Josephus and Jewish Ethnonyms

I am pleased to report that a pre-print version of my long article, “Josephus and Jewish Ethnonyms: Restoration Eschatology or Jewish Antiquity?” has appeared online at the Journal for the Study of Judaism website.

The article is framed as a response to the use Jason Staples makes of the ancient Jewish historian, Josephus, in his book, The Idea of Israel in Second Temple Judaism: A New Theory of People, Exile, and Israelite Identity (Cambridge University Press, 2021). In a nutshell, I agree with Staples that Josephus links the term Ioudaios (usually translated ‘Jew’ or ‘Judean’) to the tribe of Judah, but disagree that Josephus’ adoption of Ioudaios as the standard term for his people at the midpoint of his massive Jewish Antiquities has anything to do with a sense of ongoing exile or a hope for the restoration of the northern tribes of Israel.

In addition to responding to parts of Staples’ important monograph, I’d like to think the article makes its own contribution to our understanding of Josephus, in the first place by defending one of Staples’ main points about Josephus, which might otherwise be neglected; second, by critiquing Staples’ case for restoration eschatology in Josephus; and, finally, by highlighting how Josephus’ introduction of Ioudaios as a new name contributes to his defense of the Ioudaioi by way of a polemical opposition to the Samaritans. (There is also a close reading of sections of Antiquities book 11 and an exploration of Josephus’ ‘geography of exile’—his understanding of the boundaries of Babylon, Media and Persia—and what it implies about where Josephus thought the inhabitants of the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel and Judah were exiled.)

The article has had a long gestation period and has incurred debts along the way. I would like to acknowledge some of them here: I presented an early version of the essay at the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies in May of 2023, and a revised version at a faculty colloquium at my home institution in January 2024. I thank Briercrest for a semester sabbatical in 2025 that gave me time to finish the essay, and the other Dr. Miller for reading and talking about it more than she wanted to. Incisive, detailed and critical feedback from two anonymous reviewers for JSJ resulted in a much better, clearer (and longer) final product. I am also grateful to Staples himself: I learned a great deal from interacting with his work.

For anyone interested in more detail, here are the thesis and outline paragraphs:

The re-examination of Josephus’ ethnic terminology in this article confirms and reinforces one of Staples’ major points. When in Antiquities 11 Ioudaios first begins to be used as a common label, the term is in fact closely associated with the southern kingdom of Judah. I am not persuaded, however, by Staples’ additional claims that Ioudaios consistently refers to a subset of “all Israel” or that the shift from “Hebrews” and “Israelites” to Ioudaioi in Antiquities 11 reflects Josephus’ restoration eschatology. The point of introducing the label, Ioudaios, at the return from exile in Babylon is not to contrast southern kingdom Ioudaioi, on the one hand, and northern kingdom “Israelites” still in exile beyond the Euphrates, on the other. Nor is it to express hope for a still future restoration of the twelve tribes of Israel. When Josephus adopts Ioudaios as his preferred ethnonym and explains its connection to the tribe of Judah, his goal is to establish continuity between contemporary Ioudaioi and the past history of his people in the context of a wider polemical contrast with the Samaritans, whose claim to Israelite ancestry he regards as illegitimate. Once the antiquity of the label and the people it designates is validated, its meaning expands to encompass the whole people regardless of current location or tribal ancestry.

I begin by tracing the use of ethnonyms in Josephus’ paraphrase of the preexilic period (Ant. 1-10), noting that his preferred term for the people as a whole before the exile is “Hebrews,” that Ioudaios seldom appears, and that “Israelites” can designate the people as a whole or the northern tribes, as “Israel” does in his biblical source texts. The two established meanings of “Israelite” complicate attempts to determine whether Josephus presents the Ioudaioi as opposed to the Israelites, a subset of the Israelites, or synonymous with the Israelites. This ambiguity is the subject of sections two and three. Section two examines Josephus’ own explanation of the postexilic origins of Ioudaios and its links to the “tribe of Judah” (Ant. 11.173), and then explores his understanding of the regions where the northern and southern tribes were relocated by the Assyrians and Babylonians. Section three employs what Josephus says about Babylonia, Media and Persia as a diagnostic tool to help determine the meaning of “Israelite” and its relationship to Ioudaios in the first half of Antiquities 11. Although it is not always possible to identify the referent of “Israelite” in book 11, Josephus’ use of “Israelite” and Ioudaios does not point to a separation between Ioudaioi and “all Israel” when the southern tribes return from exile. Instead, the continued use of “Israelite” during the return narrative connects the Ioudaioi to their preexilic past. The next two sections challenge Staples’ claim that Josephus’ adoption of Ioudaios implicitly draws attention to the absence of the northern tribes. Section four argues that Josephus identified the end of exile with possession of the land and temple, not the return of all twelve tribes. References to “Israelites” or members of the “ten tribes” beyond the Euphrates do not, therefore, reflect Josephus’ restoration hope; nor does a sense of ongoing exile explain the shift to Ioudaios. Section five shows that, despite its initial connections to the southern kingdom of Judah, the term Ioudaios expands in scope in Antiquities 12-20, becoming, in effect, a postexilic replacement for “Israelite” and “Hebrew.” A concluding section attributes Josephus’ decision to switch to Ioudaios to his own reading of his biblical source texts, and suggests that he attempted to introduce the name into his narrative in a way that confirmed his people’s antiquity.

