Part 8

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: