Flavius Josephus, Between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works, and Their Importance

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA SUPPLEMENT SERIES Editor James H. Charlesworth JSOT Press Sheffield Flav...

Author: Per Bilde

141 downloads 1254 Views 4MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA SUPPLEMENT SERIES

Editor James H. Charlesworth

JSOT Press Sheffield

Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome His Life, his Works, and their Importance

Per Bilde

Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 2

To the memory of my late wife Inger-Johanne Bilde

Copyright © 1988 Sheffield Academic Press Published by JSOT Press JSOT Press is an imprint of Sheffield Academic Press Ltd The University of Sheffield 343 Fulwood Road Sheffield SIO 3BP England Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press and printed in Great Britain by Billing & Sons Ltd Worcester

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Bilde, Per Flavius Josephus, between Jerusalem and Rome his life, his works and their importance.— (Journal for the study of the Pseudepigrapha supplement series; 2). 1. Ancient Palestine. Historiography. Josephus, Flavius, 37 or 8-97?. Biographies I. Title II. Series 933'.0072024 I S B N 1-85075-060-2

CONTENTS Preface Abbreviations Map of Roman Palestine

7 9 12

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

13

Chapter 2 LIFE HISTORY 1. Sources and method 2. The time before the War 3. The situation in Palestine in 66 4. Josephus in Galilee in 66-67 5. Josephus in the Roman camp 6. Josephus in Rome Chapter 3 THE WRITINGS 1. Josephus as historiographer and the transmission of his writings 2. The Jewish War 3. The Jewish Antiquities 4. Vita 5. Against Apion 6. Conclusion

61 65 80 104 113 121

Chapter 4 MAIN TRENDS IN MODERN JOSEPHUS RESEARCH 1. Introduction 2. The earlier research 3. The classical conception of Josephus 4. Criticism of the classical conception of Josephus

123 123 125 126 128

27 27 28 33 36 53 57 61

5. The classical conception of Josephus in recent years 6. The modem conception of Josephus 7. Josephus research, 1980-1984 Chapter 5 INTERPRETING JOSEPHUS 1. Josephus' national and political position 2. Josephus' theology 3. Josephus' reliability as a historian 4. Josephus between Jewish and Greco-Roman historiography

134 141 150 173 173 182 191 200

Chapter 6 THE USE OF JOSEPHUS 1. The proper use of Josephus 2. Judaica 3. Palestinian archaeology 4. The New Testament and the birth of Christianity 5. Hellenistic and Roman history 6. Conclusion

207 207 209 218 221 229 233

Bibliography Index of Ancient References Index of Modem Authors Index of Subjects

235 249 257 261

PREFACE The purpose of this book is to contribute an overall presentation of Josephus, his life, his writings and his importance. There is a veritable abundance of literature on specific questions concerning Josephus, but surprisingly, there is no one work which attempts to take all aspects of research on Josephus and his works into account. Therefore, it would seem appropriate that an attempt of this kind be made. The book builds on and expands my earlier works on Josephus, in particular my dissertation firom 1983 on Josephus as a writer of history. In a series of lectures given during the spring term of 1983,1 prepared the first draft of the present work. A sabbatical year, 19841985, ofiered me the opportunity to compose and complete the manuscript during the course of a stay at the Danish Institute in Rome. The book has been arranged in the following manner. In order to facilitate the reading, all texts quoted fi-om classical literature have been rendered in EngUsh. Furthermore, all quotationsfiromJosephus are taken fix)m the Loeb Classical Library edition. Certain significant words in Greek and Latin have been quoted, but then always (as far as the Greek words are concerned) transcribed and supplemented by a translation. A system of notes has been omitted. Instead, relevant documentation has been included in the text itself. For this reason, the dialogue with other scholars has to some extent been Umited, but far fi-om abandoned. Like the necessary documentation, the most important debates are contained in the text itself. Moreover, I have attempted to assemble the scholarly discussion in the chapter dealing with the history of research on Josephus. Furthermore, following each individual section, a selection of the most pertinent literature on the subject is added. Apart from a few exceptions in the introduction.

8

Flavius Josephus, between Jerusalem and Rome

only the name of the author, date of publication and page numbers are indicated, whereas the complete bibliographical data will be found at the end of the book. Other than recent text editions, translations, encyclopaedias and bibliographies where a high degree of completeness has been attempted, the list of secondary literature comprises only such works which have been used in the presentation. I express my gratitude to the Institute for Religious Studies at the University of Aarhus for having granted me a sabbatical year. At the same time, I wish to thank the Research Foundation of the University of Aarhus and the Faculty of Theology at the same university for yielding financial support for my stay in Rome. Furthermore, I thank the Italian Government which awarded me an Italian State Scholarship fi-om 1st November 1984, to the 28th February 1985, as well as the Danish Insiiute in Rome for granting me the privilege of staying on their premises from 1st September 1984 to 31st March 1985. A very special dept of gratitude goes to the Danish Research Council for the Humanities which made it possible for the book to be translated into English. I am also gratefiil to Mrs Herdis Laessoe of Copenhagen who translated a frequently difficult manuscript, to Mrs Anna Marie Baden Olsen who has been of great help in preparing the English translation for printing, to Dr Bent Mogensen, the Institute of Old Testament Studies at the University of Aarhus who has designed the map of first-century Palestine, as well as to Sheffield Academic Press, who have undertaken to publish the book in this new series, and who have helped me to improve the English style of the manuscript. Finally, I wish to thank my wife, Pia Guldager, for her assistance in preparing the indexes. The manuscript was completed on the 15lh June 1985.

ABBREVIATIONS AJPh ANEW

Ant. Ap. ASTI AV

BA BAR BASOR Bell. CBQ ClPh CQ CRINT DTT ET GRBS HT HTR HUCA HZ lEJ JBL JJS JPFC

JQR

American Journal of Philology Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung, ed. H. Temporini und W. Haase (Berlin and New York, 1972 ff.). Antiquitates Judaicae Contra Apionem Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute (Jerusalem) Anniversary Volume The Biblical Archaeologist The Biblical Archaeological Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bellum Judaicum The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Classical Philology The Classical Quarterly Compendia Rerum ludicarum ad Novum Testamentum Dansk teologisk Tidsskrift The Expository Times Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies History Today The Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Historische Zeitschrift Israel Exploration Journal Journal of Biblical Literature The Journal of Jewish Studies The Jewish People in the First Century, Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions. CRINT I, ed. S. Safrai, M. Stem et a/., I-II (Assen, 1974 and 1976). The Jewish Quarterly Review

10 JRS J-S

JSJ JSNT JTS LA LCL Leg. LXX

MV NF NovT NTS PEF PEFQS PEQ PhW P-WRE QDAP RB REJ rev. RHE RHR RM rp. RSR RvT StTh TAPAPA ThL ThZ

Flavius Josephus, between Jerusalem and Rome The Journal of Roman Studies Josephus-Studien. Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament. Otto Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet. Herausgegeben von Otto Betz, Klaus Haacker und Martin Hengel (GSttingen, 1974). Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period Journal for the Study of the New Testament The Journal of Theological Studies Liber Annuus The Loeb Classical Library Legatio ad Gaium Septuagint Memorial Volume Neue Folge Novum Testamentum New Testament Studies Palestine Exploration Fund Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statements Palestine Exploration Quarterly Philologische Wochenschrift Pauly-Wissowas Realencyclopddie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine Revue Biblique Revue des Etudes Juives Revised edition Revue de I'Histoire Ecclesiastique Revue de I'Histoire des Religions Rheinisches Museum fUr Philologie repubUshed Revue des Sciences Religieuses Religionsvidenskabeligt Tidsskrift Studia Theologica Transactiom and Proceedings of the American Philological Association Theologische Literaturzeitung Theologische Zeitschrift

Abbreviations ZAW ZDPV ZNW

11

Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des nachbiblischen Judentums Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastinavereins Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der dlteren Kirche

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1. Presentation In m y history o f our Antiquities, most excellent Epaphroditus, I have, I think, made sufficiently clear to any w h o m a y peruse that work the extreme antiquity o f our Jewish race, the purity o f the original stock, and the manner in which it established itself in the country which we occupy to-day. T h a t history embraces a period o f five thousand years, and was written by m e in G r e e k on the basis o f our sacred books. Since, however, I observe that a considerable n u m b e r o f persons, influenced

by the malicious calumnies

of

certain individuals, discredit the statements in m y history concerning our anuquity, and adduce as proof o f the comparative modernity o f our race the best known G r e e k historians, I consider it m y duty to devote a brief treatise to all these points; in order at once to convict our detractors o f maUgnity and deUberate falsehood, to correct the ignorance o f others, and to instruct all w h o desire to know the truth concerning the anUquity o f our race {Ap.

1.1-3).

This is how Josephus introduces his last work. Against Apion,which was pubUshed in Rome around the year 95 CE. In this introduction, he refers to one of his major works, The Jewish Antiquities, and he also provides vital information about the nature and purpose of his writings. Josephus was a priest of Jewish aristocracy who lived in Rome in the latter half of the first century. It was here that he wrote his many works in Greek. In these writings, he gives an account of the history of the Jewish people from their beginnings till his own time. His works are of particular historical significance especially with regard to the period between the last centuries BCE and the first century CE, because for this period they comprise the fiiUest account and quite often the only source in existence. Primarily, this apphes to the first great revolt against Rome in 66-70 (74) CE, which Josephus himself

14


lived under, participated in, and afterwards described in his comprehensive work entitled The Jewish War. This work has ensured Josephus the attention of the Jewish people for all time. But in general, it also concerns the history of Palestine in the first century, the home of Jesus and the birthplace of Christianity. Josephus was contemprarary with Paul and the authors of the Gospels, and he depicts the world which was the scene of their fives. It is for this reason that Christians have always taken a great interest in Josephus. 2. Our debt to Josephus In Denmark 1984, we commemorated the 40th anniversary of the day on which Kaj Munk, the famous vicar, author and opponent of the German occupation, was mudered by the Nazis. Which of us of the older generation can forget Maj Munk's great drama. En Idealist, about Herod the Great.^ True enough, Kaj Munk had another source for his play, namely, F. Buhl's rendering of the history of the Jewish people in antiquity. But were it not for Josephus, neither Buhl nor Kaj Munk would have had anything to tell us about Herod. Apart from the story of the infanticide in Bethlehem as found in Mt. 2.13-18 and a few other references in ancient literature, Josephus is our main source of information about Herod. Josephus wrote several books about Herod in a highly dramatic style. He tells about his fight to win and maintain power in Palestine, his strife with the former royal family, the Hasmonaeans, his impressive construction works, his ingenuity in diplomatic dealings with Rome, and the tragic story of his life. In his memoirs, Fordret sd sagte kommer (The Silent Coming of Spring), Kaj Munk remarks that he once read someone expressing the regret that this historical material never came to Shakespeare's attention, and this encouraged him to begin his own project. But if Maj Munk had read Josephus, he would have discovered that here he had a predecessor whose historical account of Herod rendered the story in unexcelled dramatic intensity. In our time, many people have visited Israel where they have been able to enjoy seeing the monumental ruins of Masada, Caesarea, Herodion, Samaria, Jericho, the Citadel in Jerusalem, the patriarchal graves in Hebron, and the enormous supporting walls around the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Most of these fascinating ruins originate from Herod the Great's construction works. They are all described by Josephus. Archaeologists and historians who work at

1. Introduction 1. Introduction

15

these is these sites sites have have aa copy copy of of Josephus' Josephus' works works at at hand. hand. He He is indispensable for for the the identification identification of of the the particular particular site, site, for for the the indispensable interpretation interpretation of of details details in in the the ruins ruins and and excavations excavations and and especially especially placement and for for the the placement and understanding understanding of of each each individual individual monument monument in aa larger larger historical historical context. context. in These These are are only only two two examples examples which which indicate indicate our our debt debt to to Josephus; Josephus; several others others will will suggest suggest that that it it is is far far greater. greater. For For example, example, we we owe owe several him are him much much of of our our knowledge knowledge concerning concerning the the Essenes Essenes who who are probably identical the probably identical with with the the Jewish Jewish congregation congregation which, which, during during the centuries around around the the begiiming of the the Common Common Era, Era, had had their centuries beginning of their headquarters by the headquarters in in Qumran Qumran by the Dead Dead Sea. Sea. It It was was here here that that the the sosobeginning in called called Dead Dead Sea Sea Scrolls Scrolls were were discovered, discovered, beginning in the the year year 1947. 1947. Moreover, provides the Moreover, Josephus Josephus provides the only only other other contemporary contemporary account account of New Testament. applies of John John the the Baptist Baptist apart apart from fi-om the the New Testament. The The same same appUes jesus, to to aa similar, similar, albeit albeit much much more more contested, contested, comment comment concerning concerning Jesus, in Flavianum. Josephus an in the the so-called so-caUed Testimonium Testimonium Flavianum. Josephus is is also also an invaluable the invaluable source source of of information information regarding regarding the the Pharisees, Pharisees, the Sadducees, Sadducees, Pilate Pilate and and many many others. others. First First and and foremost, foremost, however, however, thanks thanks to to JosephUS Josephus we we have have the the exciting exciting account account of of the the first first major major revolt against against Rome, Rome, the the causes causes behind the War, War, its its outbreak outbreak and revolt behind the and events, events, the the tragic tragic internal internal strife strife in in the the Jewish Jewish camp, camp, the the siege siege of of Jerusalem, burning and Jerusalem, its its conquest conquest and and fall fall and and the the burning and destruction destruction of of the the Temple. Temple. Though Though they they are are mentioned mentioned elsewhere elsewhere (the (the Titus Titus Arch Arch in pieces of in Rome, Rome, and and in in various various pieces of Jewish, Jewish, Christian Christian and and Roman Roman literature), Uterature), Josephus Josephus is is the the only only author author who who gives gives us us aa detailed detailed events. historical historical description description of of these these crucial crucial events. Literature Literature K. En Idealist. Idealist. Nogle Nogle indtrykfra Konges Liv Liv (Copenhagen, 1928), K . Munk, M u n k , En indtryk fra en Konges 1928),

and Fordret Foraret sd sa sagte sagte kommer pp.322 kommer (Copenhagen, 1944), 1 9 4 4 ) , pp. 3 2 2 and 350; 3 5 0 ; F. israelitiske Folks (Copenhagen 1892; 1 8 9 2 ; 6th edn 1922 and 7th Buhl, Det Det israelitiske Folks Historic Historie (Copenhagen 1 9 3 6 ) . To T o my m y knowledge, there exists no n o methodical survey dealing with edn 1936). our debt to Josephus.

3. Josephus in Jewish and Christian Christian tradition tradition 3. Josephus in Jewish and On the the basis of this this information, information, one one could could assume assume that that Josephus Josephus was was On basis of by his case. highly highly regarded regarded by his compatriots. compatriots. However, However, this this was was not not the the case. The reason reason is is that that the the Jews, Jews, or or the the majority majority of of them, them, have have always always The regarded Josephus Josephus as as aa traitor traitor to to the the nation. nation. Many Many consider consider him him aa regarded from Judaism, judaism, an is renegade renegade from an apostate. apostate. The The reason reason for for this this evaluation evaluation is

16


that, at one point during the Jewish rebelUon, Josephus failed to take his own life and instead contrived to save it, thereafter surrendering to the Romans. After two years as a prisoner of war, he was set free but he then preferred to remain in the Roman camp from where he was in a position to follow the events of the War and collect material for his later writings. At the end of the War, he followed the Flavian imperial family to Rome. There, he was installed in a villa which had formerly belonged to Vespasian, where he could write at leisure. For this reason many Jews have looked upon Josephus not only as a traitor and an apostate, but also as a mercenary who did not write as a Jew, but as a Roman, indeed a Flavian tool and spokesman. Thus, the traditional Jewish opinion ofJosephus is unambiguously negative. Apart from a few highly uncertain references (cf. Briill and Feldman [1984a], pp. 76-79), this is demonstrated by the fact that he is not mentioned in the Talmud. For a very long time, the Jews avoided reading and referring to his writings. At a later date, they were re-written and appUed under different names such as ben Gorion and Jossipon. It was not until the beginning of critical research in the 16th and 17th centuries that Jewish scholars began serious research with regard to Josephus. In the course of the 18th and 19th centuries, this interest accelerated, and today Josephus is a central topic in Jewish research on the history of the people in GrecoRoman times. At the same time, however, the negative view of Josephus and his writings largely held its own among Jewish scholars and readers. Particularly in today's Israel, there is a widespread aversion towards Josephus. He is looked upon as a symbol of a nonJewish, especially non-Zionist and non-IsraeU attitude. In opposition to this classical Jewish standpoint, there is a completely different traditional Christian conception. The Christians, whom Josephus mentions only once in his writings (Ant. 20.200), always had a high regard for this Jewish historian. This is due to the fact that in their opinion, in The Jewish War, Josephus described the fiilQlment of Jesus' predictions concerning the Temple, Jerusalem and the Jewish people. According to the New Testament, Jesus and Paul predicted that the Temple and Jerusalem would be destroyed, and that the Jewish people would be expelled from the Covenant of God and in this capacity they would be replaced by the Christian Church (Mt. 21.19-20 par.; 21.33-46 par.; 22.1-10; 23.37-39 par.; 24.1-2 par.; Lk. 13.2-5; 13.34-35; 19.41-44; 21.20-24; Gal. 4.21-31; 2 Thess. 2.14-16). Therefore, the Christians understood Josephus'

1. Introduction

17

account of the Jewish War as evidence proving that Jesus had been right. Everything came about as he and the New Testament had predicted. The Jews had rejected Jesus as Messiah, and now in retaliation they had received their well-deserved punishment. Together with the brief texts in The Jewish Antiquities (18.63-64, 116-119 and 20.200-203) concerning Jesus, John the Baptist and the Christians, this is the reason why Josephus very soon received a distinguished recognition in the Christian Church. His writings were regarded nearly as being canonical in Une with the Old and the New Testaments. He himself received the status of a kind of Church Father or a fifth Evangelist without the sUghtest regard to his own intentions. As late as the 19th century, in Christian Europe, Josephus was in fact the most widely read author—second only to the Bible. Naturally, this status with the Christians did not improve his esteem among the Jews. Literature T h e Jewish view o f Josephus is discussed by Schreckenberg ( 1 9 7 7 ) , pp. 4 8 5 3 , and Vidal-Naquet ( 1 9 7 7 ) , pp. 3 0 - 3 5 . E s p . concerning Jo5zp/>o« we find a lengthy bibiUography by

Feldman

( 1 9 8 4 b ) , pp. 7 7 4 - 7 8 . T h e

traditional

Chrisdan concepdon o f Josephus is comprehensively rendered by Schreckenberg, ( 1 9 7 2 ) ( 1 9 7 7 ) and esp. ( 1 9 8 4 ) ; and more briefly by Bardy; R . M . G r a n t ; Schreckenberg ( 1 9 8 0 ) , pp. 1 7 9 - 8 1 ;

van U n n i k

(1978),

pp. 1 7 - 1 8 ; Vidal-

N a q u e t ( 1 9 7 7 ) , pp. 3 0 - 3 5 .

4. Main trends in research Josephus research has so far manifested itself in three phases, the first of which corresponds to the traditional Christian concept of Josephus encompassing antiquity and the Middle Ages. Throughout this phase, the inquiry has been influenced by an uncritical attitude, mainly concerned with the transmission of the works of Josephus. The second phase may be characterized as a reaction against the first. Gradually, Josephus' assumed infaUibiUty was put in doubt. In the 16th and 17th centuries, questions arose as to the authenticity of Testimonium Flavianum. In the 19th century, this doubt grew into a conviction, and at the same time it was combined with the traditional Jewish animosity towards Josephus. Animosity against the man and the conviction that his works should primarily be considered hired Roman propaganda became linked to unfavourable views about his entire activity as a writer. It was assumed that Josephus was not the

18


author of his works, but either he had them copied from earUer, now unknown authors, or he had ordered them to be composed by learned slaves. In this way, a modem, thoroughly critical research on Josephus developed, culminating around the turn of the century. In spite of new tendencies in research, it can still be traced in modem literature on Josephus. The third phase can be characterized as a synthesis of the first two. For several reasons the severe animosity towards Josephus has been abandoned. It has become clear that the tendencies to flatter the Romans and the Flavian emperors, and to emphasize and justify himself, which earlier investigations regarded as fundamental in the works of Josephus, actually play a far less important role in his writings. Along with this change of attitude towards Josephus there has been an increasing recognition of the fact that Josephus himself was responsible for his works. To a large extent they are characterized by a uniformity of language and style as well as by continuity in their main ideas. Finally, a tendency can be observed in modem research to re-estabUsh the reliability of Josephus as a historical writer. The discovery of the Qumran literature and the many archaeological excavations in Palestine/Israel have supported this assessment of Josephus as historian. Literature A more thorough review o f Josephus research wiU be found below in Chapter 4, and in Bilde ( 1 9 8 3 a ) , pp. 2 0 - 6 1 .

5. The period Josephus lived at a time which saw great upheavals for the Jewish people. The Babylonian exile was followed by a long and apparently peaceflil period in Persian and early Hellenistic times. But in the second century BCE, a serious crisis arose among the Jewish population in Palestine. The confrontation with the dominating Greek culture led to a deep division within the Jewish population between the 'modernists' who maintained an open attitude towards new ideas, and the 'conservatives' who anxiously held watch over their Jewish heritage and persisted in observing their ancient traditions. This contrast is closely parallel to that between rich and poor, and between country and city. Under the mle of the Seleucid king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BCE), to whom Palestine belonged at the time, the internal strife was also combined with a

1. Introduction

19

conflict between the king and the conservative Jewish circles. Under the leadership of the Hasmonaean family, many of these people actually resorted to open revolt against the Seleucids and their Jewish allies. And in the period c. 170 to c. 140 BCE, the revolters succeeded in their fight to gain reUgious freedom at first, and later complete national independence for Judaea. In the following decades, the Hasmonaean (Maccabean) leaders gradually conquered the entire non-Jewish Palestine as well. Thus, the foundation for the Hasmonaean kingdom was laid. It prevailed until the year 63 BCE when Pompey conquered the entire Middle East. For a long time, the Romans ruled indirectly via native cfient princes. First, the Hasmonaean high priest Hyrcanus II, who was followed by Antipater, the father of Herod the Great, and his sons and grandsons. Here again, the wealthiest group of the population, particuarly in the cities, was more inclined to accept this form of government and Roman influence in the country, whereas economically less fortunate and ideologically more conservative circles were unwilfing to accept the Roman supremacy. These were waiting impatiently for the Messiah and thereby the restoration of the Jewish kingdom as it was known in the time of David and the Hasmonaean period. Therefore, after the death of Herod the Great in the year 4 BCE, and again under the rule of his sons, frequent attempts at revolt came from these circles. Often, however, Messianic pretenders and prophets came forth and harmlessly proclaimed the end of the foreign regime and the coming of the Messiah. Such prophecies often led to a form of unrest among the people, resembling actual revolt. After Archelaus, the son of Herod, was banished in the year 6 CE, direct Roman rule was introduced in Judea, Samaria and Idumaea. This was interrupted by a brief interval in 37(41 )-44, when Agrippa I, just as his grandfather, Herod the Great, governed aU of Palesune in relative autonomy. But following Agrippa's death in 44, the direct Roman rule was extended to cover the entire area, aside from the northwestern provinces which Claudius (41-54) conceded to Agrippa's son, Agrippa II. This change in government was followed by an immediate and accelerating unrest leading to a state of anarchy in Judaea in the 60s. In the spring of 66 open rebellion broke out, developing into the first major Jewish revolt against Rome (6670[74]). After a long and bloody war, the Revolt was defeated, and the result was the fall of Jerusalem, the burning of the Temple and

20


the subjugation of the entire nation. All land became the state property of Rome. Many of the people were sold as slaves, and the special Jewish tax, Fiscus Judaicus, was levied. This tax required that instead of the traditional temple tax, every adult Jew should pay the same annual amount (2 drachmas) to the Romans' main god, Jupiter, whose temple was situated on Capitol in Rome. For a while, peace was restored in Judaea. In the Jewish Diaspora, however, there were strong rebelUons on Cyprus, in Egypt and in Libya during the time of Trajan (98-117). This led to the second major Jewish revolt against Rome (115-117). Under the following emperor, Hadrian (117-138), new unrest broke out in Judaea as well. It appears that Hadrian intended to introduce anti-Jewish laws such as a prohibition against circumcision and plans for a Roman construction on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The Jewish population in Judaea rose in protest. In 132-135, under the leadership of Simon bar Kokhba, they instigated a desperate rebelUon which was the third major Jewish revolt against Rome. By calUng large troops to action, suffering great losses and with great difficulty, the Romans succeeded in crushing this revolt as well. Thereafter, the Jews were denied entry into Jerusalem for a long time, and their conditions in Palestine as well as in the Roman Diaspora grew worse. Literature Comprehensive accounts o f the history o f Palestine and the Jews in G r e c o R o m a n times are found in Schurer, I, pp. 1 6 5 - 7 0 4 , and Vermes & M i l l a r , I, pp. 1 2 5 - 5 5 7 . T h e R o m a n period is described by Safirai-Stem, I, pp. 2 1 6 - 3 7 6 , and Smallwood ( 1 9 7 6 ) . A brief and clear account o f the history o f the entire period m a y also be found in Danish in O t z e n ' s book.

6. The life of Josephus It was during this time of turmoil and ferment that Josephus Uved and worked. He was born in the year 36-37 CE, i.e. the year in which Gains Caligula (37-41) became emperor in Rome. It was only a few years after Jesus had been crucified in Jerusalem, and it was about the same time that Paul was converted to Christianity. According to his own assertion, Josephus belonged to a noble family of priests, and he claimed that on his mother's side he was related to the Hasmonaean royal family. He grew up in the troubled times of the 40s and 50s in Jerusalem, and it was here that he received a soHd

1. Introduction

21

Jewish, and probably also an international (i.e. Greek) education. In the year 64, during the time of the Emperor Nero (54-68), the very year when Rome burned, and when as a consequence the first persecutions of the Christians began, Josephus went on an important diplomatic mission to the capital of the empire. Here, he was introduced to Nero's wife Poppaea. Like many noble Romans of the time, Poppaea seems to have taken an interest in Judaism. About two years later, having completed a successfiil mission, Josephus returned to Jerusalem where the Jewish people were on the verge of revolt. It broke out in April-May 66, and Josephus was called upon to take part in it, and presumably owing to his social status and poUtical experience he became one of its leaders. He was appointed to the important charge of being general in GaUlee where he prepared the defence against the expected Roman counter-attack. From the winter of 66 to the summer of 67 he commanded the defending army of GaUlee against the considerable Roman forces commanded by Vespasian (Emperor 69-79), who had been chosen by Nero to lead the Roman recapture of rebelUous Judaea. Vespasian besieged Josephus in the city of Jotapata in Northwestern GaUlee for a long time. Afiêr a siege lasting 47 days, the city was captured. In the beginning, Josephus succeeded in hiding himself in a cave together with a group of other survivors, but when the Romans discovered them, his companions wanted the group to commit coUective, ritual suicide instead of being captured aUve by the enemy. This is similar to what later happened at Masada. Josephus violently opposed this idea. Although he was forced to accept in part, he succeeded in avoiding death, as has already been menuoned. After his surrender, Josephus was brought before Vespasian to whom he made the prophecy that this Roman general would soon become a Roman emperor. About a year and a half later, when the prophecy was fiilfiUed, Josephus was released fi-om captivity. However, he remained in the Roman headquarters and from there he followed the remaining events of the War. Thereafter, he went to Rome with Vespasian and Titus. Here, he was aUowed to reside in Vespasian's former villa and was given an imperial pension on which he could exist without economic problems. He Uved here until his death around the turn of the century. Literature T h e most important m o d e m accounts o f the Ufa o f Josephus are found in S.J.D. C o h e n ( 1 9 7 9 ) , pp. 1 8 1 - 2 3 1 ; Feldman ( 1 9 8 4 b ) , pp. 7 7 9 - 8 7 ; Laqueur,

22


pp. 2 4 5 - 7 8 ; Rajak ( 1 9 8 3 ) , pp. 1 1 - 4 5 and 144flf.; as weU as Thackeray ( 1 9 2 9 ) , pp. 1-22. A more detailed account with comprehensive references to texts and hterature follows in Chapter 2.

7. The writings of Josephus These are the circumstances under which Josephus started and completed his comprehensive writings. During the 70s, he wrote his first major work. The Jewish War, in seven volumes. This is Josephus' best known work. With an unusual dual sense for accuracy and dramatic rendering, he portrays the previous history of the Jewish Revolt, its outbreak, course of events, conclusion and aftereffects. The tragic cUmax of this work is the account of the fall of Jerusalem and the burning of the Temple. In the 80s and 90s, Josephus wrote his second major work. The Jewish Antiquities, in twenty volumes. In this work, he describes the history of the Jewish people fi-om their beginnings until the outbreak of the War in 66. At the same time, in the year 93-94, his Autobiography appeared in only one volume, in which the emphasis is on the account of his period as leader in Galilee in 66-67. Vita came out as a supplement to Ant. TTiis concise work is of significance, partly as a clue to the understanding ofJosephus' person and writings, and partly as a source of information concerning the situation in Gafilee in the first century CE. Not long afterwards. Against Apion, the last known work written by Josephus, appeared in two volumes. This is a polemic and theological work of apologetic character. In this work, Josephus defends Judaism and the Jewish people against attacks made by the Greco-Roman world's anti-Semites, primarily the Alexandrian author, Apion. Literature A cridcal review o f Josephus' works will be found in Attridge ( 1 9 8 4 ) , pp. 1 8 5 232;

HOlscher

(1916),

(which only treats Bell,

cols.

1942-1997;

and Ant.).

Thackeray

(1929),

pp. 2 2 - 7 4

A closer account with comprehensive

references to texts and literature follows below in Chapter 4. T h e most important

editions

bibliography.

and

translations

o f the

writings

are

listed

in

the

1. Introduction

23

8. Purpose, method and disposition As seen from the above, Josephus was always a controversial person. Evaluations of him have alternated from contempt to admiration. In an earlier investigation entitled Josefus som historieskriver Qoseph as Historiographer) (1983), in continuation of recent Josephus research and based on a detailed analysis of the author's tendencies and historical reliabiUty, I have tried to present a more balanced picture of Josephus. In the present volume, my aim shall be to expand this attempt in order to cover Josephus and his writings in their entirety. An account of Josephus' life and writings is followed by a review of the more recent research on Josephus and an attempt to interpret and place him poUtically, theologically and historiographically. The investigation is rounded off by a description of how Josephus is used and can be used in the study of ancient history. In international research on Josephus, we are in need of an adequate monograph of this nature (cf. Moehring [1984], p. 917). Thackeray's hook, Josephus the Man and the Historian (1929) is not sufficiently comprehensive, and is now somewhat dated. Many recent works such as S.J.D. Cohen (1979) and Rajak (1983) are primilarly concerned with Bell. and Vita and the hfe history of Josephus and therefore do not meet the requirement of being complete accounts. Attridge (1984) and Feldman (1984b) come closest, but these works do not include a review of the research on Josephus, and they also lack discussion of the use of Josephus. Josephus' writings are our main subject as they contain practically all the available information concerning both his life and his works. In reading and analyzing these texts, we are aiming at interpretations and explanations which are hoUstic and economic in so far as they with a minimum of hypotheses can clarify a maximum of elements and problems in the source material, while at the same time they fit what we know about Josephus' hfe, writings and historical context. As for my own attitude to Josephus, the reader will already have noticed that it is favourable, hopefiiUy without being uncritical. This means that I keep an open mind towards the author's own explanations. I am wilUng to take them into consideration in so far as they can contribute to the required holistic and economic interpretations of the essential features in the life of Josephus and his activity as a writer of history. Further, this attitude implies that in advance, I assume a unity or continuity in Josephus' Ufe and works,

24


and that finding and, if necessary, reconstructing this unity is an important aim of our whole enterprise. Put into practice, these principles lead us always to begin with trying to understand what Josephus himself has to say. Both in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3, this means that we begin by reviewing the relevant texts. And only in the second place will we resort to hypotheses—those of others or my own—to explain unsolved problems in the texts. In this way, we will continually be in search of the simplest possible and, at the same time, the most trustworthy and convincing explanations or hypotheses concerning every detail as well as the unity of and the driving forces in Josephus' person, his life and his writings in their historical context. Naturally, the interpretation and significance ofJosephus has to be discussed on the basis of the chapters which review his life, writings and the main phases in the research. Therefore, the chapter entitled 'Interpreting Josephus' has been placed after those treating these three factors. It is, however, much more difficult to determine in advance the most appropriate sequence for these three chapters. This is due to the close relationship between the three elements: life history, writings and history of research. Josephus' life and writings cannot be discussed and presented without considering the history of research. Correspondingly, a review of Josephus research requires a soUd knowledge of the author's life and writings. In a similar manner, a presentation of Josephus' life history calls for an analysis of his works since they contain practically all the relevant source material. And conversely, an account of Josephus' works presupposes a clear picture of his life to which they are so intimately related. Therefore, any sequence of these three chapters is possible, and any is open to criticism. Consequently, it is an act of haphazardness and thus an emergency solution when I have decided to begin with the account of Josephus' life story. This is true because the three factors mentioned— Ufe, wriungs and history of research—are so closely connected that actually they should be presented simultaneously. I have attempted to consider this fact in two ways. First, here, in the introduction, I have given a brief outUne of the combined complex of Ufe, writings and research. And second, in each of the following three chapters, I have to some extent paid attention to all three factors. The review of Josephus' Ufe in Chapter 2 is the first attempt at applying the methodological principles outUned above in practice. Naturally, I work on the basis of my former research and, needless to

1. Introduction

25

say, I cannot neglect to be influenced and inspired by the contributions of others. But, in the first instance, I try to confine myself to collecting, ordering and presenting the information which Josephus himself has given us. And by doing so, we are confronted with the main problems in Josephus research which we flirther discuss and elucidate in Chapters 3 and 4. In Chapter 3, our method at the beginning remains the same. Therefore, we place significant emphasis on presenting and studying the contents of each individual work. Then, considering relevant elements in other works as well as in Josephus' life, we strive at penetrating deeper into the inner world of each writing. In this way, we shall try to arrive at the essential theme of each work, and then proceed to consider its purpose and significance as this may be determined on the basis of the work in question, other parts of the writings, Josephus' life history and the broader historical situation of his life and work. Chapter 4 will contain comprehensive and critical reviews of what has been written about Josephus during the last century. Here, we will be in a good position to confront the main issues in the history of research, on the basis of our own insights into Josephus' life and wriungs. In Chapter 5 , our purpose is systematically to present a comprehensive interpretation of Josephus, his national and pohtical position, his theology and his significance as a writer of history. This is done by collecting the treads from the foregoing chapters and thereby summing up our results. The main purpose of the book will then have been brought to its conclusion. In the final chapter, we shall embark on an independent subject, attempting to demonstrate the significance of Josephus' writings. We shall do this by showing how they are used and can be used, first and foremost in research on the history of the Jews in Greco-Roman times, but also in other disciplines such as Palestinian archaeology. Christian origins, as well as Hellenistic and Roman history. Literature Discussions on methodology and the history o f research are rare in Josephus studies; c f Lindner ( 1 9 7 2 ) , p. vii and ( 1 9 7 4 ) , p. 2 5 7 . H o w e v e r , the history o f research on Josephus is influenced by important methodological issues; cf. Chapter 4 below. Moehring ( 1 9 8 4 ) , pp. 8 6 5 - 6 8 and pp. 9 1 7 - 2 5 , presents methodological considerations which are related to mine. O v e r against m y

26


hermeneutically orientated methodology (cf. also Bilde [ 1 9 8 3 a ] , pp. 1 6 - 1 9 ) , we should mention Rajak ( 1 9 8 3 ) , pp. 4 - 1 0 , in which a stronger emphasis is placed on Josephus' historical, esp. social and economic context.

Chapter 2 LIFE HISTORY 1. Sources and method One who intends to describe the Ufe of Josephus is essentiaUy dependent upon this author's own information. Naturally enough, most of this information will be found in his autobiography. Vita. Next in importance is Bell., in which the third book suppUes a great deal of information on Josephus' participation in the War in 66-70. In addition, one finds several references of biographical interest spread throughout his entire work. However, Josephus' own information is supplemented by only a modest amount of material available fi-om other sources. There are only a few references found in GrecoRoman and early Christian Uterature, but these will also be used in the foUowing. With these few exceptions, Josephus' biographer must rely upon the information concerning his Ufe given by the Jewish historical writer himself. Many have reservations, therefore, about aU attempts to write a biography of Josephus. The amount and nature of the source material available dictate certain Umits to a biography. Obviously, we cannot include more information than the sources provide. It is also obvious that the source material must be treated with the caution and the critical approach reqviired by the special character of the material. We are only able to a very Umited extent to verify Josephus' own information by using other sources, and can therefore not expect external verification: we are forced to concentrate on the internal material available. Therefore, it is necessary for us to assess the material with the aid of criteria such as 'internal consistency', 'general historical plausibiUty' and, not least, 'context', namely, the possible coherence with other aspects of the material ('hoUsm'). FinaUy, it should be emphasized that my research on Josephus' life builds upon the results I have previously reached. In my 1983 book, I

28


argue in favour of a comparatively positive interpretation of Josephus' person, life and goals. In this work, I will attempt to review the entire material so as to re-test and expand results previously obtained. 2. The time before the War The main source with regard to Josephus' life before the year 66 CE are the paragraphs 1-19 in Vita. In addition, there are a few references scattered throughout his other works, especially Bell. Finally, we find fijrther support in a few remarks in Suetonius, Dio Cassius and Eusebius. Josephus begins Vita by giving an account of his family and his genealogy, a feature which often occurs in Jewish narrative literature (cf Gen. 4 and following; Mt. 1.1-17 and Lk. 3.23-38). According to his own information, Josephus stems from a noble priestly family having ancestors far back in time. He belonged to the first of the 24 priestly classes, and again within this class to the group of the most noble families. Josephus stresses that it was particularly those of priestly descent of who were considered by the Jews as being the highest in rank (Vita 1). In his other works, we also find repeated references which emphasize his noble, priestly descent (e.g. Bell. 1.3; 3.352; 5.419; Ant. 15.418; 16.387; Ap. 1.54). However, Josephus is also of royal family, namely, on his mother's side. In Vita 2-4, he relates that his grandfather married a daughter of the Hasmonaean high priest, Jonathan (161-143 BCE), and when at a later time, approximately the year 100, the Hasmonaean family adopted the regal title, it was thereafter recognized as being royal, at least during the time of Josephus. This informafion is confirmed in passing by a similar reference found in Ant. 16.187. Here, Josephus criticizes the historical writer, Nicolas from Damascus for being uncritical in his description of Herod the Great. Contrary to this, Josephus proclaims himself to be an author who, in spite of his relationship to the Hasmonaean kings, nevertheless regarded truth as being more important than pleasing them, although this attitude caused him much discomfort. Josephus' information regarding his aristocratic descent is confirmed by Suetonius, who in Vesp. 5.6 describes him as 'one of the captured noblemen' (et unus ex nobiUbus captivis). A regular genealogy follows in Vita 3-6. Josephus' great-great-great

2. Life History

29

grandfather, Simon, hved at the time of John Hyrcanus (135-104). One of Simon's sons was named Matthias, and it was he who married the daughter of Jonathan mentioned above. In Hyrcanus' first regnal year (135), Matthias had a son, also called Matthias. This Matthias had a son bom in the ninth regnal year (68-67) of Queen Salome Alexandra (76-67); he was named Joseph. As late as during the tenth regnal year (5-6 CE) of King Archelaus (4 BCE-6 CE), this Joseph became the father of a son Matthias. This Matthias was the father of Joseph/Josephus. In his turn, Josephus became the father of three sons, Hyrcanus, Justus and Agrippa, bora in the years 73, 76 and 78 (Vita 5-6). In Vita 6, Josephus mentions that this genealogy is rendered just as he himself had found it in the 'pubUc registers' in Jerusalem, presumably before the city was destroyed in the year 70. He also mentions that he has written his genealogy as a defence against 'the would-be detractors of my family'. In the following, such vague references to Josephus' opponents will be encountered several times. They are reminiscent of Paul's manner of describing his enemies. In particular. Vita 3-6 reminds one of Phil. 3.4-6. It is quite apparent from the genealogy that, to a high degree, the names recur and that these names are 'Hasmonaean' (cf. especially Matthias, but also Simon and Hyrcanus). In Vita 7, Josephus emphasizes that his father was a distinguished and famous man, both owing to his family and to his 'upright character'. Later, in Bell. 5, in his rendering of the two speeches which he claims to have made to the inhabitants of Jemsalem during the siege, Josephus reverts to his 'noble' family who at the time were inside the besieged city. In Bell. 5.419, for example, he states: I know that I have a mother, a wife, a not ignoble family, and an ancient and illustrious house involved in these perils.

And tme enough, in Bell. 5.533 and 544, it is mentioned that slightly later the rebels imprisoned both his father and his mother. Josephus was born in the first regnal year of Emperor Caligula (37-41), i.e. the year 37-38 {Vita 5). Apparently, the family lived in Jemsalem (cf the above mentioned Bell. 5.419, 533, 544 and 1.3 where Josephus unambiguously writes that he is the 'son of Matthias', a 'priest' from 'Jemsalem'). Josephus grew up in Jemsalem together with his brother Matthias {Vita 8). He made significant strides in his education and won a reputation for 'an excellent

30


memory and understanding' {Vita 8). Thus, when Josephus was only 14 years of age, he was praised for his enthusiasm for learned pursuits, and the high priests and dignitaries of the city, as it is stated, 'constantly' came to Josephus for his advice on matters concerning the interpretation of paragraphs in the laws {Vita 9). Here, we are confronted with one of several parallels to the story in the Gospel of Luke (2.41-52) about Jesus in the Temple at the age of 12, apparently an itinerant legend about the chosen wonder-child. At the age of 16, Josephus made a personal decision to acquaint himself with the Jewish schools or parties of which he counted three, the Pharisees, which was the largest, the Sadducees and the Essenes {Vita 10). At the same time, Josephus refers his readers to the places in his writings in which he previously had defined these three observances more closely. First and foremost, this reference must apply to Bell. 2.119-166; Ant. 13.171-173, 297-298; 18.11-22. His purpose in frequenting these three groups was that after he had acquainted himself well with all three of them he would be in a position to 'select the best' {Vita 10). Josephus did study them, but he was still not satisfied with the knowledge he had gained: N o t content, however, with the experience thus gained, o n hearing o f one n a m e d Bannus, w h o dwelt in the wilderness, wearing only such clothing as trees provided, feeding on such things as grew o f themselves, and using frequent ablutions o f cold water, by day and night, for purity's sake, I became his devoted disciple {Vita 1 1 ) .

Josephus became the disciple of this ascetic, and he Uved with him in the desert for three years. This story is closely reminiscent of the information about John the Baptist we have in the New Testament and similarly of the information in the Dead Sea Scrolls about the congregation at Qumran. After he had satisfied his urge for this kind of life, Josephus returned to Jerusalem {Vita 11-12). By now Josephus was 19 years of age. At this time, he decided to foUow the school of the Pharisees which as he teUs us resembles 'that which the Greeks caU the Stoic school'. With this experience, he began to participate in the pubUc life of Jerusalem {Vita 12). Six or seven years transpired about which Josephus has nothing to relate in Vita. But when he was 26 years of age, he was called upon to make an important diplomatic journey to Rome. It so happened that Procurator Felix (52-60) had imprisoned some priests and had them sent to Rome for reasons which Josephus considered to be incidental and insignificant trifles, but on which he does not elaborate. These

2. Life History

31

priests were not only worthy people, they were also friends of Josephus. In Rome, they were called upon to defend themselves before Emperor Nero (54-68), as was the custom (and which also happened frequently in Palestine). One of the best-known examples of this is when Paul, according to Acts 25.1-11, personally appjealed before the tribunal of the emperor, and was sent to Rome. Josephus wanted to rescue the priests, especiaUy after he learned that even during their sufierings they did not neglect the meticulous worship of God. They survived by eating only figs and nuts, and thereby during their captivity they were able to avoid transgressing the Jewish dietary laws {Vita 14). So Josephus started on his journey, but on the way he met with many dangers. In ancient times, sailing was very dangerous, and for the Jews who were confirmed landlubbers it was the worst possible trial. Worse came when during the night Josephus' ship sank in the middle of the Adriatic Sea. AU 600 of the people on board had to swim aU night, but at daybreak, 'through God's good providence' a Cypriot ship appeared {Vita 15). Josephus and some of the others, about 80 in aU, 'outstripped the others' and were rescued on board this ship. Josephus' story about his miraculous rescue at sea is reminiscent partly of the story about Jonah, and partly of the narration in Acts 27.27-44 concerning Paul's shipwreck and rescue on his journey over the same route to Rome (cf also 2 Cor. 11.25). Thus, Josephus reached Rome safely. Here, he became fiiends with a Jewish actor caUed AUtyrus, who was Nero's favourite. AUtyrus introduced Josephus to Poppaea Sabina who at first (from 58) was Nero's mistress and later (62) became his wife. Similar to other distinguished Romans, this Poppaea appears to have been fascinated by Judaism. According to Ant. 20.195, she is described as being 'a worshipper of God' and she is also said to have assisted the Jewish people. With the help of Poppaea, Josephus very soon succeeded in having the priests released from prison. He tells us that in addition to this good deed, Poppaea gave him many gifts. Thereafter, Josephus returned to his native country {Vita 16). Here, Josephus fotmd that there was already a strong revolutionary movement in progress, and that there were many Jews who were eager to start a revolt against Rome. Josephus tried to suppress the revolt, and he worked to persuade the rebels to change their minds. He writes that he urged them to reaUze against whom they would have to fight. He emphasized that not only were the Jews inferior to the Romans in matters of war and war tactics, they were also inferior

32


in 'good fortune' {Vita 17). Thus, Josephus warned them against bringing their country, their families and themselves headlong into a great catastrophe {Vita 17-18). As will be seen later, these ideas repeat, to a large extent, the main topics in the speech which Agrippa II (according to Bell. 2.345-401) made to the Jewish population in Jerusalem, at about the same time, namely just before the outbreak of the Revolt. Thus, Josephus eloquently tried to avert the Revolt, because as he states he had 'foreseen' that 'for us' the War would end in disaster {Vita 19). However, Josephus was unable to dissuade the rebels: 'The madness of these desperate men' was aU too strong for him. This concludes the information we have from Josephus about his life until the year 66. To some extent, the rendering follows estabhshed literary patterns {topoi). In his account, Josephus places the main emphasis on his genealogy, background and education. He lays stress on his priestly and aristocratic descent. He accentuates his soUd Jewish education which included traditional as well as more modern subjects. Finally, he emphasizes that already before the War, he played a poUtical role in Jerusalem and Judaea as well as in foreign policy. And, not least, he underUnes his knowledge of Rome which he acquired on his diplomatic mission. However, by now it is evident that there are long intervals in his Ufe which are not accounted for. AU of his childhood is missing. Also the important period from his 20th to his 27th year. Therefore, it can hardly be true that Josephus intended to write an ordinary biography in Vita. He has included only that which was important to him in the situation at the time. Thus, the question arises about the nature and purpose of Vita, a question which we wiU address in Chapter 3, section 4. Literature Special reference is made to Radin's article on Josephus' genealogy, and to Rajak

(1983),

development.

pp. 1 1 - 4 5 , See

concerning

also Feldman's

Josephus'

bibliography

education

and

( 1 9 8 4 a ) , pp. 7 9 - 8 4 ,

family,

with

annotated references to the latest hterature. Smallwood ( 1 9 5 9 ) attempts to show that Poppaea Sabina did not necessarily have articulated Jewish sympathies, i.e. in the 'technical' sense that she was ' G o d fearing', but that the expressions used in Vita

16 and Ant.

2 0 . 1 9 5 can be interpreted to

characterize her as being interested in religion in general. In both cases, however, the context seems to support the traditional imderstanding o f these passages.

2. Life History

33

3. The situation in Palestine in 66 We have just heard that when Josephus returned from Rome he tried to suppress the Revolt {Vita 17-19). This remark leads us into the midst of the seething situation which existed in Palestine, and especially in Jerusalem during the months preceding the outbreak of the War in the early summer of 66. This period is of decisive importance, and in order to elucidate it more closely and thereby the reasons behind the Jewish Revolt (first and foremost on the basis of Bell. 2.218-555; Ant. 20.97-258), we will present a brief sketch of the developments leading up to the War. From the beginning, the relationship between Rome and the Jews in Palestine was tense. From the time of Pompey's conquest of the country in the year 63 BCE through the period of the reign of Herod the Great and his sons and until the period of the rule of the Roman procurators or prefects, there were frequent, severe tensions. In the beginning, there were several outright wars; at the time of Herod frequent periods of strained peace; and later murmurs of insurgency which ofi;en led to outright confrontations. However, at the same time conditions were highly dependent upon the Roman leadership, primarly the emperor himself. While the situation under Augustus (31 BCE-14 CE) appeared to have been good, during the rule of Tiberius (14-37) several conflicts occurred, especially in the period (26-36) when Pilate was governor of the country. Here, Josephus, supported by Philo, describes the strong Jewish reaction when Pilate, on one occasion, had the Roman standards conducted into Jerusalem, and on another occasion, had illegally taken money from the temple taxes in order to build a water conduit {Bell. 2.169-177; Ant. 18.55-89; Philo, Legatio ad Gaium 299-305, who describes a similar controversy). Under Gains Caligula (37-41), the emperor planned to erect a statue of himself in the Temple of Jerusalem, and this led to an even more serious conflict. Had the emperor not been murdered during this conflict, it could easily have developed into an open revok {Bell. 2.181-203; Ant. 18.257-309). During the reign of Claudius (41-54), peace was restored in Jewish Palestine, primarily because this emperor, ofi;en contrary to the Roman officials on the scene, proved his wiUingness to be considerate towards the Jews. Immediately afl:er Claudius took over the government, he intervened in the strife between the Jews and the 'Greeks' in Alexandria and in other places. According to Ant. 19.278-291, on this occasion he proclaimed edicts which permitted the Jews in the 'Greek' cities to

34


observe their own inherited laws and traditions. Moreover, under Governor Fadus (44-46), we learn that he ordained that the official robe of the chief priest should be taken to the Antonia fortress where it would be kept under Roman surveillance {Ant. 20.6-14). This was a measure which the Jews found an intolerable interference in their rehgious and national life. Therefore, via the legate in Syria, Cassius Longjnus, they appealed to Emperor Claudius, who on the intercession of Agrippa I acceded to the Jews' requests. At the same time, it is our impression that Fadus as well as his successor Tiberius Alexander (46-48) firmly suppressed the rebellious Jewish elements {Ant. 20.2-5, 97-102). Again during the rule of Governor Cumanus (48-52), we hear about renewed interventions against the Jews. The Jews reacted in protest against them as well as by taking actions. However, thanks to the Roman legate in Syria, and later Emperor Claudius himself, to whom the Jews renewed their appeal, these confficts were settled peacefiilly {Bell. 2.223-246; Ant. 20.105-136). At this point, however, it is aheady evident that there were two Jewish parties, an upper-class faction which was prepared to acquiesce to the Roman occupation, and in consequence consistently resorted to diplomatic solutions, and a more rebelUous people's party which preferred to take immediate and direct action against the Roman infringements {Bell. 2.234-240; Ant. 20.120-123). During the reign of Emperor Nero (54-68), however, matters became much worse. Under Governor Felix (52-60), we are aware of an intensified anti-Roman activity, whether it was made by the 'bandits', the Sicarii who are said to appear at this time {Bell. 2.254257) or by the 'false prophets' Uke the so-caUed Egyptian {Bell. 2.253265; Ant. 20.160-172). The social and economic aspects of the conflict became increasingly evident (cf. esp. Ant. 20.179-181 and 206-207). Moreover, the references to the 'false prophets' witness that part of the opposition against Rome had reUgious motives {Bell. 2.258-263; Ant. 20.167-172). Another imjxjrtant factor from this period is the confficts between the Jewish and the non-Jewish population in Palestine. ActuaUy, Josephus teUs us about the conffict between the Jews and the non-Jews in Caesarea {Bell. 2.266-270, 284-292; Ant. 20.173-178, 182-184). This conffict is temporarily settled by FeUx against the interests of the Jews, whereupon they appeal their case to the emperor's court. All of these tensions and confrontations are intensified under the foUowing governors, Festus (60-62) and Albinus (62-64). From Josephus' account we receive the impression that the poUtical and social order in the country graduaUy

2. Life History

35

disintegrates, and in consequence the groups of Jewish rebels become increasingly strong {Bell. 2.271-276; Ant. 20.182-215). During the rule of the last governor, Florus (64-66), these developments come to a head. According to Josephus, Florus is not able to remain neutral, but repeatedly takes sides against the Jewish population, e.g. in Caesarea {Bell. 2.284-292). He also offends the religious feelings of the Jews by using money from the temple taxes {Bel. 2.293-296) as seen earUer in the time of Pilate. Time after time, Florus strikes mercilessly against the Jewish population {Bell. 2.227-335; cf Ant. 20.252-258). This poUcy by Florus only serves to incite the Jewish rebels, while at the same time it becomes increasingly diflBcult for the pro-Roman Jews to avoid the fatal development towards open war. We repeatedly hear of distinguished people, such as priests, members of the Senate and Agrippa II who, exactly Uke Josephus, tried to subdue the tempers in order to avoid the threatening disaster {Bell. 2.315-324). But the movement was so far advanced that it was impossible to avert disaster. The party for peace suffered continual defeat, while the war party gained ground and by a series of significant actions in the spring of 66—the conquest of Masada, the interruption of the daily offerings to the emperor and the Roman people in the Temple of Jerusalem, the conquest of Antonia and the Palace of Herod {Bell. 2.408-440)—the rebels forced their way forward to the point where there seemed no way back. AU these events took place during the spring and early summer of 66. The state of war which actually existed now forced the Roman legate in Syria, Cestius GaUus, to whom the Jews had previusly, unsuccessfiiUy, complained about Florus {Bell. 2.280-283, 333344), at long last to intervene effectively. In August-September, he advanced with a large army down along the coast to Ptolemais from where he subjugated GaUlee {Bell. 2.499ff.). From here he moved on to Caesarea, Joppa, Lydda, Antipatris and Jerusalem. However, for various reasons, this campaign developed into a disaster for the Romans. While it is true that Gallus attacked Jerusalem in November 66, he withdrew his siege very quickly, perhaps because of the oncoming winter, and he started his retreat. During his retreat, he was attacked by the Jewish forces. Owing to the difficult terrain on their way down fi-om the central part of the Judaean highland to the coastal plain, the latter succeeded in routing practically the entire army and in deaUng a very serious defeat to Rome. By this victory the internal Jewish conffict had come to an end, at

36


least for a while. Those opposed to war were in a difficult position: they had either to flee or to acquiesce and comply with the situation. For a while, the Jewish cause appeared to be united {Bell. 2.533, 556, 562; cf 1.4). Following his retreat, Gallus reported to Nero. During his sojourn in Greece in December 66-January 67, the emperor appointed Vespasian to conduct the Roman reconquest of the rebelUous Jewish Palestine. In the course of the foUowing months, Vespasian assembled his army and, after the rainy season, advanced southwards to GaUlee in April and May, whereafter the reconquest proceeded along its long and cumbersome path. The outbreak of war in the early summer of 66 must be looked upon as the result of a long and complex process in which the failure of the Romans to take account of the specific traditions and customs of the Palestinian Jews seems to have played a decisive role. EspeciaUy after Claudius, as things developed, the result was a series of serious confficts—between Jews and Romans, between Jews and non-Jews in Palestine, and between the two major Jewish factions. These confficts were vastly intensified during the latter phase of Nero's reign. When turning to Josephus' account of his activities in GaUlee in the year 66-67, the last mentioned of these confficts is of particular significance. Literature For a closer review o f the situation in Palesune in the years leading up to the outbreak o f the W a r , I refer to the customary handbooks, primarily Schurer, I, p p . 5 6 4 - 8 5 ; Vermes

&

MiUar, I, pp. 4 5 5 - 7 0 ;

and SmaUwood

(1976),

pp. 2 5 6 - 9 2 . G o o d accounts wiU also be found in Rajak ( 1 9 8 3 ) , pp. 6 5 - 7 7 and 1 0 4 - 4 3 ; and Rhoads, pp. 6 8 - 9 3 . Relevant arucles are those by B n m t (on the social factor), Horsley ([1979a] and [1981] on the 'bandits'), B a m e t t , Hill and Horsley

([1984]

on

the Messianic

prophets)

and

Gichon

(on

GaUus'

campaign). Josephus' particular understanding and interpretation o f the prelude to the Revolt is analyzed by M o e h r i n g ( 1 9 8 4 ) , pp. 9 0 2 - 9 0 7 .

4. Josephus in Galilee in 66-67 The source material for this important period in Josephus' life, when he played a significant role in GaUlee, is abundant. It comprises the major part of Vita, namely, the paragraphs (20) 28-413, and a long passage in Bell., namely, 2.(556)568-647. In addition, there are several other secUons in Bell. 3, namely, 3.29-43, 59-63 and parUcularly the long section about the siege and conquest of Jotapata, 3.110-408.

2. Life History

37

Supplementary material is found only in the previously mentioned reference in Suetonius {Vesp. 5.6). a. Josephus in Jerusalem in 66 In the above account, we have heard that when Josephus returned from Rome he tried to suppress the threatening rebellion {Vita 1719). On the basis of this attitude, he must have feared that he was in danger of being accused of treason. Therefore, like other aristocrats having the same attitude towards the Revolt, Josephus sought reflige (cf Bell. 2.406-407, 425-429). He hid 'in the inner court of the Temple' {Vita 20), but when Menahem—conqueror of Masada and leader of the Jerusalem Revolt in the summer of 66—was murdered during an internal clash between various groups of the war party (Bell. 2.433-448), Josephus ventured forth and conspired with the high priests and the leading Pharisees {Vita 21; cf Bell. 2.411, 455456, 523-526, 533). However, faced by the rebeUious, armed people they were still powerless {Vita 22; cf Bell. 2.455-456). Therefore, they decided to pretend that they were on the side of the rebels, but advised them to resort to a delaying and defensive Jewish policy, while they themselves were hoping that Cestius Gallus would arrive in Jerusalem in time to crush the Revolt at its start {Vita 22-23). Gallus did come, but as we have seen, he could not conquer Jerusalem. He decided to withdraw and during his retreat he suffered nearly total defeat. Josephus describes this 'victory' as being 'disastrous to our whole nation', because it led the Jews to believe that in the fliture it would also be possible for them to gain victory over the Romans and thus restore their national independence {Vita 24; cf the account in Bell. 2, esp. 2.539). The War was now inevitable. It was also precipitated by the bitter combats between the Jewish and non-Jewish populations in the Hellenistic cities in Palestine and Syria and by the terrible massacres of the Jewish minorities in many of these places {Vita 25-27; cf. Bell. 2.457-483, to which Josephus refers in Vita 27). For the Jewish war party the revolt against Rome and the clash between it and the proRoman and often anti-Semitic Hellenistic city population in Palestine were two sides of the basic struggle between Judaism and Hellenism which had prevailed ever since the days of the Maccabees. In Vita 27, Josephus remarks about these battles: I merely allude to them here from a desire to convince m y readers that the war with the R o m a n s

was due not so m u c h to the

deUberate choice o f the Jews as to necessity.

38


After the defeat of Cestius Gallus, some of the pro-Roman aristocrats fled from Jerusalem {Bell. 2.256). Most of them, however, seem to have remained in the city although they feared that without weapons they would be crushed by the rebels {Vita 28). This actually happened at a later time. Now that they reaUzed that Gahlee as a whole had not yet revolted, according to Vita 28-30, they sent Josephus and two priests to this part of the country on a mission to persuade the rebels there to lay down their weapons and hand them over to the party of 'nobles' who would then let matters take their course. In Bell. 2.(556)562-568, however, we read a different version of these events. Here, it states that after Gallus' defeat the Jewish rebels won the remaining pro-Roman Jews over to their party, either by persuasion or by force {Bell. 2.562). Thereafter, at a national assembly in Jerusalem, generals were appointed whose task it would be to organize the defence of the country. Surprisingly, Josephus was placed in command of the two parts of Gahlee as well as Gamala {Bell. 2.268, an account which is confirmed in Ap. 1.48). The question arises now as to whether it is possible to correlate these two versions. Was Josephus ofliciaUy elected to the posts of general and governor of Galilee? Was he delegated by the aristocratic party to protect its interests in this region? Or is there a third possibihty? Was he, perhaps, a loyal supporter of the revolution to begin with but later changed his mind and then tried to pre-date his second standpoint to make it appear to be his first? The answer to these questions is of fimdamental importance to the understanding of Josephus, his life history and his writings. As it will be seen later, these questions have naturally divided opinions in the history of research. In order to arrive at a prehminary answer to them, we will undertake a study of the accounts in Bell, and Vita which describe the events in Galilee. Literature Comprehensive reviews covering the soluuons to these problems can be found in S.J.D. C o h e n ( 1 9 7 9 ) , pp. 8 - 2 3 ; Feldman ( 1 9 8 4 a ) , pp. 8 4 - 8 7 and ( 1 9 8 4 b ) , pp. 7 8 2 - 8 4 ; Bilde ( 1 9 8 3 a ) , note II, 97 (pp. 2 0 9 - 1 1 ) . T h e attempts at soluuons presented are reviewed and discussed farther in Chapter 5, section 1, below.

b. The two accounts in Bell, and Vita The accounts in Bell, and Vita vary a great deal. To some extent, they concern different periods and events. Moreover, Bell's version is

2. Life History

39

much shorter, more systematic and quite naturally it has a more 'oflBcial' character than that of Vita. In Bell., Josephus describes his administrative measures in Galilee, his fortification of suitable cities and places and tells us about his recruitment of a large local army and its meticulous training {Bell. 2.569-584). Having done this, he continues with an account of the conflicts in Galilee in which he was called upx)n to fight against the competitive local leaders such as Justus from Tiberias and, in particular, John of Gischala, as well as groups and cities having completely difierent interests {Bell. 2.585647). On the other hand, in Vita, Josephus immediately begins with an account of these irmumerable and endless conflicts {Vita 30ff".), Actually, this account is interrupted only by 336-367, where Josephus explains his relationship to Justus of Tiberias who apparently accused Josephus of being responsible for the fact that Tiberias defected from Rome and Agrippa II, and took part in the Revolt {Vita 340, 350, 352). At the same time, Justus has apparently criticized Josephus' account of the War in Bell. {Vita 338, 357ff.). In Vita 336-337, Josephus makes his own position very clear with regard to both of these accusations. On the basis of the two different versions in Bell, and Vita, scholars have often assumed that the account in Vita might have been influenced by Josephus' apologetic attempt to reduce his coresponsibiUty for the War, whereas in Bell., he might have come much closer to the historical reaUty. Many scholars, first and foremost S.D.J. Cohen, assume that originally Josephus was indeed a whole-hearted supporter of the Revolt. This question cannot be fiiUy dealt with until Chapter 3, where a review of these two works. Bell. and Vita, will be presented. Without anticipating the results of this investigation entirely, it can be said that this theory can hardly sustain a closer analysis. The main arguments are as follows. In the first place, Josephus does not conceal his active participation in the War against Rome. In the second place, we have already ascertained above that in Bell., we come across the same indications of Josephus' reservations towards the War that characterize Vita. Actually, both of the works are marked by the same central themes and the same fimdamental attitude: (1) a cautious and moderate policy on the part of Josephus, (2) his predictions of the outcome of the War, (3) the resulting accusations of treason made against him which were advanced by the most avid rebels, and (4) his conflicts with other

40


groups and persons in Galilee. Thus, the situation is more complicated than is immediately evident, and to understand the role which Josephus actually played in Gahlee, we find it necessary to examine the situation in this part of the country more closely. c. The situation in Galilee The primary impression we receive from Josephus' two versions is the picture of strife and dissension in GaUlee. It closely resembles that which we have just outUned concerning the situation in Judaea and Jerusalem in the time preceding the outbreak of the War, and in particular what is found in Bell. 4-5 concerning the situation in the besieged Jerusalem and the subsequent phases of the War. We see before us a varied image of GaUlee's various cities, districts, leading persons and of the different interests and convictions which influenced the area. According to Josephus, the more important ciues are Sepphoris, Tiberias, Tarichaea, Gamala, Gischala, Gabara and Jotapata (see map). The accoimts in Bell, and Vita reflect a competiuve relationship between Sepphoris and Tiberias which were the two largest cities of GaUlee. Moreover, it is impUed that there was a conflict of interest between the two large cities by the Lake of Gennesaret, Tiberias and Tarichaea {Bell. 2.604-609; Vita 136-144). Gischala Ues by itself in the northern, upper region of GaUlee, and this city is poUticaUy completely dominated by the forcefiil local personage, John. Outside of the cities, we encounter the large rural population, the 'Galileans' (cf Bell. 2.621-622, where Josephus expUcitly identifies these two groups). In both accounts, the general theme is that the 'GaUleans' are in strong opposition to the cities. In Vita 384, it is stated: 'For they had the same detestation for the Tiberians as for the inhabitants of Sepphoris'. If we ask about the relationship to Rome and the Jewish Revolt, we find that here again the situation is very complex. The position of Sepphoris is most clearly indicated because this city seems to have been on the side of Rome throughout aU of the controversy {Bell. 2.511; 3.30-34, 59-62; Vita 30-31, 346-348, 394ff.). On the other hand, aU we hear about Tarichaea is that this city was in favour of the Revolt (e.g. Vita 406), although expUcit assertions to this effect are scarce. With regard to Gischala, we are told that in the begirming this city appears to have been in favour of the Revolt, but that this poUcy was opposed by John {Vita 43). It was not until later, when the city

2. Life History

41

had been exposed to attacks from its neighbouring Hellenistic cities, that Gischala unanimously declared itself to be in favour of the Revolt {Vita 44-45, 70-73). Gamala adhered to Rome for a long time {Vita 46-61). But thereafter, various controversies and conflicts led to the result that this city also changed its poUcy {Vita 179-188; cf. Bell. 4.4-53 concerning the conquest of the city). The fullest and also the most complicated picture we are given is that of the situation in Tiberias. According to Vita 32-42, there were three poUtical wings in this city: a 'conservative' wing which supported Rome and King Agrippa II, who, according to Bell. 2.252 and Ant. 20.159, in the year 54 had Tiberias, Tarichaea and (Bethsaida) JuUas added to his domain. Next, there was a 'proletarian' party led by Jesus ben Sapphias {Vita 35, 66), and finaUy, a group in between of major importance which was led by Pistus and his son Justus. Apparently, this group was primarily interested in regaining and securing Tiberias' status as the foremost city in GaUlee {Vita 36ff.). Whereas in the beginning Tiberias, in Une with Sepphoris, Gischala and Gamala, adhered firmly to Rome (and the king), later the middle party chose to change its poUcy and join the 'GaUleans' in support of the Revolt {Vita 39-42, 390-391). At an even later date, under the leadership of Justus and the same party, Tiberias changed its poUcy again. Apparently, owing to a rivalry between Justus and Josephus, the city decided to return to the jurisdiction of the king {Bell. 2.6320".; Vita 155fi"., 392-393). It appears that Tiberias had changed position yet again {Vita 352-353; Bell. 3.445-461). Thus, it looks as if cities as weU as local leaders swayed in their attitudes towards Rome and the Jewish Revolt to a considerable extent. If we turn to the rural population, the 'GaUleans', there are signs which indicate that they were avid supporters of the Revolt. According to Vita 30, the 'GaUleans' were in opposition to the proRoman Sepphoris. This corresponds to Vita 39, which renders part of Justus' speech in favour of Tiberias' participation in the War. Justus is here quoted as saying: 'Now is the time to take up arms and join the "GaUleans"'. Josephus' narrative concerning the so-called Dabarittha episode {Vita 126ff.) points in the same direction. A royal caravan was attacked and plundered by the 'revolutionaries' who came from the village of Dabarittha. They brought the spoils to Josephus who against their wiU wanted to keep the stolen goods in custody in order to return them to the owner (Agrippa II's official, Ptolemaeus) at a given opportunity. This reaction led to accusations against Josephus for treason, and it nearly cost him his Ufe. In this

42


situation, the 'GaUleans' are found among Josephus' 'revolutionary' opponents {Vita 143). These references, together with a few others such as Bell. 4.558, have moved scholars Uke ZeitUn and Loftus to advance the theory that in Josephus' writings, 'GaUleans' does not designate the common rural population, but the rebelUous and prowar party in this part of the country. This theory is also logicaUy related to the widespread presumption that GaUlee was particularly a centre for the opposition against Rome. However, the picture is even more compUcated. In Vita 206-207, there can hardly be a doubt that 'GaUleans' designates precisely GaUlee's conmion rural population (cf. also Vita 237, 242-243, 311), and in Vita 206, they are expressly described as being in opposition to the 'bandits', which is otherwise one of Josephus' favoured designations for the rebels. In this sense of the word, the 'GaUleans' appear aU throughout Vita as being Josephus' most faithflil supporters {Vita 84, 125, 210-211, 237, 340 etc.). They are said to have supported him in his conflicts with Tiberias {Vita 97100, 381-384), Sepphoris {Vita 375-380) and John of Gischala {Vita 102-103, 304-308, 3683".). Moreover, in Josephus' confliict with a govenunent commission from Jerusalem which John of Gischala had instigated for the purpose of controlUng and deposing, Josephus {Vita 189ff.), according to Josephus, the 'GaUleans' Ukewise are found to be his faithftil supporters {Vita 204-212, 2303".). Thus, in general, 'Galileans' seems to designate the rural population of GaUlee rather than the party committed to war. Their standpoint can hardly be characterized as being unambiguous, because their attitude towards the Revolt and Rome is intersected by their opposition to the cities of GaUlee, to the 'bandits' and, perhaps, to the central government in Jerusalem. Thus, many difierent interests and attitudes prevailed in GaUlee. The leading cities were in competition with each other for the status of being the capital of this part of the country. The local leaders such as Justus, Jesus and John competed with each other, partly for power in the respective cities and partly for leadership in GaUlee, because they were not readily wilUng to accept Josephus who had been delegated by Jerusalem. In contrast to this, the rural population had its own interests. Traditionally, it was distrustfiil both of the cities in GaUlee and of Jerusalem, just as in Vita, it seems to be clearly separated from the 'bandits'. So much for the local interests. In addition to them there are the

2. Life History

43

national political interests. I n Galilee, apparently there existed a 'royal' party alongside of the two main groups, the aristocratic proRoman party and the people's party which was for the Revolt. These national political interests correspond partially to the religious groups. I n particular, it seems that the rebelUous group also seemed to represent a fanatic and isolationist interpretation of Judaism. I n Vita, we hear about the 'zealous' reUgious fanatics who demanded the removal of idols (64-69), compulsory circumcision of non-Jewish refugees (112-113) and strict observance of the Torah (134-135). At the same time, it is clear that not only Josephus, but the other parties as well, represented a different and less rigorous interpretation o f Judaism. ITtie national poUtical and reUgious convictions seem finaUy to correspond to the economic and social attitudes, exactly as was the case in Jerusalem. I n Vita 35, 66-68 and 134-35, we learn that the most rebelUous and most rigorous reUgious groups belonged t o the proletarian class in Tiberias. I n opposition to this party, we find the aristocratic party who maintain a position equally distinct. As i n Jerusalem and in other parts of the Roman Empire, the wealthy class in GaUlee were generaUy o n the side of Rome (and the king) {Vita 3234 and 386). But between these two clearly defined parties we find that according to both of Josephus' versions, the cities of GaUlee, the local leaders and the large rural population held a much less stable position and apparently they would sway back and forth between the national poUtical views, probably because their interests were primarily of a local nature. Literature Regarding the situauon in Galilee, I generally refer esp. to Freyne ( 1 9 8 0 ) , pp. 7 7 - 9 1

and 2 2 9 - 4 5 , and Rajak ( 1 9 8 3 ) , pp. 1 4 4 - 7 3 . T h e standpomt

of

Tiberias and Justus is discussed particularly by Rajak ( 1 9 7 3 ) , esp. pp. 3 4 6 5 4 . T h e theory concerning the 'GaUleans' as a pro-war party in Gahlee is presented by Zeitlin ( 1 9 7 3 - 1 9 7 4 ) and esp. supported by Loftus ( 1 9 7 4 - 1 9 7 5 ) . T h e theory that GaUlee was at aU a centre for the Jewish opposition against R o m e is presented e.g. b y Loftus ( 1 9 7 7 - 1 9 7 8 ) . B o t h o f these hypotheses are reviewed, discussed and opposed by Freyne ( 1 9 7 9 - 1 9 8 0 and 1 9 8 0 ) and Bilde ( 1 9 8 0 b ) , pp. 1 2 6 - 3 2 .

d. Josephus'policy in Galilee It is against this background that we shall attempt to understand Josephus' activities in GaUlee. Let us first consider his own testimony. Both in Bell, and Vita we hear that he was preparing the

44


defence of Galilee, and that later he had clashes with the Romans as well as the royal troops {Bell. 2.572-584, 647; Vita 62, 77,114ff., 187188, 398flF.). Furthermore, we hear that Josephus tries to keep control of all of Galilee. When Sepphoris, Gischala, Tiberias or other cities and districts attempt to withdraw from his control, he endeavours to maintain or regain the particular place. His basis for practising this poHcy appears to have been the rural population of Galilee, the 'GaUleans', and cities such as Tarichaea, Gabara and Jotapata. At the same time, we hear that Josephus attempts to subdue the most revolutionary, rebelUous or fanatical groups. He tries to pacify the 'bandits', namely, by hiring them as mercenaries {Vita 11-1^). He opposes the attempt by the reUgious fanatics to forcibly circumcise the 'royal' refligees {Vita 112-113, 149-154). Furthermore, we learn that he tries to maintain a good relationship to King Agrippa II. This is attested by the previously mentioned story and by the Dabarittha episode where Josephus asserts that he made a persistent effort to return the spoils to the king {Bell. 2.595ff.; Vita 126ff.). In a similar maimer, on a later occasion Josephus allowed an imprisoned royal delegate to escape and flee {Vita [381] 388-389). As a result of these actions, Josephus was accused of treason and several attacks on his life were made by the pro-war party {Bell. 2.594, 597ff.; Vita 132ff.). In the Ught of this and the above described situation in GaUlee, the general situation in Jewish Palestine in 66-67, and also of Josephus' quaUfications and general attitude, it is possible to draw an outUne of the poUcy which Josephus practised in GaUlee. In fact, to a large extent it seems to correspond to his own assertions both in Bell. 2 and Vita. It actuaUy appears to be a pro-Roman, but at the same time patriotic upper-class poUcy: Attempts are made to subdue the extremist forces; to remain in contact with the king and thereby with Rome; to preserve the entire area as a unity; to carry on a wait-andsee delaying poUcy, but primarily to attempt to maintain control of the population. Therefore, the necessary compromises are made and the defence against the expected counter-attack is in preparation. This poUcy corresponded to that which the high priest Ananus as head of government in Jerusalem (according to Bell. 2.651), attempted to practise in the capital. From a general historical evaluation, a poUcy Uke this might be said to have had even better chances of succeeding in GaUlee than in Jerusalem. The focal point and the centre of the Revolt was Jerusalem and Judaea, whereas, in

2. Life History

45

spite of the innumerable abortive attempts to prove the opposite, Galilee was in fact not influenced to any particular degree in the period before 66, nor did it display any particular resolute position against the Roman reconquest in 66-67. It would seem that this fact has now been firmly estabhshed by Freyne's comprehensive book on Gahlee. Therefore, Josephus is also right when, in Vita 28, he emphasizes that as a whole Gahlee had not yet engaged itself in the Revolt. In reaUty, this circumstance was the prerequisite for his own pohcy in this part of the country as well as for that of his aristocratic companions. Thus, it seems that Josephus actually did carry on such a waitand-see delaying, patriotic, upper-class pohcy in Gahlee. Therefore, it is not surprising that he was met with a great deal of suspicion, considerable opposition and several attempts at removing him or having him replaced. With the above as a background, we can return to the two versions in Bell, and Vita and the decisive questions concerning the nature of Josephus' ofiice in Gahlee and the attitude and pohcies he practised there in 66-67. There can hardly be any doubt that Josephus was legitimately appointed to his office. This is verified, not only by the version in Bell, and ffie word 'commanded' (estrategoun) found in Ap. 1.48 which was closely contemporary with Vita. Actually, it is also the content of Vita, which is characterized in particular by the account of the controversy as to whether Josephus should remain in office or be deposed (Vita 189-312). Therefore, ffie appointment as such may be said to have been well estabhshed, but it is not ffie formal appointment ffiat is decisive. It is raffier ffie question as to what Josephus himself and persons of ffie same opinion did, in fact, attempt to use this appointment for. Presumably, ffie appointment of Josephus, as was probably ffie case with regard to ffie appointments of ffie offier, primarily aristocratic leaders and generals, was eiffier directly staged by ffie peace party of the upper class, or else this party later usurped ffie offices distributed to pursue ffieir own goals. At any rate, it is a fact ffiat—like Ananus in Jerusalem—Josephus in Gahlee conducted ffie poUcy which he and his peers considered ffie only right and responsible procedure: to modify and make hmits to the Revolt; to preserve contact wiffi ffie offier side; to delay and andcipate a propitious opportunity to solve ffie dispute by negouaung wiffi Rome, e.g. via King Agrippa II. This evaluation corresponds to the contents of Vita 28-30 (cf. 175-

46


176). This means that the rendering in Vita must be accepted as being historically correct in so far as the description of Josephus' pohcy in Galilee is concerned. However, this does not mean that the rendering in Bell. 2 is incorrect. Quite simply, Josephus' appointment and pohcy is viewed and described from two different points of view in the two works, which are otherwise dominated by the same attitude towards Rome, the Revolt and the main persons involved. In Bell. 2, we are presented with the formal and official side of ffie matter, whereas in Vita Josephus gives us a look behind ffie scenes. Thus, ffiere are no grounds to assert ffiat Josephus (according to Bell.) in reaUty began as a loyal and eager participant in ffie Revolt, but later, owing to Justus' accusations, might have lost his courage and for this reason in Vita he might have attempted to conceal ffiis fact. This is fantasy and finds no basis in the texts. As menuoned above. Vita does not hide Josephus' active participation in ffie war against Rome, and Bell, is influenced by ffie same ffindamental reserve towards ffie Revolt as Vita (see also below in Chapter 3, sections 2 and 4). However, Josephus' poUcy in GaUlee was not successffil. That which from a subjective point of view might have had a chance to provide results was objectively doomed to failure. Neither Josephus nor Ananus were in a position to control ffie events in which ffiey were involved. Like his peers in Jerusalem, Josephus was caught in his own net of contrivance and by his own rhetoric. The Revolt and ffie War proceeded inexorably and could no longer be stopped. Therefore, when ffiere was no way back left to him, Josephus had to fight, and he did so, although, presumably, he never seriously beUeved in ffie possibihty of a Jewish victory (cf Bell. 3.130,193-196; Vita 19, 174ff., 388-389). Literature The

agreement between the two renderings in Bell,

and

Vita

and the

economic and social (determined b y class) basis for Josephus' pohcy is hkewise supported by Rajak ( 1 9 7 3 ) , pp. 3 5 1 - 5 4 , 3 5 6 and ( 1 9 8 3 ) , pp. 154flF. In opposition, e.g. S.J.D. C o h e n ( 1 9 7 9 ) , pp. 3-8 and 6 7 - 8 3 , and Freyne ( 1 9 8 0 ) , pp. 81flf., emphasize the conflict between Bell,

and

Vita.

