DAVID'S CAPTURE OF JEBUS AND ITS SEQUELS

ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS
Ant. 7,60b-70
Over the last decade or so, the brief, enigmatic account of David's seizure of
Jebus/Jerusalem (2 Sam 5,6-10 // 1 Chron 11,4-8) and its immediate sequels
(David's building measures and familial situation, 2 Sam 5,9-16 // 1 Chron 11,7-9 +
14,1-7 // 1 Chron 3,5-9) has generated a whole body of literature1. In this essay I propose to investigate yet a third ancient version of these events which has often been
cited in passing, but never systematically studied hitherto, i.e., the account given by
Josephus in his Antiquitates Judaicae (hereafter Ant.) 7,60b-702. My investigation
will involve a detailed comparison between the Josephan version and its Biblical
parallels as represented by the following major witnesses: MT (BHS), 4QSama3,
1. See, in addition to the commentaries: S. BAKON, How David Captured Jerusalem,
in Dor le Dor 15 (1986) 43-44; J.P. FLOSS, David und Jerusalem. Ziele und Folgen des
Stadteroberungsberichts 2 Sam 5,6-9 literaturwissenschaftlich betrachtet (ATSAT, 30),
St. Ottilien, 1987; S. GELANDER, David and His God: Religious Ideas as Reflected in
Biblical Historiography and Literature (Jerusalem Biblical Studies, 5), Jerusalem, 1991,
pp. 120-125; C. SCHFER-LICHTENBERGER, David und Jerusalem Ein Kapitel biblischer
Historiographie, in Eretz-Israel 24 (1993) 197-211; S. HOLM-NIELSEN, Did Joab Climb
Warren's Shaft?, in A. LEMAIRE B. OTZEN (eds.), History and Traditions of Early
Israel. Studies Presented to Eduard Nielsen (VTSup, 50), Leiden, 1993, pp. 38-49;
M. OEMING, Die Eroberung Jerusalems durch David in deuteronomistischer und
chronistischer Darstellung (II Sam 5,6-9 und I Chr 11,4-8). Ein Beitrag zur narrativen
Theologie der beiden Geschichtswerke, in ZAW 106 (1994) 404-420; E.D. HERBERT, 2
Samuel V 6: An Interpretative Crux Reconsidered in the Light of 4QSama, in VT 44
(1994) 340-348; T. KLEVEN, The Use of NR in Ugaritic and 2 Samuel V 8: Hebrew
Usage and Comparative Philology, in VT 44 (1994) 195-204; ID., Up the Watersprout:
How David's General Joab Got Inside Jerusalem, in BAR 20 (1994), no 4, 34-35; R.
GELIO, Davide Conquista la Rocca di Sion (II Sam 5,6-8 // 1 Chron. 11,4-6). La presenza degli iwwerm wepissehm: un caso di iponimia, in Lateranum 61 (1995) 11-77;
ID., Davide e la meudat iyyon: chi gli adversari?, in Richerche Storico Bibliche
7 (1995), no 1, 129-155; S. VARGON, The Blind and the Lame, in VT 46 (1996) 498-514;
J. DERBY, David's Conquest of Jerusalem, in The Jewish Bible Quarterly 25 (1997)
35-39; C.A. EVANS, A Note on Targum 2 Samuel 5.8 and Jesus' Ministry to the Maimed,
Halt, and Blind, in JSP 15 (1997) 79-82. In these studies one will find references to the
equally abundant older literature as well.
2. I use the text and translation of H.St.J. THACKERAY et al. (eds.), Josephus (LCL),
Cambridge, MA - London, 1926-1965. Ant. 7,60b-70 is found in Vol. V, pp. 390-397,
edited by R. MARCUS. I have likewise consulted the edition of B. NIESE, Flavii Iosephi
Opera, Berlin, 21955. On Josephus' overall treatment of the two leading figures of
the conquest episode, see L.H. FELDMAN, Josephus' Portrait of David, in HUCA
60 (1989) 129-174; ID., Josephus' Portrait of Joab, in Estudios Bblicos 51 (1993)
323-351.
3. According to E.C. ULRICH, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (HSM, 19),
Chico, CA, 1978, p. 271, 4QSama preserves a (fragmentary) Hebrew text of 2 Sam 5,1-16
(vv. 4-5 excepted). For its readings I use P.K. MCCARTER, II Samuel (AB, 9), Garden City,
NY, 1984, pp. 135-136, 144, 147-148.

94

C.T. BEGG

Codex Vaticanus (B)4 and the Lucianic (L) or Antiochene MSS5 of the LXX, the
Vetus Latina (VL)6, the Vulgate (Vulg.)7, Targum Jonathan of the Former
Prophets (TJ)8 and the Chronicles Targum (TC)9. I undertake this comparison
with a number of general questions in mind: In recounting David's seizure of
Jerusalem and its sequels did Josephus draw on the somewhat divergent
presentations of both Samuel and Chronicles, or did he rather confine himself
to one of these to the exclusion of the other? Which text-form(s) of Samuel
and/or Chronicles did he have available in composing Ant. 7,60b-70? What kinds
of rewriting techniques has he applied to the data of his source(s)? Are there
noteworthy distinctive features to his version of events which result from his
handling his source(s) the way he does? Finally, what messages might his
account be intended to convey to Ant.'s double audience, i.e., cultivated Gentiles
and fellow Jews?
In proceeding now to my comparison I divide up the parallel material into
three segments as follows: Jerusalem Seized, Ant. 7,60b-64 (2 Sam 5,6-8 //
1 Chron 11,4-6); David's Building Measures, Ant. 7,65-69 (2 Sam 5,9-12 //
1 Chron 11,7-9 + 14,1-2); David's Later Family, Ant. 7,70 (2 Sam 5,13-16 //
1 Chron 14,3-7 // 1 Chron 3,5-9).
1. Jerusalem Seized (Ant. 7,60b-64)
Josephus makes the transition to his account of David's seizure of Jerusalem
at the end of 7,60 with the notice, drawn from 5,6aa // 11,4a, and then David
with all10 of them departed from there and came to Jerusalem11. The terms
them and there used in this formulation, in turn, relate it to what precedes,
i.e., the historian's (condensed) version in 7,55-60a of the Sondergut listing
(1 Chron 12,23-40) of the tribal contingents who participated in David's accession
4. Cf. A.E. BROOKE N. MCLEAN H.St.J. THACKERAY, The Old Testament in Greek
according to the Text of Codex Vaticanus. II/2: I and II Samuel, Cambridge, 1927; II/3:
I and II Chronicles, Cambridge, 1932.
5. Cf. N. FERNNDEZ MARCOS J.R. BUSTO SAIZ, El Texto Antioqueno de la Biblia
Griega. I. 1-2 Samuel (TECC, 53), Madrid, 1989; ID., III, 1-2 Crnicas (TECC, 60),
Madrid, 1996.
6. The VL text of 2 Sam 5 is preserved in the so-called Palimpsestus Vindobonensis
(L 115) and the marginal notes of a number of medieval Spanish MSS of the Vulgate.
See the edition of L 115 by B. FISCHER (with E. ULRICH J.E. SANDERSON), Palimpsestus
Vindobonensis: A Revised Edition of L 115 for Samuel-Kings, in BIOSCS 16 (1983) 13-87,
esp. pp. 58-59, and for the latter C. MORANO RODRGUEZ, Glosas marginales de Vetus Latina
en las Biblias Vulgatas Espaolas. 1-2 Samuel (TECC, 48), Madrid, 1989, p. 37.
7. Cf. Biblia Sacra. V. Samuhel, Rome, 1943; VIII. Verba Dierum, Rome, 1948.
8. Cf. A. SPERBER, The Bible in Aramaic, II, Leiden, 1959 and the translation by
D.J. HARRINGTON A.J. SALDARINI, Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets (The Aramaic Bible, 10), Wilmington, DE, 1987.
9. Cf. R. LE DAUT J. ROBERT, Targum des Chroniques, II (AnBib, 51), Rome, 1971
and the translation by J.S. MCIVOR, The Targum of Chronicles (The Aramaic Bible, 19),
Collegeville, MN, 1994.
10. In specifying that David was accompanied by all to Jerusalem, Josephus aligns
himself with 11,4a MT L (and all Israel) and L VL Vulg. 5,6a (and all his men), as
against MT 4QSama B 5,6a and B 11,4a (and his men) which lacks the specification.
11. Like 5,6a Josephus lacks the appended identification of Jerusalem, i.e., that is
Jebus, found in 11,4a.

