Josephus and Polybius - A Reconsideration PDF

Josephus and Polybius: A Reconsideration
Author(s): A. M. Eckstein
Source: Classical Antiquity, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Oct., 1990), pp. 175-208
Published by: University of California Press
Stable 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 support@jstor.org.
University of California Press is 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 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A. M. ECKSTEIN
OFFlavius Josephus, the Jewish historical writer of the first

THE CAREERS
and
A.D.,
century
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
families, and wrote works at least partly
aegis of powerful Roman
the Roman side-the
of those families; both men witnessed-from
in the interest
Roman
de
struction of great cities dear to them (Corinth, Jerusalem); both men, finally,
spent
on the theme of Roman

writing histories concentrated
that also contained defenses of their own behavior, both in their
The question of how
and after their arrival among the Romans).
their time in Rome
power (histories
native countries
much, or whether, Josephus was influenced by his second-century-B.c. predeces

sor has naturally intriguedmodern 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 forClassical
Antiquity. Iwould also like to express special thanks to Professor Louis H. Feldman, the dean of
Josephus studies, who kindly sentme somematerial thatotherwise would have been very difficult for
me
to obtain.
the careers
between
the parallels
and Polybius,"
Jeremiah,
"Josephus,
1. For
Cohen,
1990 BY THE
REGENTS
OF THE
see the comments

and Josephus,
of Polybius
H& T 21 (1982) 367 and n. 4.
UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA

of S. J. D.
176
CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
Volume 9/No. 2/October 1990
the spectrum, Collomp andAvenarius suggest that Josephuswas heavily inPolyb

ius'shistoriographical debt; at the other end of the spectrum, Shuttwould greatly
minimize any Polybian influence.2Recently the question has been reopened in a
stimulating
article
by S. J. D. Cohen.
Cohen
that Josephus
argues
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 historicalwriting,
particularly
on the moral
structure
of the Jewish War.
3The purpose
of the present
paper is to extend and to amplifyCohen'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

the crucial importance of the Jewish moral
least to deny
work.
This
is not in the
and narrative
tradition.
But the Greek, and specifically the Polybian, historiographical tradition-and

evenmore important, thePolybian 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
writers. The discussion
in terms of evaluating
the influence of Polybius upon later
here will, I think, also serve to demonstrate
the consis
time with which
local elites came to an intellectual
accommodation
tency over
with the harsh
of the sources
fact of Roman
of the stability
of one
power. The result is a clearer appreciation
and continuity of Roman hegemony
in the Mediter
ranean world.
Josephus makes explicit reference to Polybius, and apparent direct use of

he uses an excerpt from Book
three times in his work. At AJ 12.135-37
Polybius,
to support his contention
16 of the Histories
that Antiochus
III was very grateful
it is hard to see the
for the help he received from the Jews. (In fact, however,
relevance of the quoted passage to Josephus's argument.) A little later (AJ

but
12.358-59) Josephus praises Polybius as an honest man (&yaco;g.... .av),
2. P. Collomp, "La place de Josephe dans la technique de l'historiographie hellenistique," in
Etudes historiques de la Faculte des lettresde 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 inA. 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
in
is an insecure one, since many of the words he cites were actually common
"The Language
of
criticism
of Briine
See now the general
by D. Ladouceur,
writing.
JSJ 14 (1983) 22 and n. 19.
Josephus,"
H. Lind
n. 1) 369ff., esp. 380-81
3. Cohen
(above,
(the most recent full study of the question).
Brine's
methodology
Hellenistic
ner, Die Geschichtsauffasung des Flavius Josephus imBellum Judaicum (Leiden, 1972) 47, believes
Josephus knew Polybius'sHistories andmodeled parts of his own work on them, particularlyhismate
rial on historiographical theory; but Lindner's remarks are extraordinarily brief (parenthetical to a
discussion of Josephus's conception of Tyche). P. Villalba iVarneda, TheHistorical Method of Flavius
Josephus (Leiden, 1986), has little coherent to suggest regarding the Polybius-Josephus relationship.

ECKSTEIN:
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 in Elymais (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
and readers are free to believe what theywish. (The reference
MEyctXojtokiXTT),
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
In this section of AJ, Josephus has
the young prince had been held as a prisoner.
does
the narrative of 1 and 2 Maccabees,
but Maccabees
been closely following
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 inDemetrius's escape appears
at Polyb. 31.14(22).4.4
At a certain level this evidence
It shows that Josephus
is fairly impressive.
knew Polybius was an important and worthwhile
historian, a man he respected,
of
was an important
source for Josephus's
discussion
and that the Achaean
on
basis
of
this
evidence
alone
the
the
relations. Nevertheless,
Seleucid-Jewish
how
or deeply Josephus had read in Polybius would have to
of
widely
question
remain
somewhat
crucial
intellectual
relations is hardly the

open: the narrative of Seleucid-Jewish
and in two of the cases above
in Polybius's Histories,
material
we have indications that even with regard to Seleucid-Jewish relations Josephus

did not always use Polybius with absolutely scrupulous care.
it is therefore neces
influence on Josephus,
the extent of Polybian
in
to
those passages
and
examine
to
the
direct
look
references,
sary
beyond
or
work
that
indirectly reflect, major Poly
might
indirectly reflect,
Josephus's
of course, to make
bian ideas. It was typical of Hellenistic
literary endeavors,
that alert read
such implicit and unacknowledged
references, on the assumption
To assess
ers would
immediately
4. E. R. Bevan,
catch and appreciate
The House
of Seleucus,
vol.
them.5
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 inBJ 3
and
7, with
their
clear
but
unacknowledged
references
to Plato's
Phaedo),

see D.
Ladouceur,
178 CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
To
cate
Volume
9/No.2/October
1990
in Josephus
tease out Polybian motifs
it is not an impossible one. A
task. But
in this fashion
is obviously
similar problem
a deli
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
of
description
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 inAthens 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.
and when
3.82-83);
est war of his own
Josephus declares that he iswriting the history of the great

time and perhaps of all time (BJ 1.1), and not some prize
as one is set at a boys' school (yUtvctor(Ra, Ap. 1.53), the
such
composition
imitation of Thucydides is once again patent (cf. Thuc. 1.1, 1.22).7

Analogous
establishes
reasoning
a good prima facie case for Josephus's
hav
ing read deeply in Polybius, and having been deeply impressed by him. The most
Polyb
impact is that deriving from Book 6 of the Histories,
in general. First, as
the Roman politeia
and constitutions
easily demonstrated
ius's discussion
of
Cohen shows, in the JewishAntiquities Josephus presents the historical evolution

of the Israelite politeia
that on the whole
in stages
recall Polybius's
analysis of the
historical evolution of the politeia of the Romans. Similarly, inAgainst Apion

Josephus compares thepoliteia created byMoses with those created by Lycurgus
and Plato;
in Book
Polybius
6 compares
the politeia
of the Romans
precisely
with these two paradigms.8 Third, 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
is a use of
the real Israelite kings. This
rulers who came before
primitive
"Masada:A Consideration of the Literary Evidence," GRBS 21 (1980) 250-52. For an excellent
discussion
general
use of Classical
of Josephus's
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
76
(1981)
greatness
case
interesting
25-34.
Villalba
of
is AJ
the Jewish War
of Herod
the Great,"
CPh
"The Death
see D. Ladouceur,
n. 3) 208 and n. 720, sees Josephus's
remarks on the
(above,
on the basis of 2 Kings 6.28ff., Deut.
1.1 as a "commonplace,"
17.168ff.:
i Varneda
at BJ
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 theGreek-speaking
milieu.
8. Cohen
(above,
n. 1) 368.

ECKSTEIN:
179
lovacQxog(= primitive ruler) that can be paralleled only in Polybius's general

exposition inBook 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 JewishWar, 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
that Josephus could use Polybius as

on the Israelite politeia
and on the
source; from the material
it is now clear that Polybius could exert a real intellectual
influ
the Seleucid
an important
Roman army,
it was clear
material
ence on Josephus as well. More evidence on this phenomenon can be gained

from an examination of Josephus's comments on historicalmethod-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.12Yet for
Avenarius, who produced an important study involving this same material, 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.
correct
is certainly
Cohen
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 firmpersonal allegiance towriting the

truth and nothing
9.
but the truth.14 Nor would
to draw conclusions
one wish
on Jewish Constitutions,"
See D. R. Schwartz,
"Josephus
"Polybius
t6ovactQXo in Book 6, see F. W. Walbank,
ius's use of
even
SCI 7 (1983/84) 40-42. On Polyb

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); butminor 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 the Polybian 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
n.
(above,
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
Vita 339); see the comments of Avenarius (above, n. 2) 41-42.

(cf. also
CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
180
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 aHelle
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, awhole group of them.16
For instance, indiscussing the qualities necessary for the creation of aworth
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 aswell the special value of a historian's active participation (acUTovQyca)
in the specific events he is recounting.'7Such 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.18Josephus's emphatic comments on the need for a
historian to have practical political andmilitary experience, on the importanceof
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 unusualmethodological dicta on his own? In fact,
took a similarly emphatic
Josephus did have a predecessor-only one-who
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 inquiryandwriting.19Moreover, 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 inpart they go well
beyond the usual commonplaces. Avenarius then says no more (citingmany 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 amilitary encampment andmilitary 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).

ECKSTEIN:
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 amere passive observer, however intelligent.20This is
precisely one of Josephus'smajor 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,16.184), 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,
ibid.), because of his situation atHerod'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 truthwas not a historiographical cliche in Josephus's
time.On the contrary: the prevailing opinion amongwriters 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.22And 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 transformedPhilip'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 these may 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 EcactovQyicg.
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.

182 CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
Volume
9/No.2/October
1990
The parallels between Polyb. 8.8.4-9 andAJ 16.184-87 seem toomany and
too crucial-and the sentiment they express seems too unusualwithin theGreek
historiographical tradition-to be mere coincidence. The alternative solution to
the hypothesis that Josephus drew his ideas on this subject frommaterial found
inPolybius 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
8. I think the odds are against
Book
this.
Yet another example can be found atAJ 20.157. Here, at the beginning of
his discussion in the JewishAntiquities 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 (TagadtagQTiag)
of his own people, since his target isalways
the truth (TlYV
This
&XkOeLeav). 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 truthper 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.23Did Jose

phus come up with
the unusual methodological
dictum
inAJ 20.157
totally on his
own? Once more he had an explicit predecessor, but only one: Polybius. At
at the beginning of his discussion of the disastrous Achaean
38.4.2-8,
it
in 146 B.c., Polybius remarks that, according to some people,
War with Rome
to throw a veil over the grievous errors (lrg
is his first duty as a Greek
taetiacg,
as a writer of history his first duty is to the
however,
38.4.2) of his countrymen;
truth (Tig aXqeiactg,
4.5), the learning of which will prevent such errors in the
Histories
future (4.8). In writers in Greek down to Josephus's generation,

only Josephus is
blunt
a follower of Polybius
in regard to writing history that includes consciously
and only Josephus draws the specific
words on the faults of one's countrymen,
contrast between covering over national acaQTtial and the necessity of telling the
full truth. This
is not
likely
between
in view of the other historio

to be a coincidence,
in
above-and
and
Polybius delineated
Josephus
graphical parallels
view of the fact that if there was one part of the Histories
23. On
6, 9, 15, De
n. 2) 53-54,
that would
have had a
see D.H. Ad Pomp. 3.2

and "elevated
of "patriotism"
the importance
subject matter,"
of Avenarius
857A, 867C; with the comments
(above,
41; Plut. De Herod. Malign.
Thuc.
82-83.