And

whereas,

according to C o h e n ( 1 9 7 9 , pp. 183ff".), Josephus was a loyal supporter o f the Revolt, according to Freyne ( 1 9 8 0 , pp. 8 2 - 8 9 and 2 4 1 - 4 2 ) , he led a clear opportunistic policy while he was leader o f the Jewish defence against R o m e in this part o f the country. See also below in Chapter 4, sections 4 - 6 , and Chapter 5, section 1.

2. Life History

47

e. Josephus in Jotapata Although the main goal of Josephus' poUcy was not reached, he did manage to secure some of his secondary aims. According to Vita, he succeeded in retaining control over all of Gahlee. He repeatedly reconquered Sepphoris and Tiberias. He got the upper hand over John of Gischala and Justus of Tiberias, and he succeeded in preserving his office and having it confirmed by Jerusalem {yita 309-310). The confficts in Galilee were settled in February-March 67, and ffiereafter Josephus could turn his undivided attention to ffie preparation of the fight against Rome {Bell. 2.647; cf Vita 394-412). As soon as Vespasian advanced his army from Antioch to Ptolemais {Bell. 3.29; Vita 410), Sepphoris tore itself away from Josephus again and once more submitted itself to ffie rule of ffie Romans {Bell. 3.30-34; Vita 411; c f 373-380). The Romans stationed a garrison in ffie city which Josephus was attacking albeit wiffi htde success {Bell. 3.59-61; cf Vita 394-397, 411). This concludes ffie account in Vita, and for ffirffier information about ffie campaign in Gahlee, we shall now have to rely on Bell. 3. According to this account, Gahlee is now seriously struck by ffie misfortunes of ffie War. In ffie beginning, the Romans advance cautiously and ffiere are several prehminary skirmishes between ffiem and Josephus. Thereupon, Vespasian casts larger troops into ffie War. They attack, conquer and lay Gabara in ruins. Vespasian ffien advances against Jotapata which after a long siege is conquered in July of 67. Next in fine, are Tiberias, Tarichaea, Gamala, Tabor and, finally, Gischala which John surrenders wiffiout defensive action {Bell. 3.59-4.120). At this point, we shall let this matter rest and instead concentrate on what Josephus has to tell about his own destiny. In the early spring of 67, Vespasian's troops had a measure of success. However, it soon became necessary for ffie Romans to conquer Jotapata, which Ues in ffie western mountainous area of Gahlee and ffiere—so to speak—bars entrance from Ptolemais, which was ffie Roman base, to ffie hinterland which ffie Romans intended to conquer. Therefore, early in June, Vespasian moved his troops against ffiis city. At this time, Josephus had retreated to Tiberias from where he reported ffie situation to Jerusalem {Bell. 3.131-141). On receiving ffie information about Vespasian's moves, Josephus immediately left Tiberias and arrived in Jotapata {Bell. 3.142-144).

48


A detailed account of the siege of Jotapata, its defence and conquest follows. This is one of the highhghts in Bell., an account which is comparable to the famous descriptions of the Roman conquests of Gamala, Jerusalem and Masada. The narration is introduced by a description of the arrival of the Romans and their first attack. Then follows a vivid description of Jotapata's location accompanied by an extraordinarily dramatic account of the siege itself. Josephus relates that in the midst of this he reahzed that the city would not be able to withstand the siege. He, therefore, proposed to the leaders of the city that he himself should flee with the purpose either to obtain help from outside or else to try to lure the Romans away from the siege (Bell. 3.193-206). The proposal was rejected, and Josephus saw himself forced to remain and with renewed energy he engaged himself in leading the defence of the city. On 8th July, the Romans launched a general attack, but after heavy fighting, that too was repelled {Bell. 3.253-282). On 20th July, the attackers made a renewed attempt, and owing to a case of treason, on that day the Romans succeeded in taking the city by a surprise attack which took place very early in the morning {Bell. 3.316-339). According to Josephus, all male inhabitants were cut down, altogether 40,000 people lost their fives, 1200 were taken prisoners and the city was burnt and razed to the ground {Bell. 3.336-339). This treatment was harsh, but equivalent to Roman practice towards subjugated nations as well as allies in cases where they had rebelled. But in the course of the decisive attack, Josephus disappeared and after the sack of the city he seemed to have vanished from the face of the earth {Bell. 3.340). He tells us that—'aided by some divine providence'—during the disturbance in the morning, he had been fortunate enough to escape from the enemy and jump down into a pit at the bottom of which, as seen from above, there was no visible access to a subterranean cave. Here he had hidden together with 40 other distinguished persons. For two days, they succeeded in hiding, but on the third day they were betrayed by a woman in the group {Bell. 3.341-344). Vespasian then sent two oflBcers there to persuade Josephus to come forth voluntarily and surrender. Josephus refiised to do this in fear of the consequences {Bell. 3.344-346). Following this, Vespasian despatched a certain Nicanor who was already acquainted with Josephus. But Josephus was still reluctant {Bell. 3.346-350): B u t as Nicanor was urgendy pressing his proposals and Josephus

2. Life History

49

overheard die direats o f die hosdle crowd [die R o m a n soldiers; c f 3 , 3 5 0 ] , suddenly diere came back into his m i n d those nighdy dreams, in which G o d had foretold h i m the impending fate o f the Jews and the destinies o f the R o m a n sovereigns. H e interpreter o f dreams

was

an

and skilled in divining the meaning

of

ambiguous utterances o f the D e i t y ; a priest himself and o f priesdy descent, he was not ignorant o f the prophecies in the sacred books. A t that hour he was inspired to read their meaning, and, recalling the dreadflil images o f his recent dreams, he offered u p a silent prayer to G o d . 'Since it pleases thee', so it ran, 'who didst create the Jewish n a d o n to break thy work, since fortime has wholly passed to the R o m a n s , and since thou has made choice o f m y spirit to announce the things that are to c o m e , I wiUingly surrender to the R o m a n s and consent to hve; but I take thee to witness that 1 go, not as a traitor, but as thy minister' {Bell.

3.351-354).

Thereafter, Josephus intended to surrender, but his countrymen prevented him fi-om doing so and gave him the choice between dying as a Jewish general by his own hand, or dying as a traitor, and in that case, by their swords. Josephus responded by giving a long and philosophical speech about the impiety and lawlessness of suicide {Bell. 3.361-382). In his speech, Josephus declares that suicide is both against the laws of nature and against the law of God. However, his companions were not prepared to be convinced. As it is said, they had 'long since devoted themselves to death' {Bell. 3,384), a tradition and a custom which we recognize in both Jewish and non-Jewish circles. Thereupon, they were infliriated at Josephus and they attempted to Idll him {Bell. 3.384-386). However, Josephus succeeded in saving his life. First by his 'general's eye of command' (cf e.g. Livy, Hist. 8.32). Next, 'trusting to God's protection, he put his hfe to the hazard'. Josephus proposed that they should draw lots among each other in order to avoid the sinfiil suicide {Bell. 3.387-388). As the lots fell they were to kill each other until the last one who would then have to take his own hfe. For it would be unjust that, when the rest were gone, any should repent and escape {Bell.

3.389).

The others beheved Josephus, accepted this proposal and they began to draw lots, thereupon kilhng each other in the firm behef that their leader would share their fate. H e , however, (should one say by fortune or)^ by the providence o f G o d was left alone with one other; and anxious neither to be

50

Flavius Josephus, between Jerusalem and Rome condemned by die lot nor, should he be left to the last, to stain his hand with the blood o f a fellow-countryman, he persuaded this m a n also, imder a pledge, to remain aUve {Bell.

3.391).

1. T h e text contained in parentheses is omitted in three o f the bestpreserved manuscripts.

In his own words, Josephus tells us that in this way he survived both the war with the Romans and that with his own fiiends {Bell. 3.392). After his surrender, he was immediately brought before Vespasian. On the way, the Romans gathered around him to get a ghmpse of the Jewish general, and many Roman oflScers, among whom was Titus, took pity on him {Bell. 3.393-396). Therefore, Titus appealed for Josephus, and this is the main reason why his life was spared {Bell. 3.397). It so happened that Vespasian decided that at first Josephus should be kept in custody in order that he could later be sent to Emperor Nero {Bell. 3.398). As we have already seen, this was generally practised with important pohtical prisoners. On finding himself in this situation, however, Josephus asked for a private interview with the Roman general. When this was granted, Josephus came before Vespasian, Titus and two other chosen 'fiiends' and made the following prophecy: You imagine, Vespasian, that in the person o f Josephus you have taken a mere c a p d v e ; but I c o m e to you as a messenger o f greater destinies. H a d I not been sent on this errand by G o d , I knew the law o f the Jews and h o w it becomes a general to die. T o N e r o do you send me.' W h y then.' T h i n k you that (Nero and) those w h o before your accession succeed h i m will continue? You will be Caesar, Vespasian, you will be emperor, you and your son here. Bind m e then yet more securely in chains and keep m e for yourself; for y o u , Caesar, are master not o f m e only, but o f land and sea and the whole h u m a n race. For myself, I ask to be punished by stricter custody, if I have dared to trifle with the words o f G o d {Bell. 3 . 4 0 0 402).

Suetonius {Vesp. 5.6) and Dio Cassius {Hist. 66.1-4) confirm that when Josephus had been taken prisoner, he predicted that Vespasian would be emperor. According to Bell., at the time when this prophecy was made, Vespasian did not beheve in it, because he thought that it was merely a subterfiige on the part of Josephus to save his own life {Bell. 3.403). But gradually, as told by Josephus, Vespasian changed his mind and began to beheve in the prophecy. As we are told, this happened because God gradually led his thoughts to

2. Life History

51

the power he would gain, and because he found that Josephus had proved himself to be a rehable, trustworthy prophet in other matters {Bell. 3.404-407). Having come this far, Vespasian bestowed a robe and other gifts upon Josephus, but he continued to keep him in chains and under guard {Bell. 3.408). This rendering corresponds to Vita 414a, which relates that after the fall of Jotapata, Josephus was kept in prison by the Romans, albeit under privileged circumstances, with continual considerations on the part of Vespasian. Clearly, the account of Josephus' surrender in Jotapata is a vulnerable and crucial point in his hfe as well as in his works. The narration is without equal in its openness (cf. Bell. 1.22, where Josephus states that he will not conceal any of his own misfortunes). Any other version would have served Josephus' interests better, and, actually, for a person hke Josephus it would have been easy to fabricate such a story. Why then is the story given us in this form, in a way that invites the criticism and condemnation of its readers? The narrative about Josephus' flight, his strife with his companions in the cave, and the casting of lots is unbehevably self-reveaUng. The lengthy sequences concerning the suicide and the rehgious and philosophical qualms involved are interesting, but seem ahen, clumsy and misplaced in the context. In any case, it does not appear that Josephus had any intention of comphmenting himself with attributes of personal courage and integrity in this account. Nor does this narrative readily correspond to the image which Josephus otherwise tries to depict of himself both in Bell, and in Vita. The image we receive from these wriungs is that from the beginning he predicted the outcome of the War; he constantly tried to avoid it and later to hmit its unfortunate consequences. Here, in Bell. 3, however, we perceive that the true interpretation of the bibhcal prophecies was suddenly revealed to him at a moment of divine inspiration when he was in the cave in Jotapata (thus e.g. Mighario, p. 133). So something is wrong! According to these texts in Bell. 3, Josephus appears to have been motivated by the desire to save his own life whatever the cost. Thus, it is not at all difficult to condemn Josephus. Indeed, this has often been ffie case, particularly, in the Josephus research from ffie time before World War II, cf. Bentwich, Eisler, Hdlscher, Laqueur and Weber (see Chapter 4 for ftirffier details). In more recent research, ffiere are a few scholars such as van Unnik (1978) who take nearly ffie opposite point of view by preferring to let Josephus'

52


narrative speak for itself However, both of these approaches are somehow too simple and too easy. Josephus did write this passage and obviously he gave it a great deal of attention because he was so fully aware of the importance of these events. Therefore, the account must be regarded as serving some purpose in Josephus' complete works. What actually happened i n the cave in Jotapata during the last days o f July 6 7 is difficult for u s to surmise, since we have only ffiis narrative at our disposal. But, as already suggested, one cannot exclude ffie possibihty that Josephus acted as an opportunist who used all his resources to save his own skin. However, ffie decisive factor in interpretation is considering ffie narrative in ffie context o f his whole work. For this incident depicts Josephus as a prophet unappreciated and persecuted by his own people, a picture which is found in other parts o f his works. The narrative gives u s ffie picture o f Josephus as ffie chosen prophet who, i n spite o f and out o f a hopeless situation, is saved solely by ffie hand o f God. It describes a prophet who surrenders, not as a traitor and one who wishes to look after himself, but as one w h o acted solely o n God's word and as his servant, because God gave him a message to bring to both Vespasian (Rome) and to his own people. If ffie emphasis is placed on ffiese characteristics, on God's grace and on Josephus as a servant o f God, ffien it is indeed possible to read this narrative i n ffie context o f important ffiemes in the rest o f his writings. Literature M o r e recent literature o n these hotly contested topics, Josephus' surrender in Jotapata and his prophecy to Vespasian, is discussed by Feldman ( 1 9 8 4 a ) , pp. 8 8 - 9 6 ,

and

(1984b),

pp. 7 8 4 - 8 7 .

The

most

comprehensive

modem

accounts are Schalit ( 1 9 7 5 ) and Rajak ( 1 9 8 3 ) , pp. 1 6 6 - 7 3 and 1 8 5 - 9 5 , o f which Rajak could not be included by Feldman. According to SchaUt ( 1 9 7 1 ) , pp. 2 5 3 - 5 4 , Josephus cheated with the lots in the cave at Jotapata ( c f VidalNaquet [ 1 9 7 7 ] , p. 1 1 , et al.), and his prophecy to Vespasian was fabricated long after the events (cf also [ 1 9 7 5 ] , pp. 260flF.). Against this are the accounts by B e t z (1984),

( 1 9 6 0 ) ; Blenkinsopp; pp. 9 0 7 - 1 4

and 9 2 6 - 2 7

Daube (wiffi

(1980); Michel

(1968);

Moehring

sharp criticism o f ShaUt

[1975]);

van Uiuiik ( 1 9 7 8 ) , pp. 4 1 - 5 4 , all o f w h o m take Josephus' presentation o f himself as G o d ' s

chosen

prophet

seriously.

In

addition

to the

above

references to Suetonius and D i o Cassius, we m u s t add that in a place in Zonaras {Epitome

Historiarum

1 1 . 1 6 ) , it is stated that also Appian in the

22nd book o f his R o m a n history mentions Josephus' prophecy to Vespasian (= Appian, fragment 17).

2. Life History

53

5. Josephus in the Roman camp Our source material is still Bell., namely, the remaining part in books 3 and 4-6. In addition, we have a few bits of information in Vita 414-421; Ap. 1.48-49. We will attempt to arrange this material chronologically, but otherwise follow it closely in order to understand Josephus' own picture of the period when he was in the Roman camp. On 23rd July 67, Vespasian advanced from Jotapata along the traditional commercial and mihtary route from Ptolemais to Caesarea. Owing to their hatred towards the Jews, the non-Jewish population of this city received the Roman troops warmly. At the same time, we are told that there were demonstrations and they claimed that Josephus should be punished as a rebel, a demand which Vespasian completely disregarded {Bell. 3.409-411). In Jerusalem, on learning about Jotapata's fall, the pubhc reacted to the contrary {Bell. 3.432-442). In the beginning, it was beheved that Josephus had fallen and this led to national mourning which lasted for 30 days {Bell. 3.434-437). But when the truth became known, an equally strong anger broke out and Josephus was accused of being a coward and a traitor {Bell. 3.438-439). It is also mentioned that the rebels were hoping for an opportunity to take revenge on him {Bell. 3.442). In the period from July 67 to the summer of 69, when Vespasian became emperor, according to Bell., Josephus was a prisoner of war (cf also Ap. 1.48). The longest time of his imprisoiunent was probably in Caesarea. In Vita 414-415, he tells us that on an order given by Vespasian, or with his permission (cf Daube [1977], pp. 191-92), he married a Jewish woman prisoner who actually came from Caesarea. She was Josephus' second wife. However, the marriage lasted only a short time, because this wife left him in the year 69 when Josephus was released from prison. The reason might have been that the marriage was contrary to the Jewish law which forbade priests to marry Jewish women who had been prisoners of war. This is all that Josephus has to relate about his two years in prison. On the other hand, he has a great deal to tell about the events of the War and the pohtical scene in Rome. In brief, during these two years, the rest of Gahlee was conquered in the summer and autumn of the year 67 {Bell. 3.443-4.120). In the spring of 68, the East Jordan country and the rural districts in Judaea and Idumaea were taken,

54


and in June 68, Vespasian arrived at the gates of Jerusalem {Bell. 4.366-490). But, at this very time, the campaign came to a standstill owing to Nero's death and the very short reigns of the succeeding emperors, Galba, Otho and Vitelhus {Bell. 4.440-441, 491ff.). Vespasian, at this point, suspended the war manoeuvres, first to await a clarification of the pohtical situation after the death of Nero and then to wait for Galba's instructions regarding fijrther campaigns {Bell. 4.497-502; cf 545-549). As is known, Vespasian ended by becoming involved in the jxihtical contest and in the summer of 69, the troops in the Middle East proclaimed him Emperor of Rome {Bell. 4.585-621 [663]). When this had taken place. Bell. 4.622-629 continues by telhng us that Vespasian remembered Josephus' prophecy in Jotapata. The emperor inquired about the fate of this prophet, and when he learned that Josephus was still in captivity as a prisoner of war, he convened his council. It advised him that Josephus' prophecy must have been true and given by divine providence. Therefore, Vespasian gave orders for the release of Josephus. As is stated, he recognized Josephus as a 'minister of the voice of God' (626), and he allowed him the honour of having his chains severed by an axe as a sign that he had been unjustly placed in bonds (628-629). Thus Josephus' gift as a prophet was officially recognized (629). As was customary at the time, Josephus seems to have adopted the family name of his benefactor, Flavius. In any case, ffie Jewish Joseph ben Matthias firom Jerusalem was ffiereafter referred to under ffie Romanized name of Flavius Josephus or Josephus Flavius. After his release, Josephus accompanied Vespasian and Titus on a journey to Alexandria {Bell. 4.656-663; cf Vita 415; Ap. 1.48). Here, he married his ffiird wife. When Titus was commanded to complete ffie conquest of Jerusalem, Josephus was sent back to Palestine wiffi him {Vita 416; cf Bell. 5.39ffi). Chronologically, we find ourselves in ffie spring and early summer of ffie year 70. The decisive siege of Jerusalem is impending. In Ap. 1.49, we find the important general piece of information ffiat, in ffie Roman camp from ffie spring of ffie year 70 until ffie faU of Jerusalem, September of the same year, Josephus had access to every imaginable piece of information: During that time no incident escaped m y knowledge. I kept a carefiil record o f all ffiat went o n under m y eyes in ffie R o m a n c a m p , and was alone in a position to understand ffie information brought by deserters.

2. Life History

55

In Bell. 5 and 6, we repeatedly hear that during the siege in 70, Josephus acted as a mediator and interpreter between the Romans and the confined Jews, but that each attempt was in vain {Bell. 5.114, 261, 325-326, 360ff., 541-542; 6.94ff., 118,129, 365). On one of these occasions, Josephus was struck on the head with a stone, and he feU to the ground. We are told that the Jews made an effort to salvage his body, but that he was rescued by Titus' men. The rebels, who were under the impression that Josephus had been killed, shouted with dehght, whereas Josephus' family and the 'residue of the populace' are said to have mourned {Bell. 5.542-545). But Josephus was only shghtly wounded and he recovered quickly so that he was soon able to resume his activities in the Roman camp {Bell. 5.546-547). On a previous occasion, about 25th to 30th May 70, Josephus tells us that Titus ordered him to speak to the rebels 'in their native tongue' {Bell. 5.361). Thereafter, Josephus quotes a very long speech {Bell. 5.362-419) which must be regarded as being extremely significant for the understanding of Josephus' pohtical and theological attitude, and therefore we shall return to this subject in the following Chapters 3 and 4. It is mentioned already now, however, because it serves to illustrate Josephus' role in the Roman camp at this time. To some extent, the contents of his speech remind one of the text reviewed above concerning Josephus in the cave in Jotapata {Bell. 3.350-354). Moreover, it brings to mind the speech which King Agrippa II made in Jerusalem immediately before the outbreak of the War in the spring of 66 {Bell. 2.345-401) and Eleazar ben Jair's first speech at Masada before the collective suicide here in May 74 {Bell. 7.323-336). In his own speech, Josephus asserts that the Romans had received their supremacy from God and by His sanction {Bell. 5.367368 etc.). Furthermore, Josephus interprets the history of Israel to show that its people invariably met with defeat when they fought with arms, but on the other hand they met with victory when they placed their destiny in the hand of God {Bell. 5.399-400). This theory is 'proved' by a series of pxjsitive and negative examples taken from the history of Israel as a kind of 'heilsgeschichthch' view which reminds one of Stephanus' speech in Acts 7, At a crucial point in his speech, Josephus compares himself to the prophet Jeremiah who played a role in Jerusalem during the Babylonians' siege and conquest of the city in 598 and 587-586 BCE: T h u s , when the king o f Babylon besieged this city, our king Zedekiah having, contrary to the propheuc warnings o f Jeremiah,

56

Flavius Josephus, between Jerusalem and Rome given him battle, was himself taken prisoner and saw the town and the temple levelled to the ground. Yet, how m u c h more moderate was that monarch than your leaders, and his subjects than you! For, though Jeremiah loudly proclaimed that they were hatefiil to G o d for their transgressions against H i m , and would be taken capdve imless they surrendered the city, neither the king nor the people put h i m to death. But y o u — t o pass over those scenes within, for it would be beyond m e adequately to portray your e n o r m i d e s — y o u , I say, assail with abuse and missiles m e w h o exhort you to save yourselves, exasperated at being reminded o f your sins and intolerant o f any m e n u o n o f those crimes which you actually perpetrate every day {Bell.

5.391-393).

Both here and later in the speech (5.395), Josephus asserts that it was owing to the sins of the people that God permitted the Romans to take over power in Israel. Likewise, he emphasizes that the seed of this sin is the internal strife which had infested the Jewish people since the time of the Hasmonaeans {Bell. 5.396-398). On a similar occasion, in August 70, Josephus is required to conduct a group ofJewish deserters from Jerusalem around the walls of the city in order to prove to the besieged people that the deserters had not been killed by the Romans, as claimed by the leaders of the rebelhon {Bell. 6.118flF.). Obviously, the purpose of this was to enuce many others to desert. To the very last, Josephus attempts to persuade the rebels to surrender {Bell. 6.129, 365), but his efforts are in vain. Moreover, in Vita 416, Josephus teUs us that during the siege of Jerusalem in the year 70, he was still in danger, because he was under suspicion and attack both by the Jewish rebels and by the soldiers in the Roman army who considered him to be um-ehable. But Titus continued to look after Josephus and protect him {Vita 417a). When Jerusalem had fallen at last, Titus gave Josephus permission to take whatever he wished fi-om his ruined fatherland {Vita 417b). According to Vita 418, Josephus requested freedom for some of his countrymen, and he asked for some copies of the Jewish holy scriptures. Later, Josephus succeeded in having his brother and fifty of his Triends' released from prison {Vita 419). At the same time, he was granted permission to enter the premises of the Temple where the Romans kept a large number of prisoners under guard. He managed to have 190 of these prisoners—who were also his friendsreleased {Vita 419). Finally, according to Vita 420-421, in Tekoa, Josephus succeeded in gaining permission to have three crucified

2. Life History

57

companions taken down from their crosses. One of them survived. Thus Josephus' account of his activities in the Roman camp has the same fimdamental characteristics as those found in his accounts of the earher phases of his life. In addition to the famihar conceptions of the War, the Romans and the Jewish people, we find a few innovations, but these too are anticipated in the above. In part, this concerns Josephus' own image of himself as the prophet, as the new Jeremiah, and in part the theme that the sin of the people was the more profound cause of both the War and Jerusalem's fall. We shaU return to these features in the following chapters. Literature To m y knowledge there is no Uterature which gives special attenuon to the topic o f Josephus in the R o m a n c a m p . Josephus' legal status during and after his

imprisonment,

in

particular

Vespasian's

role

in

cormection

with

Josephus' second marriage, is treated by D a u b e ( 1 9 7 7 ) . Josephus' important speech in Bell. 5 . 3 6 2 - 4 1 9 has been analyzed by several scholars, esp. Lindner ( 1 9 7 2 ) , pp. 2 5 - 3 3 ; M i c h e l ( 1 9 8 4 ) , pp. 9 5 8 - 6 2 . h i particular, the comparison with Jeremiah is commented upon by m a n y , e.g. A u n e ; Blenkinsopp, p. 2 4 4 ; Braun ( 1 9 5 6 ) , p. 5 6 ; D a u b e ( 1 9 8 0 ) ; Chesnut, p p . 7 6 - 7 8 and 9 1 - 9 2 ; Farmer ( 1 9 5 6 ) , p. 9; de Jonge, p. 2 0 7 ; Schwartz ( 1 9 8 1 ) , p. 1 3 1 .

6. Josephus in Rome The sources do not provide much information concerning Josephus' fortune after the end of the War, nor about his time in Rome, where he Uved for the rest of his hfe. Most of the information is found in Vita 423-430. To this can be added a few details at the end of Bell. 7 and a single reference by the Church Father, Eusebius. However, there is some information on the composition of each individual work to be found spread throughout these writings. By and large, however, for the time being, we shall not consider them here because they most naturally belong in context with the review of each individual work which foUows in Chapter 3. When Titus had completed the conquest of Jerusalem, and thus stopped the Revolt in Judaea, he had the city demoUshed {Bell. 6.353355, 363-364,407-408; 7.1-4). He disposed of the numerous prisoners of war by having some of them kiUed, some selected for the coming Triumph, some sent off to do slave labour or to fight in the theatres and some sold as slaves {Bell. 6.414-419; 7.23-24, 37-39). At the same time, he stationed Roman troops in the couintry {Bell. 7.17; cf 407). A

58


garrison was placed in the territory which belonged to Josephus, but Titus gave him another piece of land on the coastal plain in compensation {Vita 422a). When Titus left Judaea, presumably in the spring of 71, he brought Josephus with him on board the ship. They sailed fi-om Alexandria back to Rome {Bell. 7.116-122), and during the journey Titus tendered Josephus aU manner of respect {Vita 422b). On their arrival in Rome, Josephus was also met with the respect of Vespasian. The emperor allowed him to hve in the house which he himself had occupied before becoming emperor. Moreover, Vespasian gave Roman citizenship to Josephus and a pension on which he could hve {Vita 423a). Finally, Vespasian gave him a large piece of land in Judaea {Vita 425c). And Josephus was able to enjoy Vespasian's favour during all of his reign {Vita 423b). However, the preferential treatment which Josephus received made him a target for jealousy and attack. According to Bell. 7.438, a certain Jonathan, a weaver, had led a Jewish revolt in Cyrene, in the wake of the war in Judaea. When this Jonathan had been taken prisoner by Gyrene's governor, Catullus, he was sent by him to the emperor in Rome, as seen in earher incidents. Here, Jonathan claimed that Josephus and other distinguished Jews had provided him with weapons and money {Bell. 7.437-453; Vita 424). Vespasian investigated the matter, and according to Josephus, he found the accusation to be false. Therefore, Josephus was acquitted and Jonathan was punished accordingly {Vita 425a; cf Bell. 7.447-450): Furthermore, Josephus was subjected to several other accusations: Subsequently, numerous accusations against m e were fabricated by persons w h o envied m e m y good fortune; but, b y the providence o f G o d , I came safe through all {Vita 4 2 5 b ) .

At this time, i.e. in the mid 70s, Josephus divorced his wife, because as he expressed it, he was 'displeased at her behaviour' {Vita 426a). According to Vita 415, the wife he refers to must be the woman he married in Alexandria in 69-70, his third wife. She had given birth to three of his sons, two of whom had died, and one son by name of Hyrcanus was still hving {Vita 426b). Thereafter, Josephus married for the fourth time. His wife was a Jewess from Crete who was of a very distinguished family and had a personahty which excelled that of many other women. Josephus had two sons by her, Justus and Simonides Agrippa {Vita 427; cf. Vita 5).

2. Life History

59

Josephus' good fortune continued during the rule of Vespasian's successors. When Titus became emperor in 79-81, he favoured Josephus, as one could have expected from his previous attitude, with just as much esteem as Vespasian had done {Vita 428a). To this general characteristic, Josephus adds the following interesting comment: and [he] never credited the accusauons to which I was constandy subjected {Vita 4 2 8 b ) .

Domitian (81-96) became emperor after Titus, and he continued the favourable treatment of Josephus. Indeed, we are told that he 'added to' the favours given him {Vita 429a). Josephus also enjoyed his protection: H e punished m y Jewish accusers, and for a similar oflFence gave orders for the chastisement o f a slave, a eunuch and m y son's tutor {Vita 4 2 9 b ) .

Apparentiy, the reason for this sentence is that this person had made accusations against Josephus. Compared to this, Domitian granted Josephus freedom from taxes on all of his land in Palestine {Vita 429c). Finally, Domitian's wife, Domitia, continued to bestow favours on Josephus {Vita 429d; cf. Vita 16, concerning Poppaea's kindness towards him). We are now far into the reign of Domitian. C f Ant. 20.266f, in which it is stated that Ant. and Vita were completed during Domitian's thirteenth year, which corresponds to the year 93-94. Josephus has no more to add about his own life: Such are the events o f m y whole hfe; from them let others judge as they will o f m y character {Vita 4 3 0 a ) .

This prediction has certainly come true in that condemnations of Josephus' character have never been lacking. So with these words Josephus has once again confirmed his gift as a prophet. FoUowing this final remark, there are just a few words directed to Epaphroditus, Josephus' patron or editor, to whom Ant., Vita and Ap. are dedicated (cf Ant. 1.8; Ap. 1.1; 2.1): Having n o w , most excellent Epaphroditus, rendered you a complete accotmt o f our antiquities, I shaU here for the present conclude m y narrative {Vita 4 3 0 b ) .

We have now exhausted Josephus' own information concerning

60


the long period of his hfe in Rome. The emphasis which he has placed on his own privileged status is confirmed by a remark made by the Church Father, Eusebius of Caesarea, who tells us that Josephus was the most famous Jew of his time. He was commemorated by a statue in Rome, and his works were entered in the hbrary of the city (Historia Ecclesiastica 3.9.2; cf. Hieronymus, De Viris Illustribus 13. See also Lucian 5). This information is definitely not available from Josephus' own writings and, therefore, may be assumed to represent an independent tradition. However, it does correspond to the statements found in Vita 361-367 and Ap. 1.50-52, which tell us that Josephus moved in the highest Roman and Jewish circles. A few modern scholars even go so far as to assume that to this very day we can see this statue, or rather part of it, in a bust which is now in the possession of the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek (Inv. No. 646) in Copenhagen. It is, however, obvious that this assumption cannot be proved on the basis of the evidence available. But, we may safely assume that Josephus did in fact hve an economically carefree and highly privileged hfe as a 'Flavian' historian in Rome. At the same time, it is quite clear that here he was repeatedly exposed to criticism, accusations and persecutions on the part of the Jews, just as was the case during his stay in Gahlee and the Roman camp. Thus, Josephus makes no attempt to hide the fact that he was supported and honoured by the conquerors of the Jewish people, and despised and annoyed by some of his own fellow countrymen. So, it is quite natural that time and again, also by his later readers, Josephus has been accused of high treason, of having surrendered and betrayed his paternal heritage, and of having sold himself to the enemy. In view of his own candid account of his career, such accusations may seem a httle too hasty and oversimphfied. We have already had occasion to see that Josephus' texts lend themselves to different interpretations, but a closer evaluation of these accusations must wait upon a more thorough analysis of Josephus' writings. Literature Josephus' career in R o m e has been described critically b y Laqueur, pp. 2 5 5 7 8 . A n oppKJsite view is taken by Thackeray ( 1 9 2 9 , pp. 1 5 - 2 2 ) , whereas S.J.D. C o h e n ( 1 9 7 9 , pp. 2 3 2 - 4 2 ) , pursued Laqueur's theses fiirther. T h e opinions o f all these scholars are reviewed and c o m m e n t e d upon in detail in Chapter 4 below.

The

suggestion

that

Bust

Inv.

No.

646

in

the

Copenhagen represents Josephus was made by Eisler ( 1 9 3 0 ) .

Glyptotek

in

Chapter 3 THE WRITINGS 1. Josephus as historiographer and the transmission of his writings In Rome, a new phase of Josephus' hfe history began. In reahty, he was in exile from his native country, presumably never to return. He was cut off from active participation in the rehgious and pohtical hfe of Judaea and he was no longer able to participate in the life of Jerusalem. Instead, he was set up in the 'capital of Edom', as Rome was customarily referred to in Talmudic hterature. He owed his hfe, as well as his privileged position in Rome, to the new rulers of the Empire, the Flavians. Can there be any doubt as to what kind of writing would be possible in a situation like this? It is this fundamental question we shall now take up in the hght of a close examination of each of Josephus' writings. Before undertaking this task, we shall briefly outhne Josephus' own comments about his general quahfications as a writer of history in Rome. To this we shaU add a brief survey of the transmission of his writings. Josephus had a sohd basis for writing about the history of the Jewish people, both from his own experience and from his general knowledge. As a priest in Jerusalem, as an aristocrat and a sometime pohtician and general, he had the best quahfications to dehver rehable information. But had he the necessary material at his disposal? Was he able to treat it and transform it into historical hterature? In other words, did he in fact possess the skill of a writer of history? With regard to these questions we find a few pieces of information in Ant. 1.6-7; 20.259-268; Vita 357-367;^/). 1.47-56. In the first place, these texts bear witness to the fundamental truism that as a Jewish priest Josephus was well acquainted with the holy scriptures {Ant. 20.262-263; Ap. 1.54; cf. Bell. 3.352), and having participated in the War he was an eye-witness {Ap. 1.48-49, 53, 55; cf Bell. 1.3; Ant. 1.4). Therefore, he obviously possessed the fiindamental qualifications to write about the history of the Jewish people and

62


about the War which had just come to an end. In the second place, we learn, as already menuoned above, that during the siege of Jerusalem, Josephus claims to have made thorough records of aU that happened on the Roman as well as the Jewish fronts {Ap. 1.49). In the third place, according to Vita 342, 358 dsidAp. 1.56, his own records were supplemented by written material. In these places, Josephus actuaUy mentions Vespasian's and Titus' 'hypomnemata' or 'commentarii', i.e. their own records, or those of the Roman high command, concerning the campaign in Judaea, presumably a kind of unedited counterpart to Caesar's works about the wars in Gaul. Josephus' statements in the texts mentioned can be interpreted so as to testify that, in contrast to Justus from Tiberias, he himself had also utiUzed this material as a basis for his account of the Jewish War. If we extend our interest to include Ant. in our survey, we find that in several places in this work, Josephus refers to documentary material from Roman and other archives {Ant. 14.185-189, 265-267; 16.161, 164-178). Furthermore, as a fourth factor, the style and hterary expression came in addition to the material and contents. According to Ant. 1.7-8 and especially 20.263, Josephus had taken great pains to learn the Greek language and hterature. He was therefore able to write in Greek and his knowledge of Greek hterature, especiaUy Greek historiographical hterature, made it easier for him to compose his works in Greek. We have now described the conditions under which Josephus was able to commence his work as a Jewish historiographer. Personal experiences, the fundamental material and the hterary expertise, according to his own information, were at hand. Moreover, Josephus had time at his disposal to organize and formulate the material {Ap. 1.50). Nevertheless, the task was overwhehning and fuU of difficulties, as indicated in Ant. 1.6-7. Not least, ffie presentation of ffie material in attractive and clear Greek seems to have caused Josephus some ffifficulty (cf Ant. 1.7; 20.363). So, ffie first edition of Bell, took shape in Josephus' native language—presumably Aramaic. And for ffie final Greek edition of Bell., he was compeUed to seek help from some offier writers or assistants who were able to offer ffie necessary hterary and styhstic assistance {Ap. 1.50). The next phase was ffie matter of pubhshing, first ffiat of Bell. We shall return to this topic in our next section, but already at ffiis point it should be mentioned ffiat copies of Bell, were first submitted to Vespasian and Titus, and ffiereafter to prominent Romans and Jews

3. The Writings

63

who had participated in the War in Judaea {Vita 361-364; Ap. 1.150151), i.e. persons who were competent to verify the account. The transmission of Josephus' writings is comparable to that of Greco-Roman hterature other than the Bible. For obvious reasons, the Old and the New Testaments—especiaUy the latter—are richly attested and handed down. As far as the Old Testament is concerned, we are now in possession of Qumran manuscripts of several of the books, and with regard to the New Testament, there are papyrus fragments, some of which are as early as the second century CE, whereas the oldest complete manuscripts are from the fourth century CE (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus). In addition, there is an abundance of more recent manuscripts of the Old and especiaUy of the New Testament. As for Josephus, we possess a single papyrus fragment from the end of the third century CE (papyrus P. Graec. Vindob. 29810, which contains Bell. 2.576-579, 582-584), but apart from that it is not until the 9th-llth centuries CE that we find the oldest Greek manuscripts containing Josephus' collected works or a few of his writings. Several other manuscripts belong to the 11th14th centuries, but most of them are even later. However, the total number of Josephus manuscripts, particularly the Greek, is far smaUer than that of the bibhcal manuscripts. With regard to Ap., we are in an even worse position in that aU existing Greek manuscripts are clearly dependent on one single, incomplete 11th-century manuscript. Codex L, from which 2.52-113 is missing. In support of the direct transmission of Josephus' Greek texts, we have the Latin translations. The earhest of these translations is that of Hegesippus from c. 370. However, it is not of any particular significance because it represents a free Jewish-Christian treatment of Bell. only. Cassiodor's translation from about 570 is of far greater importance and it comprises Josephus' complete works. Cassiodor is of particular significance with regard to Ap. because we are completely dependent on this Latin translation for the text of 2.52113. Finally, we have the indirect transmission. Several of the earhest Church Fathers such as Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertulhan, Hippolytus, Origen and Eusebius quote or refer to passages in Josephus and may therefore be considered to attest the texts in his writings. First and foremost, Eusebius quotes long passages from Josephus in his church history, and thus he is a main witness to the text, although he often makes changes in it as he sees

64


fit (cf. R.M. Grant, esp. pp. 75-76). Otherwise, the Church Fathers are particularly interested in Testimonium Flavium and the passages concerning Jesus' brother James and John the Baptist. We do, however, also find a great deal of interest in texts like Bell. 2.119-166 (concerning the three Jewish schools; cf Burchard). This indirect transmission leads us back to the third and second centuries (Origen, Hippolytus, Clement, TertuUian, Irenaeus and Justin), i.e. to about the same time as we dated our earhest direct testimony to Josephus' text. At the beginning of the present century, scholars such as Behrendts-Grass and especially Eisler laimched the famous hypothesis that the existing Old Russian translation of Bell, could be traced back to its original Aramaic edition {Bell. 1.3). Afi;er a long and thorough discussion during the following decades, the majority of scholars arrived at the conclusion that—on the contrary—this translation is a free, paraphrasing translation fi-om the 11th century, a translation which was made on the basis of a Greek edition of Bell., which essentially corresponds to some of the Greek handwritten manuscripts known today, and these belong to the less rather than the more rehable ones. The notorious hypothesis must now be said to have been invahdated, and Josephus' texts cannot be dated fiirther back in time than the end of the second century and the beginning of the third century. The scholarly editions of Josephus' works are based upon the material described here, but primarily on the complete Greek manuscripts from the Middle Ages. Niese's edition from 1885-1895 remains the best edition in existence. In addition there is the bihngual Greek/Enghsh Loeb Edition from 1926-1965 and the likewise bihngual Greek/German edition of Bell, by Michel-Bauemfeind from 1959-1969. Literature Regarding Josephus' qualifications for writing the history o f his people we find bits o f information in Rajak ( 1 9 8 3 ) , pp. 6 2 - 6 4 . For the transmission o f Josephus' works, I can in general terms refer to Schreckenberg

(1972);

Feldman ( 1 9 8 4 a ) , pp. 2 0 - 2 7 , and ( 1 9 8 4 b ) , pp. 7 6 5 - 7 1 . For the O l d Russian u-anslation, pp. 1 1 5 - 1 8

I refer (cf

to Feldman

( 1 9 8 4 b ) , pp. 7 7 1 - 7 4 ,

and Bilde

(1981),

also below in Chapter 6, section 4 ) . Text editions

and

translations are given fully by Feldman ( 1 9 8 4 a ) , pp. 1 0 - 2 1 and 2 8 - 3 9 . A selection of more recent editions is given below in the Bibhography.

3. The Writings

65

2. The Jewish War As we have seen, Josephus hved in Rome under favourable external circumstances, and under constant Jewish accusations and attack, when in the summer of 71 he began to compose his works. The first and best known of these is The Jewish War. This, however, contains much more than the account of the first Jewish revolt against Rome in 66-70(74). A closer analysis of the contents of the seven books of this work shows this clearly. Moreover, this analysis will serve as a point of departure for our endeavour to penetrate fiirther into Bell., its topic, purpose and goal. a. Contents Bell. 1 begins with a lengthy introduction (1.1-30). Thereafter, the actual narrative takes its point of departure in the crisis which the Jewish people experienced under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BCE). Here, Josephus describes Antiochus' conquest of Jerusalem and his persecution of the Jews and Judaism (1.31-35). Next, he tells us about Matthias' and his sons' resistance actions, victory and estabhshment of an independent Jewish state under Hasmonaean leadership (1.36-116). The following passages describe the strife among the Hasmonaeans which led to the intervention by the Romans, Pompey's conquest of Jerusalem in 63 BCE and his and Gabinius' reorganization of Palestine (1.117fF.). There follows an account of Antipater's and his sons' rise to power during the reigns of Caesar, Anthony and Octavian in Rome (l.lSOff.). In these passages, Josephus tells us about Herod's appointment in the Roman senate as King ofJudaea, about his conquest of the country with the assistance of Rome, his wars, building constructions and family tragedy (1.2742".). Bell. 1 concludes with an account of Herod's death in Jericho and his stately fimeral procession to the city and fortress Herodion east of Bethlehem (1.665-673). Bell. 2 begins with a detailed description of the disturbances which broke out in all parts of the country after Herod's death (2.1-79). This is followed by a less lengthy account of the strife between Herod's sons concerning the division of the country, Archelaus' short-hved reign, the transformation of Judaea to a Roman province after the demise of Archelaus and the revolt by Judas the Gahlean, in this coimection. This account is followed by the classical presentation of the three Jewish schools, the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes (2.119-166), of which the Essenes are given very

66


thorough attention (2.120-161). There follows a chronologically arranged account of the reigns of Phihp and Herod Antipas, Pilate's period as procurator (governor) to Judaea (2.169-177), of the Gains Cahgula crisis in 41-44, of Agrippa I and II and of the procurators in Judaea in the 40s, 50s and the beginning of the 60s. The rendering of this period is strongly marked by the increasing tensions between the Jews and the Romans, and we hear about the 'bandits', the Sicarii and the 'prophets', and their ever growing importance and influence in Judaea (2.253-265). At the same time, the accelerated conflicts between the Jews and the non-Jews, especially in Caesarea, are described (2.266-270, 284-292). There is an imperceptible transition fi-om this account into the description of an actual state of war which, according to Josephus, gradually develops in the course of the spring and early summer of the year 66 (2.293ff".). We hear about the Jewish rebels who drove the Roman garrison fi-om Jerusalem, about Cesuus GaUus' campaign against Jerusalem, his abortive attack on the city and his unexpected defeat during the retreat from Judaea (2.499555). Moreover, we hear about the appointment of a proper Jewish rebelhous government in Jerusalem (2.562-568), and Bell. 2 ends with a description ofJosephus' preparations for war in Gahlee and of corresponding preparations in Jerusalem during the winter of the year 66-67 (2.569-654). In Bell. 3, our attention is first called to the Romans. We are informed about Nero receiving the news from Judaea and about his appointment of Vespasian. Thereupon, we foUow the latter during his preparations for the War and his advance from Antioch, where the army is assembled, to Ptolemais which is his base in the first phase of the War, the reconquest of Gahlee. As a part of this prelude, in a famous passage (3.70-109), Josephus gives us a detailed description of the structure, disciphne and tactics of the Roman army. Another well-known passage is his description of the scene of the War, Palestine and its Jewish provinces, Gahlee, Peraea, Samaria, Judaea and the domain of Agrippa II in the north-eastern part of the country (3.35-58). The War in GaUlee itself is depicted in the remaining part oi Bell. 3 and in the beginning of Bell. 4. Here, we find the account of the conquests made by Vespasian and Titus: Gabara, Jotapata, Tiberias, Tarichaea, Gamala and Gischala (3.1104.120). Thus, Bell. 3 continues into Bell. 4 without any distinct transition. But, with 4.121fl"., our attention is once again called to the situation

3. The Writings

67

in Jerusalem. We are now told about the dissension and the strife, indeed the open state of war, which in consequence of the discrepancies during the prelude to the War develops between the varying groups of the rebels, first and foremost the 'Zealots', John of Gischala's party, and the Idumaeans (4.121-365). There follows a brief reference to Vespasian's plans with regard to Jerusalem, which, precisely due to the internal strife among the rebels, he decides to let fall (4.366-376). This brief transitional reference leads to a new version of the internal strife among the rebels (4.3893".). Next, we are informed about a revolutionary group which was not present in Jerusalem, namely, the Sicarii, who, after the 'Zealots' had murdered Menahem in the Temple {Bell. 2.441-448), had isolated themselves on Masada. Josephus tells us about these and other groups of rebels who ravaged in Judaea (4.399-409). This Jewish off"ensive causes Vespasian to change plans, and he decides to attack Jerusalem after all. Therefore, he takes measures to subjugate systematically the rural districts outside the capital city. In the spring of the year 68, he conquers East Jordan (Peraea), the Valley of Jordan, Judaea and Idumaea, leaving Jerusalem to stand alone with Masada and a few other fortifications (4.410-490). However, at the same time, decisive pohtical events take place in Rome. Adhering to the maxim which Polybius, 200 years before Josephus, had practised in his universal history and which Lucian of Samosata, 100 years after him, estabhshed in his work on how history should be written (Chapter 50), Josephus begins to write concurrent accounts of synchronous events. The events described are those which end with the death of Nero on 9th June, in the year 68, and Galba's subsequent coming to rule (4.491ff.; cf Bell. 1.4-5, 23-24). The result of these events is that Vespasian's campaign actually comes to a standstill just before it could have ended with the siege and conquest of Jerusalem (4.497ff".). Owing to this, the rebels gain a new opportunity to take over the initiative, and now we hear about the coming leader in Jerusalem, Simon bar Giora. He is said to have joined the Sicarii on Masada, to have mustered a 'proletarian' army of slaves and oppressed people, and to have attacked the 'Zealots' and conquered Idumaea (4.503-544). When the Romans are able to regain the initiative, Simon advances against Jerusalem, and Josephus is able to give us a new account of the disruption within the Jewish rebels in the capital city (4.556-584). The conflict comes to an end in May 69 when Simon becomes ruler in Jerusalem. The

68


remaining part of Bell. 4 describes the brief reigns of Otho and Vitelhus and Vespasian's own rise to power (4.585ff.). When his power has been secured, Vespasian sends Titus from Alexandria to Jerusalem to complete the campaign (4.657-663). Thus, Bell. 4 describes a sort of stagnation in the War. Bell. 5 is devoted to the battle for Jerusalem. All of the preparatory and delaying phases have now come to an end. It seems as if the conflicts on both sides have been settled, and that these two sides face each other, each having its own new leader, Simon on the Jewish side and Titus (Vespasian) on the Roman side. However, in reahty this apphes only to the Romans because the conflicts in Jerusalem continue. Therefore, Bell. 5 begins with a renewed accoimt concerning this main topic (5.1-38) and goes on to describe Titus' army and its march against Jerusalem (5.39-53). There follows an account of the prehminary siege and the first battles for the city. Not until then do we have the famous narrative describing Jerusalem and the Temple, the arena of the dramatic encounter (5.136-247). Attention thereafter reverts to the situation within the besieged city. A description of the first outright battles follows. With this the narrative gathers speed. In rapid succession, we hear about the Roman conquest of Jerusalem's first wall (25th May), and second wall (30th May), about Josephus' (first) great speech to the rebels in which he advises them to surrender (5.362-419), about the suffering and hunger in the isolated city, about new salhes and battles and about Titus' (first) council of war in which the decision is made to build a proper siege wall around Jerusalem (5.491-501). Bell. 5 ends with a new description of the increasing distress in the city (5.511-572). Thus, the scene is prepared for the account of the conquest of Jerusalem, the burning of the Temple, the destruction of the city and the fate of its iidiabitants during and after the catastrophe. This story is told in Bell. 6, and it is the highhght of the narrative. This book begins with violent battle scenes and leads into a description of Antonia's conquest and the end of the sacrificial offerings in August 70. A rendering of Josephus' (second) speech to the besieged people follows (6.96-110). This speech also serves as a delaying feature, after which we hear about the final struggle for the Temple which culminates with the burning of the porticoes around the Temple court (12th August) (6.164-168). For the last time, we hear about the horrible famine in Jerusalem which drove some of its inhabitants to the madness of cannibahsm (6.193-213). As the account continues.

3. The Writings

69

we are told about Titus' (second) council of war which this lime debated the fate of the Temple (6.236-243). In spite of the fact that the council decided to spare the sanctuary, by an accident the inner court of the Temple was set on fire (30th August), and Josephus tells us how thousands were lost in the flames because they had sought security in God's own house (6.249-266). The chmax of the work has been reached, the profound depth of the catastrophe has been described and all that follows merely serves to embelhsh what actuaUy happened here. In the section following, Josephus describes several supernatural omens which preceded and thus gave warning of the impending catastrophe (6.288-315). This feature is seen in numerous other accounts which describe the conquest and ruin of a city or country, e.g. from Livy's account of the faU of Veu {Hist. 5.1523). Thus, the disaster was the wiU of God and predicted by him. Furthermore, we hear that the Roman troops bring offerings to their standards in the temple court itself, and they hail Titus as imperator (6.316). We read about the devastation of the conquered lower town (6.353-355, 363-364) and about the attack on the upper (western) part of the city, the rapid conquest of it, and thereby the final fall and subsequent systematic conflagration and destruction of the city. Josephus expUcitly compares this to earher occasions when the city was conquered, in particular when the Babylonians sacked it under Nebuchadnezzar in the year 586 BCE (6.435-442; cf 6.267270). Bell. 1 continues the theme of Bell. 6, by giving an account of the consequences and aftermath of the War (cf. Bell. 1.29). We learn about the mihtary occupation of the country, Vespasian's acclamation as victor in Rome, and Titus' departure from Judaea and arrival in Italy. Thereupon, there is the classic account of the triumphal march (7.123-162). Our attention is thereafter drawn back to Palestine. Here, there were clean-up actions, particularly in connection with the siege and conquest of Machaerus (7.163-215) and Masada (7.252406). According to the results of the most recent research, the last fortification was taken as late as May 74. Thereby, all of Judaea was subjugated and was once more under the control of Rome (7.407408). One consequence of the War is that all Jewish land in Palestine is taken over as imperial property and thereafter farmed out (7.216). Another consequence is that a new tax, the Fiscus Judaicus, is levied on aU Jews in the Roman empire. This tax was no longer a tax to be paid to the Temple as was formerly the custom, but to Jupiter

70


Capitolinus (7.218). Bell. 7 concludes widi a brief account of the oflFshoots of the War in Egypt and Cyrene where the refugee Sicarii inspired Jewish revolts which were, however, also subdued (7.409453). Literature T h e contents o f

Bell,

are not usually rendered in the hterature on Josephus.

H o w e v e r , an exception to this rule is Attridge ( 1 9 8 4 ) , pp. 1 9 4 - 9 5 . T h e fall o f M a s a d a is dated at 7 4 by E c k and S.J.D. C o h e n ( 1 9 8 2 ) , p. 4 0 1 , whereas e.g. Rajak (1983), p. 1 7 4 , dates it to 7 3 ; c f also below in Chapter 3 section 2 g.

b. Disposition The review of the contents of Bell., book by book, shows us how the whole work has been planned. Clearly, it reaches its highhght in the description of the siege and fall ofJerusalem in Bell. 5 and 6. The last part of the 6th and all of the 7th book describe the aftermath and the consequences of the War. Correspondingly, Bell. 1-4 must be understood as a prelude to Bell. 5-6. Bell. 3 provides us with an account of the War in Gahlee, and Bell. 4 describes the period from the spring of 67 to the spring of 69. Here, we are told a great deal about the situation on both sides, but from the hterary point of view the 4th book delays the account. We have to pause a while before undertaking our reading about the crux of the War. Whereas in Bell. 3 and 4 the introductory phases of the War are depicted in this way, in Bell. 1 and 2 a picture of its prehminaries is drawn, partly in a longer and partly in a shorter perspective. Bell. 1 describes how the Romans came to Judaea the first time and estabhshed their power there, although initiaUy, during the chent rule of Herod they were satisfied with ruhng indirectly. Bell. 2 describes the coUapse of this indirect rule, first, starting with the death of Herod, and then completely after the banishment of Archelaus. Thereafter, Bell. 2 goes on to explain how the confficts between Rome and Judaea increase under the direct Roman rule during the first century. Thus, Bell. 2 traces and clarifies the immediate causes of the aggravation and the gradual development into an outright revolt. Bell. 1, however, can be said to treat the more profound causes of the War. Thus, although Bell, contains much more than the direct account of the war between the Jews in Palestine and the Romans during the years 66-70(74), this other material has also been selected and determined by the main purpose of the work. Consequently, Bell.

3. The Writings

71

may be said to describe: (1) The siege and fall of Jerusalem, (2) the causes, outbreak and prehminary events of the War, (3) the consequences of the fall of Jerusalem, i.e. the ramifications and end of the War, and (4) the deeper causes of the War. Therefore, Bell, can be outlined as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

1.1-30: Introduction 1.31-2.118: The fimdamental roots of the War 2.119-404: The immediate causes of the War 2.405-654: The prehminary phase of the War: the revolts in Jerusalem, the campaign of Cestius GaUus and the war preparations in Jerusalem and Gahlee 3.1-4.120: The War in Gahlee 4.121-5.38: Interim: The situation in Jerusalem, the batdes in Judaea and the situation on the Roman side 5.39-572: The battle of Jerusalem 6.1-442: The faU of Jerusalem 7.1-445: The end of the War and its aftermath

Literature T o the best o f m y knowledge, no contribuuon to a discussion on

the

arrangement and plan oi Bell, is to be found.

c. Title and theme Thus, the theme of Bell, is the faU of Jerusalem. The title. On the Conquest (peri haloseos), as given in most of the manuscripts, is appropriate. We also find this title given by Origen and Hieronymus, and one cannot exclude the possibihty that, as asserted by Hieronymus (Comm. in Isaiam 64), it is the tide which Josephus himself gave his work (cf Bell. 2.454; 4.318; 5.3). However, against this assertation are Ant. 20.258, Vita 412 and other references where Josephus names his books The Jewish War (ho ioudaikos polemos), or merely TTie War (ho polemos) (Ant. 1.6; Ap. 1.47 etc.). Moreover, the title On the Conquest can be said to reflect more clearly than the other titles the interests of the Christian tradition in this work by Josephus. Therefore, there is good reason to retain the title The Jewish War. But the theme of Bell, is not only the War, the fall ofJerusalem and the Temple. The review of its contents, book by book, and the study of its disposition indicate that it is the catastrophe which dominates the work. Josephus is writing about an indescribable disaster. The fall of Jerusalem and the burning of the Temple are in reaUty incomprehensible and inconceivable events, and Bell, can and must

72

Flavius Josephus, between Jemsalem and Rome

be regarded as an endeavour to understand and describe how things could have come to this end. In this respect, Bell, is a work of tragic historiographical interpretation. But Bell, is not just a narrative of the catastrophe, disaster and tragedy, because as these words in themselves imply it concerns the Jewish people to whom the War and its consequences were disasters. Not only does Bell, give an account of an important historical event, and not only is Bell, a piece of hterature on a significant and dramatic topic, but the work renders a tragedy which struck the author's own people. Thus, the theme of Bell, also concerns Josephus himself. Naturally, Josephus plays a role in the War and in this respect he is a part of the theme of the book. He is also part of the theme in a deeper sense, because as a Jew he shares the tragedy as it is unfolded here in this work. Both of these features, the fall ofJerusalem as a tragedy for the Jewish people and thus as a tragedy for Josephus, are expressed exphcitly in two places in Bell., namely, in the Preface and in the 5th Book: I have no intendon o f rivalling those w h o extol the R o m a n power by exaggerating the deeds o f m y compatriots. I shall faithfiilly recount the actions o f both combatants; but in m y reflections on the events I cannot conceal m y private sentiments, nor refiise to give

my

personal

sympathies

scope

to

bewail

my

country's

misfortunes. For, that it owed its ruin to civil strife, and that it was the Jewish tyrants w h o drew down upon the holy temple the unwilling hands o f the R o m a n s and the conflagration, is attested by T i t u s Caesar himself, w h o sacked the city; throughout the war he commiserated

the

populace

who

were

at

the

mercy

of

the

revolutionaries, and often o f his o w n accord deferred the capture o f the city and by protracting the siege gave the culprits time for repentance.

Should,

however,

any

critic

censure

me

for

my

strictures upon the tyrants or their bands o f marauders or for m y lamentations over m y country's misfortimes, I ask his indulgence for a compassion which falls outside an historian's province. For o f all the cities under R o m a n rule it was die lot o f ours to attain to the highest feUcity and to fall to the lowest depths o f calamity, hideed, in m y opinion, the misfortunes o f all nations since the world began faU short o f those o f the Jews; and, since the blame lay with n o foreign nation, it was impossible to restrain one's grief

Should,

however, any critic be too austere for pity, let h i m credit the history vrith the facts, the historian with the lamentations {Bell.

1.9-12).

H o w e v e r , the laws o f history compel one to restrain even one's

3. The Writings

73

emotions, since this is not the place for personal lamentations but for a narrative o f events {Bell.

5.20).

A c c o r d i n g to these i m p o r t a n t texts, J o s e p h u s naturally intends to b e o b j e c t i v e a n d w r i t e a n i m p a r t i a l a n d r e a h s t i c a c c o u n t o f t h e facts o f t h e W a r . B u t , at t h e s a m e t i m e , h e is a w a r e o f t h e t r u t h t h a t it is i m p o s s i b l e for h i m t o suppress his p e r s o n a l f e e h n g s . T h e r e f o r e , h e tries t o b e o b j e c t i v e a n d s u b j e c t i v e at t h e s a m e time. H i s i n t e n t i o n is t o r e p r e s e n t t h e f a c t s , ' t h e a c t i o n s o f b o t h c o m b a t a n t s ' as t h e y t o o k p l a c e , b u t at t h e s a m e

time—as

h e e m p h a s i z e s in a d v a n c e — h e wants

to e x p r e s s h i s o w n e m o t i o n s o n w h a t t o o k p l a c e . F o r t h e W a r c o u l d h a v e b e e n a v o i d e d . It w a s c a u s e d b y the 'civil strife'. T h e possibihty for ' r e p e n t a n c e ' w a s there a n d t h e r e b y the disaster c o u l d h a v e b e e n prevented. Josephus

is w e l l

aware

o f the

laws

o f history

which

d e m a n d that a historian remains aloof and impartial, and he intends to abide b y these l a w s . H o w e v e r , in the preface to

Bell., h e

employs a

n e w a n d e c c e n t r i c m a i m e r t o tell t h a t h e w i l l r e s p e c t t h e s e l a w s , w h i l e at t h e s a m e time h e w i l l a U o w h i m s e l f t o e x p r e s s h i s g r i e f o n the

tragedy

which

consequently misfortunes endeavours

has

himself of

befaUen

Thus,

the Jewish

his

fatherland,

Josephus

people,

writes

while

at

to w r i t e a c c u r a t e l y , p a i n s t a k i n g l y

his

with the

jjeople grief for

same

and the

time,

he

and impartially.

An

i m p o s s i b l e task? Y e s , b u t a g o o d pursuit! So,

Bell's

t h e m e is a v e r y p e r s o n a l m a t t e r f o r J o s e p h u s , a n d i n

o r d e r t o w r i t e t h i s w o r k at a U , J o s e p h u s , a s a l r e a d y i m p h e d i n t h e p r e f a c e , h a d to w o r k t o w a r d s a t h o r o u g h u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the W a r , its b a c k g r o u n d , c a u s e s a n d c o n s e q u e n c e s . Literature T h e question o f Bell's

tide

is discussed esjjecially b y Thackeray, L C L , II,

pp. vii-ix, and ( 1 9 2 9 ) , pp. 2 9 - 3 1 . According to Rajak ( 1 9 8 3 ) , pp. 2 1 0 - 1 2 , originally Bell, had no tide at all. Whereas the research made in earUer times generaUy was not aware o f Josephus' personal engagement in the theme o f Bell.,

at least not as expressed here, m a n y o f the more recent scholars are

highly conscious o f its significance, e.g. Attridge ( 1 9 7 6 ) , pp. 4 8 - 4 9 , 1 4 9 , 169, 1 8 3 ; Braim ( 1 9 5 6 ) , p. 5 6 ; Niese ( 1 8 9 6 ) , p. 2 0 6 ; Rajak ( 1 9 8 3 ) , p. 1 7 5 ; c f also below in Chapter 4, esp. section 6, b.

d. Josephus' interpretation of the War J o s e p h u s p e r c e i v e s t h e W a r as a t r a g e d y , a n d t h e r e f o r e h e is g r e a t i y c o n c e r n e d a b o u t t h e d e c i s i v e f a c t o r s o f its c a u s e s as w e U as its effects on the Jewish people.

74


As seen in Bell. 1, after the War the situauon of the Jewish people was most precarious, and there are many indications to show that as far as Josephus and his hterary activities were concerned, it was his main purpose to alleviate this situation. The maimer in which he presents the conflict seems to indicate that he has attempted to do this. For he describes the role of the Jewish people in the War as the innocent, defenceless tool of those who were actually guilty, the Jewish 'tyrants', 'bandits' and rebels, in brief, the Jewish war party {Bell. 1.10-11, 21; 2.264-265, 271 etc.). By placing all of die blame of the War on these groups, which are marginaUzed beyond aU historical probabihty in Josephus' account, it was his intention to exonerate the people as a whole. Therefore, not only does Josephus emphasize the pro-Roman and ftmdamentally peaceftil attitude of the Jewish upper-class, but also the same attitude of the common masses of the people. This is done to such an extent that an antiRoman rebelhon in Jewish Palestine becomes nearly incomprehensible. The purpose of this method of presentation is obviously of a pohticalapologetic nature. By describing the Jewish people as a whole as being an innocent party to the Revolt, Josephus attempted to sway the Romans to a more lenient attitude and to persuade them to revert to the friendly attitude towards the Jews, which Rome had practised before the War. AU ofJosephus' presentation of the Jewish side of the conflict is influenced by this pohtical-apologetic aim, which of course must be taken into consideration in every attempt to use Bell, in history writing. The causes of the War concern Josephus to an even greater extent than its consequences. His account of the immediate and provocative causes is discussed above and in Chapter 2, section 3. It was noted that Josephus considered the immediate cause of the outbreak of the Revolt to be the ever poorer administration by the Romans in the Jewish sector of Palestine, because it led to the growth of the Jewish war party, to the weakening of the party for peace and to increased tensions between Jews and non-Jews in Palestine. Thus, Josephus places the responsibihty and guilt on aU parties of the conflict (cf also Moehring [1984], pp. 897-901). If we turn our attention to the question of the deeper reasons for the War, we have already estabhshed that Josephus places a great deal of importance on the internal strife among the Jewish people {Bell. 1.10). In his opinion, this is the reason why, under the command of Pompey, the Romans took over power in Palestine in

3. The Writings

75

the year 63 BCE (Bell. 1.111-15%, Ant. 14.19-79), and m the year 66 CE it resuked in a revoU and war (Bell. 1.10; 5.257). But Josephus places the greatest stress on several Jewish transgressions of the law {Bell. 2.454-456; 4.314-318, 383-388). He combines this factor with the dissension among the Jewish people as just mentoned. Thus, Josephus appears to beheve that the unity of the Jewish people happens precisely as a result of the observance of the law, i.e. the righteousness of the people and its obedience to God (see esp. Agrippa II's and Josephus' orations in Bell. 2.345-401; 5.362-419; cf. Ap. 2.179-181). On the other hand, the dissension is an essential result of the fact that some of the Jewish people neglect to observe the law. And, according to Josephus, this is precisely what the Jews who support the War have done (cf also Bell. 5.11-19). Most profoundly, Josephus sees the War from a theological i.e. 'prophetic' or 'Deuteronomic' point of view, because he interprets the arrival of the Romans, the fall of Jerusalem, the burning of the Temple and all of the disasters of the War suflFered by the Jewish people as God's punishment for the sins of the people {Bell. 2.455; 5.19). Thus, Rome is perceived as a tool in the hand of God, by which he chastises his disobedient people, precisely in the same manner as—according to the Old Testament—he did through the Assyrians and the Babylonians. As Josephus sees it, the only way to avoid the catastrophe is a change of attitude by the people {Bell. 1.10; 5.19, 415). This indicates that Bell, is also a work of theological historical writing related to the historical accounts in the Old Testament. This goes to show that only by a rehgious interpretation was Josephus able to accept what took place. Literature Josephus' interpretation o f the W a r is discussed esp. by Attridge ( 1 9 8 4 ) , pp. 1 9 6 - 2 0 0 ; Farmer ( 1 9 5 6 ) , pp. 5 - 2 0 ; Lindner ( 1 9 7 2 ) , pp. 2 1 - 4 8 ; (1984);

Moehring

( 1 9 8 4 ) , esp. p p . 8 9 2 - 9 0 6 ;

Rajak

Michel

( 1 9 8 3 ) , pp. 7 8 - 1 0 3 ;

Stemberger, pp. 3 3 - 3 7 . Josephus' emphasis o n the connection between the Jewish transgressions o f the law and the dissension among the people is also noted by Rajak ( 1 9 8 3 ) , pp. 9 5 - 9 6 , and M o e h r i n g ( 1 9 8 4 ) , p. 8 9 2 . T h e entire question concerning Josephus' perception o f the causes o f the War is treated more thoroughly in Bilde ( 1 9 7 9 b ) . See also Chapter 5, section 2.

e. Bell, 's purpose and readers We have now found an adequate basis on which to discuss the purpose and aim of Bell., and consequently the circle of readers to

76


whom the work is addressed. Obviously, Josephus had several objectives in mind when he wrote about the Jewish War. Already in the preface, he states his intention to write the historical truth about the war which had been waged, and thereby correct other, earher accounts, which, according to him, could not hve up to this aim {Bell. 1.1-3, 6-12, 22, 26; cf Ant. 1.4; Ap. 1.46-54). Undoubtedly, Josephus also intended to draw an appreciative and favourable picture of his benefactors, the Flavian emperors, Vespasian and Titus. This is done already in the Preface, which emphasizes the patience and lenience of Titus during the War {Bell. 1.10, 28), but we also find diis expressed in the account of Titus' consideration for the Temple in Jerusalem, which he tries to spare and later to save when it had already been set on fire {Bell. 6.236-266; c f 7.112-113). According to several scholars (esp. HOlscher, Laqueur and Weber), here, we are faced with the primary, indeed the only purpose of Bell. But it was also Josephus' intention to depict his own person in a favourable hght, and we can point out other purposes for the writing of Bell. However, the fimdamental and predominant aim of Bell, is of a difierent nature. It has to do with the understanding of the War which is the main theme of the work. We know now that the War was a disaster for the Jewish people, and the primary aim of Bell, is to overcome this disaster. Josephus is concerned to prevent a repetition of the catastrophe, and therefore he tries to convince his people that they chose the wrong solution. This runs like a red thread through the entire account, but Josephus also makes a direct warning against renewed attempts at rebelhon: If I have

dwelt

at

some

length

on

this

topic

[the

passages

concerning the R o m a n a r m y ] , m y intendon was not so m u c h to extol the R o m a n s as to console those w h o m they have vanquished and to deter others w h o m a y be tempted to revolt {Bell.

3.108).

Perhaps, this intendon was even more pronounced in the first edition of Bell, which, according to Bell. 1.3 and 6, was written in his mother tongue, presumably Aramaic, and was certainly addressed primarily to Josephus' fellow countrymen. That such a warning was not uncoimected with actual events is confirmed by the fact that revolts continued to occur in Cyrene in the early 70s {Bell. 7.437-453), and were later followed by the confi-ontation under Trajan in 115-117, not to mention the great revolt of Bar Kokhba in 132-135. In the hght of this. Bell, may be understood to be a contribution to the internal

3. The Writings

77

Jewish discussion about the attitude to the Roman state and the interpretation of the Messianic prophecies. Josephus' position in the matter is that in order to survive, the Jewish people must reject the mihtant nationahsm and Messianism as it was maintained and practised by the rebelhous groups before, during and after the War. Owing to pohtical reasons, and especially theological reasons, Josephus rejects these rnovements. Rome is too strong. This is demonstrated in many ways in Bell., first and foremost in the speech by Agrippa II (2.345-401). However, the decisive factor is that Rome has her power from God and by his wiU (2.390; cf 5.367, 378, etc.). Accordingly, a revolt against Rome is a revolt against God {Bell. 5.378). Josephus' admonidon to the Jewish people is that they should repent (5.19, 415). The people should thereafter content themselves with Roman supremacy as long as it is the will of God to uphold it. Actually, it is only for a hmited length of time that Rome is in power (5.367; cf. esp. the word nun, 'now'). Therefore, the Jews should wait patiently until this situation changes and this wiU come to pass in God's own time. Thus, Bell, has a clear message to bring to Josephus' Jewish countrymen. As seen in the Preface, however. Bell, addresses itself primarily to the Roman readers. Bell. 1.3 refers to the 'subjects of the Roman empire' and 1.6 to the 'Greeks' and 'Romans' as Josephus' audience. These general expressions are confirmed and defined by a few remarks in Vita 361-362 and Ap. 1.50-51. In these references, we find that the Greek Bell, was first presented to the Flavians and then to others, including several participants in the War, Romans as well as Greek-speaking Jews. This information corresponds with the ptupose of Bell, as pointed out above, namely, that Josephus' intention was to mend the relationship between the Jews and Rome and to restore the Roman pohcy of tolerance towards the Jewish people. Therefore, as we have seen, Josephus places all of the responsibihty on the part of the Jews onto the marginal groups—the 'bandits' and the 'tyrants'— as well as irresponsible individuals such as John of Gischala and Simon bar Giora, whereas he attempts to exonerate the Jewish people as a whole for responsibihty and guilt with regard to the War. Thus, the aim of Bell, is complex and the readers of the work diverse. First and foremost. Bell, is addressed to the ruhng class in Rome in a pohtical-apologeuc attempt to mend the broken relauonship and to restore the favourable situation the Jewish people

78


enjoyed before die year 66. Next, Bell, addressed itself to Josephus' own people with a pohtical and theological interpretation of the War and the disaster which occurred. This interpretation forms the basis of a concrete pohtical programme which is an alternative to the pohcy of the party which supported the War. Literature For a closer review o f the secondary hterature on Bell's

aim and readers, one

can generally refer to Attridge ( 1 9 8 4 ) , pp. 1 9 2 - 2 1 0 , esp. 1 9 5 - 2 0 6 ; Feldman ( 1 9 8 4 a ) , pp. 3 7 8 - 8 0 , and ( 1 9 8 4 b ) , pp. 8 3 8 - 5 7 ; Rajak ( 1 9 8 3 ) , pp. 7 8 - 1 0 3 and 185-222;

Thackeray

( 1 9 2 9 ) , pp. 2 3 - 5 0 .

The

classic

point o f view

that

Bell, is primarily or only a Flavian R o m a n production is expressed by e.g. Attridge ( 1 9 8 4 ) , pp. 2 0 0 - 2 0 3 ; M . G r a n t , pp. 2 5 5 f ; J. G u t m a i m , pp. 4 0 5 f ; Holscher ( 1 9 1 6 ) , col. 1 9 4 3 ; Laqueur, p. vii, etc.; Schaht ( 1 9 7 1 ) , pp. 2 5 4 - 5 5 , and ( 1 9 7 5 ) , p. 2 1 4 ; Vidal-Naguet

( 1 9 7 7 ) , pp. 1 2 - 1 5 ; Weber,

diroughout;

G . A . WiUiamson ( 1 9 6 4 ) , pp. 2 7 6 and 2 8 3 f Mighario, pp. 9 2 , 96 and 136, stands alone in the opinion

that all o f Josephus' works are

primarily

addressed to Jewish readers. T h e following scholars are o f the opinion that the aim and main purpose o f Bell, is national apologetic, and the readers o f the work are primarily R o m a n s : Niese ( 1 8 9 6 ) , pp. 2 0 1 - 2 0 2 , and ( 1 9 1 4 ) , p. 5 7 1 ; Rajak

( 1 9 8 3 ) , pp. 175flF. and

204-12;

van

Unnik

( 1 9 7 8 ) , p. 2 6 ;

Z e i d i n ( 1 9 6 8 - 1 9 6 9 ) , pp. 1 8 0 and 1 8 2 , and ( 1 9 7 8 ) , pp. 3 9 5 - 9 6 .

f. Sources Bell's often extremely accurate and impartial rendering of the history of the War has frequently led scholars to consider whether in these and possibly other parts of this work, Josephus might have built upxin an earher, but now lost, Roman account of the Jewish-Roman war. Weber argued that Bell, was essentiaUy dependent upon a now lost Flavian work of history based on the imperial, Flavian 'commentari' or hupomnemata which are mentioned in Vita 342, 358; Ap. 1.56. Schlatter, on the other hand, was of the opinion that Bell. was based upon a work by Antonius Juhanus, who according to Minucius FeUx (Octavius 33.4) had written an account of the history of the War. The entire matter is very uncertain, because we are deahng with unknown quantities and with very brief time Umits. In more recent years, Lindner has taken this theory up for reconsideration, but with far greater caution than that taken by Weber and Schlatter (cf below in Chapter 4, sections 3 and 5). Literature First and foremost, reference is made to Lindner ( 1 9 7 2 ) , pp. 1-20,

who

3. The Writings

79

introduces the discussion and the history o f research. However, see also Bilde ( 1 9 8 3 a ) , pp. 2 8 - 3 0 and 4 7 - 4 8 , and Attridge ( 1 9 8 4 ) , pp. 1 9 3 - 9 4 .

g. Dating The only question remaining is that of when Bell, was written. In answer to this question we have a few clues. One of the last events described in Bell, is Flavius Silva's siege and conquest of Masada {Bell. 7.252ff.). The research which has been made traditionaUy dates this event to (May) 73. However, an inscription found in recent years indicates that Silva did not take office unffi late in ffie year 73, and ffierefore, presumably Masada was not taken until May 74. An even later event is described in Bell. 7.158-162, namely, Vespasian's construction and inauguration of ffie peace temple, Templum Pacis, in which, among other things, ffie treasures confiscated fi-om Jerusalem were kept. We know from Dio Cassius ffiat ffiis temple was inaugurated in ffie sixth year of Vespasian, i.e. ffie year 75 {Hist. 65.15). Thus, ffie Greek version of Bell, must have been completed after this date. On ffie offier hand. Bell, must have been pubhshed before ffie deaffi of Vespasian in 79, because, accorffing to Vita 361, Josephus presented a copy of ffie completed work to this Emperor. Therefore, the pubhcation of ffie Greek edition of Bell, must have taken place between ffie years 75 and 79. However, as mentioned above, ffie Greek version is a translation and perhaps also an expanded version of ffie Aramaic or Hebrew version (cf Bell. 1-3, 6). Theoretically, this version could of course have been published as early as the beginning of the 70s, but this is hardly likely. Josephus did not arrive in Rome until 71, and the enormous task of collecting, preparing and formulating the work must be presumed to have taken some years. Therefore, in aU probabihty, ffie first edition of Bell, was pubhshed in ffie middle of ffie 70s and ffie Greek edition was pubhshed at ffie end of the same decade. Literature Wiffi regard to the dating o f B e / / . , I refer to Attridge ( 1 9 8 4 ) , pp. 1 9 2 - 9 3 , and Feldman ( 1 9 8 4 b ) , pp. 8 3 9 - 4 0 and 8 5 7 . T h e argument in favour o f Masada having been conquered in ffie year 7 4 and not, as previously assumed, in 7 3 , has been presented in Ecks' article o f 1 9 6 9 . T h e relationship between ffie two versions o f B e / / , has been dealt with in detail by H a t a , who argues in favour o f ffie G r e e k version o f Bell,

representing a complete re-working o f the

original version in Josephus' native tongue, and Rajak ( 1 9 8 3 ) , pp. 1 7 4 - 8 4 . C o m p a r e , however, Feldman ( 1 9 8 4 b ) , pp. 8 3 8 - 3 9 .

