Читать книгу A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ - Emil Schürer - Страница 17

Josephus, whose works form a principal authority for our history, gives in his Life and in the History of the Wars of the Jews several important particulars from the story of his own career. He was born at Jerusalem in the first year of the reign of Caligula, A.D. 37–38. His father was called Matthias, and was descended from a distinguished priestly family, whose ancestors Josephus can trace back to the times of John Hyrcanus. One of his forefathers, called Matthias, had married a daughter of the high priest Jonathan (= Alexander Januaeus?). See Life, 1, and Wars of the Jews, preface 1; Antiquities, xvi. 7. 1. The young Josephus obtained a careful rabbinical education, and even as a boy of fourteen years old had acquired so great a reputation for his knowledge of the law, that the high priests and the chief men of the city came to him in order to receive from him instruction in regard to difficult points of law. Yet he was hot himself satisfied with such attainments, but, on his attaining his sixteenth year, made a pilgrimage through the various schools of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. But even this did not suffice to quench his thirst for knowledge. He now withdrew into the wilderness, and visited a hermit called Banus, in order to receive from him the finishing stroke in his education. After he had spent three years with him, he returned to Jerusalem, and in his nineteenth year openly joined the party of the Pharisees (Life, c. 2). In his twenty-sixth year (μετʼ εἰκοστὸν καὶ ἕκτον ἐνιαυτόν), which corresponds to A.D. 64, he took a journey to Rome in order to obtain the release of certain priests nearly related to him, who had been carried thither as prisoners on account of some trifling matter. Having, by means of an introduction from a Jewish actor Alityrus, secured the favour of the Empress Poppaea, he succeeded in securing the end he had in view, whereupon he returned to Judea laden with rich presents (Life, c. 3). Soon after his return, in A.D. 66, the war against the Romans broke out. At first Josephus kept himself clear of all connection with the war (Life, c. 4); and this indeed was quite possible, since the Jewish aristocracy in general entered this outbreak only under compulsion. But the fact is that Josephus, after the first decisive battles had taken place, attached himself to the revolution party, and indeed became one of its leaders. He was entrusted by the directors of the movement with the most important post of a commander-in-chief of Galilee (Wars of the Jews, ii. 20. 4; Life, c. 7). From that time onward his doings and fortunes are closely joined with those of the Jewish people, and therefore form a component part of the history of the Jewish war. Compare Life, c. 7–74; Wars of the Jews, ii. 20. 4–21. 10; iii. 4. 1, 6. 3–8. 9; ix. 1. 5, 6. His performances as commander-in-chief of Galilee came to an end by his being taken prisoner by the Romans after the fall of the fortress of Jotapata in A.D. 67 (Wars of the Jews, iii. 8. 7–8). When he was carried before Vespasian, he prophesied to him his future elevation to the imperial throne (Wars of the Jews, iii. 8. 9; Life, c. 75). But when, two years later, in A.D. 69, Vespasian was in very deed proclaimed emperor by the Palestinian legions, and the prophecy of Josephus was thus fulfilled, Vespasian remembered his prisoner, and as a thank-offering granted him his freedom (Wars of the Jews, iv. 10. 7). From this time onward Josephus, as custom required, assumed the family name of Vespasian “Flavius” along with his own. After being proclaimed emperor, Vespasian hasted first of all to Alexandria (Wars of the Jews, iv. 11. 5), to which place Josephus accompanied him (Life, c. 75). Thence Josephus returned to Palestine in the retinue of Titus, to whom Vespasian had committed the continuation of this war, and remained in the company of Titus down to the close of the war (Life, c. 75; Treatise against Apion, i. 9). During the siege of Jerusalem he was obliged, by order of Titus, often at the great risk of his own life, to negotiate with the Jews for a surrender (Wars of the Jews, v. 3. 3, 6. 2, 7. 4, 9. 2–4, 13. 3; vi. 2. 1–3, 2. 5, 7. 2; Life, c. 75). Once while engaged on such an errand he was struck by a stone, so as to be rendered unconscious (Wars of the Jews, v. 13. 3). When, after the capture of the city, Titus allowed him to take whatever he would, he took only some sacred books, and obtained the release of many of the prisoners who were his friends, among whom was his own brother. Three who had been already crucified were again taken down at his request, one of whom recovered (Life, c. 75). When his property in Jerusalem was required by the Roman garrison, Titus gave him in place of it another in the plain (Life, c. 76). At the conclusion of the war he went with Titus to Rome, where he continued to reside, pursuing his studies and engaged in literary work amid the unbroken favour of the emperor. The Jewish priest was now transformed into a Greek literary man. Vespasian assigned him a residence in what had formerly been his own palace, bestowed on him the rights of Roman citizenship, and granted him a yearly pension (Life, c. 76; compare Suetonius, Vespasian, 18: primus e fisco Latinis Graccisque rhetoribus annua centena constituit). He also presented him with a splendid estate in Judea. On the suppression of the Jewish outbreak in Cyrene, the captive leader of the insurrection, Jonathan, gave the names of many prominent Jews as being accomplices with him, and among these was the name of Josephus. He said that Josephus had sent him weapons and money. But Vespasian gave no credence to this false charge, and continued to show favour to Josephus (Life, c. 76; Wars of the Jews, vii. 11. 1–3). Like favour was enjoyed by Josephus under Titus, A.D. 79–81, and under Domitian, A.D. 81–96. The latter granted him exemption from tribute in respect of his estate in Judea (Life, c. 76). Nothing is known as to his relation to the later emperors. We also know equally little as to the precise time of his death. This much only is certain, that he was still alive in the first decade of the second century. For the autobiography was written after the death of Agrippa II. (Life, c. 65). But Agrippa died in the third year of Trajan, A.D. 100 (Photius, Biblioth. cod. 33).—According to a statement by Eusebius (Ecclesiast. History, iii. 9), Josephus was honoured in Rome by the erection of a statue.

