Josephus on the Jewish Constitutions and Community*

Daniel R. Schwartz

In several passages of his Jewish Antiquities, Josephus uses standard Greek

political terminology (aristocracy, monarchy, etc.) to describe the Jewish
constitution (politeia) at various stages of the nation’s history.1 It is obvious
that his use of such terminology, as so much in AJ,2 is intended to give the
book, and the nation which it describes, a Hellenistic appearance, so as to
make it more palatable and civilized in the eyes of the Graeco-Roman reader.3
This being the case, one might well wonder whether these terms are anything
more than window-dressing. Do they, that is, reflect any thought-out and
consistent theory regarding the political structure of the Jewish nation?

This paper was orginally presented as a lecture in the faculty seminar of the Hebrew
University’s Classics Department; my thanks to the participants in that seminar,
and especially to Dr. Doron Mendels, for their helpful comments and criticism. I
would also like to thank the Maiersdorf Foundation for my appointment as
Maiersdorf Lecturer in Jewish History at the Hebrew University, 1981-1983.
1 And this topic is accordingly given some special attention in the book’s preface
(§s5,10,13,21). Note that some Arabic sources apparently cite the book by the title
“ On the Governance of the Jews”; seeS. Pin es, An Arabic Version o f the Testimo­
nium Flavianum and its Implications (Jerusalem 1971) 8-10 (n. 15); 45-51.
2 Abbreviations used in this paper:/!./, BJ and Ap. for Josephus’ major works, and
LCLJ for the Loeb Classical Library edition of Josephus, from which translations
are usually taken.
3 For a study of a related subject, which indeed concludes that this motive is all that
lies behind Josephus’ statements concerning it, see \ . A . Tcherikover, “ Was
Jerusalem a ‘Polis’?”, IEJ 14 (1964) esp. 74-76.

30
 DANIEL R. SCHWARTZ 31

Few scholars have dealt with this question, most probably agreeing with
the recent critic who, in an obiter dictum, rejected it out of hand.'1 Moreover,
apparently good grounds for skepticism are immediately available, for: 1)
Josephus, unlike Plato, Aristotle, Polybius and others, rarely defines his
terms, and 2) different terms are sometimes used to characterize the
constitution of one and the same period. Nevertheless, study indicates that an
investigation of Josephus’ constitutional terminology will not be profitless.
We will begin with the two questions just noted (undefined terms and contra­
dictions); after examination of these problems will allow us to present a chart
of the successive Jewish constitutions, according to Josephus, we will turn to
further problems: gaps in the succession (historical periods for which no
constitution is posited), the possibility that Josephus followed a particular
model, and the question of the relation of Josephus’ political science to his
situation as an apologist for Judaism at a time when the Jewish state, to all
intents and purposes, had ceased to exist.

I. Definit on o f terms
Basileia poses no difficulties: for Josephus, it denotes government by an
individual who bears the royal title and wears the royal crown.45 Anarchia is
just as simple: it denotes an absence, or confusion, of the constitution.
(Josephus uses the word only twice, on both occasions with reference to the
eighteen-year period of subjugation under Eglon, King of Moab [AJ
5.185-187; 6.84]).6 Demokratia and oligarchia are indeed more difficult, but

4 H. W. Attridge, The Interpretation o f Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae

o f Flavius Josephus (Missoula, Montana 1976) 139, n. 3: “ It may be doubted
whether Josephus had a consistent or carefully thought-out political theory” .
Similarly, C. Roth once opined, apropos of Josephus’ use of “aristocracy”, that
“his use of language was probably no more consistent than he was him self’ (“The
Constitution of the Jewish Republic of 66-70”,JSS 9[ 1964] 298-299, n.3). In the
course of his review of Josephus’ politeia passages, Η. Strathmann, in a slightly
different vein, suggested that Josephus’ usage of political terminology was a ploy
“to conceal the religious orientation of the political thought of Israel” (“polis”,
Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament 6 [ 19681 527).
5 See, for example, AJ 12.360,389; 13.113,301,369; 15.187,195; 17.202, 273, 280;
18.237; 20.241.
6 Note, however, that these eighteen years (Judges 3:14) did not come directly
“after the death of Joshua” (AJ 6.84) but rather after the death of (Othniel ben)
Kenaz (Judges 3:1 \\A J 5Ἰ84). One would have expected Josephus’ reference in
32 JO SEPHUS ON JEW ISH CONSTITUTIONS

as they each appear only once in Josephus’ writings (AJ 20.234 and 11.111,
respectively) we shall ignore them, for the present. This leaves two terms
requiring definition: monarchia and aristokratia.
1.A s a term defining a Jewish constitution, monarchia appears only in AJ
20.229, of the period of the Judges; but in 11.112 we similarly read that the
rulers in that period were called “judges and monarchs” . It seems, therefore,
that while Josephus called them only “judges” in the course of his narrative
for this period (5.184; 6.85,268), in hi$ summaries he felt a need to use a word
which indicates that these men actually ruled7 and were not restricted to
jurisprudence. The words “ monarch” , “monarchy” fit the bill: on the one
hand they indicate rule by an individual,8 but on the other they do not
attribute to him the royal title.9
2. Two passages are sometimes taken as indicating that aristokratia is
Josephus’ term for hierocracy, rule by the (high) priests10 (for the latter term,
so commonly used of the Second Jewish Commonwealth, is of modern
coinage):

6.84 to be to the suspension of councils reported in 5Ἰ 35 (see below, paragraph 2),

which does follow more or less directly upon Joshua’s death; but no period of
time is mentioned there and the word “anarchy” does not appear. Josephus’
memory evidently conflated the two passages. In any case, his confusion reflects
his assumption, to be demonstrated in paragraph 2, below, that the existence of
councils defines a constitution, aristocracy.
7 Cf. his frequent use of arche and archö of the Judges, as in AJ 5Ἰ84, 197,
232,254,270-271,316; 6.32.
8 Josephus also makes this point by arranging the Judges consecutively even when
the Bible leaves gaps between their “terms” . See/17 5Ἰ84 (vs. Judges 3:11), 197
(vs. Judges 3:30), ibid. (vs. Judges 3:31), 209 (vs. Judges 5:31), 318 (Josephus
takes care to mention Samson’s “successor” , Eli, before digressing on Ruth. [Α
similar procedure characterizes Josephus’ treatment of the Roman procurators of
first-century Judaea; see D.R. Schwartz, in Zion 48 (1982/83) 325- 345.] Note that
Eli, a high priest, is not said to have “ruled”, in contrast to other Judges[see the
preceding note]; he does rule in AJ 5.361, but there the reference is to primacy in
the high-priestly house, not the nation).
9 The term “monarchs” in AJ 20.261 too most probably refers to the Judges, as
most commentators and translators agree; note that they are clearly distinguished
from the adjacent “kings”. On this passage, see below, Part 11,1.
10 On AJ 11.111 see, for example, R. Marcus in LCLJ 7, p. 495, note g. On 20.251: Η.
Zucker, Studien zur jüdischen Selbstverwaltung im Altertum (Berlin 1936) 75,78.
Cf. below, note 14.
 DANIEL R. SCHWARTZ 33

