Josephus: The Man and the Historian

T H E H I L D A S T I C H S T R O O C K L E C T U R E S ( E S T A B L I S H E D 1926) AT

T H E JEWISH I N S T I T U T E OF

RELIGION

JOSEPHUS THE MAN A N D THE

HISTORIAN

BY

H.

ST. J O H N

T H A C K E R A Y ,

M.A.

HON. D. D. OXFORD A N D DURHAM

WITH A PREFACE BY

GEORGE FOOT

MOORE

PROFESSOK OF THE HISTORY OF RELIGION IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY

NEW JEWISH

YORK

1929

INSTITUTE OF RELIGION

PRESS

P R I N T E D IN A U S T R I A

ADOLF HOLZHAUSEN'S SUCCESSORS PRINTERS TO THE UNIVERSITY VIENNA

DEDICATED T O

GEORGE

A L E X A N D E R

K O H U T

SCHOLAR, PATRON OF SCHOLARSHIP, A N D GENEROUS FRIEND

IN GRATEFUL RECOLLECTION OF A N INTRODUCTION T O AMERICA A N D T O THE JEWISH INSTITUTE OF RELIGION

C O N T E N T S Page

Preface b y Professor G . F. MOORE Lecture I. Life Value

and

Character

.

of Josephus:

estimate

V

oj

of his Works

i

Lecture II. The " Jewish

War"

Lecture III. The "Jewish

Antiquities

Lecture I V . Josephus and Judaism:

23 " his Biblical Text.

Lecture V . Josephus and Hellenism: Lecture V I . Josephus and Christianity

his Greek Assistants

51 .

.

75

. 100 .125

General Index

155

Index o f Passages

158

PREFACE

I

T may well seem to others, as it does to the author of this preface, a work of supererogation to introduce the

author of these lectures on Josephus.

Those who are

acquainted with the volumes which Mr. Thackeray has contributed to the L o e b Classical Library, containing the Autobiography and the book commonly known as "Against Apion," and more recently Books i-iii of the Jewish

War,

not only know him as a skilful translator, but recognize his important contributions to the reconstruction of the Greek text.

He has used, as every one must, the great

critical edition of Benedict Niese, but with independent judgment.

A critical editor, especially of an author as

voluminous as Josephus, has made a stemma

is naturally inclined, when he

of the manuscripts,

to put in the

text the reading which seems to have the best manuscript attestation.

Sometimes, instead of making a virtue of

necessity, this procedure is represented as the only strictly scientific method, because it eliminates the subjective ele­ ment in text criticism;

but, whatever the sins of earlier

editors may have been, guesswork operating

who reconstructed a text by

on an inadequate

apparatus,

the

methodical elimination of the element of human intelli­ gence can hardly be the ideal of science. The translator, at least, has to consider in individual cases the internal

VI

PREFACE

evidence of readings as well as their attestation, and thus in some cases to revise the judgment of the editor.

This

is what Mr. Thackeray has done in the volumes already published, and in those which are to follow.

For this

work he has an equipment possessed by none of his predecessors in a concordantial lexicon to the writings of Josephus made for his own use, which, as all scholars will be glad to learn, is presently to be published on the KOHUT

FOUNDATION.

The striking differences in the Greek of the various works of Josephus, especially between his earliest work, the War,

and the Autobiography written near the end

of his life, and even within the limits of a single work, as in the Antiquities,

have long been observed by scholars,

and explained in different ways.

A more minute investi­

gation of diction and style has led Mr. Thackeray to the conclusion that these differences are chiefly to be attributed to Josephus' literary assistants, or to the default of such assistance. Antiquities

In Books x v - x v i and xvii-xix of the

he has been led to recognize and discriminate

two of these assistants, and gives in Lecture V a very interesting account of the method and results of these discoveries. The sources of Josephus, in the parts of his work which do not fall within his personal knowledge, are the subject of an extensive and constantly growing literature. The question is forced upon us in cases where Josephus traverses the same ground twice, in the War the Antiquities.

and in

The criteria which have hitherto been

employed have been predominantly historical;

the data

are frequently

PREFACE

VII

ambiguous, and

the opinions of critics

are consequently divergent and even contradictory.

In

Lectures II and III Mr. Thackeray has dealt with some of these problems with cautious reserve.

He finds an ex­

planation of many of these diversities in the fact that in the Antiquities

Josephus was repeating himself, but wished to

avoid the appearance of copying himself, and accordingly g a v e directions to his assistants to vary the expression. Instances

in

which the

diversity

is

more

substantial

may be accounted for by the changed circumstances of the author, or by the exigencies of controversy. these

considerations

furnish

a

That

complete

explanation,

Mr. Thackeray would of course not maintain;

the acquisi­

tion of other sources and employment of such in the later work is an hypothesis for which in some cases strong probability may be alleged, even

though

the

labors

of Josephus or his editorial assistants have, according to the literary conventions of the time, given a " J o s e p h a n " form to extracts from other authors. Some

of the

problems

which have

long

engaged

critics have in recent years been complicated by the dis­ covery of a so-called " S l a v o n i c " translation of the representing

a recension sometimes

strikingly

War,

different

from that of our Greek text. About this Slavonic Josephus various ingenious

hypotheses

have been

propounded,

such, for example, as that it g o e s back ultimately to an " A r a m a i c " account of the War which Josephus says that he had sent to "the meaning

what

the Euphrates.

he

up-country barbarians,"

calls

elsewhere

the

Jews

probably beyond

Inasmuch as the Russian Josephus is

VIII

PREFACE

demonstrably translated from Greek, it has then further to be supposed that he soon after roughly translated this Aramaic narrative, and that it thus became the basis of what we may perhaps call the first edition of the War in Greek, probably under the title llspl 'AXd^aeooc, The Destruction (of Jerusalem). Toward this and other hypo­ theses Mr. Thackeray maintains a prudent reserve and an expectant attitude. The question will in fact not be ripe for discussion until a complete critical edition of this ver­ sion, which is said to be now in preparation, is published, and—for scholars not versed in Old Russian—until a trustworthy translation of the whole is accessible. An interesting Lecture (IV) is devoted to "Josephus and Judaism," dealing particularly with his Biblical Text. As the author recognizes, the subject is of a kind that does not lend itself well to succinct treatment, and it raises some highly controversial questions, for instance, the-use of an Aramaic Targum, and the "Lucianic" (or pre-Lucianic) Greek text in Samuel and the following books, including i Maccabees. In the last Lecture the much discussed passages in Book xviii of the Antiquities, on John the Baptist, James "the brother of the Lord," and on Jesus, are examined with sobriety, and to the argument for the substantial genuineness of the last-named, or at least of a Josephan nucleus, are added some minute observations on the diction and style of the passage. The present phase of the discussion, in which the " Slavonic" Josephus has introduced a new and sensational element, is dealt with in remarks "deliberately brief and non-committal"—

PREFACE

IX

evidently the proper attitude of scholars, in the present state of knowledge, toward far-reaching hypotheses. Mr. Thackeray's judgment of the character of Josephus, the man, is not flattering, but fairly recognizes the diffi­ culties of a situation into which he had come not wholly by his own fault, but partly, at least, through circumstances beyond his control; his estimate of the historian is more favorable than that of many scholars. It is but just to say that in both aspects Josephus should be assessed by the actualities of his own time and the fashions of con­ temporary literature, not by the ideals of another age. The Lectures as a whole are a notable contribution to the subject with which they deal. The Jewish Institute of Religion is to be congratulated on such an auspicious inauguration of the Lectures on the HILDA STICH STROOCK FOUNDATION; the gratitude of a wider circle of scholars is due for adding them to its meritorious publications. Cambridge, Mass. April 28, 1928.

GEORGE FOOT MOORE

FIRST LECTURU

LIFE A N D C H A R A C T E R

ESTIMATE

OF

VALUE

OF

OF

JOSEPHUS:

HIS

W O R K S

I am deeply sensible of the honour which President W i s e and the Jewish Institute of Religion have conferred upon me in inviting me to this great country to address y o u as lecturer on the noble foun­ dation of M r . Joseph Stroock.

I shall recall w i t h pride to the end

of m y days that I was once the H i l d a Stich Stroock Lecturer.

I

r

cannot adequately express my sense of the debt which the w orld of scholarship owes to citizens of A m e r i c a , and more particularly

to

those w h o unite to citizenship of the new country the privilege of membership of the ancient people of the Jews. W e in England value highly

your

own

original

contributions

to the advancement of

learning: and no less, in difficult times, are w e indebted to y o u r generous patrons of literature.

A brief personal

statement

will

explain h o w I come to stand here and serve as a scanty acknowledge­ ment of m y obligations to such patronage.

Some five years ago I

delivered a lecture to the J e w s ' C o l l e g e in L o n d o n , in which I referred to a M S Lexicon of Josephus which I had compiled for my o w n use, w i t h no thought or prospect of publication.

T h a t lecture was

read by Professor C a d b u r y , formerly of H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y , n o w of B r y n M a w r , Philadelphia, w h o urged me to publish the L e x i c o n and offered to seek financial assistance for the purpose.

T h e result

of his kind offices was a generous offer from D r . G e o r g e A l e x a n d e r K o h u t to publish the w o r k under the auspices of the K o h u t Memorial Fund, and, thanks to him, the L e x i c o n , which I had

contemplated

bequeathing in M S to a C o l l e g e L i b r a r y , will, 1 hope, ere long see Thackeray.

I

FIRST L E C T U R E

2 the light,

But D r . K o h u t ' s liberality did not end there.

For in

A u g u s t last, to m y intense surprise and delight, I received through him an invitation from President Wise to deliver the present course of lectures.

I understand that grounds of health prevented one of your

most illustrious A m e r i c a n scholars from addressing y o u ; and

my

only regret in standing here is that I cannot hope to p r o v i d e such entertainment

as y o u w o u l d have received from D r . G e o r g e Foot

M o o r e , whose latest great w o r k on " Judaism " has charmed instructed all readers.

and

I need only add that I have been a life-long

lover and student of Jewish antiquities, and in particular of t w o collections

of

documents

which were the principal channels

for

diffusing a k n o w l e d g e of Judaism to the ancient w o r l d — t h e G r e e k Bible, k n o w n as the Septuagint, and the w o r k s of Josephus. I am conscious of m y temerity in attempting to address y o u on y o u r o w n national historian.

But indeed Josephus has a l w a y s found

more friends among Christians than among his o w n c o u n t r y m e n ; and amid the animosities to which his career has given rise, hated by Jews as a renegade and turncoat, belauded by Christians on the strength o f a debatable passage on their Master in the Antiquities,

it

is possible that an outsider, albeit a Christian, m a y be in a position to form a more impartial estimate of his l i f e - w o r k than a compatriot. For, as w i l l appear later, I am not biassed in his f a v o u r b y m y interpretation

of that particular passage.

w o r k s is undeniable preservation.

T h e importance of his

and it is to Christians that w e o w e

their

T h e controversial question of his attitude to C h r i s ­

tianity has perhaps obscured and belittled his sterling merits as a patriot and apologist for Judaism.

I am not blind to his faults.

A s his translator for the Loeb Classical L i b r a r y — t h a t priceless boon to scholarship from another of y o u r public-spirited A m e r i c a n bene­ factors, D r . James L o e b — i t has been m y lot to h a v e Josephus as a daily companion for some years; and his c o m p a n y , I confess, has not been a w h o l l y unmixed pleasure. there are many compensations.

H i s faults are obvious, but

F l o w e v e r , I will reserve m y estimate

of his character and writings until later.

LIFE A N D C H A R A C T E R OF JOSEPHUS, ETC.

3

T h e study of Josephus has latterly entered on a new phase.

There

was a time in m y o w n country when almost every house possessed t w o books, a Bible and a Josephus, in the old eighteenth version of W i l l i a m W h i s t o n .

century

T h a t period of general and

undis-

criminating p o p u l a r i t y has passed, but has been succeeded b y an age of more scientific inquiry.

T h e beginning of this new age is

marked by the appearance of the great critical edition of Benedict Niese, n o w nearly 40 years ago.

T h e twentieth century has seen

the publication in instalments of an invaluable French

annotated

translation, n o w nearing completion, from M . T h e o d o r Reinach and r

his collaborators. suggestive

and revolutionary

Richard L a q u e u r , the Jewish

From G e r m a n y , again, w e h a v e had a highly 1

study

of the historian

from

Herr

and an interesting investigation of the sources of

War from W i l h e l m W e b e r . -

ticity of the testimonium

T h e battle o v e r the authen­

has been reopened, w i t h E d u a r d

Norden

as protagonist on the attacking side, and H a r n a c k and B u r k i t t as d o u g h t y champions for the defence.

L a s t l y , from the unfortunate

land of Russia comes new evidence which m a y p r o v e revolutionary and is a n y h o w likely to p r o v i d e controversy for years to come—the disclosure of a Slavonic version of the Jewish further

War,

containing

strange allusions to John the Baptist, Jesus and the early

Christians, and regarded b y some leading authorities as derived from the original, unexpurgated, problem is still sub judice,

draft

of the Jewish historian.

That

but it has already a w a k e n e d a r e v i v e d

interest in our author.

M y subject is Josephus, the man and the historian, rather than the age in which he l i v e d ; but some allusion to the background of the previous and contemporary history is unavoidable. momentous age for his nation and for the w o r l d .

It was a

T h e r e w a s , as

w e learn from pagan historians, a widespread and deep-seated belief throughout the whole of the East that a person or persons issuing 1

2

Dcr jiiciiscbe Historiker Fl. Josephus, Gieiscn, 1 9 2 0 . Josephus unci Vespasian, Berlin, 1 9 2 1 .

FIRST LliCTURF.

4

from Judaea were destined at that time to rule the w o r l d .

That

belief w a s doubtless a main factor in fostering the passionate desire of a large section of the nation for independence and

promoting

the struggle w i t h R o m e which ended in catastrophe. T h e preliminary events that led up to that struggle w i l l be familiar to y o u and I need merely mention a f e w outstanding landmarks.

T h e glorious period

of the H a s m o n a e a n house, when for a time, under the successors of Judas Maccabaeus,

Israel

regained some faint

reflection of

the

splendour of the age of D a v i d , ended too soon in the quarrels of the brothers Aristobulus and H y r c a n u s , and the appeal to R o m e as mediator.

T h e die was cast.

Aristobulus

proving

recalcitrant,

P o m p e y in 63 B . C . took Jerusalem, and S y r i a became a R o m a n province, H y r c a n u s retaining a nominal sovereignty as vassal o f Rome.

But the last of the Hasmonaeans w a s o v e r s h a d o w e d and

g r a d u a l l y ousted from

his throne b y the rise of the

usurpers, A n t i p a t e r and his son H e r o d .

Idumaean

T h e n f o l l o w e d the long

reign of H e r o d the G r e a t , a period of external magnificence under R o m a n patronage, internally an age of oppression resentment of the nation against their rulers. 4 B.C. the smouldering fires broke into flame.

and g r o w i n g

O n H e r o d ' s death in In R o m e Archelaus,

the nominated heir, had to fight for confirmation of his title before Augustus against deputations

of his c o u n t r y m e n

clamouring

for

independence, while in Palestine he had to contend w i t h various rival claimants to the throne.

A f t e r 10 years of misrule Archelaus

w a s deposed in 6 A . D . and Judaea w a s annexed to the p r o v i n c e of S y r i a and placed under R o m a n procurators.

From this time dates

the rise of the Zealots, the a n t i - R o m a n extremists, " the fourth s e c t " as Josephus calls them, and responsible, in his judgment, for all the horrors of the final catastrophe.

It was the coming of Quirinius in

6 7 A . D . to take a valuation of the property of the n e w l y annexed district, which led to the revolt of Judas of Galilee and his com­ panions.

" T h e y asserted," writes Josephus/' " that the valuation

meant nothing less than d o w n r i g h t slavery, and exhorted the nation s

Am.

xviii. 4 .

LIFE AND C H A R A C T E R OF JOSEPHUS, ETC.

to rally in defence of their liberty."

5

It w a s the exhortation of this

band of fanatical patriots, assisted by the excesses and extortionate rapacity of the last of the R o m a n procurators, which 60 years later led to the outbreak of open w a r . For the life of Josephus w e are w h o l l y dependent on the historian's o w n statements, contained p a r t l y in an incomplete autobiography published t o w a r d s the end of his life, p a r t l y in scattered notices in his Jewish

War.

T h e a u t o b i o g r a p h y is a disproportionate w o r k , the

major part of it being devoted to the period of some six months during which the author held c o m m a n d , or some sort of commission, in Galilee prior to the coming of Vespasian's a r m y ; to this, brief sketches of the earlier and later personal history are appended as prologue and epilogue.

T h e reason for this disproportion is that

the w o r k is an apologia,

put out in reply to the d a m a g i n g criticisms

of a rival historian, Justus of Tiberias, w h o , in his history, which appeared towards the end of the first century, attempted to t h r o w the responsibility for the w a r , or at least for the revolt of his native city, Tiberias, upon Josephus.

T h e history of Justus has not sur­

v i v e d , and w e h a v e unfortunately no check upon the statements of our author other than his o w n , which are far from consistent. we h a v e a second o v e r l a p p i n g account of this period in the War.

For Jewish

H e r e there are unaccountable discrepancies, and the auto­

biographical notices of the historian in connexion w i t h the outbreak of hostilities must be pronounced the least t r u s t w o r t h y portion of his writings.

T h e numerous inconsistencies, of a minor or a g r a v e r

character, between the t w o accounts of his c o m m a n d in Galilee, betray either gross carelessness or actual fraud, and it is to be feared that he cannot be w h o l l y exonerated from the latter charge.

His

critics forced him to admit some facts which he had not merely, as he himself s a y s ,

!

" suppressed," but, it appears, actually distorted.

W h e r e the t w o accounts disagree, that in the a u t o b i o g r a p h y p r o b a b l y comes nearer to the truth; of the genesis of that w o r k I shall h a v e more to say later.

W i t h the exception of that critical h a l f - y e a r in

6

FIRST LECTURE

Galilee, w e have no reason to doubt the general accuracy of the author's sketch of his career. O f a priestly f a m i l y and w i t h r o y a l blood in his veins on the mother's side, Joseph ben Matthias was born in the year of accession of G a i u s ( C a l i g u l a ) , 37—38 A . D . , just half w a y

the

through

that stormy era which intervened between the rise of the Zealots under Judas of Galilee in the year 6 and the outbreak of the w a r w i t h R o m e in 66.

W e do not k n o w the precise year of his death,

but it p r o b a b l y fell in the early years of the second century, and we m a y say that his life was d i v i d e d b y the G r e a t W a r into t w o a p p r o x i m a t e l y equal portions: thirty-three

years of stress spent in

Palestine as priest, general and prisoner, and a period of c o m p a r a t i v e calm passed b y the R o m a n citizen and

man

of letters,

Flavius

Josephus, in the capital of" the Empire. In the year before his birth the R o m a n procurator Pontius Pilate had been recalled from J u d a e a : H e r o d A g r i p p a I had just received his liberty and a portion of his grandfather's k i n g d o m from the new emperor.

T h e lad's memory w o u l d recall the scenes of excitement

aroused in Palestine by the m a d attempt of C a l i g u l a to erect his statue in the T e m p l e , when the outbreak averted by the procrastination

of w a r w a s n a r r o w l y

of the R o m a n governor, Petronius,

to execute the order, and the timely death of the emperor.

O f his

education, the historian tells us that his precocious talents, at the age of 14, brought learned Rabbis to consult him, and h o w , t w o years later, he entered on w h a t might be called his short university course, when he studied the tenets of the three national sects, Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes.

T h e u n w o r l d l y , monastic life of the last-

named c o m m u n i t y , of w h o m he has left us a full and appreciative account in the War,

had a special attraction for him at this time

and left an indelible impression.

T h i s cosmopolitan man of affairs

seems to have had a genuine strain of asceticism in his nature.

At

any rate he f o l l o w e d up his course in Jerusalem b y three years of monastic life in the desert. Vita 1 1 .

" N o t content," he w r i t e s ,

5

"with

the

LIFE AND C H A R A C T E R OF JOSEPHUS, E T C .

7

experience thus gained, on hearing of one named Bannus, w h o d w e l t in the wilderness, w e a r i n g o n l y such clothing as trees p r o v i d e d (i. e. b a r k ) , feeding on such things as g r e w of themselves, and frequent

ablutions of cold w a t e r , b y d a y and night, for

using

purity's

sake, I became his d e v o t e d disciple." F r o m this H e m e r o b a p t i s t , as w e m a y call him, he m a y possibly h a v e learned something of the tenets of a kindred spirit, the forerunner of C h r i s t i a n i t y , John the Baptist.

But Josephus w a s not destined to remain an anachorite, and

on his return to Jerusalem at the age of 19 he definitely attached himself t o the Pharisees. O f his early m a n h o o d he relates one outstanding event, his visit at the age of 26 or 27, in the year 64, to R o m e , the city that was for so long to be his home.

T h e ostensible object of this visit w a s

a charitable one—the liberation of certain priests of his acquaintance, w h o on some trifling charge had been sent up b y Felix, the procurator of Judaea, to be tried b y N e r o . through

O n this errand he w a s successful,

the influence of the disreputable

agents whose aid

necessary, the favourite Jewish actor A l i t u r u s , and the

was

infamous

P o p p a e a , once mistress, n o w w i f e of the E m p e r o r and a l l - p o w e r f u l at court.

T h i s notorious w o m a n had coquetted w i t h Judaism, and

in virtue of these leanings to his race is elsewhere dignified b y our historian w i t h the epithet of " g o d - f e a r i n g " (0eoae|3i'|c).

c

It is idle

to attempt, as others h a v e done, to link this visit on t o c o n t e m p o r a r y events and Christian history in particular.

One writer

7

wished to

connect the liberation o f the Jewish priests w i t h the liberation of the A p o s t l e P a u l w h o a f e w years earlier had been sent up b y Festus for trial and, like Josephus, had suffered shipwreck en route.

The

year 64 w a s the year o f the burning of R o m e and o f the persecution of the Christians, w h o w e r e accused of incendiarism; and writer

8

another

has d a r k l y hinted that the gifts which were showered by

P o p p a e a on Josephus w e r e a bribe to secure his aid in the cause. fi

7

s

Ant. xx. 195. Edersheim, art. "Josephus " in Diet, of Christian Biography.

Corrsen, Zeihchrift fur die N. T. \\"is<en$dhtft, 1 9 1 4 , p. 1 3 9 F.

8

FIRST LECTURE

Both suggestions are baseless; but w e m a y legitimately

speculate

whether the visit to the capital had not some ulterior

motive in

connexion w i t h the w a r impending o v e r his o w n country. A t any rate it had impressed him w i t h a sense of the invincible might of R o m e , and on his return to Judaea, where he found his countrymen smarting under the last of the procurators and heading for revolt, he v a i n l y endeavoured to p a c i f y the w a r p a r t y .

Finding

himself powerless to restrain them and fearing as he says, that his reiterated warnings w o u l d bring him into odium and the suspicion of siding w i t h the enemy, he was forced to seek asylum for a time in the T e m p l e ; on issuing from which he and his friends, unable to check the rebels " professed to concur in their v i e w s , " seeking merely to persuade them to act on the defensive and leave the R o m a n s to make the first m o v e .

" In doing s o , " he writes, " w e had hopes that

ere long Cestius (the governor of S y r i a ) w o u l d come up w i t h a large a r m y and quell the r e v o l u t i o n . "

9

I must pass lightly over the scenes leading up to the outbreak of hostilities, of which Josephus has left us a v i v i d picture, but in which he himself p l a y e d no leading part.

It was the t y r a n n y and rapacity

of the R o m a n procurator which set the flames alight. A v e r y different character from the Petronius w h o had averted w a r under C a l i g u l a , Florus w a s o n l y anxious to fan the flames in order to c o v e r up his o w n enormities under the larger c a l a m i t y .

T h e r e were t w o storm-

centres, Caesarea, the seat of the R o m a n governor, and

Jerusalem;

and at both places Florus did his best to p r o v o k e trouble. quarrels

at Caesarea between the Jewish

and Syrian

The

inhabitants

were p a r t of a larger movement, a w a v e of anti-Jewish

feeling

which at this time swept over all the cities of S y r i a , as well as E g y p t i a n A l e x a n d r i a . A t Caesarea a long standing dispute, in which the Jews claimed that the city was theirs in virtue of its founder, H e r o d the G r e a t , had just ended in an appeal to N e r o and a decree in f a v o u r of the G r a e c o - S y r i a n population. pretext for w a r was a trivial incident—the « Vita 2 0 tr.

H e r e the

ostensible

wilful blocking of the

LIFE AND C H A R A C T E R OF JOSEPHUS, ETC.

approach to a Jewish S y n a g o g u e by a G r e e k builder.

9 T h e Jewish

notables appealed to Florus and offered him eight talents to procure the cessation of the w o r k .

Florus accepted the money, promised

assistance, and f o r t h w i t h quitted the place, " leaving " as Josephus 1

s a y s , " " a free field to sedition, as though he had sold the Jews a licence to fight the matter o u t . "

A t Jerusalem,

his conduct was

similar, and a raid on the temple treasury was the last straw. storm of indignation arose;

and

with

grim

humour

A

some w a g s

in the c r o w d carried round a basket begging coppers for the g o v e r ­ nor, as for an unfortunate

pauper.

11

I need not

d w e l l on

the

sequel: the retaliatory measures of Florus for the insults offered to him, the appeals to Cestius, the vain efforts of the priestly and upper classes to stave off revolution, the great speech to the assembled citizens which is put into the mouth of K i n g A g r i p p a , the refusal to submit to Florus and the expulsion o f A g r i p p a , the seizure of the castle of A n t o n i a by the rebels, the siege laid to the R o m a n garrison in H e r o d ' s Palace, their capitulation and perfidious massacre, and the contemporaneous massacre " on the same day and at the same hour, as b y the hand of p r o v i d e n c e , " writes J o s e p h u s ,

12

of the Jewish

inhabitants of Caesarea by their fellow-citizens. T h e second scene in the drama opens w i t h the a d v a n c e of Cestius G a l l u s , the governor of S y r i a , upon Jerusalem.

