1 Legal Discourse and Register Variation*
Legal discourse—in antiquity as now—distinguishes two categories of texts: texts of actual laws, such as legislation, arbitration, and contract—which in antiquity are mostly found in documentary sources—and texts on the laws. In both kinds of texts the narrative dimension is present, but in the lawgiving
The analysis of linguistic variation in a specific, situationally defined discourse, is called register variation in modern functional linguistics.3 It considers, among others, the use of pronouns and other anaphoric devices, prepositions, definite articles, nominalization, tense, modality, length of the sentences, transitivity (passive/active verbs), verbal aspect, and lexicon. More generally, these features have been grouped into (a) morphology and syntax, (b) structural properties, and (c) lexical features. Among the lexical features, a key role is played by the semantic domain typical of the specific discourse4—that is technical vocabulary—which, for legal discourse, is legal terminology. Technical vocabulary, in general, is (a) recognized by native speakers as belonging to a specific technical field, and specialists in particular are self-conscious in employing a vocabulary which is specific to their discipline; (b) is not commonly used, even if it may be understood by non-specialists; (c) tends to be standardized, economic, and concise (that is, polysemy and synonymy are generally avoided in favor of monosemy); (d) tends to be systematic; and (e) it is expressively neutral.5
While the analysis of register variation has been applied especially in modern languages and modern translation studies, and recently also to legal discourse,6 it seems to be a promising field of research also in the study of the ancient world. In register analysis, “language variation according to use is captured … as a recognition of how situational context affects language.”7 In New Testament studies, Stanley Porter has applied register variation analysis to Mark 13 and Chiaen Liu to the Petrine texts;8 in Septuagint studies, register variations have been highlighted by Marieke Dhont for the book of Job.9 With regard to ancient Greek, register variation has been investigated by Andreas Willi, initially in the language of Aristophanes and later in the language of tragedy; and by Alessandro Vatri, who has applied register variation to Greek oratory.10 To date, however, there is no major work on register variation in ancient legal Greek texts, except for an article by Alfred Bloch dated 1975, and that has made my attempt to compare Josephus’ legal language with comparable texts more challenging.11
An awareness of register variation, usually defined as “style,” formed an essential part of ancient theorizing about language in action.12 Aristotle writes in his Rhetorica:
Δεῖ δὲ µὴ λεληθέναι ὅτι ἄλλη ἑκάστῳ γένει ἁρµόττει λέξις. οὐ γὰρ ἡ αὐτὴ γραφικὴ καὶ ἀγωνιστική, οὐδὲ δηµηγορικὴ καὶ δικανική .
One must not forget that a distinct style is appropriate for each genre; for the style of writing is not identical with that of debating, and the style of assembly speeches is not the same as that of lawcourt speeches.
Aristotle, Rhet. 1413b3–5
Such an awareness is found also in the Roman world. In the second book of De legibus Cicero describes as “the voice of the laws” (legum voce) the kind of language that he will use for his law code (Leg. 2.18): namely, some characteristically legal terms, not as antique as that of the Twelve Tables and the religious laws, but rather old fashioned compared to the language of ordinary conversation.13 In the case of Cicero, while his basic register is derived from the language, legal or non-legal, of his time, he consciously adds some elements of the language and style of the archaic laws for particular effect.14
In this contribution I follow Andreas Willi’s theoretical framework and terminology, and define as “register variation” what is sometimes called as “variation in style/genre.” I indicate thus with “register” the linguistic code that is used in the creation of a text that belongs to a specific (sub-)genre, in this case legal discourse. Narratological considerations and register variation analysis will be here applied to two major portions of Josephus’ legal discourse: the cultic laws of Antiquitates Judaicae 3.224–286, which deal mostly with the laws of Leviticus, and the politeia of Antiquitates Judaicae 4.199–301, focused mostly on the laws of Deuteronomy. The choice of dealing with these two sections is not arbitrary. They are the most extensive legal sections of the Antiquitates Judaicae and are distinctively marked by Josephus: they are both introduced by the author/narrator in a specific way—as we shall see—and called by a different name: the cultic laws are defined as “legislation” (
How does Josephus organize his discourse in those sections? Do pervasive and frequent linguistic features16 occur in each section? What major differences are found between the way Josephus crafts the biblical cultic laws and the politeia, and how can they be explained? To provide a comprehensive answer on the use of register variation in Josephus’ legislation one should engage in a systematic (and quantitative) analysis of Josephus’ legal sections, and include Contra Apionem 2.145–286, notably the summary of the laws of 2.190–218. Such enquiry, however, goes beyond the scope of this contribution and would require a separate investigation. Here I shall limit myself to the two mentioned sections of Antiquitates Judaicae (3.224–286 and 4.199–301): I shall first point to the most prominent narratological aspects, stressing the major divergences with the correspondent biblical accounts, then highlight the most frequent linguistic features of each group, and stress their difference. Finally, I shall explain Josephus’ use of register variation in the larger framework of Greek discourse, notably ethnographic historiography for the cultic laws, and Plato’s Laws for the politeia. As argued by Sean Adams, Josephus did have genre awareness.17 This contribution will show that he was also aware of the linguistic code appropriate to a specific (sub-)genre.
2 Cultic Laws (AJ 3.224–286)
Josephus organizes the biblical laws of Leviticus in three macro-sections, according to the topic: (1) laws concerning sacrifices and festivals (chapter ix and x: 3.224–257); (2) laws concerning purifications (chapter xi: 3.258–273); and (3) various laws (chapter xii: 274–286. Before pointing to the most recurring linguistic features in these sections, I shall set out some narratological considerations, starting with the laws on sacrifices and festivals.
2.1 Narratological Considerations
2.1.1 Sacrifices and Festivals
While Leviticus opens with God giving instructions to Moses on what to tell the Israelites,18 Josephus as author/narrator opens the section of sacrifices and festivals with an introduction in the first person singular (AJ 3.224)19 about his reasons for writing on the sacrifices; likewise, he closes the section with a remark in the first person plural (AJ 3.257) about his planned work on the reasons behind the laws.20 The discourse is not only introduced and closed by the author/narrator, as well as organized according to topics, as we shall see in the politeia, but the author/narrator repeatedly makes editorial remarks in the first person singular or plural: for example, at AJ 3.225: “I shall speak about the former;” and a few paragraphs later (AJ 3.230): “But we shall speak more precisely concerning the sacrifices of these animals in the work about the sacrifices.” These copious metanarrative elements point to an overt narrator, such as Herodotus in his Histories.21
Moreover, Josephus categorizes and classifies the sacrifices, providing a higher level of abstraction compared to the Levitical legislation. In particular, he points to the two-fold agency of sacrifices and their two-fold typology. First, sacrifices are performed by individuals and by the community: The subject changes accordingly from an individual (
Finally, and remarkably, in the section of sacrifices and festivals Moses is never explicitly mentioned and probably, except for one case (3.248),22 when no subject is found one should imply “the law” as a subject, and not Moses. In so doing, Josephus consciously pauses his narrative about Moses at AJ 3.223, and resumes it at AJ 3.258 with the purification of the Levites. From the narrative point of view, the section on the sacrifices and festivals is crafted very differently from the rest of the discourse.
2.1.2 Purifications
Moses re-enters the scene at Antiquitates Judaicae 3.258, which opens with a
The narrative about Moses continues at Antiquitates Judaicae 3.264: Moses banishes the lepers from the city. But that brings our author to another association: the apologetic excursus on the falsehood of Moses’ leprosy (up to AJ 3.268). Such an excursus once again shows the author’s perspective, ending in the same way with “but with regard to these things let each one judge as it seems best to himself” (AJ 3.268). The author’s focal point is kept for the prescription of the purity of women in childbirth (AJ 3.269): Moses has forbidden women who have just given birth from entering the temple, but after the time of impurity has elapsed, women offer sacrifices—with a present indicative,
2.1.3 Various Laws
The subject of the rest of the prescriptions is mostly Moses, except for
2.2 Register Analysis
2.2.1 Morphology, Syntax, Structure
As pointed out by Biber and Conrad, typical register features should be frequent and pervasive.25 In the cultic laws we do find some recurrent, although not systematic, linguistic features, but they do not point to a prescriptive text. That is remarkable, because it diverges from biblical legislation. Scholars have mostly related the priestly regulations of Leviticus and Numbers either to prescriptive “ritual texts,”26 or to casuistic priestly law typical of the ancient Mediterranean context.27 In either case, biblical legislation points to prescriptive texts. Josephus, on the other hand, chooses to craft the ritual laws in a full narrative dimension.
Use of the third person. In fact, the most frequent and pervasive feature of the cultic laws—sacrifices and festivals, purifications, and various laws—is the use of the third person, either singular or plural. To give but one example:
226 An individual (
AJ 3.226–228ἀνὴρ ἰδιώτης ) who offers a whole burnt offering sacrifices (ὁλοκαυτῶν θύει ) … 228 In performing the sacrifices of thanksgiving they sacrifice (θύουσιν ) the same animals.
Moods and tenses. In the section on sacrifices and festivals the most frequent mood is the indicative, and the most frequent tense the present. The use of the present indicative is not typical of actual laws, which generally prefer the use of the aorist.28 The laws of purifications are mostly in the aorist indicative, as they are connected to Moses: as we have seen, in the purifications laws the present tense is used as a narrative strategy to mark the point of view of the author. Antiquitates Judaicae 3.269 uses the perfect indicative: Moses “has forbidden” (
Short sentences and parataxis. A frequent feature of the laws of sacrifices and festivals is also the use of short sentences and parataxis. This feature, however, is more frequent in the laws of sacrifices and festivals than in the other laws connected to Moses’ narrative. Other features, on the other hand, are recurrent but neither pervasive, nor used systematically.
Passive verbs. Passive verbs are recurrent, although not systematically used: AJ 3.225–226, 230
Infinitive. The infinitive is mostly used together with impersonal expressions such as “there is a law, it is lawful” (AJ 3.231, 233), “the law does not allow” (AJ 3.236). However, it is not systematically used.
Use of the article. Josephus often refers to a law generally speaking “there is a law” (
Pronouns. At the morphological level, demonstrative pronouns are frequent, but not pervasive. It should be noticed, however, that demonstrative pronouns are sometimes placed in a marked position, at the end of the sentence: this is a relevant point, as we shall see in Herodotus below. For example,
καὶ ὁ µὲν τῆς ὁλοκαυτώσεως τρόπος ἐστὶν οὗτος …
The manner of the whole burnt-offering is this …
AJ 3.227
τὰ αὐτὰ µὲν ζῷα θύουσιν, ὁλόκληρα δὲ ταῦτα …θύσαντες δὲ ταῦτα …
They sacrifice the same animals, but these are unblemished … Having sacrificed these …
AJ 3.228
Adverbs. The adverb “likewise” (
Structure. Finally, at the level of structure, the prescriptions on sacrifices and festivals do not follow a formulaic, stereotypical, or consistent structure. Only the festivals show some consistency: every festival, with the sacrifices taking place in it, starts with the time of the year in which it occurs, namely on the new moon (AJ 3.238), in the seventh month (AJ 3.239), on the tenth of the same lunar month (AJ 3.240), on the fifteenth of this same month (AJ 3.244). For the rest, there is no clear pattern or structure, neither for the prescriptions on purifications, nor for the final laws. In the section concerning the cultic laws, the rationale for the law is omitted, that is, the law is not explained.
