DOCSLIB.ORG

David's Provisions for the Temple According to Josephus

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

9471-06_ETL2006-4_06 22-12-2006 15:36 Pagina 453 Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 82/4 (2006) 453-465. doi: 10.2143/ETL.82.4.2018922 © 2006 by Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses. All rights reserved. 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 investi- gation 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 distinc- tiveness 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 counter- part 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 unspec- ified. 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, how- ever, 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”.
Recommended publications
  • HIRAM of TYRE and SOLOMON Edward Lipiński University Of

    HIRAM of TYRE and SOLOMON Edward Lipiński University Of

    HIRAM OF TYRE AND SOLOMON Edward Lipiński University of Leuven Josephus Flavius took a particular interest in the relations between Hiram, king of Tyre, and Solomon. Describing their friendly relation- ship, maintained on a basis of equality, Josephus undoubtedly aimed at underscoring the importance of Solomon in the eyes of his non- Jewish readers, he was addressing in Jewish Antiquities, followed soon by Against Apion. 1. Josephus and His Sources The sources of Josephus were not only the biblical Books of Kings and the Books of the Chronicles, but also some Hellenistic historiogra- phers of the 2nd c. BCE, like Menander of Ephesus, Dius, and Eupo- lemus. Menander and Dius quote translated extracts from the Tyrian annals, while Eupolemus’ work contains letters allegedly exchanged between Hiram and Solomon. Although the writings of Menander and Dius were no primary sources, they were works independent from the Bible and, in consequence, had more appeal for the heathen readers of Josephus. They are unfortunately lost, and the quotations from both authors preserved by Josephus have most likely been excerpted from the History of Phoenicia compiled ca. 70–60 BCE by Alexander Polyhistor,1 who had copied large passages from his predecessors’ writ- ings. Josephus stresses the importance of the Hiram-Solomon relation- ship in his Jewish Antiquities and in the somewhat later booklet Against 1 Alexander Polyhistor, a native of Miletus, an ancient city on the Anatolian shore of the Aegean Sea, compiled excerpts from several Hellenistic historiographers, related to Phoenicia. Preserved fragments of his work have been collected by F. Jacoby (ed.), Fragmente der griechischen Historiker IIIA (Berlin: Weidmann, 1940) 96–121, with a commentary F.
  • The Egyptian View of Abraham

    The Egyptian View of Abraham

    chapter 4 The Egyptian View of Abraham When Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem in 587 BC, many Jews fled into Egypt (Jeremiah 43). Other Jews settled in Egypt in the following years. Some assimilated into the surrounding culture, but not all did; a sufficient number retained their faith and established Jewish temples in Elephantine during the Persian Period (525–332 BC) and in Leontopolis during the Ptolemaic Period (332–32 BC). Jewish settlements existed in Elephantine, Edfu, Thebes, Hermop- olis Magna, Oxyrhynchos, Arsinoe (Krokodilopolis), Syron Kome, Alexandrou Nesos, Samaria (Kome), Chanaanain, Trikoma, Teb- tynis, Herakleopolis, Tebetnoi, Memphis, Demerdash, Leontopolis, Shedia, Xenephyris, Nitriai, Tanis, Pelusium, Athribis, and Alexan- dria. The Jews brought some of their texts with them; for example, the earliest manuscript of any of the Psalms is a fifth-century BC text written in demotic script and found at Elephantine. The biblical story of Abraham appears in Egypt by at least the third century BC, when the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek 49 50 introduction to the book of abraham the egyptian view of abraham 51 during the reign of Ptolemy II. This translation is known as the Sep- tuagint. Egyptian manuscripts of the Septuagint telling the biblical story of Abraham date as early as the first century BC. Nonbiblical stories about Abraham circulated in Egypt even ear- lier. During the reign of Ptolemy I, Hecateus of Abdera traveled to Thebes and learned stories about Abraham from Egyptian priests; he wrote these stories in a book called On Abraham and the Egyptians. This work is now unfortunately lost, but Clement of Alexandria, a second-century AD Egyptian Christian, quoted a short passage from it in which the worship of idols is condemned.
  • The Unknown Abraham

