Flavius Josephus Online

Φλαυίου Ἰωσήπου ἱστορία Ἰουδαϊκοῦ πολέμου πρὸς Ῥωμαίους βιβλίον α.

Φλαυίου Ἰωσήπου ἱστορία Ἰουδαϊκοῦ πολέμου πρὸς Ῥωμαίους λόγος β.

The parallel story begins at Ant. 17.200. As in bk. 1, it often appears in what follows that Josephus abbreviates his account in relation to the source(s) used more fully for the Antiquities parallel. Of these, the Universal History by Herod’s aide Nicolaus of Damascus must have continued to figure prominently until about 2.100, since Nicolaus was personally involved in these affairs. Cf. Pelletier 2.201 n. 1. Archelaus (b. ca. 27 BCE, son of Herod and Malthace) was introduced in the survey of Herod’s wives and children at 1.562, then described as an intended victim of half-brother Antipater’s plotting while he was being educated in Rome (1.602). Because of this plotting Herod ignored Archelaus in one version of his will (1.646), which designated Antipas heir, but the king later reconciled with Archelaus and made him—his oldest surviving son—heir-designate as Judean king (1.664). On Archelaus see Kokkinos 1998: 226-29. Josephus looks ahead (cf. 2.14-110) to Archelaus’ trip concerning the settlement of Herod’s succession. This trip occupied a period from the spring (2.42) of 4 until perhaps 3 BCE. Josephus mentions very little (2.111-16) of Archelaus’ decade-long rule in his territory, which might suggest that the ethnarch was in his territory for only a short period. But at 2.64 Josephus mentions incidentally that Archelaus had a role in suppressing the revolt that began in 4 BCE. See the note to this dramatic term, woven into the fabric of War, at 1.4. Still looking ahead: Archelaus’ lengthy absence from Judea at the start of his reign will be the occasion of a major revolt (2.39-79), requiring the intervention of the Syrian governor P. Quinctilius Varus with 3 legions, 2,000 cavalry, and a large auxiliary force (2.66-68)—not much smaller than the army used to defeat the Judeans 70 years later (3.64-69). That revolt, which involved campaigns in Galilee and Samaria (2.68-9), is featured in the prologue (1.20). It was therefore a major event from Josephus’ perspective, in some respects a precursor to this work’s main theme, the conflict of 66-73. Although the Bible does not prescribe this, it does specify a 7-day period of impurity for those who have either touched a corpse or been in the same tent with one (Num 19:11, 14; 31:19), and the 7-day mourning period is a biblical custom, assumed throughout later Judean texts (Gen 50:10; 1 Sam 31:13/1 Chron 10:12; Jdt 16:24; Sir 22:12). The Roman custom called for 9 days of mourning: see Levison 2002: 272-3. In the parallel at Ant. 17.200, “custom” language is used only of the 7-day mourning period; the feast is mentioned very briefly. Greek τὸ πλῆθος, used more than 500 times by Josephus, is difficult to translate. It is a collective singular of rather dehumanizing force: the “mob, multitude, horde, throng.” But the first of these has suggested to some readers a sort of mafia; the second is not in standard use. The last two terms I use, as well as “rabble,” where they seem to fit better; none of them is perfect. Contrast Josephus’ language for members of the élite (cf. 2.239), which consists of plural adjectives inviting one to imagine a small group. Providing a lavish funeral banquet for large numbers was not an obligation laid down in the Torah, though it had evidently become a custom among the élite of Josephus’ day. Prophetic literature may know of such practices, when it forbids them in the context of divine judgment (Jer 16:7-8; cf. Ezek 24:17). Funeral feasting was, however, a Roman custom (on the 9th day of mourning): Toynbee 1971: 51; Levison 2002. Cicero speaks of “thousands” present for one such feast (Vat. 31). It is characteristic for Josephus to explain Judean customs, laws, and conditions of life in the War (1.60, 447; 2.10, 119, 195, 313, 321, 425; 3.35-58; 4.451-85; 5.236-37; 6.299-300), suggesting that he expects a non-Judean audience (cf. War 1.3, 6). See Introduction. Contrast Apion 2.205, where Josephus boasts that the Judean constitution’s provisions for fulfillment of one’s obligations to the dead are simple and inexpensive (τῆς . . . ὁσίας οὐ πολυτελείαις), seeming to negate the very words he uses here. There he elaborates that the ceremony is only for the nearest relatives, though all are expected to join any funeral procession they encounter. Simplicity of funerary rites has particularly strong parallels in Roman-élite discussions (Levison 2002: 247-50), though the tension between such ideals and the reality of elaborate funerals for the wealthy is also well attested for Rome (see previous note). A similar expression, “banqueting the populace” (ἑστιάω τὸν δῆμον), appears at Ant. 16.14, 55. The formulation here (ἑστιᾶν τὸ πλῆθος) conveys a mixture of contempt and pity for the public figure, who must at all costs pander to “the rabble” (i.e., the mass of common people) if he wishes to hold effective power. Josephus’ contemporary Dio Chrysostom (Or. 66.9) likewise observes that one seeking political fame must pay out vast sums to collect a cast of entertainers if he wants to banquet the rabble (ἑστιάσειν τὸ πλῆθος) in a convincing way. “Compulsion” is the same word (ἀνάγκη) as “necessity” in 2.1. It is characteristic of Josephus to use the same word in different senses within a short space. Or “pure, sinless.” The Greek has only οὐχ ὅσιος in the apodosis, where we might have expected ἄν with a verb. On the substance, see notes to “custom” and “poverty” in this section. What would Cicero have said? In his retaliatory speech against Vatinius (56 BCE), he dwelt on the latter’s egregious error of etiquette in wearing black to a funeral banquet. “With so many thousand people at table and with the master of ceremonies himself, Q. Arrius, all in white, you took to the temple of Castor in mourning clothes, with C. Fibulus and your other bad spirits in funeral dress” (Vat. 31). Evidently the Roman custom was to wear dark clothes for mourning, and to change into white for the 9th-day banquet, which involved a visit to the temple of Castor. For analysis (also of Ant. 7.154-6) see Levison 2002: 255-6. Archelaus, however, seems to attend the banquet as part of the mourning, changing to white clothes only for the temple visit.Others who wear white when they enter the temple, according to Josephus, are Kings David and Solomon (Ant. 7.156; 8.186). His biblical source neither dresses them in white nor clearly prescribes white for temple service. White was, however, all but universally recognized as the color of purity, and to some extent of celebration: see Croom 2000: 28; Sebesta and Bonfante 2001: 48. For white clothing as a sign of moral purity, see Xenophon, Mem. 2.1.22. Ovid (Amor. 2.13.23-4) assumes that one wears white to enter a temple—at least that of Ilithyia—and Apuleius (Met. 11.47) has priests of Isis wear brilliant white in procession. Manumitted slaves in the early empire wore bright white (Artemidorus 2.9), as would newly baptized Christians (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 4.22.142). See also Athenaeus Deipn. (4.149d-e) for the feasts of Dionysus and Apollo, and generally: Aeschines, Ctes. 77.10; Strabo 15.1.71; Plutarch, Aristides 21.4; Lucian, Mort. per. 40.5; Athenaeus, Deipn. 14.621b; Pausanias 2.35.5; Aelian, Var. hist. 12.32 [of Pythagoras]; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 3.15; 8.19; with the note to “white” at 2.123 below.Accordingly, Josephus’ Essenes always wear white (War 2.123, 137), as do Philo’s Therapeutae, at least for meetings (Contempl. 66); Beall (1988: 46) finds a preference for white also at Qumran (1QM 7.9-10). For other groups in Judean and Christian traditions, see Eccl 9:8; Dan 7:9; 2 Macc 11:8; 2 Esd 2:40; Matt 17:12; 28:3; Rev 1:14; 3:4, 5, 18; 4:4; 6:11; 7:9, 14; 19:14. Sanders (1992: 96-102) discusses the rarity of white clothes and fabrics. Since bright white was not a natural color, it took considerable effort to create (Croom 2000: 28).It is uncertain whether Josephus learned from his source that Archelaus wore white here—a detail absent from the Antiquities parallel (17.200)—or whether he has freely adapted the source as he does the Bible (above); if the latter, whether his accommodation is to actual Judean practice of the day or to a more general standard expected by the audience. Josephus follows standard usage in distinguishing the larger sacred precinct or compound (τὸ ἱερόν, as here) from the shrine building—in Jerusalem, the Holy Place containing the Holy of Holies—that was considered the deity’s home (ὁ ναός, e.g. at 2.5). See the note to “shrine” at 1.10. Greek λαός, used only 39 times in the War, is a more respectful term than τὸ πλῆθος (quantity, bulk, mass, rabble, mob, throng); the latter is much more frequent in this passage, in War (294 times), and in Josephus generally. Adulation (εὐφημία) from the mob was standard for a new ruler or conquering general: War 2.297, 511; 3.410, 459; 4.417; 6.316; 7.16, 103, 127. Josephus claimed to have received this from the Galileans (Life 251, 253). But shouts of praise were only one side of what Latin termed acclamatio (“shouting at”); this vociferous praise prepares for the other side—the shouted demands for redress of grievances that quickly follow (2.4, 7). Romans knew this scenario well (Aldrete 1999: 101-71), and would perhaps have felt the tension and high drama in Josephus’ description of the fickle mob’s adulation.

Gestures played an important role in Roman oratory: both the larger movement of the arm(s)—normally the right, with left occasionally added for emphasis—and the position of the fingers helped convey particular emotions or transitional points in the speech (Aldrete 1999: 3-84). Particularly well represented in Roman art is the adlocutio pose, with right hand raised to address a crowd. This may be something like the posture indicated by the verb δεξιόομαι here. In view of the crowds present, it is easiest to imagine that the high platform and throne were set up in the largest open space of the temple compound, in the S near the Royal Colonnade (Stoa, Portico). Much like Latin cura, the θεραπ–group of words has a wide range of connotations, many of which Josephus exploits in the 10 occurrences in War 2: care or devoted attentiveness (especially to a ruling figure, or to God: 2.105, 178, 297, 350, 617), reciprocal care by a ruler for the people (already in 2.4), attention to physical well-being and cures (whence English “therapy”: 2.136, 614). The phrase (ὡς πρὸς βέβαιον ἤδη βασιλέα) sets up Archelaus’ expectation in 2.3 that he will indeed be “confirmed king”: a hope that Josephus’ audience knows was never fulfilled—so a small irony. It is part of Josephus’ ongoing play between “seeming and being” that he also contrasts mere titles or offices with real authority. All this derives ultimately from Plato’s thoroughgoing distinction between the world of appearances, sense-perception, and opinion, on the one hand, and that of knowledge and the real on the other; see in particular his analogy of the cave (Resp. 514a-517c). But it was also a much discussed issue among Josephus’ contemporaries in the Greek renaissance: Greek statesmen of the period all realized that no matter what titles they enjoyed, real power rested in Rome (Anderson 1993: 101-32; Swain 1996: e.g., 151-86).Josephus likes to speak of people who have reputations (δοκέω, δόξα) for things that are proven to lack a basis in reality (War 1.648; Ant. 17.41; 19; 332; Apion 1.18, 67). At War 1.110-12 we see both contrasts, the “seeming” picking up 1.85—concerning Alexander Janneus’ unfounded reputation—and the “title/real authority” contrast with respect to Queen Alexandra, who allowed the Pharisees the real power while she held the mere title of sovereign. Then, Hyrcanus II’s mischievous courtiers encourage him against Herod by complaining that he has only the title (ὄνομα) and not the authority (ἔξουσία) of king (1.209). Later (1.561), Antipater pleads with his father not to leave him the mere title of king while others hold the power. At 2.208 princeps-designate Claudius promises through Agrippa I that he will rest content with honor of the title or address (προσηγορία)—princeps?—while governing through broad consultation. An ironic twist is in Suetonius, Tib. 24: although Tiberius did not hesitate to exercise imperium, he resisted the title that went with it, prompting the witticism that while others were reluctant to do what they promised, he would not promise what he was doing. Cf. Dio 36.11 for seeming and being, and the emperor Julian’s presentation (Ep. Ath. 11.19) of his alleged refusal to accept “either the address or the crown [of Augustus]” while Constantius II reigned. That is, Augustus, who ruled the empire from 27 BCE to 14 CE. See the note to “Romans” at 1.20. Greek ὁ . . . τῶν ὅλων δεσπότης, a stronger phrase than that used in the antecedent (κύριος ἁπάντων . . . τῶν διαθηκῶν) at 1.669. Cf. the similar phrases used of Roman rulers at 2.36 (Augustus described in Nicolaus’ defense of Archelaus), 179-180 (a role that Agrippa I wishes for Gaius Caligula, anticipating Tiberius’ death); 4.366 (Vespasian is κύριος τῶν ὅλων but within a military context—“supreme commander”—paralleled by Simon bar Giora on the Judean side, 5.248). In Josephus’ use of the absolute title (“master of everything”) may lurk a certain irony, given: the application of the phrase to dubious figures (cf. 1.207: Herod’s father Antipater honored by all “as if master of everything”); the reservation of such phrases in Josephus’ later works for God alone (Ant. 1.72; 4.40; 6.131; 17.244; 20.89-90; Apion 2.185; with similarly ironic usage in relation to Herod and Augustus at Ant. 16.118, 135); and some external parallels. Epictetus (Diatr. 4.1.12-14) employs the Caesar’s position as master of all (ὁ πάντων κύριος, δεσπότης) to challenge all illusions of freedom, even on the part of a consul (cf. Penwill 2003: 362-67). Tacitus uses roughly equivalent Latin expressions, such as rerum potiri (Hist. 3.74; Ann. 1.5; 6.51). Aristotle (Rhet. 1366a) had defined monarchy (μοναρχία) as the situation in which one person is master of all (εἷς ἁπάντων κύριός ἐστιν·), and tyranny (τυραννίς) as monarchy without restraint (ἀόριστος). By itself, the term δεσπότης was a widely used quivalent of Latin dominus (H. J. Mason 1974: 120), also in Josephus (2.28; cf. Philo, Legat. 239—noted by Pelletier ad 2.28). The formulation may be ironic—Augustus was self-evidently master of everything, and Herod confirmed this with respect to his estate (not a difficult choice!)—or it may simply reaffirm that Herod did designate Augustus his executor (1.669; 2.35—see notes there). Herod’s will has changed many times (1.451, 458-60, 550-52, 573, 640, 645-46, 664, 667-68). Throughout the process the king appears keenly aware of his dependence upon Augustus (cf. 1.457, 646, 669), even though the princeps had granted Herod the singular privilege of complete control over the fate of his heirs (1.536-37). For changes in Roman practice in recognizing a rex sociusque et amicus, from the late Republic to the Empire, see Braund 1984: 23-27. This issue of Caesar’s role in administering the succession will become the focus of debate between the potential heirs—in Rome, before Caesar (2.26-8, 34-6). It was indeed a serious issue, as Josephus’ story of Aretas IV confirms: he incurred Augustus’ displeasure when he assumed the Nabatean throne without awaiting the emperor’s word (Ant. 16.295, 353). Caesar’s prerogative remained a central issue in the dispute between Rome and Parthia over Armenia (see Introduction).

An ancient oasis-city situated a hilly 15 miles (25 km) NE of Jerusalem in the Jordan River valley; see further 2.57 and Appendix A. It was in the amphitheater at Jericho that, upon the news of Herod’s death and his wishes for the succession, Archelaus was acclaimed by his soldiers (1.666-70); but this is the first we hear about an attempt to give him the diadem. Given the ironic quality of the passage, it is possible that Josephus intends to make Archelaus a self-serving liar here: refusing an honor that had not in fact been offered. But see 2.27. The Greek genitive absolute with a present participle (τῆς στρατιᾶς τὸ διάδημα περιαπτούσης αὐτῷ) leaves a degree of ambiguity that will be exploited later (2.27): Did the soldiers manage to fasten the diadem (though he could claim that he disapproved)? Did they begin to do so but stop at his command? Did they merely signal their wish to do so? The parallel (Ant. 17.202) says rather that the army had been eager to fasten the diadem upon him, but he had declined the offer.The diadem was a strip of cloth tied around the head as an emblem of rule (cf. 1.671); see the note at 1.70. It was a potent symbol, which Roman principes thought it important to control. According to Suetonius, in 249 BCE Claudius Rursus had “set up his own statue with a diadem on its head (statua diademata) and tried to take possession of Italy” (Tib. 2.2). Julius Caesar pointedly refused to accept the diadema from Antony at the Lupercalia festival (Jul. 79.2). Gaius came close to accepting the diadema, which would have meant “changing the semblance of the principate into the form of a monarchy” (Cal. 22.1).Foreign rulers’ infringing on the emperor’s prerogative by donning a diadem was a resonant scenario for Josephus’ audience. In the preceding volume (1.387-93; cf. 1.451) King Herod laid aside his diadem, which had been bestowed by the defeated Marc Antony, in order to receive it again from Actium’s victor. In the decade before Josephus was writing War, Domitius Corbulo had achieved a compromise with the Parthians over Armenia (63 CE): Tiridates, brother of the Persian king Vologeses I, could rule Armenia if he put aside his diadem and received it in Rome—in 66 CE, as it happened—from the hand of Nero (Dio 62.23.3; 63.4.1). Suetonius relates that after the conquest of Jerusalem Titus had worn a diadem in Memphis, Egypt, while consecrating the bull Apis (Tit. 5.3). Although our reporter is quick to note that this was de rigueur for the ritual, he reports that Titus had to hurry to Rome to reassure his father of his fidelity. Given the sensitive nature of the symbol, Josephus portrays the potential royal heirs in Judea as keenly aware that they can accept it only from the hands of the world sovereign.The pathetic character of this condition—men without virtue or qualification striving to secure a piece of cloth from the master of the world, which actually proclaims their weakness—will be exposed when Josephus interrupts the succession story in Rome to describe the contemporary Judean revolt (2.39-79), for two of the rebel leaders—a slave (2.57) and a shepherd (2.60)—assume the diadem for themselves. Josephus appears in sympathy with his contemporary, Dio Chrysostom: “If anyone else has his head bound, without a fracture, he is ridiculed; yet for the kings it is thought to be fitting, and countless thousands of men have died for this scrap of cloth” (Or. 66.5). Dio includes the craving for royal head-dress (diadems and tiaras) as symptomatic of tyranny (Or. 1.79). In Josephus, too, diadem-lust is linked with War’s larger themes of tyranny and demagoguery (1.9-10); cf. Mason 2008b. See 2.27, where Archelaus’ opponents claim that he had pre-empted Caesar’s prerogative by arranging for a diadem to be fixed on his head. The second term (εὔνοια) may have more intimate connotations, such as “loyalty” and “affection.” The pair of qualities (here with προθυμία, elsewhere sometimes τὸ πρόθυμος) is standard in Josephus (Ant. 5.96; 6.82; 8.57; 15.193, 201; 17.195; 19.151; Life 103), in rhetoric (Isocrates, Phil. 18.4; Demosthenes, Cor. 286.3; 312.2; Dionysius, Ant. Rom. 10.16.4; Plutarch, Alc. 30.10; Caes. 16.1; Dion 10.4; Brut. 39.3; Mor. 50B.8; 453C.9; 575D.8), and in one of Josephus’ models, Polybius (2.50.4; 3.17.7, 44.12, 76.13; 5.37.2; 7.9.8, 11.6; 9.44.1 [frag. incert.]; 10.17.9, 14; 11.12.2; 21.3.2, 22.3; 22.5.2, 9.4; 27.5.4; 30.3.1; 31.3.2, 8.7). I.e., the Romans in the person of the princeps Augustus, as the previous sentence and the sequel (2.20-39, 80-97) indicate. Because Herod has appeared in virtuous terms in War (contrast Ant. 14-17, where he appears also as an arrogant violator of laws), the comments that Josephus attributes to Archelaus in Ant. 17.201—gratitude that his father’s outrages against the people have not been held against him—would have been out of place here. This notice about Archelaus’ commitment to treat the Judeans well prepares for War 2.111, where the brief summary of his ethnarchy charges him with savage treatment of both Judeans and Samarians.

Josephus’ distaste for the rabble, which he shares with most ancient writers (e.g., Thucydides 2.65.8; Plutarch, Alc. 10.1; Cato Maj. 16.5), is based in part on the assumption that they live by impulse and for momentary pleasure, and are therefore highly susceptible to demagogues: Ant. 4.36; 12.398. This language is even stronger in the parallel at Ant. 17.204, 211: “They considered lawful and just whatever was likely to bring them pleasure (ἡδονήν).” Simonetti (737-38 n. 87) distinguishes between the generalized praise, which he attributes to the mob, and the quite specific demands, which he thinks must have come from Jerusalem’s more cultivated circles, especially Pharisees and Sadducees. He adds (738 n. 88) that such demands did not take into account the precarious position of Archelaus as heir apparent to a client kingdom (cf. on the latter, Smallwood 1981: 105). Interpreting the story and reconstructing historical probabilities are different projects, however: Josephus plainly states that it was the rabble (who had praised Archelaus) who now made the demands, and the rabble whom he appeased. Roman audiences would be familiar with the prospect of mob demands shouted at a leader, even where these followed closely on fulsome shouts of praise; see the note to “adulation” at 2.1. The contrast here between “lightening” (forms of κουφίζω) the imposts (εἰσφοραί) and “burdening” (βαρέω) the nation seems distinctively Josephan: War 1.428; 2.273; Ant. 17.204. If Archelaus was in a position to lighten or remove this burden, then it was either something he had imposed or a Roman requirement that, the people assumed, he could alleviate or cover from other resources (as his father had covered levies on foreign cities). Even when he comes to write the often anti-Herodian Antiquities, Josephus concedes that Herod himself had substantially reduced taxes at times (Ant. 15.365; 16.64). In the case of the Babylonian immigrant community that he settled in Batanea, he relieved them of all customary εἰσφοραί (Ant. 17.25). Ant. 17.305-6 adds the charge that Herod seized the property of “the nobility” after murdering them, though that account may be shaped to anticipate Gaius Caligula’s behavior in Ant. 19.1-4.Josephus leaves the precise content of these imposts unclear. Such εἰσφοραί (a “gathering in”; in Attic Greek usually ad hoc levies) will, however, figure prominently in War 2 (2.273, 383, 385, 404—half of the 10 occurrences in Josephus). Judea was reportedly made subject to tribute by Pompey in 63 BCE (War 1.154 [φόρος]; cf. Cicero, Flac. 69). Julius Caesar reversed many of Pompey’s impositions, but still required tribute from Hyrcanus as high priest and ethnarch (Ant. 14.200-10; cf. Smallwood 1981: 33-40). On the problem of calculating the amounts involved under Hyrcanus—at any rate, a burdensome portion of the annual produce—see Pucci ben Zeev 1998: 86-87. On the various taxes collected by Herod, see Schalit 1969: 262-98; at War 2.84-6 the Judean delegation to Augustus will complain bitterly of his exactions. Although the taxation-census described by Luke as including Herod’s kingdom (Luke 2:1-5) brims with familiar problems, there is slight evidence (Matt 22:17) that the tetrarchy of Galilee-Perea under his son Antipas was liable to “taxes to Caesar”—and that payment was a cause of discontent.Whether client kings in general paid tributum is a vexed issue. Braund (1984: 63-6) thinks that they paid more or less regular indemnities to Rome (for the costs of installing the king), though not tribute as such; Schalit (1969: 272, 277) thinks that Herod collected a head tax, which he handed over as tribute; Lintott (1993: 35) notes War 1.399, according to which the younger Herod had been appointed procurator for all Syria, which implies the collection of tribute. At 2.404-5 the εἰσφοραί constitute the annual tribute for Rome from Judea—as an imperial province, however, under an equestrian governor: 40 talents’ worth in arrears—as perhaps also War 1.428, where Herod relieves the tax burden of various foreign communities. In support of understanding this tax as tribute, the parallel at Ant. 17.204 glosses this as “the annual tax-levies that they brought.” Mommsen, however (1887: 2.190-91), marshals compelling evidence (from Caesar’s edicts in Ant. 14 and the census under Quirinius in 6 CE) for his conclusion that Herod’s Judea enjoyed the unusually favorable situation of freedom from both tribute to Rome and responsibility for maintaining a Roman legion. Greek εἰσφορά certainly was a standard equivalent of Latin tributum (H. J. Mason 1974: 41), though it also had other senses; at Ant. 3194 it indicates the temple tax. In Egypt it sometimes referred to a special tax (LSJ s.v. IIb). Greek τὰ τέλη is even more vague than εἰσφοραί (previous note). It seems unlikely, therefore, that Josephus is trying here to indicate two distinct kinds of tax; more likely, the vague nouns function synonymously, and the two options reside in the verbs—either lighten this burdensome levy or do away with it altogether. Ant. 17.204-5 is different: these τέλη, as distinct from an annual levy, were applied to “public sales and purchases” and were being collected harshly. For the pairing of εἰσφοραί and τέλη, as apparent synonyms, see IG II (2) 1.19.1369.287, 1241; SEG 24:94, 34; Justin, Apol. 27.2; Theophilus, Autol. 1.10; Pollux, Onom. 8.97 [a fragment of Aristotle]. Greek ἀπολύειν τοὺς δεσμώτας. Although Herod’s sister Salome has quick-wittedly released the nobles put in custody by the king (1.666), sparing them an unjust death, the parallel (Ant. 17.204) claims that many had been put in chains by Herod and kept in that condition for long periods. Without that information here, Josephus assumes his audience’s understanding that—as always under perceived tyrants—many will have been imprisoned unjustly (cf. 2.273; Ant. 20.215; Life 13). In the Roman world, incarceration was possible (a) for those in remand, awaiting trial, (b) between conviction and sentencing, and (c) in fulfillment of the sentence, though in the early empire prison sentences were rarely employed. State-sponsored legal custody (private custody was also known) was chiefly for (a) and (b), each of which could be ameliorated by the influence of patrons (cf. Ant. 18.202-4); (c) was usually obviated by corporal or capital punishment, hard labor sentences, exile, or house arrest (Krause 1996: 64-91). Note the informal nature of Agrippa’s incarceration at Tiberius’ order (2.180): not a sentence, it appears, but simply a means of keeping him out of the way indefinitely. Pliny’s correspondence with Trajan (Ep. 10.19-20) over the question whether publicly owned slaves (servi publici) should guard prisoners (ad continendas custodias), as was customary (cf. the high priest’s slaves at Luke 22:50, 56, 63), or whether this was a task for seconded soldiers (as with Agrippa, Ant. 18.203), shows how informal the situation was and suggests that the need was chiefly connected with (a) and (b).In the absence of penitentiary regimes, long-term imprisonment often indicated judicial neglect, corruption, or an inability to prosecute, and was increasingly hazardous for the one kept in chains. Although Josephus does not explain the cause, the financial context here might suggest that some of these were debt prisoners (on which Krause 1996: 150-55). “Release of prisoners” was part of the brighter future of God’s reign portrayed in biblical and gospel traditions (Ps 68:6; 79:11; 102:20; 146:7; Isa 42:7; 61:1; Luke 4:18; Matt 27:15-18). See the note to “attentiveness” at 2.2. Josephus uses the same verb (θεραπεύω) for Archelaus’ treatment of the mob that he had used for their flattery of him (2.2). This creates an ironic inversion of proper political relationships. Contrast Cato the Elder, who pledged to cure Rome of its softness and luxury by hard training, whereas his rivals put up candidates for office “who carefully attended to the rabble (θεραπεύοντας . . . τὸ πλῆθος [as Archelaus here]) with promises of lenient conduct, as though it [the rabble] demanded to be ruled softly and pleasantly” (Cato Maj. 16.4). Although the statesman must make an effort to win the trust of the people, as Josephus himself will do (War 2.569), he crosses a fine but crucial line when he appears to be flattering the mob or pandering to them. Cf. Hands 1959; M. Roller 2001: 110. In one of many curious examples of paraphrase, the parallel at Ant. 17.205 says only that Archelaus made no objection to the crowd’s demands, reserving the verb ἐπινεύω (“give the nod,” used here) for a later context (17.208), in which he momentarily feigns agreement with more extreme and particular demands (cf. 2.8 below) before unleashing his anger on the crowds.

This spare, non-judgmental notice prepares for the accusation by Archelaus’ opponents, before Augustus, that he had merely put on a show of filial piety, mourning by day but partying by night (2.29). It is part of Josephus’ art that although he provides a basis for that judgment, he neither affirms nor denies the moral evaluation. Nor does he connect the following riots with this behavior, as the accusers will. In Hellenistic and Roman usage, “friends” (φίλοι, amici) of kings and governors comprised an inner circle of trusted advisors, whom they consulted for political advice; for the princeps, see Crook 1955; Millar 1977: 110-22; and B. W. Jones 1992: 50-8. Josephus has mentioned Herod’s interest in choosing the “relatives and friends” (i.e., advisers) of his 3 other sons then in favor for the succession (1.460), and he often presents a ruler or governor striking an advisory meeting (συνέδριον) of such “friends”: War 1.537, 571, 620; Ant. 17.46, 301; Life 79 [of his own practice as Galilean commander], 236, 368. That said, “friendship” (φιλία, amicitia) was also a highly prized and much-discussed quality (Aristotle, Rhet. 2.4.1380b-1381a; Konstan 1997), and Josephus refers to such personal friends of his own (Life 13, 418-19; cf. 180). It is impossible from this notice to discern the kind of friends that the ruler Archelaus entertains here. The institution of “friends,” whether as client kings or as political advisors, was according to Shaw (1993, 1995), a function of pre-state conceptions of personal (rather than institutional or official) power that operated broadly around the Mediterranean. Such ancient ways of establishing powerful groups included a ritualized friendship (cf. Herman 1987). Or “those who had committed themselves to innovate [politically]” (τῶν νεωτερίζειν προῃρημένων). See the note to “revolutionary bloc” at 1.4: in political contexts, the verb νεωτερίζω had since the time of Thucydides carried the sense of revolutionizing the state or constitution (νεωτερίσαι . . . τὴν πολιτείαν, 1.115.2) or simply of rebellion (Thucydides 1.97.1, 102.3). Needless to say, “revolution” must be understood in its ancient context, even if glossed as political upheaval (μεταβολή; cf. 2.259; Ant. 15.30) or radical innovation, such as the rebels of 66-73 in Josephus’ narrative intend with their usurpation of the aristocracy and withdrawal from Roman rule. Modern conditions of post-industrial revolution, whether theoretical or derived from the American, French, Russian or similar revolutions, do not directly apply and should not be read into this translation—though there are doubtless insights to be gained from comparative study (e.g., Brinton 1952 with Rajak 1983: 104-43). This is the first occurrence in War of κατολοφύρομαι (cf. 4.339; 6.102)—another component of the “lament” lexicon in this work; see the note to “mourn over” at 1.9. The story is told in 1.648-55. For the distinction between shrine and temple, see the note to “shrine” at 1.10.

Greek διαπρύσιος: another element of tragic emotion in War (only: cf. 2.294; 6.309 and the note to “mourn over” at 1.9). Greek οἰμωγή. Yet another tragic term in Josephus (see note to “mourn over” at 1.9): it has 12 appearances in War, 11 in Antiquities. Pelletier (2.201 n. 3) observes that the colorful adjective ἐγκέλευστος (NB: only here in Josephus; attested in literature before him only in Xenophon, Anab. 1.3.13; Cyr. 5.5.39; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 4.12.1) evokes the figure of the κελευστής, who kept the beat for rowers. This is far from being a spontaneous outpouring of emotion, therefore. Greek θρῆνος, another term redolent of Jeremiah and the lament theme (see note to “mourn over” at 1.9). He uses this noun 8 times in War, 10 in Antiquities. Probably beating of the breast, as LCL and M-B: κοπετοί, which occurs only here in Josephus and indicates a kind of striking, is often used elsewhere of mourning women beating their breasts: Plutarch, Fab. Max. 17.7; Nic. 13.11; Caes. 27.6; Ant. 84.4; Mor. 609b; Philo, Abr. 260. Although πυρί (“by fire”) is missing in MSS LVRC Lat, and Naber omits it (as also Pelletier), Niese favors MSS PAM in retaining it (so too LCL and M-B). In this narrative the phrase (οἱ πάτριοι νόμοι) most immediately recalls the language of the “sophists” who incited their young students to tear down Herod’s eagle (1.649-50). For Josephus every nation has its own ancestral laws (Ant. 1.166; 18.41, 53, 344; 20.75, 81; Apion 2.155; cf. 2.144): this is generic, rather than special Judean, terminology (pace Schröder 1996). For Greek usage see e.g., Oliver 1950; for Josephus, Mason 1991: 100-5 and n. 90.

Josephus relates much less than he knows. In Antiquities, which has a sustained interest in the high-priestly succession (e.g., 20.224-51), he will explain that after the affair of the golden eagle Herod not only executed the teachers responsible for the incitement (as in War 1.648-55) but also replaced the serving high priest Matthias—as partly responsible for the action—with Ioazar, the brother of Herod’s wife Mariamme II (Ant. 17.164-65). This Mariamme and Ioazar were the children of a famous priest named Simon, whose father had come from Alexandria; Herod had earlier appointed Simon high priest (23-5 BCE) in order to facilitate his marriage to Mariamme (Ant. 15.320-22). This unelaborated reference to Herod’s last high priest (Ioazar) is one of many items that suggests Josephus’ knowledge, as he writes the War, of a fuller narrative approximating that in Antiquities. Ant. 17.207, characteristically varying the language, has them seek a high priest who is “more concerned with the legal tradition” (νομιμώτερον) and who is pure (rather than “purer”). The point seems to be that these “revolutionaries” reject the use of the high priesthood as a patronage appointment in the king’s prerogative. Notice the detachment with which Josephus narrates Herod’s meddling with the high priesthood, in spite of his marked concern with the institution: War omits many details, leaving intact Herod’s image as a powerful Judean king and friend of Rome; in this work Josephus reserves his ire for the rebels’ appointment of a non-traditional high priest (War 4.152-61).

Or “furious”: passive of παροξύνω, a favorite word in Josephus. Diodorus, the author who uses it next most often, has about 77 occurrences, over against only a few each in Thucydides and Polybius, somewhat more in the orators; Josephus has 112 occurrences: 46 in War 1-6 (not bk. 7), nearly a third of these (14) in bk. 2—the build-up to revolt. In bk. 2 Josephus particularly favors the construction “At this (or these things), X became provoked”: cf. 2.11, 305, 406. A complementary word-group denotes “aggravation, irritation, indignation”: the noun ἀγανάκτησις occurs 16 times in War 1-6 (not in bk. 7 or elsewhere in Josephus), the cognate verb 26 times in War 1-6 (also not bk. 7) and 54 times in Josephus.The parallel (Ant. 17.208) has Archelaus first indicate agreement with these demands (with the same verb as at War 2.4 above), in spite of his anger; in the immediate sequel, however, he sends a general to try to talk the people out of their position. Although only those who had been planning revolution would experience his retaliation, Archelaus fears that their appeal to the laws and the shrine (2.6) will have sufficient appeal to the masses that any punishment of the rebels will bring a much larger public reaction. This is a familiar scenario from the Hasmonean history and it will continue throughout the narrative: legitimate rulers (Josephus does not necessarily endorse them wholeheartedly) constantly face the problem of demagogues and charismatic populists who can lead the “rabble” in any way they like; cf. 1.67, 110, 648; 2.51, 55-6. This word (κίνημα) is a key term from the prologue, used 15 times throughout War and once elsewhere in Josephus; see the note at 1.4. This alternative of coercion or persuasion (βία [or ἀνάγκη] ἢ πειθώ) was an old favorite of Greek rhetoric (Euripides, Suppl. 347; Thucydides 4.87.2; Plato, Apol. 35d; Pol. 296b; 304d; Gorg. 517b; Resp. 411d; 488d; Leg. 722b; Xeonophon, Mem. 1.2.10; Symp. 8.20; Demosthenes, Alex. 17.23.6; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 25.2; 30.14; 75.4; Plutarch, Thes. 24.3; Rom. 16.1; Sol. 16.2; Them. 21.2; Tim. 19.3; Mar. 29.3; Appian, Bell. civ. 3.6.42). Paradigmatic episodes include Themistocles’ demand for funds from the Andrians, where he points out that he is accompanied by two Gods, Persuasion and Compulsion (Herodotus 8.111), and Isocrates’ advice to Philip II of Macedon: use persuasion against Greeks, force against barbarians (Phil. 10). The pair appears with some frequency in Josephus: War 2.199, 562-63; 3.203; Ant. 4.17; 17.10; Life 42, 370. This is the first occurrence of one of War’s distinctive usages: οἱ νεωτερίζοντες (literally “innovators” or “changers”) to designate those fomenting revolt—foreshadowing the major revolt against Rome that is the main subject of the work. Cf. the artful construction on the same root in the prologue (1.4). The immediate reference here is to 2.5: “those who had been planning to incite revolution [against Archelaus],” Josephus will continue to use this short-hand at War 2.407, 410, 417, 494, 652; 3.108, 447; 4.114, 120; 7.4. No other extant ancient text employs the phrase so thematically, though the usage is suggested by Thucydides 1.97.1; 3.72.1; possibly Isocrates, Antid. 121; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 5.55.3, 59.1; Diodorus 12.7.1; 13.47.8; Philo, Spec. 4.127; Flacc. 48; Somn. 1.103. Cf. Firpo 1997. Of the 8 occurrences of ὑποπέμπω in Josephus, 7 are in War 1-2, where there is a pervasive atmosphere of intrigue (1.492, 527; 2.8, 11, 27, 493, 618; also Ant. 14.368). Although the identity of this “general” (τὸν στρατηγόν) is not immediately clear, the definite article and the fact that Josephus retains the word in Ant. 17.209, where he otherwise alters his language, suggests that he intends someone specific. If so, it is easiest to assume (though uncertain) that Josephus has in mind the general who had arrested the young men for cutting down the golden eagle while Herod lay mortally ill (War 1.652). That would explain the revolutionaries’ hostile reaction to him in 2.9, since they are partisans of those who had removed the eagle (2.6).

Greek στασιασταί, agents of civil strife (see notes to “insurgents” and “civil strife” at 1.10); interchangeable with “revolutionaries” in the previous section. Although Josephus uses a variety of compounds for the agents of sedition (στασιώτης, e.g. Ant. 13.403; 17.216; στασιώδης, e.g. War 1.198; 2.91, 225; Ant. 17.314; Life 17; even once στασιοποιός, Life 134), as well as the participle οἱ στασιάζοντες, this is his preferred form. Greek ἐπὶ σωφρονισμῷ. Although this form of the noun would come into broad use from the 2nd century CE, it is exceedingly rare in Greek before Josephus, outside Philo (Deus 182; Mos. 1.328; Leg. 3.193; Mut. 135; Post. 97; Ebr. 29; Migr. 14; Virt. 75; otherwise, Aesop’s fables [undated]; Strabo, Geog. 1.2.9; fragments of Aristoxenus and Hippodamus). His younger contemporary Plutarch has it 6 times. This is the only occurrence in War; cf. Ant. 17.210; 18.128; 19.16. Archelaus’ pattern of engagement with hostile masses—repeated attempts at peaceful negotiation, resorting to incremental force only when the mobs are out of control (cf. 2.11-12)—will also be used by Tiberius Iulius Alexander as prefect of Egypt (2.493-94). It also anticipates the procedure of the Judean leaders (especially Agrippa II), appealing urgently for calm (2.320-21, 343-405), but eventually being willing to resort to force (2.334, 418-23). An ominous notice, anticipating the massive increase in potential numbers that comes next.

This kind of phrase, with the aorist or perfect participle of ἐνίστημι (here τῆς τῶν ἀζύμων ἐνστάσης ἑορτῆς), is Josephus’ formulaic way of indicating the beginning of an appointed festival: 1.253; 2.42, 280; 5.99; 6.423; Ant. 4.209; 5.172; 8.225, 230; 9.271; 11.109; 13.252; 14.285; 17.237, 254; 20.106, 208. Significantly, this usage is not found in LXX, post-biblical Judean texts, or the gospels, though they refer often to the biblical festivals; it does occur in Nicolaus of Damascus (fr. 99 l. 89; 101 l. 77 [Müller]), as later in Plutarch (Luc. 10.1) and Herodian (Marc. 2.2.2). That is, Unleavened Bread; see following note. Josephus, like the gospel writers, uses the adjective alone; since the Bible required all leaven to be removed from one’s house (Exod 12:7, 19; 13:7; Deut 16:4), I opt for a literal translation, not restricting the object to bread. It is unclear whether the present tense implies that Passover sacrifices continued at Josephus’ time, without the temple. Ant. 2.313 (written in 93-94 CE) seems more explicit: “For which reason, even still now we sacrifice thus according to the custom. . .” (νῦν ἔτι κατὰ τὸ ἔθος οὕτως θύομεν). See the evidence for post-70 sacrifice (and outside Jerusalem) adduced by Colautti 2002: 229-35. Greek πάσχα here, though φάσκα at Ant. 5.20; 14.25 (cf. Colautti 2002: 7). In Ant. 2.313 Josephus will explain the word as “passing over” (see Feldman BJP 3 on this passage). The atticizing Greek of the War (see Introduction) normally avoids foreign terms, though here Josephus transliterates Aramaic ‮אחספ‬‎ (cf. Hebrew ‮חספ‬‎). This first reference to Passover in Josephus is important to War’s narrative for several reasons. (a) Structure: Josephus uses the word pascha only here—10 paragraphs into the second book—and at War 6.423—19 paragraphs from end of the second-last book. This reinforces the structural symmetry of the book (see Introduction), which is enhanced by other common language: here, ἑορτῆς, ἣ πάσχα παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις καλεῖται; there, ἑορτῆς, πάσχα καλείται. In both cases he also uses “Unleavened [Bread]” (cf. 6.421), his usual name for the festival in the War. Both passages also emphasize the large numbers of participants and sacrifices involved.(b) Drama: Passover plays a basic role in the development of War’s plot. At each new reference to the feast Josephus adds details: large and unruly crowds in Jerusalem require special security (2.224, 244); 3 million or more people, and the Syrian legate on occasion, come to Jerusalem (2.280); the feast commemorates ancient liberation from Egypt (4.402); fatefully, at the Passover of 70 CE there was a temporary lull in the siege and the rebels opened the city gates to pilgrims (5.99); several omens of the temple’s destruction had been witnessed at a Passover shortly before the revolt (6.290). Most important: Fate selected Passover, when the city overflowed with inhabitants, as the time to imprison them for the final catastrophe (6.428).(c) Yet there seems a good deal of literary manipulation in all this. For example, the temple did not fall at Passover, but several months later; even if the Romans had relaxed their siege during the spring feast of 70 CE and the rebels had welcomed pilgrims, it seems antecedently unlikely that visitors from other cities poured into embattled Jerusalem in their usual numbers that year. Josephus’ use of census figures for an earlier Passover (6.422-23)—doubtful any case—to prove the large number caught in that final catastrophe is not convincing. It seems that he has highlighted Passover in both the structure and substance of his narrative for thematic and symbolic reasons, a strategy that occurred also to the author of John (2:13, 23; 6:4; 11:55; 12:1; 13:1; 19:14).The parallel to this episode (Ant. 17.213-14) gives a fuller account of Passover/Unleavened Bread, which reprises the definitive description in Ant. 3.248-51 (cf. 5.20; 9.263-64; 10.70-71; 18.29, 90; 20.106). Although in the main description Josephus distinguishes Passover from Unleavened Bread, here and elsewhere in Antiquities he equates them, as do 2 Chron 30:1-5, 13 and the synoptic gospels (Mark 14:1, 12; Matt 26:17; Luke 22:1, 7). See Feldman in BJP 3: 302-4 and Colautti 2002: 144-52. This appears to be a terse abbreviation of something like the version in Ant. 17.13-14, which explains the significance of Passover and elaborates that more sacrifices are offered then than at any other festival. One of only 3 pilgrimage festivals, Passover was evidently considered the most important, and the most likely to be attended by pilgrims from far and wide. This circumstance, and the requirement that the roasted lamb for each family be fully consumed before the next day (cf. 2.30 below: pilgrims bring in their sacrifices for slaughter), along with the other Passover sacrifices, justifies Josephus’ remark about an unparalleled volume of sacrifice. See Exod 12:1-12; 34:23-25; Lev 23:4-8; Num 9:1-14; 28:16-20; Deut 16:1-8. Since this is the only occurrence of the rare expression λαὸς ἄπειρος in Josephus, and it is found in fragment of Nicolaus (Müller FHG 3, fr. 101.403), whereas Josephus normally prefers the standard πλῆθος ἄπειρος (24 occurrences), reserving λαός for more respectful uses (see the note to “citizenry” at 2.1), it may be that he preserves here a vestige of his source. The parallel (Ant. 17.214) adds plausibly “and from abroad”: Passover was an important pilgrimage festival (Deut 16:16). These are the teachers (Judas and Matthias, as the parallel Ant. 17.214), who incited their students to cut down Herod’s golden eagle (1.648-55); cf. 2.5-6 above. All 8 occurrences of “sophist” (σοφιστής) in War apply to teachers who are inciters, trouble-makers, or disturbers of the peace: these teachers (1.648, 650, 655, 656, this passage; cf. Ant. 17.152, 155), Judas the Galilean (2.118, 433), and Judas’ son Menachem (2.445). The only other occurrence of the word in Josephus makes clear that he maintains the pejorative connotations made famous by Plato (e.g., Prot. 311e-314e): he calls the anti-Judean writers of Egypt “reprobate sophists, deceivers of the young” (Apion 2.236). Although he does not label Justus of Tiberias a sophist, his description of him matches the type: see Life 36-42 and notes thereto in BJP 9. Or “formed a conspiracy,” since συνίστημι has a causative sense and hostile connotation (2.55, 56, 59, 80, etc.). Or “nutrition for the sedition (or faction).” The meaning of Josephus’ Greek (οἱ . . . πενθοῦντες . . . συνειστήκεσαν τροφὴν τῇ στάσει ποριζόμενοι) may not be as clear as it seems. The parallel (Ant. 17.214) says plainly that those mourning the teachers were supplying provisions (also τροφή) to the insurgents, and were not ashamed to beg for them. Yet Thackeray seems bemused that anyone would take the language of nourishment so literally: he translates “procuring recruits for their faction” (cf. Vitucci: cercando proseliti per la sommossa) and attributes Ant. 17.214, where food is clearly envisaged, to a misunderstanding on the part of the Thucydidean literary hack who assisted Josephus’ source (n. b ad loc.). Or “sedition.” The definite article is used (ἡ στάσις), apparently, because the sedition in question has been anticipated (with different words) in 2.1, 5. The label is of course the narrator’s. As discussed in the note to “civil strife” at 1.10, this word has many senses, all bad, and that versatility is likely one reason why Josephus chose it as a Leitmotif. Here the general sense of “civil strife” yields to sedition or uprising against the Herodian heir. See also the note to “civil strife” at 2.418.

Note the parallel “at this” construction at 2.8, exposing the sudden change in this ruler’s emotions, from anger to fear in the face of the masses; Josephus hints here at themes (e.g., the power of the masses and demagogues, the instability of monarchy) that will drive much of his work. On sedition (στάσις) as political disease, see the note to “diseased” at 1.4. See the note at 2.8. “Leader of a thousand” (Greek χιλίαρχος). In the Hellenistic, phalanx-based army, modeled on Alexander’s, this officer commanded 1024 men. But the term was also the Greek equivalent to the Latin for one of 6 senior legionary officers: the tribunus militum (H. J. Mason 1974: 99-100, 163) who, in spite of the title, did not have direct command of a unit within the legion (Webster 1985: 113; see further 2.335 below). It was common for client kings to imitate Roman military organization (Keppie 1998: 141), and Shatzman (1991: 198-210) makes a convincing case that King Herod’s army was modeled on Roman lines—a situation that Archelaus would have inherited. Thus, although this man was a senior officer (in status, if not in age) of Archelaus’ army, we cannot describe his precise function; evidently, he was trusted with a force of cohort strength. Greek σπεῖρα. In the earlier Hellenistic armies, this unit was one of the 4 256-strong units of that constituted the 1,000-strong χιλιαρχία. It was also, however, the standard Greek equivalent for Latin cohors (H. J. Mason 1974: 85, 163), one of the 10 constituent parts of a legion, each comprising 6 centuries of about 80 men (except the first cohort, which had 5 centuries of double—i.e., 160-man—strength). The standard legionary cohort thus included 480 men, the first cohort 800.Auxiliary cohorts and those of allied client kingdoms, such as Herod’s, are usually thought to have been about 500-strong (Keppie 1998: 63-7; Gilliver 1999: 18-22), though at 3.68 Josephus will describe the auxiliary cohorts involved in the Judean war as comprising either 600 infantry + 120 cavalry or 1,000 infantry.Given that in this case the commander is called a tribune (see previous note), it seems possible that this was a double cohort of 1,000 men, as the later Roman cohorts in Jerusalem may also have been (see 2.444 and note to “Sebastenes” at 2.52). See the note at 2.10. In the parallel (Ant. 17.215), Archelaus directs that the leaders of the sedition are to be brought before him. See the note and the very similar construction at 2.8. This (διαφθείρω) is one of Josephus’ preferred euphemisms for “kill” (along with ἀναιρέω, appearing 451 times); he uses it 289 times in his works, 90 of these in War, 25 in bk. 2. This is one of many episodes to come in which ordinary Judean citizens overcome professional military units, whether royal or Roman: e.g., the story of Cestius’ escape from Judean rebels after the near destruction of his Twelfth Legion at War 2.551-55. The model for Josephus’ language of narrow escape here (ἐκφεύγει τραυματίας μόλις) may be Polybius’ description of the consul Claudius Marcellus’ son (καὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Κλαυδίου τραυματίαν, μόλις καὶ παραδόξως τὸν κίνδυνον διαπεφευγότα; 10.32.6). This immediately precedes a programmatic passage in which Polybius condemns the consul himself (who lost his life) for exposing himself to danger, against all military principles (10.32.6-33.6).

Partly by his use of the ambiguous δεινός (terrible, awful; awesome, wonderful), Josephus maintains his narrator’s distance. Does he mean to blame the rebels for returning to sacrifice after killing, or obliquely to recognize the casual heroism of the Judean citizenry, who could so calmly return to worship after dispatching a professional military cohort? Both conclusions match prominent themes in the War, and this sort of ambiguity continues throughout the work. At any rate, this return to sacrifice prepares for Archelaus’ further attack (2.13). Or simply, “no longer restrained.” Josephus uses 3 καθεκτ- forms in War (and nowhere else), once each: here καθεκτός; καθεκτικός of the Essenes at 2.135; καθεκτέον of constraints on the historian (to suppress emotion) at 5.20. Archelaus’ desire to avoid slaughter (φόνος), authoritatively declared here by the narrator, will be utterly ignored by the opponents of his succession: 2.30 (cf. 2.34), 89. A similar scenario will play out in Alexandria under Tiberius Alexander at 2.493-94, where some of the vocabulary here is employed again. The adverb/adjective ἀθρόος, rendered “en masse” in non-military contexts (e.g., 2.170, 174), is distributed throughout the 7 books of War for a remarkable 45 occurrences, against only 12 appearances in all of Josephus’ later works. It is a characteristic term of this narrative, perhaps highlighting the martial instincts of even ordinary Judeans (cf. Spartans). Josephus tends to cluster occurrences, sometimes ironically in relation to the Roman military (1.81, 84; 2.170, 174; 6.80, 82, 86). Josephus generally shows a keen awareness of military realities, for example (as here) noting the kinds of terrain best suited for cavalry (flat, open spaces) and those more suited to infantry (close or restricted quarters, steep terrain). Cf. Life 116, 397; Frontinus, Strat. 2.9, 11.

Josephus’ phrase θύουσιν ἑκάστοις evokes the situation of Passover, at which family heads brought their lambs to the priests for slaughter (see note to “sacrifices” at 2.10). It connects with his earlier remark about the volume of sacrifices (2.10) and with the claim of Archelaus’ opponents, that he slaughtered the would-be sacrificers with their animal victims (2.30). The parallel (Ant. 17.218) adds a harsh moral evaluation concerning the rebels’ fear, in spite of a rashness grounded in their lack of cultivation (or culture, education, training). In War Josephus is more restrained with his moral assessments, in keeping with the promise of the prologue (1.2-3, 6, 9-11).

Otherwise unknown, though named Ptollas in the parallel, Ant. 17.219 (where, however, MSS AME and Latin support πολλοὺς, “many”). Whereas Ptollas would likely be a Greek name derived from Ptolemy (cf. Solin 2003: 232), Poplas would presumably have a Latin derivation, from popularis (countryman) or populus (people, poplar tree). Ptolemy has been introduced in 1.280, 473 as “the most honored friend” of Herod, a status made clear by his role at the king’s death (1.667-69): he reads the codicil that nominates Archelaus king of Judea. Antiquities adds a number of details: Herod had placed him in charge of the royal finances (16.191), and he had played a role in court affairs and intrigues (16.197, 257, 321, 330). Nicolaus (ca. 64 BCE-ca. 5 CE?) was a highly educated Peripatetic philosopher who served as Herod’s closest aide. He wrote among other things a 144-volume Universal History (the 10th-cent. Constantian Excerpta preserve some of the early volumes), a Life of Augustus, an ethnographic collection, an autobiography, and several lost tragedies, comedies, and works of philosophy. He was Josephus’ most likely source for this account of the contest over Herod’s succession, in which Nicolaus was a player. See notes to 1.574, 629, 637-38. The surviving fragments of Nicolaus’ work are collected in Jacoby IIA: 324-430. For his biography of Augustus, see Duttlinger 1911; Bellemore 1984; and Malitz 2003; for Nicolaus in general and on the Judeans, Wacholder 1962, 1989; Stern, GLAJJ 1.83-97. To Caesarea Maritima (cf. 2.16), the port city built by Archelaus’ father Herod, for passage to Rome. Greek ἐπίτροπος: bailiff, procurement or revenue officer. This is an intriguing notice for several reasons. First, it seems that Philip did not have a standing role as his brother’s “procurator”; the sentence implies, and Ant. 17.209 confirms, that he was put in charge only while Archelaus was traveling abroad. The title is either an informal label, its parallel with 2.16 entirely coincidental, or Josephus chose it ironically in preparation for 2.16. Second, Herod himself had reportedly been designated procurator of all Syria, to whom other Roman procurators were accountable, by Augustus in about 20 BCE (War 1.399). Archelaus may have hoped to maintain or recover that function with his ancticipated accession to the throne. Finally, however, at 2.16 (shortly below), we meet a procurator of Syria already in place, Sabinus, who has designs on Herod’s royal estates and property, and whose presence justifies Philip’s role as the protector of Archelaus’ property. Philip is not normally the procurator of Archelaus, but he has been left to fill that role against the mischief of Sabinus. Greek τὰ βασίλεια can have many senses, from the palace grounds, in the narrowest sense (M-B, Thackeray LCL), to the whole sphere of royal interests, or the realm (Pelletier). The context seems to suggest something in the middle: the royal properties and their wealth. Greek κηδεμών forms a natural pair with the preceding ἐπίτροπος: the two often appear together, sometimes interchangeably (Demosthenes, Naus. 12; Arius Didymus, Phil. p. 87.2 [Mullach]; Philo, Congr. 118; Somn. 2.43; Ios. 74). The various titles that Josephus gives Essene officials include these two (2.125, 134). See also H. J. Mason 1974: 151. Greek τῶν οἰκείων has many possible senses, depending upon whether it is personal (οἱ οἰκεῖοι) or impersonal (τὰ οἰκεῖα), and upon whether the sense is “of the household” (from οἶκος) or “personal, proper” (as distinct from “official royal”). So Thackeray and Pelletier put Philip in charge of Archelaus’ “personal interests”; M-B make him responsible for the family property; there seems no reason why the word could not include members of the household—relatives and slaves alike. The parallel (Ant. 17.219) seems to make a clearer distinction: in his absence, Archelaus entrusted to Philip “everything pertaining to both the household and the rule (or government)” ([Φιλίππῳ] τὰ πάντα ἐφεὶς καθίστασθαι τοῦ οἴκου καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς). Yet in this case, inheritance of the “house” of Herod was the thing to be decided by Caesar (2.83), and so the distinction seems more for rhetorical effect than a clear delineation of distinct properties. This is Archelaus’ step-brother, roughly the same age, perhaps a year younger (both about 22-23), son of Herod and Cleopatra of Jerusalem (War 1.562, 602, 646). Philip has been named in a codicil to Herod’s will as tetrarch of Trachonitis and other districts to the N and E (1.668), a position that he will eventually receive (2.94-5, 167-68). Unlike Antipas (2.20), however, Philip is not portrayed as an initial rival for the throne. He ends up traveling to Rome at Varus’ discretion, to support the case of Archelaus against Antipas (2.83).

This sister of the deceased king (her dates are ca. 57 BCE to 10 CE; cf. Ant. 18.31) was introduced in 1.181, after which she has been highly active in court affairs and intrigues. For an assessment of her life and connections, see Kokkinos 1998: 177-92. A remarkably innocent statement, since one of her sons, the otherwise unknown Antipater, will rise to give the major speech against Archelaus’ right of succession (2.26). In theory, these might include (a) the sons of Herod’s deceased brothers Phasael, Joseph, and Pheroras, (b) the sons of his sister Salome, (c) the parents and siblings of his wives, and (d) the wives and husbands of his siblings (cf. Kokkinos 1998: 147-245). In practice, the group will have been a small subset of the survivors; presumably, the nephews in question seem to be different from Salome’s sons (separately mentioned). We have no other evidence concerning these fellow travelers; Ant. 17.220 speaks more vaguely of Salome’s family and other “relatives” of the king. Or “for the things criminally undertaken” (περὶ τῶν . . . παρανομηθέντων). The next occurrence of the verb παρανομέω (2.32) will also recall Archelaus’ actions in the temple. Of the verb’s 9 occurrences in War, 5 are in bk. 2, indicating the unlawful actions of Archelaus (alleged), Florus (2.317, 333), and Noarus (2.483)—all of whom harm the Judeans. Although the last 3 occurrences (4.355; 5.414; 7.34) all concern the wrongdoing of Judean rebels, therefore, it is an important part of Josephus’ narrative that those violations (though in no way excusable) occur in connection with severe provocation from powerful figures. Since bloodshed in the temple and the resulting pollution will be a prominent theme of War (4.151, 241-42, 323, 388; 5.397; 6.99, 110), the massacre in the temple (above) is the most likely referent here. Certainly, both Roman and Greek officials would understand a complaint about such massive temple pollution. Cf. Parker (1983: 104-43) on earlier Greek views. On Roman attitudes toward temples, even foreign ones, see for example Livy 29.17-19 (the Locrians’ assertion, fully accepted by the Roman Senate, about the goddess Persephone’s determination to take vengeance on violators of her sanctuary); 35.51.1-3 (impious Greeks attack Romans in Delium, sacred to Apollo [192 BCE], though it was a sacred place and under the “law of sanctuary” [iure sancto], which protects people from attack in sacred places). Appian (Bell. civ. 4.2.8) has the members of the second triumvirate, determined to punish Caesar’s assassins, invoking the “holy ground of the Senate-house,” the affront to the Gods, and the resulting pollution. Since Archelaus has emphatically forsworn the use of royal authority (2.2), his actions may also be presented to Roman officials as illegal in that they exceeded his mandate. Of governors and client kings the Romans expected chiefly the maintenance of order, and Archelaus will eventually be dismissed (2.111) for his failure in this respect. These issues and others will appear in the complaint by Salome’s party in Rome (2.32).

This is the first mention of the Syrian procurator (see next note) in Josephus, who is our only source for him. His name (cognomen) was one of the most popular in the Roman world, with some 1452 attestations (1716 including derivatives) known by the mid 1960s (Kajanto 1982: 30). The name had originally signified roots in the Sabine region of Italy, NE of Rome. But by the time of this episode, Sabines had enjoyed Roman citizenship for nearly 3 centuries, and since the name was transmitted from parents to children it had largely lost its geographical significance (Kajanto 1982: 50-51). Greek ἐπίτροπος is the standard equivalent of the Latin procurator. Sabinus’ fuller title is given in the parallel, Ant. 17.221: “the procurator of Caesar (cf. Latin procurator Augusti) for affairs in Syria” (Καίσαρος ἐπίτροπος τῶν ἐν Συρίᾳ πραγμάτων). See the note at 2.14.Every Roman province had a procurator, normally of equestrian rank, responsible for managing the emperor’s property, revenue, and expenses; although he worked under the governor (i.e., proconsul in senatorial provinces; in the others legatus Augusti pro praetore), he was accountable directly to the princeps: see H. J. Mason 1974: 48-9, 142-43; Lintott 1993: 122. Sabinus was the financial procurator for Syria under P. Quinctilius Varus. By mentioning this figure soon after Archelaus’ “procurator” Philip (2.14), Josephus highlights the competition between the royal and imperial officials, as well as, in the next two sentences, tensions between the emperor’s procurator and the powerful senatorial governor.For the various kinds of (chiefly equestrian) procurator and issues of jurisdiction, see Pflaum 1950, 1960-61, 1982, with Millar 1963; Brunt 1990: 163-87. During Claudius’ principate (41-54 CE) the growing tension between financial procurators and senatorial governors was addressed by the princeps, who established that procurators had independent jurisdiction over their administrative affairs. He also began to restyle the equestrian governors of provinces such as Judea, who had been called “prefects” (praefecti), procuratores. Whatever else may have motivated these changes, they seem to have had a centralizing function in binding procurators to himself as his agents (Levick 2001: 48-50). See below, 2.117 and notes. For Josephus’ earlier descriptions of this important city, see War 1.80, 156, and esp. 408-15; also the note at § 52 in BJP 9; for archaeology and scholarly analysis see Appendix A to BJP 1a and Levine 1975a; Ringel 1975; Vann 1992; Raban and Holum 1996; Holum, Raban, and Patrich 1999; Richardson 2000; Bernett 2007: 98-126. Herod’s magnificent foundation on the site of Strato’s Tower (on which see 2.97 below and note)—more than 50 miles (80km) N of a line drawn due W from Jerusalem—had become the provincial base for Roman prefects and procurators following their arrival in 6 CE. Beebe (1983) argues that the city was from the beginning created to further Roman strategic aims: a proximate provincial center and check against Jerusalem, free of Jewish nationalism; a safe port for grain clippers; a bulwark against Parthia; and on all these points a safer alternative to Antioch. On the logistical advantages of Caesarea for the Romans, see also Roth 1999: 175. Bernett (2007: 98-126) compellingly explores Herod’s careful configuration of the city as a leading centre for the cult of Augustus and Livia, with the largest temple of its kind during the princeps’ lifetime.The common modern designation “Caesarea Maritima,” though helpful in distinguishing the city from others of the same name, obscures the variety of ancient names, such as τῇ παραλίῳ Καισαρείᾳ or τὴν ἐπὶ τῇ θαλάττῃ Καισάρειαν (War 1.80; 7.20). Sometimes the ancients called the site Caesarea Stratonis (cf. Καισάρεια ἡ Στράτωνος), recalling the original Strato’s Tower (CIL 10.867; Ptolemy, Geog. 5.16.2; 8.20.14; Ps-Clement formulaically [Hom. 1.20.2; 4.1.1; 13.7.2]; Epiphanius, Mens. pond. 513); after Hadrian’s renaming of the province, often Caesarea Palaestinae (Καισάρεια τῆς Παλαιστίνης; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 7.15.1; cf. 2.10.3). The Hebrew name of the site (the town was captured by Alexander Janneus in 103 BCE) seems to have been Migdal Sar (‮מגדל שר‬‎), which may have endured for one part of the city around the harbor (Stieglitz 1996). Following the war, Vespasian would refound the city as a special colony (Colonia Prima Flavia Augusta Caesarensis) as a reward for its services, though apparently without the usual settlement of veterans (Isaac 1998: 94-98). In the narrative of War 2 Caesarea becomes increasingly important as a scene of simmering, then exploding, conflict between the Greco-Syrian and Judean residents: e.g., 2.230, 236, 241, 266-270, 284-292, 457. Lacking a developed map mentality, the ancients mainly used “up” and “down” with reference to topographical elevation and/or the symbolic status of a city (such as Rome). No matter where they were coming from, Judeans normally spoke of “going up” to Jerusalem, because it was in the hills and because it was the chief and holiest city: 2 Kgs 16:5; 18:17; 23:9; 24:10; 2 Chron 2:16; Ezra 1:3, 11; 7:7; Isa 7:1, 6; Mic 4:2; 1 Macc 6:48; 13.2; Matt 20:17-18. Sabinus’ portfolio as procurator consisted chiefly of managing the princeps’ properties, slaves, tenants, and revenue; but it was hardly possible to separate that patrimonium from the provincial treasuries (fisci), which were also in the emperor’s control (see note to “treasuries” at 2.111). Herod had not bequeathed his estate to the princeps, but only 1,000 talents (1.646); his strenuous efforts to anoint an heir imply that this successor would inherit the estate. With Archelaus’ fall (2.111), however, the dynasty’s wealth will be confiscated to the imperial treasury. As the following sentences make clear, Herod had kept most of his royal fortune in mountain fortresses (see the note to “high forts” in 2.17) that were extremely difficult of access.Sabinus’ motives here are not perfectly clear. The language of “protection” or “holding in security” (ἐπὶ φυλακῇ) suggests that he wants to assume responsibility for the property, pending Caesar’s decision about the succession, rather than leaving it in Herodian hands where it might suffer depletion (cf. Smallwood 1981: 106). The situation is complicated, however, by the governor Varus’ opposition to Sabinus and firm support of Archelaus’ claim to hold the property until Caesar should decide (2.17), and by the following story (2.17-19), which appears to indicate that Sabinus’ motive was greed and personal gain (cf. πλεονεξία at 2.41). We are left to assume that Sabinus tried to seize the opportunity of an allied king’s death for his advantage on the pretext of keeping the property safe.It is odd, and Josephus presents it as scandalous, that Sabinus should have expected to get away with such a highly visible seizure of enormous assets. Yet the case of the British Iceni in 61 CE (recent for War’s Roman audience) may provide a parallel: the procurator Catus Decianus reportedly oversaw the massive and illicit appropriation of King Prasutagus’ property by Roman centurions, an action that laid the ground for the famous revolt led by the king’s widow Boudicca (Tacitus, Ann. 14.31-32; Brunt 1990: 166). See further 2.41 and notes there. Publius Quinctilius Varus, infamous to Josephus’ Roman audience for his later catastrophic loss of 3 legions in the Teutoburg Forest of Germany (9 CE), is first mentioned in the prologue (1.20; see note there). At the time of the events described here, the former consul (13 BCE), was imperial legate (legatus Augusti pro praetore) in the important province of Syria. He has recently been introduced into the narrative (1.617-40) as a judge in Herod’s trial of his son Antipater.

Herod’s principal mountain forts (cf. also 4.173 for the equation) were Cypros at Jericho, Herodium (1.417-21), Hyrcania (1.161, 167, 364, 664), Machaerus (1.161, 167, 171-72; 7.163-209), and Masada (1.237-38, 264-66, 286, 292, 293-94, 303). For the relevant archaeology see Appendix A to BJP 1a. Evidently (cf. 2.18), Herod’s proper treasuries were not in Jerusalem, but distributed among these nearly impregnable fortresses—a wise move on his part, since the temple, though a stronghold in its own right, had frequently been raided (Apion 2.80-84). That is, Herod’s.

According to 2.40, in a peculiar flashback, Varus goes to Antioch at this point and returns to Jerusalem with 3 legions, one of which he will leave there against the possibility of sedition. Antioch on the Orontes, near the N extremity of the province, was founded in 301 BCE by the Macedonian Seleucus I Nicator, along with Seleucia, Laodicea, and Apamea, in honor of his father Antiochus. After Pompey’s arrival in 64 BCE, it became the seat of Roman administration of the new province of Syria, and after Augustus the base of the legatus Augusti (see A. H. M. Jones 1937: 227-95; Millar 1993: 236-56; Pollard 2000: esp. 277-79): currently Varus. According to Josephus (War 3.29), the city was third in size and magnificence, next to Rome and Alexandria. Although Antioch was a staging ground for campaigns to the E and S, there is no clear evidence that the city itself housed a legionary garrison (Wheeler 1996: 230-31; Pollard 2000: 278-79). The expression διὰ τάχους was not common in ancient authors. Although used occasionally by Plato, Demosthenes, Aristotle, and others, it was a Thucydideanism (18 occurrences), picked up by Diodorus (2 times) and especially Dionysius (15 times) before Josephus, who has it 12 times, only in War (cf. κατὰ τάχος at 2.616 [“in haste”]). Or “royal property or precincts,” therefore “palace” (so Thackeray, for τὰ βασίλεια). In any case, the royal goods that Sabinus seized in Jerusalem would presumably have been kept in the Herodian palace in the upper W of the city (cf. 1.402), since they are distinct from the temple treasures. Therefore, taking these goods would have required control of the palace. This sentence is chiastic: [a] (commanders of) strongholds, [b] treasurers; [b’] accounts, [a’] high forts. Thus, the strongholds are linked with the high forts, on which see the note at 2.17.

This is portrayed as a shrewd move on the part of the guards: whereas Archelaus has no confirmed status yet, a loophole that Sabinus tries to exploit, Caesar’s orders could not be contravened. Though frustrated for the moment, Sabinus will try again (2.41), once he has a larger force at his disposal and Varus is again absent.

Antipas (b. ca. 25 BCE) was introduced at 1.562 as the son of Herod and his Samarian wife Malthace, therefore full brother of his rival for the throne, Archelaus. Both sons (with Philip—2.14, 83) had been educated in Rome (Ant. 17.20-21), returning together near the end of Herod’s life (War 1.602). See notes at the earlier references and Hoehner 1972; Kokkinos 1998: 228-35, 266-69; Jensen 2006, 2007. In one version of Herod’s will Antipas was named as king, to the disadvantage of his older brothers (1.646), though in the final version (1.664, 668) he was designated tetrarch with Archelaus as king of Judea. That is, he also went to Rome, as the parallel at Ant. 17.224 spells out, for the hearing to settle Herod’s will. The will described in 1.646 had indeed designated Antipas king, though it was itself a relatively late development: earlier versions had named Antipater (1.451), Antipater, Alexander, and Aristobulus (1.458-60), and Antipater again (1.550-52, 573). Moreover, Josephus describes the final amendment, which made Antipas only tetrarch and Archelaus king, with the word “again” and the verb ἐπανορθόω, suggesting a correction or emendation (1.664). Nevertheless, he will also speak of these last changes as codicils or supplements to the will (1.667-68), leaving a possible ambiguity for his literary audience, to be rhetorically exploited by the contenders in the narrative. Herod’s final amendment to his will (naming Archelaus as king) came at 1.664, shortly before his death. This is the first we hear of Salome’s offer. Many of these relatives will testify against Archelaus at 2.33.

Malthace (see note to Antipas at 2.20), mother of both Antipas and Archelaus. Note Josephus’ use of the same metaphor (ῥοπή—the weight in a scale) of persons at 2.52 below. For “friends” see the note at 2.4. Ptolemy’s identity is a puzzle. He seems to be someone other than the Ptolemy recently mentioned (2.14, 16), given the explanation that this man was Nicolaus’ brother (something not mentioned of the other, though he and Nicolaus have been prominent in book 1) and because the other Ptolemy is and will remain a decided partisan of Archelaus (2.24, 64, 69). Nevertheless, when Josephus comments on Herod’s trust (πίστις) of this Ptolemy, and especially when he claims that he was the “single-most honored among Herod’s friends” (γεγόνει γὰρ δὴ τῶν φίλων ἐκείνου τιμιώτατος), one cannot help but note the correspondence with Archelaus’ Ptolemy, who was called in War 1.473 “the single-most honored friend” (ὁ τιμώτατος τῶν φίλων) of King Herod, in precisely the same language. Cf. Ant. 16.257, where he and another man are “the most faithful friends (οἱ πιστότατοι)” of the king. Is it possible that Herod had two single-most honored and trusted friends named Ptolemy, and that Josephus neglected to mention this one, Nicolaus’ brother, before now—in both War and in the extensive revisions of Antiquities? Rather more likely: Josephus has either confused his source material or, in the interest of writing a compelling story, deliberately manipulated it to build up this Ptolemy’s credentials. The Greek name means lit. “peaceful one.” Here is another puzzle: this orator, on whom Antipas is said to rely so exclusively, will not appear again in the following narrative; the major speech in favor of Antipas will instead be given by Antipas’ relative, Antipater (2.26-33), who appears only in that episode. The same switch from Irenaeus to Antipater will occur in the Antiquities parallel (17.226, 230-40), which adds the detail (17.226) that Irenaeus was the one who most insistently urged Antipas to consider a bid for the kingship. Or “orator,” possibly “teacher of rhetoric” (Greek ῥήτωρ). In the educational system of the Greco-Roman élite, the rhetor stood at the top level, taking advanced students from age 14 or 15 for as long as 6 years (often less), until they had acquired the rhetorical formation that was necessary for success in public life. From Josephus’ time we have a book of preliminary exercises in rhetoric (the Progymnasmata by Aelius Theon), a manual produced by an advanced teacher of rhetoric in Rome (Quintilian’s Education of the Orator), and relevant papyri from Egypt. See Marrou (1956: 194-205, 284-91) and, for the E empire and papyri, Cribiore 2001: 56-7. Greek διὰ δεινότητα λόγων. Josephus uses the technical language of rhetoric for describing the third genus or style: in addition to the fine (ἰσχνόν, subtile) and the medium (μέσον, ἀνθηρόν, medium) is the grand (ἁδρόν, βαρύ, vehemens, sublime, grandiloquum), which ‘Demetrius’ (Eloc. 36) divides between excellent (μεγαλοπρεπής) and forceful (δεινός), without clearly distinguishing between these two. See Lausberg 1998: 472-77. This Irenaeus, then, was especially talented in giving speeches of gravity and depth. Curiously (see previous note), Josephus opts not to include (i.e., compose) Irenaeus’ oration in defense of Antipas. That is: the final adaptation of the will (1.668-69) had named Archelaus as king; as the oldest of the surviving brothers (1.646), he might normally have been expected to inherit the throne, had he faced no other impediments (see notes to 1.31 below).

The Greek syntax indicates that all the relatives hated Archelaus, not merely that all those who hated him switched to Antipas. One might have doubts that the mother of the two hated her son Archelaus, however, since Josephus has just said (2.21) that Antipas gradually won her over. The “switch” is necessary because many of the relatives had sailed to Rome in Archelaus’ entourage (2.20). See further 2.33, however, where “most of the relatives” will indeed testify against Archelaus. Greek αὐτονομία: literally “[the state of living by] one’s own laws.” It may seem contradictory to speak of autonomy under Roman supervision, but it was not for many ancient thinkers. Plutarch favored, or accepted, a combination of external Roman rule of the Greek cities (Mor. [Praec.] 814c-e) with internal self-government (Mor. [Praec.] 814e-816a): it was, after all, the Roman emperor Nero who had “made the Greeks free and autonomous” (Flam. 12)—though that status did not continue under Vespasian. Plutarch’s view, much like Josephus’, was that Roman external control quashes internal factionalism, sedition, and tyrannical ambition, thus freeing the people to observe their own laws in peace, under their own leaders (cf. Swain 1996: 145-83). In War 1.170, accordingly, the Judean people have reportedly welcomed the arrival of the Romans, in the persons of Pompey and Gabinius, to free them from the always-contested native monarchy, which is there replaced by a native “aristocracy” and self-rule—under Roman supervision. Again in 2.80, 91, a Judean delegation (supported by 8,000 expatriate Judeans in Rome) will ask Augustus that their nation be annexed to the province of Syria and supervised by a Roman governor, so that they might have “autonomy” and freedom—viz., from the imminent tyranny of Herod’s quarreling sons. Given Josephus’ preference for aristocracy (i.e., government by his own class), these passages appear to intersect largely with his own outlook. In the sweeping context of Antiquities, he is able to connect this form of government with the best ancient Judean traditions (Ant. 6.36), even when under foreign—Persian and Macedonian—domination (11.111); cf. Mason 2003a, 2008b.D. R. Schwartz (2002) offers a complicated analysis according to which, although the terms “freedom” and “autonomy” were interchangeable at Josephus’ time of writing, he and his “assistants” first used them with an allegedly classical distinction (viz., autonomy is limited and granted by a greater power, whereas freedom is absolute), in War; then in the Antiquities parallels, which Josephus took over more directly from Nicolaus, he followed the tendency of his own time toward interchangeable usage, though even there he used a different source in immediate juxtaposition to Nicolaus, which kept the meanings separate. Besides its inherent complexity, this reconstruction appears to run aground on: War 2.53 (below), where it is the rebels who desire to take “autonomy” for themselves forcibly; the problem of audience understanding (if indeed Josephus uses language with private or anachronistic meaning, how would his audience understand?); the routine diction-variation between War 2 and its Ant. 17 parallels (i.e., the many other changes of wording cannot be attributed to such differences of meaning, or to sources); and Josephus’ consistent concern for “traditional” aristocratic-élite governance under foreign rule, much as Plutarch and Dio favored. In War, especially, “freedom” is a key term and its relation to “slavery” (i.e., Who is really free, and who is a slave—to whom?) is an issue of ongoing debate (e.g., 2.345-401 with notes). According to Josephus and his respectable peers, autonomy and true freedom are found in protection from Judean would-be monarchs (tyrants), through Roman supervision of the local aristocracy, rather than in absolute political independence vis-à-vis foreign powers. The adverb προηγουμένως occurs only here and at 1.517 in Josephus. It seems to be a relatively new formation, not found in the classical authors, but once each in Theophrastus, Diodorus, and Strabo, then with increasing frequency: Philo (5), Plutarch (6), Epictetus (5), Galen (5), Athenaeus (2). Or “commander.” Though the Greek στρατηγός can have many senses (H. J. Mason 1974: 155-63), I translate as “general” for consistency where possible—since that is the primary sense in the War: the term seems important to Josephus, who claims it for himself and his fellow-commanders (2.562; 3.28, 340, 359, 386, 390, 393, 400, 436) as counterparts to the Roman generals (1.8; 3.2, 97). The governor (legatus) of Syria was also a supreme general, with 3 or 4 legions under his command. This sentence has an optative verb in the protasis, with εἰ (future less vivid condition), but a simple tense (imperfect) in the apodosis, where we might have expected another optative with ἄν. Many explanations are possible (e.g., since the first part of the sentence and apodosis are not supported by the context, they may have been an afterthought), but the net effect is to strengthen the main point: in the present circumstances, they wanted Antipas as king.This passage anticipates, ironically, later struggles in War for “freedom”. For example, at 2.442-243 the rebels articulate clearly their disgust with Manaem: having defected from the Romans out of a love for freedom, they will not tolerate this home-grown tyrant over them! Here the relatives find their best hope for freedom in “self-government” under foreign rule, or at the very least under a more benign monarch.

See the note at 2.16.

Although συντάσσω might mean simply “compose” or “compile” in Josephus, it was also the customary term for drawing up battle lines. I translate it thus in the context of the palpable build-up to a confrontation in Rome. Like “marshaled” in the same sentence, Greek κεφάλαια in such a context is rhetorical terminology, for the headings of an argument: cf. Dionysius, Comp. 1; Strabo 1.2.31; Josephus in the prologue, 1.30 (with note); cf. Lausberg 1998: 42, 107, 174, 182. Or “papers” (Thackeray LCL) for τοὺς λόγους in the known Greek MSS, presumably referring to Herod’s wills and related documents. The Latin has rationes administrationis (“administrative accounts”), and Thackeray plausibly suggests that the translator found τοὺς λογισμούς in his Greek text (“accounts, reckonings,” as at Ant. 17.228) in his Greek text. Reading “accounts” would make good sense of the context, in which the next sentence has Augustus pondering the extent of the kingdom and its revenue. Yet the principle of varying diction equally supports the possibility that Josephus deliberately opted for a vaguer word here, a more specific one in Antiquities. This picks up 1.669, where Herod’s will instructed Archelaus, his heir-designate, to convey his wills and seal-ring to Caesar as proof of Herod’s support. Archelaus follows his father’s example of trusting Ptolemy with the seal-ring and wills (cf. 1.667). For Ptolemy, see the note at 2.14.

All 4 occurrences of the middle-passive προσκέπτομαι in Josephus fall within War 2 (2.31, 396, 598). They cannot come from a single source, however, because the period covered includes Josephus’ own career in Galilee. The active voice προσκοπέω occurs twice elsewhere, however (War 4.320; Ant. 18.321), and once in War 2 (2.257). For τὸ μέγεθος τῆς βασιλείας, assuming Caesar’s early impression that it might be too risky to give one of these men the whole of Herod’s kingdom—a reading supported by the following reference to income, and by Caesar’s ultimate decision to divide the territory (2.93-100); cf. Thackeray and M-B. One might as easily translate “the importance of the [this] kingship/realm” (so Pelletier; Vitucci has a suitably ambiguous “la grandezza del regno”), referring in part to the strategic position of the client king selected, very near the border with the Parthian empire. Apparently, then, Caesar is already contemplating what will be his final decision: partition of Herod’s kingdom and wealth among the family (2.95-100). According to the parallel in Ant. 17.229: concerning the amount of property and revenue involved. The point appears to be about Caesar’s wish to prevent any one person from becoming too powerful. Greek συνέδριον, which in Josephus as in other Greek writers normally refers to any sort of committee, council, meeting or assembled body; it does not have the fixed meaning of the famous Aramaic loan-word ‮סנהדרין‬‎ (Sanhedrin), used in rabbinic literature (e.g., the Mishnah tractate Sanhedrin) for an established court in Jerusalem. In Rome and the Greek East it was common for rulers to summon ad hoc advisory councils or committees, comprising dignitaries, relatives, and friends (cf. 2.81), though final decisions always rested with the ruler (War 1.537, 559, 571, 620, 640; Ant. 12.103; 14.167-81; 16.357-67; 17.46; 20.200, 203, 216-17; Life 236, 368; McLaren 1991; Sanders 1992: 472-81). In his earlier writings Josephus formulaically speaks of “assembling” or “striking” such a council (ἀθροίζω συνέδριον), as here (cf. War 1.571, 620; 2.81); in his later writings he will prefer the verb καθίζω (“seat”): Ant. 20.200, 202, 216; Life 236, 368.In this case, the council functions as the consilium principis, a semi-official body of friends (amici) and advisers, summoned as needed, especially for specific legal cases, that was established by Augustus (Dio 52.15) and continued by his successors (Suetonius, Tib. 55); for a survey of 1st-century developments see Crook 1955: 31-55. In Josephus’ time at Rome, following the scandals of Nero’s later years (including the indictment and execution of his formerly indispensable counselors) and the chaos of 69, the consilium principis had been restored to an important role; its continuity through successive monarchs contributed much to the political stability of the Flavian period. Note the very similar language in the continuation of this hearing at 2.81. Gaius Iulius Caesar (20 BCE-4 CE) appears only here in the War. Bearing the same name as the famous dictator Iulius Caesar, he was the oldest child of Augustus’ associate M. Vipsanius Agrippa and daughter Iulia (see following two notes). Gaius and his younger brother Lucius were both adopted by their grandfather in 17 BCE, a sure sign of Augustus’ hope that one of them would succeed him. The story time here was a highly auspicious moment in Gaius’ life: only the year before (5 BCE) he had assumed the toga of manhood (virilis) at age 15 and been designated future consul; from that time he was reportedly given the honorary title princeps iuventutis by the equestrians. In 1 BCE he would be given consular authority to negotiate with the Parthian king over the disputed throne of Armenia, where the Parthians had installed their man, Tigranes. Although young Gaius apparently resolved the dispute diplomatically, naming a mutually agreeable successor (Ariobarzanes) as Tigranes had died, he would not live to inherit from Augustus. Seriously wounded in 2 CE, he died of his wounds in Lycia, in February, 4 CE. See Suetonius, Aug. 26, 29, 64-5, 67, 93; Tacitus, Ann. 1.3; Dio 54.8, 18; 55.9.Josephus appears to expect an audience that is well informed about famous personalities from the Roman past, who should know that Gaius’ sphere of activity had been in the E, making his attendance at this meeting of eastern nobles in Rome all the more significant. Further, his status as deliberately groomed heir highlights the inevitable problem with monarchy (i.e., succession), which is the issue of the larger narrative: Herod’s monarchical succession woes are thus ironically intertwined with Augustus’, and Josephus develops a theme that he will pursue with vigor in the Antiquities (cf. Mason 2003a, 2008b). This is the only occurrence of the adjective θετός in Josephus. Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa (ca. 63-12 BCE), lifelong friend and confidant of the young Octavius/Octavianus (later “Augustus”), has not figured prominently in War (contrast the parallel Ant. 15-16): it is an index of Josephus’ assessment of audience knowledge that he can mention him without introduction (cf. 1.118, 400 and notes). After a remarkable military-naval career and having acquired political power nearly equal to that of the princeps, he divorced his second wife to marry Augustus’ only daughter Iulia in 21 BCE. See Suetonius, Aug. 16, 25, 29, 35, 42, 63, 64, 66, 94, 197; Velleius Paterculus 2.59; Dio 48.20, 28, 49; Appian, Bell. civ. 5.96; and the autobiography by Nicolaus of Damascus, preserved in fragments (Jacoby IIA: 324-430 for Nicolaus’ fragments, including those of his biography of Augustus; important fragments on Agrippa include those from Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, De virtutibus et vitiis 1.326, 7, 13, 23, 356.24; 2.308.10, 312.1, 351.11; De insidiis 156.9, 11, 30). Augustus’ only daughter, by Scribonia, Iulia (39 BCE-14 CE) was raised by the princeps and his new wife, Livia Drusilla (herself known after her adoption into the gens Iulia, in 14 CE, as Iulia Augusta; Josephus often calls her retrospectively by the more honorific name; cf. 2.167-168). Although the younger Iulia appears only here in War, Josephus assumes that her name needs no introduction. At about age 14 or 15 she married her cousin Marcus Claudius Marcellus, but then, after his death (23 BCE) and a period of widowhood, she married M. Vipsanius Agrippa in his early 40s (see previous note). She bore Agrippa 5 children, one after his death; the oldest was Gaius (see note to his name above). A year after Agrippa’s death (12 BCE), Iulia married the future emperor Tiberius, but the notorious failure of that marriage and subsequent charges of adultery led to her banishment by Augustus in 2 BCE, which her birth mother voluntarily shared. She was never reconciled with Augustus or Tiberius, but died in exile soon after Augustus, in 14 CE. See Suetonius, Aug. 63-5; Dio 53.27; 54.6; 55.9-10; Macrobius, Sat. 2, 4, 6-7; Tacitus, Ann. 1.35. Josephus has λόγος (“word, speech”). I.e., to the disputing parties: Archelaus, on the one hand, and his opponents (Salome, her son, Antipas, and others) on the other. What follows is a rhetorical tour de force on the part of Josephus, allowing each side a seemingly clever and compelling case. Though it is entirely likely that the historical event witnessed rhetorical display, speeches in historical works are normally crafted by authors for their characters and do not simply convey what was actually said; see the note to “as follows” at 2.344.

That this Antipater should be given such a major speech is a surprise, since he has been introduced only incidentally in bk. 1, as the beneficiary of an arranged marriage with one of Herod’s daughters by Mariamme I (1.566; cf. Ant. 17.22), named Cypros (Ant. 18.138), and then anonymously among Salome’s children who accompanied her to Rome (2.15). He will not appear in the narrative again. The audience must simply accept Josephus’ implication that he was the lead advocate for Salome’s (and Antipas’) side against Archelaus because he was the ablest orator. See the note concerning Irenaeus’ “forcefulness with words” at 2.21. This is indeed a powerful speech as portrayed, citing both what Archelaus actually had done, albeit maliciously interpreted, and things that he might credibly be charged with, before the distant Caesar, as a rash young man with a claim on kingship (as Ant. 17.233 elaborates). The literary audience knows, however, that the seemingly authoritative voice of the narrator has portrayed Archelaus as trying desperately to avoid both the appearance of presumption and the application of force, the very things of which he stands accused here, if only for pragmatic reasons (2.3, 8, 11-12). This contrast between words (λόγοι) and deeds (ἔργα) is common in Josephus (War 1.288; 5.361, 457; 6.200; Ant. 2.253, 272; 3.306; 5.289; 10.39; 15.281; 17.47, 220, 230; 18.177, 260; 19.63, 101, 156; Apion 2.12, 169-72, 182, 241) and among moral philosophers of his time (Seneca, Ep. 20.2; Dio, Or. 68, 70.3; Epictetus in Arrian, Diatr. 3.26.8-23; Lucian, Herm. 9-19). It supports the Platonic contrast between seeming and really being, which Josephus develops throughout (see the note to “titles” at 2.2), though the words/deeds conflict is much older (Homer, Il. 9.443; 19.242 for μῦθος/ἔργον; Aesop, Fab. 22.1-3; commonly in Thucydides, e.g. 1.39.2, 69.5, 128.3, 144.2; 2.65.9; 4.67.1, 70.2, 87.1; 7.48.3; 8.46.3). Greek κατειρωνεύεσθαι. Compounds of εἰρων-, the root from which English ultimately derives “irony,” are relatively frequent in War (1.84, 209; 2.26, 29, 153, 298, 522; 4.127, 152, 279, 334, 340, 342; 5.233, 242, 531; 7.270). Antiquities-Life has only 3 occurrences: Ant. 15.279, 374; Life 367. This language is closely related to that for “figured speech” (built on the σχῆμα- root: 2.29, 259, 603; 4.154, 265, 336, 340). The presence of such language is related to War’s (tragic-) ironic character (see Introduction); as part of that world of discourse, Josephus is alert to word plays and dissimulation, not least on the part of the rebel leaders (cf. the references from bk. 4 above). See Mason 2005a. See 2.2 and notes.

See the note at 2.8. Perhaps coincidentally, the only other occurrence of this word (ἐγκάθετος) is in a nearly symmetrical position at the end of War: 6.286. At 2.3 (see notes there), the only other reference to the episode in this work, Archelaus insists that he rejected the diadem when the soldiers “were fastening it on him”; the present participle may mean that they intended or began to do so. In any case, we have here an example of the way in which a single incident might interpreted rhetorically in opposite ways: Archelaus claims that when others spontaneously fastened the diadem on him, he rejected it; his opponents focus on the act of fastening, and claim that they did this at his direction. In the fuller parallel (Ant. 17.230-39), this accusation by Antipater is omitted. That may be because Josephus has changed the earlier story (17.202), such that (Archelaus reports only that) the soldiers had been eager to fasten the diadem on him, but he declined the offer—removing any basis for the interpretation here. According to 2.2 he had indeed greeted the crowds from a raised golden throne. Cf. Ant. 17.232. The basic meaning of χρηματίζω has to do with money and business or public affairs (“conduct business, negotiate, deliberate”), and MSS MLVRC may assume this sense when they supply ὡς: “conduct affairs, deliberate as though a king.” LSJ observes, however, that from the time of Polybius (5.57.2; 30.2.4) the verb also comes to be used in the sense of using or appropriating a title, and so to be styled as such (cf. 2.488 below), especially in the case of kings. Although that seems to be the meaning here, Archelaus’ activities also suit the older sense. This charge is the only evidence of Archelaus’ reform of the military (cf. Ant. 17.232); it was not mentioned in the earlier narrative.

By adding the preposition κατά to the narrator’s earlier verb ἐπινεύω (2.4), Josephus’ Antipater further strengthens its pejorative sense. Archelaus has done this (2.4), apparently as a temporary measure to maintain the peace while he sought the kingship from Caesar. But Antipater interprets it as a demagogic posture already adopted for his kingship. Or “those who had been bound/detained” (τοὺς . . . δεδεμένους). See the note to “detainees” at 2.4. According to 2.4, Archelaus agreed in general terms to releasing “the prisoners.” The seriousness of the crimes for which they were imprisoned may be Antipater’s rhetorical hyperbole. In the parallel (Ant. 17.233), Antipater accuses Archelaus of releasing the prisoners held in the hippodrome. Presumably, this refers to the notables whom Herod had incarcerated in Jericho’s hippodrome shortly before his death, leaving the command that they should be executed when he died in order to ensure nationwide mourning (War 1.660; Ant. 17.175-78). But according to both War (1.666) and Antiquities (17.193), Salome and Alexas had hurriedly released those prisoners before publishing the news of Herod’s death. If we are to understand (in Antiquities) that Antipater charges this release—plainly a virtuous deed—to Archelaus as though it were a crime (for ignoring his father’s wishes, perhaps), then the orator would be there be making an entirely mischievous claim. Even here in War, it seems from the foregoing narrative that criticism of Archelaus for releasing prisoners held on very serious charges is a rhetorical stretch. For Caesar as master (δεσπότης) see the note to “master of everything” at 2.2. Or “snatched for himself the body” (ἧς ἥρπασεν ἑαυτῷ τὸ σῶμα). Over and above its literal sense, which may be meant to evoke the worlds of Homeric epic (where the body is the corpse) and/or tragedy, the contrast between mere shadow and real substance is rhetorically and philosophically resonant. The notion of an insubstantial shadow as something frequently mistaken for reality famously goes back to Plato’s cave analogy (Resp. 514a-517c). Such language was widely used, not least in early Judean (Philo, Post. Cain. 112, 120; Migr. Abr. 12.4-5; Virt. 181) and Christian (Col 2:17; Heb 8:5; 10:1) literature of a Platonist bent. This language reinforces Josephus’ ongoing contrasts between seeming and being; see note to “titles” at 2.2. Possibly “the state, commonwealth.” See the note to “republic” at 2.168. See the note to “titles” at 2.2; also Plato, Crat. 390e and, for the juxtaposition of “body” and “name,” Euripides, Orest. 390.

Of the 5 occurrences of προσονειδίζω in Josephus, 3 are in War 1-2 (1.313; 2.29, 396) and the other two are in Ant. 16.69, 209. Although this concentration might incline us to suspect that the word comes from Josephus’ source for most of this material, Nicolaus of Damascus, Nicolaus cannot be responsible for War 2.396, set in the speech of Agrippa II. See the note to this word (κατειρωνεύομαι) at 2.26: Antipater crafts a complete picture of deception and dissimulation. This is the only occurrence of ἐπισχηματίζω in Josephus, and the form may well be his coinage. (LSJ and the TLG corpus furnish only this example, aside from one in the 4th-cent. CE Oribasius: Eun. 3.12.2.) Why should he use this term here? First, its uniqueness highlights Antipater’s alleged rhetorical ability. Second, in rhetorical theory, the language of “irony” (εἰρωνεία), already used twice in this speech, was closely related to that of σχῆμα (Latin figura). See Demetrius, Eloc. 291; Quintilian, Inst. 9.1.14, 2.65; Josephus, War 4.326-34; Mason 2005a. This vivid language (τὸ πρόσωπον) supports the allegation that Archelaus is in effect no more than an actor-pretender (ὑποκριτής). The actor Archelaus allegedly switches from tragic grief to comic buffoonery in one day. We have encountered night-time carousing, in similar language, among the cabal in King Herod’s court: 1.570 (cf. Ant. 17.265, there changed to a retrospective confession). As far as the audience knows, however, this charge of hypocrisy andcarousing is mainly fabricated by the speaker. Josephus has specified in 2.1 that Archelaus both observed the customary 7-day mourning period and provided the traditional banquet for the public. There is just enough, however, in the artful notice of a subsequent evening feast with his friends (2.4) to allow a potential grain of truth to the accusation—and keep the literary audience uncertain of the truth. Verbs of saying are often codes for deception in Josephus (i.e., he said this, though it was not so)—even for his own literary character: War 2.605, 611; 3.197; Life 22, 39, 71, 128-30, 141, 263, 273-74, 282, 287-88, 291. There is no other evidence in the text that the masses found Archelaus hypocritical or inadequately pious toward his deceased father; indeed, the people were reportedly ill-disposed toward Archelaus’ father, Herod, and their demands to the son are for the repeal of the father’s measures. The highest priority of the provincial statesman under Roman hegemony was understood to be keeping the masses quiescent (Plutarch, Mor. [Praec.] 816a-824d). The accusation that Archelaus failed in this basic responsibility anticipates the astonishingly brief account of his reign and removal (2.111). Or “irritation, aggravation.” All 16 occurrences of this word (ἀγανάκτησις) in Josephus are in War 1-6, reflecting the pervasive mood here of upset and provocation. See the note to “provoked” at 2.8; for growing irritation in bk. 2, see 2.42, 170, 175, 293.

The verb ἐναπερείδω occurs only here in Josephus. Though widely used by late-antique and medieval authors, it is rarely attested before his time (Polybius 22.13.2—also in the context of a massacre [of the citizens of Maronea]; Diodorus 31.11.3; 2 Macc 9:4; Philo, Spec. 4.107; cf. Plutarch, Mor. [San. praec.] 126e, [Apoph. Lac.] 236d). The rarity of the double-prefixed form supports Antipater’s image as clever orator, confirmed by the surrounding language. Josephus appears to choose this phrasing (τὸν ἀγῶνα τοῦ λόγου παντὸς ἐναπηρείσατο), evoking a formal competition in literature, tragedy, or rhetoric, because Nicolaus’ later speech will devote itself almost entirely to the issue of Caesar’s dignity (2.34-6), which is only a preliminary argument for Antipater (2.26-8). The implication is that Antipater, though a renowned orator, makes a crucial mistake in structuring his case. Even this massacre of thousands, which he will dramatically portray, is not equal as a criterion to an alleged challenge of Caesar’s dignity. This is the same word (τὸ πλῆθος), extremely common in Josephus, that I elsewhere render “rabble, mob, horde” (as in the previous sentence). That he can use this word of a pile of corpses reflects its inhuman connotations. But see the note to “carnage” at 2.12: the seemingly authoritative narrator claims that this was what Archelaus had wished to avoid. See the note at 1.10. I.e., Passover (2.10-11). This passage casually introduces a major theme of War: that festivals typically turn into violent occasions. Cf. 2.42 (“indignation”), 73, 254-55, 280, 425, 514-17; 4.401-2. Price (2001: 218-25) argues that Thucydides mentions festivals chiefly to anchor incidents of conflict among Hellenes. Or “had their throats cut savagely.” Antipater’s appeal conveniently ignores the serious provocation that confronted Archelaus, with the annihilation of his cohort (perhaps nearly 500 soldiers) by the mob (2.11-12).Greek ἀποσφάττω (note Attic spelling) is a remarkably common verb in War (37 occurrences; 21 in the much longer Antiquities, which also deals extensively with animal sacrifice). By contrast, it appears only a few times in classical authors (e.g., Herodotus 3, Thucydides 2, Xenophon 13, Polybius 7). In spite of its many passages on sacrifice, the LXX lacks this verb (it is at 4 Macc 2:19), and Philo has it only twice. It begins to appear frequently in Hellenistic narrative, however: conspicuously in Diodorus (65) and Plutarch (61).In Josephus the verb often (as here) helps consolidate an ironic link between human and animal slaughter (see “sacrifice” and note at 2.197), especially at the appointed feasts and particularly at Passover (4.402). Although not as thematically developed in other authors, the same connection—slaughtering a human victim at a temple built for animal sacrifice—is occasionally made (e.g., Diodorus 3.6.4; Plutarch, Galb. 27.4). The phrase “savagely butcher” (ἀποσφάττω ὠμῶς) occurs again at 2.454, though it does not seem to have been a cliché. This is, however, another parallel with Philo’s language (Legat. 87). As Thackeray and Pelletier note, this darkly ironic observation about sacrificers being slaughtered along with their animal victims has a close parallel in Luke 13:1, which describes Pilate’s (later) mingling of Galileans’ blood with their sacrifices (τὸ αἷμα Πιλᾶτος ἔμιξεν μετὰ τῶν θυσίων αὐτῶν). Slaughter of persons along with animals (see previous note on “throats cut”) is a basic theme in War, enhanced by the association between the catastrophes that culminated in 70 CE and the calendrically ordered celebration of feasts involving animal slaughter. See the note to the same word earlier in this section. Of the 14 occurrences of σωρεύω in Josephus, 13 are in War, usually in connection with the piling up of corpses or bodies. The construction, “there was such a multitude of corpses piled up that. . . ,” recalls 1.338 (after one of Herod’s victories). The parallel at 2.497 is significant because of the other verbal parallels between this episode and that one, under Tiberius Alexander in Alexandria. On temple pollution see note to “temple” at 2.15. For the distinction between sanctuary and temple, see the note to “shrine” at 1.10. Josephus’ Antipater thus modifies “war” 3 ways: foreign, suddenly arriving,and unheralded. The multiplication of qualifiers for such a hypothetical war, which would not produce the casualties that Archelaus created, highlights Antipater’s rhetorical hyperbole. For the first two modifiers, see the following note. On the absence of heralds: Josephus uses the adjective “heraldless” (ἀκήρυκτος) only to modify “war” (πόλεμος, War 1.269; Ant. 15.139; Apion 1.318). In those other contexts, the phrase signifies a particularly brutal and/or relentless war. The sense is not simply that the war was unannounced or undeclared (as at Herodotus 5.81), but that, in the absence of heralds to mediate between the two camps, there would be little opportunity for a truce (perhaps deliberately forsworn for military or political reasons); thus, truceless, implacable, or all-out war (cf. Bederman 2001: 253-55). Thucydides (1.146.1; 2.1.1), Aeschines (Fals. leg. 37, 80), Demosthenes (Cor. 18.262), Plato (Leg. 626a), and Xenophon (Hell. 6.4.21; Anab. 3.3.5) attest this usage of “the absence of negotiating heralds”, most often adding the adjective ἄσπονδος or οὐ σπονδῶν (i.e., “without the drink-offerings” that accompanied a truce) for further clarity; cf. Plutarch, Per. 30. Polybius treats the Libyan War in detail because, he says, it is a model of “what is commonly called a truceless war” (ἄσπονδος πόλεμος). Philo is particularly fond of the phrase ἀκήρυκτος πόλεμος, often with ἄσπονδος: Sacr. 18, 35, 130; Deus 166; Conf. 43; Fug. 114; Mut. 60; Somn. 1.106; 2.166; Spec. 4.202; Praem. 87; Legat. 119. See also Plutarch, Arist. 1.5; Mor. [Mul. virt.] 253f, [Suav. Epic.] 1095f; Lucian, Alex. 25. Or simply “having broken out.” The point seems to be the lack of prepared defense against a ferocious war that suddenly arrives and therefore takes a great toll. This is an ironic statement, given that this work is mainly about a foreign war (with Rome) that allegedly cost more than 1 million lives (6.420), against the 3,000 killed here (2.13). The irony is driven home by the symmetrical parallels, in the latter half of book 6 (note the close verbal similarity): “And around the altar a multitude of corpses was piling up, and much blood flowed down the steps of the shrine. . . ” (6.259); “A horrible stench from the bodies greeted the [Roman] invaders, such that many immediately drew back, though others penetrated further under the influence of greed, trampling over piled up corpses” (6.431) .At 5.569 Josephus claims that some 600,000 bodies of the indigent were thrown out of the city in a single episode. As well as anticipating the final slaughter, then, the statement reinforces the main theme (1.10): a civil war more terrible than foreign conflict.

See the note to “first considered” at 2.25. Insofar as it describes Herod’s motives as they appear in the foregoing narrative, this is a mischievous claim. According to 1.646, when Herod named Antipas as successor he passed over Archelaus and Philip, although they were older than Antipas, only because these two had been victims of a smear campaign by Antipater: they stood falsely accused of defaming their father (1.602-3). Those charges are consistently presented in the narrative as false, Herod being extremely receptive to slander (1.533), and the final version of the will, which names Archelaus (1.664), is presented as a rectification of this injustice. Nevertheless, it will be Archelaus’ brutality that brings down his regime according to 2.111. An attentive audience would understand Antipater to be massaging the facts for his rhetorical purposes. The sense is a fortiori: his body was obviously very ill (1.645-47, 656, 662), his mind (it is claimed) more so. This is another rhetorically convenient claim with no support in the earlier narrative (1.664), where Herod’s choice of Archelaus has an obvious narrative logic (see preceding notes). Namely, Antipas: Antipater’s failure to name him strengthens the sense in the speech that his party is chiefly against Archelaus, not especially enamored of Antipas. His claim is that, whereas Herod’s earlier changes to his will resulted from anger, upon learning that sons previously named were disloyal, this is not true of the final amendment, which names Archelaus heir without criticizing Antipas, who is indeed named tetrarch (1.664). Herod’s logic, however, appeared to be that, since the other Antipater’s earlier charges against Archelaus turned out to be mischievous, the older son Archelaus should become king (see previous note). This claim is also mischievous in relation to the earlier narrative: there, Herod’s serious illness—physical, with mental consequences (1.647)—was announced by the narrator (1.645) just before Herod amended his will to make Antipas heir (1.646); see the previous note. As for having a mind free of suffering, the narrator claimed there (1.644) that Herod was in deep distress (περιαλγής . . . πάθους, 1.644) because of his family intrigues.

That is, the dying Herod’s judgment in naming Archelaus (1.664). Or/and “kingdom” (βασιλεία). The reference presumably includes all of the violence and misconduct alleged in Antipater’s speech, though Josephus’ narrative itself has not unambiguously accused Archelaus of wrongdoing. The verb παρανομέω has only occurred once before in this book (2.15). Thus, the end of the speech reverts to the opening point (2.26-28) about Archelaus’ alleged usurpation of Caesar’s authority by prematurely acting as king.

Josephus highlights the length and complication of Antipater’s oration: the numerous points mentioned are still only representative, and then the orator called a large number of witnesses, whose testimony is not described. Contrast the extremely succinct but more effective case made by Nicolaus in the next paragraph (2.34-6). Since Archelaus and Antipater are brothers, their relatives are shared. At 2.20, 22, we learned that most, then all (πάντες), of the relatives had come to support Antipas, though the mother and some others had at first supported Archelaus.

Herod’s aide, a scholar, now loyal to Archelaus in keeping with Herod’s final wishes (1.664). See the note at 2.14. Both this verb (ἀποφαίνω) and that in the next sentence (see note to “demonstrated” there) imply proof by clear reasoning, in keeping with the brief and pithy argument of Nicolaus; contrast the complicated case made by Antipater, which has depended largely on forcefulness of language (2.26). The narrator has evidently supported this position (2.12). This is the passive form of the verb elsewhere rendered “do away with, dispose of, get rid of” (ἀναιρέω). The reference is to Archelaus’ actions at 2.12-3, which Antipater made the center-piece of his accusation (2.30, 32). Possibly “kingdom” (Thackeray in LCL for βασιλεία), though it is rather the question of royal sovereignty (M-B: der königlichen Herrschaft) that will be decided by Caesar. According to the earlier narrative the massacre had been necessary, but for different reasons: Archelaus had exhausted every other option in trying to maintain order, until he lost the better part of a cohort to the troublemakers (2.6-13) and chaos threatened to erupt. He was forced to move quickly against them. Nicolaus (only in War; contrast his more diffuse appeal in Ant. 17.240-47) is determined to reduce every argument to the question of Caesar’s dignity, a strategy that will prove successful. Further, this compressed formulation allows Nicolaus to pass over the damning but obvious fact that Archelaus was himself unable to maintain order. In this one sentence, Nicolaus efficiently dispatches Antipater’s main complaint.

See the note to “showed clearly” at 2.34. Second assertion: those now bringing the charges against Archelaus had once advised him to do what they now denounce. This bold claim is not supported by the preceding narrative, and we have no means of verification one way or the other. Much of what Antipater has charged appears either invented or heavily manipulated vis-à-vis the earlier story of Archelaus’ actions (see notes to 2.26-33). Further, Josephus has mentioned no advisers, attributing Archelaus’ actions either to his desire for popular good will (2.4) or to his exasperation at the rebel elements, along with a determination not to ruin his chances with Caesar (2.8-9, 12). That is, Herod’s final amendment to his will (1.664), designating Archelaus king. The Greek (ὅτι βεβαιωτὴν ἐν αὐτῇ Καίσαρα καθίστατο τοῦ διαδόχου) recalls 1.669: Herod’s will instructs Archelaus to visit Augustus, with his ring and documents of state, because Herod had designated the princeps “master of everything . . . and guarantor of the will” (κύριον γὰρ ἁπάντων . . . καὶ βεβαιωτὴν τῶν διαθηκῶν). Nicolaus’ appeal here is clever but somewhat mischievous. Whereas he flatteringly proves Herod’s sanity by the king’s choice of Caesar as guarantor, Herod had of course always deferred to Caesar, not least on family and succession issues (1.451-60, 646), and Augustus would in any case have had final say about the appointment of a “client king” (Braund 1984: 23-37). Since, however, no one could say in Caesar’s presence that his role as executor was not Herod’s deliberate choice, the argument is (cynically) effective.

Possibly “of the empire” or “the universe” (τῷ δεσπότῃ τῶν ὅλων), though at 2.2 the same phrase is used (τῶν ὅλων δεσπότης) to mean master of everything according to the will. See note there. This is the only occurrence in Josephus of the phrase δή που, though it appears as one word at 2.376 (the only other occurrence in War, also in a rhetorical context). Cf. Ant. 15.130; Apion 1.127; 2.47. That is, Augustus. That is, Archelaus. The language is highly compressed, creating a sense of lean and precise logic, with the fewest possible words obstructing the case (i.e., it is only about Caesar’s dignity), in stark contrast to Antipater’s “forceful” oration on sundry moral and political issues. Especially since the parallel version of Nicolaus’ speech in Ant. 17.240-47 is considerably longer and not nearly as focused on the appeal to Caesar, it seems that Josephus has shaped this version to suit his present literary purposes.

In sum: Nicolaus’ argument comprises 4 assertions, for 3 of which he simply employs the criterion of Caesar’s honor or status, what one might call the reductio ad dignitatem/gloriam Caesaris. (The 4th claim is simply that Antipater contradicts himself.) Josephus has already deployed this criterion to powerful effect in the prologue (1.8): assertions that can in any way be shown to diminish the majesty of the emperor, even if incidentally or by secondary implication, are eo ipso ludicrous. Antipater also tried to invoke Caesar’s dignity (2.26-8), but the gravamen of his long-winded discourse lies elsewhere (2.30).It is a question whether Josephus earnestly believed that the appeal to Caesar’s dignity should be a rhetorical trump-card, or whether he merely observes this kind of argument with ironic detachment as a fact of Roman politics. In favor of the latter is his highly rhetorical use of the appeal in the prologue and here, where Nicolaus bends the preceding narrative to be able to make the charge; cf. the notes at 1.8. Perhaps “grasped the knees” in the Homeric posture of supplication (Il. 8.371; 24.465, 478). Several important MSS (PMC) and corrections of others read προσπίπτει τῶν Καίσαρος γονάτων, which resembles the nearly formulaic expression for “falling at someone’s knees”: προσπίπτει (τοῖς) γόνασι (Demosthenes, Fals. 198; Diodorus 17.35.6; 36.16.1; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 2.45.5; 5.9.1; Plutarch, Cor. 36.4). But then we should expect either a preposition or a dative complement, rather than the genitive here. Niese, LCL, M-B, Pelletier, and Vitucci read προπίπτει (“fall [or throw oneself] before [Caesar]”), though the verb rarely appears with this prefix in connection with knees. See the note to “expressed this” later in this sentence. Josephus makes a double contrast, first between two compounds of φαίνω: ἀποφαίνω (here “express”; “show clearly” at 2.34) with ἐμφαίνω (“intimate”) earlier in this sentence. The latter word and its cognate ἔμφασις were used in rhetorical discussions to mean “reflected” or “refracted” speech: something that was not explicitly articulated, but required the audience to complete its meaning; cf. Ahl 1984: 176-79; Demetrius, Eloc. 216, 297. Second, Caesar’s refraining from an open declaration concerning Archelaus contrasts with the clear proof of Archelaus’ advocate (same verb used at 2.34) that his order to kill the temple rebels was necessary. The parallel (Ant. 17.249) stresses the psychological effect on Archelaus, who has no clear word from Caesar; in both narratives the effect is to build suspense. This word (βέβαιος) occurred twice in the opening sentences of bk. 2, as the issue on which Archelaus has been waiting (2.2-3). Suspense continues to build, since we still do not have an answer from Caesar; it will come only in 2.93-100.

See the note to “council” (συνέδριον) at 2.25; here councilors (τοὺς συνέδρους). Josephus customarily uses the verb διαλύω, as here, to speak of dissolving such an ad hoc advisory group: War 1.559; 2.93; 6.243; Ant. 17.312. Elsewhere I use the singular “will,” though the Greek (διαθῆκαι) is normally plural (2.2, 31), as demanded by the context. Here I use the plural because different wills are in view. The main contenders named in those wills are Antipas, supported by Salome and Nicolaus’ brother Ptolemy (2.20-21), and Archelaus, supported by Nicolaus (2.34-6). Their mother’s preference is no longer clear (cf. 2.21, but 22). This notice anticipates Augustus’ eventual decision (2.93-100; cf. 2.83); for the moment it deepens the suspense by raising the new possibility of multiple heirs. Greek τὸ πλῆθος, the dehumanizing collective singular often used by Josephus (2.2, 4, 8, 11, etc.) and other Greek historians for the common “rabble” or “mob” (see Introduction). Its use here for royal progeny seems to be sarcastic: there is no clear, single worthy successor, but only a “bunch” of claimants. This is the same word (plural of τὸ πρόσωπον) as that translated “mask” at 2.29, where Antipater has accused Archelaus of putting on a show of respect for his dead father to conceal his real feelings. Given the context, it seems that the acting theme continues here in Caesar’s wise assessment: they are all actors! Or “care, assistance” (ἐπικουρία). This is either a remarkably humane motive on Augustus’ part—support for as many royals as possible—or an ironic assessment. Given Josephus’ portrait of the emperor’s sagacity elsewhere (e.g., 1.452), one must suspect irony here. Part of Josephus’ point may be that the Judean kingdom, now as also when it was under the last of the Hasmoneans (1.120-32; 5.396), proves unable to manage its affairs—especially succession issues—without bitter struggles before the emperor, a humiliating exercise that undermines the dignity of the nation and its royal claimants. The need for constant intervention by the princeps would disappear if the government were, as Josephus prefers, aristocratic (cf. 1.170; cf. Mason 2003a, 2008b).

The way Josephus structures this paragraph highlights his maintenance of suspense about Caesar’s decision, which will not arrive until 2.93-100. Malthace (the Samarian), one of Herod’s 9 wives (1.562), is significant because, although she is the mother of both rivals, Archelaus and Antipas, the narrator has reported (2.14-15, 21) that she had at first supported Archelaus’ claim to rule, but then switched to support Antipas (2.21-22). Her death might be presumed to have affected the lines of influence upon Caesar. The Roman governor (legate) of Syria, Varus would have been famous to Roman readers (see the note at 1.20). He has been an important background figure in events, playing the role of honest broker and protector of the client kingdom’s integrity and royal assets (1.617-40; 2.16-18). Or “secession, defection” (ἀπόστασις), one of the many stasis-compounds in Josephus (cf. 1.93; see note to “civil strife” at 1.10); he uses this noun 64 times, 36 of those in War and half of these in bk. 2, where undertaking rebellion against Rome and the Jerusalem élite is still the main issue—as distinct from the later war, famine, and civil strife. Indeed, the following paragraphs portray a major revolt in 4 BCE, which foreshadows the war of 70 years later that is the central subject of the book. The event is significant enough to receive mention in Josephus’ prologue (1.20), where he flags it as a paradigm of sedition (with the verb καταστασιάζω), and in Tacitus, Hist. 5.9. The revolt anticipated here (cf. 2.43-79) required 3 legions plus auxiliaries to suppress (2.67-69); it was therefore qualitatively different from the periodic riots that confronted Archelaus himself (2.4-13). For analysis, see Smallwood 1981: 111. What follows in 2.39-42 is a flashback, followed by a major excursus on the “war” under Varus in 4-3 BCE (2.43-79); the narrative of the Herodians in Rome will resume at 2.80.

See also “quite clear” (and note) in this section. Varus’ foresight in military matters is in marked (possibly ironic) contrast to his reputation in Josephus’ Rome as the man who had lost 3 legions and committed suicide in the Teutoburg forest, because of an utter failure of foresight (see the note at 1.20). In this narrative his foresight is laudable, though hardly miraculous. On the one hand, he has been aware of the troublemakers’ demanding satisfaction for Herod’s perceived crimes, and they are now presumably more radicalized after Archelaus’ massacre of thousands in the temple precinct (2.10-13); on the other hand, Varus knows that his own procurator Sabinus has been trying to seize Herodian assets (2.16-19). These two factors produce a potent combination of provocation and resentment among the Judeans, as the following narrative shows. In the Antiquities parallel (17.250-53), Varus only responds to actual rebellion and has no special foresight; see note to “stimulus” at 2.41. See the note to “up” at 2.16. “Into” stresses Varus’ entry past the city walls. The verb used in this participle (παρακινέω) is favored by Josephus in War: the prologue (1.4) juxtaposes “movement” (κίνημα) with restive groups (παρεκίνουν) among the Gauls, contributing to the general sense of upheaval that drives especially bk. 2. Cf. also 1.323; 2.69, 73, 220; [3.33]; 5.123. Josephus’ word-choice (πρόδηλος) is significant: it will appear twice more in connection with the perfect clarity that the later war against Rome is doomed (2.396; 4.287); but in the intervening period of mayhem and deception (bks. 3-6), the word disappears—until bk. 7, where it appears with some frequency (7.326, 338, 384; cf. 182, 235, 283), everything being as clear as can be after the destruction of Jerusalem. In 2.73-4, by contrast, the populace will deny any complicity in the revolt, blaming it all on the rabble that visited for the (coming) festival. It is unclear whether Josephus offers either claim as trustworthy. Varus was known to Josephus’ literary audience for subsequently having lost 3 legions in Germany (see note at 1.20), and 3 legions will initially prosecute the later Judean-Roman war (V Macedonica, X Fretensis, XV Apollinaris [anticipated and later rejoined by XII Fulminata]; see the note to “forces” at 1.21). When Varus was legate in 4 BCE, these legions were not yet all in Syria. Possible forces at this time were III Gallica and VI Ferrata, both of which had been in Syria from 30 BCE, and X Fretensis or XII Fulminata, whose time of arrival in the region is uncertain. See Keppie 1998: 206-10.

See note at 2.18. See notes at 2.16, 24. Literally, a “pushing-off point” (ἀφορμή), which has many possibilities in a military context: base of operations, occasion, inducement, origin or starting-point, resource base (cf. 5.397). Apropos of the “illness” theme that runs through War in connection with civil strife (see note at 1.10), it is significant that the word also has a medical application: Hippocrates, Epid 2.1.11; Soranus 1.29. Whereas here in War Sabinus’ actions provide the pretext (apparently sought in advance by the “agitators”) for the single revolt introduced in 2.39 and foreseen by Varus in 2.40-41, the parallel (Ant. 17.250-53) has two distinct rebellions: a major one put down by Varus, after which he leaves a legion to maintain the peace, followed by a second instigated by Sabinus. The later account flows more logically (rebellion, report, suppression, leaving of legion to maintain peace, further rebellion provoked by Sabinus) than this one (anticipatory report of rebellion, revolt foreseen by Varus because of a rabble’s nature, legion left as safeguard on the basis of Varus’ intuition, rebellion actually occurs at Sabinus’ provocation), and this is one of many indicators that Josephus may be condensing and reshaping a fuller account closer to Antiquities’ version. See Cohen 1979: 48-66. The noun νεωτεροποιία is rare, occurring only 13 times in extant literature before Josephus (so TLG), and 8 of those occurrences are in Philo. Yet Josephus has it 7 times. The word appears once in Thucydides (1.102.3), once in Dionysius (Dem. 2.29), and twice in fragments of Nicolaus not taken from Josephus (FHG 3.101, ll. 324, 623). Although it is possible that Josephus’ use of the word was inspired by Nicolaus (in this case and Ant. 14.433; 17.252, 316), the other occurrences are in narrative far removed from Nicolaus’ source material (War 6.329; 7.81, 421). Philo’s heavy usage of the term strengthens the pattern of Josephus’ “Philonic” language. The verb “try to” is not in the text, but I translate both of the imperfect verbs (“forcing” and “tracking down”) as conatives, indicating the subject’s intention. Sabinus thus continues the project he began in 2.16-18 (see notes in 2.17-18 concerning these high forts) of trying to seize the late king’s assets before a new client should take over. Josephus’ use of the same verb (διερευνάω) as in 2.18 draws attention to the resumption of Sabinus’ postponed activity. I.e., the legion (somewhat more than 5000 troops if at full strength) left by Varus on his return to Antioch (2.40). Slavery was widespread in the Roman world: slaves appear to have accounted for a third or more of many urban populations in Italy, and anyone of means would have several. See e.g., Finley 1960; Massey and Moreland 1978; Alföldy 1988: 67-8; 135-41; Bradley 1994; Harris 1999. Slave ownership was so much taken for granted that Josephus does not even include his own slaves in a list of small benefits received from the Flavians (Life 414-429), though he mentions one incidentally (Life 429). It was assumed that a public official’s entourage in the provinces would include slave-assistants for all sorts of purposes, though these might also be publicly owned slaves, who assisted magistrate in Rome and abroad (cf. comprehensively Weiss 2004). The qualification “his personal [or private] slaves” apparently serves to distinguish these from the servi publici. According to 2.19, Sabinus had been rebuffed in his initial efforts to seize the fortresses by their guards. This information about regular and irregular forces now at his disposal explains why he is able finally to achieve his goal. The Antiquities parallel (17.253) has δορυφόροι, lit. “spear-carriers” (LCL: “terrorists”). Josephus finally confirms Sabinus’ motive, which had been unclear earlier, and the reason for Varus’ prevention of his plan (2.16). The alleged greed is on a massive scale: robbing the well-guarded treasuries of a world-famous and wealthy allied king, and using a Roman legion with other forces to do so.

See the note at 2.10. One of the 3 annual festivals requiring the attendance of male Israelites in Jerusalem (Deut 16:16), the Feast of Weeks (Shavuot) took its name from Deut 16:9-12, which introduces it as the festival 7 weeks after Passover. Lev 23:16 spells out, however, that an extra day must be added, so that this festival of grain and meat offerings occurs on the 50th day. Josephus does not spell it out, but he apparently means 7 weeks after the feast he has recently mentioned as chronological context: “Unleavened” or Passover (2.10). Note the similar language and sentence structure there. Possibly he omits the point from which one counts the 7 weeks because the Bible itself gives two different points within the Passover (Lev 23:15 from the priest’s waving of the barley sheaf; Deut 16:9 from the time when the sickle is put to the grain). Josephus clarifies in Ant. 3.251-52: when 7 weeks following the barley-sheaf offering of Pentecost have elapsed, on the 50th day (Pentecost) a new sacrifice is offered. He consistently displays an awareness that his audience might not understand even such basic Judean terminology (see Introduction). Whereas elsewhere he explains minimally that this festival is “called Pentecost” (War 1.253; 6.299; cf. Ant. 17.254), only here in War does he describe the term more fully. His fullest description is at Ant. 3.252 (based upon Lev 23:15-21; Num 28.25-31; Deut 16:9-11), where he mentions also the title “Weeks” (Hebrew ‮שבעות‬‎). On the Greek name of this festival see Pelletier 1975: 224-5. Or “ritual.” Although the word θρησκεία hardly occurs outside of Judean or Christian Greek before Josephus (Dionysius, Ant. rom. 2.63.2; Strabo 10.3.23; Plutarch and Lucian have it once each; cf. 4 Macc 5:7, 13; Wis 14:18, 27; Philo, Det. 21.2; Fug. 41.4; Spec. 1.315; Legat. 232, 298; James 1:26-7; Col. 2:18), Josephus has it a remarkable 91 times. See the note to this thematic, drama-enhancing word at 2.29.

Josephus is particularly inclined to use this phrase (πλῆθος ἄπειρον) in War 2, whether of persons or of things (necessitating a change in translation): also at 2.105, 253, 381, 523, 543, 592. These account for about a third of all instances in his corpus. Though used occasionally by authors before him (typically 1-3 times each), none comes close to Josephus’ frequency of usage. The Judean masses running (συντρέχω) or streaming together (συρρέω), as a nation spontaneously unified in response to Roman gubernatorial outrages, is formulaic in War 2 (2.170, 230, 233, 294, 315; cf. 490). That is, from the regions in the N and S extremities of Judea. Both have been mentioned frequently in War, in connection with activities under the Hasmoneans and Herod: Galilee, 1.21-22, 76, 170, 203, etc.; Idumea, 1.63, 263, 266-67, etc. Idumea, reportedly Judaized by John Hyrcanus (1.63; cf. Ant. 13.254-58) and home of the Herodian family, was a toparchic region in the province of Judea (3.55). Kasher (1988: 44-78) offers a vigorous review of scholarship and a challenge to Josephus’ claims about the forced conversion under Hyrcanus; cf. Cohen 1987. At any rate, Josephus assumes the audience’s knowledge of these regional names, and they are described by Strabo (16.2.34, 40, seemingly borrowing from Posidonius, FGrH 2a.87.F frag. 70), Pliny the Elder (Nat. 5.70), and others (2nd cent. CE, Claudius Ptolemaeus, Geog. 5.16.4). Josephus will digress to describe Galilee much more fully at 3.35-43. See the note at 2.57 below. That is, from both sides of the Jordan River. The name Perea (from πέραιος) means literally “beyond, across, on the other bank.” Since the term was commonly used for other locations in the eastern empire, Josephus has to explain to his Roman audience that he means Judean Perea. On Jericho and Perea see further 2.57 below. Or “the homegrown [or original] population”: ὁ γνήσιος . . . λαός means most literally the “real” or “genuine” Judeans (cf. note to “Greeks” at 1.16); here he is contrasting those from the historic center of Judea with Judeans from outlying areas. For the noun, see the note at 2.1. This is the same word (πλῆθος) that I translate with the article, as earlier in this sentence, as “the horde, rabble, mob”—an unflattering collective singular for a body of non-élite people. Josephus uses a plural here (“eagernesses”), perhaps to match the plural “men”—emphasizing the “eagerness” of each man in addition to the collective mass just mentioned.

Greek πρός τε τῷ βορείῳ τοῦ ἱεροῦ κλίματι. Although Josephus curiously does not mention it here, this is precisely where the fortress Antonia lay, an older foundation rebuilt by Herod on a massive scale and named to honor Marc Antony (War 1.401); this was the natural place for the legion left by Varus to maintain its headquarters (though it would need much more space for its camp). Josephus first introduced the Antonia with very similar words (War 1.118): “a fortress lying on the northern side [possibly “slope”] of the temple” (φρούριον δ’ ἦν τῷ βορείῳ κλίματι τοῦ ἱεροῦ προσκείμενον). The parallel (Ant. 17.255) has a difficult text, which seems to say that this group was in the N, facing S, while “holding” the E. A horse- (or chariot-) racing track, often used also for other functions, found in most Greek and Roman cities (Jericho at 1.659-60, 666; Tarichaea in Galilee, Life 132, 138). In Jerusalem’s case it was likely identical with the amphitheater built by Herod “in the plain” mentioned at Ant. 15.268 (note the interchangeable use of these terms at 1.659, 666 and the note to “stadium” at 2.172), the location of which remains unknown; see Appendix A and the note to “Xystus” at 2.344; also Bernett 2007: 52-66. The parallel at Ant. 17.255 has this group occupying (ἀπολαμβάνω) the hippodrome, as a base for military operations close to the city. That is, the Herodian palace complex on the W side of the city: War 1.402; 5.176-83; Ant. 15.318. After the fortress Antonia, the Herodian palace with its massive walls and towers was a logical place for soldiers to establish defenses (cf. 2.430-31); one would assume that both sites were being used by the Syrian legion taken over by Sabinus. Lit. “along the sunset.” An obvious but forgivable exaggeration: the masses do not occupy the ground E of the city, as Titus’ Tenth Legion would early in the later conflict (5.70), but this is understandable since the deep Kidron Valley immediately beside the city walls had nothing to commend it as a military camp site. The Tenth Legion camped high on the Mount of Olives, and even then were nearly routed by daring surprise attacks from the Judeans in the city (5.74-97). Although Josephus does not spell this out for his audience, it seems that the Romans would have concentrated their troops in the Antonia fortress to the NE and the Herodian palace complex on the W; see previous notes. The remarkable degree of organization here (cf. Simonetti 742 n. 118) is part of a theme in War: that the irregular, untrained Judean people in revolt often behave spontaneously like a regular army (see note to “close order” at 2.12), whereas the renowned legions often suffer setbacks and confusion.

Even though Josephus deplores the prospect of revolt, this notice about a Roman official’s fear begins a long series of passages in which the narrator will observe that the daring and resolve of the Judeans overwhelmed even the renowned courage and good order of the Roman legions, e.g.: 3.229-30, 472-88; 5.71-97, 277-78, 305-6, 315-16; 6.13-14, 33-53; cf. 2.11. See the Introduction, on his attempt to redeem Judean honor after the war. See the note to this word at 2.43. That is, the legion that Varus had left in Jerusalem to maintain order (2.40). It is telling that he must dramatize the legion’s possible fate in order to get Varus’ attention; there seems to be no love lost between Varus and Sabinus; cf. also 2.66, where indeed Varus worries for the legion and rushes to its aid. This graphic verb (κατακόπτω) is used by Thucydides (7.29) to describe the massacre at the boys’ school at Mycalessus by the bloodthirsty Thracians—the worst disaster in that war—and by Herodotus to describe Athenians cutting Persians to pieces at Salamis (8.92). It is ironic, again, that Varus, who would through his lack of foresight cause one of the most infamous massacres of Roman legions, in 9 CE, should be the one to prevent such a situation here. See the notes to “Varus” at 1.20 and to “foreseeing this” at 2.40.

Josephus does not clarify, but “fortress” here means the high-walled Herodian palace complex in the W (“upper”) part of the city, where the Phasael tower stood (1.402, 418). King Herod had built one of the monumental towers along the wall of his palace, at the height of W Jerusalem’s Upper City, in honor of his brother Phasael (1.418; 5.166-69). See the note at 2.11. The story of Phasael’s treacherous arrest by the Parthians, when Pacorus (son of the Parthian king Orodes II) invaded Syria in 40 BCE—with the indispensable help of the Roman Quintus Labienus—and installed (via another Pacorus, the cup-bearer) the Hasmonean Antigonus on the throne, was told in detail at War 1.255-72; cf. Ant. 14.365-369. According to that story, however, Phasael was not killed by the Parthians; they handed him over to their client Antigonus for torture, and Phasael committed suicide rather than face this humiliation (1.271). Or he recovered from the suicide attempt, and a physician sent by Antigonus poisoned him (1.272). When in a position of military leadership, Josephus emphasizes, he personally led daring raids against the (Roman) enemy: War 3.153-54. It was an old principle of Greek citizen-hoplite warfare that commanders fought in the thick of the battle (Hanson 1989: 107-116), and Eckstein (1995: 28-40) shows that Polybius, one of Josephus’ models, admired such personal courage in generals. Although later Greek and Roman strategists tended to think that the general should remain back from the fighting (Onasander 33; cf. War 5.85-97), at certain crucial moments in War’s narrative Titus will take the lead among his troops and save the day (War 5.71-84). On other occasions, however, he will be far from the action, either observing or entirely unaware of what is happening (6.89, 183-84, 254); see Introduction. Fearful Sabinus, who had no business fighting in the first place, is plainly not an object of admiration here.

This fairly rare word (in Josephus only again at War 6.288), παραπείθω, suggests mischievous persuasion, cajoling, or beguiling. In the context here, it seems less likely that the legionaries were beguiled by the cowardly Sabinus than that they followed his order in spite of knowing its underhanded basis. Before Josephus the word προπηδάω is attested very rarely (once each in Aristophanes, Agatharchides, Megasthenes, Diodorus, Philo, Onasander, twice in Aeschylus), and yet he has it a remarkable 21 times in War 2-6, once in Antiquities (20.177). From the 2nd cent. CE it begins to appear more often (Dio Chrysostom, Epictetus, twice in Arrian, 4 in Lucian, 7 in Appian, etc.), suggesting that Josephus is, as often, using newly fashionable language. It is a vivid term that enhances the narrative action. As the sequel makes clear (with fighting from the porticoes), the soldiers have advanced into the temple precincts, not into the central shrine (ναός). For the important distinction, see the note to “shrine” at 1.10. See also Pelletier, n. 19 ad loc, correcting Thackeray and M-B. This cliché (μάχη καρτερά) appears elsewhere in Josephus at War 6.74; Ant. 15.111, 151; 17.258. Josephus uses the adverb καθύπερθε an impressive 19 times in War (1-6), 6 times in Ant. 5. Although Thucydides has it twice (4.43.3; 5.59.3), Polybius, Diodorus, Dionysius, and Philo do not use it; Strabo has it 4 times, Plutarch only 3. The striking exceptions are Homer (23 occurrences) and Herodotus (50): it thus counts as Homeric-Herodotean language. Or as elsewhere “expertise” (ἐμπειρία); here I render “experience” for a more idiomatic contrast to τῶν ἀπείρων (“the inexperienced, inexpert”). Roman “war expertise” is a prominent theme in Josephus’ works: War 3.69; 5.46; 6.81; Life 17 and note ad loc. in Mason BJP 9; cf. Hadas-Lebel 1987: 832-836.

Even without the fuller description of the columns that Josephus will later supply (5.190-92), the audience would understand already that climbing up on the superstructure of such monumental columns, presumably with ladders (cf. 6.22), to harass professional soldiers was a daring enterprise. The massive colonnades that Herod constructed around the perimeter of his temple mount were introduced at 1.401. Josephus will claim (5.190-92) that each was carved from a single block of white marble (but see Netzer [2006: 310]: this was an optical illusion created by the use of limestone, plaster, or stucco) and stood about 12.5 metres (40 ft.), supporting a cedar-panel roof. Aside from their impressive aesthetics, the broad colonnades (about 15 m./45 ft.wide) had the practical function of shielding large crowds from rain and sun (cf. 1.425). The northern and western colonnades connected the temple area with the fortress Antonia (2.330; 5.243-44), thus serving the auxiliary soldiers as a secure observation tier for crowd control (2.224-26)—and the Judeans as a defense-post during the later war (2.536; 4.206, 298; 5.304). This will become a familiar scene in War (cf. next 2.329). The word for projectile (βέλος) occurs only 6 times elsewhere in Josephus, but 57 times in War, almost all of these from the latter half of bk. 2 onward. Since it literally indicates anything that may be thrown or fired, the two main classes of projectile were various kinds of shot (clay, stones, and rocks), on the one hand, and bolts, arrows, or spears on the other. Where the context seems clearly to indicate arrows, darts, or spears (the more common usage), it is so translated. Josephus uses the indeclinable συστάδην only 4 times, 3 of these in War 2 (also 2.423, 512; cf. 5.305).

Curiously, of only 5 occurrences of καταπονέω in War, 3 turn up in very similar contexts (victims of bombardment from high places around the temple) and in the plural present passive participle as here (also 2.329; 6.178). This suggests a high degree of stylization in Josephus’ thinking about such scenes. Of the 18 occurrences of the compound verb ὑποπίμπρημι in Josephus, 17 are in War 1-6 (also Ant. 8.311). Ironically, destroying the porticoes will later become an expression of Judean defiance: 2.330-31, 403; 6.165-66, 177-81, 191. The parallel at Ant. 17.261 elaborates that the portico roof was highly combustible, being made of woodwork, pitch, and wax. See the note to “colonnades” at 2.48. The following description has a remarkably close—and symmetrical—parallel in 6.180-81, where Judeans will set fire to the portico roof and Romans will die. Each passage lists 5 kinds of death, following an initial μέν . . . δέ construction. About 14 significant words (not counting conjunctions and particles) from this passage appear also in the later one; see Introduction on the concentric stucture of the War. See the note at 2.11. The simple form of this verb (κρημνίζω), used here, is extremely rare before Josephus’ time (2 Macc 6:10; Diodorus 9.19.1); much more common is the form with the prefix κατα-, which enhances the “downward” motion of the verb. Diodorus is the only predecessor to use the entire word-group to any significant degree (14 times). Josephus has the word-group 12 times, this unprefixed form twice (also 4.7); Plutarch has the group 16 times, the unprefixed form once (Mor. [Lib. educ.] 5b). Josephus appears again to be using newly fashionable language. See also the note to “propped it up” (an unparalleled and paradoxical form) at 2.435. That is, they killed themselves rather than waiting for the fire to kill them; cf. 6.181.

This colorful word (καθέρπω) has slight attestation before Josephus (Aristophanes, Ran. 129, 485; Xenophon, Symp. 4.23, and a fragment of Sophocles). It occurs only here in War; also Ant. 14.423. This word (ἀίσσω) is “rarely found in prose” (LSJ): cf. Homer, Il. 2.106; 4.78; 5.81; 6.232; 11.118, 484; 17.460, 579; 18.506; 21.247; 24.320. In the parallel (Ant. 17.263), this group does not appear; all are fleeing for their lives, and Josephus reflects that, unarmed, they had no chance against the Romans. But this notice and this verb are highly significant in War because they anticipate the characteristically intrepid Judean style of combat in the coming conflict. It is typically—except when the legions fail in their discipline (e.g., 6.179)—contrasted with Roman order and method (4.45-6; 5.75, 305-6, 315-16; 6.17-19; 7.212; on Roman order see 3.98-107). Josephus plainly admires the Judeans’ daring in the face of an overwhelming professional army on the Roman side, even if he deplores the revolt itself; see Introduction. The Judeans’ courage is all the more remarkable if we should understand here that they dash into Roman ranks unarmed. Cf. Sabinus’ distress (ἔκπληξις) in 2.46, which started this engagement. There seems to be an implied contrast: whereas he, a coward, felt distress while safely ensconced in a tower, on account of his unjust actions, the Judeans have a right to distress as they manfully face Roman soldiers and swords. The parallel (Ant. 17.264) has “the treasury where the sacred funds were.” See also the two following notes and 2.331 (“treasuries of God” coveted by Gessius Florus). Josephus uses 4 phrases to describe the temple treasury [each also in plural]: “the treasury of God” (ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ θησαυρὸς) as here, 2.331; Ant. 7.367, 69; 8.95, 258; 9.170, 202; “the sacred treasury” (ὁ ἱερὸς θησαυρός), 2.175, 293; 5.187; “the public treasury” (ὁ δημόσιος θησαυρός), 2.564; 4.140; 5.518; and “the treasury-chamber” (τὸ γαζοφυλάκιον, γαζαφυλακεῖον), War 5.200; 6.282; Ant. 9.164; 11.119, 126; 13.429; 19.294). Similar phrases to the first 3 are in Dionysius (Ant. rom. 20.9.1-2), who describes with outrage King Pyrrhus’ appropriation of the sacred treasury from the temple of Persephone at Locri, with the sequel of divine punishment.The principal source of revenue for the treasuries, it seems, was the half-shekel or didrachma temple tax paid by Judeans everywhere for the upkeep of the sanctuary (Exod 30:11-16; War 7.218; Ant. 18.312; Matt 17:24-27): at War 5.187 Josephus remarks that the “sacred treasures” were continually replenished by subventions from around the world. Other sources included things vowed (votive offerings) and voluntary donations—whether specific adornments by potentates or the more common gifts of money (see Schürer-Vermes 2.270-74). The Mishnah tractate Sheqalim is devoted to the issue of collecting and disbursing these funds (see also notes at 2.175). M. Sheqal. 1.1, 3 claims that the half-shekel tax was collected from the world’s Judean communities annually in Adar (Feb-March), to be ready for Nisan 1 (March-April).This movement of funds from other provinces to a foreign city had become an issue when L. Valerius Flaccus attempted as governor of Asia to block it; Cicero defended his action against a “barbarian superstition” (Flacc. 67). Augustus, however, reportedly confirmed the propriety of the temple tax (Josephus, Ant. 16.162-165; commentary by Pucci ben Zeev 1998: 253-55). Cf. Tacitus, who claims (Hist. 5.5) that the worst sort of people from other nations “kept sending subventions and donations [tributa et stipes] there, thus increasing the wealth of the Judeans,” and 5.7: Jerusalem had a temple “of enormous wealth.”Like other temples, the one in Jerusalem served also as a bank and place of safe deposit: it was relatively secure because of its divinely protected status (asylum) and, practically, because of its thick walls and fortress-like position (cf. Jeremias 1969: 55-6). It remains unclear to what extent the temple’s funds were maintained in separate accounts for temple use, civic projects (2.175, 564; 4.141; 5.518), and private savings. Josephus remarks that at the time of the final conquest, the treasury-chambers contained vast sums of money deposited by Jerusalem’s wealthiest citizens for safe keeping (cf. 4 Macc 4:3), along with rich priestly clothing and temple fabrics of purple (6.282). At the time of Titus’ conquest, a priest and the temple treasurer will spare their lives by giving up the remaining contents of the treasuries to the Romans (6.387-391). Pompey, by contrast, though he conquered and temporarily occupied the temple in 63 BCE, is said to have left its treasures intact for the sake of piety (Ant. 14.73; cf. War 1.152-53; Cicero, Flacc. 67; but Dio 27.16.4). Notwithstanding Pompey’s example (previous note), the Jerusalem temple was a frequent target for well-armed local strongmen who needed quick money, and foreign leaders who thought they were entitled to use the funds, whether for civic projects or in lieu of delinquent tribute: see 1.32, 179 [1.152-53]; 2.175, 293 (cf. 403), 331; 5.187; Ant. 10.111, 144, 149, 233, 175; 11.10, 14; 12.49-50; 14.105; Apion 2.80-83. Josephus does not shrink from including the destroyers of Jerusalem led by Titus in this long line, and from spelling out their plunder of even the most sacred, and priestly, accoutrements (6.387-391; 7.148-152). This was an enormous sum. Originally the term (τάλαντον) referred to weigh-scales, but it had also come to indicate the standard weight (about 26 kg/57.5 lb [Attic] or 38 kg/84 lb [Aeginetic]) of gold or silver in its largest denomination. The talent was worth 6,000 drachmas. In this period legionary soldiers were paid the equivalent of 225 drachmae (denarii) annually, auxiliary soldiers—as in Judea—perhaps one third of that (Watson 1969: 89-114). So a single talent would have been slightly more than a legionary’s total gross pay for an entire career of 25 years. But Josephus also implies (Ant. 17.146, 189-90, 321-23) that 1 Judean talent was equivalent to 10,000 Attic drachmas (= 12,000 Phoenician drachmas). See Schürer-Vermes 2.63-67.He seems to indicate that by the mid-1st century BCE the cash holdings of the temple were 2,000 talents (1.152, 179; Ant. 14.72). Once Herod had designated Antipater his heir, he gave him a royal salary of 50 talents per annum (Ant. 17.97). In War 1.61 John Hyrcanus is able to buy off Antiochus VII, who is besieging Jerusalem, with 300 talents; the same amount persuades Scaurus to support Aristobulus on the Hasmonean throne (1.129; cf. 1.159), and 300 talents also represents Hyrcanus II’s entire fortune—said to be modest for such a personage (1.268). It would take a concerted effort of Judean leaders, fanning out through the villages, to collect the mere 40 talents needed as outstanding taxes for Roman tribute, just before the outbreak of war (2.403-5), and Gessius Florus’ extraction of only 17 talents for imperial use (2.293) sparked riots. These 400 talents thus represented a massive fortune. In the parallel (Ant. 17.264), by contrast, the soldiers take a great part of the entire temple treasury, while Sabinus personally seizes 400 talents. As Thackeray points out, that parallel (coming in a section, Ant. 17-19, that egregiously imitates Thucydides) recalls Thucydides 7.85.3 (τὸ μὲν οὖν ἁθροισθὲν τοῦ στρατεύματος ἐς τὸ κοινὸν οὐ πολὺ ἐγένετο, τὸ δὲ διακλαπὲν πολυ), which however talks about enemy soldiers rather than money. There may be an echo of Thucydides in this passage, too, though it lacks Antiquities’ contrast between open and concealed.

Or “ruin.” This is the first of 10 occurrences of φθορά in the War. The last two (War 6.412, 429) highlight the word’s thematic importance: it is a term to which Josephus has ready recourse in his editorial descriptions of Jerusalem’s plight: also 2.223, 477, 559; 3.528; 4.489, 551; 5.345. Cf. the “marvelous works” of 2.49 above. The Judeans’ tenacious determination to fight, no matter how adverse the circumstances, will become a prominent theme in War (see Introduction). That is, the Herodian palace in W Jerusalem, occupied by Sabinus and his legion as a fortress: 2.44-46. See the note at 2.11. This verb (διαφθείρω) is cognate to the noun ‘ruin’ in this sentence, with an intensifying prefix διά: in response to ruin or destruction, the Judeans will utterly destroy the enemy. Or “safe passage, impunity”: etymologically, “absence of fear” (ἄδεια). In his build-up to the later war, Josephus will feature a similar story about the rebels’ siege of Roman and royal troops in the Herodian palace (2.430-40, 450-56). In that story Agrippa’s troops are allowed safe passage, but the Romans initially refuse to surrender because they fear that even a guarantee of amnesty should not be trusted (2.438). Their suspicions prove accurate when, after surrendering and disarming, they are coldly cut down—on a sabbath (2.452-56). Whether or not Josephus and his audience would assume a measure of skepticism about the Judeans’ promise here, in 2.54 Josephus makes Sabinus’ doubt explicit.

Presumably, the remaining forces of King Herod: one garrison of his formidable army (1.293, 342-44), which had seen action in support of various Roman rulers (1.320-22, 329, 364-66, 393-96), was headquartered in Jerusalem’s fortress Antonia. Augustus generally allowed eastern client kings to maintain their own, independent armed forces; when their territories were later incorporated as provinces those units would become the foundation of “auxiliary” units—cavalry wings, infantry cohorts, and other specialty groups that supported the legions in campaigns (Webster 1985: 35). Shortly before his death, Herod could send a general with a “substantial force” to deal with some troublemakers (1.652) and his funeral was marked by a large military display (1. 657). The force must have been large, since 3,000 of them still remain here after the majority have defected to the Judeans. Until this point, War 2.41 has given the Roman procurator only the legion left by Varus along with Sabinus’ own rabble of armed slaves; subsequently, only the legion has been mentioned (2.45-46)—“the [Roman] soldiers” who contend with the Judean populace (2.47). The note here explains that the royal troops of the city, who would have been obliged to help the Romans keep order, as a client king’s force, mainly deserted at this point to join their compatriots. We should assume, apparently, that most of Herod’s army were Judeans (cf. 1.352) and so were welcomed by the Judean rebels (for exceptions, see the following notes); the same phenomenon will occur with the troops of his great-grandson Agrippa II in a later siege (2.437). These were troops raised by Herod from Samaria (see the note at 2.69), a long-standing base of support where in 27 BCE he had built the city of Sebaste with its great temple to honor the newly proclaimed “Augustus” (Sebastos in Greek); see Bernett 2007: 66-98. He had also settled 6,000 colonists (probably veterans) there, a move that further enhanced the city’s military ethos (1.403). These troops were already then or later supplemented by recruits from Caesarea: the resulting cavalry wing and 5 cohorts (so 3,000-3,500 men [one cohort may have been of double size]) would become the core of the auxiliary force under the Roman prefects and procurators of Judea (Kraeling 1942: 265-74; Schürer-Vermes 1.364-66): see War 2.58, 63, 74, 169, 236; 3.66.According to Ant. 19.355-66, on the death of the Judean king Agrippa I in 44 CE, the people of Caesarea and Sebaste celebrated his demise in deeply insulting ways. Those currently serving in the auxiliaries (note the close bond between citizens and soldiers) displayed images of Agrippa’s daughters on the rooftops of brothels, where they proceeded to dishonor them in unspeakable ways. For that reason Claudius decided to transfer to Pontus (N Turkey) the auxiliary cavalry wing and 5 cohorts drawn from these two cities, replacing them with Roman detachments. This would be a double humiliation: for their soldiers to serve so far from home and for them to be replaced on the home front by legionaries. The populations of the affected cities persuaded Claudius to relent, however, and Josephus pointedly observes that the continued presence of the Sebastene-Caesarean cohorts was a growing aggravation to the Judeans and a significant cause of the later war.At 2.236 (cf. Ant. 20.122) the procurator Cumanus will use the Sebastene auxiliary cavalry against the Judeans, unfairly intervening in the latter’s conflict with the Samarians. At 2.270 (cf. Ant. 20.176) the Caesareans will rely on the support of auxiliary soldiers from Sebaste and their own city to confront the Judeans. Most importantly, at 2.296, 301, 305-6, 310-12, 319-29 these very units will be more than willing accomplices in Florus’ (alleged) efforts to generate a war with the Judeans, to cover up his own crimes.Thus, although the fact that they were commanded by Roman officers might seem sufficient to explain their turn to the Roman side here (cf. Ant. 17.266), these royal Sebastene forerunners of those later auxiliary units also represent the ongoing hostility in Josephus’ narratives between Judeans and Samarians (cf. War 2.232-44; Ant. 11.88, 97, 116-19; 18.30). In addition to their commanders’ loyalties, their own sympathies make them natural allies of the Romans (or of anyone else; cf. Ant. 12.257-61) confronting the Judeans. See the note to “Sebastenes” in this section: this group of Samarian fighters and their Roman commanders would naturally sympathize with the Romans against the (other) Judeans. Both are common Latin names (cognomina: Rufus, reddish; Gratus: pleasing, dear; cf. Kajanto 1982: 282) with many derivatiave and diminutive forms. Rufus is among the 18 most common names (Kajanto 1982: 29-30): whereas it is found all but exclusively among the freeborn (Kajanto 121, 134), Gratus was more common among slaves and freedmen (Kajanto 73). In any case, the names suggest that Gratus and Rufus were Romans seconded to command two of Herod’s élite units. It would become common in the early empire (1st to 3rd centuries CE) for ex-centurions from the legions, and then young men of equestrian status (the lower nobility), to be offered a series of commands of auxiliary cohorts and cavalry wings in the provinces. See Watson 1969: 24-25; Webster 1985: 145-50; Le Bohec 1994: 26, 46.Although technically independent (as an ally of Rome), Herod’s army functioned practically as an auxiliary force in its constant availability to Roman commanders (see note to “troops” in this section), and so it is not surprising that Herod anticipated the auxiliary model: the same close relations with Augustus and Agrippa that had won him a Thracian, German, and Gallic bodyguard (War 1.672) apparently worked to secure Roman commanders for some of his forces, which appear to have been organized on the Roman model—like many client armies (Keppie 1998: 141; Shatzman 1991: 198-210). In the absence of their own native ruler (Herod, now dead), the various constituent groups of the royal army and their commanders had to choose where to place their allegiance. Note the chiastic structure here. It was typical of later auxiliary forces (see previous notes) that they were divided into cavalry wings (alae) and infantry. cohorts (cohortes)—and also mixed units (equitata): see Webster 1985: 145. Both could be groups of about 500 (most commonly) or, less often and perhaps only from the late first century CE (Le Bohec 1994: 26, 46), 1000. Gratus and the royal (Sebastene) infantry reappear at War 2.58-59, 63-64, 74; cf. 2.67-68; cf. Ant. 17.266, 275-76, 283-84, 294. Rufus and the Sebastene royal cavalry reappear at 2.74; cf. Ant. 17.266, 294. Or “one who tipped the scales of a war” (πολέμου ῥοπή). Josephus will use this colorful phrase (ῥοπή means literally the weight that goes in the pan of the weigh-scales, and by extension the falling of one side of the scale) again at 2.470 and in non-personal applications (War 3.396; cf. 5.88). For the image see Isocrates, Pan. 50.3; Diodorus 14.21.2; 17.8.7; Rhetorica Anonyma, Progymnasmata 1.607; Oenomaus, Frag. 6.63; Dio 50.19.5. The syntax is not entirely clear, and is variously understood by the MSS and critics (Lat. quorum uterque ui corporis atque prudentia, etiamsi nullam manum obedientem haberent, magnum tamen momentum belli romanis addidissent); I follow Naber and Thackeray here. The parallel (Ant. 17.266) devotes a shorter parenthetical statement of praise to the fighters under Rufus and Gratus, rather than to the commanders. Cf. Simon son of Saoul at 2.470, who is such a deciding factor on his own.

Apparently the Herodian palace in W Jerusalem (cf. 2.46). At 5.177 Josephus mentions that the walls enclosing Herod’s palace were 30 cubits high (not counting the towers): about 45 ft. or nearly 14 m. See the note to “self-government” (αὐτονομία) at 2.22. Ant. 17.267 has “liberty” (ἐλευθερία) in the corresponding place. Given the proximity of this passage to others in which members of the Judean élite seek “autonomy” under the umbrella of Rome (2.22, 80/91), one might surmise that Josephus is developing—in preparation for the Great War—a debate about what true freedom or autonomy means. For a different view, see D. R. Schwartz 2002. Diodotus’ speech in Thucydides (3.41-48) may have come to mind for Josephus and his audience, for there αὐτονομία is what the Mitylenian rebels had fought for (3.46.5; note the interchangeability with ἐλευθερία: 3.45.6), and Diodotus tries to keep the Athenians from punitively slaughtering the city’s population.

Curiously, Josephus uses this word (δέλεαρ) frequently in War 1-2 (1.373, 434, 514; here and 2.158 [of the Essenes’ positive theological bait; see note there]), then not again until the end of the Apion (2.184). This is an example of his general tendency to use certain words for a while and then drop them. By far the heaviest attested user of the word before Josephus was Philo, who accounts for 23 of the 80 pre-Josephan attestations; Aristotle accounts for 18, Polybius for 9. See the note to “legion” at 2.51. In a story set 70 years later (2.430-56) Josephus will tell of the Roman garrison of Jerusalem, which, after being granted safe passage and while surrendering, is slaughtered in cold blood. False pledges of safety as ambush set-ups appear elsewhere in Josephus: Ant. 20.160-61; Life 216, 246-47, 294-302. Sabinus has repeatedly sent messengers to Varus, begging for aid (2.45).

That is: in addition to activities just described in the capital. The following survey moves artfully S to Idumea, then N to Galilee, then E to Perea before returning to the vicinity of Jerusalem (2.60). Josephus thus gives the impression of a large region in turmoil; he uses a similar pattern at 2.43 above. Contrast the parallel in Ant. 17.269, which locates the following disturbances in Judea proper. That difference of emphasis requires a few other changes: Herod’s former troops rebel in Judea, rather than Idumea; the reference to Judas’ location is less important; and Simon of Perea acts throughout the whole countryside of Judea, rather than in raids on nearby Jericho as here. See the note to this verb at 1.5. This is the 1st of 7 occurrences in bk. 2 (out of 12 in War: also 2.103, 109, 110, 182, 409, 615); it helps to create an atmosphere of deviance in the antecedents of the war. Josephus’ word for “large numbers” here (συχνούς) is relatively rare in comparison to the common πολλούς in the similar clause at War 1.5 (see next note). This word is characteristic of War, however, where it occurs 33 times, against only 9 in the much longer Antiquities, once in Life, and twice in Apion. Or “kingship, a kingdom.” This clause (καὶ συχνοὺς βασιλειᾶν ὁ καιρὸς ἀνέπειθεν) is a nearly verbatim replica of Josephus’ statement in the prologue (1.5) concerning the situation throughout the empire following Nero’s death: “everything was filled with disturbances after Nero, and while the opportunity induced many [to seek] sovereignty (καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν βασιλειᾶν ὁ καιρὸς ἀνέπειθεν) . . . .” The phrasing does not seem attested in other Greek literature. Most of the MSS read “induced many to exercise kingship (βασιλεύειν),” but possibly under the influence of 1.5 Niese and Thackeray follow MS C (βασιλειᾶν [from βασιλειάω] “to aspire to kingship, sovereignty, kingdom”). The Latin elaborates ad regni cupidinem. The parallel at Ant. 17.269 gives different motives: personal gain and—given that Idumeans will be next mentioned—animosity toward the Judeans. Contrast Ant. 17.270: in Judea (and see note to “countryside” above). Josephus’ use of this word (ἔνοπλος) is concentrated in War 2 (8 occurrences); otherwise it appears twice each in War 6 and Antiquities. See, similarly, the note to “bait” at 2.54. Although οἱ βασιλικοί by itself might indicate royal partisans, not necessarily soldiers—and the meaning of the word is less certain at 2.62 below—the context here requires royal soldiers or forces. War 2.52 had seemed to imply, however, that Herod’s force had disbanded, most going with the Judean rebels, the rest (3,000 under Rufus and Gratus) to the Romans. The best alternatives appear to be: (a) that 2.52 was carelessly formulated; (b) that although royal forces in the Jerusalem area did more or less dissolve into Judean-rebel and Roman contingents, this Idumean contest—between different factions of the royal army—was not included in that reckoning, or (c) that the Idumean conflict occurred earlier than the disbandment mentioned in 2.52. Of these, (a) seems most inherently plausible, since it is hard to imagine the royal forces in the Jerusalem area disbanding entirely (cf. further 2.62) before the outcome of the Roman succession hearings was known. The phrasing here (2,000 against the unnumbered “royal troops”) suggests that the forces in question remained substantial, the main army somewhat more numerous than the rebels. Achiab was introduced at War 1.662. When Herod was about to take his own life, Achiab rushed in and stayed the king’s hand. According to Ant. 15.250, he had loyally blocked the handing over of Herod’s fortresses in Jerusalem to Alexandra, daughter of the Hasmonean Hyrcanus II. He reappears at 2.77, successfully advising the last rebels in Idumea to surrender to Varus. Possibly suggesting “close-quarter [combat],” though the word (συμπλοκή) can include any sort of complication; perhaps (see next note) Achiab’s enemy should be understood as having a strong cavalry force. Ant. 17.270 expands: Achiab was driven from the plains into the hill country by the greater expertise of his enemies, and retreated to places that were inaccessible to them. An experienced commander himself, Josephus as author pays attention to the tactical issue of terrain: see e.g. War 3.278-79; 4.423; 5.305. In particular, cavalry are suited to open country, whereas infantry, especially those that lack the Romans’ formations and size, fight best in hills and other protected areas: Life 117, 397; Frontinus, Strat. 2.18. Josephus implicitly commends Achiab for knowing which terrain suited him best. Indeed, the later “war” (66-73 CE) that is the main subject of this work will consist mainly of Roman sieges (of Judean strongholds), with occasional and important raids or ambushes by the Judeans, but not pitched battles in open countryside.

Sepphoris was introduced in 1.170 as “a city in Galilee”—indicating the audience’s expected lack of knowledge even of major centers in the region—and as the regional capital created by Gabinius in the mid-50s. According to 1.304-13, Sepphoris, which would later show immediate support for Rome in the war (War 2.511 [but 2.574]; Life 30, 38, 104), also capitulated quickly to the young Herod, who used the site as his base for pacifying Galilee. By Josephus’ time of writing, Sepphoris’ role as chief city of Galilee had been eclipsed by Antipas’ founding of Tiberias (ca. 18-19 CE); then, with Tiberias’ transfer to Agrippa II by Nero in 56 CE, Sepphoris had regained its primary status (War 2.252-53; Ant. 20.159; Life 37-38 with notes). The city has figured prominently in the flurry of studies on Galilee, especially in the controversies over the ethnic and cultural character of the region or its cities, much of which is driven by historical-Jesus research (e.g., R.S. Hanson 1980; Freyne 1980, 1988, 2002, 2004; Levine 1992; Horsley 1995, 1996; Martin Nagy 1996; Edwards and McCollough 1997; Rabinowitz 1997; Meyers 1999; Reed 2000; Sawicki 2000; Chancey 2002, 2005; Aviam 2004). See also 2.574 below and, for a brief overview of the archaeology, Appendix A in BJP 9. This Ezekias (‮חזקיה‬‎) was mentioned briefly at 1.204: he was the first bandit casualty of the young Herod’s appointment—by his father Antipater—as governor or general over Galilee. In Ant. 14.159, 167, the same story becomes the basis for a trial of Herod before the Jerusalem court on the charge that he has killed without due process (14.165-84), and that story in turn becomes important to Antiquities’ portrayal of Herod (15.3-4, 370). Many scholars have supposed that the son of Ezekias mentioned here was the Judas “of Galilee/Gaulanitis” who led an abortive revolt a decade later (6 CE), at the annexation of Judea under direct Roman rule (War 2.117-18; Ant. 18.4-9; Acts 5:37; cf. Kennard 1945-46; Hengel 1989: 331-33; Schürer-Vermes 1.381). But Judas was an extremely common name in the period (Hachlili 2005: 200) and, although Josephus is deeply interested in the rebel dynasty of the later Judas, he does not give the slightest hint of such a connection (cf. Smallwood 1981: 153 n. 40). Hengel (1989: 331-33; see his n. 101 for scholars on each side of the question) explains Josephus’ failure to indicate the connection on the supposition that he failed to reconcile different sources—a possibility easier to suggest than to render persuasive. “Bandit” language (λῃστής, λῃστεία, latro, latrocinium; here ἀρχιλῃστής) was highly charged for Josephus and contemporary writers. See the note to “bandit” at Life 21 in BJP 9; Shaw 1984; Horsley and Hanson 1988; Hengel 1989: 24-46; Price 1992: 17-24; Firpo 1997: 684-98; Habinek 1998: 69-87; Grünewald 1999; Jossa 2001: 132-146. Although the E Mediterranean hill country was infested with real bandits, these were often clients of wealthier men, and the label was regularly used for one’s powerful political opponents—to place them beyond the pale of civil society. The crucial ingredient was that the opponents be powerful men who instilled fear by their ability to intimidate others and seemingly take what they wanted without recourse to social and political norms. The term thus gained wide currency in times of civil war, hurled at opponents by those who considered themselves representatives of order (therefore sometimes mutually applied). John of Gischala, Josephus’ aristocratic competitor in Galilee and “close friend” of the leading Pharisee Simeon son of Gamaliel in Jerusalem (Life 192) is described as a “bandit” (War 2.587, 593) and Josephus’ opponent Jesus is a “chief bandit” (Life 105). When Josephus describes some “bandits” at War 2.264, he similarly implies more than ordinary criminal activity: they “incited many to defection (ἀπόστασις), exhorting them to freedom, threatening death to those who submitted to the imperium Romanum and saying that they would remove by force those voluntarily choosing slavery.” These are, then, political revolutionaries. Similarly, the militant sicarii who will hold out against the Romans at Masada (War 7.252-58) Josephus describes as bandits (2.254). Ant. 14.271-85 gives insight into the variety of his usage, describing a “bandit” counter-state with its own unwritten laws in Trachonitis.In Rome, Cicero’s conflicts with Catiline and Marc Antony (Phil. 5.23) had long ago established a potent political sense for latrocinium; the orator effectively denounced both his fellow aristocrat and that man’s followers as bandits (latrones; Habinek 1998: 69-87). In a famous inscription preserving a speech of Claudius in 48 CE (CIL 13.668), the princeps refers to a wealthy Gaul who had been consul twice, D. Valerius Asiaticus, since forced to commit suicide for alleged conspiracy, as a bandit. Now Josephus takes a similar tack, quite possibly with the Catilinarian background in mind—a precedent well known to his Roman audience. He also has important support from the Bible—LXX Jeremiah 7.11 (“you have made my house a den of λῃσταί”)—in linking the “bandits” of War with temple pollution.Josephus is the first known writer to use the Greek compound rendered “chief bandit” (ἀρχιλῃστής), which he employs a remarkable 11 times. A few others had used the reverse form λῃστάρχης (“bandit chief”; Diodorus 33.1; Polyaenus 4.9.3; cf. Plutarch, Crass. 22.3; Appian, Iber. 289), which Josephus avoids. If his preferred form is an innovation, it may have been prompted by the Latin expressions dux or princeps latronum, which Cicero uses with distinctly political connotations (princeps latronum duxque, of Marc Antony, Phil. 4.27.5; cf. Fam. 10.14.1; Ep. Brut. 13.2.5), or possibly in imitation of the compound ἀρχιπειρατής, “chief pirate,” slightly better attested before and around Josephus’ time (Diodorus 20.97.6; Plutarch, Pomp. 45.4; Polyaenus, Strat. 4.6.18; 5.19.1)—the latter suggestion owed to Martin West and Jane Lightfoot in conversation.In any case, Josephus uses the term with strong political connotations. Thus War 2.275: speaking of certain “influential men” (δυνατοί) among those desiring revolution: “each of these worthless fellows (πονηροί), supporting himself with his own brigade [or swarm], himself dominated the band like a chief bandit or tyrant.” The issue is revolutionary tendencies, not simple robbery, and the word is interchangeable with “tyrant”—a key term in the War (cf. 1.10) for leaders of rebel factions; see also 4.135; 5.30 (cf. “tyrant” in 5.6, 11). One such tyrant, John of Gischala, though a wealthy and well-connected man (Life 188-92), is described by Josephus as a “bandit” who gradually gathered a troop under him (War 2.587). And the “chief bandit” Eleazar son of Deineus, who retaliated against the Samarians for their murder of Galilean pilgrims (War 2.253), appears to have had some status, given that he was sent to Rome for trial whereas his followers were crucified in Judea (2.253). This was about 120 years before Josephus’ time of writing (i.e., mid-40s BCE). Or “taken in hand.” in this case meaning “killed”: 1.204; cf. Ant. 14.159. The armories of Sepphoris, presumably: Ant. 17.271 implies that weapons were stored in the royal palace there. Perhaps we should understand that Herod’s army in Galilee had by now disbanded, so that weapons stores lacked protection. Given the sequel, the weapons in question were apparently those usable by guerrilla soldiers: swords, javelins, daggers, shields, body armor, helmets, etc.—not artillery pieces or the like. Ant. 17.271 emphasizes that Judas armed each individual. That is, vying with him. In Ant. 17.272 this verb (ζηλόω) is predicated rather of Judas himself. The latter half of this sentence is strikingly similar to 2.434, where Menachem “son” of Judas (possibly grandson of this Ezekias) does the same thing at Masada: he breaks open the royal armories, arms his followers, and with this escort begins to behave like a king.

The parcel of land E of the Jordan River and the northern part of the Dead Sea, bounded by the Nabatean kingdom on the E and S; part of Herod’s territory that will eventually go to his son Antipas along with Galilee (2.95). Perea was first mentioned in 1.586 and Josephus will describe it more fully in 3.44-47. He has explained the name at 2.43. Josephus’ audience was well familiar with the possibility of slave revolt; the two Sicilian slave revolts of the late 130s and 104 BCE, respectively, and especially the revolt of Capuan gladiators led by Spartacus, a former shepherd (cf. War 2.60 below), in 73-71 BCE, remained etched in Rome’s collective memory (Livy 95.4-97.4; Lucan, Bell. Civ. 2.554; Pliny, Hist. nat. 15.126; 33.49; Frontinus, Strat. 1.7.6; 2.5.34; Tacitus, Ann. 3.73; 15.46). That Tacitus (next note) does not identify this Simon as a slave, implying rather that he was a local Judean leader with broad support, raises the question—if Tacitus had independent access to the story—whether Josephus has introduced the slave connection in order to help marginalize this rebel. On ancient slave rebellions in general, see Bradley 1989. This Simon is singled out by Tacitus (Hist. 5.9) as the sole instigator of a Judean revolt at the time of Varus: “On Herod’s death, without waiting for Caesar a certain Simon (Simo quidam; cf. Josephus, Σίμων τις) usurped the title of king (regium nomen invaserat). He was punished by Quintilius Varus, who was governing Syria, and three children of Herod controlled this tamed people in three divisions” (et gentem coercitam liberi Herodis tripertito rexere). Tacitus implies that Simon was a native ruler who assumed the leadership of his people without Caesar’s approval (a role attributed to Archelaus in Josephus, by that man’s opponents). Josephus, by contrast, emphatically distances Simon from legitimate government, portraying him as one of many bandit pretenders. For the use of τις in Josephus, see Chapman 1998: 89-91. On Simon, see Farmer 1957-58. The redundant phrase εὐμορφίᾳ σώματος (εὐμορφία normally stands alone) alerts us to the implicit critique. How could a slave, lacking the obvious necessity of suitable blood-line and inherited character, aspire to be king? Josephus has to explain. The only other passage containing both words (Ant. 6.160) also comes in the context of kingship qualifications. There it is God who contrasts this trait (σωμάτων εὐμορφία), which he disdains, with “virtue of soul” (ψυχῶν ἀρετή)—the key qualification for Israel’s king (David). The same sort of critique seems implied here. The intimidating size of slaves, who were accustomed to physical labor, and the consequent terror caused by their banding together in revolt, is emphasized by Diodorus (34/35.2.27-30). That is: “boldly declared himself to be king.” For “diadem” see the note at 2.3. Slaves becoming “kings” evoked terrifying memories in Rome, for that is what had happened in the storied Sicilian slave revolts led by the Syrian Eunus (135-132 BCE; Diodorus 34/35.2.17: “having fastened on a diadem and otherwise decked himself out in royal fashion, he designated his wife, a Syrian from the same city, his queen”) and Salvius (104-101 BCE; Diodorus 36.7.4; cf. Alföldy 1988: 67-73). By emphasizing the craze for the diadem and sole power here, Josephus continues his critique of monarchy (and tyranny); see Mason 2008b. See the note to “chief bandit” at 2.56. The μέν . . . δέ construction highlights the contrast between Simon’s claim to kingship and his ingrained character—that of a bandit. The same point is made at 2.62 with Athrongeus. Given that Simon was a former slave (if he really was), it is inherently likely that his “bandit” followers were from the same class; given their reported actions against the wealthy, they would fit the predictable pattern of slaves revolting to improve their conditions (e.g., Bradley 1989: 1-17). Here the substantive adjective τὰ βασίλεια is plural; at Ant. 17.274 it is singular. In neither case does Josephus give a noun to clarify which royal belongings at Jericho were burned. We might imagine Herod’s winter palace with all of its constituent buildings, all the royal sites in and around Jericho (see next note), or simply a vague conception on Josephus’ part (since his Roman audience did not need to know details). Jericho has been mentioned often: 1.56, 120, 138 (brief description), 170 (made an administrative center by Gabinius), 299-302, 323, 331, 335, 361 (the city and its bounty given to Cleopatra by Antony), 437; 2.3, 43. Because of its warm winters and fertile soil, as well as its proximity to Jerusalem, Jericho had always been a seasonal retreat for monarchs, who adorned it with palaces and fortresses. Naturally, it also became a center of Herod’s building activity: he constructed a fortress in honor of his mother on the hills above the city (1.417) and several other buildings in the city itself (1.407; cf. 1.659, 666), including 3 contiguous palaces of increasing size and a hippodrome (cf. Netzer 2006: 42-80; Appendix A to this volume). Simon’s raids on Herod’s newly vacated complex make good tactical sense, since this treasure trove lay just over the Jordan River from his base in Perea. According to Ant. 17.340, Archelaus rebuilds a palace there. This word (ἔπαυλις) occurs only here and at War 2.552 in Josephus. Merciless war against the wealthy had also been the hallmark of the slave revolts in Sicily (Diodorus 34/35.2.1-3, 10-12, 26, 40, 48)—described by Diodorus as predictable retaliation for mistreatment; Josephus does not explore such questions here. Whereas this passage suggests that these non-royal properties were all in Jericho, Ant. 17.274 has Simon proceed to attack other royal holdings in many parts of the country. The literary context is different there (see note to “countryside” at War 2.55): Josephus wants to locate the disturbances mainly in Judea (Ant. 17.269), whereas here he is listing outbreaks in areas around the borderlands of Judea. Compare another story of burning and plundering royal property in a time of revolt, in order to realize wealth from the goods: Life 68-69.

Of 25 occurrences of καταφλέγω in Josephus, 22 are in War (plus 3 occurrences of συγκαταφλέγω—attested before Josephus only in a fragment of Posidonius; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 14.2.2; Philo, Flacc. 69; Abr. 182), and 13 are in bk. 2—helping to set the atmosphere in the build-up to total war. This is a far higher frequency than in any author before Josephus: e.g., Thucydides has it once (4.133.2); Polybius does not use it; Diodorus has it 9 times, Philo 14 times. See 2.52 and notes. The MSS offer a confused array of “Tarichean, Trachaiote, Tetrarchaiote,” inter alia; but Niese, Thackeray, Pelletier, M-B, and others follow Hudson in reading “Trachonite” from the Latin (ex trachonitida sagittarios). Trachonitis (lit. “rough area”) was formed of a broken lava field some 40 km S of Damascus, in the area now known as the Leja, N/NW of Auranitis (Hauran) and E/NE of Batanea (see Schürer-Vermes 1.337-38; Millar 1993: 36-7). The area was a center for bandits, who could escape there and live in hiding with relative ease (War 1.398-99). Given to Herod by Augustus (War 1.398-400), then to his son Philip (War 1.668; Ant. 17.189, 319; 18.106), it will pass to the kingdom of Agrippa I in 41 CE (2.215) and then that of Agrippa II in about 53 CE (2.247; Ant. 20.138).The frequent revolts of the Trachonites against Herodian rule (Ant. 16.130, 271-76, 285) and their relentless bandit raids reportedly led the king to establish a tax-free colony of Babylonian-Judean immigrants, skilled in archery (Ant. 17.23-26), in Batanea to their W—as a buffer zone between Trachonitis and Gaulanitis. The parallel (Ant. 17.275-77) omits any reference to these archers’ support for the royal and Roman forces, and it is difficult to see why Trachonites would have been willing to help a Roman commander who had formerly served Herod and was now defending his interests. Given the fact that the fighters mentioned here are skilled archers, something not otherwise claimed for the Trachonites, one wonders (if the text is correctly read as “Trachonite”) whether Josephus does not intend the Trachonites’ neighbors: the Babylonian-Judeans of Batanea, who would remain loyal to the Herodian family for generations (Life 48-63). See 2.52 and notes.

See the note at 2.55. The MSS, apparently confused, offer “infantrymen” (πεζῶν), “sons” (παίδων, MS A), or the ungrammatical participle παίων (P); but Niese reasonably follows Destinon’s emendation to read “Pereans” (as also Thackeray, Pelletier, M-B) in view of the parallel at Ant. 17.276. See the note at 2.11. Although Ant. 17.276 is clear that Gratus “cut off his head,” the language here leaves the object of the verb unstated. The Latin has diecit, which is vague enough to mean simply that Gratus killed him. Following Thackeray, Pelletier, M-B and others. The MSS offer a variety of forms (e.g., βηθαράμιν ἔνθα in PA, followed by Niese’s editio maior), indicating confusion. But the site’s location near the Jordan, along with the parallel at Ant. 17.277 (on which see Marcus-Wikgren in LCL; van Henten in BJP 7 forthcoming) and the other variants (βηθαραμάθου, MLVRC; betharantas, Lat.), commend biblical Beit-Haram (Josh 13:27), which lay on the E side of the Jordan about 6 miles (10 km) N/NE of the Dead Sea. At Ant. 18.27 Herod Antipas is said to have walled this city—there Betharamphtha, with some MS variation—and renamed it Iulias (cf. War 2.168, 252; 4.438) in honor of Augustus’ wife. But since Livia was adopted into the gens Iulia only in 14 CE, as a consequence of Augustus’ will, it seems that Antipas originally called the site Livias; cf. A. H. M. Jones 1937: 275. See the note at 2.58. With characteristic variation (see note to “countryside” at 2.55), the parallel at Ant. 17.277 says only that the Betharamatha residences were burned by men like Simon, not that these men were Pereans.

After this tour around the outlying regions of Judea (see the note to “countryside” at 2.55), Josephus returns to the center. For a Roman audience this rebel might well recall the shepherd-turned-slave Spartacus; see note to “Simon” in 2.57. A frequent term in Josephus (about 338 times in various forms of the root), usually of reproach—“X had the effrontery to do Y”—because an aristocratic value system does not praise unpredictable actions outside of one’s usual place or role, the essence of daring. Both the Greek MSS and the Latin (Athrongeo [dative]) favor Ἀθρογγαῖος as the man’s name; at the parallel in Ant. 17.278 the MSS show confusion, but suggest Athronges (Lat. Athonges). The etymology of the name has not been explained. The Jewish Encyclopaedia (s. v.) preserves the hypothesis of Solomon Judah Löb Rapoport’s (mid-19th-cent.) ‘Erek Millin that the name represents the Hebraized Persian etrog, the citron fruit used with the lulav at the festival of Sukkot; Rapoport identified the man with ben Batiach, “son of the cucumber” (m. Kelim 17.12), suggesting that both food names related to the remarkable size of his fists. Farmer (1957-58: 151-54) builds upon the same etymology in support of his theory that many rebel leaders were Hasmonean descendants: he notes that Sukkot was especially important to the Hasmoneans (2 Macc. 1.9, 18) and further suggests that Athrongeus and his brothers were the sons of Antigonus, who had been king for more than 3 years under Parthian sponsorship before Herod’s seizure of power. Aside from the inherent weakness of all such speculations in the absence of evidence, this one runs up against Josephus’ plain statement that Athrongeus was a shepherd, whose physical and mental strength were his chief credentials. The phrase σώματος ἰσχύς is a cliché (Antiphon, De caede Herodis 93; Plato, Resp. 371e; Xenophon, Mem. 3.9.1; Cyr. 7.5.65; Ages. 11.14; Aristotle, Physiog. 806b, 807a; Resp. 470b; Philo, Dec. 60.2; Plutarch, Cic. 29.1; Mor. 2e, 227e), which appears only here in Josephus. See the note at 2.57: Diodorus uses this phrase of the slave rebels in Sicily in 133 BCE, noting that what we might call the high-protein diet of meat and milk, on which herdsmen lived, rendered brutish their souls and bodies alike (34/35.2.30). Though it is not attested in other authors, Josephus gives the identical phrase (“a soul that despised death,” ψυχὴ θανάτου καταφρονοῦσα) to Agrippa II as the king speaks of the once indomitable Germans now subject to Rome (3.377). Josephus also uses the cliché “holding death in contempt” (θανάτου καταφρονεῖν) much more often (War 2.151, 377; 3.356, 475; 5.458; 6.33, 42; 7.406; Apion 2.294) than any other known ancient author (cf. Ctesias, Frag. [Jacoby] 3c.688f fr. 45 line 248; Critodemus, Frag. [Kroll] vol. 5.2: 53.1; Posidonius, Frag. [Theiler] 169.98; Diodorus 5.29.2; 17.43.6, 107.6; Philo, Abr. 183.2; Musonius Rufus, Diss. Luc. dig. 10.8-9; Epictetus, Diatr. 4.1.71; Plutarch, Brut. 12.2; Mor. 210f, 216c, 219e; Appian, Celt. 1.9; Bell. civ. 5.4.36; Ep. Diogn. 1.1; 10.7; Lucian, Peregr. 13.12; 23.2, 6; 33.6; Marcus Aurelius 4.50.1; 9.3.1; 12.34.1; Polyaenus, Strat. 5.14.1; 7.17.1; Diogenes Laertius 1.6; Dio 43.38.1; 46.26.2, 28.5; 62.25; Plotinus, Enn. 2.9.18). It is an important feature of Josephus’ outlook (see Introduction) that he can accord this highly praiseworthy national characteristic (Apion 2.294; cf. War 2.151 on the Essenes and 3.357, 475) even to those compatriots who prosecuted the war long past any legitimacy, under the tyrants John, Simon, and Eleazar (5.458; 7.406). This recherché verb (προξενέω) occurs 4 times throughout War (also 1.458; 3.452; 5.66) and once in Antiquities (16.56), though it is rare after the classical period (e.g., Euripides, Ion 335; Med. 724; Sophocles, Trach. 726; Oed. col. 465) and before Josephus. Its literal meaning is to serve as a “public guest” (i.e., state-appointed ambassador in or from another place: πρόξενος)—from there, by degrees of abstraction, to “introduce” or “recommend” one person to another for business purposes. Usage of the verb picks up after Josephus, and we even find “hope” (ἐλπίς) as direct object in the 2nd-cent. Achilles Tatius, Leuc. Clit. 7.13.1. Farmer (1957-58: 152-53) is struck by the parallels between these 5 brothers and the 5 Hasmonean sons of Mattathias (1 Macc. 3.1-8), which he takes to support his theory that these brothers were also Hasmonean descendants.

Literally “yoked under” (ὑποζεύγνυμι), a word typically used of animals brought under the yoke (e.g., Ant. 6.11; 8.41) and so a strong term for one’s military subordinates. At Apion 2.127 Josephus uses it metaphorically of the nations brought under the imperial yoke. Here he emphasizes the despotic character of Athrongeus’ brothers. Or “band, company, squad” (λόχος). Note the parallel at 2.275, where the factional leaders in Jerusalem become effectively bandit-leaders or tyrants over their respective λόχοι; there the word is used interchangeably with στῖφος (either “unit” or pejoratively “swarm, band”). From the word’s primary sense of “ambush,” in many writers it indicates a small unit suited to this tactic, reckoned at 16 men (Asclepiodotus, Tact. 2.7-10). It is also, however, the standard equivalent of Latin centuria (=80 men). Given that standard usage and Josephus’ use of the term for a unit commanded by a centurion (see note to “century in column” at 2.63), it seems best to understand the two cases of bandit and regular forces in similar ways. It is unlikely that Josephus means to give each of these sub-tyrants only a small squad, and at 2.63 Areius the centurion will lose 40 men from his λόχος but still escape with a good number. So it seems that the audience might understand something roughly equivalent to a century.Given Josephus’ acknowledgment of Athrongeus’ contempt for death and martial prowess, his use of λόχος here, and in 2.63 of the Roman century, may serve in part to parallel the martial spirit of even disreputable Judeans—one of War’s primary themes (see Introduction)—with that of the Romans. Satraps (from Old Persian kshathra-pavan, “protector of the country,” where the first term means “country”) were provincial governors in the Persian empire, under the king. Josephus continues his sarcastic tone by portraying Athrongeus as a would-be Oriental despot, with “governors” and “generals” doing his bidding. The scope and loftiness of his ambition (in contrast to those of mere local strongmen) are among his distinguishing features. It is impossible to tell from this rhetorical portrait whether the man actually cultivated contacts in the Parthian empire (perhaps the Judean diaspora there), which is conceivable, or whether Josephus supplies the Oriental flavor only for dramatic effect. Or “more solemn, revered, dignified” (σεμνός, here comparative)—elsewhere an adjective of high praise: War 2.119; 4.319; Apion 2.221. Although this may be nothing more than sarcasm on Josephus’ part (as also perhaps Ant. 2.3), Bradley (1989: 1-17) observes that in early modern slave revolts, the rebel leaders often assumed titles that mimicked those of the established order.

This is the same language (ἑαυτῷ περιτίθησιν διάδημα), in the same sort of “although X, he Y” construction, as at 2.57. These self-appointed kings offer a measure of comic relief to the more serious main story (not without its own amusing incidents) of Herod’s succession, and thereby drive home Josephus’ caustic critique of monarchical government in Judea. Once again (cf. 2.57) Josephus contrasts the ease of donning a diadem with the difficulty of changing one’s character: Athrongeus continues to behave as the thug he is (in Josephus’ narrative), undercutting his façade of attending to august matters while leaving the raids to his brothers and their bands. The precise connotations of βασιλικοί in this context, with King Herod now dead, are uncertain. The word might refer simply to the remaining royal forces and retainers, without implying anything about their personal commitments, or it might indicate partisans of one of Herod’s sons. In view of 2.55 the former (royal forces) seems to be the main referent.

See the note to “dared” at 2.60. See the note to “century” (λόχον [ἄθρουν]) just above at 2.61. Although it can have many senses (ambush, place of ambush, unit assigned to an ambush, company, band), it is often used as the Greek equivalent of the Roman century—Latin centuria (Dionysius, Ant. rom. 4.16; Appian, Bell. civ. 1.59; H. J. Mason 1974: 66-7), the legionary unit of 80 men at full strength. Given that this unit is commanded by a centurion (cf. 2.71), and the death of 40 leaves a substantial remainder, it seems that a century is in view. We cannot be certain, since a logistical “detail” could also be constructed ad hoc. The adjective is sometimes rendered elsewhere “en masse”; see the note to this phrase at 2.12. So the form in the Greek MSS; cf. Lat. Amathunta. Ant. 17.282 reads “Emmaus” (κατὰ Ἐμμαοῦντα)—recalling the name of a site made famous by Luke 24:13’s “road to Emmaus.” Luke seems to situate that town a mere 60 stadia (7.5 miles/12 km) from Jerusalem (though some NT MSS, including Sinaiticus, have 160 stadia), and may therefore be referring to the village of Moza (Qoloniyeh, Qalunyia, Colonia), which War 7.217 more correctly puts 30 stadia (ca. 4.25 miles) from Jerusalem. The site in view here is rather the modern ‘Imwas (or ‘Amwas), 20 miles (32 km or 160 stadia) WNW of Jerusalem. For the debated history and location of the site, largely because of Luke’s Emmaus, as well as the philological issues, see Vincent and Abel 1932: 277-355.Ammaus’ location in the Judean foothills had long recommended it as either a temporary camp or a permanent military base (Ant. 12.298, 306; 13.15). It was a major stop on the southern-most of the two main E-W roads to Jerusalem from coastal Joppa, the other of which went through Lower and Upper Beit-Horon to the N; it was one of 11 toparchic centers (3.54-55; Pliny, Nat. 5.70). Farmer (1957-58: 153-54) notes its proximity to Modein and—trying to support his case for Athrongeus’ Hasmonean ancestry and self-understanding—observes that the Hasmoneans had also won an early guerrilla victory at this Emmaus (1 Macc. 3.55-4.25). Although Varus will soon destroy the town en route to Jerusalem through Samaria (2.70), avenging the ambushed legionaries and Areius, 70 years later Vespasian will make it a base for the Legio V Macedonica in the initial phase of the Judean campaign (4.444-45); cf. 5.42, 67, 532; 6.229 and Appendix A to BJP 1a. Under the emperor Elagabalus (218-222 CE) it will be established as the city Antoniniana Nicopolis (A. H. M. Jones 1937: 280-82). That these men were bringing over both grain and weapons suggests that they were not foraging in open country, but rather transporting supplies from a military depot at Ammaus, perhaps established by the legion that Varus had left in Jerusalem, which Sabinus had commandeered (2.40-41, 45 and notes). This is also suggested by the ongoing use of Ammaus as a military base (previous note). The primary importance of establishing a grain supply for the army on campaign is obvious, for example, in Caesar’s Gallic War (Bell. gall. 1.16, 23, 26, 37, 40; 2.2) and Josephus’ Life (71, 119, 188); it is highlighted by the tactical writers Onasander (6) and Vegetius (3.3); cf. Gilliver 1999: 58-62 and Roth 1991: 243-67. We should expect that both Herod’s army and the legion now settled in Jerusalem would rely on such local depots. Protection of foraging (and similar logistical) details, however, should have been a fundamental concern of the commander: see Onasander 10.8. Josephus’ story recalls a famous episode in Caesar’s Gallic War (4.32) in which the 7th legion was nearly destroyed by British guerrillas while foraging for grain, having put down their weapons for the purpose. The centurion was easily distinguished from his men by his uniform, including the side-to-side crested helmet (Webster 1985: 130-33). On the status and selection of centurions, see Watson 1969: 86-88. This man had fulfilled the promise of his Greek name (“martial, devoted to/belonging to Ares [the god of war]”; cf. Latin Martius)—held also by two Spartan kings of the 3rd cent. BCE; it turns up later as the cognomen of two men coincidentally named Marcus Aurelius (Solin 2003: 383). All of the contextual indicators here—“Roman century,” conveying supplies “to the legion,” assisted by [not part of] Sebastenes—appear to suggest that Areius commanded a centuria of the legion itself, rather than an auxiliary troop. It is suprising, however, that a Roman centurion would bear a Greek name. Although the legions had originally accepted only Roman citizens, and continued in principle to be citizen forces, by the height of the Roman civil wars in the 40s BCE a desperate need for recruits had forced commanders to widen their nets (Keppie 1998: 140-44). In the E, particularly, there was an early and continuing tendency to recruit locally “from Hellenized areas of Syria and Asia Minor” (Campbell 2002: 24-27)—whether directly or by incorporation of auxiliary units. So it is not impossible that by 4-3 BCE a Greek-named centurion should be found in a legion based in Syria. This was about half the unit: see the note to “company” in this section. This final reference to Gratus’ intervention with his Sebastenes creates an inclusio with 2.52 at the beginning of this survey of rebel leaders (cf. 2.58), which described their realignment from the royal troops. See the notes at 2.52. That is, the remainder of the Roman logistical unit.

In spite of the scholarly habit of referring to the war of 66-73 as “the first Jewish (-Roman) war,” Josephus confirms here that he considers the major conflict subdued by Varus also a full-scale war. It involved, according to his portrait, all regions of the country and various kinds of rebel leaders, and it required nearly the same basic force as the later war—3 legions plus auxiliaries (2.67)—on the Roman side. In Apion 1.34, speaking of the frequency of war (πόλεμος, as here) in Judea, he cites the campaigns of the Seleucid Antiochus Epiphanes and the Romans Pompey the Great, Quinctilius Varus, and Vespasian and Titus (“in our own times”). Talmudic literature also refers to the polemos of Varus (Seder Olam Rabbah 30, ed. A. D. Neubauer); cf. Hengel 1989: 327 n. 81; M. Stern 1974: 281. This is slightly awkward, since Archelaus has been left in Rome awaiting Caesar’s verdict on the succession (2.39; cf. 2.80). Josephus has evidently preferred to finish his digression on the revolt in Judea (begun at 2.39) even though the conclusion of it will not happen until Archelaus is back in the region. In 2.65 he emphasizes this chronological split, and when he comes to retell the story in Ant. 17 he will note (17.284) that he is jumping ahead. Ant. 17.284 gives this order: one brother fell to Gratus, another to Ptolemy, then the eldest to Archelaus (later, as Josephus notes). The Ptolemy in question appears to be Archelaus’ (and his father Herod’s) “friend,” mentioned several times in this book (2.14 [see note], 16, 24); see further 2.69. Since Josephus mentions the ends of only 4 men, whereas Athrongeus plus his 4 brothers = 5 in total, we should probably assume that he is describing the brothers only—the “generals” who led the guerrilla campaign, from which he as “king” held himself aloof (2.61). This would mean that Athrongeus’ end is unknown. Farmer (1957-58: 154-55) speculates, in keeping with his hypothesis that the men were Antigonus’ sons, that Athrongeus may have fled to Parthia for protection. Lit. “right side/hand” (δεξιά), a standard metaphor in military contexts for the assurance of safety to an enemy (Homer, Il. 2.341; Xenophon, Anab. 2.4.1; 7.3.1; cf. Josephus, Life 30, 370). For Archelaus, see the previous note to his name in this section.

That is, when Archelaus later returned from Rome: Josephus has jumped ahead to complete the story of these rebels before resuming the narrative of Archelaus in Rome (2.80). On bandits, see the note at 2.56. Of Josephus’ 24 uses of the adjective λῃστρικός, almost all (22) are in War 1-6, 6 of these in bk. 2. We might call this kind of conflict by irregular forces (λῃστρικός πόλεμος) a guerrilla war; for the Greek phrase, see Posidonius, Frag. (Theiler) 47a; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 3.2.2; 10.17.1; Strabo 4.4.2; 11.1.6; Appian, Mithr. 445.

The reference is to 2.45, where the Syrian procurator Sabinus, caught in Jerusalem, has repeatedly sent messengers to the governor Varus—carrying letters, one assumes—pleading for immediate relief. The word Josephus uses for the letters here is γράμματα (things inscribed or written; letters of the alphabet) rather than the more specific ἐπιστολαί (letters or epistles). Josephus often uses these words interchangeably, however: ἐπιστολή first to establish context and then γράμματα for variation (War 1.261, 644; Ant. 7.136; 11.26, 97; 12.227-28; 13.167; 14.224, 241, 243, 252-54 [decrees in letters]; 15.171; Life 181, 241, 245, 260-61, 382-83), much as Cicero had used the Latin equivalents epistulae and litterae (of many examples, Verr. 1.83; 3.45, 123, 154; 4.58; Phil. 2.7, 77)—a usage observed by the later critic M. Servius Honoratus, In Vergilii Aenidos libros 8.168. These commanders now include such men as Rufus and Gratus (2.55, 58), though Josephus does not indicate whether they also wrote letters. This was the legion Varus had left behind to maintain peace in the Jerusalem area (2.40). Cf. 2.66, where Sabinus appears to realize that Varus will not do much to help him personally, though he would rush to save the legion.

Cf. 2.40 and notes: 3 legions were normally stationed in Syria at this time. See the note to “cavalry” at 2.52. Although legions in the early empire acquired small mounted contingents (turmae)—perhaps normally of 120 horsemen as Josephus indicates for Vespasian’s army (War 3.120), under the command of centurions—those were chiefly support units for rapid communication and scouting (cf. War 3.96; Breeze 1969; Webster 1985: 111; Dixon and Southern 1992), integrated with the legion and not separate fighting squadrons.For cavalry fighting forces (note the distinction at 3.120) early imperial legions depended, like their republican precursors, on specialist auxiliary horse units furnished by allies or taken over from them into the provinces. Commonly numbering 500 in paper strength (Arrian, Tact. 18; Keppie 1998: 182-84), but often well over or under that number (Gilliver 1999: 25), they were commanded first by chiefs from their place of origin and then, from some time in the first century, by Roman prefects (sg. praefectus alae; Webster 1985: 145-46). That Varus has 4 such cavalry units (though only 3 legions), that they have a distinct identity as fighting units, and that Josephus calls them ἴλαι (the standard equivalent of the Latin alae, though the terms could refer to less distinctive groups), all suggests that the units in question are permanent auxiliary cavalry squadrons at Varus’ disposal, to be distinguished from the ad hoc levies he is about to exact from the client kings (cf. Gilliver 1999: 25). The coastal city of Ptolemais (described somewhat idyllically [as Galilean] at 2.188-91) was on the site of the ancient and important Phoenician city of Akko (Acco, Akre, Acre), mentioned frequently in Egyptian and Assyrian texts from about 1500 BCE onward (though only at Judg 1:31 and Josh 19:30 [in corrupted form] in the Bible). It was founded on an acropolis about 750 m E of the sea on the N bank of the River Na’aman (cf. “Beleos” at 2.189 below). Its natural advantages, which Josephus elaborates in 2.188 below, include a substantial fertile plain all around, a natural harbor (on a coast with few such sites), and relatively easy defenses in all landward directions—eloquently described by officials of the British Mandate (Makhouly and Johns 1946: 1-3; cf. now Kashtan 1988; Applebaum 1990 [Hebrew]). After Akko’s annexation to the Ptolemaic kingdom in ca. 281 BCE, it was refounded by Ptolemy II Philadelphus as his eponymous capital in the region. Cf. Strabo 2.5.39; 14.4.2; 16.2.25-26, 4.7; 17.3.20; for the archaeology, Appendix A to BJP 9.Ptolemais plays an important role in all Josephus’ narratives concerning relations between Judea and the Roman forces of Syria (cf. War 2.187, 201, 502-6; 3.29, 54, 64-5, 110, 115, 409; Life 118, 213-15, 342, 410). On the coastal route from Syrian Antioch, it was the last stop before Judean territories: Galilee and the Plain of Esdraelon (Jezreel) to the E or the coastal cities beginning with Caesarea to the S. As former Galilean commander, Josephus is keenly aware of the city’s military importance (cf. Life 105, 118, 213-15). In War 2 it has served as Varus’ rendezvous point in the campaign of 4 BCE (2.67-68; see notes there). Julius Caesar so favored the city on a visit in 48 BCE that for centuries afterward it dated its era from that visit. It remained a favorite point of entry and rendezvous for occupying Roman forces: in 52-54 CE, Claudius would establish the city as a Roman colony (Colonia Claudia Felix Ptolemais, or Colonia Claudia Caesaris Ptolemais Germanica Felix Stabilis; cf. Pliny, Nat. 5.75), with veterans from Syria’s 4 legions. Isaac (1998: 92) proposes that its foundation must have been a response to ongoing tensions between Judeans and Samarians in that period. Under Nero’s legate Caius Ummidius Durmius [Quadratus; see note at 2.239], according to the best reading of milestone unit="section" 234A, in 56 CE a 313-mile (504 km), 22-ft (7 m)-wide Roman highway (via publica) was constructed between Ptolemais and the Syrian capital Antioch, to facilitate the movement of troops and goods (Goodchild 1949); in 67 CE it served as the rallying point for Vespasian and Titus (War 3.29; Life 410). Whereas here ἐπίκουροι refers to standing forces contributed by allied dynasts, at 2.502 it seems to indicate irregular volunteers. This assembling of legionary and auxiliary forces under a Roman supreme commander will become a recurring pattern in the various phases of the war against Rome: 2.500-502; 3.124; 5.42. Clients of Rome had an absolute duty to supply auxiliary forces on demand, and they would often be keen to do so in the interest of local stability. To the Romans they provided not only substantially increased manpower, specialist training (e.g., archery, slingshots, and horses), and perhaps more easily expendable light infantry for advance patrols, but also crucial local knowledge—of terrain, weather, and other special conditions: see War 3.116 and Gilliver 1999: 23-26. The word δυνάστης (a recognized “power-holder”), which occurs infrequently in War (1.112; 6.438), is a more general term than “king” and therefore useful for including ethnarchs, tetrarchs, and other quasi-royal officials. At 1.365 it is a useful term for referring to both Herod (a king) and Marc Antony (a Roman general with special powers). At the site of modern Beirut, a coastal city somewhat more than half-way along Varus’ march from the Syrian capital of Antioch to Ptolemais. Berytus would be well known to Josephus’ Roman audience because just over a decade before the story time here (thus 15 BCE), it had been re-founded by Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa as a Roman colonia—the first outside Italy—populated by the veterans of two legions. See Strabo 16.2.19; Millar 1990; L. J. Hall 2001-2002; Berlin 2002: 67-68. Status as a colonia had no doubt recommended Berytus to Augustus as a site for the hearings on Herod’s charges against his sons (War 1.536-38). Given the city’s recent foundation as a Roman veterans’ colony (previous note), these troops may have included volunteers from those recently retired.

This is one of Josephus’ most common words (πλῆθος), used here in a neutral sense rather than the pejorative “rabble” or “mob,” as we have often rendered it elsewhere. The word is appropriate because he refers to an impersonal mass of men. See the note at 2.67. Aretas (Harithat) IV, whose tomb may be the famous rock-cut “treasury” at Petra, had just begun his long rule (9 BCE-40 CE) over the Nabatean (Nabatu) kingdom (Arabia Petraea); based in Petra, this territory lay E (beyond Perea) and S of Judea. Cf. Bowersock 1983: 28-58. Although the word ἔχθος normally indicates the object of the animosity with a noun in the genitive case (“hatred of”), it is a feature of Josephus’ style that he heightens the force with the preposition πρός and the accusative case: “animosity [or hatred] against, towards” (1.239 [Herod also the object]; Ant. 18.376; cf. Philostratus, Her. 707; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 8.1.8) Herod is of course now dead, but the hatred presumably extends to his kingdom. This notice obscures whatever political motives Aretas may have had, if he needed any beyond obligatory assistance to the Roman governor. Herod’s mother Cypros had reportedly come from Nabatea (1.181), and the two client kingdoms of Rome had enjoyed close relations in the early years (1.123-25, 267), but Herod’s rapid rise under Roman favor alarmed his neighbor so much that King Malichus (Maliku) I arranged the poisoning of Herod’s father Antipater in the late 40s BCE. This in turn led Herod to arrange Malichus’ demise (1.225-37). Although we have not heard in War about any direct conflict between this fairly new king Aretas IV (5 years on the throne) and Herod, at least the ground for such ongoing hostility had been laid in these older grievances. According to Ant. 16.271-300, 335-55, Herod had serious problems with Syllaeus, the faithless viceroy (and reported murderer) of Aretas’ predecessor Obodas (Avdat, Obidat) III; and because Aretas failed to wait for Augustus’ permission before declaring himself king, Herod nearly ended up king of both Judea and Nabatea (Ant. 16.353-54). Whatever his feelings toward Herod, as a client king Aretas was obligated to send military assistance to the Roman commander. The Greek uses litotes (“not a sparse force”). Or “section.” MSS VRC have “he both (τε) sent a detachment . . . and.” The original may have read “a certain (τι) detachment,” as at Ant. 17.288. So Varus’ strategy is to divide his army in two parts, for Galilee and Judea proper, to deal with the two centers of conflict at some remove from each other; cf. Smallwood 1981: 112-13. At 2.503; 3.38; Life 213 Josephus highlights Chabul (Chabolos), 60 stadia (12 km [7.5 miles]—actually a little further) E of Ptolemais, as the frontier point between Ptolemais and Galilee (cf. 2.504); at Life 118 he says the same of Beit Shearim (Besara), which is further from Ptolemais to the SE. Coastal Ptolemais controlled a substantial surrounding territory (χώρα; cf. 2.188 below, with fuller notes), which in effect defined the W limit of (Judean) Galilee. Cf. War 3.35: Galilee’s W boundary is marked by “the limits of the hinterland (χώρα) of Ptolemais.” At 2.188, however, for momentary rhetorical reasons Josephus will adopt Ptolemais as part of Galilee. On the ancient connotations of “friends,” see the note at 2.4. The identity of this Gaius is a puzzle, complicated by the parallel at Ant. 17.288, by variant MS readings both there and here, and by Varus’ known family relations. MS P here has “his friend [i.e., Gaius]” rather than “[one] of his friends” (τὸν αὐτοῦ φίλον rather than τῶν αὐτοῦ φίλων), which gives a better syntax but leaves the other reading hard to explain as a corruption. More troubling: the earliest witness (Latin) mentions a son of Varus’ friend Gallus: amici sui galli filio his rectore praeposito. And although Ant. 17.288 continues as this passage does, with a single actor routing opponents and burning Sepphoris, the antecedent there may have two men in view: Varus’ son and one of his friends, both unnamed. Yet the Latin and MSS AM there omit “and,” thus: “Varus’ son, one of his friends.” Further, there is room for confusion with the words themselves, since copyists who did not know the referents might easily confuse “Gaius” [ΓΑΙΟΣ] with “son” (ΥΙΟΣ) and possibly even “Galilee” in the accusative (ΓΑΛΙΛΑΙΑΝ) with a form of “Gallus” (ΓΑΛΛΟΝ).As for Varus’ known relatives: there is only one son (Quinctilius Varus), born to his third wife (Claudia Pulchra), but this son was apparently not yet born at the time of this episode. Although certainty is out of the question, the simplest solution to all these problems might be that ΓΑΙΟΣ misreads an original ΥΙΟΣ, so that Josephus wrote here about the son of one of Varus’ friends. Vitucci (624 n. 2) thinks that this shadowy figure must have been one of Varus’ legionary legates. W. John (PM 24.965), supported by Syme (1986: 314-15), suggests Varus’ nephew Lucius Nonnius Asprenas, who was then military tribune under Varus. I keep the reading “Gaius” here because the MS evidence favors it and it would be difficult to find reasons for confidence in other readings. A Roman road led directly from Ptolemais to Sepphoris, about 17 km (10 miles) SE. See the note to “Sepphoris” at 2.56: the inclusion of “city” seems a reminder, for an audience that does not know the region, of why Varus should concentrate his efforts there. See the note at 2.56. This destruction of Sepphoris in 4 or 3 BCE may be exaggerated, in light of the limited archaeological evidence for a thorough burning of the city in this period (Meyers 2002: 112), but even the destruction of substantial parts might provide important historical context for the youth of Jesus of Nazareth, whose family lived about 3 miles (5 km) S of the city, in Nazareth (Mark 1:9; Matt 2.23; Luke 1:26-27; John 1:45). The restoration of Sepphoris in coming years by Herod’s son Antipas (apparently renaming it Autocratoris, Ant. 18.27; cf. Bernett 2007: 220-27, arguing that the dedicatee was Gaius Caesar) must have been the major economic, social, and political influence in the region. This early and singular experience of Roman revenge (Jerusalem did not suffer in the same way—below) may have helped determine the city’s future path of whole-hearted cooperation with Rome; see the note to “Sepphoris” at 2.56. In connection with the parallel passage (Ant. 17.289) Simonetti appropriately observes (2002: 743 n. 135) that the severity of the Roman attack on Sepphoris suggests the complicity of significant elements of the population in Judas’ violent activities from that base (War 2.56; Ant. 17.271).

For Samaria (now Sebaste), see 1.64-65 (destroyed by Hyrcanus and his sons), 166 (repopulated under Gabinius), 403-404 (Herod’s refoundation) and notes. It is curious that Josephus prefers here the ancient name—from King Omri’s 9th-cent. BCE foundation as capital of Israel (1 Kgs 16:23-24), refounded by Alexander the Great in 323 BCE—to the one that applied at the time of this event (and at Josephus’ time); for parallel usage see the note to “Strato’s Tower” at 2.97. The Samarians (now Sebastenes) appear to have been conspicuously close to Herod’s regime: probably in 27 BCE he had conspicuously refounded their city as “Sebaste” in honor of Augustus, building the first known temple for the cult of the newly established princeps, settling some 6,000 veterans, and granting the city a privileged constitution (War 1.118, 403). On all this, see Bernett 2007: 66-98. Herod had from the beginning resorted to Samaria, then Sebaste, as a secure haven (1.303, 314, 344, 551; Ant. 15.292-96). He married Mariamme there (1.344) and another wife, Malthace, originated from Samaria (1.562). Given this consistency of evidence about Samaria-Sebaste’s special role as a safe city, where Herod could find rest from his conflict with the Hasmonean Antigonus and his supporters (1.303, 314, 344) or later kill his sons with impunity (1.551), it is unclear why Bernett (2007: 69-72) dismisses the Sicherheitsaspekt of the city’s founding alleged by Josephus—that Herod felt vulnerable because of a populace that included men willing to kill for perceived violation of the laws (Ant. 15.291)—as merely the later Tendenz of Antiquities, and historically false. It stands to reason, at any rate, that Samaria-Sebaste would not be involved in an uprising against the Herodian regime or their Roman masters. Nevertheless, once Herod’s son Archelaus is installed as king, the Samarians will send a delegation to Augustus to complain about his rule (2.111).Varus, then, headed almost due S, on a different road from that taken by the officer who headed SE to Galilee (2.68). Samaria (Sebaste) was about 50 miles (80 km)—if his route followed the attested (post-70) Roman road, which veered quite a way E after Legio—S of Ptolemais. That is: the bulk of his force, minus the detachment sent into Galilee (2.68). Varus’ decency receives emphasis, also below in his dismissal of the Arab auxiliaries for being unworthy allies (2.76); his virtues are enhanced by the implicit contrast with those around him—Sabinus (cf. 2.17) and the Arabs. See the note at 1.4. See further 2.96: the Samarians are rewarded for failing to participate. This notice anticipates a theme of Samarian exemption from Judean troubles, especially prominent in the Antiquities: Josephus will claim that they distanced themselves completely from the Judeans when the latter faced troubles (Ant. 9.290-91; 11.340), especially in relation to rebellious movements (Ant. 12.257). Within War, although Josephus does not elaborate the point, even in the Great Revolt Samaria will remain chiefly a safe area for the Romans, garrisoned as a base (3.309); nevertheless, Josephus reports a massacre of (unarmed?) Samarians by the Roman general Cerealis, at Vespasian’s direction, with 3,000 infantry and 600 cavalry. This verb (αὐλίζομαι), which appears 12 times in the War (also 1.277, 289, 334, 370; 2.301, 542; 3.59, 85; 4.285, 660; 5.51) but only once elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 1.278), by itself suggests something much more transient and open to the air (explicitly War 1.370; 3.59; 4.285; Ant. 1.278) than the terms for military camps he uses in Life: the digging of a fenced camp (χάραξ: Life 214, 395, 399, 400, 420) or establishing a base (στρατόπεδον: Life 214, 398, 405). Although he also uses this verb in connection with a thoroughly dug-in camp in his famous excursus on the Roman army (War 3.85; cf. 2.542), that seems to be a matter of varying diction (cf. στρατόπεδον, at 3.82, 89). Arus is about 12 miles (20 km) SSW of Samaria as the crow flies, albeit through hilly terrain: a good day’s march for full legionary columns with auxiliaries, support units, and baggage trains (cf. Gilliver 1999: 49-50)—if there had been a direct road. The known Roman road out of Sebaste from the second century CE, however, ran first SE through Neapolis (Nablus) and by Gerizim, then SW to Khirbet et Tira and W from there. This was a route of nearly 35 km (20+ miles): an extremely difficult march in one day for an encumbered army. Since a straight line connects Samaria/Sebaste, Arus, and Sappho (the next stop: 2.70), there joining the known road to Ammaus (cf. War 2.71), in manageable intervals of 20 and 25 km, dropping to 12 km before the planned sack of Ammaus, it is tempting to posit—albeit without other evidence—such a marching route (perhaps a minor road or broad trail). Such a hypothetical route would have run through Thamna, about half-way between Arus and Sappho, and this makes sense: as a regional center one might expect it to sit on the intersection of E-W and N-S highways (according to 2.567, John the Essaeus was given command of Thamna region, including Ammaus—again suggesting a road between these two sites; cf. 3.55). Moreover, there is a known road on the southern-most 12 km leg of the proposed route, from Ammaus to within half a mile of Sappho, which seems to stop abruptly. It is admittedly difficult to imagine a road from Sappho to Samaria/Sebaste, given the number of E-W ranges and rivers that would need traversing, but there are substantial N-S ridges. Varus’ itinerary—Samaria, Arus, Sappho, Ammaus—, which happens to track a straight line with conceivable day-marches, is difficult to understand if one follows only the known roads, far to the E and W of these sites, and passing through much larger sites that go without mention. See the note at 2.14, also 2.24; Ptolemy has most recently been mentioned at 2.64, where he is with Gratus, on the Roman side, putting down the Judean rebels. That is, the auxiliary force contributed by the Nabatean king Aretas IV (2.68). This is an odd word choice for Josephus, who usually predicates this kind of rage or wrath (μῆνις) of God (War 6.41; Ant. 1.164; 2.344; 4.8; 8.112; 9.104, 246; 15.299), in keeping with the general tendency of classical authors (cf. LSJ)—so much so that he can use the cognate noun μήνιμα without qualification as a cause of divine wrath (Ant. 16.188). Yet just as a few cases of spectacular human (albeit heroic) rage appear in the classical texts, most famously Achilles’ in Homer (Il. 1.1), so Josephus occasionally—perhaps ironically—can have ordinary humans carry such vengeful anger: Ant. 18.188 (Tiberius toward Agrippa I); Life 392 (Galileans toward Tiberians), and here. Josephus appears to have chosen the more classical form of this verb, μηνίω (also in the other occurrences, at Ant. 8.112; 15.299), rather than the common Hellenistic form μηνιάω (see LSJ)—unless the variant reading of MSS MLVR is correct—in keeping with the classicizing style of War (see Introduction). That is, the Arabs were hostile not only to Herod himself (so 2.68) but even to friends such as Ptolemy. This notice indicates a triangle of animosities: some Judeans rebel; they are subdued by Roman legions and units of the royal Herodian forces, such as those led by Gratus, Rufus, and Ptolemy, though most royal forces have supported the rebels (2.52); the Arabs join the cause in order to subdue the Judean rebels—but because this was Herod’s kingdom and they hated him, they also turn on friends of Herod such as Ptolemy, who are ostensibly on the same side in this conflict (against the rebels). The Latin offers an alternative and puzzling reason for their sacking of Arus: “a possession of Ptolemy, afterwards seized by the barbarians and by the friends of Herod, who were hostile to Ptolemy,” which has no support in the Greek MSS.

See the note to “Arous” in 2.69. This village (mod. Saffa) lies about 25 km SSW of Arus, continuing a direct line from Samaria through Arus to Ammaus, though no known roads follow this line until the Sappho-Ammaus leg. Such a direct route would have presented a challenging but manageable day’s march (through hill country) for an encumbered army. If instead Varus followed the known main road SW to Lod (Lydda) and then SE to Sappho, his army would have faced a trek of some 30 miles (50 km). According to Life 269, it was possible to reach Jerusalem from Galilee (Xalot) via Samaria in 3 days, which would require at least 35 km per day (assuming the known highway from Samaria S and a fairly straight continuation N into the area around Xalot, though this last is unattested). The MSS read προσόδους (a noun meaning [in the singular] “road leading up to, approach”; abstractly, “income, revenue.” Josephus would be saying that they destroyed Sappho and likewise all the approaches they encountered, which does not render good sense. Niese reasonably follows Destinon’s emendation to the adjective προσόρους (“on the border of, contiguous, adjoining”), meaning that they destroyed Sappho and the nearby sites. If that is correct, Josephus uses πρόσορος—attested before his time only in Xenophon (Cyr. 6.1.17)—only here in War, also at Ant. 5.82 (which makes the use here more plausible). This is a concise description of the horrifying but normal consequences of Roman military intervention against a rebellious city, which would be well known to Josephus’ Roman audience: cf. Polybius 10.15.4-6; Ziolkowski 1993; Campbell 2002: 70-76. Blood and fire dominate the pictorial scenes of Jerusalem’s destruction in the triumph described by Josephus (War 7.143-45). There seems to be irony implied here, however, since it is the neighboring Arabs (cf. 2.76) who usurp the Roman role of sacking cities—impulsively, rather than as a consequence of the city’s proven hostility (cf. Onasander 34.4; 35, 38). This portrait of the Arab auxiliaries’ barbarity (cf. 1.101) in contrast to the proper soldiering of Varus builds up to 2.76, where Varus will dismiss the Arabs for fighting out of private resentment and vengeance; it also anticipates War 5.550-56, where Titus will have exactly the same problem with his Arab allies’ waging war with unrestrained passion, implicating the Romans in their “savage brutality and hatred of the Judeans.”

See the note at 2.58. This appears to be another example of Varus’ virtue (cf. 2.69, 75-76). According to 2.63, Areius and his men had been killed by Athrongeus’ rebels; the inhabitants of Ammaus are not implicated. Varus had to do something to exact punishment for the outrage against Roman forces, but because he realized that the residents of Ammaus were innocent, he allowed them to leave beforehand. Or “had their throats cut” (see the note to this phrase at 2.30), though the most literal sense is not indicated in the story of the event (2.63 above).

That is, the Judean rebel soldiers who had camped around Jerusalem. The conjunction of the two verbs creates a colorful phrase (ᾤχοντο φύγοντες), emphasizing their immediate and complete dispersal: colloquially, “they high-tailed it out of there.” Josephus will use the same phrase, which is best attested beforehand in Euripides (Andr. 1055; Orest. 1486; cf. Hipp. 878; Aristotle, Frag. var. 9.56.665), of the young Agrippa avoiding his creditors (Ant. 18.163). The rugged Judean hills with their thousands of caves were the well-known refuge of those fleeing troubles in Jerusalem from the time of David (e.g., 1 Sam 23:29; 24:1) through the Hasmonean revolt (War 1.36) to the Bar Kochba Revolt in 132-135 CE and later. The caves of Wadi Murabba’at have been particularly revealing of refugees’ lives. Thus, whereas the rebels in the countryside removed themselves bodily, this was not an option for the residents of Jerusalem, who could only try to remove the blame from themselves. Josephus’ tone seems playful, evoking the terror that Roman legions could arouse in otherwise confident rebels.This colorful verb (ἀποσκευάζω) is distinctive: the 19 occurrences in Josephus’ corpus (6 in War 2) represent a much higher frequency than the occasional examples we find in earlier authors (1-2 each in Polybius, Diodorus, Dionysius, and Philo). Striking is the nearly verbatim clause (with “responsibility” and “rebellion”) in Agrippa’s speech at 2.403 and its echo at 2.418. Or “secession, defection” (ἀπόστασις); see note at 2.39. Often in Josephus, as here, this simple verb (λέγω) flags an intended deception. See the note to “said” at Life 22 in BJP 9. According to 2.42-43 a vast angry mob had flooded into Jerusalem for Pentecost that year. Throughout War Josephus develops a consistent and plausible picture of the festivals (Passover, Shavuot/Pentecost, Sukkot/Tabernacles) as times of trouble: 2.10-11 (see note to Pascha), 42-43, 224, 255. The verbal elegance of the Jerusalem leaders’ defense intensifies the ironic tone: the matching compound infinitives stress “being besieged along with” (συμπολιορκηθῆναι) rather than “making war along with” (συμπολεμῆσαι). In the interest of varying his language, at Ant. 17.293 Josephus will abandon this neat contrast for a more awkward play on “besieging,” active and passive.

This, the same name as our author’s (‮יהוסף‬‎), is the 2nd most commonly attested masculine name in the period (cf. Hachlili 2005: 200); Josephus himself mentions some 19 Yoseps, and 3 of the 10 generals chosen to lead the war will bear this name (2.563, 567, 568). Although the other most popular names (e.g., Simon, Judas, Mattathias) had Hasmonean roots (cf. Farmer 1957-58), and although “Joseph” has some slight—confused— Hasmonean connection (2 Macc 8.22), it seems that this name was revered mainly for the biblical patriarch and namesake of the eponymous tribe, praised in Hasmonean literature for (a) an obedience to divine law that led him to become “lord of Egypt” (1 Macc 2.53) and (b) his sexual self-control (4 Macc 2.2).The Yosep in question here has been introduced at 1.562 as Herod’s nephew and son-in-law—husband of Herod’s daughter Olympia (by Malthace). According to Ant. 18.134 he was the son of Herod’s brother Yosep (who had died at Jericho before Herod’s reign began, War 1.323-24). Ant. 17.294: “cousin of King Herod” (but see previous note). Josephus does not often speak of cousins, and all but one (Ant. 1.290) of the 12 occurrences refer to members of the complicated Herodian family; this is the last cousin to appear in the War. Josephus gives no systematic account of the royal army, but the audience would not be surprised that the monarch’s family members keep appearing as senior officers (cf. 2.55). This pair, especially Gratus, have been featured in the foregoing narrative as officers of the Herodian army who had broken for Roman loyalty: 2.52, 58-59, 63-64. This compound verb (προυπαντάω) appears only here in the War, only at Ant. 8.7 otherwise in Josephus. Cf. 2.52, 55, 62 and notes: it is unclear from the preceding narrative how much of the Herodian army remains intact. See above 2.52, 58, 63 and notes. This is the legion left in Jerusalem by Varus at 2.40; cf. 2.45, 63. The awe-inspiring order of the legions, though a familiar subject to Josephus’ Roman audience (e.g., Onasander 27, 30), is a significant theme of his narrative—partly for ironic purposes; see Introduction and Hadas-Lebel 1987: 832-36. This order (κόσμος; here the verb κοσμέω) is described in general at 3.93-97, where κόσμος (3.93) is largely interchangeable with [ἐν ἔθει] σύνταξις (3.74). See further 3.115-28 (διατάξας . . . Ῥωμαίους ἔθος); 5.47-53; 6.18. Indeed, the Greek word most consistently used for Latin legio, τάγμα, means “[what is] ordered.” Or: “not being able to bear or tolerate, not submitting to the ordeal of” (οὐδ’ . . . ὑπομείνας); cf. 2.82, where it has one of these senses. Evidently we should understand that Sabinus knew himself to be guilty for the steps he had taken in relation to Herod’s estate without awaiting orders from Rome (cf. 2.17). The sea in this case must be the (Latin) mare nostrum, the Mediterranean, not the Sea of Galilee as often in Josephus. Presumably Sabinus travels via coastal Caesarea, from where he could head N to Syria by ship without risking an encounter with the legate’s troops on land routes. This notice confirms the impression thus far that the equestrian agent of Augustus, Sabinus, was at odds with the distinguished senator Varus (cf. 2.16-17, 45, 66).

See the note at 1.4; this word (κίνημα) is a key term from the prologue. This (θορυβώδης) is another rare word in War (also 4.321); otherwise only at Ant. 4.36 in the classic rebellion against Moses. Before Josephus’ time, the term is best attested in medical, physiological, and scientific contexts (Hippocrates, Prisc. med. 10; Morb. pop. 5.1.95; 7.1.121; Ep. 19; Aristotle, Hist. anim. 632b; Strabo 11.3.3), picked up occasionally for political or philosophical application: Plato, Tim. 42d; Leg. 671a; Polybius 29.11.2. The latter usage becomes much more popular with Josephus’ contemporaries in the “second sophistic”: Plutarch, Cam. 27.3; 33.6; Cor. 17.4; Flam. 10.6; Luc. 32.3; Ag. 13.4; Mor. 564b, 656f, 678c, 714d, etc.; Athenaeus, Deipn. 14.1 [Kaibel]; Galen 10 times; Lucian, Ver. hist. 2.5; Pseudol. 16; Merc. cond. 24; Arrian, Anab. 1.25.6; Cyneg. 7.3. On Varus’ virtues of self-control, justice, and clemency, see also 2.69, 76-77. The first crucifixions in War occur about a century and a half before this story time, conducted by Alexander Ianneus against his own subjects (1.97, 113). This is the first instance of Roman crucifixion—“the most pitiable of deaths,” as Josephus remarks (War 7.202; cf. 5.449-51). For crucifixion as the most disgraceful form of death, see 4.317. Crucifixion, which seems often to have followed a severe beating, was both a painful and a humiliating way to die. Although not invented by the Romans, it was widely used by them, especially for slaves, bandits, rebels, and provincial criminals (as here): Quintilian, Decl. 274; Seneca, Ep. 101; Appian, Bell. civ. 1.120; Josephus, War 2.241, 308; 4.444; 5.449-51; Life 420. Roman citizens and especially members of the upper classes were usually either subject to more instant forms of execution (beheading), pressured to take their own lives, or exiled. On crucifixion, see Hengel 1977; Tzaferis 1985; Zias and Sekeles 1985.

Greek μύριοι can mean either an immense, countless number or, as a definite number, 10,000—often signaled by other numbers such as 2 or 3 (times) or a military context requiring a count. It is difficult to know which is intended here. At 2.55 Josephus has said that 2,000 deserters from Herod’s army joined the rebel cause in Idumea. Although 10,000 could be intended here, “vast number” seems all that is needed. In the verb (συμμένω), the prefix συν indicates more the bond with the leader or cause (in effect, loyalty) than with the unit: the point is not that a large unit remained intact, but that many soldiers remained loyal to the rebel cause. In Josephus the verb occurs only in War, in keeping with its military connotations: holding ground or remaining loyal in the face of serious threat (1.386; 2.205, 334; 3.314, 461; 6.245; cf. Thucydides 1.18.3; 4.74.4; 7.80.4; 8.73.5; Isocrates, Or. 4.148; Xenophon, Hell. 7.1.2). Character (ἦθος) was a central subject of discussion in ancient philosophy and rhetoric; see the Introduction to BJP 9 as well as Life 426, 427 and 430 with notes. In addition to character in general (i.e., of the aristocratic male), there was often thought to be a fixed character proper to each role in life: youth, old age, male, female, slave, friend, ally, enemy, and so on. Here, evidently, the term is ironic: the “alliance” is to be strictly in the interests of Rome, which do not include the Arab’s resentment of Herod. Ant. 17.296 clarifies the point: Aretas’ army had frequently disobeyed Varus’ directives (and requests) out of a desire for gain. The emotion in question is “animosity” or “rage” according to 2.68-69; see notes there. The Arabs thus represent the antithesis of Roman military principles, which are all about order, discipline, and relentlessly rational planning: see 3.88, 93, 100, 105; 4.45; also Onasander 6, 32; Harris 2001: 201-28; Sherman 2005: 65-99. Josephus thus concludes, with an implicit moral, the theme of the Arabs’ unworthy motivation (begun in 2.68-69).

This (πρὶν εἰς χεῖρας ἐλθεῖν, “before getting to [the point of] hands”) is a formulaic phrase for Josephus: War 1.93; 2.514; 4.420, 528; 5.52, 102; 6.22; Ant. 9.200; 20.78; without πρίν, Ant. 5.73, 268; 15.114, 120. His model may be Dionysius, who uses the phrase 5 times (Ant. rom. 8.84.1; 9.53.4, 64.1; 13.8.2; 14.9.4) and another 4 times without “before” (πρίν) (Ant. rom. 9.2.4, 50.2, 56.4, 70.1)—the only form attested before Dionysius (Xenophon, Anab. 1.2.26; Cyr. 3.1.3; Posidonius, Frag. [Jacoby] 2a.87f.43). Between Dionysius and Josephus it turns up in Philo, Mos. 1.263 and Onasander 19.1; 29.2. From Josephus’ time onward the phrase becomes popular: Plutarch, Mar. 19.6; Luc. 31.8; Ant. 39.6 (without πρίν); Tim. 27.8; Aem. 26.6; Marc. 20.1; Arist. 19.7; Phil. 6.13; Luc. 25.5; Mor. 597e, 873b; Phlegon, Frag. [Jacoby] 2b.257f.40. In 2.55 we learned that Herod’s cousin Achiab, who had prevented the king’s suicide in the latter’s final days (1.662), had been in command of royal troops in Idumea and so became the enemy of those soldiers in Idumea who joined the Judean revolt. It stands to reason that his admonitions, as their former commander, would be particularly effective in persuading such men to give up the fight. This is another application of πλῆθος, often rendered “mob” or “rabble” in this translation. That is, Augustus.

This intriguing notice finally exposes a bias in Josephus’ account: whereas he has implied that the rebel movement was anti-Herodian, with the Herodian commanders (2.55, 74) ranged firmly on the reactionary Roman and loyalist side, he now allows—yet without names—that many rebel commanders were also Herodians. This opens up the possibility (we lack evidence to know) that the issues may not have involved simply primarily pro- or anti-royal sentiments, as Josephus has implied, but related to some other power struggles (possibly ideological ones too) among Herodian commanders. However that may be, it makes good sense in general terms: rebels in a class-based society needed credible leaders, and many or most leaders of Herod’s army would have been either relatives or other particularly trustworthy others such as seconded Romans (e.g., Rufus and Gratus). Lit. “ordered [someone] to punish [them]” (κολάσαι προσέταξεν)—omitting the personal object of the order. Contrast Ant. 7.135; 14.327 (προστάσσω X [dative] κολάσαι Y [accusative]) and Life 429 (he ordered Y to be punished, κολασθῆναι προσέταξεν). Although κολάζω basically means “check, trim, prune” and so metaphorically “discipline, punish,” here as often in Josephus it seems to be a euphemism for execution; cf. Ant. 17.295, which uses κολάζω for ἀνασταυρόω (crucify) above (War 2.75). Although the omission of an implied personal object is not in general worrying, I am unable to find a parallel for this phrase; the closest is perhaps Diodorus 19.96.4, which has a clear personal antecedent object for the “order,” though in the expression itself (προστάξας κολάσαι) the dative object is left understood. Since Archelaus was emphatically not a king (2.2, 26) or even quasi-king (ethnarch) before the decision taken in the following story, the possibilities appear to be (a) that this action of Augustus did not take place until Archelaus was back and installed as ethnarch or (b) that the king in question is the deceased Herod, and the offense is against his legacy. Ant. 17.298 elaborates: they had shown contempt for justice in taking up arms against family. Although the basic principle of filial piety seems uncontroversial, we need to recall that ancient royal families were normally beset by intrigue, murder, and removal of potential rivals by imprisonment or execution: War 1.70-73, 120, 273, 433, 445, 467472-73, 478, 481, 535-37, 550-51, 639-40, 663-64. Ironically, in the main story, 3 sons of Herod who have survived his purges are now contending with each other in Rome for kingship.

See 2.40 and notes. See note at 2.18. Here ends Josephus’ lengthy digression on the Varian war, which was prompted by the notice at 2.39 that Augustus, while pondering Herod’s succession, had received news of a Judean revolt from Varus. It effectively puts another spin on the question of kingship and diadem-lust, as a counterpoint to the Herodian story, as well as anticipating many themes of the later war.

I.e., in addition to the case brought in defense against Antipas’ rival claims (2.20-25), which has been heard by Caesar and his advisory council (2.26-38). Or “secession, defection” (ἀπόστασις); see note at 2.39. Or “trust, assignment, direction.” The implication appears to be that Varus would not have allowed them (presumably leading members of the élite) to travel during the war. Indeed the absence of so many established leaders no doubt facilitated the many outbreaks described above. This sentence does not imply that the rebellionis over by this point, for Archelaus, after his return from Rome, will play a role in the suppression of the conflict (2.64-65). Cf. the reference to Varus’ kindness in “sending” another party from Judea at 2.83. See the notes to “self-government” (αὐτονομία) at 2.22, 53: this is autonomy under Roman governors. Cf. a passage in Nicolaus of Damascus (FGrH 3.354), in which an embassy of Greek cities requests self-government; also Smallwood 1981: 108-10. The parallel at Ant. 17.300 is somewhat clearer: “An embassy of Judeans arrived in Rome, Varus having permitted the nation their mission for the sake of requesting self-government.” This figure (also at Ant. 17.300) is often used along with Ant. 18.84 (4,000 Judean males of military age were conscripted in 19 CE, though many others who refused were punished—supported by Tacitus, Ann. 2.85, though his figure may include Egyptians) in calculations of the Judean population of Rome around the turn of the era (Leon 1960: 135; Donfried and Richardson 1998: 19, 120, 249). The resulting estimates still vary widely, however, from 20,000 to twice that number or more. See Barclay, 1996: 295. If accurate, Josephus’ numbers could support a total Judean population in Rome (including women, children, and the elderly) of 30-40,000—a significant proportion of the city’s estimated 1,000,000 population. This passage is one of the few explicit indicators of the Roman-Judean community’s keen interest in the political affairs of the homeland. Two generations earlier, Cicero had famously complained, in his defense of the Asian governor Flaccus, about the size of the Judean crowd in Rome and its influence in the popular assemblies (Flac. 66-69). The verb συμπαρίστημι (here imperfect middle/passive) occurs in Josephus only in this passage (again at 2.82) and earlier at 1.243. He has the cognate agent-noun συμπαραστάτης (“comrade, one who stands near to help”) at Ant. 7.136; cf. Sophocles, Phil. 674; Aristophanes, Plut. 326. The double prefix—indicating “alongside” and “with”—stresses the sense of solidarity. But the verb is extremely rare before Josephus’ time (Oed. col. 1340; note the similar συμπαραστατέω in Aeschylus, Prom. 218; Aristophanes, Ran. 387), best known from a saying of the 3rd-cent. BCE comic playwright Menander: “For every man, a daemon stands nearby to help (συμπαρίσταται), instantly present, mystagogue of the good life” (quoted in Plutarch, Mor. [Tranq. anim.] 474b; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 5.14.130). It is possible that Josephus picks up the verb from Sophocles’ Oed. Col. 1340, given the likelihood of Sophoclean influence on the tragic Herodian story of Josephus, in which this verb has otherwise appeared (2.244).

This is again the consilium principis; see the note to “council” (συνέδριον) and verb at 2.25. Compare the wording here (ἀθροίσαντος δὲ Καίσαρος συνέδριον τῶν ἐν τέλει Ῥωμαίων) with 2.25 ([ὁ Καίσαρ] συνέδριον μὲν ἀθροίζει τῶν ἐν τέλειῬωμαίων). The close verbal parallel highlights the resumption of the earlier story of the succession hearings. The term “friend” (φίλος; Lat. amicus) had a distinct political usage, for the circle of closest advisers around an eastern monarch or especially the Roman princeps (emperor); see note at 2.4. In his autobiography Josephus imitates this rather grand usage in his own political career, pointedly ironizing the word “friend” at Life 79—though he also claims to have had many real friends in Judea; e.g., Life 99, 131, 144, 205, 220, 234, 236, 241, 274, 294, 324-26, 368, 378, 408, 419. Temples to Apollo (eternally youthful twin of Artemis, god of music, drama, poetry, knowledge, wisdom, prophecy, bow and arrow, increasingly identified with the sun) were found throughout the eastern empire, notably at Athens, Corinth, Delphi, and Bassae in Greece, Didyma in Turkey (see the index to Pausanias), also at Pompeii and Rome. See further the following notes. The palatium is one of Rome’s 7 hills, the first to be settled according to tradition (cf. Ant. 19.223) and the one usually chosen by Rome’s rulers, from Augustus onward, for their residences. Overlooking the forum along its SW side, it was the area that gave us, perhaps as a result of Domitian’s magnificent construction there (B.W. Jones 1992: 95-96; Zanker 2002), the word “palace” (> palatium). Apollo was one of Augustus’ favored deities, and indeed his alleged father (Suetonius, Aug. 94). Vergil’s Aeneid (8.704) has Actian Apollo drawing his bow in support of Octavian against Antony and Cleopatra at the battle of Actium; that text also mentions the Temple of (Phoebus) Apollo on the Palatine (8.720). Although he began building a shrine to Apollo on the Palatine in 36 BCE, Augustus greatly enhanced it after his victory at Actium, adorning it with the Portico of the Danaids and a library of Greek and Latin texts (A. H. M. Jones 1970: 149-50); the temple was dedicated in October of 28 BCE. The Temple of Apollo sat immediately E of Augustus’ modest private house (domus augusti): it is commonly thought to have faced the Circus Maximus, though Claridge (LTUR 5.225; 2003) argues that it opened inward to the Palatine. The Augustan complex encompassed this temple and its grounds, which the princeps used to conduct business (as in this narrative) and in which the Senate often met—in the library space—towards the end of Augustus’ reign. See LTUR 2.46-48 (“Domus: Augustus”); Casali 1995-96; Royo 1999; Tomei 2000a, b; Miller 2000; Severy 2000; Haselberger 2002: 46, 68. For Domitian’s development of the adjacent area, Zanker 2002; Dio 53.3; Suetonius, Aug. 29.1. The same verb (κοσμέω) is rendered “arranged” at 2.74. By all accounts the Temple of Apollo was a stunning site, of dazzling marble with gold and ivory accents. On the inside were three large statues—Pythian Apollo flanked by his sister and mother (Propertius, Eleg. 2.31.1-16)—and on the outside not only the Portico of the Danaids and the library (see note to “personal construction” in this section), but above the pediment the chariot of the sun-God Sol and other grand images. Abundant decorative statues and exotic lamp-holders added to the effect: see Ovid, Trist. 3.27-35, 59; Pliny, Nat. 34.14; 36.13, 24-25, 32-36; Dio 49.15.5; 55.12.4-5.Josephus must have been acquainted with the Palatine hill of the 60s to early 90s from his personal visits. It figures prominently in his account of Gaius’ death and Claudius’ succession (Ant. 19.75-76, 85-86, 223, 266-68)—where even though his basic material must come from a source, the narrative color is consistent with his own. Even though Vespasian had given him a place to live on the Quirinal hill (see note to “imperium” at Life 423 in BJP 9), he may at least have visited Poppea Sabina in 63-64 (Life 13-16), answered charges of treason before the Flavians (maiestas: War 7.447-50; Life 428-29), and received Domitia’s benefactions (Life 429) in the Palatine imperial residences. The Temple of Apollo may have been damaged in the fire of 64, though we do not know how badly (Champlin 2003: 124-25); in any case, Josephus may have seen it before the fire on his first visit. It was a public space; even if Josephus did not enter it from religious considerations, its impressive aspect would have been obvious from both other points on the Palatine and the Circus Maximus below. This is another use of the versatile word πλῆθος, elsewhere rendered “mob” or “rabble.” It is not clear exactly which group is meant here: most likely would be the 50 mentioned as “present” at 2.80, though the distinction between the mass of people and their elders might suggest the Roman Judeans; but there are far too many of them (8,000) to have more than mere representation in the temple. See the note to “friends” at 2.81. Josephus is drawing a vivid picture of two sides presenting their cases, facing each other along the rectangular sides of the temple, with Augustus and his council presumably at the head of the room.

This cryptic phrase appears to refer to the earlier Herodian opponents of Archelaus (2.20-22, 26-33): along with Antipas, his mother, and other relatives this group included Ptolemy brother of Nicolaus, and the orators Ireneus and Antipater. See the note to the same verb (ὑπομένω), rendered “stay put” at 2.74. It is characteristic of Josephus to use the same word repeatedly, with different senses, in a short space. See the note to this word at 2.80—these are 2 of the 3 occurrences of the verb συμπαρίστημι in Josephus. See the previous note. Hatred and envy (μῖσος καὶ φθόνος) were a natural pair in ancient rhetoric and moral philosophy (Ps-Aeschines, Ep. 2.3; Xenophon, Mem. 2.6.20; Plato, Phaedr. 232d; Aristotle, Rhet. 1372b; Polybius 6.7.8, 9.1; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 10.14, 48; Plutarch, Pel. 34.3; Eum. 8.1; Dion 7.3; Brut. 29.8; Galb. 16.3; Mor. 96b, 176d; Lucian, Phal. 1.1; Cal. 10; Abdic. 5; Nav. 27, 39; Diogenes Laertius 10.117), so serviceable that Plutarch devotes one of his moral essays to them (De invidia et odio). Josephus uses the pair elsewhere at Ant. 2.10; 6.193; 20.21, 29. Not simply because they were accusers, presumably, for this group have themselves accused Archelaus (2.26-33). Rather, Josephus anticipates an issue of status and seemliness in connection with the new delegation’s claims. Quite unlike the earlier accusations against Archelaus, their charges will be leveled mainly against his father, Herod, with Archelaus featuring only as the king’s true (tyrant) son (2.84-91). Yet Augustus has always appeared in War as Herod’s close friend and patron (1.387-400), and so these royal challengers of Archelaus have no wish to identify themselves with such thoroughgoing denunciations of the deceased king and familial patriach.

This is the first appearance of Philip (26 BCE-33 CE) in the succession narrative of book 2. He was introduced in 1.562 as Herod’s son by Cleopatra of Jerusalem (therefore, a step-brother to Antipas and Archelaus, Herod’s sons by Malthace). Raised and educated in Rome, like Archelaus, he was an intended victim of plots by Herod’s son Antipater (by Doris): 1.602, 646. Although Philip had never been marked to succeed Herod as king, unlike Antipas (1.646) and Archelaus (1.664), Herod’s final will had given him Trachonitis and unspecified adjacent regions (1.668), which he will indeed receive from Augustus: see further 2.94-95, 167-168, 182; Kokkinos 1998: 236-40. Greek κατ’ εὔνοιαν, paralleled by the verb εὐνοέω in Ant. 17.303, where it clearly describes Varus’ kindness toward, or friendship for, Archelaus. This notice continues the benevolent portrait of Varus, also echoing 2.80—Varus’ sending of the 50 delegates with his indulgence, permission, or trust before the revolt (possibly the sense of “beforehand” here [προπέμπω]). This is an elegant phrase, occurring only here in Josephus (δυοῖν ἕνεκα) and rarely attested before him: Plato, Crat. 418e; fragments of Theopompus and Philochorus; Theophrastus, Elig. mag. B.187; Isocrates, Areop. 70; Demosthenes, Ep. 2.4; Ps-Demosthenes, Neaer. 77; Didymus, Dem. 10.41; Philo, Spec. 4.127; Contempl. 33. Ant. 17.303 claims more clearly that Varus’ kindness was directed first of all toward Archelaus, whose friend he was. In this story, two normally different senses of the common word οἶκος (“royal house, estate to be inherited”) come together: the inheritance in question is not mere land or wealth but the dynastic rule. This expectation of two possible results—one claimant to be chosen king or a division of Herod’s kingdom (κἂν διανέμῃ τὸν Ἡρώδου Καῖσαρ οἶκον πᾶσι τοῖς ἐγγόνοις)—intersects precisely with what the narrator last reported about Caesar’s reflections before the digression on the Varian war (2.38: “or apportion the rule among all the offspring” [εἴτε καὶ πάσῃ τῇ γενεᾷ διανεῖμαι τὴν ἀρχήν]). Did Varus in Syria, then, know about Caesar’s private thoughts? The raising of these possibilities appears to be a dramatic literary device constructed to prepare the audience for the known outcome (2.93-100); it seems impossible to know whether (and unnecessary to suppose that) Varus had any such clear motives. Or “be rewarded with.” Varus, in arranging all of this, appears as patron of both Archelaus and Philip. This appears to be Josephus’ knowing reference to 1.668, where the dying Herod in fact gave Philip Trachonitis and neighboring areas.

This is an unusually elegant construction (neuter aorist passive participle of ἐπιτρέπω)—“It having been permitted [allowed, turned over] to the accusers to speak. . . .” It is curious that Josephus here, in contrast to all other speeches in this section and most in his corpus (except where the masses briefly voice their views), does not identify a single speaker. Read literally, his consistent plurals and concluding reference to “the Judeans” (2.92) imply a chorus of 50 speaking in unison. One might imagine, more realistically, that various speakers took up different parts, so that Josephus is collapsing several speeches into one. But the oration has a logical and rhetorical coherence, unimaginable as spontaneous group expression (e.g., 2.85). Perhaps he simply had no idea from his sources who had actually presented the Judean brief (if indeed he did not fabricate this part of the hearing) and, rather than drawing attention to this deficiency, opted for the lesser evil of a group speech. The effect of this anonymity, in any case, is to deny the speakers any distinction of social status, which might be crucial to an individual: they are a nameless mass. Although παρανομία (going “beyond the law, criminality”) is in this case related to Judean law—the πάτριοι νόμοι (“ancestral laws”) mentioned in 2.86—in Josephus the categories themselves are generic: every nation has its constitution or ancestral laws, traditions, and so law-breakers. The language here is such that Caesar and his council should understand it perfectly well without reference to Judean (or indeed “religious”) law (cf. Mason 1991: 96-110): every nation’s legal system is a comprehensive code of what we might distinguish as civil, criminal, and religious law. The charge against Herod is partly that he failed to observe his own nation’s laws while promoting other cities and their cultures—a basic failure for a statesman, if true—and partly that he behaved as a tyrant (see next note), acting “beyond the law” in general. “Tyrant” and “tyranny,” the themes of this speech (see also 2.88), are key terms of War: see 1.10 and the note there, also to “self-government” at 2.22 and “bandit-chief” at 2.55. Violence (also βία, δύναμις, φόνος) was the essence of tyranny, the natural function of acting outside law and custom (cf. παρανομία above), as a law unto oneself. Diodorus (32.9a.1) claims that “Pseudo-Philip,” after defeating the Roman, “turned aside to savagery and tyrannical criminality” (ἐξετράπη πρὸς ὠμότητα καὶ παρανομίαν τυραννικήν). Phrases linking savagery and tyrants are common in Josephus (War 1.27; 4.567, 596; 6.433; 7.32; Ant. 17.342) as in other ancient writers (Polybius 9.23.22; 21.34.1; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 4.73.2; 6.82.2; 10.6.4; 11.35.5; Diodorus 14.12.4; 19.1.8, 71.2; 26.15.1; 33.4.1, 14.3; 2 Macc 4:25; 7:27; 3 Macc 6:24; 4 Macc 9:30; 18:20; Demetrius, Elec. 237; Plutarch, Pel. 28.9; Sulla 13.1; Dion 15.1; Mor. 314f, 315d. 403c; Polyaenus, Strat. 6.7.2; Appian, Mithr. 110; Diogenes Laertius 2.106). This word-group (μακάριος, μακαρίζω: “happy, pronounce happy/ congratulate”) is often used paradoxically by Josephus and others, as here: the dead are to be blessed. At War 4.385 Josephus uses the same verb to assert that, under Zealot terror in Jerusalem, the survivors declared the dead happy, and those being tortured in prisons called blissful even those who lay dead and unburied. That is because the Zealots, like Herod in this speech, throw aside all constraints of law and piety: in a world so dramatically turned upside down, only the dead are fortunate. Eleazar at Masada (7.356) has the Indians pronouncing happy their fellows who take their own lives and advance to immortality. Whereas Solon had reportedly advised not to call anyone happy before his death, but only lucky (Herodotus 1.32.70: πρὶν δ’ ἂν τελευτήση, ἐπισχεῖν μηδὲ καλέειν κω ὄλβιον, ἀλλ’ εὐτυχέα), Josephus rewrites this maxim with μακάριος-language when he uses the fortune-reversals of the Commagenian king Antiochus to illustrate (War 5.461): “that we should call no one happy before his death” (ὡς οὐδένα χρὴ λέγειν πρὸ θανάτου μακάριον). Thus Josephus takes a principle of philosophical resignation in the face of fortune’s reversals (so that happiness should not be pronounced before the conclusion) to an ironic extreme in desperate circumstances: death was in such cases the sole hope for happiness—so bleak was life under tyranny. For yet a different paradoxical take on μακάριος-language see Luke 6:20-23.

Some examples of Herod’s torture in the preceding narrative: 1.485, 527, 529, 577, 584, 586, 590, 592, 599; cf. the Judean tyrants at 5.425, but contrast Titus at 6.345 (for “many” at least). Here, however, Herod’s use of physical torture (mainly against slaves, guards, and foreigners), which was commonly used against such people also by constitutional authorities such as Roman provincial governors (cf. Pliny, Ep. 10.96 and comments ad loc. in Sherwin-White 1966), is not the object of criticism: the main charge—with grand rhetorical flourish—is that he tortured and maimed the very cities that were his primary responsibility. This would be a serious charge, were it borne out in the narrative; but see the note to “foreigners” in this section. The verb (λωβάομαι) is potent, with connotations of mutilation and outrage together: it appears in War elsewhere only at 1.270; 5.540. Herod’s gifts to foreign cities have been listed at 1.422-28 (mainly in Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece; he also endowed the Olympic Games). But the sympathetic narrator, in sharp contrast to these Judean speakers, has listed those liberal benefactions (τὸ μεγαλόψυχον ἐπεδείξατο, 1.422) only briefly, after a detailed description of his building program in his own realm: Jerusalem’s temple, palace, and fortress, the city of Sebaste (Samaria), the temple at Panias, and projects at Caesarea, Jericho, Herodium, and elsewhere (1.401-21). Against that background, this speech appears mischievous—and rhetorically tortured, in contrast to the parallel in Ant. 17.304-14 (cf. Simonetti 2002: 744 n. 140)—though many of these Judean projects were oriented towards the imperial or other foreign cults, and out of keeping with the national traditions; cf. Bernett 2007: 28-170. This highly rhetorical language, perhaps exaggerated to absurdity here, is replaced in the parallel (Ant. 17.305-7) by a concrete argument: Herod presided over the dissolution and disappearance of some settlements in his purview, while adorning foreign cities, by expropriating the property of the nobility whom he had executed. That claim fits Antiquities’ different narrative ethos, in which Herod is pointedly assimilated to the model of the monarchical tyrant: there he anticipates Gaius Galigula (Ant. 19. 133-36, 174, 176), who also killed nobles (εὐπατρίδαι) and confiscated their property (19.2-3, 131-32). Cf. Mason 2003a, 2008b.

Greek εὐδαιμονία, a keyword in Josephus’ lexicon, on which see the note to “happiness” at 1.11. In this narrative, the reign of the Hasmonean high priest John Hyrcanus has been the shining example of εὐδαιμονία (1.68-69), and Josephus will repeatedly lament its loss (also 2.258; 7.143). In Antiquities he makes a great deal of εὐδαιμονία as unique promise of the Judean constitution (Ant. 1.14, 20) and the special heritage of his nation (4.114-22). This is a formulaic phrase in Josephus, largely interchangeable with other phrases (e.g., τὰ πάτρια νόμιμα/ἔθη) that he uses to describe any nation’s system of law and custom; these terms are not special to Judea. See Mason 1991: 96-115. Josephus’ language is ironic: filling with emptiness, or poverty. Herod’s criminality, or arrogation to himself of a status above the law (παρανομία), is the essence of tyrannical behavior: see notes to 2.84, the speech’s opening line. The parallel in Ant. 17.307-9 offers much more detail about Herod’s tyrannical behavior, though the author seems to be assimilating him to Gaius Caligula: see note to “alien peoples” at 2.85. See the note to this key theme-word (συμφορά) at 1.9, 11. It occurs 90 times in War: of these, 21 occurrences are in bk. 1 and 18 in bk. 2. In light of the Judean accusers’ claim here, it is noteworthy that in the prologue Josephus as narrator—if only for momentary rhetorical needs there—has made the Judean lot under Roman rule (presumably at least from 6 CE) singularly happy, before the unprecedented calamity of Jerusalem’s fall (1.11). In the narrative, however, Judean leaders’ criticism of Herod’s government (as already of his father Antipater and brother Phasael) began well before his installation as king. Still, in contrast to Antiquities, the narrative voice of War never unequivocally condemns Herod, even where it allows that some of his actions contravened the law (1.648-50). Most often, criticisms come from envious, troublesome malcontents (1.208-12, 242-47, 265, 315-16), and chiefly from ungrateful and impious rivals within his own family (1.431-655). Although the narrative does allow glimpses of widespread popular hatred (e.g., 1.660), this attitude is not endorsed or even explained by the narrator. War’s Herod is mostly an inspiring and pious champion of the Judeans (e.g., 1.354-57, 373-80). Paradoxically, at 1.372 the king rallies his people to face down apparently major calamities (συμφοραί). Herod was effective king of Judea from 37-4 BCE, though in War’s presentation (1.181, 204) his dominance in the region began about a decade earlier, in the earlier 40s under his father Antipater. Josephus makes an unusual word choice here, since ἀναχώρησις normally means for him “retreat” or “withdrawal,” usually in military contexts (War 1.223, 236; 2.300; 4.202, 635; 5.284, 290, 333; 6.23, 113, 185, 279; 7.198; Life 151, 171). The Judean exile in Babylon (586-536 and later BCE)—the destruction of the first temple by the neo-Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, the mass removal of the Judean upper classes to Babylonia, and the gradual return of many to Judea under the Persian kings Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius, and Xerxes, as well as the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem—is a pivotal complex of events in Josephus’ understanding of Judean history. He will discuss it again in his major speech (War 5.389-93) and, most tellingly, will structure the 20 books of the Antiquities around these events as fulcrum, in books 10 (end of first temple and captivity) and 11.1-91 (gradual return of some from exile). Alongside the many thematic parallels he adduces or implies between his situation and Jeremiah’s and Daniel’s, or between the divine plan then and now (e.g., the Judeans’ enemies being used to purge the polluted temple), a crucial point concerns the fulfillment of prophetic prediction: whether of the fall of the first temple (10.33-34, 79, 140-41), the restoration under Cyrus (11.5-6), or later events (10.275-81; 11.336-37)—all foreseen precisely long before they occurred. Xerxes I, son of Darius Hystaspes and Atossa, ruled the Persian empire from 485-465 BCE. He was notorious in the Greco-Roman world for his disastrous attempt to invade Greece in 480 BCE, which ended with his rout at Salamis. Josephus’ linking of the return from Babylon with Xerxes is interesting for several reasons. First, as he will indicate in War 5.389-93 and Ant. 11.1-18, the return is normally attached to the reign of Cyrus (559-530 BCE), who first proclaimed the repatriation of the Judeans (cf. Ezra 1.1; Isa 44.28). Second, however, Ant. 11.8 makes it clear that only some leaders (of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, Levites and priests) returned under Cyrus. According to Ant. 11.120-38 a much larger group (but still a small minority of the 12 tribes, 11.133) left decades later under Ezra, in the time of Xerxes. Thus Josephus already shows here a somewhat nuanced awareness of the story he will later tell in detail (contrast S. Schwartz 1990: 24-35, who does not include this passage in his analysis of War’s biblical knowledge). Third, Josephus also anticipates his correction of the Bible’s claim (Ezra 7.1) in Ant. 11.120-21 that it was Artaxerxes (i.e., Xerxes’ successor) who authorized Ezra’s mission. Once again, this indicates little change in his biblical knowledge between War and Antiquities.

Or “mildness, moderation”: the Judean people had schooled themselves not to rebel even under tyrannical government and attendant bad fortune. The μέτριος word-group, famous from Aristotle (e.g., Eth. nic. 1119a; Pol. 1313a, 1314e, 1315b), who advocated pursuing the middle way between extremes (e.g., aggression and timidity), but also important for Polybius (e.g., 20.2-3; cf. Eckstein 1995: 28-83, 118-60) in articulating the way of the statesman, is basic to Josephus’ vocabulary. In his narratives it has much to do with self-control, mildness, and the avoidance of partiality, partisanship, or zeal. Its chief political manifestations are accommodation (as here), in the case of the ruled, and the avoidance of brutality when applied to rulers. Thus Alexander Ianneus’ reputation for restraint was undercut by his brutal actions (1.85, 90-92); it was this crucial quality that Gaius Caligula lacked, which Claudius had by nature (2.208); Gessius Florus was admonished to acquire more of it after his violence and bribery (2.281, but 306, 349); Agrippa II hopes that future governors will do better in this respect (2.354). By extension, then, the word often means “reasonable, decent, respectable” (cf. 2.275 and note). On the absence of a political faction of “moderates” in Josephus’ narratives, see the note to “reasonable [folk]” at 2.275. “Bitter slavery” (πικρὰ δουλεία) is a phrase attested elsewhere (Euripides, Troi. 964; Frag. Hyps. 61+82; Plato, Resp. 569c; Aristotle, Ath. pol. 2.3; Mir. ausc. 840b; Polybius 4.81.13; Agatharchides, Mar. eryth. 24; LXX Esth 4:17; Philo, Mos. 1.247; Epictetus, Diatr. 4.1.19), but it is used several times by Josephus (also Ant. 11.263; 20.120). The point is ironic: whereas slavery (δουλεία) should be associated with foreign oppression, and it is what the Judeans had endured in Babylon (Ant. 11.2), Herod has made them slaves in their own land. On the highly charged language of freedom and slavery throughout War, see the Introduction. I give two verbs (“endured,” “awaited”) for Josephus’ 1, because his sentence artfully gives the same verb two objects in different cases (genitive and accusative), which lend the verb different nuances (ὥστε ὑπομεῖναι τῆς πικρᾶς δουλείας καὶ διαδοχὴν αὐθαίρετον). They endured bitter slavery under Herod and were even willing to countenance it again in a successor (Archelaus). This adjective (αὐθαίρετος) occurs only 4 times in Josephus, all in War and all paradoxical as here: a freely chosen prison (3.144), a pitiable end (4.312), folly and bad things leading to destruction (6.310). Here the Judeans confess to an acquired mentality of slavery that conditions them even to choose for themselves a successor to Herod, awful though he was.

So indeed the implication of 2.2 above. So 2.1-2 above. This 3rd item in the list of loyalty proofs offered by the Judean delegation, which has no support in the preceding narrative, exposes the rhetorical slant of their appeal. This portrait of devoted loyalty is cast in doubt by the story in 2.1-13, where “the entire rabble” (2.11) assaulted with stones the soldiers who were (reportedly) trying to keep peace by suppressing the rebel leaders. It seems from the narrative, as distinct from the speeches, that much of the populace has in fact bridled (albeit powerlessly) under Herodian rule; cf. 1.660.

Greek ἀγωνιάω, used commonly of athletic competition but in War metaphorically (only here and at 3.456; cf. Life 404), of deep emotional concern and resulting effort. Or “bastard, spurious, counterfeit” (νόθος): used of another son of Herod at 1.521, otherwise only at 5.443. I.e., Archelaus’ reign as king had not even begun when he signaled what was to come (2.2-3). This colorful verb (προοιμιάζομαι) occurs only here in Josephus (cf. 2.454; Ant. 18.221 for the cognate noun as metaphor). It might carry either literary (“make X a preface, premise”; Plato, Lach. 179a) or tragic, theatrical, possibly epic connotations (“make X a prelude [to the play, story]”; Aristotle, Poet. 1460a). On the theatrical character of War, see Chapman 1998. Like the orator Antipater, speaking for the Antipas faction (2.30), these Judean delegates describe as a simple fact the slaughter of 2.12-13, making it their main evidence of Archelaus’ crimes. They willfully ignore the narrator’s claims about the ruler-designate’s concern and effort to avoid bloodshed, as well as Nicolaus’ response (2.34) that the slaughter had been unavoidable. In his speech for the Antipas faction, Antipater had similarly linked the fate of those who had come to sacrifice at the festival with their animal victims. The same image is used at 1.378: Herod’s Judean ambassadors are slaughtered, as if garlanded sacrificial victims, by the Arabs. The earlier narrative has said nothing about Archelaus’ provision of sacrifices for the sake of his rule, an act that seems out of keeping with his determination to wait for Caesar’s endorsement of that rule (2.2-3). This claim appears, then, as a highly prejudicial rhetorical flourish. The festival was Passover; the narrator has already said that it was a time for vast numbers of sacrifices (cf. 2.10 and notes).

Since Archelaus has been charged with only one bad thing (2.89), and that a dubious one in light of the narrative, the reference presumably includes Herod’s alleged evils (2.86). See the notes to this key word at 1.9 and 2.86. Or, “convention [or custom] of war.” Although the phrase πολέμου νόμος is well attested before and after Josephus (e.g., Aeschines, Fals. leg. 33; Polybius 2.58.10; 5.9.1, 11.3; 7.14.3; Diodorus 38/39.8.1; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 3.8.2; 6.36.2; Philo, Mos. 1.36; Oppian, Hali. 2.316; Achilles Tatius, Leuc. 2.24.3; Appian, Bas. 1.2; Bell. civ. 1.7.55, 58; 2.19.140; 3.2.13; 4.16.128; Heliodorus, Aeth. 7.24.2; 8.3.8), Josephus is its biggest known user. He gives enough examples in War to indicate a range of meaning: 3.363 (in his speech against suicide: by the law of war one should die only by a conqueror’s hand); 4.260 (Jesus the chief priest tries to refuse the Idumeans entry to Jerusalem by it; 4.388 (an ancient prophecy that the temple will burn by the law of war); 5.332 (Titus’ right to sack the city by the law of war); 6.239 (in Titus’ consilium some argue that the temple should burn by right of war); 6.346, 353 (Titus remarks that he formerly showed clemency, against the law of war). See also Ant. 1.315; 6.69; 9.58; 12.274; 14.304; 15.157. The phrase appears, then, to have two main senses: (a) a special set of norms that justify, in the extreme context of conflict, what would otherwise be barbaric behavior (note Laban’s complaint about this category-confusion in Ant. 1.315); (b) a set of minimal constraints even in extreme circumstances (e.g., respecting heralds). Sometimes the phrase appears to mean nothing more than “the way things normally work in war,” with no moral evaluation. The rough Latin equivalent, ius belli, occupies a conspicuous position in the opening sentence of Livy’s history (Aeneas was one of two men spared at Troy in spite of the “law of war”, 1.1.1; cf. 26.31.2; Sallust, Bell. iug. 91.7; Quintilian, Inst. or. 5.10.114), and may have influenced Josephus’ usage for a Roman audience. Or “in person, in front.” This part of the speech receives no paraphrase in Ant. 17.313-14, and the sense is not precisely clear. Possibly: if the Judeans are joined to a Roman province (anticipating 2.91), the Romans will be able to assess their qualities and if necessary punish them directly, without receiving an impression of them that has been distorted by oppressive client kings. For this thematic tragic term (Aristotle, Poet. 1449b.27; 1452.38; 1453a.3, 5, 1453b.12), here as a verb, see the note at 1.10 and the one to “compassion” at 1.12. Or “tearing it to pieces,” in which case perhaps the rival heirs of Herod are intended—if the Judean delegates know the possibility that the nation might be divided up among them (2.38, 93-94). But there is no indication in the narrative of their knowledge that Caesar is entertaining this option. Perhaps the reference is to the claim made at 2.85, that Herod and Archelaus maimed the state; cf. 2.92, “the charges against the kings” (presumably, Herod and Archelaus). At 5.27 and again 5.526 the narrator will use the same verb (σπαράττω) to accuse rebel tyrants of behaving like dogs, tearing away at the body politic (cf. 2.589 of John). Although the MSS L1VRC have πράσσουσι (“those who were behaving savagely”), these examples show that the more vivid verb matches Josephus’ lexicon. For a Roman audience acquainted with theater, the verb would probably carry resonances of Euripides’ Bacchae, in which it figures prominently in the context of Bacchic frenzy (735, 739, 1104, 1127, 1135, 1220), and this would enhance the dramatic-tragic tone of War (on which, in general, Chapman 1998).

Although this request is declined by Caesar in the immediate sequel (2.93-94), after Archelaus’ removal in 6 CE Judea will be joined in some way to the province of Syria. Whereas War 2.117 (see notes there) appears to make Judea an independent province (ἐπαρχία) under its own praesidial equestrian governor, the following story makes clear that it is in some respects subject to the Syrian governor: e.g., 2.184-87. Ant. 17.355, by contrast, simply claims that after Archelaus’ removal his territory was annexed to Syria, and that the legate Quirinius in Syria was charged with making a census of property throughout the whole of his province. Coponius, according to that narrative, was sent along with him, to rule over the Judeans with full authority (18.1)— not, evidently, as an independent governor. See Ghiretti 1985 and Cotton 1999 for the persuasive historical argument that in 6 CE Judea was first incorporated into the province of Syria as a prefecure. The Greek is ambiguous: διοικεῖν ἐπ’ ἰδίοις ἡγεμόσιν, as I try to indicate in the translation (cf. LCL: “governors from themselves”; M-B: “durch besondere Statthalter verwalten lassen”), though if the parallel at Ant. 17.314 (ὑποτάσσεσθαι τοῖς ἐκεῖσε πεμπομένοις στρατηγοῖς) may be invoked, ἐπ’ ἰδίοις would refer to the Roman governors of Syria. Roman control of a Judea annexed to Syria was also preferred by the partisans of Antipas at 2.22. Such an arrangement seems to match Josephus’ ideal as well as that of many contemporary Greek aristocrats for their own cities; see the note to “self-government” at 2.22. Just as that passage calls for a Roman commander (στρατηγός), so also the parallel to the present passage (Ant. 17.314) expresses the delegation’s hope that στρατηγοί sent to Syria will take responsibility for Judea. Or “agents of sedition/civil strife” (στασιώδεις). Before Josephus, this word appears once or twice only in each of Demosthenes, Xenophon, Aristotle, Polybius, Posidonius, Chrysippus, Dionysius, and Philo, whereas he uses it 16 tmes. It is thus his characteristic vocabulary. All but 3 occurrences are in War, where civil strife (στάσις) is a key term; see the notes to “civil strife” and “insurgents” at 1.10, also to “insurgents” at Life 17 in BJP 9. For the sake of variety, it seems, Josephus uses many variants of the στάσι– root for “agents of sedition” (see details in the notes to the passages mentioned). These are conveniently indistinct terms, evoking the broad category of “trouble-makers” familiar to his audience. This assumed accusation has no precedent in the narrative itself, but anticipates Nicolaus of Damascus’ assessment of the national character in the next sentence (2.92). At Josephus’ time of writing, after the war, the Roman audience may be presumed to know such a common portrait of the Judeans as belligerent (see Introduction). This perception is paralleled—with due regard for his ad hoc rhetoric—already in Cicero’s speech defending Flaccus (Flac. 69): he presents Pompey’s capture of Jerusalem in 63 BCE as a just response to Judean militancy. See the note to “mildness” at 2.87, and Thucydides 1.38 for the classic statement of a more powerful party’s reacting wisely to mildness. In Josephus’ later narratives, as in his portrait of Quinctilius Varus above (2.16-17, 69, 76), the Syrian governors (of high senatorial, consular rank) appear as an entirely different class of men—cultured, wise, and moderate—from the crass equestrians sent to govern Judea: 2.195-203; cf. Ant. 18.88-90.

Josephus uses this verb (καταλήγω) only in War: also at 3.331; 4.8; 5.136, 147. Although all MSS have ἀπεδύσατο (“stripped off, undressed” [the charges]), I follow Destinon and Niese here in reading ἀπελύσατο, a difference of one easily confused letter (Δ for Λ): the latter verb makes better sense and matches Josephus’ known phrasing in War 4.338. Further, the Latin has (criminibus) dissolutis, rhetorical parlance for charges being refuted or addressed. In view of the Judean delegation’s dual target, the plural seems to be shorthand for King Herod and his son Archelaus (see the note to “mauling it” at 2.90), though the latter’s title has yet to be decided. This adjective (δύσαρκτος) is exceedingly rare, occurring only 9 times in the TLG corpus. All the more curious, then, that Josephus has two of those occurrences, and in the other (Ant. 4.11) it is paired as here (next note) with δυσπειθής, a combination that appears in no other author. The only author known to have used the word before Josephus is Aeschylus (Cho. 1024; Frag. [Mette] Tetr. 44A fr. 530). See also Plutarch, Luc. 2.5; Mor. [Princ. iner.] 779d; Appian, Bell. civ. 2.21.149. Greek δυσπειθής. Josephus’ Nicolaus, with typically pointed concision (cf. 2.34-36 and notes), juxtaposes two summary adjectives with δυσ-prefixes (see previous note). This was also a point in Nicolaus’ rebuttal of Antipas’ partisans at 2.35: those accusing Archelaus had formerly been his advisers. According to 2.20-21, Archelaus’ rival Antipas had won over a number of his (so also Archelaus’) relatives, including their aunt (Herod’s sister) Salome, mother Malthace, and many of those who had sailed with Archelaus.

See the notes to “council” and relevant verbs at 2.25, 38. Or “kingship, sovereignty” (ἡ βασιλεία). This title means something like “sheikh” or “tribal/national leader”: “ruler of an ethnos.” Of some 33 known occurrences of this word (ἐθνάρχης) before the second century CE, 22 are in Josephus and 3 in 1 Maccabees: according to 1 Macc 14:47; 15:1, 2, the Hasmonean high priest Simon was recognized as ethnarch by the Seleucid king (cf. Ant. 13.214; 14.148, 151, 191, 194, 196, 200, 210, 212, 226, 306, 314, 317—all but the first concerning Hyrcanus II). Although our evidence of the word’s use is chiefly in Judean circles, it is also known from Syria and the Arab world. For the significant difference between this status and that of king (βασιλεύς), emphasized by Josephus here and at Ant. 17.317, see Strabo 17.1.13; 2 Cor 11:32; Lucian, Macr. 17.In his discussion of the Alexandrian Judean community, Josephus quotes a lost passage of Strabo defining the role of ethnarch there (Ant. 14.117): “he both manages the nation (ἔθνος) and administers justice and takes charge of contracts and ordinances, as if he were head of a self-governing political entity (ὡς ἂν πολιτείας ἄρχων αὐτοτελοῦς).” Evidently, Augustus makes use of an existing local (Greek) title; this is not the Greek equivalent of a Latin term. On the title see Schürer-Vermes 1. 333-34 n. 12.The settlement as described in Josephus’ narrative reveals no little political skill on Augustus’ part. It honors the will of his deceased and loyal client Herod, inasmuch as it gives Archelaus pride of place, with the potential to become king. At the same time it takes account of the energetic criticism of Archelaus’ fitness to be king. Finally, it recognizes the claims of the 2 brothers, more or less in keeping with the terms of Herod’s final will (1.664, 668). For the Archelaus of the narrative, however, it must have come as a blow, and a signal of formidable Judean opposition to him; Josephus’ audience knows that he was fully expecting to become king of his father’s domain (2.2-3). Cf. Smallwood 1981: 108-9. The paraphrase at Ant. 17.317 is characteristically more overtly moralistic: “if he should apply virtue to it [the kingdom/kingship].”

See the note at 2.83. See the note at 2.20. A neat inclusio, since this is precisely how Antipas was introduced in 2.20 (with the verb ἀμφισβητέω). The point in mentioning this, as Ant. 17.318 emphasizes, seems to be that whereas Archelaus and Antipas had contended for the kingship (“the whole rule” according to the parallel), they both ended up with far less.

The sentence has a chiastic structure: Philip, Antipas // Antipas, Philip. Across the Jordan: see the notes at 2.43, 57. See the note to “Galilee and Idumea” at 2.43. See the note to “talents” at 2.50. Trachonitis has appeared at 2.58; see notes there. These adjacent regions NE of Lake Gennesaret (Kinneret, Sea of Galilee), which should include Gaulanitis (Ant. 18.106), were introduced as Augustus’ additions to Herod’s reign at 1.398-400. According to 1.668, Herod’s final revision of his will gave these areas to Philip (“Trachonitis and the adjacent areas”), a decision confirmed by Augustus here. Named Zenodorus in the parallel (Ant. 17.319; cf. 15.344). Long dead by now, he had according to Josephus (War 1.398-400) once controlled on lease the so-called domain of Lysanias (W and N of Damascus on the slopes of the Antilebanon range), where he settled Trachonite bandits from further S, who harassed the residents of Damascus. The Syrian legate Varro drove Zenodorus out of those threatening areas, which Augustus then transferred to Herod, making him “procurator of all Syria” (23 BCE; War 1.399, but Ant. 15.360—adviser to Syrian procurators; discussion in Bernett 2007: 128-30). At Zenodorus’ death (20 BCE), the region from Trachonitis to Galilee also passed to Herod. The copyists of Josephus’ MSS appear to have been baffled by whatever he wrote here, and in their attempt to correct it confused matters further: they have ἰννάνω (PAM, followed by Niese), ΐναν (L) ἴναν (R), and ἰαμνειαν (VC); Latin innam uicum. Iamnia is far from the region in question, and in any case it is accounted for in 2.98. Panias is the plausible conjecture of H. Graetz and E. Schürer, followed by Reinach and Thackeray: it is in the appropriate area; it corresponds to the provisions of Herod’s final will according to Ant. 17.189, which included Πανειάς in Philip’s territory; and a vertical stroke of Π could easily be misread as Ι. But not all are convinced by the emendation. Schalit (Conc. s.v.) and Pelletier accept ἴναν, as an accusative of ἴνα, as representing a place “im Libanongebiet, Dekapolis”; M-B keep ἰννάνω, positing an otherwise unknown site, Innano.As Josephus explains in War 1.404 and 2.168, Panias (mod. Banyas) is near the source of the Jordan River. Herod had built a white marble sanctuary in honor of Augustus there, which revived the use of a site that had hosted the nature cult of Pan—frequented by residents of the Huleh valley before the expansion of the destabilizing Itureans into the region by 75 BCE. The exact site of Herod’s Augustus-sanctuary has recently been much debated; see Bernett 2007: 126-46; for the site, Pliny, Nat. 5.71, 74. Bernett (2007: 132) argues that Herod wished also to bring stability to the region, which was still subject to Iturean raiders in the N Golan, by establishing a new political center at Panias—anchored in the imperial cult, later accompanied by the city of Caesarea founded by Herod’s son Philip soon after Herod’s death (here and 2.168). See the note to “talents” at 2.50. The perfect passive may reflect 1.668, in which Herod’s will is said to have assigned these areas to Philip.

See the note to “ethnarch” in 2.93. See the note at 2.43. Pliny (Nat. 5.70) groups these 3 regions, with Judea “above” (i.e., higher than) the others. As Josephus has already indicated, Samaria did not participate in the revolt suppressed by Varus, a fact that the legate acknowledged by declining to attack the city on his southward march (see 2.69 and notes). Here, however, the entire region seems intended, whereas in 2.69 it is the city of Samaria (Sebaste).

The site of Herod’s magnificent city, Caesarea; see the note at 2.16. Thus far in War, a “Strato’s Tower” has been discussed in two notable contexts: Aristobulus’ murder of his brother Antigonus (and the Essene’s remarkably fulfilled prediction, in spite of confusion about the location) and Herod’s foundation of Caesarea on the coastal site (War 1.77-80, 408-15). It may seem suprising that Josephus should use the older name, since he elsewhere emphasizes that this was the former name, before Herod’s massive rebuilding and refoundation of Caesarea (Ant. 15.331-41; 19.343; 20.173). Yet he makes the same choice at the parallel (Ant. 17.320). The proposal that he takes this over from his source, perhaps an administrative document specifying Archelaus’ revenues (e.g., Simonetti 745 n. 146), runs up against the following problems: (a) Josephus has a tendency to recall the older name, and so must think that this has some benefit for his audience; (b) he similarly uses the displaced “Samaria” at 2.69, and Dicaearcheia almost always instead of the current Puteoli (2.104; Ant. 18.160, 248-49; 19.5; Life 16); (c) when his Roman contemporary Pliny the Elder describes the coastal cities, he too gives “Strato’s Tower” first (inde Apollonia, Stratonis turris, eadem Caesarea, ab Herode rege condita, nunc colonia Prima Flavia . . . ; Nat. 5.69). In Josephus’ usage here we may be witnessing the same sort of perspective as Pliny’s: both knew that the city had recently been renamed yet again (for Josephus’ knowledge of post-70 names, see [Flavia] Neapolis at 4.449), as Colonia Prima Flavia Augusta, and so preferred to invoke the original name, which seems to have endured anyway in some formulations of “Caesarea,” to give historical perspective. Even in his recent detailed description of Herod’s reconstruction (1.408-15) Josephus mainly presents it as activity conducted at “Strato’s Tower” (1.408), supplying “Caesarea” only at the end (1.414). Similarly, the story of the Essene’s prediction (1.77-80) assumes the general familiarity of the older name. Formerly Samaria, re-founded in 28 BCE by Herod with the honorary name that was the feminine Greek counterpart to Augustus; see the note to “Samaria” at 2.69. Here he uses the Herodian-Roman name we would expect (1.403; cf. Pliny, Nat. 5.69), rather than the former “Samaria.” Joppa has been much discussed through the Hasmonean and Herodian narratives: 1.50, 99, 156, 292-93, 409. This major Mediterranean port was added to Herod’s kingdom by Augustus after his defeat of Antony and Cleopatra (1.396). It is striking that Josephus should single out Jerusalem, the obvious capital of Judea, as among the cities made subject to Archelaus—as though it were an autonomous city like the others mentioned. This reinforces the city-based mentality of ancient writers and Roman administrators. The ancient coastal city of Gaza (Ant. 1.136; 5.81) had been made free by Pompey (War 1.156), but later added to Herod’s kingdom by Augustus (1.396). Gadara (on the River Yarmuk in modern Jordan) and Hippos (on a hill overlooking Lake Gennesaret from the E), annexed to Herod’s territory by Augustus (1.396), were both prominent members of the so-called Decapolis: the 10 free Greek cities—different authorities give slightly different lists—straddling the Jordan River and Lake Gennesaret (Kinneret). See Pliny, Nat. 5.74 and the note to “Ten Cities” at Life 341 in BJP 9. That is, from Herod’s former kingdom (possibly “kingship”); there is neither kingdom nor kingship now. Although all the MSS for the parallel passage (Ant. 17.320) give 600 talents, those here all indicate 400. Numbers, written with Greek letter abbreviations, were highly susceptible to alteration in copying; but Josephus is also quite capable of making such changes from one work to another. Whether this is because of better information in the later work, greater seeming plausibility on reflection, or more arbitrary reasons, we are usually unable to determine. See the note to “talents” at 2.50.

See the notes at 1.181; 2.15. The Greek is plural: see the note to “wills” at 2.38. Curiously, according to Ant. 17.321, Jamnia, Azotus, and Phasaelis were bequeathed to Salome by Herod in his will, along with half a million pieces of coined silver (not mentioned here). That Caesar added the Ascalon palace to Salome’s inheritance (so both War and Antiquities) might make better sense if everything else had been specified in Herod’s will, and such reasoning might account for the clarification in Antiquities. See following notes. For this collocation (ἀποδείκνυμι δεσπότης/-ις), see Herodotus 3.134; 8.68; and Josephus, Ant. 2.263. All 3 sites were on the margins of Archelaus’ Judean territory. Ancient Iamnia/Jamnia (bibl. Yavneh/Jabneh) was about 10 miles (16 km) N of Azotus (bibl. Ashdod) on the main coastal highway, the latter due W of Jerusalem (cf. 1.50, 156, 166). Each city, slightly inland, also had a port. Azotus would have fallen in the “toparchy” (regional governmental district surviving from the period of Ptolemaic adminisration in the 3rd cent. BCE [A. H. M. Jones 1937: 274]; cf. War 3.54-5; Pliny, Nat. 5.70) of Jamnia; see Kokkinos 1998: 189 and 191 with notes. Phasaelis was built by Herod in honor of his brother Phasael (1.418), in the Jordan River valley about 13 miles (22 km) N of Jericho, at a fork in the highway. See further 2.167 and Appendix A to BJP 1a. Continuing southwards on the coastal highway, about 8.5 miles (14.5 km) S of Salome’s possession Iamnia, then W to the coast, lay Ascalon (bibl. Ashkelon). A Greek city outside Herod’s kingdom, it had nonetheless benefited from his largesse, including spectacular fountains and colonnades (War 1.422). Although the Greek here (plural τὰβασίλεια) might indicate royal properties other than a palace, the parallel at Ant. 17.321 is explicit about a royal residence: τὴν ἐν Ἀσκάλωνι βασίλειον οἴκησιν. See the note to “talents” at 2.50. This is a puzzling word choice, since the toparchy of Iamnia, which seems to have included coastal Azotus, was that local district: elsewhere in Josephus a toparchy is an administrative region (cf. τόπος) surrounding a mid-sized town such as Acrabetta, Gophna, Thamna, or Bethel (War 2.167, 235, 252, 509, 652, 567; 3.48; 4.444, 503, 511, 550; Ant. 8.284; 13.125; 18.31). At War 3.54-55 he says that Judea is divided into 11 “cleruchies” (tribal allotments or inheritances) and then lists the 10 towns (not counting Jerusalem) corresponding to Roman administrative “toparchies.” So also Pliny (Nat. 5.70), who gives a slightly different list, though both include Iamnia. The Latin reading ethnarchia is easier to understand in the context here, since Archelaus has been named ethnarch (but this means that “toparchy” has the text-critical advantage of being the preferable “more difficult reading”): Salome’s holdings would be under his general purview. Cf. Pelletier 204 n. 6; Schalit 1969: 201-215. I.e., Salome’s possessions were neither simply hers nor subject to a Roman governor, but still considered a subset of the Herodian client territory.

I.e., the children other than Archelaus, Antipas, Philip, and those already executed (Antipater, Alexander, Aristobulus). Josephus has given an overview of Herod’s 10 wives (9 plus Mariamme) and children at 1.562-63; see also Kokkinos 1998: 206-45. These appear to be Herod’s daughters by Phaedra and Elpis, respectively Roxane and Salome (1.563), since they are the only ones not yet married according to the narrative. The word rendered “unmarried” is πάρθενος, often translated “virgin.” In antiquity generally, the correlation between being not yet married and being a virgin was assumed to be close, though the word often refers to young women with no special emphasis on their virginity, and it can refer to young women who are not virgins (Homer, Il. 2.514; Pindar, Pyth. 3.34; Sophocles, Trach. 1219; Aristophanes, Nub. 530). To both together, apparently: Ant. 17.322 has each daughter receiving 250,000 pieces. This is the equivalent of 2 million HS, or twice the traditional property requirement of a Roman senator—so, a vast sum. Or drachmae, the standard silver denomination in the Greek world. Pheroras, Herod’s youngest brother (1.181, 308), had died in a Perean exile (5 BCE) imposed by Herod because of Pheroras’ wife’s rebellious activities (1.578-81). According to Ant. 16.194-200, when Herod had offered his daughter Salampsio in marriage to Pheroras, the latter had declined because of his passion for a slave woman, and so the girl was given to a son of Phasael. According to 16.226-28, however, the same girl (apparently) was later betrothed to one of Pheroras’ sons. The sons of Pheroras remain unnamed throughout the narrative, their marital relationships hardly clarified. See Kokkinos 1998: 172-76.

See War 1.646 for the original bequest to Augustus. Ant. 17.323 has 1,500 talents. It would be improper for Caesar to take nothing at all from Herod’s respectful bequest. This description of Herod (ὁ κατοιχόμενος) has a measure of reverence, appropriate to Caesar’s sentiment for a departed friend. Ant. 17.323 clarifies the moral lesson: Caesar kept these things not because of their value but in order to remember the king. The verb κατοίχομαι is not common in Josephus (War 6.3; Ant. 4.256; 19.357, 363, 364), though these 6 occurrences, matching 6 in Plutarch, stand over against only 24 attestations in all Greek literature before Josephus. It seems to be a newly fashionable word.

On young males in Josephus’ narratives, see the Introduction and the note to “youths” at 2.225: as in Thucydides and especially Polybius, they frequently cause problems; see further 2.106. Chapman (1998: 88-90) observes that Josephus often uses τις, as here, “to introduce provocative or exemplary material” by means of an otherwise minor character. In this case, the false Alexander adds yet another strand to the struggles for monarchical succession, which have occupied bk. 2 thus far. There is an ironic dimension to this story, inasmuch as the main contest in Rome has been about Caesar’s recognizing Herod’s legitimate heir(s), as also in this comic-relief episode: all monarchical succession—including even that of Augustus, as Josephus’ audience well knew—must reckon with problem of identifying (or creating) legitimate heirs. See the Introduction and Mason 2008b. For this phrase, see Cohen 1994. An ancient coastal city (known from the Paleolithic era), 27 miles (45 km) S of Beirut (mod. Lebanon), Sidon had been the renowned Phoenician capital, and deeply Hellenized from the 5th-4th centuries BCE. Although it was given autonomy by the Seleucids (111 BCE), and Pompey recognized that status in 63 BCE, this was lost in 20 BCE as a consequence of the city’s having supported Marc Antony’s losing cause. Yet Augustus restored the city and extended its territory E all the way to Mt. Hermon. Sidon was an economic leader in the region, famous for its purple dye and its glass blowing. It was one of the foreign cities Herod had provided with a theater (1.422). In the early 3rd century CE it would receive the status of a Roman colonia, under Elagabalus (a native of Emesa in Syria). The phrasing of MS P is awkward (“by the freedman of the Romans,” παρὰ τῷ τῶν Ῥωμαίων ἀπελευθέρῳ), though perhaps easiest to explain as original on the principle of preferring the “more difficult reading.” MSS LVRC (and M for the most part) have “by a certain one of the Roman freedmen” (παρὰ τίνι ῥωμαικῶν ἐπελευθέρων), which makes easier sense, but is suspect because it conforms the text to Ant. 17.324, though the later work normally varies its phrasing vis-à-vis War. Latin has the ambiguous apud aliquem libertinum romanum. The following story remarkably anticipates, by a century and half, Cassius Dio’s account of a false Alexander [the Great]: active in 221 CE, and resembling the great general of a half-millennium earlier, he gathered much support, including accommodation and provisions, as he moved through Moesia and Thrace (Dio 79.18.1-3). More directly relevant for Josephus’ audience: we know of 3 different characters who pretended to be Nero in the years following that emperor’s suicide (June 68 CE), and Tacitus claims that there were many (Hist. 2.8). The first appeared in 69 CE and impressed people with his singing and lyre-playing, and with his facial resemblance to Nero; he established his strongest following on the Greek island of Cynthos, only about 60 miles (100 km) N of Melos—the stronghold of Josephus’ impostor here (see below): cf. Tacitus, Hist. 2.8; Dio 64.9.3. The second, active in Titus’ reign (79-81 CE), was named Terentius Maximus: Dio 66.19.3. The third, who appeared in the middle of Domitian’s reign (ca. 88-89 CE) was supported by the Parthians as a provocateur (Tacitus, Hist. 2.8; Suetonius, Nero 57.3). See Pappano 1937; Bastomsky 1969; Gallivan 1973; Chilver 1979: 42; esp. Champlin 2003: 10-16.Since at least the first of these impostors must have been known to War’s Roman audience, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Josephus is evoking a parallel—thereby commenting further on the pitfalls of monarchical succession (see Introduction and Mason 2008b). Millar (1964: 214-18) discusses Josephus’ false Alexander in the context of the false Neros described by Cassius Dio.Simonetti (745 n. 147), commenting on the parallel (Ant. 17.324-38), proposes that this episode marks the end of Josephus’ use of Nicolaus as source. In truth, we have no way of knowing whether this story came from Nicolaus. At any rate, Josephus has thoroughly massaged it for his purposes. That is, Herod’s son by Mariamme I, executed with Aristobulus in 8/7 BCE at Sebaste/Samaria for his alleged part in a conspiracy against the king (1.451-52, 550-51). Ant. 17.325 clarifies: this resemblance emboldened him to make a play for power (i.e., assuming Herod’s legacy).

Greek συνεργός. Whereas Ant. 17.325, 334, 336, 337 make it clear that the collaborator is an older man, and the impostor’s teacher—all the more guilty in that he has corrupted a youth—that point is minimized here with the language of collaboration, though it might perhaps be assumed from the conclusion at 2.110 (that only the impostor was fit for labor, whereas the chief culprit was executed). That is, another Judean. Ant. 17.327 suggests that the imposotor was himself carried away by the fraud. See the note to this key term at 1.12. According to Ant. 17.326, one of the men sent to kill the sons had gone so far as to kill others for the purpose of subsituting bodies.

This large and famous Mediterranean island S of the Aegean—the base of pre-historic “Minoan” civilization, home to dozens of cities, and a Roman “senatorial” province together with Cyrenaica after Octavian’s victory at Actium, had hosted a substantial Judean community since at least the 1st century BCE. Cf. Philo, Legat. 281-82 (Crete is one of the places reportedly “full of Judeans”); Schürer-Vermes 3.4-5, 68, 71-72 (for later inscriptions from there). Josephus’ last known wife was from a Cretan-Judean family of some distinction (so Life 427), though the length of their residence on the island is uncertain. Although Josephus uses the cognate noun several times, this is the only occurrence of the verb ἐφοδιάζω in his corpus. Established shipping routes in the Greek and Roman worlds followed coastlines, avoiding the open sea as far as possible (cf. Paul’s perilous trip from Judea to Rome in Acts 27:2-28:1). Josephus’ own route to Rome will place him “in the middle of the Adriatic” (Life 15), which means that his ship also avoided the open water of the Mediterranean. Traveling from the E it was customary to head N from Crete to the Greek islands, of which Melos marked the SW corner.The Melians were famous from, among other things, Thucydides’ Melian dialogue (5.85-113), in which they naively espouse principles of honor and self-respect before a delegation from Athens, failing to grasp the immediate threat posed by the powerful Athenians, who proceed to destroy them. Here is another fashionable term in War. The noun ἀξιοπιστία is rarely attested before Josephus—only in Diodorus (1.23.7; 37.10.1) and Strabo (Geog. 2.1.8). Yet he has it 4 times, 3 in War (1.627; 2.103, 255; cf. Ant. 13.403), in each case with the strong sense of deceptive posturing. In the 2nd century CE the word becomes more popular: 5 times in Galen and pseudo-Galen, 19 in Aristides, also in Numenius, Ptolemy, Sextus Empiricus, and often in the church fathers. (The adjective ἀξιόπιστος has earlier and broader attestation, but it generally lacks the connotation of deception to which the abstract noun lends itself.) See the notes to this verb at 1.5; 2.55. Or “foreign sponsors, friends,” a word (ἰδιόξενος) highlighting the paradox that strangers should be devoted to one’s welfare. In Josephus the word occurs only here and in the parallel episode (Ant. 17.328, 331). The narrative does not imply that the pretender’s foreign friends were Judeans (contrast the situation in Crete). To the contrary, the parallel claims that Melians’ stake was purely financial: thinking that this man was royalty, they expected that he would reward them once he had received his rightful throne (Ant. 17.327)—much, perhaps, as King Herod had lavished funds on Greek cities. In this passage too, at 2.105, 110 Josephus will single out the Melians (in contrast to the Judeans of Crete, Dicaearcheia, and Rome) for ridicule because of their great investment in this shady character.

An old Greek colony on the Bay of Naples, later colonized by the Romans and renamed Puteoli in the early 2nd century BCE: mod. Pozzuoli. Especially given Josephus’ Roman context (see Introduction), it is unclear why he favors the older Greek name, though he does so consistently (Ant. 17.328; 18.160, 248-49; 19.5; Life 16; Puteoli only at Ant. 18.161 and Life 16—both in conjunction with the Greek name). Although it is conceivable that he is influenced by a source (cf. D. R. Schwartz 1990: XV, 6-7, 50, 178), he tends to retain old names for certain sites, even after describing the name change: cf. 2.69 (Samaria), 97 (Strato’s Tower). Further, this might well be part of his Atticizing program in War, or at least his wish to retain a non-Roman, Greek-Eastern perspective, even while addressing Romans. Precisely in describing Dicaearcheia, Strabo (5.4.6-7) does something similar: immediately after describing how the Romans renamed the city Puteoli (Ῥωμαῖοι καὶ μετωνόμασαν Ποτιόλους) at the time of Hannibal, he continues using the Greek name (5.4.7). (On the complexity of Strabo’s cultural identity, see Clarke 1999: 193, 216-44.) In the story time here, under Augustus, Puteoli was the port where ships approaching Rome normally offloaded cargo for transfer to riverboats that would carry it up the Tiber; Ostia, which would become Rome’s main port, had not yet been developed. See the note at Life 16 in BJP 9. The Judean community of Dicaearcheia will reportedly prove important to Josephus personally, when he seeks to find an avenue of access to the Roman court (Life 16). The only (probably) Judean inscription from Puteoli (or if not, from nearby Marano) in the 1st century CE (or slightly later) is JIWE 23, in Latin, recording a gerousiarch named Ti. Claudius Philippus. Farmer (1957-58: 148) observes that this episode (if treated as a historical datum) incidently reveals the continuing prestige of Hasmonean ancestry among Judeans even in the Diaspora. Though translated as a pluperfect the Greek verb is perfect, and matched by the coming vivid present participle: “those who have seen Alexander, and plainly knowing. . . .” Although Josephus’ verb ἐπίσταμαι is normally employed for knowing things rather than people, in 2.106 it will take “Alexander” as direct object, in a phrase nearly identical to this one. Augustus’ aide Celadus (2.106) appears to be in this group. Or “would swear”: following the set-up of this sentence with “to such” and “that” (anticipating result clause), this present infinitive (διόμνυσθαι) might indicate only a potential result rather than a real one. But in 2.105 the same structure is used, and there the result (carrying in a litter and so on) seems real. Although this may sound unbelievably gullible, there are modern parallels. Cf. Welch 2007 on the 20th-century Polish factory worker Franziska Schanzkowska, who impersonated Grand Duchess Anastasia (ironically, her name means “resurrection”) Nikolaevna, alleged survivor of the 1918 massacre that destroyed the Russian Romanovs, persuading even relatives and some family friends. Only the most famous of nearly a dozen claimants to Anastasia’s identity, she became known in America as Anna Anderson. Her claim was not disproven until 1994, a decade after her death, by DNA testing of her remains.

The sarcasm is heightened by a possibly implied comparison with a true leader’s triumphant return: the same language is used of Vespasian’s greeting in Rome at 7.69-71. On the language of spectacle here (ἡ θέα), see Chapman 1998. See the note to this characteristic phrase at 2.43. The city’s crowded alleyways would have been all too familiar to Josephus’ Roman audience; see famously the complaints that Juvenal puts in the mouth of his friend Umbricius, who is fleeing to the more salubrious Cumae (Sat. 3.232-67). Greek φρενοβλάβεια vividly implies damage to the reasoning faculty, in distinction from the more abstract words for madness or fervor such as μανία; this vivid word is also used of Nero’s exploits in the theater at 2.251 below. Neither this noun nor its cognates is widely attested (Herodotus 2.120; Euripides, Frag. oen. 40.5; Hippocrates, Ep. 17.186; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 5.9.2) before Philo, who uses the word group 20 times. Josephus, who has 5 occurrences—in War only (1.625; 2.105, 251; 6.398, 401)—appears to be using newly fashionable language, which occurs then also in Plutarch (Nic. 4.6), Lucian (Syr. dea 18, 43), and later authors. The structure of this sentence is strikingly similar to that of 2.104: past-tense form of ἔρχομαι + εἰς τόσουτον + genitive noun + ὥστε + result clause with present infinitive. Josephus’ repetition of this structure reinforces the sense of astonishment at the impostor’s success. In the sense of paying court by providing an entourage of attendants (θεραπεία). See the note to “attentiveness” at 2.2.

The adverb ἀκριβῶς is not in the best MSS (PAM), though Latin has optime, matching the Greek adverb in MSS LVRC, and the ἀκριβ- word group is favored by Josephus. Greek χαρακτῆρας (accusative) suggests engraving or branding (something dug in), such as on coins. Note the similar usage at Ant. 13.322. The story was in 1.452 (cf. Ant. 16.91): Alexander was accused by Herod, before Caesar, of trying to poison him—a charge that reportedly resulted from his brother Antipater’s machinations. Greek ἀπάτη. War 2 is dense with the language of guile, trickery, fraud, deceit, deception, and dupes—all translations of the word-group (ἀπατάω, ἀπατεών, ἀπάτη), of which the noun is used here. Of the 78 occurrences of these forms in Josephus, 8 are in War 2 and 4 are in the parallel sections of Ant. 20 (160, 167, 188)—nearly a 6th of the whole. Although I could have used English “trick” as a base for all forms (trick[s], the tricked, trickster, trickery/trick) to highlight the consistency in Greek, that would not always convey the most apt sense in a particular context; I indicate the thematic unity with notes. Ant. 17.332 plausibly elaborates: Caesar knew that Herod could not have been so easily deceived in a matter of supreme importance to him. For the pairing of these two words, ironically suggesting futile hope, see 1.616; 6.364 has the adjective ἱλαρός alone in a similar vein. Ant. 17.332 identifies this man as a freedman of Caesar’s, a situation also suggested by his Greek name (“loud noise, din”). Pelletier (29 n. 2) suggests that the name might be a corruption of the Céladon (Keladèn), which appears in Ovid, Met. 5.144; 12.250. But the name does not seem to require special explanation: Solin (2003: 2.1211-12) lists about 60 examples (under the rubric “noise-names”), mostly found among slaves and freedmen. This phrase picks up the category of persons mentioned in 2.104. Thus one assumes that Celadus was among those duped, as Ant. 17.332 makes clear, though the following narrative is far less clear.

The antecedent of this pronoun, hence the subject of the following story, is not clear. Thackeray (in LCL), Pelletier, and M-B take it to be Celadus who immediately detects the fraud on seeing the man, who is irritated by the story concerning Aristobulus, and who offers him his life (in the name of Caesar) if he names his collaborator. The latter half of 2.109 would favor this reading if it meant that the impostor followed Celadus to Augustus (ἕπεται πρὸς Καίσαρα)—implying that he has been with Celadus until this point. The Latin follows this reading, helpfully inserting Celadus’ name (Ladus) twice in 2.109.Problems with such a reading: (a) the simple article for a ponoun here (rather than οὗτος to clarify that it is the last-named character) might more naturally make the subject of the preceding sentence (Caesar) the subject of this one; (b) Celadus’ mission (2.106) appears restricted to bringing the man to Augustus, so that the emperor may interview him and make his deductions; (c) the similarity of language between 2.104 and 2.106 tends to support the claim of Ant. 17.332 that Celadus was among those who [thought they] “knew Alexander plainly” and yet were fooled by him; (d) the brilliant and immediate detection of the plot might suit Caesar better than Celadus; and (e) the parallel at Ant. 17.332-37 makes a sharp distinction between Celadus’ ignorance (in spite of having known the boys) and Caesar’s wise perception, and clearly has Caesar conduct the interview, finally offering him his life. Although Josephus often changes characters and roles in his later version, where the basic plot can be read as harmonious we should read it that way. On balance, we should perhaps favor Caesar (Augustus) as the subject of the sentence. See further the following notes. This recognition scene has parallels going back to the Odyssey (e.g., 21.205-28) in Greek literature, and to the Joseph story in the Bible (cf. Esau and Jacob). Roman comedy also dealt in such revelations, though usually it was the reverse recognition—of an apparent slave as in fact a free man. The adjective δουλοφανής, remarkably, occurs only here in all known Greek literature. Tacitus (Hist. 2.8) says that according to some reports, the first false Nero (see note to “Alexander” at 1.101) was a slave, from Pontus. Outside of Josephus’ reproduction of Strabo’s neutral use of σύνταγμα for a troop (Ant. 14.116), this word has distinctly pejorative connotations in his narratives, as something craftily arranged (War 1.495; 2.172, 290) or, if referring to a group, a band of bandits or similar (τὸ σύνταγμα τῶν λῃστῶν, War 4.135, 509, 513, 558; Ant. 20.161; Life 106).

See the note at 2.8. This rise of intense emotion (absent from the Antiquities parallel) artfully prepares for its resolution in Caesar’s laughter at 2.110: a comic scene, after all. Josephus’ word (τόλμα)—“daring, courage, spiritedness; boldness, audacity, impudence”—can be either a virtue or a vice (2.412; 4.139, 158, 186-88), depending upon context. Often in War it does not fall neatly into either category, but simply indicates rather a manly daring in the face of improbable odds—often of those who drove the rebellion against the aristocrats and Romans (3.14, 22, 149, 161, 176, 228, 452, 479, 498 [of Titus, approvingly]; 4.90; 5.306)—without implying a verdict on their larger undertaking. War uses τόλμα 52 times (the much longer Antiquities only 24); the verb τολμάω 51 times; τόλμημα 10 times; τολμηρός 10 times; and even τολμητής once. Cf. Ant. 6.343-50, where Josephus’ expatiation on Saul’s paradigmatic manliness, courage, and greatness of soul entirely dwarfs his obituary notice concerning Saul’s disobedience to divine commands (6.378; cf. 6.335-36). According to Ant. 17.334 it is Augustus himself who questions the impostor about Aristobulus. Aristobulus was (the real) Alexander’s brother, publicly executed with him on conspiracy charges (cf. 1.540-51). Although in some other literature ἐπίτηδες can suggest deceit (Euripides, Iph. aul. 476), and Josephus might indeed be playing with the two senses here, elsewhere in War (1.82; 2.190; 5.24, 61, 150) the adverb seems to mean only “purposely.” Although the island of Cyprus, a senatorial province at this time (since 22 BCE)—about 250 miles (400 km) NW of Judea in the Mediterranean—appears only here in War, Antiquities describes something of the Judean community there (Ant. 13.284-87, cf. 328, 331, 358). Augustus had reportedly given King Herod control over the copper mines of the island (Ant. 16.128). The theme of separated brothers was standard fare in New and Roman comedy (cf. Plautus’ Menaechmi and Terence’s Adelphi), a circumstance that might add to the comic potential of this story. Although it is well enough attested in earlier authors, with 1-5 occurrences in Euripides, Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle, and Theophrastus, a few more examples in Aristoxenus and fragments of Chrysippus, the verb διαζεύγνυμι is a particular favorite of Philo’s, who has it some 59 times. Josephus uses it 11 times, Galen 39 times.

See the note to “he” at 2.107. Here the Latin clarifies by inserting the name Ladus (for Celadus), though we should perhaps favor Caesar, for reasons given above. The language is ironic, since the princeps was understood to be, and portrayed himself as, the world’s chief patron, benefactor to his millions of dependents (Millar 1977; Saller 1982: 41-78). Although this 3rd-person reference to Caesar might imply that Celadus is speaking, other considerations indicate Augustus himself (see note to “he” at 2.107), in which case it is an imperial self-reference. See the notes to this verb at 1.5; 2.55. See the note to “collaborator” at 2.102: in the Antiquities parallel, this other man is presented as an older teacher. Or “followed him to Caesar.” The language (ἕπεται πρὸς Καίσαρα) is awkward on any reading. Although it is most naturally read such that the impostor has been speaking with Celadus (but see the note to “he” at 2.107), and follows him (understood) in going to Caesar (so Thackeray in LCL, Pelletier, and M-B; cf. the similar constructions at Ant. 1.292; 9.25; 20.97), that would not make perfect sense of the context, for the eventual going to Caesar would have no substance: he follows to Caesar and points out the culprit (Was the culprit with Caesar?). The Latin, though assumming that Celadus (Ladus) has been the interlocutor all along, nevertheless gives ad caesarem at ladum sequitur, suggesting that Pseudalexander follows both of them as he proceeds to identify the culprit. Much more clearly Ant. 17.337, which has had Pseudalexander speaking with Caesar all along, now has him explain the whole scheme—without the confusing stage movements. On balance it seems best to follow Whiston’s “followed Caesar” (who has been speaking with him all along). See the note to “collaborator” at 2.102. Whereas Ant. 17. 332-38 presents the partner as an older mentor and evil genius, this passage ultimately puts the fraud down to a money-making scheme. Although the better MSS (PAM) omit the negative, leaving a straight comparison of gifts received by Alexander and his impostor, the negative found in the Latin (non accepisset) and MSS LVRC seems to fit the humorous atmosphere slightly better. This is in quotation marks because the next sentence precludes the possibility that this sentence is a straightforward editorial observation. The quoted words might begin as early as “exploited . . . .” If it is correct that Caesar (not Celadus) has been speaking with the impostor thus far, then it must be Pseudalexander who provokes the emperor’s laughter. Alternatively, Celadus has been speaking all along and the words are his—in contrast to Ant. 17.332-38.

Curiously, this verb (ἐγκατατάσσω) occurs only here and again in the next sentence (2.111) in Josephus—another example of his habit of using a word once or twice and then discarding it (see BJP 9. lii). This verb is rare before Josephus’ time: the geographer Hipparchus (Geog. frag. 63.9); twice in Ps-Longinus (Subl. 10.7.5; 43.4.1)—variously dated from 1st to 3rd centuries CE; and in Onasander’s mid-1st century book on generalship (Strat. 10.3.14). Russell and Winterbottom (1972: 461) note the parallels between Longinus and Philo. Perhaps Josephus had some of the same literary influences: there are many parallels to Philo’s diction throughout War 2. The comic atmosphere of this episode is enhanced by Josephus’ obviously made-up name (we never learn the man’s real name, even from Ant. 17.336 where Augustus demands: “Simply tell me who you yourself actually are. . . !”). This name recalls the Pseuderakles of Menander (mentioned, e.g., by Plutarch, Mor. 59c). Presumably, Augustus made the impostor a slave. On the good conditioning required for rowing, cf. Polybius 10.17.12-15, describing Scipio’s treatment of his prisoners from the capture of New Carthage in 210 BCE: “he selected those whose strength, appearance, and age made them most suitable and mixed them in with his ships’ crews.” Slaves were assigned to the crews of warships, and could hope for their eventual freedom (as Polybius notes). The Roman state did not operate a merchant marine, which depended upon private enterprise (Aldrete and Mattingly 1999: 177-92). See the notes to this verb at 1.5; 2.55. That is, the collaborator of 2.102; this phrase picks up the language of Caesar’s offer in 2.109. Although this sentence makes the collaborator responsible for the whole affair, as does the parallel in Ant. 17.324-38, he was introduced in 2.102 as responsible for the fabricated story about switched bodies. It is unclear whether Josephus intends this as his own editorial remark or rather as part of Augustus’ assessment (“were deemed adequate punishment. . . .”). It is possible that the alleged stupidity continues to play upon this island’s image from Thucydides’ Melian dialogue (see note to “Melos” at 2.103), although there they are more naïve than gullible.

Josephus finally resumes the main succession narrative that began bk. 2, picking up the story left at 2.93, before the digression on the false Alexander. Although he has been de facto ruler of Judea since his father’s death, it is crucial to the story’s themes that Archelaus only now “receives” the rule from Caesar (e.g., 2.2-3). Josephus has not made the precise nature of these differences clear. Some are perhaps the controversies of 2.5-13, except that Archelaus there appears to have justice on his side, in dealing with determined revolutionaries after his patience is exhausted. This passage implies more extensive conflicts, perhaps dating (cf. “old”) from the period of his father Herod’s reign. Other enemies of Archelaus may include supporters of his brother Antipas’ royal candidacy and the rebel leaders of 2.55-65 (note 2.63-64). This notice comes as a surprise because in the preceding narrative the Samarians were emphatically not part of the revolts that broke out in Archelaus’ absence (2.69); their loyalty had earned them substantial tax relief (2.96). Moreover, they seem to have been conspicuously supportive of the Herodian regime in the past (see note to “Samaria” at 2.69). Simonetti (746 n. 152) observes that the appearance of embassies from both Judeans and Samarians is an index to a broad perception of misrule. On “Samarians,” see 2.232 and notes. According to Strabo (16.2.46) and Cassius Dio (55.27.6), Archelaus’ brothers Antipas and Philip, who had challenged him for the kingship in 4 BCE, also traveled to Rome in 6 CE, to defend their own administrations and to join in the accusation of Archelaus. Kokkinos (1998: 228 n. 84) adduces in support inscriptional evidence (OGIS 417) of a trip to Rome by Antipas in that year. Ant. 17.342 notes that the delegates justified their embassies on the ground that Archelaus disobeyed the stern charge from Caesar, at his appointment, to exercise mildness. Caesar’s charge is implied at War 2.93. The parallel at Ant. 17.342 (as also Life 5) corrects this to the tenth year, or 6 CE—a case in which the later work evidently depends on this one (rather than Josephus’ abbreviating sources here that are more fully or accurately presented in Antiquities). Kokkinos (1998: 228 n. 83) and Pelletier (30 n. 2, 204-5) note Dio 55.27.6: Archelaus was banished during the consulate of Aemilius Lepidus and Lucius Arruntius = 6 CE. On Archelaus’ removal cf. Smallwood 1981: 117. Remarkably, this sentence fragment is all that Josephus records of Archelaus’ 10-year rule in War (aside from the occult episode following), in sharp contrast to its detailed treatment of the succession issue, which has occupied most of 2.1-110. This emphasis on succession can hardly be accidental, since Josephus presumably has some information about Archelaus’ decade-long reign; in Ant. 17.339-41 he at least describes a few of the ethnarch’s achievements (including the removal and appointment of high priests and building projects). In War he chooses to focus all but exclusively on the succession entanglements, in keeping with his deep interest in matters of governance and constitution, aristocracy, kingship, and tyranny (a major theme of War); see Introduction and Mason 2008b. Banishment from the city where one’s ancestry, identity, and status were grounded, even if the place of exile was fairly comfortable in itself, was considered a shameful and severe punishment for a member of the élite, who would identify closely with the leadership of his own state; cf. 1.661. Vienna (or Vienne) was a significant city on the Rhone River (SE modern France), across the Alps from Italy in Gallia Narbonensis. It lay on the highway just S of the Roman capital of the 3 Gauls: Lugdunum. This Vienna had fallen to the Romans in 121 BCE and been made a colonia with Latin rights by Julius Caesar after his visits in 58 and 52 BCE. Relocation from the extreme E of the empire to the extreme (and Latin-speaking) W emphasized Archelaus’ displacement from all the social networks and avenues of influence that had been the basis of his status in Jerusalem. On Archelaus’ exile cf. Strabo 16.2.46; Dio 55.27.6. The Herodian royal property in Judea has been an issue of ongoing contention: Augustus’ immediate seizure of it may be intended to preclude Sabinus’ renewed efforts to interfere: cf. 2.16-19. Herod’s last known intention (1.646) was to bequeath only 1,000 talents, along with unnamed other gifts, to Augustus (in that case, presumably, to his personal patrimonium; see note to “treasuries” in this section). See the note to this word in 2.110. This phrase (τοῖς Καίσαρος θησαυροῖς) appears to represent the Latin fisci Caesaris (cf. Ant. 18.158; 19.28, where the form is singular), though Josephus is the only literary source for the Greek phrase. In the late Republic all public revenue and expenses had been channeled through the aerarium Saturni, the state treasury, which could be used only by senatorial decree. Each province also held a “chest” (fiscus—lit. “basket”) for local revenue and disbursement at the discretion of the governor, who had to reconcile his accounts with the aerarium on returning to Rome. Finally, the wealthy Roman élite also enjoyed their personal fisci. Since Augustus and his successors in the principate became in effect governors of all their provinces (i.e., their single provincia), they took control of the provincial fisci, a major source of state income, and their appointees controlled the aerarium. As wealthy men, each also had his personal fisci (privatum or patrimonium). It has been a matter of energetic scholarly debate whether —and if so, when—the early emperors also came to control a separate public treasury called the fiscus, or whether the word was simply co-opted, confusingly, for “the whole financial administration controlled by the emperor” (A. H. M. Jones 1950: 25): his personal estate, which often supplemented the aerarium, the latter also being sustained by the provincial fisci. Beginning at least with Tiberius (but probably already Augustus) the princeps appointed a Chief Accountant (a rationibus) to manage his public income and expenditures. Cf. inter alios Frank 1933; Syme 1939: 410; Rostovtzeff 1957: 54-56; Masi 1971; Brunt 1990: 134-62; Alpers 1995; Lo Cascio 2000; Millar 2004: 47-72. Crucial primary texts include Seneca, Ben. 7.6.3; Pliny, Pan. 42.1; Cassius Dio 69.8.1; 71.32.2.Although Josephus does not explain here whether Archelaus’ property was held and leased or liquidated, Ant. 17.355 claims that the new Syrian legatus Quirinius sold the property. On Jones’ model (1950; cf. 1937: 120-21), the proceeds might well have remained in the provincial fiscus for imperial use, though Millar (2004: 62) takes Josephus’ construction to imply confiscation to the emperor’s personal estate (fiscus).

According to Ant. 17.345 it was Archelaus who related this dream to his friends. Archelaus’ dream anticipates, in form and content, the momentous dreams later in Josephus concerning high office, involving the biblical Joseph (Ant. 2.64-86) and Daniel (Ant. 10.195-210) as dream-interpreters. Like this one, Pharaoh’s dream— interpreted by Joseph—is about oxen and stalks of grain (Ant. 2.81-86); Nebuchadnezzar’s, interpreted by Daniel, likewise involves the unsuccessful efforts of seers, Chaldeans, and Magi. Without providing comparable specifics in his own case, Josephus will nonetheless identify himself as an unparalleled interpreter of dreams (War 3.351-53; 4.623-29; cf. Gray 1993: 35-79). Such dreams are by no means confined to the biblical world. Cf. Oppenheim 1956; Gnuse 1996. The future emperor Julian confided, in a letter before his accession (Ep. 14), a dream concerning a great tree, fallen, and a young tree rising strong beside it—though he professed to have no idea of the vision’s significance. Introducing a dream report with “he imagined [or thought he saw, δοκέω]” was common in Greek accounts; see J. S. Hanson 1980: 1409. So also, in the context of Joseph’s dream interpretation, Ant. 2.71, 81. For detailed analysis of these two dreams, see Gnuse 1996: 193ff. In keeping with its adjustment of Archelaus’ tenure as ethnarch to 10 years (Ant. 17.342), Antiquities (17.345) will also change the number of stalks to 10! Josephus uses here the old Attic plural στάχυς, in keeping with the Atticizing tendencies of the War, whereas in LXX Gen 41.7; Matt 12:1; Mark 2:23; Luke 6:1 the form is στάχυας, which Josephus will use in the Joseph story (Ant. 2.83). The fullness and size of the grain (but moreso the oxen) is paralleled in the Joseph story: Ant. 2.81-83. Josephus uses this intensified compound verb (καταβιβρώσκω) only here. Cf. the oxen in Pharaoh’s dream at Ant. 2.81. Since Judas the Essaeus has been called a seer (μάντις) at War 1.78 (cf. Ant. 13.311), this general category may include Simon here. Although Chaldeans (Aram. Kaldaya, from the land of Kaldu) were originally the inhaibitants of a land in S. Babylonia, part of the Arsacid Parthian empire when Josephus was writing, already by the time of Herodotus (1.181, 183) the name had come also to refer specifically to Babylonian priests (magi) with expert knowledge of various occult sciences: astrology, prediction based upon astrological signs, and magic (Polybius 43.2.7; Strabo, Geog. 16.1.6 [cf. 1.2.15]; Lucian, Fug. 8; Pausanias 4.32.4). Such Chaldeans and magi were well known in Rome (Cicero, Div. 1.2, 91; 2.70; Juvenal, Sat. 6.533; Apuleius, Met. 2.12-14; Apol. 97; Hist. Alex. Magn. 5.1.22): long ridiculed by some as charlatan practitioners of an irrational science (Cicero, Div. 2.87-100; Tacitus, Ann. 2.27; 3.22; 12.22, 52, 68), but also feared by those in power for their potential to predict doom (Tacitus, Ann. 6.20; 14.9; 16.14). Tacitus alleges that the emperor Tiberius had trained in Chaldean skills while living in Rhodes (Ann. 6.20). Though somewhat unexpected in Archelaus’ Judean court (they appear only here in War), these Chaldeans anticipate Josephus’ story of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar in Ant. 10.194-99. There—the only other passage in Josephus where μάντεις (seers) and Chaldeans are mentioned together—the same groups are summoned (pleonastically with magi) to explain Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, with the same lack of success as here, except that there they are shown up by the gifted Judean Daniel rather than by an Essene. Cf. Gnuse 1996: 132 and the literature there. Although it is not entirely implausible that Archelaus kept Chaldeans or other seers in his court for such purposes, one must suspect literary manipulation, or some kind of transfer from the Daniel story (in his own mind, at least), on Josephus’ part.The story might also have gained force from recent events. About a decade before Josephus’ time of writing, the Persian Tiridates (about to receive the throne of Armenia from Nero) came to Rome: he and some of his entourage were magi. Nero reportedly took advantage of their presence to try to raise the shades of his murdered mother Agrippina; their failure led him to denounce magi as frauds (Pliny, Nat. 30.4-7; cf. Suetonius, Nero 34).

Greek Ἐσσαῖος τὸ γένος: or “by ancestry, origin, birth, race, tribe, group, bloc, class, kind.” Both parts present interpretative problems. On Ἐσσαῖος: When he speaks of Essenes, Josephus habitually uses one Greek spelling for the singular (Ἐσσαῖος: War 1.78; this passage; 3.11; Ant. 13.311; 17.346) and another for the plural (Ἐσσηνοί: War 2.119, 158, 160; 5.145; Ant. 13.171-73, 298; 15.372-78; 18.18-22; Life 10-12); see Excursus above and table. Only once does he use the plural Ἐσσαῖοι (Ant. 15.371-78), and that is only to explain that the group is known by this term among Judeans, but then goes on to use the familiar Ἐσσηνοί for his Greek-speaking audience. The easiest explanation of the variation, then, seems to be that the name of the Essenes was already known in the n-form, and so he accommodated his audience’s expectation; but when he referred to an individual, since there was no established usage in Greek and Latin, and it sounded odd to call someone an Ἐσσηνός—a form that might also have distracting resonances (cf. Callimachus, Iov. 66; Aet. fr. 178 l. 23; Herodian, Pros. cath. 3.1.15.5, 16; Suda s.v.) —, he had nothing to lose by using the Semitic -ai form for the singular.Support for this explanation comes from the following. (a) Whereas Christian and other Judean authors (the NT authors and early rabbis) mention only Pharisees and Sadducees among the voluntary associations of Judea, writers with more historical-ethnographical interests mention only Essenes and neither of the others: Philo (Prob. 57-71; Hypothetica, in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.11-12 [379-84]), Pliny the Elder (Nat. 5.73), and Dio of Prusa (in Synesius, Dio 3.2). So anyone who knew Pliny’s or Dio’s work, for example, might remember the name Esseni. (b) In this work directed at an audience in Rome (1.1-8), Josephus also devotes by far the largest amount of space to the Essenes, beginning with a reference to their reputation (2.119) and making a point of their Judean ancestry, perhaps considering that that was not widely known (cf. repeated gens in Pliny, Nat. 5.73). (c) Whereas Philo, a fellow-Ioudaios, consistently uses the -aios- form for both singular and plural, in keeping with Josephus’ explanation, the Greek and Latin authors mentioned use only the n-form (they lack examples of the singular): they knew them as Esseni and Ἐσσηνοί, which explains his choice of this plural in spite of what he describes as native usage. (d) Pausanias (8.13.1) mentions priests and priestesses of the goddess Artemis who spend their lives in purity (including sexual) and do not take baths, and certain “banquet hosts” (ἱστιάτορες) in Ephesus who follow the same lifestyle for a year only, and are known to the citizens there as “Essenes” (καλουμένους . . . Ἐσσῆνας). Whether Josephus’ audience had heard of the Judean Essenes (Essaioi, Essenoi) or not, it seems that he used the –n plural to meet an audience expectation.The Aramaic or Hebrew term underlying Essaios remains a subject of debate. Proposals have included: “secret ones” (‮חשאים‬‎ [Kohler 1901-1906: 230-32; cf. 2.137-42]), “healers” (‮חסיא‬‎ [Vermes 1960]), “pious ones” (‮חסין‬‎, ‮חסיא‬‎ ; cf. Heb. ‮חסידים‬‎), and “doers [of the Torah]” (from ‮עושה התורה‬‎ [Goranson 1984]; see Grabbe 1992: 496-97; VanderKam 1994: 91-92). A complication: at least in the case of John the Ἐσσαῖος at War 2.567 and 3.11, the label seems to indicate his origin in a place called Essa: the commanders named with John are described as Niger the Perean (i.e., from Perea, by γένος in 2.567) and Silas the Babylonian. When John is called the Ἐσσαῖος, therefore, the label would naturally be read as indicating an origin in “Essa.” Essa is attested in Josephus as an alternative name for Gerasa in the Decapolis (Ant. 14.393; cf. War 1.104), which was home to a famous Pythagorean writer on mathematics and music (Nicomachus).It may be significant, then, that Josephus compares Essenes with Pythagoreans (cf. Taylor 2004) just where he mentions the Essa name (Ant. 15.371)—if the group’s name in fact arose from a place (so Bergmeier 1998, but with a different Essa in view). Just as “Chaldean” had come to mean something quite different from its original geographical referent (see note at 2.112), the name Ἐσσαῖος might have come to the Essenes from an old geographical origin but changed its meaning over time. As Cicero must explain concerning the Chaldeans, their name derives not from their currently well-known abilities but from their ancestry (non ex artis sed ex gentis vocabulo nominati; Div. 1.2).The second, possibly related puzzle is τὸ γένος. Normally, Josephus uses this phrase to indicate one’s place of origin, ancestry, or birth—especially in the phrase Ἰουδαῖος τὸ γένος, a “Judean by birth [or ancestry]”; see Cohen 1994. Just a few sentences further on, the Essenes will be described as Ἰουδαῖοι γένος ὄντες. The word γένος, moreover, occurs regularly in conjunction with Ἐσσαῖος: at War 1.78 (of Judas the Essene), Ant. 13.311 (of Judas), and 17.346 (of Simon, as here). This would fit with the speculation above about the geographical origin of the name; it may be relevant that Pliny the Elder apparently regarded the Esseni as a distinct tribe or even race (gens twice: Nat. 5.73), except that he also mentions their practice of self-perpetuation by taking in outsiders (so, not a tribe). Josephus speaks of their adopting others’ children (War 2.120), which would make it difficult to understand γένος in the sense of tribe or ancestral group. Philo (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.11 [379b]) pointedly rejects the term γένος on the ground that the Essenes are a voluntary organization, though his conscious rejection of the term might confirm that others were using it—as Pliny would use gens.To complicate matters: in some cases Josephus uses γένος of a philosophical school, apparently meaning in that case only “kind,” “type,” or genus of a species (cf. εἴδη, “forms” [of philosophy]” at War 2.119). Thus in Ant. 13.172 he uses γένος of the Essenes, where he is contrasting the three Judean schools on their philosophical views: there it seems to be merely an alternative to αἵρεσις (“school, party, faction”) in the previous sentence. At Ant. 15.371 says that the γένος of Essaioi, “as they are called among us,” follow the way of life taught to the Greeks by Pythagoras. But it is not only the Essenes: at Ant. 13.297 the Sadducees are a γένος. Possibly, Josephus is playing language games, using the familiar designation of the Essenes while implicitly qualifying it by his narrative. However these problems are resolved, this use of τὸ γένος for Simon the Essene does match Josephus’ usage elsewhere, and the introduction of an Essaios here helps to prepare for the long passage on the Ἐσσηνοί that soon follows (2.119-61). Josephus often discusses the remarkable Essene ability, singularly and collectively, to predict the future: War 1.78; Ant. 13.311; 15.372-78; 17.346; cf. War 2.136 on other occult powers. Greek μεταβολὴν πραγμάτων, repeated later in this sentence (in plural). The motif “reversals [or upheavals, of fortune]” is fundamental to War (see the notes to “upheaval” at 1.5, 23 and the Introduction). This particular cliché—reversal of circumstances—was established in the Athenian orators (Isocrates, Pan. 138; Areop. 6; Antid. 161; Aeschines, Ctes. 79) and Aristotle (Ep. 3; Rhet. 1371a; Div. Arist. 49). Historians before Josephus who use the phrase fairly often are his model Polybius (3.3.2; 9.23.4, 26.6; 30.8), Diodorus (19.52.6, 59.6; 20.60.2, 102.3; 26.12.2), and Dionysius (Ant. rom. 8.25.3; Din. 3.54). Philo has the phrase several times (Post. Cain. 109; Gig. 28; Abr. 81; Spec. 2.67) and Plutarch exploits its dramatic possibilities in his Lives: Publ. 1.3; Per. 9.1; Timol. 14.4; Pel. 13.7; Mar. 42.1, 45.9; 11.7; Nic. 19.10; Alex. 17.1; Cato Min. 53.3; Demetr. 30.4; 41.8; Arat. 17.6; Artax. 21.5. Josephus also uses it several times (Ant. 8.235; 15.264; 17.346-47; 18.118; Life 26, 87; cf. War 2.259). This elaboration, that oxen are connected with ploughing, anticipates Joseph’s explanation of Pharaoh’s dream at Ant. 2.84. The verb he uses for ploughing, ἀροτριάω, occurs only here in his corpus and it is very rare in classical and Hellenistic Greek literature (Aesop, Fab. 299.1; Theophrastus, Caus. plant. 4.12.13; Hist. plant. 8.6.3; Callimachus, Dian. 161), though common in the LXX (15 times), Philo (Spec. 4.205), and NT (1 Cor 9:10; Luke 17:7). More standard is the ἀρόω used in the parallel at Ant. 17.347. Although the preceding story has emphasized that Archelaus did not hold the office of king, but only that of ethnarch (2.2-3, 30-32, 37-38, 93-100 and notes), Josephus can use βασιλεία-language loosely in relation to Archelaus when it suits his purpose, as here (cf. Ant. 18.93; Life 5). Moreover, given the many parallels between Archelaus’ dream and the dreams of Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar (see note to “this” at 2.112), he may be deliberately assimilating Archelaus to the role of the potentate who has a fateful dream interpreted by a pious Judean. MSS PMV give a variant spelling (followed by Niese but not by Thackeray) ἀσταχύων (rather than σταχύων). Although it makes no difference to the English translation, this form of the word recalls the famous story of Periander in Herodotus 5.92 (z.2) receiving cryptic advice from Thrasybulus on how to rule (by lopping off the conspicuous stalks—there, rivals for power). It is not certain that Archelaus died in this Gallic exile: he may have returned to Judea in the 20s CE. Cf. Kokkinos 1988: 228-29. According to Ant. 17.343, Augustus sent Archelaus’ agent in Rome, also named Archelaus, to fetch the ethnarch. There it is the agent’s arrival in Judea that occurs 5 days after the ethnarch’s dream.

This Archelaus bore the name of his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather—the first a general of Mithradates VI. His father, married to a former escort named Glaphyra, had become caught up in the Roman civil wars to his great disadvantage (Cicero, Fam. 15.4.6; Strabo 12.537, 558). With the support of Marc Antony, however, the Archelaus who was that man’s son and Glaphyra’s father was made king of Cappadocia in 36 BCE (Appian, Bell civ. 5.7; Dio 49.32.3); he was of the same vintage as Herod, whom he outlived to become a favorite of Augustus. The princeps both recognized his rule and enlarged his kingdom. Because of his friendship with Tiberius’ rival Gaius, in old age and failing health Archelaus would be summoned by Tiberius to Rome, to face charges of treason (17 CE); there he died, after aquittal, at which point his kingdom became a Roman province (Suetonius, Tib. 8.37; Tacitus, Ann. 2.42).War 1 has said quite a bit about King Archelaus, featuring his personal intervention and trip to Judea when Glaphyra’s well-being was jeopardized by Herod’s anger with her husband, Herod’s son Alexander (1.499-512). In that story King Archelaus appears as a master diplomat and psychologist, effecting multiple reconciliations through clever ploys. This marriage (ca. 17 BCE) was described in War 1.446 (cf. Ant. 16.11). According to War 1.476-77; Ant. 16.193, 206-10, Glaphyra was fully a part of the dissension in Herod’s court, not least because of her vocal claim to independent noble ancestry. She and Alexander produced two sons, Tigranes and Alexander (War 1.552). More precisely step-brother: whereas Alexander had been the son of Herod and the Hasmonean Mariamme I, Archelaus was the son of Herod and the Samarian Malthace (War 1.562-63). The death of Alexander (with his brother Aristobulus), in 8 or 7 BCE, was recounted in War 1.550-51: they were strangled in Sebaste/Samaria on Herod’s orders. Herod reportedly sent Alexander’s widow Glaphyra back to her father in Cappadocia with her dowry (War 1.553). Josephus has just told the story of Pseudalexander, which begins with the reminder that Herod had eliminated his son Alexander (2.101), and at 2.178, 222 Josephus will recall the point repeatedly—constantly alluding to the pitfalls of monarchical succession. On Josephus’ use of either the editorial “we” or the 3rd person to describe himself in the War, like Caesar (e.g., Bell. civ. 3.10) but unlike Herodotus and Thucydides, see the Introduction.

Caius Iulius Iuba, King Juba II of Mauretania (ca. 50 BCE – 23 [19/20?] CE), was a Roman citizen who had unusually close connections with the capital (cf. PIR2 4.118 no. 65); he normally used the Latin REX IUBA on his coins. His father Juba I, king of Numidia (to the E of Mauretania), had played a prominent role in the Roman civil wars as a partisan of Pompey the Great, raising forces against Julius Caesar with Cato and Scipio; he and Cato committed suicide in 46 BCE following Pompey’s defeat at Thapsus. In his triumph Caesar exhibited the infant son (b. 48 BCE) in place of the dead father. Brought up in Rome as a ward of, and later soldier under, Octavian/Augustus, who granted him citizenship (D. Roller 2003: 59-75; cf. Braund 1984: 16-17), Juba II was given the kingship of Mauretania (modern Morocco and NW Algeria) in 25 BCE, which he seems to have held until his death, apparently in 23/24 CE (cf. Strabo 17.3.7; Dio 51.15.6; 53.26.2; 55.28.3; Plutarch, Ant. 87; D. Roller 2003: 244).Augustus gave Juba II Cleopatra Selene, daughter of the deceased Antony and Cleopatra and ward of the emperor’s sister Octavia (Roller 2003: 76-90). Although Cleopatra had been raised in Rome, like Juba, she may not have been as Romanized as he; at least the coins with her name on the reverse (in Greek) express keen awareness of her Ptolemaic royal lineage. A scholar and prolific writer (D. Roller 2003: 163-211, 261-63), Juba II was near 50 when he married Alexander’s widow Glaphyra, about 12 years his junior. The connections among African, Egyptian, and Judean royals illustrate Braund’s observation (1984: 17) that the Roman education of foreign nobility in the early empire promoted not merely the integration of client kings with Rome, but also of one royal family with another.D. Roller has sketched plausible circumstances for this marriage to Glaphyra (2003: 212-26). Juba II was one of 3 scholar-diplomats designated by Augustus to assist Gaius Caesar, the emperor’s grandson and heir-apparent (cf. War 2.25), in his Arabian-Parthian expedition, which began in 2 BCE (cf. Pliny, Nat. 12.56; 32.10). Another member of the group was Glaphyra’s father Archelaus. (Other members of the entourage were M. Lollius, P. Sulpicius Quirinius [later legate of Syria], and L. Aelius Seianus.) Roller argues that, although Juba II did not likely travel extensively with Gaius, he did make the journey E to the Arabian Gulf, perhaps leaving the expedition in 1 CE. From 2 CE he would have moved to Archelaus’ Cappadocian territory, “to write his report [On Arabia—known from fragments and citations in Pliny, above] in Archelaos’ library and to marry Glaphyra” (D. Roller 2003: 226). In that case, Glaphyra need never have accompanied Juba to his Mauretanian kingdom: the brief marriage would have ended with his departure from Cappadocia in 4 CE (D. Roller 2003: 248). Libya was not the name of an administrative district before the 3rd century CE, but a convenient label for the vast region of N Africa (mod. Morocco, N Algeria, Tunisia, Libya) formerly dominated by Carthage (Herodotus 4.181, 196), and incorporating several Roman provinces or client kingdoms through the 1st century CE (Cyrene, Africa, Numidia, and the Mauretanias). In his survey, Strabo thus describes Libya as the land that extends from Egypt (to the E) and Ethopia (to the S) all the way along the Mediterranean to the Straits of Gibraltar (2.5.33). At 6.4.2 he remarks: “Both Mauretania [Maurousia] and also many parts of the rest of Libya have been transferred to Iuba [NB: still living, but cf. 17.3.7], on account of his good will and friendship toward the Romans.” Strabo devotes a lengthy final section of his survey to all these areas, under the heading of “Libya” (17.3). One of Juba’s own major studies was the Libyka; for other Greek authors on Libya see Ottone 2002. Here οὗ τελευτήσαντος; at Ant. 17.349, μεταστάντος. Josephus is mistaken in having Juba die at this point and portraying Glaphyra as “returning” (to Cappadocia?) a “widow.” Juba II lived until about 23/24 CE—Strabo mentions his recent death as he composes the final book of his Geographica (17.3.7), and his coins continue to the 48th regnal year (from 25 BCE)—, long after the story time here (Mazard 1955: 87, no. 187; Kokkinos 1998: 228 n. 81; D. Roller 2003: 244-45). Juba II and Glaphyra must therefore have divorced around 4 CE, an event that Roller (note to “Ioba” in this section) plausibly connects with the king’s return to Mauretania from Cappadocia. It would perhaps have enhanced Josephus’ (Alexander’s) case against Glaphyra (that the marriage to Juba should have sufficed, 2.116) if he had known that divorce rather than death had ended that marriage.Roller offers an explanation for Josephus’ error, on the basis of the two Greek terms (above): Whereas his source—likely Nicolaus—had spoken of Juba’s “departure” using the common sense of μεθίστημι (“change position, move, shift”), Josephus misunderstood the word (on account of imperfect Greek) as death, a possible but uncommon metaphorical sense. He did this both when he made Glaphyra a widow of Juba, in Antiquities and more clearly here in War, using the verb τελευτάω (“finish life, expire”) of Juba. Ingenious though this theory is, it presents problems. War is an impressive Greek production. Just where Josephus has the collaboration of learned Greek associates, in War (Apion 1.50), he is supposed to have misunderstood his source, even though he uses the same verb himself in the ordinary sense of “travel” or “move away” (War 2.22; 3.399—of his own life story); in Antiquities, where he consistently varies the language of War, he happens to fall back on the precise diction of his source (Nicolaus) and yet still considers Glaphyra a “widow”; and throughout Antiquities too he uses the verb dozens of times in its normal sense.We know that Josephus made a mistake, then; we do not know why. It may simply result from his assumption, without knowledge of the circumstances of Juba’s career, that Glaphyra had been with him in Mauretania, and so would most likely have left at his death. That is: to Cappadocia, a return implied also at Ant. 17.350, where Cappadocia is connected only with her widowhood. But see previous notes above. This alleged widowhood of Glaphyra, temptress of this story, may in part be configured to evoke the image of Dido from Virgil’s Aeneid; see the following notes. The erotic gaze is a well attested feature of ancient poetry and novelistic writing. See Hirt 2001 and, for novelistic-erotic elements in Josephus generally, Braun 1934; Moehring 1957. Archelaus must have been traveling through Cappadocia (or Cilicia), like Juba before him, perhaps on a trip to Rome, in about 4 or 5 CE; cf. Kokkinos 1998: 227. In War, eros (ἔρως) has appeared most prominently in Josephus’ descriptions of Antony’s passion for Cleopatra (1.243, 359) and of Herod’s for Mariamme (1.436 twice, 440, 441, 442, 444, 484; cf. Pheroras’ troubles at 1.484, 506). The precedent of Antony and Cleopatra has special significance, partly because it was still so infamous for a Roman audience, partly because Josephus may be evoking here the affair of Dido and Aeneas from the Aeneid, which was partly inspired by that fateful love. In classical literature eros is generally a destructive, tormenting force; this is clear also for Josephus’ Herod (1.436-444) and Antony (1.243, 359-60). In the Aeneid, Eros disguised as Ascanius/Iulus makes Dido fall in love with Aeneas (1.657); thus Dido eventually breaks her oath to remain faithful to her first husband Sychaeus (4.552: non servata fides cineri promissa Sychaeo). She “marries” Aeneas, though he disavows the bond before leaving her behind. Virgil (4.257) and Dido (4.314-321) both emphasize the “Libyan” locale of this marriage, and it is conceivable that Josephus links Juba with Libya in order to strengthen the evocation. Greek ἀποπέμπω (as of Josephus’ own divorce at Life 426); the parallel at Ant. 17.350 is stronger: “threw out” (ἐκβάλλω). It is uncertain whether Archelaus would have followed Judean or Roman divorce procedures, though in either case Josephus’ audience would presumably have understood this as an impetuous action by the ruler. On Roman divorce, see Rawson 1991 and Treggiari 1991: 435-82. The identity of this Mariamme is uncertain. Kokkinos (1998: 264-65) makes a good case for Mariamme III-IV, the daughter of Aristobulus and Berenice (1.552), hence sister of Agrippa I. If that is correct (cf. Pelletier 205 n. 9, citing doubts of T. Reinach and A. Schalit), Archelaus’ marriage to her must have been brief indeed, since she seems only to have been born in about 14 BCE, and so was not yet 20 when he divorced her for Glaphyra; cf. Ant. 17.350. Josephus includes several stories of powerful men who “took” women for themselves on the basis of lustful observation (e.g., Ant. 18.109-10: Antipas and Herodias; 20.141-42: Felix and Drusilla; cf. 7.130-31: David and Bathsheba). Inasmuch as passion prevails over virtue, all such events appear to be implicitly wrong for Josephus and his audience (even if they serve to spice the narrative). Although he restrains any editorial condemnation, Josephus often points out the disastrous cosequences of such passion-indulgence, as here. Contrast the behavior of the Essenes in the portrait that soon follows: 2.120.

