Josephus: evaluating his credibility as a historian

Flavius Joephus

Much of the Jewish history during the 1st century comes from the works of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Many scholars extol Josephus for his documentation of these times, since they are the only ones that depict the historical events occurring during this turbulent time.

For example, Schurer (1994) writes of Josephus as "The best known historian of Jewish affairs in the Greek language" (221-222). He says that one major work is Comprehensive Delineation of the Entire Jewish History from the beginning to Josephus' own time, which is "the most extensive work on Jewish history in the Greek language" that has "retained the lasting favor of Jewish, heathen and Christian readers, as to have been preserved entire in numerous manuscripts" (221-222). Not everyone, however, has such high praise for Josephus' work. Recently, it has been noted that his text does not properly reflect the circumstances during this time, he runs from being vague to exaggerating and even contradictory and incorrect in his information. However, this does not mean that Josephus should be completely disregarded, but rather recognized as an historian with shortcomings and read and believed appropriately.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (2009), Josephus was born in A.D. 37 in Jerusalem to a well-known priestly family who traced its paternal ancestors back five generations. His mother's family claimed descent from the Machabeans who, under the leadership of Mathathias, revolted against the oppression of the Syrian King Antiochus IV Epiphanes. After receiving his education and proving his strengths in the areas of memory and decision making, at the age of 19 he began supporting the Pharisees and traveled to Rome in A.D. 64. His goal was to request that Nero release some of the imprisoned Jewish priests who were his friends. He won the favor of the emperor's consort and succeeded in his cause, but was quickly losing his ties to Judaism. He even saw its struggle against paganism as useless. Two years later, he returned to Jerusalem as the Jewish people began to revolt. At first he joined the other aristocrats in their lack of support of the other Jews. Later, he joined the insurgents and became a commander-in-chief in Galilee, guiding diplomatic negotiations and military activities. When the Roman General Vespasian advanced into Galilee, Josephus and other insurgents defended themselves in the Jotapata fortress. As it ran out of water and similar necessities, the Romans took over the fort and killed most of the patriots. Josephus, who had hidden in a cistern, only emerged when an agreement was made to spare his life. He ingratiated himself with Vespasian, and was given only two years as a prisoner.

When Vespasian became emperor, Josephus traveled with him as far away as Egypt and then joined Titus to witness firsthand the destruction of the Holy City and Temple. Josephus attempted to persuade the Jews to surrender, but celebrated the fall of the city with Titus in Rome and was pleased with his Roman citizenship and payment of money and lands in Judea. When Titus became emperor and then his brother Domitian, Josephus continued to be valued for his literary works. In fact, most of his life was spent enjoying the Roman life and completing his historic writings in Greek "to influence the educated class of his time and free them from various prejudices against Judaism" (Catholic Encyclopedia 2009). However, the first version of the Jewish War was written in Aramaic.

During his lifetime, Josephus wrote four works in 30 volumes, of which he took much pride in comparing them to earlier works: In Jewish War, he starts his account of the great Jewish revolt against the Romans by stating that previous narratives of the war have been inaccurate, rhetorically inflated and prejudiced, but he instead promises to present an accurate and unbiased version. He modeled himself after Thucydides, who also criticized his predecessors. It is difficult to believe that Josephus could have thought himself capable of being objective when he was trying to have one foot in each of the Roman and Jewish camps throughout his life.

The Jewish War is mainly based on his memoranda made during the war of independence on the memoirs of Vespasian and on letters of King Agrippa. While Josephus' story of warlike events is reliable, the account of his own doings is strongly filled with much self-adulation (Cohen 2002). According to Feldman (1988), the date of the Josephus' publication of the Jewish War is controversial. In the Life of Josephus, Josephus says that Justus of Tiberias wrote his history of the war, which was supposedly an attack on the one by Josephus, 20 years before Josephus' reply in the Life of Jospehus, appended to the Jewish Antiquities and composed in 93/94 A.D. This would give a year limit of 73/74. However, this does not appear likely, since the Jewish War includes an overview of the siege of Masada in 74 and a reference to the Temple of Peace's dedication in 75. In addition, Cohen (2002) and Stern (xxx) both challenge the normally cited date for the publication of the Jewish War as 75-79, saying that Titus emerges much more favorably than does Vespasian, and that Caecina is portrayed in black colors, which reflects that after being favored by Vespasian, he was executed by Titus for his conspiracy against him. Cohen (2002) believes that Josephus may have written the first six volumes and then someone else completed the seventh at a later time.

