stephan huller

The next section in Hegesippus reads:

Because of this delay of the siege the people of the city of Iafa which was neighboring became insolent, because it was being fought so long. Alarmed by this Vespasian sent Trajan who was head of the office of commander of the fifteenth legion with a thousand horsemen and two thousand men of the infantry. Who without discussion having set out a man keen and gifted in the arts of fighting he with his zeal met with the appropriate outcome of the combat. For since it was a city enclosed by the nature of the place and surrounded by a double wall, the people not content to protect themselves with its fortifications thought they should attack the Romans. But daring to resist only a short time they took themselves back inside the exterior wall wishing equally to bring back the enemy, for when they themselves hurrying the Romans also entered. Also the gates to the interior walls had been closed by those taking refuge lest again the Romans equally should break in. And so the aid of god having been turned away from themselves the Jews were fighting, with which previously they had been accustomed to win. But they had offended with infamous shameful acts, and thus from them the punishment owed was demanded, that they should give their punishments to the gentiles. Finally they were crushed more nearly by their wars between themselves than by an enemy. The people of Iafa are an example, who opened the gates the gates for the Romans and closed them for themselves. For as the Romans attacked the first wall, they themselves opened it, and so that Jews should not penetrate the second wall, Jews closed it. And so an enemy is received, an ally is shut out, the first is received lest an assassin should be wanting, the second was shut out lest about to perish it should escape. And so between two walls the Jews were cut to pieces fighting hand to hand, at a distance from the wall. Many men of the Roman forces compressed by the narrowness climbed the wall and hurled javelins against those below. And so the Galilaeans more dangerous to their own than to the enemy asked that they 3 should be received at the entrance of the interior wall, but they resisted their own. It was fought [p. 207] at the threshold of the gate Jews fighting among themselves. The one group warded off a rushing wedge with swords, the other group fought those resisting. They died calling down savage curses upon each other by turns and the smaller attested at the top of their voices themselves by their merits to have endured to the full. And so twelve thousand men out of all the fighters were killed. Thinking that either none would fight against him or that storming the city would be easy, being a man of long standing discipline, Trajan reserved the leadership of the victory for Vespasian and sent to him asking that he should send his son Titus, who would give an end to the battle. Who arriving a forcible entry having been made and many humans having been killed, not without labor and danger, victory yields to the Romans. Against them who had entered the interior wall whoever was suitable for fighting threw themselves and positioned in the narrow passage made a two front fight against the victors fighting from above men and women alongside and often even throwing rocks against their own and all types of weapons which by chance they had found. To sum up it was fought for six hours to the end itself from the beginning. Finally those having been killed, who had stood firm ready to fight, it was proceeded against the rest without order without method without mercy. Old men with young men were butchered, women or small children were saved not for pardon but for slavery, all males were killed except those whom childhood or infancy defended. As booty were led away two thousand eight hundred slaves, masters with their slaves in the same sort of situation whom captivity had made equals.[Pseudo-Hegesippus 3.13]

The parallel section of text in Jewish War reads:

About this time it was that Vespasian sent out Trajan against a city called Japha, that lay near to Jotapata, and that desired innovations, and was puffed up with the unexpected length of the opposition of Jotapata. This Trajan was the commander of the tenth legion, and to him Vespasian committed one thousand horsemen, and two thousand footmen. When Trajan came to the city, he found it hard to be taken, for besides the natural strength of its situation, it was also secured by a double wall; but when he saw the people of this city coming out of it, and ready to fight him, he joined battle with them, and after a short resistance which they made, he pursued after them; and as they fled to their first wall, the Romans followed them so closely, that they fell in together with them: but when the Jews were endeavoring to get again within their second wall, their fellow citizens shut them out, as being afraid that the Romans would force themselves in with them. It was certainly God therefore who brought the Romans to punish the Galileans, and did then expose the people of the city every one of them manifestly to be destroyed by their bloody enemies; for they fell upon the gates in great crowds, and earnestly calling to those that kept them, and that by their names also, yet had they their throats cut in the very midst of their supplications; for the enemy shut the gates of the first wall, and their own citizens shut the gates of the second, so they were enclosed between two walls, and were slain in great numbers together; many of them were run through by swords of their own men, and many by their own swords, besides an immense number that were slain by the Romans. Nor had they any courage to revenge themselves; for there was added to the consternation they were in from the enemy, their being betrayed by their own friends, which quite broke their spirits; and at last they died, cursing not the Romans, but their own citizens, till they were all destroyed, being in number twelve thousand. So Trajan gathered that the city was empty of people that could fight, and although there should a few of them be therein, he supposed that they would be too timorous to venture upon any opposition; so he reserved the taking of the city to the general. Accordingly, he sent messengers to Vespasian, and desired him to send his son Titus to finish the victory he had gained. Vespasian hereupon imagining there might be some pains still necessary, sent his son with an army of five hundred horsemen, and one thousand footmen. So he came quickly to the city, and put his army in order, and set Trajan over the left wing, while he had the right himself, and led them to the siege: and when the soldiers brought ladders to be laid against the wall on every side, the Galileans opposed them from above for a while; but soon afterward they left the walls. Then did Titus's men leap into the city, and seized upon it presently; but when those that were in it were gotten together, there was a fierce battle between them; for the men of power fell upon the Romans in the narrow streets, and the women threw whatsoever came next to hand at them, and sustained a fight with them for six hours' time; but when the fighting men were spent, the rest of the multitude had their throats cut, partly in the open air, and partly in their own houses, both young and old together. So there were no males now remaining, besides infants, which, with the women, were carried as slaves into captivity; so that the number of the slain, both now in the city and at the former fight, was fifteen thousand, and the captives were two thousand one hundred and thirty. This calamity befell the Galileans on the twenty-fifth day of the month Desius. (Sivan) [Jewish War 3.7.31]

