Josephus, Flavius

VIEW:35 DATA:01-04-2020

JOSEPHUS, FLAVIUS.—Jewish historian and general, born about a.d. 37 or 38, and died in the first years of the 2nd century.
1. Life.—According to his Life, Josephus was descended from a Maccabæan house, and was thus of both royal and priestly lineage. He states that he showed great precocity, and that the learned men of his race used to consult him when he was fourteen years of age. He studied successively with the Essenes and the Pharisees, as well as with the Sadducees. For three years he was a student with a hermit named Banus—very probably one of the Essenes—although Josephus does not seem to have been admitted to the higher grades of the order. At the age of 26 he went to Rome to bring about the acquittal of certain priests who had been arrested and sent to Rome for trial by Felix. In this he was successful, and even gained the favour of the Empress Poppæa.
Not long after his return from Rome the revolution of a.d. 66 broke out, and he was at once swept into its current. Of the events which follow he has given us two accounts, the earlier in the Jewish War [BJ], the later in his Life, written shortly before his death. These accounts are not always consistent, the latter showing more subservience to the Romans. In particular, he attempts to justify himself, and the Pharisees with whom he was associated, for participation in the revolt, by declaring that they judged it better for moderate men than for radicals to direct the course of events. The BJ, however, does not suggest this questionable proceeding on the part of the Jewish authorities.
The course of the war in Galilee, and particularly his own relations therewith, are minutely narrated by Josephus. His position was one of great difficulty. The Galilæans were grouped in various parties, ranging from those who opposed war with Rome to radicals like those who followed John of Giscala. The plans of Josephus and his fellow-commissioners from Jerusalem were further complicated by jealousies between the various cities, particularly Sepphoris, Tiberias, and Taricheæ. None the less, Josephus seems to have gone about the work of organizing the revolution energetically. He fortified the cities as well as he could, and attempted to introduce Roman military methods among the troops he was gathering. Whether he was, as he claims, too strict in the matter of booty, or, as his enemies claimed, too lukewarm in the cause of the revolution, complaints were lodged against him at Jerusalem, and an investigating committee was sent into Galilee. Various adventures then followed, but in the end Josephus seems to have been acquitted and to have gained a complete ascendency over his local enemies. John of Giscala, however, subsequently went to Jerusalem, and proved a persistent enemy, while the Zealot party as a whole seems never to have been satisfied with the attitude of Josephus.
The approach of Vespasian from the north at once showed how half-hearted had been the revolutionary sympathies of many of the Galilæan cities. Several of them surrendered without serious fighting, and Vespasian, after one or two desperate battles, was soon in possession of all Galilee excepting Jotapata on the east of the Sea of Galilee, where Josephus and his surviving troops were entrenched. Reinforcements the Sanhedrin could not send, and for forty-seven days the Romans besieged the city. During that time Josephus, if his own account is to be believed, performed marvellous deeds of strategy and valour. But all to no purpose. The city fell, and was razed to the ground. Josephus was taken prisoner, after having by a trick escaped being killed by his own soldiers. On being brought to Vespasian he claimed prophetic ability, and saluted the general as Emperor. For this and other reasons he won favour with Vespasian, was given his freedom, and took his benefactor’s family name, Flavius.
When Titus undertook the siege of Jerusalem, Josephus accompanied him as interpreter or herald. By this time, however, he had become hateful to the Jews, and could accomplish nothing in the way of inducing them to make terms with the Romans. When the city was captured, he was able to render some service to the unfortunate Jews because of the favour in which he stood with Titus. He was subsequently given estates in Judæa, and was thus enabled to live during the remainder of his long life as a gentleman of leisure, devoted to the pursuit of literature. He enjoyed the friendship of Titus and of king Agrippa ii. He was several times married, and left several children.
2. Writings.—The chief importance of Josephus lies not in his career as a leader of the Jewish revolution, but in the works which have come down to us. Generally speaking, his writings are intended to disabuse his Greek and Roman contemporaries of some of the misconceptions that then existed concerning the Jews. To that end he does not hesitate to employ various ingenious interpretations of historical events, as well as legends, and even to hint that the Jewish records which he quotes have certain allegorical meanings to be disclosed in a subsequent work, which, however, he never wrote.
