The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

5. According to War 615 John attempts to prevail in Tiberias through deception and
bribery, in which he was not very successful; according to Life 87 [the Tiberians] gladly accept
his offerings, “given that they were forever striving for innovations, were by nature disposed
to changes and rejoiced in upheaval.”
6. According to War 2.621 the Galileans joined forces to battle against John, according to
Life 98, [it was to battle] against the Tiberians. Correspondingly, in Life 99 they wish to raze
Tiberias, an idea that is suppressed in the War.
If each of these discrepancies, to which no one before has ever paid any attention
whatsoever, is considered separately, then hardly anything at all will be accomplished;
however, by considering them together we gain a fundamental realization. We constantly
notice that John and the people of Tiberias stand closely by each other according to the report
of the Life, whereas the War presents an account whereby the Tiberians are far away from
standing up for John; he attempts to incite them but does not succeed. Therefore, according to
the Life, the Tiberians join John on their own initiative, therefore the Life speaks about the
“unfaithfulness of the Tiberians”, and Silas, according to [the Life], reports on the disposition
“of the Tiberians” to Josephus. And because Josephus is abandoned by the Tiberians, it could
not be they who, in the Life, rescue the commander from pursuit by John, rather one of
Josephus’ companions (τις τῶν οἰκείων) makes him aware of the impending danger. Therefore
it is also [82] only natural that in the Life the anger of the Galileans partial to Josephus be
directed against the Tiberians. Conversely in the War: John tries to act among the Tiberians
through lying and cheating, but they remain distant; as a result of this, relatively “few [men]”
remain with John’s “plot” and it is the demos of Tiberias itself who alerts Josephus to the
impending danger. Therefore the Tiberians are also not persecuted by the hatred of the
Galileans, which is, on the contrary, directed exclusively against John.
If the discrepancies of both reports can therefore be ascribed to the deliberate
intentions of the author, then of course there are no coincidences or thoughtlessness at hand.
But we now also understand why there can be certain discrepancies in the face of the
correspondences that extend as far as linguistic details: various biases have been worked into a
fixed framework. At one point John alone is at fault whereas the Tiberians remain by Josephus’
side, at another point the Tiberians, of their own free will, are so willing to commit to John’s
propositions, that he [himself] eventually drops into the background.
74