Volume 25 Meron M.

 Piotrkowski
No. 1 Josephus on Onias and the Oniad Temple 1–16
2018
Mira Balberg and Haim Weiss
“That Old Man Shames Us”: Aging, Liminality,
and Antinomy in Rabbinic Literature 17–41

Federico Dal Bo
Talmudic Angelology and the Tosafists:
On Metatron in the Latin Translation of Tractates
Sanhedrin and Avodah Zarah 42–61

Johannes Burgers
Beyond Belle Juive and Femme Fatale: Rewriting the
Female Jewish Body in Fin-de-Siècle England, France
and Germany 62–83

Vered Sakal
The Land of the Free? Orthodox Reactions to
Religious Freedom in 19th and Early 20th-Century
America 84–98

Mohr Siebeck
Meron M. Piotrkowski
Hebrew University, Israel

Josephus on Onias and the Oniad Temple

Abstract: This paper deals with Josephus’ pejorative perception of the high priest
Onias and the temple he founded in Egypt. In stripping Josephus’ personal bias from
his accounts of Onias’  Temple in the Judaean War and Jewish Antiquities, I attempt
to produce a more nuanced picture of these narratives. I  suggest that Josephus’
main source was an Oniad founding-legend that stood behind both of his long nar-
ratives, in War Book 7 and Antiquities Book 13, which he skewed polemically and in
accordance with the respective main themes of the two books. I believe these main
themes are the result of a personal change he experienced, turning from a proud
aristocratic Jerusalemite priest into a Diaspora Jew based in Rome. This change,
I argue, accounts for several different emphases and contradictions found in these
narratives.
Key words: Josephus, Onias III, Temple of Onias, literary criticism, Diaspora, Egypt.

Introduction

Most of our knowledge of ancient Jewish history is based on the works of

Flavius Josephus, who in many cases remains the primary source for a par-
ticular event in Jewish history. Such is the case with regard to the history
of the Oniad Temple, a Jewish sanctuary in Egypt built by a Jerusalemite
high priest sometime in the mid-second century BCE that existed parallel
to its Jerusalemite counterpart until it too was destroyed by the Romans
in the wake of the First Jewish Revolt in 73 or 74 CE.1 Besides the literary

1 On Onias’ Temple, see W. M. Flinders Petrie, Hyksos and Israelite Cities (London:
British School of Archaeology, University College; Quaritch, 1906); S. A. Hirsch, “The
Temple of Onias,” in Isidore Harris, Jews’ College Jubilee Volume (London: Luzac, 1906)
39–80; M. Stern, “The Death of Onias III” (Hebrew), Zion 25 (1960) 1–16; M. Delcor,
“Le temple d’Onias en Égypte,” Revue Biblique 75 (1968) 188–205; R. C. T. Hayward,
“The Jewish Temple at Leontopolis: A Reconsideration,” Journal of Jewish Studies 33
(1982) 429–43; A. Wasserstein, “Notes on the Temple of Onias at Leontopolis,” Scripta
Classica Israelica 18 (1993) 119–29; F. Parente, “Onias III’s Death and the Founding
of the Temple of Leontopolis,” in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period:
Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, ed. F. Parente and J. Sievers (Leiden: Brill, 1994)
69–98; G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis (Atlanta:
Scholars, 1996); D. R. Schwartz, “The Jews of Egypt between the Temple of Onias, the
Temple of Jerusalem, and Heaven” (Hebrew), Zion 62 (1996/97) 5–23; E. S. Gruen,
“The Origins and Objectives of Onias’ Temple,” Scripta Classica Israelica 16 (1997)
47–70; J. E. Taylor, “A Second Temple in Egypt: The Evidence for the Zadokite Temple

JSQ 25 (2018), 1–16 DOI 10.1628/094457018X15154209777563

ISSN 0944–5706 © 2018 Mohr Siebeck

e-offprint of the author with publisher’s permission.

2  Meron M. Piotrkowski JSQ

evidence from Josephus and some references to the Oniad Temple in rab-
binic literature,2 we are unfortunately not oversupplied with data on this
temple. Exceptions are one papyrus, whose reading remains disputed but
might attest to Onias the Jewish high priest as an important official of the
Ptolemaic court,3 and several funerary inscriptions from Tell-el-Yahoudieh,
which has been associated with the site of Onias’ Temple.4 These inscrip-
tions hardly contain any historical information per se, even though they
allow us to take a glimpse at the spiritual world of the Jews belonging to the
Oniad community buried there.
Perhaps the biggest disappointment in that context is that no physical
remains of the Oniad Temple have been found to date. In the past there
were claims that they were found at Tell-el-Yahoudieh, but there are good
reasons to challenge that claim,5 which brings us back to square one. Until

of Onias,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 29 (1998) 297–321; L. Capponi, Il tempio
di Leontopoli in Egitto: Identità politica e religiosa dei Giudei di Onia (C. 150 A. C-73
D. C.) (Pisa: ETS, 2007); W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis nach
den Inschriften,” in Die Septuaginta Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten, ed. M. Karrer et al.
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) 117–133; and recently M. M. Piotrkowski, “Priests
in Exile: The History of the Temple of Onias and Its Community in the Hellenistic
Period” (PhD diss.; Hebrew University, 2015).
2 The Oniad Temple (bet honio) is referred to in mMenaḥot 13:10; tMen. 13:12–15;
bMen. 109a–b; bMegillah 10a; bAvodah Zarah 52b; bYoma 6:3.
3 CPJ 1.132; see Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (CPJ), vol. 1, ed. V. Tcherikover and
A. Fuks (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1957) 244–246.
4 E. Naville and F. Griffith, The Mound of the Jew and the City of Onias (London: Egypt
Exploration Fund, 1890) 15–19. The inscriptions from Tell-el-Yahoudieh, as well as
those from near Demerdash are collected and commented upon in W. Horbury and
D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1992) 51–196 and have recently been commented and translated into
Italian by Capponi, Il tempio di Leontopoli, 171–198. For further discussion on the
inscriptions, see C. C. Edgar, “More Tomb-Stones from Tell el Yahoudieh,” Annales
du Service des antiquités de l’Égypt 22 (1922): 7–16; A. Momilgiano, “Un documento
della spiritualità dei Guidei Leontopolitani,” Aegyptus 12 (1932) 171–172; D. M. Lewis
in CPJ III, 145–163; D. Noy, “The Jewish Communities of Leontopolis and Venosa,” in
Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy, ed. J.‑W. van Henten and P. Van der Horst (Leiden:
Brill, 1994) 162–182; J. Mélèze Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt: From Ramses II to
Emperor Hadrian (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995) 129–133; A. Kasher,
The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1985) 122–132; T. Ilan, “The New Jewish Inscriptions from Hierapolis
and the Question of Jewish Diaspora Cemeteries,” Scripta Classica Israelica 25 (2006)
71–86; Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde,” 117–133.
5 For the identification of Tell-el-Yahoudieh with the site of Onias’ Temple, see Naville
and Griffith, Mound, 20–21 and Petrie, Hyksos, 20 ff. That assumption has most recently
been challenged by G. Hata, “Where Is the Temple Site of Onias IV in Egypt?” in
Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History, ed. Jack Pastor, Pnina Stern and Menahem
Mor (Leiden: Brill, 2011) 177–91, but also previously by Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth,

e-offprint of the author with publisher’s permission.

25 (2018) Josephus on Onias and the Oniad Temple  3

we discover the remains of Onias’ Temple – or any other evidence, such as

more papyri – all the modern historian has at his disposal concerning the
history of Onias Temple are two rather long narratives by Josephus: one in
his Judaean War (BJ) written at about 79 CE and the other, in his Jewish
Antiquities (AJ) written some twenty years later.6
These narratives are quite different in nature (to say the least), but per-
haps the most striking difference between them is their degree of contra-
diction. The most palpable contradiction concerns the identification of the
high priest who built the Oniad Temple in Egypt: Onias III, as postulated
in the War, or his son, Onias IV, as later maintained in the Antiquities.7
Although the identification of the builder is an important question in the
scholarship on Onias’ Temple, that is not the focus of this article.
Instead, I  want to turn to the person who gave us those narratives on
the Oniad Temple: Josephus. In light of the general dearth of information
on the history of the Oniad Temple, every detail in Josephus’ narratives on
that subject is important, but has, in my view, often been misinterpreted.
It seems that in order to compensate for the lack of information on Onias’
Temple, Josephus’ narratives have been harvested and read as proof for one
thing or the other by modern scholars  – for example, Onias’ motives for
the building of his temple, or his admittedly peculiar note at AJ 13.66 that
the Jews of Egypt had many other temples prior to the erection of that of
Onias.8
However, alongside the assumption that Josephus’ narratives on Onias’
Temple do transmit historical facts, we should at the same time accept the
view that not everything Josephus says necessarily reflects historical reality.

27–28. For earlier reservations, see R. du Mesnil du Buisson, “Comte rendu sommaire
d’une mission à Tell el-Yahoudiyé,” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale
29 (1929) 155–178, and “Le temple d’Onias el le camp d’Hyksôs à Tell el-Yahoudiyé,”
Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 35 (1935) 59–71.
6 Josephus’ main narratives on Onias’ Temple appear in BJ 7.421–436 and AJ 13.62–73.
All quotes in English from Josephus’ works derive from the critical edition of H. St.
J. Thackeray, R. Marcus, A. Wikgren and L. H. Feldman (eds. and trans.) Josephus
(13  vols.; Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926–1965).
The following abbreviations are employed for Josephus’ works: BJ / War (History of the
Jewish War), AJ (Jewish Antiquities), C. Ap. (Contra Apionem) and Vit. (Vita).
7 Compare BJ 1.33; 7.423 with AJ 12.237; 13.62; 20.236. Note also 2 Macc. 4:33–34,
which tells of the assassination of Onias III in Daphne, a suburb of Antioch, and is
notably at odds with Josephus’ statements at BJ 1.33, 7.423 and AJ 12.237 (where Onias
III dies of natural causes).
8 Cf., for instance, Gruen, “Origins,” 60, and L. Capponi, “Martyrs and Apostates:
3 Maccabees and the Temple of Leontopolis,” Henoch 29 (2007) 301, who take the note
that Egyptian Jews allegedly had many temples (AJ 13.66).

e-offprint of the author with publisher’s permission.

4  Meron M. Piotrkowski JSQ

In other words, much of what Josephus has to say on the subject of Onias’
Temple (like much of what he says about other things) may be colored by
the fact that, in addition to being a historian who based his narratives on
sources, he was also a literary person, an author. He did not merely copy his
sources, but rather arranged them and paraphrased them according to his
own perceptions and narratological purposes. This becomes fairly obvious
in his narratives on Onias and Onias’ Temple. I suggest that Josephus used
an Oniad founding-legend for both his narratives on Onias and his temple,
but skewed this source polemically, in accordance with the respective main
themes of the Judaean War and the Antiquities. I also wish to draw attention
to the fact that Josephus himself underwent a personal change between the
time of writing his final versions of the War and the Antiquities,9 and that
personal change affected the narratives of both works, both in general and
with respect to Onias and the Oniad Temple in particular.
The purpose of this paper, therefore, is not only to expose Josephus’ own
prejudices on Onias and the Oniad Temple, but also to assess him (and his
testimony) as a source for the reconstruction of the history of the Temple
of Onias. Thus, this study is limited in scope and does not constitute an
attempt to present a reconstruction of the history of the Temple of Onias.10

