Ahaziah's fall (2 Kings 1). The version of Josephus

2 Kgs 1,2-17a relates the dramatic circumstances surrounding the death of king Ahaziah of Israel after a reign of only two years. This article examines the Josephan version of the episode (Ant. IX 19-27) in relation to the biblical source. The study notes the various sorts of stylistic, terminological and content retouchings introduced by the historian in bis re-telling of the incident, and off ers suggestions about the reasons and effects of these changes. The historian's treatment of the double angelic intervention of the source text (2 Kgs 1,3.5) receives special attention.

In 1,3 Elijah «the Tishbite» receives bis comm1ss1on from «an angel (MT 1N,n, LXX ayyelo�) of the Lord» who «speaks» to him. Josephus' designation for Elijah's commissioner differs significantly: «the God of the Hebrews ( 6 trov E�paícov Seó�) 9 appeared ( <paveí�) to the prophet (tcp 1tpo<p rrru ) 10 Elijah and hade him ... ». Severa! features of this Josephan reformulation call for special comment. First, there is the historian's substitution of the deity himself for the biblical angel. Josephus' handling of the biblical references to angels, i. e. heavenly messengers, has recently been surveyed in sorne detail by Michael Mach 11 • W hat emerges from Mach 's discussion is that Josephus deals quite variously with those references, just as, in many cases, it is not easy to discern why he adopts the particular procedure he does. To be noted, first of all, is that in a whole range of contexts J osephus does reproduce the Bible's mention of super natural «angel(s)», see, e. g., I 219 (= Gen 21,17), BJ V 388 (= 2 Kgs 19,35). On the other hand, in numerous other instances he uses alternative terminology either in place of or alongside biblical refer ences to angels, designating the figures in question as, e.g., «phan toms» (ch1rn1�, I 279; compare Gen 28,12 «angels of God»: Jacob's dream at Bethel); «visions» (q>avtáaµa-ra, I 325; compare Gen 32,1 «angels of God»: Jacob's encounter at Mahanamim); «a spectre in the f orm of a young man» ( q>av-ráaµa-ro; .. . veavíatou µopq>ti, v 213; compare Judg 6,11-12 c4he angel of the Lord»: Gideon's call) and «someone» (nvo� VIII 349, compare 1 Kgs 19,5 «an angel»: Elijah strengthened f or bis journey to Horeb ). Thus, one may speak of a certain «deangelizing» of the biblical record effected by Jose phus 12 • For our purposes it is especially interesting to note that, not 12 Mach (sec previous note) relates this tendency, in first place, to Josephus' animosity tówards the Zealots who would have set great store in angelic support for their revolt against Rome. http://sefarad.revistas.csic.es only in IX 20, but also elsewhere, another such Josephan substitution for the Bible's angel is precisely the deity himself, see, e.g., I 233 ff.: «God» addresses Abraham who is about to sacrifice his son ( compare Gen 22,15-18 where «the angel of the Lord» does so), and VIII 239: «God» has sent the Bethel prophet to take his Judean colleague to his home (compare 1 Kgs 13,18 «an angel spoke to me by the word of the Lord ... »). Thus, our text is not unique within the Josephan corpus in its attributing to God the speaking initiative the Bible ascribes to an angel. In IX 20, however, God not only speaks to Elijah; he also «shows himself» to him. Here again, Josephus' deviation from the biblical presentation is in line with what one finds elsewhere in his retelling of the Bible's story where, in a whole series of instances, the historian introduces mention of a divine appearance where his source cites only a speaking by God 1 3• 2 Kgs l ,3b-4a cites the angel's word to Elijah consisting of commissioning of the prophet (v. 3ba), accusation against Ahaziah in question form (v. 3bP) and announcement of doom for the king (v. 4a) in direct discourse. Josephus, in accord with his frequent practice throughout Antiquities, transposes the whole complex into indirect discourse 14 • Note further that, in formulating the rhetorical question of v. 3ba: «is it beca use there is no God in Israel 1 5 that you (Ahaziah) are going to inquire of Baalzebub ... ?», the historian introduces a contrast between the people of Israel's «own god» (0eóv ... 'í8tov) and «the foreign (god)►► (tóv aA11.ótp1ov) 16 to whom Ahaziah is having recourse. By means of this (re-) formulation, Josephus imparts a more general character to the opposition ex pressed in the source's question; the Lord as Israel's «own god» is now contrasted, not with one particular deity (Baalzebub ), but with 13 On this feature of Josephus' version -which seems inspired, in part at least, by Greek religion 's emphasis on divine epiphanies-see the list of examples and the bibliographical references cited in C. BEGG, Josephus' Account of the Early Divided Monarchy (AJ 8,, Leuven 1993, pp. 53-54, n. ,300. 14 On this Josephan tendency, see C. any «f oreign god» 17 • Finally, in anticipation of 1,6 where the mes sengers report to Ahaziah that Elijah had enjoined them to «go back to the king ... and say to him», Josephus, already here, has God instruct Elijah to «command them (the messengers) to return and tell the kin. g ... ».

