Tosephus Flavius (Flavius Josephus), Bellu Iudaicum A. AUTHOR AND WoRK Tosephus Flavius (usually called Flavius Josephus) combines the Jewish with the Roman in his name, influence and work. He was born in AD 37/38 (the first year of the reign of the Emperor Caligula), as Joseph, son of Matthias, into a priestly family of Jerusalem, He fluctu- ated between support for the Jewish and Roman causes. According to his autobiography (Jos. Vit. 12), I. joined the sect of the Pharisees; he remained unpersuaded by Messianic and Apocalyptic movements. In AD 64, while still a young man and with the aid of Nero’s wife Poppaea, he pleaded successfully for the release of Jewish priests. Returning to Jerusalem, he at first supported the Jewish revolt against Rome (the so-called ‘Jewish War’, AD 66-70), but tried later to quell it while he was a commander in Galilee. In AD 67, after the defeat of the Jewish forces at Totapata in Galilee and 12 evasion of the sui- cide agreed among his fellow Jewish fighters (see below, B.3.2.), I. was taken prisoner by the Romans. He later justified his decision: he stayed alive, not, he said, as an act of betrayal but in order to serve God (Jos. BI 3,354). To many even during his lifetime, he was indeed regarded as a traitor, and this may have influenced the ‘weak Jewish reception of his work. His prophecy that Vespasian would become emperor, which proved correct, led to 1.’ release and his switch to the Flavian side. From then on, his name was I. Flavins. And after the fall of Jerusalem (AD 70), which he witnessed from the Roman side, his place of work was Rome. The Imperial house there ensured his financial independence, and it was there that he wrote his oeuvre. His first and probably most important work is the Bellum Iudaicum (Peri tof londaikost polé- mou, ‘The Jewish War’, B.l.) in seven books. At first, it appeared in Aramaic, then later (AD 79-81) in Greek. Aramaic was I,’ first language. He may well have learned Greek in Jerusalem, but he enlisted help for the Greek version (Jos. Ap. 1,50). He wrote all his later works in Greek The B.I. begins with Maccabean and Herodian prior history before dramatically depicting the history of the Jewish-Roman war (from AD 66) up to fall of the Temple of Jerusalem and that of the fortress of Masada (AD 73/74). Like L’ ceuvre in general, the work was intended both for a Jewish readership (no doubt partly as an explanatory self-justification) and for Greeks and Romans. I. praises the Flavians in the B. I. and absolves them of desecrating the temple. At the same time, though, he sympathizes with the plight of the Jews, and throughout his life he maintained a strong Jewish identity and argued the Jewish cause | ‘The Antiquitates Iudaicae (AD 93/943 ‘Jewish Antiquities’ = A.L) are L? longest work. Ie tells the history of the Jews from Biblical beginnings to the outbreak of the Jewish War in 20 books, His autobiography (Vita) was probably originally meant as an appendix to this work. I. presents | himself as an idealized figure [19.XLVIU-L} and vigorously attacks his rival historian Justus of Tiberias. The so-called Testimoniton Flavianum (Testimony of Flavius’, Jos. Ant. ud. 18,636, revised by a Christian editor), one of the rela- tively few non-Christian reports of the beginnings of Christianity, made the A.J. in particular and I? works in general key texts in Christian reception [30]. 1, last work was the apologetic treatise Contra Apionem (‘Against Apion’; the title transmitted by the Church Fathers, and probably the original one, was ‘On the Great Antiquity of the Jews’) aimed at the anti-Semitism of earlier authors and probably also of his contemporaries. This also became important early evidence for the canon of the Old Testament (cf. Jos. Ap. 1,37-435 Euseb. Hist. eccl. 3,9,2). The treatise, which pre- serves many anti-Jewish utterances from pagan literature, appeared in the last few years of the 908 AD. Parts of it also served Christian apolo- gists (e.g. Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian) as anti-pagan material. In spite of announcing it several times, I. never came to write the trea tise On Customs and Causes (Peri Ethon kai Aition) [27.14f.]. He died around the year AD x00 [25]. B. RECEPTION AND TRANSFORMATION Bix. RECEPTION PROFILE Because of its subject matter ~ the dramatic fight for Jerusalem leading up to the fall of the Temple ~ the B.I. offered strands of recep tion that were exploited quite differently over the centuries by Christians and Jews. Christian authors took up the work rapidly and grate- fully due to the scarcity of sources on the events | Of the rst cent. It was important in this regard that I” internal Jewish criticism could be reinter preted in such a way that the Jewish defeat was attributed not to Jewish disunity and Messianic fervour, but to divine punishment for failing t0 recognize Jesus as the Messiah. 1’ account of this war served as proof that Christianity was now the verus Israel. To Christian recipients, then, |. was called upon as a witness in two respects:195 questing to the works of Christ (through the Testimonium Flavianum, Jos. Ant, 18,634) and to the falsity of Jewish doctrines. He was given fhe role of the ‘praiseworthy exception’ — a ‘wise’ Sind «cruth-loving” Jew [23.1164-1172]. The B.I. yas read as testimony to the defeat not only of the Jews, but of Judaism per se. Although it was ferrainly 1’ first work, it could be placed after the A.L., a5 a continuation (it still was so placed jn the standard Niese edition, Vol. 6, 1894). Bible editions and prayer-books of the r6th cent. and later added the account of the destruction of Jerusalem as an appendix [24.96]. It remains arguable whether the title On the Conquest, reested in the Church Fathers and MSS, reflects the Christian focus on the fall of the Temple or whether it indicates the title originally selected by the author. I. himself referred to the work as Toudaikos polemos (‘Jewish War’, e.g. Jos. Vit. 413) [3.71 The very detailed description of the Essenes (Jos. BI 2,119-160) also made the B.I. important into the modern period. In the belated Jewish reception, meanwhile, the B.l. found resonance as evidence of Jewish combativeness, with its accounts of the courageous resistance of Jewish fighters. Ba. ANTIQUITY Biz.3. PAGAN RECEPTION I. himself complained of what he saw as the tepid or inadequate reception of both of his major works. In reference to the B.L., he responded irti tably to apparent doubts about the authenticity of his report by pointing out that he took part in its evenes personally (Jos. Ap. 1,555 1,1-3 00 the reception of the Antiquitates). In’ the Vita, he once more took the opportunity ko emend aspects of the Bul. (eg. in Jos. Vit. 28f - con tradicting Jos. BI 2,569-584 ~ he claims to have ‘opposed the revolt from the start) or to add to it Yos. Vie. We know nothing of the reception of the Aramaic original version, which was directed at an audience of “inner Asian non-Greeks” (Jos. BI 1,3). But evidently, the need for a Greek transla- tion for those “living under Roman rule” (ibid.), was an urgent one. Pagan reception is difficult to establish. Eusebius’ remark that 1.” work was ‘made available in the libraries of Rome (and a statue column was put up to him) may give some indication that I. had a certain presence at Rome (Euseb. Hist. eccl. 3,9,2). Scholars have some- times linked a Roman bust in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek at Copenhagen (IN 770) with the tame of L., but this is based only on stereotyping (7). 