Here is the fifrth appearance of 'Josephus' in one of the surviving narratives. First the pseudo-Hegesippus:
But let us return to the plan, alarmed by the serious news Nero, things in Judaea not going favorably, placed Vespasian a man experienced in war in charge of all military matters which were in Syria. He hastily, for indeed no time for delaying was given, his son Titus having been sent to Alexandria, so that he should lead thence some part of the soldiers who were present, he himself the Hellesponts strait having been crossed hastened his steps into Syria. In the meantime the Jews elated by the favorable affairs choose leaders of the military for the war. They assign the places to which each would be in charge, what duties each should carry out. Joseph son of Gorion and Ananus chief of the priests they put in charge of the affairs of Jerusalem city and especially of restoring the walls. Eleazarus son of Simon desired ardently that something of the state offices be committed to him. But although he collected in his power all the booty they had captured from the Roman army, especially rich and fat, piled up by the avarice and unbounded robberies of Cestius, however having considered (him) more intent on preparing power for himself than appropriate for general benefit they determined that he should be turned down. But gradually by soliciting individually by giving by bribery he accomplished that the substance of all things should be committed to his control. Also one Jesus of the priests and Eleazarus the son of a priest placed in charge of military affairs received (the task of) guarding Idumaea, reserving however precedence always in the greatest matters to Nigerus the foremost man of all of Idumaea, Hiericho was allotted to Joseph of Simon, to Manassus was committed Perea a region located across the Euphrates to which from there tne name was conferred, because the Euphrates is crossed by those travelling to that region. Iohannes Essaeus, also another Iohannes the son of Anania and others assigned to various regions, which they were to protect with their care. And so each was not to forsake the duties committed to him, to build walls, to gather a fighting band.From whom Josephus descending into Galilaea, quickly took care to fortify the citadels, to establish defences, to join to himself the strongest and promptest to fight of the region, to restrain brigandage, to be present daily in the camp, to exercise the soldiers in the manner of the Roman troops, to distribute the ranks, to assign the centurions, to place most in authority (those) by whom discipline could be most easily exacted from everybody, lest anyone should escape notice whoever abandoned his individual duties. He put into effect even that they should recognize the summons and retreats of the trumpets, that they should follow the regular arrangement of the ranks, set straight the battle line, join together their shields, like a wall, if perhaps a great force of the enemy should make an assault, they should defend themselves against those making a charge, they should go to the aid of those hard pressed, to have compassion for the exhausted, to turn against themselves the dangers of others, not only to teach the arts of war like the Roman military but even before war to threaten which further assists fighters, as a soldier he should carry food for himself and arms, he should protect himself by a wall and ditch and he should forestall the enemy by placing fortified camps, he should obey orders, he should be accustomed to abstain from theft and robbery, he should think his gain appropriate if he inflicts nothing of expense upon rural farmers. For what distinguishes (him) from the enemy who himself carries off in a hostile manner things found, unless because it is more serious to attack his own rather than a foreigner's and to plunder his allies rather than his enemies? A good conscience avails much in war, because he anticipates more from divine aid who recognizes himself a connection of no crime. But from these things he experienced ill-will to have inflicted harm upon himself among the wicked more quickly than there was gratitude among the good. For when he had collected about sixty thousand foot soldiers, very few horsemen, those who fought for pay about four thousand men, also six hundred picked guards of his body, he took so much from the Jews, that more of peril before the war threatened from his own men than in the war itself from the Romans. I omit what of sedition was aroused, because it was suspected that they returned things seized by brigandage to those who had lost them, especially to Agrippa and Beronica, to whom things were rightly returned, lest they should make the king more hostile. But he however, by which he might soften the fury of the people, said that the money was saved for the construction rather of walls than for the indemnification of the rulers, and all those things which had been taken from Ptolomaeus, who had carried away the royal gold, garments, and remaining items; they judged that the Taricheatans to owe, for among them things were carried out, whether they thought it should be saved for the restoration of their walls, or whether it should