Louis Finkelstein, in his book The Jews:
Their History, Culture and Religion
, quotes a lecture given by Henry
St. John Thackeray in which Thackeray reminded “his audience that there was
a time in his country (England) when almost every house possessed two books,
a Bible and a Josephus in the old eighteenth-century version of William Whiston.”1
Finkelstein then goes on to explain to his reader how no ancient historian
was more widely read, or held more influence on Christian and Jewish history
than Flavius Josephus.
Flavius Josephus. His name is as synonymous with Jewish history
as George Stinbrenner’s is with the New York Yankees. He is one of the main
sources historians use when looking into the events of the Jewish Diaspora,
and the single source scholars have when piecing together the events which
took place during the Great Jewish Revolt of A.D. 65 – 73, or the Jewish
as Josephus himself would title his work on the subject. “We know
of the Pharisees as a specific group largely from two non-Hebrew sources:
Josephus and the New Testament.”2
historian Daniel J. Silver in his 1974 work, History of Judaism: From
Abraham to Maimonides
. Author Erich S. Gruen writes, when addressing
the subject of whether the Jews living in Rome during the time of Julius
Caesar were considered a collegia, that Josephus “…includes in his collection
of documents [a letter] detailing Roman affirmation of Jewish privileges
in the East…from a state probably written in the mid-40s and probably to
the island of Paros.”3
(A “collegia” was considered
an association or group organized as trade guilds, social clubs or religious
They had existed in Rome for generations,
buy beginning around 64 BC and continuing, on and off through the time
of Caesar, an effort had been employed to, as Gruen writes, “abolish those
collegia that [the Senate] regarded as formed against the interest of the
state.” Page 24). In fact Gruen references Josephus’ work no less
than 20 times in his book. John J. Collins, writing about Jewish historiography
in the First Century clearly sees Josephus as an invaluable source. “Josephus…stands
with Philo as one of the Hellenistic Jewish writers whose work has survived
in substantial quantity…His Antiquities were designed, in his own words,
to demonstrate the extreme antiquity of our Jewish race, the purity of the
original stock, and the manner in which it established itself in the country
which we occupy today.”4
But who was Josephus? What was his background? And why are his
accounts of the Jewish War considered such a valuable resource, especially
in light that there are no other sources to back up his version of history?
For the last several years many historians have come forward to question
both the motives for his work, as well as the work itself. Are his accounts
accurate, were they self-serving, how much was invented by the author himself,
who was he writing for (Roman or Jewish readers)? Historians seem to be
divided on how to read and the interpretation of Josephus, but Nachman Ben-Yehuda,
of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at the Hebrew University
in Jerusalem clearly puts the conundrum into perspective when he states,
“there…seems to be two different schools of though regarding the reading
and interpretation of Josephus. One school tends to infuse much interpretation
into Josephus Flavius and reads him very liberally. The other school emphasizes
that one should read and interpret Josephus as is, that is as close as possible
to the text itself, without allowing for much free interpretation.”5
Others have stated that the notion that one needs to “take Josephus with
a grain of salt is really a linguistic code that implies that his accounts
are not to be trusted.”6
Magen Broshi, of
the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, also voices the problem historians have when
using Josephus. “In numerous instances,” Broshi writes, “numerous details
provided by Josephus can be checked, including architectural data, and their
But as Broshi so clearly
acknowledges, Josephus was not always correct. “His inaccuracies,” Broshi
writes, “range from vagueness to blatant exaggeration…it still cannot be
denied that he was by nature somewhat negligent.”8
With this in mind we must address the question as to why do historians
even consider Josephus as a source?
Was Josephus really the great Jewish historian that history and historians
have made him out to be, or, as the evidence suggests, was he himself, a
self-serving individual who betrayed his own people and then spent the rest
of his life trying to make up for it? This question begs to be asked. It
may be that the criticism leveled against Josephus is not only warranted,
but desires to be addressed in a whole new light. We know that Josephus
embellished his histories, and we accepted this, as it was the norm of his
day for historians to do so. Yet other historians of the first century who
have embellished their histories have had other historical accounts to back
them up. But, as we will see, Josephus’ histories contain more than just
simple embellishments, and it is possible to accuse him of out right lying.
