aa5874

You mean "people" like Luke, Mark, John and Matthew?

And from which century were these "people"?

And what about "pseudo", I mean "pseudo"-Hegesippus?

Who were these "people"?

And do you know any one who met Tiberius, Herod, and Pilate?

stephan huller

Everyone,

Thanks for the continued interest in this project. I am proceeding through all of this acknowledging I don't know all the answers. Until last week I never imagined that I would by trying to test the existence of a 'second century Josephus' alongside a 'first century Josephus.'

First of all - avi - thanks for that reference to the third century manuscript. Will have to follow that up. Is it third century or fourth century would be my question. How do they know its third century? But still very useful. For those not paying attention the manuscript cites material cited in my last examination.

As to your question:

The best person to contact would be Steve Mason or someone like that. My guess is that Tacitus uses the Josephus narrative (or at least seems to). Whether or not the guy that wrote the narrative was named Josephus is up for debate (at least in this forum).

I have no doubt that a first century Jewish general named 'Joseph' did indeed exist. Why make that up? And does it matter if his name was Harvey Feinstein? Let's call him Joseph and move on.

There was a Jewish War. There were Jewish rebels. They had commanders. One of those commanders was named Simon. Another name that keeps coming up is Joseph. Both are common names. I see no reason to doubt this tradition.

As I point out in one of my posts THERE IS DISAGREEMENT as to the 'last name' of this Joseph. The one tradition developed from the Hegesippus which includes the Yosippon says his full name was Joseph bar Gorion. The other line of transmission which becomes authoritative in Christianity says he was the 'son of Matthias.'

Do I think there were could reasons to believe Eusebius or a fourth century editor like Eusebius trying to rehabilitate 'first century Josephus' ended up inventing a new pedigree for Josephus.

YES.

I am always partial to arguments which are supported by an existing tradition. The usual way to dismiss 'Joseph ben Gorion' is to assume that the Jews just 'added it' to the Yosippon but I have already demonstrated that it was already present in Pseudo-Hegesippus (at least implicitly).

With that you have the 'fiction' everyone at this site is always looking for. Joseph bar Matthias is an invention. He never existed or at least wasn't originally 'Josephus.' I have a theory how this developed but the obvious answer is Josephus's own use of a fictitious 'Josephus' to distance himself from charges associated with the massacre in Gamala. To this end, the Christian editor (when I am not exactly sure) just followed Josephus's lead 'covering his ass.'

One could even argue that 'second century Josephus' was a way of distancing the narrative from an original association with Joseph bar Gorion. The various transformations can all be seen as a way of getting around having a traitor to the Roman state as your source.

Why exactly Josephus was preferred over Justus of Tiberias is a very good question, one which I have never quite solved. Justus was a respected authority on Greek philosophy and a Jew. You'd think that would have pagans lovin' him.

My solution is to connect Justus to the messianic claims of Agrippa (vis a vis Origen's citation of a Jewish history referencing this idea). If Christianity was originally about Mark's messianic claims 'encoded' into his narrative - i.e. the 'gospel secret' argument - then it is understandable why Josephus was chosen over Justus as a tonic to the pre-existent Christian interest in Agrippa.

Mary Helena:

We have already demonstrated that the 'Joseph bar Matthias' identity is a fraud which opens the narrative. It reappears at the end again along with a claim that Agrippa liked Josephus. This is illogical as Justus was closer to Agrippa. Agrippa and Berenice are acknowledged in Vita to have spared Justus and most importantly Josephus concedes that he was actively attacking all things related to Agrippa including a palpable resistance to the RELIGION ASSOCIATED WITH AGRIPPA which is likened to 'sorcery' (cmp. Simon 'Magus,' Mark 'the magician' in Irenaeus).

Agrippa was still king while Josephus was writing his apologia (which is what Vita is). Justus was still prominent enough to be leveling charges against Josephus which ultimately prompts Vita (and undoubtedly the original account of Jewish War if Vita is not understood to develop from that narrative).

I see no reason for connecting Josephus as a friend of Agrippa merely because the manuscript cited by Eusebius says so. Forgeries and literary frauds are purposed.

Photius never mentions Justus being dismissed as Agrippa's secretary so we can presume that he never lost that post. Justus and Agrippa share the same weltanshauung. They loved Greek learning, philosophy and sought to blend it with traditional Jewish religion.

