The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

commander, whereas in truth it was really aimed against the man who exploited his status as
Jerusalem’s envoy in order to turn himself into the tyrant of Galilee.
We readily understand that Josephus felt the possibility of relocating the turning
point, which marks the beginning of the war, to an earlier time. Since the 40s it was brewing
persistently, and the battles between Jews and Romans did not cease at all. From this state of
affairs it follows that Josephus could not have had the feeling in the year 66 that he stood in a
new era of Jewish-Roman relations, however, we understand no less that from a retrospective
view he [later] included the events of this year within the period of the great war. Any
periodization of history is possible only from a certain distance and Josephus had not acquired
this [distance] until the war was over. In fact, even for the modern historian it is not easy to
identify the beginning of the war. If one generally follows the view of the War, then one should
bear in mind that classifying [the beginning of the war] in the year 66 along with [the War] is in
contrast to the feelings of the Jews, who still had no idea that they were standing in this war.
With this we encounter a second problem that is even more important. If Josephus had
no idea that the Jews were at war with Rome when he entered Galilee and even for a
considerable time later, then those events, which according to the War caused the war, and
which occur before Josephus was posted [there], cannot have had the significance that the War
assigns to them. After all, in the old administrative report Josephus’ mission, which was later
on considered to be against Rome, is understood to be aimed against the robbers. With this,
however, the question arises of how the Great War then actually may have come about after
the year 66. The War, of course, fails to answer [the question] and when Josephus comes to
speak about these same things later on in the Life, he is living within the realm of perceptions
[Vorstellungswelt] of the War [252] and glides over this key problem with a meaningless: “not
long afterwards” (section 407). Nowhere do we obtain a real answer to this question, therefore,
and only a combination can fill this gap in our historical outlook.
We are assuming that Josephus did not just shift the beginning of the war, but that he
wished at the same time along with this to have his own status as he entered Galilee perceived
differently. Both shifts are interdependent: that is to say, if Josephus went to Galilee as
strategos then the beginning of the war must precede this, and vice versa; so a personal motive
of Josephus was decisive for shifting the beginning of the war, which brought about a
deliberate falsification of facts [with respect] to the issue of his status in Galilee. Consequently,
220