If the comparison with Dido and Aeneas (see previous notes) holds, then Alexander speaks in a role recalling that of Dido’s dead husband Sychaeus, though the latter does not make such an indignant appearance: he and Dido reunite in the underworld at Aen. 6.473-74; at 4.460-61, after Dido decorates a sanctuary in his honor, she seems to hear the voices and words of her husband calling; at 1.353-59 he tells her how he was murdered and how she can escape. See the note to “erotic state” at 2.115. But see the notes to “Ioba” and following in 2.115: it is more likely, also given the absence of African evidence for Glaphyra, that she never lived with her husband in Mauretania. A paradoxical statement, since Glaphyra has reportedly married Archelaus after the Libyan’s death. Nevertheless, the Greek is a plain indicative imperfect, not subjunctive (“the Libyan marriage should have sufficed for you”): the aggrieved and domineering husband seems to declare that one remarriage was enough, the limit of her entitlement, though meaning that it should have sufficed. Alexander’s complaint might sound more reasonable if he (or Josephus) had known that Glaphyra’s marriage to Juba had ended in divorce (see the note to “expired” at 2.115), so that she might be portrayed as willfully pursuing serial marriages. Others understandably translate with the subjunctive or conditional perfect: “Le mariage africain aurait dû te suffire” (Pelletier); “Ti sarebbe dovuto bastare il matrimonio in Africa” (Vitucci); “Die lybische Heirat hätte dir genügen können” (M-B). This is an unusual choice of verb (“to bend back, in a convex way,” ἀνακάμπτω), otherwise used in War only to describe the topography of, and walls around, Jerusalem (5.133, 252, 505). Given the context, a sexual double entendre is conceivable. Although Archelaus was Alexander’s step-brother (see note to 2.114), a point that might weaken the ghost’s case, for the purpose of levirate marriage it seems that the status of brother was determined by common paternity alone (see next note). Crucially, in any case, all the language in 2.115 indicates that Archelaus’ desire was the deciding factor in this marriage, not Glaphyra’s promiscuity. The incident highlights Josephus’ one-sided treatment of women’s alleged faithlessness (see notes to 2.121 below). Greek ὦ τολμηρά. See the note to “brazenness” at 2.108. Although Glaphyra is the only woman Josephus describes with this adjective, the τολμ- word group is basic to his vocabulary. One might read Alexander’s charge as accusing her, in effect, of behaving like a man. (Cf. Josephus’ description of Queen Alexandra at Ant. 13.430-32.) For analysis of Josephus’ women, see Mayer-Schärtel 1995; Ilan 1996; for women in War, Grünenfelder 2003: esp. 268-97. Greek ὕβρις, a hallmark of tragedy in keeing with War’s tragic ethos (see Introduction), though here possibly a more prosaic “outrage.” Josephus does not explain the specific outrage, except in creating the specter of an extremely jealous ghost. In Ant. 17.341, by contrast, he specifies that Glaphyra’s marriage to Archelaus contravened Judean (levirate) law, which prohibits marriage to the brother of a deceased man if there are children from that first union (Lev 18:16; 20:21), as there were in this case—and the law requires such marriage if there are not (Deut 25:5-6). Although the Bible does not qualify “brother” status, the Talmud would later hold that men born of the same father (irrespective of mothers) were brothers for the purpose of levirate marriage (y. Yebam. 1:1 [2b]; b. Yebam. 17b; Midr. Tanh. to Deut 25:5—references owed to Martin Lockshin of York University), therefore not to marry the widow of a brother if he had fathered children with her. Although this analysis may have been in Josephus’ mind as he wrote War, he omits it entirely, presenting Alexander’s grievance rather as a kind of male jealousy: his former wife has made herself too available, now even with his own brother! In light of other parallels with the Aeneas-Dido story of the Aeneid (see previous notes), this might recall Aeneas’ words to the shade of Dido at Aen. 6.460: invitus, regina, tuo de litore cessi (“I was unwilling, queen, when I left your shore”). Suetonius appropriates this at Tit. 7.2 to describe Titus and Berenice, when she must leave Rome: he was unwilling and so was she (invitus invitam). Josephus and Suetonius may be echoing the same Virgilian resource concerning foreign royal women, given Josephus’ Roman context. It is curious that Josephus gives the time from Glaphyra’s relating the dream, not —the more dramatic course—from her experience of it, inviting the skeptic’s question, whether she recounted it and died years after the dream itself (not his intention, of course). We may see here a glimpse of the historian’s conscience: if she died shortly after experiencing this dream, the author must explain how anyone could have known the connection. He clarifies, but fails to put all the narrative pieces together.

Or “as a province” (εἰς ἐπαρχίαν περιγραφείσης). See also War 2.220: after the death of Agrippa I in 44 CE, Claudius would once again make the royal territories a province. Tacitus (Hist. 5.9) elides this period before Agrippa I, claiming that Judea first became a province, after native-princely rule, under Claudius (ruled 41-54 CE). The Antiquities parallel (17.355; 18.1-2) claims, rather differently from War, that the territory subject to Archelaus was now assigned, annexed, or made an appendage to the existing province of Syria (προσνεμηθείσης τῇ Σύρων . . . προσθήκην τῆς Συρίας γενομένην). That is why, in Antiquities, the mandate of the distinguished ex-consul Publilius Sulpicius Quirinius (cos. ord. 12 BCE, CIL VI 17130), sent to govern Syria as imperial legatus, included both liquidating the estate of Archelaus in Judea (17.355) and conducting a property census there—as throughout his entire province (18.2). The census under Quirinius (famously connected with the birth of Jesus and Judas’ rebellion; Luke 2:1-2; Acts 5:37) seems to assume Judea’s incorporation into Syria. According to Ant. 18.2, Quirinius was accompanied and supported (συγκαταπέμπεται) by Coponius: an equestrian (see following notes) with full authority over a subset of the larger command—the Judeans. The situation as described in Antiquities thus precisely fulfills the hope of the Judean elders who went to Rome following Herod’s death in 4 BCE: they asked to be delivered from kingship, to become instead a part of Syria (προσθήκην δὲ Συρίας γεγονότας) and subject to the Roman commanders there (Ant. 17.314; cf. War 2.91).That Judea was joined to Syria in 6 CE, rather than being constituted an independent jurisdiction (so Ghiretti 1985), is suggested by a number of considerations, including Tacitus’ evidence (above) and parallel cases in which prefects were sent to areas within provinces that needed special attention (cf. Cotton 1999: 77-78 and n. 14). Eck (2003: 98) compares the status of Noricum after its incorporation under Augustus (16 BCE) into the province of Illyricum-Pannonia, apparently also under an equestrian prefect who reported to the senatorial governor of the larger province. Cf. Bernett 2007: 188-89.It is telling that even War, though making a different claim, seems to assume this situation in the following narrative. Members of the Judean élite in War have assumed all along that incorporation into the Roman provincial system would mean joining Syria (see 2.22, 52, 80, 91 and notes—as in Ant. 17.314 above). In War 2, despite its presentation of the equestrian governors as independent actors, the Syrian legate mysteriously remains responsible for Judea (e.g., 2.185, 239-44, 333). This responsibility obtains not only when “serious disorder” threatens (pace Schürer-Vermes 1.361 n. 36; Smallwood 1961: 267): the Syrian governors appear consistently as overlords of Judea. During Petronius’ tenure as Syrian legate (ca. 37-40 CE; War 2.185-203), the Judean prefects are not even named in War: he alone carries Gaius’ mandate to install the imperial statue in Jerusalem’s temple. (NB: Antiquities’ references to the Judean governors under Petronius are extremely vague and telling. Pilate’s replacement in 36/37 CE [Ant. 18.89], one Marcellus, appears to have lain entirely within the discretion of the Syrian legate Vitellius [“one of his friends”]. And the title of the man who apparently replaced Marcellus, Marullus—“commander of the cavalry” in Judea [Ant. 18.237]—tends to confirm the auxiliary nature of the Judean prefecture.) Most curiously: although Josephus fails to mention the new Syrian legate Quirinius or his census here in War, he will twice refer incidentally to Quirinius’ role at the time of Judas’ rebellion: War 2.433 (Judas rebelled “in Quirinius’ [time]”) and 7.253 (Judas persuaded many Judeans not to support the census, “when Quirinius was sent as assessor to Judea”). In spite of its emphasis on Judea’s governors, then, War itself tends to support Antiquities’ picture, in which Judea became part of Syria in 6 CE. This leaves open the question of Judea’s status in 44 CE (cf. 2.220 below).The distinction in this difference fades somewhat, to be sure, when we recall that in Roman usage “province” (provincia) was not a territory as much as the limits of a Roman magistrate’s power-to-demand-obedience (imperium): see Sherwin-White 1963: 11-12; Shatzman 1999: 53. All of the imperial territories governed by Caesar’s emissaries, whether senatorial legates or equestrians, or indeed client kings and princes, were part of the same system. In this specific case, there may be little practical difference between calling Judea a “province” with its own procurator, answerable to the more senior neighboring governor (as War), and describing Judea as part of the Syrian province with its own local, lower-level governor (as Antiquities), for all provinces were part of the emperor’s provincia. Still, questions remain about the details of administration—the paths of taxation revenue and administrative responsibility, for example. Conditions may also have evolved over the first few decades of direct Roman rule.War’s omission of both the Syrian connection and Quirinius, though Josephus was obviously aware of them, seems to confirm his wish to establish the incompetence of Roman administration in Judea as a primary cause of rising tensions. By focusing on Judea as if it were a separate province, he can highlight the allegedly unworthy equestrians—a point more easily made if he ignores their distinguished superiors in Syria. This Coponius is unknown outside Josephus. His Latin name has unfortunate connotations—an alternative form of Cauponius: “tavern boy, waiter, or property of a shop-keeper”—, though they support Josephus’ emphasis on the second-rate character of these governors . Even the root name Caupo/Copo is attested only a few times, chiefly in Africa (Kajanto 1982: 321). Greek ἐπίτροπος means “administrator, [legal] guardian, custodian, agent”; it is also the standard representation of the Latin procurator. In the early first century CE, procurator (as an official designation) was used chiefly of the financial administrators—procuratores Augusti—who served in all provinces under higher-ranking proconsuls and imperial legates, but acted largely independently, handling public revenue and expenditure. Under Claudius that they received a general broadening of their powers to include civil governance (cf. Tacitus, Ann. 12.60). Before Claudius, other men of equestrian rank had been occasionally sent by the emperor to govern provinces, or ethnic groups within them, that presented special problems (Mauretania, Noricum, Raetia, and most famously Egypt; cf. Tacitus, Hist. 1.11; cf. Strabo 17.3.25 on Augustus’ use of equestrians as governors); yet such men were designated “prefects” (praefecti, Greek ἔπαρχοι)—an essentially military title given also to many other prestigious positions held by equestrians (see following note): cf. Sherwin-White 1963: 6; Schürer-Vermes 1.358-60; Brunt 1990: 163-87. This titulature was strikingly confirmed in Judea for Pontius Pilatus (19-37 CE?; see 2.169 below) by an inscription from coastal Caesarea, published in 1961, which reads in relevant part [Pon]tius Pilatus [Praef]ectus Iuda[ea]e. See Frova 1961; Feldman 1984: 318-20; Schürer-Vermes 1.358 n. 22; Boffo 1994: 217-233 (no. 25) for updated bibliography, a new critical edition, and detailed commentary. For recent interpretations of the tiberieum structure bearing this inscription, see Alföldy 1999 (a rebuilt lighthouse-tower on the E side of the harbor entrance) and Bernett 2007: 205-14 (a building for the cult of Tiberius, with a critical review of earlier suggestions). All such proposals involve conjectural reconstructions of the 5-7 missing letters before the “s” that precedes tiberieum.Since Coponius was apparently dispatched as a prefect (praefectus, ἔπαρχος), Josephus’ nomenclature here seems incorrect, though the same problem is found in Tacitus (e.g., Ann. 15.44 on Pilate). Perhaps they simply imposed the terminology of their own time on earlier governors. Or perhaps Judea’s early governors had both prefectural and procuratorial functions, and Claudius merely began to insist on the procuratorial title only—whether because he wanted to advertise the non-militarized state of the provinces or he wished to emphasize the governors’ direct responsbility to him, rather than to neighboring senatorial governors (Levick 2001: 48-49).At any rate, Josephus’ labels for the governors of Judea are notoriously imprecise (e.g., Schürer-Vermes 1.359): (a) ἐπίτροπος, of Coponius here [6-9 CE], Pilate [ 19-36/37 CE, War 2.169], Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Alexander [44-48 CE, War 2.220], Cumanus [who received the ἐπιτροπήν, 48-52 CE, War 2.223], Felix [52-58/60 CE, War 2.247], Festus and implicitly Albinus [ἐπιτροπή, 59?-64 CE, War 2.271-73], M. Antonius Iulianus [war-time governor, War 6.238], and generally for all governors to the outbreak of war [2.348]; (b) ἔπαρχος, of Albinus [in later reflections, War 6.303, 305], Annius Rufus and Valerius Gratus [12-18/19 CE, Ant. 18.33], Cuspius Fadus [Ant. 19.363], Festus implicitly and Albinus [Ant. 20.197]; (c) other terms such as ἡγέομαι, ἡγεμών, προΐστημαι, ἐπιμελητής, of Coponius [Ant. 18.2], Pilate [Ant. 18.55], Marcellus and implicitly Pilate [37 CE, Ant. 18.89], Felix [Ant. 20.137]. In all this, one pattern clearly emerges: at their first mention in War, Josephus invariably uses “procurator,” whereas he never uses this term in Antiquities. Thus, when he mentions the governor a second time, whether this is later in War or (mainly) in Antiquities, he varies his language. Although it does not seem to matter which term he substitutes for ἐπίτροπος in the later cases (hence, the issue seems not to be a concern for technical precision), the other terms all have nobler status-connotations (cf. Levick [2001: 48]: Claudius’ change of titulature from prefect to procurator “looks like a downgrading, likely to cause resentment”). In War, again, Josephus seems concerned to stress the low character and status of Judea’s equestrian governors, in order to help explain the origins of the conflict. In this he agrees with Tacitus, Hist. 5.9. The Roman ordo equites was the distinctly lower of Rome’s two élite ranks, the other senatorial. Although it had begun as a class of those wealthier men who could provide their own horses for military service, by the early principate the equestrian order had become a purely honorary civic status, determined by a property qualification of 400,000 HS (cf. Horace, Ep. 1.1.58). Efforts either to re-establish the order on a more illustrious basis (Pliny, Nat. 33.8) or to create an élite rank within it (alluded to in Tacitus, Ann. 11.4) were frustrated by the early emperors’ opening of the order to wealthier freedmen. See Pflaum 1950, 1960-61, 1982, with Millar 1963; Brunt 1990: 163-87.Josephus’ introduction of direct Roman rule in Judea with the observation that this (mere) procurator and equestrian was given the power to kill (see next note), sets the tone for the following story of mismanagement and cruelty by men unworthy of such office (e.g., 2.169, 223, 247 [254-70], 273, 277). Equestrian prefects and procurators were not, as a class, of recognized character and gravitas—in sharp contrast to the senatorial governors of Syria (see previous note and 2.75, 77, 192-203, 239-44, 280-81), a perspective with which Roman authors from the senatorial class would easily have agreed (Tacitus, e.g. Ann. 14.32 [end], 33 [beginning]; Hist. 5.9). Note the parallel at Ant. 17.355; 18.1, which belabors the credentials of the Syrian legate Quirinius, who was also in charge of Judea according to that text: a Roman senator who had held all the offices up to the consulship, extremely distinguished also in other (unnamed) ways. On status issues in the appointment of governors, see Lendon 1997: 222-24. This verb (κτείνω) is often found in juridical contexts, for both murder and judicial execution: Plato, Euth. 4b; Prot. 322d; Leg. 871e; Lysias, Or. 10.11. Josephus appears to be rendering a Latin phrase, familiar in his own (post-Claudian) time, for distinguishing what modern scholars call praesidial procurators from more ordinary procurators, with financial and business responsibilities, viz.: procuratores Augusti holding the ius gladii (cf. ILS 1368, 1372, 9200; Brunt 1983: 55-57; Levick 2001: 48). Cf. Ant. 18.2, where the same Coponius, though portrayed there as a junior associate of the Syrian legate Quirinius (see preceding notes), is sent “to govern the Judeans with full authority.” Evidence from Augustus’ time to the early 2nd century CE (e.g., Pliny, Ep. 10.30) suggests that the power of capital punishment was the prerogative of the proconsul or imperial legate, ordinarily a man of senior senatorial rank, as part of his imperium (Sherwin-White 1963: 3-6; Lintott 1993: 65-69), and not normally subject to delegation. So this point about the “procurator’s” powers would need clarification for a Roman audience. This authority held by the Judean prefect-procurator accords with that enjoyed by the equestrian prefect of neighboring Egypt, though his position was in other respects unique (Sherwin-White 1963: 6-7).

Contrast War 2.433, which connects the rebellion with the Syrian governor Quirinius’ administration, and see the note to “province” at 2.117. This famous biblical-patriarchal and Hasmonean name (‮יהודה‬‎) is the 4th most frequently attested for this period. According to the partial parallel at Ant. 18.4 Judas was “a Gaulanite man (or Golani) from a city by the name of Gamala.” Since, however, even the Antiquities sequel (18.23; 20.102) reverts to “Judas the Galilean,” a tag attested also in Acts 5:37 and consistently in War (cf. also 2.433), this appears to be the name by which he was best known. In Ant. 18.4 Josephus may be claiming that, although the man was known as “Judas the Galilean,” he was actually from Gamala in the Golan. Gamala, to the E of lake Gennesaret, apparently always had close connections with Galilee, and Josephus’ portfolio as Galilean commander included, exceptionally, this natural fortress across the lake (War 2.568; cf. Life 398; for Gamala, see Appendix A in BJP 9). For conjectures as to how the Gaulanite Judas might have come to be known as “the Galilean,” see Hengel 1989: 331 n. 100.In Josephus this Judas becomes patriarch of a rebel dynasty, according to Ant. 18.9, 23 a “fourth philosophy” (alongside Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes); cf. Black 1974. In War, a Messianic pretender and leader of the later revolt in its earliest phase (d. 66 CE), named Manaem (Menachem), will be called a son of Judas (2.433)—though if he was active in rebellion 60 years after his father, either he was rather old for this sort of thing or his father had been old at Menachem’s birth. Further, the famous Eleazar son of Ya‘ir, rebel leader of Masada (d. 73 CE), is portrayed by Josephus as both “a relative of Menachem” (2.447) and “a descendant of Judas” (7.253). Ant. 20.102 adds that two of Judas’ sons, named Simon and Jacob, were executed for rebellious activity by Ti. Iulius Alexander when he was prefect of Judea (46-48 CE).It is a further question whether this Judas is to be identified with the one who led rebel activities around Sepphoris in Galilee after Herod’s death in 4 BCE (2.56), who is described as the son of a Galilean rebel named Ezekias killed in 47 BCE by the young Herod (1.204); see the notes at 2.56. If that Judas became active again in Judea on Archelaus’ removal in 6 CE as “Judas the Galilean,” then we would have a rebel dynasty lasting well over a century. But Josephus, who seems keen to make links among Judas’ descendants (possibly to concentrate and marginalize rebel ideology), does not hint at such a linkage. If Judas was active in 6 CE, 54 years after his father’s (Ezekias’) death in 47 BCE, he must have been at least in his late 50s, possibly older. Although this is possible, it would render unlikely his fathering Menachem much later than 6 CE, and so would push the latter well into his 60s for his own rebel activities of 66 CE. If the two Judases are distinguished, and we understand Judas of Galilee in 6 CE to be in his 20s or 30s, then it is much easier to accommodate a rebel son Menachem in 66, at roughly the same age (if born ca. 30-35 CE).For sustained analysis of Judas the Galilean’s followers and ideas, albeit somewhat positivistic and perhaps overly systematic, see Hengel 1989: 76-145, 325-43; more recent and sensitive to historical-literary questions is Jossa 2001: 63ff. Or “people of the region” (ἐπιχωρίοι)—not Judas’ fellow-Galileans or Golanites, presumably, since they remained under the Herodian client rule of Antipas and Philip and so had no reason to rebel at the imposition of new taxes; Ant. 18.2-11 implies that Judas was active in Jerusalem. Or “secession, defection” (ἀπόστασις); see note at 2.39. The ultimate goal was not rebellion, of course, but separation leading to independence. Greek φόρος (any sort of financial exaction or levy) usually refers in Josephus to tribute, paid by a subject state to a great power (e.g., War 1.154; 2.403; 7.218 [of the post-war tax for Jupiter Capitolinus]; Ant. 10.155; 11.297; 12.158, 294). Jerusalem and Judea had been placed under heavy tribute when Pompey subdued the country in 63 BCE (War 1.154; Ant. 14.74), the moment Josephus also connects with the Judeans’ decsive loss of freedom to the Romans (Ant. 14.77; War 2.356-57; 5.365, 396). The terms of the tribute are uncertain, though they would have comprised at least produce taxes in kind and land taxes in money (Hengel 1989: 134-37). They were apparently lightened by Julius Caesar as a favor, though they still reportedly amounted to 25% of produce plus a tithe to the local rulers (Ant. 14.200-206; cf. Pucci ben Zeev 1998: 85-88). It seems from the present passage and other indicators that Herod and his sons had not been required to furnish regular tribute payments to Rome for Judea (but Ant. 17.308), though Appian (Bell. civ. 5.75.318-19) has Herod assessed some kind of tribute (once only? To Antony alone?) for Idumea and Samaria (Pastor 1997: 109-10). The Romans dealt with client kings in a wide variety of ways, depending upon resources needed and diplomatic considerations (Braund 1984: 63-66; Lintott 1993: 70-96). As one who enjoyed a special relationship (as “friend and ally”) with the great power, in any case, Herod more than fulfilled the expectation that he would assist the Romans in other tangible ways as needed (Richardson 1996: 229-34; Shatzman 1999: 81-82).Judea’s direct incorporation into the provincial structure following Archelaus’ removal brought with it a new or restored financial levy, to be based on the census of property that Ant. 18.1-4, 26 describes. The collection of this tribute appears to have been a special exercise conducted by the nation’s leaders. In the early stages of resistance against Rome (in protest at the governor Florus), it will go unpaid; when King Agrippa II persuades the leaders to resume payment they must undertake an emergency collection throughout the Judean villages (2.403-5). When some Judeans then drive the king from the city, Agrippa sends the leaders (apparently those who had undertaken the emergency collection) to Florus in Caesarea, so that he might appoint people to “exact the tribute from the region” (2.407). This all suggests that the tribute was assessed again (see above) as a percentage of agricultural production, payable at least partly in kind, and that Judean officials were charged with conveying it to the governor at Caesarea. The amount in arrears at the time of the revolt was reportedly 40 talents (2.405), a modest sum in this context (see the note to “talents” at 2.50): it might have represented only that fraction of the tribute that remained ungathered when the payment was halted.Although Josephus treats it as self-evident that the imposition of tribute implied the loss of national freedom, or servitude (2.365, 368, 373-74), and hence might predictably spark rebel activity, such as we find also in other provinces when tribute was imposed (Tacitus, Ann. 6.41; Dio 54.34.36; 56.18.13), biblical-Judean tradition had particular scruples about census-making, which might also have played a role in Judas’ movement. See 2 Sam 24; Hos 2:1; 3 Macc 2.28-32, with Hengel 1989: 120-34. See further 2.433 on Judas’ appeal to God’s sole mastery, 7.323 on Eleazar son of Ya‘ir’s similar slogan, and especially War 7.410: surviving members of the sicarii (see 2.254-55) flee to Alexandria, where they persuade many to undertake revolutionary activities, assert their independence (ἐλευθερία), to regard the Romans as in no way superior to themselves, and to consider God their sole master (θεὸν δὲ μόνον ἡγεῖσθαι δεσπότην). Josephus adds that no amount of torture could persuade them to call Caesar “master” (7.418-19). The centrality of freedom as a watchword for the Judean rebels is confirmed by Jerusalem coinage from the 2nd and 3rd years of the revolt carrying the legend “freedom of Zion” (‮חרות ציון‬‎): Meshorer 1982: 2.260-617. For proposals concerning the theological dimensions of “freedom” as a rebel slogan, see Hengel 1989: 90-145.Judas’ appeal for freedom, made explicit at Ant. 18.4, 23, intersects with one of War’s prominent themes: the work is in part a meditation on the meaning of freedom (ἐλευθερία): see 2.22, 53, 80, 91 with notes. In Josephus’ presentation (e.g., Ant. 1.78), God’s mastery is basic to all Judean thinking. The question is what that means for practical government. Whereas the nation’s élite since Hasmonean times have consistently sought “autonomy” in the context of foreign rule, Judas champions a bid for a more radical independence, of the kind that Josephus claims was irretrievably lost in Pompey’s time (War 2.345, 355-57; 5.365, 395-96; Ant. 14.74). The rebels’ preoccupation with freedom appears often (2.264, 348, 361, 443; 4.95, 146, 228, 234, 245-46, 271; 5.408; 7.255, 327, 334, 341, [344], 370, 372), though it tends to be ironized by the narrator and by members of the élite, who suspect that the “tyrants” really wish to enslave the nation to themselves (4.159, 175-77, 185, 258, 347, 389, 510; 5.28); the aristocracy conceives of freedom largely in terms of security against local tyrants. The slipperiness of “freedom” language was well known from the period after Alexander the Great, in which each new conqueror promised Greek cities freedom from his predecessor; it had been fully exploited by the Romans themselves in Greece (Green 1990: 414-15; Walbank 1992: 39, 43, 53, 93-94; Green 2007: xvii-xviii, 33-34). For the opposition, as here, between freedom (ἐλευθερία) thus conceived and the payment of tribute (hence servitude) to Rome, see Agrippa’s speech below: 2.365, 368, 373-74.The programmatic passage on government in Antiquities (6.31-44), like the earlier passages on autonomy in War, connects political freedom with aristocratic government, and slavery with monarchy. In Ant. 6.38-39, God tells Samuel that the people’s demand for a king insults God because it is a rejection of his exclusive rule, whereas priestly aristocracy would have preserved God’s complete sovereignty (6.36-37). See also Apion 2.185, which idealizes the supremacy of divine rule through priestly administration. If Josephus has a consistent outlook on the matter, it seems to be that divine sovereignty is fulfilled through priestly-aristocratic government; sometimes (as under Rome) foreign rule is useful in guarantee the national aristocracy’s freedom to govern, over against native tyrants (cf. 5.256-57; a view partly shared with Plutarch, Flam. 11.7); native monarchy and rebellion against the world power often go hand in hand, since rebel leaders typically assume messianic-royal pretensions; they are disastrous for the proper functioning of the aristocracy and so for the nation’s “freedom.” Notice, finally, the close parallels between War’s elaboration of freedom/autonomy and the discussion that Antiquities (19.39, 54, 79, 100, 169, 182-83, 186, 233, 250, 261-63) locates in the Roman Senate following Gaius Caligula’s assassination in 41 CE. See Mason 2003a, 2008b. Josephus will continue to call both Judas (2.433) and his son Menachem (2.445) sophists (σοφισταί). This is significant because he uses the word sparingly, reserving it with Platonic associations (cf. the Gorgias) for teachers who incite the young to rebellious action: War uses it otherwise only of the teachers who instructed their disciples to topple Herod’s golden eagle (1.648, 650, 655, 656; 2.10; cf. Ant. 17.152, 155). The only other application in Josephus is to the anti-Judean writers of Egypt, who are “reprobate sophists, deceiving the young” (Apion 2.236). For the Greek background, see the notes to Life 36-42 in BJP 9, on Justus of Tiberias: although Josephus does not label him a sophist, his portrayal of Justus fits the stereotype. In the parallel (Ant. 18.2-11, 23-24), without using the word sophist he presents Judas as the self-appointed head of a “philosophical school.” This is the first occurrence in Josephus of αἵρεσις with the meaning “philosophical school.” The word has a variety of senses, deriving from the active (αἱρέω, “take,” therefore “taking, capture” of a town) and middle voices (αἱρέομαι, “choose,” therefore “choosing, choice”), but it had also come to mean “the group with which one chooses to associate” (or “faction”) and specifically, in Hellenistic usage, “philosophical school” (of the Platonic Academy, Aristotelian Peripatos, Stoa, and so forth): Polybius 5.93.8; Diodorus 2.29; Cicero, Fam. 15.16.3; Dionysius, Comp. 2; Diogenes Laertius 7.191 (on the title of a work by Chrysippus); Philo, Plant. 151 (and Contempl. 129, of the Therapeutae). Josephus uses the word 31 times, 13 of these for the Judean “philosophical schools”: Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, as well as—sarcastically—the rebel Judas’ followers (War 2.118, 122, 137, 142, 162; Ant. 13.171, 288, 293; 20.199; Life 10, 12, 191, 197). The philosophical connotations of the word here are clear from the following facts: (a) although Josephus has many words for “group” or “faction,” he reserves αἵρεσις almost entirely for these groups; (b) he typically portrays their interests (e.g., fate and free will, the soul) and lifestyles in terms that the ancients considered philosophical; and (c) he uses more explicit philosophical language in these same contexts: the verb φιλοσοφέω in 2.119, 166, and the noun φιλοσοφία in the parallel at Ant. 18.11, 23, 25 (a replacement for αἵρεσις here). Although αἵρεσις has most often been translated as “sect” (as in LCL for this passage), that term should be avoided if it connotes aberrance or deviance from a main body, since all the schools receive this label. Although αἵρεσις is the word Josephus uses most characteristically for the schools, he can substitute for the sake of variety μοῖρα, μόριον, τάγμα, σύνταγμα, and γένος— as in 2.113 above of Essenes (see table in Le Moyne 1972: 32). This fundamental difference between Judas’ way of thinking and that of other Judean “schools” is programmatic: it has to do with the problem of freedom (see note to “God” in this section). Although the parallel in Antiquities (18.4-9) emphasizes the novelty of Judas’ views even more than War, it adds the new claim that his group was co-founded by a Pharisee named Saddok/Zadok (Ant. 18.9-10), and that his “philosophy” agrees with the Pharisees except in its passionate desire (ἔρως—sarcastic language, perhaps) for freedom (ἐλευθερία). If there is a contradiction, it is not between War and Antiquities, but between Ant. 18.4-9 and 18.9-10, 23.Some scholars have argued that here in War Josephus “suppresses” the link between Pharisees and militant freedom-seekers—on the assumption that he was a Pharisee (Paret 1856: 818; R. Meyer 1965: 52 n. 4; 54-56; Black 1974: 50; Alon 1977: 44-46; Hengel 1989: 86)—, whereas in Antiquities he relaxes his authorial grip and lets the truth of the connection slip out. Hans Rasp thought that Josephus wished to lend a new validity to Judas’ school in the Antiquities by linking them with his new-found Pharisaic friends, the Yavnean rabbis (1924: 39, 44, 47). But these theories appear unlikely in the absence of evidence that Josephus wished to identify with the Pharisees, and in the face of abundant evidence that he preserved his authorial control through his last writings, maintaining his distaste for rebel philosophy throughout (cf. Mason 1991: 282-85). The reverse case is therefore more likely: by the time he composed the Antiquities-Life, which includes a number of hostile reports about Pharisees (not least in his own career—Life 189-98; cf. Ant. 13.288; 17.41-45), he was happy to forge a new rhetorical bond between the still-despicable Judas and the Pharisees. If this connection were rhetorical, it would be hazardous to build upon it historical constructions of radical Pharisaic wings or the like (pace Hengel 1989: 86-89).

The opening sentence of this long digression on the “schools” recalls the famous opening sentence of Caesar’s Gallic War (1.1): “Gaul is a whole divided in three parts: of which Belgae inhabit one, Aquitani another, and the third, those who in their own language are called Celtae, in ours Galli (Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur).” The resemblance, which extends to such particular features as the separation of the third term from the others, suggests that Josephus intends to evoke an exotic ethnographic atmosphere. At least, he presumably expected an appreciative nod from his Roman audience. This parallel might have some bearing on the question of his knowledge of Latin (see Introduction). Meaning “that which is seen,” therefore “forms, shapes, figures” or “kinds, classes,” this word (εἴδος) was a favorite of Plato (400+ occurrences) and Aristotle (640+ occurrences), among others. It has solid philosophical credentials, therefore, being used to mean everything from perfect Platonic forms or ideas (Phaed. 103e; Resp. 596a) to kinds or classes of almost anything (Pol. 262e; Soph. 235d). Given its proximity to γένος in the same sentence here, it is possible that Josephus intends to exploit Aristotle’s use of the word for a subset of a genus (Rhet. 1393a)—“species.” Josephus’ descriptions of Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes as “philosophical schools,” here and in Ant. 13.171-73; 18.11-22 (also Life 10-12, with commentary in BJP 9), have invited much negative comment: he (or his source) is alleged to have dressed up and misrepresented Jewish-Judean phenomena in Greek dress. The classic statement is Moore 1929. Whatever truth there may be in the charge (problem: our knowledge of these groups comes largely from Josephus), we must remember that ancient “philosophy” was much more a way of living—sometimes exclusively concerned with training in virtue, in ways that we more naturally associate with religious or civic-group training (e.g., Scouts or Guides)—than a system of abstract thought (cf. Mason 1999b). This is clear from Josephus’ rough contemporaries, Seneca, Epictetus, Plutarch, and Dio of Prusa (cf. Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations and later Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy). Indeed, as Lucian’s Nigrinus illustrates (cf. also Hermotimus), philosophy was the arena in which one underwent the sort of radical conversion of lifestyle and values that we connect with religion (cf. Nock 1933: 164-86).Like Josephus, Philo presents the Essenes as exemplary Judean philosophers (Prob. 75-91). After calling Moses “the practitioner of a straightforward philosophy” (Prob. 43; cf. Josephus, Ant. 1.18-25), and mentioning a few truly wise men among Greeks, Persians, and Indians (Prob. 73-74), he turns to describe at length the Essaioi of Judea (Prob. 75-91). In the course of that description, he observes that the Essenes leave the logical branch of philosophy to logic-choppers, since it has nothing to do with establishing virtue, and physics to “star-gazers,” since that sort of knowledge is beyond human nature [punning on Greek φύσις]; the Essenes concentrate rather on the ethical component of philosophy, by constant immersion in their traditional laws and mores. Greek αἱρεστισταί. This is a good example of Josephus’ tendency to use a word several times in a short space and then drop it (see BJP 9: lii). He uses this word only here and then twice as an alternative for “Essenes” in the following paragraphs (2.124, 141). The word is a noun of personal agency built from the αἵρεσις (“philosophical school”) just used in 2.118 of Judas’ school (see note there). Just as he will call individual Essenes αἱρετισταί at 2.124 and 141, he will label the group a αἵρεσις at 2.122, 137, 142. Yet more distinctively in this passage he will label them a τάγμα (“order, legion”: 2.122, 125, 143, 160, 161), in keeping with his emphasis on their tight, military-style discipline, though in 2.164 he will describe Sadducees with the same word. Josephus mentions or discusses Pharisees at War 1.571; 2.162-63; 2.411 (i.e., they hardly figure in the War); Ant. 13.171-73, 288-98, 400-32; 15.3; 17.41-45; 18.12-15; Life 10-12, 189-98. Scholarly discussion of the Pharisees—their name, origin, character, beliefs, connection with Josephus, links with militant movements, and place in society—is vast. See Mason 1991, 1994, 1999a (with summaries of earlier work); Saldarini 1988; Grabbe 1992: 2.467-84; Stemberger 1995; Baumgarten 1997. This is the first reference to Sadducees in Josephus. Elsewhere he mentions them rarely and with little discussion: War 2.164-65; Ant. 13.171-73, 293, 296-98; 18.17-17; 20.199; Life 10-12. Scholarship on the Sadducees is not nearly as copious as that on the Pharisees because of more limited sources in Josephus, the NT, and rabbinic literature. See especially Le Moyne 1972, as well as Saldarini 1988, Stemberger 1995, Grabbe (1992: 2.484-91), and Baumgarten 1997. Possibly “imagine themselves to cultivate seriousness” (δοκεῖ σεμνοτητα ἀσκεῖν). This is one of Josephus’ characteristic constructions: subject + δοκεῖ + infinitive [+ object] (Mason 1991: 106-13). It is an open-ended formulation in two ways: (a) the auxiliary verb can either refer to the subject’s thought (he intended, imagined) or it can be impersonal (he/it seemed, was regarded, reputed); (b) either way, it remains unclear without context whether the reputation or intention was realized. Was the reputation deserved? In the context here, it seems that (a) the Essenes’ reputation is the point (contra Whiston: the sect “pretends to a severer discipline”) and (b) Josephus heartily endorses that reputation (δή). In speaking of their reputation for cultivating seriousness (σεμνότητα ἀσκεῖν), a virtue closely connected with self-control (see the next sentence, 2.120), Josephus recalls Philo’s remark (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.11 [380d]) that the Essenes proscribed marriage at the same time that they prescribed “the cultivation of exceptional self-control” (διαφερόντως ἀσκεῖν ἐγκράτειαν).That the verb δοκεῖ refers to the Essenes’ reputation seems confirmed by the fact that this group (contrast Pharisees and Sadducees) is well known by the Alexandrian Judean Philo (Prob. 57-71; Hypothetica, in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.11 [esp. 381a]), Josephus’ Roman contemporary Pliny the Elder (Nat. 5.73), and Dio of Prusa (in Synesius, Dio 3.2). One of Josephus’ main reasons for digressing at such length on the Essenes, then, might be to give the audience what he thought they wanted: more authentic knowledge of this exotic group. Josephus will make them representative of the Judeans as a people. Or “solemnity, dignity, gravity.” (The phrase σεμνότητα ἀσκεῖν is balanced at the end of the passage by the Pharisees’ ὁμόνοιαν ἀσκοῦντες.) Greek σεμνότης corresponds to the peculiarly Roman virtues, anticipated by Sparta, of dignitas and gravitas. Plutarch’s lives of Greek and Roman rulers feature this term (Rom. 13.7; Num. 4.2; 8.3, 5; Sol. 1.6; 12.1; 15.6; Publ. 9.9; Per. 5.3; 7.6; 24.5; Fab. Max. 10.7; Cor. 10.8; Arist. 5.2; 6.3; Cato Maj. 6.4; Phil. 15.9; Mar. 17.2; Lys. 17.6; Sull. 13.4; Luc. 6.2; Ages. 21.3; Pomp. 1.3; 21.3; 42.5; 53.2; Cato Min. 5.4; 17.144.1 etc.), as do his tracts on government (Mor. [Sen. resp.] 788a-b, 789f, 794a-c, [Praec.] 801d, 803a, 811b-c, 813c, 820c, 822b, 823e). Romans often portrayed Greeks in contrast to themselves as light-weight and frivolous (cf. Balsdon 1979: 30-58; Plutarch, Cat. Maj. 6; Lendon 1997: 42). The same point about Greeks was made by the Spartan kings, who reportedly cultivated a distinctive way of life, characterized by modesty, seriousness (Xenophon, Lac. 3.4-5), and impatience with the frivolous pursuits of others—especially empty rhetoric (Plutarch, Mor. [Apoph. Lac.] 212f, 215e, 220a)—over against their neighbor states (Xenophon, Lac. 1.2; Plutarch, Lyc. 21.1; 22.3).In keeping with such Spartan-Roman ideals, Josephus eulogizes the Judean statesman at the center of the War, Ananus (see Introduction), as a “serious and extremely just man” (σεμνὸς ἁνὴρ καὶ δικαιότατος; War 4.319), and he also credits Vespasian with this virtue—in the eyes of the Roman Senate (7.65)—in contrast to earlier emperors such as Nero. Josephus uses the abstract noun only 8 times, but in highly significant places: in Apion 1.225; 2.223 he makes dignity or seriousness the distinctive trait of the Judeans (in contrast to allegedly frivolous Egyptians); in Ant. 12.224 the Tobiad Joseph, is credited with such gravitas; and unsurprisingly he singles out this virtue as the hallmark of his own public life (Life 258). The verb ἀσκέω and its noun ἄσκησις also resonate with Spartan and Roman values of discipline and moral exercise (Plutarch, Cat. Maj. 3.3; 4.3), and Josephus uses the word group of both the Essenes (2.150) and the Judeans as a nation: the latter pursue training in character and virtue (Apion 2.171, 173, 192, 272). Of the 3 schools, Josephus has most to say about the Essenes; the following (2.119-61) is by far his longest and most favorable discussion of any school. They appear elsewhere at War 1.78, 213; 2.567; 3.11; 5.145; Ant. 13.171-73; 13.298, 311; 15.371-78; 17.346; 18.18-22; Life 10-12. On their name and identity, see the note to “Essaeus by type” at 2.113. Paradoxically, scholarship on the Essenes is much more copious than for any other school not because Josephus has the most to say about them (he was traditionally taken for a Pharisee), but because of the standard identification of the Essenes with the producers of the DSS from Qumran. Books ostensibly about the Essenes, or even Josephus’ Essenes (e.g., M-B [1962]: 1. nn. 35-86; Beall 1988; Vermes and Goodman 1989; Bergmeier 1993; Rajak 1994) explicate Josephus’ descriptions mainly by comparison with the DSS, rather than according to his own narrative and language. For the state of the question, see Stemberger 1995, Grabbe (1992: 2.491-99), and Baumgarten 1997. See the notes to “type” at 2.113 and to “forms” in this section. Josephus may be playing with this language, since he makes Judas an Essene by γένος at 2.113 and yet now says that Essenes are Judeans by γένος. He may also be quickly dispelling any suspicion that the famed Essenes are not in fact Judeans, an impression one might gain from Pliny’s repeated term gens for the goup (Nat. 5.73); he emphasizes that they are admirable specimens of his own countrymen. Grammatically, this notice also prepares for the coming statement about their great mutual affection. Cf. War 2.166, the conclusion of the passage (creating an inclusio), where Josephus contrasts Pharisees—who are mutually affectionate and cultivate harmony in the general assembly (φιλάλληλοι as here), with Sadducees, who are extremely rude even to each another. His concern for collegial relations continues in the descriptions at Ant. 18.12 (of Pharisees).

The Greek word ἡδονή normally (though not always) indicates physical or sensual pleasure (see LSJ), as the context here—avoiding marriage—also suggests. The biblical figure of Cain becomes in Josephus’ hands the paradigm of vice (κακία) expressed through the pursuit of physical pleasure (ἡδονή . . . τῷ σώματι, Ant. 1.60). For pursuit of the pleasures (ἡδονάς) as vice (κακία), see Thucydides 3.58.1-2; Plutarch, Mor. 545e, 555e; Diogenes Laertius 7.104. For Aristotle (Eth. eud. 1222b, 1227b etc.) it is not pleasures per se, but an excess of pleasure (or sorrow) that is bad. The closest parallel to Josephus’ “shun the pleasures” appears to be in Philo (Sacr. 45): “When it has heard these things, the mind shuns pleasure [singular without article] and clings to virtue.” Shunning pleasure, the reverse of normal human behavior, was the Leitmotif of Spartan training: the laws of Lycurgus were said to instill “contempt for the pleasures” (Plutarch, Mor. [Apoph. Lac.] 210a). Galen (Plac. hipp. Plat. 5.5.3, 16) observes the normal human tendency when he describes children naturally pursuing “the pleasures” and shunning or fleeing work. Or “cowardice.” See the note to “virtue” in this section. The Essenes’ disciplined restraint—Greek ἐγκράτεια, one of the most frequently discussed virtues in relation to all emotions (cf. Seneca, On Anger; Plutarch on Control of Anger, Tranquillity of Mind)—contrasts here with the utter lack of control over the passions exhibited by Archelaus in the preceding paragraphs (2.115). Plato can speak of “containment of the pleasures” (ἐγκράτεια ἡδονῶν, Resp. 390b; cf. Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1149a), though the noun often appears alone in the absolute sense of “self-control,” as in Josephus here (Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1145b). For Josephus’ model Polybius, self-control was the distinguishing feature of the aristocrat, who acquired it through culture or education (παιδεία); it was this quality that enabled him to be a leader, over against the impulsive masses, soldiers, and barbarians (Eckstein 1995: 77, 118-93, 248). On the crucial importance of self-mastery in the Roman hierarchy of aristocratic values, see Earl 1967: 1-43; Lendon 1997: 41-42, 91; Plutarch, Cato Maj. e.g., 1-9; Mor. 198d-f. See further 2.138, where ἐγκράτεια appears as what all Essene novices must prove before they advance to the second stage. This phrase is an articular infinitive: “the not-collapsing-before-[the-assault-of-the]-passions.” The language of “falling” or “cringing before” (ὑποπίπτω) the passions, as if submitting to a conquering enemy, evokes an ongoing moral contest; for the military use of the verb see War 5.329, 365, 382; 7.371. Cf. Philo’s repeated description of the Essenes as “athletes of virtue” (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.11 [379d]; Prob. 38, 88). Slaves to passion in War have included Marc Antony (re: Cleopatra, 1. 243, 359), Herod the Great (re: Mariamme, 1.436, 440, 441, 442, 444, 484), Pheroras (re: a slave-girl, 1.484, 506)), and Archelaus (re: Glaphyra, 2.115). Mastery of the passions or emotions (πάθη), a primary virtue of both philosophy and Roman élite culture (Plutarch, Cat. Maj. 2.3; 3.6; 4.2; 11.3), was the subject of discussion also among Jewish-Judean writers, for example in 4 Maccabees (1:1) and Philo’s Every Good Man is Free. The contrasting pair “virtue and vice” (ἀρετὴ καὶ καικία), very common in Greek ethical discussions (e.g., Aristotle’s Eudemian and Nicomachean Ethics, also his Virtues and Vices), also represents one of Josephus’ favorite themes. He mentions “virtue” (ἀρετή) some 116 times in his paraphrase of the Bible, whereas the canonical LXX has it only 8 times. For the pair, see War 2.156 (of Essenes), 585; 4.387; Ant. 1.72; 4.325; 6.93; 8.252; 17.101, 246; 18.13-14 (of Pharisees); 19.16; Apion 2.145. For Roman conceptions of virtue and vice (virtus, vitiositas/malitia), and their relation to the Greek terms, see M. Roller 2001: 22-26. Josephus uses ὑπεροψία only here and at 3.320 (of the Judeans’ indifference to suffering in war, admired by Vespasian). The exotic ethnographic character of this passage comes to light through a comparison with Strabo 7.3.3: he describes the Mysoi, who on account of their piety eat no living creatures (existing on milk, honey, and cheese, and who thus deserve the name “God-fearers”), and then the “Founders” among the Thracians, who live without women—so devoted are they to living honorably and without fear. Cf. Ant. 18.22, where Josephus possibly (i.e., depending upon the Greek text) compares the Essenes with these (there “Dacian”) “Founders.” Sexual restraint was a subset of the general ideal of self-control for much of the Roman élite, and frequent sexual activity was sometimes thought to diminish the vital energy (pneuma) that defined masculinity (Gleason 1999: 73, 76). For the manliest of occupations, membership in the legions, singleness was required, and when Philo wrote that Essenes forego marriage so as to avoid distraction (Apol. 14-17; cf. Paul, 1 Cor. 7.32-35), he was using a familiar logic for legionary singleness (Herodian 3.8.5). The inclination of Roman aristocratic males to avoid marriage and children was a growing problem, which Augustus had enacted laws to check (Dio 56.1-2; Parkin 1992: 119-21).Next to the absence of private ownership, the celibacy of the Essenes is the point made most emphatically by all writers who mention them, from Pliny’s description (“without any women [sine ulla femina] and renouncing all sexual desire,” Nat. 5.73) to Philo (as cited by Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.11 [380d-81a]), who has them banning marriage as the chief obstacle to communal relations: “None of the Essaioi takes a woman” [Ἐσσαίων γὰρ οὐδεις ἄγεται γυναῖκα]). In the parallel at Ant. 18.21, Josephus himself is equally emphatic: “they do not take in [or bring into the community] wives.” All of this serves to isolate Josephus’ surprising description at the end of this passage, of “a different order of Essenes” who do marry (2.160-61); see the notes there. It appears that both Jesus and Paul advocated celibacy (Matt 19:10-12; 1 Cor 7:7-8, 32-35; 9:5-6), as did perhaps such teachers as John the Baptist and Bannus. Outside of 1QS (which says nothing explicit on the matter), however, the DSS appear to assume that community members marry and raise children (1QSa 1.4; CD 7.6-7; 1QM 7.4-5; 11QT 45.11-12), and a few skeletons of women and children have been found in the cemetery at Qumran (Vermes 1995: 9; Magness 2002: 163-87—she suggests that only 3 are certainly female). Although Greek ἐκλαμβάνω (“receive from, select, take away or out, carry off”) offers a variety of senses, including the forcible removal (if βίᾳ is added) of one’s children (Isocrates, Pan. 2.194), the congenial context here suggests a mutually agreeable arrangement with the parents. But see the following note. So also Hippolytus, Haer. 9.18. The monastic practice of adopting others’ children in order to maintain the school’s complement does not appear in the parallel (Ant. 18.21-22), in spite of its even stronger emphasis on Essene celibacy. Pliny (Nat. 5.73; see Excursus) says rather that the group is continually replenished through the arrival of crowds “tired of life and the vicissitudes of fortune”—evidently, adults. That accords with Philo (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.11 [379b]), who emphasizes that there are no children, adolescents, or even young men among the Essenes, but only men nearing old age, volunteers who are there by choice. In Prob. 76, Philo claims that Essenes have fled the evils of the cities to live in village communities, again implying adult novices. Most remarkably, Josephus himself describes a 3-year admission process at 2.137-42, which tests one’s character and self-control, which culminates in the awesome oaths of initiation, and which would seem absurd if required of children. It is difficult, therefore, to reconcile this claim about adoption with other evidence—unless perhaps one should imagine that Essenes ran schools, orphanages, or other associations that would begin to prepare children for later entry into the group as adults. Or “yielding, delicate, soft.” Though widely attested in classical Greek, this adjective (ἁπαλός) occurs only here in Josephus. In Josephus, lessons indicated by this word (μαθήματα) are always predicated of children; the word occurs elsewhere only at Ant. 4.211; 16.6. “Principles of character” renders the Greek plural of ἦθος. See the note to “philosophy” in 2.119 above, and to “character” at Life 430 in BJP 9. The testing of character will be the crucial criterion for admission to the order (2.138).

The point seems to be that the Essenes do not call for the end of marriage tout court—the verb here, ἀναιρέω, is commonly used by Josephus in military contexts for “getting rid of”—or denounce the institution in general, for that would mean the end of humanity; it is only that Essenes keep themselves away from it. See the note to “marriage” at 2.120. Even still, this passage does not prepare us for the marrying Essenes of 2.160-61. This comment on succession (ἡ διαδοχή) creates a bond with the preceding narrative, which has been devoted to the Herodian succession crisis, beginning in Herod’s lifetime with numerous wills and continued through the rivalry among his sons—a debacle that Josephus has chosen to feature. It is unclear whether the succession in question here is that of humanity (cf. the 2nd-cent. CE medical writer Soranus, Gyn. 3.24.1, on marriage and human succession) or only of the Essene order; exclued, at any rate, is any craving for personal succession, in sharp contrast to the worries of the politically powerful. Curiously, the “different order of Essenes” described in 2.160-61 holds this succession (also ἡ διαδοχή–supporting the symmetry) in such high regard—as “the greatest function of life,” without which the race or order (γένος: see notes to “type” at 2.113 and “ancestry” at 2.119) would die out—that they are willing to suffer the deed themselves. Since this main body of Essenes has already dealt with the problem of succession, by adoption, one must imagine either that there was a dispute about the sufficiency of the adopted newcomers’ numbers (contra Pliny, Nat. 5.73), or about their suitability, or about one’s personal obligation to perpetuate the human race (cf. Gen 1.28); it is also possible Josephus has invented marrying Essenes. See the notes to that passage. This phrase (ἀσελγείαι γυναικῶν) is characteristic: Josephus uses it of the femmes fatales Jezebel (Ant. 8.318), Cleopatra (Ant. 15.98), and Herod’s wife Mariamme (War 1.439), also of transvestite Galilean Zealots in Jerusalem during the war, who “used to imitate women’s passions and dream up forbidden desires on account of the excess of their wantonness” (War 4.562). Cf. also Philo, Vit. Mos. 1.305; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 2.56. This conjunction of words is not common in Greek literature before Josephus, where wantonness is sometimes attributed to men in relation to women and drink (Polybius 10.38.2; 25.3.7); it does turn up in the fragmentary 1st-century BCE astrological writings of Timaeus Praxidas (Frag. 1.99), Antiochus (Frags. 7.113, 115 [Monac. 7]), and Dorotheus (Frag. 343); similarly the 2nd-cent. CE astrologer Vettius Valens (Anthol. 2.4, 17, 37, 41 [Pingree]). Greek μηδεμίαν . . . τὴν πρὸς ἕνα πίστιν. In the preceding story of Glaphyra’s dream (2.114-16), Josephus has illustrated his claim about women’s fickleness with the dead Alexander’s tirade against his widow. In Ant. 17.352 that charge is formulated universally: “Glaphyra, you certainly prove correct the customary saying, ‘women are faithless’ [ἄπιστα].” According to Ant. 4.219, Moses rejected evidence from women because of their silliness and brazenness; cf. 13.430-31; Apion 2.201. For the portrait(s) of women in Polybius, one of Josephus’ main literary influences, see Eckstein 1995: 150-60. On women in Josephus, see among others Mayer-Schärtel 1995; Ilan 1999: 85-125; Matthews 2001; Grünenfelder 2003. For women as faithless (ἄπιστα) see Euripides, Iph. taur. 1298; Menander, Frag. 801 [Kock] (“the nature of woman is faithless”); Plutarch, Lyc. 15.9; Mor. [Apoph. Lac.] 228b.Although Essene sources agree on the group’s celibacy, they offer various reasons for it. Josephus will later say (Ant. 18.21) that taking in wives introduces a source of dissension (στάσις), which might have many interpretations: male competition for women’s attention, or strife and distraction within a marriage. Philo (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.11 [380d-81a]) dwells at length on women’s putative shortcomings (they are selfish, jealous, manipulative and, after giving birth, arrogant and violent). A woman’s ability to distract a man, also discussed by Philo here, figures in Paul’s preference for celibacy (1 Cor 7:32-35) and in the logic for singleness in the Roman legions (Herodian 3.8.5). At any rate, such disparaging remarks about women and their influence were common in Roman circles (e.g., Plutarch, Mor. [Reg. apoph.] 198d-f; Cat. Maj. 1-9). Sexual restraint was a rhetorical ideal of the Roman élite male (Gleason 1999: 73, 76).

Josephus uses “despiser” (καταφρονητής) only 3 times: again of the Essenes (2.151) and once of the early Saul’s example as a “despiser of terrors” (Ant. 6.347). This nomen agentis form of the verb καταφρονέω is attested very rarely before his time (LXX Hab. 1:5; 2:5; Soph. 3:4; Philo, Legat. 322), though his contemporaries Epictetus (Diatr. 4.7.33) and Plutarch (Brut. 12.2; Mor. [Virt. sent.] 84a, 1044a) begin to use it. Although the term often indicates negative character traits (e.g., despisers of the laws and justice in Epictetus, Diatr. 4.7.33; LXX Hab. 1:5), Josephus and Plutarch use it ironically—of despising the things ordinarily most desired (wealth) or feared (suffering); cf. 2.151 (a symmetrical parallel): the Essenes despise the terrors associated with death. On all this compare the lengendary Spartans, whose lawgiver Lycurgus had banished wealth and poverty: he made all the land one and persuaded the citizens to live on the basis of equality, surpassing each other only in virtue (Plutarch, Lyc. 8.1-2). Traditional Roman detestation of luxuria is comprehensively reviewed by Weeber 2003; cf. Dalby 2000. Greek θαuμάσιον αὐτοῖς τὸ κοινωνικόν. Josephus elaborates on their community of goods at 2.127. It is unclear whether he means here only that the fact of their sharing is amazing, or that the resulting size of their communal wealth impresses outsiders. This is the sole occurrence in Josephus of the adjective κοινωνικός, though fellowship or common life (κοινωνία) is a major Josephan theme. In part, it is the opposite of the hatred for humanity (μισανθρωπία) with which Judeans have often been charged, especially after the war with Rome. He protests that the Judean laws are designed to produce κοινωνία (Apion 2.146, 151, 208): “we were born for κοινωνία, and he who sets its claims above his private interests is particularly favored by God” (Apion 2.196). When Greek philosophers taught “simplicity of life and fellowship with one another,” they were only imitating Moses (Apion 2.281). Even more pointedly (Apion 2.291), the Judean laws “appeal not for misanthropy but rather for the communal sharing of goods” (οὐδ’ ἐπὶ μισανθρωπίαν, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν ὄντων κοινωνίαν παρακαλοῦντες). The Essenes, then, only display a more obvious commitment to the virtues that characterize the nation as a whole. This editoral interjection of “astonishing” (θαυμάσιος) is typical of Josephus: War 4.478; 5.174; Ant. 2.198, 265. Community of goods is the Essene trait most fully and frequently discussed in all Essene texts. Josephus will later say that “goods are common among them” (Ant. 18.20); Pliny remarks that they have no money (Nat. 5.73); Philo says that they are almost unique among humankind in living without goods and property (Prob. 77), and describes their practice in detail (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.11 [379c-d]). Namely: they combine their possessions, forswearing anything that produces wealth; they receive income from trades, but hand it over to a steward for redistribution; they share not only the same food but also clothes, each being able to take whatever he needs from the common collection.Such community of goods was one of the most fundamental utopian and philosophical ideals, often associated with primitive, uncorrupted humanity (Ferguson 1975: 19-20). It characterized Pythagoras’ mathematikoi, Plato’s ideal state (Leg. 745c); the republic of the Stoic Chrysippus (Plutarch, Mor. [Stoic. rep.] 1044b-d; Cicero, Fin. 3.20.67; Ferguson 1975: 119), Philo’s therapeutae (Contempl. 18), the early Christians of Acts (2:44-45; 4:34-37), the men of the Alexandrian Museum (Strabo 17.1.8), and the group behind the Community Rule of Qumran (1QS 1.11-13; 6.19-23; contrast CD 14.12-16). On this point, again, the Essenes embody Josephus’ ideal for all Judeans (Apion 2.281). See also the note to “communal stock” in this section. Or “convention, rule” (νόμος). See the notes to “school” at 2.118 and “adherent” at 2.119. Greek δημεύω, “make or declare public,” which Josephus uses only here and at 3.435 (of the mourning that “became widespread” at the premature news of his own death). Greek οὐσία: “substance.” Cf. colloquial English “stuff” or perhaps “worth.” Or “corps.” This (τάγμα) is one of several terms Josephus uses as an alternative to “school” (αἵρεσις)—see the notes to “school” at 2.118 and “adherents” at 2.119—in this passage (also 2.125, 143, 160, 161). As the standard equivalent of the Latin legio (legion), the word seems particularly appropriate for the highly disciplined, all male, eminently courageous corps of Essenes; Josephus also uses it of the Sadducees at 2.164. For poverty (πενία) as humiliation (ταπεινότης), see also Dionysius, Ant. rom. 6.54.1; 10.19.1; Josephus, Ant. 7.84. Ant. 9.3 has a similar phrase, ὑπεροχὴ διὰ πλοῦτον. Here it is ὑπεροχὴ πλούτου. The Spartan lawgiver Lycurgus, after dividing up all the land and banishing gold and silver along with every kind of inequality, is said to have declared “All Laconia looks like a family estate newly divided up among many brothers” (Plutarch, Lyc. 8.4; cf. Mor. [Apoph. Lac.] 226b-c). See the note to “funds” earlier in this section.

Olive oil (τὸ ἔλαιον) was an extremely important commodity throughout the Mediterranean world. In addition to its use in food—providing as much as a third of the average person’s caloric intake (Tyree and Stefanoudaki 1996: 171)—it served for lighting, fuel, hygienic and cosmetic products, and medicines. Greeks and Romans customarily washed by smearing themselves with oil, rubbing it in, and then scraping it off (along with any grime) with an implement known as a strigil, in the Greek gymnasium or Roman baths. Large rotary olive presses and squeezing centers continue to be found even in small Galilean towns and remote areas (Hestrin and Yeivin 1977; Goodman 1990: 227). Since in conventional life olive oil seemed indispensable (Garnsey 1999: 12-14; Tyree and Stefanoudaki 1996), Josephus’ claim that the Essenes avoided it and bathed only in cold water (War 2.129) would make them quite remarkable ascetics: see the note to “dry” in this section. This avoidance of contact with oil (on the skin—there is no exclusion for food and fuel) is mentioned only by Josephus, of the ancient authors who describe the Essenes. Their preference for cold-water baths (2.129) indicates extreme simplicity and toughness. For the same language, that olive-oil leaves a “stain,” see Plutarch, Mor. [Quaest. conv.] 696d: physical stains from olive-oil [ἐλαίου κηλῖδας] endure and cannot be easily removed from clothes. Josephus applies such practical knowledge about this property of oil, perhaps playfully, to skin.For a possible connection with the DSS (CD 12.15-17), depending upon whether one reads ‮שמן‬‎ [“oil, fat”] or ‮שמו‬‎ [“his name”]), see J. Baumgarten 1967-69: 183 and Beall 1988: 45, 142 n. 56. Contrast the readings in Vermes 1995: 111 (“All wood and stones and dust defiled by the impurity of a man shall be reckoned like men with regard to conveying defilement”) and García Martínez 1996: 43 (“And all the wood and the stones and the dust which are defiled by man’s impurity, by defilement of oil in them . . .”). Whereas Baumgarten and Beall argue that the issue for the Qumraners (whom they equate with Essenes) involves the capacity of oil to conduct impurity, Josephus plainly makes their concern a preference for hard, dry skin—much as the Spartans were reported to favor—and the question is not oil considered impure (on which cf/ Life 74 with notes in BJP 9), but olive oil in general. See the following note and the one to “dry” in this section; for the purity of oil. Or “anointed” (κἂν ἀλειφθῇ τις ἄκων). All 3 occurrences of ἀλείφω in Josephus (also 5.565; Ant. 6.165) occur in conjunction with the cognate noun τὸ ἔλαιον as here. The other reference in War, a nearly symmetrical counterpart at the end of bk. 5 (5.565), concerns the reprehensible behavior attributed to John of Gischala, whose men deliberately smeared themselves with olive oil from the temple stores as they consumed the sacrificial wine; Josephus immediately cites the coming divine punishment (5.566). The possibility here that one might be accidentally smeared implies that the Essenes handled wine for other purposes (cooking, fuel, light); they only refrained from the effeminate-seeming practice of washing and anointing themselves with it. This appears to confirm that the issue was not purity, which would have implications for cooking and eating and not simply for skin. The verb σμήχω (here middle voice) occurs only here in Josephus. Before his time it is rarely attested (e.g., cf. Homer, Od. 6.226; Strabo 3.4.16; 17.3.7), mainly—as later—in medical texts (Hippocrates, Mul. aff. 75.13, 17; 190; Diaet. morb. 18.8; dozens of times in the Materia Medica of the 1st-century CE Dioscurides Pedianus; Cyranides 4.60, 69; cf. Plutarch, Mor. [Quaest. conv.] 627e). Or “consider it beautiful, fine [ironically], good” (ἐν καλῷ τίθενται)—a phrase attested sparsely before Josephus (cf. Polybius 6.56.3; cf. 1.81.9; Strabo 4.5.4; 11.13.11; later Appian, Bell. civ. 1.12.103), which he employs also at Ant. 19.299. He uses the same expression at 2.146, symmetrically, of Essene deference to elders. Greek τὸ γὰρ αὐχμεῖν ἐν καλῷ τίθενται. The stative verb αὐχμέω normally has negative connotations (“be unwashed, squalid, parched, hard and dry”)—indicating a condition to be avoided or relieved through rain or washing, as in its other appearances in Josephus: War 4.457; Ant. 7.297 (cf. Plato, Resp. 606d; Diogenes Laertius 8.59; 9.3; Plutarch, Num. 13.6-7; Ages. 30.3; Mor. [Reg. apoph.] 193a, 365d). For the metaphorical use of this word group, for the simple and austere philosophical lifestyle, which this passage matches, see Diogenes Laertius 4.19.In view of the many parallels between Josephus’ Essenes and the Spartan legend (see Excursus), it is noteworthy that the Spartans too were remembered for considering their dry—unwashed—skin (same root: αὐχμηροὶ τὰ σώματα) a mark of toughness (Plutarch, Lyc. 16.6; Mor. [Apoph. Lac.] 237b), matching Josephus’ language here. Both groups thus reject conventional standards take it as honorable (or “beautiful”) to avoid what most others consider essential—in appearance as in property, wealth, and lifestyle.On the opposite end of the moral spectrum, in Josephus’ narrative it is men who have no shred of self-control who indulge the use of oil: at War 5.565-66, John of Gischala impiously distributes the temple supplies of oil and wine to his men, who anoint themselves and drink heartily. This same group, Josephus claims earlier (4.561-62), went so far as to adopt women’s ways: plaiting their hair, wearing women’s clothes (in spite of Ant. 4.301), drenching themselves in perfume, applying make-up, giving in to “the passions of women” (πάθη γυναικῶν), and indulging a “surfeit of wantonness” (ὑπερβολὴν ἀσελγείας). For Roman resonances, compare Tacitus’ disdain for Nero’s distribution of oil to the equestrian and senatorial orders at his dedication of a gymnasium: “a Greek predilection (Graeca facilitate)” (Ann. 14.47). The Essenes’ discipline in physical appearance thus reflects their moral perspicuity as surely as the rebels’ degeneracy produces a disgraceful demeanor. According to 2.137, the novice Essene is presented with white clothes at the point of probationary acceptance, 3 years before full membership. White was widely recognized in the ancient Mediterranean world as the color of purity, of the Gods’ clothing, of temple service, and to some extent of celebration: see Croom 2000: 28; Sebesta 2001: 48, and the note to “white garment” at War 2.1. The verb λευχειμονέω occurs only here in Josephus. Other authors use it in similarly lofty, sublime contexts: Strabo 7.2.3; Philo, Contempl. 66 [of the Therapeutae]; Cher. 95; Herodian 8.7.2; Dio 63.4.2; 74.1.4. The adjective χειροτονητός occurs only here in Josephus (cf. χειροτονοῦντες at Ant. 18.22) and is rare elsewhere. The main alternative to being “elected by show of hands” was to be lot-elected (κληρωτός: Aeschines, Tim. 21; Ctes. 14, 25, 29; Aristotle, Ath. pol. 55.2), as were early Christian leaders according to Acts 1:26. Election by hand thus implied the conscious preference of one’s peers, in contrast to both the choice of fate (Aristotle, Ath. pol. 54.3; Lucian, Nav. 29; Plutarch, Flam. 16.6) and leadership by assumed or inherited class, caste, or clique.It is unclear how this system of elected officials (see also next note) relates to the 4-phase seniority system (“according to the duration of their training”) indicated at the symmetrical counterpart, 2.150. Did senior members (there) take direction from elected curators or managers (here) of lesser seniority? The problem is resolvable if Josephus describes here the practices of full members only—a status achieved only in the fourth year of association (2.138)—and if the 4 grades of 2.150, according to time in the order, refer to members in various phases of initiation. At Ant. 18.22 the text seems to imply that both the community’s financial administrators and its priests—whose tasks appear confined to food preparation—are elected. See the next note. A phrase very close to this one (οἱ τῶν κοινῶν ἐπιμεληταί) is in Diodorus (34/35.2.19): οἱ καθ’ ἕκαστον ἐπιμεληταὶ τῶν κοινῶν. The word ἐπιμελητής is used often by Plato for the various kinds of official needed in his ideal state, alongside the Guardians of the laws (νομοφύλακες, Leg. 640d, 755d, 758e, 760e, 764c, 765d, 766b, 772a, 801d, 813c, 847c, 848e, 929d, 951e; Resp. 424b), also by Xenophon of certain officials appointed by Cyrus (Cyr. 8.1.9). Of all possible forms of leadership, that by such curators, guardians, or “care-givers” is a token of communities who are thus free from the despotism of kings and tyrants (cf. Philo, Prob. 45). In War 2.129 the Essene curators (ἐπιμεληταί) are responsible for assigning tasks and maintaining the daily schedule; at 2.134 Josephus claims that without orders from these curators (μὴ τῶν ἐπιμελητῶν προσταξάντων) the Essenes will do nothing except render help and offer pity. In that same passage, with his typical concern to vary his diction, he uses the word ἐπίτροποι (“managers, those entrusted”—also his usual term for Judean procurators in the War; cf. the note at 2.117) for the same men. See the previous note for the relation between these officials and the seniority-based grades of 2.150.In sharp contrast to the DSS, which feature (a) an individual community leader known as the ‮מבקר‬‎ (“guardian”: 1QS 6.12, 20; CD 9.18-22; 13.11, 16; 15.8-14) or ‮פקיד‬‎ (“official”: 1QS 6.14; CD 14.6; cf. Beall 1988: 46-47) as well as (b) group-rankings based on caste (priests, Levites, and others, possibly Israelites and proselytes, CD 14.3-6; cf. Beall 1988: 99-100), Josephus describes among his Essenes only these elected officials, and only in the plural (here and at 2.129, 134), along with the 4 grades determined according to time in the order (at 2.150)—not according to caste. He mentions priests, remarkably given his own proud membership in the priesthood, only in connection with blessings over food in this passage (War 2.131) and more generally in connection with food preparation at Ant. 18.22. Priests do not figure in any hierachical structure among Josephus’ Essenes. This word (ἀδιαίρετος in plural) occurs only here in Josephus. It has strong philosophical and mystical connotations: Aristotle uses it hundreds of times, Philo dozens. This atmosphere of complete harmony, albeit without the use of this word, is matched by Josephus’ presentation of Judean culture as a whole in Apion 2.170, 179, 294. Or “assigned by all” (πρὸς ἁπάντων): for the syntax cf. Smyth § 1695. This rather poetic sentence, featuring two strong words unique in Josephus’ lexicon, lacks an explicit verb to clarify the meaning. This contributes to an air of solemnity.

Josephus’ choice of verb (μετοικέω) suggests “settling alongside” as aliens or foreigners (cf. “metics” in Greek cities), thus not belonging in the same way as native or ordinary citizens. This makes sense in view of their highly regimented communities attached to these cities. Compare Philo (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.11.[379a]): “They live in many cities of Judea, and also in many villages and large, populous groups.” In Prob. 76, by contrast, Philo says that the Essenes flee the cities because of their wickedness, preferring village life, agriculture, and crafts. According to Ant. 18.19, agriculture is the Essenes’ sole occupation, which would also support locations outside away from cities in the proper sense. Nevertheless, in Josephus’ narratives individual Essenes appear only in the Jerusalem area: War 1.78 (cf. Ant. 13.311); 2.113, 567 (a member of the order? Cf. 3.11); 5.1145; Ant. 15.371-78.In spite of Josephus’ distinction between cities and villages in some cases (e.g., Life 188), he can also use the word “city” (πόλις) very loosely: at Life 123, Gabara in Galilee is a large city, at 229 a mere village. Similarly, such small towns as Gischala (War 4.2, 92), Iotapata (War 3.111-12, 289 [also Iapha]; Life 332, though a village at Life 188), and Gamala (War 2.568; 4.2, 12; Ant. 18.4) are called cities in some places; at Life 235 Josephus claims that Galilee alone held 204 “cities and villages.” The main point here seems to be not that the Essenes live in cities, in contrast to other kinds of settlement, but only that they have no single center, with established communities in many places. This point serves Josephus’ aim (see Excursus) of presenting the group as typical of widespread Judean values; they are not a small and obscure group of philosophical heroes. It is developed in the following sentences, according to which the Essenes configure their communities in the expectation of constant travel and visitors.This distribution of Essenes throughout Judea, without a center, stands in some tension with Pliny’s location of Esseni to the W of the Dead Sea (Nat. 5.73; cf. Excursus), though Pliny does not necessarily locate all or most Essenes there (NB: Latin lacks the definite article)—and in any case he may be mistaken as he is about much Judean geography (see Excursus on Essenes). The plain statements of Philo and Josephus, apparently independent in this respect, also pose a problem for the classic version of the Qumran-Essene hypothesis, which made Khirbet Qumran the Essene base, though some advocates of the hypothesis have dramatically revised this claim (e.g. Stegemann 1992: 161). See the note to “members” at 2.119. Cf. Mark 6:10-11; Matt 10:10-11; Luke 9:3-5; 10:3-7, where Jesus similarly instructs his followers to travel without food, money, or extra clothing, and to find accommodation and food in strangers’ homes.

Diogenes the Cynic, paradigm of the simplest possible life, reportedly carried a staff in his travels during later life (Diogenes Laertius 6.23)—and put it to effective use (6.32). According to Mark 6:8, a staff was the only accessory that Jesus permitted his followers when they traveled, though Matt 10:10 and Luke 9:3 forbid even this. Although the term “bandit” (λῃστής) is often used by Josephus in rhetorical ways to attack political enemies (see notes to “chief bandit” at 2.56 and to “banditry” at 2.142), mundane banditry was also a standard feature of the 1st-century Judean landscape; note the situation assumed by Josephus’ parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:30) and cf. Isaac 1984; Shaw 1984; Grünewald 1999. See the note at 2.14. Or “controller” (= Latin quaestor): Greek ταμιεύων. This is the only occurrence of the present participle, which functions here as an official function, in Josephus. Cf. Demosthenes, Mid. 174; Tim. 15; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 10.44; esp. Plutarch, Luc. 37.1; Tib. Gai. Gracc. 23.9; Cic. 1.6; 17.2; Mor. [Praec.] 806d; note the cognate ταμίαι in Eusebius’ preervation of Philo (Praep. ev. 8.11 [380a]) and, without official connotations, at War 2.135.

Or “equipment, gear”: Josephus uses καταστολή only here. Before his time it is attested only in the Hippocratic corpus, Diodorus (15.94.3), Aristonicus (Sign. Il. ad 2.193), Aristeas (284-85), Musonius Rufus (3.68), and 1 Tim 2:9. It becomes more popular with his contemporaries Plutarch (Per. 5.1), Epictetus (Arrian, Diatr. 2.10.15, 21.11), and 2nd-century writers. Greek τοῖς μετὰ φόβου παιδαγωγουμένοις. The participle refers to the role of child-rearing ordinarily entrusted in the Greek world to a pedagogue (παιδαγωγός), who assumed general responsibility for an upper-class child’s care and education, partly as an intermediary between other teachers and the parents (e.g., Xenophon, Lac. 2.1). He also protected the child from sexual or other interference and would typically assist with homework and memory drills. Although the apostle Paul famously describes being under a pedagogue’s care as a form of slavery (Gal 4:1-2), upper-class children by no means always lived in fear of their pedagogues: cf. (much later) Libanius, Or. 58. Pedagogues had above all to be trusted by the parents to protect the child’s interests. Cf. Cribiore 2001: 47-50, and in the 4th-cent. CE the emperor Julian’s tribute to his pedagogue (Misopogon 351a).Xenophon implies that it was the absence of pedagogues in Sparta (see previous note) that produced an education in fear: boys were trained instead with whips (Lac. 2.2-6). That seems closer to the image of strict discipline among Josephus’ (adult) Essenes. As a parallel, note the Spartan requirement of disciplined dress and deportment from its young men: “on the roads, he [Lycurgus] ordered them to keep the hands inside the cloak, to proceed in silence, and not to be looking around but to stare ahead in front of their feet” (Xenophon, Lac. 3.4). But the standard posture of modesty advocated for children by pedagogues was similarly to walk with the head lowered: cf. Xenophon, Lac. 3.4; Plutarch, Mor. [Virt. doc.] 439f; Lucian, Amor. 44; Cribiore 2001: 49. Again, Josephus writes artfully, without verbs. Cf. the Spartan practice of going without the standard Greek tunic, receiving only one simple outer covering (ἱμάτιον) each year (Plutarch, Mor. [Apoph. Lac.] 237b). Indeed, the rough Spartan cloak (τρίβων) had become the distinctive garb of the philosopher (Hadot 1998: 7-8).

Cf. Plutarch on the Spartiates: they are forbidden to sell anything, but freely take from their neighbors when in need (Mor. [Apoph. Lac.] 238f). This is the only occurrence of the compound verb ἀντικομίζω in Josephus. It is attested before him only in Aristonicus (Sign. Il. ad 17.126), though Plutarch (Lys. 26.2) and Appian (Bell. civ. 4.9.70) will also use it. This word (ἀντίδοσις) occurs only here in Josephus. Once again Josephus writes a sentence without a main verb.

The qualification seems useful because piety (εὐσέβεια) could be directed towards parents, elders, city leaders as well as to the Gods. See references in next note. Piety (εὐσέβεια and cognates) expressed toward the Deity (πρὸς τὸ θεῖον or τὸν θεόν) is a characteristic expression of Josephus, not found in other authors to anywhere near the same degree; it is typically paired with justice toward humanity as a summary of human ethical obligation. See the notes at 2.139 on the first two Essene vows and Mason 1991: 85-90. This is another sentence lacking a verb. Like many ancient writers, Josephus commonly uses the ἀνίσχω form of ἀνέχω for the sun’s rising: War 5.160; 7.281; Ant. 4.305; 6.79. But the only author before Josephus to use this particular sort of phrase (πρὶν with ἥλιος and infinitive ἀνασχεῖν), which Josephus has several times in his works (also Ant. 3.79, 199; 6.76; 937), appears to be Philo in his portrait of the Essenes as quoted by Eusebius (Praep. ev. 8.11 [379d]), though Philo does not not have them praying to the sun. Still, the coincidence of language is surprising enough that one must suspect influence of Josephus’ word usage on Eusebius (Josephus’ dependence upon Philo is unlikely given the frequency of this usage in Antiquities: it is Josephus’ own) or cross-fertilization of MSS. Much of Josephus’ language throughout War 2, not only in the Essene passage, is conspicuously “Philonic.” Greek βέβηλος occurs regularly in War (4.182; 5.16; 6.271), where it regularly contrasts with sacred things as here, and Antiquities (3.181; 12.38, 320; 15.90). For the phrase (πατρίους εὐχάς) see Ant. 14.260 and Pindar, Pyth. 4.98; Aeschines, Tim. 23; Philo, Somn. 1.215; Mos. 2.133. The phrase εἰς αὐτὸν must mean “to, towards the sun” because the pronoun is masculine, whereas the preceding “Deity” is neuter. Josephus’ comments on Essene reverence for the sun (see also 2.148: Essenes are modest when defecating “so as not to outrage the rays of God”) have long puzzled interpreters, especially those who read this passage in light of the DSS. Vitucci (626 n. 7) charges Josephus with a certain “improprietà di linguaggio,” by giving the impression that the Essenes worshipped the sun. Normally, Josephus’ remarks are either flattened to match the Scrolls’ “prayers at dawn” (Beall 1988: 52-54) or they are taken encourage arbitrary source theories (e.g., Bergmeier 1993: 84), on the ground that no faithful Judean could speak thus. After all, the Temple Scroll intensifies the biblical prohibition of sun-worship, on pain of death by stoning (11QT 55.15-21; cf. Deut 17:2-5; Ezek 8:16-19). We ought, however, to read this passage in light of Josephus’ narrative themes and audience.Elsewhere Josephus tends to personify the sun and to see it as a representation of God. Later he will claim that the Zealots “polluted the Deity” by leaving corpses unburied beneath the sun (War 4.382-83; cf. 3.377; 4.317), and his Titus will vow to bury the memory of Jerusalem’s cannibalism so that “the sun cannot look upon it” (War 6.217). In Ant. 1.282-83, God parallels his watching over the earth with the sun’s: Abraham’s children “shall fill all that the sun beholds of earth and see. . . . for it is I who am watching over all that you will do. . . .” Moses positions the tabernacle, the house of God (3.100), to catch the sun’s first rays (3.115). He directs the Israelites to create an altar oriented towards the sun (4.305). The high priest’s upper garment is woven with gold to represent the ever-present rays of the sun (3.184). Cf. 4.114; 6.76, 216; 8.49; 9.225. Though otherwise elaborating the biblical portrait of King Josiah’s reforms (Ant. 10.268-70; cf. 2 Kgs 23:19-20), Josephus tellingly omits Josiah’s destruction of horses and chariots that had been dedicated to the sun (cf. 2 Kgs 23:11). It seems significant, then, that he also turns the phrase of 1 Macc 9.10, “Far be it from me to do this deed!” into “May the sun not look upon such a thing” (12.424), and has Marc Antony speak of the sun’s looking away from the murder of Julius Caesar (14.309; cf. 16.99, 108; 18.46; Apion 1.306). Josephus’ portrayal of the Essenes thus matches his general tendencies.Certainly, Essene reverence for the sun would have been highly resonant for a Greco-Roman audience. Sun worship was widespread through the near and far E, already since the emergence of Akhenaten (“glory of the [sun-disk] Aten”) as Egyptian Pharaoh in the 18th Dynasty (14th cent. BCE). In early Greece, the informal worship of Helios (the Sun) was common, and is partly reflected in the popularity of the name Heliodorus (“gift of the sun”); the pre-socratic philosopher Anaxagoras’ claim that the sun was merely a red-hot mass caused outrage (Diogenes Laertius 2.12). Hesiod (Op. 339) mentions offering sacrifices at the rising and the setting of the sun (the “holy light”), and Plato speaks of Socrates’ praying to the sun (Sym. 220d; cf. Leg. 887d-e on the commonality of this practice, and Albinus, Epit. doctr. Plat. 14.6). The prestige of the sun for philosophers was helped along by the Stoic Cleanthes’ (early 3rd-cent. BCE) identification of it with the driving principle of the world (τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τοῦ κόσμου, Diogenes Laertius 7.139; cf. Philo, Opif. 116; Somn. 187). Incidentally, the Spartan Lycurgus is said to have established his constitution under the tutelage of Delphic Apollo (increasingly identified with Helios), and reverence for Apollo remained customary among the Spartans (Herodotus 1.65; Plato, Leg. 674d; Xenophon, Ages. 1.34; 2.15, 17; Lac. 8.5). In utopian literature after Alexander, sun worship had a prominent role, inspired by Plato’s Atlantis (Criti. 113b-121c, esp. 115b), by the travel narrative of Iambulus to an Island of the Sun (Diodorus 2.55-60), and by the Sacred Inscription of Euhemerus, in which the Sacred Isle (Panchaia) was associated with the sun (Diodorus 5.41.4ff; cf. Ferguson 1975: 104-6). The nationalist Pergamene rebel Aristonicus (2nd-cent. BCE) may have been influenced by Iambulus in calling his followers “sun-citizens” (Strabo 14.38.1). Cf. Ferguson 1975: 104-6, 127, 144.Sun worship was encouraged by the widespread identification of the sun with Apollo (Euripides, Phaethon 225; Horace, Saec. 9), especially in Rome. A constant reminder of this, at least until the great fire of 64 CE, was the representation of Sol-Helios driving his sun-chariot above the pediment of Augustus’ Palatine temple of Apollo (see 2.81 above and notes). To the W of the Palatine was the Circus Maximus, with its Egyptian obelisk from Heliopolis standing on the central spina, dedicated by Augustus to Sol in 10 BCE to (CIL 6.701); cf. Champlin 2003: 118-20. Augustus was said to have been fathered by Apollo (Suetonius, Aug. 5), to whom also he dedicated at least two temples. Most impressive was Nero’s extraordinary program, just a decade before Josephus was writing in Rome, of suffusing his reign with the imagery of Apollo (from 59 CE) and then Sol (from 64); see Champlin 2003: 112-44. Nero’s association of himself with Apollo and Sol did not tarnish their prestige; it was Vespasian, in 75 CE, who finally raised the colossal statue of Sol near the site of the Colosseum (Dio 66.15.1). The native Roman God Sol Indiges would eventually be eclipsed by the Syrian import Sol Invictus (the Unconquered Sun), who remained dominant from the 3rd century until the rise of Christianity in the 4th. Julian’s short-lived reversal of the Christian trend was reflected in part by his Hymn to King Helios, which gives at least a sense of what philosophically informed reverence for the sun would sound like. The verb ἱκετεύω (“entreat, approach as supplicant”) is common in Josephus, with many of its more than one 100 occurrences relating to God—supporting the impression both here and at 2.148 (the symmetrical parallel) that Josephus means to suggest a kind of sun worship on the part of the Essenes. The verb is ἀνατέλλω, which Josephus changes from “rise” (ἀνίσχω) earlier in this section, presumably for characteristic variatio.

See the notes to “hand-elected” and “affairs” at 2.123. Or “skills, trades.” The reference to trades is also significant because Josephus considers participation in trades (τέχναι) and agriculture (γεωργία) the admirable peace-time activity of all Judeans (cf. Apion 2.293). It is hardly coincidental that according to Ant. 18.19 the Essenes engage in the other side of this pair, agriculture—also the ideal pursuit according to Roman tradition (Plutarch, Cat. Maj. 2.1; 3.1-4). Cf. Philo on Essenes who engage in agriculture (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.11 [379d]). Greek: ἀπολούονται τὸ σῶμα ψυχροῖς ὕδασιν—an act of purification (ἁγνεία), as the next sentence says. Josephus himself was no stranger to the purificatory cold bath. He boasts in Life 11 that when he was with Bannus he “bathed frequently in frigid water, day and night, for purification” (ψυχρῷ ὕδατι . . . πρὸς ἁγνείαν). Elsewhere he explains that Judeans who experience nocturnal emissions plunge into cold water the next day (Ant. 3.263). See the previous note: washing is typically for purification. Given that novices are admitted to the “purer of the waters for purification” only after 1 year and approved for the community after two more (2.138), it seems that this description applies only to those of (at least) the second phase. Josephus’ John the Baptist, note, gives a different twist to the process of purification by water when he insists that baptism is a purification (also ἁγνεία) for the body only, presupposing the prior cleansing of the soul (Ant. 18.117). Greek ἴδιον οἴκημα could have several meanings: “private, personal, special, distinct, peculiar, or ordinary” + “building, residence, chamber, room, structure, or hall.” The point seems to be not that it is a private residence (where such communal dining would be implausible) but that it is not a public building or temple in the city (though they regard it “as if it were some sacred precinct”), open to the uninitiated (see next note), and in no way like familiar dining rooms (because no noise or carousal, below). For the contrast between private and public (i.e., temple) spaces (e.g., οὔτε τὰ ἱρὰ οὔτε τὰ ἴδια) see Herodotus 6.9.3; 8.109.3. This is the only occurrence in Josephus of the adjective (here plural) ἑτερόδοξος, which occurs before and around his time only in philosophical contexts, as here: Plato, Theaet. 190e, 193d; Philo, Sobr. 68; Migr. 175; Her. 247; Spec. 2.193; Epictetus, Diatr. 2.9.19; Sextus Empiricus, Pyr. 2.6, 118; Math. 164, 187, 258, 365; Lucian, Eun. 2. Medical applications come in the 2nd century with Galen and Soranus. The Spartans famously avoided contact with outsiders, whether by traveling abroad or by receiving foreign guests who might contaminate their ways—except in the rare cases in which the visitors were willing to adopt the Spartan regimen (Plutarch, Mor. [Apoph. Lac.] 238e). Curiously, given the frequent occurrence of the verb δειπνεῖν (to dine), Greek δειπνητήριον occurs only here in Josephus and is not attested in literature before him, though his younger contemporary Plutarch (Luc. 41.5) has it. Possibly Josephus wishes to emphasize, with a somewhat clinical word, that this is merely a place for the group to eat, utterly free of the associations of the triclinium, where diners recline for banquet-like meals and entertainment. It is unclear whether this dining room is the same structure as the private hall (or special building) just mentioned, or a room within it. Josephus chooses generic language (καθάπερ εἰς ἅγιόν τι τέμενος), readily intelligible to his audience. Although τέμενος was the standard Greek term for a sanctuary, War uses it sparingly (9 times, 4 of which are in bk. 7) and usually of a foreign precinct (so 1.403; 2.210; 7.158, 429, 434 [the last two at Leontopolis]; War 4.388; 5.5; 7.377 are exceptions). In Antiquities it occurs chiefly in descriptions of the first and second temples. In relation to the Jerusalem temple, Josephus most often speaks of the sacred precinct or temple area (τὸ ἱερόν) or the central shrine building (ναός).

Greek καθίζω continues to set the stage for the following portrait of uprightness and discipline at the Essene table: they have no inclination to recline (κατακλίνω, ἀνακλίνω) on dining couches, as their contemporaries normally did for main meals, a posture lending itself to the many forms of crudeness associated with the triclinium. Although it could serve as another term for “recline” in certain contexts (Xenophon, Cyr. 8.4.2; Josephus, Ant. 13.75-76), Josephus normally uses this verb in contexts of grand, formal, or even pompous sittings, as of a king or governor on his throne (Ant. 7.356, 358, 382; 8.2, 7, 399; 9.156), in a chariot (9.114), or on a bema (War 2.172; 3.532 [Vespasian]; 20.130), or for the seating of a council (Ant. 20.202, 216; Life 236, 368). At War 2.25 Gaius was thus “seated” in Augustus’ council. Josephus uses the phrase ἐν τάξει only 4 times in his corpus. That it appears twice in the Essene passage (cf. 2.132) is no accident: it reinforces the quasi-military “order” vocabulary. See the note to “order” at 2.122. Compare the famous communal meals of the Spartans, which Lycurgus established to preclude over-eating and to enforce a simple diet (Plutarch, Lyc. 10.1-2); see also the next section on Essene dinners.

Josephus apparently coins the double-compound verb, προκατεύχομαι: it occurs only here in his writings, and is attested earlier only in the fragments of the 4th-cent. BCE Alcidamas’ Rivalry (Certamen) between Homer and Hesiod (Frag. 5.41). Otherwise, it appears only in quotations of this passage (Porphyry, Eusebius) before the 9th century CE. The verb γεραίρω occurs only here in Josephus. Before Josephus, the writers who most characteristically use this word to speak of honoring God (or the Gods) are Dionysius (Ant. rom. 1.88.3; 2.23.4; 11.14.3) and Philo (Sacr. 117; Her. 110; Spec. 1.272; 2.132, 134, 209). The word “sponsor” (χορηγός) means first of all “chorus-leader” and then “chorus-subsidizer”: the one who foots the bill for the show. It is therefore an ironic way to speak of God’s furnishing life. Although this way of speaking about God will appeal to some later writers (e.g., Plotinus, Enn. 4.2.2, 7.3; 6.9.9; Themistius, Philanthr. 229a; Eusebius, Const. Or. 26.2), it seems attested before Josephus only in a remark in Plato’s Laws (665a), according to which Apollo and the Muses have been provided by the Gods as “choir-leaders.” In Ant. 6.342, however, Josephus will again speak of God with this language, as “producer of good things.”

Josephus uses κραυγή only in War 1-7, but he does so 24 times, a striking example here of War’s characteristic language. For the latter term (θόρυβος), see the note at 1.4. This pair of words (κραυγὴ καὶ θόρυβος), a natural combination for orators—Demosthenes, Con. 5; Aeschines, Ctes. 122; Dio Chrysostom 7.23; 30.42—turns up also in War 3.493; 6.255-56. Before Josephus it was favored by Polybius (3.51.9; 5.15.5; 15.30.3; 16.3.14; 38.12.4) and Diodorus (13.87.5, 95.4; 14.74.4; 18.67.1; 20.29.7, 65.2); see also Dionysius, Demosth. 12. Josephus’ contemporary Plutarch uses the pair extensively: Cam. 42.3; Fab. Max. 22.4; Alc. 31.3; Aem. Paul. 18.9; Phoc. 33.9; Cat. Min. 44.5; Mor. [Cons. Apoll.] 119b. Although it uses different vocabulary, cf. Xenophon’s description of Spartan communal meals: “there, there is little chance of outrage, little chance of drunken uproar, little chance of shameful behavior or shameful speech” (Lac. 5.6). “Pollution” is a prominent theme in War (see Introduction): the verb μιαίνω (used here) occurs some 21 times in this work (all cognates, 36 times), 17 times elsewhere in Josephus. See the note to “polluted” at 2.210. The repitition of this phrase (ἐν τάξει; cf. 2.130) is hardly accidental, but helps reinforce the sense of order and calm.

Cf. Xenophon (Lac. 3.5) on the quiet atmosphere of Spartan communal meals: “it is a precious thing with them if they even answer something that is asked.” The word φρικτός will appear again in Josephus only in War, in connection with the horrors perpetrated by the rebels in Jerusalem: 5.435, 438; 6.199. Curiously, given Josephus’ relatively generous usage and the extreme popularity of the word group in the Church Fathers, it is very sparsely attested before his time: Callimachus, Aetia, frag. 75; LXX Jer 5:30; 18:3; 23:14; Wis 6:5; 8:15; Ezekiel Trag., Exag. [Snell] lines 197, 219—mainly texts in the Judean tradition. Plutarch, however, begins to use it: Cor. 18.4; Cic. 49.2; Arat. 32.3; Num. 10.6. Aside from the ironic usage at War 1.470, of Herod’s son Antipater’s bizarre life, Josephus always uses μυστήριον in connection with a mystery cult or rite (Ant. 19.30, 71, 104—of Gaius Caligula’s penchant for his own mystery cult; Apion 2.189, 266). In Apion 2.189, significantly, he compares Judean culture as a whole, because it is more permanently and successfully executed, to a mystery cult of another nation. Such a comparison across categories is not standard; the point seems to be that even a small, devoted group of another nation could not produce what this entire nation of Judeans has. This word (νῆψις) appears only here in Josephus. It is attested in only 3 writers before his time, all of whom were likely inspirations (Polybius 6.1.4; Philo, Ebr. 129, 152; Leg. 3.82; Strabo 7.3.11; 15.3.20); it provides further evidence of the “Philonic” character of Josephus’ language throughout War 2. “Food and drink” (τροφή καὶ ποτός) make a predictable and common pair, though outside of Josephus, who uses the pair often (War 7.278; Ant. 3.34, 86; 4.45; 6.360, 377; 7.159, 274), only Aristotle and Plutarch juxtapose the words with much frequency. The phrase translated “until full” (μέχρι κόρου) turns up also at War 4.465 in a different context. This suggests that it does not come from a source on the Essenes, for it is otherwise is attested only in Josephus’ older contemporary Cornutus (53) and later in Galen (Hipp. libr. vi epidem. comm. 17b.198 [Wenkebach]), Achilles Tatius (Leuc. Clit. 1.6.1), and a few Christian authors of late antiquity. This portrait of the Essenes also matches Josephus’ emphasis on the restraint of Judean sacrificial meals in general, in contrast to those of other nations (Apion 2.195). The Spartans were similarly famous for their impressive restraint in food and drink: Lycurgus ordered that they receive just enough, not too much or too little (Xenophon, Lac. 5.3-4; Plutarch, Lyc. 10.1-2).

On these curators, see the notes to “hand-elected” and “affairs” at 2.123. The discipline of always voluntarily living under orders (inasmuch as the leaders are elected: 2.123) recalls the Spartan regimen that Xenophon describes: “But in Sparta even the most powerful men show particular deference to the magistrates, and pride themselves on being humble, and when they are called they run—and do not walk—to obey” (Xenophon, Lac. 8.1-4). Cf. Plutarch, Mor. 212c: when asked why the Spartans were the happiest of all nations, King Agesilaus replied: “Because more than the others they cultivate both ruling and being ruled.” The adjective αὐτεξούσιος (“in one’s power”) is a favorite of Josephus’. Although he has it some 10 times (also War 2.288; 3.86, 184; 5.556; Ant. 4.146; 15.266; 16.46; Apion 2.173), and it will be widely employed by the church fathers, it is barely attested before his time, and mainly in Philo (Legat. 183; Cher. 88; Plant. 46; Ebriet. 44; Jos. 148; Spec. 1.14; 2.82; Alleg. 3.73; Virt. 210; Her. 85, 301; Prob. 57; Quaest. gen. 4, frag. 51b; cf. Chrysippus, Frag. log. phys. frag. 990; Diodorus 14.105.4; Dorotheus, Frag. gr. 390; Epictetus, Diatr. 2.2.3). Or “pity” (ἔλεος). Greek ἐπίτροποι, evidently used interchangeably (for variety) with ἐπιμεληταί (curators) at the beginning of this section; see the note to “affairs” at 2.123.

The taut, verbless style of this sentence and many of those following fits its austere philosophical subject, calling to mind similarly terse passages in Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations (e.g., 1.1-17). See note to “quartermaster” at 2.125. This is the only occurrence in Josephus of the adjectival form καθεκτικός, and he has καθεκτ- words only in the War (also 2.12; 5.20). Before his time the root καθεκτ- occurs most often in moral contexts and especially in Philo, with a negative prefix on the passive form of the root (δυσκάθεκτος, ἀκάθεκτος) referring to ungovernable or unrestrainable passions, lusts, or yearnings (Xenophon, Mem. 4.1.3-4; Philo, Agr. 84; Migr. Abr. 132; Somn. 1.36, 122; Jos. 40, 154; Spec. 2.9, 94; 4.82). Although Galen (typically with ἡ δύναμις, the “power, faculty”: Loc. aff. 8.369, 371, 401, 440; Hippocr. pror. 16.710.10, 719.3; Hippocr. epid.17a.558.8, 705.11, etc.) and Artemidorus (2.14, 47; 3.33, 35; 4.5, 57) will begin to favor the “active” and positive form of the adjective (καθεκτικός, “able to constrain, contain, check”) in the 2nd century CE (cf. also Athenaeus, Deipn. 3.91 [Kaibel]), before Josephus this form is found only in Aristotle (Hist. anim. 635b.3; Probl. 963a.21; Top. 125b.18). The 5th (or 4th) oath sworn by the Essenes, according to 2.140, is to keep faith (τὸ πιστόν) with all, especially those in power. Contrast women, according to 2.121: none of them is able to maintain fidelity or loyalty. This description serves Josephus’ narrative aims perfectly. Unlike the reckless rebel tyrants, whose hot-headed behaviour precipitated the revolt, the Essenes always keep their composure with dignity and peaceful action. Unlike the traitorous, lying rebels, they do not break faith. They are the best examples of the ideal Judean temperament. “Peace” (εἰρήνη) is a favourite word of Josephus’: t he noun appears 106 times alone. “Temper” (θυμός) is particularly frequent in the War (39 of its 57 occurrences), where Josephus regularly cites it as a vice of the rebels. “Able to restrain,” or καθεκτ- words, occur only in the War (2.12; 5.20). According to Ant. 15.371, King Herod excused the Essenes from the general oath of loyalty, though their refusal to swear oaths is not given as the reason there. Greek ἐπιορκία. A paradoxical statement: making an oath (ὅρκος) is worse than breaking one. Whereas the common assumption that oath-breaking is bad presupposes that oaths should be made (and kept), the Essenes reject the very resort to oaths. It is a noteworthy feature of War (and Antiquities-Life) that those who use oaths to confirm their word are the least trustworthy (War 1.260 [Parthians]; 2.451-53 [the Judean rebels]; 4.214-15 [John of Gischala]; Ant. 1.323 [Laban]; Life 101-2, 275 [John of Gischala, “oath-breaker”]). Therefore, Josephus’ Essenes embody his own narrative perspective in preferring to speak honorably without the need of oaths. At Ant. 3.92, he has Moses restrict oath-making to important matters, a limitation that both explains his (and his Essenes’) condemnation of casual oath-making and allows the truly awesome Essene oaths that follow in 2.139-42. Perhaps in the sense “without resort to God.” The observation is humorous: if one cannot be believed without invoking God, then one is in a sorry position. A similar point is made by Matthew’s Jesus: 5:33-37. The phrase δίχα θεοῦ is unattested before Josephus. This is, however, the 1st of 3 occurrences in War 2 (also 2.140, 390)—the only examples in this work, in striking proximity. Antiquities uses related but more elaborate expressions (2.171; 4.60). This phrase offers another example of War’s use of newly fashionable language, for the same phrase appears in Josephus’ contemporaries Plutarch (Cam. 6.3) and Epictetus (Arrian, Diatr. 3.22.2, 53).

Possibly “bodies of doctrine, interpretations” (συντάγματα), though even if so, some kind of written object of study seems likeliest. Given the occult nature of Essene inquiry here, it is noteworthy that the closest (roughly contemporary) parallel to Josephus’ phrase παλαιῶν συντάγματα is in the 2nd-cent. CE astrologer Vettius Valens’ work (Anth. 3.9.3 [Pingree]): παλαιῶν συνταγματογράφων. The ancients in question evidently include Solomon (see the note to “investigated” below), who allegedly wrote much about cures through roots and other substances. Beall (1988: 70-73) makes a good case for including the pseudepigraphical 1 Enoch and Jubilees, since they also mention cures through herbs and roots (Jub. 10.10-14; 1 Enoch 7.1; 8.3; 10.4-8) and they were widely read in the 1st century. But there seems no reason to limit these ancients to Judeans: see the notes to “roots” and “stones” below. Josephus may well have chosen “of the ancients” rather than “holy” [compositions] precisely so as to include such non-canonical material. (On his “canon” see Apion 1.37-43 and Mason 2002). The closest parallel phrase appears in Philo (Spec. 1.298), who speaks of sleep as a divine gift that works “to the benefit of both body and soul.” Or “the cure of sufferings” (πρὸς θεραπείαν παθῶν). The study of roots for curative purposes had a long history in the Greco-Roman world. Aristotle’s prolific student Theophrastus (4th cent. BCE) based much of the 9th book of his Research into Plants (9.8.1) on the studies of predecessors known as “root-diggers” (ῥιζοτόμοι). He observes (9.8.1): “The powers of roots are many and for many [purposes], but the medicinal ones are especially sought out as being the most useful.” Josephus’ contemporary Pliny the Elder included in his Natural History, published in Rome in the 70s, detailed studies of plants as remedies, and this section of his work (Nat. 24-28) is filled with references to specific roots (radices) as ingredients in the cures. At War 7.1178-85 (esp. 185) Josephus will describe a plant (ruta graveolens; rue) that, though fatal to the touch (he claims), when uprooted and somehow applied to the ill, is a potent means of driving out demons. The “virtues of roots” were among the things of which King Solomon was alleged, in some Jewish texts, to have deep knowledge: see Wis 7:20 and the note to “investigated” in this section. Or “prophylactic” (ἀλεξητήριος), a word found only here in Josephus. For the occult connotations of this term—the protection includes defense against demons—see the note to “investigated” in this section. Given the Theophrastean context, it is noteworthy that one of the few authors to use this word is Theophrastus (Hist. plant. 7.13.4), of bulbous plants that keep witch-craft from a home. For other uses of the word: Aeschylus, Sept. Theb. 8 [a title for Zeus]; Euripides, Herc. 470; Xenophon, Eq. 5.6; Plato, Pol. 279d; the Hippocratic corpus (passim); Nicander, Ther. 7, 100, 714, 934; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 1.27. Cyranides and esp. Galen will use it extensively. For “the special properties of stones” see Theophrastus, Lap. [a work devoted to stones] 3.5; 41.1; 48.1; Galen, Simpl. med. temp. 12.207.2. The combination of roots and stones (often involving breaking up stones and applying the in some way to certain roots) is found frequently in the medical and magical writers of antiquity, not least among Josephus’ rough contemporaries Dioscorides Pedanius (Eup. simpl. med. 1.133.1; 2.36.4, 118.2, 119.4; Mat. med. 1.78.2; 4.91.1; esp. 5.126.3), Cyranides (1.7.19, 8.26, 10.95, 17.16), and Galen (Simpl. med. temp. 11.811.4; 12.41.13, 68.7). As Thackeray noted, following J. B. Lightfoot (LCL ad loc.), this passage has a close parallel in Ant. 8.44-49. There Josephus describes one of the most prominent ancients, Solomon, whom he credits with thousands of “compositions” (συντάσσω—8.44-45; cf. συντάγματα here). These record the king’s comprehensive study of nature and the various properties (ἰδιώματα) of each form (8.44). In particular, they describe the craft (τέχνη) of exorcism, “for the benefit and treatment (εἰς ὠφέλειαν καὶ θεραπείαν)” of humanity (8.55). Josephus there describes an instance of such therapeia (8.46, twice) that he witnessed. The exorcist used a root (ῥίζα) prescribed by Solomon for the purpose (8.47). By the time we read his closing line—he describes Solomon so that no one under the sun should be ignorant (8.49)—we might conclude that Solomon was an Essene. Cf. the plant (rue) used for exorcisms at War 7.185. Josephus’ portrait of Solomon as natural scientist is paralleled in Wis 7:17-22.

Greek δίαιτα is a favorite word of Josephus’, the word-group occurring some 102 times in his writings. It has many senses (e.g., “resolution [of disputes], place of residence, customary food”), but only in a few places does he use it of the disciplined Judean way of life (e.g., War 2.488; Apion 1.182; 2.173-74, 235; cf. Ant. 3.280), sometimes in contrast to other peoples’ customary ways of life (e.g., Life 113). In War, 5 of 11 occurrences are concentrated in this Essene passage (2.137, 138, 151, 155, 160); in the parallel school passage of Ant. 18.12-22, however, only the Pharisees are described with this word (18.12, 15), though it is a favored word in Ant. 17-19 in various senses (23 occurrences there). The tough Spartan regimen allegedly established by Lycurgus was characteristically called a δίαιτα (Xenophon, Lac. 5.1; Plutarch, Lyc. 11.3; 24.1; Mor. 209f, 210a, 225f, 226f, 227b), and the term was occasionally used for other philosophical lifestyles (Plutarch, Mor. [Virt. vit.] 100d; Epictetus, Diatr. 3.22.87; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 5.22). This diminutive (ἀξινάριον) of ἀξίνη occurs only here in Josephus, and it is not attested before his time, though it appears once each in the 2nd-cent. CE lexicographers Aelius Dionysius (Att. onom. Z.5) and Pausanias Atticus (Att. onom. Z.4). At War 2.148, where the purpose of this instrument is explained, Josephus uses σκαλίς and ἀξινίδιον, both of which also occur only there in Josephus. The latter is unattested anywhere else except the 10th-cent. Suda lexicon, which simply gives it as a synonym for ἀξινάριον here; the former appears before Josephus only in Strabo 3.2.9 (possibly from Posidonius). This variety, and especially the use of two different but extremely rare diminutives of “axe,” suggest that the unusual vocabulary in the Essene passage comes from Josephus’ preference for a variety of unusual words with respect to this unique object; such language could not easily be explained as the ordinary diction of a source. This περίζωμα is mentioned again (and only) at 2.161, where Josephus claims that male Essenes who marry wear this as covering while bathing (while their wives wear full dresses). It was described in different language (linen coverings belted on) in the description of Essene bathing at 2.129. According to 2.123 the Essenes always wear white (see notes there), though it seems from 2.129, 131 they lay aside these white clothes for their daily immersion (in a loincloth) and for afternoon work. The loin-cloth and work clothes may also have been white.

This basic Essene (and male, Greek-aristocratic, and Roman) virtue was introduced at 2.120; see the note there. See the note at 2.137. Or “sanctification.” The language here (τῶν πρὸς ἁγνείαν ὑδάτων μεταλαμβάνει) seems a clear reference to the purificatory daily bath before luncheon mentioned at 2.129 (ἀπολούονται τὸ σῶμα ψυχροῖς ὕδασιν, καὶ μετὰ ταύτην τὴν ἁγνείαν), an essential feature of Essene communal life (cf. 2.161). The entire phrase renders plural συμβίωσις; this is the only plural example in Josephus and the only occurrence of the noun in War. With 5 examples in total (also Ant. 2.51; 6.210; 15.240, 260—all concerning male-female cohabitation, in the singular), Josephus is a relatively heavy user of the word; is well attested before his time only in Aristotle (twice), Polybius (4), Diodorus (10), Wisdom of Solomon (3), and Philo (3); his contemporary Plutarch has it 13 times. What he means about participating in the baths but not these aspects of communal life is not clear. Did these candidates take the daily bath but not proceed to the common meal? Since Josephus’ Essenes are found in all Judean cities (2.124), perhaps this means that initiates continued living outside the community during this period.According to 1QS 6.14-23, initiates into the DSS community go through a 2-year initiation marked by (a) initial interviews for suitability, (b) examination after a year, successful completion of which permits access to the holy food and reckoning of one’s goods with the community’s (but not yet mixing), and (c) a final review, completion of which allows access to the community’s drink and admixture of property. There is a parallel here to early Christian initiation phases, which became more elaborate after the 1st century CE: initial inquiry, instruction, and preliminary examination; catechumenate (associating with the community for a year or more); rites of election (careful scrutiny and perhaps exorcism, separating one from the world); and finally baptism (often at Easter) bringing full membership. Greek καρτερία: the most famous trait of the Spartans and the whole focus of their training (Xenophon, Ages. 5.3; 10.1; 11.9 Plutarch, Mor. [Apoh. lac.] 208c, 210a, 237a; Lyc. 2.2; 16.5-6; 18.1; 29.5; Ages. 11.7; 30.3), emulated by philosophers (cf. Xenophon on Socrates, Mem. 1.2.1; 2.1.20; 3.1.6). This is also an important word-group for Josephus, who uses it about 134 times, nearly half of these (63) in War—usually concerning the endurance of the Judean fighters or the “steadfastness” of their defenses. That καρτερία is the Leitmotif of Josephus’ training of his own Galilean soldiers (2.580) shows again that the Essene passage fits neatly in War, as exemplary of Judean virtue. Note also Apion 1.182; 2.146, 170, [225], 228, 273, 284, where he makes this a distinctive Judean trait. In 3 of these cases (2.225, 228, 273), tellingly, Josephus contrasts the Spartan reputation for endurance with what he presents as the undeniable Judean fact of it, in light of the recent war. On Essene endurance under torture, see further below, 2.151-53. Presumably, 2 years from admission to the purifying waters. In his opening remarks (2.120) Josephus emphasized that children adopted by the order were trained in its “principles of character”; here the character is finally tested. On the centrality of character (τὸ ἦθος) in ancient moral philosophy and rhetoric, and for Josephus (it is the theme of his Life), see BJP 9: xxxviii-l and the note at Life 430 in that volume. Those Essenes who marry (2.161 below) put their potential wives through a similar ordeal, testing them through 3 years and as many “purifications.” Josephus uses ἐγκρίνω (“judge, deem, or reckon in or among”) only here. The verb is matched at 2.143 by its opposite: “reckon out” (ἐκκρίνω). This symmetrical parallel of rare (at least this one: mainly in Plato, some 7 times) and corresponding verbs, on either side of the intervening 12 oaths, helps to identify that list of oaths as the central panel or fulcrum in this concentrically structured passage.

Or “shiver-inducing oaths” (ὅρκους . . . φρικώδεις). Josephus has this collocation twice (cf. Life 101). Although it seems unattested in literature before his time, it turns up in both his contemporary Plutarch (Alex. 30.11) and later 2nd-cent. authors (Phrynicus, Praep. soph. 107; Pollux, Onom. 1.37; Dio 8.36.29). This suggests again that Josephus often selects newly current vocabulary and phrasing.It is often proposed (Thackeray in LCL, n. b to 2.135; Bergmeier 1993: 69) that Josephus contradicts himself by first making a point of the Essenes’ avoidance of swearing (ὀμνύειν περιίστανται)—on the ground that every word of theirs is stronger than an oath (2.135)—and now listing a dozen dreadful oaths that they do in fact swear (ὅρκους . . . ὄμνυσι φρικώδεις; 2.139). These are not contradictory propositions, however, and Josephus’ explanation of Moses’ commandments in Ant. 3.92 helps to clarify the matter. There, all Judeans are forbidden “to swear by God on a trivial [or base: φαῦλος] matter.” Although swearing in general is not encouraged, this passage implies that it is acceptable to swear oaths in cases of rare solemnity. Indeed, Josephus claims that he inclined to believe the Jerusalem delegation (not to chastise them for law-breaking) because they swore “the most dreadful oaths that we have” (τοὺς φρικωδεστάτους ὅρκους παρ’ ἡμῖν; Life 275; cf. 101). The context of War 2.135 suggests that the prohibition there concerns the common oath, merely to guarantee one’s word in ordinary situations. Thus the Essenes’ “steering clear” of such swearing would not seem to preclude their making these life-defining dreadful (φρικώδεις) oaths to God upon finally entering the order. Several of the Essene oaths that follow match Josephus’ later instructions to his own soldiers in training (2.581-82): if they wished to remain allies with God, they must abstain from soldiers’ usual behaviors: theft (κλοπή), banditry (λἦστεία), and inflicting harm or injury (βλαβή). Greek εὐσεβήσειν τὸ θεῖον, ἔπειτα τὰ πρὸς ἀνθρώπους δίκαια φυλάξειν. Josephus is keenly aware that, especially after the revolt, Judeans are widely accused of impiety (ἀσέβεια) or atheism in relation to the Gods and misanthropy with respect to their fellow human beings (e.g., Apion 2.148, 291). One of his pervasive themes, therefore, from the beginning to the end of his corpus, is that his people cherish piety toward God and justice (also philanthropy) toward their neighbors—more, indeed, than any other nation. This pair of virtues provides his most typical characterization of Israel’s good leaders: Ant. 7.338, 341 (David: God always rewards the pious and just), 356 and 374 (David admonishes Solomon to rule with piety and justice), 384 (David’s dying charge to Solomon: be just toward your subjects and pious toward God); 8.280 (Abijah to Jeroboam); 9:16 (Josaphat enjoyed divine favor because of his justice and piety toward the Deity); 9.236 (virtuous king Jotham was pious toward God and just toward humanity); 12.43 (Simon the Just was so called because of his piety toward God and benevolence toward humanity); 12.56 (modifying Aristeas). According to Ant. 18.117, the renowned baptist named John also exhorted Judeans “to practise justice toward one another and piety toward God.” By beginning the Essenes’ oaths with piety and justice and ranking piety above all (cf. Apion 2.145-46, 170-71), Josephus makes them ideal representatives of the national virtues.It seems to have been the Sophists who furnished lists of virtues and vices, and it was natural that a set of “cardinal virtues” quickly emerged (Plato, Phaed. 69B-C; Symp. 196D; Aristotle, Pol. 1259B; Cicero, Fin. 65; Philo, Opif. 73; Cher. 5; Post. 128; Mos. 2.185 etc.; Diogenes Laertius 3.80, 91; 7.92, 102, 126). These were commonly held to be justice (δικαισούνη), wisdom (φρόνησις), courage (ἀνδρεία), and self-control (σωφροσύνη), of which Plato featured wisdom and justice (Prot. 323a-b; Gorg. 492b-c, 519a; Resp. 364a, 430d, 500d; Leg. 632c), with holiness (ὁσιότης) added at times (Prot. 329c, 349b; Men. 78d). Although Plato incidentally includes piety (εὐσέβεια) with the other virtues (e.g., Euth. 12e; Phil. 39e), and earlier writers had mentioned piety in close proximity to justice (Theognis 1.145, 1141; Sophocles, El. 464; Phil. 85; Euripides, Alc. 1148 [piety toward strangers, note]; Hipp. 1309; Hec. 1230; Hel. 162), it seems to have been the 5th and 4th-century Athenian orators Antiphon (Tetr. 2.2.11; Chor. 7, 51), Isocrates (Nic. 2; Pac. 33, 34, 63; Panath. 124 [specifying περὶ τοὺς θεούς and περὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, respectively], 163, 183, 204 [objects specified], 217), Demosthenes (Phil. 3.16; Cor. 1 [objects specified], 7, 126; Arist. 97; Boeot. 1.41; Exord. 54.1; Tim. 35), and Dinarchus (Dem. 84), who began to pair piety and justice by themselves as the sum of human ethical obligation: to the Gods and to humanity. Their near contemporary, the historian Xenophon (4th cent. BCE), significantly places piety and justice (εὐσέβεια καὶ δικαιοσύνη) at the head of the virtues in his assessment of Socrates’ character (Mem. 4.8.11), which is particularly interesting because in his praise of the Spartan Agesilaus, piety and justice (Ages. 3.2-5; 4.1-3) also come first, followed by self-control, courage, wisdom, patriotism, urbanity, foresight, and simplicity (Ages. 4.4-8.8). Later, Diodorus (1.2.2, 49.3, 92.5; 3.60.2, 64.7; 5.7.7, 8.3, 79.2; 6.6.1, 8.1; 12.20.3; 33.5.6), Dionysius (Ant. rom. 1.4.2; 4.32.1; 8.2.2, 8.1, 28.3, 62.3; 13.5.3; Isoc. 7), occasionally Philo (Praem. 162; Legat. 213), and Athenaeus (Deipn. 6.107 [Kaibel]) would follow suit. Josephus’ programmatic preference for this pair is thus noteworthy, though his model is uncertain. Contrast normal human behavior (War 2.581) and even that of Josephus’ Pharisees, to whom he attributes the inclination to harm (βλάπτω) those in power (Ant. 13.401; 17.41). Compare Ant. 15.135: “God always exhorts us to hate arrogance and injustice.”

See the note to this phrase at 2.135. Or “to rule, govern.” It is unclear in this sentence whether such office-holding is envisaged within the Essene communities, in the larger Judean society, or possibly in Roman administration: the noun and verb (ἄρχω, ἀρχή) could mean any of these things. The passage is most often taken, not without reason, to reflect Essene acquiescence under foreign rule (M-B ad loc.: obedience to the sect’s authorities “steht außer Frage”). In War Josephus repeatedly insists on the current divine support for Roman rule, most distinctly in the speeches he crafts for King Agrippa II and for himself: 2.387, 350, 390 (“without God [same phrase as here] it is impossible to put together such a formidable empire”), 539; 3.351-54, 396, 400-1, 404; 4.323, 622; 5.367 (“God, who went the round of the nations, bringing to each in turn the rod of empire, now rested over Italy”). And there are close parallels in roughly contemporary authors of Judean background, such as Paul, to the demand for acceptance of Roman rule as God-ordained (Rom 13:1).Nevertheless, the context here seems to favor a local-community reference. He has already stressed Essene submission to the community’s own leaders (2.123, 126, 134). The repetition of that point is not a problem, since we are now dealing with oaths rather than description of the lifestyle: indeed, one might expect the oaths to provide the basis for Essene behavior as otherwise described. Thus, the oath that follows this one raises the prospect of an Essene’s coming into office, in which case he must not abuse his authority. The mutuality created by (a) respect for those currently in authority and (b) the promise of humility if one assumes office oneself, seems to require that the offices in question are Essene-communal (with Beall 1988: 81). See the previous note. This passage seems to confirm that Josephus has in mind communal Essene offices, rather than Judean or Roman governance. Greek μηδέποτε ἐξυβρίσειν εἰς τὴν ἐξουσίαν. In Josephus’ (Polybian and Jeremianic-Danielic) scheme of things, abuse of the fortune that allows one to enjoy success or power for a time is among the classic human errors. In War he uses the verb ἐξυβρίζω with εἰς X to express such a violation—a coinage of his own. Several times he refers, as here, to someone’s abuse of (ἐξυβρίζω εἰς) power or office (ἐξουσία or ἀρχή): War 1.206: young Herod did not abuse his authority; 4.492 (cf. 2.250): Nero did; Ant. 14.161: Herod’s brother Phasael did not. How one behaved in a position of authority will be a major concern also in Josephus’ autobiography. In Life, which celebrates his character (ἦθος, 430), he makes an issue of his behavior while he held great ἐξουσία (80): he repeatedly adduces his clemency toward enemies held at his mercy (262-65, 304-8, 377-80), his mildness toward his dependent charges (30-31, 97-100, 112-13, 417-21), his protection of women’s honor (80), and his invulnerability to bribery and corruption of all kinds (79-86). Underlying this scheme is the Polybian insight (see Introduction) that, since fortune (τύχη) brings the inscrutable rise or fall of various persons and groups, no one should take his temporary success for granted; Josephus therefore speaks also about “abusing fortune” (2.184, 250; 5.120—see notes there). In Antiquities, by contrast, the verb ἐξυβρίζω normally takes as object a person (whether human or divine), as the one “abused” or “violated.” The point of the Greek phrase ἢ τινι πλείονι κόσμῳ seems to be the implicit contrast with inward superiority through virtue. The Spartan king Agesilaus, whom Xenophon offers as a moral example to all (Ages. 10.2), is said to have insisted that he prove his leadership credentials exclusively by superior endurance: he would accept only the worst bed among his men (4.2) and he made it a point of honor to keep his dress extremely plain (τῇ . . . τὸ σῶμα φαυλότητι), while splendidly equipping his army (11.11). He is said to have drawn the contempt of the Egyptians because of his simple dress, until he could persuade them that greatness and distinction came entirely from virtue (Plutarch, Mor. [Apoph. Lac.] 214e). Cf. Plutarch’s advice to the statesman, not to go after advantageous seats in the theater, luxury, ostentatious clothing, or other outward status symbols (Mor. [Praec.] 823b).

At the beginning (War 1.30) and end (Apion 2.296) of his corpus, Josephus addresses his works to “those who love the truth” (τοῖς τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἀγαπῶσιν), and he regularly assures audiences of his own truthfulness (e.g., War 1.4; Ant. 1.6; Life 40; Apion 1.6). Or “throw out” the “deceivers, impostors, cheaters” (τοὺς ψευδομένους προβάλλεσθαι). The only character so far described as a ψευδόμενος has been Pseudalexander (2.101). This rather poetic parallelism (χεῖρας κλοπῆς καὶ ψυχὴν ἀνοσίου κέρδους καθαρὰν φυλάξειν) captures the spirit of Josephus’ summary of the latter half of the decalogue, binding on all Judeans, in Ant. 3.92 (μὴ κλοπὴν δρᾶν). It also matches his rules for his own soldiers in Galilee (2.581-82: κλοπῆς . . . τε κέρδος); note his condemnation of the intransigent rebels (5.402), whom he accuses of just such secret sins. See the note to “members” at 2.119. Although this might seem like a sectarian principle, it corresponds closely to Josephus’ view of the whole nation’s attitude toward outsiders, as he expresses this in Apion 2.209-10: “It will be seen that [Moses] took the best of all possible measures at once to secure our own customs from corruption, and to throw them open ungrudgingly to any who elect to share them. To all who desire to come and live under the same laws with us, [Moses] gives a gracious welcome. . . . On the other hand, it was not his pleasure that casual visitors should be admitted to the intimacies of our daily life.” Cf. also the renowned Spartan insistence on avoiding foreign travel or visitors from abroad, unless willing to adopt their laws (Plutarch, Mor. [Apoph. Lac.] 238e), as well as the secrecy of their meetings (236f). For the virtue of perseverance to the point of death (μέχρι θανάτου; note this phrase again at 2.144), cf. Isocrates, Arch. 59; Plato, Resp. 361d; Diodorus 15.27.2 (on the Spartans’ fame); Strabo 16.2.9; Plutarch, Caes. 18.4; Dem. 38.5; Mor. [Apoph. Lac.] 239c. The phrase is conspicuously favored by 4 Maccabees, traditionally thought to have been written by Josephus (4 Macc 5:37; 6:21; 7:8, 16; 13:1, 27; 15:10; 16:1; 17:7, 10).

Greek μηδενὶ μὲν μεταδοῦναι τῶν δογμάτων ἑτέρως ἢ ὡς αὐτὸς μετέλαβεν. This concern for precise transmission of the tradition matches Josephus’ view of Judean tradition in general (e.g., Apion 1.29-43). Although the precise referents here are intramural, the scrupulous preservation of Judean tradition is also a major theme elsewhere in Josephus. He normally uses the παραδίδωμι/παραλαμβάνω pair, perhaps because he is describing the pure transmission of the Judean laws from Moses to the present (Ant. 3.280, 286; 4.295, 302; 4.304; Apion 2.279), whereas the context here is not clearly inter-generational, but more a horizontal “imparting” or sharing. Nevertheless, we are in the same semantic arena of accurate transmission. It may seem odd that Josephus should list two similar oaths (theft at 2.141 and banditry here), but banditry seems to be a distinct activity—for him and his audience (see note to “chief bandit” at 2.56). In his own instructions to his newly enlisted soldiers in Galilee, he will similarly require them to forswear “theft as well as banditry and plunder” (κλοπῆς τε καὶ λῃστείας καὶ ἁρπαγῆς). Thus, the life to be avoided by the Essenes is the one lived by Cain, who abandoned the simple and virtuous way in favour of pleasure and banditry (ἡδονή, λῃστεία; Ant. 1.61; cf. War 2.125). Or “of the messengers” (τὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων ὀνόματα). If “angels,” one should not imagine later western representations. The compound verb ἐξασφαλίζομαι, only here in Josephus, is extremely rare before and outside his work (Aristeas 100; Diodorus 27.15.3; Strabo 17.1.54; then in late antiquity). Without the intensifying prefix, the verb is much more common (16 times in Josephus), and it normally means “make secure, fortify” (used of walls or cities: 2.609; 4.120; 6.15; Life 317). But the sense here might well be that the candidate is “proven, verified” by the process of oath-taking, and made safe for the community. At any rate, the representation of philosophy as a safe or “non-slip” way of living (ἀσφάλεια) was common (cf. Plutarch, Mor. [Superst.] 171e; Lucian, Men. 4; Hermot. 21, 29, 33, 47; Justin, Dial. 8.1; Luke 1:4).

Possibly, “whom they catch in [the act of].” Although ἁλίσκομαι (“take, catch”) might seem to require this sense, in legal contexts it may refer to conviction by due process (see LSJ). Cf. Xenophon, Lac. 10.7: those who fail to live up to the Spartan legal code (νόμιμα), Lycurgus ordered excluded from among the peers. This verb (ἐκκρίνω), which occurs only here in Josephus, matches “reckon in” at 2.138 above, establishing a symmetry around the 12 oaths. In contrast to that rare verb, however, this one—with possible senses of “exclude, secrete, excrete, ooze,” as well as “reject, condemn”—is amply attested from the pre-Socratics onward, plentifully in the medical and scientific writers (13 times in the Hippocratic corpus; 87 times in Aristotle). This is the middle voice of διαφθείρω, which Josephus will repeat in the next sentence. I have usually translated this verb in the active voice as “destroy,” a favorite euphemism for “kill”; see the note to “destroy” at 2.11. This form of the “fate” word-group, μόρος, occurs only here in Josephus. Or herbs, possibly in implied contrast to grain (a proper human food). Unsurprisingly, this verb (ποηφάγω) occurs only here in Josephus and rarely in other writers except in biological and medical contexts (Hippocrates, Diaeta 49; Aristotle, Hist. anim. 595a; Part. anim. 693a; Galen, Hipp. epid. comm. 17a.562—distinguishing humanity from grass-eating animals) cf. Herodotus 2.25, 100. Appian (Mithr. 328) similarly describes men reduced by war to the barbaric practices of cannibalism and grass-eating: those who ate grass became ill (cf. his Lib. 471, 499).

Or “pity” (ἐλεέω); cf. 2.134. See the note to this phrase at 2.141. Josephus’ use of it only in these near places is typical of his practice: exploiting a word or phrase twice or more within a short space, possibly in different senses, and then dropping it. See BJP 9: lii. There are hints in the Paul’s letters of a similar sort of exclusion from the community and its sacred meal, leading to death (1 Cor 5:3-5; cf. perhaps 11:27-30), along with intervention (as here) to take back the penitent offender before his demise (2 Cor 2:5-11).

In taking careful precautions for the trial of cases, the Essenes anticipate Josephus’ portrayal of Moses (Ant. 3.66-74) and of himself: one of his first actions as commander of Galilee was to appoint a council of 70 men and smaller councils of 7 in each town for the trial of cases (War 2.571-72; Life 79). This language (ἀκριβέστατοι καὶ δίκαιοι) is typical of Josephus: he everywhere applauds a scrupulous precision (ἀκρίβεια) in history-writing, truth-telling, and legal interpretation (Ant. 4.309; 20.260, 262; Apion 1.18, 29-36, 54, 67; 2.144, 175, 227, 257; Mason 1991: 89-96). Perhaps because Josephus often links ἀκρίβεια with the laws (νόμοι, etc.), he happens not to juxtapose this word-group with “justice” (δικαι) words, though in other Greek writers precision with respect to justice or simply pairing “precision” with “rightness” was common phraseology (Isocrates, Arch. 30; Pan. 39; Demosthenes, Chers. 38; Aristoc. 148; Aphob. 4; Xenophon, Cyr. 1.3.16-17; Lycurgus [orat.], Leocr. 31; Plato, Resp. 484d; Diodorus 4.8.3; 11.47.2; 37.5.2; Philo, Spec. 4.213; Plutarch, Mor. [Apoph. Lac.] 209e; Aristides, Panath. 117.33-34, 155.29 [Dindorf]). Philo even describes God as ἀκριβοδίκαιος (Her. 143; cf. Somn. 101; Jos. 65; negative in Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1138a). On precise justice with respect to judgments or trials (κρίσεις): Plato, Leg. 907b; Diodorus 5.79.1; Philo, Plant. 175; Spec. 4.190. Whereas Josephus’ Pharisees are merely reputed to be the most precise in the laws (War 1.110; 2.162; Life 191), his description of the Essenes has no such qualification.Elsewhere, too, he takes pride in the severity of Judean law. He considers it a powerful attraction of the Judean code that it leaves no loopholes for crime (Apion 2.276-77), that its justice is sure and swift (2.178), and that numerous crimes merit the death penalty (2.214-17); he contrasts this with other systems. Centuries earlier Xenophon had similarly contrasted the severe Spartan constitution with others: it inflicted the heaviest penalties not only on those who committed real crimes, but even on those who simply failed to live virtuously (Lac. 5-6). Plutarch says that the Spartan King Agesilaus was precise and legally scrupulous (ἀκριβῆς καὶ νόμιμος), except that he did favors for his friends (Mor. [Apoph. Lac.] 209e). Given the widespread despair over crime and social deterioration that Roman authors attest (e.g., Catullus 64 [end]; Cicero, Div. 2.2.4; Juvenal 3.268-314, etc.), we can imagine that Josephus expected his audience to be impressed by the inexorable justice of the Judean code and the Essenes’ high standards. This is the only occurrence in Josephus of σέβας (“awe, reverence”), though he has many forms of the same word-group. “Lawgiver” (νομοθέτης) is Josephus’ characteristic term for Moses (e.g., Ant. 1.6, 15, 18; Apion 2.156, 161). In spite of efforts to read this passage in light of the DSS, the term cannot plausibly be a reference to Qumran’s Righteous Teacher (correctly Beall 1988: 92-93, with discussion). The extraordinary rank that Josephus implies here for Moses, in relation to God, such that defamation of his name amounts to the capital charge of misusing the divine name, is supported by his own account of Moses in Antiquities. There he calls Moses a divine man (θεῖον ἄνδρα, 3.180) and speaks of Moses’ “super-human power” (τῆς ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον . . . δυνάμεως, 3.318); because Moses’ laws clearly originate with God he is “esteemed higher than his own nature” (τῆς αὐτοῦ φύσεως κρείττονα νομίζεσθαι, 3.320). Moses surpassed all other men (4.328), and in his words one seemed to hear the very speech of God (4.329). Although Josephus does not divinize Moses, he does leave his special status ambiguous in much the same way as the Essenes do here. The Spartans conspicuously honored all their kings after death, but especially their lawgiver, as a demi-god. The lawgiver Lycurgus was granted a posthumous temple in Sparta, where he received annual sacrifices “as to a god” (Xenophon, Lac. 15.2, 9; Plutarch, Lyc. 5.3; 31.3). See further 2.152, where Josephus claims that the Essenes could not be made to “defame the lawgiver” (βλασφημέω τὸν νομοθέτην—the same phrase as here), even under heavy torture and the threat of death. Note the interesting parallel in Plutarch, Mor. [Apoph. Lac.] 227a, concerning the defaming of a Spartan king on account of his difficult legislation. Greek κολάζεται θανάτῳ. For “punishing by death” in such a dative constuction, see Plato, Resp. 492d; Leg. 735e; Demosthenes, Mid. 176; Lysias, Erg. 3; LXX 1 Esdr. 8.24; Diodorus 12.62; 16.31, 54; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 8.78.5; Philo, Ebr. 135; Spec. 2.232; Dio, Or. 4.106; Plutarch, Artax. 27.1; Galb. 28.3; Appian, Bell. civ. 4.9.73. Josephus also uses the collocation fairly often: War 5.124, 483; Ant. 7.150; 11.130, 144; 16.369.

Greek ἐν καλῷ τίθενται; see the note at 2.123. It is unclear whether the status of these elders is formal, or the issue is merely a polite deference to age—as to an apparently informal majority who desire silence. Below (2.150) Josephus will describe a formal division of grades according to time in the discipline, but it is not certain that such grades correlate with age, since the entry procedures of 2.137-42 leave open the possibility of older men joining after younger colleagues (but 2.120). At 2.123 and 134 Josephus describes a leadership structure that is (emphatically) elected by hand rather than age-based; see the notes there and at 2.150.

Greek τὸ πτύσαι εἰς μέσους. The somewhat peculiar prepositional phrase, “into middles . . . ,” is favored by Josephus. Before his time the heaviest known user of the phrase was Dionysius—9 instances (Ant. rom. 1.87.2; 5.46.4; 6.12.2, 5; 7.35.5; 8.65.5; 9.11.4, 48.3; 10.41.4), whereas others employed it sparingly (Aristophanes, 1; Polybius, 1; Diodorus, 3; Strabo, 1; cf. Plutarch, 3). Josephus has it a remarkable 15 times (here and War 4.216; 6.42; Ant. 3.13, 308; 5.54, 206; 9.56; 12.429; 17.130, 131; 19.261; Life 37, 251, 255). Contrast the more expected neuter singular substantive εἰς τὸ μέσον (“into the middle”), which is far more evenly distributed among ancient authors and across genres: 107 instances by the end of the 1st century CE—before Plutarch (who has it 14 times), though Josephus uses it only twice (Ant. 9.149; 17.177). It seems odd to prefer this masculine plural form of the adjective without a definite article. (The note at Life 37 in BJP 9 does not explore this peculiarity.) The other surprise is that Josephus departs even from established usage of εἰς μέσους. Those who had employed the phrase earlier did so in a nearly formulaic way: with a verb of forceful or aggressive movement (βιάζω, press or force; ὠθέω, push or shove; ῥίπτω, cast or hurl; ἵημι, release or shoot) and complementary direct object explaining whose “middles” were in question—usually πολεμίους (combatants) or ἐχθρούς (enemies, adversaries): it was usually a case of someone’s charging into the enemies’ “middles.” Josephus, however, has those combinations in only 3 of the phrase’s 15 occurrences (Ant. 5.206; 9.56; 12.429). In his narratives the accompanying verb is usually neutral (χωρέω, advance; πάρειμι, come by or be present; προ-/παρέρχομαι, step forward or come along; παράγω, lead by; φέρω, carry) and the “middles” are left without a noun-object complement (War 4.216; Ant. 3.308; 5.54; 17.130-131; 19.261; Life 37, 251, 255); often, the implied group is a “mob” of one’s own compatriots. Since the phrase by itself is unclear, we must rely on context for meaning (see next note). Josephus mentions spitting in two other places, both concerning the law of levirate marriage, which is irrelevant here (Ant. 4.256; 5.335). Although it is possible that the Essene prohibition has to do with simple politeness, the context here does not suggest group activity: the same verb governs avoidance of spitting and of Sabbath work, the latter of which is illustrated by discussion of defecation practices. And the second qualification, “to the right side,” seems to preclude a group context, since it cannot be that it was acceptable to spit on those to one’s left.There is a more likely explanation in view of Josephus’ language (τὸ πτύσαι εἰς μέσους ἢ τὸ δεξιὸν μέρος). Spitting in general, but particularly into the middle area of one’s body (Theophrastus, Char. 16.14; Theocritus, Idyll. 20.11; Tibullus 1.2.96)—the chest or torso (εἰς κόλπον πτύσαι; in sinum spuendo)—or to the right side, e.g. into the right shoe before dressing (Pliny, Nat. 24.172; 28.38; cf. Petronius, 74.13), were behaviors popularly thought to prevent or cure illnesses, though regarded by critics as superstitions (many examples in Nicolson 1897). The custom of spitting for luck or health was grounded in a belief in the curative powers of human saliva (explicitly Pliny, Nat. 38.35-39). Given the non-group context (sabbath observance and private defecation) and the very specific alternative here (to the right side), Josephus’ μέσους (“middles”) might well refer to refer to the middles of bodies, thus equivalent to κόλπος (so Life 326, where Josephus seizes an opponent wrestler-style, around the μέσος; cf. Herodotus 9.107; Aristophanes, Eq. 387; Nub. 1047), rather than to the middle of the group, as is normally assumed—for it was surely not acceptable to spit at a person on one’s left. If this interpretation is valid, then like some other philosophers, Josephus’ Essenes reject the common practice of spitting for good luck or to ward off disease.It is widely assumed that Josephus’ remarks on Essene avoidance of spitting (in these two directions) is “strong evidence” for the Qumran-Essene identification (Beall 1988: 96; cf. Grabbe 1992: 2.495; VanderKam 1994: 87), because the Community Rule (1QS 7.13-15) prescribes a month’s penance for anyone who has spat into the middle of a gathered assembly (‮ואיש אשר ירוק אל תוך מושב הרבים‬‎). In spite of the superficially similar subject—spitting—the parallel is unimpressive. 1QS 7 is listing a number of offensive behaviors that will be punished, e.g.: insulting companions, deceiving them, treating communal property recklessly, speaking foolishly, lying down to sleep during a meeting, going naked without reason, spitting into the assembly, dressing shabbily, or laughing uproariously. These are all the activities of people who lack self-control when they get together: a prohibition on public spitting (as in many modern health clubs) is expected and unremarkable. If we had rules for other groups, we should expect similar prohibitions. (The Talmud [b. Ber. 24a-b], e.g., recommends ways of avoiding spittle build-up.) The context in Josephus is entirely different from that of 1QS 7 in that it is not obviously public; it presents this matter as an example of extraordinary rigor (not as the avoidance of repugnant behavior); and it specifically indicates two directions. Judeans’ observance of the sabbath was probably their best known, sometimes ridiculed, custom (e.g., Horace, Sat. 1.9.60-78; Ovid, Ars amat. 1.75-76, 415-16; Persius 5.184; Tacitus, Hist. 5.4-5; Plutarch, Quaest. conv. 4.6.2; Juvenal 14.105-6; Apion in Apion 2.21; cf. Schäfer 1997: 82-92; Gruen 2002: 48-50). In his later works Josephus will often mention this day with familiar σαββατ-forms, transliterating Hebrew ‮שבת‬‎ (Ant. 3.91, 143, 237; 12.259, 274; 13.12, 234, 252; 14.63, 64, 226, 242, 245, 258, 264; Apion 2.21, 27, 175, 282). In keeping with War’s Atticizing avoidance of foreign diction (see Introduction), however, it uses σαββατ-words sparingly (only 1.147; 2.456, 518, 635; cf. the Sabbatical River in 7.99, a special case). Josephus usually prefers to speak, as here, of the “7th days” (ταῖς ἑβδομάσιν)—a phrase rarely used in his later works.In any case, the sabbath is conspicuous in War’s narrative. Josephus mentions it early in comparison with the 7th year (of rest), and again when Pompey faces diminished resistance while taking the city, since Judeans may fight only in direct self-defense, but do not pursue discretionary war-time activities, on the sabbath (1.145-48). King Agrippa’s deliberative tour-de-force speech against the coming war cautions that the rebels will face the dilemma of either observing the Sabbath, and losing militarily, or violating it and losing divine favor (2.390-92). In the first conflict, however, they ignore the sabbath with great success (2.517-18). Then John of Gischala tricks a gullible Titus, using the sabbath as a pretext for his fateful escape to Jerusalem (4.99-103), and a Syrian Judean named Antiochus, who abandons his ancestral traditions, makes a point of trying to end sabbath-observance (7.50-53). Reading ἐναύοιεν with Niese, Thackeray and MSS MLR, though PA*, the corrector of A, and marginal glosses of LR have forms of ἅπτω or ἐνάπτω (“ignite”), sometimes in the passive voice, reading πῦρ (“fire”) as a nominative: “so that a fire might not be ignited.” Although Josephus does not engage in the later rabbinic discussions of what constitutes prohibited “work” on the sabbath, the two Essene restrictions he mentions—kindling fires and carrying jars—both have biblical warrant (Exod 35:3; Jer 17:21-27) and so figure essentially in rabbinic analysis (m. Shabbat, esp. 7:2). The verb ἀποπατέω (“walk off, away”), which occurs only here in Josephus, is euphemistic for leaving the road to relieve oneself. For the sake of variatio Josephus manages to find another, rarer word in the next sentence.

That is, on days other than sabbaths. Only here does Josephus use this elegant adjective, ποδιαῖος: “foot-long as to depth” rather than saying “one foot deep” or the like. Greek σκαλίς occurs only here in Josephus. Before his time it is attested only in Strabo 3.2.9. See the note to “hatchet” at 2.137 above. This implement recalls the ‮יתד‬‎ of Deut 23:14 (OT 23:13), with which the Israelites were instructed to dig holes for defecation outside the camp. Greek ἀξινίδιον occurs occur only here in Josephus and is unattested elsewhere except the 10th-cent. CE Suda lexicon, which merely gives it as a synonym for the form at 2.137 [ἀξινάριον]. See the note to 2.137, on the significance of this diction variation. This is the only occurrence in Josephus of νεοσύστατος (lit. someone or -thing “newly constituted”). It is unattested before his time and afterwards turns up only in a few medical writers, in relation to new diseases: Galen, Comp. med. sec. 12.830; Oribasius (4th cent. CE), Coll. med. 10.17.2; Aetius (6th cent. CE), Latr. 7.36.24; 8.16.12; 15.15.479. This is the only occurrence of περικαλύπτω in Josephus—a word with few occasions for literal employment, since the preposition merely intensifies the meaning of the root: “conceal, cover.” Josephus thus emphasizes that the sun-deity must not be offended by the merest glimpse of skin when the Essene is engaged in such undignified activity: the philosopher must be completely covered around. Cf. Deut 23:15 (OT 23:14) which warns the Israelites, precisely in the context of defecation, that God must not see “any naked thing” of them (‮ערות דבר‬‎) and turn away from them. Or “the God”: the sun is obviously in view. Josephus’ vivid phrase (τὰς αὐγὰς τοῦ θεοῦ) recalls Euripides, Heracl. 749-50, where the Chorus calls upon the “luminous rays of the God who brings light to mortals” (λαμπρόταται θεοῦ φαεσιμβρότου αὐγαί) and anticipates Julian’s Hymn to King Helios (1.9), which also conveys the piety that might be involved: “since my childhood, a powerful longing for the rays of the God has fully possessed me; since I was a little boy, my mind was so completely given to the light that illuminates the ether. . . .” Cf. Hymn. homer. cer. 35, 280; Nicander, frag. 74.39 (Gow and Scholfield); Athenaeus, Deipn. 15.31.42 (Kaibel). Philo of Alexandria speaks frequently of God as “the purest ray” or as rays of sun: Fug. 136; Mut. 6; Somn. 1.72, 116 (“the rays of God”: αἱ τοῦ θεοῦ αὐγαί), 239; Praem. 25; Mos. 1.66. On Essene reverence for the sun, see the notes at 2.128 above. The verb θακεύω, a more vivid synonym for ἀποπατέω in the previous sentence, occurs only here in Josephus. It is not attested before his time, though the undatable Appendix Proverbiorum (2.66) attributes to Peisistratus a saying about defecation within the precincts of Apollo’s temple (cf. also Anth. Graec. 11.407). Strikingly, after brief appearances just after his time in Plutarch (Plutarch, Lyc. 20.6; Mor. 232f [same anecdote]) and Artemidorus (1.2.96), it more or less disappears from Greek literature (except in the quotations of Josephus and in medieval lexicographers). This again makes it unlikely that Josephus borrows the word, though it is hapax, from a source.

Although this verb (ἀνορύσσω) occurs only here in Josephus, it is a compounded form of the verb ὀρύσσω just used (“dig”) in 2.148, to which it refers. In keeping with the whole tenor of Josephus’ description of their pronounced modesty and purity, the Essenes’ preference for remote places for defecation is understandable. It recalls the prescription of Deut 23:13-15 (OT 23:12-14): the Israelites are to relieve themselves “outside the camp”; there they are to dig a hole for the purpose (with a stick or peg, ‮יתד‬‎) and cover it again.Many scholars have found what seems an impressive parallel in the avoidance of sabbath defecation among Josephus’ Essenes and among the people of the DSS, usually connected with the settlement at Qumran. For 1QM 7.6-8 prescribes that latrines be located 2,000 cubits (roughly 1 km) from the camp, in the projected time of war, and 11QT 46:13-16 specifies 3,000 cubits (about 1.4 km), whereas one is permitted to walk only 1,000 cubits on the sabbath (CD 10.20-21; cf. Exod 16:29). It is considered striking that Josephus’ Essenes agree with the DSS in effectively prohibiting sabbath bowel movements.A. I. Baumgarten (1996) has pointed out, however, that Josephus’ clear and distinctive prescription for Essene toilet practice poses a substantial difficulty for the Qumran-Essene hypothesis, because the 1QM 7.7 and 11QT 46.13-16 (cf. 4Q91, f1, 3.7) both indicate built latrines: the latter “roofed houses with holes in them.” By contrast, Josephus emphasizes the ad hoc nature of Essene toilet practice, and hence the fundamental importance of the purpose-made hatchet received at initiation (2.137, 148). In any comparison with Josephus’ Essenes, therefore, 11QT’s prescriptions can only be explained away. The recent identification of a built latrine facility in the main Qumran complex itself (in L 51; cf. Magness 2002: 105-13) also creates obvious difficulties for identification of the site as Essene, which too can only be explained away, e.g. as necessitated by “fecal emergencies” (Zias and Tabor 2006-07: 633-34). In Magness’s view (2002: 108-9): “it appears that only practices which deviated from the norm are described by Josephus. .. When they did not have access to built latrines in permanent settlements, they relieved themselves in the manner described by Josephus.” But of course Josephus appears to think that he is describing standard and distinctive Essene practice.The yet more recent identification of an area some 300-400 m. NW of Qumran revealing parasitological evidence of old human excrement (Zias and Tabor 2006-07) faces different problems. Although Zias and Tabor propose that “this quadrant of the Qumran site is the only one that fits closely Josephus’ description of Essene toilet practices,” and “he may have well observed firsthand in the Qumran area” how Essenes relieved themselves (p. 638), Josephus is plainly describing Essene behavior throughout the cities (2.124), and not at Qumran. His language about their “picking out for themselves the more deserted spots” (τοὺς ἐρημοτέρους τόπους ἐκλεγόμενοι) would not seem to make much sense in the scenario depicted by Zias and Tabor, who describe the parasite field as the only suitable site for remote defection (p. 638), which everyone would have had to use. It is in any case entirely unclear how or when the fecal parasites got there, or whether this was not also a built latrine site. The noun ἔκκρισις here is cognate to the verb εκκρίνω (“reckon out”) just above (2.143), where it is used of one ejected from the order. By using the two forms in such proximity (and hardly anywhere else), Josephus may be intending a word-play. The noun he uses elsewhere only at Ant. 3.261, speaking of gonorrhea, leprosy, and menstruation as grounds for exclusion from the community: in the last case, significantly, he describes the secretion as “natural” (κατὰ φύσιν)—albeit still requiring a period of purification—as here (φυσική). See the note to “pollutes” at 2.132: a major theme of the War (μίασμα); see also Introduction. For washing off pollutions, see Philo, Det. 170.

In 2.123 and 134 above (see discussion there), Josephus describes the executive leadership of the order—the curators/managers—as elected. It is not immediately clear how one should reconcile an elected leadership with the rigid seniority system mentioned here. Thackeray (LCL n. b to 2.150) passes along from J. B. Lightfooot the compelling proposal that these 4 grades correspond to the 4 levels of initiation described at 2.137-42. This would explain the rigid separation of newcomers (i.e., 1st-year novices) from senior (i.e., full) members on grounds of purity, which would not seem feasible if such men were working, bathing, and eating together (e.g., 2.128-33). It would also explain the principle of elected curators, which would obtain only among the full (4th-grade) members. It perhaps deserves emphasis (in general support of Beall 1988: 99-100) that neither the system of elected curators (2.123, 134) nor that of duration-determined grades (on any explanation of the latter) in Josephus matches the information gleaned from the DSS about Qumran leadership (by a Guardian/Overseer [‮מבקר‬‎] as well as Zadokite priests, Levites, and others; e.g., 1QS 2.19-23; CD 14.3-4; 1QM 13.1), pace among others M-B 437 n. 76. Or “exercise, discipline.” This is the nominal form (ἄσκησις; cf. “ascetic”) of the verb ἀσκέω, rendered “cultivate” at 2.119, 166. Just as the Essene philosophy is a system of training the character for Josephus, so too is the entire culture according to the Judean constitution (Apion 2.171-73). For the great power of rigorous training to inculcate virtue, irrespective of one’s birth, see the reported sayings of the Spartan lawgiver Lycurgus (Plutarch, Mor. [Apoph. Lac.] 226a-b). Plutarch’s Spartan sayings often juxtapose δίαιτα (regimen) and ἄσκησις, as Josephus does here (2.137-38, 151). Note the similarity of wording with the previous sentence: ἀπολούεσθαι . . . καθάπερ (“wash themselves off as if”)—possibly the reason for linking these substantively different statements.

This is the only occurrence of μακρόβιος in Josephus. Aristotle had written a study of animals with varying lengths of life (On Long and Short-Lived [Animals]), though more germane for comparison with Josephus is Lucian’s 2nd-cent. CE essay, The Long-Lived (Macrobioi), in which he observes that one’s regimen of life (δίαιτα), along with congenial air and soil, contributes much to longevity (Macr. 3-4, 6). Of entire nations, he has heard that the Chinese (Seres), who all drink water, live to 300 years (Macr. 5), though when it comes to describing individuals he counts anything over about 80 as a notably long life (8, 11-13, 15-16, 22, 27). Philosophers and orators often seem to live past 100 (Macr. 18-19, 23). The only lawgiver he includes is the Spartan Lycurgus (Macr. 28), who reached 85. On some of the complexities involved in calculating real life expectancy in the Roman world, see e.g. Parkin 1992; Frier 1999. In Lucian’s list of long-lived nations (previous note), the Chaldeans normally pass 100 because of a barley-bread that keeps them sharp-sighted and stronger than other men (Macr. 5). Lucian thinks that even without the benefit of outstanding air and soil, which have enabled some others to live to extraordinary lengths, in Rome itself one might hope for a long life if one applies oneself to healthy diet and exercise (Macr. 6). Josephus will later attribute the longevity of the ancients, e.g. Noah, who lived to 950 (Ant. 1.104-6), to their special relationship with God and to their diet—as well as a special favor granted for them to pursue astronomical calculations beyond normal life spans. He uses the same verb for longevity [παρατείνω] there as here. In Ant. 10.190-94 he considerably embellishes the Bible to discuss the beneficial effects of the diet maintained by Daniel and his associates. The phrase ἔμοιγε δοκεῖν is peculiar (contrast ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ—attested dozens of times in Xenophon, Plato, Aeschines, etc.) and an almost unique stylistic trait of War. Before Josephus it is found once in Plato’s Meno (81a) and once in the Hippias Maior (291a) attributed to Plato (also in the Orphic Testimonia, frag. 5.6, and Stobaeus, Anth. 4.1.114, both difficult to date), but otherwise in no known author before the 2nd century CE. Yet Josephus has it here and at War 2.479; 3.302; 4.312; 6.4. It is a stylistic trait of War, therefore, and hardly likely to have been borrowed from a source on the Essenes. See the note at 2.137. Or “discipline.” The word εὐταξία appears frequently (13 of 16 times in Josephus) in War, where it is otherwise in every case the hallmark of the Roman legions: 1.22 (coupled with ἄσκησις as here—previous section), 143; 2.529, 580; 3.85, 467, 488; 4.635; 5.285, 353; 6.22. At 2.580 Josephus will hold out Roman discipline as a model for his own Galilean soldiers. Given his choice of τάγμα (“order”) as a group description of the Essenes (the word translated “legion” in other contexts), it is hard to escape the conclusion that he wishes to evoke all of the legions’—and Spartans’—less bellicose virtues (absolute discipline, celibacy, unfailing courage, etc.) in this admirable “corps” of Judean men. Although Spartan discipline was more typically described with the nearly synonymous εὐνομία (Plutarch, Lyc. 5.3; 29.6; 30.2; Mor. 239f), Xenophon may use εὐταξία at Lac. 8.1 (so Dindorf, where the MSS have εὐεξία). Holding death (see the next sentence) and its terrors in contempt was widely understood to be the acid test of any claim to true philosophy, and this was a point of intersection between ethical and martial virtue: Warren 2004; Diodorus 5.29.2; 15.86.3; 17.11.4-5, 43.6, 107.6; Dionysius Ant. rom. 5.46.4; Philo, Prob. 30; Abr. 183; Musonius Rufus, Diss. 10; Epictetus, Diatr. 4.1.70, 71; Plutarch, Brut. 12.2; Lucian, Peregr. 13, 23, 33; Marcus Aurelius, Med. 4.50.1; 9.3.1; 12.34.1; Polyaenus, Strat. 5.14.1; Diogenes Laertius 1.6; Phalaris, Ep. 103.3; Appian, Celt. 1.9; Bell. civ. 5.4.36; Dio 43.38.1; 46.26.2, 28.5; 62.25.1. Cf. esp. Seneca’s moral epistle on “despising death” (contemno mortem, Ep. 24), which offers many parallels to the present passage (2.151-59). The Essenes display a Stoic-like (and ideal Roman) imperviousness to external impressions (cf. Cicero, Part. or. 75-80).The phrase καταφρονηταὶ τῶν δεινῶν is striking, first, because 2 of the 3 occurrences in Josephus of the unusual agent-noun καταφρονητής (“despiser”) occur in this Essene passage: at 2.122 (near the beginning; note the symmetry) they are “despisers of wealth.” This equal disdain for the two great human motivators—pleasure (cf. 1.120, through wealth) and pain (portending death)—happens to agree with Plutarch’s roughly contemporary portrait of the Spartans, who also despise (καταφρονέω) both the pleasures (Mor. [Apoph. Lac.] 210a) and death (210f, 216c, 219e).But the author with the heaviest investment in such language is Josephus: throughout his writings he presents contempt for death as a singular Judean virtue. In War the theme has been introduced casually in the person of the rebel Athrongeus (2.60), but it will become the chief characteristic of Judean fighters (3.357, 475; 5.88, 458; 6.42; 7.406), which Roman generals can only try to inculcate in the legions (6.33). Throughout Antiquities, similarly, Josephus features this Judean trait, beginning with an encomium on King Saul’s example (Ant. 6.344-47). There we meet the only other example of the agen-noun καταφρονητής in Josephus: “fellow-despisers of terrors” will learn much from Saul’s example. Note especially Josephus’ remark that the Judean constitution inculcates contempt for death (θανάτου περιφρόνησις), among other virtues (Apion 2.146), in all Judeans, and his closing statement (Apion 2.294) that in wartime Judeans despise death (θανάτου καταφρονεῖν). Once again, his description of the Essenes embodies his fondest vision of the entire Judean tradition; it can hardly come from a source. On mastery over pain through a set of laws, see Plato, Leg. 634b; in more general philosophical terms, Epicurus, Gnom. frag. 4: πᾶσα ἀλγηδὼν εὐκαταφρόνητος; cf. Philo, Prob. 30. Josephus has a curious parallel on the defeating of pain under torture in Ant. 18.25—of the “4th Philosophy.” Cf. 4 Macc 3:18; 14:1, 11. Such a saying (τὸν δὲ θάνατον, εἰ μετ’ εὐκλείας πρόσεισι, νομίζοντες ἀθανασίας ἀμείνονα), though closely paralleled at 1.58, seems unattested elsewhere. It was a commonplace that death with glory was preferable to an ignoble life (Xenophon, Lac. 9.1—the famous principle of the Spartans; cf. Plutarch, Mor. [Apoph. Lac.] 225d) or that death with glory brings, or amounts to, immortality (Polybius 6.54.2; Philo, Prob. 120; Plant. 45-46; Virt. 33; 4 Macc 6:19 // Origen, Exhort. mart. 22; Josephus, Ant. 12.282). In both cases the assumption is that real deathlessness is of course unobtainable, but glory achieved in life (especially glorious death) at least preserves one’s name in perpetuity, which is a kind of immortality. To say that death with (immortal) glory is preferable to immortality itself is paradoxical, and the more effective for it.

This formulation (ὁ πρὸς Ῥωμαίους πόλεμος) matches that of the opening sentence of this work (τὸν Ἰουδαίων πρὸς Ῥωμαίους πόλεμον; “the war of Judeans against Romans”) and Ant. 1.4 (“the war against the Romans waged by us, the Judeans” [τὸν μὲν γὰρ πρὸς τοὺς Ῥωμαίους πόλεμον ἡμῖν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις γενόμενον]). Josephus does not flinch from understanding the conflict as one waged by his people, in which he proudly fought, against the Romans—even though its causes, course, and consequences were regrettable. See also Apion 2.271-72 and 2.219: the facts [presumably, the recent war in particular] have made it clear to everyone that “already many of our people, and on many occasions, have chosen to suffer spectacularly rather than utter a single word against the law.” Knowing that one’s handling of death is the true test of philosophy, in the Against Apion Josephus claims that his compatriots in general have spectacularly passed the test before the Roman world (Apion 2.232-34): “Has anyone ever heard of a case of our people, not, I mean, in such large numbers, but merely two or three, proving traitors to their laws or afraid of death? I do not refer to the easiest of deaths, on the battlefield, but death accompanied by physical torture, which is thought to be the hardest of all. To such a death we are, I believe, exposed by some of our conquerors . . . from a curiosity to witness the astonishing spectacle of men who believe that the only evil that can befall them is to be compelled to do any act or utter any word contrary to their laws…. Our willing obedience to the law in these matters [sc. with respect to food and drink] results in the heroism we display in the face of death.” Of the 5 occurrences of στρεβλόω in Josephus, 4 are in the War (1.548; 4.329; 7.373), with several of the following words clustered there as here: βάσανος (“torture”), αἰκία or αἰκίζω (“torment”), διαλέγχω (“test, prove, expose”), ὑπομένω (“endure”). These same words are concentrated, along with others graphically depicting endurance under torture, in 4 Maccabees (στρεβλ–7:4, 14; 8:11, 13, 24; 9:17, 2; 12:3, 11; 14:12; 15:14, 24, 25; αἰκι– 1:11; 6:9, 16; 7:4; 14:1; 15:19; ὑπομένω–1:11; 5:23; 7:9, 22; 9:8, 30; 15:30; 16:17, 22; 17:4, 12, 17, 23), a fact that seems to highlight Josephus’ debt to this work. Josephus uses the verb λυγίζω (here passive participle) only here, and it is barely attested before his time (Sophocles, Trach. 779; Plato, Resp. 405c; Eupolis, frag. 339 [Kock]). From the 2nd century CE, however, it becomes more popular: Lucian, Salt. 77; Pod. 114, 287; Galen passim; Pollux, Onom. 3.155; Philostratus, Imag. 2.32.2; Aelian, Nat. an. 2.11; Tatian, Or. graec. 22.1. The Greek is euphonous: καιόμενοί τε καὶ κλώμενοι. Burning as torture again recalls 4 Maccabees (6:26, 27; 10:14; 15:22; 16:4; 18:14). In War, the main object of burning—and endurance—is the temple in Jerusalem (5.445; 6.10, 165, 21, 234, 271, 272, 282, 316, 355, 264, 372). Josephus uses βασανιστήριον (“torture chamber”) only here. Though amply attested from Plutarch onward, it seems to appear before his time, outside of a fragment from Theopompus (frag. 63 [Kock]), only in 4 Maccabees (6:1; 8:1, 12, 19, 25)—another indication of the Maccabean literature’s influences on him here (see preceding notes in this section). Similarly, the “instruments” (ὄργανα) of torture appear often in 4 Maccabees (6:25; 9:20, 26; 10:5, 7, 18), elsewhere in War at 1.635. Seneca has his friend Lucilius imagine the horrible instruments of torture that tear away the flesh, as he encourages him to despise death (Ep. 24.14). See 2.145 above, where the Essenes are said to consider defamation of the lawgiver (Moses) a capital offense. Or “any of the unaccustomed things” (τι τῶν ἀσυνήθων). This is the only occurrence in Josephus of the negative ἀσυνήθης, and we do not know its precise referent. The closest verbal parallel seems to be in Galen, whose book on familiar vs. unfamiliar practices (De consuetudinibus 114) includes the example of unaccustomed foods (βρώματα ἀσυνήθη)—in a more general sense (cf. his Comp. med. 13.167). Josephus appears to mean foods excluded by biblical law as currently interpreted (Deut 14-15; cf. Ant. 3.259-60; Apion 2.173-74); the forced eating of pork and such things was a typical feature of persecution, especially in the paradigmatic Hasmonean revolt (2 Macc 7:1; 4 Macc 5:1-2; cf. War 1.34). Josephus’ concern for dietary law comes up repeatedly in his narratives: his adversary John of Gischala allegedly had improper (ἄθεσμος) food served at his table (War 7.264); Daniel and his colleagues refused the food of the Babylonian royal court (Ant. 10.190-94—Josephus turns this into a preference for vegetarian food); and Josephus’ imprisoned colleagues in Rome inspired his admiration because, not forgetting piety, they were existing on figs and nuts (Life 14). The precise sense of the Greek (οὐδέτερον ὑπέμειναν παθεῖν, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲκολακεῦσαὶ ποτε τοὺς αἰκιζομένους ἢ δακρῦσαι) is unclear. One problem is the meaning and object range of the governing finite verb ὑπομένω, which could have the senses “survive, live on”; hence “bear with, submit to”—the last meanings especially common with a following infinitive as here (“to suffer, undergo X”). The second problem is the meaning of the infinitive παθεῖν, and the third, the relationship between it and the following infinitives (“flatter, gratify” and “weep, cry”). Are these also covered by the finite verb? If so, does the “neither” refer to forced eating of non-kosher food or defaming the lawgiver (the more natural reading, since they precede), or (also, awkwardly) to the possibilities of gratifying the tormentors or crying (the infinitives following)? And what exactly is the “suffering” that the Essenes did not tolerate, since they did in fact undergo terrible tortures? All of this is complicated by the strong disjunction “but” in Greek, where I have placed the colon.The MS tradition reflects these problems. V glosses “neither” as “of the things not customary.” In his 3rd-cent. paraphrase of this passage, which is otherwise quite faithful, Porphyry (Abst. 4.13), as quoted also by Eusebius (Praep. ev. 9.3 [407c]), resolves the matter by breaking up the sentence, omitting παθεῖν, interposing explanatory clauses, and supplying ὑπομένω twice, with different referents: “From such a training as this they have produced endurance: for example, being racked and twisted . . .with the aim that they might defame the lawgiver or eat something not customary, to submit in neither case. They displayed this in the war against the Romans, when they did not submit to gratifying their tormentors or to crying.” In the translation above I have given full weight to the problematic “suffering” (παθεῖν), reading it in light of the Essenes’ voluntary dismissal of their souls (next sentence), and included the following infinitives as part of what the Essenes did not endure, while leaving the precise referent of “neither” ambiguous. The resulting sense is that they did not cling to life, but ended their suffering (and precluded either tears or capitulation to the torturers) by confidently letting go of their souls—robbing the tormentors of their goals.

According to War 3. 320-21, Vespasian was deeply impressed with Judean courage at Iotapata, after capturing a fighter who held out under every kind of torture, even fire, refusing to tell his captors what they wished to know. When crucified, he too “met death with a smile.” Or “regarding ironically.” Josephus has a large investment in “irony” language, here κατειρωνεύομαι, esp. in the War (1.84, 209; 2.26, 29, 153, 298, 522; 4.127, 152, 279, 334, 340, 342; 5.233, 242, 531; 7.270). Antiquities-Life has, by contrast, only 3 occurrences: Ant. 15.279, 374; Life 367. This language is closely related to that for “figured speech” (built on the σχῆμα- root: 2.29, 259, 603; 4.154, 265, 336, 340) and reinforces War’s tragic-ironic character (see Introduction). Such discourse was not used by earlier known historians (e.g., Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius), which makes Josephus’ interest in the category that much more interesting—given his debt to the classical historians in many other ways. Although Josephus has some 18 occurrences of ειρων-words, the major users before his time are Aristophanes (3), Plato (16), Aristotle (29), Theophrastus (6), Demosthenes (3), Dionysius (11), and Philo (2). His rough contemporary Plutarch (36) also has a large investment, which might suggest that the explicit use of irony-language, indicating everything from chicanery to artful speech, was a sign of his times (see Mason 2005a). Others who face death cheerfully (εὔθυμος) include Josephus himself (3.382), Titus’ faithful soldiers (6.184), the Judean fighters (6.364), and Herod’s brother Phasael (Ant. 14.369). On the virtue of contempt for death, see the note to “terrors” at 2.151. The phrase “dismiss [or let go of, send away, give up] one’s soul” (here τὰς ψυχὰς ἠφίεσαν) is one that Josephus uses several times (War 6.183; 7.344; Ant. 5.148; 14.369; 19.107). It usually has a strong sense of voluntariness (rather than merely letting go of life), as in the only other author near Josephus’ time who employs the phrase (cf. Hippocrates, Aff. int. 39.26): the 2nd-century Pausanias (2.5.8; 4.21.11; 5.27.11; 7.13.8; 8.40.2, 5, 44.8, 51.8; 9.33.1; 10.2.4, 22.4, 23.12, 32.17; cf. Achilles Tatius, Leuc. Clit. 5.12.3). Such active release of life, in order to regain it later, recalls the Maccabean martyrs’ behavior in 2 Macc 6:23; 7:11; 14:46; 4 Macc 6:27-30; 10:20-21; 12:19. The language of “getting/giving [bodies, spirits, souls] back again” (κομίζω + πάλιν), in the resurrection or afterlife, continues to echo the martyrdom scenes of 2 Macc 7:11, 14, 23, 29; esp. 14:46.

