Edwards, David R. In the Court of the Gentiles: Narrative, Exemplarity, and Scriptural Adaptation in the Court-Tales of Flavius Josephus. JSJSup 209. Leiden: Brill, 2023.
Edwards’ volume brings much to the study of Josephus, especially in his context as a late 1st century author. Exemplarity, the use of a character to provide a model for readers’ moral behaviour, has been long studied in Josephus, but due to the vast quantity of material available from his work, there is still much to explore. This book succeeds in showing how Josephus fashioned his work as a creative author. The focus is on Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews, particularly how the story of Joseph the patriarch [hereafter JP], and to a lesser extent Esther’s story, was deliberately recalled and deployed in subsequent court-tales of the Tobiads and Agrippa I. These are characterised as narratives featuring a Jewish protagonist’s fortunes in a foreign court, including their involvement in intrigues, conflicts and successes. A further important element is the mediation the protagonist undertakes between the ruler of the court and the Jewish people at large.[1]
Court tales have been well studied in the field, and these have been expanded somewhat with regards to the concept of the emerging novel or novel-like literature in antiquity. Edwards limits his study to court narratives as defined above, although it would also be interesting to see how other settings can be used for the fashioning of the moral reader. Edwards also notes that he uses exemplarity differently from how scholars like Hindy Najman and Eva Mroczek have previously. For this study, exemplarity means that a character is intended to serve as an exemplar for the reader, rather than the self-formation of the author(s) (pp. 44–45 n.48). This approach to exemplarity responds to some recent developments in Classics, and has been introduced further into Second Temple Jewish studies more recently, with some critique.[2] Given that he draws from work on Plutarch, Edwards is probably on the most solid grounds with Josephus’ writing milieu. Other Jewish texts are perhaps more difficult to directly compare with Plutarch, yet Edwards’ approach may contribute towards the examination of comparative forms of exemplarity for readers in different ancient Mediterranean cultures and languages.
Edwards’ study raises an important call to further work. “As texts, it is quite common for scholars to engage only one of the two halves of Antiquities in a highly bifurcated fashion, with specialists on the Hebrew Bible and its ancient textual forms focusing on Books 1–11, while those interested in Jews and Judaism in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods interact with Books 12–20” (p. 172). This identification of a common division in studies of Antiquities is well placed, and Edwards’ work demonstrates the value in identifying and analysing connections throughout Josephus’s corpus, regardless of whether this material is known from the Hebrew Bible. Instead, scholars might fruitfully focus on the literary qualities of Josephus’s work beyond assessing the quality of his rewriting, or his reliability as a witness for events of the 2nd century BCE and later.
In his introduction, Edwards sets out his aims and approach. He describes Josephus’s strategy in paralleling characters as “subversive adaptation” (p. 2), wherein Josephus deliberately recalls features in a narrative from an early counterpart, in order to create a sense of expectation in the reader, to then subvert such expectations. Reflecting on the context of Josephus’s later writing in Flavian Rome, and the process of creating a lengthy work in this period, Edwards explores how Josephus may have used his sources to address resurgent “interests in Jewish customs” in his social network (p. 11). Josephus’s aims when writing Antiquities are also discussed; of key importance for this book is Josephus’s interest in providing moral examples for his audience, adopting a common ideology wherein history should build the moral profile of its readers. The moral choices of the protagonists of Josephus’s court tales are guides for readers’ behaviour. Edwards’ model of exemplarity is drawn from Matthew Roller’s four-fold operation: action, evaluation, commemoration and norm setting. Exemplarity involves some measure of each of these four categories. For a figure to be used as an exemplar, their action is usually described, an evaluative statement is provided, some sense of memory is created, and norms of behaviour are established.
