exaggerating the deeds of my compatriots. I shall narrate accurately the
actions of both combatants; while making allowance for the temperament
(of the speaker) in the speeches arising out of the action[233] and
giving my personal sympathies scope to bewail my country’s misfortunes.
For, that it owed its ruin to civil strife, and that it was the Jewish
tyrants who drew down upon the Temple the unwilling hands of the Romans
and the conflagration, is attested by Titus Cæsar himself who sacked the
city; throughout the war he commiserated the populace who were at the
mercy of the revolutionary cliques, and often of his own accord deferred
the capture of the city and by protracting the siege gave the culprits
time for repentance. Should, however, any critic censure me for my
strictures upon the tyrants or their bands of marauders or for my
lamentations over my country’s misfortunes, I ask his indulgence for a
compassion which falls outside an historian’s province. For of all the
cities under Roman rule it was the lot of ours to attain to the highest
felicity and to fall to the lowest depths of calamity. Indeed, in my
opinion, the misfortunes of all nations since the world began are slight
in comparison with those of the Jews; and, since the blame lay with no
foreign nation, it was impossible to restrain one’s condolence. Should,
however, any critic be too austere for pity, let him assign the actions
to the history, the lamentations to the historian.
I, on my side, might justly censure those erudite Greek writers, who,
living in times of such stirring actions as by comparison reduce to
insignificance the wars of antiquity, yet sit in judgement on these
current events and revile those who make them their special
study—authors whose principles they lack, even if they have the
advantage of them in literary skill. They take as their themes the
Assyrian and Median empires, as if the narratives of the ancient
historians were inadequate, although these modern writers are their
inferiors no less in literary power than in judgement. The ancient
historians set themselves severally to write the history of their own
times, a task in which their connexion with the events added lucidity to
their record; while mendacity brought an author into disgrace with
readers who knew the facts.
The truth is that the work of committing to writing events which have
not[234] previously been recorded and of commending to posterity the
history of one’s own time is one which merits praise and acknowledgment.
The industrious writer is not one who merely remodels the scheme and
arrangement of another’s work, but one who, besides having fresh
materials, gives the body of his history a framework of his own.
For myself, at the cost of much money and severe labour, I, a foreigner,
present to Greeks and Romans this memorial of great achievements. As for
the native (Greek) writers, where personal profit or a lawsuit is
concerned, their mouths are at once agape and their tongues loosed; but
in the matter of history, where veracity and laborious collection of the
facts are essential, they are mute, leaving to inferior and ill-informed
writers the task of describing the exploits of rulers. Let me[235] at
least hold historical truth in honour, since by the Greeks it is
disregarded....—_B.J._ I. 1-5 (1-16).
Footnote 229:
Many MSS add “by birth a Hebrew.”
Footnote 230:
Aramaic. The Greek, which bears no marks of translation, must, in all
probability, have been practically a new work.
Footnote 231:
Lit. “the upper barbarians.”
Footnote 232:
In the upper Tigris region.
Footnote 233:
Such, or “giving the rein to personal feeling in the speeches
(λόγοι),” I take to be the meaning. Traill, “introducing into the
detail reflections on the events”; Whiston, “only I shall suit my
language to my feelings as to the affairs I describe.”
Footnote 234:
The negative is omitted by most MSS.
Footnote 235:
Lit. “us.”
(39) Seeds of the War sown under the last of the Procurators. Rise of
the Sicarii
Felix
[Sidenote: A.D. 52-60]
After this Claudius sent out Felix, the brother of Pallas,[236] as
procurator of Judæa, Samaria, Galilee and Peræa. Agrippa he transferred
from Chalcis to a larger kingdom, assigning to him Philip’s former
province, namely Batanæa, Trachonitis and Gaulanitis; to this he added
the kingdom of Lysanias and the province[237] which had belonged to
Varus. After holding the imperial office for thirteen years, eight
months and twenty days, Claudius died, [Sidenote: A.D. 54] leaving Nero
as his successor in the government....
