A roadmap to heaven: High-priestly vestments and the Jerusalem Temple in Flavius Josephus

In this chapter, I examine the architecture of the Jerusalem temple and of priestly vestments as loci of religious innovation, which were embedded in Josephus’ complex political and religious agenda. I also offer an exploration of Josephus’ ekphrastic treatment of the architectural complexities of the First and Second Temple and the vestments of the priests and high priests. As I maintain, not only do the priestly and high priestly vestments represent the Jewish cult of purity, and reflect the order of the cosmos to summon the presence of God as creator of heaven and earth, but they are also of great political significance.

The Romans housedthe vestments in astone-chamber under the seal of the priests( ο ἴ κ ῳλ ί θοις οἰκοδομηθέντι ὑπὸ σφραγῖδι τῶν ἱερέων).⁴ Stone was considered ap articularlyp ure building material in Judaism (mKel. 5.11;10.41 etc.), af act which -accordingt oJ osephus -seems to have been known to the Romans. By explaining that the captain of the guard lights al amp in front of the vestments, Josephus indicates that the guard now takes over the dailyl ighting of the Menorah of the Temple which had been the duty of the priestsa nd highp riests (Exod. 27:21;30:8;Lev. 24:3 -784;2Chron. 13:11;Gussmann, 2008); as ar esult, the guard pays homaget oG od as represented by the garment.One thing is clear: the highp riestly vestmentsr epresent ac ultic power in am anner that goes beyond mere symbolic meaning.
As an aristocratic chief priest himself, Josephus describes the office of the highpriest and its holdersfrom personal experience.⁵ As such, he was interested in the proceedingso ft he cults and the Temple,yet his work shows familiarity with Roman concerns. Neither aspect should surprise us. This multifaceted writer served as aJ ewishgeneral, aclient of the Flavian emperors, and an apologist of the Jewishpeople. Josephus' literaryuse of highpriestlyvestments reflects his own involvement in the Jewishc ultic world and in the Roman political world.
Josephus proves to be aunique witness to aJewishpriesthood of the Jerusalem temple⁶ that has at the time of his writingsa lreadyb ecome powerless and without as pecific function.T he cultic and ritual purity laws, the calendar of religious holidays and the temple offeringscould no longer be properlyfulfilled, because the Jewish temple in Jerusalem had been destroyed as asymbol of unity and purity and as the representation of God'sp resence. ForJ osephus it is clear that God'sp resenceh ad left the temple (BJ 6.299). However,Josephus describes the priesthood and the temple in the present tense, in otherwords as if the temple weres till being used as aJ ewish temple and the priesthood weres till being exercised. Not onlyd ot he temple and (high) priestlyv estments represent the Jewishcult of purity and reflect the order of the cosmos,but they are also of political significance.H em akes this clear in both works by using the rhetorical technique of ekphrasis,⁷ "ad escription that places the subject before the  Schwartz (2006,3 47), suggests that this is at ransliteration. Gussmann (2008, 396).  His father was apriest of the 'line' of Jehoiarib and his mother was adescendant of the Hasmonean highp riests and kings whoh ad ruled Jerusalem until the time of Herod.  Grave and synagoguei nscriptionsf romt he time after 70 CE give the impression of ap riesthood in diaspora that is no longer based on ap riestlyl ineage,b ut on as olid understanding of the Torah; see Levine (2005,5 23-525).  Forthe application of the term ekphrasis to this aspect of Josephus' work see also Gussmann, (2008). However,i ti sn ot clear how he defines the term. eyes".H is aim however is different in each case. In Bellum Judaicum BJ he emphasises the dividing walls and the different court-yards, and in doing so makes use of Greco-Roman technicalt erms, apparentlyw ith the aim of protecting the sanctuary from strangers. In Antiquitates AJ on the other hand his detailed description of the tabernacle and the temple of Solomon focuses on the architecture and the vestments, apparentlyw ith the aim of idealising the past and pro-tectingG od'si ndwelling in the sanctuary.H owever,i nreferringt oS olomon's temple prayer,J osephus suggests the possibilityofG od'sp resenceinheaveninstead of the temple. By analysingh is terminology, we find that he presents various aspectso ft he exotic elements in different ways.I nd escribing the high priests' vestments, for example, he transliterates Aramaic terms which are mainly hapax legomena;i ndescribing the holyand the profane and the inside of the temple, like the altars and the Menorah, which are not mentioned in the Septuagint (and the New Testament writings), he uses vocabulary known to us partly from the leges sacrae;a nd, in describingthe building of the temple,hei ntroduces Greek and Roman architectural terminology.Afurther point should also be noted: these details are found almost exclusively in Antiquitates (AJ)a nd rather seldom in the earlier Bellum Judaicum (BJ). Nevertheless,the overall conception of the highpriestly vestmentsinAJ and BJ is the same: the vestmentssymbolise the universe and the heavenlyworldinorder to summon the presenceofGod as the creator of heavenand earth. It is the minute description of materials and colours that acts as the vehicle of the symbolicr eference: The priests' vestments and the temple signal the presenceo fG od.
High-priestly vestments and the Temple in Flavius Josephus the eyes".⁹ By this he means the rhetoricalm ethodo fd escription "of persons and events and places and times"¹⁰ whereby one creates images with words.¹¹ Nicolaos of Myra (fifth century ce)i se xplicit about this:¹² "Descriptiveness is considered ap articular feature of ekphrasis since it is this characteristic which most clearlyd istinguishes ekphrasticw riting from mere repeating; the latter namelyc ontains onlyamere description of the object,w hereas the former tries to make the listeners /r eaders into spectators".¹³ The question of whether the descriptions are to be traced back to ancient art-works must remain open and is, as far as the ancientauthors are concerned, not important.¹⁴ However,itismainlyinthis narrow sense of adescription of an existing imageo rb uilding that ekphrasis has been taken up in New Testament exegesis.¹⁵ In my view,h owever,e kphrasis needst ob es een in am ore complex setting of culturali deas about vision. The rhetorical objectiveo fe kphrasis was not to imitate or represent the world of the viewer but rather to produce a viewing subject who is thereby induced to question his or her ordinary assumptions about the world. Ekphrastic descriptions by Cebes, Lucian, or Philostratus seem to share ac ommon conception, formulateda sf ollows by Pseudo-Hermogenes: "The virtues of ekphrasis are abovea ll clarity and vividness; for the expression should almostb ring about sight through the sense of hearing.O ne should also make the style like the subject matter:i ft he subject is flowery,l et the style be so too;i ft he subject is harsh the languages hould be likewise".¹⁶ There are differingi deas about the theory that the ear can become as eeing organ. Nevertheless, the following characteristics, which are weighted differently by various authors, can be located on ac ontinuum.
