Abstract
There is a growing consensus that Joseph and Aseneth belongs to the genre of the ancient novel. One of this genre's origins seems to have been comedy and mime. This article argues that the basic plot of Joseph and Aseneth does indeed contain comical features. The story is coloured by persiflage and parodist imitations of biblical accounts, especially the wife of Potiphar story (Gen. 39), remodeled three times in Joseph and Aseneth 4, 7, and 23, and the story of David and Goliath (1 Sam. 17), retold with some critical modifications in Joseph and Aseneth 26–29. Moreover the comical figure ‘braggart soldier’, well known from the New Comedy, lurks at some points behind the characters of Joseph and Simon. While it remains impossible to say with certainty what features ancient readers considered funny, this article places some readings into the ancient discourse on Jewish identity in the Hellenistic or Early Roman world.
The story of Joseph and Aseneth is developed out of reference to Joseph marrying Aseneth, an Egyptian, in Genesis 41. We are told of an arrogant heroine and a no less conceited hero, both impressed mostly by their own status and beauty, but lovestruck when they first set eyes on each other. The chastity of both the heroine and the hero, lovesickness and a jealous rival, travel, and bandits, all fill the plot.
There is a growing consensus that this Jewish writing belongs to the genre of Greek novels. 1 Admittedly, there are some differences in length, language, and plot, but these differences are also detectable in the so-called Big Five Greek novels or love romances. Joseph and Aseneth shares with the fragments of the Ninos-Romance and to a lesser degree also with Xenophon's Anthia and Habrocomes a simple and non-elegant language. Like Chariton's Callirhoe it narrates the wedding of hero and heroine in the first half of the story. Where Joseph and Aseneth refers to, and sometimes quotes, the Septuagint, Chariton quotes Homer. Similar to Longus' Daphnis and Chloe, Joseph and Aseneth concentrates on unresolved erotic desire and lacks interest in polis-life or the landscapes of the Hellenistic and barbarian world. And with Achilles Tatius The Adventures of Leucippe and Cleitophon or Heliodorus Aethiopica, it shares an interest in the barbaric peoples and an Egyptian setting. What appears unique in Joseph and Aseneth is the flat, underdeveloped hero Joseph and the extensive concentration on the lovesickness of the heroine. The aspect that takes up only a few paragraphs in Xenophon's or Chariton's storylines, 2 the hopeless bodily suffering of the heroine and hero when they realize that they have been struck by the god Eros, is developed in Joseph and Aseneth into conversion not only to marriage but also to the God of her beloved and—most unique—is accompanied by a visionary visit of a heavenly messenger which looks like the beloved's celestial double. So Joseph and Aseneth adapts the genre of the Greek novel to present one of the most central biblical accounts of Jewish Diaspora identity—the story of Joseph and his family in Egypt. And it manages this adaption by adopting exegetical techniques and motifs inspired by a mystical branch of Jewish Wisdom theology. 3
There is also a growing awareness in scholarship that one of the genre's origins may have been ancient comedy and mime. 4 Some of the novelists even call their writings δραματικὴ κωμῳδία. 5 At least, the central motifs of the love story in most of the novels ‘echo the plots of New Comedy’. 6 Not only in Petronius' Satyricon or Apuleius' Metamorphosis but also in the Greek Novel, some characters of comedy and mime show up; the concupiscent rivals of the lovers, the flatterer, and faithful slaves, are more or less directly derived from the tradition of stage. 7
Graham Anderson was one of the first to descry comic plots and characterization in most of the Greek novels. For him, the exception to this pattern is Xenophon's Anthia and Habrocomes, ‘whose religious commitment, lack of skill and simple earnestness mark him out as a genuinely naïve popular purveyor of the same basic material’. 8 In the following, I want to argue that religiosity and humour do not rule one another out. On the contrary, I try to show that the basic plot of Joseph and Aseneth does indeed contain some comic features.
The Pseudo-Aristotelian tractatus coislinianus defines comedy as ‘an imitation of an action that is ludicrous and imperfect’. 9 So one might say, that incongruity and inconsistency lie at [humour's] base. 10 My thesis is that that the story of Joseph and Aseneth is coloured by both, persiflage and parodist imitations of biblical accounts, and characters well-known from comedy and mime. Finally, I try to conceptualize what the perception of humour can add to our understanding of the message of Joseph and Aseneth.
Humoristic Features in Joseph and Aseneth 1–20
The heroine of the story, Aseneth, is well known for her boasting. She is even called the ἀλαζών (‘boaster’) when introduced into the story in the longer text version. 11 When her father recommends Joseph as a husband for her, she boastfully refuses this offer:
‘Why should my lord and my father speak like this and talk as if he would hand me over like a prisoner to a man of another race, a man who was a fugitive and was sold as a slave? Is this not the shepherd's son from the land of Canaan, and he was abandoned by him? Is not this the man who had intercourse with his mistress, and his master threw him into prison where he lay in darkness, and Pharaoh brought him out of prison, because he interpreted his dream?’ (Jos. Asen. 4.12–14Ph)
I quote the text of the shorter version of Joseph and Aseneth edited by Marc Philonenko from two Greek and one Slavonic traditions, in David Cooks' translation. 12 Most recent interpreters are more familiar with the almost 5000-word-longer text, edited by Christoph Burchard from the Syrian, Armenian and Latin versions retranslated into Greek with the help of four quite young Greek manuscripts. 13 Retranslation as well as Burchard's text-critical principle to include as much text as possible result in a pleonastic repetitive style that slows down the progression of the narrative, while Philonenko's short-text shows at some points a little more elegance and speed in the course of action. As I will show, at some points the texts also differ in their humouristic aspects. Here, for instance, the long text version adds the comical idea that Joseph was caught in the act of sleeping with his master's wife and that his ability to interpret dreams is comparable to the talents of old Egyptian women. 14
With or without these additional features Aseneth's first speech in the story is a persiflage of the biblical account of Joseph and Potiphar's wife in Genesis 39, on which it is based. 15 All other re-tellings of this biblical account in Jewish-Hellenistic literature unanimously praise Joseph's chastity and steadfastness against the threats made by the lustful wife. 16 Only his ability to interpret dreams is seen by a few in a more ambivalent light. 17 Here both are mocked from an outside perspective which also ridicules his family background and fate. But one cannot deny that the pure facts of the story may indeed be read in this way.
