ANTIQITIES OF THE JEWS
BY JOSEPHUS
Yosef ben Mattityah, called Flavius Josephus as the Roman citizen he eventually became, was a Jewish historian whose most substantial work was Antiquities of the Jews. Written in AD 93-4 in Greek, it was a history of the Jews and their progenitors from the creation to AD 66 in twenty books expressly intended “for the Greek world”.
Presented here are all references in it to Greek love. The translations from Books I, III and VI are by H. St. J. Thackeray for the Loeb Classical Library volumes 242 and 490, published by William Heinemann in London in 1930 and 1967. Those from Books XV-XVII are by by Ralph Marcus and Allen Wikgren for the Loeb Classical Library 489 and 410, published by the same in 1943 and 1963. Two phrases in these translations have been amended for accuracy, and these are explained in footnotes.
I 200-202
Here Josephus explains how the city of Sodom near the Dead Sea came to be destroyed by his god, in 1896/5 BC according to his chronology. Abraham, a Semite, was the supposed ancestor of the Jews, Edomites and Arabs. His nephew Lot had settled in Sodom.
|
But the angels came to the city of the Sodomites and Lot invited them to be his guests, for he was very kindly to strangers and had learnt the lesson of Abraham’s liberality. But the Sodomites, on seeing these young men[1] of remarkably fair appearance whom Lot had taken under his roof, were bent only on violence and outrage to their youthful beauty. Lot adjured them to restrain their passions and not to proceed to dishonour his guests, but to respect their having lodged with him, offering in their stead, if his neighbours were so licentious, his own daughters to gratify their lust. But not even this would content them. God, therefore, indignant at their atrocities, blinded the criminals so that they could not find the entrance to the house, and condemned the whole people of the Sodomites to destruction.[2] |
[200] οἱ δὲ ἄγγελοι παρεγένοντο εἰς τὴν τῶν Σοδομιτῶν πόλιν, καὶ ὁ Λῶτος αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ ξενίαν παρεκάλει· λίαν γὰρ ἦν περὶ τοὺς ξένους φιλάνθρωπος καὶ μαθητὴς τῆς Ἁβράμου χρηστότητος. οἱ δὲ Σοδομῖται θεασάμενοι τοὺς νεανίσκους εὐπρεπείᾳ τῆς ὄψεως διαφέροντας καὶ παρὰ Λώτῳ καταχθέντας [201] ἐπὶ βίαν καὶ ὕβριν αὐτῶν τῆς ὥρας ἐτράπησαν. τοῦ δὲ Λώτου παραινοῦντος σωφρονεῖν καὶ μὴ χωρεῖν ἐπ᾿ αἰσχύνῃ τῶν ξένων, ἀλλ᾿ ἔχειν αἰδῶ τῆς παρ᾿ αὐτῷ καταγωγῆς, εἰ δὲ ἔχουσιν ἀκρατῶς, τὰς θυγατέρας αὐτοῦ ὑπὲρ ἐκείνων ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις αὐτῶν λέγοντος παρέξειν, οὐδ᾿ οὕτως ἐπείσθησαν. [202] Ὁ θεὸς οὖν ἀγανακτήσας αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τοῖς τολμήμασι τοὺς μὲν ἠμαύρωσεν, ὡς μὴ δυνηθῆναι τὴν εἴσοδον τὴν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν εὑρεῖν, Σοδομιτῶν δὲ κατέκρινε πάνδημον ὄλεθρον. |
III 274-5
Among the laws which Moses said their god had given the Israelites when they were in the Sinai, in about 1495 BC according to Josephus’s chronology:
