What perspective is represented in Josephus’ reconstruction of what happened in Masada?

The Romans at the time believed that they were in for a battle, a final act of desperation from the Jews. So they placed on all their armour, prepared their weapons and marched on into battle. Much to the surprise of the Romans and a fair bit of disappointment they were shocked to see that all the Jews had committed suicide instead of willing to turn in and become slaves.

Yadin’s perspective was totally contradictory to Josephus’ as it was opposite. Yadin states that Josephus wasn’t being totally honest as many Jews had died and many non-Jews also, which raises the possibility that the Jews might have died in a battle or may have commited suicide, not much is sure if these two sources contradict one another.

What purposes can you identify in the reconstruction of Josephus and Yadin?

Due to the fact that Yadin and Josephus are both tottaly different people, and have different backgrounds and many different factors that influence they’re writing, their reconstruction of Masada is different, but they’re main purpose is to inform us and recount to us what happened in Masada. Josephus by many historians we must remember is regarded as quite a bias author, while on the otherhand Yadin is considered to more of an objective writer than Josephus was. Josephus wrote to stay alive, while Yadin was not in much danger of being killed himself. When reconstructing for ourselves what happened it is essential to take account both of these sources to get as accurate and as objective as possible, and to be very discerning with our sources.

How are their respective audiences involved?

The way they wrote their accounts explain how the audiences are involved, it depicts the influence of their writing and why they wrote what they wrote. Josephus wrote for the Roman audience as so that he wouldn’t get killed and Yadin wrote for the Jews to inform.