JOSEPHUS, Ant. 7,60b-70

95

festival at Hebron12. 2 Sam 5,6abb and 1 Chron 11,4b-5a have in common the
designation of the Jebusites as the inhabitants of the land and the emphatic
word to David which they ascribe to them, i.e., you will not come in here. The
former text expatiates, however, on the Jebusites' declaration with a two-part
notice (RSV but the blind and the lame will ward you off' thinking,
David cannot come in here'), the interpretation of which is complicated by
textual differences among the witnesses13. Josephus, in this instance, clearly
follows Samuel's more expansive wording for the Jebusites' challenge with its
evocation of the blind and the lame. In so doing, however, he interjects a variety of elements peculiar to himself which serve to spell out the manner of and
grounds for that challenge. His rendering thus reads (7,61):
But the Jebusites who inhabited (tn katoikontwn, cf. o katoikontev BL 11,4b) the city (tn plin)14 and were of the Canaanite race
(gnov Xananawn)15 shut their gates against him and placed on the
wall those who had lost an eye or a leg or who were crippled in any
way16, to mock at the king17; these cripples, they said, would prevent him
12. This enumeration lacks a parallel in 2 Sam 5 where the account of David's recognition as king by the Israelites in vv. 1-3 (4-5) // 1 Chron 11,1-3 // Ant. 7,53-54 is followed
directly by the narrative of his capture of Jerusalem and his building activity there, vv. 610 (// 1 Chron 11,4-9). On the other hand, Josephus' positioning of the content of 1 Chron
12,23-40 does not correspond with its placing in the Vorlage where materials concerning
David's acclamation as king at Hebron (11,1-3; 12,23-40) are separated by a long segment,
11,1012,22, focusing on individual, named supporters of David. Josephus, by contrast,
presents in a continuous sequence, Ant. 7,53-60a, those elements which he draws from the
Chronicler's two separate sections dealing with the Hebron festivities (the historian
reserves his parallel to the opening section of the Chronicler's intervening material, i.e.,
11,10-46, with its listing of David's heroes and their exploits to a later point in his presentation, i.e., 7,307-317). In so doing, he follows the sequence of 2 Sam whose parallel to
11,10-46 in 21,15-22 + 23,8-39 stands in the appendix, chaps. 21-24, to its account of
David's reign. These findings are already suggestive of Josephus' utilization of both Sam
and Chron in Ant. 7 as also of the freedom he allows himself in his handling of these
sources.
13. E.g., TJ renders the lame and the blind of MT 5,6ab in moralistic, metaphorical
terms as the sinners and the guilty. On the whole problem of the reading/understanding
of 5,6abb, see the commentaries and the studies cited in n. 1.
14. In 5,6aa and MT L 11,4b the reference is to the Jebusite(s) inhabiting the land
(LXX tn gn). Josephus' rendering (the city) might be seen as a correction,
inspired by the consideration that Jerusalem was a city, not a land; compare B 11,4
(o katoikontev tn Iebov).
15. The above indication has no counterpart in the sources (I italicize such items in this
essay); see, however, Gen 10,16 (// Ant. 1,138) which lists the Jebusites among the descendants of Canaan.
16. In 5,6abba // 11,5a the Jebusites limit themselves to a verbal response to David's
advance, with the former text having them make reference to the blind and the lame as
part of this. Josephus, by contrast, represents them more vividly as also (and in first
place) taking defensive actions (closing the gates, positioning impaired persons on the
wall); thereby, he accentuates both the resoluteness of the Jebusites' resistance and the
king's subsequent success in overcoming it.
17. Also this phrase has no counterpart in 5,6; it serves to spell out the intent behind the
Jebusites' employment of the impaired persons. Josephus' clarification on the point has
been widely taken over by commentators throughout the centuries.

96

C.T. BEGG

from entering18, and they so acted because of their sublime confidence in the
strength of their walls (katafronontev t tn teixn xurtjti)19.
Both Biblical presentations recount (5,7 // 11,5b), in summary terms, a preliminary initiative by David in response to the Jebusites' preceding declaration
(5,6abb // 11,5a), i.e., his seizure of the stronghold of Zion which they further
equate with the city of David. Here too, Josephus elaborates markedly
(7,61fine-62):
David's wrath, however, was aroused (rgisev)20 and he began to besiege
Jerusalem. 62 By displaying great zeal and ardour (spoud ka prouma)21
in order to show his strength (mfanswn22 tn sxn)23 at once by the
capture of the city (tatjn len), and to strike terror (katapljzmenov)
into any others who might treat him in the same manner as the Jebusites
had done24, he took (lambnei)25 the lower city (tn ktw plin)26 by
force.
18. In 5,6ab // 11,5a the Jebusites' word is formulated in direct address: you will not
come in here. In recasting this as indirect address, Josephus follows his frequent practice
elsewhere in Ant.; see C.T. BEGG, Josephus' Account of the Early Divided Monarchy
(AJ 8,212-420) (BETL, 108), Leuven, 1993, pp. 12-13 n. 38.
19. This indication concerning the grounds for the Jebusites' initiatives is also without
Biblical equivalent. As MARCUS, Josephus, V, 390 n. b points out, the verb katafronw,
whose basic meaning is disregard, despise, takes on the sense of put great confidence
in when used with the dative by Josephus. Cf. the similar construction in Ant. 8,371. The
above formulation also involves an echo of Josephus' (modified) version of Judg 1,8
(the Judeans' capture and destruction of Jerusalem) in Ant. 5,124 The lower town they
mastered in time and slew all the inhabitants; but the upper town proved too difficult to
carry through the solidity of its walls (teixn xurtjti). See n. 26.
20. Such inserted notices on characters' emotional states and reactions are a characteristic feature of Josephus' rewriting of Biblical history.
21. In applying this phrase to David here, Josephus accentuates the king's military
stature a recurrent feature in his presentation of David; see FELDMAN, David (n. 2),
pp. 141-147. The above collocation occurs also in Ant. 4,105 (reverse order); 7,220.
22. This is the conjecture of Ernesti which Marcus follows. Niese retains the present
participle mfanhwn read by the codices.
23. The above construction occurs also in Ant. 2,223.
24. The above motivation for David's immediate assault on the city has no Biblical counterpart. The effect of the insertion is to underscore, yet again (see n. 21), David's
military stature as a commander who does what he does with far-sighted purposefulness.
25. Note the historic present, a form which, as here, Josephus very frequently introduces into his rewriting of Biblical history where the corresponding LXX passage(s) has
some past form. See BEGG, Josephus' Account (n. 18), pp. 10-11 n. 32.
26. This phrase takes the place of the double designation used by the sources (5,7 //
11,5b) for the area initially captured by David, i.e., the stronghold of Zion, that is the city
of David. Josephus' substitution in this instance is understandable in light of several
considerations: his avoidance of the place name Zion throughout his writings, his subsequent reference to the citadel (compare the sources' the stronghold) as that part
of Jebus which David captures only in second instance (see on 7,63), and his use of the
designation city of David in reference to this citadel/stronghold in 7,65 (so 5,9 // 11,7).
His wording further echoes that used in his version of Judg 1,8 in Ant. 5,124 the lower
town (tn ktw plin) they [the tribes of Judah and Simeon, see 5,120] mastered
(labntev) in time. See n. 19.

