Judean War Research Articles

Travel and Hospitality in Josephus’ Representation of the Essene Community (Judean War 2.124–127) and Its Literary and Cultural Contexts

Abstract In his description of the Essenes in the Judean War, Josephus asserts that members of this group settled in many cities, and, in doing so, formed an interregional community with members travelling between and visiting each other in different places. Individual travellers, in turn, travel light because they can enjoy the hospitality of the host community in the cities which they visit (War 2.124–127). How can we explain Josephus’ emphasis on the Essenes as a hospitable community in view of a first-century readership of War and in the wider socio-cultural context of the Roman Mediterranean? This article has two interlocking aims. The first is to examine the emphasis on travel and hospitality in Josephus’ description of the Essenes. To draw out this emphasis, we situate this passage in its wider narrative context and compare it to descriptions of the Essenes in other classical sources, especially the writings of Philo of Alexandria. Our second aim, taking the image of the Essenes as hosts and travellers as a departure point, is to elucidate the cultural constructs undergirding Josephus’ descriptions of hospitality throughout his writings. Starting from the premise that Josephus’ language of guest-friendship would be recognisable to local audiences in and around Rome, we consider how Josephus’ diction of travel and hospitality participates in broader cultural practices.

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS: TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY, VOLUME 2A: JUDEAN WAR 4. By SteveMason. Leiden: Brill, 2022. Pp. xv + 325. Hardback, $212.00.

Religious Studies ReviewVolume 48, Issue 4 p. 581-581 Short Reviews of Recent Publications: Judaism (Hellenistic to Late Antiquity) FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS: TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY, VOLUME 2A: JUDEAN WAR 4. By Steve Mason. Leiden: Brill, 2022. Pp. xv + 325. Hardback, $212.00. First published: 30 January 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/rsr.16157Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume48, Issue4December 2022Pages 581-581 RelatedInformation

The Apologetics of Mystery: The Traditio apostolica and Appeals to Pythagorean Initiation in Josephus and Iamblichus

Abstract While the Traditio apostolica ascribed to Hippolytus has primarily been the focus of studies about authorship and dating, this unique work also has much to suggest about rhetorical presentations of catechesis in the early Christian era. Comparing the TA to Josephus’s account of the Essenes in the Judean War and Iamblichus’s account of Pythagorean initiation in De vita Pythagorica, this essay argues that the TA’s presentation of catechesis can be read as constitutive of a quasi-apologetic defense of the Hippolytan “school” during the transitional period from school Christianity to monepiscopacy during the second century. Deploying similar Pythagorean imagery to describe the process of initiation, the author/editor of the TA makes a case for the Hippolytan school as offering a true philosophical way of life.

Josephus’s Lamentations in the Judean War: Body, Emotional Resistance, and Gender

Abstract In the Judean War’s proem, Josephus professes his need to lament, an atypical statement in Hellenistic and Roman historiography. This article explores his lamentations, in the proem and the work, as they engage body, emotion, gender, and power. It examines the constructions that laments receive in Josephus’s diverse literary and cultural backgrounds—biblical and early Jewish literature as well as ancient Greek and Roman traditions. It also considers how the War reflects these constructions. Josephus’s laments, staging his wailing voice and suffering body, suggest self-abasement. However, his protagonists’ laments often convey resistance and rebellion, a traditional function of laments; they thus shed a more political light on the proem. Josephus masculinizes the typically feminine lamenter-qua-protester figure, perhaps to avoid feminizing his own role. This article interprets Josephus’s laments as an embodiment of his carefully subversive account and as emotional resistance against the Roman power.

Reading Josephus’ “Prophetic” Inspiration in the Cave of Jotapata (J.W. 3.351–354) in a Roman Context

Abstract This article offers a literary analysis of the famous episode in Judean War 3.351–354, in which Josephus suddenly recalls his “nightly dreams.” It takes up the question of how Josephus characterizes himself in this episode in consideration of an elite audience located in Rome steeped in Greco-Roman learning. In explaining this episode, scholars have put special emphasis on parallels with discourses of Judean prophecy and biblical prophets, such as Jeremiah and Daniel. The hypothesis that Josephus consciously presents himself as a prophet has found widespread acceptance and grown to become almost undisputable since the 1970s. In addition to challenging the view that Josephus explicitly and deliberately presents himself as a biblical prophet, the present contribution develops an interpretation that considers the historiographical outlook of the whole War as a military-political composition imbued with classicizing features.

