4 On the fundamental importance of the priesthood for Josephus’ literary identity (at least), see e.g., War 1.3, 26; 3.352; Ant. 4.304; 10.151-53; 16.187; 20.224-51; Life 13, 29, 80; Apion 1.28-54; 2.184-93. Cf. S. Rappaport (1930: passim); Heller (1936:238-38); Lindner (1972:75-6); Blenkinsopp (1974); S. Mason (1988; BJP 3.xxvi-xxviii); S. Schwartz (1990:58-109). It appears that he was not only a hereditary priest but that he actually practiced in the temple service (Sanders 1992:60-98). Although hereditary aristocratic priesthood is usually associated with Judeans and other Orientals (cf. Apion 1.28), also in Rome there was an intimate connection between priesthood and nobility (cf. Polybius 6.56; Cicero, Leg. 2.12.31; Resp. 2.12-14; Dom. 1.1; Alföldy 1988:35-6). Augustus’ revival of the priestly colleges, whatever its motivation, further strengthened this relationship (Syme 1939:381-82; Galinsky 1996:288-312; Potter in Potter/Mattingly 1999:140; Beard, North, and Price 1998:1.186-96). Whereas in Rome the priestly offices themselves were not hereditary, though they were largely restricted to the aristocracy, Josephus boasts here as elsewhere ( Apion 2.185) that the Judeans perfectly integrate priesthood and aristocracy. Although the following notes offer grounds for suspicion about the length of Josephus’ priestly ancestry, the general circumstances of his life (e.g., his selection for the mission to Rome and for leadership in the Galilee), his thorough knowledge of priestly matters, and his profound attachment to the priesthood throughout his writings, in combination with the defectiveness of our knowledge about actual conditions in the first century, should incline us to accept that his family had become priestly at some point, even if in an irregular way. His situation may be analogous to that of the Roman aristocracy in which, alongside the ideal of a nobility from time immemorial, family trees were readily reconstructed (see above in this note).