Josephus and Nahum Revisited

Christopher BEGG The Catholic University of America, Washington

JOSEPHUS AND NAHUM REVISITED

Over seventy years ago Julien Weill published a short note in this journal in which he discussed the “quotation” of Nah. 2:9-12 in Josephus, Anti- quities of the Jews (hereafter Ant.) 9.239-2411. Weill devotes most of his piece to a textual difficulty in 2:9 (see below) which, he believes, can be resolved on the basis of Josephus' citation of the verse. In this essay I shall concentrate rather on the Josephus side of the connection pointed up Weill. Specifically, I intend to investigate the question of how and with what intent the historian makes use of the figure and words of the rather obscure prophet Nahum in his overall retelling of Biblical history2. My investigation will further involve a comparison of the text of Nah. 2:9-14* cited in Ant. 9.239-241(242) with that attested by the MT (BHS), 4QpNah3, LXX4, and Targum Jonathan on the Prophets (hereafter TJ)5 with a view to

1. Weill, “Nahoum II, 9-12, et Josèphe (Ant., IX, XI, # 239-241)”, REJ 76 (1923) 96-98. Weill's proposed reading in Nah. 2:9 on the basis of Josephus is seconded by P. Humbert, “Nahoum II, 9”, REJ 83 (1927) 74-76. Already prior to Weill, M. Adler, “A Specimen of a Commentary and Collated Text of the Targum to the Prophets: Nahum”, JQR 7 (1894) 630- 57, p. 645, n. 9 had called attention to the Josephan quotation of Nah. 2:9-12. Adler (who is not mentioned by Weill) does not, however, share the latter's view of its text-critical value, characterizing Josephus' rendition “as a kind of Targumic paraphrase, agreeing neither with the Masoretic text nor any known Version”. 2. For the text and translation of Josephus' writings I use H.St. J. Thackeray, R. Marcus, A. Wikgren, and L.H. Feldman, eds., Josephus (LCL; Cambridge, MA/ London 1926-1965 [AJ 9.239-242 is found in Vol. VI, pp. 126-129 where the translation and notes are by Mar- cus]). In addition I have consulted the following editions/translations of the Josephan corpus: B. Niese, Flavii Josephi Opera. Editio maior (Berlin 1885-1895) and T. Reinach (ed.), Œuvres complètes de Flavius Josèphe (Paris 1900-1932 [AJ 9.239-242 is found in Vol. II, pp. 291-292 where the translation and notes are by Weill]). 3. For the text and translation of 4QpNah I use J.M. Allegro and A. A. Anderson, eds., Qumrân Cave 4 I (4Q158-4Q186) (DDJ 5; Oxford 1968) 37-42. Unfortunately, the extant text of 4QpNah parallels those portions of Nah. 2.9-14 cited by Josephus only to a minimal extent, i.e. for 2:14, whereas 2:12b-13 which are quoted in the pesher are passed over by Josephus. 4. For the LXX text of Nahum I use J. Ziegler, Duodecim prophetae (Septuaginta XIII; Göttingen 19843). 5. I use the text of TJ published by A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic III (rpt. Leiden 1992) and the translation of this by K.J. Cathcart and R.P. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets (The Aramaic Bible 14; Wilmington 1989) 131-42. See also the text and translation of the Nahum Targum by Adler cited in n. 1.

Revue des Etudes juives, CLIV (1-2), janvier-juin 1995, pp. 5-22 6 JOSEPHUS AND NAHUM REVISITED ascertaining where Josephus' textual affinities lie in this instance. I shall likewise offer some comparison of the Josephan handling of the person and message of Nahum with those found (sporadically) elsewhere in Jewish tradition. With my study I hope then to contribute to the development of a Rezeptionsgeschichte for the book of Nahum6. I now turn to a detailed reading of Josephus' “Nahum segment” (Ant. 9.239-242) which I divide up into the following segments: 1) Introduction (9.239a); 2) Quotation (9.239b-241); and 3) Concluding Notices (9.242).

Introduction Josephus inserts his treatment of Nahum (9.239-242) into his account of king Jotham of Judah (9.236-238.243a)7, introducing it with the chronological indication “there was at that time” (i.e. of Jotham's reign). Already this dating of Nahum's prophetic activity raises questions in that neither the book of Nahum itself nor the Biblical sources for Jotham's reign (2 Chron. 27:1-9 // 2 Kgs. 15:32-38) provide any basis for it as such8. How then is Josephus' procedure to be accounted for? I suggest that several factors need to be taken into account here. First of all, the fact that the book of Nahum lacks any explicit indication as to when in the course of Israel/Judah's history the prophet functioned made it necessary for Josephus himself to assign him some definite date in order that his presentation of him might be integrated into his account of the series of Israelite/Judean kings in Ant. 9. Why though does he opt to situate Nahum precisely in the reign of the Judean king Jotham? In response to this question, I would note that Josephus' treatment of Nahum's prediction of Nineveh's overthrow (9.239-242) stands in rather close proximity to his presentation of another prophet and his words against Assyria, i.e. Jonah in 9.208-2149. By situating his reproduction of

6. K. Seybold, Profane Prophetie. Studien zum Buch Nahum (SBS 135; Stuttgart 1989) 96 points out that this is a rather neglected topic. In the short chapter which he devotes to the subject (Ibid., 89-96), Seybold does not treat Ant. 9.239-242. 7. For his account of Jotham, Josephus follows the Chronicler's more expansive (2 Chron. 27:1-9) version of the summary treatment of him found in 2 Kgs. 15:32-38. 8. Nah. 1:1 lacks any synchronization of Nahum's ministry with the reigns of kings of Israel and/or Judah of the sort often found in the titles of the books of other classical prophets (see, e.g., Isa. 1:1; Hos. 1:1; Amos 1:1; Mic. 1:1). Conversely, the accounts concerning Jotham in Kings and Chronicles make no mention of Nahum either. 9. Josephus appends his (drastically abridged) version of the book of Jonah to his account of the successful reign of the wicked king Jeroboam II (9. 205-207 // 2 Kgs. 14:23-29). This arrangement is obviously inspired by the fact that 2 Kgs. 14:25 speaks of Jeroboam's fulfilling a prophecy uttered by “Jonah the son of Amittai” who then reappears in the opening verse of the book of Jonah. On Josephus' treatment of Jonah, see L.H. Feldman, “Josephus' Inter- pretation of Jonah”, AJS Review 17 (1992) 1-29. JOSEPHUS AND NAHUM REVISITED 7