JOSEPHUS, Ant. 7,60b-70

97

The continuation of Josephus' sources (5,8 // 6,6) implies that, even with the
Israelite capture of the stronghold of Zion (5,7 // 6,5b), the Jebusites still retained
control of a portion of their city against which David now proceeds to animate his
troops. The historian makes the matter more explicit via the extended transitional
notice which he prefixes to his version of the king's new initiative (7,63a): As the
citadel (tv krav)27 still remained, the king decided to increase his soldiers' ardour
for their task by the promise of honour and rewards (timv ka gern)28.
The words attributed to David by the sources at this juncture differ dramatically: Whoever would smite the Jebusites, let him go up the water shaft (rvnob)
to attack the lame and the blind, who are hated by David's soul (5,8a RSV)29
vs. Whoever shall smite the Jebusites first shall be chief and commander
(11,6a RSV). Given the obscurity surrounding the king's words as cited in 5,8a
(see n. 29), Josephus, understandably, opts to reproduce rather the Chronicler's
version of the royal declaration30. In so doing, he likewise, however, interjects a
clarifying topographical indication (7,63b): (David) offered to give to any man
who should climb up (nabnti) to the citadel from the valley31 that lay beneath
it32 and capture it (tatjn lnti)33, the command (stratjgan, compare [ev]
stratjgn BL 11,6a) of all the people in war34.
27. Josephus may have drawn this term from the continuation of the source accounts:
see BL 5,9b // L 11,8a which speak of David's building the city round about p tv
krav (MT from the Millo). The association / contrast of the lower city and the
(higher-lying) citadel in Jerusalem made in 7,62-63 recurs elsewhere in Josephus' writings, see Bellum Judaicum (BJ) 1,39 (the lower portion of the town, known as Acra
here, the two sites seem to be identified rather than distinguished as in our passage); 5,137
(the second hill [in Jerusalem] which bore the name of Acra and supported the lower
city); Ant. 12,252 (Antiochus built the Akra in the lower city). Cf. too Josephus' version of Judg 1,8 in Ant. 5,124, previously cited in nn. 19 and 26, where he differentiates
between the lower (town) which the Israelites did capture in the time of the Judges and
the upper (town) which they could not. On the topographical questions involved, see
THACKERAY, Josephus, II, p. 240 n. b; MARCUS, Josephus, VII, pp. 128-129 n. d.
28. This collocation recurs in Ant. 10,240, and in reverse order, in BJ 7,11; Ant. 13,102. The
above indication concerning the motivation behind David's new initiative complements that
previously provided (7,62) by Josephus concerning the king's rationale for storming the lower
city. The effect of both notices is to accentuate David's stature as a purposeful commander.
29. The rendering of David's statement in 5,8a above all MT's mention of the innr
is a matter of continuing controversy; see the commentaries and the literature cited in n.
1. In 5,8b the quotation of David's declaration (5,8a) is followed by the editorial comment Therefore it is said, The blind and the lame shall not come into the house'.
30. In following Chron rather than Sam for David's word, Josephus likewise eliminates a
potentially negative feature for the image of David found in the latter where the king expresses
a hatred for the hapless blind and lame whose role in the proceedings is, it will be
recalled, a purely passive one in both 2 Sam 5,6 and in the historian's own presentation (7,61).
31. The Greek reads a plural here, farggwn (valleys).
32. The above indication picks up on the reference to the lower city which the
Israelites capture first in 7,62, this leaving the citadel still in Jebusite hands (7,63). Josephus may have found inspiration for the item in 11,6b which records that Joab went up
(BL nbj) first; see below.
33. This phrase echoes that used in connection with David's projected seizure of the lower
city in 7,62, i.e., tatjn len. Thereby, Josephus accentuates the linkage between the two
stages of the Israelite capture of Jebus. Compare 11,6a whoever shall smite the Jebusites first.
34. Here too (see n. 18) Josephus transposes Biblical direct into indirect address; compare
11,6a David said, Whoever shall smite the Jebusites, shall be chief and commander'.

98

C.T. BEGG

2 Sam 5 does not, as such, recount the affect of David's declaration (v. 8a)
upon the hearers; by contrast 1 Chron 11,6b records that Joab, as the first to
ascend, received the promised command (see 11,6a). Josephus, who follows the
Chronicler's version of David's declaration, likewise takes over that source's
Sondergut notice on Joab's exploit. At the same time, he also accentuates the
drama of the proceedings (7,64): They all vied with each other to make the climb
and, in their desire for the post of commander, did not draw back from facing any
difficulty35, but Joab, the son of Saruia, outdistanced the others and, when he
reached the top, shouted to the king, claiming the office of commander36.
2. David's Building Measures (Ant. 7,65-69)
The sources, as noted, diverge in their respective accounts of David's second,
final initiative against the Jebusites (compare 5,8 and 11,6). Thereafter, they converge in relating the immediate sequels to the city's capture, i.e., David's taking
up residence in the stronghold, and renaming this the city of David (5,9a //
11,7a). The historian expatiates on these latter items as well (7,65a): When
David had driven (kbaln) the Jebusites out of the citadel (tv krav, see
7,63, compare BL n t periox)37 and had himself rebuilt (noikodomsav)
Jerusalem38, he called it the City of David (plin Daudou) and continued to
dwell in it39 for the whole length of time that he reigned40.
35. This inserted notice underscores the effectiveness of David as a military orator who
is capable of inspiring, not only Joab, but the whole of his army to such efforts.
36. With Josephus' elaboration of the notice of 11,6b on Joab's deed, compare Midr.
Pss. 18,24 which records that Joab gained access to the city in the following manner:
standing on David's head, he grasped hold of the top of a tall cypress tree which he had
previously positioned against the wall. When the tree-top rebounded, Joab was catapulted
onto the wall of the city. Thereupon, God lowered the height of the wall (an event referred
to in Ps 18,30b where the psalmist [David] declares by my God I can leap over a wall),
thus enabling David to follow Joab into the city.
37. Josephus' insertion of this notice serves to resolve a question left unanswered by the
sources, i.e., what became of the recalcitrant Jebusites once David got their city into his possession. The notice has a counterpart in Josephus' statement in BJ 6,439: The Canaanite [cf.
the qualification of the Jebusites as being of the Canaanite race inserted by Josephus in 7,61]
population [i.e., of Jerusalem, see 6,438] was expelled (kbaln = 7,65) by David.
With Josephus' notice on David's severe treatment of the conquered Jebusites here, compare the tradition cited in Pirqe R. El. 36,5 according to which David, following his seizure
of the city, bought it from the Jebusites as a perpetual possession for the price of 600 shekels
(cf. 1 Chron 21,25 where David gives Ornan the Jebusite this amount for the latter's threshing
floor), which sum the king obtained by way of a levy of 50 shekels on each of the 12 tribes.
38. This further preliminary to David's initiatives as recorded in 5,9a // 11,7 may have been
inspired by the consideration that considerable damage would have done to Jerusalem in the
course of David's conquest of it, damage which David would need to repair in first place. The
item might further be seen as a preliminary anticipation of the notice of David's building
activity found in 6,9b // 11,8a, a matter to which Josephus will return in more detail in 7,66b.
39. Josephus here reverses the sequence of 5,9a // 11,7 where David's dwelling in the
stronghold (5,9aa // 11,7a) is mentioned prior to his naming this after himself (5,9ab //
11,7b). The reversal is dictated by the continuation of his presentation in which he introduces
material on David's reign in Hebron, not found in the sources at this juncture (see below).
40. This Josephan appendix to the sources' notice on David's residing in the Jebusite
stronghold (5,9aa // 11,7a) serves to prepare the inserted chronological datum which

