ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

This article re-examines Josephus' dealing with the biblical miracles. It challenges the view of Feldman and others who argued that Josephus had downplayed the place of miracles in his writings to meet the needs of his intended audience. These scholars failed to define miracles and thus erroneously classified certain stories as miraculous and overlooked narratives that should indeed be classified as miraculous on the other. The main issues analysed were the omissions of miracle stories and the question of rationalization. My conclusion is that Josephus did not significantly deviate from the biblical record when he retold miracle stories.
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013 DOI: 10.1163/18750214-12341245
Also available online – brill.com/zuto
Zutot 9 (2012) 1–25 brill.com/zuto
ZUTOT:
Perspectives on
Jewish Culture
JOSEPHUS’ CONCEPT OF MIRACLES
Michael Avioz*
Bar-Ilan University, Israel
Abstract
This article re-examines Josephus’ dealing with the biblical miracles. It challenges the view
of Feldman and others who argued that Josephus had downplayed the place of miracles in
his writings to meet the needs of his intended audience. These scholars failed to dene
miracles and thus erroneously classied certain stories as miraculous and overlooked
narratives that should indeed be classied as miraculous on the other. The main issues
analysed were the omissions of miracle stories and the question of rationalization. My
conclusion is that Josephus did not signicantly deviate from the biblical record when he
retold miracle stories.
Keywords
Josephus; miracles; Hebrew Bible; Hellenism
In recent years, many studies have been published about the concept
of miracles in the Hebrew Bible and in post-biblical literature.1 These
* I would like to thank the directors of Beit Shalom ( Japan), for their generous
support for my research. My thanks go also to the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and
Jewish Studies at Yarnton, where I spent part of my sabbatical year between December
2012 and March 2013.
1 On miracles in the Hebrew Bible see R. Kasher, The Theological Conception of Miracles
in the Bible, Ph.D. dissertation (Ramat Gan 1981); A. Rofé, The Prophetical Stories: The
Narratives About the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible, Their Literary Types and History ( Jerusalem
1988) 19–67; Y. Zakovitch, The Concept of Miracle in the Bible (Tel Aviv 1987) (Heb.);
idem, ‘Miracle (OT),’ The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 4:845–4:856. On post-biblical miracles
see H.C. Kee, Miracle in the Early Christian World (New Haven 1983); B.M. Bokser,
‘Wonder-Working and the Rabbinic Tradition: The Case of Hanina ben Dosa,’ JSJ
16 (1985) 42–92; J.C. Cavadini, ed., Miracles in Jewish and Christian Antiquity: Imagining
Truth (Notre Dame, IN 1999); E. Eve, The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles (New York
2002); K.B. Stratton, ‘Imagining Power: Magic, Miracle and the Social Context of
Rabbinic Self-Representation,’ JAAR 73 (2005) 361–393; T. Klutz, ed., Magic in the
Biblical World: From the Rod of Aaron to the Ring of Solomon (London 2003); E. Koskenniemi,
The Old Testament Miracle-Workers in Early Judaism (Tübingen 2005); D.E. Aune,
Apocalypticism, Prophecy, and Magic in Early Christianity: Collected Essays (Tübingen 2006).
Some of these studies analyse passages from Josephus as well.
2 M. Avioz / Zutot 9 (2012) 1–25
studies have discussed various denitions of miracles and have attempted
to classify the different ways in which ancient texts describe miracles
and perceive their function and purpose.
The present article looks at how Josephus relates to the miracles in
the Hebrew Bible by examining his treatment of them in his Antiquities
of the Jews. Though we concur with Steve Mason2 that when research-
ing Antiquities, it should be viewed in its entirety, this does not apply to
the subject of miracles. In this case a better understanding may be
gained by focusing on the First temple period as retold in Ant. 1–10,
since by doing so we can compare Josephus’ rewriting to both the MT
and the LXX, something that is not feasible when dealing with books
12–20 (or more accurately, 11.297–20.347) of Antiquities.
A number of questions will be raised: What distinguishes Josephus’
rewriting of the Bible from the original accounts? How are we to explain
his omissions and additions? Are they apologetic, or do they offer an
exegetical solution to problems presented by the text itself? Does
Josephus tend to rationalize miracles or does he intensify the super-
natural element in biblical stories? To what extent and in what cases
does he recount stories of miracles, signs, or portents just as they are
presented in the Hebrew Bible, without reducing them? When does he
expand on the biblical account? And when does he express reservations
or doubts about the miracle?3
2 S. Mason, ‘Introduction to the Judean Antiquities,’ in S. Mason, ed., Judean
Antiquities Books 1–4, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, vol. 3 (Leiden 2004)
xxxiv–xxxv; idem, ‘The Importance of the Latter Half of Josephus’ “Judean Antiquities”
for His Roman Audience,’ in A. Moriya and G. Hata, eds, Pentateuchal Traditions in the
Late Second Temple Period; Proceedings of the International Workshop in Tokyo, August 28–31,
2007 (Leiden 2012) 129–153. According to Mason, the structure of Antiquities is: Part I:
First Temple (books 1–10); Part II: Second Temple (books 11–20). We did not con-
sider Ant. 11.1–11.296, since the books of Ezra-Nehemiah and Esther retold in these
paragraphs do not contain any relevant material to our research. We have followed
Rodgers, who, while accepting Mason’s suggestion regarding the structure of Ant. still
differentiates between ‘biblical and nonbiblical texts’ in Josephus. See Z. Rodgers,
‘Josephus’s Biblical Interpretation,’ in M. Henze, ed., A Companion to Biblical Interpretation
in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI 2012) 436–464.
3 All passages from Antiquities are from the Brill translation: L.H. Feldman, Judean
Antiquities 1–4, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, vol. 3, ed. S. Mason (Leiden
2000); C.T. Begg, Judean Antiquities 5–7, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, vol. 4
(Leiden 2005); C.T. Begg and P. Spilsbury, Judean Antiquities Books 8–10, Flavius Josephus:
Translation and Commentary, vol. 5 (Leiden 2005).
M. Avioz / Zutot 9 (2012) 1–25 3
Methodology
In order to analyse how Josephus rewrites the Bible, we must take a close
look at the biblical texts themselves before exploring what Josephus did
to them. Scholars who have addressed this topic do not dene what the
Bible reports as a miracle and what Josephus considers to be a miracle;
they additionally fail to refer to other studies that do so.4 The result
is either that miracle narratives are not treated as such or the non-
miraculous narratives become miraculous. It is true that the concept of
a miracle is not easily dened,5 but one has to work with a denition
in a given text in order to understand it properly. Otherwise, we may
reach the conclusion either that there are no miracles reported in the
biblical account, or that the whole Bible is a continuous miracle.
Searching the Hebrew Bible for the word סנ with the meaning of
‘miracle’ reveals that there are only one or two occurrences (Num.
26:10 and perhaps also Exod. 17:15).6 Every other rendition of the
term has a totally different meaning (generally ‘ag’ or ‘standard’).7
Consequently, we cannot simply open a concordance and search under
the corresponding entry in order to locate accounts of miracles, either
in the Bible or in Josephus.
Since the literature on miracles in general is vast, my review of it is
far from exhaustive and includes only a small selection. In the eighteenth
century David Hume dened a miracle as ‘a transgression of a law of
nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of
4 Among these scholars are O. Betz, ‘Miracles in the Writings of Flavius Josephus,’
in L.H. Feldman and G. Hata, eds., Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (Detroit 1987)
212–235; L.H. Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley 1998); G. Delling,
‘Josephus und das Wunderbare,’ Novum Testamentum 2 (1958) 291–309; H.R. Moehring,
‘Rationalization of Miracles in the Writings of Flavius Josephus,’ Studia Evangelica 11
(1973) 376–383.
5 See D. Basinger, ‘What is Miracle,’ in G.H. Twelftree (ed.), The Cambridge Companion
to Miracles (Cambridge 2011) 32: ‘There is no one standard religious way of understand-
ing the concept of miracle.’
6 Zakovitch believes that only the occurrence of סנ in Numbers has the sense of
‘miracle,’ whereas its meaning in Exodus is unclear (‘Miracle,’ 842). Even in Num.
26:10, neither the editors of HALOT nor M.Z. Kaddari (Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew
[Ramat Gan 2006]) mention the sense of ‘miracle’ found in Num. 26:10.