In regard to his family connections, Josephus gives us the following details. During the days of John Hyrcanus his fore-father Simon the Stammerer lived. He belonged to the first of the twenty-four orders of priests, therefore to the order of Jehoiarib. Simon’s son was Matthias, called Ephlias, who married a daughter of the high priest Jonathan (= Alexander Jannaeus?). Of this marriage was born Matthias Curtus, in the first year of Hyrcanus II. The son of Matthias Curtus was Joseph, born in the ninth year of the reign of Alexandra (?). His son was Matthias, the father of our Josephus, born in the tenth year of Archelaus (Life, c. 1).—The parents of our Josephus were still alive in the time of the great war. While he was commander-in-chief in Galilee, he obtained through his father news from Jerusalem (Life, c. 41). During the siege of Jerusalem his parents were within the beleaguered city, and were, because regarded as untrustworthy, kept in prison by the revolutionists (the father, Wars of the Jews, v. 13. 1; the mother, Wars, v. 13. 3; comp. also v. 9. 4 at the end). On the capture of the city he obtained the release of his brother from a Roman prison (Life, c. 75). This is supposed to have been his full brother Matthias, who had been educated along with him (Life, c. 2). According to the Wars of the Jews, v. 9. 4 at the end, his wife also was in the city during the siege. In all probability this was his first wife, of whom there is no mention elsewhere. As Vespasian’s prisoner of war, he had at his command married a captive Jewess from Caesarea. But she left him during his stay with Vespasian in Alexandria. He then, again, in Alexandria married another (Life, c. 75). By this last he had three sons, of whom at the time of his writing his autobiography only one survived, Hyrcanus, who was born in the fourth year of the reign of Vespasian (Life, c. 1 and 76). Still during Vespasian’s reign, he got divorced from this wife and married a Jewess of noble family in Crete, who bore him two sons: Justus, born in the seventh year of Vespasian, and Simonides, with the surname of Agrippa, born in the ninth year of Vespasian. Both of these were alive when Josephus wrote his life (Life, c. 1 and 76).

To the literary leisure of Josephus at Rome we are indebted for those works, without which our history could scarcely have been written. They comprise the four following:—

1. THE WARS OF THE JEWS, Περὶ τοῦ Ἰουδαϊκοῦ πολέμου, as Josephus himself entitles the work in his Life, c. 74. It is divided into seven books, a distribution which, as appears from Antiq. xiii. 10. 6, xviii. 1. 2, it owes to Josephus himself. The proper history of the war is preceded by a very comprehensive introduction, which occupies the whole of the first book and the half of the second. The first book begins with the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, B.C. 175–164, and reaches down to the death of Herod, B.C. 4. The second continues the history down to the outbreak of the war in A.D. 66, and gives an account of the first year of the war, A.D. 66–67. The third treats of the war in Galilee in A.D. 67; the fourth of the continued course of the war down to the complete isolation of Jerusalem; the fifth and sixth describe the siege and overthrow of Jerusalem; the seventh relates the events that followed the war, down to the destruction of the last smouldering embers of the revolution.—From the preface to this work (c. 1) we learn that it was originally written in the author’s mother tongue, therefore in Aramaic, and only at a later period re-written by him in Greek. In order to re-write it, he took lessons in Greek composition (Treatise against Apion, i. 9). As main authority for the story of the war proper, he relies upon his own experience, since he had been either actively engaged in, or was at least an eye-witness of, the events recorded. Even during the siege of Jerusalem he had taken down notes in writing, for which he drew upon the statements of survivors as to the state of matters within the city (Treatise against Apion, i. 9). When the work was completed, he handed it to Vespasian and Titus, and had the satisfaction of being assured by them, as also by King Agrippa II. and many Romans who had taken part in the war, that he had reported the facts correctly, and with absolute fidelity to the truth (Treatise against Apion, i. 9; Life, c. 65). Titus with his own hand wrote an order for the publication of the book (Life, c. 65). Agrippa wrote sixty-two letters, in which he gave testimony to the truthfulness of the narrative. During the composition of the work, Josephus had submitted to him book by book, and had obtained favourable opinions from him (Life, c. 65).—Since the completed work was submitted to Vespasian (Treatise against Apion, i. 9), it must have been written during his reign, A.D. 69–79; but not until near the close of that reign, for other works had been written on the Jewish war before this one by Josephus (Wars of the Jews, Preface, c. 1; Antiquities, Preface, c. 1).

2. THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS, Ἰουδαϊκὴ Ἀρχαιολογία, in twenty books, treat of the history of the Jewish people from the earliest times down to the outbreak of the war with the Romans in A.D. 66. The division into twenty books was also the work of Josephus himself (Antiq. conclusion). The first ten books run parallel with the biblical history, and reach down to the end of the Babylonian captivity. The eleventh carries the history down from Cyrus to Alexander the Great; the twelfth from Alexander the Great, who died B.C. 323, down to the death of Judas Maccabee in B.C. 161; the thirteenth down to the death of Alexandra in B.C. 69; the fourteenth down to the beginning of the reign of Herod the Great in B.C. 37; the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth treat of the reign of Herod, B.C. 37–4; the last three books carry us on to the year 66 after Christ.—The work, according to many parenthetic statements, was completed in the thirteenth year of Domitian, when Josephus was in his fifty-sixth year, that is, in A.D. 93 or 94 (Antiq. xx. 11 at the close). He had been encouraged to carry it on to the end, especially by a certain Epaphroditus, a man whose lively interest in science and literature is enthusiastically praised by Josephus.—That the entire work was intended, in the first instance, not for Jewish but for Greek and Roman readers, and that its aim mainly was to afford the cultured world some idea of the much calumniated Jewish race, must appear evident from its general form and character, and is expressly declared even to superfluity by Josephus himself (Antiq. xvi. 6. 8).