Notice the different number of captives mentioned - 2,800 in Hegesippus and 2,130 in Jewish War.

aa5874

I must read your post first to make replies.

You are giving your opinion or making assertions that you simply cannot demonstrate to be true.

You have totally ignored the possibility that information found in pseudo-Hegesippus were fabricated.

How is it then that it is also claimed that SCRIBES altered documents? Are you admitting, for the first time, that scribes are NOT responsible for the BLATANT errors and contradictions in the "Stromata"?

Clement could not count or wrote fiction and the scribes have copied his BLATANT errors not once but many times.

I have made sample checks on Clement's counting skills and NOTHING ADDS UP so far.

This is another sample in "Stromata"1 Again, Clement's addition is wrong. The sum total is 215 years NOT 235 years.

Are you sure Clement could spell?

Why are you making reference to Andrew Criddle's speculation when you ALREADY KNOW his speculation did NOT ADD UP?

You should have ALREADY KNOWN that Andrew's new speculative figure of (588) +1179+ 77=1844.

Clement is still wrong by 289 years.

You may be a bit intellectually lazy or too busy. Andrew's "explanation" was of no known use for three days now. Andrew cannot account for 289 years. And there are more years that Andrew may not be able to account for.

It is extremely difficult to attempt to use a document classified as Christianized 4th century PSEUDO as an historical source especially when it contains fictitious characters like Jesus the Messiah, Peter and Paul.

stephan huller

And the next section in Hegesippus reads:

Because of this delay of the siege the people of the city of Iafa which was neighboring became insolent, because it was being fought so long. Alarmed by this Vespasian sent Trajan who was head of the office of commander of the fifteenth legion with a thousand horsemen and two thousand men of the infantry. Who without discussion having set out a man keen and gifted in the arts of fighting he with his zeal met with the appropriate outcome of the combat. For since it was a city enclosed by the nature of the place and surrounded by a double wall, the people not content to protect themselves with its fortifications thought they should attack the Romans. But daring to resist only a short time they took themselves back inside the exterior wall wishing equally to bring back the enemy, for when they themselves hurrying the Romans also entered. Also the gates to the interior walls had been closed by those taking refuge lest again the Romans equally should break in. And so the aid of god having been turned away from themselves the Jews were fighting, with which previously they had been accustomed to win. But they had offended with infamous shameful acts, and thus from them the punishment owed was demanded, that they should give their punishments to the gentiles. Finally they were crushed more nearly by their wars between themselves than by an enemy. The people of Iafa are an example, who opened the gates the gates for the Romans and closed them for themselves. For as the Romans attacked the first wall, they themselves opened it, and so that Jews should not penetrate the second wall, Jews closed it. And so an enemy is received, an ally is shut out, the first is received lest an assassin should be wanting, the second was shut out lest about to perish it should escape. And so between two walls the Jews were cut to pieces fighting hand to hand, at a distance from the wall. Many men of the Roman forces compressed by the narrowness climbed the wall and hurled javelins against those below. And so the Galilaeans more dangerous to their own than to the enemy asked that they 3 should be received at the entrance of the interior wall, but they resisted their own. It was fought [p. 207] at the threshold of the gate Jews fighting among themselves. The one group warded off a rushing wedge with swords, the other group fought those resisting. They died calling down savage curses upon each other by turns and the smaller attested at the top of their voices themselves by their merits to have endured to the full. And so twelve thousand men out of all the fighters were killed. Thinking that either none would fight against him or that storming the city would be easy, being a man of long standing discipline, Trajan reserved the leadership of the victory for Vespasian and sent to him asking that he should send his son Titus, who would give an end to the battle. Who arriving a forcible entry having been made and many humans having been killed, not without labor and danger, victory yields to the Romans. Against them who had entered the interior wall whoever was suitable for fighting threw themselves and positioned in the narrow passage made a two front fight against the victors fighting from above men and women alongside and often even throwing rocks against their own and all types of weapons which by chance they had found. To sum up it was fought for six hours to the end itself from the beginning. Finally those having been killed, who had stood firm ready to fight, it was proceeded against the rest without order without method without mercy. Old men with young men were butchered, women or small children were saved not for pardon but for slavery, all males were killed except those whom childhood or infancy defended. As booty were led away two thousand eight hundred slaves, masters with their slaves in the same sort of situation whom captivity had made equals.[Pseudo-Hegesippus 3.13]