1.  Onias and the Oniad Temple in the Judaean War

It is somewhat surprising that a book that deals primarily with a war

between Jews and Romans in Judaea and focuses predominantly on events
in Jerusalem and its Temple, actually begins and ends with a narrative on
another Jewish temple located elsewhere. Josephus’ narrative on Onias and

9 BJ 7.447–453 and Vit. 424 ff. On Josephus’ status in Rome and his patronship with
the Flavian dynasty, see N. Bentwich, The Life and Times of Josephus (Philadelphia:
Jewish Publication Society, 1914) 58–80; R. Laqueur, Der jüdische Historiker Flavius
Josephus: Ein biographischer Versuch auf neuer quellenkritischer Grundlage (Giessen:
Münchow’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1920) 255–278; H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus:
The Man and the Historian (New York: Jewish Institute of Religion Press, 1929) 15–16;
Sh. J. D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian
(Leiden: Brill, 1979) 232–242; P. Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome:
His Life, His Works and Their Importance (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1988) 57–60;
T. Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and his Society (London: Duckworth, 2002) 194 ff.;
H. M. Cotton and W. Eck, “Josephus’ Roman Audience: Josephus and the Roman
Elites,” in Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome, ed. J. Edmondson, Steve Mason and J. B.
Rives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) 37–52; and W. den Hollander, Josephus,
the Emperors, and the City of Rome (Brill: Leiden, 2014).
10 This was done recently by Piotrkowski, “Priests in Exile,” passim.

e-offprint of the author with publisher’s permission.

25 (2018) Josephus on Onias and the Oniad Temple  5

the Oniad Temple in Egypt actually brackets his larger narrative on the
Roman suppression of the Jewish Revolt in Judaea.
The introductory paragraphs in BJ 1.31–33 refer to the political situ-
ation in pre-Maccabaean Jerusalem on the eve of Antiochus IV Epiphanes’
invasion of Judaea, his plundering and defilement of the Jerusalem Temple
and his ensuing religious persecutions of the Jews.11 Josephus emphasizes
that there was great sedition among the people of Jerusalem, some taking
the side of the pro-Ptolemaic party and some of the pro-Seleucid party.
Onias, apparently the head of the pro-Ptolemaic party, initially prevailed
over the “Sons of Tobias”  – the pro-Seleucid party.12 Soon, however, his
initial success was reversed, and he fled to his patron, Ptolemy Philometor,
in Egypt, where he was permitted to build a temple and a city resembling
Jerusalem.13 According to this narrative, Onias’ flight to Egypt and the
foundation of his temple were essentially due to an inner-Jewish struggle, a
stasis – a theme we encounter throughout Josephus’ narratives in the War.14
Thus, I argue that the placement of the Onias episode in BJ 1 in the context
of Jewish in-fighting is not by chance: stasis is a major theme of the overall
composition, which we already met in the brief introductory passage to the
subject of Onias’ Temple.

11 These events occurred against the background of the Sixth Syrian War (170–168
BCE), between Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Ptolemy VI Philometor. On this war,
see W. Otto, Zur Geschichte der Zeit des 6. Ptolemäers: Ein Beitrag zur Politik und zum
Staatsrecht des Hellenismus (München: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1934) 40–81;
O. Mørkholm, Antiochus IV of Syria (Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1966) 64–101; G. Hölbl,
Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches: Politik, Ideologie und religiöse Kultur von Alexander
dem Großen bis zur römischen Eroberung (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgemein-
schaft, 2004) 128–134.
12 That the “Sons of Tobias” were Seleucid partisans is not explicitly stated by Josephus,
but certainly suggested by the context.
13 Here Josephus locates the temple and the city in the nome of Heliopolis; in AJ 13.65,
70, he designates the place as Leontopolis. However, no Leontopolis is attested in the
Heliopolite nome. Ancient Leontopolis has recently been identified with Tell Muqdam
in the Leontopolite nome, thus ruling out its identification with Tell el-Yahoudieh; see
C. A. Redmount, and R. F. Friedman, “Tales of a Delta Site: The 1995 Field Season at
Tell El-Muqdam,” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 34 (1997) 57–83;
J. Yoyotte “Sites et cultes de Basse-Egypte: Les deux Léontopolis,” Annuaire: Ecole
pratique des hautes études. Section des sciences religieuses 97 (1988–89) 669–683; and
M. M. Piotrkowski, “Temple, Leontopolis (Archaeology),” in Encyclopedia of Second
Temple Judaism, ed. L. Stuckenbruck and D. Gurtner (2 vols.; New York and London:
T and T Clark, 2017; forthcoming).
14 On Josephus’ employment of stasis as a main theme in BJ, see in particular Rajak, Jose-
phus, 91–96, and more recently, M. A. Brighton, The Sicarii in Josephus’s Judean War:
Rhetorical Analysis and Historical Observation (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature,
2009) 24–25 and passim.

e-offprint of the author with publisher’s permission.

