6. Prophecies in the OT. —Josephus is careful to note the fulfilment of prophecy, and especially to reconcile apparent discrepancies in the predic- tions of different prophets. From the fulfilment of many of the prophecies of Balaam, even within the memory of the historian, one may conjecture that the remainder also will come true (Ant. Iv. 125). Zedekiah, son of Chenaanah, is made to quote the prophecy of Elijah, that Ahab’s blood was to be spilt in the field of Naboth, as contra- dicting the prediction of Micaiah that the king was to fall in battle against Ramoth-gilead, at a distance of three days’ journey from Samaria. The historian notes the accomplishment of both predictions (Ané. vill. 407f., 418). Zedekiah, king of Judah, disbelieved the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, because the former declared that he would be carried a prisoner to Babylon, while the latter said that he would not see Baby- lon. The statements were reconciled, as Josephus notes, in the putting out of the king’s eyes (Ant. x. 106f., 141). The fulfilment of the prophecies of Daniel affords a refutation of the opinions of the Epicureans (Ant. X. 277 ff.); he differed from other prophets in fixing a definite time, and in being a prophet of good things, and therefore enjoying popularity (Ant. xX. 267). The spoliation of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes was in accordance with a prophecy of Daniel (Ané. XII. 232), the building of the temple of Onias with a prophecy of Isaiah (An¢. xu. 64; BJ VI. 432), In one instance Josephus refuses to reveal the meaning of a passage in Daniel, which he prob- ably took to refer to the destruction of the Roman empire (Ant. X. 210). He holds that the gift of prophecy did not entirely fail in post - Biblical times. It was possessed by John Hyrcanus (Ant. xm. 299), Judas an Essene (XI. 311), Pollio (xv. 4), by Josephus himself (BJ tt. 399), and others.
iv. RELATION OF JOSEPHUS TO PHILO AND ALEXANDRIAN JUDAISM. — Josephus only once mentions Philo, in a brief notice of the embassy to Caligula, which was led by the philosopher to oppose the counter-embassy of Apion (Ant, XVIII. 957 ff.). He there speaks of him in the highest terms as dvip Ta mdvra evdokos . . . Kal prdocodias ovx dmeipos. It is impossible to ey whether Josephus was acquainted with the detailed account of that embassy which Philo has left us in his Legatio ad Gaiwm, or how far he was acquainted with the other writings of the Alexandrian philo- sopher. Had he accomplished his projected work on the Being of God and the Meaning of the Laws, we should be in a better position to estimate the extent of the influence which Philo exercised upon him. Indications, however, are not wanting in the early books of the Antiquities of an appar- ently direct dependence upon Philo’s writings. The following are the principal parallels which have been noted :—(1) The Preface to the Anti- quities and the opening of the de Opificio Mundi show a striking agreement in the sequence of ideas. Both works raise the question why the Mosaic code is preceded by an account of the Creation. Josephus expects that his readers will wonder how it comes to pass that his work, of which the main purpose is to record laws and
historical events, has so large an element of ‘physiology’ (émi rocotroy pvatodoylas Kexouvdynxer). He explains that Moses, differing in this respect from other legislators, whose codes begin with contracts and the rights of man, considered it necessary, before laying down his code, first to elevate men’s minds by setting the highest of all examples before them and inducing them to con- template the nature and actions of God, especially as exhibited in the creation of the world (Ané. 1. 18ff.). Philo begins his work with a similar con- trast between the procedure of Moses and that of other legislators. Moses did not commence by laying down commands and prohibitions, but gave as his exordium a most marvellous account of the Creation, in order to show the harmony existing between the world and the Law, and that the law- abiding man is a true citizen of the world. The unanimity of the Law and the universe is also expressed by Josephus (Ant. I. 24, wdvTa yap TH Tov ddrwv pice. chupuvor exer Thy dudbeow). Josephus (I. 15, 22) and Philo both refer to the mythical stories which disfigure the codes of other legis- lators. (2) In the same context, Josephus, quite in accordance with Philo’s doctrine, admits that there is an allegorical meaning in Scripture as well as a literal (1. 24, 7a wer aiverrouévov Tob vouobérov dekiGs, Ta 8 aAAnyopovvTos peTa cEuvdryTOS, boa & é& evdelas AéyecOar cuvédepe, Taira pyTas éuavifovTos). It is not often that Josephus in the Antiquities resorts to such allegorical explanation [that was reserved for the projected airiodoyla]; but there is one striking instance, where the tabernacle and its furniture and the various articles in the dress of the high priest are explained as symbolical of the universe and its parts (Anf. II. 179-187). This is quite in the style of Philo, who gives a_ similar interpretation of the materials used for the woven hangings for the tabernacle and the high priest’s apparel, in the de Vita Mosis, iii. 6, 12. The details of the explanation are not abso- lutely identical in the two writers, but for the general idea Josephus is not improbably directly dependent upon Philo. (3) In Ant. 1. 29 an ex- planation of the use of ula for mpérn in Gn 1° is promised in the airvooyla. For Philo’s explana- tion, see de Opific. Mundi, 9. (4) Some of the explanations of Hebrew proper names are iden- tical in the two writers: these, however, may go back to an earlier tradition. (5) Some expressions with regard to the nature of God have the ring of Philo, or at least of Alexandria. See c. Ap. ii. 167 (dyévnrov Kal mpds Tov aldvov xpbvov dvaNolwrov . oe Ouvdmer Mev huly yvcpiov, omotos dé kar’ ovclav éorly dryvworov); Ant. VI. 230 (rov Oedv rodrov dy moddy opas Kal mavraxov Kexuuevov), X. 142, 2785 c. Ap. li. 284 (6 Beds due mayrds Tov Koopou mepolr- nxev). The four cardinal virtues of Greek philo- sophy are traced by Josephus, as by Philo, in the Mosaic code (c. Ap. ii. 170; cf. Wis 87, with Deane’s note). But the indications which Gfrérer (Philo, 1831, ii. 356-367) has found in Josephus of the Logos doctrine of Philo—in the account of the three angels who visited Abraham, the burning bush, and the pillar of fire—are fanciful and far from convincing. See Siegfried, Philo von Alex-_ andria, 1875, pp. 278-281.