David's Provisions for the Temple According to Josephus

9471-06_ETL2006-4_06 22-12-2006 15:36 Pagina 453

David’s Provisions for the Temple According to Josephus

Christopher T. BEGG Catholic University of America, Washington

As part of his extended account (1 Chronicles 22-29) of the smooth and easy transition from the reign of David to that of Solomon, the Chronicler in 1 Chron- icles 22 relates various measures taken by David on behalf of the temple that he leaves his son to build1. In this essay I shall examine Josephus’ rendition of 1 Chronicles 22 in Antiquitates judaicae (hereafter Ant.) 7.335-3422. My investigation aims, first of all, to ascertain what can be learned about the text-form(s) of 1 Chronicles 22 used by Josephus3. Secondly, it seeks to identify the kinds of rewriting techniques Josephus applies to the data of Chronicles and the distinctiveness of his rendering that results from their application. Finally, my essay will compare Josephus’ handling of 1 Chronicles 22 with its treatment by another postbiblical Jewish historian, i.e. Eupolemus4. For purposes of my comparison, I divide up the material of 1 Chronicles 22 and Ant. 7.335-342 into four parallel segments as follows: (1) David’s census and collection (22,2-4, etc. // 7.335); (2) David’s declaration (22,5 // 7.336); (3) David addresses Solomon (22,6-16 // 7.337-340); and (4) David addresses leaders (22,17-19 // 7.341-342).

1. The account given in 1 Kings 1–2 of Solomon’s succeeding David is very different, marked as it is by intrigue and violence. Josephus weaves together elements of both presentations in his narrative of Solomon’s succession in Ant. 7.335-8.21a. 2. For the text and translation of Ant. 7.335-342 I use R. MARCUS, Josephus V (LCL), Cambridge, MA – London, 1934, pp. 540-545. See also the relevant text, translation and notes of E. NODET, Les Antiquités juives. Livres VI et VII, Paris, 2001, pp. 226-228* as well as the annotated translation of C.T. BEGG, Flavius Josephus Judean Antiquities 5–7, Leiden, 2005, pp. 297-299. 3. In pursuing this question I shall concentrate on comparing Josephus’ rendition with three major witnesses for the text of 1 Chronicles 22, i.e. MT (BHS; 1 Chronicles 22 is not extant in the Qumran material), Codex Vaticanus (hereafter B; see A.E. BROOKE – N. MACLEAN – H.ST.J. THACKERAY, The Old Testament in Greek 2:2 I and II Chronicles, Cambridge, 1930, pp. 454-455) and the Antiochene or Lucianic (hereafter L) manuscripts of the LXX (see N. FERNÁNDEZ MARCOS – J.R. BUSTO SAIZ, El Texto antioqueno de la Biblia griega III. 1-2 Crónicas [TECC, 60], Madrid, 1996, pp. 55-56). 4. Eupolemus’ relevant work On The Kings of Judaea, dating likely from the middle of the second century B.C., has come down to us in quotations by Alexander Polyhistor that are themselves preserved in the Praeparatio evangelica (hereafter Praep. ev.) of Eusebius. The passage of interest for our study is Praep. ev. 9.30.5-7. I use the translation of this passage by F. FALLON, in J.H. CHARLESWORTH (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha II, Garden City, NY, 1985, 866-867. For a detailed study of the passage in relation to the biblical parallel, see B.Z. WACHOLDER, Eupolemus. A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature, Cincinnati, OH, 1974, pp. 145-150. 9471-06_ETL2006-4_06 22-12-2006 15:36 Pagina 454

454 C.T. BEGG

DAVID’S CENSUS AND COLLECTION

1 Chr 22,2a moves rather abruptly to a new initiative by David, i.e. his num- bering of the aliens, following the account of the king’s ill-advised census of his own people (1 Chr 21,1–22,1)5 that ends (22,1) with his designating the newly acquired threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite as the site of the future temple. Josephus (7.335a) takes care to establish a smoother transition between the two items: “After receiving this prophecy (profßteian)6, the king ordered the aliens (toùv paroíkouv; compare MT 22,2 jirge; LXX BL toùv prosjlútouv7), and there were found to be one hundred and eighty thousand 8”. In 22,2b David pro- ceeds to assign an unspecified number of “stonecutters” to prepare the stones that will be used in the temple’s construction. Josephus’ version (7.335b) expatiates on this notice in light of his preceding addition concerning the outcome of David’s census of the aliens: “Of these, he designated eighty thousand to be stonecutters9,

