Josephus as Official History

As an historian, Josephus insists on his accuracy and veracity. He is at pains to note his sources and the critical approval of those witnesses of the war who had read his works. He first wrote the War in the language of the East, Aramaic, and then expanded the work into a Greek version.

War, Preface 1 & 2.

I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate those books [of the Jewish War] into the Greek tongue, which I had formally composed in the language of our own country, and sent to the upper barbarians... while the Parthians, and the Babylonians, and the remotest Arabians, and those of our nation beyond the Euphrates, with the Adiabeni, by my means, knew accurately both when the war began, what miseries it brought upon us, and after what manner it ended.

In one of his last works Josephus is at pains to justify his life’s work and he mentions his history:
Contra Apion I, 9.

As for myself, I composed a true history of that whole war, and all the particulars that occurred therein, as having been concerned in all its transactions;... during which time there was nothing done which escaped my knowledge; for what happened in the Roman camp I saw, and wrote down carefully; and what informations the deserters brought out of the city I was the only man that understood them. Afterward I got leisure at Rome; and when all my materials were prepared for that work, I made use of some persons to assist me in learning the Greek tongue, and by these means I composed a history of those transactions; and I was so well assured of the truth of what I related, that I first of all appealed to those that had the supreme command in that war, Vespasian and Titus, as witness for me, for to them I presented those books first of all, and after them to many of the Romans who had been in that war. I also sold [or presented] them to many of our own men who understood Greek philosophy; among them Julias Archelaus, Herod [unknown] a person of great gravity, and king Agrippa himself, a person that deserved the greatest admiration. Now all these men bore their testimony to me, that I had the strictest regard to truth; who would not have dissembled the matter, nor have been silent, if I, out of ignorance, or out of favour to any side, had either given false colours to actions, or omitted any of them.

His disclaimer in the beginning of the Jewish War shows that the accusation of Josephus’ pro-Roman bias was something he had to answer. In the same sentence he gives his real reason for writing the War.

War, 3.5.8.

This account I have given the reader, not so much with the intention of commending the Romans, as of comforting those that have been conquered by them, and of deterring others from attempting innovations under their government.

That his was the ‘official’ history of the war is also stressed in his limited autobiography:

Life 65

Now the Emperor Titus was so desirous that the knowledge of these affairs should be taken from these books alone, that he subscribed his own hand to them, and ordered that they should be published.

Josephus mentions many historians, of whom we have no knowledge from any other sources.
Josephus, Contra Apion II, 23.

However, our antiquity is sufficiently established by the Egyptian, Chaldean, and Phoenician records, not to mention the numerous Greek historians. In addition to those already cited, Theophilus, Theodotus, Mnaseas, Aristophanes, Hermogenes, Euhemerus, Conon, Zopyrion, and may be, many more.

However, we do have one who is mentioned by another historian, Suetonius. His is also a good example of the censorship under the Flavians.
Suetonius, Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Life of Domitian 10. Pen. p. 301

Then Hermogenes of Tarsus died because of some incautious allusions that he had introduced into a historical work; and the slaves who acted as his copyists were crucified.

Pretty serious stuff. Not only the author was executed but also his publishing staff. It is one thing to attack an incautious author; the Romans also attacked anyone who published offending material.

That Josephus’ history was the approved and sanctioned version of the war was assured by being published by the Roman authorities themselves. It was his version that was promoted throughout the empire, and by the official publishers. The War, in Greek, was out by 75 C.E. at the latest. This is only three years after the events Josephus is describing, and to a very contemporary audience. Yes, he has a pro-Roman bias and has an inflated ego, but, for all that, he is our only source for most of the events he describes. His bias is plain and so is his (and the Romans’) agenda; to dissuade others from rebelling against the unbeatable Roman empire. His work would have been a continuation of the Imperial policy of using literature for political purposes. Julius Caesar was followed by Augustus in realizing the value of propaganda, for both personal and state reasons. Augustus’ Virgil raised propaganda to a high art form in his Aeneid. Josephus was employed by Vespasian, Titus, and three following emperors, for this very purpose. He had a team of Greek writers to assist him with the technical points of the Greek language, or, as some think, to do the writing from his dictation.

