Tessa Rajak, “Josephus,” in Christopher Rowe and Malcolm Schofield, eds., The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 585-596 (original) (raw)
Thinking through Josephus and his Readers
2017
rom antiquity to the present day Yosef ben Matityahu, alias Titus Flavius Iosephus, has been undoubtedly the best source on the history of Judea in the Roman period and on the history of the Second Temple period in general. Without Josephus we would know little about the Jewish War and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE; or indeed on Judean politics and society in the Roman period, on king Herod, but also on the intellectual traditions that formed Josephus' own sources. A Jewish priest of royal descent born in Jerusalem in 37 CE, a leader of the Jewish revolt against Rome, and thereafter, a friend of the Flavians, a Roman citizen, and a writer in Rome, Josephus is a multifaceted figure that is hard to confine under a single label. Was he a Roman historian? Was he an historian at all? Serious or critical engagement with his work has emerged since the 1970s. Previously, scholars regarded him as simple and careless compiler, or a mine where information could be extracted regardless of its context, audience, aims, literary form: that was the 'classical conception of Josephus'.
Josephus, in Oxford History of Historical Writing
It would be difficult to find another writer in Graeco-Roman antiquity such as Flavius Josephus who learned two separate, independent historiographical traditions-in Josephus' case, Greek and biblical-and combined them into unitary works of history. This chapter is not a general introduction to Josephus or a survey of his works, but an assessment of his place in the Graeco-Roman and biblical or Jewish historiographical traditions. As a Jewish priest, self-styled prophet, and self-appointed explicator and defender of Judaism, he wrote and rewrote in Greek a grand historical narrative from biblical times to his day, using Greek literary models and a biblical conception of the direction and purpose of history. As a Greek historian of the Roman Empire recounting central events in Roman history, he wrote in direct and open imitation of Thucydides, declared rigorous adherence to objective truth, quoted numerous classical authors, assiduously sought out sources, adopted Greek rhetorical techniques and historiographical topoi, paid homage to a Greek idea of tyche (Fortune) in historical processes, and translated Jewish concepts and phenomena into Greek and Roman terms. Yet in his conception of the historical process, the meaning of the past and its connection to the present, and the role of the divine in human history, he remained deeply rooted in his Jewish origins. In trying to satisfy, persuade, and educate different audiences with sometimes contradictory needs, and in trying to hammer vast, multifarious material into a coherent narrative, Josephus discovered ingenious solutions, and sometimes failed. He was well aware of the differences between Greek and Jewish historiographical traditions, and even discussed the problem openly. As a Jewish historian, Josephus reflects the currents of Jewish debate and thought of his day on the existential questions preoccupying Jews. As a Roman historian, Josephus reflects, at one and the same time, the view of Rome from the provinces, and from Rome itself where he wrote all his books.
The reception of Josephus needs no justification as the topic of this special issue of the International Journal of the Classical Tradition. In almost every nook and cranny of the early modern cultural landscape, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus makes an appearance: in theological discourses and polemics, in chronology and historiography, in biblical criticism and even in drama. What was the appeal of Josephus, and when and how was he read? Why was he the most popular of the ancient historians? Was it because of, or despite, the role of his writings within sacred history, as well as within the classical tradition, and how did early modern authors and readers respond to his status as a Jew? These are some of the questions discussed in the following essays, which are drawn from a seminar held in Oxford in 2014 under the auspices of the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies. Josephus was a Jewish priest from Judaea who participated in the Jewish revolt against Rome which culminated in the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple by the emperor Titus in 70 CE. Of his extant literary works, all of which survive only in Greek and translations from the Greek, the first was an account in seven books of the revolt and its aftermath, of which at least the first six books were composed, probably in Rome and primarily for Roman readers, within a decade of the end of the war. The Jewish War (Bellum Judaicum) was followed, a little over ten years later, by the monumental Jewish Antiquities (Antiquitates Judaicae), of which the first half traced Jewish history from earliest times, paraphrasing the biblical texts, and the second half brought the narrative up to Josephus's own day. Appended to the twenty books of the Antiquitates was an autobiography (Vita), which focused on Josephus's role as a rebel commander in Galilee during the war against Rome. His
Ancient Editors of Josephus Jewish War 2023 04
There were late classical and medieval scribes, translators, apologists, and authors who had no compunction about modifying the text of Flavius Josephus' works, either to use the altered text to support their own arguments, or to add drama to the story they were telling. In the autobiographical section of "War of the Jews", Josephus recounts how he commanded the Jewish forces who were besieged by the Romans at Jotapata. This episode has been altered to present Josephus as a pious man aceeding to God's will, a trickster, or a thug who used the threat of violence to get his own way, in different versions of Jewish War. This essay examines the different versions of Josephus castingg lots for his life.
Josephus and his Historiographical Balancing Act
Until recently, Josephus was the most trusted and only comprehensive source in piecing together events surrounding the Great Jewish Revolt of A.D. 65 – 73. Yet Josephus was a man torn between his Jewish roots and a desire to impress his Roman benefactors. His works are often contradictory and demonstrate his torn allegiance. How much then, can we rely on the account of events he records in his work, The Jewish Wars? This publication evaluates Josephus' historiographical method, his sources, target audience and conflicting accounts and interests with a view to discerning where the historian demonstrates objectivity and where it may be compromised.
Did Josephus Know his Bible when he Wrote the Jewish War? Elisha at Jericho in J.W. 4.459–65
READING THE BIBLE IN ANCIENT TRADITIONS AND MODERN EDITIONS Studies in Memory of Peter W. Flint, 2017
This is the final typescript (with small edits) of “Did Josephus Know his Bible when he Wrote the Jewish War? Elisha at Jericho in J.W. 4.459–65,” published in Andrew Perrin, Kyung Baek, and Daniel Falk, eds., Reading the Bible in Ancient Traditions and Modern Editions: Studies in Textual and Reception History in Honour of Peter W. Flint. “Early Judaism and its Literature” (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature), 603–28. It challenges the argument that Josephus did not know the Bible when he wrote his Judaean War in Rome in the 70s (but learned it while in Rome, for the later Antiquities) by examining one small passage -- on Elisha at Jericho -- in BJ 4.
“Josephus’s Use of Scripture to Describe Hasmonean Territorial Expansion.”
Jewish Studies, an Internet Journal 19 , 2020
Paper available at: https://jewish-faculty.biu.ac.il/files/jewish-faculty/shared/JSIF19/atkinson.pdf Journal Website: https://jewish-faculty.biu.ac.il/en/JSIJ Abstract: Although Josephus primarily employs Jewish traditions to shape his narratives of the Hasmoneans, his writings are complex because of his connections to multiple traditions. He sought to write apologetic historiography that accurately described the Jewish people based on their accomplishments as a means to correct Hellenistic misconceptions of the Jews. Yet, he also intended his works to be understandable to the wider Greco-Roman world. In the process, Josephus created a truly unique version of Israel’s past. His concept of Hellenized-Judaism was largely connected with the unique circumstances of his life as a leader in the First Jewish Revolt. He selectively drew upon Jewish Scripture in light of this experience and his life in Rome. As a Roman citizen, Josephus was exposed to Greco-Roman conceptions of historiography, which greatly contributed to his imaginative account of Hasmonean land conquests.
JGRChJ 10 (2014) 113-31] JOSEPHUS'S LIFE AND JEWISH WAR COMPARED TO THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism, 2014
This article compares the often conflicting autobiographical accounts in Josephus' Life and Jewish War to the differences found in the synoptic gospels, exploring the possible outer limits of variation which would have been expected by first-century readers/hearers who read/heard the synoptic gospels as ancient biographies.