Sexual intercourse and menstruation

Some Notes on Josephus, Ant. 18.9

When Josephus writes about what Morton Smith nicely called ‘the troublemakers,’1 i.e., the Jewish theocratic guerilla fighters in Palestine before 70 ce, he twice calls them ‘the fourth philosophy’ (A.J. 18.9; 18.23). Realizing that this numeral is not really informative, on the first occasion (18.9) he adds the qualification that they form a philosophia epeisaktos, in Louis Feldman’s translation ‘an intrusive school of philosophy.’2 In this short paper I will not deal with the question of whether or not we should identify this group with the Zealots, or the Sicarii, or both.3 Neither will I deal with the pernicious role(s) these ‘troublemakers’ played in the run-up to the great War of 66–74. My sole aim is to try to clarify Josephus’ curious terminology with regard to this group of Jewish theocratic insurrectionists. What exactly does he mean when he calls them, using a unique terminology, a philosophia epeisaktos?

First, why would Josephus call a bunch of revolutionaries a philosophia? The simple answer would seem to be that he had presented the other main Jewish schools of thought (or sects) as philosophical movements as well (see B.J. 2.119;

2.166; A.J. 18.11; 18.23) so as to provide them with a Hellenistic dress, and here he simply does the same for a fourth group. But that does not solve the problem of why he used this terminology for Jewish religious movements in the first place.

1 M. Smith, “The Troublemakers,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 3: The Early Roman Period (eds. W. Horbury, W.D. Davies & J. Sturdy), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, 501–568.

2 In vol. 9 of the LCL edition of Josephus, p. 9. W. Whiston simply omits the word epeisaktos in his translation, as does H. Clementz. F.J.A.M. Meijer and M.A. Wes aptly render it as: ‘een ons vreemde geestelijke stroming.’

3 See on that matter, e.g., D. Rhoads, “Zealots,” ABD 6 (1992) 1043–1054; also G. Cornfeld et al., Josephus: The Jewish War, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982, 143–144; M.A. Brighton, The Sicarii in Josephus’s Judean War, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. One of the classic stud-ies of Judas the Galilaean’s fourth philosophy remains M. Hengel, The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I until 70 AD, Edinburgh: Clark, 1989, 76–145. But see also, for a radically different interpretation, M. Smith, “Zealots and Sicarii: Their Origins and Relations,” HTR 64 (1971) 1–19, repr. in his Studies in the Cult of Yahweh, vol. 1, Leiden: Brill, 1996, 211–226.

55 philosophia epeisaktos: some notes on josephus

In order to understand this move, we will have to review briefly the semantic history of the word-group philosophia-philosophos-philosophein.4

According to a rather consistent Greek tradition that goes back to the fifth century BCE, Pythagoras (second half of the sixth century BCE) was the inven-tor of these words.5 This tradition has it that

Pythagoras called his own teaching philosophia, not sophia (wisdom).

For he criticized the so-called Seven Wise Men, who lived before his time, and he said that no one is wise, being a human person, and by reason of the weakness of his nature he often does not have the power to bring all things to a good end, but he who emulates the way of life of a wise man could more fittingly be called a lover of wisdom (philosophos).6

Another version has it that he was the first to call himself a philosophos because, he said, no one is wise (sophos) but God alone.7 To skeptical minds the historical veracity of this tradition may not be beyond doubt, but it is cer-tain that the first time we find an author using the word philosophos, is in a fragment of Heraclitus (flor. ca. 500) where he says that philosophoi must be enquirers into many things (22B35 DK).8 But it may be the case that Heraclitus ridiculed or criticized Pythagoras’ use of the word philosophos since the same Heraclitus says elsewhere that the learning of many things (polymathiê) does not teach understanding, for if it did, it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras (22B40 DK). Be that as it may, the word (or rather, word-group: phi-losophos, philosophia, philosophein) is there, at least from the beginning of the fifth century, and it is clear that it does not yet have the technical sense of

4 For a succinct survey see O. Michel, “Philosophia,” TWNT 9 (1973), 169–176. For bibliography on the word group philosophia-philosophos-philosophein see esp. P.B. Colera et al., Repertorio Bibliográfico de la Lexicografía Griega, Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1998, 513a.