As Tim Whitmarsh has recently shown, the story of Potiphar's wife functions in Joseph and Aseneth as an ‘inconscient textuel’, the subconscious that is suppressed by the dominant ideology of the text, but sometimes nonetheless noticeable. 18 Aseneth is compelled to change her opinion of Joseph immediately when he appears on his triumphal chariot in the likeness of a god. 19 Yet, Joseph does not fall in love at first sight, at least not without qualification. When entering her home he detects Aseneth standing at her window, and fears her as one of the foreign women his father Jacob had warned him about. The narrator explains this with another version of the story of Potiphar's wife:
This was because Joseph was afraid she too might solicit him; for all the wives and daughters of the lords and satraps of all the land of Egypt used to solicit him to lie with him. And many of the wives and daughters of the Egyptians suffered much, after seeing Joseph, because he was so handsome; and they would send emissaries to him with gold and silver and valuable gifts. And Joseph would reject them out of hand, saying, I will not sin before the God of Israel. (Jos. Asen. 7.3–5Ph)
Like the viewpoint expressed by Aseneth, this multiplication of Potiphar's wives is also unique in the Jewish-Hellenistic tradition. Other Jewish writings might multiply the threats of women or extend the time of distress. 20 This increase of threatening wives, however, has a double effect. It not only reinforces Joseph's suffering but also underlines his sexual appeal to women of good standing. Some might be flattered by this. The parasite Artotrogus (bread-chewer) flatters the braggart soldier in Plautus' miles glorious in this way:
There's no one more invincible in all the earth. In duties or in beauties than—Pyrgopolynices! Why, all the women love you—who can blame them, either—since you're so…so attractive? Why, just yesterday some women…badgered me with asking—‘Isn't that Achilles?’ ‘No’, said I, ‘it's just his brother’. ‘Ah’, said one. ‘That's why he looks so beautiful and so genteel! Just look at him—that handsome head of hair he has! Oh, blessed are the women that can sleep with him.’ 21
The braggart soldier in Plautus is so pleased by this flattery that he requires an entire comic plot before he learns that this might not be the only or the real truth. 22 Joseph, on the contrary, does not appear to be pleased by his effect on women at all. Here we need only half of the story to convert him from chastity into a lover. The narrator explains further:
And Joseph kept his father Jacob's face before his eyes continually, and he remembered his father's commandments; for Jacob used to say to Joseph and his brothers, ‘Be on your guard, my children, against the strange woman, and have nothing to do with her, for she is ruin and destruction’. That is why Joseph said, ‘Tell that woman to go away’. (Jos. Asen. 7.6–7Ph)
This command of Jacob stands in line with similar precepts given by him in Jubilees or the Testament of Joseph. 23 Our plot, however, could not continue if this were Jacob's, not to mention Joseph's, last word. A moment later Joseph will greet Aseneth as his sister, because, as he is told, she is a virgin like him who ‘hates all men’ (Jos. Asen. 7.10Ph/7.10B/F). 24 And while he refuses to kiss her now, because he still—a little surprising following his previous statements—sees her as an idolatrous woman, eight days later, when Aseneth has converted from the Egyptian gods to the true God of Israel, Joseph seems to have converted too. No longer an arrogant virgin, he is now ready to kiss her and to marry, but only under his stepfather the Pharaoh. 25 And thus another transformation takes place: Joseph no longer needs the extra table or any separation from foreigners as he had insisted upon in Aseneth's home until now. Now he is ready to celebrate with all kings of the Egyptians in a copious marriage feast with banquets and drinking for seven days (Jos. Asen. 21.7Ph). 26
So while the account of Potiphar's wife in Genesis is not only a tragedy but also told with some comic effects—remember the naked Joseph delivering a speech to the lustful woman—its retelling here is no less comic. Contrary viewpoints and the multiplication of threats catalyze the transformation of the two proud virgins into a loving couple. And while the themes of eros and intercultural marriage stand at its core, the storyline develops the theme into a more general discussion of ethnic boundaries and national pride. Especially the second part of the story is even more devoted to this theme.
The Comic Plot of Jos. Asen. 23–29
Eight years later in the second year of the famine, Potiphar's wife sneaks a third time into the story. This time as a male character. As the now happily married couple Joseph and Aseneth travelled through Egypt,
Pharaoh's eldest son saw them from the wall. And when he saw Aseneth he was driven to distraction by her because she was so beautiful. (Jos. Asen. 23.1–2Ph)
The scene refers to a standard feature of the Greek novel, that which makes them comparable to modern soap operas. Hero and heroine are constantly under the threat of rival lovers who fall in love at a first glance and try to seduce them with force. 27 As Martin Braun showed already eighty years ago, Philo, Josephus and the Testament of Joseph adapt this feature in their accounts of the story of Potiphar's wife. 28 When the short text describes Pharaoh's son as ‘driven to distraction’, or more literally translated, ‘he became maddened by her’ (ἐμμανὴς ἐγέν∊τo), the expression is taken from another archetype of this character, the widow Phaedra of Euripides' and Seneca's dramas. 29 Philo colours his account of Genesis 39 in similar ways when he introduces Potiphar's wife as ‘maddened by the beauty of the young man’. 30 The long text omits the distraction motif but draws a parallel between Pharaoh's son and the earlier Aseneth in its account. 31
Pharaoh's son is an entirely tragicomic character in Joseph and Aseneth. He appears at the very beginning of the story among Aseneth's suitors. Here his request to marry her is denied by his father with the argument that as the king of the inhabited world he cannot marry a woman of lower station than himself, but rather the daughter of King Joakim (Jos. Asen. 1.12–14Ph). The title ‘king of the inhabited world’ belongs to Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander the Great or a Roman Emperor but by no means to an Egyptian prince. 32 And the recommendation to marry a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar's client king Joakim, who is soon to be exiled to Babylon, seems ill-advised for a ruler of the known world. 33 This is at least the reading of the short text. The long text designates Pharaoh's son more plausibly the king of Egypt, even though he is only a prince for now, and has him betrothed to a daughter of the king of Moab. For readers of the Bible, daughters of Moab might remind them of Phinehas' zeal and slaughter, so this proposal seems no more attractive. 34
As we have already heard, Pharaoh's son changed his mind and, tortured by love, seeks support. First he speaks to Simeon and Levi:
‘I have heard that you are better soldiers than any others there are on earth, and that with your own right hands you destroyed the city of Schechem and with your own two swords you cut to pieces thirty thousand fighting men’. (Jos. Asen. 23.3–4Ph)
The allusion is to Genesis 34, the story of the killing of the circumcised men of Shechem after the rape of Dinah, and thus to one of the most famous stories in Jewish-Hellenistic literature. 35 But the number of soldiers killed in Shechem here remains unique. 36 It seems that Pharaoh's son wants to flatter the two leading brothers in the Shechem account. He appears not unlike the flatterer Artotrogus in Plautus' comedy miles gloriosus who praises the braggart soldier Pyrgopolynices: 37
‘In Cilicia, a hundred and fifty. In Saudi I-robya, hundreds more. Add thirty Sardians, those Macedonians, and there's the total men you've slaughtered in a single day…: seven thousand.’ 38
The scene is typical for the New Comedy and its Latin adaptations. 39 Pyrgopolynices' military skills are mocked by exaggeration of the range of people from different races that he is said to have killed as well as by the incorrect calculation of the total. When Pharaoh's son claims that Simeon and Levi killed 30,000 fighting men of Shechem, this sounds comparably exaggerated.
Pharaoh's son tries to convince Simeon and Levi to become conspirators in his plan to kill Joseph and to marry Aseneth. 40 And further to offering financial incentives he enforces his request by threatening them with his ‘naked’ sword. The unusual expression γυμνóω τὴν ῥομϕαίαν might have a sexual connotation. 41
Simeon and Levi will not ally with Pharaoh's son. But before they can offer a counter-threat with their swords, already proven in the revenge against men of Shechem (Jos. Asen. 23.13Ph / 23.13–14B/F), they have to resolve an internal quarrel. The bold (θρασύς) and daring (τολμηρóς) Simeon is immediately ready to kill Pharaoh's son (Jos. Asen. 23.7Ph / B/F). Levi needs to step on his foot to stop him (Jos. Asen. 23.8Ph / B/F). As a prophet he is not only able to divine thoughts (Jos. Asen. 23.8B/F) and to know the future (Jos. Asen. 23.8Ph) but is also the herald of Jewish ethics: ‘It is not right for a man who worships God to repay his neighbour 42 evil for evil’ (Jos. Asen. 23.9). With this ethic he can calm the wrath of Simeon for now and help the trembling son of Pharaoh back to his feet at the end of the scene. The long text increases the dramatic effects by colouring the scene with some features of resistance against tyranny and supernatural effects. Pharaoh's son appears before Simeon and Levi in ‘tyrannical fashion’ (Jos. Asen. 23.6B/F, σχη̑μα τυραννικóν) while Levi resists with frankness (Jos. Asen. 23.10B/F, μ∊τὰ παρρησίας). His and Simeon's drawn swords are flashing like flames of fire (Jos. Asen. 23.15B/F, ἤστραπτον αἱ ῥομϕι̑ιαι αὐτω̑ν ἑς ϕλóγα πυρóς). 43 Furthermore, this text produces another comic effect when Levi declares as a policy statement that ‘a man who reveres God… does not avenge himself, because a sword is not in his hand’ (Jos. Asen. 23.12B/F). Two sentences later it is he who draws his sword. 44
Since Pharaoh's son is still in affliction and torment because of Aseneth his servants suggest that he conspires with the sons of the maidservants. By calling Bilhah's and Zilpah's sons ‘hostile and jealous of Joseph’ the servants present themselves as informed by one part of biblical and post-biblical tradition which presents the sons of the maids in unfavourable light. 45 And indeed Dan, Gad, Asher and Naphtali are pleased by this invitation and promise immediately to do whatever he wishes. Privately Pharaoh's son starts his speech:
‘I offer you a choice between blessing and death so choose blessings and not death.’ (Jos. Asen. 24.6Ph) 46
This sounds like the conclusion of Moses' speech in Deuteronomy.
‘I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live.’ (Deut. 30.19) 47
But Pharaoh's son's copy of Moses is awkward in opposing the false dichotomy of blessing and death. His next argument flatters his listeners with a praise of andreia but will be proven wrong in the story.
‘I know that you are good soldiers, and that you will not die as women die; but act like men and take vengeance on your enemies.’ (Jos. Asen 24.7Ph) 48
The underlying argument seems to be a kind of proverb or concise statement on gender difference in bravery. 49 As an appeal to andreia, true masculinity, it will be repeated soon by Dan and Gad to persuade their doubtful and theologically much better informed younger brothers (Jos. Asen. 25.7) to remain on their side. But in the end all four will flee to a woman and beg mercy of her. After all, the servants' sons will behave in womanly ways.
After the death of Jacob, Pharaoh's son continues his speech: Joseph, still bearing his grudge, will pay back all the wrong that they did to him. 50 With this argument he seems to be well informed about the fears of the brothers in Gen. 50.15, but here, Pharaoh's son claims to have spied upon a meeting between Joseph and the Pharaoh. Gad and Dan are quickly won over; they develop a plan. While Pharaoh's son is going to kill his father, they will set an ambush with two thousand soldiers given to them in order to fight the six hundred men of Aseneth's escort. In the end Pharaoh's son could capture her with fifty mounted bowmen.
But the Pharaoh is not well enough to be killed that night. Because he is suffering from a headache his son is not admitted to his chamber. All in vain, the would-be tyrannicide must be put off. So our king of the world, or at least of Egypt, can only obey what the son of the maidservants have told him.
No surprise: the whole plan collapses. Although Aseneth's troops were killed by the two thousand soldiers in ambush, she manages to escape. Meanwhile Levi, the prophet, tells Leah's sons what is going on. But before they can set out at a gallop to intercept Aseneth, they first have to don their armour:
And they took each one of them his sword (τὴν ῥομϕαίαν) on his thigh (ἐπὶ τòν μηρóν), and their shields (τὰς ἀσπίδας) on their arms, and their spears (τὰ δóρατα) in their right hands. (Jos. Asen. 26.7Ph)
This detailed depiction of the weaponry makes one wonder. One might think of God's self-armament in the eschatological battle, or Moses' demand to those who fight the worshippers of the Golden Calf. 51 But our text's closest parallel is 1 Samuel 17. Here David says to the heavily armed Goliath:
‘You come to me with sword and with spear and with shield (ἐν ῥομϕαίᾳ καὶ ἐν δóρατι καὶ ἐν ἀσπίδι); and I am coming to you in the name of the Lord Sabaoth… And today the Lord will shut you up into my hand… And all this assembly will know that the Lord does not save by sword and spear (ἐν ῥομϕαίᾳ καὶ δóρατι), for the battle is the Lord's and the Lord will give you into our hands.’ (1 Sam. 17.45–47
But if so, then Leah's sons would be arming themselves like the archenemy of Israel. One wonders if such a self-ironic reading might be intended. Yet David's fight against Goliath is also the model of the next scene. Benjamin suddenly appears sitting on Aseneth's chariot. Jumping down he—like David—picks a smooth stone from the wadi and hurls it at Pharaoh's son, who falls from his horse, stricken on the left temple. 53 And Benjamin not only imitates David, he also multiplies his victims and kills with fifty stones the fifty mounted archers. Meanwhile the heavily armed sons of Leah—Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar and Zebulon—appear on the scene and pursue the soldiers 54 who had lain in ambush, and all two thousand are killed by these six.
