Jordan Henderson

Louis Feldman has argued that Josephus’ portrayal of Hezekiah in the Antiquities is ambivalent. Although Josephus calls Hezekiah good, just, and pious (9.260), Feldman comes to this conclusion based on several pieces of evidence: (a) Josephus’ attributing Hezekiah’s failure to personally meet with Sennacherib’s envoys to the former’s “cowardice” (δειλίας); (b) Josephus’ failure to ascribe certain virtues to Hezekiah that he often ascribes to other biblical heroes, such as wisdom or courage; and (c) Josephus’ omission of Hezekiah’s strategic military preparations to meet Sennacherib as related in 2 Chr 32:3-8. For Feldman, this might be explained by Josephus’ hesitancy to portray Hezekiah as a proto-messianic figure, a view found in several rabbinic texts. While some scholars have agreed with Feldman concerning Josephus’ ambivalence towards Hezekiah, I am not aware of any who have challenged Feldman’s thesis. I will argue that Josephus is overtly positive in his presentation of Hezekiah. In fact, Josephus presents him as exemplifying the ideal response to an attack by a foreign foe. Josephus’ attribution of cowardice to Hezekiah is not as an innate character trait, as is his attribution of goodness, righteousness, and piety. He uses cowardice as a literary device to illustrate Hezekiah’s transformation from a state of fear at the beginning of the narrative to a state of confidence at its conclusion, based on his trust in God’s protection. Josephus’ use of the cowardice motif highlights an important dimension of his characterization: Although he often summarizes the character of the historical actors in his drama with innate virtues (e.g. piety, righteousness) or vices (e.g. impiety, wickedness), his characters are nevertheless dynamic rather than static, possessing free will and able to choose wisely or poorly in key decision points. Hezekiah’s choices in this scene are presented as overtly positive, and thus they achieve a positive outcome: the nation’s salvation. The omission of Hezekiah’s military preparations reflects Josephus’ deliberate choice to follow the narrative of Kings rather than of Chronicles as his primary source for Sennacherib’s campaign against Judah. This choice conforms to Josephus’ arguments made in his speech in BJ 5.376-419. There he uses the example of Hezekiah to argue that the proper response to a threat from a foreign foe is not to take up arms, but to rely on God as the nation’s σύμμαχος and στρατηγός. This depiction of Hezekiah has implications for how we read the crucial Book 10 of the Antiquities, with Hezekiah established at the beginning of the book as a direct point of contrast with later kings in their response to the threat posed by Nebuchadnezzar. It also allows us to see a strong connection between Josephus’ depiction of Hezekiah in the Antiquities and his self-presentation in the War, as he defends his defection to the Romans (for which he was also accused of cowardice) by appealing to Hezekiah's example.

This paper examines Josephus’ depiction of Pompey’s siege of Jerusalem in the Antiquities, in comparison with his depictions of Hellenistic rule in the same work. The conquests of Jerusalem by both Pompey in 63 BCE and Titus in 70 CE bear a marked resemblance to the actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the second century BCE. This presented Josephus with quite a conundrum in his massive historical project of the Antiquities: If he merely sticks to his primary source for the period of Seleucid rule (1 Maccabees), he risks having his readers seeing parallels between the actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Pompey, and Titus. However, to depart too radically from this narrative, perhaps downplaying the severity of Antiochus’ cruelty to the Jews, could place Josephus at odds with national heroes of Israel’s past (the Maccabees), as well as possibly highlighting his own abandonment of the Jewish rebellion in favor of imperial Rome. I will argue that Josephus avoided either of these options by inserting his narrative of Alexander the Great visiting Jerusalem in the Antiquities, portraying him as an ideal foreign ruler of Judea. Alexander’s actions in this famous passage are antithetical to those of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and present another Hellenistic ruler with which to compare the actions of Pompey the Great. Rather than the proud and arrogant Alexander of 1 Maccabees and the book of Daniel, Josephus’ Alexander humbles himself before the God of the Jews and permits them to continue to observe their ancestral customs. This allows Josephus in his own unique way to draw on the tradition of Pompey as a “Roman Alexander.” We are left with two origin stories of Hellenistic and Roman rule: Alexander the Great is presented as a model of the just foreign ruler, whose example of just rule was followed by some (e.g. Antiochus III), but neglected by many of his successors, chief among them Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Pompey, whose conquest might appear on the surface as resembling that of Antiochus, emerges a reluctant conqueror resembling Alexander’s humble stance before the God of the Jews and just rule in allowing the Jews to observe their ancestral customs and cultic activities. Pompey’s conquest in the Antiquities thus marks the beginning of Roman rule of Judea as the rightful successor to Alexander’s legacy, allowing Josephus to similarly frame Titus’ siege as being in accord with this legacy.

This paper examines the reception history of the destruction of a synagogue in Callinicum in 388 CE and the response to its destruction by Ambrose of Milan. The primary sources for this incident are Ambrose’s letters and his earliest biography. In these sources, Ambrose boldly confronts the emperor Theodosius I and threatens to remove him from communion over his decision to force Christians in Callinicum to pay for the restoration of the synagogue they destroyed. Ambrose eventually wins over Theodosius, who agrees that there will be no punishment for the guilty Christians. Ambrose’s willingness to confront the emperor seems to be congruent with other well-known confrontations in his life with imperial authority. In fact, the Callinicum incident arguably illustrates the boldest stance Ambrose took against an emperor. However, following his death, as his popularity grew, subsequent depictions of Ambrose’s life, whether in church histories or hagiographies, omit this incident. I will begin by examining the earliest accounts of the Callinicum incident, as well as early sources of Ambrose’s life which omit it. I will argue that, while we may see continuity between Ambrose’s response to the Callinicum affair and his other confrontations with imperial authority, his strongly negative views toward Judaism, and his concern for non-Christian sacred spaces to be replaced by Christian holy sites, nevertheless, his response to Callinicum stood at odds with his emerging hagiographic image in later Christian writings. I will then survey several works from the seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries which do include this incident in their discussions of Ambrose, examining how their interpretations of this incident affect their portrait of Ambrose (and vice versa).

This article compares the often conflicting autobiographical accounts in Josephus' Life and Jewish War to the differences found in the synoptic gospels, exploring the possible outer limits of variation which would have been expected by first-century readers/hearers who read/heard the synoptic gospels as ancient biographies.

Although each of the great Panhellenic games was dedicated to a different god, it has been said that the gods who were truly honored were the athletes themselves. As the popularity of the games grew, so did the esteem in which their athletes were held. Though they remain long forgotten by most people today, in their own time, they were heroes, lauded for their strength, endurance, unbelievable feats, and of course their physique, immortalized in the construction of statues in their honor. This article discusses two such athletes, Theagenes of Thasos and Kleitomachos of Thebes, both of whom dominated the combat sports in their respective eras.