H e occupies the

northern suburb of Bezetha, and then on the eve of apparent v i c t o r y , at a moment when " h a d he decided," writes J o s e p h u s ,

13

" t o force

his w a y through the walls, he w o u l d h a v e captured the city forth­ w i t h and the w a r w o u l d h a v e been o v e r , " there comes his unaccoun­ table retreat, the pursuit

of the Jews, the entanglement

of

the

R o m a n s in the passes of B e t h h o r o n — t h a t ancient battleground—and the conversion of the retreat into a rout. w h o l l y recovered from that disgrace.

T h e 12th legion never

For the Jews it w a s the initial

v i c t o r y of the w e a k e r nation before the big battalions of the enemy were assembled. 10

B.J. ii.

12

ib.

4S7-

288.

It recalls incidents at the opening of the Boer W a r . 1 1

1 : 5

ib.

295.

ib.

551.

FIRST LECTURE

10

Some six months elapsed between the disaster of Cestius in the autumn

of 66 and the arrival of Vespasian's a v e n g i n g a r m y

Palestine in the spring o f 67.

Josephus n o w reappears upon

in the

scene and his proceedings during this h a l f - y e a r in Galilee, which w a s to bear the first brunt of the w a r , p r a c t i c a l l y fill the narrative. B u t though he has left us t w o accounts o f this period, one in the Autobiography Jewish

War,

e x c e p t i o n a l l y full, the other a briefer sketch in his the discrepancies b e t w e e n them m a k e it exceedingly

difficult to reconstruct the history and to discover his real aims and policy.

H i s conduct at the time w a s severely censured b y a r i v a l r

leader, J o h n o f Gischala, w h o tried to get him superseded: it w as censured again some thirty years later b y a r i v a l historian, Justus of Tiberias, whose damaging criticisms in his lost H i s t o r y of the W a r called forth our author's A u t o b i o g r a p h y . A lack o f candour, the e q u i v o c a l position o f a pacifist d r i v e n to take up arms, and an e n d e a v o u r at one time to ingratiate himself w i t h the R o m a n con­ querors and their protege,

K i n g A g r i p p a I I , at another to r e p l y to

his Jewish critics, h a v e combined t o produce a confused

narrative.

T h e double account w a s the starting-point for a fresh and stimulat­ ing, if s o m e w h a t fanciful, study o f the historian's life p r o d u c e d some years a g o b y H e r r Richard Laqueur.

In one point at least I think

L a q u e u r is right, n a m e l y that in the Life

w e come nearer to the

actual facts.

T h e questions arising are t w o : w h a t were the motives

of Josephus?

W h a t w a s his commission a n d d i d he exceed it?

T h e r e is an initial discrepancy on the subject o f his commission. In the War

we read

1 4

that the J e w s , on their return from

the

pursuit o f Cestius, assembled in the temple and appointed additional generals to conduct the c a m p a i g n .

"Joseph

son o f G o r i o n

and

A n a n u s the high priest w e r e elected t o the supreme control ' o f the m e t r o p o l i s ' w i t h a special charge t o raise the height of the w a l l s . " T h e c o u n t r y w a s d i v i d e d between six territorial generals, Josephus being named last: " J o s e p h u s

son o f Matthias w a s g i v e n the t w o

Galilees, w i t h the addition o f G a m a l a , the strongest c i t y in that region." 14

B.J. ii. 562-568.

II

LIFE A N D C H A R A C T E R OF JOSEPHUS, E T C .

T o set beside this, w e h a v e the f o l l o w i n g statement in the

15

Life:

" A f t e r the defeat o f Cestius, the leading m e n in Jerusalem, observing that the b r i g a n d s

1 6

a n d revolutionaries w e r e w e l l p r o v i d e d w i t h

arms, feared that, being w i t h o u t w e a p o n s themselves, they might be left at the m e r c y o f their adversaries, as in fact e v e n t u a l l y happened.

Being informed, moreover, that the w h o l e o f Galilee

h a d n o t y e t revolted from R o m e , a n d that a portion o f it w a s still tranquil, they dispatched me w i t h t w o other priests, J o a z a r and Judas, men o f excellent character, t o induce the disaffected to l a y d o w n their arms a n d to impress upon them the desirability o f reserving these for the picked men o f the nation.

T h e latter, so it w a s decided,

w e r e to h a v e their w e a p o n s constantly in readiness f o r future contin­ gencies, but should w a i t and see w h a t action the R o m a n s w o u l d t a k e / ' T h u s , in the War Josephus is represented as m i l i t a r y commander of G a l i l e e from the outset: in the Life the y o u n g priest o f 29 is sent, w i t h t w o other priests, p r o b a b l y his seniors, on a pacific mission t o disarm the hotheads and endeavour t o k e e p the peace. N o mention is made until later o f his holding supreme c o m m a n d , and he m a y originally h a v e been in a subordinate position. vires}

D i d he a c t

ultra

Possibly: at a n y rate he w a s represented as doing so. T h e

picture d r a w n in the War o f his a p p o i n t m e n t at the outset t o an important military post w a s more suited t o R o m a n ears, as w a s also the account which he there gives o f his training an a r m y o n R o m a n lines:

1 7

" h e understood

that t h e R o m a n s o w e d their

invincible

strength a b o v e all to discipline a n d m i l i t a r y training; if he despaired of p r o v i d i n g similar instruction, to b e acquired o n l y b y long use, he observed that their discipline w a s due t o the number o f their officers, and he therefore d i v i d e d his a r m y o n R o m a n lines and increased the number o f his c o m p a n y c o m m a n d e r s , " a n d so o n . W h e r e he acquired his k n o w l e d g e o f R o m a n methods a n d tactics does not appear: i t is a different picture which is d r a w n in the

Life.

T h e r e w e are told that he failed in the object o f his mission, the 1 5

Vita 28 f. » B.J. ii. 577 ff.

1 6

The constant term for the anti-Roman extremists.

FIRST LECTURE

12

disarmament o f the rebels: " I summoned the most s t a l w a r t of the brigands and, seeing that it w o u l d be impossible to disarm

them,

persuaded the people to p a y them as mercenaries," binding them by oath " not to enter the district unless t h e y w e r e sent for or their pay

was

in

arrear,

and

dismissing

them

with

refrain from attacking either the R o m a n s or their

injunctions

to

neighbours/'

1 8

H e further dismisses his priestly colleagues, w h o are represented as intent o n l y on collecting their tithes, possibly for w a r - f u n d s ,

and

not merely, as Josephus states, to fill their o w n pockets. T h e n ensues a long struggle w i t h a c o m m a n d i n g figure, destined to p l a y a large p a r t in the siege o f Jerusalem, and n o w a r i v a l for leadership in G a l i l e e a n d depicted as an arch-villain, John o f Gisehala.

John

represents to his friends at Jerusalem that Josephus is aiming at a Topavvig, and entreats them to induce the assembly to d e p r i v e him of his c o m m a n d and appoint him (John) in his ste.ad. priest A n a n u s a n d

T h e high

Simon, son o f G a m a l i e l , of w h o m

Josephus

speaks in high terms and o b v i o u s l y stood in a w e , are induced to send a secret deputation of four, including a p p a r e n t l y one of our historian's former colleagues ( J o a z a r ) , to supersede him.

Josephus

o u t w i t s this deputation, makes counter-representations to Jerusalem and gets himself reinstated, or, perhaps w e should say, his position regularized. If w e a t t e m p t to fathom the p o l i c y a n d motives of Josephus at this period, w e can o n l y say that he w a s p l a y i n g a double, w a i t i n g game, possibly still v a i n l y hoping to a v e r t w a r b y some f o r m of compromise.

T h e selection o f the y o u n g priest, w i t h k n o w n pacifist

and p r o - R o m a n tendencies, t o this important post is mysterious. H e h a d a distracted p r o v i n c e .

Sepphoris, the capital,

staunchly p r o - R o m a n (though even this statement

remained

is once contra­

dicted), but significantly/infused t o h a v e a n y dealings w i t h Josephus: G a m a l a w a s also induced to remain l o y a l : T i b e r i a s w a s a scene of faction

and

Josephus.

a source o f constant

O f preparations

« Vita 77 f.

risk

to

for w a r w e hear o f his training

trouble

and

personal

of

LIFE A N D C H A R A C T E R OF JOSEPHUS, E T C .

13

volunteers, and of fortification of cities and villages under his per­ sonal superintendence; lists of these places, not quite identical, are p r o u d l y paraded b y our author in his t w o narratives.

O n the other

hand, some of his statements leave us in doubt on which side his sympathies l a y , as w h e n , in r e p l y to a request from John of Gisehala to authorize him to seize the imperial corn stored in the villages of U p p e r Galilee, he tells us, in support of his refusal, " I intended to reserve the corn either for the Romans w o n d e r such a general w a s suspected betraying the c o u n t r y to the enemy. extremists,

1 9

or for m y o w n use." of harbouring

No

designs of

B u t it w a s the rebels and

w h o m he h a d been sent to disarm, the " b r i g a n d s "

(Xfjarai) as they are constantly called, w h o dominated the situation. T h e y forced his hands and compelled him, if he w a s not to be superseded, to p u t himself at the head o f the w a r p a r t y . Here

the

author's

Jewish

War

takes

up the story.

On

the

a d v a n c e of Vespasian from A n t i o c h in the spring of 67, Josephus, deserted b y most of his a r m y of volunteers, t h r e w himself into the fortified t o w n of J o t a p a t a , " deliberately entering a prison " as the R o m a n general r e m a r k e d ,

20

and decided t o stand a siege.

O f the

47 d a y s ' siege—his brief period o f m i l i t a r y f a m e — t h e fall of the t o w n (July 6 7 ) , his capture b y the R o m a n s after a n a r r o w escape from being murdered b y his companions in hiding, and his prophecy of Vespasian's rise to imperial p o w e r , he has left us a account.

graphic

Perhaps I m a y be a l l o w e d t o recall to y o u the familiar

scene in the c a v e in some o f his o w n w o r d s . has been discovered, and Josephus

T h e hiding-place

is just about to surrender

to

the R o m a n officer sent to fetch him, w h e n he is p r e v e n t e d b y his compatriots w h o threaten

to kill him.

T h e r e u p o n he

harangues

them in a long rhetorical speech on the iniquity of suicide, which it

is

incredible

Josephus,

21

that

they w o u l d h a v e tolerated.

" B u t , " says

" d e s p e r a t i o n stopped their ears, for they h a d long since

d e v o t e d themselves to d e a t h " and t h e y ran at him from this side and that, s w o r d in hand. w Vita 72.

20 J. B

" But he, addressing one b y name,

Hi. 144.

21 BJ. iii. 384 if.

fixing

FIRST LECTURE

his general's eye of c o m m a n d upon another, clasping the hand of a third, shaming a fourth by entreaty, and, torn b y all manner of emotions at this critical moment, succeeded in w a r d i n g off from his throat the blades of ail, turning like a w i l d beast

surrounded

by the hunters to face his successive assailants. E v e n in his e x t r e m i t y , they still held their general in reverence; their hands were powerless, their swords glanced aside, and m a n y , in the act of thrusting him, spontaneously

dropped

their

his resource did not forsake him.

weapons.

But, in his

at

straits,

T r u s t i n g to G o d ' s protection,

he put his life to the h a z a r d " : he proposes the d r a w i n g of lots to decide the order of mutual destruction.

" T h e proposal inspired

confidence; his a d v i c e w a s taken and he d r e w lots w i t h the rest. Each man thus selected presented his throat

to his neighbour, in

the assurance that his general w a s f o r t h w i t h to share his fate; for sweeter to them than life w a s the thought of death w i t h Josephus. H e , h o w e v e r (should one say b y fortune or b y the p r o v i d e n c e of G o d ? ) w a s left alone w i t h one other; and, anxious neither to be condemned b y the lot nor, should he be left to the last, to stain his hand w i t h his countryman's blood, he persuaded this man also, under a pledge, to remain

alive."

B y w h a t j u g g l e r y of the lots he escaped on this occasion w e cannot precisely say.

But if the S l a v o n i c text m a y be

trusted

as preserving his original account of this ignoble episode, he did in his first edition unblushingly admit that there w a s jugglery.

Instead

of the pious remark, " Should one say b y fortune or b y the p r o v i d e n c e of G o d ? , " w e are there told that " he counted the numbers w i t h cunning and thereby misled them a l l . " T h e prisoner is then brought up to Vespasian, and his v e r a c i t y in w h a t follows is a b o v e suspicion. H i s prediction that Vespasian w o u l d shortly become emperor attested by a p a g a n w i t n e s s

2 2

and is moreover too closely embedded

in the narrative, being the occasion of the prisoner's release, to be a

fiction.

subsequent

H e must at least be credited w i t h a sagacious

reading of the signs of the times. '-- Suetonius, Vcsp. 5.

is

T h e prediction has indeed been

:

1

5

attributed to a man of a v e r y different t y p e , Johanan ben 2 a k k a i ,

2 : :

LU E A N D C H A R A C T E R OF JOSEPHUS, ETC.

and the Rabbis in this instance h a v e not scrupled to transfer

the

prophet's honours to a more p o p u l a r hero.

H e n c e f o r t h in R o m a n hands, first as prisoner, then as onlooker, reporter, interpreter and mediator, Josephus w a s n o w in c o m p a r a t i v e security.

Hostilities w e r e p a r t i a l l y suspended during the eventful

year 68—69, the year of the four emperors, which saw the

death

of N e r o and, in rapid succession, the p r o m o t i o n of three successors. In J u l y 69 Vespasian's legions took matters into their o w n hands and proclaimed him emperor.

O n e of the first acts of his reign

w a s the liberation of his Jewish prisoner, n o w come true.

whose prediction

had

A c c o m p a n y i n g Vespasian to A l e x a n d r i a , Josephus

possibly availed himself of the o p p o r t u n i t y of his brief stay in that city to accumulate some of that A l e x a n d r i a n lore of which he shows a k n o w l e d g e in his writings.

T h e n c e he returned w i t h T i t u s

to the siege of Jerusalem and witnessed the end. mediator,

H i s services as

to go the round of the walls and counsel submission,

were constantly requisitioned by T i t u s , and he w a s not y e t out of peril, bitterly hated b y the Jewish Zealots, and

suspected of

treachery b y the R o m a n s whenever they met w i t h a reverse. the debacle

After

he w a s presented b y T i t u s w i t h a tract of land outside

Jerusalem and some " s a c r e d b o o k s " ; he also obtained the liberation of a number of his friends.

H e then accompanied the conqueror

to R o m e . O f his thirty record.

or more years spent

T h e client of the Flavians

in R o m e there

is little

and commissioned to

to

write

the history of their triumph, he was a w a r d e d the rights of R o m a n citizenship,

a lodging in

Vespasian

and

emperor.-

4

He

one

of

the the

former pensions

palace

(privata

n e w l y instituted

witnessed the triumphal

acdcs)

of

by

that

procession of the

con­

querors, w i t h w h a t feelings w e are left to imagine, and must h a v e 2 3

2 4

Abot dc-R. Nathan 4 , 5 , quoted by Moore, Judaism ii. 1 1 6 .

Vita 4 2 3 : Suet., Vesp. 1 8 .

FIRST LECTURE

i6

seen the n e w R o m e arising from the ashes in which the fire o f N e r o and the civil w a r had left it.

T h e sedentary

life of

the

historian, uneventful after the stirring scenes of the past, w a s o n l y diversified b y the attacks to which he w a s constantly exposed from his c o u n t r y m e n , including his o w n household.

H e w a s accused of

subsidizing a Jewish revolt in C y r e n e , he w a s slandered b y his son's tutor, and in his closing years came the attack of his r i v a l Justus, whose damaging exposures threatened both his position of security and the sale of his w o r k s .

T h e death of T i t u s in 79 marks

a change for the worse in his external surroundings departure in his literary a c t i v i t y .

D e p r i v e d of his honoured patron,

he shakes off the R o m a n fetters apologist of his nation.

and becomes the historian

and

B u t the hated deserter could never regain

the affection of his c o u n t r y m e n : his m e m o r y .

and a n e w

it w a s R o m e that

W e learn from Eusebius

2 5

perpetuated

that his statue w a s erected

in the c i t y and his w o r k s placed in the public library. H i s domestic life, as is not surprising in an egoist o f his character, h a d its matrimonial troubles.

H e w a s married at least three times,

being deserted b y one w i f e and d i v o r c i n g a n o t h e r .

T o this brief sketch of 6ur

author's

20

career I h a v e o n l y

subjects on which I w o u l d touch t o - d a y .

two

T h e first is a literary

problem, relating to the origin of the A u t o b i o g r a p h y ; the second is the more difficult task o f attempting to estimate the

historian's

character. T h e A u t o b i o g r a p h y comes to us as one of the

latest of

writings, produced w h e n the author w a s w e l l o v e r 60.

t o the death o f A g r i p p a II which w e k n o w from another source t o o k place in the year 100.

his

It alludes 2 7

" W h y , " he says, addressing Justus

w h o had brought out a belated history of the w a r , " w h y did y o u not publish it in the lifetime of the emperors Vespasian and T i t u s . . . and w h i l e K i n g A g r i p p a and all his f a m i l y . . . w e r e still a m o n g us?" 2 5

2 8

T h e Life,

Hist, eccles. in. 9.

which is in reality an apologia 2 6

Vita 415, 426 f.

2 7

Photius.

pro vita sua, w a s 2

« Vita 359.

LIFE A N D C H A R A C T E R OF JOSEPHUS, E T C .

17

called into existence b y the appearance o f this r i v a l history, in defence of the author's conduct in G a l i l e e more than thirty years before.

It w a s not issued as an independent w o r k , but attached as

an a p p e n d i x to the author's magnum opus, the Antiquities, to a second or later edition of that w o r k . reached

a

or rather

T h a t a modern b o o k has

second edition m a y be indicated b y the existence of

t w o prefaces.

In the w o r k of Josephus a similar inference m a y

be d r a w n from the peroration.

T h e Antiquities

In that which stands first he w r i t e s

2 9

has t w o perorations.

" B u t here m y

Archaeology

shall cease," and then, after telling us w h a t a fine achievement it is, he continues:

" B u t perhaps it w i l l not be taken amiss if I

give a brief sketch of m y f a m i l y and the events of m y life, w h i l e there are still persons alive either to c o n v i c t or to corroborate m e . " T h e Vita,

as I said, is later than 100 A . D . a n d this peroration must

also h a v e been penned in the second century. summing up begins. close m y Archaeology,"

B u t then a n e w

A second time he writes " B u t here I w i l l and names the number o f lines (ativot)

in the w o r k , some future literary projects, a n d the date of w r i t i n g , "the

thirteenth y e a r o f the reign o f D o m i t i a n , " i . e . 93—4 A . D .

H e r e w e h a v e the older peroration to the first edition, dating from the last decade o f the first century, but n o w relegated to the end. But, though w e k n o w that the Life

w a s not issued until

the

2nd century, a theory has recently been p r o p o u n d e d b y H e r r Laqueur, which w o u l d m a k e the kernel of the Vila

not the latest, but the

v e r y earliest w o r k o f our author, w r i t t e n at the age, not of 65, but o f 30.

In Laqueur's opinion the nucleus o f the Vita

official report o f the writer's conduct o f affairs in G a l i l e e before

the

authorities.

siege of J o t a p a t a ,

for

submission

t o the

is an drafted,

Jerusalem

It is his defence against the charge brought against him

b y John of Gisehala o f acting ultra vires and aiming at a despotism. T h i s unliterary report, unpublished at^ the time, w a s in after years produced from the author's papers a n d utilized to meet the attack o f Justus: details were modified, a p r o l o g u e and epilogue appended 2 9

Ant. xx. 259.

i8

FIRST LECTURE

and the w h o l e w a s w o r k e d up into an a u t o b i o g r a p h y .

T h e theory

is based p a r t l y on the disproportionate space d e v o t e d to the G a l i l a e a n period, p a r t l y on the incongruity a n d inconsistencies in the narrative, and in p a r t i c u l a r on a comparison o f those passages in the and in the War three strata

w h e r e the t w o accounts o v e r l a p .

of different dates m a y ,

according

to

Life

In these cases this

view,

be

distinguished. T h e r e is first the y o u t h f u l report, approaching nearest to the truth.

T h e historian is sent on a pacific mission t o Galilee,

not as commander-in-chief; John o f Gisehala is still a friend, not an e n e m y ; the great w a r that is impending is not n a m e d as such, nor even envisaged; the reader is not referred to the parallel narrative in the Bellum

Judaicum

which w a s not y e t w r i t t e n .

h a v e the story as adapted in the Jewish

War

Secondly, w e

for his patrons, the

R o m a n s and K i n g A g r i p p a : the author is represented as commanderin-chief f r o m the outset, and so on.

L a s t l y , w e h a v e the narrative

re-edited a n d modified to meet the attack o f Justus—the Vita finally

as

issued.

It is an a t t r a c t i v e theory.

T h a t Josephus k e p t some c o n t e m p o r a r y

record o f his period o f office for his o w n use, or w a s required to submit a f o r m a l report to the authorities in Jerusalem, is not at all improbable.

T h e t h e o r y w o u l d account for some o f

incongruities in different portions o f the Vita.

the

It might also, I w a s

once inclined to think, account f o r the c r u d i t y o f the style, which is strangely in contrast w i t h the polished G r e e k of the other p r o ­ duction o f our author's o l d age—the contra

Apionem.

If Laqueur

w e r e right, w e should h a v e an interesting relic o f the

historian's

y o u t h f u l style before he had the benefit o f literary assistance in Rome.

Laqueur's stimulating essay has t h r o w n much n e w light

on our

author's

career, the stages in his d e v e l o p m e n t , and

methods o f w o r k .

his

In particular, he has, I think, established the

fact that he w a s constantly revising his earlier writings.

B u t the

G e r m a n critic has not submitted his theory to the searching test of phraseology, which fails t o bear o u t his distinction " early " a n d " late " portions in the Vita.

between

In compiling a L e x i c o n

LIFE A N D C H A R A C T E R OF JOSEPHUS, E T C .

to Josephus

I h a v e minutely investigated the author's

and the theory, as stated, numerous

links

of

seems to break

style, which connect

w i t h the last book o f the Antiquities, composition.

19

d o w n o w i n g to the

Life

suggesting

T h e style o f Josephus'

language,

as a

the whole

contemporaneous

w r i t i n g s is uneven;

there

are w e l l - m a r k e d strata, due to the e m p l o y m e n t o f various assistants, n o w o f one, n o w o f another, w h i l e occasionally the author seems to be t h r o w n back on his o w n unaided resources.

A s w i l l be s h o w n

in a later lecture, B o o k s x v and x v i o f the Antiquities

are

the

w o r k o f one assistant, xvii—xix o f another; but in B o o k x x and in the Vita

w e appear to h a v e the ipsissima

verba

o f the

historian.

A t a n y rate, these t w o books are closely united not o n l y b y the express announcement at the close o f the Antiquities intention to append a curriculum o f style.

vitae,

o f the author's

but b y the internal evidence

O n l y in these t w o books d o w e find phrases like " n o

small a l a r m , " " quell disturbances," " w h e n I saw to w h a t a plight (lisyeOo*;) o f misery they w e r e come " and m a n y m o r e ; these parallels extend o v e r the w h o l e o f the Life, " early " portions.

including Laqueur's

alleged

H i s thesis is therefore o n l y tenable on the sup­

position that the youthful " r e p o r t " like the first draft o f the War,

to the Jerusalem

authorities,

w a s w r i t t e n in A r a m a i c and

w a r d s in later life reproduced in G r e e k .

after­

I f presented in that f o r m ,

which Laqueur himself rejects, the theory seems to me unobjectionable and not improbable. It remains f o r me to attempt some estimate o f the m a n and his work.

It w i l l be evident that his is not a w h o l l y amiable, still

less an heroic, character, and that as a w r i t e r he lacks some o f the

essential

qualifications

interested, time-server and

of

the

flatterer

great

historian.

Egoist,

self-

o f his R o m a n patrons, he m a y

be justly called: such defects are o b v i o u s .

H e w a s not one

to

sacrifice his life in a great cause: no w a r l i k e liberator o f his c o u n t r y like Judas Maccabaeus, no E z r a or J o h a n a n ben Z a k k a i to recreate a n e w Judaism on the ruins o f the past, no T h u c y d i d e s to record the t r a g e d y o f his nation w i t h strict and sober impartiality. 2*

Yet

FIRST LECTURE

20

for all this w e must not be led to exaggerate his failings or to underestimate his sterling merits and his immense contribution

to

learning and our k n o w l e d g e of the past. H i s w o r s t enemies, in his lifetime and since, h a v e , I think, a l w a y s been f o u n d a m o n g his o w n c o u n t r y m e n ; and the rancour displayed against the " t u r n c o a t " or " R o m a n i s t " (Romling), called, is intelligible.

as he is often

I d o not k n o w whether his latest biographer,

H e r r L a q u e u r , is a J e w , but the black portrait which he has d r a w n inclines me to think so.

I o w e much to the w o r k of this brilliant

critic, but I think he has carried the process o f denigration far.

too

H i s imaginative reconstruction of the history is based on a

distinction b e t w e e n " e a r l y " and " l a t e " portions in our works,

which is far

from

m a r k e d change in style.

certain

and

not

sustained

In particular, the sketch of our

author's by

any

author's

career in Galilee—those six months w h i c h b u l k so l a r g e l y in his life, against which w e are a l w a y s brought up and w h i c h seem to hang like a mill-stone about his neck—is h i g h l y fanciful. A c c o r d i n g to L a q u e u r , the success o f the y o u t h f u l Josephus on a diplomatic mission t o R o m e obtained for him almost i m m e d i a t e l y important mission in G a l i l e e .

another

It w a s a pacific mission, to disarm

the Z e a l o t s : w a r w i t h R o m e w a s as y e t h a r d l y on the horizon, and no generals had y e t been appointed.

Finding the " b r i g a n d s " too

strong for him, he p a i d them to keep quiet.

H i s colleagues, h a v i n g

failed to execute their commission, l o y a l l y returned to Jerusalem: Josephus remained, n o w a rebel against authority, and set himself up as a despot.

B u t his hands w e r e forced b y the insurgents, w h o

d r o v e him into w a r w i t h R o m e .

H e p u t himself at the head o f

the rebels and then, b y his self-surrender them.

at J o t a p a t a ,

betrayed

B u t , as the original organizer of the revolt, he w a s largely

responsible for the ultimate fall o f Jerusalem. the Jewish

War

H i s narrative

in

is a distorted version o f the events, w r i t t e n under

R o m a n direction and patronage. Much of this reconstruction o f the G a l i l a e a n episode seems to me h i g h l y questionable.

