The Bible tells the story of a nation-wide pandemic under King David, circa 1000 BCE. The terrible plague was attributed to a mysterious sin by the king and ended with an act of redemption of great consequence to Jewish history: the establishment of the site of the Jerusalem Temple. Yet this important story is one of the most puzzling of the Bible. When Josephus retold this story for a skeptical Roman audience in the first century CE, he struggled with having to explain the actions of a just Deity who unleashes a deadly disease upon an innocent populace. In this article, I will examine how Josephus changed the story to emphasize the human suffering and heroism during the plague. And I will try to relate the story to the current global pandemic, which began circa November 2019 CE.

The Crime of the Census

The story of the plague in the Second Book of Samuel assigns blame to David, but it begins with God’s anger.

    Now again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel and stirred David up against them to say “Go, count Israel and Judah.” And the king said to Joab, the commander of the army, who was with him, “Go through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, and register the people so that I may know the number of the people.”

2 Sam 24:1–2 (Tsumura translation)

  David’s general, Joab, objects for reasons unknown, but soon relents, and in nine months conducts a count of 900,000 men capable of carrying a sword. Then David realizes his order was a terrible sin.

   And David’s heart struck him after he had numbered the people. And David said to the Lord, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done. But now, O Lord, please take away the guilt of your servant, for I have acted very foolishly.”

2 Sam 24:10 (Tsumura translation)

  To remove the sin of the leader, the entire nation will suffer a devastating plague.

But why is the census a sin? The text does not say, and there is no religious commandment against conducting a census; in fact, two censuses are highlighted in the Bible’s Book of Numbers (and give it its title).

 And if God’s anger incites David to sin, how is David responsible for the consequences? Perhaps recognizing this problem, the First Book of Chronicles has another version of the story (1 Chr 21), which says, instead, that it is Satan who caused David to sin.   

Josephus provides the earliest known biblical commentary that attempts to answer these questions. In his Jewish Antiquities (published 95 CE) he was not writing for those who believed in the Bible, but for skeptical readers across the Roman Empire, most of whom were followers of the traditional Roman religion or adherents of scientifically-oriented philosophies—Stoics, Epicureans, Platonists, and so on. It was his goal in the Antiquities to present Judean thought as at the height of reason and morality, evidently in order so to win sympathizers for Judaism among the Roman intelligentsia.

   Thus, in retelling the story of King David’s census, Josephus addresses the two difficult questions immediately. He omits shifting blame to non-human sources, whether God’s anger or Satan’s temptation – instead, it is all David’s decision. And Josephus makes David’s crime clear from the outset:

Then King David, desiring to know how many tens of thousands there were of the people, forgot the injunctions of Moses who had prescribed that, when the populace was numbered, half a shekel should be paid to God for every person; and he ordered Joab, his commander, to go out and take a census of the entire population.  

Jewish Antiquities 7.318 (Loeb translation)

To identify the crime, Josephus has added a reference to the commandment in the Book of Exodus that requires each person counted in a census must pay a half shekel (Exodus 30:11–16). His ascribing David’s sin to the omission of this tax likely reflects the view of scripture experts of his time, for this explanation is also recorded in the Talmud in the centuries following Josephus (b. Berakhot 62b); it is also mentioned in an Aramaic translation of the Bible, the Targum, that Josephus might have used.  For rabbinic commentaries on this point, see the article by Shira Golani; on the omission of God’s anger, see Louis Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible, p. 557. Christian commentaries, however, tend to see David submitting to the sin of pride; for a sampling, see https://biblehub.com/sermons/2_samuel/24-1.htm

The weakness in Josephus’s version is that the Bible story never says the half shekel was not paid.  Why would Josephus (and his sources) presume then that it wasn’t? The answer apparently lies in the reason that Exodus gives for the census payment: “Then no plague will come upon them when they are numbered.” (Exodus 30:11. Josephus’s version at Ant. 3.194–196 describes the tax but not the plague admonition.) From the fact the plague, Josephus infers that the tax wasn’t paid. But he does not report this reasoning to his audience, likely because it too has a flaw: the plague is not an automatic consequence of David’s census; as will be seen, it is a choice David makes.

