^{page 519 note 1} The text and translation used, and the references, are from ‘Josephus’, in the Loeb Classical Library, H. St J. Thackeray, Heinemann, 1961. The proportion of passives, as far as Josephus is concerned, is greater than the ‘nearly always as a mid. dep.’ of Arndt and Gingrich would suggest;

^{page 519 note 2} Cf. also Ap. II 201; War III 493; IV 554; V 112; VI 78; Ant. V 183, 351; VI 113; VII 168, 169, 170. IX 23, 99; XI 265; XIV 173; XVII 10, 242; XX 206.

^{page 519 note 3} Cf. also Vita 108; War III 533; IV 100; V 59, 286, 456; VI 74, 101, 158; Ant. III 17; V 47; XI 188; XVI 378; XVII 253; XVIII 291, 299; XIX 229.

^{page 520 note 1} Cf. also War v 222: τ⋯ν βιαʓομ⋯νων ἰδεῑν τ⋯ς ⋯Ψεις ⋯σπερ ⋯λιακαῑς ⋯κτῑσιν ⋯π⋯στρεφεν lit. ‘it (sc. the sun, or, more accurately, the reflection of the sun by the plates of gold on the temple walls) turned away, as if with solar rays, the eyes of those straining to look’. The violence of the solar rays, implicit in ⋯π⋯στρεφεν, is transferred to the effort of those ‘straining to look’. In War III 493 we read that the people in the city of Taricheae were opposed to the war, but the crowd outside πλεῑον⋯βι⋯ʓετο ‘were only the more determined to hold them to it’. Here again, although ⋯βι⋯ʓετο has no predicate, the strife between two parties one of whom is trying to force the other, is quite clear. In War IV 23, 202, the translation is ‘pressing forward’, but in both passages it is a necessarily violent ‘pressing forward’ against opposition. In 23, the Romans in front are trying to force a way back through those pressing forward from behind. In 202, there is a similar division among the followers of Ananus, in their conflict with the Zealots. The members of the ‘citizen force’, οἱ κατ⋯πιν βιαʓ⋯μενοι, ‘pressing forward in the rear’, ‘refused passage to the fugitives’ (i.e. those of their number who wished to give way to the Zealots). In 203, the Zealots are ‘unable to withstand this pressure, μηκ⋯τ’ ⋯ντεχ⋯ντων τῇ β⋯ᾳ.’

^{page 520 note 2} Cf. Luke xvi. 16 π⋯ς εἰς αὐτ⋯ν βι⋯εται, ‘everyone forces himself into it’. Luke's εἰς, however, may be ‘translation Greek’ representing 1e (to), introducing the direct object. Cf. Black, Matthew, ‘An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts’ (Oxford, 1967) (3rd ed.), p. 80, n. 2; p. 116.Google Scholar

^{page 521 note 1} Vita 26, 66, 108, 185, 303; Ap. II 35; War I 106, 172, 311; II 41, 262, 326, 328, 426, 438, 531; III 61, 257, 448, 491, 533; IV 22, 23, 100, 202, 218, 292, 295, 312, 435, 554; V 59, 89, 112, 118, 286, 346, 456; VI 52, 74, 78, 101, 158, 160, 248; VII 261. Ant. I 328; III 17; V 47, 183, 232; VI 113; VII 141; IX 23 (a military campaign, an officer and fifty soldiers v. Elijah!); XII 180, 429; XIII 137; XV 150; XVII 253; XIX 173, 229; XX 206.

Since the verb is sometimes used of the Romans, the word, in itself, carries no adverse judgement upon the use of violence in a military context. However, it is worth observing that the verb occurs some 40 times in the (much shorter) War, over against some 16 times in Ant. Moreover, about half of the occurrences of βι⋯ʓω in the War refer to ‘revolutionaries’, ‘rebels’ or ‘Zealots’. For specific mention of them, see War II 262 (‘The Egyptian’); War II 426, VII 261 (Sicarii); III 448; V 112, 118, 286, 456; VI 74, 78 (‘seditious individuals’, ‘Jewish insurgents’, etc.); iv 292, 295 (Zealots). Yet, even where β⋯α is predicated of the Romans, one cannot avoid the impression that it is the Roman reply to the β⋯α of the ‘rebels’, just as the ‘striving’, βιαʓομ⋯νας of the ships, in War III 423, is necessitated by the πνε⋯μα β⋯αιον ‘furious blast’ of 422, and the β⋯α ⋯ν⋯μον, ‘fury of the wind’ of 424.