6  Meron M. Piotrkowski JSQ

Josephus’ note on Onias’ Temple in BJ 1 concludes with the remark that

he will return to the subject “in due course” (BJ 1.33). This return comes
towards the end of Book 7 (BJ 7.421–436 ff.). Here Josephus embeds the
narrative in the larger context of the Roman mopping up of the last pockets
of resistance after the destruction of the temples in Judaea and Egypt in the
wake of the First Jewish Revolt.15 He states that, on the orders of Vespasian,
the Oniad Temple was closed, out of fear that the Jewish rebels, who had fled
there from Judaea, might cause further upheaval (BJ 7.420–421). He begins
this narrative where he left off in BJ 1:33, with Onias’ flight to Egypt in the
wake of the Sixth Syrian War and Antiochus IV’s invasion of Judaea and
his defilement of the Temple there (BJ 7.423). Josephus relates that Ptolemy
Philometor permitted Onias to build a temple in Egypt, at Onias’s request, in
return for the full-fledged loyalty of all Jews, especially against Philometor’s
nemesis, Antiochus (BJ 7.423–425). Philometor agreed to Onias’ proposal
and allowed him to build a temple and an altar (7.426). What follows is a
description of the Oniad Temple and its vessels (7.427–430). Oddly enough,
and in contrast to what he says elsewhere,16 Josephus remarks here that it
did not resemble the Temple of Jerusalem, but was shaped like a tower; only
the altar was a copy of that in Jerusalem (7.427).
After the depiction of the Oniad Temple and its vessels, Josephus
appears to voice his own opinion: he says, “Onias was not actuated by
honest motives” (7.431) and all he had in mind was to rival the Temple
of his brethren in Jerusalem, against whom he harboured resentment for
his exile, and to draw as many worshippers as possible from Jerusalem to
his own newly established religious center in Egypt. Immediately thereafter,
however, at BJ 7.432 Josephus adds that Onias was encouraged to build this
temple for another reason – namely, the prophecy in Isa 19:18–19, which
predicted the building of an altar by a man of Judaean extraction.17 Thus,
Josephus provides us with two motives for Onias’ temple-building project,
one of which was self-service and the other was fulfilment of prophecy.

15 BJ 7.408–437.
16 BJ 1.33: “Onias built a small town on the model of Jerusalem and a temple resembling
ours.” There are similar statements in AJ 12.388; 13.63, 67, 72; 20.236.
17 I prefer to translate the term Ioudaios here as someone from Judaea, rather than just
any Jew. On how to best translate this ethnicon, see Sh. J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings
of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1999) 69–106; D. R. Schwartz, “Herodians and ‘Ioudaioi’ in Flavian Rome,” in
Edmondson, Flavius Josephus, 63–78; and D. R. Schwartz, Judeans and Jews: Four Faces
of Dichotomy in Ancient Jewish History (Toronto: University of Toronto, 2014).

e-offprint of the author with publisher’s permission.

25 (2018) Josephus on Onias and the Oniad Temple  7

Following his note on Isaiah’s prophecy, Josephus rounds off his narra-
tive on the Oniad Temple by relating the circumstances of its closure in the
Roman Period and noting how long it stood (7.433–436).
Many things are missing in this narrative. Josephus tells us nothing of
the later life of the temple’s builder or the ensuing history of this temple. His
account of Onias’ Temple is therefore essentially an elaboration on the cir-
cumstances of its building, a rather elaborate description of its appearance
and its vessels, and a report on its fate, rather than a history. Besides this,
all we have is Josephus himself speaking and commenting on Onias and his
actions. These few lines (BJ 7.431) are of particular interest to us.
Josephus dedicated a fair portion of this narrative to the temple itself,
including its vessels. Thus it seems that he was personally interested in such
details. It is natural to assume that his pedigree as a priest, and perhaps his
experience, fostered his interest in things priestly.18 In addition, we observe
that Josephus does not compliment Onias for his actions, but rather ascribes
to him “dishonest motives.” He accuses Onias of building his temple for the
sole purpose of causing rivalry and stirring up dissent amongst the Jews, in
particular those of Egypt against those of Jerusalem. This theme of dissent,
or stasis, between Jews also appeared in the introductory remarks on Onias
and his temple in BJ 1. Thus Josephus re-iterates the main theme of his War
in Book 7. Onias becomes the epitome of a stasiastēs, a seditionist, of the
kind that Josephus condemns throughout the War,19 and it follows that the
Jewish radicals, who are the real villains in the book, in the end find shelter
at Onias’ Temple, which is consequently “shut down” by the Romans.20
Apart from showing that Josephus did not like Onias or his temple, the story
functions as yet another example of inner-Jewish dissent in Josephus’ War
narrative and harmonises with Josephus’ major theme of stasis in this book.

18 See, e. g., BJ 1.3; 3.352; and implied in BJ 5.529; Vit. 3–4, 80, 198; Ap. 1.54.
19 On Josephus’ irritation with Jewish separatists, see Rajak, Josephus, 78–104.
20 Whether the Temple of Onias was destroyed or just “shut down” is debatable. In
BJ 7.433–435 Josephus wants us to believe that the Oniad Temple was “shut down”
(apokleisas) by the Romans. However, a passage in Book 5 of the Sibylline Oracles
(5.501–507) and the “updated” prophecy of Isa 19:18 in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
both suggest that the temple was actually destroyed by the Romans. The reason Jose-
phus seems to contradict this particular detail is perhaps an effort of his to whitewash
the Romans. Destroying temples was looked upon as an act of barbarity in antiquity,
and it would be unflattering to the Romans had Josephus related the destruction of
Onias’ Temple; “shutting down” is a more diplomatic way of stating the fact that, no
matter how we look at it, Onias’ Temple ceased to function. See also Bohak, Joseph and
Aseneth, 37–40, and S. H. Rutledge, “The Roman Destruction of Sacred Sites,” Historia
56 (2007) 179–195, esp. 190 (n. 46).

e-offprint of the author with publisher’s permission.

8  Meron M. Piotrkowski JSQ

We therefore have good reason to question whether rivalry was actually the
historical reason for the building of Onias’ Temple.

