DCHindley

She may be referring to the date of the translation. Whiston first published his in 1737, and does contain a fair number of quirky translations on the basis of emendations he had made, many times without telling the reader even in the dissertations at the end, which sort of serve as endnotes. Modern reprints, too, have omissions that may be due either to the author or to printers' errors.

I think he is tremendously valuable, as long as we keep in mind that his works are many times our only source for regional history in certain periods, and he had his own agendas (cover his own ass, since he was apparently a self admitted scoundrel, and promote the interests of his patrons, who just happened to be the emperor's family, an emperor to whom he owed his very life).

The Jewish War was published, in Greek, around 75 CE, and the antiquities around 95 CE, also in Greek. An account of the capture of Jerusalem by the Romans, and probably the basis of book 5 of the War, was published in Aramaic sometime in the early 70s CE and probably directed towards Jewish communities in Parthian controlled areas as propaganda to dissuade them from supporting any Parthian attempt to capitalize on Roman instability in Syria in the war's aftermath.

DCH

DCHindley

No, he's talking about Pompey:

Wars of the Jews 1:148-151

148 Now here it was that, upon the many hardships which the Romans underwent, Pompey could not but admire not only at the other instances of the Jews' fortitude, but especially that they did not at all halt their religious services, even when they were surrounded with missiles on all sides; for, as if the city were in full peace, their daily sacrifices and purifications, and every branch of their religious worship, were still performed to God with the utmost exactness. Nor indeed, when the temple was actually taken, and they were every day slain about the altar, did they stop the instances of their divine worship that were appointed by their law; 149 for it was in the third month of the siege before the Romans could even with great difficulty overthrow one of the towers, and get into the temple. Now he that first of all ventured to get over the wall, was Faustus Cornelius the son of Sulla; and next after him were two centurions, Furius and Fabius; and everyone of these was followed by a cohort of his own, who surrounded the Jews on all sides, and slew them, some of them as they were running for shelter to the temple, and others as they, for a while, fought in their own defence. 150 And now did many of the priests, even when they saw their enemies assailing them with swords in their hands, without any disturbance, go on with their divine worship, and were slain while they were offering their drink offerings, and burning their incense, as preferring the duties about their worship to God before their own preservation. The greatest part of them were slain by their own countrymen, of the adverse faction, and an innumerable multitude threw themselves down precipices; nay, some there were who were so distracted among the insuperable difficulties they were under, that they set fire to the buildings that were near to the wall, and were burnt together with them. 151 Now of the Jews were slain twelve thousand; but of the Romans very few were slain, but a greater number was wounded.

DCH

spin

Try here.

The text reads (with necessarily slavish translation):

eis de to ieron anaQhmata stellontes
but to the temple, gifts they send

Qusias epitelousin diaphorothti agneiwn, as nomizoien,
sacrifices they perform to difference of purity they practice

Qusias epitelousin diaphorothti agneiwn, as nomizoien,
sacrifices they perform to difference of purity they practice

kai di' auto eirgomenoi tou koinou temenismatos
and through (=because of) it/this they are barred [from] the common temple precinct (=people's court)

ef' hautwn tas Qusias epitelousin
on themselves the sacrifices they perform

It's a simple anaphorical reference to what had just been said, ie "because of this". Look at these for example (all anaphorical):

Mt 7:13 di' auths
Mt 27:19 di' auton
Jn 1:3, 7, 10 di' autou
Jn 3:17 di' autou
Jn 7:43 di' auton


spin

IamJoseph

He was less of a scoundrel than was Rome, which makes any propaganda understandable as that also applying to the Gospels. One has to read between the lines of Josephus in certain areas. His work is excellent in terms of stats and measurements, and perhaps the best prose of that period, which are factors not impeded by Rome.

The portrayal the Jews were too fanatical and could have saved themselves by compromising is false: Rome had an underlying angenda to destroy the only Monotheists in its empire, and represents the same agenda as taken on board by the forthcoming Roman Catholic church. My conclusion of this pivotal event in history: Rome won the battle but the Jews won the war. This was a war for the right to freedom of belief.

IamJoseph

Fair enough. The desecration of the Temple occured numerously, and this is also highlighted with Titus in 70 CE per the Josephus docs.