This document was developed by prosecutor A. Josephus Jitta, Chief, Office of Justice, Alkmaar, The Netherlands, with assistance from physicians and is typical of the euthanasia report forms completed by medical examiners and coroners In The Netherlands.

Translation:Hendrik Josephus POS, „Phénoménologie et linguistique.“ In: Keur uit de verspreide geschrift en van Dr. H. J. Pos. Vol. I. Assen: Van Loghum Slaterus 1957, p. 131–141.

Names of Romans in Josephus are notoriously liable to corruption. Two minor characters in his account of the assassination of Caligula have so far defied plausible emendation, ‘Timidius’ in A.J. 19.33–4 and ‘Bathybius’ in 19.91. The sources of Josephus’ account of this dramatic episode were unquestionably high class—two, rather than one, Latin historians, as Wiseman has demonstrated, the main one being Cluvius Rufus, the other possibly Fabius Rusticus.

Nabataean history is significantly overlooked in the works of ancient historians. Josephus is an exception to this, as he includes several important events from Nabataean history in De Bello Judaico and Antiquitates Judaicae. However, his retelling of these events differs between the two works. In this paper, I argue that Josephus became more “pro-Roman” over time and eventually overshadowed an accurate portrayal of Nabataean history in his later narrative. He undermined moments of tension between Rome and Nabataea in (...) order to showcase Roman power in the Near East, even beyond reality. In support of this argument, I analyze the Nabataean sections of Josephus’ works, as each passage has overlapping details, but significantly different emphasis, characterization, and perspective through variations in terminology, imagery, and tone. Though problematic, Josephus has preserved a unique look into Roman-Nabataean relations in the two centuries prior to the incorporation of Nabataea into the Empire. (shrink)

This paper examines the manner in which the early modern scholarly debate concerning the true age of the world was shaped by philological and text-critical scholarship on the work of the first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Traditionally, historians have earmarked the late seventeenth century as a time of uncertainty and crisis for biblical chronologists, as scholars became increasingly aware of corruptions within existing versions of scripture and of the manner in which scriptural chronology was contradicted by pagan sources. I (...) hope to show how, in response to these doubts, scholars during this period also developed a pronounced interest in the chronology – and consequently the textual history – of the first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, whom scholars considered the oldest and therefore best surviving witness to the original state of the biblical text in the time of the Apostles. I have drawn two important conclusions from this development. Firstly, I show that the development of philological and text-critical scholarship on non-biblical texts was a direct result of theological issues relating to biblical authority and chronology. Secondly, I argue that this philological scholarship was key to undermining orthodox faith in the stability and reliability of the biblical text itself. (shrink)

Jesus’ quotation of Psalm 82:6, ‘I said, You are gods’, a riposte to the accusation that he had blasphemed by making himself equal to God, has attracted considerable attention. The latest suggestion by Jerome H. Neyrey rightly insists that any solution to the problem should take account of the internal logic of the Psalm and argues that it derives from or prefigures a rabbinic Midrash on the Psalm which refers it to the restoration of the immortality lost by Adam to (...) Israel at the giving of the Torah on Sinai. This immortality was then lost again because of the sin of the golden calf. Whilst agreeing that the Psalm is interpreted in the context of the giving of the Torah on Sinai, this article argues that its reference is directed towards Moses on Sinai rather than Israel in general. This accords with the interpretation of Philo and Josephus and other sources much earlier than the Mekkilta de Rabbi Ishmael that Moses is rightly called a god and is assumed to heaven in glory without dying. Rather than deny this attribution of divine features to Moses due to his reception of the Torah on Sinai, John argues that the Torah was received from the hands of Jesus as the Logos. Therefore, Moses’s derivative divine features simply confirm the true divinity of the Logos as the expression of the Father. Moses could be called a god because he knew Jesus as Logos and wrote about him (5:45–5:47), but he sinned and died like any mortal. The corollary is that Moses and his disciples lost their status and died like any mortal, whilst the disciples of Jesus who are ‘taught by God’ and believe in the Incarnate Logos (6:45), have not only seen the glory denied to Moses but are born from above to become divinised as tekna theou (1:12) and do not die. (shrink)