2.2.2 Lexicon: Technical, Semi-technical, and Shared Language in the Cultic Laws
The semantic domain is mostly that of the cult/ritual, not what we would currently define as “legal,”30 and we can hardly speak of technical vocabulary. While we find in Josephus’ cultic laws several performative verbs (“the law forbids/prescribes, [Moses] expelled, banished”), performative verbs are not exclusive to legal discourse. Performative verbs are also found, for example, in religious discourse, such as in prayer.31 Likewise, there are modal verbs “it is permitted (
In other cases we find medical terms, which are sometimes more precise than in the biblical models. At Antiquitates Judaicae 3.228, in describing the thank-offerings, in correspondence to Lev 3:3 Josephus says that “they lay upon the altar the kidneys and the caul and all the fat together with the lobe of the liver.” For the “caul,” that is the membrane enclosing the entrails, Josephus uses a technical term,
Likewise, instead of the periphrasis of Num 5:27 on the suspected adulterous woman “the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall discharge, her uterus drop,”35 Josephus (AJ 3.273) uses the technical medical term
2.3 Summary on the Cultic Laws
Narratological considerations and register variation analysis in Josephus’ Levitical laws point neither to the (sub-)genre of legislation, nor to prescriptive ritual texts. The laws on sacrifices and festivals are codified as a short essay, mostly in the present tense, pausing the narrative on Moses; the purifications laws are openly connected to Moses, and thus mostly in the aorist; for the final laws Josephus displays a dynamic shift of perspectives from the narrative to his own point of view, especially on the laws about priests, which is linguistically translated with a shift from the aorist to the present tense.
The structure of each prescription is not formulaic, stereotypical, or consistent. The only consistent and pervasive feature seems to be the use of the third person. The use of technical terminology is likewise limited. When he uses technical terminology which may not be known to his audience, Josephus first explains it (such as in the case of
3 The Politeia (AJ 4.199–301)
3.1 Narratological Considerations
Josephus introduces the politeia with a series of caveats for his audience: nothing has been added for embellishment, the order of the laws is different from the biblical order,37 some laws will be covered by the work on “customs and causes.” Unlike the sacrifices and festivals which are codified as an essay in the third person (e.g., “there is a law … the law forbids …”) or the purification laws which are codified as part of Moses’ narrative, likewise in the third person (e.g., “Moses prescribes”), from the narratological point of view the politeia is codified as a direct speech of Moses to the Hebrews, as it is in Deuteronomy.38 This choice is significant, because the author could have provided another summary of the laws, as he did for the sacrifices, or use indirect speech. I will explain this choice in section 4. In following the narrative setting of the biblical account and embedding Moses’ politeia in such narrative, traces of the direct speech remain in Josephus’ text in the occasional “you” pointing to the Hebrews (AJ 4.205 “by you;” AJ 4.208 “none of you”), especially at the beginning of the speech, and even “I,” pointing to Moses (AJ 4.205 “which I appointed”).39
3.2 Register Analysis
From the linguistic point of view, in contrast to what we have seen for the cultic laws, in the politeia pervasive linguistic features typical of legislation do occur. I will consider in the following sections some of the most frequent features.
3.2.1 Morphology
Imperative/infinitive pro imperative. Third person imperative. First, in the politeia there is a pervasive use of the imperative or of the jussive infinitive (infinitive pro imperative). Moreover, the imperative is mostly in the third person. We see it right at the outset, at Antiquitates Judaicae 4.200:
Let there be one holy city (
ἱερὰ πόλις ἔστω µία ) … let there be one temple in it (καὶ νεὼς εἷς ἐν ταύτῃ ἔστω ), … and one altar (καὶ βωµὸς εἷς ) of stones … let the access to this be (πρόσβασις ἔστω ) not by steps … in another city let there be neither an altar not a temple (ἐν ἑτέρᾳ δὲ πόλει µήτε βωµὸς µήτε νεὼς ἐστω ).
While for the first paragraph (AJ 4.199) Josephus, like Deuteronomy, uses the second person plural in the indicative (
Reduplications. In the first law of the politeia, which conflates Deut 12 on the holy city and the temple with Exod 20:14–25 on the altar, the imperative
Pronouns. In the politeia, indefinite negative pronouns such as “none, nobody” are recurrent,41 but also relative pronouns, especially the indefinite relative pronoun
Adverbs. Adverbs are frequent, although not pervasive: the blasphemer must be buried “both ignominiously and in obscurity” (AJ 4.202), and the adverb “likewise,” to indicate a similar case, recurs only seven times in the whole constitution.43
3.2.2 Syntax
The syntax of the politeia is often complex, combining implicit and explicit hypothetical clauses or numerous relative clauses. For example, at Antiquitates Judaicae 4.220:
Ἂν δὲ πραχθέντος φόνου ἔν τινι χώρᾳ µὴ εὑρίσκηται ὁ δράσας µηδ’ ὑπονοῆταί τις ὡς διὰ µῖσος ἀπεκτονηκώς, ζητείτωσαν µὲν αὐτὸν µετὰ πολλῆς σπουδῆς µήνυτρα προθέµενοι· µηδενὸς δὲ µηνύοντος αἱ ἀρχαὶ τῶν πόλεων τῶν πλησίον τῇ χώρᾳ, ἐν ᾗ ὁ φόνος ἐπράχθη ,καὶ ἡ γερουσία συνελθόντες µετρείτωσαν ἀπὸ τοῦ τόπου ὅπου κεῖται ὁ νεκρὸς τὴν χώραν .
If, when a murder has been committed in a certain place, the doer is not found, and no one is suspected of having committed the slaying because of hatred, let them seek him with much diligence, offering rewards for information. But if there is no informer, let the officers of the city near the place where the murder was committed and the council of the elders come together and measure the ground from the place where the corpse lies.44
In this sentence, the main clause “let them seek him with much diligence” (
Ἔστω δὲ καὶ δεκάτη τῶν καρπῶν ἐξαίρεσις ὑµῖν χωρὶς ἧς διέταξα 46τοῖς ἱερεῦσι καὶ Λευίταις δεδόσθαι, ἣ πιπρασκέσθω µὲν ἐπὶ τῶν πατρίδων, εἰς δὲ τὰς εὐωχίας ὑπηρετείτω καὶ τὰς θυσίας τὰς ἐν τῇ ἱερᾷ πόλει· δίκαιον γὰρ εἶναι τῶν ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἀναδιδοµένων, ἣν ὁ θεὸς αὐτοῖς κτήσασθαι παρέσχεν, ἐπὶ τιµῇ τοῦ δεδωκότος ἀπολαύειν .
Let there be a selection by you of a tithe of fruits, apart from that which I ordered to be given to the priests and Levites, and (lit. “that”) let it be sold in its native regions and let it serve for the feasts and the sacrifices in the holy city. For it is proper to enjoy for the honor of the one who has given it, that which has grown from the land that God has granted them to possess.
