Selections From Josephus




                   _TRANSLATIONS OF EARLY DOCUMENTS_

               GENERAL EDITORS: W. O. E. OESTERLEY, D.D.
                            G. H. BOX, D.D.

                               SERIES II

                        HELLENISTIC-JEWISH TEXTS


                            SELECTIONS FROM
                                JOSEPHUS




                        SELECTIONS FROM JOSEPHUS


                             TRANSLATED BY
                       H. ST. J. THACKERAY, M.A.


                                LONDON:
                         SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING
                          CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE
                    NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
                                  1919




                            IN PIAM MEMORIAM

                            PATRIS CARISSIMI




                                CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 9

SELECTIONS 33


I. AUTOBIOGRAPHY


(1) THE BOY AMONG THE DOCTORS. HIS EDUCATION (_V._) 33

(2) A SHIPWRECK ON THE VOYAGE TO ROME. EVE OF THE WAR (_V._) 34

(3) THE _JEWISH WAR_ AND ITS RECEPTION. CRITICISM OF A RIVAL HISTORIAN
(JUSTUS) (_V._) 35

(4) AFTER THE WAR. JOSEPHUS AS ROMAN CITIZEN (_V._) 37


II. SPECIMENS OF AMPLIFICATION OF THE BIBLICAL NARRATIVE


(5) MOSES, THE INFANT PRODIGY, INTRODUCED TO PHARAOH (_A._ II) 40

(6) EXORCISM IN THE NAME OF SOLOMON (_A._ VIII) 41

(7) MICAIAH AND ZEDEKIAH PROPHESY BEFORE AHAB (_A._ VIII) 42


III. THE COMING OF THE ROMANS


(8) LOSS OF JEWISH INDEPENDENCE. PALESTINIAN SETTLEMENT UNDER POMPEY
(_A._ XIV) 45

(9) DIVISION OF THE COUNTRY INTO FIVE DISTRICTS BY GABINIUS (_B._ I) 47

(10) SETTLEMENT UNDER JULIUS CÆSAR (_A._ XIV) 47


IV. HEROD THE GREAT


(11) THE YOUTH HEROD FREES GALILEE FROM THE BRIGANDS (_A._ XIV) 48

(12) HEROD ON HIS TRIAL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN (_A._ XIV) 48

(13) HEROD AND CASSIUS. MURDER OF ANTIPATER, HEROD’S FATHER (_A._ XIV)
51

(14) ANTONY MAKES HEROD AND PHASAEL TETRARCHS OF JUDÆA (_A._ XIV) 52

(15) HOW HEROD WON HIS KINGDOM (_A._ XIV) 53

(16) HOW HEROD MADE HIS PEACE WITH AUGUSTUS (AFTER THE BATTLE OF ACTIUM)
(_B._ I) 55

(17) HEROD AND MARIAMNE (_B._ I) 56

(18) EXTENSION OF HEROD’S REALM. HIS POPULARITY WITH AUGUSTUS AND
AGRIPPA (_A._ XV) 57

(19) THE HISTORIAN’S READING OF HEROD’S CHARACTER (_A._ XVI) 58

(20) REFLECTIONS ON THE TRAGIC FATE OF HEROD’S SONS (_A._ XVI) 60

(21) HEROD’S DYING PROVISION FOR A NATIONAL MOURNING (_A._ XVII) 63


V. ARCHELAUS AND PILATE


(22) ARCHELAUS IN QUEST OF A KINGDOM (_A._ XVII) 66

(23) ARCHELAUS DEPOSED AND HIS TERRITORY ADDED TO THE ROMAN PROVINCE OF
SYRIA (_A._ XVII) 71

(24) THE REVOLT OF JUDAS “IN THE DAYS OF THE ENROLMENT” UNDER QUIRINIUS
(_A._ XVIII) 72

(25) PILATE OFFENDS JEWISH SUSCEPTIBILITIES IN THE MATTER OF (i) THE
EMPEROR’S BUSTS, (ii) THE CORBAN MONEY (_A._ XVIII) 74

(26) JESUS CHRIST (_A._ XVIII) 76

(27) TIBERIUS EXPELS ALL JEWS FROM ROME (_A._ XVIII) 76

(28) PILATE SENT TO ROME FOR TRIAL (_A._ XVIII) 77


VI. THE LATER HERODS


(29) HEROD THE TETRARCH, HIS MARRIAGE WITH HERODIAS AND MURDER OF JOHN
THE BAPTIST (_A._ XVIII) 79

(30) HOW HEROD AGRIPPA BECAME KING, AND HEROD THE TETRARCH LOST HIS
TETRARCHY (_A._ XVIII) 81

(31) PETRONIUS AND THE STATUE OF GAIUS (_A._ XVIII) 84

(32) HEROD AGRIPPA’S KINGDOM ENLARGED BY CLAUDIUS (_A._ XIX) 88

(33) DEATH OF HEROD AGRIPPA (_A._ XIX) 88

(34) THE STORY OF KING IZATES AND HIS MOTHER HELENA (_A._ XX) 90

(35) THE FATE OF THE IMPOSTOR THEUDAS AND OF THE SONS OF JUDAS THE
GALILÆAN (_A._ XX) 93

(36) AGRIPPA II, FELIX, AND DRUSILLA (_A._ XX) 94

(37) THE DEATH OF JAMES, “THE LORD’S BROTHER” (_A._ XX) 95


VII. SCENES FROM THE JEWISH WAR


(38) INTRODUCTION TO THE _JEWISH WAR_ (_B._ I) 98

(39) SEEDS OF THE WAR SOWN UNDER THE LAST OF THE PROCURATORS. RISE OF
THE SICARII (_B._ II) 102

(40) THE IMMEDIATE CAUSE OF THE WAR. ABROGATION OF SACRIFICES FOR THE
EMPEROR (_B._ II) 107

(41) INITIAL JEWISH SUCCESS. ROUT OF A ROMAN ARMY IN THE DEFILES OF
BETH-HORON (_B._ II) 110

(42) JERUSALEM BEFORE THE SIEGE (_B._ II) 118

(43) THE FALL OF JOTAPATA. JOSEPHUS TAKEN PRISONER (_B._ III) 119

(44) RECEPTION AT JERUSALEM OF THE NEWS OF THE FALL OF JOTAPATA (_B._
III) 128

(45) MURDER OF THE HIGH PRIEST ANANUS; ALSO OF ZACHARIAS AFTER A MOCK
TRIAL (_B._ IV) 129

(46) HOW JOSEPHUS WAS LIBERATED (_B._ IV) 133

(47) A ROMAN REVERSE INSPIRES FALSE CONFIDENCE (_B._ V) 134

(48) CESSATION OF THE DAILY SACRIFICE. JOSEPHUS APPEALS TO THE JEWS
(_B._ VI) 135

(49) CONFLAGRATION OF THE TEMPLE (_B._ VI) 137

(50) PORTENTS AND ORACLES (_B._ VI) 141

(51) THE LAST SCENE. CAPTURE OF THE UPPER CITY. JERUSALEM IN FLAMES
(_B._ VI) 145

(52) THE SPOILS FROM THE TEMPLE IN THE TRIUMPHAL PROCESSION IN ROME
(_B._ VII) 147


VIII. THE JEWISH SECTS


(53) THE THREE SECTS AND THEIR VIEWS ON FATE AND FREE-WILL (_A._ XIII)
148

(54) THE ESSENES, WITH A NOTE ON PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES (_B._ II) 148

(55) ANOTHER ACCOUNT OF THE THREE SECTS—AND A FOURTH (_A._ XVIII) 158

(56) WHY JOHN HYRCANUS WENT OVER FROM THE PHARISEES TO THE SADDUCEES
(_A._ XIII) 161

(57) “CONCILIATE THE PHARISEES”—ALEXANDER’S DYING ADVICE TO ALEXANDRA
(_A._ XIII) 164

(58) HOW THE PHARISEES ROSE TO POWER UNDER QUEEN ALEXANDRA (_B._ I) 166

(59) HEROD EXEMPTS PHARISEES AND ESSENES FROM THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.
THE ESSENE PROPHET MENAHEM (_A._ XV) 167

(60) THE PHARISEES REFUSE TO TAKE THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE (ANOTHER
ACCOUNT) (_A._ XVII) 168


IX. JEWISH THEOLOGY, SCRIPTURES AND CUSTOMS


(61) SOME ASPECTS OF JEWISH THEOLOGY. MOSES AS RELIGIOUS EDUCATOR (_Ap._
II) 170

(62) A FUTURE LIFE—FOR THE LAW-ABIDING (_Ap._ II) 173

(63) THE JEWISH SCRIPTURES AND THEIR PRESERVATION (_Ap._ I) 174

(64) UNIVERSAL IMITATION OF OUR LAWS THE SINCEREST FLATTERY (_Ap._ II)
177

(65) THE OATH “CORBAN” (_Ap._ I) 179

APPENDIX OF ADDITIONAL NOTES 180

TABLE OF DATES 204

INDEX 207




                             ABBREVIATIONS


    The _Jewish Antiquities_ _Ant._ or _A._

    The _Jewish War_ (_Bellum Judaicum_) _B.J._ or _B._

    The Treatise _Against Apion_ _Ap._

    The _Life_ _Vita_ or _V._

    Schürer, _Jewish People in the Time of_ _Jesus Christ_ (_JPTC_)

    _circa_ (“about” of dates) _c._

    References, _e.g._ _Ant._ XVII. 6.5 f. (171-181). The figures 6.5 f.
    refer to the older division, found in all editions (Niese’s
    included), of the books into sections (6 or vi) and subsections (5
    and following subsection). The bracketed figures (171-181) indicate
    the smaller divisions first introduced by Niese.




                        SELECTIONS FROM JOSEPHUS
                              INTRODUCTION


                                  Life


Josephus, son of Matthias the priest, and on his mother’s side claiming
descent from the royal Hasmonæan house—or Flavius Josephus, to give him
the name which he adopted out of gratitude to his Imperial patrons—was
born in the first year of the Emperor Caligula, A.D. 37-38. St. Paul’s
conversion had probably taken place a few years earlier.[1] His life of
upwards of sixty years falls into two nearly equal parts, spent
respectively in Palestine and in Rome. The Palestinian portion, again,
is sharply divided into the pre-war period (to A.D. 65), of which we
know comparatively little, and the great four years’ war (A.D. 66-70),
of which we know a great deal.

Of his precocious youth, when, if we may believe him, Rabbis flocked to
hear the wisdom of the boy of fourteen; how he himself two years later
“did eagerly frequent Doctor and Saint,” making trial successively of
the three sects of his nation, and ending his education by three years
passed as an ascetic with a hermit in the wilderness; how on his return
to Jerusalem at the age of nineteen he joined the popular and
influential party of the Pharisees; of the one outstanding incident of
his early manhood, his visit to Rome at the age of twenty-six—of all
these things we may read in his own words.[2] Although he finally threw
in his lot with the Pharisees, we may judge from the three years’ stay
with Ban(n)us, the specially full account which he gives of the
Essenes,[3] and other indications, that the tenets and communistic life
of that order left a lasting impression. If we may again attempt a
synchronism with events in the life of St. Paul, we may say that the
Rabbis were listening to the boy about the time of the first Council of
the Church at Jerusalem, he was receiving his schooling during the third
missionary journey, and his return to Jerusalem nearly coincided with
the arrest of the Apostle in that city.

The journey to Rome (A.D. 63-4), like St. Paul’s a few years earlier,
began with a shipwreck. Its nominal purpose was to plead the cause of
certain priests who had been sent by Felix to Italy for trial.
Chronology[4] will hardly permit us to accept the suggestion of
Edersheim[5] to connect St. Paul’s liberation with the mission of
Josephus; but he cannot have failed, during his stay in the city on the
eve of the Neronian persecution, to become acquainted, if not with the
work of the Apostle, at least with the existence of the Christian
community. Through the influence of Poppæa, the mistress and afterwards
wife of Nero, who coquetted with Judaism (Josephus’s words imply that
she was a proselyte), he was successful in obtaining the release of the
priests and returned to Judæa laden with presents. Besides the expressed
object, was there any ulterior motive in this visit to the capital?
Edersheim suggests that, foreseeing the trend of events, Josephus was
already fired with the ambition of becoming the intermediary between
Rome and his nation.

At any rate, his visit had impressed him with a sense of Rome’s
invincible power; and on his return to Judæa, where he found the Jews
drifting towards revolt and everything pointing to the immediate
outbreak of war, he at first tried to pacify the war-party, but in vain.
The turbulent state of the country at length induced Cestius Gallus, the
governor of Syria, to advance against Jerusalem. With the disastrous
rout of his army in the defiles of Beth-Horon towards the end of A.D.
66, following upon his unexpected withdrawal from the gates of the
metropolis,[6] it was realized that the irrevocable step had been taken,
and all preparations were made for the impending war.

Josephus, then but twenty-nine years of age, was entrusted with the
command of Galilee. The reason for the selection of the young priest for
so important a post, for which, notwithstanding his frequent assertions
of his skill and strategy, he seems to have been ill-qualified, is
obscure. The history of the sequel fills the greater part of the _Life_,
but it is not very easy to follow the course of events and to read the
motives of the leaders at Jerusalem and the conflicting aims of the
various cities of Galilee, which Josephus found in a divided state. His
first steps were to fortify the principal places, to reform the army on
the Roman model by appointing subordinate officers, and to set up a
council of seventy of the principal Galilæans to try cases and to act as
hostages for the loyalty of the district. But his efforts to enforce
discipline and to secure the allegiance of the Galilæans were
unavailing. He had many opponents, in particular John of Gischala, who
afterwards played an important part in the siege of Jerusalem. The
spring of A.D. 67 was chiefly spent by Josephus in civil strife and in
avoiding plots against his life. He was suspected, perhaps justly, of
harbouring designs of betraying the country to Rome; he may have hoped
to stave off war by some form of compromise. At length John succeeded in
inducing the Jerusalem leaders to supersede Josephus, and an embassy was
sent to relieve him of his command. He, however, refused to accept the
order, and obtained letters from the capital reinstating him. Meanwhile,
Vespasian was advancing upon Galilee from Antioch. On the fall of Gadara
Josephus was at first inclined to surrender and wrote to Jerusalem for
instructions, but finally resolved to stand a siege in the fortified
town of Jotapata.

Of the forty-seven days’ siege of Jotapata and the various machinations
and counter-machinations of the belligerents Josephus has given us a
graphic account in the third book of the _Jewish War_. The story of its
fall (July, A.D. 67) and of the sequel—the capture of the general, after
a narrow escape, through a ruse, from death at the hands of his
compatriots, and his prophecy of Vespasian’s rise to power—will be found
in the text.[7]

“By the end of A.D. 67,” I quote from what I have written elsewhere,
“the whole of northern Palestine was in the hands of the Romans. Only
Jerusalem, where a bloody civil war was raging, remained to be taken.
But its capture was delayed by the events of A.D. 68, which drew the
attention of the generals to the west. News came first of the death of
Nero, which took place in June, and then, in rapid succession, of the
accession of Galba, Otho and Vitellius. In July, A.D. 69, Vespasian’s
legions took the law into their own hands, and proclaimed him emperor.
One of his first acts as emperor was to liberate Josephus, whose
prophecy had now come true.[8]... [Josephus] now accompanied the emperor
to Alexandria, and from there was sent back with Titus to take part in
the siege of Jerusalem.... [His] services as interpreter and intercessor
were more than once requisitioned by Titus;[9] on one occasion he was
hit by a stone, and barely escaped capture and death at the hands of his
countrymen. He was, he tells us, at this time between two fires; for,
while bitterly hated by the Jews, he was suspected by the Romans of
treachery whenever they met with a reverse.”[10]

For his life in Rome, where he witnessed (with what feelings we are left
to imagine) the triumphal procession of the two emperors,[11] and for
the various privileges bestowed on him by Vespasian, Titus and Domitian,
we may refer to his own narrative.[12] Awarded the rights of Roman
citizenship, he was also among the first to be placed on the “civil
list” newly instituted by Vespasian.[13] He was still pursued by Jewish
hatred; among his opponents he names in particular Justus, a rival
historian of the war, and Jonathan, the leader of a revolt in Cyrene,
who accused him of complicity in his designs; but with his unfailing
tact he succeeded in retaining the favour of the Flavian emperors and
defeating his enemies. He appears to have survived into the second
century, since he outlived Agrippa II,[14] whose death is placed by
Photius in A.D. 100. Eusebius (_H. E._ III. 9) tells us that our author
was honoured by the erection of his statue in Rome, and that his works
were placed in the public library. He was married at least four
times;[15] one wife deserted him, another he divorced.


                                 Works


During the leisure of his life in Rome Josephus composed the four works
which, owing largely, no doubt, to their popularity with early Christian
writers, have survived entire: the _Jewish War_ (7 books), the _Jewish
Antiquities_ (20 books), the _Life_ and the treatise _Against Apion_ (2
books). There is no adequate ground for thinking that he published
anything further.

(i) The _Jewish War_. This, the earliest of the works, was, in its
present Greek form, finished in the latter half of Vespasian’s reign,
between A.D. 75 and 79. It cannot be earlier than A.D. 75, because it
mentions the completion of the temple of Pax (_B. J._ VII. 158), which
was dedicated in that year; it had, moreover, been preceded by other
histories of the war. The Greek, as the author tells us,[16] is a
translation, made for the use of the learned Roman world at large, of a
first draft, written in his native Aramaic for the benefit of a smaller
circle of readers in upper (or inland) Syria. The Aramaic has not
survived. The Greek—for which assistance was obtained, “employing
certain _collaborateurs_ with a view to the Greek style” are his words,
_c. Ap._ I. 50—shows no sign of its Semitic parentage and probably
amounted to practically a new work. It is unlikely, _e. g._, that the
first draft contained the summary sketch of Jewish history from the time
of Antiochus Epiphanes, which occupies Books I and II of the Greek. The
work seems to have been issued in parts.[17] Copies were presented to
Vespasian and Titus and other Romans who had taken part in the war, and
_sold_ to Herod Agrippa II and other learned Jews (_c. Ap._ I. 51).
Titus himself affixed his _imprimatur_. A long correspondence on the
work passed between the author and his friend, Agrippa; two specimens of
the king’s letters, in rather slipshod Greek, are quoted.[18]

Books I and II give a rapid sketch (expanded in the _Ant._) of Jewish
history from the capture of Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes (168 B.C.)
down to the defeat of Cestius Gallus in A.D. 66 and the preparations for
the war. Book III narrates the coming of Vespasian and Titus, the siege
of Jotapata and the fighting in Galilee; Book IV the close of the
Galilæan campaign, the factions in Jerusalem, the advance of Vespasian
upon the city and his return to Rome on being elected emperor by his
army; Book V describes the city and Temple, the investment by Titus and
the capture of the first and second walls; Book VI the horrors of the
famine, the taking of the fortress of Antonia, followed by the burning
of the Temple and the capture and destruction of the city; Book VII the
return of Titus to Rome, the triumphal procession and the capture of the
last strongholds of the Jewish fanatics.

(ii) The _Jewish Antiquities_. In this, his _magnum opus_, Josephus
undertook to write the history of his nation from the creation to the
outbreak of the Jewish War. He tells us of his misgivings in entering on
so large a task, the toil which it involved, and how it was only through
the encouragement of his patron Epaphroditus (to whom _Ant._, the _Life_
and the _Apion_ treatise are all dedicated) that it was finally
completed in the thirteenth year of Domitian’s reign and the fifty-sixth
of his own life, A.D. 93-94 (_Ant._ I. 6 ff.; XX. 267). The work towards
the close shows some marks of weariness. The title (Ἰουδαïκὴ
Ἀρχαιολογία) and the division into twenty books were doubtless derived
from the great Roman history (Ῥωμαïκὴ Ἀρχαιολογία) of Dionysius of
Halicarnassus.

In Books I-X the narrative closely follows the Biblical account down to
the Babylonian captivity; XI carries on the story to Alexander the
Great; XII to the death of Judas Maccabæus (161 B.C.); XIII contains the
history of the Hasmonæan house to the death of Queen Alexandra (67
B.C.); XIV the intervention of Pompey and the Romans and the accession
of Herod the Great (37 B.C.), whose reign (37-4 B.C.) fills XV, XVI and
the first half of XVII; the rest of XVII comprises the reign of
Archelaus (4 B.C. to A.D. 6); XVIII, XIX and XX cover the remainder of
the period of the Gospels and the Acts, including notices of Quirinius,
Pilate, Tiberius, Herod the Tetrarch, and the two later Herods; the
greater part of XIX is occupied with a full, but irrelevant, account of
the assassination of the emperor Gaius and the accession of Claudius
(A.D. 41); XX summarizes the events to the outbreak of the war (A.D.
66).

As regards the historian’s authorities for the first half of his work,
the main source was the Greek Bible (“the Septuagint”), occasional use
being made of the Hebrew. This was supplemented by (1) legends and
commentary, drawn, in part at least, from Rabbinic tradition (_Haggadah_
and _Halachah_); (2) Hellenistic reproductions of the Biblical history
by Alexandrians such as Demetrius and Artapanus; (3) secular historians
and non-Biblical documents such as Berosus, the annals of Tyre, etc. The
number of authorities named under this last head is considerable, but it
is probable that many of them were known to Josephus only through the
great Universal History of Nicolas of Damascus, the friend of Herod the
Great and Augustus, to which he is largely indebted throughout the whole
of _Ant._ For the centuries following the Captivity his authorities are
unfortunately scanty and of little value. From the Captivity to
Antiochus Epiphanes his main sources are the LXX books of _1 Esdras_ and
_Esther_, some legends of Alexander the Great, the _Letter of Aristeas_,
_1 Maccabees_ and (occasionally) Polybius. From this point he relies
largely on two lost Universal Histories of Augustan writers, Strabo and
Nicolas of Damascus. The latter was undoubtedly his chief authority for
the very full account of the reign of Herod the Great, though he does
not accept all his statements without question, and appears to have had
access to some less eulogistic history of that monarch. Mention is once
made of the “Memoirs of King Herod” (XV, 174). With the accession of
Archelaus the history, unfortunately for the student of the N.T., again
becomes meagre, expanding into greater fullness when the reign of
Agrippa I is reached. With regard to him Josephus would obtain
information from his son, Agrippa II, and for the events leading up to
the war he could draw on his own recollections. The account of the
assassination of Gaius, which is of primary importance for the Roman
historian, was thought by Mommsen to be derived from the work of Cluvius
Rufus, a witness of the events which immediately preceded it. Besides
these authorities Josephus had access to priestly records (he notes the
succession of high priests throughout the narrative) and to important
decrees concerning privileges granted on various occasions to Jews
resident in Asia and elsewhere.

(iii) The _Life_ was written as a sequel to the _Antiquities_, to which
it is appended in the MSS. A promise of such an appendix is made at the
end of _Ant._ (XX. 266); and the _Life_ closes with a dedication of the
whole history to Epaphroditus, the patron named in the exordium to the
larger work. But the _Life_ seems to have been an afterthought, added
only after an interval of some six or seven years, since it is implied
that, Agrippa II is already dead,[19] and his death is said to have
occurred in A.D. 100. The immediate occasion for its production was the
appearance of a rival history of the Jewish War by Justus of Tiberias,
in which the writer accused Josephus of being the real cause of the war
with Rome. “The appearance of Justus’s work, with its damaging
criticisms, was likely to endanger the secure position which Josephus
had won for himself at Rome, and the earlier historian of the war felt
bound to defend himself. The _Life_, then, by no means answers to its
name. It is not a complete autobiography, but simply an apologetic
statement as to the actions of Josephus as commander in Galilee, to
which have been added a few details as to the earlier and later events
of his life, by way of prologue and epilogue.”[20] The defence, in which
Josephus attempts to pose as friendly to the Romans, while he has to
admit the part which he took in organizing the Jewish forces to oppose
them, is extremely weak; and the work, which is characterized by
inordinate self-praise, is the least satisfactory of the historian’s
writings.

(iv) The treatise _Against Apion_ (in two books) is, on the other hand,
the most pleasing of our author’s works, showing a well-designed plan,
great literary skill, and a more genuine patriotism, a warmer and more
impassioned zeal for his country’s religion, than we find elsewhere. The
title (not the author’s) is, like that of the _Life_, unsuitable, Apion
not being mentioned until Book II is reached. Older titles were: “On the
Antiquity of the Jews” (not sufficiently distinctive), and “Against the
Greeks.” It is designed as a reply to criticisms on the _Antiquities_
and a refutation of current attacks upon, and groundless prejudices
against, the Jewish nation; it is, in short, an Apology for Judaism with
a demonstration of the antiquity of the race. It gives an interesting
insight into the anti-Semitism of the first century. Apion is merely one
representative of Israel’s enemies; a grammarian and interpreter of
Homer, he is best known as the leader of the embassy to Caligula in A.D.
38, which brought accusations against the Jewish residents in
Alexandria, and was opposed by a counter-embassy of Alexandrian Jews,
headed by Philo. Josephus challenges the extreme antiquity claimed for
the Greeks; accounts for the silence of Greek writers with regard to
Jewish history; cites evidence for the antiquity of his nation from
Egyptian, Phœnician, Babylonian and Greek sources; refutes the malignant
and absurd accusations of the anti-Semites; and concludes with an able
and eloquent defence of the lawgiver and his code,[21] contrasting his
conception of God with the immoral ideas current among the Greeks. The
numerous quotations from lost writings give the work a special value.
Its date must be later than A.D. 93 (the date of _Ant._), but whether
written before or after the _Life_ is uncertain.

Two further works, as he tells us at the end of _Ant._, were projected
by Josephus, viz.: (1) A summary sketch of the war and the subsequent
history of his nation down to A.D. 93-4; (2) “A work in four books
concerning God and His being and concerning the Laws, why some actions
are permitted to us by them and others are forbidden.” It is unlikely
that either was ever completed. But the work on “Customs and Causes,” as
he elsewhere calls it, appears, from the mention of the four books and
from scattered allusions in the _Antiquities_ to its intended contents,
to have already taken shape in his mind, and was perhaps begun. The
failure to carry out this scheme is regrettable.

From the repeated occurrence, usually with reference to the Seleucid
dynasty or Parthian affairs, of the phrase “as we have shown elsewhere,”
Josephus might appear to have written a monograph on Syrian history. But
the variations on the phrase, “as has been shown elsewhere” (_lit._ “in
others”) and (twice) “... _by others_,” make it probable that the use of
the first person, where it occurs, has been carelessly taken over from
one of his authorities.

The fourth book of Maccabees (in vol. iii. of Dr. Swete’s LXX) appears
in the older editions of Josephus, but has no claim to have come from
his pen.


         The Man and the Historian. Importance of his Work[22]


The personal character of Josephus and his credibility as a historian
have been often impugned, more especially by his own compatriots.
Edersheim’s article in the _Dictionary of Christian Biography_ (where
our author finds himself in strange company), while not lacking in
appreciation of his merits, displays some of this rancour, though not in
its more virulent form. He has been denounced as traitor and renegade,
as a flatterer of the Romans and one whose statements must always be
regarded with suspicion.

His _character_ is somewhat of an enigma. We may grant that it is not
one to arouse any feeling of keen admiration. He was no ardent patriot,
like Judas Maccabæus, no missionary in a great cause to which he was
ready to devote his whole heart and soul and to sacrifice his life. His
three years’ sojourn in the wilderness was not, like the visit to Arabia
of an older contemporary, the prelude to a life-work of strenuous and
unremitting toil ending in imprisonment and martyrdom. His faults are
patent; and among them we should rank first an inordinate egotism and a
concern, above all other considerations, for his personal interests. His
life was constantly in danger; like St. Paul, he encountered perils in
the sea, perils from his own countrymen, perils from the Gentiles; but
his instinct for self-preservation, aided by ready tact and
resourcefulness, carried him safely through the most desperate
situations. In his account of the shipwreck[23] we read that “I and
certain others, about eighty in all [out of a crew of six hundred],
outstripped the others and were taken on board.” There is no thought of
the unfortunate swimmers who were left behind; nothing corresponding to
the Apostle’s words of encouragement in similar circumstances, and to
his biographer’s joy in recording that “all escaped safe to the land.”
In Galilee, before the siege of Jotapata, he narrates with evident
self-satisfaction the various stratagems by which he outwitted his
enemies who plotted against his life. During the siege he meditated
flight; “Josephus, dissembling his anxiety for his own safety, said that
it was for their sakes that he proposed to retire”—such is his own naïve
statement of his reply to the remonstrances of the besieged citizens
(_B.J._ III. 7. 15 f. (197)). Then there is the final scene in the cave;
we cannot but admire the dexterity with which he eluded death at the
hands of his fellow-prisoners and the vividness of his description; but
by what ruse (“should one say by fortune or by the providence of God?”
are his own words) he managed to be, with one companion, the last
survivor in the drawing of the lots, remains a mystery.[24] Later, as
Roman prisoner and Roman citizen, he always steered a safe course and
retained the favour of a succession of imperial patrons. He was, it
seems, a man of the world with a thoroughly secular disposition.

What was his real _attitude to Judaism_? Though he devoted the latter
part of his life to writing the history of his nation and a very able
defence of their religion, we may doubt whether he was profoundly
affected by their beliefs. Traill finds something “unnational” in the
first act of his life, when he “looked around him upon the sects and
factions of his times ... with a philosophic, supercilious
independence.”[25] Though we need not, perhaps, go so far as this, nor
blame him for what appears to have been a genuine quest of truth, we may
allow that he was a cosmopolitan, alienated in many ways from his own
nation, and that there was a lack of depth and sincerity in his
adherence to Jewish dogmas.

With this must be considered his _attitude to Christianity_. If we set
aside the one brief “testimony” to Jesus Christ, which must be rejected
as an interpolation,[26] we are left with the story of the death of
James, “the brother of Jesus who was called Christ,”[27] and the
reference to the murder of John the Baptist,[28] as the sole allusions
to the Founder of Christianity and the movement which prepared the way
for it. This glaring omission cannot be other than deliberate. Josephus
had every opportunity of acquainting himself with the events of the life
of Christ and of his followers; certainly he did not lack the curiosity
to investigate the facts, and he must surely have watched with interest
the fortunes and rapid spread of the rising sect which, even in St.
Paul’s lifetime, had gained a footing in “Cæsar’s household.”[29] The
Apostle’s words with reference to an intimate friend of Josephus might
have been said of the historian himself: “I am persuaded that none of
these things is hidden from him; for this hath not been done in a
corner.”[30] Yet there is this silence. He does not attack Christianity;
he simply ignores it. And, with our knowledge of the character of
Josephus, the reason is not far to seek. He studiously avoids a topic to
which, in the circumstances of the time, it would have been dangerous to
allude. “Not only was he informed on these subjects; he was far too well
informed of what the Christians had already and recently suffered ...
not to be on his guard against the imprudence of giving any testimony in
their favour which might implicate himself in their misfortunes.”[31]

To the same motive must be attributed the historian’s reticence on the
subject of a Messiah. The words addressed to the serpent: “It shall
bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel,”[32] occasion no
allusion to a future deliverer, nor yet the prophecies of Balaam;
Jacob’s blessing is omitted; the oracle which foretold the coming of a
world-ruler out of Judæa is interpreted of Vespasian.[33] On the other
hand, there are a few passages which suggest that Josephus did not
regard the fulfilment of prophecy as closed with the destruction of
Jerusalem, and that he may have entertained a belief in a Messianic era
involving the downfall of Rome, of which he dared not speak openly. On
Balaam he writes (_Ant._ IV. 6. 5 [125]): “From the accomplishment of
all these things in accordance with his prediction one may conjecture
what will happen in the future”; and again, in the interpretation of
Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (_Ant._ X. 10. 4 [210]): “Daniel also showed the
king the meaning of the stone, but I have not thought proper to relate
this, my duty being to describe past, not future, events,” while curious
enquirers are referred to the prophetical book.

In his public life as statesman and general Josephus scarcely deserves
the hard names of traitor and renegade. Involved in early manhood in the
rush of events arising out of a popular movement which had long been
gathering force, with which he did not sympathize, which he could not
stem and vainly tried to direct, realizing from the first the
hopelessness of combating the Roman legions, and anxious to find some
means of compromise by which to save his country from ruin, he
nevertheless accepted the post with which he was entrusted, and threw
himself into the task of organizing, to the best of his ability, the
defences of Galilee, so long as resistance was possible; while he
devoted the energies of his later life, when his position might have
tempted him to disown his nation, to writing its history and defending
his countrymen against the slanders of a malignant world.

                  *       *       *       *       *

On the position of Josephus as _a historian_, widely different opinions
have been held, from that of Jerome who extolled him as a “Greek Livy,”
to the criticisms of some modern writers who have accused him of bias
and gross misrepresentation.

The apologetic nature of the _Antiquities_ is self-evident. The author’s
purpose was to represent his maligned nation in the best light to Greek
readers, “to break down, if possible, the wall of partition that had
hitherto secluded the Hebrew race from the communion and cut them off
from the sympathies of mankind,” to “plead the cause of the injured Jew
at the bar of the world” (Traill). This object has occasioned the
suppression of some (though not all) of the less creditable incidents in
the Biblical narrative. With a view to attractiveness the narrative is
diversified by legendary additions culled from various sources, while
occasionally, it must be admitted, the author seems to have added minor
details of his own invention (see below on the imitation of Thucydides).
Granted some blemishes of this kind, there remains no very serious
charge against the writer of _Ant._ That work is, on the whole, a
skilful compilation, its value varying with that of the authorities
consulted, while the criticisms passed on some of them show that these
were not always used without discrimination.[34] He professes in several
passages to have a high ideal of a historian’s duty, and, speaking
generally, one may allow that he so far comes up to it as to deserve a
fairly high, if not a foremost, place among the historians of antiquity.

As the historian of the _Jewish War_, Josephus comes before us with the
highest credentials. Holding command in Galilee in its opening stages
and behind the Roman lines throughout the siege of Jerusalem, he was
exceptionally well qualified for this task, and must have relied mainly
on his own recollections and the notes which he made at the time (_c._
_Ap._ I. 49). Deserters kept him informed of events within the city
(_ib._). He seems also to have had access to the emperor’s memoirs
(_Life_ 358). He submitted the books as they were finished to Herod
Agrippa and the completed work to Vespasian and Titus, and from them and
others received testimonials to his accuracy (_c. Ap._ I. 50 ff., _Life_
361 ff.).[35] We may therefore unhesitatingly accept the general
trustworthiness of his account. Exception should, perhaps, be made for a
tendency to exaggeration, _e. g._ in the matter of numbers, and for
some, though not a marked, bias for extolling the achievements and
clemency of the Roman generals. His statement that Titus desired to
spare the Temple[36] runs counter to that of another historian
(Sulpicius Severus), who asserts that the destruction received his
sanction; the Jewish historian was, at any rate, in a better position to
know the facts.

Besides the authorities whom he names in the _Antiquities_, Josephus,
who devoted much attention to style, made a special study of the great
masters. The use which he has made of his chief model forms an
interesting study. Was it Dionysius of Halicarnassus (to whom, as we
saw, he owed the title and arrangement of his _Ant._) and his essays on
the style of Thucydides that first introduced him to the historian of
the Peloponnesian War? Or did he trace a likeness to himself in the
great Athenian? Widely different as were the characters of the two men,
there were points of similarity in their careers. Like Josephus,
Thucydides combined the duties of general and historian of the great
war; like him he failed as a military commander (IV. 104 ff.), and
through his consequent exile was enabled to associate with the enemy and
to view the war from the standpoint of both belligerents (V. 26).[37]
However that may be (and it is to the credit of our author that he does
not suggest the comparison), there is a marked imitation of the style of
Thucydides in portions of the _Antiquities_, especially in Books
XVII-XIX, which possess peculiarities of their own. The imitation is
seen in the recurrent use of some striking phrase, and occasionally in
the bold attempt to reproduce the difficult and involved style
characteristic of parts of Thucydides. One instance of a borrowed phrase
must suffice. In his account of the plague of Athens, Thucydides writes,
“When they were afraid to visit one another, the sufferers died in their
solitude ... or if they ventured they perished, especially _those who
aspired to heroism_.”[38] The phrase in italics has taken the fancy of
Josephus, who employs it repeatedly.[39] But imitation did not stop at
the diction. The narrative of incidents in the history of Israel has
been heightened, it seems, by touches from the account of the siege of
Platæa and the Sicilian expedition; this last exploit in particular has
aroused the emulation of our author.[40]

Beside this indebtedness to former historians, Josephus doubtless
derived inspiration from the literary circle of living authors by whom
he was surrounded in Rome. The account of the assassination of Caligula
was, as stated, possibly derived from Cluvius Rufus; and it is
interesting to reflect that our author must have known a writer just
rising to fame, the historian of the Emperors, who has also left us a
brief account of the Jewish War, Cornelius Tacitus.

The high literary standard attained by the historian, writing in a
language which he acquired with difficulty, and the power of vivid and
dramatic description, evident in many brilliant passages, are in the
circumstances very remarkable.

                  *       *       *       *       *

Every allowance being made for our author’s defects, the _importance_ of
his work is unquestionable. His writings bridge the gulf between sacred
and profane literature; they bring the Jewish nation out of its
isolation into the main current of world history. The task which he set
himself could only be accomplished by a Jew, and few Jews possessed the
requisite qualifications of a wide outlook and an intimate knowledge of
the world and of Greek literature. His detachment from his nation and
other characteristics which may appear as deficiencies in the man are
not without their advantages for the historian.

For the O.T. period we may consult him as a store-house of Rabbinical
and Alexandrian lore, though his acquaintance with Palestinian tradition
is considered by experts[41] to have been as superficial as, judged by
his interpretation of proper names, was his knowledge of Hebrew. But it
is only when we come down to about the last century before our era and
to the N.T. period itself that his evidence acquires supreme importance.
Here he gives us the background of Jewish and world history in the time
of our Lord and the infant Church; without his labours such a work as
Schürer’s _Jewish People in the time of Jesus Christ_ could not have
been written. Some figures which in the N.T. are little more than names
become clothed with life; side-lights are cast on others with which we
are more familiar. We may follow in detail the story, told with all the
moving pathos of Greek tragedy, of the rise of Herod the Great to the
height of his fame and of the nemesis which blasted his domestic
happiness. We have full and lifelike portraits of Roman governors and
generals, comparable with the slighter sketches in the Gospels and Acts;
on the one hand we may read of the causes of the unpopularity of
Pilate[42] and of his successors, the last of the procurators, whose
corrupt administration and shameless peculation precipitated the
war,[43] on the other of high-minded governors like Petronius,[44]
claiming kinship with similar noble characters in the N.T.

Among other such illustrations of the N.T. which will be found in the
selected passages below the following may be noted. Herod’s dying
provision to secure himself a national mourning exhibits the cruelty of
the murderer of the innocents.[45] In illustration of St. Luke’s account
of the infancy (ii. 1 ff.) we may read the full story of an enrolment
under Quirinius;[46] also of the revolt of Judas to which it gave rise
and of the later insurrection of Theudas, both of which are mentioned in
Gamaliel’s speech in the Sanhedrin (Acts v. 36 f.).[47] In the full
account of the succession of Archelaus we may discover the historical
event which suggested our Lord’s parable of the nobleman travelling to a
far country (Luke xix. 12 ff.).[48] We have independent narratives,
partly inconsistent with those in the N.T., of the marriage of Herod the
Tetrarch with Herodias[49] and of the death of Herod Agrippa I.[50] In a
beautiful story we read of a royal lady who, like Paul and Barnabas,
brought relief to famine-stricken Jerusalem in the days of Claudius.[51]
The expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Tiberius forms a precedent for
the similar action of Claudius (Acts xviii. 2).[52] With the later
scenes in St. Paul’s life we may compare what is told us of Felix and
Festus,[53] and again of Agrippa II and the marriage of Felix and
Drusilla; while the account of the Cypriot magician and his influence
over Felix strangely resembles that of Elymas and Sergius Paulus (Acts
xiii. 6 ff.).[54] We may read, moreover, of the death of James “the
Lord’s brother”;[55] of the use of the word “Corban” (Mark vii. 11) as
an oath;[56] of the tenets of the Jewish sects (in more than one
passage),[57] and how the Pharisees acquired their power a century
before the time of Christ;[58] we have a detailed account of the Jewish
treatment in the first century of a case of demoniacal possession;[59]
and, last but not least, we find in the scenes from the Jewish War the
fulfilment of our Lord’s predictions of the fate of Jerusalem.

Other alleged connexions between Josephus and the N.T. are open to
serious question. Few will be inclined to follow Wellhausen, who finds
in the murder of Zacharias son of Baris (or Bariscæus or Baruch)[60] the
incident referred to in our Lord’s words about “the blood of Zachariah
son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar”
(Matt. xxiii. 35). Many critics have maintained that there is a direct
literary connexion between the Jewish historian and St. Luke, whose
writings (not unnaturally, since he alone of the Evangelists composed a
“second treatise”) furnish the majority of the parallels. There is very
little probability in the suggestion[61] that Josephus, in his
description of himself in boyhood being consulted by the Rabbis, was
influenced by Luke ii. 46 f. There is more to be said for the theory
that St. Luke had made a cursory perusal of parts of the _Antiquities_
and had been thereby led, in at least one instance, into serious error;
reasons for rejecting this view will be found elsewhere.[62]


                         Texts and Translations


The literature on Josephus is immense. It will suffice here to mention
two standard editions of the Greek text and two English translations.

Older editions have been practically supplanted by the great critical
edition of B. Niese in seven volumes, including a full critical
apparatus and introductions on the MSS (Berlin 1887-1895). It cannot be
said that Niese has established a final text; he seems to err in placing
too great reliance on a single class of MSS, with the result that the
true reading is often to be found in the notes rather than in the text.
In his _editio minor_ without critical apparatus (1888-1895) some
corrections of the errors of the MSS have been introduced. On the basis
of the older work of Bekker (1855) and with assistance from Niese, a
handy edition has been issued in the Teubner series of classical authors
by S. A. Naber (6 vols., Leipzig, 1888-1896). Niese’s larger edition is
indispensable to the student, but that of Naber forms a useful auxiliary
and check upon it. Notwithstanding Niese’s work, much remains to be done
in establishing the text on a firm basis. In many difficult passages all
MSS seem to have gone astray and we are left to conjectural emendation;
there are also occasional small _lacunæ_.

