User:Michel Abada//The Life of Flavius Josephus

The Life of (Flavius) Josephus (Ἰωσήπου βίος Iosepou bios), also called the "Life of Flavius Josephus", or simply Vita, is the last of the texts that Flavius ​​Josephus published in Rome towards the end of the 1st century. He provides most of the biographical elements that we know about him, but curiously 85% of the text is devoted to the 6 to 8 months of his life during the Great Jewish Revolt, he was the governor of Galilee designated by the rebels from Jerusalem (from the end of 66 - c. June/July 67). It is accepted by critics that the reason for writing this Autobiography is to respond to the assertions Justus of Tiberias had just made in his History of the Jewish War. According to Josephus, he waited until King Agrippa (II) died to publish his work, which had been ready for 20 years. The date of publication of this Autobiography therefore depends on the date of the death of Agrippa II. A debate exists among historians as to whether this king died either under the emperor Domitian (died in 96) or, according to the indication that the bishop Photios of Constantinople issues in the ninth century in a reading note, the third year of Trajan (100).
 * The Life of Flavius Josephus

The book of Justus of Tiberias is lost, no pagan author mentions it, only Josephus seems to respond to what was written there but without ever citing the slightest extract. It was probably blacklisted shortly after this Josephus response was published. The Autobiography of Flavius ​​Josephus is therefore the object of studies to try to find out what Justus was saying. As in this Autobiography, Flavius ​​Josephus gives a completely different version of the facts that he had told in his Jewish War, it is also a question of trying to determine what actually happened on these few controversial points and more globally in Galilee in 66-67, Flavius ​​Josephus being our only source about these events. Critics generally believe that the version given in the Vita is closest to the truth, but because of the extremely confusing nature of this text, it is very difficult to piece together. They are divided as to why Josephus would have lied when writing The Jewish War. Some believe that Josephus thus tried to hide part of his action, others believe that Josephus lied about a large number of characters to support the version that Titus and Vespasian wanted to provide. The overall reliability of Josephus's writings — particularly his description of Jewish “sects” — is also questioned.

Publication context
The Autobiography of Flavius ​​Josephus is his last writing, probably published 20 years, if not more, after Book II of The Jewish War1,2 in which he related the facts covering the same period. It is likely that it originally appeared as an appendix to the twentieth and last book of Jewish Antiquities2. In the fourth century, Eusebius of Caesarea was still reading it at the end of the copy of the Antiquities in his possession3. There are also two endings to this book XX. There would therefore have been a first publication of Antiquities in 93/94 4 without this Vita, then a second publication, a few years later4,Note 2. An important part of historical criticism identifies the Epaphroditus, to whom Flavius ​​Josephus dedicates his Judaic Antiquities, to the former secretary of Nero, who later served as secretary to the three Flavian emperors5,6. He was executed by order of Domitian at the end of 95/beginning of 96 7, during what is known as the “persecution of Domitian”8. However, for historians it is not a question of religious persecution, but rather of political repression9. As Josephus pays homage to this Epaphroditus in his Autobiography, according to this hypothesis, this one would have been published before 968 and naturally after the first edition of the Antiquities.

Alternate publication date
However, historians and exegetes agree that what prompted Flavius ​​Josephus to write his biography was the publication by Justus of Tiberias of his History of the Jewish War11,12,13. Josephus reproaches him for having waited for the death of Vespasian, Titus and Agrippa (II) to publish his "History". For part of the criticism which is based on epigraphic inscriptions and the disappearance of the coins of Domitian in its territories, the death of the king of Batanea and eastern Galilee occurs during the reign of this emperor14,5,2. By analyzing the texts of Flavius ​​Josephus, they estimate that Agrippa was probably already dead when the first edition of Judaic Antiquities was published14,5,2. If this thesis is perfectly compatible with the identification of the former secretary of Nero called Epaphroditus as being the literary godfather of Josephus7, other critics are based on an indication of Photios of Constantinople to place the death of Agrippa in 100. The publication of his Autobiography by Flavius ​​Josephus would then have taken place well after the executions which marked the end of the reign of Domitian.

For a detailed discussion on this subject, see § Date of publication.

The Jewish Historian
Justus of Tiberias, whose publication of the book on “The History of the Jewish War” led to the writing of this Autobiography, is best known as a historiographer15. He was a Jew with a solid Greek education. None of his writings has come down to us, but three of them are mentioned by ancient authorsNote 2. Justus is a son of Pistos15. Both occupy a prominent position in Tiberias when Flavius ​​Josephus is governor of Galilee in 66/6716. Pistos was, according to Josephus, the only one of the nobility of Tiberias not to be resolutely pro-Roman in order to please his son17. This one would have led the tendency which hesitated between the support for the Romans and the tendency favorable to the revolt against them, hoping thus to benefit from it for his career18.

The writing that is worth knowing about him, although it seems to have disappeared almost immediately, is his History of the Jewish War through the reaction it provoked in Flavius ​​Josephus19. The latter's Autobiography indeed tries to counter various assertions which told a very different story from what he had published in his Jewish War20,21,22. There he attacks Justus at length, even though he had not even mentioned him – nor his father Pistos – in his “War” written twenty years earlier23.