be expended for plundering the robbers. It certainly seemed unfitting that he should receive punishment because he had planned better. And therefore these things having reversed he at the same time escaped ill-will and danger. Again when Tiberias had demanded the favor of king Agrippa and association, Josephus hurrying himself forth out of the celebrated city of the Taricheatians, closed the gates, lest any messenger should proceed to the city of Tiberias and point out that military assistance was lacking to Josephus. He however collected the fishing boats from the lake, which he was able to trace out in time, and he sought Tiberias by rowing, but when he came to that place, in which indeed a conspicuous display of boats had been stationed in the city, they were unable to be found out however whether they were empty of fighters, he ordered them to be scattered through the total space of the lake, that the number should be considered greater, nor could any be considered empty rather than filled with fighters, from which terrified, because they considered themselves powerless against such a great multitude, they threw down their arms and the gates having been opened they poured themselves out suppliant to Josephus, who as if the leader of a military host had approached nearer. It was sought by what madness finally they had put on the division in their minds, driven by what authorities were they about to surrender themselves to their adversaries. And at the same time those running up to him he ordered the governors that they should bring out Taricheas and with him almost six hundred members of the court, many of the people he seized in chains. Also Clituin the leader arraigned for his crimes he ordered to pay the penalty of his hands being amputated and he asking, that at least one hand be left to him, Josephus ordered, that he should take off for himself what he wished. Then he seizing a sword with his right hand cut off his left hand. And so Tiberias was recovered, but even Sephoris a separation having been attempted was nevertheless held fast by tenacity to Josephus among the cities (that were) partners of the Jews. He preferred to defend his own by peaceful policies rather than by attacking those hostile.[Hegesippus 3.3]
And then we follow with the parallel account in the received text of Jewish War:
But as to those who had pursued after Cestius, when they were returned back to Jerusalem, they overbore some of those that favored the Romans by violence, and some them persuaded [by en-treaties] to join with them, and got together in great numbers in the temple, and appointed a great many generals for the war.Joseph also, the son of Gorion, and Ananus the high priest, were chosen as governors of all affairs within the city, and with a particular charge to repair the walls of the city; for they did not ordain Eleazar the son of Simon to that office, although he had gotten into his possession the prey they had taken from the Romans, and the money they had taken from Cestius, together with a great part of the public treasures, because they saw he was of a tyrannical temper, and that his followers were, in their behavior, like guards about him. However, the want they were in of Eleazar's money, and the subtle tricks used by him, brought all so about, that the people were circumvented, and submitted themselves to his authority in all public affairs.
They also chose other generals for Idumea; Jesus, the son of Sapphias, one of the high priests; and Eleazar, the son of Ananias, the high priest; they also enjoined Niger, the then governor of Idumea, who was of a family that belonged to Perea, beyond Jordan, and was thence called the Peraite, that he should be obedient to those fore-named commanders. Nor did they neglect the care of other parts of the country; but Joseph the son of Simon was sent as general to Jericho, as was Manasseh to Perea, and John, the Esscue, to the toparchy of Thamna; Lydda was also added to his portion, and Joppa, and Emmaus. But John, the son of Matthias, was made governor of the toparchies of Gophnitica and Acrabattene; as was Josephus, the son of Matthias, of both the Galilees. Gamala also, which was the strongest city in those parts, was put under his command.
So every one of the other commanders administered the affairs of his portion with that alacrity and prudence they were masters of; but as to Josephus, when he came into Galilee, his first care was to gain the good-will of the people of that country, as sensible that he should thereby have in general good success, although he should fail in other points. And being conscious to himself that if he communicated part of his power to the great men, he should make them his fast friends; and that he should gain the same favor from the multitude, if he executed his commands by persons of their own country, and with whom they were well acquainted; he chose out seventy of the most prudent men, and those elders in age, and appointed them to be rulers of all Galilee, as he chose seven judges in every city to hear the lesser quarrels; for as to the greater causes, and those wherein life and death were concerned, he enjoined they should be brought to him and the seventy elders.
