Selections From Josephus
_TRANSLATIONS OF EARLY DOCUMENTS_
GENERAL EDITORS: W. O. E. OESTERLEY, D.D.
G. H. BOX, D.D.
SERIES II
HELLENISTIC-JEWISH TEXTS
SELECTIONS FROM
JOSEPHUS
SELECTIONS FROM JOSEPHUS
TRANSLATED BY
H. ST. J. THACKERAY, M.A.
LONDON:
SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING
CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE
NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
1919
IN PIAM MEMORIAM
PATRIS CARISSIMI
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 9
SELECTIONS 33
I. AUTOBIOGRAPHY
(1) THE BOY AMONG THE DOCTORS. HIS EDUCATION (_V._) 33
(2) A SHIPWRECK ON THE VOYAGE TO ROME. EVE OF THE WAR (_V._) 34
(3) THE _JEWISH WAR_ AND ITS RECEPTION. CRITICISM OF A RIVAL HISTORIAN
(JUSTUS) (_V._) 35
(4) AFTER THE WAR. JOSEPHUS AS ROMAN CITIZEN (_V._) 37
II. SPECIMENS OF AMPLIFICATION OF THE BIBLICAL NARRATIVE
(5) MOSES, THE INFANT PRODIGY, INTRODUCED TO PHARAOH (_A._ II) 40
(6) EXORCISM IN THE NAME OF SOLOMON (_A._ VIII) 41
(7) MICAIAH AND ZEDEKIAH PROPHESY BEFORE AHAB (_A._ VIII) 42
III. THE COMING OF THE ROMANS
(8) LOSS OF JEWISH INDEPENDENCE. PALESTINIAN SETTLEMENT UNDER POMPEY
(_A._ XIV) 45
(9) DIVISION OF THE COUNTRY INTO FIVE DISTRICTS BY GABINIUS (_B._ I) 47
(10) SETTLEMENT UNDER JULIUS CÆSAR (_A._ XIV) 47
IV. HEROD THE GREAT
(11) THE YOUTH HEROD FREES GALILEE FROM THE BRIGANDS (_A._ XIV) 48
(12) HEROD ON HIS TRIAL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN (_A._ XIV) 48
(13) HEROD AND CASSIUS. MURDER OF ANTIPATER, HEROD’S FATHER (_A._ XIV)
51
(14) ANTONY MAKES HEROD AND PHASAEL TETRARCHS OF JUDÆA (_A._ XIV) 52
(15) HOW HEROD WON HIS KINGDOM (_A._ XIV) 53
(16) HOW HEROD MADE HIS PEACE WITH AUGUSTUS (AFTER THE BATTLE OF ACTIUM)
(_B._ I) 55
(17) HEROD AND MARIAMNE (_B._ I) 56
(18) EXTENSION OF HEROD’S REALM. HIS POPULARITY WITH AUGUSTUS AND
AGRIPPA (_A._ XV) 57
(19) THE HISTORIAN’S READING OF HEROD’S CHARACTER (_A._ XVI) 58
(20) REFLECTIONS ON THE TRAGIC FATE OF HEROD’S SONS (_A._ XVI) 60
(21) HEROD’S DYING PROVISION FOR A NATIONAL MOURNING (_A._ XVII) 63
V. ARCHELAUS AND PILATE
(22) ARCHELAUS IN QUEST OF A KINGDOM (_A._ XVII) 66
(23) ARCHELAUS DEPOSED AND HIS TERRITORY ADDED TO THE ROMAN PROVINCE OF
SYRIA (_A._ XVII) 71
(24) THE REVOLT OF JUDAS “IN THE DAYS OF THE ENROLMENT” UNDER QUIRINIUS
(_A._ XVIII) 72
(25) PILATE OFFENDS JEWISH SUSCEPTIBILITIES IN THE MATTER OF (i) THE
EMPEROR’S BUSTS, (ii) THE CORBAN MONEY (_A._ XVIII) 74
(26) JESUS CHRIST (_A._ XVIII) 76
(27) TIBERIUS EXPELS ALL JEWS FROM ROME (_A._ XVIII) 76
(28) PILATE SENT TO ROME FOR TRIAL (_A._ XVIII) 77
VI. THE LATER HERODS
(29) HEROD THE TETRARCH, HIS MARRIAGE WITH HERODIAS AND MURDER OF JOHN
THE BAPTIST (_A._ XVIII) 79
(30) HOW HEROD AGRIPPA BECAME KING, AND HEROD THE TETRARCH LOST HIS
TETRARCHY (_A._ XVIII) 81
(31) PETRONIUS AND THE STATUE OF GAIUS (_A._ XVIII) 84
(32) HEROD AGRIPPA’S KINGDOM ENLARGED BY CLAUDIUS (_A._ XIX) 88
(33) DEATH OF HEROD AGRIPPA (_A._ XIX) 88
(34) THE STORY OF KING IZATES AND HIS MOTHER HELENA (_A._ XX) 90
(35) THE FATE OF THE IMPOSTOR THEUDAS AND OF THE SONS OF JUDAS THE
GALILÆAN (_A._ XX) 93
(36) AGRIPPA II, FELIX, AND DRUSILLA (_A._ XX) 94
(37) THE DEATH OF JAMES, “THE LORD’S BROTHER” (_A._ XX) 95
VII. SCENES FROM THE JEWISH WAR
(38) INTRODUCTION TO THE _JEWISH WAR_ (_B._ I) 98
(39) SEEDS OF THE WAR SOWN UNDER THE LAST OF THE PROCURATORS. RISE OF
THE SICARII (_B._ II) 102
(40) THE IMMEDIATE CAUSE OF THE WAR. ABROGATION OF SACRIFICES FOR THE
EMPEROR (_B._ II) 107
(41) INITIAL JEWISH SUCCESS. ROUT OF A ROMAN ARMY IN THE DEFILES OF
BETH-HORON (_B._ II) 110
(42) JERUSALEM BEFORE THE SIEGE (_B._ II) 118
(43) THE FALL OF JOTAPATA. JOSEPHUS TAKEN PRISONER (_B._ III) 119
(44) RECEPTION AT JERUSALEM OF THE NEWS OF THE FALL OF JOTAPATA (_B._
III) 128
(45) MURDER OF THE HIGH PRIEST ANANUS; ALSO OF ZACHARIAS AFTER A MOCK
TRIAL (_B._ IV) 129
(46) HOW JOSEPHUS WAS LIBERATED (_B._ IV) 133
(47) A ROMAN REVERSE INSPIRES FALSE CONFIDENCE (_B._ V) 134
(48) CESSATION OF THE DAILY SACRIFICE. JOSEPHUS APPEALS TO THE JEWS
(_B._ VI) 135
(49) CONFLAGRATION OF THE TEMPLE (_B._ VI) 137