Justus accused of being responsible for the revolt
Everything that we know about Justus, moreover, comes from the attacks of Josephus in this Autobiography16 and in particular from a long digression which is entirely devoted to him (336-367)23, no later writing mentioning him. He reproaches him for multiplying the errors24 — but without citing any explicitly — and for “not having had access, unlike him, to the field notes of Vespasian and Titus25. To discredit his adversary, Josephus indicates that "in the comments of the emperor Vespasian", which Justus was unable to consult25, it would be indicated that on the arrival of the future emperor at Ptolemais (spring 67) "the inhabitants of the Decapolis begged him to punish [Justus] as the author of all their evils26". Vespasian is said to have placed him in the hands of Agrippa (II) and Justus only escaped death thanks to the clemency of the king and at the request of his sister Berenice26. Flavius ​​Josephus accuses him of having led “his country to revolt against the Romans27”28. However, despite Josephus' efforts to blame Justus for the uprising in Galilee, several facts he mentions in his Vita contradict this accusation28. Thus, Justus was opposed to the destruction of Herod's palace in Tiberias28, whereas on the contrary Josephus tried to obtain its destruction from the Council of the city29. Josephus himself says that Justus was not a member of the pro-war faction, but leader of a faction in intermediate positions28. It is also possible that this third party was an invention of Josephus who could not make Justus the leader of the revolutionary party because it was far too well known that its leader was Jesus son of Sapphia30. Some of Justus' close relatives were also killed by the revolutionaries in Gamala28. Furthermore, Josephus states that he took him prisoner along with all the members of the council of Tiberias, because due to the invincibility of the Romans, this council had secretly pledged allegiance to King Agrippa and demanded that he send forces to take control of the city31,32. Josephus would then have released them, recommending that they show duplicity because if he was well aware of the invincibility of the Romans, they had to pretend to support the war against Rome because of the "brigands" (lestai)33,Note 3 Josephus here appropriates “the discriminatory vocabulary of the Romans34. On several occasions in The Jewish War, he calls “brigands”35 the Jewish rebels, such as the Sicarii, the Zealots36 or the members of the Fourth Philosophy34. For Shaye J. D. Cohen, those who are called “brigands” in this passage were Josephus' own followers at the material time. Finally, even before Vespasian's offensive in Galilee (spring 67), Justus was no longer in Tiberias, but had joined King Agrippa16 in Beirut38,39, when the latter was going to join his army with the three legions of Vespasian to begin the reconquest of all of Palestine, starting with Galilee. After the Great Jewish Revolt (66-70), Justus was secretary to Agrippa40,41, king of Batanea and the eastern part of Galilee15 (Vita 356).

Justus accused of being a forger
Josephus compares Justus and all the historians who lie “out of hatred or partiality” to “forgers who fabricate false contracts (§ 337)42. Then in the long digression in which Josephus attacks Justus (§ 356), he suggests that if Agrippa chased Justus away and forbade him to "appear ever before him" from an indefinite moment, it was because he would have realized that he was being dishonest “in the office of secretary with which he [had] honored him43". For Shaye J. D. Cohen, “Josephus labels Justus as a forger, an accusation sometimes leveled against official secretaries,”42 which goes back to the comparison he made in § 337 42 between those who lie to fabricate a false story – as Justus, according to him, did – and “forgers who fabricate false contracts”. However, Josephus ends this passage by saying that “about all this [he] renounces to prove everything down to the detail44. »

After the publication of the Autobiography of Flavius ​​Josephus, the two men disappear from history.

Justus' book
Site of the ancient city of Jotapata where Flavius ​​Josephus led the resistance to the siege carried out by the Roman army.

Justus's book about the great Jewish revolt was an account of the war45 which included the campaign in Galilee, the actions of Josephus46 and challenged his version of the siege of Jotapata47. It also recounted the siege of Jerusalem in 7046.48. He also obviously challenged Josephus' version of Philip of Bathyra and what had happened in Gamala and Batanea49. It is mainly on these subjects that Josephus endeavors to answer at length50, whereas he devotes only one sentence to answering the disputes of Justus on the subject of the siege of Iotapata - of which Josephus declares to have directed the defense - and another sentence about Justus' version of the events that took place during the siege of Jerusalem51.

If Justus had so many reasons to hate Flavius ​​Josephus, why did he wait 20 years (Vita 360) before attacking him in his writing52? Josephus uses this expectation as proof of the lies of Justus53. If he waited for the death of Vespasian, Titus, Agrippa, and all those who knew the truth, it was because he knew that they would not have tolerated his lies54,Cit. 1 (359-360). We therefore wondered if Justus did not attack Agrippa and the emperors, waiting for their death to publish “his truth”40. However, there is no sign that he attacked a royal figure, Jewish or Roman40. If that had been the case, it is unlikely that Josephus, who devotes a great deal of space to the attacks on Justus in his Vita, would not have mentioned it40.

In his book Justus, declared to tell a story superior to those already published, and which took care to respect historical facts46. According to Josephus, he thus contradicted the field notes of Vespasian25,46,48. He “falsely testified” against Josephus46,55. Paragraphs 357-367 also imply that Justus was attacking the veracity of the Jewish War on certain points.