7 See, for example, BDB, s.v. סנ, p. 651. Other terms employed in the Bible for
wondrous phenomena include תוא (Num. 14:11, 22), אלפ (e.g., Exod. 15:11), and
תואלפנ (2 Sam. 7:23). See the detailed discussion in Kasher, Theological Conception,
46–56.
4 M. Avioz / Zutot 9 (2012) 1–25
some invisible agent.’8 This denition has been the focus of an on-going
discussion ever since; some scholars accept Hume’s denition while
others reject it.9
Yair Zakovitch, in his book on the biblical concept of miracles,10
employs a literary denition of a miracle that avoids the issue of the
violation of natural laws, and declares a miracle to be ‘an extraordinary
occurrence, attributable to God’s hand (which at times disrupts the
order of creation), and which leaves a marked impression in the text.’11
According to him, the concept of nature and natural laws is foreign to
the religious literature of the Bible. Rather than addressing this concept,
the Bible speaks of creation.
Here we should also briey recall the concept of magic. Without
delving deeply into the distinction between the two, we can generalize
that the difference between a miracle and magic is that, in magic, the
activity is assigned in full to the human world—to wizards or magicians,
who can do what ordinary human beings cannot. Many passages in
Josephus refer to magical deeds, using the Greek words μάγοι and
γοητής, but this is not our topic here.12
8 D. Hume, Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of
Morals, L.A. Selby-Bigge, 3rd edition, revised by P.H. Nidditch (Oxford 1975) 115
n. 1.
9 Scholars who basically followed Hume include R. Swinburne, The Concept of Miracle
(London 1970); F.J. Beckwith, David Hume’s Argument Against Miracles: A Critical Analysis
(Lanham, MD 1989); C. Overall, ‘Miracles and God: A Reply to Robert A. H. Larmer,’
Dialogue 36 (1997) 741–752; R.J.A. Fogelin, A Defense of Hume on Miracles (Princeton
2003). Among his opponents are R. Larmer, Water into Wine? An Investigation of the Concept
of Miracle (Montreal 1988); idem, ‘Miracles and Overall: An Apology for Atheism?’
Dialogue 43 (2004) 555–568; J. Earman, Hume’s Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles
(New York 2000).
10 Zakovitch, ‘Miracle (OT)’, 849.
11 Cf. Eve’s denition (Eve, Jesus’ Miracles, 1) is: ‘a strikingly surprising event, beyond
what is regarded as humanly possible, in which God is believed to act, either directly
or through an intermediary.’ Koskenniemi (Old Testament Miracle-Workers, 2) adopts a
denition closer to Zakovitch’s, but it neglects to mention the element of impression.
12 On magic in Josephus, see, e.g., P.E. Jewell, ‘Flavius Josephus’ Terminology of
Magic: Accommodating Jewish Magic to a Roman Audience,’ Journal for the Academic
Study of Magic 5 (2009) 8–40; idem, Magic in the Works of Flavius Josephus (Ph.D. diss.,
University of Southampton, 2006); P. Schäfer, ‘Magic and Religion in Ancient Judaism,’
in P. Schäfer and H.G. Kippenberg, eds, Envisioning Magic. A Princeton Seminar and
Symposium (Leiden 1997) 19–43; Zakovitch, Concept of Miracles, 60; D. Stein, Maxims,
Magic, Myth ( Jerusalem 2005) 170–185 (Heb.); G. Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic: A History
(Cambridge 2008); Y. Harari, Early Jewish Magic: Research, Method, Sources ( Jerusalem
2010) (Heb.).
M. Avioz / Zutot 9 (2012) 1–25 5
First, we must look at the terminology that Josephus employs to
dene miraculous acts. In many cases he uses the word σημεῖον/σημεῖα
(sign/signs)13 as well as τέρας (marvel). σημεῖον is used eighty times by
Josephus: twenty-nine times in Ant. 1–11, twenty-nine in Ant. 12–20
and twenty-four in War. τέρας appears four times in Ant. (2.265; 4.43,
291; 20.168) and another eight times in War (War 1.28, 331, 377, 378;
4.287; 5.411; 6.288, 295). There are no miracles narrated in Against
Apion or Vita.
Josephus refers to the miracles in Egypt as σημεῖα and does not
reproduce the biblical phrase σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα (signs and portents),
perhaps in order to distinguish miracles from magic.14 His use of these
terms, however, does not seem to be consistent, given that he writes
σημεῖόν τι καὶ τεράστιον to represent the sign and portent that Hezekiah
asked of Isaiah (2 Kings 20:8; Ant. 10:28). In his version of the death
of Elisha (2 Kings 13:20–21), Josephus writes that Elisha worked
θαυμαστὰ καὶ παράδοξα15—wonders and the unexpected (Ant. 9.182).
Now we must ask whether Zakovitch’s denition of miracles in the
Bible is appropriate for Josephus’ writings as well. Josephus refers to
the unexpected nature of miraculous events in his account of the
miracle of the swallowing up of Korah and his faction (Ant. 4.48–53):
You will make Your judgment clear against those who have raged madly
against Your dignity by removing them from life in no common way, nor
should they die as appearing to have departed from life according to the
law of humanity; but let there gape open around them, together with
their family and their resources, the ground on which they tread. (4.48)
Josephus uses the phrase ‘in no common way,’ as well as the contrast
between the action performed by the Lord and the ‘law of humanity’
(ἀνθρώπινον νόμον). Elsewhere Josephus writes that ‘using plausible
words’ about a miracle is liable ‘to impugn its truth’ (Ant. 8.243).16
Zakovitch’s denition of an astonishing event in the Bible also cor-
responds to Josephus’ usage, as we nd the terms wondrous (θαυμάσιον),
13 This pair appears also in the LXX (Exod. 7:3, 9). σημεῖα appears alone in
Exod. 8:23; 10:1, 2; 11:9.
14 H. Remus, ‘Does Terminology Distinguish Early Christian from Pagan Miracles?,’
JBL 101 (1982) 331–351. Josephus uses σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα only in War 1.28 and in
Ant. 20:168.
15 For this word in the LXX see Exod. 8:22(18); 9:4; 11:7; Deut. 28:59.
16 Eve, ‘Jesus’ Miracles,’ 24.
6 M. Avioz / Zutot 9 (2012) 1–25
in an unexpected way (παράλογος), and ‘exceeded the usual’ (τοῦ
συνήθους ἐπλεόνασε) several times in the Antiquities (2.265, 3.18, 5.61,
et passim).
It is not enough to consider only the narrow denition, however.
We must also look at phenomena that regularly accompany an event
dened as miraculous. These are what Zakovitch refers to as ‘the
control mechanisms of miracles’; and what Rimon Kasher calls ‘the
phenomenology of miracles’—such as an advance announcement by
a messenger of the Lord; the extraordinary nature of the miraculous
action, with regard both to its duration and place; the subsequent
restoration of the status quo ante; the specication of the miracle’s
theological objective; a discrimination between two parties affected by
it; and more. There are also several patterns—whether the Lord alone
works the miracle, a human being bears sole responsibility for it, or,
on occasion, God and man work in tandem to affect a miracle.17 The
miracles in the Bible can also be classied into various types, depend-
ing on their purpose—punishment and reward (for unbelief or obedi-
ence, for sacrilege, or for rebellion), deliverance, or authentication of
a divine messenger.18
That it is important to nail down a correct identication and deni-
tion of miracles in the Bible before looking at Josephus is apparent
from how Feldman treats the story in 1 Sam. 12:16–18, where the
prophet announces an impending rainstorm, even though it is the
middle of the harvest season.
Josephus rewrites Samuel’s speech as follows (Ant. 6.91–92):
(. . .) In order, however, to make clear that God is wrathful and displeased
at your request for kingship, I shall induce God to clearly disclose this to
you through signs (διὰ σημείων). For, what none of you has previously
known to happen until now, namely, a rainstorm in midsummer, God, at
my request, will cause you to perceive.
Once Samuel had said these things to the crowd, the Deity indicated
by thunder, lightning and the descent of hail the truth of the prophet
regarding everything.
17 See the references in n. 1 above.
18 Spilsbury (P. Spilsbury, The Image of the Jew in Flavius Josephus’ Paraphrase of the Bible
[Tübingen 1998] 117 n. 77) refers only to the function of authenticating the miracle-
worker.
M. Avioz / Zutot 9 (2012) 1–25 7
Eric Eve and Feldman do not view the story in 1 Sam. 12:16–18 as
a miracle story. Eve has even argued that Josephus’ understanding of
this story as a miracle is his own hyperbole, inasmuch as there is noth-
ing even tangentially supernatural here.19 Louis Feldman, in his com-
prehensive chapter on Josephus’ treatment of the book of Samuel, fails
to note that Josephus views the storm as a miracle.20 On the other hand,
various modern scholars do interpret the event as miraculous, and
rightly so.21 For example, Hertzberg writes, in his commentary on
Samuel: ‘In the normal course of events there is no more “thunder
and rain” after the end of May. Its occurrence is to be regarded as an
extraordinary manifestation of Yahweh, especially as it happens as a
direct result of Samuel’s prayer.’22 That is, the biblical story in 1 Sam.
12 incorporates several typical elements of miracle stories: a violation
of the normal course of nature, a prophet’s prayer that summons the
miracle, which is then worked by God, and an advance announcement
of the miraculous event.
We should also note the purpose of this miracle. One purpose of
biblical miracles is to corroborate a prophetic pronouncement. Here,
it serves to demonstrate Samuel’s bona des as the messenger of the
Lord. In light of this, 1 Sam. 12 should be seen as an account of a
miracle, both in the biblical rendition and in its retelling by Josephus;
nothing in the latter’s version deviates from the biblical original.
An opposite example, in which Feldman is misleading, is when he
speaks of Josephus’ rewriting of the David narrative. Feldman writes:
On the other hand, we may perhaps ask why Josephus diminishes the
role of miracles in David’s achievements, since the net result of his doing
so is to accentuate David’s own role in these. The answer would seem to
be that Josephus, in line with his usual practice, downgrades the role of
miracles also in David’s case, since his rationalistic readers would have
looked askance at them.23
In fact, according to Zakovitch’s denition of biblical miracles there is
only one narrative in 2 Samuel that can be considered a miracle: the
stopping of the plague of pestilence in the wake of David’s census
19 Eve, Jesus’ Miracles, 24.
20 Feldman, Interpretation, 490–508.
21 See, for example, Zakovitch, Concept of Miracles; Kasher, Theological Conception, 113.
22 H.W. Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, OTL (Philadelphia 1964) 100.
23 Feldman, Interpretation, 561.
8 M. Avioz / Zutot 9 (2012) 1–25
(2 Sam. 24:15–16). If that is the case, one should not expect Josephus
to rewrite what does not exist. Therefore, Josephus does not ‘diminish’
or ‘downplay’ miracles in this case, since the biblical author himself
did not view most of the David narrative as miraculous.
A Comparison of Biblical Miracles with Josephus’ Retelling of Them
Miracles in the Pentateuch
In what follows I present a chart detailing the parallels between the
miracles in the Bible and the retelling of them in Josephus’ Antiquities.
This list may help readers appropriately evaluate the relationship
between the scope of miracles in both the Bible and Josephus
Antiquities.
The Bible Josephus
The punitive miracle of Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot’s
wife’s metamorphosis (Gen. 19)
Ant. 1.202–204
God opens Hagar’s eyes, so that she sees a well when she
and Ishmael are without water (Gen. 21:19)
Ant. 1. 219
The burning bush (Exod. 3) Ant. 2.265–271
The signs given to Moses by God (Exod. 4) Ant. 2.272–274
The ten plagues (Exod. 7–10) Ant. 2.293–309
The parting of the Red Sea (Exod. 14) Ant. 2.320–333
Marah, manna, and quail (Exod. 15–16) Ant. 3.1–32
The war against Amalek (Exod. 17) Ant. 3.33–61
The theophany at Sinai (Exod. 19) Ant. 3.75–90
Food and water given to the Israelites due to their
murmuring and their consequent punishment (Num. 11)
Ant. 3.295–299
The earth swallows Korah and his partners (Num. 16–17) Ant. 4.40–53
Aaron’s rod grows overnight (Num. 17) Ant. 4.54–66
Balaam and his ass (Num. 23) Ant. 4.102–158
M. Avioz / Zutot 9 (2012) 1–25 9
Miracles in the Rest of the Hebrew Bible
Below is a list of the miracle narratives in the books of Joshua–Kings,24
Jonah, and Daniel.
The Bible Josephus
The parting of the waters of the Jordan River ( Josh. 3–4) Ant. 5.16–19
The collapse of the walls of Jericho ( Josh. 6) Ant. 5.22–27
The halting in their places of the sun and moon during
the battle against the kings of the south ( Josh. 10:12);
Stones that fall from heaven ( Josh. 11)
Ant. 5.60–61
God’s fullment of Samson’s last prayer Ant. 5.301–303
Samuel’s miraculous birth (1 Sam. 1) Ant. 5.343–346
The paralysis of Jeroboam’s arm (1 Kings 13) Ant. 8.233–235
The man of God from Judah, killed but not eaten by the
lion (1 Kings 13)
Ant. 8.236–245
The Elijah and Elisha cycles (1 Kings 19–2 Kings 13) Ant. 8.319–9.183
Jehoshaphat’s deliverance (2 Chron. 20) Ant. 9.1–17
The deliverance of Jerusalem in the time of Hezekiah
(2 Kings 19)
Ant. 10.21
Hezekiah’s recovery from his illness (2 Kings 20:1–7) Ant. 10.28–29
The backward movement of the shadow on the wall
(2 Kings 20:8–11)
Ant. 10.29–3025
The miracle of Jonah’s remaining alive for three days in
the belly of the big sh ( Jon. 2:1–10)
Ant. 9.213
24 Josephus’ descriptions of Solomon’s exorcism (Ant. 8.42–45) are not part of the
miracles but rather magic. For an analysis of these passages see Koskenniemi, Miracles,
259–264; P.A. Torijano, Solomon, the Esoteric King: From King to Magus, Development of a
Tradition (Leiden 2002) 95–105.
25 In his retelling of this miracle, Josephus attributes it to God rather than to the
prophet. But, as noted, this does not detract from the power of the miracle. For an
extended discussion of his perspective, see P. Höffken, ‘Hiskija und Jesaja bei Josephus’,
JSJ 29 (1998), 37–48; R. Kasher, ‘The “Sitz im Buch” of the Story of Hezekiah’s
Illness and Cure (II Reg 20,1–11; Isa 38,1–22),’ ZAW 113 (2001) 41–55.
10 M. Avioz / Zutot 9 (2012) 1–25
The Bible Josephus
Daniel’s companions’ survival in the furnace
(Dan. 3:29–30); Daniel in the lions’ den (Dan. 6:27–28)
and Nebuchadnezzar’s metamorphosis into a beast
(Dan. 4:22, 29)
Ant. 10.214–18,
250–6226
Omissions and Additions
Several miracle narratives were omitted by Josephus. One of the argu-
ments made by scholars who believe that Josephus tends to rationalize
miracles is that he passes over many of them in silence.27
Josephus omits the miracle of Moses’ leprous hand (Exod. 4:6) and
Miriam’s punishment by leprosy (Num. 12:10)—presumably because
of the prevalent anti-Jewish libel that the Israelites had been expelled
from Egypt as lepers.28 The story about Moses striking the rock and
thus bringing out water (Num. 20) was also omitted, probably because
of its similarity to the story in Exod. 17. He also leaves out the incident
of the serpents that bite the Israelites in the wilderness (Num. 21:9),
although the reason for this is unclear.29
26 Although Josephus recounts the story of Jonah, he leaves out the miracle of the
gourd. The reason for this omission does not seem to be related to the gourd itself,
but to the debate about the Ninevites’ reaction. See C.T. Begg, Josephus’ Story of the
Later Monarchy (AJ 9.1–10.185) (Leuven 2000) 268.
27 See Feldman, Interpretation, 39, 55, 209–214, and the references there.
28 G. Hata, ‘The Story of Moses Interpreted within the Context of Anti-Semitism,’
in L.H. Feldman, ed., Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (Detroit 1987) 180–197; B. Bar-
Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, On the Jews: Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora (Berkeley 1996)
15–33; J.G. Gager, Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism (Nashville, TN 1972); E.S. Gruen,
Heritage and Hellenism (Berkeley 1998) 41–72; and J.J. Collins, Jewish Cult and Hellenistic
Culture: Essays on the Jewish Encounter with Hellenism and Roman Rule (Leiden 2005) 44–57.