As authorities, Josephus employed for the earlier periods down to Nehemiah, about B.C. 440, almost exclusively the canonical books of the Old Testament. As a native of Palestine, he displays in his use of them, in many ways, his knowledge of the Hebrew language. Yet he makes use commonly of the Greek Septuagint translation. To such an extent is this the case, that Josephus uses those parts of the books of Ezra and Esther which appear only in the LXX. (see Div. ii. vol. iii. 179, 182; Bloch, Die Quellen des Fl. Josephus, pp. 69–79). His reproduction of the Jewish history is written from the following points of view:—(1) Not infrequently modifications are made in an apologetical interest, something offensive is omitted or smoothed down, and the history is set forth in the form best fitted to glorify the nation. (2) For the latter purpose Josephus had the help of the older legends, the so-called Haggada. The influence of that literature is seen chiefly in the history of the patriarchs and of Moses. (3) Josephus, it would seem, had not derived this Haggadic adornment wholly from oral tradition, but in part from the older Hellenistic reproductions of the biblical history by Demetrius, Artapanus, and others. (4) In his exposition of the law he follows the Palestinian Halacha. For examples, see Div. ii. vol. i. 330–339. (5) In several particulars the influence of Philo is very observable. (6) He does not scruple to draw upon extra-biblical authors in order to illustrate, fill up, and confirm the Scripture history. This is specially the case with his treatment of the history of primitive times, and also of that of the latest periods, where it became largely mixed up with the history of neighbouring nations.

On the post-biblical period he has made his inquiries and set forth his information in an extremely unequal and disproportionate manner. In filling up the great gap between Nehemiah and Antiochus Epiphanes, from B.C. 440 to B.C. 175, Josephus depends almost entirely upon two legendary productions, namely, the Alexander legends and the pseudo-Aristeas, from whom he gives a lay extract (xii. 2). For the period B.C. 175–135 the First Book of Maccabees is the principal source, which indeed towards the close is used in so slight a way that it becomes doubtful whether Josephus could have had before him a complete copy of that work (see Div. ii. vol. iii. p. 9). It is supplemented by Polybius (xii. 9. 1), and, for the period beyond that at which Polybius stops, B.C. 146, by those authorities from which the history of the Asmoneans generally, down to B.C. 135, is derived. For this period Josephus evidently was without any written documents of Jewish origin. He therefore obtained his materials by culling from the general historical works of the Greeks any statements that he discovered bearing upon the history of Palestine. His chief authorities for the period B.C. 135–37 were two historians often, and indeed almost exclusively, quoted by him: Strabo (xiii. 10. 4, 11. 3, 12. 6; xiv. 3. 1, 4. 3, 6. 4, 7. 2, 8. 3; xv. 1. 2) and Nicolas of Damascus (xiii. 8. 4, 12. 6; xiv. 1. 3, 4. 3, 6. 4). In recent times the idea has been indeed expressed by many, that the very fact of these authors being so frequently quoted by Josephus shows that they were not his chief sources, and that the citations are to be regarded as interpolations, inserted only for the purpose of supplementing the text afforded by unnamed leading authorities made use of by him. But such a view would only lead one into inexplicable confusion. Josephus borrows his whole material from these authors, and then refers to particular passages of special importance, which he quotes in order to show that they state the author in the same way that he does. Or where the citations are really an interpolation in the given text, Josephus follows the one and supplements it from the other. Of any deeper laid foundation, an unnamed principal source, not the least vestige can be found. The careful method of weighing his evidence which characterizes Strabo, and is so conspicuous in his geography, is quite discernible in particular passages where he is not named, as in several statements about numbers, xiii. 12. 5. Then, again, that these two base their conclusions upon earlier authorities is self-evident. For the first half of the period under consideration, B.C. 135–85, most probably Posidonius would prove the most reliable source (see above, pp. 49, 50). Also in passages borrowed from Strabo we find references to Timagenes (xiii. 11. 3, 12. 5), Asinius Pollio, and Hypsikrates (xiv. 8. 3). Josephus has scarcely made use of Livy, who is only once named (xiv. 4. 3). But the material obtained in this way from Strabo and Nicolas was supplemented by Josephus in respect of the internal Jewish history from narratives which, by reason of their contents, deserve to be characterized as legends, and from the general framework of the narrative we may see that they are plainly taken as such (xiii. 10. 3, 10. 5–6; xiv. 2. 1). These are evidently derived from oral tradition.—For the history of Herod, it is admitted on all hands that Nicolas of Damascus is the principal authority (comp. xii. 3. 2; xiv. 1–3; xvi. 7. 1; and above, pp. 58–63). It would seem that the short sketch given in the Wars of the Jews is drawn exclusively from him. Also the detailed account given in the Antiquities, books xvi. and xvii., produces the impression of having been derived from one source. On the other hand, in book xv. seams and joinings are apparent, which point to the employment of two sources; and indeed, in addition to Nicolas, it is evident that Josephus made use of another authority unfavourable to Herod. Whether Josephus had himself seen the Commentaries of King Herod, mentioned in the Antiquities, xv. 6. 3, is at least extremely questionable (compare above, p. 56).—Full and detailed as the treatment of the history of Herod is, it is very noticeable that the history of his immediate successor is extremely defective. It seems almost as if Josephus had at this point been deprived of all written sources of information. It is only when we come to the reign of Agrippa I., A.D. 41–44, that the narrative enters again more into detail. Here he would be once more in possession of abundance of oral tradition, for he would then be informed about the reign of Agrippa I. by his son Agrippa II. For the history of the last decade preceding the war, he would be able to rely upon his own personal recollections. The quite unparalleled completeness with which the events, even those which do not relate to the Jewish history, occurring in Rome at the time of Caligula’s death, and at the beginning of the reign of Claudius in A.D. 41, are narrated, is very remarkable (xix. 1–4). There can be no doubt that this portion of the history is borrowed from a special source by the hand of a contemporary. But we are unable to arrive at any more definite conclusions from the absence of any sure standing ground. Josephus paid very particular attention to the history of the high priests. From what he here states, we are able to determine the uninterrupted succession of high priests from the time of Alexander the Great down to the destruction of the temple by Titus. It might be conjectured that for this purpose he would have had at his command, at least from the time of Herod the Great, the original priestly documents. For great importance was attached to the preservation of the register of the generations of the priests, and great care taken of it (Treatise against Apion, i. 7).—Finally, of great value are the State papers which Josephus frequently embodies in his narrative (xiii. 9. 2, xiv. 8. 5, xiv. 10, xiv. 12, xvi. 6, xix. 5, xx. 1. 2). The most numerous of these are those of the time of Caesar and Augustus, which granted to the Jews the privilege of the free observance of their religion.