(1) The earliest of these writings is that Concerning the Jewish War, a work in seven books. It covers briefly the period from the time of Antiochus Epiphanes to the outbreak of the war of a.d. 66–70, and then narrates the events of the war in detail. It was originally written in Aramaic, but was re-written by Josephus in Greek. It was probably issued before 79, as it was presented to Vespasian. Because of the reference to the Temple of Peace as finished (BJ VII. v. 7), it must have been written after 75. The work, while inaccurate at many points, and full of a tendency to present the actions of the Jews in as favourable a light as possible, is of inestimable value so far as its record of facts is concerned, and particularly for the light it throws on the state of society in the midst of which Jesus laboured. The book found favour with Vespasian and Titus and Agrippa ii.
(2) The Antiquities of the Jews.—This great work in twenty books is one of the most important monuments which have come down to us from antiquity. It was published in the year 93. It covers the history of the Jews from the earliest Biblical times to the outbreak of the revolution of a.d. 66. It is particularly interesting as an illustration of the method by which the facts of Hebrew history could be re-written for the edification of the Greeks and Romans. It abounds in legends and curious interpretations. Josephus was by no means dependent upon the OT exclusively. He constantly refers to non-Biblical writers, mentioning by name most of the Greek and Roman historians. He used constantly the works of Alexander Polyhistor, Nicholas of Damascus, and Strabo. He probably also used Herodotus. The work abounds in collections of decrees and inscriptions which make it of great value to secular as well as to Biblical historians. The later books give very full accounts of the life of Herod i., for which Josephus is largely dependent upon Nicholas of Damascus, the historiographer of Herod. In his treatment of the Maccabees he is largely dependent upon First Maccabees. His account of the successors of Herod is hardly more than a sketch, but that of the events leading up to the revolution is more complete.
(3) The Life.—This work was written in reply to Justus of Tiberias, by whom Josephus was accused of causing the revolt. In his Life Josephus represents himself as a friend of the Romans, but many statements are disproved by his earlier work, the BJ. This Life appeared after the death of Agrippa ii., that is, in the beginning of the 2nd century.
(4) Against Apion.—This is a defence of the Jewish people against the attacks of their enemies and calumniators, chief among whom was Apion, a grammarian of Alexandria, who wrote during the first half of the 1st cent. a.d. It was written probably about the same time as the Life, and is particularly valuable as a narrative of the charges brought against the Jewish religion by the Greeks. It also serves as an exposition of the customs and views of the Jews of the 1st century, not only in Judæa but throughout the Dispersion.
3. The importance of Josephus to the Biblical student.—As a contemporary of the NT writers, Josephus describes the Jewish background of Christian history as does no other writer of antiquity. The Book of Acts is particularly illuminated by his writings, while the chronology of the Apostolic period is given its fixed dates by his references to Jewish and Roman rulers. Josephus, it is true, does not add to our knowledge of the life of Christ. While his reference to John the Baptist is possibly authentic, and while it is not impossible that he mentions Jesus, the entire passage (Ant. XVIII. iii. 3) can hardly have come from Josephus in its present form. At the same time, his narrative of the events of the Gospel period and his description of the character of the various rulers of Judæa serve to corroborate the accuracy of both the Gospels and Acts. As furnishing data for our knowledge of Jewish legends, parties, practices, and literature, his importance is exceptional. Even if we did not have the Mishna, it would be possible from his passages to reconstruct a satisfactory picture of the Jewish life of NT times. His few references to the current Messianic expectations of his day are particularly valuable. On the other hand, his comments upon and explanations of the OT are of comparatively small value.