(50) PORTENTS AND ORACLES (_B._ VI) 141
(51) THE LAST SCENE. CAPTURE OF THE UPPER CITY. JERUSALEM IN FLAMES
(_B._ VI) 145
(52) THE SPOILS FROM THE TEMPLE IN THE TRIUMPHAL PROCESSION IN ROME
(_B._ VII) 147
VIII. THE JEWISH SECTS
(53) THE THREE SECTS AND THEIR VIEWS ON FATE AND FREE-WILL (_A._ XIII)
148
(54) THE ESSENES, WITH A NOTE ON PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES (_B._ II) 148
(55) ANOTHER ACCOUNT OF THE THREE SECTS—AND A FOURTH (_A._ XVIII) 158
(56) WHY JOHN HYRCANUS WENT OVER FROM THE PHARISEES TO THE SADDUCEES
(_A._ XIII) 161
(57) “CONCILIATE THE PHARISEES”—ALEXANDER’S DYING ADVICE TO ALEXANDRA
(_A._ XIII) 164
(58) HOW THE PHARISEES ROSE TO POWER UNDER QUEEN ALEXANDRA (_B._ I) 166
(59) HEROD EXEMPTS PHARISEES AND ESSENES FROM THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.
THE ESSENE PROPHET MENAHEM (_A._ XV) 167
(60) THE PHARISEES REFUSE TO TAKE THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE (ANOTHER
ACCOUNT) (_A._ XVII) 168
IX. JEWISH THEOLOGY, SCRIPTURES AND CUSTOMS
(61) SOME ASPECTS OF JEWISH THEOLOGY. MOSES AS RELIGIOUS EDUCATOR (_Ap._
II) 170
(62) A FUTURE LIFE—FOR THE LAW-ABIDING (_Ap._ II) 173
(63) THE JEWISH SCRIPTURES AND THEIR PRESERVATION (_Ap._ I) 174
(64) UNIVERSAL IMITATION OF OUR LAWS THE SINCEREST FLATTERY (_Ap._ II)
177
(65) THE OATH “CORBAN” (_Ap._ I) 179
APPENDIX OF ADDITIONAL NOTES 180
TABLE OF DATES 204
INDEX 207
ABBREVIATIONS
The _Jewish Antiquities_ _Ant._ or _A._
The _Jewish War_ (_Bellum Judaicum_) _B.J._ or _B._
The Treatise _Against Apion_ _Ap._
The _Life_ _Vita_ or _V._
Schürer, _Jewish People in the Time of_ _Jesus Christ_ (_JPTC_)
_circa_ (“about” of dates) _c._
References, _e.g._ _Ant._ XVII. 6.5 f. (171-181). The figures 6.5 f.
refer to the older division, found in all editions (Niese’s
included), of the books into sections (6 or vi) and subsections (5
and following subsection). The bracketed figures (171-181) indicate
the smaller divisions first introduced by Niese.
SELECTIONS FROM JOSEPHUS
INTRODUCTION
Life
Josephus, son of Matthias the priest, and on his mother’s side claiming
descent from the royal Hasmonæan house—or Flavius Josephus, to give him
the name which he adopted out of gratitude to his Imperial patrons—was
born in the first year of the Emperor Caligula, A.D. 37-38. St. Paul’s
conversion had probably taken place a few years earlier.[1] His life of
upwards of sixty years falls into two nearly equal parts, spent
respectively in Palestine and in Rome. The Palestinian portion, again,
is sharply divided into the pre-war period (to A.D. 65), of which we
know comparatively little, and the great four years’ war (A.D. 66-70),
of which we know a great deal.
Of his precocious youth, when, if we may believe him, Rabbis flocked to
hear the wisdom of the boy of fourteen; how he himself two years later
“did eagerly frequent Doctor and Saint,” making trial successively of
the three sects of his nation, and ending his education by three years
passed as an ascetic with a hermit in the wilderness; how on his return
to Jerusalem at the age of nineteen he joined the popular and
influential party of the Pharisees; of the one outstanding incident of
his early manhood, his visit to Rome at the age of twenty-six—of all
these things we may read in his own words.[2] Although he finally threw
in his lot with the Pharisees, we may judge from the three years’ stay
with Ban(n)us, the specially full account which he gives of the
Essenes,[3] and other indications, that the tenets and communistic life
of that order left a lasting impression. If we may again attempt a
synchronism with events in the life of St. Paul, we may say that the
Rabbis were listening to the boy about the time of the first Council of
the Church at Jerusalem, he was receiving his schooling during the third
missionary journey, and his return to Jerusalem nearly coincided with
the arrest of the Apostle in that city.
The journey to Rome (A.D. 63-4), like St. Paul’s a few years earlier,
began with a shipwreck. Its nominal purpose was to plead the cause of
certain priests who had been sent by Felix to Italy for trial.
