Part 3

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.”