In English Josephus is best known through the translation of William
Whiston, first published nearly two centuries ago (1736). A revision of
Whiston was produced by the Rev. A. R. Shilleto in Bohn’s Standard
Library, with brief topographical notes by Sir C. W. Wilson (5 vols.,
London, G. Bell, 1889-1890). The revised Whiston is the most serviceable
rendering of the complete works available. Whiston has many merits, but
he had not access to a good text, his rendering is often at fault and he
had little regard for style; while Shilleto’s revision, which appeared
inopportunely just before the two modern editions of the Greek text,
unfortunately leaves much to be desired.

Of a very different character is the admirable translation of the
_Jewish War_ and the _Life_ made by the Rev. Dr. R. Traill and edited,
after his death, with notes by Isaac Taylor (London, 1862). Dr. Traill
fell a victim to his exertions in relieving his parishioners during the
Irish famine of 1846-7, and the version which he contemplated of the
remaining works never appeared. In his translation, which combines
faithfulness to the original with a fastidious regard for English style,
Traill went far towards accomplishing for Josephus what Jowett did for
Thucydides.

My procedure in the following selections has been first to produce a
version of my own, and then carefully to revise it with the help of both
Shilleto’s, Whiston and Traill. In several instances I had the
satisfaction of finding that my rendering practically agreed with
Traill’s, but I have not scrupled elsewhere to avail myself of happy
turns of expression where, as often, he had the advantage of me.
Josephus, with his feeling for good style and the pains which he took to
acquire it, deserves and demands much care in translation. While in
parts of his work his Greek is simple and easy, passages, on the other
hand, where he gives his reflections on the character, or estimates the
motives, of his _dramatis personæ_,[63] in the involved manner of
Thucydides, are extraordinarily difficult both to understand and to
reproduce in readable English.

I have selected the passages most relevant to Christian origins and New
Testament study, neglecting almost entirely the first twelve books of
the _Antiquities_.

For further literature reference may be made to the articles in the
_Dictionary of Christian Biography_ (Edersheim), the _Jewish
Encyclopædia_ (S. Krauss), Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Apostolic
Church_ (von Dobschütz), Hastings’ _Bible Dictionary_, Extra Volume
(Thackeray), and to Schürer’s _Jewish People in the time of Christ_
(E.T.), div. i. vol. i. pp. 77-110.

I have to acknowledge my gratitude to my sister-in-law, Miss Harriette
G. Orr, for her kind assistance in the compilation of the Index.

_July 1919._

Footnote 1:

  Dated variously as A.D. 30 (Harnack), 33 (Ramsay), 34 (Lightfoot), and
  35-6 (C. H. Turner, Hastings’ _D.B._, art. “Chronology”).

Footnote 2:

  §§ (1) and (2).

Footnote 3:

  § (54).

Footnote 4:

  Close of the Acts A.D. 59 (Harnack), 61 (Turner), 62 (Ramsay), 63
  (Lightfoot).

Footnote 5:

  _Dict. Christ. Biog._

Footnote 6:

  § (41).

Footnote 7:

  § (43).

Footnote 8:

  § (46).

Footnote 9:

  See _e.g._ § (48).

Footnote 10:

  Hastings’ _D.B._, Ext. 462 _b_.

Footnote 11:

  § (52).

Footnote 12:

  § (4).

Footnote 13:

  “Primus e fisco Latinis Græcisque rhetoribus annua centena
  constituit,” Suet. _Vesp._ 18.

Footnote 14:

  § (3).

Footnote 15:

  Three of his wives are mentioned in § (4).

Footnote 16:

  § (38).

Footnote 17:

  § (3), Agrippa writes, “Send me the remaining volumes.”

Footnote 18:

  § (3).

Footnote 19:

  § (3).

Footnote 20:

  Hastings’ _D.B._, Ext. 466 _b_.

Footnote 21:

  § (61).

Footnote 22:

  I have in this section made considerable use of the essay, “On the
  Personal Character and Credibility of Josephus,” prefixed to Dr.
  Traill’s translation of the _Jewish War_—a very judicious estimate.

Footnote 23:

  § (2).

Footnote 24:

  § (43).

Footnote 25:

  _Op. cit._ p. 6.

Footnote 26:

  § (26) with Appendix, Note II.

Footnote 27:

  § (37).

Footnote 28:

  § (29).

Footnote 29:

  Phil. iv. 22.

Footnote 30:

  Acts xxvi. 26.

Footnote 31:

  Traill, _op. cit._, p. 19.

Footnote 32:

  Gen. iii. 15.

Footnote 33:

  § (50).

Footnote 34:

  See, _e. g._, the historian’s reading of Herod’s character, § (19).

Footnote 35:

  § (3).

Footnote 36:

  § (49).

Footnote 37:

  Cf. § (38), first paragraph.

Footnote 38:

  οἱ ἀρετῆς τι μεταποιούμενοι, II. 51 (Jowett’s translation).

Footnote 39:

  _e. g._ in §§ (31) p. 86, and (55) p. 160, “professedly virtuous
  persons”; cf. also § (21) p. 65.

Footnote 40:

  See Drüner, _Untersuchungen über Josephus_ (Marburg, 1896), pp. 1-34.

Footnote 41:

  _e.g._ Edersheim.

Footnote 42:

  §§ (25), (28).

Footnote 43:

  § (39).

Footnote 44:

  § (31).

Footnote 45:

  § (21).

Footnote 46:

  § (24).

Footnote 47:

  §§ (24), (35).

Footnote 48:

  § (22).

Footnote 49:

  § (29).

Footnote 50:

  § (33).

Footnote 51:

  § (34).

Footnote 52:

  § (27).

Footnote 53:

  § (39).

Footnote 54:

  § (36).

Footnote 55:

  § (37).

Footnote 56:

  § (65).

Footnote 57:

  §§ (53) ff.

Footnote 58:

  § (58).

Footnote 59:

  § (6).

Footnote 60:

  § (45), with Appendix, Note V.

Footnote 61:

  Quoted by Edersheim, _Dict. Christ. Biog._ III. 442 _a_, note.

Footnote 62:

  See Appendix, Note IV.

Footnote 63:

  _E.g._ §§ (19) and (20).




                            I. AUTOBIOGRAPHY


              (1) The Boy among the Doctors. His Education


I was brought up with Matthias, my own brother by both parents, and made
great progress in my education, gaining a reputation for an excellent
memory and understanding. [Sidenote: A.D. 51-2] While still a mere boy,
about fourteen years old, I won universal applause for my love of
letters; insomuch that the chief priests and the leading men of the city
used constantly to meet in order to obtain from me more accurate
information on some particular in our legal institutions. [Sidenote:
A.D. 53-4] At about the age of sixteen I determined to gain personal
experience of the several sects into which our nation is divided. These,
as I[64] have frequently mentioned, are three in number—the first that
of the Pharisees, the second that of the Sadducees, and the third that
of the Essenes. I thought that, after a thorough investigation, I should
be in a position to select the best. So I submitted myself to hard
training and laborious exercises and passed through the three courses.
Not content, however, with the experience thus gained, on hearing of one
named Bannus, who dwelt in the wilderness, wearing only such raiment as
trees provided, feeding on such things as grew of themselves, and using
frequent ablutions of cold water, by day and night, for purity’s sake, I
became his ardent disciple. With him I lived for three years and, having
accomplished my purpose, returned to the city. [Sidenote: A.D. 56-7]
Being now in my nineteenth year I began to govern my life by the rules
of the Pharisees, a sect which is akin to that which the Greeks call the
Stoic school.—_Vita_ 2 (8-12).

Footnote 64:

  Lit. “we.” For the various descriptions of the Jewish sects see §§
  (53)-(55).


       (2) A Shipwreck on the Voyage to Rome. The Eve of the War


    Josephus meets with the same fate as St. Paul within a few years of
    the event so graphically described in Acts xxvii.

[Sidenote: _c._ A.D. 64]

Soon after I had completed my twenty-sixth year it fell to my lot to go
up to Rome for a reason which I will proceed to relate. At the time when
Felix was procurator of Judæa, certain priests of my acquaintance, very
excellent men, were on a slight and trifling charge sent by him in bonds
to Rome to render an account to Cæsar.[65] I was anxious to discover
some means of delivering these men, more especially as I learnt that,
even in affliction, they had not forgotten the pious practices of
religion, but supported themselves on figs and nuts. I reached Rome
after being in great jeopardy at sea. For our ship foundered in the
midst of the sea of Adria, and our crew of some six hundred souls had to
swim all that night. About daybreak, through God’s good providence, we
sighted a ship of Cyrene, and I and certain others, about eighty in all,
outstripped the others and were taken on board. Landing safely at
Dicæarchia, which the Italians call Puteoli, I became on friendly terms
with Aliturus, an actor who was a special favourite of Nero and of
Jewish origin. Through him I became known to Poppæa, Cæsar’s wife, and
took the earliest opportunity of soliciting her aid to secure the
liberation of the priests. In addition to this kind service, I received
large gifts from Poppæa, and so returned to my own country.

There I found revolutionary movements already on foot, and that many
were building high hopes on the prospect of revolt from Rome. I
accordingly endeavoured to repress these promoters of sedition and to
bring them over to another frame of mind. I urged them to picture to
themselves the nation on which they were about to make war, and to
remember that they were inferior to the Romans, not only in military
skill, but in good fortune; and I warned them not thus recklessly and
with such utter madness to expose their country,[66] their families and
themselves to the direst perils. With such words I earnestly and
insistently sought to dissuade them from their purpose, foreseeing that
the end of the war would be most disastrous for us. But my efforts were
unavailing; the madness of desperation was far too strong for me.—_Vita_
3-4 (13-19).

Footnote 65:

  Nero.

Footnote 66:

  Lit. “countries.”


 (3) The “Jewish War” and its Reception. Criticism of a rival Historian
                                (Justus)


I cannot but wonder at your impudence in daring to assert that your
narrative is to be preferred to that of all who have written on this
subject, when you neither knew what happened in Galilee—for you were
then at Berytus[67] with the king[68]—nor acquainted yourself with[69]
all that the Romans endured or inflicted upon us at the siege of
Jotapata; nor was it in your power to ascertain the part which I myself
played in the siege, since all possible informants perished in that
conflict. Perhaps, however, you will say that you have accurately
narrated the events which took place at Jerusalem. How, pray, can that
be, seeing that neither were you a combatant nor had you perused the
Memoirs of Cæsar, as is abundantly proved by your contradictory account?
But, if you are so confident that your history excels all others, why
did you not publish it in the lifetime of the Emperors Vespasian and
Titus, who conducted the war, and while King Agrippa and all his family,
persons thoroughly conversant with Hellenic culture, were still among
us? You had it written twenty years ago, and might then have obtained
the evidence of eyewitnesses to your accuracy. But not until now,
[Sidenote: After A.D. 100] when those persons are no longer with us and
you think you cannot be confuted, have you ventured to publish it.

_I_ had no such apprehensions concerning my work. No; I presented the
volumes to the Emperors themselves, when the events had hardly passed
out of sight, conscious as I was that I had preserved the true story. I
expected to receive testimony to my accuracy and was not disappointed.
To many others also I immediately presented my History, some of whom had
taken part in the war, such as King Agrippa and some of his relatives.
Indeed, so anxious was the Emperor Titus that my volumes should be the
sole authority from which the world should learn the facts, that he
affixed his own signature to them and gave orders for their publication;
while King Agrippa wrote[70] sixty-two letters testifying to the truth
of the record. Two of these I subjoin, from which you may, if you will,
learn the nature of his communications:—

    “King Agrippa to dearest Josephus greeting. I have perused the book
    with the greatest pleasure. You seem to me to have written with much
    greater care and accuracy than any who have dealt with the subject.
    Send me the remaining volumes. Farewell.”

    “King Agrippa to dearest Josephus greeting. From what you have
    written you appear to stand in no need of instruction, to enable us
    all to learn (everything from you) from the beginning.[71] But when
    you meet me, I will myself instruct you in many things of which you
    are ignorant.”[72]—_Vita_ 65 (357-366).

Footnote 67:

  Beirut.

Footnote 68:

  Herod Agrippa II.

Footnote 69:

  The word is that rendered in St. Luke’s preface (i. 3) “traced the
  course of (all things).”

Footnote 70:

  Or “has left in writing.”

Footnote 71:

  The king’s alleged “culture” here fails him; the Greek is vulgar and
  obscure. For ἡμᾶς ὅλους, “us all,” perhaps we should read ἡμᾶς ὅλως,
  “us completely.”

Footnote 72:

  Or “not generally known.”


              (4) After the War. Josephus as Roman Citizen


[Sidenote: A.D. 67]

After the siege of Jotapata I was in the hands of the Romans and was
kept under guard, while receiving every attention. Vespasian showed in
many ways the honour in which he held me, and it was by his command that
I married one of the women taken captive at Cæsarea, a virgin and a
native of that place. She did not, however, remain long with me, for she
left me on my obtaining my release and accompanying Vespasian to
Alexandria. There I married again. From Alexandria I was sent [Sidenote:
A.D. 70] with Titus to the siege of Jerusalem, where my life was
frequently in danger, both from the Jews, who were eager to get me into
their hands, to gratify their revenge, and from the Romans, who
attributed every reverse to some treachery on my part, and were
constantly and clamorously demanding of the Emperor that he should
punish me as their betrayer. Titus Cæsar, however, knowing well the
varying fortunes of war, repressed by his silence the soldiers’
outbursts against me.

Again, when at last Jerusalem was on the point of being carried by
assault, Titus Cæsar repeatedly urged me to take whatever I would from
the wreck of my country, stating that I had his permission. And I, now
that my native place had fallen, having nothing more precious to take
and preserve as a solace for my personal misfortunes, made request to
Titus for the freedom of some of my countrymen; I also received by his
gracious favour a gift of sacred books.[73] Not long after I made
petition for my brother and fifty friends, and my request was granted.
Again, by permission of Titus, I entered the Temple, where a great
multitude of captive women and children had been imprisoned, and
liberated all the friends and acquaintances whom I recognized, in number
about a hundred and ninety; I took no ransom for their release and
restored them to[74] their former fortune. Once more, when I was sent by
Titus Cæsar with Cerealius and a thousand horse to a village called
Tekoa, to prospect whether it was a suitable place for an entrenched
camp, and on my return saw many prisoners who had been crucified and
recognized three of my acquaintances among them, I was cut to the heart
and came and told Titus with tears what I had seen. He gave orders
immediately that they should be taken down and receive the most careful
treatment. Two of them died in the physicians’ hands; the third
survived.

When Titus had quelled the disturbances in Judæa, conjecturing that the
lands which I held at Jerusalem would be unprofitable to me, because a
Roman garrison was to be quartered there, he gave me another parcel of
ground in the plain. On his departure for Rome, he took me with him on
board, treating me with every mark of respect. On our arrival in Rome, I
met with great consideration from Vespasian. He gave me a lodging in the
house which he had occupied before he came to the throne; he honoured me
with the privilege of Roman citizenship; and he assigned me a pension.
He continued to honour me up to the time of his departure from this
life, without any abatement in his kindness towards me.... Vespasian
also presented me with a considerable tract of land in Judæa.

About this time I divorced my wife, being displeased at her behaviour.
She had borne me three children, of whom two died; one, whom I named
Hyrcanus, is still alive. Afterwards I married a woman of Jewish
extraction who had settled in Crete. She came of very distinguished
parents, indeed the most notable people in that country. In character
she surpassed many of her sex, as her subsequent life showed. By her I
had two sons, Justus the elder, and then Simonides, surnamed Agrippa.
Such is my domestic history.

The treatment which I received from the Emperors continued unaltered. On
Vespasian’s decease [Sidenote: A.D. 79] Titus, who succeeded to the
empire, showed the same esteem for me as did his father, and never
credited the accusations to which I was constantly subjected. Domitian
succeeded [Sidenote: A.D. 81] Titus and added to my honours. He punished
my Jewish accusers, and for a similar offence gave orders for the
punishment of a slave who was a eunuch and my son’s tutor. He also
exempted my property in Judæa from taxation—a mark of the highest honour
to the privileged individual. Moreover, Domitia, Cæsar’s wife, never
ceased conferring favours upon me.

Such are the events of my whole life; from them let others judge as they
will of my character.—_Vita_ 75-76 (414-430).

    For further autobiographical details see below, §§ (38), (43), (44),
    (46), (48).

Footnote 73:

  Or “the sacred books.”

Footnote 74:

  Meaning uncertain; Traill, “paying that compliment to.”

        II. SPECIMENS OF AMPLIFICATION OF THE BIBLICAL NARRATIVE


          (5) Moses, the Infant Prodigy, introduced to Pharaoh


    For Moses’ beauty, cf. Acts vii. 20. The name of Pharaoh’s daughter,
    Thermuthis, occurs also in the _Book of Jubilees_ (xlvii. 5,
    Tharmuth); elsewhere she is called Bithiah (cf. 1 Chron. iv. 18).
    For Rabbinical parallels, see art. “Moses” in the _Jewish
    Encyclopædia_.

When he was three years old, God added wondrously to his stature; and
there was no one so lost to an appreciation of beauty as, on seeing
Moses, not to be amazed at his comeliness. It often happened that
persons meeting him as he was carried along the road, attracted by the
child’s appearance, turned round and, leaving their pursuits, gave
themselves up to gazing at him. Such boyish charm, so remarkable and
perfect as his, held the onlookers spellbound.

Such was Moses when Thermuthis, who was not blessed with offspring of
her own, adopted him as her son. Now on one occasion she brought him to
her father and showed him to him, and told him how, in case it was God’s
will that she should have no child of her own, she had made provision
for a successor, by bringing up a boy of divine beauty and noble spirit,
and by what a miracle she had received him from the bounteous river.
“And I thought,” she added, “to make him my child and the heir to your
kingdom.”

With these words she laid the babe in her father’s arms; and he took him
and hugged him to his breast, and, to please his daughter,
affectionately placed his diadem upon his head. But Moses, in mere
childishness, tore it off and dashed it to the ground and trampled upon
it.

The incident was thought ominous, portending ill to the kingdom. The
sacred scribe, who had foretold that the child’s birth would cause the
humiliation of the Egyptian Empire, witnessed the scene and rushed
forward to kill him, with an alarming cry. “This, O king,” so he cried,
“is that child of whom God told us that if we kill him we need fear
nothing. By his action[75] in trampling on (the symbol of) thy
sovereignty and treading the diadem under foot[76], he bears out my
prediction. Kill him, then, and at one stroke relieve the Egyptians of
their fear of him and deprive the Hebrews of the confident hopes which
he inspires.”

But Thermuthis was too quick for him and snatched the child away. The
king, too, was reluctant to slay him, being inclined to mercy by God,
whose providence watched over Moses’ life. Great care was accordingly
devoted to his upbringing; the Hebrews resting high hopes upon him for
their future, while the Egyptians viewed his education with
suspicion.—_Ant._ II. 9. 6 f. (230-237).

Footnote 75:

  Text emended.

Footnote 76:

  Perhaps a gloss (omit Latin VS.).


                  (6) Exorcism in the name of Solomon


“By whom do your sons cast them out?”

God also enabled Solomon, for man’s benefit and cure, to learn the art
of encountering devils. He both composed charms for the alleviation of
diseases and also left behind him certain methods of exorcism, by which
the poor prisoners[77] may expel the devils so that they never return.

This treatment even to this day is of the greatest efficacy among the
Jews. I have myself witnessed one of my countrymen, a certain Eleazar,
in the presence of Vespasian and his sons and some tribunes and a crowd
of soldiers of other ranks, releasing[78] (from their bondage) persons
who were possessed by these[79] devils. The mode of treatment was as
follows. To the demoniac’s nose he applied his ring which held beneath
the seal a root obtained in accordance with Solomon’s prescription, and
then as the man smelt it he drew the devil out through his nostrils. The
patient at once fell down and Eleazar adjured the devil never to return
into him again, using Solomon’s name and reciting the incantations which
that monarch composed. Moreover, in his desire to convince the
bystanders and to prove that he really possessed this power, Eleazar
used to place a little in front of the demoniac a cup or basin[80] full
of water, with a command to the devil on his exit from the man to
overturn these vessels and so to let the spectators know that he had
left him. On this taking place, the skill and wisdom of Solomon were
clearly established.—_Ant._ VIII. 2. 5 (45-49).

Footnote 77:

  Lit. “persons bound in”; cf. Luke xiii. 16.

Footnote 78:

  The same word as in Luke xiii. 12 (“art loosed”).

Footnote 79:

  Text doubtful.

Footnote 80:

  Lit. “foot-bath.”


             (7) Micaiah and Zedekiah prophesy before Ahab


    Cf. 1 Kings xxii. With the alleged discrepancy between prophecies of
    Elijah and Micaiah, cf. Jos. _Ant._ X. 7. 2 (106 f.) for seeming
    inconsistency between Jeremiah and Ezekiel which led King Zedekiah
    to disbelieve both.

So Ahab summoned his own prophets, in number about four hundred, and
bade them enquire of God whether, if he led his forces against Ader,[81]
He would grant him victory and enable him to overthrow the city[82]
which was his objective in going to war. The prophets advised him to
undertake the expedition, assuring him that he would defeat the Syrian
(king) and get him into his power as on the former occasion. But
Jehoshaphat understood from their words that they were false prophets,
and asked Ahab whether there was some other prophet of God besides, that
they might obtain more accurate information about the issue. Ahab
replied that there was such a man, but that he hated him because he
prophesied evil and had foretold that he would be defeated and slain by
the Syrian (king). “I have him now in ward,” he said, “and his name is
Micaiah, the son of Omblaiah.”[83] However, as Jehoshaphat urged that he
should be produced, Ahab sent a eunuch to fetch Micaiah.

The eunuch explained to him on the road how all the other prophets had
foretold that the king would be victorious; to which he replied that it
was impossible for him to give a false report of God’s word, but he
would speak whatever God should tell him concerning the king. So when he
came before Ahab, and had been adjured by him to tell him the truth, he
said that God had shown him the Israelites in flight, pursued by the
Syrians and scattered by them to the mountains like flocks that had lost
their shepherds. He added that it was revealed to him that they would
return to their homes in peace, but he, and he only, would fall in the
battle.

When Micaiah had thus spoken, Ahab said to Jehoshaphat, “See, I told you
but now of this fellow’s disposition towards me and how he predicted for
me nothing but the worst.”

Micaiah replied that Ahab ought to listen to all that God foretold, and
that the false prophets were inciting him to make this war, hoping that
he would be victorious, whereas he was destined to fall in the battle.

This caused the king to reflect; but Zedekiah, one of the false
prophets, approached and advised him to pay no heed to Micaiah. “There
is,” he said, “no truth in his words, as I can prove from a prophecy of
one who could read the future better than this fellow, I mean Elijah.
Elijah foretold that dogs would lick up your blood in the field of
Naboth, as they had licked the blood of Naboth who for your sake was
stoned to death by the people.[84] Clearly, then, this fellow is a liar,
when he contradicts a prophet greater than himself, by asserting that
you will die at a distance of three days’ journey from that spot. But
you shall all learn whether he speaks the truth and possesses the power
of the divine spirit. The instant I strike him, let him injure my hand,
as Jadaus withered king Jeroboam’s right hand when he wished to arrest
him.[85] You have heard, I presume, that that actually happened.”

So he struck Micaiah, and, when no harm happened to him, Ahab took
courage and was ready to lead his army against the king of Syria. Fate,
I suppose, was winning the day and causing the false prophets to appear
more plausible than the true, that so she might find a handle to bring
about his end.—_Ant._ VIII. 15. 4 (401-439).

Footnote 81:

  _i. e._ Ben-hadad, in the LXX “the son of (H)ader.”

Footnote 82:

  Ramoth-gilead.

Footnote 83:

  Imlah.

Footnote 84:

  1 Kings xxi. 19.

Footnote 85:

  1 Kings xiii. 4. The name Jadaus (or, as the Latin has, Jadon) is
  unscriptural.




                     III. THE COMING OF THE ROMANS


  (8) Loss of Jewish Independence. Palestinian Settlement under Pompey


    The quarrels between the brothers Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II
    bring about the intervention of Rome in Palestinian affairs. Pompey
    takes Jerusalem, and Syria becomes a Roman province. [Sidenote: 63
    B.C.] See Map 40 in the _Hist. Atlas of Holy Land_ of G. A. Smith
    and J. G. Bartholomew.

The sanctuary, which hitherto had been inaccessible and screened from
view, suffered gross outrage. Pompey, with several of his staff,
penetrated into the inner court and saw things which it was unlawful for
any save the high priests to behold. There stood the golden table, and
the holy candlestick,[86] and the cups for libations, and a mass of
spices;[87] besides these, in the treasury was the sacred money
amounting to two thousand talents. Yet Pompey out of piety touched none
of these, acting here again in a manner worthy of his noble nature.

On the following day he gave orders to those in charge of the Temple to
cleanse the precincts and to offer to God the offerings prescribed by
the Law. The high priesthood he restored to Hyrcanus, in gratitude for
his other services and chiefly because he had restrained the Jews of the
country from taking up arms for Aristobulus. Those who had been
responsible for the war were beheaded; Faustus and all who had gallantly
scaled the wall received at his hands the appropriate rewards of valour.

Jerusalem he made tributary to Rome, and the cities of Cœle-Syria which
had in times past been subdued by the inhabitants (of the metropolis)
were taken from them and placed under a governor[88] appointed by
himself; and the whole nation, whose power had until then been greatly
increasing, was strictly confined within its own bounds. He rebuilt
Gadara, which had recently been destroyed,[89] to gratify his freedman
Demetrius who was a Gadarene. The other cities—Hippos, Scythopolis,
Pella, Dium, Samaria, also Marisa, Azotus, Jamnia and Arethusa—he
restored to their inhabitants. These, as well as the cities which had
been razed, were all in the interior of the country. On the sea-board
Gaza, Joppa, Dora and Strato’s Tower—afterwards magnificently rebuilt by
Herod and embellished with harbours and temples under the new name of
Cæsarea—all these were liberated by Pompey and attached to the province
(of Syria).

Jerusalem owed this calamity to the quarrels of Hyrcanus and
Aristobulus. We lost our liberty and became subject to the Romans; we
were forced to give back to the Syrians the territory which we had taken
from them by our arms. Moreover, within a short period the Romans
exacted from us over ten thousand talents. The kingship, formerly a
privilege bestowed on those who were high priests by right of birth, now
passed into plebeian hands;[90] of this we shall speak in due course.

Pompey then handed over Cœle-Syria with the rest of Syria,[91] from the
river Euphrates to Egypt, to Scaurus, leaving him two Roman legions, and
departed for Cilicia _en route_ for Rome. He took with him Aristobulus
as a prisoner with his children.—_Ant._ XIV. 4. 4 f. (71-79).

Footnote 86:

  Or “lampstand.”

Footnote 87:

  Another reading has “silver vessels.”

Footnote 88:

  Or “prætor.”

Footnote 89:

  By the Jews (_B. J._ parallel passage).

Footnote 90:

  The Herodian family (Idumæans).

Footnote 91:

  Text (as read by Niese) doubtful.


      (9) Division of the Country into Five Districts by Gabinius


    Gabinius completes Pompey’s work in the settlement of the province
    of Syria.

[Sidenote: _c._ 57 B.C.]

After this Gabinius reinstated Hyrcanus in Jerusalem and committed to
him the custody of the Temple. The civil administration he reconstituted
under the form of an aristocracy. He divided the whole nation into five
unions;[92] one of these he attached to Jerusalem, another to Gadara,
the third had Amathus as its centre of government, the fourth was
allotted to Jericho, the fifth to Sepphoris, a city of Galilee. The Jews
welcomed their release from the rule of an individual and were from that
time forward governed by an aristocracy.—_B. J._ I. 8. 5 (169 f.).

Footnote 92:

  Or “sessions,” “conventions” (σύνοδοι). “He appointed five councils
  (or ‘assemblies’, συνέδρια) and distributed the nation into as many
  portions.”—_Ant._ (parallel passage).


                   (10) Settlement under Julius Cæsar


[Sidenote: 47 B.C.]

In due course Cæsar concluded the war[93] and set sail for Syria. There
he confirmed the appointment of Hyrcanus to the high priesthood, while
he bestowed high honours on Antipater—the privilege of Roman citizenship
with exemption from taxation everywhere....

Cæsar then appointed Hyrcanus high priest and Antipater civil governor,
allowing him to select his own title. Antipater leaving the decision to
him, Cæsar made him viceroy[94] of Judæa. He further permitted Hyrcanus,
at his request, to rebuild the walls of the capital,[95] which had lain
in ruins since their demolition by Pompey. He sent instructions to the
consuls at Rome that a record of these decisions should be placed in the
Capitol.—_Ant._ XIV. 8. 3, 5 (137, 143 f.).

Footnote 93:

  In Egypt, where Antipater had rendered him yeoman service.

Footnote 94:

  Or “procurator” (ἐπίτροπος).

Footnote 95:

  Lit. “fatherland.”




                          IV. HEROD THE GREAT


          (11) The Youth Herod frees Galilee from the Brigands


[Sidenote: _c._ 47-6 B.C.]

Antipater, when he saw that Hyrcanus was of an inert and sluggish
disposition, put his eldest son Phasael in command of Jerusalem and the
surrounding district, and committed Galilee to his second son, Herod,
then a mere stripling; he was but fifteen[96] years old. Still his youth
was no hindrance to him, and, being a lad of high spirit, he at once met
with an opportunity for the display of his quality. Finding that one
Ezekias, the captain of a band of brigands, with a large horde, was
overrunning the adjoining parts of Syria, he caught him and put him to
death with many of his confederates. This achievement of his won him the
warmest affection of the Syrians; he had purged their country of this
nest of robbers of which they were longing to be rid. They would sing
his praises for this feat throughout their villages and cities,
acclaiming him as one who had brought them peace and the secure
enjoyment of their possessions. This action, moreover, brought him to
the notice of Sextus Cæsar, a kinsman of the great Cæsar and now
governor of Syria.—_Ant._ XIV. 9. 2 (158-160).

Footnote 96:

  So the MSS; probably we should read “twenty-five.” See Schürer,
  _Jewish People_, I. 1. 383, n. 29.


              (12) Herod on his Trial before the Sanhedrin


[Sidenote: _c._ 47-6 B.C.]

But the principal Jews, when they saw Antipater and his sons growing so
great through the good-will of the nation and the revenues which they
derived from Judæa and from the wealth of Hyrcanus, became ill-disposed
to him. For Antipater had made an alliance with the Roman Emperors and
had induced Hyrcanus to send them money; he then appropriated this money
and despatched it as a gift from himself and not from Hyrcanus.
Hyrcanus, when the matter came to his ears, was indifferent. Not so the
Jewish leaders. The sight of Herod—violent, audacious and hankering
after autocratic power[97]—filled them with alarm. So they approached
Hyrcanus and now openly accused Antipater. “How much longer,” they said,
“will you remain unmoved by what is happening? Do you not see that
Antipater and his sons have girded themselves with the ruler’s power,
leaving you but the barren name of king? Mark these things and do not
expect to escape peril by carelessness for yourself and your kingdom.
Antipater and his sons are no longer stewards of your realm—do not
deceive yourself with that thought—but openly and confessedly despots.
One son, Herod, by killing Ezekias,[98] with many of his followers, has
transgressed our law, which forbids the slaying of any man, even a
malefactor, unless he has first been condemned to this penalty by the
Sanhedrin. Yet Herod took it upon him to do this without your
authority.”

This speech had its effect upon Hyrcanus. His indignation was further
roused by the mothers of Herod’s victims, who continued day by day in
the Temple to petition the king and the people to bring Herod to
judgement before the Sanhedrin for his actions. Thus instigated,
Hyrcanus summoned Herod to trial upon the charges laid against him. He
came. His father had advised him to meet his judges not as a private
individual but with a bodyguard to protect him, after securing his
position in Galilee in the manner that seemed most to his own advantage.
He set his affairs in order accordingly, and with an escort just
sufficient for his journey, so as neither to intimidate Hyrcanus by
appearing with a larger body, nor yet to be quite exposed and
unprotected, went to his trial.

However, Sextus, the governor of Syria, sent written instructions to
Hyrcanus to acquit Herod, adding threats in the event of his
disregarding them. This letter of Sextus gave Hyrcanus a handle for
delivering Herod unscathed from the Sanhedrin, for he[99] loved him as
his own son.

Herod, as he stood in the Sanhedrin with his body-guard round him,
overawed them all, and none of those who before his arrival had been
maligning him, now dared to accuse him. There was deep silence and
perplexity how to proceed.

In this critical situation one Sameas, a man whose upright character
made him superior to fear, rose up and said: “Fellow-councillors and
King, I know of none, nor, I suppose, can you name any, of those who in
times past have been summoned before you, who appeared in such guise as
this. Every one, of whatever rank, entering this council-chamber on his
trial, comes with an air of humility and the appearance of one in fear
and craving your mercy, with his hair long and in black raiment. But
this most worthy Herod, a defendant on trial for murder, when summoned
to answer so grave a charge, stands here in purple array, with
well-trimmed hair adorning his head, and with armed men around him,
ready, if we condemn him in accordance with the law, to kill us and to
save himself in defiance of justice. Yet it is not Herod I would blame
for such conduct, if he puts his own interests above the laws, but you
and the King for giving him so great licence. Be assured, however, I
call God Almighty to witness, that this man, whom, to gratify Hyrcanus,
you now desire to acquit, will one day punish both you and your King.”

And his words came true. For Herod, on inheriting his kingdom, slew all
those who were in the Sanhedrin, and Hyrcanus with them, Sameas alone
excepted. For he had a high regard for Sameas on account of his upright
character and because, when the city was afterwards [Sidenote: 37 B.C.]
besieged by Herod and Sossius, he advised the people to admit Herod,
telling them that for their sins they could not escape him.—_Ant._ XIV.
9. 3 f. (163-176).

Footnote 97:

  Lit. “tyranny.”

Footnote 98:

  See § (11).

Footnote 99:

  Apparently Hyrcanus, though Sextus might be the subject.


      (13) Herod and Cassius. Murder of Antipater, Herod’s Father


[Sidenote: 44 B.C.]

    After the death of Julius Cæsar, when civil war was impending,
    Cassius came to Syria and exacted heavy taxes, in the collection of
    which he was assisted by Antipater and his sons. Malichus had
    plotted against Antipater; Antipater had pardoned him, and had also
    saved his life when he was in danger from the Romans.

[Sidenote: _c._ 43 B.C.]

In saving Malichus, however, Antipater, as the event proved, had saved
his own murderer. For Cassius and Murcus[100] collected an army and
entrusted the entire charge of it to Herod, appointing him to the
command of Cœle-Syria with a fleet and a force of horse and foot. They
promised, moreover, to make him King of Judæa after the war, which had
already broken out, against Antony and the young Cæsar.[101] Malichus
was then more in terror than ever of Antipater, and endeavoured to put
him out of the way.[102] So he bribed the butler of Hyrcanus, at whose
house the two were being entertained, and had him poisoned. With his
armed men he was able to keep the city quiet.

When Herod and Phasael heard of the plot against their father and were
indignant at it, Malichus, as on the former occasion, denied any part in
it, and professed that he had not been murdered. Such was the end of
Antipater, a man pre-eminent for his piety, justice and patriotism. Of
the two sons, Herod at once resolved to lead his army against Malichus
and avenge his father; Phasael, the elder, preferred to defeat him by
resort to craft, for fear they should seem guilty of provoking civil
war. So he accepted Malichus’ defence, feigning belief in his innocence
in the matter of Antipater’s death, and arranged a splendid funeral for
his father.—_Ant._ XIV. 11. 4 (280-284).

Footnote 100:

  The governor of Syria.

Footnote 101:

  Octavius, the future Emperor Augustus.

Footnote 102:

  Cf. _B. J._ I. 226: “It was his son’s power and expectations which
  brought about Antipater’s end. For Malichus was afraid of these,” etc.


         (14) Antony makes Herod and Phasael Tetrarchs of Judæa


    See the _Historical Atlas_ of Smith and Bartholomew, Map 41.

[Sidenote: 42 B.C.]

After the death of Cassius at Philippi, the victors departed, Cæsar
going to Italy, Antony to Asia. Embassies from the [Sidenote: _c._ 41
B.C.] various states waited upon Antony in Bithynia, and among them came
the Jewish leaders, who accused Phasael and Herod of usurping the
government and leaving to Hyrcanus merely titular honours. Herod
thereupon appeared and by large bribes so wrought upon Antony that he
refused his adversaries a hearing. So for the time being these enemies
were dispersed. But on a later occasion a hundred Jewish officials
approached Antony, now a slave to his passion for Cleopatra, at Daphne
beside Antioch, and, putting forward the most eminent and eloquent of
their number, laid accusations against the brothers. The defence was
undertaken by Messala, Hyrcanus supporting him because of his marriage
connexion with Herod. After hearing both parties, Antony enquired of
Hyrcanus who was the best qualified ruler. Hyrcanus pronouncing in
favour of Herod and his brother, Antony was delighted, because he had
formerly been their father’s guest, and had been hospitably entertained
by Antipater when he accompanied Gabinius on his Judæan campaign. So he
[Sidenote: 57-55 B.C.] made the brothers tetrarchs and entrusted them
with the administration of the whole of Judæa.—_Ant._ XIV. 12. 4 f.
(242-244).


                     (15) How Herod won his Kingdom


[Sidenote: 40 B.C.]

    Herod, forced to flee from Palestine by a great invasion of
    Parthians, who reinstate Antigonus, son of Aristobulus, as King of
    Judæa, arrives a suppliant at Rome in mid-winter.

Antony commiserated the reversal of Herod’s fate. The trite reflection
arose in his mind that even those in the highest rank are at the mercy
of fortune. He was moved partly by the memory of Antipater’s
hospitality,[103] partly by Herod’s promise, as on a former occasion
when he was made tetrarch, to give him money if he were made king. But
his main incentive to assist Herod in his suit was animosity towards
Antigonus, whom he regarded as a promoter of sedition and an enemy of
the Roman people.

Cæsar[104] was even more ready to meet Herod’s claim and to further his
ends because of the part which Antipater had played in his father’s
campaigns in Egypt and his hospitality and undeviating loyalty; the
desire to gratify Antony, who was a warm admirer of Herod, was a further
motive.

The senate was accordingly summoned, and Messala, followed by Atratinus,
introduced Herod and rehearsed his father’s services and reminded the
assembly of the good-will which Herod himself had always borne to the
Roman people. At the same time they denounced Antigonus and proved him
to be an enemy, not merely from his former antagonism to them, but
because he had now been guilty of indignity to the Roman people in
accepting his rulership at Parthian hands. At this the senate was
exasperated. Antony also came forward and advised them that it was
expedient for the war with Parthia that Herod should be king. This met
with unanimous approval and a decree was passed accordingly.

The clearest evidence of Antony’s regard for Herod was afforded not
merely by his obtaining for him the kingdom for which he had not looked,
but by his procuring this unexpected honour so expeditiously that he was
enabled to leave Italy within the space of seven days. For Herod had not
come to the capital to ask the kingship for himself. He did not suppose
that the Romans, whose custom was to confer such a privilege on members
of the royal family, would grant it to him. He had come to ask for it
for his wife’s brother Alexander, the grandson on his father’s side of
Aristobulus, on his mother’s of Hyrcanus. How this youth was afterwards
put to death by Herod will be told in due course.

When the senate was dissolved, Antony and Cæsar left the senate-house to
offer sacrifice and to deposit a copy of the decree in the Capitol.
Herod was between them, and the consuls and other magistrates led the
way. Antony celebrated the king’s accession-day by a festival. Thus did
Herod obtain his kingdom in the 184th Olympiad, under the consulship of
Gnæus Domitius Calvinus (for the second time) and Gaius Asinius
Pollio.—_Ant._ XIV. 14. 4 f. (381-389).

Footnote 103:

  Cf. § (14).

Footnote 104:

  Octavius.


(16) How Herod made his peace with Augustus (after the Battle of Actium)


Herod was soon filled with anxiety about the security of his position.
He was Antony’s friend, and Antony had been defeated by [Sidenote: 31
B.C.] Cæsar[105] at Actium. His fears, however, proved worse than his
fate; for Cæsar considered his victory to be incomplete so long as Herod
remained Antony’s ally. [Sidenote: 30 B.C.] The king resolved to
confront the danger and set sail for Rhodes, where Cæsar was then
stationed. He presented himself before him without a diadem, a commoner
in dress and demeanour, but with the spirit of a king. His speech was
direct; he told the truth without reserve.

“I was made king by Antony,” he said, “and I acknowledge, Cæsar, that I
have in all things devoted my services to him. Nor will I shrink from
saying that, had not the Arabians detained me,[106] you would assuredly
have found me in arms at his side.[107] I sent him, however, such
auxiliary troops as I could and many thousand measures of corn;[108] nor
even after his defeat at Actium did I desert my benefactor. When no
longer useful as an ally, I became his best counsellor; I told him the
one remedy for his disasters—the death of Cleopatra. Would he but kill
her, I promised him money, walls to protect him, an army, and myself as
his brother in arms in the war against you. But his ears, it seems, were
stopped by his infatuation for Cleopatra and by God who has graciously
given you the victory. I share Antony’s defeat and with his downfall lay
down my diadem. I am come to you resting my hope of safety upon my
integrity, anticipating that the subject of enquiry will be not whose
friend, but how loyal a friend, I have been.”

To this Cæsar replied: “Nay, be assured of your safety, and reign
henceforth more securely than before. So staunch a champion of the
claims of friendship deserves to be ruler over many subjects. Endeavour
to remain as loyal to those who have been more fortunate, since I, too,
entertain the most brilliant hopes for your high spirit. Antony,
however, did well in obeying Cleopatra’s behests rather than yours; for
through his folly we have gained you. But you take the lead, it seems,
in acts of beneficence; for Quintus Didius[109] writes to me that you
have sent him a force to assist him against the gladiators. I therefore
now confirm your kingdom to you by decree; and hereafter I shall
endeavour to do you some further service, that you may not feel the loss
of Antony.”

Having thus graciously addressed the king, he placed the diadem on his
head, and signalized the grant by a decree, containing many generous
expressions in eulogy of the monarch.—_B.J._ I. 20. 1 ff. (386-393).

Footnote 105:

  Octavius.

