The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

managed to make his personal peace with Vespasian and Titus. Evidently it was desirable to
them to keep the leader of the rebellion in hand; and from the outset Josephus appeared
prepared to allow himself to be played in the service of Roman politics. On the other hand,
however, the course of the war also teaches that after the defeat of Galilee, the Roman
commanders did not directly continue to advance their attack, and it is reported to us
believably that they hesitated in the hope that they Jews would bleed themselves to death in
internal turmoil. From this it follows that the Romans actually faced a unified movement only
in Galilee at first, and that it is totally incorrect when Josephus allows the impression to arise
in the War that the war had already erupted before his posting and he himself departed for
Galilee merely as one of the commanders with a specific mandate. If this had been the case,
then the Romans would also have encountered a unified movement throughout the Jewish
territory and would have defeated these one by one, which they were in a military position to
do. [254] As matter of fact, things were completely different; to be sure, there were “robbers”
everywhere and nationally spirited Jews, but they at first exerted a decisive influence only in
Galilee due to Josephus’ politics; here was the focus of the rebellion, which had to be
extinguished by the Romans for that reason. When this had occurred, Vespasian’s task would
have basically been settled; but the robbers now continued their agitation in other areas and
they eventually managed to ignite a new second rebellion, as it were, in Jerusalem. The bloody
events, which happened in Jerusalem during the winter of 67/68, brought out the rebellion
movement in that place for the first time; the government was forcibly coerced by the zealots
and it appeared once again here as well that it was not in the position to gain control of the
warmongers without a means to power. Not until these events were the Romans induced to
resume the war, and so the interval in Roman belligerence is explained from [the fact] that we
are basically dealing with two movements, which admittedly are ultimately traced back to the
same people: the one movement is the rebellion in Galilee under the leadership of Josephus
contingent upon his relationship with the robbers; the other is the rebellion of the zealots in
Jerusalem, which did not break out until later.
From this course of events it is explained historically as well that in the year 66
Josephus could have had no idea that he stood within a great war against Rome; however, the
modern historian also must from now on beware of following the perception of the War [and]
86 The parallels with the Galatians are obvious here as well.
222