Josephus the Second Temple Jew
(avg. read time: 8–15 mins.)
Last time, I examined the historiography of Josephus. Here, I would like to give the reader a broader introduction to the man and his work. Particularly, I would like to introduce him as a prominent Second Temple Jew. He lived near the end of an era before the rabbinic traditions were set down in writing and codified as directing the shape of Jewish religion. And it was an era in which the questions of what it meant to be a Jew were so fraught with many other issues of living life in lands—including the promised land—dominated by gentiles. Of course, it is not as if this issue has gone away in the present time, but its precise character is different at this time in history when the temple still stands, or it is remembered as standing in living memory. All of Josephus’s writings do indeed come from that time of living memory, as he was born in 37 CE and died around 100 CE, with the destruction of the temple in 70 CE nearly bifurcating his life (in more ways than one).
To explore Josephus, we will be looking at a sketch of the man’s character as a Jewish aristocrat living in the last part of the Second Temple era in which the land of the temple was dominated by the Romans. Next, we will consider how he relates to the Romans, whence derives the name by which we know him: Titus Flavius Josephus. Of course, he was born a Jew named Yosef ben Matityahu, and we must next consider how Josephus defines himself in relation to Jews, as well as how he defines Jews in relation to others. Finally, there is one more relationship we must consider. Because of the events of the First Jewish War with Rome, and because Josephus wrote with the support of Roman patrons who would be lost to the progression of history, it is notable that we would not have Josephus’s works today, much less in the amount of manuscripts we have available, if not for the Christians. Thus, we must look at Josephus’s relationship to the Christians in terms of how and why they preserved his work as a valuable source of knowledge for Jewish history (especially for the first centuries on either side of Christ).
Josephus the Problematic Jew and His Works
Because of my entry on Josephus’s historiography, I will only make brief reference to matters already addressed there. I describe Josephus as a “problematic Jew” for a few reasons. One, in ways that many Second Temple Jews could relate to, he was a rather paradoxical individual. 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 loyalist aristocrat (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). In the process, in War in particular, Josephus makes sure that he is only seen in the best light as a well-educated and well-experienced man (in part due to his being born of a priestly family; Life 1–6), a competent general who had success against Roman soldiers, and a prophet after the fashion of Jeremiah seeking to persuade his people to cease the war. However, he was not as fully integrated in Greco-Roman aristocracy as someone like Philo, as he was so accustomed to Aramaic that he had trouble with the details of Greek, including pronunciation (Ant. 20.263–264; and he didn’t even learn Erasmian Greek).
Two, he has a controlling apologetic interest in his work. As indicated particularly in Antiquities (e.g., 1.3–9), a work of apologetic historiography, he aims both to educate his gentile readers about Judaism in terms that make it easier for them to grasp as well as to support Diaspora Jews by dissociating them from the attitudes and beliefs that led to the war. Thus, what he says about Judaism must be filtered through the awareness of that apologetic interest, rather than taken in a straightforward manner. If there is one thing Josephus is not, it is straightforward. That does not mean he is compulsively dishonest or a complete fabricator either. Where he can be verified on accounts of events, he often has been. Where there are contradictions in his work, it may be because he is motivated to include as much information as he can. But he is motivated to present Judaism in certain ways, and one must take account of that. Fortunately, Josephus is not our only—or even our major—source on Second Temple Judaism.
Three, he is problematic on the level of his persona, given his role in Jewish history. Imagine that the American Revolution failed, and our only extensive account of the war was written by someone like Benedict Arnold. That is the situation we have with Josephus’s writings on Jewish history, particularly his War. It is a limitation that had many effects on his work, and we must take account of that when he describes the situations of his day and the parties involved.
As for his works, there are four that are extant today. The earliest is his Jewish War, which was written ~75 CE in seven volumes to recount the First Jewish War with Rome from beginning to end and to explain its causes. He followed this up with a work he completed ~93 or 94 CE: Jewish Antiquities. This is, by far, his most extensive work, written in twenty volumes to provide an account of history up to the time of the war all the way from the beginning as recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures. Josephus also appended to Antiquities his Life, the earliest extant autobiography. Finally, the work which most explicitly shows Josephus’s apologetic interests is his Against Apion, which is a response to Judaism’s gentile critics, as represented by Apion.
Josephus and the Romans
Josephus ultimately owed his ability to make a living as a writer to Roman patronage. He also owed his survival of the war and his comfortable existence thereafter to the favor he curried with the Romans. As such, we should examine some aspects of his relationship with the Romans.
Of course, Josephus was a military leader in the revolution against Rome, and he portrayed himself as good at his job. But that does not mean that he did not have deep respect for his enemies. In fact, it arguably served his purpose to praise Roman soldiers to enhance the splendor of what he had accomplished against them. Thus, on multiple occasions he praises the Roman soldiers (J.W. 3.13–21, 108–109).
The first two names by which we know Josephus—Titus Flavius—come from his Flavian patronage. Thus, unsurprisingly, we also find examples of Josephus accentuating the praise of his patrons (Ant. 12.127–128; J.W. 6.252–266). According to Josephus, this patron-client relationship he had with Vespasian came from how he prophesied in Vespasian’s favor and, as Josephus said, Vespasian did rise to become Caesar (J.W. 3.400–402).
