Date post: | 21-Feb-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | antiqva-memoria |
View: | 229 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 35
7/24/2019 Josephus and Polybius - A Reconsideration.pdf
1/35
Josephus and Polybius: A ReconsiderationAuthor(s): A. M. EcksteinSource: Classical Antiquity, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Oct., 1990), pp. 175-208Published by: University of California PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25010928.
Accessed: 07/01/2015 15:02
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
University of California Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Classical
Antiquity.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 184.168.27.152 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:02:10 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucalhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25010928?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25010928?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal7/24/2019 Josephus and Polybius - A Reconsideration.pdf
2/35
A. M.
ECKSTEIN
Josephus
and
Polybius:
A
Reconsideration
THE
CAREERS
F
Flavius
Josephus,
the Jewish
historical writer
of
the
first
century
A.D.,
and
Polybius
of
Megalopolis,
the
great figure
of
second-century
B.C.Greek historiography, reveal striking correspondences. Both Polybius and
Josephus
were
important politicians
and
generals
in their
own home
countries
(Achaea,
Judaea);
both men
were
significantly
involved
in
crucial
developments
in the relations
between
their home
countries
and
Rome;
Polybius
thereafter
came to Rome
as,
essentially,
a
prisoner
of
war,
and
Josephus
came when
he
had
just
been released
from
that
condition;
both
men sheltered
under the
protective
aegis
of
powerful
Roman
families,
and
wrote
works
at
least
partly
in the interest
of those
families;
both
men
witnessed-from
the
Roman
side-the
Roman
de
struction of great cities dear to them (Corinth, Jerusalem); both men, finally,
spent
their time
in Rome
writing
histories concentrated
on
the theme
of Roman
power
(histories
that also
contained
defenses of
their
own
behavior,
both
in
their
native countries
and after
their arrival
among
the
Romans).
The
question
of
how
much,
or
whether,
Josephus
was
influenced
by
his
second-century-B.c. predeces
sor
has
naturally
intrigued
modern scholars.1
But
the evidence
here
is in
fact
ambiguous
and
difficult.
Not
surprisingly,
therefore,
scholars
have
drawn
contradictory
conclusions
from
it.
At
one
end
of
This
paper
has
been
much
improved
by
the
criticisms
of the
anonymous
reviewers
for Classical
Antiquity.
Iwould also
like
to
express
special
thanks to Professor
Louis H.
Feldman,
the dean
of
Josephus
studies,
who
kindly
sent me some
material
that otherwise
would have been
very
difficult
for
me
to
obtain.
1.
For
the
parallels
between
the
careers of
Polybius
and
Josephus,
see
the
comments of
S.
J.
D.
Cohen,
"Josephus,
Jeremiah,
and
Polybius,"
H&
T
21
(1982)
367 and
n.
4.
? 1990
BY
THE REGENTS
OF
THE
UNIVERSITY
OF
CALIFORNIA
This content downloaded from 184.168.27.152 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:02:10 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/24/2019 Josephus and Polybius - A Reconsideration.pdf
3/35
176 CLASSICAL
NTIQUITY
Volume 9/No.
2/October
1990
the
spectrum,
Collomp
and
Avenarius
suggest
that
Josephus
was
heavily
in
Polyb
ius's
historiographical
debt;
at
the
other end of the
spectrum,
Shutt would
greatly
minimize any Polybian influence.2Recently the question has been reopened in a
stimulating
article
by
S. J.
D.
Cohen.
Cohen
argues
that
Josephus
had
at
least
some
direct
knowledge
of
Polybius,
and that there
probably
was
at least
some
intellectual
influence;
but
he also
posits
that the Jewish
prophetic
tradition,
espe
cially
that of
Jeremiah,
had
a far
greater
impact
on
Josephus's
historical
writing,
particularly
on
the moral
structure
of the Jewish War.
3
The
purpose
of the
present
paper
is
to
extend and
to
amplify
Cohen's contention
of
Josephus's
direct knowl
edge
and
use
of
Polybius,
and
to
demonstrate
Polybius's
deep
impact
by
a
close
examination of
the
Polybian
motifs evident
in
Josephus's
work. This is
not
in
the
least
to
deny
the crucial
importance
of
the Jewish moral and
narrative tradition.
But
the
Greek,
and
specifically
the
Polybian,
historiographical
tradition-and
evenmore
important,
the
Polybian
world
view-may
have had
a
stronger
intellec
tual influence
upon
Josephus
than is
usually suggested.
The
question
of
Josephus's
intellectual
relationship
to
Polybius
is
a
signifi
cant
one,
and
not
only
in
terms
of
evaluating
the
influence of
Polybius
upon
later
writers. The
discussion here
will,
I
think,
also
serve
to
demonstrate the consis
tency
over
time with which local elites
came
to
an
intellectual accommodation
with the harsh fact of Roman
power.
The result is a clearer
appreciation
of one
of the sources
of the
stability
and
continuity
of
Roman
hegemony
in
the
Mediter
ranean
world.
Josephus
makes
explicit
reference
to
Polybius,
and
apparent
direct
use
of
Polybius,
three times
in
his
work.
At
AJ
12.135-37
he
uses
an
excerpt
from
Book
16
of
the
Histories
to
support
his
contention
that Antiochus III
was
very
grateful
for the
help
he received from the Jews.
(In
fact, however,
it is
hard
to
see the
relevance
of
the
quoted
passage
to
Josephus's
argument.)
A
little
later
(AJ
12.358-59) Josephus praises Polybius as an honestman (&yaco;g... .av), but
2. P.
Collomp,
"La
place
de
Josephe
dans
la
technique
de
l'historiographie hellenistique,"
in
Etudes
historiques
de la Faculte des lettres
de
l'Universite
de
Strasbourg,
106,
Melanges
1945
(Paris,
1947)
81-92,
especially regarding Josephus's
rejection
of "rhetorical"
history
(hereafter,
Collomp
is
cited
in
themore
accessible
German version
in
A.
Schalit,
ed.,
Zur
Josephus-Forschung [Darmstadt,
1973]
278-93);
G.
Avenarius,
Lukians
Schrift
zur
Geschischtsschreibung
(Meisenheim
am
Glan,
1956),
38,
42,
53,
79,
n.
24,
81,
and
esp.
177 and
n.
22. Contra:
R.
J.
H.
Shutt,
Studies
in
Josephus
(London,
1961)
102-6.
A
close
relationship
between
Josephus
and
Polybius
was
suggested
early
on
by
B.
Brine,
"Josephus
und
Polybius,"
in Flavius
Josephus
und
seine
Schriften
(Gutersloh,
1913)
170-75,
on
the basis of
(alleged)
striking
similarities
in
the
vocabularies
of the
two
authors;
but
Brine's
methodology
is
an
insecure
one,
since
many
of the words he
cites
were
actually
common
in
Hellenistic
writing.
See
now
the
general
criticism of Briine
by
D.
Ladouceur,
"The
Language
of
Josephus,"
JSJ
14
(1983)
22 and n.
19.
3.
Cohen
(above,
n.
1)
369ff.,
esp.
380-81
(the
most
recent
full
study
of the
question).
H.
Lind
ner,
Die
Geschichtsauffasung
des
Flavius
Josephus
im
Bellum
Judaicum
(Leiden, 1972)
47,
believes
Josephus
knew
Polybius's
Histories
and
modeled
parts
of
his
own
work
on
them,
particularly
his
mate
rial
on
historiographical theory;
but Lindner's remarks
are
extraordinarily
brief
(parenthetical
to a
discussion
of
Josephus's conception
of
Tyche).