80

Flavius Josephus, between Jerusalem and Rome 3. The Jewish Antiquities

According to Ant. 1.6-7, already at the time he wrote Bell., Josephus was contemplating writing the complete history of the Jews from the creation to his own time. It is, however, imphed that at this early date the project was considered to be a far too overwhelming task, and instead he decided to write Bell, as an independent work {Ant. 1.7). In Bell. 1.17-18, Josephus touches upon the same idea, but here he expresses himself in a different mannef. He writes that he refrains from relating the early history of the Jews, because this has already been done adequately by other Jewish authors. Therefore, he begjns Bell, where these authors conclude their accounts. AU the same, Josephus did not give up the great task he originally considered; alternauvely, with the passing of time, he may have changed his mind and at a later date, when the thought of writing an allcomprehensive work occurred to him, he anachronisticaUy, in his preface to Ant., moved this thought back to an earher stage in his hfe. According to Ant. 1.7, at any rate Josephus made early attempts at this task, but he encountered several diflSculties owing to the magnitude and difficulty of it, not least Unguistically. While he was faced wiffi ffiese difficulties, he received encouragement and support from his 'editor', patron or Maecenas, Epaphroffitus to whom Ant., Vita and Ap. are dedicated. Wiffi the assistance of Epaphroditus, Josephus finally succeeded in completing his great project. In ffie foUowing, we shall attempt to elucidate Ant., Josephus' most comprehensive work. a. Contents and sources Ant. is truly a voluminous work. It is nearly ffiree times as long as Bell., and divided into twenty books. Ant. 1 is introduced by ffie Proem (1.1-26) in which Josephus states ffie background and purjxjse of this work. Here, he emphasizes ffiat ffie Greek translation of ffie Old Testament, probably ffie Septuagint ( L X X ) , is a paraUel to his own work (1.10-13). He presents a rdsumd of Ant's moral (1.14-17) and briefly compares ffie lawgiver of ffie Jewish people, Moses, wiffi offier lawgivers (1.18-26). This is followed, more or less closely cormected wiffi ffie Old Testament (eiffier ffie Hebrew Bible or a Greek translation similar to ffie Septuagint, or based on boffi togeffier [cf. Feldman, 1984b, p. 791]), by a rendering of ffie contents of Genesis from ffie creation to ffie deaffis of Isaac and Rebecca (Gen. 1-35). However, fix)m ffie beginimig in Ant. 1, it will be

3. The Writings

81

noted that Josephus does not follow the bibhcal text exactly or hterally, neither with regard to the phraseology nor the sequence of the narradves. On the other hand, he does follow it to a high degree with regard to content and substance, so actually there are rather narrow limits to Josephus' deviations. Furthermore, one finds that here and there he introduces new material, not least references to the ancient historical writings. Thus, for example in Ant. 1.93-95, where Josephus refers to the accounts of Berosus, Hieronymus and Nicolas of Damascus concerning the flood. Ant. 2 covers the material from Genesis 36 to Exodus 15, i.e. the period from the time of the controversy between Jacob and Esau up until the dehvery of the Israehtes from Egypt and their miraculous crossing of the Red Sea. In addition to the features mentioned above, we may add that in Ant. 2 Josephus takes particular interest in his namesake Joseph. His version of the story of Joseph as found in Genesis 37-50 takes up more than half of/Inr.'s second book (2.7200). Not only is the story of Joseph enlarged upon, it is also recreated. The dramatic, pathetic and erotic features are intensified. The interest in the individual persons and their emotions are emphasized and in crucial points in the story Josephus places long speeches in the mouths of Joseph and other important characters. Thus, the story of Joseph as related by Josephus becomes similar to a Hellenistic short story or a novel (cf. Braun [1934]). Ant. 3 describes Israel's sojourn in the desert and renders the remaining part of Exodus, as well as a considerable amount of material from Leviticus and Numbers. First, the miracles in the desert, and thereafter a narrative of the events at Sinai, having its highhght in the lawgiving. Here, it may be observed that Josephus places the Mosaic Laws into a system. In Ant. 3 (and 4), he combines material from Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. For instance, he describes in an orderly sequence and with considerable interpretative additions, the scattered regulations from the Pentateuch concerning the tabernacle, the ark, the showbread table, the candelabra, the incense altar, the bumt-ofiering altar and the robes of the priests and the high-priests and other accoutrements (3.102-187). In hke manner, the material on the laws concerning the sacrifices (3.224236), the festivals (3.237-254), ritual cleanhness (3.258-273), etc., is systematized. Ant. 4 covers the 40 years in the desert from the revolt of the people against Moses (Num. 14) until his death (Deut. 34).

82


Here, Josephus renders the narrative material of Numbers and Deuteronomy concerning the people's resistance to Moses as weU as that which remains to be told about the laws described in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. However, the predominant feature is the narrative about the arrival of the Israehtes in the East Jordan country and Jericho (4.76-175), Moses' fareweU speech (4.76-193) and, above all, a rdsumd of the Mosaic Law as a state constitution (politeia) (4.196-301). Thereafter, a few other laws foUow and we have the account of the death of Moses and Josephus' own eulogy to the great Jewish lawgiver. Ant. 5 comprises the immigration under the leadership of Joshua and the time of Judges. By and large, in Ant. 5, Josephus follows the narrative material which dominates the book of Joshua and the book of Judges fairly accurately. In the rendering of the story of Samson (5.276-317), however, we find the same features which were characteristic of his treatment of the story of Joseph, and which are also observed in Josephus' rendering of the stories of Abraham (Ant. 1.150-256) and other famous characters in the Old Testament (cf Feldman's articles of 1968a, 1968b, 1970, 1976 and 1982 in diis regard). However, the most interesting feature of Ant. 5 is that, apparently for chronological reasons, towards the end of the book Josephus places the book of Ruth (5.318-337) between material fi-om the book of Judges and 1 Samuel. Ant. 6 describes Israel's fights against the Phihstines under Samuel and Saul. Here again, Josephus foUows the Old Testament original fairly accurately (1 Sam. 5-31), and we encounter Josephus' usual parallel references, oratories, interpretations and reflections, e.g. on the harmfiil influence of power (6.262-268). At the same time, the account is characterized by a very particular interest in Saul, who dominates in Ant. 6 (6.45-378; cf. Feldman, 1982). But special interest is also given to David, who plays an increasingly important role in the second half of the book (6.156-378). Nevertheless, let us note that in Ant. 6, to a higher degree than in the other parts of his work, Josephus follows his bibhcal model (cf N.G. Cohen's observations [1963-1964]). Ant. 7, in conunuation of Ant. 6.156-378, is concentrated on David, who together with Moses and Herod is one of the most prominent characters in Ant. Here again, Josephus follows his souurces in 2 Samuel and 1 Kings fairly accurately. But in Ant. 7, one can observe that he systematically combines the books of Samuel (2 Sam.

3. The Writings

83

1-24) and the books of Kings (1 Kgs 1-2) with the books of Chronicles (1 Chron. 11; 16; 20-29; 2 Chron. 2), e.g. inAnt. 7.46-129, 301-342. Ant. 8 concentrates on the reign of Solomon, but it also comprises the division of the kingdom and the history of the Southern and Northern Kingdoms until the time of Ahab (8.212-420). To a high degree, the account corresponds to that of Ant. 7 in that 1 Kings 2-22 is coordinated with the versions in 2 Chronicles 1-18 and the Septuagint. In the account of Solomon's reign, Josephus can substantiate the bibhcal account of the relationship between Solomon and Fdng Hiram of Tyre with a reference to a preserved correspondence between these two kings (8.55-56) and references to parallels in ancient accounts (8.144-149). Otherwise, Ant. 8 is of course dominated by the description of Solomon's building of the Temple (8.61-98). For this account, Josephus uuhzes all of the above mentioned sources (2 Kgs 6; 2 Chron. 3-4 and 2 Kgs 6-7 [ L X X ] ) , and he adds a considerable amount of material. The actual rendering of Solomon is influenced by Josephus' by now well-known Hellenisuc interpretation. He particularly describes Solomon as being a philosopher and a man dedicated to peace (cf. Feldman, 1976). Ant. 9 deals with the period from the death of Ahab till the faU of the Northern Kingdom by the Assyrian conquest of Samaria in 722 and the corresponding period in the Southern Kingdom. The basic sources are 1 Kings 22, 2 Kings 1-18 and 2 Chronicles 19-31. In rendering these sources, Josephus makes use of both the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint. As observed in the previous books of Ant., Josephus combines material from these sources, but in Ant. 9 he also incorporates material from the book of Jonah (9.206-214) and the book of Nahum (9.239-242). Ant. 9 concludes with an allusion by Josephus to the testimony from Tyre which attests the Old Testament account of the Assyrian invasion (9.283-287), and a brief description of the Samaritans who appear on the historical scene at this time (9.288-291). Ant. 10 is even more complex than Ant. 9, This book covers the period from the time of the Assyrian attack on Jersusalem in 701 to the fall of the city to the Babylonians in 586. The basic sources are 2 Kings 18-25 and 2 Chronicles 32-36, but in addition to these sources there is some other material which in particular includes significant contributions from the prophetic hterature. Josephus incorporates material about Josiah from the apocryphal Ezra

84


literature (10.70-83), information about Sennacherib as told by Herodotus (10.18-20) and about Nebuchadnezzar's death given by Berosus, Megasthenes and other Hellenistic writers of history (10.219-228). The prophetic hterature which Josephus uses is as foUows: the book of Isaiah 38-39 (10.24-35), the book of Ezekiel 12 (10.106-107) and above all, the book ofJeremiah, namely, chs. 22,26, 29, 33-34, 37-43 and 52 (10.84-180) and the book of Daniel, namely, chs. 1-6 and 8 (10.186-218, 232-281). ActuaUy, the most interesting feature in Ant. 10 is the role which the prophets Jeremiah and Daniel play in this book. Jeremiah plays the leading role in the second third of the book and Daniel in the last third. Thus, Ant. 10 is predominantly a book of the prophets, and especiaUy a book of the prophets of judgment. Ant. 11 concerns the period from the dme when Cyrus put an end to the Babylonian Exile (about 540) until the time when Alexander the Great conquered Jerusalem and Palestine in 332. The basic sources for this rendering are numerous and complex. The first third of the book biulds on the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, supplemented by material from Isaiah 44 (11.5-6), the apocryphal Ezra Uterature (11.159-183, 297-303) as weU as an unknown letter from Cyrus (11.12-17). The last part of Ant. 11 builds on the book of Esther and the apocryphal Esther hterature (11.184-296). In addition, there is some information about Alexander the Great for which the sources are unknown (11.304-347). In Ant. 11, there are two predominant themes which are of a brighter nature: the return of the Jews of Jerusalem from their exile in Babylon and the rescue of the Persian Jews on the intervention of Esther. The story of Esther is given special attention by Josephus (cf Feldman, 1970). He embelhshes this story in a way similar to his rendering of the stories of Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Samson, Saul, David and Solomon. Ant. 12 covers the period from the death of Alexander (323) to the Hasmonaeans' dehverance of Judaea and the death of Judas Maccabaeus (161). Aristeas' letter (12.7-118), an otherwise unknown Tobiad chronicle (12.154-236) and 1 Maccabees 1-9 (12.237-434) are the main sources. These sources are supplemented by a few documents by Antiochus III (12.138-153) and others (12.226-227, 258-263), plus a number of references to HeUenistic historical writers such as Agatharchides (12.5-7), Nicolas of Damascus (12.127) and Polybius (12.135-137, 358-359). Again, we observe Josephus' predilection towards focusing his historical writings on significant

3. The Writings

85

persons such as Ptolemy Soter, the Tobiads, Joseph and Hyrcanus, and the Hasmonaeans, Matthias and Judas. Ant. 13 covers the time when Judas' brother, Jonathan, assumed power (161) unul the death of Queen Salome Alexandra (67), i.e. the history of the development of the Hasmonaean state. In the first part of the book, ^wf. 13.1-217, the source material is still 1 Maccabees, namely, chs. 9-13, but beginning with Ant. 13.218 we are no longer able to trace Josephus' rendering back to any other known ancient Jewish sources. Already in Ant. 13.1-217, it can be estabhshed that 1 Maccabees is supplemented by other material, e.g. in 13.35-36, 5880 and 106-121, but we caimot determine with certainty the source fi-om which this material is derived. As far as Ant. 13.218-432 is concerned, we must be content to ascertain that Josephus quotes from or refers to Nicolas (13.250-251, 347), Sirabo (13.286-287, 319, 347), Timagenes (13.344) and 'others' (13.337). Moreover, documentary material is cited consisung of a letter fi-om the Roman Senate to Hyrcanus I (134-104) (13.260-264). But we cannot determine the main basis for Josephus' account. Or, to state it more precisely, in these passages, Josephus foUows the account previously rendered in Bell., which is continually corrected and supplemented (cf e.g. Horowitz, pp. 31-34). Nevertheless, we have no certain knowledge of the basis for this account, although most scholars tend to support the theory that in these passages Josephus' rendering is based on Nicolas fi-om Damascus (cf. e.g. HOlscher [1904], pp. 1617). Moreover, the account in Ant. 13 is quite naturally dominated by the Hasmonaean leaders and kings, Jonathan (161-142), Simon (142-134), John Hyrcanus I (134-104), Alexander Jannaeus (103-76) and Salome Alexandra (76-67). Ant. 14 describes the time from the death of Salome Alexandra until Herod the Great conquers Jerusalem in 37, i.e. the troubled interim period between the Hasmonaean pohty and the founding of the Herodian chent rule. During this period, Pompey conquers Jerusalem in 63 and in reahty subjugates the entire area under Roman rule. The basic source of Ant. 14, and the paraUel rendering in Bell. 1.117-353, exactly as found in the second \\aSfofAnt. 13, is less obvious than that of the preceding books. However, a more thorough analysis indicates that here too, in addition to Bell., which must be taken to be the underlying basis for the composition of this part of Ant., Josephus either quotes from or makes reference to a number of non-bibhcal sources. This apphes to Nicolas (14.9, 68,

86


104), Strabo (14.35-36, 68, 104, 111, 114-118, 138-139), Livy (14.68) 'and many others' (14.68, 111, 138). Primarily, however. Ant. 14 is influenced by the numerous oflBcial documents which mention various forms of honours and privileges bestowed on the Jewish community throughout the world as it was known at the time (14.144-148, 149-155, 190-195, 196-198, 199, 200-201, 202-210, 211212, 213-216,219-222,225-227,228-229, 230, 231-232,233,234,235, 236-237, 237-240, 241-243, 244-246, 247-255, 256-258, 259-261, 262264, 265-267, 306-313, 314-318, 319-322). Whereas on the basis of Ant. 14.185-189, it can probably be assumed that Josephus himself collected this material from Roman and other archives, we are not in a position to form an opinion with regard to his main source for Ant. 14. Most scholars, however, assume that in these books he has primarily rehed on Nicolas. Apart from that, with regard to its contents, .^wf. 14 is mostly concerned with the devastating conflict in the Hasmonaean House as the background and the reason, partly for the Roman penetration of the region, and parUy for the rise of the Herodian Idumaean family and their consequent usurpation of power. Ant. 15 renders the period from the conquest of Jerusalem by Herod (37) until his dedication of the Temple as it had been rebuilt in the year 18. It concerns the first reign of Herod during which he consohdates his own supremacy as against the Hasmonaeans, Cleopatra, the Nabataeans and the changing Roman rulers, first and foremost Anthony and Octavian. This is the period in which he gradually acquires considerable extensions of his realm. But at the same time. Ant. 15 tells us about the tragic strife within Herod's family, particularly with his wife, Mariamme. Finally, in this book, we find the important descriptions of Herod's building constructions, especially the Royal Palace in Jerusalem, Herodion, Caesarea and the extensive rebuilding of the Temple. With regard to the sources, in Ant. 15 we find only a few references, namely, to Strabo (15.9-10) and to Herod's own 'Memoirs' and other 'sources' (15.174-178). In 15.425, however, we find an interesting reference: 'And this story, which our fathers have handed down to us', a wording which is probably to be understood as pointing to Jewish rehgious oral tradition. Nevertheless, the problem of sources in Ant. 15 is basicaUy the same as in Ant. 14. Ant. 16 covers the relatively brief period from the dedication of the Temple until the year 7-6 when Herod executed his two sons bom by

3. The Writings

87

Mariamme. In outward circumstances, Herod is described as being at the height of his power. His realm extends over an area as large as that of Israel under the time of David. He is a 'friend' of Augustus and Marcus Agrippa. He is in a position to give powerflil support to the Jews in the Diaspora (16.16-65). He inaugurates the great sea port in Caesarea in the year 10 (16.136-141). He is able to defeat the Nabataeans again (16.271-299). But at the same time, Herod's house and family are occupied with his perpetual strife with his own children and his brothers and sisters. Moreover, there is an increasing dissension between the king and his Jewish subjects (16.373-391). It is this tension between Herod's outward strength and his internal disintegration which dominates the account in Ant. 16. With regard to the sources for this book, Josephus makes a single reference to Nicolas (16.183-187) in a passage in which he criticizes him for being partial and favourable in his presentation of Herod. In another passage, Josephus refers to and quotes from a number of official Roman documents of ffie same type as ffiose which are hsted in Ant. 14 (16.162-173). Offierwise, ffie source situauon oiAnt. 16 is ffie same as we have in Ant. 14 and 15. Ant. 17 contains an account of ffie events in Judaea from ffie execution of Mariamme's sons till Archelaus was deposed in ffie year 6 CE, when Judaea was reorganized as a Roman province, i.e. a period which is just as brief as ffie period which is described in Ant. 16. Thus, ffie period described is partly ffie last years of Herod and partly ffie reign of Archelaus. The part concerning Herod is a continuation of the account in Ant. 16. Herod's tragedy is consummated wiffi his execution of a ffiird son, Anupater (17.1-187), ffie increasing opposition to the people (17.41-45, 149-163) and with Herod's illness, suicidal attempt, death and burial (17.168-195). The part of ffie book which concerns the reign of Archelaus depicts the contest for power between Herod's heirs (17.219-249, 299-320), and ffie increasing unrest and direct revolt in Judaea (17.200-218, 250298). In Ant. 17, Josephus makes no reference whatsoever to his sources, and ffierefore, wiffi regard to this problem, we must assume ffiat ffie remarks made on the same question in Ant. 14-15 apply here as well. Thus, Ant. 14-17 present a chronological and very detailed account of Herod ffie Great as a person, his reign and his family hfe from the 40s till his death in 4 BCE. These books comprise ffie most comprehensive narrative cycle in Ant. In aU probabihty, it is a

88


narrative which builds on the historical works of Nicolas of Damascus. However, the rendering also has paraUels earher in Ant., formally in the narrative cycles concerning Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Samson, David, Esther and Agrippa I, and with regard to the content m the story of Saul {Ant. 6.45-378). Ant. 18 comprises the period from the deposal of Archelaus to the death of Gains Cahgula (41). By and large, the account follows the parallel version in Bell. 2.117-203, but it has been greatly expanded, partiy in the rendering of the same events and partly by the addition of a great deal of new material, e.g. the founding of Tiberias (18.3638), Testimonium Flavianum (18.63-64), the passages on John the Baptist (18.116-119) and the information concerning the Babylonian Jews (18.310-379). Besides, as mentioned above, some material, already seen in Bell., has been expanded. This apphes, for example, to the narrative cycle concerning Agrippa I (18.143-256). As for the question of sources, in Ant. 18 Josephus gives no references. In reahty, therefore, we are completely at a loss. However, we must assume that aside from Bell, which he evidently draws on, Josephus has had several Roman sources at his disposal. Ant. 19 covers a very brief period, namely, Agrippa Fs reign as 'Great King' (41-44). The major part of the book is, however, devoted to a highly dramatic rendering of the intrigues which ensued around the murder of Gaius Cahgula in Rome (19.17-273). This account is clearly based on an otherwise very valuable contemporary Roman source which Mommsen beheves to be Cluvius Rufiis. Josephus incorporates this source in his text. The story about the murder of Cahgula is hnked together with the other material about Cahgula in Ant. 18 and 19 (18.224-309; 19.1-16). In a similar manner, Josephus combines the account of Claudius' election as the new emperor, by the intervention of Agrippa I, with the other narratives concerning this king. Again in Ant. 19, we find that Josephus has cited a few official documents (19.280-285, 287-291, 303-311). Ant. 20, ffie final book, covers ffie time from ffie deaffi of Agrippa I in 44 till ffie outbreak of ffie Revolt under Gessius Florus in 66. Here again, we encounter a largely expanded paraUel to Bell. (2.220-279). One of ffie largest expansions is found in Ant. 20.17-96, which describes ffie conversion of the royal family of Adiabene to Judaism. One of ffie most famous passages is ffie brief note about Jesus' broffier James being executed by ffie high priest Ananus (20.200-

3. The Writings

89

203). Otherwise, it is characteristic of Ant. 20, that hke Ant. 14-19, we learn nothing about the source material, and that in Ant., the account paraUeled in Bell, seems to be rendered in an edited and largely expanded version. Literature

In general, I refer to Attridge (1984), pp. 210-27; Feldman (1984a), pp. 121-344, and (1984b), pp. 788-821; HOlscher (1916), cols. 1950-1994; Thackeray (1929), pp. 51-74. On the quesdon of Ant.'& contents and sources, one can only refer to Attridge (1984), pp. 211-16. That from^nr. 13 onwards Josephus bases his account on Nicolas of Damascus, is correcdy assumed by, among others Bloch, e.g. p. 108; HOlscher (1904), pp. 16-17; Horowitz, pp. 57 and 65. That Josephus at the same dme ftovaAnt. 13.218 follows the account in Bell., which is corrected and supplemented throughout, is asserted by Horowitz, pp. 31-34. Mommsen, p. 322, assumes that in Ant. 19.17-273, Josephus builds on a now lost account by Cluvius Rufus. This theory is accepted by Helscher (1904), p. 67; Schemann, pp. 49-53, whereas it is rejected by e.g. Feldman (1962), pp. 320flF.; Timpe, pp. 480 and 500. b. Structure and disposition Ant. can readily be divided into two main parts, 1-10 and 11-20. These parts diflFer from each other in three important factors, which are, however, interrelated. The first factor is the Temple. Its destruction in 586 BCE is described in Ant. 10, whereas Ant. 20 anucipates the second destruction in the year 70 CE. Yet, the latter is predicted already at the end of Ant. 10 (10.79, 276). Thus, Ant. 10 and 20 clearly refer to each other and may therefore be looked upon as fimdamental in the structure and disposition of Ant. Ant.i-10 may be regarded as the account of the history of the first Temple, and Ant. 11-20 as a parallel account of the period of the second Temple. In the second place. Ant. 1-10 and 11-20 are at variance with regard to the sources. Whereas in Ant. 1-10, Josephus can be said to build on the 'law and the prophets', in Ant. 11-20, he can oidy rely on the least esteemed group of the texts in the Jewish canon, the socalled 'scriptures'. In Ap. 1.37-41, Josephus reviews the canonical scriptures perceived of as being historical sovuces. Here, in a manner which corresponds to the account in Ant., he makes a clear-cut disdnction between Moses and the prophets on one side and postprophetic hterature on the other, albeit in Ap., it is not made clear precisely which of the scriptures belong to the 'rest'. Nevertheless, it

90


is obvious rhaxAnt. 1-10, which renders Moses and the prophets, has a status which differs from that of Ant. 11-20, where the sources are of a different and secondary nature. Thus, fxom. Ant. 11 and onward, Josephus must rely on his use of the 'scriptures' to a greater extent, and beyond this source, he must incorporate non-canonical books and other material, especiaUy official documents and ffie testimony of offier historians. Therefore, from and incluffing ffie llffi book, Ant. becomes increasingly reminiscent of Bell., wiffi which ffie great work does in fact run parallel in Ant. 13-20. Thirdly, Ant. 1-10 and 11-20 are separated by ffie Babylonian Exile. To Josephus, this is important as a historical juncture, and ffierefore, it also influences his presentation of ffie work, corresponding to ffiat dividing hne which Mt. 1.1-17 sets up between ffie twentyeight generations before ffie Exile and ffie fourteen generauons after it. Naturally, ffiis factor is very closely related to ffie first, because ffie Babylonian Exile may be looked upon as a consequence of ffie faU of Jerusalem and ffie Temple in 586. In Josephus' view, ffie Babylonian Exile, like ffie destruction of ffie Temple in 586, may be said to anticipate, predict and describe that exile which for Josephus himself and ffiousands of offier Jews turned out to be a decisive result of the fall of ffie second Temple in the year 70. If we have a closer look at Ant. 1-10, once again, we may say ffiat this part of ffie work consists of two sections, 1-5 describing ffie foundation of Israel, and 6-10 describing its (first) reahzation. This ffiviffing hne may be interpreted in more ways than one. As far as the people are concerned. Ant. 1-5 deals wiffi its coming into being and its formation outside of ffie country Canaan, whereas 6-10 gives us ffie account of its existence inside ffie country. As far as the state is concerned, its institutions and power are founded in ffie period covered by Ant. 1-5, whereas 6-10 give us an account of its reahzation, expansion and demise in ffie promised land. Wiffi regard to ffie Temple, we recognize ffie same pattern. These ffispositional considerations may be summed up so as to show ffiat Moses, ffie lawgiver of ffie people, dominates ^wr. 1-5, whereas ffie Great Kings, ffist and foremost David, are prevalent in Ant. 6-10. The arrangement of Ant. 11-20 is less clear, but several ffifferent ffivisions may be attempted. Thus, it may be argued ffiat Ant. 11-13 comprise ffie Persian and Greek period, whereas 14-20 cover ffie Roman. Likewise, it may be said ffiat Ant. 11-13 has its central ffieme in ffie Hasmonaean monarchy, 14-17 in ffie reign of Herod

3. The Writings

91

the Great and 18-20 in the rules of Agrippa I and Agrippa II. But these and corresponding attempts are not satisfactory, neither by virtue of the divisions proposed nor by the criteria by means of which they are undertaken. So far, I have not yet found the key to the arrangement of Ant. 11-20, but I am confident that the foUowing reflections which continue the structural analysis of Ant. 1-20 should be taken into consideration. Ant. 11-20, it seems to me, faUs into three parts, each of which depicts three phases of restoration and faU fi-om the time of the destruction of the first Temple to that of the second Temple. The restoration at the time of the return fi-om the Babylonian Exile, the re-estabhshing of the Temple, the society and the state culminating with the Hasmonaean monarchy are described in vivid colours in Ant. 11-13. Thereafter,/Iwf. 14-17 unfolds the controversy which was hinted at already at the end of 11-13 (13.3723".). The Hasmonaean monarchy, and with it the Jewish people and the country itself, was disrupted during the course of the controversy between Alexandra's sons, Aristobulus and Hyrcanus. Therefore, the country and the people fall an easy prey, first to Pompey and then to Antipater and his 'Herodian' family. Now, Israel is under the domination of Rome and her Herodian chents, and the splendid kingdom of Herod the Great is only a wretched cover over internal strife and disintegration. Ant. 18-20 narrates the last (and last but one) phase in this process of disintegration: the revolts after the death of Herod and the deposal of Archelaus; the transformation of Judaea into a proper Roman province; and the accelerating confrontations under the direct Roman administration. Viewed in this maimer. Ant. 11-20, especiaUy 18-20, set the stage for Bell, and the new work about the War and the time after the War, both of which are mentioned in the postscript to Ant. (20.259, 267). The disposition of Ant. may then be given as follows: 1. 2. 3.

1.1-26: Introduction 1.27-10.281: Ant. part 1: die time of the first Temple: a. 1-5: The founding of Israel b. 6-10: The evolution and faU of Israel 11-20: Ant. part 2: The time of the second Temple a. 11-13: The re-estabhshment of Israel b. 14-17: The first phase of the second fall: the Herodians

92

Flavius Josephus, between Jerusalem and Rome c. 18-20: The second phase of the second faU: Roman rule

Literature

To my knowledge, die only available discussions of the disposiuon oiAnt. are to be found in Attridge ( 1 9 8 4 ) , pp.211, 2 1 3 , and SchaUt ( 1 9 6 7 ) , p. Ivu. Whereas SchaUt argues in favour oiAnt. being original in its arrangement, he does not proceed far beyond determining its two main parts. Attridge, Uke the present author, divides Ant. 1 1 - 2 0 into three parts, viz. 1 1 - 1 3 , 1 4 - 1 7 and 1 8 - 2 0 . Apart from that, many scholars maintain that the disposiuon and arrangement of Ant. is in a way similar to the Roman Antiquities by Dionysius of HaUcamassus in twenty books; thus, e.g. Attridge ( 1 9 7 6 ) , pp. 43flF.; Downing throughout the three articles from 1 9 8 0 (a and b) and 1 9 8 2 ; Peter, p. 3 8 0 ; SchaUt ( 1 9 6 7 ) , pp. xx-xxvi; Shutt ( 1 9 6 1 ) , pp. 9 2 - 1 0 1 . This theory is correctly rejected by Heinemann, p. 1 8 2 ; Ladouceur ( 1 9 8 3 ) , pp. 20flF.; Rajak ( 1 9 8 2 ) , p. 4 6 6 . c. Ant. as a 'translation' of the Bible In his introduction to Ant., and elsewhere, Josephus emphasizes that his 'archaeology' is 'translated from the Hebrew scriptures' (1.5; cf 10.218; Ap. 1.54). At the same time, he stresses the point that in the course of this 'translation', as he says, he is 'neither adding nor omitting anything' from the details of the scriptures (1.17; cf 4.196; 10.218). Or he may write that in Ant.: I have recotmted each detail here told just as I found it in the sacred books ( 2 . 3 4 7 ; cf 9 . 2 0 8 , 2 1 4 ; 2 0 . 2 6 1 ; Ap. 1.1). The readers oiAnt. are astonished by these statements. While going through the contents oiAnt., we noted partly that Josephus adduces a considerable amount of other material, and partly that in many places Ant. is very far removed from what we today would normaUy understand as a translation. By presenting the problem in this way we are once again hurled into one of the classic discussions in research on Josephus. Does he write completely thoughtlessly? Or, is it possible to understand and explain the problem in some other way? We shaU begin by considering the fact that/Inf., especiaUy/Jwf. 12-20, contains a great deal of material aside from the bibhcal scriptures. Thereafter, we shall discuss the question as to what Josephus might have meant by writing that Ant., especially Ant. 1-11, is a 'translation' of the Bible.

3. The Writings

93

From the outset, it is obvious that Ant. is not to be taken hteraUy as a translation of the canonical Jewish scriptures, which according to Ap. 1.38 comprise only twenty-two books, and which, by and large, are probably the same books as are today recognized as belonging to the Jewish canon (cf Ap. 1.39-41). Ant. 1-11 might possibly be accepted as being such a 'translation', but as we have just observed. Ant. 12-20 is largely based on non-bibhcal sources. Why does Josephus not caU our attention to this circumstance in his Preface (1.1-26) and conclusion (20.259-268)? Could it possibly be an oversight in Ant. 1.5? One might consider this possibihty because we have indeed observed that Josephus, throughout the twenty books of Ant., often cites by name and refers to the many non-bibhcal sources he uses. Nevertheless, this possibihty must be excluded because in his rdsum^ of the contents of Ant. in 20.261, Josephus exphcitly repeats that he rendered 'aU as recorded by the Holy Scriptures' (cf also other references as quoted). Therefore, it is necessary for us to consider whether it is possible that there are good reasons why Josephus—contrary to the truth—so strongly emphasizes that he rehes solely on the ancient Jewish scriptures. In my opinion, this is the case, because undoubtedly Josephus' main purpose with Ant. was to present the ancient history of the Jews, their 'archaeology', as it is called in the title oiAnt. {Ant. 20.267; Vita 430; Ap. 1.1-54; 2.136,287), to the Greco-Roman pubhc. This is stated outright in Ap. 1.1, where Josephus tells us: I have, I think, made sufficiently clear to any w h o m a y peruse that work the extreme anuquity o f our Jewish race, the purity o f the original stock, and the manner in which it estabhshed itself in the coimtry we occupy today.

Moreover, it appears from the entire argumentation in Ap., especiaUy 1.1-56, that it is the age of the Jewish people (their dignity) which is at stake and in this connection the 'ancient' books are the decisive criteria and proof (cf. esp. Ap. 1.28fF.). Since it is necessary for us to anticipate the foUowing paragraphs concerning the purpose oiAnt., there is reason to assert xhatAnt., at least in part, has the same aim as Ap., and this aim is to prove the age and dignity of the Jewish people apologetically to the Greco-Roman world. With this as his purpose, in Ant., Josephus attempts to present the history of the Jews from the beginning, and he places emphasis on its estabhshment and antiquity, precisely as Dionysus from Hahcamassus and Livy have

94


done widi regard to Rome. And for the earhest phase of this history, the bibhcal books were naturally the fimdamental source. This is probably the basic reason why Josephus refers only to them in the passages cited. The following observations are consistent with the reasons stated above. In the Greco-Roman period it was also fashionable to admire and respect the Orient and its ancient cultures and hteratures. This atutude represents a variant comparable to 'old is good' (cf. also Schaublein, pp. 318-19). This attitude towards the Orient is found as early as Herodotus, but in Hellenisuc times it became the fashion to admire the exotic oriental nations who by then had become better known. Therefore, in Ap. 1.28-29, Josephus makes a coimection between the Jewish culture and that of other oriental nations in comparison with the Greeks. For this reason we can also assume that Josephus found it more expedient to refer solely to the ancient Jewish scriptures as authorities for his account in The Jewish Antiquities. Finally, we may perhaps be able to receive some assistance from Ap. for understanding the significance of the actual use of such a great number of non-bibhcal references in Ant. For it is clear that also in Ap., the Mosaic code and the Jewish Bible play the predominant role in support of the defence ofJudaism (cf Ap. 1.28-46; 2.220-295). And all the other numerous sources which Josephus draws upon here (cf. Ap. 2.69-319) serve to support and substantiate the Jewish cause which is basicaUy unravelled by the bibhcal scriptures. Thus, there is reason to assume that the same apphes to Ant. The bibhcal books are Josephus' basis, and compared with them, the non-bibhcal texts are not equally important sources, but merely supporting, secondary material, which is why they are not mentioned by Josephus in his principal statements regarding the basis of Ant. Thus, it may be possible to understand that in Ant. as a whole, especially Ant. 12-20, Josephus draws on a number of non-bibhcal sources without directly stating this in the introduction and conclusion of the work. But what then about Ant. 1-11? Can these books justifiably be said to be a translation of the bibhcal books on which they are based? No, a translation in the modem sense of the word is out of the question. It is more hkely that here we encounter a paraphrase or in many cases a downright rewriting of the bibhcal material. As mentioned above, Josephus systematized his bibhcal sources. He coordinates the books of Samuel and Kings with the

3. The Writings

95

books of Chronicles, and now and then he even incorporates material from the books of the Prophets in this synthesis. He links the Hebrew version of the Bible together with the often strongly divergent version in the Septuagint, or other Greek translations which remind one of the Septuagint. He places canonical and noncanonical material together. He systematizes the great amount of legal materal found in the second to fifth books of the Pentateuch. He shortens the bibhcal rendering; for example, he omits controversial material such as the story about the Golden Calf and the story about Moses when he destroyed the first set of the Law Tablets. He expands the account, as seen from the above, partly by introducing new material of a non-Jewish origin where it serves to support the narrative, and party with 'oral'Jewish material of haggadic as well as halakhic nature. One example of this kind ofJewish narrative subject matter (haggadah) is the story of Moses' campaign in Ethiopia {Ant. 2.238-253). First and foremost, however, Josephus endows the Old Testament material with his own hterary style and tone of language, which must be described as being typicaUy HeUenistic, because he draws attention to important characters and presents them giving particular interest to the psychological, erotic, dramatic, tragic and pathetic features in the story. Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Saul, David, Solomon and other important Jewish persons are portrayed in a Hellenistic hght as great Greco-Roman intellectuals, lawgivers, wise men and generals. Moreover, as mentioned above, many of the stories, in particular the stories of Joseph, Samson and Esther, are transformed into Hellenistic short stories or small novels (cf. summary in Feldman [1984b], pp. 796-804). In this way, Josephus radicaUy transforms the bibhcal subject matter. In the hght of this, one cannot speak of a translation in the modem sense of the word. Nevertheless, this is precisely what Josephus does. And on top of this, he claims that in his 'translation', he has neither 'added to' nor 'omitted' anything. If we are to accept these statements of Josephus as sincere and honest, we are forced to undertake a closer dehberation concerning the conceptions appUed here. One possibihty we have already mentioned, namely that Josephus was not stating the tmth or that he was simply thoughtless. This view dominates the classical conception of Josephus (cf. e.g. H. Guttman, p. 5; Hofiinann, p. 52; Peter, p. 380). Another possibihty is that we are deahng with rhetorical formulae, a kind of hterary topos, insufficient with regard to contents, the purpose of which was to achieve a (albeit empty)

96


publicity for Josephus' work. (Thus e.g. Attridge [1976], pp. 57-59; S.J.D. Cohen [1979], pp. 27-29.) A third possibihty, which is related to the second, is as proposed by van Uiuiik (1978, pp. 26-40), viz. that one can assume that Josephus' use of these formulae is intended to emphasize his objecdvity and impartiahty. They are then interpreted as a parallel to Tacitus' expression, 'sine ira et studio' (without negative and positive preconceptions) {Ann. 1.1). A fourth possibihty is that Josephus does not make a clear distinction between the written and the oral 'scripture', 'law' or Torah (cf Feldman [1968b], pp. 338-39, and [1984b], pp. 789-90; Goldenberg [1976-1977], p. 380; Vermes [1982], p. 290). Rajak (1982, pp. 471-74), as a fifth possibihty, assumes that by using these formulae Josephus particularly adopts an oriental historiographical tradition in which the emphasis is placed on the ancient sacral texts for the historical rendering (cf Berosus, Manetho, et al.). As imphed, these explanations do not all exclude each other, and in several of them we take hold of important and correct assvunptions. Before we resort to this kind of explanation, however, we do owe it to Josephus and to ourselves to consider whether there are other possibihties for the understanding of these expressions. What could have Josephus meant by 'translating', 'adding' and 'omitting'? If one maintains that Josephus was personally responsible for both the principal expressions and the manner in which they are reahzed in Ant., it is obvious that he used the word 'translation' in a way which difiers from how it is understood by readers today. However, in his preface to Ant., Josephus gives us a hint as to how the term should be understood. In Ant. 1.10-13, he refers to the Septuagint as a predecessor and model for Ant. In modem interpretation, the Septuagint is seen just as much as an interpretative paraphrase (a type of exegesis or midrash), as a translation of the Old Testament. This also apphes to the ancient translations of bibhcal texts from Hebrew to Aramaic, the so-called Targiunim. Apparendy, a translation as it is generally understood today, has a different connotation than it had in the Jewish communities in Palestine and the Diaspora in early Roman times, i.e. before the Bar Kokhba rebelhon (132-135), before Mishnah (c. 200) and before Aquila made a hteral translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek (c. 120-140). It appears that at the time, a translation was more a question of rendering the essential contents of a text as it was understood by the translator rather than hieraUy transposing it from one language to another. This conception was

3. The Writings

97

probably also an underlying factor in Philo's allegorical renderings of the bibhcal books which were pubhshed during the first half of the first century CE, approximately one generation before Josephus. The same idea can be traced in the contemporary eschatological interpretation of the bibhcal scriptures made by the community at Qumran. Finally, this tendency is found among the earhest Christian writers, who, simultaneously with Josephus, in the books of the New Testament, translated and expounded parts of the Old Testament in eschatological and typological fashion. This is the hght in which Josephus' 'exact translation' of the Bible can and should be seen. For Josephus, a 'translation' seems to have meant such an attempt to render the essential contents of the text, AU of Ant. testifies to the fact that Josephus—if not in theory, at any rate in practice—distingiushed between the contents of the texts and their external composition. Moreover, he seems to have beheved that the contents of the texts were not touched by the external changes made in the formulation. The essence of this discussion—if we follow our reconstruction of Josephus' idea—is that in Ant., Josephus intended to render the contents of the bibhcal books exacdy and correctly. And he attenipted to do this not merely in spite of but indeed by virtue of his Hellerustic transformation and modernization of their form, his interpretative systematizing of the texts, his omissions and additions. In reahty, in Ant., we encounter a preacher and a prophet, who presents the contents of the bibhcal books in a renewed, topical version of divine truth for his HeUenistic contemporaries to accept or reject. In support of our understanding of Josephus' words, we have found agreement with the meaning of a 'translation' of the Bible in usage contemporary to Josephus. Secondly, there can hardly be any doubt that by this interpretation we have understood Josephus' own view on the matter. InAnt. 4.196-198, he comments on his rendering of the Mosaic code and asserts that precisely by his systematized change of the text, he has rendered everything exactly as Moses himself had given it (4.196). Finally, this understanding readily falls into hne with Ant's main purpose as an apologetic work (cf Chapter 3, section 3). Literature In general, I refer to Feldman ( 1 9 6 8 b ) , pp. 3 3 7 - 3 9 ; ( 1 9 8 4 a ) , pp. 1 2 1 - 2 5 ; ( 1 9 8 4 b ) , pp. 7 8 8 - 9 1 ; van U i m i k ( 1 9 7 8 ) , pp. 2 6 - 4 0 . M y o w n interpretation is

98


not incompatible with the third, fourth and fifth possibiUdes indicated above, only that in these explanadons the core of the matter has not been reached. Yet, Feldman (1968b), pp. 337-39; (1976), p. 70; (1984b), p. 791; Rajak (1982), p. 474; Sowers, p. 18; Vermes (1982), p. 290, touch upon the same consideradons which have been brought to the fore in this chapter. d. Treatment of sources During the discussion concerning Ant's treatment of the bibhcal books, we have been continually referred to Josephus as an apologist and preacher. We have observed that he makes radical changes in editing his sources. However, the question arises whether this drastic editorial work results in a maltreatment of the sources. How does Josephus in fact treat his sources? This question is of decisive importance for how we may use Ant. as a historical source. Fortunately, this question is more easily answered than the preceding ones. In the course of recent decades, numerous invesngauons of this matter have been undertaken, e.g. Josephus' treatment of Genesis, 1 and 2 Samuel, Esther, the Aristeas letter and 1 Maccabees. There is an astonishing degree of unanimity in these investigations which point to the following conclusions. Josephus treats his sources cautiously and carefttUy as far as the factual contents are concerned. But, with regard to the hnguisdc, styhstic form and concerning the composition he works freely. Here, he becomes the philologist, he cultivates style in each sentence, he pohshes syntax and experiments with vocabulary. Here, he works with sketches of people, the composition and the narrative sequence whereby he introduces features from Hellenistic novel writing. Over and above this freedom with regard to language, style and composition, we have already been able to observe how Josephus readily supplements his main sources and elaborates on them by means of additional material from 'oral' Jewish tradition, quotations from Greco-Roman hterature, ofiicial documents, geographical, topographical and archaeological information, legends, etc. FinaUy, in these investigations, time and again, we have been able to ascertain that Josephus' paraphrase and elaboration of the main sources coincide with his own apologetic interests and at the same time make his own interests topical. It is particularly surprising, however, that this radical process of editing rarely interferes with the substance of the main sources, or alters the facts. Once Josephus' hterary leanings and professional tendencies have been defined, it is not diflScult to

3. The Writings

99

separate his editing, and, so to speak, extricate the main source from these layers of'wrapping'. Besides, investigadons of the way in which Josephus uses Bell, in Ant. point in the same direction. So, we may state that today there is a high degree of clarity with regard to how Josephus treats his sources. Literature T h e comprehensive Uterature concerning Josephus' treatment o f his sources is discussed

in Bilde

( 1 9 8 3 a ) , pp. 23flF. (esp.

5 8 - 6 1 ) ; Feldman

(1984a),

pp. 3 9 2 - 4 1 9 (esp. 3 9 2 - 9 4 ) , and ( 1 9 8 4 b ) , pp. 7 8 8 - 8 2 1 . See also later in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5, section 3.

e. Aim Ant., then, is a work which stands apart from others as an apologetic and missionary rendering of the holy scriptures of the Jewish people, at once presenting the Jewish rehgion and the history of the Jewish people. In saying this, something decisive has also been said with regard to the aim of Ant. In the foregoing paragraphs we have been compeUed to touch upon this subject repeatedly, for the aim of the work appears clearly from the way in which Josephus treats his sources in Ant. Here, he adduces an impressive number of documents, quotations and references, aU of which serve the purpose of supporting and strengthening the statements in the holy scriptures of the Jewish people. So, the idea is that the bibhcal scriptures must be trustworthy not only because they are ancient, but also because they are confirmed by a series of non-Jewish sources. In hne with this, Josephus addresses himself to non-Jewish readers and in general, it is his purpose to convince them of the truth and value of the ancient Jewish scriptures, rehgion and history. This overaU aim which we can derive from Ant. as a whole is in agreement with Josephus' own words where he more specificaUy expresses his purpose. This apphes, first, to the qvute general expressions he uses in his introduction to Ant., where {Ant. 1.5) he states: A n d now I have undertaken this present work in the beUef that the whole Greek-speaking world wiU find it worthy o f attention.

This also apphes to Ap., where the introduction makes references to Ant.: In the history o f our Antiquities,

most excellent Epaphroditus, I

100

Flavius Josephus, between Jerusalem and Rome have, I think, m a d e suflBciendy clear to any w h o m a y peruse that work the extreme andquity o f our Jewish race, the purity o f the original stock, and the manner in which it estabhshed itself in the country which we occupy to-day. T h a t history embraces a period o f five thousand years {Ap.

1.1).

H e r e , it is e m p h a s i z e d t h a t Ant.

is a d o c u m e n t a u o n o f t h e a n t i q u i t y

o f t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e , t h e i r s p e c i a l h i s t o r y a n d t h e i r right t o t h e l a n d o f P a l e s t i n e . T h e p u r p o s e o f t h e w o r k is e v e n m o r e c l e a r l y s t a t e d i n

Ant. 14.186, Roman

where Josephus

documents

which

explains w h y

testify

h e cites a n u m b e r

to the privileges granted

to

of the

Jewish people throughout the years: A n d here it seems to m e necessary to make pubhc all the honours given our n a d o n and the alhances made with them by the R o m a n s and their emperors, in order that the other nations m a y not fail to recognize that both the kings o f Asia and o f Europje have held us in esteem and have admired our bravery and loyalty. T h e m o t i v e f o r J o s e p h u s ' c i t i n g t h e p r o - J e w i s h d o c u m e n t s is t h u s t h e existing a n i m o s i t y against the Jewish p e o p l e ; c f Josephus

Ant. 14.187

where

s a y s t h a t ' m a n y p e r s o n s , o u t o f e n m i t y t o u s ' refiise

beheve in the genuineness o f these d o c u m e n t s . Indeed, in

to

Bell. 1.2,

Josephus even speaks about m a n y historians' 'hatred o f the Jews'. T h i s explanation o f the purpose o f citing the pro-Jewish d o c u m e n t s is d i s c l o s e d e v e n m o r e c l e a r l y i n

Ant. 16.174-178, w h i c h

concludes a

series o f s i m i l a r d o c u m e n t s . N o w it was necessary for m e to cite these decrees since this accoimt o f our history is chiefly meant to reach the Greeks in order to show them that in former times we were treated with all respect and were not prevented by our rulers from

practising any o f our

ancestral customs but, on the contrary, even had their co-operation in preserving our rehgion and our way o f honouring G o d . A n d if I fi-equently

mention

these decrees, it is to reconcile the

other

nations to us and to remove the causes for hatred which have taken root in thoughdess persons among us as well as among them

{Ant.

16.174-175). I n t h i s p a s s a g e , it is m a d e c r y s t a l c l e a r t h a t J o s e p h u s ' m o t i v e

for

c i t i n g t h e s e d e c r e e s is t h e m u t u a l e n m i t y b e t w e e n J e w s a n d ' G r e e k s ' (heathens or non-Jews) Jewish

people.

a n d the hatred o f the latter t o w a r d s

It is e q u a l l y

clear—first

d e c r e e s , b u t s e c o n d l y a l s o w i t h Ant.

by

citing

the

the

pro-Jewish

i n its e n t i r e t y — t h a t t h e p u r p o s e

3. The Writings

101

is to defend the Jewish people and their rights in the Roman Empire. Thus, the aim oiAnt. may in fact be said to be national apwlogetic and in that sense the aim is the same as that of Bell. To this may be added, as we have already seen in preceding paragraphs, a clearly defined interest in presenting Judaism as an honourable and attractive rehgion. When Josephus emphasizes the antiquity of Judaism, he points in this direction, hkewise, when he underlines its rehgious content and the high level of it (cf. esp. Ant. 1.15, 18-26, which stress the dignity and purity of the Mosaic concept of God). Moreover, it should be mentioned that Josephus correspondingly accentuates the moral essence of Judaism and its teaching of God's justice (Ant. 1.14, 20, 23). Thus, Josephus describes Judaism as an attractive rehgion centred around a subhme conception of God and around moral capabihty and virtue (arete). By this, it was probably Josephus' intention to sohcit sympathy and understanding, indeed perhaps even approval, for Judaism as a rehgion. Likewise, the Hellenization of Judaism and of the history of the Jewish people indicates this missionary tendency (cf. Chapter 3, section 3). Josephus often 'translates' the bibhcal concept of God by weU-known Hellenistic expressions, e.g. 'The divine' (to theion), 'the daemonic' (to daimon), 'necessity' (to chreon), 'destiny' (he haimarmene), 'providence' (he pronoia), 'fate' (he tyche), etc. The three classical Jewish schools—the Sadducees, the Pharisees and the Essenes—are depicted by Josephus as being philosophical tendencies similar to the Greek, e.g. the Stoics. Likewise, Josephus portrays the Jewish heroes in a Hellenistic hght. Abraham is portrayed as a wise man and philosopher; Moses as the ideal lawgiver—creator of the ideal pohtical-moral constitution; David as the great hero and king of warriors; Solomon, again, as a philosopher and the ideal prince of peace. The stories of Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Samson and Esther have aU the features of Hellenistic short stories and novels. Prestmiably, the intention was to sohcit the favour of the Greek readers of Ant. AU of the Jewish rehgion and history is presented as an ancient and venerable heritage of wisdom (sophia) and virtue (arete) which are ideals for aU people. So, the intention of Ant. is to defend Judaism and the Jewish people and, at the same time, to argue for their cause.

102


Literature In general, it is almost impossible to refer to any literature concerning Josephus' aim

in Ant.

Feldman's

recent

bibhographical

works

contain

nothing o n this subject. Attridge ( 1 9 8 4 ) , p. 2 1 7 , provides a httle on the 'tendencies' o f Ant., determines Ant.'s scholars,

e.g.

and Schaht ( 1 9 6 7 ) , p. xviii, etc., in very general terms

aim to be apologedc, and this is repeated by m a n y other

Feldman

(1968a),

pp. 1 4 3 - 4 4 ;

Mighario,

p. 9 4 ;

Waxman,

p. 103. Van U n n i k ( 1 9 7 3 ) correctly asserts that in Ant., Josephus polemizes against other 'philosophies' apart from Judaism; cf. also Weiss, p. 4 3 0 . In his ardcle

from

1 9 7 9 , van Urmik also correctly assens that Ant.

polemizes

against other 'reUgions' or 'mysteries' than Judaism. Feldman ( 1 9 7 0 ) , pp. 143 and 1 6 2 - 6 5 , stresses that in Ant.,

Josephus fights against a n d - S e m i u s m ,

whereas Rajak ( 1 9 8 2 , p. 4 7 7 , and 1 9 8 3 , p. 2 2 5 ) argues in favour o f the dieory that the m a i n purpose o f Ant.

is to reconcile the 'Greeks' with the Jewish

people. T h i s also appUes to Rajak ( 1 9 8 4 ) , pp. 109 and 1 2 0 - 2 2 , where the author, as stated above, cites Ant.

1 4 . 1 8 6 - 1 8 8 and 1 6 . 1 7 4 - 1 7 5 .

f. Readers This section c a n b e dealt with briefly since w e have already essendally clarified t h e question concerning Ant.'s readers. As w e have noted, t h e work is addressed t o ' t h e whole Greek-speaking world' ( 1 . 5 ) o r merely to the 'Greeks' (16.174; 20.262), i.e. to those i n the Roman empire who have a knowledge o f Greek, i n other words, all o f t h e educated persons i n t h a t part o f t h e world. Thus, Ant., unhke Bell., is hardly primarily addressed t o the government a n d the ruhng class i n Rome, although this audience also plays a role for Josephus inAnt. Therefore, w e must reject the hypotheses advanced, especially b y Laqueur, Case and S.J.D. Cohen, xhatAnt. presupposes a new dangerous situation for the Jewish people who are threatened b y anti-Jewish measures o n the part o f Domitian, and therefore the work is primarily addressed t o the Roman government i n a pohtical and apologetical style. A deterioration hke this in the situation o f the Jewish people in the early 90s cannot in fact b e proved o n the basis o f existing sources, and b y postulating t h a t the aim o f this work is primarily pohtical-apologetical o n e violates Ant. Nor is Ant.firsta n d foremost addressed to the Jewish people or its leaders as assumed, for example, b y Mighario. The Jews cannot be excluded from the pubhc for which Ant. is intended, but it is completely senseless to imagine that they were the primary target for the work. I n the first place. Ant. is addressed t o two wide circles o f readers i n the Greco-Roman world: o n the one hand, the vast non-Jewish pubhc which was

3. The Writings

103

neutral towards the Jews and Judaism, and on the other, the numerous and influential circles which were favourably disposed towards and interested in Judaism. The anti-Semites of the ancient world presumably constitute an important element in explairung why Ant. was committed to writing, but they should probably not be included among the circles whom Josephus expected to be readers of his work. Surely, he did not hope that he would be in a position to convince them. But that apphed to the two other groups which were also exposed to agitation from the anti-Semites. We may assume, therefore, that in defence of Judaism and the Jewish people. Ant. is primarily addressed to the first named group of neutrals and, perhaps, also to the govenunent in Rome, whereas Ant. as a work of agitation and as a missionary work in favour of Judaism is intended, particularly, for the second of the two groups mentioned. Towards the former, Josephus wished to counteract the activities of the antiSemites, and towards the latter, he wished to consohdate and strengthen the sympathy which its members already nourished towards Judaism. Literature T h e theory of Ant. as a pohtical-apologetical work primarily addressed to the R o m a n government because o f a new and dangerous situauon for the Jewish people in the reign o f D o m i t i a n , is found in Bloch, pp. 4 - 5 , and Laqueur, pp. 259flF. T h e theory was later expoimded b y C a s e (thoroughly); M . Smith pp. 7 5 - 7 6 ; S.J.D. C o h e n ( 1 9 7 9 ) , pp. 2 3 7 - 3 8 ; c f also M i g h a r i o , pp. 9 4 - 9 5 and 1 3 6 - 3 7 . For a criticism o f the theory, see Bilde ( 1 9 8 3 a ) , pp. 1 2 5 - 2 8 . Mighario, p p . 9 2 , 9 6 , 1 3 6 , asserts at the same time that all o f Josephus' works are primarily addressed to a Jewish pubhc. H o w e v e r , most other scholars, e.g. Feldman

( 1 9 6 8 a ) , p. 1 4 4 ; ( 1 9 8 2 ) , p p . 4 5 - 4 6 , 5 3 ; Niese ( 1 8 9 6 ) , pp. 2 1 4 f ;

Rajak ( 1 9 8 2 ) , p. 4 7 7 , are aware o f the fact that Ant. is primarily addressed to non-Jewish readers.

g. Dating As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, when Josephus was composing Bell., he contemplated writing a complete account of the history of the Jews {Ant. 1.6-7). However, he abandoned the project and Bell, was composed as an independent work. According to Ant. 1.7, however, the task was not entirely given up; apparently he resumed it immediately after the Greek edition of Bell, was pubhshed at the end of the 70s. Although there were delays (cf Ant. 1.7-8), the work was, in fact, continued and it was pubhshed

104


approximately 15 years later in the form in which it is now known. As seen from Ant. 20.267, it appeared in the year 93-94: W i t h this I shall conclude m y Antiquities,

contained in twenty

books with sixty thousand lines. G o d willing, I shall at s o m e finure d m e compose a running account o f the war and o f the later events o f our history u p to the present day, which belongs

to

the

thirteenth year o f the reign o f D o m i d a n Caesar and to the fiftysixth year o f m y life.

Since Domitian became emperor in 81, and since Josephus was bom in 37, we may conclude that Ant. was completed and pubhshed in the year 93-94. Literature T h e dating o f Ant.

would not seem to present any problems; c f

Attridge

( 1 9 8 4 ) , pp. 2 1 0 - 1 1 , and Rajak ( 1 9 8 3 ) , pp. 2 3 7 - 3 8 . Laqueur (pp. 259fi".) has, however, advanced the idea that Ant. was presented in two different ediuons. A s this hypothesis is linked with others concerning Vita, it will be dealt with in the foUowing secdon.

4. Vita a. The relationship to Ant.: dating and readers In our discussion on the dating of Ant., it was menuoned that apparendy Vita was written in continuation of this work and, at any rate, pubhshed together with it. la Ant. 20.259-261, Josephus gives a brief resume of the contents of Ant., and in Ant. 20.262-265, he credits himself with having done what no one else, neither Jew nor Gentile, could have done. Josephus writes that by his compatriots he is acknowledged as the greatest with regard to Jewish learning. As far as Greek language and hterature are concemed he has strenuously acquired a fairly good knowledge, although he never found it within his power to attain a good pronunciation. Besides, the Jews do not attach any importance to the learning of foreign languages. Anyone, indeed even a slave, can leam them. No, the Jewish people have the greatest respect and admiration for one who has an exact knowledge of the law and is able to translate it correctly and interpret the holy scriptures {Ant. 20.264). So, this is what matters and apart from Josephus, only a very few have been able to do it. Therefore, as he writes in Ant. 20.266, it would perhaps be of interest to his readers for him to recount briefly his hneage and hfe while there are stiU

3. The Writings

105

persons living who can disprove or prove his statements. Josephus starts the final paragraph of Ant. (20.267) by saying 'with this', that is to say with Vita, he intends to conclude his 'Antiqindes'. Therefijre, Ant. 20.262-267 leaves very httle doubt that Vita was pubhshed as a part of Ant., perhaps as an appendix. This assumption, is also confirmed by the concluding remarks in Vita.: Such are the events o f m y whole hfe; fi-om them let others judge as they will o f m y character. Having n o w , most excellent Epaphroditus, rendered you a complete accoimt o f our andquides, I shall here for the present conclude m y narradve {Vita 4 3 0 ) .

Also in this passage—exactly as in Ant. 20.266-267—Vita manifests itself as a part of Ant. Thus, the hterary origin and dating of Vita must be assumed to be the same as that of Ant. This conclusion is vahd regardless of how one dates the dual work Ant.-Vita. We have quite simply followed the informafion given us by Josephus at the end of Ant. 20, and on the basis of this information, we have dated both of these works to the year 93-94. However, a brief comment made by the Byzanune author, Phodus in the 10th century has given rise to extremely daring hypotheses. Vita 359-360 presupposes that King Agrippa II is no longer hving, and the above menuoned Phodus informs us that the king died in the third year of Emperor Trajan, i.e. in the year 100-101 {Bibliotheka, Codex 33). On the assumpuon that this is true, a number of authors, headed by Laqueur, have resorted to redating not only Vita, but Ant. as well, since both of these works, as we have asserted, are hterarily connected. The consequence of this redating is that Josephus' own daung of Vita in Ant. 20.267 must be rejected. In order to explain aU of these circumstances some have constructed a comphcated hypothesis which is fiandamentally based on the assumpuon that Josephus conunually revised his works and altered their tendency to agree with the pohucal situauon which prevailed at any given ume (cf. my r^sumds of Laqueur and S.J.D. Cohen in Chapter 4). Then, Ant. 20.267 is presumed to have its origin in an earher edition of Ant., an edition which, it should be noted, was pubhshed without Vita. Moreover, this presupposes that Josephus was so indolent and thoughdess that in later ediuons of Ant., he did not care, or was not able, to correct the dadng in the first ediuon. Finally, it presupposes that Vita was not added to Ant. unul an ediuon which appeared after 100-101, since it is also asserted that the main reason for the writing

106


of Vita was the work of Justus of Tiberias which is purported to have contained a devastating criticism of Josephus' activities in Gahlee and of his writings, and this work did not appear until after the death of Agrippa II {Vita 359-360). Laqueur's hypothesis wiU be dealt with again in the foUowing, and in our next chapter we will refer to it and discuss it as a whole. Nevertheless, already now it will be pointed out that this hypothesis is improbable and rests upon an uncertain basis. In the first place, there is a discrepancy between the reason for the hypothesis and its overall radical and comphcated character. It is anything but economical. Furthermore, the decisive fact is that Photius' statement can hardly be true. It is actually contradicted by the numismatical and epigraphical material fi-om the time of the reign of Agrippa II, since it does not testify this fiirther than to the years 91 and 93, respectively (cf Barish, p. 73; Rajak [1983], p. 238; Vermes & Millar, I, p. 481). Thus, the basis of Laqueur's hypothesis is removed. Literature For Uterature on and a discussion o f the matter, reference is made to Barish; S.J.D. C o h e n ( 1 9 7 9 ) , pp. 1 7 0 - 8 0 ; Feldman ( 1 9 8 4 a ) , pp. 3 8 0 - 8 4 ; Frankfort; Rajak ( 1 9 7 3 ) . pp. 3 6 1 - 6 2 , and ( 1 9 8 3 ) , pp. 2 3 7 - 3 8 ; as weU as Vermes & MiUar, I, pp. 4 8 1 - 8 3 . Laqueur's diesis is disclosed pp. 1-6 ( c f also 5 5 - 5 6 , 74ff., 2 1 5 1 9 , 230ff"., 245ff.). It is anticipated by Baerwald, pp. 1 8 - 1 9 , and foUowed by, among others, G e l z e r and Pelletier ( 1 9 5 9 ) . H o w e v e r , it is rejected by Barish; Frankfort; H e l m , pp. 4 8 3 f , 5 1 6 ; Mighario, pp. 9 8 - 1 0 1 ; Petersen, pp. 2 6 2 - 6 3 ; Rajak ( 1 9 7 3 ) , pp. 3 6 1 - 6 2 , and ( 1 9 8 3 ) , pp. 2 3 7 - 3 8 .

b. Contents In Chapter 2, we have undertaken an intensive study of the contents of Vita in order to use the material it contains for a reconstruction of the Ufe history ofJosephus. Therefore, we can be brief here and hmit ourselves to a rough outhne. Vita is the shortest of Josephus' works and comprises only one book. It begins with an account of the author's ancestry and hneage (1-6). This is foUowed by a brief description of his childhood, youth and education (7-12), and a more lengthy narrative of his journey to Rome (13-16). The following passage (17-27) describes the situation in Jerusalem on Josephus' return from Rome. This account is even longer and one is aware of the fact that the author has arrived at events of importance and interest. The following brief passage (28-

3. The Writings

107

29) tells us about Josephus being appointed as leader in Gahlee. Vita 30 describes Josephus' journey to Gahlee, and the following lengthy section (31-411) gives us an account in great detail about Josephus' acuviues in Gahlee from the autumn of 66 to the spring of 67 when Vespasian arrived at Ptolemais. This section runs parallel with Bell. 2.(457)562-3.34, which is shortened especially at the begiiming, and then considerably expanded, in particular, where the actual period in Gahlee is concemed. This section also concludes with a reference to Bell, where the reader is told that he will be able to find a continuation of the story {Vita 412). Vita 413 is a transitional passage leading on to the brief account ofJosephus' hfe after the year 67. This section is introduced by a narrative of events in Judaea from the years 67-71 (414-421) and continues with a brief mention of Josephus' hfe in Rome after the year 71 (422-429). Thereafter, Vita concludes with a short passage (430) which is quoted above in section 4 a. c. Disposition A review of the contents of the book clearly indicates the stmcture of Vita. Definite emphasis is placed on the description of the brief period when Josephus was commander in Gahlee, whereas the other parts of Vita serve as an introduction to and a conclusion of this main theme. Accordingly, Vita can be said to be arranged as follows: 1.

2. 3. 4. 5.

1-29: Josephus' hfe before he was sent to Gahlee a. 1-6: Ancestry and hneage b. 7-12: Youth and education c. 13-16: The joumey to Rome d. 17-29: The situation in Jemsalem in 66 30-413: Josephus in Gahlee 414-421: Josephus in the Roman camp 422-429: Josephus in Rome 430: Conclusion

Literature For other attempts to determine the disposition o f Vita, see S.J.D. C o h e n ( 1 9 7 9 ) , pp. 1 0 2 - 1 0 3 , and Mighario, p 9 5 .

d. Theme and genre A study of the contents of Vita and its disposition necessarily leads on to the question of the theme of this curious httle book. This

108


question becomes even more urgent if we take another look at Ant. 20.266 which describes the contents of Vita as being 'to recount briefly my lineage and the events of my life'. In response to this, in Vita 430 we find: 'Such are the events of my whole life'. Thus, Vita itself claims to be a biography which covers all of Josephus' hfe. But the text of Vita does not readily fiilfil this programme (cf. Chapter 2, section 2, conclusion). On the contrary, it manifests itself as a thorough account of Josephus' activities in Gahlee, embelhshed with a number of brief autobiographical notes which are given by way of introducdon and conclusion of this account. How can we explain this relauonship? Naturally, the matter is hnked together with the question of the aim of Vita and it can hardly be solved completely without an answer to this question. But at this point some tentauve comments can be made. In theory, there are two possibihues for the explanation. Either Vita is not a true autobiography, but rather something other than it pretends to be, or Vita should be understood to be an autobiography of a very special nature in which everything of importance is centred around a decisive chmax in the hfe of the author. The first possibihty is the one most firequently taken into consideraUon and preferred in the history of research. According to scholars hke Laqueur, Drexler, Schaht, Mighario and Rajak, Vita is only ostensibly and on the surface an autobiography. In reahty, the book is something enurely different, namely, an apology written for the purpose of defending Josephus against accusations made to him by Justus of Tiberias, published shordy before, which made Josephus reponsible for the revolt of Gahlee against Rome (thus e.g. Luther and M. Grant), or he was accused of having abused his status as a leader to exercise tyranny and gain personal privileges (Drexler and Schaht [1933b]) or to have molested Justus and his family (Rajak, [1973] and [1983]). First and foremost, these scholars can refer to Vita 336-356, which contain direct jx)Uucal polemics against Justus of Tiberias. However, a closer study of this text reveals that it can hardly substantiate the thesis that Vita is an apology. For it is formulated as an independent digression which includes Vita 357367, in which Josephus describes his hterary controversy with Justus. This passage {Vita 336-367) is definitely an apology on the part of Josephus, but in reahty, this apphes only to this particular section and not to the rest of the book. Moreover, the accusations made by

3. The Writings

109

Justus, as they are described here, do not accuse Josephus of being generaUy responsible for the revolt in GaUlee, but only claim that Josephus was responsible for Tiberias' participauon in the revolt against Rome and for the defecuon of the city from Agrippa II (cf Vita 340, 350). And this is the ordy accusation which Josephus debates in Vita 336-356. Therefore, the thesis that Vita is written as a defence against accusauons made by Justus that Josephus was responsible for the Jewish revolt in Gahlee cannot be said to be weU founded. This is probably also why this thesis has been abandoned to a great extent in recent research and has been replaced by the other two versions concerning the idea of Vita as an apology against Justus. However, the important weakness of these other versions of the thesis consists in the fact that they must be explained indirectly from other parts of Vita, whereas they caimot be based on Vita 336-367, which is the only part of Vita in which Josephus makes a direct response to Justus. Another weakness in the thesis is that the scholars menuoned above arrived at such varying conclusions on the basis of the indirect evidence. A particular variant of the thesis of Vita being an apology hes in Laqueur's assumption that it is, as a whole, a defence against and an attack on Justus in his capacity as a dangerous hterary rival who in the 90s was on the verge of outmanoeuvring Josephus as Rome's leading expert on Judaica. Furthermore, Laqueur assumes that Josephus wrote this argument as an attack based on an earher prototype, namely, the so-called statement of affairs ('Rechenschaftsbericht') which, in the winter of 67, Josephus sent to the government in Jerusalem to inform them of the situation in Gahlee (cf Bell. 3.138). Nor are these theses wellfounded. It has proved impossible to sort out such an earher prototype of Vita on an objective, especially hnguistic, basis. And as for the first idea mentioned, it is to be rejected for the same reasons by which the other versions of the same thesis are to be rejected. Vita contains far more material than that which pertains to the controversy between Josephus and Justus, and this material receives no explanations in this hypothesis. Therefore, it must be maintained that in the research today, we are far from agreeing to accept that Vita should primarily be understood as a defence on the part of Josephus against accusations put forth by Justus of Tiberias. Therefore, we must consider the other possibihty that Vita can be looked upon as what it purports to be, namely, an autobiography. If so, then an autobiography of a very special kind, one which is

110


concentrated on the decisive events in the hfe of the author. On a previous occasion, especially in Chapter 3, section 2, concerning Bell., we have had occasion to make note of and emphasize that the Revolt against Rome and the consequences of the War seem to have been the decisive events in the hfe of Josephus. Of these events, not only the fall of Jerusalem and the Temple, which are described in Bell., but also his period as a general in Gahlee, must be assumed to represent highhghts in Josephus' hfe, since it was in this period that Josephus for the first and last time in his life played a leading role in the history of his coimtry. In the hght of this observation, it can, perhaps, be maintained that—in spite of the very uneven distribution of the contents of the book—Vita is a genuine autobiography; indeed, the earhest preserved autobiography in existence. Therefore, the contents of Vita can be maintained to be in agreement with the introductory and concluding passages concerning the book found in Ant. 20.266 and Vita 430. Vita does in fact speak about Josephus' 'hneage' and about '[all] the events' in his hfe, since the most important events occurred in the years 66-70, of which the most sigffificant period was the winter of 66-67 when he was a general in Gahlee. Literature Generally, with reference to the quesdon o f the theme and genre o f Vita, I can refer to S.J.D. C o h e n ( 1 9 7 9 ) , pp. lOlflF.; Mighario, pp. 98ff.; Feldman (1984a), pp. 3 8 0 - 8 4 . T h a t Vita is an apology and not a genuine autobiography is asserted on the basis o f various arguments advanced b y M . G r a n t , pp. 2 6 4 6 7 ; Laqueur, pp. 6 - 5 5 ; M i g h a r i o , pp. 9 5 , 1 0 4 - 1 0 8 , 1 3 6 ; Rajak ( 1 9 7 3 ) , pp. 3 5 4 5 8 ; R a h l , pp. 2 9 5 - 9 8 ; Schaller, col. 1 4 4 2 . In opposition, Barish, p. 6 4 , and S.J.D. C o h e n ( 1 9 7 9 ) , p. 1 0 9 , assert that Vita is probably an apology, but at the same time a genuine autobiography. Furthermore, a more thorough account and closer discussion o n Laqueur's hypotheses will be given in Chapter 4, sections 4 - 5 .

e. Aim It has already become necessary for us to consider the question of the aim of Vita. It could scarcely have been the main purpose of Vita to defend Josephus against accusations of having been responsible for revolts against Rome made by GaUlee, or parts of GaUlee, and their defection fi-om Agrippa II, since neither in Bell, nor in Vita does Josephus conceal his participation and leading role in the War. Nor can Vita as a whole be interpreted as a defence against accusations

3. The Writings

111

made by Justus of Tiberias or other persons, whether these are to be seen as accusauons of having abused his position as general in Gahlee to commit tyraimy and to gain personal advantages, of having molested Justus and his family or accusauons of having presented an untruthfiil account of the history of the war in Bell. None of these hypotheses is capable of presenting an exhausuve explanation of the entire contents of Vita, and therefore they must be abandoned. Instead, I am convinced that the aim of Vita can be understood most clearly and defined by way of Ant. 20.265-267, and in the hght of this, from the introductions to Bell, and Ant., by Josephus' apologetic comments on his writings in Ap. 1.47-56, and by a few other references. InAnt. 20.262-265, Josephus stresses his unexcelled Jewish learning—his knowledge of the law and his abihty to translate and interpret the holy scriptures—as the decisive prerequisite why he and he alone of his contemporaries (20.262) was able to compose a work hke Ant. But this prerequisite is precisely hnked with his 'hneage' ('genos') which, as stated in Ant. 20.266, he will 'recount' in Vita. The connection between these two factors is stated exphcidy in Ap.: Nevertheless, certain despicable persons have essayed to mahgn m y history

[Bell.], taking

it for a prize composition such as is set to

boys at school. W h a t an extraordinary accusation and calumny! Surely they ought to recognize that it is the duty o f one w h o promises to present his readers with actual facts first to obtain an exact knowledge o f them himself, either through having been in close touch vrith the events, or b y inquiry from those w h o knew them. T h a t duty I consider myself to have amply fiilfiUed in both m y works, hi m y

Antiquities,

as I said, I have given a translation o f

our sacred books; being a priest and o f priesdy ancestry

(genos),

a m well versed in the philosophy o f these writings (Ap.

1.53-54).

I

Thus, Josephus' quahfications for being able to accomphsh this 'translation' are to be found in his status as a priest and his priestly hneage. This connection is already imphed in Bell. 1.3 where, by way of introducing himself, in addition to his identity and his participation in the War, Josephus emphasizes the fact that he is a priest. FinaUy, as we have noted earher in Chapter 2, in the narrative of his surrender, Josephus also emphasized the connection between his priestly status and his knowledge of the scriptures:

112

Flavius Josephus, between Jerusalem and Rome a priest himself and of priesdy descent {eggonos), he was not ignorant of the prophecies in the sacred books {Bell. 3.352).

So, in his own eyes, Josephus' dignity as a priest was of vital importance to his capacity as a writer. But it is this very dignity which is explained in he introductory passages of Vita (1-12[27]). Therefore, we can assume that part of the aim of Vita is to give a detailed account of Josephus' qualificauons as an author. In the light of this, it may be assumed that the remainder of Vita has a similar aim. We have previously observed how Josephus stresses the fact that it is important for a historian to have experienced in person the events about which he writes. Not only in Bell. (1.1, 3, 13-15, 22), but also in die introducdon to Ant. (1.2-4) and first and foremost in Ap. (1.47-56), Josephus stresses that in adherence to the classical historiographical principles, the foremost duty of the historical writer is to narrate the important historical events in which he himself participated. Therefore, it should be considered whether Josephus in Ant. 20.266 and Vita 430 was not touching on the same theme, which means that the events in his hfe, which he here discusses, can be interpreted as the historicaUy significant events he himself witnessed. Naturally, these events are in particular reference to the Jewish-Roman War, but here again primarily the War in Gahlee in which Josephus actively participated. Therefore, the events of his hfe which Josephus speaks of in Ant. 20.266 and Vita 430 can be interpreted as referring primarily to the historical events in his hfe which he has already recounted in Bell., and which he will elaborate on in Vita. This interpretation is supported by Vita 357-358, where Josephus actually reproaches Justus of Tiberias for not being present in person either in Gahlee Qotapata) or in Jerusalem. On the basis of these dehberations, Josephus may be presumed to have had a dual purpose in writing Vita. One aim was to estabhsh his priesdy heritage which made it possible for him to compose Ant. (and his other works) on the basis of the holy scriptures. The other aim was to tell us about his own participation in the Jewish War, since this is his fimdamental and decisive prereqiusite for writing contemporary history, primarily Bell. If we interpret Vita in this way, a connection is made between the contents of Vita on the one hand, and the placement of the book in the complete hterary production of Josephus on the other; a connection which Josephus himself has taken great pains to

3. The Writings

113

emphasize by publishing Vita together with^wr. Thus Vita no longer stands as an obscure appendix to Ant., an incomplete autobiography, let alone as an apologetic excursus which is difficult to understand. Then, Vita comes forffi as a genmne autobiography, albeit an autobiography of a very special nature, since it is dependent upon ffie unusual history of ffie auffior's hfe and his writings which ffie biography will serve to elucidate and justify. Literature T h e reader is referred to ffie hterature which is presented in cormecdon with Chapter 3, secdon 4, d.