But a more important point which we will address will be whether Josephus’
work (having no other documents from that time period to reference in support
of his description of events), has any merit at all. As historians the question
should not be whether or not Josephus’ work has validity as a source, but
whether it should be considered at all. It may be that in the end, we may
find that Josephus’ work bears no more consideration than the so-called Hitler
Diaries. (Claimed to be discovered by the German magazine Der Stern in April 1983, the “diaries” were propertied
to have been written by Hitler between the years 1932 – 1945. Later the dairies were proven to be faked when the fibers
in the paper were shown to be of postwar manufacture).
Once again we must ask, who was Josephus and what was his background?
And did this background affect the way in which he viewed both his, as well
as the Roman world? To better understand the man’s motives, we must first
understand the man.
An Overview of the Life of Flavius Josephus
Flavius Josephus was born Joseph ben Mattathias in the city of Jerusalem
around A.D. 37. His father Matthias ben Joseph was a descendant of Hasmonean
(or Maccaabean), kings and priests. This lineage is questionable however;
as we only have Josephus as the source of this information, and some historians
claim that his connection to the house of Hasmonean was through his mother’s
side. Apparently from a very young age both he and his brother, Matthias,
received an intensive education in law, “as their house was constantly visited
by learned rabbis,”9
author Heinrich Graetz
states. Josephus himself, in his autobiography The Life of Josephus
(written around A.D. 95), would imply that these “learned rabbis,” were in
fact coming to see him. It was therefore only natural that at the age 16
Josephus embarked on a spiritual search spending time with several religious
orders and becoming the disciple of Vanus. Vanus was a hermit belonging to
the Essences order and Josephus spent several years with him, “living on
the wild fruits of the earth and bathing daily in cold water.”10
At age 19 he returned to his home in Jerusalem aligning himself with
the Pharisees, and immersing himself in the study of Greek. It was around
this time (A.D. 54), that Sicarii revolutionist began to focus their attention
on the Roman occupation. But instead of attacking Roman officials outright,
the Sicarii focused their attacks on their own people, who they considered
traitors. Josephus himself describes these attacks as being “against those
that were willing to submit to the Romans…[treating] them in all respect
as if they had been their enemies.”11
the high Priest Jonathan, the Sicarii would set off a chain of events that
would eventually lead to the Great Rebellion or the Jewish War.
In A.D. 63, when several Jewish priests were imprisoned by the Emperor
Nero, Josephus, now 26, traveled as an emissary to Rome to negotiate their
release. Graetz writes, “Rome itself could not fail to exercise a great
influence upon the character of Josephus.”12
This influence dazzled Josephus according to Graetz, as the young scholar
was captivated by the busy life, immensity, and splendor of the imperial
city. One can assume that for Josephus, the experience was not unlike the
modern equivalent of a person from a small American town visiting New York
City for the first time. Josephus was hooked, and as Graetz states, Josephus
believed that “the Roman empire would be an eternal one and that it was specially
favored by Divine Providence.”13
must have taken a considerable effort for Josephus to return to the relative
“backwardness” of Jerusalem, especially in light of the gifts and acclimation
he had received from the Empress while in Rome. It is also around this same
time that the Sicarii began a series of raids against Roman power. Hostage
taking became a common practice for the Sicarii, and the Jewish War begins
outright in the summer of A.D. 65.
When the war broke out Josephus was appointment by the Sanhedrin
as Governor and commander of the revolutionary forces in Galilee, trusted
with the defense of the area. Why this position was appointed to, as Graetz
calls him, “the devoted adherent of Rome,”14
has never fully been explored. Josephus himself claimed “he was sent there
in order to tranquilize the province and to keep it faithful to the Romans,
for only part of it had revolted.”15
again we cannot trust the validity of Josephus’ statement, since Galilee
was known to be “most incline to war.”16
In addition Josephus himself contradicts his own explanation as to his position,
as well as reasons for traveling to Galilee. In Jewish War he implies that
“the responsible leaders appointed him commander of the Jewish forces in
This clearly implies that he
was posted there as a leader or commander of military or rebel forces. But
years later in The Life
, the author contradicts his previous statements,
stating that “he and two other priests were chosen to induce the rebels in
Galilee to lay down their arms and leave the decision of war to the authorities
This now suggests that he
was posted to the area as a negotiator.
Instead of building up the garrison in Galilee however, what historians
have pieced together is that Josephus spent most of his time controlling
internal factions within the Jewish community, bringing him into conflict
with the Galilean leadership, and it is during this period that Josephus’
character and motivation is brought under question. According to The
, Josephus was accused by John of Giscala of treason
against his own people for seizing money John had arranged to be stolen from
the treasury of the Governor of Dabaritta. (John of Giscala
native of the small Galilean city of Giscala.
the head of one of several political factions defending Jerusalem when
the Roman besieged the city in A.D. 70.
conflict with Josephus over control of the provinces of Galilee, allying
himself with the cities of Giscala and Gabara against Josephus. He is reported
to have survived the burning of the temple in Jerusalem only to be captured
by Roman forces pillaging the city, after being forced from hiding by hunger.
