"Josephus- was it all a lie?" Topic

So- it seems the academic consensus is that Josephus was sent to Galilee to subvert the popular revolt so that the Chief priests could control the resistance & so decide when & how to seek terms… his description of his huge army organised along Roman lines as all drivel.
But it's made me wonder about the whole story of him as the commander of the desperate defence of Jotapata, the survivor of the suicide roulette, the prophet of Vespasian's rise.
What if he was a direct 5th columnist with the Romans, either in rebel custody during the seige or essentially a bystander, & then kept by the Romans until opportune to wheel him out as their herald, with a story of how he'd been a heroic rebel who realised resistance was futile rather than a stooge from the outset?
few had survived Jotapata to be able to twit him…

What do people think? More plausible version of events, or a speculation too far?

My sense from reading critical sources is that his descriptions of geography and general society are pretty spot-on, while his discussion of the war--and anything about himself--should be taken with a grain of salt.

I think a lot of your question points to who his audience would be, and it would seem that his audience (and several argue this) is a Hellenic/Roman one, not necessarily a Judean one, hence his descriptions of Masada etc.

He's pretty much all we have. Glean what you can, but be judicious.

Allen

This is the "interesting" thing about Ancients wargaming (and Ancient history in general).

My favorite example is Trajan's Column. 99% of what we base Early Imperial Roman armies (and their enemies) on is based on this.

How can we be certain that it's accurate?

The sculptor may well have been the first Fantasy artist in history.

Regards,
Bill

Ramses famous graphical description of Qadesh beats Trajan's column by a good 1300 years.

Based on what I've read, I wouldn't be surprised to see that Josephus 'cooked' the lottery somehow, bedazzled Vespasian into sparing him, and then got rich writing his memoirs for Roman audiences.

I find any source like this to be questionable. I'm skeptical of most modern people's "recollections" and I do not see where people in the far past would have been any different. So I can understand him writing for profit rather than fact.

So pretty much the same as Herodotus, Thucydides, Caesar, Xenophon & most of the other classic authors then…:)

I see Josephus as the Flashman of the Ancient world. He certainly does not present a flattering portrait of himself, so that part must be true.
As Allen says, gauge the rest by that.

Yeah, there's a name for your general: Flashius Josephus.

I accept him as factual and reliable absent convincing evidence otherwise.

To my mind, all this putting down of ancient sources sounds more like revisionist authors in search of book deals and television interviews, rather than reliable, objective criticism.

YMMV, of course..

@ Doctor Bedlam: Josephus did "cook" the lottery. It's generally believed that he knew exactly how the "roulette" system he suggested would wind up, and arranged to be one of the survivors. The mathematical situation and the solution is known as the "Josephus Problem." link

"nor didst thou [Justus] know how much the Romans suffered at the siege of Jotapata, or what miseries they brought upon us; nor couldst thou learn by inquiry what I did during that siege myself; for all those that might afford such information were quite destroyed in that siege."

Suspicious huh?

J adds no detail on Jotapata in his 'Life'

I'm only querying Josephus' defence of Jotapata, how he was captured & how pardoned.

his story is not impossible- history abounds in bizarre true lives that were jammy & stranger than fiction – but let's look at the anomalies. Why does he defend Jotapata in a brutal seige of 47 days? What's his motive for that as a minister of the 'Come to terms with Rome at the right time' chief priests? Unless he's sacrificing himself & Jotapata to make the vastly more defensible Jerusalem seem more daunting & therefore improve the chief priests' bargaining potential? If so why doesn't he go down fighting?
It just seems to be a really good tale, the hero general & castellan who cheats his own side, cheats the Romans & retires in clover.

I'm enjoying Berlin & Overman by the way Allen- thanks for recommending it

My favorite example is Trajan's Column. 99% of what we base Early Imperial Roman armies (and their enemies) on is based on this.

How can we be certain that it's accurate?

The sculptor may well have been the first Fantasy artist in history.

Actually, there is plenty of corroboration for the depictions on Trajan's column, and its not accurate to say that "99% of what we base" EIR armies on comes from it. Actual suits of lorica segmentata have been found, as have helmets, pila, swords, etc, all matching the equipment seen on the column.

Still, your general point is well taken: very often, entire army lists for ancients are pieced together from the slightest bits of evidence, and we often have no way of knowing (other than an appeal to probability) whether the hadnful of items that we have found are typical of what actually existed.

Just finished Berlin & Overman. Very enlightening. It's suggested the 'Burnt House' & 'Herodian Villas' were destroyed by the Zealots not the Romans. So far as I recall from visiting them in '91 it was depicted as destruction wrought by the Romans in 70 CE.
Archaeology suggests Jews were copying Roman weapons, no sign of an indigenous style!

Actually, there is plenty of corroboration for the depictions on Trajan's column, and its not accurate to say that "99% of what we base" EIR armies on comes from it. Actual suits of lorica segmentata have been found, as have helmets, pila, swords, etc, all matching the equipment seen on the column.

The real question is who was wearing the segmentata. Segmentata has been recovered from sites where auxillia were supposed to be stationed, and it is known that hamata was worn throughout the history of the empire.

It may well be that segmentata was developed and issued to units facing armies with large numbers of archers, and hamata remained in use for those armies facing enemies with fewer missile troops., It may be that select units wore segmentata only, and everyone else wore hamata, etc.

It may also be that segmentata was issued to the first few front ranks, with hamata being worn by the rearmost ranks. That also makes sense, since the front ranks are more likely as not to bear the brunt of missile impacts.

We just don't know. We do know that three types of armour were in use, hamata throughout all the periods, segmentata associated with the Imperial period, and squamata pops up all over.