^{page 521 note 2} Ap. i 236 (forced labour). War I 496 (torture); VII 52 (compulsion ‘to do everything on the Sabbath as on other days’), 201. Ant. I 261 (the violence of the shepherds to Isaac); IV 16, 17; IX 99 (Ahab forcing the Israelites to worship idols); XI 188; XIII 316; XVI 2, 28, 47², 58, 60, 391 (torture); XVII 10, 242; XVIII 299.

Perhaps Ant. II 271 should also be included here: Moses is at a loss to know how he should persuade (πε⋯σω) his people to leave Egypt, ‘or even should they be persuaded, how I should constrain Pharaothes…’, ἢ κἂν ⋯κεῑνοι πεισθ⋯σιν π⋯ς ἂν βιασα⋯μην Φ. The contrast between πε⋯θω and βι⋯ʓω suggests that much more than persuasion will be needed in the latter case – in fact, the violence of the plagues!

^{page 522 note 1} Ap. 1100 βια⋯ως ἔσχεν ‘violated the Queen’ Ap. II 201, 215. War 439, 498. Ant. II 46, 58; IV 129, 143, 244, 252; v 150; VII 152, 168, 169, 170; XI 265.

^{page 522 note 2} As in Matt. xi. 12 βι⋯ʓως or β⋯αιος is sometimes reinforced with ⋯ρπ⋯ʓω: Ant. V 146 ⋯ρπασ⋯μενοι κα⋯ προσθ⋯μενοι μ⋯λλον τῷ βια⋯ῳ τ⋯ς ⋯δον⋯ς ‘they seized the woman and, yielding still more to the force of their lust’, VII 148 ⋯ρπασαμ⋯νων ‘carried her off’, 150 τ⋯ν βεβιασμ⋯νων ‘deeds of violence’. See further below, pp. 528 ff.

^{page 522 note 3} Cf. Ant V 148 οὐκ ⋯ξ ⋯κουσ⋯ου γνώμης αὐτην παρ⋯σχοι ‘she had not voluntarily surrendered herself’. See further below, p. 534.

^{page 522 note 4} Cf. Ant. VII 169 βι⋯ʓεται τ⋯ν ⋯δελφ⋯ν ‘violated his sister’. This is described in 171 as τῇ ὕβρει κα⋯ τῇ β⋯ᾳ ‘outrage and violence’, and also in 168 as τοὺς ν⋯μους παραβ⋯ς ‘transgressing the law’. See p. 524.

^{page 522 note 5} War I 330 (storm); III 518 (Nature); IV 477 (a current of air); Ant. IV 226 (Nature); V 17 (force of the current); IX 212 (sea).

^{page 522 note 6} If βι⋯ʓεται in Matt. xi. 12 is passive, this opens up the possibility that something is being described which is against the true nature of the kingdom. This possibility is not, however, ruled out if βι⋯ʓεται is a middle.

^{page 523 note 1} Ant. II 114 (famine); III 5 (the hardships of the desert); xv 246 (illness); XVI 378 (the expected tragedy).

^{page 524 note 1} See below, p. 537 f., for the association of βι⋯ʓω etc. with ⋯νομ⋯α and ⋯δικ⋯α. The frequent connection of violence with government is of special interest in view of the possible translation of the Peshitta of Matt. xi. 12 ‘is led (governed) with violence’.

^{page 524 note 2} See above p. 522 n. 3, and below p. 534.

^{page 524 note 3} See above p. 522 n. 4, and below pp. 535 ff.

^{page 525 note 1} For the snatching up of one's own property, see also Vita 97; War IV 306, V 115, 474; Ant XIII 136.

^{page 525 note 2} In War IV 82, on the other hand, infants are ‘snatched up’ to be ‘slung from the citadel’!

^{page 526 note 1} Cf. War II 564; IV 106, III, 165, 168, 234, 404, 407, 513, 538, 540; V 434, 437, 474; VI 91, 153, 194, 202 (twice), 372; VII 254.

