99–101). Our interest, however, is with the literary question: What does
Josephus hope to achieve by including this lengthy story? The account is
plainly his, for it is shot through with his language and evocations of his
earlier narratives. How does it serve Josephus’s purpose?
Against this view, Schiffman (1987, 294) argues that the unfulfilled
cross-references here (A.J. 20.48, 53, 96) indicate that Josephus copied
some source with extreme carelessness (“did little, if anything, to modify
this passage”). My response is:
a) the cross-references are to anticipated passages, and may indeed be par-
tially fulfilled within the narrative (see, e.g., 20.48 in 20.69–91). They may
also reflect Josephus’s own unfulfilled plans, of which he had many
(20.267). In any case, these forward-looking references are characteris-
tic of Antiquitates judaicae20 (144, 147) in material that clearly does not
come from the putative Adiabenian source.
b) More serious problems in Josephus are unfulfilled references to mate-
rial already (allegedly) covered, which occur fairly often in the earlier
parts of Antiquitates judaicae (13.36, 108). But even in these cases, one
cannot claim that Josephus has taken over his source undigested (cf.
Gafni 1988 on 1 Macc., the source in question for the passages cited
fromA.J.13). In general, those narratives have been shown to bear the
clear marks of Josephus’s authorial hand.
c) Evidence of Josephus’s hand in the Adiabene story includes: the char-
acteristic Josephan introduction (20.17); the emphasis on God’s pronoia,
which is one of the main themes of Antiquitates judaicae(Attridge 1976,
67–70; cf. A.J.20.18, 91); a characteristic emphasis on Roman invincibil-
ity and fortune (20.69–71); the characteristic claim that success engen-
ders “envy and hatred” and the corresponding evocation of Josephus’s
own Joseph story (20.19–22; cf. 2.9–10); the reprise (20.25) of the notice
inAntiquitates judaicae1.92–93 about the story of Noah’s ark; typical use
of other characteristic language (e.g., akribeia dokeinin 20.43; eusebeiain
20.75); and the deliberate restatement of Josephus’s central thesis within
this story (20.48).
The basic message is clear. Josephus begins with a statement of the sub-
ject: “Helena, queen of Adiabene, and her son Izates changed their way of
life to accord with the customs of the Judeans” (eis ta Ioudaiôn ethê ton bion
metebalon, A.J. 20.17). If we have rightly understood the bulk of Antiquitates
judaicae,the royal family’s action should not occasion surprise, for conver-
sion would be the logical consequence of having discovered the noblest
set of laws in existence. But a curious reader might well ask: How could such