Josephus also, when he had settled these rules for determining causes by the law, with regard to the people's dealings one with another, betook himself to make provisions for their safety against external violence; and as he knew the Romans would fall upon Galilee, he built walls in proper places about Jotapata, and Bersabee, and Selamis; and besides these, about Caphareccho, and Japha, and Sigo, and what they call Mount Tabor, and Tarichee, and Tiberias. Moreover, he built walls about the caves near the lake of Gennesar, which places lay in the Lower Galilee; the same he did to the places of Upper Galilee, as well as to the rock called the Rock of the Achabari, and to Seph, and Jamnith, and Meroth; and in Gaulonitis he fortified Seleucia, and Sogane, and Gamala; but as to those of Sepphoris, they were the only people to whom he gave leave to build their own walls, and this because he perceived they were rich and wealthy, and ready to go to war, without standing in need of any injunctions for that purpose. The case was the same with Gischala, which had a wall built about it by John the son of Levi himself, but with the consent of Josephus; but for the building of the rest of the fortresses, he labored together with all the other builders, and was present to give all the necessary orders for that purpose. He also got together an army out of Galilee, of more than a hundred thousand young men, all of which he armed with the old weapons which he had collected together and prepared for them.
And when he had considered that the Roman power became invincible, chiefly by their readiness in obeying orders, and the constant exercise of their arms, he despaired of teaching these his men the use of their arms, which was to be obtained by experience; but observing that their readiness in obeying orders was owing to the multitude of their officers, he made his partitions in his army more after the Roman manner, and appointed a great many subalterns. He also distributed the soldiers into various classes, whom he put under captains of tens, and captains of hundreds, and then under captains of thousands; and besides these, he had commanders of larger bodies of men. He also taught them to give the signals one to another, and to call and recall the soldiers by the trumpets, how to expand the wings of an army, and make them wheel about; and when one wing hath had success, to turn again and assist those that were hard set, and to join in the defense of what had most suffered. He also continually instructed them ill what concerned the courage of the soul, and the hardiness of the body; and, above all, he exercised them for war, by declaring to them distinctly the good order of the Romans, and that they were to fight with men who, both by the strength of their bodies and courage of their souls, had conquered in a manner the whole habitable earth. He told them that he should make trial of the good order they would observe in war, even before it came to any battle, in case they would abstain from the crimes they used to indulge themselves in, such as theft, and robbery, and rapine, and from defrauding their own countrymen, and never to esteem the harm done to those that were so near of kin to them to be any advantage to themselves; for that wars are then managed the best when the warriors preserve a good conscience; but that such as are ill men in private life will not only have those for enemies which attack them, but God himself also for their antagonist.[Jewish War 2.20.3 - 7]
Believe it or not, this seemingly innocuous description of the beginning of military operations for the rebels is represents a transformational moment in our efforts. Everything is really downhill from here. I believe that a detailed examination of this section will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the surviving 'received' copies of 'first century Josephus' represent a deliberate reworking of a narrative written by 'second century Josephus' principally about 'first century Josephus' and his actions during the Jewish War.
As I have noted there undoubtedly was an original Aramaic narrative written in the first person by 'first century Josephus' which served as the template for 'second century Josephus.' Nevertheless the claims of our received text that it is that first century text are out and out lies. Our received text is properly defined as a deliberate reworking of the text known to Clement of Alexandria and presumably Origen as - in effect 'second century Josephus' - which in turn is the grandfather (or possibly 'father') of our surviving Latin Hegesippus. Let me say it again - Hegesippus more faithfully preserves the original material of 'second century Josephus' than our received text because the received text is trying to disguise itself as the original 'first century Josephus' which was likely lost to history at a very early period.
How do we know that the received text of Josephus's Jewish War is just the 'second century' Jewish War known to Clement with all the original Christianized narrative gutted? The answer lies in the strange third person narrative that extends through much - but not all - of Josephus's narrative.
No, I am not going to bring up the old argument that it is unreasonable to suppose that the Aramaic text of Josephus would have tried to imitate Thucydides. That's not a proof, that's an argument. Indeed, the third person narrative is also typically defended by arguing that 'first century Josephus' now living within the reconquered Palestine wanted to distance himself from lingering accusations associated with his war crimes.
The dangerous new question which comes from our recognition of a 'second century Josephus' at the earliest period of the transmission of the Jewish War narrative is the identity the historical 'first century Josephus.' By removing 'first century Josephus' as the ultimate author of our narrative, we are free now to place the rebel commander under the microscope - to prod and poke him - all in an effort to discover his true identity and separate the motives of the fourth century editor of the Josephan corpus from 'Josephus the general.'
Why does a critical evaluation of this section of Josephus challenge our inherited identity? Well let's just begin by saying that most people reading this post think they already know the answer to the question - he is Joseph son of Matthias and so have never even bothered to think that there might be a problem or that our inherited image of Josephus might have been deliberately developed by a fourth century editor to shield us from the truth.