T o begin w i t h , there is no apparent con-

21

LIFE A N D C H A R A C T E R OF JOSEPHUS, E T C .

nexion between the missions to R o m e and to Galilee. H e r r L a q u e u r ignores the period of u p w a r d s of t w o years which crowded

with

incidents,

garrison in Jerusalem,

intervened,

including the massacre o f the

Roman

the march o f Cestius upon the c i t y , his

retreat and the rout of his legion in the defiles o f Bethhoron. T h o s e events made the G r e a t W a r inevitable: R o m e could not possibly leave such insults unavenged, and the victors of Cestius must h a v e made some immediate preparations including

presumably

the

against impending hostilities,

appointment

of

generals.

Whether

Josephus w a s given m i l i t a r y c o m m a n d at that period is uncertain, and much o f his career in Galilee remains obscure.

B u t the charges

of rebellion against his superiors in Jerusalem and o f aiming at a despotism seem to me h i g h l y disputable.

H e seems to h a v e con­

sulted and k e p t in touch w i t h the Jerusalem authorities throughout, and the secret attempts to supersede him w e r e p r o m p t l y b y his formal reinstatement.

followed

I should doubt whether he had a n y

ambition for political leadership.

L o o k i n g at his career as a w h o l e , I do not think that a lack of patriotism

can be reckoned among his faults.

His

lamentations

in his w o r k s o v e r his country's fate, his oral exhortations beneath the w a l l s o f the besieged capital and the exhortations which he puts into the mouth of others, were sincere.

H e was

3 0

a pacifist,

w i t h o u t the strength of character to control the militants, w h o had no use for a mediator. hot-heads?

W h o indeed could h a v e controlled those

A n d w h o can say h o w the course o f history

h a v e been changed had his counsels p r e v a i l e d ?

A s a religio

might licita

Judaism had little to gain and e v e r y t h i n g to lose b y revolution. N o r can I forget that Josephus does not stand alone in seeing an overruling destiny in the ordering o f events: the d o o m o f the c i t y h a d been pronounced b y A n o t h e r before him.

T h e Jewish historian

was i n v o l v e d in early m a n h o o d in the rush o f momentous events 3 0

I repeat here in part what I said in a previous lecture delivered in 1923 at Jews

College, London, and printed in Judaism and the Beginnings of Christianity (Routledge).

FIRST LECTURE

22

and o v e r w h e l m e d b y a w a v e o f national feeling which h a d long been gathering force, which he could not stem and v a i n l y strove to direct.

Recognising from the first the hopelessness of d e f y i n g

imperial R o m e and striving to a v e r t catastrophe b y compromise, he nevertheless, under pressure o f circumstances, t h r e w himself into the task of o r g a n i s i n g , - t o the best o f his ability, the defences o f Galilee, w h i l e resistance w a s possible.

A t the siege o f Jerusalem

he w a s unremitting in his efforts to stave off the final catastrophe b y counselling surrender; and then, after the debacle,

w h e n as the

client o f the conquerors he m i g h t h a v e been tempted to disown his nation, he d e v o t e d the energies o f his later life to w r i t i n g

an

elaborate history o f it and championing its cause against the slanders of a m a l i g n a n t w o r l d . Apionem,

H i s fine apologia

c r o w n s his services to his race.

for Judaism, the

contra

H e has surely earned the

name o f patriot. A n estimate o f his merits and defects as a w r i t e r must be reserved for

my

Antiquities.

next

two

lectures

on

the Jewish

In the sequel I propose t o

War

consider

a n d the the

Jewish

extent of

the influence exercised upon him b y his various surroundings,

in

other w o r d s to a t t e m p t to estimate his relationship to his native Judaism, his adopted Hellenism, and to C h r i s t i a n i t y .

SECOND LECTURE

THE "JEWISH W A R " Yesterday

I

sketched

the

life

of

Josephus,

dwelling

more

p a r t i c u l a r l y o n his activities as c o m m a n d e r in the opening c a m p a i g n in Galilee, and then as mediator during the siege of Jerusalem. T o ­ d a y the scene shifts from Palestine t o R o m e , from the battlefield to the historian's study and the opening of his literary career w i t h the most famous of his w o r k s , the History

of

the Jewish

T h e first-fruits o f the leisure which he found in R o m e after

War. the

c a m p a i g n , it w a s written w i t h all the a d v a n t a g e s possessed b y an e x - c o m b a t a n t and eyewitness, n o w a pensioner quartered in peace and c o m f o r t in the former palace o f V e s p a s i a n , w i t h his o w n m e m o r a n d a at hand and R o m a n official records of the w a r p l a c e d at his disposal. W h a t use did he m a k e o f his materials? W h a t w e r e his motives and purpose?

H o w far is the credibility o f the narra­

tive affected b y the personality of its author and his relation to his patrons,

or b y c o n f o r m a t i o n

to certain

contemporary

con­

ventional methods o f w r i t i n g history? T h o s e are a m o n g the questions to be considered. T h e author has in three of his w r i t i n g s t o l d us a g o o d deal about the origin o f this w o r k and the manner of its composition, and it w i l l be w e l l to begin w i t h his actual w o r d s , and then see w h a t deductions can be d r a w n from them. H i s proem to the w o r k opens w i t h a reference to the magnitude of the w a r o f the J e w s against the R o m a n s a n d the i n a d e q u a c y o f previous histories o f it.

1

O f these earlier historians, he s a y s , " some,

h a v i n g taken no p a r t in the action, h a v e collected from

hearsay

SECOND LECTURE

24

casual a n d c o n t r a d i c t o r y stories, which they h a v e then edited in a rhetorical s t y l e ; w h i l e others, w h o witnessed the events, h a v e , either from

flattery

o f the R o m a n s or from hatred o f the J e w s , mis­

represented the facts, their writings exhibiting alternately i n v e c t i v e and encomium, but n o w h e r e historical a c c u r a c y .

In these circum­

stances, I—Josephus, son o f M a t t h i a s , a H e b r e w b y race, a n a t i v e of Jerusalem a n d a priest, w h o at the opening o f the w a r myself fought

against the R o m a n s a n d in the sequel w a s perforce

o n l o o k e r — p r o p o s e to p r o v i d e the subjects o f the R o m a n

an

Empire

w i t h a narrative o f the facts, b y translating into G r e e k the account which I p r e v i o u s l y composed in m y v e r n a c u l a r tongue a n d sent to the u p - c o u n t r y barbarians." Greek-speaking

public,

H e is n o w w r i t i n g for an educated

and " barbarians"

means

simply " n o n -

Hellenic " ; a little l o w e r d o w n he specifies m o r e precisely w h o are these " barbarians in the interior," these " b a c k w o o d s m e n , " as w e m a y s a y . " I thought

it monstrous," he w r i t e s ,

2

" to a l l o w the

truth in such matters to g o astray, a n d that, w h i l e Parthians and B a b y l o n i a n s a n d the most remote tribes o f A r a b i a , along w i t h our c o u n t r y m e n b e y o n d the Euphrates a n d the inhabitants o f A d i a b e n e

3

w e r e , through m y assiduity, a c c u r a t e l y acquainted w i t h the origin of the w a r , the various phases o f c a l a m i t y through which it passed and its conclusion, the G r e e k s a n d such R o m a n s as w e r e not engaged in the contest should remain in ignorance o f these matters, flattering

or

fictitious

narratives as their o n l y g u i d e . "

with

F r o m these

statements w e learn not o n l y that widespread interest in the w a r had a l r e a d y caused a considerable output o f previous histories, but that o u r author's earlier Semitic

3 a

e x t a n t G r e e k w o r k h a d been preceded b y an

draft addressed t o Eastern readers.

Some thirty years later, w h e n his o w n w o r k h a d come in f o r its share o f criticism, he makes t w o further

allusions t o the circum-

2

B.J. i. 6.

3

In the upper Tigris region on the Parthian frontier. The dynasty of Adiabene had

under Claudius been converted to Judaism and some members of the royal family fought on the side of the Jews in the war.

3 a

Whethor Aramaic or Hebrew.

T H E "JEWISH WAR

stances under

which it w a s written.

25

In

the A u t o b i o g r a p h y

he

takes Justus of Tiberias to task for w i t h h o l d i n g his r i v a l history, written t w e n t y years before, until after the death o f the last o f the principal actors in the w a r , K i n g A g r i p p a , and o n l y publishing it when

he

thought

proceeds:

4

he

could

no

longer

be

" I had no such apprehensions

confuted.

He

concerning m y

then work.

N o ; I presented the volumes to the emperors themselves, w h e n the events h a d h a r d l y passed out of sight, conscious as I w a s that I had presented the true story.

I expected to receive testimony to m y

accuracy,

disappointed.

and

was

not

immediately presented m y History,

T o many

others

also I

some of w h o m h a d taken p a r t

in the w a r , such as K i n g A g r i p p a and certain o f his relatives. Indeed, so anxious w a s the emperor T i t u s that m y volumes should be the sole authority from w h i c h the w o r l d should learn the facts, that he affixed his o w n signature to them and g a v e orders for their publication; w h i l e K i n g A g r i p p a w r o t e 62 letters testifying to the truth o f the record." epistles.

The

first,

H e appends t w o specimens o f these r o y a l ending

" Send m e the

shows that the w o r k appeared in parts.

remaining

volumes,"

T h e second, o b v i o u s l y a

hasty s c r a w l in slipshod G r e e k , runs: " K i n g A g r i p p a to Josephus, greeting.

dearest

F r o m w h a t y o u h a v e w r i t t e n y o u appear

stand in no need of instruction, to enable us all

(i)}iac; oXooc)

learn ( e v e r y t h i n g from y o u ) from the beginning.

to to

But when you

meet me, I w i l l myself inform y o u o f much that is not generally known." History,

" A n d , " continues Josephus, " o n the completion o f m y not in flattery, which w a s c o n t r a r y to his nature, nor y e t ,

as y o u (Justus) no d o u b t w i l l say, in irony, for he w a s far a b o v e such m a l i g n i t y , but in all sincerity, he, in c o m m o n w i t h all readers of m y volumes, bore witness to their a c c u r a c y . " In a third passage, in the contra

5

Apionem,

he writes in much

the same strain, adding some interesting details.

A l l u d i n g , as in

the p r o e m already quoted, to other so called histories o f the w a r p u t together from hearsay reports b y persons w h o w e r e nowhere 4

Vita 361 ff.

5

Ap. i. 46 ff.

26

SECOND

LECTURE

near the scene o f action, and to unnamed critics of his o w n w o r k , doubtless meaning Justus, he w r i t e s : " I, on the contrary,

have

w r i t t e n a veracious a c c o u n t . . . h a v i n g been present at all the events. I w a s in c o m m a n d of those w h o m w e call Galilaeans, so long as resistance w a s possible; after m y capture I w a s a prisoner in the R o m a n c a m p . . . Subsequently I w a s liberated and s e n t . . . T i t u s t o the siege o f Jerusalem. escaped m y k n o w l e d g e .

D u r i n g that time no

with

incident

I k e p t a careful record o f all that w e n t

on under m y eyes in the R o m a n c a m p , and w a s alone in a position to understand the information brought b y deserters.

T h e n , in the

leisure which R o m e afforded me, w i t h all m y materials in readiness, a n d w i t h the aid o f some assistants for the sake of the G r e e k , at last I c o m m i t t e d to w r i t i n g m y narrative o f the events. S o confident w a s I o f its v e r a c i t y that I presumed to take as m y witnesses, before all others, the commanders-in-chief in the w a r , Vespasian and T i t u s . T h e y w e r e the first to w h o m I presented m y volumes, copies being afterwards

g i v e n to m a n y R o m a n s w h o had taken p a r t in the

campaign.

O t h e r s I sold

to a large number o f m y compatriots,

persons w e l l versed in G r e e k learning, a m o n g w h o m w e r e Julius Archelaus,

6

the most venerable H e r o d

K i n g A g r i p p a himself.

8

7

and the most

admirable

A l l these bore testimony to m y scrupulous

safeguarding o f the truth, and t h e y w e r e not the men to conceal their sentiments o r keep silence had I, through ignorance or par­ tiality, distorted or omitted a n y o f the facts.

A n d yet

certain

despicable persons h a v e essayed to malign m y history, regarding it as a p r i z e composition such as is set to b o y s at school," and so on. H e r e there are several points o f interest.

T h e r e is the

belated

a c k n o w l e d g m e n t o f assistance in the G r e e k .

T h e r e is the criticism

in the last sentence which has e v i d e n t l y w o u n d e d our author.

It

is not, I think, an imputation o f c r u d i t y o f style; o f which, thanks to the author's able assistants, the w o r k cannot be accused, but on the c o n t r a r y that he has sacrificed a c c u r a c y to brilliance. 6

Son of Chelcias and husband of Mariamme, sister of Agrippa II.

7

Unidentified.

8

Agrippa II.

The

T H E "JEWISH W A R "

unnamed

critic is contrasting

Josephus

27

w i t h the great

Athenian

historian, w h o , careless w h e t h e r his sober narrative, d e v o i d of m y t h (TO

uA)9oc8e<;) should be disappointing to the ear, remarks in a

famous phrase, " M y history is an everlasting possession, not a prize composition which is heard and f o r g o t t e n . " author acting as his o w n bookseller.

9

L a s t l y , w e see our

I n the Life

w e are told that

K i n g A g r i p p a received a presentation c o p y , here that he w a s one of the purchasers.

I suppose w e m a y conclude that the pleasure

derived from the first c o p y induced him to b u y a second.

F r o m these statements t w o main facts emerge. was w r i t t e n under R o m a n auspices..

First, the w o r k

It received the imprimatur

of

T i t u s : its a c c u r a c y w a s vouched for not o n l y b y the R o m a n c o m ­ manders, but b y various members o f the tributary r o y a l house, in p a r t i c u l a r K i n g A g r i p p a , w h o w a s consulted at e v e r y stage o f its composition. S e c o n d l y , it w a s issued in t w o forms, an earlier p r o b a b l y A r a m a i c draft for eastern readers, f o l l o w e d b y a G r e e k edition for the western w o r l d . P u t t i n g these t w o facts together, and noting the p r i o r i t y given to the edition intended for the East a n d the r a p i d i t y w i t h which it must h a v e been composed and circulated, w e can safely, I think, d r a w one inference, as to the m o t i v e o f the w o r k , a l r e a d y acutely 1 0

detected b y H e r r L a q u e u r : Josephus w a s commissioned b y

the

conquerors to w r i t e the official history o f the w a r for propagandist purposes.

It w a s a manifesto, intended as a w a r n i n g t o the East

o f the futility o f further

opposition and to a l l a y the

after-war

thirst for revenge, which ultimately found v e n t in the fierce out­ breaks under T r a j a n and H a d r i a n . templated

readers in the p r o e m

Babylonians

and

the

most

1 1

A glance at the list o f con­ is suggestive: " P a r t h i a n s

remote

tribes

of Arabia with

and our

c o u n t r y m e n b e y o n d the Euphrates and the inhabitants of A d i a b e n e . " 9

1 0

Thuc. i. 22 (Jowett).

Laqueur, Derjiid. Historiker 126 f., 255.

" B.J. i. 6.

28

SECOND LECTURE

T h e clanger o f a Parthian rising w a s a constant menace to R o m e , and the p l a c i n g o f that race in the forefront is significant.

Again,

great hopes h a d been built b y the Palestinian J e w s in the recent w a r on assistance from their brethren

in B a b y l o n .

o f the Eastern E m p i r e , " writes J o s e p h u s ,

12

" T h e whole

" w a s in the balance;

the insurgents w e r e fired w i t h hopes o f its acquisition, their opponents feared its loss.

F o r the J e w s h o p e d that all their brethren b e y o n d

the Euphrates w o u l d join w i t h them in r e v o l t . "

T h e s e expectations

were at the time frustrated; but in the later r e v o l t under T r a j a n the D i a s p o r a in M e s o p o t a m i a p l a y e d a leading p a r t .

1 3

W i t h the list

of readers mentioned in the p r o e m should be c o m p a r e d the speech which is p u t into the mouth o f A g r i p p a before hostilities began, w h e r e the same names r e c u r :

1 4

" W h a t allies then d o y o u e x p e c t

for this w a r ? . . . F o r in the habitable w o r l d all are Romans—unless, m a y be, the hopes o f some of y o u soar b e y o n d the Euphrates

and

y o u count on obtaining aid from y o u r kinsmen in A d i a b e n e .

But

t h e y w i l l not, on a n y frivolous p r e t e x t , let themselves be embroiled in so serious a w a r , and, if they did contemplate such f o l l y ,

the

Parthian

the

w o u l d not permit it; for he is careful to maintain

truce w i t h the R o m a n s and w o u l d regard it as a v i o l a t i o n o f the treaty

if

any

o f his tributaries

w e r e to march against

A d i a b e n e w a s the region east of the T i g r i s on the P a r t h i a n

them." frontier.

Its pious queen H e l e n a and her sons w e r e notable converts

to

Judaism, as the J e w s a l w a y s p r o u d l y recalled, and, n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g A g r i p p a ' s alleged w o r d s , some members o f the r o y a l f a m i l y a c t u a l l y f o u g h t on their side. T h i s pacific or propagandist m o t i v e , w h i c h m a y safely be inferred from such passages, is in fact e x p l i c i t l y a v o w e d b y the author in the r e m a r k w i t h which he closes his classical description o f

the

R o m a n a r m y : " I f I h a v e d w e l t at some length on this t o p i c , " he writes,

15

" m y intention w a s not so much to extol the R o m a n s as

« ib. f. 4

1 3

Mommsen, Provinces ii. 221 f.

1 4

B.J. ii. 388 f.

is B.J. iii. 108.

THE "JEWISH W A R "

29

. to console those w h o m they h a v e vanquished and to deter who may be tempted Thus

to

others

revolt"

Josephus, w h o h a d been e m p l o y e d b y T i t u s

throughout

the siege t o counsel submission b y oral exhortation, w a s n o w again e m p l o y e d b y the conquerors to deter his compatriots from

further

revolt b y his pen. H e w a s to serve their interest, indeed, but also to serve his o w n country.

H e w a s no mere hireling; his o w n deepest

convictions told him that the o n l y road to a m e l i o r a t i o n nation's u n h a p p y l o t l a y in submission t o the empire.

10

o f his

H o w far his

narrative m a y h a v e been distorted b y p r o - R o m a n bias is another matter, which remains to be considered.

B u t o f the sanity o f his

counsels there can be n o doubt: the v e r d i c t o f history—the

cul­

minating disasters under H a d r i a n — s h o w e d that, at least from the standpoint o f w o r l d l y w i s d o m , he w a s right.

T h e original A r a m a i c edition w a s lost at an early date, being superseded b y the G r e e k w o r k addressed to the W e s t e r n w o r l d . Of

the theory

recently

a d v a n c e d that the A r a m a i c m a y h a v e

survived in the o l d Russian version I w i l l speak immediately; but it w i l l be convenient first t o refer to another matter which m a y h a v e a bearing on the lost w o r k — I mean the titles. come d o w n to us w i t h t w o distinct titles. connecting

these

t w o titles w i t h

T h e b o o k has

A r e w e justified in

the t w o drafts,

A r a m a i c and

Greek? T h e title b y which the b o o k is ordinarily k n o w n is " (Concerning) the Jewish W a r , " G r e e k ITepi too 'IooSatKoO jtoXep.00, L a t i n De bello Judaico.

A n d that is in fact the name b y which the author

refers to it in his later w r i t i n g s .

*• cf. B.J. 17

17

O n c e more w e are indebted to

v. 19.

Ant. i. 203 " as I have previously stated when writing the Jewish War," xviii. 11

" We have spoken about them (the three Jewish sects) in the second book of the Jewish War" xx. 258 " (all that we did and endured) can be learnt in detail by any who will peruse the books which I wrote on the Jewish War," Vita 412 "...all that I did in the Jewish War and at the siege of Jerusalem I have narrated in detail in my books concerning the Jewish War."

SECOND LECTURE

30

the acute G e r m a n critic, H e r r L a q u e u r ,

18

for pointing out that this

name originated in R o m a n circles: so entitled, the b o o k announces on its face that it is written from the R o m a n standpoint.

For

IOOSOU'KOC; JtoXepxx; means not " T h e w a r o f the J e w s , " but " the w a r against the J e w s . "

T h e insurgents w o u l d speak o f the R o m a n

w a r or, more fully, the w a r o f the J e w s against the R o m a n s : they w o u l d never use the simple gentilic adjective " J e w i s h . " De

hello

Gallico

Caesar's

forms an e x a c t a n a l o g y , or, t o take a modern

example, " t h e South A f r i c a n w a r " : neither G a u l s nor Boers w o u l d so describe those contests.

W e must assume that in R o m e Josephus

a c c o m m o d a t e d himself to R o m a n habit: " J e w i s h W a r " w a s the name b y w h i c h his R o m a n customers w e r e accustomed to order a c o p y o f his w o r k .

B u t it seems incredible that the author, desiring

to catch the ear o f eastern readers and to deter them from

further

revolution b y his narrative o f the recent struggle, should

have

defeated his o w n object b y prefixing a title that must h a v e sounded so offensive, d o u b l y offensive if coupled w i t h his R o m a n Flavius Josephus.

Moreover,

though

the author

had

name,

evidently

contracted the habit in R o m e o f speaking of his " Jewish W a r " and indeed o n l y mentions it under that name, that title appears in none of our M S S . O n l y in the inscription to the first t w o books in Niese's p r i n c i p a l M S (P) d o w e find a modified form o f it, " ( a history) o f the Jewish W a r against the R o m a n s " ('IOU8CUKO0 ;toXe}iou rtpoc; Tcojiaiooc;).

H e r e the added w o r d s seem intended to

r e m o v e the objectionableness of the shorter title; but correction has not been carried far enough, for the adjective " Jewish " i. e. " against the J e w s " remains, and, as L a q u e u r remarks, w e h a v e a double mention o f the opponents. O n the other hand, all the rest o f Niese's M S S , including P in the later books, e m p l o y another title " c o n c e r n i n g (the) (:rtepi aXdbtfeco<;),

capture"

to which is usually prefixed or appended

" of

Jewish h i s t o r y " ('Iou8aiKfj<; terropiaq). T h i s title recurs in other writers, such as O r i g e n and Jerome, the latter of w h o m attributes 18

Der jiid. Historiker 98, cf. 255.

T H E "JEWISH WAR

3

1

it to the author himself: " quae Josephus Judaicae scrip tor historiae septem e x p l i c a t voluminibus, quibus imposuit titulum Judaicae id est :rrepi aXobsea^."

1 9

Captivitatis

Internal evidence supports

ascription o f this title to the author.

the

T h e w o r d aXootftc; is con­

stantly used b y him o f the final t r a g e d y , in c o n n e x i o n w i t h the cardinal events that l e d up t o it.

T h u s the massacre o f the R o m a n

garrison " seemed t o the Jews like the prelude t o capture (or r u i n ) " (rtpooijitov dXdbaecoq, ii. 4 5 4 ) : again he writes, " I

should not be

w r o n g in saying that the capture o f the c i t y began w i t h the death o f A n a n u s " (iv. 3 1 8 ) , and again he calls " t h e Z e a l o t s ' attack on the p o p u l a c e the first step t o w a r d s the c i t y ' s c a p t u r e " (v. 3).

This

quasi-technical use o f the w o r d in the w o r k itself, together w i t h the evidence o f Jerome and the almost unanimous evidence o f the M S S , convinces me that this (jrepi dXdbcreax) is the older title, and not i m p r o b a b l y a s u r v i v a l o f the Semitic title o f the lost A r a m a i c edition.

I h a v e been g r a d u a l l y converted t o the opinion o f m y

friend D r . R o b e r t Eisler, w h o d r a w s a distinction between an older and simpler G r e e k draft, the Halo sis, and a later and more elaborate edition, the Polemos

or " J e w i s h W a r . "

T h e Halosis,

in his v i e w ,

w a s perhaps issued in time f o r the imperial t r i u m p h in 7 1 A . D . T h i s early form o f the w o r k w a s g r a d u a l l y revised, curtailed in some places, expanded in others, in subsequent y e a r s ; the War

Jewish

w a s the title o f the final edition published during the reign of

Domitian.

A n d n o w I must briefly refer to the theory that the original A r a m a i c draft has s u r v i v e d in a Russian dress.

I cannot do more

than touch on this large a n d contentious question, more especially as the materials are not y e t f u l l y accessible t o scholars and I h a v e not had the o p p o r t u n i t y for a thorough study o f those w h i c h h a v e a l r e a d y been published. the important

Full information

is to be l o o k e d for in

forthcoming w o r k o f D r . R o b e r t Eisler, b y whose

masterly investigation o f the subject I h a v e been d e e p l y influenced. 1 9

Comm. in Isaiam cap. 64 sub fin.

SECOND LECTURE

3*

In 1906, in Harnack's w e l l - k n o w n series of Texte 20

suchungen,

und

Unter-

the late D r . Berendts published a G e r m a n version of

some extracts from a N o r t h These extracts

S l a v o n i c or o l d Russian

consisted o f some v e r y e x t r a o r d i n a r y

relating to John the Baptist, a n o n y m o u s l y referred

Josephus. statements

to as " the

s a v a g e , " Jesus also unnamed and called " the w o n d e r - w o r k e r , " and the early Christians. M S S of the War,

These passages find no parallel in our G r e e k

which m a k e no allusion t o C h r i s t i a n i t y or t o its

F o u n d e r or H i s forerunner.

T h e 1 7 k n o w n Russian M S S are not

earlier than the 1 5 t h century; the actual translation goes back t w o centuries earlier, to about 1250 A . D . Perhaps the most i m p o r t a n t p a r t of D r . Eisler's w o r k is that in which he has traced the origin of the S l a v o n i c Josephus back to a Judaizing heresy which in the middle

of

the

13 th

century

while the court o f the T s a r .

invaded

Russia

and

even

for

a

T h e M S S from which the version w a s

made w e r e doubtless obtained from Constantinople.

Berendts put

f o r w a r d the t h e o r y that these strange allusions to C h r i s t i a n i t y were the genuine w o r k o f Josephus, relics o f the original A r a m a i c draft of the War,

which w e r e afterwards suppressed.

Berendts' theory

met w i t h little support at the time: it w a s ridiculed b y Schurer and other critics.

B u t no satisfactory explanation o f these mysterious

passages w a s offered, or w a s possible pending the publication o f a complete text.