ECKSTEIN:
183
specialmeaning for Josephus, itwould 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 JewishAntiquities. 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 toAJ 20.157. In the JewishWar, 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 amanner "exceeding what is proper for the narra
tion of oioQLoa" (JtaQexpl3avovTEg
l6 xfg oToiQlxFg6TtlYYlOeog
rfog, 38.4.1).25
this
statement Polybius has been emphasizing
before
Moreover, immediately
that theGreeks had brought their terrible fate down upon themselves, through
their own 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
a defense of having to reveal the faults of one's
the same three basic elements:
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
that is, that what had occurred was not primarily the fault of the Romans,
heads,
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
a
of
first
work
in
Greek-we
find
con
whole
part
prominent
Josephus's
most
geries of Polybian historiographical motifs. Perhaps this will no longer cause

much surprise.
very first lines (the war to be recounted was the greatest of his
Josephus's
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
which
history-of
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.

184
CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
home" historians, who had no personal knowledge of events but had worked up
theirhistories 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 isdrawing here, and
how unusual amethodological claim itwas tomake in his own generation.26
There
follows
a sort of tour d'horizon
of the great
turmoil
(FeyiOrov
Toi6e
TOvxLvtLaTog) that in Josephus's time shook the entireMediterranean world,

from Syria to Gaul (BJ 1.4-5). Thackeray sees here a conscious echo of Thuc.
1.2 (xiltOLS yapaiTTin 6'l tEyiOTn]
xoLgTETloLv).27 It is true that Thucydides
on
to
mention
the
involvement
of "a certain portion of the P3QdaQot" in his
goes
war, but Thucydides' focus clearly is really on the Greeks alone (see 1.23.1,
.
cafilaTa
c... CEk.
).28Yet Josephus's focus iswider. He conjures up more
than a vision of Greece (or, from his perspective, Judaea) in turmoil, as with
Thucydides; it is thewhole 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 inBJ 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 targetsof 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 iVarneda (above, n. 3: 208) sees
BJ 1.4-5 as a purely independent statement of Josephus, motivated politically by a desire to justify
the JewishRevolt on grounds of the general instabilityof the Roman Empire. But no justificationof
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 in non-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," inHistoriographia Antiqua: FestschriftW. 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 civilwar, 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),
invasion across theDanube (7.89-95).

and
a Scythian
ECKSTEIN:
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 thatmodern 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 freshmaterial 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 theopposite
direction-one thinks of Appian, Arrian, Curtius Rufus, Diodorus, Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, Livy, Nicolaus of Damascus.30 Indeed, itwas a temptation towhich
Josephus himself would laterpartly succumb in the JewishAntiquties.31Josephus's
remarks
at the beginning
of
the Jewish War
therefore
put him apart
from his
contemporaries; did he come upwith his ideas defending Zeitgeschichte totallyon

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 there Polybius's arguments closely corre

spond
in sequence
of thought,
and partly even
in vocabulary,
to what we find in
Josephus. Polybius rejects the rewritingof already-extant histories of the far past
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,
the parallels,
it does not
is better (9.1-2,
esp. 2.1-4). Given
a connection
seem out of line to posit with Avenarius
between
this passage and
because
Josephus's discussion inBJ 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
readerwith the verbal parallels she sees in the two passages, but these parallels are certainly there:
.... TO xaLvo3OclElOal
auvEXW g xai xacvlLg
Polyb. 9.2.2, 4, ta &dXXO6Tla&1L X?yELv (0 la
aO 6 TQlaV ... 6 ?[ET& tOV xatva XeyeLV xai TO
... xal TdlV &
?Taoiov tL
iiYrio?eo)g, with BJ 1.15,6
oo3 ta Tfig LrToQLag xatacoxev&Uov
iOtov.
compare

186
CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
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,inBooks 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 theHisto
ries had been only summary and introductory in nature, since they dealt with
events
his own
before
and since
lifetime
those
events
had already
been
ade
quately narrated by, for instance, thememoirs 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 coincidingwith 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 structureof Polyb
ius'sHistories, but the division here between the introductory historical sketch
and the detailed
main
narrative
is based
on exactly
two intellectual
the same
=
justifications (BJ 1.17-18
Polyb. 4.2.1-2).
his readers with

then presents
Josephus
contents" of what the Jewish War will contain
an extremely
detailed
(BJ 1.19-29),
from the summary
"table
of
discussion of the essential historical background inBook 1 (1.19), down through

event
every major
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,
here
the resemblance
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
tables of contents
the fact that, so far as we can tell, the inclusion of such detailed
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 fromHerodotus,
Thucydides, Xenophon, and Livy; only the briefest andmost indirect remarks in
this vein occur inTacitus (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
xcpctkaXtLa xcv
that
to include Tla
of history may well wish
in his proem (Hist. Conscr. 53), but the paradig
the writer
YEy?vtE'tvwv

ECKSTEIN:
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 the beginning of
the JewishWar, and there is also nothing like it in the other narrative tradition
available to Josephus, theHebrew Bible. Indeed, Josephus himself presents noth
in the one devoted specifically to
ing like it in any of his other works-only
of
the
the
writers
early Imperial age, Appian alone-and
Zeitgeschichte.34Among
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 inPolybius, who had a passion for organization
and then next, so far aswe can tell, only in Josephus; such synopseswere clearly
not an important historiographical device. It is therefore legitimate to askwhere
Josephus, as he was preparing hismanuscript for hisGreek audience, got the idea
for inserting an elaborate table of contents intoBJ 1.19-29. There isone obvious
possibility.
After describing in detail the structure and contents of his history of the
JewishWar, Josephus then brings the proem to a close with the proud statement
that his work
iswriten
for lovers of truth, and not to gratify his readers:
TOIg ye
i6ovYv aveyQCazpc(BJ 1.30). The gen

cyajotdoLv, akkhaAq JTQOg;
Tiv aki&MeVcav
eral contrast between truth, practical benefit, and instruction as goals of the
writing of history, as opposed tomere pleasure, goes back at least toThucydides
(1.22.4), and was a cliche.35But 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
to entertain
readers as to benefit those who
much
at BJ 1.30: "My aim is not so

(Rcov
pay careful attention"
on
7QooeX6vXTcv, 9.2.6). Once more we find the focus to be specifically
serious reader: the reader each writer was inspired to claim as particularly
own because of the serious-that

It is now clear
influence
his
of his work.
to reopen the question of Polybian

but also that he did not go far enough, in that he excluded
that Cohen
on Josephus,
is, seriously political-nature
the
was
correct
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 scholarswill prefer to
view at least a few of these resemblances
as purely
coincidental,
arising merely
34. Compare the proem of the JewishWar with the proems of the JewishAntiquities (1.1-17)
andAgainst Apion (1.1-6). (The Vita has no proem at all.)
35. See the discussion of Avenarius (above, n. 2) 22-29.

188
CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
from similar literary purposes. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect of all these
cases of resemblance seems in toto quite impressive: it ishard to believe that it is
all just an accident, especially since many 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 readwidely in
Polybius's Histories. To be conservative: Josephus had read inBook 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?
phus's
wrote
The
answer
of the most
were
native
is yes. It is true that Jose

scholarship
and Hebrew-indeed,
he says he first
not in Greek
vernacular,
(BJ 1.3). But as
recent
Aramaic
languages
the Jewish War in his native
Rajak has pointed out, Josephus could hardly have been entrusted with his
in 64 A.D. unless he was already reason
to Rome
important diplomatic mission
ably fluent in spoken Greek.37 One might go a bit farther: a diplomat at Nero's
as it was of Greek
culture-could
court-enamored
hardly count on success
unless he not only was reasonably fluent in spoken Greek but also had already at
of Classical
least a modicum
learning with which to impress his audience. More
a strong case for supposing that the Greek version of
over, Cohen has presented
was not issued until the reign of Titus (79-81
7 was an addition under Domitian.
This
that
Book
A.D.)-and
perhaps
more
in
of (enforced)
leisure
which to
would give Josephus a good decade and
in July 67 and the
his capture at Jotapata
between
have read the Histories,
1-6
Books
of
the Jewish War
even
issuing of the Greek
version
of the Jewish War.38 And while
says that
Josephus
Book
3: see above,
p. 184, p. 186. Book 4: see above, p. 186. Book
12: see above,
8: see above, pp. 178ff. Book 9: see above, pp. 181f. Book
above, p. 176. Book 31: see above, pp. 177f. Book 38: see above, p. 182.
36.
Book
6: see above,
p. 181. Book
p. 186.
16: see
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
But
dedication).
in 75 A.D. (see
in BJ 4.654ff.,
cf. Dio
to the Temple
at BJ 7.155-61;
find a sharp attack on A. Caecina Alienus-a
the reference
we
also
66.15.1
for the
man who
was
fawned on by historians throughoutmost of Vespasian's reign, according toTacitus (Hist. 2.101.1),

but who
fell from
late addition
favor
in the first months
to the text, and so it seems
of 79. There
fair to suggest
is no evidence
that the attack
that the Jewish War was
on Caecina
being written
is a
only
in
the last years of Vespasian's reign. The prominence of Titus throughout thework, 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) aDomitianic date for the end of
the narrative.
The
is Josephus's
this need
51)-but
reign
only strong
statement
not mean
of Vespasian's
in the middle
in favor of a date of publication
argument
1.50
to read (Vita 361, Ap.
that he had sent
t 3tP3pia to Vespasian
circulated
for Vita 364 and 366 show that Josephus
the whole work,

ECKSTEIN:
he worked
up the Greek
version
189
of the Jewish War with
the aid of others
"for the
sake of theGreek" (7@Q6g

TSIV 'EXXrviba
cpwviv ovvEyot, Ap. 1.50), Rajak has
that
these
persuasively argued
ovvEQyoi should probably be seen as friends of
Josephus in Rome who simply helped him create his highly polished literary
style-that is, theywere not helping him with the basics of theGreek language
itself.39Inother words, we should probably assume that Josephus's knowledge of
Greek and Greek culture was already fairly broad in themid-60s A.D., and that
he had more than enough time in the 70s, while working on the JewishWar, to
peruse and be impressed by Polybius. Indeed,AJ 20.263 seems an explicit state
ment regarding the intensity of Josephus's study of Greek literaturewhile resi
dent at Rome
during
the writing
of the Jewish War. 4
Our conclusions so far are that a wide reading in Polybius probably exer
cised significant influence on Josephus's theory of the development of the
Israelitepoliteia, and a significant influence on Josephan historiographical think
ing as well. Put another way, Josephus seems to have found Polybian motifs a
useful representational and/or interpretative tool,41-that is, an effective way
to present to his Greek-speaking audience his ideas on the development of the
Jewish state, and his ideas on proper historiography. But this finding also opens
up further fields for investigation. Perhaps Polybius's intellectual influence on
Josephus extended as well to the way Josephus represented to his Greek
speaking audience crucial aspects of the story of the Jewish Revolt itself, and
also of
its historical
meaning,
both
in the Jewish War
and
in the much
later
Vita.
Three areas seem especially worthy of investigation here. First, Josephus's

manner of analyzing the causes of the Revolt, and his manner of depicting the
"radical"
Jewish
leaders
and
their adherents,
in the Jewish War
and
the Vita
(though not so much in the Jewish Antiquities). This manner turns out to be
strikingly similar to Polybius's characterization of causes of war with Rome, and
his characterization
of
those
foolhardy
personages
who
in his own
time had
challenged the Romans. Second, and by contrast, Josephus's depiction of the

character
and duties
to restraining
in regard
of the "good" or "rational" statesman,
especially
acts of the masses; here, too, Polybian echoes seem
the irrational
strong. Finally, Josephus's general depiction of the sources and the nature of
portions of the uncompleted JewishWar among importantpeople (in this case, King Agrippa II). On
all this, see the persuasive discussion of S. J. D. Cohen, Josephus inGalilee and Rome: His Vita and
Development as a Historian (Leiden, 1979) 84-90; and now S. Schwartz, "The Composition and
Publication of Josephus' Bellum Judaicum Book 7," HThR 79 (1986) 373-86, accepting a date under
Titus for the publication of the original Greek version of BJ (377 and n. 16), and presenting strong
arguments for redactions of Book 7 as late as the reign of Trajan (passim).
39. Rajak (above, n. 37) 62-63.
40. See the interpretation of this passage by Rajak (above, n. 37), 48, where Josephus's
reference
to studying
i YQalx.AcTlxTr
is shown
to mean,
as in Dionysius
Thrax,
familiaritywith the diction of poets and prose writers."