The parallel section of text in Jewish War reads:

About this time it was that Vespasian sent out Trajan against a city called Japha, that lay near to Jotapata, and that desired innovations, and was puffed up with the unexpected length of the opposition of Jotapata. This Trajan was the commander of the tenth legion, and to him Vespasian committed one thousand horsemen, and two thousand footmen. When Trajan came to the city, he found it hard to be taken, for besides the natural strength of its situation, it was also secured by a double wall; but when he saw the people of this city coming out of it, and ready to fight him, he joined battle with them, and after a short resistance which they made, he pursued after them; and as they fled to their first wall, the Romans followed them so closely, that they fell in together with them: but when the Jews were endeavoring to get again within their second wall, their fellow citizens shut them out, as being afraid that the Romans would force themselves in with them. It was certainly God therefore who brought the Romans to punish the Galileans, and did then expose the people of the city every one of them manifestly to be destroyed by their bloody enemies; for they fell upon the gates in great crowds, and earnestly calling to those that kept them, and that by their names also, yet had they their throats cut in the very midst of their supplications; for the enemy shut the gates of the first wall, and their own citizens shut the gates of the second, so they were enclosed between two walls, and were slain in great numbers together; many of them were run through by swords of their own men, and many by their own swords, besides an immense number that were slain by the Romans. Nor had they any courage to revenge themselves; for there was added to the consternation they were in from the enemy, their being betrayed by their own friends, which quite broke their spirits; and at last they died, cursing not the Romans, but their own citizens, till they were all destroyed, being in number twelve thousand. So Trajan gathered that the city was empty of people that could fight, and although there should a few of them be therein, he supposed that they would be too timorous to venture upon any opposition; so he reserved the taking of the city to the general. Accordingly, he sent messengers to Vespasian, and desired him to send his son Titus to finish the victory he had gained. Vespasian hereupon imagining there might be some pains still necessary, sent his son with an army of five hundred horsemen, and one thousand footmen. So he came quickly to the city, and put his army in order, and set Trajan over the left wing, while he had the right himself, and led them to the siege: and when the soldiers brought ladders to be laid against the wall on every side, the Galileans opposed them from above for a while; but soon afterward they left the walls. Then did Titus's men leap into the city, and seized upon it presently; but when those that were in it were gotten together, there was a fierce battle between them; for the men of power fell upon the Romans in the narrow streets, and the women threw whatsoever came next to hand at them, and sustained a fight with them for six hours' time; but when the fighting men were spent, the rest of the multitude had their throats cut, partly in the open air, and partly in their own houses, both young and old together. So there were no males now remaining, besides infants, which, with the women, were carried as slaves into captivity; so that the number of the slain, both now in the city and at the former fight, was fifteen thousand, and the captives were two thousand one hundred and thirty. This calamity befell the Galileans on the twenty-fifth day of the month Desius. (Sivan) [Jewish War 3.7.31]

Notice the different number of captives mentioned - 2,800 in Hegesippus and 2,130 in Jewish War.

stephan huller

AA,

I am grateful that you and other people are reading this thread but I am at a loss to figure out how you and I are at odds on this issue. Let's start with the testimony of Clement:

a) he says he has a copy of the Jewish history of 'Josephus the Jew'
b) he infers that the 'Josephus the Jew' made calculations based on the 'tenth year of Antoninus'
c) I wrote that Roger Pearse points out that "Hardwick says that this is a composite of Jewish War 6.435 ff. and Antiquities 8.61 ff; 7.389. Whealey agrees." but that I could only find one number which connected Clement's Jewish history of Josephus the Jew to anything we recognize as being by Josephus - the line "from David to the second year of Vespasian, a thousand one hundred and seventy-nine" at the very end of Book Six of the Jewish War. I also wrote that I felt that "the rest of the numbers don't appear in any source."

