THACKERAY, The Old Testament in Greek According to the Text of Codex Vaticanus, I/IV: Joshua, Judges and Ruth, Cambridge, 1917. The L text in Judges evidences noteworthy affinities with that of the Old Latin; for the text of the latter witness see U. ROBERT, Heptateuchi Partis Posterioris Versio Latina Antiquissima e Codice Lugdunensi, II, Lyon, 1900. 6. On the LXX text of Judges and its MSS groupings, see W.R. BODINE, The Greek Text of Judges: Recensional Developments (HSM, 23), Chico, CA, 1980. 7. For TJ I use the text of A. SPERBER, The Bible in Aramaic, II, Leiden, 1959 and the translation of this by D.J. HARRINGTON – A.J. SALDARINI, Targum Jonathan on the Former Prophets (The Aramaic Bible, 10), Wilmington, DE, 1987. JOSEPHUS, Ant. 5,233-253 147

Vengeance (Ant. 5,243-250 // Judg 9,30-49); and (5) Abimelech’s Death (Ant. 5,251-253 // Judg 9,50-57). I shall now examine each of these parallel segments in turn.

1. Abimelech Introduced

Josephus opens his Abimelech narrative (Ant. 5,233-253) with notices on the progeny of the miscreant’s father, Gideon (5,233a) which he draws from Judg 8,30- 318. That progeny consists of seventy sons borne to Gideon by his “many wives” (// 8,30), plus “Abimelechos” (Âbimeléxov)9, his son by a “concubine” (pal- lak±v)10 (// 8,31). From the notice of 8,31 Josephus omits – for the moment (but see immediately below) – the specification that she “was in Shechem”. On the other hand, he amplifies the source notice with the explicit designation of Abimelech as a “bastard” (nó‡ov) as well as with the name of his mother, i.e., “Druma” (Droú- mav). In Judges itself (as well as elsewhere in Jewish tradition) Abimelech’s mother remains anonymous. Whence then did Josephus derive the name he gives her? Gen- erally, scholars suggest that the historian’s form “Druma” ultimately goes back, via a process of textual corruption, to the place name “Arumah” (MT emïVra∏, AL Ârima, B Ârjma) cited in Judg 9,41 (cf. 9,31) as Abimelech’s later residence11. As noted above, Josephus re-positions the data on Gideon’s progeny (Judg 8,30-31), making these the introduction to his account of Abimelech in 5,233a. Thereafter, he proceeds immediately (5,233b) to relate, in dependence on 9,1a, that Abimelech betook himself to his mother’s family at “Sikima” (Síkima)12; in so doing he passes over the source’s intervening material, i.e., 8,32-3513. Judg 9,1b-3 recounts Abimelech’s speech to his mother’s relatives, urging them to speak on behalf of his single rulership (as opposed to that by his seventy

8. In Judges itself these data stand among the closing notices for Gideon, 8,29-35. Jose- phus places them rather at the opening of his Abimelech story. On the Josephan treatment of Gideon (Ant. 5,211-232), see L.H. FELDMAN, Josephus’ Portrait of Gideon, in Revue des études juives 152 (1993) 5-28. (It might be pointed out here that Josephus does not utilize the Bible’s alternative name for Abimelech’s father, i.e., Jerubbal since he passes over the incident, Judg 6,25-32, which leads to Gideon’s receiving this second name.) 9. This form is Josephus’ declined version of the name as found in ABL, i.e., ˆAbi(e)mélex which itself represents a transliteration of the Hebrew name. 10. This is the same term used by AB to designate Abimelech’s mother. 11. Thus, e.g., A. MEZ, Die Bibel des Josephus untersucht für Buch V–VI der Archäolo- gie, Basel, 1895, pp. 13-15; A. SCHLATTER, Die hebräischen Namen bei Josephus (BFCT, 17/3), Gütersloh, 1913, pp. 21-22, s.v. emïVra∏ (according to Schlatter the name in 5,233 derives from a later glossator); S. RAPPAPORT, Agada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus, Wien, 1930, pp. 43, 129 n. 199; MARCUS, Josephus (n. 2), VI, p. 107 n. b. A. SCHLALIT, Namenwörterbuch zu Flavius Josephus, Leiden, 1968, p. 40, s.v. DroÕma, on the contrary, does not venture a derivation. 12. This is the form of the city’s name found in AL Judg 9,1; B reads Suxem. To his mention of Abimelech’s coming to Shechem drawn from 9,1a, Josephus adds the chronological indication “after his father’s death” which looks back to his notice on Gideon’s demise at the end of 5,232 (// 8,32). 13. Of this material, Josephus has previously utilized the death and burial notice for Gideon of 8,32 in 5,232b. He makes no use of the appended notices, 8,33-35, on the Israelites’ fall into degeneracy following Gideon’s death. 148 C.T. BEGG brothers) to their fellow Shechemites as well as the former’s group success in winning support for Abimelech given his status as the townsfolk’s “brother”. Josephus, who will subsequently depict Abimelech as seizing power for himself (see below) rather than being elected “king” by the Shechemites (thus 9,6), omits this entire sequence. Instead, he moves directly to the matter of the money given Abimelech as cited in 9,4a14. Whereas, however, in the source it is the She- chemites as a whole who supply Abimelech with money, Josephus – who passes over the mention of this wider group in 9,1b-3 (see above) – identifies Abim- elech’s maternal relatives (alone) as the givers. According to 9,4b Abimelech used the sum given him to hire a retinue of “vain (LXX kenoúv) and reckless (AL ‡ambouménouv, ‘amazed’; B deiloúv, ‘cowardly’) fellows”. Josephus’ text at the end of 5,233 evidences a lacuna which Marcus fills in on the basis of the Biblical notice with the phrase “hired certain miscreants”. The historian goes beyond his source in accentuating the depravity of Abimelech’s hired band, calling them “notorious for a multitude of crimes (dià pl±‡ov âdikjmátwn… êpísjmoi)15”. Judg 9,5a narrates the first in a long chain of violent deeds perpetrated by Abimelech: he murders his 70 (half-)brothers at their father’s home in Ophrah. Josephus’ version specifies that Abimelech’s hired band accompanied him to the murder site; thereby it makes more plausible his ability to massacre seventy men. On the other hand, it leaves aside the place name “Ophrah”16 as well as the odd detail about Abimelech’s killing all the seventy “upon one stone”. Judg 9,5b notes that there was one survivor of Abimelech’s murderous initiative, i.e., Jotham, Gideon/Jerubbaal’s youngest son who managed to hide himself. Jose- phus omits the source’s indication about “Jothamos” (ˆIw‡ámou) being his father’s youngest, speaking rather of his “good fortune” in escaping. Judges’ introduction of Abimelech culminates in 9,6 with the notice that the Shechemites made him king “by the oak of the pillar (MT bom, LXX t±v stásewv) at Shechem”. Josephus notably rewords, accentuating the (reprobate) initiative of Abimelech himself (and eliminating the Biblical place indication, see n. 16): “Abimelech than transformed the government into a tyranny (eîv turan- nída tà prágmata me‡ístjsi)17, setting himself up to do whatsoever he pleased

14. Josephus’ generalizing reference to Abimelech’s “obtaining money (ârgúrion)” dispenses with the Biblical specifications concerning it, i.e., “seventy pieces of silver (LXX ârguríou) out of the house of Baal-berith”. 15. With this phrase compare that used by Josephus of his arch-foe John of Gischala in BJ 2,584 “the most unscrupulous and crafty of all who have ever gained notoriety (t¬n êpisßmwn) by such infamous means”. 16. Josephus has already mentioned this site (under the name “Ephra”) as the place of Gideon’s burial in 5,232 // Judg 8,32. Throughout his version of Judges 9 he omits a whole series of place names which, he might well have thought, would sound strange and off- putting to Gentile readers. 17. Compare the phrase used by Josephus of the reprobate antediluvian Nimrod in Ant. 1,114 periísta… eîv turannída tà prágmata. Josephus’ introduction of the Greek political term “tyranny” in connection with Abimelech here in 5,234 is reflective of his on-going attempt to cater to the political interests of his Gentile readers; on this point, see L.H. FELDMAN, Use, Authority, and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of Josephus, in J. MULDER – H. SYSLING (eds.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (CRINT, 2/1), Assen, 1988, pp. 455-518, 496-498. In addition, the use of the term serves to associate Abimelech with JOSEPHUS, Ant. 5,233-253 149 in defiance of the laws (ântì t¬n nomímwn) and showing bitter animosity against the champions of justice (toùv toÕ dikaíou proﬂstaménouv)18”.