Nahum's words of doom against Nineveh in the context of his account of Jotham, son of Azariah whose reign overlapped (see 2 Kgs. 15:1) that of Jeroboam II, the Israelite ruler under whom Jonah was active, Josephus is able to reinforce in reader's minds Jonah's message of Nineveh's coming demise. Such “reinforcement” was all the more in order, given that in 9.236, i.e. in between his treatment of the two prophets, Josephus relates (// 2 Kgs. 15.29) the Assyrian Tiglath-pileser's triumphant intervention against Israel, large portions of whose territory he annexes while also deporting their population. This item might well make readers wonder if Jonah's prediction (9.214) of Nineveh's imminent loss of power still holds. With his citation of Nahum's similiar prophecy just a few paragraphs after the notice of 9.236 and in the context of his presentation of Jotham, the very next king to be treated by him, Josephus makes clear that Jonah's prediction has not lost its validity. In addition, however, for his placing of Nahum's activity after that of Jonah, the historian may have been influenced by a tradition on the matter, one which finds expression both in TJ10 and in the (first century C.E.?) Lives of the Prophets11 which itself may have been influenced by the canonical order of the two prophets' books. On the other hand, Josephus' more precise dating of Nahum's activity during the reign of Jotham of Judah seems to have no parallel/precedent elsewhere in Jewish- Christian tradition. Indeed, that dating conflicts with the statement of Seder Olam 20 that Nahum (along with Joel and Habakkuk) functioned at a much later point, i.e. during the reign of Manasseh12. It was in the time of Jotham, 9.239 continues, that there emerged “a certain prophet (tiv...profßtjv)13 named Naum (NaoÕmov)"14. Thereafter,

10. TJ gives a greatly amplified version of Nah. 1:1. The relevant section reads: “Previously Jonah... prophesied against her [Nineveh] and she repented of her sins; and when she sinned again there prophesied once more against her Nahum...”. 11. Lives 11:2 reads “after Jonah this man (Nahum) gave to Nineveh a portent...”. The translation is that of D.R.A. Hare in OTP 2 (Garden City, NY 1985) 393. 12. This, of course, is the dating for Nahum's activity generally advocated in modern scholar- ship (particularly in view of the reference in Nah. 3:8 to the Assyrian destruction of Thebes in 663 B.C.E.). For more details on the question of the dating of Nahum, see the commentaries. 13. The book of Nahum itself nowhere uses the title “prophet” for Nahum as such. Josephus' employment of the designation corresponds to his fourfold application of the title to Jonah in his retelling (9.208-214) of the book of Jonah which itself never calls Jonah a “prophet” (see, however, 2 Kgs. 14:25 where he is so qualified, cf. further Feldman, “Jonah”, 6-7). In addition, Josephus' introduction of the title “prophet” for Nahum in 9.239 corresponds to his more general tendency to insert the term (and the related verb “prophesy”) in contexts where the Bible lacks it; on the point, see L.H. Feldman, “Prophets and Prophecy in Josephus”, JTS ns 41 (1990) 386-422, pp. 389-391 (Feldman, p. 391 counts no less than 169 instances of this procedure by Josephus in Ant.). Elsewhere, Josephus uses the above phrase “a certain prophet” also of Elijah (8. 319 + “of the most high God”) and Jahaziel (9.10). 14. This form is the declined equivalent of LXX's Naoúm, compare Hebrew jVcnÌ. 8 JOSEPHUS AND NAHUM REVISITED

Josephus sums up Naum's message with the phrase “(he) prophesied (profjteúwn)15 the downfall of Assyria and Ninos (Nínou)16 (compare Nah. 1:1 “the oracle [MT awm, LXX l±mma, TJ + the cup of malediction to be given to] concerning Nineveh)”. With this indication Josephus completes his introduction of the figure of Nahum while also making the transition to the “quotation” that immediately follows. In so doing, he leaves aside Nah. 1:1's (controverted) reference to the prophet's place of origin, i.e. “Elkosh” (MT i‹qlae, TJ i‹vq hibmd)17. Josephus' omission of this item constitutes a “neg- ative agreement” with his portrayal of Jonah where he passes over (9.206) the specification of 2 Kgs. 14:25 that this prophet hailed from “Gath-hepher”.

Quotation As noted, Josephus' introduction of Nahum leads directly into a rather extended “quotation” of words of the prophet (2:9-14, MT numbering) that serve to exemplify the historian's statement concerning the content of his message, i.e. “the downfall of Assyria and Nineveh”. The segment of Nahum which Josephus now begins to cite opens in 2:9aa with an unproblematic comparison: “and Nineveh is like a pool of water(s)”. Josephus' rendition (Üv ∂stai Nineu®18 kolumbßqra Àdatov) is very similar to that of LXX (kaì Nineuj, Üv kolumbßqra Àdatov). In the MT the continuation of the image

15. Josephus' use of this verb picks up on his earlier designation of Nahum as a “prophet”. His application of the term to Nahum has its counterpart in TJ's amplification of Nah. 1:1 (see n. 10) which states “... when she (Nineveh) sinned again there prophesied (w}tnby) once more against her Nahum...”. With Josephus' introductory formula for Nahum above (tiv... profßtjv... NaoÕmov... profjteúwn), compare his initial presentation of Jonah in 9.206 (troefßteuse tiv ˆIwn¢v). 16. This alternative name for “Nineveh” represents yet another verbal echo of Josephus' presentation of Jonah where “Ninos” is mentioned twice (9.208,214, see also 1.143; 10.22). Feldman, “Jonah”, 26 suggests that the historian's references to Assyria's capital as “Ninos” represent one of his many Hellenizations of the Biblical record in that in Greek literature “Ninos” was known as a mighty conqueror and city-builder whose wife was the Assyrian queen Semiramis. In the remainder of 9.239-242, however, Josephus will thrice use the standard LXX name for the city, i.e. Nineuß, see above in the text. With the above collocation “Assyria and Ninos” (note that Josephus follows the book of Jonah in never mentioning “Assyria” by name in his account of that prophet in 9.208-214, speaking rather always only of “Ninos” (Nineveh) its capital), compare Ant. 1.143 “Assyras founded the city of Ninus, and gave his name to his subjects, the Assyrians...”. Cf. also codex S in Tob. 14:4 where Tobit affirms that the divine word spoken by Nahum will indeed befall “Assyria and Nineveh (note that codices AB read “Jonah” in place of “Nahum” here, thus attesting to the paralleling of/confusion between the two figures and their messages in the course of the tradition). 17. On the proposed localizations of this site, see the commentaries. 18. This is the reading proposed by J. Hudson (and followed by Marcus) on the basis of the Latin translation of Josephus. Codex P reads Ninúa, the others Ninúav (the reading adopted by Niese). Recall Josephus' designation of the city as “Ninos” just previously. JOSEPHUS AND NAHUM REVISITED 9 is the difficult phrase aie imim (“from the days of... it”?), see TJ aie mdq imvim. LXX (tà [A teíxj] Àdata aût±v) has a reference rather to “its (Nineveh's) waters”. Josephus goes his own way here, reading a participle (kinouménj, “troubled”) qualifying the noun kolumbßqra he shares with the LXX, see above. As mentioned initially, Weill (and following him P. Humbert) see Josephus as preserving the original text of Nahum in this instance19. It might seem, however, that the Josephan reading (like LXX) represents rather simply an attempt to “improve on” the above puzzling MT sequence. 2:9a continues with a participial construction “and they (who?) (are) fleeing” (MT jisn emei). Josephus expatiates on this item, identifying the “fleeing” subject and motivating its flight with a reference to its inner state that itself carries forward his previous characterization of Nineveh as a “troubled pool of water”. His version reads: “so all the people [i.e. of Nineveh], being disturbed and agitated shall go away and flee (feúgwn, LXX feúgontev)”. MT (and TJ) 2:9b opens with a double imperative (“halt, halt”, RSV) whose speaker and addressee is, however, left indeterminate. LXX by contrast reads a single indicative form (oûk ∂stjsan) which it connects with its preceding participial form thus “fleeing they did not stand”20. In this case, Josephus aligns himself with MT, reading a double imperative (st±te kaì meínate)21, while also supplying the missing indication as to who is speaking and being addressed here: “one [i.e. of ‘all the people’, vide supra] saying to another”22. 2:9 concludes with the statement that “there is no one who turns back” (MT enpm fiav). 2:10aa then continues with a second double imperatival sequence: “plunder the silver, plunder the gold” (here again, LXX reads rather past forms: “they plundered the silver, they plundered the gold”). Josephus rearranges, reading his version of 2:9bb after 2:10aa: “(one

