Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:06 pmThis bit from John2 has sparked what is probably an insane idea in me, based simply on some of the kinds of posts floating around the forum at this exact time.
I have so far merely speculated (possibly insanely) about the "ambiguous oracle" described by Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius; at this stage, however, after sifting through the relevant materials for some time now, I am ready to do more than just speculate about a couple of aspects of the issue.
My wonderings about whether Judas the Galilean has anything to do with the Christians being called (at some point) Galileans themselves are still conjectures. But I am now quite sure that (A) the "ambiguous oracle" described by Josephus derives from Daniel and that (B) at least some of the Judean rebels used that oracle as a justification for their revolt.
I cannot be sure that the Romans learned of this oracle from any source other than Josephus himself (whether directly from his works, indirectly from those who had read them, or through the Memoirs of Vespasian as influenced by him); so, to be safe, I will assume that all of our extant accounts of this oracle depend upon Josephus. The significance here is that my argument that the rebels really did interpret Daniel in such a way must depend, as so very often in antiquity, upon internal evidence rather than external.
Also, the
Syme admirer in me regards it as unlikely that the ambiguous oracle was
the main reason for the rebellion. Ideology is too often put forward in such situations as the reason for something which was actually motivated by more mundane causes. We often (not always) craft our ideology around our baser needs. So, while it is
possible that the ambiguous prediction was an/the original inspiration for (at least some of) the rebels, I personally doubt that this was so, and my argument will not in any way depend upon it being so. Rather, my argument will simply be that Daniel was indeed interpreted in a certain way by (at least some of) the rebels; at stake is its existence among them, not the extent of its influence upon them. To use a text as justification for one's actions is not the same thing as to be motivated to perform those actions by that text in the first place.
My strategy for presenting the arguments at hand will be to demonstrate point by point that, and more importantly in what ways, Daniel is a supremely important figure to Josephus; along the way the arguments (both for the derivation of the ambiguous oracle from Daniel and for the actual existence of that oracle amongst the rebels) will surface of their own accord, since they are intimately tied to Josephus' conscious connection with the prophet Daniel.
Josephus' close interest in Daniel cannot seriously be doubted:
Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, page 93-94: Daniel is not mentioned by name in the War, though we have good reason to think that Josephus also had this work in mind. Daniel was an extremely popular text in the first century, as the New Testament and many other Jewish texts from the period confirm, and even though most modern scholars date the book to about 165 B.C.E., in Josephus's day it was thought to have been written during the same period as Jeremiah. Some details in the War suggest Josephus's use of Daniel, but the main point is that Josephus appears to have treasured this book's analysis of political history. Daniel makes it clearer than other biblical texts that nations rise and fall under the sovereignty of God (Dan 2:21; 4:14, 22,29). In all of this political upheaval, God will protect his own people as long as they are faithful, and it is even possible for faithful Jews to prosper in the courts of foreign kings (Dan 1:20; 2:48; 3:30; 6:29). It is entirely misguided, however, to assert oneself to end foreign domination (Dan 8:14), for only God can do that. God will bring a kingdom that is not made with human hands (Dan 2:34, 45; 8:25; compare War 5.400). The "wise" are those who understand God's ways (Dan 1:17,20; 2:30, 47; 5:11-12; 11:33-35), and they should be distinguished from "the many" who are open to persuasion for good or ill (Dan 8:25; 11:33). All of this language is prominent in Josephus.
In
Wars 5.9.4 §400 Josephus avers that "such as inhabit this holy place ought to commit the disposal of all things to God," a Danielic theme, to be sure, as Mason notes.
Josephus also seems to personally relate to specific elements of Daniel's predicament:
Josephus, Life 2 §11: 11 Σκληραγωγήσας οὖν ἐμαυτὸν καὶ πολλὰ πονηθεὶς τὰς τρεῖς διῆλθον, καὶ μηδὲ τὴν ἐντεῦθεν ἐμπειρίαν ἱκανὴν ἐμαυτῷ νομίσας εἶναι πυθόμενός τινα Βάννουν ὄνομα κατὰ τὴν ἐρημίαν διατρίβειν, ἐσθῆτι μὲν ἀπὸ δένδρων χρώμενον, τροφὴν δὲ τὴν αὐτομάτως φυομένην προσφερόμενον, ψυχρῷ δὲ ὕδατι τὴν ἡμέραν καὶ τὴν νύκτα πολλάκις λουόμενον πρὸς ἁγνείαν, ζηλωτὴς ἐγενόμην αὐτοῦ. / 11 So I contented myself with hard fare, and underwent great difficulties, and went through them all. Nor did I content myself with these trials only; but when I was informed that one, whose name was Banus, lived in the desert, and used no other clothing than grew upon trees, and had no other food than what grew of its own accord, and bathed himself in cold water frequently, both by night and by day, in order to preserve his chastity, I imitated him in those things.