^{page 526 note 2} See H. P. Kingdon, N.T.S. XVII (I), 68 ff.

^{page 526 note 3} Vita 30*, 67*, 77*, 127*, 376*, 386*; War III 62; IV 314*, 430, 488, 529*, 577*, 642, 649; V 21*, 251, 394 (twice), 428*; VI 202*, 353, 358*, VII I, 246, 261*; (* = ‘rebels’, ‘brigands’).

^{page 527 note 1} In book XX of Ant. διαππ⋯ʓω is especially connected with the λῃστα⋯. Thus 113 ⋯φεστώτων ⋯π⋯ νεωτερισμῷ τινες. … λῃστε⋯σαντες ἅπασαν αὐτο⋯ τ⋯ν κτ⋯σιν διαρπ⋯ʓουσιν, ‘seditious revolutionaries robbed and despoiled him of all his belongings’. So also 114, 121, 126, 172, 177, 185 (‘Judaea devastated by the λῃστα⋯ (Sicarii)… villages set on fire and plundered, ⋯μπιπραμ⋯νων τε κα⋯ διαρπαʓομ⋯νων’), 186. This frequency of διαρπ⋯ʓω in book XX of Ant. is noteworthy in view of the fact that the remaining 49 occurrences are spread over books I–XVII, from Adam to Archelaus!

^{page 527 note 2} There is a variety of translations: ‘plunder’ (mostly), ‘pillage’, ‘raid’, ‘rapine’, ‘spoils’, ‘ravages’, ‘booty’, ‘capture’, ‘prey’, ‘loot’, ‘robbery’, ‘seizure’, ‘kidnapping’, ‘carrying off’, ‘ravishing’.

^{page 527 note 3} Like β⋯α, ⋯ρπαγ⋯ can also be used of rape. Ant. I 337 Shechem ‘carried her (Dinah) off and ravished her’, φθε⋯ρει δι’ ⋯ρπαγ⋯ς.

^{page 527 note 4} See below, βι⋯ʓω and ⋯ρπ⋯ʓω.

^{page 527 note 5} Cf. Manson, T. W., The Servant Messiah (Cambridge, 1952), pp. 70–1. Manson stresses the Markan ‘five thousand men’ and the usage of ‘shepherd’ as a royal and Messianic title. We may further note that Galilee seems to have been the headquarters and breeding-ground of political and nationalist λῃστα⋯. Is this the kind of ‘shepherd’ with whom the ‘Good Shepherd’ is contrasted in John X. I ⋯κεῑνος κλ⋯πτης ⋯στ⋯ν κα⋯ λῃστ⋯ς?Google Scholar

^{page 529 note 1} This passage well illustrates the two connotations: the contrast of force with persuasion, οὐκ ⋯ξ ⋯κουσ⋯ου γνώμης, and violation of right καθυβρ⋯σασιν. See below, pp. 534, 536..

^{page 529 note 2} See further below, pp. 537 ff.

The distinction between ⋯ναγκ⋯ʓω and βι⋯ʓω is well illustrated by Ant. XII 405 and 429. In the former, Judas defeated and forced him (⋯ναγκ⋯ʓει) to flee. The force is used not directly on Nicanor, but on him men. When he sees that the battle is going against him, he is forced to flee. In the latter passage, Judas ‘thrusting himself through their midst forced (⋯βι⋯σατο) them to flee, and pursued them…’. Here the force is directly exercised upon those who are compelled to flee.

^{page 532 note 1} For συναναγκ⋯ʓω see also War IV 556: ‘Simon drove (σονην⋯γκασεν) multitudes to flee…’, and Ant. IX 30. In Ant. VIII 222 πολεμ⋯σας ⋯ναγκ⋯σῃ, ‘to force him by war’, the nature of the compulsion is defined by the participle; though, in fact, physical violence was not actually used. Nor was it used in Ant. IX 30.But it is obvious in Ant. XIII 85: ‘besieged Demetrius in camp, and under pressure of arrows and thirst they compelled (ἠνα⋯γκασαν) the men inside with him to surrender’. Ant. XVI 271: ‘forced to till the soil…’ ἠναγκ⋯ʓοντο; ⋯ναγκ⋯ʓω, because they were not actually doing it at the point of the sword.

