New Page 1

New Testament Parallels
to the Works of Josephus (Continued)

The Widow's Mite and Sacrifices:
Mark 12.32-34, 41-44 (Luke 21.2-4)
Then the scribe said to him, "You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that 'he is one, and besides him there is no other' ; and 'to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength," and 'to love one's neighbor as oneself,' - this is much more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." When Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." ... He sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the crowd putting money in the the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which are worth a penny. Then he called his disciples and said to them, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on."

Antiquities 6.7.4 147-149
But the prophet Samuel replied [to Saul], "God is not delighted with sacrifices, but with good and with righteous men, who are such as follow his will and his laws, and never think that anything is well done by them but when they do it as God had commanded them: that he then looks upon himself as affronted, not when any one does not sacrifice, but when any one appears to be disobedient to him ...

"And that he is delighted with those that still bear in mind this one thing, and this only, how perform whatever God commands for them to do, and to choose rather to die than to transgress any of those commands; nor does he require so much as a sacrifice from them, of if they do, though it be a small offering, he more gladly accepts this from poverty, than those that come from the richest men."

Comment
Within 10 verses of each other, Mark links a reference to Samuel concerning the necessity of sacrifices with the idea of the relative value of sacrifices by the rich versus the poor. The interesting parallel here is that Josephus discusses the same two concepts within a few lines of each other. Was there a reading of the biblical text by the Rabbis of the time by which both these authors were influenced?

The biblical text in question is 1 Samuel 15:22: "And Samuel said, 'Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Surely, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams.' "

In Mark, the questioner of Jesus (not Jesus himself) refers to this passage without attribution, associating "obeying the voice of the Lord" to three commandments: monotheism, to love the Lord fully, and to love one's neighbor. Josephus is quoting Samuel as part of his retelling of the Bible for a Greek-speaking audience, and in doing so he explicates various passages in such a way that only a knowledgeable

The question of the necessity of sacrifices is followed in each by the value of an individual sacrifice. The logic of Josephus reconciling these two is simple: "the Lord does not demand sacrifices...but if one does sacrifice..." If one does, the correct attitude is more important than the monetary value. While one would expect Jesus to make the same point, Mark instead relates the simple mathematical observation about the relative percentage of net wealth of the offerings of the rich versus poor. But we tend to read between the lines and take it that Jesus is pointing out the greater piety of the woman, even if in absolute terms her sacrifice is of lesser value: the point made by Josephus.

In Mark (and Luke) these discussions of sacrifice precede Jesus' prediction of the fall of the Temple and its subsequent supernatural rebuilding. When Josephus wrote, the Temple was already destroyed and the question of the need for sacrifice would have been of great urgency, which no doubt influenced the writing of this passage. Most scholars believe Mark and Luke probably assembled their gospels also after the Temple was destroyed; the parallels with Josephus here may reflect the real contemporary debates on whether one can worship without the Temple sacrifices.

Competing Missionaries and the Circumcision Requirement for Converts:
Acts 15.1-20
Then certain individuals came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to discuss this question with the apostles and the elders.

...Some believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees stood up and said, "It is necessary for them to be circumcised and ordered to keep the law of Moses."

James replied, "... It is written ... all other peoples may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles over whom my name has been called ... Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood."

Izates, King of Adiabene:
Antiquities 20.2.3-4 34-48
Now during the time when Izates lived at Charax Spasini, a certain Jewish merchant named Ananias got among the king's women and taught them to worship God according to the Jewish religion. Through them he became known to Izates, whom he persuaded in like manner...

When Izates perceived that his mother was highly pleased with the Jewish customs, he was eager to embrace them entirely ; and as he supposed that he could not he thoroughly a Jew unless he were circumcised, he was ready to have it done.

But when his mother understood what he planned she endeavoured to stop him, and said to him that it would bring him into danger. As he was king, she said, he would gain the enmity of his subjects when they learned that he was so fond of rites that were strange and foreign to them, and they would never bear to be ruled over by a Jew. With this she for a time persuaded him to refrain. He related what she had said to Ananias, who completely agreed with what his mother had said and went so far as to threatened that to leave the king unless he complied with this advice. Ananias said that he was afraid that if the affair would become public he would himself be in danger of punishment for having caused it, having been the king's instructor in indecent practices.