Footnote 106:

  Herod was engaged in fighting the Arabians at the time of the battle
  of Actium.

Footnote 107:

  Reading ἀχώριστον with Havercamp; MSS εὐχάριστον, “grateful” (? =
  “willingly”).

Footnote 108:

  Lit. “many ten thousands of corn.”

Footnote 109:

  Conjectural emendation (Hudson), cf. Dio Cassius, 51. 7, and the
  parallel passage, _Ant._ XV. 195.


                        (17) Herod and Mariamne


But Fortune, in revenge for his successes in the field, visited Herod
with troubles at home; his ill-fated career originated with a woman to
whom he was passionately attached....

On the eve of his departure abroad he committed his wife[110] to the
care of Joseph, his sister Salome’s husband, with private injunctions to
kill her, should Antony kill him. He could trust Joseph; the ties which
united them made him a true friend. Joseph, out of no malice but from a
desire to convince her of the love which the king bore her, since even
in death he could not endure to be separated from her, betrayed the
secret. When Herod, on his return, [Sidenote: _c._ 29 B.C.] in familiar
intercourse was protesting with many oaths his affection for her and
that he had never (so) loved any other woman, “A fine exhibition you
gave,” she replied, “of your love for me[111] by your orders to Joseph
to put me to death!”

He was beside himself, the moment he heard the secret was out. Joseph,
he exclaimed, would never have disclosed his orders, had he not seduced
her; and, frenzied with passion, he leapt from the bed and paced the
palace to and fro in his distraction. His sister Salome, seizing this
opportunity to slander Mariamne, confirmed his suspicion of Joseph. Mad
with ungovernable jealousy, he ordered that both should instantly be put
to death. But remorse followed hard upon rage; his wrath subsided, his
love revived. So consuming, indeed, was the flame of his passionate
desire that he believed she was not dead and in his affliction would
address her as though she were alive; until time taught him the reality
of his loss, when his grief was as profound as the love he had for her
while she was alive.—_B.J._ I. 22 (431, 441-444).

Footnote 110:

  Mariamne (Μαριάμμη).

Footnote 111:

  Lit. “for us.”


   (18) Extension of Herod’s Realm. His Popularity with Augustus and
                                Agrippa


    For Palestine under Herod see the _Hist. Atlas_ of Smith and
    Bartholomew, Map 42.


[Sidenote: 27 B.C.]

When Herod was engaged on these enterprises[112] and had already
completed the rebuilding of the city of [Sidenote: 23 B.C.]
Sebaste,[113] he resolved to send his sons, Alexander and Aristobulus,
to Rome, to have audience of Cæsar.[114] On their arrival at the capital
they were given lodging in the house of Pollio, one who was very
assiduous in cultivating Herod’s friendship; permission was also given
them to lodge in the palace of the Emperor, who gave the lads the most
kindly reception. The Emperor, moreover, empowered Herod to bequeath his
kingdom to any of his children at his discretion; and added to his realm
the district of Trachonitis,[115] Batanæa and Auranitis, which he gave
him for the following reason....

    Here follows a description of Herod’s subjugation of Zenodorus and
    the robber bands in Trachonitis.

So Cæsar bestowed upon Herod the territory of Zenodorus, an extensive
region lying between Trachonitis and Galilee (and embracing) Ulatha and
Paneas[116] and the neighbouring country. He attached it[117] to the
province of Syria, but instructed the provincial governors to do nothing
without obtaining Herod’s approval.

In short, he reached such a height of prosperity that, whereas the
burden of government of the vast Roman Empire rested upon two men, first
Cæsar, and then (as Cæsar’s favourite) Agrippa, Cæsar preferred no one
to Herod after Agrippa, and Agrippa made Herod his chief friend after
Cæsar.—_Ant._ XV. 10. 1 and 3 (342 f.; 360 f.).

Footnote 112:

  The building of Cæsarea and its harbour, etc.

Footnote 113:

  Herod’s new name for Samaria.

Footnote 114:

  Augustus.

Footnote 115:

  Lit. “Trachon.” The three districts correspond approximately to Bashan
  of the O.T.

Footnote 116:

  Ulatha and Paneas N. and N.E. of the Waters of Merom.

Footnote 117:

  Text (Niese) uncertain. Most MSS “him”; lit. “mixed him with (? = ‘put
  him on a level with’) the governors of Syria.”


           (19) The Historian’s Reading of Herod’s Character


It is usual to remark with astonishment on the inconsistency of Herod’s
character. When we have regard to his munificent actions and the
benefits which he conferred on the world at large, even one who is not
among his warm admirers[118] cannot deny that he was by nature supremely
beneficent. If, on the other hand, one looks at the penalties inflicted
and the wrongs done by him to his subjects and nearest relations, and
takes note of his harsh and unrelenting disposition, one will be forced
to the conclusion that he was of a brutal nature and an alien to all
humanity.[119] Hence the common opinion that his character was, as it
were, a compound of conflicting and antagonistic elements.

I do not share this opinion; my view is that both these sides of his
character had one and the same cause. He was ambitious, indeed an abject
slave to that passion; and where there appeared any promise of
posthumous fame or present reputation, he might even attain magnanimity.
But, since his expenditure outran his means, necessity drove him to be
cruel to his subjects. His lavish bounty to his beneficiaries forced him
to procure his supplies by criminal methods[120] from his victims. He
was conscious that his subjects hated him for the wrongs which he did
them, but found it no easy matter to atone for his sins without loss to
his exchequer. Instead he fought his opponents, converting even their
disaffection into a source of revenue. As for his nearest and dearest,
if any one omitted to address him in obsequious language and to display
a subservient attitude, or was suspected of plotting against the realm,
he was incapable of self-control and punished relatives and friends
alike, one after another, as though they were open enemies; to such
crimes was he driven by his desire that honour should be paid to himself
alone.

I find confirmation for my belief that this passion was the key to his
character in the manner in which he conferred his honours on Cæsar and
Agrippa and the rest of his friends. He looked for a return in kind of
the service which he paid to his superiors; his gifts were the most
excellent he could conceive, but the way in which he gave them revealed
his desire to receive the like.

The Jewish nation, however, is by its law alienated from all such
things; its training has taught it to prefer righteousness to the
pursuit of glory. For this reason it was out of favour with Herod,
because it was incapable of flattering the king’s vanity by erecting
images or shrines or by any such practices. This, I think, explains at
once the crimes of which he was guilty against his relatives and
advisers and his benefactions to foreigners and those outside his
family.—_Ant._ XVI. 5. 4 (150-159).

Footnote 118:

  Most MSS read: “even those who were less (_or_ least) honoured (by
  him).”

Footnote 119:

  Lit. “moderation.”

Footnote 120:

  The Greek is difficult and the sense a little obscure. The phrase,
  κακῶν ποριστὴν (lit. “provider of evils,” “purveyor of misfortunes to
  his victims”), seems to be a reminiscence of Thuc. VIII. 48.


          (20) Reflections on the Tragic Fate of Herod’s Sons


    A quarrel extending over many years between Herod and his sons,
    Alexander and Aristobulus, after a reconciliation had been effected
    first by Augustus and then by others, ends in his putting them to
    death on the charge of treason.

[Sidenote: (?) 7 B.C.]

Alexander and Aristobulus were then, by their father’s orders, removed
to Sebaste[121] and there strangled. Their bodies were conveyed by night
to Alexandrium,[122] where their mother’s father[123] and most of their
ancestors lay buried.

Now some, perhaps, may not find it strange that a long cherished hatred
should grow so great as to surpass all bounds and overpower the natural
affections. Yet the apportionment of the guilt for so grave a crime may
well give pause for reflection. Should it be laid to the charge of the
youths that they drove their father to extremities[124] and by long and
persistent recalcitrance paved the way for their own ruin? Or was the
father himself the culprit—without feelings and so extravagant in his
lust for dominion and fame that he was prepared to sacrifice any
one[125] to ensure unquestioning obedience to his every whim? Or, again,
was it Fortune—Fortune whose power is mightier than any considerate
thought,[126] so that we believe that human actions are foreordained by
her by an inevitable necessity, and we call her Destiny, because we
think that nothing happens of which she is not the ultimate cause?

It will suffice, I think,[127] merely to propound this last view as an
alternative to the other.[128] We do not thereby deprive ourselves[129]
of all free-will nor disclaim responsibility for acting in this way or
that in matters which long before our time have been elsewhere
philosophically treated in the Law.

As between the two other alternatives, one might censure the lads, in
that, with youthful impetuosity and princely insolence, they tolerated
calumnies upon their father, and were no fair critics of the actions of
his life.[130] Malicious in their suspicions, and intemperate in speech,
they were on both grounds an easy prey to the flattering informers who
lay in wait for them.

As for the father, his impious treatment of his sons seems to admit of
no extenuation. With no clear evidence of a plot, with no proof of any
preparations for an attempt on his life, he had the heart to slay his
own flesh and blood. Men of the noblest presence, the darlings of all
outside the family, proficient in their pursuits, whether hunting or
military exercises or discourse on everyday topics—they had all these
gifts, in particular Alexander, the elder of the two. Granted that he
had actually found them guilty, it would have been punishment enough to
confine them in prison or to banish them from the realm, without taking
their lives; he had the sure shield of the power of the Roman
Empire[131] to secure him from assault and violence. But to kill them
out of hand to gratify an overmastering passion was a clear case of
impiety beyond measure; this appalling crime was, moreover, the act of
an old man. The long struggle and procrastination cannot be urged in his
excuse. That a man taken by surprise should in a fit of excitement
commit some monstrous crime, though distressing, is an event of common
occurrence. But this deliberate and leisurely procedure—often to take
the deed in hand and as often to postpone it, and then at last to
undertake it and carry it through—that was the work of a murderous mind,
rooted in depravity.

He displayed the same character in the sequel, when he did not stay his
hand even from those whom he held dearest of the remaining members of
his family.[132] In their case the justice of the sentence created less
sympathy for the victims, but the barbarity was the same as was shown in
his refusal of mercy to the others.—_Ant._ XVI. 11. 7 f. (394-404).

Footnote 121:

  The rebuilt city of Samaria.

Footnote 122:

  A fortress in Judæa.

Footnote 123:

  An elder Alexander.

Footnote 124:

  Text doubtful.

Footnote 125:

  Reading, with Niese, παραλειπτέον, “thought that none should be left
  (alive).” MSS παραληπτέον, which Whiston renders “would take no one
  into partnership with him.”

Footnote 126:

  Or perhaps “is superior to all wise calculation.”

Footnote 127:

  Adopting the conjecture ὡς νομίζω for ὡς μείζω. The text and meaning
  of this difficult passage are uncertain.

Footnote 128:

  The doctrine of Free-will.

Footnote 129:

  Or perhaps “... to the other, (under which) we do not deprive
  ourselves.”

Footnote 130:

  Or “of the actions which he took to protect his life.”

Footnote 131:

  The _Romana potestas_.

Footnote 132:

  With special reference to Antipater, Herod’s heir and afterwards his
  victim.


          (21) Herod’s Dying Provision for a National Mourning


    With this passage we reach the N.T. period. The grim story of an
    intended massacre, happily in this case averted, affords a parallel
    to the Gospel story of the murder of the innocents.


[Sidenote: 4 B. C.]

Now, although his sufferings seemed beyond human endurance, he did not
despair of recovery. He sent for physicians, and consented to try every
remedy which they prescribed. He crossed over the river Jordan, and
surrendered himself to treatment in the hot springs at Callirrhoe. These
waters, besides their general remedial properties, are fit to drink;
they debouch into the so-called Bituminous[133] Lake. Here, the
physicians deciding that a higher temperature was needed, he was placed
in a vat of oil. To this treatment he appeared to have succumbed, but
when his attendants fell to lamentation, he rallied, and now abandoning
all hope of recovery, gave orders that every soldier should be paid
fifty pieces of silver;[134] he made further large bequests to their
commanding officers and to his personal friends. Returning to Jericho,
he had an attack of black bile, which rendered him so savage with all
the world[135] that, although now nearing his end, he contrived the
scheme which I proceed to describe.

By his orders, the principal men from every quarter of the entire Jewish
nation waited upon him. They came in large numbers, as the summons was
to the nation and was universally obeyed, death being the penalty for
disregard of the injunctions. For the king was mad with rage against all
alike, whether innocent or suspected of guilt. He then locked them all
up in the hippodrome, and sent for his sister Salome and her husband
Alexas.

He told them that his bodily sufferings were now so great that death
could not be far off. Death could be borne, and came to all as a welcome
guest; but what grieved him most was the thought that he would lack the
lamentations and miss the mourning usually accorded to a king. He was
not blind to the feelings of the Jews, and knew what relief and intense
delight his death would bring them,[136] because, even in his lifetime,
they were always ready to rebel and to treat his projects with
contumely. “It is therefore your task,” he proceeded, “to resolve[137]
to afford me some alleviation of this particular pain. If you do not
refuse your consent to my wishes, I shall receive a great funeral, such
as no king ever had before me, and a heartfelt national lamentation for
my sport and delectation. When, therefore, you see that I have given up
the ghost, let the troops be drawn up round the hippodrome, still
unaware of my death—the news must not be published to the world till you
have done this—and the order given to shoot down the prisoners within
with their javelins. If you kill them all in this manner, you will
without fail do me a double favour. You will execute my dying
injunctions; you will also get me the honour of a memorable mourning.”

Such was the charge which, with tears and supplication and appeals to
the loyalty due to a kinsman and their faith in God, he laid upon them,
and bade them preserve him from dishonour. And they promised not to fail
him.

From these final injunctions even a friendly critic of the king’s
former actions, who attributed his treatment of his family to
self-preservation, might read the mind of the man and see how
destitute it was of every spark of humanity; since on the very verge
of his exit from life he could lay his plans for throwing the whole
nation into mourning and desolation for their nearest and dearest. For
his orders were to butcher one out of every household, men who had
done him no wrong and were not accused on any other ground; and these
orders were given at an hour when persons with any pretensions to
virtue commonly lay aside their rancour, even towards those whom they
justly regard as enemies.—_Ant._ XVII. 6. 5 f. (171-181).

Footnote 133:

  Asphaltophoros (elsewhere Asphaltitis), _i.e._ the Dead Sea.

Footnote 134:

  Gr. “drachmae.” The drachma was nearly the equivalent of the Lat.
  _denarius_, in value a little less than the modern “franc.”

Footnote 135:

  Or “in all his actions.”

Footnote 136:

  In the parallel passage (_B.J._ I. 660), “I know that the Jews will
  observe my death as a feast-day.” It has been thought that a festival
  on the second of the month Shebat, of which the occasion is
  unrecorded, may have commemorated Herod’s death.

Footnote 137:

  Lit. “give your vote.”




                        V. ARCHELAUS AND PILATE


                  (22) Archelaus in Quest of a Kingdom


    “A certain nobleman went into a far country, to receive for himself
    a kingdom and to return.... But his citizens hated him, and sent an
    ambassage after him, saying, We will not that this man reign over
    us. And it came to pass, when he was come back again, having
    received the kingdom.... Howbeit these mine enemies, which would not
    that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before
    me” (Luke xix. 12 ff.).

    “There is little doubt that” this parable “was suggested by
    contemporary history. The remarkable feature of the opposing embassy
    makes the reference to Archelaus highly probable; and Jericho, which
    he had enriched with buildings, would suggest his case as an
    illustration” (Plummer). The fact that Archelaus came back with only
    a provisional promise of kingship does not detract from the
    probability.

    Herod’s death was the signal for a national outbreak against his
    successor. A riot took place at Passover, [Sidenote: 4 B.C.] and
    Archelaus left for Rome to have his title confirmed (Cf. the _Hist.
    Atlas_ previously cited, Map 43).

Archelaus then issued a proclamation that all should withdraw to their
homes. So they abandoned the feast and departed, for fear of worse
evils, although in their ignorant way they had shown boldness
enough.[138]

Archelaus then went down to the sea-board with his mother; he took with
him also his friends Nicolaus,[139] Ptolemy and Ptolla.[140] He
committed the entire charge of his family and realm to his brother
Philip. There also sailed with him Salome, Herod’s sister, with her
children, and many of his relations; ostensibly to assist Archelaus to
obtain his kingdom, but in reality intending to oppose him, and in
particular to protest loudly against his proceedings in the
Temple.—_Ant._ XVII. 9. 3 (218-220).

    After the departure of Archelaus, Sabinus, the procurator of Judæa,
    tries to get possession of Herod’s treasures in the Temple.


                    A Rival Claimant to the Kingdom


About this time Antipas, another of Herod’s sons, also set sail for
Rome, to make a rival claim to the throne, to which he was instigated to
aspire by Salome’s promises. He claimed that he had a much better right
than Archelaus to the succession, in virtue of his nomination as king in
Herod’s former will, which, in his opinion, had greater validity than
the later codicils. He took with him his mother and the brother of
Nicolaus, Ptolemy, one of Herod’s most honoured friends, and now a
staunch champion of Antipas. But the man who more than any other
prompted him to think of claiming the throne was Irenæus, a professional
speaker, who on account of his reputation for ability had been entrusted
with the administration of the realm. Thus supported, Antipas declined
to listen to those who advised him to make way for Archelaus as the
elder son and the one who had been declared king in their father’s later
will.

When Antipas reached Rome, his relatives went over to him in a body; not
for love of Antipas, but from hatred of Archelaus. What they really
desired was to be free and placed under a Roman governor; but, if
anything prevented this, they thought Antipas would serve their ends
better than Archelaus, and therefore lent him their aid in his suit.
Another of Archelaus’s accusers was Sabinus in a letter addressed to
Cæsar.[141]—_Ant._ XVII. 9. 4 (224-227).

    Augustus holds a council and hears both sides; Antipater, son of
    Salome, undertaking the prosecution, Nicolaus the defence, of
    Archelaus.

Here Nicolaus ended his harangue. Archelaus then fell on his knees
before Cæsar,[142] who graciously raised him up and declared that he was
very worthy of the kingdom; he showed, moreover, that he was strongly
inclined[143] to act only in accordance with the tenor of the will and
in the interests of Archelaus. Nothing, however, was decided which could
afford Archelaus any sure ground for confidence; and on the dismissal of
the assembly, the Emperor privately considered whether he should confirm
the kingdom to Archelaus or should divide it between the whole Herodian
family, as they all stood much in need of assistance.

However, before any final settlement was reached on these matters,
Malthace, the mother of Archelaus, fell ill and died, and letters
arrived from Varus, the governor of Syria, announcing a revolt of the
Jews. For, after Archelaus had sailed, the whole nation was in an
uproar.—_Ant._ XVII. 9. 7-10. 1 (248-251).

    Passover had been the occasion of the former riot; this new
    insurrection broke out at Pentecost. At this feast the Jews laid
    siege to the Roman force in Jerusalem under Sabinus, who had
    plundered the Temple treasury. During the fighting the porticoes of
    the Temple were burnt down. Simultaneously various claimants to the
    kingdom appeared in Judæa. The revolt was quelled by Varus, who
    relieved Sabinus and crucified two thousand of the Jewish
    ringleaders.


               A Jewish Embassy to Rome asks for Autonomy


Meanwhile at Rome fresh troubles for Archelaus were arising out of the
following circumstances. An embassy of Jews came to Rome to petition for
autonomy, the nation having secured the sanction of Varus to the
mission. The ambassadors appointed by the resolution of the nation
numbered fifty; these were joined by upwards of eight thousand of the
Jews in Rome. Cæsar[144] summoned his friends and the leading Romans to
a meeting in the temple of Apollo, which he had founded at great
expense, and thither came the envoys with their crowd of local
compatriots, and Archelaus with his friends. As for King Herod’s
numerous relatives, their hatred of Archelaus would not allow them to
range themselves on his side, while they shrunk from voting with the
embassy against him, supposing that a show of alacrity in opposing one
of their own family would bring them into disgrace with Cæsar.

A newcomer had now arrived from Syria, namely Philip. He came at the
instigation of Varus, primarily to advocate the cause of his brother,
who was a great friend of Varus; but there was the further motive that,
in the event of any revolutionary change in the government of the
kingdom—a change which Varus suspected would take the form of a
partition, because so many were bent on autonomy—Philip should not be
behind-hand in winning some portion for himself.—_Ant._ XVII. 11. 1
(299-303).

    The deputation then present their indictment of Herod’s tyranny.

The sum of their request was that they might be rid of the kingship and
other such forms of government and be added to Syria and made subject to
the authority of the (Roman) governors who were sent to that province;
if they were given milder rulers to preside over them, it would then be
apparent whether or no they were really seditious persons who made a
special study of revolutions.—_Ant._ XVII. 11. 2 (314).

    Nicolaus once more vindicates Herod and Archelaus.


                         The Emperor’s Decision


Cæsar, after hearing the case, dissolved the assembly. His decision was
given a few days later. He made Archelaus, not king, but ethnarch of
half the district which had been subject to Herod, and promised him the
reward of regal rank, if he displayed capacity for kingship. The other
half he divided into two portions[145] which he presented to two other
of Herod’s sons, namely Philip and Antipas, the latter of whom had been
the rival claimant with his brother Archelaus to the undivided monarchy.
Peræa and Galilee, producing an annual revenue of two hundred talents,
were made subject to Antipas. Batanæa with Trachonitis[146] and
Auranitis and a certain portion of the so-called estate[147] of
Zenodorus went to Philip and brought him in a hundred talents. Idumæa,
Judæa and Samaria became tributary to Archelaus. The last-named district
had a quarter of its taxes remitted by Imperial decree, the abatement
being a reward for its having taken no part in the national revolt. The
cities which were tributary to Archelaus were Strato’s Tower[148] and
Sebaste[149] with Joppa and Jerusalem; the Greek cities Gaza, Gadara and
Hippos were detached from his jurisdiction by the Emperor and added to
Syria. The annual revenue which accrued to Archelaus from the dominion
which he inherited was six hundred talents.

Such were the portions of their father’s realm which came to Herod’s
sons. Salome, besides the legacy assigned to her in her brother’s
will—namely Jamnia, Azotus, Phasælis, and five hundred thousand
(drachmas)[150] of coined silver—was presented by Cæsar with the royal
palace at Ascalon. Her annual revenue from all sources was sixty
talents; her residence was within the domain of Archelaus. The other
relatives of the (deceased) king received the legacies named in the
will. To each of his two unmarried daughters, beside what their father
left them, Cæsar presented two hundred and fifty thousand
(drachmas)[151] of coined silver and gave them in marriage to the sons
of Pheroras. He further bestowed all that had been bequeathed to
himself, amounting to fifteen hundred talents, upon the king’s children,
reserving only a few vessels, which pleased him not so much for their
intrinsic value as because they served as memorials of the king.—_Ant._
XVII. 11. 4 f. (317-323).

Footnote 138:

  Or, perhaps, “Their lack of discipline, although they were bold enough
  (counselled prudence).”

Footnote 139:

  Nicolas of Damascus, minister and historian of Herod the Great.

Footnote 140:

  _Var. lect._ “and many (others)” (πολλοὺς); in _B.J._ Poplas.

Footnote 141:

  Augustus.

Footnote 142:

  Augustus.

Footnote 143:

  Reading ῥοπὴν (conj. Niese). With MS reading τροπὴν, “had been
  strongly moved” by Nicolaus’s arguments.

Footnote 144:

  Augustus.

Footnote 145:

  “Two tetrarchies,” _B.J._ (parallel pass.).

Footnote 146:

  Gr. “Trachon.”

Footnote 147:

  Gr. “house.”

Footnote 148:

  Cæsarea.

Footnote 149:

  Samaria.

Footnote 150:

  The unit is omitted in the Gr.

Footnote 151:

  The unit is omitted in the Gr.


(23) Archelaus Deposed and his Territory added to the Roman Province of
                                 Syria


Now in the tenth year of Archelaus’s rule, [Sidenote: A.D. 6] the
leading men of Judæa and Samaria, impatient of his cruel and tyrannical
conduct, laid an accusation against him before Cæsar;[152] they did so
with greater confidence, knowing that he had violated the Emperor’s
injunctions to be lenient in his dealings with his subjects. On hearing
the accusation Cæsar was indignant and sent for the agent of Archelaus’s
affairs in Rome, whose name also was Archelaus, and, disdaining to write
to Archelaus, said to him, “Take ship at once and bring him to us
without delay.” The agent accordingly embarked forthwith, reached Judæa,
found Archelaus feasting with his friends, communicated Cæsar’s will and
hurried him off. On his arrival, Cæsar, after hearing his defence in the
presence of certain of his accusers, sent him into banishment,
appointing Vienne, a city of Gaul, as his place of exile, and
confiscated his property....

The district which had been tributary to Archelaus was annexed[153] to
the province of Syria, and Quirinius, a man of consular rank, was sent
by Cæsar to take a valuation of the property in Syria and to sell the
personal estate[154] of Archelaus.—_Ant._ XVII. 13. 2, 5 (342-344, 355).

Footnote 152:

  Augustus.

Footnote 153:

  Or perhaps “the district of A. was annexed and made tributary.”

Footnote 154:

  Gr. “house.”


(24) The Revolt of Judas “in the days of the enrolment” under Quirinius


    “After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the
    enrolment and drew away people after him” (Acts v. 37). Josephus
    here narrates the story of the revolt in the year A.D. 6, to which
    Gamaliel alludes in his speech in the Sanhedrin as reported in the
    Acts. See Appendix, Note I, for the relation of this enrolment to
    “the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria”
    (Luke ii. 2); also Note IV (“Theudas and Judas”).


[Sidenote: A.D. 6-7]

Now Quirinius, a Roman senator, and one who had held all the subordinate
offices, passing through each grade[155] until he reached the consulate,
and a man of high reputation on other grounds, came with a small retinue
to Syria, being sent by Cæsar[156] as judicial administrator of the
nation and assessor of the national property. With him was sent
Coponius, a man of equestrian rank, as governor of the Jews with supreme
powers. Quirinius also visited Judæa, now an appanage of the province of
Syria, to take a valuation of the Jews’ property and to sell the estate
of Archelaus.

The Jews, although they were indignant when they first heard of the
proposed enrolments, under the influence of the high priest Joazar, son
of Boethus, condescended to desist from further opposition; they yielded
to his advice and, without more scruple, set about valuing their
estates. But one Judas, a Gaulanite, from a city called Gamala,[157]
with a confederate, Zadok a Pharisee, was for rushing into revolt. They
asserted that the valuation meant nothing less than the introduction of
downright slavery,[158] and exhorted the nation to rally in defence of
their liberty. “If,” they said, “our possessions are devoted to the
common weal, success may be ours; if, after all, we are robbed of this
asset, we shall win honour and a reputation for magnanimity. God, who
looks for man’s co-operation to achieve His purposes, will be much more
ready to assist us, if we do not shirk the toil entailed by the great
cause which we have at heart.”

Their words found willing hearers, and the daring enterprise[159] made
great strides. Indeed, every form of disaster took its origin from these
men; the infection which they brought into the nation passes
description.

    Josephus proceeds to trace all the horrors of the Jewish War,
    culminating in the burning of the Temple, to “the fourth sect” (or
    “philosophy”) introduced by Judas and Zadok, _i. e._ the sect of the
    Zealots. Then follows a digression on the Jewish sects, see § (55),
    below.


Quirinius had now disposed of Archelaus’s estate and the census
registrations were ended. This census took place in the thirty-seventh
year after Cæsar’s[160] victory over Antony at Actium. [Sidenote: 31
B.C.] Joazar the high priest became the victim of popular opposition,
and Quirinius deprived him of his honourable post, and appointed Ananus,
son of Sethi, in his place.

Herod and Philip now took over their respective tetrarchies and entered
on office. Herod built walls for the city of Sepphoris—the chief
ornament of all Galilee—and called it Autocratoris;[161] another city,
Betharamphtha, he enclosed in the same way and called it Julias after
the name of the Emperor’s consort.[162] Philip restored Paneas at the
sources of the Jordan and renamed it Cæsarea;[163] he also promoted the
village of Bethsaida on the Lake of Gennesaret to the rank of a city,
increasing its population[164] and general opulence, and gave it the
name of the Emperor’s daughter Julia.—_Ant._ XVIII. 1. 1 and 2. 1 (1-6,
26-28).

Footnote 155:

  The so-called _decursus honorum_.

Footnote 156:

  Augustus.

Footnote 157:

  On the east of the Sea of Galilee. In _B.J._ (parallel pass.) he is
  called “a Galilæan” as in Acts v. 37.

Footnote 158:

  Modelled on Thuc. I. 122, “defeat means nothing but downright slavery”
  (Jowett; speech of the Corinthians urging Sparta to take up arms
  against Athens).

Footnote 159:

  So Niese (ἐπιβολὴ); MSS “plot” (ἐπιβουλὴ).

Footnote 160:

  _i. e._ Augustus.

Footnote 161:

  _i.e._ “Imperial” (city).

Footnote 162:

  Julia.

Footnote 163:

  Cæsarea Philippi (Matt. xvi. 13; Mark viii. 27).

Footnote 164:

  Or, perhaps, “because of its large population.”


  (25) Pilate offends Jewish susceptibilities in the matter of (i) the
                 Emperor’s busts, (ii) the Corban money


Now Pilate, the governor[165] of Judæa, having occasion to transfer
[Sidenote: _c._ A.D. 26] a (Roman) army from Cæsarea into winter
quarters in Jerusalem, conceived the idea of annulling Jewish
legislation by bringing within the city walls the Emperor’s busts which
were attached to the standards; whereas the very making of images is
forbidden us by the Law.[166] For this reason former governors used to
make their entry into the city with standards from which these ornaments
were absent. Pilate was the first to bring the images into Jerusalem and
erect them there. This was done without the knowledge of the citizens
because the army entered by night. As soon as they knew of it, they came
in crowds to Cæsarea, and for many days petitioned for the removal of
the images. Pilate stood firm, because to comply would be[167]
tantamount to high treason against Cæsar, and on the sixth day, the Jews
still persisting in their entreaties, he placed an armed force under
cover and came in person to the judgement-seat; this had been set up in
the race-course, where he had the soldiers concealed[168] in ambush.
When the Jews once more presented their petition, at a given signal he
had a cordon of soldiers round them and threatened to punish them with
instant death if they did not desist from their uproar and depart to
their homes. Thereupon they flung themselves on their faces and bared
their necks and said that they would gladly welcome death rather than
venture to transgress the wise ordinances[169] of their laws. Pilate
marvelled at their obstinacy in the observance of their laws, and
forthwith had the images taken back from Jerusalem to Cæsarea.

On another occasion he expended the consecrated funds[170] on the
construction of (an aqueduct for) conveying water to Jerusalem,
bringing it from a distance of two hundred furlongs.[171] The Jews
were dissatisfied with his action in this matter, and many
thousands[172] of them assembled and raised an outcry against him,
requiring him to abandon his project; some, as is the way of a mob,
even proceeded to rail at and insult the man. Pilate thereupon dressed
a large body of soldiers in Jewish garb, under which they carried
clubs, and stationed them where they could surround the Jews, whom he
then ordered to retire. When these began to revile him, he gave the
soldiers the prearranged signal; and they laid about them with a
severity much greater than Pilate had ordered, punishing
indiscriminately those who had taken part in the riot and those who
had not. (The Jews resisted with no lack of spirit)[173]; and so,
caught, as they were, unarmed by assailants equipped for the purpose,
many of them fell and were left to die on the spot, while others
escaped with wounds. Thus ended the insurrection.—_Ant._ XVIII. 3. 1
f. (55-62).

Footnote 165:

  ἡγεμὼν: more exactly “procurator,” as in _B.J._ parallel pass.
  (ἐπίτροπος).

Footnote 166:

  Ex. xx. 4; Deut. iv. 16, etc.

Footnote 167:

  Or “their request was.”

Footnote 168:

  Conj. Niese; MSS “which concealed the soldiers.”

Footnote 169:

  Gr. “wisdom.”

Footnote 170:

  “the sacred treasure called corban” (or “corbon”), _B.J._

Footnote 171:

  Gr. στάδια. _B.J._ has “400 (_v.l._ 300) furlongs.”

Footnote 172:

  Gr. “myriads.”

Footnote 173:

  With the MS reading οἱ δ᾽; with Niese’s conjecture οὐδ᾽ we should
  translate, in the previous sentence, “indiscriminately and
  relentlessly,” and omit the bracketed words.


                         (26) Jesus Christ[174]


Now about this time lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed he should be
called a man. For he was a doer of marvellous acts, a teacher of such
men as receive the truth with pleasure; and he won over to himself many
Jews and many also of the Greek nation. He was the Christ.[175] And
when, on the indictment of the principal men among us, Pilate had
sentenced him to the cross, yet did not those who had loved him at the
first cease (to do so); for he appeared to them alive again on the third
day, as the divine prophets had declared—these and ten thousand other
wonderful things—concerning him. And even now the race[176] of
Christians, so named from him, is not extinct.—_Ant._ XVIII. 3. 3 (63
f.).

Footnote 174:

  On the authenticity of this passage see Appendix, Note II.

Footnote 175:

  Or “the Messiah.”

Footnote 176:

  Or “tribe” (φῦλον).


                (27) Tiberius expels all Jews from Rome


    A precedent for the similar action of Claudius, which brought
    Aquila and Priscilla to Corinth (Acts xviii. 2). Suetonius alludes
    to this order of Tiberius: “He repressed foreign religious
    ceremonies—Egyptian and Jewish rites—compelling their devotees to
    burn their sacred vestments with all their paraphernalia. Under
    pretext of their military oath, he distributed the younger Jews
    over provinces with an insalubrious climate; others of the same
    race, or followers of kindred religions, he removed from the city,
    under penalty for disobedience of servitude for life” (Tiberius, §
    36).

I revert to the story, which I promised to tell, of what befell the Jews
in Rome at this time.

A Jew, who was a thorough rascal, had been driven from his country by an
accusation of transgressing certain laws and by fear of consequent
punishment. He was then living in Rome, where he professed to expound
the inner meaning[177] of the laws of Moses, and took into partnership
three men with characters exactly resembling his own. Fulvia, a lady of
rank and a proselyte to Judaism, became their disciple, and was induced
by them to send a present of purple (cloth) and gold to the Temple at
Jerusalem. Having obtained possession of these articles, they
appropriated them to their own use to defray their private
expenses;[178] which in fact was the original object of their request.
Fulvia lodged a complaint with her husband Saturninus; he reported the
matter to Tiberius, his friend; and Tiberius ordered the whole Jewish
(colony) to quit Rome. The consuls enlisted four thousand of them and
drafted them to the island of Sardinia, inflicting penalties on a very
large number who refused military service in deference to their
ancestral laws. Thus, through the wickedness of four men, were the Jews
expelled from the city.—_Ant._ XVIII. 3. 4 f. (80-84).

Footnote 177:

  Gr. “wisdom.”

Footnote 178:

  Text a little uncertain.


                   (28) Pilate Sent to Rome for Trial


    An impostor promises to show the Samaritans the sacred vessels
    buried by Moses under Mount Gerizim. Crowds assemble at a village,
    Tirathana, at the foot of the mountain, to make the ascent.

[Sidenote: A.D. 36]

Pilate, however, forestalled their ascent by despatching a force of
cavalry and heavy-armed infantry, who attacked the multitude assembled
in readiness in the village, and in the ensuing engagement killed some,
routed others, and took a large number of prisoners. The chief prisoners
and the most influential of the fugitives were put to death by Pilate.

When the tumult was quelled, the Samaritan council approached Vitellius,
the governor of Syria, of consular rank, with accusations against Pilate
for his butchery of the victims. They said that the object of the
expedition to Tirathana was not revolt from Rome, but to seek refuge
from Pilate’s insolence. Vitellius thereupon sent Marcellus, a friend of
his, to take over the administration of Judæa, and ordered Pilate to
depart for Rome, to render his account to the Emperor of the charges
brought against him by the Samaritans. Pilate, accordingly—after ten
years’ residence in Judæa—went in haste to Rome on the instructions of
Vitellius, which he must needs obey. [Sidenote: A.D. 37] But before he
reached Rome, Tiberius was no more.—_Ant._ XVIII. 4. 1 f. (87-89.)

    Josephus proceeds to tell how Vitellius went up to Jerusalem and
    pacified the Jews by restoring to them the custody of the high
    priest’s vestments, recently in Roman hands. Also how he deposed the
    high priest “Joseph, surnamed Caiaphas.” Thus the three responsible
    authorities for the trial of our Lord—the Emperor, Pilate and
    Caiaphas—quit the scene simultaneously. After the next extract, we
    pass from the period of the Gospel history to the period covered by
    the Acts.




                          VI. THE LATER HERODS


 (29) Herod the Tetrarch: his Marriage with Herodias and Murder of John
                            the Baptist[179]


Now about this time a quarrel arose between Aretas king of Petra[180]
and Herod on the following ground. Herod the Tetrarch married the
daughter of Aretas and had now lived with her a long time. On the eve of
a journey to Rome he lodged in the house of Herod, his half-brother on
the father’s side; the mother of this Herod was the daughter of Simon
the high priest. There he fell in love with Herodias his brother’s wife
(she was the daughter of their brother Aristobulus and sister of Agrippa
the Great[181]) and had the effrontery to propose marriage. She met his
advances and a compact was made that she should leave her home and come
to him on his return from Rome; it was part of the compact that he
should divorce the daughter of Aretas. The agreement settled, he set
sail for Rome. On his return, after discharging his commission in that
city, his wife, who had got wind of the compact with Herodias, bade her
husband, who was still unaware that she knew all, send her away to
Machærus—on the frontier between the dominions of Aretas and
Herod—without revealing her intentions. Herod, accordingly, let her go,
not suspecting that the poor woman had any inkling of the plot. She,
however, had long since sent word to Machærus, which at that time[182]
was subject to her father, and so found that the general in command[183]
there had everything in readiness for her (intended) journey. No sooner,
therefore, had she arrived (at Machærus) than she was off again into
Arabia, escorted by one general after another in turn, and so reached
her father post haste and told him of Herod’s intentions.

Aretas seized this occasion for hostilities and also for raising the
question of frontiers in the region of Gamala;[184] the two belligerents
mustered their armies and opened war, sending their generals as their
representatives in the field. A battle took place in which the whole of
Herod’s army was cut to pieces as the result of the defection of a
contingent from Philip’s tetrarchy which enlisted with Herod’s forces
and then deserted. Herod reported the matter to Tiberius, who was
indignant at the aggression of Aretas and wrote instructions to
Vitellius to go to war with him and either to take him alive and bring
him a prisoner to Rome or to kill him and send him his head. Such were
the injunctions of Tiberius to the governor of Syria.

                  *       *       *       *       *

Some of the Jews, however, regarded the destruction of Herod’s army as
the work of God, who thus exacted very just retribution for John,
surnamed the Baptist, Herod’s victim. John was a good man who bade the
Jews first cultivate virtue by justice[185] towards each other and piety
towards God, and so to come to baptism; for immersion,[186] he said,
would only appear acceptable to God if practised, not as an expiation
for specific offences, but for the purification of the body, when the
soul had been already thoroughly cleansed by righteousness. Now when all
men[187] listened to his words with the greatest delight and flocked to
him, Herod feared that the powerful influence which he exercised over
men’s minds—for they seemed ready for any action which he advised—might
lead to some form of revolt. He therefore decided to put him to death
before any revolution arose through him. To forestall events appeared
far better policy than a belated repentance when plunged in the turmoil
of an insurrection. And so, through Herod’s suspicions, John was sent as
a prisoner to Machærus, the fortress already mentioned, and there put to
death. The Jews supposed that the destruction of Herod’s army was the
penalty expressly inflicted upon him by God to avenge John....

    The following extract supplies the name of “the daughter of
    Herodias” who appears in Mark vi. 22 ff.

Now Herodias their sister married Herod, the son of Herod the Great by
Mariamne the daughter of Simon the high priest. They had a daughter
Salome, after whose birth Herodias, in defiance of our country’s laws,
married Herod, the Tetrarch of Galilee and half-brother of her husband,
during the lifetime of her husband, whom she divorced. Her daughter
Salome married Philip, the Tetrarch of Trachonitis and son of
Herod.—_Ant._ XVIII. 5. 1 f., 4 (109-119, 136 f.).

Footnote 179:

  See Appendix, Note III.

Footnote 180:

  Or “(Arabia) Petræa.”

Footnote 181:

  Herod Agrippa I.

Footnote 182:

  Slight emendation (τότε) of the MS reading τῷ τε (“and to him who was
  subject...”).

Footnote 183:

  Or “governor.”

Footnote 184:

  Possibly a lacuna in the text.

Footnote 185:

  Or “righteousness.”

Footnote 186:

  Gr. βάπτισις; in the previous clause βαπτισμός.

Footnote 187:

  Text uncertain; MSS “the rest.”


   (30) How Herod Agrippa became King and Herod the Tetrarch lost his
                               Tetrarchy


    The story of Herod Agrippa’s rise to power is dramatic. Brought up
    at Rome with Drusus, the son of Tiberius, he squandered his money in
    extravagant living. Returning a penniless prodigal to Palestine and
    on the verge of suicide, he was patronized by Herod the Tetrarch and
    his wife Herodias. Becoming involved in fresh difficulties, he
    borrowed money for his passage and returned to Rome. There he paid
    court to the future Emperor Gaius (Caligula), was arrested by
    Tiberius for treason, and spent the last six months of Tiberius’s
    reign in prison.

Tiberius survived his appointment of Gaius as his successor only a few
days, [Sidenote: A.D. 37] and then died after a reign of twenty-two
years, five months and three days. Gaius was the fourth of the Emperors.
The Romans, on learning of the death of Tiberius, rejoiced at the good
news, but could not bring themselves to believe it; not because they did
not desire it, for they would have given large sums of money for
confirmation of the report, but from fear that, if the news proved false
and they exhibited their joy prematurely, they would be slanderously
accused and lose their lives. For no other Roman ever treated the
patrician class so cruelly as did Tiberius. Quick to take offence and
relentless in action against any who, even without reason, had incurred
his hatred, he was savage with all whom he sentenced, and imposed the
death penalty for the slightest offences. And so, while the rumour of
his death found ready listeners, they were restrained from indulging
their satisfaction to the full by dread of the ills which they foresaw
if their hopes proved false.