JOSEPHUS, Ant. 7,60b-70

99

At this juncture both sources (5,9b // 11,8a) relate David's building of the city
round about from the Millo (RSV). Josephus who seems to anticipate this
item en passant in 7,65a (see n. 38) reserves fuller treatment of it for a later
point (see 7,66b). In place thereof he first (7,65b) introduces a chronological
indication already twice cited in 2 Sam (2,11; 5,5), but previously passed over
by him (7,65b): Now the time that he [David] ruled over the tribe of Judah
alone at Hebron was seven years and six months41. Thereafter, he proceeds to
give an elaborated version of the theological notice of 5,10 // 11,9 (7,65c): But
after he had chosen Jerusalem for his royal residence42, he enjoyed ever more
brilliant (lamprotroiv) fortune43 because of God's provident care (to eo
pronooumnou)44 in enhancing it and causing it to increase45.
Following their common theological summation concerning David's occupation of Jerusalem (5,10 // 11,9), the sources go their own ways once again. 2 Sam
5,11 continues with mention of the help afforded to David by King Hiram of
Tyre. The parallel in 1 Chron to this element comes only in 14,1, and is preceded
by a lengthy segment, 11,1013,14, consisting of material found at other junctures in Sam as well as of Sondergut (see n. 12). In the face of this divergence,
Josephus elects to follow the sequence of Sam. His version of 5,11 reads (7,66a):
Eiromos (Erwmov)46 also, the king of Tyre, wrote to him, proposing friendship
and alliance (filan ka summaxan)47, and sent him gifts of cedar wood (zla
Josephus will introduce immediately hereafter (see below). In 2 Sam 5,5b // 1 Kgs 2,11b //
1 Chron 29,26 // Ant. 7,389 the length of David's reign in Jerusalem is specified as
33 years.
41. Josephus' repositioning of this item makes sense in that it comes in his presentation at a point where the Hebron period of David's reign has ended and the Jerusalem
period has now actually begun. In 2 Sam, by contrast, the corresponding notice(s) appears
at junctures in the narrative when David is still ruling in Hebron. On David's recognition
by the tribe of Judah as its king at Hebron, see Ant. 7,7-8 (// 2 Sam 2,4).
42. In citing this choice by David here, Josephus makes explicit something that is
left only implicit in the sources.
43. Compare 5,10a // 11,9a and David became greater and greater (RSV).
44. Elsewhere in Josephus God appears as the subject of the verb pronow in Ant. 2,280;
3,23; 4,194; 7,93; 10,244; 11,231.327; Vita 301 (in Ant. 2,280; 4,194; 11,327; Vita 301
one finds the same genitival construction used here in 7,65). On Josephus' emphasis
on divine providence (prnoia) and its relation to philosophical and theological controversies of the day, see H.W. ATTRIDGE, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the
Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (HDR, 7), Missoula, MT, 1976, pp. 71-107;
L.H. FELDMAN, Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of Josephus, in
M.J. MULDER H. SYSLING (eds.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of
the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (CRINT, 2/1), Assen, 1988,
pp. 455-518, esp. 499-500; ID., Josephus' Portrait of Daniel, in Henoch 14 (1992) 37-96,
86-87. In the sources the reference is to the Lord, the God (so MT, > BL) of hosts (5,10)
// the Lord of hosts (11,9). On Josephus' virtually total avoidance of (the) Lord (LXX
kriov) as a divine title due, it would seem, to the non-currency of that usage in secular
Greek, see BEGG, Josephus' Account (n. 18), p. 45 n. 218.
45. Compare the more indeterminate Biblical formulations (5,10 // 11,9) concerning
God's role in David's rise: the Lord was with him.
46. This is the reading of codex Vaticanus and the Epitome. Niese reads Iromov
with codex R. Compare BL 5,11 Xeirm.
47. This overture by Hiram lacks a parallel in 5,11 // 14,1. It is perhaps inspired by
and intended to prepare what one reads in 1 Kgs 5,1b (MT). This text states: Hiram

100

C.T. BEGG

kdrina = BL 5,11) and skilled men as carpenters (tktonav, BL 5,11 tktonav

zlwn) and builders (okodmouv, B 5,11 tktonav lwn [L toxou, so likewise 4QSama, VL]) to construct (kataskeuseian)48 a palace (basleion,
BL 5,11 okon) in Jerusalem.
Only at this point (although see n. 38) does Josephus come to relate the datum of
5,9b // 11,8a about David's building activity in the newly conquered Jerusalem49.
In reproducing this item he makes use of topographical terminology earlier
employed by him, thereby giving the rather indeterminate formulations of his
sources a more specific character50. His version of the king's initiative thus reads
(7,66b): And David enclosed (perilabn)51 the lower city (tn ktw52
plin, see 7,62) and joined it to the citadel (tn kran [see 7,62.63], compare
BL 5,9b // L 11,8a p tv krav) so as to form one whole (n sma), and,
having put a wall around this (periteixsav)53. To this notice on David's
building measures, Josephus then appends a version of the Sondergut item found
in 11,8b (and Joab repaired the rest of the city, so MT L, > B), i.e., he
appointed Joab keeper of the walls (pimeljtn tn teixn)54.
The sources follow their mention of David's building measures (5,11 //14,1)
with a second (compare 5,10 // 11,9) theological remark (5,12 // 14,2) which
speaks of David's perceiving that the Lord had established his kingdom for the
sake of his people Israel. Josephus dispenses with this reiteration of the divine
role in David's success. In its place he inserts a long segment which lacks a Bibalways loved (LXX gapn) David (compare Ant. 8,50: he was a friend [flov] of
David), love here having, as is often observed, the political sense of being a loyal
ally. In any event, Josephus' interjection of the item in 7,66 magnifies the status of David
who is thereby represented as one whom the King of Tyre finds desirable as an ally. The
above collocation friendship and alliance recurs in this or the reverse order in
Ant. 4,102; 7,107; 12,149; 13,32.45.152.170.223.250.261.264.334; 14,185.197.257.267.
It (anachronistically) reflects the language of Hellenistic-Roman diplomacy; see H.J. KATZENSTEIN, The History of Tyre, Jerusalem, 1973, pp. 95-96.
48. This is the reading of the codices MSP followed by Marcus. Niese reads kataskesan with the codices RO (cf. Lat. construxerunt).
49. In so doing the historian brings together in a continuous sequence (7,66) the separate
source notices of 5,9b // 11,8a (David's building of the city) and 5,11 // 14,1 (the building
of a palace for David).
50. 2 Sam 5,9b reads (RSV) And David built the city round about from the Millo
(so MT, BL p tv krav) inward (MT eh
i
bv, BL ka tn okon ato). 1 Chron
11,8a runs (RSV) and he built the city round about from the Millo (MT, L p tv
krav) in complete circuit (so MT L; compare B ka polmjsen ka laben tn
plin).
51. This is the reading of the codices which Marcus follows; Niese reads paralabn
with the Epitome.
52. This is the reading of the codices SP which Marcus follows. Niese reads nw
(upper) with the remaining codices, the Epitome, and Lat.
53. This is the only occurrence of the verb periteixhw in Ant.; it is used 7 in
BJ. Neither source mentions a wall-building activity by David as such. The measure
redounds to David's credit as a provident protector of his new capital.
54. Josephus employs this same title of Jeroboam whom Solomon appoints his official
in Ant. 8,205. Note the wordplay between periteixsav and teixn. Note too how Josephus' formulation attributes all building activity in Jerusalem to David himself whereas
11,8b divides the credit between the king and Joab. Once again, Josephus contrives to
accentuate David's stature.