My argument is that the existing text of Jewish War isn't really from the hand of first century Josephus. What part of this formulation do you have take issue?

stephan huller

We continue with our section by section comparison of Pseudo-Hegesippus with our received text of Jewish War. We want to determine if there is any incontrovertible proof that Hegesippus is a copy or a summary of our text which purports to be 'direct' (or almost direct - viz. the admission of the involvement of 'synergoi' Contr. Apion 1.50 looms large now) from the hand of 'first century Josephus.'

The next section of Pseudo-Hegesippus reads:

Nor were the Samaritans exempt from these miseries. For when according to their custom assembled together they had ascended their mountain Garizim, which was sacred to them, where they were accustomed to worship, and in the Gospel the Samaritan woman says: Our fathers worshipped on this mountain, and the answer to her is: the hour will come, when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the father. For it was owed that superstition should cease and the true religion follow, the shade be purged, the truth come, so that no longer on the mountain like the Samaritans, not in Jerusalem three times in the year like the Jews, but in spirit in every place lifting clean hands each man should pay homage to god and in the name of Jesus should bend at the knee--, when therefore, as we said above, they remain assembled on the mountain according to their rites, the very appearance of the congregation puts forth threats of war or their sense, who were not recovering from evil neighbors, they were disturbed much more however through dislike by the triumphal successes of the Romans and things were near to an uproar, and it was considered most prudent for them to take precautions lest they should sally forth into a greater ruin. The commander of the fifth legion having been summoned, Vespasian sent him with three thousand men of each military service. But he considered that to ascend the mountain at the very beginning was dangerous, for there were at the same time joined a multitude of frightened people and the rugged places of nature, he surrounded the borders of the mountain with the army and for the entire day he made care be taken that no one should descend the mountain for water. When therefore he had harassed such a great crowd of people with thirst, which more and more was exasperated by the heat, and many preferred to offer themselves to slavery or even death lest they should die from hunger or thirst, Cerealis, for this was the name of the commander, judging that all of those coming down were exhausted surrounded the mountain with the military column, promising safety if they put down their arms, he ordered those refusing killed. And so eleven thousand six hundred men were killed in that place. [Pseudo-Hegesippus 3.14]

And the parallel section in Jewish War:

Nor did the Samaritans escape their share of misfortunes at this time; for they assembled themselves together upon file mountain called Gerizzim, which is with them a holy mountain, and there they remained; which collection of theirs, as well as the courageous minds they showed, could not but threaten somewhat of war; nor were they rendered wiser by the miseries that had come upon their neighboring cities. They also, notwithstanding the great success the Romans had, marched on in an unreasonable manner, depending on their own weakness, and were disposed for any tumult upon its first appearance. Vespasian therefore thought it best to prevent their motions, and to cut off the foundation of their attempts. For although all Samaria had ever garrisons settled among them, yet did the number of those that were come to Mount Gerizzim, and their conspiracy together, give ground for fear what they would be at; he therefore sent I thither Cerealis, the commander of the fifth legion, with six hundred horsemen, and three thousand footmen, who did not think it safe to go up to the mountain, and give them battle, because many of the enemy were on the higher part of the ground; so he encompassed all the lower part of the mountain with his army, and watched them all that day. Now it happened that the Samaritans, who were now destitute of water, were inflamed with a violent heat, (for it was summer time, and the multitude had not provided themselves with necessaries,) insomuch that some of them died that very day with heat, while others of them preferred slavery before such a death as that was, and fled to the Romans; by whom Cerealis understood that those which still staid there were very much broken by their misfortunes. So he went up to the mountain, and having placed his forces round about the enemy, he, in the first place, exhorted them to take the security of his right hand, and come to terms with him, and thereby save themselves; and assured them, that if they would lay down their arms, he would secure them from any harm; but when he could not prevail with them, he fell upon them and slew them all, being in number eleven thousand and six hundred. This was done on the twenty-seventh day of the month Desius [Sivan]. And these were the calamities that befell the Samaritans at this time. [Jewish War 3.7.32]

I strongly suspect Josephus killed these Samaritans rather than Vespasian. It follows a pattern of slaughtering traditional enemies of the Jewish people.

stephan huller

We now follow with the next section in our side by side comparison of the material in Pseudo-Hegesippus and Jewish War.

