Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T03:42:37.645Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Josephus, Joseph and the Greek Novel

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Tim Whitmarsh
Tim Whitmarsh*
Affiliation:
Corpus Christi College, Oxford

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The challenge to classicists to read Josephus ‘as literature’ is an awkward one, because it throws into relief the crooked, appropriative practices we undertake in the name of literary criticism. If Josephus' works are to be seen as ‘literature’—a category closely associated with specifically Hellenic literary ideals, in much of the ancient world as well as the modern academy—then we are also avoiding looking at them as documents of early Jewish cultural history or belief. ‘Literature’ is far from a neutral category.

Josephus would, however, have probably approved, at any rate up to a point. In the proem to the Jewish Archaeology—on which this article will focus—he promises a work of ‘universal usefulness’ (κοινή ὠϕέλειαν, 1.3), which will appear ‘worthy of study to the whole Greek world’ (ἅπασι…τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἀξίαν σπουδῆς, 1.5). Unlike Against Apion, which denigrates Greek historiography in relation to Jewish and other near-eastern narrative traditions (see esp. 1.6-56), the Archaeology seeks to translate biblical discourse into a Greek-friendly register. In terms of communication, ‘universal’ necessarily means ‘Greek’, a point of which the translators of the Septuagint were aware (as much as Cicero and Paul). Moreover, the tralatitious language (Thucydidean ὠϕέλεια, Dionysian σπουδή) coupled with the direct allusion in the work's title to Dionysius' Roman Archaeology reinforce the already clear impression that Josephus is inscribing his project into the Greek cultural tradition, marking its intelligibility within the conceptual framework that we would call ‘literature’, and Josephus and his contemporaries called paideia. The Archaeology converts the fragmented and at times self-contradictory narrative of the Hebrew Bible (what Christians call the Old Testament) into a coherent chronological narrative, seeking to confer on it the legitimacy (as gentile Greeks would see it) of historical narrative.

Type
Research Article
Information
Ramus , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , 2007 , pp. 78 - 95
Copyright
Copyright © Aureal Publications 2007

References

1. The use of the modern term ‘literature’ in relation to the ancient world has been rightly problematised (Goldhill, S., ‘Literary History without Literature: Reading Reading Practices in the Ancient World’, Substance 28 [1991, 57–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar), but it would be misleading to deny that Greek identity was closely allied to the ideal of producing texts of high intrinsic and (hence) cultural value, an ideal that has itself been influential on modern ideas of literature. The association between Hellenism and ‘literature’ was felt strongly by non-Greek peoples: see e.g. the arguments of (among many others) Feeney, D., ‘The Beginnings of a Literature in Latin’, JRS 95 (2005), 226–40Google Scholar, at 230, that ‘for the Romans “literature” and “Greek literature” were co-extensive sets in the Venn diagram of the Mediterranean’. My own views on the question of ‘Greek literature’ can be found at Whitmarsh, T., Ancient Greek Literature (Cambridge 2004Google Scholar), passim, esp. 3–17. I am grateful to all the participants in and organisers of the Cambridge Josephus colloquium, and particularly to Honora Chapman for follow-up advice. Francesca Stavrakopoulou has been generous and patient towards a clumsy neophyte in matters Hebraic.

2. For the central role of pronoia in Josephus’ works see BJ 3.28, 5.60; AJ 1.225, 283; 3.19, 23; 4.47, 114–17; 10.277–80; Ap. 2.180; and further Attridge, H.W.The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (Missoula 1976), 67–107Google Scholar; Daude, C., ‘Flavius Josephe: prediction et histoire’, in Smadja, É. and Geny, É. (eds.), Pouvoir, divination, predestination dans le monde antique (Paris 1999), 81–107Google Scholar. I have not seen Bailey, A.A., Josephus’ Use of Heimarmene: An Interpretation of his Philosophy of Jewish History Related to the Destruction of Jerusalem (Diss. Brigham Young 1990Google Scholar). In general on the question of Hellenism see Schäublin, C., ‘Josephus und die Griechen’, Hermes 110 (1982), 316–41Google Scholar, who however rather simplifies the cultural politics by emphasising Josephus’ dependence on (i.e. subordination to?) Greek models.