Does this conflation of David's and Goliath's military strategies prevail in the end? The two thousand and fifty Egyptians killed so far seems to suggest so. But our novel promotes a different ethic. First of all, God remains the only true saviour. While the sons of the maidservants bereft of their troops yet threaten Aseneth with drawn swords dripping with blood, she cries out to God. And all of a sudden the stretched out swords fall upon the ground and are reduced to dust. 55 Visually imagined this scene might have also some sexual connotations. 56
Both texts agree in this general theological position but formulate a somewhat different ethic. Noting that God fights against them, Bilhah and Zilpah fear the vengeance of their brother and beg for mercy from Aseneth. 57 She encourages them with the argument that their brothers are men who revere God and adds the proverb ‘and fear God and show due respect for everyone’. 58 In the short text Aseneth repeats Levi's commandment ‘do not repay evil for evil’, but also expands it to ‘every human being’. 59 While the sons of the maidservants hide themselves among the reeds, Leah's sons appear on the scene running like deers in pursuit. 60 Aseneth tries to calm them but Simeon is still in a rage because of this second attack against Joseph and his family. In the long text version Aseneth replies: ‘By no means, brother, should you repay evil for evil. Surely you will say that it is for the Lord to punish their crime.’ 61 So this text emphasizes that revenge is God's alone. In the shorter text Aseneth says: ‘By no means, brother, you should repay evil for evil to your neighbour, for the Lord will avenge this crime’. 62 Here, God will punish those who seek revenge.
While Levi is immediately on Aseneth's side, one brother remains fighting. Benjamin in the role of David has to fulfill his last task against ‘Goliath’, alias Pharaoh's son: he ‘ran over to him and drew his sword from its sheath, since Benjamin carried none of his own, to kill the wounded man’. 63 But Levi prevented him from this execution, again by an appeal to a version of the ethical maxim 64 as well as with a rational argument: ‘If he lives, he will become our friend, and his father will be as our own father’ (Jos. Asen. 29.4). He is proven correct, and this appears to be another unique feature of this Joseph story. 65 Pharaoh's son—the would-be king of the inhabited world from ch. 1—soon dies, and Joseph becomes the Pharaoh of Egypt for forty-eight years before he hands back his reign to another of Pharaoh's sons.
Teleological and Resisting Readings 66
Ancient audiences might have laughed at things we do not consider funny, or might not have been amused at things which make us laugh out loud. As Richard Pervo reminds us:
Even within groups of the same culture and era, criteria for what is humorous vary widely depending upon education, age, taste, and for that matter, mood of the moment. 67
Yet different readings of our plot are possible. One reading might find humour in an Egyptian virgin who boasts to her fellow Egyptians but one moment later has fallen in love at first sight when God's beloved son appears in the shape of a god. Other readers might not wonder that she, who is as beautiful as Sarah, Rebecca and Rachel (Jos. Asen. 1.8Ph / 1.5B/F), will marry Jacob's son. A reading, similar to the first, might bring about a smile when the plans of an Egyptian prince can be foiled by a headache and a stone thrown by an eighteen-year-old. Another reading might provoke laughter about gender travesties when Pharaoh's son appears as a double of Potiphar's wife raving frantically when he sees Aseneth for the first time. Effeminacy might also encourage laughter when the sons of the maidservants, contrary to what Pharaoh's son attributes to them, take flight with womanly fear into the arms of a woman. Yet other readers would not be surprised because andreia does not fit their status as slaves. Some readers might have sexual associations when visually imagining the scene, as God throws the drawn swords to the earth and reduces them to dust like wax before fire, while others might remember similar expressions in the Psalms. 68 And some readers might even smile at the arrogant Joseph who resists the charms of all the noble women in Egypt but is easily captivated by a male-hating maiden looking down upon him from her window.
For the many readers and listeners in antiquity who were familiar with New Comedy and mime, further associations might arise. Pharaoh's son speaks like the parasite who flatters the braggart soldier, here Jacobs's and especially Leah's sons. The story is thereby not simply a parody of the murder of 30,000 men in Shechem. Does this flattery of the braggart soldiers also have, as Susan Lape proposes for the New Comedy, a political dimension? Does it operate ‘as a weapon of the weak that more than levels the playing field between the rich and powerful braggart soldier and relatively powerless citizens and slaves?’ 69 If so, then one may ask who the authorities criticized here might be.
There is a growing awareness that the question of ethnic identity is at stake in the Greek novel. 70 Paideia, culture and nobility are no longer native to those of Greek origin but have to be proven by speech and deeds. 71 I propose that Joseph and Aseneth might be read as a Jewish contribution to a related discussion. 72 ‘Humor invites us to realize that something important has been concealed or disguised.’ 73 As Joseph and Aseneth's storyline continues it becomes more and more a parody of one of the most central national legends, the story of David and Goliath. Not sword, spear, and shield as worn here by Leah's sons, nor a version David's catapult times fifty can win the prize. In the end, all those fighting are accused by the universal altruistic ethic introduced by the prophet Levi and adapted and exaggerated by the recently converted Egyptian Aseneth.
When the bold and daring Simeon is fooled and David will no longer fulfill his task of beheading the barbarian ἀλλóϕυλος, but has to make friends with him, Jewish ethnicity is no longer a question of origin but a question of who has the most peace-making and universal moral standards—or, to say it in a Greek way, who proves herself or himself as a true Jew by her or his paideia. And while some readers might laugh at the stupid Egyptians, others might be much more amused that military superiority in general is challenged here. Whether this reading is critical of some other Jewish parties or of hegemonic military might that Jews in Egypt and elsewhere in the diaspora might be subjected to—Greeks and Romans or such like—depends on the social-political location of our imagined readers. 74 But it is obviously not the 2051 Egyptians killed here but an altruistic ethic of non-retaliation that is most lauded. And not only Egyptians and sons of slaves, but even Jacob's own sons and Jews do not appear in a most favourable light. In the end only Levi the prophet, Aseneth the no-longer Egyptian, and Joseph the Jewish Pharaoh are praised.
Footnotes
1.
See, inter alia, Stefanie West, ‘Joseph and Asenath: A Neglected Greek Romance’, CQ 24 (1974), pp. 70–81; Angela Standhartinger, Das Frauenbild im Judentum der hellenistischen Zeit. Ein Beitrag anhand von ‘Joseph und Aseneth’ (AGJU, 26; Leiden: Brill, 1995), pp. 20–26; Catherine Hezser, ‘“Joseph and Aseneth” in the Context of Ancient Greek Erotic Novels’, Frankfurter judaistische Beiträge 24 (1997), pp. 1–40; Patricia Ahearne-Kroll, ‘Joseph and Aseneth and Jewish Identity in Greco-Roman Egypt’ (PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, 2005), pp. 88–142; Nina V. Braginskaya, ‘Joseph and Aseneth in the Greek Literary History: The Case of the First Novel’, in Marília P. Futre Pinheiro, Judith Perkins and Richard Pervo (eds.), The Ancient Novel and Early Christian and Jewish Narrative: Fictional Intersections (ANS, 16; Groningen: Barkhuis Publishing, 2012), pp. 79–109; Tim Whitmarsh, ‘Joseph et Aséneth. Erotisme et Religion’, in Cécile Bost-Pouderon and Bernard Pouderon (eds.), Les hommes et les dieux dans l'ancien roman. Acte du colloque des Tours, 22–24 octobre 2009 (Lyon: Maison de l'orient et de la Méditeranée—Jean Pouilloux, 2012), pp. 237–52.