Before his death D r . Berendts

had

prepared

a

G e r m a n version o f the first four books of the S l a v o n i c text, and this has n o w been edited b y Professor Grass of D o r p a t .

2 1

T h e last three

books still a w a i t a translator, but, through the liberality of D r . James L o e b , D r . Eisler has been able to obtain

complete

photographs,

which I understand w i l l ultimately find a home in this

country,

and ere long w e m a y hope that the w h o l e w o r k w i l l be accessible in an intelligible tongue. 20 N . R Bd'xiv. 2 1

Flavins Josephus vom JUdischen Kriege, Buck i-iv,

nach der slavischen Ubersetzung 1924-26,

deutsch herausgegeben . . . von A. Berendts und K. Grass, Dorpat, Teil I Teil II 1927.

T H E "JEWISH WAR "

That

the S l a v o n i c is directly

derived from

33 the lost A r a m a i c

cannot be maintained, as Berendts himself recognised.

Investigation

of his G e r m a n version soon reveals that the S l a v o n i c is a trans­ lation from Greek,

and from a M S which, though differing

from

all k n o w n G r e e k M S S , had affinities to a particular group of M S S which Niese regarded as " inferior " and did not a d o p t as the basis of his text.

T h a t is not, h o w e v e r , so serious an objection to the

originality o f the S l a v o n i c and of the u n d e r l y i n g G r e e k exemplar as might at first sight appear.

T h e t w o types o f G r e e k text can

be traced back to the 3rd century and m a y c o n c e i v a b l y both g o back to the author himself, w h o constantly revised his writings.

The

" inferiority " o f the readings of the M S S in question ( V R C ) m a y be due to their h a v i n g preserved an original rougher draft, which the author i m p r o v e d in later editions.

D r . Eisler's opinion is that

the S l a v o n i c is a translation from Josephus' first rough G r e e k version of the original A r a m a i c , before it w a s rewritten in the f o r m in which it has come d o w n to us.

T h a t is the conclusion to which some of

the evidence seems to point. certain transliterated original.

T h e style is simpler than the extant G r e e k : in particular

direct speech (oratio is shorter.

B e l o w the G r e e k D r . Eisler finds, in

w o r d s , indications o f an u n d e r l y i n g Semitic recta)

constantly replaces indirect.

T h e text

T h e proem, w i t h its criticism o f G r e e k historians, is,

as might be expected, absent, though the long introductory from the time o f Antiochus Epiphanes

is included.

narrative

T h e simple

style and the shorter text m a y in p a r t be attributed to the S l a v o n i c translator, w h o clearly often failed to understand his G r e e k original; but deliberate abbreviation w i l l not w h o l l y account for the absence of some of the longer or m u t u a l l y connected sections. It is, h o w e v e r , the additional matter in the S l a v o n i c which has aroused most interest. O f the allusions to C h r i s t i a n i t y I w i l l speak in a later lecture.

But

there are other passages, such as descriptions o f dreams (a favourite topic of Josephus), a priestly debate about H e r o d ' s claims to the throne and the expected Messiah, the ruse b y which Josephus escaped w i t h his life in the c a v e at J o t a p a t a , which are difficult to explain

SECOND LECTURE

34

except as the productions of the Jewish historian, which for various reasons

h a v e been suppressed.

Until

other

passages is forthcoming I should therefore

explanation

of

t e n t a t i v e l y regard

such the

S l a v o n i c as representing, not a v e r b a t i m reproduction o f the original A r a m a i c , but an intermediate stage between it and the e x t a n t G r e e k .

F r o m the lost A r a m a i c , perhaps p a r t i a l l y preserved in this old Russian, I turn to the extant G r e e k text.

T h i s , though described

b y the author as a translation from the A r a m a i c , in f a c t shows no trace of Semitic parentage.

T h e style o f the w h o l e w o r k is an

excellent specimen of the Atticistic G r e e k fashionable in the first century.

Either the translator has done his w o r k

extraordinarily

w e l l , or, as is far more probable, the older w o r k has been p r a c t i c a l l y rewritten.

T h a t Josephus uses the w o r d " t r a n s l a t e "

loosely, w e

k n o w from his other principal w o r k . H e describes his as a translation from the H e b r e w Scriptures;

2 2

Antiquities

but w e k n o w that

in f a c t that w o r k is a free paraphrase o f the Biblical story, made w i t h some assistance from the older L X X version, but in no sense a literal translation of his o w n o r of others. Still the w o r d s used in the War

CEXX&81 yXcjccrarj }i&Taj3a)\.
the polished version produced w i t h the aid of collaborators

had

been preceded b y a rougher draft such as w e find in the S l a v o n i c . W e k n o w that the author in later life, in A . D . 93—4, w a s contem­ plating a n e w edition o f the War,

which w a s to include the after

events of his nation's history brought up t o d a t e .

23

H e w a s constantly

rewriting his w o r k , and our extant G r e e k text is not necessarily the original form. T h i s brings me to the scope and limits o f his w o r k , and to the question o f date.

Here

again, there are indications of

especially of additions at the end.

growth,

T h e latest dated event mentioned

is the dedication of the T e m p l e of P e a c e ,

24

w i t h its w o r l d - f a m o u s

museum of treasures, including some of the principal trophies from Jerusalem. 2 2

T h i s , as w e k n o w from D i o C a s s i u s ,

Ant. \. 5, cf. x. 218.

2

3 Ant. xx. 267.

2 4

25

B.J. vii. 158

t o o k place in flf.

& lxvi. 15.

T H E "JEWISH W A R "

35

the y e a r 7 5 , and the publication o f the War

is c o m m o n l y fixed as

falling between 75 and 7 9 , the y e a r o f the death o f Vespasian w h o received a c o p y . These limits m a y , h o w e v e r , a p p l y o n l y to a single edition, and there is reason to think that the w o r k w a s once shorter and that portions, at least o f the last b o o k , are later appendices. T h e story o f the capture of Jerusalem is concluded in B o o k v i — a natural stopping point; B o o k v i i comprises the triumphal procession and the aftermath of the w a r — t h e extermination o f the last strong­ holds in Palestine, Machaerus and M a s a d a , the rising o f the Sicarii in A l e x a n d r i a , the demolition o f the temple o f O n i a s in E g y p t , and a final rising in C y r e n e , in which the historian w a s accused o f being implicated.

B o o k vii as a w h o l e is distinguished from the earlier

books b y its style;

there

is a

characteristic o f the Antiquities the author's able assistants. on his o w n resources.

large

admixture

of phraseology

and less indication of help

from

H e seems to h a v e been more dependent

T h i s evidence suggests that B o o k v i i , in

w h o l e or in part, m a y h a v e been added later. D r . Eisler, relying m a i n l y on the different endings of the o l d Russian M S S , goes into greater detail, and reconstructs the various stages b y which the w o r k has reached its present form.

T h e last

event mentioned in the author's incomplete " table o f contents " in his p r o e m is the triumph.

D r . Eisler infers that the first G r e e k

edition ended there, and appeared as e a r l y as A . D . 7 1 , the striving to complete a c o p y for presentation that memorable occasion.

author

to the emperors

on

O n e M o s c o w M S ends after the troubles

in A l e x a n d r i a , omitting the demolition of the O n i a s temple events in C y r e n e : this marks a second stage (early in 7 3 ) .

and

L a t e r in

that y e a r came the news o f the closure o f the O n i a s temple which had lasted, according to Josephus, for 343 years, a c t u a l l y for about a century less.

W i t h the addition

o f this a p p e n d i x

Dr.

Eisler

ingeniously connects the mention of the foundation o f this temple at the beginning of B o o k i , first time. 26

2 6

n o w , according to him, prefixed for the

H e n o w read the meaning o f the divine chastisement,

B.J. i. 33. 3*

SECOND LECTURE

3^

which w a s due to the existence o f this second schismatic temple in defiance

of

accordingly.

the Deuteronomic

l a w , and reshaped

his

history

T h i s clever theory w o u l d account f o r the p r e - w a r

history being carried right back to the time o f Antiochus Epiphanes, nearly 2V2 centuries before the outbreak o f the R o m a n w a r ; but it has t o be admitted that it lacks external support.

L a s t l y , other

Russian M S S stop short in the middle o f the troubles in C y r e n e , omitting the accusation brought against Josephus o f being implicated in the plot.

T h e Russian translator seems to h a v e e m p l o y e d more

than one G r e e k M S ; but the inference d r a w n b y D r . Eisler from these various endings of the Russian M S S that they are derived from older a n d shorter forms o f the w o r k seems a little precarious.

I pass from

the genesis o f the w o r k a n d the stages in its

composition to the materials

from which it has been constructed.

T h r o u g h o u t his later a n d larger w o r k , the Antiquities, intersperses

constant

allusions

to

his authorities.

allusions are to be found in the Jewish

War.

the author No

similar

T h e historian in his

earlier w o r k is consistently a n d , it w o u l d seem, deliberately silent as to his sources, merely leading us to infer from his p r o e m that his

information

is largely

first-hand

and

based

on

his o w n

recollections as an eyewitness, that he is independent o f previous historians, has collected the facts w i t h laborious care and c o n ­ structed the f r a m e w o r k o f the narrative himself.

C o n t r a s t i n g him­

self w i t h the erudite Greeks w h o neglect the stirring actions o f their o w n times a n d confine themselves to w r i t i n g u p the great historians of the past, he remarks: " T h e industrious w r i t e r -is n o t one w h o merely remodels the scheme and arrangement

o f another's w o r k ,

but one w h o tells o f recent events and makes the f r a m e w o r k o f the history his o w n . " 2 7

2 7

B.J. i. 15 cpiXortovo^... 6 }iei& too K o u v a Xeyeiv

KCCI

to oub\xa rfj^ ioropiac

KataoKeua^cuv (Siov. This recalls the attack on Justus, who claimed credit for industrious research (rtfep tor Soiveiv cpiLortovog eivcu) in Vita 338; but, though wanting in the Slavonic, the proem to the War can hardly be brought down so late as the second century, when Justus' work appeared.

THE "JEWISH W A R "

37

These scanty hints can be supplemented b y some notices, already mentioned, in his later works—references to the notes which he kept throughout

the siege o f proceedings in the R o m a n c a m p , to

the

information as t o the condition o f affairs w i t h i n the c i t y supplied b y deserters, and to the long correspondence w i t h A g r i p p a . N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the emphasis laid on the author's personal con­ tributions

as eyewitness and reporter,

it is probable that,

apart

from the early G a l i l a e a n c a m p a i g n and a f e w other scenes in which he p l a y s a prominent part, his o w n notes and recollections are a c o m p a r a t i v e l y minor factor

in the narrative.

The

bulk

of

it

appears to be derived from a d o c u m e n t a r y source o f R o m a n origin. T h a t is suggested, inter alia, b y numerous close parallels to Josephus to be found in the other, unfortunately

fragmentary,

account o f

the opening scenes o f the w a r contained in the 5 th b o o k o f the Histories

of Tacitus.

These Histories

within the lifetime of Josephus,

w e r e written at R o m e almost

but the R o m a n ' s

antipathy

to

the J e w s makes it improbable that he consulted our author's w o r k . B o t h seem to be dependent on a c o m m o n source.

W h a t w a s that

document? W i l h e l m W e b e r , in a recent suggestive b o o k , the backbone of the w h o l e narrative

2 8

maintains

that

is a " F l a v i a n w o r k , " of

which the theme w a s the rise to p o w e r of the F l a v i a n d y n a s t y . T h i s opened w i t h a sketch o f the disposition o f the R o m a n legions in A . D . 66 (incorporated

in the great speech which Josephus

into the mouth o f A g r i p p a ) , included the bulk o f B o o k s

puts iii-vi,

and ended w i t h the triumph w h e n , in the w o r d s o f Josephus, " the city of R o m e k e p t festival at once for her v i c t o r y in the c a m p a i g n against her enemies, for the termination

o f her civil dissensions,

and for her d a w n i n g hopes o f f e l i c i t y . " been justly objected that the scathing makes

to

previous publications

on

T o this theory it has

reference

the

war

which

renders

Josephus it

highly

improbable that he has based his narrative on a literary w o r k of this 2 8

nature. Josephus und Vespasian, Berlin, 1921.

SECOND LECTURE

38

T h e source is rather to be sought higher up, in fact at the fountainhead

of

intelligence from

the R o m a n

standpoint.

The

author

appears to h a v e h a d access to a document o f the first importance, no

less than

the

"memoirs"

or

" c o m m e n t a r i e s " (6jTop.vi)|iaTa)

of the R o m a n commanders, V e s p a s i a n and T i t u s . made to these Commentaries

in the War

N o allusion is

itself, but t h e y are thrice

mentioned elsewhere in contexts w h i c h s h o w that Josephus familiar w i t h them.

was

In the a u t o b i o g r a p h y , r e p l y i n g to the attacks

of Justus o f T i b e r i a s , Josephus reminds him o f certain hostilities for which he and his fellow-citizens w e r e responsible at the opening of the w a r , and which w e r e brought to the notice o f V e s p a s i a n on his a r r i v a l . of m y o w n .

He

adds:

2 9

" T h i s is n o unsupported

assertion

T h e facts are recorded in the Commentaries

E m p e r o r V e s p a s i a n , which further

o f the

relate h o w the inhabitants of

Decapolis pressed him, w h e n at Ptolemais, to punish y o u as the culprit."

Ptolemais w a s the point reached on the first march o f

Vespasian from his base at A n t i o c h ; the Commentaries w e n t back to the opening o f the c a m p a i g n . the same opponent, Josephus w r i t e s :

3 0

therefore

Further on, addressing

"Perhaps, however, you

w i l l say that y o u h a v e accurately narrated the events which t o o k place at Jerusalem.

H o w , p r a y , can that be, seeing that neither

w e r e y o u on the scene o f action, nor h a d y o u perused the mentaries

Com­

o f C a e s a r (i. e. T i t u s ) , as is a b u n d a n t l y p r o v e d b y y o u r

account which conflicts w i t h those Commentaries'!

"

In other w o r d s ,

says our author, " Y o u had not either o f m y a d v a n t a g e s . " 31

in the contra Apionem,

Again,

" S u r e l y one cannot but regard as audacious

the attempt o f these critics to challenge m y v e r a c i t y . as they assert, they h a v e read the Commentaries

E v e n if,

o f the imperial

commanders, t h e y at a n y rate h a d no

first-hand

acquaintance w i t h

our position in the opposite c a m p . "

T h e s e t w o last passages in

which the w r i t e r is contrasting his o w n qualifications w i t h those of others, c l e a r l y i m p l y that the Commentaries w h e n he w r o t e the 2 9

Vita 342.

War. 30 ib. 358.

31 Ap. i. 56.

w e r e before him

T H E "JEWISH W A R "

39

T h e author's silence in the w o r k itself concerning his main source is in keeping w i t h c o n t e m p o r a r y custom and intelligible on other grounds.

A s Professor C a d b u r y has pointed out in a recent w o r k ,

3 2

it w a s the c o m m o n practice of historians to use sources w i t h o u t naming them and to name sources w i t h o u t using them.

T h e main

source w a s unnamed, its language being not retained verbatim paraphrased used it.

and transformed

y

but

into the style o f the author

who

O n the other hand, a subsidiary source, which the w r i t e r

did not f o l l o w , might be named in occasional instances o f a con­ flict o f authorities: there are m a n y instances o f that in our author's Jewish

Antiquities.

In the War

there w a s a p p a r e n t l y but the one

main document, and that remains nameless.

Josephus w a s thus

o n l y doing as others did in concealing this R o m a n source o f in­ formation.

B u t perhaps w i t h o u t injustice his silence m a y p a r t l y

be attributed to v a n i t y .

H e w o u l d h a v e us k n o w that the frame­

w o r k o f the narrative is his o w n , and a mention o f this source, w h a t e v e r w e i g h t it might a d d to his authority, might detract from his personal fame, and indeed from his claim to impartiality.

At

a n y rate, like his a c k n o w l e d g m e n t o f aid f r o m his G r e e k assistants, his allusions to the Commentaries

o n l y appear in his later w o r k s ,

w h e r e they are e v o k e d b y the criticisms o f Justus and others. T h e Commentarii

principales

w e r e , w e m a y suppose, the d a i l y

record o f m i l i t a r y proceedings, based on the notes,

presumably

in L a t i n , made on the field o f action b y the R o m a n commanders a n d their staff.

T h e s e rough materials m i g h t be subsequently p u t

out in a more literary shape b y the c o m m a n d e r himself as the official

record o f the c a m p a i g n , like the Commentarii

Gallico

o f Julius C a e s a r ; more often the w o r k i n g up o f the polished

narrative w o u l d be left to professional hands. of

de

Bello

T h e original language

the u n d e r l y i n g record is, like the original A r a m a i c o f

our

author's first draft, o v e r l a i d and almost concealed, but occasionally the L a t i n still shines through.

T h u s , w h e n w e read that the R o m a n s '

incentives to v a l o u r w e r e " t h e i r 3 2

Making of Luke-Acts 170, cf. 158 f.

continuous campaigns a n d

per-

SECOND LECTURE

40

p e t u a l training, the magnitude of their empire, and a b o v e all T i t u s , ever

and

everywhere

present

j r a v t a x o i ) Jtapatoyxdvccv),

33

beside

all

(TITOC del

jrdatv

the collocation of " ever, e v e r y w h e r e ,

a l l " strongly suggests that L a t i n phrase " q u o d semper, q u o d ubique, q u o d ab o m n i b u s , " familiar as a definition o f the Christian C a t h o l i c faith,

but

for

which older

this source w e m a y , inter

p a g a n parallels can be found.

To

alia, attribute the concise itinerary of

the march o f T i t u s from A l e x a n d r i a to Caesarea, w i t h its bare enumeration descriptions

o f the various s t a g e s , 35

34

the names and occasionally

o f the R o m a n heroes w h o distinguished themselves in

the various engagements, even perhaps some o f the geographical sketches of Palestine interspersed

throughout

the narrative,

such

as the description o f the D e a d Sea to which Vespasian p a i d a visit of e x p l o r a t i o n :

3 6

the account in T a c i t u s

3 7

offers some striking

parallels and is p r o b a b l y derived from the same source.

From

this or from some other official source must come the information w i t h regard to the disposition of the R o m a n legions throughout the provinces o f the R o m a n empire on the outbreak o f the w a r in A . D . 66, here w o r k e d up into the great speech, o f K i n g A g r i p p a , and strikingly confirmed b y other Jewish

enemy

as

" the

nation"

evidence. (not

" our

References to nation")

3 8

the

o r " the

b a r b a r i a n s " also b e t r a y the h a n d o f a foreigner. F o r the p r e - w a r

period, the long i n t r o d u c t o r y

history which

fills the first and the b u l k o f the second b o o k , Josephus is again a p p a r e n t l y dependent in the main on a single writer, here unnamed, but frequently mentioned in the Antiquities,

N i c o l a s o f Damascus,

the intimate friend of H e r o d the G r e a t a n d of the emperor Augustus, author of a universal history and other w o r k s , including perhaps a separate life o f H e r o d .

N i c o l a s is p r o b a b l y the authority

for

the slight opening sketch of the H a s m o n a e a n house ; the historian here shows no certain acquaintance w i t h the first b o o k o f Maccabees, 3 3

B.J. v. 310.

3 5

3 4

ib, vi. 54 f., Sabinus: " his skin was black, his flesh shrunk and emaciated."

3 6

ib. iv. 476 ff.

3

ib. iv. 658-end.

7 Hist. v. 6.

3

* B.J. ii. 345 ff.

T H E "JEWISH WAR

41

of which he afterwards made large use in the Antiquities.-

From

N i c o l a s undoubtedly

story

comes the disproportionately

detailed

of H e r o d the G r e a t , which fills two-thirds o f B o o k i, a n d o f the accession o f Archelaus, in which he himself p l a y e d a leading part as a d v o c a t e o f the heir to the throne. F o r the sixty years intervening between Archelaus a n d the out­ break o f the w a r Josephus might be expected to h a v e obtained in­ formation

on A g r i p p a I

from

that

monarch's

son, his

A g r i p p a I I , and f o r later events to h a v e d r a w n

friend

upon his o w n

recollections; but D r . Eisler has acutely s h o w n that he is m a i n l y dependent f o r this period on official documents preserved in R o m e .

Besides the materials accessible to the historian, another

factor

in the composition o f his w o r k , o f which account must be taken in estimating its character and credibility, is its c o n f o r m i t y t o certain current conventions o f its age. O n e recognised convention a m o n g ancient historians w a s the insertion into the narrative o f speeches put into t h e mouths o f the leading c h a r a c t e r s .

39

Josephus

freely

indulges in this practice, a n d a f e w w o r d s m a y be said about his speeches.

These orations w e r e a licensed field for invention a n d

the display o f rhetorical skill, subject to some m i n o r of w h i c h the need f o r a shorthand reporter w a s n o t one.

restrictions,
L i k e the

chorus in a G r e e k p l a y , " as Professor C a d b u r y writes, " they served to r e v i e w the situation f o r the reader, a n d they brought o u t the inner thoughts a n d feelings o f i m p o r t a n t persons."

T h e example

had been set b y the sober T h u c y d i d e s , w h o s e speeches are w o r l d famous, a n d w h o d i d m a k e some effort t o recover the actual w o r d s . Y o u w i l l remember his classic allusion t o the subject: " A s to the speeches which w e r e m a d e either before or during the w a r , it w a s hard f o r me, a n d for others w h o reported them to me, t o recollect the exact w o r d s .

I h a v e therefore

p u t into the m o u t h o f each

speaker the sentiments proper to the occasion, expressed as I thought he w o u l d be l i k e l y to express them, 3 9

w h i l e at the same time I

In this and the following I am indebted to Cadbury, Making of Luke-Acts 184 ff.

SECOND LECTURE

4*

endeavoured, as nearly as I could, to g i v e the general p u r p o r t o f what was actually s a i d . "

4 0

L a t e r writers w e r e not so scrupulous

and nothing more w a s required than that the speeches should be "in

character."

Speeches m a y be either

direct or indirect,

the

latter f o r m p r o b a b l y more nearly approaching the authentic address than the other.

Julius

C a e s a r in his De Bello

i n v a r i a b l y reports his o w n speeches in oratio

Gallico 41

indirect a.

almost Direct

speech, o n the other hand, w a s the usual medium for oratorical display and the expression o f the historian's v i e w s . In Josephus the speeches m a y r o u g h l y be d i v i d e d into three classes. A small minority perhaps a p p r o x i m a t e t o the w o r d s a c t u a l l y spoken. Speeches arising out o f a particular occasion, especially exhortations to troops before or after battle, f o r m an intermediate g r o u p : these are in keeping w i t h the character o f the speaker and, w h e r e he is one o f the historian's imperial patrons, Vespasian o r T i t u s , m a y preserve the gist o f w h a t w a s said. L a s t l y , w e h a v e the great " s e t " speeches inserted at cardinal turning-points

in the n a r r a t i v e : these

are p u r e l y i m a g i n a r y a n d serve the purpose o f p r o p a g a n d a . A n instance o f a speech that p r o b a b l y approximates to the reality is that o f N i c o l a s o f Damascus a d v o c a t i n g the claims o f Archelaus to the succession t o the Jewish throne before Augustus in R o m e . Josephus is here d r a w i n g either f r o m the speaker's o w n report or possibly from the imperial acta, t o which also he h a d access, and in which precis o f the speeches delivered on that occasion w o u l d be preserved. War

T h e speech is t w i c e reported, in oratio

and in the Antiquities',

obliqua,

in the

there are verbal variations, but the

tenor is the same. The

battle

speeches

of

the R o m a n

commanders

preserve

a

distinction between the character o f Vespasian, the soldier g r o w n g r e y in the service w i t h the steadiness o f years and experience, and the more impetuous T i t u s whose ripe m a n h o o d acts as the a r m o f his father's b r a i n . 4 0

4 2

42

T w i c e o v e r w e find p u t into the mouth o f 4 1

Thuc. i. 22 (Jowett). Weber, Josephus und Vespasian 219. Cf. the description in B.J. iii. 4-6.

T H E "JEWISH

WAR"

43

T i t u s w h a t appears to be a reminiscence o f a line in the Electro, o f Sophocles ( o p a jrovoo t o i x ^ p t c

0088V

Boroxei)-

43

Before the w a l l s

of Tarichaeae T i t u s says to his troops, " B u t besides haste w e need toil and resolution: great successes never cQme w i t h o u t

risks":

4 4

and before Jerusalem " I f a n y considered this an arduous operation, let him reflect that w i t h o u t achieved b y a n y m a n . " suggests a paraphrase from

Suetonius,

40

4 5

toil nothing

great c o u l d l i g h t l y be

A c o m m o n p l a c e , no doubt, but the G r e e k

o f the A t h e n i a n poet.

T i t u s , as w e learn

w a s " r e a d y w i t h L a t i n or G r e e k , whether

speaking or in composing p o e m s . "

in

T h e reminiscence might there­

fore actually come from him, though it is more l i k e l y to be a delicate compliment o f the historian or his amanuensis.

Besides

these battle speeches o f the R o m a n generals, w e h a v e an exhortation of H e r o d the G r e a t to his disconsolate troops after a defeat b y the A r a b s , f o l l o w e d b y an earthquake. 4

1

War "

and in the Antiquities

T h e speech in the War

T h i s is t w i c e reported, in the

and in t o t a l l y different language.

is T h u c y d i d e a n , recalling that o f Pericles

to the Athenians exasperated b y invasion and the p l a g u e :

4 9

the

earthquake is here a " visitation o f heaven " as the plague is there. In the Antiquities

the o n l y item which the speech has in c o m m o n

w i t h that reported in the War in murdering Jewish e n v o y s .

is an allusion to the A r a b s ' crime T h e discrepancies indicate that both

speeches are w h o l l y i m a g i n a r y . B u t it is the elaborate set speeches for great occasions which are most

significant.

T h e s e are oratorical

displays,

general propagandist purpose o f the w o r k .

subserving

the

" B o w to the invincible

w o r l d empire," " It is the decree o f d e s t i n y , " that is their

theme,

and it is put into the mouths of the Jewish leaders, w h o must them­ selves be made to pronounce their impotence and righteous d o o m . W e h a v e three or more such speeches, that o f A g r i p p a dissuading his c o u n t r y m e n from hostilities before the outbreak, that o f Josephus 4 3

4 6

4 7

Line 945.

4 4

B.J. iii. 495.

4 5

ib. v. 501.

