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