Nero annexed to Agrippa’s kingdom four cities with their districts,[238]
namely, Abila, Julias in Peræa, and in Galilee Tarichæa and Tiberias. He
appointed Felix to be procurator of the rest of Judæa. Felix took
prisoner Eleazar, the arch-brigand who for twenty years had ravaged the
country, with many of his associates, and sent them for trial to Rome.
Of the brigands whom he crucified, and of the common people who were
detected of complicity with them and punished by him, the number was
incalculable.
Rise of the Sicarii
But, while the country was thus cleared of these pests, a new species of
banditti was springing up in Jerusalem, the so-called _Sicarii_,[239]
who committed murders in broad daylight in the heart of the city. The
festivals were their special seasons, when they would mingle with the
crowd, carrying short daggers concealed under their clothing, with which
they stabbed any with whom they were at enmity. Then, when they fell,
the murderers joined in the cries of indignation and, through this
plausible behaviour, were never discovered. The first to be assassinated
by them was Jonathan the high priest; after his death there were
numerous daily murders. The panic created was more alarming than the
calamity itself; every one, as on the battlefield, hourly expecting
death. Men kept watch at a distance on their enemies and would not trust
even their friends when they approached. Yet, with their suspicions
aroused and on their guard, they were slain; so swift were the
conspirators and so crafty in eluding detection.
Troubled State of the Country
Besides these there arose another body of villains, with purer hands but
more impious intentions, who no less than the assassins ruined the peace
of the city. Deceivers and impostors, under the pretence of divine
inspiration fostering revolutionary changes, they persuaded the
multitude to act like madmen, and led them out into the desert under the
belief that God would there give them tokens of deliverance. Against
them Felix, regarding this as but the preliminary to insurrection, sent
a body of horse and foot[240] and put a large number to the sword.[241]
A still worse blow was dealt at the Jews by the Egyptian false prophet.
A charlatan, who had gained for himself the reputation of a prophet,
this man collected about thirty thousand of his dupes, entered the
country and led his force round from the desert to the mount called
Olivet. From there he proposed to force an entrance into Jerusalem and,
after overpowering the Roman garrison and the people, to act as despot
with the aid of his bodyguard of lancers who were to pour in with him.
His attack was anticipated by Felix, who went to meet him with the Roman
forces,[242] the whole population joining him in the defence; with the
result that in the ensuing engagement, while the Egyptian escaped with a
few of his followers, most of his force were killed or taken prisoners.
The remainder were dispersed, and got away one by one to their homes.
No sooner were these disorders reduced than, as in a diseased frame, the
fever broke out again in another quarter. The impostors and brigands,
banding together, induced many to revolt, encouraging them to assert
their independence, and threatening to kill any who submitted to Roman
rule and to use violence to tear from their allegiance any who still
chose voluntary servitude. Distributing themselves in companies
throughout the country, they looted the houses of the wealthy, murdered
their owners, and set the villages on fire; and so spread the infection
of their madness throughout all Judæa.
While this war was daily being fanned into flame, [Sidenote: _c._ A.D.
59] another disturbance occurred at Cæsarea,[243] where the Jewish
portion of the population rose against the Syrians. They claimed that
the city was theirs on the ground that its founder, King Herod, was a
Jew. Their opponents admitted the Jewish origin of its (second) founder,
but maintained that the city itself belonged to the Greeks, since Herod
would never have erected the statues and temples which he placed there
had he intended it for Jews.... The quarrel still continuing, Felix
selected the notables from either party and sent them as a deputation to
Nero to argue the merits of the case.
Festus
[Sidenote: A.D. 60-62]
Festus, who succeeded Felix as procurator, proceeded to attack the
principal plague of the country; he captured large numbers of the
brigands and put not a few to death.
Albinus
The administration of Albinus, who followed Festus, [Sidenote: A.D.
62-64] was of another order; there was no form of villainy which he
omitted to practise. Not only did he, in his official capacity, steal
and plunder private property and burden the whole nation with imposts,
but he accepted ransoms from their relatives on behalf of persons who
had been imprisoned for robbery by the local councils or by former
procurators; and none was left in gaol as a malefactor save those who
failed to pay the price.
