| Abstract
|
:
|
In the opening of the Jewish War, Josephus claims not only that his history represents the true and full account of the war, but that, in violation of Greek historiographical conventions, its language expresses his personal grief. Josephus’ expression of personal emotion differentiates him from the Greek tradition, in which lament is customarily expressed in other genres. Josephus borrows instead from the biblical tradition of lament to mourn the fall of Jerusalem. The concept of moral injury from trauma studies describes the psychological damage caused by betrayal in combat settings, a phenomenon which Josephus’ comments about the causes of the disaster resemble. This elucidates why Josephus emphasizes his emotions in his history, drawing on past Jewish responses to imperial-colonial encounters to shape his personalized response to the catastrophe of his own day. In the opening of the Jewish War, Josephus claims not only that his history represents the true and full account of the war, but that, in violation of Greek historiographical conventions, its language expresses his personal grief. Josephus’ expression of personal emotion differentiates him from the Greek tradition, in which lament is customarily expressed in other genres. Josephus borrows instead from the biblical tradition of lament to mourn the fall of Jerusalem. The concept of moral injury from trauma studies describes the psychological damage caused by betrayal in combat settings, a phenomenon which Josephus’ comments about the causes of the disaster resemble. This elucidates why Josephus emphasizes his emotions in his history, drawing on past Jewish responses to imperial-colonial encounters to shape his personalized response to the catastrophe of his own day.
|