AJ 11.111: After the Restoration, the Jews “dwelt in Jerusalem under a form
of government that was aristocratic and at the same time oligarchic. For the
high priests were at the head of affairs until the descendants of the
Asamonaean family came to rule as kings” . AJ 20.251: “After the death of
these kings[Herod’s and ArchelausT, the constitution became an aristocracy,
and the high priests were entrusted with the leadership of the nation.”
The second passage, by the use of men... de..., clearly dissociates the high
priests from the aristocratic constitution and associates them with the prosta­
sia, a more nebulous term to which we shall return; similarly, the first passage,
although perhaps not as clearly, shows, via the insertion of a preposition
(met'), that the constitution was aristocratic alone, with a high-priestly oli­
garchy alongside it holding the prostasia. (This is the abovementioned lone
reference to oligarchy; as we see, it is not used to describe a politeia.) Later
(Part III) we will investigate this high-priestly prostasia which exists alongside
of the constitution; now we must look elsewhere for the definition of
aristocracy.
Early in AJ, after several laws regarding local councils of judges and
magistrates (4.214-217, 220-222) and their national counterparts (high pri­
est, prophet,gerousia[§218]), Josephus’ Moses begins his skeptical discussion
of kings with the admonition that “ Aristocracy... is indeed the best constitu­
tion” (§223). Similarly, when corruption later afflicts the aristocracy, Jose­
phus explains this complaint by stating that “ no more did they appoint
councils of elders or any other of those magistracies beforetime ordained by
law... ” (5.135). This comment is apparently an interpretation of Judges
2:7, 10, which implies that the last good elders were those of Joshua’s days.“
Later in the period of the Judges, however, Josephus — in contrast to the
Septuagint (not to mention the Hebrew Bible)112 — continues to refer to the

11 The same idea underlies the Qumran sect’s Damascus Document, 5:3-4. On the
other hand, the rabbis assigned the elders who followed Joshua a crucial role in
the preservation of tradition; see, for example, the opening of the mishnaic
tractatevlôo/. Cf. M.D. Herr, “Continuum in the Chain of Torah Transmission”,
Zion 44 (1978/79 = I.F. Baer Memorial Volume) 43-56 (in Hebrew).
12 The Hebrew Bible never explicity mentions a council of elders, but only “elders” ,
which the LXX, until the end of Joshua, renders “g e r o u s i a from Judges on,
until “gerousia” resumes with Judith, “presbyteroi” is used. See S. Hoenig, The
Great Sanhedrin (Philadelphia 1953) 148. For the LXX as Josephus’ main biblical
text, see Attridge (above, n. 4) 30-33. Josephus does not cite Judith, but he too
34 JO SEPHUS ON JEW ISH CONSTITUTIONS

activities of the gerousia (5.151,170,332,335,353), which is, we would suggest,

what allows him to characterize the pre-Saul period as one of “aristocracy”
(6.36,84- 85,268).13 Finally, the same conception seems clearly to underly
Josephus’ use of “aristocracy” to denote the regime established by Gabinius
(BJ 1Ἰ70; AJ 14.91): his measures weakened the status of the high priest
Hyrcanus II by apportioning governmental authority among five regional
councils.14 For Josephus, therefore, “aristocracy” thus denotes not hierocra-
cy15 but rather government by council.

II. Contradictions
Two real contradictions may be noted: the constitution of the period of the
Judges is termed “ monarchy” in 20.229 but “ aristocracy” in 6.36,84-85, 268
(on which latter see below), and that of the period between the Return and the
Hasmoneans16 is termed “democracy” in 20.234 but “aristocracy” in 11.111.

first resumes reference to the gerousia, after it disappeared with the onset of
kingship, in the post-exilic but pre-Hasmonean period (12.138,142; probably also
11Ἰ05, whereToîç πρεσβυτἔροις τὣν’Ιουδαι'ων καῖ γεράντωνapparently distin­
guishes between elders and members of the gerousia).
13 On the interpretation of 6.268, see below, Part II,b. Α certain difficulty is raised
by 6.85, where the Judges are said to be those who had proved to be “ best” (τῷ...
ἀρΐστω δὸξαντι γεγενήσθαι) in battle and bravery; the adjective might seem to
imply that it was the Judges, and not the contemporary councils, which allowed
Josephus to characterize the constitution of this period as “aristocratic”. But
6.84-85 plainly distinguishes betwen the rulers of the Hebrews, such as Moses,
Joshua and the Judges (who held “supreme judicial authority”), and the “consti­
tutions”; only when Moses, Joshua and the Judges were succeeded by kings did
the concomitant institution of kingship (basileia) entail a change in the
constitution.
14 See Ε.Μ. Smallwood, The Jews Under Roman Rule (Leiden 1976) 32, whose
discussion, however, illustrates the difficulties when one assumes, due to AJ
11.111, that “aristocratic” means hierocratic.
15 Nor does it simply mean “rule of the laws with God as king” , as suggested by
Attridge (above, n. 4) 139, n. 3. The question is, What political arrangements
(=politeia) will best ensure obedience to God; cf. below, n. 40. Note too that
Josephus was unwilling to call God “king”, apparently because Jewish rebels
gave that epithet an anti-Roman interpretation. See Α. Schlatter, Die Theologie
des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josephus (Gütersloh 1932) 48-49; Μ. Hengel
Die Zeloten (Leiden-Cologne 19762) 95-98. Cf. below, n. 68.
16 For the definition of the endpoint of this period, see below, Part III,2.
 DANIEL R. SCHWARTZ 35

These contradictions, however, are only two of the many which distinguish
the summary of the history of the high priesthood {AJ 20.224-251) from the
rest of AJ\ scholars have long since noted these contradictions, rightly con­
cluding that this summary is not simply a collation of details scattered in the
previous books of AJ but rather a reflection of a separate source, commonly
designated as a “high-priestly chronicle” / 7 A simple solution to our problem,
therefore, would be the assumption that the author of this chronicle had
different ideas regarding the Jewish constitutions, and that Josephus, as often
(regarding this chronicle as other sources), failed to coordinate its data with
those supplied by other sources or his own speculation.
This simple solution, however, does not appear to be correct, for it seems
that the high-priestly chronicle did not include references to the Jewish
constitutions; Josephus, I believe, added them at the appropriate junctures.
This conclusion rests on three main observations:
Γ. In his detailed introduction to the summary of the high priesthood—
“ Now I think it necessary and befitting in this history to give a detailed
account of the high priests — how they began, who may lawfully participate
in this office, and how many there were up to the end of the war” {AJ 20.224)
— Josephus says nothing of the constitutions of the Jews in the various
periods during which the respective high priests served. Just a few pages later,
however, in the conclusion of AJ, after Josephus proudly mentions all the
history which he surveyed in the work, and the fact that he also “endeavored
to preserve the record (τηρἤσαι δε πεπειραμαι καῖ την... ἀναγραφῇν) of the
line of the high priests” , he adds that “ I have further noted without error the
succession and conduct of the kings, reporting their achievements and poli-
teiai as well as the supreme political power (dynasteiai) of monarchs” (§261).1718

17 See J. von Destinon, Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus in der Jüd. Arch. Buch
X II-X V II = Jüd. Krieg Buch I (Kiel 1882) 30-33; G. Hölscher, Die Quellen des
Josephusfür die Zeit vom Exil bis zum jüdischen Kriege (Leipzig 1904) 73-75; idem,
Die Hohenpriesterliste bei Josephus und die evangelische Chronologie (Heidelberg
1940) 7.
18 Niese’s critical apparatus lists some variant readings; the corrected version of the
Ambrosian ms. (A), “I have further noted without error the succession of the
kings, reporting the politeiai and the dynasteiai of monarchs”, which omits
reference to the kings’ conduct and achievements, seems best to fit the context if
this passage indeed refers to the constitutional notes in the high-priestly sum­
mary. For dynasteia = “supreme political power” , see H.St.J. Thackeray and R.
Marcus, A Lexicon to Josephus, III (Paris 1948) 194.
36 JO SEPHUS ON JEWISH CONSTITUTIONS