Pseudo-Hegesippus reads:

Also at Iotapata an attack was made at early dawn on the forty eighth day, although up to now fatigued from much labor of the previous day they were resting. Titus first of all having entered with Sabinus provided a way for the rest. The higher places in the narrow passages of the streets having been seized everywhere, and unaware as yet of the attack made they were slain. Some in their beds, some awakened, some on watch but lax from fasting and sleep, paid the penalty. Up to now however the power of the evil ones was concealed from the entire city. But when the army having entered bellowed with a military yell, to a man almost they rose up against the mood of approaching death. And if any attempted to gain the higher places they were driven back and killed, and for those to whom a wish of avenging was able to be at hand, the crowding took away the possibility of vengeance, and if any were preparing to resist they were sheltered from the fight by others rushing in before them. Others much wearied by the fight dropped their hands and offered themselves to a wounding, so that by death they would be snatched away from the deadly spectacle of their misfortunes. Deceived by the carelessness of those dying the centurion Antonius asked by a certain one who had taken refuge in caves, that he should give him his right hand a pledge of pardon and safety, heedless of treachery immediately extended it and, woe to the wretched too confident of triumph, but that one strikes him off guard with a javelin and immediately transfixes him, lest the victory be complete for the Romans. That very day all whosoever who were found were killed, on the following days however even from cellars and other underground holes they were brought out or killed on the spot small children and women excepted. Forty thousands were killed through all the days, in the number who were seized two hundred thousand were led into servitude. The city was destroyed and burned up by fire and every redoubt in the thirteenth year of the reign of Nero. [Pseudo-Hegesippus 3.15]

The parallel passage in Jewish War reads:

But as the people of Jotapata still held out manfully, and bore up tinder their miseries beyond all that could be hoped for, on the forty-seventh day [of the siege] the banks cast up by the Romans were become higher than the wall; on which day a certain deserter went to Vespasian, and told him how few were left in the city, and how weak they were, and that they had been so worn out with perpetual watching, and as perpetual fighting, that they could not now oppose any force that came against them, and that they might he taken by stratagem, if any one would attack them; for that about the last watch of the night, when they thought they might have some rest from the hardships they were under, and when a morning sleep used to come upon them, as they were thoroughly weary, he said the watch used to fall asleep; accordingly his advice was, that they should make their attack at that hour. But Vespasian had a suspicion about this deserter, as knowing how faithful the Jews were to one another, and how much they despised any punishments that could be inflicted on them; this last because one of the people of Jotapata had undergone all sorts of torments, and though they made him pass through a fiery trial of his enemies in his examination, yet would he inform them nothing of the affairs within the city, and as he was crucified, smiled at them. However, the probability there was in the relation itself did partly confirm the truth of what the deserter told them, and they thought he might probably speak truth. However, Vespasian thought they should be no great sufferers if the report was a sham; so he commanded them to keep the man in custody, and prepared the army for taking the city.

According to which resolution they marched without noise, at the hour that had been told them, to the wall; and it was Titus himself that first got upon it, with one of his tribunes, Domitius Sabinus, and had a few of the fifteenth legion along with him. So they cut the throats of the watch, and entered the city very quietly. After these came Cerealis the tribune, and Placidus, and led on those that were tinder them. Now when the citadel was taken, and the enemy were in the very midst of the city, and when it was already day, yet was not the taking of the city known by those that held it; for a great many of them were fast asleep, and a great mist, which then by chance fell upon the city, hindered those that got up from distinctly seeing the case they were in, till the whole Roman army was gotten in, and they were raised up only to find the miseries they were under; and as they were slaying, they perceived the city was taken. And for the Romans, they so well remembered what they had suffered during the siege, that they spared none, nor pitied any, but drove the people down the precipice from the citadel, and slew them as they drove them down; at which time the difficulties of the place hindered those that were still able to fight from defending themselves; for as they were distressed in the narrow streets, and could not keep their feet sure along the precipice, they were overpowered with the crowd of those that came fighting them down from the citadel. This provoked a great many, even of those chosen men that were about Josephus, to kill themselves with their own hands; for when they saw that they could kill none of the Romans, they resolved to prevent being killed by the Romans, and got together in great numbers in the utmost parts of the city, and killed themselves.

However, such of the watch as at the first perceived they were taken, and ran away as fast as they could, went up into one of the towers on the north side of the city, and for a while defended themselves there; but as they were encompassed with a multitude of enemies, they tried to use their right hands when it was too late, and at length they cheerfully offered their necks to be cut off by those that stood over them. And the Romans might have boasted that the conclusion of that siege was without blood [on their side] if there had not been a centurion, Antonius, who was slain at the taking of the city. His death was occasioned by the following treachery; for there was one of those that were fled into the caverns, which were a great number, who desired that this Antonius would reach him his right hand for his security, and would assure him that he would preserve him, and give him his assistance in getting up out of the cavern; accordingly, he incautiously reached him his right hand, when the other man prevented him, and stabbed him under his loins with a spear, and killed him immediately.