| Again, to have intercourse with one’s mother is condemned by the law as grossest of sins; likewise union with a stepmother, an aunt, a sister, or the wife of one’s child is viewed with abhorrence as an outrageous crime. He moreover forbade cohabitation with a menstruous woman, mating with a beast or the valuing of intercourse between males[3] in the pursuit of lawless pleasure. For those guilty of such outrages he decreed the penalty of death. | [274] καὶ τὸ μίσγεσθαι δὲ μητράσιν ὡς κακὸν μέγιστον ὁ νόμος ἀπεῖπεν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ πατρὸς συνεῖναι γαμετῇ καὶ τηθίσι καὶ ἀδελφαῖς καὶ παίδων γυναιξὶν ὡς ἔκφυλον ἔχον τὴν ἀδικίαν μεμίσηκεν. [275] ἐκώλυσε δὲ καὶ γυναικὶ μεμιασμένῃ τοῖς κατὰ φύσιν πλησιάζειν μηδὲ κτήνεσιν εἰς συνουσίαν φοιτᾶν μηδὲ τὴν πρὸς τὰ ἄρρενα μῖξιν τιμᾶν διὰ τὴν ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῖς ὥραν ἡδονὴν θηρωμένους παράνομον. κατὰ δὲ τῶν εἰς ταῦτ᾿ ἐξυβρισάντων θάνατον ὥρισε τὴν τιμωρίαν. |
VI 205-7
Around the 1020s BC, the Israelite boy David having performed extraordinary heroic feats, the King, Saul, became fiercely jealous of his consequent popularity and the implication that the boy had special divine favour …
| [Saul] resolved to slay David and charged Jonathan his son and the most trusted of his men to make away with him. Jonathan was amazed at this change in his father’s feelings toward David from great benevolence to not merely moderate dislike but to the compassing of his death; and, loving the lad and reverencing him for his virtue, he told him of his father’s secret plan and intent. | [205] κτείνειν τὸν Δαυίδην διεγνώκει καὶ προστάσσει τὴν ἀναίρεσιν αὐτοῦ Ἰωνάθῃ τε τῷ παιδὶ καὶ τοῖς πιστοτάτοις τῶν οἰκετῶν. [206] ὁ δὲ τὸν πατέρα τῆς ἐπὶ τῷ Δαυίδῃ μεταβολῆς θαυμάσας οὐκ ἐπὶ μετρίοις ἀπὸ τῆς πολλῆς εὐνοίας ἀλλ᾿ ἐπὶ θανάτῳ γενομένης, καὶ τὸν νεανίσκον ἀγαπῶν καὶ τὴν ἀρετὴν αὐτοῦ καταιδούμενος λέγει [207] πρὸς αὐτὸν τὸ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀπόρρητον καὶ τὴν προαίρεσιν. |
The foregoing is the only passage where Josephus mentions “love” between Jonathan and David, though there are two further passages (VI 241 and VII 5) where strong expressions of their friendship are described. Emotionally powerful as it evidently was, none of this is extraordinary for a pre-modern friendship devoid of sexual feeling. Some stronger evidence of Greek love between them is to be found in the Old Testament. This, presented with its context, has been advanced as evidence of a love affair by D. H. Mader in his persuasive essay David and Jonathan. The purpose of giving the passage above is simply to show what is the nearest to evidence for that argument to be found in Josephus.
XV 23-30
The new King of Judaea, Herod, installed with the support of the Roman triumvir M. Antony (by then living with Cleopatra Queen of Egypt) in 37 BC, gave the high priesthood to “a rather undistinguished priest” …
|
This was at once taken as an unendurable insult by Alexandra, the daughter of Hyrkanos and the wife of Alexander, son of King Aristoboulos,[4] who had (two) children by Alexander, an extraordinarily handsome son, named Aristoboulos, and Mariamme, the wife of Herod, who was famed for her beauty. She was disturbed and aggrieved by the indignity offered her son that while he was still alive someone should be called from abroad and be given the office of high priest. And using the help of a certain singer to get the letter delivered, she wrote to Cleopatra, asking her to request Antony to obtain the high priesthood for her son. Antony paid rather scant attention to this request, but his friend Dellius came to Judaea on some business, and when he saw Aristoboulos, he was amazed[5] at his charm and was filled with admiration of his height and beauty, and no less with (the beauty) of Mariamme, the king’s wife. And he made it plain that he thought Alexandra was the mother of beautiful children. Accordingly, when she entered into