Among additions to and comments upon the Scripture narrative in books outside the Penta- teuch, may be mentioned details with regard to Manoah and his wife—how they used constantly to visit the suburb (7d mpodereov) to pray for children, and of Manoah’s jealousy of the angel who had visited his wife (Ant. v. 276ff.). Solo- mon’s judgment is that both children should be divided, which excites the mockery of the people (Ant. VII. 31f.); the exorcisms which Solomon invented were still in use and efficacious in Josephus’ time (Ant. vit. 45 ff.) ; his road-making is described (Ant. vitl. 187); his first deviation from virtue was in making images of oxen and lions (Ané. VIII. 195; cf. 1 K 7% 10"). In the slege of Samaria doves’ dung was bought in place of salt (Ant. IX. 62). Zedekiah dishelieved the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel because of their apparent
discrepancy with regard to himself (Ané. X. 106). A description is given of a wonderful palace which Daniel built at Echatana, which was used as a mausoleum for the kings of Media, Persia, and Parthia (Ant. X. 246).
4. Omissions from apologetic motives.—J osephus, wishing to present the history of his nation in the best light, passes over in silence some of the less creditable incidents. We may note the omission of the selling of Esau’s birthright, the story of Judah and Tamar (Gn 38), the killing of the Egyptian by Moses, the worship of the golden calf, the breaking of the first tables of the Law by Moses, the story of Micah (Jg 17. 18). The suppression of such incidents as these appears certainly to be due to apologetic motives, although other omissions may be the result of necessary compression; it must be admitted that some of the darker incidents in the picture are faithfully portrayed, though excuses are sometimes offered, as in the account of the slaughter of the Amale- kites (Ané¢. vi. 136). It is rarely that Josephus condemns an action outright, as he does in the case of the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter (Anz. v. 266). The most striking omission of all is that of any reference to a Messiah. The words of the Lorp God to the serpent, ‘It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel,’ occasion no_ allusion to a future deliverer. Jacob’s blessing is entirely omitted, nor do Balaam’s prophecies call forth any hint of a Messiah. If Josephus held any such belief, he at all events felt that the doctrine would have no interest for his readers, or perhaps we should rather say that he studiously avoided a topic to which, in the circumstances of his time, it would have been dangerous to allude.
5. Rationalistic explanations of the miraculous. —Out of regard to the incredulity of his heathen readers, Josephus frequently suggests that miracles recorded in the history may have been due to natural causes, or he apologizes for mentioning them with the plea that he is only faithfully following the Biblical account. The readiness with which he has recourse to such explanations must, however, raise a doubt as to his own belief in miracles. Thus he appeals in support of his account of the crossing of the Red Sea, which, he says, happened eire kara Botdnow Geou elre Kara ravrouarov, to the similar incident of the retreat of the Pamphylian Sea before Alexander the Great, adding, ‘let every one think as he pleases as to these things’ (Ant. 11. 347f.). The Biblical account of the healing of the bitter waters of Marah readily Tent itself to a rationalistic explanation (Ant. II. 7f.); ef. the account of the healing of the fountain by Elisha in BJ Iv. 462 ff. (aod\a mpocyxerpoupyjoas e€ emcotnuns). The historian notes that quails are abundant in the Arabian Gulf, and that manna is still found in the region (Ant, 11. 25, 31). As tothe wonders of Sinai, every one is entitled to his own opinion, but the story must be told as it is given in the Sacred Books (Ant#. 111. 381). When Elisha procured water for the three kings in the wilder- ness, he was enabled to do so by rain having fallen some distance away in Edom (Ant. IX. 37, cf. 2 K 3% ‘neither shall ye see rain’). The story of Jonah and the whale is given ‘as I found it recorded’ (Ant. Ix. 213f.). The same detachment from the narrative appears in the accounts of the deliver- ance of Daniel and his comrades from the fiery furnace (Ant. X. 214, pact), and of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness (Ant. X. 218: Josephus only undertook to translate the Hebrew books). A famine in the time of Herod was due either to God’s wrath or to natural causes (Ant. Xv. 299). Sometimes a rationalistic explanation of the miraculous is put into the mouth of a participant in the actions described, Thus the Philistines attribute the
JOSEPHUS
JOSEPHUS 471
a EEE eee
sufferings brought upon them by the presence of the ark to natural causes (Ané. VI. 9); the old prophet gives Jeroboam a rationalistic explana- tion of the rending of the altar and the withering of the king’s hand (Ant. vill. 244); Elijah on Carmel bids the people approach to see that he did not conceal fire among the wood (Ané. VIII. 340) ; Daniel’s enemies asserted that the lions left him unharmed because they had had their fill of food (Ané. X. 260).