A common observation (φθαρτὰ μὲν εἶναι τὰ σώματα): cf. Aristotle, Cael. 305a; Philo, Opif. 119; Galen, Plac. Hipp. Plat. 8.3.16. Cf. Plato, Meno 81b (citing Pindar and others): “The human soul is deathless (τὴν ψυχὴν . . . ἀθάνατον) and although it comes to an end, which is called death, it then lives again (πάλιν γίγνεσθαι) and is never destroyed.” Josephus’ Greek for describing the Essenes is: φθαρτὰ μὲν εἶναι τὰ σώματα καὶ τὴν ὕλην οὐ μόνιμον αὐτῶν, τὰς δὲ ψυχὰς ἀθανάτους ἀεὶ διαμένειν. This closely matches his language elsewhere; cf. the remarkably similar observations in his own speech at Iotapata, which agrees even in diction and μέν . . . δέ sentence structure (3.372): “Whereas indeed the bodies are mortal for all, and fashioned of perishable matter, a soul is forever deathless, and—a portion of God—takes up residence in the bodies” (τὰ μέν γε σώματα θνητὰ πᾶσιν καὶ ἐκ φθαρτῆς ὕλης δεδημιούργηται, ψυχὴ δὲ ἀθάνατος ἀεὶ καὶ θεοῦ μοῖρα τοῖς σῶμασιν ἐνοικίζεται). Greek ἐκ τοῦ λεπτοτάτου φοιτώσας αἰθέρος. Cf. the roughly symmetrical parallel in 6.47: Titus reassures his despondent troops that “souls released from the flesh by the sword on the battlefield are hospitably welcomed by the purest element, ether (τὸ καθαρώτατον στοιχεῖον αἰθήρ).” These are the only occurrences of αἰθήρ in Josephus, except for the quotation at Apion 2.11. In Homeric cosmology, ether was the upper region of the heaven or air (ἀήρ): Il. 14.288. The 1st-century CE Heraclitus (All. Hom. 22.4) remarks that “the most refined ether is fastened up (less likely “kindled”) by/from the air” (τὸ λεπτότατον ἀπὸ ἀέρος αἰθὴρ ἀνάπτεται). In the 3rd cent. CE Porphyry defines ether as “the air having the most refined particles” (ἔστι γὰρ ὁ αἰθὴρ ἀὴρ ὁ λεπτομερέστατος; Peri agalm. 4.3). For ether as the home of souls, cf. [Plato], Epin. 984c; Empedocles, Frag. 115.20 (the demiurge casts souls from the ether into the sea); Alexander Polyhistor, frag. 140.67 [Müller] (they say that the soul is a fragment of the ether). A Greek inscription (IG 1.442 noted in LSJ) remarks that “souls are received by the ether, bodies by the earth.” The Indian interlocutor of Philostratus’ Apollonius (Vit. Apoll. 42, end) observes that Apollonius bears in his soul a generous portion of ether. This seems to be a great compliment to him, rather than a comment on humanity in general, for earlier (34) he had declared ether, as the 5th element, the stuff of the Gods: what they inhale as mortals inhale air.Forms of λεπτός with αἰθήρ occur mainly in philosophical fragments from Chrysippus (in Philo, Aet. mund. 102: in the great conflagration of the cosmos it will be resolved into “the most refined ether”; in Plutarch, Mor. [Fac. lun.] 928c: Stoics say that the luminous part of ether became sky, the condensed part stars, the most sluggish part the moon; cf. Mor. [Stoic. rep.] 1053a) and Posidonius (Frag. 271c [Theiler]). Only here does Josephus use the word ἴυνξ. Although it literally indicates a kind of bird (wryneck), the practice of binding a iynx to a wheel in order to charm estranged lovers back to one another (Pindar, Pyth. 4.213; Nem. 4.35) had the result that the word itself had come to stand for “spell” or “charm” (Aristophanes, Lys. 1110; Xenophon, Mem. 3.11.17-18; Diogenes Laertius 6.76; Philostratus, V. Ap. 8.7); cf. English “jinx.” In the context of romance, the word was often accompanied by ἕλκω (“draw, pull”) as here. So Xenophon and Pindar above; Theocritus, Id. 2.17, 22, 27, 42, 47, 52, 63; Plutarch, Mor. 1093d; Lucian, Dom. 13; Aelian, Nat. an. 1.23; 2.9; 2.21; 5.40; 6.31; 10.14 etc. By using such a colorful word in the context of souls being attracted toward bodies, in such an apparently original way, Josephus continues to display learned wit. Cf. Josephus’ speech at Iotapata: a soul is “a portion of God [that] takes up residence in the bodies” (θεοῦ μοῖρα τοῖς σῶμασιν ἐνοικίζεται; War 3.372). He often speaks of death as therefore the liberation or release of the soul: War 1.84 [a body of shame detains the soul]; 6.47,7.344, 353 [Eleazar at Masada speaking]; Ant. 6.3; Apion 2.203). Sievers (1998) collects the passages and offers concise analysis; cf. Mason 1991: 156-70. The background is broadly Platonic: Phaedo 65a; Crat. 400c (cf. Courcelle 1965); cf. the cave analogy of Resp. 514a-518b. Note also Seneca (Ep. 24.4): “What, then? Am I free now? Look at this burdensome weight of a body to which Nature has bound me!”

Alexander Polyhistor vividly portrays the veins, arteries, and sinews of a body as the very restraints (δεσμά) that bind the ether-soul (Frag. 140.102-104 [Müller]). That the body was a prison for the soul was a commonplace in Platonic thought, as it is in Josephus (see note to “bodies” at 2.154). Greek μετεώρους φέρεσθαι. The verb and adjective form a well-attested pair, though not otherwise in Josephus. A fable of Aesop (29) speaks prosaically of a crow carrying its scavenged cheese (ἐν μετεώρῳ φέρων). On Greco-Roman views of the afterlife, see e.g. Cumont 1922; Moore 1963; Stettner 1933; Long 1948; Glasson 1961; Jackson Knight 1970; Pater 1984; Caes 1985; Beck 1999. This reference to Greeks in the 3rd person, developed below with mildly sarcastic or at least distancing overtones (2.156), is characteristic of Josephus (see the notes to War 1.13-16), and it raises the question of his expected audience. The following phrases (through 2.156a) draw heavily from Hesiod’s famous passage concerning the 4th race in his description of the declining eons (Op. 156-78), perhaps also from Pindar; see notes below. This is an artful re-use of the word Josephus has favored for the Essene “regimen” (δίαιτα; see note at 2.137). Compare the Greek here (τὴν ὑπὲρ ἀκεανὸν δίαιταν) and that for “the heroes and demi-gods” as well as “the Islands of the Blessed” in 2.156 (τὰς μακάρων νήσους) with Hesiod’s description of the 4th age (Op. 169-170): “And they [the happy heroes] live, having a carefree spirit, in the Islands of the Blessed alongside deep-flowing Oceanus” (καὶ τοὶ μὲν ναίουσιν ἀκηδέα θυμὸν ἔχοντες ἐν μακάρων νήσοισι παρ’ Ὠκεανὸν βαθυδίνην). Oceanus was the vast water-body—sometimes called a “river,” but understood without a bank on the far side—that was generally thought to enclose the inhabited earth (cf. Hecataeus of Miletus, ca. 500 BCE, in Jacoby 1a.1.F frag. 302b; Aristotle, Mund. 393b; Cicero, Rep. 6.20.21; Josephus, Ant. 1.130; 3.185; Romm 1992: 12-44; Dilke 1998: 13, 34-71). Herodotus’ famous challenge did not make much of a dent in the tradition (4.8; cf. 2.23; 4.36): “As for Oceanus, in discourse they say that it flows round the whole earth from where Helios [the sun] begins its rise, though they cannot demonstrate this in practice.” Early in the 1st century CE Strabo pointedly reaffirms Homer’s conception of encircling Oceanus as both the region where the sun rises and the place where it sets. Mentioned often by Homer (e.g., Il. 14.311; 16.151; 18.402) and Hesiod (e.g., Theog. 133, 265, 282, 294), this unexplored and mysterious body of water, and the limits of social existence it represented, were full of exotic possibilities—from the Hyperboreans and Homer’s Cimmerians to Plato’s Atlantis and Euhemerus’ Panchaea (see note to “come up” at 2.128). Oceanus was the subject of a lost book by the polymath 1st-century BCE Stoic philosopher Posidonius (Strabo 2.2-3) and appears frequently in writers with geographical interests such as Diodorus and Strabo.Given that Philo uses the word “beyond-oceanish” (ὑπερωκεάνιος) for “strange, unworldly” (Conf. 134; Somn. 2.130), his remark that the Roman empire includes not only what is within the Ocean but also lands beyond it (Legat. 10) is all the more effective; he is possibly thinking of Britain (not yet taken in Philo’s time), for Josephus and others hold that Britain (now conquered) was an island across and surrounded by the Ocean (War 2.378; 6.331; cf. Florus 1.45.2, 16 and Mattern 1999: 115 n. 157). In Josephus’ day it was commonly asserted, hyperbolically, that the Roman empire had become effectively coextensive with the inhabited earth, and some dreamed of travel beyond Oceanus. See Romm 1992: 9-44, 121-71. Josephus at Iotapata: “the souls of those who die naturally are allotted the holiest heavenly place” (χῶρος). The passage evokes the image of the abode of the Gods, Mt. Olympus, in Homer, Od. 6.43-6, which has “neither wind. . . , nor rain . . ., nor snow. . . but shining bright air (αἴθρη) and white light.” At any rate, “beyond Oceanus” indicates a world entirely removed from the one known to mortals. This is the only reference to the zephyr (ζέφυρος) in Josephus. Hesiod had famously personified Zephyrus and the other winds as divine beings (Theog. 378-80). Although the syntax of the sentence appears to suggest this translation of ἐξ ὠκεανοῦ (“from Oceanus”), because of the need for anchoring the participle “blowing over” and the finite verb “refreshes,” the compound verb ἐξωκεανίζω in Strabo—who favors it—means rather “(to) place/locate beyond Oceanus” (Strabo 1.2.10, 17, 18, 35, 37, 40; 7.3.6; cf. Polybius 34.4.5; Aristonicus, Sign. Odyss. 4.556), a usage that in this context would parallel ὑπὲρ ὠκεανόν in the preceding clause. Cf. Pindar, Ol. 2.54-74 (B. L. Gildersleeve, trans.): “Wealth adorned with excellence . . . is a brilliant star, a man’s true light, at least if one has and knows the future, that the reckless souls of those who have died on earth immediately pay the penalty–and for the crimes committed in this realm of Zeus there is a judge below the earth; with hateful compulsion he passes his sentence. But having the sun always in equal nights and equal days, the good receive a life free from toil, not scraping with the strength of their arms the earth, nor the water of the sea, for the sake of a poor sustenance. But in the presence of the honored gods, those who gladly kept their oaths enjoy a life without tears, while the others undergo a toil that is unbearable to look at. Those who have persevered three times, on either side, to keep their souls free from all wrongdoing, follow Zeus’ road to the end, to the tower of Cronus, where ocean breezes blow around the island of the blessed (ἔνθα μακάρων νᾶσον ὠκεανίδες αὖραι περιπνέοισιν·) . . . .” Greek ζοφώδη καὶ χειμέριον ἀφορίζονται μυχόν. Although the final word might indicate a remote or innermost room (cf. Thackeray in LCL, “tempestuous dungeon”; Josephus uses it of the Holy of Holies at Ant. 3.142), it is hard to visualize a stormy chamber. In any case, the emphasis is on the contrast between the clear, sun-blessed, and temperate zone reserved for the good and the obscure, miserable place for the wicked. Greek γέμοντα τιμωριῶν αδιαλείπτων: see the similar phrases at 2.157 and 2.163, of the fate of the wicked in Essene and Pharisaic theology, respectively.

Greek δοκοῦσι δὲ μοι: see the parallel in Polybius, discussed in the note to “retribution” at 2.157 below. This image, along with several others in the immediate context, derives ultimately from Hesiod, Op. 169-170 (see note to “Oceanus” at 2.155 above). Nevertheless, between Hesiod and Josephus many other writers had mentioned blessed islands, notably Pindar (see note to “refreshes” at 2.155), Plato with Atlantis, and Euhemerus with Panchaia (see the note to “come up” at 2.128). Greek τοῖς τε ἀνδρείοις αὐτῶν, οὓς ἥρωας καὶ ἡμιθέους καλοῦσιν. Cf. Hesiod’s famous 4th age of humanity, described at Op. 159-60 (see note to “Oceanus” at 2.155 above): “a divine race of hero men, who are called demi-gods” (ἀνδρῶν ἡρώων θεῖον γένος, οἳ καλέονται ἡμίθεοι). The two terms are often used either interchangeably or in overlapping senses: of Homer’s and Hesiod’s characters (Plato, Crat. 398c; Theocritus, Idyll. 17.5; Diodorus 4.1.1, 1.4-5, 85.7; 5.49; 17.1.4; Philo, Congr. 16.1; Plutarch, Mor. [Def. or.] 415b; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 2.7; 31.17, 92; 33.2; Lucian, Men. 15; Aelius Herodian, Part. p. 52) or the founders and great figures of Rome’s past (Diodorus 37.11.1). Although Josephus is comparing Essene and Greek beliefs here, his language distances himself from the Greek conceptions (“laid on,” “they call,” “they tell tales,” the plural names of the impious in Hades, etc.). On “heroes,” cf. Theophrastus, Char. 16.4: the superstitious person, on seeing a certain poisonous snake, erects a hero-sanctuary on the spot. A minor work by the 3rd-cent. CE Philostratus, Ἡρωικός (Heroicus), deals critically with the Homeric heroes of the Trojan War; cf. Aitken and Maclean 2001, 2004. Or “the wretched, rotten, useless, base, evil” (οἱ πονηροί), extended from the literal sense of “weighed down, oppressed,” thence “wearisome, grievous”: a usefully vague stock category in Josephus and many ancient authors (cf. 2.258, 273, 275, 304, 352, 538, 539). For this phrase as descriptor of Hades, see Philo, Cher. 3; Plutarch, Mor. [Soll. anim.] 975b; esp. Lucian, Ver. hist. 2.26; Cat. 12; Men. 12; Luct. 8. Greek μυθολογέω. The only other occurrences of this verb in Josephus (Apion 1.25, 105) has a clearly pejorative sense: “to retail fables” (in contrast to historical records or reliable evidence). In established usage long before his time, this verb and cognate nouns (e.g., μῦθος, μυθολογία) referred in the first instance—without necessarily any moral assessment—to the stories of heroes, Gods, and Demi-gods told by Homer, Hesiod, and the early tragedians (Isocrates, Nic. 48-9; Plato, Phaedo 61b-e; Pol. 304c-d; Aristotle, Pol. 1284a, 1312a). The 4th-cent. BCE historians Ephorus and Theopompus, students of Isocrates, were known, notwithstanding much praise for their writing, for recycling fables as history (e.g., Diodorus 1.9.5; 4.1.2-3; cf. Sacks 1990: 112). Plato had famously opposed such story-telling to truth, and so excluded the use of the classical poets, with their scandalous tales about the gods, from his ideal state (Resp. 377b-378d, 388e-392d; cf. Phaedr. 229b-c, 276e). Diodorus makes telling and relevant use of μυθολογία in his moralizing prologue (1.2.2): if even the fabricated (πεπλασμένη) stories of Hades incite men to virtue, how much more will history, which deals in truth, train the character for excellence? Seneca (Ep. 24.18) likewise hesitates before mentioning Ixion, Sisyphus, and (the punishment of) Tityus, after noting Epicurus’ attack on such ideas about the Gods.Elsewhere in his writings Josephus comments bitingly on the unseemly character of Greek mythology in its portrayal of the divine: Ant. 1.15, 22; Apion 2.239-41 (cf. Feldman ad loc. in BJP 3, Barclay in BJP 10). In the last passage he remarks that virtually all Greek thinkers have censured the poets in this respect. For another barbarian association of Greeks with tale-telling, see the Egyptians in Diodorus 1.25.4 (but Plutarch on Egyptian mythology at Mor. [Is. Osir.] 360a). Note Josephus’ implicit contrast between the Greeks’ mythologizing here and the Essenes’ much more respectable theologizing (“discourse concerning God”) at 2.158. Homer (Od. 11.576-600) describes the terrible suffering of 3 (i.e., not Ixion’s) of these formerly great kings in Hades, as witnessed by Odysseus, listing them in reverse order: Tityus lying in the plain, with vultures constantly tearing at his liver; Tantalus unable to eat or drink, though surrounded by water and food; Sisyphus laboring endlessly to push his rock up over a hill. Plato mentions the same 3, referring to Homer, as examples of those whose permanent suffering in Hades, though they themselves are beyond help, serves as a deterrent to new arrivals there (Gorg. 525b-e)—apparently on the assumption that these may be swayed toward virtue and reincarnated with better hopes. Lucretius (3.978-1023) interprets the 3 as allegories of the human passions. Although Ixion is not mentioned in these adaptations of Homer, it was natural to include him because of the similarity of his permanent, horrible punishment. Josephus’ older contemporary Seneca, indeed, mentions Ixion, Sisyphus, and Tityus (the last implied), along with Cerberus, in his letter on despising death (Ep. 24.18). Since Josephus appears to be the first extant writer to make this grouping of 4; Lucian (Men. 14) will do the same a couple of generations later (cf. his Pod. 11, which omits Tityus). This apparently sarcastic use of plural names in lists of famous Greeks is paralleled in Apion 2.154, where Josephus mentions among Greek lawgivers “Lycurguses and Solons.” Sisyphus was the legendary founding king of Corinth, who cheated death first by binding Death in chains and then by conspiring with his wife Merope not to perform the proper rituals after his removal to the underworld, from which he was therefore released. Death had been sent his way by Zeus, in punishment for having revealed Zeus’ secret (that the latter had abducted Asopus’ daughter). Cf. Theognis 1.701-12. For his punishment, see note to “men” above. Tantalus offended the gods in some fundamental way to do with eating. One of the famous stories (Pindar, Ol. 1.46-58) claims that he invited the Gods to dinner and served up his son Pelops, dissected and boiled. For his punishment, see note to “men” above. Ixion, who does not appear with the other 3 in Odysseus’ vision of Hades (Od. 11.576ff.: see next note), is less frequently mentioned in classical sources: Homer, Il. 14.317; Pindar, Pyth. 2.21-48; Eur. Herc. 1298; Phoen. 1185; Aristotle, Poet. 1456a. This legendary king of Thessaly and paradigmatic criminal (humanity’s first parricide) repaid his patron, Zeus, by attempting to rape the latter’s consort Hera. His punishment was to be bound forever to the revolving wheel of fire. Josephus’ inclusion of him with the other 3 anticipates Lucian, Men. 14, and later writers. Tityus was a giant, son of Earth, who was sent to the underworld by Zeus, Apollo, Artemis, or some combination, according to different legends, for having sexually assaulted Leto, mother of the last two Gods mentioned. See Hyginus, Fab. 55; Apollonius of Rhodes 1.759ff. His punishment (see note to “men” above) is aimed at the seat of desire, the liver. Josephus appears to be aware (perhaps at second hand) of Plato, Gorg. 525b-e, where Plato draws out the paradigmatic value of these heinous criminals and their eternal punishment for all other criminals who arrive in Hades—who, unlike the examples, still have a chance of reform. See the note to “certain men” in this section. For the utilitarian connotations, see the note to “retribution” at 2.157.

For similar phrases to “deathless retribution” (here ἀθάνατον τιμωρίαν), see 2.155 (of Essenes) and 2.163 (of Pharisees). Outside of Josephus the closest parallel appears to be in Philo, Spec. 3.84 (τὸ τῆς τιμωρίας ἀθάνατον), another example of Josephus’ “Philonic” language in War 2.This utilitarian assessment of belief in a deity or divine punishment after death, which anticipates early modern philosophy, is not found much before Josephus. Its earliest attestation seems to be in a fragment of the play Sisyphus, perhaps by Critias or Euripides (Döring 1978: 43). Outside these fragments and Polybius (below), Klaus Döring can point to partial parallels only in Isocrates (11.24-7), though in connection with Egyptian religion, Varro (preserved in Augustine [Civ. Dei 4.27, 31; 6.4-6]), and Cicero, though only with respect to augury (Div. 2.28, 43, 70, 74, 75, 148).The closest parallels in general point and spirit are in Polybius, who speaks of the Roman constitution’s unique incorporation of piety and ritual, and Diodorus. Polybius makes the remarkable claim—prefaced with a self-conscious series of 3 “it seems to me” phrases—that what is an object of reproach among others, supersitition (δεισιδαιμονία), is actually what holds the Roman commonwealth together (6.56.7-12): “They seem to me (ἐμοί γε μὴν δοκοῦσι) to have done this for the sake of the rabble. For if the commonwealth had comprised wise men, perhaps this device would not have been necessary. But since every rabble is fickle and full of criminal desires, irrational hatred, and a violent spirit, it is left for the masses to be restrained by invisible fears and such drama as this. For this reason it seems to me that the ancients did not introduce notions concerning the gods or about the terrors of Hades carelessly and as if by chance; rather, that people today carelessly and irrationally expunge them.” Diodorus, perhaps influenced by Posidonius, gives the same impression: belief in punishment after death is a necessary means of social control. Diodorus 1.2.2 is discussed in the note to “tell tales” (2.156). See also Diodorus 34/35.2.47: “It is surely to the advantage of common life that superstition (δεισιδαιμονία) concerning the Gods is imprinted in the souls of the many. For there are but few who behave honestly on account of innate virtue; the great mass of humanity hold back from criminal conduct only because of legal penalties and the retributions from God” (34/35.2.47).Contrast Josephus’ contemporary, Plutarch—albeit addressing fellow-élites and apparently not considering the needs of ordinary people. Arguing that superstition (δεισιδαιμονία) is worse than atheism, he says that the fear it engenders does not end with death: “it attaches to death the conception of undying evils (κακῶν . . . ἀθανάτων; cf. Josephus’ ἀθάνατον τιμωρίαν; 2.157), and just when he [the superstitious person] ceases from the affairs of life, it seems to begin those affairs that never cease” (Mor. [Superst.] 166f-167a). At 170f. Plutarch even mentions Tantalus as an ironic example: the superstitious person would be as pleased to be free of his fear as Tantalus would be to come out from under his rock.

The verb θεολογέω is rare before Josephus, though attested as early as the pre-Socratics (Thales, Test. fr. 12; cf. Pherecydes, Frag. 2.8; 4.12; Aristotle, Met. 983b; Mund. 391b; Hecataeus of Abdera in Jacoby 3a.264.F frag. 25 l. 256; Diodorus 1.23.7, 29.6, 86.2, etc.; Philo, Opif. 12), and he uses it only here. More common is the noun θεολογία, which Josephus has 3 times in Apion (1.78, 225, 238). Note the implicit contrast, in spite of the formal parallel adduced, between what Essenes do (“theologize”) and what Greeks do (“mythologize”): on the latter, see the note to “tell tales” at 2.156. See the note at 2.54. This (δέλεαρ) is a common word in War 1-2 (5 occurrences), though after that it appears only at Apion 2.284. In that passage, as in other authors (Plato Tim. 69d; Soph. 222e; [Longinus], Subl. 32.5; Plutarch, Cato Maj. 2.4), Josephus assumes that evil and pleasure are seductive—cf. Plutarch, who speaks of flatterers destroying the young élite by “dangling the irresistible bait (δέλεαρ αφύλακτον) of pleasure before them” (Mor. [Educ.] 13a). But Josephus implies there what he says plainly here: Judeans [Essenes] are enticed rather by high-minded theological conceptions. Cf. Ant. 18.14-15, where it is the Pharisees’ similar views of the afterlife that commend them to the masses. As Gerlach (1863: 8) observed long ago, this editorial remark strongly suggests that our author wished to identify himself with the Essenes. But this does not mean that he, a statesman beyond such narrow affiliation, wished to be seen as a school member. The many parallels with Apion 2.146-295 (see Excursus) and the verbal parallels with his own views elsewhere (preceding notes) show that he understands the Essenes, who seem to be well known outside Judea, as the embodiment of Judean values.

The foregoing description of the Essenes was prompted in part by the story of one of their number who had accurately predicted Archelaus’ downfall (2.112-13). This link with prediction was first established in 1.78-80, where an Essene seer predicted Aristobulus I’s murder of his brother Antigonus in “Strato’s Tower.” Or “inwardly trained, inculcated.” The compound verb ἐμπαιδοτριβέω is exceedingly rare, and unattested before this, its only occurrence in Josephus. Aside from 1 example in the (3rd-cent. CE) Cassius Dio (77.21.2), the next nearest appearances are in quotations of this passage (Porphyry, Abst. 4.13; Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.3 [407c]). More common is the simpler παιδοτριβέω, which means “train in gymnastics” (a παιδοτρίβης being a gym or a wrestling teacher). Josephus continues to imply a rigorous, athletic sort of training.Of the concrete examples of Essene prediction thus far in War (1.78-80; 2.113): in the former, the Ἐσσαῖος taught his art in the temple court, confirming the impression that accurate prediction was a matter of long training, not merely spontaeneous inspiration. Antiquities (13.311; 15.371-78; 17.346) will continue this portrayal of Essene prediction as a special skill. Some scholars, partly reflecting their concern to establish underlying sources, have sensed differences between Josephus’ wording in this passage and his narrative descriptions of Essene prediction (Gray 1993: 105-6; Bergmeier 1993: 54-55). But the few words of War 2.159 can hardly bear such weight; further, it seems pointless to apply theological rigor to a rhetorical historian. Greek βίβλοις ἱεραῖς . . . ἐμπαιδοτριβούμενοι. “Holy books” is a common Josephan phrase: Ant. 1.26, 82, 139; 2.347; 3.81, 105; 4.326; 9.28 et passim. He will later insist upon his own ability to predict the future with precision, which he does precisely on the basis of his training in the holy books’ prophetic statements: “With respect to assessing dreams, he was quite capable of making coherent the ambiguous utterances of the Deity: he knew well the prophetic statements of the holy books (ἱερῶν βίβλων), being both a priest himself and a descendant of priests” (War 3.352). In War 6.312 Josephus actually interprets such an “ambiguous” statement “in the holy writings” (ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς γράμμασιν). Prediction from Scripture is thus a subject in which he is plainly interested (cf. 3.405)—not one that he would likely pass over if it had appeared in his sources. Indeed, Josephus and individual Essenes (possibly with Jesus son of Ananias, 6.300-309) are the only parties after John Hyrcanus in the 2nd century BCE (Ant. 13.299-300) whom he credits with accurate prediction. The ἁγνεία/ἁγνεύω word-group is highly significant for Josephus (War 1.26; 5.194; 7.264, etc.). We should assume, it seems, that purification is a prerequisite for divine revelation: cf. Exod 19:10-15. Greek προφητῶν ἀποφθέγμασιν. This is the only occurrence in Josephus of ἀπόφθεγμα (here plural and connected with the prophets). The sense of the word, barely distinguishable from the chreia or “useful saying” that provided material for manipulation in rhetorical education (Aelius Theon, Prog. 60), is perhaps best illustrated by Plutarch’s collections: Apophthegms of the Spartans and of Kings and Commanders, respectively. An apophthegm was a pithy, pregnant saying located in a briefly described context. The term appears often in conjunction with “Laconian” (or Spartan; cf. English “laconic”) or with βραχυ- (“short”) words, for the Spartans were renowned for their detestation of long speeches. They trained their young to speak with concision (see the admiring discussion and examples in Plutarch, Lyc. 19-20). Josephus’ use of προφητ- terminology is quite restrictive: he means by it the ancient authors of the Judean holy books (the Scriptures) and some of their inspired ancient contemporaries. The very few exceptions may come from his sources (Ant. 1.240; Apion 1.312). John Hyrcanus (late 2nd cent. BCE) is Josephus’ exception: this remarkable man was the last credited with exercising the “prophetic gift” (προφητεία; War 1.68; Ant. 13.300): after him there have been only false prophets (War 2.26; 6.286; Ant. 20.97, 169). In spite of their abilities in precise prediction, neither the Essenes nor Josephus himself receives the label “prophet(s)” from him. See further Blenkinsopp 1974; Feldman 1990; Gray 1993: 20-26. Josephus uses ἀστοχέω only here and at War 4.116; 5.61. It was something of a Polybian favorite: he accounts for 9 of the 28 attestations before Josephus. Josephus remarks likewise, of the Essene who foretold Aristobulus’ murder of Antigonus (1.78), that that seer had never once made a mistake or lied in his predictions.

Josephus’ account of the Essenes appears formally complete at this point. With due regard for his distinctive language and emphases, they sound roughly like the likewise emphatically celibate Essenes of Philo (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.11: “no Essene takes a woman”) and Pliny (Nat. 5.73: sine ulla femina), as of Josephus himself in the later parallel (Ant. 18.21: “they do not conclude marriages”). It comes as a surprise, then, that he should casually introduce “a different order” of Essenes who marry, though they reportedly agree with the others in every other respect of thought and practice. Having made such a clear case against marriage in the foregoing description (2.120-21), he must now explain why these Essenes marry.Scholars often remark that Josephus describes two kinds of Essenes: marrying and celibate. But that is a rather neater picture than he gives, for he does not say at the outset, where we should expect it, that “there are two kinds of Essenes”; nor does he anticipate this group where one might expect a comparison. Contrast his introduction of 3 schools at 2.119, in keeping with normal rhetorical practice, even though Pharisees and Sadducees will not be discussed until the end. Instead, he describes the Essene order (2.119-59) as though everything applied to them all, and as if celibacy were fundamental to their other virtues—the clearest example of imperviousness to the passions (2.120-21). In describing the Essene practice of adopting others’ children because they do not produce their own (2.120), for example, he might at least have anticipated this group of Essenes with their different solution. The “different order,” which differs fundamentally, appears as an afterthought with respect to content (though suiting the passage’s concentric structure).Moreover, the internal logic of this addendum is puzzling. How can these marrying Essenes claim that the whole genos would die out if they were celibate (2.160), when the main Essenes have already faced and dealt with that problem, by adoption? What has become of the Essenes’ utter mistrust of women (2.120), which lay at the heart of their virtues? And crucially: How is it possible for these marrying Essenes to follow all the other prescriptions and customs of the rest, if they cannot live celibate lives and share all things as the celibate males do? Josephus’ complete failure to explain how the marrying Essenes live, aside from their bathing habits, is a puzzle. The mystery is exacerbated by what seems his defensive tone: although these Essenes do marry, they still regard women in the properly disparaging way. They are not soft!Bergmeier (1993: 68), who attributes the main passage to Josephus’ sources, assumes that the marrying Essenes must come from yet another source. But the unity of language between War 2.119-59 and 2.160, and between this addendum and Josephus’ outlook elsewhere (e.g., about the purpose of marriage), seems to close that escape route. Since the narrative is clearly his, and yet it throws up both historical and literary problems, it is possible that he has simply invented marrying Essenes for momentary purposes, which he will ignore again in his later account. There is demonstrably a good deal of whole-cloth invention in his own life story (see BJP 9 Introduction), his biblical paraphrase, his speeches, and much of his dramatic narratives. So we should not be shocked at the prospect of invention. Possible reasons for creating Essenes who marry are not hard to conjure.In bringing forward the celibate Essenes as ideal representatives of his nation, widely distributed among the cities, Josephus might have realized that such an ideal lifestyle would seem impractical for a whole culture. Roman aristocrats could admire philosophical ideals, and even go off as young men to join a radical philosophal society, but they were expected to come back into the world of grown-up politics (cf. Tacitus, Agr. 4.3). Celibate life was too extreme for ordinary living. It was the common assumption among both Judeans (cf. Gen 1:26) and Romans that marriage was the necessary social norm, even if exclusively (as here) for procreation. Augustus’ measures to increase marriage rates were clearly aimed at raising the level of reproduction in Rome, not at enhancing personal or connubial fulfillment. Describing those measures, Tacitus (Ann. 3.25) and Cassius Dio (54.16.1-2) speak of “marriage and the procreation/rearing of children” as if there were little distinction. If Josephus wished to make the Essenes plausible to his Roman audiences, it made sense to leave open a marriage option, if strictly for reproductive purposes. And since he has indicated his own profound admiration for this group (2.158), expressing through them the traits of the national character, it might help to leave open a way in which he too—though several times married and a father (Life 426-28)—could be thought to practice Essene-like behavior.On any accounting this unassimilated addendum, still marked by Josephus’ language and integrated into the larger concentric structure of the Essene passage, is puzzling. That Josephus invented a vaguely conceived marrying group might best explain its peculiar features. See the note to this important word at 2.137. Greek ἔθη καὶ νόμιμα, a frequent conceptual pairing in Josephus, with largely overlapping meanings (also with νόμοι, laws); cf. Mason 1991: 100-102. Possibly “the most important function of life” (μέγιστον . . . τοῦ βίου μέρος), though the phrase μέρος βίου often appears, sometimes with “large” or “greater” or a numerical fraction, for actual parts or components of one’s life (Aristotle, Probl. 956b; Polybius 3.19.9; 16.21.7; Philo, Det. 74.4; Abr. 155; Marcus Aurelius, Med. 3.4.1; 8.24.1) The issue of marriage and human succession (διαδοχή) here creates an inclusio with 2.120-121, which began the Essene passage. The closest linguistic parallels, linking marriage and succession of children, seem to be from the 2nd-cent. CE authors Soranus (Gyn. 1.34, who makes it the sole purpose of marriage) and Hierocles (Frag. eth., pg. 56 ln. 5). In the preceding sections of the narrative, the word διαδοχή has been used frequently, but in relation to the problem of Herod’s royal succession: 1.458, 503, 552, 587, 637; 2.2, 15, 26, 37, 87-88. It is quite possible that Josephus intends a contrast between these philosophers, who are not fundamentally concerned even about pursuing basic human succession, and the diadem-driven would-be monarchs, lusting after royal succession in the preceding story. Or “type, race” (τὸ γένος); cf. Lat. genus. See the notes to “type” at 2.113 and “ancestry” at 2.119—both cases where Josephus has recently used γένος of Essenes. Possibly he is being deliberately ambiguous here, as to whether it is the order that would die out, if no Essene married, or the (human) “race”—if no one at all were to marry. This group of Essenes thus adopts a Spartan-like solution to the dilemma that, although ideal asceticism in Greco-Roman terms would avoid the distractions of women (cf. 2.119-120), such a regimen would quickly end in the absence of men. Just as the Spartans solved this problem by requiring marriage for the purposes of breeding only, still prohibiting settled married life for men in their prime (who could make only furtive conjugal visits to their wives: Xenophon, Lac. 1.5-10), so later Roman-era authors value marriage preeminently for the sake of children: liberorum procreandorum causa (PMich, vol. 7, document 434, r, 3; PRyl., vol. 4, document 612 ext. 3; cf. Frier 1999: 95). Tacitus (Ann. 3.25) and Cassius Dio (54.16.1-2) conflate “marriage and the procreation/rearing of children” and Josephus’ younger contemporary Soranus insists that men and women couple in marriage not for “the enjoyment of pleasurable sensations” but for “the sake of children and succession” (διαδοχή; Gyn. 3.24.1). The same idea, perhaps grounded in the basic command to multiply (Gen 1:26), is found throughout Judean literature of the Roman period (cf. Barclay, note to “procreation” at Apion 2.199 in BJP 10). Josephus will make the same claims for all Judeans at Ant. 4.261 and Apion 2.199: intercourse is permitted “only if it is with the intention of procreation.”

This recalls the 3-year probation for male novices described above (2.137-38). Josephus is one of the first attested users of this word (τριετία), which he will use once again (Ant. 19.351). First attested in Theophrastus (Caus. plant. 1.20.4) and then Philo (Virt. 156, 158), it becomes popular with Josephus’ contemporaries and later authors (Plutarch, Tib. Gai. Grac. 23.9; Dem. Ant. 6.3; Athenaeus, Deipn. 13.54 [Kaibel]; Acts 20:31). The Latin equivalent triennium is much more widely used from an earlier date (by Plautus, Cicero, and Caesar). This appears to be a reference to purification following menstruation, which the rabbis understood to involve complete immersion in the ritual bath (miqveh) 7 days after the last sign of menstruation (b. Nidd. 66a). There could, then, be little chance of error in determining that the girl had in fact passed puberty. But if purification after menstruation is the referent, the relationship between these 3 cycles and the 3-year interval just mentioned remains unclear. The Mishnah contemplates, at least for legal purposes, the possibility of marriage involving a woman who has not yet menstruated (Nidd. 1.4; 10.1; cf. b. Nidd. 66a), and that the discovery of sterility might occur only around age 18 or 20 (after marriage: 5.9). These Essenes, then, ostentatiously ensure that a woman is fertile before marriage, to stress the exclusive purpose of the union. Both the content and the structure of this sentence recall Josephus’ description of males’ admission to the order at 2.137-38: in each case the candidate is taken in after much testing in the course of 3 years (δοκιμάζω, πεῖρα). The difficult text at Apion 2.202 has often been read as similarly declaring impure (in the case of all Judeans) any man who has sexual relations with a pregnant woman. In BJP 10 ad loc., however, Barclay offers detailed analysis and concludes that the passage is concerns the impurity contracted from a corpse, even that of a stillborn or aborted fetus. Nevertheless, Josephus’ earlier remark there, that intercourse is permitted only for the sake of procreation (Apion 2.199), would, if taken to its logical corollary, preclude sex during pregnancy. On the purpose of marriage as breeding (τεκνοποιία) only, see the note to “die out” in 2.160. This piece of clothing, distinctive of the order, has been introduced at 2.129, 137. Male bathing is thus apparently no different in celibate or marrying groups: whether or not women are present, men wear the waist-cloth for decorum. “This order” is perhaps deliberately ambiguous. It must refer at least to the marrying Essenes of the preceding paragraph, since they have been introduced as a “different order.” Yet Josephus names only 3 schools, and since this sentence also marks the transition to the remaining two (the Sadducees are also an “order” here), he may be referring to the larger Essene order.

The following comparison between Pharisees and Sadducees as affirmers and deniers of respective philosophical positions (Fate, survival of the soul, post-mortem rewards and punishments, mutual affection), with the Essenes already covered as sui generis, is drastically modified in Ant. 13.171-73, where the Essenes and Sadducees assume the pole positions and the Pharisees occupy the middle. Ant. 18.12-20 is something of a mixture: it accommodates all 3 schools with roughly equal space (though the Essenes still outshine the others), and the most obvious contrasts are between Pharisees and Sadducees, but the sharpness of the contrast is diminished there. The effort to map schools across a spectrum of belief, concerning Fate, is paralleled in Cicero (Fat. 39) and Tacitus (Ann. 6.22). Cf. 2.119, which introduced Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, in that order, before the great Essene digression. Of the vast scholarship on the Pharisees, see esp. Neusner 1971; Rivkin 1978; Saldarini 1988; Mason 1991; Grabbe 1992; Sanders 1992; Stemberger 1995; Neusner and Chilton 2007. Possibly, though less likely, “imagine themselves to interpret. . .”; see the note to “reputed” at 2.119—the opening sentence on Essenes (note the symmetry of 2.119-66)—and Mason 1991: 106-13. This construction recalls the similar introduction of the Pharisees at War 1.110 (see notes there), where their reputation for precision in the laws appears to be contradicted by the accompanying story. Greek μετ’ ἀκριβείας δοκοῦντες ἐξηγεῖσθαι τὰ νόμιμα. The major terms here recall the first description of the Pharisees at 1.110, δοκοῦν . . . τοὺς νόμους ἀκριβέστερον ἀφηγεῖσθαι, and anticipate Josephus’ final mention of the group in Life 191 (οἳπερὶτὰπάτρια νόμιμα δοκοῦσιν τῶν ἄλλων ἀκρίβείᾳ διαφέρειν (cf. also Ant. 17.41). See notes to 1.110 and BJP 9 ad loc; Mason 1991: 82-113, 130-32. It seems that we have to do with the Pharisees’ popular esteem for their seeming precision in interpreting the laws, which the aristocratic legal expert Josephus either mentions without explicit comment (as here) or openly disparage, according to context. Greek [τὴν πρώτην] ἀπάγοντες [αἵρεσιν]. The use of ἀπάγω (“lead or take away, off, astray”) with αἵρεσις is odd if the sense is meant to be as neutral as translated here, for it normally has to do with carrying off prisoners in war-time (Ant. 10.83, 98; 11.61) or cattle (War 3.452; 5.65; Ant. 5.167; 8.294; 9.191), without the consent of the carried, or the withdrawal of troops from a siege (Ant. 7.290, 393; 8.365). The phrasing is not attested outside of Josephus before the 4th-cent. CE John of Chrysostom, for whom it is likewise a “carrying off”: ἀπάγειν αὐτους τῆς πονηρᾶς ἐκείνης αἱρέσεως (Christ. prec. 48.793.37). In his aborted Lexicon Thackeray followed Hudson’s conjectural emendation to ἐπάγω, which has a much wider range of positive associations than the ἀπό prefix. If we remain with the wording attested in all the MSS, however, it would seem that Josephus intends a negative sense. The Pharisees carry or lead off (astray?) the followers of their school. “First” might refer to the Pharisees’ antiquity in relation to the others, their status as “leading” school, or simply their first place on the list that began the discussion of philosophy in 2.119. These options represented by the translations of Reinach, Thackeray, and M-B respectively. See also Mason 1991: 129-31. This mirrors the Stoic view (cf. Life 12) that “everything is caused by Fate” (omnia fato fiunt: Cicero, Fat. 40-1; Diogenes Laertius 7.149). In Ant. 13.171-73, however, it is the Essenes who attribute everything to Fate—the Pharisees attributing some things but not others (οὐ πάντα)—, though Ant. 18.13 will realign things much as here. Cf. Mason 1991: 133-42. This term for “Fate” (ἡ εἱμαρμένη) does not appear in Herodotus, Thucydides, the tragedians, or Diodorus; it occurs only 3 times in Polybius, 5 in Dionysius, once in Strabo (Plutarch has some 101 occurrences). Before Josephus’ time the word was used most often by philosophers (pre-Socratics, Plato, and esp. the Stoics Zeno and Chrysippus; an essay by Cicero, De fato, is extant). The 20 occurrences in Josephus qualify him as a heavy user, especially among historians. Of these 20 cases, more than a third (7) fall in the brief descriptions of the philosophical schools, as here. Subtracting these, we find Fate most often in War—9 times, against 3 in Antiquities and 1 in Apion—and it turns up in important places.In 6 occurrences in the context of the temple’s destruction, it appears in close proximity to “God,” as also here. In War 6.108, Josephus chastises himself for trying to save the rebels, those whom God has condemned in spite of Fate. God had sentenced the temple to flames, and then the “fated” day arrived, for there is no escape from Fate (6.250, 267). Josephus marvels at Fate’s precision in choosing the date of the temple’s destruction (6.268). It was equally divine providence and a “certain just Fate” that granted Vespasian hegemony (4.622; cf. Ant. 19.347). One need not make a systematic theologian of Josephus to observe that he uses “Fate” with some consistency, as a force or principle closely allied with God. Plainly, Josephus would identify himself with the position attributed to the Pharisees here, to the Essenes elsewhere.

Although this phrase (τὸ πράττειν τὰ δίκαια καὶ μή) sounds formulaic, the last 4 words do not seem to appear elsewhere as a fixed phrase. The first phrase, “doing the right thing,” is found in Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1105b; Lucian, Anach. 22. More common is the sequence “(the) doing or not (doing)” ([τὸ] πράττειν καὶ μὴ [πράττειν]): Plato, Resp. 433a; Demosthenes, Phil. 3.8; Anaximenes, Rhet. 17.2; Aristotle, Rhet. 1373b; Arius Didymus, Philos. 65.2. The δικ- word group can be translated variously—“righteousness, justice, rightness, fairness, conformity to law or custom”—, and in biblical and Christian texts often leans toward “righteousness,” but Josephus employs this prominent word-group usually in the more mundane Greco-Roman senses of justice, propriety, uprightness, fairness. See Mason 1991: 142-49. Greek ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις κεῖσθαι. The use of κείμαι with ἐν or ἐπί to mean “that which is one’s power or prerogative” is common in Josephus: War 3.389, 396; 5.59; Ant. 1.178; 5.110; 13.355; 18.215; 19.167. Note also the similar phrasing for the Sadducean position below (2.165) and in Ant. 13.173. Aristotle had long before elaborated the ethical category of “what lies in human power” with similar language: “When the origin of an action is in oneself, it is also in one’s power to do it or not (ἐπ’ αὐτῷ καὶ τὸ πράττειν καὶ μή)” (Eth. nic. 3.1.6). In particular, Aristotle conventionalizes the phrase (τὸ) ἐφ’ ἡμῖν for “what is up to us” (Eth. nic. 3.5.2). Greek βοηθεῖν δὲ εἰς ἕκαστον καὶ τὴν εἱμαρμένην. The verb βοηθέω recalls Stoic discussions of the role of Fate in human actions. After Socrates’ reputed introduction of ethics to philosophy (Diogenes Laertius 2.16), causation in human actions became a central issue for philosophers. Plato deals with the problem in a number of contexts (e.g., Phaedo 80d-81d; Resp. 614b-621d; Tim. 41d, 42d, 91d-e). Although Aristotle credits nature, necessity, and chance with much influence in human affairs, he holds that the choice of virtue or vice lays “in ourselves” (Eth. nic. 3.3.3-5.2). Most important: according to Cicero, the Stoic Chrysippus distinguished two kinds of causes: principal or antecedent (causae perfectae et principales) and “helping” or proximate (causae adiuvantes et proximae; Fat. 42). When one pushes a drum down a hill, for example, the antecedent cause of its rolling is its particular nature (its rollability). The push given to begin the roll is a near or “helping” cause—though in every single case such an initiating cause will be found. So also humans have a certain character or nature, but Fate intervenes in each action by applying a certain prod to that character. Of course, the relationship between determinism and free will has, in various guises, remained one of the central problems of philosophy. Though Josephus will attempt a more sophisticated expression of the Pharisees’ view in Ant. 18.13, it does not add much. From rabbinic literature, a parallel to Josephus’ statement is often drawn from a saying attributed to R. Akiva in m. Avot 3.16: “All is foreseen, but freedom of choice is given” (Danby trans.). Yet the key phrase (‮צפוי הכל‬‎) may simply mean that all is observed (by God, by others); cf. Schechter 1961: 285. Greek ψυχὴν τε πᾶσαν μὲν ἄφθαρτον. Cf. Ant. 18.14 on the Pharisees’ view, “there is with souls a deathless power” (ἀθανατόν τε ἰσχύν); 18.18 on the Essenes’ view, “they make souls deathless” (ἀθανατίζουσιν δὲτὰς ψυχάς). Here too the Pharisees agree with the Essene position recently described (“souls endure forever, deathless”) and indeed with standard philosophical views, including apparently Josephus’ own: see 2.154 and notes. Greek μεταβαίνειν δὲ εἰς ἕτερον σῶμα τὴν τῶν ἀγαθῶν μόνην. According to the parallel in Ant. 18.14, similarly, Pharisees hold that the souls of the virtuous encounter “an easy path to living again” (ῥαστώνην τοῦ ἀναβιοῦν). On this point the Pharisees appear to depart from the Essene position, which envisions a spiritual home beyond Oceanus for the souls of the righteous—a view that Josephus explicitly compares with Greek notions (2.155). The difference may not be as great as it seems, however, since Josephus’ own character speaks about the souls of the good going first to a heavenly place and then to “holy new bodies”—in the revolution, or succession, of ages (ἐκ περιτροπῆς αἰώνων): War 3.375; Apion 2.218. He thus envisages an intervening period of the soul’s existence before its re-incarnation.Although this kind of “living again” (παλιγγενεσία, αναβίωσις) has both substantive and linguistic parallels to (especially) Platonic images of reincarnation, in which souls may face an interval in Hades before living again (Meno 81b; Phaed. 70c, 71e-72a), Josephus’ emphases on the holiness and singularity of the new body, its nature as reward [whereas for Greeks, reincarnation is generally viewed as a burden], and the specification that this will happen in the succession of ages (not as an ongoing pattern) create affinities with current pictures of resurrection (e.g., Paul in 1 Cor 15:35-51; cf. in detail Cavallin 1974; survey in Elledge 2006). Josephus’ ambiguous language would no doubt make the Pharisees’ view of afterlife, whatever that was historically, sound more familiar to his audience (see Mason 1991: 156-70). Whether such language reflects his knowledge of the group or he is obfuscating matters because talk of “bodily resurrection” would make audiences uncomfortable (cf. Acts 17:31-33; Celsus ap. Origen, C. Cels. 5.14; Augustine, Civ. 22.4-5) seems impossible to say. Greek τὰς δὲ τῶν φαύλων αἰδίῳ τιμωρίᾳ κολάζεσθαι. In the parallel at Ant. 18.14, rewards and punishments are both allotted “beneath the earth” (i.e., in Hades), where the souls of the wicked face eternal imprisonment (εἱργμὸν ἀίδιον). The Pharisees’ belief in eternal retribution is thus far indistinguishable from that of the Essenes, who posit “unending retributions” (τιμωριῶν ἀδιαλείπτων, 2.155) and “deathless retribution” (ἀθάνατον τιμωρίαν, 2.157).

See the note at 1.119. The Sadducees (Le Moyne 1972; Saldarini 1988; Wassèn 1990; Grabbe 1992: 2.484-87; Sanders 1992; Stemberger 1995; Baumgarten 1997, passim) hardly appear in the NT. They are absent from Paul’s letters; Mark presents them as 2-dimensional characters “who say there is no resurrection” (Mark 12:18); John collapses them into an undifferentiated Judean leadership (they do not appear by name); Matthew couples them with the Pharisees to represent the joint leadership of the old Israel who reject Jesus (Matt 3:7; 16:1-12). Only Luke-Acts offers a more nuanced portrait: in Acts 4:1 and 5:17 the high priest and Temple authorities are said to be Sadducees. This clarifies the closing section of Luke (19:39), where the relatively congenial Pharisees leave the story at Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem. Near the end of Acts (23:8), the author makes the Sadducees’ denial of resurrection an issue that Paul can use to divide the Jerusalem court, adding the unparalleled statement that they also deny the existence of angels or spirits.Rabbinic literature contains many references to the ‮צדוקים‬‎, the etymology of which is uncertain. Scholars have usually taken the term to approximate “Sadducees” (Greek Σαδδουκαῖοι) and linked it with the biblically authorized high-priestly family of Zadok (1 Kgs 2:35; Ezek 40:46), which lost power under Antiochus IV. The connection is not certain because there is a linguistic difficulty in the double δ of the Greek, and it is unclear why the non-Zadokite priesthood after Antiochus’ time would perpetuate that name. Rabbinic ‮צדוקים‬‎ generally appear as allies of the mysterious Boethusians (a Greek name) and in dispute with the sages and/or the ‮פרושים‬‎ (Pharisees). The ‮צדוקים‬‎ have their own date for Pentecost (m. Hag. 2.4; Men. 10.3) and purity laws that differ from those of the majority (m. Yad. 4.6-7). Although they seek to find fault with the others’ ritual prescriptions (m. Par. 3.3), they do not appear in early rabbinic literature as wealthy aristocrats. They can be isolated from “Israel” as much as the Samaritans (m. Nid. 4.2). Early rabbinic literature does preserve some hint that the priestly aristocracy (though not identified as Sadducean) was compelled to follow the prescriptions of “the elders” (not Pharisees); see m. Yoma 1.1-7. The Babylonian Talmud reports the explicit claim that Sadducean chief priests had to follow Pharisaic dictates (Yoma 19b). But this is very late and of doubtful use for reconstructing 1st-century conditions, half a millennium earlier.Lawrence Schiffman (1994) has argued that correspondences between positions attributed to the rabbinic ‮צדוקים‬‎ and those advocated by 4QMMT from Qumran show that the people behind some DSS were proto-Sadducees; both groups claimed loyalty to the priestly line of Zadok. This view has not won wide acceptance yet because of the major disagreements between the views of the Scrolls’ authors (with strong emphasis on spiritual powers, heavenly intervention, and coming judgment) and those attributed to the Sadducees in the NT and Josephus.Although Josephus was a proud member of the priestly aristocracy so coldly portrayed by Acts, neither of the incidents he reports of the Sadducees expresses any admiration. In Ant. 13.288-296 he relates a story about the Hasmonean John Hyrcanus’ rejection of the Pharisees in favor of the Sadducees, at the instigation of a Sadducee named Jonathan. Josephus indicates there that the Sadducees’ rejection of the Pharisees’ tradition “of the fathers” caused much conflict between the two groups (Ant. 13.297), and the Sadducees had the support only of “the well fixed.” He repeats these points in Ant. 18.16-17: although the Sadducees include men of the highest standing, they defer to the Pharisees because of the latter’s popular support (18.17). Although much of the Sadducean outlook might seem suited to the aristocrat Josephus, their Epicurean-like denial of an afterlife and rejection of fate in favor of unfettered free will, as here, stand in sharp conflict with his views. His second incident involving Sadducees is also related in a hostile tone. Before the arrival of the new governor Albinus, the high priest Ananus arranges for the execution by stoning of Jesus’ brother James and others. Ananus is a member of the Sadducees, who “when it comes to judgments, are savage in contrast to all other Jews” (Ant 20.199). Although Josephus elsewhere praises the severity of the Jewish laws against wrongdoers (Apion 2.276-278), he apparently considers the Sadducees cruel. Greek τὴν μὲν εἱμαρμένην παντάπασιν ἀναίροῦσιν. The repetition of the main verb (ἀναιρέω) in the next sentence strengthens the picture of the Sadducees as deniers of all these positive philosophical (theological) claims. At Ant. 13.172 the Sadducean position is described in nearly identical terms (Σαδδ. δὲ τὴν μὲν εἱμαρμένην ἀναιροῦσιν). Possibly, Josephus intends irony, for in Stoic doctrine it is Fate that (creates and) “does away with” everything in existence: ἕπεται τῷ πάντα γίνεσθαι καθ’ εἱμαρμένην. . . ἀναιρετέον ἄρα τὸ πάντα γίνεσθαι καθ εἱμαρμένην, ᾧ τοῦθ’ εἵπετο (Chrysippus, Frag. 1004.11). Here, paradoxically, the Sadducees (presumptuously think that they) do away with Fate. In his narrator’s voice, at least, Josephus is committed to the proposition that God, providence (πρόνοια), and/or Fate (ἡ εἱμαρμένη) oversee human affairs. See e.g., Ant. 1.14, 20; 10.277-81; 16.395-99. Greek τὸν θεὸν ἔξω τοῦ δρᾶν τι κακὸν ἢ ἐφορᾶν τίθενται. The language (θεός, ἐφοράω, κακόν) is typically Josephan: War 1.630-1; 5.413. In these passages, and programmatically in Apion 2.181 (note also Ant. 1.20, though with other language), he speaks of God’s contemplating (ἐφορᾶν) everything (πάντα). Cf. Homer (Od. 12.322), speaking of the Sun’s universal purview, and Philo, Leg. 3.171; Quaest. gen. 1.fr. 69.

Greek ἐπ’ ἀνθρώπων ἐκλογῇ τὸ τε καλὸν καὶ τὸ κακὸν προκεῖσθαι. For the language of moral choice, see the notes to “right” and “human beings” at 2.163. The closest parallel to Josephus’ language here (ψυχῆς διαμονή) comes in Plutarch, Mor. 560d, f. This phrase both clarifies what Josephus assumes about the Pharisees’ views above (2.163), that the rewards and punishments are dispensed in Hades, and anticipates Ant. 18.14, which puts the Pharisees’ rewards and punishments “beneath the earth.” In the parallel (Ant. 18.16) Josephus puts the Sadducean view of afterlife in propositional rather than negative terms: “their doctrine dissolves the souls together with the bodies” (τὰς ψυχὰς ὁ λόγος συναφανίζει τοῖς σώμασι).

Greek φιλάλληλοι recalls the same word in the opening sentence (2.119; note symmetry), where however the Essenes are said to outshine all other schools in mutual affection; the Pharisees’ mutual affection is relative to the Sadducees’ harshness even toward one another. At Ant. 18.14, Josephus explains that the Pharisees defer and give honor to those advanced in age, and do not rashly contradict them. Or “consensus, unanimity, oneness of mind, harmony”; Greek ὁμόνοια is a significant contrapuntal theme of War (1.460; 2.345, 467; 3.496; 4.369; 5.72, 278; esp. 6.216), where 13 of its 24 occurrences in Josephus occur. It is the lost (but proper Judean) alternative to the civil strife (στάσις) that wracked the nation and brought war with Rome. Cf. Apion 2.179, 283. Cultivating concord, with ἀσκέω, recalls the opening sentence (2.119), where the Essenes cultivate seriousness. The disputatiousness of the Sadducees towards their own “teachers of wisdom” is alleged in the parallel: Ant. 18.16. Elsewhere Josephus attributes to them a harshness, severity, or even savagery in their legal judgments: Ant. 13.294; 20.200. Given the many possibilities for designating fellow-members or associates of the same school, this phrase (πρὸς τοὺς ὁμοίους) is striking. Though it might simply indicate “their kind, those like them,” οἱ ὅμοιοι was also a technical term for the qualified aristocracy among the Spartans especially (Xenophon, Anab. 4.6; Lac. 10.7; 13.1; cf. Herodotus 3.35 on the Persians). Given the many links between the Spartans and Essenes just portrayed (see Excursus), it is just possible that Josephus’ audience would have picked up a further allusion here. This concluding statement reprises the opening line (2.119), which introduced three forms or bodies that philosophize (in both, φολοσοφέω in middle voice) among the Judeans, consolidating the overall symmetry of the lengthy passage.

See 2.96-97 for the scope of Archelaus’ territory. This is the only occurrence of μεταπίπτω (“fall over/down, pass over to, change to”) in War. In the Antiquities it is normally used for a change of political or religious constitution or regime—for the worse (Ant. 6.83; 12.2, 320; 13.281; 15.365; 18.124). Cf. Tacitus’ quando in formam provinciae cesserant (of a British client kingdom), Ann. 14.31. In 6 CE. Josephus resumes the narrative of 2.117-118, which he interrupted for the long digression on the philosophical schools. For the status of Judea as “province,” see the relevant notes on the earlier passage, and note again Tacitus’ impression (Hist. 5.9) that Judea lost its native rule and became a province only under Claudius. Here Josephus takes advantage of a rhyme not apparent in English: ἐθναρχίας (genitive, ethnarchy) becomes ἐπαρχίαν (accusative): a province. Augustus had given Philip Batanea, Trachonitis, Auranitis, and an area around Panias at 2.94-95; see also the note to “Philip” at 2.14. Augustus had given Antipas Perea and Galilee according to 2.94-95; see also the note to “Antipas” at 2.20. The rhyme, reinforcing Josephus’ ostensible concern with varieties of political constitution, continues (see note to “province” in this section) with τετραρχίας (accusative plural). Ant. 18.31 dates Salome’s death to the tenure of Ambivulus as governor (9-12 CE); Kokkinos (1998: 192) proposes 10 CE. Introduced in 1.566, according to MSS PA, as “Livia, the wife of the Caesar [Augustus],” though the other MSS have “Iulia” there as here. It is difficult to decide the reading there: “Livia” might be preferable as difficilior in light of Josephus’ more common usage (Ant. 16.139; 17.10, 141, 146, 190; 18.31, 33), but “Iulia” could be the more difficult (so, preferable) reading if one posited an effort at scribal correction to “Livia” for this period of her life. This is the remarkable woman born Livia Drusilla (58 BCE-29 CE), who married Tiberius Claudius Nero, by whom she bore the later princeps Tiberius; she divorced this man while pregnant in order to marry the future Augustus, Octavian (39 BCE). Josephus identifies her as wife of Augustus here presumably to distinguish her from Augustus’ notorious daughter by Scribonia, who had the same name (see 2.25 above). Livia was perhaps the most famous and highly regarded woman—and not merely a woman—known to Josephus’ Roman audience. Her divine cult had been celebrated even before her death outside of Rome (Barrett 2002: 207-14). Following her death, the Senate voted her divine honors, which were finally granted by Claudius in 42 CE (Velleius 2.130.5; Tacitus, Ann. 5.2.2; Dio 58.2.1; Suetonius, Tib. 51.2). Aside from Tacitus, who was ready to attribute all sorts of perfidy to high-standing Roman women, a wide range of evidence shows that Livia-Iulia Augusta was held in the highest regard long after her death (Barrett 2002: 219, 222-25).At the story time here, Salome’s death in 10 CE, Livia was not yet known as Iulia (Augusta)—the name bequeathed by Augustus to mark her adoption into his family (14 CE). That Josephus consistently gives her this honorific and family name may confirm his expectation of a Roman audience (see Introduction). On Livia in general, see Huntsman 1997; Barrett 2002; on her name, Barrett 2002: 307-8; on her close relations with King Herod and his sister Salome (established perhaps during her visit to Judea with Augustus in 20 BCE), Barrett 2002: 37, 196-97, 207. Here Josephus uses the familiar Greek translation (Σεβαστός) of Augustus’ awe-inspiring title (Augustus). I would translate it “Augustus,” were it not that the next sentence gives the transliterated Latin title Αὐγούστος, which has a stronger claim to English “Augustus.” See the notes at 2.98, where Salome is granted Jamnia, Azotus, Phasaelis, and the royal holdings of Ascalon, altogether producing 60 talents in revenue—but all under the “toparchy” of Archelaus. The “toparchy” of Salome is difficult to identify, since Jamnia, though it appears here to be distinct from her toparchy, was otherwise itself considered a toparchic center encompassing also coastal Azotus (War 3.54-5; Pliny, Nat. 5.70; cf. A. H. M. Jones 1937: 274-75, who notes that it remained under the Roman governor’s administration regardless of ownership). See the note at 2.98. Phasaelis is modern Khirbet Fasayil, N of Jericho in the Jordan valley (see Appendix A in BJP 1a). On its celebrated honey-dates, including the “Nicolaus” variety, see Pliny, Nat. 13.44-45. According to 2.98 (see notes there), Augustus had granted the territories mentioned here to Salome as part of his final disposition of Herod’s former kingdom. Ant. 17.189 and 18.231 claim, however, that they were granted by Herod’s will; Augustus added as his own gift the royal palace at Ascalon. Perhaps the “and” is more explicative or epexegetical than additional. It was common for client monarchs of Rome to bequeath territories to their patrons; here we see the parallel practice on a minor scale among client-royal women.

See the note to this phrase at 1.3. Of its 11 occurrences in War, 5 are in bk. 2. Tiberius Claudius Nero (42 BCE-37 CE), named after his father (Livia-Iulia’s ex-husband), was adopted by his step-father Augustus in 4 CE and renamed Tiberius Claudius Caesar; he became Tiberius Caesar Augustus on his accession to the principate in 14 CE (cf. Tacitus, Ann. 1.5). His elevation in Augustus’ final years was the conclusion of a long and complicated succession struggle, which had seen him fall from favor over against Augustus’ grandsons; their premature deaths and other political conditions had finally brought him back into full favor as heir-designate (Seager 2005: 40-47). By 13 CE, he already held the essential powers needed for supreme rule—unlimited imperium, tribunician power, and in general, powers equal to those of Augustus (Levick 1999b: 62-4, 75-6)—although pater patriae and pontifex maximus would not follow for some months. The nature and date of his “accession,” marked by prolonged negotiations with the senate following Augustus’ death on August 19 (Tacitus, Ann. 1.7, 13; cf. Suetonius, Tib. 24.1; 67), have proven thorny issues for scholars to interpret (Levick 1999b: 68-81; Seager 2005: 48-57). The standard date is the Senate debate on Sept 17, 14 CE, though Josephus must be counting from about Oct. 13 when he gives the regnal period (Ant. 18.224; cf. War 2.180 below). Tacitus, though recounting the debate more fully than others, claims that Livia delayed news of Augustus’ death so as to announce at once both that event and her son Tiberius’ position as “master of the state” (rerum potiri; Ann. 1.5; cf. Salome’s tactical delay, re: Herod’s death at 1.666, and Alexander Janneus’ advice to Salome Alexandra at Ant. 13.401). Although Josephus prescinds from direct comment on Tiberius’ character in War, he will elaborate considerably in Ant. 18-19 (on which see Wiseman 1991; Galimberti 2001; Mason 2003a). Tacitus’ scathing portrait of Tiberius in the Annals (1.4, 6-7, 10, etc.) shaped much of the later tradition. The Greek verb ἀφηγέομαι is a neat approximation of the idea conveyed by the Latin princeps (esse): Augustus was decidedly not a king in Roman terms, but the “leader” or “first man” of the republic. Greek τῶν πραγμάτων. Although it literally means “the events, matters, facts, affairs, circumstances, etc.,” τὰ πράγματα is also the standard equivalent of Latin respublica (e.g., Ant. 18.124; 19.173), “commonwealth, republic,” sometimes spelled out as τὰ κοινὰ πράγματα (as at War 4.278): Polybius 4.62.4; 5.93.4; 6.54.3-4; 10.17.15; 28.6.5-6; 38.15.2; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 2.10.1; 4.8.1, 26.1, 77.1; Augustus, RG 1.2. Josephus can easily use it of the ideally aristocratic Judean state: War 1.19, 273; 2.594; 4.492; Ant. 1.114. So also Ant. 18.32. Augustus (see note to “Romans” at 1.20) died on August 19, 14 CE. Given that he lived to nearly 76 (from Sept. 8, 63 BCE; cf. Suetonius, Aug. 5, 100), Josephus has him “taking the leadership of the republic” (ἀφηγησαμένου τῶν πραγμάτων) from about age 18, long before his victory over Antony at Actium (31 BCE) or his recognition as Augustus by the Senate (27 BCE). The calculation must, therefore, be from the death of Octavian’s adoptive father Iulius Caesar on March 15, 44 BCE. Suetonius counts in a similar way (Aug. 8.3): Augustus ruled the state (rem p. tenuit) for 12 years as triumvir with Antony and Lepidus, then 44 years by himself—roughly 56 years in total. By the Gregorian calendar, this period amounts to 43 years, 9 months, 16 days before the Common Era and 13 years, 7 months, 19 days after it, for a total of 57 years, 5 months, 4 days—about a month short of Josephus’ total. Antipas (see note to his name in preceding section). Josephus often misleadingly combines building projects of varying dates in such lists. This Caesarea, often called Philippi (“of Philip”) on the strength of the Latin Vulgate rendering of Mark 8:27; Matt 16:13, to distinguish it from Herod’s more famous foundation of the same name on the Mediterranean coast (cf. 2.16 and note), is dated by its coins to 3/2 BCE (cf. BJP 9: Appendix A)—long before the death of Augustus in 14 CE. Although conventional opinion locates Philip’s capital at the site of ancient Paneas/Banias, as a city built around Herod’s temple to Augustus in front of the grove to Pan (see the note at 2.95), excavations at nearby Omrit have raised the question whether that site is more suited to the role: cf. Overman, Olive, and Nelson 2003. For the state of the question (with arguments for rejecting the Omrit hypothesis), see Bernett 2007: 126-46. I.e., the Golan Heights, occupying the area E and N/NE of Lake Kinneret. Philip founded Iulias at or near the fishing village of Bethsaida, famous from the gospels, on the N shore of Lake Gennesaret (Kinneret, the Sea of Galilee); see BJP 9 n. 1632 and Appendix A to that volume; collected essays in Arav and Freund 1995. In Ant. 18.28 Josephus remarks that Philip named the city after Augustus’ daughter Iulia (see 2.25 and notes). It seems improbable however that Philip, who attained power in 4 BCE by the grace of Augustus, either managed to build a city in honor of the notorious young Iulia (so Schürer-Vermes 2.172; Kokkinos 1998: 238) in the brief window between his accession—at which point she was already estranged from Tiberius—and her banishment in 2 BCE, or that he dedicated the city to Iulia after her banishment. So Richardson 1996: 302 n. 36: “Why he should say later in Ant. that Bethsaida was named after Augustus’ daughter is a mystery.”The context here, by contrast, implies a connection with the Iulia who was Augustus’ wife and Tiberius’ mother, since all the other names honor an emperor or his wife; this is supported by the fact that other writers know this Iulias and/or the Perean one (below) as Livias: Pliny, Nat. 13.44; Ptolemy, Geog. 5.16.9; Eusebius, Onom. 112-13. There is now a growing consensus based on Philip’s “Year 34” (i.e., 30 CE) coins, which uniquely feature the word “founder,” that this was the year in which Philip founded Iulias, in honor of Livia, who had become “Iulia” in 14 CE (Kuhn and Arav 1991: 87-90; Kindler 1999a, b; Strickert 1995: 181-85; Meshorer 2001: 88-89; Bernett 2007: 251). As for Josephus’ connection of the foundation with Augustus’ daughter: confusion is always possible, though the simplest explanation of a statement that is both false and redolent of scandal, and (one may posit) known by author and intended audience alike to be improbable, may be that it was meant as a joke. At least, the Roman audience expected for Ant. 18-19, which volumes host a prolonged critique of Roman monarchy, tyranny, and succession (cf. Mason 2008b), might well have laughed at the notion of a city incongruously built to honor the unfortunate Iulia. Josephus does not mention here (contrast Ant. 18.27) the refounding or fortification of Sepphoris (destroyed by Varus at War 2.68, 4 BCE) as the “ornament of all Galilee”; he will not return to Sepphoris again until 2.511, at the beginning of the revolt. Antipas founded Tiberias in 18-19 CE on the western shore of Lake Gennesaret (Kinneret), in honor of the new princeps, who had come to power in 14. The parallel account (Ant. 18.36-39) is much fuller: it describes the foundation of the city on the site of an old cemetery, which created much controversy. Tiberias appears to have been a true polis, with the full range of Greek civic institutions (see A. H. M. Jones 1937: 277; BJP 9: notes at § 31 and Appendix A in that volume). Published archaeological remains thus far date from the 2nd cent. CE. Bernett (2007: 221-29) proposes that Antipas was motivated to found Tiberias in honor of the new princeps because Livias/Iulias in Perea was the only city in his territory that served this function; because of his disappointment with the traditional-Judean character of Sepphoris (as recent archaeology has suggested) after its renewal, which limited the tetrarch’s scope of activity (and imperial honor); and because of his desire to recover decisively from his mis-step in renaming Sepphoris “Autocratoris” in putative honor of Gaius Caesar, who had once appeared as Augustus’ likely heir (d. 4 CE). Giving the city the emperor’s personal name was a clear and remarkable honor. The new role of Tiberias as Galilee’s main political and economic center—the later loss of this status is lamented by Justus in Life 37-39—must have involved a significant reconfiguration of regional relationships. Josephus uses the adjective only here and at Ant. 1.257. That is, bearing the name of Augustus’ wife, who is featured in this section as the new princeps Tiberius’ mother: Antipas refounded and walled the transjordanian village of Betharampha (bibl. Beit-haram) in her honor (Ant. 18.27-28). The town had evidently been significant already in Herod’s time as the site of royal residences (see 2.59 above). Although Josephus has Antipas naming his foundation Iulias, here quite plausibly after Augustus’ death in 14 CE (with Livia’s adoption into the gens Iulia at that time), in Ant. 18.27 its foundation is dated soon after 6 CE, when it must have been called Livias. Since in later centuries it would (again) be known as Livias (see notes to “Iulias” earlier in this section), A. H. M. Jones must be correct (1937: 275, 277) in surmising that it was founded as Livias and renamed the “Iulias” from 14 CE (see notes to 2.167).Bernett (2007: 227-28) proposes that Antipas was playing a shrewd political game by this choice of name: he felt bound to honor his new neighbor (who received Salome’s former territories of Phasaelis and Archelais in 9 CE or later); at the same time he wished to build a bridge to the future with heir-apparent Tiberius, yet without making such an overt step as to name the city after him (repeating his mistake in honoring Gaius Caesar, as she argues, with Sepphoris-Autocratoris). Choosing to honor Tiberius’ mother, wife of the current ruler, offered many possible benefits with no risk.

Krieger (1995: 67-69), followed by Bond (1998: 49-62), argues that following two Pilate episodes in War support the narrative as follows. The first shows the Judeans peacefully resisting Pilate, with a good outcome; in the second, they respond more militantly with fatal consequences. This difference highlights the moral: “either accept Roman rule peacefully and its governors will show consideration or resort to violence and risk certain annihilation at the hands of Roman troops” (Bond 1998: 56). Both scholars correctly note the different number, configurations, and emphases of the Pilate episodes in Antiquities, and commendably argue that they must serve its different narrative context. But their explanation is perhaps too mechanical. Neither response by the Judeans is violent: the first creates a “huge disturbance” among them, with outraged masses streaming into Jerusalem to protest; the second explicitly has them yelling at Pilate, it is true, but there seems to be no reason in the narrative to exclude such abuse from the first—not enough of a reason, at any rate, to treat the stories as models of two different kinds of behavior. In fact, Josephus appears to have made every effort to assimilate one story to the other (see notes to the second episode). Greek ἐπίτροπος. See, however, the note to “procurator” at 2.117 and Bond 1998: 11-12: Pilate’s title should be “prefect” (ἔπαρχος; praefectus). This may be simple anachronism (paralleled by Tacitus, Ann. 15.44), or it may be that in War Josephus deliberately diminishes the stature of the Judean governors to that of functionaries, whom he portrays as incompetent or worse. Although Josephus makes a smooth narrative transition from Tiberius’ accession to the new princeps’ dispatch of Pilate to Judea, the parallel (Ant. 18.29-35, 39-54) includes a considerable amount of information between the governorship of Coponius, who came to Judea in 6 CE and that of Pilate (see discussion below for dates). It mentions 3 intervening governors (Ambivulus, 9-12 CE; Annius Rufus, 12-15 CE; Valerius Gratus, 15-? CE), and then digresses expansively on contemporary Parthian affairs. It is difficult to imagine that Josephus did not know the main lines of this history even as he wrote the War; if so, he has compressed it all, making it seem to flow naturally so as to highlight Pilate’s allegedly harsh regime soon after Judea came under direct Roman rule (the earlier governors being mentioned cursorily even in Antiquities).Although the wording both here and at Ant. 18.55 suggests that the following incident came early in Pilate’s tenure in Judea (so Bond 1998: 79), perhaps even in the winter of 19-20 (see next note), this is dramatic narrative language, not necessarily transparent of historical reality. Pilatus’ unusual cognomen might mean “hairy, shaggy” or “armed with javelins (pila),” depending upon whether the “i” is long or short (Kajanto 1982: 354). In Antiquities, where Josephus is generally concerned to give the Roman family names (nomina) of the governors, he identifies him as Pontius Pilatus (Ant. 18.35). This fuller name appears also in Luke-Acts (Luke 3:1; Acts 4:27; cf. 1 Tim. 2:11)—a work that shows remarkable similarities to Ant. 18-20 (Mason 2003c: 251-95)—and in 3 letters of Ignatius (Magn. 11.1; Trall. 9.1; Smyrn. 1.2). That nomen is confirmed by the fragmentary inscription from Caesarea (see note to “procurator” at 2.117), which has “. . . NTIUS PILATUS.”Pilate’s dates in office are usually given as 26-36 CE, on the strength of Ant. 18.35, which has his predecessor Valerius Gratus in Judea for 11 years, and 18.89, which gives Pilate 10 years in office, a calculation that accounts for Eusebius’ claim that Pilate began to govern in the 12th year of Tiberius (= 26 CE; Hist. eccl. 1.9). D. R. Schwartz (1992: 182-217), however, makes a compelling argument for the years ca. 19 to 37 as Pilate’s term. His case includes these points: (a) Valerius Gratus is reported to have left Judea after deposing 4 high priests in rapid succession (after about a year each from 15 CE) and then leaving Caiaphas in office; (b) the extremely brief account of Gratus’ tenure, which is only in Antiquities (18.34-35), contrasts with an expansive treatment of Pilate’s term in both works (Ant. 18.35-89); (c) the long term of Caiaphas as high priest (18-36 CE) is most easily explained by a change of governor and therefore of policy with respect to high priests; (d) most important, the surrounding events in the Antiquities narrative—the founding of Tiberias in about 19 CE (18.36-38), the rule of Orodes as king of Armenia (16-18 CE; Ant. 18.52), the death of Germanicus in 19 CE (Ant. 18.53-54), and the expulsion of Judeans and Egyptians from Rome in 19 (so Tacitus, Ann. 2.85; Ant. 18.65-84)—would normally suggest that Pilate arrived at roughly the same time. As Schwartz observes (1992: 184), it seems more economical to explain the unsupported year counts for Gratus’ and Pilate’s terms in office, even as textual corruptions, than to overturn this complex of accidental narrative evidence.Schwartz’s arguments are independently supported by K. Lönnquist (2000). His “archaeometallurgical” analysis of Judean provincial coinage in the period 6-66 CE shows that in coins dated from 17/18 CE to 31/32 the lead content dropped from about 11% to virtually nil (2000: 465), then returned to its previous levels under Claudius and Nero. Although lead (a common material in Roman aqueduct construction) has not yet been found in the Jerusalem aqueducts, its discovery in the contemporary system at Panias leads Lönnquist to concluded that it was also used at crucial points in the Jerusalem system (though now lost through subsequent ravages) and that Pilate’s removal of lead from his coins was for this purpose. Although he allows that Pilate’s predecessor Valerius Gratus may have begun construction or planning (to account for the 17/18 CE), he thinks that the appearance of a new coin type—with upright palm, representing good luck—matches a type otherwise used only for the arrival of new governors. And so he dates Pilate’s arrival to 17/18 (2000: 467-68).If Schwartz and Lönnquist are correct (but cf. Bernett 2007: 199 n. 111), Josephus’ quick movement here from Tiberius’ accession 14 CE to the appointment of Pilate in 18/19 CE would be more easily intelligible than it is on the customary dating: his passing over the brief term of Gratus would match his treatment of the other 2/3-year terms, of Coponius (barely mentioned at 2.117), Ambivulus, and Rufus, to focus understandably on the governor who spent some 18/19 years in the region and left a decisive mark. It would not, then, be the enormity of Pilate’s measures alone that attracted Josephus’ interest (note his apparent difficulty in characterizing the aqueduct episode as a catastrophe), but much more Pilate’s impressively long term in office. Such a long term would match Tiberius’ known policy of leaving provincial governors in office as long as possible (Ant. 18.170; Tacitus, Ann. 1.80; Suetonius, Tib. 41), assuming only that there was some defect with Tiberius’ first choice of prefect, Gratus. Pilate apparently remains in Caesarea (cf. 2.173), in spite of a verb suggesting that he himself led or brought (along) the images into Jerusalem: εἰσκομίζω (so Niese, M-B—a very common word) or παρεισκομίζω (so Thackeray—though a word otherwise attested in literature only in Eusebius’ quotation of this passage [Hist. eccl. 2.6.4] and Cyril of Alexandria [Comm. Joh. 2.659]). Greek νύκτωρ κεκαλυμμένας: or “at night, concealed [by darkness].” Some reliefs show images on military standards concealed by covers (Webster 1985: plate IXa). If Pilate both covered the imperial images and brought them in at night, he was going to great lengths to avoid public observation, though it remains unclear whether his motive was to preclude confrontation (in hopes that the public would not see them) or to prepare the ground for it (by creating a fait accompli). That is, of Tiberius (see 2.168). Eusebius (Dem. ev. 8.122-123) identifies this incident with an episode related by Philo (Legat. 299-305) concerning Pilate’s dedication of gold-covered votive shields without images into Herod’s former palace, which provoked similar outrage. Although the identification seems plausible at a glance, given that Josephus fails to mention the shields and Philo the standards, and scholars have also occasionally identified the two, the details of each episode and the timing in relation to Pilate’s career tell decisively against confusing them (cf. Feldman 1984: 316). Roman military units had various kinds of standards (signa, σημαίαι), which we cannot describe comprehensively given the paucity of surviving evidence—from reliefs (e.g., Trajan’s column in Rome) and occasional literary descriptions (see Webster 1985: 133-50 and plates IX-X; Feugère 2002: 47-52). A standard or signum comprised a thin wooden pole, roughly the height of a man, to which was affixed a legionary symbol of some sort at the top, often with other shapes (e.g., discs and wreaths) along the shaft; handles projected part of the way up. Every legion had a standard capped by a silver and/or gold eagle, carried by a specially detailed soldier (aquilifer) wearing distinctive animal-skin clothing (cf. War 3.123; 5.48; 6.68). The eagle standard was the legion’s most prized possession, its loss (as under Crassus in Parthia, 53 BCE) a massive humiliation (cf. War 6.225-226). The similarly dressed signifer carried the particular legion’s particular emblem, such as a boar or bull, perhaps with zodiacal associations. The imaginifer carried a special standard with the emperor’s portrait-bust (imago; Greek εἰκών—as Josephus here), sometimes accompanied by portraits of other imperial family members (Goldsworthy 2003: 84, 134; see 143 on this episode; Keppie 1998: plate 14). Each tactical unit within a legion, e.g. cohort and the century, also had a standard, often capped by the figure of an upright hand (representing the soldiers’ oath of loyalty) or spearhead. Finally, many standards were topped by flag-like vexilla (sg. vexillum), pieces of coloured cloth about 20-22 in. square and hung from a cross-bar and fringed along the edge. Among the Praetorian Guard in Rome, cohort signa were capped by imperial busts (Le Bohec 1994: 58).For auxiliaries, such as those under Pilate’s command here, evidence is harder to come by, though reliefs show these units also making use of at least simple vexilla, spearhead-capped standards with vexilla beneath, or standards adorned with medallions enclosing an imperial portrait (Webster 1985: plate XIVb) or a bull’s head. At least one infantry cohort had a standard resembling that of a legion, with spearhead at top, two wreath-discs, and an eagle (Webster 1985: 147-49). Available evidence does not suggest that auxiliary cohort standards normally included imperial images.Uses of standards ranged from the mundane to the sublime: reference-points for military drill, parade, and combat; markers for digging camp; the means of signaling during battle; symbols of victory (cf. War 6.403); and emblems for religious and ceremonial functions. They had a numinous quality: they were stored in a special shrine in the camp, fiercely protected in battle, and anointed and decorated for religious occasions. As religious objects they “received” the annual oaths of loyalty to the emperor and even soldiers’ sacrifices (Kraeling 1942: 265-70; Webster 1985: 133-34; cf. War 6.413).Josephus’ language (τὰς Καίσαρος εἰκωόνας, αἳ σημαίαι καλοῦνται) is imprecise, for the images of Caesar were not themselves “standards” (= Lat. signa). The parallel at Ant. 18.55 (προτομαὶ Καίσαρος, αἳ ταῖς σημαίαις προσῆσαν— “busts [or engravings] of Caesar, which connected to the standards”) partly clarifies: Pilate was moving a military unit from Caesarea into winter quarters at Jerusalem; he allegedly had a mind to undo Judean legal tradition, whereas previous governors had left these images outside Jerusalem, using only standards without such decorations in deference to Judean law (cf. 2.170). Josephus implies there that the introduction of these standards was a gratuitous provocation.Pilate’s coins from 29-31 CE (thus, late in his tenure, following the death of his mother Livia), might be read as confirming his intention to provoke, for they pair arguably “Jewish motifs” (Meshorer 2001: 171) on one side—ears of grain, wreaths— with Roman symbols on the other: cultically important objects such as a sacrificial ladle (simpulum) or an augur’s staff (lituus; Meshorer 1982: 2.180). Bernett (2007: 203-4) understands the ears of grain as the Demeter symbol that often signified Julio-Claudian women, and so as the symbolism of imperial family cult. That may be, though Agrippa I would use similar symbols extensively on his coins; they are also found on Judean clay lamps and jewelry of the period (Meshorer 2001: 96-97). Bernett’s proposal (2007: 199-201) that Pilate intended to force the imperial cult on Judeans is difficult to square with the evidence for this episode, with his function as Tiberius’ emissary, who should work with local élites to maintain peace, or with what we can reconstruct of both imperial cult and Roman administrative norms (e.g., Millar 1977; Price 1980, 2004a, b; Lendon 1997; Ando 2000; Meyer-Zwiffelhoffer 2002).Bond (1998) contends that Pilate did not wish to antagonize the Judeans but only to integrate them more fully into the empire. She largely follows Kraeling’s (1942) explanation of the standards episode: Pilate’s introduction of image-bearing standards was necessary, for the cohort in question was transferring to Jerusalem either for a long stay or as a staging base for spring maneuvers; either way, if its standards bore imperial images, these would have necessarily remained with the unit (Kraeling 1942: 265, 271-73; Bond 1998: 79).On the cohorts in Judea, see the note to “Sebastenes” at 2.52. The one garrisoned in Jerusalem (5.244) was based in the Antonia fortress overlooking the temple, with a presence also in Herod’s former palace in the W of the city (Kraeling 1942: 268-69). If a cohort named in honor of Augustus was among those under Pilate’s control (so a cohors Augusta, cf. Acts 27:1), that might be the best candidate for a unit bearing imperial images. Their introduction, not only into Jerusalem but in immediate proximity to the temple (i.e., into Antonia), might have seemed a particular threat to the imageless Judean cult on the same temple mount (Kraeling 1942: 274-80). On this view, Pilate’s later agreement to remove the standards (2.174) involved a decision to replace this cohort. In favor of this argument is Pilate’s effort to introduce the standards “under cover and at night” (presumably, so as to avoid public offense). Against it is the plain sense of both War and Antiquities that Pilate returned the standards—with no mention of removing the cohort—to Caesarea (2.174; cf. Ant. 18.59), and with apparent ease (thus, no hint that a major logistical effort was imperiled), as well as the claim in Antiquities that it was possible to use imageless standards (not cohorts without such standards) when entering the city (Ant. 18.56). It may be impossible to reconstruct the episode with any probability because of the nature of Josephus’ evidence: he wishes to portray Judea’s equestrian governors in a dim light, and he has massaged his evidence to (we do not know what he started with) to fit this mold.

The phrase ἐγείρω + ταραχή is only here in Josephus, and found elsewhere in Nicolaus (Frag. 101.934 [Müller]) and the 2nd-cent. CE astrologer Vettius Valens (App. anth. 1.6.44). Josephus has a heavy narrative investment in forms of ταραχή (“disturbance”: 184 occurrences in his corpus; cf. 26 in Thucydides and 67 in Polybius); see further 2.175. The modification of ταραχή by the simple adjective μεγάλη (“great disturbance[s]”) was a staple of Hellenistic historians—used almost exclusively by them, it seems (Polybius 1.53.4; 3.51.6, 74.1; 10.14.4; Diodorus 11.61.3, 87.5; 15.40.1; 18.39.4; 32.1.1; 33.4.2; 37.2.13; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 10.10.1). Josephus hardly uses the simple adjective (Ant. 14.273), preferring to heighten the drama with a “greater” (War 1.245; Ant. 15.223; 16.229) or “the greatest” (War 5.101; Ant. 13.425) disturbance as here, a usage not attested in earlier historians (cf. Aesop, Sent. 4; Epicurus, Frag. 72a; Demosthenes, Arist. 103).Since the most basic duty of a governor was to maintain order (see Meyer-Zwiffelhoffer 2002) and enlist the local élites as part of the governing project (Ando 2000), Josephus’ indictment of Pilate for provoking huge disturbances implies his basic failure. It is striking, however, that Josephus can (or will) muster only two such episodes from what may have been a 19-year term; note also Tacitus’ description of this period in Judea (Hist. 5.9): “Under Tiberius it was quiet (sub Tiberio quies).” That is, those in Jerusalem (as distinct from rural folk). Cf. 2.173 below, where Judeans are alarmed at another sight, and 3.395, where the captive Josephus becomes a “sight” or spectacle (ὄψις as here; cf. θέα in 3.393), which has an emotional effect on both the inner-narrative audience and his literary audience in Rome. On Josephus’ use of “sight” and spectacle to create vividness (ἐνάργεια), see Chapman 1998 and her essay in Edmondson, Mason, and Rives 2005: 289-313. This colorful collocation, πατέω . . . τοὺς νόμους, turns up again at 4.258 in the high priest Jesus’ description of the rebels; it seems to be a Josephan flourish (cf. 1.544, πεπατῆσθαι τὸ δίκαιον), not attested in literature before him. The reference is to the 2nd commandment (Exod 20:4-6), which forbids the fashioning of a cut or hewn image (‮פסל‬‎) in the form of anything in the heavens, the earth, or the water. Deut 4:16 qualifies the forbidden image as a male or female form; cf. Deut 4:23, 25; 27:15; Judg 17-18; Ps 106:19. Yet from other passages (Isa 44:9-20; 48:5; Jer 10:14; Nah 1:14), it appears that it is not the act of hewing or cutting that is forbidden, but the construction of images-for-worship, whether cut or cast—in gold or some other metal (cf. b. Sanh. 57a, 103b; Av. Zarah 2a; Bech. 57a; Temur. 28b). Given the existence of Herod’s prominent golden eagle above the Jerusalem sanctuary for many years, the presence of animal forms in Antipas’ Tiberian palace—attacked only decades after his death (Life 65)—, and the abundance of images in later synagogue decoration (e.g., Goodenough 1988), it seems that the precise import of the biblical prohibition was not self-evident.Nevertheless, Philo’s Agrippa I declares it a well-known tradition, respected by all principes since Augustus, that Jerusalem—city and shrine of the imageless God—was to be kept free of such images (Legat. 290-98); violation of that principle would be a “dishonoring of ancient laws” (Legat. 301). Cf. Ant. 18.120-25, where soon after Pilate’s removal Vitellius plans to cross Judea with two legions, to confront the Nabateans; he yields, however, to the Judean leaders’ request at Ptolemais that his army take another route (via the Jordan?), on the ground that “it was not in keeping with their ancestral [tradition] to stand by and watch images—of which there were many connected to the standards—being carried into their [territory]” (18.121).Earlier (1.650) Josephus has remarked with respect to Herod’s eagle that “it was unlawful for the temple to contain either images or busts, or a work called after some living creature.” His later précis of the laws (Ant. 3.91) seems headed in the same direction as the Talmud, claiming that the law prohibits images of any living being for worship (ὁ δὲ δεύτερος κελεύει μηδενὸς εἰκόνα ζῴου ποιήσαντας προσκυνεῖν). In an important story that has no parallel in War, King Herod faces potentially lethal opposition when he has Roman-style trophies (representing Octavian’s conquests) brought in to his new theater in Jerusalem; Herod assuages the anger of most citizens by exposing the unfashioned wood beneath—because observers had assumed that the sculpted representations concealed human forms beneath (Ant. 15.272-79). At Apion 2.191 Josephus elaborates this law in philosophical terms: God has no need of images.Josephus’ focus in War on images as matters of conflict (1.649-59/2.5-13; here; Gaius’ statue at 2.185-203 [esp. 195]) suggests that he is exploiting his audience’s knowledge of this admirable Judean tradition (Tacitus, Hist. 5.5; Juvenal 14.96; cf. Xenophanes, frags. 10, 19-20; Theophrastus ap. Porphyry, Abst. 2.26; Megasthenes ap. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 1.15.72; Diodorus, 40.3.4; Strabo 16.2.35; Apion 1.179; Diogenes Laertius 1.6; Momigliano 1971: 85-94; Feldman 1993: 201-4), to heighten the sense of grievance. Coming soon after the Essene passage, these episodes continue to portray the Judeans as a philosophical people, with worthy conceptions of the deity, enviable laws, and the courage to defend them to the death. Although Josephus often uses a narrative present tense (marked by asterisk* if translated as past), here he seems to be describing Judean views current also at his time of writing. It is conceivable that the subject of the 3rd-person ἀξιοῦσιν is “the laws” personified, but we expect a human subject (capable of thought). In any case, this verb introduces a curious note of subjectivity into the interpretation of the 2nd commandment. Whether this was deliberate we cannot say, but it does seem to fit the reality, in which rulers who were generally carefully to avoid offending their people could in certain contexts use images of living forms—and get away with it for long periods (Herod in War 1.650; Antipas in Life 64-65). The word δείκηλον appears only here and shortly afterward (2.195) in Josephus; before his time it is sparsely attested (e.g., Herodotus 2.171; Apollonius of Rhodes, Arg. 1.746; Lycophron, Alex. 1179, 1259; a fragment of Euphorion). See the note to “trampled.” Neither the 2nd commandment nor biblical practice (nor Talmudic elaboration) limits the prohibition of images to the city of Jerusalem, and that does not seem to be Josephus’ intent (cf. 2.195; Ant. 18.121). He appears to mean the principal Judean city as distinct from the cohorts’ main base in (Greek-Syrian) Caesarea. Roman governors tended to see their roles in relation to the cities and their élites, not in relation to a province as administrative territory, of equal importance throughout (see Meyer-Zwiffelhoffer 2002: 1-73). The sense appears to be “the city of Jerusalem—famous capital of Judeans everywhere”; this would suit the description of Jerusalem’s imageless tradition, honored by all emperors until Gaius, in Philo’s presentation of Agrippa I’s letter (Legat. 290-93, 298). See the note at 2.29. That Josephus uses the word again (all 16 appearances in Josephus are in War) in the next Pilate story (2.175) enhances the literary symmetry of these two stories, though they are quite different in substance. See the note at 2.1. See the note to “ran together” at 2.43: this is the formulaic language of popular response to especially Roman provocations. A third of the occurrences of συρρέω in Josephus are in War 2, of which this is the first (cf. 2.315, 490, 622): they contribute to the sense of rapidly increasing tension and outrage. Or (ironically) “in close order.” See the notes to “close order” at 2.12, 63, and note the recurrence in 2.174 below. Josephus clusters occurrences of this word also at 1.80, 84 and 6.80, 82, 86. His distinction here between city (πόλις) and countryside or open space around the city (χώρα) reflects ancient perspectives on the primacy of cities, the assumption being that Jerusalem is the chief city of the central Judean countryside (cf. 4.253, 557; 5.373).

See the note at 2.16: Roman governors took as their main base, and one of the chief sources of their recruits to the auxiliary cohorts, Herod’s impressive coastal Greek-Syrian city; cf. the note to “residence” in this section. Greek τὰ πάτρια, interchangeable here (as generally in Josephus—Mason 1991: 96-106; Schröder 1996) with the laws (οἱ νόμοι) mentioned in the preceding sentence (2.170). Notice here the absence of the Jerusalem élite, who will figure largely in later embassies to the respective governors: 2.237. Those élites are the governor’s natural conversation partners: they are, or should be, his “friends” (amici, φίλοι), who work with him to manage their own people. The masses could only make much cruder approach to the governor; his curt response is not surprising. The governor’s residence (praetorium) in Caesarea, as in Jerusalem, was King Herod’s former palace. The probable (though still hypothetical) remains of this structure were identified by E. Netzer in the 1970s and substantially excavated by a team from the University of Pennsylvania in the early 1990s. The structure sits on a promontory reef projecting about 100 m. into the sea, immediately NW of the famous Roman-style theater; on the NE the palace projects inland, to abut the Herodian hippodrome. All 3 constructions (palace, theater, and hippodrome), seem thus to have been conceived as a single interconnected complex. In its W (private) section on the promontory, the 2-story palace included a large peristyle courtyard enclosing a pool larger than half-Olympic size (see Appendix A to BJP 1a). Its E (public) part comprised a peristyle courtyard about 42 x 65 m. See the site map by A. Iamim and aerial photographs in Raban and Holum 1996: xxii-xxv, and the essays by E. Netzer, K. L. Gleason, and B. Burrell in the same volume (pp. 193-247). The massing of the Judeans “around” Pilate’s residence (περὶ τὴν οἰκίαν), if this was the place in question, could therefore be achieved with a relatively small crowd positioned along the S and E of the residence. The natural-seeming combination of καταπίπτω (fall down) and πρηνής (prone) seems unattested in literature before Josephus, though he will use it again at 6.64, of the Roman soldier Sabinus who stumbles and is killed, and at Ant. 19.349, where the people prostrate themselves in prayer for the recovery of King Agrippa I (cf. Appian, Celt. 10.1, of a Celt’s obeisance before Valerius). The posture is strikingly and perhaps ironically similar to that of prostration before a lord or ruler (προσκύνησις), often a Roman ruler, which Josephus describes often both literally and figuratively: e.g., War 1.73; 2.360, 366, 380; 6.123, 331; Ant. 2.11, 15; 3.91; 4.137. This verb of endurance, διακαρτερέω, is a favorite of Josephus’ (15 occurrences, 6 in War), as of Didorus (19 times), whereas Herodotus and Xenophon have it only twice each, Polybius once, and it does not appear in Thucydides. Endurance (καρτερία) is for him a paramount Judean virtue (see note at 2.138). Needless to say, these 5 continuous days of complete motionlessness must reflect literary license.

Greek ἐπὶ βήματος. Such a raised podium (cf. “platform” at 2.2) served as the seat of judgment for a magistrate (such as a governor) trying cases or hearing public appeals. It was not an expected or permanent structure within a stadium or hippodrome, which was designed for sports competitions; the parallel (Ant. 18.57) adds that this platform was specially constructed for this hearing—and served to conceal Pilate’s soldiers. Given that βῆμα occurs only 13 times in War, it is striking that 3 of those occurrences are concentrated in these brief Pilate episodes (see 2.175, 176). Josephus worked deliberately to make these very different incidents resemble one another in form and language. A stadium facility was U-shaped, roughly—hence the name—1 stadion (180-200+ m.) in length; it was used chiefly for track and field competitions. In Caesarea no such stadium has yet been found. “Great” might imply, however, that this one was larger than usual. Archaeologists led by Y. Porath in the 1990s unearthed a hippodrome (or circus) near the shoreline, supplementing the previously known 2nd-cent. CE hippodrome to the E. The newly discovered facility abuts Herod’s promontory palace, now the Roman governor’s praetorium (see note to “residence” at 2.171 above), and was evidently part of the integrated public-private complex (K. L. Gleason 1996). It was a U-shaped structure in the typical style of a circus, about 315 m x 64 m (arena 301 x 50.5 m), seating an estimated 7-13,000 in 12 rows of seats. Such dimensions make it about 50% longer than regular stadium (hippodromes were built to accommodate horse races), though still only 25% the size of the circus maximus in Rome (600 m x 100 m), which seated some 150,000 (Dodge 1999: 237; Bernett 2007: 117-21).Given the location of this hippodrome and its shape, it seems the preferred candidate for Josephus’ “great stadium”; cf. Porath 1995: 15-27; Humphrey 1996 (esp. 122-24); D. Roller 1998: 117 and n. 79. It is probably also the “amphitheater” mentioned by Josephus among Herod’s important buildings (War 1.415; cf. the note to “hippodrome” at 2.44 for interchangeable language), and the scene of the quinquennial games (including musical and athletic contests, gladiatoral combat and animal hunting, as well as horse races) that he instituted at the city’s founding in ca. 13 or 11 BCE (with Bernett 2007: 100, against the accepted date of 10/9 BCE), with support from Augustus and Livia (Ant. 16.136-141). The more standard amphitheater in the NE of the city seems to have been built no earlier than the mid-1st century CE. Or “sign,” possibly “watchword” (σημεῖον); cf. 3.88. Greek ἐκ συντάγματος. On the negative connotations, see the note at 2.107. The ἐκ-phrase here is not attested in literature before Josephus or among his contemporaries, though he uses it again at 2.290—also of a scheme against Judeans in Caesarea. All of this language (“tribunal, soldiers, signal, weapons, scheme”) serves to emphasize the ostensible power concentrated in the governor’s hands—soon to be undermined.

On the problem of establishing the number of ranks in the legionary column see Goldsworthy 1996: 176-83, esp. 180-81. By having ordinary provincials suddenly face a professional military column (φάλαγξ) in battle formation (cf. 5.131 for a 3-deep legionary column) and following a precisely executed plan, Josephus heightens the power differential and terror of the episode. At the same time, by reusing ἀθρόος of the Judeans at 2.170, 174—a word often used in military contexts for marching in close order (cf. 2.12 and note)—and noticing their unified action as if by careful plan, Josephus enhances the ironic “victory” of the Judean masses over the professional soldiers. This colorful adjective (ἀχανής) occurs only here in War; cf. Ant. 7.242; 11.236; 17. 143. The neuter-singular substantive use of this adjective (τὸ ἀδόκητον) is Thucydidean (4.36.2; 5.10.7; 6.34.6, 8), otherwise not found before Josephus, who uses it again at 4.293. Cf. later Appian, Lib. 77; Bell. civ. 2.8.53; Achilles Tatius, Leuc. Clit. 4.14.4. The plural form of this adjective (as modifier) is characteristically Euripidean (Iph. Taur. 896; Alc. 1162; Med. 1418; Andr. 1287; Hel. 1691; Bacch. 1391). Greek τῆς ὄψεως. See the note to “sight” at 2.170. For κατακόπτω with forms of “encirclement” (κυκλω-), see Thucydides 4.96.3; 7.29.5; Xenophon, Anab. 1.8.24; Polybius 14.8.11; Diodorus 12.79.5; 15.36.4; 22.13.4. This language of killing Judeans “if they would not accept” images of Caesar anticipates 2.185, the episode of Gaius’ statue. Or simply “signaled”: Greek ἔνευεν is probably to be preferred to “he directed” (ἐκέλευσεν) in MS V, because of multiple attestation (cf. the similar problem at 1.629, where there is better support for κελεύω), though the latter would contribute even more to the re-use of terminology in the second Pilate episode: see note to “disturbance” at 2.175. Greek γυμνοῦν τὰ ξίφη. Although the phrase is not attested before him, Josephus refers with menacing drama to “baring [or bared] swords” several times (cf. 2.213, 619; Ant. 14.463), instead of the more prosaic “drawing” (σπάω) of the sword, which he also uses: War 2.211, 471, 644; 4.640; 6.75, 361; Ant. 14.357; 19.105, 122, 243, 263. Both the nod and the “baring” of swords (previous note) contribute to a well-crafted sense of drama that is less clear in the parallel, Ant. 18.58; cf. Krieger 1994: 33. The War has many more references to swords (ξίφη, 48 of 69) and sword-armed men (ξιφήρεις, 12 of 13) than Josephus’ other works, whereas it has only 1 occurrence of “dagger” (ξιφίδιον, 2.255), the concealable weapon of choice in situations other than all-out warfare (7 times in Antiquities-Life). Pilate’s auxiliaries may have been equipped much as legionary infantry (Webster 1985: 151; Goldsworthy 2003: 136-37), with a sword (gladius)—a straight, sharply pointed, double-edged blade of about 40-55 cm (16-22 in.) plus handle, roughly 2 in. wide—suspended improbably high on the right side, with its handle top at chest level (Webster 1985: 128-29; Goldsworthy 2003: 68-70, 133). Or, given a passage in Tacitus (Ann. 12.35; cf. Le Bohec 1994: 123) that distinguishes the legionary gladius from the auxiliary spatha, it may be that Pilate’s soldiers carried the latter (a blade some 50% longer than that of the gladius), though that weapon may have been needed only by auxiliary cavalry (Goldsworthy 2003: 138; cf. Feugère 2002: 108).

Greek σύνθημα. Josephus will re-use the word in 2.176 and at 2.326, in another important episode involving an egregious governor who provokes protest. An ironic inversion: Pilate ostensibly has all the resources at his disposal, and takes the trouble to draw up a careful scheme (2.172). Without any such power or scheme, the Judeans react spontaneously as if by a plan—and manage to triumph. Or “in close order.” See the notes to this phrase at 2.12, 170. Josephus’ re-use of ἀθρόος in such a short space (see 2.170) is paralleled at 1.81, 84; 6.80, 82, 86. Given those parallels and the context here, it seems that he intends further to develop the ironic contrast between the Roman military column (phalanx in 2.173) and the spontaneously united discipline of the Judeans. Whereas here the Roman soldiers bare (γυμνόω) their swords, and the Judeans incline (παρακλίνω—only in War; also at 1.618; 6.224) their necks, in the parallel (Ant. 18.59) the Judeans bare their throats and the swords are not mentioned (cf. Odysseus’ “inclining the head” to dodge an ox hoof; Od. 20.301). We seem to have here a case of Josephus’ looking for ways to vary his diction. The active infinitive (ἀναιρεῖν σφᾶς) in MSS PA is a forceful way of conveying the Judeans’ realization that their determined resistance amounts to suicide; it vividly reinforces War’s theme of their contempt for death (see 2.151 and notes) and to a degree anticipates the suicide of Masada (e.g., 7.323-336, 378-379). This “more difficult” reading seems preferable to that of MLVRC, eἰς ἀναίρεσιν (“[declared themselves ready] for elimination”), which seems an accommodation to a more expected passive formulation, as in the parallel (Ant. 18.59: “they said that they would receive death with pleasure”) and in the Latin: vociferantes universos se interfici magis velle. Although the phrase παραβαίνω + νόμος, νόμιμα, πάτρια is itself unremarkable, and typical of Greek oratory (Demosthenes has it more than 40 times), Josephus uses it frequently enough (about 65 times; contrast Philo’s 10) that we may consider it characteristic. In the parallel (Ant. 18.59) he speaks of “violating the wisdom of the laws,” in keeping with that work’s emphasis on the philosophical basis of the Judean constitution. Compare the Essenes’ recently described determination to uphold the law even at the cost of torture or death (War 2.152-153) and Josephus’ comments in Apion 2.146, 294 about all Judeans’ contempt for death, especially in the crucible of armed conflict. The theme of readiness for martyrdom on behalf of the ancestral laws no doubt owes much to the famous stories of the Maccabean tradition (2 Macc 7; 4 Macc 4-7; e.g., 5.27-35; 6.8-11, 25-27); cf. van Henten 1997 and, on general Maccabean influences on the first century, Farmer 1956; Bowersock 1995; for an analysis of active and passive resistance in the Empire, Plass 1995. This story anticipates in many ways that of the Judean resistance to Gaius’ effort, through Petronius, to install his statue in the temple (2.192-198). Greek ὑπερθαυμάζω, expressing extreme wonder, hardly appears before Josephus (Herodotus 3.3 in Ionic form; Chrysippus, Frag. sing. 9.2) and is only here in War; but cf. Ant. 8.170 (the Queen of Sheba’s amazement at the grandeur of Solomon’s palace). Since Galen, Lucian (Macr. 24; Zeux. 3; Ver. hist. 1.34), Polyaenus (8.8.1) and other 2nd-century authors (Achilles Tatius, Leuc. Clit. 8.10.4) use the compound more heavily, we see again Josephus’ employment, or even anticipation, of newly fashionable language. Greek τὸ τῆς δεισιδαιμονίας ἄκρατον. The term δεισιδαιμονία (fear or anxiety in relation the divine or spirit-world: Theophrastus, Char. 16.1) frequently has negative connotations (e.g., at War 1.113). In Plutarch’s essay on the subject (Mor. 164e-171) it is a serious moral defect, worse even than atheism because the debilitating emotion of fear carries over into the next life. Plutarch includes Judeans among the superstitious and alleges, coincidentally, that their superstition led them to remain motionless in the face of imminent military threat, “as if bound together in one net” (Mor. 169c). He also speaks (concerning the Egyptians) of a belief that “knocks over the [weak and naïve] into pure superstition” (εἰς ἄκρατον ὑπερείπουσα τὴν δεισιδαμονία, Mor. 379e). Tacitus liberally employs the Latin equivalent (superstitio) of barbarian nations, and the Judeans receive their fair share of such characterizations (Hist. 2.4; 5.8, 13; also Cicero, Flacc. 67; cf. Schäfer 1997: 186-90).Yet at 2.230 (the only other occurrence in War), the word describes the apparently virtuous Judean reaction to a Roman soldier’s burning of the sacred law, unless it should be understood, as it were, in quotation marks there. So it remains unclear—perhaps artfully so—whether the word should reflect Pilate’s negative judgment on this foreign “supersitition” or whether the word itself should take a less pejorative sense here. See similarly 2.198, where Petronius marvels at the Judeans’ “unsurpassable cult, religiosity” (θρησκεία)—with similar ambiguity as to tone. In Ant 18.59 Josephus claims that Pilate takes the standards back to Caesarea. Zeitlin (1919-20: 259-60) connects this with the memorial day indicated in Megillat Ta‘anit, the Fasting Scroll, thought to have been largely completed before 70 CE, which specifies days on which may not fast (IX: Kislev): “On Kislev 3 (November-December) the images were removed from the temple court.”

I.e., after the “huge disturbance” just described (2.169), reinforcing the image of Judea’s equestrian governors as unworthy and troublesome men, who have long tried the patience of the people—a charge levelled also by Tacitus: the administration of Judea being entrusted to Roman knights and freedmen, the “patience of the Judeans lasted until Gessius Florus” (Hist. 5.10). This is typical Josephan language, both the use of ταραχή and cognates (as above) and the combination with κινέω (“set in motion”; War 4.131; Ant. 7.265) or κίνημα (“commotion”; War 3.309; Ant. 15.205). The combination also recalls two of Josephus’ models, Thucydides (5.25.1) and Polybius (1.69.6; 29.15.2).“Disturbance” is only the first of several terms from the first Pilate story that recycled in the second, along with “indignation,” “rabble,” “tribunal-platform,” language of surrounding, “concealed,” “sword,” “agreed signal,” and “trampled” (possibly also “directed”). This similarity of language, especially in view of the very different sort of “incident” involved, creates the strong impression that Josephus has assimilated the second story to the pattern of the first for literary reasons, including the demonstration of Pilate’s incompetence and of Judean courage. The parallel (Ant. 18.60) lacks this claim, saying only that he had the aqueduct made, with the costs paid by the sacred funds. Given that Josephus uses the compound verb here (ἐξαναλίσκω) only 3 other times, and that it is not common elsewhere—most prominent in natural-scientific literature (Hippocrates, Sem. 51; Aristotle, Probl. 929b; Gen. anim. 750a; Theophrastus, Ign. 20; Caus. plant. 2.10.2, 12.6; 3.9.1; 5.11.2), occasional among philosophers and historians (Chrysippus, Frag. log. 572; Posidonius, Frag. 289.16 [Theiler]; Aristobulus [in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.10.15]; Diodorus 13.88.7; 15.93.3; 17.11.4, 48.3 etc.; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 5.26.5; 16.6.2; Philo, Spec. 3.10; Mos. 2.154; cf. Plutarch, Mor. 697b)—it is noteworthy that he will use it again in relation to “all the sacred treasures” at 5.187. There, however, he describes the Judeans’ admirable exhaustion of their time and their treasury funds to enhance the temple. The sacred treasures were regularly replenished by subventions from Judeans throughout the world; see note to “treasury of God” at 2.50. See the note to “treasury of God” at 2.50, also 2.331. This is a rare introduction of foreign terminology in the Atticizing War, perhaps intended to stress the narrator’s detailed local knowledge of his subject. The form given here (κορβωνᾶς) is taken from MS P and corrections of A and L, against wider support for κορβανᾶς (MLVRC, Lat corban, and some citations, esp. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.6.6). The majority reading seems to reflect an effort to reconcile Josephus with the NT (e.g., Matt 27:6), with Josephus’ own spelling elsewhere (Ant. 4.73; Apion 1.167 [κορβάν or κορβᾶν]), or possibly with known pronunciation of Hebrew ‮קרבן‬‎. Suidas (s.v. Πιλᾶτος) keeps the -ω- spelling along with Josephus’ definition here; so also the 4th cent. CE Epiphanius, Pan. 3.123. Curiously, the syllabic lexicon Partitiones associated with the 2nd-cent. grammarian Aelius Herodian includes the -ω- spelling, as here, in its list of κο-words and gives precisely the definition from this passage (“sacred treasury”)—apparently showing that author’s familiarity with Josephus.At Ant. 4.73 Josephus speaks, immediately following his discussion of the nazirite vow, of those who designate themselves “corban to/for God” (οἱ κορβᾶν αὐτοὺς ὀνομάσαντες τῷ θεῷ), a vow-state from which one can be redeemed; he translates the word there as δῶρον (later a loan-word in rabbinic literature). See notes with bibliography in Feldman, BJP 3 ad loc. Apion 1.167 mentions κορβάν as a foreign (Judean) oath prohibited among the Tyrians: Josephus interprets it for Greek-speaking readers as δῶρον θεοῦ (see Barclay in BJP 10 ad loc.). Hebrew ‮קרבן‬‎ appears some 82 times in the Bible, mainly in Leviticus and Numbers, meaning “sacrificial gift, something consecrated,” often as cognate accusative of the verb ‮קרב‬‎ (“come near, offer,” e.g., Lev 1:2; 2:1, 4; 3:7, 14). Corban is discussed frequently in the Mishnah and Talmud (e.g., b. Shabb. 25a; Ned. 6a, 13a, 15b, 16a, 20a, 66a; Tem. 6b, 13a) in the same sense. It is also mentioned in a famously puzzling passage of the NT, as vowed money improperly redirected from obligations toward one’s parents (Mark 7:11), though Matt 27:6 uses κορβανᾶς much as Josephus here, for “temple treasury.” Rengstorf (Concordance s.v.) explains the difference of spelling within Josephus on the assumption that the word in this passage reflects an Aramaic ‮קרבנא‬‎, the “treasury” behind Matt 27:6. That is, an “aqueduct” (καταγωγὴ ὑδάτων); the parallel at Ant. 18.60 varies negligibly with ὑδάτων ἐπαγωγή. On the challenges of, and possibilities for, conducting water into a city, see Vitruvius 8.6 and Hodge 2002. In Josephus’ Rome, aqueducts were continually on people’s minds because of the capital’s enormous demand for water: the Flavian period saw several major renovations (see next note), and shortly after came the famous treatise on the subject by Josephus’ contemporary and Nerva’s water commisioner, Sex. Iulius Frontinus (with concise analysis in Dodge 2000). But aqueducts had more than utilitarian value: especially the enduring sections constructed high above ground on arched arcades were symbols of power and conquest (Aicher 1995: 4-6). This circumstance may factor in Josephus’ account.Jerusalem was not favorably situated for a water supply, and the city faced a number of droughts—in spite of Pilate’s aqueduct (e.g., Jeremias 1969: 27, 120, 143; A. Mazar 2002: 211). In ancient times the Gihon spring had supplied much of the city’s water, its utility famously secured by Hezekiah’s underground tunnel (Mare 1987: 99-107). The Hellenistic period (at least) saw the creation of large cisterns S of the temple and pools to the N, serving Antonia and the New City (cf. War 5.467; Mare 1987: 161), which were extensively developed by King Herod (B. Mazar 1978), who also created cisterns beneath the temple mount (reconstruction in Ritmeyer and Ritmeyer 2006: 79). By the time of Herod’s massive rebuilding program, the city’s water needs had become enormous, with unprecedented amounts required for sacrificial operations (Arist. 90), for Herod’s palace and royal facilities, and for a growing population (Hanson and Oakman 1998: 145-46).Financing a new aqueduct was a major undertaking. The cost of construction has been estimated at more than 2 million HS (sesterces) per linear km (Leveau 2001: 92-5), 1 million HS being the entire property qualification of a Roman senator. Rome’s aqua marcia reportedly cost 180 million HS for its 91 km (Frontinus, Aq. 1.7). Even though provincial aqueducts, being usually less grand and less capacious, may have cost only half the Roman standard, they were necessarily expensive. The system that served Jerusalem (see next note) used a variety of techniques, from simple cuts in existing rock formations to stone pipes, hewn tunnels, and support structures made of small stones in high-quality concrete (A. Mazar 2002: 213-26).Inscriptions and literary evidence for other Roman-era aqueducts indicate that financing typically required a combination of imperial grants (common for Rome and its colonies), local community funds, and private donations. This last category was notorious because, as a consequence of death or default, an unfulfilled commitment might fall on the city (Leveau 2001: 87-8). Pliny’s letters imply that the Roman governor had the crucial role in arranging finances, by gathering private donations and community funds, before seeking the emperor’s approval of the project and requesting any additional help, possibly through a rebate of tribute from provincial fiscus (e.g., Pliny, Ep. 10.90; Leveau 2001: 91; cf. the note to “Caesar’s treasuries” at 2.111).Such considerations bring home just how little Josephus explains about this aqueduct project, which must have been conceived as a public benefit. Was it Pilate’s initiative, or that of the Jerusalem leadership? Had he or they arranged for private donations along with a contribution from the treasury? (Even if the temple treasury was “exhausted,” that does not mean that it covered the entire cost.) Had some intended benefactors died or become insolvent, forcing a turn to city funds? Was the imperial treasury involved (the state aerarium, the emperor’s personal estate, or the provincial fisci under his control?), by rebating tribute money or contributing technicians or surveyors, auxiliary soldiers, or materials? Who designed and built the aqueduct?—for such systems required professional planning, given the strict requirements of elevation, gradient, route, materials, pooling and distribution mechanisms. Who gave Pilate access to the temple funds? (There is no mention of a raid, and this must have been done with the cooperation of some city leaders.) Most unclear: designing and building an aqueduct would presumably have taken at least two years (next note). At what point did this protest occur (at the planning stage, after some point in the financial settlement, upon completion)? Was there only one such protest? (If so, why?—given the long time required for the project). Archaeology reveals that Jerusalem’s aqueduct system was fairly complex (see the following note): Which part(s) did Pilate build or rebuild? On these crucial historical questions, Josephus is silent. Although the stadion is not a precise measure (a distance of 600 feet, but the “foot” varied locally), and Josephus usually gives stadia measurements in multiples of 10, by comparing known distances with his stadia figures it emerges that his stadion was roughly 200 meters: dividing by 5 yields rough km equivalents, and by 8, miles (cf. BJP 9, note at Life 64). The distance indicated here is thus about 50 miles/80 km, though the parallel (Ant. 18.60) quietly halves it, to 200 stadia (roughly 25 miles or 40 km). Quoting this passage, but probably influenced by the parallel (more than by independent knowledge), Eusebius offers a diplomatic “300 stadia” (37.5 miles or 60 km; Hist. eccl. 2.6.6). At any of these distances, this would have been an extremely costly undertaking (see note to “conduit”), requiring at least 2, perhaps 3 or 4 years (Lönnquist 2000: 473).Since the mid-19th century scholars have excavated, tracked, and measured Jerusalem’s aqueduct system. A. Mazar (2002), on the basis of a fresh analysis, describes 4 elements: an upper and lower aqueduct to Jerusalem from the 3 large spring-fed reservoirs at Solomon’s Pools (about 3.5 km SW of Bethlehem), and two aqueducts bringing water to Solomon’s Pools from more distant springs. One of the latter, from ‘Ein el ‘Arrub, traverses a mere 10 km as the crow flies, but 39 km on the ground because of the difficult terrain, ending at the middle of Solomon’ Pools. The other feeder aqueduct, from ‘Ein ed Daraj in Wadi el Biyar to the uppermost of Solomon’s Pools, requires only 4.7 km. From Solomon’s Pools to Jerusalem, the high-level aqueduct is 13 km in length, built (according to inscriptions) by the Tenth Legion in the 2nd cent. CE; the low-level system runs from the lowest of Solomon’s Pools to the temple mount. It runs for 21.5 km, to cover an aerial distance of 11.6 km.On Pilate’s involvement with this aqueduct system, scholarly opinion has varied considerably: some argue that if the high-level aqueduct came from the Tenth Legion in the 2nd century, the low-level one must have been Hasmonean or Herodian, so at most improved by Pilate; others, following Josephus, insist that Pilate constructed an aqueduct to Jerusalem, which must therefore be the lower one (A. Mazar 2002: 236-37). Mazar argues that the low-level aqueduct from Solomon’s Pools must date from the Hasmonean period, because it shares the characteristics of other Hasmonean aqueducts, it must have been needed long before Pilate’s time, and Josephus would surely have mentioned such a major project if it had come from Herod. Pilate was therefore more likely responsible for the meandering extension from ‘Ein el ‘Arrub to Solomon’s Pools. That extension, which would secure the aqueduct and greatly enlarge its capacity, happens to match Josephus’ lower (corrected?) figure in the Antiquities parallel. It also makes sense as a project of Pilate’s tenure—a major enhancement to the existing rudimentary system. Although Mazar’s theory runs against Josephus’ claim that Pilate constructed a conduit to Jerusalem, given the other liberties that Josephus takes with the story—accommodating it to the standards episode, passing over crucial historical questions about who was involved and how the funding worked—this presents no serious obstacle.Although the addition increased the total length of the aqueduct (now ‘Arrub to Jerusalem) to about 65 km, which gets closer to the 80 km indicated here, Josephus has dramatically increased the length of the structure built by Pilate. Josephus presents him as undertaking a hubristic adventure—to rival Rome’s most magnificent conduits, as the audience would realize—on the back of an unwilling populace. Rome’s great adqueducts had lengths of 91 km (aqua Marcia, 140 BCE, repaired by Titus in 79), 63.7 km (anio vetus, 269 BCE), 69 km (aqua Claudia, 52 CE, repaired by Vespasian in 71 and Titus in 81), and 87 km (anio novus, also Claudian). See LTUR 1.42-44, 63-65; Frontinus, Aq. 7, 13; and the excellent overviews in Aicher (1995: esp. 32-45) and Dodge 2000. See the notes at 2.29, 42, 170. Josephus’ re-use of this word and several others from the former Pilate episode (2.170) helps to accommodate the two stories to each other. Given that the aqueduct was a public work for the city’s benefit (Lönnquist 2000: 72-73), that governors expected to pay for such works from local resources, and that at least the Mishnah (with due allowance for dating problems) allows at least surplus temple funds to be used for city needs (m. Sheqal. 2.5; 4.2), the precise reason for the Judeans’ reported outrage is not obvious. It has been variously explained as Pilate’s misdirection of money intended for sacrifices (Feldman, LCL Ant. 18.60 n. b), his interference with the local administration of the temple funds (Lémonon 1981: 167-68)—although he must have had the cooperation of local authorities in gaining access to the funds (McGing 1991: 429)—, or his draining of the treasury for this purpose, perhaps because of cost-overruns (Bond 1998: 86-87). The last explanation best suits Josephus’ choice of verb (see note to “exhausting” in this section) and it might explain the vague timing of the protest: in spite of Josephus’ compression, a protest over the exhaustion of funds presumably could not have occurred before the 2- to 3-year (?) project was well underway, perhaps near completion. But Josephus’ dramatic story-telling and lack of information render historical conclusions hazardous. The language of “surrounding” (here περιίστημι) picks up notices in the previous Pilate episode (2.171, 172). See the note at 2.172 above: this is another word re-used from the first story. In the parallel (Ant. 18.60), although myriads (tens of thousands) assemble before Pilate and yell at him (καταβοάω as here) to halt the project, only some (τινές) “also abused the fellow, making use of insult in the way that a mob loves to do.” In War, the verb καταβοάω is used exclusively for popular outrage at the behavior of Roman officials in bk. 2 (2.225, 325, 339), with the exception of 3.410, where Josephus is the target.

See the note to this word in 2.175. The doubly compound verb ἐγκαταμείγνυμι is rare, attested only 11 times before Josephus (6 of those in the scientific-philosophical works of Hippocrates, Aristotle, and Theophrastus; also Philo, Legat. 169; Quaest. exod. frag. 21), but he has it also at Ant. 15.360. His use of it here matches the form for “directed” in the next sentence. This striking expression, “concealed (κεκαλυμμένους) in civilian clothes,” evokes Pilate’s concealment of the standards in the first episode, which uses the same perfect-participial form of the same verb. The phrase for “civilian [or ordinary, private] clothes” (ἐσθῆσιν ἰδιωτικαῖς) is typically Josephan: also War 1.387; Ant. 5.228. A similar expression is found in Diodorus (20.34.3). Does Josephus really have special information about the secret instructions Pilate gave to his troops? This notice seems most easily explained on literary grounds: Josephus wants to play this second Pilate episode against the first, in which the soldiers deliberately bared their swords in a threatening gesture (2.173). Before Josephus ἐγκελευ- forms are rare, mainly in Xenophon (Anab. 1.3.13; Cyr. 5.5.39; Hipp. 2.5; Cyn. 6.20, 22, 25; 9.7; 10.8; cf. Dionysus, Ant. rom. 3.20.3; 4.12.1; Strabo 13.1.35). Later, they appear quite often in Plutarch and Arrian, for example. The 3 cognate forms ἐγκέλευστος (2.6), ἐγκέλευσμα (2.549; Ant. 19.110) and ἐγκελεύω (here) appear, curiously, only in War 2, with the exception of Ant. 19.110. Given that “sticks” or “pieces of wood” (ξύλα) were routinely carried by travelling civilians (2.125; Mark 6:8), the point may be that the soldiers should not seem out of the ordinary. If the Judeans had been carrying staffs, they had presumably put them aside before assembling near the governor, so as not to seem a violent mob. The parallel claims that the soldiers concealed their sticks under their cloaks (Ant. 18.61). The scene anticipates another, more consequential, confrontation before Florus at 2.326.Pilate’s order to use sticks rather than swords has been variously interpreted, generally on the assumption that Josephus’ stories represent reality, and so discussion is of Pilate’s actual motives. McGing (1991: 429-30) proposes that the governor had learned from the earlier episode at Caesarea: not happy with the alternatives of either mass slaughter or backing down after a show of force, he came up with this middle solution for enforcing discipline without extensive injury. That same analysis works at the narrative level, however: Josephus’ Pilate grows as a character and learns from his tactical blunder in the first round, an impression is aided by Josephus’ artful assimilation of the second account to the first. But if that is part of the narrative, how can we reach historical conclusions? Bond (1998: 88-9) argues that Pilate’s approach here supports Antiquities’ later claim that only some of the vast crowd were serious troublemakers: were the entire crowd perceived as a threat, as War suggests, it would have been a foolish tactic to send plain-clothed soldiers into their midst, where they would be vulnerable as soon as their identities were revealed. Historically, Pilate must have expected only a few troublemakers. But the problem, again, is finding a firm place to stand for historical reconstruction, which cannot be a process of simply combining elements from literary accounts, or of reasoning historically from narrative details (which may have no substance behind them).Atany rate, the parallel version (Ant. 18.61-62) is not readily compatible. There (a) Pilate has the plain-clothesmen quietly surround the Judeans, then orders the latter to withdraw, leaving his men free to beat the recalcitrant, whereas War has the soldiers interspersed. (b) In Antiquities the soldiers hit the Judeans much more vigorously than Pilate had intended, which explains the high death toll, though War has quite a different explanation. The War episode follows its own internal logic: the governor was determined not to back down, as in the standards episode, and so came up with a better tactic (even if interspersing lightly armed troops in a vast mob does not make the best sense historically. Why not use concealed daggers as the clever sicarii will [2.254-55]?). We seem to lack a sufficient basis for either choosing between the stories or reconstructing a better alternative. The colorful verb κράζω here (used classically of the croaks of frogs and ravens)—“cackling” would be a useful rendering if it did not also suggest laughter—is an alternative to καταβοάω (“yelling at” in 2.175). It is a favorite in War, which hosts 12 of its 15 occurrences in Josephus. Several times it has “insults” (λοιδορίαι) as object (2.295; 5.459; 6.108). Its later use in bk. 2, in scenes in which powerfully disaffected crowds abuse Roman governors (e.g., 2.280, 295), helps to unite these episodes and to steadily build tension. Josephus re-uses the word (σύνθημα) from 2.174 in the first Pilate episode. This cannot be random, given that the word appears only 6 times in War, and that Josephus re-uses so many words from the first episode; he will use it again in a similar story of a later procurator’s fateful excesses (Gessius Florus: 2.326). See the note at 2.172, and note again the extensive re-use of vacabulary from the first Pilate episode.

This verb (καταπατέω) reprises the simpler form πατέω in 2.170: the consequence of Pilate’s trampling upon the laws is that Judeans are literally trampled now. The compound form appears 6 times in War, only once elsewhere in Josephus; of the shorter form’s appearances 9 are in War, 3 elsewhere. Therefore, the juxtaposition here seems not to be random. This emphasis, missing from the Antiquities parallel, might be interpreted either as excusing the Romans or as taking away credit for their military actions. Given both the immediate context (Pilate’s initiation of outrages and earlier capitulation in the face of Judean resolve) and the larger one (emphasizing Judean virtues), the latter seems preferable. This result anticipates a similar but more fateful episode under Gessius Florus (2.326). Greek συμφορά is a key term in all Josephus’ works and it supports the tragic mood of War, in which it appears 90 times. See the notes at 1.9; 2.186. At this point the Antiquities parallel includes a large number of episodes not found in the War, beginning with the death of Jesus of Nazareth (18.63-64), then “another horror” under Pilate (18.65) and affairs in Rome ca. 19 CE. In War Josephus has moved from the beginning of Pilate’s governorship to a somewhat later period (allowing for the construction of an aqueduct), and now to events just before the death of Tiberius in 37 CE.

The following paragraph greatly compresses, and differs in significant ways from, Ant. 18.126-236. That narrative has a young Agrippa, who has grown up in Rome attached to the highest social echelon, wasted his wealth, and accumulated massive debts, returning in shame to Judea and, after failing to make a successful new start there, borrowing yet more money to return to Rome. This way of reintroducing the future King Agrippa I (who has been briefly mentioned in 1.552) is surprising, given that he next appears as a respected figure in Rome who serves as intermediary in the accession of Claudius (2.206-213), then as king of Judea (2.214-218); and especially given that he was the father of Josephus’ important patron, Agrippa II, who will be a leading voice of moderation in the coming narrative (2.223, 252, 309, 335-407) and who is still flourishing as Josephus writes War.The much fuller account in Ant. 18 has no counterpart to this charge of accusing Antipas, and seemingly excludes it by giving an entirely different reason both for Agrippa’s approach to Tiberius (to gain influence at court: 18.126) and for Tiberius’ dismissal of Agrippa (disturbing news of his debts, 18.161-63). Finally, according to Ant. 18.147-50 Antipas had taken pity on his suicidal and penniless royal relative by giving him a position in Tiberias as commisioner of markets (ἀγορανόμος), though the reported taunts of the tetrarch (18.150) might certainly have soured their relationship.In War’s context, however, where Herod’s sons have been in a state of constant rivalry and accusation (2.14-38; forms of the word appear at 2.15, 23, 26, 33, 35), this notice of another accusation from the son of a long-dead brother fits the story’s tone. It anticipates Agrippa’s later accusation of Antipas before Gaius (2.183), which comes only after Antipas has made a bid for royal status equal to Agrippa’s—possibly jeopardizing the latter’s kingdom (2.182-183; see notes there). That accusation story is fully developed in Ant. 18.240-52, where in response to Antipas’ bid for royal status Agrippa sends a report to Gaius accusing him of conspiracy with the Parthians against the current princeps, with a notice that he had earlier conspired with (L. Aelius) Seianus against Tiberius. That notice is a possible source of the accusation mentioned in this War passage, though Seianus has died (Oct. 18, 31 CE) some years before the story time (cf. D. R. Schwartz 1990: 52). At any rate, none of that information is given in the War, where it might have been inconvenient to raise the prospect of earlier Herodian conspiracy against emperors, and Josephus gives the impression here that Agrippa’s intended accusation before Tiberius was only a continuation of Herodian succession-squabbling. See the notes to “Antipas” at 2.20 and 94 (also Kokkinos 1998: 228-35, 266-69), where he has been made tetrarch over Galilee and Perea by Augustus in the final settlement of Herod’s will. His last, disgraceful appearance in the narrative follows in the next paragraph. See the note to “son of Iulia” at 2.168 for the beginning of Tiberius’ reign, which in this narrative is mainly covered by the actions of his prefect in Judea: Pontius Pilatus. The following compressed account gives the impression that Tiberius is in Rome at this time. Although the parallel at Ant. 18.126 gives the same initial impression (Agrippa “had gone to Rome a year before the death of Tiberius, to gain some advantage at court”), the fuller narrative there explains correctly that Tiberius had been living on Capri since 26/27 CE. Capri (Capraea) was a temperate island acquired by Augustus off the S end of the Bay of Naples, SW of Mt. Vesuvius and Pompeii, some 128 miles (just over 200 km) from Rome as the crow flies, though rather longer by available routes. Tiberius chose one of perhaps a dozen Augustan residences on the island, the Villa Iovis at the rocky E end of the island, for his home. Tacitus remarks that Capri’s difficulty of access was its chief commendation to a lewd and anti-social princeps (Ann. 4.67), and Suetonius makes Tiberius’ retirement there a cover for sexual depravity (Tib. 43-44). These charges, which were perhaps inevitable when a princeps withdrew so radically from Roman society, do not seem to arise from any accurate knowledge (cf. Shotter 1992: 59-65).Although Agrippa was heading to Rome from Judea according to Ant. 18.126, he disembarked (as was common) at Puteoli on the N end of the Bay of Naples and wrote from there requesting permission to visit the princeps on Capri. But the visit was forestalled by Tiberius’ simultaneous receipt of news about Agrippa’s debts to the imperial treasury (18.164). Only when this was resolved did Tiberius receive the young man, at which point he tried to facilitate a friendship with his grandson Tiberius Gemellus (18.165). Marcus Iulius Agrippa (11 BCE – 44 CE), son of Herod’s son Aristobulus and Berenice (1.552), was named after Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, Augustus’ colleague and son-in-law, who had died in the year before this Agrippa’s birth. He was raised in Rome and so became friends with Tiberius’ son Drusus (Ant. 18.143-46). For his surprisingly exiguous role in War, given that he was the only Judean king after Herod the Great, which is limited mainly to activity in Rome on behalf of Claudius (2.206-13), see the note to “accuser” in this section. On Agrippa I in general, see Schürer-Vermes 1.442-54; D. R. Schwartz 1990; Kokkinos 1998: 271-304. One of Herod’s sons by Mariamme I, Agrippa’s father Aristobulus was executed with his brother Alexander in 8 or 7 BCE at Sebaste/Samaria for his alleged part in a conspiracy against the king (1.435, 452, 550-51). In War 2 Josephus regularly reminds readers, when mentioning these brothers, that Herod had eliminated them (cf. 2.101, 114 [see note to “disposed of”], 222). This is not likely for the purpose of identification alone, since he achieves that by calling them sons of Herod. His repeated reference to their father’s murders reinforces the problem of monarchical succession struggles, which has hung over the entire work since at least the death of the Hasmonean John Hyrcanus (1.70-71). See notes to “accuser” and “Tiberius” in this section: the Antiquities parallel has Agrippa at first denied access to the princeps on account of massive debts to the treasury, then welcomed when his debt was covered by Gaius’ grandmother Antonia (18.184). See the note to “Tiberius” in this section: the implication that Agrippa has met Tiberius in Rome conflicts with the accounts in Tacitus and Suetonius, supported by the Antiquities parallel, that Tiberius lived on the island of Capri for the last decade of his life. Or “other nobles; others of the famous, the illustrious, the élite, etc.” (τοὺς ἄλλους τῶν γνωρίμων). In the Judean context Josephus uses the plural form frequently for the powerful men (οἱ δυνατοί), the most wealthy; his own father he describes as the most eminent man (γνωριμώτατος) of Judea’s greatest city (Life 7). The Greek is also a close equivalent of Latin nobiles, which in the Roman context refers primarily to those whose families have held a “curule” magistracy (consul, praetor, curule aedile) and were therefore entitled to display ancestor masks (imagines). Here it is unclear whether the reference is to Rome’s most élite families in general (thus plausible sponsors for Agrippa), or more narrowly, given the adjective “other,” to members of the Julio-Claudian dynasty other than the princeps himself. The plural might be nothing more than a vague allusion to Tiberius Gemellus, the emperor’s grandson, whose companionship was reportedly urged upon Agrippa (Ant. 18.166, 188) during the latter’s temporary reconciliation with Tiberius. Nero Claudius Drusus [Germanicus] (16/15 BCE–Oct. 10, 19 CE) had become a legend in Rome by his military exploits (especially the recovery in 16 CE of the legionary standards lost by Varus in 9 CE) and his early death in mysterious circumstances. Born to Nero Claudius Drusus (Tiberius’ brother) and Antonia (daughter of Marc Antony and Octavia), he was adopted by his uncle Tiberius in 4 CE and renamed Germanicus Iulius Caesar shortly before his uncle’s adoption by Augustus, which placed both men in the line of succession. His prestige in the popular mind remained formidable, and in Ant. 18.166 Josephus will cite precisely this (and the attendant honor in which Gaius was held) as the reason for Agrippa’s attention to Gaius in spite of Tiberius’ wishes (see further 18.206-211). Gaius was one of 9 children by Agrippina (“the Elder”); others included Drusus Iulius Caesar and Agrippina the Younger. Gaius “Caligula,” soon to be emperor; see the note to “Caesar” at 2.181 below. According to Ant. 18.188 (cf. 166-167), this attention to Gaius was an insult to Tiberius, who had rather wanted Agrippa to give his attention to his own grandson (Tiberius Gemellus). Even without that information, given the odium surrounding Gaius’ name in Rome at Josephus’ time of writing, this attentiveness to the future tyrant can only appear as a colossally misguided gambit on the part of Agrippa. The implicit shamefulness in the parallel account (Ant. 18.126-236) has prompted scholarly hypotheses that Josephus could not have written that later narrative while Agrippa lived, or at least while the two were on good terms (already Luther 1910: 55). However that may be, already here in War Agrippa appears with inglorious associations: oddly mentioned first as “an accuser of Herod the tetrarch” (apparently with no clear case) and an early flatterer of the now despised princeps Gaius Caligula. Unlike Ant. 18, where that friendship at least helps to explain Agrippa’s ability to intercede with Gaius in the statue affair (18.289-301—absent from War), there seems no constructive reason to mention Agrippa’s friendship with Gaius here. Shotter (1992: 68) notes that Agrippa’s friendship was the only real service mediated by Tiberius for Gaius’ apprenticeship as princeps. Less charitably, Cassius Dio reports (59.24.1) that the Roman people would later be distressed about the prospects of Gaius’ reign because (then) King Agrippa and King Antiochus were his “tyrant-trainers” (τυραννοδιδάσκαλοι).

The story is quite different in Ant. 18.168-169, 179-194: Agrippa and Gaius are in a riding carriage, alone except for their driver (see the note to “domestics” in this section), and that is why Agrippa feels free to utter such a prayer—in secret, except that the driver overhears. The story here emphasizes Agrippa’s undignified obsequiousness toward Gaius. The elaboration of this point in such a succinct narrative drives home the point that Agrippa is engaging in recklessly fawning behavior. See the note to this phrase at 2.2. See the final note in this sentence below. In the parallel (Ant. 18.168-69), the content of Agrippa’s (confidential) prayer is first reported along similar lines, though in the retelling by Eutychus (18.179-194) it grows to include conspiracy to murder Tiberius’ grandson Tiberis Gemellus, the other candidate for succession to Tiberius (18.206). That addition well illustrates Josephus’ freedom in retelling narratives.

In Ant. 18.168 the domestic is named as Eutychus, Agrippa’s freedman and “charioteer” or driver/reinsman (ἡνίοχος); see the note to “banqueting” in this section. Curiously, in that same narrative another charioteer named Eutychus turns up as a favorite of Gaius’ at the races, driving for the Green Faction (Ant. 19.257). It is entirely possible that we should understand Agrippa’s chauffeur in Rome and the sports hero as the same man. The story is much more complicated in Ant. 18.168-188: the driver Eutychus overhears the prayer, but cleverly keeps it to himself until his patron accuses him (correctly) of stealing, at which point he decides to accuse Agrippa of treason (maiestas) by reporting the conversation to the prefect of the city (hence, perhaps, the verb διαγγέλλω here, which suggests a report via a third party). Strangely, however, given his reputation otherwise, during his final years, for eagerness to prosecute maiestas (Tacitus, Ann. 6.38), Tiberius is uninterested in the driver’s news—Josephus blames his inveterate procrastination; D. R. Schwartz (1990: 54) thinks that Tiberius may already have identified Agrippa as future king and so did not wish to prosecute him—and locks Eutychus away indefinitely on Capri. Only somewhat later, at the instigation of Agrippa through the offices of Gaius and especially his grandmother Antonia, does Tiberius reluctantly hear the charge: while briefly visiting Tusculum near Rome, he has the prisoner brought to him. NB: Suetonius (Tib. 72) insists that Tiberius left his retirement in Capri only twice, neither time coming into Rome proper, though once reaching the 7th milestone unit="section" of the Via Appia, which would apparently allow for a trip to Tusculum (about 12 miles SE of Rome). This verb helps to link this episode with the two previous ones concerning Pilate, in each of which “indignation” occurs (2.170, 175). The story time here, late 36 to early 37 CE, was a time of continuing suicides by Roman élites accused of treason and other crimes, despite the fact that Tiberius’ end was drawing near, according to bk. 6 of Tacitus’ Annals 6. (He does not mention Agrippa’s arrest.) By early 37 a certain L. Arruntius is reported to have taken his life even though he knew that Tiberius would die at any moment. Tacitus describes him as expressing (just before opening his veins) a sentiment opposite to Agrippa’s here: G. Caesarem vix finita pueritia, ignarum omnium aut pessimis innutritum (“Gaius Caesar, hardly with his childhood over, ignorant about everything or otherwise educated by vices”). His motive is explained: prospectare iam se acrius servitium eoque fugere simul acta et instantia (“already foreseeing a harsher servitude [under Gaius] he would flee both past and future evils”) (Tacitus, Ann. 6.48). We should not think of anything resembling a modern prison, but simply a “place of confinement” (δεσμωτήριον), in which the detainee had no right to maintenance by the state and his welfare depended mainly on the concern of his friends—to provide food and even a bed (see next note). Cf. the note to “detainees” at 2.4. Josephus is partial to the phrase μετ’ αἰκίας: he has it 3 other times (War 7.369; Ant. 11.331; 13.232), whereas before him it appears rarely (in fragments) outside of Diodorus (4.44; 13.19; 33.14). In sharp contrast, Ant. 18.202-4 has Agrippa’s 6-month imprisonment made extremely light by the intervention of powerful friends, Antonia and Macro the Praetorian Prefect, who arrange for him to bathe daily, sleep comfortably, eat well, and receive many visitors; they also ensure that the soldiers guarding him (including the centurion bound to him, 18.196, 203) are humane. Tiberius died on March 16, 37 CE (Suetonius, Tib. 73.1; Tacitus, Ann. 6.50). Ant. 18.224 puts his reign at 22 years, 5 months, and 3 days, evidently counting from Oct. 13, 14 CE, whereas War’s date here counts from the same time in September (the end of the 5-day mourning period following Augustus’ cremation on Sept. 8, and 4 days before the opening of the Senate debate with Tiberius on Sept. 17: Levick 1999b: 70-71). Josephus’ varying figures may be easily accounted for by the vagaries resulting from Tiberius’ long negotiations with the Senate and the difficulty of defining what accession meant in his case (Levick 1999b: 68-81, esp. 75), though War’s addition of precisely a month suggests either MS or author error here. Tiberius was very close to Augustus’ age at death: 77 for him, nearly 76 for Augustus. For the various rumors about the cause of Tiberius’ death see Tacitus, Ann. 6.50-51; Suetonius, Tib. 73-76.

Josephus uses a standard Greek equivalent (ἀποδείκνυμι) of Latin designare (H. J. Mason 1974: 24), in political contexts a technical term (as also designatus) for someone elected to office (e.g., as a magistrate) but not yet in place. In this case, Gaius was not elected but chosen heir by the Praetorian Guard, and he immediately begins to govern. On the succession, see the following note. We might have expected Greek αὐτοκράτωρ (imperator) or σεβαστός (augustus), the latter being the title that Gaius added to his name in 37 when he became “emperor.” In making Caesar (Καῖσαρ) Gaius’ new designation, Josephus retrojects his own time, after the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, when Caesar had become a title; for Gaius, however, Caesar was part of the inherited family name.With the death of Tiberius on March 16, 37 CE, Gaius Iulius Caesar Germanicus (Aug. 31, 12-Jan. 24, 41 CE), commonly known—against his will—by the childhood nickname of Caligula (“Bootsy”), rose to supreme power, aged only 24. He was no doubt immediately acclaimed imperator (which was coming to have the effective meaning of princeps/emperor; Barrett 1989: 53) by the Praetorian Guard detachment led by his supporter Macro, at Misenum where he was at the time. The Senate ratified this acclamation in a meeting on March 18, and Barrett (1989: 71-72) makes a strong case for April 21 as the date of the law [lex] passed by the popular comitia, hence the “legal” date of accession. Gaius was the son of Tiberius’ nephew Germanicus and Vipsania Agrippina (“the Elder”)—daughter of M. Vipsanius Agrippa and Iulia—and his rise culminated a lengthy and fraught succession plan on the part of Tiberius (cf. Barrett 1989: 17-41), on which Ant. 18.205-227 will expatiate, in keeping with that work’s interest in constitutional questions (cf. Mason 2003a, 2008b). Caligula’s accession was followed by the rapid accumulation of other traditional powers and titles: tribunicia potestas, augustus, pater patriae, pontifex maximus. His brief but notorious reign (37-41 CE) is related crisply in War, almost exclusively with reference to the attempted placement of his statue in the temple (2.184-203). Ant. 18-19, by contrast, dwells at length on his accession, life, death, and character (18.211-223, 261-309; 19.1-156; cf. Wiseman 1991).The tendency of modern scholarship has been to dismiss the more lurid stories of Caligula “the monster” as products of an extremely hostile senatorial perspective, though recent studies have been willing to accept that at the core of the hatred probably lay a wide range of character defects in the young ruler (Balsdon 1934; Barrett 1989; Hurley 1993: v-xviii; Wardle 1994: 63-95). MSS PA, usually the two best for this work, have instead a plural verb (“they released”), which is possible, though the parallel verb “appointed” is singular. According to Ant. 18.228-37: Gaius first releases Agrippa to house arrest, so as not to move with unseemly speed in liberating a prisoner of Tiberius, intending to release him immediately after Tiberius’ funeral; Antonia, however, persuades him to wait a while for the sake of decorum. Some days later, Gaius sends for him, gives him a haircut and new clothes, exchanges his iron chain for one of equal weight in gold, and gives him a diadem as new king. The parallel in Ant. 18.237 adds the tetrarchy of Lysanias (= Abila, NW of Damascus, plus some of Lebanon), though War 2.215 has Claudius add this only when Agrippa is made king in 41 CE. On the complexities and possibilities, see Kokkinos 1998: 280-81. The son of Herod and Cleopatra, Philip reportedly at first supported his step-brother Archelaus’ claim to kingship before Augustus in Rome (2.83), but when the princeps opted to divide the kingdom he accepted the title of tetrarch over the areas anticipated by Herod’s will: Batanea, Trachonitis, Auranitis, Gaulanitis, and the area around Panias at the source of the Jordan, where he founded a new city of Caesarea (2.94-95, 167-168). Thus his territory lay E and N/NE of Lake Gennesaret (Kinneret). According to Ant. 18.108, before the grant to Agrippa his territory had been annexed to the province of Syria—a transfer (in both directions) that illustrates the minimal differences among the various modes of Roman control (cf. Shatzman 1999). This after-the-fact mention of Philip’s death is a bit confusing, for he died in 33 (ca. Sept. according to Kokkinos 1998: 237) or 34 CE (the standard dating, in view of Ant. 18.106)—so: 3 or 4 years earlier than this story time and prior to (possibly a cause of) the events in the previous paragraph. At 2.178 Agrippa goes to Rome, apparently in the summer of 36, after which he will be imprisoned by Tiberius until the latter’s death in March 37. D. R. Schwartz (1990: 50-52) plausibly suggests that this story conflates two trips to Rome, the first in 33 or 34, when Agrippa began his cultivation of Gaius. In any case, Josephus’ after-the-fact mention of Philip’s death seems to result, again, from his drastic reduction of a fuller narrative before him, of the sort found in Ant. 18: in focusing on Agrippa’s accusations against Antipas and (non-) dealings with Tiberius, he saw no need to mention Philip until Agrippa’s reception of the kingdom required it.In Ant. 18.106-108 he provides a glowing obituary for the long-ruling and moderate tetrarch: Philip remained in his territory and was constantly travelling around it, solicitous of his people’s well-being and hearing their cases promptly; he punished the guilty and released the innocent. That assessment coincides with the Roman ideal for governors, an ideal that Josephus shows in both works to have been missed almost entirely by the equestrians sent to govern Judea. Philip died and was buried in his foundation of Iulias. Bernett (2007: 241-44) finds it remarkable that Josephus does not condemn Philip for his involvement with imperial cult and other legal failings; but this is perhaps to underestimate his freedom as an author.With Niese, Thackeray, and M-B I follow the present tense given by MS P (θνήσκει) as the “more difficult reading”; the rest of the Greek MSS and Lat (decesserat) have a more suitable perfect or pluperfect. Awkward though it seems here with another present-tense verb carrying the main action, Josephus often speaks of someone’s dying with a narrative present (War 1.23; 3.334; Ant. 1.354; 4.83; 5.119, 360; 18.44; 19.271). Philo’s Embassy to Gaius (179) narrates that the newly appointed king stopped in Alexandria en route to his possessions in the summer of 38 CE, prompting riots and ridicule by the gentile population. Therefore, he remained in Rome for more than a year after Gaius made him king. For discussion, see D. R. Schwartz (1990: 55-57). On the basis of Agrippa’s coinage, Schwartz argues that Agrippa must have counted his first regnal year from the autumn (Tishri) preceding Gaius’ accession. “Stirring up desires” (ἐγείρω [here more emphatic διεγείρω] + ἐπιθυμίας) is language best attested in Philo of Alexandria (Spec. 1.192; 2.193; 4.129; cf. Plato, Resp. 555a; Plutarch, Mor. [Cup. Div.] 525b, [Brut. anim.] 990d). Envy (φθόνος) was a natural correlative of such desires (Life 80; cf. Plato, Leg. 863e, 869, 934; Epictetus in Arrian, Diatr. 2.16.45). Ancient philosophy in general, but especially Stoicism, assumed that excitement of desire or passion was a bad thing. That is, Antipas (b. 25 BCE): full brother and rival of Archelaus for the kingship in 4 BCE, but granted the tetrarchy of Galilee and Perea when his brother became ethnarch (see notes at 2.20-23, 94, 167 [“the Herod called Antipas”]). By this point he had been ruling his territory for perhaps 40 years (the date of Augustus’ settlement being uncertain) and he was about 62 years of age. But now he was neighbor to a nephew, some 14 years his junior, who had been granted the honor of kingship. See further the following note.

The famous figure whose dancing daughter—in the traditional reading—the gospels blame for demanding the head of John the Baptist (Mark 6:17-28), Herodias (b. 15-13 BCE) was the daughter of Aristobulus (son of Herod) and Berenice, hence the slightly older sister of Agrippa I (1.552). Kokkinos (1998: 265-70) offers a brilliant, albeit unprovable, theory to explain the history behind this narrative. His reconstruction takes its cue from the gospels (Mark 6:17; Luke 3:19/1), against Josephus (Ant. 18.109-110), in having Herodias married to Philip (not to another Herod) for about 30 years preceding that tetrarch’s death. When Philip died, Kokkinos proposes, Antipas (former contender for Herod’s kingdom) naturally thought of trying to absorb the territory beside his own, and so visited Philip’s widow Herodias to negotiate the plan before presenting it in Rome in 34 CE. She agreed, but (now aged about 48) insisted on a marriage to cement the deal, which would require Antipas to divorce his royal Nabatean wife (cf. Ant. 18.109), whom Kokkinos identifies as the now 50-year-old Phasaelis (1998: 230-32). The latter heard and fled to her father King Aretas IV, who must have been all the more perturbed because he also had designs on this territory, which the divorce would thwart. Aretas’ subsequent defeat of Antipas in battle would in turn have angered Tiberius all the more (cf. 18.114) because the princeps had already approved Antipas’ scheme. Kokkinos observes that Tiberius’ earlier decision to hold the tribute from Philip’s tetrarchy in escrow, apparently pending some future settlement (Ant. 18.108), suits the notion that he was open to establishing a new Herodian prince there. Finally, Gaius’ appointment of Agrippa would be a deliberate attempt at once to promote his friend and to undo the plan backed by Tiberius.Attractive though it is because of its explanatory power, the theory requires that Josephus was completely wrong (in spite of apparent confidence) in naming Herodias’ husband before Antipas—not in itself a difficult proposition—and it must also insert an earlier trip by Antipas to Rome in 34, where Josephus’ narrative seems to have little room. Further, the standard hypothesis that Mark was in error is easy to accept, both because of numerous errors in Mark and because Matthew and Luke, which use Mark and frequently correct it, either hedge or omit the connection between Herodias and Philip (some MSS of Matt 14:3; Luke 3:20). Even if Kokkinos were wrong in some specifics, however, it does seem antecedently likely that Antipas would have coveted Philip’s territory, and that such designs factored (more than simply the wish to be a king like Agrippa) into his resentment of Agrippa.However that may be, Josephus’ Roman audience presumably would not have known a back story of Herodias’ political intentions, even if Kokkinos has this right. At the level of War’s story (leaving aside historical reality), Josephus simply blames her for inciting the tetrarch’s implausible ambitions. The cliché that noble women were often the cause of powerful men’s downfall was widespread in ancient literature, as in Tacitus’ portraits of the principal women of the Julio-Claudian line, and it is common in Josephus (e.g., Ant. 4.129-154; 13.400-432; 17.34-76; 18.344-352, 360-62). Ant. 18.255 stresses even more obviously the woman’s evil counsel: Antipas pays the penalty for having listened to “womanish frivolous chatter” (γυναικείων ἀκορασαμένῳ κουφολογίων). That is, rekindling the hope of kingship that Antipas had harbored as a young man more than 40 years earlier: the struggle that opened War 2 (2.20-23, 94, 167). This prefixed form of the verb (κατονειδίζω) is a hallmark of War’s style: though used again at 2.609, 638 (both predicated of Josephus’ character); 4.160—in all these cases intensified with πολλά—it is not found in literature before Josephus, except in a variant at Dionysius, Ant. rom. 11.42.4. Cyril of Alexandria is the next user. Greek τὴν ἀργίαν. Cf. 4.160, where Ananus and Jesus scold the Jerusalemites for their sluggishness (νωθείαν) in failing to act against the Zealots. Since this story has said nothing about Antipas’ reluctance, it once again appears that Josephus is compressing a fuller account: Ant. 18.245-46 stresses the initial determination of Antipas not to go to Rome, content as he was with his quiet life. This correlation of clauses with ὅπου and ἦπου is rare, though Isocrates (Antid. 70) instances a similar a fortiori sense: “And since (ὅπου) in addressing a king I have spoken for his subjects, surely (ἦπου) I would urge upon men who live under a democracy to pay court to the people.” With MSS PAM (followed by Niese and Thackeray) I read διστάζω (only here in Josephus), which requires that this be a question as the MSS punctuate. MSS LVRC and M (margin) have instead διανίστημι, which could be either a question or an emphatic statement, as the ἦπου γ’ might otherwise suggest: “I am certain that he would raise up [a king] from a tetrarch. . . .” Direct quotation here emphasizes the wife’s malignant role; see the note to “Herodias.” The form of her argument serves to keep matters at a superficial (ostensibly womanish) level, for Agrippa, Judean blueblood and friend of the princeps, was certainly no ordinary citizen. A stronger argument might have been that Antipas was King Herod’s own son, named in one version of the will as his heir (1.646), whereas Agrippa was a much younger grandson of the king. Indeed, this is a key point in the much fuller presentation of Herodias’ argument in Ant. 18.240-46: although both men are descendants of Herod, Agrippa is the wastrel son of a man condemned to death by the king, whereas Antipas is the king’s own beloved son.

Or “induced.” See the notes to the latter verb at 1.5; 2.55. This note in conjunction with the following statement about Agrippa seems a tell-tale sign that Josephus has compressed an Antiquities-like narrative. Here he has dramatically trimmed the story to make it a matter of simple over-reach on Antipas’ part, whereas the longer story has Antipas banished precisely because of charges of treason or maiestas brought by Agrippa (Ant. 18.247-252). The two motives for the exile are both given here, but they sit uneasily together, for why would Agrippa have been needed to document Antipas’ evident greed?That Antipas was exiled in 39 CE seems a necessary conclusion, and one universally accepted, from established dates in Agrippa’s career both before (e.g., arrival in the kingdom, summer of 38) and after this event. Here is a significant problem of method in textual and historical criticism. MSS PC and corrected L have Σπανίαν and most of the others Ἱσπανίαν (some with smooth breathing), though uncorrected L and A had Πανίαν (Panias, in the newly acquired territory of Agrippa, Antipas’ enemy!). But the parallel at Ant. 18.252 pointedly makes Antipas’ place of exile Lugdunum in Gaul, which is close to Vienna, the place of Archelaus’ earlier exile (cf. the note to [Gaul] at 2.111), and so has much in its favor. Kokkinos (1998: 235) simply declares that he was banished to Gaul. Both Niese and M-B go so far as to adopt the emendation Γαλλίαν, without any MS support, though Thackeray stays with Σπανίαν. Since this reading has on its side both the overwhelming MS support and the principle that one should favor the most difficult possibility (if it will explain how the easier ones came to be), there seems to be little alternative here.Hoehner (1972: 262 and n. 1) follows a long tradition of scholars in arguing that there is no problem accepting both War’s “Spain” and Antiquities’ “Gaul” if the Lugdunum to which Antipas was exiled was not the famous Roman capital and gateway to Gaul (modern Lyons), but rather Lugdunum Convenarum (modern St. Bertrand-de-Comminges), at the N edge of the Pyrenese mountains in Aquitania and therefore close enough to Hispania to be included there as well as in Gaul. Neat though this theory is, it does not really solve the problem that Josephus’ “Lugdunum, a city in Gaul” (Ant. 18.252) would more naturally be taken to mean the famous city, and that even Lugdunum Convenarum could hardly be called “Spain.” See the note to this word at 2.178. The parallel (Ant. 18.240-52) narrates that in response to Antipas’ bid for royal status, Agrippa sent a report to Gaius accusing his uncle of conspiracy with the Parthians, claiming also that he had earlier conspired with (L. Aelius) Seianus against Tiberius. Although it is impossible to know whether that charge has any substance to it, it is entirely plausible that if Antipas was pining for a kingdom he would have explored possibilities for alliance with the Parthians. They had always had interests in the Levant and, even though they were seldom in a position to do anything about it, there is evidence of limited adventurism on the part of the Artabanus III, king through the 30s (e.g., Dio 68.26.1-4; see Introduction). As M-B (1.441 n. 107) observe, Ant. 19.351 complicates matters by claiming that Agrippa received Antipas’ territory only in his 4th year of ruling under Gaius, which should be the year 40, a year after Antipas’ removal. According to the parallel, Gaius offered to spare Herodias when he learned that she was the sister of his friend Agrippa, but she was determined to share her husband’s fortunes whether good or bad; Gaius sentenced her to exile (giving also her possessions to Agrippa) because of her impudence (Ant. 18.252-54). See the note to “Spain” earlier in this section, where the same MS considerations apply.

This paragraph is taken bodily into Constantinus Porphyrogenitus’ 10th-cent. work, Of Virtues and Vices 95.63. Greek ἐξύβρισεν εἰς τὴν τύχην, a phrase that Josephus will also use at 2.250 of Nero, and at 5.120 of the Judean rebels (who foolishly make too much of their temporary victories against the legions). It seems to be Josephus’ coinage, though it draws from a Polybian theme underlying his work (see Introduction): fortune brings temporary success and catastrophe, always subject to sudden reversal, and therefore the proper response to success is humility. See the notes to “authority” at 2.140 and “fortune” at 2.373. Josephus will elaborate in Ant. 19.15-16: Gaius’ sudden death, which preserved the laws of all peoples and the survival of the Judeans, is a lesson “to those who imagine that good fortune is eternal, but do not [realize] that if it is not accompanied by virtue it turns out badly.” As in the case of Nero, who will also “abuse fortune” (2.250-251), Josephus assumes that the story is familiar to his Roman audience. He will build on their knowledge of Gaius’ misdeeds in Rome, briefly listed here, to treat exclusively the princeps’ efforts in Judea. Philo puts it perhaps more effectively: “Gaius grew beside himself, not only saying but actually supposing himself to be a God” (Legat. 162). Barrett (1989: 140-53) offers crucial historical context for the widespread impression that Gaius made an insane demand to be worshiped as a God. He observes that: the lines between divine and human were often blurry in Greco-Roman culture; the Greek East in particular had shown no hesitation to offer worship to rulers; and although it was considered immoderate to accept worship in Rome while living (deification of “good emperors” at death being the standard), there was a range of nuances in the principes’ responses to offers of temples from their provincial subjects. The incident about to be described seems to have had a significant political impetus generated by non-Judeans living in Jamnia (cf. Philo, Legat. 199-203); Josephus’ account is calculated to elicit, from a Roman audience long accustomed to despising Gaius’ memory, a sympathetic ear for the Judean sense of having been unreasonably imposed upon by Roman authorities. Unlike Philo (Legat. 12-14), Josephus himself at Ant. 18.255-56, Suetonius (Cal. 37), and Cassius Dio (59.2.6), who allow Gaius an initial constructive or even honorable phase before a severe illness altered his mind, War here compresses his entire reign into a portrait of thoroughgoing impiety. On Gaius’ divine pretensions, see e.g. Philo, Legat. 75, 79, 81-114, where the princeps is said, with abundant sarcasm, to have imitated various demigods and the most revered deities in dress and appropriation of symbols. This elegant verb (ἀκροτομέω), “cut off the peak/top/zenith,” occurs only here in Josephus, and rarely before his time. The cognate adjectives usually refer to cut rock or stone (πέτρα, λίθος). The reference is to executions of the nobility: the top layer of society. Cf. Ant. 19.1-211 (with references in the following note) for extraordinary detail; Wiseman 1991. Greek τὴν πατρίδα—in this case, Rome. For Gaius’ depradations in Rome, see the detailed narrative of Ant. 19.1-211, with translation and commentary by Wiseman 1991; Galimberti 2001: 165-92. For historical interpretation, Barrett 1989: 73-113; on the significance of that narrative for Josephus’ Flavian-Roman context, Mason 2003a, 2008b. Cf. the silent object lesson given by the tyrant Thrasybulus of Miletus to a messenger from Periander of Corinth (Herodotus 5.92f): cutting down the tallest ears of wheat, he “destroyed the best and richest part of the crop.” The following story of Gaius’ effort to place his statue in the Jerusalem temple is described in greater detail in Philo’s Embassy to Gaius (188-348), nearly contemporary with the events, and mentioned briefly by Tacitus in his summary of Judean-Roman conflicts preceding the war (Hist. 5.9). Josephus’ own parallel account (Ant. 18.256-309), is much longer and more complex than this one. There Gaius decides to install the statue afer he takes umbrage at a delegation of Judeans from Alexandria led by Philo, in light of accusations by the other delegation (which included Apion) that the Judeans dishonor Gaius by refusing to host his images or swear oaths to him (18.258). The negotiations between Petronius and the Judeans are more protracted there, and divided between Ptolemais and Tiberias (18.269-278); it is members of the royal élite who convince Petronius to challenge Gaius (18.273-278); and King Agrippa, then in Rome, temporarily persuades Gaius to abandon his plan (18.289-301). Philo’s contemporary account, in particular, provides crucial context missing here (viz., the instigation of the whole affair by disgruntled gentiles living in Jamnia). For judicious efforts to reconstruct the events, see e.g. Smallwood (1961: 31-6, 267-325; 1976: 174-80, 235-50) and Barrett (1989: 182-91). Curiously (given that it involved a significant military campaign), the entire episode is absent from Suetonius’ Life of Gaius.

Publius Petronius came from a rising family in the early principate: his grandfather had been equestrian prefect of Egypt, and his father triumvir monetalis under Augustus. Petronius’ personal success in the cursus honorum led to the office of suffect consul in 19 CE, his brother holding the same honor in 25; from about 29 to 35 he served as proconsul of Asia (PIR2 6.101-2). Petronius married a daughter of the consular Plautii family, and their grandchildren would include the ordinary consul of 61 as well as Petronia, the wife of the short-lived emperor A. Vitellius (PIR2). Petronius replaced L. Vitellius as legate of Syria, probably serving from 39 (possibly 37 or 38) to 41 or 42 (cf. Ant. 18.261; Smallwood 1961: 267; PIR2). That Josephus has Gaius charge the Syrian legate with this task, omitting any mention of a prefect in Judea, tends to confirm that Judea was at this point still fully integrated into the province of Syria; see note to “province” at 2.117. On Josephus’ claim that Petronius was sent in order to install Gaius’ statue and the attendant chronological problems, see the notes to “unsown” and “sowing” at 2.200. This verb (ἐγκαθιδρύω) is almost peculiar to Josephus. Although before Josephus the word is hardly attested—Euripides (Iph. Taur. 978), the Hippocratic corpus (Anat. 1), and Aristotle (Mund. 397b)—, he has it 5 times (also 2.197, 266; 6.47; Ant. 8.393). In the 2nd cent. Athenaeus uses it (Deipn. 11.46; 14.50 [Kaibel]) and Julius Pollux (Onom. 1.11) cites it as he illustrates the many different ways of saying the same thing (building a temple), though strangely it does not enter standard usage until late antiquity. The future participle makes sense here to express purpose; thus Niese has not opted for the aorist participle found in MSS PALVR1. All other sources (note to “Judea” at 2.184) indicate a single colossal statue. Since Josephus has not mentioned these images before, the definite article may indicate his Roman audience’s awareness of the story (cf. Tacitus, Hist. 5.9). This phrasing εἰ μὴ δέχοιντο Ἰουδαῖοι recalls the preceding account of Pilate’s attempt to install another Caesar’s images in Jerusalem (εἰ μὴ προσδέξαιντο [τὰς εἰκόνας]), which in several respects prepares for this episode; see the note to “images” at 2.173. The simpler form of the verb “to enslave,” ἀνδραποδίζω, appears 10 times, evenly spread through 3 works of Josephus (with 4 occurrences in War 1-3); cognates are the nouns ἀνδραποδισμός (“enslaving”: Ant. 2.248; 20.123) and ἀνδράποδον (“slave”: War 4.394; Ant. 2.189; 4.309; 6.41, etc.; Apion 2.133). Here Josephus uses an emphatic form of the verb, by adding the prefix ἐξ-. This form is concentrated in War 1-3 (1.65, 88, 222; here; 3.134, 304; otherwise Ant. 12.296; 14.275). Possibly Josephus focuses on this word group in War 1-3 because the more obvious word for slavery, δουλεία, will become a key term in the work’s ongoing debate about the meaning of political freedom and slavery (2.88, 349-80, 367; 4.175, 344, 394; 5.422, 458; 6.206; 7.255, 302, 323-24, etc.). See Introduction.

