The Historiography of Josephus
(avg. read time: 5–10 mins.)
Titus Flavius Josephus (37–100 CE), originally named Yosef ben Matityahu, is a well-known figure to the world of New Testament studies as the chief written source on the first-century history of Palestine and of the First Jewish War with Rome, which he wrote under the patronage of the Flavian family who granted him Roman citizenship (Life 423). Josephus was clearly a well-educated aristocrat, and he did not mind saying so (Life 9), being part of a priestly family (Life 1–6). His education and his position led him to a life full of contradiction. He was an emissary to Rome (Life 13–16), but also a general in the revolution, which he claims to have opposed from the start (Life 17–19, 28–31; J.W. 2.568–646; 3.59–63, 110–114, 127–339). He was a Roman sympathizer (Life 414–430), yet he was also proud of his Jewish heritage and educated his patrons and gentile readers about Judaism (Ant. 1.5–7). But what is of greatest interest here is Josephus’s historiography, his methods, his philosophy, and his emphases.
The foundational truth about Josephus’s work that one must understand is that he operates according to intertwined purposes of explanation and apologetics. The dual purposes manifest across his works in several features of his historiography. First, he defends Judaism in its essence from gentile criticisms, especially by demonstrating its greater antiquity in comparison to Greco-Roman history and by dissociating it from the war. Second, he takes many occasions to reflect on events in his histories from a Jewish theological perspective, thereby providing further education on Judaism for his gentile readers. Third, he defends himself as an authoritative historian of Judaism generally and of the war particularly. Fourth, he undertakes the task of explaining how the revolt happened in terms of failures by those in power and of rabblerousing by various dissidents over time.
Josephus indicates the purpose of defending the merits of Judaism and dissociating it from the war in his preface to Antiquities (1.3–9), a work that constitutes an apologetic historiography aimed at the education of gentiles and the support of Diaspora Jews. Indeed, it is to a particular gentile named Epaphroditus that he dedicates this work of history that spans all of human history according to Jewish tradition (Life 430; Ant. 1.8–9). Much of this work derives from the Hebrew Bible—and not necessarily the LXX—as well as either the traditions that had developed around it or his own inferences (e.g., Ant. 2.205–216, 238–253; 4.59–84; 7.228–229). At the same time, Josephus also tries to dissociate the essence of Judaism from the revolt. While he refers to the Zealots as a fourth school—alongside the Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes—emerging from Judas the Galilean and as having similarities with the Pharisees (Ant. 18.4–10, 23–24), he describes the other three sects of Judaism as proper philosophical schools and as being better in conduct (Life 10–13; Ant. 13.297–298; 18.11–22; J.W. 2.119–166). Likewise, his summary of Deuteronomy (Ant. 4.199–314) highlights the non-threatening nature of the foundation of Jewish conduct (e.g., 4.207, 223–224).
More frequently, however, Josephus pursues this argument through his provision of a “true” interpretation of Jewish history, in which the God of the Jews is decisively set against the revolutionaries and in favor of the Romans. He notes the popularity of Daniel’s prophecies among the Jews even of his own day (Ant. 10.266–268) while providing interpretations of his own that show Daniel to have been a true prophet (10.270–276), which in turn rebuts the Epicureans (10.277–281). At other points, Josephus refers to accurate prophecies and shows their correspondence with history (Ant. 15.373–376, 379; J.W. 4.386–388; 6.300–315), including his own prophecy of Vespasian becoming emperor (J.W. 4.300–308). Most importantly in this vein he cites the prophecy of Num 24:17–19—an important messianic text in his day (Tg.Ps.-J.; Tg.Onq.; T. Lev. 18:3; 1QSb/1Q28b V, 27–28; 1QM XI, 6–7; 4QTest/4Q175 I, 12–13; CD VII, 18–20)—as a prophecy about Vespasian (J.W. 6.310–315), an interpretation that later historians also supported (Tacitus, Hist. 5.13; Suetonius, Vesp. 4.5). Josephus sees these prophecies as historical because of his beliefs that God’s providence governs history (Ant. 14.291, 391, 414, 455, 462; 17.353; 18.309; 20.87–91), often in judgment in the cases that he highlights (Ant. 18.127–142; J.W. 3.293; 4.104, 323–324, 361–362; 5.343–345). He likewise sees God’s orchestration in history through the occurrence of signs of Jerusalem’s destruction (J.W. 6.289–299)—which Tacitus also claims (Hist. 5.13), even though their signs do not always overlap—and in the parallel dates on which the two destructions of the temple took place (J.W. 6.268). While historians of today would naturally question such conclusions, for Josephus this conclusion is a matter of inference based on intertextual analogy with Jewish history, as well as a matter of prophetic insight, in line with his self-portrayal in prophetic terms (J.W. 3.352–354).
