This thesis investigates the problem of contemporary historiography and regime representation in Flavian Rome through a close study of a text not usually read for such purposes but which has obvious promise for a study of this theme, the Jewish War of Flavius Josephus. Having surveyed the evolution of our conception of Josephus' relationship to Flavian power, taken a broad account of issues of political expression and regime representation in Flavian Rome outside Josephus and examined questions relating to the structure and date of the work, I will provide a series of thematically-focused readings of the three senior members of the Flavian family, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian, as represented by their contemporary and client Josephus. Key topics to be explored include the level of independence of Josephus' vision, his work's relationship to how the regime is depicted in other contemporary sources, how Josephus makes the Flavians serve his own agenda (which is distinct from the heavy focus of most previous scholarship on how Josephus served their agenda), and the viability and usefulness of certain types of reading practices relating to figured critique which have recently become influential in Josephan scholarship. The thesis offers a new approach to Josephus' relationship to the Flavian Dynasty and sheds new light on contemporary historiography and political expression in the Early Principate.

This diploma thesis deals with the issue of The Analysis of Construction Activities of the Flavian Dynasty Emperors in the Territory of the Roman Provinces. The Emperors are Vespasian, Titus and Domitian. The time of their rule is second half of the 1. century AD. It is about their lives and impact of the roman provinces territory. All three Emperors are known for their architecture boom in Rome and Italy, but in Roman Provinces it is about Territory expansion. Each Emperor of Flavian dynasty have a big interest in this Era and this leads to architecture construction, where was only barbaricum before it. Key words: Archaeology, Classical Archaeology, Roman Empire, Roman Provinces, Flavian Dynasty, Architecture

La dynastie des Flaviens est souvent mal connue et appréciée en raison de sa situation chronologique, « coincée » entre la famille des descendants de César et d’Auguste et celle allant de Trajan à Marc Aurèle. Elle passe parfois pour une simple dynastie de « transition » qui aurait uniquement servi de passerelle entre deux familles considérées comme plus brillantes qui ont par ailleurs laissé un souvenir plus durable. En un peu plus d’un quart de siècle (69-96), Vespasien, Titus et Domitien ont pourtant davantage fait pour la stabilité de Rome et de l’Empire que certains de leurs prédécesseurs ou successeurs. Sorti vainqueur des troubles civils de l’année des quatre empereurs (68-69), Vespasien ramena la paix en Orient et en Italie en plus de s’attacher à stabiliser les institutions et de reconstituer les finances de l’État, passablement écornées par les dernières années du Principat de Néron (54-68) et la guerre civile elle-même. Plus que la paix et la stabilité à l’intérieur et aux frontières de l’Empire, il fit cependant en sorte de refonder les bases institutionnelles du Principat en assumant sa transformation en un régime monarchique et héréditaire. Un principe parfaitement admis puisque ses deux fils adultes, Titus et Domitien, lui succédèrent sans difficulté. Davantage peut-être que les récits laissés par les sources littéraires anciennes, les inscriptions romaines et italiennes ainsi que les monnaies émises par l’atelier de Rome sont probablement le meilleur témoignage permettant de saisir le plus précisément et le plus profondément l’idée que les Flaviens se faisaient d’eux-mêmes et du pouvoir dont ils étaient investis. Le contenu de leur titulature officielle comme leurs choix iconographiques permettent ainsi de dégager leurs différents thèmes de propagande qui laissent finalement apparaitre une vraie continuité dans leur idéologie du pouvoir et leur manière de gouverner. Vespasien a ainsi posé des fondations idéologiques et politiques que ses fils ont globalement poursuivies et respectées, ce qui renforce l’idée selon laquelle les Flaviens ont effectivement suivi un « programme » qui les distinguait de leurs prédécesseurs et de leurs successeurs. Malgré des différences parfois importantes dans leurs pratiques, les inscriptions et l’iconographie monétaire permettent ainsi de mettre en lumière le fait que Titus et Domitien ont finalement moins cherché à faire preuve d’originalité qu’à s’inscrire dans la continuité de l’œuvre de leur père afin de garantir le maintien de la paix et avec elle la prospérité et la stabilité de l’État, et avec elles la satisfaction et la tranquillité de l’ensemble de la société. / The Flavian dynasty is not the most famous of the imperial families who ruled the Roman Empire, especially because it seems to be badly located between two more prestigious dynasties: the descendants of Julius Caesar and Augustus, and those, to Marcus Aurelius, of Trajan. Moreover, the Flavian are sometimes considered only as insignificant because of the shortness of the time they stayed at power. However, for a little more than a quarter century (69-96), Vespasian, Titus and Domitian worked a lot, and more than some of their predecessors or successors, to ensure the stability of Rome and of the entire Empire. Winner of the Year of Four Emperors (68-69), Vespasian brought back peace in the East and in Italy, and intended to stabilize the institutions and restore the finances of the State, partly ruined by the last years of Nero’s reign and the civil war. More than peace and stability, inside the Empire and on the borders, he ruled to rebuild the institutional basis of the Principate by assuming its transformation into a monarchic and hereditary regime. This idea was wholly admitted because his two adult sons, Titus and Domitian, succeeded him with no difficulty. Perhaps more than the account of the ancient literary sources, Italian and Roman inscriptions and coins from the mint of Rome are the best testimony allowing us to catch, accurately and deeply, how the Flavian were considering themselves and the power they had. The content of their official titulature alongside with the iconography of their coins are helpful to determine the themes of their propaganda from which appears a real continuity in their ideology and their way of ruling power. Vespasian laid ideological and political foundations that his two sons globally respected and pursued, reinforcing the idea that the Flavians had their own « political program » which distinguished them from the predecessors and successors. Despite some differences in their practices, sometimes big, the inscriptions and monetary iconography of Titus and Domitian were finally less original than an attempt to pursue their father’s work in order to guarantee the peacekeeping, and with it, the stability and the prosperity of the State, and beyond, the satisfaction and calmness of the whole society.