He most likely died while in a Roman prison.). It is
accreted that John had intended to use this money to back the revolt, but
Josephus claimed that he had seized the funds with the intentions of returning
the money to King Agrippa. The Sanhedrin, according to the account, “sent
four of their members [and] a force of 2,500 [men] to depose of him.”19
Josephus delayed this meeting by pretending to be occupied with battle
plans for the war, later falling “upon his opponents with armed guards.”20
Now secured in his position as governor, Josephus reportedly “sent the
Sanhedrin delegates back to Jerusalem in chains.”21
The question of Josephus motives for siding against his own people in this
incident goes back to his own accretions that he was in Galilee to “to tranquilize
the province and to keep it faithful to the Romans.”22
As for John of Giscala’s motivation for bring the accusations; it may have
to do with the possibility that John had lost command of Galilee in part
due to Josephus. According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, it “remains uncertain
whether John was actually ousted from leadership…on explicated instructions
from Jerusalem, since [Josephus’] operations in Galilee (contained in The
Life) is extremely vague.”23
Either way the
two would remain rivals through the end of the revolt.
The Fall of Jotapata
With Roman forces converging on Galilee Josephus decided that the
best place to mount a defense was from within the city walls of Jotapata,
and he therefore bolstered the defenses for that city. It is here that the
first case against Josephus as a traitor is clearly present, and it is here
that we must first question the account of the incident, as Josephus himself
is the only source. According to Josephus, when the city fell to the forces
of the Roman General Vespasian, Josephus and 40 of his men hid in a secret
cave located beneath the city. Whether Josephus proceeded to these caves
with his men or stumbled upon these soldiers while heading to the caves on
his own accord is in question. According to several interpretations of Josephus’
account, after three days the Romans discovered their hiding place and ordered
their surrender, guaranteeing the lives of all who gave in. Now according
to Josephus, the men, refusing to give up, preferred death to capitulation
to Rome. Drawing lots, they preceded to kill each other. Only Josephus
and one other survived, and being brought before Vespasian, Josephus presented
himself as a prophet, asserting that Vespasian was destined to become Emperor
of Rome. When this prophecy came true, Josephus was rewarded handsomely,
and adopted into Vespasian family, thus taking Vespasian’s family name of
Flavius. Josephus’ account of the Siege of Jotapata however, where he suggested
to his men that suicide was a sin and that it would be better to draw lots
and kill each other (the first killing whoever drew the second lot and so
on), and he emerging, thanks to heavenly intervention, as the only survivor,
may have never actually taken place. It should be pointed out at this juncture,
that this account was written years after the revolts, and is suspiciously
close to his Masada story. In addition, there is no clear archeological
evidence that the events described within the caves ever actually took place.
The lack of archeological evidence to corroborate Josephus’ accounts will
play a major roll in discrediting him as a source. Several sources even
impugn the motives of Josephus himself, suggesting that he manipulated the
drawing in order to ensure his own survival. The Jewish Encyclopedia
recounts that when the party was discovered by Vespasian’s forces, Josephus,
“whose life had been assured to him by the Romans through the intervention
of a friend named Nicanor, escaped only by playing a trick on his companions.”24
This argument is further taken up by Professor Shaye Cohen of the Semitic
Museum at Harvard University, who states, “Josephus is a very slippery fellow…he
is a man who clearly looks out for himself…and is capable of not telling
the truth, or at least the whole truth when it doesn’t suit him.”25
At the very least Josephus is accused of arranging the outcome of the drawings.
“It has been suggested” historian Mark Biggs writes, “that Josephus slyly
counted the lots.”26
After his capture at Jotapata, Josephus accompanies Vespasian’s son,
Titus, on his siege of Jerusalem, acting as Titus’ assistant and attempting
to persuade the defenders of Jerusalem to surrender the city. Unable to
accomplish this, Josephus thus becomes a witness to its destruction in A.D.
70. After this, Josephus continued to reside within the Flavian court, living
in a villa given to him by Vespasian, and it is at this time he begins to
pen the first of his two most famous works. The history of the Jewish War,
written around A.D. 78, will serve as the only surviving source scholars
have depicting the events of that struggle, including the events at Masada.