The first part of the law is summarized in one single period with two relative clauses; the explanation (
To sum up so far. First, in contrast to what we have seen for the cultic laws, Josephus not only keeps most of the morphological and syntactic features of the biblical laws, but makes them more frequent, especially in terms of the use of the third person imperative and the complex syntax. Second, although from the narratological point of view Josephus keeps Moses’ speech, as in Deuteronomy, he goes a step towards the register of actual legislation. The use of the third person imperative or of the jussive infinitive, the use of reduplication, indefinite pronouns, and of a complex syntax are typical syntactic features of legislation nowadays and some of these features have been pointed out also for ancient laws,47 as we shall see in the next paragraph.
3.2.3 Third Person Imperative and Jussive Infinitive in Actual Legislation
Some examples of the use of the third person imperative or the jussive infinitive in actual legislation are found as early as in the Great Gortyn Code, an inscription from Crete from the fifth century BCE pertaining to private law.
Whoever intends to bring suit in relation to a free man or slave, shall not take action by seizure before trial (
Gortyn Code, col. I, ll. 2–12πρὸς δίκας µε̄̀ ἄγεν ); but if he does seize him, let the judge fine him (καταδικακσάτ ō) ten staters for the free man, five for the slave, and let him release him within three days. But if he does not release him, let the judge sentence him (καταδικαδδέτ ō) to a stater for a free man, a drachma for a slave, each day until he has released him. But if he denies that he made the seizure, the judge shall decide (κρίνειν ) with oath, unless a witness testify.48
(Peisetaerus:) But in addition I will quote to you the law of Solon: “The illegitimate child is not to have the right of next of kin as long as there are legitimate children; and if there are no legitimate children, those nearest of kin are to share in the inheritance."
Av. 1660–1666
Latin actual laws likewise make large use of the imperative of instruction (also called “future imperative”) in the third person (in -to): in fact, since laws are meant to be obeyed whenever applicable, the normal verb-form found in them is the imperative of instruction.50 Such imperative is purposely used by Cicero in his discourse on the laws (De legibus). The same goes for the use of relative clauses, typical of Latin legal syntax, likewise extensively used by Cicero.51 From the above examples I suggest that Josephus’ frequent use of the third person imperative for the politeia—more frequent than in the biblical account—is intentional, and speaks for his awareness of the register of legislation.
3.2.4 Lexicon: Technical, Semi-technical, and Shared Vocabulary in the Politeia
On the basis of the typical features of legislation pointed out so far, one would expect a very register-specific vocabulary, that is a large use of technical legal terminology. However, although some technical legal terms are found, Josephus often uses semi-technical words—that is words which are attested in the Greco-Roman world also outside legal discourse—and mostly shared, unmarked words. Moreover, he often departs from the vocabulary of the Greek Bible, confirming a tendency that I have observed elsewhere.52 Let us go back, for example, to the prescription on the holy city, the temple, and the altar. While the first part of the law on the holy city and the temple features plain, non-technical words, in the second part of the paragraph the prohibition to cut the stones for the altar (Exod 20:25), becomes in Josephus:
And one altar (
βωµός ) of stones, not hewn (µὴ κατειργασµένων ) but chosen (λογάδην ) and joined together (συγκειµένων ), which, smeared with whitewash (κονιάµατι ), will be appealing and clean (καθάριοι ) to the view.53
The more common
As a matter of fact, we do find typical legal vocabulary, technical or “semi-technical,” according to the definition used provided in the introduction to this chapter.56 At AJ 4.214–218
3.2.5 Structure
Finally, in the politeia we observe a specific structure as a recurring feature, although not systematic for all laws: the law is first defined, then explained. The explanation is more often codified with
4 General Conclusions: Anchoring Moses’ Legislation in Greek Discourse
The combined application of narratological considerations and register variation analysis to two of the most extensive sections of Josephus’ biblical legislation brings some interesting results.64 First, it shows that Josephus does not craft the cultic laws as legislation: in the entire section of cultic laws there are hardly pervasive linguistic features, except for the use of the third person (mostly) indicative, which is not typical of actual laws; even at the lexical level, while the vocabulary presents some technical and semi-technical terms, the overall picture points to a shared, unmarked lexicon. How can we explain this choice? Josephus was aware that the Mosaic cultic laws were a form of “legislation”—he calls it
In all their sacred rites they follow the same method of sacrifice; this is how it is offered (
Herodotus 4.60; trans. Godley (emphasis added)θυσίη δὲ ἡ αὐτὴ πᾶσι κατέστηκε περὶ πάντα τὰ ἱρὰ ὁµοίως, ἐρδοµένη ὧδε ). The victim (τὸ µὲν ἱρήιον ) stands with its forefeet shackled together; the sacrificer (ὁ δὲ θύων ) stands behind the beast, and throws it down by pulling the end of the rope; [2] as the victim falls, he invokes whatever god it is to whom he sacrifices. Then, throwing a noose around the beast’s neck, he thrusts in a stick and twists it and so strangles the victim, lighting no fire nor offering the first-fruits, nor pouring any libation; and having strangled and skinned the beast, he sets about cooking it.
The ritual is described in the third person, which ensures cognitive distance.68 In the first sentence we notice the attempt at generalization (
But this is how they sacrifice (
Herodotus 2.47.3; trans. Godleyθυσίη δὲ ἥδε ) swine to the Moon: the sacrificer lays the end of the tail and (καί ) the spleen and (καί ) the caul (ἐπίπλοον ) together and covers them up with all the fat that he finds around the belly, then consigns it all to the fire; as for the rest of the flesh, they eat it at the time of full moon when they sacrifice the victim; but they will not taste it on any other day. Poor men, with but slender means, mold swine out of dough, which they then take and sacrifice.