History of text transmission
The entire preservation and transmission of the work of Flavius ​​Josephus is indebted to the Christian tradition “which saw in it the indispensable complement of its Holy Scriptures, and more particularly of the New Testament56. “If he had held only to the Jewish tradition, it is probable that his work would never have reached posterity56. In fact, Josephus is only mentioned in Jewish literature—perhaps with one exception—from the tenth century56. On the contrary, the Christians of what was to become the Great Church seem to have adopted it immediately and Christian writers used and quoted it very early on, as evidenced by Origen (died around 253), Eusebius of Caesarea, Jerome of Stridon, and many others afterwards.

“It is for theological reasons that the work of Josephus, apparently little read by the Greeks and disdained by the Jews, was collected by the Christians who ensured its transmission and preservation for posterity57. They interpreted the fall of Jerusalem theologically as the punishment of the Jewish people for their misdeeds against Jesus56. Moreover, the writings of Josephus “are close to those of the New Testament58” and “shed light on the historical and religious background58. The work of Josephus was even considered to be the fifth gospel, at least until the Counter-Reformation, in the course of the sixteenth century59. The Latin West “read and treated it almost like a sacred text60. »

This “Vita de Flavius ​​Josephus” was originally published as an appendix to the second edition of Antiquities of Judaism61.

Critical analysis
Curiously, Flavius Josephus devotes most of his Autobiography to rewriting his campaigns in Galilee at the time of the outbreak of the revolt, but he totally omits in his second writing any engagement of importance against the Romans, to devote himself almost exclusively to the divisions between Jewish forces or groups. Thus he stops his detailed account before the siege of Iotapata (June/July 67Note 4), whereas in the Jewish War he recounted in detail all the tactics he claimed to have used against the Romans there which seemed to come out of Thucydides63. The absence of any response to the challenges to his version of the siege of Jotapata raises questions, when it seemed so important to him in his writing of Book III of the War64.

Problems with this Vita
The main problem with this Autobiography is that what Josephus recounts does not coincide with what he had recounted 20 years earlier in The Jewish War65. The causes pushing him for a global revision are not clearly established65. The differences concern both substance and chronology. An analysis of what he describes in his two writings shows that, for events that took place in approximately 6 months23, no less than six episodes take place in a different order67. Apart from the attacks on Justus of Tiberias, the question which occupies the most space in his Vita concerns Philip of Bathyra, some of his relatives, the deeds of the inhabitants of Batanea and Gamala. On all these points he gives in his Vita a different version from what he had written in The Jewish War and often the contradictions are very important. La Vita and the Jewish War contradict each other on the proper names or on the identity of several characters67 as well as on the date and circumstances of the death of some. "Despite the abundance of detail, the Vita's inconsistencies are so great that the impression left on the reader is one of confusion and obscurity, perhaps to protect themselves"68. Already, towards the middle of the 19th century, Edouard Reuss wondered: "What were all these interminable quarrels which absorbed him in Galilee, which he recounts with so much emphasis, but of which we understand neither the origin nor the the outcome ? Why his Autobiography is almost entirely devoted to those confusing intrigues which lasted less than a year and which exercised only a minor influence on the course of events, and why is he unable to give distant and unbiased viewers any idea of these intrigues69? For Robert Eisenman, the Vita "shows that Josephus was kept under enormous pressure to explain his past70" and to justify his actions during the revolt70. For him, it is likely that Josephus was challenged by Domitian, sometimes considered as violent as Nero70. It is also probable that the literary patron of Josephus called Epaphroditus in all his works published after the death of Titus, is the one Domitian had executed in 95/96 and it was in this period that his Vita70 was written.

In this Autobiography, Flavius ​​Josephus confirms that his “narrative of the war is made from the Roman point of view71” and that “what Rome represents for Josephus, beyond the real or supposed favors with which he was showered, is the State, the State of divine law71. He also writes: “The Emperor Titus wanted the public to know of these events only from my books, so much so that he initialed them with his own hand and ordered their publication72. If this attitude of Titus became an imperial policy continued after his death, it may explain the rapid disappearance of Justus of Tiberias' book on the History of Jewish Warfare.

Was Josephus anti-Romans or pro-Romans in Galilee?
Ruins of the Roman theater in Tiberias

Was Josephus sent as the sole ruler of Galilee as the Jewish War says or were they three as Josephus recounts in his Autobiography73? What was his mission? Was he a general selected by an assembly in Jerusalem to bring war against the Romans in Galilee, as described in the Jewish War73? Or was he sent with two other priests as an emissary of the aristocracy of Jerusalem in order to maintain peace in Galilee, as he writes in his Vita73?