And he said that the king could worship God without being circumcised, if he had fully committed himself to the laws of the Jews, for this was superior to circumcision. In addition, he said that God would forgive him for not performing the rite as it was omitted out of necessity and for fear of his subjects. So the king for a time complied with the persuasions of Ananias.

But afterwards, as he had not completely left off his desire, a certain other Jew that came out of Galilee, whose name was Eleazar and who was esteemed to be very strict in the learning of his country, persuaded him to perform the rite. For when Eleazar entered into the palace to greet the king and found him reading the law of Moses, he said to him, "You do not see, O king, that you are doing injury against the greatest of the laws and so against God himself. For you ought to not only read the law but also to practice what it commands. How long will you remain uncircumcised? If you have not yet read the law concerning circumcision, and so do not know what an impiety you are guilty of, read it now."

When the king had heard what he said, he delayed no longer, but retired to another room, sent for a surgeon, and did what was commanded. He then sent for his mother and Ananias his tutor, and informed them that he had performed the rite. At once they were struck with great astonishment and fear lest this be found out...

But it was God himself who prevented what they feared; for when Izates and his sons fell into danger, he preserved them when it seemed most impossible, and demonstrated thereby that the fruit of piety does not perish for those that fix their eyes upon him and trust in him alone. But these events we shall relate hereafter.

Comment
Here, in Acts and in Josephus, we see opposing missionaries competing for converts to Judaism and applying their own interpretations of what conversion means. The competition of Acts appears graphically in Paul's letter to the Galatians. We see how a missionary will visit Gentiles eager for a new way of life, convert them successfully, and then find another missionary following on his trail with a different version of Judaism.

In fact, the pattern is the same in Acts, Galatians and in Josephus: the first missionary is more lenient, letting the converts obey only the Jewish laws they are comfortable with, and then the second missionary follows with an insistence on a stricter observance of the law. One can interpret this in two or three ways. The tendency to greater strictness may be natural among recent converts. Or the stricter missionary may deliberately be following on the footsteps of the more liberal ones so as to undo the damage, as the Jerusalem Christians seemed to be following Paul's trail. If one were suspicious enough, one might suspect the two groups purposely worked together, the first ones luring converts with promises of easy acceptance, and once these have been snared, the second group comes on to give the new converts the true story.

A particularly difficult requirement for male converts was circumcision (Genesis 17.11). Thus in the story of Izates it is easier for the king's mother and other women of the court to be converted first - this may also have been a deliberate missionary tactic, to convert the females first, and then let them pressure the males to follow suit.

King Izates is allowed to remain uncircumcised because of his difficult situation. This accords with the Rabbinic view that a commandment need not be performed if it endangers life. (A succinct discussion of this point is given by Louis Feldman in his footnote to this passage in the Loeb Edition of Antiquities 20.)

However, there is more thought behind this leniency than just fear, for the missionary Ananias first emphasizes that devotion is more important than circumcision: a view similar to that of Paul and Barnabas in Acts (compare the concept "obedience is more important than sacrifice" discussed above). It is only an addition to this point that the specific situation of the danger to king and country is turned to by Ananias. It could well also have been argued, by both Ananias and Paul, that even Gentiles who are not kings are in danger from their society if they embrace foreign rites - at a minimum, they risk an outcast status -- and, consequently, can also be pardoned for not following the entire law.

The line between the stricter (the Pharisees, Eleazar) and the more lenient (James, Ananias) of the missionaries was therefore really in the degree of suffering that the potential convert may be expected to bear before the Lord will grant absolution from the necessity of performing a certain commandment. Must life itself be in danger, or is heavy psychological and social injury sufficient? Josephus, consistent with other statements, suggests that either concept is acceptable, but that nonetheless the stricter one adheres to the commandments the better, and that if one does perform them, the suffering will not be as great as feared, for the Lord will protect the faithful.

To mention some other interesting points: in Acts it is the Pharisees who insist on the circumcision requirement, and in Josephus Eleazar is identified as one who is known to be strict in the law, which is Josephus' conventional description of a Pharisee. Together these recall to one the statement of Jesus in Matthew 23.15: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cross sea and land to make a single convert."

And the tomb of King Izates' mother Helena (or so it is thought) may be visited in Jerusalem in the present day.