2. Jotham’s Discourse

The second main segment within Judges 9 is vv. 7-21 (// Ant. 5,235-239); here, all attention goes to the intervention of the survivor Jotham who, thereafter, will have no further role to play. The opening words of Judg 9,7 motivate Jotham’s subsequent initiative in terms of his being “told” of Abimelech’s election to the kingship. In place of this indication, Josephus introduces a transitional phrase which explains how it was that Jotham happened to find a massed audience for his discourse. It reads: “now one day when there was a public festival (demoteloÕv… ëort±v)19 at Shechem and the people were all assembled…”. In line with the continuation of 9,7 he next has Jotham20 ascend “Garizin” (Gari- heín, so L, AB Garihin), this being characterized by him as “the mountain which rises above the city of Shechem”. Judg 9,7b represents Jotham on the hilltop “raising his voice”; Josephus supplies a reason for his thus “shouting”: “so as to be heard by the crowd if they would but listen to him quietly”. Jotham’s actual words commence at the end of 9,7 with the appeal “listen to me inhabitants of Shechem and God will listen to you”. Here, as in the continuation of Jotham’s discourse (and so often elsewhere), Josephus transposes the Bible’s direct into indirect discourse21. His version of Jotham’s opening words likewise dispenses with their (presumptuous) promise of a divine hearing for the Shechemites should they themselves pay heed to Jotham22. In its place he depicts Jotham simply as “begging them to attend to what he had to say”. Judg 9,8 begins immediately with the words of Jotham’s fable (vv. 8-15). Josephus (5,236) prefaces these with a transitional notice concerning the effect of Jotham’s preceding appeal: “silence being established…”. In the Biblical fable the trees resolve to anoint themselves a king, making their first approach to the olive tree. Josephus’ Jotham begins by elaborating on the trees’ (fanciful) initiative: “… he told them23 how the trees (tà déndra, LXX tà zúla), once gifted with a human voice24, held a meeting…”. In addition, he identifies the first tree importuned to assume rule over the others, not the Zealot leaders of whose “tyranny” Josephus speaks with considerable frequency in the Bellum, see K.H. RENGSTORF (ed.), A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, IV, Lei- den, 1983, s.v. turannív and túrannov. Note in particular Josephus’ application of the foregoing terms to his arch-enemy John of Gischala in BJ 4,208 “(John) carried in his breast a dire passion for despotic power (turannídov)”; 6,98.129 (John ö túrannov). 18. This phrase occurs only here in Josephus. 19. Josephus’ two other uses of this phrase are in Ant. 2,45; 5,314. 20. Here in 5,235 Josephus reintroduces this figure with an inserted Rückverweis: “the one who, as we said, had escaped…”. 21. On this feature of Josephus’ rewriting of the Bible, see C.T. BEGG, Josephus’ Account of the Early Divided Monarchy (AJ 8,212-420) (BETL, 108), Leuven, 1993, pp. 12-13 n. 38. 22. As here, so throughout his version of Judges 9, Josephus repeatedly leaves aside the source’s mentions of the Deity. On the point see further below. 23. Note Josephus’ continued use of indirect discourse here. 24. With this insertion Josephus acknowledges the likely incredulity of his readers regarding talking trees and attempts to account for their ability to do so in this instance. 150 C.T. BEGG as the olive (so 9,8), but rather as the fig, i.e., the second tree to be approached according to 9,10. The reason for this reversal of sequence is not immediately apparent – perhaps it is just another reflection of Josephus’ pervasive preoccupa- tion with varying the wording of his sources even while preserving their essential content25. In Judg 9,11 the fig tree (i.e., the first tree to be approached according to Josephus) declines the rulership with a rhetorical question that invokes its unwillingness to give up its “sweetness and good fruit” in order to assume sovereignty. Josephus has the fig-tree explain why it values its own fruit higher than the proffered command: “… she refused, because she enjoyed the esteem which her fruits brought her, an esteem that was all her own and not conferred from without by others26”. Thereafter, he makes the transition to the next exchange with the inserted phrase “(when she refused)… the trees did not renounce their intention of having a ruler…”. In the Bible rule is offered (9,10) in second place to the fig-tree. Josephus, as we have seen, substitutes the fig tree for the olive-tree of 9,8 as the first in the series. Accordingly, he now represents the trees as making their second offer to the vine (âmpélwç, so LXX) which in the source (see 9,12) is the third plant to be asked27. Judg 9,13 cites the vine’s rhetorical question which makes clear that her product, wine “which cheers god(s) and men”, mat- ters more to her than rulership over the trees. Josephus’ version of the vine’s answer (5,237a) avoids the polytheism (taking MT’s jiela as a plural, so RSV) or alternatively anthropomorphism (viewing the term as a reference to the Lord, see BL) of God’s enjoying wine28 implicit in the Biblical formulation(s). It reads: “and the vine, when so elected, on the same grounds as those of the fig-tree, declined the sovereignty”. As this point, Josephus finally comes to speak of the plant which in the Bible (9,8-9) is the first to be offered (as well as to refuse) the rulership, i.e., the olive-tree. In his presentation, however, the source’s opening sequence is reduced to a mere transition to the following exchange between the trees and the bramble (// 9,14-15): “the olive trees (t¬n êlai¬n, note the plural) having done the like29…”. Having been thrice rebuffed, the trees turn (9,14) in fourth place to the “bramble”. The latter, for its part, responds (9,15) with a double conditional statement as to what awaits the would-be kingmakers depending on whether or not they are

25. On this feature of Josephus’ rewriting, see FELDMAN, Mikra (n. 17), p. 479. It is, in any case, of interest to note that in the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (LAB) of Pseudo- Philo, a work approximately contemporaneous with the Ant. and exhibiting a variety of parallels with its retelling of Biblical history, the trees likewise turn in first place to the fig tree (37,2), see L.H. FELDMAN, Prolegomenon, in M.R. JAMES, The Biblical Antiquities of Philo, New York, 1971 (reprint), p. cxxi, ad loc. On LAB’s (highly compressed) version of Judges 9 in its chap. 37, see F.J. MURPHY, Pseudo-Philo: Rewriting the Bible, Oxford – New York, 1993, pp. 159-161. 26. Here and in what follows I italicize elements of Josephus’ presentation which have no equivalent as such in the Biblical source. 27. Likewise in LAB 37,2 the vine figures in second place. 28. A likewise avoids the anthropomorphism with its rendering “the cheering of men from God”. See also TJ Judg 9,13 “(my wine) from which libations are offered before the Lord and in which the chiefs rejoice” and LAB 37,2 “I was planted to give sweetness to men. Come and preserve the fruit of my vineyard” (the translation is that of D.J. HAR- RINGTON, Pseudo-Philo, in J.H. CHARLESWORTH [ed.], The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, II, Garden City, NY, 1985, pp. 297-377, esp. 350). 29. In LAB 37,2 the third plant to be contacted is the apple or myrtle. JOSEPHUS, Ant. 5,233-253 151 acting in good faith, i.e., refuge in the bramble’s shade vs. a fire that will come forth from the same bramble and “devour the cedars of Lebanon”. Jose- phus markedly reworks both the request and response of 9,14-15. He begins (5,238) by suggesting a rationale for the trees turning to the “bramble” (Åám- nov, so LXX), i.e., “since it is good in giving wood for tinder.” He likewise introduces an explicit (positive) response by the bramble to the trees’ proposi- tion: “it promised to undertake the office and act strenuously”. Thereafter, Josephus has the bramble deliver a simplified version of the double alternative discourse of 9,15. This reads: “However it behoved them all to sit down beneath her shadow (üpò t®n skián, cf. B ên t±Ç ski¢ç)30, and should they plot her ruin31, they would be destroyed by the fire (puróv, LXX pÕr) within her32”. Judg 9,16-20 is Jotham’s “application” of his fable to the case of Shechemites. This portion of his discourse comprises a complicated alternative statement (vv. 16, 19 and 20) concerning the fate of the hearers which is itself “interrupted” by a reminiscence of the Gideon’s benefits for the Shechemites and their own subsequent behavior (vv. 17-18). Here, as in his version of 9,15 (see above) Josephus drastically simplifies and compresses33: “I tell this fable, said Jotham, not for your merriment, but because34 notwithstanding the manifold benefits you have received from Gedeon35 ye36 suffer Abimelech to hold sovereign sway37, after aiding