His second and most ambitious piece, a justification of Jewish law and tradition
as well as the rewriting of the first books of the Bible translated into
Greek, Jewish Antiquities
, would be published around A.D. 93. It
is within these books that the conflict, which shadows Josephus’ life to
this very day, would find its beginnings. It will be contradictions between
the accounts in these two books that will help foster Josephus’ reputation,
for the most part, as being a both traitor to his own people, and a self
serving individual. For Jewish War
seems to favor the Romans, flatter
Vespasian and act as a warning to others thinking of opposing Rome, and it
is for this that the validity of his “histories” comes under question.
As historian Walter Zanger puts it, Josephus “would spend the rest of
his miserable life as a Roman stooge, eating off of Caesar’s table, writing
history [that] flatters Herod [and] Vespasian…[because] they were paying
Professor of Hebrew and Judaic
Studies Lawrence H. Schiffman, feels that Josephus’ work "was not done seriously
[because he] believed that the Jews should not be revolting against Rome.”28
This may account for what has been described as his lack-luster involvement
with the building up of the garrison at Galilee, as it may have had more
to do with his belief that the revolt was pointless and less to do with controlling
internal factions within the Jewish community.
There are also questions regarding his description on the fall of
Gamala. Josephus claims that he recorded the account based on the eyewitness
testimony of the two only survivors of the siege, the daughters of Philip.
According to his account, once the city’s walls were breached the inhabitants
chose suicide rather than capture, throwing themselves from the high cliffs
on which the city was built. Yet there is very little actual evidence for
this, and while archeological evidenced clearly shows that a battle did take
place, historians believe that the deaths took place at the hands of the
Roman army. This case goes to the heart of what is the problem with Josephus’
accounts. While archeological evidence can confirm the existence of the
places he describes and revile evidence that a battle did, or did not take
place, it cannot confirm actual events. And no incident better illustrates
this point than single most publicized story of the Jewish revolt, the mass
suicide of 960 Sicarii at the mountain fortress of M’tzada.
Masada: Fact or Myth?
“Most of what we know about the Great Revolt comes from the writings
of Josephus Flavius,”28
writes Nachman Ben-Yehuda.
“We would not have know much at all about Masada without him as a source.”29
And while Josephus himself did not witness these events, a fact clearly
pointed out in the article Methodological Framing, historians still tend
to accept his descriptions of the events as gospel. An example of this “acceptance”
can be found within the article itself, “It is true that Josephus was…not
present during the siege of Masada, and one may doubt the literal depiction
of the two speeches he attributes to Elazar Ben-Yair.”30
However the article then goes on to ask, “why should we doubt the accuracy
of his description of other facts? Moreover, if we discount Josephus…then
there is no Masada.”31
The question has to
be asked, why should we forgive him for creating the speech of Ben-Yair and
take the rest of his account at face value? And if the account is flawed
at best, what would be so wrong with discounting Josephus and having “no
Masada,” at least from a historical point of view?
Professor Yigael Yadin first excavated Masada in 1963 under sponsorship
of the Hebrew University of Antiquities. According to the Encyclopedia
of Zionism and Israel
the excavations “revealed Herod’s palaces, storerooms,
fortifications and an elaborate water supply system.”32
They also unearthed several household items including clothing and artifacts
belonging to the Sicarii and their families. There is no archeological evidence
however, of mass suicide of 960 Sicarii. None. In fact Trude Weiss-Rosmarin,
author of You Take Jesus, I’ll Take God and Judaism and Christianity:
, is quoted as saying “Josephus consciously fabricated
the whole event, partly in order to cover up his own suicide tale at Yotfata
[Jotapata] and that such a suicide pact did not in fact take place at Masada.”33
Other writers have pointed out the same fact using other sources, as Mordechai
Beck points out in his paper for the World Zionist Organization. “In the
Book of Josiphon (written before the redaction of the Talmud) no mention
of suicide is made,” Beck writes.34
are made out rather to have killed their loved ones and then met the enemy
Nachman Ben-Yehuda takes this
fact one step further when he points out that “Jewish traditional sources
(e.g., the Talmud and the Midrash) do not even mention Masada.”36
While several historians either agree or disagree with these statements,
the simple fact remains that there is no archeological evidence to support
the Josephus story. And the greatest expounder of this fact is Shaye Cohen
in his essay Masada: Literary Tradition, Archaeological Remains and the
Credibility of Josephus
written for the Journal of Jewish Studies: Essays
in Honor of Yigael Yadin, in the spring of 1982. Cohen points out that
during Yadin’s excavations three skeleton were discovered on the lower terrace
of Herod’s northern palace, and an additional twenty-five skeletons were
discovered in a cave located along the southern slop of the cliff face.