Tit. 3 " Latine Graeceque vel in orando vel in fingendis poematibus, promptus." B.J. i. 373-379.

4 8

Ant. xv. 127-146.

4 9

Thuc. ii. 60 flf.

SECOND LECTURE

44

beneath the w a l l s o f the beleaguered c i t y , and that o f the

last

outstanding rebel, E l e a z a r , at the close. T h e great speech o f A g r i p p a is a w o n d e r f u l tour

de force,

though it w a s c e r t a i n l y never spoken, possesses distinct

and,

historical

value, being comparable to the classical digression on the R o m a n a r m y in the t h i r d b o o k .

5 0

A s y o u w i l l remember, it is a s u r v e y of

the R o m a n empire, p r o v i n c e b y p r o v i n c e , and g i v i n g in each case the number o f legions which suffice to maintain order.

It has set

the modern critic a problem to discover whether the

distribution

o f the legions here set forth is that o f the y e a r 66, in which the speech purports to h a v e been delivered, or, as seems more probable, o f a rather later y e a r .

D r . Eisler infers from some discrepancies

in the S l a v o n i c text that our author's older draft, the Halosis,

did

in f a c t represent the position in 66, that the particulars m a y h a v e been obtained through A g r i p p a , w h o w a s attached to Vespasian's headquarters as leader of his a u x i l i a r y contingent, and that in the War

w e h a v e the situation brought up to date in 7 5 .

In a n y case

w e m a y be sure on the one hand that the information is based on official records, on the other that A g r i p p a never delivered it.

His

short a p p e n d e d speech, in effect " P a y y o u r tribute and restore the porticoes c o m m u n i c a t i n g w i t h the R o m a n garrison in A n t o n i a , "

5 1

m a y be genuine; but the w r i t e r o f the slipshod letters preserved b y the historian w a s h a r d l y capable o f such an oratorical effort. F r o m Josephus himself before the w a l l s o f Jerusalem w e h a v e a two-fold obliqua

5 2

speech counselling surrender, the first h a l f in

oratio

on the theme " G o d is on the R o m a n side " and containing

one fine phrase, " F o r t u n e

h a d from all quarters passed o v e r to

them, and G o d w h o w e n t the round o f the nations, bringing to each in turn the r o d o f empire, n o w rested o v e r I t a l y , "

5 3

the second

half in oratio recta d r a w i n g from a s u r v e y o f Jewish relations w i t h foreign nations the lesson o f history " A r m s h a v e not been granted t o the J e w s . "

B o t h portions w e r e doubtless penned in the writer's

5

° B.J. ii. 345 ft, ill. 70

5 2

ib. v. 362-374: 376-419.

ft 5 3

v. 367.

si B.J. ii. 403 f.

T H E "JEWISH WAR

45

scriptorium in R o m e , the former h a l f in the more difficult indirecta

oratio

w i t h able assistance.

A t the close w e h a v e p u t into the m o u t h o f one o f the principal rebels, E l e a z a r , defender o f the last stronghold o f M a s a d a n o w reduced to extremities, another

double speech recommending

the

occupants o f the fortress to destroy each other rather than submit to R o m e . H e r e the theme is " G o d has sentenced us to destruction: the R o m a n s cannot

claim the credit o f v i c t o r y , "

and

this

is

supported b y an a r r a y o f instances o f recent Jewish disasters, for which R o m a n s w e r e not responsible.

It is g r i m l y entertaining

to

contrast the arguments here adduced in f a v o u r o f self-destruction w i t h those brought f o r w a r d b y Josephus

himself to p r o v e

the

iniquity o f suicide w h e n his o w n life w a s at stake at J o t a p a t a .

54

H e w a s a skilful a d v o c a t e .

It remains for me to attempt to f o r m some estimate o f the general trustworthiness of the narrative.

Materials, m o t i v e , personality—

those are the principal factors that g o to the m a k i n g o f a w o r k of literature and determine its character and v a l u e ; and f r o m

those

points o f v i e w the credibility o f the history o f the Jewish

War

must be judged. Of

first-hand

materials he had n o lack. R a r e l y can w a r historian

in ancient or modern times h a v e enjoyed such a combination o f opportunities for presenting a veracious picture o f events.

Com­

batant at the outset and then onlooker from the opposite c a m p , he had his o w n notes taken on the spot; he had access to the official record o f the c a m p a i g n compiled b y , or under the supervision of, the enemy's generals—the Commentaries for further

information

on matters

o f V e s p a s i a n and T i t u s ;

"not

generally k n o w n "

he

could a p p l y to the Jewish K i n g A g r i p p a , as he did in a prolonged correspondence; for particulars

o f events in Jerusalem

and

the

horrors o f the siege he had the evidence o f deserters, w h o m he alone w a s in a position to understand. 5 4

iii. 362-382.

He

had

the

perhaps

more

4

6

SECOND LECTURE

questionable benefit of excellent literary assistants.

General

and

historian like T h u c y d i d e s , he shared w i t h the great A t h e n i a n the a d v a n t a g e o f v i e w i n g the c a m p a i g n from the standpoint o f both belligerents.

" Associating w i t h both sides, w i t h the Peloponnesians

quite as much as w i t h the A t h e n i a n s , because o f m y e x i l e , " writes Thucydides:

5 5

" I w h o at the opening o f the w a r myself fought

against the R o m a n s and in the sequel w a s perforce an o n l o o k e r , " writes J o s e p h u s .

56

I f w e ask w h a t use our historian m a d e o f these ample and first­ hand materials and turn to consider his motives and personality, it must be confessed that his w o r k cannot stand the test o f c o m ­ parison w i t h that highest o f standards, the History ponnesian

War.

of the

Pelo-

Josephus lacks the sober i m p a r t i a l i t y o f T h u c y d i d e s

and, w i t h all his reiterated protestations o f his zeal for the truth, shows f r o m time to time, w h e n his statements are subject to control, a l a x sense o f the full meaning o f that w o r d . H i s m o t i v e , as I h a v e said, is clear.

H i s w o r k is p r o p a g a n d i s t :

he writes, as he himself says, to console the vanquished w i t h the thought o f the invincible might of imperial R o m e a n d to deter his c o u n t r y m e n and others from further r e v o l t .

57

H e w h o speaks

of " the innate generosity of the R o m a n s to those w h o m t h e y had once s u b d u e d "

5 8

doubtless voices the boasted m o t t o of the victors

in the V i r g i l i a n line " parcere subjectis et debellare superbos."

5 9

Y e t in this attitude he did not stand alone a m o n g his c o u n t r y m e n . T h e Essenes, under whose spell he c a m e in earlier life, compelled their novices to swear, inter

alia,

to " k e e p faith w i t h all men,

especially w i t h the p o w e r s that be, since n o ruler attains his office save b y the w i l l of G o d . "

6 0

In v e r y similar language

another

Pharisee o f the Pharisees had preached to his Christian converts in R o m e , " L e t e v e r y soul be in subjection to the higher p o w e r s : for there is no p o w e r but o f G o d , and the p o w e r s that be are ordained of G o d . " 5 5

5 9

0 1

E v e n Johanan ben Z a k k a i , that s t a l w a r t patriot w h o

Thuc. v. z6.

5 6

Aen. vi. 853.

6 0

BJ. i. 3.

5 7

ib. iii. 108.

BJ. ii. 140.

6 1

Rom. xiii. 1.

5 8

ib. iii. 347.

T H E "JEWISH W A R "

47

escaped from the beleaguered c i t y in a coffin and w h o in the

first

difficult p o s t - w a r d a y s set out to recreate a n e w Judaism on the ruins o f the past, a m a n o f a v e r y different stamp from

Josephus,

yet, like him, " i s said to h a v e predicted the calamitous outcome of the w a r , and during the siege o f Jerusalem " to h a v e " counselled peace w i t h the R o m a n s as the o n l y s a l v a t i o n . " other R a b b i n i c a l sayings to the same effect.

6 2

A n d there are

I t w a s p r o b a b l y in 66,

at the time of the cessation o f the d a i l y sacrifices for R o m e , an action which, as Josephus says, " laid the foundation o f the w a r , "

6 3

that R . H a n i n a uttered the w a r n i n g , " P r a y for the w e l f a r e o f the government, for if it w e r e not for the fear o f it, men w o u l d s w a l l o w one another up a l i v e " ; and again, in the persecution under H a d r i a n , R . Jose ben K i s m a preaches the same doctrine as Josephus, " T h i s people (the R o m a n s ) has been g i v e n the k i n g d o m b y H e a v e n , for it has ruined his house, and burnt his temple, and slain his pious ones • . . and still it s t a n d s . "

6 4

Josephus w a s thus not the

mere

p u p p e t o f the conquerors; he expresses his sincere convictions which w e r e shared b y other leaders of his race. But

I

am

concerned

not

so much w i t h

the

question

of

the

e x p e d i e n c y o f this p o l i c y and propagandist

m o t i v e , as w i t h

bearing on the truthfulness of the narrative.

A n d here it must be

its

confessed that the glamour of imperial R o m e and adulation o f his patrons h a v e overcoloured the picture, detracted f r o m the historian's i m p a r t i a l i t y and on occasion raised serious doubts as to his v e r a c i t y . The

campaign

is v i e w e d through

Roman

spectacles.

The

pro-

R o m a n bias appears, as has been seen, on the v e r y title p a g e o f the " J e w i s h W a r , " in the speeches, in the p a n e g y r i c on the

Roman

a r m y (highly instructive as is that classic description), a b o v e all in the e u l o g y o f the hero T i t u s . phrase

I h a v e p r e v i o u s l y quoted

the

about T i t u s " ever and e v e r y w h e r e present beside e v e r y ­

b o d y , " and w e h a v e numerous references to his personal and unaided 6 2

Moore, Judaism ii. 1 1 6 .

6 3

B.J. ii. 409.

6 4

Abodab Zarah 18 a, quoted with the previous passage by Moore, op.ciu ii. 114.

SECOND LECTURE

4§

prowess. " T h u s , " writes Josephus in his account o f a Jewish attack on the R o m a n c a m p on the M o u n t o f O l i v e s before the siege, " thus, if, w i t h o u t a syllable added in flattery or w i t h h e l d from e n v y , the truth must be told, C a e s a r personally t w i c e rescued the entire legion w h e n in j e o p a r d y , a n d enabled them to intrench themselves in their c a m p unmolested."

6 5

B u t if this constant praise o f his patron, that

magnetic personality w h o w a s not o n l y the soldier's f a v o u r i t e but w a s k n o w n as the " darling o f the human r a c e , "

6 5 a

is intelligible

and not w h o l l y unmerited, w e h a v e one crucial instance w h e r e the testimony o f Josephus is directly contradicted b y a later historian, and his v e r a c i t y is open to serious question.

Josephus describes a

council o f w a r upon the fate o f the temple, at which, after the expression o f various opinions, T i t u s pronounced that it w a s under all

circumstances

to be spared.

T h e fourth-century

Christian

writer, Sulpicius Severus, possibly dependent on the lost w o r k o f T a c i t u s , also describes this council, but here the roles are reversed and it is T i t u s w h o sanctions the destruction o f the b u i l d i n g .

66

The

evidence o f Sulpicius is vitiated b y his putting into the mouth of Titus

some

words

about

the Christians

which can h a r d l y

be

authentic; but the k n o w n p a r t i a l i t y o f Josephus cannot but leave him under the suspicion o f misrepresenting the facts to clear his hero. F o r the earlier p r e - w a r history Josephus has afforded us a certain check

upon

his statements

a n d g i v e n us some insight into the

treatment o f his sources b y the duplicate narrative in his

Antiquities.

T h e subject matter has been sometimes rearranged, the language has been intentionally v a r i e d a n d there are not unnaturally some in­ consistencies between the t w o accounts.

B u t , generally speaking, it

m a y be said that the author faithfully f o l l o w s his authorities, one of w h o m , N i c o l a s , p r o v i d e s a v i v i d c o n t e m p o r a r y , if s o m e w h a t biassed, picture o f the monarch whose reign fills so large a place in our author's earlier p a g e s — H e r o d the G r e a t . 6 5

B. J. v. 97.

6 6

6 5

B.J. vi. 238 flf., Sulpicius, Chron. ii. 30 ("At contra alii et Titus ipse evertendum

* " deliciae generis humani * Suet. Tit. 1. ,,

in primis templum censebant ).

T H E "JEWISH WAR

49

It is otherwise w i t h the passages in which the War the Life.

overlaps w i t h

H e r e , as I h a v e said, there are unaccountable discrepancies,

of a minor or graver character, which cannot all be attributed carelessness.

to

T h e author found himself in a difficult position in

t r y i n g to reconcile his position as Jewish patriot and counsellor o f peace w i t h R o m e .

I f w e cannot penetrate to the true history o f

his e a r l y career in Galilee, there is here an obvious lack o f candour, and these autobiographical notices must be p r o n o u n c e d worthy.

untrust­

In some cases o f inconsistency he has been suspected, not

unjustly it w o u l d seem, o f deliberate misrepresentation of details in order to ingratiate himself w i t h his other p a t r o n , K i n g A g r i p p a . T h e narrative o f the w a r is one-sided, and, to balance it and tc see the other side o f the picture, w e w o u l d g l a d l y recover the lost w o r k o f Justus of Tiberias, or, better still, h a v e the story presented b y Johanan ben Z a k k a i o r b y another o f those w h o witnessed the siege from w i t h i n .

T h e villain, John o f Gisehala, cannot h a v e been

quite so black as he is here painted; and the " r o b b e r s " or Zealots w o u l d h a v e another tale to tell o f their patriotism.

Josephus him­

self bears grudging testimony to the fortitude under

persecution,

comparable to that o f the early Christian m a r t y r s , o f the Z e a l o t refugees in E g y p t , w h o refused under all manner acknowledge Caesar as their l o r d ;

6 7

o f torture to

and the end o f the d e v o t e d

defenders o f M a s a d a w a s sublime. But, after all reservations h a v e been made, the narrative o f our author in its main outlines must be accepted as t r u s t w o r t h y .

Con­

sidered as a w o r k o f art, it takes high r a n k in literature; the reader's appreciation o f its merits, for which the author is l a r g e l y indebted to his skilled assistants acquaintance. the

theme

description.

and

constant

revision, g r o w s on

closer

T h e poignant story is told w i t h a pathos w o r t h y o f

and

with

all

the

resources

of

vivid

and

O n e specimen m a y fitly close this lecture.

dramatic Many

brilliant passages might be quoted: the rout of the legion o f Cestius in the pass of Bethhoron, the burning o f the T e m p l e , the mutual 6 7

BJ.

vii. 417 ff.

SECOND LECTURE

destruction of the defenders of the last fortress of M a s a d a . I w i l l select one less tragic, in w h i c h the author himself

But figures,

and not w i t h o u t an element of humour—the reception at Jerusalem of the news o f the fall of J o t a p a t a : —

6 8

" W h e n the news of the fate o f J o t a p a t a readied Jerusalem,

it

w a s received at first w i t h general incredulity, both because o f the magnitude o f the c a l a m i t y and because no eyewitness had come t o confirm the report.

In fact, not a m a n h a d escaped to tell the tale;

rumour, w i t h its natural propensity t o black tidings, spontaneously spread the news of the c i t y ' s fall.

Little b y little, h o w e v e r , the

truth m a d e its w a y from place t o place, and w a s soon regarded b y all as established b e y o n d doubt.

B u t the facts w e r e

embroidered

b y fiction; thus Josephus himself w a s reported to h a v e fallen w h e n the c i t y w a s taken.

T h i s intelligence

filled

Jerusalem

with

the

profoundest grief; whereas in each household and f a m i l y there w a s mourning of the relatives for their o w n lost ones, the for the c o m m a n d e r w a s national.

lamentation

W h i l e some mourned for a host,

others for a relative, some for a friend, others for a brother, all alike w e p t for Josephus.

T h u s for thirty d a y s the lamentations

never

ceased in the c i t y , and m a n y o f the mourners hired flute-players to a c c o m p a n y their funeral dirges. "But

w h e n time revealed the truth

and

all that h a d

really

happened at J o t a p a t a , w h e n the death of Josephus w a s found t o be a fiction, and it became k n o w n that he w a s alive and in R o m a n hands a n d being treated b y the c o m m a n d i n g officers w i t h a respect b e y o n d the c o m m o n lot o f a prisoner, the demonstrations of w r a t h at his being still alive were as l o u d as the former expressions o f affection w h e n he w a s believed t o be dead.

Some abused him as a

c o w a r d , others as a traitor, and throughout the c i t y there w a s general indignation, and curses w e r e heaped upon his d e v o t e d h e a d . " A m i d these imprecations of his c o u n t r y m e n , from which he w a s thenceforth never to escape, I w i l l leave the unfortunate for this evening. 6

2

* B.J. iii. 43 ~439-

historian

T H I R D LECTURE

THE "JEWISH A N T I Q U I T I E S " I spoke yesterday of the most famous, and in m a n y w a y s the finest, of our author's w o r k s , the Jewish magnum

opus, the Jewish

Antiquities,

War:

t o - d a y I turn to his

or, as w e should rather call

it b y the G r e e k title which he used himself, the Jewish

Archaeology.

T h e t w o w o r k s in several respects present a m a r k e d contrast: in their rate of composition, the external conditions under which they were produced, and a b o v e all their m o t i v e .

T h e Jewish

War

was

w r i t t e n in the prime of life w i t h surprising, almost lightning rapidity, one A r a m a i c edition and perhaps t w o in G r e e k appearing w i t h i n half a dozen years of the c a m p a i g n : the Archaeology laboured

work

of

nearly

twenty

years

of

middle

was life,

the often

a p p a r e n t l y laid aside in weariness, and o n l y finally carried to c o m ­ pletion through the encouragement and instigation o f others.

The

War w a s w r i t t e n w i t h all the advantages o f imperial patronage and support:

the Archaeology

w a s compiled

under

the

last

of

the

Flavians, a man of v e r y different character from his father

and

brother—the emperor D o m i t i a n , the e n e m y o f literature.

Lastly,!

the earlier w o r k w a s a message of w a r n i n g addressed in the instance to Jewish and eastern readers t o deter them from

first

further

revolt b y p o r t r a y i n g the invincible majesty o f R o m e : the later w a s designed to m a g n i f y the Jewish race in the eyes of the G r a e c o R o m a n w o r l d b y a record o f their ancient and glorious history. T h e death of T i t u s in the y e a r 81 and the accession o f D o m i t i a n doubtless effected a change for the worse in the security o f the

4*

T H I R D LECTURE

historian's position. biography

2

Laqueur

1

infers from an allusion in the auto­

t o " Jewish accusers " that the occasion w a s seized b y

his opponents t o represent Josephus to the n e w emperor as a traitor. B y his usual tact the author succeeded in averting these dangers and retaining some share o f imperial f a v o u r , but he had lost the a c t i v e support o f court in his literary undertakings.

H e was n o w writing

under the blighting influence which in this reign deterred authorship of a n y description.

W e are told b y S u e t o n i u s

3

that D o m i t i a n ' s

reading w a s confined t o the official reports o f his grim predecessor Tiberius.

4

Teuffel, the historian o f R o m a n literature, w r i t e s : " T h e

superficial interest in literature, which D o m i t i a n h a d f o r m e r l y dis­ p l a y e d vanished o n his accession t o the t h r o n e . . . (His) hand l a y h e a v y o n all intellectual life.

H i s t o r i c a l w r i t i n g suffered most o f

all under his o p p r e s s i o n . . . U n d e r D o m i t i a n the o n l y course possible w i t h o u t risk o f o u t l a w r y or the sacrifice o f personal honour, w a s the one f o l l o w e d b y Juvenal, T a c i t u s and P l i n y — n a m e l y , silence." It w a s , adds Teuffel, o n l y the w e a k and servile w h o ventured to write, such as M a r t i a l and Josephus. T h e collocation o f these t w o authors is, h o w e v e r , a trifle unjust to Josephus, Antiquities,

since he never refers t o D o m i t i a n

throughout

except once t o date the y e a r o f its publication;

5

the and

the theme o f this w o r k w a s certainly not the glorification o f R o m e . O n the c o n t r a r y , deprived o f his former patrons, he seems finally to sever his connexion w i t h R o m a n political p r o p a g a n d a , and hence­ forth

figures solely as Jewish historian

and apologist.

B u t this

severance o f R o m a n ties and adoption o f another a n d more patriotic theme d o not, t o m y mind, indicate a n y a b r u p t change o f attitude: Laqueur's suggestion

6

that in w r i t i n g the Antiquities

the author w a s

p r o m p t e d b y self-interested motives, hoping t o rehabilitate himself w i t h his offended c o u n t r y m e n , seems to me fanciful.

I d o not doubt

that the earlier w o r k , w i t h its counsel o f submission t o R o m e , w a s 1

Der jiid. Historiker Fl. Josephus 258.

3

2

Suet., Dom. 20 " praeter commentaries et acta Tiberi Caesaris nihil lectitabat."

4

Hist, of Rom. Literature ii. 109.

5

Vita 429. Ant. xx. 267. ,

6

op. cit. 260.

T H E "JEWISH A N T I Q U I T I E S

53

equally inspired by genuine patriotism, and we know that the project of writing his nation's history was no new one, having been con­ ceived when he wrote the Jewish War. The author had lost or broken away from his old Roman friends. He was, it seems, also on less friendly terms, if he had not actually broken with his pro-Roman friend King Agrippa: that is suggested by a passage in the Antiquities ' where he severely censures the crimes of Herod the Great, in opposition to his eulogist Nicolas, and regardless of hurting the feelings of his royal posterity. Bereft of his royal patrons, Josephus sought and found another in a certain Epaphroditus, to whom all his further writings are dedicated. The name was not uncommon, but this new friend is probably to be identified with Marcus Mettius Epaphroditus, a Greek grammarian mentioned by Suidas, who had been trained in Alexandria, and spent the latter part of his life in Rome, where he collected a library of 30,000 books and enjoyed a high reputation for learning, especially as a writer on Homer and the Greek poets. To him and his large library our author doubtless owes much of his learning, in particular that intimate acquaintance with Homeric problems and Greek mythology shown in the contra Apionem. In him too he found a publisher and advertiser of his writings. 1

9

From these external conditions under which the Jewish logy was written, I pass to the author's motives

and models,

Archaeo­ as set

forth in an interesting proem to the work itself. He finds that historians are actuated by a variety of motives, of which he names four: an ostentation of skill in composition, flattery of the principal ^ actors, personal participation in events impelling the eyewitness to narrate them, and the benefit to the public of a presentation of important and useful facts of which they are ignorant. He himself has been influenced by the two latter motives. His participation in and intimate knowledge of the events impelled him to write the Jewish War. His feeling that the Graeco-Roman world has much to learn from the history of his nation and will find it worthy of 7

Ant.

i.

6.

8

Ant.

xvi.

187.

54

THIRD LECTURE

study now constrains him to write the present Archaeology. He had in writing the earlier work contemplated prefixing such a history to it, but recognised that the scheme was too vast and decided to reserve the Archaeology for a separate work. Even so he has found the latter a very laborious task and has only been induced to carry it to completion by the instigation of his patron and other interested friends. He had not lightly undertaken the work. Two questions had given him cause for serious reflection, concerning the propriety of such a work and the demand for it. On the one hand, he asked him­ self, Were our forefathers willing to impart such knowledge to others? on the other, Was there a Greek public anxious for the information? He found both questions satisfactorily answered in the traditional story of the origin of the Alexandrian version of the Scriptures. That enlightened monarch, Ptolemy Philadelphus, had keenly desired to add to his library a translation of the Jewish Law, and the high priest Eleazar had not grudged him every assistance, which he would certainly have refused had it been the custom of his nation to make a secret of its treasures. He, Josephus, would imitate Eleazar's generosity, in the belief that there were still many lovers of learning like-minded with the king; and, whereas that old Greek version had been limited to the Law, he would extend the narrative to the long and glorious record of the subsequent history. The work moreover would have a high moral purpose, viz. to show that true felicity comes only from following the revealed will of God, and to extol the merits of the lawgiver, who kept his narrative pure from the unseemly mythology current among others land had the most lofty conceptions of the Deity. Such is the historian's preliminary statement, which calls for but little remark. On the question of publicity versus jealous reserve and obscurantism he sides with the Alexandrians. The legitimacy of paraphrasing the inspired Scriptures, especially in a foreign tongue, had always been a debatable point; and he doubtless has in mind the opinions of the contemporary Palestinian school of men

T H E "JEWISH

ANTIQUITIES

55

like R. Johanan ben Zakkai and R. Akiba, now engaged at Jamnia in fixing the Hebrew text and building up a fence about the Law. Even at Alexandria, as Josephus would know from the Letter of Aristeas? the perils of too free a use of Scripture were recognised. "How is it," says Philadelphus to his librarian, after hearing the reading of the Law, "that none of the historians or poets ever thought of mentioning such great deeds?," and he is told of the afflictions which befell Theopompus and Theodectes for their intention to introduce incidents from the Law into their works. But what was forbidden to the rash Gentile was lawful to the reverent Jew: the work of the Seventy had been followed up by the histories in more popular form of Demetrius and others, and one bold writer, Ezekiel, even ventured to present the story of the Exodus in the form of a Greek tragedy. In Palestine such under­ takings were viewed with less friendly eyes. Even the Aramaic Targum had as yet hardly been committed to writing; and the Alexandrian version was now in disrepute. The alleged date of its production, observed at Alexandria as a festival, was kept by some Palestinians as a fast, and tradition asserted that the impious venture was punished by one of the old plagues of Egypt. How­ ever, these objections have long since lost any validity which they may have ever possessed, and generations of readers are indebted to the Alexandrians, and still more to Josephus, for their knowledge of Jewish history. Incidentally it may be noted that while he correctly states that the original Greek version of the Scriptures was confined to the Law, he characteristically ignores the translation of the later books, of which he makes large use. As regards a reading public, the recent war had doubtless created a demand for such a work. The sculptures on the arch of Titus would serve to arouse curiosity in Rome concerning the history of this ubiquitous 10

1 1

9

1 0

§3^ff.