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has provided an opportunity to reexamine the formation of the Gospel of John. This study will utilize Dead Sea finds coupled with other Second Temple literature to examine how the Gospel of John portrays Jesus as being a king. The approach of this study to use a narrative approach that builds on the Gospel of John as a finished text. The contribution of a source critical approach is not disparaged but the narrative approach will allow the Johannine community to be seen in the context of the immediate post-Second Temple era. The limited literacy of the probable first audience of this text suggests that a narrative approach will best be able to understand the background to the formation of the Gospel of John. A central contention of this study is that the Gospel of John was composed after the Jewish Revolt and after the Synoptics. Thus it deserves the appellation of the Fourth Gospel and is called such in this study. The Fourth Gospel was composed at a time when Roman interest in anything connected to Judaism was sure to attract special interest. Thus the portrayal of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah needed to be handled carefully. The imagery of the new David found in 4Q504 compared with the imagery of Jesus being the Good Shepherd becomes an important part of the argument of this study on whether this Gospel portrays Jesus as being the Davidic Messiah. Jesus as the Good Shepherd showed Jews that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah without overtly offending Roman sensibilities. Furthermore evidence from Christian and Jewish sources indicates that an interest in a Third Temple was still stirring between the Jewish and Bar-Kochba Revolts. The Fourth Gospel shows Jesus as the Davidic Messiah who replaces the Temple because the Good Shepherd was the perfect sacrifice. / New Testament / D. Th. (New Testament)

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has provided an opportunity to reexamine the formation of the Gospel of John. This study will utilize Dead Sea finds coupled with other Second Temple literature to examine how the Gospel of John portrays Jesus as being a king. The approach of this study to use a narrative approach that builds on the Gospel of John as a finished text. The contribution of a source critical approach is not disparaged but the narrative approach will allow the Johannine community to be seen in the context of the immediate post-Second Temple era. The limited literacy of the probable first audience of this text suggests that a narrative approach will best be able to understand the background to the formation of the Gospel of John. A central contention of this study is that the Gospel of John was composed after the Jewish Revolt and after the Synoptics. Thus it deserves the appellation of the Fourth Gospel and is called such in this study. The Fourth Gospel was composed at a time when Roman interest in anything connected to Judaism was sure to attract special interest. Thus the portrayal of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah needed to be handled carefully. The imagery of the new David found in 4Q504 compared with the imagery of Jesus being the Good Shepherd becomes an important part of the argument of this study on whether this Gospel portrays Jesus as being the Davidic Messiah. Jesus as the Good Shepherd showed Jews that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah without overtly offending Roman sensibilities. Furthermore evidence from Christian and Jewish sources indicates that an interest in a Third Temple was still stirring between the Jewish and Bar-Kochba Revolts. The Fourth Gospel shows Jesus as the Davidic Messiah who replaces the Temple because the Good Shepherd was the perfect sacrifice. / New Testament / D. Th. (New Testament)