On the other hand, the use of βι⋯ʓω to denote non-violent compulsion is so rare as to attract the attention: Ap. II 165 βιασ⋯μενος τ⋯ν λ⋯γον ‘a forced expression’.

^{page 532 note 2} Cf. Gal ii. 3: οὐδ⋯ Τ⋯τος… ⋯ναγκ⋯σθη περιτμηθ⋯ναι.

^{page 532 note 3} The use of ⋯ναγκ⋯ʓω concerning the introduction of ‘foreign ways (gods)’ by Solomon's wives, Ant. VIII 193, is understandable enough in a non-violent sense, since these charming ladies, presumably, did not need to use physical violence. Though β⋯α could be used, if need be. Similarly, though the ardour of Potiphar's wife becomes ‘more violent’, βιαι⋯τερον, her attempt to seduce Joseph is described in terms of ⋯ναγκ⋯ʓειν (Ant. II 53). It cannot have been all that violent, since Joseph was able to flee!

^{page 533 note 1} Cf. the combination of πλεον⋯κτης and ἅρπαξ in I Cor. V. II and of πλεονεξ⋯α and ὑβριστ⋯ς in Rom. i. 29–30.

^{page 533 note 2} ⋯βι⋯ʓετο might possibly be cited as an example of non-violent β⋯α, or at least of violence which is not direct. ‘The expected tragedy’ was violent enough!

For further examples of progression from ⋯ναγκ⋯ to β⋯α see Vita 113, War IV 98, 100. The change to βι⋯ʓω in War IV 100 is perhaps influenced by the question of transgressing the law of the sabbath by the use of arms on that day.

^{page 534 note 1} Other words used to denote ‘force’ are: Ant. XVII 155. περιωσμ⋯νος, ‘forced’ (by lack of money). Ant. VIII 52. πεποιηκ⋯ναι, ‘forced all of them to pay tribute’. Here ποι⋯ω, like ⋯ναγκ⋯ʓω, lays no special emphasis on the manner of the compulsion.

Ant. VII 145. ‘They should besiege the city with mounds and engines, and, after forcing it (παραστησαμ⋯νους) to surrender.’ This serves to bring out the special ‘nuance’ of β⋯ᾳ in Ant. VII 142 ‘Gideon, in his attempt to take the town by force’, β⋯ᾳ. David's army are reprimanded for attempting to do this. They ought on the contrary to try to take it ‘with mines and engines,’ i.e. to reduce it (παραστ⋯σασθαι) to surrender by siege and not by direct assault (β⋯ᾳ).

^{page 534 note 2} See above pp. 522 (n. 3), 524 (n. 2).

^{page 534 note 3} πε⋯θω is used where physical force is not involved. See e.g. War II 485, 490.

^{page 535 note 1} See also War I 498, III 448, 493, IV 421 (see p. 522 (n. 3), VII 33 (see p. 524 (n. 2); Ant. V 148 (see p. 529) 232, XI 42, 188, XV 246, 281, XVII 10, 242, XVIII 37.

The meaning ‘against the will’ is obvious where βι⋯ʓω is used for ‘rape’ or ‘violation’.

In War VI 101 there is an ironical use of the verb, (the Romans) ‘trying to force you (βι⋯ʓονται) to restore to God the sacrifices’. The Romans, that is, are trying to ‘force’ the Jews to restore the worship of their own God which had been interrupted by the rebels.

In Ant. VI 371 a ‘neutral’ word is used for force, ‘begged him to ⋯περε⋯σαντα τ⋯ν ῥομφα⋯αν, force the sword in’. Perhaps because it was not against his will.

^{page 536 note 1} Cf. also War I 131. The violence (β⋯α) of Aristobulus is equated with his usurpation of the throne. Pompey is urged to restore to them the ‘man whose character and age entitled him to it’, τ⋯ν κα⋯ τρ⋯πῳ κα⋯ καθ’ ⋯λικ⋯αν προσ⋯κοντα. Cf. Ant. XIV 42; cf. Matt. xvii. 25 f. for the use of (⋯λλ⋯τριος in the context of rights and duties.