2.  Onias and the Oniad Temple in the Jewish Antiquities

In contrast to the Judaean War, which mentions Onias and his temple only
in Books 1 and 7, notes on Onias and his fate are scattered in nine different
places throughout the last ten books of the Antiquities.21 Most of these notes
are of a genealogical nature22 and teach us little or nothing about the history
of Onias’ Temple. The sole exception is the comparatively long narrative
in AJ 13.62–73, which Josephus placed towards the beginning of a book
that mainly deals with Hasmonean history. By and large, the Onias story is
framed by events taking place in Judaea, which was still (at least nominally)
ruled by the gradually disintegrating Seleucid Empire.
Right before turning to Onias, Josephus closes his narrative on the events
in Judaea with the death of Demetrius I (AJ 13.61), and right after the Onias
narrative, he appends the story of a quarrel between Jews and Samaritans
about the holiness and legitimacy of the Jerusalem and Samaritan temples
(13.74–79). These events are said to have taken place under Ptolemy Phi-
lometor, in Alexandria (not in Heliopolis, as in BJ 7.62). Thus it seems that
Josephus arranged both the story of Onias and that of the Jewish-Samaritan
dispute not only in chronological order, but also according to geographical
location. In his concluding remark to this section, he says, “These, then,
were the things that befell the Jews in Alexandria in the reign of Ptolemy
Philometor” (AJ 13.79).
This arrangement is also clearly thematic, as both stories deal with tem-
ples competing with the one in Jerusalem. Moreover, the episode allows
Josephus to bridge his main narrative on political relations under the
Ptolemies and the Seleucids. In the paragraphs following the episode of the
Samaritan Temple (13.80 ff.), we hear about Ptolemaic-Seleucid relations

21 AJ 12.237–239, 383, 387–388; 13.62–73, 285; 14.131; 15.41; 19.298; 20.235–237. While
Josephus refers to Onias’ Temple relatively often in the Antiquities, with the sole excep-
tion of AJ. 13.62–73, his focus is not on the temple itself, but rather on its high priest(s)
and their personal fate(s). The temple, if mentioned at all, is merely a background
feature. These passages imply that its cult was functional until the temple was closed/
destroyed by the Romans (although the only mention of an actual cultic performance
there is AJ. 13.62–73). I do not argue against the historical fact that a Jewish cult was
performed at Onias’ Temple, rather that this information is only implied by Josephus
in his Antiquities, but not further developed for the reasons I put forth.
22 So, e. g., AJ 12.224–225, 237–239, 387; 19.298; 20.235–236.

e-offprint of the author with publisher’s permission.

25 (2018) Josephus on Onias and the Oniad Temple  9

under Philometor, and subsequently find ourselves back in the realm of

Seleucid-Hasmonean relations and embroiled in events taking place in
Judaea. Josephus thus returns to the narrative he had left off at 13.61.
In this way Josephus embeds a subtle reference to Jewish law in his overall
narrative on Judaean history in Antiquities 13. AJ 13.46–57, which appears
just a bit before Josephus’ main narrative on Onias, deals with Hasmonean
history and is part of Josephus’ main narrative of Antiquities 13. There
(AJ 13.46–57) Josephus recounts that Demetrius I23 made a proposal to the
Jews of Jerusalem in order to gain their loyalty and support for his struggle
against a rival pretender to the Seleucid throne, Alexander Balas. That
proposal, which contains a list of promises and benefits that partly concern
the Jerusalem Temple and its priesthood, also contains the following:
I [Demetrius] also permit them [the Jews] to live in accordance with their country’s
laws (patriois nomois) and to observe them … it shall be the concern of the high
priest that not a single Jew shall have any temple for worship other than that of
Jerusalem. (AJ 13.54)

Intriguingly, the parallel passage in 1 Maccabees, which Josephus rephrases

here, merely states that the inhabitants of the territory belonging to Judaea
ought to obey the high priest.24 There is nothing that corresponds to the
injunction “it shall be the concern of the high priest” etc. Thus, the admo-
nition that Jews should be loyal only to the one Temple in Jerusalem is
Josephus’ own contribution. We encounter this “one-Temple-concept” else-
where in his writings (for instance, his treatment of the ideal Jewish con-
stitution in Contra Apion25).
There are other points of interest concerning Josephus’ narrative of the
history of Onias’ Temple. For instance, the whole piece (AJ 13.62–73) com-
prises a kind of dialogue between Onias and the royal couple in the form
of a petition letter and its reply. This narrative does not yield much infor-
mation about the actual history of the Oniad Temple and provides even less

23 Seleucus IV’s son (r. 160–151 BCE).

24 1 Macc 10:38 (NSRV): “As for the three districts that have been added to Judea [sic]
from the country of Samaria, let them be annexed to Judea so that they may be con-
sidered to be under one ruler and obey no other authority than the high priest.”
25 C. Ap. 2.193: “We have but one Temple for the one God, common to all as God is
common to all” (LCL). Whiston translated the second part of that sentence as “for
likeness is the constant foundation of agreement,” which better reflects Josephus’
mindset as expressed in AJ 13.66; W. Whiston, The Genuine Works of Flavius Jose-
phus, vol. 3 (Boston: Thomson and Andrews, 1809) 510. See also Josephus’ summary
of the mosaic code, in which he emphasises the oneness of the Temple of Jerusalem
(AJ 4.200 ff.). See also G. Bohak, “Theopolis: A Single-Temple Policy and Its Singular
Ramifications,” Journal of Jewish Studies 50 (1999) 3–16.

e-offprint of the author with publisher’s permission.

