The recent publication of a new translation of Josephus’ Jewish War and a detailed history of the conflict between the Romans and Jews, for which War is the principle source, is a great boon to scholars of first-century Judaea.
The new Oxford World Classics translation of Jewish War is the most useful modern English edition and will become the standard choice for academic and general readers. It is the only English version to print the text according to Josephus’ original seven-book structure and to include section numbers in the outside margin. This alone makes it more useful than the modern English alternatives. (The Penguin, previously the only paperback edition, idiosyncratically divides War into 23 chapters, which do not respect the original seven-book structure, and does not number each section. The Loeb edition includes section numbers only in the Greek.)
The OWC edition includes an excellent 109-page section of explanatory notes by Goodman. The notes form, in effect, the only English commentary on all of Jewish War – would that they were even more extensive! (The Brill Josephus Commentary has thus far published a commentary only on Jewish War Book 2. The Loeb is light on notes, and the 1981 Penguin includes 52 pages of notes by E.M. Smallwood.) The notes often refer helpfully to Josephus’ accounts of the same events in Jewish Antiquities and Life.
Goodman's concise, 25-page introduction places Jewish War in the context of Mediterranean and Jewish history; discusses Josephus, his reliability, audience and goals; and examines the work's reception, including a section on modern scholarship. This is the best short introduction to Josephus and to Jewish War in print.
The volume includes a timeline of events, genealogies of the Hasmoneans and Herodians, an essential aid since both families reuse the same names across generations, along with six useful maps. An appendix contains two diagrams of the Temple in Jerusalem, one of which is helpfully keyed to the detailed description in Book 5. The volume might have benefited from a diagram, linked to the text, showing how the siege and capture of the Temple Mount unfolded. This edition also includes a detailed 59-page index, which alone is probably worth the cost of the book.
Hammond's translation is very engaging and readable, and includes some nice turns of phrase. However, some of its renderings are potentially problematic. The translation frequently uses ‘race’ to translate terms derived from γένος and φῦλον. ‘Race’ is a highly charged term for moderns and may also be anachronistic. The term appears twice in the proem. At 1.3 – following the MS tradition and Naber as against Niese and Eusebius – Josephus describes himself as ‘a Hebrew by race’ (παῖς γένει ἑβραῖος). When Josephus explains that Jewish War will not cover the Jews’ ancient history, the translation uses ‘their racial identity’ for τίνες τε ὄντες (1.17), thus adding ‘race’ where it is not required by the Greek (cf. qui ils sont, Budé). The phrases ‘Jewish race’ (4.531, 6.421, 7.327, 7.329, 7.359, 7.375) or ‘Hebrew race’ (5.443) appear elsewhere. At 4.531, Josephus describes Abraham as ὁ Ἰουδαίων προγόνος, which the translation renders ‘progenitor of the Jewish race’, again appending ‘race’.
The translation also uses ‘terrorist’ and ‘terrorism’, fraught modern terms, to translate just under half of the occurrences of λῃστρικόν and λῃστής, although six notes observe that the underlying Greek term means ‘bandit’/‘banditry’ (1.204, 2.235, 2.238, 2.254, 3.450, 5.515). As with ‘race’, ‘terrorist’ appears right from the proem: at 1.11 Josephus defends his condemnation ‘of the warlords and their terrorist network’ (πρὸς τοὺς τυράννους ἢ τὸ λῃστρικὸν αὐτῶν), which sounds uncomfortably like a current news item. Given the modern sense that a ‘terrorist’ group is clandestine, the description of the Sicarii highlights the problem with using ‘terrorists’ to describe rebel bands fighting openly. In contrast to Eleazar, the ‘bandit-chief’ (ὁ ἀρχιλῃστής), whose ‘terrorists’ (λῃστῶν) have been ‘terrorising’ (λῃσάμενον; 2.253) the country, Josephus underscores that the Sicarii are ‘a new breed of terrorists’ (λῃστῶν; 2.254; emphasis added), who create panic by mingling secretly with the crowds in Jerusalem and killing their targets with daggers.
Josephus follows other ancient authors in using λῃστής broadly to denigrate rivals or other ‘troublemakers’ (cf. Mason, pp. 85–7). The comment on 4.138, ‘other bandits’, observes that Josephus denigrates as λῃσταί all rebels not aligned with the authorities in Jerusalem as of 66 ce. Hammond's preface notes the difficulty in positioning the groups Josephus denounces ‘on the spectrum from freedom fighters … to terrorists’ (p. vii). Rather than choosing ‘terrorist’, the introduction might have explained Josephus’ usage of λῃστής and the translation then employed ‘bandit’ or similar throughout. The issue with ‘race’ and ‘terrorist’, as the translator observed in a constructive email exchange, is whether the modern valence of these terms should affect the translation: the translator thinks not, this reviewer respectfully demurs.
