Show description

Cf. Michel-Bauernfeind II,2 186­ a ‘ rationalist’ model of cause and effect 21 opponents in the catalogue is insistent enough2 to suggest that the preceeding shme›a tΔw svthr¤aw (285) are not indeed taken lightly. 3 In other words, thrust and counterthrust in the prodigy list testify to the intensity of the fundamental religious controversy which Josephus first downplays by his cool rationalist dismissal of the prophets. 4 But these dismissive comments do not fit comfortably into the broader picture.

286). 116-117;7 but it does not accord with what we know about religiousideological dimensions of the revolt. The tendentious drift of the argument is indexed lexically by two appearances of the key term §lp¤w: apocalyptic expectation (tØn épÚ toË yeoË boÆyeian) is made to coalesce with a secularized species of hope which operates according to its own dynamic. The first occurrence of the word (…w... §lp‹w parakrato¤h) prompts a gnome which analyses the psychology of hope in the manner of the Greek historians: pe¤yetai d¢ tax°vw ênyrvpow §n sumfora›w, ˜tan d¢ dØ ka‹ t«n katexÒntvn dein«n épallagØn ı §japat«n Ípogrãf˙, tÒyÉ ı pãsxvn ˜low g¤netai tΔw §lp¤dow (287).

2). Polemical interventions in Josephus’ prodigy list are far more conspicuous, with two framing generalizations (288, 315) plus three pointed antitheses within the enumeration itself: to›w m¢n épe¤roiw–to›w dÉ flerogrammateËsi (291), to›w m¢n fldiΩtaiw— ofl lÒgioi d¢ (295), and tÚn m¢n yeÚn ényrΩpvn khdÒmenon —toÁw dÉ ÍpÉ éno¤aw ka‹ kak«n aÈyair°tvn épollum°nouw (310). 3 The polemical responsion is noted by Michel-Bauernfeind II,2 187. 4 See Barnett (1981) for the precursors to these traffickers in salvation.