DAVID'S DOUBLE VICTORY ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS

The Bible preserves two versions of the story of David's double victory, first over an Ammonite-Syrian coalition and then over a Syrian force, i.e. Samuel 10 and 1 Chronicles 19. This article studies a third version of David's two victories, namely, that of Josephus in Ant. VII 121-129, comparing this in detail with its Biblical source texts as represented by MT, 4QSama, Codex Vaticanus and the Lucianic (or Antiochene) MSS of the LXX, and the Targums. The article devotes special attention to such questions as the text-formes) of the sources available to Josephus, his various modifications of their data and the effects of these, and the messages his version might be intended to convey to his double audience, i. e. (Roman) Gentiles and fellow Jews.

2 Samuel 10 relates a double victory won by King David, frrst over an Ammonite-led coalition, and then over a Syrian force. 1 Chronicles 19 narrates the same two episodes, though with many differences in detail.In this essay, I wish to examine yet a third account of David's victories, i.e. that given by Josephus in his Antiquitates Iudaicae (hereafter Ant.) VII 117b-129a 1.My study will proceed by way of a detailed comparison between Josephus' version and its two Biblical sources as represented by the following major witnesses: MT (BBS), 4QSam a 2, EM LXVII, 1998 Codex Vaticanus (hereafter B) 3 and the Lucianic (hereafter L) or Antiochene MSS 4 of the LXX, the Vetus Latina (hereafter VL) 5, plus Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets (hereafter TJ) 6 and the Targum of Chronicles (hereafter TC) 7.This comparison aims to find answers to such overarching questions as the following: Which text-formes) of2 Samuel 10 and/or 1 Chronicles 19 did Josephus have available?What sort of rewriting techniques does he apply to the data of his sources and what are the distinctive features of his presentation which result from their application?Finally, what messages might Josephus' re-telling of the story of David's double victory be intended to convey to his double audience, i.e. (Roman) Gentiles and fellow Jews?

The Casus Belli
The remote occasion for the events narrated in the three accounts under consideration here is the death of Nahash, king of the Ammonites, as related at the start of each of them.In 2 Samuel 10 the relevant notice follows upon 3 For B I use A.E. Brooke, N. Maclean and H.StJ. Thackeray (eds.),The Old Testament in Greek according to the Text of Codex Vaticanus, 11:1 I and 11 Samuel, Cambridge, 1927;11:111 I and 11 Chronicles, 1932.In recent scholarship there has been a division of opinion as to whether B's text of 2 Reigns 10 (+ 11,1) is the end of that MS's first long «Old Greek» segment (1 Reigns 1-2 Reigns 11,1) as earlier advocated by H. St.J. Thackeray or rather constitutes the opening of what D. Barthelemy calls the «kaige recension» in that MS.The latter position was advocated by J.D. Shenkel, Chronology and Recensional De- velopment in the Greek Text of Kings (HSM, 1), Cambridge, MA 1968, pp. 117-120 whom Ulrich, Text, p. 154 and McCarter, 11 Samuel, p. 267 follow.By contrast, Pisano, Samuel, p. 108 maintains the view of Thackeray.
the story (2 Samuel 9) of David's beneficence towards the Saulide Mephibosheth.The Chronicler, who leaves aside the material of 2 Samuel 9, attaches his parallel to 2 Samuel 10, i.e. 1 Chronicles 19, to his rendition of 2 Samuel 8, a complex of notices on David's wars and officers, in 1 Chronicles 18. Josephus, for his part, clearly aligns himself with the sequence of 2 Samuel.Specifically, having given his rendition of 2 Samuel 9 (David and Mephibosheth) in VII 111-117a, he proceeds (VII 117b) to relate the developments in Ammon as told in 2 Same 10,1, 1 Chr.19,1.His version of the latter item runs: «Now there died at this time the Ammanite king Naases (Naucrou) 8 who was a friend (<piAO<;) of David 9, and his son Annon ('AvVcOv) 10 succeeded to his throne».