And on this day it was that the Romans slew all the multitude that appeared openly; but on the following days they searched the hiding-places, and fell upon those that were under ground, and in the caverns, and went thus through every age, excepting the infants and the women, and of these there were gathered together as captives twelve hundred; and as for those that were slain at the taking of the city, and in the former fights, they were numbered to be forty thousand. So Vespasian gave order that the city should be entirely demolished, and all the fortifications burnt down. And thus was Jotapata taken, in the thirteenth year of the reign of Nero, on the first day of the month Panemus (Tamuz). [Jewish War 3.7.34 - 36]

Compare the different numbers used - attack commenced on the forty eighth day (Hegesippus) or forty eighth day (Josephus) of the siege as well as the number of captives - Hegesippus 200,000; Jewish War 1,200(!)

stephan huller

Shaye Cohen’s Josephus in Galilee and Rome: his Vita and Development as a Historian is practically the only study that concentrates on the Jewish War vs. Life dichotomy. The book is quite negative about Josephus as a reliable source and about his character generally. In this aspect, it harks back to what is known as the "classical" view of Josephus derived from late 19th century German source-criticism of Josephus’ corpus. Epitomized by Walter Laqueur’s work in the 1920s, this view neglected the likely socio-political and theological circumstances under which Josephus composed his history. It considered only information meant to support the classical conjecture that Josephus brazenly utilized deceitful forgeries (earlier spurious works) in a way so as to flatter his Roman benefactors and rationalize his own moral weakness. Laqueur and company painted Josephus as only wanting to promote his assumed role as Flavian lackey and gifted author.

I have taken matters to the next degree here noting that there was another 'Josephus' - a name later (deliberately) corrupted to 'Hegesippus' - which undoubtedly stood as the 'grandfather text' to both the received text of Jewish War and what I have called the Hegesippus textual tradition (i.e. all the traditions associated with the Josephus corpus outside of continental Europe which general preserve altered versions of the Pseudo-Hegesippus text, the Yosippon, Slavonic Josephus, the Ethiopic etc.).

The thing which has become plainly evident to us is that it wasn't Josephus who was transforming and ultimately veiling his role in war crimes and rebellion against the Roman state during the Jewish revolt of 66 - 70 CE. The editors of works associated with his originally limited literary output were also attempting to make this illiterate (at least by Greco-Roman standards) Jewish guerilla commander a more palatable historical source.

I think that my discoveries will eventually help the great number of chronological discrepancies which exist between Jewish Way (BJ) and Vita. Cohen has done a wonderful job laying out the problems in this graph which appears in the aforementioned book cited above:

http://books.google.com/books?id=7an...gamala&f=false

I have the book in my library but I have no idea how to produce the required columns to illustrate matters here. I think I will just refer people to the link and produce his commentary which follows:

This index shows that V and BJ differ in the order of six episodes. The establishment of a supreme council and the fortification of the Galilean cities are juxtaposed and placed early in the narrative by BJ, but separated and postponed by V. The autobiography has the episode of John at Tiberias before the Darbaritta affair and the repulse of the delegation before the dispersal of John's followers, while BJ has the opposite sequence in both pairs.

V and BJ contradict each other in many other details, large and small. We find variations in proper names and numerals: Noaros has become Varos (BJ 481 //V 50); Annaios has produced Dassion and Iannaios (BJ 597 597//V 131); the names of the fortified cities are transmitted differently (BJ 573-574//V 187-88) as are the names of the members of the delegation from Jerusalem (BJ 628//V 197); either 500 (V 127) or 600 (BJ 595) gold pieces were taken at were taken at Dabaritta; Josephus' house was surrounded by 600 (V 145) or 2000 (BJ 610) soldiers; John received reinforcements from Jerusalem, either 1000 (V 200-201) or 2500 (BJ 628); the ultimatum to John's followers bore a time limit of five (BJ 624) or or twenty (V 370) days ; according to V 371-372, 4000 soldiers deserted John and only 1500 remained, but in BJ 625, 3000 deserted and only 2000 remained. I omit from this list examples of mere variant spellings ... Some of the cases listed here are certainly the result of manuscript corruption but other variations occur too. Was Soemus, the relative of Varus/Noarus, a tetrarch of the Lebanon (V 52) or a king (BJ 481)? 18 How much profit did John make from his sale of Jewish oil (V 75 //BJ 592)? Was the oil for the Jews of Syria or of Caesarea Philippi? Did the brigands of Dabaritta attack Ptolemy (BJ 595) or Ptolemy's wife (V 126)? In V 137 the sole bodyguard who remains with Josephus counsels him to commit suicide. In BJ 600-601, however, four bodyguards remain who counsel Josephus to flee. After the Dabaritta affair did Josephus whip many (BJ 612) or only one (V 147) of the ringleaders?

