The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

death along the Rhein, in Gaul and in the empire; nor has Josephus himself ever referred to
these incidents in his narrative, it is a deliberate attempt to mislead the readers. But which
ones? Truly not the Romans, about whose state [Staat] a scathing judgment is passed here,
which stands in direct contradiction to Agrippa’s speech, therefore the Jews [were to be
misled]. Excuses are now made before them for the “innovators” who no longer bear the
dishonourable name of “the robbers”. Josephus then also bears no misgivings at all about
underscoring his own participation in the war against Rome here; certainly with this he wishes
above all to emphasize his precise knowledge of the events in order to derive his qualification
as a historian from it; but by contrast to a parallel passage such as Contra Apionem 1.48, for
example, he skips over his connection to the Romans here. Obviously he is determined to
elaborate his Jewish standpoint.
The designation of Josephus as priest serves the same double purpose. In the first
edition of the War Josephus did not make any use of his priestly status (2.568); but in the
Antiquities he did indeed consciously parade his Hasmonean ancestry, and attacked the
Herodians on this basis, and we remember in addition that in the later years of his life
Josephus even derived his suitability as a historian again from his priestly lineage and status
(page 34). An exhaustive study of the War will surely be able to identify even more traces of
Josephus’ action on his manuscript in those years [266] in which he had committed himself
to the new adaptation of the War as a particularly important objective; for the direction that
Josephus had stumbled upon would not be abandoned so quickly by him again. The patronage
of Epaphroditus remained intact, as far as we can actually track Josephus, and so he was
lacking every reason, indeed even any possibility, to re-establish his connection to Rome.
Conversely, the Antiquities had met with the approval of Epaphroditus, for it was he who also
motivated [Josephus] to the new writing against Apion, in which he now attempted a
systematic defence corresponding to the historical apology of Judaism that was provided in
the Antiquities and was being planned for the new edition of the War. Truly Josephus made an
honest effort to clear away his guilt towards Jewry [Judentum]; unfortunately we do not know
to what extent [the Jews], on their part, responded to these efforts; for Josephus, preserving
Epaphroditus’ patronage remained a goal later on and this certainly has us suspect that he had
not been completely forgiven.
addition. The dating of this same [segment] follows from what was noted in the text.
232