From the location of this sentence in the summary oiA J, after the references
to the history itself and to the high-priestly summary which concludes it, it
seems obvious that this addition refers to the constitutional notes in the
high-priestly summary. Thus, the contrast between 20.224 and 20.261,
together with the fact that§ 261 refers separately to the high-priestly succes­
sion and to the succession of constitutions and that he claims to have “pre­
served the record” of the former but “reported” the latter, all indicate that the
constitutional observations in the high-priestly summary are Josephus’ own
contribution.
2. Another consideration pointing in this same direction emerges from
what may be termed “the lesson” of the high-priestly summary: while the
high-priestly succession was stable and regular “during two thousand years”
(20.261 and Ap. 1.36), political constitutions changed frequently (§§ 229,232,
234, 247, 251). Moreover, the high priests are never associated with the
constitution, but they are thrice said to have held the prostasia (§§
238,244,251). It is especially interesting to note §244, which states that while
Hyrcanus II was not allowed to be king, he was given the high priesthood and
the prostasia of the people; this contrasts neatly with the preceding paragraph,
where Hyrcanus’ brother, Aristobulus II, is said to haveεβασἰλευἀ τε καῖ
ἀρχιεράτευεν τοῦ εθνους ; the prostasia is not mentioned. It thus appears that
prostasia refers to the authority of the high priest when he does not enjoy a
more formal, “politically”-defined, ruling status. Now this notion of a high-
priestly prostasia parallel to, but not part of, the succession of political
constitutions is, as we have seen (above, Part 1,2), attested elsewhere in
Josephus. Moreover, we shall argue, below, that he practically invented it;
and if he took it over from predecessors, these were certainly not members of
the Jerusalem priesthood, who are the presumed authors of the high-priestly
chronicle.19 If this notion is nonetheless found in the high-priestly summary in
AJ 20, it follows that it was Josephus who inserted it.
3. Finally, we may note that the constitutional terminology in the high-
priestly summary agrees with Josephus’ other data in AJ more often than it
disagrees: against the two discrepancies noted at the beginning of this section,
pertaining to periods B and D of the coming table (below, p. 38), note the
agreement regarding periods A,C,E and G.

19 See especially Ap. 1.34-36; note “two thousand years” anddvaypaipafç in§ 36, as
in AJ 20.261.
 DANIEL R. SCHWARTZ 37

If these three considerations indicate that the political terminology in AJ

20.224-251 was inserted by Josephus, then it follows that he twice contra­
dicted himself; this is not so surprising, considering the fact that quite a lot of
time must have passed between the composition of the discussions in ques­
tion, in AJ 6 and 11, and the composition of the high-priestly summary.
Moreover, while I have no suggestion to explain the origin of the designation
“democracy” for the period between the Return and the Hasmoneans, it does
seem simple enough to explain why Josephus might, mistakenly, call the
period of the Judges one of a “monarchic” constitution: he recalled that he
had termed these lone leaders “ monarchs” , but forgot that he had defined the
constitution of their period as an aristocracy (above, Part 1,2).
Two other passages should be mentioned in the present context, for the
usual translations of them imply conflicting characterizations of the constitu­
tion of a period:
a. In AJ 6.268, Josephus notes that Saul was the first king μετἀ τὴν
ἀριστοκρατι'αν καἱ τὴν ἐπὶ τοὺς κριταΓς πολιτει'αν, “after the aristocracy and
the constitution under the Judges” . This could imply that the constitution of
the period of the Judges was not aristocratic (as was that of the preceding
period), contradicting 6.36,84-85. On the other hand, kai here could be
epexegetical, or the whole phrase could be seen as a case of Josephus’
tendency to say something twice when once would do;20 in either case the
difficulty disappears. Moreover, the text of the passage is not certain. Appar­
ently on the basis of the old Latin version (“post illam optimam ducum
rempublicam”), Niese suggested that the words “καῖ... πολιτει'αν” are “for­
tasse spuria” ;21 deleting them eliminates the contradiction. In any case, note
that kai is omitted in two primary manuscripts,22 leaving “ after the aristo­
cratic constitution in the time of the Judges” which, just as in the case of the
epexegetical kai, removes the difficulty.
b. AJ 11.111 is sometimes translated as if it called the constitution of the
period from the Return to the Hasmoneans both aristocratic and oligarchic;
we have rejected this interpretation above (Part 1,2).

20 See W. Hornbostel, De Flavii Iosephi Rhetoricis quaestiones selectae (Halle 1912)

36-40. Thackeray noted a particular frequency of hendiadys in AJ 6 (LCLJ 4, xvi).
21 See the critical apparatus of his editio maior ad loc.
22 Ibid. On these two mss. (RO), see Niese’s preface (vol. Ι, p. χχχνἰἰἰ); Η. Schreck­
enberg, Rezeptionsgeschichtliche und textkritische Untersuchungen zu Flavius
Josephus (Leiden 1977) 81-88.
38 JO SEPHUS ON JEWISH CONSTITUTIONS

At this point, we may present a summary of Josephus’ definitions of the

Jewish constitutions at the various stages of the nation’s history:23
Ἀ. Period of Moses and Joshua: aristocracy. AJ 6.84; 20.229
— eighteen years following Joshua’s death: anarchy. 6.84.
B. Period of the Judges (“ monarchs” 11.112; 20.261): aristocracy.
6.36,84-85,268.
C. Period of the Kings: kingship (basileia). 6.83; 20.229
— captivity. 11.112. 20.233.
D. Return until the reign of the Hasmonean kings: aristocratic. Π. 111.24
Ε. Aristobulus I until Pompey’s conquest of Judaea: kingship (basileia).
13.301; 20.241.
F. Gabinius’ reforms: aristocracy. BJ 1.170; AJ 14.91.
G. Herod and Archelaus: kingship (basileia). AJ 14.389; 15.11; 20.247,251.25
Η. Archelaus’ exile (6 C.E.) until destruction of Temple: aristocracy. 20.251.

III. Omissions
The anarchy between periods Ἀ and B has already been explained (above,
Part I), and the exilic discontinuity between periods C and D poses no
difficulty. Real problems arise, therefore, regarding the Hasmonean period
alone:
1. Josephus gives no indication of the constitution of the Jews during the six
years of Hyrcanus II’s rule prior to Gabinius’ reforms (63-57 BCE) and
during the years (six? fifteen?)26 following their abrogation and the reestab­
lishment of the status quo ante, until Antigonus and Herod appeared to claim
the throne.
2. Moreover, although AJ 11.111 ends period D at the time “when the
descendants of Asamonaios came to rule as kings” , it seems that Josephus
here refers to the Hasmonean rise to power in general, in the days of Judah
Maccabee, and not specifically to Aristobulus I, the first, according to Jose­

