Download Essay: To what extent can Josephus` work on the Jewish War be

Essay: To what extent can Josephus’ work on the Jewish War be described as an
apologia for the Jewish people?
Flavius Josephus was born in 37 AD into an aristocratic priestly family. His early life was spent in Jerusalem. As a
young man he was part of a delegation to Rome to secure the release of some imprisoned priests, which was
successful. He returned to Palestine in AD 66 to find a state of tension and revolt, sparked, according to
Josephus, by the deliberately provocative actions of the Roman Procurator Florus which unleashed an
outpouring of pent-up frustrations and anger on the part of sections of the Jewish people.
Josephus and other moderates among the Jewish ruling class found themselves at the head of a full-scale
rebellion against Roman rule. Josephus was sent as a commander to Galilee, where he was defeated by the
Roman general Vespasian and captured. After prophesying that Vespasian would become Roman emperor, he
was released in AD 69 when this came true, and was present (on the Roman side) during the siege and
destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple by Vespasian's son Titus in AD 70. Josephus spent the rest of his life in
Rome, and took the name Flavius from his imperial patrons. He wrote The Jewish War a few years later. The
triumphal arch of Titus, celebrating his victory, can still be seen in Rome.
Although Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus, his writings give invaluable information about the life,
events and people of first-century Palestine, amplifying much of the information found in the Gospels.
ABBREVIATIONS
BJ
AJ
V
CA
The Jewish War (De Bello Judaico)
Antiquities of the Jews
Vita (“Life”)
Against Apion (Contra Apionem)
BCE (Before the Common Era) = BC
CE (Common Era) = AD
The English translation of the Jewish War used in this essay is by G.A. Williamson (revised edition by Mary Smallwood; London:
Penguin books 1981). Other translations (by William Whiston) are in the public domain and accessible on the internet.
For full details of works mentioned in the footnotes, please see the Bibliography.
Introduction: A Jew in Rome
Josephus' writings are one of the most important sources of information about Judaism and Jewish history
in the first century CE. His Jewish War is the most extensive account of the war which led to the
destruction of Jerusalem and, most importantly the Temple. And although Josephus was not respected by
his fellow-Jews at the time, due to his having switched to the enemy's side in the war, the Jewish War (for
which I shall use the usual academic abbreviation BJ) has been a subject of interest for modern Jewish
scholars, as they have sought to gain a better understanding of this event which had such devastating
consequences for the Jewish people.
The purpose of an apologia is to make a defence against accusations or misunderstanding. Williamson
in The World of Josephus devotes most of his chapter on Josephus as an apologist to the latter's praise for
the Romans, in particular for Vespasian and Titus and his conclusion that the Jews had brought the disaster
on themselves1. Indeed, Josephus, who had been granted Roman citizenship and was living under the
patronage of Vespasian and Titus in a house formerly occupied by the latter, had a debt of gratitude to
repay to his patrons, and it was important to portray them in a good light. But while this aspect is
important, we must also remember that Josephus remained, in his own eyes, a patriot and a loyal
adherent to the faith he had grown up with and served as a priest. We can see from his later works, the
Antiquities of the Jews (AJ), Life (V) and Against Apion (CA), that Josephus remained intensely committed
to his religion and proud of his people and their traditions.
BJ was written in the aftermath of a war of several years' duration in which the capital city, and more
importantly, the sacred Temple, of his people had been destroyed. The success of Titus had been
celebrated with the customary triumph and associated celebrations in Rome, and the captives and plunder
1 Geoffrey Williamson The world of Josephus, pp 274-286
processed through the streets. News of the revolt and the ensuing disaster that had befallen the Jews was
common knowledge in Rome, and Josephus must have had to deal with many adverse comments as he
moved within aristocratic Roman circles. He was also a member of a religious and ethnic minority which
had a long-standing reputation for being idiosyncratic, fiercely attached to their traditions and difficult to
govern. It would be surprising if his writings, and especially that dealing with the war, did not contain a
degree of apologia, both for his people and for himself, as well as praise for his imperial patrons.
In this essay we will consider to what extent Josephus balances these objectives in a way that includes
an apologia for the Jewish people. To do so requires us to interpret what he wrote, and so we shall need
first to consider in more detail the social and political context in which Josephus, as an aristocratic Jew
living in Rome, was writing, the ways in which Josephus uses conventions of ancient historiography to
achieve his objectives, and the interpretation that he gives to the events he describes and the motivations
of the protagonists.