30. With the above summons, Josephus omits the conditional phrase which precedes the reference to the trees taking refuge in the bramble’s shade in 9,15a, i.e., “if in good faith you are anointing me king over you…”. 31. Compare 9,15b “but if not”, i.e., not “in good faith” (see 9,15a). 32. Compare 9,15bb where the threat is that the bramble’s fire will consume “the cedars of Lebanon”. The source’s mention of these appears unmotivated – in what precedes there has been only a general reference to “the trees” – and so Josephus has the bramble threatening to unleash its fire against the latter should they plot against it. 33. One major feature of Josephus’ “simplification” of Judg 9,16-20 concerns the conditional character of the alternative fates of the Shechemites as presented by Jotham. According to 9,16-19 they and Abimelech will find mutual satisifaction in each other if the former have acted in good faith both towards Abimelech himself and the house of Gideon, whereas if they have not, they, along with Abimelech, are liable to the curse of mutual destruction by fire (v. 20). For Josephus it is obvious that the Shechemites have not acted “in good faith”. Accordingly, he eliminates both the conditional formulation of Jotham’s words as well as the positive prospect held out in v. 19b (“then rejoice in Abimelech and let him also rejoice in you”). 34. With the above inserted phrase Josephus makes more explicit the transition from Jotham’s fable itself to the application. 35. The above represents Josephus’ generalized version of Judg 9,17 “for my father fought for you, and risked his life, and rescued you from the hand of Midian”. 36. MARCUS, Josephus (n. 2), V, p. 109 n. b points out that whereas his translation of Jotham’s words in 5,239 employs direct address (“ye”), the Greek continues using the same indirect discourse as in the preceding portion of his speech. 37. In Judg 9,18b Jotham’s charge is that the Shechemites have “made Abimelech king” over them. Josephus’ divergent formulation here reflects the fact that in his own earlier presentation (see 5,234) Abimelech makes himself “tyrant” over the Shechemites rather than being made king by them (so 9,6). Given this difference it is understandable that he also surpresses the “motive” for the Shechemites’ appointment of Abimelech cited at the end of 9,18, i.e., “because he is your kinsman”. 152 C.T. BEGG him to slay my brethren38. Ye will find him in no wise different from a fire39 (puróv)”. The incident of Jotham’s intervention (Judg 9,7-21) concludes in v. 21 with notice of his immediately following flight to “Beer” (so MT, A Rara), this being prompted by his fear of Abimelech. Josephus (5,239b) omits the Biblical place name, while likewise anticipating a chronological item from the continuation of the story. His parallel to 9,21 thus runs: “Having spoken thus he absconded and lived in hiding in the hills (ên to⁄v ∫resi)40 for three years41 from fear (dediÉv) of Abimelech42”.

3. Shechemites vs. Abimelech

Judg 9,22-29 constitutes a transitional segment within the Abimelech episode as a whole; it relates the falling out between Abimelech and the Shechemites which developed during the former’s three-year reign (v. 22). Josephus’ parallel section is 5,240-242 which, however, differs quite markedly from the source, as we shall see. As previously noted, the third segment of the Biblical Abimelech story begins with an indication concerning the three-year duration of the reprobate’s reign over Israel. Josephus, who just previously (5,239b) represented Jotham as hiding himself for “three years” (see above), does not reproduce the datum at this juncture. Rather, he turns immediately to the matter of the antagonism between Abimelech and his subjects as related in 9,23-25. Judg 9,23 attributes this development to an “evil spirit” (LXX pneÕma ponjrón) sent by God between the two parties with a view to requiting both for their misdeeds (vv. 24-25). Josephus here – as throughout his version of the Abimelech story – leaves aside any explicit mention of a divine involvement/purpose in the unfolding of events43. In place then of the theological commentary of Judg

38. Compare Judg 9,18a “you have risen up against my father’s house this day, and have slain his sons, seventy men on one stone”. Josephus’ above version in which the Shechemites are charged merely with “aiding” Abimelech in his massacre of Jotham’s brothers might be seen as a deliberate “correction” of the Biblical formulation in light of 9,5 (// 9,234) where Abimelech alone is said to kill Gideon’s sons. Note too that, just as in his version of 9,5, so here too Josephus leaves aside the detail about the seventy being slain “on one stone”. 39. Compare Jotham’s double “curse” as cited in 9,20 “but if not [i.e., if the Shechemites have not in fact acted in good faith with either Abimelech or with Gideon’s house], let fire (LXX púr) come out from Abimelech, and devour the citizens of Shechem and Beth-millo; and let fire come out from the citizens of Shechem and from Beth-millo, and devour Abim- elech”. Josephus’ omission of the second part of Jotham’s curse here might reflect the consideration that, in contrast to its first part, the former was not realized, i.e., the eventual destruction of Abimelech was not accomplished by the Shechemites themselves. 40. This is Josephus’ generalizing substitution for the obscure place name (“Beer”) cited in the source, see above in the text. 41. Josephus draws this chronological datum from 9,22 which states that Abimelech ruled for three years over Israel. 42. This is Josephus’ specification of the phrase of 9,21 which speaks literally of Jotham’s fleeing “from the face of” Abimelech. 43. In addition, Josephus’ non-reproduction of the mention in 9,23 of the God-sent “evil spirit” is in line with his more general tendency to avoid Biblical uses of the term JOSEPHUS, Ant. 5,233-253 153