3. or (gilliflower/violet): Nic. Georgica fr. 74.1–8 Gow = Ath. Deipn. 683a-b; cf. 681d; repeated at Eust. Commentarii ad Horn. Od. 1.201; possibly also behind Hecataeus fr. la 1F.37 FGrH. Eur. Ion: ‘Ion’ so named because he was met ‘while going’ (iovri), 831.

4. Wenham, G.J., Word Biblical Commentary, Genesis 1–15 (Waco 1987), 213–15Google Scholar.

5. Biblical translations come from the New Revised Standard Version.

6. Alashiya appears in Akkadian, Hittite and Ugaritic inscriptions, and may refer to the island or part of Cyprus: Pfeiffer, R., ‘Hebrews and Greeks before Alexander’, JBL 56 (1937), 91–101Google Scholar, at 91–94; Wenham (n.4 above), 217f. On the evidence for Greek contact with the Syropalestinian world, see Hagedorn, A.C., ‘“Who Would Invite a Stranger from Abroad?” The Presence of Greeks in Palestine in Old Testament Times’, in Gordon, R.P. and de Moor, J.C. (eds.), The Old Testament in its World (Leiden 2005), 68–93Google Scholar.

7. Cf. esp. 1.7: (‘Everything with the Greeks is new—either yesterday or the day before’, reworking PI. Tim. 22b-c).

8. 1 take the phrase ‘outpasting’ from Feeney, D., Caesar’s Calendar: Ancient Time and the Beginnings of History (Berkeley & London 2007), 29Google Scholar, who in turn takes it from Zerubavel, E., Time Maps: Collective Memory and the Social Shape of the Past (Chicago 2003), 105–09CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. The ‘house of Joseph’: Josh. 17:17, Amos 5:6. Cf. also Ezek. 37:16–19.

10. von Rad, G., Wisdom in Israel, tr. Martin, J.D. (London 1972), 46fGoogle Scholar., discusses the Joseph story in connection with ‘narrative art’ and ‘mastery’ (46).

11. Westermann, C., Genesis 37–50: A Commentary, tr. Scullion, J.H. (Minneapolis 1986), 23Google Scholar.

12. Westermann (n.ll above), 252: ‘a remarkably faint echo’, with references; also Kugel, J.L., In Potiphar’s House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts (Cambridge MA 1990), 15–17Google Scholar.

13. Meinhold, A., ‘Die Gattung der Josephsgeschichte und des Estherbuches: Diasporanovelle’, I ZATW 87 (1975), 206–24Google Scholar; IIZATW 88 (1976), 72–93. The idea of a Josephan Novelle goes back to Gunkel, H., Genesis (Göttingen 1917Google Scholar), liii–lv. See also Braun, M., History and Romance in Graeco-Oriental Literature (Oxford 1938), 88fGoogle Scholar.; Wills, L., The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World (Ithaca 1995), 158–63Google Scholar.

14. Braun, M., Griechischer Roman und hellenistische Geschichtschreibung (Frankfurt am Main 1934Google Scholar); Braun (n.13 above).

15. Joseph is the best discussed of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (which survive in Greek, Armenian, Slavonic and Latin versions). For recent bibliography see Kugler, R.A., The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Sheffield 2001), 80–83Google Scholar.

16. Braun (n.13 above), 44–102. Braun’s findings are qualified, but not rejected, by Pervo, R.I., ‘The Testament of Joseph and Greek Romance’, in Nickelsburg, G.W.E. (ed.), Studies on the Testament of Joseph (Missoula 1975), 15–28Google Scholar. See also Wills (n.13 above), 163–70; Feldman, L.H., Josephus’ Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley & Los Angeles 1998), 369–72Google Scholar.

17. Braun (n.13 above), 89f.; cf. also 94, where he speculates that there was a now-lost Joseph romance.

18. Some critics have seen the Greek novel as a creation of Chariton, in the mid-first century CE: see esp. Bowie, E.L., ‘The Chronology of the Earlier Greek Novels since B.E. Perry: Revisions and Precisions’, Anc Narr 2 (2002), 47–63Google Scholar. The phrase ‘historical novel’ is not intended to denote a coherent genre, simply a diverse group of pre-romantic fictionalising texts focusing on a single historical figure. For a different interpretation of the phrase see Hägg, T., ‘Callirhoe and Parthenope: The Beginnings of the Historical Novel’, ClAnt 6 (1987), 184–204Google Scholar, repr. at Hägg, T., Parthenope: Studies in Ancient Greek Fiction (Copenhagen 2004), 73–98Google Scholar.