Shailer Mathews.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909

jṓ-sē?fus, flā?vi-us:

1. Early Life and Beliefs:
Was born at Jerusalem 37-38 AD, and died at Rome early in the 2nd century, when is not known precisely. His father and mother belonged to families of the priestly aristocracy; consequently he received an excellent education, becoming familiar, not only with Jewish, but with Hellenistic, culture. When 16 years old he resorted to one Banus, an ESSENE, (which see), in the desert of Engedi, with whom he remained for 3 years, absorbing occult lore, and practicing the ascetic life. It might have been expected from his social position that, on his return to Jerusalem, he would join the SADDUCEES (which see); but, his Essene experience having indoctrinated him with ceremonialism, he preferred to become a PHARISEE (which see). He evidently believed, too, that the Pharisees were akin to the Stoics, who were then influential in the Hellenistic world. During his absence in the desert, the misgovernment of the Roman procurators at Jerusalem had grown apace. And the ineptitudes and injustices of Felix, Albanus and Florus were succeeded by anarchy under Annas, the high priest (62). Accordingly, the ZEALOTS (which see) plotted against Roman rule. Rebellion simmered, and many of the disaffected were transported to Rome to be dealt with there. Among these were several priests, whom Josephus knew. About the year 64, he went to Rome to plead for them, met shipwreck on the voyage, was rescued with a few survivors and was brought to port at Puteoli. Here he met Alityrus, a Jewish actor, who happened to be in the good graces of Poppea, Nero's consort. The empress, a Jewish proselyte, espoused his cause at Rome, and showed him many favors. At the capital, he also discerned the power of the Romans and, in all probability, grew convinced of the hopelessness of armed revolt. On his return to Jerusalem, he found his people set upon insurrection, and was forced, possibly against his better judgment, to make common cause with them. The first part of his public career is concerned with the great struggle that now began.

2. Public Career:
When war broke out, Josephus was appointed governor of Galilee, the province where the Roman attack would first fall. He had no military fitness for command, but the influence of his friends and the exigencies of politics thrust the office upon him. The Zealots soon found that he did not carry out the necessary preparations with thoroughness, and they tried to compass his removal. But he was too influential, too good a politician also, to be undermined. Surrounded by enemies among his own folk, who even attempted to assassinate him, he encountered several dangerous experiences, and, at length, flying from the Romans, was beleaguered with his army in Jotopata, near the Lake of Gennesaret, in May, 67 AD. The Jews withstood the siege for 47 days with splendid courage, till Titus, assaulting under cover of a mist, stormed the stronghold and massacred the weary defenders. Josephus escaped to a cave where, with his usual adroitness, he saved himself from death at the hands of his companions. The Romans soon discovered his hiding-place, and haled him before Vespasian, the commander-in-chief. Josephus worked upon the superstitions of the general, and so ingratiated himself that Vespasian took him to Alexandria in his train. Having been liberated by his captor, he adopted the family name of the Flavians, according to Roman custom. Returning to Palestine with Titus, he proceeded to mediate between the Romans and the Jews, earning the suspicion of the former, the hatred of the latter. His wonted diplomacy preserved him from anything more serious than a wound, and he was an eyewitness of the terrible events that marked the last days of Jerusalem. Then he accompanied Titus to Rome for the TRIUMPH (which see). Here he lived the remainder of his days, in high favor with the ruling house, and relieved from all anxiety about worldly goods by lavish imperial patronage. He was thus enabled to devote himself to literary pursuits.

3. Works:
The works of Josephus render him one of the most valuable authorities for the student of New Testament times. They are as follows: (1) Concerning the Jewish War, written before 79; we have the Greek translation of this history by the author; there are 7 books: I, the period from Antiochus Epiphanes (175 BC) to Herod the Great (4 BC); II, from 4 BC to 66 AD, covering the early events of the War; III, occurrences in Galilee in 67 AD; IV, the course of the War till the siege of Jerusalem; V and VI, the investment and fall of Jerusalem; VII, the aftermath of the rebellion. While this work is not written with the objective accuracy of scientific history, it is credible on the whole, except where it concerns the role played by the author. (2) The Antiquities of the Jews, written not later than 94 AD. In this Josephus purports to relate the entire history of his race, from the beginning till the War of 66 AD. The 20 books fall naturally into 5 divisions, thus: (a) I-X, from prehistoric times till the Captivity, in other words, the period related in the Old Testament substantially; (b) XI, the age of Cyrus; (c) XII-XIV, the beginnings of the Hellenistic period, from Alexander the Great, including the Maccabean revolt, till the accession of Herod the Great; (d) XV-XVII, the reign of Herod; (e) XVIII-XX, from Herod's death till the War of 66. While it cannot be called an apology for the Jews, this work betrays the author's consciousness of the disfavor with which his people were viewed throughout the Roman Empire. Josephus does what he can to disabuse the Greek-Roman educated classes, although he shows curious obliquity to the grandeur of Hebrew religion. All in all, the work is disappointing; but it contains many details and sidelights of first importance to investigators. (3) The treatise called, since Jerome, Against Apion, is Josephus' most inspiring performance. The older title, Concerning the High Antiquity of the Jews, tells us what it contains - a defense of Hebrew religion against the libels of heathendom. It is in two books. The vituperation with which Josephus visits Apion is unimportant in comparison with the defense of Mosaic religion and the criticism of paganism. Here the author's character is seen at its best; the air of Worldly Wiseman has been dropped, and he approaches enthusiasm. (4) His last work is the Vita or Autobiography, a misleading title. It is an echo of old days in Galilee, directed against the traductions of an associate, Justus of Tiberias. We have Josephus at his worst here. He so colors the narrative as to convey a totally wrong impression of the part he played during the great crisis. In extenuation, it may be said that his relations with the imperial court rendered it difficult, perhaps impossible, for him to pursue another course.