P.
Villalba
i
Varneda,
The
Historical
Method
of
Flavius
Josephus
(Leiden, 1986),
has little coherent to
suggest
regarding
the
Polybius-Josephus
relationship.
This content downloaded from 184.168.27.152 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:02:10 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/24/2019 Josephus and Polybius - A Reconsideration.pdf
4/35
ECKSTEIN:
Josephus
and
Polybius:
A
Reconsideration
177
goes
on to
disagree
with
him
as
to the cause of
Antiochus
IV's
death:
Polybius,
he
says,
tracesAntiochus's death to the
king's
sacrilegious
desire
to
despoil
the
temple of Artemis inElymais (Persia), but Antiochus really died because he
sacrilegiously despoiled
God's
Temple
at Jerusalem.
Nevertheless,
Josephus
con
tinues,
he
will not
greatly dispute
this issuewith
Polybius
(called,
familiarly,
6
MEyctXojtokiXTT),
nd
readers
are free to believe what
they
wish.
(The
reference
is
to
Polyb. 31.9[11],
and once
more
Josephus's
use
of
Polybius
is somewhat
open
to
question:
Polybius
does
not
take
personal responsibility
for the wide
spread
opinion
that Antiochus died
because
of
his
intended
sacrilege
against
Artemis,
although
he does not
explicitly
attack this
opinion
either.)
Finally,
at
Ap.
2.84
Josephus
uses
Polybius,
among
several
authorities,
to
support
his con
tention that Antiochus had
despoiled
the
Temple
at Jerusalem because of his
financial
problems.
As
an
appendix
here one should
also note AJ
12.402,
where,
in
discussing
Nicanor,
one of the
generals
of the Seleucid
king
Demetrius
I
Soter,
Josephus
remarks that Nicanor had
helped
with Demetrius's
escape
from
Rome,
where
the
young prince
had
been held
as a
prisoner.
In
this
section of
AJ,
Josephus
has
been
closely
following
the narrative of
1
and
2
Maccabees,
but Maccabees
does
not
contain
any
information
about
Nicanor's
activities
in
Rome.
As
E. R.
Bevan
pointed out long ago, the information can only have come from Josephus's
reading
of
Polybius,
where Nicanor's involvement
in
Demetrius's
escape appears
at
Polyb. 31.14(22).4.4
At
a certain level this
evidence is
fairly impressive.
It shows that
Josephus
knew
Polybius
was
an
important
and worthwhile
historian,
a man
he
respected,
and that the
Achaean
was an
important
source for
Josephus's
discussion
of
Seleucid-Jewish
relations.
Nevertheless,
on
the
basis of this evidence alone the
question
of
how
widely
or
deeply
Josephus
had read in
Polybius
would
have
to
remain somewhat open: the narrative of Seleucid-Jewish
relations is
hardly
the
crucial
intellectual material
in
Polybius's
Histories,
and
in
two
of
the
cases
above
we
have
indications
that even
with
regard
to
Seleucid-Jewish
relations
Josephus
did
not
always
use
Polybius
with
absolutely scrupulous
care.
To
assess
the
extent of
Polybian
influence
on
Josephus,
it is therefore
neces
sary
to
look
beyond
the direct
references,
and
to
examine
those
passages
in
Josephus's
work that
indirectly
reflect,
or
might
indirectly
reflect,
major
Poly
bian ideas.
It was
typical
of Hellenistic
literary
endeavors,
of
course,
to
make
such
implicit
and
unacknowledged
references,
on
the
assumption
that alert read
ers
would
immediately
catch and
appreciate
them.5
4.
E. R.
Bevan,
The House
of
Seleucus,
vol.
2
(London, 1902)
200 n. 5.
5. For
good
general
comments
on
this
phenomenon,
see now
P.
Parsons,
"Identity
andCrisis
in
Hellenistic
Literature,"
in
Images
and
Ideologies: Self-Definition
in
theHellenistic World
(forthcom
ing
from
the
University
of California
Press).
For
a
specific
example
of
Josephus's
profuse
(but
unacknowledged)
use
of
Classical
allusions
(in
this
case,
in
the
speeches
concerning
suicide
in BJ 3
and
7,
with their clear
but
unacknowledged
references
to
Plato's
Phaedo),
see D.
Ladouceur,
This content downloaded from 184.168.27.152 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:02:10 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/24/2019 Josephus and Polybius - A Reconsideration.pdf
5/35
178 CLASSICAL
NTIQUITY
Volume/No.
/October990
To
tease out
Polybian
motifs in
Josephus
in
this fashion
is
obviously
a deli
cate task. But
it
is
not
an
impossible
one.
A
similar
problem
exists with Jose
phus's reading and use of Thucydides: The actual explicit references to the
Athenian
historian are much
skimpier
than
Josephus's
references
to
Polybius,6
but
the
borrowings
and echoes are
multiple
and clear
enough,
indicating
that
Josephus
had indeed done his
reading
here. Thus Herod's
speech
to his demoral
ized
troops
after
the
earthquake
(BJ
1.373-79) parallels
in
tone
and
argument
Pericles'
speech
to the shaken Athenians after the
plague
(Thuc.
2.60-63);
Jose
phus's
description
of
the arrival
in
Jerusalem
of the
news of the fall of
the
Jotapata
fortress
(BJ
3.432)
echoes
in
thought
and
vocabulary Thucydides'
de
scription
of the arrival
in
Athens of the news
of
the Sicilian disaster
(Thuc.
8.1);
Josephus's description
of the
nature
and
consequences
of
stasis
in
Jerusalem and
elsewhere in
Judaea under the
revolutionary regime
(BJ
4.365;
cf.
4.131)
is
clearly
inspired by
Thucydides'
famous
depiction
of the
stasis on
Corcyra
(Thuc.
3.82-83);
and
when
Josephus
declares that
he
is
writing
the
history
of
the
great
est war
of
his
own
time and
perhaps
of all time
(BJ 1.1),
and
not
some
prize
composition
such
as
one is
set
at
a
boys'
school
(yUtvctor(Ra,
Ap. 1.53),
the
imitation of
Thucydides
is
once
again
patent
(cf.
Thuc.
1.1,
1.22).7
Analogous reasoning
establishes
a
good
prima facie
case
for
Josephus's
hav
ing readdeeply inPolybius, and having been deeply impressed by him. The most
easily
demonstrated
impact
is
that
deriving
from Book
6
of
the
Histories,
Polyb
ius's
discussion of the Roman
politeia
and
constitutions in
general.
First,
as
Cohen
shows,
in the Jewish
Antiquities Josephus presents
the historical evolution
of
the Israelite
politeia
in
stages
that
on
the
whole recall
Polybius's analysis
of
the
historical
evolution
of the
politeia
of
the
Romans.
Similarly,
in
Against Apion
Josephus compares
the
politeia
created
by
Moses
with those created
by Lycurgus
and
Plato;
Polybius
in
Book
6
compares
the
politeia
of the
Romans
precisely
with these two paradigms.8Third, as D. R. Schwartz recently has specifically
demonstrated,
Josephus
uses the
term
6ovaQxog
in
an
unusual
and restricted
way
within his
story
of the evolution of
the
Jewish
politeia:
to
refer
only
to
those
primitive
rulers
who came before the
real
Israelite
kings.