The status of Jews and Judaism within Roman Empire
The relationship between the Jews and the Roman Empire developed against a backdrop of longstanding tension between Jews and Greek culture from the time of Alexander on. The Jews' first contacts
with the Romans were as allies who they hoped would aid them against the Hellenistic Seleucids. Treaties
were made with the Romans by Judas Maccabaeus in BCE 161, by his brother Jonathan in 146 and by
Simon and John Hyrcanus thereafter.
With Pompey's intervention in the conflict between Artistobulus and Hyrcanus in 63 BCE, the Jews
came under Roman control. Josephus in AJ lists a number of edicts by Roman emperors and governors
granting the Jews protection and the right to observe their traditions unhindered; for example, Josephus
records (AJ IV:10) decrees made by Julius Caesar and the Roman government shortly after his death for
the benefit of the Jews and establishing special privileges for them to observe their religion. Philo, in his
Legatio ad Gaium (309-319) reminds Caligula of his grandfather's instructions to the governors of Asia
regarding the Jews2. The goodwill of the Romans towards the Jews was maintained by members of the
Herod family, whose frequent visits to Rome and friendly relations with members of the imperial family
helped to maintain Roman tolerance of this unusual people, with their exclusive practices and
uncompromising religious beliefs.
This tolerance, however, was always prone to evaporate at moments of conflict and tension. There
were several expulsions of Jews from Rome during the first century CE, due to various misunderstandings
and conflicts. Newcomers to Roman office, whether in Rome or in the provinces, did not always readily
understand or accept the idiosyncrasies of the Jews or their desire to be exempted from social and political
duties in order, for example, to keep the Sabbath. Pontius Pilate, upon becoming prefect of Judaea,
caused considerable offence by bringing imperial standards into Jerusalem, although reluctantly had them
removed after the most earnest entreaties from the Jews (BJ II:169-174). In Alexandria in 38 CE the
procurator Flaccus commanded that statues of the emperor Caius (Caligula) should be set up in
synagogues, resulting in a delegation to Rome under Philo in 40 CE (see Philo Adversus Flaccum and De
legatione ad Caium). Caligula's orders to Petronius to have his statue erected in the Jerusalem Temple
resulted in a stand-off between the governor and the Jewish people and their leaders:
Petronius asked: 'Will you then go to war with Caesar?' The Jews replied that for Caesar and the people of Rome
they sacrificed twice a day. But if he wished to set up the images in their midst, he must first sacrifice the whole
Jewish race; they were ready to offer themselves as victims with their wives and children. (BJ II:196-198)
Petronius eventually understood that the Jews' loyalty to their religion did not necessarily mean a lack
of loyalty to Rome. But the issue of the imperial cult would continue to be a source of conflict, not just for
the Jews, but also for the emerging Jewish sect of Christians for whom it would also in subsequent years
become a defining issue.
The Romans were happy to absorb different cults and religions into the empire, provided they did not
undermine good order and obedience to the State. They could not understand why the Jews were so
intolerant of religions other than their own. Moreover, the Jews' custom of keeping themselves separate
from other nations, and forbidding non-Jews to enter all but the outer court of the Temple, gave rise to
2 Tessa Rajak, The Jewish Dialogue with Greek and Rome, p314
suspicions and wild stories about the Jewish religion, as we see from Josephus' need to refute the wild
allegations of Apion about the Temple containing a golden ass's head, and about the kidnapping of a man
to be fattened up for sacrifice (Against Apion II:7-8).
Prejudice against the Jews and their religion was deep-rooted in the Roman establishment. Over a
hundred years before, Cicero had commented on the conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey thus:
While Jerusalem was flourishing, and while the Jews were in a peaceful state, still the religious ceremonies and
observances of that people were very much at variance with the splendour of this empire, and the dignity of our
name, and the institutions of our ancestors. And they are the more odious to us now, because that nation has
shown by arms what were its feelings towards our supremacy. (Pro Flacco, 28)
In this context, any Jew who mixed with the Romans would inevitably find himself in the role of an
apologist for his people and their religion, with its practice of sabbath observance, circumcision and food
laws.
But perhaps at this time more than ever Josephus felt the need to defend his people and their religion.
Mireille Hadas-Lebel notes a growing anti-Jewish sentiment in the writings of Martial, Juvenal and Tacitus.