Now that I have discovered this new wrinkle in the old problem of Josephus I find people are more interested in having me prove the identity of the 'second century Josephus' because the former question is already resolved for them.
Yet there is reason to think there is 'something wrong' with our knowledge of the identity of 'first century Josephus.' This section proves it.
So why does the Hegesippus tradition challenge our inherited notion of the identity of 'first century Josephus'? Well, let me introduce to you the understanding of Josephus that my mother was introduced to when she was growing up in schule in Switzerland.
At least a few of you might know the Yosippon which is universally acknowledged to have used a text related to - if not identical - with Pseudo-Hegesippus looked at what was written in Jewish War (as a quick side note the Arabic still retains the name Hegesippus through his name 'Yusibus') and took it for granted that Josephus was Joseph bar Gorion or as the Hebrew rendered his name Joseph ben Gorion or יוסף בן גוריון
Why were the Jews so ignorant of the fact that 'Josephus' was really 'Joseph son of Matthias'? We might suppose that maybe they wanted to develop Josephus into a relative of Simon bar Giora or make the innocent priest more of a militant. The footnote to the reference to 'Joseph the son of Gorion' in the above cited reference in the received text of Jewish War led to this mocking footnote from Whiston "From this name of Joseph the son of Gorion, or Gorion the son of Joseph, as B. IV. ch. 3. sect. 9, one of the governors of Jerusalem, who was slain at the beginning of the tumults by the zealots, B. IV. ch. 6. sect. 1, the much later Jewish author of a history of that nation takes his title, and yet personates our true Josephus, the son of Matthias; but the cheat is too gross to be put upon the learned world."
But is this really a 'cheat'? Are the Jews really pulling a fast one over the world identifying Josephus the revolutionary commander of Galilee as Joseph bar Gorion the brother presumably of Simon bar Giora the revolutionary commander of Idumea?
What Whiston hasn't done is look at the Yosippon (probably couldn't read Hebrew) or the Pseudo-Hegesippus textual tradition from which it derives. If he did he would see that the Jews were giving an accurate account of what their text actually says WITHOUT prejudicing that reading with accepted notions promoted among white people.
The natural reading of Hegesippus textual tradition is that 'first century Josephus' was Joseph bar Gorion:
They [the Jewish elders] assign the places to which each would be in charge, what duties each should carry out. Joseph son of Gorion and Ananus chief of the priests they put in charge of the affairs of Jerusalem city and especially of restoring the walls ... And so each was not to forsake the duties committed to him, to build walls, to gather a fighting band. From whom Josephus descending into Galilaea, quickly took care to fortify the citadels, to establish defences, to join to himself the strongest and promptest to fight of the region, to restrain brigandage, to be present daily in the camp, to exercise the soldiers in the manner of the Roman troops, to distribute the ranks, to assign the centurions, to place most in authority (those) by whom discipline could be most easily exacted from everybody, lest anyone should escape notice whoever abandoned his individual duties.
The parallel passage in the received text however clearly ADDS the name 'Josephus the son of Matthias' at a critical juncture in order to make this other Josephus appear as someone who only stayed in Jerusalem:
and [they] got together in great numbers in the temple, and appointed a great many generals for the war. Joseph also, the son of Gorion, and Ananus the high priest, were chosen as governors of all affairs within the city, and with a particular charge to repair the walls of the city ... [n]or did they neglect the care of other parts of the country ... John, the son of Matthias, was made governor of the toparchies of Gophnitica and Acrabattene; as was Josephus, the son of Matthias, of both the Galilees. Gamala also, which was the strongest city in those parts, was put under his command. So every one of the other commanders administered the affairs of his portion with that alacrity and prudence they were masters of; but as to Josephus, when he came into Galilee, his first care was to gain the good-will of the people of that country, as sensible that he should thereby have in general good success, although he should fail in other points. And being conscious to himself that if he communicated part of his power to the great men, he should make them his fast friends; and that he should gain the same favor from the multitude, if he executed his commands by persons of their own country, and with whom they were well acquainted; he chose out seventy of the most prudent men, and those elders in age, and appointed them to be rulers of all Galilee, as he chose seven judges in every city to hear the lesser quarrels; for as to the greater causes, and those wherein life and death were concerned, he enjoined they should be brought to him and the seventy elders.