19. See n. 1. Josephus' reading (retroverted as eimve is also adopted as the original one by F. Luciani, I Profeti Minori III (LSB; Torino 1969), p. 63 (though without reference to Weill). On the other hand it is rejected by A. Hadar, Studies in the Book of Nahum (Upp- sala/Leipzig 1946) 55 (he reads rather mêmehâ) and by K.J. Cathcart, Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic (BibOr 26; Rome 1973) 101, n. 147 who speaks of Weill's and Hum- bert's “fruitless efforts to reconstruct a Hebrew Text on the basis of various Greek versions”. 20. In his reconstruction of the fragmentary Greek text of Nah. 2:9 from NaÌal Îever, E. Tov, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from NaÌal Îever (8 Hev XII gr) (DJD 5; Oxford 1990) 89 does read a double imperative (st±çte, st±çte) corresponding to MT. 21. The first of the above imperatives is a literal translation of the vdmy of MT (it likewise corresponds to the reading reconstructed by Tov in the NaÌal Îever Minor Prophets Scroll, see n. 20). In contrast to MT which employs the same imperative, i.e. vdmy twice, Josephus employs a synonymous term as his second imperative. 22. As Cathcart and Gordon, Targum, 137, n. 30 point out, Josephus' addition of this specification concerning the speaker of the above imperatives has a parallel in the plus of TJ MS z which reads “and they say”. 10 JOSEPHUS AND NAHUM REVISITED saying to another stop and remain) and seize (ärpásate, LXX dißprahon) gold and silver for yourselves'23. But there will be no one willing"24. To this last notice he appends a self-devised explanation of the Ninevites' “un- willingness” to “remain”: “for they will wish to save their own lives rather than their possessions”. Conceivably, Josephus was inspired for this reference to the Ninevites' “posessions” by Nah. 2:10b with its mention of the abundance of “treasure” and “wealth of every pleasant thing” (so RSV). In any case, his “citation” lacks a parallel to that second half of v. 10 as such. Nah. 2:11 speaks of Nineveh's devastation using three more or less synonymous terms (RSV “Desolate! Desolation and ruin!”)25 and then of the four-fold response this evokes: “hearts faint and knees tremble, anguish is on all loins, all faces grow pale” (RSV). Josephus' parallel to this sequence is both quite loose and compressed; it is likewise formulated as a motivation (“for...”) of the Ninevites' previously cited desire to save their lives rather than their possessions (see above). In particular, he reduces to a single expression 2:11aa's triple mention of Nineveh's devastation: “for terrible strife… will come upon them”26. Similarly, in his rendering the four items speaking of the response to Nineveh's destruction (see above) are compacted into three: “and lamentation [2:11 hearts faint], and loosening of limbs [this phrase might be regarded as a conflation of 2:11's knees tremble, anguish is on all loins] and their eyes (∫ceiv, or faces, thus Weill, ad loc.) will be completely (teléwv)27 darkened (mélainai) with fear"28. Especially, the final phrase in this enumeration calls for comment. It corresponds to the last of the four responses to Nineveh as cited in 2:11. In MT this reads: rvrap vobq jlk inpv which is variously understood either in the sense that people's faces became “red” or that they lost their color, i.e. became “pale” (so RSV above). The versions all seem to have read the word rvrap (“glow, redness" (?), elsewhere only Joel 2:6) as rvrm (“pot”), thus LXX “and the faces of all like the blackening of a pot (próskauma xútrav)", TJ “all their

23. In the above formulation Josephus compresses MT's double imperative into a single one, while also reversing the sequence of the two metals cited. 24. This formulation might be regarded as Josephus' clarifying version of the phrase “but there is no one turning back” of 2:9bb. 25. TJ's rendering applies this sequence more specifically to the situation of conquered Nineveh: “she is plundered and spoiled, and the gate is opened to the enemy”. 26. Here, Josephus seems to envisage a civil war among the Ninevites themselves whereas 2:11a appears to have in view their overthrow by outside forces, as TJ makes explicit, see previous note. 27. This adverbial intensifier is not reproduced in the translation of Marcus, ad loc. Compare Weill, ad loc.: “(leur faces) deviendront complètement noires”. 28. This explanation of the reason for the “darkening” of the Ninevites' faces has no equivalent in 2:11 as such. JOSEPHUS AND NAHUM REVISITED 11 faces are covered with a coating of black like a pot” (fimkva jvrka vaipcha ardqk), cf. Vulgate “... sicut nigredo ollae”29. Josephus' rendering of the phrase (see above) shares with the versions its reference to the “blackening” of eyes/faces. On the other hand, it lacks their association of this process with a “pot”. Perhaps, then, his wording of the item represents his own attempt at rendering a text like that of MT 2:11bb, rather than being dependent on that of the versions30. In Nah. 2:12-13 the imagery used of Nineveh's anticipated destruction abruptly shifts to a leonine one. This new segment opens with the question: “where is the lions' den?” (so MT, LXX)31. Josephus' formulation of this question is virtually identical to that of LXX (apart from using the future tense of the verb “to be” for its present)32: poÕ dè ∂stai tò katoikjtßrion t¬n leóntwn. 2:12a continues with a phrase that stands in apposition to the preceding question, i.e. “and (the) pasturage (MT eyrm, LXX ™ nomß) it (is) to the (young) lions (MT jirpkl, LXX to⁄v skúmnoiv)”33. Such a reference to lions' “pasturage” appears odd, and so many (e.g., BHS) emend to erym (“cave”) thereby producing a closer parallel with the fvym of the preceding colon. Josephus, for his part, diverges from the MT/LXX reading, although in a quite different direction from the emendation proposed by modern scholars. His continuation of the question about the whereabouts of the lions' habitation (see above) reads: “and the mother of the young lions”