A History of the Jewish War a.d. 66–74 by Steve Mason

Reviewed by: A History of the Jewish War a.d. 66–74 by Steve Mason Carson Bay Steve Mason. A History of the Jewish War a.d. 66–74. Key Conflicts of Classical Antiquity. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Pp. xii, 689. $150.00. ISBN 978-0-521-85329-3. One metric of scholarship considers how much it pushes the envelope in, or shifts, a given field. By this standard, Mason’s history receives high marks. [End Page 580] Reframing how the so-called “Jewish/Judean War” is understood according to various sources, this historical reconstruction challenges numerous longstanding assumptions and provides an essential guide to understanding the Judean revolt and Jerusalem’s subsequent destruction under the Flavians. The book’s strengths include attention to regional conflicts, which constitute the war’s oft-neglected backbone, and careful interdisciplinary analysis that allows tentative reconstructions. Weaknesses stem from neglect of important analytical lenses (like religion) and the “softness” of history that often relies heavily upon the imagination. Still, Mason’s work is exceptional, dealing holistically with complex historical dynamics of ambiguous events in a theoretically sophisticated, yet eminently readable fashion. Mason’s first chapter contextualizes the Judean War as one monumentalized as cosmically significant in the millennia since the events transpired, but which was in fact a relatively minor Roman accomplishment. Mason rightly explains that Titus’ triumph “screamed out ‘Made in Rome’” (21). Jerusalem’s destruction was not a triumph-worthy feat, but was publicized as such. Mason even states that Josephus’ Judean War propounds that the Flavians had not conquered Judaea; this point, I think, would take a very sharp-witted reader to understand, and I doubt that Josephus would have admitted as much at a book signing. Chapter 2 introduces history as “the methodological investigation of the human past” (71) and Josephus’ Judean War as situated rhetoric. The chapter contains much more as well, and illustrates Mason’s habit of using nineteenth- and twentieth-century parallels to make points applicable to the first century; for example, Mason uses Napoleon and Kaiser Wilhelm II as examples to show that “commanders of invading armies have always received exuberant affirmation from fast-thinking natives” (127)—comparanda that render Josephus’ fawning reception of Vespasian neither surprising nor unique. Chapter 3 makes putative realities of ancient warfare real for the reader, completing Mason’s foundational “Contexts” section. The fourth chapter contextualizes the causes of the Judean revolt, foregrounding Josephus’ “mostly political” interests. Mason assumes an ancient “realism” in which “each nation must attend to its own survival and well-being, because no one else will” (218). This perspective proves enlightening, especially in untangling the real yet rarely cited engine for the revolt: local tensions between poleis/ethnē, exacerbated by imperial pressure. This is where the insertion of religious factors would have helped Mason’s analysis. Mason has elsewhere argued, as he does here (88–91), that “Judaism” as a category is out of place when discussing the ancient world, because the reality of “religion” existed as part of an irreducibly complex cultural system. However, failure to employ religion as a heuristic lens here means that Mason’s analysis of the diverse ethnic groups which were at odds with one another in Syria and Palestine leading up to the war is not as sharp as it might be. Religion was a major factor in the history of the Judean War, and it could have received a little more attention here. Chapters 5 and 6 treat the Judean War’s precursors under Nero. Here Mason illustrates his “history as inquiry” principle by imagining realistic scenarios in which Roman peacekeeping in Judea turned unpredictably into real Roman–Judean conflict. Eschewing discussion of motives, Mason sifts recoverable data in designing a believable, if necessarily speculative, reconstruction. Chapters 7 and 8 bear the weight of Mason’s overall project, explaining what probably happened surrounding Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 ce. Significant here is Mason’s translation of Ζηλωτής as “disciple,” offloading the baggage of the English “zealot” and [End Page 581] signaling the (Semitic) term’s positive connotations; Mason’s translation may well be right, though some scholars will not like it. Chapter 8’s discussion of numismatic evidence from...