41.
The
phrase
(from
another
context)
is that of Rajak
(above,
n. 37) 91.

gaining
"a general
190
CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
Rome's hegemony in the world, and the practical, didactic, conclusions to be

drawn from that depiction: these strongly resemble Polybian themes as well.
A good start in the first area has already been made by Cohen; but, once
again, more remains to be said. Cohen rightly points out the similarity between
the general trend inPolybius's view of the origins of war with Rome and the view
of the origins of the JewishWar sometimes taken by Josephus. In both authors,
the origins of the wars lie basically in the unwise, irrational, or even insane
actions of Rome's opponents, and the political leadersof such anti-Romanmove
ments are especially subject to the historians' criticism:wicked or cowardlymen,
ormen driven by irrationalhatred and/or overweening ambition for power. Thus
Diaeus and Critolaus, the politicians who led Polybius's beloved Achaean
League into disaster in the 140s B.C.,bear a strong generic resemblance to Jewish
radical leaders such as John of Gischala and Simon bar Giora, as Josephus
depicts them especially in the JewishWar.42
Actually, the parallels in theme, presentation, and even in verbal expres
sion between Josephus and Polybius are even closer here thanCohen suggests.
Polybius consistently speaks of the irrational behavior and motives (a&oyca,
aXoytoria), or even the outright madness (ltavia, or even baltovopfaX3ELa),of
states
who went
and individuals
to war with Rome.
The
examples
even
in our
fragmentary text are manifold; clearly, itwas a prominent theme throughout

theHistories.43Conversely, throughout theHistories Polybius viewed accommo
dation
with
Rome,
though
not
servility
to Rome,
as an example
of rational
policy: see the Ei3povkia of King Hiero II already at Polyb. 1.16.9.44Cohen

points to the general similarity between Josephus and Polybius in this respect,
and he
use different vocabularies,
to
is
not
as
and
of
irrationality"
important
"rationality
posits
How
"sin
and
divine
of
theme
as
the
Jeremiah-like
punishment."45
Josephus
views on the origins of
of Josephus's
one's general evaluation
ever, whatever
but seems
to think
that the two historians
that the theme
the Revolt-and
surely
they were
complex
views-it
is certainly
the case
that
42. Cohen (above, n. 1) 378-79.

43. The term &aoyia and its cognates appear a total of 58 times in the extant Polybian text.
which is about a quarter of the original work. In Polybius, aXoyia is typical of barbarians (2.19.4,
21.1, 30.4; 11.32.6; 12.4b.2-4c.1), Aetolians, a people Polybius heartily disliked (3.7.3, 4.15.9,
5.107.7, 18.53.7, 21.26.16), traitors (18.15.16), bad generals (1.52.9; 5.48.3, 110.10; cf. 3.81.9), bad
politicians (3.19.9, 4.34.7, 10.26.4, 15.24.6, 22.7.3, 28.9.4, 38.20.1), and even bad historians (1.15.6;
3.9.2, 47.7, 48.1; 16.17.2). The termatkoyLtoct and its cognates occur 19 times in the extant text; the
term tavxiaand its cognates, 11 times. For 6aliovopkdPletLaas a characteristic of enemies of Rome,
see 28.9.4, 36.17.16; cf. also 6alutovdo used of Antiochus IV, in a passage that Josephus had
certainly read (31.9[111].4).Like Josephus, Polybius also emphasizes the negative impact of Ovl6og
(angry passion) and especially 6Qylp (anger); these words appear dozens of times-in both writers.
For Polybius's use of these terms, seeA. Mauersberger, Polybios-Lexikon, 4 vols. (Berlin, 1961-75);
for Josephus, see below.
44. On this theme in Polybius, see A. M. Eckstein, "Polybius, Syracuse, and the Politics of
Accommodation," GRBS 26 (1985) 265-82.
45. Cohen (above, n. 1) 378-79.

ECKSTEIN:
191
Polybian themes and vocabulary are very prominent specifically in the Jewish
War, which is the most Hellenizing of Josephus's works, and especially in the
early books of thatwork.
Thus the rebels against Rome, according to Josephus, are motivated by
eXrinL
(irrational
&ak6yLoto (irrational hope of freedom, BJ 2.346), by akoyLocTLa
ity, 3.308), by &aoyog o6i@i (irrational ardor, 4.240), and thewar, at least on the
Jewish side, has only a JxQocpaoLg
a&oyoS (an absurd pretext, 2.412). Similarly,
Josephus describes pro-rebellion fanatics as persuading the Jewish populace to
act as if possessed (6cbaLovav,BJ 2.259); the decision forwar is compared to an
act of madness (acavevx;g,2.395; cf. ctavia in 6.328, a retrospective discussion);
called madness
in the war is straightforwardly
5.406; cf.
(cavia,
persistence
avoia or anovota,
7.4, 412, 417, 437); and the radical Jewish leaders are said to
be suffering themselves from qpQevok3Xad3ic(infatuation, 6.398, 409; cf.

in Polybius). And if the war with Rome is a terrible political
6aLtovoSPka3PELa
error (xaxopovkia, BJ 2.346, 399), keeping peace with Rome is described by
Josephus as the triumphof rational policy (evFiovXia,2.511, cf. 5.320; evyvC0rq,
2.324)-indeed, of sanity (ei (pQovovoLv,3.440). This same sort of Polybian
vocabulary of analysis appears in the Vita as well.46
It is true
that the "Jeremianic"
theme
of sin and divine
punishment,
as
opposed to the Polybian theme of rationality and irrationality, does eventually

become prominent in the JewishWar. And the difference in concept is crucial.
By "sin," Josephus means not political error-however egregious-but every
thing from untraditional religious practice (JB 4.154), to transvestitism (4.561
63) and profanation of the holy wine and oil (6.565), to outright mass murder
within the Temple precinct (5.15-20). Of all this, and more, were the Jewish
radicals guilty.47But this theme of sin and divine punishment comes to the fore
only as Josephus, after his prophetic vision at Jotapata, turns to his description of
the siege of Jerusalem in 70; it seems connected emotionally to his horrified
reaction
to the destruction
of the Temple
itself.48 This
"Jeremianic"
theme will
later appear inBook 20 of the JewishAntiquities as well, as the explanation for

the Jewish disaster.49Nevertheless, the prominence of Jeremiah-like "religious/
46. See Vita 18 (dvorTsog), 19 (cav(a), 34 (FelictavSg),323 (&voct), 352 (avota). And note also
BJ 7.264, 267, where the Jewish rebel leaders are "ravingmad" (xctTaaaveti) or suffering from
insanity (&ot6vola);BJ 7.332, where the Zealots are self-confessed madmen (gtavevteg); and at the
end atMasada, where Eleazar's people are "raving likemen possessed" (6aluov0VTeg;,7.389). The
above examples, taken as a whole, suggest thatCohen (above, n. 1: 378) is not correct to say that
"Polybius speaks of insanity ... farmore than Josephus." For all this Josephan terminology, both
positive and negative, see K. H. Rengstoff, A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, 3 vols.
(Leiden, 1975).
47. Cf. Cohen (above, n. 1) 371.
48. On the sharp change of emotional tone and focus in the JewishWar once the scene shifts
from Galilee
to Jerusalem,
see
the comments
of Rajak
(above,
n. 37) 82. Cohen
75) himself well explicates this division within thework.

49. See esp. AJ 20.48, 218

(above,
n.
1: 374
192
CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
moral analysis" elsewhere in Josephus's work should not lead us to overlook the
true richness of Josephus's Polybian "political/psychological analysis" and Poly
bian vocabulary, especially as it appears in the early parts of the Jewish War.
In this connection, one should also note Josephus's specific emphasis on the
recklessness of youth as an important factor in the atmosphere of irrationality
and political error that led to theRevolt. Thus, hot-headed Jewish youths are in
great part responsible for the crisis inCaesarea thatwas amajor cause of thewar
(BJ 2.286, 303); a similar situation holds during the crucial period in Jerusalem
(2.346). Rash youths are responsible formuch of the trouble Josephus himself
faced in trying-so he says-to keep Galilee pacific in 66 and 67 (Vita 126,
170).50And some of the major radical leaders at Jerusalem are themselves
presented as uncontrolled young men (e.g., Eleazar ben Simon, BJ 2.409). Not
surprisingly, therefore, Josephus is explicit that the youths in Jerusalemwere far
more susceptible than the sober older people to the radicals' pleas for war
(4.128).
There
ismuch more
in this vein both
in the Jewish War
and in the Vita,
and even in the JewishAntiquities (rather odd, given the emphasis in thatwork
on sin rather than on political error).51
Rajak has rightly pointed out this theme in Josephus's work (it is not dis
cussed by Cohen), and rightly suggests a Greek origin for this sort of analysis.52
But Rajak would relate it to the influence of Thucydides, and perhaps especially
to the Thucydidean portrait of Alcibiades.53 It is true that Thucydides does
discuss, without much emphasis, one incident inwhich youthful rashnessmight
have
led to a dangerous
situation-though
it did not. Moreover,
in fact
the
passages where Alcibiades' youth is stressed have nothing on his rashness: just
the opposite.54 Josephus had clearly done his reading in Thucydides (as we
happen to know from other examples); scholars are correct to emphasize this.55
But clearly, the destructive rashness of youth was simply not a major Thucy
didean theme, any more thanwas rationality and irrationality.56However, like
50. On the possibly fictional nature of Josephus's goal inGalilee as reported in the Vita, see
above all Cohen (above, n. 38) 152-60, 180ff. For similar problems regarding Josephus's self
representation in the Jewish War, see ibid., 97-100. Josephus, of course, was a general of the anti
Roman rebellion.
51.
See BJ
4.133,
503;
cf. also
7.85,
88
(Domitian
was
wiser
and more
responsible
than his
years); Vita 129, 132, 185, 325; and even AJ 20.199.