Chronology[4] will hardly permit us to accept the suggestion of
Edersheim[5] to connect St. Paul’s liberation with the mission of
Josephus; but he cannot have failed, during his stay in the city on the
eve of the Neronian persecution, to become acquainted, if not with the
work of the Apostle, at least with the existence of the Christian
community. Through the influence of Poppæa, the mistress and afterwards
wife of Nero, who coquetted with Judaism (Josephus’s words imply that
she was a proselyte), he was successful in obtaining the release of the
priests and returned to Judæa laden with presents. Besides the expressed
object, was there any ulterior motive in this visit to the capital?
Edersheim suggests that, foreseeing the trend of events, Josephus was
already fired with the ambition of becoming the intermediary between
Rome and his nation.
At any rate, his visit had impressed him with a sense of Rome’s
invincible power; and on his return to Judæa, where he found the Jews
drifting towards revolt and everything pointing to the immediate
outbreak of war, he at first tried to pacify the war-party, but in vain.
The turbulent state of the country at length induced Cestius Gallus, the
governor of Syria, to advance against Jerusalem. With the disastrous
rout of his army in the defiles of Beth-Horon towards the end of A.D.
66, following upon his unexpected withdrawal from the gates of the
metropolis,[6] it was realized that the irrevocable step had been taken,
and all preparations were made for the impending war.
Josephus, then but twenty-nine years of age, was entrusted with the
command of Galilee. The reason for the selection of the young priest for
so important a post, for which, notwithstanding his frequent assertions
of his skill and strategy, he seems to have been ill-qualified, is
obscure. The history of the sequel fills the greater part of the _Life_,
but it is not very easy to follow the course of events and to read the
motives of the leaders at Jerusalem and the conflicting aims of the
various cities of Galilee, which Josephus found in a divided state. His
first steps were to fortify the principal places, to reform the army on
the Roman model by appointing subordinate officers, and to set up a
council of seventy of the principal Galilæans to try cases and to act as
hostages for the loyalty of the district. But his efforts to enforce
discipline and to secure the allegiance of the Galilæans were
unavailing. He had many opponents, in particular John of Gischala, who
afterwards played an important part in the siege of Jerusalem. The
spring of A.D. 67 was chiefly spent by Josephus in civil strife and in
avoiding plots against his life. He was suspected, perhaps justly, of
harbouring designs of betraying the country to Rome; he may have hoped
to stave off war by some form of compromise. At length John succeeded in
inducing the Jerusalem leaders to supersede Josephus, and an embassy was
sent to relieve him of his command. He, however, refused to accept the
order, and obtained letters from the capital reinstating him. Meanwhile,
Vespasian was advancing upon Galilee from Antioch. On the fall of Gadara
Josephus was at first inclined to surrender and wrote to Jerusalem for
instructions, but finally resolved to stand a siege in the fortified
town of Jotapata.
Of the forty-seven days’ siege of Jotapata and the various machinations
and counter-machinations of the belligerents Josephus has given us a
graphic account in the third book of the _Jewish War_. The story of its
fall (July, A.D. 67) and of the sequel—the capture of the general, after
a narrow escape, through a ruse, from death at the hands of his
compatriots, and his prophecy of Vespasian’s rise to power—will be found
in the text.[7]
“By the end of A.D. 67,” I quote from what I have written elsewhere,
“the whole of northern Palestine was in the hands of the Romans. Only
Jerusalem, where a bloody civil war was raging, remained to be taken.
But its capture was delayed by the events of A.D. 68, which drew the
attention of the generals to the west. News came first of the death of
Nero, which took place in June, and then, in rapid succession, of the
accession of Galba, Otho and Vitellius. In July, A.D. 69, Vespasian’s
legions took the law into their own hands, and proclaimed him emperor.
One of his first acts as emperor was to liberate Josephus, whose
prophecy had now come true.[8]... [Josephus] now accompanied the emperor
to Alexandria, and from there was sent back with Titus to take part in
the siege of Jerusalem.... [His] services as interpreter and intercessor
were more than once requisitioned by Titus;[9] on one occasion he was
hit by a stone, and barely escaped capture and death at the hands of his
countrymen. He was, he tells us, at this time between two fires; for,
while bitterly hated by the Jews, he was suspected by the Romans of
treachery whenever they met with a reverse.”[10]
For his life in Rome, where he witnessed (with what feelings we are left
to imagine) the triumphal procession of the two emperors,[11] and for
the various privileges bestowed on him by Vespasian, Titus and Domitian,
we may refer to his own narrative.[12] Awarded the rights of Roman
citizenship, he was also among the first to be placed on the “civil
list” newly instituted by Vespasian.[13] He was still pursued by Jewish
hatred; among his opponents he names in particular Justus, a rival
historian of the war, and Jonathan, the leader of a revolt in Cyrene,
who accused him of complicity in his designs; but with his unfailing
tact he succeeded in retaining the favour of the Flavian emperors and
defeating his enemies. He appears to have survived into the second
century, since he outlived Agrippa II,[14] whose death is placed by
Photius in A.D. 100. Eusebius (_H. E._ III. 9) tells us that our author
was honoured by the erection of his statue in Rome, and that his works
were placed in the public library. He was married at least four
times;[15] one wife deserted him, another he divorced.
Works
During the leisure of his life in Rome Josephus composed the four works
which, owing largely, no doubt, to their popularity with early Christian
writers, have survived entire: the _Jewish War_ (7 books), the _Jewish
Antiquities_ (20 books), the _Life_ and the treatise _Against Apion_ (2
books). There is no adequate ground for thinking that he published
anything further.