Literature.
W.D. Morrison, The Jews under Roman Rule (London, 1890); E. Schurer, History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, Div. I, Vol. I (Edinburgh, 1890); A. Hausrath, History of New Testament Times, IV, div VII, chapter ii (London, 1895); H. Graetz, History of the Jews from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, II, chapter x (London, 1891); article ?Josephus? in Jewish Encyclopedia, Translations by Whiston (many editions), and of The War of the Jews, by Traill and Taylor (London, 1862).

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.

Josephus, Flavius
the celebrated Jewish historian, was born at Jerusalem A.D. 37. His father's name was Mattathias, and in his autobiography (the only source left us to write his history, as the works of his rival, Justus of Tiberias, are unhappily lost) he lays claim to royal and sacerdotal lineage, and alludes to the renown he enjoyed while yet a youth (Life, 1, 1). His early years seem to have been spent in close study of the Jewish traditions and the O.T. writings. Dissatisfied with all of the three principal Jewish sects, while yet a young man he spent three years as the follower of one Banus, an eremite, in the desert, but at last joined the sect of the Pharisees. He was only 19 when he left Banus, and he joined the Pharisees between 19 and 26, when he went to Rome. Soon afterwards, the imprisonment of some Jewish priests by the procurator Felix afforded him an opportunity of pleading his people's cause before the emperor himself at the Roman capital, whither these men had been sent. On the way he was shipwrecked (some have unwarrantably imagined that he was Paul's companion in that disastrous voyage), but, being rescued by a Cyrenian vessel, he made his way to Rome. He there not only secured the object of his mission, but also ingratiated himself in the favor of the empress, and at length returned home loaded with presents. He found the mass of his countrymen determined oh a revolt from the empire, and he anxiously sought to dissuade them from so rash a course.
The Jews, however, refused to listen to his advice; and the only alternatives for him were either to follow the popular will, and thus perhaps make himself the leader of his people, or to return to Rome, and there receive the rewards of treachery. In his description of the Jewish insurrection he has given us a graphic account of the numerous plots and perils in which he became entangled during this period of his life. After the disastrous retreat of Cestius Gallus from Jerusalem. and the barbarous massacre of the Jews at Sepphoris (q.v.) and the Syrian cities, the most peacefully inclined of the Jews joined the zealots, and Josephus no longer hesitated as to the best course to be pursued. With great ostentation of patriotism and self devotion, he declared in favor of war '"a outrance," and he soon secured for himself the appointment as general. Together with Joazar and Judas he was sent to Galilee, "the province on which the storm would first break." His two colleagues, however, devoted themselves to their priestly functions, and Josephus became the sole commander (Life, 4- 7; War, 2, 20, 4). Finding the Galilean Jews divided among themselves, SEE JOHN OF GISCHALA, and fearing that his command was too weak to meet the army of the approaching Vespasian, he retired to the Jewish stronghold Jotapata, and there awaited the attack of the Romans. For forty-seven days. he encouraged his soldiers to deeds that immortalized his name. (For an interesting description of this siege, see Weber and Holtzmann, Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, 2, 475 sq.; Milman, Hist. of the Jews [Middleton's edition], 2, 252 sq.) Yet some writers, among them Raphall and Grätz, accuse him even here of treachery and cowardice, alleging that he endeavored to get away from Jotapata on the pretence of desiring to raise an army for its relief, although he could not have left "without either falling into the hands of the Romans or voluntarily joining them." Even after the fall of that fortress he did not surrender to the Romans, but hid himself with forty companions in a cave, and refused to come forth, when his place of refuge was betrayed, until his life was guaranteed him. (See Smith, Dict. of Greek and Roman Biog. 2, 611, Colossians 1; Raphall, Post-Bibl. Hist. Jews, p. 427 sq.) After his surrender to Vespasian he was put in chains, with a view to being sent to Rome for trial before Nero. He evaded this danger by predicting (he distinctly claims the gift of prophecy, War, 3, 8, 9) to Vespasian his future elevation to the imperial throne, but was still held in confinement for three years, until, on the realization of his prediction, his chains were cut from him, as a sign that he had been unjustly bound (War, 4, 10, 7).