The most central aspect is enargeia,which one can translate into English as 'vividness', 'the process of appearingb efore someone'se yes',o r' the ability to put something in perspective'.E nargeia is not an eutral rhetoricalc ategory but  Theon, Progymn. p. 24 Rabe; tr.Webb. In the imperial period, ekphrasis was classed amongthe progymnasmata;s ee Zimmermann (1999,6 1 -79 at 61-62); Elsner (2002, 1-18); see also Graf (1995,113 -155 at 144).  Theon, Prog., p. 24 Rabe, tr.Webb.  Forw hatf ollows see also Weissenrieder (2014, 215 -239).  Philostratus Imag. 2.31 (transl. LCL).  Nicolaos, Progymnasmata 68 -69 Felten; his ideas were favourablyr eceiveda nd deepened by Plinyand others,see Graf (1995,148 -149);also Stegemann (1936,424-457, at 438 -439); Elsner (2002, 1-18).  See Borg (2004;25-57); Borg (2005,3 3 -53).  An example of this narrow use is Gussmann (2008).  Hermog. Prog. 22 and 23 Rabe. is often interpreted as emotive,especiallybyQuintilian.¹⁷ However, 'readerlyvisuality' was not seen as an optional personal response. Those who responded in ways deemed inadequate wereclassified as morallydeficient,slow,and incapable. Ekphrasis is aquality of speech that makes something inwardlypresent that was formerlya bsent.A sQ uintilian writes: "From such impressions arisest hat enargeia […]w hich makes us seem not so much to narrate as to exhibit the actual scene, while our emotions will be no less actively stirred than if we were present at the actual occurrence".¹⁸ It is importanttoemphasise the remote conditional here: as if we werep resent. So, it is am atter of the illusion of making thingsvivid in language.¹⁹ Quintilian²⁰ uses ekphrasis interchangeablywith φαντασία,because it is not amatter of conveying facts but of seeing absent pictures with our eyes, of being "in theirpresence".²¹ This context can be psychological, political,orreligious. Longinus even describes his listeners as enslaved, δουλοῦται,a nd astonished, ἐκπλήσσειν,b yo bjective representation, and arguments.²² This is central for the use of θαῦμα ("wonder")a nd θαυμάζειν ("to wonder", "to be perplexed"), which appear in most texts classified as ekphrastic. Indeed, θαυμάζειν is also an important termi nBJ and AJ with regard to the beauty and significanceo ft he temple and the vestments.²³ At first sight it mays eem to be just am atter of emphasising the beauty,p rophetic effect and ritual meaning of the temple and the priestlyv estments. However,t he use of the word-field θαῦμα in the context of the verbs of seeing and understanding maya llow af urther interpretation: the perception of the visibility of the invisible.  Webb (1997, 112-127).  Quint. Inst. 6.2.32; at 8.3.61-62 he offers adistinction between evidentia (enargeia) and perspicuitas.  Goldhill (2007, 1 -19,a t3 ).  "What the Greeks call phantasia,i ti st hrough these that imageso fa bsent things arer epresentedtothe mind in such away that we seem to see them with our eyes and to be in their presence. Whoever has mastery of them will have the most powerful effect on the emotions in adfectibus. Some people sayt hat this type of man whoc an imagine in himself things, words, and deeds wella nd in accordance with truth is euphantasiotatos-most skilled in summoning up phantasia" (Quint. Inst. 6.2.29 -30,t ransl. Webb).  Quintilian Institutiones 6.2.30 (transl. Webb); the Ciceronian Latin for ekphrasis is illustratio or evidentia (De officiis I, 30.107;32.115).  Longinus approaches this aspect of livings peech in his Peri hypsous 15.9: "When, then, is the effect of rhetorical visualisation?T here is much it can do to bringu rgencya nd passion into our words;b ut it is when it is closelyi nvolvedw ith factual arguments that as wella sp ersuadingt he listener,i te nslavesh im",transl. Goldhill Enargeia is closelyconnected with seeing.N umerous examples of this have to do with the question of how and what one sees: they show the subjectasheor she would see/picture her-orhimself. So it is clear that the ekphrastic literature is integratedi nto the ancient discourse of seeing,w hich orients itself around physiological and psychological concepts such as cognition and comprehension. In the end, ekphrasis is employed to educatet he reader and the listener as seeing subjects.²⁴ It is worth noting at this point that seeing (ἴδειν)i sm entioned quite often.²⁵ This is especiallyimportant in BJ as the reader walks with Josephus the priest across the various thresholds -the curtains and the gates to the court -and sees before his or her eyes the holyofholies in the Jerusalemtemple.InAJ the precise and detaileddescription of the tabernacle and the architecture of the temple of Solomon, the construction of the HolyofHolies as the place of indwelling of God, is made clear.

From the city-wallt ot he temple-curtain:
ag uided city-toure mbedded in aw ar report in BJ The Second temple and its destruction are widelyd iscussed in the bookso fBJ (written ca. 79 -81 CE). In addition to describingt he destruction of Jerusalem and the temple,J osephus reports extensivelyo nt he architecture of the temple. He emphasises the construction of the temple, the functionso ft he priests, and the priestlyg arments as he makes clear in the prologue, whereh ee ven uses the formula "neither adding nor omitting anything".²⁶ Josephus provides the description of Jerusalem and the Jerusalem temple in the form of a 'tour guide' at BJ 5.184-247). The context is noteworthybecause the guide is embedded in the description of the revolt and the Romanw ar,a nd is  Elsner (1995,3 3); see also Bartsch (1989,1 4-40). It is am isconception to think that all ekphraseis aimed at reproducingthe world of the audience. On the contrary,studyofthe so-called Tabula points in av ery different direction, as Elsner demonstrates: "The goal of the art in the Tabula is not to imitate the viewers' world at all, but rather to initiateviewers out of their ordinary assumptionsi nto an ew exegetic reality,at ruth that brings salvation".  BJ 5.58;124;A J3.81,81,102,137,1 46,155;8.84,99,118;15.380.  BJ 1.26. See for the importance of the formula: Inowlocki (2005,3-26); Unnik (1978,26-40); Feldman (1998, 539 -543). Similar wordingsa re alreadyu sed in Deut. 4:2; 12:32; 13:1 LXX ; Koh. 3:14 LXX ; Sir. 18:6;4 2:21; Aristeas 311.