Este trabajo analiza los presupuestos de la política nacionalista e imperialista de la circuncisión forzosa en el reino de Judea, tal como fue desarrollada en el tiempo de los Asmoneos, y propone tomar en consideración esa política al estudiar el asunto de la circuncisión en los escritos de Pablo (especialmente en la Carta a los Gálatas) y en los de Josefo. Estos dos judíos del siglo I rechazaron la circuncisiónforzada de los gentiles al crear sus propias comunidades, y así considero (...) esencial comprender su actitud como reacción ante el recuerdo de aquella política de Judea. La investigación precedente acerca de este asunto se ha dirigido sobre todo a la cuestión de la conversión y no ha establecido la relación directa entre Pablo, Josefo y dicha política de circuncisión forzasa. (shrink)

This contribution aims at deconstructing a Christian master narrative that interprets Josephus as crucial support for the New Testament message that the Temple had to become a ruin, in line with the will of God. It argues for an alternative interpretation, namely that both Jesus of Nazareth and Josephus considered the Temple to be still relevant, albeit in different ways. For Jesus the Temple was the self-evident cultic centre of Judaism and a special place to experience his relationship (...) with God. None of Jesus’ statements about the Temple in their original context necessarily implies that Jesus assumed that the institution of the Temple would stop functioning in the near future or at the end of time. Josephus’s perspective on the Temple changes in his works. The elaborate description of Jerusalem and the Temple in War 5 reads as a written monument of the past, but several passages in Josephus’s Antiquities and Against Apion imply that the Temple was still important after 70 CE. Josephus may have reckoned with the possibility that the Temple was going to be rebuilt if the Romans allowed for it.This contribution is dedicated to Pieter G.R. de Villiers, a modest but sophisticated scholar and a good friend. (shrink)

The destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70 was an unquestionably traumatic event in the history of the Jewish people. By all accounts it was a social, political, and theological disaster. As such, contemporary Jewish figures wrestled with the meaning of the event. This article analyses the efforts by two figures in this internal Jewish dialogue to provide this meaning, namely, the historian Josephus and Jesus of Nazareth. We will see that in both cases (...) the meaning of the destruction was rooted in the firm conviction of the God of Israel’s existence and his self-revelation in Scripture. The temple was destroyed not apart from God or in spite of God, but in full accordance with his will. This will, moreover, was judged to be accessible through Scripture, both in terms of its prophetic value and its establishment of a metanarrative – redemptive history – that provided a framework for historical events. In addition, the reason for the destruction was judged by both to be the sins of (certain) people. The major difference between them lay rather in the question of which sins exactly were judged to be responsible. (shrink)

