The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

source is not necessarily the better one, in theory; for we are dealing with the same writer who
is recounting his own personal deeds; the factual knowledge is therefore the same and only the
elucidation [Beleuchtung] of things is different. Accordingly, it would still be possible that a bias
had also been worked into the older version for the sake of some specific reason or other,
which must lead to a distortion of the historical presentation no less so than was later the case,
but perhaps only in a different direction. This thought will have to be taken into consideration
even more, [97] once we have proven how greatly Josephus wavered back and forth in his
later evaluation of the incidents. Did this first occur from the moment when he remodelled his
old report for the sake of Agrippa and Titus and recorded the War in this spirit, or was he
guided by specific considerations or preconceptions when composing his oldest report as well?
An exhaustive examination of this appears all the more necessary. It will permit us at the same
time to advance beyond the treatment of source-critical problems to definite historical results.
Indeed, for everyone who wishes to gain information about Josephus’ life, this is primarily a
matter of the very important question of which attitude Josephus actually adopted in Galilee.
In order to answer this, an exhaustive inspection of the oldest report is necessary.
In the modern literature, as we noticed in chapter II.1, in many cases [scholars] took as
a starting point [their] observation that Josephus spoke so little in the Life about [his]
participation in the Jewish-Roman War and about his position as leader, which he occupied
during this same [war], and it was thought that the conclusion must be drawn from this that
Josephus had subsequently wished to conceal something here (cf. page 8). Now, this conclusion
was certainly false; for in truth the self-portrayal, in the form we have before us,
repeatedly emphasized Josephus’ leading role very forcefully — but the observation that
[originally] served as starting point was, at any rate, derived from a correct point of view: one
does, after all, read through the greater part of the Life, namely the actual administrative
report, without finding Josephus’ leading role during the Jewish-Roman War mentioned in it!
But one may not stop with the determination of this fact; rather one must add the observation
that the concept of the Jewish-Roman War, in the sense in which we use the word, was actually
still unknown to Josephus when he was composing the report about his deeds in Galilee. When
we take one look at Josephus’ use of language, then it becomes absolutely significant for
[understanding] his point of view.
When the author refers to his presentation of the War in his later works he uses the
87