5. Against Apion a. Dating and title Ap., which comprises two books, is ffie last of Josephus' works, at least ffie last known and handed down. While it is true ffiat we do not know precisely when it was written, since ffiere are several references in it to Ant. (1.1-2, 54, 127; 2.136, 287), it must have been composed later ffian Ant., i.e. after 93-94. The utle. Contra Apionem (Against Apion), was not designated by Josephus. He makes no mention whatsoever of a name for ffiis work. The tide which is used today originates from tradition, since after ffie deaffi of Josephus, when ffie work was being copied, at one point or anoffier it was given this designation. Moreover, it is not a very weU chosen title, since only in ffie second book are ffiere any remarks about and against ffie person Apion, who was a Greek orator and auffior from Alexandria who hved at ffie same time as Philo in the first half of ffie first century. The first book of Ap. defends Judaism by other means. A title such as Against the Greeks or In Defence of Judaism would have corresponded better wiffi ffie contents of Ap. and wiffi Josephus' intentions. Literature In general, with regard to Ap. and more recent hterature on ffie topic o f this work, reference can be made

to Attridge

( 1 9 8 4 ) , pp. 2 2 7 - 3 1 ;

Feldman

( 1 9 8 4 a ) , pp. 3 8 4 - 8 7 , and ( 1 9 8 4 b ) , pp. 8 5 7 - 5 9 .

b. Contents In ffie introduction, 1.1-5, Josephus outhnes ffie reason for ffie work as being ffiat 'a considerable number of persons' wiU not beheve what

114


he has stated in Ant., but instead are 'influenced by the mahcious calumnies of certain individuals' {Ap. 1.2). They claim that the Jewish people are not an ancient race because they are not menuoned in Greek literature. Josephus intends to refiite this conception, pardy by proving that the Jews actually are menuoned by Greek authors, and partly by explaining why, all the same, this is so seldom the case (1.4-5). He begins with the latter and thereby he attempts to reverse the accusauons against the Jewish people converdng them into an attack on Greek historiography. In 1.6-27, Josephus attempts to prove that Greek culture, hterature and historical writing are, in fact, of later date, and hkewise dependent upon oriental culture. He also claims that the Greek historical writings are fitU of errors and contradicuons; fiirthermore, that these are pardy due to the fact that the Greeks did not keep pubhc annals and records on which the historians could rely, and partly owing to the Greeks' preference for hterary expression and rhetorical style. In the foUowing paragraphs, 1.28-46, it is asserted that on the contrary, the oriental peoples, among them the Jews, had long ago appointed experts to keep conunuous records of historical events. Josephus cites the Jewish Canon as an example. The next section, 1.47-56, is an excursus in which Josephus, in continuation of his remarks on the Jewish Canon, speaks about his own Bell, as an example of eye-witnessed, and therefore rehable historical wriung. This section concludes in his formulating of his own two principles on translation, that is to say rendering of documents, and personal experience as being the basis of rehable writing of history (1.53-56). In 1.57-72, Josephus explains that the reason why the Greeks do not mention the Jews is the fact that the Jewish people are an irdand nation who cultivate their land, and it was not possible for the maritime Greeks to estabhsh contact with them. NaturaUy, the absence of this contact does not go to prove that the Jews were a young nation. For there are many other peoples, especiaUy the Egyptians and the Phoenicians, who mentioned the Jews at an early date. Thereaft:er, Josephus cites a number of accounts and quotations from the Egyptian author Manetho (1.73-105), from Phoenician and other sources (1.106-127) and from the Babylonian author Berosus (1.128-153). The purpose of ah these citations is to testify to the

3. The Writings

115

agreement between the statements in these sources and the contents of the Jewish scriptures (1.154-160). Having done this, Josephus can take hold of his next objecdve, which is to testify to the fact that the Jewish people actuaUy are menuoned by several Greek authors. Among them, he counts Pythagoras, Herodotus, Aristotle and, especiaUy, Hecataeus of Abdera who is purported to have written a whole book about the Jews (c. 330 BCE). AU of these authors and many others are cited by Josephus in 1.161-218. This concludes the first main section of Ap., the testimony to the antiquity of the Jewish people, and now Josephus can commence on his next topic, which consists of repudiating a number of accusations made against Judaism and the Jewish people. In the begirming, in 1.219-287, Josephus deals with Manetho, who had written that originaUy the Jews were a crowd of lepers and afflicted people who were driven out of Egypt. Josephus employs the method of first minutely paraphrasing and quoting this Manetho and then analyzing the text quoted, whereupon he tears it apart by pointing out its intrinsic contradictions and disagreement with other known facts. Having finished with Manetho, Josephus subjects similar presentations made by the Greek authors Chaeremon and Lyshnachus to the same treatment, as seen in 1.288-319. Hereafter, the first book ofAp. ends rather abruptly (1.320). Ap. 2 is introduced by a r6sum6 of the first book, and a programme for the second, 2.1-7, in which particular attention is given to a refiitation of Apion's accusations against the Jews. The first half of^^p. 2 deals with Apion (2.8-144). It starts with his account of Moses and the Jews in Egypt (2.8-32) and from there goes on, especiaUy to Apion's claim that the Jews in Alexandria did not have citizenship in that city (2.23-78). This is one of the most famous passages in Ap. It is foUowed by an indignant rejection of a whole series of anti-Semitic slander stories which Apion is said to have circulated. First, the story about the Jews having worshipped the head of an ass in the Temple in Jerusalem (2.79-88). Then, the story about the Jews having fattened, slain and devoured an innocent Greek (2.89-111), and foUowed by a few other stories of the same kind (2.112-124). Josephus sums up this series of stories by citing a number of assertions made on the part of Apion that Judaism must be false since the Jewish people have experienced so many

116


misfortunes, and since they have not produced very many men of genius, etc. (2.125-142). Fortimately, however, Josephus can conclude this violent dispute with Apion by relating that this dire enemy of the Jewish people suffered a well-deserved painful death (2.143-144). This is a widely used stereotype motive, a topos often encountered in Jewish (and later Christian) apologetic hterature. The second major section in Ap. 2 contains the famous account of the 'Jewish constitution', in which Josephus explains the main principles and fimdamental ideas in the Mosaic code (2.145-219). This is the place where Josephus introduces the expression 'theocracy' {theokratia)—vj\ach does not occur in any other place in all of the Greek hterature—to describe the special nature of the Jewish pohtical system (2.165). He pronounces Moses to be the world's first lawgiver (2.154), and also emphasizes the conception of God as the seed of Judaism (2.165-167, 190ff.), while at the same time, he emphasizes the moral principles as fundamental in the Jewish rehgion (2.169ff.). In the final major section of Ap. 2 (2.220-286), Josephus compares the Mosaic code with Greek lawgiving and rehgion. Already in the preceding paragraph, he asserted that at first the Greeks had learnt something from the Jewish conception of God, thus e.g. Pythagoras, Plato and the Stoics (2.168), and Josephus continues this hne of thought here. He is able to point out some analogies between the Mosaic code and the laws of Plato (2.255ff.), and he is also able to maintain that both the Greek philosophers and the masses in the Greco-Roman cities appear to have imitated the laws of Moses (2.279-286). At the same time, Josephus maintains that the Jewish laws are more demanding than the Greek (2.276-278), and that the Jews observe the law to a higher degree than do the Greeks (2.225237). Although Josephus often states that it is not his intention to criticize the rehgion of others (2.237,261, etc.), here, he is not able to restrain a traditional Jewish accusation against the 'ridiculous' Greek worship of gods (2.238-254), which is another set feature, a topos, in Jewish (and early Christian) apologetic hterature. Josephus sums up Ap. with yet another reference to Ant., where the reader will be able to find a more comprehensive account of the Mosaic code and the Jewish 'constitution' (2.287). Once more he gives a resumd of the contents of Ap. (2.288-290) and he points out that the goal of the Mosaic code is love, not hate (2.291). Thereafter, he concludes by proudly proclaiming that Judiaism has truly brought

3. The Writings

117

this and may other beaudful ideas into the world (2.293-294). A dedication to Epaphroditus brings the work to a close (2.296). Literature In addidon to the hterature already m e n u o n e d , for the rendering

and

discussion o n the contents o f Ap., I refer to Sandmel, pp. 2 6 7 - 7 7 , and Zeitlin ( 1 9 7 8 ) , III, pp. 4 1 3 - 1 7 . According to Balch, in Ap.

2 . 1 4 5 - 2 9 5 , Josephus

follows a classic, set pattern, an ' e n c o m i u m ' for the eulogy o f a people or a n a d o n . According to K a m l a h , p. 2 2 9 , Josephus has taken this paragraph from

a

Hellenisuc

Jewish

apologetical

source,

cf.

also

Belkin.

Here,

according to SchSublein, Josephus was directly influenced by Plato's work, The Laws.

Finally, Vermes ( 1 9 8 2 ) , p p . 2 9 3 , 3 0 1 f , argues in favour

oiAp.

2 . 1 4 5 - 2 1 9 as the earhest known piece o f Jewish systematic theology.

c. Disposition The disposition ofAp. stands out most clearly in the second book (cf 2.1-7) whereas in the first book it is less obvious, and described only vaguely in the introduction where Josephus sketches the contents of the book (1.1-5). Nevertheless, a certain amount of method is undoubtedly present, and based on my interpretation of this method, I shah propose the following disposition: 1. 2.

3.

4. 5.

1.1-5: Introduction 1.6-68: The reasons why the Jews are so seldom mentioned in Greek hterature a. 1.6-27: Criticism of Greek historiography b. 1.28-46: Praise of the oriental, and the Jewish writing of history c. 1.47-56: Excursus concerning Josephus' own works d. 1.57-68: The reasons for the Greeks' unfamiharity with the Jews 1.69-160: Oriental testimonies on the Jews a. 1.73-105: Manedio b. 1.106-127: Phoenician and other sources c. 1.128-153: Berosus d. 1.154-160: Conclusion 1.161-218: Mention of the Jews made by Greek authors 1.219-2.144: Refiitation of attacks made on the Jews a. 1.219-287: Manetho b. 1.288-319: Chaeremon and Lysimachus c. 1.320-2.7: Transitional passages which conclude zip. 1 and introduce Ap. 2

118

Flavius Josephus, between Jerusalem and Rome 6. 7. 8.

d. 2.8-144: Apion 2.145-219: Presentadon of die Mosaic code and die'Jewish consutuuon' 2.220-286: Judaism and die Greek culture 2.287-296: Conclusion

Thus, it appears that the decisive division in Ap. is not found between the first and the second book, but between 2.144 and 145. Up to and including 2.144, Josephus takes part apologetically and polemically in a passionate debate with his contemporary cridcs of Judaism and the Jewish people. In 2.145-296, however, he has set the polemics aside and expounds favourably on his understanding of the Jewish rehgion and lawgiving. Clearly, this is an attempt to sohcit sympathy and perhaps even conversion to Judaism. Therefore, in reahty Ap. is arranged by a very simple structure which can be outhned as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4.

1.1-5: Introducdon 1.6-2.144: Polemics and apologeucs 2.145-286: Agitadon or missionary acUvity 2.287-296: Conclusion

Literature

To my knowledge, no attempts at determining the disposiuon and structure of Ap. exist. d. Theme and motive The theme of Ap. is obviously the controversy between Judaism and Greek civihzadon. For Josephus personaUy, this controversy expressed itself in the Greek criticism and rejecuon of Ant. (cf Ap. 1.1-2 and other references to Ant. found in Ap. 1.54, 127; 2.136, 287). This obviously corresponds with a Greek criucism of Bell, (cf Ap. 1.4656) which should be seen in its relationship with Josephus' own criucism of Greek historiography in Ap. 1.6-46. However, this controversy is not only apparent in Ap., but also, as we have previously observed, it appears in the earher works, Bell, and Ant. Josephus makes similar criucisms of the Greek writing of history both in Bell. (1.1-3, 6-8) and in Ant. (1.1-4). Thus, Josephus by his wriungs is situated in the firing hne of a far greater conflict between the Jews and the non-Jewish world. Bell. 1.2 speaks openly about the 'hatred of the Jews' as a motive of some of the Greek historical writers—rivals of Josephus—who had written accounts of the Jewish

3. The Writings

119

Roman War. And as we have noted previously, Ant. 14.187 and 16.174-175 state that the eimiity and hatred of the Jewish people was a decisive cause for Josephus to write Ant. (cf. Chapter 3, secdon 4). Thus, the controversy between Josephus and contemporary, rival Greek authors which we hear about in Ap. 1.1-2 belongs in the context of suspicion, polemics and hatred which so strongly influenced the relationship between Jews and non-Jews ('Greeks') during the centuries around the beginning of the common era. In Chapter 2, we have already dealt with the matter that one important aspect of the Jewish-Roman War is found in the bitter battles which took place in the prehminary phases of the War between the Jewish and the non-Jewish populace in many Hellenisuc ciues, especially within but also outside of Palesune. Likewise, we have emphasized that one of the purposes of Bell, and Ant. was to contribute to the preservation of, or to re-estabhsh the legal and pohtical status of the Jews in these cities. With regard to this matter, in Ap., we receive definite information concerning the conditions in Alexandria {Ap. 2.33-78; cf Bell. 2.487-499; Ant. 18.257-261; and Philo's works, Flaccus and Legatio ad Gaium). Apion is said to contest the rights and privileges of the Jewish population in this city, whereas Josephus defends them. During the period from Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BCE), but with particidar reference to the estabhshment of the Hasmonaean supremacy at the end of the second century BCE and until the revolt of Bar Kokhba (132-135 CE), an unrelenting confhct raged between Jews and 'Greeks', It was fought in aU parts of the Greco-Roman world, in the motherland of Palestine and in the widespread Diaspora. Moreover, it was fought on several levels and by many means. It took place economically and poUtically as in Caesarea and Alexandria. It took place militarily as in the Hasmonaean period of expansion and in the year 66-67 C E , and it took place ideologicaUy and Uterarily, as seen in the works of Josephus and Philo. This overall conflict is the theme of Ap. This work provides us with an insight into the mutual contempt and degradation which dominated the relationship between 'Greeks' and Jews. We also observe that apparently this controversy was part of an even greater struggle between HeUenism and the Orient; cf Ap. 1.28-46, where Josephus ranks Judaism on a par with the great oriental phalanx with which he confronts the Greek civihzation. This confhct between contemporary Jews and non-Jews is the

120


motive and theme of Ap., and, as we have pointed out in the previous sections, it also determines the earher works. Bell, and Ant., to a great extent. Literature For anti-Semitism in the ancient world, see Daniel and Sevenster. For the confrontation between the oriental world and the western, G r e c o - R o m a n , civihzadon, I refer particularly to E d d y and F u c h s ; c f also Bilde ( 1 9 8 3 b ) , pp. 2 6 - 2 7 . Schaublein (pp. 3 1 6 - 1 7 ) points out that, in Ap., Josephus fights a battle

against

the

Greek

civihzation;

cf.

also

Lindner

( 1 9 7 4 ) , p. 2 5 9 ;

Schloesing, pp. 7 4 - 7 5 ; van U n n i k ( 1 9 7 3 ) and ( 1 9 7 9 ) , pp. 247ff.

e. Aim, readers and genre The aim and circle of readers oi Ap. may be determined to be the same as those oiAnt. Like that which apphes to this work, the aim and readers oiAp. are also twofold. The work addresses itself pardy to the far-reaching circles in the Greco-Roman world which remained neutral in the controversy between the Jews and the 'Greeks' in order to prevent and avert the eflFects which the antiSemitic attacks on the Jews might cause. But, Ap. also addresses itself to the groups which were favourably inchned to Judaism with the intention of defending and interpreting the rehgion which they found attractive. Moreover, we can probably assume that here and there Josephus particularly aims at the govenunent in Rome for the same reason as apphes to the first group mentioned. On the other hand, there is nothing to indicate that he had a Jewish audience in mind, a theory advanced by Mighario. Nevertheless, the decisive group aimed at is definitely those who were interested in Judaism. They constitute partly an important group of alhes of the Jewish people in the Greco-Roman world, and pardy they are potential converts. It is obviously for their benefit that Josephus describes Judaism as the true philosophy which is testified and revered by the best Greek philosophers and historians. It is for them that he portrays Moses as the ideal and earhest lawgiver. It is probably also this group which gives Josephus occasion to embelhsh to such an extent the Jewish proselytism and mission (cf Ap. 2.123, 209-210, 261, 282-286). His criticism of the Greek worship of their gods also belongs in this context. All of these features indicate and testify to the fact that Ap. is primarily a work of missionary hterature, a work of apologetic and propaganda of'hortatory' nature, primarily addressed to the 'Gentiles', who were interested in the Jewish faith, in an eflfort

3. The Writings

121

to attract them even closer to Judaism as 'God-fearing' or as actual proselytes. Literature Daniel, p. 4 7 , considers that the primary aim o f Ap.

is to oppose a n d -

S e m i d s m . O n the other hand, e.g. Attridge ( 1 9 8 4 ) , p. 2 3 1 ; Balch, p. 1 2 1 ; Vermes ( 1 9 8 2 ) , pp. 3 0 1 - 3 0 2 , all emphasize that in Ap.,

Josephus first and

foremost has a missionary message. Balch, however, rejects the idea that the purpose ofAp.

is to enhst proselytes; instead, he determines the aim ofAp.

as

an attempt to estabhsh imderstanding and sympathy for Judaism. H e r e , however, the hmits are vague.

f. Sources and treatment of sources As is the case -wixhAnt., scholars have also debated whether Josephus would in fact have been able single-handedly to undertake the monumentous work of coUecdng and preparing the many sources which have been udhzed in Ap. This problem loses significance when we consider the fact that the treatment of sources in Ap. is very well integrated. Furthermore, Ap. is hnguisdcaUy and styhslicaUy homogenous, and, with regard to the treatment of sources, we find the same method and tendency throughout the two books of Ap. Literature Belkin has advanced the hypothesis that behind Ap. 2, there might be a work by Philo or some other Alexandrian source; c f HSlscher ( 1 9 1 6 ) , col. 1 9 9 6 . For this quesdon, see also Feldman ( 1 9 8 4 a ) , pp. 3 8 4 - 8 7 and ( 1 9 8 4 b ) , pp. 8 5 7 58.

6. Conclusion Thus, Ap. can be regarded as the key to all ofJosephus' wriungs. The primary factor in these is scarcely Josephus' role in the Jewish War, his surrender to the Romans, or his emperor prophecy with all that this seems to have secured for him in the way of privileges. Nor can it be his controversies with other Jews such as Justus of Tiberias or Jonathan the Weaver, of Cyrene, no matter how essential these may appear to be. Nor can it be the presumed instabihty of Josephus' career, status and income, as assumed by the Laqueur school. But it is the pohucal and spiritual status of the Jewish people and of Judaism in the Greco-Roman world which consututes the central theme in all of Josephus' works. Outwardly, his main pohucal aim is

122


to re-establish, maintaiti and secure the rights and posidon of the Jewish people within the Roman Empire in the precarious situauon foUowing the War in 66-70 (74). Inwardly, among the Jewish people, he tries to promote a degree of openness towards and cooperation with Rome as well as the Greco-Roman, HeUenistic civiUzation. Furthermore, with regard to morals and rehgion, Josephus endeavoured to preserve and expand Judaism as a meaningful and influential 'philosophy' in the world at the time. AU these features come to the fore in Ap., and viewed in the Ught of Ap., they also become apparent in Bell, and Ant. In aU his works, it is essential for Josephus to counteract the 'hatred of the Jews', to secure the rights of the Jewish people and to present Judaism in such a way that its appeal to the non-Jews is clearly evident.

Chapter 4 MAIN TRENDS IN MODERN JOSEPHUS RESEARCH In Chapters 2 and 3, we have reviewed the hfe and wriungs of Josephus. By doing so, the most important part of the foundation is laid for a comprehensive, systemadc determinauon and evaluation of his pohtical and rehgious-theological posiuon and thereby his significance as an author and historian. Before we can tackle this problem, there is still an important missing hnk, namely, a review of the main trends in research on Josephus, with particidar attention given to its development in the 20th century. In preceding chapters, we have often found it necessary to refer to points of view and arguments in the research, but in these contexts the picture of the scholarly hterature on Josephus was not complete. It is now appropriate to present a general sketch of Josephus research in which, throughout the years, standpoints have been taken on the problems which have been addressed in the two preceding chapters. 1. Introduction A critical and analytical overall survey of more recent Josephus research is still lacking (cf. also Feldman [1984a], p. 885). There is an exceUent bibhography by Schreckenberg, so far in two volumes, which contains a nearly completely hst of all hterature on Josephus up to and including 1978. A third volume of this bibhography, written by Feldman, comprising the hterature fi-om 1979 to 1984, and a supplement to the first two volumes is on its way (cf Feldman [1984a], p. 19). However, this bibhography is primarily a hst and does not attempt to depict the history and development of the research. Nor is anything of this kind available from editions and translations of Josephus' works, either in the Loeb edition or in the

124


Michel-Bauemfeind edition of Bell., where one might have expected to find it. It is most astonishing, however, that none of the numerous recent monographs contain an adequate critical review of modem research. Of course, some of them do contain valuable sections on the history of the research. This apphes to Farmer (1956), Lindner (1972), Schaht (1973), Attridge (1976) and S.J.D. Cohen (1979) as well as Michel-Bauemfeind, who in Volume III contributes a brief chapter on the present state of Josephus research. However, none of these presents an overall survey, only thematic reviews of parts of the history of research. Unfortunately, neither do the most recent general works, van Unnik (1978), Rajak (1983), Attiidge (1984) and Moehring (1984) fiilfil this need. The same apphes to Feldman's large synthesizing works: the critical review of Josephus research from 1937-1980 (1984a), and the general survey of the main problems in Josephus research in Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt, II.21.2 (1984b). Neither in 1984a nor in 1984b does Feldman undertake a critical analysis of modem Josephus research as a whole. He organizes the hterature thematically. He records and criticizes it, but he makes no attempt to detect the main trends in the research. He does not adopt a definite point of view with regard to modem research and—apart from a short section in 1984b, pp. 86062—makes no attempt to present an overall evaluation of modem Josephus research. I have, therefore, felt compelled to work out my own analysis and account of the more recent history of Josephus research. It has been pubhshed previously in a different and in part more comprehensive version (Bilde [1983a], pp. 20-61). Naturally, the following survey is based on this version, but it has been shortened, shghtly reworked and supplemented by a section about the very latest research from the period 1980-1984. I emphasize the fact that this is a survey and concerns the main trends in the history of the research. Where necessary, the research on individual problems is indicated in excursuses in the appropriate sections of other chapters in this book. However, now they can readily be found in Feldman's latest works, especially 1984a. A few areas in the research are not dealt with at all. This apphes, for example, to the hterature on Testimonium Flavianum. Literature Reference is made to Farmer ( 1 9 5 6 ) , pp. 2 4 - 4 4 ; M i c h e l - B a u e m f e i n d , III,

4. Main Trends in Modem Josephus Research

125

pp. xx-xxvi; Lindner ( 1 9 7 2 ) , pp. 1-20; Sciialit ( 1 9 7 3 ) , pp. vii-xviii; Attridge ( 1 9 7 6 ) , pp. 3 - 2 7 ; S.J.D. C o h e n ( 1 9 7 9 ) , pp. 3 - 2 3 ; Feldman ( 1 9 8 4 a ) , pp. 1 6 - 1 9 , and ( 1 9 8 4 b ) , pp. 7 6 3 - 6 5 ; Bilde ( 1 9 8 3 a ) , pp. 2 0 - 6 1 , esp. pp. 2 0 - 2 2 , where die necessity for a cridcal, analytical survey covering the more recent Josephus research

as a whole

Testimonium

Flavianum

is discussed

more

thoroughly.

The

hterature

on

has been examined in Bilde ( 1 9 8 1 ) , esp. pp. 1 0 3 -

107.

2. TTie earlier research In our introduction, it was mentioned that Josephus soon won an eminent position in Christendom. Bell, was read by many Christians to be an account of the flilfilment of the prophecies Jesus made about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Added to this are the brief passages in Ant. concerning Jesus (18.63-64), John the Baptist (18.116-119) and Jesus' brother James (20.200-203), which have been of such great importance to the church. Therefore, in the Christian church, Josephus received recognition as a crypto-Christian Nicodemus figure, a kind of Jewish Church Father similar to Philo, or a kind of fifth evangehst. In late antiqvuty and the Middle Ages in Europe he was respected and esteemed as a great author and historian. For example, a man hke Hieronymus could describe Josephus as the Jewish Livy (Epist. 22.35, 8). During this period, admiration of him was nearly uncritical, and the work of scholars consisted primarily in carrying on the tradition by constandy creating new editions and translations. The first signs of a critical attitude appeared at the end of the Middle Ages, when people gradually began to take note of and comment on Josephus' deviations from the text of the Old Testament in his rendering of bibhcal history in Ant. 1-11. This tendency increased in the 16th and 17th centuries when the first doubts about the genuineness of Testimonium Flavianum arose. The attack on this important 'Christian' text gave rise to a violent fiirore and developed into an enormous hterary controversy which raged throughout most of Europe from the 17th to far into the 19th century (cf. e.g. Berggren and Serenius). In the 18th century and especiaUy in the 19th, critical research graduaUy prevailed and increased greatly along with general developments of critical research in the fields of the humanities and bibhcal studies.

126


Literature For a closer analysis o f the early, uncritical Josephus research, reference is made esp. to Feldman ( 1 9 8 4 a ) , pp. 2 1 - 2 4 ; Schreckenberg ( 1 9 6 8 ) , ( 1 9 7 2 ) , ( 1 9 7 7 ) and ( 1 9 8 0 ) , pp. 1 7 9 - 8 1 ; van U n n i k ( 1 9 7 8 ) , pp. 1 7 - 1 8 ; Vidal-Naquet ( 1 9 7 7 ) , pp. 3 0 - 3 5 . T h e use o f Josephus in andqiuty (the early c h u r c h ^ ^ d the M i d d l e Ages is thoroughly treated by Bardy, R . M . Grant and above all by Schreckenberg ( 1 9 8 4 ) . M o d e m representatives o f this uncritical standpoint are Bernstein and Rosenzweig.

3. The classic conception of Josephus Scepticism towards Testimonium Flavianum, and soon after towards the passages about John the Baptist and James the brother of Jesus, went hand in hand with the detection of unpleasant tendentious features in the writings, first of all a servile flattery of the Flavians, and then the massive apologetics for the Jewish people and, last but not least, for Josephus' own morally suspect career. These features were considered to be incompatible with objective historical writing which Josephus otherwise claims to be his aim. Graetz and Jost are especially named in this cormection. Added to this were intensive investigations of the important source problem which becomes particularly urgent in Ant. and Ap. Von Destinon tackled the question of the sources of Ant. 12-13, and came to the conclusion that Josephus had not personaUy incorporated the original sources but, on the contrary, it must be presumed that he adopted them in a revised version from an account similar in kind to Ant., a so-called middle source. Von Destinon found the decisive evidence for his hypothesis in the numerous formulae of references in Ant. 12-13, which according to this scholar are not confirmed by other corresponding passages in the same work where they are so to speak 'fiilfiUed' (cf. pp. 18ff.). According to von Destinon, Josephus does not take Bell, into consideration in Ant. 12-20 either, although he had earher described the same period in Bell. (cf. pp. 9ff.). Instead, in Ant. 12-20, independently of the earher account, once again he is assumed to have utihzed the same earUer middle sources which he had used already once in Bell. So, Josephus was no longer to be looked upon as a writer of history working independently. All of a sudden he was reduced to the status of a rather unimaginative penpusher who had merely plagiarized the works of others and pieced together the stolen goods without adding much thought to the matter. With this, the so-caUed 'anonymous hypothesis' had been


127

launched. It was not Josephus himself, but the anonymous authors of the middle sources which he used who were responsible for and should have the credit for his historical wriungs (cf. p. 39). The morahzing criucism of Josephus (Graetz and Jost) and von DesUnon's anonymous hypothesis appear combined into one disunctive conception of Josephus in HOlscher's classical article in Pauly-Wissowa from 1916. Hdlscher regards Josephus not merely as an editor of source material which had already been collected, but as a compiler, who created nothing independently and who owes everything which is worthwhile in his works to his sources. Apart from his lack of originahty, according to Holscher, Josephus is also untrustworthy, for example, when he claims to have translated the scriptures {Ant. 1.5, 17 etc.): D e r eide Schriftsteller hat sich mit fremden F e d e m geschmackt. D i e Frage mufl also gestellt werden, o b er bei seiner Arbeit den Bibeltext Oberhaupt aufgeschlagen hat (col. 1 9 5 3 ) .

Holscher claimed that the Greek translation of the scriptures as weU as the learned exegesis of the bibhcal material was derived by Josephus from elsewhere (cols. 1951-1962). The same apphes to the material from the Greco-Roman authors (cols. 1964-1967). Josephus' works have mairUy consisted of 'Abschreiben, Exzerpieren, Paraphrasieren und Kombiiueren von Vorlagen' (col. 1962). According to Holscher, in Ant. 13-17, Josephus uses a compilation by a 'Jewish Nicolas forger' (cols. 1970-1982), and in Ant. 18-20, presumably a 'Jewish middle source' (cols. 1983-1994). Finally, Hdlscher regards Josephus as a tendentious hirehng, since Bell, is described as being a work of propaganda which was ordered by the Emperor: 'Die DarsteUung unseres vom Kaiser bezahlten Literaten ist danach durchaus Tendenzdarstellung' (col. 1943). To Hdlscher, Josephus' weakness of character on one hand and his inabihty as an author and historian on the other are two sides of the same matter. It is claimed that Josephus has plagiarized and copied texts from others because he is a dependent and weak character. He has twisted and deceived because his aim is to make apologies on his own behalf and explain away his cowardice and his betrayal of his people. Thus, an entirely new view of Josephus was launched, a view which soon setded into a massive negative attitude which was to leave its mark on all aspects of Josephus research as well as the research which uses Josephus as a historical source. This is the

128


classical conception of Josephus which was begun in the latter half of the 19th century and culminated in the first decades of the 20th, However, it did not cease to exist, although as time went by it acquired a different form under the influence of other schools of thought. The most important names which we may coimect with the classical concepdon of Josephus are Norden, Bentwich, Laqueur, Weber, Eisler, Foakes-Jackson, Schaht, S.J.D, Cohen and Trisogho, This classical concepdon ofJosephus is also to be found behind the attempts to show a single Roman source behind Bell, (cf Chapter 3, section 2, f), at least as it was originally suggested by Schlatter, Norden and Weber, It was assumed that this source was the imperial 'commentarii' (cf. Vita 342, 358; Ap. 1,56) and/or an historical dissertation on the Jewish War no longer extant, written either by Antonius Juhanus (Schlatter and Norden) or a Flavian work, now lost (Weber). Furthermore, it was argued that it was from a w o r k purely hypothetical—like this from which Josephus was supposed to have derived, not to say stolen, all the outstanding descriptions of the conduct of the War, of the locahties of Judaea and of the siege of Jerusalem as contained in Bell. Thus, the tendency of this thesis is also to reduce Josephus' own contribution and importance as an author to the role of a copyist, a compiler and an editor (see fiirther below). Literature In

general,

reference

is

made

to

Feldman

(1984a),

pp, 9 9 - 1 0 2 ;

Bilde

( 1 9 8 3 a ) , pp. 2 3 - 2 5 . W i t h regard to the quesdon o f the possibihty o f a R o m a n source behind Bell., reference is m a d e to Feldman ( 1 9 8 4 a ) , pp. 3 7 8 - 8 0 , and ( 1 9 8 4 b ) , p. 8 4 0 ; as weU as Bilde ( 1 9 8 3 a ) , pp. 2 8 - 3 0 . T h e view which G r a e t z and Jost appUed with regard to Josephus has been expressed respectively in III, 2, pp. 4 8 3 - 5 0 0 , 5 5 3 - 6 0 , and I, pp. 4 3 5 - 5 0 .

m 4. Criticism of the classical conception of Josephus As early as the beginning of die 20th century, new signals were seen in Josephus research. Scholars hke Bloch, Druner and Niese opposed von Destinon's anonymous hypothesis. Drtiner attempted to demonstrate that the formulae of references in Ant. 12-13 closely correspond to those which also occur throughout his writings, and that in practically aU cases these can be located (pp. 70-94). Furthermore, he argued that it must have been Josephus himself who had utiUzed and interpolated 1 Maccabees, and thus, this book was


129

not, as presumed by von Desunon, already present as an interpoladon in an anonymous source which Josephus merely copied (pp. 35ff.). Ultimately, Drtiner contests von Desunon's assertion that Ant. is independent of Bell. According to Drtiner, the opposite is the case, and he attempts to estabhsh that in Ant., Josephus purposely revises and re-edits the previous version presented in Bell. (pp. 51-56). Driiner's work was carried on by other scholars. "ISubler (1916), Petersen and Altschuler continued the analysis of the formulae of references in Ant., and tried to explain them all as Josephus' own references to passages either in works already existing or to works which had been planned. As early as in 1896, Driiner's teacher, Niese, the editor of Josephus, rejected the anonymous hypothesis by pointing out the extent of the hnguistic and styhstic unity which is characteristic of Ant. ([1896], pp. 218ff., 235), an opinion which was later to be widely adopted. Eventually, when the thesis of Josephus as the passive copyist had been set aside, the conception of Josephus as an active forger—a creative viUain—became more prevalent in the classic conception of Josephus. In 1920, this theory received an entirely new dimension from Laqueur who launched the biographical criticism of tendency. Here, the opposition to the anonymous hypothesis, which was founded on source criticism, is ftiUy displayed. Even the title of the book, Der jiidische Historiker Josephus, clearly indicates Laqueur's emphasis. He maintains that source criticism has failed precisely because it neglected to investigate the tenor of Josephus (p. 129). Instead of the automatic, source-orientated division of Josephus' works based on external, formal criteria, Laqueur demands an interpretation and understanding of Josephus as an ardent, creative human being and writer (pp. 56-57, 129, 132, 218, 241-42). On this basis, Laqueur conducted a series of investigations of Ant. 14, which showed that, among other things, Josephus cannot have used an anonymous source but must have used Bell, as his foundation and that in Ant., he merely 'tendentiously' revised the version in Bell. (pp. 128ff.). Laqueur found confirmation of this insight in other parts of Ant. According to Laqueur, the revision in Ant. reflects major changes in the personal hfe of Josephus, which he unambiguously regards as negative. Laqueur perceives all of Josephus' writings as being the result of a career which finds no equal in egotism, mendacity, fraud and treachery. He uses all of the basest quahties to describe Josephus, and all of the most suspect motives are

130

Flavius Josephtis, between Jerusalem and Rome

said to have incited his works. On the basis of this negative perception of Josephus' person and based on his theory of Josephus' gradual, unpredictable development, Laqueur founded his hyjxjthesis of 'Der Werdegang des Josephus' (pp. 245-78): Josephus began as a law-abiding priest having an important position in Jerusalem (p. 247). However, he abused his office as emissary in ffie norffi in the years 66-67, to set himself up as a tyrant in Gahlee from where ffie kernel of Vita, ffie 'statement of affairs' ('Rechenschaftsbericht') was sent to ffie govenunent in Jerusalem (pp. 96ff., 248-49). After his treasonable surrender to ffie Romans, Josephus changed roles again and ffien acted as 'der Officiosus der romischen Pohtik' (p. 256). Josephus remained in this office until he lost imperial favour under ffie reign of Domitian (p. 259). He was ffien forced to alter his course again and became engaged by ffie pubhsher Epaphroditus as a Jewish expert and propagandist: So

nimmt

denn

der Verleger

Epaphroditus

den Josephus

als

Autoritat auf dem Gebiet des Judentums imter seinen Schutz und vmterstiltzt ihn bei der Abfassimg der A r c h , durch G e w a h r u n g ausserer Existenzmittel (Arch. I, 8) (p.

259).

This enabled Josephus to combine his secure income wiffi an effort to rehabihtate himself in ffie good grace of his Jewish countrymen: Egoismus und natUrhches Nationalgefiihl koimten n i m m e h r H a n d in (p.

Hand

260).

gehen

und

brauchten

sich

nicht

mehr

zu

kreuzen

When ffie work of Justus of Tiberias was finally pubhshed (c. 100), and Justus proved to be superior to Josephus as an orthodox expert on Jewish affairs, Josephus was 'dismissed' by Epaphroditus (pp. 272-74). Thereupon, Josephus turned—'Gewissensskrupel gab es ffir Josephus nicht' (p. 274)—to ffie Christians and added Testimonium Flavianum {Ant. 18.63-64) in order to make Ant. more readable and ffiereby promote ffie sale of ffie book to a wider GrecoRoman pubhc (pp. 274-78). Laqueur's fancifol ffieories on ffie life history of josephus and on ffie various and sharply divided phases and trends in his writings should not, however, prevent recognition of ffie fact ffiat, in principle, this scholar has made correct observations. It is absolutely necessary to search for and uncover ffie intentions and ffie aim which are ffie driving forces in Josephus' works. It is not wrong to place ffiem in relauonship to his life history as far as it is possible to


131

reconstruct it with a reasonable degree of certainty. Therefore, in principle, Laqueur's approach is correct (cf. also Feldman [1984a], p. 102). However, criucism of the anonymous hypothesis continued. It also influences the 1929 book by Thackeray, the editor and translator of Josephus. Like Bloch, Drdner, Niese and Laqueur, Thackeray attempts to show that in Ant., Josephus himself has treated his source material (pp. 58-59). According to Thackeray hkewise, Josephus has compiled and interpolated the oflBcial documents contained in Ant. (pp. 70-71). At the same time, Thackeray rejects Laqueur's ideas about the kernel of Vita being a 'statement of affairs' sent by Josephus to the Jewish rebelhous government in Jerusalem, since a kernel of this nature cannot with certainty be separated from Vita (pp. 17-19). Likewise, he rejects Laqueur's interpretation of Josephus' hfe (pp. 20-21). Instead of, or perhaps along with, the 'cold, egoistic selfishness', Thackeray credits Josephus with objective interests. In fact, for the first time in the history of criucal research, Thackeray makes an attempt to assume and formulate a pohtical standpoint taken by Josephus. Thus, according to Thackeray, it is unreasonable to deny Josephus' patriotism (p. 21). Like many other Jews, he was a confirmed opponent of the Revolt, but circumstances forced him to become involved (pp. 10-13, 21-22). After his capture, during the siege of Jerusalem, Josephus was untiring in his efforts to avoid the ultimate catastrophe (p. 22). After the fall of the city, he devoted himself to the cause of his people (p. 22). Although Bell, is a work of Flavian propaganda (pp. 27ff.), at the same time Josephus served his country and his people by his writing: H e was no mere hireling; his o w n deepest convictions told him that the only road to amehoradon o f his nation's unhappy lot lay in submission to the empire (p. 2 9 ) .

Therefore, Thackeray sees no contradiction, but a firm unity in Josephus' writings: ^ H i s fine

apologia

for Judaism, the

contra Apionem,

crowns his

services to his race. H e has surely earned the name o f patriot (p. 2 2 ) .

For this reason, Thackeray also rejects Laqueur's assertion that Ant. comprises something definitely new in comparison to Bell., viz. that Ant. was supposed to be a Jewish apology, whereas Bell, was considered to be pro-Roman and thoroughly Flavian. According to

132


Thackeray, it is true enough that in writing Ant. Josephus had been released from his aUiance with the Roman pohucal propaganda, and now emerges as a Jewish historian and apologist clean and pure: But this severance o f R o m a n des and adopdon o f another and more patriodc theme do not, to m y m i n d , indicate any abrupt change o f atutude (p. 5 2 ) .

But Thackeray was not completely able to free himself from the classical concepdon of Josephus either. This is clearly evident in the famous assistant hypothesis. According to Thackeray, the 'assistants' (sunergot) mentioned in Ap. 1.50 have a considerable share of the credit for the services rendered by Josephus' writings (p. 100), although Josephus ungrateftiUy neglects to mention them in his preface to Bell. (p. 105). These assistants have indeed made great contributions, not oidy in Bell. (cf. Ap. 1.50) but also in Ant., especiaUy in Ant. 15-19 (pp. 106ff.). According to Thackeray, Ant. 15-16 and 17-19 are by and large written by two assistants, the 'Sophoclean' (15-16) and die 'Thucydidean' (17-19) (pp. 109-18). But in Ant. 20 and in Vita, we find Josephus in his 'purest' form (p. 115). Thackeray's assistant hypothesis won the support of many scholars, not least because it was regarded by some of them as a suitable substitute for the discarded anonymous hypothesis. This can be said to apply to scholars hke Geltzer, Hengel, G.A. Wilhamson, M. Grant, Schaht, Goldstein and Ulrich. Nevertheless, the assistant hypothesis—no more than the earher theory—was not allowed to remain uncontested. On the basis of hnguistic and styhstic investigations, the Thucydidean features fbimd in Josephus were interpreted already by Druner as being a dehberate effort on the part of Josephus to imitate his great Greek predecessor (pp. 2ff., 34). But apart from that, Elchanan Stein was one of the first scholars to advance a thorough criticism of Thackeray's presentation of the assistant hypothesis. On the basis of lexicographical investigations. Stein showed that all of the books in Josephus' works are very uniform hnguistically and styhsticaUy. He traces quotations from and allusions to a greater number of Greek authors, and astonishingly these are distributed by from two to four occurrences on each page of Josephus' works. Thus, according to Stein, the even hterary quahty of the works has been attested to such an extent that Thackeray's assistant hypothesis must be rejected (p. 128). For Stein, the role of


133

the assistants must be regarded as more humble, since they must be presumed to have acted as proof-readers rather than as creative writers (p. 128). Likewise, Richards has criticized Thackeray's assistant hypothesis on linguistic-styhstic grounds. The 'Sophoclean' periods appear to overlap the 'Thucydidean' (p. 39), and according to Richards, Ant. 17-19 by and large seem to employ the same vocabulary as the other books of Ant. (p. 40). Therefore, Richards, as weU as Druner, Stein and Briine, attributes the numerous allusions and references to Greek literature, especiaUy Thucydides, to Josephus himself. Richards assumes that Josephus alone translated Bell, from the Aramaic into Greek, and then placed the MS in the hands o f assistants who systematicaUy revised it, rewriting where necessary. N o possible;

for

no

assistant

could

have

other hypothesis

been

found

is

suflSciendy

famihar with both Aramaic and hterary G r e e k — a t least it is highly improbable—and we have no reason to disbeheve Josephus when he says he translated his original treatise (p. 3 6 ) .

Consequently, Richards and Stein arrived at the same conclusion, namely, a rejection of Thackeray's hypothesis and a hmitatiion of the activities of the assistants to Bell., where, according to Josephus' own information in Ap. 1.50, they contributed hnguistic assistance. Criticism of the assistant hypothesis as advanced by Stein and Richards was foUowed up by several other scholars, especially Shutt ([1961], pp. 30-35, 59-77), PeUetier ([1962], pp. 251ff.), Rajak ([1983], pp. 62-63, 233-36) and Feldman ([1984b], p. 860). According to the criticism advanced, there appears to be no basis for a styhsticaUy founded separation of certain parts of the writings which could be attributed to the 'assistants' mentioned in Ap. 1.50. Their aid caimot be ascertained in any works other than Bell, where Josephus himself informs us about them, and even there it has not been possible to determine the parts for which the assistants might have been directly responsible. Therefore, the debate on the assistant hypothesis points in the same direction as the criticism of the anonymous hypothesis. Indications are that Josephus was personally responsible for his writings, both with regard to their contents and their hterary form. In the words of Petersen: T h e whole hypothesis assigns to too hypothetical persons what is more easily attributed to the author himself (pp. 2 6 0 - 6 1 n. 5 ) .

134


Thus, in the first half of the 20th century, a new trend in Josephus research can be observed. The classical concepdon of Josephus gradually gives way to the foundation of a new main conception. The decisive factor in this development is that one gradually extricates oneself fi-om the hypercritical and strongly morahzing attitude of the 19th century. Gradually, one becomes less concemed with Josephus' moral character, and this opens the way towards the understanding of hitherto urmoticed or misinterpreted national apologetic features in his writings. At the same time, one observes a showdown with the excessive faith in hterary criticism of sources in the 19th century, and correspondingly a new interest in Josephus as an actively creative author. Literature For the history o f research during this period, reference is made to Feldman ( 1 9 8 4 a ) , pp. 1 0 2 - 1 0 4 , and ( 1 9 8 4 b ) , p. 8 6 0 ; M i c h e l - B a u e m f e u i d , III, pp. x x xxiv;

Bilde

(1983a),

pp. 25-36.

attempts to s h o w that in Horowitz,

pp. 3 1 - 3 4 ;

Aside

Ant., Josephus

Niese

(1896),

from

the

scholars

uses and revises

pp. 218flF.;

Bell,

Schlatter

mentioned, are made by

(1923),

p. 5 9 ;

TSubler ( 1 9 1 6 ) , pp. 2 2 2 - 2 3 . Thackeray's assistant hypothesis is also rejected by other scholars, e.g. Attridge ( 1 9 7 6 ) , p. 3 9 , and ( 1 9 8 4 ) , p. 2 1 2 ; Justus, pp. 1 3 5 - 3 6 ;

Ladouceur

( 1 9 8 3 ) , p. 3 5 ; Lindner

( 1 9 7 4 ) , p. 2 5 5 ;

Moehring

( 1 9 5 9 ) , p. 3 0 4 ; Trisogho, p. 1 0 4 0 n. 1 2 8 .

5. TTie classical conception of Josephus in recent years One cannot, however, estabhsh any date for the demise of the classical conception. It hves on in the periods before and afi;er the Second World War, and it stiU exists and makes itself heard today by a scholar like S.J.D. Cohen as a significant standpoint in Josephus research. In addition to Cohen, the most important scholars of this period who maintain the classical conception are Bentwich, Eisler, Foakes-Jackson, S. Rappaport, Schaht and G.A. Wilhamson. However, on a closer analysis of the works of these authors, it becomes evident that actuaUy only a very few of them—characteristically the older generation—persist in adhering to the unabbreviated classical standpoints. Most of them belong rather to a position similar to that of Laqueur and Thackeray. Regardless of how different these two scholars are, they both contest the anonymous hypothesis and against its adherents they agree in acknowledging Josephus' contribution as a creative author. This recognition is also found


135

among the younger generation of scholars mentioned above, but with the same negative indications as those of Laqueur, which makes it justifiable for us to discuss them together in this section. This apphes above all to the scholars who have carried on independent investigations of Josephus' works. S. Rappaport serves as a good example of this sort of work. His detailed comparison between Ant. and corresponding rabbituc material goes to show that to a high degree Josephus himself was actively interpreting and, firom the hterary point of view, creative in rendering the haggadic type of paraphrase of the Old Testament found in the first part of Ant.: W e n n nun auch Jos. seine posidven Angaben hOchstwahrscheinlich nur schriftUchen Angaben e n m o m m e n hat, so hat er doch aus seinen Quellen ein neues, eigenardges Werk geschaflfen, eine neue Bibel, m i t apologedscher Tendenz gegen die Heiden (pp. xxvixxvii).

Insofar as Rappaport demonstrates and emphasizes these features in Ant., however, his investigations point beyond his point of departure and basic view. They also point beyond Laqueur, whom Rappaport otherwise follows in this work. For not only do Josephus' egotism and basic material needs come into view, but also his theological or ideological intentions. Something similar apphes to Schaht, one of the foremost Josephus scholars of our time. He has translated and analyzed Ant. He has worked intensively on Vita in several articles. He has made original contributions towards the understanding of the ofiicial documents so often cited by Josephus. Not least, in his monograph on Herod the Great, he has made exhaustive studies of Josephus as an historical source and in doing so evaluated the question of Josephus' historical rehabihty in the hght of the results of modem Palestinian archaeology. Moreover, Schaht has presented a comprehensive account of Josephus in the most recent edition of Encyclopaedia Judaica as weU as in the Josephus anthology from 1973, edited by himself FinaUy, since his retirement, he has pubhshed a comprehensive comparative analysis of Josephus' prophecy concerning Vespasian's imminent fiiture position as emperor. Schaht's life's work is fimdamentally influenced by the classical conception of Josephus, yet in such a way that the attitude towards Josephus is modified and variegated as the work progresses. In the earhest contributions the attitude towards Josephus is imambiguously

136


deprecatory (cf. e.g. [1933b], pp. 73-75, 81-83, 88, 91, 95). However, in the comprehensive introduction to the Hebrew translation oiAnt., it is emphasized that this major work of Josephus has a Jewish apologedc aim (pp. xviu-xix, Ixxv-lxxxu), that Josephus independendy drew upon various sources (pp. xxviff.), that Ant. 1-10 is independently arranged (pp. xlixff., esp. Ivii) and is influenced by hterary ambidon (pp. Ivu-lviu, Ixiu). At the same ume, however, the classical theme of Josephus' dependence on others is maintained on several points (pp. xxii-xxiv, xhv-xlv, Ix-lxii, bdv-lxvi). The summary article in Encyclopaedia Judaica is once again strongly influenced by the negative attitude to Josephus as a person (pp. 253-54). In hke maimer, in the spirit of Weber, Bell, is denounced as being an unoriginal work (p. 257) intended to pander to the Flavians and exonerate himself from the treason he committed (p. 255). As for Ant., Josephus' weakness as a historian is pointed out. In this article, Josephus' only virtue is as an outstanding man of letters (pp. 262-63). Viewed in this way, Schaht's introduction to his research anthology from 1973 seems astonishing. True enough, here again, we find that Josephus' moral weakness, his borrowed feathers, and his slavish dependence on his sources are emphasized (p. vui), and also Thackeray's assistant hypothesis is confirmed (p. xiv). But here, this traditional evaluation is set in rehef by an unusuaUy severe criticism of the classical conception of Josephus, especially by Willrich (pp. xui-xiv), Holscher (p. xiv), Eisler (pp. xvu-xvui) and Laqueur (p. xviii). Furthermore, Schaht also raises reservations against the criticism of Josephus as an apostate and renegade (pp. ix-x, xviii). FinaUy, he makes the following comments on the question of Josephus' rehabihty as an historical source: Wie

erstaunUch richtig in den HauptzOgen

seine

DarsteUung

[about the Essenes] ist, haben wir erst in den letzten fiinfundzwanzig Jahren durch die epochemachenden Funde am Toten M e e r g e l e m t (p. x v ) .

Schaht also introduces his research summary by remarking that as yet the final judgment on Josephus is by no means pronounced

(p. vii). This duahty in the evaluation of Josephus is also present in Schaht's exciting analysis of Josephus' emperor prophecy. Here, Josephus is characterized again—in contradiction to Yohanan ben Zakkai—as a Jewish renegade and a Flavian tool (pp. 214, 277-79). He is said to have hed about the time of the prophecy (pp. 259, 288ff. 299; cf p. 262). Finally, in the opinion of Schaht, it was sheer vanity.

4. Main Trends in Modem Josephtis Research

137

eagerness for recognition and fear of death which drove Josephus to 'fabricate' his 'prophecy', when the ume was ripe (pp. 278, 320). However, in opposition to this classical conception of Josephus and rather loosely connected with the views just mentioned, there are a series of observations of a completely different kind. Here, with regard to pohtical position, Josephus is placed on a par with Yohanan ben Zakkai and other adherents of the moderate party in Jerusalem (pp. 264ff.). According to Schaht, from the start and aU throughout the War, Josephus had the same negative attitude towards the Revolt. He also recognizes Josephus as a loyal rehgious Jew (p. 327 n. 142) who had a genuine faith in the Messiah (p. 268). He was merelyjust as Yohanan ben Zakkai—in disagreement with the mihtant nationahsts theologicaUy and pohticaUy (pp. 268ff.). When in spite of the efforts made by the peace party, the Revolt broke out, according to Schaht, Josephus was swept along by the events while at the same time he constantly pursued his main pohtical goal, a peacefiil settlement with Rome. Ultimately, Schaht emphasizes that this was actuaUy a pohcy which Josephus pursued in agreement with the moderate party in Jerusalem (pp. 264ff., 277-79). Thus, throughout his comprehensive writings, Schaht does not present a coherent portrayal of Josephus as being driven by genuine pohtical and theological convictions on one side and his weak character on the other. LUce S. Rappaport's work, Schaht's interpretation of Josephus must be said to point beyond the fimdamental conception from which it originated. S.J.D. Cohen's investigation of Bell, and Vita is one of the most important contributions in more recent research. Cohen should also be discussed in this section since his view ofJosephus is fimdamentaUy influenced by the classical conception of Josephus, first and foremost by Laqueur ([1979], pp. 16-20, 55-57, 88, 234 n. 2) and Drexler ([1979], pp. 20-21, 99-100,182 n. 3, 188 n. 6), while at the same time in a few aspects, it points beyond the classic standpoints. The problem which Cohen tackles in his important investigation (1979), is that after the Revolt, Josephus hved in Rome under entirely different circumstances and it was here that he wrote an account of the events of the War in Gahlee in 66-67 (pp. 1-2). His point of departure is the two partly contradictory accounts in Bell, and Vita (pp. 3-8). In order to solve this problem Cohen employs a sound method. First, assisted by earher research, he reviews the manner in which Josephus makes use of his sources (pp. 24-66). On this basis.

138


the relationship between Bell, and Vita is analyzed (pp. 67-83). Then, Cohen investigates the main mouves and trends of Bell, and Vita (pp. 84-100,101-80). This thorough preparation ultimately forms the basis for a historical reconstruction of the events which occurred in the first phase of the Revolt, in particular Josephus' activity in Gahlee during the winter of 66-67 (pp. 181-231). The results of Cohen's endeavours can be summed up briefly as foUows. Josephus normally renders his sources loyally. He does not invent new material, but fi-eely recreates and supplements the sources, although this is often done in a 'sloppy' manner (p. 47; however, see also Feldman [1982], p. 98, and Rajak [1984], p. 121, both of whom reject this evaluation). The same apphes to the relationship between Ant. 13-14 and Bell. 1 (pp. 50-51). The relationship between Ant. 15-16 and Bell. 1 is, however, entirely difierent. Here, there are two different renderings of the same source. In Bell., it is used thematically with a pro-Roman and pro-Herodian tendency, whereas in Ant. 15-16 (and 17), it is arranged chronologically and given a more complex tendency (pp. 52-58). Also in Ant. 18-20 and Bell. 2, a common source has been used which, according to Cohen, is Josephus' original rough draft, his 'hypomnema', to Bell. (pp. 58-66). In the relationship between Bell. 2-3 and Vita, Cohen once more traces the difference between a thematic text {Bell.) and a chronological text {Vita) as the rendering of a common source material which Cohen presumes to be Bell.'s 'hypomnema' (pp. 67-83). According to Cohen, in the thematic rendering of the source. Bell, is influenced by a defence of the Romans (pp. 85-86) as well as Josephus' vain apology for himself and for his aristocratic associates (pp. 98-100). Vita, on the other hand is influenced by a Pharisaic and nationahstically coloured desire to court the new Rabbinic leaders of Judaism in Jamnia (pp. 140ff'.). Having completed these preparatory studies, Cohen beheves that he is in a position to maintain that in hne with other aristocrats, Josephus, in 66-67, actually was a wholehearted supporter of the Revolt (pp. 183ff:, 206-14), at least until die fall of Jotapata (pp. 22832). It was not until then that Josephus, instead of doing his duty and dying, betrayed his feUows by surrendering and beginning to serve the Romans (p. 229). In Rome, Josephus served his Roman patrons while at the same time he attempted to justify himself and moreover—vain as he was (pp. 229f)—tried to portray himself in as favourable a hght as possible (pp. 232ff".). However, when Domitian


139

came to power an inexplicable change in Josephus' attitude took place. Suddenly, he became more 'rehgious', pro-Pharisaic and nationahsdc; cf. Bell. 7, Ant. and Ap. (pp. 236-40). Thus, according to Cohen, in Josephus' wriungs one can detect 'the development of the historian from a Roman apologist to a rehgious nauonahst' (p. 240). The great work which Cohen has done to build up his thesis must be defined as a fiirther development of Laqueur's ideas of Vita being based on an earher 'statement of affairs' and of the development stages in Josephus' life. At the same time, Cohen combines these ideas with the presumption of Drexler and others that in 66-67 Josephus was a wholehearted supporter of the Revolt. Just hke Laqueur, Cohen uses psychological arguments in assuming such transitions in Josephus' hfe and outlook, transitions which in spite of Laqueur's and Cohen's efforts cannot easily be justified on the basis of Josephus' works. In particular, the thesis of Josephus' change of attitude under the reign of Domitian and the assumption of the corresponding differences between Bell. 1-6 on one side and Bell. 7, Ant., Vita and Ap. on the other strikes one as being far from convincing. It is simply incomprehensible that Cohen can maintain that Bell. 1-6 is imambiguously pro-Roman and personaUy apologetic, when works Uke those of Thackeray, Farmer and Lindner have been available for a number of years, works in which the existence of entirely different motives for Bell, have been supported. Indeed, it is surprising that Cohen takes so httle interest in Josephus' real pohtical and theological points of view, which have otherwise been prominent in research during recent years. This objection is to some degree confirmed by Cohen himself, who towards the end of his work suddenly finds it necessary to write about Josephus' pohtical aims both with Bell. 1-6 (pp. 234-35) and with Bell. 7, Ant. and Vita (pp. 236-37). However, these statements are immediately retracted and substituted by the famihar references to Josephus' personal apologetics (pp. 235-36, 237-38). This leads us back to Laqueur and the classical conception, and on this premise it is simply impossible to understand Josephus' writings. The steps forward made by Cohen are in his methodology, his investigations of sources and his meticulous thoroughness. On the other hand, his main thesis cannot be described as progress. Rappaport's, Schaht's and Cohen's important contributions to Josephus research clearly demonstrate that both the anonymous

140


hypothesis and Laqueur's standpoints in their original form have been definitely abandoned. The deprecatory atutude to Josephus, his person and hfe history remains, and with this, the consequent negauve interpretauon of the aim in his works which we recogruze from Graetz and Jost. But here again, there are many more shades of meaning than previously observed. For example, it is interesting to note Schaht's and Cohen's diametrically opposed interpretations of Josephus' attitude to the Revolt in Jerusalem and Gahlee in 66-67. However, it is most important that aU three of the above-mentioned scholars recognize that Josephus' position and intentions exceed that which can be said to reflect an elementary, egotistic instinct for survival. A similar trend in the research can be observed in Lindner's works. He has attempted to revive and develop Schlatter's thesis on Bell, as being dependent on an earher Roman, perhaps Flavian, work of history. The radical change in the situation of the research is reflected in the title of the book. Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaicum, gleichzeitig ein Beitrag zur Quellenfrage. For as a programme, he places an investigation of Josephus' own view of history as a fimdamental prerequisite for progressing fiirther on the question of the sources of Bell. In Lindner's opiruon, Josephus is an utterly conscious editor, who, thinking in historical and theological hues, reworks the Roman source, which by the way Lindner treats much more cautiously than Schlatter and Weber. Whereas Schlatter pointed to that Antonius Juhanus (cf. also Norden), whom Josephus mentions in Bell. 6.238, and identifies the latter with one Antonius Juhanus, who according to Minucius Fehx wrote about die Jews ([1893], pp. 98ff.; [1932], pp. 43ff:, 67), Weber was convinced that Josephus' source for Bell, was an official Flavian historical work based on Vespasian's and Titus' own 'commentaru' (pp. 106, 196 and elsewhere). Against this, Lindner sees clearly ffiat ffie hypoffiesis of a Roman source behind Bell, merely consututes a working hypoffiesis, even ffiough, in his opinion, it is necessary (p. 17). Likewise, he refrains from identifying the hypoffietical Roman source. Furffiermore, particularly in his detailed analysis (pp. 99-125), Lindner assigns considerably larger parts of Bell, to Josephus ffian is done by Schlatter and Weber. First and foremost, he reproaches ffiem for underplaying Josephus' own ffioughts and his aim wiffi Bell. (pp. 17-18, 77, 84, 98). Finally, in accordance wiffi this, Lindner detennines ffiat ffie main prerequisite for proceeding


141

with the criticism on Bell, from the literary point of view must consist in establishing a closer understanding of 'das Proprium des Josephus' (pp. 1-20). But in this way, the quesdon of whether Bell. may have had Roman sources has been put in an endrely new way, and the cormecdon with the anonymous hypothesis and the classical Josephus concepdon has been broken off. A posidon corresponding to that of Lindner is taken by Nikiprowetzky in the ardcle he pubhshed in 1971 about Eleazar's speeches in Bell. 7 as compared with the pervading apologedcal tendencies in Bell, as a whole. This work is less clear than Lindner's, but the point is the same. Sifting out the Roman source material in Bell., of whose existence Nikiprowetzky is also convinced (pp. 48386), requires a careflil analysis of Josephus' own pohucal and particularly theological interpretation of the Revolt (pp. 473ff., 490). Literature For a closer descripdon o f this phase o f the history o f research concerning Josephus, see Bilde ( 1 9 8 3 a ) , pp. 2 9 - 3 0 , 3 6 - 4 1 . T h e thesis that Josephus was originally a staunch supporter o f the Revolt, has been maintained by G r a e t z , m,

2 , pp. 4 8 5 - 8 6 ; Prager, pp. 3 - 1 0 ; Baerwald, pp. 1 4 - 1 6 , 2 3 , 4 1 - 4 2 , 5 9 ;

L u d i e r , pp. 7-8, 1 5 - 1 6 , 2 0 - 2 5 , 3 3 ; Rilhl, pp. 2 9 8 , 3 0 2 ; Drexler, pp. 299ff.; Eisler ( 1 9 2 9 - 1 9 3 0 ) , I, pp. xxxviu, x h ; J. G u t m a n n , p. 3 9 6 ; Klausner, pp. 167fF. Literature concerning the thesis that Bell. 7, Ant.,

V,

Vita and Ap. are

more Pharisaic and nadonahstic than Bell. 1 - 6 , has been hsted after Chapter 3, secdon 3 f It has to be mentioned also that M o e h r i n g ( 1 9 8 4 ) , pp. 9 1 7 - 4 4 , vigorously

contests

Schaht's

analysis

(1975)

o f Josephus'

prophecy

to

Vespasian.

6. The modem conception of Josephus Having reviewed these modem representatives of the classical conception ofJosephus, we have already transgressed the boundaries of this basic conception and touched upon something new which may be characterized as the modem Josephus conception. This was introduced as early as at the end of the 19th century by scholars hke Bloch, Druner and Niese and was considerably ftirthered by Laqueur and particularly Thackeray. This conception has two characteristic features. It focuses on Josephus' own creative contribution, and it takes an interest in how he was motivated in hterary, theological and pohtical respects. The modem conception of Josephus increases in

142


strength during the 30s, and after the Second World War it reached its fiill development in a long series of contribudons. a. Literary point of view Rehabihtadng Josephus as an independently creative author began in the hnguistic and hterary field, as has already been observed in the course of our discussion of the criticism of the anonymous and assistant hypotheses. What recurs throughout these investigations, especiaUy those by Niese and Thackeray and later by Elchanan Stein, Richards and Shutt (1961), is the demonstration of the uniform hnguistic and styhstic features in Josephus' writings. Therefore, it is not hkely that essential parts of his writings might stem from anonymous sources or assistants. These conclusions were later confirmed by Pelletier's analysis of Josephus' rendering of the Aristeas letter and Franxman's analysis of Josephus' treatment of Genesis in Ant. According to Pelletier, Josephus has followed his source loyaUy, while at the same time he has carried out a consistent re-editing of the material with regard to its form and contents (pp. 251-74). With regard to the contents, the paraphrasing is guided by a Jewish apologetic interest (pp. 206, 27073), and in its form, it is influenced by a concern for the composition (pp. 251-53) and by the will to create a uniform style, vocabulary and grammatical form (pp. 253-61). Thus, PeUetier's work presents itself as a substantial attempt to prove Josephus' independence as an author, and therefore, reservations against the assistant hypothesis are expressed (p. 257). Franxman investigates how Josephus in Ant. 1-2 deals with his prototype in Genesis. It is somewhat difficidt to place his investigation in a summary of research because Franxman does not take a clearly defined standpoint, and he makes his investigation without presenting it in relationship to research as a whole. A resume of Franxman's results can be made as follows. Josephus comphes with his source meticulously regarding material and sequence (pp. 9, 122, 169, 195, 216, 246, 287). At the same time, however, he does make changes in several instances. He supplements and expands his source. He omits some material and rearranges other. He reformulates the material, elaborates on it, adds speeches and makes changes in the composition (pp. 22-26, 36, 285-86). These changes are made by a giuding apologetic interest (p. 5), by Josephus' incUnation towards moralizing (pp. 19, 152) and by his interest in catching the reader's attention


143

(p. 286). After comparison with parallel material in the pseudepigraphic and Rabbinic Uterature as weU as that represented by Philo, Franxman stresses the point that Josephus' rendering of Genesis testifies to originahty and independent thinking (pp. 28687). If we disregard the fact that Franxman gives htde attention to the hnguistic problems, his work may be said to be on a par with that of Pelletier with regard to the choice of subject, method and results. In 1934, Braun pubhshed an investigation which was to mark a new epoch in Josephus research. Here, Braun transgresses the boundary between the analysis of the hterary form and that of the contents of the given work. In his book Braun conducts a penetrating analysis of Josephus' paraphrase inAnt. 2.39-59 of the story of Gen. 39.6-15 about Joseph and Potiphar's wife. Braun shows that Josephus' paraphrase of the story is an exciting (p. 9) and independent (p. 27) version of a theme which was popular in the HeUenistic period, the virtuous man's refiasal of an erotic temptation ([1934], pp. 25-28, 61, 85-87, 113, [1938], p. 90). Indeed, u is particularly interesting that in Bell. 1.431-444, and Ant. 15.202-236, Josephus' narrative about Herod and Mariamme contains a series of features which correspond to the narrative about Joseph and Potiphar's wife ([1934], pp. 15, 108-109). This also apphes to the story of Manoah, Samson's fadier, and his wife inAnt. 5.276ff'. ([1934], pp. 17-20). But to Braun, this brings up the whole question of Josephus' art as a story-teUer: G i b t es eine jos. Erzahlungskunst, die sich einheithch Ober die verschiedenen BOcher und QueUenschichten

hinweg

ersireckt?

( [ 1 9 3 4 ] , p. 118).

In my opinion, Braun's work sigiufied a step forward in Josephus research which compares to the contributions of Laqueur and Thackeray. In spite of obvious coimections to previous trends in research, especially Druner, Niese and Laqueur, and to the philologically orientated investigations which were to come later in the 30s, Braun contributed something new to the research. The earher scholars were not at aU aware of this aspect in Josephus' writings, and the philological research of the 30s is far more interested in the hnguistic and hterary-formal dimension of Josephus than in the narrative-styhstic. With Sprddowsky as a debatable exception, it took a long time before Braun's significance in Josephus research was

144


clearly recognized. It was not until long after the Second World War that Braun's perceptions really came across, especiaUy in the works of Moehring (1957, 1959, 1973) and Feldman (1968a, b, 1970, 1976, 1982). But in the 70s and 80s, the work on Josephus' talent as a storywriter flourished under the inspiration of Braun to become one of the most firutfiil areas in the research. In addition to the scholars already mentioned, reference can be made to works by A.A. Bell, N.G. Cohen, S.J.D. Cohen (1982), Downing (1980a, b), Hata, Justus, Ladouceur (1983), Paul and van Unnik (1974). Literature Reference

is

made

to

Feldman

(1984a),

pp. 125-30,

139-91,

208-10;

( 1 9 8 4 b ) , pp. 7 8 8 - 8 0 5 ; BUde ( 1 9 8 3 a ) , p p . 4 1 - 4 3 . SprOdowsky (and perhaps M o r e l and E d . Stein) can be considered as an excepdon, insofar as he like Braun perceives the HeUenisdc features in Josephus' writings. Nevertheless, Spredowsky (and the others) should be identified with the classical Josephus concepdon, since he attributes these features, not to Josephus himself, but to HeUenisdc-Jewish

schools o f tradition, possibly

an Alexandrian

source

(pp. 5-6).

b. Political and theological aspects The question of Josephus' ideological position and aim was neglected in the classical conception ofJosephus which only permitted ideas on his apologetic forgeries, the purpose of which was to flatter the Romans, appeal to the Flavians and justify his own moral insufficiency. In ffie long run, however, it proved impossible to overlook ffie national-apologetic features and intentions which mfluence ffie writings, especially ffiose of Ant. and Ap. For this reason, ffiere has always been a number of scholars (esp. Thackeray) who have emphasized Josephus' role as a national Jewish apologist. However, ffiese scholars, e.g. Franxman, PeUetier, Schaht and Shutt, have not presented a closer analysis of this motive. It remains as a marginal note in ffieir works. All in all when it comes to ffie question of a closer analysis and account of Josephus' pohtical position and standpoint, ffie earher research ffid not make much progress. In my view, we must wait till 1956 before we find decisive breakffiroughs in this area, namely, ffie two works by Braun and Farmer. Farmer goes a step ffirffier ffian Thackeray since he is not content to estabhsh ffiat Josephus had sincere apologetic motives and in this way endeavoured to serve his people. Out of an unusually strong wiU to understand Josephus and famiharize himself wiffi hiis situation,


145

Farmer attempts to reveal, not Josephus' tarnished character and sinister distortions, but his ideological mission, the theological and pohucal universe which was his world, and which must be presumed to have guided him in his works. Farmer perceived Josephus as a Jewish apologist precisely in his defence of Rome and the Flavians (p. 16). Like the capuvated Greek historian Polybius, Josephus, in Rome, tried: to serve his defeated n a d o n b y defending and glorifying R o m e and by interpreting R o m e ' s victory over his nadve land as providendal (p. 16).

Moreover, according to Farmer, aside from consohng and strengthening his defeated countrymen in this way, it was Josephus' aim to defend the Jewish people and their rights in the Diaspora (p. 17, with reference to Bell. 7.112-113 and Ant. 12.121-124). Farmer shows daat Josephus tries to achieve this, among other things, by distinguishing between the rebels and the Jewish people as a whole (pp. 18-19). In addiuon to this, perhaps tactical, pohtical apology, there is a theologically orientated criucism of the rebels who, according to Farmer, Josephus describes as sirmers against and enemies of God (pp. 9, 18-21). Farmer compares this atutude of Josephus to the rebels with Isaiah's and Jeremiah's criticism of the national mihtant forces in Israel in their ume: B y placing this kind o f interpretauon upon the war, Josephus was able to serve his R o m a n masters and at the same time make a distincdon

between

the great

majority

o f his

Greek-speaking

brethren and their sinflilly rebelhous corehgjonists in Palestine, a distincdon that would serve to justify the continuadon o f imperial privileges to nonbelhgerent Jews throughout the Empire (p. 1 9 , c f p. 9 ) .

Thus, Farmer, hke Thackeray, has a keen eye for the ambiguity in Josephus' wriungs. The feehng for this ambiguity was lacking in previous research. Having grown out of his ambiguous personal situauon before and after his capture in 67, it is, however, fundamental for Josephus. Braun's brief, easily read, but highly informative article from 1956 has a similar programmauc character, but it goes even fiirther than Farmer's book. Like Farmer (p. 5), Braun calls for a new evaluation ofJosephus (p. 53). Like Farmer, Braun asserts that Josephus' aim in Bell, was to defend the Jewish people as weU as the Flavian emperors.

146


In this connection, Braun advances the following thesis, which does in fact he in continuity with the views of Farmer and Thackeray: But he (Josephus] was able to undertake this task without doing violence to his conscience as a historian or as a Jew (p. 53). However, this idea is substandated by the important assertion which transgresses positions taken by earher research, that it is oidy justifiable to understand Bell, as a profoundly personal writing and as expressing an attempt to solve a profound personal problem, the destruction of the Temple (p. 56). Therefore, the works of Josephus should be read as a theodicy, as an attempt to redeem and justify God. In the year 70, in reahty, it was not Rome, but God who triumphed. The faU of the Temple was predicted in the same manner as was the restoration of Israel (pp. 56-57). In continuation of his work in the 30s, which dealt with the hterary uniformity of Josephus' wrtitings, Braun has, as no one else before, attempted to show, in his brief article of 1956, that the works of Josephus are sustained by an idea. The character of Josephus and the personal motives which may have been behind his activities before, during and after the War are consistendy set aside, and instead all efforts are made to find the true core of his writings. This conception of Josephus, which agrees with that maintained by Farmer and, in part, Thackeray, earned just as htde initial acceptance as was the case with Braun's new views on Josephus' talent as a narrator. However, there are indications in the most recent Josephus research to show that Braun's view on Josephus' basic attitude wiU be accepted in the same manner as his view on Josephus' talent as a story-teller has aheady been. This new view may be traced aheady in the introduction to Aiichel-Bauemfeind's important edition of Bell, from 1959-1969. Here, the authors criticize the classical conception of Josephus (III, pp. xx-xxvi), and insist that serious consideration be given to Josephus' own account of his surrender to the Romans (I, p. xvi). In hne with Schaht, but in a more favourable hght, they compare Josephus with Yohanan ben Zakkai (I, p. xviu), and on this basis they emphasize that Josephus should be seen neither as an apostate nor as a traitor. Consequently, they deny all doubt about the geniuneness of Josephus' Judaism (I, pp. xv, xvii). They stress the importance of being conscious of Josephus' priestly and aristocratic heritage (I, pp. xv-xvi. III, p. xxvi) and that it was for this reason that he had to


147

oppose the rebels. They place Josephus in the 'pragmatic' historiographical school which was inspired by Polybius (III, p. xxii). However, at the same time, they stress Josephus' independence in his relationship to this school, since he is not, as they are, primarily interested in the eternal importance of the historical events, but his interest hes in the account of the factual historical events in which their significance becomes apparent: Hier

darf Josephus'

Selbstandigkeit

und

der

Umfang

seiner

Bildung keinesfalls unterschatzt werden (III, p. xxiu).

Thus, whereas the Hellenistic historiography attempts to surmount the experience of a historical crisis by adhering to the theory of the eternal laws of history, Josephus makes the same attempt by stressing the idea that history is guided by the plan and providence of God (pronoia) (III, p. xxv). Hereby, Michel-Bauemfeind refiise to substantiate the interpretation of Josephus on the basis of an opinion about his character. Instead, hke Farmer and Braun, their point of departure is taken fi-om Josephus' own tragic, historical experiences. This does not signify that they are free from criticizing Josephus. Bell, is criticized for partiahty and inaccuracy (I, p. xx), and Ant. characterized as a dependent work (I, p. xxvi). They also interpret Josephus' prophecy to Vespasian (Bell. 3.399-402; 6.312-313) as the fiiture emperor as a breach against the Jewish Messianic hope (I, pp. xvi-xvu). However, in the history of research, it is of decisive importance that MichelBauemfeind attempt to determine the factual pohtical and theological motives which were driving forces in Josephus' hfe. In the research which followed, these tendencies were displayed in several ways. The important question about Josephus' attitude to the Jewish hope for the fiiture was treated in two articles by Bmce and de Jonge. A major text for illustrating this question is Ant. 10.210, where Josephus comments on Dan, 2.34-35, 44-45. According to Bmce, Josephus here imphes that the fourth kingdom mentioned in Daniel is Rome, and also that this kingdom will fall and be replaced by the kingdom of the Messiah in Israel: 'At the end, it may be suggested, his patriotism triumphed and he foresaw his people's vindication' (p. 160). In his article, de Jonge goes a step fiirther in the same direction. On the basis ofJosephus' interpretation in Bell. 6.312, that the oracle is speaking about Vespasian, de Jonge asks whether Josephus can actually be said to have betrayed the Jewish Messianic faith:

148

Flavius Josephus, between Jerusalem and Rome D i e Antwort m u s s , so meine ich, negativ lauten: Josephus gab dem in Bell 6, 3 1 2 von i h m angefiihrten W o r t eine nicht-messianische Interpretauon—und doch kannte er eine mit seinem Volk verbundene Zukunftserwartung a u f ISngerer Sicht (p. 2 1 0 ) .

Bell. 5.362-419, especially 5.367, actually show that, according to Josephus, God has not given supremacy to Rome for eternity but only for 'now' (vuv) (p. 211). According to de Jonge, the same view is found in Ant. 10.210, which was paraphrased above, and in Ant. 4.114-117, where Josephus renders Balaam's prophecy (pp. 211-12). Thus, according to de Jonge, Josephus' wriungs are actually influenced by a clear eschatological Messianic andcipauon: Es ist deuthch, dafi Josephus fiir ein Israel, das G o t t gehorsam ist, eine glorreiche Zukvmft erwartet. D a s Romerreich ist nicht das letzte (p. 2 1 2 ) .