5 See A.-M. Malingrey, “Philosophia”: Étude d’un group de mots dans la litérature grecque des Présocratiques au IVe siècle après J.-C., Paris: Klincksieck, 1961, 29–32; W. Burkert, “Platon oder Pythagoras? Zum Ursprung des Wortes ‘Philosophie’,” Hermes 88 (1960) 159–177; now esp. Chr.

Riedweg, Pythagoras: Leben – Lehre – Nachwirkung, München: Beck, 2002, 120–128.

6 Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. Hist. 10.10.

7 Diogenes Laertius, Vitae philos. Prooemium 12; for other versions see Cicero, Tusc.5.8–9;

Jamblichus, De vita Pyth. 12[58].1; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 1.61; Augustine, Civ. Dei 8.2.

8 See the comments in G.S. Kirk, J.E. Raven and M. Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983 (2nd ed.), 216–218. H. Diels & W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, vol. 1, Berlin: Weidmann, 1951 (6th ed.), 159, suggest that the word philosophos is “vielleicht Heraklits Schöpfung.”

the term philosophy (systematic, rational, and critical thinking) as we use it in our time.

In the fifth century BCE it was the sophists who claimed to teach sophia, which was of a practical nature,9 while their opponents such as Socrates claimed to teach philosophia. It is in this century that the word philosophia began to develop new meanings (including ethical aspects: how to lead a good life), and this was also the century in which critical thinkers developed a form of philosophy in which traditional religion was subjected to an inci-sive Religionskritik, when the first atheists in history appeared on the scene.10 In Plato’s work, however, philosophia is the search for metaphysical truth and as such is never disconnected from an ethical way of life coram deo. For Plato there is a fundamental link between striving for truth and educational and political action.11 It was also Plato who divided philosophy into three parts:

logic, ethics, and physics. Aristotle uses the term philosophia for comprehen-sive scientific research, in which the first philosophia is the science devoted to the divine unchanging transcendent being, and the second philosophia is the science devoted to the sensory phenomena. Here we see that for the most influential philosophers of classical Greece, theology and ethics were part and parcel of philosophy.

In the Hellenistic period, too, ethical and theological questions belonged to the domain of the various philosophical schools (Stoa, Epicureanism, Academy, Peripatos, et al.). ‘This accounts for the strong ethical emphasis and, to the modern mind, disconcertingly close connexion between philosophy and religion in nearly all the thinkers of the period.’12 Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus, for instance, is a prime example of Stoic religious philosophy.13 One should also

9 Malingrey, “Philosophia” 40–41, rightly stresses the practical nature of this ‘wisdom’ and calls it “un mélange de prudence, d’habileté, de souple adaptation (. . .) un guide précieux dans toutes les circonstances de la vie.”

10 See my “The First Atheist,” in my Jews and Christians in Their Graeco-Roman Context (WUNT 196), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006, 242–250.

11 As Malingrey, “Philosophia” 53, puts it: “Philosophia = effort moral.” That is why for Plato philosophers were the ideal rulers.

12 A.H. Armstrong, “Introduction,” in The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (ed. A.H. Armstrong), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967, 5. It is also in the Hellenistic period that Greeks begin to regard ‘barbarian’ religious thinkers such as the Brahmans in India, the Druids in Gaul, and the Jews in Palestine as

‘ philosophers.’ See Michel, TWNT 9 (1973), 175–176.

13 See J.C. Thom, Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus (STAC 33), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. For Stoic theology in general see K. Algra, “Stoic Theology,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics (ed. B. Inwood), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, 153–178.