^{page 537 note 1} It is interesting to observe that these three words occur quite frequently in the context of violence, in the LXX. סֶמָח is regularly represented by ⋯δικ⋯α, ⋯δικεῖν, ἄδικος, etc. Thus, e.g., Gen. vi. II, 13; xlix.5. Exod. xxiii. I. Judg. ix. 24. II Sam. vii. 16;xxii.49. Pss. vii. 17;xviii (xvii).49;xxvii (xxvi). 12; xxxv xxxiv). II; lviii. 2; lxxii (lxxi); cxl (cxxxix). 2, 5, 12. Isa. lx. 18. For ⋯νομ⋯α, see Pss. lv. 10 b (N.B. ⋯δικ⋯α, δ⋯λος v. 12); xviii. 2. חלׄוע ⋯νομ⋯α is parallel with סֶמָח ⋯δικ⋯α Ps. lxxiv (lxxiii). 20 (סֶמָח תאְנ ιἰκων ⋯νομι⋯ν) Isa. liii. 9 (cf. Ps. lv. 12); Ezek. xxviii. 16. In Ps. lxxxvi. 14 םיׅציׅדׇע תדֲע συναγωγ⋯ κραται⋯ν is parallel with םיִרֵז παρ⋯νομοι; cf. also Prov. xvi. 29, סׇמׇח שיִא ⋯ν⋯ρ παρ⋯νομος. For ⋯σ⋯βεια, see Ps. xi (x). 5, where סׇמׇח בֵהׂא ⋯γαπ⋯ν ⋯δικ⋯αν is parallel with עׇשׇר ⋯σεβ⋯. Ps. lxiii (lxxii). 6 (where ⋯δικ⋯αν κα⋯ ⋯σ⋯βειαν appears to represent סׇמׇח); Jer. vi. 7; in Zeph. iii. 4 הׇרׄוּת ּוסְמׇח is rendered by ⋯σ⋯βο⋯σιν ν⋯μον. Cf. also Mic. vi. 12; Hab. i. 3, ii. 8, 17; Zeph. i. 9 (A. ⋯νομ⋯ασ); Mal. ii. 16; Ezek. xii. 19.

Professor F. F. Bruce has pointed out to me four occurrences of םיצירע in the Qumran texts, namely: 1 QpHab. ii. 6; IQH. i. 40, ii. II, 21.

^{page 538 note 1} Cf. Matt, xxiii. 35. A. H. McNeile (commentary in loc.) thinks that it is this Zechariah who is meant (2 Chron. xxiv. 21).

^{page 538 note 2} βια⋯ως ⋯γουμ⋯νων could represent the Peshitta of Matt. xi. 12. Cf. p. 524 (n. 1).

^{page 538 note 3} See above, p. 529.

^{page 538 note 4} Cf. also War V 251, 442, VII 261–2, for the connection of the violence of Zealots, rebels and Sicarii with συναδικ⋯ω, παρανομ⋯α, and ⋯σεβεῑν. Also Ant. II 260 ⋯δικεῑν, β⋯α; Ant. IVI 43 βι⋯ʓεσθι, cf. 140 τ⋯ν παρανομ⋯αν; Ant. XIV 142, XV 348, 357 (λῃστε⋯α connected with ⋯νομ⋯α, ⋯ρπαγ⋯; XVI 2, 402 (⋯ο⋯βια cf. β⋯α 401).

^{page 539 note 1} Cf. also Ant. XIV 316. See above, p. 529, p.538 (n. 3).

^{page 539 note 2} With reference to rape: Vita 259; Ap.II 270; Ant. I 208–9, IV 206, V 145, 148, XV 97. Violence, etc. Ant. II 106, IV 189, XIII 200, XVII 272, 278, XVIII 316.

^{page 540 note 1} Another word used with β⋯α and διαρπ⋯ω, and carrying much the same force as ὕβρις is ⋯πηρε⋯α ‘abuse’, ‘ill-treatment’. War I 317 is of special interest, since it is applied to βασιλε⋯α: πολλ⋯ τε περ⋯ τ⋯ς ‘Hρώδου β⋯ας [κα⋯ ⋯πηρε⋯ας τ⋯ς βασιλε⋯ας] ⋯ποδυρ⋯μενος, ‘complaining bitterly of Herod's high-handed and abusive treatment of the realm’. (Thackeray: ‘the bracketed words are in MVC only: omitted, probably through homoioteleuton, by the rest’.) See also Ant. XVI 45 and 47.