29. On the reading of 2:11bb in MT and the versions, see J.J. Glück, “parûr- pa'rûr- a case of Biblical Paronomasia”, in A.H. van Zyl, ed., Biblical Essays 1969. Proceedings of the 21th Meeting of “Die Ou-Testamentiese Werkgeemenskap in Suid-Afrika” (Potschefstroom 1969) 21-26; M. Görg, “Eine formelhafte Metapher bei Joel und Nahum”, BN 6 (1978), 12- 14; P.H. Schüngel, “Noch einmal zu rvrap vobq Jo 2,6 und Nah 2,11”, BN 7 (1978) 29-31. 30. Thus Weill, Josèphe, II, p. 292, n. 2 who says of Josephus' above rendering “(their faces/eyes) will be completely darkened...”: “cette traduction de l'hébreu rvrap vobq est indépendante des LXX..”. 31. TJ's rendition of this opening question replaces image (“lions”) with the intended referent: “Where are the dwelling-places of the kings, and the princes' residence?” In its interpretation of the opening of 2:12 4QpNah seems to equate the “lions' dwelling place” spoken of there with “a dwelling for the wicked ones of the Gentiles (jivg iy‹rl rvdm), see DJD V, ad loc. In Exodus Rabbah on Exod. 29:9 the question of Nah. 2:12a is placed on the lips of God who, following the devastation of Jerusalem by the “lion” Nebuchadnezzar (so-called on the basis of Jer. 4:7), asks thereby about what has become of his “lions”, i.e. the Temple (see Isa. 29:1), the dynasty (see Ezek. 19:2) and Israel itself (see Gen. 49:9). 32. This “substitution” could reflect the consideration that what is being quoted is a prediction of the future overthrow of Nineveh. Such more extended verbal correspondences between Josephus and the LXX are rather infrequent; L.H. Feldman, “Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of Josephus”, in M.J. Mulder and H. Sysling, eds., Mikra (Assen-Maastricht/Philadelphia 1988) 455-518, p. 461, with reference to the historian's rewriting of the Letter of Aristeas in Ant. 12.11-118, calls Josephus “almost pathological about avoiding the use of the same word as that found in his source”. 33. TJ would seem to have nothing equivalent to this item in its (very free) rendering of 2:12. 12 JOSEPHUS AND NAHUM REVISITED

(kaì ™ mßtjr skúmnwn [compare LXX to⁄v skúmnoiv]). Weill in his note of 1923 called attention to Josephus' distinctive reading here, suggesting that he may have found it in the Bible text used by him. He also acknowledges, however, “quelque incohérence” in the juxtaposition of the two Josephan images (“habitation of lions”/“mother of young lions”), and ultimately leaves the question of the origin and text-critical status of the latter reading undecided34. I propose that Josephus may have been inspired to introduce a reference to the “mother of the young lions” here in place of his source(s)' problematic mention of “pasturage” on the basis of another “lion passage” of the Bible, i.e. Ezekiel's poem on the lioness and her two cubs (= Judah and two of its last kings) in Ezek. 19:1-9. In the LXX of v. 2 of this text one finds collocated, in fact, the same three Greek “leonine” terms used by Josephus in his rendering of Nah. 2:12a, i.e. “the mother” (™ mßtjr), “lions” (leóntwn, bis) and “young lions” (skúmnouv). Such a interpretative rendering of Nah. 2:12 in light of Ezek. 19:2 by Josephus seems quite conceivable given the standard Rabbinic practice of explaining one Biblical text on the basis of another which happens to share some term with it35. Nah. 2:12b-13 continues the leonine imagery introduced in v. 12a with particular attention to the “prey” the lion had once so easily acquired for himself and his young. Josephus dispenses with this further elaboration of the Bible's metaphor in order to come immediately to the climactic divine address to Nineveh of v. 14. That verse opens with the words: “Behold I am against you36, oracle (MT jan, LXX légei) of the Lord (LXX kúriov) of hosts”. Josephus formulates his equivalent as follows: “God (ö qeóv)37 says to thee, Nineveh"38.... The remainder of 2:14 comprises a four-fold

34. Weill, “Nahoum II,9-12”, 98. In the note to his translation of the above text (Josèphe, II, 292, n. 3) Weill states “Si l'on maintient le texte de Josèphe, il faudrait admettre dans la Bible une leçon jiripkl ja". 35. Indeed, it seems possible that the wording of Ezek. 19:1-9 has influenced Josephus' rendering of Nah. 2:9-14 already at an earlier point. As noted above in the text, Josephus' version of 2:11 introduces a reference to the “lamentation” (qrßnov) which awaits Nineveh. This term has no equivalent in 2:11 itself. It does, however, occur in the title of the poem of Ezek. 19:1-9 in v. 1 where the prophet is enjoined to “take up a lamentation (LXX qr±non = MT eniq) for the princes of Israel”. Note too that Josephus' simplex form ärpásate (= MT vzb) in his rendering of 2:10 as against the compound dißprahon of LXX has its counterpart in the phrase (toÕ) ärpáhein of LXX Ezek. 19:3,6. 36. TJ reads “Behold I am sending my wrath against you” here. 37. Josephus' substitution of “(the) God” for the Bible's reference to the “Lord” here is in accord with his regular practice, see C.T. Begg, Josephus' Account of the Early Divided Monarchy (AJ 8,212-420) (BETL 108; Leuven 1993) 45, n. 218 and the literature cited there. 38. With this insertion Josephus specifies the identity of the “thou” to whom the divine word of 2:14 is addressed. The term likewise harks back to the opening of Josephus' quotation in 9.239 (// Nah. 2:9) “(Nahum said) that Nineveh would be a troubled pool of JOSEPHUS AND NAHUM REVISITED 13 announcement of doom for Nineveh: The Lord will burn its chariots in smoke (TJ fire), devour its (young) lions (MT çiripk, LXX léontav)39 with the sword, cut off its prey (TJ çihrves, “your trade”) from the earth and the sound of its messengers (LXX tà ∂rga sou) will be heard no more. Jo- sephus reduces these four specific items to two. His first such “substitution” is of a quite general character with no equivalent as such in the source: “I will blot thee out (âfani¬)"40. The second of Josephus' substitute items, on the other hand, represents an adapted version of the second Biblical one, i.e. the destruction of the “(young) lions”: “and no more (oûkéti) shall lions (léontev, thus LXX) go forth from thee to rule the world (êpitázou- si t¬ç kósmwç)"41. As will be noted, Josephus does not speak of an actual destruction of the lions as does Nah. 2:14, but rather of their ceasing to set out to dominate the world. Perhaps, his wording here stands under the influence of the fourth Biblical item above which speaks (MT) of the voice of Nineveh's messengers (so MT) “no longer” (LXX oûkéti) being heard. In any case, the fact that Josephus singles out precisely the source's item about the lions for inclusion in his version is readily understandable given his previous utilization of the lion imagery of 2:12a42. It is with this reference to the end of the lions' expeditions for purposes of world-wide domination that Josephus concludes his citation of Nahum's words. Looking back over Josephus' version of Nah. 2:9-14, I tentatively conclude that the source text presupposed by him stands closer, overall, to that of MT than to LXX (see, e.g., his use of imperatives corresponding to those of MT as against the LXX past forms in his rendering of 2:9b-10aa). On the other hand, it should also be recognized that Josephus has quite freely expanded on (see, e.g., his version of 2:10-11), abridged (see his omission of 2:12b-13) reworded (2:12's “pasturage of the young lions” becomes a reference to the “mother of the young lions”) and rearranged (see his “anticipation” of the imperative(s) of 2:10aa) that source text. Thus the Josephan version of