9,23-25 Josephus substitutes the following notice on the background to the split between Abimelech and his subjects: “But not long after the festival (ëort±v)44 the Shechemites, repenting (metanójsan)45 of the murder of the sons of Gedeon46…”. According to Judg 9,23 the result of God’s putting an evil spirit between the Shechemites and Abimelech was that the former “dealt treacherously” (LXX ©‡étjsan) with their king. Josephus, for his part, is more specific regarding the negative stance assumed by the Shechemites towards Abimelech at this point: “… they expelled Abimelech from their city47 and from their tribe”. He thereafter goes on to cite, without Biblical basis as such, a corresponding reaction from the side of Abimelech: “and he laid plans for doing the town an injury48”. This threatening countermove by Abimelech, in its turn, evokes a emotional response on the part of the Shechemites which Josephus now relates in connection with his “anticipation” of 9,27 and its notice on their grape harvest. He describes the inhabitants’ psychological state49 at vintage time as follows: “So when the season of vintage was come, they were afraid (êdedíesan)50 to go out and gather the fruit, for fear that Abimelech would do them some mischief”. The Shechemites’ just-cited “fear” itself provides a motive for their turning to a figure who makes his first appearance at this juncture. The figure in question is “Gaal”; Judg 9,26 represents him establishing himself along with his “kinsmen” in Shechem where the people “put their confidence in” him. Josephus (5,241) speaks of the Shechemites being “visited” at vintage time (see above) by “Gual” (Guálou)51. He likewise enhances this personage’s stature by calling him “one of pneÕma = cvr in reference to both the human and (especially) the divine “spirit”, see E. BEST, The Use and Non-use of Pneuma by Josephus, in NT 3 (1959) 218-225. 44. This chronological indication picks up on Josephus’ – likewise “un-Biblical” – mention of “a public festival (ëort±v)” as the occasion on which Jotham delivered his discourse in 5,235. 45. On the theme and terminology of “repentance” in Josephus in general, see: A. SCHLATTER, Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josefus (BFCT, 2/26), Gütersloh, 1932, pp. 146-147; K. DIETRICH, Die Umkehr (Bekehrung und Busse) im Alten Testament und Judentum, Stuttgart, 1936, pp. 309-313. 46. In having the Shechemites repent of the “murder” of Gideon’s sons here, Josephus echoes the charge he had Jotham make against them in 5,239, i.e., that they had “aided” Abimelech to slay his brothers. 47. Josephus would have found inspiration for this mention of Abimelech’s “expulsion” from Shechem in the further course of the source story where he is represented as living elsewhere, i.e., in “Arumah” whence he sets out to attack Shechem (see 9,31). Jose- phus’ introduction of the above notice thus serves to account for Abimelech’s absence from Shechem as presupposed in the continuation of the story. 48. In Judg 9,22-25 all one way hears with regard to Abimelech is that he “heard” (see v. 25b) of the hostile measures undertaken by the Shechemites against him (see v. 25a) Here again (see on 5,234b) Josephus accentuates Abimelech’s active initiative. 49. Such interjected notices on personages’ psychological states are characteristic of Josephus’ retelling of Biblical history. 50. Compare 5,239 where Jotham’s “hiding himself” is attributed to his being “afraid” (dediÉv) of Abimelech. 51. This is the form of the name read by Niese and followed by Marcus. Codex M has Gálou, SPE Géllou, L Gaálou and the Latin translation Gaal. On Josephus’ form(s) of the name is relation to that of MT and LXX, see SCHLATTER, Namen (n. 11), p. 38, s.v. lyÎG; SCHLALIT, Namenwörterbuch (n. 11), p. 36, s.v. Guáljv. 154 C.T. BEGG their chiefs (ârxóntwn)52” and having him accompanied, not only by “kinsmen”, but also by “soldiers” (öplítaiv)53. Picking up then on his previous mention of its being vintage time and of the Shechemites’ fear of going out for this, Josephus fittingly rounds off his introduction of “Gual” by noting that they “besought him to lend them his protection during their vintage”. In the same line he thereafter highlights the protective role of “Gual” in the Shechemites’ eventual venturing out for the vintage (// 9,27aa): “And when he compiled with their request, they went forth, accompanied by Gual at the head of his troop (öpli- tikón)54”. From the continuation of 9,27 Josephus omits various details (treading of the grapes, holding of a festival and the people’s entry into “the house of their god”). His compressed version of the verse reads thus: “So the fruit was safely gathered in, and while supping in companies55 they now ventured to openly revile (blasfjme⁄n, AL katjr¬nto, B katjrásanto) Abimelech56”. Judg 9,28-29 goes on to cite a bombastic word of Gaal himself, expressing his desire to rule the Shechemites and his military challenge to Abimelech. Josephus passes over this entire sequence at this juncture, although subsequently he will allude to its content (see below). In its place, he adduces (5,242b) additional evidence for the Shechemites’ new-found boldness vis-à-vis Abimelech. In so doing, he draws on, while also modifying, the content of 9,25, earlier left aside by him: “And the chiefs (oÿ te ãrxontev)57, posting ambuscades (ênédraiv, AL ∂nedra, B ênedreúontav) about the town (pólin)58, captured and slew many of his followers59”.

4. Abimelech’s Revenge Judg 9,30-49 recounts Abimelech’s wreaking drastic vengeance on the rebel- lious Shechemites; Josephus’ parallel is Ant. 5,243-250. The process is set in motion at the initiative of “Zebul” whom 9,30 designates as “governor (LXX

52. This status of his would provide a reason – lacking in the Bible itself – for “Gual’s” coming to Shechem. It would likewise help explain why the Shechemites turn so readily to him. 53. Mention of “soldiers” as part of “Gual’s” entourage provides a further rationale for the Shechemites’ readiness to entrust themselves to him, see previous note. 54. Compare Josephus’ – also inserted – reference to the “troops” (öplítaiv) with Gual in 5,241a. 55. Josephus’ non-mention of “the house of their god” as the site of the Shechemites’ feast here is in line with his earlier omission of the specification that it was “out the house of Baal-berith” that they took the money they handed over to Abimelech (9,4, compare 5,234). 56. Note the constrast here between the (wine-)emboldened Shechemites who now “openly revile” Abimelech whereas shortly before they were they in such “fear” of the same Abimelech that they dared not venture into the fields. 57. Recall Josephus’ designation of Gual as “one of their chiefs (ârxóntwn)” in 5,241. The subject of the actions cited in 9,25 is more general, i.e., “the men of Shechem”. 58. Compare 9,25 “on the tops of the mountains”. 59. Josephus’ formulation here represents a specification and intensification of 9,25ab “they robbed all who passed by them along the way”. Josephus likewise leaves aside the notice of 9,25b “and it was told Abimelech” so as to avoid duplication since in what immediately follows (5,243) he will be citing Zabul’s “report” to Abimelech (// 9,31). JOSEPHUS, Ant. 5,233-253 155

ãrxwn) of the city”. Josephus makes “Zaboulos” (Háboulov)60 not only “chief- tain (ãrxwn) of the Shechemites”, but also “an old friend (zénov) of Abim- elech,” this latter qualification serving to explain the governor’s subsequent readiness to act on Abimelech’s behalf. From 9,30 Josephus omits mention of Zabul’s “anger” at what he hears Gaal saying (i.e., the words cited in 9,28-29). Instead, he moves directly to his version of 9,31a, Zabul’s dispatch of “messen- gers” (âggélouv) to Abimelech, From 9,31a Josephus drops the textually prob- lematic indication concerning Zabul’s embassy represented in MT by the hapax form emï-rßhïk∫61, but in B by ên kruf±Ç (so also TJ zrb) and in AL by metà dÉrwn. In “quoting” Zabul’s message to Abimelech (9,31b-33), Josephus once again (see on his rendition of Jotham’s speech above) recasts direct as indirect discourse. Following 9,31b he has Zabul first warn Abimelech that Gual “was stirring up the people (parozúneien… tòn d±mon)62”. Next (8,32) Zebul proposes that Abimelech and his men venture forth by night and station themselves in the fields. Josephus reproduces this proposal with an attached motivation: “and he advised him to lie in wait before the town since he would induce Gual to sally out against him” which he may have derived by anticipation from 9,33 which speaks of Gaal and his associates “coming out against you63”. Thereafter, the end of 9,33 (”you may do as the occasion offers”) provided Josephus with the inspiration for the governor’s further word, i.e., “and it would then rest with Abimelech to avenge himself (âmúnas‡ai)”. Finally, going beyond the source’s speech itself, he represents Zebul as affirming that he “would procure his recon- ciliation (mnjesteúses‡ai)64 with the people (pròv tòn d±mon)65”. Judg 9,34 narrates Abimelech’s carrying out of Zabul’s proposal in extenso, re-utilizing the wording of v. 32 while adding that the waiting ambushers were divided into four companies. Josephus (5,244) compresses: “So Abimelech sat in ambush (ênedreúwn, see ênédreusan, LXX)…”. The source (9,35a) next notes

60. This is the form of the name read by Niese whom Marcus follows. Compare Héboulov in codex L, Hébelov in E and Zebul in the Latin translation, which readings seem to represent assimilations to those of MT/LXX. 61. BHS (followed by RSV) proposes to emend to emïVraBï on the basis of the reading in 9,41. R.G. BOLING, Judges (AB, 6A), Garden City, NY, 1975, p. 178, ad loc., on the contrary, proposes to retain the MT reading which he renders “by a ruse”, deriving the term from the verb emïrî. 62. The MT reading in 9,31b, i.e., jiræoï is generally understood as saying that Gaal and his confederates were “besieging” the city (thus the rendering of LXX and TJ). On this understanding, Josephus’ above formulation would represent a “correction” of the source prompted by the fact in what precedes Gaal simply entered Shechem without any resistance being offered. BOLING, Judges (n. 61), p. 178, ad loc. however holds that the Hebrew term here has rather the meaning of “alienating (the city)”; if so it would cor- respond to Josephus’ statement above. In any case, note that whereas Judg 9,31 speaks of the machinations of Gaal and his kinsmen, Josephus keeps attention focussed on “Gual” alone. 63. Josephus’ above formulation provides an explanation of what would have led Gaal and his forces to venture outside the city as Zebul’s word in 9,33 presupposes they will do. 64. Thus the emendation of Niese followed by Marcus for the mnjsteúes‡ai of the codices. 65. By attributing the above offer to Zebul, Josephus underscores his status as “an old friend” of Abimelech. The wording of the offer likewise serves to accentuate the contrast between Zebul and “Gual” whom the former accuses of “stirring up the people (tòn d±mon)”. 156 C.T. BEGG