10  Meron M. Piotrkowski JSQ

information about the temple itself. Instead, it focuses on the circumstances

of its construction and what is considered proper and improper according
to Jewish law (e. g., 13.66). While Josephus’ source provided an account on
the circumstance of the construction of Onias’ Temple, it seems that here
the emphasis on Jewish law is the whole point of the story – namely, how to
lead a life in the Diaspora, in accordance with proper fulfilment of Jewish
law.
In the Antiquities Josephus uses the narrative on Onias and his temple to
bring across an halakhic/ideological point: Jews should not have more than
one temple, and that one Temple should be in Jerusalem and nowhere else.
In that context, he says, Onias had
[…] found that most of them [the Jews in Egypt] have temples, contrary to what is
proper, and that for this reason they are ill-disposed towards one another, as is also
the case with the Egyptians because of the multitude of their temples and about the
forms of worship. (13:66)

The very same claim that having many temples invites dissent is repeated
elsewhere in Josephus’ writings (in Ap. 2.193, for example, and in AJ 11.323,
which refers to the building of the Samaritan temple26).
It is for this reason – to unite Egyptian Jewry – that Onias seeks permis-
sion to build one temple “in order that the Jewish inhabitants of Egypt may
be able to come together there in mutual harmony (13.67).” Although Onias
adds that Philometor would benefit from the project, but he finds that
Ptolemy is not so much concerned with his own interests as with Jewish law:
one may get a notion of the king’s piety and that of his sister and wife Cleopatra from
the letter that they wrote in reply, for they placed the blame for the sin and transgres-
sion against the Law (tou nomou) on the head of Onias (13.69).

In other words, Josephus condemns Onias and his actions as sinful and
transgressing Jewish law.
He says next to nothing about the Oniad Temple itself, with the sole
exception of the laconic remark that Onias’ Temple and its altar resem-
bled those in Jerusalem “only smaller and poorer” (13.72). As the remark is
clearly pejorative, it fits well into the overall anti-Oniad spirit of the whole
narrative. On the other hand, it may well convey an actual historical fact.

26 Another “Jewish” temple of debatable legitimacy; see J. Frey, “Temple and Rival
Temple: The Cases of Elephantine, Mt. Gerizim, and Leontopolis,” in Gemeinde ohne
Tempel: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines
Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum, ed. Beate Ego,
Armin Lange and Peter Pilhofer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999) 171–203.

e-offprint of the author with publisher’s permission.

25 (2018) Josephus on Onias and the Oniad Temple  11

We do not know what the Oniad Temple actually looked like. The only
description we have is Josephus’ account in BJ 7, which stated that the Oniad
Temple did not resemble its counterpart in Jerusalem (BJ 7.427). Josephus
relies on sources for making statements of that kind. That is as true for his
description of the Oniad Temple in BJ 7 as it is for his narrative of Onias and
his actions in Antiquities 13. All this is to say, that one source Josephus used
in BJ 7 (next to the Oniad founding legend) – probably a Roman military
report – must have referred to details pertaining to the appearance of Onias’
Temple that caused him to revise and negate his earlier statement (BJ 1.33)
that Onias’ Temple resembled the one in Jerusalem.27 Thus, we can both
accept Josephus’ remark that the Oniad Temple was “poorer and smaller”
than its Jerusalemite counterpart and at the same time acknowledge that it
suits Josephus’ own tendenz of denigrating Onias and his temple.28
In general, Josephus is conspicuously silent about the Oniad Temple itself
in Antiquities 13. This observation, in my view, demands explanation. We
might imagine that this would be a “proper place” to elaborate some more
on it, its dimensions, its cult or its vessels. Instead, when Josephus touches
upon this subject, he refers us to his narrative in BJ 7. The cross-reference
to his earlier War account, in fact, indicates that Josephus used only one
Jewish main source for his two narratives in BJ 7 and Antiquities 13.29 This
assumption is bolstered by the observation that in both accounts Onias
sought permission from Ptolemy Philometor to build a temple in Egypt
(though for different reasons) (BJ 7.424–425 and AJ. 13.63). However, while
both narratives tell about Onias’ request, the War narrative merely states

27 See also Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 38; P. A. Rainbow, “The Last Oniad and the
Teacher of Righteousness,” Journal of Jewish Studies 48 (1997) 32.
28 Last, too, notes that the term adespotos hieros (unowned temple [land]) in AJ 13.67
is to be understood in a derogatory light, but suggests that the land on which Onias’
Temple was built was acquired under shady circumstances; R. Last, “Onias IV and
the άδέσποτος ίερός:  Placing Antiquities 13.62–73 into the Context of Ptolemaic
Land Tenure,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 494–516. Last’s finding thus
harmonizes quite well with our own. Compare Capponi, Il tempio, 66, who explains
the anti-Oniad spirit of Josephus’ Onias narrative in the Antiquities by his (alleged)
Hasmonean ancestry (see Vit. 2). We argue that the reason for Josephus’ animosity
toward the Oniad Temple is otherwise.
29 On this issue, see Piotrkowski, “Priests in Exile,” 27–61. Another indicator that
AJ 13.62–73 is part of the same source used by Josephus in BJ 7 is the odd and anachro-
nistic note at AJ 13.65 that ascribes military aid provided by Onias’ IV to Ptolemy
Philometor in a Ptolemaic-Seleucid conflict in Judaea. If we rely on Josephus’ internal
chronology, Onias IV was active in the 50s of the second century BCE – but there was
no conflict in Judaea during those years in which he could have fought on Philometor’s
behalf. Thus, the reference in AJ 13.65 must be to the Sixth Syrian War (170–168 BCE)
and refer to Onias III.

e-offprint of the author with publisher’s permission.