This is patently obvious a deliberate addition - the second if we remember the preface - a purposive reference to misidentify 'first century Josephus.' The way that old scholarship used to belittle the attribution in the Yosippon was by assuming that it was ideosyncratic or implying that it represented some manipulation of the text by Jewish sources. The thing that these people overlooked of course was that the source of the reading was already present in Pseudo-Hegesippus and undoubtedly went back to the grandfather text known to Clement of Alexandria.
Indeed we are left in a position once again of having to decide between two positions - viz. whether (a) the heavily Christianized Hegesippus textual tradition deliberately changed Josephus's identification from son of Matthias to that of 'bar Gorion' or (b) as I suggest, that the fourth century editors of the Hegesippus material created 'Josephus the son of Matthias' as a distraction from the ill-repute associated with the name 'Gorion.'
I should mention that nowhere in the Pseudo-Hegesippus is Simon identified as 'bar Giora.' This name is introduced in the received text, indeed in the very section where 'Joseph the son of Matthai' is dropped into the narrative. In the Hegesippus tradition he is simply 'Simon' (go and check for yourselves).
Giora as a family name is unknown in rabbinic literature as far as I know. 'Bar Giora' means either 'proselyte' but giora itself is a most unflattering term in Aramaic having connotations of 'adulterer,' 'murderer' and similar slanders. The family name Gorion by contrast is well attested throughout the rabbinic writings and especially Nakdimon ben Gorion who is specifically associated with the rebels in Tractate Gittin. I will dig up specific evidence connecting Joseph and Simon as brothers shortly.
The point of course is that it should be readily apparent why the fourth century editor of 'second century Josephus' needed to change his name away from ben Gorion. The appearance of a 'purified' Jewish War - purified from all the Christian references and to the 'second century Josephus' who promoted them - was clearly one part of a two step plan which introduced 'Jewish Antiquities' to the world.
Why should retaining the identity of Josephus bar Gorion be problematic to the idea that this former rebel commander who only spoke Aramaic should suddenly decide to model a massive history of the Jews based on Dionysius's Roman Antiquities? The very name 'bar Gorion' must have always been remembered by the Jews even in the fourth century with revolutionary activity against the Roman state. The etymological origins of Gorion is goriah = 'young lion" and the Gorion family name is often preserved in this form (cf. Kidd IV.13, Mekh Mishpat 20 etc.)
It would be utterly incompatible to argue that the young revolutionary lion Josephus ever went over to the cause of Rome and the editors new it. To see a modern story of how the very name 'ben Gorion' summoned up Zionist aspiration one should read the modern newspaper story of David Grin who deliberately changed his name to 'ben Gorion' to emulate the romantic hero he read about in the pages of the Yosippon:http://www.forward.com/articles/123337/
Quote:
| Ben-Gurion, of course, was not an inherited last name like Johnson. Ben-Gurion’s father was named Avigdor Grin, and had his son David, who was born in the Polish shtetl of Plonsk in 1886, wished merely to Hebraize his surname in order to mark his commitment to Zionism and the Hebrew language, he could have called himself Ben-Avigdor. This is what many of his contemporaries did, such as his friend and political collaborator, Israel’s first president, Yitzhak Ben-Zvi (pronounced “Tsvee”), son of the Ukrainian-Jewish merchant Zvi Shimshelevitz. But Grin, who changed his name while he was a law student in Constantinople in 1912, wanted something with more Jewish historical resonance. He found it in Ben-Gorion (the “o” after the “G” is apparently the more correct vocalization), which first occurs in “The Jewish War,” the first-century C.E. historian Josephus’s account of the failed revolt of 67–70 C.E. against Rome. In describing preparations for the siege of Jerusalem as the Romans closed in on the city, Josephus writes, “Gathering in the Temple, they [the Jews] appointed additional generals to conduct the war. Yosef ben Gorion and the high priest Ananus were elected to the supreme control of affairs within the city, with special responsibility to raise the height of the walls.” Seizing on the similarity in sound between Grin and Gorion, the young law student became Ben-Gurion. Yet, in “The Jewish War,” Yosef ben Gurion is a minor figure who is never mentioned again. In all likelihood, David Grin had first heard of him not as an obscure general mentioned by Josephus, but as the supposed author of the 10th-century Hebrew “Yosippon,” an anonymously authored historical chronicle that was enormously popular with Jews of later ages. And