While Josephus has faced questions from his own day to this day about some suspicious claims and contradictory narrations of history, he establishes his authority as a historian by his due diligence in researching his subject matter and in using eyewitness testimony when possible. Indeed, his apparent style of sloppiness and his different accounts of certain events in War and Antiquities may well be evidence—to some extent—of his determination to include information from divergent sources. Even at points in Antiquities when he is otherwise relying on Scripture and Jewish tradition, he corroborates when possible with citations from Nicolaus of Damascus’s lost 144-volume world history (Ant. 1.104, 158; 7.96; 12.125; 13.249, 345–347; 14.64, 103, 399), the work of Strabo of Cappadocia (Ant. 13.284, 314, 345–347; 14.34–36, 64, 110, 137; 15.5, 9–10), and others still (Ant. 1.93–95; 8.144–149; 10.219–228). In Against Apion he also interacts more extensively with other historians on Jews and Jewish beliefs in the histories of Egypt (1.73–102, 227–320), Phoenicia (1.106–127), Chaldea (1.128–154), and Greece (1.162–212). When he is in a position to do so, he also demonstrates critical engagement and sifting of his sources, sometimes criticizing them for bias or irresponsibly incomplete reporting (Ant. 12.354–359; 16.183–187; 20.154–157). Indeed, he states that his War is a rebuttal to others who have written inaccurately about the war due to their own biases and their distance from the war itself, unlike Josephus, who was an eyewitness of the war and a participant in it (1.6–9, 13–16; cf. Ag. Ap. 1.45–46, 53–56). He is positioned to write this history because he was himself an eyewitness to many of the events of the war. When he was not a witness, he was able to hear reports from eyewitnesses (J.W. 4.410; 6.113–116; 7.399; cf. Ant. 20.266). Presumably, he also had access to the field reports of his Roman overlords. When he could not use any of these sources, he presumably relied on rumors from his fellows or his own inferences.
One should bear in mind these factors when reading the over 100 speeches Josephus quotes in his War. Some, such as the speech of Eleazar at Masada (J.W. 7.323–388), would be based on inference from the results of the Masada rebels’ actions and the testimonies of the survivors. Others, such as the speech of Herod Agrippa II (J.W. 2.345–401), may be speeches that Josephus heard or speeches by people that Josephus knew, so that he may have remembered or recovered the message of the speech and wrote it in such a way as to fit the characterization of the person. Of course, the War also features Josephus’s own speeches, which are more likely to reflect the original speeches in more than their essence, although it is true that these speeches fit with Josephus’s self-portrayal as being like a prophet of ancient Israel. He foretold that Vespasian would become emperor (J.W. 3.400–408) and like the prophets of old he called his people to repentance (J.W. 3.135–137; 5.360–419; 6.96–116, 363–366), which is to say that they needed to repent of the revolution and accept the agenda of the Romans for them (cf. J.W. 3.127–128; 4.284–285, 345; 5.452).
Finally, in his War Josephus follows the models of Thucydides and Polybius by examining the causes of the recent war, which he finds in the actions of various leaders on the one hand and in the actions of rabble-rousers on the other. In Antiquities, Josephus expands on his observations in these regards in the second half as part of his project of apologetic historiography. While he understandably highlights certain leaders like Alexander and Pompey for praise—because they were apparently just and did not interfere in Jewish praxis (Ant. 11.330–339; 14.46–53, 72–76)—he also highlights others like Antiochus Epiphanes, Pontius Pilate, and Gessius Florus for their failures in this respect (Ant. 12.221–359; 17.149–163; 18.55–62, 85–89; J.W. 2.184–203, 277–407). Furthermore, the institution of the priesthood—which Josephus describes as an aristocracy preserved hereditarily (Ant. 4.223–224; 5.135; 11.111; 14.91)—failed, being unstable due to the many years of assassinations or removals by local and foreign powers (Ant. 11.297–312; 13.299–318, 376–383; 14.192–195; 15.11–56, 322; 17.78, 164–167, 339–341; 18.95; 19.313–316; 20.16, 103, 179, 196–203, 223). On the other side, Josephus identifies the activities of Jewish insurrectionists from as far back as the reign of Herod the Great all the way to the war (Ant. 14.415–430; 17.250–285; 18.1–10; 20.167–68, 185–88; J.W. 2.56–57, 228–229, 258–260; 4.135–150, 405–409; 5.448–449; 6.195–196), including smaller prophetic and messianic movements (Ant. 20.97–98, 188; J.W. 2.55–65, 261–263) and larger movements that fueled the war itself (J.W. 2.433–449, 652–654; 4.98–111, 208–227, 389–397, 503–544, 556–576, 573–584; 5.11–26, 98–105, 248–254, 266–267, 527–540; 7.26–36). In terms of the causse of the temple’s destruction, Josephus reasons again by means of intertextual analogy to conclude that it was caused by the defilement of the temple by the Zealots through the mass murder therein (J.W. 4.150–192; 5.1–20; cf. Ant. 20.166), as well as the deaths of those who resisted the revolutionaries like Ananus (J.W. 4.317–325), the failures of certain priests like Eleazar to calm the populace (J.W. 2.409–414), and civil war between the revolutionary factions (J.W. 5.21–39, 98–105, 248–257). In Josephus’s analysis, such actions were the back-breaking straw of a long history of irrationality in defiance of God that God could no longer tolerate, hence why the God of history sided with the Romans.
Further References
Eckstein, Arthur M. “Josephus and Polybius: A Reconsideration.” ClAnt 9 (1990): 175–208.
Feldman, Louis H. Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.
_____ and Gohei Hata, eds. Josephus, the Bible, and History. Leiden: Brill, 1989.
Mader, Gottfried. Josephus & the Politics of Historiography: Apologetic & Impression Management in Bellum Judaicum. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Mason, Steve. Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins: Methods and Categories. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009.
Parente, Fausto and Joseph Sievers, eds. Josephus & the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith. StPB 41. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
Pastor, Jack, Pnina Stern, and Menahem Mor, eds. Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History. JSJSup 146. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Popović, Mladen, ed. The Jewish Revolt Against Rome: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. JSJSup 154. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Rajak, Tessa. Josephus: The Historian and His Society. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.
Shauf, Scott. The Divine in Acts and in Ancient Historiography. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015.