In this case, as noticed for description of the Scythians’ cultic laws, there is an attempt at generalization and a marked position of the demonstrative pronoun (
How can we explain Josephus’ way of writing Moses’ politeia? As we have seen, Josephus deliberately chose to keep a partial conative function in presenting the legislation of Deuteronomy, even in a work of historiography. While the laws of Antiquitates Judaicae 4 are built as part of the narrative, using the biblical direct speech of Moses, and are meant for an audience who is expected to grasp from them the nature of the laws, although not to perform them, they are prescriptive in most of their formal characters: the use of the third person imperative or of the jussive infinitive, combined with reduplication, indefinite pronouns, and a complex syntax are pervasive features in Josephus’ politeia and typical of legislation. In some of these formal aspects, such as the use of the third person imperative, Josephus moves more consistently than his biblical models towards what must have been perceived by his audience as the register of actual legislation.
On the other hand, the very structure of Josephus’ politeia, with the extensive use of the rationale—more frequent than in biblical legislation—seems to point to legislation
Γαµεῖν δέ, ἐπειδὰν ἐτῶν ᾖ τις τριάκοντα, µέχρι ἐτῶν πέντε καὶ τριάκοντα, εἰ δὲ µή, ζηµιοῦσθαι χρήµασίν τε καὶ τιµίᾳ, χρήµασι µὲν τόσοις καὶ τόσοις, τῇ καὶ τῇ δὲ τιµίᾳ .
A man shall marry when he is thirty years old and under five and thirty; if he fails to do so, he shall be punished both by a fine in money and by degradation, the fine being of such and such an amount, and the degradation of such and such a kind.
Plato, Leg. 4.721b 1–3; trans. Bury
The double law, instead, is preceded by a preamble, which runs as follows:
A man shall marry (
Plato, Leg. 4.721b6–c7; trans. BuryΓαµεῖν δέ ) when he is thirty years old and under thirty-five, bearing in mind that this is the way by which the human race, by nature’s ordinance, shares in immortality (διανοηθέντα ὡς ἔστιν ᾗ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον γένος φύσει τινὶ µετείληφεν ἀθανασίας ), a thing for which nature has implanted in everyone a keen desire. The desire to win glory, instead of lying in a nameless grave, aims at a like object (τὸ γὰρ γενέσθαι κλεινὸν καὶ µὴ νώνυµον κεῖσθαι τετελευτηκότα τοῦ τοιούτου ἐστὶν ἐπιθυµία ). Thus mankind is by nature coeval with the whole of time, in that it accompanies it continually both now and in the future; and the means by which it is immortal is this: by leaving behind it children’s children and continuing ever one and the same, it thus by reproduction shares in immortality.
The Platonic preambles, although keeping the law in its prescriptive form with a jussive infinitive—
Josephus highlights in Moses’ politeia the formal register of legislation for some aspects, pointing thus to real legislation (
Bibliography
Adam, Klaus-Peter et al., eds. Law and Narrative in the Bible and in Neighbouring Ancient Cultures. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012.
Adams, Sean. Greek Genres and Jewish Authors: Negotiating Literary Culture in the Greco-Roman Era. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2020.
Allan, Rutger. “Herodotus and Thucydides: Distance and Immersion.” Pages 131–154 in Textual Strategies in Ancient War Narrative: Thermopylae, Cannae, and Beyond. Edited by Lidewij W. van Gils, Irene de Jong, and Caroline Kroon. Leiden: Brill, 2018.
Avioz, Michael. Legal Exegesis of Scripture in the Works of Josephus. London: T&T Clark, 2021.
Bakker, Mathieu de. “Herodotus.” Pages 197–222 in Speech in Ancient Greek Literature. Edited by Mathieu de Bakker and Irene J.F. de Jong. Leiden: Brill, 2022.
Bakker, Mathieu de, and Irene J.F. de Jong. “Narratological Theory on Speech.” Pages 1–30 in Speech in Ancient Greek Literature. Edited by Mathieu de Bakker and Irene J.F. de Jong. Leiden: Brill, 2022.
Barclay, John M.G. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Volume 10: Against Apion. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Bartels, Myrthe L. Plato’s Pragmatic Project. A Reading of Plato’s Laws. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2017.
Bartor, Assnat. Reading Law as Narrative: A Study in the Casuistic Laws of the Pentateuch. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Beetham, Frank. “The Aorist Indicative.” Greece and Rome 49 (2002): 227–236.
Berner, Christoph, and Samuel Harlad, eds. The Reception of Biblical War Legislation in Narrative Contexts. Proceedings of the EABS research group “Law and Narrative.” Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015.
Berūkštienė, Donata. “Legal Discourse Reconsidered: Genres of Legal Texts.” Comparative Legilinguistics 28 (2016): 90–112.
Bibb, Bryan D. Ritual Words and Narrative Worlds in the Book of Leviticus. New York: T&T Clark, 2009.
Biber, Douglas. “Using Multi-dimensional Analysis to Explore Cross-linguistic Universals of Register Variation.” Pages 7–34 in Genre- and Register-related Discourses Features in Contrast. Edited by Marie Aude Lefer and Svetlana Vogeleer. Amsterdam: John Benjamin, 2016.
Biber, Douglas, and Susan Conrad. Register, Genre, and Style. 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.
Bloch, Alfred. “Literarische und inschriftliche Gezetzesprosa im Griechischen.” Museum Helveticum 32 (1975): 135–154.
Carmichael, Calum M. Illuminating Leviticus: A Study of its Laws and Institutions in the Light of Biblical Narratives. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006.
Castelli, Silvia. “Between Tradition and Innovation: Josephus’s Description of the Tabernacle (Ant. 3.108–150) as An Improved Alternative to the Greek Bible.” JSIJ 19 (2020): 1–17. https://jewish-faculty.biu.ac.il/files/jewish-faculty/shared/JSIJ19/castelli.pdf.
Castelli, Silvia. “‘Bronze Bases Similar to Spikes of Lances’: Textual Criticism and ‘Anchoring’ Strategies in Josephus’s Ant. 3.109 (// Ex. 27:10–11).” Athenaeum 110 (2022): 194–213.
Daniel, Suzanne. Recherches sur le vocabularie du culte de la Septante. Paris: Klincksieck, 1966.
Darshan, Guy. “The Casuistic Priestly Law in Ancient Mediterranean Context: The History of the Genre and its Sitz im Leben.” HTR 111 (2018): 24–40.
De Meo, Cesidio. Lingue tecniche del latino. 3rd Edition. Bologna: Patron, 2005.