1 tells us that he first gave or sold the B.T. to Vespasian and Titus, later to many Romans and Jews (Jos. Ap. 1,50-52), not least in the hope that they might confirm the correctness of his account (Jos: Ap. 1,52). JOSEPHUS FI AVIUS, BELLUM 1UDAICUM + Suetonius (Suet. Vesp. 5) and Cassius Dio (66,1) knew the story of 1.” prophecy of Vespasian’s principate. Strikingly, though, it is not mentioned by -+ Tacitus, who elsewhere in his Historiae focuses much on the Flavian des- tiny to rule [4.r40-142]. Nowhere can it be safely said that Tacitus drew on I. ~ he may have been one of Tacitus’ scriptores temporum who hhe thought praised the Flavians to excess (Tac Hist. 2,101). The occasional parallels between the BI. and the Historie (Jos. Bl 4,483f ~ Tac. Hist. 5,7,15 Jos. BI 5,71 ~ Tac. Hist. 5,124; Jos. BI 6,312-315 ~ Tac. Hist. 5,13, £) may ‘also indicate the use of common sources [6]; [21]. The Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry paraphrased sections of the B.I. in his De absti- ‘nentia (4,11-13). But overall, the traces of pagan reception are faint. It was probably not until the Christian authors that I. attracted significant interest. Bi2.2. CHRISTIAN RECEPTION In Christian reception, the B.1. gradually (esp. from the 3rd cent. on) became material for apol- ogetic and anti-Semitic arguments. In Minucius Felix’ Octavius, the Christian party to the dia- logue advises the pagan to read 1.’ treatise so thar he may know the ‘worthlessness’ (nequitia) of the Jews that drives them to their ruin (Min, Fel. 33,4). Christians received with particular rel- ish the terrible scene of a Mary, who, according to L, was driven by hunger to eat her own child during the Roman-Jewish war (Jos. Bl 6,201 213; so-called Tecnophagy). It can for example be found in Origen (Fragmenta in Lamentationes 05), whose work displays the first large-scale use of I” history for the benefit of Christian the- ology [24.61]. Origen accuses I. who did know of Jesus, of concealing the real reason for the fall of Jerusalem, the murder of Christ by the Jews (Orig. contra Celsum 1,47). To Eusebius, the Jewish Hellenistic authors were on the one hand an apologetic support against paganism, and on the other Jewish evidence for the soreriological supersession of Judaism by Christianity [15.297]. 1. thus became Cone of Eusebius’ chief witnesses to Christian his- tory (or soteriology). Once again, the Tecnophagy episode from the B.f. served as an exemplum (Euseb. Hist. eccl. 3,6). Eusebius quoted 1. at length, and not only reinterpreted him, but also attempted to correct him. 1. he argues, misinter- preted the prophecy, widespread at the time, of a new coming world ruler to mean Vespasian, but it could only possibly mean Christ. John Chrysostom-and Jerome also made prolific use of I. The latter, like many before him, referred to I. as a source for consultation (Jer. Comm. in Matth. 1,2,225 Jer. Comm. in Esaiam 5,19,i8: lege Josepbi historiaslam).LOSEPHUS FLAVIUS, BELLUM IUDAICUM 192 With Greek now inaccessible to many, how- ever, Latin editions began to obtrude, Around AD 370, the otherwise obscure ‘Hegesippus’ (prob- ably formed from ‘losippus’) used the B.J. for a Latin version in five books (CSEL 61: Hegesippi ui dicitur bistoriae libri V). This is an adaptation from the Greek that veers from faithful transla- tion to paraphrase and abridgement on the one hand, amplification on the other. Hegesippus, though, harboured no ambitions of being a sec ond I. In his prologue, although expressing admiration for the “outstanding reporter” I. (relator egregius), he also