Gaal positioning himself “at the entrance of the gate of the city”; in Josephus’ equivalent he “all too unguardedly (âfulaktotérwv)66 tarried in the suburbs”. In view of their immediately following exchange he likewise introduces mention of Zabul’s “being with” Gual, this substituting for the notice of 9,35b on Abim- elech and his men “rising from ambush”. Judg 9,36-38 relates a two-fold exchange between Gaal and Zebul which even- tuates in the former’s going forth to battle, 9,39. The exchange is prompted by Gaal’s “seeing the people” (v. 36aa). Josephus specifies that he observed “some men-at-arms (öplítav) hastening up”, thereby heightening the drama of Gual’s “vision”. Gaal (9,36ab) reports what he sees as “men coming down from the mountain tops”, whereupon Zabul “reassures” him that he is seeing “the shadow of the mountains as if they were men” (v. 36b). In Josephus’ presentation, Gual’s word to Zabul echoes his preceding report of the former’s observation: (he told to Zabul) “that men were upon them in arms (ka‡wplisménouv)”. His Zabul, in turn, dismisses the report with the comment “they were but shadows (skiáv, LXX skián) of the rocks67”. The exchange continues in 9,37 with Gaal now reporting men advancing both from the “center of the land” and from “the direction of the Diviner’s Oak”. Jose- phus precedes Gual’s new report with a transitional notice that helps account for this: “but on their nearer approach Gual, perceiving them perfectly…”. Thereafter he has Gual speak to Zebul in words that pick up on the latter’s own remark to him: “(he told him) that these were no shadows (skiáv) but a company of men68”. Zabul terminates the exchange (9,38a) by throwing back at Gaal his previous words against Abimelech (see 9,28-29) and by urging to go forth and fight (9,38b). Josephus who, as noted above, does not reproduce Gual’s earlier boast- ing words, nevertheless now has Zebal refer to these69: “But wert thou70 not accusing Abimelech of cowardice (kakían)71? Why then displayest thou not that mighty valour (âret±v mége‡ov) by meeting him in battle72?” Spurred on by Zebul, Gaal does (9,39) lead the Shechemites into battle against Abimelech. Josephus (5,246) inserts an allusion to his emotional state as he does

66. With this inserted reference to Gual’s state of mind, Josephus prepares an ironic contrast, i.e., with the consternation which shortly befall Gual. 67. Note how in both Gaal’s word and Zebul’s reply, Josephus avoids the source’s mention of “mountains” (see 9,36). Perhaps his rationale for this is that Abimelech’s forces could not have effectively concealed themselves in ambush (so 5,244) on the mountain tops around Shechem. 68. Note that with the above formulation Josephus once again eliminates a source place name, i.e., “the Diviner’s Oak” (9,37b). 69. From Zebul’s taunting reply to Gaal (9,38) Josephus leaves aside its opening rhetorical question, i.e., “where is your mouth now…?” He likewise has no equivalent to Zebel’s “citation” of Gaal’s arrogant question “Who is Abimelech that we should serve him?” (cf. 9,28 fine “Why then should we serve him [Abimelech]”?). 70. Here for the first time in his version of Judges 9, Josephus retains the direct address of his source. On Josephus’ sporadic use of such direct address in his corpus generally see BEGG, Josephus’ Account (n. 21), pp. 33-34 n. 75. 71. Compare Zebul’s question in 9,38 “Are not these the people whom you despised?” Note, however, that Josephus reformulates so as to focus attention on Abimelech himself. 72. Note Josephus’ accentuation of the sarcasm of Zebul’s word to Gual with the above interjected reference to the latter’s “mighty valour”. Compare Zebul’s blander closing challenge in 9,38 fine: “Go out now and fight with them”. JOSEPHUS, Ant. 5,233-253 157 so: “Thereat Gual, in confusion (‡oruboúmenov), closed (sunáptei) with Abimelech’s men”. As described in 9,40 the outcome of the battle is that Abim- elech chased the fleeing Gaal right to the entrance of the city gate, wounding many in the process. Josephus dramatizes somewhat: “(Gual) lost some of his own (literally some of those with him fell [píptousi]) and himself fled (feúgei)73 to the city with the rest at his heels”. Judg 9,41 recounts a double sequel to the preceding battle: Abimelech dwelt “at Arumah” (see on 9,31) while Zebul expelled Gaal and his kinsmen from Shechem. Josephus (5,246b) omits the first of these notices with its mention of an obscure place name, while amplifying the second: “Zabul now contrived to secure Gual’s expulsion from the town (êkblj‡±nai t±v pólewv)74, charging him with feebleness (malak¬v)75 in his encounter with Abimelech’s troops76”. After the preliminaries recounted in 9,30-41, 9,42-45 (// 5,247-248a) narrate Abimelech’s annihilation of the Shechemites and their city. This process com- mences (9,42) when “on the following day” (i.e., after Gaal’s discomfiture) the Shechemites venture into the fields and Abimelech is informed. Josephus (5,247) reverses the sequence of these two source items, thereby highlighting the figure of the city’s nemesis: “However, Abimelech, learning that the Shechemites proposed to come out77 again for the vintage78…”. Judg 9,43a relates Abimelech’s military measures (dividing his forces into three companies and lying in wait in the fields). Josephus’ parallel speaks simply of Abimelech’s “posting (pro- loxíhetai)79 ambuscades80 all around the city”. Thereafter, he works together the reference in 9,43b to the Shechemites coming out of the city and the notice of 9,44 on the movements of Abimelech’s three companies (see v. 43a) against them. His version of the Biblical sequence thus reads: “then, so soon as they emerged81,

73. Note in 5,246 the sequence of three historic presents sunáptei… píptousi… feúgei. On Josephus’ frequent introduction of the historic present form in his rewriting of the Bible, see BEGG, Josephus’ Account (n. 21), pp. 10-11 n. 32. 74. Compare Josephus’ wording concerning the earlier “expulsion” of Abimelech from Shechem (5,240) êzelaúnousi tòn ˆAbimeléxon t±v pólewv. 75. Compare Zabul’s (sarcastic) reference to Gual’s “mighty valour” in 5,245. 76. With this appended phrase Josephus indicates the basis on which Zebul was able to effect Gual’s departure from Shechem – a point left unclarified in 9,41b. 77. In Judg 9,42 the Shechemites seem actually to have ventured out of the city. Jose- phus’ reformulation, referring to their (merely) “proposing to go out”, reflects the consideration that Abimelech would not have had the opportunity to conceal his forces around the city if the Shechemites were already present in the surrounding fields. His reformulation likewise allows him to obviate the double reference to the Shechemites exiting the city in 9,42 and 43, see n. 81. 78. With this inserted explanation of the Shechemites’ reason for venturing out at this point, Josephus alludes back to his notice in 5,240 (cf. Judg 9,27) that “the season for the vintage had come”. 79. Note the historic present, see n. 73. 80. As in his handling of 9,34 in 5,244 (see above), so here in 5,247 (// 9,43) Josephus leaves aside the source’s specification about the number of “companies” positioned by Abimelech. 81. 9,43b is the second mention of the Shechemites “coming out” of their city, see 9,42a. In Josephus’ rendition, there is only one actual exiting of the city by the She- chemites, i.e., here in 5,247b, whereas in 5,247a he speaks only of their “proposing” to go out, see n. 77. 158 C.T. BEGG a third of his force82 occupied (katalambánei)83 the gates (tàv púlav, AB t®n púljn) to cut off the citizens (polítav)84 from re-entering85, the rest (9,44 the [other] two companies) chased them as they scattered (9,44 all who were in the fields), and there was carnage (fónov) on all sides (9,44 and he slew [A êpá- tazen, BL êpátazan] them86”. Having massacred those Shechemites who had ventured out, Abimelech next (9,45) proceeds to “fight all day” against and capture Shechem itself, kill its inhabitants, raze the city, and sow the site with salt. Josephus’ version (5,248a) omits the first three of Abimelech’s initiatives as cited in 9,45, replacing these with several items of his own: “Then, having razed the city to the ground (kataskácav eîv ∂dafov t®n pólin) – for it could not sustain a siege87 – he sowed salt (†lav… speírav, compare A ∂speiren… †lav) on the ruins (katà t¬n êreipíwn) and pressed forward88. And so perished (âpÉlonto) all the Shechemites89”. Abimelech’s campaign of destruction continues in 9,46-49 (// Ant. 5,248b- 250). According to 9,46 its victims were the “people of the Tower of Shechem” who, upon hearing of Abimelech’s previous deed, take refuge in “the stronghold (so RSV, MT ciro, AL tò ôxúrwma)90 of the house of El-Berith” (thus MT, L [Jl dia‡ßkjv)91. Josephus’ introduction of Abimelech’s next set of victims is quite different, eliminating as it does the names of both structures cited in 9,46 (the Tower of Shechem and the house of El-berith)92. His “replacement” (5,248b) for the source presentation runs as follows: “As for such as had scattered (skedas‡éntev)93 and escaped that peril, these mustering to a strongly

