Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #18893 in Books
• Published on: 2004-08-30
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Hardcover
• 1200 pages

Customer Reviews

Unnecessarily complex translation
I really can't recommend this book. It reproduces an 18th century translation of Josephus which is now incredibly difficult to understand and at times incomprehensible.

An intriguing portrayal of ancient Jewish history
Though there is undeniable bias and, in fact, some minor contradictions in this famous work (e.g., Josephus confuses the name of the Syrian officer Apelles who was killed by the Maccabees at Modin in "The Antiquities of the Jews," calling him Bacchides - who was actually another Syrian general the Maccabees fought in later encounters - in "The Wars of the Jews."), this is an essential historical work for any student of the period. It was in reading Josephus while in graduate school that I was inspired to write my own book "Maccabee." What I found particularly intriguing was Josephus's discussion of the political machinations and the vying for power from the time of the Judas Maccabeus right up to the time of Christ. Though I would not use the works of Josephus as a tool for biblical authentication (there are plenty of other sources that serve that purpose), the history he has recorded certainly provides a better understanding of the tumultuous world into which Jesus Christ was born.

RE: Correction
Just to clarify, the term 'secular' is defined as 'not religious, sacred, or spiritual' (Compact OED). Now, there are such people as secular Jews (they are commonplace today - often they are children of Jewish parents, so Jewish by birth, but not believers in the Jewish religious teachings). Josephus did not fit into this group of secular Jews and, as Adam points out, this means that Josephus's writings cannot be considered to be secular. All his writing presupposes the existence of God due to his Jewish beliefs.

The term 'proof' is defined as 'evidence establishing a fact or the truth of a statement' (Ibid). One person's account of events is not a proof. This does not of course detract from the value of the texts as being of great interest and insight. Whilst reading though, we must remember that, as the case of holocaust deniers illustrates, just because someone writes something down and it corresponds with some historical facts, that is not the same as it being an indisputable statement of ALL OF THE FACTS.