both are set in or near Mesopotamia and have to do with conversion. This
correspondence is enhanced by Josephus’s mention in the later story of
Noah’s ark, with the same language he had used to describe it in book 1
(20.24-26; 1.90-92). This suggests the same kind of symmetrical composi-
tion that his other works attest.Antiquities’unmistakable turning point,
for example, comes precisely halfway through, at the end of book 10, with
the fall of the First Temple and its implications for understanding divine
providence(pronoia) —a marked theme of the work; book 20 ends on the
eve of the Second Temple’s destruction, referring the audience toWa rfor
the rest (20.258). Books 9–10 and 11–12 chart the path to the destruction of
Solomon’s Temple and its rebuilding afterward. Along the way, other
matching panels command our attention: the elaboration of the peerless
Judean constitution in books 3 and 4 corresponds to the Judean and Ro-
man constitutional crises, caused by tyrannical monarchs and their succes-
sion woes, in books 17–19. The careers of King Saul (book 6) and King
Herod (books 14–17) have striking similarities, as these outstanding repre-
sentatives of manly virtue are undone by the fatal flaws of tyrants. The
whole work thus reflects a coherent design. This design precludes the com-
mon but antecedently implausible assumption that Josephus made it up as
he went along, filling the later volumes with a miscellaneous hodgepodge.
An Illustrative Theme: The Judean Constitution
The question of unity is decisively settled by the work’s coherence of
theme. Of the continuing themes from the prologue, one must suffice here
as an illustration: that of the constitution, introduced above. In a later
summary (Apion2.287) Josephus reflects that he wrote theAntiquitiesin
order to give a detailed account of the Judean laws and constitution. The
prologue also establishes the theme as fundamental, and it remains promi-
nent throughout. Thus at the end of book 20 he provides a summary of the
constitutional changes, using the wordpoliteiarepeatedly (20.229, 251,
261): the nation began as an aristocracy, then was subject to monarchs (un-
der judges and prophets), to kings, to priestly aristocrats again, to kings
(later Hasmoneans and Herodians), and most recently to priestly aristo-
crats — including himself — after the removal of Archelaus in 6c.e.Be-
tween the prologue and these concluding summaries, pointed asides keep
the audience aware of the theme. It emerges that, although the form of
government did change over time, its normative shape — so Moses and
306
steve mason, james s. mclaren, and john m. g. barclay
EERDMANS -- Early Judaism (Collins and Harlow) final text
Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:04:10 PM