The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

consideration that will at the same time take us one step further. Josephus dedicated his
Antiquities as well as the writing against Apion to Epaphroditus. Now, we know through Birt 17
that such a dedication under the life circumstances given here means that the ownership of
the book passes from the giver to the receiver who thereby assumes [responsibility for the]
distribution of the work, but on his part he is morally obligated to pay a [30] commission to
the author. Thus Epaphroditus acquired Josephus’ books, and when Josephus now on his part
refers in his dedication (Ant. 1.8) [to the fact] that when he was in despair about the
completion of his work he was urged to work energetically by Epaphroditus’ constant
encouragement, then it is obvious that this here is an allusive reference to prior pecuniary
support from his patron. But Josephus was not alone in enjoying this favour: “Epaphroditus
had always supported the people who were in a position to create something beautiful or
beneficial” (Ant. 1.9), and since this is specified by Josephus as the reason that he continued
with his work on the Antiquities in accordance with Epaphroditus’ wish, so it follows that
mainly authors must have been found among τοῖς χρήσιμον ἢ καλόν τι πράττειν δυναμένοις,
just as Josephus then also subsequently designates his work by τῷ περὶ τὰ κάλλιστα πόνῳ. So
Epaphroditus had a large circle of authors around himself, whom he constantly supported and
who also naturally handed over their works to him in the same way that Josephus did: thus we
learn, from Josephus, to recognize a patron of literature and a friend of books in Epaphroditus
– but Suidas again says of the grammarian ὠνούμενος δὲ ἀεὶ βιβλία ἐκτήσατο μυριάδας
τρεῖς καὶ τούτων σπουδαίων καὶ ἀνακεχωρηκότων. Now there is no more doubt
possible: the famous grammarian and book dealer Epaphroditus is Josephus’ patron!
the general opinion.
17 Kritik und Hermeneutik, pages 315-327; Rhein. Mus. 72, 1918, page 311 ff., Aus dem Leben der
Antike, page 129 ff. Birt certainly goes too far in the assumption of legal property transfer; the
concept of literary property was unknown, after all; one must guard against considering as too
similar those very things that by their nature contain strong personal elements. I am pointing
this out because otherwise it is usually to Birt’s research that I owe the richest stimulation. In
contrast, I cannot agree with Ruppert (Quaestiones ad historiam dedicationis librorum pertinentes,
Leipzig 1911, page 30), who wishes to compare the dedication of Manetho’s History of Egypt to
Ptolemy, and that of Berossus’ History of Babylonia to Antiochus, with the dedications of
Josephus, on the ground that all three cases concern foreign historical works. Here the factor
of the historical form, which is admittedly essential for establishing the origin of the
dedications, has induced Ruppert to overlook the complete dissimilarity in the personal
relations in the three cases. This will be because of what was noted in the text.
30