(i) The _Jewish War_. This, the earliest of the works, was, in its
present Greek form, finished in the latter half of Vespasian’s reign,
between A.D. 75 and 79. It cannot be earlier than A.D. 75, because it
mentions the completion of the temple of Pax (_B. J._ VII. 158), which
was dedicated in that year; it had, moreover, been preceded by other
histories of the war. The Greek, as the author tells us,[16] is a
translation, made for the use of the learned Roman world at large, of a
first draft, written in his native Aramaic for the benefit of a smaller
circle of readers in upper (or inland) Syria. The Aramaic has not
survived. The Greek—for which assistance was obtained, “employing
certain _collaborateurs_ with a view to the Greek style” are his words,
_c. Ap._ I. 50—shows no sign of its Semitic parentage and probably
amounted to practically a new work. It is unlikely, _e. g._, that the
first draft contained the summary sketch of Jewish history from the time
of Antiochus Epiphanes, which occupies Books I and II of the Greek. The
work seems to have been issued in parts.[17] Copies were presented to
Vespasian and Titus and other Romans who had taken part in the war, and
_sold_ to Herod Agrippa II and other learned Jews (_c. Ap._ I. 51).
Titus himself affixed his _imprimatur_. A long correspondence on the
work passed between the author and his friend, Agrippa; two specimens of
the king’s letters, in rather slipshod Greek, are quoted.[18]
Books I and II give a rapid sketch (expanded in the _Ant._) of Jewish
history from the capture of Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes (168 B.C.)
down to the defeat of Cestius Gallus in A.D. 66 and the preparations for
the war. Book III narrates the coming of Vespasian and Titus, the siege
of Jotapata and the fighting in Galilee; Book IV the close of the
Galilæan campaign, the factions in Jerusalem, the advance of Vespasian
upon the city and his return to Rome on being elected emperor by his
army; Book V describes the city and Temple, the investment by Titus and
the capture of the first and second walls; Book VI the horrors of the
famine, the taking of the fortress of Antonia, followed by the burning
of the Temple and the capture and destruction of the city; Book VII the
return of Titus to Rome, the triumphal procession and the capture of the
last strongholds of the Jewish fanatics.
(ii) The _Jewish Antiquities_. In this, his _magnum opus_, Josephus
undertook to write the history of his nation from the creation to the
outbreak of the Jewish War. He tells us of his misgivings in entering on
so large a task, the toil which it involved, and how it was only through
the encouragement of his patron Epaphroditus (to whom _Ant._, the _Life_
and the _Apion_ treatise are all dedicated) that it was finally
completed in the thirteenth year of Domitian’s reign and the fifty-sixth
of his own life, A.D. 93-94 (_Ant._ I. 6 ff.; XX. 267). The work towards
the close shows some marks of weariness. The title (Ἰουδαïκὴ
Ἀρχαιολογία) and the division into twenty books were doubtless derived
from the great Roman history (Ῥωμαïκὴ Ἀρχαιολογία) of Dionysius of
Halicarnassus.
In Books I-X the narrative closely follows the Biblical account down to
the Babylonian captivity; XI carries on the story to Alexander the
Great; XII to the death of Judas Maccabæus (161 B.C.); XIII contains the
history of the Hasmonæan house to the death of Queen Alexandra (67
B.C.); XIV the intervention of Pompey and the Romans and the accession
of Herod the Great (37 B.C.), whose reign (37-4 B.C.) fills XV, XVI and
the first half of XVII; the rest of XVII comprises the reign of
Archelaus (4 B.C. to A.D. 6); XVIII, XIX and XX cover the remainder of
the period of the Gospels and the Acts, including notices of Quirinius,
Pilate, Tiberius, Herod the Tetrarch, and the two later Herods; the
greater part of XIX is occupied with a full, but irrelevant, account of
the assassination of the emperor Gaius and the accession of Claudius
(A.D. 41); XX summarizes the events to the outbreak of the war (A.D.
66).
As regards the historian’s authorities for the first half of his work,
the main source was the Greek Bible (“the Septuagint”), occasional use
being made of the Hebrew. This was supplemented by (1) legends and
commentary, drawn, in part at least, from Rabbinic tradition (_Haggadah_
and _Halachah_); (2) Hellenistic reproductions of the Biblical history
by Alexandrians such as Demetrius and Artapanus; (3) secular historians
and non-Biblical documents such as Berosus, the annals of Tyre, etc. The
number of authorities named under this last head is considerable, but it
is probable that many of them were known to Josephus only through the
great Universal History of Nicolas of Damascus, the friend of Herod the
Great and Augustus, to which he is largely indebted throughout the whole
of _Ant._ For the centuries following the Captivity his authorities are
unfortunately scanty and of little value. From the Captivity to
Antiochus Epiphanes his main sources are the LXX books of _1 Esdras_ and
_Esther_, some legends of Alexander the Great, the _Letter of Aristeas_,
_1 Maccabees_ and (occasionally) Polybius. From this point he relies
largely on two lost Universal Histories of Augustan writers, Strabo and
Nicolas of Damascus. The latter was undoubtedly his chief authority for
the very full account of the reign of Herod the Great, though he does
not accept all his statements without question, and appears to have had
access to some less eulogistic history of that monarch. Mention is once
made of the “Memoirs of King Herod” (XV, 174). With the accession of
Archelaus the history, unfortunately for the student of the N.T., again
becomes meagre, expanding into greater fullness when the reign of
Agrippa I is reached. With regard to him Josephus would obtain
information from his son, Agrippa II, and for the events leading up to
the war he could draw on his own recollections. The account of the
assassination of Gaius, which is of primary importance for the Roman
historian, was thought by Mommsen to be derived from the work of Cluvius
Rufus, a witness of the events which immediately preceded it. Besides
these authorities Josephus had access to priestly records (he notes the
succession of high priests throughout the narrative) and to important
decrees concerning privileges granted on various occasions to Jews
resident in Asia and elsewhere.