This
is
a
use
of
"Masada: A
Consideration
of the
Literary
Evidence,"
GRBS
21
(1980)
250-52.
For an
excellent
general
discussion of
Josephus's
use
of Classical
allusions,
see now L. H.
Feldman,
"Josephus
as a
Biblical
Interpreter:
The
Aqedah,"
JQR
75
(1985)
212-52.
6.
Only
brief mention at
Ap.
1.18 and
1.66.
7. For
Thucydidean
influence
on
Josephus,
see the
comments and
examples
of
J. St.
J. Thack
eray
in the introduction to vol. 2 of the Loeb Classical
Library
edition of
Josephus
(Boston,
1927).
Another
interesting
case
is
AJ 17.168ff.: see
D.
Ladouceur,
"The
Death
of
Herod the
Great,"
CPh
76
(1981)
25-34. Villalba
i Varneda
(above,
n.
3)
208
and
n.
720,
sees
Josephus's
remarks
on
the
greatness
of
the
Jewish War at BJ
1.1 as
a
"commonplace,"
on the
basis
of 2
Kings
6.28ff.,
Deut.
28.57,
and Baruch 2.2ff. But
these biblical
references,
interesting though
they
are,
are
not
likely
to
have been known to the Greek
and Roman
audience
(BJ 1.6)
for whom the Jewish War
was
intended:
the
opening
lines of
Thucydides,
on the other
hand,
were famous
in
the
Greek-speaking
milieu.
8.
Cohen
(above,
n.
1)
368.
This content downloaded from 184.168.27.152 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:02:10 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/24/2019 Josephus and Polybius - A Reconsideration.pdf
6/35
ECKSTEIN:
Josephus
and
Polybius:
A Reconsideration 179
lovacQxog =
primitive
ruler)
that can
be
paralleled
only
in
Polybius's general
exposition
in
Book
6 of "the
cycle
of
constitutions"
of
states
(the
avaxv6xXwooLg),
from primitive monarchy to real kingship to aristocracy to democracy (cf. esp.
6.6).9
The basic case here seems
cinched
by
Josephus's
digression,
inBook 3
of
the
Jewish
War,
on the
organization
of
theRoman
army (3.70-109).
As has been
widely
recognized,
this
digression
recalls
in tone and
specific
content
Polybius's
long
digression
on the Roman
army
in his Book 6
(6.19-42).1?
From the Seleucid material
it was clear that
Josephus
could use
Polybius
as
an
important
source;
from
the material
on
the Israelite
politeia
and on the
Roman
army,
it
is now clear that
Polybius
could
exert a
real intellectual influ
ence on
Josephus
as
well.
More evidence
on
this
phenomenon
can
be
gained
from an examination
of
Josephus's
comments
on
historical
method-comments
that
are
surprisingly
frequent
in his work.
But here
we run
into
a
controversy.
Cohen has
recently suggested
that the
historiographical
dicta found
so
often
in
Josephus
are such rhetorical
commonplaces
that
practically nothing
can
be
learned
from them
in
regard
to
specifically
Polybian
historiographical
influ
ence."
If
true,
this
would remove
a
major
area
of the
possible Polybian
Josephan
relationship
from
scholarly
discussion,
and would
thus
greatly
restrict
our
ability
to
determine the
possible
scope
of
that
relationship.12
Yet
for
Avenarius, who
produced
an
important
study
involving
this samematerial, the
dependence
of
Josephus
on
Polybius
in
regard
to
historiographical
theory
is
so
obvious that it
hardly
needs
any
argument.'3
In the face of such
divergent
opin
ions,
clearly
a
new
discussion of this
problem
is
required.
Cohen
is
certainly
correct
that
one must be cautious here:
many
of Jose
phus's
historiographical
comments were
indeed,
in
his
time,
historiographical
cliches. Thus one
would not wish
to
draw
any
inference
from the
fact that both
Josephus
and
Polybius
repeatedly
profess
firm
personal allegiance
to
writing
the
truth and nothing but the truth.14 Nor would one wish to draw conclusions even
9.
See
D.
R.
Schwartz,
"Josephus
on Jewish
Constitutions,"
SCI
7
(1983/84)
40-42. On
Polyb
ius's use
of
t6ovactQXo
in Book
6,
see
F. W.
Walbank,
"Polybius
on
the
Roman
Constitution," CQ
37
(1943)
78-79.
10. See
G.
Riccioti,
Flavio
Giuseppe,
La
guerra
giudaica,
vol. 23
(Turin,
1963)
346;
Lindner
(above,
n.
3)
86
n.
2;
Cohen
(above,
n.
1)
368.
Reservations have been
expressed
here
only
by
G.
Hata,
"The JewishWar
of
Josephus:
A Semantic
and
Historiographic
Study"
(diss.
Dropsie,
1975)
127
(cf.
124 n.
2);
but
minor differences indetail are
easily explained
by
200
years
of Roman
military
development
between
Polybius
and
Josephus,
whereas there are
striking
similarities both in
detail
and structure between thePolybian and Josephan digressions, so that in the end even Hata iswilling
to
admit that
Josephus
may
have taken his outline
from
Polybius
(128).
11.
Cohen
(above,
n.
1)
368
n.
8,
citing (oddly enough)
Avenarius
(above,
n.
2)
passim.
12.
Thus Cohen
(above,
n.
1)
omits
any
discussion of
historiographical theory
from his
attempt
(otherwise
excellent)
to show
Polybian
influence on
Josephus.
13. Cf.
esp.
Avenarius
(above,
n.
2)
177
and
n.
22,
where
a
whole list of
Josephan
and
Polybian
passages
on
historiographical
theory
are
simply
equated,
with
no
specific
discussion of each.
See
also,
however,
n.
16,
below.
14.
Compare Polyb.
12.4d.2
or
34.4.2
or
38.4.5
with Jos.
BJ 1.16
or
AJ
14.3
or
20.157
(cf.
also
Vita
339);
see
the comments
of Avenarius
(above,
n.
2)
41-42.
This content downloaded from 184.168.27.152 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:02:10 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/24/2019 Josephus and Polybius - A Reconsideration.pdf
7/35
180
CLASSICAL
NTIQUITY
Volume 9/No.
2/October 1990
from the fact that both
Josephus
and
Polybius
specifically
contrast
real
ioro@ia
with
mere
panegyric,
and condemn the
latter:
for this
contrast, too,
was
a
Helle
nistic rhetorical commonplace.15
But
elsewhere we
are on
much
safer
ground.
The
way
to
proceed
is
by
examining
Josephan methodological
comments
that were
not,
in
Josephus's
time,
historiographical
cliches.
There
is,
in
fact,
a whole
group
of
them.16
For
instance,
in
discussing
the
qualities
necessary
for the
creation of a
worth
while
historian,
Josephus repeatedly
stresses the
general
importance
of
a
histo
rian's
having
had
personal experience
in
political
and
military
affairs;
and
he
stresses
as
well
the
special
value
of a historian's active
participation
(acUTovQyca)
in
the
specific
events he
is
recounting.'7
Such
emphases
were
not
historiographi
cal
commonplaces
in
Josephus's
time.
On
the
contrary:
historical writers of the
early
Empire
rarely
discussed
the
importance
of a historian's
having
had
per
sonal
experience
in
practical
affairs,
that
is,
the
creation of
the historian as an
intelligent
and
informed observer
of
events.
