Similarities In Writings Of Two Historians Herodotus & Josephus

Herodotus and Josephus are two historians separated by over four centuries, yet they both have similarities in their writing from the kind of story they tell, to their way of writing. Both men wrote about a war between their own people and a more powerful force, with the main difference being that Herodototus’ people won while Josephus’ did not and both men were present during the times of these wars, making them invaluable primary sources, though Josephus describes his own actions in the war while Herodotus just describes the war itself and appears to not have played any major part if any at all in the actual events. Both Josephus and Herodotus have been criticised for their use of sources in their writing with both of them being accused of either making things up or embellishing certain events to make them more interesting for the audience.

A major difference between the two writers is that Herodotus has quite a number of long digressions which sometimes make easy targets for these accusations whereas Josephus tends to stick with his story more.Firstly, in Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities and Jewish War he begins by telling the reader that he intends to write as objectively as possible using his first-hand knowledge and other sources he has deemed reliable while doing his best to avoid those sources he believes to be less than trustworth. Despite this we can see how it might he hard for him to be completely objective especially considering how he was a general on the losing the side and was a witness to the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, a point that he himself makes to the reader.

When it comes to his reliability and use of sources in Jewish War we know that he was present for many of the events which took place as a general in Galilee and then as a prisoner of the Romans, though at times when recounting events he does not mention whether or not it was his own account or an account from another person. In contrast, when writing his Jewish Antiquities he mentions about twenty source other than himself, though some scholars believe that he was not using them directly but taking them from another writer by the name Nicholas of Damascus.It is generally believed however that his use of sources was typical of his time and that when it came to editing his work to make it perhaps more entertaining or to appeal to a certain audience, his Roman patrons perhaps, he made no extra effort than any other historian would have.

Unlike Josephus, with Herodotus we don’t really have a lot of contemporary historians to compare his use of sources with the exception of Thucydides. But in comparison with Josephus we see at times a similar theme of not naming the source used. Fehling points out in Herodotus’ recount of the battle where the Delphians were aided by two supernatural beings that he does not give his sources, only that he has them and they tell the story from both a Delphian and Persian perspective. Pritchett, though not believing the supernatural beings to be real, claims that the skirmish with the Delphians need not be completely made up but that for a recount from a Persian perspective he could have used Greeks on the Persian side as a source. When Herodotus does mention his sources, it is sometimes in a way which is less than believable, such as where Herodotus talks about the flying snakes of Arabia which come to Egypt every year.

Here Fehling cites Herodotus’ use of “the Arabs” as well as the ease of him finding these skeletons as reason enough to believe that this story is made up saying that it bears too much resemblance to folk legends.[footnoteRef:9] Pritchett again argues against this saying that the translation should read “remains” not “skeletons” and is actually in reference to locusts though he does not mention the sketchy nature of Herodotus’ source. With both authors their use of sources and reliability have come into question, both of them claim to be eye-witnesses to certain events which they spoke about, but modern scholarship has doubted both of them at times.

Herodotus it seems takes more of a hit than Josephus, but this could be because his work spans such a wider area than either of Josephus’ and therefore leaves him open to more criticism. Furthermore, being the first to write a history undoubtedly puts pressure on his work as it is naturally compared to every work which comes after. In the beginning of bother of their works they tell the audience the reason for their work where we see another difference, Herodotus wrote to record the history while Josephus recorded the history to correct the writing of others which you would expect would entail a more objective view and better use of sources over just a recording.

Another difference has already been mention briefly, is how they cite their sources or if they even do. Josephus does not seem to give importance to it in Jewish War while Herodotus seems to invent sources, both of which are bad practices which have only hindered them as historians. Despite this, they both share the privilege of being the main, if not only, source for the events they write about, making them invaluable despite their perceived errors.

Bibliography:

1. Chapman, H.H. & Rogers, Z. (eds.), A Companion to Josephus (Oxford, 2016).
2. Cohen, S.J.D., Josephus in Galilee and Rome (Boston, 2002).
3. Fehling, D., Herodotus and his “Sources”: Citation, Invention, and Narrative Art, trans. J.G. Howie (Leeds, 1989).
4. Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War, trans. H. St. Thackeray M.A., Loeb Classical Library, vol. II (Cambridge, 1956).
5. Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, trans. H. St. Thackeray M.A., Loeb Classical Library, vol. IV (Cambridge, 1961).
6. Herodotus, The Histories, trans. A. De Sélincourt, Penguin Books (London, 1988).
7. Pritchett, W. K., The Liar School of Herodotos (Amsterdam, 1993).