The Choice of Evils

After recognizing his sin, in the Bible David asks “But now, O Lord, please take away the guilt of your servant, for I have acted very foolishly.” God sends a prophet to ask David to choose one of three punishments: seven years of famine in the land, or three months pursued by enemies, or three days of plague. David replied, “I am in great distress. Let us fall in to the hand of the Lord, for his mercies are great; into the hand of man let me not fall!” (2 Sam 24:10–13)

The three choices distract from the real question: Why must the people suffer for David’s crime? If the crime was, in fact, that David did not collect the tax, why isn’t the first choice of punishment, go and collect the tax?

These questions must have been in the mind of Josephus’s readers, including Stoics and Epicureans who would doubt the rationality of the Jewish scriptures. Josephus acknowledges the unfairness by David’s distress, but alludes to a “necessity” of punishment. Thus Josephus turns the situation into an opportunity to reveal David’s virtues as a leader:

David, confronted with the difficult choice among these great calamities, grieved and was thrown into great consternation. But the prophet said that this would happen of necessity, and directed him to answer quickly, so that he might announce his choice to God. The king thought that if he requested famine, it would seem to the others that he had done so without risk to himself, because he had much grain stored up, while to them it would bring harm.  And if he opted to have them defeated for three months they would say he had opted for war because he had heroes around himself as well as fortresses, and so had nothing to fear. He therefore requested a suffering common to both kings and subjects, in which the anxiety would be equal for all,  having previously declared that it was much better to fall into the hands of God than into those of the enemy. 

Ant. 7.322–323 (Christopher Begg/Brill translation)

Josephus’s readers in the main would have expected a great leader to exhibit the five cardinal virtues: wisdom, courage, moderation, justice, and piety. Josephus emphasizes these virtues, advocated by Plato and the Stoic philosophers, when he writes about biblical heroes—Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and all (pointed out by Louis Feldman, Interpretation, pp. 96 ff; 126–129). David’s crime, according to Josephus, was neglecting a commandment, the census tax, and hence David was guilty of impiety towards his deity. Balanced against this fault are the leadership virtues David shows in choosing his punishment: the wisdom and moderation in weighing the given alternatives, and the justice and courage shown in subjecting himself to the same danger as the rest of the people. (One notes this shared danger does not hold in modern times, where advanced treatments and protective measures can be available to the political leadership but not the populace.)

In stressing the necessity that the people suffer punishment, Josephus hints at a cosmic imperative beyond human understanding. His readers may see in this the familiar literary theme of a nation suffering for the moral corruption of its leader. For example, in Sophocles’ play Oedipus Rex a plague afflicting Thebes is revealed to be caused by the hidden violence and sexual transgression of the ruler.

The Punishment of the Pandemic

The plague itself is given only a single line in the Bible:

And the Lord sent a pestilence in Israel from the morning until the appointed time; and seventy thousand men of the people died, from Dan to Beersheba.

2 Sam 24:15 (parallel at 1 Chr 21:14)

The disease covers the same area as the census, the whole nation “from Dan to Beersheba”, from north to south; it is a pandemic. As with modern pandemic reporting, the emphasis is on a statistic: 70,000 dead. Josephus, in contrast, adds substantially to the biblical narrative. He evokes empathy by describing the devastating personal suffering:

When he heard this [David’s choice of punishment], the prophet announced it to God who sent a devastating plague upon the Hebrews. They died, not all in the same way, that the disease might easily be recognized. For though the calamity was a single one, it eliminated them for countless real or supposed causes, which they could not differentiate. 

For they were destroyed by turn; the terror came unexpectedly upon them and brought quick death. Some breathed out their souls suddenly to the accompaniment of severe pains and bitter distress. Others were so diminished by their sufferings that nothing remained for burial, but everything was eaten up by the illness itself. 

There were those whose eyes were struck by sudden darkness and who suffocated even as they moaned; still others passed away while burying a family member so that the burial rites remained unfinished. From the onset in the morning of the pestilent disease that wasted them until noon, 70,000 persons perished.

