Titus Flavius Josephus and the Prophet Jeremiah
Avishai Margalit contrasts the legacies of a historian and a prophet
Steve Mason argues that the texts of Josephus cannot be relied upon to support the conclusion that the Essenes were the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the inhabitants of Qumran. Imaginary portrait of Josephus by Thomas Addis Emmet, 1880.
Titus Flavius Josephus is best remembered as an unparalleled chronicler of first-century C.E. Jewish history. His legacy also includes a military record marked by the betrayal of his peers and capitulation to the Romans. As a commander in the Jewish revolt, Josephus attempted to persuade his companions to open the gates of Yodfat for the Romans, and when the city fell, he reneged on the group’s suicide pact and personally surrendered. After the destruction of Jerusalem, Titus Flavius Josephus lived as a Roman citizen in the emperor’s palace, enjoying the luxurious life of a dignitary and scholar.
Josephus’s repeated calls for surrender to the Romans have been labeled as betrayal. In the September/October 2012 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, distinguished scholar Avishai Margalit contrasts the historian’s tarnished reputation with that of the prophet Jeremiah. The prophet Jeremiah also urged total surrender to a militarily superior foe, the Babylonians. He tried to escape Jerusalem, and, much like Titus Flavius Josephus, was accused of trying to defect. Avishai Margalit asks: how is it that the Biblical prophet Jeremiah is revered while Josephus is criticized?
FREE ebook: Masada: The Dead Sea’s Desert Fortress. Discover what archaeology reveals about the Jewish rebels’ identity, fortifications and arms before their ultimate sacrifice.
Jeremiah predicts failure of the Judahites (at right) in defending Jerusalem’s gates against the siege of the Babylonian armies (lower left). The sixth-century B.C.E. Biblical prophet is shown unrolling a scroll in this 12th-century Bury Bible illumination by Master Hugo. Photo: The Master and Fellows of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.
Avishai Margalit writes that “Josephus offers two kinds of defenses: defense of creed and defense of his people.” Josephus portrayed the zealots as irrational while defending the majority of Jews and the Roman dynasty, conveniently omitting the widespread support for the revolt and the atrocities committed by the Romans. Margalit writes that Jeremiah is also a historian, but “his appeal to history is not out of an interest in human affairs as such, but rather in history as a source of obligations to God. The religion of the Bible is, broadly speaking, a historically based religion; the primary arena of the Bible is history; the divine manifestation is set essentially in history.”
Neither Titus Flavius Josephus nor the prophet Jeremiah considered the creation of a Judean vassal state to be idolatry, and both took it upon themselves to warn their people of the superior military force of their enemies. Yet Avishai Margalit states that, “Josephus was tainted by his relation to power; Jeremiah was willing to risk everything. Josephus’s relation to power should not disqualify him as a witness in the court of history but it does disqualify him as a moral witness: a moral witness is never in the service of the ruling power.”
For more on the legacy of historians and prophets, read Avishai Margalit, “Josephus vs. Jeremiah: The Difference Between Historian and Prophet” in the September/October 2012 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.
Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.
Related reading in Bible History Daily
All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library
Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.
This Bible History Daily feature was originally published in September 2012.
Related Posts
Must-Read Free eBooks
Want more Bible history?
Sign up to receive our email newsletter and never miss an update.
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Become an All-Access Member to explore the Bible's rich history. Get Biblical Archaeology Review in print, full online access, and FREE online talks. Plus, enjoy special Travel/Study discounts. Don't miss out—begin your journey today!
Whatever else he was, Josephus became an instrument of God to chronicle the fulfillment of Prophecy.
His writings reveal the wonder of Christ’s call for the destruction of the evil city “that murdered the Prophets and God’s Saints” being carried out as he proclaimed in Matt. 23, 24 and the Book of Revelation..
The fundamental factor about Josephus is he was emmersed in a war much bigger than he realized, and this may also apply to us, this generation. Far from being limited by religious groups scoring points, this was an epic battle for Monotheism. Josephus’ focus was about survival and he would have never imagined the Jews would come out triumphant. We know who won because we do not worship Jupiter or Zeus today!?
The romans won the battle, while the Jews won the war. The romans lost by winning, while the Jews won by losing. This is the eternal riddle of the people of Israel throughout the centuries.
Scholars are not sure how much of what Josephus’ writings say about Jesus are his own and how much were added by pious Christian editors to later copies. At a bare minimum, he seems to acknowledge that a “rebel” (from his viewpoint) named Jesus was crucified, indicating that this Jesus (there were probably others, since Yeshua or Joshua was a common name) was well enough known to be mentioned. Some other passages describing Him as Savior were probably added by copyists.
It is worth noting that Josephus is the only non-Christian source that mentions Jesus by name, which is not surprising since the immediate SECULAR impact of His ministry was minor, and those who were not part of the movement would regard him as just “one of the Jewish rebels” who got a few followers from time to time. Even WITHIN the Christian movement, it was not until the 70’s or 80’s that information about His LIFE, rather than His theological role as described by Paul, resulting in the Gospel of Mark; and not until the 80’s or 90’s that Matthew and Luke tried to get the scoop on His birth circumstances (since their stories contradict in several important points, they probably both relied on rumors). So it is not surprising that the first references in secular documents are to the Christians as a movement rather than the founder of that movement. Rome did not think Jesus was important until they began to worship Him!
correction: … information about His LIFE, … WAS SOUGHT FOR, resulting in …
In Josephus’ time there were no Christians as yet. The religion took off like wild fire, but this was not in the first century. The term Christian first emerged 174 CE. Josephus was a captive and his writings are inclined in white washing the Romans as nice guys. Otherwise, his writings of the temple stats, brick sizes and other details are 100% correct.
Joseph – Acts 11:26 tells us, “the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.” Acts of the Apostles was completed around A.D. 62, while Paul yet lived. Also, Claudius (r. A.D. 47-54)banished the Jews from Rome, “because of Chrestus”
Religion requires unconditional faith in rabidly believing that which is not sensible, in fact “childish”. [As Einstein wrote]
Josephus was clearly an arrogant, selfish and immoral man who quickly betrayed anyone 4his own personal benefit. He lived lavishly in Rome after many betrayals by glorifying Rome’s defeated Jewish enemies, making their defeat even sweeter. Mostly fake history.
His is not factual history, only sprinkled with physical facts 4some context. “Tainted”, eh?
good article but I would disagree with one supposition:
“Josephus’s relation to power should not disqualify him as a witness in the court of history but it does disqualify him as a moral witness: a moral witness is never in the service of the ruling power.”
I would say Yosef (Joseph) under Potiphar and then under Pharaoh brings just a couple of many examples to mind of the an antithesis of the above quote from this article . . .
I understand the premise of the supposition, but “NEVER”
I concur, most forget that Jeremiah was the king’s nephew, that is pretty close to power….