57 philosophia epeisaktos: some notes on josephus

realize that for the Stoics theology is part of physics. And by both the Stoics and most other schools philosophy is viewed increasingly as the road to a right way of living.14 Moral perfection has become the goal of philosophy. Even though the various philosophical schools often were bitter rivals, this emphasis on an ethical way of life, on moral action, and piety is what they had in common.

As Waszink says, in this period the term philosophia ‘indicates a coherent sys-tem of thought or belief, a Weltanschauung, irrespective of whether it should be qualified as mainly philosophical or mainly theological in the modern sense of the word.’15 This was the situation in which Jews came to be acquainted with Greek philosophy.

In view of this situation, one should not be surprised that Jews who were steeped in Greek culture saw fit to enlist the word group philosophia- philosophos-philosophein in their service and use it as a self-designation.16 We see that happen for the first time in the Letter of Aristeas, probably from the second half of the second century BCE. In that document we find, apart from the regular use of our word group for Greek philosophers and their activities, a striking passage in which it is said that the Torah (nomothesia), because of its divine nature, is a very philosophical work (31). And further on in this docu-ment, we find one of the Jewish scholars stating that in order to achieve the goal of philosophy, namely, to live a good life without being carried away by one’s passions, one should serve God (256). As Anne-Marie Malingrey rightly remarks, the Letter of Aristeas ‘fournit le premier témoignage d’une étape où les mots du groupe de philosophia sont appelés à exprimer une attitude inté-rieure dont les composantes partiennent à l’Hellénisme et au Judaïsme, mais qui offert comme un premier essai d’une synthèse future.’17 With this ‘future synthesis’ she, of course, alludes to the work of Philo of Alexandria.

14 See, e.g., Tad Brennan, The Stoic Life, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005.

15 J.H. Waszink, “Some Observations on the Appreciation of ‘the Philosophy of the Barbarians’ in Early Christian Literature,” in Mélanges offerts à mademoiselle Christine Mohrmann, Utrecht: Spectrum, 1963, 41–56, here 41.

16 Christians from the second and later centuries (and even some of their opponents) did the same; see for some instances A.J. Malherbe, “ ‘Not in a Corner’: Early Christian Apologetic in Acts 26:26,” The Second Century 5 (1985/86) 197 note 20; P.W. van der Horst,

“ ‘A Simple Philosophy’: Alexander of Lycopolis on Christianity,” in Polyhistor: Studies in the History and Historiography of Ancient Philosophy Presented to Jaap Mansfeld (ed. K.A. Algra, P.W. van der Horst & D.T. Runia), Leiden: Brill, 1996, 313–314.

17 Philosophia 77.

Philo, himself a Platonist philosopher, uses this word group very frequently (philosophos 52x, philosophein 62x, philosophia 102x).18 He, too, uses these terms with reference to Greek philosophers, but for Philo himself eusebeia is the proper goal of philosophy and for that reason he regards Moses and the Jewish Patriarchs as the real philosophoi (see, e.g., Mos. 2.211–216, Opif. 8, Heres 301, Cont. 26–28, Mut. 223, Congr. 79–80). On the basis of a survey of the evidence from Philo, David Runia concludes that “philosophia in Philo has a broader sense [than in pagan Greek literature], including the quest for God and study of the Law,”19 and, one may reasonably add, also living according to the Law or practising the Law. Philo also calls the Word of God the true philos-ophy (Post. 102). There is no doubt that for Philo philosophia consists primarily of (Jewish) theology and ethics. In this respect he builds upon the foundation laid by Pseudo-Aristeas.20

