Josephus, Flavius (Ἰώσηπος)

JOSEPHUS, Flavius (Ἰώσηπος). - Jewish historian, son of Matthias of a priestly family, b. in Jerusalem ca. 37-38 A.D.

He received an education according to rabbinic norms. In 64 he was on an embassy to Rome, where he must have been in contact with Christians bound by ties of kinship and friendship with the Jews of the City. Having returned to Jerusalem at the beginning of 66, he found there an atmosphere of war and, although he judged such a plan senseless, driven by personal interest he followed the current, though without taking a clear position and remaining of moderate tendencies. Sent by the Sanhedrin to Galilee to organize its defense (Bell. Iud., II, 362-68), he trained there a rather numerous army (ibid., II, 376) and fortified various places, among them Jotapata. Once operations began in the spring of 67, after a general flight of his troops from the camp of Garis (ibid., III, 127-31), J. shut himself up in Jotapata, which was taken after 47 days of siege in the early days of July. Taken prisoner, he skillfully avoided the danger of being sent to Rome to Nero by proclaiming the Empire to Vespasian and Titus; this was the fruit of his acute capacity for evaluating political events (ibid., III, 399-408; cf. Suetonius, Vesp., 5; Cassius Dio, in the Epitome of Xiphilinus, LXVI, 1, 4; Appian, XXII, in Zonaras, Annal., XI, 16; Tacitus, Hist., I, 10; cf. II, 1), but the two Flavians, struck by the luminous prophecy, kept the prisoner with them, and he, freed upon the proclamation of Vespasian as emperor (July 1, 69), took the name Flavius. J. remained at Titus's side for all the rest of the campaign, until the fall of Jerusalem, diligently noting down all the events (C. Apion., I, 49, cf. 55), and with Titus he came to Rome, where he was present at the triumph of the Flavians in 71 (Bell. Iud., VII, 121-57). Honored and laden with benefits by Vespasian and by Titus, he narrated in the De Bello Iudaico the history of that campaign, with a Romanophile spirit, justifying before his conscience as a Jew his conduct in favor of the Romans with the consideration that "that God who distributed command in turn among the nations, had now settled in Italy" (Bell. Iud., V, 367). His relations with the Flavians cooled under Domitian, given the character of this Emperor, averse to men of letters (Suetonius, Domit., 20) and ill-disposed toward the Jews, against whom in 95 he began the persecution that also involved the Christians (Cassius Dio, LXVII, 14; Suetonius, Domit., 15), so much so that the other works of J. published under Domitian are dedicated to a private patron, Epaphroditus. In any case, this detachment from the friendship with the Flavians served to restore to J. a little of his dignity as a man and of his courage, since his other works are not infected by the Romanophile servility of the Bell. Iud., but are in praise of Judaism, and indeed the Contra Apionem, published precisely in 95, is an open apology for it. He died at about 65 years of age around 102-103.

Iud., VII, 158 ff. with D. Cassius, LXVI, 15; C. Apion., I, 50-51; Vita, 361).

It must have had the character of an unofficial report, from the Roman point of view, of the Jewish war, demonstrating its difficulties, and it was meant to work for pacification among the Jewish centers of Mesopotamia seething against Rome (Bell. Iud., III, 108). To this latter purpose the Aramaic edition, now lost (I, 3-6), undoubtedly responded, of which the present Greek one is a reworking made by G. himself with the help of collaborators (C. Apion., I, 50). The first two books deal with events prior to the war (G.'s dependence on the writings of Nicolaus of Damascus for the age of Herod), and the VII with subsequent events. For the narration of the war (ll. III-VI) G. drew heavily from the Commentaries left by Vespasian and by Titus (C. Apion., I, 56; Vita, 342, 358).

This work gathers very important information on events of which perhaps nothing would otherwise have been known, but the critic's eye must be able to discern what is historically acceptable from the much material of doubtful authority, bearing in mind that the author is far from free of tendentiousness and partisanship.

Before Cassiodorus (De iust. div. lit., 17) there existed a Latin translation attributed to Rufinus and there circulated a Latin reworking known as Hegesippus, it is not known whether by corruption from ex Iosepho or because it was attributed to Hegesippus, ecclesiastical historian of the 2nd century (critical ed. edited by V. Ussani in CSEL, 66), and a reworking that served as the basis for Syriac, Hebrew, Arabic and Ethiopic compilations. There also exists a Slavic version of the 13th century made from a Greek text with Christian interpolations.