2 Same 10,2, 1 Chr.19,2 begin by citing David's statement of his intentions, and then recount his dispatch of a delegation to «console» Hanun in accord with those intentions.Josephus turns David's prior statement into the content of the envoys' words to the Ammonite king 11: «David thereupon sent and 8 This is the declined form of the name as read by BL Reigns (hereafter Rgns.) and Paraleipomena (hereafter Par.).Compare MT «Nahash».In citing the name of the Ammonite king in his mention of his death, Josephus agrees with L 10,1 and MT L 19,1 against MT B 10,1 and B 19,1 which do not give the name at this point.Commentators generally suppose that the «Nahash» referred to in 2 Samuel 10 , 1 Chronicles 19 is the same figure as the Ammonite king against whom Saul won his first victory according to 1 Samuel 11.In any event, however, Josephus does clearly distinguish between the two kings since in his rendition of 1  Sacris Erudiri 37, 1997, pp.5-32).9 The above indication has no counterpart in 2 Samuel 10 or 1 Chronicles 19 as such (I italicize such items in my presentation).It might, however, have been inspired by David's statement (to which Josephus lacks an equivalent, see above) in 10,2a, 19,2a, i.e. «(I will deal loyally with Hanun the son of Nahash for) his father dealt loyally with me».In any event, Josephus frequently introduces the Greco-Roman court term '(royal) friend' into contexts where the Bible lacks it, see C.T. Begg, Josephus' Account of the Early Divided Monarchy (AJ8,212-420) (BETL, 108), Leuven 1993, p. 16, n. 54.Here in VII 117b, mention of Nahash's having been a «friend» of David provides an implicit motivation for the latter's subsequent initiative with regard to the former's son.
EM LXVII, 1998 comforted him 12, exhorting him to bear his father's death with resignation, and bidding him to look for the continuance of the same friendship (<ptAlaV) 13 that he had with his father 14».

13
This term echoes the <piAO~introduced by Josephus earlier in VII 117b.14 Compare David's statement in 10,2a, 19,2a «I will deal loyally with Hanun...».From 10,2, 19,2 Josephus leaves aside the concluding notice on the envoys' actual arrival in Ammon as something which might well be taken for granted.
Having cited the princes' charge in parallel to 10,3, 19,3, Josephus appends a conclusion of his own creation which he has them draw from that charge: «they advised him (Annon) to be on his guard and pay no attention to David's words, lest he be tricked and meet with irremediable (U1tapl1yoP1l'tql) 22 disaster».
The opening segment of the sources' narratives ends up in 10,5, 19,5 by relating David's dealings with his humiliated envoys.Josephus' version (VII in the sources' speech of the Ammonite princes.Its insertion reinforces the baselessness of their claim in that Josephus has already made clear that David's intentions in dispatching the envoys were indeed honorable-contrary to what the princes assert here.
23 Terms of the Uppt-stem constitute a Leitwort in Josephus' version of 2 Samuel 10, 1 Chronicles 19 as we will be seeing.With the whole above insertion Josephus spells out the inner affect of the princes' words upon the king, just •as he underscores the efficacy of their (false) charge.

24
This is the participial form of the same verb.which appears in the aorist indicative in BL 10,4 and 19,4. 25 In specifying that Hanun shaved off «half» of the envoys' beards, Josephus agrees with MT (and TJ) 10,4 against BL (<<he shaved their beards») and 19,4 (<<he shaved them», MT BL).

26
Josephus leaves aside the further, divergent specification concerning Hanun's «cutting» of the envoys' clothes, i.e. «to [+ the cloak, L] of their buttocks» (MT B 10,4, cf.«to their place of shame», TJ), «to their hips» (MT 19,4, cf.«to their private parts», TC), «to the cloak» (BL 19,4).His reason for this omission might be that he found the detail too graphic and one likely to inspire contemptous derision for the Jews on the part of Gentile readers.
EM LXVII, 1998 120) focusses attention on David personally, accentuating his justified anger at what has happened and replacing his directive about what the envoys are to do with a statement by him about how he himself intends to deal with the perfidious Ammonites.It reads: «At sight of them 28, the king of the Israelites was indignant (,;yavaK't11O"£) 29 and made it plain that he would not overlook this insult (upptV) 30 and outrage (nponllAaKtO"J.!ov) 31, but would make war on the Ammanites and exact satisfaction (uJ.uoptav) from their king for their lawless treatment (napavoJ.!ta<;) of his envoys 32».