23 The references supplied for each stage are not meant to be inclusive; only some of
the most explicit passages have been listed.
24 See above, n. 16.
25 Josephus at times refers loosely to Archelaus as “king” (BJ 2.88,113; AJ 17.315;
18.93), although he never had the title officially (AJ 17.202,317). This apparently
reflects popular usage, indicated also by the Gospels (Matthew 2:22; 14:9; Mark
6:22). Cf. H.W. Hoehner, Herod Antipas (Cambridge 1972) 148-149.
26 Scholars debate as to when Gabinius’ reforms were abolished; see Ε. Bammel,
“The Organization of Palestine by Gabinius” , JJS 12(1961) 159-162.
 DANIEL R. SCHWARTZ 39

phus, to take the title “king” (AJ 13.301,20.241). This conclusion derives from
the following considerations: 1) in AJ 20.234, the lower limit of period D is
“until the reign of Antiochus Eupator” , i.e. 164/3 BCE; 2) in AJ 17.162,
Josephus speaks generally of the Hasmoneans having reigned as kings (ἐβασι-
λευον) for 125 years prior to Herod, which brings us to the same period; 3)
similarly, in AJ 14,490 the beginning point of the line’s “ rule” (ἀρχὴ) is given
as 126 years before Herod’s accession to the throne; and 4) in the opening lines
of his Vita, Josephus speaks proudly of the fact that his Hasmonean ancestors
supplied kings and high priests “for a very considerable period” , and it is
difficult to assume that he meant only the forty-year period between Aristo-
bulus I and Pompey’s conquest. It thus appears that when Josephus refers to
the beginning of the Hasmonean period, even when he loosely uses the term
“ kings” , he means the beginning of their rule in Judaea and not the beginning
of their usage of the title “ king” .27 The sixty-year gap thus engendered in the
succession of constitutions, between periods D and Ε, is particularly visible in
AJ 13.301, where Josephus can say only that Aristobulus decided to change
the “ regime” (τὴν ἀρχήν) into a kingdom; when Samuel and Saul made a
similar change, Josephus could speak of a change of constitutions (6.36,83,268).
What is characteristic of these two gaps in the otherwise complete succes­
sion of constitutions, the first sixty years of the Hasmonean period and fifteen
or twenty years in the time of Hyrcanus II, is that the ruler’s only or main title
was “high priest” ;28 today we would speak of “ hierocracy” but, as mentioned
above, this word was not available to Josephus. Nevertheless, it seems strange
that Josephus makes no attempt to define the constitution of more than half
of the Hasmonean period. To understand his reticence, we must more gener­
ally investigate the relationship, in Josephus’ writings, of the high priesthood
to the constitutions.

27 Α similarly loose usage may be found in the tannaitic account of the victory of
“the royal house [malkhui] of the Hasmoneans” over Antiochus Epiphanes
(Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 21b), and elsewhere; cf. above, n. 25.
28 The Hasmoneans before Aristobulus I are also called “strategos” (I Maccabees
14:42; AJ 12.431 ; 13.1,6 etc.) and perhaps also “ethnarch” (I Maccabees 14:47; AJ
13.214), apart from the general “hêgemân" (I Maccabees 14:41; AJ 13.199,201
etc.). Ethnarch was also the official title of Hyrcanus II in the period after
Pompey’s conquest of Judaea (AJ 14.151,191; he apparently lost this title during
the duration of Gabinius’ reforms — seeBJ IA69\AJ 14.90). None of these terms
could define a politeia.
40 JOSEPHUS ON JEWISH CONSTITUTIONS

In our discussions of AJ 11.111 and of the high-priestly summary, we have

noted that Josephus envisaged the high priests as standing at the head of
(προι'στημι) the people and having, therefore, “prostasia” of the nation; these
terms are also used elsewhere of the high priests, including those of the
constitutional gaps in the Hasmonean period.29 Moreover, it is significant
that Josephus speaks of the Hasmoneans’ prostasia although his source, I
Maccabees, does not use the word. While we could only surmise that Jose­
phus added the word to the high-priestly chronicle, here we can see him
adding it to his source; here too, that is, one sees the importance of this
concept for Josephus.30 The Hasmonean gaps in the succession of constitu­
tions would thus appear to have a simple origin: if high-priestly leadership is
conceived of as prostasia, but prostasia is distinct from and parallel to the
constitutions, then a period whose rulers’ main, or only, title was “high
priest” will be a period of prostasia only, but not politeia.

IV. Sources and Models

We have seen that Josephus conceived of two parallel successions: a succes­
sion of constitutions, which vary from period to period, and a succession of
high priests, bearing prostasia, which is stable and regular, ideally passing
from father to son.31 Investigation of the sources or models for each of these
successions may be worthwhile: the former will lead us to the question of
Josephus’ knowledge of Hellenistic historians and political scientists, while
the latter may throw light on an aspect of Josephus’ apologetic for Judaism.

29 See AJ 5.318; 11.111; 12.161,285 (cf. 59414,419,434 where Josephus correspond­

ingly claims, most probably incorrectly, that Judah was high priest); 13.201,212;
20.238,244,251.
30 On Josephus’ insertion of his own ideas into his paraphrase of I Maccabees, see I.
Gafni, “On the Use of I Maccabees by Josephus Flavius”, Zion 45 (1979/80)
81-95 (in Hebrew).
31 Josephus is quite proud of the regularity and unchanging character of the
high-priestly succession, especially the fact (in his opinion) that it always passed
from father to son (AJ 10.153; 13.78; Ap. 1.36); he expresses his resentment at
various violations of this rule (AJ 15.39- 41 ) if he cannot explain them away (as in
12.44). (For doubts as to the historical facts, see J.R. Bartlett, “Zadok and his
Successors at Jerusalem” , JTS 19 [ 1968] 1-18; G. Alon, Jews, Judaism and the
Classical fForWiJerusalem 1977] 82-83).
 DANIEL R. SCHWARTZ 41

With regard to the succession of constitutions, one may, perhaps, note an

indication that Josephus was familiar with Polybius’ well-known discussion
of this subject. (Parenthetically, it may be remarked that while Josephus
thrice quotes Polybius, there is nevertheless debate regarding his direct use of
the latter’s writings.32) The question of constitutional terminology, however,
has hardly been brought into the fray. Here we shall offer one contribution to
it, without, however, opening the general historiographical question. In his
constitutional passages, Josephus does not use “ monarch” as did Plato and
Aristotle, namely, as a general category of which “ king” and “tyrant” are
types.33 Nor does he use “ monarch” as a synonym for “ king” , as do many
Greek writers (including Dionysius of Halicarnassus),34 nor again as a syn­
onym for “tyrant” in its pejorative sense, as do many others (including, in
general, Polybius).35 Rather, Josephus uses “ monarch” to designate those
who ruled before the first Israelite kings, just as Polybius, apparently alone, in
an isolated but very central and famous passage on the cycle (anakyklösis) of
constitutions (6.4.7 — 9.14), uses the same term for the lone rulers who
precede kings.36 Moreover, Polybius’anakyklösis does not consider monarchy

32 That Josephus had first-hand knowledge of Polybius’writings has most recently

been posited by S.J.D. Cohen, “Josephus, Jeremiah, and Polybius” , History and
Theory 21 (1982) 368-369, who refers to the politeia passages, among other
considerations. Among his predecessors, see especially Η. Bloch, Die Quellen des
Flavius Josephus in seiner Archäologie (Leipzig 1879) 96- 100; B. Brüne, Flavius
Josephus und seine Schriften in ihrem Verhältnis zum Judentume, zur griechisch-
römischen Welt und zum Christentume (Gütersloh 1913) 170-175; P. Collomp,
“ La place de Josèphe dans la technique de l’historiographie hellénistique” ,
Mélanges 1945: 111. Etudes historiques (Publ. de la Fac. des Lettres de l’Univ. de
Strasbourg, 106; Paris 1947) 88-92 (in German, ἰη Α. Schallt, ed., Zur Josephus-
Forschung[ Darmstadt 1973] 285-293); R.J.H. ShuU, Studies in Josephus (London
1961) 102- 106; D.J. Ladouceur, “Studies in the Language and Historiography of
Flavius Josephus” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brown University, 1976)
89-104. (Ibid., pp. 4-19, Ladouceur offers trenchant criticism of the case for the
more popularly-assumed model for Josephus: Dionysius of Halicarnassus).
33 Plato, Pit. 291e, 302d; Aristotle, Rh. 1.8 (1365b-1366a).
34 Ant. Rom. 1.8.2; 2.6.1; 2.27.3; 4.73.1-2. Elsewhere (4. 46.4; 4.71.3), “monarch”
seems to be synonymous with “tyrant,” as usually in Polybius (see the next note).
35 See F.W. Walbank, “Polybius on the Roman Constitution,” CQ 37 (1943) 76-77.
36 See Walbank, ibid., pp. 78-79; G.J.D. Aalders, Political Thought in Hellenistic
Times (Amsterdam 1975) 110.
42 JOSEPHUS ON JEWISH CONSTITUTIONS

