Will the Real Josephus Please Stand Up?
Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.
Already a library member? Log in here.
Institution user? Log in with your IP address or Username
Endnotes
Reprisals in other areas play a large role in Josephus’s chronicle of the revolt (The Jewish War 2.399, 457–498; 7:41–62, 361–369).
Laqueur’s interpretation received widespread publicity and support, especially through the qualified endorsement of Henry St. John Thackeray, Josephus’s first translator for the Loeb Classical Library. Thackeray’s 1928 lectures on Josephus became the standard introductory textbook, Josephus: The Man and the Historian (New York: Ktav, 1967 [1929]).
This reading of Antiquities of the Jews was developed by the late Morton Smith of Columbia University; see “Palestinian Judaism in the First Century,” in Israel: Its Role in Civilization, ed. Moshe Davis (New York: JTSA/Harper & Brothers, 1956), pp. 67–81, esp. 74–75.
See Molly Whittaker, Jews and Christians: Graeco-Roman Views (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1984), pp. 14–130.
Cf. Harry J. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome, rev. ed. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995), pp. 119–120.
Louis H. Feldman has studied each of the main Biblical characters in Josephus’s story. See the list of the resulting articles in his Jew and Gentile in Antiquity: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1993), pp. 595–596.
The groundbreaking study was Harold W. Attridge’s The Interpretation of Biblical History in the “Antiquitates Judaicae” of Flavius Josephus (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1976). See also Feldman, “Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of Josephus,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Martin J. Mulder and Harry Sysling (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1988), pp. 455–518.
Josephus, Antiquities 10.206–210; cf. 4.114–117. Today we realize that Daniel and Second/Third Isaiah (Isaiah 40–66) were probably written after the events they claim to predict. But scholars who see Josephus as an opportunist may forget that Josephus lived long before such critical insights. (Daniel’s Hasmonean date was first proposed by the third-century C.E. philosopher Porphyry.) Josephus believed that Daniel and Second Isaiah were written centuries before the events they predicted (Josephus, Antiquities 10.276–281; 12.319–322). He had also read or heard that great world leaders such as Cyrus and Alexander had happily acknowledged the merit of Judean Scripture.
Josephus, Antiquities 16.1–5, 150–159, 179–188, 311–312, 362–365, 395–404; 17.150–151, 168–171, 180–181, 191.
Cf. Tacitus, Histories 5.5; Juvenal, Satires 5.14.96–106; Celsus in Origen, Against Celsus 5.41; and Cassio Dio, Roman History 67.14.12.