2.
Compare Jos. Asen. 9–18 with Xenophon, Anthia and Habrocomes 1.3–8; Chariton, Chaer. 1.1.
3.
Richard I. Pervo, ‘Joseph and Asenath and the Greek Novel’, SBLSP 10 (1976), pp. 171–81; idem, ‘Aseneth and her Sisters: Women in Jewish Narrative and in the Greek Novels’, in Amy-Jill Levine (ed.), 'Women Like This': New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World (SBLEJL, 1; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1991), pp. 145–60, and Lawrence M. Wills, The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995), pp. 158–84, find beyond a basic novelistic story a second more theological layer in Joseph and Aseneth. Both associate Joseph and Aseneth more closely with its Jewish ancestors Esther, Judith, and Tobit. Motifs and themes of wisdom theology are obvious in Joseph and Aseneth. In Jos. Asen. 15 even Lady Wisdom appears in the guise of Lady Metanoia. But one has to admit that the storyline in Joseph and Aseneth runs closer to the Greek Novel than those of Esther, Judith and Tobit. Wills detects above the ‘base story’ of a ‘national hero romance’ about Joseph and his brothers in Egypt a second layer that recounts Aseneth's conversion. ‘Like the other Jewish novel, it seems to have less interest in the love-and-adventure plot elements of the Greek novel, even though these are present in the base narrative… The romantic interests have been spiritualized, especially in the central account of Aseneth's seven-day ordeal. There the late layer has moved to suspend the reader in a position of utmost vulnerability and precariousness, an experience not of Jewish triumphalism (as in the base narrative) but of extreme ambivalence and personal anxiety’ (p. 184). I am sure that there is an allegorical layer in most of our manuscripts (but it is not the same everywhere), but Aseneth's conversion fits nonetheless into what is told about conversion to heterosexual marriage and sexuality in the Greek novel. And vice versa the storyline at least in Achilles Tatius, Longus and Heliodorus, consists of more than merely a simple romantic plot.
4.
Thomas Paulsen, Inszenierung des Schicksals. Tragödie und Komödie im Roman des Heliodor (BAC, 10; Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, 1992). Consuelo Ruiz-Montero, ‘The Rise of the Greek Novel’, in Gareth L. Schmeling (ed.), The Novel in the Ancient World (Mnemosyne, 155; Leiden: Brill, 1996), pp. 28–85, 52–54; Marília P. Futre Pinheiro, ‘Humor Strategies in the Ancient Greek Novel’, in Siegried Jäkel, Asko Timonen and Veli-Matti Rissanen (eds.), Laughter Down the Centuries 3 (Turku: Turun Yliopisto, 1997), pp. 81–97; Kathryn Chew, ‘Achilles Tatius and Parody’, CJ 96 (2000), pp. 57–70; Margaret Doody, ‘Comedy in Heliodorus’ Aithiopika', in Michael Paschalis and Stelios Pnayotakis (eds.), The Construction of the Real and the Ideal in the Ancient Novel (ANS, 17; Groningen: Barkhuis, 2013), pp. 105–26, et. al.
5.
Niklas Holzberg, Der antike Roman. Eine Einführung (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 3rd edn, 2006), p. 19. Cf. Ruiz-Montero, ‘The Rise of the Greek Novel’, p. 36.
6.
Simon Goldhill, ‘Genre’, in Tim Whitmarsh (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Greek and Roman Novel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 185–200 (195).
7.
John Morgan, ‘Intertextuality’, in Whitmarsh (ed.), The Cambridge Companion, pp. 218–36 (221). Alain Billault, ‘Characterization in the Ancient Novel’, in Gareth L. Schmeling (ed.), The Novel in the Ancient World (Mnemosyne Supplement, 159; Leiden: Brill, 1996), pp. 115–30 (117–18). Other characters are rather newer types and the story transgresses the narrow world of a home in the polis to a globalized world of the whole empire and beyond (pp. 118–26).
8.
Graham Anderson, Eros Sophistes. Ancient Novelists at Play (American Classical Studies, 9; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), p. 91.
9.
Lane Cooper, An Aristotelian Theory of Comedy with an Adaption of the Poetics and a Translation of the ‘Tractatus Coislinianus’ (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1922), p. 244.
10.
Cf. Richard I. Pervo, Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), p. 58.
11.
Jos. Asen. 2.1B[urchard]/F[ink]. Cf. 4.16Ph[ilonenko]/4.12B[urchard]/F[ink]. In the following I quote from both critical reconstructions of the text of Jos. Asen. A shorter text of ca. 8000 words was reconstructed from manuscripts B and D (eleventh and fifteenth centuries) and the Slavonic tradition was edited by Marc Philonenko, Joseph et Aséneth. Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes (StBP, 13; Leiden: Brill, 1968). Unfortunately Philonenko amended the verse-counting. The longest text, comprising around 13,000 words, was reconstructed from the Syriac, Armenian and Latin translations with the help of four younger Greek manuscripts (E, F, W and G, fifteenth to seventeenth centuries) by Christoph Burchard, Joseph und Aseneth kritisch herausgegeben (PVTG, 5; Leiden: Brill, 2003). This text was recently re-edited and improved (but without a critical apparatus) by Uta B. Fink, Joseph und Aseneth. Revision des griechischen Textes und Edition der zweiten lateinischen Übersetzung (Fontes et Subsidia ad Bibliam pertinentes, 5; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008). I will refer to her edition here and mark it by B/F. So, in the following all quotations from Joseph and Aseneth are marked either by Ph or B/F in reference to the edition quoted, except in those instances where all three editions concur in their verse-counting.
12.
David Cook, ‘Joseph and Aseneth’, in Hedley F.D. Sparks (ed.), The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), pp. 465–503.
13.
See n. 11 above. Translations of the longer version are taken from Lawrence M. Wills, ‘The Marriage and Conversion of Aseneth’, in Ancient Jewish Novels: An Anthology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 121–61.
14.
Cf. Jos. Asen. 4.10B/F: καὶ αὐτòς κατ∊λὴϕθη ἐπ᾽ αὐτοϕώρῳ μ∊τὰ τη̑ς κυρίας αὐτου̑ (‘and he himself was caught in the act [when he was sleeping] with his mistress’) instead of καὶ αὐτòς καταλέλ∊ιπται ὐπ᾽ αὐτου̑ (‘and he was and he was abandoned by him [i.e. his father; 4.13Ph]’). At the end of Jos. Asen. 4.14Ph, cited above, Burchard's/Fink's text adds καθὰ συγκρίνουσι καὶ αἱ γυναι̑κ∊ς αἱ πρ∊σβύτ∊ραι τω̑ν Αἰγυπτίων (‘just like the older women of the Egyptians interpret [dreams]’).