Appendix to Megillath Ta'anith,

vol. i. pt. vi, Oxford 1895. 1 1

As Laqueur remarks, op. cit. 259.

ed. Neubauer, Anecdota Oxon. Semitic Series,

THIRD LECTURE

5^

race, whose religious influence was already making itself felt in every household. Josephus expressly names the Greek Bible as in a sense a model for his own work. But there was also another unacknowledged model, which would find even less favour in Palestinian circles, the Roman history of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Such pagan models are kept in the background: neither Thucydides nor Dionysius is mentioned in our author's major works which derive much from them. Dionysius, an Asiatic, who like Josephus had migrated to the capital of the Empire, had in the year 7 B.C. produced in Greek a history of Rome, only second to that of Livy, entitled 'Pa^aiKij 12

'ApxcaoXoyia

(Roman

Antiquities)

and comprised in 20 books.

Exactly a century later Josephus produced his magnum opus, also in 20 books, to which he gave the title louSaiKf) 'Ap\mo\o\m{Jewish Antiquities). There can be no doubt from the name and the identical number of books that this work is intended as a counterpart to the other. If, in his Jewish War, the author had offended Jewish susceptibilities by recommending submission to the conqueror, he would now make amends by showing that his race had a history comparable, nay in antiquity far superior, to that of the proud Roman. The work of Dionysius bore the name of Archaeology, being largely devoted to the earlier and mythical history of the race: Josephus would carry back his history, based on the Hebrew Scriptures, in which there was no admixture of " unseemly mytho­ logy current among others," to the creation of the world. Josephus was extolled by Jerome as " a second Livy": he might more aptly have been called " a second Dionysius." He owes nothing to Livy: of the influence of the Asiatic writer I will quote two further instances. Here is our author's account of the while he embraced Eleazar and Joshua them, a cloud suddenly descended upon a ravine. But he has written of himself 1 2

c.Ap.

ii.

284.

1 3

Ant.

iv.

326.

13

passing of Moses: "And and was still talking with him and he disappeared in in the sacred books that he

THE

"JEWISH A N T I Q U I T I E S "

57

died, for fear that men should venture to say that owing to his surpassing virtue he had gone back to the divinity." This seems clearly reminiscent of the passing of the two founders of the Roman race, Aeneas and Romulus, as described by Dionysius. "But the body of Aeneas," he writes, "could nowhere be found and some conjectured that he had been translated to the gods"; and again of Romulus, " The more mythical writers say that as he was holding an assembly in the camp darkness descended upon him from a clear sky and... he disappeared, and they believe that he was caught up by his father Ares." From Dionysius too, I think, is derived a recurrent formula, relating to incidents of a miraculous or quasi-mythical character, which the author repeats as he finds them recorded in Scripture, without committing himself to a statement that they are literally true, and leaving the reader to form his own opinion. Dionysius, after mentioning conflicting views on such incidents in early Roman history, often concludes with the phrase, slightly varied in the wording, "But let every one (of my hearers) judge as he w i l l . " So Josephus ends his allusion to the longevity of the patriarchs with the words "But concerning these things let every one think as he pleases"; again, he has, he says, narrated the passage of the Red Sea as he found it described in the sacred books, and the credibility of the story is supported by a similar incident in the history of Alexander the Great, " but concerning these things let each decide as he thinks fit"; on the wonders of Sinai " let each of my readers think as he will, but I must narrate these things as they are recorded in the sacred books," and so constantly elsewhere. In the century after Josephus this non-committal attitude on the mar­ vellous has become an established doctrine for historians. Lucian 14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

1 4

Dionys., Ant. Rom. i. 64.4.

1 7

Dionys., Ant. Rom. i. 48. 1 (Kpivetio be cbg eKacrog fcbv

48. 4 (^x&rio

ib. ii. 56. 2.

1 6

Or " haranguing " (eKKXrjcicc^ovfa). CXKOUOVTIOV

poiO.etai),

6*1) t i g aurov jreiOei), cf. ii. 40. 3, 70. 5, iii. 35. 5.

« Ant. Jud. i. 108. 2 1

1 5

1 9

ib. ii. 348.

2 0

ib. iii. 81.

ib. iii. 268, 322, iv. 158, viii. 262, xix. 108: longer formulas in x. 281, xvii. 354

(with characteristic verbosity of this assistant): once in the Jewish

War v. 257.

T H I R D LECTURE

58

in his treatise on How history

should

22

be written

lays down the

rule: "And should any myth come into question, it should be related but not wholly credited: rather it should be left open (ev |iec>cp Oeteog) for readers to conjecture about it as they will, but do you take no risks and incline neither to one opinion nor to the other." Thus Josephus is here conforming to contemporary convention, but I have little doubt that Dionysius is again his immediate model. From what has been said the author's motive is clear. He is embarking on a task never before attempted, though a beginning had been made at Alexandria, of presenting the complete history of his nation in the manner of contemporary pagan historians for the benefit of the world at large. This magnum opus must be cursorily dealt with in a lecture, and I can but touch on a few outstanding points. The work naturally falls into two nearly equal parts, the dividing-line being the close of the exile reached at the end of Book x. I may pass lightly over the earlier portion, based mainly on the Biblical record, because I shall have more to say on the author's text and interpretation of the Bible in my next lecture. As a rule he closely follows the order of the Biblical narrative, but he has, with apologies to his countrymen, rearranged and made a condensed and partial digest of the Mosaic code, reserving further treatment for a later work. Again, in the history of the Monarchy, he has naturally amalgamated the two accounts in Kings and Chronicles. He has been taxed, perhaps a little too severely, with " whitewashing" the history by omitting discreditable incidents. The omission of the story of the golden calf and the .breaking of the first tables of the Law is the most glaring. On the other hand, unlike the Biblical Chronicler, he has not hesitated to tell the story of David's sin and the disastrous sequel. 23

2 2

Quomodo Hist, sit conscribenda 60 (67).

2 3

Ant.

iv.

196

ff.

T H E "JEWISH

ANTIQUITIES"

59

Besides the Bible, he quotes, wherever possible, external authority in support of it. Berosus the Babylonian, Manetho the Egyptian,Dius the Phoenician historian, Menander of Ephesus, the Sibylline oracles, the Tyrian records, Herodotus and others supply evidenceon such matters as the flood, the longevity of the patriarchs, the tower of Babel, the correspondence of Solomon and Hiram, Senna­ cherib and Nebuchadnezzar. But his repertory here is limited, as is shown partly by his repetition of some of these passages in the contra Apionem, partly by the fact that more than once a long array of names ends with that of Nicolas of Damascus, on whose Universal History he draws largely in his later books and who is probably here too his main authority. Some sources he knows only at second hand through Nicolas. Occasionally the apologetic nature of the work shows itself in replies to those anti-Semite critics who are more fully confuted in the contra Apionem. The author would gladly omit the uncouth names of Jacob's descendants who accompanied him to Egypt, but feels bound to mention them in order to disprove the assertion of the Egyptian origin of his race. Moses' laws on leprosy make the suggestion ridiculous that he himself was a leper. The explanation of the three reasons why Moses did not take the direct route from Egypt to Palestine is apparently another answer to current objections. Personal animosity breaks out in one of those recurrent satirical attacks on the Samaritans, " those versatile people who when they see the Jews prospering call them their kinsmen, claiming descent from Joseph and consequent relationship with them, but when they see them in danger assert that they have no connexion with them and are not bound to them by any tie of friendship or race, giving themselves out to be resident aliens." The story of King Saul is the occasion of two curious digressions, the first a reflection on the evil transformation of character produced by rise to power, the 24

25

26

27

28

2 4

Ant. i. 94 f., ioy{.;

2 7

ib.

ii.

322

f.

2 5

cf. i. 159 f., v i i . 101. 2

8

ib.

ix.

291; cf.

xi.

341,

xii.

ib. ii. 177. 260.

2 6

ib. iii. 265.

6o

THIRD LECTURE

second an encomium upon him as the type of the really brave man who, knowing his predicted doom, unflinchingly goes out to battle to meet it. In this connexion I may mention a strange encomium upon the lawgiver, because the commendation of the particular merit for which he is praised—his candour—has an indirect bearing on the author's own practice with regard to the use of his sources, and gives perhaps a rather sinister insight into his own mind. We are told that Moses " highly honoured " Balaam " by recording his prophecies, and, though it was open to him to appropriate and take the credit for them himself, as there would have been none to convict him, he has given him this testimony and deigned to per­ petuate his memory." Similarly, in recording the advice of Jethro to his son-in-law to delegate judicial duties to others, our author extols the magnanimity of Moses in not concealing the fact that this system did not originate with himself, "holding it right to bear faithful testimony to merit, even though he might increase his own reputation by taking credit for the inventions of others." This last passage, it is true, finds a partial parallel in Rabbinic tradition; but the two together illustrate the contemporary practice of historians of absorbing and appropriating the work of their predecessors without acknowledgment. Josephus did not stand alone in regarding what we should call " plagiarism" as a venial offence, and full acknowledgment of indebtedness as an outstanding merit; but he affords a rather flagrant instance of failure to imitate the lawgiver's candour. 29

30

3 1

32

Passing to the post-exilic history, which occupies the last ten books of the Antiquities, we are given a patch-work, compiled from such miscellaneous materials as were at the author's disposal. The lack or abundance of available materials accounts for much disproportion in the narrative; there are unfortunate gaps, notably 2 9

Ant. vi. 262, 343 ff*.

3 2

3 0

Sifre (mentioned by J. Weill in Th. Reinach's French translation in loc).

ib. iv. 157 f.

3 1

ib. iii. 73 f.

T H E "JEWISH A N T I Q U I T I E S

6l

in the earlier portion, from the first return from exile down to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, where a period of nearly four cen­ turies is compressed into two books (xi—xii), while elsewhere the narrative expands into minute fulness, three whole books (indeed portions of four) being devoted to the reign of Herod the Great. For the story of the return and the period immediately following, for which we should welcome a second independent version to check and supplement the notoriously confused account in Ezra and Nehemiah, the author is solely dependent on the still less historical form of it contained in the Alexandrian Bible, the so called " Esdras A " and the Greek book of Esther. Some gleanings from the lives of Alexander the Great, the Letter of Aristeas, reproduced in a free paraphrase, and the story of Joseph the tax-collector, giving us a glimpse of the condition of Palestine under Ptolemaic rule, bridge the gulf down to the Maccabean age. From the period of Antiochus Epiphanes down to the rise of Herod the Great the author has more abundant materials, and the main point of interest is the determination of the various sources— their number and value and the extent to which they are severally employed. The author plainly has used three main sources: the Greek first book of Maccabees, unnamed but freely paraphrased, and, when special Jewish documents begin to fail him, the two lost universal histories of pagan writers, Nicolas of Damascus and Strabo, who are constantly mentioned. Of these two Nicolas, who had served him occasionally from the opening of the Antiquities and continues to serve him down to the reign of Archelaus, is now his mainstay; Strabo is a subsidiary source. Polybius is twice men­ tioned; beyond these authors it cannot be said with certainty that he has used others, except at second hand. But, having reached a period already partially covered in the Jewish War, he has, it seems, also had recourse to his earlier work, with a view to avoiding verbal repetition. 3 3

3 3

Ant.

x i i . 13

5 f., 3 5 8

t.

62

THIRD LECTURE

In that earlier work his main source, as here, had been the invaluable Nicolas; but he has now accumulated a considerable mass of other materials, and in particular has discovered a first rate authority for the revolt under Antiochus Epiphanes and the rise of the Hasmonaean house, viz. the first book of Maccabees. Of that Alexandrian work the slighter sketch in the War shows no knowledge; and even now the author seems to have obtained only an imperfect copy of it. At any rate the parallels with that book stop short at the death of Jonathan, and no use is made of the last three chapters which carry on the story up to the death of his brother Simon. It has been maintained that Josephus knew i Mac­ cabees only in an earlier and shorter edition; I should rather be inclined to refer this omission to the imperfection of his MS. This book is the last of a corpus of Alexandrian versions of the later historical books of the Bible, from Samuel onwards, of which Josephus has fortunately obtained a copy, and the loss of the last few pages of a MS is a common phenomenon. 34

This whole question of investigation of sources, what the Germans call Quellenkritik, though a necessary and sometimes fascinating task for the historian, is apt perhaps to appear somewhat repellent. But there does arise at this point a problem of more general interest, affecting our author's method of work as a whole. A theory has been propounded, which raises the questions: Did Josephus make use of a large "anonymous" source, which embraced and had already combined into a larger whole those which he expressly names? Did he, whether through careless copying of his authorities or deliberately, lay claim to the work of others? Or did he himself, as he appears in places to assert, write a separate lost work on the history of Syria and adjacent countries? 35

It has been maintained by Destinon that Josephus knew the i st book of Maccabees and certain other documents only at second 3 4

Ant. xiii. 212, i Mace. xiii. 30: the three following paragraphs in Josephus (213 ff.)

possibly continue the dependence up to the end of 1 Mace. xiii. 3 5

Die Quellen des Fl. Josephus, Kiel, 1882.

THE "JEWISH ANTIQUITIES

63

hand and that he appropriated, with but slight alterations, a work in which Jewish and pagan authorities had already been amalgam­ ated. This theory is based upon the use of a little formula of reference, taking sometimes a personal, sometimes an impersonal form—"as we have shown" or "as has been shown elsewhere" (KOCGCOC; EV aXkoiq 8e5rjXdbKa|iev or SedrjXcoTai). The phrase is constantly found in this portion of the Antiquities (Books xiii and xiv) at the close of paragraphs relating mainly to Syrian, some­ times to Parthian, history, where the writer breaks off and reverts to his main theme. In Book xiv the passive is always used, " as has been shown ev aXXotc," or, in one instance, " by others" (OJT' dXXcov), where the reference to external authorities is un­ mistakable. But in the thirteenth book we consistently find the personal phrase "as we have shown elsewhere," used in precisely the same way. In this book two sources have been amalgamated in alternate blocks, 1 Maccabees and another relating to Syrian history: a patch from Maccabees is followed by a patch from an unknown work, and the formula in question, referring the reader to some further source of information of Syrian history, occurs at the juncture, where the narrative of Maccabees is resumed. Destinon argues that the personal phrase must be read in the light of the impersonal expression found elsewhere, where the reference is undoubtedly to the work of others, and so far I should agree with him. But he further infers that the whole formula has been taken over unchanged from an older author, who wrote a separate work on Syria, and, since the formula only occurs at the points of juncture, as a sort of connecting-link between Syrian and Jewish history, he thinks that the amalgamation of these two elements in the narrative must have already been made in the anonymous source. Here I hesitate to follow him. 36

37

38

3 6

Ant. xiv. 119, 270.

3 8

3 7

The personal form is attested in all the instances in this book (xiii. 36, 61, 108,

ib. xiv. 122.

119, 186, 253 [cod. P], 271, 347, 371 f.), the impersonal form occasionally appearing as a variant reading in some MSS.

6

T H I R D LECTURE

4

I believe, with Schurer, that this theory is unsound. It is on several grounds improbable. Though Josephus, like other historians, does not always mention his sources, it seems a needless complication to multiply their number, when so many are in fact either named or identifiable. He has elsewhere combined distinct sources him­ self, as in the case of Kings and Chronicles, and he may be given the credit of similar patchwork here. That he has made a direct use of i Maccabees is proved, to my mind, by the nature of the text. As will be shown in a later lecture, Josephus used a Greek Bible for the historical books from Samuel onwards containing a text of a peculiar type. This type of text persists in the extracts from Maccabees; and that the supposed anonymous writer should have likewise used just this particular recension of that book appears improbable. Moreover, the majority of our author's references are verifiable, and the formula which I have mentioned is not unlike others which he uses elsewhere: it is doubtless his own and not taken over from his source. It remains to explain the use of the first person, the " we," which recalls a similar problem arising in the so-called " we passages " in the Acts of the Apostles. Careless as Josephus was and unscrupulous about taking personal credit for the work of others, I doubt whether he, any more than Luke, was so careless as repeatedly to take over such a phrase from his authority. Did he then write a separate work on Eastern history? We have no record of such activity, other than what may be inferred from a doubtful allusion of Jerome to his having written on the seventy weeks of Daniel, a subject requiring a knowledge of Seleucid history. I think the true ex­ planation probably lies in the direction suggested by Gutschmid and Driiner, namely that Josephus refers to a preliminary work, perhaps a mere collection of excerpts, drawn up for his own use in connexion with the Antiquities and probably never published, 3 9

40

3 9

Comm. on Isaiah, cap. 36, pref. to book xi, Vallarsi, vol. iv, p. 451: see Druner,

Untersuchungen iiber Josephus, i$$6, p. 78. 4 0

op. cit. p. 80.

THE "JEWISH ANTIQUITIES

65

on Syria and Parthia. The tangled history of the later Seleucids would need such a Vorarbeit, and it is clear that he devoted con­ siderable attention to Parthian affairs. Such a work might be indifferently referred to as his own or another's. The reign of Herod the Great, which fills so large a space in our author's canvas, next calls for notice. That period of external splendour and internal oppression, with all the scandals of court intrigue and the horrors of the domestic tragedies, is vividly narrated on the basis of the record of a contemporary and intimate friend of the Idumaean monarch. Moreover, the story is told twice over: we have the briefer and more artistic account in the Jewish War, and the fuller picture covering three whole books in the Antiquities. The two accounts differ not merely in length, but in their arrange­ ment and to some extent in their attitude to the principal figure. In the War the external history of prosperity, with the proud record of public buildings and benefactions, is kept distinct from the tragedies of the court: in the Antiquities the events are told in chronological order. In the War the poignant narrative of the domestic dissensions leading up to the successive murders is told with all the pathos and the technical terminology of a Greek drama. We hear of Nemesis at the outset (i. 4 3 1 ) , of the pollution of the house (638 jiucroc;, cf. 4 4 5 ) , the tempest lowering over it (488), of the villain and " stage-manager of the whole abominable business " 4 1

(530 TOV Xojieobva tffe oiidac; KOU 8 p a | x a t o u p y 6 v 6Xou too jiocooc;),

the anxious waiting of all Syria and Jewry for " the last act of the drama" (543) before sentence is finally passed on the unfortunate sons, the avenging deity (596 tov aXatftopa), the ghosts (Saip.oveq) of the murdered sons roaming the palace and dragging secrets to light (599) or sealing the lips of others (607). The father appears throughout rather as the unfortunate victim of destiny, more sinned against than sinning. In the Antiquities this tragic element is wanting, and we have occasional outspoken condemnation of Herod. 4 1

The break occurs at B.J. i. 431.

66

T H I R D LECTURE

The main source for both accounts, and the sole source for the Jewish War, is undoubtedly the History of Nicolas of Damascus, the close friend both of the Emperor Augustus and of Herod himself, whom he championed and supported through thick and thin, crowning his life of devotion to the father by assisting to secure the succession to the throne of his son Archelaus. Nicolas, like Herod, was son of an Antipater, a circumstance which may incidentally have assisted to foster fraternal relations between the two. Besides his historical works, Nicolas is reputed to have written tragedies, and the dramatic presentment of the domestic tragedy in the Jewish War and its severance from the external history might possibly be attributed to him, rather than to Josephus or his colleagues. In the Antiquities the subject receives much ampler treatment and there are some discrepancies between the two narratives. The assistant, who, as will be shown in a later lecture, here takes over the work, has clearly received instructions from Josephus to avoid repetition by thoroughly recasting the earlier account. To this end he has apparently gone back to the original source, the History of Nicolas, rearranged it in chronological order and made more extensive use of it. But he has also access to other authorities. Allusion is once made to a distinct source—the " memoirs " or " com­ mentaries" (i)jrop,vr')}iaTa) of King Herod himself; but the form of the sentence suggests that he knew these only at second hand. There are other reasons, however, for suspecting different and perhaps conflicting sources, and in one instance we have what looks like a duplication of a single story in different forms. Herod, departing on a dangerous errand, leaves Mairiamme «in charge of his uncle Joseph with instructions to kill her if he does not return: later on he assigns her to the keeping of Sohemus with similar instructions: both warders reveal their orders to the unfortunate lady and pay the penalty with their lives. In the War the two 42

4 3

4 4

4 5

4 2

Ant.

4 3

i. e. the use of the imperfect tense jrepieixeto, as Schiirer points out.

4 4

Ant.

xv.

xv.

174. 65.

4 5

ib.

xv.

202 ff.

THE "JEWISH ANTIQUITIES

67

incidents are merged into one. Among the sources other than Nicolas used in the Antiquities it is commonly held that there was one antagonistic to Herod. I must admit that I am not fully convinced that the occasional criticisms passed upon his character may not come from Josephus himself; at any rate they are presented as his own. Nicolas, the aristocratic friend of king and emperor, survived Herod and, in the role of king-maker, took an active part in the long and embittered controversy on the succession which ensued in Rome before Augustus. That scene, with the embassies and counter-embassies, is narrated in great detail, including two speeches of Nicolas himself in support of Archelaus and his deceased friend. Nicolas is obviously still the reporter. And then this source, which has so long served Josephus in good stead, comes to an abrupt close. The historian is reduced to recounting anecdotes and dreams, and for the momentous -period immediately following has but meagre materials. Sixty years intervened between the deposition of Archelaus in 6 A.D., when Judaea was annexed to the Roman province of Syria, and the outbreak of war in 66. For the latter half of that period Josephus, born in the year of Caligula's accession (37), was alive; and it might be thought that the narrative was here largely based on his own recollections. In fact the contributions from that source appear to be slight; he is still dependent on documents both here and in the corresponding portion of the Jewish War. Dr. Eisler, in his forthcoming work on the Slavonic version of the War, shows how the events of this period there recorded largely turn on incidents of which an official record would be preserved in Rome: the historian has had recourse to state archives and acta immediately 46

47

4

<* ib. xvi. 150 fF., 1836%, 395 ff.

4 7

Clearly forming the historical basis for the New Testament parable of the

" nobleman " who went into a far country, " to receive for himself a kingdom," and of the embassy sent after him to say * We will not that this man reign over us," Luke xix. 12 ff. 5*

THIRD LECTURE

68

at his door. The same seems to apply to the Antiquities, with the difference that more use is there made of Roman literature than of state papers. In fact, for a large portion of the concluding books of the Antiquities, the scene shifts from Palestine to Rome. The out­ standing figure, forming the link between the two places, is again a Herod, and the dramatic story of the rise of Agrippa I from poverty, debt and imprisonment to his grandfather's throne is told with some of the gusto and glamour of the earlier narrative of Nicolas. Roman and Herodian history are in reality closely inter­ woven throughout this episode. Agrippa's varying fortunes are associated with three successive emperors: imprisoned by Tiberius, he is liberated and presented with a kingdom by his beloved Caligula, and then, after his friend's assassination, on that proud day when the tables are turned and a king of Judaea assists in the election of a Roman emperor, he acts as mediator between senate and army on the accession of Claudius. But this association, temporarily so intimate, of king and emperor further serves as a peg on which is hung much interesting, but strictly irrelevant, detail concerning Roman court history. We have a digression on the dilatory policy of Tiberius in the appointment of provincial governors, with the reasons which he himself gave for it (including a little fable), and an allusion to his addiction to divination; and here it is pertinent to recall that at the very time when Josephus was writing this, the gloomy emperor Domitian was studying the statecraft of his predecessor. "Besides the commentaries and acts of Tiberius he (Domitian) read nothing," says Suetonius, and we can imagine that he would not refuse Josephus access to this source and be com­ plimented by an allusion to his only literature. But the longest digression of this sort is the extraordinarily full account of the assassination of Caligula which fills the bulk of Book xix, with the 48

4 9

50

4 8

Ant.

4 9

ib. 216.

5 0

Domit. 20.

xviii.

169-178.

T H E "JEWISH

69

ANTIQUITIES

pictures of the growth of the conspiracy, the repeated delays, the final fixing of the day, the scene in the theatre, and the emperor's murder in the dark passage on his return from the games to the palace. All this is obviously drawn from a Latin source, and, since Mommsen, the writer has been commonly identified with M. Cluvius Rufus, a historian who figures once in Josephus' narrative as quoting a line from Homer. Cluvius is known to have written the history of Nero, but whether his narrative went back to Caligula is uncertain. Any way Josephus has discovered a lively and circumstantial record, which, to eke out his scanty materials and make up the necessary tale of 20 books in imitation of his model, the Roman history of Dionysius, he has not hesitated to incorporate entire, notwithstanding its irrelevancy to his proper subject. Throughout this portion, then, the sources appear to be a Roman history, possibly by Cluvius Rufus, a Herodian history and some state documents. Elsewhere too we find a preponderating Roman element. Thus the famous testimonium Flavianum, of which I shall have more to say in a later lecture, is preceded by the two incidents narrated of Pilate's governorship, which would be recorded in Roman acta in connexion with his later trial, and followed by two Roman scandals leading to the punishment of the priests of Isis and the banishment of all Jews from Rome. From other—non-Roman—sources come two sketches of far Eastern Judaism: one relating to the Jews of Babylon and the brothers Asinaeus and Anilaeus, the freebooters who made themselves so formidable that their services were enlisted by the King of Parthia, and the more pleasing story of the conversion to Judaism of the pious Helena, Queen of Adiabene and her son Izates, also linked 51

52

5 3

54

55

5 1

Ant. xix. 91 £

5 3

Perhaps, as Holscher suggests {Die Quellen des Josephus, p. 80), the main source,

52 See above p. 56.

which has incorporated the Roman history. 5 4

Ant. xviii. 310 ff.

5 5

ib. xx. 17 ff.

THIRD LECTURE

7°

up with Parthian history. Among the few items of purely Palestinian origin we have the list of high priests at the close of the whole work. Of high value, if not quite so high as they are rated by one writer who calls them " the most valuable documents which have come down to us from antiquity," are the state papers which Josephus inserts at various points in the latter half of the Antiquities. These consist of decrees of the Roman senate, edicts of Julius Caesar, Mark Antony, Augustus, Agrippa, Claudius, and subordinate Roman officials, together with decrees of various com­ munities of Asia Minor, usually in pursuance of orders received from Rome, granting and confirming to the Jews certain privileges to ensure the free exercise of their religion. Exemption from military service, protection of sabbath observance, freedom to hold religious meetings, to send without molestation money contributions to Jerusalem, and (in Asia) "to make prayer-houses beside the sea according to ancestral custom," prohibition of the stealing of their sacred books or money from the synagogue (crappatelov), restoration of the charge of the sacred vestments to the high priests at Jerusalem—such are the topics of these documents. Their authenticity is now generally conceded. Josephus was not incapable of composing a correspondence between Hiram and Solomon or improvising speeches of Herod the Great and Agrippa: that was in accordance with contemporary convention. It was quite another matter to refer his readers, as he here does, to the inscriptions engraved on brazen tablets still to be seen in the Capitol at Rome; here invention would lay him open to easy confutation. Whence did he obtain the documents? Suggestions that they had been previously collected by Nicolas of Damascus for his defence of the 5 6

57

58

5 6

Gutschmid (quoted by Schurer).