conversation with him, he persuaded her to have portraits of both of them painted and to send them to Antony, saying that if he saw them, she would not be denied anything she might ask. Alexandra was elated by these words and sent the pictures to Antony. And Dellius spoke in extravagant terms, saying that her children seemed to him to be the offspring of some god rather than of human beings, for he was busy on his own account, trying to entice Antony into (sexual) pleasures. But Antony was embarrassed to send for the girl because she was married to Herod and because he wished to avoid being denounced to Cleopatra for such an act. And so he instructed him to send the lad in an outwardly respectable way, adding, “if this be no burden.” When this was reported to Herod, he decided that it would not be safe for him to send Aristobulus, who was then most handsome—being just sixteen—and of a distinguished family, to Antony, who was more powerful than any Roman of his time, and was ready to use him for erotic purposes and was able to indulge in undisguised pleasures because of his power. He therefore wrote in reply that if the youth were merely to leave the country, the whole land would be filled with disorder and war, because the Jews had formed hopes of an overturn of the government and the rule of another king. |
[23] Εὐθὺς οὖν οὐκ ἤνεγκεν Ἀλεξάνδρα τὴν ἐπήρειαν, θυγάτηρ μὲν Ὑρκανοῦ, γυνὴ δὲ Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Ἀριστοβούλου βασιλέως, ἐξ Ἀλεξάνδρου παῖδας ἔχουσα, τὸν μὲν ὥρᾳ κάλλιστον Ἀριστόβουλον καλούμενον, τὴν δὲ Ἡρώδῃ συνοικοῦσαν Μαριάμμην εὐμορφίᾳ διάσημον. [24] ἐτετάρακτο δὲ καὶ χαλεπῶς ἔφερεν τὴν ἀτιμίαν τοῦ παιδός, εἰ περιόντος ἐκείνου τῶν ἐπικλήτων τις ἀξιοῦται τῆς ἀρχιερωσύνης, καὶ γράφει Κλεοπάτρᾳ, μουσουργοῦ τινος αὐτῇ συμπραγματευομένου τὰ περὶ τὴν κομιδὴν τῶν γραμμάτων, αἰτεῖσθαι παρ᾿ Ἀντωνίου τῷ παιδὶ τὴν ἀρχιερωσύνην. [25] Ἀντωνίου δὲ ῥαθυμότερον ὑπακούοντος, ὁ φίλος αὐτοῦ Δέλλιος εἰς Ἰουδαίαν ἐλθὼν ἐπί τινας χρείας, ὡς εἶδε τὸν Ἀριστόβουλον, ἠγάσθη τε τῆς ὥρας καὶ τὸ μέγεθος καὶ κάλλος τοῦ παιδὸς ἐθαύμασεν, οὐχ ἧττον δὲ καὶ τὴν Μαριάμμην συνοικοῦσαν τῷ βασιλεῖ, καὶ δῆλος ἦν καλλίπαιδά τινα τὴν Ἀλεξάνδραν διειληφώς. [26] ἐκείνης δὲ εἰς λόγους ἐλθούσης αὐτῷ, πείθει γραψαμένην ἀμφοτέρων εἰκόνας Ἀντωνίῳ διαπέμψασθαι· θεασαμένου γάρ, οὐδενὸς ἀτευκτήσειν ὧν ἀξιοῖ. [27] τούτοις ἐπαρθεῖσα τοῖς λόγοις Ἀλεξάνδρα πέμπει τὰς εἰκόνας Ἀντωνίῳ· καὶ Δέλλιος ἐτερατεύετο λέγων οὐκ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων αὐτῷ δοκεῖν ἀλλά τινος θεοῦ γενέσθαι τοὺς παῖδας. ἐπραγματεύετο δὲ δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ πρὸς τὰς ἡδονὰς ἑλκύσαι τὸν Ἀντώνιον. [28] ὁ δὲ τὴν μὲν κόρην ᾐδέσθη μεταπέμπεσθαι γεγαμημένην Ἡρώδῃ, καὶ τὰς εἰς Κλεοπάτραν ἐκ τοῦ τοιούτου διαβολὰς φυλαττόμενος, ἐπέστελλε δὲ πέμπειν τὸν παῖδα σὺν εὐπρεπείᾳ, προστιθεὶς εἰ μὴ βαρὺ δοκοίη. [29] τούτων ἀπενεχθέντων πρὸς Ἡρώδην, οὐκ ἀσφαλὲς ἔκρινεν ὥρᾳ τε κάλλιστον ὄντα τὸν Ἀριστόβουλον (ἑκκαιδεκαέτης γὰρ ὢν ἐτύγχανε) καὶ γένει προὔχοντα πέμπειν παρὰ τὸν Ἀντώνιον, ἰσχύοντα μὲν ὡς οὐκ ἄλλος ἐν τῷ τότε Ῥωμαίων, ἕτοιμον δὲ τοῖς ἐρωτικοῖς αὐτὸν ὑποθεῖναι καὶ τὰς ἡδονὰς ἀπαρακαλύπτως ἐκ τοῦ δύνασθαι ποριζόμενον. [30] ἀντέγραψεν οὖν ὡς, εἰ μόνον ἐξέλθοι τῆς χώρας τὸ μειράκιον, ἅπαντα πολέμου καὶ ταραχῆς ἀναπλησθήσεται, Ἰουδαίων ἐλπισάντων μεταβολὴν καὶ νεωτερισμὸν ἐπ᾿ ἄλλῳ βασιλεῖ. |
Instead, Herod made Aristoboulos High Priest, as an obstacle to his leaving the country, and had him drowned a year later, ca. 35 BC.