To begin the discussion of Edward’s argument as it applies to the selected court tales, it is worth briefly sketching out the outline of the so-called Tobiad romance (Antiquities 12.160–236). Joseph, son of Tobias [hereafter JT] and maternal nephew of Onias the high-priest, visits the king Ptolemy Eugertes and ingratiates himself through his wit. JT then is able to convince the king to make him tax-farmer over the Levant, in the process enriching himself. JT is married to his own niece, after his brother tricked him into avoiding an affair with a dancer of the royal court. One of JT’s sons, Hyrcanus, is portrayed as being the envy of his brothers and a problem solver. Hyrcanus, like his father, undertakes a visit to the Ptolemaic royal court. He is able to navigate intrigues through his wit, but runs afoul of his brothers’ envy. The resulting conflict brings about semi-exile for Hyrcanus, where he dominates over the locals in the trans-Jordan. Finally, the narrative culminates in his suicide for fear of punishment by Antiochus Epiphanes.
In his first chapter on the characters themselves (ch. 3), Edwards discusses parallels between JT and JP. Both figures are portrayed as “wise courtiers” (p. 70), who skilfully establish themselves in foreign courts, at the service of the rulers. Yet the persuasive power in presenting these parallel lives are the differences between the two characters. Edwards suggests that JT more closely resembles the character of JP as told in Genesis, rather than the JP of Antiquities, and so, Josephus’s adaptation of the patriarch can further be viewed through his interest in exemplification through court tales. JP in his reception had become a figure of chastity. As a result of this widely known motif, and the parallels in their respective rises to prominence in Egyptian courts, when the dancing girl enters the scene as an object of potential sexual desire for JT, readers are primed to expect him to resist. That he does not is an example of this adaptive subversion, made all the strong for the clear mirror image of JP fleeing from Potiphar’s wife. Josephus surmises JT’s life as such, he “who had been an excellent and high-minded man and had brought the Jewish people from poverty and a state of weakness to more splendid opportunities of life” (Ant. 12.224 [Marcus, LCL 365]). This positive evaluation strikes the reader as strange, given JT’s lusty and uncontrolled behaviour, only thwarted (in a way), by his brother’s trickery. Edwards argues that Josephus’s positive summary of JT demonstrates the instructive nature of exemplary characters, who through their unvirtuous choices, cause readers to reflect on the narrative and on their own conduct. As such, we might also look beyond exemplarity in characters who seem worthy of emulation, and instead also explore those characters who are not particularly praiseworthy as nevertheless instructive for moral formation for different kinds of readers.
Chapter four discusses parallels between Hyrcanus son of JT, and JP. The key narrative element which suggests connections between JP and Hyrcanus is the matter of sibling rivalry, which leads to conflict and threats to life (realised and unrealised). Edwards suggests that an ancient reader may have approached these narratives from the perspective of moral reward, that good behaviour will be rewarded and bad behaviour punished. JP ultimately finds his reward; when we turn to the Tobiad narrative, this idea is subverted. Instead, the Tobiads are more readily an example of stasis, wherein “the corrosive effects of unchecked ambition and rivalry upon civic life” are demonstrated (p. 107). This contrast establishes an ongoing theme of Antiquities which leads to the culmination of the disastrous war against Rome. In this parallel, Josephus is able to both present a nuanced view of moral reward, and also further his explanations of the decline of affairs to the revolt period.
Chapter five turns to Agrippa I and his activities in the Roman court (Ant. 18–19). By way of an introduction to this court tale, Agrippa had travelled to Rome, borrowed much money, and used this to gain influence with the Roman imperial inner circle. He is imprisoned by Tiberias because of his scheming behaviour, and while in prison, receives an oracle from another prisoner relating to his future success. This indeed takes place following the ascension of Gaius Caesar (Caligula). Agrippa later hosts a banquet, and Gaius wishes to honour him. Seizing upon this opportunity, Agrippa requests that Gaius give up on his intention to place a statue of himself in the Jerusalem Temple. In this chapter, Edwards presents Josephus’s three editorial comments concerning Agrippa’s character (Ant. 18.127–129, 142; 19.294–296). Josephus’ mention of Agrippa’s initial low status and rise to prominence recalls JP as an archetype, while the allusion to the dangers Agrippa faced and how he escaped them is further indicative of JP. The final statement further describes his rise and fall, and Josephus’s intention for readers “to reflect that it lies in the nature of man for all grandeurs to glide away and for fallen fortunes to rise again” (Ant. 19.296 [Feldman, LCL 433]). Edwards’ surmises that from these editorial comments “Josephus intentionally presented Agrippa to the reader in such a way as to foster reflection on moral and pragmatic decision-making” (p. 121). Further parallels of note include imprisonment, divine portents which reveal future success, and flattery. In each case, Agrippa is less able than JP to successfully navigate the court, and his motives in doing so appear less virtuous than those of JP.