Dhont, Marieke. Style and Context of Old Greek Job. Leiden: Brill, 2018.
Fanego, Teresa, and Paula Rodríguez-Puente, eds. Corpus-based Research on Variation in English Legal Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamin, 2019.
Feldman, Louis H. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Volume 3. Judean Antiquities 1–4. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Feldman, Louis H. “Rearrangements of Pentateuchal Material in Josephus’ Antiquities, Books 1–4.” Pages 361–411 in L.H. Feldman, Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław. Patterns of Linguistic Variation in American Legal English: A Corpus-based Study. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2011.
Harl, Marguerite. “L’originalité lexicale de la versione grecque du Deutéronome (LXX) et la paraphrase de Flavius Josèphe (A.J. IV,176–331).” Pages 1–20 in VIII Congress of the IOSCS, Paris, 1992. Edited by Leonard Greenspoon and Olivier Munnich. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995.
Hayes, Christine E. What’s Divine about Divine Law? Early Perspectives. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015.
Heinemann, Yiẓḥak. The Reasons for the Commandments in Jewish Thought: From the Bible to the Renaissance. Translated by Leonard Levin. Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2008.
Henten, Jan Willem, van. “Josephus as Narrator.” Pages 121–150 in Autoren in religiösen literarischen Texten der späthellenistischen und der frühkaiserzeitlichen Welt. Edited by Eve-Marie Becker and Jörg Rüpke. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018.
Henten, Jan Willem, van, and Luuk Huitink. “Josephus.” Pages 350–374 in Speech in Ancient Greek Literature. Edited by Mathieu de Bakker and Irene J.F. de Jong. Leiden: Brill, 2022.
Jackson, Bernard. Studies in the Semiotics of Biblical Law. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
Jong, Irene J.F., de. “Herodotus.” Pages 99–114 in Narrators, Narratees and Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature—Volume One. Edited by René Nünlist, Angus Bowie, and Irene J.F. Jong. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Jonge, Casper Constantijn, de. Between Grammar and Rhetoric. Dionysius of Halicarnassus on Language, Linguistics and Literature. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Kanarek, Jane L. Biblical Narrative and the Formation of Rabbinic Law. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
Lallot, Jean. “L’opposition aspectuelle présent-aoriste dans la grande loi de Gortyne.” Pages 154–167 in The Language of Literature. Linguistic Approaches to Classical Texts. Edited by Rutger Allan and Michel Buijs. Leiden: Brill 2007.
Langslow, David R. Medical Latin in the Roman Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Levine, Baruch. “The Descriptive Tabernacle Texts of the Pentateuch.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 85 (1965): 307–318
Levine, Baruch. “The Descriptive Ritual Texts from Ugarit: Some Formal and Functional Features of the Genre.” Pages 465–475 in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman. Edited by Carol L. Meyers and Michael P. O’Connor. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983.
Lightfoot, Jane L. “On Greek Ethnography of the Near East: The Case of Lucian’s De dea Syria.” SEL 19 (2002): 137–148.
Liu, Chiaen. Register Variation in the New Testament Petrine Texts. Leiden: Brill, 2022.
Minon, Sophie. “L’aspect dans l’énoncé de loi éléen.” Pages 171–191 in Dialectes grecs et aspect verbal. Edited by René Hodot & Guy Vottéro. Nancy-Paris: Association pour la Diffusion de la Recherche sur l’Antiquité, 2008.
Mulhern, John J. “Politeia in Greek Literature and Inscriptions and in Aristotle’s Politics: Reflections on Translation and Interpretation.” Pages 84–102 in Aristotle’s Politics: A Critical Guide. Edited by Thornton Lockwood and Thanassis Samaras. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Niehoff, Maren. “Philo’s Rationalization of Judaism.” Pages 21–44 in Rationalizations in Religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Edited by Yohanan Friedmann and Christoph Markschies. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2019.
Nijk, Arjan. “How to Control the Present: A Unified Account of the Nonpast Uses of the Aorist Indicative.” JHS 136 (2016): 92–112.
Nijk, Arjan. “Bridging the Gap between the Near and the Far: Displacement and Representation.” Cognitive Linguistics 30 (2019): 327–350.
Nünlist, René, Angus M. Bowie, and Irene J.F. de Jong, eds. Narrators, Narratees and Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature. Volume One. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Olson, Greta. “Narration and Narrative in Legal Discourse.” Pages 371–383 in Handbook of Narratology. Edited by Peter Hühn et al. 2nd Edition. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014.
Pearce, Sarah. “Flavius Josephus as Interpreter of Biblical Law: The Council of Seven and the Levitical Servants in Jewish Antiquities 4.214.” Heythrop Journal 36 (1995): 477–492.
Pearce, Sarah. “Josephus and the Witness Laws of Deuteronomy.” Pages 122–134 in Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Aarhus 1999. Edited by Jürgen Kalms. Münster: LIT Verlag, 2000.
Porter, Stanley E. Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament: Studies in Tools, Methods, and Practice. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015.
Porter, Stanley E. “What is the Relationship between Exegesis and Our Views of Greek, or Vice Versa?” Pages 185–209 in Linguistics and the Bible: Retrospects and Prospects. Edited by Stanley E. Porter, Christopher D. Land, and Francis G.H. Pang. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2019.
Powell, Jonathan G.F. “Cicero’s Adaptation of Legal Latin in the De legibus.” Pages 117–150 in Aspects of the Language of Latin Prose. Edited by Tobias Reinhardt, Michael Lapidge, J.N. Adams. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Prothro, James B., Both Judge and Justifier: Biblical Legal Language and the Act of Justifying in Paul. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018.
Rajak, Tessa. “The Against Apion and the Continuities in Josephus’s Political Thought.” Pages 222–246 in Understanding Josephus. Seven Perspectives. Edited by Steve Mason. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
Rendtorff, Rolf, and Robert A. Kugler, eds. The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Rood, Tim. “Thucydides.” Pages 223–245 in Speech in Ancient Greek Literature. Edited by Mathieu de Bakker and Irene de Jong. Leiden: Brill, 2022.