Now Marsyas, Agrippa’s freedman, on hearing of Tiberius’s death, ran in
haste to tell Agrippa the good news. He found him just going out to the
bath, and beckoning to him, said in the Hebrew tongue, “The lion is
dead.” At once grasping his meaning and overcome with joy at the
tidings, he replied, “All my blessings be upon you for all your services
and for this welcome news! Only may your words prove true!” The
centurion, who kept guard over Agrippa, when he saw in what haste
Marsyas came and how delighted Agrippa was with his message, suspected
some startling intelligence[188] and asked them what was the subject of
their conversation. For a while they prevaricated, but, as he insisted,
Agrippa, who was now on friendly terms with him, told him outright. The
centurion joined with them in welcoming the news, because it was to
Agrippa’s advantage, and invited him to dinner. But as they were
feasting and drinking merrily, there came one who said that Tiberius was
alive and would return in a few days to the city. At this announcement
the centurion was sorely perplexed, because he had been guilty of a
capital offence both in sharing his table with a prisoner and in
rejoicing at the news of the Emperor’s death. He pushed Agrippa from his
seat and said: “Do you think to cheat me with this lying story of the
Emperor’s death and that you are not going to answer for it with your
own head?” With these words he ordered that Agrippa, whose chains he had
loosed, should be bound again, and kept him under stricter guard than
before. In this wretched condition Agrippa passed that night.

But on the morrow the rumour increased, and it was confidently affirmed
throughout the city that Tiberius was dead; men now had the courage to
speak of it openly, some even offered sacrifices. Letters also came from
Gaius, one to the Senate announcing Tiberius’s death and his own
accession, and another to Piso, the city warden, to the same effect, and
accompanied by orders for the removal of Agrippa from the camp to the
house in which he was lodging before his imprisonment. Henceforth
Agrippa lived in security; he was still under watch and ward, but
enjoyed considerable freedom.[189]

But when Gaius reached Rome with the corpse of Tiberius, after giving it
a costly funeral in accordance with the laws of his country, he was
anxious to set Agrippa at liberty that very day. Antonia,[190] however,
restrained him, not out of any ill-will to the prisoner, but with an eye
to propriety on the part of Gaius; she feared he would produce the
impression of welcoming the decease of Tiberius if he were instantly to
release one of his prisoners. Not many days elapsed, however, before
Gaius sent to his house to fetch him, had his hair cut and his raiment
changed, and then set the diadem on his head and appointed him king over
Philip’s[191] tetrarchy; he also conferred upon him the tetrarchy of
Lysanias. In exchange for his iron chain he gave him a golden one of the
same weight....

    Herod the Tetrarch is instigated by his wife Herodias to emulate
    Agrippa and go in quest of similar fortune to Rome. The result was
    disastrous. He was found guilty of conspiracy and sent into exile,
    Herodias sharing his fate. It will suffice to quote the end of the
    story.

... Herod admitted that he had the arms in his armoury; he could not do
otherwise as the facts were there to confute him. Gaius, accordingly,
accepting this as proof of the accusation of conspiracy, deprived him of
his tetrarchy, which he added to Agrippa’s kingdom; he also presented
the latter with Herod’s wealth. He further punished Herod by banishing
him for life, appointing Lugdunum,[192] a city of Gaul, as his place of
abode.—_Ant._ XVIII. 6. 10-7. 2 (224-252).

Footnote 188:

  Or, possibly, “suspected the use of a strange language,” viz. Hebrew.

Footnote 189:

  Cf. Acts. xxiv. 23, where the same word ἄνεσις (R.V. “indulgence”)
  occurs; Moulton-Milligan (_Vocab. of Gr. Test._) suggest “a kind of
  _libera custodia_.”

Footnote 190:

  The grandmother of Gaius and wife of Drusus, the brother of Tiberius.

Footnote 191:

  Philip had recently died.

Footnote 192:

  Lyons.


                 (31) Petronius and the Statue of Gaius


    The crisis produced by the mad order of the Emperor Gaius (Caligula)
    to have his statue erected in the Temple at Jerusalem nearly
    precipitated a Jewish war. Some have seen an allusion to this
    incident in St. Paul’s description of “the man of sin” (2 Thess. ii.
    4, “so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth
    as God”): “but though the sacrilegious conduct of Caligula ... may
    have influenced the writer’s language in _v._ 4, the real roots of
    the conception lie elsewhere” (Milligan, _Thess._, p. 164).

    The favourable portrait given of the Roman governor, who was placed
    in a very difficult position, may be compared with similar portraits
    in St. Luke’s writings.

[Sidenote: _c._ A.D. 40-41]

Gaius, indignant at being thus slighted by the Jews and by them alone,
sent Petronius to Syria as his lieutenant to take over the governorship
of Vitellius, with instructions to advance into Judæa with a large force
and to erect his statue in the temple of God. The order was in any case
to be executed; if they admitted the statue without demur, well and
good; if they showed themselves recalcitrant, he was to overcome their
resistance by resort to arms....

    At Ptolemais Petronius was met by crowds of petitioners who
    stubbornly refused to submit. Similar scenes were repeated at
    Tiberias for forty critical days in the agricultural year, during
    which all sowing operations were neglected. The multitude were
    supported by Aristobulus, brother of Herod Agrippa, and other
    leading men. Petronius, moved by this unanimous national protest,
    decided to lay the case before the Emperor.

Such was the request which Aristobulus and his followers made to
Petronius. Petronius, on his side, was influenced partly by the
importunity of Aristobulus and the leaders, who, considering the great
issues at stake, left no stone unturned to press their suit, partly by
the spectacle of the stubborn and solid front presented by the Jewish
opposition. He shrank from the thought of putting to death, as the
instrument of Gaius’s madness, such myriads of men, solely on the ground
of their reverence of God, and of spending the rest of his life in
remorse.[193] It was far better, he thought, to write to Gaius (and
inform him of) their desperate determination.[194] The Emperor might be
enraged with him for not having executed his orders at once; again, he
might conceivably convince him. If Gaius still adhered to his original
mad resolution, he (Petronius) would then make war on the Jews without
further delay. But if, after all, his anger was partly directed against
himself, to die for so vast a multitude of one’s fellow-creatures was
honourable in the eyes of those who aspired to heroism.[195] He decided
accordingly to give way to the appeal....

    Petronius informs the petitioners of his intention to write to
    Gaius.

After this speech Petronius dismissed the assembled Jews, bidding those
in authority to see that agricultural operations were resumed and to
conciliate the people with hopes of a successful issue. But now, while
he was doing his best to cheer the multitude, God made known to
Petronius His presence[196] and assistance in furthering the whole
scheme. For no sooner had he ended his address to the Jews than God
forthwith sent a great rain. This was contrary to general expectation,
as the morning of that day had been fine and the sky showed no sign of a
shower; moreover, the whole year had been subject to such drought as to
make men despair of any rainfall even when they saw the heavens
overcast. So, when now at length there came a great downpour, contrary
to experience and to all expectation, the Jews had hopes of Petronius’s
success in his petition on their behalf, while Petronius was astounded
when he saw God’s evident care for the Jews, and how He had given so
signal a manifestation of Himself as to leave even those who had
intended to defy Him openly no possibility of contradiction....

    Meanwhile, in Rome, Gaius’ friend, Herod Agrippa, had prevailed on
    the Emperor to desist from his purpose. Gaius thereupon
    counter-ordered his previous instructions, but on receipt of
    Petronius’s appeal wrote him an angry letter, advising him, in view
    of his disregard of orders, “to judge for himself what course he
    should take,” _i. e._ to commit suicide.

Such was the letter which Gaius wrote to Petronius; but it did not reach
him in the Emperor’s lifetime, the messengers entrusted with it having
so slow a passage that before it arrived [Sidenote: January A.D. 41]
Petronius received other letters which told him that Gaius was dead.
God, as the event proved, was not to forget the risks which Petronius
had run on behalf of the Jews and His own honour, but was to pay him his
reward by removing Gaius, in indignation at his daring action in
claiming divine worship for himself. Petronius, moreover, was
supported[197] by the good-will of Rome and of all the magistrates, in
particular the most eminent senators, because Gaius had treated them
with unmitigated severity.

The Emperor died not long after writing to Petronius the letter which
was intended to be his death-warrant. The cause of his death and the
manner of the plot I shall relate in the course of my work. Petronius
received first the letter announcing the death of Gaius, and shortly
afterwards the other with the order to put himself to death. He was
delighted at the happy coincidence of Gaius’s end and marvelled at the
providence of God, who instantly and without delay gave him his reward
for his regard for the Temple and for his assistance to the Jews in
their hour of danger. Thus easily, in a way which none would have
conjectured, did Petronius escape the peril of death.—_Ant._ XVIII. 8.
2, etc. (261, 276-8, 284-6, 305-9).

Footnote 193:

  Lit. “with bad hope.”

Footnote 194:

  The text is uncertain in this and the next sentence. Probably some
  words have fallen out.

Footnote 195:

  The phrase, “those with pretensions to virtue,” is borrowed from Thuc.
  II. 51. I adopt Jowett’s rendering.

Footnote 196:

  So the Epitome and Latin VS. (παρουσίαν); the Gr. MSS have “frankness”
  (παρρησίαν).

Footnote 197:

  Text doubtful.


           (32) Herod Agrippa’s Kingdom enlarged by Claudius


Cf. Map 44 in the _Historical Atlas_ above cited.

[Sidenote: A.D. 41]

Claudius lost no time in discharging all suspected units of the forces.
He then issued a decree, in which he confirmed to Agrippa the kingdom
which he had received from Gaius and highly commended the king.
Moreover, he added to his realm all the territory over which his
grandfather Herod had reigned, namely Judæa and Samaria.[198] Beside
these districts, which he restored to him as his hereditary due, he
added from his own domain Abila, which had once belonged to
Lysanias,[199] and all the mountain region of Lebanon. He ratified these
gifts by a solemn treaty with Agrippa in the middle of the forum in the
city of Rome.—_Ant._ XIX. 5. 1 (274 f.).

Footnote 198:

  _B.J._ (parallel passage) adds “Trachonitis and Auranitis.”

Footnote 199:

  Killed _c._ 34 B.C.; Lysanias of Abilene (Luke iii. 1.) was probably a
  descendant.


                      (33) Death of Herod Agrippa


    This should be compared with the account in Acts xii. 19-23. St.
    Luke differs from Josephus in representing the scene as a court of
    judgement, instead of a theatre.


[Sidenote: A.D. 44]

Agrippa had completed the third year of his reign over (all)[200] Judæa
when he came to the city of Cæsarea, formerly called Strato’s Tower.
There he exhibited spectacles in Cæsar’s honour, at a festival which he
had instituted[201] to commemorate the preservation of the Emperor’s
life, and a great multitude of the provincial magistrates and men of
rank was assembled for the occasion.

On the second day of the performance he entered the theatre at daybreak,
arrayed in a wonderfully woven robe made entirely of silver; whereupon
the silver, caught by the first rays of the sun, was lit up and
glittered in a marvellous manner, with dazzling flashes that struck
terror and awe into the onlookers. His flatterers straightway, from one
quarter and another, raised cries, which even to him seemed ill-omened,
calling him a god and adding, “O be gracious! If hitherto we have feared
thee as a man, from henceforth we own thee as of more than mortal
nature.” The king neither rebuked them nor rejected their impious
adulation; but not long after he looked up and saw the owl sitting on a
rope above his head, and at once recognized the former bringer of good
tidings as now the messenger of ill.[202] Pangs pierced his heart; a
spasm of pain with violent onset shot straight to[203] his stomach.
Leaping up[204] he addressed his friends: “I, your god, even now receive
orders to quit this life; destiny at the instant confutes those lying
voices which this moment filled my ears; I, whom you called immortal, am
already being led off to die. But I must accept such fate as it has
pleased God to send me; for my[205] life has been no ignoble one, but
passed in blissful splendour.”

As he spoke these words intense pain prostrated him. He was quickly
carried into the palace, and a report ran through the assembly that his
death was certainly imminent. At once the multitude, including women and
children, according to their national custom sat in[206] sackcloth and
besought God for the king’s life, and the whole scene was one of wailing
and lamentation. The king himself, who lay in a chamber above, as he
looked down and saw them falling on their faces, could not restrain his
tears. For five days he was racked continuously by abdominal pains, and
so departed this life in the fifty-fourth year of his age and the
seventh of his reign. He reigned [Sidenote: A.D. 37-40] four years under
Gaius Cæsar, during three of them over Philip’s tetrarchy, while in the
fourth [Sidenote: A.D. 40-1] he took over that of Herod[207] as well;
and three more years [Sidenote: A.D. 41-44] under the Emperor Claudius
Cæsar, having Judæa, Samaria and Cæsarea added to his former
realm.—_Ant._ XIX. 8. 2 (343-351).

Footnote 200:

  Lat. VS. omits.

Footnote 201:

  With a slight emendation of the text of the MSS (ἐπιστησάμενος for
  ἐπιστάμενος).

Footnote 202:

  The reference is to an incident in the earlier life of Agrippa, when a
  prisoner at Rome under Tiberius. A fellow-prisoner, a German, seeing
  an owl sitting on a tree against which Agrippa was leaning, had
  foretold his rise to power, adding a warning: “Remember when you see
  this bird again, you will have but five days to live” (_Ant._ XVIII.
  6. 7). Eusebius, in citing the present passage (_H.E._ II. 10), omits
  the words “the owl” and “on a rope,” writing “saw _an angel_ sitting
  above his head,” no doubt under the influence of Acts xii. 23 (ἄγγελος
  Κυρίου).

Footnote 203:

  Reading προσίθυσεν.

Footnote 204:

  Many MSS have “looking up” (ἀναθεωρῶν for ἀναθορὼν).

Footnote 205:

  Lit. “our.”

Footnote 206:

  Lit. “on.”

Footnote 207:

  Antipas.


          (34) The Story of King Izates and his mother Helena


    The pleasing story of the conversion to Judaism of Helena, Queen of
    Adiabene (in the upper Tigris region), and her son Izates in two
    particulars illustrates the narrative of the _Acts_. The famine at
    Jerusalem which was the occasion of the charitable services of the
    Queen was that “which came to pass in the days of Claudius” (A.D.
    41-54), and led the Antiochene Christians to send similar relief by
    the hands of Barnabas and Saul (Acts xi. 28-30). Again, it is
    interesting to read of the conflicting opinions of Jewish Rabbis as
    to the necessity for circumcision in a proselyte to Judaism. The
    same question, with relation to converts to Christianity, was soon
    to come to the front in the councils of the infant church (Acts
    xv.).


Izates, on hearing that his mother found such great delight in the
Jewish observances, was eager on his part to become a convert to that
religion; and, supposing that he could not be a thorough Jew unless he
were circumcised, he was prepared to take the necessary action. His
mother, however, on learning his intention, tried to prevent him, and
told him that he would bring himself into peril. He was a king and would
create great ill-will among his subjects, when they learnt of his
devotion to customs that were strange and alien to them; they would
never tolerate a Jew as their king. Thus she spoke, trying by every
means to dissuade him from his purpose; and he referred for counsel on
her words to Ananias.[208] Ananias took the mother’s side and threatened
to leave Izates if he did not obey her.[209] He said he feared that, if
the matter became public, he would run the risk of being punished
himself as the responsible party who had instructed the king in unseemly
practices. He added that, if he was fully determined to follow[210] the
Jews’ ancestral customs, he might worship God[211] even without being
circumcised; worship was more essential than circumcision; and God
Himself would forgive him because the omission of the act was due to
necessity and fear of his subjects. So for the time the king was
persuaded. But he had not altogether relinquished his desire, when there
came, later on, another Jew from Galilee, named Eleazar, with a
reputation for the strictest observance of the customs of his fathers,
and prevailed on him to do the deed. For, on entering to salute the
king, Eleazar found him reading the Law of Moses, and said: “In your
ignorance, O king, you are sinning grievously against the laws and
thereby against God. It behoves you not merely to read them but even
more to do what they command. How long will you remain uncircumcised? If
you have not yet read the law concerning this matter, read it now, that
you may know what impiety is yours.”

On hearing this speech the king delayed no longer; he withdrew to
another room, summoned his physician, carried out the injunctions, and
sent for his mother and his instructor Ananias and announced that he had
done the deed. And they were at once filled with dismay and fear beyond
measure, lest the king should be convicted of the deed and risk the loss
of his kingdom (since his subjects would not endure a devotee of foreign
customs as their ruler), and they themselves should be in jeopardy as
responsible for his action. However, as the sequel showed, God was to
prevent their fears from being realized. Great perils, indeed, befell
Izates and his children, but God delivered them, providing a way out of
their extremities to salvation, thereby showing that those who look to
Him and believe in Him only do not lose the fruit of their piety. But we
shall tell this story hereafter.

                  *       *       *       *       *

Now Helena the Queen-mother, seeing the kingdom at peace and her son
blessed and envied of all men, even by those of other nations, because
the providence of God was upon him, had a desire to visit the city of
Jerusalem, to do reverence to the Temple of God that was renowned among
all men and to offer sacrifices of thanksgiving. So she entreated her
son’s permission; and he very willingly consented to his mother’s
request, and made large preparations for her sending off and gave her
abundance of money; and she went down to the city of Jerusalem, her son
accompanying her a good way.

Now [Sidenote: _c._ A.D. 44-48] her arrival was very timely to them of
Jerusalem; for, as their city at that time was oppressed by a famine and
many of the inhabitants were perishing for lack of means to buy
food,[212] Queen Helena sent some of her retinue to Alexandria to
purchase corn at a great price, and others to Cyprus to bring a cargo of
dried figs. Then, when they had returned with all speed bringing their
purchases, she distributed food to the destitute. By this beneficent act
she has left to our whole nation the highest remembrance of herself. Her
son Izates, likewise, on hearing of the famine, sent large sums of money
to the chief of the inhabitants of Jerusalem.—_Ant._ XX. 2. 4 f.
(38-53).

Footnote 208:

  His Jewish mentor.

Footnote 209:

  Text doubtful.

Footnote 210:

  Perhaps “was determined to follow ... in their entirety.”

Footnote 211:

  Lit. “the divinity.”

Footnote 212:

  Lit. “lack of expenses.”


  (35) The Fate of the Impostor Theudas, and of the Sons of Judas the
                                Galilæan


    For the relation of this passage to Acts v. 36 f., where Theudas and
    Judas occur in juxtaposition, see Appendix, Note IV.

[Sidenote: A.D. 44-(?)]

Now when Fadus was procurator of Judæa, a certain impostor named Theudas
persuaded the mass of the rabble to take their belongings with them and
follow him to the river Jordan; for he said that he was a prophet and
would by a word of command divide the river and afford them an easy
passage;[213] and by these words he deceived many. Fadus, however, did
not allow them to reap the benefit of their folly. He despatched against
them a troop of horse which fell upon them unexpectedly and slew many
and took many of them prisoners. They caught Theudas himself alive, cut
off his head and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews
under the procuratorship of Cuspius Fadus.

Tiberius Alexander came as successor to Fadus. He was the son of that
Alexander who was Alabarch[214] in Alexandria, and was by birth and
wealth the foremost man of his time in that city. The father excelled
the son, moreover, in his pious worship of God; for the latter did not
hold fast to his hereditary religion. It was under his governorship that
the great famine befell Judæa, when Queen Helena purchased corn from
Egypt at a great price and distributed it to the starving population, as
I have already narrated.[215]

It was now, too, that there were brought up (for trial)[216] the sons of
that Judas of Galilee who induced the people to revolt from the Romans
when Quirinius was engaged in the assessment of Judæa, as we have
narrated in a previous book.[217] Alexander gave orders that (the sons
of Judas named) James and Simon should be crucified.—_Ant._ XX. 5. 1 f.
(97-102).

Footnote 213:

  Like an Elijah _redivivus_.

Footnote 214:

  “The office of _alabarch_, probably chief collector of customs on the
  Arabian side of the Nile, was repeatedly held by wealthy Jews”
  (Schürer, _J.P.T.C._ II. 2. 280). Alexander was the brother of Philo
  the philosopher.

Footnote 215:

  See § (34).

Footnote 216:

  Another reading, “were put to death.”

Footnote 217:

  See § (24).


                  (36) Agrippa II, Felix and Drusilla


    All three characters appear in the _Acts_. Agrippa II (the son of
    Agrippa I) with his sister Bernice and Festus, the Roman governor,
    listened to St. Paul’s defence at Cæsarea (Acts xxv. xxvi.). Felix,
    the predecessor of Festus, with Drusilla his wife had a private
    interview with the Apostle; the circumstances of their marriage
    described below throw light on the governor’s terror “as” Paul
    “reasoned of righteousness and temperance and the judgement to come”
    (Acts xxiv. 24 f.).

    The influence exercised by the Cypriot sorcerer, Atomos, over the
    Roman governor, finds a curious parallel in the relations of Elymas
    and Sergius Paulus (Acts xiii. 6 ff.). The Jewish magician there too
    resides in Cyprus, and in the “Western” text bears a name strangely
    similar to that of the friend of Felix (Ετ[ο]ιμας, Etoemas, _ib._
    xiii. 8, cod. D).


The Emperor then [Sidenote: A.D. 52] sent Claudius Felix, the brother of
Pallas,[218] to take over the administration of Judæa. Moreover, when he
had now completed the twelfth year of his reign, [Sidenote: A.D. 53] he
bestowed upon Agrippa the tetrarchy of Philip and (the region of)
Batanæa, adding also Trachonitis, together with the former tetrarchy of
Lysanias, namely Abella.[219] At the same time he deprived him of the
kingdom of Chalcis,[220] which he had held for four years.

After receiving this award from Cæsar,[221] Agrippa gave his sister
Drusilla in marriage to Azizus, king of Emesa,[222] on his consenting to
be circumcised. Epiphanes, son of King Antiochus, had declined the
marriage from reluctance to adopt Jewish practices, although he had
previously promised her father that he would do so....

The marriage of Drusilla and Azizus was, however, not long afterwards
broken off on the following ground. Drusilla was the most beautiful of
women, and Felix, while procurator of Judæa, saw and fell in love with
her. He accordingly sent to her one of his friends named Atomos,[223] a
Jew born in Cyprus, who pretended to be a magician, and tried to
persuade her to desert her husband and marry him, promising to make her
happy[224] if she did not reject him. And she, because she was unhappy
in her life[225] and desired to escape from her sister Berenice’s envy
of her beauty, ...[226] was prevailed upon to transgress the laws of her
race and to marry Felix. By him she bore a son whom she called
Agrippa.—_Ant._ XX. 7. 1 f. (137-143).

Footnote 218:

  A freedman and favourite of the Emperor Claudius and a man of great
  influence.

Footnote 219:

  Cf. § (32) and Luke iii. 1, “Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene.”

Footnote 220:

  A petty kingdom in the Lebanon district.

Footnote 221:

  _i.e._ Claudius.

Footnote 222:

  In northern Syria (mod. Homs).

Footnote 223:

  Some MSS read “Simon.”

Footnote 224:

  We can hardly miss the Roman’s jest on his name: “make a _Felix_ of
  her.”

Footnote 225:

  Lit. “faring ill”; Whiston’s rendering, “acted wickedly,” is scarcely
  possible.

Footnote 226:

  A line of corrupt and unintelligible text follows in Niese’s MSS. The
  older editions read “for she was constantly being ill-treated by her
  because of her beauty.”


             (37) The Death of James, “the Lord’s Brother”


    A description of the death by stoning, after a perfunctory trial by
    the Sanhedrin, of James “the brother of Jesus who was called
    Christ,” the head of the early Church in Jerusalem (Acts xv.; Gal.
    i. 19).

    An alternative melodramatic account of the martyrdom of James—in
    which he is represented as hurled down from the “pinnacle” of the
    Temple, stoned, and finally despatched by a fuller’s club—is given
    by Hegesippus (quoted by Euseb. _H. E._ II. 23).

    The account of Josephus seems much the more trustworthy of the two,
    and there appears to be no reason for questioning its authenticity.
    As Lightfoot writes, “This notice ... is probable in itself (which
    the account of Hegesippus is not), and is such as Josephus might be
    expected to write if he alluded to the matter at all.... On the
    other hand, if the passage had been a Christian interpolation, the
    notice of James would have been more laudatory” (_Galatians_, ed.
    10, p. 366, n. 2).

    On the other hand, a passage quoted by Eusebius (_loc. cit._) as
    from Josephus, ascribing the miseries of the siege of Jerusalem to
    divine vengeance for the murder of James the Just, does not occur in
    his extant works and is probably spurious.

On hearing of the death of Festus, [Sidenote: A.D. 62] Cæsar[227] sent
Albinus to Judæa as governor. King (Agrippa) at the same time deprived
Joseph of the high priesthood and appointed the son of Ananus, also
named Ananus, as his successor. The elder Ananus, they say, was
exceptionally fortunate; he had five sons, all of whom became God’s high
priests, their father having previously enjoyed the same privilege for a
very long period; an experience without parallel in the history of our
high priests.

The younger Ananus, who now, as I[228] said, took over the office, was a
rash man and extraordinarily audacious; he belonged to the sect of the
Sadducees, who, as I have already explained, are more ruthless than all
other Jews when they sit in judgement. Such was the character of this
Ananus, who, thinking that a favourable opportunity now presented
itself—Festus being dead and Albinus still on the road—summoned the
judicial court of the Sanhedrin, brought before it the brother of Jesus
who was called Christ—James was his name—with some others, and after
accusing them of transgressing the law, delivered them over to be stoned
to death. This action aroused the indignation of all citizens with the
highest reputation for moderation and strict observance of the laws; and
they sent a secret message to King (Agrippa), petitioning him to
restrain Ananus, who had been wrong in what he had done already, from
similar proceedings in future. Some of them, moreover, went to meet
Albinus on his road from Alexandria and explained that it was illegal
for Ananus to convene a meeting of the Sanhedrin without his consent.
Albinus was persuaded by their arguments and wrote an angry letter to
Ananus threatening to punish him. King Agrippa, on his side, for this
action deposed Ananus from the high priesthood, when he had held office
but three months, and appointed Jesus, son of Damnæus, in his
place.—_Ant._ XX. 9. 1 (197-203).

Footnote 227:

  Nero.

Footnote 228:

  Lit. “we.”




                    VII. SCENES FROM THE JEWISH WAR


                 (38) Introduction to “The Jewish War”


[Sidenote: A.D. 66-70]

The war of the Jews against the Romans—the greatest not only of the wars
of our own time, but well-nigh of all that ever broke out between cities
or nations, so far as accounts have reached us—has not lacked its
historians. Of these, some, having taken no part in the action, have
collected from hearsay futile and contradictory stories which they have
then edited in a rhetorical style; while others, who witnessed the
events, have, either from flattery of the Romans or from dislike of the
Jews, misrepresented the facts, their writings exhibiting alternately
invective and encomium, but nowhere historical accuracy. In these
circumstances, I—Josephus, son of Matthias,[229] a native of Jerusalem,
of the priestly order, who at the opening of the war myself fought
against the Romans and in the sequel was perforce an onlooker—propose to
provide the subjects of the Roman Empire with a narrative of the facts,
by translating into Greek the account which some while since I composed
in my vernacular tongue[230] and sent to the natives of upper
Syria.[231]

I spoke of this upheaval as one of the greatest magnitude. The Romans
had their own internal disorders. The Jewish revolutionary party, whose
numbers and fortunes were at their zenith, seized the occasion of the
turbulent times for insurrection. As a result of these vast disturbances
the whole of the Eastern Empire was in the balance; the insurgents were
fired with hopes of its acquisition, their opponents feared its loss.
For the Jews hoped that all their fellow-countrymen beyond the Euphrates
would join with them in revolt; while the Romans, on their side, were
occupied with their neighbours the Gauls, and the Celts were in motion.
Nero’s death, [Sidenote: June A.D. 68] moreover, brought universal
confusion; many were induced by this opportunity to aspire to the
sovereignty, and a change which might make their fortune was after the
heart of the soldiery.

I thought it monstrous, therefore, to allow the truth in affairs of such
moment to go astray, and that, while Parthians and Babylonians and the
most remote tribes of Arabia with our countrymen beyond the Euphrates
and the inhabitants of Adiabene[232] had, through my assiduity, been
accurately informed as to the origin of the war, the various phases of
calamity through which it passed and its conclusion, the Greeks and such
Romans as were not engaged in the contest should remain in ignorance of
these matters, with flattering or fictitious narratives as their only
guide.

Though the writers in question presume to give their works the title of
histories, yet throughout these, apart from the utter lack of sound
information, they seem, in my opinion, to miss their own mark. They
desire to represent the Romans as a great nation, and yet they
continually depreciate and disparage the actions of the Jews. But I fail
to see how the conquerors of a puny people deserve to be accounted
great. Again, these writers respect neither the long duration of the
war, nor the vast numbers of the Roman army that it engaged, nor the
prestige of the generals, who, after such herculean labours under the
walls of Jerusalem, are, I suppose, of no repute in these writers’ eyes,
if their achievement is to be underestimated.

I have no intention of rivalling those who extol the Roman power by
exaggerating the deeds of my compatriots. I shall narrate accurately the
actions of both combatants; while making allowance for the temperament
(of the speaker) in the speeches arising out of the action[233] and
giving my personal sympathies scope to bewail my country’s misfortunes.
For, that it owed its ruin to civil strife, and that it was the Jewish
tyrants who drew down upon the Temple the unwilling hands of the Romans
and the conflagration, is attested by Titus Cæsar himself who sacked the
city; throughout the war he commiserated the populace who were at the
mercy of the revolutionary cliques, and often of his own accord deferred
the capture of the city and by protracting the siege gave the culprits
time for repentance. Should, however, any critic censure me for my
strictures upon the tyrants or their bands of marauders or for my
lamentations over my country’s misfortunes, I ask his indulgence for a
compassion which falls outside an historian’s province. For of all the
cities under Roman rule it was the lot of ours to attain to the highest
felicity and to fall to the lowest depths of calamity. Indeed, in my
opinion, the misfortunes of all nations since the world began are slight
in comparison with those of the Jews; and, since the blame lay with no
foreign nation, it was impossible to restrain one’s condolence. Should,
however, any critic be too austere for pity, let him assign the actions
to the history, the lamentations to the historian.

I, on my side, might justly censure those erudite Greek writers, who,
living in times of such stirring actions as by comparison reduce to
insignificance the wars of antiquity, yet sit in judgement on these
current events and revile those who make them their special
study—authors whose principles they lack, even if they have the
advantage of them in literary skill. They take as their themes the
Assyrian and Median empires, as if the narratives of the ancient
historians were inadequate, although these modern writers are their
inferiors no less in literary power than in judgement. The ancient
historians set themselves severally to write the history of their own
times, a task in which their connexion with the events added lucidity to
their record; while mendacity brought an author into disgrace with
readers who knew the facts.

The truth is that the work of committing to writing events which have
not[234] previously been recorded and of commending to posterity the
history of one’s own time is one which merits praise and acknowledgment.
The industrious writer is not one who merely remodels the scheme and
arrangement of another’s work, but one who, besides having fresh
materials, gives the body of his history a framework of his own.

For myself, at the cost of much money and severe labour, I, a foreigner,
present to Greeks and Romans this memorial of great achievements. As for
the native (Greek) writers, where personal profit or a lawsuit is
concerned, their mouths are at once agape and their tongues loosed; but
in the matter of history, where veracity and laborious collection of the
facts are essential, they are mute, leaving to inferior and ill-informed
writers the task of describing the exploits of rulers. Let me[235] at
least hold historical truth in honour, since by the Greeks it is
disregarded....—_B.J._ I. 1-5 (1-16).

Footnote 229:

  Many MSS add “by birth a Hebrew.”

Footnote 230:

  Aramaic. The Greek, which bears no marks of translation, must, in all
  probability, have been practically a new work.

Footnote 231:

  Lit. “the upper barbarians.”

Footnote 232:

  In the upper Tigris region.

Footnote 233:

  Such, or “giving the rein to personal feeling in the speeches
  (λόγοι),” I take to be the meaning. Traill, “introducing into the
  detail reflections on the events”; Whiston, “only I shall suit my
  language to my feelings as to the affairs I describe.”

Footnote 234:

  The negative is omitted by most MSS.

Footnote 235:

  Lit. “us.”


 (39) Seeds of the War sown under the last of the Procurators. Rise of
                              the Sicarii


                                 Felix


[Sidenote: A.D. 52-60]

After this Claudius sent out Felix, the brother of Pallas,[236] as
procurator of Judæa, Samaria, Galilee and Peræa. Agrippa he transferred
from Chalcis to a larger kingdom, assigning to him Philip’s former
province, namely Batanæa, Trachonitis and Gaulanitis; to this he added
the kingdom of Lysanias and the province[237] which had belonged to
Varus. After holding the imperial office for thirteen years, eight
months and twenty days, Claudius died, [Sidenote: A.D. 54] leaving Nero
as his successor in the government....

Nero annexed to Agrippa’s kingdom four cities with their districts,[238]
namely, Abila, Julias in Peræa, and in Galilee Tarichæa and Tiberias. He
appointed Felix to be procurator of the rest of Judæa. Felix took
prisoner Eleazar, the arch-brigand who for twenty years had ravaged the
country, with many of his associates, and sent them for trial to Rome.
Of the brigands whom he crucified, and of the common people who were
detected of complicity with them and punished by him, the number was
incalculable.


                          Rise of the Sicarii


But, while the country was thus cleared of these pests, a new species of
banditti was springing up in Jerusalem, the so-called _Sicarii_,[239]
who committed murders in broad daylight in the heart of the city. The
festivals were their special seasons, when they would mingle with the
crowd, carrying short daggers concealed under their clothing, with which
they stabbed any with whom they were at enmity. Then, when they fell,
the murderers joined in the cries of indignation and, through this
plausible behaviour, were never discovered. The first to be assassinated
by them was Jonathan the high priest; after his death there were
numerous daily murders. The panic created was more alarming than the
calamity itself; every one, as on the battlefield, hourly expecting
death. Men kept watch at a distance on their enemies and would not trust
even their friends when they approached. Yet, with their suspicions
aroused and on their guard, they were slain; so swift were the
conspirators and so crafty in eluding detection.


                     Troubled State of the Country


Besides these there arose another body of villains, with purer hands but
more impious intentions, who no less than the assassins ruined the peace
of the city. Deceivers and impostors, under the pretence of divine
inspiration fostering revolutionary changes, they persuaded the
multitude to act like madmen, and led them out into the desert under the
belief that God would there give them tokens of deliverance. Against
them Felix, regarding this as but the preliminary to insurrection, sent
a body of horse and foot[240] and put a large number to the sword.[241]

A still worse blow was dealt at the Jews by the Egyptian false prophet.
A charlatan, who had gained for himself the reputation of a prophet,
this man collected about thirty thousand of his dupes, entered the
country and led his force round from the desert to the mount called
Olivet. From there he proposed to force an entrance into Jerusalem and,
after overpowering the Roman garrison and the people, to act as despot
with the aid of his bodyguard of lancers who were to pour in with him.
His attack was anticipated by Felix, who went to meet him with the Roman
forces,[242] the whole population joining him in the defence; with the
result that in the ensuing engagement, while the Egyptian escaped with a
few of his followers, most of his force were killed or taken prisoners.
The remainder were dispersed, and got away one by one to their homes.

No sooner were these disorders reduced than, as in a diseased frame, the
fever broke out again in another quarter. The impostors and brigands,
banding together, induced many to revolt, encouraging them to assert
their independence, and threatening to kill any who submitted to Roman
rule and to use violence to tear from their allegiance any who still
chose voluntary servitude. Distributing themselves in companies
throughout the country, they looted the houses of the wealthy, murdered
their owners, and set the villages on fire; and so spread the infection
of their madness throughout all Judæa.

While this war was daily being fanned into flame, [Sidenote: _c._ A.D.
59] another disturbance occurred at Cæsarea,[243] where the Jewish
portion of the population rose against the Syrians. They claimed that
the city was theirs on the ground that its founder, King Herod, was a
Jew. Their opponents admitted the Jewish origin of its (second) founder,
but maintained that the city itself belonged to the Greeks, since Herod
would never have erected the statues and temples which he placed there
had he intended it for Jews.... The quarrel still continuing, Felix
selected the notables from either party and sent them as a deputation to
Nero to argue the merits of the case.


                                 Festus


[Sidenote: A.D. 60-62]

Festus, who succeeded Felix as procurator, proceeded to attack the
principal plague of the country; he captured large numbers of the
brigands and put not a few to death.


                                Albinus


The administration of Albinus, who followed Festus, [Sidenote: A.D.
62-64] was of another order; there was no form of villainy which he
omitted to practise. Not only did he, in his official capacity, steal
and plunder private property and burden the whole nation with imposts,
but he accepted ransoms from their relatives on behalf of persons who
had been imprisoned for robbery by the local councils or by former
procurators; and none was left in gaol as a malefactor save those who
failed to pay the price.

At this period a fresh stimulus was given to the revolutionary party in
Jerusalem, the influential men among their number securing from Albinus,
by means of bribes, immunity for their seditious practices; while the
section of the populace which could never remain quiet joined hands with
the governor’s accomplices. Individual scoundrels had around them each
his own band of followers, among whom they figured conspicuously like
brigand-chiefs or tyrants, employing their bodyguard to plunder
peaceable citizens. The outcome was that the victims of robbery kept
their grievances, of which they had every reason to complain, to
themselves, while those who escaped cringed to one who deserved
punishment, through fear of suffering the same fate. In short, none
could now speak his mind, with tyrants on every side; and from this date
were sown in the city the seeds of its impending fall.


                             Gessius Florus


Such was the character of Albinus, but his successor, Gessius Florus,
[Sidenote: A. D. 64-66] made him appear by comparison a paragon of
virtue. The crimes of Albinus were, for the most part, perpetrated in
secret and with dissimulation; Gessius, on the contrary, ostentatiously
paraded his lawless treatment of the nation, and, as though he had been
sent as hangman of condemned criminals, committed every kind of robbery
and outrage. In cases which called for compassion he was cruel beyond
measure; in dealing with shameful conduct,[244] he was utterly devoid of
shame. No man ever poured greater contempt[245] on truth or contrived
more subtle methods of villainy. To make gain out of individuals seemed
beneath him: he stripped whole cities, ruined entire populations, and
almost went the length of proclaiming throughout the country that all
were at liberty to rob on condition that he received his share of the
spoils. Certainly his avarice brought desolation upon all
districts,[246] and caused many to desert their ancestral homes and seek
refuge in foreign provinces.

So long as Cestius Gallus was in Syria discharging his provincial
administrative duties, none dared to send a deputation to him to
complain of Florus; but when he visited Jerusalem on the eve of the
feast of unleavened bread, the people crowded around him to no less a
number than three millions, imploring him to have compassion on the
calamities of the nation, and loudly denouncing Florus as the ruin of
the country. Florus, who was present at Cestius’s side, scoffed at their
outcry. Cestius, however, when he had quieted the excitement of the
crowd, pledged himself to secure for them greater moderation on the part
of Florus in future, and so returned to Antioch.

Florus escorted him as far as Cæsarea, playing upon his credulity, and
already contemplating the prospect of war with the nation—his only hope
of covering up his own enormities. For, if the peace were kept, he
expected to have the Jews accusing him before Cæsar; whereas, could he
bring about their revolt, he would by means of the larger calamity
divert attention from the less. In order, therefore, to produce an
outbreak of the nation, he daily added to their sufferings.—_B.J._ II.
12. 8-14. 3 (247-283).

Footnote 236:

  Cf. with this whole paragraph § (36).

Footnote 237:

  MSS “tetrarchy.”

Footnote 238:

  Lit. “with the toparchies.”

Footnote 239:

  “Assassins,” from Lat. _sica_, “a dagger.”

Footnote 240:

  Lit. “heavy-armed infantry” (hoplites).

Footnote 241:

  Cf. the similar fate of Theudas, § (35).

Footnote 242:

  Lit. “heavy-armed infantry” (hoplites).

Footnote 243:

  St. Paul was probably a prisoner there at this time.

Footnote 244:

  Or “in disgraceful things.”

Footnote 245:

  Lit. “unbelief.” Traill, “In smothering (Whiston, ‘disguising’) the
  truth none was more successful.”

Footnote 246:

  Lit. “all the toparchies”; some MSS read “all the cities.”


  (40) The Immediate Cause of the War—Abrogation of Sacrifices for the
                                Emperor


[Sidenote: Summer A.D. 66]

Meanwhile, some of the prime instigators of hostilities banded together
and made an assault on a fortress called Masada;[247] and having gained
possession of it by stratagem, they slew the Roman guards and put a
garrison of their own in their place.

Another incident occurred at the same time in the Temple. Eleazar, son
of Ananias the high priest, a very daring youth, being then in
command,[248] persuaded those who officiated in the Temple services to
accept no gift or sacrifice from a foreigner. This action laid the
foundation of the war with the Romans; for they thereby abrogated the
sacrifice on behalf of that nation and the Emperor.[249] And, though the
chief priests and the men of note earnestly besought them not to abandon
the customary offering for their rulers, they were obdurate. Their
numbers gave them great confidence, supported as they were by the
stalwarts of the revolutionary party; but the determining influence was
their high opinion of their captain Eleazar.

Thereupon the men of weight assembled with the chief priests and the
notable Pharisees and, in the belief that they were now involved in
irreparable calamities, deliberated on the state of public affairs.
Deciding to try the effect of persuasion on the revolutionaries, they
called the people together before the brazen gate which opened into the
inner Temple and faced eastward. And, first, they expressed severe
indignation at the audacity of this revolt and at the men who were
bringing upon their country so serious a war. They then proceeded to
expose the absurdity of the alleged pretext. Their forefathers, they
said, had adorned the sanctuary mainly from the contributions of
foreigners and had always accepted the gifts of external nations; not
only had they never taken the sacrilegious step of forbidding any one to
offer sacrifice, but they had set up around the Temple the dedicatory
offerings which were still to be seen and had remained there for so long
a time. But those who were now provoking the arms of the Romans and
courting war with such antagonists were introducing some novel and
strange religion,[250] and, in addition to the danger incurred, would
lay the city open to the charge of impiety, if Jews alone were to allow
no alien the right of sacrifice or worship. Should such a law be
introduced in the case of any private individual, they would be
indignant as at an act of deliberate inhumanity; yet they made light of
putting the Romans and Cæsar outside the pale. It was to be feared,
however, that, once they rejected the sacrifices for the Romans, they
might not be allowed to offer sacrifice even for themselves, and that
their city would be placed outside the pale of the empire, unless, with
a speedy return to discretion, they restored the sacrifices and made
amends for the insult before the report reached the ears of those whom
they had insulted.

