The Image of the Jew in Flavius Josephus' Paraphrase of the Bible (review)

Abstract

The Image of Jew in Flavius Josephus' Paraphrase of BibleIn Michael Grant's Introduction Robert Graves' translation of Suetonius' The Twelve Caesars, we read this remark with regard Tacitus' History, Tacitus, for all his superlative merits, colours and patterns his facts. This, by contrast with Suetonius' dead-pan...corrective with some personal touches.Everyone who writes about notices that he too colored and patterned his facts and added many personal touches. Spilsbury's book provides perceptive assessment of Josephus' coloring of biblical history. The author's assessment of Josephus' personal touches displays no trace of Foakes-Jackson's splenetic, he means be pious he is frankly repulsive (Josephus and Jews, p. 16). It is refreshing read treated without contempt some take as precondition for serious study.Spilsbury, like Steve Mason, has studied as source rather than as composite of sources tendentiously edited. He accepts as original and developed historiographer, rather than mechanistic compiler. He was devout Jew on mission to define particular way of being in Rome as well as writer thrusting an apologetic in face of cultured despisers of Jews. Spilsbury assesses Josephus' place in developing midrash of his day as a uniquely personal contribution tradition, rather than as a sterile compilation of tradition. He sees in an awareness of Jewish voices espousing alternate visions of Jewishness.The author chose not get deeply into tricky question of Josephus' biblical text. He acknowledges fruit of others' studies of this question, demurring himself because the sheer size of task would have made it impracticable. A more important reason hinges on Spilsbury's interest in as source: Josephus would not have expected [his non-Jewish readers] be aware of details of Bible.Spilsbury calls attention Josephus' alteration of character of some persons in Bible story. It may be that sometimes confused biblical persons with same name. For example, with reference northern King Jehoash (p. 191), he observes that calls him good man, whereas Bible calls him an evil man, citing II Kings 13:11. may have confused King Jehoash of Israel with King Jehoash of Judah (II Kings 12:1: And Jehoash did what was right in eyes of Lord all his days.). In this place observes that northern king took over name of King of Jerusalem, perhaps unwittingly assigning as well good character of one other. This kind of error creeps into writing of finest historians when there is cast of many characters, some with same names.Spilsbury's assessment of L. H. Feldman's case for Josephus' use of classical models in reshaping biblical charcters is less than enthusiastic. …