a politeiaῥ7 just as Josephus does not; he speaks, as we have seen, of an

aristocratic constitution in the time of the monarchs (Judges), and in his
summary (20.261) he distinguishes between constitutions and the rule of
monarchs.37383940Finally, we should note that the two historians closely agree as to
the qualifications of monarchs: both state that they must be brave, Polybius
further specifying that they must be strong while Josephus more generally
stating “best in war” (AJ 6.85; Polybius 6.5.7,9; 6.12; 7.3). This last point is
particularly indicative, for Josephus portrays the Judges as divinely-sent
saviors, and he might therefore have been expected to characterize them, at
least additionally, as such.
On these grounds, then, it seems probable that Josephus was following a
specifically Polybian model in his use of “ monarch” , and one may surmise
that Polybius’ sixth book may have also more generally inspired Josephus’
constitutional theorizing. One should also note, in this connection, the com­
mon suggestion that Polybius’ other major discussion in Book 6, on the
Roman army (6.19-42), inspired Josephus’ similar account in BJ 3.70- 109Ἔ
The above observations regarding Josephus’ use of “ monarch” are, as
stated, only a minor contribution to a much larger question which has been
left untouched: Josephus’ direct use of Polybius/10 Much broader conclusions

37 Some scholars (including Walbank[above, n. 35] 79 and Τ.Α. Sinclair, A History

o f Greek Political Thought[London 1951] 273,n. l)claim that Polybius announces
six constitutions but presents seven. But he does not call monarchy a politeia.
38 See above, notes 9 and 18.
39 Η. St. JohnThackeray0n7CZJ2, p. 597, n. d;G. Ricciotti,Ῥ/ανῖο Giuseppe... La
Guerra Giudaica, Libri III-IV (Torino 1937) 25. Cf. Ladouceur (above n. 32)
89- 104, where much is made of Josephus’ and Polybius’ common interest in
things military.
40 If Josephus was indeed dependent upon Polybius for his notion of “monarchy,”
one contrast must especially be noted: while Polybius saw kings as improvements
over monarchs, Josephus’ Samuel “hates” the institution of kingship (AJ 6.36).
Here Josephus seems to be following the biblical suspicion of kingship (particu­
larly Deuteronomy 17:14-20 and I Samuel 8:11-20). Note that he does not
reproduce the contrary refrain of Judges, “in those days there was no king in
Israel, each man doing what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6; 21:25; cf.
18:1; 19:1), although AJ 5A l l - 178 is based on the third of these passages, 5Ἰ36
on the fourth, and 5Ἰ74 and 342 come within a verse on either side of the second.
 DANIEL R. SCHWARTZ 43

may, I believe, be drawn from an investigation of the model for Josephus’

conception of the high-priestly prostasia. We may begin with a few
observations:
1. While, as the dictionaries indicate, the usual meanings of the words
προύστημι, προστασι'α, προστἀτης are from the realm of patronage and
defense, and while Polybius generally uses them with regard to pomp and
dignity,41 and while Josephus at times uses these words — under the influence
of his sources or otherwise — with both meanings,42 it is clear that the high
priests’ prostasia was, for Josephus, a matter of leadership and rule. This
becomes clear from the contexts in which it appears43 and from his paraphrase
of an extant source: whereas Aristeas 310 speaks οἶἀπό τοῦ πολιτεΰματος οἵ
τε ήγουμενοι τοῦ πλὴθους, Josephus substitutes τοῦ πολιτεΰματος οἱ
προεστηκάτες (AJ 12.108). Similarly, note that in AJ 20 and Josephus’ Vita,

(The entire context of the first passage, Judges 17:6, is omitted by Josephus.)
Josephus did not mourn the institution of kingship because he preferred
monarchs (Judges) as such, but rather because kingship — as opposed to the rule
of Judges — consituted a new politeia and thus entailed the abolition of aristo­
cracy which, Josephus believed, was the constitution posited by the Bible; cf.
above, Part I, 2 and note 12.
41 See I. Schweighaeuser, Lexicon Polybianum (Leipzig 1795) 536-537; F.W. Wal-
bank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, III (Oxford 1979) 177. As Walbank
notes, Polybius at times contrasts the power (dynamis) of the king with his
“outward pomp, show of dignity” (prostasia); see especially 4.2.6 and 22.3. Γ
Josephus, on similar occasions, rather contrasts the royal dynamis to its “name”
(onoma; AJ 13.409; cf. 17.304; 19.246).
42 For the Polybian meaning, see BJ 1.243; AJ 19.250; for usage in the sense of
patronage, which is much more common in Josephus, see, for ex a m p le,^ /6Ἰ87;
15.146, and especially 14.196; 15.308; 16.38,276. Of the four last-mentioned
passages, the first is quoted from an official Roman document and the third is
quoted from a speech by Nicolaus of Damascus, while the second and fourth can
most probably be assigned to the latter author as well (see the notes by R. Marcus
and A. Wikgren in L C U 8, p. 143, n. eand-pp. 318-319, n. a). For Nicolaus’ use of
prostates and prostasia for patron and protection, see, for example, the excerpt
from his autobiography reproduced in Μ. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews
and Judaism, I (Jerusalem 1974) 246, nr. 95,11. 10 and 14.
43 See especially the passages having to do with the Hasmoneans (above, n. 29).
44 JO SEPHUS ON JEW ISH CONSTITUTIONS

where scholars believe that it is the historian himself, unaided by assistants,

who is the writer,44 the verb always pertains to government.45
2. This leadership is usually linked to “ the people” ,46 and never to the state
or city. (The latter [polis] is governed by the parallel succession of constitu­
tions [politeiai]).
3. It is notoriously difficult to designate any real or legal content of the
high-priestly prostasia,47 Josephus does not define it, official documents do
not mention it48 (just as many ignore the high priests, even in the periods when
they had, according to Josephus, the prostasia49), nothing we know about the
Hellenistic or Roman empires would lead us to expect that such a position
existed, and, apart from Josephus, we can find no references to it in sources
emanating from Judaea.50 Indeed, apart from Josephus only two or three