3. THE LIFE OR AUTOBIOGRAPHY. It does not by any means present us with an actual account of the life of Josephus, but treats almost exclusively of the part which he played as commander-in-chief of Galilee in A.D. 66–67, and indeed only of the measures which in that situation he took preparatory to the grand hostile encounter with the Romans (c. 7–74). The short biographical notices of the beginning and end of the work (c. 1–6, 75–76) form only introduction and conclusion to this principal part of the contents. According to the remarks at the close of the Antiquities, Josephus had then the intention of carrying on the account of the war and “our fortunes,” the story of the Jewish people “down to the present day.” “And if God permit me, I will briefly run over this war again, with what befell us therein to this very day,” Antiq. xx. conclusion. In fact, the Life is represented as an Appendix to the Antiquities. It begins with the enclitic δέ, which attaches it to the preceding work, and concludes with the words: “To thee, O Epaphroditus, the most excellent of men, do I dedicate all this treatise of our Antiquities, and so for the present I here conclude the whole.” Also the position of the Life in the manuscripts is immediately after the Antiquities. Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, iii. 10. 8 f.) quotes a passage from the Life with the remark that the words occur “at the close of his Antiquities;” and in all extant manuscripts, with only one exception, the Life is joined with the Antiquities. It would, however, be a great mistake to regard the statement at the end of the Antiquities as having reference to the Life. Josephus there has in view the continuing of the history of the Jews down to the present time. The Life, however, is anything but a fulfilment of such a proposal. It was apparently called forth by the publication of another history of the Jewish war by Justus of Tiberias (see on him, above, pp. 64–69). That author had represented Josephus as the real organizer of the outbreak in Galilee. This was extremely inconvenient to Josephus now that he occupied a position of eminence in Rome. And so he now writes a counterblast, in which he casts all the blame on Justus, and makes himself pose as the friend of the Romans. The attempt is pitifully weak, for Josephus cannot avoid mentioning deeds which prove the very opposite of what he desires to make out. With this self-vindication which he had been driven to make he joined a few biographical notices by way of introduction and conclusion, and then published the whole as an Appendix to his Antiquities. The earlier scheme was therefore abandoned and quite a different one substituted for it. In spite, then, of the δέ that would attach it immediately to the other work, the Life must have been written a long time subsequent to the Antiquities. Now the Life assumes that Agrippa II. was already dead (c. 65). But Agrippa died, according to Photius, Biblioth. cod. 33, in the third year of Trajan, A.D. 100. If, then, the composition of the Life must be set down as at least after A.D. 100, that will be in perfect harmony with the other facts of the case, and there will be no reason to doubt the correctness of the statement of Photius or to set it aside as unsupported, because the Life must have been written immediately after the Antiquities.

4. THE TREATISE AGAINST APION, or, On the Extreme Antiquity of the Jewish People, in two books. This work is not solely, not even in any part of it mainly, directed against the grammarian Apion and his calumniating of the Jewish people, but rather generally against the venomous attacks and the prejudices, in many instances absurd enough, from which the Jews of those days suffered. It is a careful and well-conceived Apology for Judaism, skilfully and ably wrought out. The numerous quotations given from authors whose works are now lost lend it an altogether special interest. On the writers whose statements are contested by Josephus, see Div. ii. vol. iii. pp. 249–262. The title “Against Apion” is certainly not the original one. Porphyry in his De abstinentia, iv. 11, cites the work under the title πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας; the earliest Church Fathers (Origen, contra Celsum, i. 16, iv. 11; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, iii. 9; Praeparatio evangel. viii. 7. 21, x. 6. 15) refer to it under the title περὶ τῆς τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἀρχαιότητος. Both titles are probably equally old and equally well authenticated, for the demonstration of the antiquity of the Jewish people is, in fact, the main point insisted upon in the Apology. In the Codex Peirescianus of the excerpts of Constantinus Porphyrogennetus, de virtutibus, we meet with the superscription περὶ παντὸς ἢ κατὰ Ἑλλήνων,—a singular blending of right and wrong. The title contra Apionem first appears in Jerome in Epist. 70 ad Magnum oratorem, c. 3; de viris illustr. c. 13; adv. Jovinian. ii. 14. In the last-named passage he transcribes the above quoted sentence of Porphyry, but substituted for Porphyry’s title the one that has now become current. For the full statement of Jerome, see Div. ii. vol. ii. p. 201.—As Josephus in this work quotes from his Antiquities (i. 1 and 10), the Treatise against Apion must have been written later than A.D. 93. It is, like the Antiquities and the Life, dedicated to Epaphroditus (i. 1, ii. 41).

