Josephus

"This book is the first-ever monograph on the family of royal converts from Adiabene including the broader perspective of the cultural and political environment of Hellenistic and Parthian Adiabene. It collects, arranges and discusses all available sources on the topic.
The study consists of three parts. Part 1 (chapters 1-5) is devoted to the longest ancient account on the Adiabene royalty from all ancient literature – Josephus, Ant. 20:17-96 (“the Adiabene Narrative”). It examines the Adiabene narrative as Josephus’ conscious literary product with all its rhetorical features and ideological agendas.
Part 2 (chapters 6-7) deals with other sources about the family of royal converts from Adiabene. Chapter 6 is devoted to Rabbinic traditions about Queen Helena and King Munbaz. Chapter 7 discusses all Jewish and non-Jewish literary sources which refer to the resting place of Queen Helena and to the palaces of the Adiabene royalty in Jerusalem, what is more, it also provides an updated discussion of relevant archaeological sites in Jerusalem (Le Tombeau des Rois and the Givati Parking Lot).
Part 3 (chapters 8-13) presents the material and political environment of Adiabene from the third century BCE to the third century CE. It discusses all available kinds of sources: geographical and ethnographical texts (chapter 8), archaeological sites (chapter 9), epigraphic and numismatic material (chapter 10), as well as onomastic evidence (chapter 11). Furthermore, chapter 12 provides a basic chronology of the Adiabene royalty in the Hellenistic and Parthian periods, and chapter 13 presents the political environment of Adiabene and Judea in the context of the international relations between Rome and Parthia."
P.S.
So far reviewed by K. Atkinson, Biblica 96 (2015) 635-638; D.M. Jacobson, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 147 (2015) 169-170; E. Kettenhofen, Anabasis. Studia Classica et Orientalia 6 (2015) 297-307; E. Lipiński, Polish Journal of Biblical Research 14 (2015) 201-207;  D.M. Downing, Journal of American Oriental Studies 137 (2017) 428-430; E. Nodet, Revue Biblique 122-124 (2015) 634-635; K. Berthelot, Syria 94 (2017) 415-416; J.-S. Caillou, L’Antiquité Classique 86 (2017) 517-519.

In The Origins of the Canon of the Hebrew Bible: An Analysis of Josephus and 4 Ezra, Juan Carlos Ossandón Widow examines the thorny question of when, how, and why the collection of twenty-four books that today is known as the Hebrew Bible was formed. He carefully studies the two earliest testimonies in this regard—Josephus' Against Apion and 4 Ezra—and proposes that, along with the tendency to idealize the past, which leads to consider that divine revelation to Israel has ceased, an important reason to specify a collection of Scriptures at the end of the first century CE consisted in the need to defend the received tradition to counter those that accepted more books.

A Pre-teaching Interpretation Paper:
Today, the word “Messiah” commonly incites George Handel’s renowned oratorio or the person of Jesus Christ, whose second name is a Greek translation of the word. This is understandable given the pervasiveness of Christianity as a religion in the world. However, not only has the word been understood differently in different circles, it has also been attributed to and claimed by different individuals throughout the history. This paper seeks to evaluate the claim made by third-century Rabbis Bar Kappara and Hillel II that King Hezekiah of Judah is the Messiah.  In order to do that, what the word means to Jews in Ancient Near Eastern and Rabbinical contexts needs to be considered.
Although Rabbi Joseph has refuted Hillel II’s claim,  it is still a worthy endeavor to give the claim a second hearing, especially as Mika Pajunen noted that “there was renewed interest in these traditions,” referring to Deuteronomistic and Chronistic traditions, “to highlight the unity of the people and hence also their common heritage” after the destruction of the second temple.  Therefore, the account of Hezekiah in Chronicles will be exegeted, highlighting its uniqueness from that in Kings and, by extension, Isaiah, and drawing implications if the thesis, “King Hezekiah is the fulfillment of Yahweh's promise for THE Messiah,” is supported by Chronistic perspective.

Hvad kan der videnskabeligt siges om den historiske Jesus? I kilderne uden for Det Nye Testamente finder vi kun oplysninger om hans død, messiastitel og broderen Jakob. Desuden har Jesus’ liv berøringspunkter med samtidige messiasfigurer, der kritiserer romerne eller det jødiske tempel.

Dit betreft een kort artikel over de vernietiging van de tempel in Jeruzalem tijdens de Joodse opstand tegen Rome, 66-70 n.C. Eerder dit jaar verschenen in, Geschiedenis Magazine 55.3 (2020), 34-37. Zie verder https://geschiedenismagazine.nl/joodse-opstand-66-70-n-chr

Josephusnál 20 alkalommal jelenik meg a sors kifejezés. Előadásunkban három kérdésre keresünk választ, elsőként, vajon a sors Josephusnál önálló entitást jelent-e, vagy csupán Isten döntésére utal, ami megmásíthatatlan. A második, milyen kapcsolatban áll a végzet az ember szabadságával a farizeusoknál Josephus ábrázolásában. Végül, miként vélekedhetett erről Josephus?