82. Compare 9,44a “Abimelech and the companies (so MT and ABL; BHS emends to the sg. with some Greek MSS) with him”. 83. Note again the historic present. 84. Josephus’ introduction of this term drawn from Greek political life represents an obvious (and anachronistic) Hellenization of the Biblical account. 85. With this inserted phrase Josephus provides a rationale for the move made by Abimelech’s first company in positioning itself at the gate(s). 86. In the source there is double mention of the “slaying” of the Shechemites who have ventured out of the city, see 9,43 (fine) and 44 (fine). Just as he does with the double mention of the Shechemites’ exiting the city (9,41.42, see nn. 77 and 81), Josephus avoids this duplication, making his only reference to the slaughter of the Shechemites outside the city here at the end of 5,247 (// 9,44 fine). 87. This inserted comment serves to explain how Abimelech was able to get Shechem in his power with such dispatch as he appears to do in the Biblical account. 88. This insertion by Josephus makes the transition to Abimelech’s next initiative. It likewise underscores the unrelenting energy of the story’s protagonist. 89. Such closing formulae, clearly rounding off a given segment, are a typical feature of Josephus’ stylistic “improvement” of the Biblical original. 90. Compare B “to the gathering” (eîv sunéleusin). 91. B transliterates MT’s “house of El-Berith” as Bai‡jlberí‡, while A reads o÷kou toÕ Baal dia‡ßkjv. Compare TJ “… the house of God to cut a covenant” (jiq rzgml la hib). 92. Recall that in his version of 9,4 in 5,233 Josephus leaves aside the source verse’s reference to “the house of Baal-berith”. More generally, Josephus’ rewriting of Judges 9 consistently passes over that account’s numerous (and obscure) place names as we have been pointing out. 93. This indication picks up Josephus’ earlier reference (see 5,247) to those She- chemites who had come out of the city being “chased” by Abimelech’s forces as they “scattered” (skidnaménouv). His re-introduction of these “scattered ones” of 5,247 here JOSEPHUS, Ant. 5,233-253 159 entrenched rock (pétran ôxurán)94 established themselves thereon and were preparing to fortify it with a wall (teixísai)95”. In 9,47 Abimelech is informed that the “people of the Tower of Shechem” have assembled. Once again eliminating the source’s place name (see above), Josephus, conversely, expands (5,249a) this datum with an allusion to his own previous mention of the escapees’ plan of “fortifying the rock”: “But they were forestalled by Abimelech, who hearing of their design…”. Judg 9,48aa interjects yet another place name into the narrative, i.e., “Mount Zalmon” which Abimelech and his “people” are said to “ascend”. Leaving aside this indication as well96, Josephus simply reports that Abimelech “came upon them with his forces”. The source now (9,48ab-49a) relates, quite circumstantially, the measures taken by Abimelech and his men in preparation for firing the “stronghold” (see 9,46). Josephus both rearranges and compresses: “(Abimelech) laid faggots of dry wood (fakélouv Àljv zjr¢v) round the place97, carrying them with his own hands (diˆ aütoÕ férwn)98 and bidding his troops to do the like99”. Having compressed the Bible’s description of Abimelech’s preparatory measures, Josephus now (5,249b), with a view to dramatic effect, markedly expands its summary notice on the actual “firing” of the “stronghold” (9,49ba). His elab- orated version of that notice runs: “The rock (t±v pétrav)100 being thus quickly encompassed, they set fire (pÕr êmbállousin) to the faggots101, flinging in all in 5,248 likewise obviates the difficulty of 9,46 where the “people of the Tower of Shechem” seem to emerge out of nowhere. 94. This entity represents Josephus’ substitution for / interpretation of the (otherwise unknown) “tower of Shechem” of Judg 9,46. 95. This indication can be seen as Josephus’ replacement for the “stronghold of the house of El-berith” of 9,46 (see 9,4) which might well have puzzled readers. Also to be noted is Josephus’ tendency to avoid the term dia‡ßkj (= “covenant”) which stands in A’s (and L’s) rendering (see n. 91) of the phrase “(El-)berith” of MT 9,46; on the point, see BEGG, Josephus’ Account (n. 21), pp. 100-101 n. 609. 96. In so doing he eliminates the topographical uncertainty of the source account where the position of “Mount Zalmon” which Abimelech climbs in 9,48 in relation to the “stronghold of the house of El-Berith” (9,46) which he will subsequently assault (see 9,49) is left unclarified. 97. The above formulation represents Josephus’ conflation of elements drawn from 9,49ab (following Abimelech’s example his troops put their bundles of wood “against the stronghold” [having passed over 9,46’s reference to this edifice, Josephus speaks more generally of “the place”]) and 9,48ab with its mention of the “bundle of bushwood” (RSV, AL fortíon zúlwn) which Abimelech “cuts down” (Josephus leaves aside both the source’s explicit reference to Abimelech’s felling the wood and its preceding detail about his “taking an axe in his hand”). 98. Compare 9,48ab (fine) “(Abimelech) took it (the bushwood bundle) up and laid it on his shoulder”. 99. This is Josephus’ condensed, indirect discourse version of Abimelech’s word as cited in 9,48b “And he said to the men who were with him, ‘What you have seen me do, make haste to do, as I have done’”. He likewise leaves aside the corresponding “execution notice” of 9,49aa “So every one of the people cut down his bundle and following Abimelech…”. 100. This term picks up on Josephus’ mention of the “strongly entrenched rock (pétran)” in 5,248. Both there and here in 5,249 the term substitutes for the source’s mention of “the stronghold (of the house of El-berith)”. 101. Compare 9,49ab «they set the stronghold on fire (AL ênepúrisan… ên purí) over them (i.e., the people of the Tower of Shechem)”. 160 C.T. BEGG the most inflammable materials, and raised an immense blaze (megístjn… flóga)”. He likewise embellishes the concise “casualty report” of 9,49b: “From that rock (pétrav) not a soul escaped102: they perished (âpÉlonto)103 with women and children104, the men numbering some fifteen hundred, and a great many of the rest105”. Thereupon, Josephus rounds off his version of Abimelech’s vengeance (5,243-250 // Judg 9,30-49) with a pathos-charged editorial comment: “Such was the calamity (sumforá) which befell (sunépese) the Shechemites, a calamity too profound for grief, save that it was a righteous doom (díkjn)106 for the conspirators of so foul a crime (kakòn tjlikoÕton) against a benefactor (ândròv eûergétou107)108”.