12  Meron M. Piotrkowski JSQ

that Onias’ request was granted (7.426) and continues directly to a detailed
description of the temple and its appurtenances. The Antiquities narrative,
by contrast, supplies details about the petition to the king and the location
of temple (AJ. 63–65); it thus fills a gap in the BJ narrative. It seems likely
that it does so because Josephus is aware of the fact that in the War he did
not use this part of his source; this is supported by the fact that at the end of
the Antiquities narrative (AJ 13.72), he suddenly remarks that it is not nec-
essary to elaborate on the temple’s dimensions and vessels, since he already
did so in the War. Thus, it is clear that in writing his account in AJ 13 Jose-
phus was well aware of what he did and did not include in BJ 7, and that easy
comparability of the two accounts supports the hypothesis that Josephus
followed one and the same source for both those Onias narratives.30
We should, however, ask why Josephus deliberately chose not to describe
Onias’ Temple in Antiquities 13. One may argue that this was because he saw
no need to repeat himself (and this is not the only case in which he refers
us back to earlier parallel accounts in his War31). One may argue that he
introduced such cross-references simply for reasons of economy – i. e., in
order to promote his earlier writings. However, I suggest that other motives
led him to do so: namely, his own biography.
Approximately twenty years elapsed between the composition of the
Judaean War and Jewish Antiquities, sufficient time for Josephus to have
undergone a personal change.32 He began his adult life as a Jewish priestly

30 For a similar case, see A. Kushnir-Stein, “Josephus’ Description of Paneion,” Scripta

Classica Israelica 26 (2007) 87–90, who discovered that Josephus used two different parts
of one and the same source for his (geographical) description of Paneion in BJ 1.404 ff.
and 2.168 and in AJ 15.363–364. He thus fragmented his source and used different
parts of it at different places in his compositions to fulfill his current narratological
purposes. Another example: the correspondence between the Jews and the Spartans,
which is also recorded in 1 Macc 12:19–23. Josephus provides that correspondence
twice: once in AJ 12.225, in the context of his reference to Onias (III), the high priest,
who is also mentioned in the source in 1 Maccabees; and once in AJ 13.166–170, where
he correctly associates the correspondence with Jonathan the Hasmonean (also based
on information provided by1 Maccabees). Josephus appears to have acted in the same
manner with his Jewish source on the foundation of the Oniad Temple.
31 See Vit. 412, where he refers to the conquest of Iotapata by the Romans as recounted
in Judaean War Book 3, or his remark at AJ 18.11 on the three Jewish sects, where he
refers his readers to his parallel account in Judaean War Book 2.
32 This premise was already put forward by Laqueur, Der jüdische Historiker; H. Rasp,
“Flavius Josephus und die jüdischen Religionsparteien,” Zeitschrift für die Neutesta-
mentliche Wissenschaft 23 (1924) 27–47; K.‑S. Krieger, Geschichtsschreibung als Apolo-
getik bei Flavius Josephus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994); D. R. Schwartz in various
publications, for example, see Schwartz, Judeans and Jews, 48–61; and M. Tuval,
“A Jewish Priest in Rome,” in Pastor, Flavius Josephus, 397–411.

e-offprint of the author with publisher’s permission.

25 (2018) Josephus on Onias and the Oniad Temple  13

aristocrat in Judaea, while he ended it as a Diaspora Jew in Rome.33 Josephus

of the 70s, the priest, seems to have been more interested in temples and cult
than Josephus of the 90s, some twenty years after his exile, living a life with-
out access to the religious institution of the Temple.34 In a religious reality
devoid of a holy place, one’s most meaningful expression of religiosity was
the adherence to the ancestral law, the Torah, for the fulfilment of Jewish
law is not bound to a specific place and thus may be practiced everywhere.
This is exactly the kind of worldview expressed in Josephus’ portrait of
Onias in Antiquities. Narrating the episode of Pompey’s conquest of the
Temple (63 BCE), Josephus provides us with a dramatic account of how
the priests in the Temple continued to perform sacrifices until the moment
that they fell victim to the fighting. While in the War he specifies in detail
the cultic performance of the priests, pouring libations and burning incense
(BJ  1.148–150), in the Antiquities he is notably less interested in things
cultic. There he summarizes the description of the priests’ labour with the
simple statement that they were “busied” with the sacrifices and performing
the “sacred ceremonies” (AJ 14.64–67), while his actual interest in telling
this episode is to provide us with an example of how Jews are affectionately
adherent of God’s νόμοι (laws), and sacrifices are more of a subsidiary
matter. Thus, Josephus’ focus shifted from cult and temple to Jewish law,
which befits the world-view of a Diaspora Jew.35 Without a temple, details
such as the dimensions of the building or description of the vessels gradually

33 See above, n. 9.

34 One could argue that Josephus began working on his Antiquities more or less immedi-
ately after completing the Judaean War, i. e., perhaps in the early 80s. However, there
is no indication in the corpus of his writings as to when he began working on the
Antiquities, or, for that matter, which book he began to write first. Even if he had
produced a “first draft” of the Antiquities in the early 80s, he revised his material in the
late 80s/early 90s in order to tie the work together. This would have allowed substantial
time to pass from the beginning of the project to its completion and for Josephus’s
mindset to adjust to a Diaspora setting. In any case, even in the early 80s he would
have been faced with the new reality of a temple-less Judaism, whose focus shifted from
temple cult to a Judaism centered on adherence to Jewish law.
35 Compare in this context AJ 8.274–281 with 2 Chron 13:3–12 (Jerobam’s speech to
Abias) and AJ 12.267, 300–304, 406–409; 13.197–199 (Maccabean speeches) with
1 Macc 2:6–13; 3:58–59; 7:33–38; 13:1–6; regarding the differences, see I. Gafni,
“Josephus and 1 Maccabees,” in Josephus, the Bible and History, ed. L. H. Feldman
and G. Hata (Detroit: Wayne University Press, 1989) 116–131, and B. Schröder, Die
väterlichen Gesetze: Flavius Josephus als Vermittler von Halachah an Griechen und
Römer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996) 88–89. A related example is 1 Macc 1:21–24,
which meticulously lists (in three verses) the temple vessels looted by Antiochus IV
Epiphanes, vis-à-vis 2 Macc 5:16, which needs only one verse to delineate the same
event without going into details.

e-offprint of the author with publisher’s permission.