The Bellum Judaicum, which is often perceived as one of the most influential texts in Western history after the Bible, describes the history of the Judaean revolt against Rome (AD 66-70). One of the most striking features of this work is that Flavius Josephus, its author, elaborately describes his actions during this conflict. Until recently, scholars have mainly studied these passages to recover Josephus’ life and thinking. His controversial life story — especially his decision to surrender to the Romans through his interpretation of his own dreams and to write about the war in Rome under the protection of the emperor — has resulted in a clear bias of some scholars against this Judaean historian and the intellectual merits of his work. Breaking with this trend, the present study asks how Josephus’ self-characterization can be explained in the literary context of the Bellum and in the historical context of first-century Rome. To this end, it uses Graeco-Roman literary conventions (historiographical, autobiographical, rhetorical) as an interpretative point of departure to investigate Josephus’ presentation of himself as a character.
Fully available via the following link: https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/nl/publications/flavius-josephus-selfcharacterization-in-firstcentury-rome(6ca6cf53-b69d-41cc-a657-11cc0101a1ac).html

1. Introduction, 2. Brothers and sisters â€" adelphoi, 3. The believers, 4. The saints â€" hoi hagioi, 5. The assembly â€" hÄ" ekklÄ" sia, 6. Disciples â€" mathÄ" tai, 7. The way â€" hÄ" hodos, 8.'Christian'â€" Christianos, 9. Conclusions.

Gives an overview of the Greek-language literature of the Flavian period (AD 69-96) and considers (1) to what extent the dynastic changes of the period make themselves felt in that literature (mainly Plutarch and Dio Chrysostom) and (2) whether the emergence at this time of the so-called "Second Sophistic" can be connected with specifically Flavian cultural-political phenomena. Also includes contrasts between the resonance of "Flavian" themes in Plutarch and Dio and in Josephus.

The story of the Samaritan woman at the well in the Gospel of John provides one of the clearest expositions on the messiahship of Christ in the New Testament. “In a momentous self-disclosure that is unique to any Gospel narrative prior to Jesus’ trials, Jesus acknowledges that he is the Messiah.”  Suppose though, there had been another. What if the Jewish messiah, as they had expected him to be, had come, had ruled, and had failed one hundred years before the coming of Christ? He had come as a warrior king who reconstituted Judea, restored the temple and was purported to commune with the Divine - the fourth Hasmonean ruler, John Hyrcanus. Hyrcanus is not a name found in the Bible, nor known by many outside of biblical scholarship, but whose importance cannot be understated.  Edward Wicher, in his article, Ancient Jewish Views of the Messiah, makes the astounding claim that for a short time in Jewish history under the rule of Hyrcanus, “the pious Israelite imagined that the reign of Messiah had already begun upon the earth.”  But who was John Hyrcanus, how is his story linked to Jesus’ meeting with an outcast Samaritan at Jacob’s well and what implications does this have on Christ’s messiahship?

After serving during turbulent times at the court of Pedro’s predecessor, Alfonso XI (r. 1312–50), Sem Tob de Carrión (c. 1290-c. 1369) advocates in "Proverbios morales" for sensible policies and toleration toward Jewish subjects. As a work that also conveys the urgency among Jews to set aside internal differences in the face of mounting anti-Judaism, "Proverbios morales" points out lessons to be learned concerning inter-religious tensions by recalling the late medieval intra-Jewish conflict between orthodox Rabbinism and a longstanding anti-Rabbinite tradition.