44 See Thackeray, in L C U 1, xv-xvi; idem, Josephus: The Man and the Historian
(New York 1929) 115; C.G. Richards, “The Composition of Josephus’ Anti­
quities” CQ 33 (1939) 37; Α. Pelletier, Flavius Josèphe: Autobiographie (Paris 1959)
xvi-xvii. To the list of words and phrases which Josephus uses only in AJ 20 and
Vita, add ἐκ μικρὸς καἰ τῆς τυχοὑσης αι’τϊας (AJ 20.215 and Vita 13).
45 AJ 20.1,31,125,137,162; Vita 37,93,168,194.
46 AJ 6.32,87; 7.356; 12.161; 13.212; 20.238,244,251.
47 See, inter alia, Zucker (above, n. 10) 51-52,75-76; Marcus, L C U 7, pp. 84-85, n.
d and 86- 87, n. a,c; V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (Phila­
delphia 1959) 59,132; Μ. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism (London-Philadelphia
1974), II p. 20, n. 168 and p. 22, n. 185; Α. Kasher, “The Office of Prostates in the
Jewish Communities of the Greco-Roman Diaspora”, Zion 47 (1981/82)
402-403 (in Hebrew).
48 With the exception mentioned in note 42, above, where the meaning is not
governance but rather protection (προιστήται τῶν άδικουμἐνων). For reviews of
official documents pertaining to Jews in the Second Temple period, see J. Juster,
Les Juifs dans l’empire romain, I (Paris 1914) 129-159; Μ. Stern, “ Die
Urkunden”, in Literatur und Religion des Frühjudentums (edd. J. Maier and J.
Schreiner; Würzburg-Gütersloh 1973) 181-199.
49 Note especially the document preserved in AJ 20.11-14: Claudius addressed it to
“the rulers, council, and people of Jerusalem and to the whole nation of the Jews”
and continued, throughout, to omit all reference to the high priest — although the
only subject of this document is the disposition of the high-priestly garments!
50 One possible exception must be noted: a few scholars have suggested that the title
“rosh hever hayehudim” on coins of Hyrcanus I or II (the attribution is debated)
should be viewed as the Hebew equivalent of “prostates of the Jewish people”; so,
especially, B. Mazar, “The Tobiads” , Æ / 7 (1957) 138, n. 5. echoed (although
 DANIEL R. SCHWARTZ 45

writers refer to it, once each; we will return to them in the next paragraph.
Most notable, perhaps, is the fact that Josephus himself failed to mention the
high-priestly prostasia in his earlier work, BJ, although that book begins with
a long summary (Book 1 and half of Book 2) of Jewish history from the
Hasmoneans until theG reat Revolt.51 It thus seems most likely that Josephus
invented the concept, or at least that he developed it from only slight adum­
brations, into the full system which we find in AJ.
4. The non-Josephan references to the high-priestly prostasia appear in the
Greek version of Ecclesiasticus, in Hecataeus of Abdera’s account of the Jews
as quoted by Diodorus Siculus, and in Diodorus’ own account in the same
context.52 If anything, therefore, the provenance of these few references may
hint that the notion was one created in the Hellenistic Diaspora. The same is
indicated by Μ. Stern’s conclusion — based on other criteria — that Jose-

none claims certainty) by Hengel (above, n. 47) 22, note 185, and U. Rappaport,
“On the Meaning of Heber Ha-Yehudim", Studies in the History o f the Jewish
People and the Land of Israel 3 (1974) 63 (in Hebrew). However, the term hever
hayehudim too is notoriously difficult to interpret (as Rappaport’s article indi­
cates): does it indeed refer to the Jewish people (as the above hypothesis requires),
or perhaps rather to some administrative (representative?) body within it?
Moreover, note that only Hyrcanus’ coins bear this title; other Hasmonean coins
list the ruler’s name “and” (not “head o f ’) the hever hayehudim, or only the
former, or — on coins published since Rappaport wrote — only the latter (D.
Jeselsohn, “ Hever Yehudim — Α New Jewish Coin”, PEQ 112 [ 19800 11-17.
Jeselsohn believes that these fluctuations may best be explained on the assump­
tion that the hever was a sovereign entity which at times cooperated with the
Hasmonean ruler, at times was subject to him, and at times competed with him —
as indicated by independent minting).
51 In the only appearance of the word prostasia in 57(1.169), it is associated with
governing councils, while thepoliteia is apparently associated with the high priest.
This pairing is exactly the opposite of what one would expect to find, on the basis
oiA J, and is indeed corrected in the later composition (14.90-91).
52 Ecclesiasticus 45:24 (προστατεϊν; it is possible that instead οΐάγϊαΐν καῖ λαοῦ, in
the continuation, one should readvaoC, in which case the translation would agree
with the original Hebrew, miqdash)·, Hecataeus, apud Diod. Sic. 40.3.5; and
40.2. (The latter two passages may be found in Stern-above, n. 421 26, 185).
Above, I referred to these three passages as coming from “two or three writers”
because Hecataeus’ statement — that the Jews never had kings, but were rather
ruled by high priests — is so apposite to the context that one might wonder if
Diodorus has not inserted this into his citation of Hecataeus.
46 JOSEPHUS ON JEWISH CONSTITUTIONS

phus’ account of Joseph the Tobiad (A J 12.154ff.) is dependent upon a source

composed in Ptolemaic Egypt;53 this narrative is the only part of AJ where the
high priest’s prostasia plays anything approximating a real role in the narra­
tive (§§ 161-167).54
5. Correspondingly, the Sitz im Leben of the idea of high-priestly prostasia,
in the sense of leadership and rule, is in fact to be found in the world of the
Hellenistic and Roman associations (thiasos, synodos, politeuma, collegium,
etc.); as may easily be established with the aid of the various studies of ancient
Vereinswesen, prostates was the common term for their presidents.55 What is
most interesting for our purposes are the twin facts that Jewish communities
of the Graeco-Roman Diaspora were indeed defined as politeumata (collegia
in terms of Roman law),56 and that a considerable dossier of epigraphic and

53 “ Notes on the Story of Joseph the Tobiad (Josephus, Antiquities XII, 154ff.)” ,
Tarbiz 32(1962/63), esp. 38-40 (in Hebrew). The same conclusion is also reached
by J.A. Goldstein (“The Tales of the Tobiads”, in Christianity, Judaism and other
Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty [ed. J. Neusner; Leiden
1975], III, 85- 123), who attempts a closer identification of the author.
54 Which is why it is the focus of the studies mentioned above, n. 47.
55 See Ε. Ziebarth, Das griechische Vereinswesen (Leipzig 1896) 222 (index s.v.
prostates)·, F. Poland, Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesen (Leipzig 1909)
363-366 and 652 (index, s.v. prostates). Further literature is cited by Kasher
(above, n. 47) 401.
56 See Τ. Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften, III (Berlin 1907)416-418. For the terms
used to define Jewish communities in the Diaspora, see Juster (above, n. 48)
414-417. However, Juster’s discussion and rebuttal of Mommsen’s position on
this question (ibid. 418-424) is rightly rejected by G. La Piana, “ Foreign Groups
in Rome”, HTR 20 (1927) 348-349, Α. Momigliano, Terzo contributo alla storia
deglistudi classicie delmondo antico, I (Rome 1966) 527-529, and, especially, S.L.
Guterman, Religious Toleration and Persecution in Ancient Rome (London 1951)
130- 156. The main evidence from Josephus is in A./ 14.215- 216 (Jewish thiasos in
Delos — see below) and ibid. §235 (Jewish synodos in Sardis). In general, cf. S.
Applebaum, “The Legal Status of the Jewish Communities in the Diaspora” and
“The Organization of the Jewish Communities in the Diaspora”, in The Jewish
People in the First Century, I (edd. S. Safrai and Μ. Stern; Assen 1974) 420-503.
(Ibid. 502, Applebaum infers irom A J 14.215-216, where the Jews are excluded
from a prohibition of collegia, that Jewish politeumata were not collegia. But the
point seems rather to be that the Jewish collegia were excluded from the general
ban; so too, for example, Smallwood [above, n. 14] 133- 135). On politeumata, see
 DANIEL R. SCHWARTZ 47