(iii) The _Life_ was written as a sequel to the _Antiquities_, to which
it is appended in the MSS. A promise of such an appendix is made at the
end of _Ant._ (XX. 266); and the _Life_ closes with a dedication of the
whole history to Epaphroditus, the patron named in the exordium to the
larger work. But the _Life_ seems to have been an afterthought, added
only after an interval of some six or seven years, since it is implied
that, Agrippa II is already dead,[19] and his death is said to have
occurred in A.D. 100. The immediate occasion for its production was the
appearance of a rival history of the Jewish War by Justus of Tiberias,
in which the writer accused Josephus of being the real cause of the war
with Rome. “The appearance of Justus’s work, with its damaging
criticisms, was likely to endanger the secure position which Josephus
had won for himself at Rome, and the earlier historian of the war felt
bound to defend himself. The _Life_, then, by no means answers to its
name. It is not a complete autobiography, but simply an apologetic
statement as to the actions of Josephus as commander in Galilee, to
which have been added a few details as to the earlier and later events
of his life, by way of prologue and epilogue.”[20] The defence, in which
Josephus attempts to pose as friendly to the Romans, while he has to
admit the part which he took in organizing the Jewish forces to oppose
them, is extremely weak; and the work, which is characterized by
inordinate self-praise, is the least satisfactory of the historian’s
writings.
(iv) The treatise _Against Apion_ (in two books) is, on the other hand,
the most pleasing of our author’s works, showing a well-designed plan,
great literary skill, and a more genuine patriotism, a warmer and more
impassioned zeal for his country’s religion, than we find elsewhere. The
title (not the author’s) is, like that of the _Life_, unsuitable, Apion
not being mentioned until Book II is reached. Older titles were: “On the
Antiquity of the Jews” (not sufficiently distinctive), and “Against the
Greeks.” It is designed as a reply to criticisms on the _Antiquities_
and a refutation of current attacks upon, and groundless prejudices
against, the Jewish nation; it is, in short, an Apology for Judaism with
a demonstration of the antiquity of the race. It gives an interesting
insight into the anti-Semitism of the first century. Apion is merely one
representative of Israel’s enemies; a grammarian and interpreter of
Homer, he is best known as the leader of the embassy to Caligula in A.D.
38, which brought accusations against the Jewish residents in
Alexandria, and was opposed by a counter-embassy of Alexandrian Jews,
headed by Philo. Josephus challenges the extreme antiquity claimed for
the Greeks; accounts for the silence of Greek writers with regard to
Jewish history; cites evidence for the antiquity of his nation from
Egyptian, Phœnician, Babylonian and Greek sources; refutes the malignant
and absurd accusations of the anti-Semites; and concludes with an able
and eloquent defence of the lawgiver and his code,[21] contrasting his
conception of God with the immoral ideas current among the Greeks. The
numerous quotations from lost writings give the work a special value.
Its date must be later than A.D. 93 (the date of _Ant._), but whether
written before or after the _Life_ is uncertain.
Two further works, as he tells us at the end of _Ant._, were projected
by Josephus, viz.: (1) A summary sketch of the war and the subsequent
history of his nation down to A.D. 93-4; (2) “A work in four books
concerning God and His being and concerning the Laws, why some actions
are permitted to us by them and others are forbidden.” It is unlikely
that either was ever completed. But the work on “Customs and Causes,” as
he elsewhere calls it, appears, from the mention of the four books and
from scattered allusions in the _Antiquities_ to its intended contents,
to have already taken shape in his mind, and was perhaps begun. The
failure to carry out this scheme is regrettable.
From the repeated occurrence, usually with reference to the Seleucid
dynasty or Parthian affairs, of the phrase “as we have shown elsewhere,”
Josephus might appear to have written a monograph on Syrian history. But
the variations on the phrase, “as has been shown elsewhere” (_lit._ “in
others”) and (twice) “... _by others_,” make it probable that the use of
the first person, where it occurs, has been carelessly taken over from
one of his authorities.
The fourth book of Maccabees (in vol. iii. of Dr. Swete’s LXX) appears
in the older editions of Josephus, but has no claim to have come from
his pen.
The Man and the Historian. Importance of his Work[22]
The personal character of Josephus and his credibility as a historian
have been often impugned, more especially by his own compatriots.
Edersheim’s article in the _Dictionary of Christian Biography_ (where
our author finds himself in strange company), while not lacking in
appreciation of his merits, displays some of this rancour, though not in
its more virulent form. He has been denounced as traitor and renegade,
as a flatterer of the Romans and one whose statements must always be
regarded with suspicion.
His _character_ is somewhat of an enigma. We may grant that it is not
one to arouse any feeling of keen admiration. He was no ardent patriot,
like Judas Maccabæus, no missionary in a great cause to which he was
ready to devote his whole heart and soul and to sacrifice his life. His
three years’ sojourn in the wilderness was not, like the visit to Arabia
of an older contemporary, the prelude to a life-work of strenuous and
unremitting toil ending in imprisonment and martyrdom. His faults are
patent; and among them we should rank first an inordinate egotism and a
concern, above all other considerations, for his personal interests. His
life was constantly in danger; like St. Paul, he encountered perils in
the sea, perils from his own countrymen, perils from the Gentiles; but
his instinct for self-preservation, aided by ready tact and
resourcefulness, carried him safely through the most desperate
situations. In his account of the shipwreck[23] we read that “I and
certain others, about eighty in all [out of a crew of six hundred],
outstripped the others and were taken on board.” There is no thought of
the unfortunate swimmers who were left behind; nothing corresponding to
the Apostle’s words of encouragement in similar circumstances, and to
his biographer’s joy in recording that “all escaped safe to the land.”
In Galilee, before the siege of Jotapata, he narrates with evident
self-satisfaction the various stratagems by which he outwitted his
enemies who plotted against his life. During the siege he meditated
flight; “Josephus, dissembling his anxiety for his own safety, said that
it was for their sakes that he proposed to retire”—such is his own naïve
statement of his reply to the remonstrances of the besieged citizens
(_B.J._ III. 7. 15 f. (197)). Then there is the final scene in the cave;
we cannot but admire the dexterity with which he eluded death at the
hands of his fellow-prisoners and the vividness of his description; but
by what ruse (“should one say by fortune or by the providence of God?”
are his own words) he managed to be, with one companion, the last
survivor in the drawing of the lots, remains a mystery.[24] Later, as
Roman prisoner and Roman citizen, he always steered a safe course and
retained the favour of a succession of imperial patrons. He was, it
seems, a man of the world with a thoroughly secular disposition.