This paper presents the various and, at times, contradictory components of two Orthodox historians’ approaches to Josephus, noting the ambivalence inherent in the approach of any Orthodox historian to Josephus. This ambivalence provides a glimpse into the world of Orthodoxy, and the world of nationalist Orthodoxy in its embryonic stages at the start of the twentieth century.
Any Orthodox approach to Josephus involves an internal contradiction. On the one hand, Josephus held a place of honor in traditional society, even if this was largely because early commentators identified the book of Josippon with the works of Josephus and cited it frequently. , On the other hand, the actions of Josephus –collaborating with the Romans, publishing books in Greek and becoming an integral part of the Hellenistic-Roman culture – contradict Orthodox values, which eschew cultural collaboration with external elements. Orthodoxy is intensely committed to conserving tradition. The intensity of this commitment, however, is itself an innovation. This is the paradox of Orthodoxy, and the approach of Orthodox historians to Josephus is a signal example of this paradox.
The two historians presented here are Rabbi Isaac HaLevi Rabinovitz (1847-1912) and Ze’ev Ya’avetz (1847-1924). Halevi was one of the most important Orthodox pioneers in the field of historiography in the second half of the Nineteenth Century. Ya’avetz, his friend and disciple, was an Orthodox-nationalist historian who published a series of books surveying the history of the people of Israel from the time of the patriarchs until the last quarter of the nineteenth century. His historiographical oeuvre was also part of the Orthodox reaction to the wissenschaft school of historiography. Unlike Halevi, Ya’avetz was distinctive in his identification and cooperation with the nationalist Zionist movement. He was amongst the founders of the “Mizrachi” movement, and was editor of its journal from 1902-1905.
They both exemplify the complexity of the Orthodox historian’s approach to Josephus. Along with what their ambivalence can teach us about the inherent paradoxes of Orthodoxy, an examination of their approaches to Josephus may, as well, contribute to improving our understanding of Josephus himself.

It has long been argued, on the basis of dating evidence provided by Josephus, that the Roman General Pompey captured Jerusalem sometime in 63 BC.  This paper argues that a conquest in the fall of 64 BC is much better supported by the available evidence, including that provided by Josephus.

The debate on the meaning of pistis in 2 Peter 1:1 has alternated between subjective faith (belief) and objective faith (the Faith). However, agreeing with Fredrick W. Danker’s analysis, a secular Hellenistic meaning of pistis better explains the distinctive context of 2 Peter 1:1 and 2 Peter’s use of pistis. Applying ten patterns for the use of pistis as a pledge of safe-conduct, gleaned from its use in secular Hellenistic literature contemporary to 2 Peter, we conclude that 2 Peter 1:1 uses pistis as a pledge of safe-conduct, which introduces 2 Peter’s theme and its controlling journey metaphor.

Abstract
This article examines the longstanding rivalry of Rome and Parthia, which began as an unintended consequence of Crassus’ decisive defeat at Carrhae in 53 BCE. It synthesizes the accounts and opinions of numerous Graeco-Roman writers from the Augustan Age to late antiquity in order to help illustrate the new and interconnected post-Carrhae world and its legacy. The rivalry of the Romans and Parthians became a primary focus of their foreign policies and drastically expanded their perceptions of the world in which they interacted. Even after the fall of the Parthians to the rebellious Sassanid Persians in the 220s CE, the Romans continued to find their three-century-long rivalry with the Parthians of interest and relevant to the changing world of late antiquity.

The birth of the Sicarî. From the ἀρχιλῃστής Hezekiah to the σοφιστής Judas the Galilean · The Sicarî, the most violent revolutionary group in Palestine in the decades before Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 AD, strongly opposed the Roman occupation of Judea, constitute a dynasty of λῃσταί obsessed with aspiration to the throne. This paper deals
with the origins of the movement, in particular the first two leaders : Hezekiah (47-46 BCE) and his son Judas the Galilean (4 BC-6 AD). If Hezekiah’s revolt still had unclear contours, Judas certainly aimed to become king.
Keywords : Sicarî, Hezekiah, Judas the Galilean, Judea, Flavius Josephus.

Tesis de Doctorado / PhD Thesis.
Since J. Parkes invented it in 1934, the expression “Parting of the Ways” has deeply rooted in the scholarship to study the distance between Jews and Christians during Antiquity. Indeed, issued from the same common background, which was the Second Temple Judaism, Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism became two opposing orthodoxies which excluded each other and, largely, based their own identity in opposition to the other one, in a process started by the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in the year 70. This doctoral thesis analyses how this parting of the ways happened throughout the first three centuries of the Common Era in the different regional realities of the Roman Empire, taking as a main source the literature of the Church Fathers, though also other ones, as the rabbinic literature, the so-called “cycle of the Talmud”. So, despite their rivalries, Judaism and Christianity form a large spectrum where, in an extreme, we find the Rabbinic Judaism, for which Jesus represents nothing, and, in the other, different forms of Gnostic Christianity, which fully denied the identification between the Jewish Jahveh and the God Father preached by Jesus Christ and, because of that, refused all the Jewish heritage of Christianity. Between both extremes became established the self-proclaimed Orthodox Christianity, over the basis of the anti-legalistic thought of the Apostle Paul. This form of Christianity also felt obliged to harmonize Hebrew Scriptures as a part of the history of salvation with the idea that the Mosaic Law had been abrogated with the coming of the Messiah. This proto-Orthodox Christianity found in the method of allegory applied to the interpretation of the Old Testament the legitimation of its doctrine and its universalistic and uniformist wishes. On the other hand, the rabbis, with the Patriarch as their leader, got the decisive support of the Roman authorities in their purpose to proclaim themselves as the leaders of Judaism, which was decapitated after the disappearance of the Temple. This Judaism found its way of expression in the so-called Talmudic literature, where the Rabbis systematized an orthodoxy that excluded from the people of Israel all those who did not share their doctrines, as we can see, for example, in the Birkat ha minim, imprecation which, included in the liturgy of the synagogue worship, was pronounced against the Followers of Jesus of Nazareth.