19. West, S., ‘Joseph and Asenath: A Neglected Greek Romance’, CQ 24 (1974), 70–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 80f.

20. Kraemer, R.S., When Aseneth Met Joseph: A Late Antique Tale of the Biblical Patriarch and his Egyptian Wife Reconsidered (Oxford 1998), 225–42Google Scholar, arguing for multiple narrative layers.

21. For further novelistic motifs see Philonenko, M., Joseph et Aseneth (Leiden 1968), 43–48Google Scholar; West (n.19 above); Pervo, R.I., ‘Joseph and Aseneth and the Greek novel’, Society of Biblical Literature 1976 Seminar Papers (1976), 171–81Google Scholar.

22. Huet, P.-D., Lettre-traité de l’origine des romans (Paris 1670; facsimile reproduction Stuttgart 1966), 11Google Scholar: ‘l’invention [des Romans] ejt deuë aux Orientaux: je veux dire aux Egyptiens, aux Arabes, aux Per/es, & aux Syriens’. For more recent arguments for near-eastern influence see Barns, J.W.B., ‘Egypt and the Greek Romance’, Mitteilungen aus der Papyrussammlung der Nationalbibliothek in Wien 5 (1956), 29–34Google Scholar; Anderson, G., Ancient fiction: The Novel in the Graeco-Roman World (London & Sydney 1984Google Scholar); Rutherford, I., ‘The Genealogy of the boukoloi: How Greek Literature Appropriated an Egyptian Narrative Motif, JHS 120 (2000), 106–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I am not aware of any argument for the formative role of specifically Hebrew literature.

23. See in general Hollander, H.W., ‘The Portrayal of Joseph in Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian Literature’, in Stone, M.E. and Bergren, T.A. (eds.), Biblical Figures Outside the Bible (Harrisburg PA 1998), 237–63Google Scholar, at 239–53.

24. On the portrait of Joseph in the Midrashim see Kugel (n.12 above), 28–124; I am persuaded by Dan Boyarin, however, that Kugel underplays the positive aspects of Joseph’s Midrashic Nachleben (personal communication). The fragmentary papyrus History of Joseph (Black, M. and Denis, A.-M. [eds.], Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece Vol. 3 [Leiden 1970], 235fGoogle Scholar.; Charlesworth, J.M., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha [London 1983–85]Google Scholar, ii.466–75), usually thought of as Midrashic, lauds Joseph’s political skills along the same lines as Philo’s On Joseph (see below).

25. Stavrakopoulou, F., King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice: Biblical Distortions of Historical Realities (Berlin & New York 2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar), esp. 59–68, on the significance of Manasseh’s name.

26. See in general Niehoff, M., The Figure of Joseph in Post-Biblical Jewish Literature (Leiden 1992Google Scholar); Hollander (n.23 above). Philo’s different perspectives on Joseph are economically summarised at Earp, J.W., ‘Indices to Volumes I’X’, in Colson, F.H. and Earp, J.W., Philo vol. X (London & Cambridge MA 1962), 351–57Google Scholar, esp. 351f. (the references are full and accurate, but not entirely systematically organised).

27. Cf. the claim that the name ‘Joseph’ derives from Hebrew words meaning ‘addition of a lord’ (28).

28. The politikos should be ‘shepherdlike’ (ποιμενικόν), ‘economical’ (), and ‘self-controlled’ (καρτερικόν) (54).

29. Niehoff (n.26 above), 27–32.

30. Ricoeur, P., Time and Narrative, tr. Maclaughlin, K. and Pellauer, D. (Chicago 1985Google Scholar), ii.101.1 owe this reference to Larry Kim; see his excellent analysis of temporality in the Greco-Roman novel: Kim, L., ‘Time’, in Whitmarsh, T. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Greek and Roman Novel (Cambridge 2008), 145–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Narcological analysis of Greek literary ideas of time can be found in de Jong, I.J.F. and Nünlist, R. (eds.), Time in Ancient Greek Literature (Leiden 2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar), with extensive theoretical bibliography.

31. I.e. an element introduced at one point in the narrative in order to be picked up later.

32. He also uses narrative retardation to great effect. See Niehoff (n.26 above), 17–21; Wills (n.13 above), 159 and n.3.

