Abraham as Chaldean Scientist and Father of the Jews Annette Yoshiko Reed 2004

ABRAHAM AS CHALDEAN SCIENTIST AND FATHER OF THE JEWS

JOSEPHUS ANT 1154-168 AND THE GRECO-ROMAN DISCOURSE ABOUT ASTRONOMYASTROLOGY

by

ANNETTE YOSHIKO REEDMcMaster University

SummaryThis article analyzes Josephusrsquo approach to Abraham and astronomyastrol-ogy in Ant 1154-168 This retelling of Genesis 12 describes Abraham asinferring the one-ness of God from the irregularity of the stars therebyimplying his rejection of ldquothe Chaldean sciencerdquo for Jewish monotheismSoon after however Josephus posits that the patriarch transmitted astron-omyastrology to Egypt appealing to the positive connotations of this artfor apologetic aims Towards explaining the tension between these twotraditions I rst map the range of early Jewish traditions about Abrahamand the stars and then consider the Hellenistic discourse about astral wis-dom as the domain of ancient ldquobarbarianrdquo nations as it shaped HellenisticJewish traditions that celebrate Abrahamrsquos astronomicalastrological skillI conclude with Josephusrsquo own cultural context proposing that the atti-tudes towards astronomyastrology among his Roman contemporaries mayhelp to account for the ambivalence in his characterization of Abrahamas both Chaldean scientist and father of the Jews

copy Koninklijke Brill NV Leiden 2004 Journal for the Study of Judaism XXXV 2Also available online ndash wwwbrillnl

All Greek quotations from Josephusrsquo works are based on Niesersquos editio maior Englishtranslations follow Louis Feldman Judean Antiquities 1-4 vol 3 of Flavius JosephusTranslation and Commentary ed Steve Mason (Leiden Brill 2000) with some minorrevisions Earlier versions of this article were presented at Princeton Universityrsquos Programin the Ancient World Graduate Student Colloquium (October 2 2000) and in the SBLJosephus Seminar (November 25 2002) for these opportunities I would like to thankRarsquoanan S Boustan Nora Chapman and Steve Mason I am grateful for the feed-back that I received at both forums particularly from Fritz Graf and Reneacute Bloch atthe rst and Shaye J D Cohen and Louis Feldman at the second In addition Iwould like to express my appreciation to Joseph Sievers and Florentino Garciacutea Martiacutenezas well as my beloved Dove C Sussman

120 annette yoshiko reed

Josephusrsquo portrayal of Abraham is hardly a neglected topic In articlesand books spanning over 30 years Louis Feldman has investigated theimages of Abraham in the Jewish Antiquities showing how Josephus usesHellenistic tropes models and literary forms to describe the father ofthe Jews in terms comprehensible and compelling to a primarily non-Jewish audience1 Likewise both within and beyond the eld of Josephanstudies scholars have discussed the special role that this patriarch playsin Josephusrsquo attempts to defend the Jewish nation against the chargesof its critics2

Among many other things these studies have demonstrated thatJosephusrsquo retelling of the Abraham cycle (Ant 1148-256) provides aparticularly fruitful focus for inquiries into the combination of apolo-getic aims Hellenistic historiographical models and early Jewish exe-gesis that makes Antiquities 1-11 much more than either a biblical retellingor an apologetic history From even a cursory comparison with SecondTemple and Rabbinic sources it is clear that Josephusrsquo expansive para-phrase of Genesis 12-36 stands rmly in the early Jewish tradition ofexpounding these biblical narratives and celebrating the gure ofAbraham as (cp Ant 1158 patmacrr sup2mCcediln) ldquothe one from whomthe Hebrews sprang and to whom they owe their distinctivenessrdquo3 Atthe same time this workrsquos explicitly stated aim of explaining Jewishhistory to non-Jews (esp Ant 15-17) makes it virtually unique amongour extant sources for early Jewish approaches to Abraham4

1 ldquoAbraham the Greek philosopher in Josephusrdquo TAPA 99 (1968) 143-56 ldquoAbrahamthe general in Josephusrdquo in Nourished with peace Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in memory ofSamuel Sandmel eds F E Greenspahn E Hilgart and B L Mack (Chico Scholars Press1984) ldquoJosephus as biblical interpreter The Aqedahrdquo JQR 75 (1984-85) 212-52 ldquoHelleni-zations in Josephusrsquo Jewish Antiquities The portrait of Abrahamrdquo in Josephus Judaism andChristianity eds L Feldman and G Hata (Detroit Wayne State 1987) 133-53 Josephusrsquosinterpretation of the Bible (Berkley U of California Press 1998) 223-89 and most recentlyhis detailed commentary on Ant 1148-256 in Judean Antiquities 1-4 53-100

2 See esp G Mayer ldquoAspekte des Abrahambildes in der hellenische-juumldischesLiteraturrdquo ET 32 (1972) 118-27 T W Franxman Genesis and the ldquo Jewish Antiquitiesrdquo ofFlavius Josephus (Rome Biblical Institute 1979) 116-69 Paul Spilsbury The image of theJew in Flavius Josephusrsquo paraphrase of the Bible (TSAJ 69 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1998)55-74 as well as Samuel Sandmel Philorsquos place in Judaism A study of conceptions of Abrahamin Jewish literature (New York Ktav 1971) 59-76

3 Spilsbury Image 564 On Antiquitiesrsquo self-presentation as ldquoa treatise for the Greek worldrdquo see also Ant

16174 20263 and Apion 12 on its reception The assumption that Jewish readers toowould read the work comes through most clearly in Ant 4197 See further SpilsburyImage 16-22 Gregory Sterling Historiography and self-denition Josephos Luke-Acts and apolo-getic historiography (Leiden Brill 1992) esp 297-308 Steve Mason ldquoIntroduction to the

abraham as chaldean scientist and father of the jews 121

Judean Antiquitiesrdquo in Judean Antiquities 1-4 xvii-xx xxxiv In the case of other Greek-speaking authors who comment on Abraham such as Artapanus and Pseudo-Eupolemus(on whom see below) the intended audience remains a matter for debate The otherobvious example of a Jewish writer who gears his treatment of this patriarch primar-ily towards non-Jews is of course Paul (esp Rom 41-25 Gal 36-14)mdashalthough thiscase raises its own complexities

Most studies have tended to stress the apologetic function of JosephusrsquoAbraham and to highlight the ldquohellenizationsrdquo in his portrait of thepatriarch There is no doubt that this line of research has proved fruit-ful Inquiries into the use of Greco-Roman tropes and models in Ant1148-256 by Feldman and others have established that Josephus hereuses the father of the Jews to justify the Jewish nation answering sus-picions about this allegedly rebellious misanthropic and self-isolatingpeople and asserting its place in world history When approached fromthis perspective Ant 1148-256 emerges as a rich source for our under-standing of the negotiation of Jewish identity by Jews living in the wakeof the Jewish War in a world shaped by Greco-Roman culture andRoman power

Nevertheless the emphasis on ldquohellenizationsrdquo can cause us to overlooka more complex set of cultural dynamics Inasmuch as this focus neces-sitates a contrast between the Jewish and non-Jewish traditions inter-woven within Ant 1148-256 it can lead us to overstate or even toreify the distinction between rst-century Judaism and the Greco-Romanworld Furthermore the interest in Josephusrsquo apologetic intentions canoften distract from the extent to which he himself exempli esmdashin muchthe same way as Diodorus Siculus and Alexander Polyhistormdashthe rework-ing reinterpretation and redeployment of Hellenistic historiographicalsources tropes and traditions within a new increasingly Romanizedcultural context

It is of course illuminating to explore the Antiquitiesrsquo resonances withGreek literature from the classical period and to compare Josephuswith historians of the Hellenistic age this rst-century author appearsto have been conversant with some of the former and sometimes touse the writings of the latter as sources Yet perhaps needless to sayldquoHellenismrdquo was far from monolithic and the expansion and consoli-dation of the Roman imperial power wrought signi cant changes inthe cultural fabric of the Greco-Roman world no less than in the socio-political circumstances of the Jews

The present inquiry seeks further to contextualize Josephusrsquo depictionof Abraham within a Greco-Roman cultural context of which Judaism


remained a distinctive yet integrated part even after the failure of the rst Jewish revolt Towards this goal I will approach the retelling ofthe Abraham cycle within the Antiquities from a diVerent direction byfocusing on the function of astronomyastrology5 in Ant 1154-168

The topic of astronomyastrology provides an apt lens through whichto examine Josephusrsquo negotiation of Jewish traditions and Greco-Romanvalues on the one hand and of Hellenistic sources and early Romansocial realities on the other Not only do we nd a surprisingly broadrange of attitudes towards astronomyastrology in early Jewish treatmentsof Abraham6 but there is a notable shift in Greco-Roman perceptionsof these practices In Hellenistic historiography knowledge about thestarsmdashboth ldquoscienti crdquo and divinatorymdashexempli ed the ldquoalien wisdomrdquothat the Greeks borrowed from ancient ldquobarbarianrdquo nations7 After theinitial appropriation and subsequent criminalization of astral divinationunder Augustus (63 bce-14 ce) its traditional association with non-Greek nations started to take on more negative connotations Whenearly imperial Roman and Romanized authors begin trying to extricatethe ldquoscienti crdquo study of the stars from astral divination (esp horoscopicastrology) it is often with appeal to the suspiciously foreign origins ofthe latter which becomes increasingly assimilated to the category ofldquomagicrdquo (eg Pliny Nat hist 301V )8

In light of these developments it proves somewhat surprising thatJosephus does not refrain from associating Abraham with astronomy

5 By referring to ldquoastronomyastrologyrdquo as a single complex I mean to stress thefact that the Greek terms stronomUcirca and strologUcirca can both encompass what wecall ldquoastronomyrdquo and ldquoastrologyrdquo In light of the modern attitudes towards the latterit is important to emphasize that the ldquoscienti crdquo and divinatory aspects of the pre-modern study of the stars were often inextricable in both practice and perception Therewere of course early eVorts to distinguish between them (see below on Pliny the Elder)but we should nevertheless be wary of retrojecting our own clear-cut categories uponthem see further Tamysn Barton Power and knowledge Astrology physiognomics and medi-cine under the Roman Empire (Ann Arbor U of Michigan Press 1994) esp 32 I here tryto use the terms in isolation only when the distinction is relatively clearmdashfor instanceldquoastrologyrdquo in the sense of horoscopic or celestial divination

6 On perceptions of astronomyastrology as they relate to the Jewish practice ofastrological divination see James H Charlesworth ldquoJewish astrology in the TalmudPseudepigrapha the Dead Sea Scrolls and early Palestinian synagoguesrdquo HTR 70 (1977)183-200

7 On the broader context see Arnaldo Momiglianorsquos classic book Alien Wisdom TheLimits of Hellenization (Cambridge Cambridge UP 1971) which informs the presentinquiry throughout

8 This of course is a highly simpli ed and schematized summary of a more com-plex development See further Frederick H Cramer Astrology in Roman law and politics(repr ed Chicago Ares 1996) 44-162 232-81 Barton Power and knowledge 27-62


astrology9 In fact the study of the stars plays a signi cant role in twoof the most striking extrabiblical expansions in Ant 1148-256 The rst Ant 1154-156 recounts how Abraham prior to his migration toCanaan (cf Gen 121-9) inferred the truth of monotheism from hisobservation and contemplation of the irregularity of the celestial bod-ies and the natural phenomena caused by them The second Ant 1166-168 uses Gen 1210-20 as an opportunity to propose that Abrahamintroduced arithmetic and astronomyastrology to the Egyptians Inboth cases Josephus inserts the theme of astronomyastrology into thebiblical account exploiting the narrative gaps in Genesisrsquo tale ofAbrahamrsquos travels in order to stress his philosophical wisdom his reli-gious genius andmdashcontrary to the image of the Jews as a people whohad contributed nothing to world culture (cp Apion 2135-136 146)mdashhis role on the international stage as an active participant in the cross-cultural dissemination of ldquoscienti crdquo knowledge

These two passages Ant 1154-156 and Ant 1166-168 have often beentreated as exemplary of Josephusrsquo overarching eVorts to ldquohellenizerdquo thefather of the Jews On the basis thereof Feldman proposes that Josephusrecasts Abraham in the model of a Greek philosopher and Spilsburyconcludes that ldquo[m]any of the elements in Josephusrsquo portrait of Abrahamare little more than attempts to present him as a Hellenistic sagerdquo10

In addition a number of scholars have pointed to the Hellenistic Jewishprecedents for Josephusrsquo expanded account of Abrahamrsquos Egyptiansojourn (eg Artapanus Pseudo-Eupolemus) and have cited these exam-ples to illustrate his overall indebtedness to Hellenistic Jewish ldquoapolo-getic historiographyrdquo11

One question that has not been addressed is whether and how Josephusreworks these traditions to re ect the attitudes towards astronomyastrol-ogy current in his own time This article will explore this possibilityby situating Ant 1154-168 in three contexts The rst section will con-sider how this passage relates to other early Jewish traditions aboutAbraham Chaldea and the stars The second will turn to the placeof astronomyastrology in the ldquoapologetic historiesrdquo of the Hellenisticage both Jewish and non-Jewish here my aim will be to compare

9 Contrast for instance the view of astrologers in War 6288V 10 Feldman ldquoAbraham the Greek philosopherrdquo idem Josephusrsquo interpretation 228-34