Indeed,
few even mentioned
the
importance
of a historian's
having
been
an
eyewitness
to events at
all,
let alone
an
active
participant
in
them.18
Josephus's emphatic
comments on the need
for
a
historian
to
have
practical political
and
military experience,
on the
importance
of
his
having
been an
eyewitness
to
events,
and on
the
special
virtue inherent in
direct
acTovoQyia,
thereforemake him stand out
starkly
among
his
contemporar
ies.Did
he come
up
with these unusual
methodological
dicta on his own? In
fact,
Josephus
did have a
predecessor-only
one-who took
a
similarly emphatic
stance on these issues:
Polybius.
As iswell
known,
the Achaean historian
laid
precisely
this
same
emphasis
on
practical
military
and
political
experience
as a
prerequisite
for
intelligent
historical
inquiry
and
writing.19
Moreover,
the connec
tion in
thought
here
can
be made
even more
specific.
Polybius
viewed both
15. Compare Polyb. 8.8.6 with Jos.AJ 16.185 (cf.Ap. 1.25); see the comments of Avenarius
(above,
n.
2)
13-14.
16.
Avenarius
(above,
n. 2:
177)
has
pointed
the
way
here with an
(all
too
brief)
remark to the
effect that the
many striking
agreements
in
wording
and
content
between the
historiographical
opinions
of
Josephus
and
Polybius
suggest
a direct
borrowing
by
Josephus,
since in
part
they
go
well
beyond
the
usual
commonplaces.
Avenarius
then
says
no more
(citing
many passages
in 177
n.
22);
but of course her
purpose
lieswith
Lucian,
not
with
Josephus.
17. On
the
necessary
qualifications
for
a
worthwhile
historian
according
to
Josephus,
see in
general
BJ
1.14-15;
cf. also BJ
1.1,
Ap.
1.45-46,
1.53
(his
contempt
for those historians
who
have
taken
no direct
part
in
events),
Vita
357-59
(his
attack
on
Justus
of Tiberias
on
these same
grounds).
On
Josephus's
own
qualifications,
as
he
perceived
them,
see BJ 1.3-4
(emphasizing
his
practical
military
and
political
experience,
and direct involvement inevents); for the importanceof acrxovQyia,
see
Ap.
1.55.
18. See the comments
of
Avenarius
(above,
n.
2)
39 and
n.
10
(with
examples),
84.
The
idea
that
such
eyewitnessing
alone,
without
practical
tJrEtQXa
to
back
it
up,
was
in itself
a
sufficient
standard for
historians,
goes
back to
Ephorus
and
Theopompus:
see
Avenarius 39.
Similarly,
even
for
Lucian,
writing
some 50
years
after
Josephus,
it is
enough
if
a
historian has
merely personally
witnessed
what
a
military
encampment
and
military
maneuvers
look like
(Hist.
Conscr.
37).
19. Cf.
Polyb.
12.24.6,
25g.1-2,
28.2-6, 28a.7-8,
10. Note
also 12.17-22
(Polybius's
criticism
of
the
unmilitary
Callisthenes'
account of the battle
of
Issus)
and
12.25f.3
(Polybius's
criticism
of the
unmilitary Ephorus's
account
of
the battle
of
Leuctra).
This content downloaded from 184.168.27.152 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:02:10 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/24/2019 Josephus and Polybius - A Reconsideration.pdf
8/35
ECKSTEIN:
Josephus
and
Polybius:
A
Reconsideration
181
practical
experience
(j-tELtQia)
and
personal eyewitnessing
(artooia)
as vital to
historical
writing;
but he also twice
stresses
the
special
virtue in a
historian's
actually having participated actively in the events he is recounting-that is, as
opposed
to
having
been
a
mere
passive
observer,
however
intelligent.20
This
is
precisely
one
of
Josephus's
major
points,
and
Polybius
calls such active
participa
tion in
events
a1cvovQyLa-precisely
Josephus's
word.2'
All this is
hardly
likely
to be
sheer
coincidence. On
the
contrary:
Josephus's
methodological
stress on
practical
experience
in
general
and on
the virtue
of
act'ovQyLa
specifically
once
again,
an
emphasis
unique
in
his
own
generation
of
writers-strongly
sug
gests
that
he was
drawing inspiration
here fromwhat
he
had
found in
Polybius
(especially,
it
seems,
in the
historiographical digression
inBook
12).
A
similar
conclusion can be reached
concerning Josephus's
remarks
"pardon
ing"
Nicolaus of Damascus for his
overly
favorable
depiction
of
Herod theGreat
(AJ
16.184-87).
Nicolaus,
Josephus
says,
transformedHerod's
manifestly
unjust
acts into their
opposite
(avTLxaxaaoxev6alwv,
6.184),
creating
an
apologia
for
Herod's horrid
crimes
(traacvo[to'evTWv,
16.185;
the
specific
example
isHer
od's
execution of
his
wife Mariamne
and
her
sons);
he
thereby produced
not
ioTogia
but
UjtovQYca
(16.186).
Nevertheless,
Josephus
concludes,
Nicolaus
should be
granted pardon
(ovyyvwD6ql,
bid.),
because of
his situation at Herod's
court;meanwhile,
Josephus
himself will tell the truth
(16.187).
Once
again,
this
opinion
that
historians
under
certain circumstances
might
be
pardoned
their
failure to
tell the
complete
truth
was not
a
historiographical
cliche in
Josephus's
time.On the
contrary:
the
prevailing
opinion
among
writers of the
early
Empire,
often
expressed
in
self-righteous
generalities,
was
that the
historian's absolute
duty
was to tell the
truth,
no
matter
what the
pressures
of
his
personal
situa
tion.22
And while it is
true that
seventy-five
years
after
Josephus's
surprising
remarks,
a
brief
passage
in
Pausanias also
grants
a
colleague
a
measure
of
pardon on the grounds of pressure from personal circumstances (1.13.9), before
Josephus
there
is
only
one
historical writer
known
to
have done
so:
Polybius.
Moreover,
the
Polybian
passage
(8.8.4-9)
is
not
only
substantial,
but also bears
a
striking
resemblance
in structure
to
the
passage
in
Josephus. Polybius
is
speak
ing
of the
previous
historians
of
Philip
V of
Macedon:
they
transformed
Philip's
unjust
acts
into their
opposite
(xovavTviov...
xacxogQctiaxl,
8.8.4), covering
up
Philip's
horrid crimes
(jraQavotAia,
ibid.;
the
specific
example
is his
attack
on
the
city
of
Messene);
they thereby
produced
not
iLtoLa
but
Eyx(otlov
(8.8.6).
Nevertheless, Polybius concludes, some writers such as thesemay still deserve
our
pardon
(ovyyv)'R,
8.8.9)
because of the difficult
personal
situation
inwhich
they
found
themselves
(8.8.8;
cf. also
8.8.4).
20.
Polyb.
12.28a.6;
cf. also 3.4.13.
21.
See
Polyb.
12.28a.6
on
the
importance
of
a
historical narrative founded
Ec
actovQyicg.
The verbal
agreement
between
Polybius
and
Josephus
is
pointed
to
briefly
by
Avenarius
(above,
n.
2)
38.
22. See Avenarius
(above,
n.
2)
40-46.
This content downloaded from 184.168.27.152 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:02:10 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/24/2019 Josephus and Polybius - A Reconsideration.pdf
9/35
182 CLASSICAL
NTIQUITY
Volume/No.
/October990
The
parallels
between
Polyb.