Tacitus, indeed, calls the Jews “this vilest of nations”(Histories V:8). Although these writings were a little
after the time of writing of BJ, she is right to suspect that this prejudice, already expressed in previous
expulsions of Jews from Rome, may have been fostered by annoyance at the vast expenditure of money,
effort and lives needed to put down the Jewish revolt over a period of 8 years 3.
The reason for writing The Jewish War
Josephus' response is to write a history of the war, adopting a familiar genre of Greek literature. We know
from references within the work and comparison with the events in Rome in the ten or so years following
the destruction of the Temple that BJ was written in the 70's CE 4. In his preface to BJ Josephus explains
that he is motivated by reading misleading and inaccurate accounts of the war. All history claimed to tell
the truth, and in his Preface Josephus makes a strong claim to 'state the facts accurately and impartially'
(BJ I:9) in contradistinction to other unnamed writers (BJ I:1). While Josephus promises not to exaggerate
the heroism of his countrymen, he also argues that to belittle the actions of the Jews will also diminish the
glory of those who defeated them (BJ I:8). Josephus, therefore, in promising to show how great a triumph
has been won by Titus, is thereby also tacitly justifying a positive portrayal of the Jews as worthy
opponents.
A similar sleight of hand can be observed in way Josephus prepares the reader for his description of
Titus's attitude and actions during the siege of Jerusalem, in which he will write of “the persistence with
which Titus showed his anxiety to save the City and the Sanctuary” (I:27). In portraying Titus as respectful
of the sanctity and splendour of the city and Temple, Josephus is tacitly inviting the reader to have the
same attitude (especially as Titus was at the time of writing the heir-apparent to the Empire). We see,
therefore, that an apologetic approach to the Jewish people is built into his intentions for the book.
In BJ Josephus seeks to answer the questions he expects his Gentile readers to be asking: Who were
these people who had suffered such a defeat, and what had motivated them to revolt? An historian in the
ancient world was conscious of the need to inform and entertain, so as well as information about the
people, their customs and their country, the reader would expect accounts of battle exploits and speeches
of the main protagonists, rewritten for them using the rhetorical skills which were a much prized part of
Graeco-Roman culture. Here again the genre provides Josephus with the opportunity to present an
apologia for the Jews, both by explaining the political history leading up to the war, and the political
developments during it, and by putting his interpretation in the mouths of the protagonists.
On top of all this, Josephus asks for his readers' indulgence in bearing with the expression of 'my own
feelings and emotions; for I must permit myself to bewail my country's tragedy' (BJ I:9). This is a direct
appeal for a sympathetic hearing, balanced by an appeal to the authority of Titus:
3 Mireille Hadas-Lebel Flavius Josèphe: le Juif de Rome, pp 231-237.
4 For a detailed investigation of this see Shaye J.D. Cohen Josephus in Galilee and Rome, ch 4. Cohen
believes Book VII was written later than Books I-VI, which themselves were revised at several points
...the Romans who so unwillingly set fire to the Temple were brought in by the Jews' self-appointed rulers, as Titus
Caesar, the Temple's destroyer, has testified. (BJ 1)5
Josephus' interpretation of the War
The fact that BJ will contain elements of apologetic for the Jews does not, of course, prevent Josephus
from acknowledging that the Jews brought the calamity upon themselves. As he says in his Preface, 'for
our misfortunes we have only ourselves to blame' (BJ I:12). Such a simplistic statement was no doubt
designed to please Roman readers, especially the Flavian family. But as we read on, we see that Josephus'
analysis is actually more subtle. He chooses to devote the first of his seven books and the first part of
Book II to Jewish history from the time of the Maccabees to the reign of Herod the Great, the tyranny of
Archelaus and the political ups and downs under the Roman procurators. The pattern of in-fighting
between different political groups, and insensitivity, incompetence and corruption on the part of a number
of the procurators, the scourge of groups of brigands and the hostility of Samaritans and the Gentile
inhabitants of Greek cities within Palestine set the scene for the conflict that ensues between the different
revolutionary groups and the Jewish aristocratic hierarchy immediately before and after the outbreak of
the war. There is a perception of inevitability, and it only needs Florus's allegedly deliberate provocations
to spark a full-scale revolt. A further factor could be described as the irony of fate: had Cestius not
abandoned his siege of Jerusalem, Josephus speculates, the Jews would have been subdued and the war
would have been over without the massive destruction that was wrought by Titus (BJ II:539) – although
Josephus sees this as part of God's plan.