14  Meron M. Piotrkowski JSQ

became less significant. Instead, leading a life according to the Jewish law
became much more crucial.36
Since Josephus was a spokesman for an ideology of “one-Temple, one-
Law, one-city”37 well after the destruction of the Temple, he could not agree
with Onias’ efforts to build an additional temple other than in Jerusalem. In
his eyes, Onias was a transgressor of Jewish law and thus became a paradigm
for a sinner and transgressor. Josephus’ portrayal of Onias in the Antiquities
thus follows Josephus’ own Weltanschauung and also dovetails with one of
the major themes of his Antiquities, namely the emphasis on the adherence
of Jewish law.38
Since Onias is portrayed as a transgressor of Jewish law, his temple is also
viewed by Josephus as illegitimate. This conclusion is supported by the fact
that Josephus appends to his narrative on Onias’ Temple to the discussion
of the legitimacy of the Samaritan Temple (AJ 13.74–79),39 where Ptolemy
Philometor emphasises the superiority and legitimacy of the Jerusalem
Temple and even has the Samaritan envoys punished by death for their
effort to undermine the superiority of the Jerusalem Temple.40 Judged from
a purely literary perspective, Josephus’ arrangement of these two narratives
seems to convey that, for him, Onias’ Temple stands on equal footing with
the Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim: both are illegitimate.

36 On the differences between Jewish religiosity in the Diaspora and the more temple-
centered ideology of Palestinian Judaism, see in particular D. R. Schwartz, “From the
Maccabees to Masada: On Diasporan Historiography of the Second Temple Period,” in
Jüdische Geschichte in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit: Wege der Forschung – vom alten zum
neuen Schürer, ed. A. Oppenheimer (Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1999) 29–40; Schwartz,
“Jews of Egypt”; and N. Hacham, “Exile and Self-Identity in the Qumran Sect and
in Hellenistic Judaism,” in New Perspectives on Old Texts: Proceedings of the Tenth
International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and
Associated Literature, ed. E. G. Chazon, B Halpern-Amaru and R Clements (Leiden:
Brill, 2010) 3–21.
37 Deut 12:4–6, 13–18. See also I. Helm, “Cult Centralization as a Device of Cult Con-
trol?” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament: An International Journal of Nordic
Theology 13 (2008) 298–309.
38 H. W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of
Flavius Josephus (Missoula: Scholars, 1976) 151; Schröder, Die väterlichen Gesetze, 128,
263.
39 Concerning debates on the historicity of this episode, see E. S. Gruen, Heritage and
Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1998) 240–243, and A. Kasher, “Samaritans in Hellenistic Egypt” (Hebrew), in
The Samaritans, ed. E. Stern and H. Eshel (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2002) 162–164.
40 The notion that transgression of the law entails the death penalty is also expressed in
AJ 12.286, where Josephus has Judas put to death anybody who “transgressed the laws
of the country (ta patria).”

e-offprint of the author with publisher’s permission.

25 (2018) Josephus on Onias and the Oniad Temple  15

Thus, in Josephus’ Antiquities, written around twenty years after his

War, by building a rival temple Onias is accused of transgressing Jewish law
rather than causing dissent amongst the Jews, as lamented in his War. It is in
the Antiquities that Josephus develops the idea that a Jewish temple should
only exist in Jerusalem and not anywhere else. But why would Josephus
suddenly care about Jewish temples outside of Jerusalem in the Antiquities,
even though he is no longer much interested in temples and cultic things?
The answer seems to be in AJ 13.66: “since it is unlawful.” Josephus’ dis-
cussion of Onias’ Temple in the Antiquities is thus theoretical/ideological
in nature, and in that sense impressively similar to the rabbinic discussions
of Onias’ Temple, which were mostly concerned with the question whether
Onias’ temple was a legitimate shrine or not.41

Conclusion

In our inquiry into Josephus’ perception of Onias and his temple in the War
and the Antiquities, we discovered the following:
(1)  In the Judean War, Josephus describes Onias as a fomenter of stasis –
internal dissent. Accordingly, in this narrative Onias’ main motive for build-
ing his temple is to rival the one in Jerusalem. This is much in harmony with
the overall stasis theme of the War. Therefore, in my view, we should be
cautious about drawing the conclusion that Onias’ Temple was truly a rival
sanctuary to Jerusalem, as some scholars maintain.42
(2) Furthermore, in the War Josephus provides a rather elaborate
account of the Oniad Temple itself, including its vessels, while a comparable
description is lacking in the Antiquities, which is remarkably unconcerned
with things cultic and much more concerned with the proper fulfilment
of Jewish law. I explain this discrepancy by Josephus’ own personal devel-
opment, from a Jerusalemite priest to a Jew of the Diaspora, where there
was no temple and details of the cultic life gradually became less important
than leading a life according to Jewish law.

41 mMen. 13:10; tMen. 10:12–15; bMen. 109a–b; H. Tchernowitz, “The Pairs and Onias’
Temple” (Hebrew), in Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volume (New York: Academy of Research,
1945) 232–247; R. Yankelevitch, “The Temple of Onias: Law and Reality” (Hebrew),
in Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple, Mishna and Talmud Period: Studies in
Honour of Shmuel Safrai, ed. Isaiah Gafni, Aharon Oppenheimer and Menahem Stern
(Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1993) 107–115.
42 The list of scholars who consider Onias’ Temple a rival temple is long; examples include
Delcor, “Le temple d’Onias,” 202 and Frey, “Temple and Rival Temple,” 194–197.

e-offprint of the author with publisher’s permission.

16  Meron M. Piotrkowski JSQ

(3)  Therefore, we find that in the Antiquities, written around twenty

years after the Judaean War, Josephus accuses Onias of transgressing Jewish
law, rather than faulting him for causing dissent amongst the Jews by build-
ing a rival temple, as he does in the War narrative.

e-offprint of the author with publisher’s permission.