Villains Called Sicarii: A Commonplace for Rhetorical Vituperation in the Texts of Flavius Josephus

Examining the presentation of sicarii in Flavius Josephus’s Judean War from a rhetorical perspective, this article argues that each reference to sicarii alludes to the clauses of a Roman law concerning sicarii, which Josephus has used as a commonplace for rhetorical vituperation against particular groups. Three literary-rhetorical tendencies of War are highlighted to show how this vituperation, as well as the connection between War’s sicarii and the so called Fourth Philosophy, is part of a general rhetorical strategy to shift the blame for the outbreak of the violent conflict to one particular rebel group.

Josephus’s Ambivalent Attitude towards Women and Power

Scholars have long been bewildered by Josephus’s contradictory accounts of the reign of Queen Alexandra (76–67 B. C. E.), the only independent female Hasmonean ruler. While portraying her as a wise, skillful, and beloved ruler, Josephus also harshly criticizes her reign, holding her responsible for the downfall of Judea. A critical feminist historiographic approach to philological and textual analyses of Alexandra’s portrayal in Judean War and Judean Antiquities allows us to resolve this tension, by situating the case of Queen Alexandra within the context of Jewish history, Greco-Roman history, and gender discourse. Additional factors impacting upon Josephus’s differing evaluations of Queen Alexandra in War and Antiquities include cultural conditions, in particular the different attitudes of Roman and Hellenistic society toward women in power, and the challenge presented to traditional male political structures by the transfer of power to a female monarch. This finding may also contribute to a better understanding of portrayals of other leading women in antiquity.

Josephus’s Ambivalent Attitude towards Women and Power

Scholars have long been bewildered by Josephus’s contradictory accounts of the reign of Queen Alexandra (76–67 B. C. E.), the only independent female Hasmonean ruler. While portraying her as a wise, skillful, and beloved ruler, Josephus also harshly criticizes her reign, holding her responsible for the downfall of Judea. A critical feminist historiographic approach to philological and textual analyses of Alexandra’s portrayal in Judean War and Judean Antiquities allows us to resolve this tension, by situating the case of Queen Alexandra within the context of Jewish history, Greco-Roman history, and gender discourse. Additional factors impacting upon Josephus’s differing evaluations of Queen Alexandra in War and Antiquities include cultural conditions, in particular the different attitudes of Roman and Hellenistic society toward women in power, and the challenge presented to traditional male political structures by the transfer of power to a female monarch. This finding may also contribute to a better understanding of portrayals of other leading women in antiquity.

Reading the Judeans and the Judean War in Martial's Liber spectaculorum

Martial's Liber spectaculorum celebrates spectacles at the Flavian amphitheatre, which was most likely built with money gained from the Judean War. This article contextualizes epigrams from Martial's Liber spectaculorum with evidence from the histories of Josephus and other sources, finding possible references to the Judeans in specific epigrams with anthropomorphized animals. It also takes into consideration an epigram from the Florilegium Gallicum, which has been published at the end of the Liber since the sixteenth century. In the Liber spectaculorum, Martial engages in a strategy of virtually silencing the Judean people—‘ de Solymis … perustis’, as the poet says in Ep. 7.55—whose pillaged property built the Colosseum. This may, in part, be a result of the blending of epigrams from the reigns of both Titus and Domitian into a revised Liber featuring a single ‘Caesar’ who represents both emperors. Since Domitian never fought in the Judean War, Martial avoids—or has removed during revision—overt comments about victory in the Judean War. It is up to the reader, therefore, to find the Judeans quietly and ignominiously metamorphosed into animals to be punished in his text's arena, and finally, as losers who pay the price for rebellion.

The Sicarii in Josephus’s Judean War: Rhetorical Analysis and Historical ObservationsBrightonMark Andrew The Sicarii in Josephus’s Judean War: Rhetorical Analysis and Historical Observations SBL – Early Judaism and Its Literature 27BrillLeiden, 2009, xiv, 186, €95.00ISBN 978-90-04-16920-3

The Sicarii in Josephus’s Judean War: Rhetorical Analysis and Historical ObservationsBrightonMark Andrew <i>The Sicarii in Josephus’s Judean War: Rhetorical Analysis and Historical Observations</i> SBL – Early Judaism and Its Literature 27BrillLeiden, 2009, xiv, 186, €95.00ISBN 978-90-04-16920-3

Flavius Josephus and the Gentes Devictae in Roman Imperial Discourse: Hybridity, Mimicry, and Irony in the Agrippa II Speech (Judean War 2.345-402)

Abstract In Judean War book 2, Agrippa II is purported to have delivered a speech in Jerusalem on the eve of the revolt, which includes a gentes devictae list. Such lists are attested in imperial propaganda, and are intended to display Roman domination of the known world by naming the conquered nations at the furthest extremities of the empire. But Josephus’ Agrippa goes further, and attributes the expansion of the empire to the Jerusalem deity, not to the deities of Rome, which seems consistent with a key aspect of colonial mimicry, according to Homi Bhabha. The speech reveals Josephus’ hybrid posture as conquered Judean and Roman citizen.