5. Abimelech’s Death Judg 9,50-57 (// Ant. 5,251-253) relates Abimelech’s own violent and igno- minious death at a site called “Thebez”. Josephus (5,251a) precedes his account of Abimelech’s assault on this locality with a transitional notice that plays up his status as an unbridled, bloodthirsty “tyrant” over all Israel (see 5,234b). This reads: “Abimelech, having terrorized (kataplßzav) the Israelites by the miserable fate (kako⁄v, see kakón, 5,250) of the Shechemites, let it be seen that he was aspiring higher (meihónwn êfiémenov)109 and would set no bound to his violence (bían)110 until he had exterminated (âpolésein)111 all”. There-

102. Compare 9,49b “so all the people of the Tower of Shechem also died…”. 103. This is the same form used by Josephus in 5,248a when speaking of the Shechemites all “perishing”. The repetition of the term underscores the common fate of Abimelech’s two sets of victims. 104. Josephus’ “un-Biblical” mention of “children” too being burnt alive by Abimelech accentuates the pathos of the happening (as well as the enormity of Abimelech’s deed). 105. In 9,49b the sum total of both men and women casualties is (only) “about a thou- sand”; Josephus’ formulation magnifies Abimelech’s atrocity with its indication that the number of victims was much higher. 106. On this term as a “central concept” of Josephus’ “theology”, see SCHLATTER, The- ologie (n. 45), 40-42. 107. The reference here, as MARCUS, Josephus (n. 2), V, p. 114 n. a points out, is to Gideon whose military endeavors on their behalf the Shechemites requited by abetting Abimelech in his killing of Gideon’s seventy sons (see Judg 9,4-5 // Ant. 5,233b-234a; 9,16-18 // 5,239a). 108. The above editorial remark might be seen as Josephus’ (delayed) version of the source statements in Judg 9,23-24: “And God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem… that the violence done to the seventy sons of Jerubbaal might come and their blood be laid… upon the men of Shechem who strengthened his (Abimelech’s) hands to slay his brothers”. Note, however, that Josephus “Hellenizes” the source’s wording here in 5,250 by substituting mention of the operation of impersonal powers (“misfortune”, “righteous doom”) for the former’s reference to God’s personal causality, see the discussion by Schlatter cited in n. 106. 109. Josephus’ two other uses of this phrase – both negative – are in BJ 2,590 (of John of Gischala, his arch-foe) and Ant. 9,198 (Jehoash of Israel warns Amaziah of Judah “not to reach for what is beyond you”). 110. On this term and its cognates in Josephus, see E. MOORE, BIAHW, ARPAHW and Cognates in Josephus, in NTS 21 (1974-75) 519-543. 111. This term echoes the form âpÉlonto used of Abimelech’s extermination of the two groups of Shechemites in 5,248 and 250, respectively. JOSEPHUS, Ant. 5,233-253 161 after, he reproduces 9,50’s notices on Abimelech’s dealings with his next intended victim: “So (oŒn)112 he marched against Thebes (‡ßbav, BL ‡jbßv, A ‡ebév)113 and carried the city with a rush (t®n… pólin êz êpidrom±v aïre⁄114)”. Judg 9,51-52 describes a further hostile initiative by Abimelech, i.e., his assault upon the city’s “tower” on whose roof the inhabitants had taken refuge and which he essays to “burn”. Josephus (5,251b) compresses: “but find- ing there a great tower (púrgou… megálou)115, wherein all the people (tò pl±‡ov)116 had taken refuge117, he made preparations to besiege it”118. Abimelech’s fatal wounding is briefly recounted in 9,53: a woman throws an “upper millstone” on the reprobate’s head which crushes his skull. The historian (5,252a) precedes this notice with language drawn from the end of 9,52 “and then, as he came rushing close beside the gates (t¬n pul¬n, LXX t±v ‡úrav)119, a woman hurled (baloÕsa, LXX ∂rricen) a fragment of a millstone (‡raús- mati múljv, LXX mía klásma múlou) and struck (tugxánei)120 him on the head (katà t±v kefal±v, LXX êpì [t®n] kefalßn)121”. Abimelech reacts to his wounding by summoning (9,54a) his armor-bearer to dispatch him so as to keep his death from being attributed to a woman. Once again, Josephus’ version replaces direct with indirect discourse: “Prostrated to earth (pesÉn), Abimelech besought (parekálei)122 his armour-bearer (tòn üpaspistßn)123 to slay (kteínein) him124, lest his death (ö ‡ánatov) be deemed the work of a woman125”. Judg 9,54b narrates the realization of Abimelech’s directive: “And his young man thrust him through and he died”. Josephus’ equivalent is less direct: “And he obeyed his request126”. The story of Abimelech’s demise ends up in Judg 9,55-56 first with mention of the dispersion of the slain leader’s forces (v. 55) and then a theological reflection of the author (vv. 56-57). Josephus reverses the sequence of the source’s concluding elements; thereby he directly appends the “moral” (// 9,56-57) he draws

112. With this particle Josephus closely links Abimelech’s new intiative to his previous general affirmation about the tyrant’s bloodthirsty aspirations, the former exemplifying the latter. 113. Here, exceptionally, Josephus does take over one of the source story’s proper place names. 114. Note, once again, the use of the historic present. 115. Compare púrgov… ôxuróv, AL Judg 9,51; púrgov îsxuróv, B. 116. Compare 9,51 “all the men and women and all the rulers (MT ilyb, AL oï ™goú- menoi, > B) of the city”. 117. Josephus omits the further details cited in 9,51, i.e., the inhabitants shut themselves up in the tower and repaired to its roof. 118. Compare 9,52 “And Abimelech came to the tower, and fought against it…”. 119. Josephus leaves aside the reason given in 9,52b for Abimelech’s approach to “the door of the tower”, i.e., to set the tower on fire. 120. Note the historic present. 121. Josephus leaves aside the additional gory detail of 9,53b about the blow breaking Abimelech’s skull. 122. 9,54 “he called (LXX êbójse) quickly (to his armor-bearer) and said to him…”. 123. Josephus’ only other use of the term üpaspistßv is in Ant. 19.76 where it has the meaning “bodyguard”. 124. 9,54 “Draw your sword and kill (LXX ‡anátwson) me”. 125. 9,54 “Lest they say ‘A woman killed (LXX âpékteinen) him’”. 126. Compare Josephus’ omission of the notice of 9,53b about the mill-stone crushing Abimelech’s skull, see n. 121. 162 C.T. BEGG from Abimelech’s demise to that event itself. In formulating the story’s “moral”, moreover, he once again takes care to eliminate the Bible’s evocation of God’s personal role in the course of events. His version reads thus: “Such was the penalty paid by Abimelech for the crime (paranomíav) that he perpetrated on his brethren (âdelfoúv)127 and for his outrageous treatment (t¬n tetolmj- ménwn)128 of the Shechemites129; and the fate which befell (sumforà sun- épese)130 these last fulfilled the prediction (katà t®n… manteían)131 of Jotham132”. To this reflection he attaches his “delayed” parallel to 9,55: “Abim- elech’s army133 on the fall (pesóntov)134 of their chief, dispersed (skedas‡én)135, and returned to their homes (êpì tà oîke⁄a, LXX eîv tòn tópon aûtoÕ)”.