Josephus, Antiquities 10.10.2 §190: 190 Δόξαν δὲ Δανιήλῳ μετὰ τῶν συγγενῶν σκληραγωγεῖν ἑαυτὸν καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς βασιλικῆς τραπέζης ἐδεσμάτων ἀπέχεσθαι καὶ καθόλου πάντων τῶν ἐμψύχων, προσελθὼν Ἀσχάνῃ τῷ τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν αὐτῶν ἐμπεπιστευμένῳ εὐνούχῳ τὰ μὲν παρὰ τοῦ βασιλέως αὐτοῖς κομιζόμενα παρεκάλεσεν αὐτὸν ἀναλίσκειν λαμβάνοντα, παρέχειν δ᾽ αὐτοῖς ὄσπρια καὶ φοίνικας εἰς διατροφὴν καὶ εἴ τι τῶν ἀψύχων ἕτερον βούλοιτο: πρὸς γὰρ τὴν τοιαύτην δίαιταν αὐτοὺς κεκινῆσθαι, τῆς δ᾽ ἑτέρας περιφρονεῖν. / 190 Now Daniel and his kinsmen had resolved to use a severe diet, and to abstain from those kinds of food which came from the king's table, and entirely to forbear to eat of all living creatures. So he came to Ashpenaz, who was that eunuch to whom the care of them was committed, 1 and desired him to take and spend what was brought for them from the king, but to give them pulse and dates for their food, and any thing else, besides the flesh of living creatures, that he pleased, for that their inclinations were to that sort of food, and that they despised the other.
He thus uses the same word for Daniel's religious austerity (σκληραγωγεῖν) that he uses for his own (σκληραγωγήσας).
Furthermore, Josephus must have identified both with Joseph and with Daniel for the fact that he, too, was an expatriate flourishing in a foreign court:
Steve Mason, Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins, page 110: The biblical Joseph and Daniel, who famously prospered on foreign soil, are — with Jeremiah — Josephus's best-loved models, crucial to his literary self-representation.
Joseph and Daniel flourished precisely because of their prophetic abilities, which Josephus claims also to possess. In
Wars 3.8.3 §352, he writes about himself that he "was able to give shrewd conjectures about the interpretation of such dreams as have been ambiguously [ἀμφιβόλως] delivered by God." I have already compared this line to
Wars 6.5.4 §312, in which Josephus writes about the "ambiguous [ἀμφίβολος] oracle" found in the sacred writings.
Josephus shows a distinct interest in predictions overall:
Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, page 197: Josephus's narrative of Jewish history consistently sets the Essenes in a radiant light, but deprecates both Sadducees and Pharisees. He speaks glowingly of Judas the Essene, who never once erred in his predictions (War 1.78-80); he praises John the Essene (or possibly, "man of Essa"), who was appointed like him as a commander in the revolt, as a man of "first-rate prowess and ability" (War 3.11); and he asserts that many Essenes had been granted a knowledge of the future because of their virtue (Ant. 15.371-379). Essenes reliably predicted the rise and fall of both Herod the Great and his son Archelaus (Ant. 15.371-379; 17.346).
Josephus himself claims to have predicted the fall of Jotapata, right down to the very day:
Josephus, Wars 3.8.9 §405-408: 405 ἀτρεκῆ δὲ τὸν Ἰώσηπον καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις κατελάμβανεν: τῶν γὰρ τοῖς ἀπορρήτοις παρατυχόντων φίλων ὁ ἕτερος θαυμάζειν ἔφη πῶς οὔτε τοῖς ἐπὶ τῶν Ἰωταπάτων περὶ ἁλώσεως, οὔθ᾽ ἑαυτῷ προμαντεύσαιτο αἰχμαλωσίαν, εἰ μὴ ταῦτα λῆρος εἴη διακρουομένου τὰς ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν ὀργάς. 406 ὁ δὲ Ἰώσηπος καὶ τοῖς Ἰωταπατηνοῖς ὅτι μετὰ τεσσαρακοστὴν ἑβδόμην ἡμέραν ἁλώσονται προειπεῖν ἔφη, καὶ ὅτι πρὸς Ῥωμαίων αὐτὸς ζωγρηθήσεται. 407 ταῦτα παρὰ τῶν αἰχμαλώτων κατ᾽ ἰδίαν ὁ Οὐεσπασιανὸς ἐκπυθόμενος ὡς εὕρισκεν ἀληθῆ, οὕτω πιστεύειν περὶ τῶν κατ᾽ αὐτὸν ἦρκτο. 408 φρουρᾶς μὲν οὖν καὶ δεσμῶν οὐκ ἀνίει τὸν Ἰώσηπον, ἐδωρεῖτο δ᾽ ἐσθῆτι καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις κειμηλίοις φιλοφρονούμενός τε καὶ περιέπων διετέλει τὰ πολλὰ Τίτου τῇ τιμῇ συνεργοῦντος. / 405 He also found Josephus to have spoken truth on other occasions; for one of those friends that were present at that secret conference said to Josephus, "I cannot but wonder how thou couldst not foretell to the people of Jotapata that they should be taken, nor couldst foretell this captivity which hath happened to thyself, unless what thou now sayest be a vain thing, in order to avoid the rage that is risen against thyself." 406 To which Josephus replied, "I did foretell to the people of Jotapata that they would be taken on the forty-seventh day, and that I should be caught alive by the Romans." 407 Now when Vespasian had inquired of the captives privately about these predictions, he found them to be true, and then he began to believe those that concerned himself. 408 Yet did he not set Josephus at liberty from his hands, but bestowed on him suits of clothes, and other precious gifts; he treated him also in a very obliging manner, and continued so to do, Titus still joining his interest ill the honors that were done him.