52. Rajak (above, n. 37) 93.
53.
Ibid. 93 and n. 2.
54. At Thuc. 2.20.1 and 21.2, the first Spartan invasion and devastation of Attica provokes a
desire among the youth of Athens for a set battle with the dangerous Peloponnesian army; but the
young men are successfully restrained by Pericles (2.22.1). On Alcibiades' youthfulness as part of the
Thucydidean portrait, see 5.43.2, 6.17.1-2 (where, however, this element isnot much emphasized),
6.18.6 (where the emphasis is precisely on Alcibiades' willingness to listen to older, wiser men).
55. See above, pp. 178-79.
56.
It is true that at Thuc.
2.8.1
we
have
the brief
statement
that the youth
of both Athens
and
Sparta were inexperienced enough with war that theywelcomed its outbreak. But these young men
were hardly, inThucydides' conception, a great causal factor in the outbreak of war between the two
states (see, e.g., Thuc. 1.24.5 forThucydides' view of the causes of thewar).

ECKSTEIN:
193
rationality and irrationality in general, the destructive rashness of youth was a

major theme in theHistories of Polybius.
the rash young Gallic
Thus
of the 230s B.C., in their uncontrolled
warriors
anger and inexperience with the dangers of war, bring about a series of destruc
tive conflictswith Rome (Polyb. 2.21.2); the actions of the young and irresponsi
ble Aetolian politican Dorimachus help bring on the Social War in Greece
(4.3.5ff.); the young Spartan revolutionaries in 220 B.C. commit sacrilegious
murder of their elders in the temple of Athena itself (4.34.6); Philip V of Mace
don
into wild
is seduced
dreams
of war
against Rome
(and resultant
in
empire
the western Mediterranean) partly because of his youth (5.102.1); it is young

Tarentines who foolishly turnagainst Rome and give Tarentum over toHannibal
in 213 (8.24.10), the ultimate result being the destruction of their city; and King
Hieronymus of Syracuse, an irresponsible and unstable youngman, destroys the
relations between Syracuse and Rome that his wise grandfather Hiero II had
ultimate result being the Roman sack of Syra
carefully built up (7.2-7)-the
cuse. Even Hannibal, who is normally rational, is associated by Polybius at one
crucial point with youthful irrationality, and specifically in regard to war with
Rome:
before
it would
have
been
the Romans,
tackling
better
but
for Hannibal
to have
in the crisis of 220/19
been more prepared

B.C. his youthful ardor,
anger, and irrationalityoverwhelmed him (3.15.6-11; cf. 11.19.6-7). And if the

young Scipio Africanus is capable of reining in his passions, Polybius is explicit
that the great Africanus does so despite his youth (10.40.6).57A final example:
Polybius, in his effort to spirit the Seleucid prince Demetrius Iout of Rome (ca.
162 B.c.),
fears
that Demetrius,
of his wildness
because
and extreme
youth
will be unable to carry out Polybius's plan with the requisite

TXEkWog),
(vEWrTQOov
care (31.13.8).
This passage
is of special
interest because
we can be certain
that
Josephus had read it.58

is not to say that Josephus's
rashness of
emphasis on the destructive
is
at
it
must
some
in
have
had
least
basis
in the
youth
literary
completely
origin;
or
as
as
of
he
Judaean reality
66-70
it,
A.D.-especially
Josephus perceived
in view of the evidence assembled
remembered
it later in the 70s. Nevertheless,
This
above
it seems
a reasonable
conclusion
that a reading
of Polybius
is what
in
spired Josephus to employ this particularmotif as such a prominent explanation

for the Jewish disaster. Polybius revealed to Josephus a good Hellenistic explana
to a Greek-speaking
be acceptable
tion of events, one that would obviously
of
one
that
the
additional
and
carried
audience,
advantage
exonerating much of
the Jewish population from responsibility for the Revolt. In other words, if the
destructive
rashness
of youth
is found
as such an important
part of Josephus's
57. On all the above passages, and on the importance to Polybius of the theme of the destruc
tive
rashness
of youth,
see
now A.
M.
Eckstein,
"Hannibal
at New
Carthage:
Power of Irrationality,"CPh 84 (1989) 15 and n. 50.

58.
See
above,
p. 177 and n. 4.

Pol.
3.15
and
the
194
CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
analysis of Jewish political error (again, not "sin"), there is a good chance this
was because he was using a representational and/or interpretative tool he derived
from his reading of Polybius's Histories.
Toward the end of the great speech that Josephus gives King Agrippa II as the
king attempts to dissuade the Jerusalemites from rebellion (BJ 2.345-401), we
find a passage that seems a fair summation of Josephus's attitude toward Jewish
irrationalitywhen he was, in his analytical mode, stressing the Jewish political
error at the heart of the Revolt:
"For to the victims
of unforeseen
catastrophe
there is still left the gift of compassion, but he who positively rushes into obvious
destruction incurs reproach to boot" (BJ 2.396). Jewish action incurredJosephus's
reproach (oveL6og), at least in retrospect.59But Agrippa's speech is also just the
sort of highly rhetorical environment inwhich we would most expect Josephus to
be depending on Greek models. And amodel for the bitter judgment of Agrippa
(and Josephus) on the situation in 66 was in fact available. At the beginning of
Book 38 of theHistories, Polybius delivers his own bitter judgmenton the behav
ior of the Greeks
Rome.
in the 140s B.C., the behavior that led to their hopeless wars with
states that had suffered defeat in the far past
listing those Greek
After
of others is no small help to

(38.2 passim), Polybius remarks: "For the compassion
.
.
.
so
those who have suffered misfortune
that
in very few cases did the
[38.3.2]
victims of suchmisfortune incur reproach [6vEcLog,3.61 . . .but only thosewhose

own folly [a3ovita] brings reproach [6vEi6og]upon themselves suffer true disas
ter [3.7]. . . . [The Greeks]
by their own conduct brought down upon themselves
as could be . . . losing every shred of
not misfortune
but a disaster as disgraceful
honor [3.9]."
of thought in BJ 2.396 is very similar to the se
the sequence
Obviously,
as
quence of thought in Polyb. 38.3; and there are strong echoes in vocabulary
well.6 Earlier we saw good evidence, based on Josephus's comments on historio
graphical theory, suggesting that he had read and absorbed the proem to Polyb
ius's Book
38, the proem of which this passage (38.3)

from BJ 2.396 seems to confirm not only the
had read the proem to Book 38, but also the likelihood
on Josephus was not limited to historiographical
theory.
evidence
basis of BJ 2.396,
factor in Josephus's
the contrary: on the

to have been a significant
On
seems
of Polybius
of presenting
the Revolt and its meaning
the influence
mode
is itself a part.6' The new

likelihood
that Josephus
that Polybius's
influence
to his read
ers, and perhaps even in his understanding these events himself.

In the Jewish War
the destructive
power
and the Vita, therefore, one of Josephus's

It is a power
of the irrational in politics.
great themes is
that can lead to
59. For Josephus as an anti-Roman general in 66-67, and the possibility that he has exagger
ated
his own
doubts
the war
about
at that time,
and his own
peaceableness
toward
the Romans,
see
n. 50.
above,
60.
Thus
at BJ
2.396
eXeio^ahat is starkly
contrasted
with
QTgoovELtb6ETca, whereas
38.3 EkE0o(3.2) is starkly contrasted with O6vEt6o(3.6, 7).

61.
See
above,
pp.
182-83.

in Polyb.
ECKSTEIN:
195
terrifyingpolitical errors such as theRevolt-especially when irresponsible lead

ers, or the mob, or the young have the upper hand. At its most extreme,
Josephus's condemnatory attitude here finds expression in statements that seem
to reveal a complete, and completely aristocratic, incomprehension of the socio
political tensions behind theRevolt. Hence his extraordinary explanation for the
trouble at Tiberias inGalilee: at Tiberias "there existed many who were always
and delight
lustingafter revolution, being addicted to change by nature [qVoaEL],
a
in
bears
to
sedition"
This
(Vita
resemblance
87).
ing
passage, too,
striking
several in Polybius embodying this sort of ideology.62
But if irrationality is politically dangerous, then a primary duty of a states
man is to control the passions, both those of others and those within himself.
And this turns out to be another of Josephus's great themes in the JewishWar
and the Vita. For instance, the explicit goal of King Agrippa in the great speech
gives him in Book
Josephus
2 of the Jewish War
is to control
Jewish passions:
the
king is aware of the grave political dangers inherent in the outbreak of irrational
ity (a&oyLoiTa,2.346) among the Jews, and he works hard to bring themisguided
populace to reason (ibid.). He ends by begging the people to control their anger
(0voi6S;,2.401), and he momentarily succeeds in suppressing their passions
(6odf, 2.402). Similarly, the high priest Jesus son of Gamalas tries to restrain the
irrational impulses of the Idumaeans (their akoyog 6oQfl, 4.240), and attacks the
madness (aor6vola) of the revolutionaries (4.241); but he failswith the infuriated
mob (4.270), who reject hismoderate counsels (F'TQLOV,
4.283).
cases of politicians
"doing their duty" in this fashion can be
prominent
in the work of
cited.63 But the chief example of the rationally oriented politician
as constantly
himself
he
In
the
of
Vita,
course,
is,
presents
Josephus.
Josephus
Other
engaged in attempting to restrain the passions of the various groups inGalilee or

of order and rational
to preserve a modicum
and thus in attempting
Jerusalem,
in a
on
at
eleven
occurs
least
this
motif
occasions.64
Likewise,
separate
ity:
his own personal self-restraint while gover
famous passage Josephus emphasizes
to
his
relative
in Galilee,
temptations
youth and the consequent
despite
of
rational government
"lawless passions"
(Vita 80ff.). The theme of Josephus's
nor
62. Thus Polybius at 36.13.3: "The love of the new that is the nature [(rpoei]of men is in itself
perfectly sufficient to produce any kind of revolution" (a typical aristocratic sneer); see also Polyb.
8.24.1, 38.5.4. Note that at BJ 7.270, Josephus attributes the actions of the Jewish revolutionaries (in
similarly uncomprehending fashion) simply to the revolutionaries' "bestial nature" (thql@Ld)6T
qpoItv)-or else to their having completely lost touchwith reality.
63. On
rational
statesmen
restraining
"the irrational
mob,"
see BJ 2.281,
191, 324, 492-93
(the
latteran interesting case involving the Jewish pro-Roman Ti. JuliusAlexander); 3.127, 238, 350, 411,
4.39-46 (all cases involving Vespasian); 5.295, 316, 6.345 (cases involvingTitus); 7.57 (a Roman
official opposing theAntiochene anti-Semites).
64.
against
See Vita 31, 93, 103, 113, 263, 265,

and
tavla of the radicals;
the avoac
266,
Vita
as
307; Vita 17-19 emphasizes
Josephus's
foresight
22 has Josephus
and the Jewish aristocracy
trying
and failing to check the radicals. See also Josephus's description of his compromise settlement at
Gischala (Vita 77), which wisely defused a violent situation. The only exception is Vita 198, where
Josephus incites the populace to support him in a local dispute.