Spilsbury Image 6511 Ie Artapanus Pseudo-Eupolemus and an anonymous fragment as preserved in

Eus Praep ev 9172-9 9181-2 see discussion below


Josephusrsquo appeal to astronomyastrology with its precedents in HellenisticJewish Egyptian and Babylonian histories This will lay the founda-tion for the third section in which I will ask whether we can accountfor his departures from earlier Hellenistic traditions with reference tothe discourse about astronomyastrology in rst-century Rome

In the process I hope to shed light on two textual issues in Ant1154-168 (1) Josephusrsquo motivations for choosing to root Abrahamrsquosrealizations about the singularity of the Creator in his observation ofthe irregularity of celestial and cosmological phenomena12 and (2) therelationship between the tale of Abrahamrsquos discovery of monotheismin Chaldea (1154-156) and the account of the patriarch conversingwith the ldquomost learnedrdquo of the Egyptians and instructing them in arith-metic and astronomyastrology (1166-168) The former I will argueanswers the Stoic defense of astrological divination and the astrologi-cal appropriation of Stoic philosophy As for the latter I will proposethat scholars may have been too quick to dismiss the signi cance ofthe topic of monotheism for our understanding of the account ofAbrahamrsquos discussions with the Egyptian wise-men (esp 1166) and Iwill suggest that the superiority of the Jewsrsquo rational monotheism servesas the subtext for Ant 1154-168 as a whole

1 Ant 1154-168 and early Jewish traditions about Abraham and astronomyastrology

The association of Abraham with astronomyastrology arises frequentlyin early Jewish literature13 Its ultimate derivation likely lies in Genesisrsquoassertion of the Chaldean birthplace of the patriarch In GenesisAbrahamrsquos origins in (Gen 1128 31 157) may be meantas an acknowledgement of the Mesopotamian prehistory of the Israelites(cp Josh 242-3) but the land of this patriarchrsquos birth held quite diVerentconnotations for later exegetes In the Hellenistic and Roman periodsldquoChaldeansrdquo (whether de ned in an ethnic sense as inhabitants ofBabylonia or more narrowly as a class of Babylonian priests) were

12 Among the scholars who have written about this passage Feldman alone seemsto recognize just how striking and unusual it was for a thinker of this time to appealto the irregularity of celestial phenomena (see ldquoAbraham the Greek philosopherrdquo 146-49) for at this time the regularity of the stars is not just asserted but assumed

13 For parallels in ldquopaganrdquo literature see JeVrey Siker ldquoAbraham in Graeco-Romanpaganismrdquo JSJ 18 (1987) 188-208


commonly viewed as experts in the astral sciences14 Even though theastronomyastrology of these periods was the product of a new fusionof Babylonian Egyptian and Greek elements15 it was strongly associ-ated with Babylonia and its priestsmdashto the degree that the GreekXaldaYacuteow and the Latin Chaldaeus could denote an astrologer of anyethnicity16 As a result the rendering of in the Septuagintmdashtraquo xAringramp tCcediln XaldaUcircvn (LXX Gen 1128 31)mdashcould be readily inter-preted either as ldquothe land of the Chaldeansrdquo (ie Babylonia) or as ldquotheland of the astrologersrdquo The semantic elds of the Hebrew and Aramaicequivalents had a similar scope encompassing a class of priests or divin-ers (see esp in Dan 22 210 44 57 511) Consequentlyit is perhaps not surprising that a variety of early Jewish authors soughtto explore the exact nature of Abrahamrsquos connection to astronomyastrol-ogy using biblical exegesis and extrabiblical tales to explain how hisexpertise in astral divination andor the ldquoscienti crdquo study of the starsrelated to his status as the progenitor of the Jewish people

Consistent with the explicit bans on astral worship and celestial div-ination in the Hebrew Bible (eg Deut 419 1810 Isa 4713) someexegetes articulated Abrahamrsquos connections with the Chaldean sciencein wholly negative terms In both Second Temple and Rabbinic sourceswe nd traditions about Abraham rejecting the astral wisdom of hisnative land concurrent with his ldquoconversionrdquo to monotheism eitherdirectly prior to his departure from Mesopotamia (esp Jub 1217-18Philo On Abraham 69-71 Questions and Answers on Genesis 31) or soonafter his arrival in Canaan (see eg LAB 185 BerR 4412 and bShabb 156a on Gen 155) Both sets of traditions function to exalt hisfaith in the One God as a revolutionary departure from Mesopotamianbeliefs17 Moreover in the former the association between Abraham

14 Diodorus for instance describes the Chaldeans as those ldquowho have gained a greatreputation in astrology and are accustomed to predict future events by a method basedon age-old observationsrdquo (171122 see also 15503 171122-6 1164 so also Hdt1181 Arrianus Anabasis 7171) The prevalence of this view is clear from the fact thatCicero when making a point about the Chaldeans in Babylonia must specify thatChaldaeus is ldquoa name that they have derived not from their art but their racerdquo (De div112)

15 Otto Neugebauer The exact sciences in antiquity (Providence Brown UP 1957) 170see also 67-68 86-87 169-71 also James Evans The history and practice of ancient astron-omy (New York Oxford UP 1998) 343 Franz Cumont Astrology and religion among theGreeks and Romans (New York Putnam 1912) 9

16 Hdt 3155 Aristotle Fragmenta 35 Geminus 25 Philodemus Volumina Rhetorica142 Cicero De div 112 as well as Cumontrsquos comments in Astrology 16

17 This contrast is perhaps most explicit in 3 Sib Or 218-228


and astronomyastrology is used to assert the patriarchrsquos worthiness ofthe promises granted to him without explanation in Gen 121-9 Aswith idolatry in the functionally parallel traditions about Abrahamrsquosrejection of the religion of his father Terah andor Nimrod (eg Jub1116-127 ApocAbr 1 3 BerR 3813) astronomyastrology is heretreated as paradigmatic of the ldquopaganrdquo religion and culture that thefather of the Jews abandonedmdashand by extension as symbolic of thepolytheistic andor non-biblical religions that these exegetes encoun-tered in their own daily lives18

In other sources the association of Abraham and astronomyastrol-ogy is framed in diVerent terms which resonate with diVerent sets ofcultural connotations For instance a pseudo-Orphic hymn of proba-ble Jewish origin refers to Abraham as ldquoa certain unique man bydescent an oVshoot of the Chaldeans knowledgeable about the pathof the Star and the movements of the spheres around the earth in acircle regularly but each on its own axisrdquo (apud Clement Misc 124)19

Even more notable for our purposes are the writings of several of theHellenistic Jewish authors collected in Alexander Polyhistorrsquos On theJews Artapanus (apud Eus Praep ev 9172-9) Pseudo-Eupolemus (apudEus Praep ev 9181) and an anonymous fragment (apud Eus Praepev 9182)20 All of these authors put a positive spin on AbrahamrsquosChaldean origins and his association with astral wisdom depicting himas the one responsible for rst transmitting astral lore from Chaldeato Egypt Interestingly their writings thus assume the same valuationof astronomyastrology as contemporaneous Greek Egyptian andBabylonian histories the notion of this art as an archetype of the ldquoalienwisdomrdquo that the youthful Greeks owe to ancient ldquobarbarianrdquo nations

When we turn to contextualize Ant 1154-168 within the Greco-

18 Just as a number of Jewish traditions both early and late identify astral worshipas the rst type of pagan worship to develop (eg LAB 416) so the origins of astronomyastrology is commonly associated with the descent of the fallen angels (eg 1 Enoch 83)

19 Translation from M Lafargye ldquoOrphicardquo OTP 2799 see further 2796-801 andCarl R Holladay Fragments of Hellenistic Jewish Authors vol 4 Orphica (Chico CalifScholars Press 1996) 174-75

20 On these texts and the issue of their dating and provenance see J FreudenthalAlexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhalten juumldischen und samaritanischen Geshichtswerke (Breslau1875) esp 82-103 143-74 Sterling Historiography 167-206 Ben Zion Wacholder ldquoPseudo-Eupolemusrsquo two Greek fragments on Abrahamrdquo HUCA 34 (1963) 83-86 Carl RHolliday Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish authors vol 1 Historians (Chico Scholars Press1983) 93-115 189-243 also Robert Doran ldquoPseudo-Eupolemusrdquo OTP 2873-82 JohnJ Collins ldquoArtapanusrdquo OTP 2889-903


Roman discourse about astronomyastrology we will return to thesethemes discussing in greater detail the relevant non-Jewish and Jewishsources from the Hellenistic era For our present purposes what provessigni cant is the fact that early Jewish attitudes towards astronomyastrol-ogy were not wholly negative On the contrary some of Josephusrsquo pre-decessors seem to have embraced the view of astronomyastrology asan emblem of extreme antiquity and as an integral part of humankindrsquosscienti c progressmdashsuch that Abrahamrsquos Chaldean origins and astro-nomicalastrological associations could serve the positive purpose ofasserting the place of the Jewish people in world history

i Abrahamrsquos inference of monotheism

In the account of Abrahamrsquos departure from Mesopotamia and hissojourn to Egypt in Ant 1154-168 we nd aspects of both of theseapproaches combined and intertwined At the beginning of his accountof the patriarchrsquos life Josephus describes him as ldquoskillful in under-standing all things (deinogravew Igraven suneYacutenai te perUuml plsaquontvn) and persuasiveto his listeners concerning that which he without fail inferred (kaUumlpiyanogravew toYacutew krovmiexclnoiw perUcirc te Iacuten eTHORNklsaquoseien oeacute diamartlsaquonvn)rdquo (Ant1154) The assertion of Abrahamrsquos intelligence persuasiveness andphilosophical propensities serves to set the stage for his recognition ofthe singularity of God

Because of this he also began to have loftier thoughts about virtue thanothers (froneYacuten meYacutezon currenprsquo retraquo tCcediln llvn plusmnrgmiexclnow) And with regardto the conception about the divine that everyone happened to have (kaUumltmacrn perUuml toegrave yeoegrave dntildejan paran lsquopasi suniexclbainen eaumlnai) he determined toinnovate and change it (kainUcircsai kaUuml metabaleYacuten brvbargnv) He was thereforethe rst who dared to declare that God was the sole Creator of every-thing (prCcediltow oiumln tolm˜ yeograven pofregnasyai dhmiourgograven tCcediln dividelvn sectna) andthat if other things contribute something to [humankindrsquos] happiness(eeacutedaimonUcircan) each one supplies something in accordance with His com-mand and not by virtue of its own strength (Ant 1154-155)

Consistent with the Greco-Roman fascination with ldquo rstsrdquo Josephushere describes the genesis of Abrahamrsquos faith in the One God in termsof his ldquoinventionrdquo of monotheism21

21 On the Greco-Roman discourse about famous ldquo rstsrdquo see K Thraede ldquoEr nderrdquoRAC 5 (1962) 1191-278 On the importance of monotheism throughout the AntiquitiesSpilsbury Image 59-61


Even more striking is the manner in which Josephusrsquo Abraham arrivesat this momentous discovery

And he inferred (eTHORNklsaquozetai) these things from the changes in land andsea that are dependant upon the sun and the moon and all the hap-penings in heaven (toYacutew gdegw kaUuml yallsaquosshw payregmasi toYacutew te perUuml tograven acutelionkaUuml tmacrn selregnhn kaUuml psi toYacutew katrsquo oeacuteranograven sumbaUcircnousi) For he saidthat if they had the power (dunlsaquomevw) they would have provided fortheir own orderliness (eeacutetajUcircaw) But since they lack this it is evident thatas many things as they contribute to our increased usefulness they per-form not by their own authority (katŒ tmacrn aeacutetCcediln currenjousUcircan) but in accor-dance with the power of their commander (katŒ tmacrn toegrave keleaeligontow THORNsxccedilnecircpourgeYacuten) on whom alone it is proper to confer honor and gratitude(Ant 1155-156)

As in the parallel traditions about Abrahamrsquos rejection of idolatry thecon ict between the patriarchrsquos new faith and Mesopotamian religion isposited as the proximate causemdashguided of course by the will of God(Ant 1154 cp Gen 121)mdashfor his departure for the Promised Land

Since for these reasons the Chaldeans and other Mesopotamians (XaldaUcircvnte kaUuml tCcediln llvn MesopotamitCcediln) fell into discord against him (progravew aeacutetogravenmetoikeYacuten) he decided to emigrate in accordance with the will and assis-tance of God and he settled in the land of Canaan (Ant 1157)

Although traditions about Abrahamrsquos rejection of idolatry appear tohave been more widespread in early Judaism we nd some precedentsfor Josephusrsquo appeal to the astral wisdom for which the Chaldeans wereso famous The Book of Jubilees for instance recounts that Abrahamwas observing the stars to predict the weather when he suddenly real-ized that all celestial phenomena are actually controlled by the OneGod ( Jub 1216-18) Josephusrsquo choice to articulate Abrahamrsquos ldquocon-versionrdquo in philosophical terms also recalls a passage from Philo ofAlexandriarsquos On Abraham