Notice that this prediction involves the element of
time; Josephus allegedly predicted, not just the fall of the city, but also the date of that fall. This is an extremely strong connection to Daniel, and to Daniel alone:
Josephus, Antiquities 10.11.7 §266-267: 266 Ἄξιον δὲ τἀνδρὸς τούτου καὶ ὃ μάλιστ᾽ ἂν θαυμάσαι τις ἀκούσας διελθεῖν: ἀπαντᾷ γὰρ αὐτῷ παραδόξως ὡς ἑνί τινι τῶν μεγίστων καὶ παρὰ τὸν τῆς ζωῆς χρόνον τιμή τε καὶ δόξα ἡ παρὰ τῶν βασιλέων καὶ τοῦ πλήθους, καὶ τελευτήσας δὲ μνήμην αἰώνιον ἔχει. 267 τὰ γὰρ βιβλία, ὅσα δὴ συγγραψάμενος καταλέλοιπεν, ἀναγινώσκεται παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἔτι καὶ νῦν καὶ πεπιστεύκαμεν ἐξ αὐτῶν, ὅτι Δανίηλος ὡμίλει τῷ θεῷ: οὐ γὰρ τὰ μέλλοντα μόνον προφητεύων διετέλει, καθάπερ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι προφῆται, ἀλλὰ καὶ καιρὸν ὥριζεν, εἰς ὃν ταῦτα ἀποβήσεται. / 266 But it is fit to give an account of what this man did, which is most admirable to hear, for he was so happy as to have strange revelations made to him, and those as to one of the greatest of the prophets, insomuch, that while he was alive he had the esteem and applause both of the kings and of the multitude; and now he is dead, he retains a remembrance that will never fail, 267 for the several books that he wrote and left behind him are still read by us till this time; and from them we believe that Daniel conversed with God; for he did not only prophesy of future events, as did the other prophets, but he also determined the season of their accomplishment.
The element of timing is what sets Daniel apart from the rest of the prophets: Daniel, like Josephus at Jotapata, predicted not only
what would happen but also
when it would happen (refer, for example, to the 70 weeks). He "determined the season" (καιρὸν ὥριζεν), a phrase which ought very much to remind us of the ambiguous oracle itself:
Josephus, Wars 6.5.4 §312-313: 312 τὸ δ᾽ ἐπᾶραν αὐτοὺς μάλιστα πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον ἦν χρησμὸς ἀμφίβολος ὁμοίως ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς εὑρημένος γράμμασιν, ὡς κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν ἐκεῖνον ἀπὸ τῆς χώρας αὐτῶν τις ἄρξει τῆς οἰκουμένης. 313 τοῦθ᾽ οἱ μὲν ὡς οἰκεῖον ἐξέλαβον καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν σοφῶν ἐπλανήθησαν περὶ τὴν κρίσιν, ἐδήλου δ᾽ ἄρα τὴν Οὐεσπασιανοῦ τὸ λόγιον ἡγεμονίαν ἀποδειχθέντος ἐπὶ Ἰουδαίας αὐτοκράτορος. / 312 But what lifted them up especially toward the war was an ambiguous oracle likewise found in their sacred writings, as at that season someone from their country should rule the inhabited earth. 313 This they took as belonging to their own house, and many of the wise men were misled in their judgment. But this oracle pointed to the leadership of Vespasian, who was appointed autocrat in Judea.
The world ruler was supposed to arise "at that season" (κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν ἐκεῖνον), according to this oracle, which is to be found in the sacred scriptures. Josephus' list of sacred scriptures was limited to 22 books, according to
Against Apion 1.8 §38, and he explicitly places Daniel among them in
Antiquities 10.10.4 §210. At this point, then, it becomes nearly syllogistically certain that the ambiguous oracle Josephus is referring to derives from Daniel:
In the scriptures, Daniel is the only prophet to predict the seasons (Antiquities 10.11.7 §267).