You can view the abstract here.

Finally, I tried to present Staples’ position accurately. Staples evidently thinks I failed to do so. So … if you wish to pursue the topic further, I recommend reading Staples’ book as well as my own essay. Let the conversation continue. 

 

The Sisters of Sinai on Learning Ancient Greek as a Living Language

I recently finished reading Janet Soskice’s biography of the twin sister scholars, Agnes Lewis and Margaret Gibson, who in their 50’s joined the ranks of the world’s finest Western scholars of Syriac and Arabic, discovered one of the most important manuscripts of the Gospels, the Syriac Sinaiticus, and played an instrumental role in Solomon Schechter’s discovery of the Cairo Geniza.

All this was due, Soskice suggests, to the sisters’ decision to learn ancient Greek as a living language. As children, Agnes and Margaret’s father had made a deal: Learn a foreign language, and we’ll travel to that country. “On this happy plan, and with a twin as a constant practice partner, the sisters mastered French, German, Spanish and Italian while still quite young” (9).

When their father died suddenly in 1866—leaving “his twenty-three-year-old daughters entirely alone in the world, and very rich” (21)—Agnes and Margaret celebrated his memory by traveling up the Nile (in 1869) and determining to learn Arabic.

A decade later, in 1879, the still-single sisters, “threw themselves into the study of [ancient] Greek, … imposing on themselves the discipline of speaking only Greek to each other for days at a time” (56). Instead of the medieval pronunciation system reconstructed by Erasmus, the sisters adopted the current modern Greek pronunciation, following the advice of J. S. Blackie, Professor of Greek at the University of Edinburgh. This enabled them to kill two birds with one stone: By 1883 the sisters, “now quite fluent in Greek,” had embarked on a tour of Greece, which resulted in Agnes’s second published travel memoir (56-57).

Marriage intervened for both sisters in the 1880’s. Margaret was married to James Gibson for three years before his untimely death in 1886. Agnes was married to Samuel Lewis for just over three years before his untimely death in 1891. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, “to lose one spouse, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”

“[O]nly a couple months after Samuel’s death,” Agnes read that J. Rendel Harris had discovered a complete copy of the Apology of Aristides in Syriac at St. Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai peninsula. “Agnes was so interested in this book that she began to study Syriac—not so difficult, she said, if one already had Hebrew and Arabic” (101).

“In January of 1892, less than nine months after Samuel’s death, Agnes and Margaret were in Cairo.” The sisters were able to secure permission from the Archbishop of Sinai to visit St. Catherine’s Monastery “not least because he had, early in their interview, formed the impression that the twins were on a mission to convert the whole of England to the correct pronunciation of Greek” (114). Once at the monastery, they befriended the Greek-speaking monks and were soon granted access to the monastery’s Syriac manuscripts, one of which turned out to be the Sinaitic Palimpsest, the oldest extant Old Syriac manuscript of the Gospels.

Back in Cambridge in 1893—and simplifying a more dramatic story—the 50-year-old sisters “threw themselves into the study of Syriac” (191). By 1894, “[a]fter what must count as one of the most remarkable of middle-aged retraining exercises, Agnes Smith Lewis and Margaret Dunlop Gibson stepped onto the world stage as oriental scholars of international repute” (200).

Quotations from Janet Soskice, The Sisters of Sinai: How Two Lady Adventurers Discovered the Hidden Gospels (New York: Vintage, 2010).