KING-MESSENGERS EXCHANGE ( l ,4b-8)
2 Kgs l ,4b-5a comprises two paratactically linked sentences which effect a -rather abrupt-transition between Elijah's commis�ioning (l,3-4a) and the conversation between king and messsengers (l,Sb-8). This reads: «and Elijah went (+ and he spoke to them [Ahaziah's messengers], BL) and the messengers returned to him (Ahaziah)». J osephus (IX 21) crea tes a smoother transition with the use of a series of participial phrases: «so Elijah did what God commanded [i. e. go to meet the messengers and direct them to return to the king with a word from God for him], and when the messengers heard his words, they at once 18 returned to the king». In 1,5b Ahaziah's first word to the messengers is a question: ccwhy have you returned?». Such a question might appear odd addressed to messengers who, after ali, were expected to retum to the one who sent them. Josephus takes care to provide a motivation for Ahaziah 's query which, at the same time, picks up on bis previously inserted ref eren ce to their returning ccat once»: eche wondered at the speediness 19 of their re turn ... ».
In 1,6 the messengers commence their reply to Ahaziah with mention of a cernan» (BL «iv1'p) who carne to ccmeet» them. Josephus too has the messengers cite their meeting «a certain man (dv8pco1tov)». He adds as well a further qualification of Elijah which -like bis earlier insertion of ccat once», see above-serves to accentuate the prophet's irresistible authority: eche prevented them http://sefarad.revistas.csic.es from going farther». Having mentioned the man's meeting them, the royal messengers in v. 6a�b proceed to relate his words to them. These comprise a (re-)commissioning of them as messengers to Ahaziah plus the communication of the message they are to convey. The latter ítem is introduced with a Botenformel and essentially reproduces the judgment speech with its sequence of rhetorical question-accusation and announcement of punishment of vv. 3b-4a 20• Josephus, first of ali, shortens the prophetic word as relayed by the messengers, eliminating its accusation element. He likewise varies the language of the initial announcement of punishment: «he would not recover from his illness», and its reiteration here: « •.. your illness would get worse». Thereby, he avoids the Bible's largely verbatim repetition of the announcement of Ahaziah's fate. Finally, in line with his regular practice, he substitutes an alternative phrase for the source's Botenformel, i . e. «by the command of the God (t� tvtoAf\� tou ... 0Eoo 21 ) of Israel 22 » .
The dialogue between king and messengers continues in 1, 7 with the former asking about the «manner» (MT \)!:>\ÜtJ, B ,; Kpicnc;, L tó ólKaicoµa) of the man they had encountered. Josephus employs equivalent terminology: Ahaziah bids the messengers «describe» (crr¡µaivEtv) the one whose words they have just reported. In reply to the king's new question the messengers (1,8a) supply a two-fold characterization of the unknown figure: he was a «hairy man» (MT 1Y\Ü ,y:i, BL avr¡p Sacrúc;) 23 and was «girded with a belt of leather on his loinS►► (B scóvr¡v Sepµativr¡v 1tEptEscocrµÉvoc; tf!V ÓO'(j)UV aütou).

Josephus' version of this double description is quite reminiscent of that of LXX: dv0pC01tOV 24 ••• Sacruv Kai scóvr¡v 1tEptEtAr¡µµtvov OEp µatívr¡v. The king-messengers exchange concludes in 1,8b with Aha ziah reacting to the envoys' description with the declaration: «it is
Elijah the Tishbite». Josephus, here too, provides a more flowing transition between items that the Bible simply strings together paratac tically: «from these words (tx: -roú-trov) the king knew (auvtí<; 25 ) that the man ... was Elijah 26 .. . ».