Besides these four works, many of the Church Fathers ascribe to Josephus the so-called Fourth Book of Maccabees, or the treatise περὶ αὐτοκράτορος λογισμοῦ. The spirit of it is certainly very similar to that of Josephus. It is written from the standpoint of Pharisaic Judaism with a varnish of Greek philosophy. But it may be accepted as certain that Josephus was not its author. See Div. ii. vol. iii. pp. 244–247.

The writing described by Photius, Bibliotheca cod. 48, as bearing in the manuscripts the three different titles, Ἰωσήπου Περὶ τοῦ παντός, Περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς αἰτίας, Περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς οὐσίας, is of Christian origin, and belongs to the author of the Philosophumena, who, in c. x. 32, quotes it as his own under the title περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς οὐσίας. The author of both was probably Hippolytus, among whose works in the list on the Hippolytus statue a treatise περὶ τοῦ παντός is also named. See Volkmar, Hippolytus und dis römischen Zeitgenossen, 1855, pp. 2 ff., 60 ff. Besides Photius, many other writers refer to this treatise as a work of Josephus. So, for example, John Philoponus in De mundi creatione, iii. 16; John of Damascus, Sacra parall. Opp. ii. 789 ff., and John Zonaras, Annal. vi. 4.

A considerable fragment of this treatise was published first by David Höschel in his edition of the Bibliotheca of Photius in 1601, then by Le Moyne in his Varia sacra, i. 53 ff., where he maintains the position that it was written by Hippolytus; by Ittig and Havercamp in their editions of Josephus; in Fabricius, Hippolyti Opp. i. 220–222; in Gallandi, Biblioth. patr. ii. 451–454, and in Migne, Patrol. gr. x. 795–802. It has been issued in a more complete form, according to codex Baroccianus, in Bunsen, Analecta Ante-Nicaena, vol. i., and Lagarde, Hippolyti quae feruntur, 1858, pp. 68–73. A specimen of the text according to three Vatican manuscripts is given by Pitra, Analecta sacra, ii. 1884, p. 269 f. Compare generally, Salmon in article on Hippolytus in Smith and Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. iii. p. 100. Routh, Reliquiae sacrac, 2nd ed. ii. 157 ff. Caspari, Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols, iii. 395 ff.

At the close of the Antiquities Josephus says that he had the intention of writing “these books concerning our Jewish opinions about God and His essence; and about our laws,—why, according to them, some things are permitted us to do and others are prohibited.” (κατὰ τὰς ἡμετέρας δόξας τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐν τέσσαρσι βίβλοις περὶ θεοῦ καὶ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ καὶ περὶ τῶν νόμων, διὰ τί κατʼ αὐτοὺς τὰ μὲν ἔξεστιν ἡμῖνποιεῖν τὰ δὲ κεκώλυται.) By this he certainly does not mean so many different works, as these words have been understood by many, but only one work, which should treat of the essence of God and the rational interpretation of the Mosaic law, in a way similar to Philo’s systematic exposition of the legislation of Moses. Compare Div. ii. vol. iii. pp. 338–348. In the earlier books of the Antiquities, too, he frequently refers to this work as one contemplated by him (Preface 4, i. 1. 1, 10. 5; iii. 5. 6, 6. 6, 8. 10; iv. 8. 4, 44). But it seems never to have been actually written.

Many of the formulae of reference used in the Antiquities are obscure, seeming, as they do, to imply that Josephus had also written a work on the history of the Seleucidae. He often remarks, for example, that what is briefly related by him is narrated in more detail in another place. Where this is done by the passive formula, “as has been related elsewhere” (καθὼς καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις δεδήλωται), the reference might quite naturally be supposed to be to the historical works of the writers (Antiq. xi. 8. 1; xii. 10. 1; xiii. 4. 8, 8. 4, 13. 4; xiv. 6. 2, 7. 3, 11. 1). But not infrequently Josephus distinctly uses the first person, “as we have informed the reader elsewhere” (καθὼς καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις δεδηλώκαμεν, Antiq. vii. 15. 3; xii. 5. 2; xiii. 2. 1, 2, 4, 4. 6, 5. 11, 10. 1, 10. 4, 12. 6, 13. 5). Of these citations four may be explained as references to other portions of the works of Josephus known to us. Antiq. vii. 15. 3 may refer to Wars of the Jews, i. 2. 5; Antiq. xiii. 10. 1 may refer to c. 7. 1 of the same book; Antiq. xiii. 10. 4 may refer to Wars, vii. 10; and Antiq. xiii. 3 and xiii. 13. 5 may refer to Antiq. iii. 10. 4. But so far as the rest are concerned, no such parallels can be thought of. All of them refer to the history of the Seleucid dynasty from Antiochus Epiphancs down to the end of the second century before Christ (Antiq. xii. 5. 2; xiii. 2. 1, 2. 4, 4. 6, 5. 11, 12. 6). Seeing, then, that nothing is known of a history of the Seleucids written by Josephus, Destinon in his Quellen des Josephus, pp. 21–29, ventures to guess that all these formulae of reference may have been already in the sources used by Josephus, and that he simply transcribed them without change to his own pages. Such procedure would indeed be somewhat extraordinary, but the conjecture is not to be thrown aside without further examination. This at least can be adduced in its favour, that occasionally similar formulae of reference are met with in the Antiquities and to the parallel passages in the Wars of the Jews, although both works were produced independently of one another from common sources. Compare Antiq. xiv. 7. 3 at the beginning, with Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 8; and Antiq. xiv. 7. 3 at the end, with Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 9. On the other hand, in some of the passages in question, the writer, immediately after or before speaking in the first person, is certainly Josephus himself (so in xii 5. 2 and xiii. 12. 6). These doubtful formulae, too, are precisely the same in form as those which unquestionably proceed from Josephus (xiii. 10. 4, 13. 5). It is therefore scarcely possible to do more than pass a verdict of non liquet.