The treatise ContraA pionem refers to the vestments of highp riests onlyb rieflya nd will largely be ignoredi nm yd iscussion. See the excellent book by Gerber (1997). thus akind of regressive moment in the narrative.A tvarious points, he provides information about the tent sanctuary for God (AJ 3.100 -189), the temple of Solomon  and the second temple of Herod , the religious services,the highpriests, theirsacrificesand prayers as well as the role of the highpriests' regalia.²⁷ However,before describing the city and the Temple in detail, Josephus metaphoricallye mbeds Judea, Jerusalem and the Temple in concentric circles of holiness. He begins with the location of Judea, which borders ac ity known as Anuathu Borcaeus on its northern side and an Arabic city called Iardan on its southern side;²⁸ the eastern boundary is anatural one, namelyt he Jordan, and the western boundary is defined as Jaffa. Right in the middle (μεσαιτάτη)ofthis delineatedspace is Jerusalem(and especiallythe Temple).²⁹ Here, too, the basis is the revolt against the Romans.³⁰ Josephus thus presents acosmographythat is based on concentric circlessurrounding the Holy of Holies.³¹ In doing so, he drawsoncosmographic concepts that are also found in the Book of Jubilees,w hereM ount Zion is called the "navelo ft he world" (Jub. 8:19;s ee also Jdg. 9:37; Ezk. 38:12).³² With regard to Judea, he usest he term ὀμφαλός,w hich was amongst others associated with the famous sacred site of Delphi.³³ Thus it is not surprising that Josephus assumes this association to be generallyk nown (τινές […] ἐκάλεσαν).
With his companion, af oreigner (BJ 5.223 τοῖς […] ἀφικνουμένοις ξένοις πόρρωθεν), he slowlya pproaches the temple and its various courts and partitions (the partition between Jews and non-Jews³⁴ in BJ 5.193; between Israelites and priests; and between pure and impure Israelites in BJ 5.226-227). Josephus begins with the first courtyard( ὁπρῶτος περίβολος BJ 5.190 -192),the outer,or  See Schimanowski( 2011, 319 -320).  Avi-Yonah (1966,155 -156).  See Joseph. BJ 3.52: τινέςο ὐ κἀ σκόπως ὀμφαλὸντ ὸἄ στυ τῆςχ ώ ρας ἐκάλεσαν.  See Shahar (2004) and Landau(2006,246); see also Goodman (2007), whoassumesahypothetical visitor to Jerusalem and Rome.  Numerous studies subscribe to Josephus' view of the archaeology of Herod'st emple, which cannot be discussed in mored etail here; still of importancea re the extensive explanationsb y Busink (1970Busink ( ,2 .1062Busink ( -1251; Roller (1998);Lichtenberger( 1999); Jaap (2000); Richardson (2004,2 53 -307).  In addition,itcan be shown that rabbinical literatureinparticular focuses at length on this concentric concept,a ss een, for instance, in the Mishnah treatise of Kelim, which includes ten different levels of holiness for Jerusalem, startingw ith the country of Israel, Israel'sc ity walls, the city of Jerusalem, the temple mount and the various courtyards.  See e. g. Price( 1999,5 6).  See also AJ 15.11.5; BJ 5.2; 6.2.4; BJ 5.226f.; Clermont-Ganneau( 1881,132-33); Fry ( 1975,20); see also OGIS II 598, 294-295; CIG II 1400,328-330. Sklar (2005,15-20); Nihan (2007, 59 -68). gentiles',c ourtyard.³⁵ This waso pen to non-Jews as well as Jews and Josephus succumbs to its beauty,d escribingt he extraordinary beauty of the columns and the royal Stoa at the southern end of the temple complex. The terms that Josephus uses can also be found in Pausanias' Periegesis,asEhrenkrook has convincingly shown,³⁶ so one might assume thatJ osephus wanted to comparei tt o the beauty of polytheistic temples.H owever,t his is not at all the case, as the following excerpt demonstrates: "The costliness of the material, its beautiful craftsmanship and harmonious combination created an unforgettable sight, and yetn either the painter'sb rush nor the sculptor'sc hisel had decorated the work from the outside".³⁷ Although Josephus praises the royal Stoa in glowing terms,i ti sc lear thath ei se mphasising the absence of painting (ζωγραφία) and sculpture (γλυφίς), contrasting it with the natural beauty of the material (φυσικὴ πολυτέλεια)a nd the simple panels (κεδρίνοις δὲ φατνώμασιν ὠρόφωντο . The fact that this description of the simple decorations is trulyunusual can be seen from acomparison with AJ 15.416,wherevarious materials are emphasised (αἱ δ᾽ὀ ροφαὶ ξύλοις ἐξήσκηντο γλυφαῖςπ ολυτρόποις σχημάτων ἰδέαις), like Greek and Roman architectural elements (Corinthian columns: AJ 15.414). In his tourist guide, Josephus thus first insists that the Jerusalem temple is just as beautifulasthe Greek temples and then goes on to emphasise that this is due particularlyt oi ts aniconic construction style.³⁸ The second courtyard, τὸ δεύτερον ἱερόν,i ss eparated from the first by a warning notice and ad ividing wall using the term τρυφάκτος.³⁹ This dividing wall receivesa stonishinglyl ittle discussion in ancient literature. It is primarily Josephus who refers to the dividing wall in his description of the sanctuary.However,J osephus is not the onlyo ne to mention this wall: one sign, aw ell-preserved block made of limestone, was found on the north side of the Jerusalem temple courtyard.⁴⁰ Af ragment of another sign, as poil, was discovered in a graveyardn ear St.S tephen'sG ate, also known as the Lion'sG ate.⁴¹ While the second sign is not as wellp reserved, the textsa re broadlyt he same, excepting  Ben-Dov (1985, 132) argued that this outer courtyardi sn ot part of the temple. Against this idea: Ehrenkrook (2011,132).  Fori nstance θεωρίαν ἀξιόλογον at BJ 5.191;c f. Ehrenkrook (2011, 105).  BJ 5.191, transl. Feldman.  Ehrenkrook (2011, 132).  He was usingt he term τρυφάκτος as wella st he older form δρυφάκτος;s ee the following paragraph on these terms.  Clermont-Ganneau( 1881,1 32-133), cf. Fry ( 1975,20); note also OGIS II 598, 294-295; CIG II 1400 ll. 328 -330.  Iliffe (1936,1-3). A 'spoil' is ad isplaced find without as ignificant context. afew minor differences.⁴² The text reads: "No alien (μηθένα ἀλλογενῆ)may enter [the area] within the balustrade (ἐντὸςτ ο ῦ[ … ]τρυφάκτου)a nd the enclosure (καὶ περιβόλου)a round the temple. Whoever is caught,o nh imself shallb ep ut blame for the death which will ensue (ἑαουτῷ αἴτος ἔσται διὰ τὸἐ ξακολουθειν θάνατον)".⁴³ By using the term τρυφάκτος as well, Josephus is protecting the purity of the sanctuary.Healso uses several terms for non-Jews who are not permitted to enter the sanctuary: ἀλλοεθνήν (AJ 15.417), μηείς (BJ 6.125), alienigenae (Ap. 2.108), and ἀλλόφυλος (BJ 5.194).⁴⁴ It is also noteworthyt hat Josephus lexicallyd istinguishes the stranger ξενός from the alien ἀλλογενής who is not permitted to enter the temple.