196
CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
Galilee is found already in the JewishWar.65Even in Josephus's great speech in

Book 5 to the besieged Jerusalemites, a speech inwhich the theme of Jewish sin
and God's righteous anger is in the forefront, the Hellenizing theme of the
rationalman counseling the mad is still present: the besieged are death-lovers
(BJ 5.364, 365), mindless men (5.376) who suffer from !iavtca(5.406); the only
rational course, Josephus pleads with them (ooaqpovev tEkkexe[5.419], the last
words in the speech), is surrender.
No doubt-once more-there
is some element of truth in Josephus's presen
tation of himself and others as rationally oriented statesmen confronting the
enormous political threat posed by human irrationality.Nevertheless, such repre
sentations and self-representations can, as we have them, reflect only one aspect
of what must have been a much more complex and primarily Jewish reality.
Strongly Hellenizing in theme, intended to explain the Revolt and Josephus's
own behavior to Greek-speaking audiences and to present reality along literary
lines familiar toGreeks, such representations and self-representations are clearly
based on Greek
literary models
and ideas that Josephus
had learned
to use.
It is
therefore legitimate to ask where Josephus might have picked up the idea of
interpreting his actions and those of others in this fashion.66
Any one of several historians might have provided Josephuswith themodel
of
the statesman
as the rational man
certain on the matter.67
But
the candidate
irrationality;
confronting
with the least problems
we
cannot
be
here-indeed,
65. See BJ 5.569-72; 2.599-609, 623, 645-46.

66. That Josephus was perfectly willing to present a primarily Jewish reality in primarilyHel
lenic terms is shown by his description of contemporary Jewish religious movements, which are
presented to his audience (in a most misleading fashion) as approximating Greek philosophical
schools. Thus at Vita 12 the Pharisees are compared to the Stoics, while atAJ 15.371 theEssenes are
explicitly equated with the Pythagoreans. Note also the language at BJ 2.119, 166, and atAJ 18.11,
23, 25 (all references to Jewish "philosophical schools"). For the nature of the intended audiences of
the JewishWar and the Vita, see the discussion inCohen (above, n. 38) 146-48.
67. The image of the great statesman restraining the dangerous emotional fluctuations of the
populace goes back at least toThucydides' famous encomium of Pericles (2.65). Nevertheless, this is
not amajor motif inThucydides' work. One might also think of Nicolaus of Damascus as a possible
source for this Josephus theme (since he was amajor writer inGreek who often dealt with Jewish
material, which would be of interest to Josephus). Josephuswas certainly familiarwith Nicolaus (see
AJ 1.93, 159; 7.101; 12.125; 14.8, 66, 104; 16.179; Ap. 2.83). But an examination of the surviving
fragmentsof Nicolaus does not reveal that the conflictbetween rationalityand irrationalitywas amajor
theme in any of hisworks: for instance, inover 100pages of Jacoby, theword dkoyos appears justonce
(FGrH 90 F 69), avoLt appears just once (F 4), and cav(a appears just three times (F 13, and F 69
twice). Similarly, inNicolaus's Life of Augustus, it is intelligence and enthusiasm-not restraintof the
emotions
of the populace-that
are the great motifs
(see FGrH
90 F 130.2,
18, 24, 43, 45,
136, 137).
Another possible source here might have been the philosopher and historian Posidonius of Apamea
(first century B.C.), a man who was indeed much concerned with the conflict between passion and
reason (see, e.g., frr. 33, 161, 166, 169Edelstein-Kidd). But Posidonius rarely seems to have touched
upon thisproblem in a strictlypolitical context (see frr. 161 [vague], 284). And in any case, Josephus's
direct knowledge of Posidonius and his work is highly probematical, since in the sole (and brief)
Josephan reference to Posidonius, at Ap. 279, Josephus evidently grotesquely misconstrues Posi
donius's attitude toward the Jews (whichwas positive); this isnow brilliantly demonstrated by B. Bar
Kochva, Posidonius of Apamea andAncient Anti-Semitism (forthcoming).

197
ECKSTEIN:
once more, Polybius. For just as the gen
the one obvious model available-is,

eral threat posed
by human
irrationality
was,
as we saw, one of the great
themes
of theHistories, and just as Polybius, like Josephus, often specifically represents

anti-Roman politicians as irrationallymotivated or even insane, so too we find
that the beneficent political and social role of the rationallyoriented statesman is
another one of Polybius's great themes. Indeed, one fundamental purpose of the
Histories-expressed
repeatedly-was to produce such rational statesmen, by
them
with
a
wealth
of examples of good and bad decision-making from
providing
the past, the contemplation of which would lead them to the accomplishment of
better, more rational, decision-making in the future.68And beyond this funda
mental didactic purpose of the Histories were the great statesmen who domi
nated Polybius's narrative: Hamilcar Barca, Aratus of Sicyon, FabiusMaximus,
Scipio Africanus, Hannibal (when in his usual, rational mode), Aristaenus,
Aemilius Paullus, Scipio Aemilianus. These men, in Polybius's view, were
skilledmanipulators of the populace, andwere never led astray by the irrational
passions of themob or other politicians; they sternly ignored such passions and
sought to restrain them, as they sought to restrain their own passions as well.
Some examples will suffice to demonstrate just how prominent this theme is
in Polybius's
work.
In Book
1, Hamilcar
Barca
is presented
as a monument
of
rational decision-making because he concludes peace with Rome rather than

continue a war he knows is basically hopeless (1.62.3-7). Aratus of Sicyon,
throughout the latter part of Book 2, manipulates theAchaean people for their
own good, even if it means accepting the hegemony of Macedon.69 Quintus
FabiusMaximus inBook 3 ignores popular accusations of cowardice as he rightly
pursues his rational policy in regard to Hannibal's invasion of Italy.70Scipio
Africanus
insists,
is, Polybius
a totally
rational man,
although
he does
stoop
to
manipulate the emotions of others.71Hannibal forcefully persuades an irratio

senate to make peace with Rome after the battle of
nally reluctant Carthaginian
of the hopelessness
of the Punic posi
Zama, because he is rightly convinced
states
Macedonian
the
Achaean
In
of
the
Second
account
tion.72
War,
Polybius's
a magnificent
speech by which he persuades a reluctant
to
Macedon
and to side, for purely practical rea
abandon
assembly
Paullus is a model of rationality and
with
the
Lucius
Aemilius
Romans.73
sons,
man Aristaenus
is given
Achaean
68. For this purpose of Polybius's Histories, see his explicit statements at 1.1.2, 72.7; 3.32.5;
7.11.2; 9.1.4-5, 2.3-7, 9.9-10; 12.25b.3, 25e.6, 25i.8, 28.3; 15.36.2; 18.28.5; 28.4.8; 30.6.3, 9.21;
38.4.8. For discussion, see K. S. Sacks, Polybius on theWriting of History (Berkeley and Los
Angeles, 1981) 178-86.
69. See especially Polyb. 2.47-51; for another example of Aratus's restraining the emotions of
the populace, see 4.14.3-7.
70. See Polyb. 3.89, 94, 103; cf. 3.105.9.
71.
For discussion,
see F. W. Walbank,
"The Scipionic
Legend,"
PCPhS
13 (1967)
54-69.
*
72. See Polyb. 15.19; on the irrationalityof the Punic senators, note 15.19.5.
73. On this speech (preserved for us only in Livy's version), see the discussion of A. Aymard,
Les premiers rapports de Rome et de la confederation achaienne (198-189 av. J.-C.) (Bourdeaux and

198
CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
honorable self-control,74while his son Scipio Aemilianus (following advice given

him by Polybius personally) manipulates popular feeling shrewdly for his own
political advantage (31.25-28), and later shows great statesmanship and self
restraint in his reaction to the destruction of Carthage (38.21-22). Perhaps even
more striking is Polybius's own self-representation in the Histories: it is the
picture of a man of rational statesmanship (28.6-7), wise in advice (31.12-13,
25-28), andmoderate in his personal desires (cf. 39.4). This list can be extended
but the point has been made.75
As noted above, one must exercise due caution here. Polybius was not the
only ancient historian besides Josephus to indicate that the role of the statesman
lay inmanipulating and restraining the emotions of the populace; and perhaps
one might wish to categorize some of the Josephan material on rationality and
self-restraint as a Hellenistic philosophical commonplace.76Yet one can also see
why Cohen, who has pointed out some of the parallels in Polybius's and Jose
phus's portrayals of "destructive" politicians, has also suggested that Josephus
to be a follower
seems
of Polybius
in regard
to the depiction
of "virtuous
states
men" as well.77 Cohen reasoned on the basis simply of Polybius's portraits of

Scipio Africanus and Scipio Aemilianus. But now we can see just how important
and how pervasive
is the theme of the rational
statesman
in Polybius,
and how
much larger a selection of examples actually supports Cohen's observation. At

the least, the evidence is intriguing.78
We
now
reach
the final area where
a reading
of Polybius
may
have
influ
enced Josephus's perceptions of hisworld, or his presentation of thatworld to his

readers,
or both. From
comments
and scattered
discussions
in Josephus's
work,
it ispossible to adduce his general understanding and depiction of the sources of

Rome's hegemony in theMediterranean, and the character of that hegemony.
Paris,
1938)
saying
that he was
91-94;
and
now A. M.
Eckstein,
"Polybius,
Aristaenus,
the Pharisaic
movement
within
and
the Fragment
'On Trai
tors,' "CQ, n.s., 37 (1987) 143-44, 148-49.

74. Rationality: Polyb. 30.14. Self-control: 31.22.
75. Other examples of "rational statesmanship," and/or the importance of self-control, in
Polybius: Hiero II of Syracuse (1.16, 7.7); Philip II of Macedon (5.10.1-3, 8.9-11); Alexander the
Great and hismarshals (8.10); Philopoemen theAchaean leader (11.10); Dionysius andAgathocles,
rulers of Syracuse (15.35.6); T. Quinctius Flamininus (18.12); Attalus I of Pergamum (18.41);
Chiomara, theGallic princess (21.38); Apollonis, thewife of Attalus I (22.20); Ortiagon, theGallic
king (22.21); Philip V of Macedon, when in one of his "good" phases (25.3.9-10); Massinissa of
Numidia (36.16).
76. For Pericles as a skilledmanipulator of the demos, see Thucydides' comments at 2.65.8-9.
For the Stoic idea of wise men as rulers restraining society, see Posidonius fr. 284 Edelstein-Kidd (=
Sen. Ep. 90.5); cf. also Diog. Laert. 7.121-22. One might wish to remember here that Josephus, in
an adherent
of
Judaism,
also
claims
a similarity
between Pharisaic ideas and those of Stoicism (Vita 12); and on Josephus's indebtedness to Stoicism,
see now Feldman (above, n. 5) 221-24.
77. Cohen
(above,
n. 1) 379.
78. Cohen (ibid.) is also probably correct that anyone familiarwith the self-restrained behavior
of Scipio Aemilianus at the destruction of Carthage, as described in the famous passage at Polyb.
38.21-22, would immediately recognize the similarity in Josephus's description of Titus's behavior
when viewing the ruins of Jerusalem: BJ 7.112-13 (cf. already 5.519).

ECKSTEIN:
199
Further, we can see the consequent lessons in practical political behavior that
Josephus deduced from them both, and that he urged on his readers. In all these
cases, once again, we find remarkable parallels with the conclusions Polybius
himself had arrived at and forcefully stated in theHistories.
Josephus attributes Rome's supremacy in the world to three factors. The
first source of Roman supremacy-a source existing on the purely human
plane-lies in the virtues of the Romans themselves, especially in regard to
military organization, courage, and determination. A second source-the situa
tion on a higher, metaphysical plane-lies
in the impact of Tyche (T6xr,
not
as
mere
of
Chance
but as a trulypurposeful (if
conceived
Fortuna),
arbitrary
is
in
force
that
abstract)
currentlyworking everywhere Rome's favor. These are,
of course, the same two elements that Polybius considered vital to Rome's
success; and Josephus's conception of these two elements both in general and in
specifics, and his conception of-their interaction, closely resembles the concepts
put forward by Polybius. Josephus's third source of Roman power, by contrast,
clearly derives not from Greek thought but from Josephus's own Jewish back
has bestowed on the Romans:
ground. It is the outright favor that God Himself
true in general,
true in the case of the Jewish Revolt.
and especially
Here
Josephus seems to be conceiving of a situation existing on a plane still higher

than the levels on which
the first two, Greek-oriented,
sources of Roman
suprem
acy exerted their influence, a plane superimposed on those lower levels.79

view of God's action in history need not concern us, except
Josephus's
to emphasize
of Josephus's
the occasional
thought and to remind us
complexity
that despite our own focus here on the Hellenistic
inspiration of important
and culture always re
in Josephus's
his
Jewish
elements
work,
background
But
a vital part of his historiography.

Let us therefore turn to Josephus's
mained
It is a point well
view of Roman
elucidated
by Cohen.80
and the part they
is that Josephus's
stress is
virtues
is important to note
or uprightness.
In the early Impe
worthiness
for the rise of Rome, as we
rial period this was indeed a widespread
explanation
can see, for instance, in Livy and Plutarch.81 But as so often, Josephus's view is
play in Roman
supremacy. What
not on some vague Roman moral
somewhat different. Comments on Roman justice,moderation, frugality, incor

ruptibility,
or natural magnanimity
are few and far between-or
nonexistent.82
79. Cf. the formulation of G. Stahlin, "Das Schicksal inNeuen Testament und bei Josephus,"
in Josephus-Studien (above, n. 26) 335-43.
80. Cohen (above, n. 1) 369-77.
81. On Livy, see the comments of P. G. Walsh, Livy: His Historical Aims and Methods
(Cambridge, 1963) 66; and L. R. Lind, "Concept, Action, and Character: The Reasons forRome's
Greatness," TAPhA 103 (1972) 248-49. For Plutarch's attitude, see theCatoMaior (passim), andDe
Fort. Rom. 318F; cf. C. P. Jones, Plutarch and Rome (Oxford, 1971) 99-100.
82. Josephus on Roman justice: BJ 5.257. On Roman piety: BJ 5.326, 6.122-23. On Roman
clemency: 5.372; 6.333, 340-41 (but the latter two passages, it should be noted, are in a speech by
Titus Caesar). The special virtues of an outstanding individual such asTitus are a different matter: cf.
Z. Yavetz, "Reflections on Titus and Josephus," GRBS 16 (1975) 423-31.

200
CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
Instead,what Josephus stesses among theRoman virtues are Roman determina

tion, Roman military training, experience, and skill (often called PuetLQia),
Roman military courage, and-above all-Roman military organization and
discipline (often called Ecxaica; also x6oolog).83These are practical capacities; as
Josephus points out more than once, Rome's opponents simply cannotmatch the
Romans' practical capabilities.84And this, of course, was also amain point made
in regard
by Polybius
he saw as the special Roman
to what
virtues.
In fact, he
devoted an entire volume of theHistories, Book 6, to explaining how the practi

cal political and military advantages conferred on the Romans by their social,
political, andmilitary organization enabled Rome to compete with extraordinary
success
within
above,
there are good
the
international
reasons
environment.
And
as we
have
to think that a reading of Polybius's
already seen
Book 6 had
had a significant influence upon Josephus: this influence can be seen in the terms
uses
Josephus
to describe
in Book
digression,
3 of
the evolution
of the Israelite politeia,

on the organization
the Jewish War,
as well
of
as in his
the Roman
army.85Discipline, order, planning, training:when Josephus, in a certainmood,

came
says that the empire of the Romans
and was not the gift of Tyche
excellence
about
through their own qualities

this is what
(BJ 3.71; cf. 3.107),
means. It is, not surprisingly, the practical Polybian view-all

sive for being
somewhat
out of step with
contemporary
of
he
themore impres
emphasis
on Rome's
moral greatness.
On a more metaphysical
to the
supremacy
precisely
level, however,
Josephus often does ascribe Roman
influence of Tyche.
Since this idea was in itself a
widespread one in various formulations,86it is importantonce more to stress that

of Josephus's concept of Tyche were rather unusual in
the specific characteristics
of world
is a Tyche
conceived
of as a major
his time. This
stage manager
It is a
to the luck at work in minor occurrences.
historical events, as opposed
Tyche conceived of as a purposeful and teleologically oriented force: quite the

but often blind or fickle Luck put forward by
of the world-historical
opposite
in a famous work, a concept applied to the rise of Rome
Demetrius
of Phalerum
it is
sometimes by Plutarch and even, occasionally,
by Virgil and Livy.87 Finally,
83. Josephus on Roman determination: BJ 2.378, 6.228-31. On Roman military experience
and expertise (especially as compared to the Jews'mere "passion"):BJ 2.502, 517-18; 3.6, 15, 153,
475; 4.45; 5.268, 285 (where Jewish "passion"wins, for once); 6.72, 159; 7.7. On Roman training,
specifically:BJ 3.70-74, 6.38. On Roman courage: BJ 2.382; 3.479; 4.46; 5.310-11; 6.20, 40, 42; 7.7,
126. On Roman
evixaia
and xootog:
BJ
3.84,
85, 90, 467,
475; 5.47-50,
303; 6.22.
Discipline:
BJ
3.479, 5.122, 7.7. Planning: BJ 3.78, 477. Even specially effective military techniques: BJ 3.244-46:
cf. 5.269-70, 6.21.
84. See BJ 3.72-74 (esp. 74), 107; cf. 4.320.
85.
See
above,
pp. 0-00.
86. Cf. Lind (above, n. 81) 253ff.

87. On the pessimistic conception of Tyche as presented by Demetrius of Phalerum in his
Treatise on Fortune (early third century B.C.), see the comments of P. Pedech, La methode historique
de Polybe (Paris, 1964) 341. For Rome's occasional dependence on luck inVirgil, cf. Aen. 12.714; in
Livy,
cf. 4.37.7,
7.34.6,
9.17.3,
9.18.12,
23.42.4.
The
fickleness
of Tyche
in Plutarch:

see De
Fort.
ECKSTEIN:
201
a force conceived of as having operated to bring thewhole Mediterranean world

into unity under Roman rule, after having transferred its favor from theMacedo
nians toRome.88
Josephus's concept of Tyche closely resembles in all these respects theTyche
we find inPolybius. First, Polybius, like Josephus, repeatedly stresses the impact
of Tyche. In tandem with the practical virtues fostered by the Roman politeia,
Tyche brought forth, Polybius says, Rome's rise toworld power; it is an idea that
occurs early and often in theHistories.89 Indeed, it seems that Polybius was the
first ancient historian to employ the concept of Tyche as an explanation for the
supremacy of Rome.90Moreover, thisTyche is not mere arbitraryChance, nor
does it operate on some minor levelwithin history. It is teleologically oriented,
and stage-manages world-historical events for specific purposes: the purposes at
thispoint, Polybius makes clear, are the transferof world power from theMacedo
nians
to Rome,
and
the unification
of the whole Mediterranean
under Roman
hegemony.91 It is true thatPolybius ascribes the riseof Roman power in theGreek

East partly to Tyche's punishment of the moral iniquities of twoMacedonian
kings, Philip V andAntiochus III (see Polyb. 15.20), and that this-the punish
ment
of the wicked
leading
to the rise of Rome-is
a role that Josephus
gives
to
Rom. 317F-318A, cf. 324D; and note the general burden of the essay Alexander: Fortune or Virtue?
(esp. 332C on the caprice of Tyche). See furtherLind (above, n. 81) 253ff.
88. Unification of theMediterranean: see the two famous passages BJ 3.354, text3t&tQo6g
6E
'Posaiovug Ti UXrlcaaa, and 5.367, ErTalpfoal y?a JTporg
aUTovSg[sc. 'Potctai1ovg]
dravTo0yv riv
TrX>lv.This iswhy Egypt submits (BJ 2.387), and why theMacedonians, the previous holders of
Tyche's favor, now bow down to the Romans, to whom Tyche has transferred (2.360). Other
passages that emphasize Tyche's support of theRomans: BJ 2.373, 4.179, 6.399; cf. 3.359. On a level
below theworld-historical, Josephus does seem to believe that Tyche can be fickle (see BJ 3.396,
4.40, 6.63), while on the other hand he can have Titus proclaim to his troops thatRoman discipline
and organization (eiuTatia) have in fact enslaved Tyche: BJ 5.122. On the concept of Tyche in
Josephus, see in general the references listed in L. H. Feldman, Josephus andModern Scholarship
(Berlin and New York, 1984), 1028 s.v.
89. On the vital role played by Tyche in Polybius's conception of the historical process, explicit
in innumerablepassages, see the comments of K. von Fritz, The Theory of theMixed Constitution in
Antiquity: A CriticalAnalysis of Polybius' Political Ideas (NewYork, 1954), app. 2; F.W. Walbank,
A Historical Commentary on Polybius, vol. 1 (Oxford, 1957) 16-26, cf. Polybius (Berkeley and Los
Angeles, 1972) 60-65; and Pedech (above, n. 87) chap. 7 passim.
90.
Cf. F. W. Walbank,
"Polybius
and
the Growth
of Rome,"
PCA
43 (1946)
11.
91. Tyche in Polybius as teleologically oriented on the world-historical level: see P6dech
(above, n. 87) 341. (Below theworld-historical level, Tyche in Polybius, as in Josephus, can be blind
and/or arbitrary.) On Tyche and the unification of theMediterranean, see Polyb. 1.4.1, 1.4.4-5
(from the general introduction to theHistories; cf. also 1.3.3-4). On Tyche's role in the passing of
world power from Macedon to Rome, see 29.21. In view of this passage (which celebrates the
of Demetrius
of Phalerum
prediction
some other nation),
I cannot
accept
that the favor of Tyche would one

of Lindner
the assertion
(above,
day pass from Macedon

n. 3: 47-48),
followed
to
by
Villalba iVarneda (above, n. 3: 55-56), that Polybius, unlike Josephus, lacks the idea of the passing
of Tyche from one people to another. Note also Polybius's approval of Scipio Aemilianus's fears that
to Polybius,
one day suffer a fate like that of Carthage:
in the moment
of
might
according
it is wise to reflect on the mutability
of Tyche
cf. 38.22.2-3).
success
In view of this
(38.21.3;
I cannot
the assertion
of Villalba
i Varneda
favor
passage,
accept
(56) that in Polybius
Tyche's
toward the Romans
is more enduring
than is such favor in Josephus.
Rome
greatest

202
CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
God Himself. Nevertheless, it is understandable why both Cohen and Rajak

emphasize the remarkable resemblance between the Polybian and Josephan con
cepts of Tyche and the role thatTyche plays in the historical process.92
Indeed, one has to ask why a Jewish writer, who might well have been
satisfiedwith an explanation for Roman supremacy anchored simply inRoman
virtues and the favor of God, would have bothered to include Tyche in his
narrative as an explanatory device in the firstplace. Even ifLindner and Cohen
are correct in suggesting that Josephus's conception of Tyche has within it a
as "an aspect of God"
certain Jewish component-Tyche
or perhaps
as an aspect
of "thewill of God"-this does not solve the problem: Tyche seems an unneces
sary complication. Nor would the Jewish component, such as it is, have been
obvious to Josephus's Greek audience: it takes both Lindner and Cohen several
pages of detailed argument even to delineate itspossible existence,93 and theway
Josephus most often employs Tyche within his text would certainly allow his
Greek audience to see his Tyche as a purely Greek concept-which in origin it
was.94 The deeply Hellenizing nature of Josephus's use of Tyche is thus an
unavoidable
fact. It is a fact that ismade
clear
strikingly
if one simply compares
Josephus's ideas on theworking of history with those found in, for instance, the
of the New
writers
the human
Tyche does not exist,

power between God Himself
whom
Testament-for
there can never
be any intermediary
level.95
and for whom

and events
at
Josephus most likely picked up from some Greek text the idea of using
It must have been a writer-some
device.
Tyche as an important explanatory
for
use of Tyche as explanation,
and especially as an explanation
Greek-whose
so
a
of
so
and/or
the rise of Rome,
seemed
way
helpful
impressive,
making
events comprehensible to his Greek audience, that Josephus decided to adopt

as his own. As usual, certainty as to the Greek source of this Josephan
too much information. But given the
be achieved: we are missing
of Tyche,
and the
and Josephan
between
the Polybian
similarities
concepts
is
the
obvious
role in Rome's
similar focus on Tyche's
Polybius
supremacy,
the motif
motif
cannot
candidate.96
92.
Cohen
(above,
n.
38)
98
n.
47;
Rajak
(above,
n.
37)
101.
See
also
J. Reumann,
"Heilsgeschichte in Luke: Some Remarks on Its Background and Comparison with Paul," Studia
Evangelica 4.1, ed. F. L. Cross (Berlin, 1968), 104-8, noting a similarity between Polybius and
Josephus in regard to the idea of a divine "administration"of human history.
93. See Lindner (above, n. 3) 42-46; Cohen (above, n. 1) 369-73 (working on the basis of BJ
3.354, 5.367, difficult and ambiguous texts in this respect-as Lindner [45] himself indicates).
94. See e.g., BJ 2.359, 360, 373, 387, 389, 390 (whereTyche is carefully distinguished from the
direct working of "the providence of God"); 4.179, 438; 5.98, 120, 465; 6.14, 57, 63; 7.203. Naturally,
Tyche also makes an appearance as a purely Hellenistic concept in the orations Josephus gives his
Romans (see BJ 3.396, 4.40, 5.122). But the point about the firstgroup of passages is that in them it
is always Josephus himself (or some other Jewish figure)who is speaking.
95. See the illuminating comparison in Stahlin (above, n. 79) 335-43.
96. Cf. Rajak (above, n. 37) 101. Lindner (above, n. 3) 47 n. 3, briefly suggests Nicolaus of
Damascus as possibly one of the sources for Josephus's concept of Tyche. Josephus certainly was

ECKSTEIN:
203
For Josephus, then, the rise of Rome is a story of pure power: power con
ferred by Roman organization and discipline, power conferred by the purposeful
influence of Tyche-and by God as well. Similarly, Menachem Stern has re
cently pointed out that Josephus's depiction of the resultingRoman hegemony in
theMediterranean, especially in the Jewish War, is singularly lacking in the
discussion and praise of Roman benevolence and civilizing effort that was so
common in the early Imperial period.97Other writers of the period, from Strabo
to Aelius Aristides, including the cynical Tacitus and even Jews such as Philo
and, even more surprising,Rabbi Judah in theBabylonian Talmud, emphasized
Rome's benevolence and civilizing achievements as a justification for Roman
rule.98But the emphasis throughout the JewishWar, by contrast, is once again
on the simple and inescapable fact of Roman power: that is the justification for
maintaining one's peace with Rome, not the benefits Rome's rule allegedly
brings." As Josephus has himself say to the besieged Jerusalemites in his great
oration
in Book
5, the law-as
beasts
strong among
that one
as among men-is
yields to the stronger (BJ 5.367).

The
tone of the Jewish War
is all the more
in this respect
striking
since in the
JewishAntiquities Josephus diligently provides plenty of documentary evidence

of Roman
to procure
attempts
the Jews
special
conditions
of security
in the
various regions of the Empire. Yet even this theme, the benefits Rome brings to
was one Josephus chose not to emphasize
in the Jewish
the Jews of the Diaspora,
in
War
was
the
Jewish
Stern
therefore
concludes
that
1'
Josephus
standing
realism" that stretched back to Thucydides
in the tradition of grim "historical
War.
and Polybius-which
himself
was
familiar with
is surely the case.101But Stern also implies thatThucydides
the most
Nicolaus's
important
work
(see above,
Greek
n. 67),
influence
and Nicolaus
on Josephus's
certainly
presentation
makes
a few bows
of
to Tyche
(besides the Life of Augusutus 70, 82, 113, cited by Lindner, see also FGrH 90 F 66, 68). But five
passages in 100 pages of Jacoby is not a high level of frequency.And we have no ideawhat Nicolaus
we know that this was a major
theme in Polybius.
and the rise of Rome,
whereas
Tyche
as Reflected
in The Jewish War,"
in L. H.
97. M. Stern,
and the Roman
Empire
"Josephus
said about
Feldman and G. Hata, eds., Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (Detroit, 1987) 74-78.
98.
Cf.
the comments
of Stern
(above,
n. 97) 76 and nn. 31-34.
On
Strabo
(probably
working
from remarks by Posidonius), see above allW. Capelle, "Griechische Ethik und romischer Imperial
ismus,"Klio 25 (1932) 99-104. On Plutarch's approval of the Romans on the grounds of thewide
spread peace that they have brought, see the comments of Jones (above, n. 81) 125, and themany
passages
cited
ibid. n. 22. P. Aelius
Aristides:
see
the great
oration
To Rome,
esp.
29, 36, 60, 70, 99,
104, in the edition of J. H. Oliver, The Civilizing Power (Philadelphia, 1968). Tacitus: see the great
oration he gives to Petilius Cerialis, before an audience of Gallic tribesmen, inHist. 4.73-74. Philo:
Leg. ad Gaium 143-58, 309-18. Rabbi Judah: Shabbat 33b (noted both by Stern and by Yavetz
[above, n. 82: 411]).
99. Stern (above, n. 97) 75-77, with texts.
100. At BJ 7.110-11
Titus
protects
the privileges
of
the Jews of Antioch,
and refuses
to expel
them from the city; but Josephus's theme here (as so often) seems to be Titus's specially merciful
on general Roman
rather than a comment
character,
policy. See the remarks of Stern (above, n. 97)
Antiochene
in the face of an anti-Semitic
officer maintains
law and order
77. At BJ 7.57 a Roman
mob.
101. Stern
(above,
n. 97) 77.

204
CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
the relationship existing between Rome's subjects and themetropole;'02 and this
isperhaps a littlemore controversial.
Now, it is certainly true that remarks such as those in Josephus's oration in
Book 5 recall Thucydides, especially the famous harshness of theMelian Dia
logue.'03Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that among writers in Greek
before Josephus, itwas especially Polybius who raised the specific question of
whether the character of Rome's rule made it acceptable or not to Rome's
subjects-and that Polybius answered this question in precisely the way Jose
phus does. In other words: as far as we can tell from the surviving fragments,
Polybius argued that Roman power was the primary fact that the ruled had to
face, whether or not such Roman rule was found oppressive; there is precious
little Polybian material on any benefits accruing to the ruled fromRome's hege
mony. This comes through clearly, for instance, in Polybius's persistent cynical
remarks about Roman policy in Books 30-33 (and note, on Roman greed and
crudity, 11.24.11 and 39.2.1-3), combined with his equally persistent condemna
tion of the anti-Roman politicians of the 140s B.c. who led their peoples into
disastrous wars with Rome.'"0 Josephus certainly had his own reasons for being
inawe of Roman power; but itmay therefore be that his grim attitude toward the
basic character of Roman hegemony, as portrayed in the JewishWar, found at
least part of its inspiration, or was partly crystallized, through a reading of
Polybius. At the least, it is remarkable that Josephus's attitude towardRoman
hegemony seems so similar to the austere realism of Polybius on that subject,
while
at the same
Finally,
time it was
the themes
so unusual
that we
have
own period.0?5
above-the
conflict
discussing
in Josephus's
been
be
tween rational and irrationaldecision-making emphasized by Josephus, the duty

of rational statesmen to restrain the populace, especially the emotion-driven
young,
because
of the inescapable
fact of Roman
power-come
together
in the
conclusions Josephus wishes his audience to draw from his work. One of these
of course, has to do with the power of God: this is a great theme in
conclusions,
in the last half of the
and it is also increasingly prominent
the Jewish Antiquities,
one should not minimize
the Jewish elements
in Jose
Jewish War; once more,
102. Cf. ibid. 78, where the comparison ismade between Josephus's "Thucydidean" literary
characteristics and his Jewish ones.
103. Compare BJ 5.367 with Thuc. 5.105.2; cf. also Thuc. 1.76.2
104. Polybius at 3.4.6-8, as a prominent part of the "Second Introduction," promises that the
question of the nature and acceptability of Roman rule will be one of the great subjects of the last
part of the Histories. Even to raise the question of the acceptability of Roman rule as a question
indicates that Polybius's answer was bound to be equivocal (except inpower-political terms): see the
cogent comments of B. Shimron, "Polybius on Rome: A Re-examination of the Evidence," SCI 5
(1979/80) 105-6. On Polybius's cynical remarks about Roman policy inBooks 30-33 (precisely in the
section of the work where the question of the acceptability of Roman rule was supposed to be
discussed), see most recently the comments ofWalbank (above, n. 29) 151-53, 156.
105. Hata (above, n. 10: 83-87) suggests the possibility that the ideaof "ruleof the stronger" at
BJ 5.367 derives from Polybius.

ECKSTEIN:
205
phus's writing.106 It is also clear, however, that beneath the plane of themeta
physical, Josephus's purpose in the JewishWar isovert political instruction to his
contemporaries and to the future.
It is important to note both that Josephus gives such instruction, and also the
nature of that instruction. Thus at the end of his description of the formidable
armies of Rome, Josephus says that the point of dwelling on the topic is not so
much to extol the Romans as to console those they have vanquished-and to
deter thosewho might be tempted to revolt (BJ 3.108). It isprecisely this theme
that is reiterated in Josephus's own oration in Book 5, when, in his desperate
attempt to get the Jerusalemites to surrender, he appeals to "the lawof yielding
to the stronger" (BJ 5.367, discussed above): there is no shame in yielding to
those towhom thewhole world is subject (5.366). Indeed, this theme has already
been restated, as the opinion of the high priestAnanus-a man whom Josephus
praises for his intelligence-at BJ 4.320: "To maintain peace was his supreme
And it is a theme
object, for he knew that the power of Rome was irresistible."107
that is, in fact, prefigured already in the great speech Josephus gives King Herod
Agrippa in Book 2, as the king attempts to dissuade the Jews from rebellion:
"the powers that be should be conciliated, not irritated" (2.350); the rebels
cannot hope to defy themight of Rome (2.357, 364, 380, 384, 388, 394-95, 401).
Josephus approves of Agrippa's policy (2.406).
However, one should add that according to Josephus, if the high priest
had actually been allowed by the Jewish radicals to conduct the war,
either he would have arranged peace with the Romans on good terms, or else his
Ananus
generalship would have created a formidable obstacle against them (BJ 4.321).
This interesting statement, not without a certain pride in Jewish military tech
nique, opens up at least the possibility that even in the late 70s Josephus did not
think thatwar against Rome was necessarily completely mad or dishonorable, if
principles by rational men. One is reminded
in
as an efficient military commander
self-presentation
carried out on the basis of rational

here of Josephus's
own
Book 3 of the JewishWar, and throughout the Vita. Nevertheless, it is also clear
that one of Josephus's great purposes
rational men would be most unlikely
in the Jewish War was

ever
to demonstrate
to go to war against Rome
that
in the first
place.
we
As
have
noted,
Josephus
stands
in the tradition
of Thucydidean
and
Polybian historical realism in the consideration of power; but whereas Thucydi

des concentrated on expounding the broad principles of international relations
(without offering direct advice), it is Polybius who is famous for giving direct,
practical
political
instruction
to his audience.
Such
instruction was natural,
since
106. See Cohen (above, n. 1) 369-77.

107. Ananus's opinion at BJ 4.320 is clearly that of Josephus as well, as is clear not only from
BJ 5.366-67 but from the phraseology of 4.320 itself: xal JTEQi
Tiv EiQfjWvnV
catVToSTOIOVLIEVOg;
atcaa
yaQ
fl6eL Ta T'Pocaicv.
Josephus's
praise
of Ananus's
capabilities:
4.319-21.

206
CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
one basic purpose of theHistories was to produce intelligent and rational politi
cal leaders.'08Polybius therefore often brings his historical narrative to a halt in
order to provide edifying commentary: for example, that one should exercise
moderation even in one's actions during a rebellion, so as not to leave oneself in
an untenable moral or political position if defeated (1.88.3), that the Acar
nanians of northwest Greece make fine allies (4.30.1-5), that a general should
know mathematics and astronomy (9.12-20), that cruelty inwarmaking is usu
ally politically counterproductive (23.15), that the actions of an individual states
man can have an enormous impact for good or ill on his surrounding society
(11.8-10; 32.4-5).
Now, somewhere Josephus had learned that it was permissible in Greek
historiography to give direct instruction on specific political topics to his audi
ence. He did not learn this from Thucydides; given the prominence and persis
tence of this exact
practice
in the Histories,
however,
there
is a good
chance
Josephus learned it from Polybius.'09

In particular,
Polybius
is free with
his opinions
about how
to handle
one's
relations with Rome. This subject was a natural focus of his work, and indeed
Polybius thought it his positive duty to give instruction to his audience on it (see,
e.g., 24.10.9-12). Polybius's thinking here was complex. On the one hand, he
indicated thatwar against Rome was a (bare) theoretical possibility, if the project
was given
a great deal of preparation
policy of Hannibal, 11.19.6-7)-but
and foresight
(cf. his comments
about
the
this isclearly aminor theme. Polybius'smain
hand, was that war against Rome was in fact an extremely

point,
to it.
hazardous undertaking,
and that almost any circumstance was preferable
is
that
because
of
Roman
of
the
Histories
the
thrust
Indeed,
power,
increasingly
on the other
war
undertaken
only by fools and madmen."11
against Rome was an operation
in what seems the Polybian manner,
So it is not simply that Josephus,
gives
It also turns out that the
direct and practical political
instruction to his audience.
in regard to the question of war with Rome,
instruction,
as well, both in its major
seems remarkably Polybian
thrust-strongly
warning
as
of
a
well
a
in
such
the
just
slight ambiguity
presence
against
project-and
content
of Josephus's
about the possibility of such a project, if rationally conducted. Perhaps the

similarity here between Josephus and Polybius should be attributed to the similar
of the two historians: both were men proud of
the life experiences
ity between
but both knew, firsthand, the terrible power of the Roman
their own peoples,
108. See above, pp. 00-00 and n. 68.
109. Posidonius, too, gave political instruction to his audience, but note that itwas primarily
intended for his Roman readers; hardly amodel for Josephus. See H. Strassburger, "Posidonius on
Problems of the Roman Empire", JRS 55 (1965) 46-52.
110. On Polybius's attitude here, and its development, see now the comments of Eckstein
(above, n. 44), esp. 281-82. Note that the idea that almost any circumstance was preferable towar
against Rome does not necessarily mean that any circumstance was preferable to war: on the
question of peace at any price, see Polyb. 4.31.3-8.

ECKSTEIN:
207
army."' But one should also canvass the possibility-a literarypossibility-that

in Polybius's Histories Josephus found a model that enabled him to express his
own ideas, in an acceptably Greek manner, to theGreek-speaking world."12
To summarize. Greek historical writing was a highly formal rhetoric-and
Flavius Josephus was originally a foreigner to it.What thispaper has suggested is
that a reading of theHistories of Polybius provided Josephuswith amajor entree
intoGreek historiographical culture.
We know that Josephus had done reading in the Histories, and respected
Polybius as a historian (see esp. AJ 12.358-59). The thesis of thispaper has been
that in Polybius, Josephus found a writer whose historiographical theories, sub
jectmatter, and way of presenting realitywere all instructive and congenial, and
in the end highly influentialon him. Thus (to cite an importantexample from the
firsthalf of the paper) Polybius's arguments for the supremacy of contemporary
political history as a subject, and for the supremacy of the participant historian as
a writer
himself
on that subject, seem to have struck a chord in Josephus, a man who had
to
in the very war he wished
commander
been an important military
narrate. But Polybius's influence probably extended beyond the advocacy of a

theory of historiography and subjectmatter that Josephus found comforting.We
to organize the reality
have also seen that many of the motifs Josephus employed
a
to
create
and
narrative of the Revolt
of the Jewish Revolt
for his audience
inGreek
comprehensible
terms-in
the conflict between
particular,
rational and
irrational decision-making, the struggle of rational statesmen to restrain the

overemotional
the threat
mob,
to order posed
to echo
by reckless youth-seem
themes Polybius employed to organize the complex reality of the second century
I do not think this is a coincidence.
Similarly, we have seen
in the manner
for
that Josephus gives direct political instruction to his audience
in
which Polybius was famous, and that the actual content of that instruction,
B.C. for his audience.
111. One
of
the
of
themes
the Jewish
War
the war was
is that
a struggle
between
two great
peoples: see Yavetz (above, n. 82) 421. Note Josephus's pride in Jewish fortitude and courage during
thewar: BJ 6.13-14. Polybius's pride in his Achaeans and their achievements: see esp. 2.37-40. But
Josephus,
of
had
course,
had
to confront
the power
the Roman
of
army
as a Jewish
military
commander: see Book 3 of the Jewish War, and the Vita. And Polybius had personally seen the
Roman
at work
army
both
inMacedon
(28.13)
and
two decades
in Africa
later-his
account
of the
siege of Carthage, covered inBooks 36-38, was extraordinarily detailed. He devoted special atten
tion
to the power
discussion
separate
of
the Roman
at 18.28-32,
army not only

as a commentary
in Book 6, but again

digression
defeat of 197 B.C.
the Macedonian
in the famous
on
in a
112. Note here that part of Polybius's fierce condemnation of the anti-Roman politicians of the
140s B.C. has its roots in the socially radical and politically disorderly or, conversely, tyrannical
character
38.7-8,
of
the anti-Roman
20; Achaea,
38.9-18).
governments
Josephus's
that now
view
of
came
into power
the Zealot
regime
36.17; Carthage,
(Macedon,
as it turns out,
in Jerusalem,
shares all three of these characteristics: somewhere, Josephus had learned to present Jewish radical
politics and ideology in a Greek mode. On Josephus's presentation of the Zealot regime inGreek
political
terms,
see
the detailed
discussion
of Rajak
(above,
n. 37) 82-89.
Cohen
(above,
n. 1: 378)
rightly notes the similarity here between the Polybian and Josephan polemics. (Again, this is not to
say thatwe are dealing with a purely literarymotif: both Polybius's and Josephus's perceptions and
presentations must have had some basis in reality.)

208
CLASSICAL
ANTIQUITY
regard to the political dilemma posed to the subject peoples by the hegemony of
Rome, echoes Polybius as well.
It is, of course, an interesting exercise in intellectual history to attempt to
establish the ties in thinking that link Josephus to his second-century-B.c.
if, inevitably, many of our conclusions must remain some
predecessor-even
what speculative because of the absence of so much information.But probably
themost significant conclusion to emerge from our study is asmuch political and
social as it is intellectual. There is a grim continuity between the way Polybius
views Roman hegemony in theMediterranean, and presents it to his audience,
and the way Josephus does. Scholars aremore accustomed to finding a view of
Rome from the periphery that stresses the civilizing benefits of Rome's rule as a
justification for that rule, and for one's acquiescence in it. But in Josephus, and
inPolybius before him, we see a different aspect of Rome. The decisive issue for
these writers is hardly the benefits of peace and civilization thatRome brings:
neither Polybius nor Josephus has much to say on that topic.Rather, what both
historians emphasize is the brutal reality of Roman power, and the consequent
need, in almost any situation, tomake one's peace with it.We therefore seem to
have before us a traditional justification for acquiescence inRoman hegemony
that is darker
in tone than the more
famous
picture
of Rome
as the guarantor
of
Mediterranean civilization-a justification that may have all along coexisted

with that sunnier tradition. The thesis of this paper has been, of course, that the
continuity here between Josephus and Polybius is a conscious one. But whether
conscious or not, the continuity of grim perception shared by Josephus and
Polybius, both of them aristocratic intellectuals who were products of proud
national cultures, sheds further light on a part of the structure upon which
Roman
century
hegemony
A.D.113
in the Mediterranean
world
rested,
even
into the late first
University ofMaryland
113. On aspects of this intellectual tradition, see the short study by H. Fuchs, Der geistige
Widerstand gegen Rom in derAntiken Welt (Berlin, 1938)-who, however, occasionally exaggerates
its extent. See the criticism by Jones (above, n. 81) 123, 126-28.


Josephus and Polybius - A Reconsideration PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Josephus and Polybius - A Reconsideration PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Josephus and Polybius: A Reconsideration

This content downloaded from 184.168.27.152 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:02:10 PM