Cohen states that Yadin believed that the Romans had tossed the twenty-five
bodies down the cliff face once the fortress had been taken. Yet Cohen cannot
account for where the other 932 bodies went, and the discovery in the cave
suggest for Cohen, “the remains of Jews who attempted to hide from the Romans
but were discovered and killed.”37
Nachman Ben-Yehuda, in a promotional tour for his book, Sacrificing Truth
stated that the three graves located on the terrace of the northern places
had pig bones buried with them. A fact Ben-Yehuda states Yadin suppressed,
and a possible indication that the bodies belonged to Roman, not Jewish warriors.
“Roman soldiers could have been buried there with pig bones; the pig was
a sacrificial animals for the Roman army in that period.”38
In examining the actual course of events which Josephus claims to
have taken place that night, Cohen points out that “Josephus’ theory of unanimity
of purpose and unity of action among the Sicarii,”39
falls apart in the face of the archeological evidence. Josephus testifies
that when the time was drawing near and the Sicarii knew that the end was
close, they gathered up all of their belongings and set it a blaze. However
there is evidence of several small fires having been set throughout the fortress,
and where Josephus states that Eleazar ordered his men to destroy everything
but the food storehouses, evidence clearly shows that fires were set in these
places as well. Cohen’s most compelling argument against the accounts of
Josephus however, has to do with the actions of the Romans themselves. According
to Josephus, once the outer walls of the fortress were breached, and the
inner wall (quickly constructed as a barrier to soften the Roman siege ram)
set afire, the Romans retreated, placing guards on the ramp to insure no
Jew escaped. And yet these Roman soldiers, positioned on the ramp, only
a few feet from inside the fortress, heard not a sound, not a scream, not
a cry. They were completely oblivious to the activities of that night.
“They did not notice,” Cohen writes, “that 960 men, women and children were
slain, and that at least two large fires were set…destroying the palace and
cremating the corpses.”40
Another point of
contention has to do with Eleazar’s speeches and the drawing of lots during
that night. Josephus quotes in Jewish War
Eleazar’s speeches verbatim,
claiming he had been told what the rebel leader said by the seven remaining
survivors of the siege. “This was Eleazar’s speech to them,” Josephus writes
after quoting the entire speech. “Yet did not the opinion of all the auditors
acquiesce therein: but although some of them were very zealous to put his
advice in practice, and were in a manner filled with pleasure at it, and
thought death to be a good thing.”41
hard to believe that these survivors had remembered these speeches exactly
as they were spoken. Cohen points out that the rank and social position
of these survivors most likely meant that they were not even present when
the speech was given. “Only the manliest of comrades were invited,” Cohen
But even if we do accept the fact
that somehow, these seven individuals were present during the speech, anyone
who has ever played “telephone” as a child knows that stories, or sayings,
get changed rather quickly after only one or two retelling.
It is therefore plausible, based on the actual archeological evidence,
to suggest that on the night in question the Sicarii faced two fates. The
warriors, along with their women and children, were either captured or massacred
by the Roman forces, or they resisted the Roman onslaught to the very end,
fighting the invading forces, and were killed. It is clear that Josephus,
“whose fondness for literary commonplaces and types is well known,” Cohen
writes, “substituted a collective suicide story for the truth.”43
It is in light of this evidence that we now re-examine our original question;
should Josephus be considered as a source at all?
Josephus As A Source
The answer to our question must be a resounding no. Especially if
taken in light of current historical thinking. Only the archeological evidence
from this time period should be taken into account, especially if there are
no other written accounts to back up, or contradict Josephus’ stories. Despite
the fact that some of Josephus physical descriptions can be confirmed, it
is clear from the evidence presented here that Josephus, at the very least
embellished his accounts, and at the very worst, out and out lied. The mere
fact that historians have suggested that “Josephus [be taken] with a grain
of salt,” should be enough to discredit him. But even if we accept his accounts
as accurate, there is still one final, very good reason why we should not
look to Josephus.
His is the only account, and we have nothing in which to judge it
against. “One way that historians evaluate primary sources,” writes Mary
Lynn Rampolla, in her book, A Pocket Guide to Writing in History
“a fact or description contained in one source is more likely to be accepted
as trustworthy if other sources support or corroborate it.”44
Josephus has no such sources to support or corroborate his accounts. In
fact, Edward Carr expounded the notion that all material from ancient times
is untrustworthy in his 1961 book, What Is History?