Mazar (1982) also raises the question of whether in the sixth book of the Jewish War, which ends with the fall of Jerusalem, may not really be the end of the work in the first edition. Similarly, Schwartz (1990) concludes that in the seventh book as far as to Titus' return to Rome, Josephus has introduced extraneous material with unusual crudeness and that his second section of the book is complete with what can be considered irrelevant, as far as a Jewish historian is concerned, or unnecessarily long accounts of the Commagenic war and the invasion of Media by the Alani and Sicarii at Alexandria and at Cyrene. Schwartz thus argues that the seventh book of the Jewish War was composed in an earlier version under Titus and revised early in Domitian's reign and again under Nerva or early in Trajan's rule. In agreement, Morton and Michaelson (xxx) both conclude that this last book is definitely different in style from the rest of the Jewish War books. Perhaps, adds Mazar (1982), Josesphus may have written his work originally in six books and added a final one only to make it parallel with another famous work about a war fought by rebels against the Romans, the Bellum Gallicum, written by Julius Caesar, both the Jewish people's and Josephus' great hero.

Mazar (1982) also notes the unusual fact that in the seventh book of the Jewish War, Josephus presents Melcguzedek as the first one to build the Temple in Jerusalem. This entirely omits Solomon's role. Once again, there is a discrepancy, this time between the Jewish War and the Jewish Antiquities. As both Mazar and Schwartz find, there are a number of places in the former works where Josephus in his reference to biblical events is inconsistent with the Bible and with the Antiquities and where his objectives appear to be to improve the importance of the cult and the upper priesthood of Jerusalem administrators.

Surburg (nd) writes of the Jewish War: When evaluating the historical value of The Jewish War, it should not be forgotten that the Memoirs are written from a Roman point-of-view. In addition, because Josephus does write the book under imperial patronage, it inclines the work to have a pro-Roman bias. For example, says Surburg, comparing The Jewish War and the Life of Josephus does not present a consistent understanding of the Galilean campaign. Laquer (nd) goes one step further by saying that Josephus deliberately misrepresented details, in order that he could be favored by King Agrippa II.

Josephus' second work was called Jewish Antiquities and contains 20 books with the entire history of the Jews from the Biblical Creation to the outbreak of the revolt in A.D. 66. In addition, he quotes many passages from Greek authors whose writings are no longer available. At the same time, he once again straddles both sides by making allowance for the tastes of his Gentile peers by arbitrarily omitting and embellishing certain scenes (Catholic Encyclopedia 2009), especially in the first books. In books XII-XX, he writes about the times before the coming of Christ and the foundation of Christianity. These are the only historical sources for much of the information provided and give dates and confirmation that supplement the Biblical narrative. The story of Herod the Great is found in books XV-XVII. Book XVIII includes the passage about Jesus Christ, which is one of the most noteworthy from the Christian historical perspective:

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of the people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out (18.63-64)

This paragraph has also been very controversial, because many believe it would not be likely that Josephus would have written that Jesus "appeared to them on the third day, living again." Some scholars say that Josephus had given up all his Jewish leanings by this time, but others say that this was not the true first edition. Perhaps it was rewritten by a Byzantine monk when copying the Jewish Antiquities. However, this latter argument does not work, since an Arabian copy of the book has been found with identical text. In 1991, Meier suggested that it is true that Josephus mentioned Jesus, but that the text was glossed by a Christian author. He rewrites the text as follows:

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of the people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.

In his Autobiography, which was written in A.D. 90, approximately a decade before he died, Josephus attempts, along with self-embellishment, to justify his position at the beginning of the Jewish rising. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (2009), in design and language this book is most influenced by the writings of Nicholas of Damascus, which Josephus had also followed in the Jewish Antiquities. The first half of the work entitled "Against Apion" consists of a defense of the great antiquity of the Jews and a refutation of the charges that had been brought against them by the grammarian Apion of Alexandria on the occasion of an embassy to the Emperor Caligula. The two volumes of, "Josephus's Discourse to the Greeks concerning Hades," which appeared in A.D. 96, was dedicated to Epaphroditus as an apology of Judaism against all kinds of anti-Semitic slander, which the Alexandrian author Apion compiled in a History of Egypt. It is also known as Against Apion. Here, Josephus provides a thorough explanation about Jewish cult, law, and religion, saying: "I would therefore boldly maintain that the Jews have introduced to the rest of the world a very large number of beautiful ideas. What higher justice than obedience to the laws?"

Before specifically detailing additional problems with Josephus' works, it is important to note that they also have been helpful in providing some historical perspective to what was taking place at that time, especially since so little written works remain from the 1st century. In Josephus and the New Testament, Mason (2003) provides an overview of why these works have been preserved from antiquity by the Christian church. First, they have provided a great deal of helpful background information, a support to the Old Testament, a valuable model for apologetics, in addition to a few references to key figures in the birth of Christianity. However, the one most critical factor was their detailed description of the atrocities that often accompanied the Jewish revolt against Rome and the destruction of the temple. Josephus' vivid account of the war provided enough proof of the Christian belief that the Jews had become God's enemy by rejecting Christ and persecuting his followers. Eusebius' role in the preservation of Josephus was thus pivotal, for he made him the key "outside" witness for his Christian interpretation of history. Other accounts of Jewish history and Palestinian geography have survived the first century and some have even lasted to the 9th century. However, when decisions were made about which ancient texts should continue to be copied, the recommendation of Eusebius of Josephus secured him a privileged position.