JOSEPHUS, Ant. 7,60b-70

101

lical parallel as such (7,67-69). Within this segment, one may, in turn, distinguish
several sub-sections. The first of these focuses on the names and related history
of Jerusalem (7,67-68):
Thus David, who was the first to drive the Jebusites (tov Iebousaouv
kbaln) out of Jerusalem, named the city (prosjgreuse plin)
after himself55; for in the time of our56 forefather Abraham it was called
Solyma (Sluma), but afterwards they named it Hierosolyma (met tata
d atn nmasen Ierosluma)57, calling the temple (ern)58 Solyma,
which, in the Hebrew tongue, means security (sfleia)59. 68 Now the
55. The above formulation represents a Wiederaufnahme of the notice of 7,65a When
David had driven the Jebusites out (kbaln tov Iebousaouv) of the citadel he
called it the City (plin prosjgreuse) of David. The resumption serves to redirect
attention to the subject of Jerusalem's successive names.
56. Note Josephus' self-identification with his people via the use of this term.
57. In the codices (so also Lat.) between the words met tata d atn and nmasen
Ierosluma as read by Marcus above stands a sequence, i.e., fas tinev ti ka Omjrov
taut', this yielding the rendering but some say that afterwards Homer called it
Hierosolyma which Niese incorporates into his text of 7,67 (Opera, II, p. 104). For
MARCUS, Josephus, V, p. 394 n. a., this sequence is probably a gloss (an opinion advocated also by Niese in the Praefatio to his edition, see Opera, I, p. XXII). Marcus does,
nonetheless, go on to note that in contra Apionem 1,173 Josephus quotes the Greek poet
Choerilus who, himself drawing on a phrase of Homer (Od. v. 283), refers to a contingent
stemming from the Solymian hills (Solmoiv resi) as part of the army that King
Xerxes of Persia led against Greece. Commenting thereafter on Choerilus' allusion, Josephus states (1,174): It is obvious, I imagine, that he is referring to us, because the
Solymian hills are in our country and inhabited by us. The relevance of this Josephan
statement to the question of the reading in 7,67 is that it might be taken as evidence that
the historian himself was aware of Homer's mention of Solyma although it should be
noted as does Niese (Opera, I, p. XXII n. 2) that in contra Apionem 1,172-174 there is no
mention of Homer as such and so might himself have been responsible for the reading
found in the codices (on Josephus' statement in 1,174, see THACKERAY, Josephus, I,
pp. 232-233 n. a, who maintains that, pace Josephus, the phrase used by Homer and picked
up by Choerilus refers rather to the Ethiopians).
In any event, in either Marcus's or Niese's reading of 7,67, one has here a mention
of the city's earlier name (Solyma) which later yielded to another designation,
Hierosolyma. This indication, in turn, has a counterpart elsewhere in Josephus (BJ 6,438):
(Melchizedek) gave the city, previously called Solyma, the name of Jerusalem (here
there seems to be a divergence with 7,67 as to the moment at which the name-change
occurred; according to 6,438 this happened already with Melchizedek, whereas 7,67 apparently dates it to the time after David see further below); see also Ant. 1,180 (in the
context of his account of Melchizedek, king of Solyma, Josephus states that Solyma
was in fact the place afterward [subsequent to Melchizedek's time, compare BJ 6,438]
called Hierosolyma).
58. The codices RO followed by Niese read ero. In the codices MSP the form ern
is followed immediately by the words (t) Sluma, whereas in the text read by Marcus a
sequence of other words supervenes.
59. In Marcus's above reading/rendering of the text of 7,67 Josephus appears to be
stating that the city got its definitive name (Hierosolyma), subsequent to the time of
David (compare BJ 6,438 quoted in n. 57), i.e., following the building of the Temple; the
name represents a combination of the word for Temple (ern) + the original name
Solyma, while the name city of David would constitute an intermediate designation.
As Marcus, Josephus, V, pp. 394-395 n. a, points out, Niese in the Praefatio to his

102

C.T. BEGG

whole period from the time of Joshua, the commander (to stratjgo)60
of the expedition and war (strateav polmou)61 against the Canaanites
(see 7,61) in which he conquered them and apportioned this (city) to the
Hebrews (Ebraoiv)62 although the Israelites63 were not able to drive the
Canaanites out (kbalen)64 of Jerusalem65 until David took it from them
by siege (zepolirkjsen), was five hundred and fifteen years66.
edition (Opera, I, p. XXIII) proposes, with reference to the historian's statement in BJ 6,438
that it was already Melchizedek himself who renamed Solyma as Hierosolyma, the following conjectural reconstruction of the text of 7,67 (differing from the one printed by him
in vol. II, p. 104, which is much closer to that given by Marcus): met tata d' atn
Melxisedkjv tn Xananawn dunstjv teixsav ka sfalismenov Ierosluma
nmase t gr ero (see n. 58) kat tn Ebrawn glttn stin sfleia. Marcus
renders this as afterwards Melchisedekes, the ruler of the Canaanites, built walls round it and
made it secure, and called it Hierosolyma, for hierou in Hebrew means security'. Concerning Niese's proposal he states: it is difficult to believe that Josephus connected hierou (as
Niese gives it), rather than Solyma, with the Hebrew word for security', i.e., shalm.
60. On the Josephan treatment of Joshua, see L.H. FELDMAN, Josephus' Portrait of
Joshua, in HTR 82 (1989) 351-376. Feldman (p. 358 and n. 20) points out that Josephus
applies the term stratjgv to Joshua no less than ten times.
61. This collocation recurs both times in reverse order in Ant. 4,67; 8,51.
62. More specifically, Jerusalem/Jebus was allotted to the Benjaminites in Joshua's
day, see Ant. 5,82 (// Josh 18,28) and 5,129 (the Benjaminites within whose lot lay
Jerusalem). On Josephus' use of the designation Hebrews for his people, see G. HARVEY, The True Israel. Uses of the Names Jew, Hebrew and Israel in Ancient Jewish and
Early Christian Literature (AGJU, 35), Leiden, 1996, pp. 124-129.
63. Note the shift here from the just mentioned Hebrews; such oscillations in the
nomenclature used by Josephus for his people are frequent in Ant.
64. This is the same verb used previously (7,65.67) of David's expulsion of the
Jebusites. The common terminology highlights the stature of David who accomplished
what no Israelite before him had been able to do, i.e., clear the Canaanites-Jebusites out of
Jerusalem.
65. The (implicit) allusion here is to the statement of Judg 1,21 (but the people of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites who dwelt in Jerusalem; so the Jebusites have dwelt
with the people of Benjamin to this day); cf. the parallel passage in Josh 18,63, where, however, the reference is to the people of Judah. The statements of these two verses appear to
stand in tension with Judg 1,8 (and the men of Judah fought against Jerusalem, and took it,
and smote it with the edge of the sword and set it on fire). Josephus' formulations on the
matter are designed to resolve the difficulty, doing so via an un-Biblical distinction
between the Jebusite lower and upper town. See Ant. 5,124 // 1,8 (Then they [i.e., the
tribes of Judah and Simeon, 5,120] overran the district, taking the towns, and after capturing
very many of them laid siege to Jerusalem. The lower town [see 7,62] they mastered in time
and slew all the inhabitants; but the upper town proved too difficult to carry through the
solidity of its walls and the nature of the site) and 5,129 (cf. Judg 1,21): the Benjaminites
in whose lot Jerusalem lay [see 5,82] permitted its inhabitants to pay them tribute.
Finally, note the inclusion / contrast between the opening of 7,67 (David who was the
first to drive the Jebusites out [kbaln] of Jerusalem) and the above aside in 7,68
(although the Israelites were not able to drive the Canaanites out [kbalen] of Jerusalem).
66. On this figure in relation to other chronological indications in Josephus' writings,
see MARCUS, Josephus, V, p. 395 n. c. Mention of the figure serves to accentuate David's
accomplishment the Jebusites held out against the Israelites for over five centuries, but
could not resist David's assault. In supplying the above figure Josephus is also enhancing
his own standing as a historian who can supply such precise datings for events even
where, as here, his Biblical sources do not.