Josephus retained the biblical laws of the leper (Lev. 13–14), but did not develop or
expand on them (Ant. 3.261; Against Apion 1.281–82). He uses the opportunity (Ant.
3.265) to ing back the gauntlet with regard to the accusation that the Jews were
bearers of leprosy.
29 See the discussion in Koskenniemi, Old Testament Miracle-Workers, 246. Some of
Josephus’ account of Moses’ birth are echoed in midrashim; see Feldman, Interpretation,
381–384.
Table (cont.)
M. Avioz / Zutot 9 (2012) 1–25 11
In his discussion of Josephus’ retelling of the story of Balaam and
his ass (Num. 23; Ant. 4.102–158), Feldman30 writes that even though
Josephus the historian is uncomfortable with describing miracles, he
does not totally omit the incident of the ass. Feldman proposes an
explanation for this: Josephus’ readers were familiar with the dialogue
between Xanthos the horse and Achilles, as narrated in the Iliad
19.408–417. Nevertheless, continues Feldman, Josephus employed
various means to minimize the importance of the miracle:
1. He abridged the biblical account.
2. Balaam strikes the ass once rather than three times.
3. The ass speaks once rather than twice.
4. Instead of God ‘opening the mouth of the ass,’ the animal speaks
in compliance with a divine decree.
5. In the Bible, the object of the miracle, Balaam, is not aware that
anything out of the ordinary is occurring, whereas Josephus notes
that he was astonished.
This set of arguments shows the problematic nature of the attempt to
turn Josephus into a rationalist. The fact that Homer, too, presents a
talking horse could mean that Josephus would not expect his readers
to raise an eyebrow about the matter. The other changes can be
explained as being motivated by a desire for concision, which is typical
of Josephus in other passages that have nothing to do with miracles.
Finally, Josephus’ addition of Balaam’s astonishment actually reinforces
and intensies the miracle, given that in many biblical accounts of
miracles the people who are its object are astonished and amazed. This
makes Balaam something of an exception, so Josephus’ addition serves
to direct the incident towards one of the general characteristics of
miracles in the Bible.
As Koskenniemi shows,31 Josephus actually adds miracles not found
in the Bible, as in his version of the birth of Moses. As Josephus tells
the story, Amram prayed to the Lord and received a revelatory dream
(Ant. 2.210–260). Prayer and a response to it are characteristics of
30 L.H. Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible (Leiden 1998) 128.
31 Koskenniemi, Old Testament Miracle-Workers, 248.
12 M. Avioz / Zutot 9 (2012) 1–25
miracles.32 The description of Amram and Jochebed’s terror at the
divine message (Ant. 2.217) is reminiscent of the story of Manoah and
his wife ( Judg. 13). Samson’s is dened as a miraculous birth story,33
and we can annex Josephus’ account of Moses’ birth to this same liter-
ary genre. Support for the idea that Josephus viewed Moses’ birth as
miraculous is provided by the advance notication of it, which is an
important element of this genre.
According to Josephus, the ow of the Jordan was not totally sus-
pended but merely reduced (Ant. 5.16–20). Thackeray notes that here
Josephus, as was his wont, reduces the supernatural aspect of the event.34
He describes the fall of the walls of Jericho in much less detail than
does the biblical text (Ant. 5.24, 27).
It is true that, in contrast to Ben-Sira and Pseudo-Philo (the Liber
Antiquitatum Biblicarum),35 Josephus does not display any great enthusiasm
for Joshua’s miracles. This is not, however, necessarily due to a desire
to rationalize them.
Here we must distinguish abridgment of stories from their status as
miraculous. There is no doubt that all of these incidents t the deni-
tion of miracles, both in the Bible and in Josephus.
It is possible that the abridgment of the miracles in Joshua is related
to Josephus’ own biography. Josephus reports on the ostensible miracles
performed by the rebels and messianists during the Great Revolt:
For deceitful people and rogues, in a show of divine inspiration busying
themselves with revolutionary matters and upheavals, were persuading
the mob to be possessed, and leading them out into the desert so that
God would there show them signs of freedom (War 2.259).36
32 See Kasher, Theological Conception, 174.
33 See, for example, Y. Amit, The Book of Judges: The Art of Editing (Leiden 1999),
289–291; U. Simon, Reading Prophetic Narratives (Bloomington 1997), 33–50; T.D. Finlay,
The Birth Report Genre in the Hebrew Bible (Tübingen 2005).
34 Josephus: Jewish Antiquities, Books V–VIII, with an English translation by H.St.J.
Thackeray and R. Marcus, LCL (London 1934) 168–169.
35 On the rewriting of Joshua’s miracles in these two works, see Koskenniemi,
Old Testament Miracle-Workers, 23–31, 203–205. See also Y. Zakovitch, ‘“Was not the
sun held back by his hand?” (Ben-Sira 46:6): A Chapter in Literary Archaeology,’ in
M. Cogan et al., eds, Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg
(Winona Lake, IN 1997) 107–114 (Heb.).
36 Koskenniemi (Old Testament Miracle-Workers, 253–254) believes that Josephus’
minimizing of the miracle of the parting of the Jordan is related to the incident of
Theudas, who ‘persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them,
M. Avioz / Zutot 9 (2012) 1–25 13
The miraculous halting of the sun and moon in their courses does not
receive special attention, as it does in Ben-Sira, for example, but it is
nevertheless mentioned and not diminished:
It also happened that the day was increased further so that nightfall would
not check the Hebrews’ eagerness. (. . .) The duration of the day was
prolonged and exceeded the usual on that occasion (. . .) (Ant. 5:61).
Begg believes that Josephus plays down the miraculous element in the
story of Gideon ( Judg. 6–8).37 It is true that Josephus eliminates or
diminishes the importance of the appearance of the angel ( Judg.
6:11–24).38 Still, readers are left with the impression that this was not
a routine battle, but one in which the Lord helped Gideon39 against all
odds; consequently it should be dened as a miracle in every respect.40
Josephus’ omission of the incident of the eece ( Judg. 6:36–40) does
reduce the number of miraculous events associated with Gideon. But
the eece is a marginal element in the overall miraculous situation of
Gideon’s career, the crux of which is a description of the wondrous
divine deliverance.
Finally, we should also consider what Josephus leaves out of his
retelling of the adventures of Elisha (2 Kings 2–8):
1. The bears who maul forty-two boys (2 Kings 2:23–25).
2. Both parts of the story of the Shunammite matron (2 Kings
4:8–37).
and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he
would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over
it’ (Ant. 20.97). It should be noted that inasmuch as Theudas preceded the Great Revolt
by about 25 years and the composition of the Antiquities by another fteen years, it is
unlikely that this rendition of his misadventure would have inuenced Josephus’ descrip-
tion of the parting of the Jordan in the time of Joshua.
37 See also C.T. Begg, ‘Gideon’s Call and Rout of Midian according to Josephus,’
Polish Journal of Biblical Research 6 (2007) 1–31. It is somewhat surprising that Koskenniemi
does not discuss Gideon in the chapter on Josephus’ treatment of miracles.
38 On angels in Josephus, see C.T. Begg, ‘Angels in the Work of Flavius Josephus,’
in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook (Berlin 2007) 525–536.
39 M. Roncace, ‘Deborah and Gideon: A Reading of Antiquities 5.198–232’, JSJ 31
(2000) 247–274, on 273. In this case, Feldman asserts that Josephus downplays the
role of the deity, but it is hard to reconcile this conclusion with a close reading of
Josephus’ text.
40 Kasher (Theological Conception, 171) classies Gideon as a story in which the mir-
acle is worked exclusively by God.
14 M. Avioz / Zutot 9 (2012) 1–25
3. The incident of the toxic pottage (2 Kings 4:38–41).
4. The feast at Baal Shalishah (2 Kings 4:42–44).
5. The story of Naaman (2 Kings 5).
6. The miracle of the oating axe head (2 Kings 6:1–7).
Why are these incidents left out? Feldman sees this as evidence that
Josephus minimized the importance of miracles as part of his apolo-
getics.41 Presenting Judaism as wall-to-wall miracles would have played
into the hands of the Greek and Roman authors who attacked it as
superstitious. The best defence against these attacks was to rationalize
some miracles and make light of others. In my opinion, however, there
are a number of relevant reasons for leaving out some of the miracles
in the Elisha cycle:
1. Josephus may have left out the mauling of the forty-two lads cursed
by Elisha because he did not want to depict the ancestors of the
Jewish people as cruel men who kill children. The fact that the
victims were juveniles worried some of the Sages, too, who suggest
that they were adults rather than children (bT Sotah 46b–47a). This
apologetic motive may be correct, but fails to account for the fact
that Josephus does write about the slaughter of the Baal worship-
pers by Elijah and Jehu (1 Kings 19 and 2 Kings 9).