Before we turn to Josephus, let us have a quick look at one of his contempo-raries, the author of 4 Maccabees. In the opening words of his book, this Jewish author boldly introduces his work as a philosophôtatos logos, a thoroughly phil-osophical argument. But in what follows it becomes clear that, in spite of all his philosophical (esp. Stoic) terminology, his message is that true philosophy is living in accordance with God’s Law. The evil tyrant objects that someone who clings to the Jewish faith cannot be a philosopher and calls it a nonsense philosophy (5.7, 11) but his steadfast Jewish opponent rebuts him saying: ‘You mock at our philosophy and you say our living according to it is contrary to rea-son. Yet it teaches us temperance so that we rule over all pleasures and desires’

(5.22–23). And that is what God’s Law is about. ‘Could anyone who lives as a philosopher according to the full rule of philosophy, and believes in God, and knows that it is blessed to endure any pain for virtue’s sake, fail to control his emotions for the cause of his religion?’ (8.21–22). This last quote makes clear that the willingness to endure martyrdom for one’s faith is also part and parcel of this Jewish philosophy.

It’s time to turn to Josephus. The relevant material is more modest than is the case for Philo (philosophein 17x, philosophia 10x, philosophos 10x).21 Several

18 See P. Borgen et al., The Philo Index, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans – Leiden: Brill, 2000, 354.

Here references can easily be found.

19 D.T. Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses (PACS 2), Leiden: Brill, 2001, 203; cf. ibid. 297.

20 For a few other passages in the Pseudepigrapha in which the word group occurs see A.-M. Denis, Concordance grecque des Pseudépigraphes d’Ancien Testament, Louvain:

Université Catholique, 1987, 778. These references do not yield anything of importance to our topic.

21 See K.H. Rengstorf, A Concordance to Flavius Josephus, vol. 4, Leiden: Brill, 1983, 307.

59 philosophia epeisaktos: some notes on josephus

of these passages refer to Greek philosophers and their activities, but some refer to Jewish persons or groups and their ideas. It is no surprise to see that Josephus says about his Antiquitates Judaicae that these are a translation of the Jewish sacred scriptures that he, ‘a priest by ancestry and steeped in the philosophy contained in those writings’ (C. Ap. 1.54), has made. Here we see again that this term is borrowed from the Greek tradition to strengthen the Jewish equivalent.22 In C. Ap. 2.47, Josephus again speaks of ‘our laws and our ancestral philosophy,’implying that these laws (the Torah) are part of this ancestral philosophy (patrios philosophia). And in A.J. 1.25 he says that a pro-found inquiry into the books of Moses is a ‘very philosophical’ enterprise (lian philosophos). Other passages could be added but these suffice to demonstrate that Josephus, too, uses this word group in order to characterize Judaism and its beliefs and practices. It is, therefore, not unexpected that Josephus, when he describes the ideas and practices of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, states that ‘three forms of philosophy are pursued among the Jews’ (B.J. 2.119).23 As Mason (ad loc.) remarks, here philosophy is not a system of abstract thought but much more a way of living inspired by the Jewish faith (the ‘ancestral phi-losophy’). But then, there is suddenly a ‘fourth philosophy,’ one that is qualified as epeisaktos. None of the other philosophies receives this qualification. What exactly does it mean?

‘Intrusive,’ is Feldman’s translation. The Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell-Scott-Jones lists as English equivalents ‘brought in from outside, alien’ and helpfully mentions as opposites oikeios and autochthôn.24 Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon adds ‘adventitious’ and also informs us that some Church Fathers use the word epeisaktos for heretical doctrines. But instead of looking at what the lexica tell us, it is better to review a (limited) number of actual occurrences.

Of course, we should begin with Josephus’ own use of this word. Apart from the passage under discussion, he uses it three times.

In B.J. 4.661, when describing Titus’s itinerary during his trip from Alexandria to Caesarea in 69 ce, he says that Titus arrived at Ostrakine, a place with-out water so that the inhabitants had to use water which was brought from

22 Thus J.M.G. Barclay, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, vol. 10: Against Apion, Leiden: Brill, 2007, 40.