8.8.4-9
and
AJ
16.184-87
seem
too
many
and
too
crucial-and
the sentiment
they
express
seems
too unusual
within the
Greek
historiographical tradition-to be mere coincidence. The alternative solution to
the
hypothesis
that
Josephus
drew
his ideas on
this
subject
from
material found
in
Polybius
is
that his
ideaswere
purely
his
own,
and
yet
that he
came
up
(quite
independently)
not
only
with
precisely
the same
ideas,
but
in
precisely
the
same
sequence,
and often
expressed
in the same
language,
as those
found
in
Polybius
Book 8.
I
think
the
odds are
against
this.
Yet another
example
can be
found atAJ 20.157.
Here,
at
the
beginning
of
his discussion in the Jewish
Antiquities
of
the
origins
of the Jewish revolt
against
Rome
in
66
A.D., Josephus
states
that he
does
not hesitate
to
give
a full
account
of
the
grievous
errors
(Tag
adtagQTiag)
f his own
people,
since his
target
is
always
the truth
(TlYV
XkOeLeav).
his
opinion
on
the
necessity
of
expressing
the
truth
about
one's
own
people,
no matter
how
bitter
the truth
might
be,
was-once
more-not a
historiographical
commonplace
in
Josephus's
time. On the
con
trary:
as
Avenarius
demonstrates,
the
prevailing
Greek
historiographical
senti
ment was
critical of
historians
who
were deemed
"insufficiently
patriotic"-who
took
up
basic
topics
that were
disreputable
to their
own
people
and
not
"ele
vated,"
or who touched in detail
on
particularly
discreditable actions
of
their
own
people,
or who
were
even
merely overly
impressed
with the virtues of
foreigners. (Naturally
this
opinion
did
not
cohere
very
well with that
other
historiographical
commonplace,
total
allegiance
to
the truth
per
se;
but
no
one
seems to
have been much
bothered.)
Thus
Josephus, by
heavily
criticizing
his
own
people
in
what he claimed
was
the interest
of the full
truth,
was
taking
a
stance
starkly
in
contrast to
prevailing
historiographical
sentiment.23
Did
Jose
phus
come
up
with the unusual
methodological
dictum in
AJ
20.157
totally
on
his
own? Once more he had
an
explicit
predecessor,
but
only
one:
Polybius.
At
Histories
38.4.2-8,
at the
beginning
of his discussion of the disastrous Achaean
War
with
Rome
in
146
B.c.,
Polybius
remarks
that,
according
to
some
people,
it
is
his
first
duty
as
a
Greek
to
throw
a veil
over
the
grievous
errors
(lrg
taetiacg,
38.4.2)
of
his
countrymen;
however,
as
a
writer
of
history
his first
duty
is
to
the
truth
(Tig
aXqeiactg,
4.5),
the
learning
of which
will
prevent
such
errors in
the
future
(4.8).
In writers
in
Greek
down
to
Josephus's
generation,
only Josephus
is
a
follower
of
Polybius
in
regard
to
writing
history
that includes
consciously
blunt
words
on
the faults
of one's
countrymen,
and
only Josephus
draws
the
specific
contrast between covering over national acaQTtial and the necessity of telling the
full truth.
This is
not
likely
to
be
a
coincidence,
in
view
of the other
historio
graphical
parallels
between
Josephus
and
Polybius
delineated
above-and
in
view of the fact
that
if
there
was one
part
of the
Histories that
would
have
had
a
23.
On
the
importance
of
"patriotism"
and
"elevated
subject
matter,"
see D.H.
Ad
Pomp.
3.2
6,
9,
15,
De Thuc.
41;
Plut.
De Herod.
Malign.
857A,
867C;
with the comments
of
Avenarius
(above,
n.
2)
53-54,
82-83.
This content downloaded from 184.168.27.152 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:02:10 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/24/2019 Josephus and Polybius - A Reconsideration.pdf
10/35
ECKSTEIN:
Josephus
and
Polybius:
A Reconsideration
183
specialmeaning
for
Josephus,
it
would have been Book
38,
with
its
sad
story
of
the
hopeless
Achaean
actions
of
146
B.C.24
One may add that at the beginning of the JewishWar (1.9-12), Josephus has
a
passage
similar in
tone
and
content to
the
passage
introducing
the
period
of
rebellion in the
Jewish
Antiquities.
He defends himself
for
harshly
criticizing
the
Jewish
leadership
of
the
war
(BJ
1.10-11),
and
apologizes
for
bemoaning
the
Jews'
fate
(a
fate,
however,
they brought
upon
themselves: 1.10 and
12)
with an
intensity
not
appropriate
for
ioToQia
(cf. 1.12);
but he will be
telling
the truth
(1.9).
The
parallels
between
this
passage
in
the JewishWar and the
cluster of
ideas
at the
opening
of
Polybius's
Book
38
are in
certain
aspects
even more
striking
than the
parallels
in
regard
to
AJ 20.157. In the Jewish
War,
the defense
for
criticizing
one's
own
countrymen
is combined
with an
apology
for
overly
emotional
language.
We have
already
noted the formermotif
at
Polyb.
38.4.2-4.
But we also find
that
Polyb.
38.4
begins, precisely,
with
an
apology
for
possibly
overemotional
language:
because
of the
subject
matter,
Polybius
fears that he
will be
expressing
himself
in a manner
"exceeding
what is
proper
for
the narra
tion of
oioQLoa"
(JtaQexpl3avovTEg
6
xfg
oToiQlxFg
TtlYYlOeog
fog,
38.4.1).25
Moreover,
immediately
before
this statement
Polybius
has
been
emphasizing
that the
Greeks
had
brought
their terrible fate down
upon
themselves,
through
theirown
pernicious
behavior
(38.3.9-13):
compare
Josephus's
comments about
the
Jews at BJ 1.10
and 12.
Thus
Polyb.
38.3-4
and BJ
1.9-12
turn out to
contain
the
same
three basic
elements:
a
defense
of
having
to
reveal the faults of one's
own
countrymen,
combined with
an
appeal
to
the
truth;
an
apology
for
possible
overemotional
language
(both
anger
and lamentation
are
evidently
meant);
and
a comment
that their
countrymen
had
brought
their fate
down
upon
their
own
heads,
that
is,
that what had occurred was
not
primarily
the
fault
of
the
Romans,
but
of
their own
countrymen's
stupidity.
In fact, in the
general
proem
to the Jewish War
(BJ 1.1-30)-that
is, in the
most
prominent
part
of
Josephus's
first work in Greek-we find
a
whole
con
geries
of
Polybian historiographical
motifs.
Perhaps
this will
no
longer
cause
much
surprise.
Josephus's
very
first lines
(the
war
to
be recounted
was
the
greatest
of his
own
time and
perhaps
of
all time: BJ
1.1)
constitute,
of
course,
a
short bow
to
Thucydides
(see
above).
But
in
itself this
is
also
Josephus's open
proclamation
that
he
is
a
conscious heir
to
the tradition
of
serious,
Thucydidean,
political
history-of which Polybius too was a part-and an advertisement of further
possible
historiographical
echoes
to
come.
Josephus
then
asserts
his
special
quali
fications for
writing
the
history
of this
war:
unlike various
unnamed
"stay-at
24.
Somewhat
parallel
to the
Polybian
dictum in Book
38
is also
the brief
(three word )
comment
we
later find in Lucian: the historian should
be
&ajotlS,
JTovoCtog,
&paoikevUxo
(Hist.
Conscr.
41).
25.
On
Polybius's
meaning
here,
see
F.
W.