5. A second, earlier version of David’s census of the Israelites, differing in many details from that of the Chronicler is found in 2 Samuel 24. Josephus’ rendering of the episode appears in Ant. 7.318-335, on which see C.T. BEGG, Josephus’ Version of David’s Census, in Henoch 16 (1994) 199-226. 6. With this phrase (I italicize such elements that lack a counterpart in 1 Chronicles 22) Josephus harks back to his version of 1 Chr 22,1 (“Then David said, ‘Here shall be the house of the Lord God and here the altar of burnt offering for Israel’”) in Ant. 7.337 (“Then, David … resolved to call that entire place the altar of the people and to build a temple to God; and in uttering this word he came close to foretelling what was later to happen, for God sent a prophet [tòn profßtjn] to say that in this place a temple would be built by the son who was destined to succeed him on the throne”). As will be noted, in this formulation Josephus has the Chronistic David’s decision about the site of the future temple confirmed by an anonymous prophet. This Josephan addition has a certain counterpart in Eupolemus (apud Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.30.5), where in response to David’s request that God show him a place for the altar, the Deity dispatches a angel – subsequently named, in an apparent confusion with the biblical prophet Nathan as “Dianathan” – who informs the kingthat he himself is not to built the temple in view of the blood he has shed in his wars (see 1 Chr 22,8). 7. It is noteworthy that Josephus in his vast corpus never uses this LXX term. His avoidance of the term may reflect his awareness of Roman sensibilities about current Jewish proselytism, on which see L.H. FELDMAN, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible, Berkeley, CA, 1998, pp. 158-160. 8. 1 Chr 22,2 leaves the number of aliens that David’s census brought to light unspecified. In filling this source gap Josephus draws, as MARCUS, Josephus V (n. 2), pp. 540-541 n. b points out, on biblical data given in connection with Solomon’s organizing both Israelites and foreigners for his temple-building project. Specifically, Josephus apparently arrived at his figure for the aliens counted by David by combining the total for Solomon’s forced levy of all Israel (30,000) cited in 1 Kgs 5,27 [MT] with that for his “burden bearers” (70,000) and “hewers of stone” (80,000) according to 5,29 (MT). (Josephus reutilizes these figures in his version of 1 Kgs 5,27ff. in Ant. 8.58-59). Cf. also 2 Chr 2,1 (= 2,17), where Solomon’s census of the aliens, conducted as a followup to that undertaken by David, yields a total of 153,600 persons. 9. Josephus derives his figure for David’s stonecutters from 1 Kgs 5,29 (MT) where it appears in connection with Solomon’s organization of his labor force; see previous note. (The same figure appears in the Chronicler’s anticipated version of 1 Kgs 5,29 in 2 Chr 2,1 [MT], itself reiterated in 2,17 [MT]). 9471-06_ETL2006-4_06 22-12-2006 15:36 Pagina 455

DAVID’S PROVISIONS FOR THE TEMPLE ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS 455

and the rest of their number to carry the stones10; and three thousand five hundred of them he set over the workmen11”. David’s provisions for the temple continue in 1 Chr 22,3-4 as he assembles two types of metals (iron and bronze) as well as cedar timber to be used in its construction. The historian (7.335c) reproduces the basic content of the biblical materials list, while modifying various of its details: “He also collected a great quantity of iron12 and bronze for the work, and many cedar-trees of very great size, sent to him by the Sidonians and the Tyrians13, from whom he had ordered a supply of the wood14”.

DAVID’S DECLARATION

Having assembled the materials cited in 22,3-4, David next makes a statement (22,5a) concerning his rationale for doing this. The Josephan version (7.336), e.g., supplies an addressee for the king’s declaration, while also rearranging and elaborating its components. It reads: And he told his friends15 that he was preparing these things now, in order that he might leave the materials for the building of the temple (toÕ naoÕ16)

10. 1 Kgs 5,29 (= 2 Chr 2,1 and 17) specifies that Solomon deployed 70,000 burden bearers. Josephus, in this instance, does not supply a total for the contingent. If, however, one subtracts the two numbered divisions of 7.335b (i.e. 80,000 stonecutters and 3,500 overseers) from the 180,000 aliens spoken of in 7.335a, one arrives at a total of 96,500 “carriers”. 11. Josephus’ total for David’s overseers corresponds to that given for Solomon’s fore- men in Codex Alexandrinus (A) of 3 Rgns 5,19. Other witnesses for the figure read 3,300 (MT 1 Kgs 5,30), 3,6000 (LXX B 3 Rgns 5,19 and MT LXX 2 Chr 2,1= 2,17), and 3,700 (LXX L 3 Rgns 5,19). In Ant. 8.59 Josephus gives a figure (3,300) for Solomon’s overseers that corresponds to the MT reading in 1 Kgs 5,30. Accordingly, E. NODET, Flavius Josèphe IV: Livres VIII et IX, Paris, 2005, p. 226 n. 2, suggests that the correspondence between the historian’s figure in 7.335 and that of LXX A 3 Rgns 5,19 is the result of a scribal harmo- nization. 12. Josephus leaves aside the specification of 22,3 that the iron was “for nails for the doors of the gates and for clamps”. 13. Josephus reverses the order in which David’s two suppliers are cited in 22,4. 14. In 1 Chr 22,4 the Sidonians and Tyrians supply David with large quantities of cedar wood. Josephus appends an explanation of the occasion for their doing this, i.e. the “order” they receive from David. Eupolemus (apud Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.30.6) has the angel [Dianathan; see n. 6] direct David to assemble a number of additional items beyond those cited by the Bible and Josephus, i.e. gold, silver, bronze, stones, cypress and cedar trees (I italicize “unbiblical” items in this list). Conversely, however, Eupolemus’ catalogue omits the “iron” that appears in both the biblical and Josephan lists. This omission might have in view the notice of 1 Kgs 6,7b (cf. Ant. 8.60) that “neither hammer nor axe nor tool of iron was heard in the temple, while it was being built”; see the discussion in WACHOLDER, Eupolemus (n. 4), pp. 146-147. 15. In 22,5a David simply “says”, with no indication as to whom. Also elsewhere, Josephus often introduces mention of the Hellenistic court category of the royal “friends” where the Bible lacks this; see C.T. BEGG, Josephus’ Account of the Early Divided Monar- chy (AJ 8,212-420) (BETL, 108), Leuven, 1993, p. 16 n. 54. 16. These words, absent in the codices RO and the Latin translation, are omitted by B. NIESE in his edition. They are, however, retained by both MARCUS and NODET. 9471-06_ETL2006-4_06 22-12-2006 15:36 Pagina 456

456 C.T. BEGG

ready17 for the son who was destined to reign after him, who would thus not have to procure them when he would still be a youth and inexperienced (néov … kaì … ãpeirov18) because of his age19, but would have them at hand to complete the work20.