yet, curiously, it was Yosef ben Gorion’s very disappearance from the pages of The Jewish War that was responsible for “Yossipon” being falsely attributed to him! It’s like this. The author of “Yossipon” depended heavily on a fourth-century Latin history called “Hegessipus,” which was in turn based on Josephus’s “The Jewish War,” and, misunderstanding a scribe’s gloss in his copy of it, he erroneously identified Josephus, whose Hebrew name was Yosef ben Matityahu, with Yosef ben Gorion. The logic behind the error was simple. On the one hand, if Yosef ben Gorion was such an important figure that he was given “supreme control” of fighting the Roman siege of Jerusalem, how could he just disappear afterward? And on the other hand, Josephus himself, so he tells us, was sent from Jerusalem to command Jewish troops fighting the Romans in the Galilee and was responsible for siege fortifications there. What more reasonable conclusion, then, that the two were the same man and that Yosef ben Gorion vanished from Jerusalem because he went to fight in the Galilee? And having been made, this mistake was then further compounded by later Jewish tradition — which, erroneously thinking that “Yossipon,” too, was written by Josephus, made Yosef ben Gorion its author. It was in this capacity that Yosef ben Gorion’s name was in all likelihood first encountered by David Grin, who decided to appropriate it. It was a name known to Jews by virtue of a mistake made about a mistake — neither of which, however, is quite as egregious as the mistake made in the Boston Globe |
The reality is that it makes a lot more sense to argue that the received texts claim about two brothers Matthias acting as governors during the revolt - viz. "John, the son of Matthias, was made governor of the toparchies of Gophnitica and Acrabattene; as was Josephus, the son of Matthias, of both the Galilees. Gamala also, which was the strongest city in those parts, was put under his command"[Jewish War 20.3] was developed from an original understanding of the brothers ben Gorion - Joseph and his brother Simon.
Indeed if I can ask again - why else was Josephus such an important war prize? Why did Titus send Josephus to the walls to address 'kinsmen' and the leadership of the rebels? What made Josephus so special? We will get to the parallel accounts of 'second century' and 'first century' Josephus in due course but let us note that each contains a different understanding of who Josephus was addressing.
To this end, while I have opened up a number of questions I can't possibly answer as completely as I would like in what should have been a rather short post, I want to back to our original purpose. Have we now at long last discovered a motivation for at least part of the fourth century editors falsification of 'second century Josephus'? I think so.
Remember it is important to note that the Hegesippus tradition - witnessed now not only by Pseudo-Hegesippus but also and more importantly the specific interpretation of the Yosippon among Jewry from the tenth century - shows that without the corrections of the fourth century editor it would be only natural to interpret 'first century Josephus' as 'Joseph ben Gorion.' This was the way the narrative was originally meant to be interpreted.
Despite pseudo-Hegesippus harsh words for Jews generally and their attempted revolt from Rome, his narrative supports what would become six centuries later the accepted Jewish interpretation of the material. It is impossible to believe that pseudo-Hegesippus 'changed' his original source to make Josephus more Jews, more rebellious, more involved in what he sees as the errors of the Jewish side in the revolt.
Rather the more sensible explanation is that the fourth century editor not only stripped 'second century Josephus' and his Christian interpretations but also the core identity of 'first century Josephus' buried within his narrative. This in order to facilitate and make almost believable the introduction of Josephus's 'other' historical work - viz. Jewish Antiquities. As noted it would be simply impossible to imagine that the 'young lion' at the heart of the rebel cause turned around and wanted to imitate Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Yet more than this I think it gets to the heart of what Eusebius (or someone like Eusebius) was attempting to do with all the texts under his stewardship.
He wanted to present Christianity and Christians as being completely compatible with 'good citizenship' in the Roman Empire. Let's not forget how bold Constantine's efforts must have seemed to many in the Empire. Now at long last we see not only the historical 'first century Josephus' but also the legacy of 'second century Josephus' being sacrificed for the sake of progress.
Nothing more epitomized the spirit of the Nicene age that the transformation which affects the Josephan corpus. The trumping of Roman ideals over even (pseudo)Christian identity should be duly noted.