The Chaldeans exercised themselves most especially with astronomy(stronomUcircan) and attributed all things to the movements of the stars (taYacutewkinregsesi tCcediln stiexclrvn) believing that whatever is in the world is governedby forces encompassed in numbers and numerical proportions (riymoUumlkaUuml riymCcediln nalogUcircai) He [Abraham] grew up with this idea and wasa true Chaldean for some time untilmdashopening the soulrsquos eye from thedepth of sleepmdashhe came to behold the pure ray in the place of deep dark-ness and he followed that light and perceived what he had not seen beforeOne who guides and steers the world presiding over it and managing itsaVairs (On Abraham 69-71 see also Questions and Answers in Genesis 31)


We nd however no parallel to Josephusrsquo appeal to the irregularityof cosmological phenomena Consistent with Jewish traditions cele-brating the Creator from His orderly Creation and exhorting humankindto be as steadfast in their paths as the stars (eg 1 Enoch 21-57 SifreDeut 3211)22 Philo and the author of Jubilees assume the regularity ofcelestial phenomena and base Abrahamrsquos discovery of monotheism onthis regularity That these authors thus voice views consistent with theideas about divinity the cosmos and the celestial cycles current in therest of the Greco-Roman world makes it especially striking that Josephushere departs from them

Below I will build on Feldmanrsquos suggestion that this ldquoproof rdquo for thesingularity of God is meant to answer Stoic determinism23 proposingthat Josephusrsquo target in Ant 1155-156 was more speci cally the Stoicdefense of astrological divination For now it suYces to note thatJosephusrsquo Abraham arrives at the truth of monotheism through a rever-sal of the common view of the relationship between God and Naturefound both in early Jewish tradition and in the philosophy and scienceof the Greeks

ii Abrahamrsquos instruction of the Egyptians

Although Ant 1155-157 distances Abraham from astronomyastrologyJosephusrsquo depiction of the patriarchrsquos relationship to this art is hardlyunivalent In fact almost immediately thereafter in Ant 1158-159 heasserts the patriarchrsquos skill in the Chaldean science by citing a Babylonianhistorian

Berossus mentions our father Abraham though he does not name himin the following words ldquoIn the tenth generation after the Flood therewas a certain man among the Chaldeans just and great and expert incelestial mattersrdquo (dUcirckaiow nmacrr kaUuml miexclgaw kaUuml tŒ oeacuterlsaquonia brvbarmpeirow)

Whatever the accuracy of this quotation or the originality of its associationwith Abraham its function within Josephusrsquo account remains the samenamely to stress that even the Chaldeans laud his skill in the sciencesthat bear their name Just as Josephus supports his own elevation of

22 I personally only know of one early Jewish source that even speaks of the irreg-ularity of the stars 1 Enoch 80 in the Enochic Astronomical Book Even there howeverit is assumed that regularity is the natural divinely-intended state of the cosmos irreg-ularity is a sign of corruption

23 Feldman ldquoAbraham the Greek philosopherrdquo 146-50


Abraham with non-Jewish sources so he here foreshadows the patri-archrsquos role in transmitting astral wisdom to Egypt in Ant 1166-168

This comment occasions a handful of other non-Jewish witnesses toAbraham (Ant 1159) after which Josephus reports his arrival at Canaantogether with ldquothose who had increased in numbers from himrdquo (oszlig prsquocurrenkeUcircnou plhyaeligsantew)24 From there Josephus embarks on a retelling ofGen 1210-20 (Ant 1161-165) the tale of Abrahamrsquos sojourn in EgyptAs in Gen 1210 the journey is motivated by famine but Josephusadds another reason which serves to remind the reader of the patri-archrsquos innovative theological discoveries in Chaldea Abraham is curi-ous to hear what the Egyptian priests say concerning the gods (Iumlnliexclgoien perUuml yeCcediln) and although he is eager to change their views ifhis opinion proves true he is also willing to change his own mind iftheir arguments prove superior (Ant 1161) In other words JosephusrsquoAbraham enters Egypt with an open-minded stance that as Feldmanrightly notes serves to temper his earlier aim of reforming the ideasconcerning God (Ant 1155) thereby distancing the patriarch fromGreco-Roman views of Jewish monotheism as intolerant and of Jewishproselytism as compelled by force25

In Ant 1161-165 Josephus remains fairly faithful to the content andarrangement of Gen 1210-2026 Like other early Jewish exegetes hereworks the infamous account of Abrahamrsquos ldquowife-sisterrdquo ruse so as toneutralize its potentially negative implications for the character of thepatriarch27 For instance he justi es Abrahamrsquos deceit by stressingSarahrsquos ldquonotoriousrdquo beauty (Ant 1163 cp GenApoc 201-9) empha-sizing the ldquofrenzy (currenpimaniexclw) of the Egyptians towards womenrdquo (Ant

24 This presumably represents Gen 125rsquos reference to ldquothe souls that they acquiredin Haranrdquo (MT LXX kaUuml psan cuxregn paran currenktregsanto currennXarran)mdasha phrase that interestingly is interpreted within Rabbinic traditions as prooffor Abrahamrsquos success at proselytizing (TgOnq ad Gen 125 BerR 3914) On the over-tones of conversion in Josephusrsquo version see below

25 Peter Schaumlfer Judeophobia Attitudes towards the Jews in the ancient world (CambridgeHarvard UP 1997) 44-46 106-118

26 See further Franxman Genesis 127-32 Contrast the retelling of this tale in War 537527 Ie in stark contrast to the pious Abraham of post-biblical Jewish tradition the

Abraham of Gen 1210-20 appears rather unworthy of the promises that he has justreceived In Gen 1211-13 he initiates the ldquowife-sisterrdquo ruse in a manner that appearsto be wholly oriented to his own bene t Not only is his stated motivation the fear forhis own life (1212) but his suggestion of the ruse is framed only in terms of Sarahrsquosinvolvement (1213a) while the positive result thereof is elaborated only in terms ofAbrahamrsquos life and welfare (1213b) Abraham thus appears utterly indiVerent to thefate of his wife enlisting her in a deception in order to preserve and bene t himself


1162) and depicting Pharaoh as moved by an ldquounjust passionrdquo thatcan only be curbed by divinely-sent plagues (Ant 1163 contrary to hisclaims in Ant 1165 cp War 5375 Philo On Abraham 98) Just asPseudo-Eupolemus attributes the discovery of the cause of the plaguesto Egyptian diviners (mlsaquonteiw Praep ev 9177) so Egyptian priests (szligereYacutew) play an important role in Josephusrsquo version When PharaohoVers sacri ces toward healing the plague the priests inform him thathis sacri ces are futile since the plagues are caused by the wrath ofGod (katŒ mdegnin yeoegrave tograve deinograven) at his desire to outrage (ecircbrUcircsai) thewife of a foreigner (Ant 1164) Inasmuch as the Pharoah must con-sult Sarah herself in order to learn the whole truth about the matter(Ant 1165 cp BerR 412) the Egyptian priests are depicted as limitedin their power and knowledge Nevertheless the fact that they can dis-cern the cause of the plagues suggests that these Egyptians mightmdashasAbraham suspectedmdashhave a greater grasp of the workings of God thandid the Chaldeans28

The precise degree of the Egyptiansrsquo knowledge of divine workingsis explored in a lengthy extrabiblical expansion about Abrahamrsquos activ-ities in Egypt inserted at the conclusion of the paraphrase of Gen1210-20 The segue between paraphrase and expansion is marked bychanges that smooth the transition Whereas Gen 1210-20 ends withAbraham silently facing accusations from Pharaoh (1218-19) receiv-ing his wife (1219) and being expelled from the land (1220) Josephusportrays Pharaoh giving Abraham gifts29 Consistent with his earlierinterest in visiting Egypt Abraham is then depicted as associating ldquowiththe most erudite of the Egyptians (ATHORNguptUcircvn toYacutew logivtlsaquotoiw) wherebyit happened that his virtue (retmacrn) and reputation (dntildejan) for it becameall the more illustriousrdquo (Ant 1165)

From Abrahamrsquos initial interest in Egyptian concepts about the divine(Ant 1161) and the Egyptian priestsrsquo ability to discern the real causeof the plagues (Ant 1164) the reader might expect for Abraham to nd here worthy interlocutors with whom to discuss his lofty thoughts

28 Contrast the version in Genesis Apocryphon where the Egyptian magicians healersand wise men all attempt to nd the source of the plague for two whole years yet fail(2019-20)mdashconsistent with the treatment of Egyptian magic in the Torah (eg Gen418 4124 Ex 711-819 911)

29 This is the most notable departure from the order of Gen 1210-20 Abrahamrsquosacquisition of wealth is displaced from the entrance of Sarah into Pharaohrsquos household(Gen 1215) to Pharaohrsquos return of Sarah to Abraham In this Josephus eVectivelysuperimposes the chronology of the parallel tale in Genesis 20 (see esp 2014-16) onGen 1210-20 in a revision also attested in Genesis Apocryphon


about human virtue and divine singularity We are told however thateven the wisest Egyptian hold con icting views which the wiser Abrahamcan easily overturn

Since the Egyptians took pleasure in various practices (brvbaryesi) and belit-tled one anotherrsquos customs (nntildemima) and therefore had a hostile attitudetowards one another hemdashby conferring with each of them (sumbalAElignaeacutetCcediln yenklsaquostoiw) and exposing the arguments with regard to their indi-vidual views (diaptaeligvn [=diaptaeligssvn] toccedilw lntildegouw oicircw currenpoioegravento perUuml tCcedilnTHORNdUcircvn)mdashshowed that they lacked substance and contained nothing true(kenoccedilw kaUuml mhdcentn brvbarxontaw lhycentw piexclfaine Ant 1166-167)30

From these conversations (sunousUcircaiw) Abraham earns their great admi-ration and amazement impressing them as ldquoa most intelligent and skill-ful man (sunetAringtatow kaUuml deinogravew nmacrr) who speaks not only with knowl-edge but also to persuade (oeacute nodegsai mntildenon llŒ kaUuml peYacutesai liexclgvn)concerning that which he undertakes to teach (perUuml Iumln currenpixeirregseiedidlsaquoskein)rdquo

The terms used to describe the Egyptiansrsquo impressions of Abraham(deinogravew sunetAringtatow) and the stress on his skill in successfully persua-sive speech recall the account of his discovery of monotheism in Ant1154-156 where he is described as ldquogreat in understanding concern-ing everything (deinogravew Igraven suneYacutenaUcirc te perUuml plsaquontvn) and persuasive (piyanogravew)to his listenersrdquo At the same time the description of their discussionsreminds the reader of his earlier curiosity concerning ldquowhat their priestssay about godsrdquo and his declared intention to ldquobecome their discipleif they were found to be better or convert them to better mind ifhis thoughts should be betterrdquo (Ant 1161) From the events describedin Ant 1166-167 it seems that the latter is precisely what happenedafter all Abraham convinced the Egyptians through rational argumentthat their ideas ldquolacked substance and contained nothing truerdquo Yetwe nd no explicit statement about the issue of monotheismmdashlet aloneconversion Instead Josephus goes on to assert that Abraham taughtthe Egyptians about arithmetic (riymetikntildew) and astronomyastrology(stronomUcirca some MSS strologUcirca) and the tale of the patriarchrsquostime in Egypt abruptly ends with the assertion that ldquoBefore the arrivalof Abraham the Egyptians were ignorant of these For these matters

30 This notably is not the only place where Josephus critiques the Egyptians fortheir multiplicity of opinions see Ant 1366 and Apion 266-67 I thank Shaye Cohenfor these references


reached Egypt from the Chaldeans from whence they came also tothe Greeksrdquo (Ant 1168)

As noted above Josephus thus integrates a tradition also found inseveral of the Hellenistic Jewish writings excerpted by Polyhistor Beforeexploring the exact relationship between Ant 1167-68 and its HellenisticJewish precedents however it is helpful rst to consider how this asser-tion functions within Josephusrsquo versionmdashand speci cally how it relatesto his treatment of Jewish monotheism as rooted in the inversion ofastronomicalastrological principles of a pervasive cosmic order

As Feldman rightly stresses Josephus peppers his description ofAbraham with terms that invoke Greco-Roman ideals of philosophyand wisdom as exempli ed by gures such as Solon31 Yet insofar asFeldman focuses on the use of Hellenistic models in Josephusrsquo charac-terization of Abraham he does not address the narrative eVect of thepassages pertaining to the patriarchrsquos philosophical prowess In my viewit is signi cant that Josephus only describes Abraham in these termswithin three passages Ant 1154-57 1161 and 1166-168 When readtogether they unfold a rather logical progression from Abrahamrsquos infer-ence of monotheism (1154-157) to his willingness to ldquotestrdquo his theorythrough debate (1161) to his success in persuading the wisest Egyptiansof the error of their ways (1166-167) As such the motif of Abrahamas a Greek philosopher seems to serve a speci c and clearly delineatedpurpose namely to emphasize the origins of Jewish monotheism inrational and philosophical thought

This in turn raises the question of whether Josephus intends toimply Abrahamrsquos conversion of any Egyptians In depicting Abraham asexposing the irrationality of Egyptian customs and laws Josephus surelyexploits the general Greco-Roman distaste for Egyptian religion to exaltJudaism by comparison32 It is notable however that he permits theEgyptians some recognition of Abrahamrsquos great wisdom and even morestrikingly of his persuasiveness On one level this choice helps to neu-tralize the potentially problematic rami cations of the patriarchrsquos appar-ent expulsion from Chaldea Lest the reader imagine that Abrahamwas kicked out from every single place where he promulgated his newphilosophy Josephus implies that his rational monotheism may have