On the character of Josephus and his credibility as a historian, the most widely divergent opinions have been entertained. In early times and during the Middle Ages he was, as a rule, very highly prized; Jerome, for example, styling him the “Greek Livy.” Modern criticism has run to the precisely opposite extreme of depreciation. It will probably be found that the truth lies midway between these extremes. No one will now be inclined to undertake the vindication of this character. Vanity and self-sufficiency are the main elements in his composition. And even had he not been the base and dishonourable betrayer of his native country that he at a later period in his Life declared himself to be, he at least carried out the transference of his allegiance to the Romans and his attachment to the imperial family of Flavius with more dexterity and equanimity than was becoming in an Israelite who pretended to mourn over the destruction of his people. As a writer, too, he has his great weaknesses. But to be quite fair, one must admit that his principal weakness as a writer is not to his discredit as a man. He writes with the purpose of glorifying his own nation. With such a design he invests the earlier history of the Jews with a halo of romance. His description of their later history, too, is dominated by the same intention. The Pharisees and Sadducees are philosophical schools which concern themselves with the problems of freedom and immortality. The Messianic hope, which, on account of the political claims which became attached to it, had proved the most powerful incentive to rebellion against Rome, is passed over in absolute silence, for it is his wish not to represent the people as enemies of the Romans. The war against Rome was not engaged upon by the will of the people, but they were only driven into it by some fanatics. In all these directions the historical statement of Josephus presents us with a distorted picture. In other respects, his several works are of very varied and unequal importance. The Wars of the Jews is unquestionably much more carefully compiled than the Antiquities. It gives an account, going into the minutest details of events, the credibility of which we have no reason to doubt. The long speeches which Josephus puts into the mouth of his heroes are, of course, free rhetorical productions, and we must not take his numbers too exactly. But these faults are shared by Josephus with many ancient historians, and they do not affect the credibility of the works in other respects. Only what he says about the circumstances of his being taken prisoner at Jotapata, in Wars of the Jews, iii. 8, must be excepted from this favourable judgment.—The case is considerably different as regards the Antiquities. That work was evidently much more carelessly prepared than the history of the Wars of the Jews. This is specially true about the last books, of which it has been remarked that when writing them the author must have been utterly wearied. And not only is the work carelessly done, but also the sources are often used with great freedom and the utmost arbitrariness, at least where we are in a position to criticize them. This is not calculated to produce much confidence in regard to the use of those sources that we can no longer verify. Yet here, too, we meet with occasional evidence of his having subjected his sources to critical examination (Antiq. xiv. 1. 3, xvi. 7. 1, xix. 1. 10, 1. 14). As might be expected, the value of the work in its various sections varies according to the sources that had been used. By far the most faulty production is undoubtedly the Life,—an attempt made with singular blindness to turn facts upside down, by proving that while he had organized the rebellion in Galilee, he had always maintained his allegiance to the Romans.

In the Christian Church from the earliest times Josephus was diligently read, since his works afforded a suitable and convenient summary of the history of the Jewish people. The testimonia veterum regarding Josephus are gathered together in Havercamp’s edition in the Prolegomena to the first volume.