Paper exposes and details the usage of rhetoric & propaganda. Knowing this also exposes the purposes and motives involved in the creation of such texts. Which, in turn, leads us to information about the true authorship of these texts. Emphasis is upon the importance of recognizing literary devices.

Táto kniha prináša mnoho nových objavov z oblasti biblických dejín. K starším paralelám medzi Eposom o Gilgamešovi a knihou Genezis pridala nové paralely. Zovšeobecnila najstaršie dejiny vzniku prvej civilizácie sveta (sumerskej) s biblickými dejinami vzniku človeka. Ukázala, že biblické dejiny Jozefa a jeho rodiny, rovnako ako aj exodu Židov z Egypta majú svoje paralely s kráľovskými dejinami Egypta. Herodotove kráľovské príbehy z prostredia perzského kráľa Dareia majú svoje paralely v biblických knihách Judit, Tobiáš, ale najmä Ester. Príbehy Makabejských mučeníkov zodpovedajú príbehom z kráľovských dejín Hasmoneovskej dynastie, tak ako ich zaznamenal Jozef Flávius. Podobne príbehy Panny Márie a jej rodiny zodpovedajú kráľovským príbehom poslednej Hasmoneovskej kráľovnej Mariamné a jej rodiny, tak ako ich zaznamenáva Jozef Flávius. Prensledovanie kresťanov za Nera v roku 64 po Kr. pravdepodobne inicioval Jozef Flávius, ktorý sa práve v tej dobe ocitol v Ríme a potreboval od Nera, aby prepustil uväznených židovských kňazov. Vyznanie Jozefa Flávia o Ježišovi, že je Kristus (Testimonium Flavianum) zrejme napísal laodicejský biskup Anatolius, ktorý bol jedným z teológov – matematikov, ktorí v tej dobe upresňovali historické dáta teologicko – matematickými konštrukciami. A nakoniec, pravdepodobne list cisára Trajána miestodržiteľovi Bythínie Plíniovi Mladšiemu je predobrazom, z ktorého sa neskôr vyvinul list Pána Ježiša kráľovi Abgarovi v Edesse, z neho zázračný obraz (mandylion) Pána Ježiša v Edesse a Konštantínopole a nakoniec možno aj Turínske plátno.

This volume brings together nineteen studies by foremost experts in the period of Herod and Augustus, and highlights recent progress in elucidating the phenomenon of Herod the Great in the context of the Roman imperial order inaugurated by Augustus. They illuminate Herod’s pre-eminent role in the Augustan client network and his remarkable energies, expressed in an extensive building programme which has left substantial remains. The literary records of Herod’s life and times, primarily by Josephus, are critically examined here in relation to the documentary and archaeological evidence.

The article points to the close connection between the ›prohibition of images‹ and the prohibition of idolatry in ancient Judaism, which had already been established in the Decalogue itself. First, the treatment of the ›prohibition of images‹ in Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus is discussed, followed by a treatment of the archaeological evidence up to the Bar Kokhba revolt. A reluctance to depict animals and humans can be observed here, especially in order to prevent their being worshipped. However, there is no absolute prohibition of images, and the archaeological evidence also yields individual depictions of animals and even humans which points to social and ideological differences in the Judaism of the Hellenistic-Early Roman period. The rabbinic texts refer even more strongly to the aspect of worship: according to Tannaitic sources (above all, Mishnah and Tosefta Avodah zarah), using those images that are ›worshipped‹ is forbidden. The presence of images, even images of gods, in public spaces not designed for their worship is unproblematic, as the famous anecdote about Rabban Gamli’el in Aphrodite’s bath in Akko illustrates, according to which the statue of Aphrodite is considered to be a mere ›ornament‹. The archaeological evidence seems to correspond to this: from the early 3rd century at the latest, one finds animal images preserved on lintels of synagogues, followed soon afterwards by human depictions, e.g. on synagogue mosaic floors, and finally also depictions of Helios and the Quadriga. Only in later witnesses (beginning ith the Babylonian Talmud) do we find prohibitions to depict, for example, the moon even as an ornament, and ›iconoclastic‹ interventions are discernible in the archaeological evidence. – The PDF uploaded is a pre-print version with corrections. I shall be happy to send a PDF of the published version upon request.