Walbank,
A
Historical
Commentary
on
Polybius,
vol.
3
(Oxford,
1979)
689.
This content downloaded from 184.168.27.152 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:02:10 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/24/2019 Josephus and Polybius - A Reconsideration.pdf
11/35
184
CLASSICAL
NTIQUITY
Volume 9/No.
2/October 1990
home"
historians,
who had no
personal
knowledge
of events but
had worked
up
their
histories
from casual
hearsay (&xo'j, 1.1),
he had
personally
been
an
eyewit
ness to themost important events of thewar and had been an active participant,
and
even an
independent
commander,
in
parts
of
it
(1.3).
We have
already
discussed the
Polybian origins
of
the
stark contrast
Josephus
is
drawing
here,
and
how
unusual
a
methodological
claim
itwas tomake
in
his own
generation.26
There
follows a
sort
of tour d'horizon of the
great
turmoil
(FeyiOrov
Toi6e
TOv
xLvtLaTog)
that
in
Josephus's
time
shook the entire
Mediterranean
world,
from
Syria
to Gaul
(BJ
1.4-5). Thackeray
sees here a conscious echo of
Thuc.
1.2
(xiltOLS
yap
aiTTin
6'l tEyiOTn]
oLg
TETloLv).27
It
is
true that
Thucydides
goes
on tomention the involvement of
"a
certain
portion
of the
P3QdaQot"
in
his
war,
but
Thucydides'
focus
clearly
is
really
on the Greeks
alone
(see
1.23.1,
cafilaTa
... CEk.
).28
Yet
Josephus's
focus
is
wider.
He
conjures
up
more
than
a
vision
of Greece
(or,
from
his
perspective,
Judaea)
in
turmoil,
as with
Thucydides;
it is the whole
Mediterranean,
viewed
consciously
as a
unity-that
is,
Polybius's
perspective.
In
fact,
this
section
of
the
Jewish
War,
taken as a
whole,
strongly
recalls
Polybius's
remarks in his
famous
"Second
Introduction'
to
the
Histories,
where the focus is
on
the
period
of
great
turmoil
(atcaX'
xal
xivrLotg)
that shook the
entireMediterranean
world,
from
Syria
to
Spain,
in
the
150s and 140s B.C.
(Polyb.
3.4.12-5.6).
The disturbance was so
great (t6
[?eyerog,
3.4.13)
that it
caused the
Achaean
to
add
a
whole
new
section
to
his
Histories-chiefly,
he
says,
because he
had
personally
witnessed
most
of these
events,
and
had
actively participated
in,
or
even
directed,
some of
them
(ibid.).
The resemblance here between the
introduction
to
Polybius's
Book 3 and the
ideas found
clustered
in
BJ
1.1-5-the Mediterranean-wide scale of the
distur
bances,
the
Mediterranean viewed
as
a
unity,
combined
specifically
with the
special
qualifications
of the
historian
not
just
in
terms
of
witnessing
events but
even of having personally directed some of them-is quite striking.29
26. On
the
possible specific targets
of
Josephus's
attack
inBJ
1.1,
see
H.
Lindner,
"Eine offene
Frage
zur
Auslegung
des
Bellum-Proomiums,"
in
Josephus-Studien:
Festschrift
0. Michel
(G6t
tingen,
1974)
254-59.
27.
Thackeray
(above,
n.
7)
xvii. On the other
hand,
Villalba
i
Varneda
(above,
n. 3:
208)
sees
BJ 1.4-5
as
a
purely independent
statement
of
Josephus,
motivated
politically
by
a desire
to
justify
the
Jewish Revolt on
grounds
of the
general
instability
of
the
Roman
Empire.
But
no
justification
of
this
sort is
explicit
in
the
text,
and
Josephus
later
in the
proem
in fact attacks the
leadership
of the
Revolt
(BJ
1.11).
28. On Thucydides' basic lackof interest innon-Greeks, see, e.g., A. Andrewes, "Thucydides
and the
Persians,"
Historia
10
(1961)
1-18.
29. On the
importance
of
Polybius's
"Second
Introduction,"
see
esp.
F. W.
Walbank,
"Polyb
ius' Last Ten
Books,"
in
Historiographia
Antiqua: Festschrift
W. Peremans
(Louvain,
1977),
esp.
145-50. That
Josephus
in the Jewish War
can turn his focus
away
from Judaea and
look
at
the whole
Mediterranean
is also
apparent
in his
inclusion
of
an account of
the
Roman
civil
war,
sometimes
in
summary
but sometimes
in
detail,
in his narrative
(BJ
4.491-96,
546-49, 585-87,
630-55)-as
well
as
accounts
of
German
and Gallic
problems
as
far
away
as
the Rhine
(7.76-88),
and
a
Scythian
invasion across
the Danube
(7.89-95).
This content downloaded from 184.168.27.152 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:02:10 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/24/2019 Josephus and Polybius - A Reconsideration.pdf
12/35
ECKSTEIN:
Josephus
and
Polybius:
A
Reconsideration 185
After
once
again
attacking
the
inadequacies
of
the
previous
historians
of the
war
(BJ
1.7-8),
Josephus
then issues
a
defense
of
his harsh
criticism of the
Jewish ringleaders of the conflict, and apologizes if his language sometimes
seems
inappropriate
and
excessive
as
he
contemplates
the
Jews'
unfortunate
fate-a
fate,
however,
that he also
emphasizes
was
self-imposed
(BJ
1.9-12).
As
we have
already
seen,
the threemotifs
presented
in
this
passage
find
their exact
parallel
in
Polybius's
comments in
38.3-4,
explaining
his
depiction
of the disas
trous
Achaean
War
against
Rome in 146 B.C.
Josephus
then launches
an
explicit
theoretical
defense of
writing
the
history
of
one's
own time as
opposed
to
rhetorically
rearranging
the
already-extant
histories
of
times far
past (BJ 1.13-15).
Here
Josephus
asserts
that
modern writers are
inferior to
the
older
historians both
in termsof
experience
of the
actual events and
in terms of
literary
power,
and that the
truly
industriouswriter is the
one
who
works
up
fresh
material
into
a
new and
independent
product,
not
one
who
merely
remodels another
person's
work on
antiquity.
Once
more,
this
sentiment
was
by
no
means a
historiographical
commonplace
in the
early
Imperial
era.
On the
contrary:
the dominant
historiographical
trend
seems to
have
been
in
the
opposite
direction-one thinks of
Appian,
Arrian,
Curtius
Rufus,
Diodorus,
Dionysius
of
Halicarnassus,
Livy,
Nicolaus
of
Damascus.30
Indeed,
it
was
a
temptation
to
which
Josephus
himself would later
partly
succumb in the Jewish
Antiquties.31
Josephus's
remarks
at
the
beginning
of the Jewish
War
therefore
put
him
apart
from his
contemporaries;
did he
come
up
with his
ideas
defending Zeitgeschichte
totally
on
his own?
We
have,
of
course,
lost
much
historiographical
material here:
one
thinks
especially
of Posidonius.
Nevertheless,
before
Josephus's
discussion the
only
historian known
to
have
presented
an
explicit
theoretical defense of
contem
porary history,
as
opposed
to
the
rhetorical
rearrangement
of histories of the far
past,
is
Polybius.32
The defense
of
contemporary history
occurs
in
particular
in the
historiographical proem toBook 9, and therePolybius's arguments closely corre
spond
in
sequence
of
thought,
and
partly
even in
vocabulary,
to what
we
find
in
Josephus.