The term δρυφάκτος/τρυφάκτος, 'partition',isfirst found in Aristophanes,⁴⁵ and later in inscriptions, most of which associate it with one of two contexts, courtrooms and temples.⁴⁶ The term, often in the plural,i su sed to describe a barrier or dividing wall in public buildings,e speciallyt hose that (also) served as council-chambers.⁴⁷ The wordisused for abarrier made of wood in alongish inscription from Delos.⁴⁸ Herodian of Alexandria usesthe term δρυφάκτος in his abridged Reliquiae with the same sense.⁴⁹ The priest Josephus, but not the stranger,c an pass this barrier and so gain access to the inner courtyard,t he ἐνδόνα ὐ λ ή ,which onlyr ituallyp ure Jewish men maye nter (BJ 5.227; not mentioned in AJ)and to the women'scourtyard, γυναικωνῖτις (BJ 5.199;204;not mentioned in AJ)likewisecalled an 'inner courtyard', ἐντὸςπερίβολος (AJ 15.418;not mentioned in BJ), which rituallypure Jewish women from Judea and the diaspora maye nter.
 The Latin version mentioned in Joseph. BJ 5.194 has not been found to date.  Cf. the further discussion in Adna (1999,3 1). He and others have argued convincinglyt hat these signsw ould have been put up at the end of the first construction phase, in other words 12/11 or 10/9 BCE. This seems plausible if the signs arei ndeed an addition by Herod.  Gussmann (2008, 351) points out that Josephus did not use ἀλλογενής because -γένος contained a "genealogical connotation".  IG I 3 .64.14 ἄνευ δρuφάκτου τὴνδίκην μέλλεις καλεῖν, ὃ πρῶτον ἡμῖντῶνἱερῶν ἐφαίνετο,cf.

High-priestly vestmentsa nd the Temple in Flavius Josephus
The stranger seems not to be aconqueror but,rather,anadmirer of the temple. The narrative perspective changes from outside the temple wherethe stranger could join the priest ("we have alreadyobserved"; "this part was open to our view": BJ 5.208-209; "before youc ome to the tower"), to the steps whereJ osephus entered into the sanctuary ("they went up"; "that nation"/"our nation"; "those priests").⁵⁰ He describes the subdivision of the temple area into temple courts,⁵¹ forecourts and the temple buildingp roper,c apturingt he space'sc ontours in exact detail (see 3.1a nd 3.2).⁵² Finally, the high priest is mentioned, because he alone can enter the Holyo fH olies.⁵³ Access to the Holyo fH olies initiates viewers into an ew reality:T hey see thati ns ome respects, God,t he Temple, and the highp riest form, in an accord between heavena nd earth, the guide of the Jewish people.

(In-)sightsi nt he past as prototype for the present in AJ
The history of the priestly vestments is described in AJ,w rittena round 94 CE, as as ynthesis of the history of the temple and the high priests: the main parts, 1-10 and 11-20,r efertothe construction and destruction of the Temples: the temple of Solomon in 586 BCE and the second temple in 70 CE. In each case, the history of the temple is followed by ap rosopographyo fh ighp riests (AJ 10.151-153;2 0.224-251).⁵⁴ In this context it is worth noting thatJ osephus writes in his introduction that he will present τὴνπ αρ' ἡμῖν ἀρχαιολογίαν καὶ διάταξιν τοῦ πολιτεύματος ἐκτῶνἙβραϊκῶν (AJ 1.5).⁵⁵ We can read the frequent  BJ 5.226 περιέστεφε δὲ τόντ εν α ὸ νκ α ὶτ ὸ νβ ωμὸνε ὔ λιθόντ ικ α ὶχαρίεν γείσιον ὅσον πηχυαῖον ὕψος, ὃ διεῖργεν ἐξωτέρω τὸνδ ῆ μον ἀπὸ τῶν ἱερέων; BJ 5.211o utside -inside perspective ἔξωθεν -ἔνδον; referencetothe Jewish πολιτεία as echoing the laws of the true lawmaker (νομοθέτης), whom Josephus believes to be Moses and who stands in contrast to the lawmaker who refers to mythologies (AJ 1.15: καθαρὸντὸν[…]λόγον τῆςπαρ' ἄλλοις ἀσχήμονος μυθολογίας). Josephus mentions three terms for the priest'sr egalia: στολή, ἐσθής,a nd ἔνδυμα.⁵⁶ In general, στολή means military equipment,habit and especiallytraditional regalia. In am oren arrow sense, the wordh as the connotation 'upper garment' or 'robe',along flowing whitegarment in which apriest or hierophant enters at emple,bei tamystery cult or the sanctuary of Artemis.J osephus uses the term for the majority of the priestly or highpriestlyvestments(42 times); if he wants to refer to aspecific part of the garment,h eusesthe term with the adjective 'priestly' vestment (ἡἱ ερατικὴ στολή)⁵⁷ or the genitive construction 'the vestment of (the)priests' (ἱερέων στολή)⁵⁸ and similarlyfor the high-priestlyvestment (AJ 4.83: τὴν ἀρχιερατικὴνσ τολήν;18.90,9 3: τὴνσ τολὴντ ο ῦἀ ρχιερέως; 3.211: γὰρ ᾿ Aαρὼνκ α ὶτ ὴ νσ τολὴντ ὴ νἱ εράν; AJ 19.314: ἐνδὺςσ τολισμὸν ἱερόν).⁵⁹ He rarelyu sest he term for the splendid gowns or royal robes.⁶⁰ In BJ Josephus does not use this term. Instead, we find here the ἐσθής or ἔνδυμα,neither of which has aspecific connotation, though in the Septuagint ἐσθής is often used to refer to beautiful clothing.⁶¹ Aside from priestlyg arments,t hese terms can also refer to workadayc lothes. Onlyi nAJ does Josephus differentiateb etween holya nd profane garments.