Few commentators seem willing to recognize Josephus’ indebtedness to 1 Maccabees in Jewish War 1.31–56 where he gives a succinct account of the Hasmonean revolt and its aftermath. Noting the many disagreements here with 1 Maccabees, they conclude that Josephus had been entirely dependent on other sources, usually Nicolaus of Damascus. The present article seeks to challenge this apparent consensus. The many agreements between Jewish War 1.31–56 and 1 Maccabees—especially with respect to the events which Josephus chooses (...) to record and the order in which he arranges them—constitute strong positive evidence that Josephus was using 1 Maccabees as his primary source. Most disagreements can be seen as his redactions of 1 Maccabees, even if some are a bit puzzling and others do, in fact, suggest that he used other sources in addition. His use of other sources seems minimal, in any case, being limited to the beginning and end of his narrative. His use of Nicolaus cannot be ruled out completely but seems a priori unlikely. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:American Journal of Philology 121.3 (2000) 493-497 [Access article in PDF] Louis H. Feldman. Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 1998. xvi 1 837 pp. Cloth, $75. (Hellenistic Culture and Society, 27) Flavius Josephus has long been famous for his first book, The Jewish War, the primary source for the history of the Jews from the Maccabean Revolt to (...) the destruction of the Temple. Less well known is his later history Jewish Antiquities, but it represents a more accomplished author and involves his own paraphrase of Jewish history found in the Hebrew Scriptures.Feldman addresses two questions to the Jewish Antiquities. First, to what extent has Josephus made his own creative contribution to the biblical history of the Jews? Second, to what extent has Josephus provided a distinguishable and consistent point of view? Feldman seeks to determine how Josephus handles source material (where we have his biblical source for comparison), in the hope that this will enable scholars to better evaluate The Jewish War.The book is divided into two parts. The first deals with Josephus as historian. [End Page 493] Portions of this section were published earlier in the volume Mikra of the series Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum (1988), but the extensive revision and fourfold expansion represent the fruit of Feldman's labor since then. His labor is also found in the second part, which contains twelve "portraits" from a series of previously published studies (newly revised) on major figures in biblical history: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Samson, Samuel, Saul, David, Solomon, and Daniel. (The other portraits and additional studies have been republished in Studies in Josephus' Rewritten Bible [Brill 1998].) The primary focus of each portrait is the model of the Greek hero, beginning with genealogy and wealth and elaborating on the five virtues. Other subheadings include apologetic and stylistic motifs appropriate to each character, and Josephus' removal of theological problems and other difficulties. The following remarks will focus on part 1, which distills the themes of each portrait and does so in the broader context of all his portraits.Feldman argues that the historiography of Josephus is based on the school of Isocrates, with its fictitious speeches and epic proportions, and that of Aristotle, with its scientific classification of lives, culminating in the styles of Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Nicolaus of Damascus. As historian, Josephus is more concerned with commenting on the situation of his own day than explaining the past. Accordingly, the genre of "apologetic biography" best describes his Jewish Antiquities.In chapter 2, "Josephus as Rewriter of the Bible," Feldman analyzes Josephus' dependence on the textual traditions of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Greek Septuagint, and the Aramaic targumim. He concludes that the models of the Septuagint and the targumim most resemble Jewish Antiquities, but Josephus has combined their method with that of Greek historians, most notably of Thucydides. Feldman notes that Josephus' self-consciousness of being a prophet and a priest affects his historiography. As a priest, Josephus felt authorized and qualified to interpret the sacred Scriptures. As a prophet, though not of the stature of biblical literary prophets, Josephus is commissioned to play an active role in the politics of his day and to explain the current condition of the Jews in the aftermath of the destruction of their Temple.Chapter 3, "Qualities of Biblical Heroes," provides a thematic synthesis of the different hero studies. The heroes of the Jews are no less noble than the heroes of the Greeks and Romans: their genealogies are illustrious, their births portentous, and their persons endowed with virtuous qualities. Josephus takes great care to exemplify the cardinal virtues (wisdom, courage, temperance, justice, piety) in his encomia of the biblical characters.Chapter 4, "Josephus as Apologist to Non-Jews and to Jews," is perhaps the most interesting to historians and advances Feldman's goal of analyzing The Jewish War. Josephus draws on Gentile sources to establish the historicity of biblical events, even when they disagree with the biblical account. He attributes the evil inflicted on the Jews... (shrink)