The translation also seems inadvertently to Christianise Josephus at some points. Given the history of Christian appropriation of Jewish War (cf. Mason, pp. 43–57), this is perhaps better avoided. At 1.440, for example, Herod's μεγαλονοία focuses ‘on works to the greater glory of God’ where the Greek is εἰς εὐσέβειαν. Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam is a sixteenth-century ce dictum of Ignatius of Loyola and is the motto of the Society of Jesus. By suspending sacrifices for the Roman people at the Temple, the rebels seem happy to ‘excommunicate’ all Romans (ἐκσπονδος; 2.415, 416). The High Priest's headgear is a ‘mitre’ (τιάρα; 5.235; cf. Mason, p. 25 n. 85: ‘a sort of gold crown’). A stone parapet in the Temple separates ‘the laity (τὸν δῆμον) from the priests’ (5.226). In comparison with Gessius Florus, the Roman procurator Albinus was ‘an absolute saint’ (ἀγαθώτατον; 2.277). The prophet Elisha held up ‘his saintly right hand’ (δεξιὰν … δικαίαν; 4.462). Lower-case ‘exodus’ at 1.17 (ἀπανέστησαν) is not Christianising per se, but implies that Josephus’ readership would have known the biblical story of the exodus from Egypt as found in the Book of Exodus, which is unlikely to be the case. (Josephus could have chosen the term ‘exodus’ in the Greek, but did not.)
Despite these concerns, this edition, with its essential commentary and engaging translation, will deservedly become the standard English edition of Jewish War.
Mason's History of the Jewish War was originally commissioned in CUP's Conflicts in Classical Antiquity series, which aims to train undergraduates how to use primary textual and material sources. At nearly 700 pages, the volume was not published in that introductory series, but still reflects its goals: Mason comments that his primary focus is examining the evidence and proposing plausible explanations for it (p. 200). The volume is divided into two sections: Part 1, ‘Contexts’, provides methodological background to understanding the conflict between the Jews and Romans, and Part 2, ‘Investigations’, contains a series of studies on specific issues, employing the approach described in Part 1. The original manuscript contained at least four chapters not included in this edition (p. xii), and this material now appears in a separate volume on methodology (S. Mason, Orientation to the History of Roman Judaea [2016]).
Part 1 contains three chapters. Chapter 1 emphasises that the Flavians portrayed their success in Judaea as a foreign conquest in order to legitimise their rule, and examines Josephus’ account of their triumph, and Flavian monuments and coins. The chapter also describes the importance of the destruction of Jerusalem to Christian self-understanding and self-representation. After considering ‘what is history?’, Chapter 2 focuses on how to use Jewish War as evidence. Mason situates War in the context of ancient history writing, rhetoric and categories of thought, before considering the work's goals, sources and structure. Mason argues that War contains four important ‘thematic clusters’ – the character of the Judaean nation, statecraft in dangerous times, tragic situations in public affairs and the Jerusalem cult – but no single, overarching message. The chapter's conclusion explains ‘why Josephus’ War is not reliable’ – a striking claim given that War is the main literary source for the revolt and thus for Part 2 of the book. Chapter 3 considers ancient warfare and examines the Roman army, leadership and siege warfare. The chapter also considers whether the Jews could have expected Parthian aid (answer: no).
Part 2 contains studies of important aspects of the revolt. Chapter 4 rejects the widely-held view that anti-Roman feeling among the Jews was a principal cause of the revolt. Instead, Mason identifies inter-ethnic conflict in the region and a cooling of Roman support for Judaea under Nero as the war's primary causes. Chapter 5 investigates Cestius Gallus’ failed expedition of September–October 66 ce. Mason ascribes the ambush of Cestius’ retreating forces in Beit Horon not to long held anti-Roman feeling, but to the ‘the universal phenomenon’ of ‘manufactured enemies’ (p. 333) – the tendency of an invading military force to create enemies among the local population. Chapter 6 examines the fighting in Galilee in 67 ce and emphasises that there is little evidence of fighting other than that at Iotapata (where Josephus was captured) and Gamla (which Vespasian took as a favour to Agrippa II). Chapters 7 and 8 consider the siege of Jerusalem. Chapter 7 analyses Josephus’ account of the siege in War Books 4–6 and offers an analysis of key figures on the Jewish side; Chapter 8 examines the evidence outside of War, including coins, and rejects Sulpicius Severus’ claim that Titus deliberately decided to destroy the Temple. Chapter 8 concludes with a hypothetical reconstruction of events. The desire of Jerusalem’s residents and its elite leadership to capitulate was frustrated by the presence of refugees and, principally, the factions, who were unable to surrender once they controlled the city. Titus had hoped to ‘seize, pacify, and garrison’ (p. 512) Jerusalem, not to destroy it. Chapter 9 argues that the desert fortresses of Machaerus and Masada were reduced several years after the fall of Jerusalem, not because of ‘military necessity’ (p. 575), but as part of the ordinary business of provincial government, which required eliminating autonomous groups of bandits holding fortified sites. The chapter ‘Conclusions’ recapitulates Mason's thoughts on methodology, reviews the concept of ‘manufactured enemies’ and offers a summary reconstruction of the ‘causes and course’ (p. 581) of the conflict.
