Bibliography
| Title: The Transjordanian altar (Josh 22:10-34) according to Josephus (Ant. 5.100-114) and Pseudo-Philo (LAB 22.1-8) Secondary Title: AUSS Volume: 35 Pages: 5-19 Type: Journal Article Year: 1997 Abstract: Harrington, Daniel J. in: NTAb 42.1 (1998), 119: "The article first compares the biblical account of the Transjordanian tribes' building an altar (Josh 22:10-34) and its rereading in Josephus' Antiquities 5:100-114 under three headings: introduction, the exchange, and dénouement. Then it examines the version provided in ps.-Philo's Biblical Antiquities 22:1-7. Josephus seems to have recognized the biblical altar story's potential for inculcating points that he wished to make to both his Jewish and Gentile publics. In writing for a Jewish audience that had recently experienced (or were imminently facing) the catastrophe of A.D. 70, ps.-Philo adopted a much freer attitude than Josephus did toward the biblical source".
Ruiten, J.T.A.G.M. van in: JSJ 29.2 (1998), 117: "B. examines two approximately contemporaneous relectures of Josh. 22:10-34, i.e., those of Josephus in Antiquitates Judaicae 5.100-114 and Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 22.1-17. Both versions do evidence some minor agreements against the source: their highlighting of the role Joshua, who is associated with "elders", and offers sacrifices at the end of the episode. The two versions likewise have in common their explicit use of kinship/brotherhood language and the pejorative terminology they employ in reference to the Transjordanian altar, i.e., "madness" and "foolishness". On the other hand, Josephus and Pseudo-Philo go their own ways in relating the altar story. Josephus retains the biblical context of the episode and reproduces the source's basic story line. In so doing, he introduces clarifications and highlights various features already present. Pseudo-Philo, on the contrary, adopts a much freer approach to his source, not hesitating to set it within a new context or to openly "contradict" it. The difference between both writers can be explained by the difference in primary intended audience. Josephus is writing primarily for Gentiles. Recognizing the biblical altar story's potential to interest cultivated Gentile readers, he take over the substance of the narrative, even while accentuating its depiction of Phineas as the persuasive orator and crowd-calmer in the manner of the great leaders of Greco-Roman history. Pseudo-Philo was writing mainly for Jewish readers, possibly those who had recently experienced an all-encompassing political and religious trauma. In attempting to provide some orientation do such readers, Pseudo-Philo ventures to drastically recast the source story".
Heider, George D. in: OTA 20.3 (1997), 512: "B. focuses not on the biblical account per se, but on its "two approximately contemporaneous relecture" by Josephus and Pseudo-Philo. He notes that, of the two, Josephus news more closely to the OT text's story line, in keeping with his promise at the beginning of his work. B. concludes that Josephus, writing for a primarily Gentile audience, believed that the biblical account would, of itself, be of interest to his readers, although he does "accentuate its depiction of Phineas as the persuasive orator and crowd-calmer in the manner of the great leaders of Greco-Roman history". Pseudo-Philo, by contrast, is writing for a Jewish audience soon after the disaster of A.D. 70. He writes unbound by any promise of fidelity of the text, but with the intent both to show his readers that disregard of the Law lies at the heart of the recent trauma and to convince them that the future lies not in a reinstitution of the sacrificial system, but in "meditation on God's law"". Keywords: Antiquities |