What was his real _attitude to Judaism_? Though he devoted the latter
part of his life to writing the history of his nation and a very able
defence of their religion, we may doubt whether he was profoundly
affected by their beliefs. Traill finds something “unnational” in the
first act of his life, when he “looked around him upon the sects and
factions of his times ... with a philosophic, supercilious
independence.”[25] Though we need not, perhaps, go so far as this, nor
blame him for what appears to have been a genuine quest of truth, we may
allow that he was a cosmopolitan, alienated in many ways from his own
nation, and that there was a lack of depth and sincerity in his
adherence to Jewish dogmas.
With this must be considered his _attitude to Christianity_. If we set
aside the one brief “testimony” to Jesus Christ, which must be rejected
as an interpolation,[26] we are left with the story of the death of
James, “the brother of Jesus who was called Christ,”[27] and the
reference to the murder of John the Baptist,[28] as the sole allusions
to the Founder of Christianity and the movement which prepared the way
for it. This glaring omission cannot be other than deliberate. Josephus
had every opportunity of acquainting himself with the events of the life
of Christ and of his followers; certainly he did not lack the curiosity
to investigate the facts, and he must surely have watched with interest
the fortunes and rapid spread of the rising sect which, even in St.
Paul’s lifetime, had gained a footing in “Cæsar’s household.”[29] The
Apostle’s words with reference to an intimate friend of Josephus might
have been said of the historian himself: “I am persuaded that none of
these things is hidden from him; for this hath not been done in a
corner.”[30] Yet there is this silence. He does not attack Christianity;
he simply ignores it. And, with our knowledge of the character of
Josephus, the reason is not far to seek. He studiously avoids a topic to
which, in the circumstances of the time, it would have been dangerous to
allude. “Not only was he informed on these subjects; he was far too well
informed of what the Christians had already and recently suffered ...
not to be on his guard against the imprudence of giving any testimony in
their favour which might implicate himself in their misfortunes.”[31]
To the same motive must be attributed the historian’s reticence on the
subject of a Messiah. The words addressed to the serpent: “It shall
bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel,”[32] occasion no
allusion to a future deliverer, nor yet the prophecies of Balaam;
Jacob’s blessing is omitted; the oracle which foretold the coming of a
world-ruler out of Judæa is interpreted of Vespasian.[33] On the other
hand, there are a few passages which suggest that Josephus did not
regard the fulfilment of prophecy as closed with the destruction of
Jerusalem, and that he may have entertained a belief in a Messianic era
involving the downfall of Rome, of which he dared not speak openly. On
Balaam he writes (_Ant._ IV. 6. 5 [125]): “From the accomplishment of
all these things in accordance with his prediction one may conjecture
what will happen in the future”; and again, in the interpretation of
Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (_Ant._ X. 10. 4 [210]): “Daniel also showed the
king the meaning of the stone, but I have not thought proper to relate
this, my duty being to describe past, not future, events,” while curious
enquirers are referred to the prophetical book.
In his public life as statesman and general Josephus scarcely deserves
the hard names of traitor and renegade. Involved in early manhood in the
rush of events arising out of a popular movement which had long been
gathering force, with which he did not sympathize, which he could not
stem and vainly tried to direct, realizing from the first the
hopelessness of combating the Roman legions, and anxious to find some
means of compromise by which to save his country from ruin, he
nevertheless accepted the post with which he was entrusted, and threw
himself into the task of organizing, to the best of his ability, the
defences of Galilee, so long as resistance was possible; while he
devoted the energies of his later life, when his position might have
tempted him to disown his nation, to writing its history and defending
his countrymen against the slanders of a malignant world.
* * * * *
On the position of Josephus as _a historian_, widely different opinions
have been held, from that of Jerome who extolled him as a “Greek Livy,”
to the criticisms of some modern writers who have accused him of bias
and gross misrepresentation.
The apologetic nature of the _Antiquities_ is self-evident. The author’s
purpose was to represent his maligned nation in the best light to Greek
readers, “to break down, if possible, the wall of partition that had
hitherto secluded the Hebrew race from the communion and cut them off
from the sympathies of mankind,” to “plead the cause of the injured Jew
at the bar of the world” (Traill). This object has occasioned the
suppression of some (though not all) of the less creditable incidents in
the Biblical narrative. With a view to attractiveness the narrative is
diversified by legendary additions culled from various sources, while
occasionally, it must be admitted, the author seems to have added minor
details of his own invention (see below on the imitation of Thucydides).
Granted some blemishes of this kind, there remains no very serious
charge against the writer of _Ant._ That work is, on the whole, a
skilful compilation, its value varying with that of the authorities
consulted, while the criticisms passed on some of them show that these
were not always used without discrimination.[34] He professes in several
passages to have a high ideal of a historian’s duty, and, speaking
generally, one may allow that he so far comes up to it as to deserve a
fairly high, if not a foremost, place among the historians of antiquity.
As the historian of the _Jewish War_, Josephus comes before us with the
highest credentials. Holding command in Galilee in its opening stages
and behind the Roman lines throughout the siege of Jerusalem, he was
exceptionally well qualified for this task, and must have relied mainly
on his own recollections and the notes which he made at the time (_c._
_Ap._ I. 49). Deserters kept him informed of events within the city
(_ib._). He seems also to have had access to the emperor’s memoirs
(_Life_ 358). He submitted the books as they were finished to Herod
Agrippa and the completed work to Vespasian and Titus, and from them and
others received testimonials to his accuracy (_c. Ap._ I. 50 ff., _Life_
361 ff.).[35] We may therefore unhesitatingly accept the general
trustworthiness of his account. Exception should, perhaps, be made for a
tendency to exaggeration, _e. g._ in the matter of numbers, and for
some, though not a marked, bias for extolling the achievements and
clemency of the Roman generals. His statement that Titus desired to
spare the Temple[36] runs counter to that of another historian
(Sulpicius Severus), who asserts that the destruction received his
sanction; the Jewish historian was, at any rate, in a better position to
know the facts.
