josephus and polybius - a reconsideration.pdf

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=ucal


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.jsp


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.



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,



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.



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.



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).



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.



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.



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.



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).



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.



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



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.



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



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

josephus and polybius - a reconsideration.pdf

Documents