water” with which it constitutes a kind of inclusio. It might further be pointed out that Josephus' rendition of 2:14 does retain the source's use of direct address. Its doing so is worthy of note in that very frequently Josephus turns the Bible's direct into indirect discourse, see Begg, Josephus' Account, 12-13, n. 38 and the literature cited there. 39. Once again TJ substitutes referent for image with its rendering, i.e. “princes”. 40. Josephus' other uses of âfaníhw with God as subject are Ant. 1.116 (God was not minded “to exterminate”) the builders of the Babel tower) and 203 (God “obliterated”) the land of Sodom with a conflagration. 41. This is Josephus' only use of the above expression “rule the world”. 42. Conversely, his non-utilization of the verse's reference to the “cutting off” of Nine- veh's “prey” goes together with his earlier passing over of 2:12b-13 with their focus on the lion's prey, see above in the text. 14 JOSEPHUS AND NAHUM REVISITED

Nah. 2:9-14 does seem to qualify for the epithet of “a kind of Targumic paraphrase” of the (MT) original — albeit one quite different from that of TJ — which M. Adler conferred upon it just a century ago43. That character of Josephus' “quotation”, in turn, makes the efforts of Weill and Humbert to use it in reconstructing the original text of Nahum appear rather dubious.

Concluding Notices In 9.242 Josephus rounds off his presentation of Nahum with a series of summarizing notices freely composed by him. This complex opens with the historian acknowledging his only selective use of the Biblical Nahum material44 and explaining the reason for this: “And many more things did this prophet prophesy about Nineveh (proéfßteusen oœtov ö propßtjv perì Nineu±v)45, which I have not thought it necessary to mention (légein oûk ânagka⁄on ™gjsámjn)46, but have omitted in order not to seem tiresome (ôxljróv) to my readers”47. With this statement Josephus reminds those (Jewish) readers familiar with the book of Nahum itself that, in fact, he has confined his “quotation” of the prophet's words to (parts of) just six verses, out of its total 48, i.e. a mere 1/8 of its extant content. This reminder, in turn, might get such readers wondering why Josephus has opted to utilize precisely these verses with their focus on the (unmotivated) fact of Nineveh's coming overthrow, while leaving aside, e.g., the denunciations of the city's ways (see, e.g., 1:11,14; 2:1; 3:1,4,19) or the exultant anticipations of Judah's coming liberation (see, e.g., 1:13; 2:1, 3) one finds elsewhere in the book. In this connection there is, as well, the question whether Josephus is perhaps being disingenuous in attributing his abridgement

43. See n. 1. 44. Contrast the formula with which Josephus (9.214) concludes his account of Jonah “I have recounted his story as I found it written down” — a claim contradicted, of course, by the fact that his version leaves aside the Biblical data of Nineveh's repentance in response to Jonah's preaching and the sequels to this. On the whole problem, see Feldman, “Jonah”. 45. Note here the echo of the formula with which Josephus introduces Nahum in 9.239: tiv... profßtjv... perì... katastrof±v... t±v Nínou profjteúwn. 46. This phrase in Josephus' closing notices on Nahum represents a kind of verbal echo of the historian's introductory formula for Jonah in 9.208 “(since I have promised to give an exact account of our history), I have thought it necessary to recount (ânagka⁄on dè ©gjsámjn... diezelqe⁄n) what I have found written in the Hebrew books concerning this prophet”. Elsewhere, Josephus uses the above “I have (not) thought it necessary to...” construction with some frequency, see Ant. 2.177;4.197;7.369;8.26,155;10,51;12.245; Ap. 2.4. 47. This is the only occurence of the above formula about not wishing to appear “tiresome” to readers in the Josephan corpus. The term ôxlßrov appears thrice elsewhere in Josephus: Ant. 15.345;16.22;20.162. JOSEPHUS AND NAHUM REVISITED 15 of Nahum's words simply to a fear of “boring” readers. I shall return to these points below. Josephus next provides a (Biblically unparalleled) indication concerning the duration of the interval between Nahum's prediction of Ninveh's overthrow and its realization: “But all the things that had been foretold (tà proeirjména)48 concerning Nineveh came to pass after a hundred and fifteen years”49. Thereafter, he clearly signals the end of his presentation

48. The verb proeréw in its various forms (for the above substantivized plural participle, see, e.g., Ant. 8.412;9.74) is a key term in Josephus' portrayals of the Biblical prophets. For Josephus a true prophet is above one who accurately “foretells” coming events, see Feldman, “Prophets", 407-11. 49. This chronological specification serves to reinforce readers' confidence in Josephus as a precise historian — even though, as noted above, it has no basis in the Biblical text itself. On the other hand, the indication might seem to conflict with the statement earlier attributed by Josephus to Jonah in 9.214, i.e. Nineveh “would lose its dominion over Asia in a very short time” (this is Josephus' replacement for the prophet's statement in Jon. 3:1 that Nineveh is to be overthrown at the end of 40 days). One hundred and fifteen years, in fact, does not, prima facie, seem “a very short time”. Still, given the multi-century sweep of Josephus' history, it might be thought to qualify as such. In addition, the later indication does provide a post factum clarification concerning the actual length of time envisaged by the earlier indeterminate reference to “a very short time”. The above chronological indication, 115 years, further raises the question of how Josephus arrived at this figure and how (or if) it accords with other such indications elsewhere in his work. The difficulty here is, first of all, that Josephus does not specify when precisely during the sixteen year reign of Jotham (see 9.243) Nahum's prophesying took place. In addition, he is even vaguer as to when Nineveh/Assyria's actual downfall occurred. In fact, he makes only the most passing reference to this event in the context of his account of Josiah's fatal encounter with Necho in 10.75-78 (// 2 Chron. 35:20-25); there he states that Necho was advancing to the Euphrates to war against the Medes and the Persians “who had overthrown the Assyrian empire...”. Josephus thus leaves indeterminate both the starting and end dates of that 115 year interval he cites in 9.242. On the other hand, his placing of the “Nahum segment” (9.239-242), i.e. just prior to his notice on Jotham's death in 9.243, does seem to suggest that Nahum made his prediction of Nineveh's demise at the end of that king's reign. Similarly, his introduction of the mention of Assyria's overthrow in connection with Josiah's killing by Necho might be taken to suggest that the former event took place at the end of Josiah's reign. If one makes the two above assumptions, and then looks to the figures provided by Josephus for the period between the death of Jotham and that of Josiah, one gets the following picture: Ahaz, Jotham's successor, ruled 16 years (9.257), and was himself followed by four kings, i.e. Hezekiah (29 years, 10.36), Manasseh (55 years, 10.46), Amon (2 years, 10.47), and Josiah (31 years, 10.77). When tallied, these figures come to a total of 123 years between the death of Jotham/accession of Ahaz and the slaying of Josiah, i.e. 8 more years than the figure of 115 given in 9.242 for the period between Nahum's prediction and its realization. This “discrepancy” — which is after all not that great (and which is not the only such chronological inconsis- tency in Josephus' work, see, e.g., Marcus, Josephus, VI, p. 148, n. a on the historian's figure for the length of the Northern tribes' sojourn on their land from the Conquest to the fall of Samaria) — might readily be accounted for by assuming that Nahum's prophesying occurred at some earlier point in Jotham's reign and/or that Nineveh fell several years before Necho's expedition and Josiah's death. Finally, I would call attention to the statement of Marcus, Josephus, VI, p. 128, n. b regarding the 115 year figure cited in 9.242: “Nineveh fell in 607/6 B.C. [on the basis of subsequent archaeological finds the accepted date is now 612]. Josephus thus dates 16 JOSEPHUS AND NAHUM REVISITED concerning Nahum with the third and final notice making up the summarizing complex of 9.242: “and now, concerning these matters, what we have written may suffice (perì... toútwn âpoxrÉntwv... dedßlwtai)"50. In what follows (9.243) he immediately reverts to the figure of Jotham, the account of whose reign he “interrupted” in order to introduce his treatment of Nahum, see above.