    The Unknown Abraham

    6 The Unknown Abraham Neglected Evidence Until now, all discussions of the authenticity of the Book of Abraham have been based on the assumption that we have to deal with only two really important sources of infor- mation: the Book of Abraham and the papyri.1 Everyone, it would seem, has taken for granted that if we know what the papyri really say, we are in a position to pass judgment on the authenticity of the Book of Abraham—a proposition dili- gently cultivated by some who have assumed that a knowl- edge of Egyptian qualifies one to pass judgment on matters that lie completely outside the field. Such a case might stand up if Joseph Smith had specifically designated particular papyri as the source of his information, but he never did so. Professor Klaus Baer begins and ends his exceedingly valu- able study with the assertion that Joseph Smith thought he was actually translating the so-called “Breathing Permit.” 2 Such testimony would not hold up for three minutes in any “Part 7: The Unknown Abraham” originally appeared in the series “A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price” in IE 72 (January 1969): 26–33; (February 1969): 64– 67; (March 1969): 76, 79–80, 82, 84; (April 1969): 66–72; May 1969): 87–89. 1. See above, in this volume, CWHN 18:49–68. 2. Klaus Baer, “The Breathing Permit of Hôr,” Dialogue 3/3 (1968): 111, 133. 375 376 AN APPROACH TO THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM court of law. The only evidence for what the Prophet thought is the arrangement side by side of very brief Egyptian sym- bols and some lengthy sections of the Book of Abraham, which has led some to the hasty conclusion that the one col- umn is a would-be translation of the other.
  • Raiders of the Lost Ark

    Raiders of the Lost Ark

    Swiss American Historical Society Review Volume 56 Number 1 Article 4 2020 Raiders Of The Lost Ark Dwight Page Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/sahs_review Part of the European History Commons, and the European Languages and Societies Commons Recommended Citation Page, Dwight (2020) "Raiders Of The Lost Ark," Swiss American Historical Society Review: Vol. 56 : No. 1 , Article 4. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/sahs_review/vol56/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Swiss American Historical Society Review by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Page: Raiders Of The Lost Ark Raiders of the Lost Ark by Dwight Page Although a French national, John Calvin spent a large part of his career as a pastor and a theologian in Switzerland. Specifically, he resided in Geneva between 1541 and 1564 and transformed the city into his beloved Protestant City of God, a safe haven for Protestant refugees from all over Europe. Indeed, so thorough was the Reforma- tion in Geneva that the city became known as the Protestant Rome and the center of the new Protestant faith. In the sixteenth century, at the time of the Reformation, Geneva was truly the Mecca to which many Protestants gravitated and to which many Protestants looked for hope and inspiration. During these years in Geneva, one of Calvin’s most salient contributions to the development of Christian theology was his analy- sis and elucidation of the concept of the divine Covenant between God and Man, first made between God and Adam in the Garden of Eden, next between God and Abraham in Ur of the Chaldeans, then 400 years later in Egypt between God and Moses, and finally more than 1,000 years after that, consummated in the new Covenant between God and Man splendidly expressed by the perfect life and resurrec- tion of God’s own son Jesus Christ.
  • Pythagorean, Predecessor, and Hebrew: Philo of Alexandria and the Construction of Jewishness in Early Christian Writings

    Pythagorean, Predecessor, and Hebrew: Philo of Alexandria and the Construction of Jewishness in Early Christian Writings