Josephus in Tiberias
Justus also held that Josephus and his army of Galileans were responsible for anti-Roman actions against his city of Tiberias74 (Vita 340 and 350). We can deduce from Vita 353 that Justus accused Josephus of brutality at Tiberias74. When he arrived in Galilee the first thing that Flavius ​​Josephus recounts in his Vita is the destruction of the palace that King Agrippa possessed in Tiberias, followed by the murder of all the Greek inhabitants of the city. According to him, when he had not entered the city, he asked the authorities of Tiberias to destroy Herod's palace which contained paintings violating the aniconism advocated by certain tendencies of Judaism75. While the council of Tiberias, in which the father of Justus sat, was very reluctant to carry out this decision which emanated from Jerusalem, the archon of the city who also led the anti-Roman tendency, Jesus son of Sapphia, would have set fire to the palace and killed all the Greek inhabitants of the city75 (V 66-67). For Shaye J. D. Cohen, this relationship is probably false75. If he played no part in these events and in the subsequent looting of the palace, how could Josephus and the council of Tiberias control the spoils resulting from this looting75? Josephus claims that he simply took this booty from the hands of the criminals and gave it to Julius Capella, leader of the tendency of those who wanted "to remain faithful to the Roman people and to their king"76 in order to preserve the interests of Agrippa75 (V 68-69). How could he control the loot if it had nothing to do with looting75? Cohen speculates that Josephus and Jesus initially cooperated in destroying the palace and in the subsequent massacre.

But why did the events in Tiberias during the revolt become a problem thirty years after the events77?

Philip of Bathyra, the Batanea and Gamala
Besides the fact that 85% of his Autobiography is devoted to the 623 to 8 months of Josephus' life where during the Great Jewish Revolt he was the governor of Galilee appointed by the rebels of Jerusalem (late 6678 - c. June 67 ) and the great importance given to the attacks on Justus23, it is surprising that such an important place is devoted to Philip of Bathyra, to some of his relatives, to the Batanea and to Gamala79. The only link between these characters and Justus of Tiberias seems to be a relative of Philip called Jesus, married to one of Justus's sisters79. This couple would have been killed by the revolutionaries in Gamala at the same time as a relative of Philippe and Jesus called Chares79,80. But the Jewish War provides a very different version of Chares' death. What is surprising is that this fact seems to be the motivation of Josephus to make several developments on Philip which totally contradict the information he had given in The Jewish War81. For example, in the Vita, Philip is no longer sent in October 66 by Cestius Gallus to report to Nero who was then in Achaea (Greece), but he was sent to Rome by King Agrippa on the recommendation of Vespasian82 because he was accused of anti-Roman acts, a few months before the suicide of this emperor (June 9, 68). The situation of civil war that he encountered on his arrival in Rome also allowed him to return without even having been brought before Nero. Philippe is also a relative of Chares who, at least in his absence, is the leader of the inhabitants of Batanea who have taken refuge in the fortress of Gamala83. In the Vita, Chares seems presented as a brother or relative of Jesus who married a sister of Justus of Tiberias, although the two passages concerned (§ 185-186 and § 177-178) (the second referring to first) are particularly confused, because they are impossible to reconcile79. In 66-67, Chares was one of the leaders of the fortified city together with a Joseph qualified as the son of the woman doctor79,Note 5. In the Jewish War, Chares led with Joseph the resistance to the Romans79 until the last moment and died during the capture of the city, in November 6784, the same day as his alter ego: he sick in his bed and Joseph trying to get out of the ramparts85, Cit. 2. On the contrary, in the Vita, he is killed by the revolutionary inhabitants of Gamala, led by this same Joseph, at the same time as his relative Jesus, before Flavius ​​Josephus arrives in Galilee79 shortly after the defeat of Cestius Gallus the 8 Dios86 (late October 6687). Information that Shaye J. D. Cohen considers somewhat difficult to reconcile79. Were there several rulers called Chares in Gamala? In this case, why Josephus who nevertheless tries to answer at length what Justus said, who obviously had disputed his version, did he leave such ambiguity without providing the slightest precision? (See on this subject: Problems on the identities of some of the parents of Philippe de Bathyra.)

After saying that Agrippa dismissed Varus and replaced him with Aequus Modius when he learned that he intended to "slaughter the Jews of Caesarea (Philippi) by the tens of thousands in a single day, with women and children”, the Vita (§ 61) indicates “as I have explained elsewhere”50, Cit. 3. Some critics believe that this refers to § 483 of Book II of The Jewish War. However, Shaye J. D. Cohen disagrees because this passage is much less detailed than that of the Vita and does not even mention Aequus Modius88 or even Varus' intention to massacre the Jews of Caesarea Philippi and only speaks of the massacre of the delegation of 70 deputies from Batanea en route to the capital of Agrippa89. Cohen notes that book XVII of the Jewish Antiquities promises a more complete treatment of the theme of the Babylonians of Batanea and the descendants of Zamaris and Joachim50. This promise is nowhere honored in the Antiquities50, we do not know if it is an oversight by Josephus or if this passage was subsequently removed.

For Shaye J. D. Cohen, it is obvious that we cannot find exactly what Justus said or what was rumored about what happened in Gamala in 66-6781. The mere requirement for contextual information about Gamala's story cannot explain the extraordinary amount of detail provided about Philippe and Gamala81. For him, “in any case, the Jewish Antiquities and the Vita demonstrate a great interest in Gamala, the Batanea and Philip, much greater than what a simple refutation of Justus would have required81. »

Josephus is revealed to be "Pharisee"
In the Vita, an important theme is Josephus' claim to belong to the Pharisees90. According to him, at the age of 16 he did an internship with the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, then spent three years with a Baptist called Bannous91,Note 6 (Βάννουν), who "lived austerely in the desert92" and "bathed several times day and night in cold water". He allegedly “returned to the city at the age of nineteen93” and then “began to get involved in public life93”, embracing the “sect”Note 7 (αἱρέσεις) of the Pharisees93,90. Obviously, in writing this, Josephus “does not expect his readers to remember his assertion made 20 years earlier94 that the Essenes need three years to be fully admitted into the group95. ". This data makes his three years of study in the three schools as well as with Bannous95 very unlikely. If he really stayed three years with Bannous, what he writes becomes even impossible95. For Shaye J. D. Cohen, “the chronological impossibility of this section may be a sign not of textual corruption, but of its falsity: Josephus has three years to study with Bannous because his tour of the academies is imaginary96.