The vestmentso fp riestsa nd high priests
Ac areful analysis of the terminology that Josephus uses to describe vestments reveals various forms and mechanisms for specificallye mphasising 'unusual' or even 'exotic' elements in the text.Josephus does not shyawayfrom introducing new loan words in his description of the priestlya nd highlyp riestlyv estments. In his description of these garments in AJ 3.151-187, Josephus uses Aramaic and Hebrew terms that wereobscure and unfamiliar,atleast in Rome, and he even changes the term from Greek to transcriptions of Aramaic terms, e. g. for priestsfrom the Greek ἱερεύς to χαναναίας ‫כ‬ ‫נה‬ ‫אי‬ (Hebr.

‫ג‬ ‫לוד‬ ‫ןהכ‬
).⁶⁴ The priests spoke Aramaic, and since the second century BCE Aramaic was most likelyt heir written language; however,i tw as not known to the Romans, who most scholars think would have been Josephus' targetaudience.But it would be quite mistaken to think that Josephus chose to transliterate from Aramaic into Greek in order to intensify the exotic flavour of the text -Hebrew would have been quite exotic enough for aR oman reader.R ather what Josephus seeks to do is to set up Aramaic as ap riestly language, implying that its use dates back to the time of the tent of the tabernacle. In other words, he is deliberatelys hifting Aramaic out of the everydayw orld and representing it to outsidersa sapriestly language in use ever since the days of the tent of the by representing it as ap riestly language, establishingt he erao ft he tent of the tabernacle as an ideal time.
(2)The high priests put asecond tunic "made of hyacinth"⁷² and interwoven with gold which is called μεείρ from the Hebrew ‫מ‬ ‫ליע‬ ,robe (Exod. 28:31), which is  In his description of the garments Josephus is followingalong tradition; see Hayward(2002) which is one of the foundational books for Josephus'su se of vestments;s ee also Gussmann (2008, 384 f.) without anyr eferencet oH ayward.  Josephus reflects notions found in another,slightlyolder,Jewish source.InWisdom of Solomon 18:20 -25 we find a relecture of Qorah'sr ebellion and of the plaguew hich followed (Num. 16:1 -50), the latter relieved by Aaron'st imelya ppearance "between the livinga nd the dead" (Num. 16:48) to offer an incense sacrifice. Aaron is dressed in his priestlyg arments when he performst his act of atonement: "Foru pon his robe which reached down his feet the whole universe was depicted, and the glories of the fathers were upon the engravingo nt he four rows of stones, and your majesty was represented on the diadem on his head. From these the destroyer withdrew;t hese he feared, for merely the experience of anger was enough" (Wis. 18:24 -25). The description herem oves from the body-coveringt hrough the ephod to the head. The vestments are conceiveda sl iturgical weapons,l ike the "prayer and propitiation by incense" (18:21). Aristeas likewise describest he vestments of the highp riest Eleazer fromf oot to head: "We were greatlya stonished, when we sawE leazar in the worship, both as regards the mode of his dress, and the majesty of his appearance,which he wore, at unic and the precious stones upon it.There weregolden bells upon his ankle length robe,givingforth apeculiar kind of music sound, and on both sides of these therewerepomegranates with variegated flowers of am arvelous color.H ew as girdedw ith ag irdle of excellence beauty,woven in the most beautiful colors. On his breast he wore the oracle of God, as it is called, in which areset twelve stones, of different kinds,i nlaid in gold, containingt he names of the leaders of the tribes,a ccording to their original order,each one flashingforth in an indescribable wayits own particular color. On his head he wore aso-called tiara, and upon this in the middle of his forehead an inimitable mitre,the royal crown full of glory with the name of God inscribed in sacred letters on a plateo fg old […]".( Aristeas 96 -98;t ransl. Hayward). See further Hayward( 2002).  The Babylonian Jews call it ἐμία,referring to the fact that the same equivalence in Aramaic is found in Jerome Ep. 64 (CSEL 54.598, 16 -18).  See Feldman (2004,273); see also Rengstorf (1979,Vol.3, 57), whodefines it as "priestlyvestment (interwovenw ith gold, embroidered with gold)".  Joseph. AJ 159, tr.F eldman.

High-priestly vestments and the Temple in Flavius Josephus
a hapax legomenon in ancient literature (AJ 3.159;cf. Rengstorf).A tthe bottom is afringecontaining small precious-metal bells and balls recallingpomegranates: "Golden bells and pomegranates hang side by side from the fringes, the bells of thunder, the pomegranates of lightning".⁷³ HereJ osephus mayb ea ssociating thundera nd lightningw ith God'sp resence, God'sv oice redeemingI srael at the Exodus and in this sense ad ivine revelation as described in Isa. 30:30; Ps.18:13.14; Job 37:4.With these adornments, the high priests' second tunic assured worshippers of God'sp resencew ith Israel in the past,present and future. In AJ 3.184 Josephus also speaksofgold that is woven into the vestment of the high priests. The term αὐγή can denote the 'light of the sun'sr ays',a nd the verb αὐγέω meanst os hine or glitter.J osephus allegorises the gold too, as at oken "of the sunlight,which is available to all" (AJ 3.184). In the same sense, the golden crown on the head of the high priest glints in the light "in which God most delights" (AJ 3.187). Josephus attaches great importance to the glitter of the priestly ornaments:⁷⁴ The radiance or 'sheen' is areprise of the shining cloud that in former times appeared to aid Israel in times of need (Exod. 34:5;40:34;Num. 10:34f.). Further, he emphasises in the context of Solomon'st emple that "heaven, although concealed, is not closed" (BJ 5.208). This introducesafurther point,t he cosmological significanceo ft his entirec omplex, architecture, furnishingsa nd priestly vestments. Josephus leavesn od oubt about the cosmic significanceo ft he garments, the curtains, the high priests, vestments and the cultic architecture.⁷⁵ (3) Thisisespeciallytrue if one considers athird item, called in Hebrew ‫א‬ ‫פ‬ ‫ד‬ , ephod (Exod. 28:6), in the Septuagint and Greek literature ἐπωμίς,a nd in Josephus ἐφώδης (AJ 3.162, 163, 164,1 70). In Greek literature,t he termr efers to a part of aw oman'st unic fastened at the shoulder with ab rooch.⁷⁶ In relation to the highp riest'sv estment,i ts eems to have been as ort of short embroidered cape covering the shoulders, with ag ap at mid-breast.T his gapw as filled by an item Josephus calls ἐσσήν (AJ 3.163,166,170,171,185,216,217,218), in Hebrew ‫ח‬ ‫שׁ‬ ‫ן‬ ('oracle'; Exod. 28:15), LXX λογεῖον,which mayconnotea'speaking-place' or an 'oracle' (AJ 3.163).⁷⁷ The oracle is reflectedinthe two shiningsardonyxes, one at each shoulder,u pon which the names of the sons of Jacob weree ngraved (AJ 3.166).A ccordingt oF eldman, the rabbinict radition (Yoma 73b) thought they carried the names Abraham,I saac and Jacoba nd possiblya lso the term  Joseph. BJ 5.231, tr.F eldman.  Joseph. AJ 3.215, transl. Feldman.  Forf urther details,s ee Hayward( 2002).  Feldman (2004,2 75 . ⁷⁸ Josephus emphasises the Hebrew characters,w hich he, in connection with the engravingi nt he crown, can call "holyc haracters" (AJ 3.178). These sardonyxes have oracular properties showing the divine presence and the willo fG od in worship. Putting these points together we should, therefore, conclude that this is ac ultic oracle.