2. The bulk of the major omissions are in the Elisha cycle. Inasmuch
as entire sections of that account are missing from the Antiquities, it
is implausible that they were omitted merely because they include
miracles. This leads to the tenable conclusion that here our text of
Josephus is defective. This certainly seems likely for Ant. 9.51, which
recounts the events of 2 Kings 8:10 as follows: ‘Elisha sent off
quickly to Joram, urging him to be on his guard at that place, for
some Syrians were in ambush there to do away with him.’ Josephus
seems to be relying on his readers’ familiarity with this incident,
even though he never describes it. Thus it seems likely that it was
included in Josephus’ retelling of the Elisha cycle, but was deleted
from the text of Josephus that has come down to us.42
41 Feldman, Studies in Josephus, 345.
42 See Koskenniemi, Old Testament Miracle-Workers, 277–278.
M. Avioz / Zutot 9 (2012) 1–25 15
3. We may hypothesize that Josephus skipped over routine events
with which Elisha was involved and emphasized instead his con-
nection with political affairs (although the story of Naaman in 2
Kings 5 is an exception to this).
The Question of Rationalization
In many places throughout his book, Feldman uses the word rational-
ization or its derivatives.43 Feldman, who goes so far as to designate
Josephus as ‘the rationalist,’44 never explains what is meant by rational-
ization. According to Dodds, this denition relates to three afrmations:
(a) reason is the only instrument for recognizing truth; (b) reason is the
essential character of reality; (c) reason not only determines facts, but
also values.45 Clark understands rationalizing as the ‘removing of divine
or magical aspects and interpreting them as accounts of historical
events.’46 Reading Feldman’s book we may assume that rationalizing
according to him means (a) ‘deemphasis on G-d’ or ‘diminishing the
role of G-d’;47 and (b) explaining ‘in natural terms’ what may seem
supernatural.48
Let us look at several examples and determine whether Josephus
rationalized them, focusing on the role of God and the natural
explanations.
43 See, for example, the following citations (Feldman, Interpretation, 431–432): ‘Josephus
is similarly apologetic and resorts to rationalization in his accounts of the sweetening of
the bitter waters at Marah’; ‘In connection with the miracle of the quails, Josephus,
by adding that quails are more abundant than any other species of bird in that area,
and that they are accustomed to skim the ground (Ant. 3.25), clearly rationalizes the
miracle’; ‘Josephus explains the victory [over Amalek] in rational terms in that he
dwells at length on the military preparations, omits the fact that Moses held the rod
of G-d in his hands, and adds that Moses withdrew to the mountain, committing the
battle to G-d and to his commander, Joshua.’
44 Feldman, Interpretation, 250.
45 E.R. Dodds, ‘Euripides the Irrationalist,’ Classical Review 43 (1929) 87–104.
46 M. Clark, Exploring Greek Myth (Chichester 2012) 155. Cf. E.R. Dodds, The Greeks
and the Irrational (Berkeley 1951) ch. 6.
47 Feldman, Interpretation, 345, 482.
48 Feldman, Interpretation, 212.
16 M. Avioz / Zutot 9 (2012) 1–25
Diminishing the Role of God
In his version of the Amalekite war (Ant. 3.39–58), Josephus at rst
glance seems to minimize the divine element and to shift the focus to
Moses: he selects the ghting men and encourages the people; his raised
hands decide the outcome of the battle. Feldman sees this as an
example of Josephus’ rationalization of miracles.49 But the shift in
responsibility from the Lord to Moses is not necessarily rationalization:
it is still Moses’ upraised hands that bring victory.50 We need to clarify
here a basic idea of the different types of accounts of miracles in the
Bible: (1) the miracle is announced in advance and worked solely by
the human agent; (2) the miracle is performed by the human miracle
worker in according with precise instructions by God; (3) the initiative
for the miracle comes from the human agent but its implementation is
ascribed to the Lord; (4) both the initiative and the implementation are
assigned exclusively to the miracle worker.51
These distinctions apply with equal force to the miracles described
in the New Testament and in the works of Hellenistic Jewish authors.52
Feldman argues that the reassignment of miracles from human actors
to God detracts from their force.53 But if the model of a variable divi-
sion of labour between God and man can already be found in the
Bible, at most we can speak of a preference for the model that attributes
miracles to God or to human agents. As can be seen, there is no system
in Josephus’ recourse to the different models: in some accounts the
human element in the performance of the miracle is amplied, while
in others it is the divine element that is accentuated.
Does Josephus’s report that Moses lifted his arms heavenward
somehow reduce the scale of the miracle? For Kasher, this incident
exemplies the notion that the arms of a divine messenger have
49 See L.H. Feldman, ‘Josephus’s View of the Amalekites,’ Bulletin for Biblical Research 12
(2002) 161–186, on 171.
50 Koskenniemi, Old Testament Miracle-Workers, 243.
51 R. Kasher, ‘Patterns of Activity of the Miracle Workers in the Hebrew Bible,’ in
U. Simon, ed., Studies in Bible and Exegesis, vol. 2: Presented to Yehuda Elitzur (Ramat Gan
1986) 161–174 (Heb.).
52 See W. Kahl, New Testament Miracle Stories in Their Religious-Historical Setting: A Religions-
geschichtliche Comparison from a Structural Perspective (Göttingen 1994).
53 Feldman, Interpretation, 387, 432.
M. Avioz / Zutot 9 (2012) 1–25 17
wonder-working powers.54 He also calls attention55 to the fact that
several of the plagues—the blood, lice, hail, and darkness—are trig-
gered by Moses’ or Aaron’s arms (Exod. 7:19–20; 8:12–13; 9:22; 10:22).56
In addition, Josephus accentuates (Ant. 3.44–46) God’s grace and His
covenant with the people, as a result of which He protects them even
more than does the biblical narrative. Josephus has not, in fact, changed
the identity of the agents of the miracle but has left them as in the
biblical account: God, Moses, Aaron, Hur, and Joshua. It is true that
he places more emphasis on the military aspect, but this does not can-
cel out the miraculous nature of the victory.57
Gregory Sterling claims in his study of Ruth in the works of Josephus
that while the name of God appears almost thirty times in the MT,
Josephus lists it only one time (Ant. 5.337). He concludes his paper by
saying that ‘Josephus thus attributes the major function of God in the
Antiquities to a human agent.’58 While in agreement that in Josephus’
retelling of the Book of Ruth God’s name is omitted systematically, we
do not consider this sufcient grounds for a generalization regarding
54 Kasher, Theological Conception, 191.
55 Ibid., 190.
56 On Josephus’ presentation of the plagues, see S.E. Loewenstamm, The Evolution of
the Exodus Tradition ( Jerusalem 1992) 37–38, 46–47; S. Cheon, ‘Josephus and the Story
of Plagues: An Appraisal of a Moralizing Interpretation,’ Asia Journal of Theology 18
(April 2004) 220–230. Josephus gives special emphasis to the plague of darkness.
According to the Masoretic text, ‘Moses stretched out his hand toward heaven, and
there was thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days; they did not see one
another, nor did any rise from his place for three days; but all the people of Israel
had light where they dwelt’ (Exod. 10:22–23). Josephus intensies the miracle: ‘(. . .) a
thick darkness devoid of light poured out over the Egyptians, by which their eyesight
was impeded and their respiratory organs were blocked by the dense darkness so that
they happened to die pitifully or feared lest they be gulped down by the fog. Then,
when this had been dispersed after three days and as many nights’ (Ant. 3.308–309).
The asphyxiating force of the darkness is not in the biblical account. It is hard to see
this addition as compatible with a desire to minimize the importance of miracles, as
Feldman claims (Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1–4, 221 n. 812).