AHAZIAH'S TRIPLE MISSION (1,9-14)
The core of our episode is the account of Ahaziah 's dispatch of three groups of soldiers against Elijah, their dealings with the prophet and fate at bis hands. In 1,9a the first of these «missions» is paratactically juxtaposed to the king's declaration of 1,8b «and he said ... and he sent to him ... ». Josephus uses participial phrases to fashion a more flowing transition between the two items: «under standing that the man ... was Elijah, sending an officer after him ... he ordered ... ». The Bible designates those sent by Ahaziah as a «captain of fifty men (MT c,wr.,n-,w, BL ntv'tl")KÓV'tapxov) and bis fifty». Josephus formulates the reference using standard Greek milit ary terminology: «an officer (-ra�{apxov 27 ) with fifty [heavily armed] soldiers (ónAí-ra<;)». To the mention of the force's dispatch by Aha ziah, the historian likewise adds a clarification as to its objective: «he ordered him (Elijah) to be brought (to hi m)» 28 appears to shout up to the prophet on the hill. The lack of respect implicit in such a procedure goes together with the content of his words which in Josephus are considerably more peremptory and threatening than in the Bible. Specifically, the biblical officer first addresses Elijah with the honorable title «man of God» and then continues «the king says, 'Come down'». His Josephan counterpart dispenses with any form of address. Conversely, he «orders» Elijah «to come down and go to the king 32 , saying that he had so ordered 3 3, and, if he refused, he would force him to go against his wi/1». By thus accentuating the "threat quotient" in the officer's address, Josephus, at the same time, makes Elijah 's violent reaction (see below) seem better motivated than in the source where it seems out of all proportion to the captain's actual offense.
Elijah's initial response in 1,10 picks up on the officer's addressing him as man of God; it begins «if I am a man of God ... ». As noted above Josephus' commander dispenses with any title or address for Elijah. In reporting in indirect discourse the protasis of Elijah 's reply, he once again avoids the biblical title, rendering rather « http://sefarad.revistas.csic.es (a.1toAÉaac;) both his soldiers and himself». With bis inserted reference to Elijah's praying for the heavenly fire, Josephus makes clear that the prophet does not have this celestial power at his own disposition; he can only request, not command, it to perf orm. In addition, that amplification serves to accentuate the parallelism between our episode and a previous incident involving Elijah and «heavenly fire», i. e. the Carmel contest, see VIII 342 (= 1 Kgs 18,36-37) where having prepared bis sacrifice, Elijah «began to pray (EÜXEa0at) to God and entreat him» with the result that «fire fell from heaven» (nüp tl; oüpavoü ... É1tEaE; see nüp dn" oupavoü neaóv, IX 23). In both cases, Josephus has no magical control over the heavenly fire; he must pray God to send it. 1,1Ob describes the realization of Elijah's curse utilizing the same language as the curse itself: «and fire came down from heaven and consumed him and bis fifty» (see above ). After noting that in fact Elijah did pray, Josephus describes the outcome in wording somewhat varied from that of the prayer itself: « ... a whirlwind of fire (1tp11attíp 36 ) came down (KatEvex0dc; 37 ) and consumed both the officer and those with him».
In 1, 1 la Ahaziah 's second mission is rather abruptly juxtaposed with the disastrous conclusion to the first: «again the king sent to him another captain of fifty men with bis fifty». Josephus fills in the blanks here with bis interjected transitional phrase: «when the de struction ( a.1t0>Adac; 38 ) of these men was reported to the king. he became very angry (napol;uv0eic;) 39 and sends (1téµ1tet 40 ) ... ». 2 Kgs 1,llb recounts the initiative of the second captain in language largely similar to that of v. 9b: he too «goes up>► ' 1 to Elijah to whom he conveys the royal directive that he is to <(come down►►, This time, however, that directive is f ormulated in somewhat more

SEF LV I (1995)
emphatic terms: the simple «the king says» of 1,9 now becomes a Botenformel «thus says the king», just as Elijah is enjoined to descend «quickly». As with the first officer, Josephus here makes no mention of his colleague's ascending to Elijah or addressing him by title. At the same time, he does accentuate the threatening character of the second commander's words: «this one also threatened the prophet that he would seize him by force and take him away if he did not come down willingly (�ouAóµi::voc;)». Thus, in his own way, Josephus too indicates a progression in the peremptoriness with which Elijah is told to descend from the first to the second exchange.