In the course of this speech they brought forward the priestly experts
on the national customs, who explained how all their ancestors had
accepted the sacrifices of aliens.

But not one of the revolutionary party would listen to their words,[251]
which met with no better response even from the officiating ministers,
who thus helped to sow the seeds of war. Thereupon, the leading men,
perceiving that it was now beyond their power to suppress the
insurrection and that they would be the first to suffer from the Roman
peril, took steps to exonerate themselves from blame. They accordingly
despatched two deputations, one to Florus, headed by Simon son of
Ananias, and another to Agrippa, of which the most eminent members were
the king’s relatives, Saul, Antipas and Costobar. They besought them
both to come up to the city with an armed force and to nip the rebellion
in the bud before repression became impossible. To Florus the news was a
wonderful godsend,[252] and, determined as he was to fan the flame of
war, he gave the emissaries no reply. Agrippa, on the other hand, was
solicitous alike for the rebels and for the nation against which their
hostilities were directed; he was anxious that the Romans should not
lose the Jews nor the Jews their Temple and mother city; and was,
moreover, aware that the disturbance would not conduce to his own
interests. He accordingly despatched to the aid of the people three
thousand horse from Auranitis, Batanæa and Trachonitis, under Darius as
cavalry commander and Philip, son of Jacimus, as general.

Encouraged by these reinforcements, the leading men with the chief
priests and all such of the populace as were in favour of peace occupied
the upper city. The lower city and the Temple were in the hands of the
insurgents.—_B.J._ II. 17. 2-5 (408-422).

Footnote 247:

  On the west coast of the Dead Sea.

Footnote 248:

  _i. e._ “captain of the Temple”; cf. Acts iv. 1, etc.

Footnote 249:

  Other MSS, omitting “and” (καὶ, which would easily drop out before
  Καίσαρος), read “the sacrifice of Cæsar on behalf of that nation.”

Footnote 250:

  Or, possibly, “were making an innovation in the worship of
  foreigners.”

Footnote 251:

  The text of this clause is doubtful. I read προσῇσαν, “chimed in”
  (with Naber; MSS προσίεσαν or προσήεσαν) and λειτουργοὶ (other MSS
  ληστρικοὶ, “the brigands”).

Footnote 252:

  Or (reading τὸ before δεινὸν) “the dire news was a godsend.”


  (41) Initial Jewish success. Rout of a Roman Army in the Defiles of
                               Beth-Horon


    The humiliating Roman defeat in this first stage of the war here
    described recalls a rather similar incident at the Caudine Forks in
    the early wars with the Samnites.


                     Cestius Advances from Antioch


[Sidenote: A.D. 66]

The Jews being now everywhere up in arms, Cestius[253] decided to remain
inactive no longer. He accordingly left Antioch and advanced upon
Ptolemais. His force consisted of the twelfth legion in full strength,
two thousand picked men from each of the other legions, six cohorts of
infantry and four squadrons of cavalry, besides the allied forces
furnished by the kings; of these Antiochus supplied two thousand horse
and three thousand foot, all archers, Agrippa an equal number of foot
and rather less than two thousand horse, Sohemus following with four
thousand, of which a third part were cavalry and the rest archers. In
addition, numerous auxiliaries were collected from the towns; they
lacked the training of the regulars, but made good any deficiency in
technical skill by their zeal and their detestation of the Jews. Agrippa
himself accompanied Cestius on the route as guide and adviser....

    Galilee surrenders to Cestius, almost without a blow; Joppa,
    attacked by land and sea, is captured and burnt; and the Roman arms
    are everywhere successful.

From Antipatris Cestius advanced to Lydda and found the city deserted,
for the population had gone up _en masse_ to Jerusalem for the Feast of
Tabernacles [Sidenote: October A.D. 66]. Fifty persons who showed
themselves he put to the sword, and after burning down the town resumed
his march; and, ascending through Beth-Horon, pitched his camp at a
place called Gibeon,[254] fifty furlongs[255] distant from Jerusalem.


              A Jewish Successful Charge outside Jerusalem


The Jews, seeing the war at length approaching their mother city,
abandoned the feast and rushed to arms; and, relying largely on their
numbers, sprang in disorder and with loud cries into the fray. It was
the Sabbath which they regarded with peculiar reverence,[256] but they
paid no thought to that seventh day of rest. But the same passion which
shook them out of their piety brought them victory in the battle. With
such fury, at any rate, did they fall upon the Romans that they broke
and passed through their ranks, killing as they went; and had not the
cavalry, with a body of infantry which was not so hard pressed as the
rest, disengaged and wheeled round to the relief of the broken
line,[257] Cestius and his whole army would have been in jeopardy. The
Roman killed were five hundred and fifteen (four hundred infantry and
the rest cavalry); the Jews lost but two and twenty.... When their
frontal attack was thus held up, the Jews retired to the city. But
Simon, son of Gioras, fell upon the rear of the Romans as they withdrew
to Beth-Horon, and cut up a large part of their rear-guard, carrying off
many of the baggage mules, which he brought with him into the city.
Cestius continuing to hold his ground for three days, the Jews seized
the heights and kept guard on the passes, clearly not intending to
remain inactive, should the Romans begin to move.


               Fruitless Attempt to Parley with the Jews


At this juncture, Agrippa, perceiving that, with the enemy in such
countless numbers in possession of the surrounding mountains, even a
Roman army was in a perilous position, decided to try the effect of
parley with the Jews. He hoped either to prevail on all to abandon
hostilities, or at least to detach from their opponents those who did
not share the views of the war party. So he sent the two of his men who
were best known to them, Borcæus[258] and Phœbus, with an offer of a
treaty on the part of Cestius and of free pardon from the Romans for
their misdoings, on condition that they would lay down their arms and go
over to them. The insurgents, fearing that the prospect of an amnesty
would induce the whole multitude to go over to Agrippa, made a murderous
assault upon his emissaries. Phœbus they slew before he had uttered a
syllable; Borcæus was wounded but succeeded in escaping. Such of the
people as indignantly protested at their action they assailed with
stones and clubs and drove into the town.


                  Cestius Occupies the Suburb Bezetha


Cestius, seeing that these internal dissensions offered a favourable
opportunity for attack, brought up his whole force, routed the enemy,
and pursued them to Jerusalem. Encamping on the (hill) called Scopus,
distant seven furlongs[259] from the city, for three days he made no
attempt upon it, expecting that the inhabitants might possibly show
signs of surrender; in the meantime he sent out many of his soldiers to
the surrounding villages for foraging purposes. On the fourth day,
[Sidenote: October A.D. 66] the thirtieth of the month Hyperberetæus, he
deployed his forces and led them within[260] the city.

The people were under the thumb of the revolutionary party, and the
latter, overawed by the orderly discipline of the Romans, abandoned some
of the suburbs and retired into the inner city and the Temple. Cestius,
on gaining entry, set fire to the district known as Bezetha[261] and the
New City and the so-called Timber Market; he then proceeded to the upper
city and encamped opposite the royal palace. Had he, at that particular
moment, chosen to force his way within the walls, he would have captured
the city forthwith, and the war would have been over. But Tyrannius
Priscus, the camp-commander, with most of the cavalry officers, being
bribed by Florus, diverted him from the attempt. Hence it came about
that the war was so long protracted and the Jews drained the cup of
irretrievable disaster.


                          Attack on Jerusalem


Meanwhile many of the notable citizens, at the instance of Ananus, son
of Jonathan, sent an invitation to Cestius, promising to open the gates
to him. These overtures, however, partly in scorn and resentment, partly
because he did not wholly credit them, he hesitated to accept, until the
insurgents, discovering the treason, dragged down Ananus and his
confederates from the wall and drove them, with showers of stones, into
their houses. Then, taking up their stations in detachments, they hurled
their missiles from the towers upon the enemy who were assailing the
wall. So for five days the Romans pressed their attack on all sides
without success, till on the sixth Cestius led a large force of picked
men with the archers to an assault on the north side of the Temple. The
Jews from the portico warded it off, and time after time repulsed those
who had reached the wall, but at length, overpowered by the hail of
missiles, gave way. The front rank of the Romans then planted their
shields against the wall, those behind them planted other shields upon
the first, and the rest did in like manner, forming a screen which they
call “the tortoise,”[262] from which the missiles, as they fell, glanced
off harmlessly, while the soldiers with immunity undermined the wall and
prepared to set fire to the gate of the Temple.

A terrible panic now seized the insurgents, many of whom were already
slinking out of the city in the belief that it was on the verge of
capture. The populace thereupon took heart again, and the more the
miscreants gave ground, the nearer did the others approach the gates,
ready to open them and welcome Cestius as a benefactor. Had he but
persisted for a while with the siege, he would have forthwith taken the
city. But I suppose that on account of those wicked men God, already
regarding even the sanctuary with aversion, ordained that that day
should not see the end of the war.


         Unexpected Withdrawal of Cestius, Pursued by the Jews


At any rate, Cestius, perceiving neither the desperate condition of the
besieged nor the temper of the populace, suddenly recalled his troops,
and, without having sustained any reverse, abandoned his hopes[263] and,
contrary to all calculation, retired from the city. On this unexpected
retreat, the brigands, plucking up courage, sallied out upon his rear
and killed a considerable number both of horse and foot.

That night Cestius passed at his camp on (Mount) Scopus. The following
day, continuing his retreat he provoked the enemy to further pursuit;
hanging upon his heels they cut up his rear, and getting round him on
either side of his route poured their missiles on his flanks. The rear
ranks did not dare to round upon their assailants behind them, supposing
that they were pursued by an innumerable host; nor did they attempt to
beat off those who were pressing their flanks, being heavily armed
themselves and afraid of opening out their ranks, while the Jews, as
they saw, were light armed and could readily dash in among them. The
result was that they suffered heavily, without any retaliation upon the
enemy. So all along the route the blows rained upon them and they kept
dropping out of the ranks and falling, until at length, after numerous
casualties, including Priscus, the general of the sixth legion, and
Longinus a tribune,[264] and Æmilius Jucundus, a squadron commander, and
with the loss of most of their baggage, with difficulty they reached
their former camp at Gibeon.[265] Here Cestius halted for two days,
uncertain what course to pursue; but, on the third, seeing the enemy’s
strength greatly increased and all the surrounding country swarming with
Jews, he decided that the delay had been detrimental to him and, if
further prolonged, would but increase the number of his foes.


                    Scene in the Pass of Beth-Horon


To accelerate the retreat, he issued orders to abandon all
_impedimenta_. So the mules, asses and all the beasts of burthen were
killed, excepting those that carried missiles and engines of war; these
they clung to, both for their own use and especially from fear that they
might fall into Jewish hands and be employed against themselves. He then
led his army on towards Beth-Horon. In the open their movements were
less harassed by the Jews, but, once the Romans became involved in the
defiles on the descent, one contingent of the enemy went ahead of them
and blocked their exit, another drove the rearmost down into the ravine,
while the main body lined up in extended order above the gorge and
covered the phalanx with their missiles. Here, powerless as were the
infantry to protect themselves, the cavalry were in even greater
jeopardy. To advance in order down the road under the hail of darts was
impossible, while the charge up the steep slopes was impracticable for
horse. On either side were precipices and ravines, down which they
slipped and were hurled headlong. None had room for flight, none had any
plan of defence. In their utter helplessness they gave vent to groans
and the wailings of despair, which were answered by the war-whoop and
shouts of the Jews, exultant and mad with rage. Cestius and his whole
army would have been well-nigh annihilated[266] had not night
intervened, under cover of which the Romans escaped to Beth-Horon.[267]
The Jews meanwhile occupied all the surrounding district and kept guard
against their egress.


                           Flight of Cestius


Cestius, now despairing of open retreat, took measures for flight; and,
selecting about four hundred of his bravest men, stationed them upon the
roofs, with orders to shout out the watchwords[268] of the
camp-sentinels, that the Jews might think that the whole army was still
on the spot. He himself with the remainder then stealthily advanced
another thirty furlongs. At daybreak the Jews, discovering that the
enemy’s night quarters were deserted, charged the four hundred who had
deluded them, quickly shot them down with their spears, and started in
pursuit of Cestius.

He had gained much upon them during the night, and, when day came,
quickened the pace still more; the men in consternation and terror
abandoning the siege engines, catapults and most of the other machines,
which the Jews then captured and afterwards employed against those who
had relinquished them. The Jews continued the pursuit as far as
Antipatris, and then, failing to overtake the Romans, turned and carried
off the machines, plundered the corpses, collected the booty which had
been left behind, and, with songs of triumph, retraced their steps to
the capital. Their own losses had been quite inconsiderable; of the
Romans and their allies they had slain five thousand three hundred
infantry and of cavalry four hundred and four score.[269] This action
took place on the eighth of the month Dius in the twelfth year of Nero’s
reign [Sidenote: November A.D. 66].


                        Cestius Reports to Nero


After this catastrophe of Cestius many distinguished Jews left the city
as swimmers desert a sinking ship. For example, the brothers Costobar
and Saul with Philip, son of Jacimus, King Agrippa’s camp-commander,
escaped from the city and joined Cestius.... Cestius, at their request,
despatched Saul and his party to Nero in Achaia, to inform him of their
own difficulties and also to lay the blame for the war on Florus. For he
hoped by exciting resentment against Florus to lessen the danger to
himself....


                      Jewish Preparations for War


The Jews who had pursued Cestius, on their return to Jerusalem, partly
by force, partly by persuasion, brought over to their side such
pro-Romans as still remained; and, assembling in the Temple, appointed
several generals to conduct the war. Joseph, son of Gorion, and Ananus
the high priest were elected to the supreme control of affairs in the
city, with a special charge to repair the city walls. As for Eleazar,
son of Simon, notwithstanding that he had in his hands the Roman spoils
with the money taken from Cestius, as well as much of the public
treasure, they did not entrust him with office, because they saw him to
be aiming at despotic power, and that his subordinate Zealots acted the
part of his bodyguard. Gradually, however, financial needs and the
intrigues of Eleazar so far prevailed upon the people that they ended by
submitting in all matters to his authority.—_B.J._ II. 18. 9-20. 3
(499-565).

Footnote 253:

  Governor of Syria.

Footnote 254:

  Gr. “Gabao.”

Footnote 255:

  Gr. “stades.”

Footnote 256:

  Falling within the week of the Feast of Tabernacles.

Footnote 257:

  Some MSS insert a negative, “the part of the line which had not yet
  given way.”

Footnote 258:

  Or “Borcius.”

Footnote 259:

  Gr. “stades.”

Footnote 260:

  Perhaps “up to.”

Footnote 261:

  At the N.E. corner of the city. Other MSS “Bethesda” Niese, “Betheza,”
  as elsewhere in Josephus.

Footnote 262:

  _Testudo._

Footnote 263:

  Or “shattered (lit. ‘condemned’) their hopes (of success).”

Footnote 264:

  Gr. “chiliarch.”

Footnote 265:

  Gr. “Gabao.”

Footnote 266:

  Or “taken prisoners.”

Footnote 267:

  Beth-Horon the Lower at the foot of the pass.

Footnote 268:

  Another reading, “upon the fortresses, with orders to go up and erect
  the standards.”

Footnote 269:

  Another reading, “380.”


                    (42) Jerusalem before the Siege


The disturbances in Galilee were thus quelled; [Sidenote: Spring A.D.
67] and, desisting from civil strife, the Jews directed their attention
to preparations against the Romans. In Jerusalem Ananus the high priest
and those of the leading men who were not pro-Romans busied themselves
with the repair of the walls and the accumulation of engines of war. In
every quarter of the city missiles and suits of armour were being
forged; masses of young men were undergoing a desultory training; and
the whole scene was one of confusion. On the other side, the dejection
of the moderate party was profound; and many foresaw and openly lamented
the impending disasters. There were also omens, which to the friends of
peace boded ill, while those who had kindled the war readily invented
favourable interpretations for them;[270] and the city before the coming
of the Romans wore the appearance of a place doomed to destruction.
Ananus, indeed, was anxious gradually to desist from warlike
preparations and to bend the revolutionaries and the infatuated Zealots,
as they were called, to a more salutary policy; but their violence was
too much for him. The sequel of our narrative will show the fate which
befell him.[271]—_B.J._ II. 22. 1 (647-651).

Footnote 270:

  Cf. § (50).

Footnote 271:

  See § (45).


          (43) The Fall of Jotapata. Josephus taken Prisoner.


      Capture of the Town through Information of a Jewish Deserter


[Sidenote: A.D. 67]

The defenders of Jotapata were still holding out and beyond all
expectation enduring their miseries, when on the forty-seventh day (of
the siege) the earthworks of the Romans overtopped the wall. That same
day a deserter reported to Vespasian the reduced numbers and strength of
the defence, and that, worn out with perpetual watching and continuous
fighting, they would be unable longer to resist a vigorous assault[272]
and might be taken by stratagem, if the attempt were made. He stated
that about the last watch (of the night)—an hour when they expected some
respite from their sufferings and when tired frames succumb most readily
to morning slumber—the sentinels used to drop asleep; that was the hour
when he advised the Romans to attack.

Vespasian, knowing the Jews’ loyalty to each other and their contempt of
chastisement, viewed the deserter with suspicion. On a former occasion a
man of Jotapata who had been taken prisoner held out under every variety
of torture, and, without uttering a word about the besieged to his
enemies who were trying him by fire, was crucified, smiling at death.
Probability, however, lent credit to the traitor; and so, thinking that
the man might be speaking the truth and that even a trap, if it were
one, was not likely to lead to any serious reverse, Vespasian ordered
him into custody and made ready his army for the capture of the city.

At the hour named they advanced in silence to the walls. The first to
mount them was Titus, with one of the tribunes,[273] Domitius Sabinus,
at the head of a few men of the fifteenth legion.[274] Having cut down
the sentries they entered the city in silence, and were followed by
Sextus Calvarius, a tribune, and Placidus with the troops under their
command. The citadel had been taken and the enemy were moving to and fro
in the heart of the town, before the vanquished inhabitants, though it
was now broad daylight, were aware of the capture. Most of them, worn
out with fatigue, had fallen fast asleep, while a thick mist, which
happened at the time to envelop the city, obscured the vision of those
who started up. Not until the whole army had poured in, were they fully
roused only to realize their misery; the discovery that they were being
slain was the first assurance of their capture.

Remembering what they had borne during the siege, the Romans showed no
compassion or pity for any one, but thrust the people down the steep
descent from the citadel in a general massacre. And here the difficulty
of the ground deprived those still able to fight of the means of
defence. Crushed in the narrow alleys and slipping down the declivity,
they were overwhelmed by the wave of war that streamed from the citadel.
The situation drove many even of Josephus’s picked men to suicide.
Perceiving that they could not kill a single Roman, they at least
forestalled death at Roman hands, and, huddled together at the outskirts
of the city, put an end to themselves....

On that day the Romans slew all who showed themselves; on the ensuing
days they searched the hiding-places and went in pursuit of such as had
fled to the mines and caverns, sparing none, whatever their age, save
infants and women. The prisoners thus collected were twelve hundred; the
number of those killed at the time of the capture and in the previous
conflicts was computed at forty thousand. Vespasian ordered the city to
be razed, and burnt all its forts to the ground. Thus was Jotapata taken
in the thirteenth year of the reign of Nero, on the new moon of Panemus.
[Sidenote: July A.D. 67]


                   Josephus’s Hiding-place Discovered


A search for Josephus was then instituted by the Romans, instigated both
by their own resentment and by the earnest wish of their general, since
his capture would constitute a turning-point in the war. So the bodies
of the slain and the men in hiding[275] were closely examined. Now
Josephus, when the city was on the point of being taken, had, with the
aid of some divine providence, stolen out of the enemy’s midst and leapt
into a deep pit, giving access on one side to a broad cavern, invisible
to those above. There he found forty persons of distinction in hiding,
with a supply of provisions sufficient to last for a considerable time.
During the day he lay hid, the enemy occupying every quarter of the
city, but at night he would come up and look for some loophole for
escape and reconnoitre the sentries; but, finding every spot guarded on
his account and no means of eluding detection, he descended again into
the cave. So for two days he continued in hiding. On the third, his
secret was betrayed by a woman of the party, who was captured, whereupon
Vespasian at once in eager haste despatched two tribunes,[276] Paulinus
and Gallicanus, with orders to offer Josephus security[277] and to
exhort him to come up.


                Josephus Parleys with the Roman Officers


So they came and urged him, giving pledges that his life would not be
endangered. Their persuasion, however, was unavailing. His suspicions
were based not on the natural clemency of those who invited him, but on
the penalties which so active an opponent was likely to incur; and the
presentiment that he was being summoned to punishment persisted, until
Vespasian sent a third tribune, Nicanor, known to, and formerly an
intimate associate of, Josephus. He, on his arrival, dwelt on the innate
generosity of the Romans to those whom they had once subdued,[278]
assuring him that his valour made him an object rather of admiration,
than of hatred, to the commanding officers, and that the general was
anxious to bring him up from his retreat, not for punishment—that he
could inflict though he refused to come forth—but from a desire to save
a brave man. He added that Vespasian, had he intended to entrap him,
would never have sent a friend as his emissary, using the noblest of
relationships as a cloak for the basest—friendship as a mask for
perfidy; nor would he himself have consented to come in order to deceive
a friend.

While Josephus was still hesitating even at Nicanor’s persuasions, the
soldiers in their rage made a rush to set the cave on fire, but were
restrained by the officer,[279] who was anxious to take the Jewish
leader alive. And as Nicanor urgently pressed his proposals, Josephus
heard the threats of the hostile crowd; and there came back into his
mind those nightly dreams, in which God had foretold to him the
impending fate of the Jews and the destinies of the Roman sovereigns. As
an interpreter of dreams he had the capacity of extracting a coherent
meaning from the ambiguous utterances of the Deity;[280] a priest
himself and of priestly descent, he was, moreover, not ignorant of the
prophecies in the sacred books. At that hour he was inspired to read
their meaning, and, recalling the dreadful images of his recent dreams,
he offered up a secret prayer to God. “Since it pleases Thee” (so it
ran), “who didst create the Jewish nation, that it should now sink into
the dust, and fortune has wholly passed to the Romans, and since Thou
hast made choice of my spirit to announce the things that are to come, I
willingly surrender to the Romans and consent to live; but I appeal to
Thee to witness that I go as no traitor, but as Thy minister.”


                 Josephus’s Life Threatened by his Men


With these words he was about to surrender to Nicanor. But when the Jews
who had sought refuge along with him understood that Josephus was
yielding to entreaty, they came round him in a body, crying out, “Ah!
well might the laws of our fathers groan aloud and God Himself, who
implanted in Jewish breasts souls that make light of death, hide His
face for shame! Is life so dear to you, Josephus, that you will endure
to see the light in slavery? How soon have you forgotten yourself! How
many have you persuaded to die for liberty! False, then, was that
reputation for bravery, false that renown for sagacity, if you look for
security from those against whom you have fought so bitterly or deign to
accept the gift of your life at their hands, even were it sure. Nay, if
the fortune of the Romans has cast over you some strange forgetfulness
of yourself, the care of our country’s honour devolves on _us_. We will
lend you a right hand and sword. If you die of your own free will, you
shall die as general of the Jews; if involuntarily, as a traitor.” With
these words they pointed their swords at him and threatened to kill him
if he surrendered to the Romans.

Josephus, fearing an assault, and holding that it would be a betrayal of
God’s commands, should he die before delivering his message, began to
reason with them philosophically upon the emergency.[281]...

    There follows a rhetorical speech, which one can hardly believe that
    Josephus’s companions would have tolerated, on the iniquity of
    suicide. One sentence will suffice.

“Know you not that they who depart this life in the order of nature and
repay the loan which they received from God, when the Giver is pleased
to recover it, enjoy eternal renown; that their houses and families are
secure; that their souls remain unspotted and attentive to prayer, being
allotted the most holy place in heaven, from whence, in the revolution
of the ages, they again find a new habitation in saintly bodies;[282]
while the souls of those who have laid mad hands upon themselves are
received into the darkest region[283] of the underworld,[284] and God,
who is their father, visits upon the children their fathers outrageous
actions?”[285]...

With many such words did Josephus attempt to deter them from
self-slaughter. But desperation stopped their ears, for they had long
since devoted themselves to death; and, infuriated with him, they rushed
upon him from every side, sword in hand, upbraiding him as a coward, and
one and all manifestly prepared at once to strike. But he, addressing
one by name, fixing his general’s eye of command upon another, clasping
the hand of a third, and shaming a fourth by entreaty, distracted as he
was by conflicting passions at this critical moment, yet succeeded in
staving off the blades of all, always turning, like a wild beast
surrounded (by the hunters), upon his last assailant. Even in his
extremities, they still held their general in reverence; their hands
were paralyzed, their daggers glanced aside, and many, in the act of
thrusting at him, of their own impulse dropped their swords.


                        The Drawing of the Lots


But, in his straits, his resource did not forsake him. Trusting to the
guardianship of God, he put his life to the hazard, and said: “Since you
are determined to die, come, let us commit our mutual slaughter to the
lot; let him who draws the first lot fall by the hand of him who comes
next; so shall fate take her course through the whole number. But let
not each be laid low by his own hand;[286] it would be unjust that, when
the rest were gone, any should repent and escape.” This proposal
appeared to them a fair one;[287] his advice was taken, and he drew lots
with the rest. The winner of the first lot bared his throat to the next,
in the assurance that his general was forthwith to share his fate; for
death with Josephus they thought sweeter than life. He, however, (should
one say by fortune or by the providence of God?) was left with one
other; and, anxious neither to be condemned by the lot nor, should he be
left to the last, to stain his hand with the blood of a fellow
countryman, he persuaded him also, on a pledge given, to remain alive.


                       Josephus before the Romans


Having thus survived both the war with the Romans and that with his own
friends, Josephus was brought by Nicanor into Vespasian’s presence. The
Romans all flocked to see him, and from the multitude crowding around
the general arose a hubbub of discordant voices: some exulting at his
capture, some threatening, some forcing their way to obtain a nearer
view. Those further off clamoured for the punishment of the enemy, while
those close beside him were touched by the recollection of his exploits
and filled with astonishment at the change in his condition. Of the
officers there was not one who, whatever his past resentment, did not
then relent at the sight of him.

Titus in particular was moved exceedingly[288] by the fortitude of
Josephus under misfortunes and by pity for his youth. As he recalled the
combatant of yesterday and saw him now a prisoner in his enemy’s hands,
he was led to reflect on the power of fortune, the quick turn of the
scale in war and the instability of human affairs. He, therefore,
brought over many at the time to share his commiseration of Josephus,
and by his intercession with his father was mainly instrumental in
saving his life. Vespasian, however, ordered him to be guarded with
every precaution, intending shortly to send him to Nero.


                   Josephus tells Vespasian’s Fortune


On hearing this, Josephus said that he desired private speech with him.
Vespasian having ordered all to withdraw except his son Titus and two of
his friends, the prisoner thus addressed him: “You suppose, Vespasian,
that in the person of Josephus you have taken a mere captive; but I come
to you as a messenger of greater destinies. Had I not been sent on this
errand by God, I knew the law of the Jews and how it becomes a general
to die. To Nero do you send me? Why then? Will those who succeed Nero
before your accession continue?[289] You, Vespasian, are Cæsar and
Emperor—you and this your son. Bind me now yet more securely and keep me
for (trial by) yourself. For you, Cæsar, are master not of me only, but
of land and sea and the whole human race. And I—I deserve to be reserved
for punishment in even stricter custody,[290] if I dare to trifle with
the words of God.”

To this speech Vespasian, at the moment, seemed to attach little credit,
supposing it to be an ingenious device of Josephus to save his life.
Gradually, however, he was led to believe it, since God was already
turning his thoughts to the imperial office[291] and by other tokens
foreshadowing the throne. He found, moreover, that Josephus had proved a
veracious prophet in other matters. For, one of the two friends in
attendance at the private interview having expressed his surprise that
he had not predicted the fall of Jotapata to its inhabitants nor his own
captivity, if his present words were not a nonsensical invention to
avert the indignation which he had aroused, Josephus replied that he had
foretold to the people of Jotapata that their city would be captured
after forty-seven days and that he himself would be taken alive by the
Romans.

Vespasian, having privately questioned the prisoners on these statements
and found them true, then began to credit those concerning himself. He
did not, however, exempt Josephus from custody or bonds, though he
presented him with raiment and other precious possessions, and continued
to treat him with kindness and attention, Titus contributing much to
these complimentary honours.—_B.J._ III. 7. 33-8. 9 (316-408).

Footnote 272:

  Or possibly “could no longer endure the strain, even under
  compulsion.”

Footnote 273:

  Gr. “chiliarch(s).”

Footnote 274:

  MSS “of the fifth and tenth legion” (_sic_).

Footnote 275:

  Another reading, “the secret recesses of the city.”

Footnote 276:

  Gr. “chiliarch(s).”

Footnote 277:

  Lit. “right hands.”

Footnote 278:

  Cf. “Romane, memento.... Parcere subjectis.”—Virg. _Æn._ VI, 851 ff.

Footnote 279:

  Gr. “polemarch.”

Footnote 280:

  Did he claim kinship with his namesake Joseph?

Footnote 281:

  Or, perhaps, “began, in his straits, to reason ... philosophically.”

Footnote 282:

  The doctrine of _metempsychosis_.

Footnote 283:

  Or “a darker region.”

Footnote 284:

  Gr. “Hades.”

Footnote 285:

  Text (“those who did violence to their fathers”) corrupt. I read τὰς
  τῶν πατέρων ὕβρεις.

Footnote 286:

  Traill, “be thrown on his own resolution” (lit. “lie on his own right
  hand”).

Footnote 287:

  Or “to be made in good faith.”

Footnote 288:

  Another reading, “through his own virtuous disposition” (ἐξ ἀρετῆς for
  ἐξαιρέτως).

Footnote 289:

  Text and meaning doubtful. The reference is apparently to the short
  reigns of Galba, Otho and Vitellius; but, as Niese suggests, we expect
  a sentence to precede, predicting the impending death of Nero.

Footnote 290:

  In the underworld apparently.

Footnote 291:

  Another reading, “had already raised him to power.”


    (44) Reception at Jerusalem of the News of the Fall of Jotapata


When news of the fate of Jotapata reached Jerusalem, the magnitude of
the calamity and the absence of any eyewitness of the events reported at
first induced general incredulity. For not one had escaped to tell the
tale; Rumour, own sister to Black Tidings,[292] came as her own herald
of the city’s capture. Little by little, however, the truth found its
way through the adjacent districts, and the fact was now regarded by all
as established beyond doubt. But the facts were embroidered by fiction;
thus Josephus was reported to have fallen when the city was taken. This
intelligence filled Jerusalem with the deepest sorrow. In every
household and family there was mourning of the relatives for their own
lost ones; but the lamentation for the commander was national. Some
mourned for their former guests, others for relatives, others for
friends, but all alike for Josephus. Thus for thirty days the
lamentations in the city were incessant, and many flute-players were
hired, who used to take the lead in their dirges.[293]

But when the true story of what had happened at Jotapata was in time
disclosed, and the reported death of Josephus was found to be a
fabrication, and it became known that he was alive and in Roman hands
and being treated by the commanding officers with a respect beyond the
common lot of a prisoner, the demonstrations of anger at his escaping
alive were as loud as the former expressions of affection when he was
believed to be dead. Some abused him as a coward, others as a traitor;
and the city was filled with indignation and imprecations upon his
devoted head.

They were exasperated, moreover, by their reverses, and their failures
added fuel to the flames. A defeat, which with the wise induces
precaution and care to provide against similar misfortunes, but goaded
them on to further disasters; and the end of one calamity was always the
beginning of the next. At any rate, the desire for vengeance on
Josephus, now in the enemy’s ranks, impelled them to fiercer assaults
upon the Romans. Such was the uproar that now prevailed in
Jerusalem.—_B.J._ III. 9. 5 f. (432-442).

Footnote 292:

  Cf. Virg. _Æn._ IV, 173 ff.

Footnote 293:

  Cf. Matt. ix. 23.


 (45) Murder of the High Priest Ananus; also of Zacharias after a mock
                                 trial


    The Idumæans had been summoned by the Zealots to aid them against
    the party of Ananus, and had with difficulty gained entrance to
    Jerusalem during a thunderstorm at night. After massacring their
    Jewish enemies these “children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem”
    subsequently repented of their adventure and withdrew from the city.
    For Zacharias see Appendix, Note V.

[Sidenote: Winter A.D. 67-68]

The fury of the Idumæans being still unsatiated, they turned (from the
Temple) to the city, looting every house and killing all who fell in
their way. But, thinking their energies wasted on the common people,
they went in search of the chief priests. The main body rushed to attack
them, and they were soon caught and slain. Then, standing over their
dead bodies, they scoffed at Ananus for his patronage of the people and
at Jesus for the address which he had delivered from the wall. They
actually went so far in their impiety as to cast out the corpses without
burial, although the Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even
malefactors who have been sentenced to crucifixion are taken down and
buried before sunset.[294]

I do not think I shall be wrong in saying that the capture of the city
began with the death of Ananus; and that the overthrow of the walls and
the downfall of the Jewish state dated from the day on which the Jews
beheld their high priest, the captain of their salvation, butchered in
the heart of Jerusalem.

A man in all ways venerable and in integrity unsurpassed, Ananus, with
all the distinction of his birth, his rank and the honours to which he
had attained, yet delighted to treat the very humblest as his equals.
Unrivalled in his love of liberty and an admirer of democracy, he on all
occasions put the public welfare above his private interests. To
maintain peace was his supreme object. He knew that the Roman power was
irresistible; but, when driven to provide for a state of war,
endeavoured to secure that, if the Jews would not break off hostilities,
the struggle should at least be skilfully conducted. In a word, had
Ananus lived, they would undoubtedly either have come to terms—for he
was an effective speaker, whose words carried weight with the people,
and was already gaining control over those who thwarted him—or else, had
hostilities continued, they would, under such a general, have greatly
retarded the victory of the Romans.

With him was linked Jesus, who, though not comparable with Ananus,
excelled the rest of his contemporaries.

It was, I suppose, because God had, for its pollutions, condemned the
city to destruction and desired to purge the sanctuary by fire, that He
thus cut off those who clung to it with such tender affection. So they
who but lately were clad in the sacred vestments, had led the ceremonies
of world-wide significance[295] and were reverenced by visitors to the
city from every quarter of the earth, were now seen cast out naked, to
be devoured by dogs and beasts of prey. Virtue herself, I think, groaned
over these men’s fate, lamenting that she should have been so completely
defeated by Vice. Such, then, was the end of Ananus and Jesus.

Having disposed of them, the Zealots with the mass of the Idumæans fell
upon and butchered the people as though they had been a herd of unclean
animals....


                 The Mock Trial and Murder of Zacharias


Having now come to loathe indiscriminate massacre, the Zealots
instituted mock trials and courts of justice. They had determined to put
to death Zacharias, son of Baris,[296] one of the most eminent of the
citizens. His pronounced hatred of wrongdoing and love of liberty
exasperated them, and, as he was also rich, they had the double prospect
of plundering his property and of getting rid of a powerful and
dangerous opponent. So they issued a peremptory summons to seventy of
the leading citizens to appear in the Temple, assigning to them, as in a
play, the _rôle_, without the authority, of judges; and accused
Zacharias of betraying the state to the Romans and of holding
treasonable communications with Vespasian. They adduced no evidence or
proof in support of these charges; but declared that they were fully
convinced of his guilt themselves and claimed this as sufficient
guarantee that the accusation was true.

Perceiving that no hope of escape was left him, as he had been
treacherously summoned not to a court of justice but to prison,
Zacharias did not allow despair of life to rob him of liberty of speech.
He rose and ridiculed the probability of the accusation, and in few
words quashed the charges laid against him. Then, rounding upon his
accusers, he went over all their enormities in order, and bitterly
lamented the confusion of public affairs. The Zealots were in an uproar
and could scarce refrain from drawing their swords, although anxious to
play out their part in the farce of a trial to the close, and desirous,
moreover, to test whether the judges would put considerations of justice
above their own peril.

The seventy, preferring to die with the defendant rather than be held
answerable for his destruction, brought in a unanimous verdict in his
favour. The Zealots raised an outcry at his acquittal, and were all
indignant with the judges for not understanding that the authority
entrusted to them was a mere pretence. Two of the most daring of them
then set upon Zacharias and slew him in the midst of the Temple; and
addressing him as he lay with jeering words, “There you have our verdict
as well and a surer release,”[297] forthwith cast him out of the Temple
into the ravine below. Then they insolently struck the judges with the
backs of their swords and drove them from the precincts; their sole
reason for sparing their lives was that they might disperse through the
city and proclaim to all the servitude to which they were
reduced.—_B.J._ IV. 5. 2-4 (314-326; 334-344).

Footnote 294:

  Cf. Deut. xxi. 22 f.; John xix. 31.

Footnote 295:

  Lit. “cosmical,” meaning either “open to the whole world” or perhaps
  “emblematic of the mundane system” (Traill); cf. Jos. _Ant._ III. 6. 4
  (123); 7. 7 (the Tabernacle a symbol of the universe), with Westcott’s
  note on Heb. ix 1.

Footnote 296:

  According to other MSS “Bariscæus” or “Baruch.”

Footnote 297:

  The Gr. word (ἀπόλυσις) means both “acquittal” and “death.”


                    (46) How Josephus was Liberated


[Sidenote: Probably Summer A.D. 69]


Now that fortune was everywhere furthering his wishes and that
circumstances had in large measure conspired in his favour, the thought
arose in Vespasian’s mind that divine providence had played a part in
his rise to sovereignty and that some just destiny had laid the empire
of the world upon his shoulders. Among many other omens, which had
everywhere foreshadowed his imperial office, he recalled the expressions
of Josephus, who had ventured to address him as emperor while Nero was
still alive. He was shocked to think that the man was still a prisoner
in his hands, and summoning Mucianus with his other generals and
personal friends, he first reminded them of his doughty deeds and how
much trouble he had given them at Jotapata; and then referred to his
predictions, which at the time he himself had suspected of being the
fabrications of fear, but which time and the course of events had proved
to be divine. “It is disgraceful,” he said, “that one who foretold my
elevation to power and was a minister of the voice of God should still
rank as a captive and endure a prisoner’s fate”; and calling for
Josephus, he ordered him to be liberated.

The officers from this requital of a foreigner were led to augur
brilliant honours for themselves. But Titus, who was beside his father,
said, “Justice demands, father, that, with his bonds, the disgrace
should also be removed from Josephus. If, instead of loosing, we sever
his chains, he will be as though he had never been in bonds at all.”
This is the usual custom when a man has been unjustly chained. Vespasian
approving, an attendant came forward and severed the chain with an axe.
Thus Josephus won his freedom[298] as the reward of his divination, and
his power of insight into the future was no longer discredited.—_B.J._
IV. 10. 7 (622-629).

Footnote 298:

  Lit. “civic rights.”


             (47) A Roman Reverse Inspires false Confidence


[Sidenote: May A.D. 70]


Thus, after gaining possession of the second wall, were the Romans
ejected. The spirits of the war party in the city, elated at their
success, rose to a high pitch; they thought that the Romans would never
again venture into the city, or that, if they did, they themselves would
prove invincible. For God was blinding their minds because of their
transgressions; and they perceived neither how the forces still left to
the Romans far out-numbered those which had been expelled nor the
stealthy approach of famine. It was still possible to feed upon the
public miseries and to drink of the city’s life-blood; but honest men
had long since felt the pinch of want, and many were already failing for
lack of necessaries. The factions, on the other hand, considered the
destruction of the people to be a relief to themselves; they maintained
that only those should be preserved who were enemies to peace and
determined to devote their lives to resisting the Romans; the crowds of
their opponents they regarded as a mere encumbrance[299] and their
gradual extinction a cause for satisfaction. Such were their feelings
towards those within the walls. As for their external foes, having
blocked and walled up the breach with their own bodies, they attempted
to beat off the Romans who were once more attempting to break through.

For three days they maintained a stubborn defence and held their ground;
but on the fourth, unable to withstand a gallant assault of Titus, they
were compelled to fall back as before. Titus, once more master of the
wall, immediately razed the whole of the northern portion; and, placing
garrisons in the towers on the south side, made preparations to attack
the third wall.—_B.J._ V. 8. 2 (342-347).

Footnote 299:

  Another reading, “as mere barbarians.”


  (48) Cessation of the Daily Sacrifice. Josephus appeals to the Jews


Titus now ordered the troops at his disposal to raze the foundations of
Antonia[300] and to prepare an easy ascent (to the Temple) for his whole
army. On the seventeenth of Panemus, [Sidenote: July A.D. 70] having
heard that on that day the so-called continual sacrifice[301] had ceased
to be offered to God from lack of men and that the people were in
consequence terribly despondent, he put Josephus forward with
instructions to repeat to John[302] the same message as before; namely
“that if he was the slave of a depraved love of fighting, it was open to
him to come out with as many men as he chose and carry on the war,
without involving the city and the sanctuary in his own ruin; but that
he should no longer pollute the Holy Place nor sin against God; and that
he would be permitted to perform the interrupted sacrifices through the
ministry of any Jews he might select.”

Josephus, in order that his words might be listened to[303] not by John
only but by the multitude, delivered Cæsar’s message in Hebrew,[304]
with earnest appeals to them “to spare their country, to disperse the
flames that were already licking[305] the sanctuary and to restore to
God the customary expiations.”[306] This address was received by the
people with dejection and silence; the tyrant,[307] on the contrary,
after many invectives and imprecations upon Josephus, ended by saying
that “he could never fear capture, since the city was God’s.”

At this Josephus cried aloud:—

“Pure indeed have you kept it for God! The Holy Place too remains
undefiled! No impiety are you guilty of against your looked-for Ally and
He receives His customary sacrifices! Most impious wretch, should any
one deprive you of your daily food, you would consider him an enemy; and
do you hope to have God for your ally in the war, whom you have bereft
of His everlasting ceremonial? And do you impute these sins to the
Romans, who, to this day, are concerned for our laws and are trying to
force you to restore to God those sacrifices which _you_ have
interrupted? Who would not bewail and lament for the city at this
amazing transposition, when aliens and enemies rectify your impiety,
while you, a Jew, nurtured in our laws, treat them with greater cruelty
even than your foes?