Preparations for Battle
The sources ' build-up (10,6-8, 19,6-9) to the subsequent account of the battle between the Israelites and the Ammonites begins with mention (10,6a, 19,6a) of the latter's «realization» that they had irremediably antagonized David 33.Josephus (VII 121) gives a more definite content to the Ammonites' recognition: «then the relatives and chiefs (of the Ammanite king) 34, realizing 28 In Josephus' presentation the envoys thus appear in person before David, whereas in 10,5, 19,5 David «sends [others] to meet them», once he is «told» of what has happened.In accord with this change, Josephus likewise omits the sources' explanation (<<for the men were greatly ashamed») as to why the envoys did not themselves approach David, this making it necessary for the king «to send to meet them».
Pursuant to their «realization», the Ammonites proceed to «hire» foreigner troops, 10,6b, 19,6b-7.The various textual witnesses differ markedly regarding the sources for and numbers of these mercenaries as the following listing makes clear: MT and TJ 10,6b: they hired Aram of Beth-rehob and Aram of Zobah (20,000 foot soliders) and the king of Maacah (1000 men) and Ish-tob [or the men of Tob] 37 (12,000 men).
4QSam a 10,6b: a thousand silver talents to hire for themselves from Aram Naharaim and from Aram Maacah and from Zobah chariots and horsemen, 32,000 chariots and the king of Maacah and Ishtob and the Ammonites were gathered from the cities. 38 MT and TJ 19,6b-7: a thousand talents (TJ centenaria, a Latin loan word) of silver to hire for themselves chariots and horsemen from Aram-Naharaim [TC Aram which is on the Euphrates] from Aram-maacah [TC from Aram which is on Maacah] and from Zobah.They hired 32,000 chariots and the king of Maacah with his army, who came and encamped before Medeba.And the Ammonites were mustered from their cities and came to battle.
B 19,6b-7: a thousand talents of silver to hire for themselves from Syria of Mesopotamia and from Syria of Moocha and from Sobal chariots and horsemen.
The phrase we 'fs lob of MT (and Tl) 10,6 is ambiguous: it might be interpreted as referring to the army of the land of Tob (so RSV «the men of Tob») or, alternatively, as the title of the ruler of that land, see the commentaries.In any case BL 4QSam a , as well as the qere, all combine MT's two words into a single one, thereby reading a proper name.
EM LXVII, 1998 They hired for themselves chariots and horsemen, 32,000 chariots and the king of Mocha and his people and they came and encamped before Maidaba.And the Ammonites were mustered from their cities and came to battle.
L 19,6b-7: a thousand talents of silver to hire for themselves from Syria of Mesopotamia and from Syria of Maacha and from Souba chariots and horsemen.They hired for themselves 32,000 chariots and the king of Maacha and his people and they came and encamped before Medaba.And the Ammonites were mustered from their cities and came to battle.39 Vis-a-vis these varying texts forms for the sources' «hiring notice», Josephus' parallel evidences affinities now with one, now with another.It runs: they sent 40 a thousand talents (X{AtU 'taAuv'tu = BL 19,6) 41 to Syros (LUpOV) 42, the king of the Mesopotamians (MEcr01tO'tUJ.U'tIDv) 43, and invited him to become their ally (crUJlJlUXov) for this payment (Jltcr8iP) 44 and (they also invited) Suba (Lou~av) 45.These kings had twenty thousand infantry (1tEsou) 46.In This item of Josephus' presentation reflects the plus of 4QSam a and 19,6b vis-a.-vis the other witnesses of 2 Sam.10,6 which lack it.Josephus leaves aside the former witnesses' specification that the talents were «of silver».addition they engaged the king of the country called Micha (Mtxfie;) 47, and a fourth named Istobos ("!a'topov) 48, these latter having twelve thousand armed men (01tAl'tue;) 49.David's response to the Ammonite initiative comes in 10,7, 19,8: he dispatches his commander Joab along with a picked force to counter the threat.Josephus (VII 122) prefaces a reference -this taking the place of the opening words «and when David heard about it» of the sources -to the king's emotional stance vis-a-vis the menace facing him: «Dndismayed either by this confederacy (crUJ.lJ.uxxtav, cf.crUJ.lJ.laxov,VII 121) or by the Ammanite force, David put his trust in God and in the justice (8tKat(O~, cf.8tlcrlv, VII 121) of his cause in going to war (n:oAEJ.lElv) to avenge the insult he had suffered (uPPtcr811) 50, and, giving Joab, his commander-in chief (apxtcr'tpa-47 In MT 4QSam a TJ 10,6 and MT TC 19,7 the name of the country is «Maacah» (L 10,6, 19,7 MuuXa), in B 10,6 'A~UA'l1K and in B 19,7 Mroxa.Josephus' form thus differs from those of all the Biblical textual witnesses surveyed.