In fact, Josephus presented the Romans as fulfilling biblical prophecy by acting as God’s instruments of judgment (Ant. 10.276; J.W. 4.386–388). This is a portrayal he also gives of them in connection with Roman subjugation of the Jews in general, thereby connecting them with the Assyrians and Babylonians (J.W. 5.376–419). He went so far as to portray Vespasian messianically. He does this by citing a messianic prophecy, probably Num 24:17–19—an important messianic text in his day, as seen in 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).
At the same time, Josephus is not a Roman sycophant. He does regard certain Roman officials as sharing in the responsibility for the war. And so he presents critiques of these officials on multiple occasions (Ant. 18.55–62, 85–89; 19.313–316; 20.179, 196–203, 223; J.W. 2.184–203, 277–407). Essentially, anytime Roman officials interfered with Jewish religious practice, they fanned the flames that built to the conflagration of the war, and thus they deserved criticism from him as a historian.
Josephus and the Jews
Josephus may have sought to present Judaism in an apologetic fashion, but that was precisely because he was a devoted Jew, not because he sought to defend his own faithfulness to Judaism to other Jews. Indeed, Josephus sought in both War and Antiquities to dissociate the essence of Judaism from the revolutionaries. In other words, he insisted that it was a corruption of Judaism that motivated the revolutionaries, not true Judaism in all its variety.
His work itself attests to his pride in his Jewish heritage, as do various elements of his work and the presentation thereof. He shows at many points his Jewish view of history in referring to God’s providence in and governance of history (Ant. 14.291, 391, 414, 455, 462; 17.353; 18.127–142, 309; 20.87–91; J.W. 3.293; 4.104, 323–324, 361–362; 5.343–345; 6.268, 289–299). This belief includes God’s fulfillment of prophecy, the belief in which sets him apart from philosophical opponents, such as the Epicureans (Ant. 10.270–281; 15.373–376, 379; J.W. 4.300–308, 386–388; 6.300–315).
We also see the Jewish influence in how Josephus presents himself as a prophet and prophetic interpreter of Scripture (J.W. 3.135–137, 352–354; 4.300–308, 386–388; 5.360–419; 6.96–116, 310–315, 363–366). Given his convictions about prophecy, he presents himself as one through whom the God of Israel has spoken for the benefit of Vespasian. Likewise, his presentation of himself as a prophet calling people to repentance owes much to what Scripture tells of Jeremiah.
Apart from his own presentation, we see it in how he presents Jewish groups. Josephus had experience with all of the major sects. Notably, in every case that he describes them all, it is in a context of dissociating them from the revolutionaries to signal that the Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes in all their variety were proper, legitimate Jews (Life 10–19; Ant. 18.1–26; J.W. 2.119–166). To further that legitimacy in view of his apologetic task, he describes these groups as being like philosophical schools. He presents the Sadducees as reminiscent of the Epicureans. The Essenes are presented like Pythagoreans. And the Pharisees are presented like Stoics. Even the resurrection belief he attributes to the Pharisees is described in terms of a one-off metempsychosis, presumably to make the belief more palatable to his gentile audience. Of course, we do see elsewhere presentations of belief in resurrection (Ant. 18.14; J.W. 2.163; 3.374; Ag. Ap. 2.217–218), so Josephus is hardly opposed to this idea or ashamed of it as such.
But of all the Jewish groups Josephus talks about, he obviously gives the most space to describing the various factions that made up the revolutionaries. He devotes much space to talking of bandits/insurrectionists in general (Ant. 17.271, 285; 20.124, 160–68, 172, 185–188, 210, 256; J.W. 2.56–60, 228–29, 253, 259, 275, 441, 653; 3.450; 4.135–150, 201–204, 405–409; 5.425, 448–449, 524; 6.123, 195–196, 277, 363). He points to many leaders who riled up followers in the decades before the war properly commenced, including Judas (son of Hezekiah), Simon (former slave of Herod), Athronges (a shepherd), Judas the Galilean (who he described as the founder of the Zealots in Ant. 18.4–10, 23–25), Sadduc the Pharisee, an anonymous Samaritan prophet, Theudas, James and Simon (sons of Judas the Galilean), the Egyptian on the Mount of Olives, and an anonymous prophet who called people out into the wilderness. In the years leading up to and including the war, he describes the actions of various factions, such as the Sicarii (Ant. 20.186–187, 204, 208, 210; J.W. 2.425; 4.400–409, 516; 7.252–275, 407–453), those under the leadership of Eleazar (son of Ananias the high priest; J.W. 2.409–414), the group led by Menahem (descendant of Judas the Galilean; J.W. 2.433–449), and the major leader Simon bar Giora (J.W. 2.521, 652–654; 4.503–544, 556–565, 573–584; 5.11–26, 248–254, 266–267, 309, 527–540; 7.26–36, 153–155). But of all the revolutionaries, he clearly holds special contempt for John of Gischala (Life 70–102, 122–125, 189–203, 216–218, 314–316, 368–372; J.W. 4.85–86, 98–111, 126–127, 208–227, 389–397, 558–560, 566–576; 5.9–10, 36–39, 100–105, 250–254, 562–565; 6.433–434). He describes how various rebellious movements and factions defiled Jewish holy days by using those festivals as occasions for violence (Ant. 20.106–117; J.W. 2.513–555; 4.400–404; 5.98–105; 6.421–427). They also defiled the religion they claimed to be protecting through appointing their own high priests (J.W. 4.147–150), defiling the temple (J.W. 4.150–192, 201), and melting down the temple vessels (J.W. 5.562–566). What is worse, the Zealots could not even present a united front with their constant infighting (J.W. 5.5–10, 21–39, 100–105, 248–257), which only stopped on occasion (J.W. 5.278–280). Josephus portrays God as blinding the minds of the rebels (J.W. 5.343–345), who he describes as “atheistic” (J.W. 5.566).