Polybius
rejects
the
rewriting
of
already-extant
histories
of the far
past
because
a new
handling
of material
already
worked
on
by
earlier historians would
be
superfluous
and
useless;
a
history
of one's
own
time,
a
truly
new
product
based
on
fresh
material,
is
better
(9.1-2, esp.
2.1-4).
Given the
parallels,
it
does
not
seem
out
of line
to
posit
with
Avenarius
a
connection
between this
passage
and
Josephus's
discussion
in
BJ
1.13-15.33
30.
See
the discussion of Avenarius
(above,
n.
2)
80-84.
31. The
contradiction
is noted
by Collomp
(above,
n.
2)
287-88.
32.
Cf.
Avenarius
(above,
n.
2)
81.
33.
Ibid.;
note
esp.
"teilweise wortlich ubernommen."
Avenarius in fact does
not
provide
the
reader
with
the
verbal
parallels
she
sees in
the
two
passages,
but these
parallels
are
certainly
there:
compare
Polyb.
9.2.2, 4,
ta
&dXXO6Tla
&1L
X?yELv
(0
la
....
TO
xaLvo3OclElOal
auvEXW
g
xai
xacvlLg
iiYrio?eo)g,
with
BJ
1.15,6 ?Taoiov
tL
... xal
TdlV
aO
&
TQlaV
...
6
?[ET&
tOV
xatva
XeyeLV
xai
TO
oo3
ta
Tfig
LrToQLag
xatacoxev&Uov iOtov.
This content downloaded from 184.168.27.152 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:02:10 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/24/2019 Josephus and Polybius - A Reconsideration.pdf
13/35
186 CLASSICAL
NTIQUITY
Volume
9/No.
2/October 1990
At
the end
of his
defense
of
contemporary
history,
Josephus carefully
ex
plains
that
in
the rest
of Book 1
he will
provide
only
a
summary
account of
the
general historical background to the JewishWar, since those events occurred
before his lifetime and since
they
have
already
been
adequately
narrated
by
other authors
(BJ 1.17);
his own
greatly
detailed
iaCxoQia,
n
Books
2
through
7,
will
consist of the events he himself
lived
through
(1.18).
This distinction
be
tween
Zeitgeschichte
and events before one's
lifetime
that
have been
adequately
handled
by
other
authors,
and the
inference
to be
drawn
regarding
the fashion in
which
one's
own historical
work
ought
therefore
to be
structured,
can,
once
again,
be
specifically paralleled
in
Polybius:
this
time in
the
historiographical
proem
to
Book
4.
There
Polybius explains
that
the first
two
books
of the
Histo
ries
had
been
only summary
and
introductory
in
nature,
since
they
dealt with
events before
his own lifetime
and since
those
events
had
already
been ade
quately
narrated
by,
for
instance,
the
memoirs
of Aratus of
Sicyon
(4.1.8,
2.1).
The detailed
narrative,
Polybius
then
says,
had
begun only
inBook
3,
because
from
that
point
on the events were
coinciding
with the
experience
of
his
own
and
the
immediately preceding
generation, allowing
him access to detailed direct
testimony
(4.2.2).
Thus we find
that not
only
does
the basic
organizational
structure
of the JewishWar resemble
the basic
organizational
structure
of
Polyb
ius's
Histories,
but the
division here between the
introductory
historical sketch
and the
detailed
main
narrative is based
on
exactly
the
same
two
intellectual
justifications
(BJ
1.17-18
=
Polyb.
4.2.1-2).
Josephus
then
presents
his
readers
with
an
extremely
detailed "table
of
contents" of what the
Jewish
War will contain
(BJ
1.19-29),
from
the
summary
discussion
of the essential
historical
background
in
Book
1
(1.19),
down
through
every
major
event of
the
war
(1.20-28),
to
the
final
crushing
of
the last Jewish
rebels
inBook
7
(1.29).
Where did
Josephus get
the idea for such
an
extremely
detailed and chronologically organized table of contents? To anyone who has
read
Polybius,
the resemblance
here
to
the elaborate
and
chronologically
orga
nized tables of contents
in the
historiographical
proems
to
Book 3
(3.2.1-3.9,
5.1-6)
and
Book 4
(4.1.1-9)
is
immediately
apparent.
The
point
is reinforced
by
the fact
that,
so
far
as we can
tell,
the inclusion
of
such
detailed
tables
of contents
in
the
proems
of historical
works-while
not
completely
unknown-was
defi
nitely
not a
prominent
part
of the
general
Graeco-Roman
historiographical
tradi
tion.
Chronologically
organized
tables
of
contents are absent from
Herodotus,
Thucydides, Xenophon, and Livy; only the briefest andmost indirect remarks in
this vein occur in
Tacitus
(Ann.
1.1 ad
fin.;
Hist.
1.1
ad
fin.);
and
we find
only
very
brief
synopses
in
Dionysius
of
Halicarnassus
(AR
1.51-2)
and
Diodorus
(1.4.6-7).
Lucian,
in
our
only
available
ancient
handbook
on
the
writing
of
history,
seems
to
view such
an
outline
with
something
approaching
indifference:
he
briefly
remarks
that the
writer
of
history
may
well wish
to
include
Tla
xcpctkaXtLa
xcv
YEy?vtE'tvwv
in his
proem
(Hist.
Conscr.
53),
but
the
paradig
This content downloaded from 184.168.27.152 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:02:10 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/24/2019 Josephus and Polybius - A Reconsideration.pdf
14/35
ECKSTEIN:
Josephus
and
Polybius:
A
Reconsideration 187
matic
prefaces
he extolls
are,
precisely,
those of
Herodotus
and
Thucydides
(ibid.)-which,
as we have
noted,
contain
no
table of contents at
all.
None of thismaterial can bear comparison towhat we find at thebeginning of
the
Jewish
War,
and there
is
also
nothing
like
it in the
other narrative tradition
available to
Josephus,
theHebrew
Bible.
Indeed,
Josephus
himself
presents
noth
ing
like it in
any
of his other
works-only
in the one
devoted
specifically
to
Zeitgeschichte.34
Among
thewriters
of the
early Imperial
age,
Appian
alone-and
well after
Josephus-provides
a
parallel
(BC 1.2-5).
The
example
of
Appian
shows
that the
placement
of
such
an elaborate
synopsis
within the
proem
of a
historical work was not a
totally
unheard-of
idea.
Nevertheless,
the first such
detailed table
of
contents occurs
in
Polybius,
who had
a
passion
for
organization
and then
next,
so
far as we can
tell,
only
in
Josephus;
such
synopses
were
clearly
not an
important historiographical
device.
It
is therefore
legitimate
to ask where
Josephus,
as he
was
preparing
his
manuscript
for his Greek
audience,
got
the
idea
for
inserting
an
elaborate
table of contents
intoBJ 1.19-29.
There
is one
obvious
possibility.
After
describing
in detail
the structure
and
contents
of his
history
of the
Jewish
War,
Josephus
then
brings
the
proem
to a
close with the
proud
statement
that
his work is
writen
for lovers
of
truth,
and not
to
gratify
his readers:
TOIg
ye
Tiv
aki&MeVcav
yajotdoLv,
akkha
Aq
JTQOg;
6ovYv aveyQCazpc
BJ 1.30).