Vespasian had been declared emperor by the Roman soldiers in the East, and he immediately set out for the West, leaving Titus in command, with orders to hasten the conclusion of the war still raging in Palestine. In this expedition on Jerusalem Josephus accompanied Titus. Titus had supposed this task, with the assistance of the "renegade" (so Milman calls him), an easy one; but the Jews braved the attack of the Romans much more obstinately than the latter had expected, and, finally, Josephus was induced to go forth and urge his countrymen to capitulate, and thus to save the place from certain and total destruction. The people, by his account. were touched and ready to yield, but the leaders remained obstinate; but the fact is that they were naturally disinclined to listen to the counsels of a man who had quitted them in the hour of their greatest need. They even sought to kill him, and continued the defense to the last extremity. On the downfall of the city, the most intimate friends and relatives. of Josephus were spared at his request, and, in return for his aid and counsel in the siege, a valuable estate in Judaea was assigned him as a residence. Well aware, however, that among his countrymen he would hardly find a safe refuge, he returned with Titus to Rome to enjoy the honors which Vespasian might bestow upon him. He was received with great kindness by the emperor; but, although the privileges of Roman citizenship were conferred upon him and an annual pension awarded him, he was detested by the Romans no less than by the Jews. It is supposed that his death occurred in the early years of Trajan's reign, perhaps A.D. 103. For other facts of a more directly personal character, such as his three marriages, the names of his sons, etc., see the seventy-six chapters of his life, and the following other passages of his other works: Apion, 1, 9, 10; War, 1; 2, 20, 3 sq.; 21, 2 sq.; 3, 7, 13 sq.; 8, 1 sq.; 9; 6:5; Ant. ed. Havercamp, 1, 5, 228, 536, 545, 682, 982; Suidas, s.v. Ι᾿ώσηπος.
The character of Josephus has been very differently delineated by different writers. From his own works, especially his books against Apion, i t is evident that, though he dealt rather treacherously with his people, he yet felt a pride in the antiquity of the nation and in its ancient glories; and in the description of the misfortunes of the Jews he is by no means wanting in sympathy for them. Thus his account of the miserable fate of Jerusalem is altogether free from that tone of revolting coldness which shocks us in Xenophon's account of the downfall of Athens (Hell. 2, 2, § 3 sq.). Yet the mildest interpretation that his conduct can receive certainly is that he despaired (as earnest patriots never do) of his country, and that he deserted his countrymen in their greatest extremity. Indeed, from the very beginning, he appears to have looked on the national cause as hopeless, and to have cherished the intention of making peace with Rome whenever he could. Thus he told some of the chief men of Tiberias that he was well aware of the invincibility of the Romans, though he thought it safer to dissemble his conviction; and he advised them to do the same, and to wait for a convenient season — περιμένουσι καιρόν (Life, 35; compare War, 3, 5); and we find him again, in his attack on Justus the historian (Life, 65), earnestly defending himself from the charge of having in any way caused the war with Rome. Had this feeling originated in a religious conviction that the Jewish nation had forfeited God's favor, the case, of course, would have been different; but such a spirit of living, practical faith we do not discover in Josephus. Holding in the main the abstract doctrines of a Pharisee, but with the principles and temper of a Herodian, he strove to accommodate his religion to heathen tastes and prejudices; and this by actual commissions (Ottius, Proetermissa a Josepho, appended to his Spicilegium), no less than by a rationalistic system of modification (Smith, Dict. Greek and Rom. Biog. 2, 612). A more favorable opinion is sometimes expressed of Josephus, as by a writer in the Evangelical Quart. Review, 1870, p. 420. Prof. F.W. Farrat (in Kitto, Cyclop. Bibl. Literature, s.v.) has perhaps best summed up the religious character of Josephus as that of "a strange mixture of the bigoted Pharisee and the time serving Herodian," and as "mingling the national pride of the patriot with the apostasy of a traitor."