At the same time, the piety and courage of the Jews is emphasised, for example in the incident with
Pilate and the standards, where the crowd lie down and bare their necks to the Roman soldiers rather than
accept the profanation of their holy city by the idolatrous standards (BJ II:174). The Temple is described as
being respected throughout the world, and indeed Titus makes every effort to save it from being burnt
down. The Jews continue to carry out their daily sacrifices in the Temple in the midst of the siege – though
Josephus makes no mention of how they found animals to sacrifice in the midst of the siege-induced
famine. The courage of the Jewish fighters is celebrated, including even that of the revolutionaries whom
Josephus blames for the disaster. Thus, even while describing the story of a people who are riven by
factions and whose folly ultimately leads to their downfall, he manages to present positive images.
In Josephus' analysis there are essentially two alternative political positions among the Jews: the
revolutionaries who want to win freedom from Roman rule, and the moderates who see resistance to
Rome as futile, due to the invincible might of the Roman army, and believe that ultimately accommodation
to Roman rule offers the best prospects for the Jewish people. This latter is the position of the Jewish
priestly hierarchy, of which Josephus himself was a member, and Agrippa, who argues the case in a lengthy
speech to the inhabitants of Jerusalem following the latest atrocities of Florus (BJ II:345-401). Florus's
behaviour, argues Agrippa, is not representative of the Romans in general, and procurators come and go.
Patient submission is the best way to diffuse the aggression of overbearing masters. Besides, taking
account of all the proud and powerful nations who have submitted to Roman rule, the prospects of the
Jews being able to throw off the Roman yoke after submitting to it for so long are nil. Moreover, the
success of the Romans is clear evidence that God is on their side, since 'without his help so vast an empire
could never have been built up' (BJ II:390). On the other hand, waging war against the Romans will
inevitably bring down their wrath and disaster for the Jews. Agrippa virtually predicts the destruction of
the Temple as well as the ensuing violence against the Jews living in Gentile cities – which of course is
what happens. Josephus is here using the Greek historiographical convention of putting speeches in the
mouths of protagonists which express the views of the historian.
But he is also making an apologetic point on behalf of the Jews. The message for Josephus' readers is
that Jews are not all seditious or opposed to Roman rule. The Jewish hierarchy never wanted this war, and
tried to prevent it happening. Wise Jews recognise the hand of the Almighty in the affairs of nations, and
5 Compare Josephus' statement in Vita : 'And I was so well assured of the truth of what I related, that I
first of all appealed to those that had the supreme command in that war, Vespasian and Titus, as
witnesses for me, for to them I presented those books first of all, and after them to many of the Romans
who had been in the war.' (V I:47)
are willing to acknowledge that the Romans have God on their side. As Josephus reminds his compatriots
in one of his speeches during the siege of Jerusalem,
What corner of the earth had escaped the Romans, unless heat or cold made it of no value to them? From every
side fortune had passed to them, and God, who handed dominion over from nation to nation round the world,
abode now in Italy (BJ V:366-367).
Further evidence of the Jews' goodwill towards the Romans is the twice-daily sacrifice made on behalf
of the Emperor and the empire in the Jerusalem Temple, as the Jews point out to Petronius in the passage
already quoted (BJ II:197). It is 'the leading citizens, the chief priests and the most prominent of the
Pharisees' (of whom Josephus was one) who seek to persuade the people to reverse the decision to halt
this, an action which effectively becomes a declaration of war against the Romans (BJ II:411).
In addition to being brought up within a ruling class that had been accustomed to collaborating with
the Romans, Josephus had personal experience as a young adult of being part of a delegation to Rome that
successfully negotiated the release of some Jewish priests. Through a fortuitous contact, he had managed
to get the ear of the empress, and discovered that diplomacy could achieve results. At the same time,
Josephus must have been overawed by his experience of the Roman capital. Reflection on how God had
allowed this idolatrous people to rule the world had convinced him that the answer was to leave the
future in God's hands and that the self-interest of the Jews lay in accommodation to the Roman Empire,
rather than opposition6.
Although the moderates, under the High Priest Ananus, initially take leadership in the revolution, the
impression given by Josephus is that this is an attempt to mitigate a situation that had already got out of
hand. War had now been declared, and the role taken by Josephus (as general in charge of defences in
Galilee) and other moderate leaders was to try to protect the country as best they could against the
Roman onslaught.