57 F. Damgaard (‘Brothers in Arms: Josephus’ Portrait of Moses in the “Jewish
Antiquities” in the Light of His Own Self-Portraits in the “Jewish War” and the “Life,”
JJS 59 [2008] 218–235) believes that Josephus focused on Moses’ military exploits
because he wanted to construct a parallel between Moses and his own career as a
commander. Damgaard does not refer to the Amalekite war, however.
58 G.E. Sterling, ‘The Invisible Presence: Josephus’s Retelling of Ruth,’ in S. Mason,
ed., Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives (Shefeld 1998) 104–171, here at 131.
18 M. Avioz / Zutot 9 (2012) 1–25
the whole Bible. This point has to be determined regarding every book
separately. In fact, in other places, many scholars emphasize the role
of God as an important factor in Josephus’ Antiquities.59
Explaining in Natural Terms
In the story of the waters of Marah (Exod. 15:22–26), God instructs
Moses to throw a branch into the water to make it potable. Feldman60
describes how Josephus modied the story:
(. . .) in Josephus, Moses picks up a piece of wood on his own initiative,
splits it in two, and then ings it into the well (Ant. 3.7). Josephus then
adds the rationalizing detail that Moses, likewise on his own initiative,
instructed the people to drain off the larger part of the water, assuring
them that the remainder would be drinkable.
According to this analysis, then, the miraculous feature of the narrative
was replaced by a natural explanation. However, Feldman ignores
Josephus’ report that Moses prayed to God and that his prayer was
accepted—two important elements of miracle stories, as has been shown
by Zakovitch, Kasher, and others.61 Assigning Moses the initiative for
his action is not necessarily rationalizing the miracle, given that, as
noted, some biblical accounts of miracles credit them to the human
agent. At most we can speak about a shift of the focus from God to
Moses, or a desire to expand the story to make it comprehensible to
his readers. These are reasonable exegetical measures that contemporary
commentators may also adopt: not denying that the Bible describes a
miracle, on the one hand, but trying to give it a scientic or pseudo-
59 See R.J.H. Shutt, ‘The Concept of God in the Works of Josephus,’ JJS 31 (1981)
171–189, here at 180: ‘In almost every book of each of Josephus’ works words occur
expressing these themes: typical words used are eumeneia, eunoia, pistis, gnome, and
pronoia.’ See also H.W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the ‘Antiquitates
Judaicae’ of Flavius Josephus (Missoula 1976) passim; T.M. Jonquière, Prayer in Josephus
(Leiden 2007) ch. 6.
60 Feldman, Interpretation, 431.
61 Zakovitch, Concept of Miracles, 37–40; Kasher, Theological Conception, 174, 207–12.
Even though it was Zakovitch whose concise denition of miracles and their charac-
teristics leads to the clear conclusion that Josephus followed in the footsteps of the
Bible, he nevertheless asserts that Josephus was a rationalist. See Y. Zakovitch,
‘Rationalization of Miraculous Motifs in Biblical Narrative,’ Proceedings of the Ninth World
Congress of Jewish Studies, Section A ( Jerusalem 1986) 27–34 (Heb.).
M. Avioz / Zutot 9 (2012) 1–25 19
scientic explanation, on the other. In any case, there is certainly no
solid tendency to rationalize the accounts of miracles in this practice,
but at most a partial rationalization. It is possible that the transfer of
the initiative to Moses is connected to Josephus’ ambivalence about
whether Moses was the author of the biblical law code or merely
transmitted it to the people.62
In his retelling to the miracle of the quail in Exod. 16 Josephus
explains that quail are more common in that region than elsewhere and
that when they arrived there they fell to the ground in exhaustion and
were easy prey for the Israelites (Ant. 3.25). This explanation certainly
makes it easier for readers to understand the story and it was accepted
as plausible by contemporary commentators.63 Nevertheless, we must not
ignore Josephus’ explicit report: (1) Moses prays to God for help; (2) God
promises that help is on its way; (3) Help in fact arrives; (4) Moses thanks
God for his assistance: ‘Moses turned to prayers [of thanks] to God for
producing assistance that was swift and in accordance with His promise’
(Ant. 3.25) In his commentary on Exodus, Yitzhak Avishur explains
the miracle precisely in this fashion, but with an important addition: ‘The
miracle in these stories is manifested in the scale and timing of the
phenomena.’64 Josephus, too, is clearly aware of the time factor, which
is often an important element of biblical miracles.65
Feldman sees rationalization in Josephus’ account of Elisha’s treat-
ment of the waters of Jericho (2 Kings 2:19–22).66 For Feldman, the fact
that Josephus has Elisha praying to the Lord rather than healing the
waters of Jericho by adding salt is an attempt to rationalize the story.
Here too, however, it is doubtful that we should see the emphasis on
Elisha’s prayer as rationalization.67 At most we can say that Josephus
wishes to reduce or eliminate the magical element of miracles.
62 J. Lierman, The New Testament Moses: Christian Conceptions of Moses and Israel in the
Setting of Jewish Religion (Tübingen 2004) 136–139.
63 See, for example, N.M. Sarna, Exodus, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia
1991) 88–89.
64 Y. Avishur, ‘The Story of the Manna and the Quail,’ in idem, ed., Exodus, Olam
ha-tanakh (Tel Aviv 1993) 102 (Heb.).
65 See Zakovich, ‘Miracle.’
66 L.H. Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible (Leiden 1998) 344.
67 To this we should add that Josephus recounts Elisha’s healing of the waters of
Jericho in great detail in War 4.460. Rofé (Prophetical Stories, 22–23) believes that the
attribution of the miracle to the word of the Lord is a late revision of the story.
20 M. Avioz / Zutot 9 (2012) 1–25
The Sceptic Formula
In certain places throughout Antiquities Josephus inserts what we may
call ‘sceptic formulae,’ i.e., statements from which we may reveal his
scepticism regarding miracles.
For instance, Josephus writes about the miracle of the parting of the
Red Sea:
Now I have transmitted each of these details as I have found them in
the sacred books. And let no one wonder at the astonishment (τὸ
παράδοξον) of the narrative, if a path of deliverance was found through
the sea also for men of old who were unacquainted with wickedness,
whether by the will of God or by itself (κατὰ βούλησιν), when also the
Pamphylian Sea retired before the men about Alexander, the king of
Macedonia, who were born yesterday and the day before. (. . .) However,
concerning these matters let each decide as it seems best to him (Ant. 2.347–348).68
Additional statements in this vein—‘concerning these matters let each
decide as it seems best to him’—recur with variations elsewhere in
Josephus’ writings.69 This notion is familiar from Thucydides, Dionysius
of Halicarnassus, Lucian, Pliny, and Herodotus.70
From such passages, Feldman concludes71 that:
On the whole, Josephus tends to downgrade miracles, as we see especially
when we compare, for example, his depiction of Abraham and Moses as
talented generals with the rabbinic portraits of these leaders as prevailing
because of G-d’s miraculous assistance.
And he proceeds,
It is clear that Josephus is well aware of the fact that people generally
are not convinced by reports of miracles. Thus, whereas the Bible declares
that Aaron performed the signs before the eyes of the people and that
68 This formula is also found in Ant. 1.108; 3.81; 4.158; 10.281, and 17.354. See
also S.J.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome (Leiden 1979) 39; F.G. Downing, ‘Magic
and Scepticism in and around the First Christian Century,’ in T. Klutz, ed., Magic
in the Biblical World: From the Rod of Aaron to the Ring of Solomon (New York 2004) 86–99,
on 94.
69 Ant. 2.348; 3.81; 3.268; 4.158; 8.262, 10.281; 17.354; 19.108; War 5.257.
70 See the references in Koskenniemi, Old Testament Miracle-Workers, 229 n. 6. On
the general relationship between Josephus and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, see Feldman,
Interpretation, 7–8, and the literature referenced there.
71 Feldman, Interpretation, 210.
M. Avioz / Zutot 9 (2012) 1–25 21
the people believed him (Exod. 4:30–31), in Josephus, as noted, it is Moses,
rather than Aaron, who performs the miracles.72
Feldman believes that Josephus was anxious not to present the Jews
as naïve or superstitious.73 This was especially important in light of
the line by the Roman poet Horace, who wrote, mockingly, ‘Credat
Iudaeus Apella, non ego’ (Apella the Jew may believe it, not I [Satires,
I.v.100–101])—expressing the common Roman view of the Jews’
extreme credulity.