31 Feldman ldquoAbraham the Greek philosopherrdquo 144-45 151-5232 See eg the positive comparison of Judaism with Egyptian religion by Tacitus (no

friend of the Jews) in Historia 554


had a more positive reception in Egypt even as he explicitly describesonly his teachings of arithmetic and astronomy

For Spilsbury the signi cance of this issue pivots on the question ofldquowhether Judaism in Josephusrsquo time is properly understood as a lsquomis-sionaryrsquo religionrdquo33 In his view

The implication of the story is that Abrahamrsquos religion is indeed superiorto that of the Egyptians The picture of Abraham as a ldquomissionaryrdquo ismodi ed however by the fact that it is arithmetic and the laws of astron-omy that Abraham subsequently imparts to the Egyptians (1167) and notmonotheism as might be expected Josephus apparently squanders a perfectopportunity to describe the ldquomissionaryrdquo nature of Judaism unless of coursehe did not think of Judaism as a missionary religion at all Indeed theJewish Antiquities would seem to suggest that while Josephus was not opposedto proselytism and could even speak of converts to Judaism with pridehe did not conceive of Judaism as overtly or essentially ldquomissionaryrdquo34

It might be misleading however to frame the question in terms thatevoke the missions of the early Christian movement as well as the tra-ditional view that post-70 Judaism took the opposite stance choosingself-isolation for as Feldman notes ldquoThe chief goal of the study ofphilosophy in antiquity was nothing less than conversionrdquo35

If Josephus doesmdashas I suspectmdashdeliberately leave open the possi-bility that Abraham persuaded some Egyptians of the truth of monothe-ism during the course of their philosophical and scienti c discussionswe need not conclude that post-70 Judaism was ldquomissionaryrdquo in a senseakin to Christianity Rather Josephusrsquo stress on the rationality ofmonotheism could perhaps be seen against the background of a Judaismthat even despite the destruction of the Temple continued to attractthe interest of Gentiles36 This is in fact evinced by the very existenceof the Antiquities Although Josephusrsquo apologetics often lead us to focusprimarily on those non-Jews who were hostile towards Judaism it seemshighly unlikely that he could have written and published this work at

33 Spilsbury Image 5834 Spilsbury Image 6435 Feldman ldquoAbraham the Greek philosopherrdquo 14536 See the treatment of this issue in Paula Fredriksen ldquoWhat parting of the ways

Jews Gentiles and the ancient Mediterranean cityrdquo in The ways that never parted Jewsand Christians in Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages eds Adam H Becker and AnnetteYoshiko Reed (TSAJ 95 Tuumlbingen Mohr 2003) 35-63 also Feldman Josephusrsquo inter-pretation 158-59


all if some Roman readers were not already curious enough about theculture history and religion of the Jews to read such a lengthy tomeabout the nation37

In characterizing Abrahamrsquos encounter with the Egyptian wise-menas an exchange of philosophical views similar to the Egyptian sojournsof eminent Greek philosophers38 Josephus may thus be oVering anancient precedent for Gentile interest in Jewish monotheism It seemsprobable that Josephus here (as elsewhere in the Antiquities) refrains frommaking any explicit statement about proselytism or conversion due tohis sensitivity to ldquopaganrdquo critiques of the purported Jewish zeal forproselytizing particularly in the wake of the expulsion of Jews fromRome in 139 bce and possibly 19 ce39 Nevertheless the theme liesimplicit in the narrative progression of Ant 1154-168 as well as inthe tacit contrast between the Chaldean and Egyptian reactions toAbrahamrsquos new religious ideas

Furthermore the nature and scope of philosophy in Josephusrsquo timemay not support a strict division between the theologicalphilosophi-cal ideas that he attributes to Abraham and the ldquoscienti crdquo ones40

Indeed when Josephus explicitly attributes to Abraham the transmis-sion of astronomicalastrological and mathematical knowledge to theEgyptians the reader already knows that Abrahamrsquos understanding ofthe celestial cycles is unique it has been shaped by an innovative viewof the relationship between the cosmos and the divine based on hisrecognition of a single Creator from whom the celestial bodies gainthe only measure of order and power that they possess Even in the mostpositive treatment of astronomyastrology in Antiquitiesrsquo account ofAbraham (ie Ant 1167-168) Josephus may thus subordinate the patri-archrsquos involvement with this science to the monotheism discovered byhim and faithfully cultivated by the nation that came forth from him

2 Astronomyastrology and apologetic historiography in the Hellenistic age

Nevertheless the positive appeal to astronomyastrology in Ant 1167-168 remains signi cant for our understanding of the image of the Jewish

37 Mason ldquoIntroduction to the Judean Antiquitiesrdquo xvii-xx38 Feldman ldquoAbraham the Greek philosopherrdquo 151-52 39 See further Feldman Josephusrsquo interpretation 157-60 and sources cited there on

Josephusrsquo ldquosensitivity to the charge of proselytismrdquo 40 Cp Mason ldquoIntroduction to the Judaean Antiquitiesrdquo xxix


nation that Josephus promotes by means of Abraham in Ant 1154-168 The assertion of Abrahamrsquos transmission of this scienti c knowl-edge serves both to stress the antiquity of the Jews vis-agrave-vis the Greeksand to assert their place in the development of human civilizationMoreover in the process Josephus participates in a broader debateconcerning the early history of astronomyastrology which was tightlytied to the question of the relative antiquity of nations and which byJosephusrsquo time had already had a long history in both Greek writingsabout ldquobarbariansrdquo and ldquobarbarianrdquo writings for Greeks

i Astronomyastrology and antiquity in Hellenistic historiography

As is well known the Hellenistic discourse about ldquobarbarianrdquo nationsthe relative antiquity of diVerent cultures and the early history ofastronomyastrology had deep roots in classical Greek literatureHerodotus for instance simultaneously asserts the youth of the Greeks(253) and credits the Egyptians with the invention of calendrical andastronomical wisdom (24) divination (249) and Greek religion (249-58) proposing that Egyptian knowledge of divination and religion wasmediated to the Greeks by Melampus (249)41 Likewise in an oft quotedpassage from Platorsquos Timaeus an Egyptian priest tells Solon ldquoYouHellenes are never anything but children and there is not an old manamong you you are all young there is no opinion handed downamong you which is hoary with agerdquo (Tim 22a-c cp Apion 17-8)42

The reason for this loss is signi cant to note Platorsquos Egyptian priestdescribes an endless cycle of world cataclysms from which only theEgyptians emerged unscathed (22c-e)43 stressing that the accidents of

41 Most notable for our present purposes is Hdt 241 ldquoBut as to human aVairs thiswas the account in which they all (ie the priests at Heliopolis) agreed the Egyptians theysaid were the rst men who reckoned by years and made the year consist of twelvedivisions of the seasons They discovered this from the stars (currenk tCcediln stiexclrvn) so theysaidrdquo See further Franccedilois Hartog The mirror of Herodotus The representation of the Other inthe writing of history (trans Janet Lloyd Berkeley U of California Press 1988) 280-81

42 Notably this bold claim is bounded by strikingly Hellenocentric quali cations boththe ancient Athenians and the Egyptians owe their culture to the divine ldquoculture herordquoAthena (Tim 21e 23d) Moreover the most ancient Egyptian city an incredible eightthousand years old (23e) knows itself to be a thousand years younger than the origi-nal foundation of Athens (23d) Technically speaking the Athenians retain the ultimatepriority of origins in both antiquity and wisdom whereas the Egyptians are only allowedto claim prestige from a practical perspective due to their preservation of ancient tra-ditions long ago lost to the Greeks

43 On the ldquoGreat Yearrdquo and other theories of cosmic periodicity see eg R van


geography caused the Greeks like all other nations to lose their knowl-edge in each progressive disaster (23a-c) Only the history of Egypt ismarked by continuity due to its fortuitous climate and hence ldquothe tra-ditions preserved here are the most ancientrdquo (22e)44 In lauding theEgyptian knowledge of divination and medicine with reference to theirstudy of the cosmos and divinity Platorsquos priest appears to assume acommonsensical rationale that later non-Greeks would eagerly adoptin their claims to have discovered astronomyastrology longevity nurturesknowledge of practices whose eYcacy depends on accurate long-termobservations of patterns of cause-and-eVect45 And if only the passageof time enables a people learn such things then the young Greeksmdashhowever precociously learned in other spheres of expertisemdashare at themercy of ancient ldquobarbarianrdquo nations for knowledge of things like thecycles of the stars46

Just as ethnographyrsquos rst great owering answered the conquests ofPersia with mysterious foreigners constructed for Greek consumptionso the conquests of Alexander of Macedon would foster an interest inldquouniversal historiesrdquo that could make sense of the newly enlarged cultural

den Broek The myth of the Phoenix according to classical and early Christian traditions (LeidenBrill 1972) 67-112 Louis Feldman ldquoHellenizations in Josephusrsquo portrayal of manrsquosdeclinerdquo in Religions in antiquity Festschrift for E R Goodenough ed Jacob Neusner (LeidenBrill 1968) 351-52 on this concept in Ant 1106

44 Cf Hdt 26-27 35 also Ptolemy 1626-648 The association of cultural achieve-ments with the climactic zones of particular nations would also have an interestingNachleben in Christian historiography see William Adler Time immemorial Archaic historyand its sources in Christian chronography from Julius Africanus to George Syncellus (WashingtonDC Dumbarton Oaks 1989) 122-25

45 This for instance is assumed in Josephusrsquo account of antediluvian history in whichhe states that God allowed these early humans to live such long lives in part to advancetheir knowledge in astronomy and geometry because ldquothey could have predicted noth-ing with certainty had they not lived for 600 years that being the complete period ofthe Great Yearrdquo (Ant 1106 see Feldman ldquoJosephusrsquo commentary on Genesisrdquo JQR[1985] 127-28 and for a discussion of the cyclical view of history implied in this pas-sage idem ldquoHellenizations in Josephusrsquo portrayal of manrsquos declinerdquo 351-52)

46 Interestingly Platorsquos tale of the Egyptian priest also anticipates one of the mosteVective Greek responses to this argument even as he dedicates much space to thisstory Plato communicates this information at a maximally distant remove from rst-person reportage Critias attributes the tale to an unidenti ed old man who recountswhat Egyptian priests said to Solon (Tim 21b-c 22b) In the end the reader is leftwith the impression that the topic of human history in eras of extreme antiquity stillremains shrouded in uncertainty This attitude is precisely the one that Josephus wouldlater contest complaining that the Greeks still view history-writing about the distantpast (de ned as all events prior to the Trojan War) as valuable only for entertainmentor pedagogically-motivated speculation not as ldquohistoryrdquo in the sense of records withveri able accuracy see Adler Time immemorial 15-18 107-10 and references there


landscape of the Greco-Roman world47 Unfortunately we have fewextant examples written from the Greek perspective48 However dueto their usefulness for Josephus himself as well as later Christian authors49

we do have some evidence for the discourse generated in responsenamely the composition of ldquoapologetic historiesrdquo by aristocrats fromnewly conquered nations vying for Hellenistic prestige50 Most signi cantare the writings of Berossus and Manetho both written in Greek bynative priests under the patronage of Hellenistic monarchs in the thirdcentury bce From the surviving fragments of their histories it seemsthat both sought to correct the mistakes of Greek ethnographers51 evenas they exploited the trope of the wise and ancient ldquootherrdquo in Greekethnography to stress the antiquity of their own nations and their uniquecontributions to world culture Central to the latter was the assertionof their nationsrsquo longevity with regard to the institution of kingship andthe keeping of written records Even as these authors adopted Hellen-istic historiographical models they appealed to the ancient chroniclesof their own cultures to question Greek claims over the domain of history-writing and to counter Greek notions of the distant past as anera shrouded in uncertainty and recorded only in myths52

The claims to ancient wisdom made by Berossus are illustrative of theuniquely Hellenistic political context that shaped the discourse about therelative antiquity of ldquobarbarianrdquo nations Dedicated to the Seleucidmonarch Antiochus I (324-261 bce) his Babyloniaca proposes that human-kind originally lived like animals until the ldquoculture-bringerrdquo Oannesemerged from the sea This sh-like being taught to the Babylonians

47 See Sterling Historiography 20-58 esp on Hecataeus of Abdera 48 Our sources abound with references to universal histories written from the Greek

point-of-view (esp Diodorusrsquos survey in 131-5 also Josephusrsquo list in Apion 115-18)but few are now extant apart from small excerpts in the works of later historians per-haps most lamentable is the loss of the fourth century bce history of Ephorus men-tioned by both Polybius and Diodorus as the very rst universal historian For instanceit is intriguing that when Diodorus informs his reader that ldquothe rst peoples whom weshall discuss will be the barbariansrdquo he stresses that this is ldquonot because we considerthem to be earlier than the Greeks as Ephorus has said rdquo (195)

49 On the reception-history of Berossus and Manetho see Adler Time immemorial 20-42

50 Sterling Historiography 59-91 also Arthur Droge Homer or Moses Early Christianinterpretations of the history of culture (Tuumlbingen Mohr 1989) 4-8

51 Indeed Manetho is said to have written an entire book against Herodotus seefurther Sterling Historiography 127 Verbrugge and Wickersham Berossus and Manetho100-1