2) Antiquitates Iudaicae ('Ιουδαϊκή 'Αρχαιολογία). A vast compilation, whose title 'Αρχαιολογία' comes from G. himself (I, 5; XX, 259, 267; C. Apion., I, 54, 127; II, 287; Vita, 430) who perhaps was inspired, both for the title, and for the division (20 ll.), and for the compositional scheme by the 'Ρωμαική 'Αρχαιολογία of Dionysius of Halicarnassus; it treats the history of the Jewish people from the creation of the world to 6 A.D., the point at which it links up with Bell. Iud. It was published around 93-94 (13th year of Domitian, cf. XX, 267-68).

G.'s purpose would be to treat the history of the Jews according to Jewish documents, to demonstrate that the social order given by Moses leads to true human happiness, having God as its ultimate goal (Antiq., I, 5-26). Therefore G. professes to have faithfully translated the biblical text (I, 5, 17; IV, 196-97; X, 218, cf. II, 347; IX, 208, 214; C. Apion., I, 54). In reality the critic must ascertain quite the opposite, and from a careful examination one must conclude that G. made use of numerous compilation works of biblical and Jewish history by Judeo-Alexandrian authors, excerpting and constructing a kind of mosaic and using the text of the Bible (of the LXX) only as filler. Of particular importance are the Roman documents containing provisions regarding the Jews, reported by G. (XIII, 259-66; XIV, 144-55; 185-267; 302-23; XVI, 160-78; XIX, 279-91; XX, 10-14), today held to be substantially authentic, and probably drawn from collections existing in the Capitoline archives which Vespasian restituenda suscepit, undique investigatis exemplaribus, after the fire of 69 (Suetonius, Vesp., 8).

For the historical value of Ant. Iud. one can repeat what has been said for Bell. Iud., but it is dutiful to add that modern archaeological discoveries (Aramaic papyri of Elephantine, Greek papyri on the Tobiads) have confirmed information given by G. and held until then to be fantastic.

An ancient Latin version was commissioned by Cassiodorus; between the 9th-10th centuries the work was summarized in a Greek Epitome (ed. B. Niese) used by Zonaras in the first books of his Annals.

The Testimonium Flavianum. Particularly important is the passage of Ant. Iud., XVIII, 63-64, where G. speaks of Jesus, of his Crucifixion and Resurrection and of the Christians; it is called testimonium flavianum. Transmitted concordantly by the entire manuscript tradition, its authenticity was called into doubt and denied in the 19th century. Toward the end of that century, however, a reaction in favor of authenticity took shape, of which even Protestants such as Burkitt and Harnack were supporters.

Pure philological examination is clearly in favor of authenticity, while an undoubted Christian terminology expressing Christian concepts denotes an inspiration drawn from a formula of Christian creed perhaps already existing at that time. But who was inspired by the creed, G. himself, who undoubtedly was in contact with Christians, or the presumed Christian interpolator? To this question for now it is impossible to answer. In the current state of things, therefore, the testimonium, although genuine in its substance, could present Christian interpolations, but with equal and perhaps greater probability one can maintain that it is entirely authentic.

3) Contra Apionem. Apology of Judaism, courageously published by G. around 95 A.D. The original title seems to have been On the Antiquity of the Jews (Περὶ τῆς τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἀρχιότητος, cf. Origen, Contra Celsum, I, 16; IV, 11 and Eusebius, Hist. eccl., III, 9). The title Contra Apionem was introduced by St. Jerome (Epist. 70 ad Magnum, 3; Adv. Iovinianum, II, 14; De viris ill., 13). A work of small size (2 ll., of which only the second refutes the anti-Jewish accusations that Apion (v.), Alexandrian grammarian, had collected in his Aegyptiaca).

The defense of Judaism made by G. is skillful, but historical criticism is too lacking; everything that is in favor of the Jews, for him is authentic and genuine. Also in the C. Apionem and in the vast historical erudition of which the author makes display, one encounters G.'s method of putting together his writings by excerpting from Hellenistic compilations. The Judaism presented there is an altered Judaism, Hellenizing, rationalistic.

4) Vita (Βίος). It is an autobiography in which the true autobiographical information is reduced to very little

(1-27 and 414-30) while the long central stretch (28-413) is a self-defense or rather a counter-attack against Justus (v.) of Tiberias, who had accused G. of little loyalty toward the Romans, conducted not very skillfully, affirming that it completes the narration of the Bell. Ind., while in reality it often contradicts it.

According to the theory of B. Motzo (Saggi di storia e letteratura giudeo-ellenistica, Florence 1924, pp. 214-26) the autobiographical information of Vita, 1-27 and 414-30 were incorporated in Ant. Ind. between XX, 266 and XX, 267-68, whence they were then detached, and, expanded in the central self-defense (28-413), published as an appendix to Ant. Ind.

Giuseppe Ricciotti