Very different is the opinion of all on the writings of Josephus. Even in his day he was greatly lauded for his literary abilities. Though a Jew by birth, he had so ably acquired the Greek that he could be counted among the classic writers in that language. St. Jerome designates him as the "Graecus Livius" (Epist. sad Eustach.); and, to come nearer our own days, Niebuhr. pronounces him a Greek writer of singular purity (Anc. Hist. 3, 455). But, withal, he is hardly deserving of the epithet. φιλαλήθης, so often bestowed on him (Suid. s.v. Ι᾿ώσηπος; Isidor Pelusiot. 4, Ep. 75: "diligentissimus et φιλαληθέστατος," Jos. Scaliger, De Emend, Temp. Proef., etc.). It is true, he understood the duty and importance of veracity in the historian (Ant. 14, 1, 1; War, 1, 1; c. Apion, 1, 19); nevertheless, "he is," says Niebuhr (Lect. Rom. Hist. 1. c.), "often untrue, and his archaeology abounds in distortions of historical facts, and in falsifications which arise from his inordinate national pride; and wherever he deals in numbers, he shows his Oriental love of exaggeration" (this charge is, in a measure, refuted, however, in Stud. u. Krit. 1853, p. 48). But, even though Josephus may not in all things be implicitly relied upon, his writings are to the theologian especially invaluable, and we may well say, with Casaubon and Farrar, that it is by a singular providence that his works, which throw such a flood of light on Jewish affairs, have been preserved to us. They are of immense service in the entire Biblical department, as may be seen from the frequent references that have been made to his writings throughout this Cyclopaedia, in the elucidation of the history, geography, and archaeology of Scripture. Yet by this it must by no means be inferred that we detract in the least from our former statement, that Josephus was not a man who believed in the inspiration of the Biblical writings. "In spite of his constant assertions (Ant. 10, 11)," says Farrar (in Kitto), "he can have had no real respect for the writings which he so largely illustrates. If he had felt, as a Jew, any deep or religious appreciation of the O.T. history, which he professes to follow (οὐδὲν προθεὶς οὐθ αυ παραλιπών, Ant. 1, procem.), he would not have tampered with it as he does, mixing it with pseudo-philosophical fancies (Apion, 1, 10), with groundless Jewish Hagadcoth or traditions (such as the three years' war of Moses with the Ethiopians, the love of Tharbis for him, etc. Ant. 2, 10, 2), and with quotations from heathen writers of very doubtful authority (Ant. 8, 5, 3, etc.; see Van Dale, De Aristea, p. 211). The worst charge, however, against him is his constant attempt, by alterations and suppressions (and especially by a rationalistic method of dealing with miracles, which contrasts strangely with his credulous fancies), to make Jewish history palatable to Greeks and Romans, to such an extent that J. Ludolfus calls him 'fabulator saepius quam historicus' (Hist. Ethiop. p. 230). Thus he omits all the most important Messianic prophecies; he manipulates the book of Daniel in a most unsatisfactory manner (Ant. 9, 11); he speaks in a very loose way about Moses and Abraham (Ant. 1, 8, 1; Apion, 2, 15); and, though he can swallow the romance of the pseudo-Aristeas, he rationalizes the account of the Exodus and Jonah's whale (Ant. 2, 16, 5; 9, 10, 2)." On the whole subject of his credibility as a writer, his omissions, his variations, and his panderings to Gentile taste, comp. J.A. Fabricius, De Joseph. et ejus Scriptu, in Hudson's ed.; Van Dale, De Aistecd, 10, 11; De Idololatria, 7; Brinch, Examen list. Flav. Josephi, in Havercamp, 2, 309 sq.; Ottius, Spicilegium ex Josepho; Ittigius, Prolegomena; Usher, Epist. ad Lud. Cappelluin, p. 42; Whiston's Dissertations, etc.