“Yet, be sure, John, it is no disgrace to repent of misdeeds, even at
the last; and, if you desire to save your country, you have a noble
example set before you in Jeconiah, king of the Jews. He, when in the
old days the Babylonian led out his army on his account, of his own free
will left the city before it was taken, and with his family endured
voluntary captivity, rather than deliver up these holy places to the
enemy and suffer the house of God to be set on fire.[308] For this he is
commemorated in sacred story by all Jews, and memory, flowing ever fresh
from age to age, transmits his undying fame to after generations. A
noble example, John, even were it dangerous to follow; but I can warrant
you even pardon from the Romans. Remember, too, that I who exhort you am
your compatriot, that I who make this promise am a Jew; and it is right
that you should consider who is your counsellor and of what country he
comes. For I pray that I may never live to be so abject a captive as to
abjure my race or to forget the traditions of my forefathers.

“Once again you are indignant and shout your abuse at me; and indeed I
deserve even harsher treatment for offering advice in fate’s despite and
for struggling to save those whom God has condemned. Who is ignorant of
the records of the ancient prophets and of that oracle which threatens
this poor city and is now on the eve of fulfilment? They foretold that
it would be taken when one should begin to slaughter his own countrymen.
And is not the city and the whole Temple too filled with the corpses of
your fellow-citizens? God it is then, God Himself, who with the Romans
is bringing the fire to purge His Temple and desolation upon a city so
laden with pollutions.”—_B.J._ VI. 2. 1 (93-110).

Footnote 300:

  The tower or “castle” adjoining the Temple from the stairs of which
  St. Paul delivered the speech recorded in Acts xxii.

Footnote 301:

  The daily, morning and evening, sacrifice (ἐνδελεχισμός: Heb.
  _Tamid_); cf. Numb. xxviii. 6.

Footnote 302:

  John of Gischala.

Footnote 303:

  Many MSS insert “standing” (“standing where he might be heard,” etc.).

Footnote 304:

  _i.e._ Aramaic. Cf. Acts xxi. 40; xxii. 2.

Footnote 305:

  Lit. “tasting.”

Footnote 306:

  The Gr. word strictly means “offerings to the dead.”

Footnote 307:

  John of Gischala.

Footnote 308:

  Amplification of 2 K. xxiv. 12; cf. _Ant._ x. 7. 1 (100).


                    (49) Conflagration of the Temple


    “There shall not be left here one stone upon another which shall not
    be thrown down.”

    Titus, to protect his forces, had ordered the gates of the outer
    court to be set on fire, and from the gates the fire extended to the
    porticoes. But, after a council of war, it was decided that the main
    fabric—the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies—must be saved; Titus
    urging that “if it were burnt, the Romans would be the losers; if
    preserved, it would be an ornament of his Empire.” His attempts to
    check the spread of the conflagration proved, however, unavailing.

[Sidenote: August A.D. 70]

Throughout that day fatigue and consternation checked the Jews from
attacking; but, on the following day, about the second hour, with
recruited strength and renewed courage, they sallied out through the
eastern gate and charged the guards of the outer court of the Temple.

The Romans stubbornly met their charge and, forming a screen in front
with their shields, closed up their ranks like a wall. It was evident,
however, that they would not long be able to hold together, overpowered
as they were by the number and _élan_ of their assailants. Cæsar, who
from the (tower of) Antonia was watching the scene, anticipating the
breaking of the line, came to their rescue with his picked cavalry. The
Jews could not withstand their onset; the foremost fell and the main
body retreated. Yet whenever the Romans retired the Jews returned to the
attack, only to fall back once more when the Romans wheeled round;
until, about the fifth hour of the day, the Jews were overpowered and
shut up in the inner court of the Temple.

Titus then withdrew to Antonia, with the determination on the following
day, about dawn, to attack with his whole force and invest the Temple.
But God, it seems, had long since sentenced that building to the flames;
and now in the revolution of the years had come round the fated day, the
tenth of the month Lous, [Sidenote: August] on which it had once before
been burnt by the king of Babylon. Those flames, however, owed their
origin and cause to God’s own people.[309] For, on the withdrawal of
Titus, the insurgents, after a brief respite, again attacked the Romans,
and an engagement ensued between the (Jewish) guards of the sanctuary
and the (Romans) who were endeavouring to extinguish the fire in the
inner court. The latter routed the Jews and pursued them right up
to[310] the sanctuary.

At this moment, one of the soldiers, without waiting for orders and with
no horror of so dread a deed, but moved by some supernatural impulse,
snatched a brand from the burning timber[311] and, hoisted up by one of
his comrades, flung the fiery missile through a golden window,[312]
which gave access on the north side to the chambers surrounding the
sanctuary. As the flame shot up, a cry, such as the calamity demanded,
arose from the Jews, who rushed to the rescue, lost to all thought of
self-preservation, all husbanding of strength, now that the object of
all their past vigilance was gone.

                  *       *       *       *       *

Titus was resting in his tent after the engagement, when a messenger
rushed in with the tidings. Starting up just as he was, he ran to the
Temple to arrest the conflagration, followed by all his generals, while
in their train came the excited legionaries, with the clamour and
confused noise arising from the movement in irregular order of so large
an army. Cæsar, both by word of mouth and by a wave of his hand,
signalled to the combatants to extinguish the fire; but they neither
heard his shouts, drowned in the louder din which filled their ears,
nor, distracted as they were by the fever of battle or rage, did they
heed his beckoning hand. The impetuosity of the legionaries, when they
joined the fray, neither exhortation nor threat could restrain; passion
was for all the one officer in command. Crushed together about the
entrances, many were trampled down by their companions; while many,
stumbling on the still hot and smouldering ruins of the porticoes,
suffered the same fate as the vanquished.[313] As they came nearer the
sanctuary they pretended not even to hear Cæsar’s orders and shouted to
those in front of them to throw in the firebrands.

The (Jewish) insurgents were now powerless to rescue (the Temple). On
all sides was carnage and flight. Most of the slain were civilians, a
weak and unarmed mob, each butchered where he was caught. Around the
altar a pile of corpses was accumulating; down the sanctuary steps
flowed a stream of blood; and down the same decline slid the bodies of
the victims killed above.

                  *       *       *       *       *

Cæsar, finding himself unable to restrain the impetuosity of his
frenzied soldiers and that the fire was gaining the mastery, passed with
his generals within the building and beheld the holy place of the
sanctuary and all that it contained—things far exceeding the reports
current among foreigners and not inferior to their proud reputation
among our own nation. As the flames had nowhere yet penetrated to the
interior, but were consuming the outbuildings of the sanctuary, Titus,
rightly supposing that the structure might still be preserved, rushed
out and endeavoured by personal appeals to induce the soldiers to quench
the fire; at the same time directing Liberalius, a centurion of his
bodyguard of lancers, to restrain, by resort to clubs, any who disobeyed
orders. But their respect for Cæsar and their fear of the officer who
was endeavouring to check them were overpowered by their rage, their
hatred of the Jews and the lust of battle, an even mightier master. Most
of them were further stimulated by the hope of plunder, believing that
the interior was full of money and actually seeing that all the
surroundings were made of gold.

Moreover, when Cæsar rushed out to restrain the soldiers, even one of
those who had entered with him baulked his purpose by thrusting a
firebrand, in the darkness,[314] into the sockets of the gate. At once a
flame shot up from the interior, whereupon Cæsar and his generals
withdrew, and there was none left to prevent those on the outside from
kindling a blaze. Thus, then, against Cæsar’s wishes, was the sanctuary
set on fire.

                  *       *       *       *       *

Deeply as one must mourn for the most marvellous edifice which we have
ever seen or heard of, whether we consider its structure, its magnitude,
the richness of every detail or the reputation of its Holy Places,[315]
yet may we draw very great consolation from the thought that there is no
escape from Fate, for works of art and places any more than for living
beings. And one may well marvel at the exactness of the cycle of
Destiny; for, as I said, she waited until the very month and the very
day on which in bygone times the Temple had been burnt by the
Babylonians.—_B.J._ VI. 4. 4-8 (244-268).

Footnote 309:

  Or “to the people whose own the Temple was.”

Footnote 310:

  Or “into.”

Footnote 311:

  Text uncertain.

Footnote 312:

  Or “a small golden door.”

Footnote 313:

  Possibly there is an allusion to the burning of the porticoes in the
  riots at the time of the accession of Archelaus, when many Jews
  perished in the flames (_Ant._ XVII. 10. 2).

Footnote 314:

  Text doubtful.

Footnote 315:

  _i. e._ the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies.


                     (50) Portents and Oracles[316]


Thus it happened that the wretched people were deluded at that time by
charlatans and pretended messengers of God;[317] while they paid no heed
to or discredited the manifest portents that foretold the coming
desolation, but, as if thunderstruck and bereft of eyes and mind,
disregarded God’s plain proclamations (of disaster). So it was when a
star, resembling a sword, stood over the city, and a comet which
continued for a year. So again when, before the revolt and the outbreak
of war, at the time when the people were assembling for the Feast of
Unleavened Bread, on the eighth of the month Xanthicus,[318] at the
ninth hour of the night, so brilliant a light shone round the altar and
the sanctuary that it seemed to be broad daylight; and this continued
for half an hour. By the inexperienced this was regarded as a good omen,
but by the sacred scribes it was at once interpreted in accordance with
after events.

At that same feast a cow that had been led by some one[319] to the
sacrifice gave birth to a lamb in the midst of the Temple. Moreover, the
eastern gate of the inner court, which it took twenty men to close with
difficulty at even—it was of brass and very massive, and was secured by
bars shod with iron, and had bolts which were sunk to a great depth into
a threshold consisting of a solid block of stone—this gate was observed
at the sixth hour of the night to have opened of its own accord. The
watchmen of the Temple ran and reported the matter to the captain,[320]
and he came up and with difficulty succeeded in shutting it. This again
to the uninitiated seemed the best of omens, as they supposed that God
had opened to them the gate of blessings; but the learned understood
that the security of the Temple was dissolving of its own accord and
that the opening of the gate indicated a present to the enemy,
interpreting the portent in their own minds[321] as a symbol of
desolation.

Again, not many days after the festival, on the twenty-first of the
month Artemisium,[322] there appeared a phenomenon so miraculous as to
surpass belief. Indeed, what I am about to relate might well, I suppose,
be regarded as fictitious, were it not for the narratives of
eyewitnesses and for the subsequent calamities which deserved to be so
signalized. In all parts of the country before sunset chariots were
observed in the air and armed battalions rushing through the clouds and
closing in round the cities. Also, at the feast which is called
Pentecost, the priests on entering the inner court of the Temple by
night, as their custom was, for the discharge of their ministrations,
reported that they first became aware of a movement and a resounding
noise and afterwards heard a voice as of a crowd, “We are departing
hence.”[323]

But a further portent was even more alarming. Four years before the war,
when the city was enjoying profound peace and prosperity, there came to
the feast at which it is the custom of all Jews to erect tabernacles to
God,[324] one Jesus, son of Ananias, a rude peasant, who suddenly began
to cry out in the Temple, “A voice from the east, a voice from the west,
a voice from the four winds; a voice against Jerusalem and the
sanctuary, a voice against bridegrooms and brides, a voice against all
the people.” Day and night he went about all the alleys with this cry on
his lips. Some of the leading citizens, incensed at the fellow’s
ill-omened words, laid hands on him and severely chastised him. But he,
without uttering a word on his own behalf or for the private ear of
those who smote him, continued his cries as before. Thereupon, the
rulers, supposing, as was indeed the case, that the man was under some
supernatural impulse, brought him before the Roman governor, where,
although flayed to the bone with scourges, he neither begged for mercy
nor shed a tear, but, merely introducing the most mournful of variations
into his ejaculation, responded to each stroke with “Woe to Jerusalem!”
When Albinus, the governor, asked him who and whence he was and why he
uttered these words, he made no reply whatever to his questions, but
never ceased reiterating his dirge over the city, until Albinus
pronounced him a maniac and let him go.

During all that period up to the outbreak of war he neither approached
nor was seen talking to any of the citizens, but, as if it were a prayer
on which he had pondered, daily repeated his lament, “Woe to Jerusalem!”
He neither cursed any of those who beat him day after day nor blessed
those who offered him food; to all that melancholy and ominous refrain
was his one reply. At the festivals his cries were loudest. So for seven
years and five months he continued his wail, his voice never flagging
nor his strength exhausted, until during the siege, after witnessing the
verification of his presage, he ceased. For, while going his round on
the wall, shouting in piercing tones “Woe once more to the city and to
the people and to the Temple,” as he added a last word, “And woe to
myself also,” a stone shot from the military engine[325] struck and
killed him instantaneously. So with those ominous words still on his
lips he passed away.

                  *       *       *       *       *

If we reflect on these things, we shall find that God shows care for
men, and by all kinds of premonitory signs indicates to His people the
means of salvation, and that they owe their destruction to folly and
calamities of their own choosing. For example, the Jews, after the
demolition of the (tower of) Antonia, reduced the Temple to a square,
although they had it recorded in their oracles that the city and the
sanctuary would be taken when the Temple should become four-square. But
what more than all else incited them to the war was an ambiguous oracle,
likewise found in their sacred writings, to the effect that about that
time some one from their country should become ruler of the world. This
they understood to mean some one of their own race, and many of their
wise men went astray in their interpretation of it. The oracle, however,
in reality signified the sovereignty of Vespasian, who was proclaimed
Emperor on Jewish soil.

For all that, it is impossible for men to avoid Fate, even though they
foresee it. For some of these portents, then, the Jews found agreeable
meanings, others they treated with contempt, until the ruin of their
country and their own destruction convicted them of their folly.—_B.J._
VI. 5. 3 f. (288-315).

Footnote 316:

  Cf. Appendix, Note VI.

Footnote 317:

  The “tyrants” had encouraged optimistic false prophets in order to
  prevent desertion to the Romans.

Footnote 318:

  March-April.

Footnote 319:

  Eusebius (_H.E._ III. 8) reads “by the High Priest.”

Footnote 320:

  Cf. Acts iv. 1; v. 24.

Footnote 321:

  Or “among themselves.”

Footnote 322:

  April-May.

Footnote 323:

  So all the Gr. MSS (cf. Tac. _Hist._ v. 13, _maior humanâ vox excedere
  deos_). The Lat. version, with two other authorities, reads, “Let us
  depart hence.”

Footnote 324:

  The Feast of Tabernacles (_Sukkoth_).

Footnote 325:

  πετροβόλος, the Lat. _ballista_, a kind of large catapult.


  (51) The Last Scene. Capture of the Upper City. Jerusalem in Flames


    “Tum vero omne mihi visum considere in ignes....”

[Sidenote: September A.D. 70]

The Romans, now masters of the walls, planted their standards on the
towers, and with clapping of hands and jubilation raised the song of
triumph in honour of their victory. They had found the end of the war a
much lighter task than the beginning; indeed, they could hardly believe
that they had surmounted the last wall without bloodshed, and were
truly[326] at a loss on finding no enemy in sight.

Pouring into the alleys, sword in hand, they massacred indiscriminately
all whom they met and burnt over their heads the houses of those who had
taken refuge within. Often in the course of their raids, on entering the
houses for loot, they would find whole families of dead bodies and the
rooms filled with the victims of the famine, and then, shuddering at the
sight, would retire empty-handed. Yet, while they pitied those who had
thus perished, they had no similar feelings for the living, but, running
every one through that fell in their way, they choked the alleys with
corpses and deluged the whole city with blood, insomuch that the flames
of many of the burning buildings were extinguished by the gory stream.
Towards evening they ceased slaughtering, but when night fell the fire
gained the mastery, and the dawn of the eighth day of the month Gorpiæus
[Sidenote: September] broke upon Jerusalem in flames; a city which had
suffered such calamities in the siege, that, had she from her first
foundation enjoyed an equal share of blessings, she would have been
thought wholly enviable; and undeserving, moreover, of these great
misfortunes on all other grounds, save that she produced so evil a
generation as that which caused her overthrow.

                  *       *       *       *       *

Of all the strong defences of the city those which chiefly aroused the
admiration of Titus, on his entry, were the towers, which the tyrants,
in their infatuation, had abandoned. Indeed, when he beheld their solid
lofty mass, the magnitude of each block of stone and the accuracy of the
joinings, and saw how great was their breadth, how vast their height,
“We have indeed,” he exclaimed, “had God on our side in the battle. God
it was who ejected the Jews from these strongholds; for what power have
human hands or engines against these towers?” He made many similar
observations to his friends on that occasion, and also liberated all who
had been imprisoned by the tyrants and left in the forts. And when, at a
later period, he demolished the rest of the city and razed the walls, he
left these towers as a memorial of his attendant fortune, to whose
co-operation he owed his conquest of defences which defied
assault.—_B.J._ VI. 8. 5-9. 1 (403-413).

Footnote 326:

  Some MSS read “unusually” (ἀήθως for ἀληθῶς).


  (52) The Spoils from the Temple in the Triumphal Procession in Rome


    The Jewish spoils—the table of shew-bread, incense-cups and
    trumpets—as borne in the procession still figure on the Arch of
    Titus in Rome; a representation _e.g._ in Driver’s _Exodus_ (_Camb.
    Bible_), p. 273.

The rest of the spoils borne (in procession) were not systematically
assorted; but conspicuous above all stood out those captured from the
Temple at Jerusalem. These consisted of a golden table,[327] many
talents in weight, and a lampstand,[328] likewise made of gold,
constructed on a different pattern from those which we use in ordinary
life. Affixed to a pedestal was a central shaft, from which there
extended slender branches, arranged trident-fashion, a wrought lamp
being attached to the extremity of each branch. There were seven of
these lamps, indicating the honour paid to that number among the Jews.
After these, and last of all the spoils, was carried a copy of the
Jewish Law.—_B.J._ VII. 5. 5 (148-150).

Footnote 327:

  The table of shew-bread.

Footnote 328:

  Or “candlestick.”




                         VIII. THE JEWISH SECTS


       (53) The Three Sects and their Views on Fate and Free-Will


    This account occurs in the history of the Maccabæan period. The
    saying of R. Aqiba (_Pirqe Aboth_, III. 24) may be quoted in
    illustration of this passage: “Everything is foreseen; and free-will
    is given,” where Predestination and Free-will are set side by side,
    as if not irreconcilable.

At this time [Sidenote: _c._ 145 B.C.] there were three sects of Jews,
holding different opinions about human actions; the first was called the
sect of the Pharisees, the second that of the Sadducees, and the third
that of the Essenes.

The Pharisees assert that some, but not all, events are the work of
Fate, and some are under our own control, to be or not to be. The
followers of the Essenes affirm that Fate is all-powerful, and that
nothing befalls men except in accordance with her decree. The Sadducees
abolish Fate, maintaining that there is no such thing, that the events
of human life are not dependent upon her, and that all things fall
within our own control; so that it is we who are responsible for our
blessings and bring our misfortunes on ourselves by our own
thoughtlessness.—_Ant._ XIII. 5. 9 (171-173).


        (54) The Essenes, with a note on Pharisees and Sadducees


Jewish philosophy takes three forms. The followers of the first school
are called Pharisees, of the second Sadducees, of the third Essenes.


The Essenes: their Asceticism, Simplicity of Life and Community of Goods


A studied gravity[329] is the distinguishing characteristic of the
Essenes. Of Jewish birth, they show a greater attachment to each other
than do the other sects. They shun pleasures as a vice and regard
temperance and the control of the passions as a special virtue. Marriage
they disdain, but they adopt other men’s children, while yet pliable and
docile, and regard them as their kin and mould them in accordance with
their own principles. They do not wholly condemn wedlock and the
continuance thereby of the human race, but guard against women’s
wantonness, being persuaded that none of the sex keeps her plighted
troth to one man.

Riches they despise, and their community of goods is a wonderful
arrangement; you will not find one among them distinguished by greater
opulence than another. They have a law that new members on admission to
the sect shall confiscate their property to the order, with the result
that you will nowhere see either abject poverty or inordinate wealth;
the individual’s possessions join the common stock and all the
brotherhood enjoy a single patrimony.

Oil they consider defiling, and any one who accidentally comes in
contact with it scours his person; for they make a point of keeping a
dry skin and of always being dressed in white.

They elect overseers of the common property,[330] and all their
officials for various purposes are chosen[331] by the whole body.

They occupy no one city; each city has its own settlement. On the
arrival of any of the sect from elsewhere, all the resources of the
community are put at their disposal, just as if they were their own; and
they enter the houses of men whom they have never seen before as though
they were their most intimate friends. Consequently, they carry nothing
whatever with them on their journeys, except arms as a protection
against brigands. In every city of the order there is one expressly
appointed to attend to strangers, who provides them with raiment and
other necessaries.

In their dress and general appearance they resemble boys who are
schooled under a rigorous system.[332] They do not change their garments
or shoes until they are torn to shreds or worn threadbare with age.

There is no buying or selling among themselves, but each gives what he
has to any in need and receives from him in exchange something useful to
himself; they are also freely permitted to accept whatever they choose
without making any return.


                Their Prayers to the Sun. The Refectory


In religious matters[333] their piety is unique. Before the sun is up
they utter no word on mundane matters, but offer to him certain prayers,
which have been handed down from their forefathers, as though entreating
him to rise. They are then dismissed by the overseers to the various
crafts in which they are severally proficient and are strenuously
occupied until the fifth hour, when they again assemble in one place
and, girding themselves with linen cloths, so equipped bathe their
bodies in cold water. After this purification, they collect in a private
apartment which none of the uninitiated is permitted to enter, and so,
pure and by themselves, repair to the Refectory, as to some sacred
shrine. When they have taken their seats in silence, the baker serves
out the loaves to them in order, and the cook sets before each a single
vessel of one kind of food. Before meat the priest says a grace, and
none may partake until after the prayer. When breakfast[334] is ended,
he pronounces a further grace; thus at the beginning and at the close
they do homage to God as the bountiful giver of life.[335] Then laying
aside their raiment, as holy (vestments), they again betake themselves
to their labours until the evening. On their return they sup in like
manner, and any guests who may have arrived sit down with them. No
clamour or disturbance ever pollutes their dwelling; conversation takes
place in turn, each man making way for his neighbour. To persons outside
the silence of those within appears like some awful mystery; it is in
fact due to their continuous sobriety and to the limitation of their
allotted portions of meat and drink to the demands of nature.

In all other matters they do nothing without orders from the overseers;
two things only are left to individual discretion, the rendering of
assistance and compassion. Members may of their own motion help the
deserving, when in need,[336] and proffer food to the destitute; but
presents to relatives are prohibited, without leave from the managers.

Just in their control[337] of resentment, they restrain their wrath;
they are champions of[338] fidelity and very ministers of peace. Any
word of theirs has more force than an oath; swearing they avoid,
regarding it as worse than perjury, for they say that the thing
which[339] is not believed without (an appeal to) God stands condemned
already.


                             Their Studies


They display an extraordinary interest in the writings of the ancients,
singling out in particular those which make for the welfare of soul and
body; through these they make investigations into medicinal roots[340]
and the properties of stones,[341] useful in the treatment of
diseases.[342]


        Admission to the Order. The Novice’s Probation and Oath


A candidate anxious to join their sect is not immediately admitted. For
one year, during which he remains outside the fraternity, they prescribe
for him their own rule of life, presenting him with a small hatchet, the
forementioned loin-cloth and white raiment. Having given proof of his
continence during this probationary period, he is brought into closer
touch with the rule and is allowed to share the purer kind of holy
water, but is not yet received into the life of the community. For,
after this exhibition of endurance, his character is tested for two
years more, and only then, if found worthy, is he enrolled in the
society.

But, before he may touch the common food, he is made to swear tremendous
oaths[343]:—first that he will practise piety towards God,[344] next
that he will observe justice towards men; that he will wrong none
whether of his own mind or under another’s orders; that he will for ever
hate the unjust and fight the battle of the just; that he will for ever
keep faith with all men, especially with the powers that be, since no
ruler attains his office save by the will of God;[345] that, should he
himself bear rule, he will never abuse his authority nor, either in
dress or by other outward marks of superiority, outshine his subjects;
to be ever a lover of truth and to make it his aim to convict liars; to
keep his hands from stealing and his soul pure from impious gain; to
conceal nothing from the members of the sect and to report none of their
secrets to others, even though threatened with death. He swears,
moreover, not to communicate any of their doctrines to any one otherwise
than as he himself received them; to abstain from robbery; and in like
manner carefully to preserve the books of their sect and the names of
the angels. Such are the oaths by which they secure their proselytes.


                        Expulsion from the Order


Those who are convicted of[346] serious crimes they expel from the
order; and the ejected individual often comes to a most miserable end.
For, being bound by their oaths and usages, he is not at liberty to
partake of other men’s food, and so falls to eating grass and wastes
away and dies of starvation. This has led them in compassion to receive
many back in the last stage of exhaustion, deeming that torments which
have brought them to the verge of death are a sufficient penalty for
their misdoings.


      Their Law-courts, Reverence for Moses, Sabbatarianism, etc.


They are just and scrupulously careful in their trial of cases, never
passing sentence in a court of less than a hundred members; the decision
thus reached is irrevocable. After God they hold most in awe the name of
their lawgiver, any blasphemer of whom is punished with death.

It is a point of honour with them to obey their elders, and a majority;
for instance, if ten sit together, one will not speak if the nine desire
silence.

They are careful not to spit into the midst of the company or to the
right, and are stricter than all Jews in abstaining from work on the
seventh day; for not only do they prepare their food on the day before,
to avoid kindling a fire on that one, but they do not venture to remove
any vessel or even to go to stool.

On other days they dig a trench a foot deep with the _skalis_[347]—such
is the purpose of the hatchet which they present to new members on
admission[348]—and wrapping their mantle about them, that they may not
offend the rays of the deity,[349] sit above it. They then replace the
excavated soil in the trench. For this purpose they select the more
retired spots. And though this secretion of bodily impurity is a natural
function, they make it a rule to wash themselves after it, as if
defiled.


       The Four Grades of Essenes—their Endurance of Persecution


They are divided, according to the duration of their discipline, into
four grades;[350] and so far are the junior members inferior to the
seniors, that the latter, if but touched by the former, bathe
themselves, as though they had been polluted by contact with an alien.

They live to a great age—most of them to upwards of a century—in
consequence, I imagine, of the simplicity of, and their moderation in,
their diet.[351] They make light of danger, and conquer pain by their
resolute will; death, if it come with honour, they consider better than
immortality. The war with the Romans tried their souls through and
through by every variety of test. Racked and twisted, burnt and broken,
and made to pass through every instrument of torture, to induce them to
blaspheme their lawgiver or to eat some forbidden thing, they refused to
yield to either demand, nor ever once did they cringe to their
tormentors or shed a tear. Smiling in their agonies, and with gentle
derision of the ministers of their tortures, they cheerfully resigned
their souls, confident that they would receive them back again.


              Their Belief in the Immortality of the Soul


For it is a fixed belief of theirs that bodies are corruptible, and the
matter of which they are made has no permanence, but that souls continue
for ever immortal. Emanating from the finest ether, these souls become
entangled, as it were, in the prison-house of the body, to which they
are dragged down by some magical[352] spell; but when once they are
released from the bonds of the flesh, then, as though liberated from a
long servitude, they rejoice and are borne aloft. For the good souls—and
here they are of the same mind as the sons of Greece—they maintain that
there is reserved a habitation beyond the ocean, in a place which is not
oppressed by rain or snow or heat, but is refreshed by the ever-gentle
breath of the west wind coming in from ocean; while to the base they
allot a murky and tempestuous dungeon, big with never-ending
punishments.

The Greeks, I imagine, had the same conception when they set apart the
Islands of the Blessed for their brave men, whom they call heroes and
demigods, and the Region of the Impious for the souls of the wicked down
in Hades, where, as their mythologists tell, certain persons are
undergoing punishment, such as Sisyphus, Tantalus, Ixion, and
Tityus.[353] Their aim was first to establish the premiss that souls are
immortal, and secondly to promote virtue and to deter from vice; for the
good are made better in their lifetime by the hope of being rewarded
even after death, and the impetuous passions of the wicked are
restrained by fear and the expectation that, even though they escape
detection while alive, they will undergo never-ending punishment after
their decease.

Through these theological views of theirs concerning the soul the
Essenes irresistibly attract all who have once tasted their philosophy.


                            Essene Prophets


There are some among them who profess to foretell the future, being
versed from their early years in holy books, various[354] forms of
purification and apophthegms of prophets; and seldom, if ever, do they
err in their predictions.[355]


                 Essene Schismatics who Allow Marriage


There is yet another order of Essenes, who, while at one with the rest
in their mode of life, customs and regulations, differ from them in
their views on marriage. They think that those who decline to marry cut
off the chief function of life—that of transmitting it—and furthermore
that, were all to adopt the same view, the whole race would very quickly
die out. They give their wives, however, a three years’ probation, and
only marry them after they have thrice undergone purification, in proof
of fecundity. They have no intercourse with them during pregnancy, thus
showing that their motive in marrying is not self-indulgence but the
procreation of children. In the bath the women wear a dress, the men a
loin-cloth. Such are the usages of this order.


                      The Pharisees and Sadducees


Of the two first-named schools, the Pharisees have the reputation of
being the most accurate expositors of the laws, and owe to this[356]
their position as the leading sect. They attribute everything to Fate
and God; yet they admit that to act rightly or otherwise rests for the
most part with men, though in each action Fate is an auxiliary.[357]
Every soul, they maintain, is imperishable, but the soul of the good
alone passes into another body, while the souls of the wicked suffer
eternal punishment.

The Sadducees, the second of the orders, do away with Fate altogether,
and remove God beyond, not merely the commission, but the very sight, of
evil. They maintain that good and evil lie open to men’s choice and that
it rests with every man’s will whether he embraces the one or the other.
As for the permanence of the soul, penalties in the underworld[358] and
rewards, they will have none of them.

The Pharisees are affectionate to each other, and cultivate harmonious
relations with the community. The Sadducees, even to one another, are
rather boorish in their behaviour, and in their intercourse with their
fellows are as harsh as with aliens.

Such is what I have to say on the Jewish philosophical schools.—_B.J._
II. 8. 2-14 (119-166).

Footnote 329:

  Or “solemnity” or “sanctity.”

Footnote 330:

  Or “of the affairs of the community.”

Footnote 331:

  Text doubtful.

Footnote 332:

  Lit. “with fear.”

Footnote 333:

  Lit. “towards the deity.”

Footnote 334:

  Most MSS “his breakfast.”

Footnote 335:

  Other MSS “sustenance.”

Footnote 336:

  Or “when they ask an alms.”

Footnote 337:

  Or “display”; lit. “just stewards” or “dispensers.”

Footnote 338:

  Or “leaders in.”

Footnote 339:

  MSS “the person who.”

Footnote 340:

  Or “roots that act as charms.”

Footnote 341:

  _i. e._ probably, charms or amulets.

Footnote 342:

  On this paragraph see Lightfoot, _Colossians_, 8 p. 89 f. note.
  Lightfoot, connecting the passage with _Ant._ VIII. 2. 5, § (6) above,
  regards the “writings” as Solomonian books and the Essenes as
  primarily dealers in charms, rather than physicians.

Footnote 343:

  The inconsistency of this with the attitude of the sect towards
  swearing as recorded in a previous paragraph is remarkable.

Footnote 344:

  Lit. “the Divinity.”

Footnote 345:

  Cf. Rom. xiii. 1.

Footnote 346:

  Or “detected in.”

Footnote 347:

  Usual meaning “a hoe”; Lightfoot tr. “spade.”

Footnote 348:

  See p. 152 above.

Footnote 349:

  _i. e._ the sun-god, to whom they pray (see above and cf. Lightfoot,
  _Col._, p. 85 note 2).

Footnote 350:

  As Lightfoot (_Col._ 363, note) points out, the passage must be read
  in connexion with the account of the admission to the order (above). A
  comparison shows that the two year period there mentioned comprises
  “the period spent in the second and third grades, each extending over
  a year. After passing through these three stages in three successive
  years, he enters upon the fourth and highest grade, thus becoming a
  perfect member.”

Footnote 351:

  Or, perhaps, “the simplicity of their mode of life and their regular
  habits.”

Footnote 352:

  φυσικός here apparently used of the occult laws of nature (v.
  Liddell-Scott Lex.).

Footnote 353:

  Lit. “the Sisyphuses,” etc.

Footnote 354:

  Or “superior,” “special.”

Footnote 355:

  For these Essene fortune-tellers, see Lightfoot, _Col._ 89, note 1
  (“We may conjecture that with the Essenes this acquisition was
  connected with magic or astrology. At all events it is not treated as
  a direct inspiration”), and the instance of Menahem, § (59), below.

Footnote 356:

  Meaning a little uncertain.

Footnote 357:

  _i. e._ “co-operates.”

Footnote 358:

  Gr. “Hades.”


          (55) Another Account of the Three Sects—and a Fourth


    This account, which follows the story of Quirinius and the revolt of
    Judas, § (24), seems to be taken from the special source on which
    Josephus draws largely in the last books of the _Antiquities_. The
    style is difficult, and the text in places uncertain.


Among the hereditary institutions of the Jews, dating from quite ancient
times, were the three schools of philosophy: the school of the Essenes,
that of the Sadducees, and, thirdly, that of the Pharisees so called.
Although I[359] have spoken about them in the second book of the _Jewish
War_,[360] I will briefly touch on them here.


                             The Pharisees


The Pharisees practise simplicity of life, and give way to no
self-indulgence. They take as their guiding motive certain traditional
principles which their school[361] has tested and approved, and consider
it a matter of the first importance to observe the doctrines which it
has deliberately dictated. They show respect and deference to those who
have gone before them, nor have they the effrontery to dispute any
proposition which they have introduced.[362] While maintaining that all
events are the work of Fate, they do not deprive man of free-will in his
actions, since (as they hold) it has pleased God that the decision
should rest[363] both with Fate’s council-chamber and with the human
will whether a man takes the side of virtue or of vice. They believe
that souls have immortal power, and that beneath the earth punishments
and awards await those who, during life, have made a practice of vice or
virtue: to the former is assigned everlasting imprisonment, the latter
are granted facilities to live again.[364] By these doctrines they have
gained a very great influence over the masses, and all religious
ceremonies in the matter of prayers[365] and the offering of sacrifices
are performed according to their directions. Such high testimony do the
cities bear to their character, regarding them, both in their manner of
life and in their utterances, as patterns of perfection.


                             The Sadducees


The Sadducees hold that the soul perishes with the body. They make no
pretence of observing any rules whatever except the laws; indeed, they
count it meritorious to dispute with the doctors of their school. Their
tenets have but few adherents; but these are persons of the highest
reputation. They have hardly any effect on practical life; for whenever
any of their number accept office, they, reluctantly indeed, but of
necessity, become converts to the Pharisaic creed, because otherwise
they would not be tolerated by the masses.


                              The Essenes


The characteristic of the Essene creed is that all things are left in
God’s hands. They hold that souls are immortal, and that the
rewards[366] of righteousness are a prize worth a battle. Although they
send dedicatory offerings to the Temple, their rites of purification
when sacrificing are peculiar; they are consequently excluded from the
precincts of the national shrine[367] and offer their sacrifices apart.
In other ways they are most estimable men, whose whole energy is devoted
to agriculture. In this particular they deserve more admiration than all
professedly virtuous persons, because a habit which has never prevailed,
even for a while, in any nation, whether Greek or barbarian, has been
with them a long-established and uninterrupted custom. Their goods are
in common, and the rich man enjoys no more of his possessions than he
who owns nothing at all; this rule is followed by a body of men
numbering over four thousand. Marriage and slavery they abjure, the
latter as tending to promote injustice, the former as giving occasion
for discord; they live by themselves and minister to each other’s needs.
They elect good men to act as receivers of their revenues and of the
produce of the soil, and priests as bakers and cooks. Their manner of
life bears the closest resemblance in all points to that of the Dacian
tribe known as the Polistæ.[368]


                              The Zealots


A fourth school was founded by Judas the Galilæan.[369] While they agree
in all other respects with the Pharisees, its disciples have an
ineradicable[370] passion for liberty, and take God for their only
leader and lord. In their determination to call no man lord, they make
light of enduring death in all manner of forms, and of penalties
inflicted on their kinsmen and friends. Since, however, most of my
readers have witnessed their unflinching endurance under such tortures,
I need not dwell further upon it. My fear is not that anything which I
might say of them will be thought incredible, but, on the contrary, that
the narrative may fail to do justice to the fortitude with which they
meet the agony of pain. It was the madness of this party which was the
beginning of the afflictions of our nation, when [Sidenote: A.D. 64-66.]
Gessius Florus, the governor, by wanton abuse of his authority, drove
them in desperation into revolt from Rome.[371]

Such are the various schools of Jewish philosophy.—_Ant._ XVIII. 1. 2-6
(11-25).

Footnote 359:

  Gr. “we.”

Footnote 360:

  § (54).

Footnote 361:

  ὁ λόγος. Whiston, “follow the guidance of _reason_”; but ὁ λ. must, it
  seems, have the same meaning as in the corresponding opening sentences
  in the paragraphs on Sadducees and Essenes, (?) “doctrine” or
  “tenets.”

Footnote 362:

  Text doubtful.

Footnote 363:

  Another reading (κρᾶσιν for κρίσιν), “that there should be a blend
  between....”

Footnote 364:

  Cf. § (43), p. 124.

Footnote 365:

  Or “vows.”

Footnote 366:

  Lit. “revenue.”

Footnote 367:

  Lit. “the common precincts.” Whiston, “the common court of the
  Temple.”

Footnote 368:

  πολισταῖς (_i.e._ “Founders” or “Colonisers”), Scaliger’s emendation
  of the MS reading πλείστοις; cf. the allusion in Strabo 296 to a
  Thracian tribe who live without wives and are called Founders
  (κτίσται).

Footnote 369:

  Cf. § (24).

Footnote 370:

  Perhaps, with a slight transposition of letters, “invincible”
  (Bekker).

Footnote 371:

  Cf. § (39).


  (56) Why John Hyrcanus went over from the Pharisees to the Sadducees


[Sidenote: 135-105 B.C.]


    John Hyrcanus I was the son and successor, in the offices of high
    priest and prince, of Simon the Maccabee.

These successes of Hyrcanus, however, aroused the envy of the Jews. His
bitterest enemies were the Pharisees, one of the Jewish sects, as we
have already stated, whose influence with the populace is such that a
word from them against king or high priest meets with instant belief.

Hyrcanus had been their disciple and was greatly beloved by them. Having
on one occasion invited them to a banquet and hospitably entertained
them, and seeing them in high good humour, he began to say to them that
they knew how anxious he was to live righteously, and how in all his
actions he strove to please God and them (for the Pharisees are a school
of philosophers); but he besought them, if ever they saw him erring and
deviating from the right way, to bring him back into it and correct him.
His guests declaring that there was no virtue which he lacked, he was
pleased with their commendation.

But one of them, named Eleazar, an ill-natured man who delighted in
faction, remarked, “As you have asked us to tell you the truth and
desire to be righteous, renounce the high priesthood and be content to
be ruler of the people.” And when Hyrcanus enquired of him the reason
why he should lay down the office of high priest, he replied, “Because
we are informed by the elders that your mother was a captive in the
reign of Antiochus Epiphanes.”[372] The story was false, and Hyrcanus
was exasperated with the man, and all the Pharisees were greatly
indignant.

A certain Jonathan,[373] however, an intimate friend of Hyrcanus and a
follower of the sect of the Sadducees (whose doctrines are the reverse
of those of the Pharisees), asserted that Eleazar’s slanderous words had
the unanimous approval of the whole body of Pharisees, and that this
would be manifest if he asked them what punishment he deserved for what
he had said. Hyrcanus, accordingly, asked the Pharisees what penalty
they thought appropriate, expecting to prove[374] by the measure of the
sentence which they pronounced that the libel had not received their
approval. They replied, “Stripes and imprisonment.” The taunt did not
seem to merit capital punishment; the more so as the Pharisees are
naturally lenient in the matter of penalties. Hyrcanus was greatly
incensed at this answer, supposing that the man’s abusive language had
met with their approbation. His exasperation was increased in particular
by Jonathan, who so worked upon him as to induce him to desert the
Pharisees and join the Sadducean party; he also persuaded him to abolish
the practices which the Pharisees had ordained for the people, and to
punish any who observed them. To this cause he and his sons owed their
unpopularity with the multitude.

Of this more hereafter. Here I would merely explain that the Pharisees
had delivered to the people certain customary practices, handed down by
their forefathers and not recorded in the laws of Moses, and for that
reason rejected by the Sadducees, who maintain that only what is written
(in Scripture) should be held binding, and that customs based on
ancestral traditions should not be observed. On these matters the two
parties had great debates and differences. The Sadducees are influential
only with the wealthy and have no following among the populace; the
Pharisees have the masses on their side. But of these two sects and of
the Essenes I have given a precise account in the second book of my
_Jewish (War)_.[375]—_Ant._ XIII. 10. 5 f. (288-298).

Footnote 372:

  Cf. § (63), p. 175.

Footnote 373:

  Another reading “John.”

Footnote 374:

  Or, according to another reading, “to be convinced.”

Footnote 375:

  See § (54).


 (57) "Conciliate the Pharisees"—Alexander’s dying advice to Alexandra


    Alexander Jannæus (of the Hasmonæan dynasty; reigned 104-78 B.C.),
    on his last campaign, lies dying during the siege of Ragaba, near
    Gerasa on the east of Jordan.

[Sidenote: 78 B.C.]

The Queen, seeing him to be near his end and now past hope of recovery,
wept and lamented for her impending desolation and poured out her grief
for herself and her children. “To whom are you thus leaving me,” so she
spoke to him, “and our children who need others to help them, knowing as
you do the ill-will which the nation bears you?”