52 See discussion in Adler Time immemorial 24-25


ldquothe knowledge of letters and sciences and arts of all types how tofound cities establish temples introduce laws and measure land seedsand the gathering of fruit and everything which is connected withthe civilized liferdquo (Sync 2911-16)53 In other words human civilizationhere results from a supernatural revelation that is given only to theBabylonians such that the rest of world received these arts only second-hand from them54

For our understanding of the depiction of Abraham in Ant 1154-168 what proves signi cant is that Berossus helped to solidify theChaldeansrsquo reputation for astral wisdom and to establish the Babylonianreputation for the greatest longevity in keeping records of celestial cycles(Sync 390) Towards answering Egyptrsquos claim to a continuous recordof history that spans all the cyclical cataclysms which eVaced the recordsof the rest of the world Berossus even explains how the Chaldeansrsquoastronomicalastrological records could survive the ldquoGreat Floodrdquo becauseof their inscription on baked clay tablets (Sync 53-56)55 With regardto the association of Chaldeans with astronomicalastrological wisdomthe gure of Berossus himself was no less in uential Not only did hecompose a number of astrological treatises56 but he was later cele-brated as the paradigmatic non-Greek astrologer who helped spreadthis wisdom throughout the Hellenistic world57

53 The comprehensiveness of this intervention is underlined by Berossusrsquo assertionthat ldquofrom the time of Oannes nothing further has been discoveredrdquo (Sync 2916)

54 Sterling Historiography 115-16 Adler Time immemorial 25-26 For points of con-tacts with earlier Mesopotamian cosmogonies chronicles and king-lists see Verbruggeand Wickersham Berossus and Manetho 15-24

55 Variations on this trope can be found in Greco-Roman Egyptian and Jewishsources Note Plinyrsquos statement that ldquoEpigenes declares that among the Babylonians for720000 years observations of the heavenly bodies were inscribed on baked tiles andhe is a weighty author among the best such as Berossus and Critodemusrdquo (Nat hist76157) as well as Chaeremonrsquos variation on this theme (on which see below) Interestinglythe author of Jubilees adopts its structure and inverts its valuation using this motif toexplain how the fallen angelsrsquo astrological and ldquomagicalrdquo teachings survived to corruptantediluvian humanity ( Jub 83-4) By contrast Josephus simply transposes this accountinto a biblical key proposing that the long-lived humans of the antediluvian era inscribedtheir scienti c ndings in astronomy and geometry on ldquotwo pillars one of brick andone of stonerdquo (Ant 168-70) whereby it survived the Flood

56 See citations and references to the teachings of Berossus in Seneca Naturales Questiones3291 Pliny Nat hist 7193 Commentariorum in Aratum Reliquiae 142-43 Palchus 135Vitruvius On Architecture 921-2 Aetius de Placitis Reliquiae 22512 2281 2292Cleomedes de Motu Circulari Corporum Caelestium 24

57 See Apion 1129 Pliny Nat hist 7123 Vitruvius On Architecture 962 (also 921) Alsointeresting is the tradition that Berossus was the father of the Babylonian Sibyl (PausaniusDescription of Greece 10129 Pseudo-Justin To the Gentiles 37 Suda on ldquoDelphic Sibylrdquo)


His younger Egyptian contemporary Manetho seems similarly tohave built on the idealized image of Egypt fostered by Greek authorssuch as Herodotus and Hecataeus in order to stress its paramountantiquity58 Although none of the (albeit scant) surviving fragments fromManethorsquos own work mention astronomyastrology it is notable thata number of Greek and Latin authors allude to the rivalry betweenEgypt and Babylonia over the invention of the astral sciences Moreovertreatises on astrological themes were later attributed to Manetho59 TheBook of Sothis for instance answers the claims of the Babyloniaca by pro-moting Thoth-Hermes60 as the authentic Egyptian equivalent to theallegedly spurious Oannes and by proposing that Manetho himself trans-lated his revelations from the inscriptions preserved on stelae The tra-ditions surrounding Manetho would thus provide important precedentsfor the defense of Egyptian skill in the study of the stars against theChaldeans in uencing the Stoic Chaeremonrsquos polemic against Berossuson the one hand and the Hermetic astrologersrsquo claims to continuitywith ancient Egyptian wisdom on the other61

The concerns of these historians will no doubt sound familiar to thereader acquainted with Josephusrsquo Against Apion Not only is Josephus oneof our most important sources for the writings of these authors but hisdefense of the Jews builds on the precedents set by bothmdashparticularlywith regard to the superiority of ldquoorientalrdquo record-keeping to the his-toriography of the arrogant upstart Greeks (see eg Apion 16-7)Furthermore his approach to Abrahamrsquos origins in Chaldea and hissojourn in Egypt appears to have been in uenced by the images ofthose nations promoted by Berossus and Manetho respectively Boththe Egyptians and Babylonians held beliefs and practices that were for-eign to Greeks but were widely respected for their antiquity and oftenacknowledged as sources for Greek culture (Apion 18 14 cp Hdt 224 50-51 Pausanias 4324) as such they provided an ideal model forJosephus to argue for a similar respect for the Jews62

Although Ant 1167-168 can be read as a midrashic expansion onGen 1210-20 it must also be understood in this context as one amongmany theories about how astral wisdom was rst disseminated through-

58 Sterling Historiography 127-3359 Eg Apotelesmatikika Book of Sothis See Verbrugge and Wickersham Berossus and

Manetho 102 Adler Time immemorial 30 60 On Thoth Hermes and Hermes Trigegistus see Garth Fowden The Egyptian

Hermes A historical approach to the late pagan mind (Cambridge 1986) 22-3161 See Fowden Egyptian Hermes 67-68 91-9462 Feldman ldquoAbraham the Greek philosopherrdquo 154


out the world For instance Diodorus Siculusmdashlikely following Hecataeusor another Hellenistic precursormdashasserts that ldquoEgypt is the countrywhere mythology places the origin of the gods [and] where the earli-est observations of the stars are said to have been maderdquo (196 also1814-5)63 and he dismisses Babylonian claims as derivative by quot-ing an Egyptian tradition that the Babylonian astrologers (toccedilw currennBabulCcedilni XaldaUcircouw) immigrated from Egypt and only ldquoenjoy the fame(tmacrn dntildejan) that they have for their astrology (strologUcircaw) because theylearned that science from the priests of Egyptrdquo (1816)64 Josephushowever chooses to side with Berossus and the Babylonians consistentwith his persistent concern to counter the widespread assumption thatthe Jews were merely an oV-shoot of the Egyptians65 Pointing toAbrahamrsquos Chaldean origins he uses the patriarch to usurp both thewisdom and the antiquity of Egypt for the Jews

By inserting Abraham into the genealogy of astronomicalastrologicalknowledge he also answers the theory suggested by Chaeremon66 In anexcerpt preserved by Michael Psellus this Egyptian Stoic and astrologerrecounts how the Nile once ooded causing the Egyptians to lose theirastronomicalastrological records and forcing them to turn to the Chal-deans for aid According to Chaeremon the Chaldeans deliberatelygave the Egyptians false information so that they would be foreverdependant on them for astrological wisdom after which the Egyptianstook the precaution of inscribing their records on baked bricks67 Bycontrast Josephus proposes that the Egyptians received Chaldean wisdomfrom a third party Abrahammdashwho moreover shared this knowledgefreely and generously68 The Jews then are depicted as superior to the

63 Likewise when describing Egyptian in uence on Greek thinkers (1961-9) heattributes the transmission of this knowledge to the Greeks to Oenopides a pupil ofPlato whom he describes as having spend some time studying with Egyptian priestsand astrologers (strolntildegoi 1983-4)

64 Contrast Diodorusrsquo comments on the Chaldeans in 2302 2319 See below onDiodorusrsquo relatively dismissive approach to these and other comments in his Hellenisticsources concerning the debate over ldquobarbarianrdquo antiquity

65 On the idea that Jewish culture is derived from Egypt see eg Diodorus 1282-3Celsus in Origen Contra Celsum 1224 as derived from pagan traditions about theExodus By contrast Josephus cites Egyptian sources to prove the antiquity of the Jews(Apion 169-104) Note that he also cites the Chaldeans in this manner (Apion 1128-160)

66 Notably Josephus cites Chaeremonrsquos history of Egypt in Apion 1288-29267 See fragment 2 in P W van der Horst Chaeremon Egyptian priest and Stoic philoso-

pher (Leiden Brill 1984) 8-13 and discussion in Adler Time immemorial 60-6168 On Josephusrsquo stress on ldquoAbrahamrsquos unsel shness in sharing his scienti c knowl-

edge with the Egyptiansrdquo see Feldman ldquoAbraham the Greek philosopherrdquo 154


Egyptians with regard to the antiquity of their science and as morevirtuous than the Babylonians due to their willingness to share it

ii Hellenistic Jewish traditions about Abraham and astronomyastrology

Josephus of course was not the rst Jew to interpret Abrahamrsquos jour-neys in terms of the early history of astronomyastrology nor the rstto retell biblical history in Greek using Hellenistic literary genres Aswe have already seen some Jewish authors living under Ptolemaic andSeleucid rule addressed the same issues as their Egyptian and Babyloniancounterparts casting biblical history in terms that were comprehensi-ble to a non-Jewish audience as well as attractive to Jews who wishedto locate their nation within the increasingly cosmopolitan context ofthe wider Hellenistic world69 As with their EgyptianPtolemaic andBabylonianSeleucid counterparts these Jewish appeals to Hellenisticideals of ldquobarbarianrdquo antiquity cannot be dismissed either as the apolo-getic justi cation of the merits of the Jews to outsiders or as the play-ful adoption of new Hellenistic models to express nationalistic pride70

Rather it also bespeaks their active participation in a uniquely Hellenisticdiscourse fostered by the political rivalry between the Ptolemaic andSeleucid kingdomsmdashbetween which both Palestinian and AlexandrianJews found themselves precariously balanced amidst the shifting con gura-tions of their power relations throughout the Hellenistic period

Here too astronomyastrology was assumed to be the ultimate cri-terion of antiquity since only the oldest nation(s) possessed continuousrecords from the many centuries needed to observe celestial cycles andto discern their correspondences with events on earth (cp Ant 1106)Just as the debate over whether Egypt or Babylon deserved the prior-ity of cultural origins was often waged over astronomyastrology sothree of the Hellenistic Jewish historians preserved by Polyhistor makesimilar claims for the Jews proposingmdashas would Josephus after themmdashthat Abraham was involved in disseminating knowledge of this sciencethroughout the known world

The versions in Artapanus (Praep ev 9181) and an anonymous his-

69 Eg Gruen ldquoJewish legendsrdquo 72-88 70 Gruen for instance seems to interpret these options as an ldquoeitherorrdquo dichotomy

(eg Heritage and Hellenism The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition [Berkley U of CaliforniaPress 1998] 151) see the more nuanced treatment of John J Collins in Between Athensand Jerusalem Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (2nd ed Grand Rapids Eerdmans2000) 29-63


torian (Praep ev 9182) seem to assume some development of the motifinsofar as they omit the occasion for Abrahamrsquos journey to Egypt (ieGen 1210) The anonymous fragment proposes that Abraham wasrelated to the Giants (cf Gen 64)71 implying that this is how he learnedthe strologikntildew that he thenceforth transmitted to both the Phoen-icians and Egyptians Artapanus depicts Abraham as teaching PharaohstrologUcirca then remaining in Egypt for twenty years before return-ing to ldquothe regions of Syriardquo72

Pseudo-Eupolemus oVers the most detailed account and is the mostself-conscious about his own involvement in an international debate73

After asserting that Abraham himself ldquodiscovered both astrology andthe Chaldean [art] (tmacrn strologUcircan kaUuml Xaldaoacutekmacrn [sc tiexclxnhn] eecircreYacuten)rdquo(Praep ev 9173) he recounts how Abraham traveled from Chaldea toPhoenicia (= Canaan Gen 121) and taught the Phoenicians ldquothe move-ments of the sun and moonrdquo (Praep ev 9175) Like Josephus he pref-aces his comments about Abrahamrsquos instruction of the Egyptians witha retelling of Gen 1210-19 (Praep ev 9176-7) He notes that Abrahamdwelt in Heliopolis where he introduced the Egyptian priests ldquoto astrol-ogy and other such things (strologUcircan kaUuml tŒ loipŒ) saying that heand the Babylonians had discovered these thingsrdquo (Praep ev 9178)mdashalthough Pseudo-Eupolemus then speci es that ldquothe original discoveryhe traced back to Enoch saying that this man Enoch not the Egyptianshad discovered astrology rstrdquo (Praep ev 9178)

To underline this assertion he cites two other traditions about theorigins of astrology recording rst what ldquothe Babylonians sayrdquo andthen what ldquothe Greeks sayrdquo The Babylonian account stresses the antiq-uity of the Babylonians overagainst the Egyptians and makes eVorts toalign Babylonian historical traditions with Greek mythology74 Although

71 Compare Jub 81-4 which also associates astrological knowledge with the Giantsof Gen 64

72 Interestingly for Artapanus the tale serves an aetiological function insofar asAbraham is said to have left behind the very rst members of the Egyptian Jewishcommunity

73 Following Freudenthal (Alexander Polyhistor 82-103) many scholars have speculatedabout the Samaritan origins of this author citing the reference to Mt Gerizim in Praepev 9175 (eg Sterling Historiography 187-90) The evidence however intriguing remainsinconclusive see esp the doubts raised by Gruen Heritage and Hellenism 146-50