After the Jewish War Josephus was taken to Rome by Titus and then enjoyed the favour of Vespasian . The first task set him was to write a history of it in Aramaic for the ‘upper barbarians’, by which he means Parthians, Babylonians, Jews beyond Euphrates and Adiabenians . For his work he doubtless had access to the ‘commentarii’ of the emperor. This task may not have taken him long, but the translation into Greek which we possess took longer, (...) and was finished before the emperor's death, but after the dedication of the Forum Pacis . In its leisurely composition he tells us later that he had ‘certain assistants’ in the Greek language. As the work is quite uniform and smooth in style, we can only assume that J. turned his Aramaic into Greek himself to start with, and then placed the MS in the hands of assistants who systematically revised it, rewriting where necessary. No other hypothesis is possible; for no assistant could have been found sufficiently familiar with both Aramaic and literary Greek—at least it is highly improbable—and we have no reason to disbelieve J. when he says he translated his original treatise. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Flavius Josephus and Flavian RomeErich S. GruenJonathan Edmondson, Steve Mason, and James Rives, eds. Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. xvi + 400 pp. 8 black-and-white ills. Cloth, $135.Josephus is now coming into his own. Previously scorned as tendentious time-server and panderer to the powerful, he has received increasingly serious attention in recent years. Indeed, a veritable Josephus industry has (...) emerged, with regular international colloquia, a burgeoning number of publications, and major commentaries on individual works (and parts of works) in the course of publication though collaborative projects in both German and English. And properly so. Josephus for too long remained the province primarily of scholars in Jewish studies. Classicists, for the most part, marginalized or ignored him. That neglect seems quite myopic in view of the unusually large corpus and the importance of Josephus not only for Jewish history but also for classical literature and historiography, for the perceptions of imperial power by subordinate peoples, and for the place of "alien wisdom" in the intellectual and cultural world of the Roman empire. The shift toward fuller and closer scrutiny of Josephus' work by classical scholars is now well underway—and most welcome.The essays in this volume laudably promote that enterprise. They grow out of a stimulating conference held at York University in Toronto in 2001. The editors deserve credit for focusing on a critical but largely overlooked subject: the relationship of Josephus' work to the social, political, and cultural setting in which he wrote, namely that of Rome in the Flavian era. Unlike most conference volumes, the quality of the papers is uniformly high, and the collection as a whole unusually coherent. The volume is a model example of its genre.The Jewish war culminated in the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 c.e. The consequences for Jewish history, of course, were momentous, a familiar and frequently explored topic. Much less studied but indispensable for an understanding of Josephus' work are the reverberations in Rome. The Flavian emperors exploited their victory to publicize, justify, and entrench a new imperial dynasty. Fergus Millar valuably surveys the monuments of Rome instituted to commemorate the conquest of Judaea: the arches erected for Titus, the Colosseum built with the spoils of the Jewish war (as Alföldy stunningly demonstrated a few years ago), and the Temple of Peace where the most celebrated objects [End Page 615] captured in Jerusalem were deposited. The Flavian public-relations spin not only celebrated military prowess but also made a pointed contrast with the age of Nero and underscored the arrival of a pax Flaviana. Advertisement of triumph over Judaea could hardly make the Jews of Rome comfortable, as Martin Goodman argues. He adds that imposition of the fiscus Iudaicus under Vespasian and malicious accusations under Domitian against those who lived like Jews but did not acknowledge their Judaism must have produced an oppressive atmosphere in the Flavian years. James Rives goes beyond this, arguing that the destruction of the Temple and the depositing of sacred objects represented a genuine effort to stamp out the Temple cult which, in Roman eyes, constituted a civic cult and a threat to imperial stability. Daniel Schwartz's paper, with different objectives, extends this theme still further. He points to the ostensibly anomalous decision to resume the administration of the Jewish state as a Roman province instead of bestowing it upon the Roman supporter Agrippa II as an enlarged kingdom. For Schwartz, this amounted to a decision to eliminate Judaea as a territorial entity, a decision reflected in the fact that the term Ioudaioi tended to lose its geographical connotation thereafter and became a designation for "Jews" rather than "Judaeans." The scene after 70, in short, was grim indeed. One might question some of the more speculative ideas expressed in these essays, such as Goodman's suggestion that "Judaizing" indicated opposition to the Flavian regime or Rives' notion that Rome regarded Jerusalem as a rival focus of loyalty in the empire. Nonetheless, the climate in Rome for a Jewish intellectual like Josephus, after the fall of Jerusalem, would not seem to have been the most hospitable and... (shrink)