JOSEPHUS, Ant. 7,60b-70

103

Josephus' major insertion within the presentation of 2 Sam 5,6-16 // 1 Chron

11,4-9 + 14,1-7 continues in 7,69 where he introduces a Jebusite personage who will
figure within a subsequent episode, i.e., that of David's census as told in 2 Sam 24 //
1 Chron 21 // Ant. 7,318-33467. Concerning the figure he states at this point (7,69):
I shall also make mention here of Oronnas (Ornna)68, who was a wealthy
Jebusite but who was not slain by David in the siege (poliorka, cf.
zepolirkjsen in 7,68) of Jerusalem because of his friendliness (enoian)
to the Hebrews (see 7,68) and also because of a certain kindness and devotion (xrin ka spoudn)69 to the king himself70 which I shall point out a
little later in a more suitable place71.
3. David's Later Family (Ant. 7,70)
Following the long excursus of 7,67-69, Josephus finally picks up the content
of his sources (5,13-16 // 14,3-7) in relating David's familial situation. Complicating the comparison of the Biblical and Josephan lists of David's later-born
sons is not only the many variants evidenced by both, but also the fact that in
1 Chron 3,5-9 one finds yet a third Scriptural enumeration of these figures, this
exhibiting peculiarities of its own.
This new segment opens with reference to two nameless groups of women
by whom the king had his later children (7,70): Now David married still
other wives (gunakav) in addition to those he had72, and took concubines
67. On the Josephan account of the episode, see C.T. BEGG, Josephus' Version of
David's Census, in Henoch 16 (1994) 199-226.
68. Marcus, following J. Hudson, conjectures this form of the name here on the basis of
its occurrence in 7,329 (Niese has Orna). Compare the readings of the various textual
witnesses in 7,69 itself: Orfna (M), Orfon (ROSPLV), Orfin (Lat.). In MT 2 Sam 24
the figure is called Arauna (LXX Orn), in 1 Chron 21 Ornan (LXX Orn). Josephus'
reason for introducing mention of the Jebusite is to prepare readers for his later presence in
Jerusalem something which his Biblical sources fail to do. Such preparation was all the more
incumbent on Josephus given his double previous (and Biblically unparalleled) mention of
David's expelling the Jebusites from Jerusalem (see 7,65.67). Without the qualification of
this statement here introduced by him in connection with Oronnas, readers of Josephus'
census episode would be puzzled to hear there of a Jebusite still living in Jerusalem. Via the
insertion of 7,69 Josephus takes care to preclude any such puzzlement in advance.
69. This collocation occurs only here in Josephus.
70. With the above formulation Josephus provides a double response to a question
that would naturally suggest itself to readers, i.e., why did David deal differently with
Oronnas than with the rest of the recalcitrant Jebusites?
71. This announcement points ahead to the story of David's census and Oronnas' role in it
which Josephus will relate in 7,318-334. Such Vorverweise appear frequently in Ant., serving to
unify the whole. Conversely, in 7,330 one finds a Rckverweis which echoes the wording of
7,69: (Oronnas) was, to be sure, of Jebusite descent, but he was one of David's best friends
(flov), and for this reason, the latter did him no harm when he overthrew the city, as we
related a little while ago. Finally, I would note that Josephus' wording here in 7,69 with its
reference to the Jebusite's certain kindness and devotion to the king himself which I shall
point out a little later (i.e., his offer, it would appear, to donate his threshing-floor to the king,
see 7,331), appears problematic as an explanation (because of) of David's sparing him already
at this juncture in that Oronnas' offer transpired only long after the king's seizure of Jebus.
72. The reference here is to the list of David's earlier wives cited in Ant. 7,21 (// 2 Sam
3,2-5 // 1 Chron 3,1-4).

104

C.T. BEGG

(pallakv)73. It then shifts attention to the offspring resulting from these new
unions74: and begot eleven75 sons (padav)76 whom he named (prosjgreusen)77
Amase (Amas)78, Amnu (Amno)79, Seba (Sebn)80, Nathan (Nan)81, Solomon
(Solomna)82, Jebare (Iebar)83, Elies (Elin)84, Phalnagees (Falnagjn)85,
73. In mentioning not only David's wives but also his concubines here, Josephus
agrees with 5,13 (cf. 3,9 besides the sons of the concubines) against 14,3 which cites
only the former. His citing of wives before concubines goes together with the
sequence of BL (and of the VL MS L 115) in 5,13 contra MT 4QSama which have the
reverse order. The historian lacks an equivalent to the sources' specification that the
women in question were taken by David from Jerusalem (5,13) / in Jerusalem (14,3).
He likewise has no counterpart to the Sondergut indication of 5,13 about the king's taking
the women after he came from (so MT L; to, B) Hebron.
74. The names as given in the three Biblical sources and in Ant. 7,70 are conveniently
presented in parallel columns by A. MEZ, Die Bibel des Josephus untersucht fr Buch VVII der Archologie, Basel, 1895, pp. 37-39. See also the textual notes to 2 Sam 5,1316 in MCCARTER, II Samuel (n. 3), pp. 147-148.
75. Thus the reading of editio princeps followed by Marcus and by MEZ, Bibel, p. 40.
The codices read rather nna which Niese retains (and which agrees with the total number of David's legitimate sons cited in 1 Chron 3,8). The figure read by Marcus (eleven)
has no equivalent as such in the sources; it does, however, correspond to the number of
names of David's progeny actually enumerated in 5,14-16. The lists of 14,4-7 and 3,5-9
contain rather 13 names (as does that of the VL MS L 115 which makes this fact explicit in
its rendering of 5,14, et haec nomina XIII filiorum eius).
76. In both 5,13 and 14,3 the reference is to sons (uo) and daughters.
77. The use of this verb establishes a terminological link with what precedes: see
7,65.67 where David is said to have named (prosjgreuse) Jebus after himself. Josephus' wording here in 7,70 likewise accentuates the initiative of David with respect to his
progeny as compared with the formulation these are the names used in 5,14a // 14,4a.
78. According to A. SCHLATTER, Die hebrischen Namen bei Josephus (BFCT, 17/3),
Gtersloh, 1913, p. 109, this form is a corruption of the name which stands first in the list
of 1 Chron 3 (v. 5: Shima'). Both 5,14 and 14,4 have Shammua as the first name on
their list. For A. SCHALIT, Namenwrterbuch zu Flavius Josephus, Leiden, 1968, pp. 108109, on the contrary, the first two names as read by Marcus (and Niese), i.e., Amas,
Amno originally constituted a single name, Seammoaia, which itself would represent a
corruption of the Shammua of 5,14 // 14,4.
79. This second name on Josephus' list as read by Marcus and Niese has no equivalent
in the three Biblical lists, all of which read Shobab (MT) as their second name.
80. In the Biblical lists the third name is Nathan (which appears fourth on Josephus'
list, see n. 81). The above form stands closest to the second name in L 5,14 Iessebn;
compare Shobab (MT).
81. In the Biblical lists Nathan appears in third place, whereas he stands fourth in
Josephus' listing.
82. In the Biblical lists Solomon is the fourth entry rather than the fifth as in Josephus here. Like 5,13 // 14,4 Josephus has no equivalent to the notice of 1 Chron 3,5 that
the first four sons listed were born to David by Bathshua, the daughter of Ammiel.
83. This form is Josephus' equivalent to the fifth name on the Biblical lists, i.e., Ibhar
(so MT etc.; B 3,6 and 14,5 have Bar).
84. Compare Elishua (5,15 // 14,5 MT)/ Elishama (3,6 MT). SCHALIT, Namenwrterbuch (n. 78), p. 43, suggests tentatively that Josephus' original form may have
been Elijsouav.
85. According to SCHALIT, Namenwrterbuch, p. 122, this form is a conflation of the last
name of LXX 14,5 (Eleifle, MT 14,5 // 3,6 Elpelet) and the first name of LXX 14,6
(Nge, MT 14,6 // 3,7 Nogah) as found in B. In a similar vein, MCCARTER, II Samuel
(n. 3), p. 148 proposes that Josephus' seventh and eighth names (Elies, Phalnagees)