The most significant contradiction concerns the nature of the mission to assembly to carry on the war against Rome. He recruits a large army and prepares to meet the foe. He fights courageously and sincerely. But V claims that Josephus and two others were sent as emissaries of the Jerusalem aristocracy to maintain peace in Galilee. Instead of recruiting an army Josephus pays the brigands to refrain from any hostile activity. He desires a peaceful Galilee.[p. 7,8]

There is so much to cite here that I think I would (again) overwhelm the reader but it is worth noting Cohen's paraphrase of Laqueur's understanding of the relationship between Vita and Jewish War for it is very similar to my own (save for his interest in Antiquities):

Laqueur's thesis consists of two parts and runs as follows.

1. Although V was published as an appendix to a second edition of AJ after 100 CE, it contains as its nucleus a work which was utilized by BJ twenty-five years before. This theory was supported by the argument that V is more 'original' and truthful than BJ and, therefore, is anterior to it. Laqueur attempted to show that BJ consistently revises this nucleus (as reconstructed from V) to make it accord with BJ's own motives and goals.

The autobiography was provoked by Justus who had written a history of the Jewish war in good Greek ... Thus, from V and BJ we can trace Josephus' development through five stages: (a) nucleus of V (before BJ), (b) the original BJ, (c) some revisions of V (ie the nucleus) made at the time BJ was written, (d) later revisions of BJ, and (e) the final revision of V. Laqueur claims that he can indicate precisely the boundaries of all five stages and explain the motives of the changes. Moreover, he finds that, although V in its present form is an express retort to Justus, his name appears only in the interpolations of stage (e). Therefore V contains an earlier document, the nucleus (a).

2. This early work was an administrative report (Rechenschafts- bericht] which Josephus submitted to the authorities of Jerusalem in defense of his activities in Galilee. Since there had been complaints (V 190//BJ 2.626), the report is especially concerned to show that Josephus was the paragon of justice tempered with mercy and that all his opponents were worthless scoundrels.[p 17 - 19]

The point of this lengthy citation is that my theory that Vita served as the source for Jewish War isn't as crazy as it seems. It has some powerful scholars arguing on its behalf. My major point of departure with those who came before me is the introduction of Clement's Josephus the Jew who published a Christian edition of Josephus' work in 147 CE. All of our surviving Josephan manuscripts are descendants of that text rather than the original.

stephan huller

I have been reading Cohen's Josephus in Galilee and Rome for the last few hours and it is amazing to see how many of his arguments are so very useful for our thesis. Cohen argues for instance that Vita was written as a chronology so immediately we see an underlying conflict with the narrative in Jewish War which we have noted many times here - Josephus doesn't appear captured until long after the Jewish War (and Hegesippus tradition) say he was taken behind Roman lines.

We will get back to these chronological considerations later. For the moment I would just like to emphasize that Cohen argues that Vita knows the lost original text that was actually written by 'first century Josephus' and which was also developed in some form to make our current text of Vita.

Cohen of course isn't offering up the Hegesippus and the evidence from Clement, Origen, Eusebius and Epiphanius that (a) was a Christianized version of Josephus written by another man named Joseph in 147 CE and (b) that all the surviving copies of Jewish War derive in some form from this Christian original.

I think Christian interpolation explains the creation of ALL the works of Josephus including Vita but for the moment I would like to cite Cohen's development of many of Lacqueur's ideas because they have will have an important effect on our discoveries regarding the relationship between Hegesippus and Jewish War.

Cohen writes of literary relationship between Vita and Jewish War going back to a hypomnema:

Thus in both sequence and (at least to some degree) content V has a more pristine form of the material than BJ. But, as we remarked in chapter one above in our criticism of Laqueur, that which is more pristine is not necessarily that which is earlier. Therefore a more significant example of V's primacy is the parallel V 86//BJ 615, from the episode of John at Tiberias. "He (Josephus) did not yet suspect the plotter (John)," BJ 615), makes little sense in BJ, after John's murderous plots of BJ 593-594 and the "Josephan gloss" of 599 and seems to be a careless paraphrase of V's "I did not suspect that he would do anything wicked." In V the words make sense because John's machinations, as described by V 70-76, were not such as to arouse suspicion. Here then is a good indication of the literary priority of V.