15.
Some wording is taken directly from Genesis. Aseneth becomes furious with her father (έθυμώθη ἐν όργη), just like Potiphar when he hear the story from his wife (Gen. 39.19). Aseneth blames Joseph so as to have him thrown into prison by his master (καὶ ὁ κύριος αὐτòν ∊ἰς τὴν ϕυλακὴν, Gen. 39.20), yet he was subsequently released by Pharaoh for interpreting his dreams (καὶ Φαραὼ ἐξήγαγ∊ν αὐτòν ἐκ τη̑ς ϕυλαη̑ς, καθóτι συνέκριν∊ τò ἐνύπνιον αύτου̑, cf. Gen. 41.14–5).
16.
Cf. Edgar. W. Smith, ‘Joseph Material in Joseph and Asenath and Josephus Relating to the Testament of Joseph’, in George W.E. Nickelsburg (ed.), Studies on the Testament of Joseph (SBLSCS, 5; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975), pp. 133–37. Cf. Maren Niehoff, The Figure of Joseph in Post-Biblical Jewish Literature (AGJU, 16; Leiden: Brill, 1992).
17.
F. Oertelt, ‘Herrscherideal und Herrschaftskritik bei Philo von Alexandria am Beispiel seiner Josephdarstellung in De Josepho und De Somniis II’ (Diss. Theol., Marburg: Philipps-Universität, 2012), pp. 227–31.
18.
Whitmarsh, ‘Joseph et Aséneth’, p. 254.
19.
Jos. Asen. 5–6. On the similarity of Joseph's chariot and the Roman triumphal wagon, see Standhartinger, Frauenbild, p. 84 n. 158.
20.
For a multiplication of threads T. Jos. is most exemplary, for an expansion of time, see Jub. 39.8: ‘she begged him (for) one year’.
21.
Plautus, Mil. glor. 56–64 (trans. Segal).
22.
Eroticism seems to be a common theme in the dialogue between the flatterer and the braggart soldier. In a fragment of Menander's Kolax cited by Athenaeus, Deipn. 13.587e, the braggart soldier is flattered by a list of all the famous courtesans he has slept with.
23.
Jub. 39.6: ‘And Joseph was good-looking and very handsome. And the wife of his master lifted up her eyes and saw Joseph and desired him. And she begged him to lie with her. And he did not surrender himself but he remembered the LORD and the words which Jacob, his father, used to read, which were from the words of Abraham, that there is no man who (may) fornicate with a women who has a husband [and] that there is a judgement of death which is decreed for him in heaven before the Lord Most High. And the sin is written (on high) concerning him in the eternal books always before the Lord. And Joseph remembered these words and he did not want to lie with her’ (trans. Wintermute in OTP). Cf. T. Jos. 3.3.
24.
Whitmarsh, ‘Joseph et Aséneth’, p. 249, detects another problem in this idea: ‘Si les amants ont devenus maintenant (comme?) frère et soeur, n'est-ce pas une relation incestueuse?’
25.
How Joseph's transformation from chastity to sexuality happens is only suggested. Both texts speak of a heavenly message he had received (Jos. Asen. 19.2Ph) and the longer text attributes it to the same messenger as Aseneth's—his own heavenly double (Jos. Asen. 19.10B/F). Pharaoh is given a prominent role in this marriage also in Josephus' version (Ant. 2.9). Cf. Niehoff, Figure, pp. 106–107.
26.
The longer version adds ‘all kings of the nations’ in 21.8B/F.
27.
Cf. Xenophon, Anthia and Habrocomes 1.14.7 (Habrocomes, homosexual male); 1.15.4 (Anthia); 2.3.1–12.2 (Habrocomes ad Manto); 2.11.2 (Anthia and Manto's husband Moeris); 2.13.5 (Anthia and Perilaus); 3.12.3–4.4.4 (Cyno and Habrocomes). Chariton, Chaer. 2.3.5ff. (Dionysios and Callirhoe); Longus, Daphn. 3.15–20 (Lycaenium and Daphnis); 4.10–12.4; 16.1–20.1 (The Parasite Gnathon and Daphnis); Achilles Tatius, Leuc. Clit. 5.11ff. (Melite), Heliodorus, Aeth. 8.6; Apuleius, Metam. 10.2–12. See also Whitmarsh, ‘Joseph et Aséneth’, p. 242.
28.
Martin Braun, Griechischer Roman und Hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung (Frankfurter Studien zur Religion und Kultur der Antike, 6; Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, 1934), and idem, History and Romance in Graeco-Oriental Literature (Oxford: Blackwell, 1938), pp. 44–104. Threats from married wives thereby also adapt the Phaedra story, which Euripides brought most influentially to the stage in his Second Hippolytus and was adapted for Rome by Seneca in his Phaed. Pausanias, Descr. 1.22.1 states: ‘Everybody, even a foreigner who has learnt Greek, knows about the love of Phaedra and the wickedness the nurse dared commit to serve her’ (δη̑λα δέ, καì ὅστις βαρβάρων γλω̑σσαν ἔμαθεν Έλλήνων, ὅ τε ἔρως τη̑ς Φαίδρας καì τη̑ς τροφου̑ τò ἐς τὴν διακονíαν τóλμημα). It is interesting that Apuleius (Metam. 10.2.4) calls his version a tragedy (tragoediam, non fabulam legere, Metam. 10.2.4)
29.
Compare in this madness-motif Euripides, Hipp. 214; 241; Seneca, Phaed. 178; 184; 248; 268; 368; 585; 645; 711; 824.
30.
Philo, Ios. 40: τῳ̑ γὰρ εὐμορφìᾳ έπιμανει̑σα του̑ νεανíσκου (trans. Colson, LCL). Cf. in T. Jos. 8.3 the madness is stated when Potiphar's wife grabs Joseph's garments ἑς οὐ̑ν εἰ̑δον ὅτι μαινομένη βíᾳ κρατει̑ τὰ ἱμάτιά μον, γυμνòς σ῎φυγον.
31.