How on earth Agrippa can be reconciled with the same Josephus who only spoke Aramaic, who fought on behalf of circumcision (forcibly circumcising non-Jews), defacing the images in Agrippa's palace which were considered 'abominations' by the Pharisees - indeed a Pharisee through and through - is utterly illogical.

The only reason that scholars think that this is so is because they accept the statement in Vita uncritically. We have already demonstrated that at least part of the work is a forgery. The ending is highly suspicious.

The bottom line is that Agrippa favored the Sadducees. Josephus was a Pharisee. The two lines never meet. Josephus fought against Agrippa in the war and killed hundreds of Agrippa's friends and allies.

The claim in Vita is illogical. Totally illogical. If we are going to start looking for 'forgeries' in the literature related to the Bible this is the place to start.

maryhelena

So, you want to disregard what 'Josephus' writes about his relationship with Agrippa II as being illogical - and yet you want to accept what 'Josephus' says about being a Pharisee! Seems to me that a take your pick game is being played here....

If, as I think is the case, 'Josephus' is a literary figure, ie not historical, then, 'Josephus' can do and say whatever his creator needs him to do and to say. 'Josephus' can play any role that his creator needs him to play in the pseudo-historical story that is being created in which he is both the narrator and the participant.

And lets not forget the real big issue over 'Josephus' - the Jewish traitor who goes over to the Romans. Methinks Agrippa II would be putting out the welcome mat for such a 'Josephus'....:devil1:


added later

If 'Josephus' is not historical but a literary creation - then it could well be that the same template was used for 'Josephus' and for the NT 'Paul'.

Both Paul and Josephus were Roman citizens, both were shipwrecked on their way to Rome, both had a trade they continued to work at, both were educated men, both spent a major part of their lives in Rome, both were a 'thorn in the flesh' of their own people. (Paul was accused by the early Christians of teaching apostasy). Both Paul and Josephus were Pharisees, both spent time as Roman prisoners. Paul was originally named Saul, as Flavius Josephus was formally Joseph ben Mattias. Josephus was from the Aaronic priesthood and had royal Hasmonaean blood from his mother. Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin - the tribe designated to stay with the Aaronic priesthood and the house of David following the nations split into two. Paul was a former persecutor of Christians. Josephus had been an enemy of Rome. Paul said that circumcision was not required for Gentile Christians. Josephus likewise maintained that non-Jews did not require circumcision in order to stay among Jews. Paul was 'caught away to the third heaven', Josephus had prophetic dreams. Paul made a defence of Christianity before Agrippa 11. Josephus appealed to Agrippa 11 to attest the truth of what he had written in his history of the Roman/Jewish wars. Both had a friend named Epaphroditus.

'Josephus' goes over to the Romans - and is deemed to be a traitor to the Jews.
'Paul' goes over to the Christians - and gets charged with apostasy....

And of course, once one gets away from the gospel story timeline - dating 'Paul' post 70 ce allows for a Josephan connection - or at least a connection to whoever it is that is writing both of these stories......

stephan huller

It is also worth noting the close of the section we have been examining over the course of these posts. The Hegesippus concludes chapter three with the words:

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]

On the surface it agrees with Jewish War against Vita when we read in the parallel section in the received text:

And thus he took the people of Tiberias prisoners, and recovered the city again with empty ships and seven of his guard. Moreover, a few days afterward he retook Gischala, which had revolted with the people of Sepphoris, and gave his soldiers leave to plunder it; yet did he get all the plunder together, and restored it to the inhabitants; and the like he did to the inhabitants of Sepphoris and Tiberias. For when he had subdued those cities, he had a mind, by letting them be plundered, to give them some good instruction, while at the same time he regained their good-will by restoring them their money again.[Jewish War 2.21.10]

There are parallels between Hegesippus and Jewish Wars where they agree with each other against the narrative in Vita. This cannot be denied. However what is completely overlooked again is that Hegesippus differs completely from Jewish War in that it knows nothing of any reference to 'Gischala' which follows the clear later addition of the 'John of Gischala' in our received text.

So let me say it again - Hegesippus and Jewish War 'agree' because they go back to an original ancestor WHICH DID NOT HAVE ANY REFERENCE TO 'JOHN OF GISCHALA' or 'GISCHALA' in this section. Hegesippus is once again demonstrated to go back to an older source; Jewish War has been manipulated with 'later additions' unknown to Hegesippus.

