Abstract

This article provides the first close comparative analysis of the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew versions of the ‘Maria Story’ or teknophagia, the account of the mother who ate her child within a besieged Jerusalem first recorded in Flavius Josephus’ Jewish War 6.201–203. Josephus’ original account was written in Greek in the first century. Within the following half-millennium, three Latin versions of the story developed: those of 1) the Latin translation of the War, 2) Rufinus of Aquileia’s translation of Eusebius’ Church History, which contains Josephus’ Greek version of the story, and 3) the Latin adaptation of Pseudo-Hegesippus or On the Destruction of Jerusalem (De Excidio Hierosolymitano). This latter text comprises a late fourth-century Christian rewrite of the War and served as the most important source for a Jewish text that would emerge five hundred years later: the so-called Sefer Yosippon, an early tenth-century Hebrew text which is arguably the first and most important installment of medieval Jewish historiography. Each of these texts has received scholarly attention, and sometimes several of them have been discussed together; the Maria Story itself has not escaped scholarly treatment. Yet for all this research the exact relationship between these texts and particularly their accounts of the Maria Story has never been explained clearly and in detail. This article fills this gap in the research and uses the Maria Story to explore source-critical, literary, philological, and rhetorical questions pertaining to these five versions of the Maria Story, with an emphasis upon De Excidio and Sefer Yosippon, the most understudied iterations of this developing ancient and medieval tradition, enhancing scholarly knowledge and appreciation of all these works as distinctive iterations of an interconnected web of tradition.

Highlights

  • Introduction & ScopeThe literary and traditionary Nachleben of the Jewish War, a Greek work by the first­century Jewish­Roman Flavius Josephus, stands among the most extensive, significant, and variegated legacies of antiquity

  • By examining one prominent passage as represented within one particular complex of strains of the War’s reception history, this article sheds light on the literary, rhetorical, philological, and source­critical questions attending to this tradition as it appeared in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew across the first millennium of the Common Era

  • The potential connections or correlations between these three Latin transformations of Josephus’ War, as well as their respective literary, linguistic, and rhetorical characters, has yet to be firmly established within the scholarship, though some recent headway has been made in this regard.[1]. In addition to these late­antique Latin traditions, in the early tenth century there appeared a Hebrew work called Sefer Yosippon (= SY) which comprises a history of the world with a strong focus on the Second Temple period.[2]

Read more

Summary

Introduction & Scope

(The terms printed in red only testify to how much DM 12 has in common with DEH in particular.) Among the general thematic correspondence between DM 12 and these Maria Story traditions, we may reckon minimally: a) the charge of criminality; b) the struggle of inner turmoil; c) resorting to non­food items to eat (cf BJ 6.193–201); d) the oppressive agency of hunger; e) the explicit loss of hope or recourse; f) reference to minds and their being affected in the decision­making process; g) the role of insanity in deciding to condescend to cannibalism; h) the grotesque description of dead bodies as food; i) reference to marrow and bones; j) a fixation upon hands and faces; k) mention of portions and portion size; l) indication of the dinner table/mealtime; m) the difficulty of beginning the act of cannibalism; n) mention of fighting over scarce (non-) ‘food’ (cf BJ 6.193–201); o) the idea of the body becoming a tomb; p) the explicit mention of mothers eating children; q) the disturbing theme of a child’s ‘return’ into its mother’s belly; r) the detail of the closing of the eyes during the act. As Josephus had said, “a myth for the world.”

The Maria Story
Summary Analysis & Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call