23 See the note in S. Mason, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, vol. 1b: Judean War 2, Leiden: Brill, 2008, 96. As usual, Mason translates ‘. . . among the Judeans,’ but that does not make sense here. Josephus uses philosophia for Jewish schools or move-ments again in A.J. 13.289; 18.9–11, 23, 25; Vita 10–12. In A.J. 8.44 he says that King Solomon ephilosophêse.

24 See also the entry on epeisaktos in R. Renehan, Greek Lexicographical Notes: A Critical Supplement to the Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell-Scott-Jones, vol. 2, Göttingen:

Vandenhoeck & Rupprecht, 1982, 69.

elsewhere (epeisaktois hydasin).25 In A.J. 8.194, a passage about King Solomon’s foreign wives, he says that in his latter days Solomon began more and more to show disrespect for his own God but continued to honour the gods that had been introduced (epeisaktôn) by these foreign wives.26 Finally, in A.J. 15.332, a passage about king Herod’s building activities in Caesarea, he says that the construction of the city’s harbour was very notable because ‘he got no mate-rial suitable for so great a work from the place itself but completed it with materials brought from outside (epeisaktois) at great expense.’ Here the word epeisaktois (neuter plural) is used without a noun to designate ‘imported mate-rials.’ Though the instances are few, they make clear that the word epeisaktos in Josephus ranges from neutral (water or building materials that are not from the place itself) to critical (the gods of the foreign wives that Solomon should never have married).

Let us check this result against Josephus’ use of the verb from which epei-saktos is derived, namely epeisagô. He uses it five times. Only two of them are relevant and will be considered briefly. In A.J. 12.26, in the middle of the long passage in which Josephus paraphrases the Letter of Aristeas, he has King Ptolemy Philadelphus say that he would set free not only the Jews brought by his father and his army, but also those who had been previously found in the kingdom and also any who were subsequently imported (epeisêchthêsan).

Here we see the neutral usage.27 In a story about a conspiracy to murder Herod, Josephus says in A.J. 15.281 that the conspirators thought it a sacred duty to undertake any risk rather than seem to be indifferent to Herod’s forcible introduction (epeisagonta) of practices not in accord with [Jewish] custom, practices by which their way of life would be totally altered. This is clearly an instance of the pejorative use of this verb.

When we now look at evidence from other authors in the centuries around the turn of the era (taken in a wide sense: from the fifth century BCE to the fifth century ce), we find further confirmation of the semantic aspects of epeisaktos that we found in Josephus.28 In the translations, sometimes paraphrastic, of

25 O. Michel & O. Bauernfeind, Flavius Josephus: De bello judaico – Der jüdische Krieg, vol. II/1, München: Kösel Verlag, 1963, 105, translate as follows: ‘Die Einheimischen müssen es [Wasser] von anderen Orten herbeischaffen.’

26 Literally it says ‘those [gods] of his alien marriages (or wives).’

27 Other instances of this usage are A.J. 16.85, 17.309, and C. Ap. 1.304.

28 The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae lists 537 instances, the vast majority being from Byzantine authors. I have selected only some illustrative instances from the fifth century BCE to the fifth century ce.

61 philosophia epeisaktos: some notes on josephus

the following passages the various renderings of epeisaktos are highlighted by bold italics.29

The earliest instance is Euripides, Ion 589–590: They say that the Athenians are not an imported race but a race born of their own soil (autochthonas). Note the opposition to autochthôn here.

Plato, Cratylus 420b1: Eros is so called because it (desire) flows in (esrôn) from without (exôthen); this stream is not inherent (oikeia) but is an influence introduced through the eyes. Note here the opposition to oikeios.

There are several instances in the Corpus Aristotelicum (both Aristotle and Pseudo-Aristotle). Ethica Nicomacheia 1169b26: A supremely happy man will

There are several instances in the Corpus Aristotelicum (both Aristotle and Pseudo-Aristotle). Ethica Nicomacheia 1169b26: A supremely happy man will