74 Ie the Babyloniansrsquo Belus (= Chronos) was the father of Canaan the ancestor ofthe Phoenicians and Canaan had two sons Cush (= Asbolus) the ancestor of the Ethio-pians and Mizraim the ancestor of the Egyptians (Praep ev 9179 cp the genealogyin Gen 10 where Cush Mizraim Put and Canaan are all sons of Ham) On Pseudo-Eupolemusrsquo possible familiarity with Berossusrsquo history see Sterling Historiography 201-2


there is no explicit reference to astrology or any other type of tiexclxnhnimplicit in this genealogy is the assertion that all Egyptian knowledgeultimately derives from the wisdom of the more ancient Babylonians(cf Diodorus 1816) By contrast the Greek account appeals to themythological past ldquoThe Greeks say that Atlas discovered astrologyrdquo75

To this Pseudo-Eupolemus responds by asserting rst that ldquoAtlas andEnoch are the samerdquo (Praep ev 9179) then adding that ldquoto Enochwas born a son Methuselah who learned all things through the help ofthe angels of God and thus we gained our knowledgerdquo (Praep ev 9179)

Here euhemeristic interpretations of foreign gods serve to correlateGreek and Babylonian traditions with biblical history thereby under-mining all other claims to ultimate originality and antiquitymdashand aswith Josephus particularly those of the Egyptians According to Pseudo-Eupolemus the Greeks are forced to appeal to mythology to explainthe origin of astrology but their mythological gures are actually his-torical gures whose lives are recorded in the scriptures of the JewsBy contrast the Babylonians possess historical records about the ancienttimes that generally corroborate Jewish Scripture and moreover cor-rectly assert their own antiquity in comparison to the Egyptians Howeverthe entire Babylonian-Egyptian debate concerns an era that is rela-tively recent compared with the antediluvian origins of the Jews andtheir record-keeping As such Pseudo-Eupolemus goes much furtherthan Josephus later would (1) stressing that the Jewsrsquo knowledge ofastrology originated even earlier than the Babylonians (and implicitlyalso Egyptians and Greeks) with the antediluvian Enoch and his sonMethuselah76 and (2) granting Abraham some role in the discovery ofthis art in addition to its transmission

Josephus was clearly familiar with the works of both Manetho andBerossus Did he also know the writings of Artapanus Pseudo-Eupolemusandor the author of the anonymous fragment in Praep ev 9182 BenZion Wacholder is content to explain their common traditions aboutAbrahamrsquos astronomicalastrological teachings as the result of inde-pendent borrowing from a broader body of shared oral lore77 The

75 Note the entry on astrology in Plinyrsquos long list of ldquoculture-heroesrdquo ldquoAtlas son ofLibya [invented] astrologymdashbut some say the Egyptians and still others the Assyriansrdquo(Nat hist 76157)

76 We may nd some re ex of this tradition in Josephusrsquo depiction of the progenyof Seth as those who discovered ldquoscience of the heavenly bodies and their orderly array(sofUcircan te tmacrn perUuml tŒ oeacuterlsaquonia kaUuml tmacrn toaeligtvn diakntildesmhsin)rdquo due to their long his-tory of peace and prosperity (Ant 169-70)

77 Wacholder ldquoPseudo-Eupolemusrsquo two Greek fragmentsrdquo 103


parallels in content however are striking (both here and elsewhere)Moreover there may be reasons to believe that Josephus knew Polyhistorrsquoscollection of excerpts On the Jews Noting that Josephus explicitly citesthe Miletan historianrsquos anthological history of the Chaldeans as hissource for the works of Cleodemus Malchus (Ant 1239-241) GregorySterling has argued that he also knew his compilation of sources aboutthe Jews but simply used portions thereof without stating their exactorigin78 As Sterling notes this theory plausibly accounts for the manyparallels between the Antiquities and the speci c traditions preserved byPolyhistor while also helping to explain Josephusrsquo reference to threeof the other historians in this collection (ie Demetrius Philo the Elderand Eupolemus in Apion 1218) as well as his apparent assumption thatthese are Greek authors79

If Sterling is correct then Josephusrsquo departures from these earliertales about Abraham prove particularly telling In contrast to Pseudo-Eupolemus (Praep ev 9173) Josephus refrains from positing thatAbraham discovered astronomyastrology and from using this scienceto prove the Jewsrsquo unique connection to the heavenly realm Unlikethese earlier authors Josephus also adds arithmetic (riymhtikntildew) to thepatriarchrsquos curriculum possibly suggesting some eVort to stress theldquoscienti crdquo character of his teachings In addition the comparison high-lights the degree to which Josephus actually downplays Abrahamrsquos asso-ciation with the astral sciences of his native land Whereas the HellenisticJewish historians assume a positive view of astronomyastrology through-out Josephus makes eVorts to subordinate Abrahamrsquos astral wisdom tohis discovery of monotheism

3 The discourse about astronomyastrology in the late Republic and earlyRoman Empire

It may be possible to account for these departures by considering thechanges in Greco-Roman perceptions of astronomyastrology in thecenturies between Berossus and Josephus In the literature of the lateRepublic and early imperial Rome we can discern three trends (1) atendency to downplay the scienti c contributions of ldquobarbarianrdquo nationsand to promote instead a universalized progress-oriented account of

78 Sterling Historiography 282-84 79 Sterlingrsquos argument is strengthened by the fact that Clement of Alexandria would

later mention the same three authors together in a passage more obviously dependantupon Polyhistor (Strom 121141105) see Historiography 284


the origins of human civilization (2) a rise in the prominence of astro-logical divination in Roman culture which began during the transitionfrom the Republic to the Empire and which was followed by the mar-ginalization and criminalization of this type of divination (beginning ca 11 ce) and (3) the resultant eVorts at least on the part of someprominent Roman authors to extricate the ldquoscienti crdquo study of thestars from astrological divination

Inasmuch as the Roman cultural context of Ant 1154-168 has tomy knowledge never been explored in detail I will here progress bysurveying the approaches to the early history of astronomyastrologyin three representative sourcesmdashDiodorus Siculusrsquo Bibliotheca (ca 30bce) Marcus Maniliusrsquo Astronomica (before 14 ce) and Plinyrsquos NaturalisHistoria (ca 77 ce) In this my aim will be to illuminate Josephusrsquoreworking of Hellenistic Jewish traditions with reference to the diVerentways in which each of these authors simultaneously integrates anddeparts from earlier Hellenistic traditions about the astral sciences andarchaic history80

i Astral science and archaic history in Diodorus Siculusrsquo Bibliotheca

The rst trend is already apparent in the Bibliotheca of Diodorus SiculusAbove we cited this work as a source for earlier Hellenistic traditionsabout astronomyastrology and the antiquity of ldquobarbarianrdquo nationsAlthough the Bibliotheca is often approached as merely a mine forHellenistic historiographical traditions Diodorus himself proves no lesssigni cant for our understanding of Josephus in general and Ant 1154-168 in particular insofar as he exempli es the self-conscious rede-ployment of these and other Hellenistic traditions within a new Romancultural context

At the beginning of his work Diodorus proudly claims that his com-prehensive research was only been made possible by the emergence ofRome as a true world power lauding ldquothe supremacy of this city asupremacy so powerful that it extends to the bounds of the civilizedworldrdquo (143) Inasmuch as his universal history aims to locate the rise

80 I have selected these speci c authors because they discuss the early history ofastronomyastrology For our evidence for Roman attitudes towards astrological div-ination more generally see the survey of sources in Cramer Astrology 44-80 146-162Of particular interest is the ambivalence towards this art among Josephusrsquo immediatecontemporaries (pp 154-62) English translations of Diodorus Manilius and Pliny fol-low the Loeb editions


of Rome within the prehistory of the vast empire in which its citizensnow nd themselves his project of gathering the traditions of diVerentnations into a single human history (see 132-3) mirrors Romersquos ownclaims to encompass a diverse range of varied cultures under the roofof one Empire Accordingly he sometimes seems frustrated with hisHellenistic sources for their preoccupation with issues such as the rel-ative antiquity of particular ldquobarbarianrdquo nations81 for indeed it seemsthat such questions had simply become less relevant with the rise ofRoman power (see esp 193-5) Diodorusrsquo eVorts to grapple with thecontinued relevance of his sources within an early Roman context canbe seen in the ways that he selects arranges reworks and even under-mines them For instance he eVectively dismisses Egyptian and Babylonianclaims to have preserved thousands of years of historical records byadopting a distinctly Greek notion of the dividing line between pre-history (Books I-VI) and history (Books VII-XL) the arrangement ofhis volumes embodies the view thatmdasheven though ancient legends areimportant to record and myths can contain shadows of the truthmdashveri able history only begins with the Trojan War (cf Apion 111-14)82

Furthermore he prefaces his anthology of ancient traditions in BooksI-VI with a universalistic account of the earliest stage in human devel-opment that runs counter to the particularistic claims that he subse-quently records83 Diodorus here depicts early human history as a grad-ual process of progress from beast-like origins (18) Contrary to thecompeting claims of any speci c nation (193-4) he stresses that therewas no single Ur-group humans popped up in clusters at the sametime over ldquoevery part of the inhabited worldrdquo (184) Moreover hedepicts these primordial people as lacking in any knowledge of civi-lized skills until motivated by Necessity to invent them (181-9) therebyensuring that no one culture can claim priority over the others withregard to the origins of civilization

For our understanding of Ant 1154-68 the example of Diodorus thusproves illuminating in two ways First despite the diVerent concerns ofDiodorus and Josephus it is important to note that both engage in

81 Note for example Diodorusrsquo dismissive treatment of Chaldean astrologers in 2311 82 Diodorus explicitly warns his reader that ldquowe do not attempt to x with any strict-

ness the limits of those [periods] before the Trojan War since no trustworthy chrono-logical table covering them has come into our handsrdquo (146)

83 On the relationship between Diodorus and Lucretius see A Burton Didorus SiculusBook I A commentary (Leiden Brill 1972) 47-50 Sue Blundell The origins of civilization inGreek and Roman thought (London Croom Helm 1986) 190-97


much the same task reworking Hellenistic traditions and sources to ta new socio-political situation Secondly the Bibliotheca appears to attesta growing distrust of ldquobarbarianrdquo claims to antiquity among Romanauthors84 This trend may help to explain why Josephus spends relativelylittle time dwelling on Abrahamrsquos role in transmitting Chaldean scienceto Egypt even despite this motif rsquos apt t with his apologetic aims

ii Astrology imperialism and Stoicism in Maniliusrsquo Astronomicon

Another possible factor was the changing political social and legal sta-tus of astrologers and astrological divination in early imperial RomeUnder Augustus astrological divination had emerged as an alternativeto traditional Roman divination due largely to its political usefulnessas a tool for imperial propaganda85 A certain fascination with astrol-ogy is evident in Augustan literature as suggested by the frequent useof astrological and horoscopic metaphors references to catasterism andthe garbing of old seers in new astrological guises86 The prominenceand prestige that astrology initially gained under imperial patronage isre ected in the poetry of Marcus Manilius whose Astronomicon claimsits inspiration in the reign of Augustus Not only does Manilius extolthe divinized emperor as the ruler of an earthly realm whose orderlyarrangement approximates the exalted heavens but he thanks Augustusfor the era of peace that has allowed him the leisure for such loftypursuits as astrological poetry (17-11)87

For our purposes it is notable that Manilius prefaces his astrologi-cal endeavors with a short history of the origins of astrology His accountcombines four (typically distinct) themes from earlier treatments of theorigins of human civilization (1) the revelation of arts by divine cul-ture-heroes (2) the role of Nature in facilitating human progress (3)the development of sciences by barbarian nations of extreme antiquityand (4) the slow process by which animalistic humanity forged them-selves into civilized beings by discovering knowledge under the pres-sure of Necessity (142) In the process Manilius oVers two diVerent

84 On Christian attitudes towards this issue see Adler Time immemorial 18-42 passim 85 Barton Power and knowledge 40-45 Cramer Astrology 44-80 86 Barton Power and knowledge 47-5087 Not surprisingly this political praise has a horoscopic counterpart Consistent with

Augustusrsquo own numismatic propaganda Manilius asserts that Capricorn alone of allthe zodiacal signs ldquoturns his gaze upon himselfmdashfor what greater sign can he evermarvel at since it was he that shone propitiously upon Augustusrsquo birthrdquo (2507-9)


accounts of the origins of astrology which rework Hellenistic historio-graphical traditions in diVerent ways

The combination of the rst three tropes proceeds rather uidly fromthe divine impetus for human interest in the stars (1) to Naturersquosencouragement of the political stability needed to discern celestial pat-terns (2) to the rst institutionalization of monarchy and priesthoodin unnamed nations ldquobeneath the eastern skyrdquo (3) climaxing with thedevelopment of systematic astrology According to this aetiology astrol-ogy owes its ultimate genesis to Mercury (= Hermes) the ldquo rst founderof this great and holy sciencerdquo through whom humankind ldquogained adeeper knowledge of the sky the constellations the names and courses ofthe signs their importance and in uencerdquo (125-37) He then notes thatNature too played her part qualifying his appeal to revelation by inte-grating a trope from rationalizing interpretations of early human history