According to this understanding, it is clear Josephus is a rationalist
writing for an audience that would not be readily won over by accounts
of miracles.
Several arguments can be raised against this evaluation.74 Josephus
saw the miracles in the Bible as conrming the divine providence and
thus a major tenet of faith, so it is inconceivable that he would down-
play them. This can be shown in Ant. 3.322. At the end of this para-
graph he enters the formula that may show sceptical (‘But concerning
these matters each will decide as it seems best to him’), but the begin-
ning of this paragraph contains a profound declaration of faith: ‘(. . .)
up to the very present the writings left by Moyses have such power that
even those who hate us agree that God established the constitution for
us through Moyses and his merit.’75
The ‘skeptic formula’ also appears with regard to the Sinai theo-
phany (Ant. 3.81), whose veracity Josephus certainly had no thought of
questioning. It cannot possibly be that Josephus is suggesting that this
theophany never happened.76
In my view, these declarations should be regarded merely as a rhe-
torical expression. It is not the only place where there is gap between
programmatic rhetoric and reality. We may note another formula that
Josephus employs, but does not always stay faithful to: his promise not
72 Ibid., 428.
73 Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1–4, 209 n. 703; J.J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem:
Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI 2000) 8.
74 G.W. MacRae, ‘Miracle in The Antiquities of Josephus,’ in C.F.D. Motile, eds,
Miracles: Cambridge Studies in Their Philosophy and History (London 1965) 127–147, on 142.
75 Cf. Betz, ‘Miracles,’ 212: ‘To Josephus, belief in divine miracles is bound up with
the true understanding of God.’
76 Delling, ‘Josephus,’ 305.
22 M. Avioz / Zutot 9 (2012) 1–25
to alter the biblical text (Ant. 1.17; 10.208), with which Feldman deals
at length.77 This shows that Josephus’ statements should not be taken
at face value.78 These statements were adopted from Greek and Roman
authors who also used them; there is strong evidence that they did not
in fact follow them. For example, Plutarch, though stating a critical
stance toward marvellous tales, does not dismiss all portents, dreams,
healings, and the like.79
Conclusion
This article has examined how Josephus rewrites miracle stories in the
Bible. The number of miracles mentioned in Josephus’ retelling of these
miracle stories is not signicantly different from that in the original.
There are many and varied reasons for his omission of certain miracles
and not all of them are associated with a tendency to rationalize
them.80
Scholars who see Josephus as a rationalist evidently do so in order
to anchor Josephus in the Greco-Roman environment in which he lived.
They fail, however, to lay the groundwork and look closely at the bib-
lical context of the miracle tales. In effect, such a close reading of the
Bible must precede any thought about how Josephus revises them or
consideration of the Greco-Roman cultural context. Josephus is one of
the early biblical interpreters, and in order to understand what he says
of the Bible, we need to fully understand the biblical narrative in and
77 L.H. Feldman, ‘Josephus’ Liberties in Interpreting the Bible in the “Jewish War”
and in the “Antiquities,” JSQ 8 (2001), 309–325. See also S. Inowlocki, “Neither
adding nor omitting anything”: Josephus’ Promise Not to Modify the Scriptures in
Greek and Latin Context,’ JJS 56 (2005) 48–65.
78 H.W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the ‘Antiquitates Judaicae’ of Flavius
Josephus (Missoula, MT 1976) 57–60; Cohen, Josephus, 28–29. Feldman (Interpretation,
210) himself writes that ‘This formula (. . .) is more an expression of courtesy to his
pagan readers than a confession of his doubt about the veracity of these accounts.’
79 B.S. Mackay, ‘Plutarch and the Miraculous,’ in C.F.D. Moule, ed., Miracles
(London 1965) 95–111.
80 Novakovich emphasized Josephus’ ambiguity towards miracles, a position that I
can willingly accept. See L. Novakovich, ‘Miracles in Second Temple and Early
Rabbinic Judaism,’ in G.H. Twelftree, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Miracles
(Cambridge 2011) 95–112.
M. Avioz / Zutot 9 (2012) 1–25 23
of itself.81 This does not mean that I would minimize the importance
of Josephus’ Greco-Roman milieu, but only that we should adopt
appropriate research methods and priorities. It seems that Josephus’
stance towards miracles should not be compared with Aristotle’s but
with Herodotus’s. After all, Josephus considered himself a historian,
not a philosopher. And if Herodotus includes miracles in his narratives,
why can’t Josephus follow in his trail?82
For Josephus, too, miracles serve an important end—reinforcing the
people’s belief in its God and His prophets.
The discussion of the status of miracles in Josephus’ writing is also
linked to one of the major questions of Josephus scholarship: for whom
was he writing—Jews or non-Jews? The debate is far from being settled,
and it is related to the question of the aim of Antiquities. We cannot
elaborate on this issue here, but just survey it briey.
Some scholars hold that Josephus was targeting Gentile Greco-Roman
readers while others suggest a mixed audience that included Jews as
well. Those who claim that Josephus had Gentile readers in mind point
to Josephus’ programmatic statements such as Ant. 1.5, where Josephus
writes of his hope that his task ‘will appear to all the Greeks deserving
of studious attention’ (see also 1.9 and 20.262).83 This view is based on
the assumption that no former knowledge was required for reading and
understanding Josephus’ writings.
81 For similar reasoning see E.M. Menn, Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38) in Ancient Jewish
Exegesis. Study in Literary Form and Hermeneutics (Leiden 1997); J.L. Kugel, ‘The Beginnings
of Biblical Interpretation,’ in M. Henze, ed., A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early
Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI 2012) 3–23. See also M. Avioz, ‘Saul as a Just Judge in
Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews’, in E. Ben Zvi, ed., Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures, V
(Piscataway, NJ 2009) 391–400; idem, ‘Josephus’ Portrait of Michal,’ JSQ 18 (2011)
1–18.
82 Herodotus’s writing is full of miracles, even though he is considered to be a
historian. See, for example, T. Harrison, Divinity and History: The Religion of Herodotus
(Oxford 2000), ch. 3.
83 See the bibliography cited in S. Mason, ‘“Should any wish to enquire further”
(Ant. 1.25): The Aim and Audience of Josephus’s Judean Antiquities/Life,’ in idem, ed.,
Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives (Shefeld 1998) 64–103. Mason holds that
Josephus’ intended audience was the Roman elite. See, however, the contrasting view
of Jonathan Price: J.J. Price, ‘The Provincial Historian in Rome,’ in J. Sievers and
G. Lembi, eds, Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond (Leiden 2005)
101–118.
24 M. Avioz / Zutot 9 (2012) 1–25
However, those who argue for a Jewish readership point to the
apologetic nature of the Antiquities both in a positive manner (enhanc-
ing attraction to Judaism) and in the negative way (defending Judaism
against attacks by Greco-Roman authors). In addition, they point to
Ant. 4.197, where a Jewish audience is intended. They also point to
various places where familiarity with Jewish law is assumed.84 If there
are apologetic features in Antiquities, one may assume a multi-layered
text, addressing accusations both against different ethnic groups and
against the same group to which the author belongs.85
I do not accept the view that there is no apologetic in Josephus’
Antiquities.86 My emphasis is that the way in which Feldman presents
the function of miracles in this apologetic is not founded. The line of
argument that Josephus presented was not that Judaism was a rational
religion. Such an argument was redundant, since his potential readers
were already exposed to miracles in other contexts. I did point to the
apologetic when Josephus omitted the stories on Moses and Miriam
because of their relation to leprosy. Thus, a Gentile readership cannot
be excluded. Miracle narratives could have been of interest to both
Jewish and Gentile readers. Miracles were a tool to strengthen faith in
both Judaism and other religions. The role of the divine as demonstrated
through miracles in Judaism was similar to that in other religions, which
likewise attributed miraculous occurrences to their gods.