The
gen
eral
contrast between
truth,
practical
benefit,
and instruction as
goals
of
the
writing
of
history,
as
opposed
tomere
pleasure, goes
back
at
least
to
Thucydides
(1.22.4),
and was a
cliche.35
But note
Josephus's specific
focus
on
the serious
reader.We have
already
seen
that the
historiographical
proem
of
Polybius's
Book 9
may
have had an
important
influence
on
Josephus's
discussion of the
value
of
contemporary
history
as
opposed
to
rewriting
the histories
of
the far
past.
It is therefore
striking
that
the
historiographical
proem
of
Polybius's
Book
9 closes on precisely the same note as the the proem at BJ 1.30: "My aim is not so
much
to
entertain
readers
as to
benefit
those
who
pay
careful
attention"
(Rcov
7QooeX6vXTcv,
9.2.6).
Once
more
we
find the
focus
to
be
specifically
on
the
serious reader: the
reader
each writer
was
inspired
to
claim
as
particularly
his
own because
of the serious-that
is,
seriously political-nature
of his work.
It
is
now
clear
that Cohen
was
correct
to
reopen
the
question
of
Polybian
influence
on
Josephus,
but
also
that
he
did
not
go
far
enough,
in that he excluded
historiography
from
consideration.
Perhaps
not
every
example
adduced
above
of
the parallels in historiographical theory and expression between Josephus and
Polybius
is,
in and
of
itself,
overwhelming; perhaps
some scholars
will
prefer
to
view at least a few
of these resemblances
as
purely
coincidental,
arising
merely
34.
Compare
the
proem
of
the Jewish
War with the
proems
of the Jewish
Antiquities
(1.1-17)
and
Against Apion
(1.1-6).
(The
Vita has
no
proem
at
all.)
35. See
the discussion
of Avenarius
(above,
n.
2)
22-29.
This content downloaded from 184.168.27.152 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:02:10 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/24/2019 Josephus and Polybius - A Reconsideration.pdf
15/35
188 CLASSICAL
NTIQUITY
Volume 9/No.
2/October 1990
from
similar
literary
purposes.
Nevertheless,
the
cumulative effect
of all
these
cases
of
resemblance seems
in toto
quite
impressive:
it is hard
to
believe that it is
all just an accident, especially sincemany of the historiographical ideaswe are
dealing
with
were not
commonplaces
in
Josephus's
age.
And if one
adds the
historiographical
evidence to the evidence
already
assembled
by
Cohen
(and
Schwartz),
one arrives at the
conclusion
that
Josephus
had
indeed read
widely
in
Polybius's
Histories. To be conservative:
Josephus
had read in
Book 3
possibly,
Book
4
possibly,
Book
6
certainly,
Book
8
probably,
Book
9
probably,
Book 12
certainly,
Book 16
certainly,
Book
31
certainly,
and Book 38
probably.36
It
seems a
great
deal of
reading,
in
a
Greek
author who
was
by
no means
the
easiest. We
must,
therefore,
confront
a
fundamental
question:
was in fact
Jose
phus's
Greek
good enough
to
have
accomplished
all this
reading
in
Polybius,
especially
before
the Greek
edition
of
the Jewish War-his firstwork-was
released? The answer of
the most
recent
scholarship
is
yes.
It
is
true that Jose
phus's
native
languages
were
Aramaic and
Hebrew-indeed,
he
says
he first
wrote
the Jewish War
in
his native
vernacular,
not
in
Greek
(BJ 1.3).
But
as
Rajak
has
pointed
out,
Josephus
could
hardly
have
been
entrusted
with
his
important
diplomatic
mission to Rome
in 64
A.D.
unless he
was
already
reason
ably
fluent in
spoken
Greek.37
One
might
go
a
bit farther:
a
diplomat
at
Nero's
court-enamored
as
it
was
of
Greek
culture-could
hardly
count
on
success
unless he not
only
was
reasonably
fluent in
spoken
Greek
but
also had
already
at
least
a
modicum
of
Classical
learning
with which
to
impress
his
audience. More
over,
Cohen has
presented
a
strong
case for
supposing
that
the
Greek version
of
Books
1-6
of the Jewish
War
was not
issued until the
reign
of Titus
(79-81
A.D.)-and
even that
perhaps
Book
7 was an addition under
Domitian.
This
would
give
Josephus
a
good
decade
and
more
of
(enforced)
leisure
in
which
to
have
read the
Histories,
between
his
capture
at
Jotapata
in
July
67
and the
issuing
of the Greek version of the Jewish War.38 And while Josephus says that
36. Book 3:
see
above,
p.
184,
p.
186.
Book
4:
see
above,
p.
186.
Book
6: see
above,
p.
186.
Book 8:
see
above,
pp.
178ff.
Book 9: see
above,
pp.
181f.
Book
12: see
above,
p.
181. Book
16:
see
above,
p.
176.
Book
31: see
above,
pp.
177f. Book 38: see
above,
p.
182.
37.
See T.
Rajak,
Josephus:
The Historian
and His
Society
(London, 1983)
46.
38. The Greek
edition
of
the
Jewish
War
certainly appeared
after
the
dedication
of the
Templum
Pacis
in 75 A.D.
(see
the
reference
to the
Temple
at
BJ
7.155-61;
cf. Dio 66.15.1
for the
dedication).
But
in BJ
4.654ff.,
we
also
find a
sharp
attack
on A.
Caecina
Alienus-a man who was
fawned
on
by
historians
throughout
most
of
Vespasian's
reign,
according
to Tacitus
(Hist. 2.101.1),
but who fell from favor in the first months of 79. There is no evidence that the attack on Caecina is a
late addition
to the
text,
and
so it
seems
fair to
suggest
that the
Jewish
War
was
being
written
only
in
the last
years
of
Vespasian's reign.
The
prominence
of Titus
throughout
the
work,
the fact that
only
Titus
ismentioned in
its
proem,
and
the fact that
it was issued with Titus's
signature
alone
(Vita
363),
all
combine
to
suggest
that the
JewishWar
was
in
actuality
only
completed
under him.
And
by
Book
7,
Domitian
is
suspiciously
prominent-but
then,
he
was
officially prominent
under Titus
(Suet.
Titus
9.3),
so that this does
not
necessarily
indicate
(despite
Cohen)
a
Domitianic
date for the end
of
the narrative.
The
only
strong argument
in favor
of
a
date of
publication
in the middle
of
Vespasian's
reign
is
Josephus's
statement
that he
had
sent
t
3tP3pia
to
Vespasian
to
read
(Vita
361,
Ap.
1.50
51)-but
this need
not mean the whole
work,
for
Vita 364 and 366
show that
Josephus
circulated
This content downloaded from 184.168.27.152 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:02:10 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/24/2019 Josephus and Polybius - A Reconsideration.pdf
16/35
ECKSTEIN:
Josephus
and
Polybius:
A Reconsideration
189
he worked
up
the
Greek version of the
Jewish
War
with the aid of
others "for
the
sake of
theGreek"
(7@Q6gSIV
'EXXrviba
cpwviv ovvEyot,
Ap.
1.50),
Rajak
has
persuasively argued that these ovvEQyoi should probably be seen as friends of
Josephus
in
Rome who
simply helped
him
create
his
highly polished
literary
style-that
is,
they
were not
helping
him
with
the
basics
of
the
Greek
language
itself.39
n
other
words,
we should
probably
assume
that
Josephus's
knowledge
of
Greek
and
Greek
culture was
already
fairly
broad
in
the
mid-60s
A.D.,
and that
he
had
more than
enough
time in the
70s,
while
working
on
the Jewish