2 Kgs 1,12 repeats 1,10 virtually verbatim: Elijah calls for heav enly fire which falls and annihilates the second force. This time, Josephus refrains from reporting the actual words of the prophet's response to his summoner; rather he simply notes that Elijah «prayed (i::u�aµtvou; see EÜXttat, IX 23) against him» with the result that «fire» {1tüp; compare 1tpf10"t1ÍP, IX 23) destroyed the company.
In 1, 13a the third royal mission is once again simply juxtaposed paratactically to the preceding notice on the annihilation of the previous force. Here too, Josephus introduces a transitional mention of Abaziab's «learning of» the latter event. Vv. 13b-14 portray the third captain as displaying a very diff erent demeanor in his dealings witb Elijah than had bis two predecessors: he kneels befare the propbet and pleads for his life and that of his men. Josephus sets up tbis sbift witb the double cbaracterization of the tbird captain witb which he prefaces tbe report of bis excbange with Elijah: «being a prudent man ( (vv. 13bJ3, 14b) with a reference to the fate of the two previous groups intervening (v. 14a). In this formulation, what it is the captain wants of Elijab remains rather indeterminate, just as it is not immediately clear how bis evocation of bis colleagues' end is supposed to relate to the appeal he makes. Josephus clarifies matters in bis version of tbe third officer's speech. This begins with tbe commander's citing a reason why Elijab sbould pay heed to bis following appeal, i. e. tbe fact tbat both he and bis colleagues had approached Elijah, not «willingly» (�ou1..óµevo� 46 ), but under royal compulsion 47 • Having thus presented himself and bis colleagues as tbe king's reluctant agents, the captain next proceeds to f ormulate a two-f old. appeal. First, in a clarifica ti o o of tbe biblical phrase about his and his meo 's lives being «precious in tbe eyes of» Elijah, he asks the prophet <<to bave pity (e1..ef¡oa1) on bim and on the soldiers who were with him». Secondly, he requests, without a basis in the words attributed to the captain in 1,13b-14 as such (although see the continuation of the story), that he «come down and accompany him to the king».

The discourse which the third captain addresses to Elijah comprises a double appeal tbat bis life and tbat of bis fellows «be precious in tbe eyes of» Elijah
2 Kgs 1, 15a rounds off the excbange between prophet and third officer with mention of a new (see 1,3) intervention by an «angel of the Lord» who instructs Elijab to descend with bis interlocutor whom he is «not to fear». As will be recalled, Josephus' version of 1,3 (see IX 20) replaces its reference to the angel with an appearance by God himself to Elijah. Here in IX 26, Josephus goes a step further in bis reworking of the Bible's reference to an angel. As the historian presents things, Elijah makes bis response to the officer's appeal without any kind of supernatural guidance, angelic or divine, aside l,13's mention of bis kneeling before the prophet. Like the Bible, Josephus leaves the third captain nameless. In the Lives of the Prophets 9.3 (first cent. A.D.?) he is identified with the future prophet Obadiah. 46 This participle picks up the term used (IX 24) by the second officer who threatens to take Elijah by force if he will not come «willingly». As it now turns out, all three officers as well as Elijah himself are united in their unwillingness to do as directed by the king. 47 The third commander's assertion about his two colleagues here comes as a surprise since nothing in Josephus' previous depiction of their exchanges with Elijah suggests any reluctance on their part to carry out the royal mandate. In any case, the reference to them represents Josephus' version of the captain's allusion to their fate as cited in 1,14a. but solely on the basis of the impression made on him by latter's speech: «so Elijah, approving of the tactfulness (od;tÓ'tT]'tU 48 ) of his words and the courtesy (a.crn:iov 49 ) of his manner 50 , carne down ... ». Why <loes Josephus proceed as he does here? I suggest that he may have concluded that a supernatural directive to the prophet was really not called for at this juncture. After all, Elijah had dealt with the first two captains entirely at his own discretion -why could he not do so with the third as well? In addition, the biblical angel's actual injunction that Elijah «not fear» the last officer appears somewhat strange; Elijah who had shown no fear in the face of the first two commanders' peremptory summons certainly had no reason to be afraid of their suppliant colleague. In view of these considera tions, J osephus, I propase, opted not to tax the credulity of his sophisticated Gentile audience with a second recourse to a deus ex machina in a single story. What he offers them in its stead is an illustration of the efficacy of tactful speech, a lesson that audience would surely have found more congenia! 51 •