The reference to Nature occasions his description of how the studyof the stars rst ourished under the patronage of kings who ldquocivilizedbeast-like peoples under the eastern skyrdquo (143)mdashan account that evokesthe Hellenistic association of astrological wisdom with ancient ldquobar-barianrdquo nations Reminiscent of Egyptian Babylonian and Jewish claimsto ldquoscienti crdquo wisdom and extreme antiquity the discovery of astrol-ogy is here associated with the earliest institution of kingship (143) andthe resultant history of stability and continuity which spanned the innu-merable quantity of years needed for the observation and recording ofentire celestial cycles (154-65) Moreover these discoveries are attrib-uted to the pious priests in charge of oYcial sacri ces (145-50) ldquoThesewere the men who founded our noble science and were the rst bytheir art to discern the destinies dependent upon the wandering starsrdquoWhen seen in its broader context however what is striking is theanonymity of this ancient ldquoeasternrdquo nation By sidestepping the ques-tion of the exact ethnic origin of astrology Manilius retains for astrol-ogy the fabulously mysterious overtones of a ldquobarbarianrdquo past whilesimultaneously distancing contemporary astrological practice from anyspeci c nationalistic connotations or any unseemly debates over the rel-ative antiquity of nations88

Maniliusrsquo addition of a second aetiology (4 above)89 appears tore ect a tension between the need to conform to more traditional

88 Especially striking is his attempt to distance Hermesrsquo association with astrologyfrom Egyptian claims

89 The transition is somewhat awkward achieved by a sudden ldquo ashbackrdquo to pre-civilized humanity (166 ldquoBefore their times humans lived in ignorancerdquo)


understandings of the origins of astrology (ie as a divine gift fromMercuryHermes as a science which came to the Greeks and Romansfrom the East) and the desire to participate in the contemporary Romandiscourse about the earliest stages of human culture by writers such asLucretius90 Manilius here presents a similar progress-oriented view ofhuman history91 but he is unique in articulating this progress in termsof the evolving human relationship with the stars For instance whenManilius seeks to express the irrationality that once clouded the humanmind he invokes the starry heavens describing pre-civilized humansas ldquospellbound upon the new dawn now mourning as if the stars hadbeen lost now joyful at their rebirth and ignorant as to how to explainby their true causes the varying length of day and shifting time of nightand the shadows changing as the sun is now far now nearrdquo (167-72)It is with pride in human achievement that he then recounts how

They learned the tongues of he birds to interpret the meaning of entrailsto charm serpents to invoke the shades and move the depths of Acheronto turn day to night and night to day By eVort human ingenuity learned toconquer all Nor did it end its labors until Reason had scaled the heavensand pierced through to its deepest nature of things and seen the causesof all its existence (90-95)92

The practice of divination here represents an intermediate step towardsthe more exalted goal of astrology Projecting the nascent distinctionbetween divinatory interpretation of celestial omens and systematic astro-logical prediction onto the axis of human rational evolution Maniliusdescribes how the human mind then mastered the puzzles of the skyscienti c observation of Nature according to Manilius ldquofreed humanminds from wondering at portents by wresting from Jupiter his boltsand power of thunder and ascribing to the winds the noise and to theclouds the amerdquo (105-8) This development occasions the exalted cli-max of Maniliusrsquo account

After Reason had referred these several happenings to their true causesit ventured beyond the atmosphere to seek knowledge of the neighbor-

90 Ie Lucretius De rerum natura 771-1457 George Boas and Arthur O LovejoyPrimitivism and related ideas in antiquity (Baltimore Johns Hopkins UP 1997) 222-42

91 For other examples see Boas and Lovejoy Primitivism 192-221 368-88 BlundellOrigins of civilization 165-200

92 Cp Diodorusrsquo description of Chaldean astrologers whom he also credits with skillsin other types of divination both ldquoby the ight of birdsrdquo and from ldquodreams and por-tentsrdquo (2293)


ing vastness of heaven and comprehend the sky as a whole it determinedthe shapes and names of the signs and discovered what cycles they expe-rience according to xed law and that all things moved to the will anddisposition of heaven as the constellations by their varied array assigndiVerent destinies (106-112)

Here astrology is privileged as the very apex of human civilizationAlthough both divination and astrology are portrayed in wholly posi-tive terms Manilius speaks to the developments of his day explainingthe growing popularity of horoscopic astrology overagainst traditionalRoman divination by appealing to the trajectory of progress that hasshaped human history since the dawn of civilization93

For our purposes it is also signi cant that the Astronomiconmdashour ear-liest extant astronomicalastrological work in Latinmdashembodies the mar-riage between Stoicism and astrological divination94 In the rst centurybce and rst century ce many prominent astrologers (eg ManiliusChaeremon) were also Stoics95 and a number of in uential Stoics (espPosidonius) defended astrological divination on philosophical grounds96

Inasmuch as this philosophical stamp of approval seems to have facil-itated the positive reception of astrology among Roman elites97 it alsobecame a locus for polemics against the Stoics themselves (eg CiceroDe div 24288)

Astrologyrsquos heightened prestige and the increased potency of theastrologersrsquo in uence both over emperors and in the sphere of publicopinion was accompanied by new anxieties about its power to swaythe populace prompting imperial legislation intended to impose con-trol on this powerful yet pliable form of divination In 11 ce the agedAugustus issued an empire-wide edict prohibiting astrological consulta-tions about his death and also private astrology98 Between 33 bce and

93 Blundell Origins of civilization 19894 Cramer traces this connection back to Zenorsquos own interest in astronomy on the

one hand and Cleanthesrsquo understanding of the stars as ldquointerpreters of cosmic ratio-nalism on the other see further Astrology 50-52

95 On the place of the doctrine of ldquosympathyrdquo and other Stoic ideas in the astrol-ogy of this time see Barton Ancient Astrology 102-4 110

96 See eg Quintiusrsquo comments in Cicero De div 1117-118 Cicero moreoverasserts that the Stoics defended nearly every sort of divination (De div 136) and statesthat he knows of only one StoicmdashPanaetiusmdashwho did not defend astrology in particu-lar (De div 24288)

97 So Barton Power and knowledge 37-3898 Whereas the former illustrates the inextricable link (both positive and negative)

between the judgment of astrologyrsquos merits and its value for maintaining imperial power


93 ce astrologers were frequently exiled from Rome and they wereoften suspected of involvement in political intrigues or in fomentingrebellion99 Notably it appears to have been in this context that astrol-ogy became increasingly associated with ldquomagicrdquo by some Romans100

This concept of astrologymdashas a politically destabilizing force and asa powerful tool for (mis)leading the massesmdashis one to which Josephusappeals in his Jewish War when he recounts the fascination with celes-tial portents and the misinterpretations thereof that contribute to theoutbreak of the Jewish revolt against Rome (War 6288V ) Togetherwith the growing distrust of Egyptian and Babylonian claims to extremeantiquity the marginalization and criminalization of astrologers mayaccount for Josephusrsquo attempts to downplay Abrahamrsquos connectionswith the ldquoChaldean sciencerdquo even as he retains the most useful ele-ments of the Hellenistic Jewish and Babylonian traditions about thepatriarchrsquos involvement with it

For our understanding of Ant 1154-168 it also proves signi cantthat Stoicism still served as the main basis for the defense of astrol-ogy as with other forms of divination As noted above Feldman hasproposed that the description of Abrahamrsquos inference of monotheismin Ant 1155-156 inverts Stoic beliefs about the orderliness of the divinecosmos In support he cites H A Wolfsonrsquos observation that Philodepicts the Chaldeans as prototypes of the Stoics101 Feldman thusexplains Josephusrsquo motivation for his anti-Stoic ldquoproof rdquo for monothe-ism by speculating that

Josephus was apparently dissatis ed with the Stoic view of G-d as a kindof prisoner within his own system acting by necessity and wished toprove the Jewish view that G-d is an absolutely incorporeal being endowedwith free will102

the latter evokes the heightened suspicion of civic disloyalty that accompanied the dis-placement of other religious rituals (magic divination sorcery mystery rites) from apublic context into the service of private interests hidden in the safety of secrecy Seefurther Ramsay MacMullen Enemies of the Roman order Treason unrest and alienation in theEmpire (Cambridge Harvard UP 1966) 129-30 On the Augustan edit of 11 ce andits use in later legal cases see Cramer Astrology 248-75

99 See eg Tacitus Histories 122 Cramer Astrology 233-48 MacMullen Enemies ofthe Roman order 132-34

100 Fritz Graf Magic in the ancient world (trans Franklin Philip Cambridge HarvardUP 1997) 54 eg Tacitus Annals 227 232 1222 cf Tertullian On Idolatry 9

101 H A Wolfson Philo (Cambridge Harvard UP 1947) 1176-77 1329 278 espwith regard to Philo Migration of Abraham 32179



Yet the above summary makes clear that Philo and Josephus had goodreason to con ate Chaldeans and Stoics in light of the close ties betweenStoicism and astrological divination in the rst century bce and rstcentury ce the depiction of these ancient archetypal astrologers in theimage of the philosophical defenders of astrological divination wouldhave likely struck their readers as far from arbitrary ConsequentlyJosephusrsquo choice to invert Stoic theories about the relationship betweenthe cosmos and the divine may be rooted not in theological concernsabout the power of God so much as socio-cultural ones even if Josephuswishes to retain Abrahamrsquos association with astronomyastrology as ameans of asserting the Jewish contribution to world culture it wouldsurely not bene t the Jews to depict their progenitor as a Chaldeanin the astrological sense of the term For in rst-century Rome theconnotations thereof encompassed precisely those features that Josephusseeks to downplay in his depictions of the Jewish nation these spe-cialists were socially marginal suspiciously secretive and suspect fortheir role in sparking rebellions against the Empire103

iii Astrology magic and astronomy in Plinyrsquos Natural History

Attention to Josephusrsquo early Roman context may also help us to under-stand the speci c ways in which he reworks Hellenistic Jewish traditionsabout Abraham as teaching astral wisdom to the Egyptians (Ant 1167-68) As noted above authors like Diodorus and Manilius had alreadybegun to downplay the place of Egypt and Babylonia in the develop-ment of astronomyastrology as well as Greek wisdom more broadlyThe Hellenistic discourse about ldquobarbarianrdquo antiquity ldquoalien wisdomrdquoand astronomyastrology is subverted to an even greater degree inPlinyrsquos famous account of the emergence of magic in Nat hist 30

Here Pliny con ates astrological divination into the category ofldquomagicrdquo (302) which he denounces as the ldquomost fraudulent of arts( fraudulentissima artium)rdquo (301)

103 Intriguing is Valerius Maximusrsquos comment on the expulsion of Jews from Romewhich follows directly after his comment on the expulsion of astrologers (Chaldaei ) in139 bce (nos 147a-b in Menachem Stern Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaismvol 1 From Herodotus to Plutarch [ Jerusalem The Israel Academy of Sciences andHumanities 1974] 357-60) It is tempting to see here some direct association betweenJews and astrologers not least because it would provide us with an even more con-crete reason for Josephusrsquo reticence to associate Abraham with astrology Unfortunatelythe source only draws an explicit link between the two insofar as they were both expelledby Cornelius Hispalus and even gives diVerent reasons for their respective expulsionsI am grateful to Shaye Cohen for bringing this passage to my attention


No one will doubt that it (ie magic) rst arose from medicine (e medi-cina) and that professing to promote health it insidiously advanced underthe disguise of a higher and holier healing art (altiorum sanctioremque medi-cinam) To the most seductive and welcome promises it then added thepowers of religion (vires religionis) about which even today the human raceremains quite in the dark After again meeting with success it made afurther addition of astrology (artes mathematicas) because there is no onewho is not eager to learn his destiny or who does not believe that thetruest account of it is that gained by watching the sky (Nat hist 302)104

Pliny then locates the spread of this tripartite magic within the politi-cal history of the world Although rooted in early Greek perceptionsof the mlsaquogow this Roman aetiology of magic also resonates with Hellenistictraditions about the astronomicalastrological wisdom of Egypt andBabylon In contrast to the Hellenistic traditions to which even Maniliusand Diodorus pay service Pliny forcefully asserts the recent (and whollyhuman) origins of these practices declaring that ldquoWithout doubt itarose in Persia with Zoroaster on this our authorities are agreedrdquo (Nathis 303) After recording two opinions that locate Zoroaster in an eraof almost unimaginable antiquity105 he endorses the view of those inquir-ers who suggest that another Zoroaster lived shortly before Xerxesrsquo inva-sion of Greece (308 cf 303) Not only does this multiplication ofZoroasters eVectively shed doubt upon the alleged antiquity of magicbut Pliny goes on to stress that its transmission in the distant past mustremain vague since ldquothere is no line of distinguished or continuous suc-cessorsrdquo (305) According to Pliny the history of magic can only becon dently discussed in terms of the earliest magician whose writingsstill survive He grants this title to Osthanes who ldquoaccompanied Xerxesin his invasion of Greece and sowed what I may call the seeds of this

104 Plinyrsquos taxonomic description of magic as a category that encompasses distinctpractices poignantly mirrors the historical process of abstracti cation and accretion thatconstituted the concept itself (see further Gordon ldquoImagining Greek and Roman magicrdquo229-30) His inclusion of medicine and religion narratively replicates the early Greekdelineation of the ldquomagicianrdquo in polemics by physicians and philosophers but also res-onates with the persistence of ambivalent attitudes towards these domains as most evi-dent in the suspicion towards root-cutting and pharmacology and the questionable statusof mystery rites and other private religious rituals Notably there is here no reference todivination (cf 3014) Rather to evoke magicrsquos exploitation of human curiosity aboutthe future astrology has become emblematic