This article argues against the long-enduring practice of Josephan scholarship to treat the termsτύραννος(‘tyrant’) andλῃστής(‘brigand’) as a collocation, or as undistinguished terms of invective employed by Josephus against various Jewish antagonists in hisBellum Judaicum(=BJ). Towards this aim, the article first examines the frequency in which these two terms appear together throughout the text of theBJ, before turning to a critical examination of particular passages that feature the terms, in order to prove that they are, in fact, not used as (...) undistinguished terms of invective but as terms pertaining to two distinct classes of people: renegade aristocrats vying with their peers for absolute power (the ‘tyrants’) and their gangs of foot soldiers comprising men from the lower classes (the ‘brigands’). The article concludes that Josephus used these terms in this manner in order to convey to his readership, which largely consisted of Roman aristocrats, that the ringleaders of the Judaean revolt which raged betweena.d.66–73 were akin to renegades who periodically wreaked havoc on Rome's own aristocracy, often with devastating consequences for class and country alike. (shrink)

In Greek Writers and Philosophers in Philo and Josephus Erkki Koskenniemi investigates how two Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus, quoted, mentioned and referred to Greek writers and philosophers.

‘Epaphroditus’ is perhaps the commonest of Roman slave names apart from ‘Felix’, which it sometimes renders as a Greek equivalent. It is also used very extensively under the early empire by those with tria nomina, whether freedmen or freeborn, whether descendants of freedmen or not, whether citizens or Junian Latins. It is also found among decurions and even equestrians, but not senators. It thus has a non-elite resonance in the western half of the empire, but, like almost all personal cognomina, (...) not exclusively so. (shrink)

The Against Apion of Josephus is not only a defense of Judaism and Jewish history, but also an essay in historiography and historical criticism, as an outline of the work reveals. Josephus explains how history should and should not be written, and attempts to prove that certain versions of the past are truer than others. The Against Apion may attack the reliability and integrity of Greek historiography as being divisive and instable, but it is from the Greeks that (...) Josephus learned the idea and techniques of historical criticism. He develops his argument by appeal to the superiority of Jewish history, canon, and community, but all these pro-Jewish and anti-Greek arguments have Greek origins. The Greek argument from consensus shaped the historical and theological argumentation of the Against Apion, and Greek precedents provided the basis for the ahistorical or antihistorical view of Judaism that Josephus proposes. Josephus' polemic proves weakest in his argument from canon, and in his contrasting Jewish stability with Greek restiveness. (shrink)

This book is a revision of the author's dissertation, which was submitted to the Classics Department of the University of California at Irvine. Because there is no comprehensive study of the Sicarii in Josephus' Judean War, Brighton's book is a welcome addition to the rapidly growing body of literature devoted to this first-century C.E. Jewish historian.

The strained relation between Samaritans and Jews as a fruit of long-term process from the division of the United Kingdom of Israel (ca. 931 B.C.E) became a dominant issue since the post-exilic period and became more pronounced in the first century C.E. Beside the Old Testament, the story of their relation which was full of conflict can be traced to extra-biblical sources. One of them is Flavius Josephus’ works (ca. 70 to 100 C.E), i.e., Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities. (...) The root of the conflict is related to the presence of the Second Jerusalem Temple. The peak of the conflict is the construction of the Mount Gerizim temple in which some Jews regarded the adherents of the Samaritan cult as schismatic. The founding of this rival temple of Jerusalem aggravated the bad relations between Samaritans and Jews. The destruction of the Mount Gerizim temple by John Hyrcanus was a crucial incident for their relations. The conflict between Samaritans and Jews still continued in the Roman period. By historical approach, this study would setforth the examination of some Josephus’ accounts regarding the historical process of the estrangement and rivalry between Samaritans and Jews which resulted in the final split in second century B.C.E. Keywords: Samaritans, Jews, Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Temple, Jerusalem, Mount Gerizim. Abstrak: Relasi tegang antara orang Samaria dan Yahudi merupakan buah dari proses yang panjang sejak pecahnya Kerajaan Israel Raya (sekitar 931 B.C.E). Relasi mereka ini menjadi masalah dominan sejak periode setelah pembuangan dan semakin jelas pada abad pertama masehi. Di samping Perjanjian Lama, kisah tentang relasi mereka yang penuh konflik dapat dilacak dalam sumber-sumber di luar Alkitab. Salah satunya adalah karya dari Flavius Josephus (sekitar 70 sampai 100 M), yaitu Perang Yahudi dan Sejarah Yahudi. Akar dari konflik itu adalah kehadiran Bait Allah Yerusalem Kedua. Puncak dari konflik itu adalah pembangunan Bait Allah di Gunung Gerizim di mana sejumlah orang Yahudi kemudian menganggap pengikut ibadah orang Samaria sebagai skismatis. Pendirian tandingan Bait Allah Yerusalem ini memperparah relasi buruk antara Samaria dan Yahudi. Penghancuran Bait Allah di Gunung Gerizim oleh Yohanes Hyrcanus menjadi insiden krusial bagi relasi mereka. Konflik antara orang Samaria dan Yahudi masih terus berlangsung pada periode Romawi. Dengan pendekatan historis, studi ini akan memaparkan penelitian kisah-kisah dari karya Josephus berkaitan dengan proses perpecahan dan persaingan antara orang Samaria dan Yahudi memuncak pada perpecahannya pada abad II SM. Kata-kata Kunci: Samaria, Yahudi, Flavius Josephus, Sejarah Yahudi, Bait Allah, Yerusalem, Gunung Gerizim. (shrink)