At this period a fresh stimulus was given to the revolutionary party in
Jerusalem, the influential men among their number securing from Albinus,
by means of bribes, immunity for their seditious practices; while the
section of the populace which could never remain quiet joined hands with
the governor’s accomplices. Individual scoundrels had around them each
his own band of followers, among whom they figured conspicuously like
brigand-chiefs or tyrants, employing their bodyguard to plunder
peaceable citizens. The outcome was that the victims of robbery kept
their grievances, of which they had every reason to complain, to
themselves, while those who escaped cringed to one who deserved
punishment, through fear of suffering the same fate. In short, none
could now speak his mind, with tyrants on every side; and from this date
were sown in the city the seeds of its impending fall.
Gessius Florus
Such was the character of Albinus, but his successor, Gessius Florus,
[Sidenote: A. D. 64-66] made him appear by comparison a paragon of
virtue. The crimes of Albinus were, for the most part, perpetrated in
secret and with dissimulation; Gessius, on the contrary, ostentatiously
paraded his lawless treatment of the nation, and, as though he had been
sent as hangman of condemned criminals, committed every kind of robbery
and outrage. In cases which called for compassion he was cruel beyond
measure; in dealing with shameful conduct,[244] he was utterly devoid of
shame. No man ever poured greater contempt[245] on truth or contrived
more subtle methods of villainy. To make gain out of individuals seemed
beneath him: he stripped whole cities, ruined entire populations, and
almost went the length of proclaiming throughout the country that all
were at liberty to rob on condition that he received his share of the
spoils. Certainly his avarice brought desolation upon all
districts,[246] and caused many to desert their ancestral homes and seek
refuge in foreign provinces.
So long as Cestius Gallus was in Syria discharging his provincial
administrative duties, none dared to send a deputation to him to
complain of Florus; but when he visited Jerusalem on the eve of the
feast of unleavened bread, the people crowded around him to no less a
number than three millions, imploring him to have compassion on the
calamities of the nation, and loudly denouncing Florus as the ruin of
the country. Florus, who was present at Cestius’s side, scoffed at their
outcry. Cestius, however, when he had quieted the excitement of the
crowd, pledged himself to secure for them greater moderation on the part
of Florus in future, and so returned to Antioch.
Florus escorted him as far as Cæsarea, playing upon his credulity, and
already contemplating the prospect of war with the nation—his only hope
of covering up his own enormities. For, if the peace were kept, he
expected to have the Jews accusing him before Cæsar; whereas, could he
bring about their revolt, he would by means of the larger calamity
divert attention from the less. In order, therefore, to produce an
outbreak of the nation, he daily added to their sufferings.—_B.J._ II.
12. 8-14. 3 (247-283).
Footnote 236:
Cf. with this whole paragraph § (36).
Footnote 237:
MSS “tetrarchy.”
Footnote 238:
Lit. “with the toparchies.”
Footnote 239:
“Assassins,” from Lat. _sica_, “a dagger.”
Footnote 240:
Lit. “heavy-armed infantry” (hoplites).
Footnote 241:
Cf. the similar fate of Theudas, § (35).
Footnote 242:
Lit. “heavy-armed infantry” (hoplites).
Footnote 243:
St. Paul was probably a prisoner there at this time.
Footnote 244:
Or “in disgraceful things.”
Footnote 245:
Lit. “unbelief.” Traill, “In smothering (Whiston, ‘disguising’) the
truth none was more successful.”
Footnote 246:
Lit. “all the toparchies”; some MSS read “all the cities.”
(40) The Immediate Cause of the War—Abrogation of Sacrifices for the
Emperor
[Sidenote: Summer A.D. 66]
Meanwhile, some of the prime instigators of hostilities banded together
and made an assault on a fortress called Masada;[247] and having gained
possession of it by stratagem, they slew the Roman guards and put a
garrison of their own in their place.
Another incident occurred at the same time in the Temple. Eleazar, son
of Ananias the high priest, a very daring youth, being then in
command,[248] persuaded those who officiated in the Temple services to
accept no gift or sacrifice from a foreigner. This action laid the
foundation of the war with the Romans; for they thereby abrogated the
sacrifice on behalf of that nation and the Emperor.[249] And, though the
chief priests and the men of note earnestly besought them not to abandon
the customary offering for their rulers, they were obdurate. Their
numbers gave them great confidence, supported as they were by the
stalwarts of the revolutionary party; but the determining influence was
their high opinion of their captain Eleazar.