    Pythagorean, Predecessor, and Hebrew: Philo of Alexandria and the Construction of Jewishness in Early Christian Writings Jennifer Otto Faculty of Religious Studies McGill University, Montreal March, 2014 A thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy © Jennifer Otto, 2014 ii Table of Contents Abstracts v Acknowledgements vii Abbreviations viii Introduction 1 Method, Aims and Scope of the Thesis 10 Christians and Jews among the nations 12 Philo and the Wisdom of the Greeks 16 Christianity as Philosophy 19 Moving Forward 24 Part I Chapter 1: Philo in Modern Scholarship 25 Introducing Philo 25 Philo the Jew in modern research 27 Conclusions 48 Chapter 2: Sects and Texts: The Setting of the Christian Encounter with Philo 54 The Earliest Alexandrian Christians 55 The Trajanic Revolt 60 The “Catechetical School” of Alexandria— A Continuous 63 Jewish-Christian Institution? An Alternative Hypothesis: Reading Philo in the Philosophical Schools 65 Conclusions 70 Part II Chapter 3: The Pythagorean: Clement’s Philo 72 1. Introducing Clement 73 1.1 Clement’s Life 73 1.2 Clement’s Corpus 75 1.3 Clement’s Teaching 78 2. Israel, Hebrews, and Jews in Clement’s Writings 80 2.1 Israel 81 2.2 Hebrews 82 2.3 Jews 83 3. Clement’s Reception of Philo: Literature Review 88 4. Clement’s Testimonia to Philo 97 4.1 Situating the Philonic Borrowings in the context of Stromateis 1 97 4.2 Stromateis 1.5.31 102 4.3 Stromateis 1.15.72 106 4.4 Stromateis 1.23.153 109 iii 4.5 Situating the Philonic Borrowings in the context of Stromateis 2 111 4.6 Stromateis 2.19.100 113 5.
  • Pseudepigrapha Bibliographies

    Pseudepigrapha Bibliographies

    0 Pseudepigrapha Bibliographies Bibliography largely taken from Dr. James R. Davila's annotated bibliographies: http://www.st- andrews.ac.uk/~www_sd/otpseud.html. I have changed formatting, added the section on 'Online works,' have added a sizable amount to the secondary literature references in most of the categories, and added the Table of Contents. - Lee Table of Contents Online Works……………………………………………………………………………………………...02 General Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………...…03 Methodology……………………………………………………………………………………………....03 Translations of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha in Collections…………………………………….…03 Guide Series…………………………………………………………………………………………….....04 On the Literature of the 2nd Temple Period…………………………………………………………..........04 Literary Approaches and Ancient Exegesis…………………………………………………………..…...05 On Greek Translations of Semitic Originals……………………………………………………………....05 On Judaism and Hellenism in the Second Temple Period…………………………………………..…….06 The Book of 1 Enoch and Related Material…………………………………………………………….....07 The Book of Giants…………………………………………………………………………………..……09 The Book of the Watchers…………………………………………………………………………......….11 The Animal Apocalypse…………………………………………………………………………...………13 The Epistle of Enoch (Including the Apocalypse of Weeks)………………………………………..…….14 2 Enoch…………………………………………………………………………………………..………..15 5-6 Ezra (= 2 Esdras 1-2, 15-16, respectively)……………………………………………………..……..17 The Treatise of Shem………………………………………………………………………………..…….18 The Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71)…………………………………………………………..…...18 The
  • Durham Research Online

    Durham Research Online

    Durham Research Online Deposited in DRO: 30 June 2015 Version of attached le: Accepted Version Peer-review status of attached le: Not peer-reviewed Citation for published item: Kaizer, Ted (2010) 'Eupolemos (723).', Brill's new Jacoby. Further information on publisher's website: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-jacoby/eupolemos-723-a723?s.num=24s.start=20 Publisher's copyright statement: Additional information: Editor in Chief: Ian Worthington (University of Missouri). Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United Kingdom Tel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971 https://dro.dur.ac.uk 723 Eupolemos Ted Kaizer (Durham) BJN Eupolemus Judaeus Please fill in transliterated name Palaestinus here Historian 723 Number: 723 T 1 - I. MAKK. 8, 17-22 meta[[ id="723" type="T" n="1" sourcework( level1="Vetus Testamentum" level2="" level3="Machabaeorum" level4="" level5="" level6="1, 8, 17") ]] Subject: political history Translation Historical Work: Source
  • The Stromata, Or Miscellanies Book 1