In the West, Josephus became known mainly through a Latin translation of his complete works, with the exception of the Life, and by a free paraphrase of the Wars of the Jews. On the history of the origin of these texts we have statements from the following witnesses:—1. Jerome, Epist. 71 ad Lucinium, c. 5, says: “The rumour that has reached you that the books of Josephus and of St. Papias and St. Polycarp have been translated by me is false, for I have had neither the leisure nor the strength to render these writings with the same elegance into another tongue.”—From this it follows not only that Jerome had made no translation of Josephus, but also that in his time the works of Josephus, or at least some parts of them, were still untranslated, otherwise the need of such a performance would not have been felt.—2. Cassiodorius, De institutione div. lit. c. 17, says: “As Josephus, almost a second Livy, is widely known by his books on the Antiquities of the Jews, whom Jerome, writing to Lucinus Baetieus, declares that he had not been able to translate on account of the size of his voluminous work. Yet one of our own friends has translated the work into Latin in twenty-two books,” i.e. twenty books of Antiquities and the two books against Apion, “who also wrote other seven books on the captivity of the Jews with wonderful brilliancy, the translation of which some ascribe to Jerome, others to Ambrose, others to Rufinus; and its being ascribed to such men sufficiently proves the excellency of its style.”—From this it may be assumed as certain that the extant Latin translation of the Antiquities and the Treatise against Apion were made at the suggestion of Cassiodorius, that is to say, in the sixth century after Christ. But there seems no ground whatever for attributing this translation, as has commonly been done after the example of St. Bernard, to a certain Epiphanitis, whose name was probably suggested by the fact that Cassiodorius, two sentences farther on, ascribed to him the reproduction of the historia tripartita.—It is uncertain whether the remarks of Cassiodorius in reference to the Bellum Judaicum refer to the Latin translation which is generally ascribed to Rufinus, or to the free Latin paraphrastic rendering which in the various editions bears the name of Hegesippus. The designation of the work as a translation might apply to either production. For even the free rendering has been spoken of as a translation (compare the superscription in cod. Ambrosianus: Ambrosius epi de grego transtulit in latinum). But what Cassiodorius says about its style favours the reference to the work of Hegesippus. For although Rufinus also wrote in good Latin, the expression dictionis eximiae merita could only be correctly applied to the work of Hegesippus written in the Sallustian style. If the latter be intended, then these two results would follow from the words of Cassiodorius: 1. That this work was anonymous, for Cassiodorius knew only of conjectures as to its author. 2. That the literal translation was not yet in existence in the time of Cassiodorius; for had it been so he would not have been silent regarding it, and have mentioned only the free rendering, since he distinctly states that care had already been taken to translate the Wars of the Jews into Latin. Before this question can be decided with certainty, it would be necessary to inquire whether the older Latin writers down to the ninth century, from which the oldest manuscripts of Rufinus are dated, make use of the Wars of the Jews in the form of the so-called Rufinus or in that of the so-called Hegesippus translation. That the literal translation was the work of Rufinus is in any case highly improbable, since in the catalogue of Rufinus’ translations by Gennadius, De viris illustr., no translation of Josephus is mentioned.

The free Latin rendering of the Wars of the Jews in the various editions bears the name of Egesippus or Hegesippus. This is certainly only a corruption of Josephus: in Greek, Ἰώσηπος, Ἰώσηππος, Ἰώσιππος; in Latin, Josepus, Joseppus, Josippus. The name “Egesippus” is not found in the manuscripts of Josephus earlier than the ninth century. In the earliest references the work is quoted simply under the name of Josephus; as, for example, in Eucherius in the fifth century, and now in Widukind, the historian of the Saxons, in the tenth century. Also in the oldest manuscripts, an Ambrosianus of the seventh and eighth centuries and a Cassellan of the eighth and ninth centuries, only Joseppus Josephus is named in the inscriptions on the columns as the author. In addition, at an early date the names of Ambrosius and Hegesippus were given. In the somewhat more recent part of the cod. Ambrosianus, eighth and ninth centuries, the inscription of the first book runs: “Josippi,” corrected by a later hand into “Egesippi” “liber primus explicit.” Incipit secundus. Ambrosius epi de grego transtulit in latinum. A codex Bernens of the ninth century names Hegesippus, a Palat.-Vatican of the ninth and tenth centuries names Ambrose; yet more modern manuscripts sometimes the one and sometimes the other. An interesting passage is brought forward by Traube in the Rhein. Museum, xxxix. 1884, p. 477, in a letter of the Spaniard Alvarus of the ninth century, in which he says to an opponent: scito quia nihil tibi ex Egesippi posui verbis, sed ex Josippi vestri doctoris, where he refers to a passage in the work ascribed to our Hegesippus! He knew the work therefore only under the name of Josephus, but his opponent had known it under the name of Hegesippus.—In this state of matters the idea of an Ambrosian authorship need not be seriously entertained. It is a mere conjecture, which has been suggested simply from the circumstance that Ambrose, as well as Jerome and Rufinus, acted a leading part in transmitting Greek theological literature to the West. The work certainly had its origin in the days of the great bishop of Milan, the second half of the fourth century, but was produced most probably not by him, as the thorough investigations of Vogel in his De Hegesippo, 1881, tend to show.—The text of Josephus is there treated with great freedom,—in many places abbreviated, in many places expanded. The seven books of Josephus are compressed into five.—The first edition appeared in Paris 1510. The work has been often since reprinted. The best edition is: Hegesippus qui dicitur sive Egesippus de bello Judaico ope codicis Cassellani recognitus, ed. Weber, opus morte Weberi interruptum absolvit Caesar, Marburg 1864.—Compare generally: Gronovii Observatorum in scriptoribus ecclesiasticis Monobiblos, 1651, capp. 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 24.—Oudin, De script. eccl. ii. 1722, col. 1026–1031.—Fabricius, Biblioth. lat. mediae et infimae aetatis iii. 1735, pp. 582–584.—Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, § 433. 5–6.—Mayor, Bibliographical Clue to Latin Literature, 1875, p. 179.—Vogel, De Hegesippo qui dicitur Josephi interprete, Erlangen 1881. Also: Ὀμοιότητες Sallustianae (in Acta, seminarii philolog. Erlangensis, i. 1878).—Also in Zeitschrift für die oesterreich Gymnas. 1883, pp. 241–249.—Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden, ii. 1, 1887, pp. 194–200.—Rönsch. Die lexikalischen Eigenthümlichkeiten der Latinität des sogen. Hegesippus (Romanische Forschungen, Bd. i. 1883, pp. 256–321).—Also: Ein frühes Citat aus dem lat. Hegesippus (Zeitschrift für Wissensch. Theol. 1883, pp. 239–241).—Traube, Zum latein. Josephus (Rhein. Museum, Bd. xxxix. 1884, p. 477 f.).