Rothkamm, Jan. “Cicero’s Orientalising Rhetoric of Law in the De legibus.” Museum Helveticum 71 (2014): 155–171.
Šarčevic, Susan. New Approach to Legal Translation. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2000.
Schironi, Francesca. “Naming the Phenomena: Technical Lexicon in Descriptive and Deductive Sciences.” Pages 227–266 in Formes et fonctions del langues littéraires en Grèce ancienne. Edited by Andreas Willi. Vandoeuvres: Fondation Hardt, 2019.
Simmonaes, Ingrid. “Legal Language—Pragmatic Approaches to Its Interconnectivity with Legal Interpretation and Legal Translation.” Meta 61 (2016): 421–438.
Skinner, Joseph E. The Invention of Greek Ethnography. From Homer to Herodotus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Sluiter, Ineke. “Anchoring Innovation: A Classical Research Agenda.” European Review 25 (2017): 20–38.
Taubenschlag, Raphael. The Law in Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri. Warsaw: Herald Square Press, 1955.
Troiani, Lucio. “The πολιτεία of Israel in the Greco-Roman Age.” Pages 11–22 in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period. Essays in Memory of Morton Smith. Edited by Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
Tyrell, Eva. Strategies of Persuasion in Herodotus’s Histories and Genesis-Kings: Evoking Realities in Ancient Narratives of a Past. Leiden: Brill, 2020.
Varó, Enrique Alcaraz, and Brian Hughes. Legal Translation Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 2002.
Vatri, Alessandro. “Stilistica e parametri di variazione linguistica nella retorica greca.” Pages 143–177 in Formes et fonctions des langues littéraires en Grèce ancienne. Edited by Andreas Willi. Vandoeuvres: Fondation Hardt, 2019.
Vroom, Jonathan. The Authority of Law in the Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism. Tracing the Origins of Legal Obligations from Ezra to Qumran. Leiden: Brill, 2018.
Willi, Andreas. The Languages of Aristophanes. Aspects of Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Willi, Andreas. “New Language for a New Comedy. A Linguistic Approach to Aristophanes’ Plutus.” Cambridge Classical Journal 39 (2003): 40–73.
Willi, Andreas. “Register Variation.” Pages 297–310 in A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language. Edited by Egbert J. Bakker. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.
Willi, Andreas. “Register Variation and Tense/Aspects/Mood Categories in Ancient Greek: Problems and Perspectives.” Pages 261–286 in Variation and Change in Ancient Greek Tense, Aspect and Modality. Edited by Klaas Bentein et al. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
Willi, Andreas. “Der Sprachraum der Tragödie.” Pages 97–142 in Formes et fonctions des langues littéraires en Grèce ancienne. Edited by Andreas Willi. Vandoeuvres: Fondation Hardt, 2019.
Yunis, Harvey. “Laws: Rhetoric, Preambles, and Mass Political Instruction.” Pages 211– 236 in Taming Democracy: Models of Political Rhetoric in Classical Athens. Ithaca: Cornell University Press 1996.
This investigation has been carried out within the project “Anchoring Innovation,” the Gravitation Grant research agenda of the Dutch National Research School in Classical Studies, OIKOS. It is financially supported by the Dutch ministry of Education, Culture and Science (NWO project number 024.003.012). For more information about the research programme and its results, see the website https://www.anchoringinnovation.nl. I would like to thank the audience of the conference From Josephus to Josippon and Beyond, the colleagues of the Department of Classics at Leiden University, and the anonymous reviewer for their feedbacks, comments, and insights.
On the distinction between lawgiving
On law and narrative, Bartor, Reading Law as Narrative; Adam et al., Law and Narrative; Olson, “Narration and Narrative in Legal Discourse;” Berner & Samuel, “Biblical War Legislation.” On narratological approaches to ancient Greek literature, see de Jong et al., Narrators, Narratees and Narratives; de Jong, Narratology and Classics; an application of narratological perspectives to Josephus are found in van Henten “Josephus as Narrator;” and van Henten and Huitink, “Josephus.”
Biber and Conrad, Register, Genre, and Style.
See Langslow, Medical Latin, 7.
I refer here to the criteria proposed by Willi, The Languages of Aristophanes, 66; 69, reworked by Schironi, “Naming the Phenomena,” 246. One of the main problems faced when dealing with ancient technical language is what to consider as technical and what not.
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Patterns; Biber, “Multi-dimensional Analysis;” Berūkštienė, “Legal Discourse;” Simonnaes, “Legal Language;” Fanego and Rodríguez Puente, “Corpus-based Research.”
Porter, “Exegesis,” 207.
Porter, Linguistic Analysis, 219–236; Liu, Register Variation.
Dhont, Style and Context, 142–178.
Willi calls his 2003 monograph The Languages (plural!) of Aristophanes, to stress the different registers used in Aristophanes’ comedy; see also Willi, “Register variation,” for methodological issues on the application of register analysis to ancient Greek, and Willi, “Der Sprachraum der Tragödie” for the language of tragedy. Vatri, “Stilistica,” focuses on Demosthenes, Isocrates, Lysias, and Aeschines.
Bloch, “Gezetzesprosa.” There are, however, relevant articles on the Gortyn Code: Lallot, “L’opposition aspectuelle;” Minon, “L’aspect.” Moreover, Willi, The Languages of Aristophanes, 51–96, considers technical languages, including legal language; likewise, Willi, “Register variation,” 262–263. Other works concern rather legal discourse in Plato’s Laws (Yunis, “Laws;” Bartels, Plato) and in Cicero’s De legibus (Powell, “Cicero”).
Willi, “Register Variation,” 261. An analogous awareness is shown by ancient literary critics for characterization (e.g., Horace, Ars Poetica 114–118, and Lucian, Hist. Conscr. 58). See de Bakker and de Jong, Speech, 4.
Sunt certa legum verba … neque ita prisca ut in veteribus XII sacratisque legibus et tamen … paulo antiquiora quam hic sermo est. Cicero’s law code is found in Leg. 2.19–22 and 3.6–11.
So Powell, “Cicero,” 126.
On the complexity of the term
Register features should be frequent and pervasive according to Biber and Conrad, Register, 53–54.