God is also reflected in the twelve precious stones on the breastplateo ft he ephod. If these precious stones gleam, theyp redict avictory.Tot hat extent,the breastplatea nd the sardonyx stones can be called a 'war oracle'.Josephus elsewherer ecounts that the highp riest John Hyrcanus I( 134-104 BCE) -while offering incense alone in the Temple -heard a( divine) voice declaring "that his sons had just defeated Antiochus".⁷⁹ And, at AJ 13.282,hereports that Hyrcanus experiencedavision while asleep (φανέντα κατὰ τοὺς ὕπνους αὐτῷ τὸνθ ε ό ν ). God revealed( δείξαντος)t oh im that his son Alexander Jannai would succeed him (AJ 13.322). These war oracles ended with the death of John Hyrcanus I, to whom, as the last Hasmonean,J osephus ascribed divinatory skill "because God was displeased with the transgression of the law" (AJ 3.217; transl.F eldman). The power of the nation is understood in the context of the nation'sapostasy of the lawa nd this is symbolised in the vestment of the highp riest,s pecificallyi nt he precious stones.
The high priest also wears ah yacinth-coloured cap "without ac one-shaped top" which is called μασναεφθῆς Hebrew ‫מ‬ ‫תפנצ‬ ( Exod. 28:4,39). In Exod. 28 the term refers to the head covering,the mitre, of ahighpriest.⁸⁰ Josephus goes on to describea nother form of much more formal head-gear,t he mitre of the high priest,w hich is at hree-tiered golden crown with swathes of blue embroidery: Furthermore, the head-dressa ppears to me to symbolize heaven, beingblue; else it would have not have borne upon it the name of God, blazoned upon the crown -acrown, moreover,o fg old by reason of that sheen in which the Deity most delights.⁸¹ At BJ 5.235, Josephus mentions that therew as another golden crown "whereon weree mbossed the sacred letters [of God]: to wit,f our vowels"⁸² (φωνήεντα τέσσαρα). Exod. 28:36; 36:37 LXX speakso f" holyf or God".H olyd oes not refer to  See Feldman (2004,2 76). Fort he Christian reception history see Orig. In Psalmos 2.  Joseph AJ 13.282-283; transl. Marcus.  Josephus also reverses the order of Exod. 28:2 -39:w hereas the Bible textb egins with the garments of Aaron, and ends with abrief description of the ordinary priest,Josephus describes the vestments of the priests in detail. This mayb er eflectedi nJ osephus' self-understanding as ordinary priest; see Robertson (1991,181).  Joseph. AJ 3.187f.; transl. Thackeray.  Transl. Thackeray. the name of God but to the characters: BJ 5.235 τὰἱ ερὰ γράμματα and AJ 3.178 ἱεροῖςγ ρ ά μμασι τοῦ θεοῦ.⁸³ Josephus does not count this capa nd the golden crown as at hird vestment because it belongst oG od (Gussmann, 2008). The sacred characters of God'sn ame are represented through the highp riestlyv estments and golden crown to the Jewish people.
Ihavementioned abovethatJ osephus emphasises the exotic element in AJ: he takes these terms neither from the Hebrew Bible nor from its translation into Greek, but transliterates them from Aramaic, the languageofthe priests and high priestsinthe temple in Jerusalem. The climax is reached in his description of the highpriest'scomplicated headgear.Josephus reports several critical situations in which the vestments of the priests and the highpriestsconveythe purity and holiness of the Jewish temple and communicate the will of God:w hen Alexander the Great (332 BCE) was standing before Jerusalem, the high priest Jaddus ordered the gates of the city to be opened and sent the people and the priests, wearingw hite garments and whiter obes respectively, towardA lexander in submission . In his full finery,t he highp riestJ addus encounters Alexander outside the Holyo fH olies,i nf act completelyo utside the realm of the temple. Alexander kneels before the high priesta nd pays his respects to God, whose name is engravedo nt he golden plate of the turban'sh eadband .⁸⁴ Josephus thus leavesn od oubt about the significance of the highpriestlyvestments, which are not onlyofspecial beauty but also of prophetic significance.⁸⁵ The vestments have theiro wn languagew hich lies beyond the spoken languageand heightens its symbolic character.One could almostsay:the clothes want to be seen.
Naturally, this conclusion feeds the expectation that the innermost aspects of the cult will also be found in transliterations of Aramaic and Hebrew terms. However,this expectation is not fulfilled.

The Temple
In several places,J osephus analyzes the 'tent set up for God' (AJ 3.100 -189), the temple of Solomon , the second temple (of Herod) (AJ 15.380 -425a nd BJ 5.184-247)⁹² and the worship that took place there, centeringaround the role of the high priest.Josephus treats all of these as essential preconditionsfor individual acts of sacrifice and prayer.⁹³ Most telling in this regardisthe fact thatthe foundational narrativesdescribingthe highpriests' vestments occur in the account of the tent in the desert( AJ 3.100 -189) and in the city tour with the stranger before the destruction of the Temple . The important question for Josephus is how the Israelites live and what they have to do so that YHWH can "dwell in their midst" (Exod. 25:8;(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46). Together with cultic and morallaws, the sanctuary is most crucial in this regard, as it is built to be YHWH'sdwelling place. ForJ osephus the ideal dwelling place is, no doubt, the temple in Jerusalem. However,the notion of aportable sanctuary, which comes up again and again, also reflects the belief thatt he geographical position of the sanctuary is not of supreme importance. If the divine is to dwell in asanctuary built by human hands, this sanctuary must be holy. Of particular importance to Josephus (AJ 8) is Solomon'sprayerin3Kings 8 LXX :Just like  See for ap ossible Platonic background Schrenk (1938).  The differences between AJ and BJ with regard to the measurements aresignificant,but this is not my focus here.  See Schimanowski( 2011, 319 -320). Solomon, he initiallylinks God'spresencetothe temple (3Kings 8:14 -21 LXX )and in the further course of the text locates this presenceinheaven (3Kings 8:22,30,(38)(39)(44)(45); as in 3Kings 8 LXX ,herefers to the fact that prayers are heard in heaven. With this, Josephus documents an idea about the place whereG od resides, relocatingi tf rom the Temple to heaven.⁹⁴ Thus Josephus addresses the possibilityo fe ncounteringG od in heavena fter the destruction of the temple.
In contrast to the case in BJ,s patial boundaries in AJ are not important in an absolute sense, as he avoids mentioning several dividing walls in the Temple courtyard.F undamental here is the notion that,i nt he form of his kābôd,G od 'inhabits' the sanctuary ( ‫ָש‬ ׁ ‫ןַכ‬ Exod. 25:8; AJ 8.102).Josephus acceptsthatdifferent areas of the sanctuary have different degrees of holiness and makes ap oint of describingt he passages between them. Detailed reference is alsom ade to the materials and the colours,which reflect these degrees of holiness.
The description of the Temple starts with the vestibule, which protects the entrance-doors (3Kings 6:3), and is reallyj ust an extension of the long walls of the cella.⁹⁵ Josephus uses the standard Greek term πρόναος or πρόδομος for it.⁹⁶ After describing the outward appearance of the Temple buildingsa nd the courtyards, Josephus explains how the main cella is divided into two parts, the so called ‫ְדּ‬ ‫יִב‬ ‫ר‬ ( debîr), the Holyo fH olies or the 'inner house' (3Kings 6:27; 7:50).⁹⁷ In his accounts, especiallyi nAJ 8, Josephus does not explicitlymention aprohibition against entry.Nevertheless, there is clear evidence for aseparation between the HolyofHolies,the main cella, the 'outside' porch and courtyard. At AJ 8.71-72 he uses at erm for this separation otherwise rarelyf ound in ancient literature, μέσος τοῖχος,l it. 'middle wall'.A long with heterogeneous materials and decorations,⁹⁸ it marks the Temple cella as the coreofthe cult area. The middle wall signals explicitlya na ctual borderline. Besides, the door is at the same time ameans of access to the room and therefore agradual borderlineaswell as an actual one. This maybethe reason whythereisafurther boundary-marker in addition to the doors, which is described as follows: "In front of the doors hung brightlyc oloured curtains made, not onlyo fh yacinth, purple and scarlet,b ut also of the most luminous and softest linen".J osephus refers to the καταπέτα- On the subject,s ee Schmid (2006,117).  Hellmann (1996,2 37-247;Hellmann (1992, 346 -347 σμα,t he curtain ten times (BJ 5.212;219;232;6.390;7 .161;AJ 8.75;8 .90;12.250;14.107). He follows Exod 27:16i nd istinguishing between an outer curtain, which divides the adyton from the porch , and an inner one, which divides the adyton from the Holyo fH olies (BJ 5.219; AJ 8.90;c f. Exod. 26:31-37;37:3; Lev. 16:2 LXX ).⁹⁹ This embroideredcurtain is interpreted by Josephus as representing the four elements.¹⁰⁰ The passagec arries on to claim that features of the curtain, except for the zodiacal signs,f igured the 'mysteries'.¹⁰¹ This comparison between fabrics and the elements of nature is basedo nt wo allegorising strategies: in three cases the symbolic associations of the individual colours ('hyacinth' =a ir,p urple (dye)=s ea, scarlet =f ire) and in two, appeal to theird erivation (flax grows on the earth; the murex thatp rovides purple dyei sashell-fish).¹⁰² As mentioned above, behindthis curtain and the middle wall is the Holyof Holies.T he Hebrew term is ‫ִמ‬ ‫ְש‬ ׁ ‫ָכ‬ ‫ןּ‬ , mishkan (Exod. 25:9;2 6:1ff.; 40:34 -35), the model of at ent or tabernacle, which is translated in the Septuagint as σκηνή. This portable temple,t he Tent,i sc onnected with the story that Israel received its ritual laws on Mount Sinai on the wayt ot he Promised Land.I np rinciple the portable temple symbolises that it is Israel thati sc onsidered by God as an ideal dwelling place.
AccordingtoJosephus, the cult in the temple and the highpriest reach mysteriouslyinto the realm of God: "In no other city shallthere be either an altar or a temple, for God is one and the stock of the Hebrews one".¹⁰³ Thet riad of God, temple, and high priest is related to Josephus' thinkingi na nalogies and correlations. The term Josephus uses for thinking in analogies is most often ἀποσημαίνω,w hich means to 'signify' or 'is an allegory of' (esp. AJ 3.181, 182, 183, 184,1 85,2 92,2 93). This recognition is preceded by av ision. Josephus uses the wordfrequentlyfor divine manifestations; these manifestations relatetothe unseen world and to wonder (θαῦμα). God'sv ery essence can be indicated onlyby negative attributes:Moses "represented him as single and uncreatedand immutable through all eternity,m ore beautiful than anym ortal form, known to us by his power,b ut as to what he is like in essence, unknown".¹⁰⁴ Josephus alludes  Καταπέτασμα is also mentioned in connection with the Tent in Exod. 37:5.16; Num. 3:26 LXX ; and Aristeas 86.S ometimes Josephus uses the pluralf orm καταπετάσματα which refers to both curtains (BJ 5.232;6.389;AJ 8.75;12.250;14.107).  BJ 5.212-214.  Cf. BJ 5.214: κατεγέγραπτο δ᾽ὁπ έ πλος ἅπασαν τὴνο ὐ ρ ά νιον θεωρίαν πλὴνζ ῳ δ ί ων.  See also Gussmann( 2008, 387 here to three aspects of the divinereferringtothe criteria of temporality,beauty, and knowledge.The first aspect (καὶἀγένητον καὶ πρὸςτὸνἀίδιον χρόνον ἀναλλοίωτον)r efers to the Jewish understanding that God is not created and is eternal in relation to created matter and time.¹⁰⁵ The Greek term ἀναλλοίωτος is used here and in Philo Somn.1.188, with referencetothe unseen world.¹⁰⁶ The second aspect (πάσης ἰδέας θνητῆς)r efers to the Jewisha niconic tradition, which is again reflected in the HolyofHolies.The third aspect is God's(unknowable) essence (οὐσία;see also AJ 10.278;20.268). It is thus that God "directs the universe" (ἡγεμόνα τῶν ὅλων)a nd the highp riest is the "heado ft he whole bodyo f priests".¹⁰⁷ Tacitus notes,t hatJ udeans mente sola unumque numen intellegunt; those who represent God'sh uman form are said to be impious. Their God, he says,i ssummum […]e ta eternum neque imitabile neque interiturum (Hist. 5.5.4). Therefore, foundation and ground point beyond themselvest ot he cosmos (πρὸς ὄγκον κόσμου τε χάριν καὶ μεγαλουργίας ἐπενοεῖτο). Josephus' claims here are basedonthe notion that the highpriest'svestmentsare amicrocosm of the cosmos as aw hole.