105 Ie Eudoxus and Aristotle propose that this sage lived six thousand years beforethe death of Plato (303) whereas Hermippus dates his life to ve thousand years beforethe Trojan War (304)


monstrous craft infecting the whole world by the way at every stageof their travelsrdquo

In eVect Pliny equates the threat of magic with the threat of foreigninvasion and cultural contamination He underscores his imperialistmodel for the dissemination of magic by positing a second historicalimpetus for its spread there was ldquoa second Osthanesrdquo who traveledthroughout the world with Alexander the Great promoting the magicalarts (3011) The political rami cations are striking magicrsquos invasion ofthe world is depicted as both the negative equivalent and the tacit justi- cation for the spread of another power namely Rome Indeed Plinyno sooner marvels that ldquoso universal is the cult of magic throughoutthe worldrdquo than he promptly assures his reader ldquoit is beyond calculationhow great is the debt owed to the Romans who swept away the mon-strous ritesrdquo (3013)

Interestingly the opposition magicforeign and non-magicRomanis here used to critique Greek culture establishing their guilt throughassociation with the ldquobarbarianrdquo world If magic was spread rst byXerxes and then by Alexander then this corrupting art lies concealedin both the hellenization of ldquobarbariansrdquo and the orientalization of theGreeks In Plinyrsquos view the Greeks resisted Xerxesrsquo military invasionsonly to embrace the invisible enemy that marched together with himthe cultural invasion of Zoroasterrsquos deceptive arts (308-9) In shortPliny adopts the structure of Hellenistic traditions about the youthfulGreeks gaining wisdom from the ancient Egyptians Babylonians andJews but radically reverses the valuation thereof106

For our purposes it is also notable that Pliny tries to separate theldquoscienti crdquo and ldquomagicalrdquo components of both medicine and astron-omyastrology (see esp 3010-11) Inasmuch as he makes a specialeVort to distinguish ldquolegitimaterdquo medicine from the ldquolies of the magi-ciansrdquo and to purify medicine from magical associations (cp 294-11)his vociferous denunciations of astrology likely answer the growing pop-ularity of astrological medicine (see 295)107 as well as the con ationof astrologers and physicians in the minds of many Romans108

106 Likewise the celebrated traditions about Pythagoras Empedocles Democritusand Plato traveling to Egypt to learn ancient wisdom are here negatively described asldquoexilerdquo (309)

107 Barton Power and Knowledge 91 173-74 179-80 Pederson ldquoSome astronomicaltopics in Plinyrdquo 165-66

108 Ie due to their shared claims of expertise in the practice of prognosis See G E R Lloyd The revolutions of wisdom (Berkley U of California Press 1987) 39-43


As such the example of Pliny may help to explain another ofJosephusrsquo departures from Hellenistic Jewish accounts of Abrahamrsquosteachings of astral wisdom namely his precise choice of topics Asnoted above Artapanus depicts Abraham as teaching Pharaoh strologUcirca(Praep ev 9181) and the anonymous fragment states that Abrahamtransmitted strologikntildew to both the Phoenicians and Egyptians (Praepev 9182) Pseudo-Eupolemus claims that Abraham ldquodiscovered bothastrology and the Chaldean [art] (tmacrn strologUcircan kaUuml Xaldaoacutekmacrn [sctiexclxnhn] eecircreYacuten)rdquo (Praep ev 9173) and then states that he introducedstrologUcirca kaUuml tŒ loipŒ to the Egyptians (9178) In Ant 1167 how-ever Josephus recounts Abrahamrsquos teachings rst of riymhtikntildew andthen of stronomUcirca109 As Feldman notes this pairing may re ect anunderstanding of astronomy as a subset of mathematics (eg QuintilianDe Inst Or 11046V )110 In light of the disdain towards astrologicaldivination among authors like Pliny (so also Juvenal 71V TacitusHistories 122) one wonders if this choice might have also been moti-vated by an attempt to stress the ldquoscienti crdquomdashas opposed to divina-tory or ldquomagicalrdquomdashcharacter of the teachings of the Chaldean fatherof the Jews

4 Conclusion

From the discussion above it is clear that Josephus articulates Greco-Roman ideals by means of earlier Jewish traditions even as he adapts thelatter to re ect the values (both Jewish and non-Jewish) of his own timeWhat then can the place of astronomyastrology in Ant 1154-168tell us about Josephusrsquo appeal to Abraham as an exemplar of the Jews

It is possible that Josephus here answers ldquopaganrdquo preconceptionsabout the Jews by means of their progenitor Abraham When Apionaccuses this nation of never having produced a single remarkable man(yaumastoccedilw ndraw) he cites as possible examples (1) an inventor ofarts (texnCcediln tinvn eecircretŒw) and (2) one who transmits wisdom (sofUcircampdiafiexclrontaw Apion 2135) In Ant 1154-68 Abraham seems to embodyprecisely these things not only is he the rst to infer the truth ofmonotheism but he helps to carry ldquoscienti crdquo knowledge throughoutthe world

109 In this regard it may also be signi cant that some MSS (although a clear minor-ity) here read strologUcirca I thank Shaye Cohen for bringing this to my attention

110 Feldman ldquoAbraham the Greek philosopherrdquo 154


However consistent with the ambivalence towards astronomyastrol-ogy both in the history of Jewish exegesis of Genesis 12-36 and in theRoman culture of Josephusrsquo time knowledge about the stars here playsa double role On the one hand astronomyastrology is used to expressAbrahamrsquos place within the world at large as a ldquoscientistrdquo teacherand traveler who gains fame among the Babylonians and who exertsa formative in uence on the intellectual traditions of the Egyptians andthe Greeks On the other hand however the understanding of thecelestial cycles that is used to defend astrological divination is dismissedas inferior to monotheism for which history is indebted to Abrahamand his incisive intellect

Although Josephusrsquo Abraham is thus laudable by the standards ofthe Greco-Roman culture he does not lose his distinctive ldquoJewish-nessrdquoIn Ant 1154-68 this comes through most clearly in my view inJosephusrsquo treatment of the relationship between monotheism and astron-omyastrology Within the biblical text Abrahamrsquos departure for thePromised Land sounds the keynote of Israelrsquos chosenness (Gen 1128-129 cp Neh 97-8) evoking a symbolic break with ldquothe nationsrdquo thatlater exegetes would concretize into extrabiblical legends about his rejec-tion of his fatherrsquos idolatry polytheism andor astrology By contrastas we have seen Hellenistic Jewish historians like Pseudo-Eupolemusand Artapanus adopt a diVerent stance towards the traditional ldquoothersrdquoof early Jewish history they make positive appeal to this patriarchrsquosChaldean origins and in attempting to appropriate for the Jews theantiquity of Egyptian wisdom they also conjure a diVerent Egyptmdashnotthe paradigmatically despotic kingdom of the Book of Exodus but theidealized Diasporaic milieu of ourishing Jewish communities underPtolemaic rule111 Likewise they approach the story of Abrahamrsquos sojournin that land (Gen 1210-20) not as a pre gurement of the later enslave-ment of his progeny but rather as the occasion for the transmissionof Chaldean wisdom to Egypt In other words the attempt to co-optthe ldquoscienti crdquo prestige of Egypt and Babylonia has resulted in a rad-ical re-reading of Genesis 12-36 oriented not to the patriarchrsquos entryinto the Promised Land but rather to his own origin outside of it andhis departures from it

111 See John J Collins ldquoReinventing Exodus Exegesis and legend in HellenisticEgyptrdquo in For a later generation The transformation of tradition in Israel early Judaism and earlyChristianity eds Randall Argall Beverly Bow and Rodney Werline (Harrisburg Trinity2000) 53-62 Gruen Heritage and Hellenism 55-72


In a sense Josephus takes the best of both approaches He aYrmsthe active participation of Abraham (and by extension the Jews) inthe cosmopolitan culture of the eastern Mediterranean and Near Easternworld even as he stresses the uniqueness of both the nation-founderand his nation Josephus retains the motif of Abraham as Chaldeanldquoscientistrdquo inasmuch as it serves to emblematize the antiquity of theJews to secure their place in world history and to testify to their con-tribution to human culturemdashas well as to counter Egyptian accountsthat dismiss the Jews as derivative from the Egyptians But in the pro-cess of dissociating Abraham from the negative connotations surroundingthe astrologer in Roman culture Josephus simultaneously attenuatesthe patriarchrsquos connection to his Chaldean origins Just as Josephusrsquoambivalence towards astronomyastrology serves to temper his apolo-getic appeal to this art so the patriarchrsquos role in transmitting astralwisdom is decisively subordinated to his ldquodiscoveryrdquo of monotheismmdashhere presented as the true contribution of the Jews to world culture


Josephusrsquo portrayal of Abraham is hardly a neglected topic In articlesand books spanning over 30 years Louis Feldman has investigated theimages of Abraham in the Jewish Antiquities showing how Josephus usesHellenistic tropes models and literary forms to describe the father ofthe Jews in terms comprehensible and compelling to a primarily non-Jewish audience1 Likewise both within and beyond the eld of Josephanstudies scholars have discussed the special role that this patriarch playsin Josephusrsquo attempts to defend the Jewish nation against the chargesof its critics2

Among many other things these studies have demonstrated thatJosephusrsquo retelling of the Abraham cycle (Ant 1148-256) provides aparticularly fruitful focus for inquiries into the combination of apolo-getic aims Hellenistic historiographical models and early Jewish exe-gesis that makes Antiquities 1-11 much more than either a biblical retellingor an apologetic history From even a cursory comparison with SecondTemple and Rabbinic sources it is clear that Josephusrsquo expansive para-phrase of Genesis 12-36 stands rmly in the early Jewish tradition ofexpounding these biblical narratives and celebrating the gure ofAbraham as (cp Ant 1158 patmacrr sup2mCcediln) ldquothe one from whomthe Hebrews sprang and to whom they owe their distinctivenessrdquo3 Atthe same time this workrsquos explicitly stated aim of explaining Jewishhistory to non-Jews (esp Ant 15-17) makes it virtually unique amongour extant sources for early Jewish approaches to Abraham4

1 ldquoAbraham the Greek philosopher in Josephusrdquo TAPA 99 (1968) 143-56 ldquoAbrahamthe general in Josephusrdquo in Nourished with peace Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in memory ofSamuel Sandmel eds F E Greenspahn E Hilgart and B L Mack (Chico Scholars Press1984) ldquoJosephus as biblical interpreter The Aqedahrdquo JQR 75 (1984-85) 212-52 ldquoHelleni-zations in Josephusrsquo Jewish Antiquities The portrait of Abrahamrdquo in Josephus Judaism andChristianity eds L Feldman and G Hata (Detroit Wayne State 1987) 133-53 Josephusrsquosinterpretation of the Bible (Berkley U of California Press 1998) 223-89 and most recentlyhis detailed commentary on Ant 1148-256 in Judean Antiquities 1-4 53-100

2 See esp G Mayer ldquoAspekte des Abrahambildes in der hellenische-juumldischesLiteraturrdquo ET 32 (1972) 118-27 T W Franxman Genesis and the ldquo Jewish Antiquitiesrdquo ofFlavius Josephus (Rome Biblical Institute 1979) 116-69 Paul Spilsbury The image of theJew in Flavius Josephusrsquo paraphrase of the Bible (TSAJ 69 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1998)55-74 as well as Samuel Sandmel Philorsquos place in Judaism A study of conceptions of Abrahamin Jewish literature (New York Ktav 1971) 59-76

3 Spilsbury Image 564 On Antiquitiesrsquo self-presentation as ldquoa treatise for the Greek worldrdquo see also Ant

16174 20263 and Apion 12 on its reception The assumption that Jewish readers toowould read the work comes through most clearly in Ant 4197 See further SpilsburyImage 16-22 Gregory Sterling Historiography and self-denition Josephos Luke-Acts and apolo-getic historiography (Leiden Brill 1992) esp 297-308 Steve Mason ldquoIntroduction to the

















































































































































































































































































4 Conclusion



























































































































































































































































































4 Conclusion





















































































































































































































































































4 Conclusion













































































































































































































































































4 Conclusion





































































































































































































































































4 Conclusion






























































































































































































































































4 Conclusion























































































































































































































































4 Conclusion















































































































































































































































4 Conclusion








































































































































































































































4 Conclusion

































































































































































































































4 Conclusion
























































































































































































































4 Conclusion
















































































































































































































4 Conclusion










































































































































































































4 Conclusion




































































































































































































4 Conclusion





























































































































































































4 Conclusion





















































































































































































4 Conclusion












































































































































































4 Conclusion




































































































































































4 Conclusion





























































































































































4 Conclusion



















































































































































4 Conclusion











































































































































4 Conclusion




































































































































4 Conclusion



























































































































4 Conclusion


















































































































4 Conclusion









































































































4 Conclusion

































































































4 Conclusion


























































































4 Conclusion



















































































4 Conclusion












































































4 Conclusion





































































4 Conclusion






























































4 Conclusion






















































4 Conclusion










































4 Conclusion
































4 Conclusion


























4 Conclusion





















4 Conclusion













4 Conclusion



















Documents

Abraham as Chaldean Scientist and Father of the Jews Annette Yoshiko Reed 2004