    The Stromata, Or Miscellanies Book 1

    584 THE STROMATA, OR MISCELLANIES BOOK 1 CHAPTER 1 PREFACE THE AUTHOR’S OBJECT THE UTILITY OF WRITTEN COMPOSITIONS [Wants the beginning ]..........that you may read them under your hand, and may be able to preserve them. Whether written compositions are not to be left behind at all; or if they are, by whom? And if the former, what need there is for written compositions? and if the latter, is the composition of them to be assigned to earnest men, or the opposite? It were certainly ridiculous for one to disapprove of the writing of earnest men, and approve of those, who are not such, engaging in the work of composition. Theopompus and Timaeus, who composed fables and slanders, and Epicurus the leader of atheism, and Hipponax and Archilochus, are to be allowed to write in their own shameful manner. But he who proclaims the truth is to be prevented from leaving behind him what is to benefit posterity. It is a good thing, I reckon, to leave to posterity good children. This is the case with children of our bodies. But words are the progeny of the soul. Hence we call those who have instructed us, fathers. Wisdom is a communicative and philanthropic thing. Accordingly, Solomon says, “My son, if thou receive the saying of my commandment, and hide it with thee, thine ear shall hear wisdom.” He points out that the word that is sown is hidden in the soul of the learner, as in the earth, and this is spiritual planting. Wherefore also he adds, “And thou shalt apply thine heart to understanding, and apply it for the admonition of thy son.” For soul, me thinks, joined with soul, and spirit with spirit, in the sowing of the word, will make that which is sown grow and germinate.
  • Were the Galileans “Religious Jews” Or “Ethnic Judeans?”

    Were the Galileans “Religious Jews” Or “Ethnic Judeans?”

    Were the Galileans “religious Jews” or “ethnic Judeans?” Markus Cromhout (Johannesburg)1 Research Associate: Faculty of Theology University of Pretoria Abstract This article focuses on an investigation into the ethnic identity of first-century Galileans. Its aim is to argue that the Galileans were not descendents of northern Israelites but were mostly descendents of “Jews” who came to live in the region during the Hasmonean expansion. The article demonstrates that this thesis is supported by Josephus and also by archaeological evidence. From the perspective of this thesis, the article contends that the term “Jew” does not apply to Galileans. First-century Galileans should rather be understood as “ethnic Judeans”. 1. INTRODUCTION Who were the Galileans in the first century CE? The nature of their identity, needless to say, is important to various aspects of New Testament scholarship. Galilee was the heartbeat of Jesus’ ministry, and many, if not most of his initial followers, came from this region. What is important therefore is how the people of Galilee related to Judeans/“Jews” and Jerusalem in the south; was their culture similar or different? Was the culture from Judea a foreign import, or was it part of their cultural heritage? Were they descendents of Northern Israelites, a hybrid of various peoples, “Jews”, or perhaps, more accurately, Judeans (in the ethnic-cultural sense)? It can be mentioned that the situation of Galilee was very different in the early history of Israel. Originally it was the territory of the tribes of Naphtali, Zebulun and probably Issachar as well (Jdg 5:7-21). In time they became subordinated to the monarchy and Temple in Jerusalem, and after Solomon’s 1 Markus Cromhout (PhD) participates in the research project “Biblical Theology and Hermeneutics”, directed by Dr Andries G van Aarde, honorary professor at the Faculty of Theology of the University of Pretoria.
  • Philo's Portrayal of Moses in the Context of Ancient Judaism

    Philo's Portrayal of Moses in the Context of Ancient Judaism

    LOUIS H. FELDMAN Philo’s Portrayal of Moses in the Context of Ancient Judaism University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana © 2007 University of Notre Dame Press Copyright © by University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, Indiana www.undpress.nd.edu All Rights Reserved Manufactured in the United States of America Designed by Wendy McMillen, type set in . ⁄. Garamond MT Printed on # Nature’s Natural recycled paper in the U.S.A. by Sheridan Books, Inc. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Feldman, Louis H. Philo’s portrayal of Moses in the context of ancient Judaism / Louis H. Feldman. p. cm. — (Christianity and Judaism in antiquity series ; v. ) Includes bibliographical references and index. -: ---- (cloth : alk. paper) -: --- (cloth : alk. paper) . Moses (Biblical leader) . Philo, of Alexandria. Pseudo-Philo. Josephus, Flavius. Rabbinical literature—History and criticism. Greek literature, Hellenistic—Jewish authors—History and criticism. Dead Sea scrolls. Christian literature, Early—History and criticism. I. Title. '.—dc This book is printed on recycled paper. © 2007 University of Notre Dame Press I. General Considerations 1. The Importance of Moses in Classical Antiquity The one figure in Jewish tradition who was well known to the pagan world was Moses (see Gager ). When Quintilian (..), at the end of the first century, refers to “the founder of the Jewish superstition,” he, like Pseudo- Longinus, does not deem it necessary to name him, because Moses was ap- parently well known.1 When Juvenal (.‒) wishes to satirize converts to Judaism he speaks of what they learn as “Moses’ arcane book.” Moses’ connection with Egypt, known for its antiquity, its learning, and its wealth, undoubtedly gave him a certain prominence, especially during the Hellenistic period, when Alexandria was the chief center of scholarship.
  • In Christ" in Romans