The Sicarii in Josephus's Judean War: Rhetorical Analysis and Historical Observations (review)

Reviewed by: The Sicarii in Josephus's Judean War: Rhetorical Analysis and Historical Observations Stuart Robertson The Sicarii in Josephus's Judean War: Rhetorical Analysis and Historical Observations, by Mark Andrew Brighton. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. 184 pages. $132.00. This book is a revision of the author's doctoral dissertation under the direction of Prof. Steve Mason. It provides a careful "literary/rhetorical analysis" of Josephus' account of the Sicarii, the dagger-men among the Jewish insurgents against the Romans in the latter days of the Second Temple period. Here we find two views of "the mind of the maker," to use Dorothy Sayers' term. First we see into the mind of Brighton and see that unlike many modern scholars studying Josephus, he trusts this ancient author. Second, Brighton looks into Josephus' mind, perceiving that he subtly negotiated his way between the problem of denying to Rome the credit for ending the reign of terror of the Sicarii, and branding these assassins of their fellow Jews as without redeeming features. Josephus argues that the Sicarii got what they deserved, death for their actions that led to the destruction of the Temple. Yet, they gave evidence of some of the nobility of the Jewish martyrs who in other circumstances preferred death to either losing their freedom or denying their God. It was God rather than Rome, Josephus subtly argues, who deserves the credit for the way the Sicarii at Masada met their end. Brighton shows that Josephus does not always use the term Sicarii to refer to perpetrators of every violent criminal act of Jews hostile to Rome. What was unique about the Sicarii is that they killed fellow Jews. They are usually being referred to when Josepus uses the terms lestai (bandits), stasis (civil unrest), or tolmé (daring). Josephus states that the Sicarii took this name for themselves because the daggers they used in their assassinations were like the Roman siccus, a short sword, easily hidden in one's garments. It was unclear to me if Josephus meant they earned this epithet, or that they composed the title [End Page 178] for themselves. Why would Jews so zealous for freedom and purity of religion choose such a negative appellation? In the end, Brighton is convinced that the zealots that fortified themselves and laid down their lives at Masada were Sicarii, even though Josephus does not refer to them as such. Those that died at Masada merited this name for their periodic raids in which they killed fellow Jews. The author perceives a chiasmic structure in the Judean War as it reports rebellious movements at the beginning and at the end. Towards the beginning, War 1.32 tells of stasis during the latter days of the Maccabees, when dissension erupted among some of the "Jewish nobles" so that followers of Tobias actually plundered the temple and interrupted the sacrifices, causing Onias, his rival for the high priesthood, to retreat to Heliopolis in Egypt, where he built a temple like that in Jerusalem. At the end of the story, in War 7.426, Onias' temple is described as unlike the Jerusalem Temple, but with an altar like that in Jerusalem. After this temple was destroyed by the then governor, the Sicarii carried on their violent deeds elsewhere in north Africa, in Cyrene—as the Sicarii at Masada did away from Jerusalem. Their ringleader, Jonathan, like Eleazar who had led the Sicarii at Masada, did not succeed, but his lack of success was more inglorious because Jonathan died in monumental agony, whereas Eleazar had died nobly at Masada. Josephus reports that he was exonerated when the Sicarii in Cyrene tried to implicate him in their misdeeds. Perhaps this too is part of the chiasm, the coming around again of this tragic element in the story of the Jews in the latter days of the Second Temple. Despised by many fellow Jews as a parvenu after his capture and support by the Flavian emperors, at the end Josephus is freed from blame, at least on the account of complicity with the Sicarii (7,448). This excellent book is organized succinctly so as to keep in focus the author's objective...

Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary. Volume 1b: Judean War 2

Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary. Volume 1b: Judean War 2