The volume contains many helpful photos and maps, and includes five detailed timelines of events in the years 66–70 ce (figures 17, 23, 26, 27, 29) along with a summary of the main events in 66–74 ce (figure 40). Figure 28 is an indispensable diagram of Jerusalem showing the positions of the five different series of siege ramps the Romans constructed; references to the relevant passages in War would be a helpful addition to this diagram in a future edition.
The volume's central claim is that the revolt was caused by hostility between Judaeans and neighbouring peoples (pp. 141–2, 200, 207–8, 215, 235–8, 260–2, 269–72), not by long standing anti-Roman feeling among the Jews (pp. 199–200, 214–15, 252, 277, 279, 332, 367, 584) or by religious fervour (pp. 200, 457, 578; Mason allows that some Judaeans may have had religious grievances, p. 278). Instead, Roman–Jewish relations were largely positive until 66 ce (pp. 199–200, 208–17, 279). Rome favoured Herod the Great and his descendants (pp. 20, 25, 272–3, 582–3), often ignored the complaints of surrounding peoples subjugated by the Hasmoneans (pp. 232–9, 262–3) and was sensitive to Jewish concerns. Changes in Roman administration of Judaea in 6 ce and again in 44 ce shifted power from Jerusalem to Caesarea (pp. 217, 247–54, 278, 509, 582) and led the Jews to resort to ‘armed self-help’ (pp. 200, 207, 262, 389, 509, 583–4). Although Roman governors of Syria protected Judaean interests (pp. 214–15, 266–71), the procurators in Caesarea, with direct responsibility for affairs in Judaea, and their Sebastene and Caesarean auxiliaries (pp. 258–60, 269–70) sometimes clashed with the Jews or were drawn into conflicts between the Jews and neighbouring peoples. Violence in 51/52 ce between Jews and Samaritans, and the procurator Cumanus’ refusal to step in at the Jews’ request might have led to war had Quadratus, the governor of Syria, and the emperor Claudius not intervened (pp. 271–2, 583–4). The decisive change in the 60s ce was Nero's lack of concern with Judaea, the procurator Florus’ focus on raising revenue for Nero (pp. 275–6, 584) and the inability of the Syrian governor Cestius to remove or restrain Florus (pp. 316–18). Cestius’ expedition to restore order in 66 ce after the massacre of the Sebastene and Caesarean auxiliaries in Jerusalem ‘manufactured [Jewish] enemies’ of Rome where there had been little anti-Roman feeling (pp. 327–34, 578–81, 585–6). The ambush of Cestius’ retreating forces at Beit Horon required a decisive response (pp. 281–2, 326, 586): the expedition of Vespasian.
Mason argues that Jewish War is unreliable (pp. 136–7) and that it is wrong to suppose that we can recover the past from it (p. 300). Like other ancient historians, Josephus is concerned with moral truths (pp. 20, 72, 137, 577), not with facts (pp. 78, 295, 577) or accurate accounts of events (pp. 72, 78, 293–5). Although Josephus emphasises that he was a participant and eyewitness to the conflict (War 1.3), Mason observes that he could only have had direct experience of events described in the last two-thirds of Book 2, most of Book 3 and scattered incidents in the sequel (p. 132). Josephus supplemented his direct experience with sources, but he selected, modified and shaped them into his account so well that it is impossible to recover them (pp. 132–5). Although the detail Josephus provides can mislead us into thinking his account is comprehensive (p. 442), he omits a great deal (p. 300). Josephus often embellishes the material he does include: the dramatic account of the mass murder/suicide on Masada in 74 ce may be largely fiction, given evidence that the main siege ramp was never completed (p. 572) and the likelihood that Silva offered terms and the inhabitants surrendered (p. 574). On balance, Mason views Jewish War as an artistic creation, which Josephus expected to be judged ‘by the criteria of moral insight and aesthetics’ (p. 577). The principal, possibly sole constraint on Josephus’ literary freedom was the presence in his audience of participants in the war, although the extent of their tolerance for fabrication is unclear (pp. 83, 389, 489).
Mason specifies that his own approach is to focus on (i) the interpretation of the evidence and (ii) reconstructing scenarios that may have produced it by seeking ‘the most commonly attested kinds of causes in shared human experience’ (p. 578, cf. pp. 69–70 and passim). In practice, this can range from Mason's excellent, more traditional analysis of the chronology of Cestius’ expedition and its connection to his likely goals (pp. 301–9), to considering how the destruction of Monte Cassino in World War II sheds light on the destruction of the Temple (pp. 502–8).
The volume is a detailed, insightful treatment of the central issues in the Romano-Jewish War and addresses a wide range of secondary literature. No scholars of the conflict or of Josephus can ignore it.