Using the earher research as a point of departure, especially that of Morel and Michel-Bauemfeind, in 1971, Nikiprowetzky presented his thorough-going analysis of Eleazar's speeches on Masada {Bell. 7.320-336, 341-388). His purpose was to disunguish between tradiuon and ediung (pp. 461, 465-66). Here, in hne with Farmer (1956) and Schaht (1975), Nikiprowetzky demonstrates that in his editorial formulauon of the Roman material behind Bell., Josephus indirecdy conducts bitter theological polemics with the rebels (pp. 469, 473fF.). The rebels and Josephus were fimdamentaUy at variance precisely on the interpretauon of the decisive prophecies, especially those contained in the book of Daniel. Each of these two pardes had their own soteriology and eschatology (pp. 474-81). Furthermore, Nikiprowetzky maintains that for Josephus the core of this controversy was of theological-apologeuc natiu-e. Nikiprowetzky, hke Braun (1956), determines that the aim of Josephus was that of a theodicy: God was not responsible for the disaster in the year 70 (p. 473). Thus, Nikiprowetzky, in hne with Farmer and Braun, attempts to show that Josephus' severe criucism of the rebels was not merely driven by opportunism and a bent towards self-jusdficauon, indeed not even by nadonahstic apologetic motives alone, but also by a principal theological standpoint which, according to Nikiprowetzky, can most readily be derived from the long speeches in Bell. (p. 489, cf also Vidal-Naquet [1978], pp. 13-21). The same method and the same mission characterize Lindner's significant work from 1972, which has aheady been reviewed. He too


149

intends to revive the criticism of sources (p. vu), but beheves that this can only be done by a concentration on 'das Proprium des Josephus' which was unknown in the classical criticism of sources (pp. 1-20). By doing so, Lindner makes a pioneer effort to close the gap between the criticism of sources and the criticism of tendency, by viewing the latter as an indispensable prerequisite for renewed progress on the former. Lindner tries to accomphsh this task by analysing precisely the great speeches in Bell. Here, side by side with rational pohtical arguments he reveals a theological, 'Heilsgeschichthch' method of approach (pp. 28-30, 41ff., 98). In this way, Josephus perceives Rome as a tool in the hands of God to punish Israel (p. 30). At the same time, however, Josephus adheres to the idea of the selection and ftiture redemption of Israel (pp. 41ff.). By this, Lindner places Josephus in the apocalyptic tradition (pp. 44, 142-44). In tune with Michel-Bauemfeind, Lindner characterizes Josephus as being a Hellenistic-Roman historiographer and, at the same time, a 'jddischheilsgeschichthcher Interpret' (p. 134). In particular. Lamentations is asserted to have had an effect on Josephus' historical writings, and along with Michel-Bauemfeind, Lindner says: dali Josephus neben den Schulgrundsatzen der hellenisdschen Geschichtsschreibung eine alttestamenthche Grundkategorie der Geschichtsbewalugung durchzuhalten versucht (p. 136; cf MichelBauemfeind, III, p. xxv). FinaUy, according to Lindner, it is important that this interpretation of history influences Bell, throughout and moreover can be traced in Vita (pp. 144-46). In many respects, Lindner's investigations of Bell, correspond to Attridge's work from 1976 concerning/Iwr. 1-10 (cf. Attridge, pp. 4, 20-21). In agreement with the rest of the more recent research, Attridge rejects the theory that Josephus in Ant. reproduces anonymous middle som-ces (pp. 37-38, 69-70), or that he is essentiaUy dependent upon his assistants (p. 39). For this. Ant. is too homogeneous hnguistically and thematically (pp. 38-40). Thereafter, Attridge devotes his investigation to the thematic contents of Ant. arid shows xhatAnt. 1-10—in agreement with the Preface {Ant. 1.14, 20,23)—is dominated by a very defiiute concept of God (pp. 67-107). In Ant. 1-10, Josephus is said to have revised the Old Testament covenant theology to a universahstically orientated retribution theology hke that which characterizes Deuteronomy (pp. 78ff.). Moreover, Attridge shows that the very theme of God's 'active

150


retributive justice intervening in the affairs of men' (p. 98) dominates and urufies 'the whole Bibhcal paraphrase of the Antiquities' (p. 104). By means of a comparison with the books of Chronicles, Jubilees, 2 Maccabees and Pseudo-Philo, Attridge finally shows that Josephus' theology as it is demonstrated iivAnt. is unique (pp. 27, 155, 183). At the same dme, in hne with Braun and Michel-Bauemfeind, he attempts to show that this theology seems to have been determined by Josephus' own personal experiences, partly during the War in 6670 and partly during the Diaspora after the year 70: It was the personal experience o f Josephus as m u c h as anything else which was responsible for his particular brand o f covenant dieology (p. 1 8 3 , c f pp. 1 4 9 , 1 6 9 ) .

According to Attridge, Josephus thereby adds his own Jewish theocentric influence to the traditional Hellenistic historiography, the forms and categories of which he otherwise uses (p. 183). Therefore, Ant. 1-10 may be said to represent 'a very individual production' (p. 184). Thus, in hne with essential parts of modern Josephus research, Attridge stresses the formal consistency in Josephus' writings as weU as that of their contents. He emphasizes that Ant. is centred around a definite theological hne of thought and this is founded in Josephus' own hfe experience. Finally, he underhnes that Ant. represents an original unification of Jewish and HeUenistic historiography (pp. 18384). Literature Reference is made to Bilde ( 1 9 8 3 a ) , p p . 4 3 - 4 9 . M o r e o v e r , the scholars and theses mentioned are reviewed and c o m m e n t e d on at varying length by Schreckenberg ( 1 9 6 8 and 1 9 7 9 ) as weU as Feldman (1984a).

7. Josephus research, 1980-1984 In the above sections, I have ft)llowed a fairly schematic interpretation of the history of research on Josephus. It may be that the categories chosen for the interpretation (the classical and the modem conceptions of Josephus) are too broad. On the other hand, it is important to try to trace a development and find a main theme in research, and for this purpose categories of this kind are indispensable. Naturally, they must not be forced nor merely taken out of the blue. According to the interpretation which we have presented, the


151

modem conception of Josephus reaches its peak in the mid-70s, and if one were to adhere to the imphed (almost Hegehan) theory, Josephus' research should now have a firm basis. Against this background, it is an important task to investigate how research has actuaUy developed since then. Does the theory presented hold? Can the modem conception of Josephus reaUy be said to be firmly estabhshed? ActuaUy, the fact is that the classical conception of Josephus has never been entirely overcome (cf Chapter 4, section 5). And with S.J. D. Cohen's great work fi-om 1979 it has again shown itself as a viable position in modem research. Nor can one ignore the possibihty that entirely new directions may appear in scholarly work concerning Josephus. Therefore, it is important to gauge the temperature of the very latest research. What is the picture of the intemational debate on Josephus in the mid-80s? With this objective in mind, in this section, we will attempt to form a general view of the hterature on Josephus which has appeared during the five years firom 1980 to 1984. The number of pubhcations on Josephus during this period has grown at the same rate as has been the case in other fields of research in the humanities. In order to avoid drowning in the mass of investigations and to retain a certain perspective, we are again forced to select, interpret and schematize. I have decided to do this in the foUowing maimer. In the first place, by no means aU pubhcations wiU be mentioned, but only the most important and distinctive of those with which I am acquainted. In the second place, the survey will be divided into a series of topical headings. However, the decisive factor is the fimdamental view of Josephus. Therefore, in the third place, I wiU put the emphasis on reviewing, characterizing and evaluating the research made in these years according to their contribution to the debate on this question. The foUowing summary is based on about fifty selected works. Naturally, the majority of these works concem the use ofJosephus in the discipUnes of Judaica, the archaeology and topography of Palestine as well as the foundation of Christianity. This part of the summary can be made brief since, in Chapter 6, we undertake a comprehensive review of this particular topic by drawing upon a significant number of contributions in modem hterature. In the present context, more importance will be given to the pubhcations which concem Josephus directly, in regard to his works, hterary methods, theology and historiography, and also his person and pohtical position.

152


Literature Research m the period from 1 9 8 0 - 1 9 8 4 has only been registered in Feldman's new bibUographic works to a hmited extent. In ( 1 9 8 4 a ) , pp. 2 - 3 , Feldman complains a httle about the enormous growth o f the hterature on Josephus, and he concludes: 'In addidon to the Desiderata hsted at the end o f this study, we m a y be forgiven for expressing the h o p e — o r prayer—that one o f the wealthier foundadons will estabhsh a fiind to give grants on similar condidons (to remain silent, c f Cicero, Pro Archia 1 0 , 2 5 ) , or, at the very least, o n the condidon that scholars will read what has been written in their field before they embark with pen in hand' ( [ 1 9 8 4 a ] , p. 3 ) . Since Feldman wrote these words, the growth o f new hterature on Josephus has by n o means declined.

a. The use of Josephus The work of applying and using Josephus' works increases rapidly. The increase has to do with the general progress in Josephus research. In the 80s as in the 70s, it is particularly the two fields, the archaeology of Palesune (in its broadest sense) and the Jewish Revolt against Rome in 66-70 (74), which dominate. Within the fields of archaeology and topography the works of Geva, Hohhelder et al., Netzer (1981), Pixner and Schmitt testify to how important and rewarding it is to include and use Josephus in these disciphnes. In a number of cases, it is shown that the archaeological results confirm Josephus' account (cf esp. Hohlfelder et al.) However, the decisive factor in these dissertauons hes in a different area. By combiiung the study of Josephus with archaeological results and topographical observauons, these scholars often succeed in solving a number of very specific problems. One example is the locadon of Bethsaida Juhas (Pixner), another is the debate concerning the so-called third waU in Jerusalem (Schmitt). Gichon's article hes on the boundary between topography and history and thus it forms a transition to the other works on the Jewish War and its prehistory by S.J.D. Cohen (1982), Goodman, Horsley (1981, 1984), Ladouceur (1980), Rajak (1983) and U. Rappaport. With these scholars, the work of the 60s and 70s on the different Jewish groups and the main characters of the Revolt, the causes and events of the War and independent questions such as Masada was carried on further. In contrast with the works on archaeology and topography, the fundamental source for the abovementioned works is almost exclusively Josephus' texts. Therefore, in works of this kind, scholars move closer to the basic problems in


153

Josephus research. This apphes especially to S.J.D. Cohen (1982), Ladouceur (1980) and Rajak (1983), to whom we will revert in the foUowing. For quite a number of years the Gahlee problem has played a particular role in investigations of ancient Judaism and the birth of Christiaruty (cf Chapter 2, section 4, c). This debate can be said to have reached a clarification, especially with Freyne's great work of 1980, although we stiU find opinions to the eflect that Gahlee was a particularly rebelhous and anti-Roman area (cf Mighario, pp. 12829). However, it is important for us to note that this debate too is based on Josephus, primarily on his account in Vita. The works hsted in my bibhography by Armenti, Feldman (1981), Freyne (1980) and Mahnowski testify to this. However, out of these only Freyne's work is of interest to us here, because this scholar was the only one to go into the actual research about Josephus in Gahlee and his two accounts about this in Bell, and Vita. We will return to Freyne's work in following sections. The works concerning Gahlee naturally lead on to the use of Josephus for elucidation of the New Testament and the birth of Christianity. This field has been neglected to an astonishing degree for quite a number of years. Apparendy, the interest in this field stiU concentrates on the spurious brief text about Jesus, in Ant. 18.63-64— a debate which is left out here since I have treated it in detail in a previous work (cf Bilde, 1981). However, there are indications that a renewal is on its way. Perhaps the work on the Gahlee problem seems to contribute less to the understanding of the birth of Christianity than many had anticipated. Nor does Schreckenberg's work of 1980 with his classical choice of subject (the relationship between Luke and Josephus) indicate any real progress. On the other hand, Horsley (1984) and especiaUy Downing's interesting analyses do so. Horsley, like many others before him, compares Jesus with the national Messiaiuc movements which are mentioned in Josephus. However, Dowiung breaks new ground by his attempts (1980a, 1982) to show that Luke and Josephus articulate the same heathen theism and morahsm which one can find in Dionysius from Hahcamassus. The same apphes to his attempts to demonstrate that Luke and the other evangelists edit their material in a maimer which reminds one of Ant. (1980b). In this respect. Downing goes far in his hterary and theological analysis of Ant. and Bell., and with this points forward to the problems to be discussed in the following.

154


Finally, there are a whole series of investigations which illustrate topics within ancient Judaism, whether it be Josephus' and the contemporary rabbinical interpretauon of the Bible (cf. Jacobs, RunnaUs and Schwartz [1981]), the sabbaucal year (Blosser), prophecy (Aune), the Temple in Leontopohs (Hayward) or the dociunents cited by Josephus (Rajak [1984], Sauhnier and Schaublein). With these works, in many cases, we are already far into topics such as Josephus' hterary methods and theology. For example, Rurmalls argues in favour of the idea that Josephus, in his extra-canorucal account of Moses in Ethiopia, is independent of his HelleiusucJewish predecessor, Artapanus, whom we know from Eusebius (pp. 137flF.), indeed that it may even be interpreted as a carefiiUy worked out Palesunian-Jewish orientated polemic directed precisely against Artapanus' version (p. 154). Aune shows that Josephus does not reserve the designation 'prophet' for the prophets in the Old Testament, but regards the phenomenon of prophecy as a hving reahty which also existed in the time after the Exile (pp. 419-20, cf Michel [1954]). In hne with this, he demonstrates that Josephus saw a close relationship between prophecy and history and therefore regarded himself as a prophet (pp. 420-21). Thus, it is seen that the work on utihzing Josephus in several cases influences Josephus research itself, and that it is able to make important contributions to this research. This apphes to the fields of archaeology and topography which can testify to Josephus' historical rehabihty. But it particularly apphes to the other disciphnes. Here, scholars hke S.J.D. Cohen (1982), Downing (1980a, 1982), Freyne (1980), Ladouceur (1980) and Rajak (1983) have made valuable contributions, and therefore they will be dealt with again in the foUowing sections. b. Bell. In the period under consideration there have been two major investigations of Bell., namely, Michel (1984) and Schreckenberg (1984). Rajak (1983) and Atuidge (1984) have also offered two extraordinarily comprehensive contributions to the discussion of Josephus' first work. FinaUy, there are two minor contributions to the discussion of Josephus' rendering of the Masada story in Bell. 7 by S.J.D Cohen (1982) and Ladouceur (1980). Michel reviews all the great speeches in Bell, from a formal point of view as weU as where their contents are concemed. From the


155

formal poim of view, he describes diem as successfiil (pp. 959, 963). They are not tailored to the same pattern, but they aU take their situations and contexts seriously (pp. 965, 966; cf. 945-47). As far as their contents go, an historical and pragmatic (pohtical) point of view recurs in the speeches. With varying emphasis, they are combined with priestly and cultic traditions and with elements from wisdom hterature (p. 965), and apocalyptic (p. 966) and Deuteronomical features (p. 970) are traceable. In general terms, according to Michel, we witness a HeUenization of the Jewish traditions as far as formal expressions go, whereas in their substance, they are retained (p. 960). Thus, as far as form and contents go, the speeches in Bell, are marked by coherence just as a clear connection fi-om them to Ant. may be shown. For instance, Michel recovers the 'Deuteronomistic' programme of Ant. (1.14, 20, 23) in Bell. (p. 970). Theologically, Michel places Josephus in the priestly rather than the Pharisaic tradition (pp. 960, 971). PohticaUy, he places him on hne with Yohanan ben Zakkai and in opposition to the 'Zealots' (p. 972). Michel's work continues that of Michel-Bauemfeind (Chapter 4, section 6, b), Michel's own previous articles and Lindner's dissertation on Bell. (1972). Thus, it clearly corresponds with the modem conception of Josephus. Schreckenberg's investigation is not primarily an analysis of Bell., but rather of the influence and interpretation of Bell, in Christian antiquity and during the Middle Ages. Continuing and to some extent repeating his works of 1972 and 1977, Schreckenberg demonstrates in every detail and with overwhelming documentation how Christian theologians and authors aU the way up to the 19th century have abused Josephus. Against his own intentions, he has been used in a polemical and apologetical fashion, primarily in the fight of the church against Josephus' own Jewish people (pp. 1112, 1131, 1135, 1159, 1191). Schreckenberg shows how in this context Josephus' influence has been immensely important. MeanwhUe, Schreckenberg brings his own view of Bell, to bear. He dissociates himselffix)mJewish apologists like Schaht (1975) and Baer (pp. 1113, 1115) and presents a well-balanced view of Josephus and Bell, which agrees weU with the modem conception (cf. esp. p. 1114). S.J.D. Cohen (1982) does not deal with Bell, in general, but with Josephus' hterary method in Bell. 7. Therefore, this article is reviewed later under the section on hterary method. The same apphes to Ladouceur (1980), but since here the hterary analysis is

156


linked widi ume and history, we shaU review it and make a brief comment at this juncture. Ladouceur mentions that in Hellenistic hterature, it was a topos to render the death of one's enemies in a melodramatic way; cf. 'The Dying Gaul' (p. 247). However, according to the author this is scarcely the place where we may find the key to Bell. 7 (p. 259). Instead, he argues that Eleazar's speech in Bell. 1 should be analysed in connection with Josephus' own speech about the suicide in Bell. 3.362382 (pp. 247ff".; cf Vidal-Naquet [1978]). According to Ladouceur, Josephus transforms Eleazar into a Hellenistic philosopher of the Stoic-Cynic type (pp. 252-53). And it should be noted that he does this for pohtical reasons (pp. 2535".). In the 70s, an opposition to the Flavians arose, based on a philosophy of this nature, and several members of this opposition committed suicide for pohtical reasons. Whereas in his own speech, Josephus reflects this position, he does identify it with the Jewish rebels in Bell. 1 (p. 257). Thus, the speeches in Bell. 3 and 7 are not historical (cf Vidal-Naquet [1978]), but seem to reflect the interests o f the environment in which

he

composed the War far more than the actuahty o f a choice o f hfe and death some years earher in Judaea (p. 2 6 0 ) .

This point of view gives a good deal of credit to Josephus' hterary creativity. At the same time, it does remind us of the LaqueurCohen school with its ideas concerning the decisive dependence on the situation under which the works of Josephus were committed to writing. However, hke the assumptions of the authors menuoned, it must be said that it rests on a foundation which is too feeble. The connection with the (known) historical situation in Palestine has here been weakened too much in favour of the hypothetical situation in Rome. Rajak's book is not least a book about Bell., and in general, Josephus' account of the Jewish War is regarded here as a Jewish influenced (pp. 78-79), historicaUy trustworthy (pp. 106-107, 127, 138, 141-42) and original work (pp. 9, 89). According to Rajak's investigations, neither the Aramaic nor the Greek editions are marked by any pronounced Flavian influence (pp. 185ff".). Exceptions to this evaluation are a few parts of Bell., especially Bell. 7 (pp. 203204, 2163".). Nor is Bell, regarded as having been re-edited by Josephus' assistants to any particular degree (pp. 62-63), and the


157

work seems not to be greatly dejjendent on the unperial 'commentarii' (pp. 215ff.). Finally, it is also emphasized that the main pohucal and theological tendency in Bell, is the same as that of the other works (pp. 66, 79, 154ff., 224-26, 229). Attridge (1984) is opposed to this view, which is somewhat surprising in view of his 1976 work. However, the explanauon seems to be simple. In the intervening Ume, S.J.D. Cohen's monograph (1979) was pubhshed, and this has played an important role in Attridge's change of direction. He agrees with Cohen on the quesdon of the daung of Bell. (pp. 192-93), its relauonship to Vita (pp. 187-92) and its sources (pp. 190, 193). In his review of the tendencies in Bell. (pp. 195-210), stress is placed on Josephus' boasung (pp. 195, 20910), his placing the blame for the fall of Jerusalem on the Jewish rebels (pp. 196-200), and Bell.'s pro-Flavian flattery, especiaUy of Titus (pp. 200-203, 210). In this cormecdon, it is maintained that the account by Sulpicius Severus on the Roman atutude toward the destrucdon of the Temple {Chronica 2.30, 6-7) should be given preference over the account by Josephus which is understood as an expression of flattery towards Titus (p. 202). However, Attridge also emphasizes the theological reflecuons which influence Bell, throughout the enure work (pp. 203-206), and the appeal for sympathy towards the suffering Jewish people which is also a prominent feature of this work (pp. 207-209). Finally, Attridge maintains that while Josephus' ideas on Divine Providence—a fundamental theme in J5e//.—appear Greek in their formulauon, actuaUy, they are basicaUy Jewish (pp. 204, 205). The review of the theological reflecuons in Bell, is summed up as follows: T h e history o f the revolt thus has a clear theological dimension rooted

in Bibhcal

historiography,

although

it

is not

without

precedent in HeUenisdc historiography (p. 2 0 6 ) .

Thus, although Attridge does make some concessions to Cohen, to a great extent, he adheres to the standpoint which he took in his dissertation in 1976 (cf Chapter 4, section 6, b). c. Ant. Important investigations of Ant. are made by Amaru, Feldman (1982), Rajak (1982), RunnaUs and Atuidge (1984). By reviewing Josephus' alterations and re-interpretations in Ant.'s 'translation' of the scriptures, Amaru encompasses Josephus' own view of the land of

158


Israel and God's promises of dxis land to the people. In short, according to Amaru, it appears that Josephus suppresses or completely removes the bibhcal references to the covenant (pp. 205, 209, 211) and the promises concerrung the land of Israel (pp. 207208, 216). Josephus does not dweU on the prophets' words on the Promised Land, but on their pronouncement of the Day of Judgment (p. 224). He interprets the Diaspora and the Exile as a consequence of the sins and disobedience of the Jewish people (p. 219), and he strongly emphasizes the conditional nature of the promises (pp. 211, 216, 226). Moreover, Josephus reinterprets the contents of the promises, and first and foremost, he removes the Messiah from the eschatology (p. 228). Amaru considers the reason for this to be Josephus' confhct with the 'Zealots' (p. 229). Furthermore, Amaru discovers important elements of this new interpretation of the bibhcal eschatology in Bell. (pp. 210, 222), just as with regard to Ant. she refers to Attridges' investigation from 1976 (p. 210). In his 1982 article about Josephus' portrait of Saul, Feldman continues his series of investigations on Josephus' 'HeUenistic' renderings of the famous bibhcal characters (Abraham, Esther and Solomon, cf. Chapter 4, section 6, a). According to Feldman, in his description of Saul, Josephus ajxjlogeticaUy emphasizes the traits which have special appeal to Greek readers—a handsome appearance, good family and the traditional virtues: wisdom, courage, selfdisciphne, justice and piety (pp. 59ff.). At the same time, Josephus stresses the dramatic, psychological and tragic features in the narrative, just as he is fond of interpolating fictitious speeches and factual excursuses. By doing so, and with his biographical interest in the great personahty (p. 52), Josephus ties in with Isocrates' rhetoric and Aristotle's 'scientific' (and biographical) schools of historical writing of which the best known author in the generation before Josephus is Dionysius of Hahcamassus (pp. 46-52). To a large extent, the features mentioned recur in Josephus' portrayals of Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Samson, David and Solomon (pp. 60, 64, 96). Thus, according to Feldman, Josephus is hterarily and historicaUy consistent (pp. 64, 79, 98). At the same time, Feldman describes Josephus' portrayal of Saul as an original (p. 55) and meticulous work (p. 98), a conclusion which Feldman compares to those reached by Attridge (1976) and Franxman. This verdict also leads on to an exceptionaUy severe criticism of S.J.D. Cohen's thesis about Josephus' 'sloppiness':


159

In short, those w h o find a sloppiness in Josephus are merely saying that because they have been unable to discover any consistency there is none in Josephus. W e m a y suggest that i f such scholars will spend more d m e analyzing his work they m a y find less capriciousness than they had originally attributed to Josephus (p. 9 8 ) .

Rajak (1982) takes it upon herself to investigate to what extent Ant. is Greek and/or Jewish from a hterary point of view. She compares Ant. with a number of related works in the Greco-Roman period and rejects the possibihty that Ant. might be related to Dionysius of Hahcamassus' 'Archaeology' (pp. 466-67). Ant. is more closely related to the works of Livy and Diodoms Siculus (pp. 466flF.), but to an even greater extent to the Hellenistic orientals Manetho, Hecataeus of Abdera and Berosqs (pp. 472-73). Nevertheless, Ant. distinguishes itself from all other works by its unique project, to 'translate' and render the Bible (pp. 473, 476-77). This is something unprecedented in Greco-Roman hterature and much more closely related to the Jewish Targums (p. 474). With her two works of 1982 and 1983, Rejak has estabhshed herself as the most important advocate of the modem conception of Josephus. RunnaUs has already been reviewed above. At this point, we may merely estabhsh that in his analysis, he shows that Josephus' version of the narrative concerning Moses' campaign in Ethiopia is an independent rendering having a clear Palestiruan-Jewish theological tendency (pp. 149, 154). One turns to Attridge (1984) with great expectations, since as previously mentioned, in his 1976 thesis this author presented an analysis of the theology of Ant. which may be placed within the modern conception of Josephus. How then does the author evaluate Ant. in 1984.' Ant. is dated to the year 93-94, and the theory that there were two editions is rejected (p. 210). In the evaluation of Josephus' treatment of his sources, his hnguistic and styhstic revisions of them, and the tendencies and theology he expresses in these revisions, Attridge reiterates the modem conception of Josephus (pp. 211-26). The moral of Ant. is seen as stated in 1.14, and the entire work as assembled and unified by the ideas expressed here concerning the providence and justice of divine retribution (pp. 217, 218, 222, 224). Thus, by and large, Attridge adheres to his 1976 analysis. Ant. is primarily evaluated as being a work of bibhcally inspired historiography (pp. 218, 225). At the same time, it is said that in Ant., one finds the same theological basic view as in Bell.:

160

Flavius Josephus, between Jerusalem and Rome T h e didactic features o f the Antiquities

serve to express Josephus'

bibhcally based, but hellenisdcally conceived, theology o f history. T h e whole work can be viewed as an attempt to paint a picture o f the meaning o f history already sketched in the War (p. 2 2 5 ) .

Not unul the very last is this concession to S.J.D. Cohen (1979) taken into consideraUon, 'that Ant. may well have been designed to serve the interests of the Rabbinic circles at Jamnia' (p. 226), but this reserved admission is immediately retracted (pp. 226-27). So, in all essendal respects, Attridge retains his 1976 posiuon. d. Vita Vita brings us to the fundamental question concerning Josephus' person and pohtical standpoint. MigUario's great investigation revives a particularly Itahan variant (cf. Motzo) of Laqueur's and S.J.D. Cohen's view on Vita and Josephus in Galilee, although both of these scholars are severely criticized on the way (pp. 96-101). Basically, Vita is viewed as a thoroughly tendentious and falsified response against a series of violent attacks on the part of Justus of Tiberias against Josephus (pp. 95-98, 104-108). Therefore, the account in Vita concerrung Josephus in Gahlee is rejected in favour of the way it is presented in Bell. (pp. \\l-27). On this basis, it is presumed that Josephus originally was an ardent rebel (pp. 126-27, 132, 135). It was not until Jotapata that he became aware of the reahties and changed his view (p. 133), and thereafter with just as much ardour he used all his energies to work for a reconcihation between Jerusalem and Rome and between the Jewish and the Hellenistic civihzations (pp. 93,136). Furthermore, Mighario asserts that Vita—zs all of Josephus' other works—was addressed to a Jewish audience (pp. 96, 136), especially to the Jews in Rome where Josephus' position had been threatened because of the attacks made by Justus (pp. 97-98, 136-37; cf Rajak [1973], pp. 355, 357). The author does in fact presume (as Case had done before) that in 95-96, Domitian instigated a persecution of the Jews (pp. 94, 136), and in this precarious situation, Justus threatened Josephus' integrity and thereby his position as spokesman for the Jews in Rome. On this basis. Vita must be understood to be Josephus' defence of himself and his position (pp. 96, 136-37). Freyne (1980) maintains a variant of the same conception. Along with S.J.D. Cohen, whom Freyne generally follows, Be//, is chosen in preference to Vita when it comes to Josephus' pohtical position


161

(p. 241), although in another context it is said that the historical truth must he somewhere between these two contradictory accounts (p. 89; cf. Attridge [1984], pp. 190-91). According to Freyne, diis truth is that Josephus was not even an ardent and sincere rebel, even though he was not moderate either (p. 83), but primarily he was an opportunistic and conceited fool (pp. 242, 89). Therefore, his defence of Gahlee was a sad affair (pp. 84-85). Not oidy are Freyne's viewpoints inspired by Cohen, actuaUy they are far more extreme and are more closely related to the most adamant supporters of the classical conception of Josephus such as Hdlscher, Weber and Laqueur. Attridge (1984) takes a sinular point of view (pp. 185-92). The account in Bell, is given preference as being closest to historical truth (pp. 188ff.), although Attridge raises the same reservations as Freyne (pp. 190-91). Primarily, the account in Vita is taken to be a prolonged defence against Justus' attack (pp. 188-90), which Attridge has no difficulty in tracing in Vita's 'apologetics' (pp. 189-90). For Attridge, ffie historical truffi is ffiat originaUy Josephus was a supporter of ffie Revolt (p. 191). But as an emissary in Gahlee, he transgressed his position as a member of ffie commission constituted by ffiree men and unlawffiUy estabUshed himself as ffie mihtary leader m ffie province, since he joined up wiffi a group of mercenaries or ffie Galilean rural populace (p. 191). In so doing, Josephus is supposed to have been driven by opportunism and by personal ambition (p. 191). Along wiffi Mighario, Attridge concludes ffiat at Jotapata Josephus ffid in fact acquire a new view of Rome (p. 192). Faced wiffi ffiese ffiree views, Rajak (1983) by and large represents ffie position which I have expressed above, partly in my own study of ffie texts, and partly in the reviews of Schaht (Chapter 4, section 5) and ffie modern conception (Chapter 4, section 6, b). Accordmg to Rajak, Vita may be said to be an act of defence against Justus (pp. 1214,146), but ffiis defence is far from being characteristic of ffie entire book (pp. 152ffi). The difference between Vita and Bell, concerning Josephus' pohtical position is explained wiffi reference to ffie varying nature of ffie two works, ffieir dating and ffieir aim (pp. 154ff.). These differences are not in ffie nature of principle, and wiffi regard to ffieir view of Rome and of ffie Jewish Revolt, the underlymg point of view is identical (p. 154). It is assumed ffiat from ffie beginning Josephus opposed ffie Revolt, and ffie choice of words in Vita is ffierefore assumed to be closer to historical truffi alffiough, as

162


mentioned, they are not viewed as conflicting with those of Bell. (p. 147). e. Ap. In the hterature of the ancient world, Balch shows the existence of a pattern of eulogy, an encomium, a panegyric for a nation, a city or a person (pp. 102-106). We recover this pattern with Dionysius of Hahcamassus conceming Rome (pp. 107-14), and Balch goes on to show that it is also adopted by Josephus in Ap. 2.145-295, where it is apphed to the Jewish people (pp. WA-ll). However, to some extent, Josephus deviates from the pattem (p. 117) and even, in Ap. 2.147, he stresses that it has never been his intention to write anything hke an encomium (p. 120). Unfortunately, Balch does not relate his work to other research, nor does he draw any further conclusions from it. He does, however, maintain that in Ap. 2, it is Josephus' aim to make an impression on an educated heathen audience, thereby convincing them of the value of Judaism (p. 121). Schaubl4lin deals with the same part of Ap. and shows how here and in other places of his works, Josephus conducts a veritable cultural campaign against Greek civihzation (pp. 316-17). Against both Athens and Sparta as centres of the ancient world Josephus emphasizes and compares Jewish historiography, cultm-e and rehgion (pp. 319-21, 324-34). At the same time, it becomes apparent that in his choice of words, Josephus is dependent upon Greek hterature, especially Plato's work. The Laws (pp. 321-23, 335-41). Oddly enough. Vermes (1982) deals with the same texts (Ap. 2.164219, the paragraphs on the 'Jewish constitution'). Vermes takes an interest in Josephus' relationship to Judaism and arrives at the conclusion that in these texts, Josephus appears as a Pharisaic interpreter (p. 301) of the Torah; the Torah being considered a theocratic constitution (p. 291), the essence of which is love of mankind (philanthrdpia) (p. 299). Furthermore, Vermes considers that when Josephus stresses the priestly hegemony we may draw a comparison with similar features in the Qumran hterature (p. 295). Apart from that, the text is evaluated as the earhest known Jewish systematic and theological dissertation (pp. 293, 307). FinaUy, it is asserted that Josephus has given his account its obviously Greek form so as to sohcit sympathy for Judaism among his educated heathen readers (pp. 301-302).


163

The same view of Ap. is also found widi Attridge (1984) (pp. 22731). Here, he says that in Ap., Josephus exphcitly presents die most important thoughts which, on earlier occasions, he rendered narratively in Bell, and Ant. (p. 227). This is done in an attractive Greek form and with the purpose of making Judaism comprehensible in the Greco-Roman world (p. 230). According to Attridge it succeeded: If there is any originahty in the apologedc program o f Josephus, it hes in this subde redefinidon o f the interpretative categories used to make Jewish tradition comprehensible (p. 2 3 1 ) .

f Josephus' literary method Balch has demonstrated how in Ap., Josephus uses a classic hterary pattem, but in a free and critical manner. S.J.D. Cohen (1982) shows that in his account of the Sicarii's collective siucide on Masada, in a similar way, Josephus follows common hterary patterns and topoi (pp. 386-92,393flF.; cf also Ladouceur [1980], pp. 247-53). Therefore, Josephus' account is scarcely rehable (p. 393). This is confirmed pardy by a comparison with the archaeological results which Cohen interprets differently than was commonly the case in earher work (pp. 393-95; cf. e.g. Feldman [1975]), and pardy by a hterary analysis (pp. 395-98). Therefore, it surprises the reader that Cohen can end his article with a favourable evaluation of the historical rehabihty of the account (pp. 399-401). Moreover, this evaluation is extended to cover its hterary quahty (p. 405). As was the case with the 1979 monograph, it would appear that Cohen's work in this case is not entirely consistent. Daube (1980) analyses the 'type' phenomenon (typos) in Josephus and demonstrates, just as in his brief article from 1976, that Josephus draws his own fate into his narratives of Joseph, Jeremiah, Daniel, Esther and Mordecai, whereas, conversely, these 'types' play a role in Josephus' description of his own life in Bell, and Vita (cf esp. pp. 3233). In his article from 1980(a), Downing investigates a great number (40) of Josephus' speeches by way of comparing them with the speeches of Dionysius of Hahcamassus and Luke (pp. 548ff".). The speeches investigated are thought to follow a definite pattem which pardy reflects the moral of Ant. 1.14-15 (p. 549) and pardy corresponds to and is dependent on Dionysius (pp. 552, 561), while at the same time they can be recognized in Luke (pp. 554-55, 561).

164


Ladouceur (1983) makes a diorough study of a single problem, namely, the thesis of Shutt (1961) (and others) that, especially in Ant., Josephus is dependent upon Dionysius of Hahcamassus (cf Balch, Downing, Feldman [1982] and Rajak [1982]). The diesis is tested hnguisdcaUy and stadsUcaUy with regard to the vocabulary (pp. 21ff.), and it is uncondiuonally rejected as being completely unsound (pp. 34-35). Schwartz (1981) clarifies a single problem inAnt. 10.80, but in his arucles of 1982 and 1983 he embarks on an ambitious and important project, namely, the neglected criucism of sources in Josephus. In the first and largest article, Schwartz attempts to launch this project by estabhshing a new criterion in the criucism of sources, namely, the expression 'at this time' {kata touton ton kairon) (pp. 246-48). His point of departure is that in some places, Josephus speaks of King Agrippa II in favourable terms, whereas in other places, he is spoken of in a deprecatory way (pp. 241-42). This observadon gives reason to presume that Josephus has used different sources which have not been co-ordinated accurately (pp. 243-44). First, Schwartz demonstrates that the phrase menuoned actuaUy appears to occur in instances where Josephus for other reasons may be presumed to have drawn on supplementary sources (pp. 248-53). Then, the six places in Ant. 20 where Agrippa II is referred to in negative terms are reviewed (pp. 246-57). Four of these places contain the phrase menuoned as well as others of the same kind. Therefore, it is maintained that they belong to a particular priestly source which is critical of King Agrippa as well as the high priests and the Levites (pp. 257-62). In the article from 1983, Schwartz argues in favour of the theory that the places where Josephus speaks unfavourably about the Pharisees, must be derived from Nicolas of Damascus. Although in this article, Josephus is granted a higher degree of independence and creativity (pp. 163, 169), here too, the classical conception of Josephus as the careless and automatic copyist of his sources dominates. Schwartz's articles are significant attempts to make progress on the difficult question of the criticism of sources, which in more recent years only scholars such as Lindner (1972) and S.J.D. Cohen (1979, 1982) have given serious attention, whereas Nikiprowetzky, Broshi et al. have touched upon it. However, the vestiges of the classical criticism of sources are alarming, and as demonstrated by Lindner and Cohen, it is essential that if it is to be rescued from the dangers of coincidence and arbitrariness, source criticism must be


165

combined with an analysis of tendencies. It is Schwartz's greatest weakness that he neglects this aspect in his long article of 1982. A thorough understanding of the 'positive' and 'negative' statements on King Agrippa II cannot be obtained without an analysis of Josephus' complete interpretation of this monarch. g. Theology Many of the works we have already reviewed also belong in this section. This apphes, for example, to Michel (1984) with regard to Josephus' general theological position, Amaru with regard to his eschatology, Schaublein and Vermes (1982) with regard to Ap., and not least, Attridge (1984) on the theology of Bell, and Ant. As mentioned, Aune's article demonstrates that Josephus appears to have beheved that prophecy did not end with the bibhcal prophets during the Exile, but that it hved on as a reahty after the Exile and down to Josephus' own time. The three works by Downing are also of importance to the understanding ofJosephus' own theology. Here, thorough arguments are presented that the theology which influences/Iwt. 1.14-15 and the speeches and prayers in the works of Josephus are not expressions of Palestinian Judaism ([1980a], pp. 553-54). In hne with Dionysius of Hahcamassus and Luke, the intention of Josephus' works is to divert and entertain an educated heathen audience ([1980a], pp. 546-48, and [1982], pp. 552, 557-58). And the rehgious aspects of their works is described as Hellenistic ([1980a], pp. 552-553), namely, as a 'general humanistic theism' ([1980a], pp. 554 and [1982], p. 558), that is to say an erdightened and educated Hellenistic moral kind of rehgion. Martin, in continuation of earher works, especially Wachter, conceming Josephus' rendering of the three most important Jewish rehgious groups, discusses the places in Ant. where Josephus uses the word haimarmene, 'necessity by Fate'. According to Martin, Josephus does not use this idea in a hmited philosophical Stoic meaning, but rather in a wider sense as the word is used in Corpus Hermeticum (especially in Poimandres), astrology and Gnosticism (pp. 132-33). In these contexts, the word is used of the universe or hfe perceived of as being an evil compulsion or necessity (pp. 132-33). Against this, according to Martin, Josephus places Judaism, which Martin without direcdy saying so identifies with the Pharisaic behef that man is able to hve in firee responsibihty in obedience to the Torah (pp. 134-35).

166


Thus, Martin presents Josephus as a kind of missionary. Momighano (1982) in a brief article, along with Vidal-Naquet (1977), proposes that in his works, Josephus has nothing to relate with regard to the institution of the synagogue and contemporary Jewish apocalyptic (pp. 325, 327-28, 330). According to Momighano, the reason for this was, first, that Josephus failed to grasp the importance of the apocalyptic idea (p. 330). His position as a Jew was flat, common and rhetorical (p. 334), and the similarities between him and Yohanan ben Zakkai, which have often been pointed out, are merely superficial (p. 335). Therefore, it is also wrong to say that Josephus anticipated the Rabbinical rejections of the apocalyptic idea (p. 330). Secondly, the reason was that Josephus wrote in Greek with a view to the higher circles in the Greco-Roman world, and apocalyptic thoughts cannot be expressed in fluent Hellenistic Greek (p. 331). Nevertheless, according to Momighano, Josephus was convinced that Roman domination had been foreseen by the prophets of the Old Testament and that, as predicted by them, it would come to an end, but cautiously he makes only vague utterances to this eflfect (cf Ant. 10.79, 210, 276, thus p. 332; cf also Stemberger, pp. 36-37). That Josephus does not write much about the institution of the synagogue is correct. But the reason for this may also be that, at the time of Josephus, this institution was not yet so important as assumed by Momighano, or that, as a priest, Josephus did not view it as a central institution. But it is not true that Josephus writes nothing about Jewish apocalyptic thoughts (cf. Chapter 5, section 2, d and Chapter 6, sections 2, 3). Josephus himself is under the influence of the apocalyptic ideas of Daniel, as admitted by Momighano (pp. 33233). So, Momighano's work is marked by internal contradictions, hke the works by Attridge (1984), S.J.D. Cohen, Freyne and Mighario. Shutt (1981) discusses the question of Josephus' conception of God. Is it HeUenistic or Jewish? (pp. 171-72; cf Rajak [1982]). Shutt reviews Josephus' HeUenistic expression, 'the divine' {to theion), 'the necessary' {to chreon), 'destiny' {he tyche), etc., and in line with earher scholars comes to the conclusion that although Josephus uses a Greek iovm, the mearung of the ideas is definitely influenced by a bibhcal and Jewish outlook (pp. 173-84; cf. e.g. Lewinsky, p. 27; Poznanski, pp. 10-12; Schlatter [1932], pp. 3, 32f). According to Shutt, Josephus remained a Jew and a Pharisee aU his life (pp. 18586), and the Hellenistic use of language is to be understood primarily


167

as a didactic tool (p. 186; cf. also Attridge [1976] and [1984]; Vermes [1982]; Goldenberg [1980], and several others). Trisogho's work is not merely an analysis of Josephus, but an invesugauon of the entire classical Greek and early Christian (Eusebius) writing of history with particular reference to divine interference in history. The work is comprehensive, wordy and immensely learned, if leamedness can be measured by virtue of the 324 long footnotes with which it is interspersed, the longest of which occupies four tightly printed pages. However, it has nothing to do with research and scholarship and it remains a mystery that it was accepted by the distinguished intemational work Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt. For the work is a piece of pure Christian theological apologetics. It is entirely uncritical towards Eusebius (pp. 1066ff.), whereas, on the other hand, quite vmhistoricaUy it reproaches the classical Greek historians for their incomplete, and in reahty that is to say their non-Christian, conception of the divine (cf esp. pp. 994-95, 1015, 1039, 1041, 1065-66). In this context, he deals witii Josephus (pp. 983-1000, 1014-16, 1029-41, 1060-65). Trisogho's lengthy 'classical' hst ofJosephus' personal and professional deficiencies may be briefly recounted here. The decisive factor is that Josephus, so it is postulated, has betrayed his bibhcal and Jewish faith m God (pp. 997, 1015, 1029, 1039, 1064), and instead is said to have surrendered completely to Hellenistic historiographic mentahty (pp. 984, 997-98, 1039, 1064-65) and syncretism (pp. 997, 1014-15, 1035, 1040, 1064-65). In no uncertain terms, Josephus is decried as an apostate (pp. 1062, 1064) and as one who has abused Jewish rehgion and theology so as to justify Rome and the Flavian supremacy (pp. 992, 1015, 1064), and also his own treachery (pp. 999, 1031-32, 1061-62, 1064). It is quite incomprehensible that Josephus is reproached for not having given up his Judaism and for not having acknowledged and accepted the tmth of the Christian faith (p. 1041). The rest need not be considered. It caimot come as a surprise that in the vast number of notes there is a conspicuous lack of references to that modem hterature on Josephus which I have reviewed under the heading 'The modem conception of Josephus'. Ideological apologetic, thus, is still a flourishing genre (cf also Moehring's [1984] criticism of Schaht [1975], which oddly enough was also pubhshed in the 'distinguished' series ANRW).

168


h. Historiography Important aspects of this problem have already been discussed. The archaeological and topographical works have shown, with S.J.D. Cohen (1982) as a single, but not entirely consistent exception, that by and large Josephus' account is rehable insofar as it may be subjected to verification. In his ardcle, Broshi deals with this subject specifically, in general confirming Josephus' historical rehabihty (pp. 379-81) and then dehberates on whether the material which is particularly precise and meticulous may perhaps not be derived from Roman mihtary reports (pp. 381-83). This possibihty, which carmot be refilled, has been considered on previous occasions, particularly by Weber, Lindner (1972) and most recently by S.J.D. Cohen (1982, p. 398). But it must still be accepted and maintained that Josephus has chosen to incorporate this kind of material in his work, no matter from where he derived it. Ganger's article is of a difierent variety. Here, he discusses whether the Hecataeus fragments handed down by Josephus, primarily in Ap., are genuine. We are faced with the thesis, wellknown by now, conceming Josephus' treatment of his sources. He rarely falsifies (pp. 9, 11, 15), but readily maiupulates apologetically the material he uses (pp. 10, 11-12, 15). According to Gauger, the Hecataeus fragments which have been examined are authentic (pp. 25-35), apart from Ap. 2.43 and Ant. 12.37 (pp. 36-40). FinaUy, Sauhnier may be brought into the picture. Stricdy speaking this is a purely historical investigation of the legal status of the Jews in the Roman period, but it is based on the assumption that the oflScial decrees used by Josephus, broadly speaking, are aU genuine (p. 162) (cf also Rajak [1984], p. 109). The hterary aspects conceming Josephus' historiography has already been discussed. It is tme that Josephus makes use of the forms and pattems found in Greco-Roman writing of history (cf. Attridge [1984], Balch, S.J.D. Cohen [1982], Downing [1980a, 1982], Feldman [1982], Ladouceur [1980, 1983], Martin, Michel [1984], Rajak [1982, 1983], Schaublein, Shutt [1981] and Vermes [1982]), but most of these scholars have argued convincingly in favour of the assumption that the contents and hne of thought in his works are primarily of a bibhcal and Palestinian-Jewish nature (cf. Attridge, Goldenberg, Martin, Michel, Rajak, RuimaUs, Schaublein, Shutt and Vermes).


169

i. Josephus' person and political position This topic has also been touched upon above, particularly in the section concerning Vita, (section 7, d). The main positions are marked by Attridge, Freyne and Mighario on one side and Daube, Rajak (1983) and Moehring (1984) on the other. It is not so strange that it is on this question of Josephus as a historical person that opinions differ. For reasons of principle, this is where the amount of uncertainty is greatest. It is in fact extremely difficult to penetrate Josephus' literary style and to trace the history of his life. Moreover, here, Josephus is most vulnerable because of thefrequentlyfrardsand self-contradictory accounts which he has left conceming important events in his own hfe. Here, therefore, emotions mn high (cf Feldman [1984b], p. 779). The traditional animosity for the 'turncoat', 'traitor', 'apostate' and 'boothcker' is particularly strong. Therefore, it is here that the classical conception of Josephus has its best hand and its firm starting point. It is not diflBcult to criticize Josephus for vanity, opportunism and cowardice (Freyne [1980], pp. 89, 242-43), for tyraimy and cmelty in Gahlee (Mighario, pp. 113, 132) and for opportunism and greed for power (Attridge [1984], p. 191). However, this position rests in its entirety on the overall evaluation of the relation between Bell, and Vita. If Rajak's evaluation (1983) is taken as a starting point, the result tums out to be the opposite. Her interpretation is supported by the socio-cultural evaluation of Josephus' pohtical career as seen in the hght of his economic, social and cultural background (pp. 6, 21, 130). It is also supported by Rajak's arguments in favour of Josephus' works as being modified by a unity and consistency of attitude (pp. 224-29). According to her, throughout his hfe, Josephus remained decisively influenced by his status as a Palestinian-Jewish priest, aristocrat and Pharisee. With Moehring (1984), this position has acquired another prominent advocate. In a penetrating analysis of Josephus' pohtical position, Moehring adopts an uncompromising stand against earher and particularly modem scholars when they have apphed morahzing criticism and apologetic abuse to Josephus (pp. 866-68, 917ff.). Against this attitude, Moehring asserts that Josephus should be understood on his own terms (pp. 868, 925, 940). In order to clarify Josephus' pohtical stand, Moehring works through his accounts in Bell, and Ant. of the history of the HeUenistic and Roman periods (pp. 871-907). Thereby, it appears that Josephus' main point is that the Jewish people can exist in safety when they stand united in

170


loyalty towards the ruhng power (pp. 874, 879, 881 etc.); that the Jews owe their pohdcal and rehgious rights and privileges to Rome (cf. the official documents, pp. 896-97); ffiat Roman supremacy is in accordance wiffi God's plan (p. 890); and ffiat according to Josephus, ffie Jewish Revolt was caused by irresponsible conduct on the part of some Jews as well as on ffie part of ffie Romans, whereas ffie Jewish people as a whole were not responsible (pp. 898-901). The primary aim in boffi ofJosephus' principal works was to prevent a recurrence of ffie War in 66-70(74) (p. 934). Therefore, Josephus works towards a reconcihation between Jerusalem and Rome (p. 868). In his person, Josephus combined a Jewish and a Roman existence (p. 869), and his wish is for ffie same to happen to all his people. In ffiis way, according to Moehring, Josephus is close to ffie Septuagint, Philo and Hellerustic Judaism (pp. 875-76, 913, 940). This point of view permeates Bell, as weU as Ant. Therefore, Josephus may be viewed as consistent pohticaUy as well as ffieologically (pp. 927, 939). Based upon this, Moehring submits Schaht (1975) to devastating criticism (pp. 917-40). Schaht's work, it is claimed, is an example of moralizing and apologetic abuse of Josephus. According to Moehring, Schaht does not aUow Josephus himself to be heard, because ffie scholar has aheady taken his stand, knows what is good and what is bad and is in possession of ffie complete historical picture. Yet Moehring does in fact pursue ideas which are found already in Schaht (cf my review in Chapter 4, section 5). Besides, it is an illusion to claim ffiat Moehring's treatment is objective (cf. pp. 869, 876, 934). Neverffieless, it attempts to be historical and is ffierefore closer to ffie truffi from a scholarly point of view ffian ffiat of Schaht. j. Status This concludes our summary of ffie Josephus research during ffie period 1980-1984. Perhaps ffie summary may seem to give an unclear picture, and ffie works which have been reviewed may appear to point in many directions. On a closer study, however, ffie reader wiU see ffiat ffie situation in research today is actually astonishingly clear and exciting. The impression from ffie teview in ffie preceding chapter, ffiat ffie modem conception of Josephus must have broken ffirough, appears on ffie face of it to be incorrect. The situation today seems to be completely open. In fact, ffie classical conception of Josephus has been revived. The works by Attridge, S.J.D. Cohen,


171

Downing, Freyne, Migliario, Momigliano, (U. Rappaport), Schwartz and Trisogho can with certain reservadons and excepdons be said to conunue in the classical positions of Holscher, Weber and Laqueur. In these works, emphasis is placed on the inconsistency in Josephus' hfe and works, the lack of originahty and the unreliabihty of his wriungs as well as the Helleiusuc influence: this is in contrast to the positions taken by those authors who may be said to represent the modem conception of Josephus. However, this impression is false and rests on illusion. First and foremost, as we have observed, Cohen himself has considerable reservations about the classical positions. And if we revert to Mighario and Attridge, it becomes even more obvious since, in addiition to this, they have considerable reservations about Cohen. In reahty, hke Momigliano, these two scholars represent an impossible compromise between the two main conceptions, such that their standpoints, hke those of Schaht and Cohen, must be regarded as untenable. Therefore, the summary of the most recent Josephus research should not lead us to be deceived. A critical and correct evaluation of this research must be said to confirm the interpretation of the history of Josephus research set forth in Chapter 4. The classical conception of Josephus, hke the earher uncritical research, has come to an end, since its modem adherents, influenced by the modern conception, have on their own accord revised it drastically, and since in its modem versions the classical conception of Josephus indicates a degree of incoherence which in the long run will prove to be untenable.

Chapter 5 INTERPRETING JOSEPHUS We have reached die point in this presentation where we can gather together the threads from the previous chapters. Now, the task at hand is systemaucally to co-ordinate the insights which have been gained by the detailed review ofJosephus' life history and writings as well as the results of modem research. We will proceed with this task by coUecting the material and reviewing it under four main headings: (1) Josephus' national and pohtical position, (2) his rehgious and theological standpoint, (3) his rehabihty as a historian, (4) his placement between Jewish and Greco-Roman historiography. 1. Josephus' national and political position We will begin by tackling the controversial question of Josephus' national and pohtical standpoint. What was his pohtical standing in the Jewish community before the Revolt.' How did he stand in the decisive confhct between the Jews and Rome? What was his relationship to the Flavians and his position in the Roman camp after his capture? And what was his position in Rome during the reigns of the three Flavian emperors after the War? In short, how shall we place Josephus in the pohtical tensions between Jemsalem and Rome? We will attempt to answer these questions first, by defining more clearly the problems involved and, in the hght of this, recapitulating the main view-points in research. These points of view will then be discussed on the basis of conclusions reached in the previous chapters on the following three issues: first, the relationship between Bell.'s and Vita's accounts of Josephus' role during the War; second, Josephus' pohcy in Gahlee in 66-67; and third, Josephus' social and economic background and position in the Jewish community in Judaea and Jemsalem.

174


a. Main points of view in the research The kernel of the problem under discussion here is the nadonalpohtical issue in Josephus' hfe and wriungs. As we pointed out earher, there are two conflicung interpretations on this subject. On one side, it is thought that from his youth till his death Josephus held the same view on the relationship between the Jewish people and Rome, and that this view influences all his works. On the other side, there is the view that Josephus' hfe and development is influenced by marked changes, which can be deduced from his writings. The best known spokesmen in favour of this position are Laqueur and S.J.D. Cohen. Laqueur reconstructs Josephus' hfe and career as foUows. He began as a law-abiding aristocratic priest in Jerusalem. In this capacity, he was sent to Gahlee in order to supervise the rebelhous forces there. However, Josephus abused his mission by assunung the role of tyrant of the northern province. Laqueur biulds this part of his reconstruction on Vita, pardy the hypothetical 'statement of affairs' from 67, and partly the final version which is supposed to be determined by Josephus' polemics against Justus of Tiberias. After his treacherous surrender to Vespasian, Josephus entered into the service of the latter and then worked as a Roman and specifically as a Flavian propagandist. This phase lasts from the time of the surrender until the death of Titus in the year 81, and it is reflected in Bell. When Domitian became emperor, for some reason or other, Josephus feU into disgrace and was 'dismissed' from his post as a writer of history employed by the emperor. Instead, Epaphroditus, the pubhsher, hired him as an expert on Jewish affairs. As such, Josephus wrote the first edition of Ant. and Ap. When, around the year 100, Justus of Tiberias pubhshed his works, he defeated Josephus as an authority on Judaica, and Josephus was dismissed for the second time. In an attempt to acquire a new circle of readers, he then added Testimonium Flavianum to Ant. It is from this phase that the second edition of Ant., and Vita in the form we know this work, originate. According to this ('classical') view Josephus is regarded as an egoistic turncoat with no independent standpoint, someone whose points of view were for sale to the highest bidder (cf Chapter 4, section 4). A kinder view may be found in works by older scholars like Graetz, Prager, Baerwald, Luther, Rtihl, Drexler, Eisler and Klausner, a view which more recently has been brought to bear by S.J.D. Cohen and Mighario. Its point of departure is the apparent

5. Interpreting Josephus

175

contrast between Bell. 2.556ff. and Vita 17-29, the renderings of which differ with regard to Josephus' appointment and acdvity in GaUlee. According to Vita, Josephus was in fact appointed by the aristocratic party in Jerusalem, which gave him the assigiunent of working on behalf of the interests of this party in GaUlee. This account in Vita is, however, evaluated as a piece of secondary apologetics by these scholars. Post festum, Josephus would attempt to conceal what had in fact taken place, namely, that he had participated wholeheartedly in the Revolt against Rome. In comparison with the apologetic covering up in Vita, these scholars consider the account of Bell, to be closer to the historical truth. According to this interpretation, in Jerusalem, Josephus was officiaUy appointed as a general of GaUlee, and in Bell., Josephus does give a much fiiUer account of his mihtary activities in GaUlee. Accordingly, this school asserts that originally Josephus was a wholehearted adherent and participant in the Jewish Revolt against Rome. But he oidy retained this attitude until the faU of Jotapata. After that event, he abandoned it, treacherously betrayed his post and his people and instead entered the service of the Romans. In the next phase, these scholars follow Laqueur. With Bell., Josephus serves the Romans, particularly the Flavians, yet at the same time attempting to justify himself. But as far as the period under Domitian is concerned, they again deviate from Laqueur. It is assumed that after Domitian's rise to power in the year 81, for a variety of reasons, Josephus became more 'rehgious' and nationahstic, especiaUy more Pharisaic. With this 'new' attitude he attempted to ingratiate himself with the rising Rabbinic Jewish leaders in Jamnia, and, according to Cohen, Mighario and others, it is this attitude which dominates Ant., Vita and Ap. (cf Chapter 4, sections 5 and 7, d). As mentioned, this idea is somewhat kinder towards Josephus than that of Laqueur, but fimdamentally it maintains the same point of view, namely, that there is no consistency, either in Josephus' hfe or in his writings. Against this classical conception of Josephus there is another represented first and foremost by Thackeray and Farmer, but also by Schaht, Rajak and by most of the scholars whom I have placed under the heading 'The modem conception of Josephus'. Most recendy this conception has been formulated by Moehring [1984], esp. pp. 868-70, 890, 917). According to this school. Vita is preferred over the account of Bell., or rather Bell. 2-3 is interpreted in the hght of Vita 17-29. According to this view, along with most other Jewish

176


aristocrats, Josephus at first opposed the Revoh against Rome. He belonged to the moderate party and, together with those who shared his opiruons and were of his own class, tried to avoid war. When this was unsuccessflil, and when instead the revolutionary movement gathered speed, Josephus and his party made the best of it and pretended to be in agreement with the rebels in order to obtain at least a certain amount of influence on what developed. Thereby, the aristocratic party succeeded in placing Josephus and other moderate leaders in important roles in the first rebellious government. In this capacity and from his command in Gahlee, Josephus constandy pursued the primary aim, to avoid total war and to obtain a peaceful settlement with Rome. After his surrender at Jotapata, and after his release as a prisoner of war two years later, Josephus continued to work towards this goal. Likewise, after the disaster in the year 70, his main purpose was to save what he could, i.e. to work towards reestabhshing and/or preserving the Jewish privileges and the traditional Roman pohcy of tolerance towards Judaism. So, the scholars named here trace this aim as a guiding rule in all of Josephus' works. This does not exclude the fact that some of them, e.g. Thackeray and Aiighario, tend to think that it becomes even more apparent in the latter phase of Josephus' writings, in Ant. and Ap. According to this 'modern conception of Josephus', to which I adhere, Josephus' hfe and writings are characterized by continuity (cf also Yavetz, p. 421). Literature Reference is made to the preceding Chapter 4, sections 4 - 6 and 7, d and i. Further see Feldman ( 1 9 8 4 a ) , pp. 346ff.; ( 1 9 8 4 b ) , pp. 838ff.; BUde ( 1 9 8 3 a ) , pp. 1 3 4 - 4 7 .

b. The writings Thus, two basicaUy difierent interpretations of Josephus' national and poUtical position are found in opposition to each other. But this is not satisfactory. Therefore, we are compeUed to consider which is the correct one. Personsdly, I have stated that I find the 'modem' conception more satisfactory, and in the foUowing I wiU sum up the arguments in favour of this opinion. To begin with, I will point out a number of arguments which can be found in Josephus' writings. At first, we will have a look at the problem of the relationship between the two works. Bell, and Vita (cf


177

Chapter 2, section 4, a-d). While the two accounts of Josephus' appointment and activity as leader in Gahlee vary, they need not be interpreted as contradictory. The fact that, according to Bell. 2.562ff., Josephus was officially appointed as general and governor does not necessarily go against ffie fact ffiat this appointment was manipulated by ffie aristocratic moderate party. Nor does ffie official purpose ofJosephus' appointment, ffiat he was to prepare ffie defence of Gahlee against ffie expected Roman counter-attack, exclude ffie possibihty ffiat Josephus and his colleagues secretly and on behalf of ffieir party, looked upon this purpose in an entirely different way— but they kept silent on this. In ffie situation which existed in Jerusalem during ffie summer and autumn of 66, it was oidy natural ffiat after having expelled Cestius Gallus, leaders were chosen from ffie traditional dhte, ffie priesffiood and nobihty. In ffiis kind of agrarian community, to which Judaea belonged at ffie time, ffiese groups usuaUy provided ffie pohtical leadership. It was not until after ffiese traditional leaders had failed, after ffie revolution had become more radical and after several internal confficts, ffiat ffie rebelhous Jews decided to choose leaders from the lower classes, for example, Simon bar Giora {Bell. 4.503ff.) and the simple peasant high priest, Phanni ben Samuel {Bell. 4.152ff.). Therefore, it is historicaUy probable ffiat ffie first leaders of ffie Revolt were aristocrats, ffiat ffiese were later replaced, and ffiat fondamentally ffiey must be presumed to have had offier interests ffian ffie driving forces of ffie Revolt. This pattem is also well-known from offier revolutions as Rajak ([1983], pp. 126ff.) demonstrates in agreement wiffi Brinton's book on ffie 'anatomy' of revolutions. In ffie second place, ffie two accounts in Bell, and Vita are not influenced by two different and incompatible points of view. In Vita, Josephus does not, as one would expect from ffie ffieory, hide ffie fact of his active participation in ffie War against Rome. And conversely. Bell, is influenced by ffie same reservations against ffie War as found in Vita. Indeed, ffie classical conception of Bell.'s and Vita's accounts of Josephus' attitude to ffie War and ffie Romans are marked by a serious inner contradiction. In Bell., which was intended to be a proRoman and Flavian work of propaganda, Josephus speaks at great lengffi about his participation in ffie Revolt and about his feats as a Jewish general. Later, in Vita, which was intended to be more nationahstic and Jewish, in contrast to ffiis, he is said to have been active in conceahng his participation in ffie Jewish Revolt. This is

178


simply absurd. In reality, the two accounts in Bell, and Vita, which are in fact at variance with each other, carmot be interpreted as expressing two fimdamentaUy different attitudes and standpoints taken by Josephus. Therefore, they must be understood as being expressions of the completely different nature and purpose of these two works. In Bell., first and foremost, Josephus presents an account of the history of the War, and therefore it is quite natural that he places the emphasis on the mihtary side of his own activities in Gahlee. In Vita, on the other hand, he writes primarily about the various groups of Jews and their internal controversies in Gahlee, and therefore it is natural that here the emphasis has been shifted. In Vita, Josephus is concemed not least with the attitude to the War held by the different Jewish groups, and it is quite logical that here, in contrast with Bell., he also gives a more detailed explanation of his own and his party's position and pohcy (cf. Chapter 3, sections 2 and 4). The interpretation of the relationship between Bell, and Vita presented here is also supported by sound arguments in Rajak's 1983 monograph (pp. 154-64). In the third place, with this in mind, we have suggested a decisive argument in favour of consistency in Josephus. It consists of the uniform interpretation of the leading actors in the confhct—Rome, the Jewish people and the Jewish rebels—which permeates all of Josephus' works. From Bell, to Ap., we encounter the same basic view as I have attempted to demonstrate in the review of each individual work, and as it is also reflected in a great many parts of the more recent research of which the latest and clearest is that of Moehring (1984). Thus, a strong argument is offered against the Laqueur-Cohen hypothesis which presupposes distinct and clearly recognizable phases with different national-pohtical attitudes, at any rate in Bell, on one side and in Ant., Vita and Ap. on the other. Finally, in the fourth place, we may add that Laqueur's theories on the 'dismissals' of Josephus, and of Josephus' financial diflBculties in consequence, cannot be estabhshed on the basis of Vita^ which is the only source available. Vita makes no mention of disfavour or 'dismissal' during the reign of Domitian. On the contrary, it tells us that Domitian 'added to' the Flavian favours previously granted him {Vita 429). Nor can one derive any evidence fi-om Vita that Josephus at any time might have been in need of money (cf. Vita 422-423, 425, 429). Thus, it is impossible to justify this theory on the basis of the


179

contents ofJosephus' works. All indications are that the hindamental agreement between Bell, and Vita, and the ideological unity which is present in all of his wriungs, seem to indicate that consistency rather than change is the main characteristic of Josephus' works when it comes to the quesdon of his nauonal and pohucal standpoint. c. Josephus' policy in Galilee The invesugauon of Josephus' pohcy in Gahlee which we discussed in Chapter 2, section 4, d points in the same direction, and a brief rdsumd will be presented here. It was found that Josephus' activities were influenced by the foUowing incentives. He tried to control the rebelhous forces, to subdue the rehgious fanatics, to retain the relationship to King Agrippa II and thus to the Romans, to maintain control of the entire province and, by and large, to wait and see, hoping that a possibihty of negotiation might turn up. We considered this pohcy to be pro-Roman, but at the same time a nationaUy disposed upper-class pohcy which caused Josephus to be accused of treason. If this definition of Josephus' pohcy in Gahlee is correct, then it is an extremely important factor, for we are then in the fortunate situation of being able to estabhsh a connection between the writings on one hand, and Josephus' person and life history on the other. We are confronted with an agreement between the national-pohtical consistency which permeates all of his works and an important sequence of events in his hfe. d. Josephus' social position FinaUy, in support of this argument is Josephus' social jjosition. As mentioned earlier, Josephus was of an aristocratic, priesdy and noble family. He had been well educated. He had had the opportunity to travel. Already, during his first visit to Rome, he had been in touch with the highest ranking circles, and after the year 71, in Rome, Josephus associated not only with the Flavians and prominent Romans, but also with King Agrippa II and other Jews of high standing (cf Vita 361-367; Ap. 1.50-52). Moreover, he was wealthy throughout his life. Thus, Josephus was deeply rooted in the Palestinian-Jewish and Jerusalem upper-class, and later it appears that in the Diaspora and in Rome, he seems to have established himself in a similar position. Thus, throughout his enure hfe Josephus was a wealthy aristocrat, and this position prompted him to

180


accept the Roman presence in Palestine as a pohtical reahty and to form his national and pohucal thinking on the basis of this reahty (cf also Momighano [1982], pp. 327-28). In her 1983 monograph, Rajak brought this point of view to bear on all her understanding and interpretauon ofJosephus. This is probably going too far, but there is no quesdon that Josephus' social background and posiuon have been granted far too httle importance in earher research, and that here we are confronted with a factor which is of decisive importance for the correct interpretauon of Josephus. This factor is of such great importance because, as with our reconstrucuon ofJosephus' pohcy in Gahlee, it transcends the hterary plan of the wriungs and brings us back to the historical Josephus. Literature The importance

o f taking Josephus' social posidon into consideraUon is by Brunt, pp. 149flF.; Kreissig, p. 9 9 ; Mayer-MOller, p. 2 7 2 ; pp.4, 6 etc.; Zeidin ( 1 9 6 8 - 1 9 6 9 ) , pp. 283flF.; ( 1 9 6 9 - 1 9 7 0 ) ,

emphasized esp.

Rajak

(1983),

pp. 39ff.; ( 1 9 7 8 ) , pp.

385ff.

e. Josephus' national and political standpoint All of these factors, Josephus' economic, social and cultural background, his social standing, his educauon and the experiences of his youth, his appointment as an aristocrauc leader in Gahlee and his pohcy in this part of the country in 66-67, and, moreover, the uniformity of the nauonal-pohucal tendency which influences his works, point towards the thesis of pohucal consistency in the wriungs as weU as his hfe. Conversely, none of the arguments which have been adduced in support of different phases in Josephus' career, atutude and written works are convincing. Josephus did belong to the wealthy priestly aristocracy in Jerusalem which was prepared to cooperate with Rome and at the same ume stood for an open atutude towards the non-Jewish people in Palesune as weU as in the Diaspora. This pohcy was in the narrower economic interest of the Jewish aristocracy. But it was also a manifestation of a clear pohucal standpoint. Josephus was in fact convinced that the survival and existence of the Jewish people and of Judaism was indmately connected with this pohcy (cf. esp. Moehring [1984]). To Josephus, the great Jewish Revolt against Rome was decisive proof that the mihtant policy of confrontauon led to disaster. Josephus' formulauon of the account conceming the conflict

5. Interpreting Josephtis

181

between Gaius Caligula and the Jews in Palestine is a major expression of an atutude contrary to that of the war party, for in this account, Josephus was prepared to tell us that peacefiil protest, demonstrauons and appeals might well lead to a favourable result for the Jewish people (cf Bilde [1983a], pp. 141-47). In a negative as well as a positive way, these two important events exemplify a matter which, to Josephus, was of fundamental and vital importance, namely, the general poUtical standpoint of the Jewish people, which we have described, and which Josephus himself expands \xpon in the great speeches in Bell., particularly that of Agrippa II in Bell. 2.345401 and his own in Bell. 5.362-419. Understood in this way, Josephus' writings may also be seen as a passionate plea in the contemporary Jewish debate on the relationship between the Jews and Rome as weU as with the gentiles. Seen fi-om the other side, in the eyes of the mihtant party, Josephus actually was a traitor and was perpetuaUy accused of being so, as he readily admits in his own works (cf Bell. 3.438-442; 5.541fi:; 7.437-553; Vita 416-417, 424-425, 428-429). However, it must be stressed that it is ordy fi-om a revolutionary, rebelUous and 'Zealot' point of view that an accusation of this nature makes sense. Therefore, Josephus categoricaUy refiites this accusation {Bell. 3.354), and from his moderate, aristocratic position, in my view, he is justified in doing so. Josephus' position can and must be compared with the standpoint taken by the culturaUy Uberal-minded Jews in Jerusalem before the year 170 BCE; that is to say, with the group towards which the Hasmonaean Revolt also directed its opposition. Moreover, it should be compared with Herod the Great, with the Sadducees and with PhUo—aU of whom adhered to a standpoint similar to that of Josephus. We can also find traces of this standpoint in the more recent history of the Jewish people, namely, the Jews in Spain during the 'Golden Age', the German Haskalah Jews and the moderate Reform Jews of our lime. If this evaluation can be upheld, one might say that in Josephus we encounter an important classical Jewish standpoint in the everlasting debate about the true atutude of the Jewish people towards other peoples, opponents and, in some cases, foreign rulers. Literature Corresponding attempts at placing Josephus in a wider Jewish historical

182


context will be found in D a u b e ( 1 9 8 0 ) , pp. 3 3 - 3 6 , and Moehring ( 1 9 8 4 ) , pp. 8 7 6 , 9 1 3 and esp. 9 4 0 .

2. Josephus' theology While reviewing Bell., we noted that the essential theme of this work is the fall of Jerusalem (cf Chapter 2, section 2, c), or rather the disaster which this was for the Jewish people, and the problem which the faU of Jerusalem and of the Temple created for the Jews and for Josephus himself. This disaster was of a national and pohtical nature, but at the same time it was a rehgious disaster because, for Josephus, it gave rise to the question why and how God could aUow something hke this to happen, just as was the case in the contemporary apocalyptic book, 4 Ezra, from the end of the first century CE. Furthermore, in Chapter 3 (section 2, d) we saw how Josephus found the most deeply rooted reasons for the War and the faU of Jerusalem in the dissension within the Jewish people. He attributes this dissension to the sin and the transgression of the law in which parts of the Jewish people had made themselves giulty from the time of the Hasmonaeans and up to the outbreak of the War in the year 66. When reviewing Ant. and Ap., we saw, hkewise, that Josephus' national Jewish apologetics must necessarily also be rehgious and theological. The animosity towards the Jewish people in the ancient world was, at the same time, an animosity against Judaism as a rehgion. Therefore, Josephus' defence on behalf of the position of the Jewish people and the rights of the Jews as a nation in the Roman empire also had to become theological. We shaU now turn to these rehgious and theological aspects of Josephus' writings. First, we shall recapitulate the main points on this matter in the research to date. FoUowing that, on the basis of Josephus' works, I shaU attempt to draw a picture of his theology in its main features: his views regarding the relationship between guilt and fate, between God and Israel (the covenant) and conceming the fiiture hopes of Israel. The picture wiU be summed up with some comments conceming Josephus' statements about himself as a Pharisee, a priest and a prophet. a. Main points of view in the research In the vast critical hterature on Josephus it is often argued that Josephus was no more a serious theologian than he was a sincere


183

patriot and a reliable historian. Some of these scholars maintain, for example, that in his works, Josephus displays no interest whatsoever in religion and theology. For instance, H. Guttmann concludes his invesugauon of Josephus' presentation of Judaism as follows: D i e Ergebnisse der vorliegenden Arbeit zeigen, dali von einer wahrhaft religiSsen Einstellung des Josephus kaum die Rede sein karm (p. 5 1 ; c f also Dexinger, pp. 2 6 4 - 6 5 ) .

Other scholars of the same opinion claim that Josephus had a feehng for pohtics ordy and not for rehgion, and in this respect they often place him in contrast to Yohanan ben Zakkai. Thus, for example, Hoerug: T h e difference between the Sage (Yoljanan) and the historian is that Josephus sought appeasement because he beheved in the might o f R o m e ; he held that since the Jews were given privileges they should continue their loyalty, and submit to R o m e on account o f its power. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai's philosophy was one

of

submission because he felt that this approach would serve best the principles o f Judaism and the dignity o f the Torah (pp. 2 5 - 2 6 ; c f also Bentwich, pp. 56 and 2 5 8 - 5 9 ; Feldman [ 1 9 8 4 b ] , pp. 7 8 6 - 8 7 ; Lindner

[ 1 9 7 2 ] , p. 7 4 ; Schaht

[ 1 9 7 5 ] , pp. 279fi:;

Vidal-Naquet

[ 1 9 7 7 ] , p p . 9 4 and 1 1 2 ) .

A third group of scholars of the classical school claim that Josephus has indeed abused the Jewish rehgion as a cover-up for his treacherous desertion to the Romans. For instance, as stated by Graetz: Auch die Rehgion missbrauchte er als Deckmantel seiner Schwache, xmd unter dem Schein der FrOmmigkeit zettelte er die schhmmsten Dinge an (III, 2, p. 4 8 2 ) .

Likewise, in this context, the point of view apphes that with his emperor prophecy to Vespasian, Josephus betrayed and misused the Jewish Messianic hope. (Cf above in Chapter 2, section 4, e, and Chapter 4, section 6, b, Michel-Bauemfeind and others). Others concede that Josephus may have worked out a theology in his works, but that this cannot be described as genuinely Jewish, but rather as being of a syncretistic, HeUeiustic character, this being due to his connection with the Romans and his wish to ingratiate himself with his Greek audience (thus, e.g. Stahhn, p. 342; Downing [1980a], pp. 55f; [1982], p. 558; M. Grant, p. 262).

184


However, as we have seen above, in more recent years, a new trend has made itself felt, characterized by a will to understand and acknowledge Josephus' theological intendons as well. Braun and Farmer introduced this innovadon in 1956, and before long they were followed by a group of other scholars, among them first and foremost Michel-Bauemfeind, Lindner and Attridge. Uidike those named above, these scholars take Josephus' rehgious and theological statements seriously. They assume that Josephus remained faithfiil to Judaism; that not only pohticaUy but also from a rehgious and theological point of view, he disagreed with the mihtant supporters of the Revolt against Rome; that also for Josephus, the disaster in the year 70 was a personal tragedy; and that consequently, to a high degree, his writings must be interpreted as an attempt at personal and theological reconcihation with this disaster. From this basic point of view, in the foUowing, we shall have a closer look at some of Josephus' central theological ideas. Literature Reference is made to Feldman ( 1 9 8 4 a ) , pp. 420fF., and Bilde ( 1 9 8 3 a ) , pp. 1 4 7 58.

b. Guilt and fate Josephus' portrayals of the main characters in his works are interwoven in a set. Old Testament and Jewish, pattem of guUt and fate. The righteous are rewarded with good fortune whereas the umighteous—in particular the enemies of the Jewish people—carmot escape their well-deserved punishment. This feature influences the accounts in Bell, and Ant. in many instances. For example, in a positive way, it comes out in the narratives on Ezra (cf. esp. Ant. 11.139), Petronius {Ant. 18.284-288, 305-309) and Agrippa I {Ant. 18.126, 143-309; 19.236-359), whereas in the accounts of Antiochus IV Epiphanes {Ant. 12.3543".), Pilate {Ant. 18.55-64, 85-89) and Gaius Cahgula {Ant. 18.224-19.211), it comes in a negative way. The parallel accounts in Bell, have the same characteristics, although as a mle they are less pronounced. However, that this concerns an overaU pattem is not ordy apparent from the actual narrative rendering. In fact, in several places Josephus transforms this narrative pattem and puts it into a formula of principle. This happens, for example, in Ant. 17.354, where Josephus makes the following comments on this particular pattern in the rendering of the story of Archelaus:


185

I do not consider such stories extraneous to m y history, since they concem

these

royal

persons

and,

in

addidon,

they

provide

instances o f something bearing o n the immortahty o f the soul and o f the way in which G o d ' s providence embraces the afiairs o f m a n ; therefore I have thought it weU to speak o f this (cf. a\so Ant.

17.60;

18.127-129; 19.16).

Thus, this idea seems to be general and most pronounced in Ant. Furthermore, this assumption is confirmed by the fact that not oidy in the places which we have just mentioned, but already in the preface to Ant., it is phrased both in principle and in programme: B u t , speaking generally, the main lesson to be l e a m t from this history by any w h o care to p e m s e it is that m e n w h o conform to the will o f G o d , and do not venture to transgress laws that have been excellently laid down, prosper in all things beyond behef, and for their reward are offered by G o d fehcity; whereas, in proportion as they depart from the strict observance o f these laws, things (else) practicable become impracticable, and whatever imaginary good thing they strive to d o ends in irretrievable disasters {Ant. 1.14; c f 1.15, 2 3 ) .