Indeed if we look closer we can quickly explain why THE ANCESTOR of Hegesippus and Jewish War differs also from Vita which reads in the parallel section to what follows the common agreement in order of all three texts cited last:

Now the men of Tiberias, after I was gone to Taricheae, perceived what stratagem I had used against them, and they admired how I had put an end to their foolish sedition, without shedding of blood. But now, when I had sent for some of those multitudes of the people of Tiberias out of prison, among whom were Justus and his father Pistus, I made them to sup with me; and during our supper time I said to them, that I knew the power of the Romans was superior to all others, but did not say so [publicly] because of the robbers. So I advised them to do as I did, and to wait for a proper opportunity, and not to be uneasy at my being their commander; for that they could not expect to have another who would use the like moderation that I had done. I also put Justus in mind how the Galileans had cut off his brother's hands before ever I came to Jerusalem, upon an accusation laid against him, as if he had been a rogue, and had forged some letters; as also how the people of Gamala, in a sedition they raised against the Babylonians, after the departure of Philip, slew Chares, who was a kinsman of Philip, and withal how they had wisely punished Jesus, his brother Justuses sister's husband [with death]. When I had said this to them during supper time, I in the morning ordered Justus, and all the rest that were in prison, to be loosed out of it, and sent away. But before this, it happened that Philip, the son of Jacimus, went out of the citadel of Gamala upon the following occasion ... [Vita 35, 36]

In other words, we have our solution and it is very important. Chapter 35 of Vita explains that Justus and his father were part of the captives taken from Tiberias. Josephus claims that he ordered his release but never says he was actually released (which is clearly written to absolve him of the charge that he detained Justus illegally as a loyal representative of the legitimate authority in Galilee, king Marcus Agrippa).

But as we see in the beginning of chapter 36 cited here, in the true narrative of 'first century Josephus' the troublesome Gamala narrative originally followed the account of the capture of Tiberias. No one can deny this. Josephus is writing in the first person here. The original order of Josephus's first person account is:

the capture of booty in Taricheas
the capture of Tiberias
the removal of all its leading citizens to Taricheas
the account of 'another Josephus' slaughtering the citizens of Gamala

The three texts are in basic agreement up to the removal of the leading citizens of Tiberias to Taricheas. Hegesippus and Jewish Wars both strangely remove the Gamala account attributed to 'another Josephus' to much later in the narrative - i.e. AFTER Josephus is captured by Vespasian, thus proving once and for all that this couldn't have been Josephus perpetrating these dastardly deeds.

The order of the earlier narrative in Hegesippus is:

Taricheas - Tiberias - Taricheas - revolt of Sepphoris

The order of the later narrative in Jewish Wars is

Taricheas - Tiberias - Taricheas - revolt of Gischala (and then Sepphoris?)

Gishala again being a later addition. In either case however it is clear that the grandfather text which established all surviving texts of Jewish War decided (a) to summarize the Sepphoris account and (b) transpose the original order established by the first person account of 'first century Josephus' - i.e. Sepphoris, the capture of Josephus and then Gamala instead of Vita's order Gamala, Sepphoris AND THEN the capture of Josephus.

Why did the grandfather text - presumably written by the 'second century Josephus' and known to Clement - change the order of the original first person narrative of first century Josephus? The answer becomes obvious when you realize that he was writing a little over a decade AFTER THE END OF THE GREAT JEWISH REVOLT (i.e. the bar Kochba revolt which ended 135 CE).

First century Josephus's reputation DESPERATELY NEEDED rehabilitation. You couldn't have a Jewish traitor and rebel from the Roman state and rabid proponent of the rejection of Roman values, Roman culture and Roman ideals as the source for the understanding of what happened in the Jewish War, now could you? This is why Vita's details about what Josephus did in Sepphoris are glossed over in the grandfather text AND MOREOVER why the Gamala narrative is placed AFTER Josephus's capture.

The transformation of 'first century Josephus' began in the second century and wasn't complete or 'just right' until the fourth century edition of Eusebius.

stephan huller

No the actions described in Vita and elsewhere in the rabbinic literature (forced circumcision, prohibition of images etc) follow from the idea that the rebels were Pharisees.