DAVID ADDRESSES SOLOMON

The core unit within 1 Chronicles 22 comprises David’s extended address to Solomon cited in vv. 6-15; Josephus’ parallel is 7.337-340. The new segment opens in 22,6 with the king summoning his son and charging him to “build a house (LXX BL o¤kon) for the Lord, the God of Israel”. Josephus (7.337a) simplifies the source designation of the Deity, while also spelling out when Solomon is to undertake his task: “Then he called his son Solomon and bade him build the temple (naón) to God21 after he should have succeeded to the throne…”.

17. Josephus has David commence his declaration with the above expansion of the king’s closing words in 22,5ag: “I will therefore make preparation for it [i.e. the temple that is to built]”. 18. With this collocation compare King Abijah’s characterization of his predecessor Rehoboam as ândrì néwç kaì demagogíav âpeírwç in Ant. 8.278. 19. Josephus elaborates on the opening words of David’s statement in 22,5 with their mention of Solomon’s being “young and inexperienced” (LXX BL paidárion äpalón). The (“unbiblical”) chronological data supplied by Josephus in Ant. 8.211, i.e. he died at age 94 after reigning 80 (1 Kgs 11,42 // 2 Chr 9,30: 40) years, would make him 14 at his accession. (According to Eupolemus [apud Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.30.8] Solomon acceded at age 12). 20. This reiteration by David of his opening statement concerning the purpose of his assembling the materials takes the place of the (additional) rationale behind his collection cited by him 22,5ab, “and the house that is to be built for the Lord must be exceedingly magnificent, of fame and glory through all the lands (MT LXX L; LXX B: land)”. Josephus omits the summarizing notice, rounding off the whole sequence 22,2-5a of 22,5b (“So David provided materials in great quantity before his death”) which might appear repetitious of what has been said in 22,3-4. In contrast to Josephus, Eupolemus (apud Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.30.7) tells of how David amassed the various commodities that would be needed by Solomon (and are enumerated in 9.30.6; see n. 14): “… David built ships in Elana [Bible: Elath], a city of Arabia, and sent miners to the island of Urphe [Bible: Ophir], which lies in the Red Sea, and has gold mines. From there the miners transported the gold to Judea”. Eupolemus’ likely source of inspiration for this notice is the account of Solomon’s nautical expedition as related in 1 Kgs 9,26-28 // 2 Chr 8,17-18 (cf. Ant. 8.163-164). Here then one observes a parallel, on Eupolemus’ part, to Josephus’ reapplication of biblical data concerning Solomon to David as seen in 7.335 where the Bible’s figures for Solomon’s census of the aliens are cited in connection with David’s census. 21. From David’s formulation in 22,6 Josephus’ omits both his mention of “the Lord” and his qualification of “God” as “of Israel”. The latter omission eliminates the “particu- laristic” restriction on the Deity. On Josephus’ virtually complete avoidance of the biblical divine title “the Lord” (LXX Kúriov) – given, it would seem, that title’s non-currency in secular Greek – see BEGG, Josephus’ Account (n. 15), p. 45 n. 218. In Eupolemus (apud Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.30.6) the angel/prophet “Dianathan” (see n. 6) commands David “to entrust the building [of the temple] to his son”, but David is not said to have done so – as he does in the Bible and Josephus. 9471-06_ETL2006-4_06 22-12-2006 15:36 Pagina 457

DAVID’S PROVISIONS FOR THE TEMPLE ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS 457

In 22,7 David switches to direct address in telling Solomon of his own heart- felt desire to build the temple. Josephus’ version (7.337b) retains the indirect discourse employed by the king in 22,6 (and his own 7.337a)22: “… telling him that he himself had wished to do so…”. The king continues in 22,8 with a (direct address) quotation of a divine word prohibiting him from undertaking the project, given the bloodshed and wars in which he has been involved. The historian eliminates David’s invocation of “the word of the Lord”23 and condenses the content of that word into a brief, indirect discourse phrase: “… but God had prevented (kwlúseien)24 him because of his being stained with blood shed in war”. The divine prohibition cited by David in 22,8 becomes in 22,9 a positive announcement concerning the son Solomon who will follow him and whose person and reign will be characterized by enduring “peace” (Hebrew jvl‹). Josephus’ reproduction (7.337c) of this portion of David’s address elaborates, inter alia, with items drawn from a later point in the biblical king’s discourse: “He [God] had also foretold that his youngest (neÉtatov25) son Solomon would build Him a temple (oîkodomßsei tòn naòn26)27 and should be called by this name28, and promised to watch over him like a father (pronoßsein … Üv patßr)29 and