For him, "his claim to be a Pharisee—an important part of the Vita's religious apologetics—is probably false as well,"96 but his position on this probably changed in the 90s. Josephus would have been a Pharisee since his youth, but would not have said anything about it, nor allowed it to appear, in the 26 books which preceded the writing of the 20th volume of Judaic Antiquities. Certain passages from these books have sometimes even been very critical of this group98,99. Although Josephus has been a Pharisee since his youth, for unexplained reasons, he does not say a word of the great Pharisee sages Gamaliel the Elder, Hillel the Babylonian100, Yoḥanan ben Zakkai and Shammai. If the latter hides behind the one he calls Sameas, why does he associate him with a character who seems to be Abtalion (Pollion) thus suggesting that it is Shemaya, because it is him, and not Shammaï, which formed a zug (pair) with Abtalion101. These absences and this confusion are very strange for a well-informed historiographer, especially if he is a Pharisee. At the same time, he also seems to confuse those whom he calls Pollio and Sameas102, who however, regardless of Sameas' identity, are Pharisees103. However, for Robert Eisenman, the lack of precision and the terminological shifts in Josephus do not relate only to the Pharisees, but to all the Jewish sects he describes, in particular the Essenes and the revolutionary groups103, whereas all the critics note that he never gives clear definitions of the Fourth Philosophy, the Sicarii or the Zealots, nor does he indicate from which groups they come104.

Through a multitude of details, Josephus even presents himself in his Vita as strictly observing the prohibitions of the Torah105 and it is his adversaries (John of Gischala or the delegation sent to depose him) whose piety would be false106. This theme is absent from The Jewish War. This motive is clear at the beginning of the episode of the delegation responsible for dismissing him from office90. In the Vita, “Josephus admits that Simon ben Gamaliel was the driving force behind the attempt to dismiss him (V 190, 193-196) and that three of the four members of the delegation sent from Jerusalem were Pharisees90 (V 197)”, whereas that the parallel passage in book II of the Jewish War (626) says nothing about it and does not even mention Simon105.

Simon son of Gamaliel
Thanks to the Vita we therefore learn that it was Simon ben Gamaliel who chose the delegation responsible for dismissing Flavius ​​Josephus111. This attempt was fomented by Jean de Gischala, because of his jealousy (V 189)111. Simon is presented as a longtime friend of Jean111, himself presented as the worst (leste) brigand in the Jewish War114. This son of Gamaliel the Elder115 – a Pharisee authority totally absent from the books of Josephus – is said to have organized the payment of a bribe to the high priest Ananias so that the latter validated the dispatch of a force to depose him111. What is most surprising is that in the very sentence in which Josephus recounts this, Simon and his family receive dithyrambic praise111, Cit. 5. According to the Vita, Simon “was of very illustrious birth, a Pharisee of a sect, and therefore attached to the observance of our laws, a very wise and very prudent man, capable of conducting great affairsCit. 5”111. Whereas when he had written the parallel passage of Book II of The Jewish War116 twenty years earlier, Josephus had considered that “Simon was not worth mentioning111. Called Symeon, he appears only in book IV of the Jewish War as one of the leaders who, at the beginning of 68, pushed the people to resist the Zealots111. The pretext put forward for this sudden mobilization is that the Zealots who have occupied the Temple since the beginning have now decided to appoint the high priest by drawing lots from among the priestly families117. The fate designated Pinhas ben Shmuel whom Josephus presents as a "boor115" who does not even belong to a family of chief priests117,Note 8. In The Jewish War, nothing more is said about Simon Jr. of Gamaliel, it is not even mentioned that he is a Pharisee111. Until the writing of the Vita, this was the only mention of a member of the Gamaliel family. It seems that for Josephus "between the writing of The Jewish War and the Vita, Simon's importance increased dramatically." Yet the latter was killed during the revolt, but it is his son Gamaliel the Younger who since 80-85 has been the leader of the Yabneh Academy118. He seems to be the first to receive the prestigious title of nasi (“prince”, often translated as “president” or “patriarch”)118. This Academy was created by the Pharisee Yohanan ben Zakkaï with imperial authorization after the capture of Jerusalem, then Yohanan seems to have transformed it into an "assembly" or "synod", with the aim of substitute it to the Sanhedrin which disappeared after the ruin of the Temple119 (70). The election of Gamaliel by the rabbis was confirmed by the Roman governor of Syria118. The influence of the Pharisees has therefore considerably increased in Yabneh and Josephus needs their support111. Can we conclude that they are also influential in Rome111? However, at the end of the reign of Emperor Domitian, Gamaliel the Younger stayed in Rome at the head of a delegation from the Academy of Yabneh (Talmud of Babylon, Sanhedrin, 39a, 90b-91a; Midrash, Shemoth Rabba 30) 120.