Of still greater interest, perhaps to our readers must be the relation which Josephus, living as he did in the age of Christ himself, sustained towards Christianity. Some have gone so far as to assert not only the authenticity of passages in his writings alluding to Christ, etc. (see below), but have even made out of Josephus an Ebionite Christian (Whiston, Dissert. 1). if not a true follower of Jesus the Christ. Prof. Farrar (in Kitto), speaking on this point, says: "Nothing is more certain than that Josephus was no Christian (ἀπιστῶν τῷ Ιησοῦ ὡς Χριστιῷ, Orig. c. Cels. 1, 35); the whole tone of his mind was alien from the noble simplicity of Christian belief, and, as we have seen already, he was not even a good Jew. Whatever, therefore, may be thought about the passages alluding to John the Baptist (Ant. 18, 5, 2), and James, the Lord's brother (ibid. 20, 9, 1), which may possibly be genuine, there can be no reasonable doubt that the famous allusion to Christ (Ant. 18, 3, 3) is either absolutely spurious or largely interpolated. The silence [partial or total] of Josephus on a subject of such importance, and with which he must have been so thoroughly acquainted, is easily explicable; and it is intrinsically much more probable that he should have passed over the subject altogether (as is done also by his contemporary, Justus of Tiberias, Phot. Cod. Bibl. 33) than that he should only have devoted to it a few utterly inadequate lines. Even if he had been induced to do this by some vague hope of getting something by it from Christians like Flavius Clemens, he certainly would not have expressed himself in language so strong (ειγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή), and still less would he have vouched for the Messiahship, the miracles, or the resurrection of Jesus. Justin, Tertullian, Chrysostom, Origen, and even Photius, knew nothing of the passage, nor does it appear till the time of Eusebius (Hist. Ecclesiastes 1, 2, Den. Evang. 3, 5), a man for whom Niebuhr can find no better name than 'a detestable falsifier,' and one whose historical credibility is well nigh given up. Whether Eusebius forged it himself or borrowed it from the marginalia of some Christian reader cannot be determined, but that Josephus did not write it [at least in its present form] may be regarded as settled. Nay, the very next sentence (Ant. 17, 3, 4) is a disgusting story, wholly irrelevant to the tenor of the narrative, and introduced in all probability for the sole purpose of a blasphemous parody on the miraculous conception, such as was attempted by various Rabbinical writers (e.g. in the Sepher Toledoth Jeshua; see Wagenseil, Tela Ignea Satanoe; SEE JESUS CHRIST ). That Josephus intended obliquely to discredit some of the chief Christian doctrines by representing them as having been anticipated by the Essenes seems by no means improbable (comp. De Quincey's Works, vol. 9, The Essenes)." For a compendium of the abundant literature on these questions, see Gieseler, Eccl. Hist. sec. 34. The chief treatises are, Daubuz, Pro testimonio Fl. Jos. de Jesu Christ (London, 1706); reprinted in Havercamp; Bohmert, Ueber des Fl. Jos. Zeugniss von Christo (Lpz. 1823); Le Moyne, Var. Sacr. 2, 931 Heinichen, Excurs. 1, ad Euseb. H.E. 3, 331; comp. also Langen, Judenthum in Palastina (Freib. 1866), p. 440 sq.; Stud. u. Krit. 1856, 840 sq.
It remains for us only to add a list of the works of Josephus (here we mainly follow Smith [Dict. Gr. and Rom. Biog. s.v.]), which are,
1. A History of the Jewish War, (περὶ τοῦ Ι᾿ουδαϊκοῦ πολέμου ἣ Ιουδαικῆςἱστορίας περί ἁλώσεως), in seven books. Josephus tells us that he wrote it first in his own language (the Syro-Chaldee), and then translated it into Greek, for the information of European readers (War, 1, 1). The original is no longer extant. The Greek was published about A.D. 75, under the patronage and with the especial recommendation of Titus. Agrippa II, also, in no fewer than sixty-two letters to Josephus, bore testimony to the care and fidelity displayed in it. It was admitted into the Palatine library, and its author was honored with a statue at Rome. It commences with the capture of Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes, B.C. 170; runs rapidly over the events before Josephus's own time, and gives a detailed account of the fatal war with Rome (Josephus, Life, p. 65; Eusebius. Hist. Ecclesiastes 3, 9; Jerome, Catal. Script. Eccl. p. 13; Ittigius, Prolegomena; Fabricius, Bibl. Groec. 5, 4; Vossius, De Hist. Groec. p. 239, ed. Westermann): —