By priority we mean that V, although written after BJ, contains as its nucleus a document which was written much earlier and was utilized by BJ. The existence of this document is supported by more than just the parallel V 86//BJ 615. The relationship of BJ 2 to V is similar to the relationship of BJ 1 to AJ 15-16 (see above) and this analogy suggests that the "common source" behind BJ 2 and V was not just Josephus' memory but a written document. The "original sequence" preserved by V and thematically revised by BJ, is the sequence of this work. This theory also explains the literary peculiarities of V. If V were a mere sloppy retelling of the story of Josephus' career in Galilee, written all at one time some thirty years after the events in order to refute Justus and based primarily on Josephus' memory (perhaps refreshed by a quick perusal of BJ), we could not explain why the clear organization of BJ was not followed more closely, why Justus' role is so spotty and peripheral, and why his name often appears in sentences which have no connection with their context and no consequence for the action (see chapter five below, section C 1). This argument in favor of the common source theory was emphasized (actually overemphasized) by Laqueur. The only other systematic way to explain Justus' marginal role is to suppose that Josephus had written an autobiography, attached it to AJ, but later, after Justus' attack, converted it to serve his need for a self-defense. But if this autobiography is our V minus the glosses, it is amazing that even before the attack of Justus Josephus prepared a long apologetic account which included precisely those elements he would later need in his self-defense. Therefore it has been suggested that the original autobiography was a short work consisting mostly of information on Josephus' background and family. The frame of our V is a remnant of this alleged edition (V 1-27 and 414-430). A few years later, in order to respond to Justus, Josephus expanded his earlier work in order to produce an apologetic and polemic. But this suggestion does not solve our problem (why is the polemic against Justus so easily separable from the text?), and is intrinsically implausible (why did Josephus not write a separate retort to Justus if his autobiography were already complete?) as well as chronologically difficult (Agrippa probably died before 93/4 and so there is no reason to postulate two different editions of V).

What is the nature of this hypothetical common source? The least uncertain thing about it is that it was arranged chronologically much like V. If it was a literary work, a polished account like, say, that of Nicolaus of Damascus, we must explain why there are so many discrepancies between V and BJ, many more than between AJ 15-16 and BJ 1. Some of these, no doubt, are Josephus' response to Justus (see chapter five below). but many are too picayune to be of any significance. It is apparent that Josephus' memory, in addition to this written source, must have played a large part in both V and BJ. Thus we need a document fixed enough to have a definite order but free enough to allow remarkable divergences caused by shifts in memory. The most likely candidate is a hypomnema, a dry sketch or outline of the events in Galilee, which Josephus prepared before writing BJ. CA 1.50, "when my entire narrative was prepared" may well refer to this sketch. Ancient historians were expected to prepare such hypomnemata before proceeding to their literary works. BJ, a rhetorical history, drastically shortened, thematically rearranged, and freely modified the hypomnema. V, a hasty polemic and apologetic, retained the scope, structure, and, in general, the dryness of the original but added anti-Justus material (including the "glosses") and extensive self-defense. A similar theory has been advanced to account for the differences between the Vita Constantini and the sections parallel to it in the Historia Ecclesiastica of Eusebius. The one, a biography, and the other, a history, describe events of Eusebius' own lifetime but disagree on many details and on the order of events. Perhaps these two works derive from a Eusebian hypomnema.

We cannot now determine the exact content and form of this work. Josephus has rewritten everything not only because this was his normal procedure (see chapter two), but also because the hypomnema was meant to be rewritten.[p. 81 - 83]

The point of course is that Cohen is looking for the exact same thing we are - i.e. a common source for many of the Josephan texts. I prefer to think of an Aramaic chronology which was treated as a hypomnema.

Here is the Wikipedia entry for hypomnema in any event:

maryhelena

Contradictions within the work of 'Josephus' are one thing - but to suggest that there is a second 'Josephus', a second century 'Josephus', is something else altogether.

Going back to your second post in this thread:
The comment from your blog post of this thread topic:

my bolding

So, a man who you respect has suggested the possibility, a very strong possibility, that this whole issue is not the sentence itself but where the quotation from Josephus ends. Your argument is that you see no reason why the writer of this article would be interested in the 10th year of Antoninus. Hardly a very strong argument upon which to base your theory of a second 'Josephus', a second century 'Josephus'.

Stephen, your published theory, that there is only one King Agrippa and that this Agrippa is the messiah figure, is a theory that is in contradiction to 'Josephus'. In that work 'Josephus' lists a King Agrippa I and a King Agrippa II - and the Herodian coins back up this Josephan history.

This new theory of yours, Josephus I and Josephus II, is, in view of your one Agrippa theory, rather ironical. 'Josephus', in this case, is supported by historical evidence, the Herodian coins. Your new theory is based upon a misreading of a sentence.

Sure, there are contradiction within 'Josephus' - but these contradictions are not about to be resolved by a misreading of a sentence that is not without it's own problems - the maths don't add up....

By all means attempt to sort out the Josephan contradictions - but misreading a sentence, a sentence by a later interpreter of 'Josephus, won't get you very far....

stephan huller

MH

I don't know why you only took the comments on my blog. I published them here already plus the entire context in Clement to show that my esteemed colleague was wrong. Actually he never says that he examine the context of the citation in its original context. Anyway I will republish the second comment in this thread for the benefit of those who didn't read it the first time