22. On Josephus’ penchant for converting biblical direct address into indirect, see BEGG, Josephus’ Account (n. 15), pp. 12-13 n. 38. He will, however, have switch David to direct address in the continuation of his words to Solomon; see 7.338. 23. Josephus virtually always reformulates biblical mentions of the divine “word”. As in the case of his avoidance of “Lord” as a designation for the Deity (see n. 21), the reason would seem to be that such a usage was not current in secular Greek; see BEGG, Josephus’ Account (n. 15), p. 20 n. 90. 24. Josephus uses the verb kwlúw with the Deity as subject with some frequency; see BEGG, Josephus’ Account (n. 15), p. 24 n. 126. See, e.g., Ant. 7.371 where, in a reminis- cence of his words to Solomon here in 7.337, David informs the Israelite leaders, that “God through the prophet Nathan has kept me (êkÉluse) from doing so” (i.e. building the temple as he had desired). In both instances, the reference is to Nathan’s intervention blocking David’s intended initiative as related in 2 Samuel 7 // 1 Chronicles 17 // Ant. 7.90- 95, on which text, see C.T. BEGG, The Dynastic Promise according to Josephus, in Sacris Erudiri 39 (2000) 5-19. 25. S. NABER conjectures sunetÉtatov; the conjecture is rejected by both MARCUS and NODET as unnecessary. The above form echoes the use of the word néov in David’s characterization of Solomon in 7.336. 26. The words tòn naón are absent in the codices RO and omitted by NIESE; MARCUS and NODET retain them. See the similar case cited in n. 16. 27. Josephus anticipates this portion of David’s citation of God’s word to him from 22,10aa: “He [Solomon] shall build a house for my name”. 28. This interjected reference to God’s conferral of the name “Solomon” on David’s successor harks back to Ant. 7.93 where Josephus’ Nathan, in contrast to his biblical counterpart in 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Chronicles 17, discloses to the king the name by which his promised son is to be known. 29. This formulation is Josephus’ anticipated rendition of the divine promise cited by David in 22,10ab: “he [the son] shall be my son, and I shall be his father”. The announcement echoes Nathan’s statement to David in Ant. 7.93 (see 2 Sam 7,14a // 1 Chr 17,13a): “… whom [Solomon] He [God] promised to watch over and care for as a father (pronoß- sein Üv patßr) for his son…”. The verb pronoéw, used of God’s promised paternal “care” for Solomon in both 7.93 and 7.337, is a cognate of the noun prónoia, a key term of Josephus’ theological vocabulary, on which see H.W. ATTRIDGE, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (HDR, 7), Missoula, 9471-06_ETL2006-4_06 22-12-2006 15:36 Pagina 458

458 C.T. BEGG

bring prosperity (eûdaímona)30 to the country of the Hebrews31 in his reign, with, among other things, the greatest of all blessings, namely peace (eîrßnjÇ) and freedom from war (polémwn âpallag±Ç)32 and civil dissension (stásewn êmfulíwn33)34”. David’s citation (22,7-10) of God’s word to him as part of his own address to Solomon concludes in 22,10b with a quotation of the divine promise “I [God] will establish his royal throne in Israel for ever”. Given the eventual deposition of the Davidic-Solomonic dynasty (and contemporary Roman concerns about its revival)35, Josephus reformulates at the start of 7.338: “‘There- fore’, he said, ‘since, even before your birth, you36 were chosen by God to be king…’”. To David’s allusion to God’s pre-natal choice of Solomon (cf. 22,10b), Josephus, in the continuation of 7.338, attaches a paternal exhortation, inspired by (and anticipated from) the king’s words in 22,13b (“be strong, and of good courage. Fear not; be not dismayed”). The king’s exhortation according to Josephus (in which David summons Solomon to exhibit three of the four cardinal virtues) reads: “… endeav- our to be worthy of his providence (pronoíav37)38 by being pious (eûsebßv)39,

MT, 1976, pp. 71-106; P. SPILSBURY, The Image of the Jew in Flavius Josephus’ Para- phrase of the Bible (TSAJ, 69), Tübingen, 1998, pp. 73-74; T. JONQUIÈRE, Prayer in Jose- phus (Dissertation Utrecht), 2005, pp. 78-79. 30. This term is the adjectival cognate of the noun eûdaimonía, a key term of Greek ethical thought that is much (76 times) used also by Josephus, although it never appears in the LXX; see H.-F. WEISS, Pharisäismus und Hellenismus. Zur Darstellung des Judentums im Geschichtswerk des jüdischen Historikers Flavius Josephus, in OLZ 74 (1979) 421-433, c. 427. 31. On Josephus’ usage of the term “Hebrews” to designate his people at various points of their history, see G. HARVEY, The True Israel: Uses of the Names Jew, Hebrew, and Israel in Ancient Jewish and Early Christian Literature (AGJU, 35), Leiden, 1996, pp. 124-129. 32. This phrase occurs only here in Josephus’ corpus. 33. This phrase occurs (in the singular) also in Ant. 4.294 and 5.231. On Josephus’ preoccupation, generated by his own experiences during the Revolt, with the problem of intra-Jewish “stasis”, and the reflections of this throughout his version of biblical history in the Antiquities, see FELDMAN, Josephus’s Interpretation (n. 7), pp. 140-142. 34. The above divine assurance of tranquility during Solomon’s reign as cited by David is Josephus’ adaptation of the king’s quotation of God’s promise to him in 22,9abb: “he [Solomon] shall be a man of peace. I [God] will give him peace [LXX BL eîrßnjn] and quiet to Israel in his days”. Josephus does not attempt to reproduce the biblical wordplay between the name “Solomon” and the noun jvl‹ found in (MT) 22,9. 35. On Josephus’ downplaying of “messianism” in his retelling of biblical history out of deference to such concerns, see FELDMAN, Josephus’s Interpretation (n. 7), pp. 148- 157. 36. At this juncture, Josephus shifts from the indirect discourse that he used for the earlier part of David’s address to Solomon to direct discourse; see n. 22. 37. See the verbal form (with God as subject) pronoßesien in 7.337; cf. n. 29. 38. This general opening exhortation has no equivalent as such in David’s words to Solomon in 22,6-16; cf., however, 22,13a where Solomon is promised that he “will prosper” if he keeps the laws of Moses. Such “prospering” would be the expected result of Solomon’s proving worthy of God’s “providence”. 39. On Solomon’s “piety” in Josephus’ overall portrait of him, see FELDMAN, Jose- phus’s Interpretation (n. 7), pp. 593-602. 9471-06_ETL2006-4_06 22-12-2006 15:36 Pagina 459