I am no longer that worried about what my models wear for which army, just using different shields where applicable. Yes, the helmet styles are a little better dated, but again, I'm no longer that worried about whether my IR Romans ought to have segmentata or not.

YMMV, of course..

Trajan's Column is like the Bayeux Tapestry: having such a clear, unique, graphic treasure tends to make us think of the entire period in the terms depicted. But also like Trajan's, the BT is backed up by numerous, separate finds.

Vis-a-vis Josephus; I am also of the opinion that an original source should be used as truth unless details of it can be disproven or questioned by other sources. I can imagine a Jew in a defensive position, surrounded by a garrison of his own people, getting rather irrational in a fight. The tendency to fight in a lost cause shows up in RL and makes its way into fiction all the time (Rhet Butler springs instantly to mind). Afterward, Joe probably thought, "What in the hades was I thining!" And committed to himself to never again be such an altruistic ass; it can get yourself killed….

Maybe, maybe… It's just that this story has so many 'good yarn' elements…

With any source, one cannot blindly accept what the author states. Unfortunately, we many times deal with those that do, especially when antiquity is the topic of discussion.

One might try the following when considering a source. it's pretty basic stuff:

link

The story requires us to accept:

Josephus told his troops the city would fall on the 47th day (well, there's a morale raiser for you!)

Josephus knew the solution to the 'Josephus Problem' or got very lucky

Josephus hailed Vespasian as future emperor, V was so impressed [backed up by the above prescience)he incarcerated him comfortably & even gave him a wife

Based on the above, Joe becomes a member of the Roman staff & intimate Flavian family chum

Tell it to the marines!

Try this version:

Josephus befriends the Flavians during his spell in Rome

He goes to Galilee as a double agent, in direct contact & collusion with the Roman command

Regardless of who was really in command at Jotapata, Joe let the Romans into the city on the 47th day,& is put on ice

Later when V wants to make an imperial claim, a backdated story of Joe the prophet lends V's claim the backing of providence.

Joe the very useful Roman agent takes his place openly on the Roman staff

At Gamla the Romans knew which blockhouse on the wall was the weakest to breach, Josephus could have been the source of that intelligence

At Jerusalem, Joe is wheeled out as herald, unsuccessfully. the story of Joe the doomed hero of Jotapata who now sees the utter folly of tangling with rome etc etc makes a better cover

I can't prove it, the regular story MAY be true, but my version seems perfectly plausible…

I like it….

Another point flagged up in B&O is the 'miraculous tempest' that worsted the defenders of Jotapata is a common seasonal gale phenomen in that locality & at times caused serious problems for the excavators

Another point of relevance is that up to 44AD Galileans were happy to use red slip pottery that was 'Roman/Pagan' in origin/style… once they come under a Roman governor the red slipware vanishes from Jewish sites & is replaced by an indigenous, distinct style.

May suggest that rebels in 'hellenised' clothing would be unlikely

Cooper, your theory about Josephus being a Roman agent is entertaining. But. If true, why would Joe have continued to maintain his 'cover' as a defeated rebel after the Roman victory and his relocation to Rome? Coming out as a successful Roman agent could only have enhanced his value as a dinner guest and disarmed some of the lingering hostility that he experienced from the likes of Apion.

Josephus was a complicated character. I don't think there are any simple explanations.

Good point Irv. But… Maybe if he came out as an out-and-out traitor he'd have been too tempting an assasination target for zealous Jews. Remember also it was in the Flavians' interests for his 'prophecy' to continue to be perceived as supernatural in origin, especially for the highranking dinner-set in rome who could look down on the upstart Flavians. Maybe he enjoyed the military fantasy of having heroically held off the Roman army for 47 days. Maybe his presenting as a rebellious Jew who was now a loyal Roman was a desirable example to set.

I'm only speculating with this theory, I'm not dogmatic. But I do think his story smells very very funny…

Sorry… my comment about the 'miraculous tempest' relates to Gamla, not Jotapata

I'm seriously tempted to visit those sites now I've read up, not sure how possible it is. Gamla is in Golan so might be dodgy for access

The idea that Vespasian's rise was prophesied by an aristocratic cohen would also be 'encouraging' for Jews

Don't mean to bicker with you Cooper, but please indulge me. Priest and prophet were normally seperate offices in Judah. Any nut could prophesy; Priests stayed busy controlling wealth and political power. An important exception was the High Priest who surrendered Jerusalem to Alexander, and is said to have prophesied world dominion to Alex in a dream.

Perhaps Joe was trying to reprise the role of that wise Kohan HaGadol who hailed the new Emperor and surrendered. The Romans might have named Joe High Priest and used him as a collaborationist figurehead to reconcile surviving Jews under the Empire. But Joe was never set up as a puppet ruler. Joe was never able to lead a major Jewish faction to surrender. In the end the Temple was sacked and Jewish power broken. Josephus was taken back to Rome as a pet, a souvenir, the Emperor's tame Kohan.

Oh sure, but Joe specifically claimed he was able to prophesy due to his priestly learning in the scriptures. & Clearly an educated priest with Hasmonaean blood was a more credible source than 'any nut' who the romans could have found.
Joe was a hugely expensive pet/souvenir. Giving him his life & freedom would have been happy ending for a rebel. Instead he got a mansion & a pension. Titus freed everyone in Jerusalem he was aquainted with & even took people off crosses for him. They either genuinely were very fond of him or very grateful or both.

"and then got rich writing his memoirs for Roman audiences."

Doubt he sold many copies. The Berlin/Overmasn book has an essay arguing Romans were very disinterested in Jews beyond general incomprehension & contempt.