Antiquities of the Jews

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Ave
I am currently reading Antiquities of the Jews by Joseph ben Matthias, aka Flavius Josephus. Has anyone read this? I would like some input about this book with you if you have
I read his Jewish Wars several times and enjoyed it thoroughly

[taira1180]

I have read a french version and really liked. After reading the relations between the romans and the jews in I BC, you really understend why the jews hated so much the romans.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Yes, me too

[Jona Lendering]

I am currently reading Antiquities of the Jews by Joseph ben Matthias, aka Flavius Josephus. Has anyone read this? I would like some input about this book with you if you have

I read the books and like to help you, but I think your request is a bit wide. Maybe you can ask some more specific questions?

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Nothing particular there Jona. I just wonder if others enjoyed the books as much as I have. I like Jewish Wars better

[Jona Lendering]

Nothing particular there Jona. I just wonder if others enjoyed the books as much as I have. I like Jewish Wars better

I think it is just a different type of book. The Jewish Wars are (or pretend to be) a book of history, which explains why the Romans are the justified punishers of a Judaism that is rotten to the core; the Jewish Antiquities are essentially apology, trying to explain Judaism to pagans.

For various reasons, they have their charms. The battle naratives in the War are first class, and I can sympathize (not: agree with) the Jewish aristocrat who mourns the downfall of Judaism and the rise of radical sekts, but is unable to see the deeper, social causes.

I like the Antiquities because I can compare them to the original sources, and it is interesting to see how Josephus treats the same subject matter, sometimes improving the story, sometimes ignoring it, or adding something. He presents Solomon as a sorcerer: not exactly Biblical, but -wow!- what a piece of information about Jewish attitudes and beliefs in the first century!

And of course, the Antiquities contain more information than the War about the reign of Herod the Great and the two generations of Roman rule. Antiquities has more details about this century (40 BCE-66 CE) that I am grateful for: the reference to Jesus for example.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Thanks for the input. The authenticity of the reference to Jesus is supposed to be highly in doubt though. You might want to refer to the following articles
http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/ ... ephus.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

[Jona Lendering]

Thanks for the input. The authenticity of the reference to Jesus is supposed to be highly in doubt though. You might want to refer to the following articles
http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/ ... ephus.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

I know the discussion. As always, you can ignore the wiki. It does not even refer to the most important article, Meier's "Modest proposal". Which is remarkable, because it does quote the remarks by Crossan, who accepted Meier's solution to the problem - something you would not deduce from the quotation in the wiki.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Another astonishing thing about the book is that the author describes Augustus Caesar, in Book XVIII, as Rome's second emperor. That clearly indicates that he considered Julius Caesar as the first emperor. What's more startling is that Whiston, the translator and commentator, has nothing to say about this unusual statement

[Jona Lendering]

Another astonishing thing about the book is that the author describes Augustus Caesar, in Book XVIII, as Rome's second emperor. That clearly indicates that he considered Julius Caesar as the first emperor. What's more startling is that Whiston, the translator and commentator, has nothing to say about this unusual statement

It's not so very unusual: Suetonius does the same. Even better, or worse, is the Byzantine author Xiphilinus (if I recall correctly), who made Pompey the first emperor. Which is, of course, not entirely incorrect, because Pompey invented the imperium maius, rule by legati, and the combination of governerships and other offices (e.g., consul).

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Thanks for the input. I was just wondering what was the basis of Josephus making such a statement. After all, did Caesar ever claim the title of Imperator? The fact that Suetonius states something similar is even more surprising
BTW I just checked out part of your website. Real labour of love there. Congratulations