JOSEPHUS, Ant. 7,60b-70

105

Naphes (Nafn)86, Jena (Iena)87, Eliphale (Elifal)88, and also a daughter,

Thamara (Qamran)89.
The listings of MT 2 Sam 5 and 1 Chron 14 conclude with the name of
David's 11th/13th later-born son90. In line with the list of 1 Chron 3, Josephus
rounds off the preceding sequence of names with various further particulars concerning these figures. This summarizing sequence reads: Of these nine91 were
the offspring of well-born (egendwn)92 (mothers), but the last two mentioned 93,
of concubines (pallakdwn)94. Thamara had the same mother as Absalom 95.
reflect a corrupted conflation of the sequence of three names read by BL 5,15 and 14,5-6 //
3,6-7, i.e., Elishua (3,6 Elishama), El(i)p(h)elet, Nogah/Nageth (MT 5,15 lacks an equivalent to the last two of these names at this juncture, citing Nepheg directly after Elishua,
whereas in BL 5,15; 14,5-6 // 3,6-7 the names Elpelet and Nogah supervene).
86. Compare Nepheg in the Biblical lists (5,15 // 14,5 // 3,7). SCHALIT, Namenwrterbuch, p. 89 suggests that the form Nafn read by Niese and Marcus could represent
the Greek rendering of a Hebrew fp
n with the final n mistaken for a g; similarly, MCCARTER,
II Samuel, p. 148 views Josephus' Naphes as corresponding to the Biblical Nepheg.
SCHLATTER, Namen (n. 78), p. 16, on the contrary, maintains that Josephus' Vorlage did not
contain a form of the name Nepheg.
87. MEZ, Bibel (n. 75), p. 40 and SCHALIT, Namenwrterbuch, p. 59 relate this name to
the Japhia of 5,15 // 14,6 // 3,7, the latter suggesting that the n of Josephus' Iena (cf.
Ianoe, B 3,7) is a misrendering of Hebrew p. SCHLATTER, Namen, p. 16 derives the name
from the Eliada of 5,16 // 3,8 (compare Beeliada, MT 14,7). In any event, note that
in all three Biblical lists a name, i.e., Elishama, supervenes between Japhia and
Eliada/Beeliada (see 5,15-16 // 14,6-7 // 3,7-8) to which Josephus has no equivalent.
88. This final name on Josephus' list of David's sons seems to correspond to the
concluding name of the three Biblical lists, i.e., Eliphelet (5,16 // 14,7 // 3,8; in the two
lists of Chron the name El(i)p(h)elet appears at an earlier point as well, see 14,5 // 3,6).
89. In his mention of this figure in connection with David's later-born sons, Josephus
plainly evidences his familiarity with the listing of 1 Chron 3 (see v. 9b and Tamar
[B Qjmr, L Qamr] was their sister) since those of 2 Sam 5 and 1 Chron 14 make no
reference to her. At the same time, he anticipates the notice on Tamar which stands at the
very end of its listing of David's progeny (1 Chron 3,1-9) to this earlier point in his own
presentation. He will return to the figure of Tamar at the conclusion of 7,70 (see below).
90. In B 5,16, following the list of 11 names corresponding to those of MT 5,13-16, one
finds a further 13 names, which partially recapitulate those cited previously.
91. Josephus derives this figure from 1 Chron 3,8 where it concludes the list of David's
later-born sons. He uses it, however, to cover a group that does not fully coincide with the
nine sons cited in 3,6-8 (see below).
92. The adjective egenv is hapax in Josephus.
93. The reference here would seem to be to the last two sons on Josephus' list of
David's 11 later-born sons, i.e., Jena and Eliphale.
94. Josephus' distinction between the two categories of women who bore David's laterborn sons has a counterpart in 1 Chron 3. There, however, the sons of the concubines
would seem to be progeny in addition to the 13 sons listed in vv. 5-8 (see the wording of
v. 9a all these [i.e., the 13 cited in what precedes] were David's sons, besides the sons of
the concubines). In Josephus' version, by contrast, two of Josephus' legitimate sons,
Japhia (Jena) and Eliphelet (Eliphale), become offspring of concubines. Josephus (mis-)calculation here would seem to reflect his effort to relate the figure nine that
he found in 3,8 and the reference to the sons of the concubines of 3,9 to the presence of
11 names in the list he himself gives in 7,70. His solution is to make the first nine of the
11 legitimate sons, while relegating the final two to the concubines' offspring.
95. This item has no equivalent in 1 Chron 3 which concludes its list of David's progeny (v. 9b) with the notice and Tamar was their sister, a notice anticipated by Josephus

106

C.T. BEGG

Conclusion
Having completed my detailed reading of 7,60b-70 in relation to its Biblical
sources, I shall now attempt to briefly summarize my findings with regard to the
questions posed at the outset of this essay. Our study has, first of all, shown that
Josephus does in fact make use of all three Scriptural passages relating to David's
conquest of Jerusalem and its immediate sequels, i.e., 2 Sam 5,6-16 // 1 Chron
11,4-9 + 14,1-7; and 1 Chron 3,5-9. His dependence on 2 Sam 5 as against its
parallel in Chron is evident, e.g., in his mention of the handicapped persons cited
by the Jebusites (7,61, so 5,6; compare 11,4), his referring to Hiram at the point
where he does, i.e., immediately following the theological remark of 7,65c
(// 5,10 // 11,9) in 7,66a (// 5,11; compare 14,1 with the long excursus of
11,1013,14 supervening), and his enumeration of only 11 later-born sons
of David (7,70, so 5,14-16 MT, cf. B) rather than 13 (so 14,4-6 // 3,5-9 and L
VL 5,14-16). Conversely, the historian's use of 1 Chron 11,4-8 as opposed to
2 Sam 5,6-9 is obvious in his version of David's address to his troops (7,63 //
11,6a; compare 5,8) as well as in his references to Joab's response thereto
(7,64 // 11,6b) and that general's post-conquest role (7,66 fine // 11,8b). Finally,
his utilization of the progeny list of 1 Chron 3,5-9 manifests itself in his use of
the figure nine in connection with the names of David's sons (7,70 // 3,8) and
citation of the king's daughter Tamar along with his sons (7,70 // 3,9b).
The further question of which text-form(s) of his Biblical sources Josephus
employed in composing 7,60b-70 remains without clear response on the basis of
our reading of the pericope, given, e.g., the largely paraphrastic character of his version and the complicated interrelations among the witnesses for Sam and Chron.
One datum of note in this regard is, however, his agreement in 7,70 with BL 5,13
against MT in mentioning David's wives before his concubines (see n. 73)96.
As to Josephus' rewriting techniques in 7,60b-70, it is his additions to / expansions of source data that dominate throughout the passage. As we have seen, these
editorial elaborations differ considerably in length, running from a few words,
expatiating on a source item (see, e.g., his appended qualification of the Jebusites
as of the Canaanite race in 7,61; compare 5,6 // 11,4), to entire inserted paragraphs (see the sequence of 7,67-69). The historian's elaborations likewise serve
a variety of purposes: they introduce transitions within the narrative itself (see
earlier in 7,70, see above. Josephus draws his datum about Absalom and Tamar being
full siblings from 2 Sam 13,1 (// Ant. 7,162) where it serves to introduce the story of
Tamar's rape by her half-brother Amnon; see C.T. BEGG, The Rape of Tamar (2 Samuel
13) according to Josephus, in Estudios Bblicos 54 (1996) 465-500. The nameless common
mother of Tamar and Absalom alluded to by Josephus in 7,70 is elsewhere identified as
Maacah the daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur, see 2 Sam 3,3 // 1 Chron 3,2 (cf.
Ant. 7,21 where Josephus calls her Machame, daughter of Tholomaios, king of the
Gesserites). With this foreshadowing of the later story of Tamar's rape via the inserted
notice on the relationship between her and Absalom here in 7,70, compare Josephus'
earlier Vorspiel to the subsequent narrative of David's census and Oronnas' role therein
by way of his interjected reference to the king's sparing of the latter in 7,69.
96. For more on the overall question of Josephus' text of 1-2 Sam, see E. ULRICH,
Josephus' Biblical Text for the Books of Samuel, in L.H. FELDMAN G. HATA (eds.), Josephus, the Bible, and History, Detroit, 1989, pp. 81-96 (he concludes that Josephus relied
exclusively on a Greek text of Samuel, one whose affinities were particularly with that of
the L MSS of the LXX).