Although MSS PLVR have ἔμελλε here, suggesting hesitation on the part of God, reading ἔμελε with Niese, Thackeray, M-B, and others (inspired by the ἔμμελε of MS C) makes better sense of the syntax and meaning: Gaius’ orders were a matter of concern to God. Elsewhere too Josephus has God as the agent of such concern (War 5.60; Ant. 3.88; 4.318; 7.45). Divine concern for human affairs is an ongoing theme of Josephus’ works, becoming the Leitmotif of Antiquities (1.14, 20; 10.277-80). In War, this configuration of forces recalls Varus’ 3-legion army (2.40, 66-67), possibly evoking for a Roman audience the legions that Varus would later lose in Germany, and it anticipates the army of 3 legions plus auxiliaries that will be brought by Vespasian and Titus (War 3.65). Philo (Legat. 207), who lived through these events, sarcastically relates that Petronius was ordered to take into Judea half of the force assigned to protect the border along the Euphrates from the powerful Parthian armies—the legions based in Syria, of which there were 4 by this time (Tacitus, Ann. 4.5): III Gallica, VI Ferrata, X Fretensis, and XII Fulminata (detailed analysis in Dabrowa 1986, 1993, 1996). That claim would agree with Josephus’ own statement in Ant. 18.262, that Petronius brought two legions. Whether two legions or three, the force was calculated to enforce Gaius’ desire by overcoming any Judean opposition. For Antioch, the chief city of Roman Syria, see the note at 2.18. This account passes over Philo’s claim that Petronius, reluctant from the start to execute Gaius’ command, ironically ordered a magnificent new statue to be built, from the finest materials—to delay as long as possible—in Sidon, far from the Judean heartland.

This narrative technique of charting reactions on a spectrum, from disbelief on one end (ἀπιστέω) to belief with some other condition on the other, turns up again at War 5.539; 6.214. Greek ἐν ἀμηχάνῳ πρὸς τὴν ἄμυναν; cf. the similar expression in Josephus’ younger contemporary Plutarch (Crass. 25.7; cf. Dio 10.40.45; 36.23.3). For Ptolemais, see the note at 2.67. Ant. 18.269 will add that Petronius’ army wintered there in preparation for a spring campaign, a timing consistent in both of Josephus’ accounts. Since he attaches the statue mandate to Petronius’ commission as legatus, he implies that this occurred in the autumn (of 39 CE); but see the notes to “unsown” and “sowing” at 2.200.

Of the many kinds of digression employed by Josephus—to vary scene, provide relief and delight, educate an audience without knowledge of Syrian conditions, and create suspense—the geographical excursus is a favorite in the War (e.g., 3.35-43; 4.4-8; esp. 5.136-247). On the models and functions of geographical digressions in Josephus, see Shahar 2004; on geography and history more generally in ancient writers, Clarke 1999 (who argues that geography is far more integral to the historical project—and vice versa—than the conventional assessments of its role as mere variatio or “background” suggest). The much fuller parallel to the story of Petronius and Gaius’ statue, in Ant. 18, will omit this description of Ptolemais and its surroundings.What does it contribute to the narrative here? One clue is Josephus’ inclusion of Ptolemais in Galilee, whereas elsewhere he pointedly distinguishes between Galilee, which is Judean, and this Roman city (War 3.29-30, 35-36, esp. 38; Life 105, 118, 213-15 [esp. 214], 342). This discussion of Ptolemais’ natural wonders—the world-famous sand of the Belus River (below), one of only 4 or 5 known centers of glass-quality sand in the Roman world (Isings 1957: 2; Vose 1980: 27-8), and an incidental note about the nearby tomb of renowned Greek hero thrown in for good measure, allegedly in Judean territory—helps to raise the Judeans’ profile with respect to both resources and technical skill. Some scholars are convinced that Judeans had a lot to do with the “Phoenician” or Syrian glassware that was widely traded throughout the E Mediterranean—even before 100 CE, after which the evidence becomes considerable (Kisa 1908: 1.96-100; Neuburg 1949: 26-54; 1962: 50-70; Engle 1984; Isings [1957: 4] is skeptical). On the basis of waste from a glass factory from mid-1st century BCE Jerusalem, V. Tatton-Brown (in Tait 1991: 62) considers it likely that Judeans were among the pioneers of glass blowing. Without making any of this explicit, Josephus’ momentary incorporation of the famed source for glass-sand into Judean Galilee suggests some such link. That is, the NW to SE Plain of Esdraelon, or Jezreel Valley, which separates Galilee from Samaria; cf. 2.595; 3.39; Life 115, 126, 318. The most obvious approach to the plain of Acco/Ptolemais from Judean territory is via the narrow pass that closes the Great Plain at the NW end. See the note to “Galilee and Idumea” at 2.43. About 12 km. See the note to “stadia” at Life 64 in BJP 9. This figure closely matches the roughly 11-12 km distance between Ptolemais and the nearest points at which the Galilean hills rise to the NE and the E. In Life 214 Josephus gives the same figure, however, for the distance between Ptolemais and Chabolos/Chaboulon (Life 214), which he regards as the W limit of Galilee (War 2.503; 3.38): Chaboulon will fall first to Cestius Gallus’ forces in late 66 (War 2.503-4), and Josephus will use it as his own base for monitoring the Romans at Ptolemais during the early revolt (Life 213-14). The village of Kabul, usually identified as the site of ancient Chaboulon, is somewhat further away—roughly 15 km to the SE. Josephus has mentioned Mt. Carmel, one of the most prominent and impressive features of the coast, at War 1.66, 250, in such a way that he seems to assume audience knowledge. This appears reasonable: it is discussed by Scylax, Peripl. 104; Strabo 16.2.27-28; Pliny, Nat. 5.75; 36.190; Tacitus, Hist. 2.78; Suetonius, Vesp. 5.6; Claudius Ptolemaeus 5.15.5. The Carmel range is actually somewhat closer to Ptolemais on the S than to the Tyrian Ladder on the N, about 15 km/9.3 miles as the crow flies (75 stadia), or 18-20 km/11-12.5 miles (up to 100 stadia) following the curved highway around the Haifa Bay. If Josephus was thinking of the distance due S, past Gaba-Hippeon, to meet the Carmel range at one of its further points, the distance could easily exceed 120 stadia. Greek κατ’ ἄρκτον. Although the expression means “to the N,” I translate thus because Josephus does not give the compass direction (βόρειος or similar), which he uses dozens of times elsewhere and which would complement “southern” (μεσημβρινός), used of Carmel in this passage. The more colorful term here, which he also has frequently, evokes the constellation of Ursa Major. On the importance of the constellations for ancient cosmology, see Hannah 2005: 5-28. As Josephus’ language indicates, he does not expect his Roman audience to know this name, which is used in 1 Macc 11:59 (cf. Ant. 13.146) for the rapid ascent, on the road to Tyre, between Rosh ha-Niqra and Ras el-Bayada. This precisely matches the N/S distance on the Roman coastal road: 20 km (12.5 miles).

Lat. beleum. The river is called Belus in Pliny (Nat. 5.75 [also Pacida, though that name usually attaches to the Qishon to the S]; 36.190), who puts it at 5,000 paces (5 Roman miles), and in Tacitus, Hist. 5.7. The name is a Latinized form of Ba‘al, the Semitic name for God, and specifically here of Tammuz-Adonis, the God of vegetation and healing worshiped in Sidon to the N. In Greek myth, Heracles was directed by the Delphic oracle to this river, to a plant that would heal his wounds; he founded the city Acco nearby as a result. And so the river God Belus appears on Roman coins, with the healing plant, through the early centuries of the Common Era (e.g., Engle 1978: 11). For pictures and detailed analysis of the sacred river’s role in glass-making, which she considers a Hurrian (biblical “Horite”) specialty from about 2,000 BCE, see Engle 1978. The mythical Memnon, presumably the one in view here, had tombs (memnoneia) in various middle-eastern centers. Son of Dawn (Eos) and Tithonus (Hesiod, Theog. 984-85), this king of the Ethiopians—according to the now lost Cyclic epic Aethiopis (cf. West 2003 for summary and revisionist analysis), supplemented by early 6th-cent. BCE art and occasional notes in other poetry of the period—brought his forces to assist his uncle Priam in the defense of Troy (cf. Od. 11.522; cf. 3.111-12; 4.185-202). During his climactic fight with Achilles, the two heroes’ mothers (Eos and Thetis) pleaded with Zeus for his favor. When Memnon lost, one tradition holds that he became immortal, another that the smoke from his pyre became warring birds who fell back into its flames—and so birds called memnonides gather annually at his tomb to fight and die again.Where was his tomb? Perhaps because of the mythical importance of his death, local traditions grew up in various places. The leading contenders were Persian Susa (Strabo 15.3.2; Pausanias 10.31.7), Egyptian Thebes (mod. Luxor), and Egyptian Abydos (Strabo 17.1.42)—the seeming disparity made intelligible by the fact that “Ethiopians” were located both in the far E (Il. 1.423-24; 23.205-7; Herodotus 5.54.2; 7.151 places them in Susa) and in Africa S of Egypt. Drews (1969) thinks that the epic writers assumed the eastern-Susanian origin of the hero. The Theban connection involves in some way a linguistic parallel between the Amen- pharaohs and ‘Memnon’; the tomb of Ramesses VI hosted the Colossi of Memnon, a major tourist attraction then and now. From one of the two seated statues of Amenhotep III, whom R. D. Griffith (1998) indeed considers the model of the ancient Memnon, in front of the tomb complex, a breath-like sound was said to be produced by the first rays of dawn: even though Strabo heard it, he preferred to think it some kind of trick (Strabo 17.1.46; Pausanias 1.42.3; cf. Bowersock 1984).Strabo also claims that Susa hosted monuments to Memnon, but reports (15.3.2) a tradition from Simonides that the hero was actually buried the small coastal town of Paltus in Syria. This was less than 300 km (about 180 miles) N of Ptolemais, which puts it in the same general region and makes sense of competing claims for Memnon’s tomb indicated by Josephus’ reference here. About 50 m (164 ft), apparently indicating the diameter of the hollow. Pliny’s account says nothing about such a depression near the tomb, but rather claims that the special sand from the muddy river appears only with the ebbing of the tide (Nat. 36.191).

Greek κυκλοτερὴς μὲν γὰρ ἐστιν καὶ κοῖλος. The alliteration in kappa helps the description; cf. Strabo describing a mysterious crocus-producing cave in Cilicia (14.5.5: “it is a great circular hollow,” ἔστι δὲ κοιλὰς μεγάλη κυκλοτέρής). Latin: est enim species uallis rotundae. Josephus’ use of the definite article (τὴν ὑελίνον ψάμμον) may reflect an assumption that his Roman audience has heard of this phenomenon. This is plausible, since the remarkable properties of the Belus river’s sandbanks had been famous for centuries among Egyptians, Phoenicians, and Greeks, and were mentioned by his near contemporaries in Rome, Pliny the Elder (Nat. 5.75; 36.190-91) and Tacitus (Hist. 5.7). Indeed, Pliny famously claims that glass was discovered at this very spot (Nat. 36.190-91): some traders in soda (or nitrum: a form of sodium carbonate and bicarbonate), the story goes, forced ashore and attempting to cook meals by resting pots on their cargo, were amazed to see that their campfires fused the sand and the soda to produce glass. Although one function of the soda is to lower the temperature necessary for melting the silica of the sand from around 1,700 degrees C to less than 1,000 degrees, it is doubtful that the traders’ campfires produced such heat! More likely, glass production was discovered incidentally in other smelting operations, whether strictly commercial or religious (Neuburg 1949: 1); in any case Egypt, rich in sodium carbonate, was producing glass objects well before 2,000 BCE (Neuburg 1949: 8, 11; Healy 1999: 355). In his other relevant passage, Pliny’s language is closer to Josephus: “the river Pacida or Belus, which covers its narrow bank with sand of a kind used for making glass” (vitri fertiles harenas). Tacitus is particularly interesting because he knows about the glass-making properties of the Belus’ sand, even though he is confused about the river’s location (making it “also”—like the Jordan—empty into “the Judean sea” [Iudaico mari inlabitur], which seems to mean the Dead Sea). This confusion suggests, however, that he has heard about the sand of the Belus, and remembered the basic story.The chief ingredients of glass are silica, from high-quality sand, alkali (whether sodium- or potassium-based), and lime, the last of which is needed to give the product sufficient strength (Vose 1980: 1-25). It seems that Roman glass typically had around 71% silica and 16% soda (Neuburg 1949: 2; cf. Healy 1999: 352 n. 28 for a recommended standard formula, and for detailed scientific analysis of ancient and medieval glass, McCray 1998). Trowbridge 1930 provides an analysis of the ancient terminology involved, with modern correspondences and translation issues. Although Pliny’s account omits any mention of lime, the needed 3rd ingredient, some scholars suggest that the sand of the Belus’ banks might have contained substantial amounts of limestone (e.g., V. Tatton-Brown and C. Andrews in Tait 1991: 21).Pliny claims that sand from the Belus was for some time the sole source of silica for glass (Nat. 36.191), adding that Sidon, up the coast from Ptolemais, was a major center of glass production (36.193; cf. Strabo 16.75.8, who knows only that the Sidonians have especially suitable sand). An excavation led by Z. Goldmann in 1956 revealed a Hellenistic-Roman glass furnace in Ptolemais (EAEHL 1.18). On the Sidonian industry, see Engle 1980, 1983; the former also treats the important role of Bet Shearim—20 km E of Haifa and therefore close to the Belus—as a glass-making centre by at least 100 CE; cf. Engle 1973: 1-50. For pre-70 Jerusalem’s involvement in glass production, see Engle 1984. Presumably, ships to carry the sand to glass production centers, especially in Sidon. The compound verb ἀντιπληρόω has very sparse attestation in Greek literature (Thucydides 7.22.2, 69.1; 8.17.1; Xenophon, Hell. 4.8.10; 5.1.5, 4.65; Cyr. 2.2.26; Theophrastus, Caus. plant. 1.13.3, then in late antiquity); Josephus uses it here and in a different sense at 2.502. It has been suggested that the sand of the Belus is well suited to glass-making because of its fineness, which results from its having been carried by hamsin winds from Africa—the finer sand traveling farthest. I have been unable to verify the source of this theory, though it might help to explain Josephus’ reference to the winds. Or “quarry” (τὸ μέταλλον, as 7.189; Ant. 16.128): not a processing operation with mills, as in modern times, but simply the ore site—in this case a naturally mysterious one (2.191).

Editorial μοι δοκεῖ is a favorite device in Josephus, which helps to strengthen the bond of intimacy with his audience by injecting personal judgment and emotion into the narrative: cf. 4.17; 5.552; Ant. 16.159; Apion 2.143. He can also lend it to his characters for their speeches: War 1.373; Ant. 8.227; 15.384. The more characteristic and distinctive expression in War, however, is ἔμοιγε δοκεῖν: 2.151, 479; 3.202; 4.312; 6.4. Or more strongly, “useless, pointless.” This may be the object that Gaius Caligula had in mind when he dismissed the style of Seneca as “sand without lime” (Suetonius, Cal. 53.2): it was incapable of producing something beautiful. Josephus uses the adjective εἰκαῖος 9 times, but only in War 1-6 (though the cognate word-phrase εἰκῇ, vastly more common in other ancient writers, appears only at Ant. 12.34; Apion 2.234). This concentration is the more impressive because the word is not widely used before Josephus, who includes it in the first sentence of the prologue and in each book of War except 7. Notice the clustered recurrence at 2.195. Relatively heavy users are Polybius (5: 4 of these comparative or superlative), Philo (17), and Josephus’ contemporary Epictetus (8). Literally: “received such a nature (φύσις) by lot (λαγχάνω)”—or from the Gods, or as a given. For the sense of the phrase, see Plato, Phil. 49c; Tim. 54a; 63b; Dio 38.11.3; Plotinus, Enn. 6.1.17. Here it functions as a decisive end to the geographical digression.

The verb ἀθροίζω (here passive) suggests more than mere assembling or coming together (συνάγω, συνέρχομαι). Typically used of armies, it highlights the spontaneous quasi-military discipline that Josephus regularly attributes to the Judeans in War; it is cognate to the adverb ἀθρόος (“in close order, in column, en masse”) that he uses of the Judeans at 2.12, 16, 170, 174 (the latter two in the face of Pilate’s provocation). Just described (2.188). Philo (Legat. 225-27) has the Judeans remarkably filling “the whole of Phoenicia” and dividing themselves into 6 groups: males and females, each grouped according to age—the old, the young, and those in their prime. It is the male elders in chorus who address the legate. Referring to women and children in crowd scenes as a way of intensifying the tragic pathos was increasingly common in Hellenistic historiography: Herodotus (“children and women”): 1.164, 166, 176; 2.30; 3.45; 4.121; 5.14; 6.19, 138; 8.36, 60, 106; Euripides, Med. 1143; Xenophon, Anab. 1.4.8; Cyr. 3.1.25, 29, 3.44; 8.8.4; Hippias, Frag. 1.42, 51; Manetho, Frag. 42; Aeneas Tacticus 3.6; 5.1; Philo Mech., Parasc. 94.47; Polybius, about 46 times—e.g., 1.74, 66.8, 68.3; 2.56.7, 58.10; 3.109.7; 4.32.8, 54.2, 71.13; 5.78.1, 111.6; 8.36.3; 9.39.3; 10.17.6, 34.3, 10, 35.1; 11.28.7; 12.6b.8, 25h.5; 15.11.5; 16.25.6, 31.5, 32.4; 1 Macc. 1.32, 60; 2.38; 3.20; 5.13, 23, 45; 8.10; 13.6, 45; 2 Macc 6:10; 12:3, 21; 15:8; Posidonius [Theiler] frag. 99, 136c, 138; Diodorus, 70 times—1.57.6, 67.6, 71.4, 88.6; 2.1.10, 40.5; 3.15.2, 18.5, 24.3, 32.1, 53.3, 54.4; 4.31.1, 55.1; 11.13.4, 28.5, 39.1; 12.42.2, 46.7, etc.; Dionysius—about 35 times—e.g., Ant. rom. 1.46.4; 2.30.4, 34.2, 35.6, 50.6; 4.11.5, 25.4, 50.4. Josephus exploits the formula more than most, using it some 105 times, about 25 of these in War (1.97; 2.192, 198, 307, 395, 400, 475; 3.113, 261; 4.71, 79; 6.351, 384; 7.228, 321, 362, 380, 382, 385, 386, 391, 393). Note especially the concentration of references in the Masada narrative, where tragic sorrow abounds. Whereas Josephus uses the verb ἱκετεύω about 100 times, this intensified form (καθικετεύω) occurs only 4 times in his corpus (also 4.640; Ant. 5.302; 19.234). For this key phrase in Josephus, οἱ πάτριοι νόμοι, see the note at 2.6. Only this account has more than one statue (cf. 2.185). It differs from the others also in implying that Petronius is bringing “the statues” with him, whereas Philo makes it particularly clear that he has only ordered the construction of a colossal statue in Sidon (Legat. 221-22). I follow MSS PAM in reading the plural; the other MSS have a singular.

Philo’s account knows nothing of the consultations in Tiberias, placing all encounters in Phoenicia, whereas in the parallel (Ant. 18.264-72) Josephus will considerably elaborate on the Ptolemais/Tiberias distinction. Josephus will repeat the distinction between the rabble and the eminent (here τὸ τε πλῆθος καὶ οἱ γνώριμοι), which ancient audiences would immediately recognize (and which should help them see the Judeans as part of civilized society), at 2.199. The point seems to be that a respectable Roman official such as Petronius respects the social distinctions within Judean society, and treats the élite quite differently from the masses (cf. also Quadratus’ actions at 2.241-43). The former, being men somewhat like himself, need to be won over through reasoned discussion. Contrast the behavior of the equestrian governors dispatched to Judea, who generally fail to make this distinction and treat the entire nation as alien and contemptible, Florus even crucifying men of equestrian rank (2.308; cf. 2.171-74, 176-77, 224-27, 270 [partial exception], 274-76).The parallel at Ant. 18.273 names Aristobulus (II: son of Herod’s son Aristobulus, d. 8/7 BCE, and brother of Agrippa I, similarly raised in Rome; Kokkinos 1998: 314-16), Helcias/Hilkiah “the Great” (=Alexas III, grandson of Herod’s sister Salome and third husband Alexas, father of both the Helcias who would visit Rome in connection with the wall obstructing Agrippa II’s view of the temple [Ant. 20.189-94], and of the Iulius Archelaus who would be among the friends to receive a copy of Josephus’ War [Apion 1.51-52]; Kokkinos 1998: 197), and the other powerful men of that (Herodian) family, as well as the principal men of Tiberias. That notice lends support to Kokkinos’ point (1998: 196) that members of the Herodian dynasty (much more than the priesthood) still constituted the heart of the native élite in this period, and so fulfilled their role of representing the people’s grievances to the Roman authorities in order to maintain calm. See note at 2.168. The “power of the Romans” (ἡ Ῥωμαίων δύναμις) is a prominent theme in Josephus, the one expression conveniently signifying both their abstract power (sometimes accompanied by their “fortune”: War 2.373, 384; Ant. 12.414; 16.401; 20.70-71; Life 175; cf. War 6.399) and its concrete manifestation in military “forces” (e.g., War 2.357; 7.275; Life 285, 378). The combination of threats and the power to enforce them should be enough to bring ordinary subjects—except those quite willing to die—into line. Conspicuously absent from Petronius’ case (reprised at 2.199) are any claim of justice, law, or morality behind Gaius’ plan and any hint of the legate’s personal investment or requirement. Josephus presents him as a sympathetic, wise, and ironic character, caught in the realities of the power he represents.

This appeal to other subject peoples anticipates the speech of Agrippa II (2.357-401): even formerly mighty states must now find ways of cooperating with Rome, and Judeans need to do the same. This phrase (Καίσαρος εἰκόνας) recalls the Pilate episode at 2.169, 173, another clear effort at binding these episodes together. The noun “images” reoccurs at 2.197. This condensed analysis of Judean exceptionalism, placed in Petronius’ mouth, closely matches that of Apion, speaking for the Alexandrian delegation to Gaius (which started the whole initiative) according to Ant. 18.258: whereas all those subject to Roman rule set up altars and temples to Gaius, and in all respects welcome him as they do their own Gods, the Judeans alone consider it improper to honor him with statues and swear by his name. This interpretation is the precise opposite of that given by Philo (Legat. 114-18), according to which the rest of the world flattered Gaius, some Romans even abandoning their own ancestral dignity and freedom by introducing the foreign practice of prostration (ἡ προσκύνησις), whereas the Judeans alone had the death-defying courage to oppose him. Both Philo and Josephus (see note to “trampled” at 2.170) relish the chance to dwell on what was apparently the most admired of Judean peculiarities: their imageless conception of God. Greek σχεδὸν ἀφισταμένων. By withholding any hint of criticism or alternative response (unless Gaius can be dissuaded), Josephus continues to build a compelling case for the necessity of revolt less than 3 decades later—in popular sentiment, which would (when fanned by demagogues) make the war inevitable. “Insolence” here (ὕβρις) is cognate to the verb rendered “abused” at 2.184 (ἐξυβρίζω), where Gaius was the subject. Thus Josephus constructs a compelling rhetorical balance: he has narrator has accused the emperor of insolence, whereas the Roman governor must necessarily see Judean non-compliance as insolence.

Greek προτείνω, here in a metaphorical sense: “appealing to” as the basis for an argument or claim. Contrast Petronius’ rhetorical posture (2.199): brandishing in a threatening way (ἐπανατείνω) the power of Rome. MSS LVRC have the aorist participle, suggesting that Petronius waited until the Judeans were finished their appeal. The present participle (with MSS PAM), translated here, rather gives the sense that he cut them off with his counter-appeal to the compelling dictates of Caesar. This concern helps to bond the episode with the recent story of Pilate’s images: see the note to “ancestral [customs]” at 2.171. Law and custom (νόμος καὶ ἔθος) form a regular pair in Josephus, along with several other related terms (τὰ πάτρια, τὰ νόμιμα, οἱ πάτριοι νόμοι, etc.): such general categories were familiar to his audiences from their own cultures (cf. Latin mos maiorum) and they are often interchangeable in his narratives, or susceptible of different combinations. See the note to “ancestral laws” at 2.6 and Mason 1991: 96-106. Although the reference is to the 2nd commandment (Exod 20:4-6), the Bible does not spell out the prohibition as Josephus does, and it seems that the prohibition of images was interpreted differently by different groups and at different periods; see note to “trampled” at 2.170. The adjective θέμιτος (“lawful”) and its negative form occur 12 times in War 1-6, but only 3 times in the much longer Antiquities, which more obviously concerns the laws (and 3 times in Life and Apion). In all but 2 of Josephus’ 18 uses, the adjective is negated either with α-privative (most common) or with οὐ or μὴ as here (οὐδέ). Two earlier occurrences of ἀθέμιτος in War have to do with Herod’s unlawful golden eagle (1.650, 659). This rare word (δείκηλον) occurs elsewhere in Josephus only in the recent episode concerning Pilate and the images (2.170; see note there); its repetition helps to bind these two stories together. The main examples before Josephus, outside of fragments: Herodotus 2.171; Lycophron 1179, 1259; Apollonius of Rhodes, Arg. 1.746; 4.1672. Or “useless”; see the note to this word at 2.191—the proximity illustrating Josephus’ habit of using words in clusters, often in quite different contexts. These elaborations of the law against cut images (see note at 2.170) are a fortiori appeals, though in reverse of the standard order. Thus: the law covers images even of humans, and even in the countryside (i.e., it is general and unrestricted): How much more does it prohibit an attempt at divine representation, and in the very temple? Ant. 18.265-68 has Petronius voice these sentiments while still dealing with the Judeans in Ptolemais, before his trip to Tiberias. I.e., Gaius and his imperial forces. This notice provides a reverse example of Agrippa’s claim that the bad governors in Judea were not sent knowingly by Caesar (2.352). This sympathetic Roman official expresses himself much as the centurion of Luke 7:8 (εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν τασσόμενος). Here Josephus effectively uses oratio recta for Petronius, to make vivid the psychology and internal struggle of this individual at this time and place—a distinguished Roman, determined to rule well but faced with demands by an absolute master, hosts an internal moral deliberation (and does not simply command the people to do as he says, unlike Pilate). When he describes the ongoing, collective (and equally moving) commitment of the masses to the laws, Josephus turns to oratio obliqua.

Petronius’ question is programmatic for the entire War. In many ways, obvious and subtle, Josephus returns to the irresistible power of the Romans and their princeps—the basic fact for all statesmen in the Mediterranean basin since the time of Polybius. Making war on Rome would be madness. Agrippa II will ask much the same question as part of his point that it would be unwise to respond to local humiliations with a war on Caesar and Rome itself (2.350-57). Here, however, Gaius Caesar is the culprit, and with passages such as these Josephus relentlessly builds a case for the seeming inevitability of war. In this tension between knowing about Roman invincibility and being forced to fight anyway (e.g., the predicament of Ananus at 4.320) lies the tragedy of the war and of Jerusalem (cf. War 1.7-12).

This notice plants the seed for a major episode later in War 2 (2.409-10): Eleazar son of Ananias will persuade those conducting the temple service to stop accepting sacrifices from foreigners—thus ending, Josephus explains, the traditional daily sacrifice on behalf of Rome and the emperor, and laying a foundation for war. According to Philo (Legat. 157, 317, 357), Augustus expressed his reverence for the imageless God of the Judeans and his respect for the temple—being unable to donate an image in the usual fashion (Smallwood 1961: 311)—by initiating a daily sacrifice of two lambs and a bull at his own expense. Although Apion 2.77 (see Barclay’s note ad loc. in BJP 10) indicates that the Judeans bore the expense, it is easy enough to reconcile the claims, each serving its author’s needs, if for example the costs came from tribute money after 6 CE (Smallwood 1961: 241). Bernett (2007: 194-97) dismisses the notion that Augustus sponsored this offering (further below).Josephus’ description of the sacrifice as for Caesar and the Roman people, matched by the later reference to it (2.409 see note there), recalls the cult of “Rome and Augustus” that was well established in gentile cities, including Herod’s foundations at Sebaste and the Caesareas Maritima and Philippi (at Panias).Bernett (2007) offers a comprehensive challenge to the scholarly consensus with her argument: that soon after Actium, Herod, like his neighbors (esp. in Asia Minor), understood the necessity of offering cult to Augustus and the imperial family (hence the large temples at Sebaste, Panias, and Caesarea); that he was uniquely able to balance such facilities for imperial cult with attention to Judean traditions (e.g., in rebuilding the temple); that with his death in 4 BCE the failure of cult from Judea became increasingly conspicuous and a matter of concern to Augustus, who had never exempted the Judeans from the expectation of imperial cult and had never supported the Jerusalem sacrifice as a substitute, much less contributed to it (194-97); that Caligula was only the clearest exponent of a general demand from the ruling side (293-94); and that the unsatisfied expectation of imperial cult was (on both Roman and Judean sides) a major factor in the tensions that led to war. The problems with this ambitious reconstruction include: (a) its need to reject the plain and detailed statements of contemporaries, Philo and Josephus, on the acceptability of the Jerusalem sacrifice; (b) the absence of evidence in Judean or early Christian literature that imperial cult was a significant cause of rebellion in Judea; and (c) the considerable literature on imperial cult, which tends to highlight its diversity and ambiguities (Habicht 1970; Price 1980, 2004a, b; Gradel 2002), in keeping with the general emphasis on the diverse “periphery” of the empire and the need for statesmanship and consensus on both sides (Millar 1977; Lendon 1997; Ando 2000; Meyer-Zwiffelhoffer 2002), which the arrangement described by Philo and Josephus appears to fit. The verb προθύω (only here and at 1.371 in Josephus), coming soon after θύω in the same sentence, indicates a word play. Gaius intended that his statue, as of a God, would become the object of sacrifice. The Judeans declare, in effect: If he wants a sacrifice before his statue, he will need to sacrifice the entire nation first (and this is an outrageous demand, since we already sacrifice to God for his and the Romans’ welfare). The image of Judeans as sacrifical victims (rather than as sacrificers of animal victims to Gaius) recalls 2.10-4, 30 and parallels Luke 13:1 (re: Pilate), on the confusion of human with animal victims. An additional irony is that coins and other images related to the imperial cult most often present the emperor and his family as chief sacrificers (on behalf of the world) to the Gods, rather than simply as objects of sacrifice as Gods without further ado (cf. Price 1980, 1984a); Caligula should have been satisfied with sacrifices for his well being—as Trajan would be (Pliny, Ep. 10.100). As at 2.30 (see “savagely butchered” and note there), Josephus artfully connects the language of animal sacrifice with that of human slaughter (σφαγή), also construed as sacrifice, since the victims would die for holy purposes.Whereas Josephus presents the Judeans as passive and ready to be killed if necessary (as also in the Pilate episodes above), Tacitus’ brief note (Hist. 5.9) claims that Gaius’ provocation elicited armed opposition. Smallwood (1961: 275) argues that, although Josephus—who agrees with Philo in this respect—might have had reasons to play down Judean militancy, it is easier to imagine that Tacitus has erroneously assumed armed resistance, in light of the later war. Since, however, Josephus does not exclude resistance (but plausibly predicts slaughter if it comes to a stand-off), and since armed opposition to Gaius’ madness could hardly have been objectionable at Josephus’ time of writing, and given the literary artistry on all sides, it seems impossible to gain any purchase on what actually happened. See note to “women and children” at 2.192. Whereas Josephus gives this declaration to the Judeans gathered in Tiberias, Philo has those who crowd “Phoenicia” elaborate on the same point: at Legat. 234-36 they offer to kill themselves along with women and children, rather than suffer the planned sacrilege.

Or “astonishment/surprise and pity” (θαῦμα καὶ οἴκτος). Ps-Hermogenes (3rd cent. CE?), in his work on the Forceful Method (Dein. 36.8-22), claims that whereas the essence of comedy is the interweaving of the laughable with the pointed or barbed, tragedy interweaves pity/compassion and amazement (οἴκτος καὶ θαῦμα). This is clear not only from tragedies, he says, but also from Homer’s epics (Plato having made Homer the father of tragedy), which abound in pity and amazement. This pair is a variation on Aristotle’s more famous prescription of pity and fear (cf. Ant. 1.176) as the heart of tragedy, though his word for pity/compassion is ἔλεος (Poet. 1449b, 1452b, 1453a-b, 1456b). “Compassion” and “pity” are Leitmotifs of War (see 1.12 and note), which is in many respects a “tragic history” (see Introduction). This expression (οἶκτος εἰσῄει τὸν X) occurs several times in War (1.58; 6.182; 7.338) and is paralleled at 2.400 with εἰσέρχομαι. Or “cult, ritual, worship.” Like the purity of δεισιδαιμονία that overcame Pilate at 2.174 (in connection with the same issue of images), the unconquerable—or stubborn (ἀνυπέρβλητος)—θρησκεία that astonishes Petronius here can be understood as either virtuous or contemptible: either cultus/ritual/worship or vain superstitious practice. Josephus leaves Petronius’ assessment artfully ambiguous, especially through the evocation of both amazement and pity (2.198). Josephus’ underscoring of the males’ (τῶν ἀνδρῶν) concern for the deity fits with his overall emphasis on the manly virtue of the Judeans, recently stressed in describing the all-male Essenes (2.119-59). Perhaps the males are also singled out because their willingness to sacrifice also their own wives and children is part of the reason for Petronius’ “pity.” Judean contempt for death is a prominent theme in War: see Introduction and notes at 2.151. Josephus’ language here (ἑτοίμου παραστήματος) has a studied ambiguity, reflecting the legate’s viewpoint. The noun is a Hellenistic construction, first attested in Diodorus’ admiring portrait of the daring Thebans confronting Alexander’s Macedonians (17.11.4; cf. 17.21.6): there it is paired with “soul” (ψυχῆς) to suggest a reaching beyond oneself to exceed the normal limits of courage, or self-transcendence. This noun is a key word in War 1-6, where Josephus uses it a remarkable 16 times, about half the time with “soul” as in Diodorus (War 1.59, 74; 2.198, 476, 580, 588; 3.175; 4.34, 193; 5.63, 90, 324; 6.13, 52, 62, 81). It does not appear in his later works, and before his time it occurs rarely in literature (Diodorus as above; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 8.39.2; Demosth. 22; Philo, Mos. 2.172, 197, 273; Spec. 1.57). Even after Josephus, no known author will favor the word as War does. Especially without the “soul” complement, as here, the noun has an incomplete sense: it is neither pejorative nor laudatory, but more descriptive of an amazing transcendence. As this high Roman official observes the remarkable determination of the natives, he may (in the story) feel both admiration and annoyance. This adjective (ἄπρακτοι) sustains the ambiguity: it could mean that the Judeans left “intractable, unyielding.” Yet parallel occurrences of similar phrases in Josephus (Ant. 15.349; 16.293; 20.129), esp. at 2.233 below, suggest the sense given here. The larger construction (with διαλύω) may derive from Thucydides (1.24.7; 2.59.2; 4.99.1). Or “disbanded, adjourned” (διελύθησαν); cf. 2.238.

Josephus repeats here the distinction made at 2.193 between the mob (τὸ πλῆθος) and the notable, eminent, powerful men (there οἱ γνώριμοι; here οἱ δυνατοί). See the note to “notables” there, and compare the differentiated appeals of the chief priests at 3.222. Every ancient society had such an élite class. Shaw (1993, 1995) argues that Josephus was caught between two constructions of power: the old Mediterranean kind based on powerful autonomous men and the institutionalized Roman sort, in which the older kind had been to some extent formalized in civic offices and social structures. The irony, well known to Josephus and his contemporaries (cf. Plutarch’s Advice to the Statesman), was that the “powerful men” of an eastern city such as Jerusalem were in fact severely constrained by representatives of the Roman regime such as Petronius. Alternating between persuasion and (the threat of) force is a rhetorical commonplace, also characteristic of Josephus’ narratives: see the note to “force” at 2.8. The double-prefixed verb that Josephus uses here (middle of ἐπανατείνω), which suggests a vivid holding of something up and over someone else, or brandishing it aggressively, contrasts markedly with the προτείνω (put forward, in argument) that he uses of the Judeans at 2.195. The care with which he chooses his words is indicated by the fact that this form appears only 3 times in Josephus (also 3.360; Ant. 2.272), and rarely before his time outside of Philo, where it appears a remarkable 23 times (cf. also Xenophon, Cyr. 2.1.23; Polybius 2.44.3; 15.29.14; Diodorus 32.6.4; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 6.48.3; Comp. verb. 5.55). This phrase (ἡ Ῥωμαίων ἰσχύς) is characteristic of War (1.135 [programmatically]; 2.371, 387, 577; 3.31; 5.343, 364; 6.159; 7.203). Before Josephus it is found, though not formulaically, in Dionysius (Ant. rom. 2.36.3; 3.23.11; 8.9.3); for usage similar to Josephus’ see Appian, Illyr. 38; Bell. civ. 2.21.150. Or simply “tempers.” This compelling pair—the emperor’s designs and the unstoppable might of his forces—reprises the opening summary of Petronius’ case at 2.193: the power of Rome and the threats of Caesar. Petronius’ ἀνάγκη (“necessity, compulsion”) puts him in the same category as other statesmen (such as Josephus, 2.562, and Ananus, 4.320)—all of them attached to moral duty. The language highlights the legate’s complete detachment from any personal preferences. The “necessity” word group is important for Josephus: he uses it about 370 times, in many contexts and with various nuances. In addition to the various pedestrian uses, he employs this word group in relation to the law of Moses and its demands, the dictates of piety, and the constraints upon a historian (2.73; Life 161, 291). Most striking are those cases where he plays off necessity against choice: one does something from necessity and not from choice; or some rebel leaders, where they encounter compatriots who do not choose to follow them, use compulsion instead (War 2.562 [cf. 2.324—ironic reversal]). This motif of rebel methods in turn feeds into the larger problem in the War of the meaning of “freedom” and “slavery,” and the recurring paradox that those who rebel against Rome on the pretext of freedom are in fact the first to compel their own people, tyrant-like, to behave in ways they do not choose (4.236-344; cf. Life 42).Polybius had reflected much on the theme of the political necessity facing Greek statesmen in the face of Roman power (Eckstein 1995: 194-236): they were compelled to find a modus vivendi with the superpower. Josephus can sound the same theme as a principle of statecraft under Roman hegemony (1.3, 322; 2.1, and the speech of Agrippa II [2.345-404], without featuring this word), but writing after the obvious fact of the war he can also turn the moral-political code on its head by insisting that intolerable local Roman government (War 2.352) and resulting popular sentiment compelled the Judeans to fight (Life 27). At War 4.320, the murdered high priest Ananus is said to have known that Rome could not be fought and yet he prosecuted the war out of necessity (ὑπ’ ἀνάγκης).

Contrast Philo, Legat. 248-49: the crops were ripe and ready for harvest, and Petronius feared that the Judeans would destroy them if pushed; see next note. According to Ant. 18.273-74, it was the Herodian notables in Tiberias who pointed out that if Petronius continued with Gaius’ plan, the land would remain unsown. Josephus’ two narratives are consistent in dating Petronius’ arrival in Ptolemais to the autumn (of 39): getting the statue erected was an essential part of his brief in assuming the legateship in that year (2.184-85; Ant. 18.261); the legions are to winter in Ptolemais before the execution of this order in Jerusalem (Ant. 18.269); heavy rains break out at the end of negotiations (Ant. 18.285-86); winter storms will delay Gaius’ return letter to Petronius (2.203 below); and it is now the time for sowing seed (cf. Ant. 18.274-74). Smallwood (1981: 177 n. 115) argues, however, that Josephus must be mistaken: since Philo was not only a contemporary, but was in Rome in the year 40 when he heard of this crisis, we must prefer his claim (Legat. 249, 257) that Petronius’ meeting with Judeans in Ptolemais occurred at grain-harvest time—i.e., late spring (of 40), which Josephus might have confused with a spring sowing time; since Gaius died in January 41, the winter storms that affected his letter would have been in winter 40/41. (On the agricultural issues, see Sperber 1978; Safrai 1994: 104-84; Pastor 1997.)The dilemma, then, is whether to reject the detailed and incidentally consistent report of Josephus or the contemporary and even more detailed account of Philo. As a function of his source-critical treatment of Agrippa I’s career, D. R. Schwartz (1990: 77-89) proposes a solution that gives full weight to both accounts: Petronius brings his army to Ptolemais for the winter of 39/40; the Judeans demonstrate massively in the spring of 40 and Petronius writes a first, diplomatic letter to Gaius planning delay, and citing concern for the spring harvest (ca. May, 40); Gaius replies moderately (ca. August); Petronius heads to Tiberias, where he encounters the month-and-a-half strike mentioned here (threatening the autumn sowing) and writes more forthrightly to Gaius (ca. October/November, 40); Gaius receives this and replies angrily in December/January, but dies soon afterwards. Agrippa’s intervention fell in the final few months (September to December, 40). The solution is elegant and plausible, even without the specific source-critical proposals offered by Schwartz (e.g., that Josephus depends on Philo’s Legatio and its lost continuation, abbreviating Philo and correcting from a lost Life of Agrippa). See also Pastor 1997: 150-51 and notes. The parallel at Ant. 18.272 specifies (a biblical) 40 days of supplication. It is a curious index of his desire to change his stories in the retelling that Antiquities/Life normally changes numbers given in War for the same episodes. Although MS-transmission problems may account for some of the discrepancies, they are so widespread that this is an unlikely explanation for most.

This is the only occurrence of the adjective παρακινδυνευτέον in Josephus, and before his time it seems to appear in literature only in Dionysius, Ant. rom. 9.57.5. Possibly its gerundive force is meant to evoke the Roman Petronius’ way of speaking in Latin. An ironic observation: Petronius cleanly distinguishes “the God” from “the Caesar,” but the latter (the legate’s current master) has insisted on his own divinity—the claim that initiated this episode (2.184). Petronius thus allies himself with the subject people against his own ruler. Josephus continues his use of ambiguous language in portraying Petronius. Although the distinguished legate can hardly be made into a Judean partisan, his reference to “the God” (or simply “God”) leaves the referent open: a particular deity in his pantheon, the category of the deity in general, and/or the Judean God. A similar ambiguity will attend Titus’ climactic observations at 6.411: “It was indeed together with (a) God that we made war (σὺν θεῷ γε ἐπολεμήσαμεν), and it was (a) God who brought the Judeans down from even these defenses.” On the verb, see the note at 2.8. If we judge from the parallel genitive absolutes here, it would seem that it is God who will either collaborate with the legate or become annoyed with him, in either case dictating his fate. It is possible, however, that Josephus intends Gaius in the second clause. This is a remarkable statement from a Roman legatus, whose main responsibility was to execute the wishes of the princeps and administer the province as its master wished. He would be dying not so much for the Judean laws (a rather novelistic prospect) as to spare the many lives that would be pointlessly lost, on both sides of a conflict. Although unparalleled, it seems, this would not seem to be an entirely implausible motive for a distinguished senator facing the insane and dangerous policy of a young princeps. This is the only occurrence of κατεύχομαι in War (otherwise, 4 occurrences in the biblical paraphrase of Ant. 1-11). See the note at 2.18. Petronius thus unilaterally concludes the mission he began at 2.186, leading his legions on the long march back up the coastal highway. This heightens the suspense dramatically, since this obviously meant that the legate no longer had any intention of fulfilling Gaius’ order, no matter what the outcome of his further correspondence.

The metaphorical language of observing, preserving, or cherishing the law(s) (τοὺς νόμους [δια]φυλάττειν) is Platonic (Pol. 292a; Leg. 626b, 769e, 951b) and also common among the Athenian orators (Isocrates, Nic. 56; Pac. 102; Antid. 293; Demosthenes, Mid. 177; Aristog. 1.45; cf. Xeonophon, Hell. 1.7.29). Closer to Josephus’ time, Dionysius uses the phrase in charged ways (Ant. rom. 1.34.4; 2.73.2; 4.36.2; 10.55.4), as does Philo a couple of times (Mos. 2.19; Quaest. Exod. 2.19). Such language is characteristic of Josephus’ lexicon, as we see especially in the final quarter of the Apion: Ant. 7.338, 384; 11.156; Apion 1.60; 2.184, 227, 272.

MSS PA omit the negative, though it seems necessary, and the others have it. That leaves of the problem of explaining MSS PA, however. It is conceivable that Josephus wrote without the negative, sarcastically (or even intending to describe a restraint of style), in which case PA are correct and the majority reading would be easy to understand as an effort at “correction.” Ant. 18.304 purports to quote from the letter, ordering Petronius to become his own judge and assess what penalty he should pay (presumably suicide) for having drawn Caesar’s wrath on himself. Philo (Legat. 248-337) offers a much more elaborate account, describing Petronius’ crafty letter, Gaius’ outraged initial response and more cautious actual reply, Agrippa’s coincidental intervention with his own letter to Gaius, Gaius’ temporary relaxation of the order, and his final decision to go ahead with a new statue—leaving the outcome unspecified at the close of that work. This notice fits with Josephus’ consistent setting of the story in the autumn, beginning at the time of sowing (2.200), and with the claim in Ant. 18.269 that Petronius wintered his legions in Ptolemais. But Philo claims that this episode occurred in the spring; see notes to “unsown” and “sowing” at 2.200. Ant. 18.305-9 expatiates on Petronius’ reaction to this providential coincidence (συντυχία) and the swiftness of divine retribution against Gaius.

The following brief story of Claudius’ accession (2.204-14) has a much more elaborate counterpart in Ant. 19.114-273, which reports in detail the debates of the Senate, the crucial and clever maneuvers of Agrippa, and the deaths of the anti-Claudian leaders (Chaerea and Lupus). Given the different emphases, with the Antiquities account giving much more space to Agrippa I’s activities, scholars have often discussed Josephus’ sources in each case. Whereas Scramuzza (1940: 58) supposed that the present passage came from a Jewish-Judean source, Sordi (1993: 215-16) proposes the 8-volume autobiography of Claudius mentioned by Suetonius (Claud. 41); cf. Galimberti 2001: 196. Levick (2001: 192-93) considers the accounts “illuminatingly divergent,” holding that War’s reflects Flavian efforts to rehabilitate Claudius, whereas the Antiquities parallel was written under Agrippa II’s guidance (flattering his father).There are problems, however, with all such proposals. First, Antiquities 13-20/Life is simply much fuller than War 1-2: the extra material had to come from somewhere, is almost always different from (and often contradictory of) War, and cannot reasonably be explained in general by different sources or political allegiances. Second, both Claudius and Agrippa appear in very positive colors in both passages, and Agrippa’s role, though necessarily smaller in War, is still crucial (as the story folds into his career). Finally, Josephus’ support of Agrippa II is already clear as he writes War (e.g., 2.344-407; cf. Life 362-67). It seems difficult, perhaps impossible, to find secure grounds for anything more than speculation about Josephus’ sources here. For historical reconstruction of the events that also isolates outstanding problems, see Levick 2001: 29-39. Ant. 19.201 puts it “having exercised imperium for 4 years, except for 4 months.” Suetonius (Cal. 59.1) gives 3 years, 10 months, and 8 days, evidently counting from Tiberius’ death (March 16, 37 CE) to Gaius’ assassination on January 24, 41; Cassius Dio makes it 10 days shorter (59.30.1). As we have seen (notes to “son of Iulia” at 2.168, to “Caesar” at 2.181), accession in the early principate—since there was no definitive point at which the ruler was “crowned” emperor or the like, but his power emerged from the granting of several extraordinary powers—could be counted from different points. Kienast (1996) gives Gaius’ accession date as March 18, when the Senate proclaimed him Augustus, whereas Barrett (1989: 71-72) adduces evidence that April 21 (date of the lex imperii from the popular comitia) was the crucial date. That would split the difference between Suetonius and Josephus. In War Josephus reserves the compound noun δολοφονέω (“murder” + “bait, trick, cunning, deceit”) for Roman political murders, which typically result from conspiracy: Sextus Caesar at 1.216, Galba at 4.494. His casual reference here assumes his Roman audience’s familiarity with the death of this infamous princeps; contrast the extraordinary detail of Ant. 19.14-113 (or to 19.211, to include the murder of Gaius’ family and Josephus’ obituary), where he will use the story to illustrate that work’s constitutional and moral themes (Ant. 19.15-16). For analysis, see Wiseman 1991; Galimberti 2001: 183-93; D. R. Schwartz in BJP 8 (in preparation). Gaius was murdered by a group led by Cassius Chaerea, a tribune of the Praetorian Guard, who apparently had personal grievances against the princeps (Barrett 1989: 161); Suetonius, Cal. 58. Ant. 19.216-20: a soldier named Gratus found Claudius in hiding, identified him as “a Germanicus” (the family title inherited from Nero Drusus, and made beloved by the heroic general, Gaius’ father and Claudius’ brother, who had died in 19 CE), and took him with the other soldiers to make him princeps; similarly Suetonius, Claud. 10. The units (στρατεύματα) in question were the only substantial, highly trained forces permitted in the city of Rome: the cohorts of the Praetorian Guard. (Other units in Rome were the German bodyguard of the princeps, 3 urban cohorts, who mainly kept order in the city [below], and the 7,000 vigiles, who combined firefighting and policing duties). At Ant. 19.214 Josephus calls the Guard (τὸ στρατηγικόν) the purest or cleanest element (καθαρώτατον) of the army, perhaps referring to their superior skill, possibly indicating a relative immunity to purchase of their loyalty. The Guard was an élite force with higher pay, better chances of promotion, and a shorter and lighter term of service than legionaries. In 27 BCE Augustus had established this force, comprising 9 cohorts of 500 men each, as a bodyguard under his direct control: 3 cohorts were stationed around the city, 6 in the surrounding countryside (Suetonius, Aug. 1.49). In 2 BCE he gave control of the Guard to two equestrian praefecti praetorio. Under Tiberius, the notorious L. Aelius Seianus became sole Prefect and moved the entire force to a single barracks outside the Viminal Gate (cf. Suetonius, Tib. 37).The power that Seianus acquired proved the importance of this force for all future rulers. Shortly before the story time here, Gaius had increased the strength of the Guard to 12 cohorts (6,000 men). Because of their support for Otho in 69 CE, Vitellius would replace the force with his own Guard, now comprising 16 cohorts of 1,000 men each, but one of Vespasian’s “Augustan” reforms was to return them to their original strength of 4,500 men in 9 cohorts. Domitian would add a 10th. The prestige of the Guard was such that Titus chose as his first wife the daughter of a Prefect (Suetonius, Tit. 4), and he himself would take the prefecture while virtual co-regent with Vespasian (Tit. 6). On the development of the Guard, see Watson 1969: 16-18; Webster 1985: 96-98.Claudius’ special relationship with the Praetorian Guard, which was based in part on his being brother of the revered Germanicus (Ant. 19.217), is reflected in his issue of gold coins (Levick 2001: plates 4, 7). He reportedly gave both the Guard and the legions a huge donative (Josephus says 5,000 denarii [Ant. 19.247]; Suetonius has 15,000 HS [= 3,750 denarii; Claud. 10]), in return for their oath of personal allegiance. On imperial donatives to secure military support, see note to “profits” at War 1.5. All the MSS except P add here εἰς τὴν ἀρχήν (“for the rule”). Without that clarification the audience might suppose that the soldiers in question were hostile to Claudius and intended harm, like those who will be enlisted against him in the next sentence. But the sequel (2.207) shows that these soldiers seized Claudius against his will in order to install him as princeps. The very helpfulness of the added phrase, along with its absence from one of the best MSS for War, makes it suspect. It is more difficult to imagine that Josephus wrote it and the copyist of P had some reason for omitting it than it is to imagine that Josephus (followed by P) did not include it, but the other MSS supplied it. Josephus’ intention in omitting any such explanation at this point may be suggested by the parallel (Ant. 19.218-19), according to which Claudius himself thought he was being seized for violent purposes. Especially if Josephus was compressing such a longer story when he wrote the concise version here, it is reasonable that he would have first tried to build suspense by not explaining why Claudius was “seized” by the soldiers. Certainty is not possible, however: the copyist of P might have carelessly read or misunderstood the story and so removed the phrase.

Although the adjective σύγκλητος means [something] “called together,” Josephus expects his audience to know this feminine substantive (ἡ σύγκλητος) as the standard equivalent of Latin senatus (i.e., roughly capturing patres conscripti—a traditional description of the Senate’s membership), and he reserves the word for this purpose (using it some 61 times)—even providing the derivative συγκλητικός for one of senatorial rank (Ant. 14.210; 19.3, 32, etc.). In War, 5 of the word’s 12 appearances appear in this story of Claudius’ accession. Gnaeus Sentius Saturninus (Ant. 19.166) was a distinguished senator from a consular family with marked republican leanings. His grandfather had been consul in 19 BCE. The year 4 CE had seen a C. Sentius Saturninus as ordinary consul and then Cn. Sentius Saturninus, probably this man’s father (PIR s.v.), suffect consul from July 1 (Klein 1881: 16). The Sentius in question here began his term as ordinary consul with the princeps Gaius in 41, continuing on throughout that year (as far as we know) following the princeps’ death. He would meet his end among Nero’s republican victims, with Thrasea Paetus and Barea Soranus (Tacitus, Hist. 4.7). Like Sentius, Quintus Pomponius Secundus came from a distinguished senatorial family, in which his brother was the more famous one. In 41 CE the present Pomponius took over as consul at Gaius’ death (Jan. 24); 3 years later (44 CE) his brother Publius Pomponius Secundus would serve as suffect consul. Cassius Dio (59.6.2) claims that under Tiberius, this present Quintus Pomponius had spent 7 years (“after his consulship”) under arrest, subjected to mistreatment; Dio offers it as an example of the early Gaius’ virtue and rejection of Tiberius’ methods that he released Pomponius (though Gaius would soon turn against the Senate). On the basis of Tacitus, Ann. 5.8.1, however, Syme (1970: 30) cites the story in Dio as an example of that author’s blunders, arguing that it actually concerns the brother, P. Pomponius Secundus. Q. Pomponius’ brother was accused of friendship with the son of Seianus, and after the latter’s fall spent 7 years in prison. Tacitus calls the brother “a man of great refinement of character and shining talents” (e.g., he was a tragic poet), and Pliny the Younger thought highly enough of him to write his biography (Ep. 3.5). So: an illustrious senatorial family.Q. Pomponius Secundus was the step-brother of Gaius’ wife Caesonia (Syme 1979: 805-14), and a fierce opponent of the monarchy after Gaius’ death. Opposing Claudius’ installation, as this narrative and the Antiquities counterpart show, he would meet his end as a conspirator against Claudius in the revolt led by Arruntius Scribonianus in 42 CE (Tacitus, Ann. 13.43; cf. Wiseman 1991: 72). Josephus writes as if both Sentius and Pomponius were very familiar to his Roman audience, which is entirely likely. Although Josephus’ vague language might lead one to think that these are Praetorian cohorts, who will soon defect from the senators and rejoin the main body in the barracks (2.211 below), Suetonius (Claud. 10.3) clarifies that it was the cohortes urbanae—a sort of police force created by Augustus late in his reign (Tacitus, Ann. 4.5; cf. Webster 1985: 98-99)—that initially stood with the Senate. Since the urban cohorts were 3 in number (X, XI, XII), that would make sense of the story here (though Ant. 19.188 has 4—the number under Claudius, who added a coh. XIII).In the parallel (Ant. 19.221-33), the division is more clearly between the Guard as a whole, who wish to appoint Claudius as their man (19.225), and the senators, who want to assert their power to arrange the government (19.226-33). The populace (19.228-29) tends to side with the Praetorians, but for their own reasons: Claudius would provide a check on senatorial abuses and ambition, which might otherwise lead to another civil war. That narrative incidentally mentions a military force on the side of the consuls, the strength of which constantly shifts according to the speaker: considerable, according to the Senate’s opening gambit (19.232); negligible, according to the senatorial envoys who visit the Guard (234); virtually non-existent, according to Agrippa, who sees any conflict as one between the Guard’s élite professionals and a motley crew of slaves along with the Senate (241-43). All of this makes the best sense if the soldiers temporarily with the Senate were the urban cohorts; Wiseman (1991: 80) insists there is “no likelihood” that any of the Guard supported the Senate. Roman authors and audiences understood Capitolium with various levels of specificity, and the Latin in Capitolino (matching Josephus’ εἰς τὸ Καπετώλιον) was similarly ambiguous. The name could refer to the entire hill at the NW end of the forum, which comprised two summits linked by a depression, or only the walled SW summit, devoted to sacred buildings, or only the most famous of these buildings: the Temple of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus (“Jupiter Best and Greatest”) Capitolinus. As Josephus notes (Ant. 19.4), this last was the most important temple in Roman civic life. It sat on a podium 3.6 m (12 ft) high, and about 62 x 53 m (203 x 174 ft) in area. Although fires and lightning strikes often required rebuilding or repairs (ongoing in Josephus’ time following the fire of 69 CE), the shrine was central to Roman identity. It was reached by a road (Clivus Capitolinus) leading uphill from the Via Sacra in the Forum Romanum. Cf. Haselberger 2002: 78-79, 89-90, 155.The Senate ordinarily convened in the consecrated Curia Iulia alongside the forum, but they sometimes met in other sacred buildings, and the Capitoline Temple of Jupiter was used for sessions of special import. In republican times, victorious generals had traditionally offered thanksgiving sacrifices there. Suetonius (Cal. 60) and Cassius Dio (60.1.1) agree with Josephus in locating this meeting of the Senate after Gaius’ death on the Capitoline, the former attributing it to the senators’ wish to avoid the building named for the Julio-Claudian dynasty (Iulia) because of their republican values. Like Josephus here, Suetonius and Dio (apud Xiphilinus) collapse what were evidently two crucial meetings of the Senate, late on Jan. 24 and early on Jan. 25 (Ant. 19.158-233, 248-52). Wiseman notes that the Temple of Jupiter was well suited to defense, the consuls having already transferred the treasury there for that reason (Dio 59.13.3). Ant. 19.248 calls the temple that of “Jupiter Bringer of Victory” (νικηφόρος), but Wiseman (1991: 96) shows that this was consonant with the Capitoline temple’s traditional role for republican generals (above) and need not indicate a separate temple—of Jupiter Victor. Greek Κλαυδίῳ πολεμεῖν ἐψηφίζετο. This is serious, heavily charged language in a Roman context: making war (normally an activity against foreigners) against fellow-citizens. It would involve placing Claudius in the same category of public enemy (hostis)—denying him citizen rights and legal protections—once occupied by Catiline (Sallust, Cat. 7, 9, 31, 44, 48, 51-52, 60; Cicero, Cat. 2.8.17; 3.12.27-28) and Marc Antony (Livy 119.4; Cicero, Fam. 12.10.1); cf. Levick 2001: 35. Although this verb is in the future tense (καταστήσεσθαι), the parallel verb below (κρίνειν) is accented as a present infinitive in all MSS. Niese mentions Cocceius’ proposal to change the second to a future as well (κρινεῖν), which has generally been followed by more recent editors. A telling choice of language: it seems that with Gaius’ sudden death, some senators immediately broached the possibility of a return to the Republic and rejecting of any supreme ruler (Suetonius, Claud. 10; Josephus, Ant. 19.174-81, 188-89: τὸ ἀβασίλευτον, οὐκέτι ἐπὶ τῷ ἐφεστηκότι, 261-62)—a radical understanding of senatorial libertas, returning to a time when consuls had been masters of the military (Ant. 19.187). But most senators quickly realized that they could not overcome the Praetorian and popular support for Claudius, and so interpreted their libertas to mean that they would choose a worthy princeps (Ant. 19.249-51). Eventually, they settled for “choosing” the Guard’s choice: Claudius.Yet even the originally pondered return to a Republic would not have meant an “aristocracy” as such, for notwithstanding the Senate’s great influence in directing affairs, the republican constitution had been mixed (Polybius 6.11; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 2.7.2, 9.1; 7.50.2, 56.3): popular voting assemblies passed the laws (leges), and there were vestiges of royalty in the powers enjoyed by the two consuls. Republican government could be viewed as a de facto aristocracy, since the consuls were also part of the Senate and the Senate, the magistracies and priesthoods held by senators were crucial to the operation of the state, and senatorial counsel had massive influence on policy. Yet Josephus’ language about aristocracy here seems chosen in part to link Roman and Judean history, for according to his narrative, aristocracy in the simpler form of government, by a hereditary priestly élite, is indeed the best and traditional form of Judean government (cf. War 1.170; 2.22, 80, 91 and notes; also Ant. 6.36; 11.111; Mason 2008b). The Senate’s desire for a return to the old ways of collegial governance, before a “tyrant” dominated them, is the burden of Sentius’ extraordinary speech in Ant. 19.169-84. This crisp summary of opinions, developed over time in the Ant. 19 parallel, suggests that Josephus is abbreviating a much fuller source here, perhaps like that used for the later work.The senators’ choice would naturally be one of their own men, rather than a figure imposed from outside. Ant. 19.251-52 names the contenders as Marcus Vinicius (cos. 30 CE) and Valerius Asiaticus, though they were reportedly cowed by the Praetorian support for Claudius. This program—either aristocratic governance or senatorial choice of the most worthy princeps—is formally parallel to the wishes of the Judean aristocracy as reported at 2.22 (see notes there): either self-rule under their own aristocratic élite or a monarch of their collective choosing. According to Ant. 19.235 the Senate’s dignity may still be respected in a small compromise: Claudius, who will rule in any case by virtue of his military and popular support, will accept supreme power (ἀρχή) as something granted by the Senate (παρὰ τῆς βουλῆς δέχεσθαι διδομένην). But this only returns to the status quo established by Augustus and Tiberius.

See the note at 2.205. The verb ἐπιδημέω can mean either “be at home (as opposed to living abroad)” or “stay, reside in (a given place) as a foreigner.” Given that Rome was not Agrippa’s permanent home, and that in the only other 2 occurrences of the verb in War (1.532; 3.313) the subjects are visitors, I render it thus.Agrippa has been introduced in this volume at 2.178. Like many members of his family, having been raised in Rome he continues to spend substantial periods of time there. According to 2.181-83 he last visited in 39/40 to challenge his uncle Antipas’ claim to royal status; upon the latter’s exile, he received the territories of Galilee and Perea into his growing kingdom. But Ant. 18.289-301 gives him an important role in temporarily dissuading Gaius from the statue affair, in the autumn of 40 CE, and he seems to have returned to Judea, to take his new kingdom, in the autumn of 41; cf. D. R. Schwartz 1990: 77-89; Kokkinos 1998: 287-90. The account in Ant. 19.229-44 portrays Agrippa’s role quite differently. There, the Senate first dispatches the tribunes of the plebs, [Q.] Veranius and a certain Brocchus, to persuade Claudius to yield power to the Senate. When he is on the brink of doing so, Agrippa pushes his way in to see him and begins working on him to seize the opportunity for supreme power (19.238). Agrippa then begins a cunning double game, pretending to stand with the Senate and represent their position to Claudius (so that he can learn their strength and resolve) while plotting with Claudius a successful strategy for power. The Praetorian barracks (castra praetoria) just outside the porta Viminalis (see note to “units” at 2.204), parts of which survive; cf. E. L. Caronna in LTUR 1.251-54; Coulston 2000. The plural apparently includes the soldiers and Claudius. But in the parallel (see note to “Claudius”) it is Agrippa who directs affairs. Although most MSS have κἀκεῖνος (emphatic “And that one”), two of the better ones (PA) do not; the Latin explicitly adds his name (videns Agrippa). The simplest explanation, it seems, is that Josephus did not include the demonstrative pronoun, leaving the subject of the verb ἄπεισιν (“he goes off”) grammatically vague. The Latin translator added Agrippa’s name, whereas Greek copyists inserted the demonstrative pronoun. This construction seems to assume that “Caesar” was a title of office, as it had clearly become in Josephus’ time under the Flavians; see note to “Caesar” at 2.181. At Claudius’ accession the matter was complicated. There were no naturally descended or adopted male Iulii Caesares, but Claudius had a familial connection to the famous name by virtue of being uncle to the previous princeps, Gaius. Levick (2001: 42) argues that Claudius arranged to have the name formally voted to him—a step on the road to its later use as a title. This narrative consistently presents Agrippa as dutifully adapting himself to the one in power (as his great-grandfather Herod had done with brilliant success: 1. 127-31, 179, 183, 218-20, 242, 386, 400), whereas in the Antiquities parallel (see note to “Claudius” in this section) Agrippa inspires and leads Claudius to power.

“Up” onto the Capitoline hill, where the Senate is meeting at the Temple of Jupiter (see 2.206 and note to “Capitolium”). See the note at 2.205. By contrast, Ant. 19.238-44 has Agrippa visit Claudius to encourage him to seize power. He then goes home, from where the Senate summons him to hear his views. After pointing out that Claudius’ Praetorian supporters would preclude any effort by the Senate to displace Claudius by force, he duplicitously proposes that he go to persuade Claudius to lay aside voluntarily any claim to power (19.244). As Levick (2001: 34-39) shows, there are good reasons to doubt Claudius’ utter lack of complicity in his elevation. Ever since plots against Gaius had been mooted, some of which were motivated by anti-imperial republican sentiments, Claudius as uncle of Gaius and brother of Germanicus, so a plausible candidate for power (cf. Tacitus, Ann. 6.46: Tiberius had thought of Claudius as successor), had reason to worry for his safety. He could either remain aloof from the pending assassination and live in perpetual fear, or join the plot with the Praetorians and try to secure his future through them. Levick notes that Claudius is said by Josephus (Ant. 19.102) to have been one of the 3 figures who left the theater where Gaius was to be murdered before the deed (the other two being the senators’ choices for princeps), which might suggest his advance knowledge—if one discounts Josephus’ explanation that this resulted from the efforts of the conspirators to remove Gaius’ relatives, so that they would not interfere. A similar rhetorical flourish (“neither safe nor right”) was used by Dinarchus, Philoc. 14; cf. [Dionysius], Ars rhet. 8.7; Plutarch, Them. 3.3. See the note to this word at 2.373. Greek τὸ τυχεῖν τῆς ἡγεμονικῆς κλήσεως. The general sense is clear enough, but the precise nuance depends on construing the adjective: often “authoritative,” but in this case presumably the call to be ἡγεμών ([supreme] governor), with ἡγεμονία (also the standard equivalent to Latin imperium: the power held by high-ranking magistrates to exercise command). The adjective occurs elsewhere in War only at 2.308, where imperium is not at issue. Cf. Tacitus’ portrait of Mucianus’ urging Vespasian to challenge Vitellius for the principate in 69 CE: “The time is long gone when you could be seen as not yearning for power; now, that imperium is your only refuge! Are you forgetting how Corbulo [Nero’s successful general in the E] was murdered?” In addition to the general truth of the observation that those in or seeking power often eliminate rivals, the observation is particularly apt in this case: the anti-Gaius movement led by the consuls were opposed to monarchy; if they had had their way, anyone with imperial ambitions or credentials might have been at risk.

Claudius’ characterization of himself as good patron or protector (προστάτης), as not a tyrant (τύραννος), has rich associations. Plato had argued (Resp. 8.565d-566a) that tyrants typically arise from a noble patronal role, when they first taste blood after violently suppressing the people. Cf. Aristotle, Pol. 5.1305a; Diodorus 14.12.1 (when Clearchus was entrusted with supreme power, he was no longer a patron, but a tyrant); esp. Josephus, War 4.596; Ant. 4.146; 14.157. It is a Leitmotif of Josephus’ critique of monarchy, adapted from Aristotle and Polybius, that it often degenerates into tyranny (cf. Mason 2003a, 2008b). For a Roman audience, the irony here is that even the bad emperors (e.g., Tiberius, Gaius, Nero, Domitian) were typically portrayed as having begun well, but then fallen or abruptly turned to tyranny. It is not clear which address (προσηγορία) Josephus has in mind, since there was yet no office of “emperor” (pace Whiston: “the honor of being called emperor”): the early principate consisted an accumulation of formal offices and powers along with implicit recognition by the Senate as the leader or chief patron (princeps). Josephus’ anachronistic treatment of the name Caesar as though it were a title rather than the inheritance of the Julio-Claudians (see note to “Caesar” at 2.181) and his reference to this title again in the previous sentence (2.206) render that a better possibility. Or again, he has captured the principal role of the princeps as chief patron with the term προστάτης (perhaps princeps) in this sentence; that is also possible likely. The parallel (Ant. 19.246) removes the problem by having Claudius pledge, with Josephan rhetorical balance, that “in name only (ὀνόματι μὲν μόνῷ) would the rule come to be [his], whereas in fact (ἔργῷ δέ) it would devolve to all of them in common.” On Josephus’ ongoing contrast between names, titles, or addresses and real power, as a function of the appearance/reality dichotomy, see the notes to “titles” at 2.2, 28. Although it is conceivable that Josephus means by πᾶσιν “the whole people” (Thackeray in LCL, Pelletier, M-B), given the context of the speech (before the Senate), the “all” being yielded to might more understandably be the senators. In that case, the point is that the princeps will not hoard power for himself, but will respect their legitimate share in governing. This reading is strengthened by the use of double-meaning words for “deliberation” and “public affairs” in what follows (see notes), for only the Senate could plausibly be granted such oversight. This is one of the points of close verbal contact with the Antiquities parallel (19.246-47), which is similarly ambiguous: κοινῆς πᾶσι προκεισομένης. Greek βουλή, which means “counsel” and by extension the body that gives the counsel: the council or Senate (as in the next section, 2.209). This is one of several word plays in the passage. See also the parallel uses of “put up with” in 2.209. Or “of the commonwealth, the republic” (Greek τὰ πράγματα, the standard equivalent of Lat. res publica). Indeed Josephus’ Claudius (via Agrippa) could be saying that he would leave each executive function in the commonwealth to the Senate’s discretion, reserving for himself only the supreme address. For the phrase φύσει μέτριος, see also Demosthenes, Cor. 321; Aeschines, Ctes. 11; Plutarch, Dem. 47.4. Curiously, Josephus uses ὑπόδειγμα only in War (6 times), though this is his most Atticizing work, whereas he prefers the more acceptably Attic παράδειγμα in Antiquities (20 times) and Apion (once); the latter term appears in War only at 7.351. Outside the medical writer Apollonius, the word used here was favored most conspicuously by Polybius (used 11 times), who also does not use παράδειγμα. In the parallel (Ant. 19.245-47), it is not Agrippa who gives this speech to the Senate in chamber, but Claudius who conveys the same sentiments to a delegation from the Senate visiting him in the Praetorian barracks (after a brief conspiratorial interview with Agrippa).

That is, the Senate. Whereas ἡ σύγκλητος is the term that Josephus, like other Greek writers, reserves for the Roman Senate (see the note at 2.205), ἡ βουλή being a generic term for the council—typically 500 citizens of a Greek city (2.639; Ant. 14.190, 213, 225, 235, 244, 259, 314)—also that of Jerusalem (2.331, 336), when he must frequently refer to the Senate he can also intersperse the generic term for the sake of variation (cf. Ant. 19.229, 235, 242, 248). The transition has a special effect here because Josephus has just used βουλή in its other main sense, for the Senate’s deliberative power (see “deliberation” at 2.208). That is, the 3 urban cohorts who stand with the senators (2.205), though these will soon defect (2.211). At Ant. 19.232 the Senate adduces “much of the army” (τῆς στρατιᾶς πολύ) and a vast number of slaves as their own supporters—possibly a rhetorical bluff. This may be shorthand for the long list of arguments made by the Senate at Ant. 19.229-33. The senators are trying to revive their bygone role as a fully deliberative body whose decisions counted, not one whose judgments are constantly adapted to the wishes of a princeps. Josephus’ language continues to strengthen the bond between his narrative and the political discourse of Flavian Rome. Patientia or ὑπομονή was highly charged language among the Roman élite, especially in Tacitus, concerning the toleration of rivals for power, tyrants and monarchs, or (from foreign perspectives) Roman rule itself (cf. Cicero, Cat. 1.1; Fam. 12.15.3; Tacitus, Hist. 1.16 [Galba to Piso: Romans cannot tolerate either complete slavery or complete freedom]; 2.37; 3.31, 66; 4.80; Ann. 1.31; 3.65; 4.46; 12.50 [of Armenians]; 13.56; 14.26, 64; 15.6; 16.16 [patientia servilis], 22 [the princeps’ tolerance of opposition, as 6.38]). This paradoxical phrase (δουλείαν ἑκούσιον) touches an issue that was often discussed in paradoxical terms in antiquity: the nature of freedom and slavery. To understand the force of such discussions appear we need to recall, first, the basic division of humanity between slaves and free, and second, the political domination of former Mediterranean states by Rome (often described as slavery, as in the speeches of War). These situations led to much reflection on the nature of true freedom, especially among Stoic philosophers, with their view that the only worthwhile freedom was internal: all good men were free (the title of a tract by Philo) and all bad men were slaves (to vice: the title of a lost essay by Philo; cf. Seneca, Ep. 47.17). The paradoxical language of voluntary slavery thus has many applications: positively, when in Plato’s Symposium (184c) the character Pausanias compares the voluntary slavery to love with willing slavery to virtue; negatively, when Seneca decries the voluntary slavery (servitus . . . voluntaria) of free citizens to shows and actors—in addition to their more understandable slavery to fear and hope, sex and greed (Ep. 47.17).War is largely about this issue of “freedom” and the competing claims to effecting it (resulting in the stasis, tyranny, and final slavery that fill these pages; see Introduction and the note to “slavery” at 2.185). A central paradox is that the rebel leaders, though campaigning under the banner of freedom, invariably become tyrants, who impose the most bitter slavery on their compatriots; their aristocratic opponents reject such a voluntary servitude to unworthy compatriots (e.g., War 2.264, 443; 4.177-78, 394). The theme of voluntary slavery will be reprised in the narrative soon after Claudius’ death, when the Judean rebels ironically threaten their compatriots with death if they choose voluntarily to be slaves (τοὺς ἑκουσίως δουλεύειν προαιρουμένους) to the Roman imperium (2.264; so also the Masada rebels, harassing their neighbors at 7.255). And then, just after the mid-point of the work, the adversaries of John of Gischala, who emerges as a tyrant with monarchical ambitions, fight him because they prefer war to a voluntary slavery (4.394). The dead end of the rebels’ naïve approach to freedom (as something radical and absolute) will be their attempt, dictated by necessity, to make a virtue of suicide at Masada as the last, desperate act of “free” men (7.384-85).In explicating these themes, Josephus has frequent recourse (as in this passage) to affairs in Rome. He brings the two worlds into closest contact in Ant. 19, where he gives considerable space to the Senate’s debates after the death of Gaius concerning their freedom (e.g., 19.57, 168-78, 181, 184, 227, 248, 250). These intersect with ongoing struggles in Judea between monarchy (e.g., in Saul and Herod) and aristocracy; see Mason 2003a, 2008b. This recalls Tacitus’ characterization: Tiberius, no lover of public liberty himself, used to leave the curia muttering disdainfully in Greek, “How prepared these men are to be slaves!” (o homines ad servitutem paratos! Ann. 3.65; cf. Hist. 1.16). Notice the artful repetition of the verb ὑπομένω for both the Senate and Claudius. It is part of Josephus’ narrative even-handedness that he presents both cases with full vigor; both positions are understandable and neither has an obvious moral advantage. One finds the same balance in Tacitus, where patientia is used both of the Senate’s tolerance of (or even debasement before) the princeps and of the princeps’ putting up with various aggravations; see the note earlier in this section. The paradoxical word play continues: whereas the senators would not tolerate a willful (ἑκούσιον) slavery, and Claudius would not tolerate leaving his supporters in the lurch, now Claudius is about to undertake war unwillingly (ἄκων)—on those whom he least wishes to fight.

The rare form προαποδείκνυμι, barely attested before Josephus (Isocrates, 3.12), turns up in his writings 3 times—also Ant. 17.102; Apion 2.8. Greek ὁμοφύλῷ φόνῳ μιαίνεσθαι. Again, Josephus’ Claudius expresses prominent themes of War. For the pollution of the shrine (singular in Jerusalem) by carnage, especially involving compatriots, see: 2.424; 4.150, 159, 163, 201, 215, 323; 5.10, 402; 6.95. Without the temple context, note also the closely matching language at 3.391 (μιᾶναι τὴν δεξιὰν ὁμοφύλῷ φόνῳ). Greek ὁμοφύλῳ φόνῳ. This appears to be Josephus’coinage, which he employs often (3.391; 4.184; 5.381; 6.4, 109, 122; Ant. 17.285). Irrespective of the source he used for this piece of Roman history, therefore, he has fully assimilated the episode to the primary themes of War: civil war and murder, a result of bad thinking, and polluting the ancestral holy places. This accommodation serves his ongoing comparison between Judean and Roman politics; see Introduction. The noun κακοβουλία is barely attested in literature before Josephus (Chrysippus, Frag. mor. fr. 265), though he has it 5 times (also 1.631; 2.346, 399; Ant. 6.42); Plutarch (Comp. Lys. Sull. 4.2; Cato min. 35.7; Ag. Cleom. 17.7) and Diogenes Laertius (7.93) use it occasionally. This closing note answers, symmetrically, the Senate’s opening assertion of their own good judgments (2.209: γνῶμαι ἀγαθαί). I.e., senators; see the note to “council” at 2.209. In the Antiquities parallel (19.238-47) Agrippa takes a great deal more initiative: first, encouraging Claudius to thoughts of empire (19.238), then pretending to be on the side of Senate liberty, asking Claudius to give up any claim (19.240, 244), then reporting to Claudius on the Senate’s weakness (19.245), which intelligence paved the way for Claudius’ final stroke.

I.e., the urban cohorts: see notes to “with [them]” and “Senate” at 2.205. The noun συστρατιώτης, which occurs again in the next sentence and 6 times in War (3 in Ant.), is lightly attested before Josephus (esp. Xenophon, Hell. 2.4.20; 5.3.17; Anab. 1.2.26; once each in Isaeus, Plato, Diodorus, Strabo; twice in Aristotle); it is much more common from Josephus’ time onwards (e.g., in Plutarch [14], Appian [17], Herodian [10], Polyaenus [11], Cassius Dio [13]). Greek ἀδελφοκτονεῖν. This compound verb and cognates are rare before Josephus (LXX Wis 10:3; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 3.21.2; Nicolaus of Damascus, Frag. 5.68), outside of Philo, who uses it often (Spec. 3.16, 18; Agr. 21; Post. Cain. 50; Jos. 13; Virt. 199; Det. pot. 96; Ebr. 66; Legat. 234; Cher. 52.7; Fug. 60; Praem. 68, 72, 74). Josephus also employs the word-group liberally (War 1.606, 638; Ant. 1.65; 2.24. 29; 13.314; 17.60; 17.75, 91). This is another example of his “Philonic” language. Although Josephus does not clarify it in this version (perhaps he expects a Roman audience to know?): the Praetorian Guard; see 2.205-6 and notes. Another standard Greek equivalent (αὐτοκράτωρ), used consistently by Josephus. I retain the Latin here because it is a hardly translatable term; cf. the note at Life 342, and to imperium at Life 5, in BJP 9. Of the two senses given by Cassius Dio (52.41.3-4)—describing a victorious general or an honorary title for a supreme ruler, only the latter applies to Claudius here. Dio notes (52.40.2) that—in his time, 3rd century CE—Romans used this term as a euphemism for the distasteful “king.” The soldiers’ exclamation is ironic, in that imperator Claudius was at this point desperately lacking in military credentials, which lack is what drove his successful invasion of Britain (43 CE) soon after taking office (cf. Levick 2001: 137-48). Note Suetonius’ observation (Claud. 12) that Claudius modestly refrained from assuming imperator as part of his name (praeonomen).

Josephus re-uses the verb (ὁρμάω) from the previous section ironically. Normally, as there, it is used of aggressive attacks; here he stresses that the urban cohorts are not about to rush against their Praetorian brothers, but only to “rush” (or charge) through the Senate. See the note at 2.209. See note in the previous section. Yet again Josephus uses a Greek word (εὐπατρίδαι) that he normally reserves for its equivalence to a Latin term (in this case, nobiles). Although the Latin word essentially means “renowned, illustrious,” it specifically designated first the patrician order (Livy 6.42; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 2.8, 9.2) and later, from the 4th century BCE, those whose ancestors had held one of the highest (“curule”) magistracies in Rome—consulship, praetorship, curule aedileship; holding such offices entitled heirs to display the ancestors’ imagines (painted masks).It is in the specific sense of “well born” that the Greek term overlaps. In Antiquities Josephus uses the word only 6 times: 5 of these concern Roman nobles whom Tiberius (18.226) and then Gaius (19.2, 75, 132, 136) mistreated and executed on trumped-up charges, mainly to confiscate their property. In the other case (Ant. 17.307-10), Josephus uses the word of Judean “nobles” executed by a tyrannical Herod, implying a link with the later Roman despots. The only two occurrences in War are in this sentence and the next. The Roman audience should understand that the nobles in question, who are distraught at losing their chance for freedom from a princeps, are those who have suffered so much at the hands of Tiberius and Gaius. Josephus appears to use the term here as a rough equivalent of “senators,” without requiring the more technical sense of nobilitas. The phrase ἀποστροφὴ σωτήριος has a Thucydidean ring (ἀποστροφὴν σωτηρίας: 8.75.3). In the much fuller parallel (Ant. 19.248-67), this is a second, pre-dawn meeting of the Senate called by the consuls, attended by only a fraction of the body (no more than 100 of 600 senators). The course of the meeting is more complicated there: only some senators, it seems (19.264: “those senators who had gone with Quintus”), go to the Praetorian camp, in the face of serious opposition; these include the consul Q. Pomponius.

Greek οἱ σφοδρότερον κολακεύοντες τὴν τύχην. The closest parallel to this curious phrase appears to be in Plutarch’s essay On the Fortune of Alexander the Great (Mor. 331a), where he complains that the poets eulogize Alexander not for what he cultivated (viz., moral virtue) but for what chance or fortune gave him (viz., power), which was “his fortune”: οἱ ποιηταὶ κολακεύοντες αὐτοῦ τὴν τύχην . . . . The Latin Josephus interprets: fortuna Regis (“the ruler’s/king’s fortune”). In the present passage, as in Plutarch, the point seems to be that these aggressive soldiers are merely taking advantage of the upper hand that fortune has momentarily handed them, against all the wisdom of Polybius (cf. note to “fortune” at 2.184): they might as easily have found themselves in the opposite camp. On fortune, see the note at 2.373 below. The wall of the Praetorian camp, just outside the Viminal Gate. See notes to “units” at 2.204, to “barracks” at 2.206. See the note to “bare” at 2.173. In Ant. 19.263, the consul Q. Pomponius is singled out for mention: the Praetorians would have murdered him, had Claudius not intervened. The point of this clause, missing from the parallel, seems to be to highlight Agrippa’s intermediary role (only in War’s version). Curiously, since Agrippa plays a much larger role in the Antiquities parallel, this particular deed is unnecessary there because Claudius intervenes directly and personally protects the consul, but not the other senators, who are mistreated by the soldiers (19.263). Agrippa’s appearance comes slightly later (19.265), in the form of advice on handling the Senate as a whole. This is the first of 5 occurrences of the colorful verb λυσσάω (“be rabid”) in War (only—also 2.312; 4.371 [a central passage]; 5.4; 6.196); it is thus part of War’s vocabulary of beast-like madness and unreason. Although it is found among the tragedians and other classical authors, Josephus might more likely have been inspired by Polybius (5.11.5; 16.1.2; 23.10.16; 32.15.8), the main historian to use it in related senses, or Philo, who has the verb a remarkable 20 times. See the note to this word in the previous section. Or “having control, being in charge” (τὸ κρατεῖν). Or “brings with it prominence.” Although simple, this adjective (περίοπτος)—“conspicuous, in plain view, visible from all around”—had only a recent history by Josephus’ time (Diodorus [2], Dionysius [2], Strabo [1]), whereas he uses it 9 times (in War, 2.344, 476; 3.232). The parallel (Ant. 19.265) has Agrippa advise a kinder, gentler approach to the senators on the ground that, if anything bad happened to them, Claudius would have no others to rule (οὐχ ἕξειν ὣν ἄρξειεν ἑτέρων). Both constructions are paradoxical, even cynical. Although one might imagine that monarchs rule the masses (vulgus, τὸ πλῆθος), and so could dispense with a standing council of élites, in Josephus’ formulation this would miss the point: the princeps—ostensibly “first man” of the Senate, and no king—gains his prestige from his pre-eminence over other powerful men, in the Senate. Senate hopes for the removal of the principate, mooted above, are shown to be fantasies; the mere survival of the Senate will be an achievement. The dark humor in being king of a desert (ἐρημίας βασιλεύς) is anticipated by Josephus’ Herod in 1.355 (also the parallel, Ant. 14.484): the new sovereign implores his Roman ally Sossius to restrain his soldiers (after they have assisted Herod in seizing his kingdom) so that he will not be left king of a wasteland. The ironic quality of the phrase may account for “king” here, which Josephus uses sparingly of Roman principes, for whom associations with kingship were to be avoided in Rome. With Herod’s remark may be compared that of the Pict Calgacus according to Tacitus, Agric. 30: “Where they [the Romans] create a desert, they call it peace (ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant).” Titus, by the same logic (War 5.373), insists that it is not in his interest to capture a city devoid of men and a devastated countryside.

Repetition of the same verb and noun creates a sort of antiphonal response to Agrippa’s plea in the previous section: Claudius did precisely what he was asked to do. See the note to “Claudius” at 2.212: according to Ant. 19 it is a fraction of the Senate’s membership. For the Senate, see the note at 2.205. See the note to “barracks” at 2.206. For the imprecise relationship between παρεμβολὴ (there) and στρατόπεδον (here)—they can be interchangeable, though the former sometimes refers to the site or grounds rather than the constructed camp—see e.g. War 3.76-77, 90. According to Ant. 19.264-65, Claudius’ kinder treatment came at the insistence of Agrippa: he had otherwise protected only the consul, Q. Pomponius. War’s version could nevertheless be a compression of the (source of the) later version. The noun χαριστήρια, here preceded by θύσων τῷ θεῷ τὰ περὶ τῆς ἡγεμονίας, always indicates thanksgiving sacrifices in Josephus, but nearly always to the Judean God (Ant. 2.269; 3.60, 225, 228, 245; 4.101; 6.10, 57, 151; 9.209; 10.24; 11.110; 12.25, 349). Presumably these in Rome would be conducted in the temple to Jupiter on the Capitoline. By contrast, the parallel at Ant. 19.266 (cf. 19.268) has Claudius carried through the heart of the city, from the Praetorian camp on the NE side to the Palatine hill (in the SW), the residential area of the principes, where he invites the Senate to convene (perhaps in the Temple of Apollo) to decide the case of Gaius’ assassins.

Or “with the entire kingdom of his fatherly inheritance” (τῇ πατρῴᾳ βασιλείᾳ πάσῃ). Modern translators (Thackeray, Pelletier, M-B) tend to specify that the kingdom was that of Agrippa’s grandfather Herod. This may be correct, but the Greek does not say so, and such an interpretation creates difficulties for what comes next: the addition to this kingdom of areas that were formerly, as Josephus notes, part of Herod’s domains. He clearly means to indicate the Judean heartland based in Jerusalem, along with Galilee (held not only by Agrippa’s grandfather Herod, but also by the later Hasmoneans and by biblical kings long before). Levick (2001: 166): “By giving Agrippa Judaea in 41 Claudius made him a great king, ruler of as much territory as Herod the Great.” See notes at 1.398-400; 2.58 (“Trachonites”), 95. These are territories lying E (NE and SE) of Lake Gennesaret, the Sea of Galilee, beyond Gaulanitis (the Golan Heights). These territories from Philip’s tetrarchy will also be given to Agrippa’s son (Agrippa II) at 2.247. Josephus reverses what has been “added” to what. The kingdom of the Judean heartland held by his grandfather Herod is in fact the significant addition to the regions N and NE that he holds already. Josephus has reported that Agrippa received the territories of the deceased tetrarch Philip—in 37 CE, at Gaius’ accession (2.181)—including: Trachonitis, Batanea, Auranitis, and Gaulanitis (so Ant. 18.106; War 1.668; 2.95). According to 1.398-400, Trachonitis, Batanea, and Auranitis (apparently also Lysanias’ kingdom) were indeed part of Herod’s kingdom, added by Augustus in about 23 BCE. Lysanias was a 1st-century BCE Iturean king (1.248; cf. 103, 185), whose territory was also connected with Zenodorus (1.398; cf. the note to “Zenon” at 2.95 above). It lay W and N of Damascus in the slopes of the Antilebanon range.

In a Greek city οἱ ἄρχοντες had both a general (“office-holders”) and a specific meaning: either one person whose title was archon (the senior civic official) or a member of the 10-member board of archons. In Greek cities and leagues the nomenclature was complicated by the addition of στρατηγός (also plural, sometimes in boards of 10 as in Cleisthenes’ Athens). As a translation of Latin terms, ἄρχων had official status only as the equivalent of magistratus, as we see from bilingual inscriptions: “[it] refers above all to an independent magistrate, acting under his own auspices” (H. J. Mason 1974: 111). Although the term was widely used by Greek authors for the princeps, the consuls, provincial governors, and even various military prefects, such usage was neither stable nor official. The context here suggests that Josephus means to indicate Roman senatorial magistrates. In the vast majority of the 136 occurrences of the term in his corpus, however, it has the general meaning of a city’s leaders or ruling class: we are often not dealing with Greek cities and their formal institutions or nomenclature (e.g., Ant. 3.70-71, 222, 232; 4.126; 7.363). Josephus anticipates here his keen interest in these “bronze tablets (δέλτοι χαλκαί) in the Capitolium,” to which he will appeal repeatedly in the Antiquities (12.416; 14.191, 197, 219, 221, 266, 319; 16.48; cf. War 7.10) as proof of Judean rights granted by the Senate and various Roman monarchs. It was traditional for such tablets, especially senatorial decress related to foreign policy, to be deposited in the Capitoline Temple of Jupiter. Levick observes (2001: 97) that under Claudius the Senate issued senatus consulta at a faster rate than in other periods of the early principate. As Moehring points out (1975: 131), however, the fire of 69 CE—ignited during the civil war between Vitellianists and Flavian partisans (Tacitus, Hist. 3.71-75)—destroyed thousands of these. Scholars continue to discuss which tablets might have been available in Josephus’ Rome (after a vigorous effort at restoration by Vespasian: Suetonius, Vesp. 8), what access Josephus had, and how he used them (see Pucci ben Zeev 1995, 1998).

Son of Herod’s murdered son Aristobulus II and Berenice I (War 1.552 and note). Here in War, this Herod’s death (48 CE) follows after just a few sentences (2.221). In Antiquities, he plays a much more important role between his marriage to Berenice (19.277) and his death (20.104). He was reportedly respected by Claudius (20.13), whom he and Agrippa persuaded to issue an edict on behalf of Alexandria’s Judeans (19.279), and from whom he won a hereditary authority over the temple with power to designate the Judean high priest (20.15-16). Here brother-in-law, though Greek γαμβρός is also used of sons (Whiston here: “son-in-law”), fathers, and brothers. So her name is spelled (Βερνίκη) in the Greek MSS of War 1-2, whereas throughout Antiquities-Life her name appears as Berenice (Βερενίκη): she was Iulia Berenice (b. 28 CE), daughter of Agrippa I and Cyprus. Ant. 19.354 narrates that, although she was only 16 when her father died in 44 CE, her marriage at that time to her father’s brother (Herod of Chalcis) was already her second; the first had been to a prominent Alexandrian, M. Iulius Alexander, son of the alabarch Alexander—apparently in 41 CE. The marriage to Herod of Chalcis will end with his death in 48 CE, after which Berenice will marry King Polemon of Chalcis (Ant. 20.145-46). Later (in her late 40s) she will cause a scandal in Rome by becoming the lover of the heir-apparent Titus, 11 years her junior: he reportedly dismissed her immediately upon his accession (Suetonius, Tit. 7; Tacitus, Hist. 2.2; Cassius Dio 66.15.4, 18.1; Jones and Milns 2002: 105-7). Between these marriages and other relationships, Berenice was so often found in her bachelor brother Agrippa II’s company (e.g., Acts 25:13, 23) that rumors of an incestuous affair circulated widely (Ant. 20.145; cf. Juvenal 6.156-60). In spite of Josephus’ generally disparaging outlook on women, however, War consistently portrays Berenice as a stateswoman, an energetic and deeply committed leader in Judea before the outbreak of war (cf. 2.310-14, 333-34, 405, 426, 595). Cf. War 1.185 and note. This Chalcis (sub Libano) was the leading center of Iturea—in the S Bekaa Valley between the Lebanon and Antilebanon ranges—nestled in the W edge of the Antilebanon. Cf. Schottroff 1982; Butcher 2003: 93-96, 115-16. Butcher observes (96) that this notice “may mean that he inherited the remnants of the Ituraean kingdom.”

The next two paragraphs read as a précis of the material that Josephus will later use for Ant. 19.326-52; 20.1-16, 97-104; 18.130-42. We have here a set of very brief statements on many topics—Agrippa’s wall, his death, his children, the two governors who followed him in Judea, and the family line of his uncle Alexander—that suggest Josephus’ knowledge of much more (along the lines of what is in Antiquities) than he chooses to relate here. From the northern regions, formerly assigned to Philip, Josephus has mentioned an annual revenue of 100 talents (2.95); Galilee and Perea, Antipas’ former tetrarchy, yielded 200 (2.95); and the heartland that was Archelaus’ territory yielded 400 (2.97, though 600 according to Ant. 17.320). This was a massive income (4.2 million drachmas on the low end, 5.4 million on the high end); see the note to “talents” at 2.50. Ant. 19.352 indicates a total revenue of 12 million drachmas (diminished by vast expenditures), but the text seems to say that Agrippa took measures to maximize revenue from his territories. Josephus here uses a fixed expression (οὐκ εἰς μακράν) that he also favors elsewhere (War 1.490; 3.186, 193; 4.227, 362; 5.457, 546; 7.84, 416, 451, and often in Antiquities), but which had come into vogue only with Dionysius. Before Dionysius, who uses it 27 times, it appears once or twice in Demosthenes, Aeschines, Xenophon, and Diodorus. Philo has it 23 times; Josephus uses it 22 times; and from his time onward it is common (Galen, Lucian, Aristides, Artemidorus), though curiously it is absent from Plutarch. In view of the elaborate description of Jerusalem’s walls at War 5.147-55, this appears to be the “3rd wall” undertaken by Agrippa. Josephus reports in the later passage that the city’s population had long since overflowed its original walls, especially in the “New City” area (Bezetha) to the N. Agrippa, recognizing the vulnerability of those living in these areas, set about incorporating their neighborhoods into the city with a wall constructed of massive ashlars: 9 m (30 ft) long and 4.5 m (15 ft) wide. The size is plausible, if staggering to contemplate, given the size of the blocks used by Herod for the temple’s western retaining wall (some of which are 50% longer than this). Scholars have long debated where this 3rd wall ran. Although many have located its course roughly along the line of the present old city’s N wall, excavations in 1925-1927 found remains of fortifications about 450-500 m N of the present (16th-cent.) wall, and the weight of scholarship now favors that option. See the discussions in Schmitt 1981; Hamrick 1966, 1968, 1977; Kloner 1986. Josephus claims that Agrippa only got as far as laying the foundations, halting the project out of fear that Claudius would suspect revolutionary intentions (5.152). He notes, however (5.155), that the later defenders of Jerusalem hastily built it up to a height of about 37 ft (12 m).That claim about Agrippa’s fear of being thought rebellious is intriguingly elaborated in Ant. 19.326-27: the Syrian legate C. Vibius Marsus (cos. 17, legate 42-44 CE), who had an ongoing feud with Agrippa related to other behavior construed as conspiratorial (viz., hosting a group of regional kings: 19.338-42, 363), reported the wall project to Claudius; the latter, suspecting revolutionary possibilities, urgently wrote that Agrippa should desist. Levick (2001: 159) suggests that precisely this Roman suspicion of alliances among the region’s kings might well have been Claudius’ main reason for discontinuing native rule in Judea after Agrippa’s death in 44 and recreating it as a province (see 2.220).The 3 passages involving Agrippa and Jerusalem’s walls, in keeping with the pattern of such parallels, do not quite agree. (a) Here he does not mention the New City, and one might rather think of the main city walls, except that the language (περιβαλεῖν ἤρξατο τεῖχος) implies a new construction, prevented by Agrippa’s death. (b) The passage in bk. 5 speaks of a new wall for the New City. (c) The parallel at Ant. 19.326 claims that Agrippa “fortified the walls of Jerusalem that faced [or “joined, looked to”] the New City (τὰ δὲ τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων τείχη τὰ πρὸς τὴν καινὴν νεύοντα πόλιν . . . ὠχύρου), by both broadening their width and raising their height”—a project ended by the legate’s report to Claudius (19.327). The language of that passage might seem to suggest the fortification of Jerusalem’s existing walls on its N and most vulnerable side (the other 3 sides being marked by deep valleys), in which case the project of walling the New City (described in War 5) would be something different. But the connections among the passages (fear of creating a revolutionary impression, mention of the New City in War 5 and Ant., the remarkable and indomitable nature of the walls, had they been completed, in all 3 passages) suggest that all references are to the same wall, for the New City.If the same (3rd) wall is in view, then either this passage and the one in bk. 5 mislead by ignoring the fact that it already had a base of some sort (Ant. 19.326), and the residents of the New City were already enclosed in some measure (so Bernett 2007: 305-8, who sees Agrippa’s attempt at internal legitimation and strengthening non-Roman alliances), or Josephus reports on two or more phases: the beginning here, halted for fear of creating a revolutionary impression (War 5), followed by an attempt to build on that incomplete foundation, which was halted by Marsus’ report (as Ant. 19—all the more a concern if Agrippa had already started and stopped once), and the summary verdict here, that Agrippa would have completed this pet project (at some point) if death had not prevented him.Cicero (De off. 2.60) lists the construction of city walls, docks, harbors, and aqueducts as worthwhile projects for a city’s élite to sponsor (in contrast to public entertainments or disbursements of cash, which have no lasting effect, except to create further expectations, and can bankrupt the giver). With the notable exception of proudly unwalled Sparta, a city’s walls were a source of great pride—the bigger, the better. They also served obvious practical purposes: not only in the rare event of war under Roman rule, but in the day-to-day protection of the city’s inhabitants and treasures against bandits. This routine exposure of the city’s residents is the motive attributed to Agrippa by Josephus. Josephus uses this word (ἀνήνυτος) only in War 1-2 (also 1.428; 2.471). Josephus makes the same point again in his fuller description of Agrippa’s wall at 5.153: the city could not have been taken if Agrippa’s initial project had been realized. As it was, even Cestius Gallus in his abortive campaign of October 66 was able to take and burn the New City with little difficulty (2.530). This notice is significant also because it supports one of War’s basic themes: the virtue and strength of both the Judeans and their capital city (e.g., 1.2-3, 7-8). Even without Agrippa’s wall, the Roman commanders repeatedly recognize the difficulty of the task they face (see Introduction); Titus is made, after his entry into the city, to marvel at its defenses and confess that he could not have taken it without divine aid (6.409-13).

On Agrippa’s reasons for halting construction of the wall, see the note to “never-ending” in this section. Agrippa’s death is described most fully in Ant. 19.343-52; a brief but similar story appears in Acts 12:20-23 (on a possible connection with Josephus, see Mason 2003c: 163). According to Josephus’ longer version, Agrippa was beginning the second day of spectacles for the sake of the emperor’s safety, along with his high officials, in the theater at Caesarea (see note to “stadium” at 2.172). When the rising sun illuminated the silver weave of his rich clothing, prompting his flatterers to address him as though divine, and he failed to reject their praise, he was stricken with overwhelming pain in his heart and torso, which led to his death in the nearby palace 5 days later. That is: 41-44 CE; cf. Ant. 19.343, 351. See the note at 2.168: a useful verb for someone who was not a king. That is: the tetrarchy of Philip (2.181) from Agrippa’s release by Gaius in 37 CE (though taking possession in the summer of 38); that of Antipas from 39 (2.183); the Judean heartland from 41 to 44 (2.215). On some complexities, see Kokkinos 1998: 280-81. Ant. 19.351 gives him 4 years as king under Gaius (37-41), 3 of these over Philip’s, plus 1 over Antipas’, former tetrarchies. Although he seems to mean that 3 years were given to Philip’s tetrarchy alone, then 1 to Antipas’ (hence the 4 in total), this implies that he ruled Galilee and Perea only from 40 CE, whereas the narrative above suggests that he received Antipas’ territories when the latter was banished to Spain (39 CE; see 2.183 and notes).

Like most Herodian names, this one (beginning with Herod’s mother) was re-used for several generations. This Cyprus was the daughter of Herod’s nephew Phasael by his daughter (by Mariamme II) Salampsio [Shalom-Zion]; cf. Ant. 18.130-31. Ant. 19.354 elaborates that their ages were 16, 10, and 6; Bernice was married to her uncle, Herod of Chalcis (as 2.217 above), and the younger ones were betrothed to other royalty. The later account offers a much fuller set of connections among the events covered crisply in this paragraph (raising the question, again, whether it is a précis): following Agrippa’s death, the non-Judean Caesareans and Sebastenes took to exuberant celebration, which included the abuse of the daughters’ portraits in brothels. Reports of this behavior reached Claudius (indicating massive unrest, if the story is true), and that is what prompted him to send Agrippa II—before he was dissuaded by his freedmen [see note to “young” in this section] and sent Fadus instead. This is the first mention in Josephus’ corpus of Marcus Iulius Agrippa II, a figure of enormous importance both in Josephus’ career and in Judean-Roman relations in the latter half of the 1st century CE. Agrippa II, who will be given the pivotal deliberative speech against revolt (2.344-407), reportedly engaged in extensive correspondence with Josephus as he was preparing this work, and was among the first people to receive a copy (Life 362-67). Agrippa was born and educated in Rome, in Claudius’ house (Ant. 20.9); he must have been relatively well known to Josephus’ post-70 Roman audience, also because of his sister Berenice’s affair with Titus and because of the conspicuous honors he received (including praetorian insignia) from the Flavians in recognition of his support during the war. See Tacitus, Hist. 2.2; Suetonius, Tit. 7.1; Dio 65.15.3-5; Juvenal 6.158; Kokkinos 1998: 318-41. Greek οὗ παντάπασιν ὄντος νηπίου. Although this literally means that Agrippa was still an “infant,” he was in fact 16, born in 28 CE (Ant. 19.354); but the metaphorical use of the word for a childish or naïve person who lacked political awareness and foresight was well established (cf. LSJ). According to the parallel (Ant. 19.360-63), Claudius was at first determined that the youth (there called a “child” [παῖς]; see Feldman’s comment ad loc. in LSJ) would succeed his father as king, partly to teach a lesson to the Caesareans and Sebastenes who were abusing the memory of his father and the images of his sisters (see previous notes); Claudius was characteristically dissuaded by his freedmen and friends, who argued that the youth was not equal to such responsibilities. The emphasis on Agrippa’s youth in both accounts is ironic, given that a decade later Claudius’ own 16-year-old heir, Nero, would rule the empire (albeit with the crucial aid of Burrus and Seneca)—a story well familiar to Josephus’ audience, and fast approaching in this narrative (2.249-51). Cf. Tacitus’ report of the discussion that followed Nero’s accession, concerning the fitness of such a youth to rule, and comparisons with Pompey and Octavian (Ann. 13.6). For other reasons why Claudius might have wished to end native kingship in Judea, see the note to “Romans” at 2.218. Plural, perhaps to remind the audience of Agrippa’s growing domains as king: from the NE regions to Galilee and Perea to Judea proper. “Again” is slightly misleading, since before Agrippa’s reign the Roman prefect had governed only Judea and Samaria (following Archelaus’ removal in 6 CE: 2.117), whereas Galilee, the NE territories, and Perea were under the control of the Herodian tetrarchs Antipas and Philip. Ant. 19.363 is more accurate in giving “Judea and the whole kingdom” as the new procurator’s (“prefect’s” there) territory.This passage raises the important question of Judea’s provincial status from 44 CE. Since War has portrayed the beginning of direct Roman governance in 6 CE as the creation of a new province under equestrian procurators (2.117), this almost incidental remark implies a simple reversion to that status. But we have seen good reason to think that from 6-41 CE Judea was in fact a prefecture annexed to Syria, as Josephus also implies in Antiquities (see note to “province” at 2.117). H. Cotton (1999), in keeping with Tacitus (Hist. 5.9), sees this as the beginning of full provincial status. The formulation in Ant. 19.363, that instead of sending Agrippa II to rule, as he first planned, Claudius dispatched Fadus as prefect “of Judea and of the whole kingdom,” might lend weight to the idea that this was a new kind of province, much larger than before and comparable to a kingdom (therefore, independent)—except that we cannot rely on such formulations in Josephus. Others have pointed out that the situation from 44 to 66 appears very much the same as from 6-41, with the Syrian legates from Quadratus to Cestius taking fundamental responsibility for order in Judea. See also the next note, on Claudius’ measures to keep a legate out of Syria, and the discussion of scholarship in Bernett 2007: 310-13. Prefect from 44 to 46 CE. Kajanto (1982: 178) finds only a couple of other examples of the cognomen Fadus (it has no meaning as a Latin adjective), which he takes to be an ancient but obsolete first name (praenomen). For Cuspius as a family name, see e.g. Cicero, Fam. 13.6a; 16.17.Ant. 19.363-66 relates that Claudius sent Fadus partly in order to keep the Syrian legate C. Vibius Marsus, who had been Agrippa’s enemy, from having an excuse to be present in Judea. (Marsus was also soon replaced [Ant. 20.1] by C. Cassius Longinus [cos. 30].) Further, Fadus came with instructions to punish the Caesareans and Sebastenes for their abuse of Agrippa’s memory, and of his living daughters’ images, by transferring the auxiliary cohorts in Judea (comprising chiefly men from these cities) abroad and replacing them with units from the Syrian legions. The auxiliaries appealed to Claudius, who allowed them to remain after all; Josephus identifies them as a significant factor in the revolt 20 years later. Tiberius Iulius Alexander (prefect 46-48 CE), though casually introduced here, is an important background player in War; his name was also probably known to Josephus’ Roman audience (cf. Barzan 1988). Of Judean ancestry, Alexander was born into one of the leading families of Alexandria. His father (Tiberius Iulius?) Alexander was a prosperous magistrate (alabarch—apparently responsible for tax assessment), who surpassed his compatriots, Josephus claims, in ancestry and wealth (Ant. 20.100): he paid for massive gold and silver plates to cover 9 of Jerusalem’s temple gates (War 5.201-206) and obliged young Agrippa I’s appeal for a loan of 200,000 drachmas (Ant. 18.159-60). The father Alexander was unusually well connected, being reportedly an old friend of the princeps Claudius and agent of Claudius’ mother Antonia (Ant. 19.276). His brother, Tiberius Alexander’s uncle, was the eminent Judean philosopher and emissary to Gaius, Philo (Ant. 18.259). The new prefect’s younger brother, Marcus Iulius Alexander, married into Judean-Herodian royalty as the first husband of Agrippa II’s sister Berenice (Ant. 19.276-77—though she remarried by age 16: 19.354).The prefecture of Judea, which Tiberius Alexander took up at about age 31, followed an earlier period as regional administrator (ἐπιστρατηγός) of the Egyptian Thebaid; the prefecture was still only the beginning of a stellar career for this eastern provincial. When Domitius Corbulo entered Parthian territory in 63 CE to escort the Armenian king Tiridates to Rome for coronation, Alexander—now a “distinguished Roman knight” according to Tacitus (inlustris eques Romanus, Ann. 15.28)—had a place of honor in his entourage. Only 3 years later (War 2.309) he reached the highest position then open to an equestrian: the prefecture of Egypt, which he held for 4 years (66-70 CE). This turned out to be an extraordinarily eventful period. Soon after arriving, he used his legions (III Cyrenaica and XXII Deiotariana) and other forces to suppress a riot for which he held the Alexandrian Judeans chiefly responsible; the number of dead reportedly reached the tens of thousands (War 2.490-98). Within just 4 weeks of Nero’s death in June 68, Alexander published a lengthy edict reassuring the populace of his good intentions and hopes for the future under Galba (OGIS 669; ET Sherk 1988: no. 80); he seems to have recognized both Otho and Vitellius with similar alacrity (Turner 1954: 61).But his enduring fame arose from his persuasion of the Alexandrian legions to switch allegiance to Vespasian—on July 1, 69 (War 4.616-18, though reversing the otherwise accepted order of Judea and then Alexandria: Suetonius, Vesp. 6; Tacitus, Hist. 2.79; cf. P. Fouad 8 and Sherk 1988: no. 81)—a move that precipitated the other eastern and northern legions’ declarations of allegiance. Those in turn made possible the Flavian bid for power and the eventual senatorial recognition of Vespasian’s claim on Dec. 22. Within a year of his legions’ declaration, Alexander was in Judea—now an experienced man in his 50s, reportedly Titus’ “most esteemed friend for loyalty and wisdom” (War 5.45)— advising the 30-year-old as prefect of all Roman forces for the campaign of 70 CE (5.45; OGIS 586). There he participated in Titus’ council deliberating the fate of the temple (6.237, 242). Soon after the Flavian triumph, Alexander was granted another equestrian “plum” in Rome—one of the two prefectures of the Praetorian Guard, perhaps alongside his young friend Titus (P. Hibeh 215). It may indeed have been his career path that established this post as a step up from governing Egypt (Turner 1954: 62-64). In Ant. 20.2-14 Josephus is similarly pleased with Fadus’ tenure, crediting him with foresight and wisdom (20.5). Fadus immediately and fairly dealt with a border dispute between Judeans and Philadelphians in Perea, effectively checked banditry, and with the Syrian legate permitted a delegation to appeal before Claudius his directive that the high priest’s vestments should be kept under Roman control—an appeal that was effective because of Agrippa II’s mediation. Note: this supposedly “immature” young man (2.220 above) has suddenly become Claudius’ “friend” and the cause of his favorable decision (Ant. 20.10).As for Alexander: the parallel (Ant. 20.100-103) connects two noteworthy occurrences with his governorship. (a) During “the great famine” in Judea, the proselyte Queen Helena of Adiabene (the story of her family’s conversion having dominated the preceding narrative, 20.17-96) bought up supplies of Egyptian grain for distribution; on this famine, cf. Acts 11:28-30, which however dates it within the first 3 years of Claudius’ reign, before the death of Agrippa (cf. Levick 2001: 179). (b) After they were arraigned (or simply “brought in”) on unspecified crimes, Alexander ordered the crucifixion of Iacob (James) and Simon, sons of Judas the Galilean (cf. 2.118 above). See the previous note for details. This is an interesting choice of words (οἳ μηδὲν παρακινοῦντες τῶν ἐπιχωρίων ἐθῶν ἐν εἰρήνῃ τὸ ἔθνος διεφύλαξαν), given Josephus’ famous remark at Ant. 20.100 that Tiberius Alexander’s father surpassed his son in piety toward God, “for he [the Judean procurator] did not continue with the ancestral customs” (τοῖς γὰρ πατρίοις οὐκ ἐνέμεινεν οὗτος ἔθεσιν). Although scholars routinely take this as if it were a factual statement of Alexander’s “apostasy from Judaism,” sometimes reasoning that his Roman career must have required fundamental compromises, it is difficult to see how he differed in that respect from the Herodians with whom he was closely associated, many of whom were educated in imperial houses. Given our lack of information, the range of possibilities for explaining Josephus’ remark is considerable: Was it an announced program of defection (cf. the apostle Paul in Phil 3:2-11; Gal 1:13-14; 3:28)? Or the reverse of what Tacitus complains about, concerning Roman defectors, at Hist. 5.4? The conspicuous adoption of Greek or Roman customs? An observed laxity in certain aspects of diet (cf. Life 13-14) or other customs (perhaps much as immigrant families often regret their children’s departure from “traditional ways”)? Or was it perhaps only a single incident that Josephus interpreted as insufficiently supportive of Judean tradition? These are only a few options. Josephus’ language does not seem as strong as his verdict on the descendants of Herod’s son Alexander, who “immediately at birth abandoned concern for the local [traditions] of the Judeans, exchanging them for the ancestral customs of the Greeks” (Ant. 18.141). It would be most interesting to know how Alexander would have understood Josephus’ charge. See Étienne 2000.

See 2.217 and notes. Ant. 20.104 dates Herod of Chalcis’ death to the 8th year of Claudius. Since Claudius’ reign began on January 24 or 25, 41 CE (and note Josephus’ precise knowledge of Claudius’ dates—2.248), his 8th year was from January 24/25, 48, to January 24, 49 CE. Sister of Agrippa II: see 2.217 and notes. These 3 persons appear in Josephus only here and in the parallel (Ant. 20.104). See Ant. 18.134: this Mariamme was Herod the Great’s grand-daughter: daughter of his daughter Olympias and Joseph, the son of Herod’s brother Joseph. At 2.252 this Aristobulus will be given the kingdom of Lesser Armenia by Nero (cf. Ant. 20.158); at 7.226 he may be the “king” of Chalcidice who assists the legate of Syria in confronting Antiochus of Commagene (on charges of rebellion in alliance with Parthia). According to Ant. 18.136-37, when Philip the tetrarch died childless (see 2.181-82) Aristobulus married his widow, Salome, and this pair produced 3 children: Herod, Agrippa, and Aristobulus. Ant. 18.135 identifies this Iotape, daughter of Aristobulus and Iotape (herself daughter of Sampsigeramus, king of Emesa), as a deaf-mute.

Not in so many words. Agrippa was introduced as Aristobulus’ son at 2.178. At 2.217 we met Herod (king of Chalcis), as Agrippa’s brother. The 3rd brother has appeared only here. Cf. 1.435, 452, 467. These two sons were named after her grandfather and father, respectively (1.432). War 1.451-52, 550-51. Josephus’ refrain that Herod did away with these sons (2.101, 114, 178) does more than simply identify them; it is a poignant reminder of Herod’s succession problem (his cruelty itself not being a significant feature of War, in contrast to Antiquities). As distinct from “Lesser Armenia” (see 2.252). The language of Armenia Maior and Minor was well known to Josephus’ audience (Augustus, RG 5; Pliny, Nat. 1.6a; 2.226; 5.83, 102; 6.24-25 Frontinus, Strat. 2.1.14, 2.4; Tacitus, Ann. 13.7). Armenia proper was well known as the historic flashpoint of the conflict between Rome and Parthia. In the decade before Josephus was writing, the situation had been provisionally resolved with the agreement of the Persians that Tiridates the Armenian king would come to Rome to receive his royal emblems from Nero (66 CE). See Introduction and Tacitus, Ann. 15.29.The Alexander in question is the son of Herod and Mariamme, brother of the Aristobulus whose heirs have just been featured here. (That Josephus mentions his family here without elaboration suggests again that he may be abridging an account like Ant. 18.139-40). Although executed by Herod (1.550-51), he has reappeared in bk. 2 as the object of imitation by Pseudalexander (2.101-110) and been recalled as the first husband of Glaphyra (daughter of Archelaus, king of Cappadocia), chastising his widow for subsequent marriages (2.114-16). Although this is the last appearance of his family in War, Ant. 18.139-40 (cf. 17.12-14) clarifies that he had two sons: Alexander and Tigranes (a historic name for Armenian kings). The latter became king of Armenia but was brought to Rome on charges (Tacitus, Ann. 6.40); the son of the former, also named Tigranes, was sent by Nero in 60 CE (Tacitus, Ann. 14.20) to assume the Armenian throne with the assistance of Corbulo (14.25-26). Tacitus describes him as having become weak and servile through long years in Rome, in spite of his Cappadocian ancestry (through Glaphyra). Perhaps for the same sort of reasons that faced the royal family of Adiabene in Josephus’ story (Ant. 20.75-77), this branch of the family now based in Armenia “immediately at birth abandoned concern for the local [traditions] of the Judeans, exchanging them for the ancestral customs of the Greeks” (Ant. 18.141).

Apparently in 48 CE: see 2.221 and notes. Marcus Iulius Agrippa II, great-grandson of Herod the Great. See the note to “Agrippa” at 2.220. Thus, Agrippa became king of Chalcis in or soon after 48/49 CE, the year of his uncle Herod’s death. Schürer-Vermes (1.472 n. 6) cite m. RH 1.1 to argue that Agrippa, as a Jewish king, began his regnal years in Nisan (April-May); they count backwards from the later notice (2.284) that war broke out in his 17th year and Nero’s 12th (Oct. 13, 65, to Oct. 12, 66) to argue that Agrippa’s 1st year—his accession as king of Chalcis—must have begun with Nisan, 50 CE. Kokkinos (1998: 391), observing that Ant. 20.138 gives Agrippa 4 years as king before receiving Philip’s former territories in 53 CE (cf. 2.247 below), concludes that he must have received Chalcis by 49 to allow 4 completed years. Schürer-Vermes (1.472 n. 7) do not insist on the completion of 4 years, arguing that if he received the new territory near the end of 53, having begun to rule in the year starting Nisan 50, that would suffice. If Kokkinos were correct in his argument that Josephus’ indication of the “12th year of Nero” for the outbreak of the war was a mistake for “11th year,” so that the war broke out in 65, then 49 would be Agrippa’s first year.The dating eras of Agrippa II’s relatively abundant extant coinage, which begins to appear only in the mid-60s (cf. Lönnqvist 1997: 432), have become a topic of vigorous scholarly debate. The standard theory since the late 19th century was that Agrippa dated his era from two points: 56 and—mainly—61 CE (Luther 1910: 64; Meshorer 1982: 2.65-73). But Kokkinos (1998: 398) has, with apparent success (cf. Kushnir-Stein 2002: 124; C. P. Jones 2002: 115), redated the later era to 60 and Agrippa’s renaming of Caesarea Philippi as Neronias. Although scholars have occasionally argued for 49 CE as the starting-point of the earlier era (recently Kushnir-Stein 2002: 127-31)—to Agrippa’s accession over Chalcis, described here—Kokkinos has recently brought compelling arguments against that case. He proposes (2003: 172-79) that, although 5 accession dates appear in the narratives concerning Agrippa II, as his territories shifted over time, only those of Tiberias (55 CE) and Neronias (60 CE) were employed retrospectively from the mid-60s for his coinage eras—and Chalcis did not count for this purpose. See now Bernett 2007: 318-22. If “province” here meant territory, this (τῆς δ’ ἄλλης ἐπαρχίας) would be a curious phrase, for (in Josephus’ account) Cumanus succeeded to the same territory that had been governed by Fadus and Alexander (2.221). Intriguingly, Tacitus claims that Cumanus received only part of the province (Ann. 12.54: cui pars provinciae habebatur), Galilee, whereas Felix had control of Samaria. This raises the possibility that Josephus is here following a source like that used by Tacitus, which he, however, rewrites except for this phrase. (See further the next note.) But ἐπαρχία has much the same range of meaning as Latin provincia (cf. βασιλεία): in the first instance the government of the ruler in question, secondarily the territory itself. Although he is not being perfectly clear, Josephus may have in mind the portfolio of Aristobulus’ descendants Agrippa I and Herod of Chalcis; having mentioned what Agrippa II received from this, he now returns to the Roman governor’s share. Ventidius Cumanus (his cognomen means “man of Cumae,” the city in Campania—a cognomen attested only a few times [Kajanto 1982: 191]) governed Judea from 48 until 52 CE, when the Syrian legate C. Ummidius Durmius Quadratus ordered him to Rome, to give an account before Claudius (2.244-45). Tacitus, who gives the nomen gentilicium (Ann. 12.54), thinks that Pallas’ brother Felix (on whom his narrative centers at this point), whom Josephus will introduce as the replacement for Cumanus (2.247), was already governing Samaria while Cumanus was in charge of “the nation of Galileans.” The climactic episode of Cumanus’ career in Josephus’ account, the conflict between Judeans and Samarians following the murder of a Galilean pilgrim, which resulted in his recall and banishment (2.232-46), can be explained by Tacitus as a deep-rooted national conflict exacerbated by these competitive governors, each championing his own subject populace and receiving plunder from them. That account is so completely different from Josephus’, in which Cumanus takes the side of the Samarians against the Judeans (below), and it seems so implausible that Cumanus should ever have played champion of the Galileans, that most scholars take Tacitus to be mistaken—and sometimes try to explain how the error arose (Smallwood 1959).Aberbach (1949-50), reluctant to dismiss Tacitus out of hand (finding it inconceivable that at least two of his principal claims did not come from authentic sources), saves his evidence by turning it on his head: he has Cumanus first arriving in Judea as cavalry commander (on the basis of Suetonius, Claud. 28: Claudius gave Felix command of cohorts and cavalry as well as Judea), then being appointed governor of Galilee (explaining Josephus’ failure to mention the “condominium” arrangement by his lack of interest in Galilee’s politics before 66), then succeeding him for the whole province. Although this theory and the reconstruction that Aberbach builds on it have their appealing points, the number of suppositions involved renders it no more than an interesting possibility. Cf. also Saddington 1992. Another (mere) possibility is that Felix arrived in Samaria, as a partly distinct jurisdiction, when Quadratus first began his investigation of the strife in 51, such that he was in place there for only a short time before Cumanus’ removal (so Barrett 1996: 125). This formula of succession to the procuratorship (διαδέχομαι + ἐπιτροπή; cf. Latin succedo in imperium, etc.) appears only in Josephus among extant Greek authors: cf. also War 2.271, 354; Ant. 18.170. The parallel (Ant. 20.102-3) has a double succession: first, Ananias succeeds Joseph as high priest; in the next sentence (linked by δέ), Cumanus succeeds Tiberius Alexander. Since the high-priestly succession is a major theme in Josephus (e.g., Horsley 1986; Thoma 1989), it is possible that he adopts this language here from a larger canvass of the sort that underlies Ant. 18-20. See the note to this key term at 1.4. The point there about the close correlation of θόρυβοι with War’s Leitmotif, στάσις (civil strife), is illustrated by the fact that the parallel to this passage (Ant. 20.105) describes the situation under Cumanus as στάσις. This (φθορά) is becoming a significant word in War’s lexicon of disaster; see the note at 2.51.

That is, Passover. See the note to this phrase at 2.10. See the notes to “cohort” at 2.11, “Sebastenes” at 2.52, and “standards” at 2.169. This is the auxiliary cohort permanently based in the Antonia fortress (5.244), recruited chiefly from Samaria and Caesarea. Given the regular appearance of a tribune or “commander of 1,000” (χιλίαρχος, 2.11, 244; Acts 23:31-38; 22:23-23:30) among the governor’s auxiliary forces, this unit may sometimes have been a double cohort (cohors milliaria) of 1,000 soldiers, though the language at 2.332 below implies that all Judea’s cohorts were interchangeable and of the same size. The dating of 1,000-strong cohorts in Judea has been a matter of scholarly contention, however; see the discussion in Roth 1991: 128-40. Josephus will explain at 5.243-45 that the cohort stationed in the Antonia, which soared above the temple mount at its NW corner, was provided with steps leading down to both the northern and western colonnades, giving the soldiers exclusive domination (in principle) of this wide observation tier, more than 40 ft. (12.5 m.)—allowing for the cedar panelling atop the columns—above the crowds; see the note to “colonnades” at 2.48. This notice anticipates the balance of the work, where indeed the festivals (especially Passover) appear as times of great political upheaval and danger, and where celebrants often end up slaughtered with their animal sacrifices (cf. 2.30 and note to “festival”). At 2.254-55, the political assassins known as sicarii appear, and Josephus claims that the festivals were their métier. See also 2.42 (“indignation”), 73, 280 (under Florus), 425, 514-17; 4.401-2; Colautti 2002.According to Ant. 20.106-7, Cumanus followed the custom of previous procurators of stationing a unit (τάξις) of soldiers on the colonnades. Exactly how large this unit was is unclear. In classical Greece the term had denoted the large unit contributed by a tribe. The 1st-century BCE writer Asclepiodotus first remarks on the differences among τάξεις according to number, leadership, training, etc. (Tact. 1.4), but then specifies a technical meaning (viz., a company of 128) in a series of increasing possibilities (2.8-10). Here in War, at any rate, an entire cohort is indicated in the text. A remarkably elaborate description: the parallel (Ant. 20.108) says that on the 4th day of the festival the soldier uncovered and exhibited his genitals (no sounds are mentioned).

See the note to “indignation” at 2.29. Judean indignation (ἀγανάκτησις) at the hands of Roman governors is a significant theme of War. This language recalls the outrages under Pilate (also τὸ πλῆθος, ἀγανάκτησις [here the cognate verb], καταβοάω) and more generally the growing sense of Judean indignation (ἀγανάκτησις): cf. 2.29, 42, 170, 175, 293. The collocation described here is not common in other authors, even the seemingly natural pair of indignation and yelling (cf. Plutarch, Cic. 16.3). The parallel (Ant. 20.108) has the whole crowd express rage, insisting that it was not they, but God, who had been insulted. The imagery of drunkenness for portraying political opponents, perceived as behaving with dangerous, unhibited carelessness of consequences for the body politic, was well worn (cf. Cicero, Phil. 2.27; 5.24 on Marc Antony; Cat. 2.10 on the followers of Catiline [vino languidi]). Josephus uses such language fairly often, sometimes as a literal comment on lack of self-control, sometimes metaphorically: War 4.242, 651 [of the Roman Aulus Vitellius]; 5.565-66; 6.196; Ant. 4.144; 5.149, 345; 6.266; 13.426; 17.130, 254, 309; 19.230, 236; Apion 1.46. The parallel (Ant. 20.108) does not single out the youths for rock-throwing. Anticipated by the young men who pulled down the golden eagle from Herod’s temple (1.649, 651)—on whom Josephus’ judgment remains notably ambiguous—these less than sober νέοι establish a prominent theme in War: the youthful “hotheads” (οἱ θερμότεροι) who rush into conflict with unchecked emotion, still lacking sufficient cultivation to train them in moderation. Such figures, who also play important roles in Josephus’ models Thucydides and Polybius, contribute greatly to the build-up to war (cf. 1.117; 2.286, 290, 303, 346, 409); they also play a prominent role in the Antiquities (e.g., as unworthy successors of estimable fathers: Ant. 1.53; 4.131-44; 6.33-34; 8.209; Life 12, 36, 80, 126-29). See Rajak 1983: 93; Mader 2000: 69-72, who notes e.g. Thucydides 1.42.1, 72.1, 80.1; 2.8.1, 11.1, 20.2, 21.2; 6.18.6; on Polybius, Eckstein 1990: 192-94; also Aristotle, Rhet. 2.12.3-16 (1389a-b); Eyben 1993: 1-66. Or “agents of sedition/civil strife”; see note at 2.91. As Cumanus’ response makes clear, rock-throwing was no trivial matter. In this part of the world, stoning was a traditional form of murder or execution (cf. Ant. 4.202 with Feldman’s notes in BJP 3; John 8:1-11). At 5.541 Josephus himself will be hit by a rock thrown from the city wall and fall unconscious; some will think him dead.

The fuller parallel (Ant. 20.108-10) significantly modifies this image of Cumanus. Whereas here he seems concerned only with his personal safety, in the later version the Judean mob first raises the tension by suggesting that he had instructed the rude soldier. He takes offense at the insult, but still calls for moderation. It is only when the unyielding mob increases its abuse that he summons the larger force. Even then, there is no actual violence: it is the mob’s perception that they are under attack that leads to the rush and many deaths. Josephus is careful there to blame the single soldier who created the problem (Ant. 20.112). Whatever the historical facts may have been, these different accounts by the same author show how the same basic events can be presented quite differently with respect to actors’ motives and aims. This (ὁ λαός) is a much more dignified term for the populace, or the people in political assembly, than Josephus’ more customary τὸ πλῆθος (the mob, rabble): see the note at 2.1. The former occurs only 39 times in War, against some 448 occurrences of πλῆθος. Our Judean narrator extracts a modicum of respect from the Roman governor for the Judean populace. There is an air of unreality about this notice. Cumanus has a cohort stationed in Jerusalem, and “the Roman cohort” is already positioned on the colonnades (2.224). These new armed soldiers arrive quickly, it seems. Where have they come from? The slightly different account in Ant. 20.106, 110 may be intended as a correction to careless writing here. There Josephus emphasizes that Cumanus first ordered “one company” (or unit) onto the colonnades, so that after seeing the developing unrest he may now direct “the whole army” (presumably, the Jerusalem cohort) to assemble in arms at the Antonia. Since the Antonia fortress and the soldier-filled colonnade stood to the N, the vast mob trying to move quickly would leave the temple complex for the city by one of 3 main exits: (a) the large western walkway over “Wilson’s arch,” which led to the Upper City, or all the way to Herod’s palace; (b) the two sets of steps leading from the Court of Gentiles in the southern part of the temple platform via the underground vaults to the monumental staircase in the S (by which most pilgrims entered); or (c) by the Royal Stoa on the SW corner, over “Robinson’s Arch,” down the monumental staircase to street level and the Lower City. Other possibilities were what we now call Warren’s and Barclay’s Gates, much smaller doors leading from the underground vaults to street level along the W side of the temple retaining wall.

Of the 17 occurrences of συνωθέω in Josephus, 15 are in War (1-6), often used of the situation envisaged here: victims being crowded or herded together and facing death (1.90, 352, 383; 2.496; 4.312, 429; 6.161). See the note to “city” in 2.226. The first two exits in particular were much narrower on the temple side than in their outside exits; in all 3 cases, heights and long staircases were involved, which would render an urgent movement of a massive crowd extremely hazardous. Judeans trampling one another in flight recalls the second episode involving Pilate (2.177). So MSS PAM and Latin, also Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 2.19). MSS LVRC, perhaps finding the high number difficult, say “more than 10,000.” The larger number is massive relative to the estimated population of the city, even at festival times (perhaps 60-150,000)—based on the physical constraints of space within and around the ancient walls; cf. Jeremias 1969: 27, 77-84 [30,000 normally, 180,000 with pilgrims]; Broshi 1978 [80,000 for normal pre-revolt Jerusalem], 1979 [up to 1,000,000 for all of ancient Palestine]. Although Josephus claims that the population during Passover approached 3 million (given vast numbers of pilgrims; War 6.422-28), that figure is impossible. Further, Josephus often changes his numbers in the retelling, undermining whatever confidence we might otherwise have: Ant. 20.112 says that the number of dead from this incident was reckoned at 20,000. See also 2.261 below and the note to “30,000” there. For salient cautions about casualty figures in even the most scrupulous ancient historian, Thucydides, see Rubincam 1991. Greek γενέσθαι δὲ τὴν ἑορτὴν πένθος μὲν ὅλῳ τῷ ἔθνει θρῆνον δὲ καθ’ ἑκάστην οἰκίαν. This poetic turn of phrase exploits a natural and common pairing of πένθος (mourning) and θρῆνος (dirge, lament): Euripides, Hel. 166; Rhes. 977; Isocrates, Plat. 47; Plato, Resp. 395e; Aristotle, Rhet. 1370b; 1 Macc. 1:27; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 2.19.2 (with reference to festivals); Plutarch, Aem. Paul. 35.3; Mor. 110e, 112b, 114c-d; in poetry these are sometimes used in synonymous parallelism (LXX Amos 8:10; Tob. 2:6). Particularly relevant are LXX Amos 8:10 (cf. Tob. 2:6): [the Lord says] “I will transform all your festivals into mourning and all your songs into lamentation” (καὶ μεταστρέψω τὰς ἑορτὰς ὑμῶν εἰς πένθος καὶ πάσας τὰς ᾠδὰς ὑμῶν εἰς θρῆνον). Josephus uses the pair 3 times in the War (also 2.6; 5.31-32): along with many other terms in the semantic range of “mourning, lament,” this contributes much to an atmosphere that blends the tragic and the biblical-prophetic, especially Jeremianic (see Introduction).

See the note to this word at 2.223. The position of the word translated “another” (ἄλλος) is a problem. MSS PAM place it first in the phrase, meaning “another bandit-related disorder”; but the previous disorder did not feature bandits. Perhaps for this reason, MS M and Latin omit the word. MSS LVRC place it between the adjective and noun, permitting the translation here: this next disorder involved bandits. Even if the “more difficult reading” were preferred as Josephus’ more likely original, we would need to conclude that he meant something like what is translated. See the note at 2.56. Greek μεταλαμβάνω. MSS LVRC have the present tense; Niese follows the imperfect of MSS PAM, translated here. The verb has 3 main possibilities, according to the varying senses of the preposition in conjunction with the root (“take, receive”), thus: “participate, partake, share in” (usually with genitive), “receive something after [someone else had it]”—especially the rule, government (thus: “succeed to . . .”), or “substitute, change.” None of these fits perfectly, though the parallel (Ant. 20.113) indicates a succession of disorders and modern translators agree with that sense. The meaning “succession” makes more sense with an aorist verb (Polybius 5.40.6; 10.40.11; 18.2.2) than with the imperfect (or present) here, and it should apply to something positive “received” after another owner—hard to say of “calamity.” My translation highlights the sense of succeeding disorders, one exchanged for another, which have a share in the growing sense of calamity under Cumanus. Greek συμφορά. See the note to this key theme-word at War 1.9 (there plural) and 2.86. Josephus has Βαιθωρώ here, Βαιθώρων at 2.516, Βεθώρα at 2.521, Βεθώρων at 2.546, and Βητχώρα at Ant. 8.152, where he credits King Solomon with building the site (cf. 1 Kgs 9:17; 2 Chron 8:5; but 1 Chron 7:24). This variety reflects in part the difficulty of representing the vowels of the Hebrew construct ‮בית‬‎. Beit-Horon comprised two settlements, Upper (Beit Ur ‘el-foqa/fauqa) and Lower (Beit Ur ‘el-tachta, e-tahta), the former hilltop town lying roughly 10 miles (16 km) NW of Jerusalem, as the crow flies (about 19 km by road) on the main road (via Lydda and Antipatris) to the coastal plain.Beit-Horon was a natural transition point between the Judean hill country and the plain to the W (also 2 Chr 25:13; Judith 4.4). Of the 8 possible routes from Joppa to Jerusalem, this was the shortest (at 60 km) and a natural option for armies on the march. It offered other advantages: this pass was the only steep defile on the route, whereas others had difficult terrain at several points. Between Upper Beit-Horon and Jerusalem the road traversed a fairly flat plateau, and the upper town offered excellent visibility in all directions (Har-El 1981: 14, 16; Gichon 1981: 51).Yet the pass itself was a notoriously vulnerable bottleneck for armies on the march. Joining the upper and lower settlements was a 3.3 km road, quite narrow in places, that dropped about about 225 m. (740 ft; Har-El 1981: 16; cf. Bar-Kochva 1976: topographical map on p. 14). Exposed sections show that it was cut into bedrock, with steps in places for traction against the peril of the ridges on either side. A rabbinic story vividly conveys the narrowness of the route: “if two camels met each other while on the ascent to Beit-Horon: if they both ascend [at the same time] both may tumble down [into the valley]; but if [they ascend] after each other, both can go up [safely]” (b. Sanh. 32b). The first mention of the site in the Bible (Josh 10:10-11) is the scene of Joshua’s defeat of the Amorites “while they were descending the slope at Beit-Horon.” Centuries later, Judah the Hasmonean is credited with an early victory over Antiochus IV’s general Seron at the same place, as the Judeans pursued the Syrians “down the descent of Beit-Horon to the plain,” a victory that put fear into the non-Judeans of the region (1 Macc 3:16-25). The upper and lower towns were natural places for military rendezvous or even fortification (cf. 2 Chr 8:5; 1 Macc 7:39; 9:50).In mentioning the site here, Josephus anticipates his dramatic story (perhaps already known in general to his audience) of the defeat of the Syrian legate Cestius Gallus’ retreating forces, a watershed in the Judeans’ move to war (2.542-56), at this location. By contrast, the parallel (Ant. 20.113), which lacks the sequel about Cestius, simply says that the present robbery occurred about 100 stadia (12.5 miles, 20 km) from Jerusalem—a roughly accurate distance for Lower Beit-Horon, though the site is not named. In confirmation of the points made in the note to this word at 2.56, the parallel identifies these “bandits” as “some of the seditious people bent on revolution.” I.e., of Claudius, the current Caesar. For the title, see the note at 2.181. Although there was nothing approaching a modern civil service in the early empire, Claudius’ slaves (like his freedmen) had remarkably large responsibilities and authority for men of their social status, looking after his financial interests throughout the provinces. Many Greeks (as this man’s name indicates he was) were highly educated people who had the misfortune of finding themselves in Roman slavery. This episode anticipates a later one (War 2.595-609), when some young men from Dabaritta in S Galilee plunder the baggage (as here ἀποσκευή) of a Greek-named official in the service of Agrippa II; since Josephus will then be “general” of the northern theater, the incident will be a test of his leadership.

Greek τοὺς δεσμώτας means literally “the bound ones” and is commonly rendered “prisoners.” That translation may, however, suggest inmates of a prison in the modern sense, a category without parallel in the Roman world. See note at 2.4. Ridding the province of bandits, or keeping them in check, was one of the chief responsibilities of all governors (as it had been Herod’s first task: Ant. 14.159)—an essential component of maintaining the peace (Ulpian, Dig. 1.18.13.pr.). Isaac (1984: 180) points out that the establishment of a veterans’ colony at Ptolemais between 52 and 54 CE, and the construction of a military-grade road between there and Antioch (though not mentioned by Josephus), clearly indicate the Roman concern with controlling unrest and banditry in the province. He argues in general that the placement of Roman installations in Judea had more to do with banditry than with frontier defense. The awkwardness of this sentence, which seems to assume the prior existence of detainees, whose origin has not been described, may suggest again that Josephus is quickly condensing the longer account that will be given more space in Ant. 20. There (20.114) it is elaborated that Cumanus ordered soldiers to plunder the surrounding villages and bring him their most eminent men, bound, so that he could exact vengeance. The parallel (20.115) has the soldier find “the laws of Moses” and rip the volume in two, out where everyone can see, while he screams blasphemies and profanities. There is no fire there. Josephus thus appears to indulge his authorial freedom.

See the note at 2.58. Or “superstition.” Greek δεισιδαιμονία has various possible connotations. Josephus often seems to exploit this ambiguity (see 1.113 and the note to “superstition” at 2.174). This strong emphasis on the spontaneous unity and concerted action of the Judeans is characteristic of War: see note to “close order” at 2.12. These observations are absent from the Antiquities parallel (20.116). Ant. 20.116: “many.” See the note at 2.43: a formulaic reponse to Roman outrages in War 2. Coastal Caesarea was the governor’s capital and headquarters; see the note to “Caesarea” at 2.16 and to “residence” at 2.171. All the language here (rushing to the governor in Caesarea, the stress on unity, the Judeans’ “superstition,” begging him) recalls the first Pilate episode (2.170-74). Greek εἰς τὸν θεὸν καὶ τὸν νόμον αὐτῶν ἐξυβρίσαντα. This is characteristically Josephan language, not much attested elsewhere. For committing outrage against God, see Ant. 8.265, 299; 9.196; against fortune, War 2.184 (see note to “abused fortune”), 250; 5.120.

Ant. 20.117 has the governor consult his friends (presumably the few closer colleagues in his administration, not the Judean élite) for advice, which persuades him that the soldier must be dealt with. Greek οὐ γὰρ ἠρέμει τὸ πλῆθος. For similar phrases, which are characteristic of Josephus (hardly attested in other writers), see 1.227; 2.9, 40; 3.211; Ant. 8.265. One would expect the future infinitive ἠρεμήσειν here, and that is found in MSS LVRC and Latin. Niese follows PAM here, a reading that is also preferable as the one more difficult to explain by scribal emendation. Ant. 20.117 specifies that the soldier was beheaded. The parallel explicitly credits Cumanus with having thus prevented a second stasis. In War, too, he has not yet been blamed for these unfortunate events under his governorship. Josephus observes with noteworthy detachment the inevitable abuses of individual soldiers in occupying armies, no matter what the governor’s intentions or attempts at remedy.

Or “combat, conflict, encounter, fight” (γίνεται συμβολή). The construction is somewhat formulaic in War: 1.172, 250, 369; 2.263, 290, 489; 4.547; 6.251. Ant. 20.118: “hostility of Samarians against Judeans.” It has become common in scholarship to distinguish “Samarians” (inhabitants of Samaria) from “Samaritans” (members of the religious group who followed the Samaritan Pentateuch and worshiped at Mt. Gerizim); cf. Coggins 1975: 9; Egger 1986; Meier 2000: 204-5. Although the distinction is artificial in the sense that both words translate the same Greek terms (Σαμαρεῖς, Σαμαρεῖται), and the ancients did not isolate a branch of life called “religion,” precisely for the latter reason it may be useful to remember that the conflict here is more ethnic-tribal, political, and/or social than “religious”; at any rate Josephus does not mention any cultic or “religious” issues in what follows. On the long-standing animosity between Judeans and Samarians, see Ant. 9.290-91; 1 Macc 3:10; Luke 10:29-37; John 4:9; 8:48.This particular incident, which will occupy several paragraphs, seems to have been more widely known as the defining event in the career of Claudius’ procurator Cumanus. Even Tacitus knows about it (Ann. 12.54), though he seems wrongly to have inferred from the depth of the conflict and the separate embassies sent to Rome as a result that two Roman procurators, Felix and Cumanus, were championing the causes of Samaria and Galilee, respectively. That is highly implausible (see note to “Cumanus” at 2.223). The MSS are completely confused here, each giving a different version of the name with gibberish letters forming word fragments. Niese, having to print something, gives the reading of MS L, roughly supported by C. But a site with a name resembling Γήμα is otherwise unknown, and the MSS of the parallel (Ant. 20.118) are united in giving instead Γιναή, which is readily identifiable with Γιναία (War 3.48)—a town at the N edge of Samaria near the Great Plain (as also here): modern Jenin. At 3.48 Josephus likewise locates Γιναία, the northern-most site in Samaria, “in the Great Plain.” In fact, the site overlooks that plain (the Jezreel Valley), from the hills that rise to the S of it. Ant. 20.118 is clearer in placing it “on the frontier between Samaria and the Great Plain.” This clause may be read either as a genitive absolute, as translated here, or as partitive: “of many Judeans . . . a certain Galilean.” In this context it makes little practical difference, for in either case the Galilean should be understood as one of the Judeans: since it is a pilgrimage festival, many Judeans are going to Jerusalem; this incident happened to a Galilean. As Josephus’ Life shows clearly (e.g., 26-27, 63-66, 188-98), Galilean culture of the time was Judean and, at least in time of war, Galileans looked to Jerusalem for leadership. One spoke of going up to Jerusalem from Judean locations partly because it was in the hills, partly because of the unique sanctity of city, temple, and festivals (see note to “up” at 2.16).Once again, War reads like a compression of the Antiquities parallel. There (Ant. 20.118) Josephus explains that Galileans customarily traveled to festivals via Samaria. In Life 269 (see BJP 9 with notes) he elaborates that anyone who wished to reach Jerusalem quickly had no choice but to go via Samaria: that journey could be completed in 3 days. But he also implies that this route was considered dangerous, and before sending his friends on that trip, he wrote to other friends in Samaria to request safe passage for them. The gospel of Luke has a striking parallel: headed S to Jerusalem, Jesus sends messengers ahead to arrange his safe passage, but they are rebuffed by one Samarian village because he is headed to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51-6). Dignitaries and embassies making the trip seem normally to have taken a substantial armed escort (Life 190, 200-201, 268, 316).Given that most pilgrims would need to take as little time as possible from their work (especially in agriculture) to attend Jerusalem’s festivals, they might often have needed to travel through Samaria. The gospels indicate, however, that there was an alternative, longer route: E to the area of Scythopolis, S along the Jordan Valley, then W to Jerusalem through the Judean hills from about Jericho. This was the trip, requiring perhaps a week, taken by Jesus according to Mark (10:46; 11:1; cf. Luke 17:11; but John 4:4). Since the Jordan River alternative was not without its own dangers, especially from banditry in the hills ascending from Jericho (Luke 10:29-37), and given its much greater length, the fact that Galileans were still willing to take it suggests that the Samarian route was considered dangerous indeed. Neither here nor in Ant. 20.118 does Josephus explain which festival is in view, and identifying it is not easy. The outcome of the following narrative will see the Syrian legate Ummidius Quadratus visiting Jerusalem at Passover (2.244—in spring of 52) to determine the mood of the populace. But that visit will come only after much travel, several embassies (e.g., to Tyre, 2.239), investigations and trials, executions, and the dispatch of Cumanus and the tribune Celer to Rome (2.244). Since it is not possible that these could have happened during the single Passover in 52 CE, whereas a year seems too much time for the investigation of a single incident, the festival in question here was perhaps the autumn Festival of Sukkot (Booths, Tabernacles) in 51 CE. So also Colautti (2002: 113). Or “done away with.” Since Josephus often uses more explicit words for “kill” (κτείνω and compounds), I usually render the euphemistic verb used here (ἀναιρέω), even when the context obviously involves killing: “dispose of, do away with, get rid of, eliminate.” This is more difficult in the passive voice without resorting to colloquialisms (“taken out, wiped out, wasted”).In the parallel (Ant. 20.118) the MSS agree that certain inhabitants of Samarian Ginae joined in a fight and killed many Galileans who were en route to Jerusalem. That account, and possibly the switch in our passage from “Judeans” to “Galilean,” led some copyists of the War to write that many of the Judeans headed to Jerusalem were killed (MSS PAM). The Latin, however, supports the reading here (quidam galileus de numero iudaeorum ad festiuitatem ascendens interficitur), except that it has the single Galilean “going up” to Jerusalem. Feldman (LCL Ant. 20.118 n. e) offers the explanation of M. Aberbach (1949-1950), that Josephus was dependent on Roman sources while writing War, and they (being anti-Judean) portrayed this as a massive Judean over-reaction to the killing of just one person. Fatal problems for that theory are: (a) it would explain only this feature of the accounts, which differ in numerous ways (e.g., the problem of one or many statues ordered by Gaius, War 2.184-93//Ant. 18.256-309); (b) in fact the Roman governors often appear in a better (more rounded, human, intelligible) light in the Antiquities; and (c) this is one of the few episodes of Judean history under the procurators for which we have a parallel in a Roman author (Tacitus, Ann. 12.54), which tells a different story entirely, blaming the struggle largely on competitive Roman governors inciting their native populations. There is little reason to think that a “Roman source” was reflexively anti-Judean in the way proposed.

See the note at 2.43 (also 2.230 above). As often in Josephus, and as the sequel (e.g., 2.234) indicates here, the impulses of the mob are a constant threat to order and stability; they must always be managed by cultivated aristocrats of his own kind. This outlook was widespread among Josephus’ contemporaries, as in his models Thucydides and Polybius; see Introduction. It is characteristic of Josephus to distinguish the behavior of his own class (here, οἱ γνώριμοι) from that of the masses (cf. 2.185, 199). See further 2.234 and especially 2.243-44, where the Syrian legate properly treats the groups differently. It would have been well understood by Josephus’ Roman audience that a governor’s first responsibility was to work with the local élites to ensure stability (cf. Meyer-Zwiffelhoffer 2002), and that is the assumption of the Judean leadership as portrayed here. In Josephus’ narratives, however, it is usually only the men of senatorial rank (the Syrian legates), such as Petronius and Quadratus, who are capable of making this distinction effectively—Quadratus even treating the equestrian procurators rather like the local élites, in sending all of them to Rome to render account (2.243-46). Cumanus is (cf. 2.236) at the governor’s normal base in coastal Caesarea. This phrase (πρὶν ἀνηκέστου πάθους) is part of Josephus’ tragic lexicon (also 1.121; 2.320; 6.123), along with the closely related “irremediable calamities” (2.411, 532; 5.372). Although other authors occasionally have the need of such language (e.g., Aeschylus, Choeph. 516; Thucydides 3.39.8; Herodotus 1.137; Isocrates, Big. 45; Andocides, Myst. 142; Lysias, Traum. 20; Demosthenes, Con. 5; Aeschines, Ctes. 226; Polybius 4.53.3; 15.1.8; Diodorus 14.69.1; 31.3.2; 34/35.3.1; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 3.34.4; 8.14.2, 54.5, 61.3; 9.26.9; Thuc. 41), they do not use it nearly as often or as programmatically as Josephus. Only Philo comes close (Det. 176; Post. Cain. 81; Plant. 157; Conf. ling. 13, 155; Spec. 3.104, 166; 4.173; Legat. 293), over the range of his works. Of 13 occurrences of the adjective in Josephus’ War, 6 are in bk. 2, as he charts first the threat and then the tragic reality of “incurable” conditions created by the later procurators and those who react to them (also 2.316, 320, 411, 455, 532). That is: from coastal Caesarea, Cumanus is asked to proceed first to Galilee (presumably on the NE route via Legio or even N to Ptolemais and then E), to reassure the deeply disaffected populace that he is about to take action, before moving to the northern edge of Samaria to find the culprits. Even if Cumanus were inclined to go after the culprits, it would have been easier from Caesarea to enter Samaria (to the E) without first visiting Galilee; so presumably we should assume some such motive, given the volatile mood of the Galileans and the urgency of the crisis. Or, more literally, “be disbanded” (διαλυθῆναι). Ant. 20.119 adds the significant detail that Cumanus had been “persuaded with stuff” (i.e., bribed), by the Samarians, to ignore the Judean demands for retribution. This infuriates the Galilean masses, who immediately push for political freedom, from a “slavery” that is so demeaning and arbitrary, whereas the more sophisticated élites propose a counter-offer to “persuade” Cumanus to take their side. The absence of the bribery motif from this account might seem to suggest that it is a later embellishment, not something Josephus knew about here and omitted. Given his general propensity in War 1-2 to abbreviate what must (on any account) have been a much fuller narrative, and given the frequency with which Antiquities’ version matches what seems to have been in that longer account, it may simply be that in composing a more concise version here, the bribery question seemed a distraction. It is impossible to know. Josephus’ clear blaming of Jerusalem’s masses in the next sentence for exacerbating the situation might suggest that he knew of an alternative plan among the élites, which he opts not to explore in the space available here. This is another example of characteristic Josephan phrasing (ἀπράκτους ἀπέπεμψεν). Recall the similar condition of suppliants before Petronius (2.198); cf. Ant. 15.349; 16.293; 20.129.

Though difficult to translate here, this is the same word (πάθος) rendered “suffering” in 2.233 above: with many possible translations connected with tragic themes, it is a key word in War (1.9); see Introduction. The parallel, perhaps more coherently, omits any (clear) separate reference to Jerusalem and its masses, keeping the focus throughout on the upset Galileans and the interplay between Galilean masses and leaders (20.119-22). Greek συνταράσσω, without explicit object. Or (more to the point) “lacking the qualities a good general would supply.” This unusual word (ἀστρατήγητος), part of War’s distinctive lexicon (also 3.477; 4.136; 5.122), is attested in Greek literature before Josephus only in Ps-Plato, Alc. 2.142a and Josephus’ older contemporary Onasander 33.5. I can find no examples in inscriptions, though my search cannot be exhaustive. Cicero uses the Greek word in his Latin letters, complaining about the dux who “lacks generalship” in the face of Caesar’s juggernaut (Att. 7.13.1; 8.16.1—in superlative). This suggests that it seemed a particularly apt Greek term, known already to him in spite of its lack of literary attestation. Or he was merely showing off. Possibly “magistrates” (οἱ ἄρχοντες); see the note at 2.216 (there set in Rome). For its equivalence to other terms for the ruling élite, see the note to “powerful [men]” at 2.239 below. This pair of missing attributes—generalship and willingness to listen to those who would restrain them—is the reverse of the situation that Josephus claims for the Judeans later in the campaign, at least while the chief priests Ananus and Jesus lived (4.314-25). Had Ananus survived, Josephus claims, he would either have brought the people to terms through his compelling oratory or he would have made things much more difficult for the Romans—through good generalship (3.321-23). That this pair of virtues could be found in one man, as also in Josephus, shows that for him the conduct of the war was not a matter of ideology, of being pro- or anti-Roman (as absolute principles). It was rather a question of aristocratic leadership and values; see Introduction. His critique here (as also following the deaths of Ananus and Jesus: 4.326; 5.2) is that the always-impulsive mob went off under its own steam, without men of breeding and culture who could honorably manage the conflict, and so with disastrous results.

Eleazar the bandit turns up again at 2.253 (sent to Rome by Felix), though War does not make it perfectly clear that it is the same person (cf. Ant. 20.121, 161). Notwithstanding the “bandit” connection (see note at 2.56), this may have been a man of social standing. At 2:253 Josephus will claim that he and his associates were sent by Felix to Rome for trial, whereas many other bandits were executed in Judea. This could mean simply that he was the ringleader of a large insurrectionist movement, significant enough for that reason to be sent to Nero, or that he was a Roman citizen who enjoyed the right of trial in Rome. Feldman (LCL n. d to Ant. 20.121) identifies him with “ben Denai” in Midrash Rabbah to the Song of Songs 2.18, who prematurely tried to free the Judeans, and Eliezer b. Dinai in m. Sotah 9.9 (b. Sotah 47a): a prodigious murderer. This otherwise unknown figure does not appear in the Antiquities parallel. If Josephus used the same source for both accounts, he opted to pass over him there. See the note at 2.91. The collocation of “factious and bandit-like” (στασιῶδες καὶ λῃστρικὸν) is standard in War, appearing also at 2.511; 5.53; 6.417. It seems unattested in other surviving Greek literature. This again looks like the compression of a narrative like that of Ant. 20.119-22. There, it is in response to the alleged bribing of Cumanus by the Samarians, and the futility of the Judean leaders’ attempt, that the masses turn for assistance to the bandit Eleazar (“this man was a bandit who for many years had been making his home in the mountains”). We should perhaps assume a financial transaction here, given other stories in Josephus of bandit groups for hire (Life 105, 200—troops of 600- to 800-men strong). Josephus leaves unclear what became of the assaults undertaken by the masses themselves (2.234) or where in Samaria those might have taken place, since he mentions only the bandits attacking Acrabatene (but see further 2.237, seeming to confirm that the mobs had gone off on their own). Antiquities is more coherent in having the riled masses work under the leadership of the (hired?) bandits (20.121). Acrabatene was, Josephus reports (3.55), one of 11 toparchies in Judea (also among Pliny’s 10 in Nat. 5.70), the one that marked the southern extremity of Samaria—note the narrower and broader uses of “Judea.” Centered in Kh. Ormah (Acrabbim), according to Eusebius (Onom. Ἀκραββεῖν), it lay 9 miles SE of Neapolis (Shechem)—on the road down to the Jordan valley. “Those who bordered” Acrabatene, then, constituted one of the closest Samarian enclaves to Judea (3.48), and were most easily attacked from Judean soil. This is the first occurrence of the place name in War, where it will become significant as an assigned region in the defense of greater Judea (2.568) and the original base of Simon son of Giora (2.652; 4.504, 511, 551).Ant. 20.121 says more generally that the aggrieved Judeans attacked “certain villages of the Samarians.” Although Josephus’ audience might not understand “Acrabatene” without explanation, this more precise location in War is clarified by the contextual cue in the previous sentence (“rushed out towards Samaria”). This charge of barbarity against the bandits is missing from the parallel (Ant. 20.121). The phrasing, however ([μηδεμιᾶς ἡλικίας] φειδὼ ποιούμενοι), is common in Josephus: War 1.319; 6.130; Ant. 1.96; 4.261; 11.218; 12.402; 17.202.

Although Greek ἴλη, used here of the cavalry unit, can indicate troops of quite different sizes (Polybius 6.25.1; cf. note to “wing” at Life 121 in BJP 9), we should apparently understand this one to be a full wing, equivalent to the Latin ala, of about 500 (16 turmae of 30 to 32 each), commanded by the senior equestrian prefect of the auxiliaries. In addition to their practical advantages for rapid response, the cavalry were the élite, and best paid, force among the auxiliary units (Watson 1969: 15). The parallel (Ant. 20.122) has Cumanus take 5 units: 4 infantry and 1 cavalry. “Sebastene” (including Caesarean) forces apparently comprised 3,000 to 3,500 men: 5 infantry cohorts (2,500-3,500) plus a cavalry wing of cohort size (500): War 2.52 and note to “Sebastenes” there; Ant. 19.365. That Cumanus would take the cavalry and 4 infantry cohorts in this case (so Antiquities) would make sense if he had left the remaining cohort in Jerusalem for the ongoing festival (2.234). See 2.52, 58, 63, 74 and notes: the auxiliary units of Roman Judea, numbering 3,000-3,500 in total and drawn from Sebaste in Samaria and Caesarea, were a legacy to the Roman governors of the allied royal forces of Herod and Archelaus. They were reportedly at constant odds with the Judean population, as is illustrated by their reported indulgence of the exuberant celebrations of their populations at the death of Agrippa I (Ant. 19.355-61); Josephus claims that Claudius at one point planned to remove all of these units to Pontus, replacing them with legionaries (19.365). In the present narrative, the governor’s dependence upon these troops drawn from Sebaste, in a conflict between Judea/Galilee and Samaria, obviously prejudices the issue. Thus, Cumanus has completely ignored the request of the Judean leadership that he first visit Galilee to calm the populace and then proceed to find the murderers in Samaria: he is exclusively focused now on punishing those who have taken vengeance themselves. Notice Josephus’ detached narrative perspective: each party acts out a role without incurring his explicit moral judgment. The masses behave impulsively and violently, assisted as ever by opportunistic bandits, while the élite attempt to fulfill their difficult role of restrained intercession. The governor ignores one murder as uninteresting, but reacts immediately and with overwhelming force to reports of widespread unrest. Josephus does not say that Eleazar himself was caught in this action, and it appears that he was apprehended only by Felix, in Nero’s time (2.253; Ant. 20.161). The fate of these men is reported at 2.241. That this (πολλοὺς μὲν συνέλαβεν πλείστους δ’ ἀπέκτεινεν) is the precise opposite of Josephus’ assessment at Ant. 20.122 (πολλοὺς μὲν αὐτῶν ἀπέκτεινεν πλείους δὲ ζῶντας ἔλαβεν; he killed many, but took more alive) illustrates well what seems to be his relish in changing even basic elements of the stories he retells.

See the note to “fell upon” at 2.235. Only in War’s version does Josephus distinguish between the masses, who go off and attack unspecified places in Samaria, and the bandits and insurgents, led by Eleazar, who attack the region near Acrabatene. Every element of this paragraph is more fully developed in Ant. 20.122-24. E.g., whereas the text here has οἱ ἄρχοντες τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων, there the meaning is elaborated: “those who were first among the Hierosolymites in honor and birth” (οἱ δὲ πρῶτοι κατὰ τιμὴν καὶ γένος τῶν Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν). Although οἱ ἄρχοντες might have the specific sense of “the magistrates” (see note at 2.216), many of the word’s 136 occurrences in Josephus—e.g., in the case of ancient Israel (Ant. 3.70-71, 222)—must indicate simply “the leaders” or “the rulers/ruling class,” who would of course include various magistrates and officials. Although (black) sackcloth, torn clothes, and ashes were standard symbols of mourning in the biblical and classical worlds (e.g., 2 Sam 3:31; Neh 9:1; Esth 4:1-4; Job 16:15; Jer 6:26; Lam 2:10; Jon 3:5-8; 1 Macc 2:14; 3:47; 2 Macc 10:25; Josephus, Ant. 7.1), the particular combination here of σάκκος and τέφρα (rather than biblical σποδός, as in the parallel to this story at Ant. 20.123) appears otherwise only after Josephus’ time, and in a few texts: Joseph and Aseneth (10.16; 13.3; 14.12); Acts of Thomas 135; also John Chrysostom. For the dramatic cluster of tearing clothes, pouring ashes/dust, and wearing sackcloth see also 2.322, 601. These leaders play a typical role as intermediaries between the masses and the Roman governors: on the one hand representing the people’s grievances to the governor (2.233), on the other hand (here) pleading with the people not to exacerbate the situation (cf. Plutarch’s essay on Political Advice [Mor.] 814c-815f, 823-24). See the note at 2.8. See the note to “compassion” at 1.12. This verb (ἐλεέω) and its cognate noun, which appear about 39 times in War, are key components of the tragic lexicon (cf. Aristotle, Poet. 1449b.27; 1452.38; 1453a.3, 5, 1453b.12) in this work. That is, the innermost sacred house or sanctuary (ναός), localizing the divine presence in the Holy of Holies. See the note at 1.10. Invoking the suffering of women and children was a ready rhetorical device for enhancing the tragic ethos of a narrative (see the note to “women and children” at 2.192), and Josephus exploits it more than 100 times, e.g.: War 2.396; 7.321, 362, 380-93 (repeatedly in the ultimate tragedy of Masada); Ant. 1.74, 2.302; Life 25, 84, 99, 207, 230, 328, 419. The 3-way appeal to women, children, and homeland turns up again in Agrippa’s speech (2.395), in Josephus’ narrative of the defense of Iotapata (3.112), and in the parallel to this story at Ant. 20.123; cf. 10.230. All the terms of this appeal foreshadow that of Agrippa II (2.400)—“So let pity reach into you, even if not for children and wives, then for this very metropolis and the sacred precincts. Spare the temple and keep for yourselves the shrine with the holy [things]”—and from there the entire unfolding of the story with the burning of the shrine, the destruction of the city, and the massive slaughter and enslavement. It seems that the Jerusalem leaders (as Josephus’ characters) intend a pejorative tone by identifying the victim as a Galilean, rather than speaking simply of “one person.” The argument from one victim would be impossible, of course, if many Galileans had been killed, as in the parallel (Ant. 20.118); this part of the appeal is therefore absent from the later version. But here it anticipates Agrippa’s great speech (2.353): “It is perverse, because of one person [in that case, Florus], to make war on many.”

The nuances of this ἄδεια (“absence of fear”; often therefore “safe passage, free hand, impunity, amnesty, license”) is unclear. Later in bk. 2 Josephus will use this word when he accuses the procurators Albinus and Florus of creating an “impunity, safe passage, license” for bandits, by colluding with them through bribery (2.274, 288). Yet at 2.427 the rebel leaders achieve de facto impunity for a popular uprising against the wealthy by defeating the royal forces who would have contained them. The parallel (Ant. 20.124) also dates the massive rise in banditry to this moment, though without any explanation.In the context here, since Cumanus has acted decisively against the bandits, with maximum force, and reportedly killed “most” (2.236), there seems to be no question of an “amnesty” from his side (contrast later procurators), unless something important has dropped from the narrative. Josephus may mean simply that whereas the Judeans, especially Galileans, have until now felt vulnerable to the Samarians and the auxiliary soldiers under Rome’s control, having now tasted strength with the assistance of Eleazar’s professional bandits many are opting for the pride and security (i.e., “freedom from fear”) that membership in bandit gangs produces. Banditry (λῃστεία) and raids or plunderings (ἁρπαγαί) form a natural pair (Thucydides 7.26.2; Polybius 4.9.10; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 4.50.2; Philo, Flac. 5), but they recur more characteristically in War than among Josephus’ predecessors (2.57, 581, 593; 3.177; 4.134, 409; 6.363; cf. Ant. 1.61). Or “more spirited ones.” Like much of Josephus’ language related to issues of character, this adjective (θρασύς) is restrained in its moral implications. The quality in view is typical of the young (cf. 2.267, 303, 409). Although Josephus joins Thucydides and Polybius (with many contemporaries) in seeing youthful impulsiveness as a threat to the state, if it is allowed to go unchecked by the aristocratic leadership, he does not rail against the condition itself but simply describes it with characteristic detachment: this is what the young are like, as everyone knows. Of the 8 occurrences of the adjective in War, 6 are in this comparative plural form (and 1 in the superlative), indicating a type that should be familiar to the audience, rather than defined individuals. Josephus uses θερμός and its comparative οἱ θερμότεροι in much the same way (2.286; 4.292; 5.491). One of many stasis- compounds in War (see 1.10): ἐπανάστασις.

Josephus continues to draw from his repertoire of equivalent terms for the élite class (of any nation): οἱ δυνατοί (as here), οἱ γνώριμοι (the notables), οἱ πρῶτοι (the principal or first men), οἱ ἐπίσημοι (the distinguished), οἱ ἐπιφανέστατοι (the most illustrious, eminent), οἱ ἄρχοντες (the leaders, magistrates), etc. See 2.243 and notes for another constellation of such terms. His audience would know immediately the groups he was intending: society’s leaders by virtue of ancestry or family, education, wealth, political achievements, and consequent status. Tacitus (Ann. 12.54) likewise credits the Syrian legate with resolving this dispute, which he however casts as between competing procurators in Galilee and Samaria. C. Ummidius Durmius Quadratus (cos. suff. 40-48 CE?) was a well known figure in Roman circles, partly because he was the Syrian legate when in 54/55 CE the 17-year-old Nero sent Domitius Corbulo on his first Parthian campaign (Tacitus, Ann. 12.45, 48): Tacitus relates a serious rivalry between the men, which Nero wisely resolved by crediting the early victory in Parthia (i.e., receiving fresh hostages from Vologeses) to both of them equally (Ann. 13.8-9). Some high points of his career are recoverable through inscriptions (esp. ILS 972; cf. 190), coins of Antioch, and literary sources (summary in PIR 3.468-69). Before serving as Claudius’ and then Nero’s legate to Syria (50-57/60 CE), in which office apparently he died, he had been quaestor in 14 CE, praetor aerarii in 18, proconsul of Cyprus under Tiberius, Tiberius’ and then Gaius’ legate to Lusitania, and Claudius’ legate to Illyricum. His ready intervention in the affairs of Judea continues a pattern begun with Quinctilius Varus, and which continues under Quirinius (chiefly in Antiquities), Petronius, and finally Cestius Gallus (see the note to “province” at 2.117). Evidently, whether the local governor is a prefect or a procurator, the Syrian legate remains ultimately responsible for Judean affairs. See 2.117 and notes. Quadratus (“well developed”), well attested as a cognomen (Kajanto 1982: 65), was frequently used by the Ummidii. Tyre (in mod. Lebanon) was a large and ancient Phoenician trading city on the coast, built on an island that provided, via the connecting causeway, two excellent harbors. The mother-city of the famous Phoenician colonies of Cyprus, Carthage, and Gades (Cadiz), it was renowned for having rebuffed Alexander the Great in 332 BCE, who took it only after a difficult siege (Arrian, Anab. 2.16-24). After long subjection to Ptolemies and then Seleucids (from 200 BCE), it received free status in 126 BCE, and its high-quality silver coins became the standard currency for use in the Jerusalem temple (see further 2.592 and note).It was a journey of several days to Tyre from Sebaste or Neapolis, either via Caesarea and the coastal road, or via Legio to the N and then up the coast—passing through Ptolemais. See notes to “Tyrians” at 2.188 and Life 44 (BJP 9). Isaac (1998: 92) proposes that the refoundation of Ptolemais by Claudius as a Roman colony (see note to “Ptolemais” at 2.187) in 53 CE, the year following Cumanus’ departure as result of the Judean-Samarian conflict, was prompted by this very conflict; the adjective stabilis in its name might support that connection. I.e., asking him on their behalf. Although Josephus leaves the object (and subject of the vengeance) implicit, perhaps because Qudratus would be working in the Samarians’ interest, he cannot mean that they ask the legate to be able to take their own vengeance. In War there is nothing inappropriate in this request; it is the proper task of the élite to put major grievances to the Roman legate for resolution, and as far as War’s audience knows their villages have been subject to random attack. Again Josephus allows his various characters to air authentic-sounding perspectives. The parallel (Ant. 20.125-26) gives a fuller and subtler plea: the Samarians profess not so much to be injured themselves as to be indignant at the Judeans’ flouting of due process, because the latter did not take their grievance to the Romans, and so revealed a contempt for their governors. That appeal is ironic because the Galilean leaders have in fact sought redress from governor, who declined because he had allegedly been bribed—by the Samarians (20.119)! That complaint by the Samarians also seems to make better narrative sense, however. Here Josephus has established Cumanus as the swift avenger of the Samarians, at least against Judean “bandits,” quick to take the Samarian side using largely Samarian cohorts (2.236); the ground for a Samarian complaint about injustice—on the part of Cumanus’ administration—is therefore unclear, unless it relates to ongoing actions of Judean bandits (2.237), or unless perhaps the narrative intention is to present the Samarians, who have more privileged access to provincial security forces, posturing as victims for rhetorical purposes.