Mason (2009) does stress in his introduction of Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins: Methods and Categories that he is not saying that Josephus should be used as a "simple window into the past" (2). Josephus writes artistic narratives rather than manuals of factual information that may simply be used as historical facts. Critically, when Josephus is frequently the only available source of a certain occurrence, individuals, intentions and motives, it is necessary to recognize that there is no way to test other theories and claim to know the truth. Due to the few remaining literary and archaeological works that still remain, there is no other alternative. It is important, therefore, to not simply taking Josephus' accounts just as they are, without any review of the issues involved in such usage. To support his argument, Mason studies two of Josephus' works -- the accounts of "Pontius Pilate in the Judean War" and "Caesarea's role in the outbreak of the First Revolt" -- as examples of how Josephus can be misread. He uncovers problems of separating certain historical facts from Josephus' fiction, including the search for core elements and critics of sources. Mason uses the essay, "Contradiction or Counterpoint? Josephus and Historical Method," as an example of Josephus' inaccuracies. This essay is unsatisfactory, according to Mason, because it misunderstands the perspective both of language and of history, each of which inevitably involves a second-order approach to what actually took place and therefore are subject to a critical hermeneutical process. As to Josephus' writings, this means that "there is a fixed chasm between artful portraits of Pilate (e.g.) and the specific questions we might have about his reign" (40).

Broshi (1982) likewise agrees that much of Josephus' works are incorrect, but he also says there are some points that are accurate. Much of the data in Josephus's War can be proved correct, not because of observation or memory. For example, geographical data can be checked, and Josephus appears to be right on the mark. Josephus says that Jerusalem was 150 stadia, or 30 km, from Jericho and Jericho 60 stadia, 12 km, from Jordan. Josephus also said that Jerusalem and Herodium were about 12 km from each other, and Jerusalem to Gibeon. All these figures are quite accurate. In addition, sometimes his population figures were right. His information that Simon son of Giora headed 10,000 warriors and 5,000 Idumeans and that John of Gischala led 6,000 thousand warriors is accurate. On the other hand, Josephus' tendency to exaggerate population figures is well-known. Even he realized that his numbers may be off: In the census carried out under Cestius celebrants at the Passover sacrifices, he writes that there were over 2,700,000. Most likely, the source of much of Josephus's accurate data was the Roman imperial commentaries, the hupomnemata, especially mentioned by him several times in his later works. The point, according to these authors, is that Josephus cannot be read literally, since some of the information is correct and others incorrect. Feldman (1988) adds, "The picture that emerges is that Josephus is very uneven. Generally he is reliable in his geographical descriptions, but his figures as to populations are apparently unreliable" (45).

One prime example of the difference in depiction between Josephus and other historical events is Masada. Today, Masada continues to be a symbol of the Jewish people's perseverance. Soldiers take the oath in Israel: "Masada shall not fall again." Josephus explains that following Rome's destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple in A.D. 70, the Great Jewish Revolt ended for all but the remaining patriots, who fled Jerusalem to the Masada fortress near the Dead Sea. It was located on a high, steep hill, had thick walls and many towers for defense. For three years, the Roman troops attempted to take over the fortress. The Jews had most likely thought that the Romans would give up, but this was not to be. The Romans knew very well that the Zealots at Masada were made up of those Jews who had initiated the Great Revolt. Actually, these patriots had been fighting against Rome for several decades. Rome was not going to give up and let Masada grow its strength and once again and start another war. When the Jews realized that the Roman's battering rams and catapults would eventually breach the Masada's walls, the Zealots' leader, Elazar ben Yair, made the decision that all the Jews there would commit suicide, which was very much against the Jewish law. The alternative was to fight the Romans to death or end up in slavery and prostitution.

Cohen (1982) questions Josephus' understanding that all 960 inhabitants agreed to act together in their suicide. Cohen says the archaeological remains do not back this up. Josephus says that everyone's belongings were placed together in a large pile and set on fire, but the ruins show many piles and fires throughout the fortress. Josephus also writes that Eleazar told his men to destroy everything but the food, but the archaeologists found many storerooms containing burnt provisions. Josephus explains that the Romans found arms for use by 10,000 men, but why were these not destroyed, Cohen questions. Josephus reports that the last Jew alive burned the palace down, but the archeological digs show that every public building had been set afire.