By declaring this as his programme, Josephus may be said to have placed the teaching of retribution and the idea of God's just providence and guidance as a theological heading over Ant. But, as we have seen before, this also apphes to Bell., Vita and Ap. So, throughout his works, both as far as narratives go and in principle, theologically Josephus expands upon the basic Jewish idea of God's law and God's righteous guidance of the world in accordance with diis law (cf also Michel [1984], p. 970). Literature A closer discussion o f Josephus' view c o n c e m i n g the relationship between guik and fate is foimd in A m a m , pp. 2 1 1 , 2 1 6 ; Attridge ( 1 9 7 6 ) , pp. 41ff'., 6 7 7 0 , 7 6 , 1 0 6 - 1 0 7 , and ( 1 9 8 4 ) , pp. 2 0 3 - 2 0 6 , 2 1 8 - 2 5 ; Feldman ( 1 9 7 0 ) , pp. 1 5 5 , 1 6 9 ; Shutt ( 1 9 8 1 ) , pp. 1 8 0 - 8 1 ; van Unnik ( 1 9 7 3 ) , esp. pp. 3 5 0 - 5 1 ; Zeithn ( 1 9 7 8 ) , p. 4 1 3 ; Bilde ( 1 9 8 3 a ) , pp. 1 4 9 - 5 1 . Trisogho, p p . 9 8 5 - 8 6 , 9 9 9 - 1 0 0 0 , rejects Josephus' view on the relationship between guilt and fate as 'trite morahsm'.

c. The relationship between God and Israel {the covenant) This concept of God's law and justice is universal and not merely specific. As it will appear from the examples quoted, it apphes not

186

Flavius Josephiis, between Jerusalem and Rome

only to the Jewish people, but to all peoples and every single human being. But naturally, Israel is particularly obliged to obey God, inasmuch as the Jewish people, of all peoples, have acquired special knowledge of God's law. In a narradve way, Josephus expands upon this idea in several places in Bell, and Ant., and in Ap. 2.145-219 it is put down systemaucally and in principle in the famous paragraph on the 'Jewish Consutuuon'. Josephus sees this constitution as a parallel to the main points in the Mosaic Law and defines it as the essence of Judaism. Josephus finds the point of departure and the basis of this 'constitution' in the concept of the Divine, (cf Ap. 2.160ff"., 190ff".). And, according to Josephus, the first and most important point in the Jewish concept of the Divine is faith in God's providence and guidance {Ap. 2.160, 165-167, 180-181). As the next point, Josephus cites the idea of God as the lawgiver who through Moses addresses the people of Israel {Ap. 2.169fi".; cf Ant. 2-4). Here again, the idea of God's justice is fiindamental, and in accordance with Ant. 1.14, Josephus emphasizes that by abiding by God's law, the Jewish people wiU hve to see his blessing. When Israel abides by the law of God, it wiU arrive at perfect unity, harmony and peace {Ap. 2.1793".), and— in the fiiture or after death (at this place, the point is not made clear)—'in the revolution of the ages the gift of a better life' {Ap. 2.218). To this extent Josephus can be said to be in agreement with other contemporary Jews. The ideas of God's giudance, God's law, Israel's obedience to the law and God's justice were and remain central uiufying Jewish ideas. But when it comes to interpreting the actual meaning of aU of this, opinions are divided. The mihtant nationahststhe Maccabean rebels, die worshippers of the 'Fourth Philosophy', the Sicarii, the so-caUed Zealots and aU the other adherents of the Revolt against Rome—interpret the ftindamental demands and mearung of the law in their own particular way: the Jewish people must be prepared to take to arms and enter into war for the sake of God's honour and the law (cf Ant. 18.4-5). In opposition to this, and in hne with his moderate partisans, Josephus beheved that anything hke this was out of the question, since it was God himself who had given supremacy to Rome, and since in a war hke this the Jews would be reqiured to transgress the very same law of God which they intended to defend by war. Josephus recommends to his people that instead of attempting to alter God's guidance of the path of history in a mihtant, activistic way, they should wait patiently for God's


187

salvation which wiU come at the appointed dme. The Jews should place their trust in God alone and, if necessary, for the sake of God and the law, the people must be prepared to suffer passively, and if need be to die as martyrs. This percepdon is posidvely expressed in Josephus' rendering of the atutude of the Jewish people during the Gaius Cahgula crisis {Bell. 2.184-203; Ant. 18.261-309) and similar conflicts, hke the one which occurred when Pilate brought Roman standards into Jerusalem {Bell. 2.169-174; Ant. 18.55-59). The same view is presented negatively in Josephus' narrative of the Revolt and the War in 66-70(74). These ideas are formulated more specifically in the great speech which Josephus has Agrippa II make to the inhabitants of Jerusalem in the summer of 66 {Bell. 2.345-401) and in his own speech which he claims to have made to the besieged people in Jerusalem during the summer of 70 {Bell. 5.362-419). Literature Reference is made to what was previously stated in Chapters 2 , secdon 5; 3, section

2,

c-d;

4,

section

6,

d;

and

to

Feldman

(1984a),

pp. 4 8 0 - 8 3 ;

Bilde ( 1 9 8 3 a ) , pp. 1 5 1 - 5 5 . According to A m a r u , pp. 205ff., and Attridge ( 1 9 7 6 ) , pp. 7 9 - 8 3 , Josephus tones d o w n the promises to the Jewish people and brushes off the idea o f the covenant, changing it in the direction o f a universal theology o f retribution; c f also Poznanski, p. 9.

d. Josephus' eschatology Thus, Josephus is convinced that Israel's fate will change in God's own time, if the Jewish people choose the right course, i.e. repent, convert, abide by the law and place their trust in God alone. Therefore, it is not true that the difference between Josephus and the mihtant nationahsts might be that they possess a hope for the fiiture of Israel, whereas Josephus does not. Tlus was beheved previously, but as we have seen, it is incorrect (cf. Chapter 4, section 6, b). The idea that by repentance and conversion Israel can move God to change their fate is expressed by Josephus in Bell. 5.415: Yet a way o f salvation is sdll left y o u , if you will and the Deity is easily reconciled to such as confess and repent ( c f

also

Bell.

5.19).

That Josephus is in fact thinking of the Messiaiuc restoration of Israel, and consequently that the 'better hfe', 'in the revolution of the ages' {Ap. 2.218) may be interpreted collectively and in a Messianic

188


way, seems to appear from/Inf. 10.210 where Josephus comments on Dan. 2.34-35, 44-45 as foUows: A n d Daniel also revealed to the king the meaning o f the stone, but I have not thought it proper to relate this, since I a m expected to write o f what is past and done and not o f what is to be; if, however, there is anyone w h o has so keen a desire for exact informadon that he wiU not stop short o f inquiring more closely but wishes to l e a m about the hidden things that are to c o m e , let h i m take the trouble to read the B o o k o f Daniel, which he wiU find among the sacred writings.

It is qiute clear that here, too, Josephus is redeem when making statements about the ftiture hopes of Israel. Needless to say, his deference to Rome and to his gendle readers compelled Josephus to abstain from speaking freely about the hberadon of the Jewish people, its restoration and its power. On the other hand, it is quite evident that the 'stone' has to do with the ftiture of Israel, and that this wiU be grand in a manner corresponding to the earher empires. But that is not enough. Actually, Josephus imphes that according to Daniel the fourth empire is Rome—and if anyone is in doubt, this is stated directly in Ant. 10.276—and that consequendy at sometime in the fiiture Rome would faU and be replaced by the Messianic empire in Israel (cf. Bruce, p. 160). A similar eschatological view is expressed in Ant. 4.114-117, 125, where Josephus paraphrases Balaam's prophecy in Numbers 23. According to Josephus, here Balaam speaks about Israel's ftiture power and glory, a power and glory which only in part has been fiilfiUed in history, and which therefore stiU remains as a promise for the fiiture of the Jewish people {Ant. 4.125). Moreover, all this corresponds with Bell. 5.367, where it says that 'now' {nun) God has bestowed supremacy on Rome. This sentence can and must be understood to mean that at a fiiture time, supremacy will again be taken from Rome and given to Israel instead (cf Ant. 10.210, 276; see esp. de Jonge, pp. 210-12). So, Josephus actually did have an eschatology and a hope for the future, and it must be noted that we find expression of this in all his great works. It was merely of a difierent nature than that of the mihtant nationahsts. It was rather more similar to what we find in contemporary apocalyptic circles, e.g. the book of Daniel, by the Essenes, John the Baptist, Jesus and Paul.


189

Literature Reference is m a d e to Chapters 3, secdon 2 , c-d; 4 , secdon 6, b ; and to Feldman ( 1 9 8 4 a ) , pp. 4 8 4 - 8 9 ; Bilde ( 1 9 8 3 a ) , pp. 4 6 - 4 7 , 1 5 3 - 5 6 . Accordmg to scholars like A m a r u , pp. 2 2 8 - 2 9 ; Fischer, pp. 1 4 4 - 8 3 ; Hoflftnann, pp. 7 2 , 1 0 0 ; M o n t g o m e r y , p. 3 0 3 , Josephus has n o eschatological hope for the fiiture. Against this are e.g. Blenkinsopp, pp. 2 4 2 - 4 5 ; Dexinger, pp. 2 5 5 - 6 5 ; H . G u t t m a n n , pp. 3 9 - 4 0 ; M i c h e l ( 1 9 8 4 ) , p. 9 6 6 ; M o m i g h a n o ( 1 9 8 2 ) , pp. 3 3 2 3 3 ; Schloesing, pp. 3 0 - 4 4 ; Stemberger, pp. 3 6 - 3 7 .

e. Josephus' view of himself as a Pharisee, priest and prophet Thus, to a high degree, Josephus has a rehgious and theological view of the events which he describes in his works. And in many important aspects, this view is in agreement with the ideas which were characterisuc of the Pharisees. In earher research, Josephus' claim of belonging to the school of the Pharisees {Vita 12) was often refiited. Alternauvely, it was thought that his Pharisaic standpoint was one which he took upon himself after Domidan came to power in 81, for opportunist reasons (cf. e.g. S.J.D. Cohen). However, this classical concepdon is scarecely more tenable than the other classical theses which we have encountered. Josephus' 'Pharisaic' theology runs hke a red thread throughout his works, and therefore in more recent research, criucs have been much more inchned to give serious consideration to Josephus' claim that he was a Pharisee since his youth. In particular, Rajak ([1983], pp. 11-45) has argued strongly in favour of this. However, Josephus' theology should also be placed in connection with the particular rehgious conception he has of his own task and role as an historian. In the section on Vita, in Chapter 3 we acquainted ourselves with one important aspect of this interpretation. Here, it was seen that Josephus places a great deal of importance on his priesdy heritage as a decisive prerequisite for his work as a historian. Indeed, it is owing to his priestly hneage and status that, in Josephus' own view, he is able to understand and thus interpret and 'translate' the holy scriptures of his people. However, Josephus was not merely a priest. According to his own assertion, he also possessed the gift of prophecy. In Bell. 3.340-408, he teUs us that at an earher time in his life—just as his namesake Joseph, and his favourite prophet, Daniel—he had 'nightly dreams' in which God had predicted to him the impending fate of the Jews and that which would befall the 'Roman sovereigns'. Josephus tell us that he remembered these nightly dreams while he was in the cave in

190


Jotapata. And he was able to interpret them correctly because he was skilled in 'divining the meaning' of dreams. Moreover, since as a priest he was acquainted with the sacred books he was, as it says, 'at that hour . . . inspired to read their meaning' {Bell. 3.351-353). With this as a background, after his capture, 'as a messenger... sent on this errand by God' {Bell. 3.400), he was also able to inform Vespasian of his prediction that he was to become Emperor of Rome. FinaUy, at the end of this paragraph, we are told that already before the faU of Jotapata, Josephus had predicted that the city would faU after a siege lasting forty-seven days {Bell. 3.406). Thus, Josephus asserts that he was a Jewish prophet. As such, he tells us that he had predicted both the fate of the Romans and that of the Jews. He foresaw and predicted that the Jewish Revolt would end in defeat and disaster, and not a Jewish Messiah, but the Roman commander, Vespasian would become the 'ruler of the world' who according to the bibhcal 'oracle' would come 'from their country' {Bell. 3.351; 6.312-313). Thus, by means of this gift of prophecy Josephus claims that he was able to see through the course of history and therefore he was also able to write an adequate account of the historical events. We know that Josephus emphasizes that a historian should also ftilfil other requirements, primarily his own experience as an eyewitness of the events. This reqiurement was apparent in GrecoRoman historiography. However, the quahficaions we have mentioned here, a priestly ancestry and prophetic gifts, are uruque and without parallel in the contemporary theory of history. As far as I can see, they are also unique in contemporary Jewish hterature and therefore must be interpreted careftiUy. Undoubtedly, by emphasizing these attributes, Josephus is demanding a unique position, but which position? In my view, we find the key to answering this question in Ap. 1.29-41 and in Bell. 1.18. InAp. 1.29, we read that the Jews 'assigned to their chief priests and prophets' to be custodians of their nation's records. In Ap. 1.3036, the designation 'chief priest' is expanded to include priests in general. In Ap. 1.37, Josephus says that for the Jews, the prophets actuaUy did write the history of the people, since it was only through their inspiration from God that they were able to write a true account of historicaUy remote periods. Furthermore, we read that in the period from Artaxerxes until Josephus' own time, there was no 'exact succession of the prophets', such that the historical writings of this period were not of the same value and 'equal credit' as those of

5. Interpreting Josephtis {Ap. 1.41).

earlier records

191

T h e vahd and audiorized Jewish history

w a s t h u s w r i t t e n b y p r o p h e t s a n d carefliUy p r e s e r v e d ( a n d m t e r p r e t e d ) b y the Jewish priests.

Bell. 1.18,

In point

in

J o s e p h u s states that h e intends to b e g i n

history

'where

the

historians

of

these

Bell,

events

at t h e

and

our

p r o p h e t s c o n c l u d e ' . I f w e c o m p a r e these r e m a r k s with the text

from

Ap.

sees

reviewed

a b o v e , t h e r e is r e a s o n

to assert that Josephus

h i m s e l f as a c o n u n u e r o f t h e p r o p h e u c J e w i s h ' w r i u n g o f h i s t o r y ' , a n d s e e s h i s w r i u n g s as a p a r a l l e l t o a n d c o n t i n u a d o n o f t h e s a c r e d Jewish p.

scriptures, divinely inspired

as t h e y

are ( c f

Blenkinsopp,

241). J o s e p h u s r a n k s h i m s e l f as a p r i e s t l y p r o p h e t i n h n e w i t h E z e k i e l .

H e identifies h i m s e l f m o r e or less clearly w i t h h i m a n d with J o s e p h , E h j a h , J e r e m i a h , D a i u e l a n d e v e n E s t h e r (cf. perceives his o w n

time

Daube

[1976]).

He

as a k i n d o f r e p e t i t i o n o f t h e p e r i o d a r o u n d

t h e time o f t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f t h e first t e m p l e i n 586

BCE. D u r i n g his

o w n t i m e o f c r i s i s , s o d e c i s i v e f o r t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e , J o s e p h u s a c t s as a p r o p h e t i c i n t e r p r e t e r o f t h e s c r i p t u r e s a n d t h e time. T o w a r d s R o m e h e u s e s h i s w o r k s as a n a t t e m p t t o a l l e v i a t e t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f h i s people, whereas

towards

his o w n

countrymen

he

prophesied

an

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e crisis a n d t h u s a w a y o u t o f it.

Literature Reference is m a d e to Chapters 2, 3 and 5. T h a t Josephus

consistendy

adhered to the Pharisaic school, is shown by scholars hke H o f l m a n n , pp. 6ff.; PeUetier ( 1 9 6 2 ) , p. 2 7 1 ; Schlatter ( 1 9 2 3 ) , pp. 3 8 - 4 5 ; Shutt ( 1 9 8 1 ) , p. 1 8 5 ; Weiss, pp. 423ff. L m d n e r ( 1 9 7 2 ) , pp. 5 3 - 5 4 ; M i c h e l - B a u e m f e i n d , I, pp. x v xvi, and III, p. xxvi; M i c h e l m several works, latest ( 1 9 8 4 ) , pp. 9 6 1 , 9 6 5 7 4 , demonstrate the significance o f Josephus' priestly heritage, whereas Attridge

(1976),

p.

16;

Aune,

pp. 4 2 0 - 2 1 ;

Betz

(1960),

pp. 105-108;

Blenkinsopp, esp. pp. 241flF.; D a u b e ( 1 9 8 0 ) , pp. 20ff.; Moehring

(1984),

pp. 9 0 7 - 1 4 , 9 2 6 - 2 7 ; S c h w a r u ( 1 9 8 1 ) , p. 135 n. 2 , emphasize the importance o f Josephus' conception o f himself as a prophet.

3. Josephus' reliability as a historian W e h a v e o b s e r v e d t h a t d u r i n g h i s life J o s e p h u s w a s d e e p l y i n v o l v e d i n t h e h i s t o r y o f h i s n a t i o n i n its m o s t d e c i s i v e p e r i o d . F u r t h e r m o r e , w e h a v e a l s o s e e n t h a t b e c a u s e o f t h i s h e is a h i g h l y

comnutted

a u t h o r . H e p u r s u e s a g r e a t n u m b e r o f i n t e r e s t s o f a p e r s o n a l as w e U as o f a p o U t i c a l

and

theological

nature.

He

has

clearly

defined

192


messages to relay to his various groups of readers, the ruhng class in Rome, his Jewish countrymen and last but not least the GrecoRoman society which takes an interest in Judaism. In addiuon to this are his hterary ambitions which we have discussed in Chapter 4, section 6, a. Josephus endeavours to write beautifiiUy, excitingly and dramatically, and therefore he arranges his material and his method of presentation accordingly. In short, no one can be in doubt that in a great many respects Josephus did not write merely to record history. Nevertheless, at the same time he claims that as a historian he is primarily guided by regard for the historical truth. He maintains that the writer of history must not allow himself to be led by a desire to please and flatter; nor by a wish to excel in rhetorical style. Above ah, the historian should remain impartial and suppress his own personal emotions. He should write soberly and objectively about the events he himself has experienced or which he has found weU documented in historical sources. First and foremost, Josephus displays these principles in his prefaces to Bell. (1.1-16) and Ant. (1.1-4), but also in several other places, such as Bell. 5.20; Ant. 16.183-187; 20.154-156; Vita 336-339, 357-367; Ap. 1.1-56 (cf previous references in Chapter 3, sections 2, c and 4, e). At first glance, these severe historiographical principles do not seem to coincide with Josephus' own practice. This raises the question of Josephus' rehabihty and quahfications as a historian. We shall attempt to elucidate this question in a way corresponding to our treatment of Josephus' pohtical position and theology in the preceding sections. First, the main points of view in research wiU be recapitulated. Then, we will proceed to consider three aspects of the problem: first, Josephus' treatment of his sources; second, the comparison between Josephus and other contemporary sources which overlap with his account; and third, the results of modem Palestinian archaeology. a. Main points of view in the research According to the classical conception, Josephus was just as poor a historian as he was a person and a Jew. This point of view stands out clearly in Otto's comment: es heiUt also mit demselben Mifitrauen, dafi wir d e m M e n s c h e n Josephus gegenOber haben mflssen, auch den Schriftsteller und seine QueUenbenutzungen zu betrachten (col. 13).


193

In a corresponding way, Holscher writes about Bell, in the ardcle in Pauly-Wissowas Encyclopaedia: Die

DarsteUung

unseres

vom

Kaiser

bezahlten

Literaten

ist

danach durchaus TendenzdarsteUung (col. 1 9 4 3 ) .

And concerning Josephus' rendering of the Scriptures in the first part oiAnt., we find: der eide SchriftsteUer hat sich mit fremden F e d e m geschmiickt. D i e Frage mufi also gesteUt werden, o b er bei seiner Arbeit den Bibeltext Uberhaupt aufgeschlagen hat (col. 1 9 5 3 ) .

In Stauffer's ardcle from 1964, we encounter the same ideas: AuffaUende ZOge sind: Sorglose Benutzung der QueUen, daher mancherlei Unklarheiten und Widersprtiche; tendenziese Verarbeitung des Materials (col. 8 9 0 ) .

Von Desunon's view of Josephus as an unoriginal copyist of anonymous works is expressed in the foUowing remark by Bvichler: Les recentes Etudes faites sur les sources de Jos^phe ont a b o u d ^ cette conclusion incontestable que I'historien juif a fait preuve, dans la c o m p o s i d o n de son ouvrage, de bien peu de precision et d'un Esprit cridque superficiel ( [ 1 8 9 6 ] , p. 1 7 9 ) .

This view led to the opinion that the historical value of a paragraph in Josephus' wriungs was actually a question about the historical value of the source or sources he had used. One had very htde confidence in Josephus' own accounts of the events and his rendering of his sources. This interpretation is expressed, for example, by Hengel: Die

Zuverlafiigkeit

des Josephus

als Geschichtsschreiber

darf

nicht zu hoch eingeschatzt werden. Sie ist vor aUem von der Quahtat seiner QueUen abhangig (p. 15).

Furthermore, it was an extremely widespread opinion that Josephus was particularly ururehable when he wrote about himself An example of this is Feldman: M o s t students o f Josephus have noted that he cannot be rehed upon, particularly in matters in which he himself was involved ( [ 1 9 7 5 ] , p. 2 3 2 ; c f [ 1 9 8 4 a ] , p. 8 6 2 ) .

However, against this uncompromisingly negative view opposite interpretations have always been advanced, albeit with varying


194

degrees o f c o n v i c d o n . For e x a m p l e , in a work o n Josephus' treatment o f h i s s o u r c e s i n Ant.,

B l o c h writes that in spite o f his

apologetic

i n t e r e s t it a p p e a r s dafi er willkilrlich

nicht gefklscht,

absichdich

nicht

entstellt,

vorsStzhch nicht geandert hat (p. 6 ) . K o r a c h w r i t e s i n a s i m i l a r m a n n e r i n a w o r k o n J o s e p h u s ' v a l u e as a source o n R o m a n history: Ziehen

wir

nun

ein

Resultat

Ober

die

Glaubwtlrdigkeit

des

Josephus in seiner DarsteUung Uber den 3. Mitridadschen Krieg, so kOnnen wir uns nur gilnsdg iiber ihm aussprechen; deim wir haben seine Angaben fast i m m e r bestatigt gefimden, nur selten begegneten wir

einer

irrtiimhchen

oder

falschen

Aufifassung.

Aber

wir

verdanken ihm auch Angaben tiber den Krieg, die bei den flbrigen SchrifttsteUem gar nicht oder nur sehr kurz berichtet sind (p. 3 3 ; cf. also p. 105). T h a c k e r a y , in his m o n o g r a p h

from

1 9 2 9 , writes o n

Bell,

to the s a m e

effect: B u t , after aU reservadons have been m a d e , the narrative o f the author in its main outlines m u s t be accepted as

trustworthy

(p. 4 9 ) . S h u t t g o e s i n t o fiirther d e t a i l a n d t h e r e f o r e s h a U b e q u o t e d at g r e a t e r length: As

a historian, Josephus

aimed

at a c c u r a c y . . . H e

knew

the

importance o f evidence in support o f a statement as his hst o f decrees s h o w s . . . Josephus is never a mere plagiarist, because, while keeping very closely to his source, he imparts to it something which stamps it with his o w n individuahty, and even tries to correct obvious errors. H e is the main authority for the R o m a n period o f Jewish history u p to A . D . 7 0 , and a very creditable one ( [ 1 9 6 1 ] , p. 1 2 2 ) . . . Josephus is a Jew w h o can 'chaUenge any G r e e k historian' for painstaking care, good faith, interesting and instructive narradve. H e m a y indeed be caUed the Jewish Thucydides ( [ 1 9 6 1 ] , p. 1 2 5 ) . In C h a p t e r 4 , section 5 , w e h a v e afready observed that S c h a h t , w h o otherwise in m a n y respects adheres to the classical c o n c e p t i o n Josephus,

maintains

a positive

evaluation

of Josephus'

rehabihty, in particular

basing his opinion

Qumran.

takes

S.J.D.

Cohen

a position

on

very

the discoveries similar

of

historical to

that

at of


195

Schalit. hi spite of his often negative view ofJosephus, he is far more cautious when it comes to the question of the historical rehabihty of Josephus: W i t h revision o f language some revision o f content is inevitable. Details are added, omitted or changed, not always with reason. Although his fondness for the dramadc, pathedc, erode, and the exaggerated is evident throughout, as a rule Josephus remains fairly close to his original. E v e n when he modifies the source to suit a certain aim he sdll reproduces the essence o f the story. M o s t important, he does not engage in the free invendon o f episodes . . . Regarding the sequence o f his source Josephus is even

more

faidifiil ( [ 1 9 7 9 ] , p. 2 3 3 ) .

NaturaUy, the matter cannot rest on these contradictory statements. Nor is it stiflScient to point out that the tendency in the research has turned away from the classical concepdon towards a more positive evaluation of the question of the historical rehabihty of Josephus. How then can the question be solved? We wiU resort to the three methods mentioned at the beginning of this section. First, we shaU deal with the question which was previously discussed conceming how Josephus treats and uses his sources. Next, we shall present a brief evaluation of the value of Josephus as a historical source as compared with other contemporary sources treating the same events as Josephus. FinaUy, we shaU include modem Palestinian archaeology which, especially since the 1950s, has uncovered a great many of the cities, fortifications and other sites which are mentioned by Josephus. Under this heading we will also be able to draw upon numismatics and epigraphy. Literature N o overaU review o f hterature on this subject is available; however, m u c h can be found in Feldman ( 1 9 8 4 a ) , pp. 1 1 7 - 3 0 , 1 9 2 - 2 0 6 , 2 5 9 - 6 6 , and ( 1 9 8 4 b ) , pp. 788f., 838fr., and Bilde ( 1 9 8 3 a ) , pp. 1 6 6 f f

b. Josephus' treatment of his sources As mentioned, we have treated this matter in previous chapters (in Chapter 4 on the history of research, and Chapter 3, section 3, d in coimection with the review of Ant.). In these chapters, it was demonstrated that in recent years a great many investigations on this particular question have been presented. This apphes to analyses of Josephus' treatment of Genesis, the books of Samuel, Esther, the

196


Aristeas Letter and 1 Maccabees. Furthermore, this appUes to invesUgadons on how in Ant. Josephus has udhzed his own earUer account in Bell. It was also mentioned that in these works it has been demonstrated that in general, as far as the actual contents are concemed, Josephus treats his sources cautiously and meticulously. Moreover, he often supplements and expands his sources with additional material in the form of quotations from and paraphrases of Greco-Roman hterature, official documents, geographical, topographical and offier information such as legends, etc. On ffie offier hand, it has appeared ffiat he works freely—extremely so—wiffi ffie hngustic, styhstic and compositional form of his sources. He readily improves ffie language and style of ffie sources and gives ffiem a 'modem' Hellemstic touch. Likewise, he has a preference towards emphasizing and strengffiemng ffie dramatic, paffietic, erotic and short-story features in ffie sources so as to make ffiem more attractive in ffie eyes of his Greco-Roman readers. To exemphfy ffiis we have mentioned Josephus' renderings of ffie bibhcal stories about Joseph, Samson and Esther. Finally, it has turned out ffiat Josephus' paraphrasing and expansion of ffie sources clearly go hand in hand wiffi his own interests towards making ffiese topical and apologetic. So, ffie picture of how Josephus deals wiffi his sources does appear fairly clear in modem research. Josephus is certainly a creative auffior wiffi artistic ambitions as well as obvious poUtical and ffieological intentions. Yet, ffie raffier surprising conclusion of recent investigations is ffiat, at the same time, he remains loyal towards his sources as far as ffieir substance, main contents and ffieir most essential data are concemed. Literature Apart from the references already mentioned, see Feldman ( 1 9 8 4 a ) , pp. 3 9 2 4 1 9 , esp. 3 9 2 - 9 4 , and—for a more detailed discussion o f the points o f view menuoned

above—Bilde

(1983a),

pp. 5 8 - 6 1 ,

158-76.

These

have

been

confirmed by G a u g e r in his invesugauon o f Josephus' treatment o f Polybius and Hecataeus.

c. Josephus as a historical source In this section, I shall follow my own investigation of ffie crisis in ffie year 40 as dealt wiffi by Josephus and offier sources—ffie year when ffie Emperor Gaius Caligula tried to have a statue of himself erected in ffie Temple of Jemsalem. In ffie first place, ffiis investigation confirmed the results to which I have just referred wiffi regard to ffie


197

analyses of Josephus' treatment of his sources as it appears from recent research. It does in fact appear that it was important for him to inform his readers. He retains the sequence of events, persons and the most essendal data of topography, chronology etc. in his sources. Furthermore, the invesugauon showed that in Ant., Josephus endeavours to correct the mistakes which he might have made in his first account of the sequence of events in Bell. Besides, the comparison between the two versions in Bell, and Ant. showed that in Ant., Josephus has tried to coUect and present new informadon on the matter. The observauons made in earher research with regard to Josephus' tendency to vary his narradve and entertain his readers and his bent towards influencing them and guiding them in the understanding and interpretauon of the events described could also be confirmed. Indeed, the tension which recent research has shown between his tendendous hterary and ideological intendons on the one hand and his historical interest for data and precision on the other, according to my invesdgations stands forth even more clearly. It is quite obvious that Josephus definitely marks his material with his own understanding and interpretauon of the topic in question. But along with this there runs a nearly passionate historical interest. Apart from Josephus, a number of other sources were included in the invesugauon, primarily Philo, but also Tacitus and some rabbinic material. The criucal historical reconstrucuon which on this basis I was able to undertake of the actual sequence of events in Palesune in the year 40 showed that by comparison with the other material, Josephus must be described as a rehable historical source. Tacitus and the rabbituc sources are so brief and schemauc that they carmot seriously come into the picture if a comparison is to be made. But, if a comparison is made between Josephus and Philo, it tums out that in Josephus the material appears to have been edited less heavily than with Philo. There are more variauons and more contrasts. And in spite of the fact that in terms of time, Josephus is farther removed from the historical events, I found that Bell, and Ant. frequendy contain more elements of historical tradition than Philo's treauses Flaccus and Legatio ad Gaium. Literature Reference is made to Bilde ( 1 9 8 3 a ) , esp. pp. 1 6 6 - 7 6 . For newer literature conceming

Josephus

as

compared

with

other

sources

like

the

New


198

Testament, the rabbinic literature, Philo and Tacitus, see Feldman, esp. ( 1 9 8 4 a ) under relevant headings and Chapter 6 below. T h e result reviewed above

is in

agreement

with

several

other

investigations

o f Josephus'

rehabihty as a historical source, not only for the Essenes but also for the Parthians and the history o f R o m e in the M i d d l e East; c f Debevoise, Colpe and Korach. Similar conclusions have been arrived at after comparisons between Josephus

and the N e w

Testament—cf.

esp. Feldman

(1984a),

pp. 6 7 3 - 7 2 5 , and ( 1 9 8 4 b ) , pp. 8 2 1 - 3 8 — a n d comparisons between Josephus and T a c i t u s — c f Feldman ( 1 9 8 4 a ) , pp. 309flF., 392ff., and ( 1 9 8 4 b ) , pp. 816ff:

d. Josephus and modem Palestinian archaeology In earlier research, archaeological results with regard to an evaluation of Josephus' rehabihty as a historian were rarely taken into account. And in the few cases where this did occur, the result was often negative (cf e.g. Birch, p p . 7 8 - 7 9 ; Haefeh [ 1 9 1 3 ] , p. 3 ) . But, as archaeology in Palestine has progressed, that is to say especiaUy after the Second World War, and in particular after the estabhshment of the state of Israel in 1 9 4 8 , the ever mounting stream of excavation reports and other archaeological hterature increased to the extent that this picture changed. The discovery of the Qumran manuscripts had the same effect. At an earher point (in Chapter 4 , section 5 ) , I referred to Schaht's statements about Josephus' historical rehabihty when seen in the hght of this material. Sanders expresses himself along similar hues: But most students o f these sources rightly argue for the general rehabihty o f Josephus even judged by

the canons o f

modem

historiography; for Josephus tried to build u p his credibihty rating by showing more than one side o f issues and people (pp. 1 2 6 - 2 7 ) .

But let us revert to archaeology in a narrower sense. The best known are probably Yadin's reports on Masada i n which the author systematicaUy refers to Josephus and notes the astonishing accordance which exists between his description and the archaeological results. Less known, but just as important, are the recent excavations of Caesarea, Herodion, Jericho, Machaerus and Jerusalem, especiaUy the temple area, Herod's palace and the so-called third waU. I n general terms, these and several other excavations have confirmed Josephus' statements and his information. Numismatic, papyrological and epigraphical investigations have to a high degree pointed in the same direction as the archaeological results. For instance, already at an early time historians arrived at a


199

positive evaluation of the official decrees which Josephus quotes particularly in Ant. Scholars hke Alt, Bickermann and Schaht in a series of articles from 1934 and onwards, prove ffiat by and large ffiese decrees were auffientic because wiffi regard to language, style and contents ffiey were in agreement wiffi offier weU-known documents from ffie Seleucid and Roman periods. AU this considered, it may be stated ffiat ffie results of recent archaeolo^cal activity, as far as Josephus' writings are concemed, have in general coiffirmed his rehabihty as a writer of history. Literature See in general Broshi, exp. pp. 3 7 9 - 8 1 ; Feldman

( 1 9 8 4 a ) , pp.

735-802;

BUde ( 1 9 8 3 a ) , pp. 2 9 6 - 3 0 2 ; and Chapter 4 , section 7, a in the preceding, and Chapter 6, section 3 in ffie foUowing. Schaht's and Sanders' view o f the relationship between Josephus' description o f the Essenes and ffie Q u m r a n Uterature is shared and supported, e.g. by StrugneU, p. 1 0 9 ; Wachter, pp, 1 1 0 - 1 2 . T h e agreement between Josephus' accoimt and ffie excavations on M a s a d a has been shown primarily by Yadin ( 1 9 7 1 ) , pp. 16, 3 2 - 3 4 , 4 2 , 5 9 , 8 7 , 9 5 , 1 4 1 , 1 4 7 , 2 2 0 - 2 1 , 2 4 0 , and Feldman ( 1 9 7 5 ) , pp. 2 3 6 - 3 7 , whereas S.J.D. C o h e n ( 1 9 8 2 ) , esp. pp. 3 9 4 - 9 5 , and Vidal-Naquet ( 1 9 7 8 ) , pp. 3 - 1 3 , are radier more reticent. Likewise, M o e h r i n g ( 1 9 7 5 ) , questions the auffienticity o f the official documents as claimed by A l t , Bickermaim and Schaht. Rajak ( 1 9 8 4 ) , p. 1 0 9 , however, has rejected M o e h r i n g ' s arguments and once again pleaded in favour o f ffieir authenticity; cf. also Sauhnier.

e. Conclusion The surprising result of ffie discussion on ffie question of Josephus' historical rehabihty is ffius as foUows. In general, Josephus' personal involvement—boffi in many of ffie events which he describes and in his interpretation and rendering of ffiem—does not result in a historically distorted picture. His ffieoretical historiographical observations cannot ffierefore be completely rejected as an empty and inane elaboration on his works, a superimposed piece of rhetoric having no inner connection wiffi his own practice as a historian—an opinion which has often been expressed in ffie history of research. There is obviously a connection, and even an astomshingly firm c o i m e c t i o n between ffieory and practice in Josephus' writings. Generally speaking, his understanffing and interpretation of ffie events and ffie material are not allowed to obscure and distort his historical accounts. Therefore, we must come to ffie conclusion ffiat, to a high degree, Josephus' personal engagement and his personal

200


interpretation of the historical material appears to be offset by a passionate historical interest in what actually took place. Literature In general, reference is made to Feldman (1984a), pp. 1 1 7 - 2 0 ; Bilde pp. 1 7 9 - 8 0 .

A s examples,

the following

scholars

refiite

(1983aX

the idea

that

there is a genuine coimection between Josephus' historiographical theories and his practice as a historian: Hoffinann, p p . 6 9 - 7 2 ; W e b e r , p p . 7ff., 5 9 ; CoUomp, pp. 2 8 5 - 8 6 (more cautiously); Hengel, p. 1 5 ; S t e m , pp. 2 3 - 2 5 ; Baer, pp. 1 2 9 , 1 3 6 - 3 8 (unconditionaUy); Vidal-Naquet ( 1 9 7 7 ) , p. 2 3 n. 6 8 ; S.J.D. C o h e n ( 1 9 7 9 ) , pp. 2 8 - 2 9 . In opposition to this are other scholars like B l o c h , pp. 6 - 7 ; Kriiger, p. 7 4 ; Farmer ( 1 9 5 6 ) , p. 2 2 ; Shutt ( 1 9 6 1 ) , p p . 1 2 2 , 1 2 5 ; Rajak ( 1 9 8 3 ) , pp. 79ff., 174ff. M o r e o v e r , Josephus' historical interest must be described as an ' O l d Testament' and Hellenistic feature. It separates h i m from Rabbinic Judaism which was not at aU interested in historiography; c f Schafer's article, esp. p. 1 6 7 .

4. Josephus between Jewish and Greco-Roman historiography Now it is evident that Josephus belongs both in a Jewish and a Greco-Roman tradition. He sees himself as a priestly-prophetic continuer of the traditional Jewish writing of history in the canonical scriptures. Nor is there any doubt that, to a large extent, he maintains a genuine Old Testament and Jewish rehgious understanding and interpretation of the history he renders. But at the same time, it is aU presented in Greek, and Josephus primarily addresses a non-Jewish audience in the Greco-Roman world. Therefore, of necessity, the Jewish tradition, its contents, form and language are subjected to a certain transformation. We recognize this phenomenon from the Septuagint, Philo and the New Testament, all of which testify to how a Jewish tradition which is already HeUenized in varying degrees is radically changed by being translated into the Greek language. On this basis, many discussions have been carried on conceming the extent to which Josephus has been HeUenized (cf Chapters 4, section 7, g and 5, section 2). His philosophical transformations of

the Jewish conception of God to the 'divine' {to theion), 'the daemonic' {to daimon), 'the necessity of destiny' (he haimarmene), 'chance' {he tyche), etc., have been interpreted as evidence pointing in this direction (cf e.g. Stahhn, p. 342; Ed. Stein, pp. 649-50). They are actuaUy reminiscent of the Greco-Roman historians' concepts, not


201

least of Polybius' rationalistic and sceptical references to 'destiny', 'chance' and 'fortune' (cf Polybius, e.g. 1.4, 7, 35, 37, 54, 55, 58, 59, but also Livy 5.1, 33, 36-37; 9.22, etc.). Josephus' rationahzation of the miracles in his rendering of the scriptures points in the same direction, e.g. Ant. 3.25 (Exod. 16.13), where Josephus explains the coming of the quails by saying they were 'wearied by their flight'. Moreover, references have been made to the remark which often accomparues the miracle stories: 'But on these matters let everyone decide according to his fancy' (e.g. Ant. 1.108; 2.348; 3.81, etc.). FinaUy, attention has been given to Josephus' attempts to draw parallels between the rehgious schools in Judaism—the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes—and the famous Greek philosophical schools, e.g. the Pharisees with the Stoics (cf Vita 12). (Thus, e.g. M. Grant, p. 262; Fischer, pp. 147-48; Wachter, pp. 113-14 . However, it now seems possible to sum up the results of this debate by maintairung that the Hellenization which Josephus makes in these areas must be determined as being somewhat superficial and should rather be interpreted as a pedagogical means of enhghtening his Greco-Roman readers who must be presumed to have no knowledge of Jewish affairs. The HeUeiustic designations for God do not represent any major change in the Jewish concept, since as a rule the context indicates that what is said about God in the text corresponds to the traditional Jewish concept (cf. above in Chapter 4, section 7, g, esp. Shutt, [1981]). In the same maimer, it appears that Josephus' so-called rationaUzation of the bibhcal miracles should be interpreted partiy as a concession to Greco-Roman historiography (cf e.g. Betz [1974], p. 27) and partly as an eye-catcher intended to attract the readers' immediate attention (cf e.g. DeUing, p. 301; MacRae, p. 140). Indeed, no doubt can exist that Josephus sees the possibihty of God's miraculous intervention in history. This is evident, first and foremost fi-om the theology of Providence he displays inAnt. (cf 1.14), but also more specificaUy in his rendering of the account in Exodus of the plagues of Egypt, of the dehverances of the people of Israel from this country, and their survival in the desert {Ant. 2.293-3.38). For instance, in Ant. 3.25, which was quoted above, it is stressed that the quails had been sent by God. However, this also appears in many other places, for example, the miraculous rainfall about which Josephus teUs us in his account of the Gaius Cahgula crisis in Palestine {Ant. 18.284-288). A whole string of scholars including MacRae, Delhng, Betz (1974) and

202


Ladouceur ([1983], pp. 28-29), have demonstrated this in detail. FinaUy, it appears that recently there has been a tendency to regard Josephus' HeUeruzing description of the three Jewish rehgious groups as expressing something essential about these groups at the early stage we are deahng with here (cf. Blenkinsopp, pp. 249-50; Rajak [1983], pp. 36-37; M. Smith, pp. 78-80). Therefore, with regard to these three topics, the conclusion would seem to be that Josephus' Helleiuzation of Judaism does not penetrate very far and should rather be interpreted as a dehberate pedagogical strategy aimed at his non-Jewish readers. In contrast to Philo, but also largely to the Septuagint and the New Testament, Josephus' Hellenization is primarily of a formal nature (cf also Chapters 4, section 6, b and 5, section 2). At the same time, he is in full command of this HeUenizing aspect whether it concerns rehgion, pohtics or language and style. From the point of view of language, style and form, Josephus belongs to Greek and HeUeiustic Uterature, and as a writer he belongs to Greco-Roman historiography. As we have just seen (cf. Chapter 5, section 3), he himself attaches great importance to belonging to this type of hterature. At the same time, he wishes to disclaim the 'rhetorical' school of second-hand story tellers and bootUckers (cf Bell. 1.1-16; ^wr. 1.1-4). Instead he claims to belong to the 'impartial' school of contemporary historians who combine personal experience and documentation with strict neutraUty (cf Vita 336-339, 357-367; Ap. 1.47-56; see also Polybius, 1.14-15, 35; 2.56; 3.9; Tacitus, Hist, l.l; Ann. 1.1; Lucian, 7-9, 11-14, 38-41, 51). Likewise, we have observed that Josephus readily quotes other Greco-Roman historians, primarily Polybius and Strabo. It has also been shown that as his great examples Josephus has chosen Thucydides and Polybius (cf. e.g. Driiner, Thackeray, Elchanan Stein, Pelletier [1962], Shutt [1961] and Rajak [1983]). He did in fact resemble them in his own background and in the situation in which he found himself. Like them, Josephus was an aristocrat, a pohtician and general (cf. Lucian, 34 and 37). Like them, he was exiled from his native country and later, in his exile, he described the defeat and demise of his country, partly as a consequence of internal strife and pardy owing to the victory by an overpowering enemy as willed by God (cf Farmer [1956], p. 16; Attridge [1984], p. 195). Formerly, it was a widely accepted assumption that in Ant., Josephus specifically attempted to imitate Dionysius of Hahcamassus who in the year 6 BCE pubhshed his Roman Antiquities, which, exactly hke


203

Ant., comprised twemy books (cf. references in Chapter 3, secdon 3, b, and esp. Shutt [1961], pp. 92-101; Schaht [1967], pp. xx-xxvi; Feldman [1982], esp. pp. 50-52). It has, however, been shown that Shutt's argument is untenable (cf esp. Ladouceur [1983]), for which reason this theory may today be regarded as having been rejected. So, Josephus wishes to resemble Thucydides and Polybius, and may in fact be considered to be dependent on his predecessor Nicolas of Damascus, in his rendering of the history of the Jewish people in the Greco-Roman period (cf Chapter 3, section 3, a). Josephus wishes to appear and to be evaluated as a HeUeiustic historian of the strictest school. But how can we place him more precisely in relationship to this school? We have seen that in theory and in his hterary form, Josephus associates himself closely with this school and generally with GrecoRoman historiography. If we penetrate shghtly more deeply into the subject, it is possible to point out similarities as well as differences. Josephus shares the theories of his feUow historians conceming impartiahty and passion for tmth. Like them, he often criticizes other historians who frequendy violate this ideal. Like Polybius, Josephus introduces his contemporary history {Bell.) in a lengthy preface with a view to presenting what came before the contemporary historical sequence {Bell. 1-2 corresponding to Polybius 1-2). Like Thucydides, Livy and many others, in appropriate passages in his account, Josephus interpolates speeches made by important persons, speeches which serve the purpose of elucidating the particular situation while, at the same time, they inevitably express the point of view held by the author (cf also Lucian, 58). Here, Polybius is far more reticent (cf e.g. 1.45). Like his great examples, when deemed necessary, Josephus adds excursuses on geographical, topographical and other conditions. As mentioned, on the surface, he also maintains a 'rational' and neutral attitude when it is a quesdon of omens, miracles and 'myths'. Throughout, Josephus' writings are characterized by a long series of standing phrases and pattems, the so-caUed topoi, for which it is easy to find paraUels in the works of his predecessors and contemporary historians. For instance, this apphes to the idea that the Jewish-Roman War was the 'greatest' of aU wars fought so far {Bell. 1.1 and 4-5; cf e.g. Polybius 1.63 on the First Punic War, 2.31 and 35 about the War against the Celts). Correspondingly, this apphes to the concept of 'Roman disciphne' and 'barbarian savagery' favoured as a contrast by so many. It apphes to the notion

204

Flavius Josephus, between Jerusalem arid Rome

that the dissension in the Jewish people was a decisive factor in the disEister which followed, an idea which we know from Thucydides (3.81-84), and which also Livy presents from the very beginning of ids work (cf. 1.7; 2.1; 2.21-45, etc.). Furthermore, it apphes to standing expressions hke 'forced by necessity' and 'gainst expectadon', frequendy used by Josephus, Livy and Polybius. It also apphes to the standing phrase 'But on these matters let everyone decide according to his fancy'. This phrase occurs in Ant. (e.g. 1.108; 2.348; 3.81) and in Dionysius of Hahcamassus (e.g. 1.48, 1, 4; 2.40, 3), but also in many other authors hke Herodotus (2.123; 3.123), Thucydides (6.2.1), Livy (4.120), Phny {Historia Naturalis 9, 18) and Lucian (60, cf Ladouceur [1983], pp. 25-29). What separates Josephus from Thucydides and Polybius is probably, in particular, the hterary form. As we have seen (cf. Chapter 4, section 6, a and 5, section 3), Josephus takes great pains to entertain his readers, to write excitingly and to shape his account in a dramatic and also often in a rhetorical form. This happens particularly in the careftiUy worded story-circles and in many of the speeches which have been interpolated, but also whenever there are decisive tunung points in the account such as the siege of Jotapata and the conquest of Jemsalem. In Ant. 14.1-2, Josephus even apphes this 'rheotrical' aim in a sort of programmatic formula, so that we have to conclude that, as opf)osed to his two great models, he belongs to and also wishes to belong to the 'rhetorical' school (cf Ed. Stein, pp. 641ff".). But it must be noted that he wishes to be a 'rhetorician' without rehnquishing his adherence to the strict 'impartial' school (cf. Ant. 14.3 and the texts mentioned above; see also Lucian, 43ff"., 48). As mentioned, in theory, Josephus attaches great importance to personal experience and eye-witness accounts. From his point of view. Bell, is intended to be a work of historiography using precisely these resources, and, in my opinion. Vita serves to testify to Josephus flilfilment of the requirements needed for writing this type of history. However, Ant. cannot be placed in this category, but we have also seen that next to personal experience, Josephus places importance on the 'translation', i.e. the rendering of the sacred Jewish scriptures in a Greek version. In fact, written sources are of great importance to Josephus. Not oidy in Ant. 1-11, but also in the last part of Ant., in Bell. 1-2 and in Ap., he rehes on written sources to a great extent. In theory, this point of view is expressed in Ap. 1.6-46 (cf. Vita 357-367)


205

where Josephus criticizes Greek history writing for lack of consistency, a lack which he traces to the neglect of the Greeks to keep pubhc records {Ap. 1.19-22; cf Momighano [1977], pp. 31-33, which shows that documentauon is far more prevalent in Jewish than in Greek historiographical tradition, and that this feature seems to have been adopted from Persian tradition). Actually, in this way, Josephus acts both as an 'antiquarian' and as a contemporary historian (cf also Feldman [1982], pp. 52 and 96). As an 'antiquarian' he depends on, and uses written sources entirely hke Dionysius and Livy when they were working on the earher history of Rome (cf. also Lucian, 47). As a contemporary historian hke Thucydides and Polybius, he draws primarily on his own experiences and observations. Therefore, also with regard to sources, an important difference exists between Josephus and his models. As far as impartiahty and objectivity go, undeniably Josephus has a hard time (cf. Chapter 5, section 3). In this respect, he cannot hve up to his own ideals and those of his school. In a few places he admits that his emotions carry him away {Bell. 1.9-12; 5.20). We have also observed that Josephus finds it difiicult to be objective when he writes about himself and his Flavian 'patrons', although here he does not fail as much as has often been asserted. It is more important, however, that his works are guided by a number of concepts and interpretations, as we have demonstrated in the previous chapters. The writings of Josephus are, of course, ideological and morahzing, exactly as is the case with the works of Thucydides, Polybius, Livy and Tacitus, although the methods differ. Their aim is not the same as that of Josephus. They write for posterity, in particular for the benefit and enhghtenment of pohticians and statesmen (Polybius 1.1; Lucian 9-10, 39, 42). They wish to teach people to bear the changes of fortune bravely (Polybius 1.1). Josephus, on his side, writes for the benefit of his own time. He is an apologist for his people, an agitator for his rehgion. He is engaged both in a pohtical struggle on behalf of the Jewish people and in a vast cultural confiict between Judaism and the Hellenistic world including parts of Greco-Roman history writing to which, at the same time, he wishes to belong. In the end, Josephus' HeUenization is of a rather formal and superficial nature. Josephus is not a Hellenistic philosopher, but a Jewish priest and prophet. He is to be related closer to Old Testament and Jewish tradition than to Hellenistic Uterature and historiography. He is engaged in a struggle against the latter. Therefore, it is not surprising

206


that he finds it difiicuk to maintain the objecdvity and impartiahty which, at the same time, he has set up as his programme. What is reaUy astoiushing is that, as we have seen, in spite of and along with his burning engagement, Josephus possesses a genuine interest in and a sincere wiU to write impartiaUy and, surprisingly, he often does so in his works. In a unique way, Josephus has managed to combine his highly engaged rehgious Jewish historiographical tradition with the Hellenistic hterary culture and historiography in such a way that decisive elements in both traditions are retained. Literature Reference is made to Chapter 4 , secdons 6, a-b; and Chapter 5, sections 2 - 3 . Part o f the Uterature c o n c e m i n g this subject is referred to b y Feldman ( 1 9 8 4 a ) , pp. 1 1 7 - 2 0 , 8 8 8 - 9 0 , 8 9 2 . In m y opinion, the subject is treated most fliUy by Brtlne, esp. pp. 1 8 - 2 0 , 1 6 1 - 9 4 ; C o U o m p ; Farmer ( 1 9 5 6 ) , pp. 3 - 5 , 2 2 2 4 ; Shutt ( 1 9 6 1 ) , throughout, but esp. pp. 1 2 2 - 2 7 ; S t e m ; M . G r a n t , pp. 2 4 3 6 8 , esp. pp. 2 5 8 - 6 0 , 2 6 4 ; C h e s n u t , pp. 6 3 - 9 2 (esp. c o n c e m i n g Josephus' relationship to Israehte-Jewish historiography); S.J.D. C o h e n ( 1 9 7 9 ) , pp. 2 4 4 1 ; Feldman ( 1 9 8 2 ) , p p . 4 6 - 5 2 ; M o m i g h a n o ( 1 9 8 2 ) , pp. 3 2 2 - 5 5 ; Rajak ( 1 9 8 3 ) , pp. 1 8 5 - 2 2 2 ; M i c h e l ( 1 9 8 4 ) . A m o n g these, C o U o m p and S t e m are to be reconmiended. But it must be emphasized that a satisfactory investigation with regard to h o w Josephus should be placed between Jewish and G r e c o R o m a n writing o f history remains to be written; c f p. 8 8 9 .

Feldman

(1984a),

Chapter 6 THE USE OF JOSEPHUS 1. The proper use of Josephus I shall now attempt to present a review of the actual, as well as the possible, uses of Josephus, primarily in work on the history and archaeology of ancient Judaism and the birth of Chrisdanity, but also in research on the history of andquity in general. Before then, however, we shall take a critical glance at how Josephus has been used and abused in a number of widely different ways. As menuoned in Chapter 1, Josephus' person and his wriungs have always been of intense interest to the Jewish and Chrisdan world. For Jews and Christians, Josephus has never been merely a fortuitous or insignificant author in the ancient world. He has always been 'the traitor' or the 'trustworthy witness', but above all, the most important source of informadon for Jewish and Christian apologists and polemicists. Therefore, considerable interest has always been focused on questions conceming his writings, his rehabihty, his affihation with Judaism and Christiaruty, and also his person. This interest has played a sigiuficant role in the use of Josephus' works. The classical Jewish conception of Josephus with its contempt for the 'traitor' and the 'apostate' has influenced the attitude not ordy towards the detested person, but also to his writings. Throughout these works, those who adopt this attitude detect self-righteousness, ahbis, flattery, distortions and deceit. In so doing, the road to a rewarding use ofJosephus' vast material has been effectively blocked. Hatred and condemnation are not tme guides to knowledge. However, the traditional Christian view of Josephus is not much better. Pleased by his 'testimonies' concerning the main figures of Christianity, and the amount of information about Palestine at the time of Christ, and fiUed with understanding for this cryptoChristian Nicodemus-type and his severe criticism of his Jewish feUow countrymen, over the centuries. Christian interpreters have

208


been inclined to accept everything written by Josephus in bonam partem; for he is and supposedly must be honest and trustworthy. Naturally, this lack of a criucal approach to Josephus is just as uru-ewarding as the preceding atutude. We find a third ideological use of Josephus in modem Zionism. On the one hand, this modem version of the mihtant, nauonahsdc Judaism maintains the classical conception ofJosephus. On the other hand, it cannot rehnquish using all the informadon contained in Josephus conceming the existence and history of the Jewish people in Palestine. In oflScial Israeh pubhcadons, such as school books and travel guides, we find an uncriucal acceptance, for example, of Josephus' rhetorical rendering of the defence of Jotapata, Gamala, Jemsalem and Masada made by the rebels, combined with an awkward and narrow-minded mihtant condemnadon of the treacherous author of the very same texts. However, a comprehensive analysis of this subject is still lacking (cf. Feldman [1984a], p. 896). The criucal use of Josephus was inidated in the last century parallel with the development of the classical concepdon of him. With authors hke Graetz, Schurer and Niese, this reaches a chmax in a combinadon of insight into the history of the period and a criucal, intimate knowledge of Josephus, the hke of which has never been achieved since then. Here, the classical concepdon of Josephus is foUowed by a sober criucal use of the enormous material in his works. Naturally, as shown in Chapter 4, sections 4-6, objections can be raised against these authors' conceptions of Josephus, and the use of his writings could be improved as a result of a more adequate overaU conception. Nevertheless, the way in which these scholars use Josephus is much to be preferred to the methods used by the majority of modem archaeologists and historians. Here, as a mle, the scholar neglects to take aU of the problems in the writings into consideration, and simply avails himself fi-eely of them without the shghtest regard to the style, context and aim of the author. In particular, many modern archaeologists are guilty of using Josephus as a treasury which anyone can draw upon as he or she pleases. But there are also scholars engaged with ancient Judaism and the teachings of the New Testament who—if they find it worthwhile at aU to include contemporary history and Josephus—are frequendy guilty of this kind of uncritical eclecticism. The proper use ofJosephus is that which, hke the works of Graetz,

6. The Use of Josephus

209

Schtirer and Niese, is based on a cridcal atutude to the texts in quesdon. A fine modem example of this is Noack's book, Jesus Ananiass0n og Jesus fra Nazaret (Jesus, son of Anaruah and Jesus of Nazareth). Other examples are the monographs by Farmer, Hengel and Rhoads conceming the Jewish rebels in the years 66-70 (74). Thus, a certain famiharity with the wriungs ofJosephus and modem Josephus research is an indispensable prereqiusite for being able to use Josephus properly and rewardingly. Among other objecuves, the present book should be regarded as a contribuuon to an increased recognition of these factors and as an aid to the reader who wishes to acquire knowledge of this kind. On this basis, an attempt to draw a picture of the use of Josephus wiU be made in the following. In this cormection, it is natural that we should describe previous uses of Josephus. But here and there we shall also point out sigiuficant areas in which work with Josephus can continue in future research. The arrangement is determined by the topic. We shaU begin with the enormous field of Judaica, and continue on to Palestinian archaeology, the birth of Christianity and Greco-Roman history. Finally, this chapter, and thus the book, wiU be concluded by a discussion of using Josephus himself, his works as well as his person, as an exponent and a source of Judaism in antiquity. Literature Reference is made to die Uterature Usted for Chapter 1, secdon 3 and to Feldman ( 1 9 8 4 a ) , pp. 839ff., where literature is given to show Josephus' influence in the Jewish and Chrisdan world throughout history. Furthermore, I refer to M o e h r i n g ( 1 9 7 5 ) , pp. 1 2 4 - 2 7 , w h o debates the uncritical, apologetic use o f Josephus; c f also M o e h r i n g ( 1 9 8 4 ) , pp. 8 6 5 , 8 6 8 , 9 1 7 - 2 5 .

2. Judaica From one point of view, it is not sound to separate Palestinian archaeology from Judaica as a whole, nor to discuss this topic in a chapter by itself Nor is it possible to make a separation of this kind completely consistently. Nevertheless, in spite of these objections, I have made this distinction. First, we shall deal with Judaica in general and historicaUy and then, in a separate section, present the use of Josephus and his significance in Palestinian archaeology. This is done purely for pedagogical reasons and for the sake of clarity. Naturally, Josephus is an inexhaustible source for our knowledge

210


of Judaism and the history of the Jewish people in the Greco-Roman period. Aheady in Chapter 1, we emphasized Josephus' importance as a historical source of this period, and there we pointed to some obvious examples to show what we owe to Josephus in our knowledge of this period. More specifically, we are deahng with the period fi-om c. 170 BCE tiU about 100 CE, the decisive period when the Jewish people were confi-onted first with the Greek Seleucids and then with the Romans; when the apocalyptic and apocryphal Jewish hterature flourished; when the Qumran community and the Essenes broke away as an independent group, were active and then disappeared, fi-om the scene of history; when the Pharisaic school was founded and consohdated; when Judaism turned to the outside world and for a while carried on missionary work as hardly ever before or since; when Philo hved in Alexandria and there used and developed the allegorical method in interpreting the scriptures; when the Jewish Canon was dehneated and laid down; when a new eschatological understanding and interpretation of the Old Testament scriptures, particularly the books of the prophets, gained ground and make them appear more topical, as seen in Qumran hterature, apocalyptic hterature and the New Testament; when the anticipation that the time for the fiilfilment of the prophetic promises had arrived, was intensified and reached an otherwise unknown strength; when the new Tourth philosophy' was formulated by Judas the Gahlean and was later transformed into pohtical practice by groups hke the Sicarii and the 'Zealots'; when prophets and Messianic pretenders abounded; when John the Baptist and Jesus made their appearance, hved and proclaimed their message, and their disciples graduaUy separated themselves from the other Jewish groups; when the conflict with Rome reached a chmax and great numbers of Jewish people, in the behef that the Messiaiuc salvation was near, hurled themselves into the insane revolt against the Roman rule of the world as it was at the time; when Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed, and when Judaism was then transformed and restored anew by Yohanan ben Zakkai and his circle in Jamnia. This period is of supreme importance for Judaism and at the same time for the history of Christian European civihzation, and here Josephus is our main source. While it is true that we have numerous other sources— the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal hterature, the works of Philo, the New Testament, Mishnah and the archaeological, epigraphic and numismatic evidence, to mention the most important—the great


211

framework and die historical connection must be found in Josephus. It is on his writings that we must rely when it comes to the reconstruction of the fimdamental topography, chronology and pohtical-administrative history to which all this material belongs and refers. In other sources from this period, in stray and incidental sequence one can read about provinces, landscapes, ethruc groups, cities, towns and other locahties in Palestine. Here we encounter Decapohs and there Tiberias, here Caesarea Maritima and there Bethsaida Juhas, here Mount Tabor and there the Mount of Ohves. But by its nature this hterature can only supply a few isolated placenames and topographical information. In Josephus, however, we can find if not the complete picture, then the most essential fragments thereof In Bell. 3.35-58, Josephus describes the individual provinces of Palestine and reviews Gahlee, Peraea, Samaria, Judaea and King Agrippa II's realm in Gualanitis, Batanaea and Trachonitis. In this section, there is a systematic description of the relative location of these provinces, their boundaries, natural resources and population. In other references, Josephus writes about the remaining Jewish and non-Jewish regions in Palestine: Decapohs {Bell. 3.446; Vita 341-343,410; cf Bell. 1.155156; Ant. 14.75-76), Idumaea {Bell. 1.63, 263, 266-267, etc.), the Hellenistic cities on the western coast {Ant. 14.75-76, etc.) and the Nabataean region {Bell. 1.178; Ant. 1.221; 12.335; 13.10-11, etc.). Thus, for an overaU picture of the historical geography of Palestine during the period, we must refer to Josephus. A quite similar case apphes to the individual provinces and regions. We need only think of Gahlee which plays such a significant role in the Gospels. In these, beautiful pictures are drawn of a few landscapes in this province, especiaUy of the region surrounding the Lake of Gennesaret. However, these are only a few scenes and isolated pictures. The province as a whole is not described in the New Testament. To find this, we must again refer to Josephus, partly to the above-mentioned description in Bell. 3, and partly to Vita which contains the account of Josephus' own period as a general in Gahlee in the year 66-67. Furthermore, the same apphes to cities, towns and smaller locations. In the other sources, we hear about this or that place, for instance Capernaum, Emmaus or the Kedron Ravine, but without Josephus we would often be unable to identify or locate placenames hke this. In their historical-geographical works, scholars hke G.A.

212


Smith, Abel, Avi-Yonah (3rd edn, 1966) and Kopp have done this work for us and by doing so have shown how much material of this nature is available in Josephus' wriungs. This is due to the fact that Josephus actuaUy considers himself to be, and in his work strives towards being, a historian in the GrecoRoman professional sense. It belongs to the historian's task to present geographical, topographical and ethnological informadon (cf esp. Polybius, 3.57-59). And just hke Polybius, Livy and others, Josephus presents informadon of this nature in quantity, usuaUy by way of brief excursuses. The same apphes to chronology (cf. Polybius, 1.6 and esp. 2.37; 3.1, 32; 5.30-33). As a historian of die Polybius school, Josephus hnks the events in Palestine and the Jewish Diaspora together with the rest of contemporary history. The history of the Hasmonaeans is seen in its relation to that of the Seleucids and the Ptolemies. The period of Herod and the procurators is connected primarily to that of Rome. Thereby we are enabled to reconstruct a relative as well as an absolute chronology, and Josephus gives us the chronological framework within which Jewish history of that time unfolds. Naturally, at this point we shaU not lose ourselves in the irmumerable details of the important pohtical-administrative history. We merely wish to point out that pohtical characters such as Quiriruus, Herod the Great, Herod Antipas, Pilate, Felix and Festus who, in the New Testament, get lost in mists of legend, in Josephus manifest themselves tangibly and in real historical contexts. The same apphes to the even vaguer references to contemporary historical persons in the pseudepigrapha, the Qumran hterature and Rabbinic hterature. For instance, aU attempts at identifying the 'Kittim', the 'evil priest', the 'lying priest' and the 'teacher of justice' found in the Qumran hterature must take their point of departure in Josephus' account of contemporary history. Moreover, the same apphes to aU attempts to date and place the Qumran community in contemporary Jewish history. The entire foundation for the reconstruction of Palestiiuan mihtary and pohtical history in the Greco-Roman period must therefore be taken firom Josephus. The same is true of the economic and social history of the time, where the current works by Jeremias, Buehler, Kreissig, Appelbaum and Kippenberg draw their most important material on the social history of this period from Josephus' wriungs. However, the combination of social and ideological history


213

is probably the field to which Josephus can make his greatest contribuuon. His works teem with socio-ideological groupings: Hasmonaean and anu-Hasmonaean; Herodian and anu-Herodian; pro- and anu-Roman; leading aristocrauc classes and impoverished common people; the priesthood and movements such as the Essenes who break away firom the Temple; eschatological and apocalyptic circles who anticipate the conung of the Messianic time or the kingdom of God forthwith, and then again others who are convinced that the time for this has not yet come. In Josephus' writings, particularly regarding the first century CE, we have a ghmpse of the economically and sociaUy extremely complex Jewish society in Palestine, a society which pohticaUy, rehgiously and ideologicaUy was disuiuted to an extent which has scarcely been seen at any other time in the history of the Jewish people. Josephus also helps us to understand that this entire cleavage in the Jewish people has its decisive point of reference in Rome. Most of the disagreements, controversies and fights are originaUy due to the attitude towards the Seleucids and the Hellenisuc civiUzation, but in the period we are deaUng with here, in the end, they concern the presence of Rome and its influence in Palestine and the relationship of the Jews to Roman power. The conflict between Jerusalem and Rome culminates in the great Revolt in 66-70 (74), and later there are also violent outbursts. However, before the Revolt, this conflict is evident fi-om the numerous clashes about which Josephus writes, just as it is the driving force in the many various militant. Messianic and prophetic movements. Josephus' account of this entire sequence has given rise to innumerable monographs and articles. One may mention the great works of Farmer (1956), Hengel, Kreissig and Rhoads, as weU as the immense number of minor works which foUowed in their wake. Nevertheless, it is obvious that research on the complex controversy between Jerusalem and Rome is inchned to concentrate its interest on certain defirute problems. Some scholars, hke Loftus and Freyne, are especiaUy interested in the role which Gahlee and the Gahleans play in the conflict. Others, hke Black, Farmer (1957-1958) and Keimard, are especiaUy interested in Judas the Gahlean and the possibihty of his dynasty. Then again, there are others hke Brunt, Goodman, Horsley and Kreissig who are primarily concemed with the economic and social background and aspects of the conflict. In particular. Hill and Horsley (1979a and 1981) have analysed the role

214


of the 'bandits' and the significance of the popular Messiaiuc movements. An enormous number of works have been devoted to the definition of the various groups of rebels: the Sicarii, the Idumaeans, the 'Zealots', the Gahleans, Simon bar Giora's group, etc. Some of these scholars, like Michel (1967-1968) and U. Rappaport, have centered their works on a single character such as Simon bar Giora and John of Gischala. These and many other aspects of the Revolt have been studied very intensely during the past 10-20 years. But a common interest of all of these numerous studies is and must remain the work on Josephus. Most of the material must be found in his works, and it is only through a meuculous investigadon of his wriungs that progress can be made in the understanding of this vast field, such as it can be observed in the works of scholars hke Farmer, Hengel, Rhoads and Rajak. Thus, Momighano ([1982], pp. 3275".) is not correct in asserting that Josephus has nothing to tell us about the Jewish apocalyptic ideas and their significance in the Jewish Revolt in 66-70 (74). However, it is not only for the profane history of this period— topography, chronology, mihtary and pohtical-administrative history and the Revolt against Rome—for which Josephus is the indispensable source, but also for the history of thought and rehgion, although it is impossible to separate these two concepts completely. A hmited but important field is the Temple in Jerusalem, its buildings, worship services, priesthood, economy and whatever else belongs to this topic. The pattem here is by now well known. We can glean some material fi-om the New Testament, Mishnah and other sources, and during the past fifteen years systematic excavations around the Temple Mount in Jerusalem have revealed a vast amount of new data. However, we must stiU rely on Josephus for a coherent description of the history of the Second Temple; the role of the high priest; the opposition of the Oniads to the 'Seleucid' high priest and their exile in Egypt where they estabhsh a competitive temple in Leontopohs; the Hasmonaean high priesthood; Herod's reconstraction of the Temple; the festivals and the pilgrimages; the various groups of priests and Levites; the worship services and, not least, the temple buildings {Bell. 5.184-277; Ant. 3.102-187; 8.63-98; 15.380-425) and of the aUegorical meaning which at least some circles seem to have attributed to its ornamentation (cf Ant. 3.179-187). The significance of the Temple as an economic and social institution is also documented first and foremost by Josephus as shown, for example.


215

by Jeremias' investigalions. Furthermore, in Josephus' writings we can make a study of the tremendous importance which, at the dme of the Seleucids and the Romans, the Temple played as a central insutution attested by the numerous conflicts which took place around that very Temple during these periods (cf. Bilde [1984]). As menuoned, it is also Josephus who has coined the word and the notion of theocracy in Ap. 2 where he accounts for the 'Jewish consutuuon' as it was created around the Temple, guided by the priesthood. For the first ume in history, in Ap. 1 we also hear about the Jewish canon in twenty-two books. Here we find a clear disuncdon between canonical and non-canonical scripture, and at this place Josephus also formulates the famous hierarchical trichotomy between the law, the prophets and the scriptures. Not long after, the rabbis in Jamnia codify a Jewish canon of nearly the same kind as the one menuoned above. We are accustomed to having halakhah and haggadah designate something which belongs to later Rabbinic hterature, althou^ we also find examples in pseudepigraphic scriptures such as the book of Jubilees and in the New Testament. However, on reading the first part oiAnt., we are soon aware of the fact that in his 'iransladon' of the Pentateuch, in a Rabbinic way, Josephus interpolates and supplements explanatory material both of a legal, halakhic kind, and of a narradve legendary, haggadic, nature. In their works, S. Rappaport, Schaht (1967), Sobel, Goldenberg (1976-1977), Franxman and RuimaUs have demonstrated this in detail and by doing so have substantiated the claim that Josephus, the Pharisee, in his hterary method also represents and constitutes an important prehminary stage to the later Rabbinic hterature (cf also Feldman [1968a], p. 336). In Josephus, we also find a great source of material about the Jews in the Diaspora, primarily concerrung the conditions in Alexandria where the largest colony of Jews outside of Palestine hved, but also concerning the Jews in Antioch in Syria, Damascus, Caesarea Maritima and many other places. Here, we are told about the constant confhcts between the Jews and their non-Jewish fellow countrymen, and about the pohtical and legal aspects of these controversies. In Chapter 2, section 3, for instance, we have discussed the serious strife in Caesarea which, according to Josephus, was an important factor contributing to the outbreak of the Jewish

216


Revolt in 66. It is from Josephus (and Philo) that scholars have taken their arguments to support the current hypothesis that the Jews in the Greco-Roman ciues graduaUy became an independent society, a 'pohteuma'. A 'poUteuma' was a group of citizens which hved within the hmits of the same city as an autonomous community along with the citizens in the Greco-Roman society ('pohs'), and were allowed to govern themselves according to their own Jewish laws while being under direct Roman jurisdiction (cf H.I. BeU, Tcherikover, Kasher and Sauhiuer). In Bell., Ap. and particular in Ant. (esp. Ant. 14; 16), Josephus presents a long series of—not always clear—official documents which, among other things, are intended to prove ffie rights and privileges of ffie Jews in ffiese cities and in ffie Diaspora in general. By and large, in ffie research of today it is generally held ffiat ffiese documents are historical and render ffie pohtical and legal reahty which prevailed for ffie Jews in ffie Diaspora in Roman times, at least until ffie Revolt in 66-70 (74) (cf Rajak [1984], and Sauhner, but also Moehring [1975], who is opposed to this view). Josephus also contributes valuable testimony concermng ffie hterary feud which apparently took place between ffie Jews and ffieir Greco-Roman enemies. Reference is made especially to Ap. where, as mentioned, Josephus cites long sections of works which by now are often completely lost, for example, works by Hecataeus, Berosus, Maneffio and Apion, where upon he fervently tries to reffite the accusauons and degraffing assertions made against ffie Jews. Also ffiese documents are today widely recogmzed as being genuine (cf Gauger) and ffierefore, in ffiemselves, ffiey must be regarded as being interesting and valuable. However, it is not least ffie impression of ffie Jewish cultural confrontation in itself ('Kulturkampf') which Josephus provides for us which is important for the understanffing of ffie situation of ffie Jews, especiaUy ffie Jews in ffie Diaspora in ffie Greco-Roman world. Wiffi ffiis, we have far from exhausted ffie review of how Josephus is used and can be used in the investigation of Judaica in ffie GrecoRoman period. He provides material, and among this first and foremost his own person and writings, to illustrate ffie Hellemzation of Judaism during this period. He contributes material which enhghtens us on the fervent Jewish mission which occurred during ffiese centuries. He tells us about ffie conversion to Judaism of ffie royal family in Adiabene (cf Neusner) and about ffie Jewish temple in Leontopohs in Egypt (cf. Hayward). He tells us about ffie Jews in


217

the Parthian Empire (cf. N.G. Cohen [1975-1976]). He is an important source for Jewish prophecy in the Greco-Roman period (cf Aune and Michel [1954]). Finally, all of Josephus' wriungs—but above all BeH.—can be seen as a contribudon to the Jewish theological discussion on how one should understand and interpret the destrucdon ofJerusalem and the Temple (cf Chapter 3, secdon 2, c and d). One could menuon other examples, but this is not necessary since the main purpose here is to convey an impression of what can be found in Josephus for the advancement of the study of Judaism and the history of the Jewish people during this period. Thus, in Josephus, we find an inexhaustible fund of informadon on all aspects of the history and rehgion of the Jews during the important GrecoRoman period, although the main emphasis in the writings rests upon the history's mihtary, pohtical and administradve aspects. In my view, the most important aspect one can leam about Judaism at this stage is that, as seen in Josephus, it was in confhct and therefore profoundly divided. The central factor is the controversy with the Greco-Roman civihzation and the non-Jewish outside world, a controversy which resulted in decisive after-effects for the rehgious expression of the Jews at that ume. The confhcts with the Seleucids, the Romans and the genule neighbours in Palesune as well as in the Diaspora, according to Josephus, are the most important historical driving forces in Greco-Roman umes. And in Josephus, we can observe partly how this confhct instigates a long series of ideological and rehgious phenomena and movements, and also leads the way towards profound rehgious reforms after the fall of the Temple in the year 70. This is the background against which we must understand specific rehgious phenomena of the time hke the apocalyptic movement, the allegorical and eschatological interpretation of the Bible as weU as the corresponding mihtant or quietistic eschatological Messianism or miUeniuahsm—phenomena aU of which at a later time, through the mediation of the Christian church, have had such a great effect on history, at first in Europe and later throughout the world. Literature T h e great works which review Judaism in the G r e c o - R o m a n period, first and foremost Schurer and Vermes & Millar, but also Jeremias, Schlatter ( 1 9 3 2 ) , Z e i d i n ( 1 9 6 8 - 1 9 7 8 ) , Safirai-Stem

(JPFC),

and SmaUwood ( 1 9 7 6 ) , testify to

Josephus' importance as a source for aU aspects o f the history o f Judaism in

218 this

Flavius Josephus, between Jerusalem and Rome period.

Special

hterature

on

specific

topics

will

be

fotmd

most

conveniendy imder relevant headings in Feldman ( 1 9 8 4 a ) .

3. Palestinian archaeology Palesdnian archaeology is interpreted and defined here in its widest possible sense. It comprises epigraphy and numismadcs and overlaps with Palesdnian geography, topography and history. Therefore, it finds itself in constant cooperation with these related disciphnes, and here it is possible to draw upon Josephus' wriungs in general, as demonstrated in the previous secdon. In particular, archaeology is inseparable from topography, since the first phase of archaeological interpretation always consists of identifying and locahzing the monument in question. On reading the hterature concenung the archaeology of tliis period of Palestine, one is also astonished at the regular frequency with which reference to Josephus occurs. Whether it concerns the grandiose Masada or a humble bibhcal town hke Capernaum, it is of primary importance to identify the place with certainty, and in this regard Josephus is indispensable. In addition to these and other examples already given, we can mention Beth Shearim, the magnificent, well-preserved necropohs of the late Roman period, which hes in the southern region of the Plain of Jezreel. Mazar in his comprehensive report on the excavations made here in the 1930s ([1973], pp. 1, 8), begins by identifying the place, primarily on the basis of Josephus. Jerusalem poses an exceptional problem, specificaUy Second Temple Jerusalem, or to be even more precise, the 'Herodian' Jerusalem, which with its numerous visible and hidden ruins from that period so strongly influences Palestiiuan archaeology. Here, archaeology, topography and history merge into a unified task, the description of Jerusalem during the 100 years between Herod the Great's conquest of the city in 37 BCE and its destruction in 70 CE. The solution to this problem actuaUy Ues in the rewarding interaction between the study of Josephus' descriptions, topographic field research and the archaeological discoveries and reports. The location of Jerusalem on two hUls separated by the Valley of Tyropoeon; its three walls to the north; its gates; its various quarters in the 'upper' and the 'lower' city; its markets and suburban towns; the enormous temple construction in itself and in its relation to the fortresses of Antonia and Acra/Baris, to the VaUey of Tyropoeon, to


219

the 'upper' city and to the Hill of Ophlas; the palace of Herod the Great with its three colossal towers, named after Mariamme, Phasael and Hippicus; the Pool of Siloam; the aqueducts and gateways—for all of this we have to gain our information fi-om Josephus, archaeology and topography in combinadon. It is, however, important to note that the terminology and the concepts are, in fact, derived from Josephus, and that the overall historical context cannot be found in sources other than those committed to wriung by our Jewish historian. As for the topography and for the closer interpretation of the archaeology of the city in this period, Josephus is simply the indispensable hterary source (cf. Mazar [1978], pp. 23132). The same apphes to the other Hasmonaean-Herodian places: Alexandreion, Antipatris, Caesarea Maritima, Phasaehs, Hebron, Herodion, Hyrcania, Jericho, Machaerus, Masada, Samaria and Tiberias. So far, the sites which have been investigated most closely are Herodion (Corbo [1962-1963], and Netzer [1981]), Jericho (Netzer [1977]), Machaerus (Su-obel and Corbo [1978] and [1981]), Masada (Yadin) and Samaria (Kenyon, et al.). Here, the same picture manifests itself. Archaeologists have in general confirmed Josephus' descriptions and have been able to find a considerable amount of assistance in them to identify, locahze and interpret the places in question and the discoveries made. However, final reports on the excavations in Machaerus, Masada and Jericho are not yet available. Alexandreion, Antipatris, Phasaehs, Hyrcania and Tiberias have either not been investigated and reported upon at all, or these places have been investigated, excavated and reported on very inadequately. Nor has Caesarea Maritima been excavated systematicaUy (cf. Levine). Nevertheless, the few investigations made, most recendy underwater investigations of the harbour of Herod the Great (cf. Hohlfelder, et al.), fit weU into results from Jerusalem, Herodion, Jericho, Machaerus and Samaria. At the end of the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s, Gamala, the 'Masada of the North', was excavated as the so far last of the important sites from that period. Naturally, a conclusive pubUcation on this work is not yet available, but lengthy prehminary reports (e.g. in BAR 5 [1979], pp. 12-19) show the same tendency as found in the other examples. It has been possible to confirm essential information in Josephus' account and, at the same time, Josephus is the indispensable source for understanding and interpreting the discoveries made.