Greek οἱ γνώριμοι. See the note to “powerful [men]” in the preceding section. The pair “notables and chief priest(s)”—here singular, but otherwise plural—occurs 7 times in Josephus, all of them in War 2 (also 243, 301, 318, 322, 410, 411). This is the first mention of this important Judean leader. His Hasmonean name (‮יהונתן‬‎) is the 8th most frequently attested for males in this period (Hachlili 2005: 200). At the direction of L. Vitellius, Jonathan had both succeeded Joseph Caiaphas and then quickly yielded to his brother Theophilus as high priest in 37 CE (Ant. 18.95, 123). At 2.243 this former high priest will travel to Rome to represent the Judean case before Claudius; at 2.256, after returning to Jerusalem, he will become the first victim of the urban assassins called sicarii (at the direction of Felix according to Ant. 20.162-64). For Ananus I, the father, see the next note. Jonathan’s brother Ananus II will play a central role in War (2.563, 648-53; 4.151, 162-223): his murder and Josephus’ encomium provide the central panel and narrative fulcrum of the work (4.314-22); see Introduction. This Ananus (‮חנן‬‎—the 13th most frequently attested male name in the period; Hachlili 2005: 200), though he appears only here in War, was a figure of major historical importance in pre-70 Judea. Rabbinic literature recalls his family’s vast wealth (m. Ker. 1.7; t. Men. 13.18; b. Pes. 57a). Appointed high priest by Quirinius (6-15 CE; Ant. 18.26, 34), he had 5 sons who reportedly all rose to the highest office in the following decades (Ant. 20.197-98): the family appears to have exerted an extraordinary influence on Judean affairs until 70 CE. It was an assumption shared by both author and literary audience, and surely by the real characters behind those in the story, that “disturbance” was the principal thing to be avoided in the provinces, and that native élites above all (cf. Plutarch’s essay on Political Advice [Mor.] 823-24), in collaboration with the Roman governor if necessary, needed to make sure that it did not happen. See the note to this word at 2.170. Or “perpetrators.” Although old and well attested, this word (αὐθέντης) appears only at War 1.582 and here in Josephus. It can refer either specifically to murderers (Herodotus 1.117; Thucydides 3.58.5) or more generally to “doers, perpetrators” (often in the context of death, murder, or suicide). In the parallel (Ant. 20.127) the Judeans accuse Cumanus, consistently with the story there (20.119), of having accepted bribes.

Although one might have expected these sites to include Jenin (Ginaia, site of the original murder), the region abutting Acrabetene (the scene of Eleazar’s raids), other Samarian villages, and perhaps areas in Galilee as well as Jerusalem, only the last of these receives a visit from the legate. Either Quadratus means only that he will deal with cases away from Tyre, closer to the home regions of the suppliants, or he promises a close investigation on the ground that never materializes. This verb (διερευνάω) occurs 10 times in Josephus, all in War 1-6. For a sense of its usage, see 2.18, 41, where the Syrian procurator makes considerable efforts to “track down” the late King Herod’s assets. The language suggests that Quadratus is promising a careful examination on the ground, interviewing witnesses and gathering evidence. Ant. 20.128: Quadratus wanted to visit Judea and “learn the truth with precision.” Ant. 20.129 begins to create a rather different tone by observing that “they [the Samarians] left, unsuccessful.” In the present narrative, by contrast, things go mostly the Samarians’ way. Although most often this adverb (αὖθις) indicates a going “back” or “again,” that meaning seems unsuited to the context here, since Quadratus has not been mentioned in Caesarea before. The word can also mark the second half of a μέν . . . δέ construction, which we have here, emphasizing the other of two terms: “Although he declared X, he did Y.” That seems to fit the sense here: he promised a thorough investigation, but first moved to execute the bandits in Caesarea and then heard only the Samarians at Lydda, which resulted in the execution of 18 more Judeans. He never does hear the Judean side or thoroughly investigate as promised. Quite differently, Ant. 20.129 has Quadratus try to fulfill his promise (see next note). See note at 2.16. According to Ant. 20.129 Quadratus went to Samaria (not Caesarea), in fulfillment of his promise to investigate. While there, he concluded after a hearing that the Samarians were responsible for the disturbance. He then crucified both the Judeans and the Samarians who had been arrested by Cumanus. That story is awkward because one would assume that Cumanus’ prisoners had been taken back to his secure base in Caesarea, as in this story (2.236, 241).The relationship between the texts seems impossible to recover. It may be that this is a clear case in which Antiquities uses War as a base and changes the story. It is possible, however, that Josephus borrowed from a source like that used for Ant. 20 while writing this passage, but then when he came to write Ant. 20 and compared War 2, realized that in his compression he had made Quadratus harsher toward the Judeans than he had wished; so he spelled out the finding of Samarian guilt along with their punishment there. Of course, we can no longer know. See the note to this word at 2.75. This was the painful and humiliating form of execution chiefly used for those without status and for bandits, rebels, and slaves. See Hengel 1977; Cantarella 1991. These are the bandits from Eleazar’s gang arrested at 2.236. Perhaps they were thought to deserve no further hearing because Quadratus recognized them as professional criminals (“bandits”).

See War 1.302 and Appendix A to BJP 1a. Lydda (Lod) was a site of major logistical and strategic importance. Seat of one of the 10 or 11 toparchies of Judea (3.54-55; Pliny, Nat. 5.70), it lay on the major coastal highway as it veered inland (Via Maris) and was also the junction for several roads to the interior, including the two main routes to Jerusalem (via Beth Horon and via Ammaus). At the beginning of the war it will be among the areas assigned to John the Essaeus (2.567). Its location made Lydda the perfect choice as a temporary base for Quadratus. Cf. J. Schwartz 1991: 67-78 (for this period, though he mainly discusses literary traditions). Ant. 20.130 has Quadratus hear out the Samarians in Lydda (same verb) from a tribunal platform (bema). Given the difference of content with Ant. 20.130, it is striking that there Quadratus also learns (there διδάσκω, here πυνθάνομαι) about certain Judean culprits. This might suggest a deliberate change of story. Ant. 20.130 claims that Quadratus was told by a certain Samarian that an otherwise unknown Judean leader (πρῶτος) named Doetus, with 4 other “revolutionaries,” had been inciting the mob to defection from the Romans: a charge that does not appear here and seems at odds with the logic of 2.237, which has the masses recognize that their fury is because of a single Galileans’ death. There it is these 5 revolutionaries (not the 18 here who have sacked Samarian villages) whom Quadratus orders executed. This (διαχειρίζομαι) is one of Josephus’ rarer euphemisms for killing, used otherwise in War only at 1.113, 547; 2.478; cf. Ant. 15.173; 6.115. That is, they were beheaded, rather than being crucified like the bandits of the previous sentence. Beheading was considered the most honorable and humane form of execution, because it did not involve the prolonged suffering that crucifixion entailed.

These men are curiously unnamed; see note to “latter” in this sentence. This section illustrates well the equivalence of terms (here τῶν δυνατωτάτων) for the élite in Josephus; see the note to “powerful [men]” at 2.239. This is a peculiar sentence. Josephus features the two important men at the outset, but fails to identify them; he then names three who seem to be of the highest possible rank (current high priest, a predecessor, and a son); finally he mentions others of the same class (again unnamed). Ant. 20.131 is clearer: Quadratus sent to Claudius the high priest Ananias and the captain Ananus (apparently, the most important Judeans of the time) “and their group.” In War (only) Josephus frequently pairs the chief priests and the powerful, with significant overlap (since the chief priests are understood to be among the most powerful): 1.31; 2.301, 316, 336, 411, 422, 428, 648; 6.422. See the notes to “powerful [men]” at 2.239, and to “notables” in this section. Son of Ananus Ι, high priest in 37 CE: see note at 2.240. This (‮חנניה‬‎) is the 10th most commonly attested male name in this period (Hachlili 2005: 200). Although Josephus is not interested in clarifying such matters for War’s audience, Ananias son of Nebedeus is the current high priest (47/48 to 59 CE; cf. Ant. 20.103, 179)—apparently holding the longest term since Caiaphas in the time of Pilate’s long governorship (18-37 CE). Confusion about Ananias’ term arises from conflicting information about his successor, Ishmael son of Phabi (Ant. 20.179), whom the Talmud (b. Yoma 9a) gives 10 years in office. Although that notice was recorded about half a millennium after the events, some scholars find reason to credit it; D. R. Schwartz (1983) proposes that Ishmael took office during Ananias’ aforementioned lengthy stay in Rome, from about 49 BCE; cf. also Goodman 1987: 142 n. 5.At least two of Ananias’ sons reportedly served as temple “captain”: Ananus (next mentioned here) and then Eleazar, who will play a crucial role in the build-up to war (2.408-18); see 2.568 for a possible 3rd. Ananias himself appears as a man of great wealth (Ant. 20.205-6, 213); a few years after his return from this present trip to Rome, his house will fall to arson at the hands of the rebel leaders (2.426). He and his brother Ezekias will take refuge with Agrippa’s troops in the Herodian palace (2.429), where they will eventually be caught and killed when the palace is abandoned by royal forces and stormed by Menachem’s men (2.441). Ananias’ son Eleazar will then have his revenge (2.443-46). See the previous note and that to the name (of a different man) at 2.240. According to Ant. 20.131 Ananus son of Ananias was temple commandant (στρατηγός), before his brother Eleazar took up that position (War 2.408-9). He appears, however, only in these parallel stories. The phrase [τινας ἄλλους] Ἰουδαίων γνωρίμους is plainly equivalent to “powerful [men]” in this section. For Josephus’ wide repertoire of terms for the élite, see the note to “powerful [men]” at 2.239. Chief priests and notables are coupled here and at 2.240, 301, 318, 322, 410, 411—only in War 2. This (τοὺς ἐπιφανεστάτους) is the 3rd equivalent term in this section for the élite, used here of the Samarians.

Unknown outside of Josephus, this Celer appears only here and in the denouement (2.246), as well as in the parallels (Ant. 20.132, 136). Celer (“swift, speedy”) was a very common Latin cognomen (borne by 519 men and 2 women according to Kajanto 1982: 66). It is noteworthy that, like Quadratus, the name signifies a physical virtue associated with men. The Roman name suggests a continuation of the pattern (see note to “Gratus” at 2.52) that Judea’s auxiliary forces, though raised locally from Sebaste and Caesarea, are under the command of a Roman (possibly equestrian) officer, possibly a Greek who has acquired citizenship. Given Celer’s dreadful fate below (2.246), the audience must assume that the tribune has been a major irritant in the episodes just described. He may have been responsible for the Jerusalem cohort that flooded the colonnades and caused the deaths of many thousands (2.227). His rank of “tribune” might suggest that Jerusalem hosted a cohors milliaria—1,000 strong rather than the customary 500 (see the note to “cohort” at 2.224). Less likely, he led a 1,000-strong Sebastene cavalry ala in their campaign to destroy the bandits (2.236).In any case, the audience would presumably find nothing strange in the fact that one of Cumanus’ senior officers would be held responsible with him. The NT Acts gives a vivid impression of the role that a tribune of the Jerusalem cohort (there, a Greek with Roman citizenship: Claudius Lysias) could play in dealing with the populace—irrespective of whether the events happened as described there. Acts’ tribune convenes the Jerusalem council and tries to work with members of the local élite, as the governor’s agent, to resolve issues creating popular unrest (Acts 23:31-38; 22:23-23:30). Inevitably, the man in such a powerful and visible position (in Jerusalem) faced the constant risk of alienating the people; an incompetent or malevolent tribune could cause great damage. Instead of this construction (δίδωμι [Κλαυδίῳ] λόγον), which usually has the sense of passing word along, we might expect the more formulaic language for submitting or rendering and account (ὑπέχω λόγον) to Caesar; see the note at Life 13 in BJP 9. See the note to “up” at 2.16. Possibly “being surprised to find” (καταλαβών); see note to “surprised” at Life 17 in BJP 9. According to Ant. 20.133, as might be implied here, Quadratus worried that he would find the Jerusalemites in a new rebellion. See the note at 2.10. The adverb ἀθορύβως occurs only here and at War 1.150 in Josephus (there also of sacred rites conducted without perturbation). Although Quadratus has been introduced at Tyre (2.239), Antioch on the Orontes was his capital and base as Syrian legate. See note at 2.18.

Claudius (2.244). On the title, see notes to “Romans” at 1.20; “Iulia” at 2.168; and especially “Caesar” at 2.181. As we have come to expect, from the preceding narrative (2.233, 236, 240), Cumanus is here assumed to be in complete solidarity with the Samarian leaders. Ant. 20.134-35 emphasizes this by having Claudius devote a day to hearing their side, and by having the emperor’s freedmen and friends wholeheartedly support them. That is, Agrippa II. Although we last heard of him when he was granted the kingdom of his uncle Herod, in Chalcis (2.223), like many Herodians he spent a great deal of time in Rome, the city of his youth. It is unclear from Josephus’ language whether Agrippa was present at the hearing (Why would he be, if it were devoted to Cumanus and the Samarians?) or simply present in Rome (more likely). Ant. 20.135 suggests the latter, also by having Agrippa observe the Samarians’ initial success and then try to remedy the situation. Here again the account in War looks like it could be a précis of the account in Ant. 20. Greek ἐκθύμως ὑπεραγωνιζόμενος. The collocation ἐκθύμως + ἀγωνίζομαι is well established in Polybius (2.9.5; 3.115.4; 11.14.1) and—exclusively—subsequent Hellenistic historians (Diodorus 11.8.2, 31.2, 76.2; 12.41.5; 15.55.4; 17.34.4, 59.4, 63.2; 19.65.5; 20.87.3; 22.13.5; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 2.54.4; 8.65.2-3, 86.5; 9.61.2; Plutarch, Pyr. 30.6; Ages. 18.3; Appian, Annib. 93). This intensification of the action with a ὑπερ– prefix is barely attested in literature before his time (Dionysius, Ant. rom. 6.41.3), though it soon appears thereafter (Appian, Bell. civ. 1.11.96; 3.2.19; Polyaenus, Exc. 40.3; often in late antiquity).The adverb, in Josephus elsewhere only at Ant. 19.158, seems to be a Hellenistic formation, attested from Polybius (16 occurrences) onward (Diodorus has 15, Dionysius 5, Philo 7), often in the construction already noted. [It is in the epitome of the 2nd-cent. BCE grammarian Aristophanes, but may come from the epitomator.] The adjectival form occurs before Josephus only in 2 Maccabees (7:3, 39; 14:27), negatively: of the king’s being beside himself. Ant. 20.135 gives the crucial intermediary role to Claudius’ wife, Agrippina the Younger. Agrippa contends for the Judeans by approaching Agrippina and asking her to intercede with Claudius: to persuade him to act in a manner more fitting with his commitment to law, and to punish the (Samarian) instigators of the revolt. This she does, and it is her successful intervention that produces the conclusion described here in War. If Josephus is briefly summarizing that account (or one like it) here, it is probably no coincidence that he omits Agrippina’s role, for he is about to render a harsh verdict on her meddling in the succession after Claudius (2.249). Although the later account is arguably even harsher on Agrippina (Ant. 20.148-52), that attack is separated from Cumanus’ hearing by several paragraphs. Ant. 20.135 elaborates that it was Claudius’ freedmen—whom we know to have included Narcissus, Callistus, and Pallas, who held unprecedented power in his administration (cf. Levick 2001: 53-58)—and friends (amici) who showed the greatest partiality toward Cumanus and the Samarians. It is a striking recognition of the new realities of the principate that Josephus should choose to represent those freedmen, if he is here summarizing the same narrative, as “many of the powerful” (πολλοὶ τῶν δυνατῶν). This compact style suggests, in comparison with the much more leisurely parallel in Ant. 20, that Josephus is condensing a fuller account. The parallel (Ant. 20.136) has Claudius ordering the deaths of the Samarians who appeared before him. Harmonizing the accounts would suggest that 3 of their most important men had gone as emissaries, which would make sense given the Judean delegation’s composition (former and current high priest, temple captain, and other notables). This would mean, however, that Claudius was willing, even in an abrupt change of position, to execute the highest Samarian leadership.

The tribune; see 2.244. Possibly “sent up” (ἀναπέμπω). On going up to Jerusalem, see the note to “going up” at 2.232. Or “as a detainee” (Κέλερα δὲ δεσμώτην ἀναπέμψας); see the note to “detainees” at 2.4. Greek παραδοθῆναι . . . πρὸς αἰκίαν. Note the similar phrase at Ant. 1.188 (though not attested elsewhere before or contemporary with Josephus). Ant. 20.136 mentions no separate torture, but being dragged about the city as a spectacle before beheading. Ant. 20.136 spells out the point of this dragging around: Celer was to be “seen by all” in his pre-execution humiliation. “In this way . . . ” (οὕτω τὴν κεφαλὴν ἀποκοπῆναι) implies that this was not to be a proper Roman beheading—an honorable mode of execution for soldiers, citizens, and other respectable persons (see the note to “double-ax” at 2.242). This beheading, after torture and humiliation by foreigners, following the months-long journey back to Judea in anticipation, would be an extreme form of degradation for the tribune. It suggests that Claudius (like Quadratus) was indeed worried about the intensity of the Judeans’ grievance as conveyed by Agrippa (and Agrippina?). Letting them see severe justice done to this Roman officer should help assuage their anger, just as Cumanus’ earlier execution of an auxiliary soldier after he had been paraded past his Judean accusers led them to disperse from their demonstrations (2.231).

As Josephus’ Roman audience would have realized immediately from the next phrase, Felix—brother to one of Claudius’ most trusted advisers, himself a freedman whom the princeps had raised to equestrian status and entrusted with a province—must have gone to Judea in 52 CE with powerful support behind him. His term was unusually long for Roman governors after King Agrippa I (41-44 CE), ending in 59 or 60 CE on the standard but debated reckoning (Schürer-Vermes 1.460), in 58 according to Kokkinos (1998: 385). Further evidence of his strong backing is the failed effort of Judean leaders from Caesarea to prosecute him in Rome after his return (cf. Ant. 20.182). Barrett (1996: 126-27) makes a good case that Agrippina, Claudius’ wife and Nero’s mother, who would be honored on Judean provincial coins beginning in 54 CE (thus produced by Felix), was the main source of his support.Whereas Tacitus gives Felix’s gentilicium as Antonius (matching that of his brother Pallas, whom Claudius’ mother Antonia had freed: see next note), which would further suggest the praenomen Marcus, the MSS of Ant. 20.137 call him “Claudius Felix”—both names in the accusative as object of the verb πέμπει. Most editors, however, follow the Epitome in emending that text by one letter to make Claudius the subject of the verb: thus, “Claudius sends Felix” (Schürer-Vermes 1.460 n. 19), permitting the gentilicium Antonius. Kokkinos (1990), however, makes the case for “Tiberius Claudius” as Felix’s forenames, partly on the strength of the dedicatory Bir el-Malik inscription, which mentions an official named “Tiberius Claudius” under whom the honorand (one T. Mucius) had served (L’année épigraphique [1967], ed. J. Gagé et al. [Paris 1969], no. 525). Brenk (2001) offers cogent critique of Kokkinos’ reconstruction of the inscription’s missing parts (including the crucial “Felix”), though he allows that Felix may have had, and used, both gentilicia.As for the cognomen Felix (“fortunate, lucky, happy”), it is among the most commonly attested names of antiquity (5,115 times), and disproportionately represented among slaves and freedmen (Kajanto 1982: 72-3). Even though men of distinction (such as Sulla) could assume the name in a different context as a badge of honor after great success, its frequency in the lower orders suggests that hearing the name, for a freedman of Claudius or his mother, would reinforce a Roman audience’s feeling of disdain.Tacitus claims, with typical sarcasm and contempt for powerful freedmen, that Felix had less moderation than his brother Pallas, that he was a thoroughly incompetent governor of Judea, who pursued an ongoing conflict with a fellow-governor (Ann. 12.54), and that he was given to barbarian and lustful practices, exercising “the power of a king with a slave’s temperament” (Hist. 5.9). Tacitus also claims that Felix married Drusilla, the grand-daughter of Antony and Cleopatra (Hist. 5.9). Josephus has him marry a different Drusilla: the daughter of Agrippa I and Cyprus; hence the sister of Agrippa II. Although it is possible that Felix married two royal Drusillas from very different families (so Barrett 1996: 127), it is easier to imagine that Tacitus is mistaken (discussion in Brenk 2001).Josephus omits the marriage story in War, but the parallel (Ant. 20.141-44) supports Tacitus’ charge of Felix’s libidinous character: Drusilla is already married to King Azizus of Emesa, who has undergone circumcision for the purpose, when Felix notices her and decides that he must have her; he uses a magician to persuade her to leave her husband. Josephus condemns the union and pointedly observes that the son from their union (named Agrippa) died in the eruption of Vesuvius (79 CE). Acts features Felix as governor at the time of Paul’s arrest, also noting that he was married to the Judean princess Drusilla—and portraying him as nervous when Paul begins to talk about fairness, self-control, and pending divine judgment (Acts 23:24-26; 24:22-27). In addition to specifying which Felix is in question, Josephus’ identifier “the brother of Pallas” assumes that his audience in Flavian Rome knows the name of this powerful man from Claudius’ reign. Pallas (of uncertain but apparently Greek origin) first appears as the most trustworthy slave of Claudius’ mother Antonia (daughter of Marc Antony and Octavia); she reportedly entrusted to him the sensitive mission of informing Tiberius, then living at Capri, about the plot of his prefect Aelius Seianus in Rome in 31 CE (Ant. 20.182). At some time between 31 and Antonia’s death in 37, Pallas received his freedom: although his activities during Gaius’ brief reign are uncertain, he went on to become a valued aide to Claudius.One of the 3 Greek freedmen to whom Claudius gave unprecedented influence, with Narcissus and Callistus, M. Antonius Pallas first appears in Claudius’ reign in 48 CE as the powerful secretary of imperial accounts (a rationibus), master of the imperial treasury (fiscus), the holdings of which were spread around the empire (Tacitus, Ann. 11.29). Pallas received from later authors fuller and even more hostile attention than his colleagues (e.g., Pliny, Ep. 7.29). This was not only because he had become a gateway to the princeps, above equestrians and also leading senators, reportedly using his influence to select Claudius’ 4th wife Agrippina after Narcissus had prosecuted the downfall of Messallina, but also because of the conspicuous and, to later senatorial writers, nauseating honors he received—praetorian rank (ornamenta, Suetonius, Claud. 28), conveyed in a senatorial decree engraved in bronze that praised Pallas’ loyalty (Pliny, Ep. 8.6; Tacitus, Ann. 12.53) and vast accumulated wealth (Tacitus, Ann. 12.53; 14.65)—and because of his collusion with the hated Agrippina (Tacitus, Ann. 12.1-2, 25, 65; 13.2; 14.2). Although Pallas’ honors were mostly voted by the Senate, Oost (1958: 131-33) argues that the tone of those who proposed them (who had little choice but to please the princeps) was ironic.Pallas’ influence was at its height in 52 CE, when he assisted Claudius in solving the legal problem of the status of free women who married slaves, a solution accepted by the Senate and for which Pallas was voted the honors mentioned above. But after Claudius’ death and Nero’s accession in 54, followed by Agrippina’s rapid decline in power (after a brief period of glory), the young princeps followed the advice of his counselors and removed Pallas from power (January, 55 CE; Tacitus, Ann. 13.14-15; cf. Oost 1958: 132-35). He seems to have retained some influence, for Josephus credits him with interceding in behalf of Felix against Judean accusers (Ant. 20.182). Pallas died in 62 CE, suddenly and (therefore?) reportedly as the result of poison arranged by Nero, though the explanation has little to commend it (Suetonius, Nero 35; Tacitus, Ann. 14.65; Dio 62.14.3). See the note at 2.117. In his effort to spell things out (it seems), Josephus exacerbates some inconsistencies. (a) This description assumes that Judea does not include Samaria and Galilee. Although this accords with the narrower sense of the word (Judea proper, distinct from Samaria) in some of his geographical descriptions (2.96; 3.48), even in those contexts Josephus can include at least Samaria and Idumea (3.55); see also his characterization of Herod’s larger domain as Judea (1.225, 244). Often he assumes that Galilee’s Judeans are part of Judea proper (e.g., 2.192-93, 202), as in the recent episode Judeans come from Galilee (2.232; cf. 3.53, 143, 409 [coastal Caesarea—N of even Samaria—is “one of the largest cities of Judea”]). The broader sense of the word was familiar to Roman audiences (Pliny, Nat. 5.70 [which has Galilee and Perea as partes of Iudaea, though also distinguishing them]; Tacitus, Hist. 5.6). (b) Josephus implies here that Samaria, Galilee, and Perea were new additions to Felix’s territory as procurator of Judea, whereas in fact he had the same territory as the preceding governors after King Agrippa (2.220: Claudius made “the kingdoms” or royal territories into a province). The parallel (Ant. 20.137) has Felix dispatched simply to take charge of affairs “in Judea.” Noting the peculiarity of this description, Aberbach (1949-50: 6) takes it as a vestige of the circumstance “that Felix had in fact been governor of one of these districts, namely Galilee, and was now appointed over the whole of Palestine.” See the note to “Cumanus” at 2.223. It is a famous problem (see the note to “Cumanus” at 2.223) that Tacitus confidently makes Felix and Cumanus contemporary governors, giving the former Samaria and the latter Galilee (Ann. 12.54). Tacitus portrays the two procurators in perpetual conflict, each collaborating with troublesome elements in his district, until the matter is resolved by the Syrian legate Quadratus, who favors Felix and unfairly condemns Cumanus. Given Josephus’ better local knowledge and more detailed accounts, most scholars think that Tacitus is confused: he knows about a conflict involving Cumanus and Samaria, but puts the pieces together mistakenly. Any effort to reconcile the two accounts (e.g., Aberbach 1949) must make many assumptions to explain the range of differences. It is difficult to see how to construct a probable hypothesis from available evidence. See notes at 2.43, 57. Formerly the territory of Agrippa’s brother Herod (see 2.217, 221 and notes), subsequently given to Agrippa II (2.223). Ant. 20.138 dates this major shift in Agrippa’s territories to a time when Claudius had completed 12 years of rule: thus, in the 12 months from Jan. 25, 53 CE to January 54. The passage also indicates that Agrippa had ruled Chalcis for 4 years, which would put the the beginning of his rule there in either 49 or 50, each of which complicates other calculations, especially the events in Caesarea that precipitated the outbreak of war (2.284 below); see note to “kingdom” at 2.223. Translated thus for consistency, since this term (ἐπαρχία) usually indicates a “province” (provincia) which a legate, proconsul, prefect, or procurator governs. Josephus evidently uses the term more broadly here. Ant. 20.138 speaks more precisely of the tetrarchy of Philip passing to Agrippa II. So 2.95, which adds Auranitis and the estates of Zenon (Lysanias’ territory) to Philip’s tetrarchy. Curiously, although Ant. 18.106 names the same territories as Philip’s tetrarchy at his death, the parallel passage to this one (Ant. 20.138) has Agrippa II receiving Philip’s tetrarchy as well as Batanea and Trachonitis, as if they were distinct. See the notes to “Zenon” at 2.95 and to “Lysanias’s” at 2.215. This area, identified as “Lysanias’ former tetrarchy of Abela” at Ant. 20.138 (cf. Luke 3:1), lay W and N of Damascus. Here (2.252 below) Josephus will separate out Abela (Abila, Abilene) as a separate gift. This was likely a puzzling reference for Josephus’ audience. Although Varus was a common Latin cognomen (meaning “twisted, bent, knock-kneed”), and the Roman legatus Q. Varus has played a prominent role in War 2 (2.16-18 etc.), the Varus in question here (or Noarus) is the former tetrarch (hence “tetrarchy” here) of Libanus or Mt. Lebanon (so Life 52). Tacitus (Ann. 12.23) and Dio (59.12.2) mention a Soaemus who received “Iturea” from Gaius in about 38 CE and held it until his own death in 49 CE. Although his territory passed back into the Roman province of Syria at that point, since Josephus identifies Varus as Soaemus’ heir (Life 52) it seems likely that he was permitted to hold part of Soaemus’ territory for a few years—until Claudius gave it to Agrippa II (here).

This is exactly correct: counting from the day of Gaius’ assassination (Jan. 24, 41) to Claudius’ death on October 13, 54 (cf. Ant. 20.148; Suetonius, Claud. 45; Tacitus, Ann. 12.69; Dio 60.34.3). Josephus’ audience would know what he slightly elaborates in Ant. 20.148: that Claudius was widely rumored to have died by poisoned food arranged by his wife Agrippina (cf. Tacitus, Ann. 12.66-67; Suetonius, Claud. 44; Dio 61.34.2-3), to expedite the rise of her son Nero to power. For discussion, see Barrett 1996: 138-42. See the note to “Nero’s principate” at 1.20. “Nero” had become part of his name only after his adoption by Claudius on Feb. 25, 50 CE, when he (L. Domitius Ahenobarbus) took Claudius’ father’s name (Nero Claudius Drusus) with supplements (Germanicus Caesar). For his adoption, see the following notes.

Claudius adopted Nero on Feb. 25, 50 CE: notwithstanding any scheming on Agrippina’s part, this made perfect sense in terms of the succession, since his own son Britannicus was only 9, and he may have wished to follow the Augustan model—with Gaius and Lucius—of a paired succession (Levick 2001: 70). For the language, see the note to “genuine [son]” below in this section. See the note to “trickery” at 2.106. The English translation (Greek ἀπάταις) carries a double-entendre suited to the case, given the widespread reports of Agrippina’s many sexual liaisons. Among her “tricks” would presumably be her seductive ways in luring Claudius and her removal of rivals after her marriage. Iulia Agrippina “the Younger,” daughter of Claudius’ brother Germanicus (so Claudius’ niece and the former princeps Gaius’ sister) and Vipsania Agrippina “the Elder” (herself daughter of Augustus’ lieutenant Marcus Agrippa and Iulia), had a distinguished ancestry. The twice-widowed 33-year-old, with a 10-year-old son L. Domitius Ahenobarbus (future Nero) from her first marriage, was one of several candidates for the role of Claudius’ 4th wife in the year 48, following Messallina’s death (Tacitus, Ann. 12.1-3). Josephus displays here both his reflexive mistrust of women’s wiles (cf. 2.121 and notes) and his eager participation in contemporary élite Roman assessments of Agrippina (on which see Barrett 1996: 6-12 et passim; Ginsburg 2006).Josephus’ implication that Claudius could have promoted Britannicus neglects the reality that the child was only 9, when in 50 CE the 60-year-old, congenitally ill princeps needed an assured succession and adopted Nero. Like Augustus and Tiberius before him, Claudius was evidently trying to secure both “an heir and a spare”; even Agrippina’s 12-year-old son Nero would need some years to reach manhood, and ended up assuming the principate at only 16. On Nero’s succession see Griffin 1984: 18-33; Barrett 1996: 114-19, 146-67; Levick 2001: 69-72.Although Josephus implies that Agrippina’s tricks extended to thwarting not only Britannicus but also Claudius’ natural daughters, this only shows that he is over-reaching to attack Agrippina. There was no chance that a woman could become princeps, of course, and if Josephus means that the husbands of these daughters might have been candidates, he contradicts himself by noting that Nero was pledged to Octavia (see note to “Nero” here)—unless the implication, for a knowing audience, is that the girl Octavia could have produced an heir (after a few years) with the husband who was waiting to marry her, L. Iunius Silanus, who was removed by intrigue to free her for Nero (Levick 2001: 70-71).This loose and puzzling list of daughters might be most easily explained as Josephus’ hasty synopsis of material that will later appear in Ant. 20.149-50, by his tacking on other children’s names without much thought, after mentioning Britannicus. The same women are mentioned there, but only as background to Agrippina’s efforts to thwart Britannicus and promote Nero (partly by murdering Claudius); there is no hint there that the women offered alternatives to the succession. For the relationship between these terms, see also Ant. 1.154: lacking a genuine (γνήσιος) son, Abraham adopted (εἰσεποιήσατο) Lot; Isaeus, Euph. 2; [Demosthenes], Leoch. 6. So all the Greek MSS (Βρεττανικός); Latin Brittannicum. Josephus uses the standard Greek rendering (based on Βρεττανία)—also in Cassius Dio and others—for the person we know as Britannicus. This is his only appearance in War, but see the much fuller account in Ant. 20.149-53, of which this reads as a précis.Ti. Claudius Caesar Germanicus was born to Messallina, who had married Claudius in 38 or 39, on Feb. 12, 41, not yet 3 weeks after Claudius’ perilous achievement of supreme power. He was their second child (first was Octavia). The boy would receive the hereditary name “Britannicus” after Claudius’ triumph in 44 CE, recognizing the successful invasion of Britain through the preceding year. This transference of honorary names was already a family tradition: Claudius’ brother Germanicus was called this because of the exploits of his father (Nero Claudius Drusus) in Germany; when the father died in 9 BCE, the name became posthumous and hereditary.As Levick (2001: 56-67) shows, Britannicus was vulnerable from birth to rivals for power—and this seems a good part of the explanation for his teenage mother’s alliances and sexual liaisons with powerful men: to protect her child’s prospects. According to unanimous contemporary tradition, the teenage emperor Nero had him poisoned, at a banquet in February 55 CE—with the collusion of an expert poisoner and a Praetorian tribune, who were both later rewarded—to remove the threat (Ant. 20.152; Tacitus, Ann. 13.15-17; Suetonius, Nero 33.2; Dio 61.1.2; Herodian 4.5.6). For critical discussion, see Barrett 1996: 170-72, who suggests death from tetanoid epilepsy.It was also reported that that the future princeps Titus, a boyhood friend of Britannicus, drank from the same cup and narrowly escaped death (Suetonius, Tit. 2). But since Britannicus’ memory was conspicuously honored by the Flavians, with statues and coins, modern scholars tend to the view that part of the Flavian legitimation strategy was their self-presentation as reclaimers of an abortive Claudian-Britannican tradition, a view that both Suetonius’ notice and Josephus here are understood to be echoing (cf. Barrett 1996: 71; Levick 2001: 190-91). Although MSS PAM have one σ, her name was Valeria Messallina. It seems that Claudius divorced Aelia Paetina, wife of about 10 years, for Messallina chiefly because of her favorable political associations, which better suited his rising status in the late 30s. She was in her late teens, whereas Claudius was nearing 50, but she was the great-grand-daughter of Augustus’ sister Octavia (via two lines), Claudius’ own cousin once removed, and like him a descendant of Marc Antony (Levick 2001: 55). On the significance of her sexual affairs and moves against rivals, see previous note. It was one such affair that precipitated her downfall: she fell in love with a consul-designate (for 49 CE), Gaius Silius. Tacitus relates the story in detail (Ann. 11.25-38): the pair decided to marry, and even have friends witness the event, while Claudius was away in Ostia; Silius would adopt Britannicus and rise to supreme power. But the freedman Narcissus, who knew that a change of princeps would mean his own removal, drove Claudius onward in relentless prosecution of the couple. The disgraced Messallina was assisted in her suicide by a tribune of the Guard (over which Narcissus had managed to win command for one day). Cf. Levick 2001: 63-67. Claudia Octavia was the first child of Claudius and Messallina, born about a year after their marriage in 38/39. As a young girl (about 8 years of age) she was betrothed to L. Iunius Silanus, a union that would not have been possible before 53 CE (for her to be old enough). When Agrippina married Claudius in 49, however, she saw this planned marriage as a threat to her son Domitius’ advancement: Tacitus claims that she had intended to marry Domitius (Nero) to Octavia from the start (Ann. 12.3), and now arranged matters by having Silanus convicted on fabricated charges of incest. The latter then killed himself, leaving Octavia unclaimed—and available for the lad who would soon become her brother: Nero (Tacitus, Ann. 12.4; cf. Levick 2001: 71). In using such brief indicators without explanation, Josephus appears to assume audience knowledge; Ant. 20.149-50 gives a fuller summary. Although Niese changes to Παιτίνη to match her known Latin name (Paetina), all the MSS have Πετίνη; Latin has agrippina, confusingly. Aelia Paetina was Claudius’ 2nd wife, taken after his divorce in the mid-20s from the reportedly violent and adulterous Plautia Urgulanilla, and would later again be among the candidates for 4th wife (Levick 2001: 24-25, 70). Claudius and Paetina must have married by 28 CE, Levick notes, to allow for the marriage of their daughter Antonia to Cn. Pompeius Magnus in 41. Josephus’ implication that Antonia and her husband could have provided Claudius with an alternative heir is a problem: her first husband was killed after being caught in a same-sex liaison (in 47 CE), possibly at Messallina’s instigation; and Antonia’s remarriage to Faustus Sulla, Messallina’s half-brother, would not have helped their prospects after Messallina’s death (Levick 2001: 61, 70).

The following paragraph reads like a précis of the material elaborated in Ant. 20.152-57, especially in the clipped reference to family members’ murders and the final note about returning to Judean matters. Yet it is diferent in tone from the later version, which not only lacks any reference to Nero’s insanity or savagery, but also attacks both his flatterers and his harsh critics (“liars,” Josephus says), whereas this passage is itself hostile. Although this difference between War and Antiquities might be explained as a change in Josephus’ actual perspective, or his parroting here an early Flavian line about the despicable Nero (whose monstrosities the Flavians were keen to erase), or his reassessment of sources in the later work, such changes of perspective are the norm wherever War material is reprised in Antiquities-Life, so that overarching explanations on the basis of new allegiances or other biographically connected agendas seem arbitrary.The portrait of Nero here is not simply that of his hostile detractors. Champlin compellingly argues (2003: 84-111) that Nero himself advertised and possibly even inflated his misdeeds as a function of his mythical self-representation (as Orestes, Oedipus, Alcmaeon, and Hercules furens), possibly seeking to explain and justify his “heroic” actions, including flaws, to the public. This is the only occurrence of otherwise common παραφρονέω in Josephus. The implication of the aorist participle here and of the reference to Nero’s “final” insanity below (2.251)—viz., that his rule changed for the worse in mid-course—fits with the standard Roman portrait (e.g., Tacitus, Ann. 15.67): a promising start, the so-called quinquennium Neronis, a 5-year period of stability while the youth was willing to be guided by Seneca and Burrus, ended with Nero’s murder of his mother Agrippina in 59, after which he increasingly went off the rails, becoming insanely preoccupied with singing and acting (cf. Pliny, Nat. 30.5). More generally, it was a common notion that the “bad” emperors (also Gaius and Domitian) had begun well but then degenerated, a theory that fit also with the established model of monarchy’s inevitable decay into tyranny (Herodotus 3.80; Plato, Resp. 8.565-69; Aristotle, Pol. 3.5.4 [1279b]; 4.8 [1295a]; Polybius 6.4.8; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 7.55.3). For a sustained challenge to the claim that Nero was deranged, see Champlin 2003: e.g., 64-68. Nero himself partly promoted the idea of madness by casting himself as Hercules furens in the theater, thus obliquely explaining to the public his unintended killing of Poppea Sabina in a fit of madness (so Champlin 2003: 106-7). A paradoxical phrase (δι’ ὑπερβολὴν εὐδαιμονίας), found also in the Athenian orators (Isocrates, Bus. 14; Phil. 69; cf. Diodorus 5.19.5; Philo, Abr. 115), given that εὐδαιμονία was generally accepted as the goal of the philosophical life and is featured by Josephus (151 occurrences of cognates) as the promise of the Judean constitution (e.g., War 1.11, 68-69, 86; Ant. 1.14, 20, 41, 44, 46; 3.84, 99, 274; 4.27, 414). It is often best rendered “happiness, well-being, good spirits,” of which material prosperity was a part. Can one have an excess of happiness or prosperity? Perhaps if one is sole ruler of the earth (and this may entail an implicit critique of monarchy): whereas most people must strive after εὐδαιμονία, Nero had too much and it ruined him. See the note to this phrase at 2.184: Josephus uses it of the “bad emperors” Gaius and Nero, as also of some Judean rebels. On fortune, see further the note at 2.373 below. This is a curious euphemism, though perhaps deliberately mild (and sarcastic), for a Roman audience who knows the stories all too well, as Josephus allows. As the later parallel (Ant. 20.153) spells out, Josephus has in view: Britannicus, Claudius’ son by Messallina and Nero’s brother by adoption, killed in 55; Britannicus’ older sister Octavia (still only 19), whose betrothed husband had been removed so she could marry Nero, and who was banished twice and then killed in 62, to facilitate his marriage to Poppea Sabina (Tacitus, Ann. 14.60-64—and Poppea too would be killed by Nero); and his mother Agrippina, reportedly beaten to death in 59, after a failed attempt to drown her (Tacitus, Ann. 14.2-8). Of Agrippina, Josephus elaborates that Nero murdered her openly (in contrast to his concealed poisoning of Britannicus in the text and, as the audience knew, to the failed secret attempt to drown her in a boating accident): “this was the reward he paid her, not only for birth but also for her having secured the Roman imperium for him through her stratagems.” See the notes to the preceding section. Ant. 20.153 adds to the family murders that Nero also killed “many illustrious men, as if they had laid plots against him.” Nero’s high-born victims included Iunius SIlanus at the beginning of his reign (Tacitus, Ann. 13.1); from Josephus’ reference to perceived plots, he no doubt has in view chiefly C. Calpurnius Piso (Ann. 15.48) and the others caught up in his unmasked conspiracy of 65 CE: Flavius Scaevinus, Afranius Quintianus (Ann. 15.49), Seneca the Younger (former praetor), M. Annaeus Lucanus (Ann. 15.70), the consul M. Iulius Vestinus Atticus (Ann. 15.52), and the consul-designate Plautius Lateranus (Ann. 15.61). Other notable casualties of Nero’s later reign were Cn. Domitius Corbulo, P. Clodius Thrase-a Paetus, and Borea Soranus (Ann. 16.21), not to mention numerous knights and soldiers.

Greek φρενοβλάβεια; see the note at 2.105. Thackeray (here and subsequently) has “infatuation.” Pliny (Nat. 30.5) makes a strikingly similar connection between Nero’s theatrical pursuits and a perversity brought on by his unique fortune. For a compelling argument against the assumption of Nero’s detractors that his exploits in the theater were insane, since he pursued these interests with remarkable discipline from an early age (without any attempt to whitewash his crimes), see Champlin 2003: 53-83; cf. Griffin 1984: 119-63. This metaphorical language evokes a ship foundering off course: perhaps the ship of state, with the person who should be its competent helmsman losing his way (Plato, Pol. 296e, 297e-299c, 302a; Resp. 341c-d; Plutarch, Phil. 17.3-4; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 48.14). On Nero’s infamous (but evidently serious) passion for singing, lyre playing, and chariot-racing, even rigging competitions in Naples, Rome, and Achaea, see Suetonius, Nero 20-25; Tacitus, Ann. 14.14; 15.65; 16.4; Dio 63.8.1-11.1; Griffin 1984: 119-63; Champlin 2003: 53-83. Greek ἐπειδὴ δι’ ὄχλου πᾶσίν ἐστιν. See Feldman’s note to this phrase in BJP 3 at Ant. 3.197, in the same sort of context: Josephus begs off describing things that might lose his audience’s attention. He will use the same phrase in a similar context at War 4.496, in declining to discuss the recent Roman civil war. There he explains why such a discussion would be burdensome: the story is already well known through many other accounts. The same point is made in the parallel to the present passage (Ant. 20.154): many historians have told the story of Nero. Tacitus occasionally interacts directly with some of those other accounts (e.g., Ann. 14.2). Champlin (2003: 36-52) identifies the elder Pliny (a hostile outsider), Fabius Rusticus (also hostile), and Cluvius Rufus (a close associate of Nero’s, and more neutral) as the main contemporary sources, known to us though their works were lost, who were used by Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio (the largely extant sources for Nero). In the parallel, Josephus adds the intriguing observation that those who were treated well by Nero have in their gratitude ignored the truth—a helpful reminder that much more positive assessments of Nero once circulated—while he condemns both flattery and denunciation as unworthy of the historian (cf. War 1.1-2; Tacitus, Ann. 1.1). In the parallel Josephus makes the segue with a more extended critique of the current work on Nero (in some tension with his claim not to deal with it because so many others have): whereas all these writers are heavily biased, he has an obligation to tell both sides of the Judean story, including misfortunes and mistakes (Ant. 20.157).

Or Armenia Minor (see note to “Greater Armenia” at 2.222); this region and Armenia Maior were both well known to Josephus’ Roman audience because of important events during the 60s. Armenia Minor was in Asia Minor, N of Cappadocia and SE of Pontus, W of the Euphrates; it was centered in the city of Nicopolis (Yeilyayla, Suehri, Sivas), in modern Turkey. That is, Herod of Chalcis, d. 48 CE (see 2.217, 221, 223). For this new kingship see Ant. 20.158. Tacitus also mentions it (Ann. 13.7). See the note to “Lysanias” at 2.247. Ant. 20.138 identifies this as Lysanias’ former tetrarchy, N and W of Damascus (in the saddle between Mt. Hermon to the S and the Antilebanon range to the N), given to Agrippa already by Claudius. A foundation of Herod Antipas in honor of Augustus’ wife Livia (later Iulia). See the notes to “Betharamatha” at 2.59 and to “Iulias” at 2.168. The parallel (Ant. 20.159) claims that 14 villages went with Iulias as its hinterland. The Latin translation shows considerable confusion here in reading in iturea—regione (Iturea lying in the Bekaa valley far to the N). This site, also known as Magdala (“tower-place”), about 6 km (3.75 miles) N of Tiberias along the W shore of Lake Kinneret, will become an important base for Josephus as he tries to command Galilee during the early revolt. See the note at 2.596. Tiberias was controversially founded in 18/19 CE as a new capital by Antipas (Ant. 18.36-38), who once gave his struggling young nephew, Agrippa II’s father, an administrative position there (18.149). Nero’s gift of these cities with their hinterlands to Agrippa II would become a significant grievance among the Tiberians, exploited by Justus of Tiberias to fan the flames of revolt, because of the loss of prestige that resulted (Life 38-40). Josephus will base himself in Tiberias and Tarichea (2.568, 572, 596ff.), strategically located for access to the Great (Jezreel) Plain, Lower Galilee, the Beit Netofa valley, and Gamala in the Golan. “The remainder of Judea” (τὴν λοιπὴν Ἰουδαίαν)—i.e., minus these Galilean, Perean, and northern centers. This notice thus assumes a broad meaning for “Judea”; see the note to “as well as” at 2.247. Felix had been sent out by Claudius (2.247). Nero confirms his appointment, after excising a few cities from his province for presentation to Agrippa II.

See the note to this phrase at 2.56. Ant. 20.161 elaborates, or this passage condenses: Eleazar son of Deineus (as at War 2.235), who had “established the company of bandits,” was tricked by Felix. After extending a pledge of security, the governor promptly arrested him. In War, Josephus does not clearly identify this Eleazar as son of Deineus; he does connect him with the (already existing) bandit bloc, but there are many Eleazars in the narrative, several connected with “banditry,” and since Josephus introduced an Alexander as colleague of Eleazar son of Deineus, who is not present here, the identifcation is far from obvious. This is one of many indications that he does not expect his audience (or readership) to follow such links through; it may be a clue that he intended oral presentation rather than careful study of the text. The verb (ληίζομαι) is cognate to the nouns “bandit” (λῃστής) and “chief bandit”: this is what bandits, by definition, do. A detail found only here (absent also from the Antiquities parallel). It would help to explain Eleazar’s ability to take over the leadership of the other Judeans, or their invitation to him (Ant. 20.121), if he had been a well known and long-established militia leader. On governors’ fundamental responsibilities for dealing with provincial banditry, see the note to “bandits” at 2.229. Ant. 20.161 says that he “had organized the [singular] company of bandits,” suggesting as this passage does a consolidation of “bandit” (and guerrilla?) activities under Eleazar’s leadership at the time. See the note to “Deineus” at 2.235: the contrast between Eleazar’s being sent to Rome and the on-site crucifixion of a vast number of more ordinary bandits may suggest that he he was a man of social status, possibly even a Roman citizen. Felix also dispatched a number of other offenders to Rome, including some aristocratic friends of Josephus, sent—he claims—on a “minor and incidental charge,” whose release he secured through a personal embassy (Life 13; see notes in BJP 9). The NT book of Acts dates the apostle Paul’s Judean imprisonment to about 2 years before the end of Felix’s term (ca. 57 CE?), though it claims that Felix kept him in prison, expecting a bribe for his release. It was his successor Festus who obliged Paul’s request, on the strength of Roman citizenship, for a hearing before Nero in Rome (Acts 23:23-24:27). This is the first of 13 occurrences of δημότης in Josephus, all in War. Whereas in classical Greek the term often emphasizes a class distinction (“non-élite,” cf. LSJ), Josephus’ frequent mention of the “eminent” or “notables” among this group (2.533; 4.336; 6.302, 356) indicates a different sense. He uses the term generally to distinguish the hard core of “bandits” and their leaders from the good and ordinary people (whom he consistently describes as opposed to revolt): 2.533, 624, 646; 4.336, 353; 5.21, 336, 440, 453. Here, there is obviously no opposition between bandits and common folk; see next note. This notice lends some support to models of “social banditry” in the 1st century, according to which bandits were largely agents of revolution against the establishment, a militant wing that nonetheless enjoyed the widespread support (including shelter and supply) of the common poor; parallels have been found in modern Spain and Latin America (cf. Hobsbawm 1972; Horsley 1979; Horsley and Hanson 1988; cf. Laitin 1995). Such models have faced trenchant critique, especially from Brent Shaw (1984), for ignoring fundamental social structures of ancient society, according to which “banditry” was often vertically aligned—around powerful men (see note to “bandit” at Life 21 in BJP 9). In War, too, we frequently see bandits assembled around men of substance and standing (see note to “chief bandit” at 2.56). Although class struggle in the post-industrial Marxist sense does not work as a general explanation of the revolt (or pre-revolt banditry), pace Faulkner 2004, certainly Josephus indicates elements of class conflict in pre-war Judea (notably War 2.426-27). Cf. Brunt 1990: 282-87. Here we have a distinctive stylistic trait of Josephus: he uses the phrase ἄπειρόν τι πλῆθος 7 times (also 2.543, 592; Ant. 2.300; 4.163; 5.48; 9.219), though it is unattested before his time except in a pseudo-Platonic work (Stephanus 404a). For the phrase without the pronoun, see the note at 2.43.

Josephus picks up on what he has just said, that Eleazar’s bandits were based in the countryside (χώρα); he moves now to a contrast with the major city, Jerusalem. Or “purified” or simply “cleared, cleaned” (καθαίρω, καθαρός). This is charged language in War, the potential remedy for the pollution (μιαίνω, μίασμα, μιαρός—cf. 6.110) created by the rebels, especially of the temple; see the notes to “pollutes” and “polluted” at 2.132, 210. This is a considerable, if incidental, compliment to Felix’s abilities as governor, since governor’s primary responsibility was to neutralize bandits and prevent other causes of disorder; see note to “bandits” at 2.229. Or “forms, kinds”; see the note to “forms” at 2.119. We translate εἶδος as “species” here because of the botanical verb that follows, suggesting a sort of Aristotelian scientific analysis. See the note to “chief bandit” at 2.56. All 3 occurrences of ἐπιφύω in Josephus (also Ant. 13.2; 15.44) have a distinctly disparaging tone. The same tone is present in Josephus’ use of παραφύομαι—in connection with the Pharisees (War 1.110). Lit. “knifers,” from Latin sica (a type of dagger). Josephus will partly explain the name here (2.255) and offer a brief reminder at their next appearance (2.425). Only Ant. 20.186 will describe the weapons in question (see note to “daggers” at 2.255). His use of a transliterated Latin term in this Atticizing Greek composition is revealing of his assumptions concerning audience knowledge. He expects them to know the meaning of Latin sica and sicarii, but needs to elaborate on the particular activity connecting these Judeans with daggers. (It may be that he is condensing an account such as that behind Ant. 20.186.)Romans knew the law from Sulla’s time (ca. 81 BCE) concerning sicarii and poisoners or sorcerers (lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficiis): it covered a considerable range of offenses (Justinian, Dig. 48.1; Inst. 4.18.5) and was perhaps aimed initially at gangsters more than murderers (Cloud 1969; cf. Rives 2006). Cicero’s pro Cluentio and pro Sestio are largely devoted to defending clients charged under this legislation; cf. Quintilian, Inst. 10.1.12.Scholarship on the sicarii of Judea, assuming that they were a coherent and self-conscious group, undertakes to define their place vis-à-vis other groups (Hengel 1989: 396-97; Zeitlin 1965, 1967; Smith 1971; Horsley 1979; for analysis, Brighton 2005: 1-32). Some basic problems are overlooked in this kind of search, however (cf. Firpo 1997: 709-11). First, although Josephus’ language can seem to imply that sicarii formed a group (e.g., by saying that “they were called sicarii” [cf. 2.425; 4.400, 516; 7.410], much as other groups “were called” Essenes or Pharisees [2.119]), other indicators leave room for doubt. Here, e.g., it seems that sicarii were establishing themselves by name under Nero, and Jonathan was the first victim of many, whereas in Ant. 20.162-66, 185-88 Jonathan’s murder is a unique contract-killing (not an activity of a group called sicarii), which sets in motion a trend of dispatching one’s enemies with concealed daggers (see the note to “first” at 2.256 below); only under Festus does the practice or the group (?) receive a name there.Within War, moreover, Josephus’ usage of the term shows a degree of slippage. Certain sicarii, still carrying this name that Josephus connects with a technique for urban assassination (not with an ideology), will go to Masada under Eleazar’s leadership (4.400, 516; 7.253-311); yet after the reportedly complete self-destruction of the group there, a substantial number of sicarii (600-1,000?) escape to Alexandria from somewhere to cause further trouble (7.410-19). Yet again, after they have been removed to a man (7.416), “the madness of the sicarii” reappears in Cyrene—in the odd form of a general trouble-maker (not apparently an urban dagger-assassin) named Jonathan (7.437-44; for analysis, Brighton 2005: esp. 194-201). Even in the present passage, Josephus describes former friends using concealed knives to eliminate each other as part of the same social problem (2.254, 255-56): this does not sound like a political or militant organization, but only a means of killing; the label sicarii seems to lack content.Further, it seems odd that a group should be known exclusively for its modus operandi: not “swords of righteousness” or similar, but simply “wielders of the small curved dagger,” with no indications of motive or purpose. The label is thus comparable to most of Josephus’ other favored labels (“bandits, revolutionaries, rebels,” etc.). If his category “bandits” has something like the force of modern “terrorists,” sicarii has the vividness—and corresponding vagueness—of modern “cut-throats,” “gunmen,” or “bombers.”Finally, it is perplexing (though seldom pondered in scholarship) that a Judean militant or “nationalist” group should have been known by, and built its identity around, a Latin name. To suggest, as is usual, that the tag was applied by Roman authorities only deepens the problem, because the sole reason given by Josephus for their name concerns their use of the sica-like knife (2.425; Ant. 20.186). What, if anything, did they call themselves? It would require an implausible sense of irony on their part to imagine that they cherished the name sicarii. Nor is it easy to imagine either the Hebrew- and Aramaic-speaking Judean élite or the Greek-speaking auxiliary forces in Judea bestowing the label. And one is hard pressed to conceive of a Roman procurator caring enough to define one particular group of Judean trouble-makers in distinction from others. Hengel, realizing the problem, suggests that the Romans called some Judean rebels sicarii, that it was taken over by the group(s) themselves as a badge of honor (cf. Protestant, Huguenot), and that the Judeans themselves broadened its usage (1989: 49, 396-97). But which “Romans” (in the absence of local legions) had such a motive for fine observation of specific groups? And does the Latin for “knifers” really have the sort of potential that “protestant” had (unless the groups were proud criminal gangs)? The main problem is that Josephus’ evidence (above), our nearly exclusive source in the period, remains unexplained.It is curious that Hengel should argue from the nearly exclusive use of the term by Josephus (1989: 396) that “it was apparently introduced by the Romans.” That Josephus himself might have conjured the Latin sicarii for his literary purposes, as he writes in Rome, is not wholly implausible. The main problems are (a) the appearance of the name in Acts and rabbinic literature and (b) his repeated claim (here and 4.400) that “they are called [or styled] sicarii.” But the sole reference to sicarii in Acts (21:38) is either confused or ironic, in having them led by “the Egyptian” (cf. 2.261-63 below) into the desert, a confusion perhaps best explained as a faulty recollection of Josephus’ narratives (so Mason 2003c: 151-96). As for the Talmud: m. Maksh. 1.6 may mention ‮סקריון‬‎, but the MS variant has ‮סיקריקין‬‎, matching the Mishnah’s other references to sikarikon in connection with land purchases (m. Bik. 1.2; 2.3; Git. 5.6), which appear to refer to something other than sicarii (cf. Hengel 1989: 51-53). The clearest reference comes only from the Bavli—compiled after the same half-millennium interval from Josephus that separates us from the German Reformation—which identifies one ben Batiah, nephew of Yohanan ben Zakkai, as “Abba Sikra” and head of the biryoni (“thugs”) in Jerusalem at the beginning of the war (b. Git. 56a). If the Talmud here preserves an authentic tradition from before 70, and if it is independent of Josephus’ famous narratives, and if “Sikra” derives from sicarii, then the label was not Josephus’ literary invention. But those conditions are far from being clearly met. As for “being called sicarii,” the passage in which he speaks of “the sicarii and those who were called bandits” (Ant. 20.186) seems a good index to the looseness of his language. If “bandit” was no real group label, but chiefly supplied by Josephus himself, then there is no reason to treat the sicarii label any differently.Whatever the original use of sicarii in Judea may have been, Josephus has eagerly absorbed it into his arsenal of disparaging labels for trouble-makers, apparently with a Latin-speaking audience in view.

For festivals as times of upheaval, see the note to “subversive” at 2.224. Here Josephus will continue to develop one of War’s basic themes (see e.g. 2.30): that precisely at the festivals appointed for celebrating liberation and divine blessing, the Judeans had become most vulnerable to attack, enslaved, and fearful (see 4.402, linking sicarii activities with the Passover-liberation season). In this case, a former high priest is the first victim of slaughter (2.256). Greek μικρὰ ξιφίδια. At 2.425 Josephus will speak less precisely of “swords” under the robes, though at Ant. 20.186 (describing the sicarii under Festus) he will pause to describe the small daggers in question: approximating the size of the Persian acinaces (or scimitar) but more curved and like the Roman sica; hence the name applied to these bandits. The sica was known in Rome as the “Thracian sword (or dagger),” because of its use by the “Thracian” type of gladiator. Its sharp curve made it a particularly brutal weapon. Whereas the Thracian sica was about the length of the straight sword (gladius), however, Josephus implies that the Judean weapon was smaller and more easily concealed, though with a similarly radical curve. At Ant. 15.282 Josephus will describe a plot against King Herod, in which his would-be assassins concealed daggers (ξιφίδια) under their clothes. Ironically, Josephus will direct his own bodyguards to adopt the same practice, to protect him in close quarters from his enemies; he did the same, except that he used an armored vest and full sword beneath his cloak (Life 293, 303). Greek τοὺς διαφόρους. Were it not for the repetition of the phrase in 2.257, one might translate this absolute phrase as “the distinguished”: these assassins were destroying sections of the élite (as in 2.425-26). But in 2.257 it is the potential victims who watch these “differing ones” as threats to themselves. This compound verb (ἐπαγανακτέω), only here in Josephus, is exceedingly rare. It is unattested in literature before his time, but is used by his younger contemporary Plutarch (Alc. 14.12; Ages. 19.6) and very rarely thereafter (Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 3.11 [73.5]; then Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.20 quoting Josephus). This is the only occurrence of ἀνεύρετος in Josephus; it is a word with slight attestation before his time—mainly in philosophical contexts (e.g., Xenophanes, Test. frag. 1; Plato, Crat. 421d; Pol. 294d; Leg. 874a; Chrysippus, SVF Frag. 657; Philo, Somn. 1.8, 17; Fug. 153). In the phrase ὑπὸ ἀξιοπιστίας ἦσαν ἀνεύρετοι, then, Josephus has connected two very rare words (see next note), after an extremely rare compound verb (previous note), for effect. Greek ἀξιοπιστία. See the note at 2.103.

“First” (πρῶτος) may be ironic in keeping with the image of slaughter: the former high priest, who should have been first in status and honor, who had indeed been first in administering the entire cultic system, is now instead the first sacrificial victim of this new disease. The word is especially significant if Josephus has before him the source of Ant. 20.162. There he will claim that Jonathan had been responsible for Felix’s presence in Judea, having asked Claudius to send him—presumably when the high priest had been part of the successful Judean delegation to Claudius, appealing against Cumanus and the Samarians (2.243). If this happened, Jonathan may have made the proposal as a diplomatic gesture, to help win the favor of Claudius’ influential freedman Pallas (Felix’s brother), who was reportedly hostile to the Judean cause (20.135). But once back in Judea, where Felix was proving unpopular, Jonathan felt the need to criticize the procurator publicly, which reportedly irritated (and no doubt puzzled) him. Felix allegedly arranged his murder by bribing Jonathan’s best friend, Doras, who in turn hired bandits (20.160-64). Josephus claims there that this execution by means of the bandits’ concealed daggers, because it went unpunished, initiated a trend. Only gradually (by Festus’ time?), it seems, did such bandits come to be known as sicarii (20.185-86). See the note to “butchered” at 2.30. The former high priest thus becomes another instance of Josephus’ deep thematic link between human and animal slaughter, especially during festivals (as the previous sentence indicates). Although this phrase (καθ’ ἡμέραν) last appeared in bk. 1 (1.587), it will appear 4 times in the next few paragraphs (here and 2.265, 267, 283); this repetition helps to escalate the narrative tension as it moves to a crisis. Greek τῶν συμφορῶν ὁ φόβος ἦν χαλεπώτερος. There is a rough parallel at 7.104: as the Judeans of Antioch anxiously await Titus’ response to the other residents’ appeal for their expulsion: καὶ χαλεπὸς τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ὁ φόβος ἦν. “Calamities” (sing. συμφορά) is part of a fundamental tragic theme in War; see the notes at 1.9; 2.186. “Every hour” contrasts with “every day” to provide (rhetorical) justification for the claim that the fear was harsher than the murders themselves. If taken earnestly this would be an absurd proposition, since of course a person’s fear of death, even if constant or hourly, does not bear comparison with real and brutal death; the (merely) daily deaths are of different people! Josephus appears to get carried away with his rhetoric as he climbs the tragic scale: first an individual, Jonathan, but then many; and yet worse was the fear, which affected all; and whereas the deaths were daily, the fear was hourly, which must be worse! Josephus employs a similar sort of escalation—listing terrible atrocities in a rising scale, but declaring the resulting tension the worst thing of all (depending upon the MS reading)—at 2.461-65 below.

See the note at 2.255. Or “loyalty, fidelity” (πίστις). According to the parallel (Ant. 20.163) it is Jonathan’s “most trustworthy friend” (Doras) who arranges for his murder. Trust and friendship are a common collocation in Josephus (1.470; 2.21, 104; 7.26; Ant. 6.285; 7.5, 24, 211-12; 10.2; 12.402; 13.51; 16.180, 256; Life 79, 163, 234, 378; Apion 2.134), as in other authors, whether ritualized or personal friendship is in view (formulaic in Homer, Il. 3.73 etc.; Theognis, Eleg. 209; Thucydides 4.74.2). Or “guarding, protection.” For the Josephan collocation of ὑπόνοια and φυλακή (the word here) see also Ant. 13.289. See the note to sicarii at 2.254: the murders in view here seem to constitute a rash of activity even among former friends, not the program of a coherent group known as sicarii.

See the note at 2.156. Here is another clue (see note to sicarii at 2.254) that the dagger-men may not be a coherent group, even though Josephus first presents them as a species (εἶδος) of bandit. The present group also appears as a “band” (στῖφος: a close-pressed unit, column, mass), though it quickly becomes clear that they are not a unified group; the Egyptian and his followers (2.261) are but one instance of this analytical category constructed by Josephus. Cf. 4.135: various chief bandits with their own organizations will eventually join, Josephus says, into one band (στῖφος) in Jerusalem—except for all the stasis that follows (e.g., 4.353, 362-63, 371-76, 388-97; 5.20-27). I.e., not being polluted with blood. For “pure hands” as a Josephan phrase, see 5.403; Ant. 4.222; cf. War 2.141. The association is ancient, both classical (Aeschylus, Eum. 313; Herodotus 1.35; Antiphon, Caed. Herod. 11, 82; Plato, Leg. 831a, 864e [esp. in relation to murder]; Demosthenes, Tim. 60; Aeschines, Fals. leg. 148) and biblical (LXX Lev 11:27; 14:4, 28; 2 Kgs 22:21; Pss 17:21; Isa 1:15-16; Job 17:9). This (ἀσεβής) is a common evaluative adjective in Josephus, appearing 60 times (148 including cognates), the opposite of virtuous εὐσεβής (32 times, 145 all cognates). That is, the sicarii just described: the noun is cognate to the verb rendered “butchered” at 2.256. Of this vivid noun’s (σφαγεύς) 10 occurrences in Josephus, 7 are in Ant. 19, mostly referring to “Gaius’ butchers.” The other occurrence in War (7.395), significantly, has to do with the knife-men (sicarii) of Masada. In War the verb λυμαίνω occurs 6 times. Of these, 3 follow in quick succession here (also 2.271, 278), in connection with the various governors, who change roles in relation to “spoiling.” Whereas Felix and Festus move against the despoilers, Albinus and Gessius Florus themselves become the chief despoilers. The culmination of this development comes with the noun at 2.280 (used of Florus). Or “well-being, happiness” (Greek εὐδαιμονία), a key term in Josephus. See the note to “prosperity” at 2.86.

This is the only occurrence of the adjective πλάνος in Josephus. The collocation of πλάνος and ἀπατεών, though seemingly natural, is found chiefly in Judean and early Christian literature (Test. XII 6.9.7; Philo, Prov. fr. 1.1; Ignatius, Trall. 6.2-3; Acta Ioann. 85; Acta Paul. Thec. 11; Ep. Diogn. 10.7). Or “cheats, tricksters”; see the note to “trickery” at 2.106. The only other occurrence of ἀπατεών in War is at 6.288, which forms a roughly symmetrical parallel to this passage. There too the burdened populace is imposed upon by rogues, who are paired in that case with false messengers of God (καταψευδόμενοι τοῦ θεοῦ)—likewise in the context of omens. Josephus typically pairs ἀπατεών with some other disparaging term (6.288; Ant. 8.232; 20.167; Apion 2.145, 236). In the parallel (Ant. 20.167) he has “enchanters and rogues” (οἱ δὲ γόητες καὶ ἀπατεῶνες ἄνθρωποι). All such terms are more or less interchangeable, balancing his repertoire of labels for the élite. Note incidentally the displacement of “people” (ἄνθρωποι) to accompany “rogues” in the parallel passage, which suggests a deliberate reworking of the same material or its source. Or “cover, screen, pretext” (πρόσχημα). The word is used only here and at 4.154 in War, predicated (as Ant. 4.146; 14.302; 18.27) of the machinations of tyrants and would-be tyrants. Or “divination, omen, supersitition, divine event” (θειασμός). This rare noun (before Josephus: Thucydides 7.50.4; Nymphis, fr. 11; Polybius 12.12b.1; Dionysius Thrax, Ars gramm. 1.1.86; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 7.68.1; cf. Plutarch, Nic. 4.1; Her. malign. [Mor.] 855b) occurs in Josephus again at War 2.650, of omens misconstrued by the rebels in their favor. The word has the same resulting-state form as the one rendered “revolutionary matters” (see note below), which stands next to it in the Greek; this creates a certain euphony. War uses this verb (πραγματεύομαι) 8 times, but only in bks. 1-2, 5 times in bk. 2 (also 2.283, 318, 560, 594). In all cases it seems to have a pejorative connotation of busying oneself with some nefarious purpose. This is the first occurrence in War of a noun, νεωτερισμός, that will become important in Josephus’ lexicon, especially in his later works (18 times in Antiquities-Life; cf. War 5.152; 6.343; 7.447). For usage, see the note to “revolutions” at Life 17 in BJP 9. It is the resulting-state noun from the verb νεωτερίζω. Although the verb is well attested early and programmatically used by Thucydides (1.58.1, 97.1, 102.3, 115.3; 2.73.3; 3.11.1, 66.2, 72.1, 75.5, 79.1, 82.1; 4.41.3, 51.1, 76.5, 80.3, 108.3; 5.14.3, 34.2; Polybius 5.29.9; cf. the note to “revolutionary bloc” at 1.4, to “revolution” at 2.5), this noun is another example of fashionable diction on Josephus’ part. Unattested in early Greek, including Thucydides and even Polybius, it begins to appear in Plato (4 times) and Demosthenes (1); Diodorus, Dionysius, Strabo, and Philo use it a few times (7, 3, 4, and 7, respectively). Only Josephus’ contemporary and fellow-statesman Plutarch matches his own interest in the word (with 36 occurrences). This is again programmatic language in Josephus; see the note to “upheaval” (μεταβολή) at 1.5, and to “reversal of circumstances” at 2.113. This collocation (μεταβολή, νεωτερισμός) is not attested in literature before Josephus, though he has it also at Ant. 15.30. That his contemporary, Plutarch, uses it several times (Lys. 24.2; Galb. 18.3; Mor. [Reg. imp.] 204a; [Is. Or.] 380) seems to confirm that Josephus is using language that is in the air among his contemporary Greek statesmen-authors. A rare and, in Josephus’ hands, strongly pejorative verb (δαιμονάω); he will use it again only at War 7.389: of the Masada rebels, who proceed to their mass murder-suicide like people possessed. Note his understanding of possession at 7.185: the spirits of bad men inhabit and kill the living (unless the infected can be treated in time); cf. Ant. 8.44-49. For the important and more neutral category of the “daimonic,” see the note to “other-worldly” at 2.455. The Judean desert (E, NE, and SE of Jerusalem) was a constant presence, for residents of the city no more than a couple of hours’ walk. It was a customary place for encountering God (e.g., Exod 3:18; 4:27; 5:1; 7:16; Ps. 55:7; 68:7; 78:52; Isa 35:1, 6; 40:3; 1QS 8.13-14; 1QM 1.2-3; Mark 1:3-4, 12), but also a haven for refugees from the city and/or the authorities (1 Sam 25:1; 26:2-3; 1 Macc 2.29-31; 9.33; 2 Macc 5.27). Greek σημεῖα ἐλευθερίας: in sense, “signs of liberation”—messianic or apocalyptic signs. The paradigmatic signs (‮אותות‬‎) of deliverance/freedom were those of the Exodus from Egypt (Exod 4:9, 17, 28-30; 7:3; 10:1-2; Deut 4:34; 6:22; 11:3; 29:3; Ps 78:43; Jer 32:20; Bar 2:11). Note Josephus’ similar language at Ant. 2.327: the masses who opposed Moses after the exodus had forgotten “the signs from God that had occurred for their freedom” (τῶν ἐκ θεοῦ πρὸς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν αὐτοῖς σημείων γεγονότων). The freedom from slavery achieved in the Exodus became the paradigm for all later hopes of liberation (hence the significance of Passover in War; cf. Colautti 2002 and notes to Pascha at 2.10, to “throats cut” at 2.30): cf. 2 Esdr. 5:1, 13; 6:20; 7:26; 8:63; 13:44; 1 Cor 1:22; Mark 8:11-12; 13:22; Luke 11:16; John 2:18, 23; 3:2; 4:48; 7:31; 11:47-48; Acts 2:28; 7:36. From a perspective quite different from Josephus’, the gospel writers attribute to Jesus a remarkably similar observation (also 2.261 below): “Pseudo-messiahs and pseudo-prophets (ψευδοπροφῆται) will appear and produce signs and omens (σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα), with the aim of deceiving (πρὸς τὸ ἀποπλανᾶν) if possible the chosen” (Mark 13:22).In Josephus the phrase “signs of freedom” appears in the singular (σημεῖον ἐλευθερίας) at Ant. 19.54 (cf. 186) in connection with Gaius’ assassination: there, Romans are seeking liberation from their own ruler just as other nations hope for liberation from Rome. A symmetrical counterpart to this passage within War (see note to “pseudoprophet” at 2.261), at 6.285, describes those who have been duped to follow another pseudo-prophet in hopes of “the signs of deliverance” (τὰ σημεῖα τῆς σωτηρίας). The phrase here has older Greek roots: Isocrates, Arch. 7; Ps-Lysias, Epitaph. 14; Aristotle, Pol. 1317b; Rhet. 1383b. There, however, it tends to mean “evidence of freedom” rather than divine signs or wonders.On “freedom” as a Leitmotif of War, see the notes to “self-government” at 2.22 and “slavery” at 2.185, 209, as well as 2.264 with notes below. Josephus’ use of the term here is sarcastic: all such attempts to secure “freedom” by military means or through direct appeals to God are doomed to failure. True freedom is not incompatible with foreign rule, if the Judeans will allow their own priestly aristocracy to manage internal affairs.

Greek ἀποστάσεως . . . καταβολή. The latter noun occurs in War only in bk. 2, where its other appearances (2.409, 417) both refer to the foundation for war (πολέμου καταβολή), created by the refusal of the young temple captain and his associates to continue the customary sacrifice for foreigners. This passage is in the same semantic domain. On ἀπόστασις, see the note at 2.39. Whereas this account implies that units dispatched by Felix killed these people as they found them, the parallel (Ant. 20.168) suggests that the dupes were first rounded up and then punished by Felix himself (or at his order).

On this figure see also Ant. 20.169-72; Acts 21:38. It is striking that the man should be known by this ethnic label—rather than by his name, and not by his Judean identity: for Josephus he was an Egyptian who harmed the Judeans. But was he not also a Ioudaios? (If not, how did he attract such a following, and why did he have such an interest in Jerusalem?) In Alexandrian politics the label “Egyptian” was a slur: Egyptians of native ancestry were sharply distinguished from Alexandrians, whose ancestry (though thoroughly mixed by the 1st cent. CE) and culture derived from Greco-Macedonian roots, as also from the Judeans, who continually angled for equality with the Alexandrians. In the Apion Josephus is keen to disassociate Judeans from their widely presumed Egyptian ancestry (e.g., 2.8); most revealing is his attack on Apion for asserting the Egyptian ancestry of the Judeans while denying his own Egyptian identity (“he falsely claimed to be an Alexandrian”; Apion 2.28-30; see Barclay ad loc. in BJP 10).That Josephus identifies this man only as “the Egyptian” could mean either that this was the only way the man was known (odd, given that there must have been many Judeans from Egypt and Alexandria passing through Jerusalem; it is hard to imagine someone being known as “the American” in London), that he does not know his name (curious, given that he claims to know the names of even obscure troublemakers), or that he intends disparagement by this label. Most remarkable is Acts’ use of the same epithet in place of a name—and apparent misuse of it, by having the Egyptian leading sicarii into the desert (Acts 21:38). That might suggest the author’s dependence upon Josephus. Pseudoprophets will populate the later part of of Josephus’ biblical paraphrase (Ant. 8.236, 241-42, 318, 402, 406, 409; 9.133-37; 10.66, 104, 111), but in War the term appears only once again (6.285), in a symmetrically parallel location: a certain charlatan and many others like him deceived the populace and cost the lives of some 6,000 with their false promises of imminent divine deliverance. (Josephus claims that these “prophets” were cynically sponsored by the tyrants, to slow the tide of desertion from a hopeless cause.)What Josephus’ Roman and Greek audiences would have understood by this term (ψευδοπροφήτης)—or “prophet” in the next sentence—is not clear. The compound noun has no attestation in classical sources, though it appears regularly in LXX Jeremiah (6:13; 33:7, 8, 11, 16; 35:1; 36:1, 8; also Zech 13:2—often where the Hebrew has simply “prophets” [‮נביאים‬‎] in a pejorative context) and in early Christian texts (e.g., Mark 13:22; Matt 7:15; 24:11; Acts 13:6; 2 Pet 2:1; 1 John 4:1; Rev 16:13; Ignatius, Philad. 5). In Greco-Roman usage, a “prophet” is normally one who maintains and interprets the oracles at certain sanctuaries; at Delphi was the famous prophetess, the Pythia. This is not Josephus’ meaning in connection with the Egyptian, evidently. His term does, however, map closely to the semantic range of ψευδόμαντις, which is amply attested in classical texts—though absent from Josephus (e.g., Euripides, Orest. 1667; Sophocles, Oed. col. 1097; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 3.71.2; Lucian, Dial. mort. 12.5; Dial. deor. 18.2; Alexander; Artemidorus, 2.69); ψευδομάντεις (“false/fake seers”) can also appear in tandem with γόητες or “enchanters, wizards” (Plutarch, Cic. 17.5; Pyth. or. [Mor.] 407c), as do Josephus’ false prophets (here and War 2.261; cf. Ant. 20.97).Perhaps Josephus chooses ψευδοπροφήτης because (a) for him, ψευδόμαντις would be redundant, given that all manteis in his narrative (foreign seers) are suspect; (b) prophecy is a category in which he has a large stake, as a unique Judean gift and the guarantor of truth in the Judean constitution; (c) he is adding local color that will nevertheless be understood by his audience (given that his chosen word is Greek and not a barbarian transliteration); and (d) he perhaps unoncsciously reflects his great conceptual debt to Jeremiah and Daniel. See Feldman 1990; Gray 1993; Mason 1994. This is the first occurrence in War of γόης, which Josephus adds to his stock of abusive labels for trouble-makers (also 2.264 below; 4.85; 5.317; Ant. 20.97, 160, 167, 188; Apion 2.145, 161). In origin the word indicates someone who wails or howls out enchantments (γοάω): hence a wizard or sorcerer. Using the word in this literal sense, it seems, Josephus defends Moses from such an image (Apion 2.145, 161; cf. Ant. 2.320). He mainly uses the word, however, in a well-established metaphorical sense, for those who used clever speech to deceive the masses. Thus, Justus of Tiberias was, he says, able to make the worse case appear better through this verbal wizardry and deceit (γοητείᾳ καὶ ἀπάτῃ, Life 40). In a similar way, Plato often accuses the sophists of being “enchanters” (Soph. 234c, 235a, 241b; Euthyd. 288b; Pol. 291c, 303c; Gorg. 483e). The Athenian orators and later authors use the word in the same way, and it is often paired with other terms for deceit and trickery, especially ἀπάτη, πλάνη, and cognates—as here [“those who had been tricked,” also 2.259]: Demosthenes, Cor. 276; Polybius 4.20.5; esp. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 11.25.4; Is. 4; Thuc. 6-7; Strabo 7.3.11. Among Josephus’ contemporaries, whereas Plutarch often uses the word in its literal sense (in contexts of prophecy and magic), Dio Chrysostom favors the political application: his imaginative Alexander observes that Philip II must often speak against the orator Demosthenes, “an extremely forceful orator and enchanter” (μάλα δεινῷ ῥήτορι καὶ γόητι; Or. 2.19; cf. 32.11, 39 [paired with “sophist”], 77/78.34).Josephus’ language here gathers special force from the particular context: these men generated a following by pretending to be prophets, to speak for God. Philo reinterprets Deut 13:1-6 to say that anyone who claims to be a prophet, but uses ostensibly inspired speech to lead his followers to worship other Gods, “is an enchanter, but not a prophet, because he fabricated false pronouncements and oracles” (Spec. 1.315). Josephus will, however, use the same label for military faction-leaders and fighters (War 2.565; 4.85; 5.317). We move back to the countryside, after the shift to the city, the sicarii, and the visionaries claiming inspiration (2.253, 254). By contrast, Ant. 20.169 reports that “someone” came from Egypt to Jerusalem, where he stirred up the masses, claiming to be a prophet. On trustworthy prophets, see Apion 1.37-38, 41; Deut 18:15-22; Philo, Mos. 2.280. Ant. 20.169 says that the Egyptian advised the rabble to accompany him to the Mount of Olives; 20.171 adds that when Felix’s troop fell upon the prophet’s followers they killed 400 and took 200 prisoners. This suggests a rather smaller following. Acts 21:38 gives him 4,000 followers. Josephus’ numbers are notoriously inconsistent and often inflated. See 2.227 and note to “30,000” there. Greek τῶν ἠπατημένων, a phrase used again at 2.610. See the note to “trickery” at 2.106.

See the note to “desert” at 2.259. According to the parallel (Ant. 20.169), the Egyptian led the masses out from Jerusalem to the Mount of Olives. Acts 21:38 compounds the confusion by having him lead sicarii (cf. War 2.254-55) into the desert (cf. War 2.259; Mason 2003c: 280-82). This is the first of 5 references in War to the hill overlooking Jerusalem to the E (cf. 5.70: 6 stadia [about 1.2 km.] from Jerusalem, separated by the Kidron Valley). The MT. of Olives (or Mt. of Anointing) is not a single hill, but the olive tree- covered ridge extending from the “Hill of Evil Counsel” in the S to Mt. Scopus (in Josephus ὁ Σκοπός; modern ‮הר הצופים‬‎, in the N.) The Mt. of Olives is mentioned in 2 Sam 15:30, as part of David’s escape route from the city. Josephus’ descriptions throughout War assume that his audience does not know the geography.The “messianic” significance of the site in the 1st century CE was guaranteed by a passage in the prophet Zechariah (14:1-9), which promised that, following a terrible war and suffering, the Lord would deliver his people by standing on the Mt. of Olives and splitting it, creating a valley of escape to the E. Partly under the influence of this prophetic tradition, the site was taken over by NT accounts of Jesus’ life (Mark 11:1; 13:3; 14:25 and parallels; Acts 1:8-12); his “triumphal entry,” though reportedly peaceful in intention, was strikingly similar in some respects with the Egyptian’s planned assault. Cf. also T. Naph. 5.1; 4 Bar. 9.20. This story of the Egyptian Prophet may be a kind of ironic foreshadow, since the Mt. of Olives will become the base of the famed Legio X Fretensis as they prepare to capture the city (5.70, 135, 504; 6.157); the other 3 legions will first camp on Scopus, part of the same ridge (5.67-68, 106-8; cf. Cestius Gallus’ force at 2.542). See previous note. Although Jerusalem was usually attacked from the N, as also by the Romans, the NE-E ridge from Scopus along the Mt. of Olives, sitting about 40 m. higher than Jerusalem’s hills, afforded potential attackers a clear view of activities in the city; hence the legionary bases in those positions. It also promised relatively direct access to the temple mount, though attacking forces would need first to emerge from the Kidron Valley. In the Six-Day War of 1967 Israeli forces captured E Jerusalem by approaching from Scopus via the Mt. of Olives (i.e., from the enemy side). See the note to “cohort” at 2.11, 224, and to “standards” at 2.169. In this passage, tellingly, Josephus twice uses one of his more honorific designations for the common people of the Judeans: ὁ δῆμος. Although it occurs 145 times in War (273 times in the corpus), he has used it sparingly in bk. 2 (2.3, 28, 42, 197), preferring the condescending τὸ πλῆθος, which has occurred dozens of times already (of 918 occurrences in the corpus), most recently at 2.260 of the mob misled by fake teachers and killed as a result. Here he reserves that term for the Egyptian’s mob. It cannot be coincidental that his use of ὁ δῆμος goes along with his presentation of the populace as determinedly resistant to the Egyptian and his 30,000 duped followers. “The populace” would need to be defeated, the Egyptian realizes (i.e., he cannot win them over); indeed the narrator tells us that the whole populace joined Felix’s forces in defending the city against this trouble-maker. Tyranny is a major theme in War (see the note to “tyrants” at 1.10): this is Josephus’ characteristic designation of those who stirred up a popular following for, he says, their own aggrandizement. These δορυφόροι could be understood more neutrally as “bodyguards” or as the “armed thugs, henchmen” of a tyrant—as here. Notwithstanding the etymology reflected in my translation, the word had an established usage for the intimidating guards that a king and especially a tyrant gathered around himself. For the more neutral usage: Augustus presented Herod with 400 Gauls, formerly in Cleopatra’s service, as a spear-carrying bodyguard (War 1.397, 664, 672). In the Roman context, the term was sometimes used of the Praetorian Guard (Plutarch, Galb. 13); it overlaps extensively with Latin satellites. But the conjunction with tyranny is common: Isocrates, Hel. enc. 37; Plato, Resp. 575b, 587c; Polybius 21.32c.4; Diodorus 9.4.2; 11.86.4; 17.50.3; 17.50.4; 4 Macc 6.1, 23; 8.13; 11.27; Plutarch, Pelop. 6.2; 26.4; Sert. 5.7; 14.3; Dion 14.3. According to Diogenes Laertius (1.98), Ephorus and Aristotle claimed that Periander of Corinth (ca. 600 BCE) “was the first to have spear-bearers—and he transformed his office into a tyranny and would not allow anyone who wanted to live in his city.” Especially telling for the context here is 2.275: each of the wretches made himself a chief bandit or tyrant, and provided himself with spear-bearers to plunder the moderates. It is conceivable that Josephus also intends a sharp allusion: Nero, the greatest Roman tyrant of the period in Josephus’ description (2.250-51), reportedly had a freedman named Doryphorus, whom he compelled to marry him as the princeps’ “husband” (Suetonius, Nero 29; Tacitus, Ann. 14.65). Elsewhere in Josephus, see 2.275, 434, 564, 645 [of Josephus himself, but modest]; 4.392; 5.531, 439.

See the note to this word in the previous section. See the note at 2.232. Ant. 20.172 says that the Egyptian fled from the fight and became invisible. See the note at 2.11. Again, Ant. 20.171 counts 400 killed and 200 prisoners; if these were “most” of the Egyptian’s following, then the 30,000 mentioned here is a wild exaggeration (as seems inherently probable given the likely population of ancient Jerusalem—no more than about 200,000). See the note to “populace” at 2.262.

The verb φλεγμαίνω occurs only 4 times in Josephus, all in War. In the previous occurrence (1.507) the same general point is made: Archelaus compares human bodies and states, with their festering parts—calling for a mild cure if possible; the final occurrence (4.406) makes roughly the same comparison, and the third attributes the inflammation to hot-headed Judean youths in Caesarea. The image of the body politic subject to disease in its various parts has a rich history in Greek and Roman political discussion (Plato, Resp. 372e; Livy 2.32; see the note to “diseased” at War 1.4). Particularly relevant is Plutarch, Mor. [Praec.] 824a: the diseased parts of a body must be repaired by the strong ones; if the whole becomes diseased it cannot repair itself, but requires outside (i.e., Roman) medicine. MS P omits the explicit reference to the body, but the others have it. The verb is rarely attested before Josephus; it appears chiefly in the Hippocratic corpus and medical writers from the 2nd cent. CE. The metaphorical use for political inflammation is Platonic (elaborated in detail at Tim. 84-87b; Resp. 372e; Leg. 691e; cf. Polybius 3; Plutarch, Lyc. 5.6; Num. 8.1; Mor. [Fort. rom.] 321c). From his time onward, it appears relatively often in this metaphorical-political sense. See the note at 2.261. See the note to “bandit-style” at 2.65. Josephus almost always uses this word either adjectivally or as a neuter singular substantive with article (1.11; 3.450; 4.406; Life 21), but here and at 4.402, possibly at 2.417, it is a masculine plural substantive. With the coming together of these groups Josephus appears to be describing the union of the two kinds of trouble-maker he has just distinguished: militant “bandits” (2.253-54) and charismatic visionaries, the latter having cleaner hands for their non-involvement in violence (2.258). If so, it seems odd that the “enchanters” now proceed to join fully in the guerrillas’ violent activities (below). To be sure, Josephus has indicated that the purer-hands group also really desired revolution (2.259) and has implied that the Egyptian enchanter was planning to use violence (2.262). Then again, the parallel (Ant. 20.172), omitting most of this paragraph, more logically says that the bandits (with the collapse of the Egyptian’s effort) once again began inciting the populace to war against the Romans, and burning and pillaging the villages of those who did not comply.One must ask whether the oddity here in War is better explained by a complex historical reality that Josephus attempts to describe accurately, or by his desire to systematize with simple categories and thereby to continue raising the rhetorical stakes in the narrative (from 2.253): bandits in the countryside; then knife-wielding assassins in the city who killed daily; worse than this, hourly fear of murder; just as bad, charismatic visionaries; worse yet, the Egyptian enchanter; still worse, bandits and enchanters joining hands! The same phrase (εἰς ἀπόστασιν ἐνάγω) is used of Judas the Galilean at 2.118. MSS PAM have ἀποστασία rather than ἀπόστασις, which is possible, since these words have such similar meanings in Josephus (cf. 7.82, 164), though ἀπόστασις is much more common (62 occurrences in contrast to 3). They also have the simple verb ἄγω (“lead” rather than “incite, induce”). Latin reads afflictionem inducebant, which is puzzling if translating the same Greek noun, except that it seems to confirm the form of the verb here. Or “poking, prodding.” Here is a striking instance of Josephus’ fashionable diction. The verb παρακροτέω is attested in literature before his time only in Dionysius (Ant. rom. 7.46.5). Josephus uses it a remarkable 14 times, however: 13 in the 6 books of War (1.380, 617; 3.153, 239, 484; 4.19, 159, 193, 601; 5.75, 306; 6.285)—qualifying it as a distinctive term of this work. After Josephus it becomes visible, but not popular (Lucian, Anach. 1; Philostratus, Gymn. 46). The novelty lies in the prefix, for the root κροτέω (strike, knock, clap, applaud, pat) is amply attested, as is the form συγκροτέω (“knock together”)—a favorite of Philo’s (41 times), which Josephus also has 17 times, 8 in War. Prefixed as here, the verb in Josephus usually has the metaphorical sense of encouragement or prodding onward. See the note to “freedom,” a bedrock theme in War, at 2.259. See the note to this phrase at 1.3. Compare again Judas the Galilean at 2.118: he abuses as cowards those who put up with rendering tribute to Rome and who tolerate mortal masters besides God. See the notes to “slavery” at 2.209 (in the context of the Roman Senate’s reluctance to endorse Claudius) and to “freedom” at 2.259.

See the note to “century” at 2.61. See the note at 2.239. Villages were recently set ablaze by Eleazar son of Deineus’ bandits (2.235): the repetition contributes to the sense of escalating chaos. This is the first occurrence of an important term in War (ἀπόνοια), which occurs 24 times from here to the end of bk. 7 (“The madness of the sicarii, just like a disease, also struck the cities around Cyrene”: 7.437), 42 times in Josephus’ corpus. Meaning literally “departure from one’s [normal] mind,” it can have many nuances, from “recklessness” to “desperation” to “madness.” In War Josephus tends to use it as a pejorative catch-all term for the behavior of all those who reject élite leadership and seek political change, especially in revolt against Rome. Launched as a term of political diagnosis by Thucydides (1.82.4; 7.67.14) and the Athenian orators (Demosthenes, Cor. 249; cf. Hyperides, Dem. frag. 3.7; Dinarchus, Dem. 82, 104—both accusing Demosthenes of the ailment), and developed in this sense by Polybius (1.70.5, 82.1; 2.35.2, 47.4; 9.39.1; 13.4.4; 16.32.1; 21.34.12; 30.3.2; 33.10.6), the term remained serviceable for the Hellenistic historians (11 times each in Dionysius and Diodorus; cf. 6 times in Posidonius’ fragments). Josephus exploits it significantly more than any of his extant predecessors or contemporaries. This “fanning” picks up, with a deft turn to metaphor, the literal burning of the villages just mentioned. It will come up again at 2.293, 343, when Florus energetically fans the flames of war (ἐκριπίζω τὸν πόλεμον); the imagery anticipates the final conflagration involving the temple. It is not clear whether Josephus used (the passive imperfect of) ῥιπίζω, as the usually superior MSS PAML indicate (cf. Latin gravius augebatur), or ἀναρριπίζω (possibly “rekindled” or simply an intensified “fanned”) as MS C has it—surprisingly preferred in this case by Niese, LCL, M-B, Vitucci, Pelletier. Both words are exotic, the simple form appearing in Aristophanes (Ran. 360; Eccl. 842), a fragment of Aristotle, and hardly again before Strabo (15.3.14), the NT (James 1:6), and Philo (Jos. 124; Aet. mund. 125). It would be the only occurrence in Josephus, but that is also true of the compound form. Nevertheless, the compound form has much fuller attestation generally (in addition to scattered classical occurrences: 5 times in Dionysius, 8 in Philo, 12 in Plutarch). See the note to this phrase at 2.256.

The date of the following important episode is uncertain, though Josephus implies that it came near the end of Felix’s tenure, and thus perhaps between 57 and 59/60 CE; see the range of opinions canvassed in Levine 1974: 382 n. 6. This phrase (Ἑτέρα δὲ ταραχὴ) recalls the introduction to the second of the Pilate episodes (2.175) and so contributes to the sense of steadily mounting unrest that characterizes bk. 2. Niese (followed by LCL, M-B, Pelletier) makes this phrase the beginning of a new sentence and section, no doubt because the “and” at its beginning seems to make the war’s being fanned into flame (ἀνερριπίζετο) a continuation of the consequences of the previous actions. Although that connection is clear, and I have followed it here, the μέν . . . δέ construction from the previous clause links the 2 paragraphs closely. Coastal Caesarea, already much discussed in the War (see notes at 2.16 and 2.171-72.). The headquarters of the Roman governor and base of his auxiliary forces, it will remain a flashpoint for growing tensions, which Josephus will identify as a primary cause of the revolt against Rome (2.284-92, 457). This is the same verb (συνίστημι) as in 2.258. Although in the middle rather than active voice, in context it seems to have the same function of adding to existing problems. If taken absolutely, it would mean that this disturbance “came together” (i.e., “arose, took shape, emerged”). On the ethnic history of Caesarea, see Levine 1975a: 5-25; Kasher 1990: passim; Kloppenborg 2000; Murray 2000; and Pummer 2000. Josephus’ language here, that the Judeans were mixed in, fits with his consistent portrayal of Caesarea as a Greek city in which a substantial Judean population had grown (see the following notes). There is evidence of a Judean presence even in the earlier settlement of Strato’s Tower, especially after the Hasmonean Alexander Janneus took it in 103 BCE (Ant. 13.334-335), but the Judean community appears to have become negligible again after Pompey established the city with a Greek charter (1.156; cf. Levine 1975a: 1-10; Murray 2000: 128-30; Kloppenborg 2000: 231-37; note the exaggerated claim of the Syrians in Ant. 20.173). We do not know how many Judeans were settled in the Caesarea of Herod and the Roman governors: Josephus will soon claim that some 20,000 were slaughtered in an hour, while the rest fled and were captured, leaving no remainder (2.457). The city’s theater held 3,500 to 4,000, and the multi-function stadium, which should have been able to seat a large segment of the population, accommodated 7-13,000 (see the note to “stadium” at 2.172). Kloppenborg (2000: 231-37) plausibly argues for a total population of 15-18,000 within the city walls, 26,000 including those outside, of which the Judeans constituted a minority. Or “started a quarrel (stasis) with” (τῶν ἀναμεμιγμένων Ἰουδαίων πρὸς τοὺς ἐν αὐτῇ Σύρους στασιασάντων). This formulation and the following story put the onus for stasis-creation on the Judeans of Caesarea—an impressive example of the even-handedness that Josephus promises in the prologue (1.9). Again in 2.267-68 he presents the problem as arising from the Greeks’ determination not to be shown up by the stronger and wealthier Judeans, some of whom could not be restrained from pursuing the conflict. The parallel (Ant. 20.173-78) makes the same claim emphatically: after the prefects calmed initial outbreaks, the Judeans—emboldened by their wealth—began abusing the Syrians, expecting to start trouble (20.175-76); after Felix ordered the Judeans to desist, and they refused, he sent in his soldiers, who killed and imprisoned many (20.177). At this, the Judean leaders begged Felix to give them a chance for repentance (μετάνοια), which he obliged.In his speech at Masada, Eleazar ben Ya‘ir will cite a long-standing quarrel between Judeans and Caesareans that culminated in the massacre of 66 CE (7.362-63; cf. 2.457). Josephus often describes the non-Judeans of Caesarea as Syrians (also Ant. 20.173, 183-84; Life 52-53, 59), using a broad term for the peoples of the region. There is support for this in his observation at 1.156-57: Strato’s Tower (and proleptically Caesarea) is included among the cities designated part of the province of Syria by Pompey. The Syrians’ appeal to their city’s Greek—not Judean—identity in this story is evidently a cultural claim, and Josephus accordingly calls them “Greeks” a number of times (2.265, 267-68, 284-85). In the parallel account, which configures the issue as one of primacy based on greater antiquity, he calls the non-Judeans “Syrians” throughout (Ant. 20.173-84). Greek οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἠξίουν σφετέραν εἶναι τὴν πόλιν. This is a remarkable claim: the Judeans are not demanding equality, or protection from harassment, but, from their position of superior wealth and strength, asserting their intention to reconfigure the city’s identity (cf. 2.284) such that it would be governed by Judean rather than Greek traditions, laws, and calendar—like Jerusalem. Given that Herod founded Caearea as a Greek city and counterweight to Judean Jerusalem (cf. Beebe 1983), indeed as the main center in the region for the cult of Rome and Augustus (quite possibly the source of profound aggravation to its Judeans), this would have meant a radical change indeed, entailing inter alia the removal of the city’s distinctive architecture, harbor statues, massive temple to Augustus, sacrifices, entertainment facilities, and civic offices. Levine observes (1974: 387): “Thus we find a Jewish community daring to seek control of a Greco-Roman city, an attempt without parallel in antiquity.”According to War, when this Judean initiative creates instability and violence, Felix will refer the matter to Nero (2.270), who eventually replies by reaffirming the city’s Syrian-Greek character (2.284). The narrative function is clear, if slightly awkward in its execution: the audience must wait several paragraphs, until the year of the war’s outbreak in 66 CE (2.284), to hear Nero’s decision. Josephus does not make that decision a direct cause of the war, but uses it as a reason to return the story to Caesarea, now under Gessius Florus as governor, to report another Caesarean episode: the continuing efforts of the Judeans to dominate the city (by land purchase), which were a primary cause of the war. This conflict led to serious violence and tragically disproportionate consequences, drawing in the governor, and his efforts to divert attention from his misdeeds there stoked the flames of war (2.285).Ant. 20.173 frames the story differently. Josephus begins by citing a problem concerning equal civic rights in Caesarea: ἰσοπολιτεία—a term that he uses only in that story. That topic sentence anticipates the outcome of a second Caesarea-related episode (the first does not concern isopoliteia). Namely: after the arrival of the procurator Festus (20.182), the Greco-Syrians will maneuver, apparently as a result of humiliations experienced in the present incident, to have the existing Judean ἰσοπολιτεία in Caesarea annulled (παρὰ τοῦ Νέρωνος αὐτοῖς ἐπιστολὴν ἀκυροῦσαν τὴν Ἰουδαίων πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἰσοπολιτείαν; 20.183). That decision by Nero will be a major cause of the war: their loss of civic standing will prompt the Judeans of Caesarea to ever greater aggression against their neighbors (20.184): they “prosecuted their civil strife against the Syrians until they [the Judeans] ignited the war” (πυθόμενοι γὰρ οἱ κατὰ τὴν Καισάρειαν Ἰουδαῖοι τὰ γραφέντα τῆς πρὸς τοὺς Σύρους στάσεως μᾶλλον εἴχοντο μέχρι δὴ τὸν πόλεμον ἐξῆψαν).The story he tells immediately after that topic sentence (Ant. 20.173) has nothing to do with equal rights; like this account in War, it concerns a Judean bid for control or primacy (20.173: πρωτεύειν), which leads to violence. From their position of greater wealth, he claims, the Judeans held the poorer Syrian population in contempt and kept reviling them (τῷ πλούτῳ θαρροῦντες καὶ διὰ τοῦτο καταφρονοῦντες τῶν Σύρων ἐβλασφήμουν εἰς αὐτοὺς ἐρεθίσειν προσδοκῶντες, 20.175). When this behavior provoked violence, Felix intervened with troops to stop the Judean instigators (20.177). Judean leaders admitted their error, begging for an opportunity to change course, which the procurator granted them (20.178: καὶ φείσασθαι τὸ λοιπὸν αὐτῶν δοῦναί τε μετάνοιαν, 20.178). In Antiquities, that marks the end of the Judeans’ quest for primacy in Caesarea. There is the sequel mentioned above, however, not found in War: by means of a bribe, a Syrian-Caesarean delegation to Rome prevails upon Nero’s secretary ab epistulis Graecis and former paedagogus, Beryllus (cf. Griffin 1984: 32, 46, 55), to secure from the princeps a cancellation (ἀκυρόω) of existing Judean equality (Ant. 20.183-84). Since the Judeans had recently aimed at control of the city, this humiliating revocation of their current political standing inflamed them all the more, and this led to war (20.183-84). For scholarly analyses, which do not generally consider the fundamental differences between the narratives, see Levine 1974; 1975a; Kasher 1977; 1990; Kloppenborg 2000; Sly 2000. Greek κτίστης. See the note to “colonizer” below in the same section. Cf. 1.408-16, for Herod’s establishment of Caesarea. More recently, Herod’s grandson Agrippa I had also ruled the city as part of his territory (41-44 CE), and had died there—to the unseemly joy of the gentile inhabitants (War 2.219; Ant. 19.343-52). Greek οἰκιστής; see the note to “founder” above. The switch in terminology may be simply for the sake of variatio, since the two words overlap considerably in meaning. But Josephus appears to be making a subtler point, and this would be especially true if he already has in mind the fuller version that will appear in the parallel (Ant. 20.173-78). There the Judeans make a similar claim to primacy because its founder was a Judean, whereas the Syrian inhabitants of Caesarea point out that before Herod established Caesarea the site was the non-Judean Strato’s Tower (20.173)—and so primacy goes to them. Given that War has also repeatedly mentioned and described Herod’s refoundation of the much older Strato’s Tower as Caesarea (1.77-80, 156, 396, esp. 408-16), it seems that the difference of label is significant: the gentiles recognize Herod as the one who resettled the city and established its present condition, but not as its original founder. NB: at 7.376 God will be designated the οἰκιστής of Jerusalem, and Josephus has emphasized that the city had a much older Canaanite foundation (πρῶτος κτίσας; 6.438). On the other hand, at 1.414 Josephus has spoken of Caesarea itself as a foundation (τὴν τιμὴν τοῦ κτίσματος Καισάρειαν). See the notes to “Syrians there” and “theirs” in 2.266. Greek ἀνατίθημι. At 1.415 Josephus has already stated that Herod dedicated (same verb) Caesarea to the province (ἀνέθηκεν δὲ τῇ μὲν ἐπαρχίᾳ), which must mean Syria. See the note to this rare verb (ἐγκαθιδρύω), which Josephus uses 4 times in War (3 in bk. 2), at 2.185. In Ant. 20.173, by contrast, the Syrians appeal to the ancient foundation of Strato’s Tower as proof of the city’s non-Judean character. If that is hinted at in the distiction between κτίστης and οἰκιστής here (see the note to “colonizer” here), then it would seem again that Josephus had something like the later account in view as he composed War, but freely chose to emphasize different arguments in the 2 works. The argument here is decisive, for in spite of Herod’s Judean identity, the archaeology of Caesarea amply confirms that the king built Caesarea as a Greco-Roman city. The statues and temples mentioned here were not incidental to the city’s image, but defined it (1.413-16): “At the mouth [of the harbor] colossal statues were supported by columns, three on each side. . . . On a mound right opposite the mouth [of the harbor] was Caesar’s temple, remarkable for its beauty and size. In it was a colossal statue of Caesar, not inferior to the Olympian Zeus, after which it was modeled, and [a statue] of Rome, matching that of Hera at Argos.” Cf. Ant. 15.268-76. The massive Herodian platform (90 m by 100 m [295 x 330 ft]) for the central temple described by Josephus, dedicated to Rome (or Livia?) and Augustus, was identified in 1995 and systematically excavated from 1997; cf. Holum 1999; Bernett 2007: 102-21.

Josephus used this verb (ἀμφισβητέω) often for the rivalry among Herod’s sons for succession (2.20, 26; cf. Ant. 17.318). Josephus more often uses the phrase εἰς (or ἐπὶ) ὅπλα χωρεῖν (2.517; 4.71; Ant. 5.150; 17.242; 20.3; Life 31, 391); here the verb is προέρχομαι. In pre-industrial societies, weapons (ὅπλα) could be almost anything, from purpose-built, tempered, or sharpened implements to rocks and sticks. Ant. 20.176 has the 2 sides throwing stones at each other, causing serious injury. See the note to this phrase at 2.256. Or “the more spirited, brasher ones” (οἱ θρασύτεροι). Boldness is a trait that Josephus, in Aristotelian and Polybian fashion (cf. Eckstein 1995: 145), typically associates with the young. Contrast the “seniors” of the next sentence, and see the note to “youths” at 2.225. Bold youth are particularly thick on the ground in War 2, Ant. 20, and Life—in the build-up to war (2.238, 303, 320, 409, 478; Ant. 20.57, 108, 180, 199, 206, 213; Life 126, 147, 179, 185, 220; cf. Ant. 4.103). See the note to “bolder ones” at 2.238. This rare and vivid verb (προπηδάω), connoting an incautious or unusually courageous or desperate leap, is characteristic language in War (21 of its 22 occurrences in Josephus). See the note at 2.47. This is the only occurrence in Josephus of the substantive phrase, οἱ γεραιοί, and the adjective appears elsewhere only at 4.151; Ant. 18.72. Significantly, this term for older men is also absent from Josephus’ model Polybius and it hardly occurs in Thucydides (6.18.6), whereas οἱ πρεσβύτεροι (“the elders”) is standard in all 3 authors. Greek στασιασταί, a key term in War; see the note at 1.10. Again (see the note to “spirited ones” in this section), it is clear from the inability of the seniors to restrain them that the brash agitators tend to be young. Cf. 2.290 below (also concerning Caesarea): “but the factious element (τὸ στασιῶδες), which by virtue of its youth had become inflamed, was burning up for battle.” This is one of Josephus’ characteristic observations on human nature (cf. 1.31), rather than any special indictment of the Greeks.

This relative wealth has an important function in the later story: the Judeans will attempt to buy land next to their synagogue at many times its value (2.285); when that fails, they will unsuccessfully bribe the governor with a massive sum to halt construction on the land (2.287). Josephus will specifically mention a leading Judean with lucrative public contracts, named Ioannes (2.287). Feldman (1993: 119) uses the present passage in support of his larger argument about the enviable prosperity of many Judean communities around the ancient Mediterranean, against the “lachrymose” tradition of Jewish historiography. He compares (119-20) the notice in Ant. 20.177, that Felix allowed his soldiers to plunder Judeans’ homes, some of which contained vast sums of money. This is also suggested in 2.270 below (some Judeans’ homes are plundered by Felix’s soldiers in retaliation for their failure to desist). Although Feldman may well be right (in historical terms) that such wealth would have created jealousy, Josephus’ point here (and explicitly at Ant. 20.175) seems to be that it emboldened the Judeans to claim the city as theirs (and that this is mainly what provoked the hostile reaction). Kloppenborg (2000: 239) argues, from late rabbinic passages requiring tithes on produce sold in Caesarea (y. Dem. 2.1.22c), that much of this produce must have come from Judea, with the result that Judean merchants in the city had the economic advantage of their large hinterland (but cf. p. 236, where he seems to say that the Judeans’ wealth was “probably acquired” earlier than the Herodian period). Although the reminiscences of the Jerusalem Talmud come centuries later, Josephus’ claim about wealthy Judeans in this major port city seems inherently plausible, with the Judean hinterland and Jezreel (Esdraelon) Plain nearby; we simply lack outside evidence to test or clarify the claim. Cf. Or. sib. 2.125: “Do not exult in wisdom, or in strength, or in wealth!”—the latter two Greek terms matching Josephus’ language here. “Strength of body” (ἀλκὴ σώματος) is characteristic of War’s lexicon: 2.376, 476, 580; 4.503; 6.55, 81, 331; 7.232; note also 2.60; Ant. 6.21; 17.278. At 2.580 Josephus will claim that strength of body (and exaltation of soul) have allowed the Romans to master most of the inhabited earth. Though attested, this collocation is not common before Josephus: Euripides (Rhes. 382); Diodorus (2.39.2; 4.26.3; 17.100.5; 18.70.3), and Philo (Ebr. 174; Mos. 1.259; Virt. 46). The plural here (σωμάτων ἀλκή) could be construed either as a claim of greater physical vigor among the Judeans—“the strength of [their individual] bodies,” as in the similar constructions at 2.376; 6.331; Ant. 6.21—or in the sense that the Judeans’ strength consisted in their numerical superiority: they had the advantage of “the strength that comes from having many bodies.” The parallel account does not help because it mentions only greater wealth (Ant. 20.175). Although Levine (1974: 382-83; 1975a: 22) and Feldman (1993: 120) understand the issue as numerical, the translation here reflects the formulaic sense of similar phrases elsewhere in Josephus: the Judeans of Caesarea thus compare favorably to the Germans, renowned for the strength and size of their bodies (2.376: πλῆθος ἀλκὴν μὲν γὰρ καὶ μεγέθη σωμάτων). Indeed, the physical strength on the Judean side is assumed in the later story (2.286), where their youth undertake to prevent construction by a Greek resident near the synagogue—and can only be restrained by the governor’s military forces.Having a numerical advantage would mean enjoying a majority, whereas Josephus’ language (“mixed in” at 2.266) and the massacre at 2.475 suggest that Judeans were a minority, no matter how sucessful and wealthy, in keeping with the generally Greek character of the city. See the note to “Sebastenes” at 2.52. The Roman governors had taken over from King Herod, and developed, an auxiliary force of 3,000 or more men (5 infantry and one cavalry cohort). The strong connections with the people of Caesarea and Sebaste, from whom the auxiliaries were mainly drawn, came to a head with the death of the Judean King Agrippa I in 44 CE, when their raucous celebrations almost convinced Claudius to move them abroad and replace them with Roman legionaries (Ant. 19.364-66). This is apparently meant in the sense that non-Judean territory is associated with the larger province of Syria (even though Caesarea had become the seat of the Judean governor). The parallel (Ant. 20.176) reminds the audience of Josephus’ repeated indications that these soldiers were drawn from Caesarea and Sebaste (cf. previous note and Ant. 19.365; 20.122). I.e., just like the relatives they were, since the auxiliary cohorts recruited principally from Caesarea and Sebaste (see previous and following notes). See the note to “Sebastenes” at 2.52; also the notes to “cohort” at 2.224 and “Sebastene” at 2.236. The ongoing tendency of the auxiliary cohorts under the Judean governor’s command to side with the non-Judean population, in War personified in the egregious tribune Celer (2.244-46), is a significant factor in rising pre-war tensions according to Josephus (2.224, 229, 236). He will juxtapose the slaughter of Caesarea’s Judeans (2.457) with the slaughter of the Roman-auxiliary garrison in Jerusalem, asserting that Providence arranged it for the same day and hour. Even if he does not mean that the Caesareans immediately took revenge (for they could not have learned of the event in Jerusalem at the same hour), his strong literary connection between the episodes may be partly explained by this bond—understood by his audience and felt by the Caesareans themselves—between the Caesareans and the auxiliary cohorts of Judea.

In Josephus’ narratives of the Roman period, Greek ἔπαρχος (“commander”) is almost invariably singular (War 2.450, 544; 3.310; 6.303, 305; Ant. 18.33; 19.363; 20.152, 193, 197; Life 33, 121), normally serving as the standard equivalent of Latin praefctus in the many senses of that position: cf. H. J. Mason 1974: 45, 138-39. In the few other cases of the plural (War 3.122; 5.48), the term is clearly explained as “prefects of a cohort.” This passage and its parallel in Ant. 20.174 provide the only cases in which the plural is used without clarification. The LCL renders “magistrates” in both places, M-B “den Behörden,” and Pelletier “les hommes qui détenaient l’autorité.” Given the context, however, involving the use of force to keep order in Caesarea, there seems no reason to depart from Josephus’ consistent usage and render anything but “prefects”—whether those of the auxiliary cohorts in Caesarea or the governor himself and his associates. At 2.291 below, the prefect of the cavalry wing is made responsible for preventing civil strife. See the note to this characteristic Josephan term at the opening of this passage, 2.266. Curiously, much of what Josephus has already said in this account comes after his notice about the prefects’ nearly immediate efforts to stop the violence in the parallel (Ant. 20.174). Greek μάστιξι καὶ δεσμοῖς. Not in the sense that they were whipped with lashes and with chains: the second term indicates “that which binds [someone],” though English “bonds” (in this sense) and “fetters” are becoming archaic. Apparently, the men are confined chiefly for the purpose of occasional beatings; see the note to “detainees” at 2.4. Josephus uses a rare and colorful word (ἀνακοπή), attested before his time only in Posidonius, Strabo, and Philo, though his contemporary Plutarch uses it a number of times. The word was often used of breakwaters or devices to “turn back” the tide (War 1.412; Ant. 5.20; cf. Strabo 3.5.9). Repeated “provocations” indicated by the verb παροξύνω are part of Josephus’ narrative technique for building tension. See the note at 2.8. Greek στάσις. See the note to this key term at 1.10.

This sentence provides further support for understanding physical vigor at 2.268. The parallel (Ant. 20.176-77) describes mutual hostility at this point, with the Syrians engaging in verbal slanders, which lead to stone-throwing and injuries on both sides, though again with the Judeans winning skirmishes (20.176). The truncated form of this sentence (there seems to be something missing between perpetuating civil strife and being victorious) again suggests that Josephus is working with a base narrative close to the version that survives in the Antiquities. Presumably we are to understand that the fights between Judeans and Syrian-Greek Caesareans often occurred in the agora. Ant. 20.177: When he saw that this rivalry was taking the form of war, Felix personally appealed to the Judeans to stop (παύεσθαι τοὺς Ἰουδαίους παρεκάλει). By using the 3rd-person singular verb, Josephus holds Felix to be the killer, even though his soldiers carried out the orders. See the note to “large numbers” at 2.55. The collocation οὐσίας διαρπάζω turns up once or twice in several authors, but Josephus uses it more often than others, especially in War 2 (2.270, 273, 464, 624; otherwise only Ant. 10.112). Similarly Ant. 20.177: when the Judeans refused, Felix armed his soldiers and sent them in; they killed many but captured more. Felix allowed them to plunder certain homes of the Judeans in the city that contained much wealth. Again, it is easier to imagine that War truncates the version in Antiquities than that the detail of Antiquities expands War. Again στάσις. See the note at 1.10. At this point, the accounts here and in Antiquities crucially diverge; see the note to “theirs” at 2.266 above. Ant. 20.178 has the Judean leaders beg for pardon, and repent of this dangerous campaign; Felix accepts their plea, which ends the crisis. See the note at 2.193, to “powerful men” at 2.239, and the notes to 2.243. See the note at 2.248. Here is a clear example of Josephus’ A-B-A or “sandwich” technique in writing. He creates anticipation here, as we await the results of the hearing before Nero, which will come only at 2.284—some 6 to 8 years after the delegates were sent, with the procuratorships of Festus, Albinus, and Florus intervening. As the preceding notes have indicated, this double delegation hardly squares with the pair mentioned in Ant. 20.182: they leave Judea only after Festus’ arrival in 60 CE (or 58?), get more or less immediate hearings before Nero (the Judeans being thwarted by Pallas, who died in 62 [or 59/60]: 20.182), and return while Festus is still in office—by 62 CE (20.183-97). On several points War’s version is difficult to credit: the Judeans’ taking a claim based on their superior wealth, for a refoundation of this profoundly Greek city as Judean, to the flamboyant Hellenophile Nero; a ca. 7-year absence of the city’s “notables,” both Syrian and Judean, from their normal duties; the vague process and results (contrast Antiquities’ detail concerning Beryllus’ involvement in getting Judean citizenship overturned); and the seemingly artificial link here with the later Caesarean episode (2.284-85).

The following sentence, War’s only description of Festus, is remarkably spare, symmetrical, and positively disposed. The Antiquities parallel (20.182-97) is much longer and more diffuse, connecting Festus with other matters (sicarii and a controversy related to King Agrippa II). There Josephus awkwardly, and with admitted repetition (20.187; cf. 20.165-66?), reintroduces the sicarii as a species of bandit who used their special methods at festivals, though he also has them burning the villages of their enemies just as the bandits do in the same paragraph (20.185, 187).Whereas War here credits Festus for dealing effectively with bandits, the parallel makes no such claim, but only that his forces eliminated a certain unnamed “enchanter” who had persuaded people to follow him into the desert to await salvation (20.188; again, suspiciously repeating earlier language). Josephus adds a story there about Agrippa II’s conspicuous addition to his palace, which allowed him to observe the temple sacrifices and so caused the outraged priestly élite to erect a wall that blocked his view (and that of Roman soldiers observing from the roof of the western colonnade). This reportedly incensed Festus (20.193), who nevertheless indulged their request to send a delegation to Nero on the matter (20.194).The NT Acts mentions nothing about bandits, but features Festus in connection with the preliminary trials of Paul in Caesarea. It includes the interesting notes that Festus made a trip to Jerusalem only 3 days after arriving in his post (25:1), and after staying no more than 10 days he returned to Caesarea (25:6). There he hits upon using Paul’s case as a means of currying favor with his new subjects, by trying to move his trial to Jerusalem as they want (25:9). Shortly thereafter, Agrippa II and Berenice arrive in Caesarea to greet the new governor, and Paul’s case becomes the occasion for the beginning of their working relationship (25.13-14). Porcius Festus (Ant. 20.182; Acts 24:47) is unknown outside Josephus and the NT (Acts 24:27-26:32). His dates are usually given as 59 or 60 to 62 CE (reasons in Schürer-Vermes, 1.465-66 n. 42), though Kokkinos (1998: 385) offers reasons for revising this to the brief period from 58 to 59/60 CE. Most importantly, Josephus puts Agrippa II’s refoundation of Caesarea Philippi as Neronias under the next governor, Albinus (Ant. 20.211), and Agrippa’s coinage dates the completion of that event to 60/61, which (if Josephus is correct) means that Festus must have died in office in 59 or 60.His cognomen Festus is widely attested (617 occurrences, so Kajanto 1982: 221) across social ranks. Although many scholars have assumed a connection of the name with festivals, Kajanto finds that surprisingly few cognomina derive from festivals; he suspects that it means something more general: “merry, festive.” See the note to “procurator” at 2.117. The parallel account calls him a prefect (ἔπαρχος: 20.193, 197). See the note to “spoiled” at 2.258. The governors are still dealing with the bandits as they should; but see the same language in 2.278, 280 below, where they change roles. Josephus has recently established the countryside, as distinct from the city, as the base of Judean banditry (2.253-54)—something his audience would likely assume anyway, since bandits were typically imagined as living in caves and remote areas, away from concentrations of security forces and in terrain that favored invisibility. Ant. 20.185 reports more vividly that Judea was being devastated by bandits, who were burning down villages. Josephus then elaborates that the sicarii, who were bandits (he notes), would appear in the villages of their enemies and burn them down. This leaves open the question whether there was a coherent and objectively identifiable group known as sicarii (see note at 2.254). See the note to “chief bandit” at 2.56. This is a large compliment to Festus’ abilities, since the successful management of bandits was among a governor’s primary responsibilities; see the note to “bandits” at 2.229. See the note at 2.11. The collocation “arrested and destroyed” (συλλαμβάνω, διαφθείρω) is also at War 4.327, 541; Ant. 12.390; 13.4, 228. Still more common is the pair συλλαμβάνω + ἀναιρέω—“arrested and did away with” (War 1.245, 577, 655; 2.457; 4.145, 330; 5.540; 6.380; Ant. 5.242; 8.210; 9.131; Life 25; Apion 2.266). Josephus uses litotes—literally: “not a few.”

The narrative of Albinus’ term in Judea is much fuller in Ant. 20.197-202, following immediately on the death of James the brother of Jesus (of Nazareth), which occurred in the interval between governors. Albinus’ term in office is usually given as 62-64 CE, with the execution of James occurring just before his arrival in 62 (Schürer-Vermes 1.468 and n. 50). Kokkinos (1998: 385-86) redates his arrival to 59/60 (see note to “Festus” at 2.271), giving him a rather longer term (to 63/64). Albinus is often (though not on clear evidence) identified with the Lucceius Albinus whom Nero would send as procurator to Mauretania Caesariensis: after Nero’s death that Albinus favored Otho, until he made his own claim to (at least local) power, throwing off the title of procurator and adopting the name of Mauretanian royalty, Iuba (see 2.115 above); he was killed in the civil war of 69 (Tacitus, Hist. 2.58-59). The cognomen, in any case, well attested across social ranks (Kajanto 1982: 227), means “Whitey.” Indeed, the following portrait, crucially with respect to the freeing of bandits in return for bribes, makes War’s Albinus a sort of “anti-governor,” who does not merely fail in his mandate but ostentatiously inverts it. See the following notes. Cognates of κακουργία (the noun here) appear only 5 times in War (contrast 61 occurrences in his latter writings, 5 in Life alone—a third shorter than War 2). Of the 5 occurrences in War, 2 are here and at 2.277 below—used of Albinus’ successor Gessius Florus. This illustrates Josephus’ tendency to use words in proximity and then drop them: he uses the same strong language to characterize Judea’s final two governors before the revolt. This phrasing (οὐκ ἔστιν δὲ ἥντινα κακουργίας ἰδέαν παρέλειπεν) recalls Josephus’ description of Herod’s son Antipater’s attacks on his brother Alexander (1.495: οὐκ ἔστιν ἥντινα διαβολὴν παρέλιπεν) and anticipates the description of Albinus’ successor Florus at 2.277 (οὔτε ἁρπαγῆς τινα τρόπον οὔτε αἰκίας παρέλιπεν) and 306 (τρόπος τε ἁρπαγῆς οὐδεὶς παρελείπετο). Cf. similar constructions at 5.35; Ant. 1.17; 3.159; 14.1; 16.24, 64; 18.24; 19.293; Apion 1.5, 213; 2.171. A brief notice later in War (6.305), however, indicates a more responsible side to Albinus’ tenure: he hears the case of the Jeremianic seer Jesus son of Ananias, but releases him on the assumption that Jesus is mad (implying that, had the accused been considered dangerous, Albinus would certainly have punished him as a governor should; 6.305).

Given what follows, it seems that Josephus wishes to make Albinus appear here as a mini-Caligula (see 2.184 with notes), who was infamous for having prosecuted the nobility of Rome in order to seize their assets. The fuller account in Ant. 20 does not raise this charge and thus gives no content to this highly rhetorical, stock description of Albinus’ alleged behavior (ἔκλεπτεν καὶ διήρπαζεν τὰς ἑκάστων οὐσίας; cf., e.g., Isocrates, Antid. 124; Panath. 141; Lysias, Phil. 14; Aristophanes, Thesm. 205-6; Xenophon, Mem. 2.7.14; 4.2.15; Oec. 20.15; Cyr. 1.2.2; 5.1.13). Perhaps, then, this is another way of referring to the bribes he reportedly accepted (see the note at “banditry” in this section). See the note to “tax levies” at 2.4: the language of “lightening” and “deepening” or “burdening” them is characteristically Josephan. The content of Albinus’ special levies is puzzling, since he was not in a position to set tribute (one standard meaning of the noun εἰσφορά used here in plural). Josephus does not elaborate in the fuller account of Ant. 20. This raises the possiblity that the phrase has no real content: that Josephus’ vague rhetoric here covers what were really personal bribes, mentioned in both accounts. Albinus may have tried to raise levies for public works projects or the like, which could also cause massive opposition (cf. 2.175). The portrait in Ant. 20 is completely different. There, the new procurator immediately sets about ridding the city of sicarii, destroying “many” of them: “he introduced every technique and provision for bringing peace to the land” (20.204). When some of sicarii kidnap the staff of the powerful chief priest Ananias and his son Eleazar, however, Ananias pressures Albinus to capitulate to sicarii demands for the release of their detainees in return for those kidnapped (20.209-10). As a result, the numbers of sicarii begin to swell again. Finally, when Albinus knows that his term is ending, he wants to leave a favorable legacy with the Judeans and so decides the fate of all those waiting in detention: the serious criminals he executes, while those detained “on minor and incidental charges” he frees for a fee—filling the land with bandits, Josephus claims (20.215). That Josephus was capable of presenting Albinus as such a normal-seeming governor later in War (see note to “neglected” in preceding section) and as such an intelligible figure, bent on peace but facing pressures from all sides, in Antiquities, highlights (especially if he knew the Antiquities material while writing War) his manipulation of his material here to sustain his characterization of a malicious Roman administration. This is a rare if still oblique insight into the role of regional councils in combatting banditry. Cf. Ando 2006: 191: “Without a doubt, the vast majority of policing [in the provinces generally] was performed by local authorities.” We do not know how they achieved this, or with what practical support, in this period. Cumanus, Felix, and Festus have all been credited with aggressive action against bandits. Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Iulius Alexander were also credited with keeping the nation at peace (2.220), which implies similar efforts. So Albinus is becoming an anti-governor of the type that Florus will define; cf. the note to “bandits” at 2.229. Greek τοῖς δεσμωτηρίοις; see the notes to “detainees” at 2.4 and to “jail” at 2.180. The parallel (Ant. 20.215) omits this additional jab, having Albinus completely empty the detention centers by executions or by acquittals following bribes. That line has its own rhetoric, however: it shockingly contrasts the countryside, which should be free of bandits, as now full of them, with the detention centers, which should be full of bandits, but are now empty. See the note to “worthless” at 2.156, though the nuance here is not as clear. Although πονηρός is often rendered “wicked, evil” (used of the Devil at Matt 13:19), it more basically indicates a person weighed down with πόνοι (toils, labors, stresses). Thus: “in a bad or sorry condition, wretched”; by extension (on ancient status criteria) a “low-life,” or “worthless, good-for-nothing, useless” person; and from there, with moral assessment, “a wicked, evil, malicious, criminal person.” Although this passage could mean that only those who could not pay were actually treated as “malefactors” (Thackeray in LCL; Verbrecher in M-B; cf. 2.275 below), the verb (ἐγκαταλείπω) might also suggest that only those with no one to buy their freedom were left in such a sorry state.

See the note to “brazenness” at 2.108. Greek is a key term in War; see the note to “the revolutionary bloc” at 1.4. Or “more spirited, courageous” (ἐθάρσησαν αἱ τόλμαι). The θαρσ/θρασ word-groups are extremely common (nearly 250 occurrences) in Josephus’ works, in positive, negative, and ambiguous contexts. See the note at 2.239. Josephus thus divides the rebellion-inclined part of the population just as he divides the whole nation: between the small élite and the masses. Just as in the Petronius episodes (2.199), the upper class have privileged access to the governor himself for discussion (here allegedly for nefarious purposes); he can deal with the common masses only in outdoor speeches. On the different nuances of ἄδεια, see the notes to “amnesty” at 2.51 and “absence of fear” at 2.238. Josephus will soon re-use the term in the sense of “license” at 2.288. Greek τοῦ στασιάζειν, part of a crucial thematic vein in War (see note to “civil strife” at 1.10). Greek ἡσυχία, the opposite of “tumult, yelling, disorder” (cf. Essene meals at 2.130, 132), is an indirect opposite also to στάσις, though ὁμόνοια is a more exact and more common antonym. For contemporary political applications of the term, see Plutarch, Mor. [Praec.] 798f, 799a-c, 823f, 824e (paired here with ὁμόνοια). See the note to “Albinus” in this section: only the upper class have a claim on the governor’s time.

See the note to “sorry [individual]” at 2.273. If that context suggests the passive sense of “unfortunate, miserable,” this one clearly implies malfeasance: “scoundrels.” It is typical of Josephus to re-use words in close proximity, sometimes in different senses. This is sarcastic language, as also (of the tyrant John of Gischala and his followers) at 4.213. Greek στῖφος: a tight or close-knit group. Josephus commonly speaks of bandits and other undesirables with this term (War 1.204, 347; 2.258, 275, 643; 3.450; 4.135; Ant. 8.204; 14.259; 20.180; Life 21), connoting something pejorative such as “swarm,” though he can also use it neutrally of a military formation (War 1.42, 149, 210, 251, 292, 295, 670). In a sense, these are not two different uses, since chief bandits or tyrants try to replicate the machinery of state in their own para-states, including militias. See the note to this term at 2.56. See the note to “bandit bloc” (including discussion of the pair “bandit and tyrant”) at 1.11. See the note at 2.262. This is the first occurrence of a phrase (οἱ μέτριοι) that is often rendered “the moderates” and understood to be a distinctive peace party in contrast to the rebels who wanted war, and that he (misleadingly) insinuates his own affiliation to the former. Having read this construction into Josephus, some recent scholars then reject its historical existence, claiming that such a group is Josephus’ tendentious creation (Cohen 1979: 183, 195; Price 1992: 37-40). It seems unlikely, however, that Josephus means to indicate by this phrase a movement or party, much less a political ideology. The phrase appears only 4 times in War (all in bk. 2: 2.306, 455, 649) and once in Ant. 11.142. In that last passage, unrelated to the war, it has the standard Greek meaning (cf. Demosthenes, Or. Cor. 10; Mid. 185; cf. Thucydides 6.89; Plato, Leg. 816b): the restrained (i.e., not lustful, impulsive, reckless, self-aggrandizing), honest, decent, respectable, fair-minded people. Similarly, in the present passage, the reasonable folk are the victims of these new tyrants; their homes are being plundered to support the bullies. When we next meet them (2.306), however, they are victims of the tyrannical governor Florus’ soldiers—plundered, then arbitrarily whipped and crucified. There is no political ideology here.The third passage (2.455) is revealing: following the reprehensible sabbath slaughter of the Roman garrison, to whose soldiers safe passage had been given, the whole population was aware that this pollution would require a divine punishment, and “each of the reasonable folk was anxious that he would be suffering punishment for the sake of the agitators.” Again, οἱ μέτριοι are simply the good people, who are appalled by such abominable behavior. In the final passage (2.649), the reasonable people are disconsolate because they see war preparations under way. They appear to the same as those (in the next sentence, 6.250) who “loved peace,” in contrast to those fanning the flames of war, but this does not mean that Josephus has falsely constructed a “peace party.” His narrative is much more complex than that.The only consistent features of the people described by this term, therefore, are mildness, decent instincts, respectability, and therefore a tendency to be victims of tyrants and others with power. Indeed, the following narrative of the last two governors uses μετρι-words in various contexts and nuances: see notes to “restrained” or “respectable” at 2.281, 283, 306.

The Greek noun ἀπλήξ (here plural) is exceedingly rare: Josephus is its first attested user (only here and at 6.90, with a certain symmetry), and the word appears again only with Gregory Nazianzenus in the 4th cent. CE. More common was the equivalent adjective ἄπληκτος, which Josephus will use in his alternative version of this material, but for a different purpose (Ant. 20.255). The pattern is familiar: some are actually harmed by a given action and many others live in fear of the same thing happening to them (cf. 2.256). Flattery (here κολακεύω) is the standard antithesis of candid speech (to the powerful). Plutarch found it helpful to write an essay exploring the differences between a flatterer and a true friend, which often contrasts flattery and candor. See the note to “frankness of speech” in this section. Because the Greek has a play on words, κολακεύειν τὸν ἄξιον κολάσεως, we have translated the last term to preserve the alliteration at least; it is normally rendered as “punishment” in this volume. Honest, straightforward speech or candor (παρῥησία), in contrast to obsequious flattery of those in power (cf. 1.2-3), was a basic value of ancient moral and political philosophy, identified with the free, fearless, and noble mind, and most clearly exemplified in the Cynics (Plato, Lys. 178a, 179c; Gorg. 492d, 521a; Resp. 567b; Polybius 4.31.4; 18.14.9; 6.9.5; 22.12.2-3; 30.31.16 [for absence]; Dio, Or. 3.3; Plutarch, Mor. [Lib. educ.] 1b; [Quom. adul.] 51c, 59c-d, 66d-e—this essay is an ongoing discussion of frankness in contrast to flattery; [Apoph. Lac.] 229c, 240b; cf. Acts 2:29; 4:29, 31; 28:31). It was also the bane of the powerful, and early emperors occasionally punished senators and philosophers for such bold speech (Dio 65.12.2, 13.1-2). The curtailing of free speech under Albinus prepares for examples under Gessius Florus: after some of the people speak very frankly about his abuses, he will pointedly mock their pretended freedom and nobility of soul (2.299). Or “pruned,” a metaphor that leads directly to the next, involving the sowing of seeds. Tyranny is a prominent theme of the War; see the note to “tyrants” at 1.9. But it is almost always local Judean tyrants who are in view. Here, Albinus and Gessius Florus complement and catalyze the Judean tyrants with their own tyrannical behavior. The capture (ἅλωσις) of the city is not only War’s main subject; it also served as the work’s title for many readers in late antiquity. See the note at 1.10.

This paragraph is closely parallel to the final substantive paragraph of the Antiquities (20.252-58), before Josephus’ closing remarks and introduction of the Life in that work (20.259-68). Both paragraphs are conspicuously short on content, long on rhetorical characterization. Florus appears (also in the following narrative) as a kind of miniature Antiochus Epiphanes, the first tyrannical plunderer of the temple and torturer of eminent citizens (1.32-36). The nature of the War-Antiquities parallels again raises the question whether Josephus already had a fuller, Antiquities-like narrative at his disposal while writing War, or whether Josephus elaborated War in the later work. See the following notes. Procurator of Judea from 64 or possibly 65 CE through the beginning of the war; Tacitus (Hist. 5.10) also dates the outbreak of war to his administration. Josephus has extremely harsh words for him in both narratives, at Ant. 20.257 averring that Florus compelled the Judeans to resort to war. It is uncertain how or when his tenure ended: he is last mentioned in 2.558, after which it is difficult to imagine a governor having a presence in Jerusalem. At 6.238, M. Antonius Iulianus will be mentioned as “the procurator of Judea,” in about mid-70 CE: he may have been Florus’ immediate replacement, though we do not know when. Arguing that the war broke out in 65 CE, rather than 66 as the communis opinio has it, Kokkinos (1998: 386) would end Florus’ term then.According to the parallel (Ant. 20.252-53), Gessius was a native of Clazomenae (famed as birthplace of the pre-Socratic philosopher Anaxagoras), about 32 km (20 miles) W of modern Izmir (Smyrna) on the W coast of Turkey. He or his family must have received Roman citizenship at some point, given his name. He reportedly had a wicked wife named Cleopatra (possibly Alexandrian?), who used her friendship with Nero’s wife Poppea to secure this post for her husband.The cognomen Florus is widely attested (559 examples according to Kajanto 1982: 233-34). Although it has been traced to the mythological fertility Goddess Flora (and the Floralia festival), Kajanto argues that the masculine form of the name more likely comes from the simple, happy adjective florus (“blooming”). In Ant. 20.253 Josephus uses a different but parallel form of sarcasm: Florus “was so sordid and violent in his use of authority that the Judeans . . . praised Albinus as benefactor.” The verb κακουργέω occurs only here in War, though 29 times in Antiquities. The cognate noun was used of Albinus at 2.272, and this repetition helps to build a sense of building evil at the hands of Nero’s agents. This notice comes as a surprise in War. Nothing in the preceding two paragraphs has indicated that Albinus’ crimes were covert. Indeed, 2.273 declares them to be comprehensive and obvious, in the political sphere: the raising of taxes and the emptying of detention sites. The Antiquities parallel (20.254) is more cautious: Albinus “used to conceal his wretcheness and would take precautions so as not to be completely obvious (ἐπεκρύπτετο τὴν πονηρίαν καὶ τοῦ μὴ παντάπασιν κατάφωρος εἶναι προυνόει).” Moreover, in the earlier account of Albinus’ career there, Josephus does indeed mention a number of private negotiations with Ananias the high priest, to free detained sicarii in return for the freedom of kidnapped staff of the chief priests (20.208-10). These negotiations, which Josephus claims wrought havoc in Judea (20.210), do not appear in War’s crisp and generalizing account of Albinus’ very public crimes. It seems easier to imagine Josephus here condensing a longer account (similar to what would appear in Antiquities), and preserving disharmonious elements from it, than the reverse. Greek μεθ’ ὑποστολῆς. The noun ὑποστολή is barely attested before Josephus (Epicurus, Ep. frag. 92 [reconstructed]; Aristoxenus, fr. 42b-c; Asclepiodotus 10.21). He has it twice (also Ant. 16.112), however, and it comes to be used much more frequently by his contemporaries and later authors (Heb 10:39; Plutarch, Mor. 129c; 501d; Arrian, Tact. 26.4; Aelian, Tact. 30.3; Galen, Comp. med. 12.504, 521; Apollonius Dyscolus, Pron. 2.1.1.92; Adv. 2.1.1.187). When abbreviating the tria nomima, Romans usually referred to their peers by the nomen gentilicium, the middle of the 3 principal names—as Josephus does here, and he will similarly call Cestius Gallus “Cestius.” Normally, however, he uses the governor’s cognomen, Florus (e.g., 32 times from 2.280 to 343). Paraded, as in a Roman triumphal procession (πομπεύω): 2 of the other 3 occurrences in War have to do with the Flavian triumph (7.137, 154), and the remaining case (5.414) involves Judean tyrants parading their crimes. Presumably, Josephus has chosen terminology that would resonate well with his Roman audience. It is ironic language on several levels: that a governor would boast about what should have shamed him if he did it at all; that a low-level equestrian should enjoy this kind of “triumph” when real triumphs were now denied even to men of the highest dignity and achievement; and that this governor should seek a personal victory over this nation, which is in fact part of the empire—though the princeps has sent him to manage the province in peaceful cultivation of the local élite. Ant. 20.254 shifts around some of the vocabulary here (or vice versa): “Gessius Florus paraded his crimes to our nation, just as if he had been sent for a demonstration of wretchedness, having neglected no form whatsoever of either plunder or unjust punishment.” Josephus uses the adjective κατάκριτος only in War, otherwise 3 times in bk. 1 and at 6.109. Of the 8 attestations before Josephus, 6 are in Philo (and 1 in Diodorus 33.2.1). Josephus is again using “Philonic” language. Or “inquisitor.” Although δήμιος means basically “belonging to the public” and so “public agent” when used of a person, it had also acquired the sense given in this translation (LSJ s.v.; cf. Vitucci: un boia; Pelletier: un bourreau; M-B: Henker), which seems to be suggested by the context here—as also in the only other occurrence in Josephus (Ant. 19.42). See the note to “neglected” at 2.272. This (“neglected” + negative) is formulaic language in Josephus’ descriptions of Albinus and Florus. At 2.306 he will use the formula again in connection with Florus (citing plunder and murder, rather than torture).

See the note to “compassion” at 1.12. Ant. 20.255: “Whereas he was not softenable in the face of pity. . . .” Greek ἐν δὲ τοῖς αἰσχροῖς ἀναιδέστατος. Since the roots of the two adjectives are different, one could translate the latter as either “ruthless” (though the point seems to be that he was not ruthless with the shameful, but joined them) or “unabashed, unashamed, brazen, flagrant” (though none seems quite right). Ant. 20.255 continues the sentence (see previous note): “. . . he was insatiable with any [amount of] gain.” It is striking that both versions use the same quasi-poetic sentence structure (initial ἦν governing two μὲν . . . δέ clauses) and include Florus’ pitiless character in the first clause, and yet they make a different issue of the second clause. Further, while War’s parallelism hangs on the two superlative adjectives (“most . . .”), in Ant. 20 it is built on matching privative adjectives (ἄτεγτος, ἄπληκτος [see note to “unscathed” at 2.276 above]). Whether Josephus looked at War while writing Antiquities or he consulted the longer version that would be used for Antiquities while writing War, the comparison demonstrates well his freedom in rewriting the same basic story. The same language (πανουργεῖν δολιωτέρας) will appear again in Josephus’ description of John of Gischala (2.585); that re-use highlights the stock nature of the charges here. By contrast, Ant. 20.255 stresses that Florus could not distinguish between great gains and few, but even made common cause with bandits. Since War will also connect him with banditry (below), however, the difference is evidently rhetorical only. This verb (ἐκδιδύσκω) has an unusual history. Before Josephus it is attested only in the LXX, 4 times (1 Kgs 31:8; 2 Kgs 23:10; 2 Esdr 14.17; Hos 7:1); after Josephus it does not appear again until 4th-cent. Athanasius and Ps-Athanasius. Although Josephus uses this verb only here, he continues with different language the same theme of Florus’ making a desert of, or stripping, Judean cities (2.279, 286). The cities in question seem to be coastal Caesarea and Jerusalem (2.284-308), from each of which he will extract vast sums of money (2.287-88, 293). See the notes at 2.258 and 2.271. The governors have changed roles, for Felix and Festus were destroying those who were ruining the land—the bandits—as a governor should. See further 2.280. At greater length, Ant. 20.255 claims that, in his failure to distinguish great gains from small, “Florus made common cause with the bandits, and most people [or the masses] practiced this (banditry) fearlessly, having become convinced that their safety was secure with him, on the strength of his share [in the proceeds].” Josephus’ choice of words (λήψεται τῶν λαφύρων) is telling: “war-spoils” implies that war is already in some sense underway.

Florus’ greed (πλεονεξία), focused upon the temple’s wealth, will become the dominant theme of his term in office: at 2.293 he extracts 17 talents from the temple; at 2.328 he is intent on plundering the temple; 2.331 is a summary statement on the thwarting of his greed. Or “cities,” as printed by Niese (τὰς πόλεις) following MSS PAM, accepted by LCL, Vitucci, Pelletier, and M-B. Niese allows, however, that the reading τὰς τοπαρχίας in LVRCExc and Latin (regionem) may well be correct, and Naber follows this reading. I favor it slightly on the basis of context (the whole countryside) and the relatively early Latin. See the note at 2.213: the irony of turning subject territories (conquered precisely for their productivity and revenue) into deserts is a recurring theme in Josephus. Here it is particularly pointed because a Roman governor is (Josephus claims) directly responsible for the depredations. Ant. 20.256 uses very similar language while (a) clarifying that the Judeans “were forced to flee, rising up from their own haunts” by the depredations of the bandits (so, a more indirect link to Florus), (b) making the remarkable claim that they all fled, and (c) adding their thought “that it would be better to settle among foreigners, no matter where”—highlighting the point that their compatriot bandits, encouraged by Florus, were the main problem.

C. Cestius Gallus (cos. 42 CE: suffect for Claudius in March-April [Degrassi 1952: 12]) appears to have been the son of a respected senator—a debauched old man, according to Suetonius (Tib. 42.2)—of the same name (cos. 32 CE), mentioned by the elder Pliny (Nat. 10.124; 34.48) and Tacitus (Ann. 3.36; 6.7, 31; cf. Dio 58.25.2); cf. PIR2 2.152-53. He was presumably well into his 60s by the story time here. Cestius’ importance in War is indicated by his appearance in the prologue to the work (1.20-21).Nero’s legate to Syria from 65 CE at the latest until his death in early 67, it fell to him to try to stamp out the Judean revolt in late 66 (late 65 according to Kokkinos 1998; see Introduction), when he may have been nearing 70 years of age. His complete failure there (cf. Tacitus, Hist. 5.10), with massive loss and humiliation for the Legio XII Fulminata (War 2.555) and the reported loss of the legionary eagle (Suetonius, Vesp. 4.5), would be remembered among Josephus’ élite colleagues as “the blunder(s) of Cestius” (1.21; Life 24): the end of the last serious hope for averting war (2.499-55, esp. 2.531-34, 539-40; Life 23-28). For the consequences of Cestius’ defeat—for the Romans, the Judean rebels, and the peace-seeking élite—see the note to “Cestius” at 1.20; also 2.562-64; 3.1-4, 9; 5.41, 267; 6.338, 422; 7.18.The cognomen Gallus (“Gaul”), like many other ethnic-geographical names, had lost any direct connection with the place of origin. It is attested from the mid-3rd cent. BCE in Rome; 130 of its 370 attestations in inscriptions are from Africa and Spain (Kajanto 1982: 45, 51). The same name will be borne by one of Cestius’ legionary legates (2.510). The verb διέπω occurs 8 times in War, always of a Roman official’s government of a province or the empire, except 1.584, where the subject is God (governing heaven and earth). See the note at 2.10. See the note at 2.10. This Passover would be in April 66 CE, on the standard chronology, or 65 CE on Kokkinos’ (see Introduction). This is an impossible figure: 3 times the plausible population of the world capital, Rome. At the end of bk. 6 Josephus will refer to a census of the people taken by Cestius Gallus at Passover (Feast of the Unleavened), in an effort to prove to a disbelieving Nero the strength of the city. Josephus claims that Cestius determined that Passover created 275,600 sacrificial victims (6.424). He must have used local priestly knowledge to extrapolate as Josephus does: each victim implies at least 10 celebrants (as many as 20), and that includes only the fit and holy—of whom there were then, conservatively, 2.7 million. Allowing for residents disqualified from celebration and for groups of more than 10 at a sacrifice, the count easily exceeds 3 million. Even if one could accept those numbers, however, the prospect of 3 million persons (a population larger than that of the City of Toronto in the 2001 census, and at least 3 times Rome’s population at the time) surrounding Cestius and Florus, to scream at them, does not bear reflection. Scholarly estimates of a realistic population for Jerusalem at this period, inclding pilgrims at festival times, range from 60,000 to 150,000, with all of greater Judea/Palestine hosting no more than 1,000,000. See the note to “30,000” at 2.227. Or “take pity.” The collocation (ἱκετεύω + ἐλεέω) is found otherwise in pleas for mercy directed toward God (Ant. 6.42; 7.294; cf. Castor’s ruse at War 5.318). Cf. 2.90 (a plea to Caesar in Rome concerning Judea), with a different verb of begging. Together with “calamities” these words intensify the tragic tone. “Calamities” (sing. συμφορά) is part of a fundamental tragic theme in War; see the notes at 1.9; 2.186. It appears now 3 times in rapid succession (also 2.283, 285). See the notes to this verb at 2.176 and 2.190: Josephus’ re-use of the same colorful verb in contexts of protest against the Roman governor (only, in the first half of bk. 2) helps to give these episodes a similar atmosphere. Although the noun λυμεών occurs only 3 times in Josephus (also 1.530; 4.159), its cognate verb λυμαίνω has been used in the preceding episodes to build a picture: whereas Felix (2.258-60) and Festus (2.271) moved against those “despoiling” the land (bandits), Albinus (2.278) and now especially Florus have themselves become the chief despoilers, inverting the most important responsibility of their office. MS P omits everything from “they had screamed” in this sentence to “the cries” in 2.281.

The verb διαχλευάζω occurs again in War only at 4.338, also in a charged context of denouncing accusations. Or “voices” (φωναί). Although it is conceivable that Florus ridicules other aspects of their voices (accents, tone, way of speaking), in context it seems to be the content of the cries that he dismisses. Greek ἔμφασις meant something quite different from its English descendant: this emphasis was a mere surface image, a reflection, appearance, or impression. In rhetoric it also had the special meaning of a hint or suggestion left for an audience to decode (Mason 2005a). Josephus uses the word only here and at 4.211, and he seems to choose it quite deliberately for Cestius’ creating a skillful rhetorical impression—of something that will not in fact happen. In the narrative, Florus will be left to his own devices and will immediately proceed to aggravate and provoke the Judeans to war. Greek μετριώτερον. Josephus plays with the μετρι- root throughout this passage on the later governors: 2.275, 283, 306. See the note to “respectable” at 2.275.

Caesarea was the headquarters of the Roman prefect/procurator in Judea; Cestius would continue N on the coastal road, which was now (since the establishment of Ptolemais as a colonia in 54 CE) of particularly good quality from Ptolemais to Antioch. Presumably, pretending that he is amenable to restraint and a change of course, when in fact he is bent on war. At 2.333 Josephus will present Florus undertaking a new offensive toward the initiation of war by writing to Cestius to blame the Judeans for the unrest that he has been working to foment (2.283-332). Conceal them, that is, from the princeps and his Syrian legate, Cestius. Josephus has claimed that, in contrast to Albinus, he made no effort to conceal them in the province (2.277).

Notwithstanding the rapid escalation to war that Josephus attributes largely to governors’ provocations, he also makes it clear that the Judean élite had regular recourse to the princeps in Rome, to appeal against corrupt or pernicious governors. We saw this already with the delegation that visited Augustus to plead for freedom from Herod’s heirs (2.80-81). At 2.239-40 the Judean leaders accuse Cumanus before the Syrian legate and then, successfully, before Claudius in Rome. Finally, Agrippa’s fateful speech will be triggered by the demand for an embassy to Nero (2.342); it is Agrippa who tries to sidestep this because he sees the diplomatic complications. Cf. Ant. 20.182, on the delegations from Caesarea that went to Rome to accuse Felix. This all tends to confirm Ando’s argument (2000) concerning the basic consensus that Rome sought to create with local élites. These leaders evidently considered themselves part of the empire, with established and promising channels for redress (cf. McKechnie 2005). A verb (πραγματεύομαι) that Josephus uses repeatedly in War 2 with pejorative connotations; see the note at 2.259; also 2.318 below (also of Florus). See the note to the key word “rebellion” at 2.39. This phrase (πραγματευσάμενος δὲ ἀπόστασιν) is similar to the one used of the Judean visionaries who busy themselves with inciting revolutionary activities and upheavals at 2.259 (νεωτερισμοὺς καὶ μεταβολὰς πραγματευόμενοι). So Florus has become a full partner in the regional volatility. Namely, rebellion leading to war with Rome. Josephus continues to play with various applications of the μετρι-word group. In 2.275, the restrained (modest) citizens fall victim to Judean extremists; then the extremist Florus will allegedly be brought to moderation by Cestius Gallus; now Florus reasons that his more restrained misdeeds will be forgotten in the face of all-out war. Possibly from the empire, through the anticipated rebellion to be generated by Florus’ harsh provocations; possibly “lopped off” in the sense of losing its head (2.59; 2.331; cf. Gaius’ actions at 2.184: ἀκροτομέω). The verb is an aorist optative passive (of ἀπορρήγνυμι), which creates an unusual and somewhat poetic syntax, indicating potential purpose with the preceding ὡς ἄν (Smyth §§ 2201-2202). The metaphor (ἐπιτείνω) is of straining or tightening up strings (as in a musical instrument) or ropes. “Calamities” (sing. συμφορά) constitute a fundamental tragic theme in War; see the notes at 1.9; 2.186. This is the second of three proximate occurrences in this passage (cf. 2.280, 285). See the note at 2.256.

This bridging sentence implies that the cause of the war—in minor events at Caesarea that first involved the procurator and then led to his escalation of the conflict as he tried to cover up his misdeeds, in the 12th year of Nero’s reign—was directly connected with Nero’s rejection of the Judeans’ bid to control Caesarea (2.285ff.). At least, the Judeans’ unsuccessful attempt to buy up land owned by their Greek neighbors, in the following episode, fits with Josephus’ notice about their greater wealth (2.268), possibly with their effort to reshape the city with Judean institutions. Josephus returns to the story left at 2.270: the emissaries from the Syrian and Judean communities in Caesarea were sent by Felix to Nero in Rome, to settle the dispute over the Judeans’ appeal for control of the city. Since the story time is now 66 CE, and the delegations had left Judea before Felix’s recall in 60 or even 58 (Kokkinos 1998: 385-86), their absence has lasted a remarkable 6 to 8 years. Levine (1974: 384) doubts the timing implied here, on the ground that such embassies were usually handled efficiently in Rome. Kasher (1977: 255) accepts Josephus’ dates, proposing that the case was delayed as long as Poppea Sabina, who reportedly supported Judean causes and would therefore have intervened on behalf of the Judeans, remained alive; after he killed her in 65 CE, Nero was free to render an abrupt negative verdict. Kasher sidesteps the chronological problems created by this hypothesis: he identifies this embassy to Nero with the one mentioned in Ant. 20.182-84, which left Judea after Festus arrived as governor and involved the intervention of Pallas (d. 62 CE); the results were announced while Festus (d. 62 CE? Kokkinos: 59/60) was still governor. But the two stories resist easy identification, or the building of historical inferences upon them. See note to “theirs” at 2.266. Cf. 2.266 and note to “theirs.” Since the city had always been Greek, this is another way of saying that the Judean bid for control had failed. The verb rendered “to keep control” (ἄρχειν) usually has the stronger sense: “to lead, govern, rule.” Josephus may have chosen this verb to create a play with the cognate noun later in the sentence (ἀρχή), translated “beginning”: Nero’s decision for Greek control in Caesarea was also the beginning of the war. Greek τὰ τῆς κρίσεως . . . γράμματα. The different reply from Nero in Ant. 20.183-84 (to Beryllus’ request for an annulment of Judean civil equality in Caesarea) is described as a letter (ἐπιστολή). But Josephus often uses the two terms interchangeably (1.261, 641, 644; Life 50 53, 181, 241, 245, 255; Apion 2.37), and the vague language here suits an imperial rescript. How did the war arise from events in Caesarea? (1) Florus was reportedly determined to cover his incompetence there by fomenting ever larger problems in Jerusalem (2.263, 293). (2) Anti-Judean sentiment in Caesarea, seriously aggravated by these episodes, will soon explode, resulting in the massacre of 20,000 Judeans and the flight of the remainder (2.457-60)—Josephus’ Eleazar will later concede that this was attributable to the long-standing antagonism combined with an opportune moment for revenge (7.361-62). (3) That slaughter in Caesarea will in turn drive the Judeans to a “savage anger,” producing violent raids on several Decapolis cities as well as Caesarea, Sebaste, Ptolemais, Ashkelon, Gaza, and Anthedon, which provoke further Syrian reprisals—partly from fear, Josephus remarks (2.458-60). (4) These many local conflicts across Palestine will compel Cestius Gallus to bring the 12th legion from Antioch (2.499-500), but (5) their remarkable defeat (2.546-55) will give the Judean rebels hope, clarity of purpose, and energy for the sequel (2.562).Josephus’ phrasing, προσελάμβανεν τὴν ἀρχὴν ὁ πόλεμος, implies an additional beginning, though no other beginning-points of the war have yet been identified. He may be anticipating later incidents (2.409, 4.318). This language is conspicuously close to two passages in Ant. 20, in which he says that the war “took its beginning” when Theophilus was high priest (20.223: ὁ πρὸς Ῥωμαίους πόλεμος Ἰουδαίοις ἔλαβε τὴν ἀρχήν) and in the 12th year of Nero, the 2nd year of Florus’ governorship (20.257: καὶ δὴ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἔλαβεν ὁ πόλεμος δευτέρῳ μὲν ἔτει τῆς ἐπιτροπῆς Φλώρου δωδεκάτῳ δὲ τῆς Νέρωνος ἀρχῆς)—referring the audience to War for details. The similarity of language suggests either that in writing the Antiquities passages Josephus has War open or that, while writing War, he has available much of the material that will go into Antiquities—a plausible situation given earlier examples. Nero’s 12th year, reckoned from the day of his accession (October 13, 54 CE), the customary way in Rome and a system with which Josephus has shown himself familiar (2.168, 181, 204, 248), ran from October 13, 65, to October 12, 66 CE. See note to “Nero’s principate” at 1.20. Kokkinos (1998: 386-95) points out, however, that War 2.555 dates later events connected with Cestius Gallus’ assault to the month of Dius (October-November) also in “Nero’s 12th year,” which would not be possible if that year ended early in October of 66. Whereas most scholars take that notice to be Josephus’ mistake (for very early in Nero’s 13th year), Kokkinos argues that there are more and better reasons to judge that reference correct and this one a slip for Nero’s 11th year. That would put the outbreak of the war described here in May of 65 CE, and draw the entire narrative a year earlier than the standard scheme has it. This fundamental revision would explain a great deal, though it leaves significant problems unresolved; see critiques in Kushnir-Stein 1999: 196-98; Sievers 2001. Since calculations of Agrippa’s 1st year—apparently his appointment as king of Chalcis in 48/49 or 49/50 (see 2.223 and notes)—invariably call upon on the cross-reference to Nero’s reign in this very passage and count backwards, it would be a circular argument to cite those dates to calculate the 17th year. If indeed Agrippa’s 17th year overlaps extensively with Nero’s 12th (October 65 to October 66), then his first year would have overlapped with October 50 to October 51 CE; but that would sit awkwardly with Ant. 20.138 (Agrippa ruled Chalcis for 4 years before receiving Philip’s regions), and Kokkinos argues (1998: 387-95) that Josephus’ reference to Nero’s 12th year at 2.284 is a mistake (for his 11th), so that Agrippa’s first year was in 49-50 CE. See the note to “kingdom” at 2.223. May-June, 66 CE. This is the first of a series of dates that Josephus will give for events during the revolt, using the months of the Macedonian calendar, sometimes cross-referenced with regnal years as here. On the Tyrian system of aligning Macedonian and Roman months, which many scholars have thought that Josephus followed, Artemisius was May 19–June 18, in 66; the corresponding Judean month was Iyyar, from May 15 to June 12 that year (Levick 1999a: 40-42). Cf. 2.315 for another date in the same month.Although Josephus had good reason to use familiar Macedonian month names for his Greek-speaking audience, to modern scholars interested in the precise chronology of events he has bequeathed confusion. Macedonian months (as all “months”) were calculated on the lunar cycle, and so could be readily equated with lunar Babylonian and Judean equivalents. But by the 1st century BCE they had been adjusted to match the Roman solar year of 365 days, whereas the Judean-Jewish calendar remained (as today) lunar. This resulted in the constant shifting of true date equivalents from year to year: whereas the date of Passover, e.g., remained stable in the lunar calendar, it moved on the solar calendar.In Antiquities, however, Josephus will frequently equate—without considering the displacement—Macedonian months and their Judean counterparts (Ant. 1.80-81; 2.311; 3.201, 239, 248; 4.84, 327; 8.61, 100; 9.109; 11.148; 12.248, 412; cf. War 5.99, 567; 6.94, 250). Throughout his writings he usually gives the Macedonian name, and in War exclusively the Macedonian month, as here. Since the Macedonian months could be aligned with the Roman solar calendar in different ways (e.g., in Asia, Syria, and Tyre), the possible date range in the Julian or (now) Gregorian calendars is considerable, and this is reflected in the scholarship.After much scholarly debate over the system that Josephus might have used, it is increasingly accepted that (with rare exceptions, driven by sources) when he gives Macedonian dates he simply has in mind Judean lunar months, and pretends that the Macedonian months are still equivalent. This was merely to make things simpler for his Greek-speaking audience (and perhaps to minimize use of Hebrew terms in the Atticizing War), but not because he knew the actual solar-Macedonian date of the event in question, which we could then map to our own calendar. We are usually justified, therefore, in reckoning by the Judean lunar month, following the scheme of simple equivalents that Josephus provides in Antiquities (cf. Schürer-Vermes 1.587-99; Bickerman 1980; J. Price 1992: 210-30; S. Stern 2001: 34-38; Hannah 2005: 71-97, 135-88).Realizing this, however, removes any hope of recovering precise dates matching our Gregorian calendar. Although such tables of correspondence exist for the Jewish calendar in the 1st century, they are calculated on the basis of mathematical formulas, whereas lunar months were subject to the vagaries of physical sighting and announcement (cf. m. RH 1.3-7; 2.1-8). I am grateful to Jonathan Price for private discussion of this last point.

The antecedent must be “the war.” Calamities (συμφοραί) generated by the war constitute a programmatic theme of the work (War 1.9; see note there); this is the last of 3 occurrences in close proximity (also 2.280, 283). The phrase “magnitude of calamities” (μέγεθος συμφορῶν) is something of a cliché in Josephus: cf. 1.90, 372; 3.432; Ant. 16.77. Attested in the classical orators (Isocrates, Trap. 46; Evag. 14; Andocides, Myst. 107; Lysias, Diog. 19; cf. Aristotle, Met. 1022b), it becomes formulaic among extant authors with Diodorus (4.11.2, 38.3, 55.1; 5.59.4; 11.57.2, 78.4; 13.57.1; 15.15.4, 48.2, 58.4; 16.20.1, 81.3; 19.66.6, 95.7; cf. 16.3.1), though in the singular. See also Dionysius, Lys. 27; Plutarch, Per. 36.8; Fab. Max. 18.2; Comp. Ag. Cleom. 59.2; Mor. [Cons. Apoll.] 116c, 193b. For Josephus, the enormous calamities include the destruction of Jerusalem and its holy temple, suffering and loss of life on a massive scale, and the resulting injury to the image of Judeans, which War aims in part to correct (1.1-8). Or “pretext, alleged cause, occasion” (πρόφασις). A considerable amount of discussion has attended Thucydides’ indications of causes (distinguishing αἰτίαι from προφάσεις), especially his paradoxical statement at 1.23.5-6 concerning “the truest πρόφασις” (Luce 1997: 83-84). The qualification “truest” is surprising, because a πρόφασις is most often a mere “pretext” (as Thucydides 1.126), whether the word is connected with the verb προφαίνω (exhibit, adduce) or πρόφημι (state in advance). Thucydides was influenced by medical usage, however, in which αἰτία (the term often used for a real cause in history) represented a consitutional disposition toward disease, whereas the πρόφασις (construed from προφαίνω) meant the externally visible indicators (cf. Pearson 1952, 1972; Hornblower 1991: 64-65; Rood 1998: 208-10 and n. 9; Pelling 2000: 83-92; Price 2001: 345-46).The present context, with its distinction between pretext and “beginning” in the previous sentence, suggests that Josephus owes more to Polybius’ detailed treatment of causation (3.6-9; 22.18.6-11), which Walbank (1972: note ad 3.6.3) understands as a deliberate criticism of Thucydides. Polybius distinguishes underlying causes (αἰτίαι), beginnings (ἀρχαί), and pretexts or justifications alleged by each side (προφάσεις), whether true or false (cf. Luce 1997: 133-35; Shahar 2004: 144-45). Polybius’ theory of causation is an essential part of his program: to write a pragmatic history for statesmen that will enable them to deal with reversals of fortune. Understanding causes (the human intentions that produce consequences) enables politicians to separate what is within their control from what is outside it (viz., fortune), and so to behave honorably irrespective of outcomes. Although Josephus can use αἰτίαι and προφάσεις more or less interchangeably (Ant. 2.145), he typically contrasts them (pointedly at Ant. 7.285, 324), using πρόφασις to mean “alleged cause, pretext, pretended reason,” or even “evasion, subterfuge” (CCFJ s.v.). For some historiographically programmatic ἀρχαί in Josephus, outside the present sentence, see 1.18, 30; Ant. 1.6, 7, 27; 20.261.“Not a worthy pretext/justification” should govern one’s understanding of the following story. Thus, although the Judeans have suffered many grievous and fundamental wrongs (e.g., under Pilate and Gaius), the present episode does not fall in the same category. Josephus continues the even-handed approach discernible in the preceding episodes, especially in the initial Caesaran conflict (2.265-70), which he claims was caused by an aggressive attempt by the Judean population there to remake the city. In what follows, a Caesarean agitator will behave despicably (2.286), as will Florus the procurator (2.287-88), but problem arises because the Judeans are frustrated in their expectation of buying up the land adjacent to their meeting place, which leaves antagonistic gentiles in control of it (2.285-86; cf. 268). We do not know where in Caesarea to situate this conflict. The exacavated synagogue by the coast, just S of the gate in the N fortification wall, dates from at least 100 years later. Although one can sometimes find evidence that later structures were built over earlier ones of a similar kind, Caesarea would become a major Judean center, with many meeting places, in the 2nd through 4th centuries, and Josephus’ language here implies that this was not the only synagogue even in the 60s. Since, however, the two foci of Greek-Herodian Caesarea comprised the theater-palace-hippodrome complex to the S and the inner harbor to the N (with its massive temple platform), it stands to reason that vacant land available for the development envisaged here would be to the N or E/NE of these heavily developed areas.One may either translate συναγωγή, as we have done here, or transliterate with the familiar “synagogue,” which implies a structure of some kind (as the context suggests). Two problems attend the latter course, however. First, Josephus uses the word only 8 times, in 5 contexts, and in 2 of these (Ant. 1.10; 15.346) it means other kinds of “collections” (of water or books); in the other 3 cases, where Judean meeting-places are in view (Caesarea here; Antioch at War 7.44; Dor at Ant. 19. 300, 305), he always makes it clear that it is a meeting place of the Judeans, since the word by itself did not simply denote “Judean/Jewish synagogue.” He seems to use “prayer [-place]” (προσευχή) as a more established term for Judean communal and devotional centers—without needing to qualify that term with “of the Judeans” or “their” (Ant. 14.258; Life 277, 280, 293; Apion 2.10); in one case the word simply means “prayer” (War 5.388). Second, early Judean meeting places were so diverse in form and size (some adapted from private houses), that to use “synagogue” might suggest a clearer picture than is warranted. For the essential complications, see Urman and Flesher 1995; Fine 1996; Levine 2000; Runesson 2001; Rajak 2002; Richardson 2004; Levine 2004. See the note to “Syrians there” at 2.266. “Worth” or “value” (ἀξία) perhaps plays off the “worthy” (ἀξίαν from ἄξιος) cause that the war lacked (previous sentence, beginning of this section). The Judeans’ reported willingness and ability to buy up land at many times its value gives concrete meaning to Josephus’ claim at 2.268 that they had the advantage over their neighbors in wealth. See also the notice about the Judean contractor and the bribe to Florus at 2.287. Josephus does not explain what criteria he uses for land valuation. In the next section we learn that the Caesarean quickly developed the land for commercial use. That would make sense: he bought land at a good price in a growing area, where the Judeans were also building a meeting place; they hoped to buy the land from him and offered many times what he had paid for it (which may be its “worth”), but he had intended to build on it for increasing revenue. Obviously, his land would be worth much more after such development.