    In Christ" in Romans

    Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Dissertations (1934 -) Projects Primeval History According to Paul: "In Adam" and "In Christ" in Romans Timothy A. Gabrielson Marquette University Follow this and additional works at: https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, and the Christianity Commons Recommended Citation Gabrielson, Timothy A., "Primeval History According to Paul: "In Adam" and "In Christ" in Romans" (2016). Dissertations (1934 -). 619. https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/619 PRIMEVAL HISTORY ACCORDING TO PAUL: “IN ADAM” AND “IN CHRIST” IN ROMANS by Timothy A. Gabrielson, B.S., B.S., M.A. A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Milwaukee, Wisconsin May 2016 ABSTRACT PRIMEVAL HISTORY ACCORDING TO PAUL: “IN ADAM” AND “IN CHRIST” IN ROMANS Timothy A. Gabrielson, B.S., B.S., M.A. Marquette University, 2016 Paul’s comparison of Adam and Christ in Rom 5:12–21 is among the most influential doctrines in the Bible and Christian theology. Often it has been used to summarize God’s purposes in creation and redemption, from humanity’s “fall” in Adam to its restoration in Christ. In the past several decades, however, it has increasingly been seen as provisional and functional because the Jewish writings used to support it have now been dated after the apostle’s lifetime. This study retrieves the traditional position, but does so by appeal to different corpora of Jewish texts, those that are prior or contemporary to Paul. After considering the most prominent interpretations of Rom 5 over the past century, and the increasing questions surrounding it, I argue that it is hard to explain Paul’s interest in the comparison and the rhetoric of Romans without the presence of underlying Adamic traditions.

  • Abraham in Contemporary Greek and Latin Authors." Abraham in Jewish and Early Christian Literature

    Williams, Margaret. "Abraham in Contemporary Greek and Latin Authors." Abraham in Jewish and Early Christian Literature. Ed. Sean A. Adams and Zanne Domoney-Lyttle. London: T&T Clark, 2019. 165–182. Bloomsbury Collections. Web. 28 Sep. 2021. <http:// dx.doi.org/10.5040/9780567675545.ch-010>. Downloaded from Bloomsbury Collections, www.bloomsburycollections.com, 28 September 2021, 02:30 UTC. Copyright © Sean A. Adams, Zanne Domoney-Lyttle and contributors 2019. You may share this work for non-commercial purposes only, provided you give attribution to the copyright holder and the publisher, and provide a link to the Creative Commons licence. C h a p t e r 1 0 A BRAHAM IN C ONTEMPORARY G REEK AND L ATIN A UTHORS M a r g a r e t W i l l i a m s Survey of the Ancient Literature Abraham does not receive so much as a mention in either of the surviving surveys in Greek of Jewish history and customs: those written by, respectively, the historian, Diodorus Siculus (second half of the fi rst century BCE) and the geographer, Strabo of Amaseia (active around the beginning of the Common Era).1 Th e reason for this omission is that both these scholars believed that the key foundational fi gure of Judaism was Moses. Th is conception of Jewish history—though surfacing for the fi rst time in surviving Graeco-Roman literature only in their respective works2 —was considerably older. Its fi rst appearance in a classical text had been c . 300 BCE, the approximate date of Hecataeus of Abdera’s pioneering study of the Jews, the fi rst to be written by a Greek in Greek.