This is a relatively short but important book. Boys-Stones argues for the following : Both Platonists and Christians from the end of the first century A.D. onwards grounded the authority of a doctrine in its antiquity. Christian writers claimed that Christianity is the expression of an ancient wisdom from which both Judaism and pagan philosophy are deviations. Platonists claimed that Plato gave the fullest expression to an ancient wisdom also preserved, though less perfectly, in the supposed writings of Orpheus and (...) Pythagoras. This approach is itself a development from the attempts of Platonists to resist skeptical arguments from the disagreements between different schools by claiming that the philosophical schools that developed after Plato changed his doctrines for the worse, this explaining their disagreements, combined with the appeal, developed by the Stoics and more widely influential in the early Imperial period, to a supposed wisdom of earlier mankind preserved in imperfect form in mythological doctrines. Boys-Stones draws careful distinctions: while the early Stoics distinguished between the pre-philosophical, natural understanding of the earliest humans, and the subsequent development of a conscious inquiry into nature, Posidonius argued for the presence of philosophers even in the Golden Age, resisting an innate human tendency towards evil. Boys-Stones describes how the first-century A.D. Stoic Cornutus took the further step of arguing that the early philosophers themselves expressed their doctrines in allegorical form, whereas for the early Stoics the contributions of poets had obscured the truth rather than expressing it. A new emphasis on antiquity is also apparent, Boys-Stones argues, in Josephus’s responses to Hellenistic anti-Semitic arguments, and in Philo of Alexandria’s readiness to interpret Greek myths as allegorical expressions of the truth. Thus, for Boys-Stones, and together gave rise to the view that Plato gave the fullest expression to truths which derived their authority from their antiquity. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:A New Essenism: Heinrich Graetz and MysticismJonathan M. ElukinSince the Reformation, European Christians have sought to understand the origins of Christianity by studying the world of Second Temple Judaism. These efforts created a fund of scholarly knowledge of ancient Judaism, but they labored under deep-seated pre judices about the nature of Judaism. When Jewish scholars in nineteenth-century Europe, primarily in Germany, came to study their own history as part (...) of the Wissenschaft des Judentums movement, they too looked to the ancient Jewish past as a crucia l element in understanding Jewish history.A central figure in the Wissenschaft movement was Heinrich Graetz (1817–1891). 1 In his massive history of the Jews, the dominant synthesis of Jewish history until well into the twentieth century, Graetz constructed a narrative of Jewish history that imbedded mysticism deep within the Jewish past, finding its origins in the first-cen tury sectarian Essenes. 2 Anchoring mysticism among the Essenes was crucial for Graetz’s larger narrative of the history of Judaism, which he saw as a continuing struggle between the corrosive effects of mysticism [End Page 135] and the rational rabbinic tradition. An unchanging mysticism was a mirror image of the unchanging monotheistic essence of normative Judaism that dominated Graetz’s understanding of Jewish history. Ironically, this narrative model of the history of mystic ism may have been influenced by Christian attacks on Judaism itself, a point which I can briefly take up at the conclusion of the article. First let us turn to the role that the Essenes played in Graetz’s historical ideology of mysticism.Graetz inherited a long intellectual tradition about the identity of first-century sectarians. Ever since the fourth-century historian Eusebius asserted that the therapeutae, a group mentioned by Philo, were actually Christian monks, the religious identity of these Alexandrian sectarians—distinct from the Essenes—had been the subject of constant debate. 3 Were they Jews or Christian ascetics? During the Middle Ages the tradition articulated by Eusebius gave the Church an additional claim for the antiquity of one of its central institutions. The religious identity of the Essenes, a seemingly similar sectar ian group mentioned by Josephus and other ancient historians, also became a point of dispute. 4 The secluded, monastic life of the Essenes made them equally likely candidates to be proto-Christians. The dispute over the alleged Christian nature of the therapeutae and the Essenes would survive, after generations of Catholic and Protestant sch olarly polemic, into nineteenth-century scholarship on late antique Judaism. 5It was in the work of Graetz that the Essenes and their putative relationship to Christianity received the fullest treatment by a Jewish historian. 6 Since the only documented therapeutae were in Alexandria, they could not be considered [End Page 136] likely sources—even if they were Jewish—for a nascent Palestinian Christianity. The Essenes offered more fertile ground to explore the relationship between Judaism and early Christianity.Graetz’s argument that Jesus and Christianity had their origins among the Essenes developed in the context of a fierce scholarly polemic between Christians and Jews in the nineteenth century as well as in the context of internal Jewish debates. Before exp loring this larger background, let us first see how Graetz made his case for the connection between Jesus and the Essenes. Making this connection was crucial for Graetz if Christianity was to be understood as the first systematic expression of a mysticism that had flourished among the Essenes.The Essenes were the first, according to Graetz, to articulate a firmly held belief in the coming of the Messiah, a belief which had grown in intensity during the turmoil and oppression of Roman rule. 7 Christianity, “or rather this Essenism intermingled with foreign elements,” had its origins in this messianic longing. 8 It was no surprise that John the Baptist was the first to proclaim the arrival of the Messiah, since he was so obviously an Essene. 9 Graetz makes his case for John’s Essene background on the apparent similarity of their habits, most notably the common theme of daily immersion and the fact that both John the Baptist (“oder richtiger der Essäer” [“or rather... (shrink)