Or “for spite” (πρὸς ἐπήρειαν). This appears to reflect Josephus’ authoritative perspective as narrator, not merely that of the Caesarean’s Judean neighbors in the story. Yet he provides enough information to allow the audience to see different perspectives, reinforcing the sense of an even-handed portrayal of tensions growing, in both communities, in these typical life situations. That the Greek wanted to develop his land for commercial operations (see note to “its worth” at 2.285 and “workshops” in 2.286) would be an important and plausible motive, apart from mere spite, though it would not exclude spite. Further, if the Judeans are left with only a narrow passage to enter their building, because he built near the edge of his land, then they too must have built close to the edge of their land—perhaps on the assumption that that they would be able to buy up his land—and the “abuse” or “spite” he shows in building across his land may be his retribution for such action. An interesting choice of words: Josephus uses the verb παροικοδομέω only here and it is rare before his time, though Thucydides has it a number of times (2.75.2; 7.6.1, 4, 11.3); cf. Plato, Resp. 514b; Demosthenes, Call. 17; Aristotle, Hist. anim. 623b; Part. anim. 672b. Its meaning is vague, but it carries the senses of building along or across [the available space], possibly with the effect of using up the space (as here). Given ancient conditions, in which “retail” was not the routine category it is today (in contrast to producing, manufacturing, transporting, warehousing, and supplying), these “workshops” (ἐργαστήρια) might in large measure be simply “shops,” where goods such as food and clothing were both made and sold. Storage of some goods, whether raw ingredients or saleable products, would also be necessary; note the “container” at 2.289. At 2.289, this passageway (πάροδος) will be explained as the entrance (εἴσοδος). Although one should generally translate minimally, allowing the author to specify nuances, it is possible that Josephus means his terminology in the more formal sense of a parodos to a theater, if the Judean meeting place had a somewhat formal entrance. Again (see note to “insult” in this section), Josephus takes an authoritative position as narrator, while also leaving enough information for the audience to understand different perspectives. At this point he emphasizes the bad behavior of the Caesarean, in building so close to Judean land. Yet perhaps the Caesarean was upset that they had built so close to the border of the two properties, limiting his options, and he was retailiating out of spite. Or “forced.” Josephus’ adjective (βίαιος) has more menace in it than can be readily translated, either indicating some characteristic that exacerbated the narrowness or simply stressing the uncomfortable narrowness. It is often used of violent persons (cf. 2.443, 597) and so suggests an act of implicit violence on the part of the landowner. The Judean youth will soon respond with real violence (βία, in 2.287). See the notes to “youths” at 2.225 and to “spirited ones” at 2.238. The stereoptypical distinction between impulsive or reckless youth and sober seniors (also 2.290 below) is a regular component of Josephus’ dramatic scenes. See the note at 2.47: this colorful verb of daring movement is characteristic of War. That the Judean youth were able to hinder construction until restrained by the army (next sentence) suggest that—in the story world—this Greek did not yet have much physical support from his community. It may also support Josephus’ earlier claim (2.268) that the Judeans had physical strength on their side, perhaps meaning that their community was younger or had a larger number of strong young men.

No doubt, as before and after (2.268-70, 291), Florus acts by means of his auxiliary cohorts, drawn from the Syrian-Greek inhabitants of Caesarea and Sebaste. The retaliatory violence here (βία) answers the “violent, forced, constrained” (βίαιος) passageway that the Caesarean created for the Judeans, by refusing to sell his land and then building to its edge (as it appears). As is obvious from the context, there is a significant overlap between the “powerful” and the “wealthy.” This is one of Josephus’ many terms for a community’s élite members: see the note at 2.239. At 2.292 he will give Ioannes 12 associates as the “powerful”; see the note there. Ioannes (‮יהוחנן‬‎) is the 6th most frequently attested name for males at the time (Hachlili 2005: 200). On this Ioannes, see further 2.292. In mentioning profession without explanation, Josephus apparently expects his audience to understand that this is a wealthy businessman who can help furnish the 8-talent bribe for Florus. This is the only occurrence of τελώνης in Josephus. The word can be a Greek equivalent to Latin publicanus, a public contractor whose portfolio might include local tax collection or port duties, but who might also manage building and other projects under imperial contract; cf. Badian 1972. Although Iulius Caesar and then Augustus dramatically curtailed the activities of corporations of publicani, and basic tax collection became much more systematic and census-based in the early empire (cf. Ando 2006: 186-87), public contractors continued to operate (Brunt 1983: 46-7). That Ioannes is singled out as a publican suggests that his tax-collecting was not merely a function of his role as a civic official; the taxes in question therefore are likely to have been port or transit duties, rather than those for which local élites were ordinarily responsible as a body (personal and land taxes plus tribute). At any rate: Ioannes is evidently a wealthy person. Or “resourceless, at a loss” (ἀμηχανοῦντες). The élite saw no hope of ending the project through previously tried channels, including physical intimidation by their younger men, and so resorted to the only route left: buying the governor’s support. For a local community to offer as a bribe, this was an extraordinary sum: worth more than 200 years of a legionary soldier’s gross annual salary; see the note to “talents” at 2.50. The effort supports Josephus’ claim above (2.268) that the Judean community of Caesarea had an advantage over their Syrian neighbors in wealth. Cf. 2.293 below, where Florus will take another 17 talents from the temple. One of several words that Josephus plays with in this passage: διακωλύω picks up and intensifies κωλύω in the previous sentence (the Judean youths were “hindering” the project). It occurs again at 2.291, where Iucundus has been assigned to prevent civil strife; see the note there.

Or “being only on the take” (ὁ δὲ πρὸς μόνον τὸ λαβεῖν). That Roman governors should be “on the take” would not have surprised Josephus’ Roman audience. In the Republic, Rome had established a standing court (quaestio de repetundis) for the prosecution of returning governors, and about 50% of those charged seem to have been condemned (Lintott 1999: 161). Notwithstanding important changes under the principate (especially the handling of many provinces by the princeps’ agents, who were directly responsible to him), governors continued to exploit their positions for personal financial gain. As Josephus remarks in describing Tiberius’ policy of leaving governors in their provinces as long as possible, to prevent the constant arrival of new officials eager to make their fortunes: “it was only natural that every [one involved in] governing should practise extortion” (Ant. 18.171-78). In Samaria, the other major non-Judean center and Herodian re-foundation near the Judean heartland, from which the auxiliary cohorts were drawn (2.52, 58, 63, 74, 236 and notes); see War 1.403; 2.97 with notes. Greek στάσις, a key term in War (see 1.10 and notes). This is something of a topic sentence for the next paragraph, which is thick with στάσις-language: the narrator will pit a Caesarean στασιαστής (2.289) against τὸ στασιῶδες among the Judeans (2.290), resulting in open στάσις (2.291), which the military commander will attempt to halt. Yet in 2.281 we learn that the cavalry commander Iucundus had been assigned precisely to prevent (διακωλῦσαι: same verb as used of the Judeans’ expectation of Florus while offering the bribe) the civil strife—not to prevent the construction, to be sure. Or “leave to fight.” This paradoxical expression (cf. ἄδειαν . . . μάχεσθαι) seems to be found only in Josephus (also 5.334; 6.346). As in the preceding narrative (2.286-87), Josephus envisages that the Judeans—the ones with the grievance over the land situation—have the main motive to initiate fighting in Caesarea.

Josephus has explained to his Roman audience at 1.146 that Judeans refrain from all manual work on the 7th day (ἑβδομάς); there he also uses “sabbath” (σάββατον) for variation of diction (as at 2.456, 517, 634), though in War he prefers the explanatory “seventh [day].” See the note to “seventh days” at 2.147; further 2.392, and note his great care in mentioning the day at Ant. 1.33; 3.143, 237. See the note at 2.285. See the note to this characteristic term (στασιαστής) of War at 2.267 (also at 1.10), here picking up the στάσις theme just announced again at 2.288. This appears to be a different person from “a certain Caesarean Greek” already introduced, the landlord-developer (2.285). Josephus does not give a visual description of the scene, but below he claims that this agitator was sent by other Caesarean agitators (2.290). It seems that the shops or workshops are now in operation, and so the Caesareans in this marketplace are in close quarters with the Judeans, who have assembled for prayer and study. This might suggest an urban scene such as we find a century or two later in the cities of Asia Minor, e.g. Sardis, where the synagogue is near a central market area. While the Judeans have assembled for their services, in the context of long-standing communal tensions a number of the younger Caesareans set out to provoke them. Josephus appears to imply that the shops built by the Caesarean landlord (2.286) are already in operation: though we would not expect them in fields, large storage containers were basic requirements for shops. Although Greek and Roman containers are customarily called “vases” in English, sometimes “jars,” they were often quite different from modern vases or storage jars. There were at least 100 standard types of clay-ceramic containers, of varying sizes (the natural limit being what a person could carry), which were often decorated with painted images (so “Greek vase painting”).Although some were simply decorative, they were mainly used for storing, preparing, and serving oil, wine, water, and foodstuffs. Only a few designs were of the “belly” type (wide near the bottom) and of sufficient size or stability for the sacrifice described here. Some of the larger πελίκη-type vessels (20 to 50 cm [8-20 in] high) might have served the purpose, as would the larger wine “coolers” (sing. ψυκτήρ), gold and silver versions of which were also used for storing fluids for temple use (Ant. 11.15). The unusually large amphorae (ca. 50-80 cm [20-32 in] high) made to hold the oil given to victorious athletes in the Panathenaic Games (6th cent. BCE and later), though they disappear from the material record in the 2nd century BCE, might give an idea of the sort of container used here. For images, see Oxford’s Beazley Archive (www.beazley.ox.ac.uk). For an overview of Greek vases, see Boardman 1998; for a discussion of Greek and Roman pottery found in Caesarea, Berlin 1992.Given the context, we should probably imagine standard Greco-Roman pottery rather than the distinctive Judean containers, in undecorated pottery and especially stone, that became prominent in the early 1st century CE (Berlin 2005). See the note to “passageway” at 2.286. Evidently, the man was not merely killing a bird, as might routinely have occurred in such a shopping area: he was killing several in series (given the plural), with some sort of overt ritual appropriate for sacrifice: setting up a cult image (“idol”), offering incantations, separating out various parts of the sacrificial victim, adding libations, or the like. It is striking again how little Josephus relates about the scene and the precise cause for objection.Birds were commonly sacrificed in ancient traditions, including the Judean. For Greek sacrifice of birds, e.g., see Pausanias 2.11.7; 4.31.9; 7.18.12; 10.32.16. Each deity had a preferred menu, which had to be carefully monitored, and each locale had its own traditions. Although Pausanias often mentions birds along with other victims, to indicate the comprehensiveness of an offering, the choice of victim can also be a question of what the sacrificer can afford, as in the biblical prescriptions (Lev 12:8; Luke 2:24). Of the Tithoreans in their sacrifices to Isis, Pausanias observes: “The more wealthy sacrifice oxen and deer, the poorer people geese and guinea fowl” (10.32.16). Perhaps we should imagine here some kind of fowl being offered up in a ritual way. Bernett’s claim (2007: 347-48) that the Caesarean’s sacrifices were “offenbar” a play on Lev 14:4, designed to make the Judeans appear as outcast lepers, seems to expect too much of the gentile (or of Josephus’ audiences)—and it seems unnecessary. Provocation and indignation (cf. 2.293) are recurring conditions in War; see the note at 2.8. Curiously, the adverb ἀνηκέστως appears only in War 2, and both of the other occurrences come in the speech of Agrippa II (2.347, 352; for the characteristic adjective, appearing 6 times in bk. 2, see the note to “irremediable suffering” at 2.233)—confirming that as a thoroughly Josephan construction. Or “violated, abused.” This collocation (ὑβρίζω + νόμος) is characteristic of Josephus: 2.230; 7.357; Ant. 4.13, 319; 9.168; 18.348. In classical authors, the verb (“committing outrage”) is sometimes used as an equivalent of violating law or convention, but one does not normally speak of “outraging the laws.” Josephus’ use of ὡς as conjunction leaves room for doubt as to whether he affirms that Judean laws were being violated. Since Caesarea was a Greek city, with a massive temple to Augustus and Rome at the center, in which sacrifices were frequent, it might have been more a question of propriety and proximity: the Judeans do not want to witness (and thus feel implicated in) acts that are fundamentally rejected as “idolatry” by their law and tradition. For other cases of alleged violation of the laws, where the precise cause is not clear, see the notes to “trampled” at 2.170 and “pure olive oil” at Life 74 in BJP 9. Note the repetition of the word used of the Caesarean site (2.285-86). This re-use and Josephus’ choice of ὡς as conjunction introduces an element of doubt as to whether the narrator affirms the Judean perspective (since nothing has actually happened on their own site) or merely reports it with narrative distance. Pollution is a prominent theme in War, the verb μιαίνω and cognates occurring 36 times; see the notes to “pollutes” at 2.132 and “polluted” at 2.210.

Or “well grounded, well placed, positioned.” This is the only occurrence of εὐσταθής in Josephus. The more common metaphorical sense of “(well built and therefore) stable” is implied by the correlative “mild” and the contrast with hot-heads. Or “resort, flee up [to]”; see next note. Josephus uses this verb (ἀναφεύγω) often in War (22 times; only 5 in Antiquities). The plural here might indicate either the general category—i.e., as a rule, the Judean leaders would appeal to the (successive) Roman governors to settle disputes with other ethnic groups—or possibly the Roman hierarchy of governors: grievances should go to the Judean procurator and then the Syrian legatus, and ultimately if necessary the princeps in Rome. This appeal to governors for the remedy of injustices is already an established theme in the narrative (2.171, 175, 192, 225, 230, esp. 233 [the mobs ran headlong into battle with Samarians, while the leaders approached the governor], 239-40 [after failing with the procurator, they went to the Syrian legate], 243-44 [the legate sent the ethnic delegations to the emperor]). It was indeed an absolute requirement of local élites to avoid civil strife at all costs: if their struggles with another group were beyond their control, they would appeal to Rome’s emissary as arbiter. Ando (2000: 73-74) cites recently published papyri from the Euphrates area showing examples of individuals appealing to Roman magistrates to settle serious local land disputes. On moving up the ladder of appeals, see Ando 2000: 381. See the note at 2.91. See the notes to “youths” at 2.225, 286. See the note at 2.289. See the note to this word at 2.107. Josephus has delayed important information for understanding the story: one might otherwise have assumed that a lone troublemaker or bored shopkeeper had set out to provoke the Judeans (2.289). This delay might represent deliberate artistry (like delayed information in a novel or film) or it might reflect his use of a fuller narrative that he has abbreviated too much, belatedly realizing that he needed to disclose more to make the story intelligible. Or “encounter, combat, fight” (συμβολή)—a formulaic construction in War; see the note at 2.232.

In keeping with the pattern, we again meet a Roman citizen in command of auxiliary forces; see the note to “Gratus” at 2.52. His cognomen, meaning “agreeable, pleasant,” is widely attested across social classes (729 times with derivatives; Kajanto 1982: 72). He may well be the Aemilius Iucundus, also identified as a cavalry prefect, who falls victim to the Judeans in Cestius Gallus’ abortive campaign (2.544). This is a descriptive term (ἱππάρχης; cf. Ant. 8.307; 14.210; 18.237), not necessarily Iucundus’ rank or title. As we have seen (2.52, 236 and notes to “Sebastene[s]”), one of the 6 auxiliary cohorts based in Judea (so Caesarea) comprised cavalry. The commander of such a cohort, if at the standard strength of 500, had the title of prefect (ἔπαρχος, praefectus); cf. Watson 1969: 25. In this case, Iucundus and his unit may have been selected not only because of the advantages of mounted troops for crowd control, but also because the cavalry were the élite force among the auxiliaries, and their commander was the highest-ranking, presumably the most experienced and trustworthy, of the cohort prefects; cf. 2.236, 298. This is the same verb (διακωλύειν) that was used of Florus’ obligation under the Judeans’ bribe: he was to prevent construction. Although Josephus claims that he left the civil strife to its own devices, clearly the governor had assigned this prefect to manage the situation. The present infinitive here indicates an ongoing activity, rather than the (aorist) single action that Florus was bribed to undertake. This, then, is the culmination Florus’ decision to abandon Caesarea, and Josephus’ narrative expectation is realized (2.288). This is another term that Josephus repeats throughout this passage: the Caesarean leaves only a forced passageway (see note to “constrained” at 2.286); the Judean youth respond with violence (2.287); now the Caesareans have the upper hand for the first time. Until now, the Judeans have appeared as the physically stronger (2.268) and more aggressive side (2.268-70, 287). It is puzzling that the auxiliary forces have been able to keep the Judeans in check, but (in spite of what seems a good-faith effort by the cavalry commander) they cannot control the Caesareans. In the narrative, this notice makes good sense in light of what happened at 2.229-31: a soldier sent to round up Judeans (for having apparently colluded with bandits) found a copy of the law, ripped it up, and tossed it on a fire; Cumanus was forced to execute him. If these Judeans feel they must leave Caesarea, knowing the temperament of the Caesarean-Sebastene cohorts in particular, it stands to reason that they would take the laws with them. This notice also prepares for Florus’ outrageous charge at 2.292 below. At 2.507-9, the only other reference to this area in Josephus, he will report that Cestius dispatched forces to Joppa and “the toparchy [or province in some MSS] of Narbatene.” This confirms that it was a chiefly Judean district (here χώρα), comprising many villages (2.509: “they plundered their property and burned down their villages”), rather than a single town. As a Judean enclave in Samaria, it was a northern parallel to Acrabetene in the S (cf. 2.235). The location of Narbatene has, however, proven elusive. This may be the region called Arbatta in 1 Macc 5:21-23, from which the Hasmonean Simon rescued Judeans; it is most often identified with an area near Kefar ‘Arraba in N Samaria. See further Appendix A in BJP 1a. That location would explain the continuing movement of Ioannes’ group, to Florus in Sebaste. As usual, Josephus takes conspicuous care to explain Judean realia to his Roman audience. Whereas in his later writings Josephus uses ἀπέχω to indicate distances between sites in stadia, in War he divides the cases evenly: 7 with ἀπέχω and 7 with διέχω—as here. Roughly 12 km (7.5 miles); see the note at 2.175. If this distance is correct, as most of Josephus’ distances for this part of the country are, the W edge of Narbatene must have been in the gently rising coastal plain, not yet in Samaria proper.

See the note at 2.287. The formulaic phrase (οἱ περὶ τὸν X) is usually inclusive of X (1.287, 296, 609; 2.53, 236, 443-50, 453; 3.60, 336, 245; 4.203, 216, 301; 5.423; 6.15; 112), as apparently here. This suggests a community board of 12. Florus’ destination when he absconded from Caesarea with the Judeans’ 8 talents (2.288). This verb is part of the rich lexicon of lamentation in the War (see note to “mourn over” at 1.9): this form alone (ἀποδύρομαι) appears 9 times (of 16 in Josephus). Of these, 6 are in the programmatically tragic bk. 1. Among the tragedians this form was not much used (Aeschylus, Prom. vinct. 637; Sophocles, Elect. 1122; cf. Herodotus 2.141). It appears slightly more often in the Athenian orators and later Menander, but usage picks up with the Hellenistic historians (Diodorus 12.17.5; 38/39.8.1; Dionysius 4.71.2; 7.33.3; 9.60.3; 11.30.7, 39.6; 15.5.1). Most telling is Dionysius’ Comp. verb. 26.150, where he has Danae bitterly lamenting her fate although he quotes from Simonides to make his point, the characterization (“bitterly lamenting”) is his own language. But Josephus’ War uses this form of the verb more often than any predecessor. Or “with embarrassment, shame.” Josephus uses αἰδήμων only here and at War 1.452, though he has the cognate verb often. See 2.287. Greek ὁ δὲ . . . ἔδησεν τοὺς ἄνδρας. See the note to “detainees” at 2.4. If this is neither a sarcastic flourish of Josephus’ invention nor a bizarre joke on the part of Florus, but an actual charge with some legal principles involved, the simplest explanation may be that the Judeans in Caesarea had some sort of recognized standing (perhaps what Ant. 20.183-84 means by ἰσοπολιτεία, though that was reportedly rescinded before Festus’ death in 59 or 62 CE; see note to “theirs” at 2.268), and that removing perhaps the main (?) copy of the laws from Caesarea, required for the Judeans’ internal administration of justice, was therefore culpable. The incident raises a host of questions (e.g.: What precisely was the political situation of the Judeans in Caesarea at this point, in 66? Did a master copy of their laws exist somewhere as exemplar for internal administration? In what language were these laws written? How many copies of the laws were in the city? Was the removal of any and all laws a crime, or only these ones?) Once again, there is much that Josephus does not report. He leaves the impression that Florus has done something scandalous or preposterous, which opens the possibilities that (a) Florus indeed did something bizarre (and inexplicable) or (b) Josephus has either invented this accusation on Florus’ part—it has no significant afterlife in the story—or reshaped the original charge beyond recognition. A sarcastic action on Florus’ part might have had this form: the Judeans had failed in their bid to Nero, to have the city governed by Judean law; Florus revels in their defeat, mocking them now by “charging” them (though not on any legal grounds) with having removed what they had intended to be the laws of the entire city. It is impossible to reconstruct the history from Josephus’ narrative alone.

It is far from clear how much of what precedes is covered by the demonstrative pronoun: Were the Jerusalemites upset only because of the charge brought or (more likely) because of Florus’ ill treatment of the community leaders from Caesarea (accepting their bribe, absconding, and then punishing them), or in general because of his failure to show any fairness in dealing with Caesarean problems? This is the standard complement to “provocation” (see 2.289) in War; see note at 2.29. Possibly, given the theme of financial corruption running through this passage, the verb (ἐργολαβέω, only elsewhere in Josephus at 1.520; Ant. 14.201) has the secondary sense here of resolving to make money from generating war—more than the simpler absurdity that he behaved as though it were his business to create unrest. The 5 occurrences of this verb (ἐκριπίζω) in Josephus are all in War 1-3. Note the cognate he has used recently (of uncertain form because of MS variants) at 2.265. Sent whom to the treasury? Evidently Florus himself remains in Sebaste (2.288, 292). See the note to “treasury of God” at 2.50 and especially the story of Pilate’s draining of the treasury for the aqueduct at 2.175-77 (with notes). The following story has many verbal and structural parallels with the Pilate episode. In both cases, crucially, the governor appears to have had the assistance of leading Jerusalemites in getting access to this money: there, because the public-works project required many months, and there is no mention of Pilate’s having stormed the treasury; here, because of the pretext that Florus apparently gave; in both cases, because an assault on the temple would surely have found mention by Josephus. If this story has a historical base, therefore, the governor must have requested and been granted temple funds for imperial needs: perhaps to fund further public works in the province, perhaps to defray military costs or tribute arrears (see the note to “Caesar’s needs” at 2.293). If the balance of the story reflects reality, we must then assume that the people somehow became convinced that Florus was guilty of fraud. Josephus does not explain any of these matters, though a historian would need to know them in order to make use of the story. Again, this is an enormous sum (see the notes to “talents” at 2.50 and to “eight talents of silver” at 2.287), more than 430 years of a legionary soldier’s gross annual salary. Florus’ total take, with the earlier 8 talents, is a round 25 talents or nearly 650 years of legionary salary. This is equal to 600,000 HS—1.5 times the property qualification for an equestrian. Robbing temples was understood to be archetypal behavior for tyrants, whose overweening pride created “needs” far above those of ordinary people (cf. Xenophon, Hier. 4.11). This verb (σκήπτομαι) is particularly common in Life (5 of 13 occurrences in Josephus: 107, 213, 248, 380, 388), where almost the entire narrative is a mirage of deliberate misdirection. Cf. also War 2.614; 6.195. A telling pretext, for it assumes that the imperial administration’s right to temple funds was recognized by the populace: Florus was given the money on this basis. In fact, it is alleged, he took it for himself; cf. 2.295. It fits with the Judeans’ willingness to give money for imperial causes that, when they learn of the fraud (next sentence), they still trustingly cry out to Caesar for redress.

See the note at 2.43: running together spontaneously, as one, is a formulaic popular response to perceived injury at the hands of Roman governors and soldiers in War 2. See the note at 2.6. This is a remarkable observation, showing the people and their leaders trusting the Roman princeps to get rid of his unworthy emissary. This reflects the sort of basic consensus between governors and governed that Ando (2000) has charted in compelling detail. We do not yet have, then, the sharp division between most of the people, led astray by demagogue tyrants, and the Romans along with some upper-class loyalists, that will dominate the latter half of the work, following the murder of Ananus and Jesus (see Introduction). The need to distinguish between the princeps in Rome and his procurators in Judea is one of the first points made in the speech of Agrippa II, below (2.348-52). The prospect of local tyranny and the hope for freedom from it—this under the overarching aegis of Rome—is a fundamental theme of War: see Introduction and 1.10, 23; 2.22, 80, 91 with relevant notes. The twist here is that, whereas most potential tyrants in the story are Judeans (monarchs and heirs, pretenders, demagogues, and militant rebels), the tyrant here is an unworthy Roman procurator (see the note to “procurator” at 1.117).

See the notes at 2.289 and 1.10. The repetition of the unusual verb κράζω (12 occurrences in War) helps to unite 3 passages in bk. 2 involving protest against Roman governors (also 2.176 [see note], 280). Greek λοιδορίας αἰσχίστους. Although a seemingly natural pair, this collocation does not appear elsewhere in Josephus, except at 2.298 below (where Florus is offended by precisely this [Josephan!] language). Outside of Josephus the pair is not attested, though Polybius 31.6.4 comes close; later, see Dio 27.91.4. There may be an added joke in the kind of basket being used: of many possible kinds, the reed basket (κανοῦν) was associated—though not exclusively—with sacred offerings and processions (LSJ s.v.); so, perhaps this is also mockery for stealing temple funds. This is the only occurrence of κέρμα in Josephus. This is the only occurrence of ἄκληρος in Josephus. The only other occurrence of φιλαργυρία in Josephus comes at 2.483, in connection with Noarus. This implies that Florus heard the insults; if so, it can only have been via the emissaries returning to him at Sebaste (2.288, 292) with the 17 talents. Rage at the mockery, it seems (2.298-99). This is the only occurrence of παροργίζω (here passive) in Josephus.

This verb-noun pair (σβέννυμι + πῦρ) is formulaic in War (5.472; 6.233, 243, 251, 256, 262; 7.405), though not elsewhere in Josephus. It occurs chiefly in bk. 6, where it is often literal rather than metaphorical as here. In the present context, it complements the earlier reference to Florus’ “fanning (the flames of) war” (2.294; cf. 265). This notice reminds that audience that, in Josephus’ view, the originally minor incidents in Caesarea were generating consequences that would result in full-scale war (2.285). Perhaps “dealt with.” Although this common verb (ἀναιρέω) in Josephus (451 occurrences), which literally means “take away, do away with, remove, wipe out,” is most often a euphemism for “kill,” here it is used literally: it is not that Florus should kill those responsible for the disturbance (since “causes” is feminine, not indicating specific persons), but that he should put a halt to the conditions the Judeans saw as creating the problem—the Caesareans’ building alongside their meeting places and offering sacrifices in such proximity. Greek ταραχή is a characteristic term in War 2, charting the build-up to war. Especially relevant are occurrences in the Pilate and Samarian episodes (2.170, 175-76, 240) and at the beginning of the Caesarea story (2.266); see the notes to these passages. That is, the 8-talent bribe described at 2.287 and recalled at 2.292. Again, Josephus drives home that Florus failed not only in his clear duties as Roman governor, but even by the demimonde criterion of honoring a hefty bribe. If this force comprised complete units, it was an extraordinarily large force for a governor to bring. Of his 6 units (cohorts and wings), 1 was already stationed in Jerusalem at the Antonia fortress (see the notes to “Sebastenes” at 2.52 and to “cohort” at 2.224.). Florus appears to be bringing at least 2 more with him (the cavalry wing and at least 1 infantry cohort), with the stated purpose of intimidating the population. Another 2 cohorts will arrive soon (2.318), meaning that at least 5 of his 6 units (each of roughly American battalion strength), and possibly all of them, would be in Jerusalem rather than Caesarea. The MS tradition reveals either a lacuna in the text or the suspicion of one. Although the middle verb ἐργάζομαι can be intransitive, as rendered here by “do his deeds” (or “work, act”)—and regarded by LCL, Pelletier, and M-B—it is often used transitively with another term expressing the aim or object of the work. Thus MS C adds “[do] what he wanted,” and already the 4th-cent. Latin has ad quod volebat uteretur. Destinon conjectured a different verb: “so that he might furnish (or produce, χρήσηται) Roman arms and fleece the city.” That is: Florus grossly abuses his power as governor, cloaking his efforts to extort funds in the apparatus of the Roman state. This formulation seems incidentally to give a positive value to Roman arms, as something otherwise respectable; cf. 2.294 and notes. Most often Josephus uses this verb in its literal sense, “remove [someone’s] clothing” (Ant. 6.223; 7.4; 9.111; 12.213), but the 2 occurrences in War both have the metaphorical sense of stripping personified cities (also 1.531). This is akin to such language of more modern military planning as “shock and awe”—the latter a possible translation of the first term, δέος.

This doubly compound verb (προδυσωπέω) appears to be a Josephan coinage: it is the only example, not counting a 10th-century quotation of Josephus, attested in ancient Greek literature, though the verb without the first prefix is found often—and several times in Josephus. This is a typical scene in the face of a threatening army: the citizens come out to show their intentions beforehand (whether bellicose or peaceful) and to spare the city itself from attack in either case; cf. 2.213; Ant. 16.14. This incident has an important sequel in 2.318-25 below. See the note at 2.1. The very word εὐφημία (at its root: “speech of good omen”) invites the expectation of provisionality or conditionality. Here it is a valiant attempt to overwhelm the governor’s ill will. Or “considerately, in a kind and caring way.” Greek θεραπευτικῶς (cf. Latin cura) has connotations of attentiveness, care, cure, and restoration; see the note to “attentiveness” at 2.2. Josephus thus emphasizes the determination of the Judean leadership to overlook the governor’s bad behavior thus far, offering him the customary attentiveness (cf. Agrippa’s advice at 2.350) in the interests of peace.

This is another familiar Latin cognomen, meaning “big-head,” commonly linked with the gens Ateia. Although it is a pattern in War that tribunes and prefects of the auxiliary cohorts in Judea bear names indicating Roman citizenship (see the note to “Rufus and Gratus” at 2.52), it is curious that this pattern should extend to an auxiliary centurion, for such men were normally appointed from the ranks as in the legions (Watson 1969: 86-88), and so recruited locally in Caesarea and Sebaste. The trend at this time seems to be going in the other direction: at 2.63 we met a figure who was apparently a legionary centurion, with a Greek name (Areius). Mounted forces (alae), even in mixed cohorts, were formed in turmae (squadrons) of 30 to 32, each commanded by a decurion. It seems odd that Florus would (a) send a detachment of 50, and (b) under the command of a centurion (i.e., an infantry officer) rather than a decurion. But Florus’ choice seems to highlight the ad hoc nature of the task: a more experienced (apparently Roman) officer is put in charge of a substantial cavalry detachment, which is quicker and more intimidating than a troop of foot soldiers; they are also the élite unit among the auxiliaries and so perhaps more trustworthy in dealing with such actions (cf. 2.236; cf. 2.291). Greek εἰρωνεύεσθαι. See the note to “dissembling” at 2.26—a prominent theme in all of Josephus’ writings, especially War and Life. Greek φιλοφρόνησις appears relatively often in Josephus (11 times, 5 of these in War—bks. 1-2 only), though hardly attested before his time (Aristotle, frag. 9.56.670 [Rose]; Memnon, frag. 26 [Müller]; Ep. Aristeas 246; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 10.46.8, 57.5; Ps.-Demetrius, Eloc. 232). From his time onward, it is used more often (Plutarch, Mor. [Apoph. Lac.] 212f; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 7.89; Chariton, Chaer. 4.3.8; 5.1.8; Herodian, Peri orth. 3.2.441; Apollonius Dyscolus, Pronom. 2.1.1.53). Greek [πρὸς ὃν οὕτως] ἐλοιδόρησαν αἰσχρῶς can only refer to Josephus’ language at 2.295 above. But that is the author’s characterization, not something that Florus could have heard. Similarly, in the next sentence Florus will reveal a knowledge of Josephus’ narrative in the people’s demand for freedom from his tyranny (cf. 2.294). Josephus continues to spin out his narrative as a creative work: whatever Florus may actually have said, the chances that it matched what Josephus presents here are slim.

The connection between nobility of character (here, being γενναῖοι) and frank, fearless, or candid speech was basic to ancient moral philosophy: cf. also Plutarch, Mor. [Adulat. amic.] 68d; Lucian, Calumn. 23; Dial. mort. 20.9. Lucian links nobility and frankness also with freedom, which comes next in Florus’ sarcastic message. This may be an oblique reference to 2.276, where our narrator has declared that under Florus’ predecessor Albinus (hence: all the more, Florus), frank speech was curtailed. The nomen agentis παρρησιαστής appears only here in Josephus, and rarely before his time (Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1124b; Diodorus 14.5.7; Philo, Flacc. 178). Indeed, Josephus’ Florus here seems to have taken a leaf (sarcastically) from the first of these passages, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (1124b): “It is also necessary that he [sc. the great-souled man, μεγαλόψυχος] be both open in his hatred (φανερομισῆ) and open in his affection (φανερόφιλον)—because concealment is born of fear (τὸ γὰρ λανθάνειν φοβουμένου) . . . —and that he both speak and act openly (καὶ λέγειν καὶ πράττειν φανερῶς); for a frank speaker (παρρησιαστής) is thus on account of his being disdainful [of others’ opinions] and his being truthful, excepting whatever [he says] by way of dissembling to the masses (πλὴν ὅσα μὴ δι’ εἰρωνείαν πρὸς τοὺς πολλούς).” Florus has been in Sebaste until this march on Jerusalem (2.288, 292), having sent others to extract the 17 talents from the temple (2.293). We should presumably infer that he heard of the insults and mockery (2.295) from these agents on their return. In the narrative this refers in the first instance to the people’s earlier cries to (an absent) Caesar, in the temple precincts, “to free them from the tyranny of Florus” (2.294). The tyrant either has been anticipating Josephus’ narrative or he is presumed to have heard reports of these popular demands; now comes his reply. Both tyranny (see the note to “tyrants” at 1.10) and freedom (see the note at 2.259) are basic themes in War. Perhaps the most fundamental and oft-repeated demand of moral philosophers was that actions match words: Seneca, Ep. 20.2; 108.9-12; Epictetus in Arrian, Diatr. 3.26.8-23, 37-39; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 70.3; Luke 4.31–32; 5.23–24; 7.18–23; 24.19; Lucian, Hermot. 9-19. Florus’ emissary now reaches the shocking conclusion of his ironic little speech. The martial and heroic application of the principle that actions match words goes back to Homer: Phoenix’s commission from Peleus to teach Achilles to be “a speaker of words and a doer of deeds” (Iliad 9.443). On the surface Florus is issuing a moral-philosophical challenge: “Make your deeds match your words; behave as you really feel, without fear of death; take up arms against Rome!” In a twisted way, this anticipates points made by both (Josephus’) Agrippa II (2.355-57) and Eleazar son of Ya‘ir at Masada (7.323-29). But for a Roman governor to press this logic, in the face of a community that has come desperately seeking to overlook his previous behavior and prevent an escalation of conflict, is diabolically inappropriate to the occasion—as Josephus’ Roman audience would well know.

By their horses, since they are a mounted unit (2.298). By this choice of verb, Josephus appears to stress the intimidating presence of the cavalry: it is not merely that the soldiers are pressing into the Judean crowd, but they do so on horseback, towering above the crowd. The Judeans’ immediate dispersal, with horses bearing down on them, is no sign of weakness. The adjective πειθήνιος is not attested before Philo and Josephus, but it is used with increasing frequency thereafter—another case (see Introduction) in which Josephus rides the crest of new trends in language. Moreover, the neuter substantive (τὸ πειθήνιον) as here, which he uses also at 2.498 and 5.121, is unattested in other writers before the late 2nd century, after which it becomes common. This is the only occurrence of the verb νυκτερεύω in Josephus, though he uses διανυκτερεύω 7 times, as already at 2.312 below. Both are found in most Hellenistic authors, though Xenophon prefers the former (13 times), and Polybius (4 times) and Strabo (5 times) use it only. So there seems to be no good reason to follow MSS VRC in adopting the prefixed form here. Or “dejection, lowness [of spirits]” (ταπεινότης). The same pair appears at 4.147 in reverse order.

Or “came to lodge, took up residence.” The verb αὐλίζομαι (lit. “[occupy the] courtyard”) is possibly meant as a pun. On the one hand, it is used of establishing a temporary base, as in a military bivouac (see 2.69 and note); on the other hand, its cognate αὐλή is commonly used (as at 2.312 below, of this very site) to mean “palace [grounds].” Here, the bivouac of this conspicuously unworthy governor and his auxiliaries happens to be in a real palace courtyard, where he will confront a real queen of Herodian descent (2.312). Herod’s palace on the W side of Jerusalem, near the modern Jaffa Gate, from which only some foundation stones survive. Like Herod’s royal properties in Caesarea and Sebaste, as well as his desert fortresses, the Jerusalem installations (including the fortress Antonia) became imperial bases after Archelaus’ removal. Given the procurator’s residence there when visiting Jerusalem, the Jerusalem palace was also the temporary camp of auxiliary units travelling with him (2.329). Josephus has briefly described this palace’s construction at 1.402 (it comprised two massive and beautiful buildings named after Augustus and M. Vipsanius Agrippa, surpassing even the temple in magnificence); at 5.176-82 (cf. Ant. 15.318) he will elaborate on the unimaginably impressive structure and its enclosures. At 7.1 he will claim that, in ordering the complete demolition of all remaining buildings after the capture of Jerusalem, Titus exempted the 3 towers of Herod’s palace and its western wall, as the base for a garrison. The setting of this scene around the governor’s tribunal-platform (βῆμα), set up specially for the purpose (cf. 2.308), recalls the episodes of protest against Pilate (2.172, 175-76). The repeated vocabulary makes it hard to avoid the conclusion that Josephus has shaped all of these protest episodes to deepen certain themes: manifest injustice and arrogance from the governor confronted firmly but patiently by the Judean leadership; impetuous youth become increasingly visible and less susceptible of management by the leaders. Compare the language here (τῇ δ’ ὑστεραίᾳ βῆμα πρὸ αὐτῶν θέμενος [ὁ Φλῶρος] καθέζεται) with that at 2.172 (τῇ δ’ ἑξῆς ὁ Πιλᾶτος καθίσας ἐπὶ βήματος), and see the previous note. On the 3 preceding terms, see the notes to “powerful [men]” at 2.239 and to “chief priests” and “notables” at 2.243. They are all part of an assortment of terms for the nation’s élite, as a Greek-speaking audience would immediately understand.

Although the better MSS (PAML) have an aorist infinitive (ἀπολαύσαι) here, the sense apparently requires the future (ἀπολαύσειν) suggested by the Latin (esse. . . vindicandum) and adopted by Niese, LCL, Vitucci, Pelletier, and M-B. A paradoxical combination of verb and object (contrast Ant. 2.48), suited to the perverse and bullying character of Josephus’ Florus, who appears in ever sharper relief against the determined political efforts of Jerusalem’s élite. This is the first occurrence of a formulaic phrase (εἰρηνικός φρονέω) in War; cf. 3.30, 458; 4.84, 120; 5.30, 110; 6.344. Josephus uses the verb παραφθέγγομαι again only at 5.336. Goodman (1987: 154-60), observing that the leaders’ disingenuous claim represents a failure to fulfill the obligation of the ruling class (to maintain law and order), argues that the real cause of their reluctance must have been their desire to protect someone. Given the youth of the offenders, he proposes, those being protected must (historically) have been younger members of the ruling class, in particular those gathered around the temple captain Eleazar son of Ananias (see below 2.408-9). Eleazar’s father and his father’s friends would naturally have been concerned to shield them. Thus, it is not so much the elders in the story, but Josephus as author who conceals the involvement of aristocrats in revolutionary actions (allegedly one of Josephus’ chief motives). Yet to reject Josephus’ context while extracting one element of his story—Florus’ search for his mockers—and seeking an independent historical explanation of that element, seems arbitrary.The story humiliates Florus before the audience by displaying the cruel governor’s weakness, vanity, and ineffectiveness, and contrasting the wisdom of the Judaean élite. Rather than capitulating to the governor’s impulsive demand for satisfaction, these distinguished Judaean leaders appeal (unsuccessfully) to his better nature, affording him every opportunity to scale down the rising tensions he has provoked. Cleverly invoking the commonplace of hot-headed youth, these literary characters wisely pretend ignorance of the perpetrators’ identities. In due course, Josephus will not hesitate to name the bad seed Eleazar (2.408-9) and continue to chart this man’s tragic course of rebellion, which will result in the murder of his own father and uncle by the lower-class interloper Menahem (4.225-45). Since Josephus is determined to use Eleazar as a clear example of youthful folly, it is hard to see why he would have tried to cover up his earlier involvement in the foolish humiliation of Florus.

Or “more spirited, brasher.” This is the same comparative that is discussed in the notes to “bolder ones” at 2.238, 267. That is, their youth: it was a well-established trope, at least since Thucydides, Aristotle, and Polybius, not to mention Homer, that young men were victims of their untrained passions, which frequently landed them in trouble; see the notes to “youths” at 2.225, 286. Josephus’ elders here present this as a normal part of the human condition, not as something peculiar to Jerusalem, and seek a statesmanlike mutual understanding from Florus, who does not oblige them. No doubt because the noun τὴν διάκρισιν (as subject of the earlier infinitive εἶναι) alone sounds too cryptic, the MSS MLVRC have added various verbs and phrases (Lat. discrimen agitari) to fill out the sense, which remains the same: to make a judgment, distinction, identification. The Greek reads oddly: καὶ δι’ ἃ δέδρακεν ἀρνουμένου. MS L has a partial erasure suggesting καὶ δέ, and the dangling δι’ has invited conjectural emendations. Pelletier omits it. Thackeray in LCL, Vitucci and M-B adopt Destinon’s proposal δέει: “with (or because of) anxiety, fear.” Of course, if an interrogator knew that a particular person was indeed repenting of what he had done, it would be easy to identify him as a culprit. The elliptical expression seems to mean rather that, given a horde of people in which everyone denies having done anything wrong (some because they have done nothing, others because they have disowned and denied their real actions), it is now impossible to identify the culprits.

Although this is indeed the first and most important task of a Roman governor (cf. Ulpian, Dig. 1.18.13.pr.: the wise governor “takes care that the province he rules be peaceful and orderly”)—working with the local élite to create and maintain consensus (cf. Ando 2000: 71-205)— by framing it as a merely hypothetical condition, Josephus emphasizes Florus’ reckless abandonment of this basic responsibility. This is a surprisingly direct appeal to Roman self-interest, perhaps reflecting a Thucydidean sort of recognition (as in Agrippa’s speech from 2.345) that Rome’s power will prevail in any case. Cf. 5.334, where Titus at first tries to storm Jerusalem without sacking it on the ground that “his chief objective was to save the city for himself”; cf. 1.27; 5.360-61. At 5.371 Josephus’ own character will make a Thucydidean appeal to Roman advantage (τὸ συμφέρον): “this did not consist in having a city devoid of men, or a deserted countryside.” Greek ἀκαταιτίατος, a remarkable example of War’s distinctive and characteristic language, possibly Josephus’ coinage. This adjective occurs 6 times in War (also 1.494; 4.169, 2259, 266, 280), but nowhere else in Josephus, and it is unattested in Greek literature before his time. It will not appear again until the 4th century. See the note to “disturbance,” a key term in War, at 2.170, and to “disturbance of the rabble” at 2.29. Translating with MS L the plural genitive ἀγαθῶν rather than singular accusative to match the noun (in other MSS), because of the Latin support: multitudinem tantam bonorum. See the notes at 2.156, 273.

On provocation and indignation in War, see the note at 2.8 and the parallel constructions mentioned there. At 5.137 Josephus will explain that his contemporaries call “the Upper Market” what David had called the “Fortress.” He is using the already traditional (but perhaps erroneous, since the historical City of David was based on the eastern hill) designation for the area around Herod’s Palace, near the modern Jaffa Gate, which is where Florus is hearing the Judean leaders. According to that passage in bk. 5, the area that went by this name included not only a market proper (agora), but the entire summit of the upper W hill. Nevertheless, in the present context Florus’ instruction seems to focus on the real agora (cf. also 2.315), perhaps corresponding roughly to the space where the present E-W alleyway of the souk/shuq opens to the square by Jaffa Gate. Or “gubernatorial exhortation” (ἡγεμονική παρακέλευσις). This is one of only two appearances of the adjective in War. On its various possibilities, see the note to “imperial call” at the other occurrence, 2.207. Greek ἐπιθυμία κέρδους. At 2.581 Josephus will require of his own recruits that they abstain from all forms of theft, plunder, and banditry, as he also will forswear opportunities for personal gain while in military service (Life 80). At 5.558 he will comment, in relation to Titus’ strictures against Arab auxiliaries’ cutting open Judean refugees to find internally secreted coins: “But avarice, as it seems, disdains all punishment, and a terrible desire for gain (δεινὸς . . . τοῦ κερδαίνειν ἔρως) is ingrained in human nature.” Although the phrase ἐπιθυμία κέρδους occurs only here in Josephus, he may have been influenced by Theophrastus’ On Characters, which has the only attested occurrence before his time. The section devoted to “sordid love of gain” (αἰσχροκέρδεια, 30.1) begins illuminatingly: “Sordid love of gain is the lust for sordid gain” (Ἡ δὲ αἰσχροκέρδειά ἐστιν ἐπιθυμία κέρδους αἰσχροῦ). The phrase will appear again in Cassius Dio 69.13.2. That is, the Upper Market. The houses of the Upper City, to the E of Herod’s palace, were owned by the wealthier citizens and upper priests, as the excavations around the “Herodian Quarter” (the “palatial mansion” and the “burnt house” [possibly belonging to the priestly house of Kathros]) in the modern Jewish Quarter confirm (cf. Avigad 1983). The independent animus of the auxiliary soldiers (see the note to “Sebastenes” at 2.52), which is at least tolerated by Florus, helps to explain why Berenice will come to fear them even as she takes refuge in the palace with Florus (2.312 below).

Josephus uses στενωπός (“narrow place, alley”) 18 times in War, but only 6 times in his other works. It adds vividness to his narratives of conflict and violence (cf. esp. 5.336; 6.404, 406), by calling to mind the narrow streets of any city, a type known to his urban audience in Rome even if they do not know Jerusalem. Thus he sometimes glosses the word with “of the city” (τοῦ ἄστεος—1.414; 5.188). The collocation of plunder (ἁρπαγή) and murder (φόνος) is characteristic of War: 1.34; 2.70, 654; 4.139, 165, 560; 5.265, 402; 6.271; cf. Ant. 5.25. It is not attested with such frequency in other authors (Diodorus 14.53.2; 17.104.7; Plutarch, Sull. 14.3; Brut. 18.9; Galb. 6.2). This is formulaic phrasing: see the note to “neglected” at 2.272, where the governor Albinus fails to neglect any form of sordid behavior. See the note at 2.275. The compound verb προαικίζομαι seems unattested outside of Josephus before Eusebius. For Josephus’ interest in the word group, see the note to “torture” at 2.179. Cf. also 4.259, where the high priest Ananus accuses the Judean rebel “tyrants” of precisely the same activity: arresting prominent Judeans in the marketplace, first torturing them, and then killing them. At 5.429, the Romans besieging Jerusalem, when they capture fleeing Jerusalemites, will subject them to whippings in addition to “all manner of torture” before crucifying them. The most famous story of severe beating before crucifixion is that of Jesus in the gospels (e.g., Mark 15:15; John 19:1-16). Crucifixion, perhaps adopted from Carthage, was an infamously brutal method of execution. There was no single form, but many variations on the theme of hanging from a stake or cross until dead. It will take on especially gruesome forms in 5.449-51 (under Titus: first described in its savagery and then diplomatically explained), as the siege of Jerusalem reportedly produces hundreds of new prisoners each day; see also the note to “crucified” at Life 420 in BJP 9; Hengel 1977; Zias and Sekeles 1985; Cantarella 1991.

Including women and children as casualties not only adds an air of precision to the numbers; it also heightens the sense of tragic pathos. See the note to “women and children” at 2.192. Niese follows the normally superior MSS PAML Lat in reading τριάκοντα καὶ ἑξακοσίους. Perhaps in part because this puts the multiple of 10 before the multiple of 100 (cf. 6.425), MSS VRC offer τρισχιλίους καὶ ἑξακοσίους (3,600). LCL and Pelletier prefer the latter, M-B the former. That Josephus’ large numbers would have been obvious to his medieval copyists, who may have therefore had a stronger inclination to inflate than to shrink them, is an argument for the smaller number here (as lectio difficilior); taken with the better MS evidence (including Latin), it has the decided advantage.

This is a remarkable phrase—the Romans are not only savage, but here reach a new level of savagery—in a work ostensibly claiming that the savagery of the Judean tyrants toward compatriots was the worse evil (1.27; but 4.134: no difference in savagery between compatriots and Romans). It seems that Josephus is not describing a separate incident, but returning to draw out from what he has just described—in an already complete paragraph—details that will arouse the indignation of his Roman audience. Language such as this is enough to show that the War cannot have been Roman propaganda, as it has often been described in scholarship (programmatically, Laqueur 1920: 126-27; Thackeray 1929: 27-28), even if Josephus works consistently—and wisely, if not always convincingly (5.289-90, 449-51)—to remind Titus that he had been appalled by such cruelty (War 5.556). At 2.340 he will clarify that the Judeans respected all other Roman leaders except Florus, because of his savagery. We do not seem to find similar language in Greek authors before Appian (Num. 2.1). A programmatic term (συμφορά), enhancing the tragic tone, in War and in bk. 2; see the notes at 1.9; 2.286. No Roman governor, at least. In 1.35, near the opening of the narrative, Josephus described Antiochus Epiphanes’ daily torturing of the distinguished men, one at a time (κατ’ ἄνδρα τοὺς ἀξιολόγους αἰκιζόμενος), and publicly exhibiting his humiliation of the city. Although the Roman provincial governors usually held trials on their own authority (extra ordinem), with nearly absolute discretion over proceedings and penalties, there were limits—especially in respecting the legal privileges enjoyed by those among the provincial population who held Roman and/or élite local status. Garnsey (1968) presents a vivid picture of ingrained Roman assumptions about the distinctions of social status before the law; such considerations evoke the sense of scandal that Josephus might have hoped to create in describing Florus’ behavior. See the note (“equestrian order among the Romans”) at 2.117. Quite apart from the summary punishments (below), this is a unique and important notice, the more valuable for being incidental and unelaborated: the Judean upper class included equestrians. Even in Rome, equestrian status was held by relatively few; its property qualification could be a conspicuous reward by the princeps to personal favorites. Although we have evidence in Herodian connections and Latin names for other Roman citizens in Judea, it is surprising to hear of equestrians residing in Jerusalem, since Josephus’ narratives assume a basic division between the “mob” or masses and the élite (powerful, principal, notable men)—who seem generally to be influential men gathered around chief-priestly circles. It is all the more shocking that these equestrians should be beaten and crucified on the spot (see note to “cross” below): under the principate, the emperor increasingly selected his own agents from this class, and charges against those in his service were usually heard by himself or by the Senate (Garnsey 1968: 12). This anomalous appearance of equestrians in Jerusalem raises the possibility that Josephus has invented or exaggerated it; even one such person might explain Josephus’ rhetorical use of the plural, and such an isolated case (or two) is perhaps more likely than wholesale invention here. Greek γένος is notoriously multivalent and difficult to translate: “birth (place), ancestry, origin, family-line, race, class” are all possibilities; Josephus might mean that these people were born in Judea (cf. Cohen 1994), but still achieved Roman honors, though this is not clear. See the note at Life 1. Or “rank, dignity” (ἀξίωμα). Cf. Cicero’s castigation of Verres, more than a century earlier, for having crucified a Roman citizen in Sicily (Verr. 5.62; cf. M-B n. 161 ad loc.). Several factors contribute to the outrageous nature of this action: first, that a provincial governor would presume to punish Roman citizens without trial, let alone without allowing their right of appeal to Rome (granted that the right of provocatio was not always honored [Garnsey 1968: 23 n. 85]); second, that flogging and crucifixion, which were the punishments of slaves and foreigners, should be meted out to members of the upper orders (who, if convicted, usually faced fines, banishment, beheading, or forced suicide); third, that Florus—himself an equestrian—should dare to treat his peers with such contempt, as if they were mere slaves. The dual system of punishment (for honestiores and humiliores) would be codified at the beginning of the 3rd century, with the formalization of values that had long before been assumed (cf. Cicero, De re pub. 1.43)—and the legal principle seems to have been effectively in place by Hadrian’s time in the mid-2nd century CE (Garnsey 1968: 13-18).Florus is here the antithesis of the model governor envisaged by Pliny the Younger, and his enlightened senatorial circle in Rome. He writes to his friend Tiro (Ep. 10.5), new governor of Baetica: “You have done splendidly . . . in commending your administration of justice to the provincials by your exercise of tact. This you have shown particularly in maintaining respect for the best men, but, in doing so, winning the respect of the lower classes while holding the affection of their superiors” (trans. Garnsey 1968: 6).

Agrippa II, introduced at 2.220 and last mentioned at 2.247, 252 (with the expansion of his kingdom to the N and E of Judea). Agrippa will return from this trip at 2.335, to given an important speech (2.345ff.). The second-largest city in the Roman empire after the capital (already mentioned at 1.278, 598), was well known to Roman audiences as the once foreign capital from which Antony and Cleopatra had challenged Octavian, and since then as a major grain supplier for the world capital. For the city in general, see Delia 1991 and Harris and Ruffini 2004. The most comprehensive literary sources for 1st-cent. CE Alexandria, pertaining to the generation before Josephus’ time of writing, are Philo’s Against Flaccus and Embassy to Gaius (also e.g. Mos. 2.35; Prob. 125; Contempl. 21). The city is mentioned often by other Greek and Latin authors, and we possess a number of relevant papyri and coins. Archaeological excavation, especially of the harbor (which contains many valuable remains of the royal and Roman periods), is ongoing. See further the detailed notes at 2.385, 487-98 below.Alexandria will remain an important center throughout Josephus’ works, in different contexts: 2.385 (an example in Agrippa’s major speech); 2.487-99 (riots connected with the Judean rebellion against Rome); 2.605-21 (site of Vespasian’s acclamation by legions there, and a strategic focus for his imperial challenge); 4.658-662; Life 415-16 (staging ground for Titus’ second campaign in Judea); 7.409-47 (site of further troubles for Judeans after the war); Ant. 1.12; 12.50-86 (the place where the Bible was translated into Greek); Ant. 13.284; 14.117-88; 18.257; 19.278-92 (home to a large Judean community, in frequent conflict with Greek citizens); and Apion, passim (home of much anti-Judean literature). Tiberius Iulius Alexander, prefect of Egypt from 66-70 CE (the highest governorship open to someone of equestrian rank), must have been around 50 by this time. Two decades earlier (46-48 CE) he had served as a young prefect of Judea, and he will play a prominent role as Titus’ experienced adviser in the later Roman campaign. See the note to “Tiberius Alexander” at 2.220. Although Alexandria was named by Alexander the Great centuries earlier, no audience could miss Josephus’ collocation of names: Alexandria is now this Alexander’s city.

Greek δεινὸν πάθος is a standard phrase in Josephus: 4.31; 6.89; Ant. 2.293; 4.222; 7.79; 8.221; 10.258; 14.134. It was common enough in general usage (e.g., Pindar, Nem. 10.65; Thucydides 3.13.6, 59.2, 67.3; 5.93.1; Euripides, Suppl. 11; Electr. 1226; Bacch. 971; Sophocles, Ant. 96; Plato, Pol. 308a; Demosthenes, Lept. 48; Call. 25; Menander, Asp. 423; Polybius 1.32.8; 2.59.1; Diodorus 32.26.2) that there was even a compound verb δεινοπαθέω (Polybius 12.16.9; Josephus, Ant. 1.312; 11.306). It is unclear whether this suffering was the antecedent cause of Berenice’s coming to Jerusalem to complete her vow (2.313), or whether, aside from whatever led to the vow, it consisted chiefly in witnessing the soldiers’ outrages—or whether Josephus means both. See the note to “Bernice” at 2.217. The queen was now about 38, the survivor of at least 3 brief marriages (2 while still in her teens). With this μὲν . . . δέ construction, Josephus seems to highlight the unusual situation that the royal brother and sister were separated, and that while he celebrated, she suffered. See the note to “her own cavalry commanders” in this section. On cavalry commanders, see the note at 2.291. The allied forces based in royal territories, controlled by Herod’s heirs, apparently followed the same century-cohort structure as their Roman exemplars; see the notes to “tribune” at 2.11 and “Sebastenes” at 2.52.This is an intriguing notice, however, in its implication that Berenice herself had more than one cavalry wing (hence their commanders) at her disposal. As in the present story, Berenice is normally seen in the company of her brother, Agrippa II (2.344, 405; Life 48-49; cf. Acts 25:13, 23)—so much so that rumors of incestuous relations were in wide circulation (Ant. 20.145; cf. Juvenal 6.156-60)—and they evidently share property and staff (2.426, 595; Life 343, 355). Because Agrippa’s territory includes—still, while Josephus is writing War—Philip’s former tetrarchy (including Auranitis, Trachonitis, and Batanea), and Batanea had been settled by Herod with “Babylonian Judeans” from the Parthian empire (Ant. 17.23-30), the Herodian allied forces had always disproportionately featured cavalry and archers, the renowned strength of Babylonian and Parthian armies. Thus, at 2.421 Agrippa II will send 2,000 cavalry (from just these areas, Josephus notes), under the aptly named Darius—4 times the size of the cohort available to the prefect of Judea (3.66)—to assist the chief priests in Jerusalem against factional leaders; at 3.68, Agrippa and other regional kings will each contribute 2,000 infantry archers plus 1,000 cavalry to Vespasian’s army. Although Berenice, like other Herodian women (2.98), was apparently given particular cities with their hinterlands for revenue (Life 118-19), she does not seem to have controlled armies; the cavalry commanders would presumably have accompanied her and Agrippa to Jerusalem.This prompts the question: With how large a cavalry force would Agrippa and Berenice have come to Jerusalem, if she had two or more commanders with her? Given that her own bodyguard is a separate matter (next phrase), that Jerusalem was under the Roman procurator’s control, and that no actual cavalry forces appear (e.g., to defend Berenice), it may be that the commanders are something of a distinguished “general staff” who accompany the royal pair on such diplomatic trips, without accompanying forces. See previous note. Life 398, describing a period just a few months later, will name a certain Sulla (a Roman name) as commander of Agrippa’s bodyguard. According to Ant. 17.29-30, that role had been filled for Herod and his descendants by Zamaris, the Babylonian Judean of Batanea (with his mounted archers) and Zamaris’ descendants, Iacimus and Philip; apparently, Philip had risen to become “general” of Agrippa’s entire army (2.421; cf. Life 46 with notes in BJP 9). Ancient rulers typically had impressive bodyguards: Herod’s reportedly comprised German, Thracian, and Gallic units (1.672); and even Josephus claims, if implausibly, a 600-strong personal guard when he was Galilean general (2.583).

The verb παρακούω occurs in War only here and at 6.288. The sense is of hearing something only secondarily or incidentally: Florus simply did not hear Berenice’s appeals, even incidentally, because of his obsession with greed.

Although ὁρμή here might refer metaphorically to the soldiers’ emotions (“rage, fury”—so Thackeray in LCL; “die schäumende Wut” in M-B; similarly Vitucci and Pelletier), in the context of military units it normally indicates their assault or charge (cf. 2.18, 2.211-14, 296 above), a reading that seems confirmed in this case by the interchangeable ἔφοδος (“assault”) at the end of this section. See the note to this word at 2.213. Berenice apparently had much to fear from the auxiliary units drawn from Caesarea and Sebaste. Although they had been established as an allied force by her great-grandfather Herod, their subsequent attachment to Rome appears to have soured them on Herod’s royal descendants (see the note to “Sebastenes” at 2.52). In Ant. 19.355-66 Josephus will describe at length the ecstatic celebrations by the populations of Caesarea and Sebaste when Berenice’s father Agrippa I died in 44 CE. The festivities included the auxiliary forces’ seizure of images, apparently from Herodian property, of Berenice and her sisters; these were erected on brothel roofs and publicly dishonored. War’s Roman audience may have known about these incidents, which had reportedly disposed Claudius to relocate the Sebastene-Caesarean auxiliaries out of province; even if they did not know, War’s narrative has shown enough anti-Judean feeling on the part of the auxiliaries to make Berenice’s fear understandable. This is the same word I normally translate “destroy”; see the note at 2.11. See the note at 2.301. At 5.17-77 Josephus will claim that the wall around Herod’s palace was 30 cubits (about 14 m/45 ft) high and built of massive ashlars, punctuated by the 3 monumental towers of immense proportions. The site was an obvious place of refuge, and it will be used that way repeatedly. Since the palace built by Berenice’s great-grandfather, King Herod, is also where Florus is staying (2.301), and the place where he has set up his tribunal-platform (bema) to hear the people, we should presumably infer that the governor himself has given Berenice asylum, beyond the reach of his undisciplined soldiers. Her continued anxiety about these soldiers, even within the palace grounds, implies that the Sebastene-Caesarean units are not entirely under the procurator’s control: it is their rampage (not on Florus’ orders) that endangers her life. At 2.305, 310, and here in 312, the soldiers appear to be acting independently, emboldened in their opportunity to cause havoc in the Judeans’ home city by the governor’s lack of concern, and willing to exceed orders by a considerable step.It is just conceivable that Josephus has in mind the Hasmonean palace as Berenice’s refuge (2.344 below), where her brother the king lived while in the city, and where he had recently built a controversial extra story (Ant. 20.189-90); this would provide a different rationale for her expectation of escaping the governor’s auxiliaries. If that is what Josephus has in mind, however, he has not explained the point, but implies that it is the same royal property just mentioned as Florus’ base (2.301); he will introduce the Hasmonean palace later (2.344). See the note to “passed the night” at 2.300.

See the note to “staying nearby” at 2.206. The vow in question is the neder nazir (‮נדר נזיר‬‎) or nazirite vow, described in Num 6:2-21 and briefly mentioned by Josephus in his summary of laws at Ant. 4.72 (see Feldman ad loc., BJP 3). The Mishnah devotes a tractate to the subject; cf. also Amos 2:11-12; 1 Macc 3:49. According to biblical prescription, the nazirite avoids 3 things: cutting the hair (as Josephus, Ant. 4.72), drinking wine and all grape products, and contact with corpses (Num 6:2-7). The last item is omitted by Josephus in both places, though his emphasis on abstention from wine and leaving hair uncut matches the biblical examples of life-long nazirites—Samson (Judg 13:4-18) and Samuel (1 Sam 1:10-23). Unless one accidentally contracts corpse-uncleanness in the interim (and so must shave the head after 7 days of purification, Num 6:9), shaving the head occurs only at the end of the vow, on the day of sacrifice (Num 6:18). The prescribed sacrifice is expensive (cf. m. Naz. 4:7): a male lamb, a ewe, and a ram, in addition to the grain, oil, and wine offering (6:14-15); we thus hear of individuals paying the costs of others’ vows (Ant. 19.293-94 with Feldman n. c ad loc. in LCL; Acts 21:23-26). Although Josephus tends to fuse law with custom as an undifferentiated body (as did most ancient authors), in this case he may be making an accurate distinction, since the following condition is not in biblical law. At any rate, he continues his standard practice (see Introduction) of pausing to explain even well known aspects of Judean culture for his Roman audience. See the note at 2.49; also 2.329 below. See the note to “terrible suffering” at 2.310. Does that refer in part to a pre-existing condition, leading to the vow? The Bible (see previous note) does not indicate such a motivation for the nazirite vow. By mentioning it, Josephus implies that Berenice was already suffering, and it was in this vulnerable condition—also without her powerful brother’s usual protection—that she courageously tried to deal with Florus and his soldiers (cf. 2.314). This (ἀποδίδωμι θυσίας) is a standard phrase in Josephus: also 2.416; 6.101; Ant. 7.196; 11.9, 77, 137; 14.27, as in other authors. The Bible does not specify the term of nazirite vows. M. Naz. 1.3 indicates that one can specify the length of the vow (units no smaller than a day), and 30 days is the default length for vows of undeclared term. According to 3.6, the House of Shammai also make 30 days the period for someone coming to “the land” after completing a nazirite vow abroad, which is Berenice’s situation here. The verb ξυρέω occurs only here in War, though several times elsewhere in Josephus. Niese prints Dindorf’s emendation to the future middle infinitive, to match the preceding infinitive (“to abstain from wine”), rather than the aorist infinitive found in the MSS, which would sensibly have the abstention come after the shaving, except that the “and . . . also” construction would make that awkward. As we have seen, the prescription actually requires not shaving the head until the day of sacrifice that completes the vow. M-B rescue Josephus by rendering “daß alle . . . die 30 Tage, bevor sie die eigentlichen Gelübdeopfer darbringen, sich des Weines zu enthalten und sich dann erst die Haare schneiden zu lassen,” though the Greek (with the emendation of the previous note, followed by M-B) seems clearly to parallel the future infinitives for wine-avoidance and shaving—during the 30 days before the sacrifice. A similar problem faces Pelletier’s reading (cf. Vitucci), that the nazirite abstains from wine and from shaving the hair, as though the first infinitive governed the second—“fassent le voeu de s’abstenir de vin et de se raser la tête pendant les trente jours”—attractive though the option might otherwise be. It is possible that a negative has dropped out of the text, or more likely that Josephus is compressing to the point of inaccuracy: thinking that for a woman, the (eventual) shaving of the head is the remarkable point worth mentioning, he does not consider it worth the space to spell out the intervening process, and so inaccurately pairs abstinence from wine and shaving.

Josephus appears to be emphasizing that Berenice was not well when she had to confront Florus and his auxiliaries, facing either illness or other serious problems. Why Berenice’s feet are bare is unclear, though it is possibly her deliberate act of humiliation and vulnerability, appropriate to a supplicant. Although a seemingly obvious compound, γυμνόπους is attested in literature before Josephus only in Strabo (7.2.3), and in Josephus only here. Josephus uses this word (αἰδώς) 3 times in rapid succession, with different nuances—also 2.317, 325. Especially in view of Josephus’ characteristic view of women (see the notes to “women” and “man” at 2.121), this is a laudatory portrait of the courageous queen.

Josephus uses a portentous expression (συνηνέχθη), the aorist passive of συμφέρω, in a way that could simply mean “happened” or “came about”. But since the verb is cognate to his keyword συμφορά (“calamity”), and especially given that at its only other occurrence (2.499) it is predicated of the related keyword “suffering” (πάθος), he seems to use it with a pregnant sense: “were brought to fulfillment,” “were brought to a result”; perhaps even “transpired calamitously.” See the note at 2.284: Josephus equates this Macedonian month with Iyyar (May-June). Diodorus (25.19.1) uses the cognate superlative adjective in a tragic passage of his history, but Josephus appears to be the first to use the compound verb ὑπερπαθέω. It contributes to the tragic tone of his work (see Introduction, 1.9-12, and the notes to “feelings,” “mourn over,” and “calamities” at 1.9); he has it 3 times (also 6.124; Ant. 7.46). See the note to this phrase at 2.170. This is formulaic language in War 2 for the spontaneous popular reaction to Roman malfeasance. See the note at 2.305. Literally, “outside the norm” (ἐξαίσιος); so “enormous, weird, extraordinary, gigantic, inauspicious, monstrous, grotesque.” All 5 occurrences of this dramatic adjective in Josephus are in War 2-6; cf. 5.75 for a “terrific yell,” 6.60 for an “enormous boulder.” Although this is the only occurrence of ἀνοδύρομαι in Josephus, it is part of the extensive tragic lexicon in War connected with lamentation, mourning, wailing, and dirge. See the note to “mourn over” at 1.9.

See the note at 2.239. See the note at 2.243—a standard companion term, among others, to “powerful [men].” This tearing of clothes (τὰς ἐσθῆτας περιρρήγνυμι) was a traditional gesture of extreme grief, in many Mediterranean and Near-Eastern cultures (Gen 37:29; 41:14; Josh 7:6; 11:35; 2 Sam 1:2; 3:31; Ant. 6.357; 7.1, 40; 9.67; 10.59; 11.221; 18.78; Suetonius, Nero 42), though high priests were forbidden to rip their clothes (Lev 10:6). It often goes with wearing black sack-cloth and/or heaping dust or ash on the head, as in several of the Antiquities references above. Although the dust on the head is absent at this point, it soon turns up—at 2.322, where Josephus reminds the audience that the leaders’ clothes were already torn. The only other place in War where all of these things come together (with striking similarities in language) is at 2.601, where Josephus describes his own stratagem of feigning repentance. See notes there. One fifth of the 25 occurrences of this verb (ἐρεθίζω) in Josephus are in the latter half of War 2 (also 2.321, 350, 414, 493), helping to build the sense of aggravation, provocation, and indignation leading up to war. This phrase recalls the appeal that the élite have just made, successfully, in their efforts to calm the mob (2.316). Josephus’ repetition of it a few sentences later, after Florus has altered the conditions, highlights the extraordinary lengths to which the élite are going to adapt as needed. For the language, see the note to “irremediable suffering,” a prominent theme in bk. 2, at 2.233.

Or “shame before” (as at 2.325). See the note at 2.317. See the note to this phrase at 2.15, and note its recurrence at 2.333.

A characteristic verb in War 2; see the note at 2.259 and also 2.283 (of Florus). Chief priests and notables form a standard pair in War 2 (only: 2.240, 243, 301, 322, 410, 411), along with other similar and overlapping pairs. See the note to “powerful [men]” at 2.239, and in general to 2.243. This is a remarkable notice. In addition to the cohort routinely stationed in Jerusalem (see the notes to “Sebastenes” at 2.52 and to “cohort” at 2.224), Florus has brought with him a sizeable force of both cavalry and infantry—plausibly, then, a cohort plus Judea’s one auxiliary cavalry wing (2.296). With the arrival of 2 more cohorts in Jerusalem, the usual situation of 5 units based around Caesarea (and Sebaste) and 1 in Jerusalem will be reversed. Eventually (2.332), Florus will return to the norm by leaving 1 cohort and taking the rest back to Caesarea.

Cf. 3.86-88, on the chain of command for orders (there in the legion). As that passage shows, the centurion (normally in charge of 80 men) was the officer to whom the private soldier looked for direction. With 2 cohorts approaching (2.318), the orders would go to perhaps 12 centurions.

See the note to this phrase, which contributes the tragic environment of War 2, at 2.233 (and note recent use of the same adjective at 2.316). See the note at 2.91. See the notes at 2.238, 267.

From the context it is clear that Levites are meant. That Josephus does not name them perhaps reflects his typical sensitivity to his Roman audience’s understanding (see Introduction). He does not mention the group in War, and when he does name them in Antiquities he explains immediately who they are (3.258, 287-90; 4.15, 19, 67; 20.216). That the 4th-century Latin translator of Josephus opts to replace this phrase with leuitae reflects his very different, Christian audience. On the Levites in Josephus’ time, see Ant. 3.287-90; 4.67, 205, 214 [note use of the same term as here: ὑπηρέτης]; 9.155 along with notes ad loc. by Feldman and Begg in BJP 3 and 5. For this use of κόσμος as the “adornment, finery” of the priests, see also 6.391; Ant. 3.178; 18.90. But Josephus will characteristically use the word soon (2.325) in a different and more standard sense (“decorum”). Although the verb λειτουργέω can be used of performing any public services, Josephus almost always uses it (except War 1.488) of the priests’ temple duties (War 2.321; 5.228, 231; Ant. 13.55; 20.218), as also the more frequent cognate noun. The cithara was a precursor of the zither (from which the latter as well as “guitar” take their names), an instrument using 8 to 11 taut strings. From representations on Greek vases and literary descriptions, it seems to have been partly open (like a lyre) and partly backed with a box for resonance (like a zither) at the lower end, from which two decorative arms emerged to support the head or yoke at the top. The strings were fastened to this yoke and at the bottom end of the instrument. These musicians are also Levites (see note to “servant of God” in this section): see Ant. 8.94, 176; 9.11, 269. For ancient music and instruments in general, see West 1992; for those kept and used in the temple, see the passages above and Ant. 7.305-6. That Josephus distinguishes the musicians from the “servants of God” who accompany the priests (also Levites) indicates a class distinction within the tribe of Levi, the singers constituting a lower order from the temple attendants. See Ezra 2:41-42; 7:7; 10:24; Neh 10:28 and Feldman, n. b to Ant. 20.218 in LCL. The doubly compounded Greek καταντιβολέω, which occurs a remarkable 8 times in War 1-5 (though nowhere else in Josephus), may be Josephus’ coinage. It is unattested in literature before him and appears after him only in the recherché list of words by Iulius Pollux (Onom. 1.26; 3.70) in the 2nd cent. CE, before Eusebius in the 4th century and a number of Byzantine appearances. It may be spun from the adjective καταντιβολεῖτον, attested in a fragment of Aristophanes (625-26 [Kock]). In context, τὸν ἱερὸν κόσμον appears to mean what has just been mentioned (clothes, instruments, etc.), metonymically for the whole temple service, which will be destroyed if the nation rebels. See the note at 2.316. This is strong foreshadowing. The sacred treasures of the temple (κεμηλία) are not to be confused with the treasury (θησαυρός), with its largely cash holdings—even though it also contained objects of value deposited by individuals and families (6.282). These are rather the distinctive sacred objects of Jerusalem’s temple itself (famously: the golden table and lampstand [menorah], along with other exotic and very costly items). By Josephus’ time of writing, as his Roman audience well knows, these have have been exhibited in the Flavian triumph as spoils of war; many of them now reside in Vespasian’s Temple of Peace (7.161-62). In Josephus’ Rome, then, these treasures were the visible symbol of Judea’s capture, also depicted in brilliant detail on the arch honoring Titus’ life or apotheosis (the restored “Arch of Titus” visible today), and he reveals a keen sensitivity to their fate.After anticipating their capture already in the prologue (1.28), he observes Pompey’s refusal to touch them when he captured the city in 63 BCE (1.153). Describing the final days before Jerusalem’s fall in 70 CE, however, he will detail a number of these objects (large, solid-gold tables, bowls, platters, and candelabra; the high priest’s finery; costly purple, scarlet, and spices) as items handed over by some of the last of Jerusalem’s deserters—a priest and the temple treasurer (6.387-91) and will describe the temple’s main treasures being paraded in the triumph (7.148-52).

Greek καταμωμένους . . . τὴν κεφαλήν κόνει. Although sprinkling ashes or dust on the head is part of the biblical symbolism of grief (see the note to “clothes” at 2.316; also LXX Job 2:12; Esther 4:1; Jer 6:26; 2 Macc 10:25), the verb καταμάω (“heap”) is extremely rare. Its only attestation before Josephus, outside of obscure fragments, is in Homer (Il. 24.163-5), where it describes Priam’s condition when Iris arrives in Troy to deliver a message: “And much dung was around both head and neck of the old man; thus he, wallowing in it, heaped it on with his own hands.” It is possible that Josephus alludes to this Greek-canonical scene, which would be known to his literate audience. That is, in 2.316: the tearing of clothes and the sprinkling of dust on the head go together as symbols of grief (see note there). This differential treatment of the élite and the general mob, which adds vividness to the story, was also shown by Petronius (2.199). For bk. 2’s pairing of chief priests and notables (here unusually distinguished) see 2.240, 243, 301, 318, 410, 411 and notes. This is the common metaphorical sense of [δι’ ἐλαχίστης] πλημμελείας; the rarely used literal meaning is a “false note” in music (cf. LSJ, s.v.)—perhaps a clever choice of words in the context of musicians. The error of judgment in this case would presumably involve acting from emotion or impulse rather than from a consideration of what was beneficial for the nation. By casting the various options as matters of judgment separated by small increments, as on a musical scale (albeit with widely varying consequences), Josephus again holds back from simple moral verdicts. The rhetorical questions posed by the leaders reveal their (and so the author’s) sensitivity to the people’s concerns for honor, right, and self-respect. Their brief address must be a tour de force, since they as statesmen are driven by consequences: they know that confronting the Romans, or not cooperating with them, will result in the destruction of the city, which must not be permitted to happen. They must now try to reach their audience, however, on grounds of right and justice.

Natural objections of the people to greeting the soldiers would be: (a) that it would be obsequious to give honor to (in effect) enemy soldiers, and (b) that they have been severely injured and wronged by these people, and so it would be wrong to offer them salutations. The statesmen try to reassure the people first that greeting the soldiers in the customary way will not help their enemies—so, there is nothing to lose. (Of course, one could imagine a retort that it would indeed give the soldiers an unmerited sense of power.) This pre-emptive analysis and separation of possible objections and motives among the audience by statesmen anticipates Agrippa’s great speech below (e.g., 2.345-58, esp. 350). As often, Josephus writes with ironic detachment: he makes the statesmen’s goals sound worthy, though he knows that they are mistaken about the outcome of this affair (2.325-26). Or “repair.” Josephus uses διόρθωσις only 5 times in War, 3 of these in the latter half of bk. 2 (also 2.354, 449). That is: granted the injuries endured by the people, it will not help them to make things right by refusing to greet the soldiers. Again, a reasonable objection might be that refusing to give the soldiers what they expect would be a significant assertion of the national dignity, a small but clear statement. Josephus leaves open the possibility that the leaders fully realize this, but must try to overcome such reasoning in order to repair relations with the governor.

In this case it was not internal Judean custom, but the custom of all nations under Roman rule, that subject populations would leave the city walls to welcome imperial soldiers. The noun ἀφορμή is usefully multivalent: it can mean simply “impulse, stimulus” or “occasion,” in the sense of what actually initiated something, or it can take the secondary sense of what a sought-for point of departure, thus a pretext. The ambiguity is exploited by Josephus at 1.30, for example. See also the note at 2.41. A tragically ironic hope, since author and audience well know that the leaders’ hope was vain (though not for that reason necessarily wrong-headed in the circumstances). In Josephus ἀκρασία usually implies a lack of self-control; hence “excess, wantonness, surfeit.” The context here, however, makes possible the more general sense of “weakness, inability to exert one’s power”—over the few trouble-makers. According to MS M (and a marginal note in L), which is the reading printed by Niese and followed by Thackeray in LCL, M-B, Vitucci and Pelletier, Josephus uses the infinitive of an extremely rare verb: συνευγνωμονέω. If that is the correct reading, he uses it only here and it is unattested otherwise except in (4th-cent.) ps.-Athanasius—so rare that it lacks an entry in LSJ. Still, it is the verb I translate here as “the more difficult reading.” MSS PAL have συνευδαιμονεῖν (“share in their own well-being”), MSS VR μὴ συγγνωμονεῖν (“not agree with them”).

Josephus uses the verb μειλίσσω 4 times, but only in War 1-3 (1.168, 508; 3.7). See the note to this key term at 1.10. See the note to “respect” at 2.314. Josephus re-uses the same word, characteristically, with different nuances. Josephus re-uses a term from 2.321 (κόσμος) in a different sense; see the note to “regalia” there.

See the note at 2.174 (and note re-use at 2.176). This word (σύνθημα) is one of the many links between this passage and the programmatic Pilate episodes. So 2.319. Auxiliary soldiers surrounding the Judeans and beating them with sticks is another item that recalls the second Pilate episode (2.176). It also anticipates the factional fighting at 5.102. This construction recalls, in both diction and syntax, the outcome of the second Pilate episode (2.177). Josephus evidently uses such literary resonances to unify these vignettes.

Presumably the gates of the city, given that the people had left the city to greet the arriving soldiers (2.320, 324-25). Nevertheless, the scene recalls an episode set at the crammed temple exits, involving Cumanus’ troops (2.227).

This (ἀνέδην) is another characteristic term in War, which hosts 12 of its 13 occurrences in Josephus (also Apion 2.273). Before Josephus the word has slight classical attestation: the heaviest users are Plato (4), Polybius (5), Diodorus (8), Strabo, and Philo (4 each). His contemporary, Plutarch, also uses it relatively frequently (16 times) and it remains popular in the 2nd cent. CE. Perhaps it was becoming newly fashionable. Thus, the auxiliaries approach the city from its N gate, first pushing through the extended suburb just inside the outer wall, N of the fortress Antonia. When Josephus later describes the city in detail (5.149-51, 246), to set the stage for the Flavian siege, he will carefully explain that Bezetha (see below for the form), also called New City, was the name of a hill around which a new suburb of the city had developed, outside the original walls and opposite the fortress Antonia, and which Agrippa I began to enclose in a sturdy new wall (already mentioned at 2.218-19 above); he aborted the project (or died leaving it unfinished), though it was completed with less impressive solidity when war broke out.With the qualifier “what was called,” Josephus acknowledges that he does not expect his audience to know this foreign name, but also that he will not take time to explain it. Similarly, in recounting Cestius Gallus’ campaign at 2.530 he will say only that the legate, once inside the city, set fire to Betheza, “also styled the New City, and the place called the Timber Market.” In both places Niese prints the form indicated here, in this passage following MS P (similar to MS A: Bethaza), presumably as the “more difficult reading,” since MSS MVRC have a form of Bezetha (followed by Thackeray in LCL, M-B, and Pelletier), L Bethzetha (likely influenced by John 5:2: Bethzatha, traditionally Bethesda) and Latin Bezeta. The confusion is easy enough to explain in principle: the word began with Hebrew ‮בית‬‎ (“house of”). The final th could be dropped in Greek to highlight the second part of the name, or it could be retained as here. The second part of the Semitic name remains uncertain: one proposal (drawn from MS variants at John 5:2, explaining Greek –σδ-) is ‮חסד(א)‬‎ (“grace, mercy”); another, favoring Josephus’ later -ζεθα, is ‮זית(א)‬‎ (“olives/olive oil”). Whereas Josephus describes the area as a hill with suburbs around, John gives this name to a large pool with 5 colonnades. As the sequel clarifies (2.330-31), the emphasis is here on the temple, which the soldiers will dominate once they reach the fortress Antonia on its NW corner. From its towering position, steps led down from the Antonia to the broad roofs of the N and W temple colonnades, from which the auxiliary cohort could dominate all movement on the temple mount some 4 stories below them; see note to “colonnade” at 2.224 and the description at 5.243-45. This is one of a number of terms (ἐφίημι) that Josephus re-uses in brief space here (2.331). See 2.301: Florus has made the Herodian palace his base while in Jerusalem. See “Antonia” in the previous sentence.

Or “campaign.” Although this is the first occurrence of ἐπιβολή in bk. 2, it reappears quickly at 2.333, 361. Such rapid re-use is characteristic of Josephus (see Introduction). The same phrase (ἄντικρυς ἐπιστραφείς) appears at 5.83. Josephus does not explain whether these are the roofs of houses or public buildings, of which there were a number in the area around Antonia. In the E Mediterranean, rooftops were usually accessible flat surfaces, fully part of the accommodation: they might be used for cooler sleeping areas or for meals. Latin supplies saxis (stones, rocks) here. Although that is not an unreasonable guess, since the Jerusalem area yields plenty of rock, especially perhaps with recent construction in the New City area, the noun that Josephus will use (“projectiles” below) is more general. See the note to this phrase at 2.49. Greek βέλη might suggest first of all “arrows, darts, or javelins,” though it can refer to any sort of throwable object. Josephus makes a play on διακόπτω in this sentence and the next (its only 2 appearances in War 2): Whereas the soldiers were unable to cut through the citizens opposing them, the Judeans were easily able to cut through the rock of the monumental colonnades (2.330)—and prevent the auxiliaries’ use of their customary observation platform. See 2.301 and the note to “palace” at 2.328.

See the note to this key term at 1.10. “Attack again”: the explicit antecedent was briefly mentioned at 2.328, where Florus attempted in vain to get his hands on temple funds but was blocked by the mob. The fear that he would try it again is justified in the narrative by characterizations of Florus’ all-consuming greed, and his earlier (remote) extraction of 17 talents (2.278-79, 293). See 2.328 and the note to “Antonia” there: the governor’s soldiers dominated the temple precincts by exiting the fortress on to the roof of the N and W colonnades. See the note at 2.48. Whatever this action involved (below), it was a daring move and highly consequential in the narrative: getting on top of the 12.5 m. (40-ft.) columns and somehow breaking them. Agrippa will cite it (along with the withholding of tribute) as an act of war, which must be undone immediately if the Judeans are to avoid open conflict with Rome (2.403). The people will briefly be persuaded and begin rebuilding the colonnades (κατήρξαντο τῆς τῶν στοῶν δομήσεως, 2.405)—evidently a major task.What exactly did they do to the colonnades? The verb “cut through” seems to be chosen first for the contrast with its use in the preceding sentence. The most likely meanings are cutting through a horizontal structure (i.e., the cedar-panel roof on which the auxiliaries walked: 5.190-92, 243-45) or a vertical one (i.e., somehow cutting off sections of the massive columns themselves). In spite of the incredible amount of labor that this would presumably have involved, the narrative evidence appears to support the latter: (a) normally, and much more easily, the cedar roof would be burned (2.49; 6.165-66, 177-81, 191; cf. Ant. 17.261); (b) in both 2.331 immediately below and Agrippa’s speech at 2.403, describing the same incident Josephus will use verbs meaning “lop off, sever, break off” (ἀπορρήγνυμι, ἀποκόπτω); (c) Florus is immediately convinced by this action that he has no chance of using the colonnades to reach the temple, which might suggest more extensive damage than merely cutting up pieces of the roof (2.49; 6.232-35); and (d) in Agrippa’s speech, the remedy is described as “re-attaching” (συνάπτω πάλιν), and “rebuilding, reconstruction” (δόμησις, 2.403, 404, 405). Although the columns were apparently not marble, as Josephus claims (5.190), they might have given that appearance; in any case, they must have been massive. At Ant. 15.413 he will say of the Royal Colonnade (along the S edge of the temple mount) that it would take 3 men to reach around a column and join hands: so perhaps 15 ft. (4.6 m) in circumference, a little less than 5 ft. in diameter. Although the columns near the Antonia were perhaps not as thick, the rebellious action of breaking them off was clearly no trivial matter.

Florus’ greed has dominated his term in office; it was grandly introduced at 2.279. Note here its association with “heat”—therefore, with ungoverned passions (like Antiochus in 1.32-36, the first temple-plunderer in the narrative). See the note at 2.328. See the note to this phrase in the singular at 2.50; the temple treasuries of Jerusalem are in view. Greco-Roman temples housed treasuries as well, and these were often eyed by tyrants. See the note to “plundered” at 2.50. See the note in the previous sentence. See “cut through [them]” and its note in the previous sentence. Here Josephus re-uses the verb from 3.283 (ἀπορρήγνυμι), now in a literal sense. Josephus uses βουλή for the council of any Greek city and even as an alternative term for the Roman Senate (see the note at 2.211). Although Jerusalem did not at this time have all the institutions of a Greek polis (gymnasium, ephebate, games, statues, dramatic contexts with sacrifices; contrast coastal Caesarea), the basic structure of internal governance was close enough that its aristocratic deliberative body could be called by the standard term. Plainly Josephus intends the group of councilors, though he can also use βουλή to mean the place where the council met, near the xystus (5.145; cf. note at 2.344). Since the chief priests and powerful men were themselves the core of the council’s membership (see 2.239 [note to “powerful”] and 243), the “and” is more epexegetical than additional, as also at 2.336. Cf. the NT—Mark 14:55; 15:1; Matt 26:59; Luke 22:66—though the council is there called τὸ συνέδριον.It is curious that War consistently uses the latter term, without article, to indicate an ad hoc meeting (called by a king or other ruling figure): see the note to “council” at 2.25. The council must have been widely known as τὸ συνέδριον, however, to account for NT usage and the Aramaic loan-word ‮סנהדרין‬‎ (“Sanhedrin”) in rabbinic literature. Because synedrion does not normally refer to a standing council in Josephus, some scholars have doubted the existence of a standing body. Although they have rightly challenged the old notion of a kind of representative parliament comprising different parties (Goodman 1987: 113-18; Sanders 1992: 472-81), it is clear throughout Josephus that Jerusalem had something recognizable as a standing council with regular meetings and a meeting place. In Antiquities (4.186, 218, 220, 222, 255-56; 4.324-25; 5.15, 23, etc.) Josephus will frequently call the governing body of in Judea, led by the high priest, ἡ γερουσία; in Life (65, 72, 190, 254, 267, 309, 341, 393; cf. Ant. 6.17), the war-time governing coalition of the entire nation, still led by chief priests, is called τὸ κοινὸν [τῶν Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν], like provincial councils elsewhere. Cf. McLaren 1991: 211-25; Mason 1995: 160, 165-77; BJP 9, note to “general assembly” at § 65. Greek ὅσην ἂν ἀξιώσωσιν implies that the size of the garrison, which had always been a cohort (perhaps of double strength; see the note to “cohort” at 2.224), was now the choice of the Judean leaders—given the severe strain between the auxiliaries and the populace. Florus is, for the moment, chastened and reverting (ostensibly) to his proper role of facilitating collaboration with the local élite.

This is another example of Josephus’ ironic detachment. Notwithstanding his respect for his own élite class, he presents them as promising what they cannot in fact deliver (“everything” that a reasonable governor should want to hear—about peace and security) as they speed him on his way. “One cohort” (μίαν . . . σπεῖραν) is the leaders’ response to Florus’ offer (2.331): he would leave whatever size of garrison political class chose; they request a return to the status quo ante of one cohort (cf. 2.224; 5.444), excluding only the most hated unit from garrison duty. This language implies, however, that the cohorts were interchangeable in terms of size (they want any one except that one), which militates against the inference from the existence of a tribune that the Jerusalem cohort was of double strength (see note to “cohort” at 2.224). This sentence and the next will make it clear that a single cohort was held responsible for the fighting, though it is unclear which one. Josephus has described two scenes of horrific fighting. The first (2.305-10), apparently more severe, involved the soldiers that Florus brought with him from Sebaste (2.296)—both infantry and cavalry. The more recent conflict (3.326-8), and the more natural antecedent for this demand, seems to have involved the two supplementary cohorts recently arrived (2.318). See also the note to “exchanged the cohort” at 2.332. Although this phrase comprising verb and adverb (ἀπεχθῶς + ἔχω) is idiomatic Greek, it is slightly attested in other literature (Aesop, Fab. 97.3; Demosthenes, Pac. 18; 3 Macc. 5.3; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 11.59.3; Chion, Ep. 16.2); Josephus uses it more routinely (8 times): also 7.56; Ant. 2.12; 13.35, 85; 20.162; Life 375, 384. Josephus’ language seems to imply that Florus already has a cohort in place, but because it is considered unacceptable by the Judeans in view of its role in the conflicts (see the note to “fought” in this section), he exchanges it (ἀλλάσσω). Yet in the preceding narrative, he has just offered to leave a cohort of the Judean leaders’ choosing; now that they have expressed their preference, it is puzzling that he should need to exchange units.The best solution may be that Josephus misleads by narrative compression. If there was a cohort already based in Jerusalem, which would normally be rotated out after Passover anyway (cf. 2.169-74 and note to “standards” at 2.169 and 2.224 with note to “cohort”), perhaps the exchange of cohorts is not direcly related to the conflict just concluded. That is: knowing that he needs to change the cohort anyway, but recognizing the extreme hostility of the populace to the auxiliaries after recent events, Florus invites them to choose the size and type of unit—from among the cohorts that have recently entered the city (apparently at least 3 cohorts and one cavalry wing). The leaders gratefully specify 1 cohort as optimal, as long as it is not the one held most responsible by the mob. So Florus makes the scheduled exchange and leaves with the rest. At least 4 units (3 auxiliary cohorts and a cavalry wing), equivalent to the number that recently entered Jerusalem (2.296, 318), but with the replaced Jerusalem cohort. Although some units came with Florus from Sebaste (2.196), they will all return to Roman headquarters in Caesarea for now. The governor’s headquarters; see the note at 2.16.

This is the 2nd of 3 occurrences of the noun ἐπιβολή in bk. 2, all coming in close proximity; see note at 2.329. The governor (legatus Augusti pro praetore) of Syria, C. Cestius Gallus. See the note at 2.280, also to “Cestius” at 1.20. We last saw him (at 2.282) returing to Antioch after a Passover visit to Jerusalem, having promised to restrain Gessius Florus. During that visit, Florus ridiculed the Judeans’ accusations before his distinguished senatorial guest and, after escorting him out of the province, began to plot the beginnings of a war that would cover up his enormities. This letter is presumably the beginning of that campaign. The same phrase (Ἰουδαίων ἀπόστασις) has occurred at 2.39. See note to “rebellion” there. Or “pinned on them.” Josephus uses metaphorically a verb that he normally employs in a literal sense, especially in relation to the fitting of a diadem on one’s head: 1.70, 393; 2.27, 57, 62; Ant. 11.54, 203; 12.389; 13.113; 144, 367; 17.202, 273, 280; 18.237; 20.32, 65, 241. It may be significant that Florus blames the Judeans not for the causes (αἰτίαι) of the conflict, but only for its beginning (ἀρχή): they started it! For this crucial Polybian distinction, see the note to “justification” at 2.285. This fits with the narrator’s perspective that it was Florus’ deliberate intention to provoke trouble (as in the opening of this section; cf. 2.277-83); he was the real cause. Still, it is odd that Josephus should not have this character claim that the causes were on the Judean side. Perhaps he wishes to present Florus as an ignorant fellow who mistakes beginnings for true causes, like those criticized by Polybius (22.18.6-11), an oversight that allows him to ignore his own role; more likely he has Florus posturing as a governor keen to punish perceived trouble-makers, irrespective of true causes. This is the first appearance in Josephus of this clever contrast (δράω + πάσχω), which he uses often in the sequel: 3.106, 207, 346; 4.185, 221; 5.256, 316; 7.273, 396; Ant. 2.107; 3.22; 12.433; 13.199; 14.142; 15.283; 16.37, 99, 234, 390; 20.258; Life 357; Apion 2.131. The collocation has wide attestation in classical authors, particularly the tragedians, since a common element of drama (δρᾶμα derives from δράω) is the reciprocity or “poetic justice” connected with “doing” and “suffering” ([Seven Sages], Sent. 216; [Aesop], Fab. 246; Aeschylus, Agam. 533; Choeph. 313, 1010; Thucydides 1.78.3; 3.38.1; 4.15.2; 6.35.1; 7.71.7, 77.4; Euripides, Med. 289, 693; Heracl. 176; Hipp. 598; Andr. 438; Hec. 253; Suppl. 1179; Troi. 792-93; Ion. 342-43, 1248; Phoen. 480; Or. 1455-56; Rhes. 483, 742-43; Sophocles, Elec. 389-90; Ant. 235-36; Phil. 315-16; Oed. col. 267. 953; Aristophanes, Vesp. 385, 1256-57; Thesm. 519; Plut. 87-88; Xenophon, Hell. 4.5.7; Anab. 5.1.15; Isocrates, Loch. 2; Plato, Leg. 642e, 834a, 865e, 872e, 953b). The phrase highlights the tragic element of War, reinforced in the following passages by repeated use of lamentation language. The short-hand nature of the expression is obvious from the fact that the Judeans could not actually have done most of what Josephus has described Florus as doing: plunder, torture, despoiling cities, accepting bribes (2.277-78). Possibly “magistrates of Hierosolyma.” This is the second occurrence of the phrase οἱ τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων ἄρχοντες in Josephus, after 2.237 a few sentences earlier, and it will not appear again—illustrating his tendency to re-use terms in a short space and then drop them (see Introduction). On the possible range of meanings, see the note to “magistrates” at 2.216, and to “leaders [of Hierosolyma]” at 2.234, 237. The sister of Agrippa II (cf. 2.217 and note) has consistently acted, even at the peril of her own life, to protect the Judeans from Florus’ depradations (2.310-14). This phrase recalls its last occurrence (2.317), where it was used to summarize the grievances of the people against Florus for his many misdeeds to that point. See also the note at 2.15.

Although this could refer to the letters from the Judean leaders and Berenice, the emphatic position of “both” in the sentence implies that Cestius was honorable enough to hear both Florus and his distinguished Judean accusers. He has already, according to Josephus, heard the complaints of some 3 million Judeans against this procurator and given the impression that he would provide relief (2.280-81). As the sequel shows, this term includes at least the legates, camp prefects, and tribunes of his 4 legions. After the major redistributions of the eastern legions necessitated by Corbulo’s campaigns, Syria was left with legions III Gallica, IV Scythica, VI Ferrata, and XII Fuliminata (Parker 1992: 138). The available legates, camp prefects, and tribunes (32 in total), along with other senior members of the entourage, might have amounted to between 20 and 30. “Go back,” given Cestius’ previous visit (2.280-82); or possibly “go up” (ἀναβαίνω) in keeping with standard language for the trip to Jerusalem (see the note to “going up” at 2.232). See the note to this word at 2.39. I.e., remaining loyal to Rome, according to the scenario portrayed in Florus’ letter of substantial anti-Roman activity by the Judeans. The absence of a definite article with the participle may serve to highlight the uncertainty whether there were indeed any such Judeans. Most MSS (AMLVRC) have τινα at this point, matching the next sentence (“one of his tribunes”). Most modern editors follow Niese in omitting the word from the Greek, but they translate as if it were present: “to send out one of his companions, who would investigate . . . .” But its absence from P, one of the best MSS, prompts us to consider seriously the “more difficult reading” that remains without it. The standard reading suggests that Cestius’ companions were all competent; he simply chose one for reasons unknown. The reading chosen here, however, implies that Cestius particularly trusted Neapolitanus to give a fair report based on independent investigation. That implication fits better with the context: whereas his commanders have assumed Judean culpability (or they would not have advocated taking the field with an army), in a pointed rejection of this advice Cestius passes over even his legionary legates to choose the one person he thinks will give him a trustworthy assessment. Tellingly, the sequel shows Neapolitanus to be considerate and solicitous: going out of his way to meet up with King Agrippa, presenting himself without intimidation so as to elicit frank speech, and praying respectfully before departing Jerusalem (2.340-41). Josephus implicitly honors the distinguished legate for his care to learn the real situation and his refusal to indulge his senior officers’ anti-Judean reflexes. Like “friends” (see note at 2.4), ἑταῖροι could be simply “comrades, colleagues” on a truly personal level or quasi-official figures in the rentinue of a ruler (most famously in the early Macedonian court: an élite cavalry unit who served also as military advisers). Josephus almost always uses the term of kings, governors, and generals, suggesting the more formal sense: a member of the senior advisory group or council. This is confirmed by the identity of the person in question here, a military tribune. The adverb πιστῶς can mean both “in a faithful, loyal way” and “in a credible, trustworthy, believable way.” Both meanings are operative here, though the emphasis on prior investigation tends to emphasize the latter. The commanders assume that the Judeans are in revolt, or some of them are; in response, either the entire rebellion needs to be put down or those remaining loyal to Rome need military support against rebel factions. They have thus been more strongly influenced than Cestius by Florus’ letter. He will send a trusted emissary to find out the facts, and that emissary will report on the willingness of the populace to accommodate all Romans but Florus (2.340-41).

MSS PAML have only δέ; VRC have οὖν δέ, Latin ergo. This translation assumes the consequential connective. For “tribune” see the notes at 2.11 and 244, which however concern officers of allied and auxiliary forces. In the early empire the governor of a province, here Cestius, commanded all of its legions (currently 4 in Syria; see the note to “commanders” at 2.334). Each legion’s most senior commanders, alongside the senatorial (praetorian) legatus legionis and the praefectus castrorum (camp commander), were its 6 tribunes: the highest ranked was usually a man of about 20-24, headed for a senatorial career after his 1-year tour (tribunus laticlavius); the other 5 were typically equestrians (tribuni angusticlavii). For the equestrians, the legionary tribunate typically came after command of an auxiliary infantry cohort, as prefect, and before command of a prestigious auxiliary cavalry wing (ala), again as prefect: Parker 1992: 188-90; Webster 1979: 112-13. While he served the legion, a tribune’s work was largely advisory, administrative, and legal (cf. Tacitus, Ann. 1.37, 44), though in combat he had at least nominal responsibility for two cohorts (Le Bohec 1994: 39). According to Life 120-21, Josephus will later face a cavalry prefect named Neapolitanus in Galilee. Given that these Roman officers bear the same unusual cognomen (“man of Naples/Neapolis,” scarcely attested otherwise; cf. Kajanto 1982: 191), in the same region and at the same period (66-67 CE), and given the typical career progression reflected in a move from tribune to cavalry prefect (previous note), it is likely that the same person is in view (revising my note ad loc. in BJP 9). Putting together generally known conditions with clues from Josephus’ narratives: when he was sent on this fact-finding mission to Jerusalem, Neapolitanus appears to have been a young equestrian with significant military experience already. He has won the much older governor’s respect for his fairness and good judgment. As M-B point out (2.446 n. 170), the tribune went out of his way to meet up with the Judean king, for otherwise he would have left the coastal road further N than Yavneh/Iamnia (likely at Caesarea, to travel via Antipatris and Lod; cf. Cestius’ later route at 2.515). This suggests a determined effort at diplomacy, working with the local élite as much as possible; see the note to “Judeans” at 2.334. It is not clear whether the Iamnia in question is the port or the inland town on the road from Ashkelon. If the former, then it seems that Agrippa also went out of his way, remaining on the coastal road from the S much further than he would normally have done en route to Jerusalem. If the latter, Agrippa probably left the coast at Ashkelon to follow the road inland via Iamnia. Either way Neapolitanus has made the major detour. Cf. 2.309: King Agrippa II made a trip to Alexandria to celebrate with (Ti. Iulius) Alexander on the latter’s appointment to the prestigious post of Egyptian prefect [66 CE]. See the notes there and at 2.385 below. Given the foregoing narrative, the audience might be expected to understand not only the reasons why Cestius dispatched an emissary but also the reasons why Neapolitanus was chosen: that is, perhaps this briefing includes a presentation of the whole situation, with Florus’ letter and the hostile mood of Cestius’ commanders.

Chief priests and powerful men are a regular pair in War; see the note to “chief priests” at 2.243. See the note at 2.331. See the note at 2.2: these are the expected, formalized niceties toward the powerful. See the note to this tragic language (ἀποδύρομαι) at 2.292. This is a key word (συμφορά) in War’s tragic vocabulary; see 1.9, 11; 2.86 and notes. I.e., in particular the suffering of the élite. Josephus has explored this (2.301-8): when members of the upper class, being summoned before his tribunal, refused to give up the youths who had insulted him, Florus became enraged. He allowed his soldiers to plunder their residences, had them whipped, and even crucified those of equestrian status (like himself).

Or “in the manner of a general, he transferred. . .” (στρατηγικῶς δὲ τὴν ὀργὴν εἰς οὑς ἠλέει Ἰουδαίους μετέφερεν). See the note to “revenge” in this section. This is part of War’s tragic lexicon; see the note at 2.280 (also in the prologue 1.10 and “compassion” at 1.12). See further 2.421 below. King Agrippa thus acts as a leader should, according to common wisdom at the time: he stands as a mediator between the ruling power and the people, trying to influence the Roman governors for better treatment of the people and protect them against unscrupulous governors (cf. Berenice at 2.333), while dousing the flames of grievance and rebellion among the people (cf. Momigliano 1971: 29-30). See 2.421 below, which spells out his predicament as a statesman between people and overlord. He tries to deal with potential unrest internally, so that “outside physicians and medicines” will not be necessary; even though he did not create the storms himself, he must remain to deal with them, using his frank speech like an anchor in the storm (Plutarch, Mor. [Praec.] 814b-c).

Cf. Salmeri (2000: 74, discussing Dio Chrysostom’s world): “In the Greek cities when the have-nots found themselves in dire straits they had nothing to lose if they raided the notables’ houses and attracted the attention of the Roman authorities. . . . It was, by contrast, in the interests of the upper classes for harmony and order to reign in the cities; indeed, it was an indispensable condition for them to be able to enjoy their economic well-being.” We need not take Josephus’ observation, which seems geared mainly to contrasting the clamor of the poor masses, as absolute—as though the élite were motivated solely by material considerations. Holding property was one ingredient of a larger social system, making possible also an education that tended to value peaceful relations. Greek συνίεσαν εὐνοϊκὴν τὴν ἐπίπληξιν τοῦ βασιλέως. Both adjective and noun occur only here in Josephus, and the adjective is rarely attested before his time, though the adverbial form εὐνοϊκῶς (as at Ant. 7.259; 13.167) was common. About 7.5 miles or 12 km. Although the masses’ welcoming of the powerful outside the city is a typical scene (see the note to “meet the soldiers” at 2.297), Josephus’ notice about the considerable distance here, for the populace to walk (there and back), highlights their feelings of outrage and urgency. It is unclear which route Agrippa and Neapolitanus would have followed from Iamnia (via Ammaus or via the Sorek Valley and Beit-Shemesh). See the note at 2.335.

See the note at 2.30. This verb (κωκύω) occurs only here in Josephus. It would have resonated with educated audiences as the typical activity of mourning women in Greek tragedy (LSJ, s.v.: Homer, Il. 18.37; Od. 2.361; Aeschylus, Agam. 1313; Sophocles, Ant. 28). On tragic vocabulary in War, see the note to “mourn over” at 1.9. See the note to this tragic-pathetic word (οἰμωγή) at 2.6. Josephus continues the tragic vocabulary with ὀλοφυρμός, on which see the note to “mourn over” at 1.9. See the note to “yelling at” (same verb) at 2.175. At 2.305, Florus in anger had ordered his auxiliaries to plunder the Upper Market near the Herodian palace. According to 2.305, Florus’ soldiers far exceeded his orders and plundered also the residences of the wealthy.

Agrippa’s agency was no doubt both a practical necessity, given that the masses (not members of a Greek-speaking élite) are clamoring, and a political one. Agrippa continues to the play the proper role of a statesman, as intermediary between his people and ultimate Roman authorities. Although the verb περιελθεῖν might suggest that Neapolitanus, who has already been shown the Upper City on the W side, goes around the city perimeter (to the N, E, and S), this would be a formidable walk, negotiating the outer walls and steep ravines, and a seemingly pointless route if he wished to see large numbers of people. More likely, given that he aims to assess the popular mood, he moves from the Upper City in the W to the Siloam Pool area in the S through the densely populated Lower City. This route seems confirmed by the complementary verb διοδεύω (“strolled through”) in this section. The verb might mean “go around within” or it might refer to his passing by the eastern curve of the Upper City hill. As one would assume, at 3.61 Josephus will note that the attendants (or servants) of the allied kings were themselves trained fighters, hardly different from soldiers. Josephus’ notice here suggests that Neapolitanus was asked (and agreed) to forego his normal entourage and security detail, apparently to encourage a more direct access to the people he encountered. Perhaps this one attendant was also an interpreter, to assist in any conversations that arose. Josephus uncharacteristically mentions without explanation a place that is likely unfamiliar to his Roman audience; he will introduce it properly at 5.140; cf. 5.145, 252, 410, 505; 6.363, 401. This slip may have occurred because the phrase “as far as Siloam” was something of a formula for him (also 5.140; 6.363), to describe the S extremity of the city. The site, made famous by the Gospel of John (9:7, 11), was a fresh-water pool on the SW side of the hill that comprised the old City of David. It was a reservoir for water originating in the Gihon Spring on the E of the hill, from where it was conducted safely within the city by King Hezekiah’s 8th-cent. BCE tunnel (1750 ft./0.33 miles/0.53 km). The traditional site of the pool, rebuilt and marked with a Byzantine church in the 5th cent. CE by Empress Eudocia, has been superseded by the discovery in 2004 of a large pool (ca. 50 m long) with several tiers of steps on at least 3 sides, less than 200 m. S of the traditional site. See Shanks 2005. This hyperbolic phrase (ὑπερβολή ὠμότητος)—for “savagery” is excessive by definition—is characteristically Josephan. It reoccurs at 4.16; 6.373; cf. 1.97; Ant. 9.231; 13.383; 18.44. Before his time, it is attested most often in Diodorus (20.72.5; 33.14.4, 15.1; 34/35.29.1), occasionally in Demosthenes (Mid. 109), Polybius (24.3.1), and Philo (Agr. 155; Spec. 4.202). See the note to “go around the city” in this section. I.e., in the temple precincts, which included the Court of Gentiles; see the note to “permitted” at 2.341.

Or “loyalty toward the Romans” (ἡ πρὸς Ῥωμαίους πίστις). This is a stock phrase in Josephus, normally used of cities that maintain this political stance (4.418; Ant. 19.289; Life 39, 46, 71, 104, 349). The phrase apparently comes either from Polybius, the only writer attested using it before Josephus (7.1.3; 10.37.10; 21.46.2; 24.10.9; 27.16.2), or directly from Latin usage. Greek πίστις represents Latin fides, a central political-social value in Roman discourse, connoting also honesty, constancy, and trusworthiness (Cicero, Off. 1.7.23: “truth and fidelity to promises and agreements”). By using this charged verb (προσκυνέω) here Josephus foreshadows the coming speech of Agrippa, which will employ the same verb several times—ironically, of those nations that now make obeisance to Rome (2.360, 366, 380). Even more important, Neapolitanus’ action anticipates the pivotal narrative at 2.408-416, where the younger priests decide to prohibit both sacrifices and gifts from foreigners. At 2.414 the elders severely castigate their younger colleagues for this, which will make the Judeans the only nation to prevent foreigners from making obeisance to God at their temple. Apparently a reference to the outer court of the temple, where a gentile such as Neapolitanus could make such a gesture; cf. 5.193-94 on the balustrade inscription barring gentiles from access to the inner compound. Such expressions of piety from foreigners were welcome but not surprising: it was expected that one would acknowledge local deities wherever one traveled. Herod’s temple had made ample provision for gentile visitors, with its massive outer court. The platform was an irregular quadrilateral, whose outer walls measured as follows: 278 m (912 ft) on the S, 485 m (1590 ft) on the W, 315 m (1035 ft) on the N, and 468 m (1536 ft) on the E; cf. Ritmeyer and Ritmeyer 2006. A large part of this space, much of what was added by Herod, was available to non-Judean visitors. See 2.335 above.

Josephus portrays a realistic sense of the political dynamics. Having persuaded the powerful Syrian legate’s military emissary that they are committed to peace with Rome, a posture they emphasize in this sentence, the people freely convey their true feelings of grievance to their national representatives, whose task it is to intercede for them with higher authorities. The phrase (τοσοῦτος φόνος) appears also at 1.34; 2.472; cf. 1.355; 3.535; 6.89; Ant. 12.347 14.484. Although it seems a natural phrase, before his time it is attested only in the Hellenistic historians Diodorus (13.23.4; 15.17.4, 57.3; cf. 2.26.7) and Dionysius (Ant. rom. 3.35.6; 8.25.1; 9.21.2). See the note at 2.39. The proposed embassy would thus have two purposes: the fairly standard activity of accusing a governor and, more urgently, the removal of any impression that the large number of Judeans killed under Florus revealed that the people were in rebellion against Rome—that if so many Judeans were dying, they must have been doing something to deserve it (necessitating Roman intervention).

Josephus builds tension by anticipating Agrippa’s response and thus pinning him on the horns of a dilemma, from which only a brilliant speech might rescue him. The alternative was election by lot: see the note to the cognate adjective at 2.123. That is (ἐπίφθονος), something that would generate a grudge against him. Who would bear the grudge? Florus, at least, though a successful prosecution might nullify his significance. More importantly, Agrippa may be concerned not to offend Cestius Gallus, the Syrian legatus who is responsible for Judea, as he has shown by sending Neapolitanus and will show again by personal intervention with the Twelfth Legion (2.499-555; see the note to “province” at 2.117). Agrippa could not authorize an embassy without Cestius’ decision, and he may have felt that it was not his business (as king of a neighboring territory) to inform Cestius of his own subordinate’s misgovernment in Judea, the more so after the legate’s own tribune has completed an independent investigation, conducted with Agrippa’s support, which should have reported the popular hatred of Florus. It is now up to Cestius to deal with the situation, without further pleading from the king. Note 2.351 below: “it is to your own detriment that you expose the objects of scandal.” Although the context is different, Pliny’s correspondence (Ep. 7.6) preserves an example (in the Bithynians’ dropping of their case against Varenus Rufus) of the political complications in which provincial élites might find themselves; see Swain 1996: 222-23. See the note to “fan the flames of [war]” at 2.293. This is the same verb, here the aorist passive participle. Florus is the agent who has fanned the people into flame for war. Josephus uses a disarmingly vivid adjective, albeit metaphorically, indicating literally “tax relief” and so “profit”: οὐδὲ αὐτῷ λυσιτελὲς. It lacks the ambiguity of “advantageous” at 2.346: amongst his other considerations, the king makes a cold calculation of personal interest. At 2.421 below he will use a cognate verb, again to expose Agrippa’s personal calculations—along with a genuine concern to keep both the people and the Romans happy. The shift from this claim by the narrator, concerning Agrippa’s internal motives, to Agrippa’s claim at 2.346 (cf. 2.401) that he is concerned solely with the people’s benefit may explain the apparent mismatch between the speech’s occasion (i.e., the demand for an embassy) and its content (i.e., dissuasion from war against Rome). Agrippa simply does not want to address the embassy issue and so decides to focus instead on the anger of the rabble, artificially exploring the ultimate consequences in war as a means of winning their agreement (2.402-5).

Josephus will mention the xystus several times again in War. Most important: at 5.144 he will cite it as one terminus of the W-E wall that extended from the Hippicus Tower of Herod’s palace (at the W of the Upper City near present Jaffa Gate) to the xystus and the council house, from where it proceeded (now as a bridge across the Tyropean Valley, above the present Wilson’s Arch) to meet the western colonnade of the temple platform. Cf. also 6.191 (“the [temple] gates that led to the xystus”) and 6.377 (auxiliary troops build up earthworks from the xystus to the level of the bridge above). At 6.325, Titus will address the rebels in the city by taking up a position to the W of the temple, where there were gates “above the xystus” and a bridge connecting the temple to the Upper City. So we have a fairly clear picture of the xystus’ location, on the slope leading to the Upper City. But what sort of facility was it?The word ξυστός (literally “polished, scraped”) would have been familiar to a Roman audience. It originated as a Greek architectural term for the covered colonnade of a gymnasium (Pausanias 6.23.1—an enclosed gymnasium structure at Elis, named in that case for the thistles having been “scraped up” by Heracles in the area); in Roman usage it more often indicated an open courtyard with gardens, adjoining either a gymnasium or a stately residence (cf. Vitruvius 5.11.5). Given Agrippa’s gathering of the people in the xystus, from where they could however see Berenice in full view on the roof of the Hasmonean palace above, we should conclude that this was a xystus in the Roman sense: a large open terrace beneath the walls of the Hasmonean palace to the W and the bridge emerging from the first wall to the N.A xystus does not require a gymnasium, and it is not clear that a gymnasium existed in Jerusalem at this time (66 CE). Such a facility, whose name reflected the naked exercise that occurred there, was a central emblem of Greco-Roman culture and citizenship, on a par with athletic games, dramatic festivals, and their attendant sacrifices. The building of such a Greek facility in Jerusalem had been a major factor in precipitating the Hasmonean revolt (1 Macc. 1.14-15; 2 Macc. 4.9-10; Ant. 12.241). Whereas War generally emphasizes Herod’s building of Greek facilities and sponsoring the related festivals in foreign centers (1.422-28), War 2.44 has mentioned a hippodrome in the vicinity of Jerusalem. At Ant. 15.267-76, Josephus will support his more antagonistic portrait of Herod there with a review of foreign institutions and customs that he brought into Jerusalem: soon after the confirmation of his rule by Octavian (Augustus), Herod built a decorated theater and amphitheater, instituted quinquennial games, and invited athletes from around the world to compete for generous prizes. The related activities Josephus describes under Herod’s rule—naked exercise and chariot-racing (Ant. 15.270-71)—presuppose the existence of a gymnasium and hippodrome. The theater was “in Jerusalem” (Ant. 15.268, 277-78, though a theater cavea has been identified S of the Hinnom Valley, facing Jersalem from that direction; Richardson 1996: 186-87), the amphitheater “in the plain” (Ant. 15.268, presumably SW of the city). The hippodrome was likely the same structure as the amphitheater (compare 1.659 with 1.666 and see note to “stadium” at 2.172)—also to the S (War 2.44; Ant. 17.255). Given that Josephus limits his attack on these violations of Judean law to King Herod’s actions at a specific time, and given his portrait of widespread popular hostility to such practices, comparable to the outbreaks of protest under Pilate and Petronius for perceived violations of law in relation to pagan symbols, it is difficult to imagine that these institutions remained unchanged, especially under the high-priestly administration of Jerusalem after 6 CE—with Roman governors based in Caesarea. Indeed, one or both facilities might have been built only of wood, as temporary structures (see the full discussion in Bernett 2007: 52-66). It is possible, however, that the structures themselves endured to the time of Agrippa’s speech (with modified functions). Josephus’ verb παρίστημι is ambiguous: it may suggest “placing alongside” (himself) or “placing before, to be present with” (the crowd)—Agrippa has positioned Berenice in full view as a kind of prop. In favor of the latter (followed by Whiston and Thackeray) are the absence of any explicit reference to the king’s position and the apparent restriction of “in plain view” to the queen. In favor of the former is the common-sense assumption that the roof would have been the best place from which to give his speech and the notice at 2.402 that king and sister together burst into tears on its completion. Since the adjective περίοπτος already means “in full view, able to be seen all around” (cf. the use at 2.476), Josephus’ phrase ἐν περιόπτῳ is redundant; he uses it only here, perhaps for emphasis; before his time it seems attested only in Philo (Dec. 125; later Appian, Bell. civ. 2.18.131; 4.1.2), which may mean that it was simply a phrasal variation in some circles (note the frequent parallels to Philo in War’s language). Josephus explains the site here because he has not mentioned it before, and he will not do so again in War. At Ant. 20.189-90, however, he will offer a further brief description: the Hasmoneans had erected a palace near the Xystus (see the note in this section), and Agrippa II added to this a large extra story (οἴκημα), from which he had a commanding view of the priests going about their business in the temple.It is uncertain here whether Agrippa and Berenice are positioned on this recently built story (in which case the “in full view” notice would have special meaning for Josephus) or along an eastern wall of the compound. Or “towards the junction [or “crossing”] of the Upper City” (πρὸς τὸ πέραν τῆς ἄνω πόλεως). Josephus’ phrasing is not perfectly clear, but perhaps clear enough—for a Roman audience lacking a picture of the area—to place the palace on the Upper-City side opposite the temple, as he will later explain. See the note to “residence” in this section, also 5.144; Ant. 20.189-90. This is apparently the bridge whose base is preserved in Wilson’s Arch. After crossing the Tyropean Valley, where the bridge met the xystus, the council house, and the Hasmonean palace, pedestrians continued along the broad wall leading to Herod’s palace in the W of the city; see the preceding notes.

Josephus will give the chief priest Jesus, addressing the Idumeans, the same opening phrase (4.240): “If I saw [εἰ μὲν ἑώρων] . . . , whereas in fact. . . .” Beginning the exordium of a speech with an unreal condition introduced by εἰ as here (“If it were the case that X, then perhaps I might have agreed to Y”), was common among the Greek orators: Lysias Orr. 16, 32; Isocrates, Antid. 15, 18; Hel. enc. 2.1; and most famously Demosthenes, Phil. 1, with its crescendo of “if” clauses; Androt. 4.1. Cf. Xenophon, Anab. 5.6.30; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 3.28; 17.1; Lucian, Merc. 5. As always, Josephus shows himself fully aware of rhetorical convention. Josephus uses the imperfect indicative (εἰ μὲν ἑώρων), followed by ἄν in the apodosis (“I would neither have come. . . .”), to stress non-fulfillment of the action in question (Smyth §: 2292). Agrippa appears to have set up an artificial context so that he can deploy the full range of arguments against war with Rome. According to the immediately preceding narrative, the people have been clamoring for an embassy to Nero (2.342-44), to make clear that the current unrest was caused only by Florus, emphatically not by a desire for war with Rome. See Excursus. Or “most guiltless.” The phrase, “the purest element of the populace” (τοῦ δήμου τὸ καθαρώτατον) is used similarly by Dionysius (Ant. rom. 10.8.1—contrasting the charge of a mob) and Philo (Flac. 141). Josephus uses the adjective εἰλικρινής (here superlative) only here in War, elsewhere at Ant. 19.321. Runnalls (1997: 747) observes that the double superlative sharpens the contrast between the groups of which Agrippa approves and those (beginning in 2.346) of whom he disapproves. The phrase τὰ δέοντα ποιεῖν is formulaic: Aesop, Fab. 336; Xenophon, Oec. 12.13; Demosthenes, Olynth. 1.6; 2.3; 3.3, 11; Chers. 51; Phil 3.4; Cor. 246; Epit. 18; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 70.9. See the note to this important theme, the opposite of στάσις, at 2.166 (“concord”). This phrase (πρὸς τὸ χεῖρον) anticipates its opposite at the end of 2.346: Agrippa can speak about what he considers “advantageous” (τὸ συμφέρον or τὸ βέλτιον; see the note there) because not everyone has determined to opt for the worse. Cf. the use of these near opposites in Aristotle, Magn. mor. 1.34.17; Pol. 1316b; Chrysippus, Frag. log. phys. 989; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 6.62.1; Philo, Jos. 75; Dio, Or. 68.5.

Or “prompted, aroused, stirred” (παροξύνω). See the note to this dramatic verb at 2.8. The translation here casts in the passive voice, for the sake of English idiom, what the Greek has in the active (“Seeing that an age [in life] inexperienced in the evils of war some, an irrational hope for freedom some, and a certain greed a few . . . provokes . . .”). As in Thucydides (5.99) and Polybius (11.32.5-7), so also here this verb often indicates behavior driven by emotion (see “irrational hope” in this section) rather than rational analysis. For inexperience on account of age, cf. Ant. 7.336. On Josephus’ treatment of hot-headed youth in general see the note to “youths” at 2.225. Greek τῶν ἐν πολέμῳ κακῶν is formulaic. Cf. κακὰ πολέμου at 1.304; 6.13. Agrippa reinforces his statesman’s perspective by invoking rationality as criterion of political behavior, a legacy of Thucydides and Polybius. The former exposed the foolishness of hope based in external assistance (cf. War 2.389), in the Melian dialogue (5.103), and in general offered a profound psychological analysis of political action (Mader 2000: 23-54). Polybius found that “time after time, the leaders of weaker states had led them into unnecessary and disastrous wars with the Romans, acting from strategic mismanagement, and/or simple irrationality and passion” (Eckstein 1995: 234). The adjective ἀλόγιστος appears in significant contexts also at War 3.308; 4.123; 7.7; cognates at 1.335, 522; 2.389 (also in Agrippa’s speech), 412; 4.170, 211, 240; 5.426; 6.176, 179, 197. For Polybius as Josephus’ chief model in this respect, see Eckstein 1990: 190-92, 195-98. This theme will be completed with Agrippa’s notice about “your tempers” at 2.401. See the note to “freedom” at 2.259. The entire War is in some respects a meditation on the meaning of political freedom, and Agrippa’s speech deals with the issue in concentrated form: ἐλευθερία and cognates appear 11 times in this relatively brief space, while the opposite semantic field, “slavery” (δουλεία), balances it with 12 appearances—mostly towards the end of the speech (2.375, 377-79). Rather than examining the true meaning of freedom, as other members of the élite have implicitly done in conversation with each other (2.25, 90), and as Josephus does implicitly with War’s literary audience, for the purposes of this speech Agrippa accepts the rebel premise that Judean lot is indeed one of political “slavery” to Rome. He does not disguise the fact, but presents compelling reasons for accepting this humble situation as the most advantageous, and indeed the only safe course for the people. Runnalls (1997: 748) points out that these 3 (by her count, 4) items are listed in such a way as to emphasize the last and most ignoble: profit. Although the prospect of profiting from upheaval recalls a line in the prologue (1.5), that had specifically to do with military profits (presumably including donatives; see the note there). The reference here is more general, anticipating the frequently described rebel leaders’ exploitation by brute force of weaker fellow-Judeans, once the central government is removed (e.g., 4.335, 357, 379; 6.202-3; cf. 4.587 of the Roman civil war). See the note to “irrational hope” in this section. This verb (σωφρονίζω) stressing rational behavior reoccurs at 2.493; 3.308 (connected, as here, with ἀλόγιστος), 445. The cognate σωφρονέω is at 2.419, 128 in the near context below (also 5.419; 6.219, 234; 7.83). This verb (παραπολαύω) occurs only here in Josephus and is rarely attested before him (Aesop, Fab. 29; Chrysippus, Frag. log. phys. 1157; Philo, Abr. 249; Ios. 21). It fits a pattern (see Introduction) of Josephus’ using words that are becoming popular in the Greek revival (cf. Plutarch, Frag. [Sandbach] 36; Galen, Us. part. [Kühn] 3.719; Lucian, Alex. 45; Aristides, Lept. [Dindorf] 166); in this he is often heralded by Philo, though there is no question of dependence in content. This (κακοβουλία) is distinctive Josephan vocabulary; see the note at 2.210 above and 2.399 below. Or “beneficial, productive, expedient, in your interest.” See the note to “interest either” at 2.343, on the disparity between Agrippa’s interests and those of the people; also the note to “safety” at 2.401—the end of the speech, creating an inclusio. Josephus’ phrasing here (εἰπεῖν ἃ νομίζω συμφέρειν) recalls a distinctive construction in Demosthenes’ deliberative speeches, e.g.: Σχεδὸν εἴρηχ’ ἃ νομίζω συμφέρειν (Or. 3.36); [πειράσομαι περὶ αὐτῶν] εἰπεῖν ἃ νομίζω συμφέρειν (Phil. 4.1; cf. Meg. 32; Exord. 4.1; 52.1).Josephus’ use of the verb συμφέρω in this deliberative context—where grand themes of national freedom (vs. slavery), justice, and honor are at stake—places his Agrippa firmly in the tradition of the Greek statesman. Thucydides had brought home the brutal truth that only states with equivalent power may discuss what is just; weaker states are obliged to do what is necessary for their own safety (5.89). The conflicting claims of “the just” (τὸ δίκαιον) over against “the expedient, advantageous” (τὸ ξυμφέρον) provide the main theme of his Melian Dialogue (5.86-111; cf. also 1.42.1-2; 1.76; 3.56). Polybius, another of Josephus’ models, prefers to contrast “what is honorable” (τὸ καλόν: 8.11.7; 15.24.4-5; 21.32c.1-3; 24.12.2; 38.1.9) to what is expedient; cf. also Plutarch, Mor. [Praec.] 805c, 808b, 817e. Polybius often presents these options as polar opposites, between which statesmen must try to steer. Thus, his Philopoemen uniquely managed to combine both (21.32c). Aristaenus, in criticizing Philopoemen’s policy of both resisting and complying with Rome, as the situation required, takes a position rather like Agrippa’s here: “There were, he said, two objectives in all governance, the honorable and the advantageous (τό τε καλόν καὶ τὸ συμφέρον). Whereas the achievement of honor is certainly what those in government should aim at, when it lies in their power to do so, for those who are powerless it is necessary to resort to the attainment of their advantage.” Agrippa will argue, similarly, that the Judeans have long since lost all possibility of an honorable independence and must now deal with the reality of submission. See also Josephus’ description of Ananus’ policy below (2.651).

Lit. “if he should not hear to his liking/pleasure.” The phrase πρὸς ἡδονήν is amply attested, but Josephus is its biggest extant user (23 occurrences) before his contemporary Plutarch (about 40). Josephus’ hand is evident in this characteristic adverb; see the note to “irremediable suffering” at 2.233. See note at 2.39. Cf. Socrates’ famous demand for quiet in Apol. 27b, 30c, and Demosthenes (Exord. 4.1): “For it often happens that the same person is wrong on one point and right on another; and so by shouting him down when displeased you may perhaps deprive yourselves of many useful ideas, whereas by attending with decorum and in silence, you will act on every sound proposal, and if you think someone is making a foolish suggestion, you will ignore it.” Dio Chrysostom repeatedly appeals for a fair hearing, especially in addressing rambunctious Alexandrians (Or. 32.1-2, 24, 33) but even before a hostile audience in his home city of Prusa (Or. 46.1); he too gives reasons why a patient hearing is in the audience’s interest (cf. 36.24-5; 38.4-5).

Josephus’ Agrippa moves from the exordium to the narratio of his speech: the brief statement of his case (2.348-57). Runnalls (1997: 748) observes that this section comprises “controlled periodic sentences,” which follow the accepted standard (Demetrius, Eloc. 16) by not exceeding 4 clauses. As in Josephus’ only other use of the verb τραγῳδέω (Ant. 16.346), the sense is both sarcastic and ironic: sarcastic because the speaker implies colorful and mournful exaggerations on the part of others, for the sake of creating a gripping drama; ironic because Josephus as author has in fact presented the whole story, especially the abuses of the procurators thus far, precisely as a tragic spectacle (see Introduction and 1.9-12). This is one of many hints to the audience that Agrippa’s speech is offered as a tour de force, challenging or denying even what the character himself knows to be true for the sake of steering the people to safety. Cf. Plutarch’s criticism of Theopompus (Dem. 21.2). See the note to “encomium” at 1.2. Like “waxing tragic,” this language suggests pointless rhetorical show instead of the practical political wisdom that the statesman Agrippa is about to offer. See the notes to “freedom,” a bedrock theme of the War, at 2.259 and 2.346 above. This nuance of ἐπιχειρέω is suggested by the context, though the sense might simply be the more common “undertake, make an attempt at [war-making].” These basic questions, which underlie the entire speech from 2.355, are brought into focus at 2.355-57, 361-65. Or “decouple, separate” (διαζεύγνυμι); see the note to “split up” at 2.108. See the note at 2.55: this is the exception to Josephus’ normal use of συμπλοκή for military engagements. Or “pretexts.” This (plural of πρόφασις) is characteristic Josephan language concerning causation; see the note to “justification” at 2.285. The clever untangling of opponents’—or the recalcitrant masses’—claims, in order to treat each one separately and also expose contradictions among them, was a common rhetorical technique: cf. 2.323 above; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 38.21-32 (scrutinizing alleged reasons for Nicomedia’s hostility toward Nicea). Josephus will use this kind of argument with great frequency in the apologetic middle section of the Apion, on which see Barclay in BJP 10.

That is, on the procurators, especially Florus. The phrase ἀμύνω + accusative participle of ἀδικέω is classical (Thucydides 1.43.4; 4.98.2; Xenophon, Mem. 2.1.14; Plato, Leg. 737d; Polybius 4.26.4; Philo, Abr. 213; Mos. 1.40, 111), and paralleled elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 11.281; 13.381; 16.298). Although Agrippa’s challenge does not seem to suit his immediate audience, it does confront an ideology of freedom that Josephus introduced at 2.118 (see note to “God” there), which Agrippa may assume his present audience also rejects, given their request for an embassy to prove that they have no intention of rebelling (2.342). See the note to “freedom” at 2.345. Understanding submission to Rome as either slavery or potential slavery (if local ancestral constitutions could not be sufficiently asserted and cherished) lies close to the surface of a number of passages in Josephus’ Greek contemporaries, Plutarch and Dio (Or. 31.113-14, 125); cf. Swain 1996: 209. Dio (Or. 34.51) remarks that simmering disputes over primacy among cities of Asia Minor are nothing but a competition among fellow-slaves for pre-eminence. Of course, this compelling logic overlooks the standard interweaving of these two motives by resistance groups under foreign occupation (e.g., America, India, and Africa under Britain): a principled desire for liberty (from anyone) may well remain nearly dormant under benevolent rule, as long as things are obviously improving for the native population; the situation will be quickly aggravated by corrupt or brutal governors or harsh policies, and the call for national liberation triggered by such perceived oppression will not be as self-contradictory as Agrippa implies. But the speech that Josephus crafts for him is meant to dazzle the literary audience.

Discontent with Rome’s governors was widespread in the provinces. Dio’s second Tarsian oration (Or. 34) deals directly with the problem of handling an arrogant and abusive governor. The Tarsians were famous for their prosecutions of governors (34.9), but in this case Dio advises them to come to terms with the man or face even worse prospects (34.40-41); cf. Swain 1996: 216-19. If at all possible, one should figure out a way to bear the injustices of foreign rule. Greek θεραπεύειν γάρ . . . χρὴ τὰς ἐξουσίας. Cf. Plutarch (Mor. [Princ. philos.] 776a-b): one should speak to those in power earnestly and attentively, or with a view to their well-being (λιπαρὴς τῶν ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ καὶ θεραπευτικός). Agrippa’s [Josephus’] verb is well chosen for its many nuances (see the note to “attentiveness” at 2.2): he does not say that rulers should be flattered or indulged or pardoned, though he leaves open such possibilities. See the note at 2.316.

This is the only attested example of this word (ἐξονειδισμός) in all ancient Greek literature, quite possibly of Josephus’ coinage. We propose “echoes” [of scandal] to represent the prefix: a drawing out or enlargement. Although the unprefixed form is amply attested elsewhere, Josephus has it only once (Ant. 19.319). Although unique, the noun is a natural formation of a result-noun from the verb ἐξονειδίζω, which is found in the tragedians (Sophocles, Philoc. 382; Oed. col. 990; El. 288; Euripides, Phoen. 1676; Iph. aul. 305) and occasionally in the Hellenistic historians, but noticeably favored by Josephus (6.124; Ant. 5.65; 15.81) and his contemporary, Plutarch (9 times). Or “slightest mistakes” (τῶν μικρῶν ἁμαρτημάτων). Cf. Pythagoras (Carm. aur. 7): “Do not hate your friend for the sake of some minor shortcoming (ἁμαρτάδος εἵνεκα μικρῆς)”; cf. Isocrates, Call. 43; Xenophon, Mem. 3.9.7; Anab. 5.8.20; Plato, Lach. 184b; Aristotle, Pol. 1303b, 1320b. Agrippa’s audience might have responded with Lysias (Alc. 1.2): “His failings are neither trivial nor worthy of pardon (οὐ γὰρ μικρὰ τὰ ἁμαρτήματα οὐδὲ συγγνώμης ἄξια); nor do they furnish hope that he will be better in the sequel.” Agrippa’s special pleading is obvious, for the misdeeds of Florus related by Josephus have been anything but trivial. The verb ἀπελέγχω is characteristic of Josephus, as it is of Philo, who accounts for 8 of the 27 attestations before Josephus. Josephus has it 8 times, but in War only here and at 2.621. Or “you vindicate” or “expose/denounce/convict” “those who are the subjects of reproach/scandal against yourselves.” The Greek syntax (καθ’ ἑαυτῶν τοὺς ὀνειδιζομένους ἀπελέγχετε) allows a number of possibilities. The finite verb most often means “refute thoroughly” (as in the other occurrence in War—2.620; cf. Ant. 11.56), but it can mean the opposite (“vindicate”) or something close (“prove to be [something good]”), as at Ant. 4.89; 10.133; 12.20. The verb can also be absolute (“procure a conviction”) or transitive; although the latter is indicated by the accusative object, that option leaves the precise relationship with the opening genitive clause unclear. If the translation here is valid, the reference would be to the Judeans’ intention to send an embassy to Rome to accuse Florus—an intention that prompts Agrippa’s speech (2.342-43). The verb is in the present tense, presumably because Agrippa is dispensing gnomic wisdom about the way of the world, rather than a prescription specific to the Roman governors. Josephus’ Agrippa rhetorically adopts the approach of Prov 15:1 (“A soft answer turns away wrath”; cf. 25:21-22) and of Jesus in the gospels: “Do not resist the worthless fellow: If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other one to him also” (Matt 5.39). Josephus presents this, however, not as universally valid advice, but as Agrippa’s clever effort to calm the masses while quietly rejecting their demand for an embassy to Rome (2.342-43), which is the standard recourse for dealing with oppressive governors. From the opening episode of War (1.35-38) Josephus illustrates and emphasizes Judean military valor, aroused by a foreign ruler’s oppression. Even in the case of Rome, he has thus far recounted the procurators’ outrages with deep feeling, describing with evident sympathy the efforts of Judean leaders to indict bad procurators (2.240-46, 280, 333). Agrippa, however, is caught between his refusal to support an embassy and his knowledge that this will likely increase anger (2.343); hence his extraordinary advice (on the mass political level) to turn the other cheek. This is the only occurrence of διατροπή in Josephus. It is a Polybian term, attested before Josephus only in Polybius (1.16.4, 42.11, 53.7; 3.53.5, 85.8; 5.57.7, 60.10; 8.5.3; 10.14.4; 11.6.9; 16.8.10, 33.4) and Diodorus (17.41.7; 19.81.2; 32.6.3); cf. also Dio Chrysostom, Or. 38.4.

See the note at 2.41. This word (ὑπηρέτης) for those normally called procurators or governors, who indeed hold complete power over non-citizen local populations, is not merely descriptive but pejorative, in keeping with the tone of the sentence. The adverb (ἀνηκέστως) is Josephan language. See the note to “irremediable suffering” at 2.233. See the notes at 2.156, 273. That is, their wretched behavior was certainly not part of their instruction from Rome. Lit., “Nor at any rate are those from the evening-land (οἱ ἀφ’ ἑσπέρας) looking closely upon those under the rising sun (τοὺς ὑπὸ τὴν ἀνατολὴν).” Information would normally travel between Rome and Judea by sea, which was much faster than overland routes. For the uncertainties of such communication routes, especially outside the sailing season, see 2.203: news of Gaius’ own death, on one ship, allegedly reached Judea 27 days before the same emperor’s death warrant for his Syrian legate.

Swain (1996: 200) points out that Dio’s harsh criticisms of Roman governors do not implicate the princeps in Rome.

See the note at 2.323. This reflection anticipates Agrippa’s later advice to wait patiently for a new governor (2.406). Those later appeals, however, will immediately undo the good will he has won with his long speech, and will result in his expulsion from Jerusalem. In light of Josephus’ narrative to this point it does not seem an unreasonable hope—governors as recent as Festus, in the early 60s, having performed ably (2.271)—, though the general run from Cumanus onward have offered little promise of better governance. Agrippa is evidently trying urgently to calm popular sentiment by any available means. The collocation κινέω . . . πόλεμον is common in War (7 of its 10 occurrences in Josephus); see also 2.362 (still within Agrippa’s speech) and 2.408 (Josephus’ editorial comment shortly afterward). It counts as distinctive Josephan phrasing because, although it is found in earlier authors (Thucydides 6.34.4; Plato, Resp. 566e; Demosthenes, Phil. 3.47; Posidonius in Athenaeus 12.542b; Diodorus 29.7.1; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 8.2.2, 4.4; Memnon, Frag. 18, 31, 36 [Müller]), they do not use it nearly as often. Although Josephus uses βαστάζω 32 times, 30 of these are in Ant. 1-15; this is the only occurrence in War. A programmatic term (συμφορά), enhancing the tragic tone, in War and in bk. 2; see the notes at 1.9; 2.286. The remarkable trait of the most respected aristocratic leaders, who will all be out of the picture by the middle of War, is that they (alone) would have been able to pursue either outcome—a forceful campaign or terms of surrender—with honor and dignity (cf. 4.320).

Josephus turns to the second of the preliminary themes introduced at 2.349. See the note to “freedom,” a bedrock theme of the War and of Agrippa’s speech, at 2.259. Josephus’ Agrippa accepts the general ancient premise that it is noble to defend one’s people to the extent of one’s ability; some of the following examples mention other nations that did oppose the Romans for some time (notably Gaul [373], Spain [374], Germany [377]). But the Judeans did not even do that at the appropriate time (63 BCE). Cf. his character’s speech at 5.365: “If indeed it was noble to fight for the sake of freedom, it was necessary to do this at the first.” See the note to “slave” at 2.349. Given Josephus’ [Agrippa’s] dependence upon Herodotus for much of what follows, the audience might imagine a tacit critique here in relation to Herodotus’ theme of the (prevented) “enslavement of Hellas” (5.49; 7.168, 235; 8.22, 100, 142, 144; 9.45, 60): even the Judeans’ ancestors were not like the Spartans, but accepted foreign enslavement. As the Persian Xerxes contemplates the invasion of Greece, he consults his exiled Spartan advisor Demaratus, who in a moment of frank speech advises him (Herodotus 7.102.2-3) that, whereas the reactions of other Greeks may be unpredictable, the Spartans “first, will never accept terms from you that bring slavery to Hellas; second, they will confront you in battle even if all the other Greeks should side with you. As for the number of men there are who can do this, do not ask. They will fight you whether they field [merely] a thousand, or less than this, or indeed more.” The battle of Thermopylae (below) would certify Demaratus’ assessment: the Spartiates fight to the death against overwhelming numbers to prevent the enslavement of their homeland. Similarly, the speech of Hermocrates the Syracusan, when he realizes that Athens plans to invade his homeland: “It is entirely excusable for the Athenians to seek to expand and to look out for their interests. I fault not those who want to rule, but those are ready to knuckle under. For it has always been as much a part of man’s nature to protect himself against aggression as it is to rule those who give in to him” (Thucydides 4.61).

See the note to “slave” at 2.349 and the similar expression (given to Titus) at 4.96. This recalls the advice of Mago the Bruttian to the Carthaginians (Polybius 36.5.2-3): although it would have been right for them to consider whether they wished to obey Rome’s demands before they submitted, to do so after submitting was ignoble. Josephus’ character will make the same point, in much the same language (5.365).This word (φιλελεύθερος), which Josephus uses only in War, is as highly charged—and contested among the main actors—as the larger freedom motif. Florus has used it sarcastically (2.299). In bk. 4 it will be used 3 times in rapid succession: by Ananus’ colleague Jesus, praising the virtue but rejecting its applicability to the Idumeans, who claim it as they arrive to assist the rebels (4.246); by the narrator Josephus in his eulogy of Ananus and Jesus, though he makes it clear that the freedom-lover Ananus preferred to end the revolt peacefully (4.319); and by the narrator in relation to another upper-class victim of the rebels (4.335). The appearance of the term here drives home how free of such nuance or reinterpretation is Agrippa’s use of “freedom.” For the purpose of this speech to the masses, he simply accepts that “freedom” in the obvious sense is long lost, that Judeans are now slaves to Rome, and that this situation must be accepted. Agrippa thus recalls the harsh realities of Thucydides’ Melian Dialogue (5.84-113) and perhaps also reformulates the values articulated by Virgil (Aen. 6.853): the art of Roman government consists in keeping the world in a state of peace by sparing the defeated and crushing the proud (parcere subiectis et debellare superbos). In 63 BCE, while settling the eastern Mediterranean after ending the pirate scourge and chasing Mithradates VI into hiding (where he would soon die), Pompey the Great inserted himself into the ongoing squabble between Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, sons of Alexander Janneus and Queen Alexandra, who had appealed to his general Scaurus. Although Scaurus had initially favored Aristobulus, Pompey reportedly became exasperated at his behavior and endorsed Hyrcanus (ultimately as high priest, not king). The latter’s followers admitted Pompey’s forces to Jerusalem, but he then had to storm the temple compound, where Archelaus’ partisans had barricaded themselves. It was Pompey who thus put Jerusalem and its land under tribute to Rome. Curiously, Plutarch’s contemporary Life of Pompey does not mention the general’s involvement in Judea (except incidentally, after the fact: 45.2, 4), but has him go straight from Syria to Nabatea (41-42). If Josephus’ Roman audience did not know the story independently (cf. Tacitus, Hist. 5.9: “The first Roman who subdued the Judeans . . . was Gnaeus Pompeius”), they would know it from War’s prologue (1.19) and the detailed account in his earlier narrative (1.125-58). Josephus elsewhere considers it a sign of weakness that the Judean leaders could not sort out their own dynastic affairs, with Hyrcanus II turning to the Arabs while Aristobulus II appealed to Rome. War’s prologue remarks that “the descendants of [the Hasmoneans], by generating factions in pursuit of the kingship, drew the Romans and Pompey into their affairs” (1.19). The narrative likewise blames internal strife (στάσις) for the ease of Pompey’s assault (1.142), and in a later speech Josephus’ character will deplore the madness (μανία) of this strife (5.396): “God subjected to the Romans those who were not worthy of freedom!”Josephus’ assumption that a state’s leaders must sort out their internal tensions without involving greater powers matches the general perspective of Greek writers from Polybius (e.g., 24.11.6-8, 13.1-8) to Plutarch (Mor. [Praec.] 814f-815e): states must try to retain as much autonomy and constitutional freedom as possible. Polybius’ Philopoemen addresses a situation similar to the one at issue here: the Romans are in the region and their domination is inevitable. But, he demands, “Should we not rather, as far as it is in our power, wrestle with them, and hold out until we are completely exhausted? . . . I know too well that the time will come when the Greeks will be forced to yield complete obedience to Rome; but do we wish this time to be as near as possible or as distant as possible? Surely as distant as possible.”

MSS AL and Latin have “your,” in keeping with Agrippa’s general 2nd-person rhetorical stance in this speech, over against his allegedly war-crazed audience. But here the 1st-person plural, favored by MSS PMVRC, also fits the subtler logic of his argument: he is indeed speaking now of “our forebears” with a certain respect. See the similar MS problems below (and the note to “our [people]” at 2.362). Taken precisely, the plural is ironic: the simultaneous claim by Hyrcanus (designated king by his mother 1.120) and his younger brother Aristobulus (who declared himself king, 1.117) to be “kings” was what facilitated Roman domination of Judea (see preceding notes). But perhaps Josephus’ Agrippa refers less carefully to “the time of our kings”—i.e., the period of independence. Although the “bodies and souls” comparison may be dismissed as the rhetoric of the “good old days,” the general point remains that the Hasmonean state, having flourished independently (albeit with alliances) for decades, was better placed to resist foreign occupation than those who have been subject to Roman taxation and occupation for generations. In 67 BCE the Senate had given Pompey, along with greater imperium, a massive army and navy for combating piracy: 120,000 infantry, 5,000 cavalry, 500 ships, with 24 legates as commanders (Seager 2002: 45; Plutarch, Pomp. 26; slightly smaller forces in Appian, Mithr. 94). Although it is unclear how many legions and Syrian auxiliaries he brought with him into Judea, it is reported as a large force (1.133; Ant. 14.48); after taking Jerusalem, however, he reportedly left the entire region (Syria to the Euphrates and Palestine to the Egyptian border) under two legions, with Scaurus as governor, as he returned to Rome (1.157). However large Pompey’s force in Judea was, the rhetorical claim here that it was only a fraction of the Roman army, whereas the rebels are ostensibly courting a conflict with Rome’s entire army (next sentence), is somewhat misleading: the 4 legions that would fight the Judeans in 67-70 were a smaller proportion of the total at the time of Nero’s death (viz., a 7th of 28 legions) than the proportion of the total that Pompey’s forces represented in 63 BCE. This paragraph is closely paralleled in Josephus’ later speech (5.395-97): “From what point did our slavery begin?. . . God subjected to the Romans those who were not worthy of freedom. They gave themselves up after being besieged for 3 months, though innocent of such offenses as yours . . . and possessing much better resources for the war.” See the note to this phrase, which reappears at 2.362 and 385 (in the same speech) at 1.3. Runnalls (1997: 748) notes that Josephus’ ending of the narratio with a question is an effective way of leading into the next major part of the speech: the citation of proofs (confirmatio)—mainly showing the foolishness of opposing Rome by means of examples drawn from peoples who, though more powerful than the Judeans (so, much better positioned for revolt), often tolerate an even greater burden. This section, which she sees as continuing to 2.387, is marked by an effectively mixed style: strung-along descriptions of the nations that now submit to Rome, punctuated by short periods addressing the audience (Runnalls 1997: 749).The same list of nations will be briefly reprised by Titus, in similar language (6.329-33), illustrating Josephus’ creative control over both speeches. The survey of nations also anticipates Aristides’ 2nd-cent. CE To Rome, though without the adulation of Rome found there.

Josephus’ Agrippa turns to a question he has anticipated at 2.348, after his distinction of complaints against offensive procurators and the struggle for freedom, and raised again in the preceding sentences (2.355-57), viz.: Who are you to make war on Rome? Lindner (1972: 22) regards this initial, brief list of nations (2.358-61a) as comparable in form to the longer survey below (2.365-87), which similarly illustrates the point just made (there, 2.361-64).It would make sense to begin a survey of better-positioned peoples who accept Roman supremacy with the Athenians: the most important and influential former imperial power in the Mediterranean (after their leading role in the Greek defeat of the Persians), whose culture remains pervasive in Josephus’ day, yet who are now fully integrated into the Roman empire. Under the principate Athens remained a free city, exempt from tribute and other imperial burdens and subject to its own council; it was allowed to keep vast amounts of its hinterland (Attica). Yet this freedom was clearly given at the pleasure of the emperor, and as so often, native rule brought its own grievances and even street riots (cf. Mommsen 1887: 1.300-303). Herodotus (8.40-41, 50-54) tells of the Athenians’ abandoning their city (as did other local populations) in the face of Xerxes’ advance, fleeing to Troezen, Aegina, and Salamis; then, of the Persians’ sack and burning of Athens. See the note to “freedom,” a basic theme of the War and of Agrippa’s speech, at 2.259. For freedom as the ultimate Athenian motivation in the wars with Persia, see Herodotus 8.143. Athens was a prominent part of the alliance of Hellenes who had not “Medized” in the wake of Xerxes’ advance, braced against his attempted invasions in 480 BCE. Although the fleet that faced Xerxes at Salamis was led by the Spartan Eurybiades son of Euryclides (Herodotus 8.42), the Athenians contributed by far the largest number of ships (Herodotus 8.40-47), and their generals Themistocles and Aristides reportedly exercised effective leadership, after Eurybiades wavered and contemplated abandoning the scene to defend the Peloponnese (Herodotus 8.55-63, 124). Josephus chooses the unflattering alternative account briefly mentioned by Herodotus. Herodotus’ main story (8.107-17, esp. 110-17) relates that the Greeks opted not to pursue Xerxes, and that he (having left Mardonius with selections from the army to make an attempt on the Peloponnese) marched away overland; they all crossed the Hellespont on ships when they found their bridges badly damaged. The alternative version (8.118) claims that Xerxes left his army behind, and with a small Persian escort boarded a Phoenician ship (hence “runaway”?) for Asia. Then, in a Jonah-like episode, in order to lighten the vessel during a terrible storm he ordered his countrymen to leap overboard; on landing, he presented the captain with a gold crown (for having saved his life) and then had him beheaded (for having lost so many Persian lives). Xerxes, son of Darius Hystaspis and Atossa, became king of Persia (485-465 BCE) when Egypt was in revolt from Persian hegemony. His first main action was to subdue Egypt (284), after which—largely at the urging of “medizing” Greek élites and members of his court—he began 4 years of preparations for a renewal of his father’s campaigns in Greece, with an army reported to number over 5 million (Herodotus 7.103). His extraordinary pride is portrayed by Herodotus in several places: see examples in the previous note, as also at Herodotus 7.101-104, where the king bursts into laughter at the suggestion that Greek armies comprising free citizens could possibly stand up to his massive forces of men fighting in fear of their master. This is an artful, almost poetic and provisionally encomiastic, summary of Xerxes’ feats in cutting the Athos canal, on the one hand, and bridging the Hellespont with pontoons for his armies to cross from Asia to Europe, on the other. The 2 km canal, which has left no visible remains (though archaeologists believe they have located it underground: Isserlin, Jones et al. 1994), was reportedly cut in 483-480 BCE across the narrowest part of the Athos peninsula in N Greece (Herodotus 7.22-24, 37, 117, 122). Herodotus (7.24) considered it an unnecessary act of pride, for ships could have been hauled overland for this distance. The footpath across the sea refers to Xerxes’ famous pair of pontoon bridges across the Dardanelles strait in 480 BCE—replaced after destruction by a storm (Herodotus 7.33-36). Herodotus marvels at his pride here too, in punishing the sea with 300 lashes, branding, and various curses (7.35). This convenient pair illustrating the ostensible pinnacle of human power realized by Xerxes—to make men sail across land or walk across the sea, at will—is adduced by Dio Chrysostom with the moral qualifier that the Persian king could hardly be called most powerful if he was unable to control even his own anger (Or. 3.29-34). Among many others the Phoenicians and the Ionians, from Asia’s W coast, had joined Xerxes’ Persian armies as they marched W. Josephus normally uses the more common μικρός, which Niese prints also here (favoring MS P); but the principle of the “more difficult reading” suggests σμικρός (in MSS AMVR), which Josephus appears to use otherwise only at Ant. 14.71. The difference is significant because Josephus’ Agrippa is rehearsing a story from Herodotus, who probably (depending upon text-critical judgments) uses the latter form exclusively—a neat flourish on Josephus’ part, for a knowing audience. The island off the coast of Attica to which many of the Athenians had fled in abandoning their city before the Persian onslaught (480 BCE), where the Hellenic fleets put in, and where Xerxes suffered his major naval defeat, as he reportedly looked on from a throne on the hillside of Mt. Aegaleus on the mainland (Herodotus 8.50-96). It is noteworthy that Josephus includes this battle under Athenian achievements. Herodotus remarks (8.94) that whereas the Athenians claimed sole bragging rights, because the (Spartan-allied) Corinthians had fled before the heat of battle, the Corinthians claim (with general support) that they remained and faced the worst of it. See the note to “slave” at 2.349. This “slavery” to Rome on the part of the Greek cities is (within the narrative) for the benefit of Agrippa’s audience in Jerusalem; he uses their language to compare other famous cities. As we see clearly in Josephus’ contemporaries Plutarch and Dio, the Greek élites themselves had long since come to terms with Roman hegemony and reinterpreted this political slavery in advantageous ways. Athens emerged from the Persian wars with proven naval supremacy. She became the president of the new Delian League (from 478 BCE), which, although it was a real alliance at the beginning, gradually took on the dimensions of an Athenian empire; hence “governess of Greece.” Athens’ dominance led to the Peloponnesian wars described by Thucydides.

It makes good sense for Josephus’ Agrippa to turn next to the Spartans, who defeated Athens in the Peloponnesian wars, which followed the repulsion of Persia, and whose reputation for martial virtue and discipline was unparalleled (cf. Xenophon, Agesilaus, Spartan Constitution; Aristotle, Pol. 1263a-1275b et passim; Plutarch, Sayings of the Spartans, Lycurgus, Lysander, Agesilaus). The Spartans turn up throughout the works of Josephus as the accepted benchmark of social, political, and martial virtues. That is: in spite of battles such as these, which helped create the Spartan legend. Although Thermopylae, Salamis, and Plataea were a sequence of battle sites, Josephus’ Agrippa artfully distinguishes those that fall to the Spartans’ credit from those claimed by the Athenians. At Thermopylae (gateway to the Greek heartland of Aetolia, Boeotia, and Attica), in 480 BCE the Spartan king Leonidas fought to the death against the advancing Persians, with 300 Spartiates and other picked men, after dismissing most of his Greek allies. Herodotus (7.224) makes much of the heroism displayed by both king and soldiers, even claiming to have learned all of their names. The following year at Plataea (in SE Boeotia, about 50 miles/80 km SSE of Thermopylae), a force led by the Spartan Pausanias finally halted the Persian incursion. Herodotus calls this “the finest victory of all those we know of” (9.64). Agesilaus (444-360 BCE), second son of King Zeuxidamus, came to the throne in 400 BCE upon the death of his older brother Agis, through the influence of the general Lysander (trumping the claim of Alcibiades’ illegitimate son by the Spartan queen). His remarkable life, which required him to overcome a significant physical handicap, is the subject of surviving biographies by Xenophon, who fought with him, Cornelius Nepos, and most famously Plutarch. Agesilaus’ impressive campaign in Asia (398-396 BCE), reportedly urged by his general Lysander to protect the latter’s clients from Persian domination, occupies a prominent place in the biographies by Xenophon (Ages. 1.6-35; 3.3-6) and Plutarch (Ages. 6-15). On Plutarch’s narrative (and incidentally Xenophon’s), see Shipley 1997: 116-210; on Agesilaus himself, Cartledge 1987.

This is the only occurrence of the verb φαντάζω (here middle) in Josephus, and we may assume that he uses it with intent. With the double sense of “bringing before one’s eyes, imagining” and “seeing or dealing with ghosts (phantasms),” it is well chosen to convey a picture of Macedonians nostalgic for their glorious past while living under the reality of Roman rule. Presumably, Philip II (382-336 BCE), who made Macedon the great power in Greece by defeating regional challengers and establishing control of cities to the S, through a combination of military skill—using the revised Macedonian phalanx armed with the 6-meter pike (sarisa)—and a diplomatic network. Although the participle οἰκουμένη had a range of uses, it was typically supplied with an article to designate the “inhabited earth” (see Munn 2006: 178-202 for early Greek usage). In speaking of Roman hegemony, writers could either exaggeratedly identify it with the inhabited earth (cf. 2.388: “all those in the inhabited earth are Romans”) or, conceding the known regions beyond Roman control, distinguish the two (also in 2.388: “unless . . . beyond the Euphrates”). The heavy use of the term in Agrippa’s speech (9 times, only elsewhere in bk. 2 at 2.580) anticipates Aristides’ 2nd-cent. CE oration To Rome, which uses it 18 times to similar effect: to speak of Rome’s universal dominion. It was a singularly appropriate term for Josephus’ Agrippa to use of Alexander, whose empire had an unprecedented reach through Persia and all the way to India: οἰκουμένη was a concept closely linked with Alexander (Polybius 8.10.11; Diodorus 30.9.3; Strabo 1.3.3; [Demetrius], Eloc. 283; Plutarch, Alex. 52.5; 71.4; Arrian. Anab. 3.16.2). Shahar (2004: 256-67) argues that, although Josephus often follows Strabo in putting a Roman-political spin on οἰκουμένη (i.e., that Rome rules virtually all of it), his deeper personal and “Jewish” view of God’s hegemony over the inhabited earth shines through in places. Given the rarity of the compound verb παρασπείρω (attested only 7 times before Josephus, in obscure fragments except for Strabo 14.5.5; 17.3.9), it is remarkable that War has it twice (also 7.43), in both cases combining the verb with ἡ οἰκουμένη. Although a small point, this tends to reinforce the connection between War 1-6 and bk. 7 (see Introduction). Alexander III (356-323 BCE), “the Great,” son of Philip II of Macedon and Olympias, famously tutored by Aristotle, became king at the age of 20 upon his father’s death (336 BCE). He led a massive army, featuring the unstoppable Macedonian phalanx, on a campaign against Persia (under Darius III), which had retained its domination of Asia Minor. A major victory at Issus (333 BCE) put the Persian forces in flight, giving Alexander a clear run to the Euphrates, except for resistance at Tyre and Gaza, which he crushed. After taking Egypt without resistance (332-331) he moved swiftly into the Persian heartland, via Mesopotamia, occupying Persis in the winter of 331-330 and driving Darius from Ecbatana (after which the Great King was murdered by Persian attendants) in the summer of 330. After suppressing regional revolts, Alexander moved into India in 327, where two years of vicious campaigning left him with a chest wound and exhausted troops. In 325 he began a return to bases in the Persian heartland, where he and his officers took wives from the Persian nobility. Alexander died after a brief illness on June 10, 323 BCE. Reversal (μεταβολή [of fortune as here, or of circumstances]) is a basic theme of Josephus’ War; see the notes to “circumstances” at 2.113 and to “upheaval” at 1.5. This verb (προσκυνέω) is singularly appropriate here. Although it occurs nearly 100 times in Josephus, sometimes with a more general sense, it refers most specifically to the practice of prostration (or possibly the blowing of reverential kisses) before Oriental kings as quasi-divine powers (cf. Herodotus 1.119.1; 2.121; 8.118); Josephus often uses it pejoratively (see Feldman’s note to “later” at Ant. 2.195 in BJP 3). Alexander received this honor in the East and controversially sought to persuade his Macedonian colleagues at Bactra to join in, a request that provoked indignation and may have precipitated the death of his associate Callisthenes (Arrian, Anab. 4.10.5-12.5; cf. Walbank 1992: 38-39, 42-43). Josephus’ Agrippa will use the term twice more in this speech, for the complete subjection to Rome now required of former powers or states once in thrall to Persia (2.366, 380). The Polybian (e.g., Polybius 1.1.2, 4.1-3) and thereafter common (cf. Plutarch, On the Fortune of the Romans) association of Rome’s hegemony with fortune—alongside her power, strength, or virtue—is characteristic of Josephus (2.373, 387, 3.354, 359, 438; 5.120; 6.399-400; 7.203, 231; Ant. 20.70). See the note to “fortune” at 2.373 below. The specific construction that fortune has “passed over” (μεταβαίνω) to Rome reoccurs in a prayer and a speech made by Josephus’ character (3.354; 5.367). Implicit in the verb, as in Agrippa’s speech here (explicit at 5.367), is that fortune’s gift of hegemony is not permanent, but visits various nations—and will continue changing its favorites in the future.

Or “countless”; lit. 10,000 or multiples of 10,000. See the note to “frankness of speech” at 2.276. Frank speech (παρρησία) and freedom (ἐλευθερία) were natural and frequent correlatives in Greek, especially classical Athenian political rhetoric; Plato (Resp. 557b; Leg. 649b) observes that παρρησία is the principal trait of the free person or city; cf. 4.358; Ant. 11.39, the latter contrasting the slave with the free person, who alone may speak freely. See also Euripides, Hippol. 422; Isocrates, Arch. 97; Areop. 20; Demosthenes in Stobaeus, Flor. 13.17; Aeschines, Fals. leg. 70; Theophrastus, Char. 28.6; Polybius 4.31.4; 18.14.9; Diodorus 14.65.4, 66.5; 32.26.2; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 4.46.4; 6.38.1; 7.25.2, 31.2, 35.2, 48.3; 11.5.3; 14.3.2; Philo, Praem. 124; Prob. 95, 12; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 77/78.37, 45; Lucian, Nigr. 15. See the note to “freedom,” a basic theme of the War and of Agrippa’s speech, at 2.259. The only other occurrence of ἀδοξέω in War 2 comes near the end of Agrippa’s confirmatio: the Egyptians do not scorn the Roman imperium (2.385). Of the verb’s 12 appearances in Josephus, 11 are in War (1-5). It is not a common verb before Josephus (apparently absent from Homer, tragedy, classical and Hellenistic historians except Diodorus 15.9.4, though found 3 times in Demosthenes—Fals. leg. 103, 115, 118), but it begins to appear frequently from Josephus’ time (e.g., about 10 times in Plutarch). Or “serve,” but the speech makes an ongoing and hard-headed contrast between the mirage of political freedom and the current, acknowledged but unavoidable state of slavery (see the note to “freedom” at 2.346, to “slaves” at 2.349). Roman domination of the sea lanes had been hard won, chiefly with Pompey’s famous removal of piracy from the Mediterranean and Black Seas. Ironically, at 3.414-27 Josephus will relate the attempt by more than 4,000 Judean rebels based in rebuilt Joppa to dominate the E coast of the Mediterranean by piracy, with ships they had built themselves, before a powerful storm sank their fleet and hurled survivors into the waiting spears of the Romans. Of 26 occurrences of the verbs for “suffice” (forms of ἀρκέω) in War, nearly a 6th are in Agrippa’s speech (also 2.363, 374, 375), which drives home the point that the Judeans do not have what it takes to oppose Rome. See the note at 2.329: this is the 3rd and final use of ἐπιβολή in War 2, all falling in a brief space.

For this collocation see the note to “set in motion” at 2.354. Conflicts with the Nabatean kingdom E of the Jordan were part of the recent Judean past: War 1.89-90, 364-85; cf. Ant. 18.109-15. Egypt had been a Roman province for a century. See the note to this phrase at 1.3; Agrippa’s speech uses it 3 times (also 2.357, 385). Runnalls (1997: 749) points out the neat balance and homoioteleuton (similar endings: ἡγεμονίαν, ἀσθένειαν) of these antithetical clauses. MSS MLC and Latin have “your,” which would logically continue the 2nd-person address in the preceding rhetorical questions. But the 1st-person plural, attested by MSS PAVR, makes perhaps better sense, as Agrippa turns to speak of Judean (not rebel) forces in the past, in keeping with 2.357 (see note to “our” there). It is easier to understand scribes changing an original“our” to “your,” for consistency of rhetorical posture, than the reverse process. Or “inhabited [earth].” See the note to this word at 2.360.