Within its pages
Carr states, “I suspect that even today one of the fascinations of ancient…history
is that it gives us the illusion of having all the facts at our disposal.”45
And as we have seen with Josephus, we most definitely do not have “all
the facts at our disposal.” In addition the very nature of modern historical
research compels us to discount Josephus’ accounts. “Historians have to
weigh evidence carefully to see whether those who participated in an event
understood it well enough to accurately describe it,”46
writes Jules R. Benjamin, author of A Student’s Guide to History
Benjamin’s books is required reading in several graduate programs in history,
and he provided the litmus test to which we may judge Josephus. “To check
the reliability of evidence,” Benjamin writes, “historians use the tests
of consistency and corroboration.”47
then apply the author’s tests to Josephus we ask the questions:
- “Does the evidence contradict itself.” In the case of Josephus,
the answer is, yes.
- “Does [the evidence] disagree with evidence from other sources?” In
the case of Josephus there is no other written evidence to compare it with,
but when taking into account that actual archeological evidence, the answer
is also, yes.
By applying the basic rules of historical research to Josephus’ accounts,
we must conclude that; Josephus’ accounts cannot be corroborated by other
sources. The archeological evidence contradicts some of Josephus’ accounts.
The author’s own writings contradict themselves. And Josephus’ “histories”
were self-serving, containing several examples of embellishing by the author.
It is therefore within the light of these facts that we should disregard
Josephus as a source in his entirety.
However this will never happen, and Josephus will continue to referenced
as a historical source. Why this is the case may not be fully understood.
The case may have something to do with the fact that Josephus is considered
such an important resource to both Jewish as well as Christian communities.
The Christians see him as the “living” proof, out side of the Gospels, of
the existence of Christ. Jews place so much on of their current identity
(after the destruction of the Temple), on his writings. The Masada story
alone has become mythical within the general Jewish population, and to suggest
that the events as described by Josephus did not exactly (or at all), play
out this way is considered sacrosanct by some.
· Singer, Isidore, ed. The Jewish Encyclopedia, Volume Seven. Funk and
Wagnalls Company. 1906.
· Graetz, Heinrich. History of the Jews, Volume Two. DeVinne-Hallenbeck
Publishers. New York. 1927.
· Finkelstein, Louis. The Jews: Their History, Culture and Religion. Harper
& Brothers Publishers. New York. 1949.
· Carr, Edward Hallett. What Is History? Random House. New York. 1961.
· Roth, Cecil, ed. Encyclopedia Judaica. Keter Publishing House. 1971.
· Patai, Raphael, ed. Encyclopedia of Zionism and Israel. Volume Two.
Herzl Press/McGraw-Hill. New York. 1971.
· Silver, Daniel J. History of Judaism: From Abraham to Maimonides. Basic
Books, Inc. New York. 1974.
· Collins, John J. Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the
Hellenistic Diaspora. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Grand
· Gruen, Erich S. Diaspora: Jews Amidst Greeks and Romans. Harvard University
Press. Cambridge. 2002.
· Rampolla, Mary Lynn. A Pocket Guide to Writing in History. Bedford/St.
Martin’s Press. Boston. 2004.
· Benjamin, Jules R. A Student’s Guide to History. Bedford/St. Martin’s
Press. Boston. 2004.
· Nachman Ben-Yehuda, The Masada Myth. http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/masadamyth1.htm
· Magen Broshi. The Credibility of Josephus. http://www.centuryone.com/josephus.html.
· From Jesus to Christ: A Portrait of Jesus’ World.
· Mordechai Beck. The Enigma of Masada. http://www.wzo.org.il//en/resources/view.asp?id+1029.
· Nachman Ben-Yehuda, Is the Masada Story a Myth? Hebrew University of
Jerusalem’s Sociology and Anthropology. http://www.sociology.huji.ac.il/truth.html.
· Mysteries of the Bible: The Last Revolt. 1 hour. A&E Entertainment.
· Biggs, Mark W. Military History Magazine: Forty Days at Jotapata. Primedia
History Group. April 1999.
· Ben-Yehuda, Nachman. The Masada Myth. University of Wisconsin Press.
· Methodological Framing. Course Packet #2. Week Ten.
· Josephus. Concerning Masada and Those Who Kept It… Blackboard assignment.
Chapter 8, page 1.