For Robert Eisenman, it is probable that Josephus was indicted by Domitian73. He may even have been swept away in the turmoil of the executions that took place during the persecution of Domitian and executed at the same time as Epaphroditus73 (late 95-early 96). For a large part of the criticism, the former secretary of Nero, who became secretary of the three Flavian emperors, is the literary patron called Epaphroditus, whom Josephus greets or thanks in all the works he published after the death of Titus6. However, as has been said, part of critics believes that the Vita was not written in 94/95, but after 100.

Absence of the Gamaliel family and the great Pharisees in the work of Josephus
While there are more than a hundred characters from Palestinian Judaism in his work, with the exception of the brief mention of Simon ben Gamaliel105 in his last writing, Flavius ​​Josephus does not at any time mention the Pharisee leaders who are members of the family of Gamaliel as Gamaliel l 'Elder or Hillel the Babylonian100, a relative of Gamaliel, possibly his grandfather112. Nor does he mention the Pharisee Yohanan ben Zakkai, his contemporary, founder of the Yabneh Academy after the capture of Jerusalem113. Likewise, Shammai, the other Pharisee ruler who forms a zug (pair) with Hillel in the time of Herod the Great who reigns from 37 to 4 BC. J.-C., does not seem to be mentioned, whereas it devotes a passage to Menahem the Essene who would have briefly preceded Shammaï in this function115,116. This absence of the Pharisee leaders in the work of Josephus is notable, because there is no doubt that they were very important figures in Judaism at the time117. Strange choice for someone who claims to have chosen at the age of 19 to be a Pharisee, as were Yohanan, Gamaliel, Shammai, as well as Hillel. The absence of Hillel, described as "Babylonian" in rabbinical sources, is all the more annoying since, according to the Talmud, it was the Ancients of Bathyra who promoted him to the rank of patriarch, that is to say these “Babylonian” Jews of Batanea, of whom a century later Josephus will have great difficulty in choosing a version about the behavior of their leaders during the revolt, in particular Philip of Bathyra and Chares.

His description of Jewish “sects”
His claim to have done an internship in each of the three main Jewish "sects", then to have spent three years with a Baptist called Bannous91, to finally embrace the "sect" (αἱρέσεις) of the Pharisees93,90, can be put in connection with the inaccuracies—even the confusions—that emerge from his description of the Jewish sects and the characters he describes as Pharisees, Sadducees or Essenes in the Jewish War and the Jewish Antiquities103. “Josephus Hellenizes his description of the Jewish sects by converting them into Greek philosophical schools, the main differences of which relate to questions of predestinations, free will and the immortality of the soul. The Pharisees are close to the Stoics (Vita 12), the Essenes to the Pythagoreans (AJ XV, 371), the Sadducees to the Epicureans (Vita 10-12)91. For a young aristocrat to attend three academies and then choose a philosophy of life "is normal Hellenistic procedure but seems to bear little relation to Jewish reality." We find a similar educational path in the autobiographies of Nicholas of Damascus, which serves as a source for Flavius ​​Josephus and Aristotle, or in the biographies of Justin of Nablus, Claudius Galen and Apollonius of Tyana119. Perhaps Josephus modeled his Autobiography on the Hellenistic system or on these biographical descriptions. Added to the “chronological impossibility96” of what Josephus recounts, this leads a large part of the critics to believe that these “internships” in three academies, then with Bannous, were probably totally invented96. Especially since the practices of this Bannous strongly resemble those of John the Baptist, but Josephus, who nevertheless claims to have spent 3 years with him, avoids saying which group he belongs to, as if he did not know70.

“Flavius ​​Josephus never gives clear definitions of the Fourth Philosophy, the Sicarii and the Zealots. Are they distinct or identical groups with another104? Assuming they all existed at that time, what were their positions before the outbreak of the war and what were their relations with the leaders of the revolt104. A huge literature has been devoted to this subject in an attempt to remedy the shortcomings of the documentation104. “The Jewish War never attributes any revolutionary activity to the Essenes, Sadducees or Pharisees. An isolated individual called John the Essene fights the Romans (GJ II, 567; III, 11 and 19)120", but the Essenes as a group no longer appear after Josephus' long description of them (GJ II, 120 -161)120.

“One of the problems with Josephus' description of the sects of Judaism is that, since he covers a time span of 250 years, it is unclear to what period his view applies70. » For Robert Eisenman, even for the period he lived, « he often acts with dissimulation, because of his embarrassing relations with sectarian groups and his past as a revolutionary70. "As can be seen in his War or his Vita, he was kept under tremendous pressure to explain his past and to justify actions that enabled him to survive, and he constantly defended himself against attacks on his conduct and his loyalty to Rome. For Eisenman, it is probable that Josephus was implicated by Domitian at the time when Epaphroditus was executed and it was during this period that his Vita70 was written.

Moreover, members of the movement created by Jesus or that of John the Baptist are totally absent from the Jewish War. Only the execution of James the Just the brother of Jesus leader of the church of Jerusalem in 62 is mentioned in the Jewish Antiquities written 15 years later. But the movement itself is totally absent from all of Josephus' writings.