DAVID’S PROVISIONS FOR THE TEMPLE ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS 459

just (díkaiov)40 and brave (ândre⁄ov)41”. Continuing his rearrangement of David’s discourse, Josephus next (7.338c) apppends to his version of 22,13b a rendering of the king’s invocation of the Mosaic law as found in 22,12b-13a: “keep the commandments and the laws (êntoláv … kaì nómouv)42 which He [God] gave us through Moses43, and do not permit others to transgress them44”. The biblical David concludes his address to Solomon in 22,13b-16 with a renewed focus on the latter’s temple-building task. This closing segment opens with a series of imperatives (v. 13b) summoning Solomon to courageous resoluteness in accomplishing his task. Josephus, who has anticipated David’s calling Solomon to courage in 7.338 (see above), now (7.339a) makes more expansive use of the appeal sequence of v. 13b: “as for the temple which He has decreed shall be made for Him in your reign45, take pains to complete it for God, and do not be dismayed at the magnitude of the labour, nor shrink (âpodeiliásav)46 from it…47”. In 22,14aba (cf. 22,2-4) David enumerates the various materials he has amassed for the temple’s construction. Josephus’ rendition interjects (7.339b) a transitional phrase that links the following listing to the king’s foregoing admo- nitions to fearlessness on Solomon’s part as its motivation: “… for I shall make everything ready for you before my death”. The historian then continues (7.340a) with his version of the catalogue of 22,14: “You should, indeed, know that ten thousand talents of gold48 and one hundred thousand talents of silver49 have

40. On the “justice” of the Josephan Solomon, see FELDMAN, Josephus’s Interpretation (n. 7), pp. 590-593. 41. This is the only component in the Josephan David’s catalogue of the virtues that he calls Solomon to exhibit which has an equivalent in the former’s exhortation of 22,13b (see LXX BL’s verb ândríhou at the start of this sequence). On the “courage” of the Josephan Solomon, see FELDMAN, Josephus’s Interpretation (n. 7), pp. 588-589. The above adjectival triad (“pious, just, brave”) occurs only here in Josephus’ corpus. 42. Josephus’ one other use of this collocation is in Ant. 7.384 (also in an address by David to Solomon). 43. With this formulation, Josephus conflates the double allusion to the Mosaic legisla- tion found in 22,12b (“… that you may keep the law [LXX BL nómon] of the Lord your God”) and 13a (“[you will prosper if you are careful] to observe the statutes and the commandments [LXX BL prostágmata kaì … krímata] which the Lord commanded Moses for Israel”). 44. In 22,12-13 David speaks only of Solomon’s personal observance of the law. Josephus’ king reminds him of his responsibility to enforce adherence to the law by his subjects as well. 45. This inserted transitional phrase harks back to David’s earlier (7.337) reference to God’s “foretelling that his youngest son Solomon would build Him a temple…”. The insertion likewise serves to make clear from the start that David’s following exhortations to Solomon have a particular object in view, i.e. the building of the temple. 46. Josephus’ two remaining uses of the verb âpodeilíaw are in BJ 7.339 and Ant. 19.154. 47. David’s exhortations in 22,13b conclude with a double negative admonition: “fear not, be not dismayed”. Josephus’ version spells out what it is Solomon is not to fear or be dismayed about, i.e. the immensity of his temple-building task. 48. 1 Chr 22,14 (MT and LXX) reads a much higher figure for the gold accumulated by David, i.e. 100,000 talents. 49. As with the accumulated gold (see previous note), the various witnesses for 22,14 read a considerably higher figure for the silver stockpiled by David, i.e. 1,000,000 talents. 9471-06_ETL2006-4_06 22-12-2006 15:36 Pagina 460

460 C.T. BEGG

already been collected, and that I have brought together more bronze and iron than can be reckoned, and a limitless quantity of wood and stone50”. To his enumeration of the items assembled by him (22,14aba) David appends the exhortation of 22,14bb (“to these you must add”), and then continues (22,15- 16a) with a list of the various categories of workers available to Solomon. Jose- phus (7.340b) reverses this sequence, likewise abbreviating the listing of 22,15- 16a: “You also have many tens of thousands51 of stone-cutters and carpenters52, and whatever else is needed you yourself will add53”. Having informed Solomon of the available resources for the temple’s construction, David rounds off (22,16b) his entire discourse with a final exhortation and assurance (“Arise and be doing! The Lord [be] with you”). Josephus (7.340c) recasts both these concluding elements in his own words: “Be, then, most brave (ãristov)54, for you have God as your protector (prostátjn)55”.

DAVID ADDRESSES LEADERS

Following his extended address to Solomon in 22,6-16, David discourses, more briefly, to the Israelite leaders in 22,17-19. The latter segment opens (22,17) with an indirect discourse directive by David “commanding all the leaders of Israel to help Solomon”. The Josephan equivalent to this notice (7.341a) spells out the nature of the “help” David enjoins be given his son: “He further exhorted (prosparekeleúsato)56 the chiefs of the people (ãrxontav toÕ laoÕ; compare LXX BL 22,17 ãrxousin ˆIsraßl) to assist his son in the building…”.