literary evidence, recently assembled and interpreted by A. Kasher, testifies to

the currency of the term prostates for leaders of these communities.57
6. Similarly, Ap. 2, which includes Josephus’ most explicit statement of his
view that the Jewish people is governed by its priests (§§ 184-188,194) — in an
apology which is idealizing and not historical, hence unencumbered by ATs
need to explain the relationship of the high-priestly prostasia to the various
constitutions of Jewish history — is also the site of his most frequent, and
most explicit, characterization of the Jewish people as a politeuma (§§ 145,165,
184).58 Moreover, this apology for the Jewish law in Ap. 2.145ff. is virtually
unanimously assumed, for various good reasons, to be based on an Alexan­
drian Jewish composition.59

also the discussion by C. Spicq, Notes de lexicographie néo-testamentaire, II

(Fribourg[Switz.] — Göttingen 1978) 715-717.
57 Kasher (above, n. 47) 399-406.
58 The Jews are also implicitly called a politeuma in Ap. 2.257, where Plato’s concern
to keep his ideal politeuma pure is compared to that of Moses (see below, on AJ
1M 57). Various translations remove the “community” element of politeuma
from Josephus’ use of the word. Thus, for example, the L CLJ version of Ap. 2Ἰ45
rendersπερἰ τῆς δλης ὴμὣν καταστὰσεως τοῦ πολιτεὺματος as “of our constitu­
tion as a whole” instead of “über die gesamte Verfassung unserer Genossen­
schaft” (Schlatterf above, n. 15] 89), in § 164 a noun is turned into an adjective (τῆν
ἐξουσι'αν τῶν πολιτευμάτων = “supreme political power”), in §250τῆν... τάξιν
τοῦ πολιτεὺματος (of pagans) becomes merely “constitution” , etc. I would
suggest that this tendency, which is quite widespread, stems from the failure to
recognize Josephus’ attempt to define the Jewish people as a politeuma. As for AJ,
the word appears twice in the preface (§§5,13 — L C U and others again turn the
noun [ “of the community/ies”] into an adjective: “political”), once of the Jewish
people or community (11.157 — a passage very similar to Ap. 2.257, with which
we began this note), and once in its most legitimate meaning, of the Jewish
community of Alexandria (12.108 — quoted above, paragraph 1).
59 See L. Troiam, Commento storico al “ Contre Apione” di Giuseppe (Pisa 1977)
56-60 and 305-306 (index, s.v. Hypothetici)·, A. Momigliano, Quinto contributo
alia storia degli studi classici e dei mondo antico, II (Rome 1975) 767-770 (where
older literature is cited); S. Belkin, “The Alexandrian Source for Contra Apionem
Η” , JQR 27 (1936/37) 1-32; Ε. Kamlah, ‘’Frömmigkeit und Tugend: Die
Gesetzesapologie des Josephus in Ap. 2,145-295”, in Josephus-Studien...Otto
Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet (edd. Ο. Betz, Κ. Haacker, Μ. Hengel;
Göttingen 1974) 220-232.
48 JO SEPHUS ON JEWISH CONSTITUTIONS

To summarize the conclusion drawn from the preceding six observations:

the notion of high-priestly prostasia indicates a model of Jewish existence
based upon the circumstances of Jewish communities in the Diaspora, and it
is probable that the notion originated among Jews of the Diaspora who
viewed the high priest as the prostates of the entire people, in the image of their
local community leaders.60 It thus appears likely that Josephus, in consider­
ing how to portray, in AJ, Jewish history in such a way as to legitimize Jewish
existence even after Jewish political life had ended (note B T s focus on the
destruction of the Jewish polis, Jerusalem61), chose to portray the people via

60 For priestly leadership in Jewish communities of the Diaspora, see my “The

Priests of Ep. Arist. 310",JBL 97(1978) 567-571. Similarly, Kasher (above, n. 47,
405-406) suggests that the Jewish prostatai of the Graeco-Roman world were
usually priests. On the other hand, this is the place for us to express our skepticism
regarding the opinion, found here and there, that the Roman Empire, by treaty,
granted the high priest in Jerusalem the right to function as “supreme arbiter in
the internal affairs of the Diaspora Jews, since it had been the tradition in the
Diaspora that important cases were decided by the High Priest” (Α. Schalit, “The
End of the Hasmonean Dynasty and the Rise of Herod”, in World History o f the
Jewish People, First Series, VIIfNew Brunswick 1975] 346-347, n. 8; see also Η.
Mantel, Studies in the History o f the Sanhedrin[ Cambridge, Mass. 1961] 198- 199
[n. 174], 237-238; D. Piattelli, “An Enquiry into the Political Relations Between
Rome and Judaea from 161 to 4 B.C.E.” , Israel Law Review 14[ 1979] 219-221).
The evidence which is usually presented is simply insufficient to overcome the
initial doubts which (as especially Mantel admits) must attach to the practicality of
such an authority. I Maccabees 15:21 speaks only of refugees from Judaea; Acts’
evidence on Paul is anything but unambivalent and trustworthy (9:2,14,21; 22:5;
26:10- 12; for general, and skeptical, discussions of the question see Η. Conzel-
mann, Die Apostelgeschichte [Tübingen 19722] 64-65 and Ε. Haenchen, Die
Apostelgeschichte [ Göttingen 1965s] 268- 269, note 4); and AJ 14Ἰ95 may refer to
internal jurisdiction within Judaea (so Marcus, L C U 1, 551, n. e). In any case, the
latter passage, with several others referring to Hyrcanus II’s diplomacy, together
present the best case for such a claim, but they refer to a high priest who was also
ethnarch; what Josephus’ theory requires is evidence that a high priest who was
parallel to a ruler was granted, or exercised, such authority. As it is, Hyrcanus’
efforts on behalf of Jews abroad (not jurisdiction over them!) are no different
from those by Herod or Agrippa I later on; see especially Applebaum (above, n.
56) 457.
61 See especially such passages as BJ 4.151,267,318; 5.21; 6.435-442. The original
title of BJ was, apparently, “ On the Capture of Jerusalem”; see Pines (above, n. 1)
 DANIEL R. SCHWARTZ 49

the nonpolitical category which guaranteed its right to continued existence in

the Roman world. While he could not, in this historical work (in contrast to
yip.), ignore the political constitutions of Jewish history, he could insert
alongside of it the terminology (high-priestly prostasia) which paved the way
for such a definition of the people. The facts that his Graeco-Roman readers
were especially used to hearing of priests in leadership positions in religious
associations,62 and that the high priests in fact did enjoy great prestige and
importance in Judaean society,63 naturally contributed to the verisimilitude
of his terminology.

V. Concluding Remarks
Sometime during the second or early first century BCE, a Hellenistic Jew,
Jason of Cyrene, composed the work which later, in abridgement, came to be
known as II Maccabees. In contrast to I Maccabees, this work gives a detailed
account of the pre-Maccabean Hellenizers and of Antiochus Epiphanes’
decrees against Judaism. What is germane to our purpose is the fact, most
capably demonstrated by B. Renaud, that Jason contrived to condemn the
Hellenizers and Antiochus by picturing the Jewish institutions which they
changed as if they were the institutions of a Greek polis, and the Jewish laws
— as the patriot nomoi of the citizens of Jerusalem.64 Thus, the Hellenistic
reader, who otherwise might not sympathize with the Jews’ adherence to their