Further, scientists found three skeletons in the northern palace's lower terrace and twenty-five in a cave on the cliff's southern slope, but these skeletons were not tossed there "irreverently" by the Romans says Cohen (1982). If as Josephus says the Romans found 960 corpses in the palace, why would they have dragged 25 of them across the plateau and then carefully lowered them into a cave at the top of a slope where any wrong move could be fatal? The most obvious thing would have been to toss the corpses over the cliff. Instead, it makes more sense that the 25 skeletons in the cave must have been those Jews who attempted to hide from the Romans but were found and killed or died on their own. At the very least, the archaeological finds demonstrates how Josephus' narrative is incomplete and inaccurate, according to Cohen. Archaeology may confirm other aspects of Josephus' narrative, particularly his description of the site. However, he is contradicted on these other points, which shows a reader needs to be careful on what to accept and not accept as accurate.

Cohen (1982) therefore looks to see what truth, if any, lies in Josephus' narrative. Did the patriots commit suicide and the Romans discover corpses? What about the 25 skeletons in the cave? It may be that the Romans captured and killed the Sicarii or fought them until death and Josephus, who liked a good story, substituted collective suicide for the truth. Despite not knowing which is true, Cohen does admit that there is some basis in fact. Many Jews did commit suicide during the war of A.D. 66-70 instead of facing their enemies. Also, Josephus' narration is too complex even for Cohen to entirely dismiss in totality. Lastly, why would Josephus have made up such as story? Death in battle would have served just as well as suicide. If the Romans had massacred the Sicarii, Josephus would not have had a reason to dismiss it.

Cohen (1982) adds that from the Roman point-of-view, the Sicarii deserved to die because they killed Roman soldiers. From Josephus' point-of-view, the Sicarii were guilty for launching the war against Rome. However, perhaps Josephus did not imagine too much with Masada, but with the triumphs of Jotapata, Jerusalem, Machaerus, and Jardes, the situation is much different. When describing Jotapata, for instance, he did "employ any of the standard tricks for prolonging a siege, tricks recounted with inflated detail…" (385), and there are many embellishments. No one knows exactly what happened there, adds Cohen, but contrary to what Josephus writes, Silva did not command a premature withdrawal, Eleazar had no opportunity for two magnificent orations, and there was no time for the Jews to leisurely slaughter their wives and children and deliberately gather all their possessions together. Most likely, Josephus wanted to improve on a typical battle story. He wanted Eleazar to assume full responsibility for the war, admit the error of his policies, confess that they had committed a sin, and were blasphemous against God. Eleazar and all his followers, condemned by their own words committed suicide, which symbolized what would happen to anyone who followed their bad example. "This was the work of Josephus the apologist for the Jewish people and the polemicist against Jewish revolutionaries. Josephus the rhetorical historian realized that the murder-suicide of some of the Sicarii at Masada would be far more dramatic and compelling if it became the murder-suicide of all the Sicarii" (Cohen, 402).

Feldman (1988) writes that "It is hard to imagine a more controversial major figure in the history of letters than Flavius Josephus. His mysterious elevation to the rank of general in the ill-fated revolution of the Jews against the Romans in the first century, followed so quickly by his surrender to the enemy under the most auspicious of circumstances and the numerous subsequent records that he received from them, had hardly endeared him to the Jewish people and lovers of liberty" (17). Feldman once again stresses the inconsistencies of Josephus' writings. Overall, he believes that Josephus was correct in his histories. However, he joins others, such as David

Flusser, David Ladouceur, Tessa Rajak and Samuel Schwartz who say that upon closer inspection his works often raise questions: It is true, for example, that Josephus followed the Halakhic (kosher) principles of the Pharisees as he noted. He wanted to realize his ideals, but these changed over time.

Similarly, Vermes (1973), in a summary of the law by flavius josphus novum testamentum says that Josephus' interest in the Law was not "in detailing what was licit or illicit, but in providing a religious explanation and more justification of the Jewish way of life" (290). Vermes especially notes Josephus' lack of concern with purity law and about Torah reading on the Sabbath. Feldman (1988) adds that Josephus is not precise in his utilization of terms, such as "city" versus "village," as well as that concerning slavery or titles of administrators. Even though he is a sophisticated scholar, he makes a point of repeating old wives' tales, such as an experiment that Philip conducted, the tetrarch of Trachonitis, where he threw chaff into a pool at Phiale and found it cast up in the spring of Panion, or the report that the asphalt pieces of the Dead Sea can be evaporated only with the use of menstrual blood, or the tradition of the river that rests six days of the week and flows on the seventh day. The explanation to such storytelling may be that Josephus wanted to make his history richer with these wonderful tales, going back to his model of Herodotus and continuing with the Isocratean school of historians whom he has followed closely.