In both cases, one is left with the question of whether Josephus had before him a biblical text that differed from those known to us or rather himself reduced what might seem the excessive amounts cited in his Vorlage(n) (as NODET, ad loc. suggests). The fact that elsewhere Josephus tends to magnify biblical references to his people’s wealth in response to contemporary canards about Jewish impecuniousness (on which see L.H. FELDMAN, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible [JSJSup, 58], Leiden, 1998, p. 547), militates in favor of the former possibility. 50. For this portion of David’s catalogue Josephus closely follows 22,14: “… bronze and iron beyond weighing, for there is so much of it; timber and stone too I have provided”. In the preceding catalogues of items assembled by David in both the Bible (22,3-4) and Josephus (7.335) his collecting of stone is not mentioned – as it is in 22,14 // 7.340. 51. The opening words of 1 Chr 22,15 speak more generally of “an abundance of workers”. 52. Josephus reduces the four categories of workers cited in 22,15-16a (“stonecutters, masons, carpenters, and all kinds of craftsmen without number, skilled in gold, silver, bronze and iron”) to two. 53. Compare 22,14bb: “To these you [Solomon] must add”. As noted above, Josephus repositions his equivalent to this phrase so that what Solomon is called on to augment is not only the material, but also the labor-force provided to him by David. 54. Compare 7.338 where Solomon is urged to be ândre⁄ov. 55. The title prostátjv is used of God also in Ant. 2.122; 4.185; 7.380. In Ant. 7.376 the term is applied to Solomon himself as the God-designated “patron” of the temple- building and the kingdom. On the term, see JONQUIÈRE, Prayer (n. 29), p. 123. 56. Josephus’ one other use of the verb prosparekeleúomai is in Ant. 7.222. 9471-06_ETL2006-4_06 22-12-2006 15:36 Pagina 461

DAVID’S PROVISIONS FOR THE TEMPLE ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS 461

Shifting now to direct discourse, David continues his speech to the leaders in 22,18-19 with two rhetorical questions (v. 18a) followed by a double affirmation (v. 18b), and a pair of exhortations, coupled with a statement of purpose (v. 19). Jose- phus (7.341b-342a) has the king proceed in indirect discourse (see n. 22), likewise “scrambling” the content of vv. 18 and 19: “… without fear of any evil57 to devote themselves (âsxole⁄n)58 to the worship of God (perì t®n toÕ qeoÕ qrjskeían)59, saying that as a reward for this they would enjoy peace and order (eîrßnjn kaì eûnomían)60, with which God repays pious and just (eûsebe⁄v kaì dikaíouv)61 men62. And he gave orders that, when the temple was built, Solomon should deposit in it the ark and the holy vessels (tà †gia skeúj)…63”. To his version of David’s speech to the leaders (22,16-19) Josephus attaches (7.342b) a statement by the king about why the sacred objects have hitherto lacked the temple that is now to be built. The statement reads: “… (the ark and vessels) which should long since have had a temple, if our fathers had not disobeyed God’s command (t¬n êntol¬n; cf. tàv êntoláv, 7.338) to build a temple to Him after they had taken possession of this land 64”. Finally, he

57. This phrase has no equivalent as such in 22,18. It might, however, be seen as the implication to be drawn from David’s rhetorical questions (“Is not the Lord your God with you? And has he not given you peace on every side?”, v. 18a) and affirmations (“For he has delivered the inhabitants of the land into my [David’s] hand; and the land is subdued before the Lord and his people”, v. 18b) there. 58. This is the reading, corresponding to the Lat translation (vacare), of the editio princeps which MARCUS adopts. NODET, by contrast, follows the reading of the codices, i.e. eûsxole⁄n and translates “… consacrer leurs loisirs (au culte de Dieu)”. The verb âsxoléw occurs also in BJ 4.375 and Ant. 11.20, while eûsxoléw is used in BJ 3.279; Ant. 5.125; 8.52; 13.265 as well. In Ant. 13.134 the witnesses and editions are divided as to which verb is to be read, just as they are here in 7.341. 59. This element of David’s address to the leaders reads like an (anticipated) adaptation of the exhortation of 22,19a: “Now set your mind and heart to seek the Lord your God”. On the term qrjskeía (and the cognate adjective qrjskóv) in Greek literature generally, see C. SPICQ, Notes de Lexicographie néo-testamentaire I (OBO, 22/1), Freibourg – Göttingen, 1978, pp. 379-383. 60. This collocation occurs only here in Josephus. Compare God’s promise for Solomon as cited by David in 7.337 of “the greatest of all blessings, namely peace (eîrßnjÇ) and freedom from war and civil dissension”. 61. This collocation echoes David’s exhortation to Solomon to be eûseb®v … kaì díkaiov in 7.338. 62. In 22,18 the peace and security of which David speaks is something that Israel has already achieved. Josephus’ rendition turns that existing state into a possibility offered to Israel for its future. The Josephan David’s affirmation on the matter recalls the moral of his entire work that the historian sets out in Ant. 1.20, i.e. “… God … grants to such as follow Him a life of bliss (eûdíamona bíon)…”. 63. Compare David’s concluding words to the elders in 22,19b: “Arise and built the sanctuary of the Lord God, so that the ark of the covenant of the Lord and the holy vessels (LXX tà skeúj tà †gia) of God may be brought into a house built for the name of the Lord”. Josephus’ version specifies that the “bringing in” of the sacral objects is to be done by Solomon, thereby enhancing his stature. 64. Such a command is implicit in the centralization law(s) of Deuteronomy 12 where, once Israel is in secure possession of its land, all sacrifices are to be offered as the one place designated by God. David’s affirmation here in 7.342 has a more precise counterpart earlier in Josephus’ own presentation; see Ant. 4.200 (Moses enjoins that following the 9471-06_ETL2006-4_06 22-12-2006 15:36 Pagina 462

462 C.T. BEGG

rounds off the whole sequence 7.337-342b with its double address by David, first to Solomon and then to the leaders, via the closing formula of 7.342c (“Such, then, were the words which David addressed to the leaders and to his son”) that concludes his rendition of the first part (1 Chronicles 22) of the Chronicler’s account of Solomon’s accession which he will resume in 7.363- 382 (// 1 Chronicles 23–29) following the interlude (7.343-362) that reproduces the content of the very different succession story told in 1 Kings 1.