48 In reading a proper name here (<<Istobos») Josephus agrees with BL and 4QSam a 10,6 against both the witnesses of 19,7 which lack a corresponding indication and MT (TJ) whose reading ('fs tob) represents either a collectivity or a title for the ruler of «Tob»; see n. 37. 49 In representing «the king of Micha» and «Istobos» as contributing a combined force of 12,000 men, Josephus diverges from the witnesses to 10,6 which cite a total of 13,000 men supplied by them, i.e. 1,000 by the former and 12,000 by the latter (these figures are lacking in 4QSam a ).His (implicit) total of 32,000 men (20,000 from Syrus and Souba, 12,000 from the king of Micha and Istobos) agrees, as such, with the figure explicitly cited in 19,7 (and 4QSam a , as reconstructed).Whereas, however, in the latter witnesses that figure refers to the «chariots (+ and horsemen, so BL 19,7)>> which the Ammonites procure for themselves, Josephus (like 10,6) speaks only of (foot) soliders.In addition, it should be noted that also the witnesses to 19,7, in fact, allude to a higher total figure for the forces than Josephus' 32,000, in that, having cited the 32,000 «chariots (and horsemen)>> collected, they go on to refer to a additional contingent of unspecified size, i.e. «the king of Maacah and his people» (4QSam a lacks the italicized words but evidences a lacuna after its sequence «and the king of Maacah and Ishtob» which might well have originally contained a figure for their contingent which would generate an overall total higher than the 32,000 previously cited in the MS).Thus as Pisano, Samuel, p. 111 remarks «(Josephus) appears to be the only one to speak of exactly 32,000 men in the army raised by the Ammonites».
In any event, Josephus, like 10,6, lacks a parallel to the plus of 19,7b (and, in part, 4QSam a ), i.e. «and they (i.e. the king of Maacah and his people) came and encamped before Medebah (> 4QSam a ).And the Ammonites were mustered from their cities and came to battle (in 4QSam a there is a lacuna after the mention of the Ammonites being mustered from their cities which the MS shares with 19,7b)>>.
54 Josephus apparently anticipates this reference to Joab's camp-site from 10,14, 19,15 which speak of the Ammonites fleeing to «the (which?) city» before the Israelites and 2 Same 11,1, 1 Chr.20,1 where, in connection with a subsequent campaign, it is specified that Joab besieged «Rabbah» (so MT).
55 The above explicit notice on the .enemy'sdividing his force into two contingents lacks a Biblical parallel; it underscores the purposefulness of the initiative taken by them in expectation of the upcoming battle.
57 The above reference «opposite the Hebrews» takes the place of the divergent indications concerning the point at which the Ammonites position themselves in the various Biblical witnesses: «at the entrance (door, B) of the gate» (MT 10,8); «at the gate (rcuAIDva) of the city» (L 10,8); «at the entrance (BL gate, rcuAIDva) of the city for war» (MT 19,9).
On Josephus' employment of the designation «Hebrews», see G. Harvey, The True Israel: Uses of the Names Jew, Hebrew, and Israel in Ancient Jewish and Early Christian Literature (AGm, 35), Leiden, 1996, pp. 124-129.Compare «(king of the) Israelites» in VII 120.
2 This inserted phrase picks up on the reference to three additional «kings» beyond «Syros» himself (Siiba, the king of Micha, and Istobos) whom the Ammonites hired according to VII 121.The insertion resolves the question of who on the Israelite side would be responsible for dealing with these other enemy mercenaries.

63
This inserted item spells out how Abishai is to know if Joab needs his assistance, i.e. he will «see» the Syrians getting the better of him.