XVI 229-231
On the same King Herod in 12 BC:
| But there was no let-up in the troubled state of his household, which steadily experienced even greater disturbances. The following incident that took place arose from a disgraceful cause and progressed to further unpleasantness. The king had some eunuchs of whom he was immoderately fond because of their beauty.[6] One of them was entrusted with the pouring of his wine, the second with serving his dinner, and the third with putting the king to bed and taking care of the most important matters of state. Now someone informed the king that these eunuchs had been corrupted by his son Alexander with great sums of money. When Herod asked whether they had had intimate relations with Alexander, they confessed to this but said that they were not aware of any other offence on his part against his father. | Οὐκ ἀνεῖτο δὲ τὰ κατὰ τὴν οἰκίαν ἀεὶ καὶ μείζους τὰς ταραχὰς λαμβάνοντα, καὶ συμπίπτει τι τοιοῦτον ἐξ αἰτίας μὲν οὐκ εὐπρεποῦς, χωρῆσαν δὲ πρόσω κατὰ δυσχέρειαν· [230] ἦσαν εὐνοῦχοι τῷ βασιλεῖ διὰ κάλλος οὐ μετρίως ἐσπουδασμένοι. τούτων ὁ μὲν οἰνοχοεῖν, ὁ δὲ δεῖπνον προσφέρειν, ὁ δὲ κατακοιμίζειν βασιλέα πεπίστευτο καὶ τὰ μέγιστα τῶν ἐν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς. [231] καί τις ἀγγέλλει τῷ βασιλεῖ διαφθαρῆναι τούτους ὑπὸ Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ παιδὸς ἐπὶ πολλοῖς χρήμασιν. ἀνακρίνοντι δὲ περὶ μὲν τῆς γεγενημένης πρὸς αὐτὸν κοινωνίας καὶ μίξεως ὡμολόγουν, ἄλλο δὲ οὐδὲν δυσχερὲς εἰς τὸν πατέρα συνειδέναι. |
XVII 44
On the same King Herod’s response to a conspiracy against him in 7 BC:
| And the king put to death those of the Pharisees who were most to blame and the eunuch Bagoas and a certain Karos, who was outstanding among his contemporaries for his surpassing beauty and was loved by the king.[7] | καὶ βασιλεὺς τῶν τε Φαρισαίων τοὺς αἰτιωτάτους ἀναιρεῖ καὶ Βαγώαν τὸν εὐνοῦχον Κᾶρόν τέ τινα τῶν τότε προὔχοντα ἀρετῇ τοῦ εὐπρεποῦς καὶ παιδικὰ ὄντα αὐτοῦ. |
[1] νεανίσκους, the word translated here as “young men” is very vague as to age and is sometimes translated as “youths” or “striplings”.
[2] Neither Josephus nor any pre-Christian writers make clear for what “atrocities” God destroyed the Sodomites. The negative things about them that Josephus mentions are three: (1) violence, (2) outrage (hubris), and (3) wanting to dishonour guests. Early Christians soon came to believe the atrocities were homosexual acts, or more specifically pedication, hence the word “sodomy.” Only fairly recently has it been suggested that violation of the ancient laws of hospitality was the Sodomites’ crime.
[3] Thackeray's translation of ἄρρενα μῖξιν τιμᾶν as "toleration of the practice of sodomy" is grossly inaccurate and has been replaced by "valuing intercourse with males." “Sodomy” in a pre-Christian context surely means the then still unspecified sin of the Sodomites. Josephus's real wording here is thus much closer to what Leveticus XVIII 22 said about "lying down with males”.
[4] Hyrkanos and Aristoboulos II were brothers and Kings and High Priests of Judaea of the preceding Hasmonean dynasty.
[5] Variant “fell in love with.” [Translator’s footnote]
[6] Eunuchs could of course be any age, but if they were loved for their beauty, then it is quite likely both that they were serving as catamites and that they had been castrated so that they would continue as youths and young men to look like prepubescent boys in important respects. Thus, even when catamites, they might no longer be boys and one may doubt that a man’s love for a young adult eunuch, however boyish he looked, is real Greek love. On the other hand, the following passage presented here does at least show Herod in love with a boy, suggesting this was his interest.
[7] “Was loved by the King” has been amended to the more accurate “was the King’s loved boy” as a translation of καὶ παιδικὰ ὄντα αὐτοῦ. A paidika παιδικὰ was the boy in a Greek love affair, which casts a Greek love light on the preceding passage quoted with respect to Herod. It is a little odd that Josephus calls Bagoas a eunuch, but not Karos, if the latter was in fact one too, so perhaps he was a whole boy.
Comments powered by CComment