CONCLUSION

Here at the end of my essay I return to its opening questions in order to summarize my findings concerning them. On the first, text-critical question, this study yielded quite limited results – understandably so given both the wide- going agreement between MT and LXX 1 Chronicles 22 and the historian’s own paraphrasing approach to his Vorlage(n). We did, however, note that the figure supplied by him for the overseers in 7.335 (i.e. 3,500) agrees with the LXX A 3 Rgns 5,19 total (see n. 11), while the amounts cited for the gold and silver amassed by David in 7.340 could point to Josephus’ use of a text of 1 Chr 22,14 different from those known to us (see nn. 49, 50)65. More can be said about my second question concerning the rewriting techniques used by Josephus in 7.335-342 and the distinctiveness of his version that results from their use. In the course of this investigation, I identified four (inter-related) rewriting techniques applied by Josephus to the biblical data, i.e. additions/expansions, omissions/abbreviations, rearrangements, and (other) modifications. Josephus’ amplifications of the Chronicler’s presentation occur throughout his version. They include, e.g., the opening transitional phrase in 7.335, the results of David’s census of the aliens provided in 7.335b (compare 22,2), mention of David’s “ordering” of timber from the Phoenicians (compare 7.335c and 22,4), the supplying of an addressee (i.e. “his friends”, 7.336) for David’s declaration of 22,5 and expansion of that declaration itself, the inserted qualification of Solomon as David’s “youngest” son (compare 7.337 and 22,9), the characterization of the external and internal tranquility that Solomon will enjoy as “the greatest of all blessings” (compare 7.337 and 22,9), the appeal that Solomon be “pious and just” as well as “brave” (compare 7.338a and 22,13b), the directive that Solomon is not only to observe the laws himself (so 22,12-13) but also

conquest of the land there is to be a single holy city which God “will choose by prophetic oracle. And let there be one temple therein…”) and Ant. 7.92 (David wished “to build such a temple to God as Moses had formerly spoken of”). The appeal to Moses’ authority by David, explicit in 7.92 and implicit in 7.342, highlights the legitimacy and indeed the legal necessity of the temple-building project. The fact that the Mosaic prescription has been disregarded by all subsequent generations down to David’s time accentuates the piety of the king (and of Solomon who will fulfill Moses’ directive and his father’s desire regard the construction of a temple). 65. For a summary discussion concerning the text of Chronicles utilized by Josephus, see M.A. SPOTTORNO, The Books of Chronicles in Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities, in B.A. TAYLOR (ed.), IX Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cog- nate Studies Cambridge 1995 (SBLSCS, 45), Atlanta, GA, 381-390. She concludes that Josephus drew, in first place, on a proto-Antiochene (Lucianic) text of Chronicles. 9471-06_ETL2006-4_06 22-12-2006 15:36 Pagina 463

DAVID’S PROVISIONS FOR THE TEMPLE ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS 463

“not permit others to transgress them” (7.338), the appended explanation of the long delay in building a temple (7.342b), and the closing notice of 7.342c. Josephus’ abbreviations of source elements are not so prevalent in our passage. We did, however, note the following instances of the phenomenon. David’s affirmation of 22,5 about the “magnificence” of the temple that is to be built is omitted, as is the notice on his collection of vast stores of material in that verse. Neither the play on words between the name “Solomon” and the term “peace” of 22,9 nor the quotation of God’s promise to establish Solomon’s throne “for ever” (22,10b) is reproduced. Subsequently, Josephus (7.338b) conflates David’s double invocation of the divine law (22,12-13a), while the catalogue of available workers cited in 22,15a appears in shorter form in 7.340b (see n. 53). Josephus likewise rearranges the sequence of 1 Chronicles 22. Thus, e.g., he reverses (7.335c) the order in which the two Phoenician groups are mentioned in 22,4. He has David cite God’s declaration about Solomon being the one to build the temple and his paternal solicitude for him prior to the divine promise of tranquility for Solomon (compare 7.337 and 22,9-10a). David’s directive that Solomon “add to” what he has acquired is placed after rather than before the king’s mention of the already available workmen (compare 7.340b and 22,14b-15). In Josephus’ rendition (see 7.339) the exhortation to resoluteness on Solomon’s part that follows (22,13b) the summons to observe the laws (22,12- 13a) is cited in first place. Finally, Josephus modifies the data of 1 Chronicles 22 in still other ways. Styl- istically, he several times recasts biblical direct as indirect discourse (see n. 22). On the terminological level he avoids his source’s use of “Lord” as a divine title (see n. 21) and its mention of the divine “word” (see n. 23). He likewise uses an alternative term for LXX BL’s 22,2 reference to the “proselytes” whom David counts (see n. 7). The historian’s modifications also extend, however, to content features of the Chronistic account. Though drawing on 1 Kgs 5,29-30 in 7.335, he substitutes a vague reference to “the rest” of the aliens being assigned as stone- carriers for the definite figure for this group given in 5,29 (70,000), just as he cites an overall figure for the Davidic alien census (180,000) that differs from the total for Solomon’s census given in 2 Chr 2,17 (153,600; see n. 8). Conceivably, he was responsible for reducing the exorbitant totals for the gold and silver accumulated by David that he found in his Vorlage (compare 7.340a and 22,14; see nn. 49, 50). Israel’s current tranquility to which the biblical David alludes in his address to the leaders becomes a conditional promise for the nation’s future (compare 7.341b and 22,18). The indeterminate, passive formulation used by David in 22,19 about the cultic objects “being brought” to the temple is recast as a directive that Solomon personally is to see their deposition in the sanctuary (7.342b). Josephus’ utilization of the foregoing rewriting techniques results in a retelling of 1 Chronicles 22 with a variety of distinctive features. From a stylistic perspec- tive, his inserted phrase “after receiving this prophecy” at the start of 7.335 pro- vides a smoother transition between what precedes and follows than one finds in the sequence of 1 Chr 21,1–22,1 and 22,2-19. Conversely, the historian supplies his rendition of the latter text with a summarizing closing notice (“such, then, were the words which David addressed to the leaders and to his son”, 7.342c) without equivalent in the Vorlage. Under the stylistic head, one also notes an occasional streamlining of the biblical presentation; see, e.g., the conflation of 9471-06_ETL2006-4_06 22-12-2006 15:36 Pagina 464

