tions about readers’ knowledge, values, and interest, an interested non-
Judean audience, more likely to be identified with the label “Roman” than
“Greek.” The actual audience intended by Josephus is another matter,
much harder to discern, but may have included both non-Judean sympa-
thizers (hardly those genuinely hostile to Judeans) and educated (Roman-
ized) Judeans in Rome. If it had this double intended audience, its purpose
was also perhaps twofold: to instruct, encourage, and confirm Judeans that
they stood on robust cultural ground, with a constitution better than any
other, and to attract support and interest from actual or potential sympa-
thizers among the non-Judean population (probably not to gain prose-
lytes, though that purpose cannot be ruled out).Impact and Significance
The treatise was of interest and value to early Christian apologists up to
and including Eusebius, but became so marginal to the Josephan corpus
that it barely survived; its thin textual tradition is incomplete in Greek, and
a large lacuna (2.51-113) is filled only by the sixth-century Latin translation.
In the modern era, however, the text has proven to be extremely signifi-
cant, for a variety of reasons. Some of its citations (e.g., from Manetho and
Berossus) are very precious evidence regarding ancient authors otherwise
barely extant, of great interest to experts in Egyptian and Babylonian his-
tory. Moreover, Josephus’s collection of material displaying hostility to
Judeans has provided the richest and most diverse source for scholarly the-
ories on ancient hostility to Judeans (sometimes inaccurately labeled
“anti-Semitism”), even though Josephus often misrepresents its sources
and motivations. More positively, this full-scale “apology” for Judean cul-
ture constitutes our most informative source on the concerns and tech-
niques of Judean apologetics, and Josephus’s skillful use of Greco-Roman
cultural tropes is a fine example of Judean accommodation, susceptible in
part to the sort of cultural analysis employed in postcolonial criticism.
Particular attention has been focused on his presentation of the Judean
constitution (2.145-286), whose semiphilosophical agenda bears many
points of contact with Plato’sLaws.Josephus appears to coin the potent
term “theocracy” (2.165), and his particular collection of laws, with their
continuing stress on the Temple and the priests (2.190-218), remains an in-
triguing product of the post-70 era. His selection of these laws, and his
comment on their moral and cultural significance, remains one of the312steve mason, james s. mclaren, and john m. g. barclayEERDMANS -- Early Judaism (Collins and Harlow) final text
Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:04:11 PM