accuses him of being a “consort of the perfidious Jews” (consortem perfidiae Iudaeorum). Here again, his perfidy lies in denying the real reason for the Jewish defeat: the killing of Jesus [2]; [21.5658]. ‘As well as Hegesippus’ work, there is a Latin version that formed part of an almost com- plete translation of 1.” works (except the Vita). Its author is generally taken to be Rufinus (4th cent.). But following Cassiodorus (1,17,t), who thought I. almost a second ~» Livy (Ioseppus, paene secundus Livius), many believed the trans- lator to have been Jerome (denied by himself: Jer. Ep. 71,5,2) or Ambrose. At around the same time, there appeared a Syriac translation of Book 6 of the B.l. (fall of Jerusalem), which was included in the Syriac Vulgate as the fifth book of Maccabees. I. was thus sometimes included as part of the Bible [24.74]. B.3. MIDDLE AGES AND EARLY MODERN PERIOD B3.r. JEWISH RECEPTION Jewish’reception only emerges in the Middle Ages. But it begins with the Hebrew Josippon, which Jews in the Middle Ages found a very wel- come and important source on the period of the Second Temple [9] [ro]. The work begins with a version of the Biblical Table of Nations (Gn. 10) adapted co the times, and a version of the mythical beginnings of Rome adapted to Jewish tradition (Chap. rf). It then turns its focus on the time of the Second Temple up to the fall of Jerusalem and Masada at the end of the Jewish Revolt. It also includes a Hebrew version of the Alexander Romance [1]. The erroneous belief persisted for a long time that the author of this translation into Hebrew (and from there into many languages, Arabic already in the 13th cent. [29)) was I. himself, But as many ‘updates’ in the text show, the Josippon was written in the roth cent. in southern Italy (contra {31]). The author, whose name is not known, took as his sources rot only the Bible, the Apocrypha and the medi- eval chronicles, but also and esp. the Latin ver- sion by “Hegesippus’ (see above, B.2.2.), which he evidently believed to be by I. (Chap. 35, 7 £.) [8]. Among the Jews, I. (like Philo of Alexandria) would not be drawn on substantially again until Azariah de’ Rossi in the réth cent. for his Me’or Enajim (Chaps. 33 and 37) [28]. B.3.2. CHRISTIAN RECEPTION The Bul. is preserved in no fewer than 30 Greek MSS, of which the oldest (P and A) date from the roth/rrth cents. An Old Russian ver- sion of the Greek B.I. (the ‘Slavic Josephus’) appeared not much later than the Josippon, in the roth/rith cents. It has some omissions but some additions as well, eg. the crucifixion of Christ (interpolated between 2,174 and 175) [4h bh Anti-Semitic exploitation of [continued through the Middle Ages and beyond in Christian Wirkungsgeschichte. On the basis of scenes from the B.I., Vespasian and Titus became avengers in the name of Christianity, e.g. in the early medi- eval poem Praefatio de Jesu Christo domino inter Vespasianum et Titum quomodo vindicaverunt Christum (MGH IV, p. 542-5453 every strophe ends with the refrain Ad delendam sevam gentem convenerunt principes, “The leaders [Vespasian and Titus] came together to annihilate the wild people”). The work of I. continued to be wel- come testimony. The Imperial Chronicle of a Regensburg cleric of the r2th cent. is typical in citing the support of the “wise Josephus” (v. 975: “Joséphus hiez ain wiser man”), Here, he acted a5 a witness of the deserved punishment of the Jews. Also belonging to this positive but exploitative portrayal are medieval accounts of I. as a doctor healing Vespasian (e.g. Landolfus Sagax: MGH, Auetores Antiquissimi Ml, p. 304) [18]. On the basis of his own account of his escape from the Siege of lotapata (Jos. BI 3,387-3915 see