Besides the authorities whom he names in the _Antiquities_, Josephus,
who devoted much attention to style, made a special study of the great
masters. The use which he has made of his chief model forms an
interesting study. Was it Dionysius of Halicarnassus (to whom, as we
saw, he owed the title and arrangement of his _Ant._) and his essays on
the style of Thucydides that first introduced him to the historian of
the Peloponnesian War? Or did he trace a likeness to himself in the
great Athenian? Widely different as were the characters of the two men,
there were points of similarity in their careers. Like Josephus,
Thucydides combined the duties of general and historian of the great
war; like him he failed as a military commander (IV. 104 ff.), and
through his consequent exile was enabled to associate with the enemy and
to view the war from the standpoint of both belligerents (V. 26).[37]
However that may be (and it is to the credit of our author that he does
not suggest the comparison), there is a marked imitation of the style of
Thucydides in portions of the _Antiquities_, especially in Books
XVII-XIX, which possess peculiarities of their own. The imitation is
seen in the recurrent use of some striking phrase, and occasionally in
the bold attempt to reproduce the difficult and involved style
characteristic of parts of Thucydides. One instance of a borrowed phrase
must suffice. In his account of the plague of Athens, Thucydides writes,
“When they were afraid to visit one another, the sufferers died in their
solitude ... or if they ventured they perished, especially _those who
aspired to heroism_.”[38] The phrase in italics has taken the fancy of
Josephus, who employs it repeatedly.[39] But imitation did not stop at
the diction. The narrative of incidents in the history of Israel has
been heightened, it seems, by touches from the account of the siege of
Platæa and the Sicilian expedition; this last exploit in particular has
aroused the emulation of our author.[40]
Beside this indebtedness to former historians, Josephus doubtless
derived inspiration from the literary circle of living authors by whom
he was surrounded in Rome. The account of the assassination of Caligula
was, as stated, possibly derived from Cluvius Rufus; and it is
interesting to reflect that our author must have known a writer just
rising to fame, the historian of the Emperors, who has also left us a
brief account of the Jewish War, Cornelius Tacitus.
The high literary standard attained by the historian, writing in a
language which he acquired with difficulty, and the power of vivid and
dramatic description, evident in many brilliant passages, are in the
circumstances very remarkable.
* * * * *
Every allowance being made for our author’s defects, the _importance_ of
his work is unquestionable. His writings bridge the gulf between sacred
and profane literature; they bring the Jewish nation out of its
isolation into the main current of world history. The task which he set
himself could only be accomplished by a Jew, and few Jews possessed the
requisite qualifications of a wide outlook and an intimate knowledge of
the world and of Greek literature. His detachment from his nation and
other characteristics which may appear as deficiencies in the man are
not without their advantages for the historian.
For the O.T. period we may consult him as a store-house of Rabbinical
and Alexandrian lore, though his acquaintance with Palestinian tradition
is considered by experts[41] to have been as superficial as, judged by
his interpretation of proper names, was his knowledge of Hebrew. But it
is only when we come down to about the last century before our era and
to the N.T. period itself that his evidence acquires supreme importance.
Here he gives us the background of Jewish and world history in the time
of our Lord and the infant Church; without his labours such a work as
Schürer’s _Jewish People in the time of Jesus Christ_ could not have
been written. Some figures which in the N.T. are little more than names
become clothed with life; side-lights are cast on others with which we
are more familiar. We may follow in detail the story, told with all the
moving pathos of Greek tragedy, of the rise of Herod the Great to the
height of his fame and of the nemesis which blasted his domestic
happiness. We have full and lifelike portraits of Roman governors and
generals, comparable with the slighter sketches in the Gospels and Acts;
on the one hand we may read of the causes of the unpopularity of
Pilate[42] and of his successors, the last of the procurators, whose
corrupt administration and shameless peculation precipitated the
war,[43] on the other of high-minded governors like Petronius,[44]
claiming kinship with similar noble characters in the N.T.
Among other such illustrations of the N.T. which will be found in the
selected passages below the following may be noted. Herod’s dying
provision to secure himself a national mourning exhibits the cruelty of
the murderer of the innocents.[45] In illustration of St. Luke’s account
of the infancy (ii. 1 ff.) we may read the full story of an enrolment
under Quirinius;[46] also of the revolt of Judas to which it gave rise
and of the later insurrection of Theudas, both of which are mentioned in
Gamaliel’s speech in the Sanhedrin (Acts v. 36 f.).[47] In the full
account of the succession of Archelaus we may discover the historical
event which suggested our Lord’s parable of the nobleman travelling to a
far country (Luke xix. 12 ff.).[48] We have independent narratives,
partly inconsistent with those in the N.T., of the marriage of Herod the
Tetrarch with Herodias[49] and of the death of Herod Agrippa I.[50] In a
beautiful story we read of a royal lady who, like Paul and Barnabas,
brought relief to famine-stricken Jerusalem in the days of Claudius.[51]
The expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Tiberius forms a precedent for
the similar action of Claudius (Acts xviii. 2).[52] With the later
scenes in St. Paul’s life we may compare what is told us of Felix and
Festus,[53] and again of Agrippa II and the marriage of Felix and
Drusilla; while the account of the Cypriot magician and his influence
over Felix strangely resembles that of Elymas and Sergius Paulus (Acts
xiii. 6 ff.).[54] We may read, moreover, of the death of James “the
Lord’s brother”;[55] of the use of the word “Corban” (Mark vii. 11) as
an oath;[56] of the tenets of the Jewish sects (in more than one
passage),[57] and how the Pharisees acquired their power a century
before the time of Christ;[58] we have a detailed account of the Jewish
treatment in the first century of a case of demoniacal possession;[59]
and, last but not least, we find in the scenes from the Jewish War the
fulfilment of our Lord’s predictions of the fate of Jerusalem.
Other alleged connexions between Josephus and the N.T. are open to
serious question. Few will be inclined to follow Wellhausen, who finds
in the murder of Zacharias son of Baris (or Bariscæus or Baruch)[60] the
incident referred to in our Lord’s words about “the blood of Zachariah
son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar”
(Matt. xxiii. 35). Many critics have maintained that there is a direct
literary connexion between the Jewish historian and St. Luke, whose
writings (not unnaturally, since he alone of the Evangelists composed a
“second treatise”) furnish the majority of the parallels. There is very
little probability in the suggestion[61] that Josephus, in his
description of himself in boyhood being consulted by the Rabbis, was
influenced by Luke ii. 46 f. There is more to be said for the theory
that St. Luke had made a cursory perusal of parts of the _Antiquities_
and had been thereby led, in at least one instance, into serious error;
reasons for rejecting this view will be found elsewhere.[62]
Texts and Translations
The literature on Josephus is immense. It will suffice here to mention
two standard editions of the Greek text and two English translations.
Older editions have been practically supplanted by the great critical
edition of B. Niese in seven volumes, including a full critical
apparatus and introductions on the MSS (Berlin 1887-1895). It cannot be
said that Niese has established a final text; he seems to err in placing
too great reliance on a single class of MSS, with the result that the
true reading is often to be found in the notes rather than in the text.
In his _editio minor_ without critical apparatus (1888-1895) some
corrections of the errors of the MSS have been introduced. On the basis
of the older work of Bekker (1855) and with assistance from Niese, a
handy edition has been issued in the Teubner series of classical authors
by S. A. Naber (6 vols., Leipzig, 1888-1896). Niese’s larger edition is
indispensable to the student, but that of Naber forms a useful auxiliary
and check upon it. Notwithstanding Niese’s work, much remains to be done
in establishing the text on a firm basis. In many difficult passages all
MSS seem to have gone astray and we are left to conjectural emendation;
there are also occasional small _lacunæ_.
In English Josephus is best known through the translation of William
Whiston, first published nearly two centuries ago (1736). A revision of
Whiston was produced by the Rev. A. R. Shilleto in Bohn’s Standard
Library, with brief topographical notes by Sir C. W. Wilson (5 vols.,
London, G. Bell, 1889-1890). The revised Whiston is the most serviceable
rendering of the complete works available. Whiston has many merits, but
he had not access to a good text, his rendering is often at fault and he
had little regard for style; while Shilleto’s revision, which appeared
inopportunely just before the two modern editions of the Greek text,
unfortunately leaves much to be desired.
Of a very different character is the admirable translation of the
_Jewish War_ and the _Life_ made by the Rev. Dr. R. Traill and edited,
after his death, with notes by Isaac Taylor (London, 1862). Dr. Traill
fell a victim to his exertions in relieving his parishioners during the
Irish famine of 1846-7, and the version which he contemplated of the
remaining works never appeared. In his translation, which combines
faithfulness to the original with a fastidious regard for English style,
Traill went far towards accomplishing for Josephus what Jowett did for
Thucydides.
My procedure in the following selections has been first to produce a
version of my own, and then carefully to revise it with the help of both
Shilleto’s, Whiston and Traill. In several instances I had the
satisfaction of finding that my rendering practically agreed with
Traill’s, but I have not scrupled elsewhere to avail myself of happy
turns of expression where, as often, he had the advantage of me.
Josephus, with his feeling for good style and the pains which he took to
acquire it, deserves and demands much care in translation. While in
parts of his work his Greek is simple and easy, passages, on the other
hand, where he gives his reflections on the character, or estimates the
motives, of his _dramatis personæ_,[63] in the involved manner of
Thucydides, are extraordinarily difficult both to understand and to
reproduce in readable English.
I have selected the passages most relevant to Christian origins and New
Testament study, neglecting almost entirely the first twelve books of
the _Antiquities_.
For further literature reference may be made to the articles in the
_Dictionary of Christian Biography_ (Edersheim), the _Jewish
Encyclopædia_ (S. Krauss), Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Apostolic
Church_ (von Dobschütz), Hastings’ _Bible Dictionary_, Extra Volume
(Thackeray), and to Schürer’s _Jewish People in the time of Christ_
(E.T.), div. i. vol. i. pp. 77-110.
I have to acknowledge my gratitude to my sister-in-law, Miss Harriette
G. Orr, for her kind assistance in the compilation of the Index.
_July 1919._
Footnote 1:
Dated variously as A.D. 30 (Harnack), 33 (Ramsay), 34 (Lightfoot), and
35-6 (C. H. Turner, Hastings’ _D.B._, art. “Chronology”).
Footnote 2:
§§ (1) and (2).
Footnote 3:
§ (54).
Footnote 4:
Close of the Acts A.D. 59 (Harnack), 61 (Turner), 62 (Ramsay), 63
(Lightfoot).
Footnote 5:
_Dict. Christ. Biog._
Footnote 6:
§ (41).
Footnote 7:
§ (43).
Footnote 8:
§ (46).
Footnote 9:
See _e.g._ § (48).
Footnote 10:
Hastings’ _D.B._, Ext. 462 _b_.
Footnote 11:
§ (52).
Footnote 12:
§ (4).
Footnote 13:
“Primus e fisco Latinis Græcisque rhetoribus annua centena
constituit,” Suet. _Vesp._ 18.
Footnote 14:
§ (3).
Footnote 15:
Three of his wives are mentioned in § (4).
Footnote 16:
§ (38).
Footnote 17:
§ (3), Agrippa writes, “Send me the remaining volumes.”
Footnote 18:
§ (3).
Footnote 19:
§ (3).