45, n. 162; Thackeray, Josephus (above, n. 44) 30-31. Cf. Ο. Betz, “Stadt und
Gegenstadt: Ein Kapitel zelotischer Theologie” , in Wort und Wirklichkeit, Ι
(Festschrift ΕἜ. Rapp; ed. B. Benzing, Ο. Bocher, G. Mayer; Meisenheim am
Glan 1976) 96- 109.
62 See especially Poland (above, n. 55) 339-351 and 640 (index, s.v. “Priester” ,
“Priesterin”); A. Kasher, “First Jewish Military Units in Ptolemaic Egypt”, /5 7 9
(1978) 59.
63 To which one might add that Josephus’ willingness to attribute prominence to the
high priests, which to a large extent corresponded to reality (see Μ. Stem,
“ Aspects of Jewish Society: The Priesthood and Other Classes”, The Jewish
People in the First Century, II[edd. S. Safrai and Μ. Stern; Philadelphia 1976]
600- 609), was naturally enhanced by the fact that he himself was a proud member
of the priesthood (BJ 1.3; 3.352; Ap. 1.54), in fact a descendant of the Hasmonean
high priests (AJ 16.187; Vita 1-6).
64 B. Renaud, “ La loi et les lois dans les livres des Maccabées”,/?5 68(1961) 55-67.
Cf. R. Doran, Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character o f 2 Maccabees
(Washington, D. C. 1981) 104.
50 JOSEPHUS ON JEW ISH CONSTITUTIONS

ancestral laws, was made to see their importance as the Jewish exemplar of a
legitimate category with which he was familiar.
If our analysis is correct, it appears that Josephus, due to changed historical
circumstances, chose to offer a directly contradictory apologetic. If, as history
and his own BJ showed, the Jewish “city” (polis/politeia) had indeed ceased to
exist, one might conclude that also the Jewish nation, consequently, had
ceased to exist, or should do so. This, in fact, seems to be close to Josephus’
position in BJ.65 As the years went by, however, and Josephus saw that
Judaism nevertheless continued to exist, and that he himself — as we see
especially from Contra Apionem — wanted to defend that continued exist­
ence, he was faced with two alternatives. History plainly indicated that the
Jews formerly had a state, but that they now continued to exist without one:
should Josephus claim that existence as a religious nation, without a state,
was an innovation since 70, or should he claim that the essential element in
Judaism, alongside the ephemeral states, had always been such? The former
approach would have left the Jews open to the charges of grasping at straws or
religious innovation (which Josephus abhorred66), while the latter approach,
which endowed the Jewish collegium with hoary antiquity, was obviously to
be preferred. Alongside of the succession of constitutions (which he con­
structed on the basis of Hellenistic[specifically Polybian?] models), Josephus
therefore created — or at least developed more than any of his known
predecessors — an unchanging prostasia, the hallmark of the collegium's
existence. Josephus thus indicated to his readers that the essential and most
stable element in Judaism was one whose existence in the Roman world was
guaranteed.
Towards the conclusion of his fundamental introduction to AJ,67 the late A.
Schalit noted that “AJ is the first book after the Destruction [scil. : of the
Second Temple] which sees the future of the Jewish people in the West as a

65 See especially BJ 3.354; 7.359; Α. Schalit, “Josephus’ National-Political Views (in

BJ)”, Mosnaim 2 (1933/34) 296-305 (in Hebrew). Cf. Cohen (above, n. 32)
369-377.
66 Note ΛΥ 18.9; 20.216-218, and especially Ap. 1.1-218; 2 Ἰ 5 1 - 156, 288. The most
fitting, and perhaps also the original, title of Ap. (1?) is “On the Antiquity of the
Jews” ; see Niese’s preface (V, p. Hi); C. Boysen, Flavii Iosephi Opera ex versione
latina antiqua... pars VI: De Iudaeorum vetustate sive Contra Apionem (Prague-
Vienna-Leipzig 1898) xliii-xlv.
67 In the first volume of his translation of AJ (Jerusalem 1944) lxxxi-lxxxii (in
Hebrew).
 DANIEL R. SCHWARTZ 51

positive political program... When Josephus arrived in Rome and saw there
the Jewish communities of the Mediterranean lands, he concluded that this
body was large enough so as to continue to exist under diaspora conditions...”
Our suggestion here amounts to a footnote to Schalit’s analysis: it appears
that Josephus took from the Diaspora not only his confidence in the con­
tinued existence of the Jewish people, but also the legal category via which
that people should, essentially, be viewed.
The apologetic thrust of the duality of Josephus’ political conception in AJ,
and of the simpler statement in Ap., is thus that essential Judaism, and
certainly current Judaism, is not a kingdom of this world; therefore, it posed
no threat to Rome (although the Jewish state once did) and was, on the
contrary, entitled to its place in the empire.68 This being the case, it is
interesting to note, in conclusion, that other apologists of his day, faced with
similar difficulties, apparently came upon similar solutions. Note, for exam­
ple, that Paul’s epistle to the Christians of Philippi, where the apostle was
once accused of disturbing the peace of the city by teaching practices incom­
patible with being Roman (Acts 16:20-21; cf. 17;6-7),69 urges the Christians
to act according to the law (πολιτεάεσθε) of Christ’s gospel (1:27) but
carefully emphasizes that the Christianpoliteuma is in heaven (3:20). Again, a
Christian work written in Rome a very few years after Josephus completed
AJ, I Clement, similarly calls upon its readers to πολιτευεσᾷαι according to
Christ’s law,70 and repeatedly links Christ’s high-priesthood to his being the

68 The comparison of Josephus’ ideal of “theocracy” (Ap. 2Ἰ65) to the zealot ideal
of the kingdom of God — which competes with that of Rome — would thus seem
to be the direct opposite of Josephus’ intention (pace Hengel[ above, n. 15] 97- 98
and some others).
69 See D.R. Schwartz, “The Accusation and the Accusers at Philippi (Acts 16,
20-21),” Biblica 65 (1984) 357-363.
70 See I Clement 3:4; 6:1; 21:1; 44:6; 51:2; 54:4(Christians areoi πολιτευάμενοιτῆν...
πολιτειϊχν τοῦ θεοὶ)). For the text, see A. Jaubert, Clement de Rome: Épître aux
Corinthiens (Sources chrétiennes, 167; Paris 1971); on the date (95-98?) see ibid.
15-20; Ρ. Keresztes, “The Jews, the Christians and Emperor Domitian” , VC 27
(1973) 20-21. (For a suggestion which would especially assimilate Josephus’
situation to that of the author of I Clement, see S.J. Case, “Josephus’ Anticipa­
tion of a Domitianic Persecution” , JBL 44 [1925] 10-20). On the meaning of
πολιτεύομαι in Philippians, I Clement and elsewhere, see Spicq (above, n. 56)
718—720; R.R. Brewer, “The Meaning ofpoliteuesthe in Philippians 1:27",JBL 73
(1954) 76-83.
52 JOSEPHUS ON JEWISH CONSTITUTIONS

Christians’ />7Oj/a/éi.71 These examples seem to indicate that Christians too

attempted to define themselves as a collegium, in order to secure legitimacy in
the Roman world; further evidence of the same type may also be cited.72
Pursuing this comparison would, however, lead beyond the bounds of this
paper and of my competence.

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

71 I Clement 36:1; 61:3; 64. For a comparison of the political views of I Clement to
those of Josephus, see J. Speigl, Der römische Staat und die Christen (Amsterdam
1970) 13-18; note also ibid. 6-7 , n. 5, where Speigl considers the possibility of
“literarische Bekanntschaft des Clemensbriefes mit Josephus” , but prefers to
assume merely “dass beide in der geistigen Welt der westlichen Diasporasynagoge
stehen” (my emphasis). For an interpretation of the high priest-prostates pas­
sages, see Μ. Jourjon, “ Remarques sur le vocabulaire sacerdotal dans la la
Clementis” , Epektasis: Mélanges patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean Daniélou
(edd. J. Fontaine and C. Kannengiesser; Paris 1972) 107-110.
72 See especially R.L. Wilkin, “Toward a Social Interpretation of Early Christian
Apologetics”, Church History 39 (1970) 449-456.