John of Gischala
The presentation of John de Gischala in the Jewish War is without appeal. According to Josephus, he was "the most artful and the most scoundrel of all those whom their perfidy has illustrated [...] destitution had long hampered his wickedness: always ready to lie, skilful in giving credit to his inventions, he made himself a merit of deceit and used it against his most intimate friends. He affected humanity, but greed made him the most bloodthirsty of men. “He ended up forming a band of four hundred companions, most of whom had escaped from the countryside of Tire and the towns of this territory. With them he held the whole of Galilee to ransom and exploited a people held in suspense by the expectation of the coming war. He willingly attacked Jewish property132, he was more of a lestes133 (a brigand) than a revolutionary134. Although the Vita has no affection for John, this extreme characterization is almost absent. John is never called there "leste" and he never attacks Jewish territories there134. In The Jewish War, Josephus indicates that John was “at first a brigand operating in isolation133” then that he found “later, to reinforce his audacity, a few accomplices, whose number grew with his success133. While in the Vita, Josephus recounts on the contrary that “seeing that certain fellow citizens were very excited by the insurrection against Rome, [he] tried to restrain them and asked them to remain faithful135. It was only because his town, Gischala, had been attacked and pillaged by the surrounding Greek towns that he armed his followers136,137. For Shaye J.D. Cohen, it is because Josephus decided to treat John much better than he had done 20 years earlier that his initial participation in the war is explained in an almost apologetic way136. In the Vita, John is presented as an innocent victim of the circumstances which compelled him to fight136. He is an enemy of the Romans, but a friend of the aristocrats, notably Simon ben Gamaliel (V 192)138. As with the latter, Josephus' appreciation of John changed considerably139,136. When The Jewish War was written, John had been sent to prison after participating in the triumph of Vespasian and Titus celebrating the capture of Jerusalem. Nothing is known about John's life after this event. What is the reason for this important change in Josephus' appreciation of John's role?

"Josephus claims that John's followers were mostly refugees from Syrian towns (GJ II 588 and 625, V 372), but it is clear that John enjoyed considerable support not only at Gischala (V 76) but also in the villages of Lower Galilee (V 237)138. Some of the critics believe that Josephus is hiding that he was not the only ruler of the Galilee and that he was only the governor of the lower Galilee, while it is possible that John of Gischala exercised the corresponding function for the Upper Galilee. Shaye J. D. Cohen believes that John may have been the governor of Galilee before the revolt and that he would have been kept in office by the revolutionary leadership of Jerusalem, as Niger of Perea was the archon of Idumea (GJ II 566 )138.

Josephus' vagueness about Jewish sects became even more apparent when, in the 1990s, scholars finally gained access to all of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and especially when a pirated first edition of the referenced letter as 4QMMT was published121. This led Lawrence Schiffman to hypothesize that the group that hid the scrolls were the Sadducees. Most critics did not follow him on this point, but revised their position about the Essenes and then considered that they respected rules of purity close to those of the Sadducees and that the leaders of the movement belonged to families priests claiming to be from Zadok122, whereas the indications provided by Josephus had led them until then to think that they were close to the Pharisees123,124. Likewise, the idealized descriptions of the Essenes by Josephus and Philo of Alexandria on what might be called the "non-violent" aspect of the Essene doctrine, even leading them to refuse to possess weapons125, seemed totally puzzling after analyzing the Dead Sea Scrolls. Indeed, the authors of the manuscripts and therefore those who gathered and hid them, are literally obsessed with the "ferocious Kittim126", behind whom one easily recognizes the Romans127 and whose numerous writings speak of apocalyptic wars that will have to be bring against them "at the end of time", an ideal period which the authors of the manuscripts considered imminent, while in other respects their practices corresponded to the descriptions of the Essenes by Josephus and Philo of Alexandria. However, Philo died around 50, while Josephus wrote after the revolt in which he moreover participated, and he therefore knows perfectly well what the attitude of each of the "sects" was.

A version of the notice on the Essenes found in Hippolytus of Rome (Refutation of all heresies) seems to resolve these contradictions, because it indicates that both the Zealots, also called Sicarii, and what seems to be the Fourth philosophy are late tendencies resulting from of the Essenes128,129 (see § Origin of the Fourth Philosophy). However, part of the criticism does not take this attestation into account, believing that it is not Hippolytus who is the author, but a "schismatic" pseudo-Hippolytus who strongly opposed Pope Callixtus at the beginning of the 3rd century.

For Robert Eisenman, while the characters to whom Josephus gives the "sectarian" membership are extremely rare, the confusion of Flavius ​​Josephus - voluntary or not - leads him to put forward characters like Menahem, presented as an Essene, or like Tsadok, self-styled Pharisee, who created the Fourth Philosophy with Judas the Galilean, who according to him behaved completely the opposite of what the group Josephus said they belonged to advocated103.