The'actual (first) battle account presented by the two sources in 10,13b-14a, 19,14b-15a is strikingly jejune, above all in comparison with the extended preceding build-up to this.All one hears, in fact, is that the Syrians fled before Joab and that the Ammonites, upon seeing this, did likewise, entering «the city».Josephus (VII 126) embellishes this non-descript narration considerably: Although the latter [i.e. the Syrians] resisted stoutly for a short time, Joab slew (a1tEK'tetVev) many of them 77 and compelled all the rest to turn and flee 78.At this sight the Ammanites, who were afraid of Abishai and his army 79, waited no longer, but followed the example of their allies (n)flflaxOU~, see VII 121.122) and fled to their city (ei~'citv 1tOA.tV£<j>uyov) 80.
The sources' opening battle account terminates in 10,14b, 19,15b with Joab's repairing to Jerusalem.Josephus' rendition aligns itself with the more expansive wording of Samuel for this item: «Having thus overcome (Kpattftcra<;) the enemy 81, Joab returned in triumph (Aaf.l1tp&<;)82 to the king 83 at Jerusalem».

Second Victory
The Israelites' triumph over the enemy coalition as described in 10,9-14, 19,10-15 proves to be only a temporary one, since immediately thereafter another force is assembled which, however, itself meets defeat at David's 77 The above inserted sequence serves to underscore the magnitude of Joab's courage and triumph: notwithstanding the «stout resistance» offered him, Joab personally «slays» numerous Syrians (Conceivably, Josephus found inspiration for the latter indication in the second battle account of his sources [10,18,19,18] which relate that David «slew» [a1tEK'tetve(v),L 10,18,BL 19,18= Josephus' verb here in VII 126].Thereby, Josephus accentuates the parallelism between the two battle accounts; see n. 112.) 78 According to 10,13b, 19,14b the Syrians fled at their own volition.Josephus' formulation (<<he compelled...») underscores Joab's role in causing them to do so.On Josephus' accentuation of Joab's military prowess, see Feldman,«Joab», This inserted phrase supplies a «motive» for the Ammonites' flight, one which, at the same time, accentuates the terror the Israelite forces inspire in their opponents.80 Compare 10,14a~, 19,15a~«they fled and entered the city (L 19,15 £<j>uyov ... ei~'citv 1tOA.tv)>>.Recall that Josephus has supplied a previous identification of the city in question via his inserted notice on Joab' s camping «close to the Ammanite capital Rabatha» in VII 123.
The sources (10,17-18aa,19,17-18aa) next relate David's initiatives in the face of the new enemy threat and the results of these.Josephus (VII 128a) elaborates both on what the king «hears» at this juncture and the difference between his response to this second as compared to the first assault by the foe.His version thus runs: «When the king of the Hebrews (see VII 123) 95 learned that the Ammanites had again assembled a very large force against him 96, he TJ and TC.Recall that he has made L 10,16's name for the river in question, i.e. «Chalaama» (B XaAa)la,K) into the personal name of the «king of the Syrians», see n. 87.

91
This formulation represents Josephus' specification of the more general wording of 10,16, 19,16 which speak of a «bringing out» of the Trans-Euphratite Syrians.It is reminiscent of Josephus' own earlier phrase used in reference to the Ammonites' procuring the services of «King Syrus» in VII 121, «they invited him to become their ally for this payment (au)l)laxov au-rov Em -rou-rql ')'EvEa8at -rQ) )lta8Q) rcapEKuA£aav)>>.Like 19,16, Josephus has no equivalent to the plus of 10,16 according to which the brought-out Syrians «came to Helam (BL AtAU)l [+ Kat Lffi~U, L])>>.92 This is the conjecture of Niese which Marcus follows, based on Lat's principem militiae and corresponding to the title found in L 10,16, BL 19,16 (as well as to the title used for Joab by Josephus himself in VII 122).The Greek codices have av'Ctaa-rpu'IT)Yov.
93 This form of the commander's name with a ~as its second consonant stands closer to that found in 10,16 (MT Shobach, B Lffi~UK, L La~EE) than to the name given in 19,16 (MT Shophach, B Lffi<pUP, L Lffi<pUK).(b.Sotah 42b records diverging Rabbinic statements about the commander's «real» name and how he came to be called by the other one.According to Rab his true name was «Shophach» [so 19,16] but he got the nickname «Shobach» (so 10,16) because he stood as high as a dove-cote [shobak].For R. Samuel, on the other hand, his actual name was «Shobach», as in 10,16, but he was nick-named «Shophach» given that anyone who saw him was «poured out [nishpach]» in terror before him.)In contrast to both 10,16 and 19,16, Josephus does not specify that «Sebekos» was the commander of Hadadezer's army.Also subs~quently in his presentation, Hadadezer (who appears quite abruptly in 19,16) receives no mention.

