In Josephus, Philo, and Aristeas
In other places where the axial significance of Jerusalem is acknowledged, the scope of that significance is not so global; but yet we still have a variation on the theme. In his account of the war between the Jews and the Romans, Josephus includes a description of Judea which eventually focuses on the capitol city.
…and the city of Jerusalem sat in the middle of her, (μεσαιτάτη δ’ αυτῆς πόλις τά Ἱεροσόλυμα κεῖται); which is why some have wisely called that city the
navel of the country (τινες οὺκ ἀσκόπως ὀμφαλὸν τὸ
ἄστυ τῆς χώρας ἐκάλεσαν) (B.J. 3.52).
He continues saying that Judea was divided into eleven parts, “over which the majestic city of Jerusalem reigns, ruling over each district as the head rules the body” (B.J .3.54).
Even in the allegorizing interpretation of Philo, where Jerusalem is a metaphor for the soul, the city is still envisioned “in the middle of all things” (ἐν τοῖς οῦσι πάνθ’). As Philo expounds:
But the city of God is called Jerusalem by the Hebrews… who do not seek that city in the regions of the earth, for it is not built of wood and stone, but is found perfected in the soul of the one living a godly and peaceable life, for what more reverent and holy dwelling can one findin the middle of all things than the mind that loves the contemplation of God (Somn. 2. 250-51).
In the Letter of Aristeas , the axial significance of Jerusalem becomes a faint echo, but is nevertheless discernible.
When we arrived at the place, we saw the city built in thecenter of the whole land of the Jews, upon a mountain which
was of great height”( Ὡς γὰρ παρεγενήθημεν ἐπὶ τοὺς τόπους,
ἐθεωροῦμεν τὴν πόλιν μέσην κειμένην τῆς ὅλης Ἱουδαίων ἐπ’
ὄρους ὑψηλὴν ἐχοντος τὴν ἀνάτασιν) (Let.Aris. 83).11Cf. Shutt 1985, p. 18 and Thackeray 1968, p. 566.