JOSEPHUS, Ant. 7,60b-70

107

7,65), establish verbal / contentual connections with the wider (see nn. 15, 19, 27,
47, 57, 65, 71, 95) and more immediate context (see on 7,60b), elucidate the motivations and emotional reactions of characters (see on 7,61.62.63), make explicit
what is implicit in the sources (the distinction between the two parts of Jebus successively captured by David [see on 7,62-63]; David's choice of Jerusalem as his
residence [see on 7,65c] and his dwelling there for the remainder of his reign [see
on 7,65b]), accentuate the Jebusites' resistance (7,61; compare 5,6 // 11,5a), magnify the king's stature (e.g., his challenge inspires all his men to vie with one
another in meeting it [see on 7,64]; Hiram's proposes friendship and alliance
with him [see on 7,66a]), and offer precise datings for significant events
(David's seizure of Jerusalem comes 515 years after Joshua's allotment of it to
Israel, see on 7,68). By contrast, Josephus' elimination of material common to
both his primary sources97 is minimal in the case of 7,60b-70. One clear instance
of it is, however, his non-utilization of the second theological notice shared by
5,12 and 14,2, this probably being due to the repetitiveness of this notice vis-vis that of 5,10 // 11,9 (to which Josephus does have a parallel, see 7,65c)98.
Josephus' rewriting of the sources also involves rearrangement of the order of
their presentation(s). Thus, he cites David's renaming of Jerusalem before his
taking up residence there (7,65a; compare 5,9a // 11,7a), repositions the notice of
5,5a on the length of David's reign in Hebron (see on 7,65b), delays mention of
Joab's post-conquest role (compare 7,66 and 11,8b), and anticipates the reference
to Tamar of 1 Chron 3,9b (see on 7,70).
A final category of Josephan rewriting techniques to be noted in 7,60b-70 are his
adaptations and modifications of source elements. On the terminological level he
replaces the divine title the Lord (5,10 // 11,9), which was not current in
secular Greek, with God (7,65c; see n. 44), and designates David's initial conquest
as the lower city (7,62) rather than the stronghold of Zion (5,7 // 11,5b).
Stylistically, he introduces historic present forms (see n. 25) and recasts direct as
indirect address (see nn. 18, 34). His modifications also, however, affect matters
of content. E.g., David's challenge to his men is crouched, more determinately, in
terms of their climbing up to the citadel and capturing it (7,63) rather than
merely of smiting the Jebusites (11,6a). Again, Joab's post-conquest role is
described differently in 7,67fine than in 11,8b99, just as the figure nine which
he has in common with 1 Chron 3,8 (see 7,70) is used to cover a group which
does not fully coincide with that intended by the source.
Given the application of the above rewriting techniques how then does Josephus' account of the events surrounding David's capture of Jebus differ from the
Biblical ones? It does so, I suggest, in three main respects. 1) Throughout, the
Josephan version endeavors to clarify and explicate matters which the sources
leave unaddressed (e.g., characters' motives) or only implicit (e.g., the two portions
97. This is to be distinguished from his more frequent leaving aside of material peculiar
to one or other of the sources when he elects to follow a given Biblical account to the
exclusion of the other (as with David's discourse to his troops and their response to this in
7,63-64 where he aligns himself with 11,6 against 5,8).
98. On Josephus' overall tendency to de-theologize Biblical history in his retelling of
this in Ant., see FELDMAN, Mikra (n. 44), pp. 503-507.
99. Josephus' handling of the datum of 11,8b is an instance of the frequent interrelatedness of his rewriting techniques: he not only gives that item a new content, but also
positions it at a point subsequent to its occurrence in Chron (see above).

108

C.T. BEGG

of Jebus captured in turn by David). 2) The historian goes beyond the sources in
the numerous verbal reminiscences, Vorverweise and Rckverweise introduced by
him, serving to integrate the Jebus episode into the wider flow of his narrative.
3) Josephus accentuates the stature and initiative of David in the proceedings; he
does this both directly (e.g., by reformulations and insertions concerning the
king's actions and purposes) and indirectly (by magnifying the resistance offered
ultimately in vain by his opponents, the Jebusites [see 7,61] and by diminishing
the active role of David's confederate Joab [see 7,66 and compare 11,8b]).
My final opening question concerned the messages Josephus' rewriting of
the Jebus episode might be intended to convey to Ant.'s double audience, i.e.,
cultivated Greco-Roman readers and fellow Jews100. Josephus' version, first of
all, seems designed to cater to the interests (e.g., military or philosophical)101 of
the former group, even while it seeks to counter their negative prejudices about
Jews, e.g., that they had never produced great men comparable to those of GrecoRoman history or that Jews were invariably hostilely-disposed towards nonJews102. In accord with these aims he offers, in 7,60b-70, Gentile readers the
figure of the Jew David who certainly qualifies as a great (and appealing) personnage in his effective, all-sided generalship, in the interest shown in obtaining
his friendship and alliance by a foreign king (see 7,66), and by his own magnanimous dealing with Oronnas, notwithstanding the latter's membership in a
people who had exhibited such contempt for himself (see 7,61.68). Gentile readers
of our passage would likewise feel more at home with it than with its sources
given Josephus' introduction of familiar Greek philosophical terminology (i.e.,
divine providence, see 7,66 and n. 44) and corresponding avoidance of the peculiarly Biblical title the Lord (see 7,66; compare 5,10 // 11,9).
Does Josephus' version, though, have anything particular to offer his own
compatriots? Here, I would call attention to the inserted references to the
Jebusites' mocking of David and their sublime confidence in the strength of
their walls in 7,61. Such language might well put Jewish readers in mind of contemporary Roman attitudes towards themselves whom Rome had so thoroughly
trounced in the recent past. The fact that in what follows David nevertheless
overthrows the mocking, self-assured Jebusites might then suggest to Jewish
perusers of Ant. that what their forebear had accomplished in his time might also
be possible even in the case of their own present-day opponent, almighty
Rome103. It is such deliberately mixed signals as to whom Josephus is aiming
to please in writing Ant. that gives the work its particular piquancy.
Catholic University of America
Washington, DC 20064, U.S.A.

Christopher T. BEGG

100. On the twofold intended readership of Ant., see FELDMAN, Mikra, pp. 470-471.
101. On these predominate interests of the Gentile circles that were Ant.'s primary
intended audience and Josephus' addressing of them in his version of Jewish history, see
FELDMAN, Mikra, pp. 496-500.
102. On the above sentiments that were rife among Gentiles of Josephus' time and the
historian's attempt to refute them via his retelling of Jewish history, see, e.g., FELDMAN,
David (n. 2), p. 133 (the Jews' alleged lack of great men) and Mikra, pp. 404-405 (supposed
Jewish xenophobia).
103. On the veiled, allusive anti-Romanism discernible in many other passages of Ant.,
see C.T. BEGG, Josephus and Nahum Revisited, in REJ 154 (1995) 5-22, esp. pp. 19-22.