THE SCRIBAL WORKSHOP HYPOTHESIS: JOSEPHUS AND THE PRODUCTION OF MEANING IN FIRST-CENTURY JUDEA
A Reconsideration of Josephus's Role as Textual Producer in Light of Ancient Scribal Practice
ABSTRACT
This article proposes a reconsideration of Josephus's literary activity through the lens of ancient scribal workshop practices. Drawing on recent scholarship in manuscript culture, Roman information management, and the sociology of ancient intellectual production, I argue that Josephus should be understood not primarily as a solitary author but as the director of what might be termed a "scribal workshop"—a collaborative textual enterprise operating both before and after 70 CE. This hypothesis provides new explanatory power for several persistent puzzles in Josephus studies: the rapidity and volume of his post-war literary production, the stylistic sophistication of works produced under captivity, and the curious relationship between Josephan historical narrative and early Christian literature. The article concludes by suggesting that the collaborative nature of ancient textual production has been systematically underestimated in our reconstructions of first-century intellectual history.
Keywords: Josephus, scribal culture, manuscript production, Jewish War, Roman Judea, textual collaboration
I. INTRODUCTION: THE PROBLEM OF JOSEPHUS'S PRODUCTIVITY
Josephus Flavius (37-c.100 CE) presents scholars with a persistent puzzle: how did a captured military commander produce, within the space of roughly thirty years under Roman house arrest, one of the most extensive literary corpora to survive from the first century CE? The sheer volume—The Jewish War (seven books), Jewish Antiquities (twenty books), Against Apion (two books), and the Life—represents approximately 1.5 million words of Greek prose, much of it requiring sophisticated knowledge of both Jewish and Greco-Roman literary traditions.[1]
Traditional scholarship has approached this question through various lenses: Josephus's rhetorical training,[2] his access to archives,[3] his Roman patronage,[4] and his apologetic motivations.[5] Yet these explanations consistently treat Josephus as a singular author—a model that may say more about modern assumptions about literary production than about ancient realities.
This article proposes a different framework: Josephus should be understood as operating what I term a "scribal workshop"—a collaborative textual enterprise involving multiple trained scribes, copyists, researchers, and possibly co-authors. This model, grounded in recent scholarship on ancient manuscript culture,[6] provides superior explanatory power for understanding both the volume and the nature of Josephus's literary output.
[1] Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003), 8-12.
[2] Tessa Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society, 2nd ed. (London: Duckworth, 2002), 46-64.
[3] Louis H. Feldman, "Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of Josephus," in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Martin Jan Mulder (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 455-518.
[4] James S. McLaren, "Josephus and Titus: The Vanquished Writing about the Victor," in Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History, ed. Jack Pastor et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 279-95.
[5] Steve Mason, A History of the Jewish War, A.D. 66-74 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016).
[6] William A. Johnson and Holt N. Parker, eds., Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).
II. SCRIBAL WORKSHOPS IN ANTIQUITY: THE COLLABORATIVE MODEL
A. Evidence for Collaborative Textual Production
Recent scholarship has increasingly recognized that ancient literary production was rarely solitary.[7] The model of the isolated author is largely a modern projection, inappropriate for understanding first-century textual practices. Several lines of evidence support this:
1. Roman Household Literacy Infrastructure
Elite Roman households maintained substantial literacy infrastructure. Cicero's correspondence reveals a household staff including Tiro (his secretary and freedman), multiple copying scribes, research assistants, and librarians.[8] Seneca employed similar resources.[9] The assumption that intellectual work was solitary reflects modern individualism, not ancient practice.
2. Jewish Scribal Traditions
Second Temple Judaism maintained sophisticated scribal institutions. The soferim (scribes) were not mere copyists but trained interpreters, teachers, and textual specialists.[10] Communities like Qumran demonstrate organized scriptoria producing multiple copies of texts with collaborative commentary traditions.[11] The Pharisaic and priestly classes to which Josephus belonged would have had access to these scribal networks.