Chapter six continues to examine Agrippa, exploring how Esther can be fruitfully read as a parallel life. This analysis involves an appreciation of the characterisation of Gaius Caesar between Josephus’s War and Antiquities. Edwards argues that this later presentation of Gaius and his court in Antiquities is fairly similar to Josephus’s presentation of Haman and Nebuchadnezzar. Edwards discusses whether Josephus reused Philo’s Embassy to Gaius as a source, and suggests that framing Agrippa’s petition to Gaius around a banquet scene deliberately recalls Esther. While for both Esther and Agrippa, these banquet scenes attempt to stave off imminent crisis, Esther prepares effectively and selflessly for what she must do, while Agrippa is much more self-serving. Esther’s petition succeeds, whereas Agrippa’s fails (although this is largely due to factors outside of his control). In setting up these two characters in a similar fashion, Josephus can once again offer up a case-study for his readers to consider exemplary action. He further comments on the character of Agrippa and explains his story according to this character portrayal. Agrippa, like JT and Hyrcanus, can be used as models of behaviour that can be evaluated by readers and weighted, whereas JP and Esther are perhaps beyond emulation as they simply act in the most exemplary way. Readers cannot consider how they may have acted otherwise, and thus, think about how they approach situations in their own lives.
Edwards’ argument is deeply interesting, and furthers investigations into discourses of exemplarity in Josephus, and beyond. Other court tales might be fruitfully examined from a similar perspective, such as narratives about Daniel, or the court intrigues of the Hasmonean and Herodian periods. Beyond court tales, there is also more to be analysed with regards to Josephus’s writing purposes. Given his audience often appears to be non-Jews, what might be said about Josephus’s use of Jewish characters as exemplars, and to what extent was this successful? One might also ask further questions related to the reception of Josephus and his early readers. Perhaps future work may undertake an analysis of how Josephus was understood by later authors, and whether his exemplary goals were recognised and emulated.
Joseph Scales is the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Agder
[1] Court tales may be a subset of the wider emerging category of the novel. See further Tim Whitmarsh, Dirty Love: The Genealogy of the Ancient Greek Novel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018); Lawrence M. Wills, Ancient Jewish Novels: An Anthology (Oxford: OUP, 2002); idem., The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King: Ancient Jewish Court Legends (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990).
[2] See the following studies of exemplarity as used by Edwards: Carson Bay and Jan Willem van Henten, “Exempla in 1 Maccabees and Josephus’ Bellum Judaicum: Doing Jewish Exemplarity in the Greco-Roman World,” JSJ Advance Articles (2023): 1–27; James Petitfils, Mos Christianorum: The Roman Discourse of Exemplarity and the Jewish and Christian Language of Leadership (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016); Annette Yoshiko Reed, “The Construction and Subversion of Patriarchal Perfection: Abraham and Exemplarity in Philo, Josephus, and the Testament of Abraham,” JSJ 40 (2009): 185–212.
For critique of the suitability of exemplarity within ancient Jewish literature, see David Lambert, “Biblical Narrative as Ethics? The Limits of Exemplarity in Ancient Jewish Literature,” DSD 28 (2021): 423–447.
For other approaches to exemplarity, see Eva Mroczek, The Literary Imagination in Jewish Antiquity (Oxford: OUP, 2016); Hindy Najman, Losing the Temple and Recovering the Future: An Analysis of 4 Ezra (New York: CUP, 2014); eadem., Past Renewals: Interpretive Authority, Renewed Revelation and the Quest for Perfection (Leiden: Brill, 2010).