Justus' brother
In § 41 of his Vita, Flavius ​​Josephus writes "I will show more particularly in what follows what was [the] malice [of Justus], and how how he and his brother nearly caused the entire ruin of their country. However, "although he devotes considerable space to Justus, Josephus fails to fulfill his promise to show how Justus' brother came near becoming a cause of ruin." » For Steve Mason, « the anonymous brother of Justus remains one of the most enigmatic figures of the Vita141. He is then mentioned retrospectively, in §§ 177-178, “where Josephus recalls that in a conversation with Justus, that before Josephus arrived in Galilee, the Galileans cut off both his hands for having falsified documents141. This seems to be the only other mention of Justus' brother. In §186, the text of the Vita indicates or suggests that this brother was the Jesus killed by the revolutionaries at Gamala, but this passage refers to what Josephus wrote in § 178, where the one who was killed was not the brother of Justus, but his brother-in-law. These two passages, deemed totally incompatible, plunge translators and exegetes into great perplexity79,141 and lead them to provide several translations of these mutually incompatible passages. However, even if this Jesus is the brother of Justus, despite what is announced in § 41, in no way does the text of Josephus indicate how the brother of Justus nearly “caused the entire ruin of [his] country”140, or even anything close to it.

Biographical elements given in this Vita
Josephus was born in Jerusalem in 37/38142. In this Vita, he sets great store by his quarters of nobility. He belongs to a priestly family of the Jehoyarib class to which the Hasmoneans had attributed the first place, because Mattathias was theoretically one of them144. Through his mother, he is related to the Hasmoneans. He received the rabbinical education which was appropriate in wealthy families. “He has a very good opinion of his intellectual abilities143”, citing his “reputation for memory and superior intelligence (Vita)143. He says that around his fourteenth year the “high priests and notables of the city came to see [him] to learn from [him] such and such a particular point of the law143. »

Josephus also indicates that when he was sixteen years old, having the desire to learn the various opinions of the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes, who according to him formed the bulk of the Jewish "sects", he "learned from all of them, and tried them with a lot of work and austerity”145 so that, knowing them all, he could attach himself to the one that seemed to him the best. After that, he would also have spent three years with a hermit in the desert called Bannos, whose customs André Paul compares to those of John the Baptist: "contenting himself for clothing with what the trees provided him, and for food, from what the earth produces spontaneously, and using [using] frequent ablutions of cold water day and night, for the sake of purity”146.

In 63-64, he was sent to Rome and successfully negotiated with Poppea, wife of the Emperor Nero, the release of priests accused and imprisoned by the procurator of Judea, Antonius Felix147. This is how we learn that the emperor's wife is a convert to Judaism (theosebes)148.

Returning to Jerusalem after the start of hostilities in 66, he was appointed military commander of Galilee by the authorities at the start of the revolt against the Romans149. He took an active part in the First Judeo-Roman War during which his command struggled to impose itself, in competition with other regional leaders of the revolt such as Jean de Gischala and Justus of Tiberias149. According to the version of the Vita, it is because he is moved by "jealousy" that Jean de Gischala seeks to have him deposed by the authorities of Jerusalem, whereas in the War of the Jews Jean suspected him of playing a double game. and spread the rumor that he was betraying. He manages to obtain his dismissal, but according to him Josephus, by bringing into play other influences in Jerusalem, still remains in his post.

He surrendered to the Romans at the start of Vespasian's campaign in Galilee (spring 67). According to his accounts, during the capture of the Jewish garrison of the fortress of Jotapata, present-day Yodfat, where hundreds of soldiers were killed and most of the others committed suicide, he was trapped in July in a cave with forty of His companions. They refused to surrender to the Romans and committed a collective suicide, from which only Josephus and a companion survived, because "a drawing of lots intended to fix the order in which they would reciprocally kill each other, designated Josephus150" for perish last with this companion (see Josephus Problem). After the massacre of their comrades in arms, “he succeeded in convincing him to choose life with him150”, to finally give himself up to the general-in-chief of the Roman troops Vespasian and his son Titus149. This version seemed highly unlikely to many critics. According to him, to the first, Josephus promises the empire, in an oracle inspired by the messianic prophecies contained in the Judaic holy books151.

This prediction, which is part of the Flavian propaganda in search of legitimation of divine essence151, earned him his release in 69 with the status of freedman, shortly after the appointment of Vespasian as emperor. He joins his new protector in Alexandria. From then on, he placed himself in the service of the Romans as an intermediary, interpreter and negotiator between them and the Jews during the siege of Jerusalem led by Titus in 70149, which earned him a reputation as a traitor in the Jewish world152.

After the end of the great Judean revolt, in 71, he settled with his protector in Rome where he obtained Roman citizenship. He benefits from a permanent pension from the reigning dynasty with which he lives as a learned courtier149. It was during this period that he wrote all his known historical writings, the main non-Christian source on the period of the second temple in Jerusalem. He reports in particular the siege and capture of Masada in 74.

Flavius ​​Josephus was probably married three times. He repudiates a first wife, a captive from Caesarea. He then divorced his second wife, a Judean from Alexandria149 with whom he had a son, Flavius ​​Hyrcanus (en), and married again a Judean from Crete. “From these last two unions, there remained three sons: Hyrcanus, Justus, and Simonides surnamed Agrippa, of whom nothing is known elsewhere149. »

General sources




Editions

 * William Whiston, The whole genuine works of Flavius Josephus, Vol. 3, Blackie, 1859, p. 192f.