Politically, therefore, Josephus shows that the war was not caused by the Jewish nation uniting in
opposition to the Romans. Rather, a sequence of events, and the corrupt behaviour of Florus and earlier
procurators, had played into the hands of a minority who were in favour of revolt. As the story unfolds,
Josephus focusses on the activities of the leading revolutionaries, also described as bandits and tyrants,
who take over Jerusalem and force the populace to submit to them. They are accused of committing
atrocities against both the common people and the leading citizens, and of being greedy for money and
power.
Here again, Josephus follows a common technique in ancient historiography of exaggerating both the
virtues of heroes and the vices of villains. This serves him well as he seeks to put the blame for the Jews'
calamities on the principal revolutionaries. This is how he describes the two leading characters, John of
Gischala and Simon son of Gioras:
Now as Josephus was busy organising the defence of Galilee, there appeared on the scene a plotter from
Gischala, the son of Levi, John by name, the most unprincipled trickster that ever won ill fame by such vicious
habits. (BJ II: 585)
Simon, son of Gioras, collected a large band of revolutionaries and gave himself up to pillage. He not only looted
the houses of the rich, but he ill-used them personally; and it was evident that his aim was despotism. (BJ II:652)
We will come shortly to the theological dimension of Josephus' interpretation of the war. But before
leaving the human aspects, it is helpful to make a brief comparison between Josephus' analysis and the
broader picture of life in Palestine that emerges from modern historical investigation. McLaren points out
that Josephus chooses his material and adjusts his method of presenting it to justify his conclusions:
What Josephus narrates is primarily an expression of his desire for understanding of the disaster of 70 CE. It is a
history of flash points which has focused on certain issues and events. 7
There seems to be an important social dimension that is behind the willingness of the populace to
support the war. Shimon Applebaum explores the sociological evidence and concludes that patterns of
land ownership being concentrated in the hands of the rich, and the impact of taxation, both by the
6 See Mireille Hadas-Lebel Flavius Josèphe : le Juif de Rome, pp 72-74
7 James S. McLaren Turbulent times? Josephus and scholarship on Judaea in the first century CE, p291
Romans and by the Temple/priestly aristocracy, had sowed seeds of discontent that fomented unrest. 8
Heinz Kreisig draws attention to resentment of the common people to the wealthy and notes that
the actions of these sikarioi, who joined the rebel priests in the Temple, appear to have been the following: the
occupation of the Upper City, the burning and plundering of the houses of the high priest Ananias and the palaces
of Agrippa and Berenice, the storming of the city archives, the cancellation of debts, and the destruction of the
Antonia and the palace of Herod.9
He concludes that
the masses of the people wanted renewal, that is the elimination of the old apparatus of state headed by the
Sandhedrin composed of high priests and large landowners, along with the entire nest of nepotism and
enrichment at the expense of the people. 10
Rhoads comes to the same viewpoint:
Thus, the war was not only a national revolt against Rome, it was also a class war among the Jews. The majority
of revolutionaries saw the war as an opportunity not only to exclude the foreign power, but also to overthrow the
traditional aristocratic Jewish government.11
Josephus prefers to ignore this complex of causality in which the interests of his own social class were
enmeshed with those of the Roman occupation. He thus avoids criticism both of the Roman imperial
system and of the very group he presents as the moderate representatives of the Jews, his own priestly
ruling class. The blame for the war is placed squarely on the shoulders of a group of bloodthirsty and selfseeking 'bandits', who drag the people down with them to destruction.
Theological explanation
Josephus' political explanation of the war is linked to the even more important theological explanation. We
have already seen that he had concluded that the success of the Roman empire, including its control of
Palestine, was an expression of the divine will. But for any Jew, the destruction of Jerusalem and, most
crucially, the Temple, was the stuff of the worst possible nightmare. We must not forget that Josephus'
first version of BJ, in 'his own native tongue' (probably Aramaic), was written for Jews living outside
Palestine. To understand this terrible event required, for them, not just a political explanation – the
events, the people, the politics – but a theological one: why had God allowed such a catastrophe to
happen? Neusner points out that the biblical paradigm of the destruction of the first Temple provided a
model for understanding this event:
When the Temple was destroyed in AD 70, it was perfectly natural, therefore, to interpret the event as a penalty
for sin.12
Josephus explicitly draws the parallel:
We may too wonder at the exactness of the cycle of Fate: she kept, as I said, to the very month and day which
centuries before had seen the Sanctuary burnt by the Babylonians (BJ VI:268).