Adams, Greek Genres, 229–239.
Lev 1:1: “The Lord summoned Moses and spoke to him saying: Speak to the people of Israel and say to them: When any of you bring an offering of livestock to the Lord, you shall bring your offering … If the offering is a burnt offering …” Biblical translations are taken from the NRSV, unless otherwise stated.
AJ 3.224: “Now I shall mention some few of the regulations pertaining to the rites of purification and types of sacrificial ceremonies. For it happens that in my discussion is presently concerned with the sacrifices.” All the translations of Josephus are by L.H. Feldman for the Brill Josephus Project, unless otherwise stated.
AJ 3.257: “We shall later reveal (
See de Jong, “Herodotus.”
At AJ 3.248 Moses is the implied subject of
E.g., AJ 3.258:
On the use of aorist indicative, Beetham “Aoriste Indicative;” Nijk, “How to Control the Present,” and “Bridging the Gap.”
Biber and Conrad, Register, 53–54.
Levine, “Tabernacle Texts;” “Ritual Texts.”
Darshan, “Casuistic Priestly Law.” On law and narrative in Leviticus, see Bibb, Ritual Words; Carmichael, Illuminating Leviticus.
Lallot, “L’opposition aspectuelle,” 158 on the Gortyn laws; Willi, “Register Variation,” 267: “The present-tense used in manumission inscriptions from Boeotia instead of the aorist seems to be a regional peculiarity.”
Willi, “Register Variation,” 283, points out that in the Hellenistic use perfect and aorist tend to merge.
A list of Greek legal words in Wasps and other plays of Aristophanes, in Willi, The Languages of Aristophanes, 73–76: e.g.,
See Willi, The Languages of Aristophanes, 23–24.
AJ 3.225
Daniel, Recherches, 249–254.
Lev 3:3
Num 5:27
For example, at AJ 3.232
Order (
In biblical legislation, the commands are given by God in Leviticus, by Moses in Deuteronomy.
On AJ 4.205, see below 3.2.2.
E.g., AJ 4.202
E.g.,
E.g., AJ 4.213, 260.
AJ 4.206, 231, 251, 274, 276, 288, 291.
Feldman’s translation has been slightly modified in this passage. The translation of
AJ 4.200, 203, 205, 207, 209, 210, 212.
With the difficilior reading of SPL, instead of
The syntax of contemporary legislation is characterized by conditionals and hypothetical formulations, relative clauses, abundance of restrictive connectors and the density of subordination and parenthetic restriction; see Varo & Hughes, Legal Translation, 19–20. On the complex syntax as typical of “legalese” in Roman legal discourse, see Powell, “Cicero.” The use of pronouns is likewise recurrent in any genre of legal texts, past and present; see Lallot, “L’opposition aspectuelle” on the Gortyn Code; pronouns are frequent also in biblical law.
The text of the inscription (IC IV 72) is found at https://epigraphy.packhum.org/text/200508.
Willi, “Register variation,” 262–265.
Examples in Powell, “Cicero,” passim.
Powell “Cicero,” 130.
Castelli, “Tabernacle.”
AJ 4.200. Feldman’s translation is here slightly adapted.
Theophrastus 4.16; Diodorus Siculus 5.12.2; 20.8.3; Timaeus (Jacoby F3b, 566, F 164, l. 231); [Aristotle], Col. 791b, 794b, 899b Bekker.
Philo, Cher. 104, in a simile between the adornments of the building and the adornment of the soul; in Agr. 160 likewise in a simile “just as it is that plaster should become firm and fixed and acquire solidity, so too … the souls … should become more firmly settled.”
Willi, The Languages of Aristophanes, 66 and 69; Schironi, “Naming the Phenomena,” 246–250.
Similar considerations can be made for
Pearce, “Levitical servants,” 488.
On
Thucydides, Hist. 2.40; Euripides, Rhes. 875; Isocrates, Loch. 2; Demosthenes, Arist. 218; Plato, Leg. 869b; Arrian, Anab. 7.29.2.
Bloch, “Gezetzesprosa.”
Avioz, Legal Exegesis, 120–128.
On the limited scope of this investigation, which excludes the summary of legislation of Josephus, CA 2.190–218, see the Introduction to this chapter.
Castelli, “Tabernacle.”
On the concept of “anchoring” see Sluiter, “Anchoring Innovation.” On its application to Josephus, see Castelli, “Bronze Bases.”
So Skinner, Greek Ethnography, 6.
On “distance” in Herodotus, see Allan, “Distance and Immersion.” Tyrell, Persuasion, 105.
Herodotus 4.62:
Above, section 2.1.1, with reference to de Jong, “Herodotus.”
Awareness of Herodotus’ ethnographic discourse has been noted also for Lucian’s De syria dea; see Lightfoot, “Greek ethnography,” 139–140. The description of laws and customs was still a matter of interest in Greek imperial historiography, as demonstrated by Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ introduction of his Roman history (Dionysius of Halicarnassus 1.8.1–2).
On the distinction between lawgiving
Bartor, Reading Law as Narrative, 14.
See also Philo, Virt. 145–146 and B. Meṣ. 7.1–3.
Bartels, Plato, 135. Yunis, “Laws,” 235–236 argues that Plato creates with Laws “a new rhetorical genre of legal-political discourse.” Plato’s preambles, as well as the rationale of the laws in Jewish-Greek literature seem to obey to a need for an epistemic, as opposed to practical, authority; see Vroom, Authority of Law, 202–203.
Seneca, Ep. 94.1–21, 25, 31, 38.
Niehoff, “Philo’s Rationalization of Judaism,” 35.
Feldman, Judean Antiquities, 9n26 at AJ 1.21, with references. Barclay, Against Apion, LVIII–LIX, argues that in giving to the political concept of politeia a more “religious” dimension Josephus is indebted to Plato.
Likewise Cicero goes back to Plato’s Law as a model for De legibus. See Powell, “Cicero.”
On Herodotus, de Bakker, “Herodotus;” on Thucydides, Rood, “Thucydides;” on Josephus’ speeches specifically, van Henten and Huitink, “Josephus.”
Josephus’ exegetical project is stressed by Avioz, Legal Exegesis.