94
As Marcus, Josephus, V, p. 429, n. e. points out, these figures for Sebekos' force are simply «invented» by Josephus.This «invention» serves several purposes: it magnifies the threat facing Israel (and so also David's subsequent victory), just as it imparts an air of greater precision to Josephus' retelling of the Biblical story.Also elsewhere, the historian does not hesitate to provide precise figures for the forces involved in a given conflict where the Bible itself lacks such; see L.H. Feldman, «Josephus' Portrait of Saul», Hebrew Union College Annual 53, 1982, 45-99, p. 71 and n. 52 and Begg, Josephus' Account, p. 72, n. 246. 95 Compare VII 120 where David is called «king of the Israelites».

96
Compare 10,17,19,17 «and when it was told David...».Josephus' explication of what David «learns» reinforces the magnitude of the enemy threat that has already been highlighted by him via the insertion of the «precise» figures in his version of 10,16, 19,16 (see EM LXVII, 1998 decided not to conduct the war through generals (O''tpa't11yrov) any longer, but himself 97 crossed the river Jordan with his entire force 98 and, when he met them 99, engaged them in a battle 100 in which he was victorious (evi 1C11O' £) 101 ... ».
The continuation of 10,18, 19,18 recounts the casualties inflicted by David upon his foes.Both verses agree in having him slay Shobach/Shophach.They differ, however, as to the number and status of David's other victims.According to 10,18, David killed (the men of) 700 chariots and and 40,000 horsemen (so MT B; L 700 horsemen and 40,000 foot soldiers), while 19,18 speaks rather of (the men of) 7000 chariots and 40,000 foot soldiers (so MT BL).Josephus' casualty figures as cited in VII 128b do not fully accord with those of either source: « ... (David) slew (avatp£t) 102 some forty thousand of theirinfantry (1tEsrov = B 19,18) 103 and seven thousand of their calvary n. 94).Note further that in speaking of the «Ammonites» as the ones who have assembled the new coalition against David, Josephus is consistent with his own earlier presentation (see VII 127)-itself inspired by the L (VL) reading in 10,15a-whereas in the sources that coalition is assembled by Hadadezer (so 10,16) or by Syria/the Syrian (so 19,16), see n. 86.
97 The above insertion contrasts David's procedure in the face of the new enemy threat with his response to the first such threat as described in vn 122 (= 10,7= 19,8) where he «gives Joab, his commander-in-chief (apX1a-rpaTI\Yov), the flower of his army...».The contrast insinuates that the new threat is even more serious than the earlier one and so requires the king's direct personal involvement in meeting it (his eventual success in doing so likewise stands out all the more given the heigthened magnitude of the threat as suggested by Josephus here).98 Compare 10,17, 19,17 «(David) gathered all Israel together and crossed (01£1311 B 10,17, BL 19,17;01a13aivE1 L 10,17)>>.Like 19,17 Josephus has no equivalent to the plus which follows mention of David's crossing the Jordan in 10,17, i.e. «and he (so MT L, B they) came to Helam (so MT; B AtAaJl, L XaAaaJla)>> (recall that he likewise lacks a parallel to the similar plus in 10,16 concerning the enemy's own advance to «Helam»).
99 With this indication according to which it is David who makes contact with the enemy, Josephus aligns himself with the reading of 19,17b (and B 10,17b), i.e. «and when David set the battle in array against the Syrians» contra that of MT L 10,17b: «and the Syrians arrayed themselves against David».100 In making David the one to initiate the hostilities, Josephus diverges from both 10,17b, 19,17b according to which it is the Syrians who do so.Thereby he accentuates David's stature as a commander who takes the offensive himself rather than waiting to be attacked.(t1t1t£roV) 104, while he also wounded (E~procrE) Sebekos, Chalamas's commander (cr~pa~rrf6v, compare apxtcrtpatlTYov, VII 127) 105, who afterwards died (a1t£8avEv) of his wound 106».