33. The Septuagint also uses the same word, λάκκοϛ, of both (37:20–30; 40:15). As Braun (n.13 above, 79 n.l) notes: ‘The word seems to have become typical of the Joseph story; for the translator of the T.T. [= Twelve Testaments] uses λάκκοϛ only in connection with Joseph.’

34. bôr is used elsewhere of the underworld (e.g. Is. 14:19; Ps. 30:4).

35. Feldmann (n.16 above), 337.

36. Cf. especially Josephus’ dream at Vit. 208–09. On Josephus’ celebration of his own foresight see Daude (n.2 above); McLaren, J.S., ‘Delving into the Dark Side: Josephus’ Foresight as Hindsight’, in Rodgers, Z. (ed.), Making History: Josephus and Historical Method (Leiden 2007), 49–67.Google Scholar

37. Feldmann (n.16 above), 335.

38. On the theme of maturation in the Greek novel see esp. Lalanne, S., Une éducation grecque: rites de passage et construction des genres dans le roman grec ancien (Paris 2006Google Scholar).

39. On which see Kugel (n.12 above), 28–65.

40. Rohde, E., Der griechische Roman und seine Vorläufer3 (Leipzig 1914Google Scholar; repr. Hildesheim 1960), 155; Trenkner, S., The Greek Novella in the Classical Period (Cambridge 1958), 110Google Scholar.

41. E.g. Lys. 1.20; Lye. 102–09; Plaut. Cist. 89–93 (perhaps ∼ Men. fr. 382 Körte); Braun (n.14 above), 49f. At Polyaen. 8.3.1 the rape of the Sabine women is said to occur at a . On the other hand, two Callimachean examples (Aet. 67.5–8; 80–84 Pf.) and one of Parthenius’ stories (32.2) display the novelised version of the topos.

42. For other ‘novelised’ examples see Hid. 3.1–6 (a characteristically flamboyant extravaganza); Aristaen. 1.5 (); Mus. 42–54 ().

43. Braun (n.14 above), 55f., notes the similarities, but stops short of claiming a direct link. Current consensus puts Xenophon after Chariton, perhaps around 100 CE; this, however, is based on the highly questionable assumption that an apparent reference to the post of eirenarch (2.13.3; 3.9.5) must make the novel later than our earliest epigraphic attestation, in the time of Trajan (see in general on this issue Bowie [n.18 above], 56f.). It seems to me prima facie much more likely that Xenophon precedes the more sophisticated Chariton (so esp. O’Sullivan, J.N., Xenophon of Ephesus: His Compositional Technique and the Birth of the Novel [Berlin & New York 1995]CrossRefGoogle Scholar, a valuable study the implications of which have not yet been fully digested).

44. Braun (n.14 above), esp. 37–51, 55f., 88–92, 101f., 111,114.

45. See Hägg, T., Narrative Technique in Ancient Greek Romances: Studies of Chariton, Xenophon Ephesius, and Achilles Tatius (Stockholm 1971), 213–87Google Scholar; Bartsch, S., Decoding the Ancient Novel: The Reader and the Role of Description in Heliodorus and Achilles Tatius (Princeton 1989CrossRefGoogle Scholar); and Morgan’s contributions to de Jong and Nünlist (n.30 above), 479–87 (‘Chariton’), 489–92 (‘Xenophon of Ephesus’), 493–506 (‘Achilles Tatius’), 507–22 (‘Longus’) and 523–43 (‘Heliodorus’).

46. The ideas in this paragraph are more fully elaborated in T. Whitmarsh, ‘Desire and the End of the Greek Novel’, in I. Nilsson (ed.), Loving Reading: Eros and the Poetics of Narrative (Copenhagen, forthcoming).

47. On Josephan providence see n.2 above.

48. On the Greek novel see esp. Montiglio, S., Wandering in Ancient Greek Culture (Chicago 2005), 221–61Google Scholar; on providence in Greek discussions of Roman rule, Whitmarsh, T., The Second Sophistic (Cambridge 2005), 69fGoogle Scholar. with further literature.

49. E.g. Pythagoras fr. 58 D6 DK; Eur. fr. 946 N2; Theocr. 24.69f.; also Hid. 2.24.7.

50. Rohde (n.40 above), first published in 1876.

51. Huet (n.22 above).