220


Another good example of the rewarding cooperauon between archaeology, topography and the study of Josephus' wriungs is the story of the Tobiads. Josephus is the ordy hterary source which presents a coherent account of this HeUenized wealthy Jewish famUy which came from East Jordan (Peraea, cf. Ant. 12.160-236). Lapp's invesugauon of Araq el Emir, east of the River Jordan, according to all appearances, revealed that the East Jordan fortress compound of the family which Josephus mentions in Ant. 12.230-233 was found here. Thereafter, Lapp (1963a) and Mazar (1957) could write a longer and far more down-to-earth Tobiad story than was possible before. In Chapter 4, secdon 5 and Chapter 5, section 3, d, we have already discussed the relaUonship between Josephus' description of the Essenes and the archaeological discoveries of the Qumran hterature and the main centre of the community found near the Dead Sea. The quotations from Schaht and Sanders are general, but they are supported by leading authorities like Dupont-Sommer (pp. 66-67) and de Vaux (pp.129, 131). Here as weU, the main impression is an astonishing agreement between Josephus' accounts and the archaeological results. A fiirther example is the Nabataeans whose fascinating ruins one can admire and enjoy first of all in Petra, east of the Araba depression. Thanks to information from Phny and Josephus about the Nabataeans, it is unnecessary to fabricate fantastic theories about Petra's beautifiil ruins, but instead it is possible to place them and the coins and inscriptions handed down from the period of the Nabatean kings in the context of the HeUenized Arabian people who, according to these authors, were an important neighbour to Palestine in the Herodian period. An area of special interest concerns the official documents already mentioned which Josephus cites in particular in Ant. 14 and 16. In ffie past century and the beginmng of ffie present century, ffiese documents were often described as Josephus' own or some adopted forgeries (cf. Willrich). However, ffie comprehensive work on these documents in ffie 20ffi century, primarily by Alt, Bickermann and Schaht, indicates ffiat ffiese are genmne historical letters, decrees and documents which are invaluable for historical research (cf also Sauhner and Rajak [1984]). Josephus collected this material because he could use it apologeticaUy. However, it is my conviction ffiat ffiis material togeffier wiffi his countless descriptions of districts, cities.


221

palaces, temples, monumems, etc., should at the same time be understood as an expression of Josephus 'pure' historical and antiquarian interest. Qiute simply, he seems to have been passionately obsessed with investigating history, with collecting and interpreting accounts and texts and with describing places and monuments. Therefore, Palestinian archaeology and topography wiU always find it necessary to refer to Josephus who has apparently endeavoured to 'cover' the sites and monuments of the time as completely as possible. In my opinion, it appears that the immense wealth of important archaeological material that has been brought to hght in the last decades—where it pertains to Josephus' historical presentationserves to clarify our understanding of Josephus' texts rather than merely confirming, invahdating, correcting or supplementing his information, although naturaUy this is also the case. The steadily growing number of cases where archaeologists have been able to report that their results in the overall picture (cf. Chapters 4, section 7, h and 5, section 3, d) as weU as in detail confirm Josephus' descriptions, have made it apparent that our task when reading Josephus consists rather in understanding and interpreting his texts correctly than in having them confirmed or invahdated. The measurements and the capitals of the great monohthic columns in the royal basihca which Herod the Great had built at the southern end of the temple complex may serve as an example (cf. Avi-Yonah [1967], p. 38; Husseini, p. 2; Mazar [1969], p. 12, and [1971], pp. 3-4; cf. also Chapter 4, section 7, a). Rather a similar result has been arrived at by recent discussions conceming the 'Zealots', the 'bandits' and Gahlee (cf Horsley [1979b], pp. 436, 453). Literature First, reference is made to the comprehensive hterature in Feldman ( 1 9 8 4 a ) , pp. 7 3 5 - 8 0 2 , but also to Bilde ( 1 9 8 3 a ) , note I V , 3 3 7 (PP- 2 9 6 - 3 0 2 ) and to hterature mentioned in coimection with Chapter 4 , section 7, a and h and Chapter 5, section 3, d. To the best o f m y knowledge, specific discussions o f our subject are found only in Broshi, whereas accounts o f specific sites (like M a s a d a ; c f Y a d m , Feldman [ 1 9 7 5 ] , Vidal-Naquet [ 1 9 7 8 ] and S.J.D. C o h e n [ 1 9 8 2 ] ) and subjects (like the Essenes; cf. Sanders) occur more

fi-equently.

4. The New Testament and the birth of Christianity Christianity had its beginnings in Palestine—Gahlee, Judaea and

222


Jerusalem—during die middle of die first century. Research on the New Testament and the birth of Christiaruty is therefore tied to these places and this period. So, work on the birth of Christianity is dependent upon the same studies of Judaism and archaeology which are mentioned above. And therefore, those who are devoted to the study of the birth of Christianity are exactiy as dependent on and as interested in Josephus as are the scholars in these two fields. However, the study of the birth of Christianity has a number of special interests within the fields of Palestinian geography, topography, archaeology and history. The contents of the New Testament prescribe a very particular interest in the places, monuments, historical events and persons mentioned there. NaturaUy, the topography and archaeology of Gahlee and Jerusalem are of primary interest, just as the pohtical circumstances during the period from the birth of Jesus to the outbreak of the War in 66 when, according to Eusebius (Historia Ecclestiastica 3.5, 3), the Christians had left the city and had emigrated to Pella in Eastern Jordan. Particular interest is attached to historical persons hke Herod the Great (cf. Mt. 2), Qvurinius (cf. Lk. 2.2), Herod Antipas, Pilate and the Jewish high priests Caiaphas and Ananus. Against this background, a number of secondary disciphnes have developed such as New Testament topography, archaeology and history which give special attention to subjects of this nature. AU of this material and the disciphnes within which it is investigated are, however, segments of the corresponding Palestinian-Jewish topics. In this area, therefore, in principle, nothing new can be said about the use of Josephus and his significance for the founding of Christianity. The decisive factor is to maintain that the study of the New Testament and the foundation of Christianity in general fimdamentally finds itself in the same relation of dependence on Josephus as research on Judaism in Greco-Roman time and Palestinian archaeology. Against this background, it is more important to find and to dehneate the areas where the study of Josephus is of particular importance for the study of the New Testament and for the birth of Christiaruty. TraditionaUy, a whole series of such areas have been presented to us. Primarily, of course, the Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. 18.63-64) which—had it been authentic—would have been a sensational document in that it would then have been the earhest non-Christian testimony conceming Jesus. As such it was indeed looked upon and celebrated for centuries, but more recent investi-


223

gations have shown that, at best, the text is partly genuine and most likely a thoroughly secondary Christian fabrication (cf Bilde [1981]). Hence, we can disregard this text with a good conscience. Ant. 20.116-119, about John the Baptist, is of infinitely greater interest. It depicts John as a stem ascetic preacher of repentance, very renuniscent of the image which we find in the New Testament. But the decisive factor in Josephus' text is that here we are told about the political consequences of the activities of John the Baptist, just as the other prophetic figures mentioned by Josephus played a role in pohtics. Here, we encounter the fimdamental tmth which the New Testament itself attempts to weaken, namely, that rehgion and pohtics in those days were inseparable, and this reahzation is of invaluable importance for the right understanding of the foundation of Christianity (cf Bilde [1979a] and [1983b]). But it is easy to misinterpret and misuse this proper insight. For instance, it inspired Eisler's epoch-making work with the Old Russian translation of Bell, which contains the sections on John the Baptist and on Jesus as revolutionaries and rebels (cf Chapter 3, section 1). Eisler, and after him Brandon and many others, erroneously assumed that these Old Russian texts represented authentic and original parts of the Aramaic edition of Bell., parts which at a later time had been deleted by Christian copyists of the Greek edition. Secondly, against this backgroimd they misinterpreted John the Baptist and Jesus as 'Zealot' characters, in spite of the problems connected with the broad and nondescript use of'zealotry' in that context. But Josephus' text about John the Baptist is of decisive importance in showing us that the rehgious, prophetic preacher of repentance may weU have pohtical infiuence without being rebelhous or anti-Roman in his behaviour. The text oiAnt. 20.200-203 which deals with James, the brother of Jesus, is extremely brief and teUs us more about the relationship between the Pharisees and the Sadducees—represented in the text by the high priest Ananus—than it does about James himself and the Christian Jews in Jemsalem. But from this text, we may presumably leam that at this time the Christians were not yet separated fi-om Judaism as an independent rehgious group and that perhaps they were even close to the Pharisees as we also leam from Acts (cf esp. 15.5). Over and above these three classical passages, there are a series of subjects and texts which have traditionally been studied with

224


reference to Josephus. This, of course, apphes to historical geography and topography which we have already menuoned. The discussions, frequendy heated, conceming the correct identificadon and locahzation of Chrisdan holy places like Capernaum, Bethsaida Juhas, Emmaus, Golgotha, the 'praetorium' (cf. Jn 18.28flf.) and the 'hthostroton' Qn 19.13) are completely dependent on the relevant texts in Josephus, as wiU appear from Kopp's complete review of this subject. The same apphes to the closer historical investigadon of the accounts in Matthew 2 and Lidce 2 conceming the birth ofJesus. The comphcated circumstances conceming the death of Herod the Great, the term or terms of office of Quirinius and ffie Roman census, cannot be unraveUed wiffiout consulung Josephus (cf Schreckenberg [1980], pp. 182-86). It is somewhat easier when we turn to Acts, where reference is made to Theudas and Judas ffie Gahlean (5.3637) and to ffie 'Egypuan' (21.38). But, here as well, no reasonable historical placing of ffiese persons can be made wiffiout Josephus. Likewise, his information about ffie Samaritans is indispensable for ffie understanding and interpretation of New Testament texts hke Mt. 10.5 (ffie admomtion to ffie disciples against going to Samaria), John 4 (ffie woman of Samaria) and Lk. 10.30-36 (ffie Good Samaritan). Scholars hke Schreckenberg ([1980], p. 191) have pxjinted out more specifically ffiat Lk. 14.21-24 can be understood more clearly on ffie basis of Josephus' narrative in Ant. 18.36-38 concermng the founding of Tiberias. Furffiermore, ffie parable in Mt. 25.14-30 and its parallel in Lk. 19.12-27 have often been taken into account as material which can only be defimtively elucidated and understood wiffi ffie help of Josephus. It concerns ffie parable of ffie Talents which, according to Luke, is given a special twist because ffiere we encounter a nobleman who travels to a distant country in order to obtain kingly power ffiere (Lk. 19.12). In Ant. 17.206-249, we find an almost identical story about Archelaus, ffie son of Herod ffie Great, and his fight to obtain ffie ffirone in Jemsalem, a fight which he conducts by travelhng to Rome in order to plead his case before Augustus himself. Here, presumably, we have ffie background of ffie New Testament parable. On ffie basis of this we may view ffie version accorffing to Luke as primary, and ffiereby we have also clarffied ffie transmission of ffie parable. Pilate and his role in the trial against Jesus is a very special subject. The renderings in ffie Gospels portray Pilate as a pious and righteous procurator. His sympaffiy hes wiffi Jesus and he is


225

described nearly as a crypto-Chrisdan Nicodemus type. For the understanding of this stereotyped portrayal of Pilate, the informadon given by Josephus and Philo is essential. In these works {Bell. 2.169-177; Ant. 18.55-95; Legatio ad Gaium 299-305), we encounter the historical Pilate as a hard and brutal man. The picture from the Gospels should therefore be rejected as a secondary pohticalapologetic fabrication which presumably is intended to show the readers that from the beginning harmony and sympathy prevailed between Rome and the Christians. If we turn our attention away from the multitude of single passages and single problems to more complex pattems, we very soon mn into subjects which are essential for the understanding of the New Testament and the birth of Christianity. We have already touched upon one such aspect while deahng with Josephus' text about John the Baptist. This strange prophetic preacher of repentance and the Kingdom of God must be understood in the hght of the contemporary ideology of Ehjah and against the background of Old Testament texts hke 2 Kgs 1.8; Isa. 40.1-11; Mai. 3.1; 4.5-6. The discovery of the Qumran hterature and the very situation of the headquarters of the community in the desert, close to the Dead Sea, has thrown even more hght on the Baptist since here we find parallels to the desert phenomenon as weU as the ascetic features which, according to the New Testament, were characteristic of John the Baptist. In Josephus' writings, we are provided with the additional information that Josephus himself as a very young man was a disciple of an ascetic desert prophet by the name of Bannus {Vita 11-12) who like John (cf Mt. 3.4 and parallels) survived by eating the fruits of nature. Josephus also tells us about Theudas who led his foUowers down to the River Jordan {Ant. 20.97-99), and about the 'Egyptian prophet' who led 30,000 followers from the desert to die Mount of Ohves {Bell. 2.261-265; Ant. 20.167-172). All of diis material goes to show that in Palestiiuan Judaism of that time there existed a strong eschatological desert-ideology which with extreme ascetic strains drove its followers towards imitating the great characters of the past and towards repeating decisive events of the past as a means of accelerating dehverance and salvation (cf HiU, pp. 147-48; Bilde [1980a], pp. 19-20). Behind this eschatological desert-ideology, of course, hes the thought that primaeval time is repeated at the end of time. At the end of time, which both according to the New Testament and Josephus'

226


prophetic characters has come, the great evems from Israel's past would be repeated whereby the people would be dehvered, redeemed and, so to speak, reconstituted anew. This is the essence of Josephus' stories about Theudas, the 'Egyptian prophet' and the prophets who made their appearance in Jerusalem during the siege of the city by Titus (Bell. 6.285-287). Accordingly, Josephus teUs us in Bell. 6.312313 (cf 3.351-354, 400-402), that die Jewish Revolt against Rome was primarily driven by the behef that the bibhcal prophecies of a new ruler of the world would now be fulfilled: But what more than aU else incited them to the war was an ambiguous oracle, hkewise found in their sacred scriptures, to the eflFect that at that d m e one from their coimtry would become ruler o f the world. T h i s they understood to mean someone o f their o w n race, and m a n y o f their wise m e n went astray in their interpretauon o f it. T h e oracle, however, in reahty signified the sovereignty o f Vespasian, w h o was proclaimed E m p e r o r on Jewish soil

(Bell.

6.312-313).

As we have seen above in Chapter 5, section 2, d, Josephus himself firmly rejects this interpretation of the bibhcal promises. Nevertheless, he teUs about this oracle and about the numerous prophetic and Messianic movements and characters who must be presumed to have appeared because of this eschatological expectation. Thus, we find that the desert motive and the fimdamental prophetic eschatology in the New Testament can be elucidated by texts from Josephus. The same apphes to the Mount of Ohves and the Temple, both of which play a central role in the Passion narratives of the Gospels. We know that the Mount of Ohves can be interpreted on the basis of the prophecies in the book of Zechariah (14.5). But Josephus' story about the 'Egyptian prophet' who leads his followers up to the Mount of Ohves, where they should anticipate the fall of the walls of Jerusalem, shows us that this is in fact the true significance. The concentration of the Passion narratives around the Temple can hkewise be iUustrated by Josephus. The prophet mentioned in Bell. 6.285 is indeed said to preach that salvation wiU be consummated in the Temple. T h e y owed their destruction to a false prophet, w h o had on that day proclaimed to the people in the city that G o d

commanded

them to go u p to the temple court to receive there the tokens o f their dehverance (Bell. 6 . 2 8 5 ; c f M a i . 3.1).


227

The idea of die Gospels, diat die eschatological salvauon wiU be consummated in Jerusalem, on the Mount of Ohves and in the Temple, has its closest parallels and thus its best commentary, in these and related texts by Josephus. The same is true of the predictions in the Gospels made by Jesus about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, which Noack has treated in his book about Jesus, son of Anaiuah and Jesus of Nazareth. Thus, the accounts ofJohn the Baptist and the teaching and acts of Jesus as they are found in the Gospels are thrown into rehef when read in the hght of Josephus. The eschatological expectation and preaching and the symbohc performance in the desert, on the Mount of Ohves and in the Temple thereby become much clearer. The similarity between the Baptist and Jesus on the one hand, and Josephus' prophets on the other, are much more important than the differences which actually exist. In reahty, it is the basic atmosphere and the eschatological anticipation that are the deciding factors and not the shades of meaning in the interpretation of the actual performance of the individual characters (cf. also McCasland and Hill). We know that in the Jesus movement and among the early Christians, the Bible was interpreted actuahzing, allegorically and typologicaUy, precisely in the hght of the ardent expectation of the eschatological consummation (cf e.g. 1 Cor. 10.11; Gal. 4.21-31). We know that the same was done in the Qumran community. Josephus' account of contemporary history shows us how widespread this interpretation of the scriptures must have been. It was not merely smaU esoteric apocalyptic circles who were convinced that the flilfilment of the prophetic promises was near, and in the hght of this interpreted the scriptures as proclamations conceming their present reahty. Apparentiy, this was a conviction held by large groups of the Jewish people. ActuaUy, in a way, Josephus himself shares this point of view, as we have attempted to show in Chapter 3, section 3, c. Indeed, he himself 'translates' the sacred scriptures in a way by which they are interpreted and made relevant at the same time. He also participated in the controversy conceming the proper interpretation of the prophetic promises. His rejection of the interpretation made by the rebels was not a matter of principle, but concrete. The fiilfihnent of the prohecies would not occur in the present, but at a time in the not-too-distant fiiture. That Josephus actually beUeved this, appears from his obsessions with Daniel and his rendering of the

228

Flavins Josephtis, between Jerusalem and Rome

book of Daniel, as we have attempted to demonstrate in Chapters 4 and 5 (cf. esp. Chapter 5, secdon 2, d). Josephus—that is to say—his writings as a whole and not merely the secdons tradidonaUy studied—is therefore extremely important for the understanding of the New Testament and the birth of Chrisdanity. In a way which is more tangible and closer to reahty than the Qumran hterature, Josephus opens the gate to the very historical scene for John the Baptist, Jesus and the earhest Christians. Thus, the three classical paragraphs conceming John, Jesus and James are merely the tip of the iceberg. But they represent exceUent examples to show that in reahty the writings of Josephus contain essential keys for the understanding of all three of these figures. Moreover, Josephus also helps us to comprehend the spread of Christianity from Palestine out into the Greco-Roman world. The gospel actuaUy spread from Jemsalem to Rome contemporaenously with Josephus. The movement from Jewish Palestine to the Hellenistic sphere was made simultaneously in the New Testament and in Josephus (cf McCasland, pp. 234-35). Of course, in this way Philo is also a parallel to the New Testament, but with regard to Philo the process began outside of Palestine. The Qumran hterature is hkewise a parallel, since Palestine was also HeUenized to some extent. But here, the process of hteral translation is lacking. Therefore, Josephus is the closest paraUel to the New Testament in existence. The translation of the Palestinian-Jewish heritage to the universal language of the Greco-Roman world thus takes place simultaneously in early Christiaruty and in Josephus (cf esp. Dowiung's articles). The translation and the transformation are the central issues, and in both cases the question must be raised how the translation has taken place, how much was altered and how much is lost in the process. Both Josephus and the New Testament are also apologetic towards the Roman world power, one for Judaism and the other for the new group of'Christianites'. They are both messengers, agitators and missionaries. They are both conscious of having brought tmth and hght from Jemsalem to Rome. Literature Literature on most o f the topics m e n u o n e d , e.g. Testimonium (pp. 6 7 9 - 7 0 3 ) , John

the B a p u s t

(pp. 6 7 3 - 7 9 ) , etc., is given in

Flavianum Feldman

( 1 9 8 4 a ) , pp. 6 7 3 - 7 2 5 , and ( 1 9 8 4 b ) , pp. 8 2 1 - 3 8 . A comprehensive presentation o f N e w Testament topography has been presented by K o p p . General surveys o f the vast topic, Josephus and the birth o f Christianity, have been presented


229

esp. by Foakes-Jackson, pp. 2 5 9 - 7 4 ; Montefiore, pp. 1 9 2 - 9 4 (uncritical; cf. the criticism by

Schreckenberg

[ 1 9 8 0 ] ) ; van

Unnik

( 1 9 7 8 ) , pp. 5 5 - 6 7

(dis-

appointing); and Schreckenberg ( 1 9 8 0 ) (mostly dealing with the relationship between Josephus and the writings o f L u k e ) . A s wiU be seen, none o f these is fiiUy

satisfactory.

Josephus'

essential eschatology

importance

o f primitive

for

the

Christianity

imderstanding

is emphasized

of

the

first

and

foremost b y HiU and Horsley ( 1 9 8 4 ) .

5. Hellenistic and Roman history It goes without saying that, above aU, Josephus can be used for understanding Judaism and Jewish history in the Greco-Roman period. However, his writings are so vast and comprise so many fields of Judaica that in doing so he not only touches upon, but also provides significant information on several other aspects of GrecoRoman history. Ant. 11.304-307 contains a small passage conceming Alexander the Great, his conquest of Asia Minor and the Middle East and his relationship to the Jews in Jemsalem and the Samaritans who hved near Mount Gerizim and Schechem. Alexander's relationship to both of these peoples is described as having been good. The Samaritans are permitted to build a temple on Mount Gerizim, and we are told that Alexander showed his respect for the Jewish high priest and for the Temple in Jemsalem. These texts have given rise to a great deal of debate among scholars. One may designate these texts as special material since, in contrast to other material in the context, they have no prototype in Jewish sources which Josephus otherwise draws upon here. TTierefore, the question has been raised as to whether this passage was not entirely invented by Josephus. However, according to Monughano (1979), this is not the case. He argues that instead it consists of an earher Egyptian-Jewish source from c. 150 BCE incorporated here by Josephus who cormected this source with the reference to Daniel {Ant. 11.336-337) (p. 446). If this is tme, the passage is not without historical interest. As mentioned above (Chapter 3, section 3, a), inAnt. 12.1-13.217, Josephus mainly followed the Aristeas Letter and 1 Maccabees. But he also inserts other material, in particular the Tobiad Chrorucle which has been mentioned several times, and also other passages which give us information concerning the history of the Ptolemies and the Seleucids. Thus, the Tobiad Chronicle is very valuable for the understanding of the organization of taxation in the HeUenistic

230


period (cf. Goldstein, p. 123; Mazar [1957], pp. 139-40). However, it is especially from and'\t\c\\xdir\%Ant. 13.218, when Josephus' bibhcal and other known Jewish sources have been exhausted, and when he is completely dependent on other material, that his account is an important source of informadon on the history of the Seleucids. But, in Ant. 14 and 15, this also apphes to the history of the Ptolemies under Cleopatra. Moreover, Josephus is a valuable source for the history of the Parthians. This is particularly evident with regard to the period of c. 40 BCE {Bell. 1.248-273, 288, 291; Ant. 14.330-369) and die time from Tiberius to Nero {Ant. 18.39-52, 96-105, 310-379; 20.54-91). A number of special investigations on this topic, earher by ISubler (1904) and Debevoise (see esp. p. xxix) and most recently by Colpe, have demonstrated that this material is of considerable historical interest. On several occasions, we have pointed out that especially in Ap., Josephus presents long excerpts from HeUeiustic sources which are lost today in many cases. Primarily, this apphes to passages by the HeUenized Egyptian author Manetho {Ap. 1.73-105, 227-287 etc.; cf Ant. 1.107), the HeUenized Babylonian author Berosus {Ap. 1.129153) and especially Hecataeus of Abdera {Ap. 1.183-205, 213-214; 2.43). We must, of course, include Apion {Ap. 2.1-144), but also a certain Dius {Ap. 1.112-115; cf Ant. 8.144-146, 324; 9.283-287), Choerilus {Ap. 1.172-175), Chaeremon {Ap. 1.288-303), Lysimachus {Ap. 2.304-320) and ApoUonius Molon {Ap. 2.16, 79, 145, 148, etc.). Whereas in earUer research these fragments were often considered to be inauthentic, today the general opinion is that they must be accepted as genuine (cf. Gauger). So, this material is important and it is also widely used in research. This apphes, for example, to Manetho in Egyptology. The long series of ofiicial documents which Josephus presents have been discussed thoroughly several times in the above chapters. Today, these documents are also considered by most scholars to be genuine (cf, most recently, Sauhnier and Rajak [1984]). With these we possess important material for the understanding of the pohtical, social, administrative and legal circumstances in the Seleucid period. This apphes particularly to the status of the Jews in the HeUenistic cities. As for the history of the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, source material on Roman history can also be found in Josephus (cf Korach


Til

and Timpe). This is, of course, true of Rome's policy towards the Jews which is expressly found in the ofiBcial documents. Moreover, in general it appHes to Rome's pohcy in Judaea, but in even more general terms to Roman pohcy in the Middle East in relauonship to the Parthians as well as to the Ptolemies and the Seleucids (cf Korach, esp. pp. 33, 105). Josephus is particularly weU informed on the Herodian period, presumably because he was able to draw on works by Nicolas of Damascus. In Ant. 14-17, Josephus can give us a detailed account of Pompey, Gabinius, Crassus, Caesar, Cassius, Anthony and Augustus and their pohcies both in Palestine and the Middle East in general. EspeciaUy on Caesar, Anthony and Augustus, Josephus provides important information. Josephus has less to teU us about the reign of Tiberius (14-37). But then again, he has a wealth of information on Gaius Cahgula (37-41), particularly about the emperor's plan to have a statue of himself erected in the Temple ofJerusalem, and about the murder of Cahgula on the 24th January, which Josephus hnks with his pohcy in Palesune. And there is more material conceming Claudius' succession to the throne. The narrative in Ant. 19.1-283 describing the assassination of Cahgula and his replacement on the throne by Claudius, is a completely independent Roman epic. According to Mommsen, its source is a now lost work by Cluvius Ruflis (but Timpe and Feldman [1962] contest this). Regardless of the provenance of the story, it concems an unusual document written very shortly after the events took place. It is narrated vividly, actively describing in great detail the plan and the murder of Cahgula, and Claudius' subsequent sudden rise to the throne. This is a primary source of the first order. In line with many others, Josephus is an important source for the reigns of Claudius (41-54) and Nero (54-68). But when it comes to the year of the Four Emperors in 68-69, to the civil war and the Flavian rise to power, Josephus stands out again as a most essential historical source. It is not without reason that Josephus bears the name Flavius and that he is a Flavian chent and prot6g6. Apart from many other things. Bell, is also a dramatic account of the rise of the Flavian dynasty to the imperial throne, its dehverance of the Roman nation from the chaos of civil war, its merits in Palestine and the consohdation of its power in the period after 68-69. SpecificaUy, Bell. is an important source concenung the turbulent year of the Four Emperors (cf Bell. 4.440-442, 491-502, 545-549 and esp. 585-655).

232


As a contribution to Roman military history, in the style of Polybius, Josephus is able to present vivid and detailed descriptions of Vespasian's sieges of Jotapata {Bell. 3.141-339) and Gamala {Bell. 4.1-83), Titus' siege ofJerusalem {Bell. 5.39-7.20) and Flavius Silva's siege of Masada {Bell. 7.275-279, 304-319). Widi regard to tiiis material, however, particular attention is drawn to his comprehensive and meticulous account in Bell. 3.(64)70-109 which describes the Roman army in detail, its training, camp, hfe in the field, march, weapons and the equipment of the infantry as well as of the cavalry, its strategy and disciphne. Perhaps this account is not unique, since similar descriptions are found in Polybius (2.24ff".) and Livy (8.8), but it is by far the rcost thorough and most detailed account handed down in classical Uterature. Therefore, together with the account in the speech of Agrippa II in Bell. 2.345-401, in which he describes the distribution of the Roman army in the provinces during the spring of 66 (2.365-387; cf Domaszewski, esp. p. 218), Josephus' description is one of the most important sources for the study of the Roman mihtary institution. Of equal value is Josephus' dramatic description in Bell. 7.123-157 of the triump of Vespasian and Titus in Rome in the year 71. Here again, we find parallel renderings, for example, Livy's description of the triumph of Papirius Cursor in 293 BCE when he celebrated the final victory over the Samiutes (10.7), but again Livy's text is much shorter. The presentation by Josephus is the most exphcit, and since it is also written by a contemporary eye-wimess, its value is of special importance. One might cite other examples: Josephus' description of the harbour in Caesarea Maritima {Bell. 1.408-415;^wt. 15.331-341) is one of the best and most detailed descriptions to be found in hterature handed down fi-om antiquity (cf. Hohlfelder et al. [1983], pp. 133-34). And Ant. 18.66-80 is the oidy text in existence conceming the oppression of the Isis cult in Rome. Thus, the works of Josephus are of great value for the study of many aspects of Greco-Roman history in general. However, the unique significance of his writings for the history of this period hes in the fact that they contain a series of invaluable sources and specific descriptions: fragments of the HeUenistic authors, the official documents, ffie account of Cahgula's deaffi and Clauffius' coming to power, ffie account of ffie rise of ffie Flavians, ffie description of ffie Roman army and ffie presentation of ffie Flavian triumph.


233

Literature In general, reference is made to the pertment key words in Feldman ( 1 9 8 4 a ) and

( 1 9 8 4 b ) , pp. 8 0 4 - 2 1 .

Hellenistic

Literature

period will be foimd

in

on Josephus

as

a

( 1 9 8 4 a ) , pp. 192ff.;

source

for

specificaUy

the on

Alexander, pp. 2 0 7 - 2 0 8 ; o n the Seleucids, pp. 2 1 0 - 1 4 and o n the Tobiads, pp. 2 1 5 - 1 7 . Literature on Josephus' testimony on the history o f the Parthians wiU be foimd on pp. 3 0 4 - 3 0 7 . I particularly r e c o m m e n d TUubler ( 1 9 0 4 ) , Debevoise

and C o l p e .

Literature

o n Josephus'

information

history is found on pp. 259ff. Special investigations o f Ant.

on

Roman

19's account o f

the murder o f Cahgula and Claudius' rise to the throne is found on pp. 3 2 6 3 1 . N o overaU investigation o f our topic exists. For its separate parts, TMubler ( 1 9 0 4 ) , Korach and T i m p e are particularly recommended.

6. Conclusion The importance of Josephus as a source of material for the study of ancient history is, therefore, very considerable. His wriungs have also been used extensively, especiaUy in the fields of the history of the Jewish people in Greco-Roman time, the New Testament and the foundation of Christianity. Likewise, I have suggested that the possibihties for using and applying Josephus are far from exhausted. There hes a vast amount of unused material and untried possibihties in his comprehensive writings. But Josephus is not merely a quarry or a treasury which anyone can draw upon as he pleases (cf Moehring [1975], p. 124; [1984], p. 985; van Uniuk [1978], p. 18). His writings are a uiuty, a uiuverse, a hving orgaiusm, constituting an integral part of his person and his hfe history, in which he commits himself to the reahty of his time. In him we meet a Jewish aristocrat from the first century, a Jewish pohtician, a priestly and propheticaUy minded theologian, an early Pharisee, a HeUenized author and historian. In Josephus, we encounter an articulate advocate of Judaism in the first century, although we frequently find it difUcult to fit him into our inherited classifications. In the works of Josephus, we find a hving expression of the most important event and phenomenon of that time, the meeting between Judaism and Hellenism. This phenomenon occurs all through Jewish history of this period. HeUenism dominates the writings of Philo from Alexandria. In the Qumran hterature, the Palestinian heritage prevails, although here too, in its own way, Hellenization is a strong influence. Later, in rabbinic hterature, Judaism confines itself to a narrow Pharisaic interpretation of the

234


Palestinian heritage, although, of course, it caruiot disengage itself from Hellerustic civihzation. In the New Testament, there is a confrontation between Palestinian-Jewish tradition and strong Hellenization. But, in early Christianity, the clash and the breach with the Jewish people soon result in a victory for Hellenization. On the other hand, in Josephus, there is a strong will to retain both traditions. He admits to, and obstinately defends, his PalestiruanJewish heritage. At the same time, however, he interprets it operdy and in its widest sense in order that in his interpretation Judaism can exist peacefiilly in its environment. Therefore, Josephus vehementiy opposes the Maccabean and 'Zealot' isolationism, narrowmindedness and fanaticism. 'Modernistically', he adheres to the culturally hberal interpretation of Judaism held by Herod the Great and Philo (cf Daube [1980], pp. 33-36; Shutt [1981], pp. 185-87; Moehring [1984], pp. 876, 913, 940). At the same time, in point of fact, he holds a distance towards extreme 'modernism' and Hellenistic civihzation. On all essential pxjints, Josphus adheres to the Palestinian-Jewish heritage and particularly in Ap., he conducts a veritable cultural debate ('Kulturkampf') against Greek civihzation (cf. Martin, pp. 134-35; Schaublein, pp. 317-18). Josephus is thus seen as a creative interpreter of Judaism. Is it not about time for us to begin giving serious attention also to this side of his contribution?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

a. Selected editions and translations of Josephus Blatt, F. (ed.), The Latin Josephus, I, Introduction and Text. The Antiquities: Books IIV (Arhus, 1958). Haefeli (ed. and trans.), Flavius Josephus' Lebensbeschreibung (MOnster, 1925). Michel, O. und O. Bauemfeind (ed. and trans.), Flavius Josephus, De bello Judaico, Zweisprachige Ausgabe der sieben Biicher, I-IV (Darmstadt, 1959-1969). Niese, B. (ed.), Flavii Josephi opera edidit et apparatu critico instruxit Benedictus Niese. I-VII (editio major) (Berlin, 1885-1895; rp. Berlin, 1955). Pelletier, A. (ed. and trans.), Flavius Josephe, Autobiographie (Budi) (Paris, 1959). —(ed. and trans.), Flavius Josiphe, Guerre des Juifs, I-III, (Budi) (Paris 1975-1980). Rasmussen, A. (ed. and ^xans.), Josephus Flavius, J^demes Krig mod Romeme. Oversat ogforsynet med noter af A. Rasmussen (Copenhagen, 1905). Reiersen, A. (ed. and trans.), Flavii Josephi j0diske Historie, af det Graedske Sprog oversat og med nogle Anmaerkninger oplyst af Andreas Reiersen, I-III (Copenhagen, 1750-1757). Reiersen, A. and Belsheim, J. (ed. and trans.), J0dernes Krig mod Romeme. Af Flavius Josefus. Oversat fra Graesk af Sognepraest Andreas Reiersen (1757). Gjennemset og udgiven paany af J. Belsheim (Kristiania, 1882). Reinach, Th. (ed. and trans.), CEuvres completes de Flavius Josiphe traduites en frangais sous la direction de Theodore Reinach, I-VII (VIII: Vita) (Paris, 19001932 [1959]). Riciotti, G. (ed. and trans.), Flavio Giuseppe tradoto e commentato, I-IV (Torino, 19371963). Savinel, P. (ed. and trans.), Flavius Josiphe, La Guerre des Juifs traduit du grec par Pierre Savinel precede par 'Du bon usage de la trahison' par Pierre Vidal-Naquet (Paris, 1977). Schalit, A. (ed. and trans.), Flavii Josephi Antiquitates Judaicae in linguam hebraicam vertit annotationibus amplissimus illustravit et prooemio instruxit Abraham Schalit, I-III Qerusalem, 1944-1963; rp. 1967-1973). Thackeray, H.St.J. et al. (ed. and trans.), Josephus with an English Translation by H.St.J. Thackeray, Ralph Marcus, Allen Wikgren, and L.H. Feldman, I-IX, L C L (Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, 1926-1965). Thunblad, N.J. (ed. and trans.), Flavius Josefits' historia om judamas krig mot romarne, redigerad av N.J. Thunblad (Stockholm, 1884). Troiani, L. (ed. and trans.), Commento storico al 'Contro Apione' di Giuseppe. Introduzione, commento storico, traduzione e indici (Pisa, 1977). Vitucci, G. (ed. and trans.). La Guerra Giudaica, I-II (Milano, 1974). Williamson, G.A. (ed. and trans.), Josephus, The Jewish War. Translated with an Introduction by G.A. Williamson (Baltimore, 1959) (=London: Penguin, 1959). b. Lexica Bettger, G., Topografisch-historisches Lexikon zu den Schriften des Flavius Josephus. Compilatorisch zusammengestellt (Leipzig, 1879; rp. Amsterdam, 1966). Meller, C. and G. Schmitt, Siedlungen Palastinas nach Flavius Josephus (Wiesbaden, 1976).

236


Rengstorf, K.H. (ed.), A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, I-IV (Leiden, 1973-1983). Schalit, A., Namenwdrterbuch zu Flavius Josephus, Supplement I to A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, ed. K.H. Rengstorf (Leiden, 1968). Thackeray, H.St.J. and R. Marcus, A Lexicon to Josephus, I-IV (a to e) (Paris, 19301955). c. Bibliographies Feldman, L.H., Studies in Judaica. Scholarship on Philo and Josephus (1937-1962) (New York, n.d.; according to Feldman [1984a], 1963). —Josephus and Modem Scholarship (1937-1980) (BerUn and New York, 1984). (Cited as (1984a].) —A Supplement to Heinz Schreckenberg's Bibliographie zu Flavius Josephus. ('In progress' [Feldman, 1984a, p. 17].) Schreckenberg, H., Bibliographie zu Flavius Josephus (Leiden, 1968). —Bibliographie zu Flavius Josephus. Supplementsband mit Gesamtregister (Leiden, 1979). d. Selection of secondary literature Abel, F.-M., Geographic de la Palestine, I-II (Paris 1933-1938). —Histoire de la Palestine depuis la conquete d'Alexandre jusqu'd I'invasion arabe, I-II (Paris, 1952). Alt, A., 'Zu Antiochos' III. Erlass fiir Jerusalem (Josephus, Ant. XII, 3, 3 §§138-144)', ZAW 57 (1939), pp. 283-85. Altschuler, D., 'The Treatise D E P l E 0 n N K A I A I T I f i N 'On Customs and Causes' by Flavius Josephus', 69 (1978-1979), pp. 226-32. Amaru, B.H., 'Land Theology in Josephus'Jeaiii/i Antiquities', JQR 71 (1980-1981), pp. 201-29. Anonymous report, 'Gamala: the Masada of the North', BAR 5 (1979), pp. 12-19. Applebaum, S., 'Economic Life in Palestine', JPFC, II (1976), pp. 631-700. Armenti, J.R., 'On the Use of the Term 'Gahleans' in the Writings of Josephus: A Brief Note', JQR 72 (1981), pp. 45-49. Attridge, H.W., The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (Missoula, 1976). —'Josephus and his Works', Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, CRINT, Section Two, ed. M . Stone (Assen and Philadelphia, 1984), pp. 185-232. Aune, D.E., 'The Use of n P 0 4 > H T H S in Josephus', JBL 101 (1982), pp. 419-21. Avi-Yonah, M . , The Holy Land from the Persian Conquest to the Arab Conquests (536 B.C. to A.D. 640). A Historical Geography (Hebr. 1951; 3rd edn, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1966). —'Zion, the Perfection of Beauty', y4n"e/ 18 (1967), pp. 25-44. Baer, Y., 'Jerusalem in the Times of the Great Revolt (Based on the Source Criticism of Josephus and Talmudic-Midrashic Legends of the Destruction)' (Hebr.), Zion 36 (1971), pp. 127-90. Baerwald, A., Josephus in Galilda. Sein Verhdltniss zu den Parteien, insbesondere zu Justus von Tiberias und Agrippa II (Breslau, 1877). Balch, D.L., 'Two Apologetic Encomia: Dionysius on Rome and Josephus on the Jews', ^57 13 (1982), pp. 102-22. Bardy, G., 'Le souvenir de Josephe chez les Pores', RHE 43 (1948), pp. 179-91.

Bibliography

237

Barish, D.A., 'The Autobiography ofJosephus and the Hypothesis of a Second Edition of his Antiquities', HTR 71 (1978), pp. 61-75. Bamett, P.W., 'The Jewish Sign Prophets—A.D. 40-70—Their Intentions and Origin', NTS 27 (1980-1981), pp. 679-96. Belkin, S., 'The Alexandrian Source for Contra Apionem IP, JQR 27 (1936-1937), pp. 1-32. Bell, A.A., Jr, 'Joseph the Satirist.' A Clue to the original Form of the Testimonium Flavianum', JQR 67 (1976-1977), pp. 16-22. BeU, H.I., Jews and Christians in Egypt. The Jewish Troubles in Alexandria and the Athanasian Controversy Illustrated by Texts from the Greek Papyri in the British Museum (London and Oxford, 1924; rp. Westport [1972] 1976). —Juden und Griechen im romischen Alexandria (Leipzig, 1926). Bentwich, N., Josephus (Philadelphia, 1914; rp. 1926 and 1976). Berendts, A., Die Zeugnisse vom Christentum im slavischen 'De bello Judaico' des Josephus (Leipzig, 1906). —'Analecta zum slavischen Josephus' ZNW 9 (1908), pp. 47-70. Berendts, A. and K. Grass (ed. and trans.), Flavius Josephus, Vom jUdischen Kriege Buch I-IV der slavischen Ubersetzung deutsch herausgegeben und mit griechischem Text verglichen von A. Berendts und K. Grass, I-II (Dorpat, 1924-1927). Berggren, J., Judiske Hdfdatecknaren Flavii Josephi vittnesbord om Christus, Christi Broder, Johannes Ddparan och Esseneme eller de forsta Christna, till dess authenticitet granskadt och framstdldt av J. Berggren (Stockholm, 1848). Bernstein, L., Flavius Josephus, his Time and his Critics (New York, 1938). Betz, O., Offenbarung und Schriftforschung in der Qumransekte (Tflbingen, 1960), pp. 99-109. —'Das Problem des Wunders bei Flavius Josephus im Vergleich zum Wunderproblem bei den Rabbinen und im JohannesevangeUum', J-S, pp. 23-44. Bickermann, E., 'La charte s^leucide de Jerusalem', REJ 100 (1935), pp. 4-35 {=Zur Josephus-Forschung, ed. A. SchaUt [Darmstadt, 1973J, pp. 205-40). —'Un document relatif 4 la persecution d'Antiochos IV Eiphane', RHR 115 (1937), pp. 188-233 {=Zur Josephus-Forschung, ed. A. SchaUt [Darmstadt, 1973], pp. 241-77). —'Une proclamation s^leucide relative au temple au Jerusalem', Syria 25 (1946-1948), pp. 67-85. Bilde, P., 'ReUgion og poUtik i Jesusbevaegelsen', DTT 42 (1979), pp. 1-19. (Cited as [1979a].) —'The Causes of the Jewish War According to Josephus', 10 (1979), pp. 179-202. (Cited as [1979b].) —'Fremtidshibet i biblen'. Religion (1980), pp. 14-32. (Cited as [1980a].) —'Galilaea og galilaeeme pd Jesu tid', DTT 43 (1980), pp. 113-35. (Cited as [1980b].) —'Josefus' beretning om Jesus', DTT 44 (1981), pp. 99-135. —Josefus som historieskriver. En unders0gelse afJosefus'fremstilling af Gaius Caligulas konflikt med j0deme i Palaestina (Bell 2,184-203 og Ant 18,261-309) med saerligt henblik p& forfatterens tendens og historiske pdlidelighed (Kobenhavn, 1983). -'Rehgion og poUtik i antik jodedom/og tidUg kristendom', RVT3 (1983), pp. 23-44. (Cited as [1983b].) —'Templets betydning i jodedommen pd Jesu tid', RvT 4 (1984), pp. 41-68. Birch, W.F., 'The City of David and Josephus', PEFQS 16 (1884), pp. 77-82. Black, M., 'Judas of GaUlee and Josephus' "Fourth Philosophy"', pp. 45-54. Blenkinsopp, J., 'Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus', JJS 25 (1974), pp. 239-62.

238


Bloch, H., Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus in seiner Archdologie (Leipzig, 1879; rp. Wiesbaden, 1968). Blosser, 'The Sabbath Year Cycle in Josephus', HVCA 52 (1981), pp. 129-39. Brandon, S.G.F., The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church. A Study of the Effects of the Jewish Overthrow of A.D. 70 on Christianity (London, 1951, rp. 1968). —Jesus and the Zealots. A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity (Manchester, 1967). Braun, M., Griechischer Roman und hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung (Frankfiirt/M., 1934). —History and Romance in Greco-Oriental Literature (Oxford, 1938). —'The Prophet Who Became a Historian', The Listener 56 (1956), pp. 53-57. Brinton, C , The Anatomy of Revolution (New York, 1938 [2nd edn, 1952]). Broshi, M . , 'The Credibihty of Josephus', .(4 K Y. Yadin, ed. G. Vermes and J. Neusner, {=JJS 33 [1982], pp. 379-84). Bruce, F.F., 'Josephus and Daniel', ASTI 4 (1965), pp. 48-62. Briill, N. 'Eine talmudische Nachricht aber Josephus', Jahrbucher fur Jiidische Geschichte und Literatur 4 (1879), pp. 40-42. BrOne, B., Flavius Josephus und seine Schriften in ihrem Verhdltnis zum Judenthume, zur griechisch-rdmischen Welt und zum Christenthume (Wiesbaden, 1913; rp. 1969). Brunt, P.A., 'Josephus on Social Conflicts in Roman Judaea', Klio 59 (1977), pp. 14953. Bflchler, A., 'Les sources de Flavius Josephe dans ses Antiquit^s XII, 5,1-XIII, 1', REJ 32 (1896), pp. 179-99, and 34 (1897), pp. 69-93. Buehler, W . W . , The Pre-Herodian Civil War and Social Debate. Jewish Society in the Period 76-40 B. C. and Social Factors Contributing to the Rise of the Pharisees and the Sadducees (Basel, 1974). Burchard, C , 'Zur Nebentlberheferung von Josephus' Bericht aber die Essener Bell 2, 119-161 bei Hippolyt, Porphyrins, Jossippus, Niketas Choinates imd anderen', J-S, pp. 77-96. Case, S.J., 'Josephus' Anticipation of a Domitianic Persecution', JBL 44 (1925), pp. 10-20. Chesnut, G.F., Jr, 'The Byzantine Church Historians from Eusebius to Evagius. A Historiographical Study' (unpubhshed dissertation; Oxford, 1971). Cohen, N.G., 'Josephus and Scripture: Is Josephus' Treatment of the Scriptural Narrative Similar Throughout the Antiquities I-XI', JQR 54 (1963-1964), pp. 311-32. —'Asinaeus and Anilaeus. Additional Comments to Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews', ASTI 10 (1975-1976), pp. 30-37. Cohen, S.^.H., Josephus in Galilee and Rome. His Vita and Development as a Historian (Leiden, 1979). —'Masada: Literary Tradition, Archaeological Remains, and the Credibihty of Josephus',/IF Y. Yadin, ed. G. Vermes and J. Neusner {=JJS 33 [1982], pp. 385405). Collomp, P., 'La place de Josephe dans la technique de I'historiographie hellenistique'. Publications de la Faculti des Lettres de I'UniversitS de Strasbourg 106 (1947), pp. 81-92 Zur Josephus-Forschung, ed. A. Schalit [Darmstadt, 1973], pp. 27893). Colpe, C , 'Die Arsakiden bei Josephus', J-S, pp. 97-108. Corbo, v . , 'L'Herodion di Gebal Fureidis', LA 13 (1962-1963), pp. 213-77.

Bibliography

239

- ' G e b a l Fureidis', RB 71 (1964), pp. 258-63, and 75 (1968), pp. 424-28. —'L'Herodion di Giabal Fureidis', LA 17 (1967), pp. 65-121. —'La fortezza di Macheronte', LA 28 (1978), pp. 217-31. Corbo, V. and S. Lofireda, 'Nuove scoperte alia fortezza di Macheronte. Rapporto preUminare alia quarta campagna di scavo: 7 settembre-10 ottobre 1981', LA 31 (1981), pp. 257-86. Daniel, J.L., 'Anti-Semitism in the Hellenistic-Roman Period', JfiL 98 (1979), pp. 4565. Daube, D., " ' 1 believe" in Jevrish AntiquiUes X1.237', 27 (1976), pp. 142-46. —'TTiree Legal Notes on Josephus after his Surrender', The Lâzv Quarterly Review 93 (1977), pp. 191-94. —'Typologie im Werke des Flavius Josephus', Freiburger Rundbriefe 31 (1979), pp. 5969 (-'Typology in Josephus', JJS 31 [1980], pp. 18-36, as used here). Debevoise, N.C., A Political History of Parthia (Chicago, 1938; rp. New York, 1968). DeUing, G., 'Josephus und das Wunderbare', NovT 2 (1958), pp. 291-309. Destinon, J. von, LHe Quellen des Flavius Josephus in der Jud. Arch. Buch XIIXVn=Jtid. Krieg Buch I (Kiel, 1882). Dexinger, F., 'Ein "Messianisches Szenariimi" als Gemeingut des Judentimis in nachherodianischer Zeit?', Kairos 17 (1975), pp. 249-78. Domaszewski, A. von, 'Die Dislocation des rOmischen Heeres im Jahre 66 n. Chr. (Josephus beU. Jud. 2, 16, 4)', RM 47, N F (1892), pp. 207-18. Downing, E.G., 'Ethical Pagan Theism and the Speeches m Acts', NTS 27 (1980), pp. 544-63. (Cited as [1980a].) —'Redaction Criticism: Josephus' Antiquities and the Synoptic Gospels', I & 11, JSNT 8 (1980), pp. 46-65, and 9 (1980), pp. 29-48. (Cited as [1980b].) —'Common Grovmd with Paganism in Luke and in Josephus', NTS 28 (1982), pp. 546-59. Drexler, H., 'Untersuchimgen zu Josephus und zur Geschichte des jfldischen Aufitandes 66-70', Klio 19 (1923-1925), pp. 277-312. Driiner, H., Uruersuchungen iiber Josephus (Marburg, 1896). Dupont-Sommer, A., TTie Essene Writings from Qumran (translated from French by G. Vermes; New York, 1961; rp. 1967). Eck, W., 'Die Eroberung von Masada und eine neue Inschrift des L. Flavius Silva Nonius Basus', ZNW 60 (1969), pp. 282-89. Eddy, S.K., The King is Dead. Studies in Near Eastern Resistance to Hellenism 331-31 B.C. (LincoUi, 1961). Eisler, R., I H Z O T S B A Z I A E T S O T B A S I A E T X A Z , I-H (Heidelberg, 19291930). —'Deux sculptures de I'antiquit^ classique reprisentant des juifs', Arethuse 7 (1930), pp. 29-38. Farmer, W.R., Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus, An Inquiry into Jewish Nationalism in the Greco-Roman Period (New York, 1956; rp. Westport, 1973). —'Judas, Simon and Athronges', NTS 4 (1957-1958), pp. 147-55. Feldman, L.H., 'The Sources ofJosephus' "Antiquities", Book 19', Latomus 21 (1962), pp. 320-33. —'Abraham the Greek Philosopher in Josephus', TAPAPA 99 (1968), pp. 143-56. (Cited as [1968a].) —'HeUenizations in Josephus' Portrayal of Man's Decline', Religions in Antiquity, M V E.R. Goodenough, ed. J. Neusner (Leiden, 1968), pp. 336-53. (Cited as [1968b].)

240


—'HeUenizations in Josephus' Version of Esther (Ant. Jud. 11,185-295)', TAPAPA 101 (1970), pp. 143-70. —'Masada: A Critique of Recent Scholarship', Christianity, Judaism, and other GrecoRoman Cults, AV M . Smith, ed. J. Neusner, I-IV (Leiden, 1975), III, pp. 21848. —'Josephus as an Apologist to the Greco-Roman World: His Portrait of Solomon', Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. E.S. Fiorenza (Notre Dame, 1976), pp. 69-98. —'The Term "Gahleans" in Josephus', 72 (1981), pp. 50-52. —'Josephus' Portrait of Saul', HVCA 53 (1982), pp. 45-99. —'Flavius Josephus Revisited: The Man, his Writings, and his Significance', ANRW, II, 21.2 (1984), pp. le^-êi. (Cited as [1984b].) Fischer, U., Eschatologie und Jenseitserzoartung im hellenistischen Diasporajudentum (BerUn, 1978). Foakes-Jackson, F.J., Josephus and the Jews. The Religion and History of the Jews as Explained by Flavius Josephus (London, 1930; rp. Grand Rapids, 1977). Frankfort, Th., 'La date de I'autobiographie de Flavius Josephe et des oeuvres de Justus de Tiberiade', Revue Beige de Philologie et d'Histoire 39 (1961), pp. 5258. Franxman, Th.W., Genesis and the "Jewish Antiquities" of Flavius Josephus (Rome, 1979). Freyne, S., 'The Gahleans in the Light of Josephus Vita', NTS 26 (1979-1980), pp. 397-413. —Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian 323 B.C.E. to 135 CE. A Study of Second Temple Judaism (Notre Dame, 1980 =Leiden, 1981). Fuchs, H., Der geistige Widerstand gegen Rom in der antiken Welt (BerUn, 1938; rp. 1964). Gauger, J.-D., 'Zitate in der jUdischen Apologetik und die AuthentizitSt der Hekataios-Passagen bei Flavius Josephus imd im Ps. Aristeas-Brief, JSJ 13 (1982), pp. 6-46. Gelzer, M., 'Die Vita des Josephus', Hermes 80 (1952), pp. 67-90. Geva, H., 'The "Tower of David"—Phasael or Hippicus?', lEJ 31 (1981), pp. 5765. Gichon, M., 'Cestius Callus's Campaign in Judaea', PEQ 113 (1981), pp. 39-62. Goldenberg, D., 'The Halakha in Josephus and in Tannaitic Literature: A Comparative Study', JQR 67 (1976-1977), pp. 30-43. —'Flavius Josephus or Josef ben Mattithiah', JQR 70 (1980), pp. 178-82. Goldstein, J.A., 'The Tales of the Tobiads', Christianity, Judaism, and other GrecoRoman Cults, AV M . Smith, ed. J. Neusner, I-IV (Leiden, 1975), lU, pp. 85123. Goodman, M . , 'The First Jewish Revolt: Social Confhct and the Problem of Debt', AV Y. Yadin, ed. G . Vermes and J. Neusner (=J7S 33 [1982], pp. 417-27). Graetz, H., Geschichte der Juden von den altesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart, I-XI (Leipzig, 1853-1875), III, 1 and III, 2 (5th edn, Leipzig, 1905 and 1906). Grant, M., The Ancient Historians (London, 1970). Grant, R.M., 'Eusebius, Josephus and the Fate of the Jews', Society of Biblical Literature, 1979, Seminar Papers, ed. P.J. Achtemeyer (Missoula, 1979), II, pp. 69-86. Gutmaim, J., 'Josephus Flavius', Encyclopaedia Judaica, IX (1932), pp. 394-420. Guttmann, H., Die DarsteUung der jUdischen Religion bei flavius Josephus (Breslau, 1928).

Bibliography

241

Haefeli, L., Samaria und Perda bei Flavius Josephus (Freiburg, 1913). Hata, G., 'Is the Greek Version of Josephus' "Jewish War" a Translation or a Rewriting of the Fhst Version?', JQR 66 (1975-1976), pp. 89-108. Hayward, R , 'The Jewish Temple of Leontopohs: A Reconsideration', AV Y. Yadin, ed. G. Vermes and J. Neusner (=J75 33 (1982), pp. 429-43). Heinemann, J.H., 'Josephus' Method in the Presentation of the "Jewish Antiquities'" (Hebr.), Zion 5 (1940), pp. 180-203. Hehn, R , R Laqueur, 'Der jiidische Historiker Flavius Josephus', PhW 4 (1921), pp. 481-93 and 505-16. Hengel, M., Die Zeloten. Untersuchungen zur jUdischen Freiheitsbewegung in der Zeit von Herodes I. bis 70 n. Chr. (Leiden and KOhi, 1961; 2nd edn, 1976). Herrmann, L., 'Bannoun ou Joannoun. Felix ou Festus.' Flavius Josiphe, Vie 11 et 13', REJ (1976), pp. 151-55. Hill, D., 'Jesus and Josephus' "Messianic Prophets'", Text and Interpretation, AV M . Black, ed. E. Best and R. McL. WUson (Cambridge, 1979), pp. 143-54. Holscher, G., Die Quellen des Josephus fiir die Zeit vom Exil bis zum judischen Kriege (Leipzig, 1904). -'Josephus', P-WRE IX (1916), cols. 1934-2000. Hoenig, S.B., 'The Sicariii in Masada—Glory or Infamy?', Tradition 11 (1970), pp. 530. Hofiftnann, K., Die Ethik des judischen Geschichtsschreibers Flavius Josephus (impublished dissertation; Erlangen, 1920). Hohlfelder, R L . et al., 'Sebastos, Herod's Harbor at Caesarea Maritima', BA 46 (1983), pp. 1 3 3 ^ 3 . Horowitz, S., 'Untersuchungen tiber die QueUen des Flavius Josephus in seinen Antiquitaten B. XII, 241-XVIII, 54' (unpublished dissertation; Wien, 1919). Horsley, R.A., 'Josephus and the Bandits', JSJ 10 (1979), pp. 37-63. (Cited as [1979a].) —'The Sicarii: Ancient Jewish Terrorists', Journal of Religion 59 (1979), pp. 435-58. (Cited as [1979b].) —'Ancient Jewish Banditry and the Revolt against Rome, A . D . 66-70', CBQ 43 (1981), pp. 409-432. —'Popular Messianic Movemenu aroimd the Time of Jesus', CBQ 46 (1984), pp. 47195. Husseini, S.A.S., 'An Unfinished MonoUth Column in the Mahne Yehfldah Quarter in Jerusalem', QDAP 5 (1935), pp. 1-2. Jacobs, I., 'Eleazar ben Yairs's Sanction for Martyrdom', 13 (1982), pp. 183-86. Jeremias, J., Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu. Eine kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur neutestamentlichen Zeitgeschichte (GOttingen, 1923-1937; 3rd edn, 1962, rp. 1969). Jonge, M . de, 'Josephus und die Zukunftserwartungen seines VoUês', J-S, pp. 20519. Jost, J.M., Geschichte des Judenthums und seiner Secten, I-III (Leipzig, 1857-1859). Justus, B., 'Zur ErzahUcunst des Flavius Josephus', Theokratia II (1973), pp. 107-36. Kamlah, E., 'Frammigkeit imd Tugend. Die Gesetzesapologie des Josephus in cAp II, 145-295', 7 - 5 , pp. 220-32. Kasher, A., 'The ISOPOLITEIA Question in Caesarea Marituna', JQR 68 (1977), pp. 16-27. Kennard, J.S., Jr, 'Judas of GaUlee and his Clan', JQR 36 (1945-1946), pp. 281-86. Kenyon, K.M., Fund og Forskning i Bibelens land (Danish translation of Archaeology in the Holy Land, 1960) (Copenhagen, 1962).

242


Kippenberg, H.G., Religion und Klassenbildung im antiken Judda (GOttingen, 1978). Klausner, J., The History of the Second Temple (Hebr.), 1-V (2nd edn, Jerusalem, 1950; rp. 1968). Kopp, C , Die heiligen Stdtten der Evangelien (Regensburg, 1959). Korach, L., Vber den Wert des Josephus als Quelle far die rdmische Geschichte, I (Breslau, 1895). Kreissig, H., Die sozialen Zusammenhdnge des jUdischen Krieges. Klassen und Klassenkampf im PalOstina des 1. Jahrhunderts v.u.Z. (Berlin, 1970). KrUger, P., Philo urui Josephus als Apologeten des Judentums (Leipzig, 1906). Ladouceur, D.J., 'Masada: A Consideration of the Literary Evidence', GRBS 21 (1980), pp. 245-60. - ' T h e Language of Josephus', J57 14 (1983), pp. 18-38. Lapp, P.W., 'Soundings at 'ArSq el-Emir, BASOR 165 (1962), pp. 16-34. —'The Second and Third Campaigns at 'ArSq el-Emlr', BASOR 171 (1963), pp. 8-39. (Cited as [1963a].) -'Araq el Emir', RB 70 (1963), pp. 411-16. (Cited as [1963b].) Laqueur, R , Der jiidische Historiker Flavius Josephus. Ein biografischer Versuch auf neuer quellenkritischer Grundlage (Giessen, 1920; rp. Darmstadt, 1970). Levine, L.I., Roman Caesarea. An Archaeological-Topographical Study (Jerusalem, 1975). Lewinsky, A., Beitrdge zur Kenntnis der religionsphilosophischen Anschauungen des Flavius Josephus (Breslau, 1887). Lindner, H., Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaicum. Gleichzeitig ein Beitrag zur Quellenfrage (Leiden, 1972). —'Eine oflfene Frage zur Auslegimg des Bellum-ProOmiums', J-S, pp. 254-59. Loftus, F., 'A Note on cruvrayna TCOV ToXiXaicov, BJ IV, 558', JQR 65 (1974-1975), pp. 182-83. —'The Anti-Roman Revolts of the Jews and the Galileans', JQR 68 (1977-1978), pp. 78-98. Luther, H., Josephus und Justus von Tiberias. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des judischen Aufstandes (Halle, 1910). MacRae, G., 'Miracle in " T h e Antiquities" of Josephus', Miracles, ed. C.F.D. Moule (London, 1965), pp. 129-47. Adalinowski, F.X., 'Gahlean Judaism in the Writings of Flavius Josephus' (unpubhshed dissertation; Duke University, 1973). —'Torah Tendencies in Galilean Judaism According to Flavius Josephus with Gospel Comparison', Biblical Theology Bulletin 10 (1980), pp. 30-36. Martin, L.H., 'Josephus' Use of Heimarmene in the Jewish Antiquities XIII, 171-3', Numen 28 (1981), pp. 127-37. Mayer, R. and C. MoUer, 'Josephus—Pohtiker und Prophet', J-S, pp. 273-84. Mazar, B., 'The Tobiads', lEJ 1 (1957), pp. 137-45 and 229-38. —Beth She'arim. Report on the Excavations During 1936-1940, I-III, I (Jerusalem, [1957] 1973). —The Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem. Preliminary Report of the First Season, 1968 (Jerusalem, 1969). —The Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem near the Temple Mount. Preliminary Report of the Second and Third Seasons 1969-1970 (Jerusalem, 1971). —'Herodian Jerusalem in the Light of the Excavations South and South-West of the Temple Mount', lEJ 28 (1978), pp. 230-37.

Bibliography

243

McCasland, S.V., 'Portents in Josephus and in the Gospels', JBL 51 (1932), pp. 32335. Michel, O. 'Spatjiidisches Prophetentum', Neutestamentliche Studienfur R. Bultmann (BerUn, 1954), pp. 60-66. —'Studien zu Josephus. Simon bar Giora', NTS 14 (1967-1968), pp. 402-408. — ' " I c h komme" Qos. BeU. Ill, 400)', ThZ 24 (1968), pp. 123-24. —'Studien zu Josephus. Apokalyptische Heilsansagen im Bericht des Josephus (BJ 6, 390f., 293-95); ihre Umdeutimg bei Josephus', Neotestamentica et Semitica, AV M . Black (Edinburgh, 1969), pp. 240-44. —'Die Rettung Israels und die RoUe Roms nach den Reden im "BeUum Judaicum". Analysen und Perspektiven', ANRW II, 21.2 (1984), pp. 945-76. Migliario, E., 'Per I'interpretazione deU' Autobiografia di Flavio Giuseppe', Athenaeum 59 (1981), pp. 92-137. Moehring, H.R., Novelistic Elements in the Writings of Josephus (unpubhshed dissertation; Chicago, 1957). —'The Persecution of the Jews and the Adherents of the Isis Cult at Rome A . D . 19', NovT 3 (1959), pp. 293-304. —'RationaUzation of Miracles in the Writings of Flavius Josephus', Texte und Untersuchungen 112 (1973), pp. 376-83. —'The Acta pro Judaeis in the Antiquities of Flavius Josephus. A Study in Hellenistic and Modem Apologetic Historiography', Christianity, Judaism, and other GrecoRoman Cults, I-IV, AV M . Smith, ed. J. Neusner (Leiden, 1975), III, pp. 12458. —'Joseph ben Matthia and Flavius Josephus: the Jewish Prophet and Roman Historian', ANRW II, 21.2 (1984), pp. 864-944. MomigUano, A., Eastern Elements in Post-Exilic Jewish, and Greek, Historiography, Essays in Ancient and Modem Historiography (Oxford, 1977), pp. 25-35. —'Flavius Josephus and Alexander's Visit to Jerusalem', Athenaeum 57 (1979), pp. 442-48. —Cid che Flavio Giuseppe non vide. La storiografia greca (Torino, 1982), pp. 322-35. Mommsen, Th., 'ComeUus Tacitus imd Cluvius Rufiis', Hermes 4 (1870), pp. 395425. Montefiore, H.W., 'Josephus and the New Testament', NovT A (1960), pp. 139-60,30718. Montgomery, J.A., 'The Religion of Flavius Josephus', JQi? 11 (1920-1921), pp. 277305. Morel, W . 'Eine Rede bei Josephus. (BeU. Jud. VII, 341 sqq.)', RM 75 (1926), pp. 10615. Motzo, B., 'Due edizioni deUa Vita di Giuseppe', Saggi di storia e letteratura guideoellenistica', Firenze (1924), pp. 214-26. —'GU awenimenti di Galilea in BeUum e in Vita', Saggi di storia e letteratura guideoellenistica, Firenze (1924), pp. 226-40. Netzer, E., 'The Winterpalaces of the Judaean Kings at Jericho at the End of the Second Temple Period', BASOR 228 (1977), pp. 1-13. —Greater Herodium (Jerusalem, 1981). Neusner, J., 'The Conversion of Adiabene to Judaism. A New Perspective', JBL 83 (1964), pp. 60-66. Niese, B., 'Der judische Historiker Josephus', HZ ( N F ) 40 (1896), pp. 193-237. —'Josephus', Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. J. Hastings (Edinburgh, 19081926), VII (1914), pp. 569-79.

244


Nikiprowetzky, V., 'La mort d'Eliazar fils de Jaire et les courants apolog6tiques dans le De Bello Judaico de Flavius Josiphe', AV A. Dupont-Sommer (Paris, 1971), pp. 461-90. Noack, B., Jesus Ananiasson og Jesus fra Nazaret. En drfftelse af Josefus, Bellum Judaicum VI, 5, 3 (Copenhagen, 1975). Norden, E., 'Josephus und Tacitus tiber Jesus Christus und eine messianische Prophetie', Neue Jahrbiicher fiir das klassische Altertum, Geschichte und deutsche Literatur 16 (1913), pp. 637-66 ( = Z « r Josephus-Forschung, ed. A. Schaht [Darmstadt, 1973], pp. 27-69). Otto, W., 'Herodes I', P-WRE, Suppl. II (1913), cols. 1-205, and IX (1916), cols. 25132515. Otzen, B., Den antike j^dedom. Politisk udvikling og religiose strfimninger fra Aleksander den Store til kejser Hadrian (Copenhagen, 1984). Paul, A., 'Le concept de prophitie bibUque. Flavius Josiphe et Daniel, (Ant X , 266281)', RSR 63 (1975), pp. 367-84. Pelletier, A., Flavius Josiphe adaptateur de la Lettre d'Aristee. Une reaction atticisante contre la Koini (Paris, 1962). Peter, H., Die geschichtliche Literatur iiber die rdmische Kaiserzeit bis Theodosius J und ihre Quellen, I (Leipzig, 1897). Petersen, H., 'Real and Alleged Literary Projects of Josephus', AJPh 79 (1958), pp. 259-74. Pixner, B., 'Putting Bethsaida-JuUas on the Map', Christian News from Israel 27 (1982), pp. 165-170. Poznanski, A., Uber die religionsphilosophischen Anschauungen des Flavius Josephus (Halle, 1887). Pragner, J., Ueber das Verhdltniss des Flavius Josephus zur Zelotenpartei beim Ausbruch des judischen Krieges (Breslau, 1873). Radin, M., 'The Pedigree of Josephus', ClPh 24 (1929), pp. 193-96. Rajak, T., 'Justus of Tiberias', CQ 23 (1973), pp. 245-68. —'Josephus and the "Archaeology" of the Jews', AV Y. Yadin, ed. G. Vermes and J. Neusner (^JJS 33 [1982], pp. 465-77). —Josephus. TTie Historian and his Society (London and Philadelphia, 1983). —'Was there a Roman Charter for the Jews?', JRS 74 (1984), pp. 107-23. Rappapport, S., Agada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus (Wien, 1930). Rappaport, U., 'John of Gischala: From Galilee to Jerusalem', AV Y. Yadin, ed. G. Vermes and J. Neusner (,=JJS 33 [1982], pp. 479-93). Rhoads, D.M., Israel in Revolution: 6-74 CE. A Political History Based on the Writings of Josephus (Philadelphia, [1976] 2nd edn, 1979). Richards, G.S., 'The Composition of Josephus' "Antiquities'", CQ 33 (1939), pp. 3640. Rosenzweig, A., 'Der pohtische und reUgiCse Charakter des Flavius Josephus', Populdr-wissenschaftliches Monatsblatt zur Belehrung iiber das Judentum 9 (1889), pp. 78-83, 101-108. RUhl, F., 'Jusms von Tiberias', RM 71 (1916), pp. 289-308. RunnaUs, D., 'Moses' Ethiopian Campaign', 14 (1983), pp. 135-56. Safrai, S., H. Stem et al., eds.. The Jewish People in the First Century. (See JPFC in Abbreviations.) Sanders, J.A., 'The Dead Sea Scrolls—A Quarter Century of Study', BA 36 (1973), pp. 109-48. Sandmel, S., Judaism and Christian Beginnings (New York, 1978). Sauhnier, C , 'Lois romaines sur les Juifs selon Flavius Josiphe', RB 88 (1981), pp. 161-98.

Bibliography

245

Schafer, P., 'Zur Geschichtsaufiassung des rabbinischen Judentums', JSJ 6 (1975), pp. 167-88. Schaublin, Ch., 'Josephus und die Griechen', Hermes 110 (1982), pp. 316-41. SchaUt, A., Die Vita des Flavius Josephus. Eine historischkritische Untersuchung (Wien, 1925). —'Wann schrieb Josephus die Vita.>' (Hebr.), Zion 5 (1933), pp. 174-87. (Cited as [1933a].) —'Josephus und Justus. Studien zur Vita des Josephus', Klio 36 (1933), pp. 67-95. (Cited as [1933b].) —'The Letter of Antiochus III to Zeuxis Regarding the Estabhshment of Jewish Mihtary Colonies in Phrygia and Lydia', JQR 50 (1959-1960), pp. 289-319. —Flavius Josefus, Antiquitates Judaeorum. translated from Greek to Hebrew, I-III Qerusalem, [1944-1963] 1967-1973), Introduction (Hebr.), I (Jerusalem, 1967), pp. xi-lxxxu. —Konig Herodes. Der Mann und sein Werk (BerUn, 1969). —'Die Denkschrift der Samaritaner an KOnig Antiochos Epiphanes zu Beginn der grossen Verfolgung der jUdischen ReUgion im Jahre 167 v. Chr. (Josephus, AJ, X U §§258-264)', ^5r/ 8 (1970-1971), pp. 131-83. —'Josephus', Encyclopaedia Judaica, X Qerusalem, 1971), pp. 251-65. —(ed.), Zur Josephus Forschung (Darmstadt, 1973). —'Die Erhebung Vespasians nach Flavius Josephus, Talmud und Midrasch. Zur Geschichte emer messianischen Prophetic', ANRW II, 2 (1975), pp. 208-327. Schaller, B., 'Josephos', Der kleine Pauly, Lexikon der Antike, II (1967), pp. 144044. Schemann, F r . A . C , Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus in der judischen Archaeologie Buch XVIII-XX=Polemos II, cap. VII-XIV, 3 (Hagen, 1887). Schlatter, A., Zur Topographic und Geschichte Palastinas (Stuttgart, 1893). —Der Bericht uber das Ende Jerusalems. Ein Dialog mit Wilhelm Weber (Gatersloh, 1923), rp. Kleinere Schriften zu Flavius Josephus, ed. K.H. Rengstorf (Darmstadt, 1970), pp. 1-64. —Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josephus (Gfltersloh, 1932). Schloesing, A., Le judaisme de Flavius Josiphe (Cahors, 1901). Schmitt, G., 'Die dritte Mauer Jerusalems', ZDPV 97 (1981), pp. 153-70. Schreckenberg, H., Die Flavius-Josephus-Tradition in Antike und Mittelalter (Leiden, 1972). —Rezeptionsgeschichtliche und textkritische Untersuchungen zu Flavius Josephus (Leiden, 1977). —'Flavius Josephus und die lukanischen Schriften', Wort in der Zeit, AV K.H. Rengstorf, ed. W . Haubeck and M . Bachmann (Leiden, 1980), pp. 179-209. —'Josephus und die christUche Wirktmgsgeschichte seines "BeUum Judaicum'", ANRW n, 21.2 (1984), pp. 1106-1217. Schurer, E., Geschichte des jUdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, I-III (3rd and 4th edns, Leipzig, 1901-1909; rp. HUdesheun, 1970). Schwartz, D.R., 'Priesthood and Priestly Descent: Josephus, Antiquities 10, 80', JTS 32 (1981), p. 129-35. — ' K A T A T O T T O N T O N K A I P O N ' : Josephus' Source on Agrippa IF, JQR 72 (1982), pp. 241-68. —'Josephus and Nicolaus on the Pharisees', J S J 14 (1983), pp. 157-171. Serenius, J., Christendomens Styrka af Hedningamas, Och Sdrdeles af Flavii Josephi, Omddmen om Christo (Stockholm, 1752).

246


Sevenster, J.N., The Roots of Pagan Anti-Semitism in the Ancient World (Leiden, 1975). Shutt, R.J.H., Studies in Josephus (London, 1961). —'The Concept of God in the Works of Flavius Josephus', JJS 31 (1981), pp. 17189. Smallwood, E.M., 'The Alleged Jewish Tendencies of Poppaea Sabina', J T S 10 (1959), pp. 329-35. —The Jews under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletian (Leiden, 1976; rp. 1981). Smith, G.A., The Historical Geography of the Holy Land (London, 1894, 25th edn, 1931, rp. 1973). Smith, M., 'Palestinian Judaism in the First Century', Israel: Its Role in Civilization, ed. M . Davis (New York, 1956), pp. 67-81. Sobel, R.B., 'Josephus' Conception of History in Relationship to the Pentateuch as a Source of Historical Data' (unpubhshed dissertation; Cincinnati, 1962). Sowers, S., 'On the Reinterpretation of Biblical History in Hellenisuc Judaism', Oikonomia. Heilsgeschichte als Therrux der Theologie, AV O. Cullmann, ed. F. Christ (Hamburg and Bergstedt, 1967), pp. 18-25. SprOdowsky, H., Die Hellenisierung der Geschichte von Josef in Agypten bei Flavius Josephus (Greifswald, 1937). Stahhn, G., 'Das Schicksal im Neuen Testament und bei Josephus', J - 5 , pp. 319-43. Stauffer, E., 'Josephus', Biblisch-Historisches Handwdrterbuch, II (GOttingen, 1964), p. 890. Stein, Ed., 'De Flavii Josephi arte narrandi', Eos 33 (1930-1931), pp. 641-50. Stein, Elchanan, De Wordenkeuze in het Bellum Judaicum van Flavius Josephus (Amsterdam, 1937). Stemberger, Die rdmische Herrschaft im Urteil der Juden (Darmstadt, 1983), esp. pp. 33-37. Stem, M . , 'Flavius Josephus' Method of Writing History' (Hebr.), Historians and Historical Schools (Jemsalem, 1962), pp. 22-28. Strobel, A., 'Machams. Geschichte imd Ende einer Festung im Lichte archaologischtopog^-afischer Beobachtungen', Bibel und Qumran, AV H. Bardtke (BerUn, 1968), pp. 198-221. StrugneU, J., 'Flavius Josephus and the Essenes: 'Antiquities' XVIII, 18-22', JBL 7 (1958), pp. 106-15. TSubler, E., Die Parthemachrichten bei Josephus (Berlin, 1904). —'Die nicht bestimmbaren Hinweise bei Josephus und die Anonymushypothese', Hermes 51 (1916), pp. 211-32. Tcherikover, V., Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (1959; New York, 1970). Temporini, H . and W . Haase (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms in Spiegel der neueren Forschung, ANRW (BerlinNew York, 1972-). Thackeray, H.St.J., Josephus the Man and the Historian (New York, 1929; rp. 1967). Timpe, D. 'ROmische Geschichte bei Josephus', Historia 9 (1960), pp. 474-502. Trisogho, F., 'L'intervento divino neUe vicende umane daUa storiografia classica greca a Flavio Giuseppe e ad Eusebio di Cesarea', ANRW II, 21.2 (1984), pp. 9771104. Ulrich, B.C., Jr, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (Missoula, 1978). Unnik, W . C . van, 'An Attack on the Epicureans by Flavius Josephus', AV J.H. Waszink (Amsterdam, 1973), pp. 341-55. —'Josephus' Account of the Story of Israel's Sin with AUen Women in the Country of

Bibliography

247

Midian (Num. 25, IflF.)', Travels in the World of the Old Testament, AV M.A. Beek, ed. M . S . H . G . Heesma et al. (Assen, 1974), pp. 241-61. —Flavius Josephus als historischer Schriftsteller (Heidelberg, 1978). —'Flavius Josephus and the Mysteries', Studies in Hellenistic Religions, ed. M . H . Vermaseren (Leiden, 1979), pp. 244-79. Vaux, R. de. Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls (1961; London, 1972; rp. 1973). Vermes, G., 'A Summary of the Law by Flavius Josephus', NovT 24 (1982), pp. 289303. Vermes, G. & F. Millar (ed.). The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135) by Emil Schurer. A New English Version Revised and Edited by G. Vermes (sfF. Millar, I-II (Edinburgh, 1973 and 1979). Vidal-Naquet, P., Du bon usage de la trahison, Flavius Josiphe, La guerre des juifs traduit du grec par Pierre Savinel (Paris, 1977), pp. 9-115. —'Flavius Josiphe et Masada', Revue Historique 260 (1978), pp. 3-21. Wachter, L., 'Die unterschiedhche Haltimg der Pharisaer, Sadduzaer und Essener zum Heimarmene nach dem Bericht des Josephus', Zeitschrift fur Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 21 (1969), pp. 97-114. Waxman, M., A History of Jewish Literature, I-V (New York and London, 1938-1960; I, 3rd edn, 1960). Weber, W., Josephus und Vespasian. Untersuchungen zu dem JUdischen Krieg des Flavius Josephus (BerUn, Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1921; rp. Hildesheim, 1973). Weiss, H.-Fr., 'Pharisaismus und HeUenismus. Zur DarsteUung des Judentimis im Geschichtswerk des jtldischen Historikers Flavius Josephus', Orientalische Literaturzeitung 74 (1979), pp. 421-33. WUhamson, G.A., The World of Josephus (Boston and Toronto, 1964). WiUiamson, H.G JVi., 'The Historical Value ofJosephus' "Jewish Antiquities" XI, 297301', J T S 28 (1977), pp. 49-66. WiUrich, H., Urkundenfdlschung in der hellenistisch-judischen Literatur (Gottingen, 1924). Yadm, Y., The Excavation of Masada 1963/64. Preliminary Report Qerusalem, 1965) {=JEJ 15 [1965], pp. 1-120). —Masada. Kong Herodes' faestning (Danish translation oiMasada. The Zealot's Last Stand) (Copenhagen, 1971). Yavetz, Z., 'Reflections on Titus and Josephus', GRBS 16 (1975), pp. 411-32. Zeitlin, S., 'A Survey of Jewish Historiography: From the Biblical Books to the 'Sefer ha-Kabbalah' with Special Emphasis on Josephus', QR 59 (1968-1969), pp. 171214, and 60 (1969-1970), pp. 37-68, 375-406. —'Who were the GalUeans? New Light on Josephus' Activities in Galilee', JQR 64 (1973-1974), pp. 189-203. —The Rise and Fall ofthejudean State. A Political, Social and Religious History of the Second Commonwealth, I-III (Philadelphia, 1968-1978).