above, A.), he was also thought of as expert in mathematics. His successful evasion of the agreed sequence of suicide by lots is still discussed in mathematics as the ‘Josephus Problem’ today [12]. Adam Ries cites I. in the foreword to his arithmetic book (1574). According to him, I. said that mathematics was given by God. In the r6th cent., Hans Sachs, too, relied on I. for his anti- Semitic explanation of the defeat of Jerusalem in his poem Histori. Die erbermlich belegrung and zerstorung der statt Jerusalem: “Josephus klar beschreyben thut, | Das der Juden den krieg verdarben { Zeben mal hundert tausent, starben 1 Durch hunger, schwert und pestilentz. (...] So wurd der tod Christi gerochen, / Wie Christus vorbin het gesprochen: Ir tichter von Jerusalem, / Weynet nit itber mich in dem! Weynt iiber euch und ewre kind!” (“Josephus clearly described that the Jews were undone in the war, ten times a hundred thousand died of hunger, sword and pestilence. |...) Thus was the death of Christ avenged, As Christ had said: Oh daughters of193, IOSEPHUS FLAVIUS, BELLUM IUDAICUM Fig. 1: Josephus Flavius writing on the Jewish Revolt (anonymous illustration ii a manuscript of the Bellum Iudaicum, Flanders, xsth cent. The events and the making of the historical record are shown synoptically, though clearly distinguished by the spatial composition, Jerusalem, weep not for me! Weep for your selves and your children!”) [26. w. 321-322); (22.556) [23.1053] From the Middle Ages on, illustrations are frequently found in MSS and editions of the works of T., quite often depicting 1. himself (even from the oth cent: Burgerbibliothek, Bern, cod. $0, fol 2r) [24.87-130]. A high-point was reached in the Renaissance with the splendid illustrations by Jean Fouguet in an edition of the AL (5th cent., MS 247, Bibliotheque Nationale de France). A Flemish MS of the B.I. shows its author writing the history of the war, in a place of safety but in close proximity to the events (cf Fig. 1). Bug. MODERN PERIOD The German Jewish novelist Lion Feuchtwanger received |, in a very striking way in his Josephus ttilogy (Der judische Krieg, ‘Josephus’, 19323 Die Sdbne, “The Jews of Rome’, 1935; Der Tag wird kommen, ‘The Day Will Come’, English 1942, German 1945) {5}; [26]. The National Socialists destroyed the MS for volume 2 in 1933. Feuchtwanger expanded his original two-volume novel to three volumes, partly provoked by the Nazi terror (cf. the afterword to volume 3). Through the trilogy, Feuchtwanger, who knew the B.J. and the ancient sources in general very well, himself adopts the ambivalent intermediate role of I. This clearly reflects both the period of the Third Reich and the author’s own career. Feuchtwanger’s I, a convinced ‘world citizen’ at the beginning of the novel, ultimately returns to Palestine (“Er hatte die Welt gesucht, aber gefur- den hatte er nur sein Land” ~ “He had sought the world, but found only his own country”). Feuchtwanger has I. die like Moses ~ his grave known to no one ~ and thus gives him a great ‘memorial. With Zionism and the foundation of the state of Iseael, Jewish reception of L. (esp. the B.I.) gained greatly in importance, The account of the battle for the fortress of Masada (Jos. BI 7) inspired the young Russian immigrant Isaac Lamdan to write his fiery poem Masada in the 19205, in which the author, disillusioned after experiencing persecution, rallies to the for- tress [13]. I. text also became a key resource for archaeologists, constantly proving itself an exceedingly reliable source. [1] WJ. vaw Bexxum, Alexander the Great in Medieval Hebrew Literature, in: JWCI 49, 1986, 218-226 [2] A.A. BeLt JR. Josephus and Pseudo- Hegesippus, in: LH. Feupwan / G. Hata (ed.), Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, 1987, 349~ 361 [3] P. BILDE, Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome. His Life, His Works, and Their Importance, 1988 [4] RS. Loci, Antike Vorstellungen vomTOSEPHUS FLAVIUS, BELLUM IUDAICUM Judentum, Der Judenexkurs des Tacitus im Rahmen der griechisch-romischen Ethnographic, 2002, [5] ©. Coupe, Zwischen Nativismus und Rémertum. Zeigeschichliche Nacharbeiten von Josephus’ Jadi- schem Krieg und Lion Feuchtwangers Josephus- Trilogie, in: R. Faner / B. Kvrzurr (ed), Antike heute, 1992, 155-182 [6] F. DoRNseirr, Lukas der Schriftsteller. Mie einem Anhang: Josephus und Tacitus, in: ZNTW 35, 1936, 143-155 [7] R. Erster, Deux sculptures de’ Pantiquité classique représentant des juifs, in: Aréthuse 26, 1930, 29-37 [8] D. Fuusser, Der lateinische Josephus und der hebsaische Josippon, in: O. Bez ex al. (ed), Josephus-Studien, 1974, 122-132 lo} D. Fuusser (ed.), The Josippon’ (Josephus Gorionides), 2 vols., with commentary, 1978-1980 io} D. Faussex, Josippon, a Medieval Hebrew Version of Josephus, in: LH. Fenpstan / G, Hara (ed.), Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, 1987, 386-397 [11]. Fornaro, Flavio Giuseppe, Tacito ¢ Pimpero (Bellum Iudaicum VI 248-315; Historiae V 13), 1980 [12] C. Groer, The Mathematics of Survival. From Antiquity to the Playground, in: The American Mathematical Monthly 110, 2003, 812-825 [13] M. Hapas-Leset, Massada. Histoire et Symbole, 1995 fx4] E. Hansack, Die altrussische Version des ‘Judischen Krieges’. Untersuchungen zur Integration der Namen, 1999 as]. INowLocs, Eusebius and the Jewish Authors. His Citation Technique in an Apologetic Context (thesis, Brussels), 2006 [16] A. Von KELLER (ed.), Hans Sachs, Vol. 1, 1870. [17] H. Leesnc (ed), Josephus? Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version. ‘A Synoptic Comparison of the English Translation by HStJ. Thackeray with the Critical Edition by N.A. Mescerskij of the Slavonic Version in the Vilna Manuscript Translated into English by H.. Leeming 194 and L, Osinkina, 2003. [18] H. Lewy, Josephus the Physician, A Medieval Legend of the Destruction ‘of Jerusalem, in: WIC x, 1937-1938, 221-243 [19] 5. Mason (ed,), Flavius Josephus. Life of Josephus, 2001 [20] 0. MICHEL / O. BAUERNFEIND {ed.), Flavius Josephus, De Bello Judaico, Greek/German, 3 vols, 1959-1969 [ar] H. Scercxenenc, Die Josephus-Tradition in Antike und Mitelalter, 1972 [2a] H. Scuneceewsenc, Rezeptionsgeschichtliche tund textkritische Untersuchungen 2u Flavius Jose- phus, 1977 [23] H. ScHRECKENBERG, Flavius Josephus und die christiche Wirkungsgeschichee seines ‘Bellum Judaicums’ in: ANRW Il 21.2, 1984, 1106-1217 [24] H. ScukeckeNsenc, Josephus in Early Christian Literature and Medieval Christian Act, in: H. Scinecernsens / K. ScHunerr (ed.}, Jewish Historiography and Iconography in Early and Medieval Christianity, 1992, 1 138 [25] H. Scuneckenserc, Art. Josephus (Flavius Josephus), in: RAC 18, 1998, 761-801 [26] C. Sonam, Kosmopolitistous und jtidische Nationaliit. Lion Feuchewangers Josephus- Trilogie, in: H.0. Hono / H. Denxter (ed.) Conditio Judaica. Judentum, —Antisemitismus und deutschsprachige Literatur, Vol. 3: Vom Ersten Weltkricg bis 1933/ 38, 1993, 278-306 {271 F. Steceer (ed.), Josephus Flavius, Uber die Urspriinglichkeit des Judentums. Contra. Apionem, 2 Vols., 2008 [28] J. WeINnnERG (ed.), Azariah de? Rossi, The Light of the Eyes, translation and commentary, 2001 [2g] J. WELLHAUSEN, Der arabische Josippus, 1897, 1-50 (reissued 1970) [go] A. Weeatey, Josephus on Jesus. The Testimo- nium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times, 2003 [31] S. Ze1Tun, Josippon, ins JQR $3, 1963, 277-297. RENE BLOCH (BERN)