Clues in the Gospels, evidence from Jewish historian Josephus, belief in the transmigration of souls, and well-documented examples of erroneous declarations of death, combine to support a natural explanation for the Easter story: Jesus survives his short stay on the cross, and is discovered to be barely alive by the few followers who retrieve him. Fearful because they have illegally retrieved a condemned man, they carry out a decoy burial in a tomb. Jesus expires soon after, and is buried (...) quietly in an anonymous grave, but rumor of his survival reaches his followers, as well as the Romans, who open the tomb and find it empty, except for burial linen used in the decoy. To sooth their grief the disciples seize on the rumor of Jesus’ survival and encourage each other to hear the voice and see the image of their master in others. Although the probability of the scenario proposed herein is low, it is surely far larger than the supernatural one. It also is arguably more likely than other non-supernatural hypotheses. It does not require Jesus to survive his crucifixion and meet his followers, or, if Jesus died, to have his body stolen, or be removed from the tomb after the Sabbath and reburied in a lower class graveyard. One only need propose that Jesus was still alive when taken down from the cross and envision how events most likely would unfold from there. (shrink)

Herennius Philo of Byblos is the subject of a notice in the Suda, which states that he was a grammarian born in Nero's time who lived to such an advanced age that he was still composing works in the reign of Hadrian. The titles listed include: On the Acquisition and Choice of Books; On Cities and their Eminent Citizens; and On the Reign of Hadrian . His name, like that of Flavius Josephus, could imply the patronage of a Roman (...) family; we may suppose that, like Porphyry and Maximus of Tyre, he was a Phoenicean by origin who had adopted the tongue and culture of the Greeks. (shrink)