Do you doubt that the rebels were aligned with the Pharisees whom Agrippa had looked over with regards to his high priest appointments? Do you deny that the rebel cause had the popular support of Jews? The Sadducees had everything to lose by revolt against their benefactor Agrippa.

I am not merely taking Josephus at his word. I am critically examining what makes sense within the parameters of history.

Justus of Tiberias was 'like' Agrippa and 'like' Philo and Alexandrian Christianity. Alexandrian Christianity represented a continuation of the Oniad high priesthood and thus it was Sadducean and specifically anti-Pharisee.

The basic line up of 'who was on who's side' is easy to figure out given the fact that the revolt was principally a revolt against king Agrippa's authority.

The rest falls into play quite easily.

maryhelena

I'm not questioning the fact that the rebels were associated with the Pharisees....
I'm questioning the historicity of 'Josephus'...
And, actually, I've not seen you provide any historical evidence to support the assumption that 'Josephus' was a historical figure....and that is the bottom line is it not?

stephan huller

I am not following your position. If the rebels were associated with the Pharisees and Josephus was a leader of the rebels how is it remotely plausible that Agrippa ended up befriending Josephus at the expense of his loyal ally Justus of Tiberias?

If Josephus is a fiction then we are still at the same place for how could a fiction be an ally of Agrippa?

The bottom line is that I see no evidence to suggest Agrippa's loyalty to Justus ever changed despite the claims of the conclusion of Vita.

Why are you arguing with me if you think Josephus is a fiction? The things people argue about at this place

maryhelena

Strange question....
So, you pick and choose what you want from 'Josephus'....
Well, you are the one posting long posts here re your ideas on 'Josephus' - and since the forum is about questioning what posters post - all I'm doing is suggesting an alternative view on 'Josephus'....

So, Stephen, where is your evidence to support your idea re 'Josephus' being a historical figure? You have managed to construct a long argument re a Josephus I and a Josephus II - the reformed or rehabilitated 'Josephus'. (rather strange since you don't accept Josephus writing about Agrippa I and Agrippa II and only want one Agrippa for your own theory...) but you have given no historical evidence for Josephus I - and yet you go on the create Josephus II. Perhaps it might be a good idea to get back to square one....otherwise you might find that you are building your castles upon sand...

stephan huller

Mary Helena

Let's put our thinking caps on. There are a number of texts which claim to be from 'Josephus' written in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Old Russian, Syriac, Ethiopic and many more languages. We also have testimonies from Ante-Nicene Church Fathers. The evidence presented in these sources is contradictory. As such EVERYONE is 'picking and choosing' what to accept as authentically Josephan. Steve Mason makes decisions as to what he accepts as 'authentic' no less than Smallwood, Flusser etc. It's called 'critical' interpretation of source material and nowhere is more applicable than in the surviving material associated with Josephus.

The safe way of dealing with the confusion is to assume that the MSS preserved in continental European churches dating from the 11th to 14th centuries is all authentic representations of the original first century Josephus who fought on the side of the Jewish revolutionaries and was eventually spared execution by Vespasian. I have presented evidence to suggest that Clement of Alexandria's testimony about 'Josephus the Jew' writing in the 10th year of Antoninus is revolutionary but unrecognized testimony about the transmission of our surviving Josephan corpus.

The bottom line is that no one has attempted an actual critical comparative analysis of the Hegesippus and the received text of Jewish War. No one. It was just assumed that the Hegesippus 'must' represent a condensation of Jewish War because Jewish War is the authentic original manuscript of Josephus.

I think I have found a number of arguments which challenge this inherited presupposition ranging from:

1) the testimony of Clement challenges the notion that Jewish War always was told from the perspective of 'first century Josephus.'
2) Eusebius's citation of what he calls the memoirs of 'Hegesippus' (a corruption of 'Josephus' in Greek) supports the implicit assumptions in Clement's testimony
3) Origen's echo of Hegesippus as a testimony found in 'Josephus' further edifies the original Clementine witness and might even argue for an Alexandrian textual tradition.
4) the fact the Pseudo-Hegesippus is told from the perspective of another 'Josephus' living long after 'first century Josephus' carried out the 'acts' described in the Josephan historical narrative supports the idea that there was a tradition - later attributed to a secondary figure named 'Hegesippus' - originally associated with a 'second century Josephus'
5) the fact that Pseudo-Hegesippus cites the original version of the Testimonium Flavianium (or what is generally assumed by most notable authorities) argues that he knows an older version of the Jewish War than our received text (which witnesses the fourth centuries of Eusebius or a parallel figure).
6) the fact that Pseudo-Hegesippus's Testimonium Flavianum resembles Origen's witness of what was in his 'Josephus' once again reinforces the idea that there was not only the so-called Hegesippus tradition (cf Eusebius) but that it was originally part of a literary tradition where the material in Jewish War was narrated by a Christian Jewish convert named 'Josephus.' This tradition is clearly present in Christian circles BEFORE the emergence of a Jewish War narrative told by a 'first century Josephus' (cf our received text).

This of course doesn't mean that there wasn't an original first person narrative told by first century Josephus but rather that there is no evidence this was ever used by Ante-Nicene Christians. My assumption then has been that the Christianized Jewish War narrative narrated by a 'second century Josephus' was ultimately modified to make it resemble the lost first person narrative of first century Josephus in the manner of Vita albeit STRANGELY still narrated in the third person now by the 'original' witness.

My assumption is that the reason why 'first century Josephus' appears in the third person in the received Jewish War narrative is because that narrative began life as being narrated by a second century Christian convert also named Josephus.

7) on the question of the historicity of Josephus the thesis I am developing here argues on behalf of the idea that underlying historical Josephus has his identity transformed when the Christian narrator was removed from the narrative. The presence of a Christian believer mitigated some of the inherent repulsive of the historical Josephus - i.e. in spite of the fact that Joseph ben Gorion was a misguided Jewish believer who denied Christ the fact that prominent Christian could still find confirmation of Christian doctrine in that 'Jewish testimony' essentially saved the material from the historical fire.

Once this 'second century Josephus' was removed from the Jewish War narrative Josephus's original identity as 'Josephus bar Gorion' became problematic especially in the fourth century. As a result the fourth century 'synergoi' transformed 'Joseph bar Gorion' into Joseph bar Matthias.

Medieval Jewry always attested to the true identity of Josephus but they were ridiculed and their arguments were judged by Christians to be self-serving (like the claims of Agrippa being the messiah of Daniel or that there was only one historical 'king Agrippa'). What scholars have never pieced together is that BECAUSE the Yosippon has been universally acknowledged to be dependent on the Pseudo-Hegesippus tradition the identification of 'Josephus' as 'Joseph bar Gorion' CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED SOLELY to later Jewish manipulations of the Josephan corpus. As I demonstrated in a previous post the identification of Josephus as 'Joseph bar Gorion' is the result of a natural reading of the CHRISTIAN source material at the heart of the Hegesippus textual tradition.

To this end the material in Jewish War 2.20.4 where 'Josephus bar Matthias' is introduced to a common tradition SHARED by Hegesippus i.e.:

[they] appointed a great many generals for the war. also Joseph 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.

When the narrative goes on to say 'Josephus arrived in Galilee' the introduction of this reference to 'Josephus the son of Matthias' is clearly meant to confuse the reader into thinking that 'Josephus bar Matthias' was the historical 'Josephus.' The original understanding was what is gained from the Hegesippus tradition (including the Yosippon) - i.e. Josephus was the aforementioned Josephus bar Gorion. This necessarily has to be seen as proof that the Joseph bar Matthias idea is itself a later corruption by fourth century editors who wanted to distance their beloved 'Josephus' from his original distasteful 'revolutionary' identity. Moreover this corruption HAD TO TAKE PLACE in order to facilitate the many other corruptions to the narrative to ultimately help rehabilitate his historical identity and make 'Josephus' appear like someone who could have eventually embraced Roman civilization and culture and ultimately emerge as someone who would have attempted to create a Jewish parallel to Dionysius of Halicarnassus's Roman Antiquities.

If you have something to say on the subject - for or against - the possibility that our existing Josephan corpus might represent a fourth century corruption of a Christianized text I would happy to engage you in a fruitful discussion. All these other tangents you have been developing really have nothing to do with the present thread.

stephan huller

Any claim that Hegesippus is a Latin translation of the received Greek text disappear when we move through the narrative. The received text moves on from the last point in our discussion to two paragraph description of Simon bar Giora ('bar Giora' being a name which never appears as far as I can see in Hegesippus) which - like its extensive 'John of Gischala' subplot - does not appear in Hegesippus. Here are the two sections when compared side by side.