5 7

Ant. xiii. 260-264, xiv. 145-155, 190-264, 306-323, xvi. 162-173,

x

^ 280-291,

xx. 1 1 - 1 4 ; in all 35 documents are quoted. 5 8

Ant. xiv. 188,266 (evapyf)

aura xaXKaig ot^kav; 5tapi8vouvfa).

KCCI

KCCI

{3Xe*6p.eva teKjjtrjpia jtapexojaeOa... ejrtSetKvuvre<;

bsXtov; ev tcp Kcurera)Xta> p.e\pt v u v S t a j i e v o v t a

KCCI

T H E "JEWISH

ANTIQUITIES

71

Jews of Asia, or by King Agrippa II in connexion with the Alexandrian embassy of Philo, have nothing to recommend them. I have no doubt that Laqueur is right in holding that they were collected by, or rather for, Josephus himself from the archives in Rome. Schurer maintains that the Capitoline library could not have contained more than the Roman papers at most, certainly not the decrees of the cities of Asia Minor: these, he thinks, were collected from the various places. I doubt whether Josephus's own researches extended so far afield, and, as is urged by Willrich, the Jewish provincial authorities would not be too ready to sur­ render copies of their papers to one whom they regarded as a traitor. But an injunction from imperial headquarters was a different thing and could not be disobeyed; and such a mandate had actually gone forth. We learn from Suetonius that Vespasian restored the Roman Capitol, which with its library had been ruined in the conflicts of the year 69 " and undertook the restoration of 3,000 brazen tablets, which had at that time perished by fire, copies 5 9

60

61

6 2

from all quarters being investigated',

a most beautiful and ancient

instrument of government," he continues, " in which are contained, almost from the foundation of the city, decrees of the senate, plebiscites concerning alliance and treaty and privilege granted to all and sundry." The orders to the provinces to send up copies of their state documents to Rome would probably not draw any hard and fast line, and the provincials would be likely to include all that were ultimately dependent on previous instructions received from Roman governors. Here then in Rome, whether in the Capi­ toline library or elsewhere, they were inspected and copied or rather, in most cases, translated, not by Josephus himself, who does not claim to have seen them, but by a colleague. If I am not mistaken, I can trace in these portions, the style of one of the author's able assistants, who has translated them, and the under5 9

Flavins Josephus 227 f.

60 G.J. V. (ed. 3) i. 86 note. 6 1

Urkundenfdlschung, 1924, p. 5.

6 2

Vesp. 8 (quoted by Schurer).

T H I R D LECTURE

7*

63

lying Latin occasionally shines through. The confused state of the Greek text reveals in places the difficulty of the task. I have now completed my brief and inadequate survey of the historian's magnum opus. But before leaving it I should not omit to touch on the concluding paragraphs—the peroration. The author himself would doubtless expect his readers, however much they might have "skipped" of the earlier narrative, to glance at this. For the peroration, like the proem, was of a more personal character, and in particular it was the place for advertisements: here the reader might learn something of other forthcoming productions from the same pen. As was remarked in my first lecture, the Antiquities contains two perorations, a longer and a shorter, written for distinct editions of the work. They are not placed in chronological order. The longer of them, written for the later edition, stands first. It begins " But here I shall close my Archaeology, after which (he means "at the point at which") I began my narrative of the war"; it includes a brief resume of the work, followed by some self-advertisement of his exceptional qualifications, and ends with a statement that he proposes to append a record of his life. This fixes the date as later than ioo A.D., the year of King Agrippa's death, which is referred to in the Autobiography. Then follows the shorter and earlier peroration, which has been retained in the later edition, though relegated to the end. Here we find an allusion to further literary projects. The text runs (xx. 267 f.): " But here I shall close the Archaeology, which is comprised in twenty books and sixty thousand lines. And if the Deity permit, I shall again give a summary description of the war and of what has befallen us to this very day, which is in the thirteenth year of the reign of the emperor Domitian, and the fifty-sixth of my own life." But he has forgotten something and adds a further postscript. 6 3

e.g. in the use of the dative (= Lat. ablative) absolute in place of the genitive,

Ant. xiv. 228 ff. AevKitp AevrXcp Tatcp MapKeXXtp vrtdtoii;.

T H E "JEWISH

ANTIQUITIES"

73

" I also propose to write (in) four books, in accordance with the opinions of us Jews, concerning God and His being, and concerning the laws, why under them some actions are permitted to us and others are forbidden." Here there are one or two points of interest. We learn that the division into twenty books was the author's own, or rather, as I have said, was suggested to him by his unnamed model, the Roman Archaeology of Dionysius. The enumeration of lines or "stichometry," commonly appended as a separate note at the end of a MS, is here included in the text. The ordinary purpose of such enume­ ration was to fix the scriveners' pay: a statement is commonly appended at the end of the several books, and it has been established that scribes were paid by the hundred lines. Here the round number is presumably approximate only and merely inserted to draw attention to the magnitude of the writer's task. The date named is the year 93—4 A.D., some two years before the close of Domitian's reign and seven before the death of Agrippa: if it was taken in hand immediately after the completion of the Greek edition of the War, the larger work was some 18 years in the making. But the main purpose of the paragraph is to advertise the two further projects. Neither of these, to our knowledge, ever saw the light, at least in the form here mentioned. We can infer from internal evidence that the War, like the Antiquities, passed through more than one edition; but of a summary sketch of the campaign, including t^e after history of the nation, there is no trace. The other work, however, as we may infer from the mention of the four books and from scattered allusions in the Antiquities to its intended contents, had taken shape in the author's mind and already been begun. Two distinct topics are mentioned "Con­ cerning God and His being" and "Concerning the laws, their sanctions and prohibitions, and the reasons for them." 64

65

6 4

Rendel Harris, Sticbometry, p. 26.

6 5

In view of his habit of constantly reediting and introducing small changes into

his work, it can hardly be intended as a safeguard against interpolations.

THIRD LECTURE

74

How much of the work was to be devoted to either topic we cannot tell: possibly two separate works were contemplated. Some part of the strictly theological portion has not improbably been incorporated in the fine encomium on Judaism which closes the contra Apionem. The other portion was to deal with "Customs and causes," to use the short title by which he once mentions it. For this preparations had long since been made, indeed from the time when the Antiquities was begun. Thus in the proem to that work he writes: "Those, however, who desire to examine the reasons for everything (in the Mosaic law) will find food for much philosophic reasoning, which I now defer, but on which, if God grant me time, I shall endeavour to write after finishing the present work." To this future treatise he relegates the fuller treatment of various subjects mentioned in the Antiquities: the reason for circum­ cision, the sacrifices (which were apparently to form a separate section), the shewbread, the food-laws and the Mosaic legis­ lation in general. We may regret that the author did not live to complete a work which might be expected to throw much light on current Palestinian, and possibly Alexandrian, exegesis. 6 6

6 7

68

69

70

71

72

Here, without formal peroration, I will close my survey of the Jewish

Archaeology.

6 6

Ant.

6 9

ib. iii. 205 = 230 sv tolq jtepi Ooaidrv.

7 0

ib. iii. 143, 257.

iv. 198.

6 7

7 1

ib. i. 25.

ib. iii. 259.

6 8

7 2

ib. i.

192.

ib. iv. 198,

302.

FOURTH LECTURE JOSEPHUS A N D JUDAISM: HIS

BIBLICAL

TEXT

In previous lectures I have sketched the life of Josephus and briefly reviewed his two major works. It remains to attempt some estimate of the relation in which he stood to contemporary life and thought. The world in which he moved comprised three classes: his Jewish countrymen, the wider Greek-speaking community which he addressed (including his Roman patrons), and the little body of Christians just emerging from obscurity. I propose in this and subsequent lectures to offer some observations on the historian's relationship respectively to Judaism, to Hellenism and to Christianity. On the first and last of these heads I speak with diffidence. I am conscious that my present audience are far better qualified than I am to appraise our author's Hebraic affinities; while his relation to Christianity is, on more grounds than one, a highly controversial subject, the difficulty of which is increased by the fact that the latest evidence has not as yet been subjected to searching criticism, nor even been fully presented in an accessible form. I am indeed aware of my temerity in attempting to criticize Josephus the Jew—to estimate the extent of his acquaintance with Rabbinical thought and the contributions of permanent importance to our knowledge of Judaism which we owe to this Hebrew of Jerusalem, priest and descendant of priests, proud of his connexion on his father's side with the first of the twenty-four priestly courses, on his mother's with the royal Hasmonaean house, and, if we may 1

i Vita i f„ cf. B.J. i. 3.

F O U R T H LECTURE

76

believe him, acknowledged by his compatriots to outstrip them all in the learning of his race. This last proud boast is, indeed, immediately followed by a modest admission that he never succeeded in mastering the pronunciation of Greek; and here I am happy to follow his example, knowing that I lay myself open to the charge of a defective grounding, not only in Hebrew pronunciation, but in Rabbinical lore. Yet, it must, I think, be granted, that these high pretensions lead us to expect something more than we receive: the author's contri­ bution to our knowledge not only of the deeper religious aspects of Judaism, but even of its ritual, customs and antiquities, is some­ what disappointing. We are conscious of a certain superficiality, partly attributable, no doubt, to the Greek audience which he addresses, but largely also to character and training. He excels as a popularizer of the external history of his nation and, in his latest work, as an apologist. But as profound theologian and religious devotee he is wanting, or at least rarely betrays such deeper knowledge and emotions in his works. He lacks the erudition and piety of the Palestinian Rabbi, the rapt mysticism of the Alexandrian Philo. As has recently been said by Professor Moore, "it may be fairly inferred that Josephus, like most of the aristocratic priest­ hood to which he belonged, had little interest in religion for its own sake, and that his natural antipathy to all excess of zeal was deepened by the catastrophe which religious fanatics had brought upon his people." His fine apology for Judaism, the contra Apionem, must not, however, be forgotten, where he does rise to a higher level and display a sincere and impassioned zeal for his country's religion. Apart from that noble legacy, probably the most important contributions which we owe to him are the infor­ mation which he indirectly supplies on the Biblical texts current in the first century, and, to a less degree, a miscellaneous mass of traditional lore or Haggadah. I propose to concentrate on the author's Bible and his Biblical traditions; but, before I pass to those 2

3

2

Ant. x x . 263.

3

G. F. Moore, Judaism i. 210.

77

JOSEPHUS A N D JUDAISM: HIS BIBLICAL T E X T

matters, a few words must be said on the subject of language and some strange explanations which he incidentally gives of some Hebrew proper names. The " language of his forefathers " in which Josephus composed the first draft of his Jewish War was doubtless Aramaic, of which he must have had a thorough mastery. Was his knowledge of Hebrew equally profound? It seems impertinent to question the proficiency of the learned priest in the language of Scripture. Yet others more competent to express an opinion have concluded that his knowledge was " superficial." The test to which he lays him­ self open is his translation of proper names. Many of these are correct enough according to the standards of his time; some were taken over from his Bible, whether Hebrew or Greek. But others are, to say the least, slipshod or actually inaccurate. It is true, as Professor Moore reminds us, that such " interpretations of names were not put forth for the satisfaction of modern philologists but for the edification o f . . . contemporaries," and must not be overstressed. The Professor is speaking of etymologies, even worse, perpetrated by the Alexandrian Philo. Josephus knew better than to suggest, as Philo does, Greek derivations for Semitic words, e. g. to connect Pascha with the verb naayeiv " to suffer " or " Euphrates" with eocppaiveiv. Still we have a right to expect from the Palesti­ nian priest greater exactitude than in the following instances. Eve (Eoa), he says, signifies (cri-jjiaivei) "mother of all"; his Bible (Gen. iii. 20) told him that Adam called his wife Hawwah (" Living " or "Life") "because she was the mother of all"; but that is not what Josephus states. However, this may be attributed rather to indolence than to ignorance: "that is good enough for my Greek readers." On the year of Jubilee he states that the word id pi-jXoq signifies "freedom"; this he takes from the L X X rendering "year 4

5

6

7

8

9

4

B.J. i. 3 tfj jtccrpup (yXcboGr)).

5

Edersheim, art. Diet, of Christian Biography iii. 452 b, quoting Ewald's judgment

" weak in his Hebrew/' 6

Judaism i. 322.

7

Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria 196.

8

Ant. i. 36.

9

ib. iii. 283.

F O U R T H LECTURE

7*

of release" (^viaotog acpececoc), ignoring the traditional Hebrew meaning " ram" or " ram's horn." With this may be linked his explanation of Gilgal or Galgala, "this word means ' f r e e ' " ; the only freedom discoverable here is the liberty taken by the author in this loose paraphrase of the correct Biblical explanation, the rolling away of the reproach of Egypt. The interpretation of Samson, " the name means strong " is probably guesswork, the connexion with Sbemesh " Sun" being practically certain. Philology clearly cannot be regarded as the historian's forte. Yet, as already said, these instances must not be overemphasized, and it is perhaps precarious to draw inferences from them as to his comparative knowledge of the two Semitic languages, since this looseness of interpretation extends even to Aramaic forms. With reference to Pentecost, the Hebrew 'atzereth, he writes " the feast which the Hebrews call dcrapGd means fiftieth'"; had he said "is called Pentecost by the Greeks," he would have been correct, but no etymology of the Semitic word can, I imagine, support this alleged numerical sense. In one curious instance, the name of Reuben, he deserts the Hebrew text and significantly adopts the Syriac and possibly older form, writing Tou|3fjXoc; (Syr. Rubil), which he inter­ prets as " by the mercy of God." How he extracted the meaning "mercy" out of the first syllable is uncertain; but this agreement with the Syriac, and the use of Aramaic forms like dcrapGd and others, suggest that he was perhaps more conversant with Aramaic than with Hebrew, and, when not using a Greek Bible, would turn more naturally to a Targum than to the original text. 10

11

1 2

13

14

1 5

16

1 0

Or " liberal" (eXeuOepiov), ib. v. 34.

1 4

1 1

Similarly in B.J. v. 151 he speaks of Beth-zaith (= " house of olives

Joshua v. 9.

1 2

Ant. v. 285.

1 3

ib. iii. 252.

the northern

suburb of Jerusalem, as " the recently built quarter called in the vernacular Bezetha, which might be translated into Greek as New Town Bezetha and also New Town * (ffjv

KOCI

but ii. 530 " the district called

KaivojtoXiv) shows that he knew better.

1 5

Ant. i. 304 (KCLT eXeov tov Geou); see Encycl. Bibl. iv. col. 4091.

16

1

e.g. for articles of the high priest's vestments; in Ant. iii. 156 he knows both the

Heb. abnet and the Aramaic (b)emian introduced by " the Babylonians." He substitutes }

the Aramaic Diglath for the Heb. Hiddekel, but translates the latter, ib. i. 39.

JOSEPHUS A N D JUDAISM: HIS BIBLICAL T E X T

79

Passing to another subject, we find a similar departure from normal Rabbinical practice in a well-known passage in the contra Apionem, on the canon of Scripture, where Josephus contrasts the 22 "accredited" books of his race with the "myriads of in­ consistent and conflicting books" of other nations. I must not linger on the notorious difficulties of this passage. Josephus implies that the canon had long been closed; whereas we know that almost at the time when he was writing the canonicity of two books, Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, was being debated by Palestinian Rabbis. Again, though he gives a tripartite arrangement of Scripture, it is not the normal division—Law, Prophets, Writings; four books only remain in his third category, the historical books outside the Pentateuch being all placed in the second; and the total number is not the normal 24, but 22. We cannot adopt the view suggested by Gratz that Josephus rejected the two disputed books; for we find this same total of 22 in lists, which enumerate the several books and are given by Christian writers (Origen and Jerome) who were in touch with and derived their information from Palestinian tradition, and who moreover associate the number 22 with the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. The constituent books intended, but not named, by Josephus were doubtless the same as those enumerated by these writers, the total being reduced from 24 to 22 by uniting Ruth with Judges and Lamentations with Jeremiah. When we find Origen giving a list which includes the Hebrew titles and states " Judges, Ruth, with them (i. e. with the Hebrews) in one," "Jeremiah with Lamentations and the Epistle in one," we are led to infer that this strange division of the Bible attested by Josephus was not peculiar to himself or to the Alexandrian school but had support in some Palestinian circles. 17

18

1 9

17

c. Ap. i. 37 ff.

1 8

viz. those * containing hymns to God [ = Psalms + Song

of Songs] and precepts for the conduct of human life [ = Proverbs + Ecclesiastes]." 1 9

ap. Eusebius Hist. Eccl. vi. 25; cf. iv. 26 (for Melito's eastern researches) and Jerome's

Preface to Samuel and Kings (showing acquaintance with three reckonings—22, 24 and 27 books). Dr. C. J. Ball has shown that " the Epistle of Jeremy " is not an original Greek composition but a free paraphrase of a lost Hebrew text.

FOURTH LECTURE

8o

I pass on to consider the Biblical text of Josephus, a matter which, in view of the historian's date, is of considerable importance. First century witnesses to the letter of Scripture are few: indeed we can name only one earlier writer who quotes it freely, viz. Philo, and Philo's quotations are practically confined to the Pentateuch. In the large use which he makes of the later historical books Josephus stands alone, and his evidence antedates our earliest complete MS in any language, the Greek Codex Vaticanus, by nearly three cen­ turies—a period during which the text did not remain unaltered. Widening divergence between local varieties of text led to various revisions on the part of both Jewish and Christian scholars, with a view to establishing the Hebraica

Veritas and checking the progress

of corruption. A witness who takes us far back behind the three local recensions of the Greek Bible known to Jerome in the 4th cen­ tury, behind the Hexapla of Origen in the 3rd, and even behind or at least to the opening days of the great Rabbinical school of Jamnia at the end of the first, carries therefore considerable weight. What was the nature of the text, or texts, which Josephus employed? Whence did they emanate and what is their precise worth? What part did he himself take in the task of translation, and how much does he owe to the labours of predecessors? Those are some of the questions which arise, and the results which seem to emerge are not without interest and importance. The historian himself would lead us to suppose that he translated the Hebrew Scriptures himself. "This work which I have under­ taken," he writes in the proem to the Antiquities, " . . . will contain the complete account of our ancient history and constitution trans­ lated (}is9np}inveup.evnv) from the Hebrew Scriptures"; elsewhere he states, less equivocally, " At the outset of my work... I re­ marked that I was merely translating (or "paraphrasing," jistacpp&^etv) the books of the Hebrews into the Greek language and promised to repeat the story without omission or addition on my own part." 20

2 1

2 2

20 Ant.

i . 5.

21

fa

x

.

2 I

8.

22 Qf.

a l s o Ap.

i.

1.

JOSEPHUS AND JUDAISM: HIS BIBLICAL TEXT

81

These statements, like others of their author, are not to be taken at their face value without reservations. The broad result revealed by a careful study of his use of Scripture is that he employed at least two texts, one in a Semitic language, the other in Greek. Sometimes one was used almost to the exclusion of the other: some­ times both were consulted and amalgamated. I speak of a Semitic language, because the adjective which he uses, 'EppatKoc, might, like the adverb'Eppaicrri in the N. T., include Aramaic, and, while it is probable that he has sometimes gone back to the original Hebrew, there are also indications in places that he is dependent on a Targum. As regards the respective use made of his two Bibles, a clear line of demarcation can be drawn at the close of the Octateuch: perhaps I should rather say at the close of the Pentateuch, for his text of the three books which immediately follow it in the Greek Bible (Joshua, Judges, Ruth) stands a little apart. Through­ out the Pentateuch his main authority is a Semitic text, and the use made of the so-called " Septuagint" is slight; here he is presumably justified in claiming that the translation is his own. From Samuel onwards to the end of the historical books the position is reversed: the basis of his text is a Greek Bible, and the Semitic text is only a subsidiary source. Here he found a large part of his work already done for him, his own share being confined to polishing the style and removing what he considered the vulgarisms of the existing translation. For the three intervening books (Joshua, Judges, Ruth) I find no certain evidence for the use of a Greek text; as between Hebrew and Aramaic, I suspect, in Judges at least, dependence on a Targum. I do not propose to dwell on the historian's Hebrew or Aramaic Bible, but to concentrate on what to me is the more interesting subject—the nature of the Greek text which lay before him. Two instances may, however, first be quoted to show the apparent influence of a Targum. My illustrations throughout will be drawn from the Books of Samuel and Kings, in which, though he is mainly dependent on his Greek Bible, he occasionally has recourse to a

F O U R T H LECTURE

82

23

Semitic text. In the first Book of Kings we are told that the repentant Ahab " fasted and lay in sackcloth and went softly' The word translated "softly" is the substantive m "quietness," here used adverbially; the Greek MSS either omit it or render "bent" or "bowed down" (K8K)U}1£VOC). The Targum, however, has rp; " barefoot," and that was also the text found in his source by Josephus who writes yojivoic tolq Jtocri 8ifjysv. In another instance it is the Targum, again with Josephus as its sole companion, which introduces the idea of "quietly," where all other texts have the reverse. The driving of Jehu was, according to these texts, un­ mistakable to distant spectators by its furiousness; but the Targumist in place of " madly " has " quietly " and Josephus follows him, writing " for he was advancing leisurely and in good order." The author of this text, to whom the quiet driver was a remarkable phenomenon, might almost be thought to have suffered from the pace of the modern motorist! One further instance of dependence on a Semitic text will suffice: the witch consulted by Saul dwelt, according to Josephus, not at Endor, but " in the city of Dor." Here there has been confusion between final Nun and Resh and has been read as -pp.But, as I said, it is the Greek Bible of Josephus which is of main interest. Dependence on the Greek is obvious in the use made of whole books, Alexandrian paraphrases of Scripture, such as the so called ist Esdras, including the fable, of purely Greek origin, of the three pages of Darius, the Greek Esther with similar interpolations, or the ist book of Maccabees, drawn from the extant Greek and not from the lost Hebrew original. It is evident again in the acquaintance shown with isolated Greek glosses in the earlier books, as when Josephus takes over from the L X X that 9

24

25

2 6

2 7

2 8

23 i K. xxi. 27 (=LXX 3 Regn. xx. 27). 2 4

2 5

2

*

Ant. viii. 362; cf. vii. 202 where he translates »p» in precisely the same way. 2 K. ix. 20 (pi»W3, LXX

ev .tapaXXayfj).

rr».

2 7

Ant. ix. 117.

2 3

Ant. vi. 330, 1 Sam. xxviii. 7.

JOSEPHUS A N D JUDAISM: HIS BIBLICAL T E X T

83

vapid reply of David to Goliath's question " Am I a dog?"—" No but even worse than a dog." Not only, however, can we confidently state in general terms that Josephus used a, Greek Bible. We can go further and identify the particular type of Greek text which lay before him. This text was not one of those contained in our oldest uncial MSS, the codex Vaticanus or Alexandrinus, on which our modern printed editions of the Septuagint are based. It was a text allied to one preserved only in a small group of MSS, written not in uncial but in cursive script at a much later date, between the iath and the 14th centuries, and known by the figures assigned to them by the eighteenth century editors, Holmes and Parsons, as 19, 82, 93 and 108. This type of text, which has survived only in these late and, as might be thought, insignificant MSS, was in the nineteenth century identified with a particular recension of the Greek Bible current in Syria and adjacent countries in the fourth century and commonly designated "Lueianic" after its supposed author, the Christian Lucian of Antioch, who suffered martyrdom under the emperor Maximin in the year 311 or 312. And now that we have in our hands fuller and more accurate editions both of the Septuagint and of Josephus, we discover that this " Syrian" text in an older form was in existence more than two centuries earlier, and can be carried back from the age of the Christian Lucian to thai of the Jewish historian. 29

This marked "Lucianic" character of Josephus' Biblical text is a fact of considerable importance in the earlier history of the Greek Bible; and to show its significance I will venture to digress for a little and briefly recall the principal stages in that history. The Greek Bible, being a translation of a Hebrew text older by a millennium than the earliest dated Hebrew MS, claims our respect at least on the ground of antiquity; and for all its imperfections, it does constantly provide the materials for the reconstruction of an older Hebrew, superior to that contained in our modern Bibles. 2 9

Ant. vi. 186, 1 Regn. (1 Sam.) xvii. 43. 6*

8

4

FOURTH LECTURE

It was the production of Alexandrian scholars during the last two and a half centuries before our era.

The Letter

of

Aristeas,

giving the traditional story of its origin, however fabulous some of its details may be, is at least correct in confining the original undertaking to the Pentateuch and dating it in the early Ptolemaic era. Josephus is perfectly correct in limiting the work of these pioneers, the "Seventy" so called, to the Tor ah; he does not, like later writers, represent them as translating the whole Bible, and possibly he did not associate with Alexandria at all the versions of the later historical books, which he has used so freely in a recension current in Syria. These versions of the later books followed in the next century or two, first the Prophets, probably, like the Torah, an fficial production, and then the " Writings," treated with greater freedom as national literature, but not yet canonical. By the beginning of our era the work was practically complete and widely current, even in Palestine. But this old Greek Bible now passed into other hands. Two causes, animosity against the first converts to Christianity who had appropriated and, as was alleged, distorted the L X X for their own ends, together with a just sense of the laxity and inadequacy of some of the Alexandrian versions, produced a revulsion of feeling and a final abandonment of the work by the Palestinian leaders. The Dispersion, however, still needed a Greek Bible, and the demand for stricter accuracy and adherence to the current Hebrew led in the second century to a large output of new translations in Asia Minor based on the text of R. Akiba and his school. We possess fragments of the work of three of these translators, Aquila of Pontus, Theodotion of Ephesus, and Symmachus, possibly of Cappadocia. In the third century the out­ standing event is the production of Origen's great work, the Hexapla, designed to bring the L X X into line with the current Hebrew by the aid of the Asiatic translations, which with the other texts were set out in parallel columns. Origen's attempt to produce a standard Greek text was unsuccessful, and different localities continued to use their rival recensions. In the fourth century, as

JOSEPHUS AND JUDAISM: HIS BIBLICAL TEXT

85

we learn from a well-known passage of Jerome, three such recensions held the field: "Alexandria and Egypt acclaim Hesychius as their authority: the region from Constantinople to Antioch approves the copies of Lucian the martyr: the intermediate Palestinian provinces read the MSS which were promulgated by Eusebius and Pamphilus on the basis of Origen's labours, and the whole world is divided between these three varieties of text." Now the endeavour of the modern editor of the Septuagint is to recover the oldest form of the text, and for this purpose he has to work backwards from the date of our oldest extant MS, the fourth century codex Vaticanus. His first task is to detect and segregate the three fourth century recensions mentioned by Jerome— Hesychian, Lueianic and Eusebian. The Lueianic text has in large measure been identified through an ancient note stating that its readings were marked by the letter Lamed and the discovery of this mark in certain passages in a Paris MS: the Eusebian text is also known. The next stage is to get back behind the Hexapla of Origen, which was largely the cause of subsequent mixture of texts. And here comes in the importance of the evidence of Josephus in showing us that one form of text, the Lueianic, has survived, with minor alterations, from a period not only earlier than Lucian, but a century and a half earlier than Origen. Lucian's Antiochene text, current throughout Northern Syria and Asia Minor in the fourth century, is based on an older text current, apparently in the same region, before the end of the first. Josephus is not the only person who has built on and been given the credit for other men's labours; we are forced to postulate an ur-Lucian. Before Origen's time the Greek Bible apparently existed in two main types of text, a pre-Lucianic or Syrian form used by Josephus on the one hand, and an Alexandrian on the other. The Josephan Biblical text is uniformly of this Lueianic type from 1 Samuel to 1 Maccabees. He has, for this large portion of Scripture, used a single Bible, not two or more; and, were it not 3 0

3 0

Praef. in

Paralipp.