Conclusion After the foregoing detailed study of Josephus' “Nahum section” (Ant. 9.239-242), I wish to devote this conclusion of my essay to a consideration of a wider question: what is the intention behind Josephus' inclusion of Nahum and his presenting him as he does, i.e. with a fairly faithful, though very selective “citation” of his words? In addressing this question, I would note, first of all, that, in fact, there was no necessity for Josephus to introduce Nahum and his words into his composition at all. That this is the case appears already from the fact that of the twelve “minor prophets”, Josephus passes over in complete silence seven of them, i.e. Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and Malachi51 when he might readily have made use of their factually realized predictions, given his interest in underscoring the fulfillment of prophecy52. Thus, his inclusion of Nahum cannot be explained in terms of a felt need to incorporate all figures spoken of in the available Biblical records into his own history. In addition, there is the prophecy in the last year of the Israelite kingdom (722 B.C.)”. This statement seems problematic in several respects. First, Josephus (9.239) places Nahum's activity under the reign of Jotham, whereas according to both the Bible (see 2 Kgs. 18:10) and Josephus (Ant. 9.278), Samaria's fall came at a considerably later point, i.e. in the reign of Jotham's grandson Hezekiah (Kings dates it to the Judean's sixth regnal year, Josephus to his seventh). In addition, as noted above, Josephus gives no indication of knowing — as Marcus seems to presuppose he did — the actual date of the fall of Nineveh, the end point of the 115 years of 9.242. 50. Compare the similar construction in BJ 4.475 tà... perì ¨IerixoÕn... âpoxrÉntwv dedßlwtai. 51. In light of this fact as well, Feldman, “Jonah”, 5 is certainly correct in qualifying as a “mere pretext for introducing material that he thought important” Josephus' remark in connection with his introduction of his version of the book of Jonah in 9.208: “... since I have promised to give an exact account of our history, I have thought it necessary to recount what I have found written in the Hebrew books concerning this prophet”. In the face of such an assertion, one can only ask: why then did Josephus not feel a like “necessity” with regard to the inclusion of Hosea et al.? 52. One could, e.g., easily imagine him pointing up how the fall of the Northern kingdom fulfilled predictions made by Hosea and Amos. Given too the synchronizations of these prophets' activities with the reigns of the contemporary Judean and Israelite kings in the titles of their respective books, Josephus would have an explicit Biblical basis for integrating his presentation of the two of them into his account of the kings under whom they ministered. By contrast, as noted above, Josephus had himself to devise the placement of Nahum's prophesying in the reign of Jotham. JOSEPHUS AND NAHUM REVISITED 17 the consideration that in Jewish (and Christian) tradition generally, Nahum appears as a figure who attracted rather minimal attention53. Accordingly, Josephus' incorporation of him would likewise not appear explainable as being due to the significance of Nahum for post-Biblical Judaism54. So the question remains: why did Josephus bother to “make room” for Nahum who neither in the Bible itself nor in later tradition seems all that significant a figure? Why too does he give the particular presentation of Nahum that one finds in 9.239-242? In my view, it is only possible to make sense of the why and how of Jose- phus' inclusion of Nahum by taking into account the historian's portrayal of the earlier prophet Jonah. In the Bible itself, it will be recalled, the books associated with the two prophets seem to stand in tension with each other: Jonah's message of doom for Nineveh is revoked by the Lord, whereas there is no suggestion that Nahum's word against the city will not, in fact, be realized. By contrast, in Josephus, all such tension between the two figures' respective messages disappears: both announce a definitive and irrevocable doom for Nineveh. Moreover, as we have seen, Josephus accentuates the parallelism between Jonah and Nahum in various points of detail55. In Jose- phus then Jonah and Nahum appear as prophetic “twins”. What is the historian's intent thereby? For one thing, that “twinning” allows Josephus to have their messages mutually reinforce one another, leaving no un- certainty as to what is to happen with Nineveh — as one does find in the Bible itself with the (seeming) “contradiction” between the books of Jonah and Nahum56. Such “confirmation” of one (“true”) prophet's message by that of another contemporary prophetic figure shows itself, however, to be a matter of considerable importance to Josephus. As L.H. Feldman has pointed

53. In the index of L. Ginzberg's monumental Legends of the Jews, e.g., there are only two references to Nahum. 54. The situation is quite different with respect to the figure of Jonah who did give rise to a considerable body of rabbinic commentary (as well as to discussions by Church Fathers), see Feldman, “Jonah” and Y.-M. Duval, Le livre de Jonas dans la littérature chrétienne grecque et latine: sources et influence du Commentaire sur Jonas de Saint Jérôme, 2 vols. (Paris, 1973) for details. In the case of Jonah, then his post-biblical Nachleben might have been a factor in Josephus' decision to include him; such a explanation seems excluded for Nahum, however. 55. Both, e.g., are designed with the title “prophet” not applied to either of them in their respective books; nowhere — again in contrast to both Biblical books — is anything said of Nineveh's depravity as the grounds for its upcoming destruction; both Jonah's displeasure at Nineveh's reprieve (Jon. 4:1-3) and Nahum's gloating anticipation of its certain annihilation (see, e.g., Nah. 1:12-2:1) are left aside. 56. In TJ Nah. 1:1 this “contradiction” is resolved in different fashion, i.e. by recourse to the supposition that Nineveh, saved by its repentance in response to Jonah's preaching, subsequently reverted to its sinful ways, this leading to Nahum's proclamation of (irrevocable) doom for the city, see n. 10. 18 JOSEPHUS AND NAHUM REVISITED out57, the historian several times goes beyond the Bible itself in calling explicit attention to the agreement among prophets functioning at a given epoch, and this even when, superficially, their predictions might seem rather to diverge, see the cases of Elijah and Micaiah (Ant. 8.417-418) and Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Ant. 10.141). Far from being at odds with each other as the Bible might appear to suggest, the Josephan Jonah and Nahum exemplify the same principle of prophetic validation by confirmation. Having said this, I should point out, however, that in contrast to the other prophetic “pairs” just mentioned, Josephus leaves it up to readers to make the connection between Nahum's and Jonah's messages for themselves; in presenting the former firgure he nowhere makes an explicit reference back to Jonah's prophecy — perhaps thinking their agreement to be so patent as to need no mention58. Is there, however, still more to Josephus' portrayal of the prophetic “twins” Nahum and Jonah beyond the fact of their mutual confirmation of each other's words? I suggest that Josephus indeed did have additional purposes in his giving a place to these two figures. First, I recall Feldman's observation that in Josephus' own time ancient Assyria lay within the territory of the Parthian empire, a major threat and rival to Roman hegemony in the east in the first century B.C.E. In this light, Feldman proposes that Josephus' incorporation of Jonah's prophecy against “Assyria” was, among other things, inspired by a desire to please his Roman patrons who would have been gratified to discover that a Jewish prophet had announced the overthrow of the “ancestor” of their great contemporary foe59. Reading his account of

