| Abstract
|
:
|
Although it was once widely held that Josephus’s historical work, Jewish Antiquities, is modelled after the Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, recent years have seen some reject this view and others develop the suggestion that Josephus treats Dionysius’s work as a foil. This article provides a fresh evaluation of this debate by giving careful attention to each of the areas that have played a significant role in the discussion. After examining the areas of the basic similarities highlighted by Henry St. John Thackeray, style, historiography, general content and themes, and apologetic arguments, the essay concludes that features of the works’ content and apologetic arguments provide the strongest evidence for a direct relationship, and that the specifics of these features support the view that Josephus modeled aspects of his work after that of Dionysius and also intended to imply the superiority of the Jewish tradition over that of Rome. Although it was once widely held that Josephus’s historical work, Jewish Antiquities, is modelled after the Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, recent years have seen some reject this view and others develop the suggestion that Josephus treats Dionysius’s work as a foil. This article provides a fresh evaluation of this debate by giving careful attention to each of the areas that have played a significant role in the discussion. After examining the areas of the basic similarities highlighted by Henry St. John Thackeray, style, historiography, general content and themes, and apologetic arguments, the essay concludes that features of the works’ content and apologetic arguments provide the strongest evidence for a direct relationship, and that the specifics of these features support the view that Josephus modeled aspects of his work after that of Dionysius and also intended to imply the superiority of the Jewish tradition over that of Rome.
|