Flavius Josephus (37--95 A.D.)
Josephus ben Matthias, whose adopted Roman name was Flavius, hardly needs much introduction, since he has thoughtfully provided us with his own autobiography, or rather, his carefully crafted apologia in which he defends himself against the expected criticisms of his fellow Jews. He tells us us that he came from a distinguished priestly family in Jerusalem, and was a morally serious young man, drawn to the Pharisaic ideal of strict adherence to the Law of Moses. We also learn how in his later years he was married to a Jewess from Crete, by whom he had two sons; how he had received Roman citizenship from Vespasian and how at the time of writing, (in the 80's of the first century,) he lived in comfortable retirement in Rome, favoured by the Flavian imperial family. He tells that he continued to own estates in Judea; and that he was the object of envy to many. Much more about his actions during the turbulent years A.D. 66-70 is contained in his earlier account of the Jewish War, written during the 70's, also in Rome.
In the autobiography, I have inserted short headings, indexed at chapter level, to indicate the main movement of his story; these provide a summary of the contents. Further rapid analysis may be found by looking at the table of contents at �par" (paragraph) level, where the opening line of each paragraph may be read. It is immediately evident that he devotes most of this account to justifying his conduct during the Jewish revolt against the Romans, in the years 66-70 A.D. In the midst of that agonising war, Josephus changed sides, became interpreter and cultural assistant to Titus, son of Vespasian, general of the Roman army and future emperor. He integrated with his captors even to the point of adopting the name �Flavius�, the family name of Vespasian and Titus.
The sustained defensiveness of Josephus' account in the Autobiography is explained by his need to justify himself both to the Romans and to the Jews. The Romans must be shown how he had tried to prevent the revolt in the first place, and once it was under way, how moderate and peace-loving had been his conduct of the war in Galilee. To his fellow Jews he must explain why he did not die in battle like so many others, and especially why he joined with the victorious Titus, who did such destruction in Jerusalem. In his defence, he presents himself as a man of wisdom and foresight, able to meet the changing needs of situations, and appeals to the divine providence that has guided his life. Despite appearances, he remains a loyal Jew and spends his studious retirement in Rome, writing on his people's behalf, commending their ancient culture and religion to the respect of fair-minded Romans.
His massive, 20-volume Antiquities of the Jews re-tells much that is in the Old Testament, but carries on the story to the 12th year of the reign of Nero (65 A.D.), that is, just to the eve of the Jewish rebellion. He completed that work, having already written his short Autobiography, and his classic account of the Jewish War. These writing achievements are laid out in the final paragraphs of Ant. 20.11.3-4 (i.e. Bk. 20, ch. 11. par. 3-4) where he as -- somewhat immodestly -- makes the claim that nobody else was as competent as he, to write the full story of his people.
The value of Josephus' histories is considerable. He is our main, almost our only source, for the internal events of Jewish history in the first century B.C., and our main source (outside the New Testament) for those of the apostolic age (up to the 70's A.D.) It is to him we owe our knowledge of Herod the Great and his violent inner-family hatreds, and the lead-up to Judea coming under a Roman procurator, as it was in the days of Jesus. His account of the Jewish war is given in tremendous, sometimes confusing, detail, and the description of the heroic defence of Masada (War, 7.8.1-6) shows his great skill as a narrator. He describes the magnificent Herodian Jerusalem Temple as it appeared in its heyday, before the Jewish War (War, 5.5.1-7). By his several accounts of the Four Philosophies (in Autob. 2. And Ant. Bks. 13 and 18.1.2-4), Josephus provides a useful sketch of Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots that throws light on various biblical passages. This makes absorbing reading for Christians as well as for Jews.
Of particular interest to Christians, however, is his reference to Jesus, in Ant. 18.3.3., the �Flavian Testimony� where he speaks of �Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.� While the assertions that Jesus was the Christ, and that he appeared alive after his death, may indicate some later Christian devotional manipulation of the text, it remains that �shorn of of later additions, it tells of Jesus' astonishing deeds and teaching, and that Pilate condemned him to death� at the behest of the Jewish leaders (Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, N.Y., Doubleday, 1997, p. 835). In volume 1 of his detailed study of the historical Jesus, John Meier also gives a guarded acceptance of this �Testimony�, and suggests that its location, at some distance from the references to John the Baptist, and therefore in contrast to the Gospels' close linking of Jesus and the Baptist, is a treatment �simply inconceivable as the work of a Christian of any period� (A Marginal Jew, N.Y., Doubleday, 1991, p. 66.)
Earlier in vol. 18, Joseph writes about �John, who was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another and piety towards God and so to come to baptism; for that the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved by hearing his words...� (Ant. 18.5.2.). He goes on to tell of John's murder by Herod Antipas, in terms quite parallel to those of the Gospels. There are many other details in book 18 that are essential to the reconstruction of events in Palestine at the time of Jesus, as indeed is indicated by the multiple citations made of it by Meier, in the work referred to (his Index, on p. 480).
Josephus wrote in Aramaic, and was translated into Greek. His own knowledge of Greek had been sufficient to allow him communicate with Vespasian at the time of his surrender, and to predict the Roman general's later ascent to the imperial command. But he admits that the study of foreign languages had not been encouraged in the Palestine of his youth, and that he had come late to the study of Greek. This also throws some light on the probable (minimal) level of Greek known by the first followers of Jesus.
How did Josephus know so much about the conditions in Palestine fifty years before the time of his writing? Had he a phenomenal memory, or, more likely, did he keep notes (for the Jewish War), and supplement them with visits to the best libraries in the imperial city. Meier discounts the likelihood that Josephus had read the Gospel of Luke, but maintains that he would have had easy access to the archives of imperial administrators that were kept in Rome. And apropos his information on the trial of Jesus, �granted the obsessively suspicious nature of Tiberius in his later years, a desire for detailed reports from provincial governors on any trial that smacked of possible treason... would not be surprising� (Marginal Jew, I., p. 67).
The two other short works of Josephus, the more interesting is his apologetic work �Against Apion�, where he debunks some of the misconceptions about Jews that were current in late first-century Rome. His Discourse on Hades against the Greeks is a slight work in 8 paragraphs, insisting on the divine justice in the afterlife, and on the Jewish belief in a personal, bodily resurrection. For him, Hades is �where the souls of all men are confined until a proper season, which God has determined, when he will make a resurrection of all men ... which you Greeks... do not believe� -- a statement that lends significant backgrond to St. Paul's failure to convert those at Athens, who shared in that disbelief. Josephus, still an earnest Pharisee, is calling on the Greeks (i.e. pagans generally) to change their ways while there is still time, for �Whosoever shall have lived wickedly and luxuriously may repent; however, there will be need of much time to conquer an evil habit.� While this message is surely a worthy one, it is as a historian of his people that we see Josephus at his best.