104 As far as the number cited goes (7000) the above indication agrees with 19,18 against 10,18 where the figure given is 700.On the other hand, in specifying that the 7000 slain were calvary, Josephus diverges from both sources where the 700 (so 10,18)/ 7000 (so 19,18) slain are chariot-men (literally «chariots»), a group not mentioned by Josephus (note further that while Josephus does share with L 10,18 its reference to infantry and horsemen as well as non-mention of «chariots», its casulty figure for the latter group, Le. 7000, diverges from that given by L for the slain horsemen, namely 700).Finally, it should be recalled that Josephus «sets up» his reference to the slain Syrian infantry and calvary here in VII 128 via his inserted notice (VII 127) on the same two contingents of the Syrian force with which it advances against Israel, i.e. 80,000 and 10,000, respectively (comparison of the two sets of figures indicates that the Syrians lost precisely half of their infantry and well over half of their Galvary to David-still another pointer to the magnitude of his victory in Josephus' presentation).
107 Compare 10,19a,19,19a « David 109 and sent him gifts 110».Both sources round off their accounts of the ill-fated Syria-Ammon coalition which has resulted in a double defeat for the latter with a notice on the Syrians «fearing» (so 10,19b) / not be willing (so 19,19b) to assist the Ammonites any further.Perhaps thinking that this point would be obvious from what precedes, Josephus leaves it aside.In place thereof, he introduces a reference, designed to prepare to what follows where David will dispatch Joab against the Ammonites while he himself remains in Jerusalem (so 2 Same 11,1, 1 Chr.20,1, cf.Ant.VII 129b), i.e. «Then as it was the winter season 111, he returned (avecr,;p£\V£v) to Jerusalem 112».

Conclusion
By way of conclusion to this essay, I shall now briefly sum up on its findings regarding the overarching questions posed at the outset.The first of those questions had to do with the text-formes) of 2 Samuel 10 and/or 1 Chronicles 19 utilized by Josephus for his presentation in VII 117b-129a.On this point, we noted indications -of which I confine myself to some noteworthy examples here -that the historian, in fact, worked with several different texts of his Biblical sources.First of all, the «personal» names «Syrus» (VII 121,124) and «Chalamas» (VII 127,128) as cited by him seem to reflect the distinctive readings of L 10,6 and 10,15, respectively.Similarly, his making the Ammonites the ones to initiate the second coalition (VII 127) appears to be inspired by the L text of 10,15 against that of the other witnesses where it is «Syria/the Syrian» who assumes this role (see n. 84).Again, his reference latter's taking the lead in an anti-Israelite coalition shortly thereafter might appear implausible).
109 In specifying that it was to David that the Mesopotamians surrendered Josephus agrees with 19,19 (MT BL) against 10,19 which has the submission being made to «Israel».
110 This indication takes the place of the first initiative undertaken by Hadezer's confederates according to the sources, i.e. their «making peace» with Israel (so 10,19)/ David (so 19,19).Josephus' formulation underscores the tangible benefits the Mesopotamians' submission brought to David.
111 With this phrase Josephus supplies a motivation for the victorious David's not proceeding immediately to deal with the Ammonites who still remain to be duly punished for their outrage to his envoys.The indication is inspired by -while also serving to smooth the transition to -the wording of 11,1, 20,1 (cf.VII 129b) «in the spring of the year, the time when kings go forth to battle, David sent Joab ...».
112 With this notice Josephus parallels the conclusion of his second battle account to that of his first, see VII 126 (= 10,14b, 19,15b) «... Joab returned (t>1tecr-rpE'I'E) in triumph to the king in Jerusalem».See n. 77 for another such parallel between the two Josephan battle accounts.
techniques to the sources' data.With regard to this further question, I would call attention to the following points.Vis-a-vis the Biblical accounts, Josephus underscores the unjustifiability and reprehensibility of the Ammonites' response to David's well-intentioned overture (see VII 118-119) as well as their later recalcitance in the face of initial defeat (see VII 127a) and the magnitude of the threat posed by the second coalition assembled by them (see VII 127b-128a).Conversely, the historian goes beyond his sources in highlighting David's good faith in dispatching his envoys (see VII 118), righteous indignation and determination to exact due retribution for the outrage done them (VII 120), resolution, itself grounded in his justice and piety, when confronting the initial enemy assault (VII 122), and the efficacy of his military leadership on the occasion of the second battle (VII 128).As for Joab, the key figure of the first battle account, Josephus accentuates his prowess as a general (see VII 125), while also downplaying his piety by eliminating the pre-battle invocations of the Deity the sources (10,12,19,13) ascribe to him (see n. 72).Further distinctive features of Josephus' version are its heightening of the parallelism between the first and second battle accounts (see nn. 77, 112) and the smoother transition it effects between the latter and the subsequent episode, i.e.Joab's siege of Rabbah (see n. 111).
