latrones - Get a Free Blog

LEISTAI IN JUDAEA
contradiction to this, we learn later from the same author that, as a rebel
leader, John found backing among members of the upper class, since he
himself came from the upper reaches of society. 65 When Josephus finally
asserts that John was no more than a common bandit, 66 his own conflicting
statements reveal the charge as groundless. Given such manifest attempts to
defame John, it would be dubious to call upon Josephus’ invective as historical
support for the claim that John was a social bandit who later became a
leader in the Jewish revolt against Rome.
There seems no doubt that John came of a distinguished family in Gischala,
and may be regarded as a member of the ‘ruling class of Judaea’. Goodman,
whose phrase this is, remarks correctly that John was treated with a degree
of respect by his conqueror, Titus, that would never have been accorded to a
common bandit. 67 Josephus’ references to his poverty were either plucked
from the air, 68 or at best might indicate that his family had lost its wealth
during times of economic and social crisis. 69
In total contrast to what he says about John of Gischala in his ‘Autobiography’,
in his ‘Jewish War’ Josephus sets out to lead his reader into believing
that John was some poor devil who, to begin with on his own account, eked
out a living as a bandit. In the course of time, he became the leader of a
gang of desperate but capable villains, four hundred strong, for the most
part runaways from Tyre and its region. With these robbers, John is supposed
to have gone plundering through Galilee. 70 These men were probably
the same as those who, in the more sympathetic account of the ‘Autobiography’,
sought vengeance for the pillaging of Gischala by neighbouring towns. 71
What we have to understand, whenever Josephus mentions ‘bandits’ and
their depredations, can be seen, for example, in his description of an incident
in which he sought to use plunder from a bandit attack carried out under his
own responsibility to finance the fortification of the city of Taricheae. The
booty came from an assault by a body of scouts under Josephus’ command
against members of the household of Agrippa II and Berenice. 72 Although
Josephus, at least officially, very much frowned on the event, it is telling
that these very ‘bandits’ escaped being termed leistai by him.
The key to understanding Josephus’ deprecation of John of Gischala
lies in the deep enmity between the two men, both originally champions of
the same ends. Such information we have on this, itself suspect, comes from
Josephus’ ‘Autobiography’, written a long time after the ‘Jewish War’. 73
Towards the end of his literary creativity, Josephus was, of course, so far
removed from events that he might again talk about even so bitter an enemy
as John in a fairly balanced way, though he could still not bring himself to
do this. According to the Vita, John had, probably also in 66, sought leave
from Josephus to seize Roman grain stores in northern Galilee; proceeds
from the sale of the grain were supposed to help finance the fortifying of
Gischala. 74 This method of funding war expenditure from confiscated property
was, of course, the very one that Josephus had, according to his own account,
101