Alexander advised her, if she wished to secure both the throne and their
children, to comply with his suggestions. She was to conceal his death
from the soldiers until she had taken the town.[376] She was then to
enter Jerusalem in triumph after her victory and to concede a measure of
authority to the Pharisees; for they would commend her for the honour
paid them and dispose the nation in her favour. The Pharisees, he told
her, had great influence with the Jews (and could use it) to the injury
of any who hated them, or to the advantage of those who were on friendly
terms with them; above all they had the confidence of the common people
in any harsh criticism which they might pronounce on others, even though
prompted by mere malice; the offence which he himself had given to the
nation arose from his insulting the Pharisees. “Do you accordingly,” he
said, “when you reach Jerusalem, send for such of them as are
factious,[377] display my dead body, and with absolute sincerity allow
them to use me as they will, whether they prefer to do despite to my
corpse by refusing it burial in revenge for all they have suffered from
me, or to gratify their anger by any other form of outrage to it.
Promise them, moreover, that you will take no action in the exercise of
your royal authority without consulting them. If you thus address them,
_I_ shall obtain a more splendid funeral from them than I should have
had from you—for with the power to misuse my dead body they will lack
the will—and _you_ will be secure in your rule.” With this advice to his
wife, he died, having reigned seven and twenty years and lived one and
fifty.[378]

Alexandra took the fortress and, in accordance with her husband’s
suggestions, had a colloquy with the Pharisees, leaving the disposal of
the corpse and of the affairs of the kingdom entirely in their hands,
and so pacified their anger against Alexander and won their good-will
and friendship for herself. The Pharisees then went and harangued the
multitude, rehearsing Alexander’s achievements, and telling them that
they had lost a righteous king; and by their encomiums elicited from the
people such lamentation and dejection on his behalf that they gave him a
more splendid funeral than to any of the kings that had been before him.

Alexander left two sons, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, but he bequeathed the
kingdom to Alexandra. Of the sons, Hyrcanus was a weak administrator and
preferred a quiet life; the younger, Aristobulus, was a man of action
and courage. Their mother was beloved of the multitude because she
appeared to take her husband’s errors to heart.

Hyrcanus she appointed high priest, because he was the elder, but still
more on account of his temperamental inaction. She allowed the Pharisees
complete freedom, and ordered the people to obey their behests. She also
reinstated the customs which the Pharisees had introduced in accordance
with ancestral tradition and her father-in-law, Hyrcanus, had
abrogated.[379] She was thus nominally Queen, but the real power was in
the hands of the Pharisees.—_Ant._ XIII. 15. 5-16. 2 (399-409)

Footnote 376:

  Ragaba.

Footnote 377:

  Conj. Niese; MSS “send for their soldiers.”

Footnote 378:

  Another reading, “fifty years save one.”

Footnote 379:

  Cf. § (56).


       (58) How the Pharisees rose to Power under Queen Alexandra


    A supplement to the final paragraph in the preceding section.

[Sidenote: 78-69 B.C.]

Beside Alexandra, and growing as she grew,[380] arose the Pharisees, a
body of Jews with the reputation of excelling the rest of their nation
in the observances of religion, and as exact exponents of the laws. To
them, being herself devoutly religious, she listened with too great
deference; while they, gradually taking advantage of an ingenuous woman,
became at length the real administrators of the state, at liberty to
banish and to recall, to loose and to bind, whom they would. In short,
the enjoyments of royal authority were theirs; its expenses and burthens
fell to Alexandra. She proved, however, to be a wonderful administrator
of large affairs of state, and, by continual additions to her levies,
doubled her (home) army, besides collecting a considerable body of
foreign troops; so that she not only strengthened her own nation, but
became a formidable foe to foreign potentates. Thus she ruled the
nation, and the Pharisees ruled her.—_B.J._ I. 5. 2 (110-112).

Footnote 380:

  Reading αὐτῆς; lit. “grew up beside into her power” (like suckers
  round a tree). With the reading αὐτῇ, “Beside A. there rose to
  power....”


  (59) Herod the Great exempts Pharisees and Essenes from the Oath of
                 Allegiance. The Essene Prophet Menahem

[Sidenote: _c._ 37 B.C.]

Most of Herod’s subjects, either from obsequiousness or fear, yielded to
his demands;[381] those who showed a bolder front and took offence at
the compulsory order, he found one means or other of putting out of the
way. He endeavoured to persuade Pollio the Pharisee and Sameas and most
of their disciples to take the oath with the rest; but they refused, and
the respect in which Pollio was held secured them from sharing the
penalty of the other objectors.

Exemption from this order was further extended to the Essæans,[382] as
we call one of our sects, who resemble in their manner of life the
Grecian school of Pythagoras. Elsewhere I shall give a more detailed
account of them;[383] here the reason may be told why Herod held them in
such honour and esteem as possessed of supernatural powers. The
narrative, while illustrating the high opinion which this class enjoyed,
will not be out of place in an historical work.

There was a certain Essene named Menahem,[384] who was reputed not only
to lead a blameless life but to have been gifted by God with a knowledge
of future events. This man, seeing Herod as a lad on his way to school,
addressed him as king of the Jews. Herod, supposing that he spoke in
ignorance or in jest, reminded him that he was only a commoner. But
Menahem, with a quiet smile, clapped him on the backside and said, “For
all that, be sure you will be king and will have a prosperous
reign;[385] for God finds you worthy of it. And remember the blows you
received from Menahem, and let them be a symbol to you of the changes of
fortune. It were best to reflect on such things, even though you were to
be a lover of righteousness, of piety to God and equity to your
subjects. But I, knowing all, know that such will not be your character.
You will surpass all men in good fortune and will win undying renown,
but will be forgetful of piety and justice. God, however, will not be
unmindful of these sins and at the close of your life the wrath which
they merit will be remembered against you.”

Herod at the time paid little heed to this prediction of eminence to
which his hopes did not aspire; but when he had by gradual stages risen
to the throne and prosperity, and was at the height of his power, he
sent for Menahem and asked him how long he would reign. Menahem would
not reveal all. He held his peace, but on being further asked merely
whether he would reign as much as ten years, “Yes,” he replied, “twenty;
nay, thirty,” but fixed no term for the allotted period. With this
answer Herod was content, gave Menahem his hand and dismissed him, and
from that time forward continued to hold all the Essenes in
honour.—_Ant._ XV. 10. 4 f. (369-378).

Footnote 381:

  By taking the oath of allegiance to him.

Footnote 382:

  Jos. uses this form and “Essenes” interchangeably.

Footnote 383:

  Cf. § (54).

Footnote 384:

  Gr. “Manæmus” (throughout).

Footnote 385:

  Text doubtful. Perhaps “will begin happily.”


   (60) The Pharisees refuse to take the Oath of Allegiance (another
                               account).


[Sidenote: _c._ 37 B.C.]

Now there was one section of the Jews that prided themselves on their
strict observance of inherited traditions and professed (to know) the
laws[386] in which the Deity takes delight.[387] They had obtained
complete control over the women-folk.[388] They were called Pharisees,
and showed foresight in resisting an all-powerful monarch[389] and
temerity in proceeding to open hostility and opposition.

For instance, when the whole Jewish nation took the oath of allegiance
to Cæsar and to the king’s government, these men, to the number of
upwards of six thousand, refused to swear. The king imposed a money
penalty, whereupon the wife of Pheroras[390] paid the fine on their
behalf. In requital for this service of hers the Pharisees, who through
divine inspiration were endowed with the gift of foreknowledge, foretold
that God had decreed the downfall from power of Herod and his family,
and the transfer of the kingdom to her and Pheroras and their children.
These words, coming to the knowledge of Salome,[391] were reported to
the king, who was further informed that the Pharisees were corrupting
some of his courtiers. The king thereupon put the principal offenders
among the Pharisees to death together with the eunuch Bagoas and one
Carus, the most famous beauty of his time and a royal favourite. He also
killed all the members of his household who were implicated in[392] the
Pharisees’[393] prediction. Bagoas had been led by them to believe that
he would be called the father and benefactor of the king whose rise they
foretold; that monarch, they said, would be omnipotent and would enable
Bagoas to marry and beget children of his own.—_Ant._ XVII. 2. 4
(41-45).

Footnote 386:

  Lit. “laid claim to the laws.” But the text is doubtful. Others read,
  “... observance of the laws of their fathers, and pretended that the
  Deity took delight in them (the Pharisees).”

Footnote 387:

  Cf. Rom. ii. 18 (“knowest the will”).

Footnote 388:

  That is, apparently, the women of Herod’s family. The word denotes the
  harem of a prince.

Footnote 389:

  Text and meaning doubtful.

Footnote 390:

  Herod’s brother.

Footnote 391:

  Herod’s sister.

Footnote 392:

  Or “had associated themselves with.”

Footnote 393:

  Gr. “Pharisee’s.”




              IX. JEWISH THEOLOGY, SCRIPTURES AND CUSTOMS


   (61) Some Aspects of Jewish Theology. Moses as Religious Educator


                         Our Polity a Theocracy


There is endless variety in the details of the customs and laws which
prevail in the world at large. [To give but a summary enumeration:][394]
some peoples have entrusted the supreme power of government to
monarchies, others to oligarchies, yet others to the masses. Our
lawgiver, however, was attracted by none of these forms of polity, but
gave to his constitution the form of what—if a forced expression be
permitted—may be termed a “theocracy,” ascribing the sovereignty and
majesty to God. To Him he persuaded all to look, as the Author of all
blessings, both those which are common to all mankind, and those which
they had won for themselves by prayer in their utmost adversities. He
convinced them that no single action, no secret thought, could be hid
from Him. He represented Him as One, uncreated[395] and immutable to all
eternity;[396] in beauty surpassing all mortal comeliness, made known to
us by His power, although the nature of His real being[397] passes
knowledge.


    A Religion for the Many, not (like Greek philosophy) for the Few


That the wisest of the Greeks learnt to adopt these conceptions of God
from principles with which Moses supplied them, I am not now concerned
to urge; but they have borne abundant witness to the excellence of these
doctrines, and to their consonance with the nature and majesty of God.
In fact, Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Plato, the Stoics who succeeded him,
and indeed nearly all the philosophers appear to have held similar views
concerning the nature of God. These, however, addressed their philosophy
to the few, and did not venture to divulge the true doctrine[398] to the
masses who were prepossessed by (other) opinions; whereas our lawgiver,
by making practice square with precept, not only convinced his own
contemporaries, but so firmly implanted this belief concerning God in
their descendants to all future generations that it cannot be moved. The
cause (of his success) was that he far surpassed (other legislators) in
promoting the good of all men to all time by his scheme of legislation;
for he did not make religion a department of virtue, but the various
virtues—I mean, justice, temperance, fortitude, and mutual harmony in
all things between the members of the community[399]—departments of
religion. Religion governs all our actions and studies and speech; none
of these things did our lawgiver leave unexamined[400] or indeterminate.


             The Two Methods of Education Combined by Moses


All schemes of education and moral training fall into two categories;
instruction is imparted in the one case by precept, in the other by
practical exercising of the character. All other legislators, following
their divergent opinions, selected the particular method which each
preferred and neglected the other. Thus the Lacedæmonians and Cretans
employed practical, not verbal, training; whereas the Athenians and
nearly all the rest of the Greeks made laws enjoining what actions might
or might not be performed, but neglected to familiarize the people with
them by putting them into practice.

Our legislator, on the other hand, took great care to combine both
systems. He did not leave practical training in morals without a written
code;[401] nor did he permit the letter of the law to remain
inoperative. Starting from the very beginning with the food of which we
partake from infancy and the private life[402] of the home, he left
nothing, however insignificant, to the discretion and caprice of the
individual. What meats a man should abstain from, and what he may enjoy;
with what persons he should associate; what period should be devoted
respectively to strenuous labour and to rest;[403]—for all this our
leader made the law the standard and rule, that we might live under it
as under a father and master[404] and be guilty of no sin through
wilfulness or ignorance.


           All Jews Know their Law, which is Read Every Week


For ignorance he left no pretext. He proved[405] the Law to be the most
excellent and necessary form of instruction, ordaining, not that it
should be heard once for all or twice or on several occasions, but that
every week men should desert their other occupations and assemble to
listen to the Law and to obtain a thorough and accurate knowledge of it;
a practice which all other legislators seem to have neglected.[406]

Indeed, most men, so far from living in accordance with their own laws,
hardly know what they are. Only when they have done wrong do they learn
from others that they have transgressed the law. Even those of them who
hold the highest and most important offices admit their ignorance; for
they employ professional legal experts as assessors and leave them in
charge of the administration of affairs. But, should any one of our
nation be questioned about the laws, he would repeat them all more
readily than his own name. The result, then, of our thorough grounding
in the laws from the time when we first had any sensations whatever, is
that we have them as it were engraven on our souls. A transgressor is a
rarity and to elude punishment by entreaty an impossibility.—_c. Ap._
II. 16-18 (164-178).

Footnote 394:

  These words occur only in Eusebius’s citation (_Præp. Ev._ VIII. 8),
  not in the MSS of Josephus.

Footnote 395:

  Or, according to another reading, “unbegotten.”

Footnote 396:

  Lit. “to time everlasting.”

Footnote 397:

  Or “essence.”

Footnote 398:

  Lit. “the truth of the doctrine.”

Footnote 399:

  The four cardinal virtues of the Platonic School, except that Harmony
  (συμφωνία) here replaces the usual Wisdom (φρόνησις).

Footnote 400:

  The Greek word is that used in Socrates’ famous saying, “The life
  which is unexamined is not worth living” (Plato, _Apology_ 38A).

Footnote 401:

  Lit. “dumb.”

Footnote 402:

  Or “diet.”

Footnote 403:

  Lit. “and concerning strenuous application to labours and contrariwise
  rest.”

Footnote 404:

  Cf. Gal. iii. 24, “the law hath been our tutor.”

Footnote 405:

  Or “appointed.”

Footnote 406:

  For the Rabbinical tradition that Moses introduced the custom of the
  public reading of the Law on Festivals and Sabbaths, see an art. by
  Dr. Büchler in the _Jewish Quart. Review_, V. 420 (1893).


                 (62) A Future Life—for the Law-abiding


With us the death penalty is imposed for most offences, for instance, if
a man commit adultery.... Even fraud in such matters as weights or
measures, or injustice and deceit in trade, or purloining another man’s
property or laying hands on what one did not deposit—all such crimes
have punishments attached to them which are not on the same scale as
with other nations, but more severe. For example, the mere intention of
doing wrong to one’s parents or of impiety against God is followed by
instant death.

For those, on the other hand, who live in accordance with our laws the
prize is not silver or gold, no crown of wild olive[407] or of
parsley[408] with any such public proclamation (as attends those
awards). No; each individual, relying on the witness of his own
conscience and the lawgiver’s prophecy, which is 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,[409] God has
granted a renewed existence and in the revolution (of the ages)[410] the
gift of a better life. I should have hesitated to write thus, had not
the facts made all men aware that many of our countrymen have on many
occasions ere now preferred to brave all manner of suffering rather than
to utter a single word against the Law.[411]—_c. Ap._ II. 30 (215-219).

Footnote 407:

  As in the Olympic games.

Footnote 408:

  As in the Isthmian and Nemean games.

Footnote 409:

  Text doubtful.

Footnote 410:

  ἐκ περιτροπῆς should, perhaps, be read in the light of the kindred
  passage, _B.J._ III. 374 (§ (43), p. 124 above), ἐκ περιτροπῆς αἰώνων.
  Or translate simply “in exchange,” “in turn.”

Footnote 411:

  Cf. § (54), p. 155 above.


           (63) The Jewish Scriptures and their Preservation


               The Writers and Custodians of the Records


That our forefathers took no less, not to say even greater, care than
the nations I have mentioned[412] in the keeping of their records—a task
which they assigned to their chief priests and prophets—and that down to
our own times these records have been, and if I may venture to say so,
will continue to be, preserved with scrupulous accuracy, I will
endeavour briefly to demonstrate.


    Selection of the Custodians. Scrutiny of Priestly Marriages and
                              Genealogies


Not only did our ancestors in the first instance set over this business
men of the highest character, devoted to the service of God, but they
took precautions to ensure that the priests’ lineage should be kept
unadulterated and pure. A member of the priestly order must marry a
woman of his own race, without regard to her wealth or other
distinctions; but he must investigate her pedigree, obtaining the
genealogy from the archives[413] and producing a number of witnesses.
And this practice of ours is not confined to the home country of Judæa,
but wherever there is a Jewish colony,[414] there too a strict account
is kept by the priests of their marriages; I allude to the Jews in Egypt
and Babylon and other parts of the world in which any of the priestly
order are living in dispersion. A statement is drawn up by them and sent
to Jerusalem, showing the names of the bride and her father and more
remote ancestors together with the names of the witnesses. In the not
infrequent event of war, for instance when our country was invaded by
Antiochus Epiphanes [Sidenote: 170-168 B.C.], by Pompey the Great
[Sidenote: 63 B.C.], by Quintilius Varus [Sidenote: 4 B.C.], and above
all in our own times [Sidenote: A.D. 66-70.], the surviving priests
compile fresh records from the older documents;[415] they also pass
scrutiny upon the remaining women and disallow marriage with any who
have been taken captive, suspecting them of having had frequent
intercourse with foreigners. But the most convincing proof of our
accuracy in this matter is that our records contain the names of our
high priests with the succession from father to son for the last two
thousand years. And whoever violates any of the above rules is forbidden
to minister at the altars or to take any other part in divine worship.


                   The Twenty-two Books of Scripture


The task of writing (our national history) is thus one which cannot be
capriciously undertaken by all alike; and there is no discrepancy in the
records. No; the prophets alone (had this privilege), obtaining their
knowledge of the most remote and ancient history through the inspiration
which they owed to God, and committing to writing a faithful account of
the events of their own time just as they occurred. From this it
naturally, or rather necessarily, follows that we[416] do not possess
vast numbers[417] of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other.
Our books, those to which we justly pin our faith,[418] are but two and
twenty, and contain the record of all time.[419]

Of these, five are the books of Moses, comprising the laws and the
traditional history from the birth of man down to the death of the
lawgiver. This period falls only a little short of three thousand years.
From the death of Moses to the (death)[420] of Artaxerxes,[421] who
succeeded Xerxes as King of Persia, the prophets subsequent to Moses
wrote the history of the events of their own times in thirteen books.
The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for (the
conduct of) human life.

From Artaxerxes to our own time the complete history has been written,
but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records,
because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets.


                 Jewish Veneration of their Scriptures


We have given practical proof of the spirit in which we treat[422] our
own Scriptures. For, although such long ages have now passed, no one has
ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable; and it is
an instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as
the decrees[423] of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully
to die for them. Time and again ere now the sight has been witnessed of
prisoners enduring tortures and death in every form in the theatres,
rather than utter a single word against the laws and the allied
documents.—_c. Ap._ I. 6-8 (29-43).

Footnote 412:

  _i. e._ Egyptians, Babylonians, Chaldæans and Phœnicians, as opposed
  to the Greeks, who neglected to keep records of antiquity

Footnote 413:

  Reading ἀρχείων. MSS “from the ancients” (ἀρχαίων).

Footnote 414:

  Or “college of priests.”

Footnote 415:

  Or, perhaps, “from the archives” (ἀρχείων).

Footnote 416:

  Unlike the Greeks.

Footnote 417:

  Lit. “tens of thousands.”

Footnote 418:

  Eusebius reads, “which are justly believed to be divine.”

Footnote 419:

  See on this and the following paragraph Appendix, Note VII.

Footnote 420:

  The earlier editions insert ἀρχῆς (“till the reign of ...”), not found
  in Niese’s MS. Perhaps we should read simply “until Artaxerxes”
  (μέχρις for μέχρι τῆς).

Footnote 421:

  In Jos. Artaxerxes = Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther (_Ant._ XI. 6. 1
  (184)); Xerxes = Artaxerxes of Ezra-Nehemiah.

Footnote 422:

  Gr. (as quoted by Eusebius) “approach.” The MSS of Jos. read “we have
  trusted.”

Footnote 423:

  Or “doctrines.”


      (64) Universal Imitation of our Laws the sincerest flattery


Now, since Time is reckoned in all cases the surest test of worth,[424]
I would call Time to witness to the excellence of our lawgiver and of
the doctrine which he has delivered to us concerning God. An infinity of
time has passed (since Moses) by comparison with the ages in which other
lawgivers lived; yet it will be found that throughout the whole of that
period not merely have our laws stood the test of our own use, but they
have to an ever-increasing extent instilled an emulation of them into
the world at large.[425]

Our earliest imitators were the Greek philosophers, who, though
ostensibly observing the laws of their own countries, yet in their
conduct[426] and philosophy were Moses’ disciples, holding similar views
about God, and inculcating simplicity of life and participation[427]
between man and man. But-that is not all. The masses have long since
shown a keen desire to adopt our religious observances, and there is not
one city, Greek [or barbarian, nor a single nation,][428] to which our
custom of abstaining from work on the seventh day has not spread, and
where the fasts and the lighting of lamps and many of our prohibitions
in the matter of food are not observed. Moreover, they attempt to
imitate our harmonious relations with each other, the charitable
distribution of our possessions, our devoted labour in the crafts, our
endurance under persecution on behalf of our laws. The greatest miracle
of all is that our Law holds out no seductive bait of sensual pleasure,
but has exercised this influence through its own inherent merits; and,
as God has permeated the universe, so the Law has found its way among
all mankind. Let each man reflect for himself on his own country and his
own household, and he will not discredit what I say. It follows, then,
that either we must convict the whole world of deliberate depravity in
their eager desire to adopt the bad laws of a foreign country in
preference to the good laws of their own, or else our accusers must give
up their grudge against us. In honouring our own legislator and putting
our trust in his prophetical utterances concerning God, we do not make
any arrogant claim justifying such odium. Indeed, were we not ourselves
aware of the excellence of our laws, assuredly[429] we should have been
impelled to pride ourselves upon them by the multitude of their
admirers.—_c. Ap._ II. 38 f. (279-286).

Footnote 424:

  Or “the surest of all tests” (lit. “assayers”).

Footnote 425:

  The text of this sentence is uncertain. I adopt Niese’s conjecture.

Footnote 426:

  Perhaps we should read “their writings” (Niese).

Footnote 427:

  Or “friendly communion.”

Footnote 428:

  Niese reads “nor a single barbarian race.”

Footnote 429:

  Reading πάντως (with Niese).


                         (65) The Oath “Corban”


    Cf. Mark vii. 11.


In ancient times various cities were acquainted with the existence of
our nation, and to some of these many of our customs have now found
their way and here and there been thought worthy of imitation. This is
apparent from a passage in the work of Theophrastus on _Laws_, where he
says that the laws of the Tyrians prohibit the use of foreign oaths, in
enumerating which he includes among others the oath called “Corban.” Now
this oath will be found in no other nation except the Jews, and,
translated from the Hebrew, one may interpret it as meaning “God’s
gift.”[430]—_c. Ap._ I. 22 (166 f.).

Footnote 430:

  Elsewhere (_Ant._ IV. 4. 4 [73]) Jos., like Mark, renders simply, and
  correctly, “a gift.”




                      APPENDIX OF ADDITIONAL NOTES


                      I. Note on § (24). QUIRINIUS


P. Sulpicius Quirinius, a native of Lanuvium, was consul in 12 B.C.;
some years later was sent on an expedition against the Homonadenses, a
mountain tribe in Cilicia, and was awarded a triumph for his successes;
accompanied Gaius Cæsar, grandson of Augustus, to the East in A.D. 2 as
his tutor; and in A.D. 6 was appointed Governor of Syria as legatus of
the Emperor, and in that capacity took over Judæa on the deposition of
Archelaus, and made the valuation of the newly-annexed district here
described by Josephus. Towards the end of his life he caused some
scandal at Rome by the divorce of his wife Lepida, whom he accused of
attempting to poison him. He remained in favour with Tiberius, who, on
his death about A.D. 21, secured him a public funeral. A mutilated
inscription found near Tivoli (Tibur) seems to prove that he was _twice_
governor of Syria. (Tacitus _Ann._ III. 48 and 22; Suet. _Tib._ 49 ;
art. in _Encycl. Bibl._).

This is not the place to discuss the formidable difficulties arising
from St. Luke’s reference (ii. 1 ff.) to “the decree from Cæsar
Augustus” and “the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of
Syria.” These are set out in full in Schürer’s _Jewish People in the
time of Jesus Christ_, i. 2, pp. 105-143; on the other side should be
read Sir W. M. Ramsay’s _Was Christ born at Bethlehem?_ (1898). It has
been held that St. Luke is guilty of an anachronism in making the birth
of Christ contemporary with the well-known enrolment under Quirinius
(Acts v. 37), which took place ten years after the death of Herod, and
that other features in his account, which lacks external support, render
the whole narrative incredible. Those who argue that the Evangelist is
guilty of such gross error must at least admit that he had not read the
last books of the _Antiquities_ of Josephus (see Note IV below). But it
is difficult to believe that a historian generally so careful has erred
in this way. Since Schürer’s indictment was written, Ramsay has adduced
important new evidence from the papyri, proving that in Egypt from the
time of Augustus a periodic census or “enrolment by household” took
place every fourteen years; he has further given reason for thinking
that this system applied to other provinces and dependencies of the
Roman Empire, and that Judæa under Herod was not exempt, although a
concession was made to local prejudice in the manner of the enrolment;
he concludes that the “first” enrolment under Quirinius and the birth of
Christ fell in the year 6 B.C. He has not quite removed all
difficulties. In particular, it seems impossible to find room within the
lifetime of Herod for the first governorship of Quirinius, unless the
ἡγεμονία mentioned by St. Luke refers to his appointment as a _special_
lieutenant of Augustus to conduct the war against the Homonadenses,
while Quintilius Varus administered the ordinary affairs of Syria. But
why in that case does St. Luke connect the census with the military
commander Quirinius, rather than with Varus?


        II. Note on § (26). THE ALLEGED WITNESS TO JESUS CHRIST


    Recent literature:—

    (_a_) For the authenticity of the whole section.

    F. C. Burkitt; in _Theologisch Tijdschrift_, Leiden, 1913, pp. 135
    ff.

    A. Harnack in _Internat. Monatsschrift für Wissenschaft und
    Technik_, 1913, pp. 1037 ff. (I have, unfortunately, been unable to
    see this, and only know it through Norden’s rejoinder, which seems
    conclusive.)

    (_b_) For partial interpolation.

    Th. Reinach in _Revue des Études Juives_, tom. xxxv, 1897, pp. 1 ff.

    P. Corrsen in _Zeitschrift für die N.T. Wissenschaft_, 1914, pp. 114
    ff., _Die Zeugnisse des Tacitus u. Pseudo-Josephus über Christus_
    (thinks the interpolation has probably replaced a genuine statement
    of Josephus about Christ).

    (_c_) Against the authenticity of the whole section.

    E. Norden in _Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum_, vol.
    xxxi, 1913, pp. 637 ff., _Josephus u. Tacitus über Jesus Christus
    und eine messianische Prophetie_.

    E. Schürer, _Hist. of Jewish People in the time of Jesus Christ_,
    1898, I. 2, pp. 143 ff. (where the older literature is quoted).

    (_d_) For the passages in the Slavonic version of the _B.J._

    A. Berendts in _Texte und Untersuchungen_, N. F., Bd. XIV, 1906.

In this much debated passage Josephus appears to speak of Jesus Christ
as one of more than mortal nature, as a wonder-worker and a teacher of
men who receive “the truth” with pleasure, and as gaining many adherents
among Jews and Greeks. Then comes the explicit statement, “This was the
Christ.” The writer proceeds to mention His crucifixion by Pilate “on
the indictment of our principal men,” His resurrection and appearance to
His followers on the third day, and the survival at the time of writing
of “the tribe” of Christians who took their name from Him.

The passage largely accounts for the high esteem in which Josephus was
held by Patristic writers. Since the revival of learning the question of
its authenticity has been the subject of keen controversy. Until
recently few scholars of weight have ventured to maintain that the
paragraph _as it stands_ can have been penned by the Jewish historian;
the point on which opinions have diverged has been whether the whole is
an interpolation or whether a genuine brief statement of Josephus about
Christ has been expanded and emended by a Christian hand. In recent
years the question has been reopened in two ways, by the conversion of
two authorities of the first rank to the rejected view and by the
discovery of new materials. Professor Burkitt in this country and
(following him with a little hesitation) Harnack in Germany have
pronounced in favour of the genuineness of the passage. The existence
has also been brought to light of other passages in the Slavonic version
of the _Jewish War_ relating to John the Baptist, Christ and the early
Christians. The Slavonic matter may be treated independently; it has no
attestation in the Greek MSS, and, whatever its origin, lacks the
authority with which the present passage comes before us. Harnack has
been answered in a masterly article by one of his own countrymen
(Norden), and, notwithstanding the weight attaching to the names of its
recent supporters, the arguments against the authenticity of the passage
(at least in its present form) appear overwhelming. The really decisive
factors in the problem must be sought rather in the relevance of the
passage to its context and in the style than in any subjective
considerations as to what Josephus could or could not have written.


                           External evidence


The passage, it is true, stands in all our MSS, but this tells us
little, since the oldest of them (Niese’s P) is not earlier than the
ninth or tenth century. Eusebius quotes it (_H.E._ i. 11, cf. _Dem. Ev._
iii. 3. 105 f.), thus attesting its existence in the fourth century. On
the other hand, it is practically certain that Origen in the preceding
century did not find it in his text. He knows the allusions to John the
Baptist in the same book of the _Antiquities_ (§ 29) and to James the
Lord’s brother in the twentieth book (§ 37), but of any mention of
Christ he has no word. Nor are we confined to this _argumentum e
silentio_; his language makes it impossible to suppose that he found the
statement “This was the Christ.” “The wonder is,” he writes, “that,
though he (Josephus) _did not admit our Jesus to be Christ_, he none the
less gave his witness to so much righteousness in James” (_Comm. in
Matt._ x. 17); and again (writing on John the Baptist) “although he
(Josephus) _disbelieved in Jesus as Christ_” (_c. Cels._ i. 47). The
passage about James as cited by Origen differs, indeed, from the normal
text; according to Origen, Josephus regarded the destruction of the
Temple as a punishment for the murder. Prof. Burkitt thinks that Origen
may have “mixed up in his commonplace book the account of Ananus’ murder
of James and the remarks of Josephus on Ananus’ own murder” (§ 45); but
it is difficult to believe, as the Professor appears to suggest, that
his familiarity with the _Antiquities_ was so slight that he could have
missed the statement in XVIII. 63 f. and written as he did if it stood
in his text. The real importance of Origen’s evidence is that it seems
to supply the date when our passage was interpolated by a Christian
reader, viz. towards the end of the third century, between the age of
Origen and that of Eusebius.


                           Internal evidence


(1) _Context._—The latest advocates of the authenticity of the statement
have judged it on its merits, apart from its context, from which it
cannot be isolated. As Norden has convincingly shown, it breaks the
thread of the narrative, the framework of which at this point consists
of a series of “tumults” or “disturbances” (θόρυβοι). This framework
seems to have been taken over from an older authority, and so
mechanically that disturbances which occurred at different dates are
treated as contemporaneous. We have:—

First θόρυβος (XVIII. 55-59).—Pilate introduces the Emperor’s busts into
Jerusalem and threatens the Jewish petitioners with death “if they did
not desist from turbulence” (θορυβεῖν 58).

Second θόρυβος (60-62).—Pilate appropriates the Corban money for
building purposes. His soldiers overpower the insurgents (τοὺς
θορυβοῦντας 62), “and so the sedition (στάσις) was quelled.” (See § 25
of the translation for these two θόρυβοι).

[Here (63-64) comes the passage about Christ.]

Third θόρυβος (65-84).—Two scandalous events at Rome leading
respectively to the crucifixion of the priests of Isis and to the
banishment of the Jews (for the second of these see § 27). These
paragraphs open with the words “Now about the same time another calamity
disturbed (ἐθορύβει) the Jews.”

Fourth θόρυβος (85-87) in Samaria, introduced by the words “The
Samaritan race also was not exempt from disturbance” (θόρυβος), while
the next paragraph begins “When the disturbance (θορύβου) was put down.”

It will be seen that this scheme is interrupted by the Christian
περικοπή. The opening of 65 connects the third “disturbance” directly
with the second (62). The mention of Pilate naturally led the
interpolator to insert his statement at this point; but the structure of
the original narrative leaves no room for it.

(2) _Style._—Notwithstanding its brevity (it comprises only three
sentences in Niese’s text) the paragraph is long enough to betray in its
language the hand of the forger. The style is not quite so “neutral” as
Harnack suggests.

Here, again, regard must be had to the immediate surroundings. The style
of Josephus is variable, now easy and flowing, now extraordinarily
difficult. The testimony to Christ is imbedded in a portion of the
_Antiquities_ (XVII. 1-XIX. 275) which contains some of the hardest
Greek in our author. The language throughout this group of nearly three
books is distinguished by some well-marked characteristics, _e.g._ a
large use of periphrastic expressions. The simple verb is replaced by
the combination of the _nomen actoris_ in -τῆς with καθίστασθαι,
γίγνεσθαι, εἶναι or the like (thus κριτὴς εἶ αι = κρίνειν XIX. 217); μὴ
ἀπηλλαγμένος with inf. (_ibid._ “not incapable,” “competent”) is a
similar mannerism of constant occurrence in these books and is based on
Thuc. I. 138. Χρῆσθαι is used with extraordinary frequency in
periphrases. Other peculiarities are the use of the neuter participle
with article as an abstract noun (Thucydidean), of οὐδὲν (μηδὲν) εἰς
ἀναβολὰς for “quickly” (after Thuc. VII. 15), and of ὁπόσος (100
examples in these books) for ῞ὅσος in other parts of Josephus. The
departure from the author’s normal practice extends to the spelling; the
double σ (of Thucydides) in words like πράσσειν in these books replaces
as a rule the so-called “Attic” ττ employed elsewhere in the
_Antiquities_. Imitation of Thucydides, found sporadically in other
parts, here reaches its climax. This practice largely accounts for the
cumbrous phrases and involved periods prevalent in these books. The
style is artificial and imitative and does not lend itself readily to
imitation by another, The sources of this portion of the work are
mainly, if not entirely, Roman, notably the narrative of the accession
and (at quite disproportionate length) the death (XIX. I. 275) of
Caligula; and I can only account for the phenomena by supposing that the
author here handed over entirely to one of his literary _collaborateurs_
or συνεργοί (cp. _Ap._ I. 50), who had hitherto rendered only occasional
aid, the task of translating his Latin authorities. On the accession of
Claudius, when the centre of interest shifts from Rome to Palestine, the
normal style is resumed (at XIX. 276).

Now, the mannerisms of _Ant._ XVII-XIX. 275 recur with wearisome
iteration; it is rare to find a sentence which does not contain one or
more of them. Thus in the paragraphs immediately preceding the passage
about Christ we find three examples of periphrasis with χρῆσθαι (58, 60,
62); in the paragraph which follows two examples of οὐκ ἀπαλλάσσεσθαι
(65, 68). But the passage itself contains none of the really distinctive
features; one phrase alone (ἡδονῇ δέχεσθαι) gives us pause. The
following details may be noticed.

    “A doer of wonderful works.” In compiling a Greek index to _Ant._
    XVI.-XX. I have not noticed another instance of παράδοξος.

    “Men who receive the truth with pleasure.” “The truth” (τἀληθῆ). The
    crasis is in the style of Jos., but the phrase is again unexampled,
    at least in this portion. On the other hand, “to receive with
    pleasure” (ἡδονῇ δέχεσθαι) recurs in XVIII. 6, 59, 70, 236, 333;
    XIX. 127, 185 and similar phrases (ἡδονῇ φέρειν, χαρᾷ φέρειν or
    δέχεσθαι) elsewhere in this portion of the work. I account for this,
    with Norden, by supposing that “the interpolator knew his author.”
    He knew him just well enough to employ the crasis in τἀληθῇ and a
    phrase which he found twice in the immediate context (59, 70).

    “The Greeks” (τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ). The neut. may be paralleled by _B.J._
    II. 268, but is not uncommon outside Josephus.

    “Our principal men.” Norden notes that, whereas “the first” or
    “principal men” (οἱ πρῶτοι) is frequent in _Ant._ XX. (2, 6, 53,
    119, 123, 135, etc.), it never has the personal note (“our”)
    attached to it.

    “Those who first loved (him).” Ἀγαπᾶν in Jos., never, according to
    Norden, has the Christian meaning of “love,” but only its classical
    sense of “be content”; an instance occurs in the previous paragraph
    (60, cp. 242).

    “On the third day.” The phrase (τρίτην ἡμέραν ἔχων) is again
    unexampled in Jos.; the N.T. yields the nearest parallel (Lk. xxiv.
    21, τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν ἄγει).

    “Alive again” (πάλιν ζῶν). Jos. writes elsewhere of a future life
    ἀναβιοῦν (_Ant._ XVIII. 14) and γενέσθαι τε πάλιν καὶ βίον ἀμείνω
    λαβεῖν (_Ap._ II. 218); he does not use ζῆν or ζωή in this
    connexion.

    “And to this very day” (εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν). The phrase is foreign to
    Jos., who commonly writes ἔτι καὶ νῦν, occasionally καὶ μεχρὶ τοῦ
    νῦν and the like, never εἰς ἔτι (Norden).

    Jos. is scrupulous in avoiding a harsh hiatus—the juxtaposition of
    unelided vowels at the end of one word and the beginning of the
    next. The interpolator writes τἀληθῆ correctly, but, as Norden
    notes, he has in these few lines introduced three glaring examples
    of hiatus: Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο, σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος, Πιλάτου οὐκ.

(3) _Contents._—Our decision must rest primarily upon the arguments
already adduced from context and style. But the whole tone of the
passage suggests a Christian hand. It is the eulogy of a devotee
masquerading under the mantle of the Jewish historian, rather than what
we should expect, the bare chronicle, if not the bitter invective, of
the priestly historian himself. “If one should call him a man”; “this
was the Christ.” Could Josephus have so written? Even Jerome found this
last phrase incomprehensible on such lips and altered it in his
translation to “_credebatur_ esse Christus” (_De vir. ill._ 13). Prof.
Burkitt ventures to uphold the authenticity even of these words. The
passage, he argues, was penned at a time when Christianity had not yet
become a formidable foe to Judaism, and was intended as an answer to
Jewish expostulations on the subject of the coming of Messiah. This is
how he paraphrases it: “Yes, the Christ was to come and indeed did come.
That very estimable person who met with his death some time ago was the
Christ. As in the case of so many other personages in our divinely
chosen nation, there were some wonders and prodigies told about him.
Even now there are some who revere him. They are good harmless folk like
their master. But they are quite unimportant and no danger to the State;
when you hear of ‘Christ’ it is no future Hannibal or Spartacus, but a
good man who is dead and gone” (_loc. cit._ p. 140 f.). The reader must
be left to estimate the value of this interpretation of the historian’s
character and language in the light of the other evidence.

The theory of _partial_ interpolation, held by those who reject the
obviously Christian phrases but believe that Josephus made some
statement about Christ, is unsatisfactory. In so far as it is supported
by any solid arguments, it is based partly on the few phrases for which
parallels can be found in his writings, partly on the assumption that
the other mention of “Jesus who was called Christ” (_Ant._ XX. 200)
implies a fuller statement elsewhere. But the elimination of all that is
suggestive of Christian origin leaves practically nothing behind. We may
well follow Norden in declining to discuss what he calls the
“transcendental” question whether the interpolation may have ousted a
genuine statement of the historian about Christ, now lost beyond
recovery; merely adding that the argument that the paragraph interrupts
the sequence of the narrative is an argument for its spuriousness as a
whole.

                  *       *       *       *       *

In connexion with the passage in _Ant._, the very curious additional
matter in the Slavonic version of the _Jewish War_ (edited with a German
translation by Berendts, _v. supra_) must be briefly mentioned.

Of the eight passages the first three relate to the Baptist. (1) A
description of “the savage” (_Wilder_) and his baptism, of his being
brought before Archelaus and how Simon the Essene disputed with him; (2)
his interpretation of a dream of Herod Philip; (3) his rebuke of Herod
(Antipas) for marrying Herodias his brother Philip’s wife _after_ the
latter’s death (“for thou dost not raise up seed to thy brother, but
gratifyest thy fleshly lusts and committest adultery, since he has left
four children”), and his abstinence, even from unleavened bread at the
Passover season. Then follows (4) a description of Christ, beginning in
the same way as our passage, “At that time there arose a man, if it is
right to call him a man,” but with much greater detail: his miracles
wrought by a mere word (this is twice repeated); the current belief that
he was “the first lawgiver risen from the dead”; his resort to the Mount
of Olives; his 150 disciples (_Knechten_); and how Pilate, whose dying
wife he had healed, released him upon the first hearing, but was
subsequently induced by a bribe of thirty talents from the Jews (a
curious distortion of the Gospel story!) to deliver him to them for
crucifixion. No. (5) tells of the persecution and dispersion of the
early Christians, who were drawn from the lower classes, shoemakers and
labourers; (6) of an additional inscription round the outer wall of the
Holy Place (cp. _B.J._ V. 5. 2 [193 f.]), “Jesus did not reign as King;
he was crucified by the Jews because he announced the destruction of the
city and the desolation of the Temple”; (7) of the rending of the veil
of the Temple and current views upon Christ’s resurrection, “Some report
that he rose from the dead, others that he was stolen by his friends. I
know not which are right ...”; (8) of the oracle concerning the
world-ruler who was to come from Judæa (see § 50 in the translations),
“Some understood that it referred to Herod, others to the crucified
wonder-worker Jesus, others to Vespasian.”

The actual MSS containing these extraordinary passages are not earlier
than the fifteenth century; the translation can be dated back to the
thirteenth century at latest. The earlier history of the additions is
lost in obscurity; they have left no trace in the extant Greek MSS.
Berendts boldly maintains their authenticity, believing them to be
fragments of the original Aramaic edition of the _Jewish War_ written
for Syrian readers (§ 38), which were eliminated when the later Greek
version, addressed to a wider and more critical circle, was produced.
This daring theory has met with little support; but the origin of the
passages remains a mystery, no final solution of which is possible
pending the publication of a complete text from the Russian MSS. The
remarkable facts about them are their _Jewish_ appearance, their
independence (in part) of the Gospel narrative and the impression which
they make of being derived from oral tradition. Parallels to a few of
the statements (the bribery of Pilate, the healing “by a word”) occur in
the Christian apocryphal _Epistle of Tiberius to Pilate_ (ed. M. R.
James in _Texts and Studies_, vol. V. p. 78, 1899); compare also the
apocryphal _Acts of Pilate_ (Tischendorf, _Evangelia Apocrypha_,
Leipzig, 1853, p. 292), where Joseph of Arimathæa, addressing the body
of Christ, uses the words “if it be right to call thee a man,” recalling
the phrase common to the fourth Slavonic passage and the “testimony” in
the _Antiquities_.