The ambiguous oracle comes from the scriptures (Wars 6.5.4 §312).
The ambiguous oracle predicts the seasons (Wars 6.5.4 §312).
Therefore, the ambiguous oracle comes from Daniel.
Furthermore, in
Antiquities 10.11.7 §276 he writes, "In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them," which runs exactly parallel to his own interpretation of the ambiguous oracle: it was not that the Jews were to overthrow the Romans, but rather that the Romans were to overthrow the Jews,
pace the rebels to whom he attributes the errant use of the oracle.
Daniel as the source for the oracle is no longer just an idea that fits; it is a conclusion which is practically forced upon us. No, such arguments are not literally syllogisms or logical proofs. Yes, there is wriggle room (between the dates of composition of the
Wars and of the
Antiquities, for example), but to resort to such measures would seem to mark a kind of frantic desperation in trying to save some other thesis. I am still by no means ruling out the mutual interpretation available from other passages of scripture, especially the Shiloh prophecy, but (at least) the
main source of the ambiguous prediction is the prophet Daniel.
This conclusion bears, I believe, certain consequences for the historicity of the use of the ambiguous prophecy by the rebels whom Josephus opposes. For we have seen how important Daniel is to Josephus, particularly to his own sense of self definition, and it follows that Josephus would have no reason to tarnish Daniel's reputation in the eyes of his readers. Indeed, I think that we can catch Josephus in the act sometimes of protecting Daniel from undue criticism.
In
Antiquities 10.10.4 §210, for instance, Josephus coyly demures from interpreting the stone from Nebuchadnezzar's dream (ἀλλ᾽ ἐμοὶ μὲν οὐκ ἔδοξε τοῦτο ἱστορεῖν τὰ παρελθόντα καὶ τὰ γεγενημένα συγγράφειν οὐ τὰ μέλλοντα ὀφείλοντ᾽, "but I do not think proper to relate it, since I have only undertaken to describe things past or things present, but not things that are future"). I doubt that this demurral was intended only to spare Roman feelings, despite the fact that the stone demolishes a statue supported by feet of iron which Josephus himself interprets as Rome. Rather, Josephus appears to me to be safely relegating the stone to the indeterminate future — leaving the matter in God's hands, as it were — in order to disconnect Daniel's prophecy from anything to do with the rebellion, of which a rolling stone smashing Roman hegemony would otherwise seem a perfect symbol.
Along the same lines, Josephus famously never openly mentions the Messiah (or the Graecized version, Christ, unless we accept the James passage as authentic, which I tend not to accept), and Daniel happens to be the
only scriptural book in which a future figure appears by that title (Daniel 9.25-26), in one of the few chapters of Daniel, coincidentally enough, which Josephus fails to summarize for his Roman readership in the
Antiquities. It seems like Josephus may be sidestepping any implication of Daniel in the messianic aspirations which we know from multiple sources to have existed in century I. In
Antiquities 10.10.4 §210, after shying away from interpreting the stone, Josephus invites his readers to read Daniel itself, as well; granted this invitation, however, to read the text, for Josephus to simultaneously advertise or clarify Jewish messianic ideas, even in other parts of his books, would serve only to link Daniel with notions associated with the rebellion.
We are free to read the War Scroll and the messianic texts from Qumran and Psalm of Solomon 17 and 1 Enoch and the Targumim and therefrom to connect the dots, but Josephus himself has zero motivation either to do so himself or to request his readers to do so.
A similar tendency can be spotted in Josephus with respect to the so-called sign prophets (Theudas, the Egyptian, the Samaritan, and others). From the details which Josephus gives us,
we can compare these figures' actions with Hebrew scripture and come to the obvious conclusion that they were modeling their signs after Hebrew stories of liberation and conquest, including Joshua at the walls of Jericho (for example). But Josephus never tells his Roman readership that this is what the sign prophets were doing. He presents them as deluded visionaries, not as reenacters of the heroic deeds plastered all over the sacred scriptures. No need to superfluously link their misguided actions with the Jewish holy books.
So, while Josephus is clearly thinking of Daniel as the (principal) source of the ambiguous oracle, he does not name Daniel in this context. I submit that this is yet another example of Josephus protecting his favorite prophetic book from the shame of having served as ideological justification for the rebellion. He could easily have made up any oracle he wished, from any book or from none at all, yet he was thinking of Daniel. But to be thinking of Daniel while not naming or quoting from Daniel suggests that he did not invent the oracle and then retroactively set it to the rebels' account; what would be the reason for associating his prophet of choice with the enemy? Rather, it suggests that the rebels really did use Daniel, and that Josephus had no interest in making unnecessary links between Daniel and the rebels' ideology, any more than he was interested in linking messianic ideas to Daniel or explaining Nebuchadnezzar's stone in any detail.