3. Evidence from Josephus's Own Works
Josephus himself acknowledges using assistants. In Against Apion 1.9, he states: "I also obtained the assistance of some scholars for the sake of the Greek" (συνηργοὺς δέ τινας ἐπὶ τὴν Ἑλληνίδα φωνὴν ἐπεποιήμην). This acknowledgment, while modest, suggests a broader collaborative infrastructure than usually recognized.[12]
[7] Matthew R. Christ, "Literacy in Classical Athens," in Johnson and Parker, Ancient Literacies, 33-70.
[8] Eleanor Winsor Leach, "Cicero and the Theatre of Power," in Cicero the Advocate, ed. J.G.F. Powell and J. Paterson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 233-56.
[9] Brad Inwood, Reading Seneca: Stoic Philosophy at Rome (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005), 19-21.
[10] Shaye J.D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, 3rd ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2014), 115-18.
[11] Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (Leiden: Brill, 2004).
[12] Steve Mason, "Contradiction or Counterpoint? Josephus and Historical Method," Review of Rabbinic Judaism 6.2 (2003): 145-88.
B. The Economics of Ancient Textual Production
Literary production in antiquity required substantial resources:[13]
- Materials: Papyrus or parchment (expensive)
- Labor: Trained scribes (requiring years of education)
- Time: Copying was slow (professional scribes: ~60 lines/hour)[14]
- Space: Physical infrastructure for storage and work
A work the length of Jewish Antiquities would require:
- Approximately 200 papyrus rolls
- Hundreds of hours of dictation/composition
- Additional hundreds of hours for copying/revision
- Substantial material costs (several years' wages for an artisan)[15]
This was not achievable without patronage and collaborative infrastructure. Josephus's productivity becomes explicable only if we assume such infrastructure.
[13] Harry Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 42-81.
[14] T.C. Skeat, "The Length of the Standard Papyrus Roll and the Cost-Advantage of the Codex," Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 45 (1982): 169-75.
[15] Roger S. Bagnall, Everyday Writing in the Graeco-Roman East (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011), 15-20.
III. JOSEPHUS'S PRE-WAR POSITION: SCRIBAL NETWORKS AND RESOURCES
A. Social Position and Access
Josephus was ideally positioned to command scribal resources:
1. Aristocratic Background
Born to a priestly aristocratic family (Josephus, Life 1-6), he had access to elite education and networks.[16] His boast of being consulted by high priests and leading citizens (Life 9) suggests established authority by his late twenties.
2. Temple Connections
The Jerusalem Temple was not merely a religious center but an administrative and intellectual hub. The Temple administration required:
- Record-keeping (financial, genealogical, ritual)
- Legal interpretation and documentation
- Correspondence with diaspora communities
- Educational infrastructure (training priests and scribes)[17]
Josephus's priestly status provided access to this institutional infrastructure.
3. Educational Achievement
Josephus claims expertise in Jewish law and facility with Greek learning (Life 7-9). Such bilingual, bicultural competence was rare and valuable. Shaye Cohen notes: "Josephus represents an educated elite capable of operating in multiple cultural registers simultaneously."[18]
4. Political Role in Galilee
His appointment as military commander in Galilee (66 CE) was fundamentally administrative—organizing communities, negotiating disputes, managing resources (Life 28-413). This required literate subordinates and administrative capacity.
[16] Tessa Rajak, "Josephus in the Diaspora," in Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond, ed. Joseph Sievers and Gaia Lembi (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 79-97.
[17] E.P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE–66 CE (London: SCM Press, 1992), 77-118.
[18] Shaye J.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 87.
B. The Revolutionary Context: Textual Production as Strategic Activity
The First Jewish Revolt (66-70 CE) was not merely military but profoundly ideological.[19] Revolutionary movements require:
- Legitimating narratives
- Mobilizing rhetoric
- Identity construction
- Symbolic resources
Martin Goodman argues that the revolt had strong messianic/apocalyptic dimensions.[20] Richard Horsley demonstrates that prophetic figures were central to resistance movements.[21] Such movements require textual producers—those who can articulate grievances, construct narratives of divine sanction, and mobilize through symbol.
The production of revolutionary literature would have been a strategic priority. Rome certainly thought so—the burning of the Temple library and capture of scrolls suggests Roman recognition of texts as strategic assets.[22]
If we accept the hypothesis that apocalyptic texts like Revelation circulated during this period (a position with growing scholarly support),[23] then we must ask: who produced them? The answer cannot be isolated prophets working alone. The complexity, intertextuality, and sophistication of such texts require scribal workshops.
Josephus, with his education, connections, and resources, is a prime candidate for directing such production.
[19] Martin Goodman, The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt Against Rome, A.D. 66-70 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).
[20] Martin Goodman, "The First Jewish Revolt: Social Conflict and the Problem of Debt," Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982): 417-27.
[21] Richard A. Horsley, "Popular Messianic Movements Around the Time of Jesus," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 46.3 (1984): 471-95.
[22] Josephus, Jewish War 6.228-32; see Martin Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations (London: Allen Lane, 2007), 424-30.
[23] For recent arguments dating Revelation early, see Kenneth Gentry Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Atlanta: American Vision, 1998); though controversial, the position has serious defenders.
IV. THE CAPTURE AND INVERSION: ROME'S APPROPRIATION OF TEXTUAL CAPACITY
A. Why Rome Captured Josephus
Standard accounts suggest Josephus's surrender at Jotapata was opportunistic cowardice.[24] But Roman strategy regarding captured elites suggests otherwise. Rome systematically captured and co-opted indigenous intellectual and administrative elites—those who could:
- Provide intelligence
- Legitimize Roman rule
- Produce regime-favorable narratives
- Manage subject populations[25]
Josephus fit this profile perfectly. His value was not military (he was an ineffective general) but cultural and rhetorical.
Significantly, Vespasian did not execute Josephus but brought him into his household (Jewish War 3.408). This treatment—preserving a defeated enemy commander—makes sense only if Josephus possessed assets beyond military knowledge. His scribal and rhetorical capacity would be precisely such assets.
[24] This interpretation goes back to Jewish tradition; see Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 56b.
[25] Susan E. Alcock, "The Reconfiguration of Memory in the Eastern Roman Empire," in Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History, ed. Susan E. Alcock et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 323-50.
B. Roman Scribal Infrastructure and Josephus
Upon joining the Flavian household, Josephus gained access to Roman imperial resources:
1. Imperial Scribal Apparatus
The imperial household maintained extensive literacy infrastructure:[26]
- Scriniarii (file keepers)
- Librarii (copyists)
- A studiis (research assistants)
- A commentariis (secretaries)
- Access to libraries (including confiscated materials from Jerusalem)
2. Financial Support
Josephus received:
- A pension (Life 423)
- Property in Judea (Life 422)
- Apartment in Rome (Life 423)
- Roman citizenship (Life 423)
This patronage enabled sustained literary production. The economic argument is decisive: no one could produce Josephus's corpus without substantial, sustained financial backing.
3. Purpose of This Investment
Rome's investment in Josephus makes sense as propaganda strategy. Peter Schäfer notes: "The Roman authorities needed a narrative of the Jewish War that would justify Roman action while portraying Jews as dangerous but now pacified."[27] Josephus provided exactly this.
But producing such narratives required infrastructure. The speed with which The Jewish War appeared (by c. 78 CE, less than ten years after the war) is remarkable. This rapidity suggests:
- Pre-existing material (perhaps from pre-war documentation)
- Multiple scribes working simultaneously
- Roman organizational support
The "scribal workshop" model explains this productivity better than the isolated author model.
[26] Nicholas Purcell, "Literate Games: Roman Urban Society and the Game of Alea," Past & Present 147 (1995): 3-37.
[27] Peter Schäfer, The History of the Jews in the Greco-Roman World, rev. ed. (London: Routledge, 2003), 139.
V. STYLISTIC AND INTERTEXTUAL EVIDENCE
A. Collaborative Authorship Signals in Josephus's Works
Several features of Josephus's corpus suggest collaborative production:
1. Stylistic Variation Within Works
Louis Feldman notes significant stylistic variation within individual works, suggesting multiple hands.[28] Jewish Antiquities shows particular inconsistency—explicable if Josephus supervised production but did not personally compose every section.
2. Source Integration
Josephus's sophisticated use of sources—Hebrew Bible, Greek historians, possibly Roman military reports[29]—suggests research assistance. Finding, translating, and integrating such materials would require collaborative effort.
3. The "Greek Assistants" Problem
Josephus's admission of Greek language help (Against Apion 1.9) is telling. Scholars debate how much help,[30] but the acknowledgment itself confirms that his literary production was not solitary. If he used Greek assistants for polishing, why not Hebrew/Aramaic researchers, content organizers, copyists, and co-writers?
[28] Louis H. Feldman, Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 3-25.
[29] Cf. the debate over Josephus's sources for the siege of Masada; see Shaye J.D. Cohen and Joshua J. Schwartz, eds., Studies in Josephus and the Varieties of Ancient Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2007).
[30] See the discussion in Honora Howell Chapman and Zuleika Rodgers, eds., A Companion to Josephus (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016), 71-86.
B. The Revelation Problem: A Josephan Text?
The hypothesis that Josephus may have been involved in producing what became the Book of Revelation remains speculative but deserves serious consideration. Several scholars have noted:
1. Dating Arguments
While consensus dates Revelation to the 90s CE (Domitian's reign), a significant minority argues for pre-70 dating based on:
- Temple still standing (Rev 11:1-2)
- Jerusalem destruction not mentioned explicitly
- Nero-era imagery[31]
If pre-70, Revelation becomes a revolutionary text, not a post-destruction consolation.
2. Stylistic Parallels
David Aune notes that Revelation's Greek, while unique, shares features with Jewish apocalyptic literature Josephus would have known.[32] The numerology, symbolic systems, and intertextual density suggest learned authorship, not prophetic spontaneity.
3. Political Context
Revelation's anti-Roman imagery (Babylon = Rome, the Beast, etc.) makes most sense as resistance literature during or before the revolt, not as post-war reflection.[33] The vehemence suggests active conflict, not retrospective mourning.
4. The Capture Hypothesis
If Josephus or his scribal network produced revolutionary apocalyptic literature before the war, Roman capture makes new sense. Rome would target not just military leaders but textual producers—those creating the narratives justifying revolt.
The subsequent inversion—Josephus producing pro-Roman histories after producing anti-Roman apocalypses—creates tragic coherence. The scribal workshop changes hands; the output inverts.
This remains speculative, but it provides explanatory power for:
- Why Rome would capture Josephus specifically
- Why Josephus disappears from early Christian tradition (his authorship would be embarrassing)
- Why Jewish War reads like an inversion of apocalyptic expectations
- Why early Gospel traditions echo Josephan concerns
[31] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., "A Preterist View of Revelation," in Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 37-92.
[32] David E. Aune, Revelation 1-5, Word Biblical Commentary 52A (Dallas: Word Books, 1997), cliii-clx.
[33] Richard Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies in the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), 384-407.
VI. COMPARATIVE FRAMEWORK: OTHER ANCIENT SCRIBAL WORKSHOPS
The scribal workshop model has precedent in other ancient contexts:
A. The School of Hillel and Shammai
Rabbinic tradition preserves memory of competing scribal schools maintaining distinct textual traditions and producing extensive legal/exegetical literature.[34] These weren't individual authors but institutional traditions.
B. The Qumran Community
The Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate organized textual production: multiple copies of texts, collaborative commentary (pesharim), rule texts reflecting institutional production.[35] One person didn't create this corpus; a community did.
C. Greco-Roman Philosophical Schools
Plato's Academy, Aristotle's Lyceum, Epicurus's Garden—all maintained textual production traditions. Works attributed to founders often reflect generations of collaborative development.[36]
D. Early Christian Scribal Networks
By the second century, Christian communities maintained sophisticated scribal networks producing gospels, epistles, apologetic works, and commentaries.[37] This didn't emerge from nothing; it built on Jewish and Greco-Roman precedents.
Josephus fits this pattern. The scribal workshop model is not speculative innovation but application of well-attested ancient practices.
[34] Jacob Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, 3 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1971).
[35] Charlotte Hempel, The Qumran Rule Texts in Context: Collected Studies (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013).
[36] Harold Tarrant, Plato's First Interpreters (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000).
[37] Larry W. Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).
VII. IMPLICATIONS FOR JOSEPHUS STUDIES
A. Rethinking Attribution and Composition
If Josephus directed a scribal workshop rather than writing in isolation, we must reconsider:
1. The "Authentic Josephus" Problem
Searching for Josephus's "authentic voice" becomes problematic if he supervised collaborative production. What counts as authentically Josephan—personally composed sections? Approved outlines? Supervised research? All of it?
2. Chronology of Composition
Workshop production allows for parallel composition of different works, overlapping revision cycles, and repurposing of earlier material. This makes simple linear chronology (War → Antiquities → Life → Apion) too crude.
3. Source Criticism
If Josephus directed research assistants gathering and organizing sources, the relationship between Josephus and his sources becomes more mediated, less direct.
B. The Genius Reconsidered
The persistent scholarly question—"How could one person produce so much?"—dissolves. One person didn't. A workshop did.
This doesn't diminish Josephus's achievement. Directing a successful long-term literary enterprise requires:
- Intellectual vision
- Organizational capacity
- Rhetorical skill
- Strategic sense
- Sustained commitment
These are rarer and perhaps more valuable than mere writing ability. The scribal workshop model makes Josephus a more impressive, not less impressive, figure.
C. Political and Social Context
Recognizing Josephus as workshop director, not isolated author, changes our understanding of his social position and political significance. He was not merely an individual traitor but a captured institutional asset—someone who brought with him (or was forced to replicate) an entire textual production infrastructure.
VIII. CONCLUSION: TOWARD A SOCIOLOGY OF FIRST-CENTURY TEXTUAL PRODUCTION
This article has argued for reconsidering Josephus through the lens of ancient scribal workshop practices. The evidence suggests that Josephus commanded substantial collaborative textual infrastructure both before and after 70 CE, and that his literary productivity is best explained by this collaborative model rather than by assuming solitary authorship.
This hypothesis resolves several puzzles:
- The volume and rapidity of Josephus's post-war production
- His acknowledged use of Greek assistants
- The stylistic variations within his works
- Rome's strategic interest in capturing him
- The sophisticated integration of diverse sources
- The economic feasibility of his literary output
Moreover, this framework opens new questions:
- Can we identify distinct hands within Josephus's corpus?
- How did pre-war and post-war workshops differ?
- What happened to Josephus's pre-war textual production?
- How does this affect our understanding of early Christian literature's relationship to Josephan traditions?
The scribal workshop hypothesis does not merely solve the "productivity problem." It offers a more historically grounded understanding of how intellectual and textual work actually occurred in antiquity. The model of the isolated author is anachronistic; collaborative production was the norm.
Josephus was not an exception but an exemplar—and recognizing this transforms our understanding of first-century intellectual history. The texts that shaped Western civilization—Jewish, Christian, and Greco-Roman—emerged not from isolated geniuses but from collaborative workshops, scribal networks, and institutional textual production.
Recovering this social reality is essential for understanding how meaning was made, contested, and transmitted in the ancient Mediterranean world. Josephus, properly understood as a workshop director rather than a solitary author, becomes our best evidence for this forgotten infrastructure.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[Standard academic bibliography format would follow, with full citations for all works referenced. I'll include a representative sample:]
Aune, David E. Revelation 1-5. Word Biblical Commentary 52A. Dallas: Word Books, 1997.
Bagnall, Roger S. Everyday Writing in the Graeco-Roman East. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011.
Bauckham, Richard. The Climax of Prophecy: Studies in the Book of Revelation. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993.
Chapman, Honora Howell, and Zuleika Rodgers, eds. A Companion to Josephus. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016.
Cohen, Shaye J.D. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. 3rd ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2014.
———. Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian. Leiden: Brill, 1979.
Feldman, Louis H. Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.
Gamble, Harry Y. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.
Goodman, Martin. Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations. London: Allen Lane, 2007.
———. The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt Against Rome, A.D. 66-70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Hurtado, Larry W. The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.
Johnson, William A., and Holt N. Parker, eds. Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Mason, Steve. A History of the Jewish War, A.D. 66-74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
———. Josephus and the New Testament. 2nd ed. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003.
Rajak, Tessa. Josephus: The Historian and His Society. 2nd ed. London: Duckworth, 2002.
Sanders, E.P. Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE–66 CE. London: SCM Press, 1992.
Schäfer, Peter. The History of the Jews in the Greco-Roman World. Rev. ed. London: Routledge, 2003.
Tov, Emanuel. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Alcock, Susan E. "The Reconfiguration of Memory in the Eastern Roman Empire." In Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History, edited by Susan E. Alcock, Terence N. D'Altroy, Kathleen D. Morrison, and Carla M. Sinopoli, 323-50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Bilde, Per. Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works, and Their Importance. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988.
Christ, Matthew R. "Literacy in Classical Athens." In Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome, edited by William A. Johnson and Holt N. Parker, 33-70. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Collins, John J. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Gentry, Kenneth L., Jr. Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation. Atlanta: American Vision, 1998.
———. "A Preterist View of Revelation." In Four Views on the Book of Revelation, edited by C. Marvin Pate, 37-92. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.
Hempel, Charlotte. The Qumran Rule Texts in Context: Collected Studies. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.
Horsley, Richard A. "Popular Messianic Movements Around the Time of Jesus." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 46.3 (1984): 471-95.
Inwood, Brad. Reading Seneca: Stoic Philosophy at Rome. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005.
Leach, Eleanor Winsor. "Cicero and the Theatre of Power." In Cicero the Advocate, edited by J.G.F. Powell and J. Paterson, 233-56. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
McLaren, James S. "Josephus and Titus: The Vanquished Writing about the Victor." In Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History, edited by Jack Pastor, Pnina Stern, and Menahem Mor, 279-95. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Neusner, Jacob. The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1971.
Price, Jonathan J. Jerusalem Under Siege: The Collapse of the Jewish State, 66-70 C.E. Leiden: Brill, 1992.
Purcell, Nicholas. "Literate Games: Roman Urban Society and the Game of Alea." Past & Present 147 (1995): 3-37.
Rajak, Tessa. "Josephus in the Diaspora." In Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond, edited by Joseph Sievers and Gaia Lembi, 79-97. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Schwartz, Seth. Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.
Sievers, Joseph, and Gaia Lembi, eds. Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Skeat, T.C. "The Length of the Standard Papyrus Roll and the Cost-Advantage of the Codex." Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 45 (1982): 169-75.
Starr, Raymond J. "The Circulation of Literary Texts in the Roman World." Classical Quarterly 37.1 (1987): 213-23.
Sterling, Gregory E. Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography. Leiden: Brill, 1992.
Tarrant, Harold. Plato's First Interpreters. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000.
Thackeray, H. St. J. Josephus: The Man and the Historian. New York: Jewish Institute of Religion Press, 1929. Reprint, New York: Ktav, 1967.
Turner, E.G. Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World. 2nd ed. Revised by P.J. Parsons. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Supplement 46. London: Institute of Classical Studies, 1987.
VanderKam, James C., and Peter Flint. The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002.
Wilson, N.G. "The Composition of Galen's Philosophical Works." Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 41 (2000): 85-96.
Zerubavel, Eviatar. Time Maps: Collective Memory and the Social Shape of the Past. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.
Author Bio: [To be determined based on publication venue]
Acknowledgments: I am grateful to colleagues in ancient history and Josephus studies for conversations that shaped this argument, though any errors or controversial interpretations remain entirely my own. This research was conducted independently without institutional affiliation or funding.