Here (Jos. Asen. 23.1B/F) Pharaoh's son ‘was cut (to the heart), and (for some time) he was heavily indignant and felt sick because of her beauty’ (Άσευέθ καì κατενύγη καì έδυσφόρει βαρέως καì κακω̑ς εἰ̑χε διὰ τò—translation Burchard, OTP). This reminds one on the one hand of Aseneth's first glance of Joseph in Jos. Asen. 6.1Ph/B/F: ‘And Aseneth saw Joseph and she was strongly cut (to the heart’ (Καì εἰ̑δεν Άσευὲθ τòν Ἰωσὴφ καì κατενύγη ίσχυρω̑); and the reaction of the many Egyptian women to Joseph in 7.4Ph / 7.3B/F): ‘many of the wives and daughters of the Egyptians suffered much, after seeing Joseph, because he was so handsome’ (πολλαì γυναι̑κες καì θυγατέρες τω̑ν Αίγυτττίων, ἑς έώρον [Ph: ὅσαι ἐθεώρου] τòν Ἰωσήφ, κακω̑ς ἔπασχον έπì τῳ̑ κάλλει αὐτου̑). Cf. Standhartinger, Frauenbild, pp. 145–51.
32.
Nebuchadnezzar: Dan. 3.2(OG); Cyrus: 2 Chron. 36.23 / 1 Esd. 2.3 (
33.
2 Kgs 23.36–24.17; 25.27–30; 2 Chron. 26.5–8 etc.
34.
Cf. Num. 25.1. Fink's re-edition of Burchard's text deleted the name Joakim.
35.
Cf. Angela Standhartinger, ‘“Um zu sehen die Töchter des Landes”. Die Perspektive Dinas in den jüdisch-hellenistischen Auslegungen von Gen 34’, in Lukas Bormann, Kelly De Tredici and Angela Standhartinger (eds.), Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World. Essays: Honoring Dieter Georgi (NovTSup, 74; Leiden: Brill, 1994), pp. 89–116. Cf. additionally Pseudo-Philo, De Samptione 25.
36.
It is not clear where the number of killed men at Shechem comes from. Biblical parallels might be Joshua, who ambushes Ai with 30,000 from the fighting people (ὁ λαòς ὁ πολεμιστὴς) in Israel; in 1 Kgs 4.10 30,000 from Israel were killed; in 1 Macc 10.36 30,000 Jewish men become part of the troops of Demetrius I Soter.
37.
The name Pyrgopolynices might be translated: ‘he who has enjoyed many a victory over cities’.
38.
Plautus, Mil. glor. 43–46 (trans. Segal).
39.
Cf. Plautus, Curc. 402–48. Cf. Terence, Eun. 401–402.
40.
She was, as he said, ‘originally pledged to him’ (Jos. Asen. 23.4Ph / 23.3B/F). The reader already knows better.
41.
Cf. Apophthemata Patrum cod. Coislin. 126 (25): Eἰ̑πεν γέρων. Γύμνωσον τὴν ῥομφαι̑άν σου. Καì εἰ̑πεν ὁ άδελφóς. Άλλ᾽ οὐκ έω̑σí με τὰ πάθη. Καì λεγει ὁ γέρων. Έπικάλεσαί με εν ἡμερᾳ θλίψεώς σου, καì έξελου̑μαί οε καì δοξάσεις με. Έπικαλου̑ oὐ̑ν αὐτòν, καì έξελει̑ταί οε άπò πάντος πειρασμου̑ (‘The old man said: “Strip naked your sword’. And the brother said: “But passions hindered me”. And the old man says: “Call me in the day of your distress and I will take you out and you will praise me. Therefore, call him, and he will take you out from every temptation”’).
42.
The text of Burchard/Fink does not read τῳ̑ πλησίον αὐτου̑ here in Jos. Asen. 23.9B/F.
43.
Cf. Dan. 7.9; 10.6; Isa. 66.15; Rev. 2.18.
44.
Fink, Joseph und Aseneth, p. 78, explains this by the difference between using a sword for human revenge and for God's revenge; cf. 23.12Ph / 23.14B/F: ‘with these (swords) God avenged the outrage on the sons of Israel’. But still it remains a comical situation.
45.
Cf. Gen. 37.2; T. Gad 1.6. In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs Dan is the model of wrath (θυμός); Gad is the model of hate (μι̑σος) and Asher is the model of ambiguousness (διπρόσωττος), but Naphtali is a positive character. Philo twice calls the sons of the servants νόθοι άδελφοί, οἳ παλλακίδων ὄντες άπò του̑ χείρονοϊ γένους (‘illegitimate brothers, who, being the sons of concubines, derive their name from the inferior sex’; Deus 121, cf. Sobr. 12). But Philo also draws also a positive picture of them and their mothers and praises them as models of virtue and proselytism (Virt. 223–25). The symbolic meaning Philo gives to their names also sounds positive. For him ‘Dan is a symbol of the distinction between, and division of, different things. Gad is an emblem of the invasion of pirates, and of a counter-attack made upon them. Asher is a symbol of natural wealth [but see Migr. 95 the symbol of that bastard wealth (του̑ αίσθητου̑ καì νόθου σύμβολον πλούτου)]… Naphtali is a symbol of peace’ (Somn. 2.33–35, Translation Colson, LCL).
46.
Cf. Jos. Asen. 24.7B/F.
47.
Cf. Deut. 30.15. The word was used by Philo without mentioning the context as an argument of humanity's free will (Deus 50.) and for the immortality of the soul of good people (Fug. 58).
48.
Cf. L. A. B. 31.7: Sisera says: morior tamquam mulier.
49.
Achilles Tatius makes use of many aphoristic, stereotyping statements, such as: ‘A women is best pleased with things present before her, and only remembers the absent as long as she has failed to find something new’ (Leuc. Clit. 6.17.4) or ‘The Egyptian is subject to the most slavish cowardice when he is afraid and the most foolhardy rashness when encouraged by his position’ (Leuc. Clit. 4.14.9); or ‘The whole tribe of slaves is greatly inclined to cowardice in any circumstances where there is the slightest room for fear’ (Leuc. Clit. 7.10.5) (trans. S. Gaselee, LCL). See the whole list of similar statements in Helen Morales, Vision and Narrative in Achilles Tatius' Leucippe and Clitophon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 109–10. For Morales, such statements ‘play a role in constructing a discourse of ethnocentrism which, however nuanced and open to negotiation, maintains Greek superiority’ (p. 117).
50.
There are manuscripts of T. Gad which attribute Joseph's sale to the Ishmaelite to Simeon and Gad (2.3f-4 manuscript. α, β, A). In T. Zeb. it is Simeon, Gad (and manuscript h also Dan) who want to kill Joseph (2.1).
51.
Isa. 59.7; Wis. 5.17–19: ‘He will take his zeal as his whole armor and make creation his weapons for vengeance on his enemies; he will put on righteousness as a breastplate and war impartial justice as a helmet; he will take holiness as an invincible shield, and will sharpen stern anger for a sword, and creation will fight with him against those without sense’. Exod. 32.27: ‘And he [Moses] says to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: “Each one put his own sword on his thigh and go through (περίζωσαι τὴν ῥομφαίαν σου έπì τòν μηρόν σου) and return from gate to gate through the camp, and each one kill his brother, and each one the one nearest to him”’.