^{page 540 note 2} Trocmé, Etienne, Jesus and His Contemporaries(London, 1973), p. 33.Google Scholar

^{page 540 note 3} Brandon, S. G. F., Jesus and the Zealots (Manchester, 1967), p. 200 n. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 540 note 4} So, e.g., M. Dibelius (ap. Arndt and Gingrich), ‘Joh. d. T.’, II, 26 ff: ‘hostile spirits’.

^{page 541 note 1} CfBruce, F. F., New Testament History (London, 1969), pp. 90 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 541 note 2} Cf. Ant. XVIII 4 ‘a certain Judas…who had enlisted the aid of Saddok, a Pharisee’. In War II 433 Judas himself is described as ‘that redoubtable doctor’, σοφιστ⋯ς δειν⋯τατος. In Ant XVIII 23, where Josephus introduces the ‘fourth of the philosophies’, of which Judas set himself up as leader, his first comment is that ‘this school agrees in all other respects with the opinions of the Pharisees’. The difference which he proceeds to describe is one of degree (of ‘passion for liberty’) rather than of kind.

^{page 541 note 3} Acts V. 34 ff. (the speech of Gamaliel) gives us some insight into the kind of debate that must have gone on in Pharisaic circles about the use of violence. We suggest that the two sides of Pharisaism in this respect (the use of violence) are represented on the one hand by the ‘Psalms of Solomon’ (militarist) and on the other (though more tentatively) by the ‘Assumption of Moses’ (pacifist).

^{page 541 note 4} S. G. F. Brandon, ibid. p. 200.

^{page 541 note 5} See above, p. 526.

^{page 541 note 6} F. F. Bruce, ibid. pp. 88 ff., especially p. 92. Constantin Daniel finds a cryptic reference to the Zealots in Matt. xi. 7, Luke vii. 24, in the word ‘reed’, through a play on the Hebrew and Aramaic word for ‘Zealot’; cf. Nov. Test, XI (Jan.–April 1969), 82 n. 7, 84–5; Numen XIII, 2 (1966), 88–115. The words ‘into the desert’ are especially to be noted, in view of the association of Zealotism and other Messianic movements with the desert (cf. ‘the Egyptian’ Acts xxi. 38).

^{page 542 note 1} CfBornkamm, G., Barth, G. and Held, H. J., Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (London, 1963), pp. 121 ff., 125 ff. For the πραεῖς, in connection with the kingdom, see Matt. v. 5, xi. 29, xxi. 5. For παιδ⋯α and μικρο⋯ see Matt, xviii. 3 and par.; John iii. 3, 5; Matt. xix. 14 and par. Matt. xi. II, xviii. 10. Luke xii. 32 (μικρ⋯ν πο⋯μνιον).Google Scholar

^{page 542 note 2} Cf. Mark X. 15, Luke xviii. 17 (δ⋯ξηται) = Matt, xviii. 3 (ε⋯σ⋯λθητε); Luke xii. 32 ( δο⋯ναι ὑμῑν τ⋯ν βασιλε⋯αν), Mark iv. II (δ⋯δοται), Mark ix. I (ἴδωσιν). John iii. 3 (⋯δεῑν = v. 5 ε⋯σελθεῑν ε⋯ς).

^{page 542 note 3} See above, p. 520.

^{page 543 note 1} Cf. the οὐχ ⋯ρπαγμ⋯ν ⋯γ⋯σατο of Phil. ii. 6 which is contrasted with ⋯ριθε⋯αν and κενοδοξ⋯αν(v. 3), i.e. with the spirit of ‘strife and vainglory’ which causes men to snatch, and is also characterized in v. I as παρ⋯κλησις..

^{page 543 note 2} This ‘long record’ of violence is also summarized in Matt, xxiii. 35 which is addressed to the Pharisees. Cf. p. 358 (n. 1), above, where we noted that Josephus uses βια⋯ως in describing the death of Zacharias. It is possible that the ‘until now’ of Matt. xi. 12 reflects the experience of the Evangelist (and his school), who sees, in the violence of Pharisees and Zealots against other Pharisees (and other sects, like the Essenes), as well as against Jewish Christians, a continuation of the long record of violence which had reached its climax in the killing of the ‘son’.

^{page 543 note 3} Cf. p. 524 (n. I).