Pierluigi Piovanelli | : Tacite est le seul témoin explicite d’une persécution des « chrétiens » de Rome à la suite du célèbre incendie de la capitale, en 64 de notre ère, une catastrophe dont la population aurait attribué la responsabilité criminelle à l’empereur Néron, si les adeptes de cette « superstition pernicieuse » originaire de la Judée n’avaient pas été opportunément identifiés comme les coupables. Si, d’un côté, il est facile de comprendre la nécessité pour le pouvoir impérial de (...) trouver rapidement des boucs émissaires, de l’autre, il n’est pas aisé de concevoir les raisons qui firent que le choix se porte sur les membres d’un groupe sectaire judéen tout à fait marginal. L’examen de quelques textes clés de Flavius Josèphe et des écrits apocalyptiques contemporains permet de mieux comprendre quelles étaient les attentes des milieux radicaux judéens et quelle était la perception que les Romains pouvaient avoir de ceux qui, à leurs yeux, n’étaient que des agitateurs et des brigands. | : Tacitus is the only witness to the persecution of the “Christians” in Rome following the famous fire of 64 CE that severely burned the capital city ; a catastrophe for which Nero would have been considered responsible had the followers of that “most mischievous superstition” of Judean origins not been identified as the culprits. If, on the one hand, it is easy to understand the urgency for the imperial power to find scapegoats, on the other hand, it is not so easy to imagine the reasons why the members of a Judean sectarian, marginal group were eventually chosen. A new look at a series of key passages from the writings of Josephus and contemporary apocalyptic texts allow us to have a better understanding of the expectations at work among the members of Judean radical groups, as well as the perception that Romans could have had of those who, in their opinion, were simply agitators and bandits. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Klio Jahrgang: 99 Heft: 2 Seiten: 566-585.

According to Mark 6:14–29, John the Baptist was beheaded by the order of Herod Antipas. This dramatic event became inevitable after a cunning interplay between Herodias and her daughter, who remains nameless in the New Testament. According to Flavius Josephus, she was called Salome ( Jewish Antiquities XVIII, 5.4 § 136–137), and under that name, she went down in history. For the sake of convenience, I also call her ‘Salome’ in this article. Salome is the Greek form of the (...) Hebrew name Shlomith, which was very popular in early Judaic times and means ‘she who brings peace and tranquillity’. Unlike the faithful women elsewhere in Mark’s gospel (5:21–43; 7:24–30; 14:3–9), Herodias and her daughter are not exactly models of virtue. Yet, it is questionable as to whether they are both thoroughly bad and whether they are both equally responsible for the murder of John. This article does not provide a historical reconstruction of what exactly happened at the court of Herod Antipas, but it contains a narrative analysis of what happened in the court of Herod Antipas. This narrative analysis is followed by an intertextual approach in the second part of this article. Firstly, I will compare Mark’s story with what Flavius Josephus tells about the beheading of John. Thereafter, I will highlight the roles of Herodias and Salome in the play Salome by Oscar Wilde from 1894, which, in turn, forms the basis of the libretto for the opera Salome by Richard Strauss from 1905. Do we encounter in these modern artistic recreations (Neuschöpfungen) only transformations of Mark’s story, or also transgressions in which Wilde and Strauss have largely replaced the original meaning of the story with new meaning? (shrink)

A keen student of theology, August Friedrich Gfrörer became professor of history at the University of Freiburg and also sat as a representative in the Frankfurt parliament, agitating for the reunification of Protestantism and Catholicism. His academic work marked the modern period in the Christian study of Judaism, making full use of primary sources without pursuing an obvious apologetic or polemical agenda. This two-volume work, published in 1831, is a critical study of early Christianity and the influence that Judaism had (...) on the New Testament. Volume 2 is devoted to substantiating the thesis that the core principles of Philo's theology were already discernible among the Alexandrian Jews. Gfrörer traces how Philo's theology and philosophy were transplanted to Palestine via such sects as the Therapeutae and the Essenes as well as through the historian Josephus. The Apocrypha serve as Gfrörer's main primary source. (shrink)