ELIJAH BEFORE THE KING (1,15b-17a)
Our episode concludes with Elijah coming befare the king (v. 15b) to whom he delivers his word of doom (v. 16) whereupon Ahaziah dies (v. 17a). In v. 16 the angel's initial announcement to Elijah is repeated by him largely verbatim for the third time in the story (see vv. 3 and 6b). Here again, Josephus' version evidences a concern with avoiding the source's verbal repetitions. The variation introduced by him begins already with the opening formula of Elijah's address to the king. In 1,16 this is the standard Botenformel. Josephus previously (see IX 21) substituted the phrase «at the com mand of the God of Israel» f or the «thus says the Lord» of 1,6. Here, he makes a comparable substitution, indicating the super natural origin of Elijah's words with the expression «he prophesied (1tpoeqrr¡teuuev 52 ) to him and revealed (t6tíA.ou) that God had said ... ». In next citing the content of God's word for Ahaziah, Josephus, exceptionally in our passage, retains the direct discourse of the source, rather than transposing this into indirect discourse. In the judgment speech of 1,16, the accusation element comprises a charge about Ahaziah's consulting Baalzebub to which is attached (so MT, > BL) a rhetorical question about there being no God in Israel 53• Josephus reformulates the biblical rhetorical question into a direct charge against the king: «because you have scorned him ( Kattyvroc; . .. autoü 54) as though he were not God and were not able to forete/1 the truth ('tciA.t18Ec; 1tpoEt1tEiv 55 ) concerning your illness». Reversing the biblical sequence, he has Elijah then continue: «but you have sent to the god of Akkaron ('tóv ".AKKaprovttéi'>v) 5 6 to inquire of him what the end of this illness wi/1 be» 57 • Thereafter, he reproduces the death announcement from the end of v. 16, passing over (as previously in bis version of vv. 3 and 6) the preceding statement that Ahaziah «will not come down from the bed to which he had gone up» as superfluous.
2 Kgs 1,17a narrates Ahaziah's death in accordance with the Lord's word as spoken by Elijah. Josephus (IX 27) begins bis parallel notice with the indication that Ahaziah 's demise took place «a very short time thereafter» 58 • As is bis wont, Josephus likewise 52 This verb occurs a total of 58x in Josephus (only once in BJ, i. e. l 69). 53 Note that in the previous formulations of the accusation in vv. 3 and 6, these two elements stand in reverse order. 5 4 Only here does Josephus use the above construction teata-ylv<Í>otero (= scorn) with God as genitival object. 55 Elsewhere Josephus employs the above expression ccforetell truly» of the Egyptian sacred scribe whose predictions about the future achievements of Moses did come about in Ant. II 209.  On the textual question, the evidence does not seem to allow any assured positive conclusion as to whether Josephus used 2 Kings 1 in its (proto-) MT or LXX form. Negatively, however, it is of interest to note, given the widespread scholarly view that Josephus' primary text for tbe Historical Books from 1 Samuel on was a proto-Lucianic one, that in our passage the historian lacks an equi valent to tbe L plusses in vv. 2,3,6, and 9. At least in the case of 2 Kings 1 then, that long-standing consensus seems open to question.
More can be said on the characteristic rewriting techniques evid enced by our segment of Antiquities. On the stylistic level, we have noted Josepbus' tendency to replace verbal repetition with varied formulations, direct with indirect discourse, parataxis witb bypotaxis, as well as bis use of the historie present. The historian 's version likewise reveals something of bis terminological preferences as com pared with tbe biblical ones: the source's messenger formulas, men tion of the «divine word» and designation «man of God» are all avoided in favor of alternative phraseology. As far as content goes, J osephus reproduces the matter of 2 Kings 1 witbout large-scale omissions or re-arrangements of its sequence. On tbe otber hand, he does take the liberty of introducing a variety of smaller additions wbich serve to improve tbe flow of the story and/ or to prepare wbat will follow, e. g., Abaziah's wonderment at tbe messengers' speedy return (IX 21 ), bis being inf ormed of tbe fate of bis two earlier missions and bis anger over the first of tbese (IX 24,25)', and tbe initial cbaracterization of the third captain (IX 25). Josephus also modifies tbe data of the source story in several respects. The 59 On Josephus' general tendency to replace biblical mentions of the divine word with alternative phraseology, see C. BEGG, Josephus' Account, p. 20, n. 90.