First the account of Pseudo-Hegesippus:

But in fact the Periatian Niger and the Babylonian Sylas and Johannes Essaeus, collecting all that were in Judaea of strong young men, attacked Ascalonis, large however and a city defended by strong walls, but in want of aid and assistance, which was separated from the city of Jerusalem by 720 stadia and by great hatreds. Therefore the Jews wishing to destroy a city hostile to themselves rushed upon it with their collected troops. Antonius was in charge of the city with a lesser number of Roman troops than he considered to be able to resist the Jews. But a man of acute judgment and an equally experienced soldier he allowed them scattered and trusting more upon number than valor, his cavalry having been led out, to cross to the city, then he attacked those in advance, harassed those following, scattered those crowded together, put the disordered to flight and pursued those straggling over the entire plain. Others turned about are driven against the walls all possibility of flight cut off, others seek different ways but surrounded by the horsemen they are cut to pieces. Many fall down upon themselves and in turn scatter themselves in their impetuosity. And so until evening slaughtered they lost out of their troops ten thousand men, their leaders Johannes and Sylas as well killed. Few however of the Romans were wounded in that battle. The rashness of the Jews however was not restrained but inflamed. For grief aroused their daring and the disgrace called out eagerness of avenging themselves. They are armed therefore with greater by far fury and the wounds of the injured not yet healed and more having been collected than the first time they rush in to attack, but them having been caught by arranged ambushes, before they came into hand to hand combat, Antonius cut them off surrounded by cavalry, and surrounded ordered them to be destroyed. Once more eight thousand were killed, the rest [p. 192] having been put to flight. Niger himself having slipped away betook himself into a fortification. There was a tower, enclosed on all sides by strong rock, the Romans because they were not able to destroy it encompassed it with set fires. Them having been lighted having crossed over from the tower into a certain cave he lay hidden from the enemy, he escaped the fire, and untroubled by the Romans because he himself should have been consumed by the conflagration, after the third day his own troops searching for his body for burial, he is restored alive and flourishing. And so with great joy saved from the enemy he is presented to the Jews. [Pseudo-Hegesippus 3.4]

While the received text has a completely narrative save for the fact that both describe the organization of the Jewish resistance:

And thus were the disturbances of Galilee quieted, when, upon their ceasing to prosecute their civil dissensions, they betook themselves to make preparations for the war with the Romans. Now in Jerusalem the high priest Artanus, and do as many of the men of power as were not in the interest of the Romans, both repaired the walls, and made a great many warlike instruments, insomuch that in all parts of the city darts and all sorts of armor were upon the anvil. Although the multitude of the young men were engaged in exercises, without any regularity, and all places were full of tumultuous doings; yet the moderate sort were exceedingly sad; and a great many there were who, out of the prospect they had of the calamities that were coming upon them, made great lamentations. There were also such omens observed as were understood to be forerunners of evils by such as loved peace, but were by those that kindled the war interpreted so as to suit their own inclinations; and the very state of the city, even before the Romans came against it, was that of a place doomed to destruction. However, Ananus's concern was this, to lay aside, for a while, the preparations for the war, and to persuade the seditious to consult their own interest, and to restrain the madness of those that had the name of zealots; but their violence was too hard for him; and what end he came to we shall relate hereafter.

But as for the Acrabbene toparchy, Simon, the son of Gioras, got a great number of those that were fond of innovations together, and betook himself to ravage the country; nor did he only harass the rich men's houses, but tormented their bodies, and appeared openly and beforehand to affect tyranny in his government. And when an army was sent against him by Artanus, and the other rulers, he and his band retired to the robbers that were at Masada, and staid there, and plundered the country of Idumea with them, till both Ananus and his other adversaries were slain; and until the rulers of that country were so afflicted with the multitude of those that were slain, and with the continual ravage of what they had, that they raised an army, and put garrisons into the villages, to secure them from those insults. And in this state were the affairs of Judea at that time.[Jewish War 2.21.1,2]

I don't know how those who claim that Hegesippus is merely a copy or even a 'summary' of our received text of Jewish War. There are absolutely no similarities in this section. One would presume a 'copy' would show signs of copying. But then again I bet no one actually did a systematic comparison of the two texts like we are engaged in. Belief was enough to sustain our predecessors.