Ant. 7.324–326 (Begg/Brill translation) [Whiston 7.13.3]

The sadness of this account conveys a suppressed anger at the Deity for imposing such suffering on innocent people. But Josephus uses it also to provides testimony that God is powerful and active in the world, contrary to, say, the beliefs of the Epicurean philosophers—it is a demonstration of the necessity of obeying the commandments, even when their purpose is beyond human comprehension. The Bible already has both meanings, the power and the sorrow—witness David’s complaints at the punishment—and Josephus has worked to bring out the human side of the suffering rather than try to explicate the cosmic purpose.

While 2 Samuel 24:15 says the plague lasted until the “appointed time”, which would seem to be the allotted three days, Josephus interprets the phrase as referring to noon (the noon religious service being an “appointed time”); this is the reading in the Greek translation of the Bible, the Septuagint. The same interpretation is given in the Talmud cited above.

Yet the events in Josephus’s description of the plague can hardly be squeezed into only a few hours. He seems to have a lengthier period mind and to have been inspired in two or three details by Thucydides famous account of the plague of Athens (Thucydides 2.48–52; see Begg, Ant. 7.326 n.339, and Feldman, Interpretation, p. 178). Josephus’s need to provide his readers with drama and to win their sympathy may have overridden other concerns.

The End of the Plague and the Beginning of the Temple

The plague does not last three days. In the Bible, at first it appears that God has decided, out of mercy, to stop the suffering when the disease spreads to Jerusalem:

And God sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem. But as the angel was doing so, the Lord saw it and relented concerning the disaster and said to the angel who was destroying the people, “Enough! Withdraw your hand.” The angel of the Lord was then standing at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. David looked up and saw the angel of the Lord standing between heaven and earth, with a drawn sword in his hand extended over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders, clothed in sackcloth, fell facedown.

1 Chr 21:15–16 (parallel at 2 Sam 24:16)

But even after the halt, the angel threatens Jerusalem with the sword. Then David falls to the ground and begs God to remove the plague from the people, as they are innocent, and only punish David himself and his family. In effect, he offers himself as a sacrifice. The angel, through the prophet, orders David to build an altar at the location where the angel was standing. David purchases the site, builds the altar and sacrifices burnt offerings (thus substituting for his offer of his own life). “Then the Lord spoke to the angel, and he put his sword back into its sheath.” (1 Chronicles 21:16–27; parallel at 2 Samuel 24:15–25).

The Bible subsequently describes David’s preparations to build the Temple on the site, which will be completed by his son, King Solomon. The halting of the plague at this location is thus, through the establishment of the Jerusalem Temple, a fundamental moment in the history of the Jewish people.

The story presents some problems for Josephus. It shows God feeling remorse and changing his mind, the conclusion to God’s anger at the start of the story; the sudden shift gives the impression of a temperamental deity, an impression to contrary to the rational Creator Josephus usually wishes to present. In addition, the story is unclear whether the plague is ended purely by God’s mercy, or whether it was first necessary for David to offer sacrifices in order for God to tell the angel to put away his sword.

Josephus eliminates both problems by changing the story so that David takes the initiative to end of the pandemic. Josephus’s version is as follows:

The angel then stretched out his hand also towards Jerusalem, sending the terror there. The king put on sackcloth and lay on the ground, begging and asking God to be cease and desist, being satisfied with those already dead. When the king looked up into the air, he observed the angel, who was borne aloft by it, opposite Jerusalem with his sword drawn.

He said to God that it was just that he, the shepherd, be punished, but the flock should be saved, for they had committed no offence. He implored him to vent all his wrath against him and his family, but to spare the people.

God listened to his begging and stopped the pestilence. Sending the prophet Gad, he directed him to go up immediately to the threshing floor of the Jebusite Oronnas and, having built an altar, to offer sacrifice to God.

…Having built an altar, he consecrated it, and offered sacrifices and holocausts and presented peace offerings. The Deity was appeased by these things and became benevolent once again. Now it happened that Abraham had brought his son Isaac to this very spot to offer him as a holocaust. When he was about to slaughter the boy, a ram suddenly appeared, standing beside the altar, which Abraham sacrificed in place of his son, as we have said earlier.