52.
All Translations of the Septuagint are from Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright (eds.), A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).
53.
Jos. Asen. 27.3Ph / 27.2B/F καì ἔλαβε λίθον έκ του̑ χειμάρρου στρογγύλον καì Εττλήρωσε τòν χεΐρα αύτου̑ καì ήκόντισε κατὰ [F: κατέναντι] του̑ υἱου̑ Φαραὼ καì Επάταξε τòν κρόταφον αὐτου̑ (‘he picked up a smooth stone from the riverbed, gripped it firmly, and hurled it at the Pharaoh's son and it struck him on the left temple’). Cf. 1 Sam. 17.40: καì έξελέξατο ἑαυτῳ̑ πέντε λίθους λείους έκ του̑ χειμάρρου (and chose for himself five smooth stones from the wadi); 1 Sam. 17.49: καì ἔλαβεν Εκει̑θεν λίθον ἕνα καì έσφενδόνησεν καì έπάταξεν τòν άλλόφυλον έπì τò μετωττον αὐτου̑ (and took out from there one stone and slung it and struck the allophyle on his forehead). There is a striking parallel told by Plutarch, Art. 15.6 about the death Kyrios. Mithridates explains: ‘for I did not, like Artagerses, make a futile and an idle cast of a spear (ήκόντισα κενòν), but I narrowly missed his eye, struck him in the temple (του̑ δὲ κροτάφου τυχὼν), pierced it, and brought the man down; and it was of that wound that he died.’
54.
Jos. Asen. 23.6: καì κατεδίωξαν όπίσω αὐτω̑ν = 1 Sam. 17.52 (
55.
Jos. Asen. 27.8Ph / 27.10B/F. Cf. 28.10. In Jos. Asen. 28.1 the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah say: ‘The Lord is fighting for Aseneth against us’.
56.
Cf. Jdt 9.10: Judith prays: ‘strike their erection by the hand of a woman’ (θραυ̑σον αὐτω̑ν τò άνάστεμα έυ χειρì θηλείας).
57.
The brothers are called: oἱ ἔκδικοι τη̑ς ὕβρεώς (28.3Ph / 28.4B/F). Dionysus calls Mithridates this in Chariton, Chaer. 5.6.1.
58.
Jos. Asen. 28.7B/F: ἄνδρες θεοσφει̑ς καì φοβούμενοι τòν θεòν καì αίδούμεμοι πάντα ἄνθρωπον. Cf. Xenophon, Hell. 2.4.21: αίδούμενοι καì οεοὺς καì ἀνθρώτουϊ (‘out of shame before gods and men’); Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 8.48.2: θεούς τε δὴ σφόóενοί, οὓζ ὤμοσα, καì ἀνθρώπους αίδούμενοί, οἰ̑ς τὰς πíστεΐς ἔδωκα, πολεμήσω ‘Ρωμαίοις ἄχρι τέλους (‘Both out of reverence, then, for the gods by whom I swore and out of respect for the men to whom I gave my pledges I shall continue to make war upon the Romans to the last’). Cf. Plato, Leg. 917b; Pseudo-Socrates, Letter 9: καì οὔτε δίκαν φοβει̑ται τὰν θεω̑ν, οὔτ᾽ ἄθρωττον αίδει̑ται ὅστις με τοιαυ̑τα διατίθεται.
59.
Jos. Asen. 28.4Ph ἄνδρες θεοσφει̑ς καì μὴ άττοδιδóντες κακòν άντì κακου̑ τιυι άνθρώπῳ.
60.
Jos. Asen. 28.8Ph: τρΕχοντες ἓσπερ ἔλαφοι. This seems to be a poetic expression. Cf. Ant. Pal. 6.22.12; 9.268, 311.
61.
Jos. Asen. 24.14F: μηδαμω̑ς άδελφέ ποιήσεις κακον άντί κακου̑ [Fink deletes τῳ̑ πλησίον σου from Burchard's text, cf. Fink, Joseph and Aseneth, 42], τῲ κυρίῳ δώσεΐί <τὴν> έκδίκησιν τὴς ὕβρ<εως> αύτω̑ν.
62.
Jos. Asen. 28.14Ph: μηδαμω̑ς, άδελφέ, άττοδώσεις κακòν άντί κακου̑ τῳ̑ πλησίον σου, διότι κΰριος έκδικήσει τὴν ὕβριν ταύτην.
63.
Jos. Asen. 29.2Ph/B/F. Cf. 1 Sam. 17.51: καὶ ἔδραμεν Δαυιδ καὶ έπέστη έπ᾽ αὐτòν καὶ ἔλαβεν τὴν ῥομφαίαν αὐτου̑ καὶ έθανάτωσεν αὐτòν καὶ άφει̑λψν τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτου̑ (‘And David ran, and stood upon him, and took his sword, and slew him, and cut off his head’). Cf. Ps. 151.7; Josephus, Ant. 6.190.
64.
Jos. Asen. 28.3: ‘We are men who revere God, and it is not fitting for such a man to repay evil for evil, nor to trample on one who is fallen, nor to afflict an enemy to the point of death’.
65.
Cf. Erich S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism. The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), p. 98. T. Levi 13.9 calls Joseph only σύνθρονος βασιλέων. But see Wis 10.14: ‘and when he was in chains, she did not leave him until she had brought him the scepter of a kingdom and authority over those who ruled over him’ (καì
66.
Cf. Helen Morales, ‘The History of Sexuality’, in Tim Whitmarsh (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Greek and Roman Novel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 39–54 (46).
67.
Pervo, Profit, p. 58.
68.
Cf. Ps. 67.3 (
69.
Susan Lape, Reproducing Athens: Menander's Comedy, Democratic Culture and the Hellenistic City (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), p. 64.
70.
Cf. Susan A. Stephens, ‘Cultural Identity’, in Tim Whitmarsh (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Greek and Roman Novel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 56–71.
71.
Morales, Vision, pp. 94–95, proposes that we see the characters of the ancient novel ‘not as “personalities” but as embodiments of social and moral values and as representatives of different ways of viewing and reading the world. The narrative thus constitutes a site where visual, social and moral choices are displayed for debate.’
72.
For post-colonial readings of Jos. Asen., see Virginia Burrus, ‘Mimicking Virgins: Colonial Ambivalence and the Ancient Romance’, Arethusa 38 (2005), pp. 49–87; Wills, ‘Jewish Novellas in a Greek and Roman Age: Fiction and Identity’, JSJ 42 (2011), pp. 141–65.
73.
Gideon Nisbeth, ‘Humor and Satire, Greece and Rome’, in Roger S. Bagnall et. al. (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Ancient History (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013), VI, p. 3336.
74.
The date of origin of Jos. Asen. is still under debate. While some see this writing as a contribution to the establishment of Onias' temple in Leontopolis in the late second century