The last of my opening questions concerned the messages Josephus' retelling of 2 Samuel 10, 1 Chronicles 19 might be intended to convey to his double audience, i.e. (Roman) Gentiles and fellow Jews118.With respect to Gentile readers, his version of the story of David' s double victory serves to refute charges about his people that enjoyed wide currency among such readers at the time.In particular, whereas the Jews had been charged with lack-of-concern-for / hostility towards other peoples119, the story represents David displaying good faith sympathy upon the death of a foreign king who had been his «friend» (see VII 119) and himself being on the receiving end of unjustified abuse py that king's people.Similarly, Josephus' rendition of the story effectively counters the charge that the Jews had produced no military leaders of distinction 120 with its portrayal cardinal virtues, i.e. piety, justice and courage.On David's exemplification of these three virtues throughout Josephus' portrayal of him, seeFeldman, «David»,[150][151][152][153][154][155][156][156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164].51Thistitle for Joab has no equivalent in 10,7, 19,8.It reminds readers of Joab's status as cited in the list of David's officials in VII 110 (Joab «the general of his entire army [cr'tpa'tTl'Yov... arc6.<IT\~... 'til~cr'tpanfi~] , 2 Sam 8,16= 1 Chr 18,15)>> and so serves to motivate David's dispatch precisely of him to counter the enemy threat here in VII 122.52This phrase occurs only here in Josephus.Compare L 10,7 rcficrav 'tnv cr'tpanuv 'tIDV 8uva'tIDv.
when (Hadadezer's confederates) saw they had been defeated by Israe1...». LikeMT and BL 10,19, 19,19, Josephus has  no equivalent to the plus which in VL (and the Vulgate) follows immediately upon mention of Hadadezer's allies seeing their defeat by Israel, i.e. «expaverunt et fugerunt quinquaginta et octo milia coram Israel».108 This designation for those who now submit to David picks up on the reference to «the Syrians across the Euphrates» of VII.127, cf. also the mention of «Syros, the king of the Mesopotamians» in VII.121.It takes the 'place of the divergent nomenclature of 10,19 (<<the kings who were servants of [so MT B, L going with] Hadadezer») and 19,19 (<<the servants of HadadezeD>, so MT BL).Throughout his presentation then Josephus consistently eliminates the sources' reference to the role of «Hadadezer» in the second battle (This «elimination» might be based on the consideration that in 2 Sam.8,3-9, 1 Chr.18,3-8, Ant.VII 99 (100-103) David is represented as decisively defeating «Hadadezer» such that the EMLXVI 1, •1998 Samuel 11 in Ant.VI 68-85 he introduces the (Biblically unparalleled) statement Saul «slew Naas himself» (VI 70).On the Josephan version of 1 Samuel 11, see C.T. Begg, «Saul's Royal Start according to Josephus», Sam. 10,11, 1 Chr.19,12«quote»Job's opening words to his brother, promising assistance should he be in danger of being overwhelmed by the Syrians, and directing Abishai to provide like support to himself if the Ammonites unduly press him.Here too, Josephus substitutes indirect for indirect address: «and, if he (Abishai) saw 63 the Syrians ('tOUC; LUpO'UC;) 64 pressing 58 With the above introduction to Joab's specific initiatives as related in what follows, Josephus underscores the purposeful intent behind those initiatives.The historian's other uses of the verb aVtlflaxaveX0J.ltare in Bl 1.348;3.171;Ant.XII 127.Note the historic present form here in VII 124, a form which Josephus frequently introduces into his Biblical paraphrase, seeBegg, losephus' Account, n. 32.59Note the historic present; see n. 58.60 This proper name echoes that used in VII 121; it likewise corresponds to the 'tou O'upom of L 10,9b, BL 19,10b (compare B 10,9 Lupia,<; = MT 10,9b, 19,1Ob «Aram»).