           III. Note on § (29). THE FIRST HUSBAND OF HERODIAS


Josephus calls the injured husband simply Herod. The first two Gospels
give him the name Philip (“Herodias his brother Philip’s wife,” Matt.
xiv. 3, Mark vi. 17). The name stands in all the MSS in Mark; in Matthew
it is omitted by the “Western text” (cod. D and Latin versions); in Luke
(iii. 19) it is absent from all the best MSS and in those which insert
it is undoubtedly an interpolation from the other Gospels. It is clear
from Josephus that the first husband of Herodias was not Philip the
Tetrarch, but his half-brother who paid the penalty for his mother’s
complicity in a plot by having his name removed from Herod’s will, and
lived as a private individual, apparently in Jerusalem (cf. _B.J._ I.
30. 7 [600]). Either then Herod the Great had two sons named Philip (1)
by Mariamne II (daughter of Simon the High Priest), the husband of
Herodias, and (2) by Cleopatra, Philip the Tetrarch, who married Salome
the daughter of Herodias; or, more probably, the name Philip in the
first two Gospels is a primitive error, due to confusion between the
husband and the son-in-law of Herodias. That two sons should have borne
the name Philip is improbable; no argument can be drawn from the
appropriation of the dynastic or family name Herod by more than one
member of the family. The omission of the name Philip by St. Luke, who
shows special acquaintance with the Herodian court, is very significant.
The confusion with Philip the Tetrarch appears elsewhere, notably in the
eccentric account of the Baptist’s denunciation of the second marriage
of Herodias in the Slavonic version of the _Jewish War_ (Note II above).


                 IV. Note on § (35). THEUDAS AND JUDAS


This passage has been often quoted as convincing proof that St. Luke had
read the _Antiquities_ of Josephus, or at least the twentieth book. On
this view the date of the _Acts_ must be brought down to the close of
the first century. The Evangelist is at the same time accused of the
grossest carelessness.

Gamaliel in his speech in the Sanhedrin adduces two instances of
insurrectionary movements which came to nought in the chronological
order: (1) Theudas, (2) Judas of Galilee (Acts v. 36 f.).

The date when Gamaliel is represented as speaking must have been some
time in the early “thirties.” The revolt of Theudas, according to
Josephus, occurred in the procuratorship of Cuspius Fadus (about 44-46
A.D.), at least ten years later. The revolt of Judas in “the days of the
enrolment” was in 6 A.D. Thus the events appear to have been transposed
in the speech and one of them to have been still in the womb of the
future!

The error, if it is one, is commonly explained as due to a cursory
reading and inaccurate recollection on the part of the Evangelist of the
passage in the _Antiquities_ which alludes to the fate first of Theudas
and then of the _sons_ of Judas under the procuratorship of Tiberius
Alexander (about 46-48 A.D.), the latter notice leading to a brief
mention of their father. This view has been supported by Burkitt
(_Gospel History and its transmission_, pp. 106 ff.), Krenkel (_Josephus
and Lucas_), Schmiedel (art. in _Encycl. Bibl._) and many German
commentators. It has been rejected, among others, by Schürer, Blass,
Harnack (_Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels_, p. 115), Stanton
(_Gospels as Historical Documents_, pt. II, p. 272), and most recently
by Prof. C. C. Torrey (_Composition and date of Acts_, Cambridge,
Harvard University Press, 1916). Cf. also an art. on “St. Luke and
Josephus,” by the Rev. J. W. Hunkin, in the _Church Quarterly Review_
for April 1919, pp. 89-108.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that there has been error on the
part of some one responsible for putting the speech into the mouth of
Gamaliel. The attempts which have been made to remove the apparent
anachronism are unconvincing. Either an earlier unknown Theudas is
postulated (but one would expect the person named by Gamaliel along with
the notorious Judas to have been of sufficient importance to be
mentioned by Josephus); or the mistake as to the date of Theudas is
shifted to Josephus; or the name Theudas is regarded as a Christian
interpolation in the _Antiquities_ (Blass).

But that the passage in _Acts_ is to be explained by a casual perusal of
Josephus by St. Luke is highly improbable for the following reasons:—

(1) St. Luke gives the number of the followers of Theudas as “about four
hundred”; Josephus writes “most of the common people.” Clearly St. Luke
had access to some source other than Josephus.

(2) The carelessness attributed to St. Luke in the supposed use of
Josephus is not what we should expect from the professions of the writer
of the prologue to the third Gospel and from the handling of his sources
in the earlier work.

(3) If there has been error, it is older than St. Luke and goes back to
his authority. Torrey in the above-mentioned work seems to have proved
conclusively that Acts i-xv is based on an Aramaic source, to which St.
Luke was “singularly faithful.” “He disliked to alter, even slightly,
the document in his hands, even where he believed its statements to be
mistaken, and where he found himself obliged to contradict them” (p.
40). On the alleged use of Josephus in Acts v., after referring to the
horror which must have been aroused in Judæa by the crucifixion of the
_sons_ of the insurgent Judas, he adds: “Any history dealing with this
period would have been pretty certain to mention Theudas and Judas at
this point, and in this order, although the revolt under Judas really
happened much earlier. From some history of the kind, in which the facts
were not clearly stated, the author of Luke’s Aramaic source obtained
his wrong impression of the order of events” (p. 71).


               V. Note on § (45). THE BLOOD OF ZACHARIAS


This incident is of interest to the N.T. student because of the
suggestion, made long ago and recently revived by Wellhausen, to
identify the Zacharias of Josephus with the “Zachariah son of Barachiah”
of Matt. xxiii. 35. “Son of Barachiah” is a well-known _crux_ in that
passage, but, _pace_ Wellhausen, there is little or no doubt that our
Lord there referred to the murder of Zechariah son of Jehoiada described
in 2 Chron. xxiv. 19 ff.

The theory of Wellhausen and others evades the difficulty of an apparent
confusion in Matthew between the pre-exilic prophet and the prophet of
the Restoration, but introduces far greater difficulties. The text of
Josephus just fails to supply the desired evidence. The name of the
father of the Zacharias of Josephus _resembles_, but, it will be
observed, only resembles, the Βαραχίας of the N.T. There is a variety of
readings, but Βαρίσκαιος (LMmg) has the appearance of being what
Josephus wrote or at least the nearest approximation in the MSS to the
original name. Βάρεις of most MSS is a corruption of this. The reading
“Baruch” (the nearest approach to “Barachias”) is doubtless a
correction; it occurs only in cod. C which in other instances replaces
an unfamiliar by a Biblical name (Niese, vol. VI, p. xxxix), and as an
alternative to “Bariscæus” in cod. M.

Again, it may be urged in support of this theory that the two murders
mentioned in Matthew are cited as the first and last of a series, and
that as that of Abel was the first recorded in Biblical history, so that
of Zachariah ben Bariscæus was the last outstanding murder of a Jew by
his own countrymen before the Fall of Jerusalem, which is the
culminating event in the mind of the Speaker in Matt. xxiii. The
contemporaneous murder of Ananus is regarded by Josephus as the
beginning of the end.

The obvious difficulty of this identification is that in the mouth of
our Lord the words must be prophetical, whereas the past tense is used
in both reports of the words (“whom ye _slew_,” Matt., “who _perished_,”
Luke xi. 51).

The passage in Matthew and the parallel passage in Luke are both derived
from an older source, an early collection of the Sayings of Jesus
(commonly called “Q”); and behind that again apparently lies a still
older source, an apocryphal Wisdom book from which Christ is quoting
(“Therefore also said the Wisdom of God,” Luke xi. 49). Luke does not
insert the words “son of Barachiah,” and it is therefore doubtful
whether they stood in Q; Harnack (_Sayings of Jesus_, p. 104) concludes
that they did not. But that they belong to the original text of the
first Gospel and are not a later interpolation there seems no reason to
doubt. If the error originated with the Evangelist himself, we may
compare the rather similar confusion (“Jeremiah” for “Zechariah”) in
Matt. xxvii. 9; if, as seems more probable, he has taken it over from
Jewish tradition, it is natural to find such influence in this
particular Gospel.

The three persons bearing the name of Zacharias who come primarily[431]
into the question are:—

(1) Z. ben Jehoiada, murdered in the first Temple (2 Chron. xxiv.).

(2) Z. ben Berechiah ben Iddo, the prophet of the Restoration (Zech. i.
1).

(3) Z. ben Bariscæus, murdered in Herod’s Temple (Josephus).

There is every reason for identifying the Zacharias referred to by our
Lord with the first of these, whether we look at the original text of
Chronicles or at the Jewish Haggadah which grew up round it.

(i) With the words of Christ, or of the personified Wisdom in the work
from which He quotes, “I send unto you prophets” (Luke “I will send unto
them prophets”) compare 2 Chron. xxiv. 19, “Yet he sent prophets to them
to bring them again unto the LORD.”

(ii) With St. Luke’s twice repeated “may (shall) be required of this
generation” (xi. 50 f.) cp. the dying words of Zechariah, “The LORD look
upon it and require it,” as also Abel’s blood “crying from the ground”
(Gen. iv. 10).

(iii) Turning to Jewish tradition, we find that legend has been active
in connexion with the murder in the Temple of a pre-exilic Zachariah who
can be no other than the son of Jehoiada. And it is noteworthy that the
two points dwelt on are just those which appear in the N.T. passage,
viz. (_a_) the exact spot in the Temple where the murder occurred (cp.
the precise localisation “between the sanctuary and the altar”) and
(_b_) the crying out of the blood from the ground for vengeance, like
that of Abel, and the terrible expiation required to still it. “R.
Johanan said,” we read,[432] “‘Eighty thousand of the flower of the
priesthood were slain on account of the blood of Zachariah.’ R. Judan
asked R. Aha ‘Where did they kill Zachariah? In the Court of the Women
or in the Court of Israel?’ He answered, ‘Neither in the Court of the
Women nor in the Court of Israel, but in the Court of the Priests.’” The
legend goes on to tell how the murder was rendered more heinous by being
committed on a sabbath and that the Day of Atonement, and how
Nebuzaradan when he entered the Temple saw the prophet’s blood welling
up from the floor, and of the holocaust of priests which hardly availed
to quench the stream.

(iv) Furthermore, there is evidence to show that the Rabbis, like the
author of the first Gospel, confused or, disregarding chronology,
identified the pre-exilic victim with Zechariah the prophet of the
Restoration. The Targum on Lam. ii. 20 (“Shall the priest and the
prophet be slain in the sanctuary of the Lord?”) runs, “Is it also fit
that they should slay a priest and prophet in the Temple of the Lord, as
ye slew Zacharias _the son of Iddo_ ... in the house of the Sanctuary,
on the day of Expiation?” (Lightfoot _l. c._). The Midrash (tr. Wünsche)
interprets the same passage of Lam. of Zechariah son of Jehoiada.

(v) What is the intended series or line of which Zechariah is the last
representative? Abel is naturally the first, but, chronologically, Z.
ben Jehoiada was not the last prophet whose murder is recorded in the
O.T.; Uriah (Jer. xxvi. 20 ff.) was later. The usual explanation that
his murder stands last in the arrangement of the Hebrew Bible with
Chronicles at the end is unsatisfactory; the books of the O.T. still
circulated separately in the first century of our era. Moore’s answer is
“It is not because the death of Z. was the last crime of the kind in
Jewish history that it is named in the Gospel, but because it was in
popular legend the typical example of the sacrilegious murder of a
righteous man, a prophet of God, and of the appalling expiation God
exacted for it.” But the identification of the victim with the prophet
of the Restoration suggests another answer. Zechariah ben Berechiah
_did_ in fact stand chronologically at the end of the prophets; as
Josephus writes (§ 63), the succession failed after Artaxerxes (_i. e._
Ahasuerus). The context in Matthew relates to the _ancient_ prophets;
the later generation that built the prophets’ tombs is set over against
that of the forefathers who murdered them. That the final instance of
such murder should be drawn from recent (to say nothing of future)
history would be inappropriate. The son of Bariscæus was no prophet or
priest and “as a layman would have no business in the part of the court
between the temple and the altar” (Moore).

For the opposite view see Wellhausen _Einleitung in die drei ersten
Evangelien_, ed. 2 (1911), pp. 118 ff. His main points are that
Chronicles was a learned, not a popular, book and not likely to have
been known to or quoted by Christ (but Christ is apparently quoting at
second hand from one of those apocryphal books which were essentially
popular), and that the rabbinical legend is in its origin unconnected
with the story in Chronicles and really an echo (_Nachklang_) of the
episode in Josephus, the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans having
here, as elsewhere, been confused with the earlier destruction by the
Babylonians.

Footnote 431:

  Tradition also connects Z. ben Jeberechiah (Isa. viii. 2) and
  Zacharias, father of John the Baptist, with the N.T. passage.

Footnote 432:

  Translated from _T.J., Taanith_ iv. 5, by G. F. Moore in the _Journal
  of the American Oriental Society_, vol. xxvi. (1906), pp. 317 ff.; cf.
  Lightfoot _Horæ Hebraiacæ_ on Matt. _l. c._


                VI. Note on § (50). PORTENTS AND ORACLES


With this passage should be compared the following allusions in Roman
writers:—

Tacitus _Hist._ V. 13. “Portents had occurred; but that nation, at once
a prey to superstition and an enemy of religious rites, regards it wrong
to avert such omens by sacrifices or votive offerings. There were
visions of armies joining battle in the heavens with armour glowing
red,[433] and the Temple in an instant was all lit up with fire from the
clouds. The doors of the sanctuary opened of a sudden and there was
heard a voice of superhuman strength saying that the gods were
departing, and at the same moment a mighty commotion of departing
beings. Yet few saw a fearful meaning in these things. Many were firmly
persuaded that their ancient priestly lore contained a prediction that
at that very time the East was to wax strong and persons proceeding from
Judæa were to become masters of the world. This enigmatic utterance had
foretold of Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, with the usual
ambition of humanity, read it as predicting this high destiny for
themselves, and even disaster failed to bring home to them its true
meaning.”

Suet. _Vesp._ 4. “An ancient and rooted belief had spread throughout the
whole of the East that persons proceeding from Judæa were destined at
that time to become masters of the world. The prophecy, as after events
proved, had reference to the Roman Emperor, but the Jews appropriated it
to themselves and plunged into revolt.”

For interesting discussions on Josephus and Tacitus and the (Messianic)
prophecy the reader is referred to the articles by Norden and Corrsen
mentioned at the head of Note II.

Footnote 433:

  After Virg. _Æn._ VIII. 528 f.


         VII. Note on § (63). THE TWENTY-TWO BOOKS OF SCRIPTURE


This passage is important in connexion with the history of the O.T.
canon. The language of Josephus implies that the canon had long since
been closed, the test of canonicity being antiquity. Nothing written
later than Artaxerxes (_i. e._ Ahasuerus) has full credentials. The
mention of Artaxerxes must refer to the book of Esther, which Josephus
thus regards as the latest addition to the collection. The statement
differs in some respects from what is believed to be the oldest
Palestinian tradition, but there is no reason to doubt that the unnamed
22 books are other than those comprised in the modern Hebrew Bible.

(1) The _number 22_ as the total of the books of Scripture is here met
with for the first time, but reappears as the dominant reckoning in
early Eastern Church writers (Melito, Origen, etc.), who connect it with
the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. As these writers were in touch
with Palestinian tradition and Melito expressly states that he derived
his information from the East (ap. Eus. _H.E._ IV. 26), it seems that
this reckoning had the support of at least one section of the synagogue.
The normal tradition, however, made the total 24, a number which first
appears in a work almost contemporary with the _Contra Apionem_, 2
Esdras (or the Apocalypse of Ezra) xiv. 45 (Oriental text). The smaller
number was reached by treating Ruth and Lamentations as supplements
respectively to Judges and Jeremiah. The arrangement in 24 books
possibly arose in Babylonia.[434]

It is uncertain which of these two reckonings is the older, but in
favour of the priority of the number 24 it may be said that (i) the
equation with the number of Hebrew letters is artificial and therefore
likely to be late, although as Josephus does not allude to this it may
be an after refinement; (ii) it is easier to understand the subsequent
attachment of Ruth and Lamentations to prophetical books with which
their contents or supposed authorship connected them than how, having
once gained admission among the Prophets, they could afterwards be
relegated to the lower category of “Writings,” in which they now stand.

A third and later arrangement names 27 books, a number arrived at by
dividing the double books, while the parallelism with the Hebrew
alphabet is retained by reckoning separately the “final” forms of those
letters which possessed them. Jerome in his preface to the Books of
Samuel and Kings shows acquaintance with all three systems.

(2) Josephus presents a _tripartite arrangement_ (5 + 13 + 4 books), but
not the normal one (5 + 8 + 11: Law, Prophets, Writings). His third
group is reduced to 4 by the transference to the “Prophets” of a number
of books commonly included in the “Writings.” The normal arrangement,
which reflects the stages in the formation of the canon and places, _e.
g._, Daniel in the third group because of the late date at which it
gained admission, is clearly the more ancient. Josephus as a Greek
historian writing for Greek readers neglects this and follows the
example of the translators of the Greek Bible in grouping all the
historical and prophetical books together. A close parallel to his third
class (“hymns to God and practical precepts for men”) may be found in
the description of the sacred books of the Therapeutæ in Egypt in the
_De Vita Contemplativa_ ascribed to Philo, “Laws and oracles delivered
by prophets and _hymns and the other (works) by which knowledge and
piety are promoted and perfected_” (ed. Conybeare p. 61).

(3) The _constituent books_ doubtless here, as with the Christian
writers who name 22 as the total and enumerate the books (cp. Origen in
Eus. _H.E._ VI. 25), coincide with the normal Hebrew canon. Dr. Ryle
(_Canon of O.T._ p. 165 f.) concludes that the 13 books of the Prophets
are probably (1) Joshua, (2) Judges + Ruth, (3) Sam., (4) Kings, (5)
Chron., (6) Ezra + Nehemiah, (7) Esther, (8) Job, (9) Isaiah, (10)
Jeremiah + Lamentations (11) Ezekiel, (12) Minor Prophets, (13) Daniel;
while the group of four will comprise (1) Psalms with (2) Song of Songs,
constituting the “hymns,” and (3) Proverbs with (4) Ecclesiastes, the
“practical precepts.” The view of Grätz that Josephus omitted
Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, as not having yet been admitted to
the canon, has not met with acceptance.

(4) The canon here laid down has not governed the historian’s practice.
He does not scruple to draw upon apocryphal books like 1 Maccabees, nor
does he hint that the authorities used in the latter part of the
_Antiquities_, for the period subsequent to “Artaxerxes,” are less
trustworthy than the rest; he implies, on the contrary, that the whole
work is in accordance with “the holy books” (cp. _Ant._ I. 17; XX. 261).

The reader may consult in particular the works on the _Canon of the
O.T._ by Ryle (pp. 160-66) and Buhl and the article “Bible Canon” in the
_Jewish Encylopædia_.

Footnote 434:

  Fürst (_Kanon des A.T._), p. 4.




                             TABLE OF DATES


The figures in brackets refer to the numbered translations.

          B.C. JUDÆA AND SYRIA.               ROME.


           135 JOHN HYRCANUS I (56)

           104 ARISTOBULUS I

           103 ALEXANDER JANNÆUS (57)

            76 QUEEN ALEXANDRA (57) (58)

            67 ARISTOBULUS II

            63 Pompey takes Jerusalem and
               Syria becomes a Roman province
               (8)

         63-40 HYRCANUS II a Roman vassal

       _c._ 57 Gabinius divides Palestine
               into five districts (9)

            48                                Battle of Pharsalia.
                                              Defeat of Pompey by
                                              J. Cæsar

            47 Palestinian settlement under
               J. Cæsar (10)

       _c._ 46 Antipater and Herod in power.

               Trial of Herod (12)

            44                                Death of J. Cæsar

       _c._ 43 Cassius in Syria. Herod made
               governor of Cœle-Syria (13)

            42                                Battle of Philippi.
                                              Defeat of Brutus and
                                              Cassius by Antony
                                              and Octavian

            41 Antony appoints Herod and
               Phasæl tetrarchs of Judæa (14)

            40 Invasion of Palestine by the
               Parthians. Flight of Herod to
               Rome (15)

         40-37 ANTIGONUS

            37 Jerusalem captured by Herod
               and Sosius.

          37-4 HEROD THE GREAT

            31                                Battle of Actium.
                                              Defeat of Antony by
                                              AUGUSTUS

            30 Herod’s kingdom confirmed by
               Augustus (16)

            29 Execution of Mariamne (17)

            23 Trachonitis etc. added to
               Herod’s kingdom (18)

       _c._  7 Execution of Alexander and
               Aristobulus (20)

             4 Death of Herod. His kingdom
               divided between ARCHELAUS
               (B.C. 4-A.D. 6), PHILIP (B.C.
               4-A.D. 34) (22) and Antipas
               (B.C. 4-A.D. 39)

          A.D.

             6 Judaæa annexed to the province
               of Syria under procurators
               (23)

           6/7 Census of Quirinius and revolt
               of Judas (24)

            14                                TIBERIUS

         26-36 Pontius Pilate procurator (25)
               (28)

            37 HEROD AGRIPPA I. (30)          CALIGULA (31)

            41                                CLAUDIUS (32)

            44 Death of Herod Agrippa I. (33)

               Famine in Judæa (34)

       _c._ 46 Crucifixion of sons of Judas
               (35)

        50-100 HEROD AGRIPPA II. (3) (36)

            54                                NERO

               Procurators—

         52-60 Felix (36)

         60-62 Festus          (39)

         62-64 Albinus       (39)

         64-66 Gessius Florus (39)

            66 Outbreak of war with Rome

               Cessation of daily offering
               for the Emperor (40)

       66 Oct. Defeat of Cestius Gallus near
               Beth-Horon (41)

               Josephus in command of Galilee

            67 Advance of Vespasian from
        spring Antioch

          July Capture of Jotapata (43)

         67-68 Civil war in Jerusalem (45)
        winter

       68 June Campaign interrupted through   death of Nero

         68-69                                GALBA, OTHO,
                                              VITELLIUS

       69 July                                VESPASIAN proclaimed
                                              Emperor

      70 April Titus lays siege to Jerusalem

          July Cessation of Temple sacrifices
               (48)

          Aug. Capture and burning of Temple
               (49)

         Sept. Capture of the whole city (51)

            79                                TITUS

         81-96                                DOMITIAN




                                 INDEX


 Abel, 195, 197

 Abella, Abila, 88, 94, 102

 Actium, battle of, 55, 73

 _Acts_, 90, 107 _n._, 192 ff.

 Ader = Ben-hadad, 42

 Adiabene, 90, 99

 Agrippa, M., 57 f., 60

 —— son of Felix and Drusilla, 95

 —— Herod Agrippa. _See_ Herod

 Ahab, 42 ff.

 Albinus, 96 f., 105, 144

 Alexander the Alabarch, 93

 —— brother-in-law of Herod, 54

 —— Jannæus, 164

 —— son of Herod, 58, 60


 ——, Tiberius, 93, 193

 Alexandra, 164 ff.

 Alexandria, 92, 97

 Alexandrium, 60

 Alexas, 63

 Aliturus, 34

 Alphabet, the Hebrew, and the books of Scripture, 201

 Amathus, 47

 Ananias, 91

 —— high priest, 107

 Ananus I, high priest, 73, 96

 —— II, high priest, 96 f.

 —— III, high priest, 118 f., 130 f., 184, 195

 —— son of Jonathan, 113

 Anaxagoras, 171

 Antigonus, 53 f.

 Antioch, 107, 110

 Antiochus, 110

 —— Epiphanes, 162

 Antipas, 109

 Antipater, father of Herod, 47 ff, 51 ff.

 —— son of Herod, 62

 —— nephew of Herod, 68

 Antipatris, 111, 117

 Anti-Semitism, 18 f.

 Antonia, 84

 —— Tower of, 135, 138, 145

 Antony, 51 f., 55 f.

 _Apion, Against_, 18 f.

 Aqiba R., 148

 Aqueduct, 75

 Arabia, 80, 99

 Arabians, 55

 Aramaic original of _B. J._, 14, 98

 —— speech in, 136

 Archelaus, 16, 29, 66 ff., 140 n., 189

 Arethusa, 46

 _Aristeas, Letter of_, 17

 Aristobulus II, 45 f., 165

 —— son of Herod, 58, 60

 —— brother of Herod Agrippa I, 85

 Artaxerxes = Ahasuerus, 176, 198, 200

 Artemisium, month of, 143

 Ascalon, 71

 Asphaltitis, Asphaltophorus (= Dead Sea), 63

 Athenian laws, 172

 Athens, plague of, 26

 Atomos, 95

 Atratinus, 53

 Augustus (Octavius, Cæsar), 51, 53 f., 55 f., 57 f., 60, 68 ff.

 Auranitis, 58, 70, 88 _n._, 110

 Autocratoris (= Sepphoris), 74

 Azizus, 94 f.

 Azotus, 46, 70


 Babylonians, 99;
   Babylonian and Roman destruction of Jerusalem confused, 199

 Bagoas, 169

 Bannus, 10, 33

 Baptism, John’s, 80 f.

 Barachiah, Berechiah, 195 ff.

 Baris, Bariscæus, Baruch, 131, 195 ff.


 Batanæa, 58, 70, 94, 102, 110

 Berendts, A., 189f.

 Berenice, 95

 Berytus, 35

 Betharamphtha, 74

 Beth-Horon, 111, 116

 Bethsaida, 74

 Bezetha, 113

 Blass, F., 193

 Books (the) Sacred, 123, 145

 Borcæus, 112

 Brigands, 102, 104 f., 150

 Burial, Jewish care for, 130

 Burkitt, F. C., 183, 188, 193


 Cæsar, Julius, 47

 ——, Sextus, 48, 50

 Cæsarea (Strato’s Tower), 46, 57 _n._, 74 f., 88, 90, 104

 —— Philippi, 74


 Caligula (= Gaius), 16 f., 19, 27, 82-7, 90, 186

 Callirrhoe, 63

 Calvarius, Sextus, 120

 Calvinus, 54

 Candlestick, seven-branched, 45, 147

 Captain of Temple. _See_ Temple

 Carus, 169

 Cassius, 51 f.

 Catapult, 117, 144 _n._

 Caudine Forks, 110

 Census, periodic in Egypt, 181

 Cerealius, 38

 Cestius Gallus, 11, 15, 106 f., 110 ff.

 Chalcis, 94, 102

 Christians and Christianity, 10, 22 f., 76, 182 ff.

 _Chronicles_, 195, 198 (as last book in the Heb. Bible)

 Circumcision, 90 f., 95

 “Civil List” of Vespasian, 13

 Claudius, Emperor, 76, 88, 90, 102

 Claudius Felix. _See_ Felix

 Cleopatra, 52, 55f.

 —— wife of Herod the Great, 192

 Cluvius Rufus, 17, 27

 Cœle-Syria, 46, 51

 _Collaborateurs_ of Josephus, 14, 186

 Coponius, 72.

 Corban, an oath, 29, 179;
   sacred treasure, 75 _n._

 Corrsen, P., 182, 200

 Costobar, 109, 117

 Crasis, 187

 Crete, 39

 Crucifixion, 38, 68, 102, 130, 185

 _Custodia, libera_, 83 _n._

 _Customs and Causes_, projected work, 19

 Cyprus, 92, 95


 Dacians, 160

 Daphne, 52

 Darius, 110

 Demetrius of Gadara, 46

 Demoniacal possession, 41f.

 Destiny, 61. Cp. Fate

 Dicæarchia (= Puteoli), 34

 Didius, Quintus, 56

 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 15, 26

 Dium, 46

 Dius, month of, 117

 Domitia, 39

 Domitian, 39

 Domitius Sabinus, 120

 Dora, 46

 Drusilla, 29, 94f.

 Drusus, 81


 Education, the two systems of, 172

 Egyptian false prophet, 103f.

 Eleazar, 42, 91

 —— the brigand, 102

 —— Captain of the Temple, 107

 —— a Pharisee, 162

 —— son of Simon, 118

 Elijah, 44

 Elymas, 29, 94

 Epaphroditus, 15, 17

 _Esdras II_, 201

 Essenes, 33, 148-60

 _Esther_, 200

 Eusebius, 89 _n._, 96, 183

 Exorcism, 41 f.

 Ezekias, 48 f.

 Ezekiel, 42


 Fadus, Cuspius, 93, 192

 Famine at Jerusalem, 92 f.

 Fasts, Jewish, observed by aliens, 178

 Fate, 141, 145, 148, 157, 159.
   Cp. Destiny

 Faustus, 45

 Feast of Unleavened Bread, 106, 142


 —— of Passover, 66, 189


 —— of Pentecost, 68, 143

 —— of Tabernacles, 111, 143

 —— commemorating Herod’s death, 64 _n._


 Felix, Claudius, 10, 29, 34, 94 f., 102 ff.

 Festus, 29, 105

 Florus, Gessius, 106 f., 109, 161

 Flute players as mourners, 129

 Fortune, 61, 126

 Free-will, 61, 148, 159

 Fulvia, 77

 Future Life, 124, 159, 174.
   Cp. Immortality


 Gabinius, 47, 53

 Gadara, 46, 47, 70

 Gaius. _See_ Caligula

 Galilee, 11, 48 f., 70, 102

 Gallicanus, 122

 Gamala, 73, 80

 Gamaliel, 28, 192 f.

 Games: Isthmian, Nemean, Olympic, 174 _n._

 Gaulanitis, 102

 Gaza, 46, 70

 Gennesaret, Lake of, 74

 Gerizim, Mount, 77

 Gibeon, 111, 115

 Gorpiæus, month of, 146

 Gospels, primitive error in, 192

 Grätz, 202

 Greek philosophy, 171


 Hades, 125, 156, 158

 Haggadah, Jewish, 196 ff.

 Harnack, A., 183, 193, 196

 Hegesippus, 95

 Helena, 90ff.


 Herod the Great, 16f., 28, 48-65, 66-71, 104, 167-9, 190

 —— Antipas (the Tetrarch), 29, 67, 70, 73 f., 79 ff., 189

 —— Philip. _See_ Philip

 —— husband of Herodias, 79, 191 f.

 —— Agrippa I, 17, 29, 79, 87, 88-90

 —— Agrippa II, 13-15, 17, 25, 29, 36 f., 94, 96 f., 102, 109 f., 112

 Herodias, 29, 79, 81 f., 189, 191 f.

 Hiatus, avoidance of, 188

 Hippos, 46, 70

 Historians, ancient, contrasted with contemporary, 101

 Hyperberetæus, month of, 113

 Hyrcanus I, 161 ff., 166

 —— II, 45-54

 —— son of Josephus, 39


 Idumæa, 70;
   Idumæans, 129ff.

 Images, making of, 74

 Immortality of Soul, 155-9

 Innocents, murder of the, 28, 63

 Inspiration, 176

 Interpolation, Christian in Josephus, 182 ff.

 Irenæus, 67

 Islands of the Blessed, 156

 Ixion, 156

 Izates, 90 ff.


 Jadaus (Jadon), 44

 James, the brother of Jesus, 22, 29, 95 f.

 Jamnia, 46, 70

 Jeconiah, king, 136

 Jehoiada, 195 ff.

 Jehoshaphat, 43

 Jeremiah, 42

 Jericho, 47, 63, 66

 Jeroboam, 44

 Jerome, 24, 188, 201

 Jesus Christ, 22, 76, 182 ff.

 —— son of Ananias, 143 f.

 —— son of Damnæus, high priest, 97, 130 f.

 _Jewish Antiquities_, 15 ff., 24 f.;
   Books XVII-XIX, peculiarities of style in, 26, 186;
   Roman sources of, 186

 _Jewish War_, 14 f., 25, 35 ff., 98 ff.;
   Aramaic original of, 14, 98, 190 f.;
   Slavonic version of, 183, 189 ff., 192

 Jews in Rome, 69, 76 f.;
   in Egypt and Babylon, 175

 ——, persecution of, 177 f.

 Joazar, high priest, 72

 John the Baptist, 22, 80 f., 189

 —— of Gischala, 11, 135 ff.

 Jonathan, high priest, 103

 —— a Sadducee, 162 f.

 Joppa, 46, 111

 Joseph, the patriarch, 123 f.

 —— of Arimathæa, 191

 —— brother-in-law of Herod, 56 f.

 —— son of Gorion, 118

 —— high priest, 96

 Josephus, life of, 9 ff.;
   works, 14 ff.;
   authorities, 16 f, 25 f.;
   character, 20 ff.;
   attitude to Judaism, 22;
   to Christianity, 22 f., 188 f.;
   as historian, 24 ff.;
   importance of, 27 f.;
   as illustrating N.T., 28 ff.;
   autobiography of, 33 ff.;
   style, 186 ff.

 Jotapata, 12, 21, 35, 37, 119 ff., 128 f., 133

 _Jubilees, Book of_, 40

 Judæa, 70 ff., 78, 88, 90, 96, 102

 Judas the Gaulanite or Galilæan, 72f., 161., 192 ff.;
   sons of, 94, 193 f.

 Julias, 102.

 Justus, historian, 13, 18, 35

 —— son of Josephus, 390


 Lacedæmonians, 172

 Law, the Jewish, 61, 74 f., 77, 91, 147, 163, 174, 176 ff.

 ———— weekly reading of, 172 f.

 Lebanon, 88

 Liberalius, 140

 _Life_, the, of Josephus, 17 f.

 Lightfoot, Bishop, 152 _n._, 154 _n._ 156 _n._

 ———— John, 197 _n._

 Lots, drawing of, 125 f.

 Lous, month of, 138

 Lugdunum (Lyons), 84

 Luke, St., 30, 66, 85, 88, 180 f., 187, 191 f., 192 ff., 196 f.

 Lydda, 111

 Lysanias, 84, 88, 94, 102


 _Maccabees, Fourth Book of_, 20

 Machærus, 79 ff.

 Malichus, 51 f.

 Malthace, 68

 “Man of Sin,” 85

 Marcellus, 78

 Mariamne, 56 f.

 —— II, 192

 Marisa, 46

 Marsyas, 82

 Masada, 107

 Matthias, brother of Josephus, 33

 —— father of Josephus, 98

 Melito, 201

 Menahem, the Essene, 167 f.

 Messala, 52 f.

 Messiah, reticence of Josephus on, 23

 Micaiah, 42 ff.

 Midrash on _Lamentations_, 198

 Military Service, refusal of, 77

 Miracles wrought by a word, 190 f.

 Months, Artemisium, 143;
   Dius, 117;
   Gorpiæus, 146;
   Lous, 138;
   Panemus, 121, 135;
   Xanthicus, 142

 Moore, G. F., 197 ff.

 Moses, 40 f., 77, 153, 170 ff.
   Cp. Law

 Mucianus, 133

 Murcus, 51


 Naber, S. A., 31

 Nebuzaradan, 197

 Nero, 34, 99, 102, 104, 127

 New City, 113

 Nicanor, 122 f., 126

 Nicola(u)s of Damascus, 16 f., 66 _n._, 67 f.

 Niese, B., 30 f.

 Norden, E., 182-9, 200


 Olivet, Mount, 103, 190

 Omblaiah (Imlah), 43

 Omens, 119, 133, 141 ff.

 Oracles, 137, 145, 190, 199

 Origen, 183 f., 201

 Owl, bird of ill omen, 89


 Pallas, 94, 102

 Paneas, 58, 74

 Panemus, month of, 121, 135

 Parable of Nobleman, 29, 66

 Parthians, 19, 53 f., 99

 Passover. _See_ Feast

 Patrician class, 82

 Paul, St., 9 f., 20-2, 29, 34, 85, 90, 135 _n._;
   Pauline Epistles quoted, 153 _n._, 168 _n._, 172 _n._

 Paulinus, 122

 Pax, Temple of, 14

 Pella, 46

 Pentecost. _See_ Feast

 Peræa, 70, 102

 Periphrasis, 186 f.

 Petronius, 28, 84 ff.

 Pharaoh, 40 f.

 Pharisees, 33 f., 108, 148, 157-9, 161-9

 Phasael, 48, 52

 Phasælis, 70

 Pheroras, 71, 169


 Philip the Tetrarch, 66, 69 f., 73 f., 80 f., 90, 189, 191 f.

 —— son of Jacimus, 110, 117

 Philippi, 52

 Philo, 190;
   _De Vita Contemplativa_, 202

 Phœbus, 112

 Pilate, 28, 74-8, 185, 190 (bribery of), 191 (_Epistle of Tiberius to
    P._ and _Acts of P._)

 Piso, 83

 Placidus, 120

 Plato, 171

 Pollio, Gaius Asinius, 54

 —— a Pharisee, 167

 Pompey, 44-7, 175

 Poppæa, 10, 34

 Portents, 141 ff., 199

 Procurators, last of the, 102 ff.

 Prophecy, 127 f. (of Josephus);
   156 (of Essenes);
   167 f. (of Menahem)

 Pro-Romans, 118

 Ptolemais, 85, 110

 Ptolemy, 66 f.

 Ptolla, 66

 Pythagoras, 171


 Quirinius, 72 f., 94, 180 f.


 Ragaba, 164

 Rainfall, providential, 86

 Ramsay, Sir W. M., 180

 Rhodes, 55

 Roman citizenship, 38, 47

 Ryle, Dr., 202 f.


 Sabbath, 111, 154, 178

 Sabinus, 67 f.

 Sacrifices for Emperor abrogated, 107 ff.;
   daily, abandoned, 135

 Sadducees, 33, 96, 148, 157-9, 161-63

 Salome, sister of Herod, 57, 63 f., 66, 70, 169

 —— daughter of Herodias, 81, 192


 Samaria, city of (Sebaste), 46, 58, 60, 70

 —— district of, 70 f., 88, 90, 102

 Samaritans, 77 f.

 Sameas, 50 f., 167

 Sanhedrin, 48 ff., 95 ff.

 Sardinia, 77

 Saturninus, 77

 Saul, relative of Herod Agrippa II, 109, 117

 _Sayings of Jesus_, 196

 Scaurus, 46

 Schmiedel, P. W., 193

 Schürer, E., 180, 193

 Scopus, Mount, 112, 115

 Scriptures, the Jewish, 174 ff.;
   the number of books, 176, 200 ff.
   Cp. Books, the Sacred

 Scythopolis, 46

 Sebaste. _See_ Samaria

 Sects, Jewish, 148 ff.

 Selucid Dynasty, 19

 Sepphoris, 47, 74

 Sergius Paulus, 29, 94

 Shewbread, table of, 45, 147

 _Sicarii_, 102 f.

 Simon, son of Ananias, 109

 —— son of Gioras, 111

 —— the Essene, 189

 —— the high priest, 79, 81

 Simonides Agrippa, son of Josephus, 39

 Socrates, 171 _n._

 Sohemus, 110

 Solomon, 41 f.;
   Solomonian books, 152 _n._

 Sossius, 51

 Speeches in _B.J._, 100

 Stanton, V. H., 193

 Stoics, 34, 171

 Strabo, 17

 Strato’s Tower (= Cæsarea), 46, 70, 88

 Suetonius, 76, 200

 Suicide, 121, 124 f.

 Sulpicius Severus, 25


 Tabernacle, symbol of universe, 131 _n._

 Tacitus, 27, 143 _n._, 199 f.

 Tantalus, 156

 Tarichæa, 102

 Targum on _Lamentations_, 198

 Taxation, exemption from, 39, 47

 Tekoa, 38


 Temple 38, 45, 47, 49, 68, 77, 85, 92, 95, 110, 113 f., 118, 132 f.,
    135-45, 196 ff.;
   Babylonian destruction of, 138, 141;
   captain of, 107 f., 142;
   gate of, 142;
   gifts from foreigners to, 107 f.;
   Holy Place(s) of, 45, 140 f.;
   inscription in, 190;
   veil of, 190

 _Testudo_, 114 _n._

 Theocracy, 170

 Theology, Jewish, 170 ff.

 Theophrastus, 179

 Therapeutæ, sacred books of the, 202

 Thermuthis, 40 f.

 Theudas, 93, 103 _n._, 192 ff.

 Thucydides, imitation of, 24, 26 f., 32, 73 _n._, 86 _n._, 186

 Tiberias, 85, 102

 Tiberius, 29, 76 f., 80, 82

 —— Alexander. _See_ Alexander

 Timber Market, 113

 Tirathana, 77 f.

 Titus, 13 ff., 25, 36 ff., 100, 120, 126 ff., 133, 135, 138 ff., 146

 —— Arch of, 147

 Tityus, 156

 Torrey, C. C., 193 f.

 Towers of Jerusalem, 146 f.

 Trachonitis, 58, 70, 88 _n._, 94, 102, 110

 Traill, Dr. R., 20 _n._, 23, 24, 31

 Tyrannius Priscus, 113

 Tyrians, Laws of the, 179


 Ulatha, 58

 Uriah, 198


 Varus, Quintilius, Governor of Syria, 68 f., 175, 181

 —— tetrarchy of, 102

 Vespasian, 12-15, 25, 36-9, 42, 119-28, 133 f., 145, 190

 Vestments, high priest’s, 78 _n._, 131

 Vienne, 71

 Virgil, 122 _n._, 128 _n._, 199 _n._

 Virtues, four cardinal, 171 _n._

 Vitellius, Governor of Syria, 78, 80, 85


 Wellhausen, J., 194 ff.

 Whiston, W., 31

 Wisdom book, apocryphal, 196


 Xanthicus, month of, 142

 Xerxes, 176


 Zacharias, son of Baris(cæus), 29 f., 131 f., 194 ff.

 Zacharias or Zechariah (various), 194 ff.

 Zadok, 73

 Zealots, sect of, 73, 118 f., 131 f., 161

 Zedekiah, king, 42

 —— false prophet, 44

 Zenodorus, 58, 70




    Printed in Great Britain by
    Richard Clay & Sons, Limited.
    BRUNSWICK ST., STAMFORD ST., S.E. 1
    AND BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.




 ● Transcriber’s Notes:
    ○ The author’s archaic punctuation, spellings, and capitalization
      have been retained.
    ○ Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only
      when a predominant form was found in this book.
    ○ Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).
    ○ Footnotes have been moved to follow the sections in which they are
      referenced.
    ○ Text marked as a Sidenote was in the far left or right margin of
      the text in the book.