Finally, we should consider Josephus as an interpreter of Scripture. There is much that could be written here, as whole books have been written on the subject. But briefly, it is important to note that his approach to Scripture is often informed by contemporary philosophy and his apologetic purpose, including in his portrayal of prominent biblical people, especially Moses. Much of his historical 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). More demonstrative of his apologetic agenda is how he presents directives of the Torah in non-threatening fashion. Two examples can be drawn from Ant. 4.207, 223–224 (taken from Whiston’s translation).
Ant. 4.207:
Let none blaspheme the gods which other cities revere, nor rob foreign temples, nor take treasure that has been dedicated in the name of any god.
One can compare this with Exod 22:28 [27 in the LXX], but there is no biblical command that actually matches this statement (cf. Philo, Spec. Laws 1.53). This is rather a construal of a biblical command in such a way as to reassure gentiles that the Jews are no threat to the religio-political system.
Ant. 4.223–224:
Aristocracy, with the life that is lived there-under, is indeed the best: let no craving possess you for another polity, but be content with this, having the laws for your masters and governing all your actions by them; for God sufficeth for your ruler. But should ye become enamoured of a king, let him be of your own race and let him have a perpetual care for justice and virtue in every other form. Let him concede to the laws and to God the possession of superior wisdom, and let him do nothing without the high priest and the counsel of his senators; let him not indulge in many wives nor in the pursuit of abundance of riches or of horses, through the attainment of which things he might become disdainful of the laws. Should he set his heart on any of these things, let him be restrained from becoming more powerful than is expedient for your welfare.
Again, one can compare Deut 17:14–20 to this command, but it is not quite a match. Particularly the whole sentence about aristocracy is an insertion by Josephus. Whether it is his invention or a popular tradition that had accreted around the biblical command, he certainly found it useful and self-serving, being a member of the aristocracy himself.
Josephus and the Christians
As noted previously, we would likely not have Josephus’s work today if not for the Christian teachers and scribes who preserved his work as a valuable source for history concerning the land and time in which Jesus lived. Louis H. Feldman observes that around two dozen Christian writers between the second and fifth centuries referenced Josephus.1 Josephus himself only referenced the Christians in his own time once (Ant. 18.64). He thus did not have any sort of direct relationship with them.
The Christians found such value in Josephus’s work for a few reasons. One, as noted, he was the major source on the land and times in which Jesus lived. Thus, any historical work or historical commentary on the Gospels would need to appeal to Josephus. Two, he also provided important context for various figures mentioned in the NT, such as Herod the Great and Pontius Pilate in the Gospels, or Felix and Festus in Acts, or several others. This information could be useful for commentary, historical, and homiletical purposes. Three, Josephus is the first non-Christian historian to refer to John the Baptist (Ant. 18.116–119), James (Ant. 20.200), and Jesus himself (Ant. 18.63–64; 20.200). The last text, referred to as the Testimonium Flavianum, was the most frequent point of reference for early Christian authors. This passage is controversial, as scholars argue whether it is fully authentic (the smallest minority), fully inauthentic (a significant minority), or partially authentic (the majority).2 I may review this text in more detail another time, but I will say for now that I am inclined to agree with the majority that there was something here in Josephus’s original text, which provided the source of interest of the early Christians and which scribes added onto with the interpolations that make Josephus sound more like a Christian.
Louis H. Feldman, “The Testimonium Flavianium: The State of the Question,” in Christological Perspectives: Essays in Honor of Harvey K. McArthur, ed. Robert F. Berkley and Sarah A. Edwards (New York: Pilgrim, 1982), 181–85.
For presentations of the majority view that the passage is basically authentic with a few interpolations by Christian scribes, see John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: The Roots of the Problem and Person, vol. 1 of Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 59–88; Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 84–104. On whether the earlier text was negative or neutral, see John Curran, “‘To Be or to Be Thought to Be’: The Testimonium Flavianum (Again),” NovT 59 (2017): 71–94; Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, “Was the Hypothetical Vorlage of the Testimonium Flavianum a ‘Neutral’ Text? Challenging the Common Wisdom on Antiquitates Judaicae 18.63-64,” JSJ 45 (2014): 326–65.