When David saw that his prayer had been heard by God and his sacrifice willingly accepted, he decided to designate that whole site as an altar for the entire people and to build a sanctuary for God.

Ant. 7.327–329; 333–334 (Begg/Brill translation)

In Josephus’s version, David begs God to halt the plague even before he sees the angel; in the Bible, the angel is seen first. In Josephus’s version, God does not stop the plague until David asks; in the Bible, it was stopped, or at least was paused, before David’s entreaty. These actions serve again to emphasize David’s classical, even Stoic, leadership virtues of piety and courage. (see Begg, Ant. 7.327 n. 344.) Josephus places human choices in the foreground, while God remains relatively distant and mysterious.

Josephus often omits mention of angels in his retellings of the Bible so as not to tax his readers’ credulity; in this case, however, he evidently considered the angel’s role in the establishment of the Temple too important to leave out. In an addition to the Bible story, Josephus subsequently remarks that the place where David set up the altar happened to be at the same location as Abraham’s offering of Isaac (Ant. 7.333). This association of the Temple Mount with Abraham is not explicit in the Bible, but it is traditional in Judaism and (with Ishmael) in Islam. There is an implied parallel between the offering of Isaac and David’s offering of himself to stop the plague.

What Josephus studiously omits mentioning is that there was already an altar to God at Gibeon, and that David’s action had the political effect of taking control of the sacrificial cult and moving it to his capital at Jerusalem. The end of the Chronicles account (1 Chr 21:29–30) in fact hints that David exploited the plague, and the whole confession of his supposed guilt, in order to provide an excuse to sacrifice at Jerusalem, as it would have been dangerous to travel to Gibeon due to the disease. On the contrary, Josephus avoids such a political reading and instead verifies that there was an (unnamed) prophet who affirmed that David had been correct in his plan to build the Temple in Jerusalem (Ant. 7.334).

As of this writing, the world is entering into the third year of a pandemic. One does not hear proposed that it originated with a sin, nor does one expect that performing sacrifices will stop the plague. But in a real emotional sense, there are modern equivalents. There is the hope that some mistake, a “sin”, could be identified that led to the virus—too much contact with exotic animals, too little knowledge of biology—that, once understood., could lead to prevention or control of future viruses. Although the sin of a ruler did not create the virus, it is easy to argue that the moral character of leaders, the presence or lack of the classical virtues of wisdom, justice, and courage, has affected how well these leaders have employed science-based public policy to protect the populace. 

And most people are indeed currently performing many sacrifices to end the pandemic—not literal offerings on an altar, but sacrifices of wearing masks, avoiding groups of people, taking tests and accepting vaccination. Many prayers for relief have been made, in one form or another, and if this may seem an old fashioned approach to a plague, we nonetheless see these prayers being answered through the work of the scientists and the health care workers. Josephus thought the story of the plague should be more understandable than in the Bible, and the actions of human beings should have a greater meaning; so in the present day these are even more true, with the origins of the disease even more understood and the human abilities to face it far more powerful. Perhaps a temple should be built to commemorate the science and the actions of the wise and courageous that are carrying the world out of its suffering.

Selected Bibliography

Begg, Christopher T. The Judean Antiquities, Books 5–7. Vol. 4 of Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary. Edited by Steve Mason (Brill, 2004). Open access at the Project on Ancient Cultural Engagement.

Feldman, Louis H.  Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible (Univ. of California, 1999)

Golani, Shira. “Is There a Consensus That a Census Causes a Plague?”, https://www.thetorah.com/article/is-there-a-consensus-that-a-census-causes-a-plague

Knoppers, Gary N. “Images of David in Early Judaism: David as Repentant Sinner in Chronicles.” Biblica 76, no. 4 (1995): 449–70. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42613858.

Kottek, Samuel S. “Epidemics in Ancient Lore: from Thucydides to Josephus” in Medicine and Hygiene in the Works of Flavius Josephus (Brill, 1994)

Tsumura, David Toshio. The Second Book of Samuel. (Eerdmans, 2019).