Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T08:14:18.431Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Cosmopolitan Expression of Josephus's Prophetic Perspective in the Jewish War

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2004

Nicole Kelley
Affiliation:
Florida State University

Extract

Many controversial issues surround the life and work of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, but the question of his dual relationship to the Jewish community and the Roman imperial establishment has been especially contentious. Should Josephus be considered a loyal Jew, or was he a turncoat and a coward who abandoned his people for the sake of a luxurious life in the Flavian imperial court? Josephus's early and late works alike reveal that he had to answer this question himself. The numerous and celebrated apologetic elements of his writings testify to Josephus's need to defend his actions during the war. In J.W. 3.354, for example, he defends his decision to surrender at Jotapata in a prayer that alludes to his prophetic destiny: “I willingly surrender to the Romans and consent to live; but I take you to witness that I go, not as a traitor, but as your minister.” Josephus, then, uses his narratives to address criticisms of his actions. In addition, he explicitly describes his hostile reception by all parties after his surrender at Jotapata. In Life 416, he writes, “my life was frequently in danger, both from the Jews, who were eager to get me into their hands, to gratify their revenge, and from the Romans, who attributed every reverse to some treachery on my part, and were constantly and clamorously demanding of the emperor that he should punish me as their betrayer.” In other words, both the events in the narrative and the apologetic tone in which Josephus narrates such events indicate that Josephus was considered a traitor by both Jews and Romans in his own lifetime.

Type
ARTICLES
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

An earlier draft of this paper was presented in the “Social-Scientific Studies of the Second Temple Period” section at the 2003 annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Atlanta, Ga. I am grateful for the comments and constructive criticisms offered by members of the section, as well as suggestions made by the anonymous reviewers at HTR and my colleagues and students at Florida State University.