Living as a Pharisee; Paul as a Pharisee:
Acts 26.4 - 5
"All the Jews know my way of life from my youth, a life spent from the first among my own people and in Jerusalem. They have know from the beginning, if they are willing to testify, that I lived according to the strictest sect of our religion, as a Pharisee."

Josephus as a Pharisee:
Life 12
"So when I had accomplished my desires, I returned to the city, being now nineteen years old, and began to conduct myself according to the rules of the sect of the Pharisees, which resembles the sect of the Stoics, as the Greeks call them."

Comment
Both Josephus and Paul emphasize (1) their Pharisee life began when they were young, and (2) that they conducted themselves as Pharisees. These statements may indicate something of how the Pharisees were regarded in the middle of the first century.

Seniority seemed important: those who are late to the Pharisaic way of life are apparently not regarded as highly as those who pursue that path from their earliest adult years. This seniority carries a certain status and gives extra weight one's opinions.

And Pharisaism was a way of life. It is not described here as a political party or a church. There seem to be no entrance requirements or initiation rites: one does not "join" the Pharisees as one might join, say, the Rosicrucians. Both Paul and Josephus describe a mode of being considered a Pharisee just by conducting oneself as one. The word Paul uses in Greek for this is zao, "I lived" as a Pharisee; Josephus decided "conduct" himself, katakolouth�n, as one. Both authors call the Pharisees a hairesis, a school or sect (the derivation of the word connotes "taking a choice").

And Paul describes the Pharisees as the most "strict", akribos, sect, the same Greek word Josephus frequently uses to describe them. Inner Court of the Temple Forbidden to Foreigners.

Paul is Seized for Violating the Trespassing Ordinance:
Acts 21.26
... the Jews form Asia, who had seen him in the Temple, stirred up the whole crowd. They seized him, shouting, "Fellow Israelites, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against our people, our Law, and this place; more than that, he has actually brought Greeks into the Temple and has defiled this holy place." For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, and they supposed that Paul had brought him into the Temple.

The Inner Temple:
War 5.5.2 193-4
One proceeded across this [the outer court] to the second court of the Temple, which was surrounded by a stone partition, three cubits high, of elegant workmanship. In this at regular intervals stood blocks of stone stating the law of purity, some in Greek, and some in Latin letters, that no foreigner was permitted to enter the holy place.

Antiquities 15.11.5 417
Within it [the outer court] and not far distant was a second one, to be gone up to by a few steps, which was encircled by a stone partition with an inscription prohibiting the entrance of a foreigner under threat of the penalty of death.

The Romans Permit the Prohibition and its Death Penalty:
War 6.2.4 124-126
Now [the Roman General] Titus was deeply affected with this state of things and reproached John and his party, and said to them, "Have not you, vile wretches that you are, by our permission put up this partition-wall before your sanctuary?

Have not you been allowed to put up the stones on it at due distances and on them to engrave in Greek, and in your own letters, this prohibition that no foreigner should go beyond that wall? Have not we given you leave to kill such as go beyond it, though he were a Roman? And what do you do now, you pernicious villains? Why do you trample upon corpses in the Temple? And why to you pollute this holy house with the blood both of foreigners and of Jews themselves?"

Comment
Several portions of these stone warnings have been found by archaeologists, including a complete inscription on a slab of hard limestone found in 1871 and now in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum. The latter reads: "No foreigner may enter within the partition and embankment that surround the holy place. Anyone apprehended shall have himself to blame for his consequent death."

The threat of death was made with the approval of the Romans, as we learn from the speech by Titus Caesar to the Jerusalem revolutionaries late in the War - a speech for which Josephus himself served as interpreter (or as fabricator). In the case of Paul, no one was put to death as a result of the perceived transgression; even had it occurred, the punishment for abetting a trespass is unclear. Certainly Paul, not being a-foreigner, could not be put to death. Perhaps it was the grey area that Paul's offence fell into, coupled with the conflicting jurisdiction in this special case of Roman versus Jewish law, that left Paul in prison for so long before being sent to Rome to appeal to the Emperor.

The two accounts of Josephus vary somewhat with each other and with the existing stone. The War passage does not explicitly give the death penalty, and the words translated here as "foreigner" differs in all three: in the War, it is "one of another tribe (allophulos)", in the Antiquities "one of another nation (alloethnes)", and in the existing stone, "one of another race (allogenes)."

[Home] [Back]