Thereupon the men of weight assembled with the chief priests and the
notable Pharisees and, in the belief that they were now involved in
irreparable calamities, deliberated on the state of public affairs.
Deciding to try the effect of persuasion on the revolutionaries, they
called the people together before the brazen gate which opened into the
inner Temple and faced eastward. And, first, they expressed severe
indignation at the audacity of this revolt and at the men who were
bringing upon their country so serious a war. They then proceeded to
expose the absurdity of the alleged pretext. Their forefathers, they
said, had adorned the sanctuary mainly from the contributions of
foreigners and had always accepted the gifts of external nations; not
only had they never taken the sacrilegious step of forbidding any one to
offer sacrifice, but they had set up around the Temple the dedicatory
offerings which were still to be seen and had remained there for so long
a time. But those who were now provoking the arms of the Romans and
courting war with such antagonists were introducing some novel and
strange religion,[250] and, in addition to the danger incurred, would
lay the city open to the charge of impiety, if Jews alone were to allow
no alien the right of sacrifice or worship. Should such a law be
introduced in the case of any private individual, they would be
indignant as at an act of deliberate inhumanity; yet they made light of
putting the Romans and Cæsar outside the pale. It was to be feared,
however, that, once they rejected the sacrifices for the Romans, they
might not be allowed to offer sacrifice even for themselves, and that
their city would be placed outside the pale of the empire, unless, with
a speedy return to discretion, they restored the sacrifices and made
amends for the insult before the report reached the ears of those whom
they had insulted.
In the course of this speech they brought forward the priestly experts
on the national customs, who explained how all their ancestors had
accepted the sacrifices of aliens.
But not one of the revolutionary party would listen to their words,[251]
which met with no better response even from the officiating ministers,
who thus helped to sow the seeds of war. Thereupon, the leading men,
perceiving that it was now beyond their power to suppress the
insurrection and that they would be the first to suffer from the Roman
peril, took steps to exonerate themselves from blame. They accordingly
despatched two deputations, one to Florus, headed by Simon son of
Ananias, and another to Agrippa, of which the most eminent members were
the king’s relatives, Saul, Antipas and Costobar. They besought them
both to come up to the city with an armed force and to nip the rebellion
in the bud before repression became impossible. To Florus the news was a
wonderful godsend,[252] and, determined as he was to fan the flame of
war, he gave the emissaries no reply. Agrippa, on the other hand, was
solicitous alike for the rebels and for the nation against which their
hostilities were directed; he was anxious that the Romans should not
lose the Jews nor the Jews their Temple and mother city; and was,
moreover, aware that the disturbance would not conduce to his own
interests. He accordingly despatched to the aid of the people three
thousand horse from Auranitis, Batanæa and Trachonitis, under Darius as
cavalry commander and Philip, son of Jacimus, as general.
Encouraged by these reinforcements, the leading men with the chief
priests and all such of the populace as were in favour of peace occupied
the upper city. The lower city and the Temple were in the hands of the
insurgents.—_B.J._ II. 17. 2-5 (408-422).
Footnote 247:
On the west coast of the Dead Sea.
Footnote 248:
_i. e._ “captain of the Temple”; cf. Acts iv. 1, etc.
Footnote 249:
Other MSS, omitting “and” (καὶ, which would easily drop out before
Καίσαρος), read “the sacrifice of Cæsar on behalf of that nation.”
Footnote 250:
Or, possibly, “were making an innovation in the worship of
foreigners.”
Footnote 251:
The text of this clause is doubtful. I read προσῇσαν, “chimed in”
(with Naber; MSS προσίεσαν or προσήεσαν) and λειτουργοὶ (other MSS
ληστρικοὶ, “the brigands”).
Footnote 252:
Or (reading τὸ before δεινὸν) “the dire news was a godsend.”
(41) Initial Jewish success. Rout of a Roman Army in the Defiles of
Beth-Horon
The humiliating Roman defeat in this first stage of the war here
described recalls a rather similar incident at the Caudine Forks in
the early wars with the Samnites.
Cestius Advances from Antioch
[Sidenote: A.D. 66]
The Jews being now everywhere up in arms, Cestius[253] decided to remain
inactive no longer. He accordingly left Antioch and advanced upon
Ptolemais. His force consisted of the twelfth legion in full strength,
two thousand picked men from each of the other legions, six cohorts of
infantry and four squadrons of cavalry, besides the allied forces
furnished by the kings; of these Antiochus supplied two thousand horse
and three thousand foot, all archers, Agrippa an equal number of foot
and rather less than two thousand horse, Sohemus following with four
thousand, of which a third part were cavalry and the rest archers. In
addition, numerous auxiliaries were collected from the towns; they
lacked the training of the regulars, but made good any deficiency in
technical skill by their zeal and their detestation of the Jews. Agrippa
himself accompanied Cestius on the route as guide and adviser....
Galilee surrenders to Cestius, almost without a blow; Joppa,
attacked by land and sea, is captured and burnt; and the Roman arms
are everywhere successful.
From Antipatris Cestius advanced to Lydda and found the city deserted,
for the population had gone up _en masse_ to Jerusalem for the Feast of
Tabernacles [Sidenote: October A.D. 66]. Fifty persons who showed
themselves he put to the sword, and after burning down the town resumed
his march; and, ascending through Beth-Horon, pitched his camp at a
place called Gibeon,[254] fifty furlongs[255] distant from Jerusalem.
A Jewish Successful Charge outside Jerusalem
The Jews, seeing the war at length approaching their mother city,
abandoned the feast and rushed to arms; and, relying largely on their
numbers, sprang in disorder and with loud cries into the fray. It was
the Sabbath which they regarded with peculiar reverence,[256] but they
paid no thought to that seventh day of rest. But the same passion which
shook them out of their piety brought them victory in the battle. With
such fury, at any rate, did they fall upon the Romans that they broke
and passed through their ranks, killing as they went; and had not the
cavalry, with a body of infantry which was not so hard pressed as the
rest, disengaged and wheeled round to the relief of the broken
line,[257] Cestius and his whole army would have been in jeopardy. The
Roman killed were five hundred and fifteen (four hundred infantry and
the rest cavalry); the Jews lost but two and twenty.... When their
frontal attack was thus held up, the Jews retired to the city. But
Simon, son of Gioras, fell upon the rear of the Romans as they withdrew
to Beth-Horon, and cut up a large part of their rear-guard, carrying off
many of the baggage mules, which he brought with him into the city.
Cestius continuing to hold his ground for three days, the Jews seized
the heights and kept guard on the passes, clearly not intending to
remain inactive, should the Romans begin to move.
Fruitless Attempt to Parley with the Jews
At this juncture, Agrippa, perceiving that, with the enemy in such
countless numbers in possession of the surrounding mountains, even a
Roman army was in a perilous position, decided to try the effect of
parley with the Jews. He hoped either to prevail on all to abandon
hostilities, or at least to detach from their opponents those who did
not share the views of the war party. So he sent the two of his men who
were best known to them, Borcæus[258] and Phœbus, with an offer of a
treaty on the part of Cestius and of free pardon from the Romans for
their misdoings, on condition that they would lay down their arms and go
over to them. The insurgents, fearing that the prospect of an amnesty
would induce the whole multitude to go over to Agrippa, made a murderous
assault upon his emissaries. Phœbus they slew before he had uttered a
syllable; Borcæus was wounded but succeeded in escaping. Such of the
people as indignantly protested at their action they assailed with
stones and clubs and drove into the town.
Cestius Occupies the Suburb Bezetha
Cestius, seeing that these internal dissensions offered a favourable
opportunity for attack, brought up his whole force, routed the enemy,
and pursued them to Jerusalem. Encamping on the (hill) called Scopus,
distant seven furlongs[259] from the city, for three days he made no
attempt upon it, expecting that the inhabitants might possibly show
signs of surrender; in the meantime he sent out many of his soldiers to
the surrounding villages for foraging purposes. On the fourth day,
[Sidenote: October A.D. 66] the thirtieth of the month Hyperberetæus, he
deployed his forces and led them within[260] the city.