464 C.T. BEGG

the double invocation of the Law (22,12-13a) in 7.338b and the abbreviation of the worker list of 22,15a in 7.340b. Throughout, the historian fills content “gaps” left by the Chronicler’s account. What, e.g., was the number of aliens generated by David’s census and what tasks were assigned them (compare 7.335a and 22,2)? What prompted the Phoenicians to bring their cedar to David (compare 7.335b and 22,4)? To whom does David address his declaration of 22,5a (compare 7.336 where David’s “friends” are cited as the hearers)? When is Solomon to undertake his temple-building task (compare 7.337a and 22,6)? What is it that Solomon is not to “fear” or “be dismayed” about (compare 7.339a and 22,13b)? How are the leaders to “help” Solomon (compare 7.341a and 22,17)? Why is it that it is only in Solomon’s reign that the cultic objects will get the temple that is their due (see Josephus’ appended response to this question – prompted but not answered by 1 Chronicles 22 itself – in 7.342b)? Josephus’ version also (slightly) enhances the figure of Solomon as portrayed in 1 Chronicles 22. David calls on him to acquire three of the four cardinal virtues, rather than courage alone (compare 7.338a and 22,13b). Solomon is to be responsible for the observance of the laws not only by himself but by the entire people (compare 7.338b and 22,12-13a) and to supply additional needed workers as well as material (compare 7.340 and 22,14-16). He personally is charged with conveying the sacral objects into the temple (compare 7.342a and 22,19)66. The historian’s rendition likewise reflects, as we pointed out, his preoccupation with such contemporary issues as Jewish messianism (see the omission of David’s declaration about Solomon’s throne enduring “for ever” [22,10b]; cf. n. 35) and intra-Jewish violence (see his characterization of “freedom from civil dissension” as “the greatest of blessings” in 7.337; cf. n. 33). A further, noteworthy distinctive feature of Josephus’ rewriting of 1 Chronicles 22 is his filling out of the minimalistic account of David’s census of 22,2 with elements drawn from the notices concerning Solomon’s census of aliens of 1 Kgs 5,27.29-30 and 2 Chr 2,1.17. Thereby, Josephus accentuates the parallelism between the two kings. My third and final opening question asked about Josephus’ handling of the data of 1 Chronicles 22 in comparison with that of his fellow post-biblical historian Eupolemus. Overall, it is clear that Josephus stands much closer to the Chronicler’s presentation than does Eupolemus, who, e.g., does not record an address by David to either Solomon or the leaders, while, conversely, supplying a notice on how David obtained the materials for the temple’s construction that lacks a parallel in either the Bible or Josephus. At the same time, we did also note several points of contact between the two authors in their respective retellings of the biblical narrative. Both allude, e.g., to a God-sent confirmation of David’s designation (1 Chr 22,1) of the future temple site (see n. 6), just as both reapply (different) data that the Bible itself relates of Solomon to David (see n. 20). Our forgoing remarks on Josephus and Eupolemus as rewriters of 1 Chronicles 22 suggest a final reflection. In comparison with the latter, Josephus shows himself much more faithful to the givenness of the biblical account. Such fidelity does not,

66. On Josephus’ overall portrayal of Solomon, see H.E.F. VAN DER MEULEN, Das Salomo-Bild im Hellenistisch-Jüdischen Schrifttum, Kampen, 1978; FELDMAN, Josephus’s Interpretation (n. 7), pp. 570-628; SPILSBURY, Image (n. 29), pp. 179-187. 9471-06_ETL2006-4_06 22-12-2006 15:36 Pagina 465

DAVID’S PROVISIONS FOR THE TEMPLE ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS 465

however, exclude a considerable amount of freedom and creativity with regard to the details of the Chronicler’s presentation on Josephus’ part. This combination of scriptural fidelity and authorial creativity, in their ever-varying proportions, is a hallmark of the historian’s entire rewriting of the Bible.

School of Theology and Religious Studies Christopher T. BEGG Catholic University of America Washington D.C. 20064 U.S.A.

ABSTRACT. — This article investigates Josephus’ version of 1 Chronicles 22 (David’s preparations for the building of the temple by his son Solomon) in Ant. 7.335-342. It devotes particular attention to three questions: (1) the text-form(s) of the Chronicles passage utilized by Josephus; (2) the various rewriting techniques applied by him to the scriptural data and the distinctiveness of his version that results from their use; and (3) a comparison of Josephus’ rendition of 1 Chronicles 22 with that of the earlier Hellenistic-Jewish historian Eupolemus.