What can we trust in Josephus’ history as fact and what is fiction? The general events, such as the order of the advance leading to the siege of Jerusalem, and the siege itself are logical from a military sense. There is no reason to doubt the destruction was as terrible as he describes, there is ample archaeological evidence to verify his account of the result of the war. As to the war, its start and progress towards inevitable destruction, they are coloured by Josephus’ position, or positions, as a particiant. Nationalist heroes are bandits, prophets deceivers, and false Messiahs dupe the multitudes. He has nothing good to say about the nationalists, calling them “innovators” and the cause of the national destruction. While he himself is the rational, and sometimes when it suits him prophetic, worker for peace at all cost. He saw no problem in being both a good Jew and Roman, but had little time for irrational nationalists.

His biases, then, are pro-government, anti-revolutionary, and self-promoting: in other words, a typical conservative.
 

Josephus and Paul as Roman agents

Early in his career Josephus was entrusted with a mission to Rome to plead the case for the release of some Rabbis who were being held captive. The mission was successful and the young Josephus returned home with the Rabbis. He had seen the might of Rome and its court intrigues. He returned in time for the start of the war, which he at first advised against. When the Romans, under Cestius Gallus, were unexpectedly badly beaten by the inferior Jews Josephus had no choice but to join in the Jewish effort. There are some doubts about Josephus’ testimony on this account. Was he forced into this position by the fear of being executed as a traitor if he didn’t? Or was he truly convinced, after the seeming divine intervention in the defeat of Cestius’ army? Whichever, he was granted a command in Galilee in 66 or 67 CE. In July 67 CE he surrendered to the advancing Romans and soon became one of their most valued intelligence officers. Josephus did his best to split the Jewish opposition and thereby weaken their ability to resist the Romans. But his most valued service was in interrogating the Jewish deserters and prisoners:

during which time there was nothing done which escaped my knowledge; for what happened in the Roman camp I saw, and wrote down carefully; and what informations the deserters brought out of the city I was the only man that understood them.

After the conclusion of the war Josephus returned again to Rome. But, this time he was included in the entourage of the future Emperor, Titus. They were evidently close friends from their time together in the war. When they reached Rome Vespasian bestowed both Roman citizenship and his own previous estate upon Josephus for his past (and future) services. Josephus was then commissioned to write a history of the recent war to represent the futility of rebellion from Roman rule. The first, Aramaic, version would have been out just a year or two after the conclusion of the pacification of Judea. The Aramaic version was distributed in the Eastern provinces almost immediately. A year or so after followed the Greek version which was published by the Emperor Titus himself, to be the sole and official version. The Greek version was meant for the other, Greek speaking, provinces and for the same purpose of dissuasion from revolt. Josephus was continuing his chosen career as a Roman agent.

There were other Roman agents operating before, during, and after the Jewish war. Dio Chrysostom, a philosopher who was very good at improvised speeches, was a roving troubleshooter for the Romans about this time. He and Josephus must have met when Vespasian was in Alexandria previous to ascending to the position of Emperor at Rome. Both Dio and Josephus had close access to the Emperor’s ear. The meeting of Dio and Vespasian is related in the Life of Apollonius, written by a later Flavius, Philostratus, also in the employ of an Emperor. This Apollonius was born in about 1 CE and lived until at least 96 CE. And, of course there was Saul/Paul.

The only Saulus mentioned in Josephus was an agent who came to Jerusalem to divide the Jews. He caused some disturbances in the temple itself. While not making a direct connection to the Saul of the Bible his mission was the same, to divide the Jews, Acts 23:7. That Saul/Paul was a Roman agent is impossible to prove, but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence remaining in the novella of Luke called Acts. Saul/Paul was a Roman citizen. He was given very special treatment from his arrest/rescue to his eventual domicile in Rome, living unhindered, where we lose track of him. No one with any experience of military occupation or even police procedures would ever believe the Roman Centurion who apprehended Saul/Paul would allow his prisoner to address a rioting crowd and in a foreign language! And the escort’s size and the night-flight, Acts 23:23, are inexplicable if he were not someone of importance to the Romans who was to be preserved at all cost. His stay in Caesarea was comfortable, and he had frequent conversations with the major political players of the times. Both he and Josephus knew Herod Agrippa. Did Saul/Paul do earlier what Josephus did later, collaborate with the Romans?

[Gospels:Page 1] [Gospels:Page 2] [Gospels:Page 3] [Acts] [Home]