McLaren sums up Josephus' interpretation thus:
Josephus declares that the Roman victory was possible only because God had deserted the Jews. The destruction
of Jerusalem was punishment from God because of the crimes committed by the Jews. In effect, the Jews defeated
themselves. Their crimes against one another, especially their faction fighting during the war, polluted Jerusalem. 13
The principal bearers of this guilt were the revolutionaries/bandits/tyrants whose lust for money and
power, according to Josephus, exceeded any claim they made that they were motivated by the desire from
freedom from slavery to the Romans. The violence he accuses them of inflicting on their own people,
particularly in Jerusalem both before and during the Roman siege, their pollution of the sanctity of the
Temple of which they had seized control, and their obstinacy in rejecting opportunities to repent given
8 Applebaum, Shimon 'Economic Causes of the Jewish War' in Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata (eds)
Josephus, the Bible, and history
9 Heinz Kreisig “A Marxist View of Josephus' The Jewish War” in Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata (eds)
Josephus, the Bible, and history, p275
10 Kreisig, p 275
11 David Rhoads Israel in Revolution, 6-74 CE: a political history based on the writings of Josephus
12 Jacob Neusner Ancient Israel after catastrophe: the religious world view of the Mishnah
13 James S. McLaren Turbulent times? Josephus and scholarship on Judaea in the first century CE, p 56
them by Titus, and enjoined on them by Josephus with tears in his eyes (BJ VI:111), has brought down on
the nation, its holy city and its Temple, the wrath of God. To reinforce this argument, Josephus, after
describing the burning of the Temple, gives a lengthy description of supernatural signs and portents that
had occurred prior to the siege (BJ VI:288-309).
Conclusion
In considering the question of apologetics in the Jewish War, it would be fair to say that Josephus is trying
to have his cake and eat it. Of course he needs to celebrate the victory of the Romans and praise his
imperial patrons. He also cannot avoid the view that the Jewish nation, as a whole, have brought this
disaster upon themselves. But, using the genre of history, he presents a political and historical background
to the war in such a way that the Jewish people are also seen as the victims of oppression by despotic
rulers, incompetent, insensitive or blatantly corrupt procurators, and unjust attacks by non-Jewish peoples
among whom they live. His description of events gives the impression of an inexorable drift towards war.
But by attributing the blame for the war to a small group of revolutionaries he is able to portray the Jewish
people as a whole, and their aristocratic leaders, as largely innocent victims, who are not inherently hostile
to Rome. The crimes committed by the revolutionaries, however, bring down on the whole nation the
wrath not only of the Romans but of God himself, who has allowed them to rule the world. Neither the
might of Rome nor the providence of God can be withstood.
John Castle, June 2013
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Applebaum, Shimon “Economic Causes of the Jewish War” in Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata (eds)
Josephus, the Bible, and history (Leiden : Brill, 1989)
Shaye J.D. Cohen Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and development as a historian (Leiden: Brill
1979)
Lester Grabbe Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian. Vol.2, The Roman period (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991)
Mireille Hadas-Lebel Flavius Josèphe : le Juif de Rome (Paris: Fayard, 1989)
Heinz Kreisig “A Marxist View of Josephus' The Jewish War” in Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata (eds)
Josephus, the Bible, and history (Leiden : Brill, 1989)
James S. McLaren Turbulent times? Josephus and scholarship on Judaea in the first century CE (Sheffield :
Sheffield Academic Press, 1998)
Jacob Neusner Ancient Israel after catastrophe: the religious world view of the Mishnah (Charlottesville:
University Press of Virginia 1983)
Tessa Rajak Josephus: The Historian and His Society (London: Duckworth 1983)
Tessa Rajak The Jewish dialogue with Greece and Rome : studies in cultural and social interaction (Boston:
Brill Academic, 2001)
David Rhoads Israel in Revolution, 6-74 CE: a political history based on the writings of Josephus
(Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1976)
Emil Schürer The History of the Jewish People in the age of Jesus Christ (175 BC – AD 135) Vol II (ET ed G
Vermes, F Millar & M Black; Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1979)
Geoffrey Williamson The world of Josephus (London: Secker & Warburg, 1964)