Conclusions

In concluding this essay, I shall now attempt to briefly bring together its findings regarding the questions posed in the introduction. The first such question was that concerning the text-form(s) of Judges 9 available to Josephus. Hitherto, there has been no systematic investigation of Josephus’ Biblical text for the Book of Judges, scholars generally limiting themselves to vague surmises about his employment of a Judges “targum”136. Unfortunately, the findings of this essay

127. Compare Judg 9,56 “Thus God requited the crime (AL kakían, B ponjrían) which he committed against his father in killing his seventy brothers (LXX âdelfoúv)”. 128. Compare Josephus’ notice on John of Gischala in BJ 2,588 “(he was a brigand, who at the outset practised his trade alone), but afterwards found for his daring deeds (t±v tólmjv) accomplices…”. (In this connection recall that Abimelech too started out “on his own”, but eventually surrounded himself with followers who were “notorious for a multitude of crimes”, 5,234.) 129. This element has no equivalent in Judg 9,56-57. It does, however, serve appropri- ately to round off the indictment against Abimelech with its mention of his further misdeeds. 130. Recall Josephus’ use of this same phrase in the context of his “eulogy” for the Shechemites in 5,250. 131. This is Josephus’ only use of the above phrase. 132. Compare Judg 9,57 “And God also made the wickedness (AL kakían, B ponjrían) of the men of Shechem fall back upon their heads, and upon them came the curse (LXX katára) of Jotham the son of Jerubbaal”. Here in 5,253 Josephus has no equivalent to the evocation in 9,57 of the Shechemites’ “wickedness” which calls down divine punishment upon them. He has, however, “anticipated” the former element in his eulogy for the Shechemites in 5,250 (their death at Abimelech’s hands) was “a righteous doom for the conspirators of so foul a crime against a benefactor”. 133. This is Josephus’ (precising) replacement for the source phrase “the men of Israel”. Compare 5,251 where Abimelech is said to have “terrorized the Israelites” with the massacre of the Shechemites perpetrated by his men. 134. This term picks up the mention of Abimelech “prostrated to earth” (pesÉn) in 5,252. 135. This term ironically echoes Josephus’ earlier uses of the same verb in connection with the Shechemites “scattering” before the assault of Abimelech’s forces, see 5,247.248. The latter now end up in the same state of “dispersion” that they had earlier brought upon the Shechemites. 136. See FELDMAN, Mikra (n. 17), p. 462 and n. 30 with reference to H.St.J. Thackeray, S. Rappaport and A. Schalit. JOSEPHUS, Ant. 5,233-253 163 are not such as to really advance this discussion. In particular, given both the general convergence among the witnesses to Judges 9 (MT, LXX, TJ) and Jose- phus’ own quite free treatment of the story-line shared by all those witnesses is seems that one cannot go beyond a judgment of non liquet regarding the Biblical text-form(s) used by him in composing his Abimelech narrative. My investigation does yield more definite results concerning Josephus’ “rewriting techniques” in Ant. 5,233-253. On the stylistic level, we noted his recurrent substitution of indirect for the source’s direct discourse as well as his seven-fold use of the historic present where the LXX has a past form (see 5,246.247.251.252). With regard to content, Josephus’ reworking of the Abim- elech episode is characterized above all by his compression of the source’s quite circumstantial presentation of the course of events which – Josephus may have reckoned – readers might find tiresome. Such abridgement is particularly evident in the first three segments of the story as I divided it up above, i.e., the introduction of Abimelech (Judg 8,30–9,6 // Ant. 5,233-234); Jotham’s address (9,7-21 // 5,235-239); and the Shechemites vs. Abimelech (9,22-29 // 5,240-242). Under the abridgement/omission rubric I would further call particular attention to Josephus’ non-utilization of many of the place names of Judges 9, as well as his elimination of all that text’s mentions of the Deity. In several instances Josephus, we have noted, re-arranges the sequence of source material which he does retain, e.g., concerning Gideon’s progeny and death (Judg 8,30-32 // Ant. 5,232b-233a) or the notice on the withdrawal of Abimelech’s men with its appended editorial remarks (Judg 9,55-57 // Ant. 5,253). Over again his massive abridgements of the Biblical Abimelech narrative stand the historian’s occasional, smaller-scale additions to, or insertions within, its content. These personal contributions by Josephus are of various sorts. He supplies the Biblically anonymous concubine of Gideon with a name, i.e., Druma (5,233 // 8,31). Similarly, he provides an occasion for Jotham’s address, namely, “a public festival” (5,235, see the echo of this in 240; compare 9,7), just as he offers a localization of Garizin (”the mountain which rises above the city of Shechem”, 5,235 // 9,7). He has Jotham mention both the bramble’s useful quality (“it is good in giving wood for tinder”) and its acceptance of the offer of kingship (“it promised to undertake the office and act strenuously”, 5,238, compare 9,14-15). Josephus likewise interjects additional data concerning the figures of Gual (“one of the chiefs” of the Shechemites, 5,241 // 9,26) and Zabul (“an old friend of Abimelech”, 5,243 // 9,30). Subsequently, he motivates Zabul’s successful ejection of Gual from Shechem (“charging him with feebleness in his encounter with Abimelech’s troops”, 5,246 // 9,41) and explains Abimelech’s ease in capturing the city (“for it could not sustain a siege”, 5,248 // 9,45). Still later, he highlights the threat posed by Abimelech to the Israelites by inserting mention of his “terrorizing” them and “letting it be seen that he was aspiring higher and would set no bound to his violence until he had exterminated all” (5,251), and explicitly censures his “outrageous treatment of the Shechemites” (5,253). Related to Josephus’ amplification of the Biblical account are his modifications of its wording. Here too, the examples vary in their character and purpose. Abimelech is not made king by the Shechemites (so 9,6); rather, Abimelech takes the initiative in himself “transforming the government into a tyranny” (5,234). The falling-out between Abimelech and the Shechemites is attributed, not to a divine punishing intervention (so 9,23-24), but to the latter’s “repentance” 164 C.T. BEGG

(9.240). Subsequently, Josephus (5,250) does evoke the “higher power” opera- tive in the Shechemites’ destruction à la 9,23-24, but now the power in question is not the personal God, but the impersonal forces of “misfortune” and “righteous doom”. In several instances too Josephus rewords the source account so as to heighten the drama and pathos of what is being related, compare, e.g., 5,250 and 9,49 on Abimelech’s burning alive his second batch of victims. What now is the overall effect of Josephus’ application of the above rewriting techniques on his version of the Abimelech episode vis-à-vis its Biblical counter- part? In reply to this question I would single out two features of the Josephan account as especially distinctive. First, as a result of Josephus’ various additions and modifications (see above) Abimelech’s evil energy stands out even more strongly in his presentation than it does in Judges 9 itself such that Wellhausen’s above-cited dictum concerning the latter is still more applicable to the former. In addition, the evil “dynamo” Abimelech is so described by Josephus as to appear as a “type” of his own fiendish contemporary, John of Gischala137. Secondly, many of the techniques cited above (e.g., avoidance of obscure Palestinian place names, “de-theologizing” coupled with invocation of impersonal powers, height- ened drama and pathos, use of such key Greek political terms as “tyranny” [5,234] and “citizens” [5,247] all serve to further the “Hellenization” of the source story with a view to making it more readily accessible to Gentile readers. A last comment. How is it that Josephus allots no less than twenty paragraphs to the Abimelech story which certainly does not reflect particularly well on his people and which, accordingly, he might well have simply left aside, just as he does such other embarrassing Biblical incidents as the affair of the Golden Calf (Exodus 32)? Josephus’ readiness, in spite of everything, to accord so much room to the episode becomes understandable in light of several factors. For one thing, the Abimelech story is one which revolves around a civil war among “brothers” (see 5,234.253), a subject which preoccupied Josephus in light of his own expe- riences in the Revolt and to which he introduces numerous allusions in various contexts of Ant.138. Still more generally, the Biblical tale of two sets of evildoers so spectacularly requited provides, Josephus would have perceived, an impressive exemplification of the overall moral of his work as articulated in 1,14 “… in proportion as men depart from the strict observance of these (God’s) laws, things (else) practicable become impracticable and whatever imaginary good thing they strive to do ends in irretrievable disasters (sumforáv)”139.

Catholic University of America Christopher BEGG Washington, D.C. 20064, U.S.A.

137. On the verbal contacts between Josephus’ presentations of Abimelech in Ant. and of John in BJ, see nn. 15, 17, 109, 128. Note further that Josephus presents other reprobate Biblical characters in terms reminiscent of his depiction of John in BJ, e.g., David’s general Joab (see L.H. FELDMAN, Josephus’ Portrait of Joab, in Estudios Bíblicos 51 [1993] 323-351, 332-349) and Ishmael, the slayer of Gedaliah (see L.H. FELDMAN, Jose- phus’ Portrait of Gedaliah, in Shofar 12 [1993] 1-10, 5-7; C.T. BEGG, The Gedaliah Episode and its Sequels in Josephus, forthcoming in JSP). 138. On the point, see FELDMAN, Joab (n. 137), 335-337. 139. Recall Josephus’ use of this term in connection with his editorial remarks on the destruction of both the Shechemites (5,250) and of Abimelech himself (5,253).