Possibly “the Euphrates [did not suffice] for a boundary,” if one follows Destinon’s emendation of the MSS’s ὅλος to ὅρος (followed by Thackeray, Vitucci, and Pelletier). Since the text does not require emendation, however, where indeed “the whole” of the long and mighty Euphrates makes good rhetorical sense (as not sufficing for the Romans), I follow the reading of the MSS (with M-B). See the note to “suffice” at 2.361. The exaggerated tone of what follows is made clear by 3.107, where in a different rhetorical context Josephus is happy to name these same boundaries as the (remarkable enough) limits of the empire. The Danube River, together with the Rhine, formed the empire’s northern limit (the defeat of Varus in 9 CE having caused a retrenchment to the Rhine); cf. 3.107. Rivers play an important role in the Roman conception of empire, conquest (in the remarkable achievement represented by taking territory across rivers), and limits: Livy 26.21.7-10; 37.59.2-5; Propertius 3.11.41-42; Virgil, Georg. 4.509, 560-61; Aen. 6.789-805; 8.724-28; Persius 6.43-7; Pliny Nat. 5.36-37; Tacitus, Ann. 2.41; Juvenal 10.147-87. I.e., N Africa from Egypt to the Straits of Gibraltar. See the note at 2.115. Or “uninhabitable, not to be inhabited” (ἀοίκητος); I translate thus because of the contrast with “inhabited [earth]” (“world”) in the previous sentence. The same contrast reappears in the speech at 2.388 and again at 5.218. That this adjective appears only in War (also 2.388; 4.199, 453; 5.218) confirms again Josephus’ authorial control over Agrippa’s speech: it shares the diction and rhetorical contrasts of the narrative as a whole. Before Josephus, these words are contrasted mainly by Aristotle (Meteor. 362b), Diodorus (3.38.2; 5.76.1; 40.7.2), Philo (Mos. 1.195), and Strabo (2.1.13, 5.5, 5.34; 17.2.1), the last of which seems most likely to have influenced Josephus, given the shared geographical interest. I.e., Gades (mod. Cadiz in Spain), mentioned at Ant. 1.122 as a place settled by Noah’s grandsons. It is a well chosen point to mark the western extremity of the empire and the inhabited earth, because it was the last significant city in the W, some way beyond the “Pillars of Hercules,” which represented the limits of the inhabited earth for most investigators (cf. 2.375, 382 below; so already Herodotus 4.8), the place or near the place where Heracles had ventured to seize the red oxen of Geryon; the island continued to celebrate some sorts of Heraclean festivals (Pausanias 10.4.6). Cades, facing the Atlantic, was an old Phoenician trading port. Strabo (3.5.3-5, 7-10) gives a detailed description at the time of Augustus: populous, with around 500 Roman equestrians, but inhabiting a relatively small island, nearby islet, and the mainland harbor opposite. See the note to this word at 2.360. It seems that Rome’s conquest of Britain is in view (see next note and 2.378-79). See the notes at 2.155: Oceanus was the body of water commonly thought to encircle the inhabited earth. Crossing it had been a terrifying prospect, also for the Roman soldiers under Aulus Plautius during Claudius’ invasion of Britain in 43 CE (Dio 60.19.2). Their audacious achievement in challenging Oceanus is a point that Agrippa will hammer home; he mentions Oceanus 4 times in this speech (also 2.371, 374, 378)—more than a third of all occurrences in Josephus. The adjective ἀνιστόρητος occurs only here in Josephus. Though unattested before his time except in Polybius (12.3.2—on Timaeus’ ignorance of Libya) and Philo of Byzantium (Bel. p. 78 [Thevenot]), it appears in his contemporaries Epictetus (Arrian, Diatr. 1.6.24), Plutarch (Mor. [Quaest. conv.] 731c, 733b), and Dio (Or. 12.59). For the meaning here, see the next note. Britons: see further 2.378-80 for Britain after Claudius (in Agrippa’s and Josephus’ time). If we take “previously unexplored” seriously, the speaker must have in view Caesar’s invasions of 55 and 54 BCE or be conflating these with Claudius’ recent invasion. Cf. Suetonius, speaking of Caesar (Jul. 25: “He also invaded the Britons, a people formerly unknown [Britannos ignotos antea]”). Caesar’s first campaign came near the end of the sailing season (August 25, 55 CE), after heavy fighting in Gaul, with two legions (VII and X) and 80 transport ships. Though intended only as a brief first encounter for gathering intelligence (Caesar claims), it was apparently something of a debacle, from the landing under heavy fire to misjudged currents and weather that prevented the landing of cavalry, to the battering of the anchored fleet by misunderstood tides, to the near loss of the 7th legion and the hasty departure with salvaged ships (Caesar, Bell. gall. 4.20-36). The second invasion (July 6, 54 BCE) was more carefully planned, using 800 transport ships and 4,000 Celtic cavalry in addition to 5 of Caesar’s legions; though the commander misjudged the tides, he managed to land his much larger invasion force without immediate challenge. Although he achieved some military success in combat S and just N of the Thames River, his anchored fleet was battered by inclement weather and he abandoned the island after a couple of months, without much concrete to show for it. The crucial achievements were glory for himself and Rome, along with the precedent that this island in Oceanus could indeed be invaded (Caesar, Bell. gall. 5.8-23; Kamm 2006: 77-83). Plutarch enthuses, in language similar to Josephus’ (Caes. 22.2-3): “he was the first who launched a fleet into western Oceanus, and sailed across the Atlantic Sea bringing an army for war” (sc. in contrast to Gallic traders). Nearly a century later Gaius Caligula planned another invasion, which occurred under Claudius in 43 CE, creating the conditions reflected in Agrippa’s speech.MS L awkwardly adds “Germans” to “Brettanians,” but this would seem to make no sense of the rhetoric concerning another world beyond Oceanus.

Or “Why, then?” Cf. 2.366, where τί is used in both senses. Given the subsidiary questions, the tacit completion of the question might be: Why are you intent on rebelling (when others put up with more)? Why do you think you can win (when others have so much more, but do not attempt rebellion)? Usually, however, interrogative τί in this speech has the sense of “What?” Thus: “What drives you to this rebellious attitude?” The Gauls: see the note to “restive” at 1.5. The wealth of Gaul is explored further at 2.371-72 below. The size and strength of the Germans’ bodies is a point developed at 2.376 below. The reference is no doubt to the Greek contributions to philosophy (including science and medicine), art, architecture, historiography, and literature, which still dominated the Roman world. Josephus’ Agrippa thus assembles a convenient triad of absolute necessities for launching a war—resources, physical numbers and strength, and intelligence—and dismisses Judean claims to all of them by appealing to nations that famously excelled in each, but now serve Rome. This triad will be taken up in reverse order (see the two previous notes), with the Greeks appearing again almost immediately (2.365): a periodic or concentric structure found often in Josephus. See the note to this word at 2.360. Josephus’ authorial hand is evident. This neuter substantive of the perfect participle, τὸ πεποιθός, is unattested before Josephus (though his contemporary Plutarch has it: Marc. 23.4). Josephus has used it also at War 1.374, 567, showing unity of composition.

See the note to “slaves” at 2.349, to “freedom” at 2.346. The only other occurrence in Josephus of this standard device from the philosophical diatribe (ἐρεῖ τις) comes in a similar rhetorical situation. In his own character’s speech (at 3.367) he will demand to know what his audience fears in surrendering to the Romans. “‘Slavery!’ someone will say.” Josephus’ authorial hand is again evident. For the sufferings of Greece under generally benevolent Roman rule, see (e.g., on free Athens) Mommsen 1887: 1.288-303. Lindner (1972: 22) reasonably treats the following (to 2.387) as an illustrative elaboration of the points just established in 2.361-64, comparing it to the brief elaboration at 2.358-61 (see note to “Athenians” at 2.358). This is the reading of MS P, considered among the best (and followed by all modern editions). The rest of the MS tradition, beginning with the Latin translation (supplying uidebantur), seems to reflect the copyists’ discomfort with such unqualified praise of the Greeks—perhaps also because of Josephus’ harsh comments elsewhere (e.g., 1.13-16; Life 40; Apion 1.27): those manuscripts have the Greeks only “reputed” or “seeming” to be preeminent, with a δοκοῦντες construction. Josephus will use the verb νέμω 3 times in this speech, the only occurrences in War 2 (also 2.377, 382; here in the middle voice), to speak of the apportionment of famously vast and impressive lands among peoples who nonetheless submit to Rome. The verb ὑπείκω occurs in War (also Ant. 15.246) only here and at 2.369 below, driving home the themes of Agrippa’s speech. MSS PAML have simply “the” (ταῖς), but the others indicate a form of “6” (ἕξ) (followed by all modern editors). A number is almost required by the next clause. Lit. “rods” (also in 2.366; cf. 5.435), but immediately understandable by a Roman audience (esp. with “consular” in the next sentence) as the Greek equivalent of fasces (sing. fascis, originally a bundle of twigs or the like, but always plural in the technical sense here). These were bundles of rods, about 1.5 m. (5 ft.) long, tied together in bundles along with an axe and symbolizing the awesome power of senior Roman magistrates. The fasces were carried on the left shoulder by the magistrates’ lictors, attendants or bodyguards who cleared the path ahead in busy streets. Consuls were entitled to 12 lictors bearing fasces, praetors to 6, imperial legates (as in Syria) to 5. Achaea and Macedonia were both senatorial provinces at this point, without legions, governed by pronconsuls who, in spite of their title, were ex-praetors; hence the number 6 here. As in Josephus’ Greek, Latin fasces could indicate, metonymically, the high office rather than the objects themselves (e.g., Juvenal 5.110).Other Greek writers tended to describe the fasces as bundles containing both rods (ῥάβδοι) and axes (πελέκεις), rather than simply using the term “rods” for the whole as Josephus does (6 “rods” meaning 6 lictors with fasces). Cf. Polybius 6.53.8; 11.29.6; 38.3.12; Diodorus 36.7.4; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 2.29.1; 3.61.2, 62.1; 5.2.1, 19.3, 75.2; 8.53.3; 10.24.2; 10.59.5; Strabo 5.2.2. The technical term for the whole package, ῥαβδουχία (H. J. Mason 1974: 82), is hardly attested in literature, though 3 of its 4 attestations are in Josephus’ contemporary, Plutarch (Ant. 17.1; Cic. 16.6; Fab. 4.3). On the face of it, the realist politician seems to imply that Macedonia really ought to seek their freedom (Μακεδόνες οἱ . . . ὀφείλοντες ἐλευθερίας ἀντιποιεῖσθαι). But in context the sense is ironic: one cannot imagine even the Macedonians’ doing this, though they are in a far better position than the Judeans, because of their historic domination of the world (by Alexander and his successors) and fierce initial resistance to Rome. At least, the construction seems to drive home the speaker’s lack of ideological commitment to Rome. See the note to “freedom,” a basic theme of the War and of Agrippa’s speech, at 2.259.

Although Mommsen (1887: 2.355) accepted this number without cavil, it seems a substantial inflation. As Paul (1990: 80-81) points out, Josephus must be speaking of the province of Asia because he mentions other Anatolian provinces below (2.368). But Pliny’s contemporary figure for population centers in Asia is 282 (Nat. 5.150), and only 73 cities in Asia seem to have minted coins under Augustus and Tiberius (Magie 1950: 1.472; 2.135 n. 16). Mitchell (1993: 1.80 n. 3) considers Josephus’ figure exaggerated even for Asia Minor as a whole under Roman rule, though the area was marked by rapid urbanization. Though he is willing to trust Josephus as to both the number of cities and the absence of a garrison at the time of Agrippa’s speech in 66 CE, Sherk (1955: 404-7) adduces compelling epigraphical evidence for the presence of two auxiliary cohorts (I Bosporana and I Hispana) at the beginning of the Flavian period, 69-71 CE: Josephus might intend by δίχα φρουρᾶς the equivalent of Latin inermus (Tacitus, Hist. 2.81), meaning not “without soldiers,” but “without an army”—a minimum number of soldiers being always needed for protection of the governor and of such crucial sites as mines and mints. Cf. Le Bohec (1994: 163-64) and Ritterling (1927), the latter on the presence of permanent military garrisons in pronconsular provinces—with relatively small auxiliary forces. See also “without weapons” at 2.368. See the note at 2.360. Josephus makes a subtle distinction, which he expects his audience to understand, between the 6 fasces to which the proconsuls (i.e., ex-praetors) governing Achaea and Macedonia were entitled and the consular fasces that marked the special dignity of the proconsul of Asia. Because of the province’s great wealth and importance, this governor was an ex-consul, entitled to 12 lictors with fasces. Mentioned only here in Josephus, the Heniochi (their name means “[chariot] drivers, rein-holders, guides”) occupied the E shores of the Black Sea in the foothills of the Caucasus (near the Achaei and Zygi), where they had reportedly lived by piracy and ransom money (Strabo 11.2.12). They bordered the large delta of the Phasis River (mod. Rioni in W Georgia), a region known as Colchis, where tradition located the fleece that was sought by Jason and the Argonauts. The territory of the Colchi apparently extended to Trapezus on the S shore of the Black Sea (Strabo 11.2.18). About a decade before Josephus’ time of writing (i.e., 63/64 CE), Nero had removed this region from the Bosporan dynasty (see note to “Bosporani” in this section), out of concern over its role in endemic piracy, and annexed it to the province of Cappadocia.Why does Josephus’ Agrippa mention these two peoples and not the dozens of other tribes around the SE shore of the Black Sea? They were typically singled out as the main groups (cf. Strabo 11.5.6). They represent the furthest extremity of Roman rule in the area, among recently conquered peoples of a famously ferocious temper. And they provide a symmetrical counterpart to the Tauri and Bosporans, next to be mentioned, across the sea on the N. Josephus uses τὸ φῦλον 12 times, but 5 of these—the only occurrences in War 2—are concentrated in Agrippa’s speech, with its ethnographic survey. Although the noun can refer to a swarm or gender (Ant. 2.306; 13.430), Josephus most often uses it (3.354; 7.327; Apion 2.127) interchangeably with ἔθνος, itself a famously flexible term (“tribe, people, nation, race”). In this passage it could mean “tribe,” but since elsewhere in the speech it more likely indicates a “people” or “nation” (free of modern political connotations), I render it this way for consistency. On the N side of the eastern half of the Black Sea, and marking the transition to the Maeotis (Sea of Azov) about to be mentioned, these peoples provide a symmetrical counterpart to the Henochi and Colchi just mentioned. They belong together because the Tauri, occupying the mountains across the S of the Crimean peninsula (Chersonesus Taurica, in the S extremity of mod. Ukraine), W of the Cimmerian Bosporus, were subjects of the Bosporan dynasty. Note Strabo 11.2.10: “All those who are subject to the potentates of Bosporus are called Bosporani.” This monarchy was based in the eastern-most of the two principal cities on the peninsula, Panticapaeum (also called Bosporus), which had been part of the kingdom of Mithradates VI Eupator and was his final place of refuge from the Romans under Pompey (65-63 BCE).Although the Bosporan dynasty, comprising real and alleged descendants of Mithradates VI (cf. Tacitus, Ann. 12.15-31), would retain local rule until the 3rd or 4th century CE, the dynasts had come under Roman protection after Pompey, who allowed Mithradates’ son Pharnaces II to rule there (63-47 BCE), though removing Pontus from him. Bosporus’ protection was at first the responsibility of the governors of Macedonia and Bithynia, then of Moesia and Thracia after these provinces were established in the mid-1st century CE.Descendants of Mithradates often ruled both Bosporus and Pontus, beginning with Pharnaces II’s seizure of Pontus, though he was defeated and killed by Julius Caesar in 47 BCE. Sometimes the same ruler would control both. Josephus elsewhere mentions an important trip made by Marcus Agrippa in 14 BCE to the Bosporus, in which Herod ably assisted (Ant. 16.16-24)—though curiously he does not indicate its purpose, which was to establish the Pontic king Polemon I on the throne in place of the usurper Scribonius, who had killed the previous king, Asander (cf. Barrett 1977: 2-3). After 8 BCE, when Polemon died, his former wife Dynamis ruled Bosporus (to 8 CE; cf. Rostovtzeff 1919), whereas his widow Pythodoris held power in Pontus (to 23 CE).In Josephus’ time, Bosporan princes served at the pleasure of the emperors and enthusiastically displayed their friendship with Rome, through service as priests of the imperial cult and in their coinage and inscriptions honoring the reigning emperor and declaring themselves “friend of Rome.” Throughout most of Josephus’ time in Rome (68/9 to 90 CE) the king was Rhescuporis, son of Cotys (cf. Mommsen 1887: 1.300, 338-346; Braund 1994). The main city on the SW of the peninsula, Chersonesus, was free and minted its own coinage.Rose (1990) argues that Queen Dynamis of Bosporus (d. 8 CE)—widow of Asander (d. 17 BCE), divorcee of Polemon I (d. 8 BCE), and wife of Aspurgus (who would himself rule from about 10 to 37/8 CE)—is depicted along with her child on the Ara Pacis. D. Roller (1998: 276-77) suggests that Herod’s son Antipater might be in the background, between Dynamis and Agrippa. The Pontus (lit. “the deep, the sea-wave”) was common short-hand for Pontus Euxinus: the “hospitable-to-foreigners deep,” ancient name for the Black Sea. The Pontus gave its name also to the surrounding land, especially along the S/SE shore. The kingdom of Pontus was famous to Greeks and Romans because of the exploits of its long-lived king Mithradates VI Eupator (ruled 120-63 BCE), who had dominated the Sea and faced Rome in a series of (“Mithradatic”) wars: 88-82 BCE (in which he was successful) and 75-65 BCE (which he finally lost to Pompey, fleeing then to Bosporus; see the previous note). Although Pompey detached Pontus from Mithradates’ descendants, giving it to King Deiotarus, Pharnaces II, who had been permitted to keep Bosporus (63-47), later overran Pontus and Colchis. Descendants of the great king would rule again: Darius (39-37 BCE), Polemon I (37-8 BCE: a contemporary of Herod the Great), Polemon’s widow Pythodoris (8 BCE-23 CE), and Polemon II (38-64 CE). In 64 CE Nero annexed what remained of Pontus to Cappadocia. See Mitchell 1993: 1.93. The modern Sea of Azov.

This army has the same size as the combined auxiliary force that controlled Judea (see the note to “Sebastenes” at 2.52). We do not know much about the forces in the Pontus region, however. Were they a permanent auxiliary? Vexillations from the Cappadocian legions were only possible after 72 CE (see note to “Cappadocia” at 2.368). It seems unlikely, in a survey of Roman forces (in spite of his inclusion of Bosporus and the Taurians) that Josephus includes troops under the control of the king of Bosporus (Mommsen 1887: 1.344). The MSS reflect a telling confusion, with the Attic nominative plural νῆες μακραί appearing in MSS ML2V2RC (and printed by Thackeray and Pelletier; cf. Ant. 14.375), but the (apparent) singular ναῦς in MSS PA (as Niese and M-B)—a puzzle because adjective and verb are plural. LSJ (s.v.) notes, however, that Hellenistic authors often use the singular also for the nominative plural (cf. Ant. 8.181: πολλαὶ γὰρ ἦσαν ναῦς). This would explain the “more difficult reading” of MSS PA, though elsewhere Josephus uses the plural νῆες (7.148; Ant. 14.375) and favors the Attic—i.e., not Hellenistic—use of the nominative singular for the accusative plural (τὰς ναῦς, 3.418, 469; Ant. 8.163; 10.279), as do Polybius and Diodorus (passages following).The “long ships” in question are warships, tapered for battle, in contrast to the more rounded shapes of merchant vessels and transport ships (cf. 4.499; Thucydides 8.34.1; Aristophanes, Eq. 1351; Av. 379; Polybius 1.20.13, 25.7; 3.23.2; 21.43.13; Diodorus 1.55.2; 2.5.6; 4.32.2; 5.12.4; 11.2.1; 11.3.7, 12.3, 20.2-3, 24.2, 68.2; 12.4.5; 13.54.1, 62.6, 107.3-4; 14.47.7, et passim). There was an established equivalent in Latin: Caesar routinely distinguishes between the navis longa and the navis oneraria (Bell. gall. 4.21-22, 25).This is the only reference in Agrippa’s speech to a Roman naval force. After Nero’s annexation of Colchis in 63/64 CE (see note to “Colchi” in this section), out of a concern to halt piracy on the Black Sea, a new fleet was created there (classis pontica), supplementing fleets already established to protect the Italian coasts, N Africa, and Alexandria (the major grain centers). Arrian of Nicomedia mentions this fleet in his Periplus ponti euxini (9.3), in connection with his tour of the region as governor of Cappadocia (132 CE). See Starr 1989: 67-82, esp. 74. As the verb “pacify” makes clear, the rough and unsailable nature of the sea had been caused by piracy, not by nature. For piracy making seas “unnavigable,” see further 3.416: rebel Judean raiders temporarily set up a base at Joppa to harass shipping in the Egypt-Syria corridor.

The Bithynians (occupying the western part of the N coast of mod. Turkey), of Thracian stock, preserved considerable autonomy under native kings, by means of shrewd alliances, through the Persian and Seleucid periods. When Nicomedes IV died in 75/4 BCE, he bequeathed his territory to Rome. From Pompey’s organization of Pontus-Bithynia in 63 BCE, it remained a public or “senatorial” province, under a proconsul, until in 110 CE Trajan sent Pliny as his imperial legate to deal with its financial and other problems (cf. Sherk 1955: 403-4). It had a military presence of at least two cohorts from the early 2nd cent. CE (Pliny, Ep. 10.21, 106), and these may have arrived already under the Flavians, though Josephus does not indicate such a garrison. In mountainous E Anatolia (mod. Turkey), away from the S coast. The area was annexed by Tiberius after the death of its client-king Archelaus (17 CE; see the note to “Cappadocia” at 2.114), as a province under an equestrian prefect with only local auxiliary forces (cf. Mitchell 1993: 1.63). At Josephus’ time of writing War, Vespasian had recently (72 CE) combined Cappadocia with Armenia Minor and Galatia to create a massive province governed by a consular legate with two legions (XII Fulminata, taken from Syria, and possibly XVI Flavia felix; cf. Suetonius, Vesp. 8; Tacitus, Ann. 2.42.6; Parker 1992: 148; Mitchell 1993: 1.63; 2. Appendix 1). Josephus reflects no awareness of this latest development, however. In Josephus’ time (since 43 CE) they were part of the Roman province of Lycia and Pamphylia (see next note). Pamphylia proper was the coastal plain along the central bight on the S coast of Anatolia, bounded by the mountains of Lycia to the W and those of Cilicia to the E. This prosperous home to several cities (including Attaleia, Perge, Sillyum, Aspendus, and Side), fell under Persian and then Athenian domination, then was contested by the Ptolemies and Seleucids, the Pergamenes and Pisidians. When the province of Asia was created by the Romans in 133 BCE, Pamphylia was part of it, but it was then joined to Cilicia (ca. 80 BCE), Asia again (40s BCE), and Galatia (25 BCE), before joining Lycia in 43 CE. Lycia and Pamphylia, in mod. south-central Turkey, was constituted an imperial province by Claudius in 43 CE; in Josephus’ time it was governed by an imperial legate but had no significant Roman military presence; see Sherk 1955: 401-403. The Lycians, a hardy people who occupied a rugged land, appear already in Homer on the Trojan side of the war (Il. 2.876-77). After living for centuries under Persian, Athenian, Ptolemaic, and Seleucid domination, their territory was given by the Romans to Rhodes, following the defeat of Antiochus III in 189 BCE. Twenty years later, however, they received their freedom, which they preserved for nearly a quarter of a millennium, developing an efficient and durable political confederation. In mentioning their direct subjection to Rome, Josephus’ Agrippa is therefore describing recent events. He does not mention the province of Lycia and Pamphylia, however, preferring to describe the peoples (of famously rugged character) who now obey Rome. Cilicia comprised the E half of the coastal region of S Anatolia: the western, mountainous part (Tracheia; under Assyria called Hilakku—the source of “Cilicia”) and the plain from Tarsus to the E (Pedias). Like other parts of Asia Minor, it was conquered by the Persians and, after Alexander, contested by Ptolemies and Seleucids (completely under Seleucid rule from about 195 BCE). Towards the end of the 2nd century BCE, the mountain dwellers began to engage in serious piracy in the vital shipping lanes of the NE Mediterranean. This led the Romans, through the mid-70s BCE, to subdue that region and annex it as a province (though the mountain-dwellers would remain a problem for Rome through the 1st century CE; Mitchell 1993: 1.73 n. 35), leaving the eastern plains to nearby Armenia. Ongoing piracy led to Pompey’s campaign against the scourge in 67 CE, which in turn led to the incorporation of the Pedias plain into the Roman province (63 BCE). Cicero famously served as governor of Cilicia in 51/50 BCE.The Roman civil wars of the 40s and 30s BCE left the region in disarray, and once Octavian had consolidated power (30 BCE) he dissolved Cilicia, attaching the E part to the province of Syria and giving other pieces to client kings. This arrangement continued for about a century, through the story time of Agrippa’s speech in 66 CE, until in 72 Vespasian reunited the province. (This is the still general view, though Bickerman [1947] argued that E Cilicia was joined to Syria only under Tiberius [between 18 and 35 CE] and detached in 54 to serve as Corbulo’s base.) Since Josephus mentions the people, rather than the province, and they were subject to direct or indirect Roman rule in any case, it is unclear whether the speech reflects post-72 conditions. See the note to “freedom,” a basic theme of the War and of Agrippa’s speech, at 2.259. Mitchell (1993: 1.68) observes the meager evidence for the various forms of provincial taxation in Asia Minor and the hazard in applying norms from elsewhere. There were presumably census-based personal and land taxes, along with a variety of indirect taxes, but the mechanisms remain unclear. He also notes the peculiarity that the equestrian procurators in charge of revenue, at least until Hadrian, had fields of authority that ran across the boundaries of the provinces. This could mean either “without resorting to weapons,” as Agrippa claims the Judeans wish to do (so Thackeray in LCL), or that they accept tribute without being compelled to do so by by the presence of Roman weapons—i.e., armies (as Whiston, M-B, Vitucci, Pelletier). The latter is rather more likely, as a variation on “without a garrison” in 2.366. See the note there. See the note to “What, then?” at 2.364 above. This is the only occurrence in Josephus of the expression τί δαί, or even of δαί: a colloquial-Attic touch in Agrippa’s speech. Or Thraces, in keeping with the other name forms used here, but “Thracians” to avoid confusion with the place. Thrace (mod. S Bulgaria with part of NE Greece and Turkey W of Istanbul, bounded on the E by the Black Sea, Sea of Marmara, and Hellespont) had only been made a province (Thracia)—imperial, subject to an equestrian procurator—by Claudius in 46 CE. Until then it had remained a client kingdom, sometimes divided in two parts (cf. the division of Judea after Herod) and beset by dynastic rivalries. Under Augustus in 13 BCE, a serious Thracian uprising (until 10 BCE) had required the intervention of the celebrated Roman ex-consul (cos. 15 BCE), Lucius Calpurnius Piso. In describing his exploits, Velleius Paterculus (2.98) portrays the Thracians in stereotypical language: “by a succession of battles and sieges, he brought these fiercest of races (gentesque ferocissimas) to their former state of peaceful subjection.” Since Thrace was about 350 miles “long” (E-W) and 175 miles in breadth, these times must be for rapid communications by horse-drawn carriage. Couriers in the cursus publicus established by Augustus could cover about 50 miles per day on average, at 5 miles per hour, tripling that distance in emergencies by not stopping (cf. Casson 1994: 198). Although modern translators normally render “five days’ march” (Thackeray in LCL), infantry soldiers could manage only about 15-20 miles per day in favorable circumstances. Strabo (17.3.20) is amazed that an army could maintain even that pace over difficult terrain for a month. Western Thrace is extremely mountainous, with elevations abruptly varying between 3,000 and 6,000 ft (900 to 1800 m). The highest ridge of the Judean hills, by contrast, is in the 2,000-2,500 ft (600 to 750 m) range, and is much more limited in scope, with broad, accessible plains along the W and N (S of Galilee). Parker (1992: 132 n. 1) cites CIL 2.3272, showing one Valerianus commanding detachments from 3 Moesian legions (V Macedonica, VIII Augusta, and perhaps IV Scythica) in Thrace, newly formed as a province in 46 CE.

The Illyrians were well known for their toughness: it was their state-sponsored piracy under Queen Teuta, according to Polybius, that first prompted Rome to cross the Adriatic and involve itself in Greek affairs, from 219 BCE (see Polybius 2.4-12). They fought Rome repeatedly, and also allied with them at times, until their submission (as an ally of the Macedonian king Perseus) in 168 BCE. Whereas in Greek usage “the Illyrians” means those living on the western edge of Macedonia, N of Epirus, the Romans understood “Illyricum” to extend all the way N to the Danube (cf. Suetonius, Tib. 16; OCD s.v. “Illyricum, Illyrii”). The territory of Illyricum allotted to Julius Caesar in 59 BCE covered this entire region (mod. Bosnia-Hersegovina, Croatia, Slovenia, NE Italy, and E Austria), though he did not subdue it. It was made an imperial province, subject to a legate, by 11 BCE (Dio 54.34.4; Augustus, RG 30) and, after the suppression of the Pannonian Revolt (6-9 CE), divided into two provinces (later, at least, called Dalmatia and Pannonia). On Josephus’ meaning, see the following notes. The Balkan region covered today by the western part of former Yugoslavia, roughly as far E from the Adriatic as the Danube, and as far N from Macedonia as Belgrade, with the northern border rising N as it moves W, to just N of Rijeka on the Croatian coast. Formerly the southern part of Illyricum, Dalmatia was constituted as an imperial province, with its capital at coastal Salonae (near Split), early in the 1st century CE. See the following notes. Josephus’ ambiguous syntax appears to mean that this place of the Illyrii (and not Dalmatia) was bounded by the Ister/Danube, which would be true of both Moesia and Pannonia. Since the Roman territory of Illyricum had been split into Dalmatia and Pannonia, and Suetonius calls the Pannonian revolt the War of Illyricum (Tib. 16), and Josephus will discuss the other part of Illyricum—Dalmatia—next (2.370), one might conclude that he locates these Illyrians in Pannonia, between Dalmatia to the S and the Danube to the N. Although he knows about the province of Pannonia (War 4.619; 7.117), he does not mention it in Agrippa’s survey, possibly because the revolt there was so long, difficult, and famous (“the most serious of all foreign wars since those with Carthage” [Suetonius, Tib. 16]; Velleius Paterculus, a staff officer in the conflict, gives a vivid account: 2.110-17), that it might have been counterproductive to mention Pannonia by name, in a speech on the alleged submission of the inhabited earth to Rome.On balance, however, it seems more likely that Josephus here intends Moesia (E coast of Romania, N Bulgaria, E Serbia), which sat between just-described Thrace and Dalmatia, even though the (Thracian) Moesi do not seem to have been Illyrii (Domaszewski 1892: 213). But in that case his description would move in a more intelligible westerly direction (Thrace, Moesia, Dalmatia), making better sense of “after these”; and the Moesian legions were the ones most readily available to fight the Dacians across the Danube to the N (Filow 1906: 21-23). Thackeray (LCL ad loc.) assumes that Josephus has the Moesian legions in mind—though his translation seems to favor Pannonia (“who inhabit the region extending from Dalmatia to the frontier of the Ister”). Moesia emerges as a defined province at about the same time as the creation of Thracia (46 CE), though there had been legates and legions in the lower Danube region since the turn of the era, under Augustus. Domitian would divide Moesia into Upper and Lower provinces. The legions along the Danube that were available to deal with the serious Dacian threat were, at Josephus’ time of writing in the mid-70s, those based in Moesia (4), Pannonia (2), and Dalmatia (1) (Parker 1992: 147). Josephus does not name Pannonia or Moesia in Agrippa’s survey (see 4.619; 7.117), but he appears to have the latter in mind here (previous note). Because of its important strategic position, Parker (1992: 138) observes, even in the Armenian crisis of the early 60s, which required Corbulo to gather legions from many places, “Moesia was never left without at least two legions.” But which ones?From Filow (1906: 21-23) and Parker (1992: 132, 140, 142, 144) we gather that V Macedonica and IV Scythica were in the region from about the conclusion of the Pannonian revolt in 9 CE. VIII Augusta was transferred there in 46 CE, possibly to support the creation of neighboring Thrace that year (Tacitus, Ann. 12.15). IV Scythica was sent from Moesia to Syria in 56 or 57 and not replaced. In 62 CE, V Macedonica also went to Syria, but it was replaced with VII Claudia from Dalmatia (to maintain two legions in Moesia); V Macedonica would remain in the E, proceeding to Alexandria, from where it would march to Judea under Titus. III Gallica, which had also been attached to Corbulo in Syria, was sent to Moesia by Nero in about 66. At Nero’s death in 68 CE, therefore, the Moesian legions were III Gallica, VII Claudia, and VIII Augusta; at least the latter two were there at the time of Agrippa’s speech, and all 3 may have been. But VIII Augusta and III Gallica would leave in 69 CE with Antonius Primus to handle Vespasian’s campaigns in Italy. At about the same time, I Italica was moved into Moesia, as part of Vespasian’s plan to strengthen the region; VII Claudia was returned from Italy; and on completion of the main Judean war, V Macedonica returned from its long absence (War 7.117). At Josephus’ time of writing, therefore, the legions in Moesia were I Italica, VII Claudia, V Macedonica, and apparently the former Rhine legion, V Alaudae (Parker 1992: 148; Ritterling 1925: 1569).If Josephus were referring to Pannonia (overlapping with mod. Slovenia, E. Austria, based at Carnuntum), the reckoning would be simpler. At the time of Agrippa’s speech, the two legions would have been X Gemina and XIII Gemina, with XV Apollinaris having earlier departed from its established base in Carnuntum for Corbulo’s campaign (ca. 63 CE). Both of these would soon also be transferred, but early in Vespasian’s reign Legio XIII returned to its base at Poetovio; it was soon joined by XV Apollinaris, returning after a long absence in the E—most recently for the Judean war—to its base at Carnuntum (Parker 1992: 148; War 7.117). This gives a vivid impression of the ongoing threat from the Dacians (in mod. Romania, N of the Danube)—and Sarmatians—felt by those living S of the river. Roman leaders had planned invasions or diplomatic measures from the time of Julius Caesar onward (Suetonius, Jul. 44.3; Aug. 63). In Josephus’ time, under their king Decebalus the Dacians were making the threat clear again: a few years after he wrote this passage, in battles of 85 and 86 CE, they would kill the governor of Moesia as well as Domitian’s praetorian prefect. After his victory against them in 88, Domitian would impose a peace that recognized Decebalus as a friend (client) of Rome. But in the early 2nd century Trajan, after yet further confrontations, would reduce Dacia to a province (106 CE).

The Illyrians (partly Celtic) who gave their name to the province: see note to “Dalmatia” at 2.369. This is a colorful verb (ἀναχαιτίζω), with two meanings: of a horse, “throwing back the mane” in rearing or bucking; of a rider, keeping control of the horse by seizing the mane. Josephus’ only other use of the verb is strikingly similar, in his own character’s speech at 5.389. Whereas here his Agrippa speaks admiringly of a people who have thrown off the yoke of foreign rule in the past, Josephus there observes that the Judeans did not “rear their manes for freedom” while in Babylonian captivity; God has always directed their course. The parallel thus confirms both Josephus’ authorial control over Agrippa’s speech and his rhetorical flexibility.Before Josephus’ time the verb was used little, mainly by playwrights (Euripides, Hipp. 1232; Bacch. 1072; Rhes. 786; Sophocles, Frag. 179 [Radt]; Demosthenes, Olynth. 9; Menander, Sam. 209; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 5.15.3; 12.5.2). It was, however, something of a favorite term for Philo, who also used it chiefly in a metaphorical (though not political) sense: Opif. 1.79, 88; Leg. 1.73; Sacr. 1.49; Agric. 1.70; Somn. 2.83; Mos. 1.25, 177, 270; Spec. 2.18, 147, 163; 4.99; Virt. 1.41. Here again we see Josephus’ “Philonic” language. Instead of using a feminine pronoun to refer to antecedent ἐλευθερία (thus “for this freedom”), Josephus opts for the neuter article, apparently understanding a missing noun such as τὸ τέλος. Josephus’ Agrippa singles out the Dalmatians for impressive resistance to foreign domination, perhaps in part because, having abandoned their alliance with the Illyrian kingdom to the S, they did not share its defeat and submission to Rome in 168 BCE. Rather, they continued to attack Roman allies and interests for more than a century and a half. Although their territory was given to Julius Caesar, he was not able to pacify the region, though Octavian occupied most of it in 34/33 BCE. Still the conflicts continued: Tiberius led a campaign against them in 11-9 BCE, and they were only finally subdued (by Tiberius) with the end of the Pannonian Revolt (9 CE). Indeed, the Dalmatians were the only holdouts after the other rebels had surrendered (Velleius 2.94.4), and their persistence required a purely “Dalmatian” phase of the conflict (2.95). Velleius observes (2.95.4), albeit in the course of aggrandizing Tiberius’ victory, that the Dalmatians were, “because of the siting of their emplacements in the mountains, their fierce temper, their amazing knowledge of fighting, and especially the narrow passes in which they lived, very nearly unbeatable.” Although ἡσυχίαν ἄγω is a common expression, used also by Josephus in other works (Ant. 1.274; 3.76; 5.330; 7.127; 9.156, 195, 224; 11.261; 14.46; 15.116; Apion 2.114), this is the only occurrence in War. Following the unsuccessful revolt of L. Arruntius Camillus Scribonianus in 42 CE, Dalmatia became home to the loyalist legions, VII Claudia pia fidelis (Macedonica) and XI Claudia pia fidelis (Actiaca). VII Claudia was called to Syria in 58 CE, after which it went to Moesia (Parker 1992: 119, 135, 142, 144, 148). After 72-73, XI Claudia was shifted to Germania Superior, following service in 69-70 CE with Cerialis, and replaced with the newly formed IV Flavia felix (Parker 1992: 144, 148, and Dio 55.24.3). So Josephus may have in mind either legio XI Cl. (at Agrippa’s time) or IV Fl. f. (in his own time)—or he may be citing the general situation that Dalmatia hosts one legion.

Or simply “circumstances” (ἀφορμαί); see the notes at 2.41, 324. Here the sense is suggested by the parallel line of argument in 2.385, where “spur” (κέντρον) is used. See the note at 2.8. For the word, see note at 2.39. This must be an ironic statement, for Josephus’ Roman audience could not help but know about the serious and recent unrest in Gaul, led first by the governor of Lugdunensis, C. Iulius Vindex (spring, 68 CE) with the support of local nobility, and then with the support of Iulius Classicus and other prominent Gauls for the enormous Batavian revolt, led by Iulius Civilis in 69/70 and finally suppressed by 9 legions under Cerialis. See the note to “restive” at 1.5, where Josephus has emphasizes the turmoil of the time in a different rhetorical context. I.e., Gauls: see the note at 2.364. The space that Agrippa gives the Gauls is justified by their importance to Rome. Although this speech focuses on the Roman conquest, the Gauls themselves had invaded Italy in 391 BCE and sacked Rome in 390 (Livy 5.34-37), following up with further invasions into the 3rd century BCE. These created a deep insecurity among the Romans, which affected also their internal governance (in relations among the “orders”), for many decades afterwards. A final concerted attack by the Gauls in 225 BCE, after a half-century of quiet, was disastrous for the attackers, however, and led the Romans to embark on a program of subduing Cisalpine Gaul (by 190 BCE, delayed by Hannibal’s invasion in 218 BCE). Next came the subjugation of Transalpine Gaul in the Rhone valley and foothills of the Alps and Massif Central (120s BCE): Narbonese Gaul, after the foundation of coastal Narbo (mod. Narbonne), as a veterans’ colony in about 118 BCE. The conquest of the remainder, N and W of the Massif Central, was the work of Julius Caesar (in 59-51 BCE).Augustus would create 3 large provinces (Aquitania, Lugdunensis, and Belgica) from the new region and, after the collapse of his German province E of the Rhine (9 CE), remove large tracts W of the Rhine from Belgica to redefine them as Germania Inferior (N) and Superior (S). Josephus’ description here, giving the Rhenus (Rhine) as Gaul’s boundary, characteristically ignores political borders. See Rankin 1996: 103-37; Cunliffe 1997: 235-57. Ancient cities typically had built walls (classical Sparta being a notable exception) and those with the most advantageous natural situations were obviously better suited to defense. Josephus’ Agrippa extends the principle to entire peoples, describing the seemingly impregnable natural “walls” of the Gauls, the Britons (2.378), and the Egyptians or Alexandrians (2.386), which the Romans have nevertheless overcome. Of what use, then, are mere city walls such as Jerusalem’s, no matter how strong? Cf. Strabo 2.5.28; 4.1.1, with much more detail. This portrait is much simplified. If we envision Gaul as a rough pentagon with a “roof”, the NW and W sides face Oceanus, the NE the Rhine, the lower E the Alps, and the S is defined by the Pyrenees to the W and the Mediterranean to the E. This notice confirms Josephus’ ethnographical interest (cf. Strabo 2.5.28; 4.1.1), for Augustus had removed large tracts W of the Rhine to create the province of Germania Inferior and Superior. For the Gallic provinces the Rhine was no longer a meaningful border (Belgica coming closest to it near Koblenz), but it was still reasonable to speak of the Gallic peoples extending to the Rhine. See the note to “Gauls” in this section. See the notes at 2.155: this is the body of water commonly thought to encircle the inhabited earth. It is most accessible at the Mediterranean, where its boundary is marked by the Pillars of Hercules (at Gibraltar).

Plutarch (Caes. 15) gives 300; Appian (Celt. 1.2) gives 400. Gaul produced abundant wine, oil, and wool; it was rich in iron; and it yielded plenty of grain—though it does not seem to have sent much to Rome. Cf. Frank 1927: 367-72; Rostovtzeff 1957: 1.165-67, 215-21 (with reliefs showing business activities in Gaul, from a slightly later period than Josephus’ War). The wealth of Gaul, already mentioned by Agrippa at 2.364, was famous. Cicero had long before observed (late 70s BCE): “All Gaul is filled with traders, is full of Roman citizens” (Font. 5). Gallic wealth had come to Rome most obviously in the form of Julius Caesar’s unstoppable resources, his exaction of tribute from the new subjects (40 million HS annually, according to Suetonius, Jul. 25), and his expensive projects in Rome and other cities financed by the Gallic war: the Basilica Iulia (the area of a football field, 3 stories high), a large extension to the forum romanum, lavish public spectacles, the doubling of legionary base pay along with increased food allotments for soldiers and the assignment of slaves (Suetonius, Jul. 26; cf. 28), and the beginnings of a massive marble and colonnaded structure for popular meetings—all this supplementing earlier enhancements of the forum while he was aedile (Cicero, Att. 4.17; Suetonius, Jul. 10). Before Josephus, who uses the phrase ἄν τις εἴποι 9 times (5 in War 1-4), Philo has it 10 times; Josephus’ contemporary Plutarch has 24 occurrences. In earlier authors, however, it is rare (5 occurrences in Aristotle’s corpus, mostly in the Magna moralia, 3 each in Plato, Xenophon, and Demosthenes, 1 in Polybius). The phrase provides another example of Josephus’ control of Agrippa’s speech, also of his tendency toward “Philonic” and Second-Sophistic diction. That is, they do not rely on imports, as many regions (including Rome) must, but actually export their abundant natural resources and manufactured goods. See the note to this word at 2.360. Rostovtzeff (1957: 1.165) points out that the combination of excellent rivers and sea ports throughout Gaul made it easier for Gallic merchants than for most to collect goods from throughout the country and get them to markets along both the Rhine and the Danube. MSS PA have a more convenient “giving revenue” (πρόσοδον διδόντες), but ὄντες is the more difficult and preferable reading. It is a more humiliating verb for the Gauls—they are mere revenue—, in keeping with realist posture of the speaker. That is, the Gauls are not only required to pay the Romans tribute; they themselves must see to the collection and handing over of their own bounty.

Josephus’ negative phrasing is noteworthy: he infers the Gauls’ toughness from military conflicts more than a century earlier, featuring not their warlike nature but their natural defenses and resources. Contrast his presentation of the Germani at 2.376-77, which is all about their bellicosity. This difference accords with Tacitus, Germ. 28.4 (Rives trans.): “The Treveri and Nervii are quite eager to claim a Germanic origin, as though by this bloodline they might distinguish themselves from the typically spiritless Gauls.” There was a general sense that the last-conquered Gauls, across the Massif Central from Narbonensis, had once been tough tribes (cf. Caesar, Bell. gall. 1.1; Balsdon 1979: 65; Momigliano 1971: 50-73, and the note to “restive” at 1.5), though in recent times all of Gaul was becoming softer. The 80-year period in question is (roughly) from the early 120s to 51 BCE: from the Romans’ first military campaigns across the Alps, and the establishment of Narbonese Gaul (provincia), to Julius Caesar’s protracted campaigns (described in his Gallic War), which subjected the vast territories W and N of the Massif Central. Caesar himself refers to the precedent of Q. Fabius Maximus’ defeat of the Arverni and Ruteni in 125 BCE, in his confrontation of the German Ariovistus over claims to Gaul (Bell. gall. 1.45). Cicero’s defense of the governor of Gallia Narbonensis, M. Fonteius, refers to the ongoing conflicts with local tribes even there in the late 70s BCE (Font. 5-6). See the note to “freedom,” a basic theme of the War and of Agrippa’s speech, at 2.259. Agrippa’s implication that the Gauls fought for 8 decades to preserve their freedom against Rome is a simplification to the point of serious distortion. The Romans had entered the region at the urgent request of one group in Gaul (the Massilians, of mod. Marseilles), for aid against another (the Ligurians). Caesar justified his own campaigns in the 50s on the basis of prior German encroachment: the Aedui sought his help against the Sequani (backed by Ariovistus of the German Suebi, who had crossed the Rhine to stake his claim), and he checked the attempt of the Helvetii to migrate to lowland Gaul. Caesar’s conflicts in Gaul were not simply, therefore, battles against those defending their freedom against Rome.At any rate, Agrippa implies a stark contrast with the Judeans, who barely put up any resistance when they had the chance, and the Romans were still outside (63 BCE); their passion for freedom now is too late (2.355-57), especially given that even those who have mightily resisted the Romans over several decades have long since made their accommodation. See also the notes to “fortune” at 2.184, 373, 390. The theme of Rome’s fortune (τύχη) connects Josephus (2.360, 387; 3.354, 359, 438; 5.120; 6.399-400; 7.203, 231; Ant. 20.70) with the many other Greek statesmen who reflected on Rome’s power, from Polybius in the 2nd-cent. BCE to Plutarch in the 2nd cent. CE. The master text is Polybius’ history: he brings the traditional Greek concept of fortune—something like chance, luck, and randomness, a principle opposed to human training, planning, and discipline (see next note), which makes all endeavors, no matter how well prepared, uncertain—to bear on the rise of Rome. Since fortune’s nature is always to create new things and overturn the status quo (Polybius 1.4.5), Rome’s steady rise over a half century is its most remarkable achievement (1.4.1).Because fortune’s movements are inscrutable, attributing success to fortune is also a way of denying the successful party credit for the achievement; it was a common question whether conspicuous achievement was attributable to virtue or to fortune (cf. Polybius 2.49.7; 10.2.5; 15.34.2; 29.22.2; 32.8.4; 39.8.2). In Polybius, this sharp dichotomy supports the work’s Stoicizing ethic: since fortune is beyond one’s control, one should devote one’s energy not to its uncertain outcomes but to virtuous action, which is in one’s power—no matter what the outcome might be. Plutarch opens his essay On Fortune (Mor. 97c) with a line from Chaeremon, “The ways of mortals are fortune, not good counsel,” but then proceeds to argue in contrast that human effort achieves much. The tension is clearest in his essays on “the fortune—or the virtue—of Alexander,” where Plutarch defends the famous king against claims that his exploits were merely the result of fortune. In his Fortune of the Romans, by contrast, Plutarch puts the emphasis on the fortune of the city (“Why is not the case that that fortune put the city right at the times of its greatest calamities?” Mor. 324d) and of its great men. In both cases, fortune is not simply impersonal luck, but a sort of charm that attends the great men, and on which they rely, though they are ever in danger of losing it (Mor. 319c-d); it may be equated with a guardian spirit (δαίμων, Mor. 324b). See, with somewhat different emphases, Swain 1996: 152-60, 354-55.In this respect, then, Josephus (especially here in Agrippa’s voice) tends to side with the Greek tradition in shifting the focus from Rome’s achievements (see the note to “weapons” in this section) to her enjoyment of fortune’s favor now, something that has blessed many other nations in the past (and will in the future). See further the note to “God” at 2.390. See the previous note. Cf. Life 17 (noted by Lindner 1972: 22), where Josephus will caution against war with Rome on the double ground of the Romans’ martial prowess and their good fortune. Josephus’ rhetorical freedom is clear from the fact that his lengthy digression on the Roman army will argue precisely the opposite point: “they hold their empire as the achievement of valor [or virtue], not as a gift of fortune,” and that their whole training is aimed at overcoming the vicissitudes of fortune (3.71, 101, 106-7). Again, however, the extreme claims of that digression will be almost systematically undone by the portrait of the legions in the subsequent narrative, where they are frequently at a loss in the face of both fortune’s adverse turns and surprising Judean valor (cf. Introduction and Mason 2005a). See the note to “slaves” at 2.349. The number is plausible, though hard to verify or explain precisely. Under Augustus a cohort of 500 was apparently stationed at Lugdunum, increased to 1,000 by Vitellius, but reduced to 500 again by Vespasian (Saulnier 1991: 214). Archaeology has turned up remains of military camps in the interior of the 3 Gauls, from the Julio-Claudian and Flavian periods (Le Bohec 1994: 165-66).Josephus’ Agrippa appears caught between two rhetorical impulses: to stress the small number of Roman soldiers that hold down vast territories of strong peoples, as here, and yet to show that the Romans are capable of fielding a massive army to control such a people as “the Germani” (2.377). Tacitus insists, however, that the major concentration of forces along the Rhine was “a bulwark against Germani and Galli alike” (Ann. 4.5). There could be little doubt that the 8 legions camped W of the Rhine, in what had initially been part of Gaul, created a powerful disincentive to would-be rebels in Gaul. The phrase ὀλίγου δεῖν was popular among Greek orators as a slight qualification of their statements concerning “all” or “every” or some extreme action (e.g., Isocrates, Arch. 65; Areop. 69; Antid. 159; Demosthenes, Phil. 3.1; Cor. 20; Aeschines, Ctes. 165). The only historians known to use it before Josephus were Xenophon (Hell. 2.4.21; Mem. 3.10.13) and the highly rhetorical Dionysius, who has it a remarkable 29 times. Philo employs it 3 times (Plant. 83; Mos. 1.160; Flac. 44). Josephus uses it several times in War (here and 1.625; 2.550, 580; 4.349; 6.43) and at Life 393, in just such contexts, showing a consistency of authorial hand. Plutarch has it more than 3 dozen times. Even the qualification “almost” does not save Josephus from exaggeration: a laudatory Plutarch (Caes. 15.5) and Appian (Gall. 2) agree that Julius Caesar took more than 800 cities in Gaul (cf. Paul 1990: 80).

The peoples of modern Portugal and Spain, originally in two provinces (Citerior and Ulterior) but since 7 BCE in three: Lustiania in the SW and W, S-central Baetica (around the Baetis River), and Tarraconensis in the long-settled E/SE plains and across the rugged N (Strabo 3.4.20). See Sutherland 1971: 132-51. Or “farmed”: the verb γεωργέω suggests a surface-level sifting, refining, or even strip-mining of gold ore, not the deep-vein shaft mining that the Romans would undertake. Josephus’ Agrippa mentions only the most valuable of the metals famously mined in Spain, which also included silver, lead, tin, iron, zinc, mercury, and copper. The main areas were the NW, SW (including Sierra Morena), and SE extremities. Polybius (34.9.8) apparently reported that the silver mines near Carthago Nova (mod. Cartagena) employed some 40,000 miners. See Rothenberg and Freijeiro 1981; Domergue 1987, 1990. (I thank my colleague Jonathan Edmondson for consultation.) Long before the Romans arrived, gold had been mined in the southern Sierra Morena; the Romans would open up the northern veins, under constant military supervision, in the territories of the peoples Josephus will next mention. This verb (ἐξαρκέω) opens an inclusio, which Josephus will close at the end of the Greek sentence (2.375): all the gold of Iberia did not suffice to preserve their freedom, but a single legion does suffice (same verb without prefix) to keep them enslaved to Rome. See the note to “freedom,” a bedrock theme of the War and of Agrippa’s speech, at 2.259. After Ares (Mars), the God of war; thus in effect: war-crazed, martially obsessed. I translate ἀρειμάνια literally to indicate the vividness and strangeness of the term. Before Josephus it is attested as a proper noun in Diogenes Laertius’ witness (1.8) to a lost dialogue of Aristotle, which claims that the Magi distinguished between a good spirit (Zeus or Ahura Mazda/Ormazd) and an evil one (called Hades or Ares-manic [this may be simply a genuine effort to transliterate the Zoroastrian Angra Mainyu, or it may be deliberately interpretative]). Fragments of Eudemus, Eudoxus, and Theopompus make the same point. As a common adjective, the word is attested before Josephus only in Strabo, who describes the Gauls as war-crazed, spirited, and quick for battle—though not otherwise unpleasant (4.4.2)—as also the war-crazed Celtic Iapodes, now worn out by battling Augustus (7.5.4), and in Philo, who characterizes war-mania as the vulgar misconception of courage (Virt. 1; cf. Ebr. 115). Particularly significant is Strabo’s claim (3.3.7) that these people sacrifice hecatombs to Ares before battle. For his remarks on their unique savagery and insensibility to pain, see 3.3.7, 4.17-18. Josephus’ contemporary Plutarch uses the word 9 times, suggesting a rise in popularity.Josephus’ usage here is evidently closest to Strabo’s ethnographic use of the word to characterize a people. His authorial control of Agrippa’s speech is indicated by his use of this rare adjective again at 6.46, in a speech attributed to Titus (where the sense is positive, of soldiers “pumped up” for battle). See the note to “peoples” at 2.366. Josephus names here two of the three famous Celtiberian tribes (the other being the Asturians). Strabo (3.3.3) identifies Lusitania with the entire NW region of Spain, from the Tagus River, which runs E-W roughly across the middle, to Oceanus on the W and N; he acknowledges that these people are now usually called Callaicans, with Lusitania having become the name of a province bounded by the Durius (Duris) River (3.4.20)—largely overlapping with modern Portugal, though it extends only half as far W, somewhat further N, than Lusitania.Josephus’ coupling of Lusitani with Cantabri, as particularly war-like peoples, seems to indicate that he has Strabo’s definition (or one like it) in mind: This NW sector was the last part of Spain to be conquered by Rome: “Lusitiania is the greatest of the Iberian nations and the nation against which the Romans waged war for the longest times” (Strabo 3.3.3). Augustus’ conquest of this region in 27-26 BCE was exceedingly difficult and hard to sustain (Mattern 1999: 100). Strabo’s examples of the northern people’s martial character, courage, and insensibility to pain (e.g., their singing from their crosses while being crucified), traits attributed to both men and women, are drawn from the Cantabrian wars (3.4.17-18; cf. 3.3.7).In Strabo’s time there were still three legions in the northern regions of the province Hispania Tarraconensis, two of these in the W-central area of his Lusitani and Cantabri, the other along the Pyrenees. Already then the southern-most province of Baetica was a senatorial province without a legion, and also the internal part of Terraconensis could be described as “toga-clad” because of its cooperation with Rome (3.4.20). By Josephus’ time, more than a half-century later, the region had produced or nurtured literary Romans such as Seneca and Lucan, and soldiers and statesmen from whose families emperors would soon emerge (in Trajan and Hadrian). In the north-central mountains of the Iberian peninsula, within the large NW area covered by Strabo’s Lusitainia (3.3.3). Mattern (1999: 100) points out that the Cantabri revolted at least 4 times between 24 and 16 BCE, in spite of being dealt with harshly each time (Cassius Dio 53.29; 54.5.1; 54.11, 20.3). After the 3rd revolt they were reportedly disarmed, their survivors forced to come down from the Cantabrian mountains and settle in the plains (Florus 2.33.59-60), though this did not prevent a further revolt. For Strabo’s account of their courage and toughness, see the previous note. See the notes at 2.155 and 2.363: the body of water commonly thought to encircle the inhabited earth. The Romans’ recent conquest of long-dreaded Oceanus (by invading Britain in 43 CE) was a monumental achievement. Here the reference is to NW Spain, which is bordered by Oceanus to the W and N (Strabo 3.3.3). The noun ἄμπωτις occurs only here in Josephus. Strabo, however, uses the term 28 times, about a third of these in the same context as Josephus concerning the Spanish coast: of the vigorous “ebb-tide,” which he contrasts with the flood-tide in the region (3.2.4, 7, 11; 3.3.3, 5.7, 8). He supports Posidonius against Aristotle, who had mistakenly imagined that these famous tides were caused by rocky cliffs along the coast, whereas Posidonius correctly describes the coastal land as low and sandy (3.3.3). Strabo does not dispute the impressiveness of the tides, though, and he (or Posidonius) may be Josephus’ source here. For impressively surging tides in another part of Oceanus, in the E, see Diodorus 17.106.6. See the similar construction at 2.381 (used of the treacherous shoals of the Syrtes off N Africa).

I.e., the land masses or possibly (originally) man-made structures built thereon (Strabo is unsure: 3.5.5-6) that mark the entrance to the Straits of Gibraltar, closing the Mediterranean (“Our Sea”) in a passage 36 miles (58 km) long and as narrow as 8 miles across (Herodotus 1.203; 2.33; 4.8, 42-43, 152, 181, 185, 96; 8.132). The Pillars are so called because Heracles was said to have erected them during the Labor that required him to bring back the oxen of Geryon, who lived on an island in Oceanus by Cadiz (Hesiod, Theog. 979; Pausanias 1.35.7-8; cf. “Gadeira” at 2.363). The Pillars marked the transition to terrifying, unexplored Oceanus, thought by Josephus and most contemporaries to encircle the inhabited earth (cf. 2.155 with notes; Romm 1992: 9-45; see further 2.382). Phoenician explorers a millennium or more before Josephus’ time had established the significance of the Pillars, perhaps connecting them with a shrine to Melkart in Tyre. Strabo mentions as but one possibility (3.5.5) what was later generally accepted: the Pillars were the Rock of Gibraltar on the N and Mt. Abilyx on the S (Jebel Musa or possibly Mt. Acha in Spanish N Africa, at the Ceuta isthmus at the NE tip of Morocco). See the note at 2.382 below; these are the only two references to the Pillars of Hercules in Josephus. A reference to the height of the chain, whose peaks in the central section reach about 3,350 m/11,000 ft. See the note to “slaves” at 2.349, and to “freedom” at 2.346. This completes the inclusio begun with what did not suffice (the Iberians’ gold), at 2.374; dropping the prefix from the verb (see the earlier note) emphasizes that 1 legion easily suffices.Legio VI Victrix (“victorious”), one of the 3 legions that had been in Spain under Augustus and Tiberius (Tacitus, Ann. 4.5; down from the 4 or 5 required to pacify the region; cf. Mattern 1999: 100), was the only one left at the putative time of Agrippa’s speech in 66 CE. It would become the base of S. Sulpicius Galba’s support, acclaiming him emperor after Nero’s suicide in June of 68 CE; at that time Galba raised another Spanish legion to support his bid (VII Galbiana or Hispana, later Gemina), which he soon moved to Pannonia; he brought legio X Gemina back to its traditional home in Spain. In 69 CE the short-lived emperor Vitellius sent the new legion I Adiutrix also to Spain, where it would, however, lead the support for Vespasian in the latter part of that year (Tacitus, Hist. 3.44); it would soon leave to join the Flavian general Cerialis against the Batavians, along with the other 2 Spanish legions, VI Victrix and X Hispana/Gemina (Tacitus, Hist. 4.68; 5.19. See Parker 1992: 99-100, 140-44).Through the middle of the 70s, when Josephus was writing War, Spain was apparently empty of legions. This may explain his surprising use of the past (aorist) tense (ἤρκεσεν), betraying his own authorial perspective, though the imperfect might have suited that purpose better; the Latin translation has the more expected present (satis est), as do other modern translators (M-B: “jetzt genügt”). Spain would only receive a legion again when Legio VII (now Gemina) returned—after supporting Otho and then Vespasian in Rome, under Antonius Primus—at some point in the later 70s, to remain there for centuries (Parker 1992: 147).

As Rives (1999: 1-41, 65) clearly shows, Germani was a convenient unifying term applied by Roman authors to a number of tribes who evidently saw no such unity among themselves: Suebi (itself an umbrella term), Batavi, Chatti, Cherusci, Tencteri, Chauci, Cimbri, Peucini, Veneti, Fenni, and many others. Rives’ rich commentary to Tacitus’ Germania seems the best place to begin a study of the region and its various peoples in Josephus’ period. This is the only occurrence in War of the adverb δήπου, though it appears (more properly) as two words at 2.36; see note there to “I presume.” This is a point of comparison with the Judeans themselves: on the characteristic phrase see 2.268 (in the context of the Caesarean conflict). Josephus’ authorial control of Agrippa’s speech is clear from a very similar line in his Titus’ speech to the rebel leaders (War 6.331): Are they relying upon the “strength of [their] bodies” (same phrase as here)? “But you know that the Germans are our slaves!” Tacitus (Germ. 4) describes a remarkably uniform appearance: “fierce blue eyes, tawny hair, bodies that are big, but strong only in attack.” He later attempts to explain their remarkable size and strength (Germ. 20): “In every home they grow up, naked and filthy, into those long limbs and large bodies that amaze us so. . . . Love comes late to the young men, and their virility is not drained thereby. Nor are maidens hurried along: of identical age and similar height, they match their mates in strength, and the children reflect their parents’ vigour” (trans. Rives 1999; see his commentary ad loc. for parallels). Rives notes (p. 129) archaeological research suggesting that average Germans were 5 ft. 6 in./1.67 m (male) and 5 ft. 2 in./1.57 (female). The combination of “no doubt” and this explanation actually feeds doubts about the claim that Agrippa’s audience would know what Germans were like. Certainly in Josephus’ Rome it would not be difficult to see them (since Batavians traditionally formed part of the imperial bodyguard, and others might well be seen as captives). But since the Romans had no permanent presence in Jerusalem, and the auxiliaries in Judea were drawn from Caesarea and Sebaste, it is not clear how Agrippa’s audience in 66 CE should “often” have seen Germans. In Josephus’ narratives, Germans appear in Judea only as part of Herod’s exotic bodyguard, at his funeral parade alongside units from Gaul and Thrace (War 1.672; Ant. 17.198). Otherwise, they appear only in Roman contexts: Gaius’ German bodyguard, which went on a rampage when their master was killed (Ant. 19.119, 125-26, 138, 148-49, 152-53, 215); the connection of Germany and its legions with contenders in the civil wars (War 4.546, 586, 595, 648); and the Batavian revolt of 69-70 (War 7.76-89). Conceivably, Josephus’ Agrippa is ironically signaling to his Roman literary audience the artificiality of the speech.

See the note at 2.365; also 2.382 below. This phrase is characteristic of Josephus in War (see the note at 2.60); its use here highlights his control over the speech of Agrippa. Tacitus also dwells on the martial quality of their lives, emphasizing that it is the only real criterion for male virtue (Germ. 3, 6-9, 13-16, 30-31, 35). But Tacitus, who admires the nobility of their primitive ways, especially as reflected in marital fidelity and child-rearing (18-19), does not compare them to wild beasts in general—though he mentions drunken brawling that ends in death, as well as serious gambling (22, 24.2). Josephus too seems to make only their anger animal-like in its ferocity (to highlight the Roman achievement). This is an ironic claim. As Josephus’ Roman audience would know, it was at least as correct to say that the Rhine marked the limit to Roman ambitions. From about 12 BCE Augustus, dispatching Drusus as commander, had established a unified province of Germania between the Rhine and the Elbe (roughly the western half of modern Germany), but that project was shattered when Quinctilius Varus, the governor in 9 CE, perished with his 3 legions (the “Varian disaster”) in an ambush in the Teutoburg Forest; see the note to “Varus” at 1.21. That was the battle that stopped Rome (Wells 2003), not the Germani, forcing Rome to abandon the German project and accept the Rhine as the limit of its expansion for the time being. Although minor explorations continued across the river, Claudius, at the time of his preparations to invade Britain in 43 CE, withdrew Roman forces to the Rhine as a fixed border: see Mommsen 1887: 1.127-38. As Josephus was writing, Vespasian was beginning to venture further again: he established a limes in the Neckar-Black Forest region, in the SW “elbow” of the Rhine. Although there were normally 8 legions in the area, at the time of Agrippa’s speech (66 CE) there were apparently only 7: in Germania Inferior (the region W of the Rhine: mod. Netherlands, northern Belgium, Westfalia W of the Rhine and Rheinland) I Germanica, V Alaudae, XV Primigenia, and XVI Gallica; in Germania Superior (S of Belgica: eastern France, northern Switzerland, and the Black Forest area of Germany), IV Macedonica, XXI Rapax, and XXII Primigenia (Parker 1992: 140). After the Batavian rebellion, which required 9 legions, and the operations of T. Flavius Clemens in 72-73 CE—so at Josephus’ time of writing—there were 8 legions again: VI Victrix, X Gemina, XXI Rapax, and XXII Primigenia in Germania Inferior; in Germania Superior, I Adiutrix, VIII Augusta, XI Claudia, and XIV Gemina (Parker 1992: 146-47).Whether Josephus is anachronistically reflecting the situation at his time of writing or simply citing the standard configuration (Tacitus, Ann. 4.5), we cannot know. See the Excursus above. See also 2.373: Josephus obscures the fact that the Rhine legions guarded not only the Germani but, as importantly, Gaul. See the note to “slaves” at 2.349, to “freedom” at 2.346. This is peculiar phrasing, no doubt influenced by events between the story time of Agrippa’s speech (66 CE) and Josephus’ writing it in the 70s. In keeping with the rhetoric of the whole speech, Agrippa should be saying that the Germans, though enjoying every natural advantage, submit to Rome. But he cannot say that. Just 3 years after the ostensible time of the speech, parts of Germany and Gaul exploded in the Batavian-Gallic Revolt, in which native aristocrats who had become Roman citizens led auxiliary armies and even defecting legionaries (during the Roman civil war) in a bid for “freedom” from Rome. In contrast to Agrippa’s main point, Tacitus’ report of the speech by the leader Iulius Civilis, as he tries to rally his followers, declares (Hist. 4.17): “Let Syria, Asia Minor, and the East be slaves, since they are habituated to kings. Many now living in Gaul were born before the days of tribute. Only recently in fact [60 years earlier] was Quintilius Varus killed, and slavery driven out of Germany.”

I.e., Britons. See 2.363 with note. There the immediate reference is to Caesar’s abortive invasions of the S in 55-54 BCE, whereas this paragraph elaborates on the situation created by Claudius’ more enduring conquest of 43 CE and following; for the intervening period, which was marked by the growth of communities under Belgic invaders, see Collingwood and Myres 1990: 54-75. Much of our literary source material for Britain in this period is in Tacitus’ Agricola (10-17, on which see Birley 1999) and Annals (14.29-37; bks. 7-10, which included Claudius’ conquest, are lost). Current scholarship on Roman Britain depends heavily on archaeology to fill in the gaps. See Collingwood and Myres 1990; Webster 1993, 1999; Shotter 2004.On nature’s “walls” see 2.371 above (Gaul) and 386 below (Alexandria and Egypt). As the context shows, the natural wall here is Oceanus, beyond (or in) which Britain lies. Although no constructed wall could surpass it for defensive purposes (a point still important in Hitler’s calculations), Agrippa declares, even the English Channel was not sufficient to keep the Romans from conquering the island. Claudius’ invasion force, under the senator Aulus Plautius, was nearly the same size as Caesar’s in the second invasion (54 BCE): 4 legions instead of Caesar’s 5, but with more auxiliary cavalry. It seems that Claudius’ generals used Caesar’s account as a guide (Collingwood and Myres 1990: 78-80). Claudius himself visited Britain for a couple of weeks following the invasion, enough to associate himself with victory and justify the military glory reflected in his triumph. See the note to “freedom” (a prominent theme of War) at 2.346, to “slaves” at 2.349. Agrippa’s language is not that of diplomatic nuance but of Realpolitik, designed to engage interlocutors who resent their “enslavement” to a foreign master. Tacitus, writing two to three decades later, can express both sides of the semantic coin. On the one hand (Agric. 13): “The Britons themselves submit readily to conscription and taxes and the obligations imposed by the empire, so long as there are no abuses. They have now been broken in to obedience, but not yet to slavery.” On the other hand, he allows Iulius Civilis, leader of the Batavian revolt, to claim that “slavery was driven from Germany” by the defeat of Varus in 9 CE, and to hope for the same W of the Rhine now (Hist. 4.17); so, being subject to Rome is viewed by the subjects as slavery indeed. See the notes at 2.155 and 2.363: this is the forbidding body of water commonly thought to encircle the inhabited earth; what we know as the English Channel was part of it. The observation is germane here because the Roman commander Plautius reportedly faced a mutiny when he announced his plan to cross to England: “they were indignant at the prospect of conducting military campaigns outside of the world (ἔξω τῆς οἰκουμένης)” (Dio 60.19.2). See the note to this word at 2.360. Britain is indeed several times larger than Judea, even including Galilee (the biblical “Dan to Beersheva” is about 144 miles [232 km] N-S, not counting the deeper Negev). The classic statement of Britain’s dimensions, which Caesar claims he did not know before his campaign there and so he sent an agent to sit off the coast and report (Bell. gall. 4.20-21), is in the descripton that accompanies the narrative of his second invasion (5.13). Strangely, that comprehensive account could not have come from his scout or from his own brief expeditions in the S: he must have relied on earlier sources. Caesar gives the perimeter as about 2,000 Roman miles, envisioning the island as a triangle (with angles at the SE [Kent], S, and NE [facing Germany]), with sides of 800 miles on the N (facing open water), 500 on the S side (facing Gaul), and 700 on the side facing Ireland (and Spain!). Since the Roman mile was shorter than ours (1,618 yards, 1.48 km), these distances are close to reality, though the mental image that Caesar offers (similarly Tacitus, Agric. 10) has proven elusive—confirming that the Romans were more concerned, and much more familiar, with linear distance and itineraries than with scale maps (Mattern 1999: 24-80, esp. 52-53; Adams and Laurence 2001: 7-66). The 4 legions assembled by Claudius for the invasion of Britain in 43 CE—II Augusta (commanded by Vespasian, princeps at Josephus’ time of writing), IX Hispania, XIV Gemina, and XX Valeria—were matched by auxiliary forces and supplemented by cavalry for a total of about 45,000 troops (Tacitus, Ann. 14.32.6; Parker 1992: 129, 133; Shotter 2004: 20-23; Bishop and Coulston 1993: 209; Pollard 2006: 212). Legio XIV was moved by Nero in 66 CE for a campaign in the Bosporus (Tacitus, Hist. 1.6; Parker 1992: 139; Webster 1993: 40-60 on the movements and fortresses of the 50s), so that shortly before the time of Agrippa’s speech only 3 legions remained in Britain; this was the case until the Flavian general P. Petilius Cerialis went to Britain as governor after suppressing the Batavian revolt in 70 CE, taking Legio II Adiutrix with him (Parker 1992: 146). It is again unclear whether Josephus means to have Agrippa cite the reasonably stable arrangement, outside the turmoil of the late 60s, or whether this is a simple anachronism reflecting his own time of writing (as Parker 1992: 140 n. 1). Agrippa’s rhetoric obscures the fact that most of Britain remained unconquered at the time of his speech, and that resistance and rebellion had hardly abated since Claudius’ invasion (cf. Webster 1993 for the decade after 48 CE). Tacitus (Agric. 8) claims that the legate Vettius Bolanus (69-71 CE) governed “with a gentler hand than was appropriate for an untamed province.” That is why the 4 legions were necessary, there being no plausible threat from outside Britain. The initial conquests had settled the already friendly Atrabates, S of the Thames, and the Catuvelauni N of the river, as well as the area W to Exeter. But Caratacus, king of the Belgae, continued to offer resistance until his capture in 51 CE. The Romans had allied by treaty the Regni in the SW (under Cogidubnus), the Iceni in East Anglia (under Prasutagus), and the Brigantes, who occupied much of N England (Yorkshire, Durham, Northumberland).Of these, the Iceni would famously revolt under the royal widow Boudica in 59/60-61, generating a major conflict with massive loss of life. A few years later (69 CE), the Brigantian queen Cartamandua was attacked by her ex-husband Venutius, drawing Rome into another fierce contest. She was extracted, but Venutius temporarily won the kingdom. Only under Vespasian’s legates Vettius Bolanus (69-71 CE), Q. Petillius Cerialis (71-74), Sex. Iulius Frontinus (74-77), and Cn. Iulius Agricola (77-83) were the N and W pacified—though Scotland (to the extent conquered) was apparently abandoned in 87 CE. Cf. Collingwood and Myres 1990: 76-119; Shotter 2004: 20-38.

The vast Parthian empire is an important background feature of the Judean war against Rome and of Josephus’ account; see 1.5 with notes and Introduction. Although Agrippa seems here to treat that empire as part of the Roman world, at 2.388-39 he will mention the Parthians again as an alien world beyond the Euphrates, in order to dismiss them as possible allies. This dual use illustrates the two-sided conception of the world as both more or less Roman and yet including large foreign territories, as well as the two-sided conception of the Parthians as both an independent empire and yet in some way subject to the Romans (see the note to “Romans” in this section). See the note to “people” at 2.366. Parthians suffered from the same sort of bifurcated image as other foreigners (such as Gauls): they were both ridiculed for luxurious effeminacy and respected for ferocious fighting skills (especially in connection with horsemanship and archery). Cf. Schneider 1998: 98-109, 117. The Parthian empire was indeed a vast collection of tribes, some represented by the 72 Seleucid administrative districts (Appian, Syr. 62), which seem to have continued through Josephus’ time, and some in the 18 client kingdoms (Pliny, Nat. 6.112-14), such as Adiabene. See Introduction. From the time of Augustus (RG 32), the Parthians routinely sent young members of the royal family to grow up in Rome, and also asked the Senate to recognize their new monarchs (Tacitus, Ann. 2.1-4, 56, 58, 68; 6.31-7; 11.8; 12.10-14). In 6 CE a Parthian delegation came to Rome (diverted to Tiberius in Greece) asking that one of their young men who had grown up there, Vonones, be returned to serve as Parthian king. He went, and ruled from 7/8 to 11/12 CE; but his foreign ways, Tacitus wryly narrates, quickly led to his overthrow (Ann. 2.2). In 40 CE, L. Vitellius exacted a peace treaty from the troublesome Parthian king Artabanus, which required him to send his sons to Rome (Tacitus, Ann. 6.32, 36-7; Dio 59.27.3-4). On ancient political “hostages” in general, see Walker 2005. See the note at 2.285. In the context of Agrippa’s speech, this “slavery” is political and metaphorical (the kind to which provinces are also subject: 2.349, 355, 365); the Parthian royals were not literal slaves. But the view of many Parthians about accepting their king from the Roman princeps is well captured by Tacitus, as he describes the reception of the Roman-educated Vonones I, in 7/8 CE: “And now the throne of the Arsacids was held—and dispensed—as one of the Roman provinces! Where was that glory of those who had killed Crassus, who had ejected Antony, if a chattel of the Caesar, after tolerating slavery all these years (si mancipium Caesaris, tot per annos servitutem perpessum), should govern Parthians?”

This kind of exaggeration was common in Josephus’ time, even though everyone knew that India and the massive Parthian empire, not to mention the vaguely conceived “silk people” of the remote E, were not occupied by Rome. Strabo, concluding his survey of the inhabited earth, observes that “the Romans occupy the best and most famous [part] of it, having surpassed all former rulers” (17.3.24). See the note at 2.360. The tone of Thucydidean-Polybian Realpolitik continues: it is not Roman moral virtue or even manifest destiny, but their raw military power that must be accommodated. Standard Greek form of the Latin-based “Carthaginians.” At 6.332 Titus will cite the Carthaginians while chastising the rebel leaders before his final assault. Did the rebels place confidence in superior generalship? “But you knew that even the Carthaginians were taken” (an allusion to their Barcene leaders, especially Hannibal).The Carthaginians were an enormously successful trading people based in the fortified city of Carthage, established in the late 8th century BCE on a peninsula N of modern Tunis (Tunisia). Masters of ship construction and naval warfare, they offered the most consistent and effective challenge to Rome’s increasing power from the mid-3rd to the mid-2nd centuries BCE. Accordingly, they play a prominent role in Polybius’ history of Rome’s rise, from the first book (proto-history), which their early conflicts with Rome dominate, to the fall of their city at the end of bk. 38. Other important sources are Livy’s Roman History and Appian’s Hannibalic and Punic Wars.Although Josephus’ rhetorical point about Carthage’s fall in 146 BCE is clear, the destruction of the city was not the end of the Carthaginian people (there were, e.g., many deserters and then captive slaves), any more than the fall of Corinth in the same year meant the end of the Corinthians or Achaeans, or the recent fall of Jerusalem meant the end of the Judeans—this last an important point for Josephus. In his time Carthage had been rebuilt (starting under Augustus) into a prosperous Roman city, which would reach a new height of success in the 2nd century and then become famous as a cultural center and home to important Christian teachers. This is the only reference to Hannibal (247- ca. 182 BCE) in Josephus. From age 9 (237 BCE) he was in Spain with his father, Hamilcar Barca, as Carthage rapidly expanded its influence there, with Hannibal’s brother-in-law Hasdrubal establishing Carthago Nova (mod. Cartagena) in 228. In 219 BCE Hannibal besieged and captured the Spanish city of Saguntum, a Roman ally, and so precipitated war with Rome. The aim seems to have been to draw away many of Rome’s allies, humbling the great city so that Carthage could retake its former holdings of Sicily and Sardinia and pursue its economic interests in the W without interference. To that end, Hannibal boldly crossed the Alps in autumn of 218—losing many soldiers in the process—and entered Italy itself, crossing the Apennines in 217 and enjoying spectacular success in central and S Italy, famously in the defeat of a massive Roman army led by both consuls at Cannae in Apulia (216 BCE).Although many of Rome’s Italian allies did defect, the next few years, including a failed march on Rome in 211, brought only temporary victories and mixed results, as the Romans generally avoided open warfare and began to exhaust Hannibal. He was recalled to Carthage in 203 BCE and, after defeat at the Battle of Zama (202) reached terms with the Romans. In 196/95, however, he fled to the Seleucid Antiochus III, ahead of charges that he had been conspiring with that king against Rome. From there he was a refugee from Roman pursuit until his death in Bithynia. See the note to “Carchedonians” above. P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus Africanus (185/4-129 BCE), born to L. Aemilius Paullus and adopted as a child by P. Cornelius Scipio, was distinguished by ancestry, by adoption, and by his personal achievements (cos. 147, 129 BCE; censor 142 BCE). During his first consulship he returned to Africa, where he had been fighting as a tribune with great distinction, to besiege and punish Carthage with destruction (in early 146 BCE). While still a teenager he had begun a life-long friendship and mentor-relationship with Polybius, Josephus’ principal model for War (see Introduction): Polybius 31.23-30. Although Scipio is named only here in Josephus’ works, it is not difficult to see echoes of his character in Josephus’ portrait of the young general Titus.Josephus’ Agrippa artfully conflates the 3 Punic wars, which covered more than a century (cf. Appian, Hannibalic War; Punic Wars), into a compressed sentence. The first (264-241 BCE) was led by Hannibal’s father Hamilcar Barca, and involved the Romans in their first forays into naval warfare in and around Sicily. The second (218-201), led by Hannibal, took place largely on Italian soil, where the early defeat of the Romans at Cannae was only gradually reversed. The third (149-146 BCE) resulted from the eventual refusal of the Carthaginian senate, after surrendering many leading men and military equipment (as punishment for having unsuccessfully attacked the Roman client king Masinissa in neighboring Numidia), to abandon Carthage as the Roman Senate demanded; rather than see their city destroyed, they opted to fight (Polybius 36.3-8; 38.7-8). After a difficult campaign, the Romans under Scipio besieged, captured, looted, and burned the city.

Inhabitants of the Mediterranean headlands of modern NE Libya. Their capital was Cyrene (by the modern village of Shahhat), about 12 km from the coast on the heights of Jebel el Akdar. Successive colonization of the local Libyans by Greek Dorians resulted in the creation of 5 main cities (Cyrene, its port Apollonia, Barca, Arsinoe, and Berenice), which along with other towns comprised Cyrenaica. Although accepted by Rome in 96 BCE as a bequest and annexed by the Senate in 75/4 BCE, Cyrenaica was temporarily returned to Ptolemaic control by Marc Antony. Under Augustus it became a senatorial province together with Crete, governed from Cyrene by a praetorian proconsul. Although small, it remained prosperous, becoming a famous center of both trade and the arts. A recherché allusion meant to highlight a warlike heritage from the territory of Sparta: Laconia. Herodotus tells the story of Cyrene’s (7th-cent. BCE) founding as the result of colonization from Thera (mod. Santorini), the southernmost of the Cycladic Islands in the Aegean (4.150-67), after noting that the Theraeans themselves had been colonized by Spartans (in the 9th cent. BCE; Herodotus 4.147-48). Strabo, possibly Josephus’ source, simply states that Cyrene was colonized by Thera, “a Laconian island” (17.3.21). Significantly for Agrippa’s point here, Strabo remarks that Cyrenaica produced many men who were able to defend its freedom. See the note at 2.366. One of the main things that Strabo says about the Marmaridae, whom he locates along the S border of Cyrenaica, reaching as far as Ammon, the sacred city to the W of Egypt in deepest E Libya (17.3.23), is that they occupy a “barren and arid region” (cf. 17.3.1: “lacking water”). In his only other use of the adjective διψάς (War 3.49), Josephus will stress that Galilee and Samaria are utterly free of such desert areas, a condition reflected in their robust populations. See the similar construction at 2.374 (of the oceanic tides on the Spanish coast). In Greek the feminine definite article warns us that Josephus momentarily shifts from listing peoples who have submitted to Rome to a pair of naturally occurring defenses against Roman domination: Syrtis Minor and Syrtis Maior. The former, Little Syrtis, was a large bay to the S of Carthage with a reported circuit of 1,600 stadia (200 miles, 320 km) and enclosing two islands, the one on the SE extremity (Meninx) being the traditional place of Homer’s Lotus-eaters (Strabo 17.3.17). The latter was the very deep bay (mod. Gulf of Sidra) between Lepcis Magna to the W and the Cyrenean promontory to the E. Strabo (17.3.20) gives the circuit of this gulf as 3,920 stadia (about 500 miles, 800 km)—and notes with awe that M. Cato’s army covered it in 30 days. Most relevant is Strabo’s description of the gulf’s treacherous waters: ships sailing within sight of the coastline, as the standard practice was, often ran aground in unexpectedly shallow waters and had no hope of escape. Similarly, Polybius recounts how two consuls leading armies against the Carthaginians in Sicily ran into trouble with shoals around the Lesser Syrtis (on account of inexperience with these waters: 1.39.2-3). Again, however, rhetoric trumps facts. It is not as though the Romans needed to enter the Greater Syrtis at all: there were excellent harbors in Alexandria, Cyrenaica, and points W to Carthage and beyond. Herodotus describes the Nasamones shortly after his account of Cyrene’s foundation (4.172): they are the 5th Libyan people W of the Egyptians. Distinctive customs there concern mainly their polygamy and promiscuity, on the one hand, their divination and oaths on the other. Strabo has to explain to his audience that this is a Libyan tribe (17.3.20, 23). Why Josephus singles out the obscure Nasamones for mention here, while omitting dozens of more famous tribes in the area (e.g., Gaetuli, Libyphoenicians, Garamantes) is not clear. Perhaps he wanted to display his (Agrippa’s) learning. Ironically, however, Domitian’s governor Flaccus would soon annihilate this people (85-86 CE) for the very reason that they revolted, in response to a forcible exaction of tribute (Dio 67.4.6)—not unlike the Judeans. Here is another indication of Josephus’ Roman setting and expected audiences. Strabo (17.3.2) notes that Greeks (as he himself) call this people Μαυρούσιοι, whereas the Romans and the natives use Mauri (Μαῦροι)—as Josephus does, though writing in Greek. These are the Mauretanians, who occupied what is now Morocco and N Algeria (cf. Strabo, 17.3.4, 7-8). On Mauretania under Juba I and II, see the notes to “Ioba” and “Libya” at 2.115 above. After the death of Juba II’s heir (Ptolemy, d. 40 CE), in 44 Claudius created two provinces under the governorship of equestrian procurators and guarded by auxiliaries: Mauretania Tingitana to the W (roughly N Morocco) and Caesariensis to the E (roughly N/NW Algeria). The proper noun occurs only here in Josephus. Although in its adjectival sense (“pastoral” tribes) the word was applied by ancient writers to various nomadic peoples, the context here indicates “Numidians.” They were famous from Polybius as highly effective cavalry soldiers, first as a crucial component of the Carthaginian mercenary forces combating Rome (1.19.3; 78.1; 3.45.1, 65.1, 68.1, 116.5; 11.21.1), later as Roman allies against Carthage (14.1.7, 2.8, 4.2, 9.2).Numidian territory had been vast, to the W and S of Carthaginian holdings, centered in Cirta (modern Constantine, Algeria) to the E of Mauretania; the region had long been involved in trade with the Greek world. Note the use of the term to include various tribes at Polybius 3.33.1. By Josephus’ time, most of this territory had been joined to new provinces (Africa, then Africa Nova, then Africa Proconsularis), and Cirta had been removed, as a Roman colony federated with 3 other cities, leaving Numidia as a rump province N of Cirta (mod. NE Algeria). Cirta and its territory would be restored to Numidia by Hadrian; Diocletian would make it the capital of an enlarged Numidia Cirtensis; Constantine, renaming Cirta after himself, would make it the capital of all Numidia again. Given Josephus’ reference to a “countless” population, he appears to be using the term to indicate the traditional region of the Numidians, in keeping with his tendency throughout this speech to indicate ethnic territories rather than political jurisdictions (cf. “Lusitani” at 2.374). Greek ἀρεταί. Although Josephus uses the noun nearly 300 times, often in the sense of moral virtue in contrast to bad behavior, he uses the plural form (as here) only 15 times, and this is the first occurrence in War. It is particularly clear in War that he uses the plural in contexts having to do with the older and root meaning of the word: manly, martial qualities and the resulting exploits (War 3.2, 380; 5.127; 6.39 [Titus tells despondent legionaries that Judean setbacks are due to their valiant exploits (aretai)], 63 [synonymous with “great achievements”], 134 [courageous or valiant actions]; 7.12 [valiant actions]; Ant. 2.7; 3.87; 4.140, 184; esp. 7.307 [linking these aretai with subjection of lands and conquest of great peoples], 317). So Agrippa is not speaking here of the moral virtues of the Romans, but of their potent exploits.

See the note to this term at 2.360. Josephus’ Agrippa appears to mean the 3rd continent, after Europe and Asia—the pair traditionally held to comprise the inhabited earth (Herodotus 4.36; Munn 2006: 178-220). Strabo observes that many writers divide the world into 3 continents: Europe, Asia, and Libya (17.3.1, 24): lacking any understanding of Africa’s (“Libya’s”) size, he scoffs at the notion that the 3 might be equivalent, suggesting that Libya might even be smaller than Europe. Less likely: the allusion might conceivably have to do with Ephorus’ reported division of the earth (in his lost On Europe) into 4 parts, with Indians, Ethiopians, Celts, and Scythians holding the positions closest to the 4 winds on the outer edges (Strabo 1.2.28). I.e., the land points creating the Straits of Gibraltar, traditionally held to mark the limits of the inhabited earth to the W and the beginning of Oceanus (as 2.375 above). This is the only mention of the Atlantic in Josephus. It recalls a note in Polybius, who had been part of an exploratory journey down the W coast of Africa (16.29.6): “it is impossible to sail from the sea called by some Oceanus and by others the Atlantic [i.e., “of Atlas”; cf. Herodotus 1.203—a detractor from the Oceanus concept] into our own sea [sc. the Mediterranean, mare nostrum], except by passing through the mouth of it at the Pillars of Heracles.” Or “allotting, sustaining, supporting, hosting” (νέμω). See the note to “apportion among themselves” at 2.365. Agrippa’s point seems to be that this land is so vast that it distributes tribal centers to the famously countless Ethiopians, who live along the entire length of Oceanus (see next note). Josephus has a significant interest in the feared and romanticized Ethiopians (cf. Ferguson 1975: 12-19), as we see in the traditional story he relates of Moses’ military campaign against them, which resulted in the lawgiver’s marriage to the defeated king’s daughter (Ant. 2.239-82; cf. Feldman’s notes in BJP 3)—a feat all the more remarkable, his audience would know, because the Persian Cambyses had faced overwhelming defeat in the region (Herodotus 3.25). The Ethiopians were generally understood to be the southernmost of all peoples, whose vaguely defined territory ran the entire length of the inhabited earth (perhaps bisected by the Arabian peninsula), bordered by Oceanus on the S and mirroring the Hyperboreans or possibly Scythians in the N (Strabo 1.2.28; 2.5.33; 17.2.1-3, 3.23 end—acknowledging that the limits of Ethiopia are unexplored). In Roman times their center was considered to be S of Egypt, near the sources of the Nile, roughly in modern Sudan and Ethiopia (Strabo 17.1.4), specifically in the kingdom of Meroe, with which Rome had ongoing relations. Cf. Romm 1992: 45-66, with bibliography; further “Ethiopia” in 2.384. Although Josephus’ term (Ἐρυθρὴ θάλασσα) often referred to the Indian Ocean in earlier authors (Herodotus 1.180; 2.11, 158; 4.42; LSJ s.v.), he uses it consistently to mean the Red Sea (Ant. 1.39, 221, 239; 2.257, 315; 6.140; 8.163; 9.217, 245; 15.317).

A reference to the grain dole (frumentatio), free since 58 BCE and intended chiefly for the mass of poorer free male citizens, though even poor families would have needed supplementation from other sources. Augustus (RG 15) mentions handouts to the masses reaching 320,000, 250,000, and 200,000 citizens, in a progressive restriction of the entitlement; each allotment was intended for two persons. Garnsey and Saller (1987: 83-84) estimate that 670,000 free Romans (a substantial majority of the 1 million population) were affected by the grain dole, not counting the 300,000 or so slaves in the city; that the dole required 80-100,000 tonnes (12-15,000,000 Roman modii) of wheat per year; that Rome’s total consumption of wheat was 200,000 tonnes per year; and that considerably more must have been shipped each year to allow for loss and spoilage en route. Josephus paints a simple scenario according to which Africa (and Mauretania?) provide Rome’s grain supply for 8 months, with Egypt covering the other 4 (2.386). In reality, Rome’s enormous demand for grain (estimated at 2-300,000 tonnes annually) was met by merchants from around the Mediterranean (e.g., Italy, Sardinia, Spain, Gaul, and the eastern provinces); Sicily was particularly important (cf. Paul 1990; Erdkamp 2005: 206-58). Cf. Aristides, Rom. 12: “Your farms are Egypt, Sicily, and the civilized part of Africa.” T. Mommsen (1887: 2.367) argued that in Cicero’s time Rome depended heavily on African grain, and after Egypt was annexed (30 BCE) there was an approximately equal 3-way share from Africa, Egypt, and the combined resources of Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, and Baetica. He thus seems to include Egypt’s share in Africa’s 8-month provision. Although that may well have approximated the historical reality, it does not seem to be Agrippa’s meaning here, since he introduces Egypt as a new and different subject (2.384) and does not mention grain from other sources.Augustus had established an important equestrian post (praefectus annonae) for the administration of grain storage and distribution in the city. There were different arrangements for the masses and for the few rich folks (who could make their own arrangements to import food of all kinds). The general grain shipment was encouraged by incentives for the shippers: under Claudius, citizenship and exemption from penalties for singleness or childlessness (Garnsey and Saller 1987: 88). Only gradually, over the 1st and 2nd centuries CE, did the merchants’ private contracts involving Roman collegia develop into the equivalent of a state-run enterprise.On the various kinds of grain (chiefly wheat varieties) and basic dietary issues, see Garnsey 1999: 12-21. For questions of shipping (ship size, routes, frequency) see Casson 1959: 233-39. On the grain supply see Rickman 1980; Garnsey and Saller 1987: 83-103; Aldrete and Mattingly 1999; Erdkamp 2005; Kessler and Temin 2007. For Josephus’ remarks on the grain supply in Agrippa’s speech, see Paul 1990. African and Egyptian grain was itself a principal form of Roman taxation (in kind); Agrippa’s point is that Africa faced many other taxes besides. On the various possible kinds (e.g., head, salt, grain), see Lintott 1993: 70-96. General—not inviolable—Roman principles appear to have included: (a) the assessment of a fixed sum for a province, to be collected by the local leadership however they wished to do so (e.g., by using tax collectors or by paying the whole sum on credit and waiting for their local taxes to come in), and (b) allowing local tradition to determine varieties of taxation. See the notes at 2.4, 273. This is the first hint that the Judeans have been withholding their annual tribute payment from Rome; the suggestion is reinforced by another contrast at 2.385 and made explicit in the conclusion at 2.403-4. Agrippa’s rhetorical claim about Africa’s quiescence under heavy impositions may be ironic. At least it is at odds with the region’s past: the presence of legio III Augusta (see next note) was necessary in part because Rome had faced a serious revolt under Tacfarinas, in 17-24 CE (Tacitus, Ann. 2.52; 3.20ff., 32, 73; 4.13.23-26), which required the assistance of IX Hispana, and the legions were again active under S. Sulpicius Galba (future emperor) in 45-46 CE, against native rebels. Vespasian would move the legionary headquarters closer to the Numidian heartland, from Ammaedara to Thevestis, possibly to improve response times. Legio III Augusta was stationed in Africa throughout this period (Parker 1992: 119, 140, 145, 182-84, 224-25). Garnsey and Saller (1987: 95-97) hypothesize a general principle that, since the billeting (including grain supply) of a Roman legion was itself an enormous burden for a province, “No major grain exporter to Rome had to put up with a large garrison as well” (p. 96); the vast bulk of the legions were in the northern provinces, which did not supply grain. Against this background, Josephus’ Agrippa may be emphasizing that Africa is imposed upon in both ways—and much more so than Judea, which has neither to supply significant grain nor to support a legion. Even still, the Africans accept their harsher lot (but see previous note). Given the larger context (2.375, 377, 378), a subsidiary point may be that merely 1 legion is enough to pacify populous tribes living in vast and difficult terrain; so feared are the Romans.

Agrippa has, in the narrative, just returned from Alexandria (2.309, 335).

See the note to “Ethiopians” at 2.382. Like Strabo (8.7, 19, 49, 127), Josephus understands Ethiopia to be separated from Egypt by the desert city of Syene—modern Aswan, at the S extremity of Upper Egypt (War 4.608). See the note to “Arabs” at 1.6. According to Strabo (citing Eratosthenes and Artemidorus), Arabia Felix is bounded by the Arabian desert on the N, the Red Sea (“Arabian Gulf”) on the W, the Persian Gulf on the E, and the open sea on the S (16.3.1); hence, the areas of modern Yemen and Oman. But he also cites Eratosthenes to the effect that it extends 12,000 stadia (1,500 miles—roughly the length of the Arabian peninsula N to S) beyond the Nabatean and neighboring tribes, “to the south” (16.4.2). He describes the first inhabitants of Arabia Felix, “after the Syrians and Judeans” as farmers; after them is a large area of sandy and barren soil, occupied by tent-dwellers and camel-herds (evidently, the Hejaz). Then come “the extreme parts [of Arabia Felix] to the south,” across the Red Sea from Ethiopia, which are well watered and fertile. And the remotest part of this region is dominated by 4 prosperous monarchies: the Minaeans, Sabaeans, Cattabanians, and Chatramotitae (16.4.2). Similarly Pliny: the desert of Palmyra “extends all the way to the city of Petra and the region called Arabia Felix” (Nat. 5.87; cf. 5.65: beyond the Nile, Arabia extends to the Red Sea and Arabia Felix). On this understanding of Arabia Felix it is not difficult to accept Josephus’ claim that Egypt reaches (almost) that far, and this matches his claim at Ant. 1.239 that Abraham’s descendants colonized Troglodytis (in E Africa) and Arabia Felix “as far as it touches the Red Sea.” In these contexts it seems impossible to identify Arabia Felix with the kingdom of Saba (Yemen, as Bowersock 1983: 2, 46-49), well over 1,000 miles away from Egypt. Cf. Strabo (17.1.13), who mentions the greatly increased Indian traffic at Alexandria in recent times via the Red Sea. There was a marked shift in trade patterns through the 1st century CE: whereas the kingdom of Saba (mod. Yemen) had traditionally moved Indian imports overland through outposts of the S Nabatean kingdom and eventually to Egypt (Leuce Come to Petra to Phoenician Rhinocolura, from where they were exported: Strabo 16.4.24), shippers increasingly by-passed the Arabian peninsula by sailing directly up the Red Sea to Egypt, where their goods could be taken overland to Alexandria (cf. Bowersock 1983: 46-47, 73). In this way the harbors of Alexandria indeed became India’s port to the Roman world. Diodorus (1.31.6-8) says that ancient (Pharaonic) Egypt had upwards of 18,000 cities and estimable villages, more than 30,000 from Ptolemy I (ca. 305 BCE) to the present. He then claims that the ancient population was around 7,000,000. What comes next is unclear. All MSS except M say that the population has remained at no less than 3,000,000 (τριακοσίων—300 [myriads]) until the present—so, a decline of more than 50% from Pharaonic times, which is odd given the 75% increase in cities and villages. Some scholars, taking note also of Josephus’ figure, have preferred M’s omission of this second number, such that the (“not less than”) 7,000,000 remains valid until Diodorus’ time; others (see the LCL note ad loc.) supply τούτων (“not less than these”), for the same result. Since, however, the “more difficult reading” of 3,000,000 happens also to have the strongest MS support, we should probably support it over conjectural emendations that accommodate Josephus (for how else did the troublesome number arise?). It remains a problem. One might also reason that Josephus would need to give a roughly plausible figure to his educated Roman audience (in keeping with the rest of the speech).Paul (1990: 81), favoring the 3 million figure in Diodorus, speculates that Josephus may have borrowed (and raised) the figure of 7 million from Hecataeus of Abdera—one of his known sources (Apion 1.183-204) and possibly Diodorus’ source for ancient Egypt—and mischievously attributed it to poll-tax records of his own day. If Josephus also used Diodorus in War, however, as some passages suggest (see Index), that solution would be less plausible. See the note to the city at 2.309. In a study marked by exemplary caution, Delia (1988) estimates the city’s population as 5-600,000. Several decades earlier Diodorus (17.52.6) mentions more than 300,000 “free residents,” which would support such an estimate. Josephus implies that he has access to the poll-tax returns, either an account of the income itself (divided to arrive at a population number) or the registration records for the tax; that would explain his exclusion of the citizens of Alexandria, who were exempt from this tax (Delia 1991: 30-32). But see the note to “head” in this section. See the notes to this term (εἰσφορά) at 2.4, 273. For the specific tax measures adopted by Roman rulers in Egypt, see A. H. M. Jones 1937: 296-350; Rostovtzeff 1957: 1.273-99; Delia 1991: 31-34. The Romans mainly preserved the Ptolemaic administrative arrangement, according to which all the land belonged to the state (though it could be granted as tax-free gift), which was leased and worked for government revenue. Augustus apparently continued a policy of Cleopatra VII in exempting Alexandrian citizens from the poll-tax (see following note). Two of the Roman prefect’s half-dozen or so officials were ministers of revenue, and another managed imperial lands (Rostovtzeff 1957: 1.316). This is the tributum capitis or poll tax, the personal dues—exacted in addition to the block amount assessed for Egypt as a province (tributum soli)—known in Egypt from Ptolemaic times as the λαογραφία. Augustus had confirmed the exemption of Alexandrian citizens from this tax (Delia 1991: 30), as Josephus also implies here, and the papyri (e.g., CPJ 150, possibly 153 III.53-59) reveal an atmosphere of concern over efforts to fraudulently claim citizenship, often by association with the ephebate (though Delia [1991: 73-75] argues that the two institutions were entirely distinct), in part so as to avoid the tax. A papyrus from 5-4 BCE (CPJ 151) preserves a desperate petition to the prefect from a Judean named Helenos son of Tryphon for exemption from the tax, on the basis that his father was a citizen (and he had completed at least part of the suitable education); but evidently his citizenship was not established and he was subject to payment.If Josephus had seen the actual Egyptian poll-tax revenue figures, it would presumably have served his purpose to mention them, here or especially at 2.386, to show their overwhelming size in contrast to Judean exactions. See the note to this verb at 2.361. See the note to this phrase at 1.3. This is its 3rd and final occurrence in Agrippa’s speech (cf. 2.357, 362). On the equestrian imagery, see the note to “bridle” at 2.387. See note at 2.39. In spite of the implication in what follows that Alexandria has happily accepted its lot under Roman rule, Dio’s roughly contemporary speech to the Alexandrians gives the clear impression of a people notorious for trouble, though normally frivolous in origin, who constantly threaten to attract the attention of Roman soldiers (Or. 32.1, 4, 7, 17-18). On Egypt’s economic role in the empire, see Frank 1927: 379-408. See the note to “Alexandreia” in this section: the city’s population was greater than half a million and all the literary sources discuss its enviable prosperity (Strabo 17.1.5-7; Philo, Flac. 163; Legat. 150, 338; Pliny, Nat. 5.62; Josephus, War 6.415; Dio, Or. 32.36).

Roughly 6 km (3.73 miles) by 2 km (1.24 miles). Josephus’ figures are close to Strabo’s (17.1.8): the latter compares the shape to a military cloak, giving the same length as Josephus but the width as 8 or 9 stadia, with one side truncated by the two bodies of water; cf. the map in LCL Strabo, vol. 8. By way of comparison, Rome was about 4.5 km deep (N-S) and 4 km at the longest (E-W) point within its walls, though the walls created a completely irregular shape. Agrippa’s point here is that Alexandria was well suited, if any city was, for independence from Rome. Indeed it was the 2nd-largest in the empire, with some 5-600,000 inhabitants (Delia 1988: esp. 287-88). Although Agrippa is still speaking of Alexandria, which was clearly distinguished from Egypt as a whole, he seems now to be speaking about Egypt when he mentions taxes, grain, and the naturally “walled” borders. Josephus’ vagueness about the provincial tax (tributum soli) may result from dependence on Strabo, who is also vague about Egypt’s revenue—noting that in Cicero’s time (the 50s BCE) the amount exacted from his subjects by King (Ptolemy XII) Auletes was the enormous sum of 12,500 talents annually (17.1.13), but that Egypt’s revenues must be much more than this at Strabo’s time of writing—under Tiberius (half a century before Josephus). Josephus’ Agrippa, though without precise language, paints a picture of much greater oppression in Egypt than in Judea: individual poll tax plus provincial tax in money plus the enormous grain contribution. He does not dwell on the obvious fact that Egypt also had to host two legions (cf. 2.383 for Africa). Judea contributes only the standard taxes. See the notes to “Rome” and “eight months” at 2.383. In Josephus’ simplified scheme, this 4-month supply from Egypt should complement the 8-month supply from North Africa. According to the Epitome de Caesaribus (1.6), based on the 4th-cent. CE work of Aurelius Victor, under Augustus Egypt contributed 20,000,000 measures (modii)—133,000 tonnes of grain to Rome annually (using the weight-to-volume ratios in Garnsey and Saller 1987: 84-85). Although Oates (1934) combines both figures to reach a total volume of grain (60 million measures), and thence a new population total for Rome of 1.25 million, contemporary scholarship inclines to reject both the Epitome’s figure (suggesting perhaps half of that as accurate) and Josephus’ implication that Egypt and Africa together supplied Rome’s total grain imports. See Garnsey and Saller 1987: 85; Paul 1990. Greek τετείχισται δὲ πάντοθεν; cf. 2.371 (of the Gauls) and 2.378 (of the Britons). Josephus’ control of Agrippa’s speech is indicated again by the close verbal parallel at 4.607-10 (τετείχισται μὲν οὕτως ἡ Αἴγυπτος πάντοθεν), where he is speaking in the narrator’s voice about Vespasian’s concern, in challenging Vitellius, to seize Egypt. But there Josephus is speaking of Egypt, as was A. H. M. Jones when he wrote in apparent independence (1937: 296): “Egypt is very inaccessible. On the east, west, and south it is surrounded by deserts . . . ; invasion by land is therefore very difficult . . . .Invasion by sea is almost as difficult; for the coast of the Delta is fringed by lagoons and marshes, and possesses no good natural harbours.” Although Josephus’ Agrippa must here be speaking of Alexandria, given the syntax, this may be a slip or a case of metonymy.Alexandria sat on a strip of land nearly 60 km long and between 2 and 5 km wide, W of the vast Nile river delta. Before it to the N lay the Mediterranean Sea, behind it the large Lake Mareotis. If the issue is defense against Roman attack, however (as it is here), all this appears largely irrelevant because of Alexandria’s famous man-made harbors, in constant use for grain and military purposes (though see the note to “seas” following). In the Hellenistic period, diplomatic travel between Alexandria and Greece was frequent; the Ptolemies had regularly led their armies NE into Judea during the 3rd cent. BCE; the Seleucid Antiochus IV (168 BCE) had seemed well positioned to invade Egypt before being prevented by C. Popilius Laenas (Polybius 29.27.1-6); and the Romans apparently had little trouble entering and leaving Alexandria by sea. Agrippa himself has just returned, with apparent ease, from a social trip to Alexandria (2.309, 338). The land march was evidently difficult for a large army, but by no means impossible: cf. Titus’ route to Judea (4.658-62). Egypt, essentially the country of the Nile River, valley, and delta, is indeed surrounded by deserts: the Arabian (E), Nubian (S), and Libyan (W). At 4.608 Josephus will specify the dry deserts of Libya to the W and the Syene (by Aswan) to the S. Although these deserts, along with the Sahara further E and SW, and the Sinai desert further E, were largely impassable, they did not inhibit Roman approaches via the Mediterranean or from Judaea. At 4.607 Josephus will repeat the same phrase (θάλασσα ἀλίμενος, here plural) in arguing for Egypt’s security, should Vespasian seize it against Vitellius. The scope of Josephus’ rhetoric is clear from the fact that at Apion 2.33 he will use the phrase yet again of Apion’s description of the Judeans’ residence in Alexandria—only to reject it as an absurd slur on this great city. Alexandria, a major trade center, had two large and famous harbors, marked by the outer island of Pharos with its world-famous lighthouse tower, which were also the means of Roman access to the city (for Caesar, Antony, and Octavian). Ships routinely traveled between Alexandria and Rome carrying grain, as the speaker has just noted. So Strabo, in calling Alexandria “the greatest emporium in the inhabited earth,” comments on its uniquely favorable situation for commerce by sea, precisely “on account of the good harbors” (17.1.13). Or Dio (Or. 32.36): “you control the entire sea by virtue of the excellence of your harbors, the size of your fleet . . . .” Josephus will claim that, although the harbors themselves are fine, the approaches are treacherous, and the purpose of the Pharos tower, visible some 60 km (37.5 miles) offshore, is to warn sailors to stay away—to anchor beyond the shoals (War 4.613). By contrast Strabo, while conceding that the harbor entrances require caution, claims more plausibly that the Pharos tower serves to signal the location of Alexandria’s harbors along the otherwise harborless and dangerous coast of N Egypt (17.1.6). NB: Philo (Flac. 109-110) describes a ship’s anchoring outside the harbor as part of a deception, by the guard sent from Rome to arrest Flaccus, who would enter the harbor under cover of darkness. The implication is that ships would normally enter the harbor (and if entry could be achieved in the dark, it cannot have been prohibitively difficult). Cf. 4.608: “the unnavigable cataracts of the river [Nile].” The massive Nile delta to the E was filled with rivers and marshes, but these posed no problem of access to Alexandria from the Mediterranean; nor were they a serious impediment for travel from Judea, via the straight E-W road through Rhinoculura (El Arish, S of Raphia), Pelusium, Tanis, Thmus, Busiris, and Sais, which bridged the major rivers at optimal points, S of the marshiest land along the N coast. This is apparently the route that King Agrippa himself had recently taken (2.309, 338). Nevertheless, Strabo (17.1.21) does observe that this route is difficult, especially for armies.

See the note at 2.373. So also Tacitus, Ann. 4.5 (for the year 23 CE): the Alexandrian legions at the time of Agrippa’s speech were still, as earlier, III Cyrenaica and XXII Deiotariana (Parker 1992: 119, 140, 145); they would remain stationed there until Trajan’s reign. The verb ἐγκάθημαι appears in Josephus only here and at War 5.8. Since the verb χαλινόω occurs only here in Josephus, and is extremely rare in metaphorical use (not of actually bridling horses) before his time, we must assume that he uses it deliberately. Since Josephus’ Agrippa also uses the image of the spur in this section (2.385), we might suppose that he is alluding to the Macedonians’ reputation for horsemanship: the “companions” of the king were initially that élite equestrian corps. A parallel literary technique, then, would be his use of proskynesis when speaking of Alexander (see note to “making obeisance” at 2.360): the very qualities of domination for which these parties were once famous have now been turned against them by the Romans. This language (βαθεῖαν Αἴγυπτον) for distinguishing Lower, Middle, and Upper Egypt from the Macedonian foundation of Alexandria (next note) seems unattested before Josephus, though he will use it again at Apion 2.41. This agreement incidentally illustrates the pervasiveness of Josephus’ hand in Agrippa’s speech. Josephus’ Agrippa reflects here the well known distinction between Egypt and Alexandria, the latter founded by Alexander and led thereafter by a Macedonian élite that sharply distinguished itself from others, especially the Egyptians. Josephus will deploy this distinction rhetorically against Apion, a born Egyptian who acquired citizenship (Apion 2.41). Alexandrian citizens enjoyed considerable benefits, especially exemption from the head tax and from compulsory public service elsewhere. The prestige of citizenship was carefully guarded, however: naturalization was a relatively rare and complicated process; see Delia 1991: 7-47. These social tensions had caused the Ptolemaic regime serious trouble from about 246 BCE onward, famously in the 20-year-long revolt in Upper and Middle Egypt (207/6-186 BCE).

Josephus’ Agrippa turns from the long list of proofs by example (the confirmatio), of the necessity of accommodation with Rome, to an increasingly emotional appeal, challenging his audience with the consequences of what he has said (2.388-401). Runnalls (1997: 749-50) observes that Josephus continues the mix of periodic and paratactic styles from the proof. Whether the peroratio begins here, or only at 2.400, is not clear; see Excursus. See the note to “world” at 2.360. Here I spell out “inhabited [world]” to capture the play against “uninhabited.” Key members of the Adiabenian royal family had adopted Judean law in the 30s and 40s: the current king Monobazus’ predecessor Izates and the latter’s mother Helena (Ant. 20.17-96). This was no merely “religious” change: they identified so closely with Jerusalem that Queen Helena moved there and provided crucial assistance during the famine of the 40s (20.49-53). The family’s monuments, palaces, and tombs remained prominent features of the city (War 5.147, 523). Five young sons of Izates came to be educated in Jerusalem in the 40s (Ant. 20.71), when Josephus was also a teenager; it is antecedently probable that, given the small circle of the city’s élite, he knew them personally. For the involvement of Adiabenian royalty (in Jerusalem) in the war, Agrippa’s claim notwithstanding, see the note to “war” at 2.389. The present tense suggests that those itching to rebel are hoping that an Adiabenian contingency is already on its way. Although προσαμύνω occurs 7 times in War 2-6 (not elsewhere in Josephus), it is a Homeric verb (Il. 2.238; 5.139; 16.509) otherwise rarely attested before Josephus (Aristotle, Frag. var. [Rose] 8.47.615; Aristonicus [on Homer], Sign. Il., schol. 4.h137-41; Onasander 42.12-13). Josephus’ contemporary Plutarch uses it 12 times and Cassius Dio 5; so it is another example of Josephus’ riding the wave of fashionable diction in War.

Agrippa’s rhetorical certainty is about to be pointedly undermined, providing another example of the speech’s ironic character. In the first major victory of the Judean rebels—their successful charge against Cestius’ legion before his attack on Jerusalem—two of the prominent fighters are identified as relatives of the Adiabenian King Monobazus (2.520). Indeed, Adiabenians will continue to turn up in War’s narrative (4.567; 5.474), and they will be among the last holdouts when the city is taken. Titus will mercifully take them (including sons and brothers of Izates) to Rome as hostages for Adiabene’s quiescence in the future (6.356-57). If Josephus’ Roman audience knew of such high-profile hostages from the Parthian empire now living in Rome, which seems antecedently likely, Agrippa’s irony would be both literary and extra-textual. Agrippa appears, again, as the statesman in crisis bending every effort, using deception or disingenuousness as necessary, to stifle dangerous rebellious impulses among his people (Plutarch, Mor. [Praec.] 818e-f). See Excursus. On rationality as the statesman’s criterion, see the note to “irrational hope” at 2.346. The king of Parthia: Vologeses (ruled ca. 51-78 CE). Or “truce” (ἐκεχειρία). This term was used for, among other things, the truce that accompanied such pan-Hellenic festivals as the Olympic Games (Aristotle, Frag. var. 8.44.533; Demetrius, fr. 89; Polybius 12.26.2; Plutarch, Lyc. 1.1; 23.2; Pausanias 5.4.5, 20.1; Bederman 2001: 252-53). See further 2.456 below, for a deft, partly metaphorical application. The agreement in question was fresh at the time of Agrippa’s speech. Because of events in the long-contested Armenia (invaded by an Iberian usurper in 52 CE, taken by Tiridates, brother of the Parthian king Vologeses, in 54), Nero planned a massive invasion of Parthia. After carefully preparing his legions, in 58-59 CE Corbulo advanced into Armenia and installed Nero’s appointee Tigranes V. Vologeses planned a campaign to reinstall his brother, but at the same time sent an embassy to seek Roman agreement that Armenia should remain under Parthian control. Although the Romans balked, their recent lack of success E of the Euphrates motivated them to compromise: the Parthian appointee could govern Armenia, but only after receiving his diadem in Rome. That agreement was made in 63 CE, but only sealed in 66 when Tiridates finally reached Rome after a grand overland tour and received the diadem from Nero. It seems that this hard-won agreement, elaborately celebrated in Rome, was indeed stable: we hear almost nothing of Roman-Parthian conflicts again until Trajan, and much about Parthian attempts at consolidating entente during the 70s. See Introduction and Debevoise 1938: 179-200; Dio 63.1.2-6.1. One third of the 12 occurrences of παραβαίνω in War come in this part of Agrippa’s speech (also 2.391, 393, 394), driving home that the imminent revolt will require violations of all kinds of laws.

This artful adjective (καταφευκτέον) is rare: only here in Josephus, it is attested before him only in Anaximenes (7.14), after him only in Lucian (Rev. pisc. 3) before 3 attestations in Byzantine texts. This distinctive phrase (θεοῦ συμμαχία) illustrates Josephus’ authorial hand. He uses it elsewhere at 7.319 (editorially, speaking of Roman enjoyment of this at Masada) and Ant. 3.45; 8.283; 9.15; 10.24 (all concerning the army of Moses, Israel, or Judah enjoying divine alliance). God as ally (σύμμαχος) is even more common: 4.366; Ant. 2.241; 4.177; 5.98; 9.16. Before Josephus the συμμαχία phrase is attested only in Philo, in similar biblical contexts (Abr. 95; Migr. 56; Virt. 46)—showing again the remarkable similarity between their lexicons even where there is no question of Philonic sources—although the notion of the Gods as allies has occasional older precedents (Euripides, Troi. 469; Xenophon, Anab. 3.2.10; Ages. 1.13; Aristotle, Pol. 1315a; Menander, Sent. 1.126; 2 Macc. 11.13; Diodorus 16.91.4; 28.3.1; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 6.6.3). Josephus’ Agrippa continues with military metaphors following from “alliance”: here τέτακται. That Rome enjoys divine support against the Judean insurgents—not, however, carte blanche or in the mistreatments described throughout book 2—is a standard position of both narrator and speakers in War (3.293, 351; 4.366, 370; 5.19, 39, 278, 343, 367-68, 378, 396; 6.38, 101, 110, 371, 399, 433; 7.34, 319); see also the following note. See the note to this distinctive phrase at 2.135. Cf. 6.409-13, where Titus recognizes that God’s assistance was indispensable in the Roman victory, especially in view of the Herodian defenses and towers, since human hands could never have achieved it (also 6.399, 401). The conception that God alone makes nations rise and fall is deeply ingrained in Judean history, most fully articulated in the book of Daniel (cf. Mason 1994). Josephus frequently brings this conception into uneasy connection with the Greek concept of fortune as the explanation of Rome’s rise, as he does in Agrippa’s speech (see note at 2.373). Because he sometimes mentions God and fortune together (also 5.367) it may seem that he intends to make them interchangeable, but this is unlikely. Both are inscrutable to mortals and both bring about results that cannot be achieved by human will and effort; so their effects may look the same. But fortune is fickle and changeable, and one can only speak “as if” it had designs or purposes (Polybius 11.5.8; 15.6.8; 23.10.2, 16; 29.19.2), whereas God is the rational spirit and mind behind the operations of the universe. Indeed, God will rescue the virtuous from fortune’s turns (Ant. 18.267; 19.16, 233, 294). Although one might feel compelled by logic to choose between a theist metaphysics and one based on chance or fortune, Josephus does not usually make that choice explicit (except tellingly at War 3.391, asking whether it was fortune or God’s providence that explained his survival at Iotapata). It does not seem to be mere synonymous parallelism, therefore, when he remarks that “fortune has passed over to the Romans from all sides, and God, as he brings the rule around nation by nation, is now over Italy” (5.367). At 6.399 he will speak of the rebels’ final descent and surrender from the strong Herodian towers as unusually good material for studying “the power of God exercised against the impious as well as (τε . . . καί) the fortune of the Romans.” Or “dominance, command, influence.” Elsewhere in this translation, Greek ἡγεμονία is normally rendered by Latin imperium—a term difficult to translate, but which would have been recognized by Josephus’ Roman audience by this standard Greek counterpart. Here, however, the Greek word has its generic sense of dominance, which other nations have also exercised, even though Roman success is in view.

Or “worship.” This (τὸ τῆς θρησκείας ἄκρατον) is an unambiguously positive formulation of what had struck Pilate, Josephus claims, as purity of superstition (τὸ τῆς δεισιδαιμονίας ἄκρατον; see note at 2.174). This elegant adjective (δυσδιοίκητος) appears only here in Josephus; it is unattested in literature before his time and afterwards turns up chiefly in medical writers of the 2nd century and later (Soranus, Gyn. 2.20.1, 24.2, 25.1, 46.4; Oribasius, Coll. med. 2.58.7, 32, 37, 58.28). Since it often has the sense of “indigestable” (i.e., managing the intake of food), Josephus may intend a double meaning, with one eye on the violation of dietary laws in times of war. MSS PA use the optative verb, which seems correct in view of the apparently corrupted alternatives. Josephus here shifts from his main argument, based upon an amply illustrated and realistic appraisal of Rome’s power, to the point that even if Rome were not such a power—the optative stressing the distance from reality of this supposition—the Judeans could not properly maintain cultic practice while at war. See the note at 2.389. Agrippa economically asserts a paradox, which he will illustrate below: the Judeans are contemplating war for the sake of their ancestral laws, and so expect God as ally; but war (against anyone) will require compromises in observing the laws, which will offend the Deity and discount him as ally.

See the note to “seventh” at 2.289. That Josephus rarely uses “sabbath” on its own in War (2.634), preferring “seventh” [day], seems a concession to his Roman audience and Atticizing style. Soon after this speech (2.456) the militants will indeed violate the sabbath, he claims, in the most egregious way: combining oath-breaking, wanton bloodshed, and sacrilege. The respectable element of the population then understands immediately that catastrophe awaits. Sabbath violation may be implied already at 2.424; see further 2.517-18. It reinforces Josephus’ awareness of his audience that he routinely adds to any mention of the seventh day a gloss about the Judeans’ abstention from work then: 1.146; 2.456, 517. See the note to “Pompey” at 1.19. This anticipates the speech of Josephus’ character at 5.395-97. In Apion 1.209-12 Josephus will reject the criticism of the Judeans on precisely this score: that they have lost military conflicts because of sabbath superstition. There Josephus takes it as a mark of virtue that a nation should care more about its laws than about preserving life. Josephus has recounted this episode at 1.145-46 (cf. Ant. 14.63). While besieging the recalcitrant party in Jerusalem (63 BCE), Pompey takes advantage of their sabbath rest to build up the earthworks on the N side of the temple without interference. Josephus insists that Pompey did not engage in combat on that day, perhaps in the knowledge that (he explains) the Judeans would indeed fight in direct self-defense, but would not otherwise work (so 1 Macc 2:38-41). At War 1.60 Josephus tells of John Hyrcanus’ raising of a siege against his bad son-in-law Ptolemy, at Dagon above Jericho, in the sabbatical year—an entire year of inactivity for Judeans, he explains, just like the 7th day of each week.

See the note at 2.389—the 3rd of 4 occurrences of this verb within a short space.

The final and most potent deployment of παραβαίνω in this small section of the speech; see the note at 2.389. See the note at 2.2. That is: they fight in order to be free to observe the laws, but will only be able to fight by breaking the laws. The examples of possible law-breaking here are restrained, for the narrative has not yet shown the formation of a movement for war, with various rebel factions engaging in atrocities against each other. Still, Agrippa here anticipates the speech of Josephus himself, after the “tyrants” have demonstrated their behavior. At 5.399-403 he will excoriate their actions—thefts, treacheries, adulteries, plunder, and murder, polluting the very temple precincts—and consequently ridicule their expectation of divine help (or “alliance”). The doubly prefixed verb ἐπαναιρέομαι occurs only here in War. Agrippa here echoes the fateful Melian dialogue in Thucydides (5.104-105): the Melians looked in futility to improbable human aid (from the Spartans), divine intervention (on the basis of their just cause), or fortune. See the notes to this key term, which may have been the work’s original title, at 1.10; 2.276.

See the note to the tragic invocation of “women and children,” common in Josephus and especially prominent in the Masada story (see next note), at 2.192. War’s first major deliberative speech thus anticipates the mass suicide at Masada (7.389-401) as the inevitable outcome of war against Rome—making the point that the rebels might as well have killed themselves at the outset. The anticipatory note highlights the compositional unity of War (see Introduction) and the presence throughout of Josephus’ hand. This exhortation (like the Masada story) also echoes earlier ancient contexts in which mass murder-suicide was a natural prospect in the face of overwhelming military opposition; cf. the siege of Abydus in Polybius (16.30-34) and Cohen 1982b for a survey of cases. See the note at 2.58. Agrippa’s emphasis on the imminent reversal of Jerusalem’s status, from most beautiful and blessed to most desolate, reprises a key theme of the prologue (1.11). One can make the adjective καλλής emphatic either by the addition of a prefix (such as περί here) or by using the superlative form. It was rare for writers before Josephus to use both (περικαλλέστατος), the form he prefers in 4 of his 7 uses of the compound (also 1.402, 412; Ant. 15.363). Before him, Philo uses the superlative compound 11 times, though before Philo it seems attested only once (Aristotle, Mund. 397a). The two remaining occurrences of this verb (μαίνομαι) in War are also in programmatic speeches concerning potential suicide in the face of war: Josephus denouncing the prospect at 3.375, Eleazar son of Ya‘ir commending it (ironically recognizing it as the consequence of madness on his part) at 7.338. Agrippa’s evocation of crazed behavior, madness, or folly, continues Josephus’ development of the Thucydidean-Polybian diagnosis of irrational political behavior. Eleazar son of Ya‘ir will give precisely this rationale at 7.333-35.

This emphasis (repeating καλός), also in view of the rest of Agrippa’s speech, suggests that those calling for rebellion were appealing to the predictable criteria of valor and manly courage, and deriding those who failed to stand up to the continuing humiliations dealt by Rome’s representatives. Agrippa takes the high ground by insisting that his proposed course is not cowardly—any more than keeping one’s boat away from life-threatening squalls would be. With this analogy he continues to fuse the historically conflicting categories of moral right and expediency. (Is it really noble, or only expedient, not to head into sea storms? Would it not be noble to do so, deliberately risking one’s life, if the moral stakes were high enough?) See the note to “first considered” at 2.25. This is the 3rd occurrence of a verb that appears only in War 2. This extended metaphor of the ship, harbor, storm, hurricane, and (here implied) helmsman is not an ad hoc creation, but shows Josephus’ participation in long-established Greco-Roman dialogue about governing states. In his own character’s speech at 3.368-69, he will use the same set of images (and vocabulary) to compare mass suicide in the face of imminent trouble to the cowardly helmsman who, for fear of a storm, pre-emptively sinks his ship before the hurricane arrives. At 2.556 he will claim that many distinguished Judeans, following the Cestian calamity, “swam away from the city as though from a sinking ship”—abandoning their responsibilities. The image of the ship of state was famously conjured by Plato’s Socrates (Resp. 488c-e) to illustrate the futility of allowing anyone but a skilled helmsman (i.e., a philosopher-king) to steer it (= the polis). Cf. Polybius 6.44.4, 6. This imagery is featured by Josephus’ contemporary, Plutarch, both in his essay of Political Advice (Mor. 801c, 803a, 807b, 812c) and in his biographies of political figures, especially of the expert “helmsman” Philopoemen (Phil. 17.3-4). See the note to “city” at 2.556. This passive verb highlights the problem of trustworthy leadership, appropriately for a statesman such as (Josephus’) Agrippa. So MSS PA (ἀπολουμένους), though MSS MV1RC read “from a harbor” (ἀπὸ λιμένος). See the note at 2.337. See the note at 2.29.

Or “But and if.” Although this phrase (πλὴν εἰ μή) has reasonable attestation (8 times in Aristotle; Theophrastus, Caus. plant. 1.10.6; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 4.74.1; Strabo, Geog. 1.2.22; Philo, Ebr. 135; Flac. 50; [Demetrius], Eloc. 83; Plutarch, Sol. 23.2; Comp. Alc. Cor. 1.2; Marc. 3.4; Mor. 243d, 265e; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 31.94; 32.88; 36.22; 71.2), Josephus is a heavy user, with 9 occurrences (3 in War, 6 in Antiquities). Galen has it dozens of times, though apparently some Atticizing police (as it were) considered it a solecism. Lucian also uses the phrase (Vit. auct. 7; Merc. cond. 9, 23; Prom. verb. 1), but his Atticizing purist mocks the usage as redundant (Sol. 7). Of the 39 occurrences of συνθήκη in Josephus, mostly plural as here, a disproportionate 5 are concentrated in War 2.397-2.640 (also 2.452, 453, 602, 640). The plural is often used as a singular (“treaty, pact”), though I translate it where possible with an English plural. Of 4 occurrences of μετριάζω in Josephus, 2 are in Agrippa’s speech (also 2.349); both deny the attribute of restraint to the Romans—as procurators or victors. See the note at 2.58. See the note to “people” at 2.366. The universality of Roman rule over the inhabited earth has been driven home at 2.380, 388, 390.

See the note this word at 2.360. Lit. “our share” (ὁ [μὴ] μοῖραν ἡμετέραν ἔχων): an understandable exaggeration, and probably not far off in relation to the cities of the E and N Mediterranean (leaving aside northern Europe, much of the W Mediterranean, Africa, and regions E of the Parthian world). Judean communities are indeed well attested throughout the eastern Mediterranean and in Parthian territories (Neusner 1969; Barclay 1996; Gruen 2002). Cf. 7.43: “The Judean race, densely dispersed among the natives throughout the entire world (οἰκουμένη). . . .”At Apion 2.280-86 Josephus will make a different but related claim: the laws and customs of the Judeans are emulated (by non-Judeans) everywhere. That parallel is relevant because in the sequel (2.463, 560; cf. 7.45) Josephus will report that the cities of Syria, after killing their Judean populations, were still apprehensive about the large number of Judaizers in each city.

Shortly after Agrippa’s speech, this prediction will be validated in the narrative. The slaughter of more than 20,000 Judeans in Caesarea (2.457) brings Judean retaliations against numerous villages and cities throughout Syria and the Decapolis (Caesarea, Philadelphia, Heshbon, Gerasa, Pella, Scythopolis, Hippos, Gaulanitis, Tyrian Kedasa, Ptolemais, Gaba, Sebaste, Ashkelon, Anthedon, Gaza): “the slaughter of the men who were captured was innumerable” (2.458-60). This in turn provokes massacres of Judeans throughout Syria (2.461-78) and riots in Alexandria; massive Judean casualties result (2.487-98). Later we learn that the Damascenes had sequestered their Judean population of 10,500 in the gymnasium, out of suspicion. On hearing of Cestius Gallus’ defeat, they massacre them (2.559-61). This phrase completes an inclusio with Agrippa’s opening remarks (2.346): “that the good might not share the harvest of a few people’s bad counsel” (as also Runnalls 1997: 750). On the distinctive noun κακοβουλία, see the note to “bad counsel” at 2.210. But see the note to “all of them” in this sentence. Josephus provides no evidence that Judean communities more remote than Syria and Alexandria (e.g., in Asia Minor, Greece, Italy, or N Africa) suffered reprisals, though it is possible that this occurred; it is unlikely that the large Parthian diaspora suffered thus. The evocative phrase Ἰουδαϊκός φόνος appears only here in Josephus (and is unattested elsewhere); it is similar in form, however, to the equally heinous συγγενικός φόνος at Scythopolis (2.471), in the related context of reprisals. At 3.17 Josephus will present τῶν Ἰουδαίων φόνος as an early consequence of Judean-Roman conflict in Judea. I.e., those who kill Judeans will not fear Roman punishment, given Roman hatred of the rebel nation. Cf. 2.464, where Syrian citizens plunder with impunity the homes of Judeans who have been killed. Josephus provides a partial counter-example in 7.41-62, 100-115: Titus refuses to grant the Antiochenes’ request to expel their large Judean community, a request they assumed he would grant in view of the recent hostilities in Jerusalem. But that account also begins with the observation that Vespasian’s arrival in Syria to prosecute the Judean war had brought the hatred of Judeans to a head (7.46-47); combined with suspicions about their plans to harm the locals, this resulted in many Judean deaths—with apparent impunity (7.48-53). I.e., if some cities do not turn against their Judean populations. At 2.479-80, Josephus will single out Antioch (but 7.43-53), Sidon, and Syrian Apamea, with Gerasa in the Decapolis, as the only cities of the region that did not harm their Judean inhabitants. Lit. “activate, mobilize weapons,” which translation might however suggest modern weapon systems. The artistic phrase ὅπλα κινεῖν is used by Josephus also at 4.99, 231; perhaps he takes it from Thucydides 1.82.1; cf. Heron, Dioptr. 37; Plutarch, Num. 12.5. Josephus’ Agrippa assumes that the Judeans in revolt would themselves undertake hostilities against the neighboring cities. This is confirmed by 2.457-98: the killing of Judeans begins with the Caesarean massacre (2.457), followed by the widespread retaliation of Judean raiding parties against the cities and villages of Samaria and the Decapolis (2.458-60). These cities turn against their Judean populations because traditional apprehension, Josephus claims, is now compounded by anger and fear (2.461). Agrippa’s point seems to be that a move against cities that have not harmed their own Judean inhabitants (e.g. Gerasa, 2.458, 480) would be impious.

The same collocation (εἰσέρχομαι + οἶκτος) appears at Ant. 1.176; 14.381; a similar phrase uses εἴσειμι instead (see the note to “went into Petronius” at 2.198). For “compassion” (οἶκτος), a central theme of War, see the note at 1.12. See the notes at 2.192 and (already in Agrippa’s speech) 395. This is the first of 25 occurrences of μητρόπολις in War (against only 12 in Ant. 1-12; cf. esp. Ant. 3.245). Unlike its English descendant, which suggests a large and sophisticated city, the Greek term indicates the capital of a region or the source-city to which nationals living elsewhere looked as their home. Other nations likewise have their own “mother-cities.” The term is particularly appropriate here as Agrippa—himself king of territories well to the N of Judea—describes the many Judeans elsewhere whose fate is tied to events in Jerusalem. Most (17) of War’s occurrences come in bk. 4, where Jerusalem is the contested property (“mother”) of very different offspring: chief priests, zealots, and Idumeans. Most other occurrences are here in the latter half of bk. 2 (also 2.421, 517, 554, 626). Or “the sacred walls” (τῶν ἱερῶν περιβόλων). Greek περίβολος (“going around”) can mean either a protective wall or the area thus protected. Josephus uses the word often (about 35 times) in War, in both senses. At 4.182 a similar phrase appears to indicate the walls themselves (τοὺς τῶν ἁγίων περιβόλους). The small building housing the Holy Place and Holy of Holies, distinguished from the “temple” as the whole sacred precinct; see the note to “shrine” at 1.10. Presumably, the sacred objects that furnish the shrine, especially the great menorah and the table of the bread. This appeal on behalf of the shrine has been foreshadowed in the one made by Jerusalem’s leaders, under Cumanus’ governorship, to a mob seeking revenge on the Samarians for the murder of a Galilean (2.237). It also anticipates the final spectacle of the sacred vessels being paraded through Rome in the Flavian triumph (7.148-52). See Chapman 2005. This notice anticipates the speech of Titus, responding to the request of John of Gischala and Simon bar Giora for negotiations, after the temple has burned (6.323-27). In spite of his asserted right to have destroyed the rebellious city long before, Titus nevertheless offers a pledge of safety (6.347-50). When they scorn even this magnanimous pledge (2.351), Titus declares that he will spare no one and allows his enraged troops to sack and burn the city (6.352-55).

All 4 occurrences of this verb in War come at momentous occasions: also Josephus’ surrender to the Romans (3.354) and Titus’ declaration of innocence at the temple’s defilement (6.127, twice). Josephus often speaks of “messengers of God” (ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ), especially in Antiquities: 1.73, 198, 333; 5.280; 9.21; 15.36; cf. War 5.388. Although the first noun is often transliterated “angels,” that rendering imports a long Judeo-Christian tradition about “angels” that is not needed here. Divine messengers were well understood in the Greco-Roman world, not least in tragedy (cf. Chapman 1998: 19-20); at the next occurrence of the word, Josephus is God’s messenger (War 3.400). This doubly compounded verb (καθυφίημι)—“give up underhandedly, by treachery”—, though a favorite of Demosthenes (13 of the 19 attestations before Josephus), is otherwise rare: Polybius (3.60.4) and Plutarch (Cic. 8.1) have it once each, Philo twice (Spec. 1.54; 3.61). Josephus will use it again at 6.200; Ant. 6.34, an observation that tends to confirm his control over Agrippa’s speech. Whereas we might have expected the perfect tense if Agrippa was referring to the arguments he has been making, the aorist is perhaps meant to indicate his manner of governing before this crisis, viewed as a whole: there was no point at which he sacrificed the nation’s well being to nefarious purposes. This notice creates an inclusio with Agrippa’s opening declaration (2.346) that his speech would be about what was “advantageous” (or expedient, beneficial); see the note there. Whereas the abstract noun σωτηρία (“rescue, safety, deliverance”) occurs 247 times in Josephus, the cognate adjective here (“that which saves, rescues, is salutary”) appears only 12 times, 5 in War. The same combination of terms as in this paragraph—what brings safety vs. peril, reason vs. non-reason, deliberation or resolve, and the clear choice between courses of action—appears in Herodotus’ account (8.60) of Themistocles’ brief speech at Salamis, though that is for the opposite purpose: to persuade soldiers to fight now. The ethos here seems to owe more to Thucydidean and Polybian Realpolitik (see the Excursus and notes to “necessary” and “tempers” here). Greek τὰ δέοντα here forms an inclusio with the same phrase at 2.345 (see the note there), the opening words of the speech (outside of Agrippa’s speech it occurs in War only at 4.225): what circumstances require (there as here) is to make peace. The phrase itself is particularly common in Xenophon (20 times) and Demosthenes (29 times). In Agrippa’s speech it has the sense of what is dictated by circumstances, apart from considerations of honor or justice (see the note to “irrational hope” at 2.346). Agrippa’s entire speech has been about the contrast between what is advantageous (see note at 2.346) and what is just (e.g., retribution for mistreatment by Roman governors). This recalls the Thucydidean-Polybian themes of eternal struggle between, on the one hand, honor and necessity; on the other hand, between reason and emotion, outrage, or temper (here pl. of θυμός). See the note to “irrational hope” at 2.346. This contrast between political necessity and what “temper” would dictate is a fitting close to the oration. Josephus’ Agrippa concludes his remarks with a neatly balanced antithesis. The matching future second-person verbs representing the audience’s options (ἕξετε, κινδυνεύσετε) create a forceful effect with homoioteleuton; cf. Runnalls 1997: 750; Demetrius, Eloc. 27, 29.

According to Cicero (Part. 27), the first and the last parts of a speech are chiefly aimed at arousing the audience’s emotion (ad motum animi valet). Cf. the similar conclusion of Josephus’ own speech at 5.419-20; Eleazar, by contrast, is all sound and fury as his audience is in tears (7.339-40). Indeed, the speech was introduced with the narrator’s observation that the people insisted on sending an embassy to Nero to complain about Florus’ behavior, in order to clear themselves of any suspicion that they were interested in rebellion (2.342-43). This mismatch between the content of Agrippa’s speech and its occasion (see the note to “follows” at 2.345) now seems slightly comical, as the people remind him that they were not seeking the war he has so eloquently rejected. His rather lame and belated connection between their actions and the appearance of rebellion, in what follows, may be understood either as clumsy construction (from a badly assimilated source or an independent rhetorical exercise) or as deliberate: showing the statesman’s decision to tackle the easier target of war with Rome because he did not want to confront their desire for an embassy (2.343)—rhetorical misdirection (see Excursus). Cf. 2.277-332: the narrator fully endorses the claim that Florus’ behavior is intolerable.

Although it is not clear precisely where the tribute went (into the provincial fiscus for imperial expenses, the public aerarium at Rome, or the emperor’s own fiscus [construed either as his personal estate or as a separate imperial-public treasury of growing importance]), there is no doubt that the emperor controlled it; see the note to “Caesar’s treasuries” at 2.111. The first option seems most likely: the value would be recorded as income in the central treasury (aerarium) in Rome, but mainly kept and used within the province; cf. A. H. M. Jones 1950.According to 2.405 (see note there), 40 talents’ worth was the outstanding amount, which suggests that the rest had been collected. Although Agrippa has implied resistance to tribute by contrasting other nations that pay their tribute without complaint (2.383, 385), this is the first clear indication that many (rural?) Judeans have withheld taxes in protest against the governor. The question whether they ought to submit to census-based property taxes for tribute had been controversial since the beginning of direct Roman rule in 6 CE. At 2.118 (see the note to “Romans” there; cf. Ant. 18.1-4, 26) War’s audience has learned of a significant rebellion at that time, led by Judas the Galilean—a reaction familiar from other provinces. Antiquities elaborates that the people were at first persuaded by a former high priest to accept the imposition, but dissent continued; there Josephus makes the responses to this issue in 6 CE a remote cause of the war 60 years later (Ant. 18.3-10).It appears that the irritant never went away, except perhaps during the reign of King Agrippa I (37-41 CE). The gospels present the matter as highly controversial in the decades following 6 CE (Mark 12:14; Matt 22:17; Luke 20:22; 23:2). Perhaps, then, Josephus has not mentioned a deliberate cessation of tax payment in this instance because it did not happen: perhaps it had always been a matter of partial or grudging compliance, only now exacerbated by the protest against Florus.It is also not clear from Josephus’ account whether the tribute, which presumably would be paid by the Jerusalem authorities in any case (see note to “Romans” at 2.118), was itself going unpaid because of this partial default among the populace. Popular compliance would certainly make payment easier for the Jerusalem authorities, and perhaps Agrippa is pushing for it also as a symbolic action, to encourage popular support for harmony with Rome. It may be that the authorities could have made up the 40-talent shortfall without this revenue. But the Fasting Scroll, Megillat Ta‘anit (II: Iyyar), usually considered to have been composed largely by 70 CE, mentions a date in April (Iyyar 27 [Artemision]) on which “the payment of the tribute was discontinued” (‮אתנטילו כלילאי‬‎).Finally, it is unclear what if any official role Agrippa II, as Judean king of a neighboring territory, had in relation to tribute. He did have responsibilities in the mother-city, notably the appointment of the high priest (Ant. 20.179, 203, 213), and it was he who persuaded Claudius to allow Judeans to keep the high priest’s robes (Ant. 15.407; 20.9-12); he also intervened in important Judean political matters (War 2.245; Ant. 20.135) and maintained building projects there, including a city wall and his own palace (Ant. 20.189-93). It stands to reason that he would be expected, even if informally, to ensure that the Judean populace met its responsibility in this most basic duty. At 2.407, the king will send the Judean notables to Florus, in a fit of pique at his own maltreatment, so that the procurator would have to choose tax gatherers “from among them.” This might suggest that the responsibility had been his, if only in the extreme case of massive non-compliance at this point; or perhaps he had volunteered, partly to preserve his own standing, to shoulder the burden that normally fell on Jerusalem’s leaders. See the note to “cut through [them]” at 2.330. The incident was recounted in 2.330-31 above.

See the note to “rebellion” at 2.39 and to the distinctively Josephan phrase—again demonstrating his authorial hand in the speech (echoed again at 2.418)—at 2.73. Notice the chiastic treatment of these two issues. Possibly “money.” Greek τὰ χρήματα can indicate either cash or property, possessions, holdings, or goods. It is likely that the tribute-tax was paid largely in produce, as in earlier times (see the note to “Romans” at 2.118); hence the dispatch of officials to the villages for its collection (2.405). For an overview of scholarship on the Judean agrarian economy, see Harland 2002.

See the notes at 2.330-31. I.e., members of the aristocratic leadership in Jerusalem, anchored in the priesthood but including prominent laymen; see the note to “council” at 2.331. Although the urban creature Josephus focuses almost exclusively on Jerusalem, in keeping with a general political mindset that thought in terms of cities (though he will deal with Galilean towns and villages to some extent), this notice agrees with other incidental evidence in his narratives (2.170, 229-30, 233-38, 253) that the Judean hinterland harbored more “conservative” or even militant elements of the population than Jerusalem itself, which seems to have paid its share of the tribute without difficulty. I.e., 40 talents’ worth: how much of this was in cash and how much in kind is unclear. At any rate, since this was only the shortfall between the amount of tribute exacted by Rome and revenues collected to date, the tribute itself was much higher. In the 40s BCE Cassius had required 700 talents’ tribute from Judea, of which Herod quickly produced the 100 owing from Galilee (1.220-221). Archelaus as Judean ethnarch had received 400 talents in annual revenue (2.50, 97 with notes), and this may have been close to the Judean annual tribute. Tacitus (Ann. 2.42.5) remarks that in 17 CE delegates from both Syria and Judea, “exhausted by their burdens, begged [Tiberius for] a diminution of taxation.” It is unclear, however, whether the tribute payment to Rome would have been in jeopardy without this unpaid internal revenue: see the note to “Caesar” at 2.403.

The narrative assumes what one would expect in the circumstances: ongoing antipathy to the governor, with the constant potential for outbreaks of militant resistance. Whether Agrippa overplayed his hand by saying more than was necessary, or only responded to further dangerous incidents that Josephus does not mention, we cannot tell. By omitting the latter, Josephus implies the former. Agrippa thus returns to an opening argument from his speech (2.352-54): no matter how bad he is, Florus will not last long, “and it is likely that the successors to come will be more restrained.” See the note at 2.8, with the similar constructions there and at 2.11, 305. The only other occurrence of ἐκκηρύσσω in Josephus comes later in the same book (2.633), when Josephus himself, as Galilean commander, suffers banishment from a Tiberias that is in revolt against him. See the note to this key word at 1.10.

This is the first of occurrence of Josephus’ distinctive thematic term οἱ νεωτερίζοντες, for those fomenting revolt against Rome. It was introduced as a neuter participle in the prologue (1.4) and then anticipated in the story of Archelaus’ accession (2.8); see the notes there. The phrase will reappear in quick succession at 2.410, 417 (also 494, 652). Like “insurgents” and other such terms for trouble-makers, it completely obscures the actual motives and outlooks of the people in question. This verb χαλεπαίνω will appear again in bk. 2 only at 2.412, a few sentences below. This illustrates Josephus’ habit of re-using a word in a short space and then dropping it. The colorful verb προπηλακίζω occurs only here and at Apion 1.191 in Josephus. Although it literally means “trample in [or spatter with] mud or earth,” it is attested only in the metaphorical sense of dealing humiliating treatment. Nevertheless, since people have been throwing rocks at Agrippa, Josephus may have chosen the verb carefully, with also literal overtones. See the note to these stock labels at 2.239. Coastal Caesarea was the headquarters of the Roman governor (see the note at 2.16). Florus had returned there from his mischief in Judea at 2.332. Since the tribute has just been collected from the countryside (2.405), this must involve appointing officials for the next collection. That may already be imminent, given the delay in the previous round, though in context the point seems more symbolic. In pique at his recent treatment, Agrippa hands the responsibility for choosing officials to Florus, the very one who had aroused the hatred that led to the problem with tribute in the first place. See the note to “Caesar” at 2.403: it appears that Agrippa had (voluntarily or on request) been organizing the collection of tribute arrears, at least from the villages. Agrippa’s kingdom had begun with his being granted Chalcis (see the note to “kingdom” at 2.223) in 48/49 CE and then shifted S to encompass Philip’s former tetrarchy (Trachonitis, Batanea, Auranitis, and the Golan) plus Mt. Lebanon (53 CE), finally acquiring Abela and Iulias in Perea along with Tiberias and Tarichea in Galilee (see 2.247, 252 with notes) in 55 CE.

The narrator adopts the phrasing he has recently crafted for Agrippa’s speech (2.354 [see the note to “set in motion”], 362). Although he does not explain it here, the nameless warmongers apparently belong to the faction of Manaem, a “son” (possibly descendant) of Judas the Galilean, for that group will soon extract weapons from the armory at Masada, without apparent resistance, in order to take over the siege of royal and Roman forces in Jerusalem (2.433-34). At 7.297 Josephus will claim that it was Eleazar b. Ya‘ir and his sicarii who took Masada by stealth, which must (assuming consistency) relate to the event described here. Since Josephus will describe Eleazar as a relative of Manaem’s (2.447), that scenario makes sense. Perhaps he omits Eleazar’s name to avoid audience confusion with the Eleazar introduced in the next sentence, who is more important at this point. Josephus has introduced the desert fortress Masada, on the southern stretch of the W coast of the Dead Sea, and referred to it several times in bk. 1 (e.g., 237-38, 264-66, 293-94). This economical notice serves to recall the site in preparation for further brief mention in bk. 2: 433, 447 (which looks ahead to the main Masada narrative of bk. 7), 653. Given Josephus’ later description of the near impenetrability of the fortress (7.280-303), in preparation for his description of the famous Roman siege, this offhand report is surprising. Compare λάθρα here with δόλῳ (“craft, treachery, bait”), used of the taking of Masada by Eleazar’s sicarii, at 7.297. Both terms imply something other than a direct assault; cf. the slaughter of the Roman garrison in Jerusalem by a trick (2.450-53). Or “cut the throats of” (see the note at 2.30). Presumably an outpost of the Judean (Sebastene and Caesarean) auxiliary forces under the procurator’s control, albeit with Roman officers; see the note to “Sebastenes” at 2.52. It is possible that the outpost fortresses were manned by small legionary detachments (from Syria). See the note to “motion”: sicarii led by Eleazar and Menachem.

Although this is the first appearance of this Eleazar in War, we may infer (as Josephus’ audience could not) from 2.243 and Ant. 20.131 that his older brother Ananus had served as temple commandant while his father Ananias was the serving high priest. Ant. 20.208 reports that some years earlier, Eleazar’s secretary had been kidnapped, in the expectation of ransom from his wealthy father—among the first of such kidnappings. Son of Nedebeus according to Ant. 20.103, appointed high priest by Herod of Chalcis in about 47/48 CE, just before Cumanus’ appointment as procurator, Ananias apparently served a remarkably long time (until 59 CE; Ant. 20.179). His period in office was eventful: it included a trip to Rome to defend, before Claudius, the behavior of the Judeans in their conflict with Samarians. After his term he remained a wealthy and influential figure, also a target of sicarii kidnapping-ransom maneuvers in the early 60s (see previous note, 2.243 with note, and Ant. 20.204-10). See the notes to “bolder ones” at 2.238, 267, and to “youths” at 2.225. This combination of spirit and youth is typical of Josephus and other ancient writers. But according to Ant. 20.208, Eleazar was temple commandant already near the beginning of Albinus’ procuratorship (20.204), which may have begun in 59/60 CE (see note to War 2.272), or 62 CE on the standard dating: 4 to 6 years or more before the current episode. Granted that such a responsible position required considerable maturity, and that his older brother had held it in the early 50s, it is hard to imagine that Eleazar was particularly young. Josephus may well have assimilated him to the stereotype of the hot-headed youth (see notes mentioned above) in order to help explain away his behavior. Or “supervisor, overseer, administrator, controller.” Note the characteristic inclusio, with the same verb (στρατηγέω) at the end of this paragraph (2.410). This verb had a wide range of possible meanings, from the standard “be a general” to “serve as consul, praetor” in Rome, or in one of the many non-military senses of στρατηγός in the Greek East. In this case, Eleazar held the position of responsibility for the proper running and security of the temple precincts (often called the “captaincy” in English): cf. 6.294; Ant. 20.131; Luke 22: 4, 52; Acts 4:1; 5:24, 26. The position is usually equated with that of sagan (‮סגן‬‎) in rabbinic literature (Schürer-Vermes 2.277-78), an official second in rank after the high priest, though the general gulf between Greek and rabbinic sources for groups and institutions in 1st-century Judea suggests caution in making the link. See the notes to this verb at 1.5; 2.55. Representing τοὺς κατὰ τὴν λατρείαν λειτουργοῦντας. For the verb, see the note at 2.321. The noun λατρεία occurs only here in Josephus, and infrequently before his time, most often in the sense of a slave’s or hired worker’s service (Aeschylus, Prom. 966; Sophocles, Trach. 830; Ajax 503; Euripides, Phoin. 225; cf. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 2.9.2; 4.44.3). Plato, however, uses it of service to the Gods (Phaedr. 244e; Apol. 23c), as do the LXX (Exod 12:26; 1 Chron 28:13), 1 Maccabees (1:43), Philo (Spec. 2.167), and the NT writers (John 16:2; Rom 12:1). Its religious use becomes very common among Christian authors, with thousands of occurrences. This was an extremely bold position to take. The temple in Jerusalem had always been the recipient of foreigners’ gifts (see the note to “treasury of God” at 2.50), famously those of King Hiram of Tyre (1 Kgs 7:13-45; 9:11-14) and the Queen of Sheba (2 Kgs 10:1-10). Josephus’ Solomon, in dedicating his temple to God, emphasizes the biblical point that supplicants from the ends of the earth are welcome (Ant. 8.116-17; 1 Kgs 8:41-43). Ps-Aristeas (42, 51-82) describes lavish gifts purportedly given by Ptolemy II Philadelphus, and various prominent Romans contributed generously (Philo, Legat. 297; Josephus, War 4.181; Ant. 14.488). Josephus will claim that John of Gischala melted down costly temple vessels, some of which had been presented by Augustus, his family, and his successors: “Indeed, the kings of the Romans always honored and added furnishings to the temple” (5.562-63). Cf. Schürer-Vermes 2.312-13.Herod must have expected large numbers of gentile visitors, for he left much of his massive temple platform accessible to them (see note to “permitted” at 2.341), though admittedly he was not free to expand some of the central holy spaces beyond biblical prescriptions. There is abundant evidence for the regular presence of such visitors (cf. Jeremias 1969: 58-77). This episode raises many practical questions, e.g.: How to distinguish among different kinds of foreigners and their gifts? Was it only politically connected gifts from rulers that were excluded? What about those from the many “Judaizers” (e.g., of the sort about which Tacitus complains in Hist. 5.5), which seemed to have joined the world-wide contributions for the temple from diaspora Judeans? What reason could there be for rejecting such contributions? What if those contributors went so far as to identify become Judeans (through male circumcision or the initiation rites for women)? The choice of word (ἀλλότριος rather than ἀλλόφυλος, which often functions positively in Josephus) perhaps enhances the sense of strangeness or hostility from the perspective of the priests involved. As Schürer-Vermes (2.309-12) observe with many examples, gentile sacrifice was a longstanding tradition, recognized in the earliest biblical texts (Lev 22:25), analyzed in later rabbinic literature (m. Shek. 1:5; 7:6; Zeb. 4:5; Men. 5:3, 5, 6; 6:1; 9:8), and widely attested for the intervening centuries (Josephus, Ant. 11.329-30; 13.242-43; 16.14; 18.122; Apion 2.48). At the end of the 2nd century CE Tertullian (Apol. 26) also recalls that the Romans used to honor the temple with sacrifices and offerings. See further the note to “Caesar” in this section. See the similar phrase at 2.260 with note and the repetition of this phrase (with articles) at 2.417. At 2.284 Josephus has claimed that the Caesarean conflict marked the beginning of the war—with good reason (see the notes there). At 4.318 he will say that the overthrow of the city began with the death of Ananus. Given the absence of a definite article here, the choice of language (not beginning-point but “a foundation”), and the internal coherence of thought—this action laid down a marker for coming war—there is no need to see these claims as contradictory. This verb (ἀπορρίπτω), which will reappear in the voice of the Judean elders at 2.416, is well chosen for its connotation of contempt. On this important twice-daily sacrifice, contributed by (or at least offered for the sake of) the Roman rulers, see the note to “Roman people” at 2.197. It was a fundamental expression of loyalty to the empire and, at the same time, of the Judeans’ acceptance of imperial reverence for their deity. Daily sacrifice on the emperor’s behalf was a suitably Judean way of associating with the imperial cult of the E Mediterranean, which understood the emperor and his family as chief sacrificers (seeking divine protection for their subjects) as well as being—in other cities—themselves objects of sacrifice. Just as Pliny reported to Trajan that his province of Pontus-Bithynia had renewed its oath of loyalty by offering sacrifice for Trajan’s well being (Ep. 10.100), to which Trajan replied with complete satisfaction, so the daily Jerusalem sacrifice in this vein was an important symbol of loyalty. For an entirely different analysis, see Bernett 2007 (and the note at 2.197).Unilaterally abolishing this sacrifice, even if it was not a formal requirement of participation in the empire, would have implied much the same sense of insult as desecrating temples to Rome and Augustus in other cities. The emperors since Augustus had reportedly offered worship to the Judean God and supported his cult without expecting a reciprocal recognition of Greco-Roman deities; cutting off even this avenue of generosity (as Josephus presents it) could only be understood by Rome as offensive behavior on the part of the Judean élite.

This pair is another variation on Josephus’ standard descriptions of the highest élite echelon (see the notes to “powerful [men]” at 2.239 and to “chief priests” and “notables” at 2.243). In the next sentence (2.411) these highest aristocrats will meet again, but unusually, with the most eminent Pharisees. See notes there. See the note at 2.407. In 2.451 it will emerge that these prominent supporters of Eleazar included Gorion son of Nicomedes, Ananias son of Sadok, and Ioudas son of Ionathes; the last two will form half of the delegation that will try to oust Josephus from his Galilean command (2.628). Since the verb στρατηγέω occurs outside of this passage only at 2.567 in War 2, its appearance at the beginning and end of this paragraph seems to constitute a deliberate word-play: the temple commandant, a high official in the priestly tradition, has suddenly become “commandant” of a distinctly non-traditional cabal.

See the note at 2.239 and the terms at 2.243. Josephus almost formulaically pairs chief priests and powerful men or notables, in designating the highest level of Jerusalem’s élite (cf. 2.243, 301, 316, 318, 322, 336, 422, 428, 648). Different here is the presence of the Pharisees (see next notes). This phrase (εἰς ταὐτό) might go either with what precedes (powerful men and chief priests) or with what follows (those two and Pharisees). In favor of the latter is that chief priests and powerful men frequently appear together without need for elaboration (previous note). The Pharisees, here meeting in the same place with them, are the unusual element (see next note)—apparently as a result of the recognized emergency. The Pharisees have been introduced to the audience at 1.110-114, 571; 2.119, 162-66 (on which Mason 1991, 2007a). The present passage is the only one in War that combines leading Pharisees with the more standard Judean leadership groups (see note to “chief priests” in this sentence). It anticipates what Antiquities will spell out (13.297-98; 18.15, 17): that Pharisees had avenues of access to the masses that were unavailable to the priestly aristocracy. Although the most prominent Pharisees (as here) were wealthy and well connected (cf. Life 189-98), as a group they lacked the hereditary claims and social status of the chief priests. Inclusion of the Pharisees’ leading representatives in this emergency council, mentioned also at Life 21 as a special event, appears to be a diplomatic necessity, part of the élite’s effort to reach and calm the masses by every available means. See the note to this charged adjective (“irremediable suffering”) at 2.233. The noun is also programmatic (συμφορά), enhancing the tragic tone of War and bk. 2; see the notes at 1.9; 2.286. This clause might be intended to explain the unusual collaboration of chief priests and other leading men with prominent Pharisees. As punctuated by Niese and other modern editors, this construction is more elliptical than usual for Josephus: after a high stop (semi-colon), καὶ δόξαν [ἀποπειραθῆναι τῶν στασιαστῶν λόγοις . . . ἀθροίζουσι τὸν δῆμον]. The Greek MSS reveal no demurral, though the Latin seems to treat δόξαν as an object of the earlier finite verb “began deliberating” as it recasts the whole (et uidentes quam grauibus malis pergerent subigere ciuitatem, decreuerunt seditiosorum animos experiri et ante. . . ). Other modern translations appear to render δόξαν as if it were a participle (δοξάντες, δοκοῦντες), which is reasonable but hard to read from the text. As a last resort, I treat it as an accusative absolute. See the note to this key word at 1.10. The same construction (ἀποπειραθῆναι τῶν [X] λόγοις) appears at 2.523, where King Agrippa puts the Judeans to the test with words, and a similar one at Ant. 5.103. In all cases the phrase anticipates the use of oratory to prevent fighting—precisely what the statesman should do (Plutarch, Mor. [Praec.] 801c-804c). Since the construction, though unattested in other writers, appears in both War and Antiquities, it seems to reflect Josephus’ characteristic language. Josephus features this massive gate of Corinthian bronze—of much greater value than those overlaid with gold and silver—in his two main descriptions of the temple (War 5.201; Ant. 15.418). This was the gate, according to the latter passage, through which ritually pure priests entered the inner temple compound with their wives. That awkward detail should perhaps not upset the consensus view, based on m. Mid. 2:3, that this was Nicanor’s Gate, which stood atop 15 rounded 23 cm (9-in) steps rising up from the 61 m (200 ft) square Court of Women (diminished by large chambers on each corner), leading to the Court of Israelites, through which one reached the Court of the Priests and the central shrine: hence it was “the one outside the shrine” (War 5.201)—visible from and directly E of the Holy of Holies.This also appears to be the gate, requiring 20 men to open and shut, that is said by Josephus to have opened of its own accord one night as an omen of the temple’s destruction (6.293); it may also be the Beautiful Gate of Acts 3:2, 10. The Mishnah (Mid. 2:5) claims that the Levites used to sing from the steps before this gate. The Babylonian Gemara has many stories about the gate and its donor, at least some of them fanciful (e.g., b. Pes. 85b, 92a; Yom. 11a, 19a, 30b, 31a, 37a, 38a; Naz. 45a). At any rate, the podium created by the staircase leading to this bronze gate, sitting about 11 ft (3.35 m) above the Women’s Court, would be the logical site for a speech in the temple area for the Judean public only: within a large enclosed space beyond the access of gentiles. I.e., the relatively small walled compound in the centre-west of the vast temple mount constructed by Herod, presumably within the boundaries of the Court of Israelites, possibly including the Court of Women beyond the balustrade prohibiting gentile access (see the note to “permitted” at 2.341 and previous note in this section). Josephus could simply have said that the gate was on the E side (as does m. Mid. 1:4; 2:6), but he has an abiding interest in the sun as divine symbol—or possibly as a deity. See the note to “prayers to him” at 2.128. He has Moses position the tabernacle and the altar so as to catch the sun’s first rays (Ant. 3.115; 4.305) and describes the high priest’s upper garment as representing the sun’s rays (Ant. 3.184). Ant. 15.418 also puts this gate “on the side where the sun rises.” Such orientations to the sun were entirely familiar to Greco-Roman audiences, e.g. in the temples of Zeus at Olympia or Athena at Athens.

See the note to “showed his anger” at 2.407 above—the verb’s only other occurrence in War 2. See the note to “brazenness” at 2.108. See the note at 2.39. The verb ἐπισείω means literally to shake something at someone, to scare them, or to provoke a reaction. It occurs in Josephus only here and at War 1.215; 4.302. It matches well the “goading” and “courting” of 2.414 below. On rationality as the statesman’s criterion, see the note to “irrational hope” at 2.346. This (πρόφασις) is a significant term in Josephus’ lexicon of causation; see the note at 2.285. The appeal to ancestral tradition had great rhetorical force in many ancient cultures, not least the Roman, in which the mos maiorum had axiomatic validity. Josephus presents himself as sharing the same assumptions, most obviously in the projects of Antiquities and Apion on the antiquity of his people (cf. War 1.17) and in the speech of his character at War 5.362-419 (esp. 376-77, 390, 399). Or “decorated, decked out.” The perfect tense of κοσμέω indicates that the results are still present (as 2.413). See the note to “gift” at 2.409.

The Judeans had every reason to avoid any imputation of “impiety,” which easily attached to them, along with the “atheism” and “misanthropy” charges, because of their exclusive cult, diet, and manner of life: they could not participate in the worship of other deities (e.g., Tacitus, Hist. 5.3-5). Josephus is keenly aware of this, and in the Apion he pointedly refutes each accusation (see 2.148, 291—“the laws. . . teach not impiety but the truest piety”—see the commentary and bibliography in Barclay, BJP 10). Since the welcoming of strangers into Judean culture was the best way of demonstrating the nation’s benevolence and generosity (cf. Apion 2.261, 281-83), given that Judeans would not participate in foreign cults, it would be catastrophic from this élite perspective, reinforcing the worst stereotypes of non-Judean observers, to cut off even this area of shared piety. The verb καθιδρύω occurs in War only here and at 1.404. It is not easy, however, to picture what these gifts might have been, since Exod 20:4-6 was generally understood to exclude human or animal images, which constituted the bulk of votive gifts to other temples (see the note to “trampled” at 2.170). Philo (Leg. 2.199) recounts Pontius Pilate’s dedication of some gold shields, blank except for the name of donor and honoree (Tiberius), in the Herodian palace—not in the temple. Although it is difficult to see the cause of offense, Philo claims that Pilate did this in large part to cause distress among the populace. Presumably, foreign donors to the temple were careful to give blank medallions or shields, crowns, or objects bearing only geometrical patterns or scenes of plant life. Cf. 4.180-82, where the former high priest Ananus tragically contrasts the Romans, who have respectfully contributed votive offerings to the temple from afar, which are still visible around the courtyard, with the Judeans’ murder and plunder of each other within the sacred space (ostensibly because of their hatred of the Romans). By having the elders use vivid representation, Josephus achieves the same effect (ἐνάργεια) with his literary audience.

See the note at 2.316: throughout the latter half of War 2 (2.316, 321, 350, 493), leaders constantly urge the Judeans not to goad the Romans. Of 13 occurrences in Josephus, μνηστεύω appears in War only here and at 1.570. Most often it has a literal sense (in relation to love and marriage); it is metaphorical here and at Ant. 17.2 (“courting danger,” much as here). Or “excavating.” Greek καινοτομέω appears only here and, in a similar metaphorical sense, in the speech of Josephus’ character at 5.402. Meaning literally “cut a new [vein, in mining, or path],” it had, along with its cognate noun, an established usage for political innovation (Plato, Euth. 3b, 16a; Leg. 709a, 797c; Aristotle, Pol. 1305b, 1316b; Polybius 15.30.1). The phrase (θρησκεία ξένη) is cleverly ironic, given the issue: since Judean worship has always accepted the support of strangers, by not accepting these they are innovating a strange, alien form of worship (though they do so under the guise of protecting Judean tradition from what is alien). I.e., the danger of direct confrontation with Rome, which (as 2.418 observes) would naturally face the leaders first. The verb καταψηφίζομαι occurs in War again only at 6.250, a rough symmetrical parallel. The sense may be that they have created the conditions in which others would “vote Jerusalem out” of the community of nations. See the note to “impious” at 2.413. The fundamental expectation that foreigners, especially dignitaries, should normally offer worship to local Gods as they visited other cities is captured well in Suetonius’ observation (Aug. 93) that Augustus was grateful to his grandson Gaius for not stopping in Jerusalem to worship, as he hurried from Egypt to Syria—implying that the norm would be to stop. Just before Agrippa’s speech the visiting tribune Neopolitanus has done precisely this (2.341). The placement of that episode—saying in effect, “Look what happens when a fair and well-intentioned Roman official visits Jerusalem”—gives added force to the elders’ objection here.

Presumably: a law banning gifts or sacrifices from some person. Possibly “he” (as Whiston), since the subject of the infinitive is tacit, though the overall logic suggests a contrast between the rebel priests’ attitudes towards ordinary individuals and towards the Romans. The meaning is unclear, however, for it is not obvious why these priests would be upset on humanitarian grounds about the exclusion of a (foreign) individual. Although the general sense of ὡς ὁριζομένης ἀπανθρωπίας is clear, the nuances of the words and the precise syntax yield several possibilities. Is the participle middle or passive? If the latter, is the aggrieved person indignant at his own exclusion, or should the rebel priests be? Or should they be indignant at the act of excluding (middle voice)? The noun ἀπανθρωπία (rendered adjectivally for simplicity) occurs only here and at Ant. 16.161 in Josephus. This vivid adjective (ἔκσπονδος), meaning literally “outside the libation [signaling a treaty],” is chosen for the rhetorical contrast coming in the next sentence—its only appearances in Josephus. Well represented in its literal sense in the orators and occasionally in historians, it has little attestation in later writers (no doubt because of the pagan associations).

See the note at 2.409. That Josephus uses the same language in both his narrator’s voice and for his characters illustrates his complete authorial control. Apparently, the prominent leaders, chief priests, and eminent Pharisees are worried that they themselves will soon be excluded from temple worship, which is indeed what happens at 2.426 below. See the note to “to their senses,” an important verb of rational behavior, at 2.346. This verb (ἀποδίδωμι) provides a counterbalance, with the same prefix, to that translated “casting aside” above. The prefix might indicate either “giving back,” in the sense of something owed or due, or “giving again” as before, or restoring, or both. Although the latter sense is indicated here, when Jesus answers the Pharisees’ question about tribute in the gospels, he uses the same verb (ἀποδότε: Mark 12:17; Matt 22:21; Luke 20:25) for the famous “render unto Caesar.”

It is curious that a distinguished group led by the chief priests (2.411) should now bring forth “priestly experts,” as if these were a different group (a subset?), since Josephus elsewhere insists that the priests, led by the chief priests, are the experts (3.352; Ant. 4.304, 324; 12.49; