Titus Flavius Josephus and the Prophet Jeremiah

Avishai Margalit contrasts the legacies of a historian and a prophet

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published in September 2012. It has been updated.—Ed.


 

In the first-century Jewish revolt against Rome, Josephus failed to honor the suicide pact he made with his soldiers. When he was later captured and taken to Rome, he predicted that the Roman commander Vespasian would become emperor. When the prediction proved accurate, Josephus was taken into the imperial family and became known as Flavius Josephus.

Titus Flavius Josephus is best remembered as an unparalleled chronicler of first-century C.E. Jewish history. His legacy also includes a military record marked by the betrayal of his peers and capitulation to the Romans. As a commander in the Jewish revolt, Josephus attempted to persuade his companions to open the gates of Yodfat for the Romans, and when the city fell, he reneged on the group’s suicide pact and personally surrendered. After the destruction of Jerusalem, Titus Flavius Josephus lived as a Roman citizen in the emperor’s palace, enjoying the luxurious life of a dignitary and scholar.

Josephus’s repeated calls for surrender to the Romans have been labeled as betrayal. In the September/October 2012 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, distinguished scholar Avishai Margalit contrasts the historian’s tarnished reputation with that of the prophet Jeremiah. The prophet Jeremiah also urged total surrender to a militarily superior foe, the Babylonians. He tried to escape Jerusalem, and, much like Titus Flavius Josephus, was accused of trying to defect. Avishai Margalit asks: how is it that the Biblical prophet Jeremiah is revered while Josephus is criticized?

Avishai Margalit

Avishai Margalit writes that “Josephus offers two kinds of defenses: defense of creed and defense of his people.” Josephus portrayed the zealots as irrational while defending the majority of Jews and the Roman dynasty, conveniently omitting the widespread support for the revolt and the atrocities committed by the Romans. Margalit writes that Jeremiah is also a historian, but “his appeal to history is not out of an interest in human affairs as such, but rather in history as a source of obligations to God. The religion of the Bible is, broadly speaking, a historically based religion; the primary arena of the Bible is history; the divine manifestation is set essentially in history.”

Neither Titus Flavius Josephus nor the prophet Jeremiah considered the creation of a Judean vassal state to be idolatry, and both took it upon themselves to warn their people of the superior military force of their enemies. Yet Avishai Margalit states that, “Josephus was tainted by his relation to power; Jeremiah was willing to risk everything. Josephus’s relation to power should not disqualify him as a witness in the court of history but it does disqualify him as a moral witness: a moral witness is never in the service of the ruling power.”

——————

For more on the legacy of historians and prophets, read Avishai Margalit, “Josephus vs. Jeremiah: The Difference Between Historian and Prophet” in the September/October 2012 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Not a BAS Library member yet? Join the BAS Library today.
 


 
Masada, the mountaintop fortress that set the stage for one of the ancient world’s most dramatic tragedies, is today one of the world’s most iconic archaeological sites. In the free ebook Masada: The Dead Sea’s Desert Fortress, discover what archaeology reveals about the defenders’ identity, fortifications and arms before their ultimate sacrifice.
 

 

Related reading in Bible History Daily:

Jeremiah, Prophet of the Bible, Brought Back to Life

Josephus on the Essenes

Gospel of John Commentary: Who Wrote the Gospel of John and How Historical is It?

The Masada Siege
 


 

Posted in People in the Bible.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Add Your Comments

22 Responses

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

  • Larry says

    Was Masada a cover-up by either Paul or the Romans to locate and destroy any and all documents in an effort to whip out any evidence of Jesus of Nazareth and His Way Movement. Thus, setting up a new invention of the Christian Church and its absolute control with power, greed etc.

  • Rob says

    The major difference between Jeremiah and Josephus was that God told Jeremiah to proclaim to Israel that they would be taken into captivity by Babylon. Josephus appeared to be simply surviving.

  • Shawna says

    The “facts” stated here are completely different than history and archeology has shown us this far. Very strange that it seems major things were completely changed for this post. Definitely a red flag and makes you wonder even more deeply.

  • 1 2 3 4


    Some HTML is OK

    or, reply to this post via trackback.


Send this to friend

Hello! You friend thought you might be interested in reading this post from https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org:
Titus Flavius Josephus and the Prophet Jeremiah!
Here is the link: https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/people-in-the-bible/titus-flavius-josephus-and-the-prophet-jeremiah/
Enter Your Log In Credentials

Change Password

×