Josephus and Domitian

chapter 5 Josephus and Domitian

One of the longest standing conceptions of the circumstances of Josephus’ life in the city of Rome has been that the advent of Domitian to the imperial throne marked a watershed in the life of the Judaean historian. A lynchpin of this hypothesis was the characterization of Josephus as the favoured propagandist of the Flavian regime during the reigns of Vespasian and Titus, which was revealed in the official presentation of the War and by the supposed salarium he had received. Since Domitian, however, failed to present Josephus with any monetary encouragement for his writing activities, and Josephus’ new literary project, the Antiquities, did not remotely meet the demands of imperial propa- ganda, it has been suggested that with the accession of Domitian, Josephus lost imperial favour. Moreover, the traditional understanding of Domitian as the ‘enemy of literature’ prevented any thoughts of a possible relationship between Josephus and the last of the Flavians. In conjunction with this supposed altera- tion in Josephus’ social circumstances, it was proposed that his outlook and aims changed, or perhaps that his true feelings, suppressed in the interests of the Flavians while writing the War, were finally revealed in the Antiquities, Life, and the Apion. Removed from the security of the imperial court, Josephus was freed also from the constraints of writing under the emperors and so became more religious and nationalistic.1

1 The most vocal and extreme proponent of this view was Laqueur 1920: 259, “bei dem ganzen Gegensatz des Domitian gegen die Tätigkeit seines Vaters und Bruders verstand es sich schließlich von selbst, daß Josephus am kaiserlichen Hofe die Stütze verlor (vgl. S. 31 ff.): er war als officiosus abgetan”; cf. 30–31, 260, 266. See also Cohen 2002[1979]: 236, “During the reign of Domitian, many of Josephus’ opinions and attitudes began to change. Why this hap- pened is not entirely clear. Josephus was becoming more ‘nationalistic’, more conscious of religious considerations, less concerned about flattering Rome”; cf. 86, 237–41. The view that Josephus’ outlook changed, became more nationalistic, can also be seen in Smith 1956: 74–81, who argues for Josephus’ advocacy of the Pharisees to the Roman government; cf. variations on these views can be found in Luther 1910: 81–2; Rasp 1924: 27–47; Shutt 1961: 119–21; Neusner 1972: 224–54; Migliario 1981: 92–137; Attridge 1984: 226–7, who provides cautious support; Sterling 1992: 238–40, 308–10. For a discussion of the development of these views, see Mason 1991: 25–35, 190–95. Although Thackeray did not subscribe as strictly to the proposal of Laqueur and these other scholars that Josephus experienced major developments in his outlook, he did maintain that the accession of Domitian brought a clear change; see Thackeray 1929: 16, “The death of Titus in 79 marks a change for the worse in his external surroundings and a new departure in his literary activity. Deprived of his honoured patron, he shakes off

We have seen, however, over the previous two chapters that the characterization of Josephus as a Flavian lackey has been completely misplaced. As a result, the assumption that the relationship between Josephus and Domitian was somehow different, less intimate, also needs to be re-evaluated on the basis of a close examination of the evidence.2 It is striking, given the popu- larity of the traditional view, that the overall impression one receives from Josephus’ characterization of his relationships with the emperors in Life 422– 30 is one of continuity rather than change.3 He says as much in his summary of the circumstances of his time in the city of Rome: “the things given by the imperators remained much the same.”4 In fact, Josephus even claims imme- diately below that Domitian “further increased the honours towards him”.5 Laqueur has pointed to the similarity between Josephus’ characterization of his relationship to the Flavians in the Life (ad 93/4) and that of Tacitus in his Histories, which was published some years later in ad 104.6 Tacitus opens by

the Roman fetters and becomes the historian and apologist of his nation” [sic]; cf. 22, 51–2. Echoes of this view can still be heard; see e.g. the almost verbatim reiteration of Thackeray’s view in Sorek 2008: 19, “On the death of his patron, the emperor Titus, in ad 79 he finally shook off his Roman fetters and became the historian and apologist of his people” [sic]. More recently, D.R. Schwartz has also suggested a change in Josephus from the period in which he was writing the War to the time when he was writing the Antiquities, which he links to “his transformation from a Judean into a Jew of the Diaspora”; see D.R. Schwartz 2011b: 291–309 (quotation at 303); cf. D.R. Schwartz 2007c: 137–46. 2 See also Waters 1964: 50, “There is no evidence that [Josephus] ever became particularly intimate with Domitian, and he owed his life and his good fortune to the clemency, not of Domitian but of Vespasian, who perceived his usefulness as a future tool. Hence we should not expect any violent prejudice in favour of Domitian, as compared with the other members of the family, though it is true that he continued to receive good treatment from both the Emperor and his wife.” 3 See Bilde 1988: 174–9; S. Schwartz 1990: 16–8; Sterling 1992: 234, “Circumstances under Domitian are not as certain, although Josephos’ picture remains the same”; Mason 2001: 171 n. 1770, “It is remarkable that Laqueur (1920:258) could extract from § 429 the accusations against Josephus and attribute these to a new boldness on the part of Josephus’ enemies because he had lost imperial favour, without noticing the clear implication of this passage that Josephus continued to enjoy Domitian’s support”; Rajak 2002[1983]: 223–9. 4 Life 428: διέμεινεν δὲ ὅμοια καὶ τὰ παρὰ τῶν αὐτοκρατόρων. 5 Life 429: διαδεξάμενος δὲ Τίτον Δομετιανὸς καὶ προσηύξησεν τὰς εἰς ἐμὲ τιμάς. 6 Laqueur 1920: 34. His assumption that Josephus is making an allusion to the work of the Latin historian is based on his dating of a second edition of the Life to after the year 100, which originates with the tenth century patriarch Photius’ (Bibl. 33.32) claim that Agrippa II died in ad 100 and the assumption that Agrippa II was dead at the time of the writing of the Life; cf. Baerwald 1877: 18–19; Schürer 1901: I 88 n. 20, 599; Luther 1910: 55; contra Niese 1896: 226–7. Although Laqueur’s reconstruction was not always accepted wholesale, elements of his