2. Jewish Antiquities (Ι᾿ουδαϊκὴ ἀρχαιολογία), in twenty books, completed about A.D. 93, and addressed to Epaphroditus. The title, as well as the number of books, may have been suggested by the ῾Ρωμαϊκὴ ἀρχαιολογία of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. The work extends from the creation of the world to A.D. 66, the 12th year of Nero, in which the Jews were goaded to rebellion by Gessius Florus. It embraces, therefore, but more in detail, much of the matter of the first and second books on the Jewish War. Both these histories are said to have been translated into Hebrew, of which version, however,. there are no traces, though some have erroneously identified it with the works of the PseudoJosephus. SEE JOSEPH BEN-GORION: —
3. His Life, in one book. This is an autobiography appended to the Antiquities, and is addressed to the same Epaphroditus. It cannot, however, have been written earlier than A.D. 97, since Agrippa II is mentioned in it as no longer living (65): —
4. Κατὰ Α᾿πίωνος (a treatise against Apion), in two books, also addressed to Epaphroditus. It is in answer to such as impugned the antiquity of the Jewish nation on the ground of the silence of Greek writers respecting it. The title, "against Apion," is rather a misnomer, and is applicable only to a portion of the second book (1-13). It exhibits considerable learning, and is highly commended by Jerome. The Greek text is deficient at 2:5-9: —
5. The Fourth of Maccabees (εἰς Μακκαβαίους, ἣ περὶ αὐτοκράτορος λογισμοῦ), in one book. The genuineness of this treatise has been called in question by many (see Cave, Hist. Lit. Script. Eccles. p. 22), but it is attributed to Josephus by Eusebius, Jerome, Philostorgius, and others (see Fabricius, Bibl. Groec. 5, 7; Ittigius, Prolegomena). Certainly, however, it does not read like his works. It is an extremely declamatory account of the martyrdom of Eleazar (an aged priest), and of seven youths and their mother, in the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes; and this is prefaced by a discussion on the supremacy which reason possesses de jure over pleasure and pain. Its title has reference to the zeal for God's law displayed by the sufferers in the spirit of the Maccabees. There is a paraphrase of it by Erasmus, and in some Greek copies of the Bible it was inserted as the fourth book of the Maccabees (Fabricius, 1. c.). There are, besides these, also attributed to him: —
6. The treatise Περὶ τοῦ παντός, which was certainly not written by Josephus. For an account of it, see Photius, Cod. 48; Fabricius, Bibl. Grec. 5, 8; Ittigius, Prolegomena, ad fin.
7. Jerome (Proef. ad Lib. 11 Comm. ad Esaiam) speaks of a work of one Josephus on Daniel's vision of the seventy weeks, but he probably refers to some other Josephus: —
8. At the end of his Antiquities Josephus mentions his intention of writing a work in four books on the Jewish notions of God and his essence, and on the rationale of the Mosaic laws. but this task he never accomplished. At any rate, the works have not come down to us. (See Whistolo's note, Ant. ad fin.; Fabricius, Bibl. Grec. 5, 9.)
The writings of Josephus first appeared in print in a Latin translation, with no notice of the place or date of publication: the edition seems to have contained only a portion of the Antiquities. These, with the seven books of the Jewish War, were reprinted by Schusler (Augsb. 1470) in Latin; and there were many editions in the same language of the whole works, and of portions of them, before the editio princeps of the Greek text appeared at Basel, 1544, edited by Arlenius. Since then the works of Josephus have frequently been printed, both in the Greek and in many other languages. One of the most valuable editions is that by Hudson (Oxf. 1720, 2 vols. fol.). The text is founded on a most careful and extensive collation of MSS., and the edition is further enriched by notes and indices. The principal English versions are those of Lodge (Lond. 1602); one from the French of D'Andilly (Oxford, 1676, reprinted at London, 1683); that of L'Estrange (Lond. 1702), and that of Whiston (London, 1737). The two last mentioned versions have frequently been reprinted in various shapes. See, besides the authorities already noticed, Grätz, Geschichte d. Juden, 3, 399 sq.; Weber and Holtzmann, Gesch. d. Judenth. 2, 467 sq.; Jost, Gesch. d. Judenth. u. s. Sekten, 1, 225, 319, 444; De Wette, Hebr. jud. Archaologie, p. 9; Ewald, Gesch. Christus (1855), p. 104 sq.; Milman, Hist. of the Jews. vol. 2 (see Index in vol. 3); Smith, Dict. Gr. and Rom. Biog. s.v.; Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, 2, 117 sq. (J.H.W.)

CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores