在学术界，弗拉维乌斯?约瑟夫斯一直是一个极富争议性的人物。自近代以来，西方学者对约瑟夫斯及其作品的评价和解读反复多变，直至今日仍难有定论。本文立足原典，在认真翻译、研读《犹太古史纪》等作品的基础上，在仔细分析国内外相关研究成果的前提下，对约瑟夫斯的历史叙事进行了针对性的研究，发现约瑟夫斯所创造的是一种让罗马社会和犹太社会都可以接受的历史叙事。 作为韦斯帕芗家族门客，约瑟夫斯笔下的韦斯帕芗父子形象的确受到了公元一世纪“元首史观”的影响。韦斯帕芗和提图斯不但成为其“犹太战争”叙事的中心，而且形象高尚。当然，约瑟夫斯对韦斯帕芗父子也不全是肯定，尤其是对“暴君”图密善更是多有讽刺。事实表明，约瑟夫斯是一位有原则、有独立见解的学者，给他冠之以所谓的“御用文人”显然是值得商榷的。 作为史家，约瑟夫斯借鉴希腊罗马史学，模仿波利比乌斯，通过“犹太战争”叙事，肯定“罗马帝国”统治的合理性，把反抗罗马帝国的犹太起义描绘成一场彻头彻尾的“政治”灾难，试图以此唤起罗马社会对于犹太民族的同情与谅解。同时，他又以“犹太祭司和先知”自居，承袭犹太史学传统，把“犹太战争”诠释为上帝对犹太民族的惩罚。约瑟夫斯历史叙事的双重视角与他自身的双重身份有关，既是罗马帝国现实关系的客观展示，也是帝国治下犹太民族寻求自保的真实反映。 成为“罗马人”的约瑟夫斯始终保持着对犹太文化的认同。面对罗马社会把犹太人和犹太教视为完全意义上的“他者”的现实，他著书立说为读者介绍犹太人的宗教与历史，驳斥当时各种针对犹太人的歧视与成见。他用各种理由，来重新诠释犹太历史，论证犹太民族是一个值得尊敬的古老民族，拥有与罗马人相同的价值观和道德观。当然，为了迎合罗马社会，约瑟夫斯也对犹太文化与历史的许多文化符号进行了删减与修正。坚守而不保守是约瑟夫斯历史叙事的重要特征。 总之，约瑟夫斯的历史叙事虽然具有明显的希腊—罗马史学风格，但他写作的目的还是旨在用历史证明犹太教信仰的重要。犹太认同是约瑟夫斯不变的追求，犹太史观更是约瑟夫斯在叙事中坚守的原则。

In academic community, Flavius Josephus has always been a controversial figure. Since modern times, the evaluation and interpretation of Josephus and his works by western scholars have been varied until today. On the basis of the careful analysis of works such as Antiquitates Judaicae and on the premise of serious research of relevant domestic and foreign study results, this article which is based on the original text has targeted the study of Josephus’ historical narrative and finds that what he created was a historical narrative that was acceptable to both Roman society and Jewish society. As a retainer of the Vespasian’s family, Josephus’ images of the Vespasian and his son were indeed influenced by “the Concept of Principate History” in the first century. Vespasian and Titus were not only the center of Josephus’ narrative of Jewish War, but also had noble images. But Josephus also had some sort of deconstruction of the images of Vespasian and his son and was even more sarcastic about Domitian the tyrant. Fact shows that Josephus was a principled and independent scholar, and it is clearly debatable to give him the title of “imperial scholar”. Drawing on the experience of Greco-Roman historiography and imitating Polybius, Josephus, as a historian, through the narrative of the Jewish War, affirmed the rationality of the Roman Empire’s rule and described the Jewish rebellion against the Roman Empire as a complete “political” disaster, thus to arouse the sympathy and understanding of Roman society for the Jewish people. At the same time, claiming himself “the priesthood and the prophet of Jewish”, and having inherited the tradition of Jewish history, he interpreted the Jewish War as God's punishment for the Jewish people. Josephus’ dual perspective of the view of historical narrative was associated with the double identity of his own, which was not only an objective demonstration of the real relationships in Roman Empire, but also the true reflection of the seeking of self-protection of Jewish people under the Empire. Josephus, who became a “Roman”, maintained his identity with Jewish culture. In face of the fact that Jews and Judaism were seen by Roman society as “the other” completely, he wrote books about the religion and history of Jews and refuted the prejudices against Jews at the time. He used varieties of reasons to reinterpret Jewish history, demonstrating that the Jewish people were an old nation worthy of respect and had the same values and moral standards as the Romans. Of course, in order to cater to Roman society, Josephus also abridged and amended many cultural symbols of Jewish culture and history. It is an important feature of Josephus's historical narrative to stick but not to be conservative. To sum up, although Josephus’s historical narrative has an obviously Greco-Roman historical style, the purpose of his writing was to use history to prove the importance of Jewish faith. Jewish identity was the constant pursuit of Josephus, and Jewish historical view was the principle that Josephus adhered to when doing narration.