57. Feldman, “Prophets”, 409-10. 58. In this connection it is also curious to find that, after going to all the trouble he does in incorporating the words of Jonah and Nahum against Nineveh/Assyria into his presentation, Josephus subsequently makes so little of the event of Assyria's actual fall. As mentioned in n. 49, Josephus has only a quite en passant reference to the Medes and Babylonians' “over- throwing the Assyrian empire” in 10.74 by way of background to his description of the con- frontation between Josiah and Necho which he draws from 2 Chron. 35:20ff. In particular, there is no Rückverweis to the predictions of Jonah and Nahum, pointing out that indeed those predictions found their realization through the instrumentality of Assyria's two destroyers of the sort that one might well have expected and which Josephus could very easily have introduced at this point. Perhaps, Josephus' failure to do more with event of Nineveh's fall is (at least partially) explainable in terms of the fact that the Bible itself nowhere records that event. Given that omission Josephus had no starting point for elaborating on the datum of Assyria's demise which he introduced only on an ad hoc basis in 10.74 to explain why Necho was advancing, not against the Assyrians, but a new Mesopotamian power, i.e. the Medes and the Babylonians. By contrast, the Bible does actually relate the events fulfilling the common prophecies of Elijah/Micaiah and of Jeremiah/Ezekiel, thereby giving Josephus some inspiration for his fulfillment notices regarding them. Still, the oddness surrounding Josephus' minimalistic attention to Assyria's actual fall remains. Quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus. 59. Feldman, “Jonah”, 8, 25. Feldman, ibid, p. 25, n. 58 calls attention to a study by C. Colpe, “Die Arsakiden bei Josephus”, in O. Betz et al., eds., Josephus Studien: Unter- JOSEPHUS AND NAHUM REVISITED 19

Jonah, Josephus might have calculated, Roman readers would spontaneously substitute “Parthia”, the present-day great power east of the Euphrates, for “Assyria” in the prophet's announcements of the former's doom, and doing so would feel sympathy and identification with Jonah's people who had preserved that word of his. If, however, such considerations hold good for Josephus' handling of Jonah, they are equally applicable to Nahum, Jonah's anti-Assyrian “echo” in his presentation. Roman readers' good will for his people would, Josephus might have reasoned, only be increased by finding that, not just one, but two Jewish prophets long ago announced the definitive end of Assyria/Parthia. An additional reason then for Josephus' inclusion of these prophetic figures is that the report of their words gave him the opportunity of winning favor for himself and his people with Roman readers — and that in a subtle, allusive way that would have been all the more effective for being so. But what now of Josephus' other audience, i.e. his Jewish readers60? What “contemporary equivalent” for “Assyria” and its irrevocable doom would their reading of Josephus' presentation of Jonah's and Nahum's words have suggested to them? How might Jewish readers have taken the divine statement Josephus attributes to Nahum in 9.241 “God says to thee, Nineveh, ‘I will blot thee out, and no more shall lions go forth from thee to rule the world.’”? The answer to such questions is certainly not far to seek. The mental substitution for “Assyria” Jewish readers would naturally make when encountering the Josephan presentations of Jonah and Nahum is Rome itself, the recent destroyer of their nation who, as such, reprised Assyria's annihilation of the kingdom of Israel. All the more readily might Josephus reckon with Jewish readers making such a “transfer” given that in both the Bible itself and in later Jewish literature “Assyria” seems to be used as a “code name” for later oppressors of the Jews (see, e.g., Num. 24:24)61. In deciding to make use of the “anti-Assyrian” prophecies of Nahum and Jonah Josephus was then, I propose, not simply aiming to ingratitate himself with the Romans. He was also looking to intimate a hope for his oppressed contempoary countrymen, i.e. the “new Assyria” is just as certainly, inescapably doomed as was the old one. No more than the suchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament. Otto Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet (Göttingen 1984) 97-108, p. 104 who identifies an “antiparthische Tendenz” in Josephus' portrayal of the contemporary Parthians in the later books of Ant. 60. On Ant. as a work intended also for Jewish readers, see Feldman, “Mikra”, 471. 61. On this point, see J. Lindblom, “Der Ausspruch über Tyrus in Jesaja 23”, ASTI 4 (1965) 56-73, pp. 69-71. Recall too the well-known Rabbinic use of the names “Babylon” and “Edom/Esau” as “code names” for Rome. 20 JOSEPHUS AND NAHUM REVISITED

Assyria to which Jonah speaks in Josephus' retelling of his words will Rome, Josephus is giving Jewish readers to understand, be offered the pos- sibility of repentance and so of deliverance from divine wrath. What more pleasing prospect could there be for a Jewish audience at the end of the first century B.C.E., many of whom had personally experienced the full weight of Rome's fearsome might? In other words, Josephus, I suggest, was playing a “double game” in his presentation of Jonah and Nahum, catering thereby to the very different hopes/wishes of his two opposed publics. In this connection, I would call attention to Josephus' equivocal formulation at the end of his account of Jonah: “I have recounted his story as I found it written down” (9.214). Roman readers, lacking ready access to the book of Jonah itself, Josephus might calculate, would simply take this statement at face value and presume they had been given the “whole story” about the prophet. So doing, they would accept with satisfaction Jonah's announcement of inevitable destruction for Assyria/Parthia. Jewish readers, on the other hand, would immediately perceive that Josephus has drastically truncated the story of Jonah as actually “written down” in the Biblical book. Such a realization would, however, naturally lead them to wonder why Josephus is claiming to have done something he has not when he must have realized that Jewish readers would certainly pick up on the fact. What then would Jewish readers make of this so glaring discrepancy between their own knowledge of what the book of Jonah contains and Josephus' assertion that he has precisely reproduced this in his version? I suggest that Josephus intended his Jewish audience to take the above statement as a kind of “editorial wink” along the lines of: Yes, of course, the old story of Jonah did tell more; it has Assyria repenting and spared. But this is the “revised version” I'm putting over on the Romans. If they are willing to accept my version and find satisfaction in it, why don't you do the same — in your own way? Perhaps it is in this line too that one can understand the ambiguous import of the formula with which Josephus concludes his “quotation” of Nahum, “and many more things did this prophet prophesy about Nineveh, which I have not thought it necessary to mention, but have omitted in order not to seem tiresome (öxljróv) to my readers” (9.242). As directed to Roman readers, this formula insinuates that Josephus has given them everything of interest in the message of Nahum, i.e. the prophet's announcement of the demise of Assyria/Parthia. In the face of such a statement Romans readers could be expected to accept Jose- phus' abridged version of Nahum rather than putting themselves to the trouble of searching out the prophet's own book in order to find out what more he may have said. Conversely, however, the formula would recall to JOSEPHUS AND NAHUM REVISITED 21