With regard to miracles, the complexity of deciding upon the
intended audience of Josephus can be illustrated by focusing on the
retaining and omission of miracles and on rationalization. Josephus’
84 For the arguments in favour of mixed audience, see H.W. Attridge, ‘Josephus
and His Works,’ in M.E. Stone, ed., Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha,
Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (Assen 1984) 185–232, at 226;
Feldman, Studies, 542–544; P. Bilde, Flavius Josephus Between Jerusalem and Rome (Shefeld
1988) 121–122; G.E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Denition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and
Apologetic Historiography (Leiden 1992) 298–308; C.T. Begg, Josephus’ Story of the Later
Monarchy (AJ 9, 1–10, 185) (Leuven 2000); L. Huitink and J.W. van Henten, ‘The
Publication of Flavius Josephus’ Works and their Audiences,’ Zutot 6 (2009) 49–60;
Feldman, Interpretation, 46–50; Spilsbury, The Image of the Jew, 21–22. Rajak argues that
the primary audience of Josephus was Jewish. See T. Rajak, Josephus: the Historian and
his Society (London 1983) 178.
85 J.M.G. Barclay, Against Apion, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, vol. 10,
ed. S. Mason (Leiden 2007) XLV–LI.
86 Mason, ‘Aim and Audience’, 101 refuses to view Antiquities as ‘a vague apologetic
for Gentiles.’
M. Avioz / Zutot 9 (2012) 1–25 25
omission of biblical miracles may point to a Gentile audience, since
they could not compare the rewriting of the biblical narratives to their
former knowledge of the text. On the other hand, Josephus could have
left out all the miracles from his writings or at least focused only on
the signicant miracles. However, he did not do so, and we are left with
both great miracles and very trivial ones. If the intended audience of
Josephus was Gentile readers, we would have expected a concise depic-
tion of the biblical miracles. The alleged rationalization of miracle
narratives could be of interest to Gentiles, who may have found Judaism
a reasonable religion. In this case, the chief factor of their rewriting is
apologetic. However, if the biblical miracle stories were barely rational-
ized, as suggested in this article, then the purpose of their rewriting is
not necessarily apologetic, and thus the audience may include Jews who
wanted to understand their own historical narrative in a comprehen-
sible manner.
Article
Full-text available
The biblical story on the miracle of the manna in the Sinai Desert aroused many discussions and interpretations over the generations. The current study focuses on Ibn Ezra’s controversy with Hiwi al-Balkhi on the question of whether the manna was a natural or miraculous phenomenon. The article explores the claims of the two sides in light of the historical evidence and the literature describing the phenomenon of ‘falling manna’ in various areas of the Sinai Desert and Eastern countries. According to Hiwi, the manna that rained down on the Israelites is taranjebin, a semi-liquid resinous sweet secretion of insects (honeydew) that exudes onto plants. Ibn Ezra deals with Hiwi’s claims through a series of refutations and arguments. He argues that the characteristics of the taranjebin do not fit the description of the biblical manna. For example, it does not come down in the Sinai Desert, it appears during a limited season, does not melt in the sun and does not rot during the night, and serves as a medicine rather than as food. Contribution: This article contributes to the understanding of Hiwi al-Balkhi’s identification of the biblical manna as honeydew and Ibn Ezra’s claims against his thesis. It expounds the commentators’ interpretations from a multidisciplinary perspective, such as the reality of harvesting the taranjebin in Iran and North Africa and its uses as food and medicine in the medieval culture.
Chapter
The time period covered in this chapter encompasses two distinct epochs in Jewish history: the time before the destruction of the temple in 70 ce characterized by diversity, instability and sectarianism, and the time after the destruction of the temple characterized by the rise of rabbinic Judaism, the eventual disappearance of rival sectarian groups, the cessation of sacrificial worship, and the shift of emphasis towards the synagogue and the Torah. In addition, ‘from about the middle of the third century bce all Judaism must really be designated “Hellenistic Judaism” in the strict sense’, as Martin Hengel repeatedly emphasized. At the same time, however, the differences between Jewish and Hellenistic worldviews and the various degrees of Hellenization of Palestinian and diaspora Judaism should not be overlooked. In some cases, Graeco-Roman concepts provide primary categories for presenting Jewish beliefs and practices. In other instances, the Hellenistic world view is deliberately rejected. This encounter between different cultures has also had an impact on the understanding of miracles in Jewish literature. In some cases, miracles are perceived through the lenses of the Hellenistic surroundings, while in other cases they serve as the means of legitimization of a specifically Jewish perception of reality. Jewish authors typically present miracles and miracle workers in dialogue with their sacred texts. They all believed that Scripture embodied the will of God and that interpretation of the sacred writings provided for its application to contemporary circumstances. In this process, they engaged in two related types of activities: they reinterpreted traditional biblical accounts about the miracles from Israel’s history and used the scriptural framework to interpret the miraculous events from their own time.
Article
In the Jewish Antiquities, Josephus is surprisingly keen to amplify the rebellions and factions against Moses. The Israelites time and again accuse Moses of acting tyrannically, and the worst seditions ever are said to have happened while Moses was a general. When it comes to handling civil war, the picture of the experienced general recurs in Josephus' own self-portraits in the Jewish War and the Life. The present article explores the similarities between Josephus' portrait of Moses and Josephus' own self-portraits. Though Josephus does not himself explicitly direct his readers' attention to the parallels between his portrait of Moses and his own self-portraits, we may assume that his readers were able to grasp the parallels because of the common use of in the Greco-Roman world. Josephus' rhetorical strategy may indirectly have been to praise his own conduct in his praise of Moses.
Article
Since its publication in the mid-eighteenth century, Hume's discussion of miracles has been the target of severe and often ill-tempered attacks. In this book, one of our leading historians of philosophy offers a systematic response to these attacks. Arguing that these criticisms have--from the very start--rested on misreadings, Robert Fogelin begins by providing a narrative of the way Hume's argument actually unfolds. What Hume's critics (and even some of his defenders) have failed to see is that Hume's primary argument depends on fixing the appropriate standards of evaluating testimony presented on behalf of a miracle. Given the definition of a miracle, Hume quite reasonably argues that the standards for evaluating such testimony must be extremely high. Hume then argues that, as a matter of fact, no testimony on behalf of a religious miracle has even come close to meeting the appropriate standards for acceptance. Fogelin illustrates that Hume's critics have consistently misunderstood the structure of this argument--and have saddled Hume with perfectly awful arguments not found in the text. He responds first to some early critics of Hume's argument and then to two recent critics, David Johnson and John Earman. Fogelin's goal, however, is not to "bash the bashers," but rather to show that Hume's treatment of miracles has a coherence, depth, and power that makes it still the best work on the subject.
Article
Josephus elevates Moses' role and diminishes the miraculous in the Amalek episode. In the Pentateuch Josephus, defensive about the charge that Jews preach genocide, omits the command to eliminate Amalek; rather, Moses predicts it. In 1 Samuel he explains that G-d so hated them as to order it. As to the parallel command to exterminate the seven Canaanite nations, this was necessary, says Josephus, for the national survival of the Israelites.= Esth 3:1; 3:10; 8:3; 8:5; 9:24). 1 The seven major references to the Am-alekites are Ant. 3.39-61, containing the account of the attack of the Amalekites on the Israelites in the wilderness; Ant. 4.304, containing the commandment to eradicate the Amalekites; Ant. 6.131-55, con-1. Johann Maier, "Amalek in the Writings of Josephus," in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (ed. Fausto Parente and Jo-seph Sievers; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 109-26, lists and examines these passages briefly but does not focus, in particular, on the command to annihilate the Amalekites.
Article
In this paper it is claimed that the parallel story of Hezekiah's illness and cure (II Reg 20,1-11; Isa 38,1-22) had been formed in three stages. The first, is the original story, which can be reconstructed as shown recently by R. F. Person, in his interesting monograph The Kings-Isaiah and Kings-Jeremiah Recensions, BZAW 252, 1997. The second stage, includes two parallel unrelated developments, one in the book of Kings, the other in the book of Isaiah. The book of Kings portrays the prophet Isaiah according to its images of the prophets; the book of Isaiah portrays Isaiah to its conception of prophecy and prophets. Thus it is suggested that each parallel story has to be read according to its own Sitz im Buch. In the third stage there were some harmonized additions, trying to bring nearer the two separate stories.
Article
Les Antiquitates Judaicae (AJ) constituent le commentaire systematique le plus ancien des livres historiques de la Bible, et leur auteur, Flavius Josephe, est un historien de valeur qui a habilement construit son oeuvre. Pour cette raison, l'A. pense qu'il y a beaucoup a gagner a analyser AJ selon l'idee de F. J., en considerant attentivement le developpement de la presentation des personnages et de l'intrigue, et il propose sa lecture personnelle en suivant les recits sur Deborah et Gedeon de Flavius Josephe.