The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

grievances that were set down in writing, and he does this in order to justify himself before
those in power and along with them, before the people in Jerusalem. His report is the response
to the epistles of his opponents. It follows from this, however, that [the report] must have
originated from a time when the issues discussed in it were of interest to the public. [122] It is
therefore totally impossible that Josephus’ self defence, with all its details that were specific to
the moment, should have originated a generation after the events, because the problems had
fallen into oblivion long before. But I [shall] continue; already after the fall of Jerusalem no
person could have [continued to] take any interest in these incidents: Josephus himself had
made his peace with the Romans; he had broken his ties with Jerusalem, and it made no
difference whatsoever at this time whether John’s allegations were correct or not, the more so
as completely different issues affected Josephus himself.
Things lay the other way around at the time when Josephus had attained the office of
strategos in Galilee; just as his opponents wished to eliminate him by [their] epistles, he had to
stand up for himself by responding to their attacks. Consequently the text can have
originated only so long as Josephus was playing a political role; but this ceased
with his capture in Jotapata. As a result we have a fixed terminus ante quem. Now, this
consideration also corresponds completely to the other facts. We have already seen that
Vespasian’s invasion of Galilee did not belong to the old part [of the writing]; since this
incident, which led directly to the siege of Jotapata, the turning point in
Josephus’ life, is not reported although it must have imposed itself upon
Josephus out of personal interest, so it follows that our core report is older
than the siege of Jotapata.
And lastly: all the discussions of this chapter are pervaded by the fact, repeatedly
observed, that Josephus knew nothing yet about the Jewish-Roman War when he composed
the report. Up to now we have not been able to provide an explanation; now it is obvious that
Josephus remained silent about this war κατ’ ἐξοχήν because his writing originated at a time
when the course of this war and its consequences could not yet be surveyed. To be sure, the
skirmishes with the Romans did take place, but Josephus himself did not
suspect that a war would arise from them, which [123] would lead to the
destruction of Jerusalem; because unrest in Judaea had not stopped since the year 44,
indeed self-understood for a “tyrant”.
108