Josephus' Jewish readers that Nahum's book does contain additional matter which the Romans would indeed find potentially ôxljróv (“burdensome, disturbing, inconvenient”)62 if they knew of them, i.e. denunciations of Assyria/Rome's oppressions and glowing anticipations of “Judah's” liberation (for references see above), but from their own memory of which Josephus' countrymen could draw hope and satisfaction63. The “double game” which I have suggested is operative in Josephus' portrayals of Jonah and Nahum (as also elsewhere in Ant., see n. 63) was, of course, a risky one. On the one hand, he needed to drop sufficient hints to focus Jewish readers' attention on those “anti-Roman” elements of their Scriptures which he is deliberately withholding (or obfuscating) in the presentation of Jewish history he is serving up to his and their Roman masters. On the other hand, he could not afford to awaken Roman suspicions in view of his other aim, i.e. securing Rome's sympathy and favor for himself and his people. Accordingly, Josephus shows himself highly circumspect in his handling of the potentially explosive Jonah and Nahum material. As noted, he dispenses with those prophets' Biblical charges concerning Nineveh's oppression which — given the history of their recent dealings with the Jews — the Romans might surmise to be directed against themselves. He like-

62. Thus the meanings of the term given in K.H. Rengstorf, ed., A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, Vol. III (Leiden 1979) s.v. 63. L.H. Feldman formulates similar thoughts in regard to the famous passage in Ant. 10.210 where Josephus states that he will not enter into the interpretation of the stone of Dan. 2:34,44-45 which is destined to break in pieces the image of Nebuchadnezzar's dream with its parts made of various materials, of which the last, i.e. the feet of “mixed iron and clay” (2:33) had come to be identified with the Roman empire. The reason alleged by Josephus for his reticence on the matter is that it would not be “proper” for him to speak of it “since I am expected to write of what is past and done and not of what is to be”. In this same context Josephus goes on to state, however, that if anyone is especially “keen” to find about such future mysteries, he can “take the trouble to read the Book of Daniel, which he will find among the sacred writings”. On this passage, Feldman, “Josephus' Portrait of Daniel”, Henoch 14 (1992) 37-96, p. 68 remarks: “When Josephus directs anyone who is eager for exact information about these hidden things of the future to read the Book of Daniel surely he realized that non-Jews were unlikely to follow through on this suggestion; hence, this would seem to be a hidden hint to Jews to read the Book of Daniel and to perceive the reference to the future downfall of Rome”. Feldman further calls attention to the noteworthy formulation used by Josephus in relating the prophecies of Balaam (“he foretold what calamities were to come for kings and for what cities of the highest celebrity (of which some had not yet so much as been inhabited at all)...”), Ant. 4.125. Regarding this last passage Feldman (ibid., p. 66) states: “There was no reason why Josephus had to mention this prophecy at all, since, as he himself says (Ant. 10.210), the historian is expected to write only of the past and not to predict the future. And yet, the fact that he does introduce this prophecy is an indication that he wished somehow to satisfy his Jewish readers [emphasis added], who might well have recognized the allusion here to Rome. The non-Jewish readers, of course, would not be offended since Josephus had not mentioned Rome specifically by name”. 22 JOSEPHUS AND NAHUM REVISITED wise leaves aside both Nahum's gloating expectation of the city's overthrow (and Judah's consequent release) as well as Jonah's expressions of displeasure at its reprieve by God. Perhaps too, Josephus' opting to reproduce the highly figurative wording of Nah. 2:9-14, contrary to his usual practice of supplying prosaic equivalents for such language64, is explainable along the same lines — confronted by language of this sort, uninitiated Roman readers could be expected not to linger over its possible hidden meaning, but rather to hurry on to the more congenial record of political and military happenings Josephus provides in what follows. And finally, of course, Josephus refrains from introducing an explicit application of Nahum's predictions to later events like that found in 4QpNah65. Josephus, it would appear, succeeded quite well in the Roman side of his “double game”, as is suggested by the favor he enjoyed under a succession of emperors66. But were there also Jewish readers who picked up on the other, so different side of his “game”?

ABSTRACT

In 1923 J. Weill published a brief article in REJ in which he suggested emending the text of Nah. 2:9 in light of Josephus' citation of that verse in Ant. 9.239. Inspired by Weill's essay, the present study provides a comprehensive treatment of Josephus' portrayal of the prophet Nahum in Ant. 9.239-242, comparing this with the source text, i.e. Nah. 2:9-14 (as attested by MT, 4QpNah, LXX, and the Targum on the Prophets). Begg devotes special attention as well to the relationship between Josephus' account of Nahum and his presentation of Jonah in Ant. 9.208-214. His findings include the following: Josephus' text of Nah. 2:9-14 appears to have been close to that of MT than to LXX's, but in any case, he freely abridges, rearranges, and modifies the Biblical sequence. Just as in the case of Jonah, Josephus' (highly selective) utilization of the Bible's data on Nahum seems motivated by a concern to make the prophet the mouth- piece of a two-sided message with something gratifying to offer both his audiences, i.e. (Roman) Gentiles and his own Jewish coreligionists. For the former group, “Assyria", whose coming overthrow Nahum announces in Josephus' quotation, would represent Parthia, Rome's great contemporary rival in the East, while for the latter the same city would symbolize Rome itself, the Jews' oppressor of the moment.

64. As an example of this standard Josephan procedure, see Ant. 8.270 where Josephus converts the prophet Ahijah's accusation of 1 Kgs. 14:9 (“you [Jeroboam] have cast me [God] behind your back” with its vivid (and highly irreverent) imagery into the prosaic statement “you have given up worshipping me [God]”. 65. On the pesher's interpretation of Nahum's words in reference to events of the last centuries before the turn of the era, see Y. Yadin, “Pesher Nahum (4Q pNahum) Reconsidered”, IEJ 21 (1971) 1-12 and the older literature cited there. 66. On this see his statements in Vita 422-429.