The Latin translation of the works of Josephus was first printed by John Schüssler in Augsburg in 1470. From that time down to the appearance of the first Greek edition, the number of printed editions of the Latin rendering was very great; the last with which I am acquainted was issued in 1617. The Latin translations which after that date for the most part accompanied the Greek original, are modern productions; only the edition of Bernard, which which never carried to completion, gives the old Latin version. The best edition of the old Latin version is that of Basel 1524. The later ones are in various places corrected after the Greek text. More particulars about the character of this translation and its editions are given in the prolegomena of Ittig, Havercamp, and Niese, and in Fürst, Biblioth. Jud. ii. 118 ff.—A manuscript of the Latin translation of the Antiquities vi.–x. (with blanks), of importance owing to its age, the sixth and seventh centuries, and its material, papyrus, has been found in the Ambrosiana in Milan. On it see Muratori, Antiquitates Italicae, iii. 919 ff.; Reifferscheid, Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akademie, philos.-hist. Kl., Bd. lxvii. 1871, pp. 510–512. Niese, Josephi opp. i. p. xxviii.

A Syriac translation of the sixth book of the Wars of the Jews is contained in the great Peschito manuscript of the Ambrosiana in Milan, and is there given as the Fifth Book of Maccabees. It has been published in a complete form, with notes by Ceriani, in the Translatio Syra Pescitto Veteris Testamenti, 2 vols., Milan 1876–1883.—Compare Kottek, Das sechste Buch des Bellum Jadaicum, nach der von Ceriani photolithographisch edirten Peschitta-Handschrift übersetzt und kritisch bearbeitet, Berlin 1886. The view there maintained is that this Syriae translation was made, not from the Greek, but from the Aramaic original of Josephus. See the opposite view upheld in the Lit. Centralbl. 1886, pp. 881–884.

On the free Hebrew rendering of Josephus known under the name of Josippon or Joseph son of Gorion, see below in the account of the rabbinical literature.

On the manuscripts of the Greek text the Prolegomena of the earlier editions gave very insufficient information. The manuscript material was first examined in a thorough manner by Niese. But the Prolegomena that have up to this time been published with the first volume of his edition, 1887, only undertake to deal with the manuscripts of the first ten books of the Antiquities. The following sketch of the most important manuscripts of the complete works has been most kindly handed over to me by Niese for publication at this place (compare also on his researches: Edersheim in Smith and Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. iii. 1882, p. 450 ff.):—

“The several works of Josephus were issued separately. The Antiquities also fell again into two divisions, each of which, in respect of its transmission, has a history of its own.

“The numerous manuscripts of the Wars of the Jews fall into two principal classes. The most important representatives of the first are the Parisinus gr. 1425, the Ambrosianus D. super. 50, both from the eleventh century, and Marcianus 383, from the twelfth century. The second class has three different types. As representative of the first type may be mentioned the Vatican 148, the Palatino-Vatican 284, and the Lipsiensis. To the second type belongs the Laurent, plut. 69, cod. 19; and to the third, the Urbinas n. 84. All these manuscripts, the most perfect specimens of the several kinds, belong to the eleventh century, only the Palatino-Vatican to the twelfth. Of the two classes the first named is the better. Besides the Greek text there is also the old Latin version commonly ascribed to Rufinus, which is at least a pre-Cassiodorian translation, belonging exclusively to neither of these two classes, but attaching itself in many passages to the superior class. Also the still older free Latin rendering of Ambrose, the so-called Hegesippus version, comes under consideration for the purposes of criticism and history of the text.

“The manuscripts of books i.–x. of the Antiquities also fall into two classes: the first and better, extant in two specimens, the Parisin. 1421 and the Bodleianus miscell. gr. 186; and the second, which embraces all the other manuscripts, of which we may mention the Marcianus gr. 381, Vindobon. hist. gr. 2, Parisin. 1419, and Laurent. plut. 69, cod. 20.

“Less directly marked are the distinctions of classes in the second division of the Antiquities, books xi.–xx., together with the Life. The oldest and best of the manuscripts is the Palatino-Vatican n. 14, of the tenth century, in which indeed the last three books, xviii.–xx., are wanting, while the Life is still preserved. Next to it come the Ambrosianus F. 128 sup., of the eleventh century, the Laurent. plut. 69, cod. 10, of the fifteenth century, the Laurent. plut. 69, cod. 20, and the Leidensis F. 13. The last two named have only books xi.–xv. In these manuscripts the documentary sources in book xiv. 10 are perfectly preserved. The rest, among which the Vatican 147 may be specially mentioned, want these either wholly or in part.

“For the history of the transmission of the Antiquities, an Epitome, extant in several manuscripts, and made use of by Zonaras, is of importance. It may have been drawn up somewhere in the ninth or tenth century. For the first edition it follows the inferior class of texts, and for the second it assumes a middle position.—The Antiquities, too, were translated into Latin on the suggestion of Cassiodorius. The text lying at the basis of this translation was for the first division a representative of the inferior class; but in the second division it rests sometimes upon this manuscript, sometimes upon that. The Life is to be found neither in the Epitome nor in the translation.

“Finally, of the Books against Apion, there is only one Greek manuscript that comes into consideration, the Laurentianus plut. 69, cod. 22, of the eleventh century. Besides this, the Cassiodorian Latin translation, which appears in a fragmentary form in all printed copies, is of very great critical value. Of special value, too, are the quotations of Eusebius, which restore to us several isolated passages of this important work.”