INDEX INDEX OF ANCIENT REFERENCES Josephus Bell. 1-6 1-4 1-2 1 1.1-30 1.1-16 1.1-3 1.1 1.2 1.3

1.4-5 1.4 1.6-12 1.6-8 1.6 1.9-12 1.10-11 1.10 1.13-15 1.17-18 1.18 1.22 1.23-24 1.26 1.27 1.28 1.29 1.31-35 1.31-2.118 1.36-116 1.63 1.117-353 1.117-158 1.117flF. 1.155-156 1.178 l.lSOflF.

139, 141 70 203-204 70, 138 65, 71 192, 202 76, 118 112, 203 100, 118 28-29, 61, 64, 76-77, 79, 111-12 67 36 76 118 76-77, 79 72, 205 74 74-76 112 80 190-91 51, 76, 112 67 76 74 76 69 65 71 65 211 85 75 65 211 211 65

1.248-273 1.263 1.266-267 1.274flF. 1.288 1.291 1.408-415 1.431-444 1.665-673 2-3 2 2.1-79 2.117-203 2.119^«M 2.119-166 2.120-161 2.169-177 2.169-174 2.181-203 2.184-203 2.218-555 2.220-279 2.223-246 2.227-235 2.234-240 2.252 2.253-265 2.254-257 2.256 2.258-263 2.261-265 2.264-265 2.266-270 2.268 2.271 2.271-276 2.280-283 2.284-292 2.293-296 2.293ff. 2.315-324

230 211 211 65 230 230 232 143 65 138, 175 44, 46, 70, 138 65 88 71 30,64-65 66 33, 66, 225 187 33 17 33 88 34 35 34 41 34, 66 34 38 34 215 74 34, 66 38 74 35 35 34-35, 66 35 66 35

2.333-344 2.345-401

2.365-387 2.390 2.405-654 2.406-407 2.408-440 2.411 2.425^29 2.433-448 2.441-448 2.454-456 2.454 2.455^56 2.455 2.457-483 2.457/5623.34 2.487-499 2.499-555 2.499flF. Z511 3.523-526 2.533 2.539 2.(556)568647 2.(556)562568 2.556flf. 2.556 2.562-568 2.562f. 2.562 2.569-654 2.569-584 2.572-584 2.576-63 2.582-584 2.585-647

35 32, 55, 75, 77, 181, 187, 232 232 77 71 37 35 37 36 37 67 75 71 37 75 37 107 119 66 35 40 37 36-37 37 36 38 175 36 66 177 36, 38 66 39 44 63 63 39

250 Bell, (com.) 2.594 2.595flF. 2.597flF. 2.604-609 2.621-622 2.632fiF. 2.647 2.651 3.1-4.120 3


44 44 44 40 40 41 44,47 44 71 47, 51, 53, 66, 70, 156, 211 36 3.29-43 3.29 47 41,47 3.30-34 3.35-58 66,211 47 3.59-4.120 3.59-63 36 40 3.59-62 3.59-61 47 3.(64)70-109 232 66 3.70-109 3.108 76 3.110-4.120 66 3.110-408 36 3.130 46 3.131-141 47 3.138 109 3.142-144 47 48 3.193-206 3.193-196 46 3.253-282 48 3.316-339 48 3.336-339 48 3.340-4.8 189 3.340 48 3.341-344 48 48 3.344-346 48-49 3.346-350 3.351-354 49, 226 3.351-353 190 3.351 190 28, 61, 112 3.352 3.354 181 3.361-382 49 3.362-382 156 3.384-386 49 49 3.384 3.387-388 49 3.389 49

3.391 3.392 3.393-396 3.397 3.398 3.399^2 3.400-402 3.400 3.403 3.404-407 3.406 3.408 3.409-^11 3.432-422 3.434-437 3.438-442 3.438-439 3.442 3.443-4.120 3.445-461 3.446 3.350-354 4-6 4-5 4 4.1-83 4.4-53 4.5 4.121-5.38 4.121-365 4.121£F. 4.152flf. 4.134-318 4.318 4.366^90 4.366-376 4.383-388 4.389ff. 4.399-409 4.410-490 4.440-442 4.440-441 4.491-502 4.491ff. 4.497-502 4.497flF. 4.503-544 4503ff. 4.545-549 4.556-584 4.558

49-50 50 50 50 50 147 50, 226 190 50 51 190 51 53 53 53 181 53 53 53 41 211 55 53 40 66, 68, 70 232 41 203 71 67 66 177 75 71 54 67 75 67 67 67 321 54 231 54, 67 54 67 67 177 54, 231 67 42

4.585-655 4.585-621 (663) 4.585ff. 4.622-629 4.626 4.628-629 4.629 4.656-663 4.657-663 5-6 5 5.1-38 5.3 5.11-19 5.19 5.20 5.39-7.20 5.39-572 5.39-553 5.39ff. 5.114 5.136-247 5.184-277 5.257 5.261 5.325-326 5.360flF. 5.361 5.362-419

5.367-368 5.367 5.378 5.391-393 5.395 5.396-398 5.399-400 5.415 5.419 5.491-501 5.511-572 5.533 5.541flF. 5.541-542 5.542-545 5.544 5.546-547 6

231 54 68 54 54 54 54 54 68 70 29, 55, 68, 70,72 68 71 75 75, 77, 187 73, 192, 205 232 71 68 54 55 68 214 75 55 55 55 55 55, 57, 68, 75, 148, 181, 187 55 77, 148, 188 77 55, 56 56 56 55 75, 77, 187 28, 29 68 68 29 181 55 55 29 55 55, 68-70

Index of Ancient References Bell, (com.) 6.1^2 6.94ff. 6.96-110 6.118ff. 6.118 6.129 6.164-168 6.193-213 6.236-266 6.236-243 6.238 6.249-266 6.267-270 6.285-287 6.285 6.288-315 6.312-313 6.312 6.316 6.353-355 6.363-364 6.365 6.407-408 6.414-419 6.435-442 7

7.1-445 7.1-4 7.17 7.23-24 7.37-39 7.112-113 7.116-122 7.123-162 7.123-157 7.158-162 7.163-215 7.216 7.218 7.252-406 7.252ff. 7.275-279 7.304-319 7.320-336 7.323-336 7.341-388 7.407^8 7.407

71 55 68 56 55 55-56 68 68 76 69 140 69 69 226 226 69 190, 226 147 69 57, 69 57, 69 55, 56 57 57 69 57, 69, 74, 139, 141, 154-56 71 57 57 57 57 76, 145 58 69 232 79 69 69 70 69 79 232 232 148 55 148 69 57

7.409-453 7.437-453 7.438 7.447-450

70 58, 76, 181 58 58

Ant. 1-11 1-10 1-5 1-2 1 1.1-26 1.1-4 1.1-2 1.2^ 1.4 1.5 1.6-7 1.6 1.7-8 1.7 1.8 1.10-13 1.14-17 1.14-15 1.14 1.15 1.17 1.18-26 1.20 1.23 1.27-10.281 1.51 1.93-95 1.107 1.108 1.127 1.150-256 1.221 2-4 2 2.7-200 2.39-59 2.136 2.238-253

92-94, 125, 204 89-90, 136, 149-50 90-91 142 80 80, 91, 93 192, 202 113 112 61.76 92-93, 99, 102, 127 61-62, 80, 103 71 62, 103 62, 80, 103 59, 130 80, 96 80 163, 165 101, 149, 185-86, 201 101, 185 92, 127 80, 101 101, 149 101, 149, 185 91 113 81 230 201, 204 113 82 211 186 81 81 143 113 95

251 2.287 2.293-3.38 2.347 2.348 3 3.25 3.81 3.102-187 3.224-236 3.237-254 3.258-273 4 4.76-193 4.76-175 4.114-117 4.196-301 4.196-198 4.196 5 5.276-317 5.276flf. 5.318-337 6-10 6 6.45-378 6.156-348 6.262-268 7 7.46-129 7.301-342 8 8.55-56 8.61-98 8.63-98 8.144-149 8.144-146 8.212-420 8.324 9 9.206-214 9.208 9.214 9.239-242 9.283-287 9.288-291 10 10.18-20 10.24-35 10.70-83 10.79 10.84-180

113 201 92 201, 204 81 201 201, 204 81, 214 81 81 81 81 82 82 148, 188 82 97 92, 97 82 82 143 82 90-91 82 82, 88 82 82 82, 83 83 83 83 83 83 214 83 230 83 230 83 83 92 92 83 83, 30 83 83-84, 89 84 84 84 89, 166 84

252 Ant. (com.) 10.106-107 10.186-218 10.210 10.218 10.219-228 10.232-281 10.276 11-20 11-13 11 11.5-6 11.12-17 11.139 11.159-183 11.184-296 11.297-303 11.304-347 11.304-307 11.336-337 12-20 12-13 12 12.1-13.217 12.5-7 12.7-118 12.37 12.121-124 12.127 12.135-137 12.138-153 12.154-236 12.160-236 12.226-227 13-20 13-14 13 13.1-217 13.10-11 13.35-36 13.58-80 13.106-121 13.171-173 13.218-432 13.218 13.250-251 13.260-264 13.286-287 13.297-298 13.319

Flavius Josephus, between Jerusalem and Rome 84 84 147-48, 166, 188 92 84 84 89, 166, 188 89-92 90-92 84,90 84 84 184 84 84 84 84 229 229 92-94, 126 126, 128 84 229 84 84 168 145 84 84 84 84 220 84 90 138 85 85 211 85 85 85 30 85 85, 89, 230 85 85 85 30 85

13.337 13.344 13.347 13.372flF. 14-20 14-19 14-17 14-15 14 14.1-2 14.3 14.9 14.19-79 14.35-35 14.68 14.75-76 14.104 14.111 14.114-118 14.138-139 14.138 14.144-155 14.185-189 14.186-188 14.186 14.187 14.190-216 14.219-222 14.225-267 14.265-267 14.306-322 14.330-369 15-19 15-16 15 15.9-10 15.174-178 15.202-236 15.331-341 15.380-425 15.418 15.425 16 16.16-65 16.136-141 16.161 16.162-173 16.164-178 16.174-178

85 85 85 91 90 89 87, 90-92, 231 87 85-87, 129, 216, 230 204 204 85 75 86 85-86 211 86, 86 86 86 86 86 86 62, 86 102 100 100, 119 86 86 86 62 86 230 132 132, 138 86, 230 86 86 143 232 214 28 86 86-87, 216 87 87 62 87 62 100

16.174-175 16.174 16.183-187 16.187 16.271-299 16.373-391 16.387 17-19 17 17.1-187 17.41^5 17.60 17.149-163 17.168-195 17.200-218 17.206-249 17.219-249 17.250-298 17.299-320 17.354 18-20 18 18.4-5 18.11-12 18.36-38 18.39-52 18.55-95 18.55-89 18.55-M 18.55-59 18.63-64 18.66-80 18.85-89 18.96-105 18.116-119 18.126 18.127-129 18.143-309 18.22419.211 18.224-309 18.257-309 18.257-261 18.261-309 18.284-288 18.305-309 18.310-379 19 19.1-283 19.1-16

100,102,119 102 87, 192 28 87 87 28 132-33 87, 138 87 87 185 87 87 87 224 87 87 87 184 91-92, 138 88 186 30 88, 224 230 225 33 184 187 17, 88, 125, 130, 153, 222 232 184 230 17, 88, 125 184 185 88, 184 184 88 33 119 187 184, 201 184 88, 230 88, 233 231 88

Index of Ancient References Ant. (com.) 19.16 19.17-273 19.236-359 19.278-291 19.280-285 19.287-291 19.303-311 20 20.2-5 20.6-14 20.17-96 20.54-91 20.97-258 20.97-102 20.97-99 20.105-136 20.116-119 20.120-123 20.154-156 20.160-172 20.167-172 20.173-178 20.179-181 20.182-215 20.182-184 20.195 20.200-203 20.200 20.252-258 20.258 20.259-268 20.259-261 20.259 20.261 20.262-267 20.262-265 20.262-263 20.262 20.263 20.264 20.265-267 20.266-267 20.266f. 20.266 20.267 20.363

185 88-89 184 33 88 88 88 88-89, 105, 132, 164 34 3 88 230 33 34 225 34 223 34 192 34 34, 225 34 34 35 34 31, 32 17, 88-89, 125, 223 16 35 71 61, 93 104 91 92-93 105 104, 111 61 102, 111 62 104 111 105 59 104, 108, 110-12 91, 93, 105 62

Vita 1-29 1-19 1-12(27) 1-6 1 2-4 3-6 5-6 5 6 7-12 7 8 9 10 11-12 11 12 13-16 14 15 16 17-29 17-27 17-19 17-18 17 19 20 21 22-23 22 24 25-27 27 28-413 28-30 28-29 28 30-413 30-31 30flF. 30 31-411 32-42 32-34 35 36fi; 39-42

107 28 112 106-107 28 28 28-29 29 29,58 29 106-107 29 29-30 30 30 30, 215 30 30, 189, 201 106-107 31 31 31-32, 59 107, 175 106 33,37 32 32 32, 46 36-37 37 37 37 37 37 37 36 38, 45 106-107 38, 45 107 40 39 41, 107 107 41 43 41, 43 41 41

39 43 44-45 46-61 62 64-69 66-68 66 70-73 77-78 77 84 84 97-100 102-103 112-113 114flf. 125 126flF. 132fl: 134-135 136-144 143 149-154 155flF. 174flF. 175-176 179-188 187-188 189-312 189ff. 204-212 206-207 206 210-211 230 237 242-243 304-308 309-310 311 336-367 336-356 336-339 338 340 341-343 342 346-348 350

253 41 40 41 41 44 43 43 41 41 44 44 42 42 42 42 43-44 44 42 41,44 44 43 40 42 44 41 46 4 5 ^ 41 43 45 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 47 42 39, 108-109 108-109 192-202 39 39, 42, 109 211 62, 78, 128 40 39, 109

254 Ant. (cont.) 352-353 352 357ff. 357-367 357ff. 357-358 358 359-360 361-367 361-364 361-362 361 368flf. 373-380 375-380 381-384 381 384 386 388-389 390-391 392-393 394-412 394-397 394flF. 398 406 410 411 412 413 414-421 414-415 414a 415 416-417 416 417a 417b 418 419 420-421 422-429 422-423 422a 422b 423-430 423a 423b

Flavius Josephus, between Jerusalem and Rome 41 39 39 61, 108, 192, 202, 204 39 112 62, 78, 128 105-106 60, 179 63 77 79 42 47 42 42 44 40 43 44, 46 41 41 47 47 40 44 40 47, 211 47 71, 107 107 53, 107 53 51 54, 58 181 54, 56 56 56 56 56 56 107 178 58 58 57 58 58

424-425 424 425 425a 425b 425c 426a 426b 427 428-429 428a 428b 429 429a 429b 429c 429d 430 430a 430b Ap. 1 1.1-56 1.1-5 1.1-4 1.1-2 1.1 1.2 1.4-5 1.6-2.144 1.6-68 1.6^6 1.6-27 1.19-22 1.28-46 1.28flF. 1.28-29 1.29-41 1.29 1.30-36 1.37-^1 1.37 1.38 1.39-41 1.41 1.46-56 1.46-54

181 58 178 58 58 58 58 58 58 181 59 59 178 59 59 59 59 93, 105, 107108, 110, 112 59 59

215 93,192 113, 117,118 118 118, 119 13, 59, 92, 93, 99-100 114 114 118 117 118, 204 114, 117 205 94, 114, 117, 119 93 94 190 190 190 89 190 93 93 191 118 76

1

1.47-56 1.47 1.48-49 1.48 1.49 1.50-52 1.50-51 1.50 1.53-56 1.53-54 1.53 1.54 1.55 1.56 1.57-72 1.57 1.69-160 1.73-105 1.106-127 1.112-115 1.127 1.128-153 1.129-153 1.150-151 1.154-160 1.161-218 1.172-175 1.183-205 1.213-214 1.219-287 1.219-2.144 1.227-287 1.288-319 1.288-303 1.320-2.7 1.320 2 2.1-144 2.1-7 2.1 2.8-144 2.8-32 2.16 2.23-78 2.33-78 2.43 2.52-113

61, 111, 112, 114,117,202 71 53, 61 38, 45, 53, 54 54, 62 60, 179 77 62, 132-33 114 111 61 28, 61, 92, 93, 118 61 62, 78, 128 114 117 117 114, 117, 230 114, 117 230 118 114, 117 230 63 115, 117 115, 117 230 230 230 115, 117 117 230 115, 117 230 117 115 121, 162, 115, 215 230 115, 117 59 115, 118 115 230 115 119 168 63

Index of Ancient References Ap. (cont.) 2.69-319 2.79-88 2.79 2.89-111 2.112-124 2.123 2.125-142 2.136 2.143-144 2.144-145 2.145-296 2.145-295 2.145-286 2.145-219 2.145 2.147 2.148 2.154 2.160ff. 2.160 2.164-219 2.165-167 2.165 2.168 2.169flF. 2.179-118 2.179flf. 2.180-181 2.190flF. 2.209-210 2.218 2.220-295 2.220-286 2.225-237 2.237 2.238-254 2.255ff. 2.261 2.276 2.279-286 2.282-286 2.287-296 2.287 2.288-290 2.291 2.293-294 2.296 2.304-320

94 115 230 115 115 120 116 93, 118 116 118 118 162 118 116, 118, 186 230 162 230 116 186 186 162 116, 186 116 116 116, 186 75 186 186 116, 186 120 186, 187 94 116, 118 116 116 116 116 116, 120 116 116 120 118 93, 116, 118 116 116 117 117 230

255

Old Testament

44

84

Genesis 1-35 4flf. 36-Exod. 15 37-50 39.6-15

80 28 81 81 143

Jeremiah 22 26 29 33-34 37-43 52

84 84 84 84 84 84

Exodus 16.13

201

Ezekiel 12

84

Daniel 1-6 2.34-35 2.44-45 8

84 147, 188 147, 188 84

Zechariah 14.5

226

Malachi 3.1 4.5-6

225-26 225

Numbers 14

81

Deuteronomy 34 81 1 Samuel 5-31 2 Samuel 1-24 1 Kings 1-2 2-22 22 2 Kings 1-18 1.8 6-7 6 18-25

82

82

83 83 83

83 225 83 83 83

1 Chronicles 11 83 16 83 20-29 83 2 Chronicles 1-18 2 3-4 19-31 32-36 Isaiah 38-39 40.1-11

83 83 83 83 83

84 225

Intertestamental Literature / Maccabees 1-9 9-13

84 85

New Testament Matthew 1.1-17 2 3.4 10.5 21.19-20 par. 21.33-46 par. 22.1-10 23.37-39 par. 24.1-2 par. 25.14-30

28 222, 224 225 224 16 16 16 16 16 224

Luke 2 2.2 2.41-52 3.23-38

224 222 30 28

256 Luke (cont.) 10.30-36 13.2-5 13.34-35 14.21-24 19.12-27 19.12 19.41-44 21.20-24 John 4 18.28ff. 19.13 Acts 5.36-37 7 15.5 21.38 25.1-11

Flavius Josephus, between Jerusalem and Rome 224 16 16 224 224 224 16 16

224 224 224

224 53 223 224 31

1 Corinthians 10.11 227 2 Corinthians 11.25 31 Galatians 4.21-31 Philippians 3.4-5

16, 227

29

2 Thessalonians 2.14-16 16

Dio Cassius, Hist. 65.15 79 66.1-4 50

Philo, Leg. 229-305 299-305

33 225

Eusebius Historia Ecclesiastica

Polybius 1-2 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.14-15 1.7 1.35 1.37 1.45 1.54-55 1.58-59 1.63 2.24ff. 2.31 2.35 2.37 2.56 3.57-59 3.1 3.9 3.32 5.30-33

203 205 201 212 202 201 201-202 201 203 201 201 203 232 203 203 212 202 212 212 202 212 212

Suetonius Vesp. 5.6

28, 37, 50

3.5,3 3.9,2

222 60

Hieronymus Comm. in Isaiam 64 71 Epist. 22.35, 8

125

De Viris Illustribus 13 60 Livy, Hist. 5.1 5.15-23 5.33 5.36-37 8.8 8.32 9.22 10.7 Lucian 5 7-9

201 69 201 201 232 49 201 232

9-10 11-14 34 37 38-41

60 202 205 202 202 202 202

Tacitus

205 205 205 202 203

Ann. 1.1 96, 202 Hist. 1.1 202 Zonaras Epitome Historiarum 11.16 52

Appian, fragm. 17

62

39 42 47 51 58

Cicero, Pro Archia 10.25

152

Minucius Felix, Octavius 33.4 78

Other Ancient Literature

Sulpicius Severus Chronica 2.30,6-7

157

INDEX OF M O D E R N Abel 212 Alt 1 9 9 , 2 2 0 Altschuler 129 Amaru 157-58, 165, 185, 187, 189 Applebaum 212 Armenti 153 Attridge 169-71, 184 (1976) 73, 92, 96, 124-25, 134, 149-50, 158, 160, 167, 185, 187, 191 (1984) 22-23, 70, 75, 78-79, 89, 92, 102, 104, 113, 121, 124, 134, 154, 157, 159, 161, 163, 165-69, 185, 202 Aune 57, 154, 165, 191, 217 Avi-Yonah (1966) 212 (1967) 221 Baer 155, 200 Baerwald 106, 141, 174 Balch 117, 121, 162-64, 168 Bardy 17, 126 Barish 106, 110 Bamett 36 Belldn 117, 121 Bell, A.A. 144 BeU, H.I. 216 Bentwich 51, 128, 134, 183 Berendts-Grass 64 Berggren 125 Betz (1960) 52, 191 (1974) 201 Bickermann 199, 220 Bilde (1979a) 223 (1979b) 75 (1980a) 225 (1980b) 43 (1981) 64, 125, 153, 223 (1983a) 18, 23, 26-27, 36, 79, 99, 103, 124-25,128,134,141,144,150,176, 181, 184-85, 187, 189, 195-97,199200, 221 (1983b) 120, 223 (1984) 215

AUTHORS

Bhch 198 Black 213 Blenkinsopp 52, 57, 189, 191, 202 Bloch 89, 103, 128, 131, 141, 194, 200 Blosser 154 Brandon 223 Braun (1934) 81, 143-47 (1956) 57, 73, 148, 184 Brinton 177 Broshi 164, 168, 199 Bmce 188 BrOU 16 BrUne 133, 206 Brunt 36, 180, 213 Bilchler 193 Buehler 212 Burchard 64 Case 102-103 Chesnut 57, 206 Cohen, N . G . (1963-1964) 82, 144 (1975-1976) 217 Cohen, S.J.D. 39, 105, 128, 134, 158, 161, 166, 170-71, 174-75, 178, 189 (1979) 21, 23, 36, 46, 60, 96, 102-103, 106-107, 110, 124-25, 137-40, 151, 157, 160, 163-64, 194-95, 200, 206 (1982) 70, 144, 152-56, 163-64, 168, 199, 221 CoUomp 200, 206 Colpe 198, 230, 233 Corbo (1962-1963) 219 (1978) 219 Daniel 120-21 Daube 169 (1976) 163, 191 (1977) 53, 57 (1980) 52, 57, 182, 191, 234 Debevoise 198, 230, 233 DeUmg 201 Destinon 126-29, 193 Dexmger 183, 189

258


Domaszewski 232 Downing 164, 171, 228 (1980a) 9 2 , 1 4 4 , 1 5 3 - 5 4 , 1 6 3 , 1 6 5 , 1 6 8 , 183 (1980b) 92, 144, 153 (1982) 92, 154, 165, 168, 183 Drexler 108, 137, 139, 141, 174 Drtiner 128-29, 131-33, 141, 143, 202 Dupont-Sommer 220 Eck 70, 79 Eddy 120 Eisler 51, 64, 128, 134, 136, 174, 223 (1929-1930) 141 (1930) 60 Farmer 139, 175, 209, 214 (1956) 57, 75, 124, 144-48, 184, 200, 202, 206, 213 (1957-1958) 213 Feldman (1962) 89 (1968a) 82, 102-103, 144, 215 (1968b) 82, 96-98 (1970) 82, 84, 102, 144, 185 (1975) 163, 193, 199, 221 (1976) 82-83, 98, 144 (1981) 153 (1982) 82, 103, 138, 144, 157-58, 164, 168, 203, 205-206 (1984a) 16, 32, 38, 52, 64, 78, 89, 97, 99, 102, 106, 110, 1 1 3 , 1 2 1 , 123-26, 128, 131, 134, 144, 150, 152, 176, 184, 187,189, 193, 195-96,198-200, 206, 208-209, 218, 221, 228, 233 (1984b) 17, 21, 23, 38, 52, 64, 78-80, 89, 95-99, 113, 121, 124-25, 128, 133-34,144,169,176,183,195,198, 228, 233 Fischer 189, 201 Foakes-Jackson 128, 134, 229 Frankfort 106 Franxman 142-44, 158, 215 Freyne 166, 169, 171, 213 (1979-1980) 43 (1980) 43, 46, 153-54, 160-61, 169 Fuchs 120 Gauger 168, 196, 216, 230 Gelzer 106, 132 Geva 152 Gichon 36, 152 Goldenberg 168

(1976-1977) 96, 215 (1980) 167 Goldstem 132, 230 Goodman 152,213 Graetz 126-28, 140-41, 174, 183, 208 Grant, M . 78, 108, 110, 132, 183, 201 206 Grant, R.M. 17, 64, 126 Gutmann 78, 141 Guttmann 95, 183, 189 Haefli 198 Hata 144 Hayward 154, 216 Heinemaim 92 Hehn 106 Hengel 132, 193, 200, 209, 213-14 Hill 36, 213, 225, 227, 229 HOlscher 51, 76, 136, 161, 171 (1904) 85, 89 (1916) 22, 78, 89, 121, 127, 191 Hoenig 183 Hof&nann 95, 189, 191, 200 Hohlfelder et al. 152, 219, 232 Horowitz 85, 89, 134 Horsley (1979a) 36, 213 (1979b) 221 (1981) 36, 152, 213 (1984) 36, 152-53, 229 Husseini 221 Jacobs 154 Jeremias 212, 217 de Jonge 57, 147-48, 188 Jost 126-28, 140 Justus 134, 144, 160-61 Kamlah 117 Kasher 216 Kennard 213 Kenyon 219 Kippenberg 212 Klausner 141, 174 Kopp 212, 224, 228 Korach 194, 198, 230-31, 233 Kreissig 180, 212-13 Krflger 200 Ladouceur (1980) 152-56, 163, 168 (1983) 92, 134, 144, 164, 168, 202204

Index of Modem Authors Lapp 220 Laqueur 2 1 , 51, 60, 76, 78,102-106,12831, 134-36, 139, 141, 143, 156, 16061, 171, 174, 178 Levine 219 Lewinsky 166 Lindner 139-41, 184 (1972) 25, 57, 75, 78, 124-25, 148-49, 155, 164, 168, 183, 191 (1974) 2 5 , 120, 134 Loftus 213 (1974-1975) 43 (1977-1978) 43 Luther 108, 141, 174 MacRae 201 Mahnowski 153 Martm 165-66, 168, 234 Mayer-M6ller 180 Mazar (1957) 220, 230 (1973) 218 (1969) 221 (1971) 221 (1978) 219 McCasland 227-28 Michel (1954) 154, 217 (1967-1968) 214 (1968) 52 (1984) 57, 75, 154, 165, 168, 185, 189, 191, 206 Michel-Bauemfemd 64, 124, 134, 14649, 155. 183-84, 191 Migharic 5 1 , 2 0 2 - 1 0 3 , 1 0 6 - 1 0 8 , 1 1 0 , 1 2 0 , 153, 160-61, 166, 169, 171, 174-76 Moehring (1957) 144 (1959) 134, 144 (1973) 144 (1975) 1 9 9 , 2 0 9 , 2 1 6 , 2 3 3 (1984) 23, 25, 36, 52, 74-75, 124, 141, 167,169-70,175,178,180,182,191, 209, 233-34 Momighano 171 (1977) 205 (1979) 229 (1982) 166, 180, 189, 206, 214 Mommsen 89 Montefiore 229 Montgomery 189 Morel 148 Motzo 160

259

Netzer (1977) 219 (1981) 152,219 Neusner 216 Niese 128-29, 131, 141-43, 208-209 Niese (1885-1895) 64 (1896) 73, 78, 103, 134 (1914) 78 Nikiprowetzky 141, 148, 164 Noack 209, 227 Norden 128, 140 Otto 191 Otzen 20 Paul 144 PeUetier 142, 144 (1962) 133, 191, 202 (1975-1980) 106 Peter 92, 95 Petersen 106, 129, 133 Pixner 152 Poznanski 166, 187 Pragner 141, 174 Radm 32 Rajak 156, 175, 214 (1973) 43, 46, 106, 108, 110, 160 (1982) 92, 96, 98, 102-103, 157, 159, 164, 166, 168 (1983) 22-23,26, 3 2 , 4 3 , 46, 5 2 , 7 0 , 7 3 , 75, 78-79, 102, 104, 106, 108, 124, 133, 152-54, 161, 168-69, 177-78, 180, 189, 200, 202, 206 (1984) 102, 138, 154, 168, 199, 216, 220, 230 Rappaport, S. 134-36, 139, 215 Rappaport, U. 152, 171, 214 Rhoads 36, 209, 213-14 Richards 133, 142 Rohl 110, 141, 174 RunnaUs 154, 157, 159, 168, 215 Safi-ai-Stem 20, 217 Sanders 198-99, 221 Sandmel 117 Sauhnier 154, 168, 199, 216, 220, 230 Schafer 200 Schaublin 94, 117, 120, 154, 162, 165, 168, 234 Schaht 128, 132, 134, 137, 139-40, 144,

260


161, 171, 175, 194-95, 198-99, 220 (1933b) 108, 135-36 (1967) 92, 102, 203, 215 (1971) 52, 78 (1973) 124-25, 135-36 (1975) 52, 78, 141, 148, 155, 167, 170, 183 Schaller 110 Schemann 89 Schlatter 78, 128 (1893) 140 (1923) 134, 191 (1932) 166, 217 Schloesmg 120, 189 Schmitt 152 Schreckenberg (1968) 17, 126, 150 (1972) 17, 64, 126, 155 (1977) 17, 126, 155 (1979) 150 (1980) 17, 126, 153, 224, 229 (1984) 17, 126, 154 Schurer 20, 36, 208-209, 217 Schwartz 171 (1981) 57, 154, 164, 191 (1982) 164-65 (1983) 164 Serenius 125 Sevenster 120 Shutt 144 (1961) 92, 133, 142, 164, 194, 200, 202-203, 206 (1981) 166, 168, 185, 191, 201, 234 SmaUwood (1959) 32 (1976) 20, 36, 217 Smith, G.A. 212 Smith, M . 1 0 3 , 2 0 2 Sobel 215 Sowers 98 Spradowsky 143-44 Stahhn 183, 200 StaufiFer 193 Stein, Ed. 144, 200, 204 Stem, Elchanan 132-33, 144, 202 Stemberger 7 5 , 1 8 9

Stem 200, 206 Strobel 219 StmgneU 199 •raubler (1904) 230, 233 (1916) 129, 134 Tcherikover 216 Thackeray 142-46, 175-76, 202 (1929) 22-23, 60, 73, 78, 89, 131-34, 136, 139, 141, 194 Thackeray et al. 73 Thnpe 89, 231, 233 Trisogho 128, 134, 167, 171, 185 Ulrich 132 Unnik (1973) 102, 120, 185 (1974) 144 (1978) 17, 51-52, 78, 96-97, 124, 126, 229, 233 (1979) 102, 120 de Vaux 220 Vermes 96, 98, 117, 121, 162, 165, 16768 Vermes & MiUer 20, 36, 106, 217 Vidal-Naquet (1977) 17, 5 2 , 7 8 , 1 2 6 , 1 6 6 , 183, 199-200 (1978) 148, 156, 221 wachter 165, 199, 201 Waxman 102 Weber 5 1 , 7 6 , 7 8 , 1 2 8 , 1 3 6 , 1 4 0 , 1 6 1 , 1 6 8 , 171, 200 Weiss 102, 191 WUhamson 78, 132, 134 Willrich 136, 220 Yadin 219, 221 (1971) 198-99 Yavetz 176 ZeitUn (1968-1969) 180 (1968-1970) 78, 180 (1973-1974) 43 (1968-1978) 78, 117, 180, 185, 217

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

Abraham 82, 84, 88, 95, 101, 158 Acra 218 Acts 223-24 Adiabene 88, 216 Adriatic Sea 31 Agamst Apion 1 3 , 2 2 , 6 3 , 89, 93-94,11321, 162-63, 216, 230 ahn 13, 93, 120-21, 162 character 22, 118-20, 131, 162-63, 175 contents 22, 113-17 dating and title 113 disposition 117-18 readers 120-21 sources 121, 168 Agatharchides 84 Agrippa I 19, 34, 66, 88, 9 1 , 184 Agrippa U 19, 32, 35, 39, 41, 44-45, 55, 66, 75, 77, 9 1 , 105-106, 109-110, 164-65, 179, 181, 187, 211, 232 Agrippa, M . 87 Agrippa, son of Josephus 29, 58 Ahab 83 Albinus 34 Alexander the Great 84, 229, 233 Alexander Jannaeus 85 Alexandreion 219 Alexandria/Alexandrian 22, 33, 54, 58, 68, 113, 115, 119, 121, 144, 210, 215, 233 Ahtyrus 31 Allegory 97, 210, 214, 217, 227 Ananus 44-46, 88, 222-23 Anthony 65, 86, 231 Anti-Judaism 20 -»• Anti-Semitism Antioch 47, 66, 215 Antiochus III 84 Antiochus IV Epiphanes 18-19, 65, 119, 184 Antipater, father of Herod 19, 65, 91 Antipater, son of Herod 87 Antipatris 35, 219 Antiquities, Jewish 22, 59, 80-104, 118, 125-30,132-35,157-60,174,184-85,

202-205 aim/purpose 80, 93-94, 97, 99-102, 111, 119, 122, 130 & the Bible 92-98, 135-36, 142-43, 149-50, 157-59, 204 character 92-103, 136, 137, 147, 14950, 159, 175, 204-205 contents 22, 80-89, 113-14 dating 103-104, 159 & the Jewish War 85, 88-90, 99, 101102, 126, 129, 131-32, 134, 138, 160, 169-70, 184, 196-97 moral 80 readers 99-103, 174 sources 62, 80-90, 92-95, 98-99, 126, 128-29, 131, 136, 142, 149-50, 164, 193-96, 204, 205 structure 89-92 theology 184-85 & Vita 104-106, 174 Anti-Semitism 22, 3 7 , 1 0 0 - 1 0 1 , 1 0 3 , 1 1 5 , 118-21, 182 -•Anti-Judaism Antonia 34-35, 68, 218 Antonius Juhanus 78, 128, 140 Apion 22, 113, 115-116, 118-119, 216, 230 Apocalyptic 1 4 9 , 1 5 5 , 1 6 6 , 1 8 2 , 1 8 8 , 2 1 0 , 213-14, 217, 227 Apocrypha 83-84, 210 ApoUonius Molon 230 Appian 52 Aquila 96 Araba 220 Aramaic 76, 79, 96, 133 Araq el Emir 220 Archaeology of Palestine 14-15, 18, 135, 151-54, 168, 192, 195, 198-99, 20710, 214, 218-22 Archelaus 19, 29, 65, 70, 87-88, 91, 18485, 224 Aristeas, letter of 84, 98, 142, 195-96, 229 Aristobulus 91 Aristocracy, Jewish 35, 37-38, 45, 58,

262


138, 176-77, 180, 213, 233 Aristocratic party 38, 43-45, 138, 17577 Aristotle 115, 158 Artapanus 154 Artaxerxes 190 Asceticism 30, 223, 225 Assyrians 75, 83 Astrology 165 Athens 162 Augustus 38, 87, 224, 231 -•Octavian Autobiography -»-Vita Babylon/Babylonian 18, 55, 69, 75, 8384, 88, 90-91, 114, 230 Balaam 148, 188 'Bandits', Jewish 34, 36, 42, 44, 66, 74, 77, 214, 221 Bannus 3 0 , 2 2 5 Bans 218 Batanaea 211 Ben Gorion 16 Berosus 81, 84, 96, 114, 159, 216, 230 Bethlehem 14, 65 Bethsaida Juhas 41, 152, 211, 224 Beth Shearim 218 Bible/bibUcal 17, 63, 80-84, 92-98, 125, 154, 190, 217, 227 -»-Law, the Jewish - • O l d Testament -•Scriptures, the Jewish -•Torah Caesar 62, 65, 231 Caesarea Maritima 14-15, 34-35, 53, 66, 86-87, 119, 198, 211, 215, 219, 232 Caiaphas 222 Cahgula 2 0 , 2 9 , 3 3 , 6 6 , 8 8 , 1 8 1 , 1 8 4 , 1 8 7 , 196-97, 201, 231-33 Canaan 90 Canon/canonical 1 7 , 8 9 - 9 0 , 9 3 , 1 1 4 , 2 0 0 , 210, 215 Capernaum 221, 218, 224 Cassiodor 63 Cassius 231 Cassius Longinius 34 Catullus 58 Cesuus GaUus 35-38, 66, 71, 177 Chaeremon 115, 117, 230 Choerilus 230

Christianity/Christian 14, 16-17, 20-21, 25,27,71,97,116,125-26,130,151, 153,155,167,207,209-10,217,22129, 233-34 Christian view of Josephus 16-17, 167, 207-208 Chronicles, book of 83, 94, 150 Chronology 211-12, 214 Church Father(s) 17, 57, 60, 63-64, 125 Citadel, in Jerusalem 14-15 Claudius 19, 33-34, 36, 88, 231-33 Clement of Alexandria 63-64 Cleopatra 86, 230 Cluvius Rufiis 88-89, 231 'Commentarii', Flavian 6 2 , 1 2 8 , 1 4 0 , 1 5 7 Conflict between HeUenism and Judaism 18, 37, 100, 118-20, 205, 215-17, 233 Conflict between Jews and non-Jews in the Roman Empire 33, 37, 100, 113-117, 119-20, 215-17 m Alexandria 33-34, 115, 119 m Caesarea 34-35, 53, 66, 119, 21516 in Palestme 34, 36-37, 40-41, 43, 66, 74, 119, 217 Conflict in the Hasmonaean House 65, 86, 91 Conflict in Herod's House 65, 86-87, 91 Conflict in the Jewish people 56, 72, 74, 202, 204, 213, 217 Confhct amongst the Jews regarding the revoU (66-70[74]) 15, 35-36, 40, 6768, 177, 213 Conflict amongst the Jews in Jerusalem (66-70) 40 Conflicts, the Jewish in GaUlee 39-42, 47, 178 Conservative Jews 18-19, 41 Corpus Hermeticum 165 Crassus 231 Crete 58 Cumanus 34 Cyprus 20, Cyrene 58, 70, 76, 121 Cyrus 84 Dabarittha 41-42, 44 Damascus 215 Daniel 84, 163, 189, 191, 227, 229

Index of Subjects Daniel, book of 84, 147-48, 166, 188, 277-28 David 19, 82, 84, 87-88, 90, 95, 101, 158 Dead Sea 15, 136, 220, 225 Dead Sea ScroUs 15, 30 Decapolis 211 Desert-motive/ideology 30, 81, 201, 225-27 Deuteronomy 82, 149, 155 Diaspora, Jewish 20, 33-34, 87, 86, 115, 119,145,150,158,179-80,212,21517, 230 Dio Cassius 28, 50, 52, 79 Diodorus Siculus 159 Dionysius of Hahcamassus 92-94, 153, 158-59, 162-65, 202-205 Dius 230 Domitia 59 Domitian 59, 102-104, 130, 138-39, 160, 174-75, 178, 198 East Jordan 53, 67, 82, 220, 222 -•Peraea Egypt/Egyptian 20, 70, 81, 114-15, 201, 214, 216, 229-30 Egyptian prophet 34, 224-26 Eleazar ben Jak 55, 141, 148, 156 Ehjah 191, 225 Emmaus 211, 224 Epaphroditus 59, 80, 99, 105, 117, 130, 174 Epigraphy 106, 195, 198, 210, 218 Esau 81 Eschatology/eschatological 97, 210, 213, 217, 225-27, 229 -ojosephus - eschatology -•Messiah/Messianic Essenes 15, 30, 65-66, 101, 136, 188, 198-99, 201-202, 210, 213, 220-21 -•Dead Sea -•Qimiran Esther 84, 88, 95, 98, 101, 158, 163, 191, 196 Esther, book of 84, 98, 195-96 Ethiopia 95, 154, 159 Eusebius 28, 57, 60, 63-64, 154, 167, 222 ExUe 18, 61, 84, 90-91, 154, 158, 165, 202, 214 Exodus 81, 201

263

Ezekiel, book of 84, 191 Ezra 184 Ezra, 1st 84 Ezra, 4th 182 Ezra-Uterature, the apocryphal 83-84 Fadus 34 FeUx 30, 34, 212 Festus 34, 212 Fiscus Judaicus 20, 69-70 Flavian fanuly 16, 77-78, 126, 128, 140, 144-45,156,157,167,173,175,17879, 205, 231-32 -•Josephus - Flavian writer Flavius Silva 79, 232 Fionas, Gessius 35, 88 Fourth PhUosophy 186, 210 Gabara 40, 44, 47, 66 Gabinius 65, 231 Galba 54, 67 'Gahleans' 40-44, 161, 213-14 GaUlee 21-22, 35-53, 60, 66, 70-71, 10612, 130, 127-38, 140, 153, 160-61, 169, 173-81, 211, 213, 221-22 Gamala 38, 40-41, 47-48, 66, 208, 219, 232 Gaulanitis 211 Genesis 80-81, 98, 142-43, 195-96 Gennesaret, Lake of 40, 211 Geography of Palestme 203, 211, 222, 224 Gischala 39-42, 44, 47, 66 Gnosticism 165 God-fearers 31-32, 121 Golgotha 224 Gospels 14, 211, 224-27 Greco-Roman culture 27,63,117-18,122, 167, 190, 200-206, 209, 212 Greece 36 Greek hteramre 114, 116-17, 167 Hadrian 20 Haggadah/haggadic 95, 135, 215 Halakhah/halakhic 95, 215 Haskalah 181 Hasmonaeans/Hasmonaean 14, 19-20, 28-29, 56, 65, 84-86, 90-91, 119, 181-82, 212-14, 219 Hebrew 79, 83, 92, 95-96, 136

264


Hebron 14-15 Hecataeus of Abdera 115, 159, 168, 196, 216, 230 Hegesippus 63 HeUenism/HeUenistic 18, 41, 81, 83, 94, 122, 143-M, 154-55, 159, 213, 216, 220, 228-30, 232-34 Hellenistic history and Uterature 25, 81, 8 4 , 1 4 7 , 1 5 0 , 156,159,190,205-206, 230, 232 Herod Antipas 66, 212, 222 Herod the Great 14, 19, 28, 33, 65, 70, 82, 85-88, 9 0 - 9 1 , 1 3 5 , 1 4 3 , 181, 212, 214, 218-19, 221-22, 224, 234 Herodian 85-86, 90, 138, 213, 218-20, 231 Herodias 14-15, 65, 86, 198, 219-20 Herodotus 84, 94, 115, 204 Herod's 'Memoirs' 86 Herod's palace 35, 198, 219 -»-Royal palace Hieronymus, Church Father 71, 125 Hieronymus, Egyptian author 81 Hippicus 219 Hippolytus 63-64 Hiram of Tyre 83 'Hyponmemata' -^Commentarii Hyrcania 219 Hyrcanus, the Tobiad 85 Hyrcanus I 29, 85 Hyrcanus U 19, 91 Hyrcanus, son of Josephus 29, 58 Idumea/ldumaean 19, 53, 67, 86, 211, 214 Irenaeus 63-64 Isaac 80 Isaiah 145 Isaiah, book of 84 Isis 232 Isocrates 158 Israel today/Israeh 16, 18, 198, 208 Jacob 81 James, brother of Jesus 64, 88-89, 12526, 223, 228 Jamnia 138, 160, 175, 210, 215 Jeremiah 55-57, 84, 145, 163, 191 Jeremiah, book of 84 Jericho 14-15, 65, 82, 198, 219

Jerusalem 14-16,19-21,29-30, 32-33,35, 37-38, 40, 4 2 ^ 5 , 47-48, 53-57, 6162, 65-68, 71, 75-76, 84-86, 90, 106, 110, 1 1 2 , 1 1 5 , 1 2 5 , 1 2 8 , 1 3 0 - 3 1 , 1 3 7 , 140,152,157,160,173-74,198,204, 208,210,214,217-19,222,224,22629, 231-32 Jesus 14-17, 20, 30, 64, 88, 125-26, 153, 188, 207, 209-10, 222-24, 227-28 Jesus ben Ananiah 209, 227 Jesus ben Sapphias 41-42 Jewish Uterature 28, 80, 116, 190, 210 Jezreel, Plain of 218 John the Baptist 15, 17, 30, 64, 88, 12526, 188, 210, 223, 225, 227-28 John of Gischala 39-40, 47, 67, 77, 214 Jonah 31 Jonah, book of 83 Jonathan, high priest 28-29, 85 Joppa 35 Jordan 53, 67, 82, 220, 225 Joseph, son of Jacob 81-82, 84, 88, 95, 101, 143, 158, 164, 189, 191, 196 Joseph, the Tobiad 85 Joseph, grand&ther of Josephus 29 JOSEPHUS

agitator for Judaism 103, 118, 162, 205, 228 -»• apologist missionary aim 74-78, 99-102, 110-13, 126-27, 130, 136, 138-40, 144-45, 150, 162, 170, 176, 191, 194-95, 204-205, 208 -•goals întention -•purpose -•tendencies ambiguity 145 ancestry 106-107, 190 -•-famUy -•-genealogy -•lineage anonymous hypothesis 126-29, 131-34, 139-42, 149 apocalyptic 149, 155, 166, 188, 227 apologist for himself 18, 29, 39, 76, 10810, 113, 121, 126-27, 130, 136, 13839, 144, 148, 160-61, 175-207 apologist for Judaism and the Jewish

Index of Subjects people 22, 74, 77-78,93-94,97-102, 113-22, 126, 130-32, 134-36, 139, 141-42,144-50,158,162-63,168-82, 194, 196, 205, 220, 228, 233-34 -•agitator -•missionary apostle 15-16, 136, 146, 167, 169, 207 Aramaic 62, 64, 76, 79, 133, 156, 223 archaeology 18, 98, 135, 163, 192, 19899, 207-208, 218-22 aristocrat 13, 28, 32, 37, 45, 58, 61, 138, 146, 169, 174-77, 179-81, 202, 233 -••family -•nobel descent assistants 18, 62, 132-34, 136, 142, 149, 156 attitude to the Revolt (66-70[74]) 31-32, 37-39, 43-46, 48-50, 108-10, 131, 137-41,145-48,160^1,175-78,180-81, 184, 186, 226 & the Bible 51, 61, 80-84, 92-99, 104, 115,125,127,135,149-50,154,15759, 167, 189-90, 193, 204-205, 215, 227 boaster 104, 111, 157 character 105, 126-27, 134, 136-37, 14547 childhood and youth 29-30, 32, 106-107, 189 & Christianity/Christians 14, 16-17, 71, 125-26, 130, 155, 165, 207-209 chronology 82, 87, 138, 197, 211-12 the classical conception of 95, 126-41, 144,146,150-51,161,164,167,16971, 174-75, 177, 183, 189, 192, 19495, 207-208 compiler of sources 126-28, 131 composer 98, 142, 196 consistency in his works 18, 23-24, 27, 121,142,149-50,155,157,159,16971, 175-76, 178-80 -•unity in his works copyist 18, 127-29, 164, 193 covenant/selection 149-50, 158, 182, 18587 coward 53, 127, 169 creative author 1 2 7 , 1 2 9 , 1 3 4 - 3 5 , 1 4 1 ^ , 156, 164, 196, 234 criticism of gentile rehgion 102, 116, 120

265

criticism of Greek civilization 114, 11620, 162, 205 criticism of the rebels 145, 148, 234 criticism of sources in 126-29, 134, 149, 164-65 criticism of tendency in 129-30, 149, 165 deceiver 127, 207 'Deuteronomism' 75, 149, 155 development/changes 129-31, 138-39, 17475, 178, 180 -•turncoat documents 85-88, 90, 98-100, 131, 135, 154,168,170,194,196,198-99,205, 216, 220-21, 230-32 dramatic style 14, 48, 81, 89, 95, 158, 192, 195-96, 204, 232 ediuon of his works 6 4 , 1 2 3 - 2 5 , 1 2 9 , 1 3 1 , 146 editor of his sources 94-95, 98-99, 12728, 138, 140, 142-43, 148, 154, 15759, 201, 229 -•Bible -•exegesis education 20-21, 29-30, 32, 61-62, 106107, 179-80 egotism 129, 131, 135, 140, 174 enemies 41-46, 53, 55-56, 58-60, 65,108109, 111, 121 erotic emphasis 81, 95, 143, 195-96 eschatology 137, 146-49, 157-58, 165, 182-83, 186-90, 226-28 excursuses 113-114, 117, 158, 203, 211 exegesis 127, 215, 227 -•editor — Bible expert on Judaica 109, 130, 174 family 20, 28-29, 32, 53-55, 57-58, 179 -•genealogy -•lineage flatterer 18, 126, 144, 157, 192, 207 Flavian writer 16, 18, 54, 58, 60-61, 76, 78, 126-27, 131, 136, 144-45, 15657, 167, 174-75, 177, 193, 205, 231 focus on great personahties 81-85, 87-88, 95, 158 forger 129, 144, 207, 220, 229 -•deceiver -•fraud -•mendacity

266


formulae of references 126, 128-29 fraud 129 -•deceiver -•forger -•mendacity genealogy 28-29, 32 -•family -•lineage geographical interest 98, 196, 203, 21112 goals 28, 176 -•aim - • intention -•purpose -•tendencies Greco-Roman historiography 62, 106, 111, 1 1 4 , 1 1 8 - 1 9 , 1 3 2 , 1 4 7 , 1 5 3 , 1 5 9 , 167-68, 194, 200-206, 212 & Greek culture 62, 114, 118-22, 162, 180, 234 & Greek language and Uterature 6 2 , 1 0 4 , 114, 132-33, 163, 200 & Greek philosophy 116, 120, 165 200201, 205 HeUenism 97, 101, 122, 147, 149-50, 155, 157, 159-60, 165-66, 171, 183, 200-206, 233-34 HeUenistic style 81, 83, 95, 97-98, 101, 143-44, 150, 155-56, 158, 165-67, 183, 196, 200-206, 233 hireUng 17, 127, 131, 174, 193 -•Flavian writer -•mercenary historical mterest 197, 200, 206, 221 historiographical principles 28, 55-56, 61-63, 67, 71-73, 76, 96, 112, 114, 118, 147, 149-51, 157-59, 168, 18992, 199-200, 202-206, 212 'hypomnemata' 62, 138 ideology 135, 144-45, 179, 205 independence as an author -•originaUty indolent 105 intentions 17, 74, 76-77, 101, 103, 11314, 130, 135, 140, 144, 155, 162, 165, 184, 191, 196-97 —•aim -•goals -•purpose -•tendencies interests 131, 183, 191, 196

interpretation of the Bible 1 3 5 , 1 6 2 , 1 8 9 90, 227-28 -•Bible -•editor -•exegesis interpretation of history 55-56,140,14849, 161, 165, 186-88, 197, 199-200, 205, 227-28 interpretation of the Jewish rebels 55-56, 72, 74-75, 170, 178, 234 interpretation of dispension in the Jewish people 56, 72, 75, 170, 182, 202, 204 interpretation of Rome 48-50, 55-56, 75, 77, 148-49, 161, 166, 170, 178, 186, 188-90 interpretation of Rome 48-50, 55-56, 75, 77, 148-49, 161, 166, 170, 178, 186, 188-90 interpretation of the war 36, 55-57, 7278, 141, 145, 170, 180, 186-87, 226 Jerusalem 71-73, 182, 217 & the Jewish people 60 Jewish view of 15-17, 60, 65, 155, 207208 Judaism and Judaic faith 15-16, 22, 43, 73, 99, 101, 109, 115-17, 120, 13739, 1 4 6 ^ 8 , 157, 159, 162-63, 16569, 177, 180, 183-84, 186, 191, 200207, 234 language 18, 62, 80, 95, 98, 121, 129, 132-33, 142-44, 149, 159, 164, 191, 195-96, 199, 202 -•vocabulary Latin translation of his writings 63 Ufe history/geography 13-16, 20-25, 2761, 66, 72, 104, 106-13, 121, 129-31, 137-40,145,147,150,160,163,16971, 173-81, 191, 199, 207, 225, 233 Uneage 104, 106-108, 110-11,189 -•famUy -•genealogy Uterary analysis of 142-44,146,153,15556, 163 Uterary form 133, 143, 146, 158, 168, 204 Uterary interest and ambition 98, 136, 141, 192, 196 Uterary method 70, 98,151,154-56, 16365, 192, 197, 203-204, 215

Index of Subjects literary pattems/topoj 32, 116-17, 153, 162-63, 168, 184-85, 203 literary plans 91, 103-104 manuscripts of his writings 63-64 mediator between the Jews and the Romans 55-56, 68, 131, 160, 170 mendacity 129, 160 -•deceiver -•forger -•fraud mercenary 16 -•Flavian writer -•hireling Messiah/Messianic hope -•eschatology methods/methodology 23-28, 51-53,106, 137-39, 143, 148-49, 169, 180 nuracles 81, 201-203 missionary 99, 101, 103, 116, 118, 12022, 162, 166, 228 -•agitator -•apologist modem conception of 141-51, 155, 159, 161, 167, 170-71, 176 moralizing 142, 205 narrative cycles 87-88, 143 -•story-teller national standpoint 15-16, 25, 60, 130, 134, 138-39, 141, 144, 173-81 -•patriotism -•political standpoint noble descent 20, 28-29 -•aristocrat Old Russian translation of Bell. 64, 223 opportunist 46, 52, 148, 161, 169, 189 originaUty 127, 143, 150, 156, 158, 163, 171 -•creativity -•independence paraphrase of sources 94, 98, 115, 127, 135, 142-43, 150, 196 pathetic style 81, 95, 195-96 patriotism 131-32, 147, 182-83 -•national standpoint -•pohtical standpoint person/personal 22, 72-73, 136, 146, 15051, 160, 169-70, 179, 184, 191-92, 199-200, 202, 204, 207, 209, 233 personal mterest 98, 146-47, 191 Pharisee 30, 138-39, 141, 155, 162, 166, 169, 175, 182, 189, 191, 215, 233 phUologist 98, 104, 142

267

plagiarizer 126-27, 194 polemist/polemics 22, 102, 108, 118, 148, 154, 174, 205, 234 pohcy m Gahlee 43-47, 106, 130, 138, 140, 153, 160-61, 173-80 pohtical standpoint 25, 43-46, 5 5 , 6 0 , 7 4 78, 102, 103, 108-10, 121-22, 13032, 137-39, 141, 144, 147, 151, 155, 157,160-61,169-70,173-82,191-92, 196, 205, 233 -•national standpoint -•patriotism preacher 97-98 priestly descent and status 13, 20, 28-30, 32, 49, 53-54, 61, 111-12, 130, 146, 155,162,166,169,174,179-80,182, 189-91, 200, 205, 233 prophet/prophecy 21, 39, 49-52, 54-57, 59, 75, 97, 121, 135-37, 141, 147, 154, 182-83, 189-91, 200, 205, 227 233 providence 31, 48-49, 52, 58, 69, 145, 147, 157, 159, 185-86, 201-202 -•theology psychological interest 95, 158 purpose of writing history 13, 25, 74-78, 99-100, 110, 176 -•aim -•goals -•intentions quotations m 98-99,114-16,127,132-33, 196, 199, 202, 230 rationaUzation 201, 203 readers 30, 62-63, 75-78, 99-103, 142, 174, 188, 192, 196-97, 200-202, 204 reUabUity 18,23, 4 4 , 4 6 , 7 4 , 9 8 , 1 2 5 , 1 2 7 , 135-36,152,154,156,163,168,171, 183, 191-200, 207-208, 219-21, 230 renegade 15-16, 136 research 16-18, 23-25, 38, 51-52, 60, 73, 76, 92, 102, 105-106, 108-109, 12371, 174, 176, 182-84, 192-95, 197, 199, 207-209, 230 reviser of his works 105, 129, 139 rhetoric 46, 95, 114, 158, 166, 192, 199, 202, 204, 208 m Rome 16, 21, 30-32, 37, 57-61, 65, 137, 179 Roman writer/propagandist 16-18, 78, 130-32,138-39,144-45,167,174-75,

268


177, 183, 188 -•Flavian writer -•hireling -•mercenary social and economic conditions and context 20-21, 26, 45, 46, 58-60, 121, 130, 169, 173, 178-80 sources/treatment of sources 61-62, 7889, 94-95, 97-99, 121, 125-29, 131, 136-38, 140-42, 144, 148-49, 159, 164-65, 168, 192-97, 204-205, 215, 229-33 speeches 29, 32, 55, 57, 68, 75, 77, 81-82, 142, 148-49, 154-56, 158, 163, 163, 165, 181, 187, 203, 232 'statement of aflFairs' 109, 130-131, 139, 174 story-teUer/narrator 48, 81-84, 87-88, 95, 98, 101, 143-44, 146, 204 -•narrative cycles style 18, 62, 95, 98, 102, 121, 129, 13233, 142-44, 159, 192, 196, 199, 202, 208 subjectivity in writing history 72-73 suicide 49, 51, 156 surrender 16, 21, 48-49, 52, 60, 111, 121, 130, 138, 146, 174, 176 systematizer of the Law/Bible 8 1 - 8 3 , 9 4 95, 97 in the Talmud 16 Temple 71-73, 89, 146, 182, 217 tendencies 18, 23, 98, 102, 105, 126-27, 129,135,138,141,159-60,180,192, 197 -•aim -•goals -•intentions -•purpose theodicy 146, 148 theology 22, 31, 48-50, 55-56, 75, 77-78, 101, 116-17, 122-23, 135, 137, 13941, 144-51, 154-55, 157-60, 162, 165-67, 170, 182-92, 196, 200-201, 217, 233 thoughdessness 92, 95, 105, 126 topographical interest 98, 196-97, 203, 211-12 topoi 95, 116, 156, 163, 203 —•hterary pattems tragic emphasis 95, 158 traitor 15-16, 37, 39, 41, 44, 49, 52-53,

60, 127, 129-30, 136, 138, 146, 167, 169, 174-75, 179, 181, 183, 207208 translation of 63-64, 123, 125, 181, 18586, 223 transmission of his works 17, 61-64, 71, 113, 125, 223 turncoat 169, 174 -•development/changes 'typos' 163 tyrant in Gahlee 108-11, 130, 169, 174 unity m his works 23-24, 129, 131-32, 142, 146, 159, 169, 179-80 -•consistency imoriginal and unindependent 126-27, 136, 174, 193 use of 1 4 - 1 5 , 2 3 , 2 5 , 7 4 , 1 2 7 , 1 5 2 - 5 5 , 2 0 7 34 vanity 127, 136, 138, 161, 169, 193 vocabulary 98, 133, 142, 164 —•language works 13, 18, 28, 51-52, 63, 106, 122-23, 127, 129-30, 133, 135, 139-40, 14546, 151, 165-66, 169-71, 174, 176, 179-85, 188-89, 191, 199, 206-207, 213-14, 232-33 -•writings writings, generahy 13, 16-18, 22-25, 30, 38, 42, 52, 60-123, 126-30, 132-34, 137-39,142-46,149-50,171,173-82, 1 8 4 , 1 9 1 , 1 9 9 , 203, 207-209, 211-18, 220, 225, 228-29, 232-33 -•works Joshua 82, 158 Josiah 83 Jossipon 16-17 Jotapata 21, 36, 40, 44, 47-55, 66, 112, 138, 160-61, 175-76, 189-90, 204, 208, 232 Jubilees, book of 150, 215 Judaea 19-21, 32, 40, 53, 57-58, 61-63, 65-67, 69-70, 84, 87, 91, 107, 128, 156, 173, 177, 211, 2 2 1 , 2 3 1 Judaica 109, 151, 209-18, 229 Judaism 21-22, 31, 43, 65, 88, 99, 101, 103, 115-17, 153-54, 180, 186, 192, 200-202, 205-208, 210, 214-17, 22223, 225, 228-29, 233-34 Judas the Gahlean 65, 210, 213, 224 Judas Maccabaeus 84-85

Index of Subjects Judges 82 Justin 63-64 Justus, son of Josephus 29, 58 Justus of Tiberias 39, 41-43, 46-47, 62, 106,108-109,111-12,121,130,16061, 174 Kedron 211 Kings, book of 82-83, 94-95 Lamentations 149 Law, the Jewish 30-31,34,49, 5 3 , 7 5 , 8 0 82, 89-90, 9 4 - 9 7 , 1 0 1 , 1 0 4 , 111, 116, 118, 182, 185-87, 215 —Bible - • O l d Testament -•Scriptures -•Torah Leontopohs 154, 214, 216 Levites 164, 214 Leviticus 81-82 Libya 20 U v y 69, 86, 93-94, 125, 159, 201, 203205, 212, 232 Lucian 67, 202, 204-205 Luke 30, 153, 163, 165, 224, 229 Lydda 25 Lyshnachus 115, 117, 230 Maccabees/Maccabean 19, 37, 84, 186, 234 Maccabees, 1st 84-85, 98, 128-29, 196, 229 Maccabees, 2nd 150 Macchaerus 69, 198, 219 Manetho 96, 114-15, 117, 159, 216, 230 Manoah 143 Mariamme 86-87, 143, 219 Masada 14-15, 21, 35, 37, 48, 55, 67, 6970, 79, 148, 152, 154, 163, 198-99, 208, 218-19, 221, 232 Mathias, brother of Josephus 29 Matthias, founder of the Hasmonaean family 65, 85 Matthias, great-great grandfather of Josephus 29 Matthias, great grandfather of Josephus 29 Matthias, father of Josephus 29 Megasthenes 84 Menahem 37, 67

269

Messiah/Messianic 17, 19, 36, 77, 137, 147,153,158,183,187-88,190,190, 210, 213-14, 226 -•eschatology Middle East 19, 229, 231 Midrash 96 Mihtant nationahsm, Jewish 77, 137, 180-81, 184, 186-88, 208, 213, 217 -•revolutionaries -•war party Mmucius Fehx 78, 140, 214 Mission, Jewish 210, 216 Moderate party 137, 161, 176-77, 181, 186 -•peace party Mordecai 163 Moses 80-82, 84, 88-90, 94-95, 97, 101, 115-16, 118, 120, 154, 158-59, 186 Mount Gerizim 229 Moimt of Ohves 211, 225-27 Nabatea/Nabatean 86-87, 211, 220 Nahum, book of 83, Nebuchadnezzar 69, 84 Nehemiah, book of 84 Nero 21, 32, 34, 36, 50, 54, 66-67, 23031 New Testament 15-17, 30, 63, 97, 153, 197-98, 200, 202, 208, 210-12, 21415, 221-29, 233-34 Nicanor 48 Nicodemus 125, 207, 225 Nicolas of Damascus 28, 81, 84-89, 127, 164, 203, 231 Nobihty, Jewish 138 -•aristocracy -•upper-class Numbers 81-82 Numismaucs 106, 195, 198, 210, 218 Octavian 65, 86 -•Augustus Old Testament 17, 30, 63, 75, 80, 82-83, 95-97, 125, 135, 149, 154, 166, 184, 200, 205, 210, 225 —Bible -•Law -•Scriptures -•Torah Oniads 214 Ophlas, Hill of 219

270


Oral tradition, Jewish 86, 95-96, 98 Orient, and Oriental culture 94, 9 6 , 1 1 4 , 117, 119-20 Origin 63-64, 71 Otho 54, 68 Palesthie/Palestinian 14, 18-20, 31, 3334, 36, 54, 65-66, 69-70, 74, 84, 96, 100, 119, 156, 168, 181, 197-9, 201, 207-208, 211-13, 215, 220-22, 228, 231, 233-34 Papyrology 63, 198 Parthia/Parthian 198, 217, 230-31, 233 Paul 14, 16, 20, 29, 31, 188 Peace party 35-37, 45-46, 74, 137, 17678, 185 -•moderate party PeUa 222 Pentateuch 81, 95, 215 Peraea 66-67, 211, 220 -•East Jordan Persia/Persian 18, 84, 90, 205 Petra 220 Petronius 184 Phaimi ben Samuel 177 Pharisees/Pharisaic 15, 30, 37, 65, 101, 138-39, 141, 155, 162, 164-66, 189, 191, 201-202, 210, 215, 223, 233 Phasael 219 Phasaehs 219 Phihp 66 Philistines 82 Philo 33, 97, 113, 119, 121, 125, 143, 170,181,197-98,200,202,210,216, 225, 228, 233-34 Phoenicia/Phoenician 114, 117 Photius 105-106 Pilate 15, 33, 35, 66, 184, 187, 212, 222, 224-25 Pistus, father of Justus of Tiberias 41 Plato 116-17, 162 Phny 204, 220 Poimandres 165 'Pohteuma' 216 Polybius 67, 84, 145, 147, 196, 201-205, 212, 232 Pompey 19, 33, 65, 74, 85, 91, 231 Poor Jews 18-19, 34, 41 - • 'Proletarian' Jews Poppaea Sabma 21, 31-32, 59

Potiphar 143 Prefect(s), the Roman 33 Priest/priestly/priesthood 38-31, 34-35, 37-38, 53, 81, 155, 162, 164, 177, 189-91, 200, 213-15, 229 Procurator(s), the Roman in Judaea 30, 33, 66, 212, 224 'Proletarian' Jews 41, 43, 67 -•poor Jews Prophet/prophecy/prophetical hteramre, Jewish 16-17, 19, 34, 49-51, 66, 77, 8384, 89-90, 112, 115, 146, 148, 154, 158, 165-66, 188-91, 200, 210, 213, 217, 223, 225-27 Prophets, book of the 49, 83, 95, 210, 215, 226-27 Pro-Roman Jews 35, 38, 40-41, 43-44, 47, 74, 179 Proselytes 120-21 Pseudepâpha 143, 210, 212, 215 Pseudo-Philo 150 Ptolemaeus, Agrippa IPs oflScial 41 Ptolemais 35, 47, 53, 66, 107 Ptolemy Soter 85 Ptolemies 212, 229-31 Pythagoras 115-16 Quietistic 217 Quirinius 212, 220, 224 Qumran 1 5 , 1 8 , 3 0 , 6 3 , 9 7 , 1 2 6 , 1 6 2 , 1 9 4 , 198-99, 210, 212, 220, 225, 227-98, 233 -•Dead Sea —-Essene Rabbi/rabbinical 1 3 5 , 1 3 8 , 1 4 3 , 1 5 4 , 1 6 0 , 166, 175, 197-98, 200, 212, 215, 233 Rebecca 80 Red Sea 81 Reform Judaism 181 ReUgious aspects of the Jewish Revolt (66-70[74]) 34, 43-44, 179 Revolt, First Jewish (66-70[74]) 13-15, 19-22,27-60,65-70, 88,108-10,112, 119, 122, 128, 137-38, 152-54, 17475, 177, 190, 203, 209-10, 213-16, 222, 226 Revolt, Jewish, causes 15, 33, 57, 70-75, 152, 182, 215-16, 226

Index of Subjects Revolt, Second Jewish (115-117) 20, 76 Revolt, Third Jewish (132-135) 20, 76, 119 Rvolutionary Jews 4 1 - 4 2 , 4 4 , 6 7 , 72,176, 181, 223 Rome/Roman 13-16, 19-21, 30-33, 3536, 39-49, 52-58, 60-61, 65-70, 74, 77, 79, 85, 8 8 , 9 0 , 94, 102, 1 0 6 , 1 2 1 22, 137, 1 4 + 4 7 , 156, 160-62, 167, 170,173,191,212-13,215,217,22325, 228-33 Roman army 66, 68, 76, 232 Roman history 25, 67-68, 88, 230-33 Royal palace, in Jerusalem 86 -•Herod's palace Ruth, book of 82 Sabbatical year 154 Sadducees 15, 30, 65, 101, 181, 201-202, 223 Salome Alexandra 29, 85, 91 Samaria 14, 19, 66, 83, 211, 219, 224 Samaritans 83, 224, 229 Samson 82, 84, 88, 95, 101, 143, 158, 196 Samuel 82 Samuel, book of 82-83, 94-95, 98, 19596 Saul 82, 88, 95, 158 Scriptures, Jewdsh 56, 61, 89, 92-93, 99, 104, 111, 1 1 5 , 1 2 7 , 1 5 7 , 1 8 9 - 9 1 , 1 9 3 , 200-201, 204, 210, 215, 226-27 —Bible —Law — O l d Testament -Torah Seleucids 18-19, 199, 210, 212-15, 217, 229-31, 233 Sennacherib 84 Sepphoris 40-42, 44,47 Septuagmt 80, 83,95-96, 170, 200, 202 Shechem 229 Sicaru 34, 66-67,70, 163, 186, 210, 214 Siloam, Pool of 219 Simon, son of Matthias 85 Sunon bar Giora 67-68, 77,177, 214 Simon bar Kokhba 20, 76, 96,119 Sinai 81 Simon, great-great-great grand-father of Josephus 28-29

271

Socio-economic aspects of the Revolt (66-70[74]) 34, 36, 41, 43, 67, 213 Solomon 83-84, 95,101, 158 Sophoicles 132-33 Spain 181 Sparta 162 Stephanus 55 Strabo 85-86, 202 Suetonius 28, 37, 50,52 Suicide, ritual 21, 49-50,55, 156, 163 Sulpicius Serverus 157 Synagogue 166 Syria 34-35, 37,215 Tabernacle 81 Tabor 47, 211 Tacinis 96, 197-98,202, 205 Tahnud 16, 61 Targum 96, 159 Tarichaea 40-41, 44,47, 66 Tekoa 56 Temple, Jewish ... in Jerusalem 14-16, 19-20, 30, 33, 35, 37, 57, 68-69, 71, 75-76, 83, 86, 89-91, 110, 115, 125, 146, 157, 182, 196-97, 210, 213-15, 217-19, 221, 226-27, 229, 291 Templum Pacis 79 Tertulhan 63 Testimonium Flavianum 15, 17, 64, 88, 124, 126, 130, 174, 207, 222, 228 Theocracy 116, 162,215 Theudas 224-26 Thucydides 132-33, 194,202-205 Tiberias 39-44, 47, 66, 88, 109, 211, 219, 224 Tiberius 33,230-31 Tiberius Alexander 34 Timagenes 85 Titus 1 5 , 2 1 , 50, 54-59, 62, 66,68-69, 72, 76, 140, 157, 174, 226, 232 Tobiads 84-85, 220,229-30, 233 Topography of Palestine 151-52, 154, 168,196,203,211,214,218-22,224, 228 Topos 95, 116,156, 163, 203 Torah 43, 96, 162,165 —Bible — Law — O l d Testament —Scriptures

272


Trachonitis 211 Trajan 20, 76, 105 Triumph, Roman 57, 69, 232 Typology 97, 227 'Tyrants', Jewish 72, 74, 77 Tyre 83 Tyropoeon, VaUey of 218 Type 83 Upper class, Jewish 34, 45, 74,179 —aristocracy —wealthy Jews Vespasian 16, 21, 36, 47-48, 50-60, 62, 66-69, 76, 7 9 , 1 0 7 , 1 3 5 , 1 4 0 - 4 1 , 1 4 7 , 174, 183, 190, 226, 282 Vita 22-23, 27-60, 104-13, 130-31, 13739, 153, 160-62 174-79, 211 aun 32, 107-13,138, 160, 178, 204 & Antiquities, Jewish 104-106 character and theme 32, 39, 45-46, 107, 110, 132, 138, 160-61, 175, 204 contents 22, 28-60,106-107 dating 104-106 disposition 107 readers 104-106 & War, Jewish 38-40, 45-46, 107, 13739, 153, 160-62, 169, 173-79 Vitelhus 54, 68 War, the Jewish 65-79, 137-39, 154-57, 174 aun 70, 75-78, 119, 122, 131, 138-41, 145, 178, 204 & Antiquities, Jewish 85, 88-90, 99,

126, 129, 131-32, 134, 138, 169-70, 184, 196-97 character 22, 38-39, 48, 71-73, 127, 131-34, 136, 138, 140-41, 146-49, 155-57, 178, 182, 204-205, 231 contents 14, 16-17, 22-23, 27-58, 6163, 65-70, 118, 137-39, 154-57, 17381, 203-205, 2 1 1 , 2 1 7 datmg 79, 157 disposition 17-71 readers 62, 75-78 sources 62,78-79,128,137-38,140-41, 148-49, 157, 204, 205 tide 71, 73 tragic historiography 71-73 and its two versions 62, 64, 76, 79, 156, 223 and Vita 3 8 - 4 0 , 4 5 - 4 6 , 5 1 , 1 1 0 , 1 3 7 - 3 9 , 153, 157, 160-62, 169, 173-79 War party 35, 37, 42-44, 74-75, 77-78, 181, 186 —mihtant Jews —revolutionaries Wealthy Jews 18-19, 179 —aristocracy —upper-class Wisdom hterature 155 Yohanan ben Zakkai 137, 146, 155, 166, 183, 210 'Zealots' 43, 67, 155, 158, 181, 186, 210, 214, 221, 223, 234 Zechariah, book of 226 Zionism 16, 208 Zonaras 52

Flavius Josephus, Between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works, and Their Importance

Flavius Josephus, Between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works, and Their Importance (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha)

Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome

Siqueiros: His Life and Works

Avicenna, his life and works

The Life Of Flavius Josephus

Flavius Josephus: Judean War 2 (Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary)

Andrea Palladio. His life and works

Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary : Life of Josephus

Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary : Life of Josephus

His Life and Teachings

Kukai and His Major Works

Grimscribe: His Lives and Works

Grimscribe: His Lives and Works

Max Stirner: His Life and His Work

Flavius Josephus: Against Apion

Descartes His Life and Times

Haydn - His Life and Music

Semmelweis: his life and work

Râjaśekhara: His Life and Writings

Einstein: His Life and Universe

Einstein: His Life and Universe

loveyoudivine His and His Kisses

loveyoudivine His and His Kisses

Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ: His Life and Works, His Epistles and Teachings

His Daughter... Their Child

The King, His Son, Their Sorcerer and His Lover

His Women and His Wife

loveyoudivine His and His Kisses

His Songs And His Stories

The King, His Son, Their Sorcerer and His Lover

Flavius Josephus, Between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works, and Their Importance