¹⁰⁸ Ih avea lreadyr eferred to his claim that the highp riests, wearingt he sacredv estments( τ ὴ νἱ ερὰν ἐσθῆτα περικείμενοι), lead "ceremonieso fc osmic significance" (καὶ τῆςκ οσμικῆςθ ρησκείας).¹⁰⁹ The assassination in the city-centreo ft he high priest Ananos, the son of Ananos/ Hannas (Hp24), in the year 66/67CEwas,thus, in Josephus' view,the beginning of ac osmic collapse: the fall of Jerusalemb egins with the death of the high priest: So they whobut latelyhad worn the sacredvestments,led those ceremonies of cosmic significancea nd been reverencedb yv isitors to the city frome very quarter of the earth, were now seen cast out naked, to be devouredbydogsand beasts of prey.Virtue herself, Ithink, groaned for these men'sf ate, bewailings uch utter defeat at the hands of vice( BJ 4.324 -325).¹¹⁰  See Hayward( 2002), ad loc; see also Barclay( 2007,n .6 40), whor efers to the Shema (Deut. 6:4) and Diod. 1.94.2.  Barclay(2007,n.652)claims that the term is used onlybyPhilo and Josephus and probably therefore has an Alexandrian origin. However,anumber of earlier passagess peak against this assumption,e .g.A rist. Met. 12.7, 1073a10;D iog.L aert.4 .17( Polemon).  On Josephus' notion of theocracy,s ee Ap.2 .185,t r. Barclay( 2007,n .2 09).  This has been an importantissue in recent scholarship, see e. g. Swartz (2012,33-54), who refers to the rabbinic sources on the vestments.  BJ 4.324.  Transl. Thackeray.
The fate of Jerusalem marks the end of the priestlyt opography, in which the sacred mingles with the profane. The highpriest cast out naked figures the end of the salvation-narrative he embodied when dressed in his vestments. The phrase τῆςκοσμικῆςθρησκείας suggests thatinJ osephus' view the worship was offered on behalf of the cosmos itself. The representation of creation and of the twelve tribes of Israel on the ceremonialg arment is no longer possible. The cosmos is falling apart.T his understanding is confirmed by Josephus' account of Jesus, son of Thebuti, who handed over to the Romans (παραδιδόναι)two lights, tables, golden vessels, the curtains and the garments of the highpriest that were stored in the Temple treasury . At this point Josephus omits all mention of the cosmological significance of the vestments. All these items werenecessary for the maintenance of the cult,but without the priests and the Temple they have lost their meaning. Thus it is onlyl ogical that, following the destruction of the Temple, the terms used to qualify the purity and holinesso ft he vestmentsa re missing in BJ ¹¹¹

Conclusion
The writingsofFlavius Josephus are considered an important witness of the last decades of the Jewishp riesthood and the temple in Jerusalem. He devotes particular attention to details of the architecture of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem and the priestlyv estments, which represented holiness and purity and which mediated an encounter with God, facilitated prayer and effected atonement.J osephus'sg oal is to provide as precise ad escription as possible of the temple in Jerusalem and its priests, whose powerful actions are also demonstratedbytheir purity and vestments. During aguided city-tour through Jerusalem to the temple and Holyo fH olies in BJ,F lavius Josephus, himself ap riest,e xpounds the aniconic character of Jewish religion both to Jewish and to non-Jewishr eaders able to read Greek, and by idealising the temple of Solomon in AJ,i ts structure of the inner sanctuary,i ts walls and curtains, and the tent of the tabernacle, Josephus describes God'si ndwelling and presencei nt he inner temple.
My interest here has been to emphasise the complexity of his linguistic strategy of ekphrasis in these two texts. Thisdiscussion of Josephus' sacred terminologyhas endeavoured to demonstrate its complexity.Thiscomplexity reflects the historical reality:bytransliterating Aramaic terms Josephus emphasizes the distinctiveness of Jewish religion and its priests. By using word-fields in Greek de- See Gussmann (2008, 400). noting purity,hedraws on the languageofthe Greek leges sacrae,which increasingly focuses on moralpurity after the beginning of the first century BCE. And by applying Graeco-Roman technicalterms to the temple of Solomon, he relates the Jerusalem temple to the sacred architecture of his time. Thus, although he also emphasizes the exoticism and uniqueness of Jewish religion, Josephus demonstrates as imilarity to Graeco-Roman religion. AJ suggests different dimensions of strangeness accordingt othe different culturalb ackgrounds of its readership. By dint of allegorical interpretation, the office of the highpriest is represented as reproducingt he order of the cosmos as well as connotingt he Jewish people in worship and sacrifice. At the same time, the sacred characters of the name of God are represented to the Jewishp eople and Roman political leaders in the highpriestlyv estments and especiallythe golden crown. Highpriests are therefore more than "perfect coat-stands",touse aphrase of Utzschneider.¹¹² As far as Josephus is concerned, in wearing the highp riestlyv estments they embodyt he architecture of the Temple and render the divine world visiblefor Jewishpeople and Roman rulers.
However,heseems not to be interested in rebuildingthe Jerusalem temple or in the ideal community of the priesthood. Instead, in AJ 8heuses the Solomonic temple dedication prayer as evidence of the possibility of encountering God outside the Temple and beyond the actions of the priests; this prayer shifts God's residencetoheaven. The reference to God in heavenisnot intended to create distance from God per se,but rather allows contact to be made beyond institutional cultic contexts through purity laws. Josephus is apriest in that he cultivates the transcendenceofGod as well as divinecondescension (Kondeszendenz), namely the presenceand visibilityofGod in the Jerusalem temple and the temple priesthood, as remembered history in the context of historiography.