86

F O U R T H LECTURE

that in his day the codex form of book was hardly in existence, and that the papyrus scrolls are believed to have been small and confined to not more than a book or two, I should be tempted to think that he has used a single MS, mutilated at the beginning and end. Take the last historical book which he uses, i Maccabees. Here, in the first place, the persistence of the "Lucianic" type of text militates, as I said, against the theory that he knows the book only at second hand through some anonymous writer who has already incorporated the bulk of it; it is improbable that his predecessor should here have employed precisely the same recension as Josephus uses throughout. Again, he shows no knowledge of the last three chapters of that book. Here it is maintained that he knew the work in a shorter edition. I should rather suggest that his MS was defective at the close; and it is perhaps significant that there is a similar indication of loss of leaves at the beginning. In i Samuel the "Lucianic" element does not make its appearance for the first six or seven chapters. Where did the historian obtain his Greek Bible? He shows no acquaintance with it in that short sketch of Maccabaean history in the Jewish War, and this ignorance of it in his earlier work, together with the fact that the old Latin version of the Greek Bible, the Vetus Itala, has affinities with the " Lucianic" text, might suggest that his Greek Bible was not among the books which he brought with him from Palestine, but was found in Rome. How­ ever this may be, I have no doubt that its ultimate place of origin was northern Syria. Next to " Luciam," the Biblical text most nearly allied to the historian's is that of Symmachus, and Symmachus was an Asiatic; the only recorded incident in his life is placed in Cappadocia. The text of Lucian in the fourth century was current 31

32

33

3 1

The first clear instance is in i Regn. viii. 8, e p y a and e£>r)yay (ov) vice jroii'niara

and dvrjyccyov (Ant, vi. 38). Still he has Greek " additions * in 1. R. i. 21 (Ant. v. 346, mention of tithes) and v. 6, vi. 1 (Ant. vi. 3, the plague of mice). 3 2

Cf. Vita 418 ptpXicov iepcuv.

3 3

In 1 Regn. we have parallels with Symmachus in xiii. 20 (ovtv), xv. 23 (djteiOeiv),

30 (fiiafjccu), xvi. 21 (6,*rXo'p6pog), cf. xxxi. 4, xvii. 39 ( + d y r j i v a o r o ; y a p et}u).

8/

JOSEPHUS A N D JUDAISM: HIS BIBLICAL T E X T

from Constantinople to Antioch, i.e. throughout Asia Minor and N. Syria; and it is probable that the parent text used by Josephus had much the same range. We can hardly suppose that this Greek version was wholly indigenous to Syria; but who was the real author of this Antiochene recension of the Alexandrian Bible, and how much older it may be than Josephus, we do not know. A few instances of " Lucianic " readings of Josephus must suffice. I draw my examples again from the books of Samuel. In 2 Sam. xxiii. 1 1 , in the narrative of the exploits of David's mighty men, we read in the Masoretic text that "the Philistines were gathered together n*rh" which yields no tolerable sense. The English and American revised versions render "into a troop," as from njn " a clan." The majority of the Greek MSS seem correctly to recognise that the word is a place-name, rendering etg 0r)pia (ni*ni>); but we cannot identify any place bearing the strange name of "Wild beasts." The correct name appears only in Josephus (Ant. vii. 310), in the MSS representing the "Lucianic" text and in the Armenian version, which have "to (a place called) Jawbone"; we recognise at once Lehi, a name which the Philistines had good cause to remember as the scene of a famous exploit of Samson. In the next chapter, 2 Sam. xxiv. 22, the various Greek renderings of an agricultural instrument seem to preserve local distinctions, suggestive of their place of origin. Araunah the Jebusite offers David the oxen at work on the threshing-floor for a burnt offering and the threshing-instruments (Heb. D^n's*) for fuel. For "threshinginstruments" most Greek MSS have "the wheels" (01 tpoxot), meaning the threshing-z^ggon on rollers " not used in Palestine... rare in Syria (except in the north) but . . . the usual instrument in Egypt." Here evidently we have the Alexandrian rendering. The Lucianic text, as often, has two words for one, "the boards 34

35

and the ploughs" (td juXoc KOU t d dpotpa); Josephus (Ant. vii. 3 3 1 )

has " the ploughs" alone. The " boards " doubtless mean the threshing34 3 5

Jd. xv. 9 ff. Driver, Joel and Amos (Camb. Bible, 1915), p. 232 f.; Encycl. Bibl. i. 82 f.

F O U R T H LECTURE

88

3 6

board or drag usual in Syria and Palestine; the " ploughs " possibly indicate Arabic influence, rj1» being a loan-word in Arabic, with the meaning "ploughshare." Here the Biblical text of Josephus is in partial agreement with Lucian, and, whether emanating from Syria or from Arabia in the larger sense, clearly does not come from Egypt. Another curious case of approximation of the Josephan and Lueianic texts occurs in i Sam. xxiii. 25, where we read in the M. T. of David's taking refuge from Saul " in the wilderness of Ma'on." The geography in this context shows that Ma'on is right; but both in Josephus and in Lucian an intrusive initial shin has converted the proper name into Shim'on. The two texts differ, however, in one respect: Josephus (Ant. vi. 280) retains the Semitic name unaltered, "in the wilderness of Simon;" Lucian translates it by e^rjKOOc, "into the listening wilderness," as in fact Josephus does elsewhere. As is suggested by Mez, the exemplar of Josephus is probably not Semitic, but an earlier form of the Lueianic text which left Shim'on untranslated. The intrusive letter was presumably the abbreviated relative pronoun, used, like n in the Targum on this passage, as a mark of the genitive. 37

38

39

A final minor coincidence may be mentioned. Josephus, in common with Lucian, places David's death at the close of a book. A natural arrangement, indeed, but it is not that adopted either by the Masoretes or by the bulk of the Greek MSS, which attach David's old age to the reign of his successor narrated in the first book of 3 6

3 8

Ibid. Ant. i. 304

3 7

a

Hebrew Lexicon, Brown-Driver-Briggs s.v. The name 2ep.e
to her." RahlPs suggestion, Septuaginta-Studien,Hefc

3, 87, that " esti\KO(jpist = pro, denn

ejcaKOveiv gibt ofter njp als yvv wieder," is therefore highly improbable. 3 9

Die Bibel des Josephus, Basel, 1895, p. 29 f. Another curious case of approximation

of the Josephan and a Syrian text, both being ultimately dependent upon a Targum, is noted by Mez, p. 32. In 1 Sam. xxviii. 1, for M . T . tmtb " for warfare," Josephus v

(Ant. vi. 325) has ei<; 'PeyCrt&v, an apparent corruption for eig <J>&paYY<*( )>

u

into

the valley," which actually stands in the Peshitto (*6n:^>). The confusion, as Mez points out, is only intelligible through the medium of an Aramaic Targum, in which *6'n = both K33tn (warfare) and

(valley).

JOSEPHUS A N D JUDAISM: HIS BIBLICAL T E X T

89

Kings. I believe that curious arrangement to be attributable to an attempt to make Samuel and Kings into volumes of more equal dimensions, and that the more natural division of books in Lucian and Josephus is also the older. 40

So much for our author's text of the historical books. Of the prophetical books naturally little use is made, apart from the narrative chapters of Jeremiah, and, if we may include it under this category, as Josephus would have done, the Book of Daniel. He appears to have used a Greek Daniel combining the peculiarities of the two known versions; in Jeremiah and in the slight allusions to the other Nebiim I find no certain evidence of acquaintance with a Greek text. We have a strange allusion to predictions of the calamities of Jerusalem, including its capture by the Romans, attributed to Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the latter of whom is said to have written two books on the subject; but the text is doubtful and the last clause may originally have referred to two books of Jeremiah, viz. the prophecy and the Lamentations. The only definite pre­ diction of Isaiah mentioned is quoted at second hand, namely the prophecy of the erection of an altar to the Lord in the land of Egypt, on which Onias relied in building the schismatic temple at Leontopolis. The story of Jonah is told somewhat apologetically "as I found it recorded"; and we are given a paraphrase of Nahum's prediction of the fall of Nineveh, the only prophetical passage showing possible dependence on a Greek text. 41

4 1a

42

43

44

44 a

4 0

I may refer to my Schweich Lectures, The Septuagint and Jewish

4 1

In Ant. x. 175 (ei<; tiva tojtov M a v S p a Xeyojievov) Josephus preserves a better

text of Jer. xli (xlviii) 17 than the M.T. which has

a

Chimham." M & v S p a ( = nfrra, Zeph. ii. 6 LXX) is the

Worship, p. 19.

to the lodging (nro, ? khan) of a

fold " or

u

enclosure," and

its position " by Bethlehem " is suggestive, in view of the N . T . story of the shepherds (Luke ii. 8). Aquila (ev roi<; cppayp-otg) had the same text.

4 1a

Ant. x. 79.

4 2

Is. xix. 19.

4 3

B.J. vii. 432, Ant. xiii. 64. A general allusion is made to the " books " left by

Isaiah and to the Sco5eKa.*rp6cprjtov in Ant. x. 35. 4 4

Ant. ix. 208 ff.

4 4 a

ib. 239-241.

F O U R T H LECTURE

Apart from Law and Prophets, using the latter term in the wider sense to include the historical books, I should be inclined to assign a separate place to certain "writings deposited in the temple" which Josephus expressly mentions on three occasions, and to which he possibly alludes more vaguely elsewhere. As these passages, with one doubt­ ful exception, all refer to lyrical portions of Scripture, I venture to regard them as references, not to the sacred scrolls of the Law and the Prophets, but to a separate collection of chants, taken mainly from the Bible, for the use of the temple singers. The first, which is the doubtful instance, runs: " A writing deposited in the temple shows that God predicted to Moses that water would thus spring from the rock." Here I think the reference is to the little song to the well in Numbers, with the preceding promise to Moses of a miraculous gift of water: " From thence to Beer—that is the well whereof the Lord said unto Moses, Gather the people together and I will give them water." And then, rather ^consequently, because it refers to water produced by human exertion, follows the song, once probably included in the old book of Jashar, "Then sang Israel this song, Spring up O well," and so on. If my suggestion here is not wholly erroneous, the temple hymn-book must have included beside the song the prefatory prediction. Again, we are told of Moses' song that " he read them a poem in hexameter verse, which he has also left in a book in the temple, containing a prediction of things to come"; and again, of Joshua, "that the length of the day was then increased and surpassed its usual measure is attested by writings deposited in the temple." Here we have an allusion to Joshua's incantation to the sun, which in the extant text includes a statement of its fulfilment, and which, as we are there told, stood in the old national song-book known as the book of Jashar. T o these three passages I should be inclined to add two 4 5

46

4 7

48

49

50

4 5

Ant. iii. 38.

4 9

4 6

ev j3ij3X(p ev to; tepcc: Weill (in the French translation edited by Th. Reinach)

Numb. xxi. i6flf.

4 7

erroneously renders " dans le livre saint." 5 0

Ant. v. 61 (Joshua x.

izf.).

Deut. xxxii; cf. xxxi. 196°.

4 8

Ant. iv. 303.

JOSEPHUS A N D JUDAISM: HIS BIBLICAL T E X T

91

others relating to dirges, one extant and one lost, which, though the temple is unnamed, are here stated to have been preserved until the writer's time. " (David) wrote also lamentations and funeral eulogies on Saul and Jonathan, which have survived to my day," and, we may add, were also included in the book of Jashar; elsewhere we read that " Jeremiah the prophet composed a funeral elegy on (Josiah) which survives even until now." This last may be drawn from a similar statement in Chronicles, but should rather, I think, be ranked with the other passages as resting on personal knowledge. Lastly the statement that Moses' song at the Red S e a was composed "in hexameter rhythm" connects it with his other song in Deuteronomy and suggests possible adaptation for a temple choir. 5 1

5 2

53

54

55

56

Josephus more than once asserts that he has added nothing, or nothing of his own, to the Biblical narrative. We need not scrutinize his meaning too closely, or ask whether, as a Pharisee, he regarded the rich store of tradition which he has incorporated as part and parcel of Scripture. Anyhow, he has, to attract his Greek readers, diversified the record with a mass of legendary matter, which is of considerable interest to us. He has culled from all quarters: Alexandria and even the Sibylline Oracles have con­ tributed their quota. But a large proportion find parallels, or partial parallels, in the Rabbinic works, which were not compiled until a century or more later, and these, with other traditions for which no parallel can be traced, may be regarded as a valuable collection of first century Midrash. Here it is but possible to touch on a large theme, which has been fully, I do not know whether exhaustively, dealt with by Rabbinic scholars. 57

58

5 1

Ant. vii. 6.

5 4

2 Chron. xxxv. 25.

5 7

Ant. i. 17, x. 218 (pnVce JfpocnOei; tolc, jrp&yjiaciv ai)?6; i5(a).

5 8

e.g. Edersheim, art. Josephus, in the Diet, of Christian Biography, and Bloch, Die

™ 2 Sam. i. 18. 5 5

Exodus xv.

Quellen des Fl. Josephus, pp. 22-53.

53 5 6

Ant. x. 78. Ant. ii. 346.

F O U R T H LECTURE

As illustrations of what should, I suppose, be described as Haggadah, we may take a few instances where Josephus agrees with the Book of Jubilees, one of the earliest works of this class, dating from a century before our era. In common with Jubilees, he tells us that the beasts in Paradise spoke with human tongue; that Adam and Eve had daughters; of the inscriptions on pillars made by the antediluvians to ensure the preservation of their discoveries; that the name of Pharaoh's daughter, the foster-mother of Moses, was Thermuthis. The identification of persons or dates and other inferences deduced from a comparison of Biblical passages are characteristically Rabbinic. It was Nimrod, the city-builder, who designed the Tower of Babel; one anonymous prophet who denounced Jeroboam was named 'I&Stov, another who foretold Ahab's death because he spared Benhadad was Micaiah; the man who drew a bow at a venture and slew him was "Ap.avoc;, possibly meaning Naaman; the woman who besought Elisha to save her from her creditors was the widow of Obadiah, who, in order to support the prophets in hiding, had resorted to money-lenders. Moses, according to Josephus, died on the first of the month Adar, according to Rabbinical tradition on the seventh; and so on. Around the lawgiver in particular there grew up a rich crop of legend, both among friends and foes. The contra Apionem gives us the inventions of the enemies of Judaism, representing Moses as the leper expelled with his band of lepers from Egypt: in the Antiquities we have the reverse picture. Tales here given of the 59

60

6 1

62

6 3

64

6 5

66

67

68

6 9

5 9

Ant. i. 41: Jub. iii. 28.

6 0

Ant. i. 52: Jub. iv. 1 and 8 (giving names).

6 2

Ant. ii. 224: Jub. xlvii. 5, Tharmuth. The Talmud calls her Bathia and other

6 1

Ant. i. 70: cf. Jub. viii. 3.

names are given elsewhere, Bloch, op.cit. 35. fc

3

6 4

Ant. i. 113 f. Ant. viii. 231: has this arisen out of the LXX

KCCI

(3 Regn. xiii. 1)? 6 5

6 8

ib. viii. 391. ib. iv. 327.

€ 6

6 9

ib. viii. 414.

6 7

ib. ix. 47.

Kiddushin 38, Megilla 13.

tdov

dvOpcujroc; tov Oeou

JOSEPHUS A N D JUDAISM: HIS BIBLICAL T E X T

93

infant prodigy find partial parallels in Alexandrian literature. The allusion in Numbers to "the Cushite woman whom he had married" gave rise to stories of his leadership in an Ethiopian campaign, which take various forms in Josephus, the Alexandrian Artapanus and Rabbinical writers. In the account of his end, as I have mentioned, the author has not scrupled to draw upon descrip­ tions of the " passing " of the founders of the Roman race, Aeneas and Romulus. 70

In his interpretation of the laws—the sphere of Halakah, or, as he would say td vojiqia —Josephus has points of contact with the Palestinians on which I cannot dwell. But the most striking of such interpretations is purely Alexandrian and alien to the spirit of the O.T.: "Our legislator has expressly forbidden us to deride or blaspheme the gods recognised by others, out of respect for the very word G o d ' " This is based on the L X X use of the plural Qeotx; in Ex. xxii. 28 "Thou shalt not revile Elohim"; or perhaps drawn directly from Philo who gives the same interpretation and the same reason for the injunction—the hallowing of the Name. 71

c

7 2

7 3

7 4

This brings me to some other indications which have been traced of an acquaintance of Josephus with the writings of the great Alexandrian. He mentions Philo but once, in a brief notice of the embassy to Caligula which was led by that philosopher to defend the maligned Jews of his native city against the accusations of Apion. But Josephus himself has devoted a large part of his apology for Judaism to the refutation of the slanders of that same opponent; and this bond of union in attacking a common enemy might lead the historian to consult the works of his predecessor. The perusal was 75

7 0

Numb. xii. 1.

7 2

c. Ap. ii. 237, cf. Ant. iv. 207.

7 3

7 4

7 1

e.g. Vita 191.

Vita Mos. ed. Cohn ii. (26) 205; De spec. leg. i. (7) 53. Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria

article " Josephus " in Hastings D. B. 7 5

Ant. xviii. 259 f.

278-281,

I have here made some use of my

F O U R T H LECTURE

94

probably slight, the deeper philosophy of Philo being beyond his grasp; but there is enough to show that he had looked into the work On

the Creation

(De opificio

mundi)

and perhaps the Life of

Moses.

The projected work on Customs and Causes would probably have revealed further points of contact. The preface to the Antiquities

and the opening of the De

opificio

mundi run on parallel lines. Both works raise the question why the Mosaic code is preceded by an account of the Creation. Josephus expects that his readers will ask why his work, intended as a record of laws and events, has so large an element of what he calls "physiology." He explains that Moses, unlike other legislators, whose codes begin with contracts and the rights of man, held it necessary, before laying down his code, to elevate men's minds by setting the highest of examples before them and inducing them to contemplate the nature and actions of God, especially as exhibited in the creation. Philo has a similar exordium, contrasting the procedure of Moses and that of other legislators. Moses did not begin by laying down commands and prohibitions, but opened with a marvellous account of the creation, in order to show the harmony existing between the universe and the law and that the law-abiding man is a true citizen of the world ( K o q i o r t o X v r o u ) . This unanimity between the law and the universe is also emphasized by Josephus. Josephus and Philo both refer to the mythical stories which disfigure the codes of other legislators. In the same context Josephus admits that allegory, which in Philo plays so large a part, has a place in the interpretation of Scripture, reserving details for his projected work. Of such allegorical explanation he gives us elsewhere one striking instance, in which the tabernacle and its furniture and the various articles in the high priest's dress are explained as symbolical of the universe and its constituent elements. Philo gives a similar interpretation of the 76

77

78

79

80

7 6

Ant. i. 18 ff.

7 7

7 8

Ant.

™ ib.

8 0

ib. iii. 123, 179-187; cf. B.J. v . 217 f.

i.

24.

De opif. mundi i , 1-3 (Cohn). i.

24

f.

JOSEPHUS A N D JUDAISM: HIS BIBLICAL T E X T

95

materials used for the hangings of the tabernacle and the high priest's vestments in the Life of Moses. The details are not all identical in the two writers, and this particular form of allegorical explanation appeals to have been more widespread, parallels being quoted from the Midrashim and even from the Samaritan liturgy; so that direct dependence on Philo is here not definitely established. Again, Josephus remarks on the strange use of the cardinal number " one " instead of the ordinal in the account of the first day of creation in Gen. i. 5, " And there was evening and there was morning, one day," and again reserves his explanation for his future work. Philo had previously commented on the fact and given his 81

8 2

own mystical interpretation in the De opificio

8s

mundi.

To that same work there is another curious parallel in the contra Apionem, both writers being apparently influenced by Greek philo­ sophy. Plato in the Timaeus had represented God as employing collaborators in the work of creation. And Philo partially followed him, deducing from the plural in Gen. i. 26 (" Let us make man ") that man, being of a mixed nature, both good and bad, required a plurality of 8r)}iioi)pypi, whereas for the rest of creation—heaven, earth, sea, the beasts and plants—God needed no assistant. Josephus does not venture expressly to countenance this heretical doctrine of the "two powers," so firmly rejected by the Rabbis, and indeed he may be intending to combat both Plato and Philo; but he significantly omits to mention man in the passage in question. " W e behold His works," he writes, "the light, the heaven, the earth, the sun, the waters, the reproductive creatures (^<£oovyeve<5EI<;), the sprouting crops. These God created, not with hands, not with 84

85

80

87

8 1

De vita Mosis iii. 6 (88) and 12 (117 ff.).

8 2

By J. Weill in Theodore Reinach's Flavins Josephe on AnL iii. 180.

8 3

De op. mundi 9 (35) i ^ e p a v oi^x* 4tp«bfrjv, dXXa paav, r] XeXeKtca 5ia fiyv too

vorjtou KOGJJIOU jiovcociv | i o v a 8 i K r | V exovrog cpuoiv: Jos. Ant. i. 29. 8 4

41 C, 42 E.

8 6

For the Rabbinic rejection of the heresy that two powers created the world see

Moore, Judaism i. 381. 8 7

c. Ap. ii. 192.

8 5

De opif. mundi 24 (72 fF.).

6

F O U R T H LECTURE

9

toil, not with assistants of whom He had no need; He willed it so,

and forthwith they were made in all their beauty." In these passages, then, Josephus comes to some extent under the influence of Alexandrian thought. It is impossible here to review his theology as a whole and to estimate the various factors that have gone to the making of it; and indeed his historical works are not the place in which to look for any connected statement of doctrinal beliefs. Writing in Greek and for Greeks, he naturally and almost necessarily adapts himself to their terminology and modes of thought, as when he employs the impersonal phrase " the D i v i n i t y " or writes of Fate or Destiny. But, in large measure, he is in harmony with orthodox Rabbinical Judaism. I can but touch on a few points. He never published his projected work on the being of God, but here is his brief statement, a sort of paraphrase of the first two commandments, immediately preceding the last passage which I quoted: "The universe is in God's hands; perfect and blessed, self-sufficing and sufficing for all, He is the beginning, the middle, and the end of all things. By His works and bounties He is plainly seen, indeed more manifest than ought else; but His form and magnitude surpass our powers of description. No materials, however costly, are fit to make an image of Him; no art has skill to conceive and represent it. The like of Him we have never seen, we do not imagine, and it is impious to conjecture." Elsewhere, he writes that the lawgiver "persuaded all to look to Him as the author of all blessings... He convinced them that no single action, no secret thought could be hid from Him. He represented Him as One, uncreated and immutable to all eternity; in beauty sur­ passing all mortal form, made known to us by His power, although the nature of His real being passes knowledge." 88

89

90

91

92

93

8 8

to Oetov.

9 1

8 9

For Rabbinical parallels see Th. Reinach, in loc.

9 3

dyevrjtov, i.e. not born (like the Greek gods). He is using Philonic phraseology:

i) eijiapjievrj, to xpe&v.

w Ap. ii. 190 f. 9 2

Ap. ii. 166 f.

de opif. mundi 2 (7) tov jxev dyeviyrov te Kai d(8iov dstecp^vavto (of the K6cp.o<;).

JOSEPHUS AND JUDAISM: HIS BIBLICAL TEXT

97

On a future life, the historian, as a Pharisee, believes in a return to bodily existence of the souls of the good. The Pharisaic belief he expresses thus: " A l l souls are imperishable, but the soul of the good alone passes into another body, while the souls of the wicked suffer eternal punishment"; and elsewhere, "Their belief is that souls have a deathless vigour, and that beneath the earth there are punishments and rewards for those who have been devoted in life to vice or virtue: for the former is prescribed everlasting imprison­ ment, for the latter facility for return to life." In keeping with this is his statement of general Jewish belief in the contra Apionem: " Each individual, relying on the witness of his own conscience and the lawgiver's prophecy, confirmed by the sure testimony of God, is firmly persuaded that to those who observe the laws and, if they must needs die for them, willingly meet death, God has granted to be born again and to receive a better life in turn." Similarly in the speech at Jotapata on the iniquity of suicide, " Know you not that they who depart this life in accordance with the law of nature and repay the loan which they received from God, when He who lent it is pleased to reclaim it, win eternal renown... that their souls, remaining spotless and obedient, are allotted the most holy place in heaven, whence in the revolution of the ages (BK jrepitpomjc aiobvcov) they return to find in chaste bodies a new habitation? But, as for those who have laid mad hands upon themselves, the darker regions of Hades receive their souls." 94

9 5

90

9 7

98

Of any Messianic beliefs Josephus gives no sign. The sentence, of very doubtful authenticity, in the well-known testimonium in the Antiquities, " This was the Christ" must be reserved for another lecture. Apart from that, he is silent on a subject, associated by him with risings which had brought his country to ruin and to which it was dangerous to allude. But there are two passages, darkly 9 4

B.J.

i i . 163.

95 Ant.

97 F K jrepvrpojri)^ the revolution 9 8

B.J.

iii.

( o f t h e ages)."

374

f.

xviii.

14.

96 Ap.

ii.

21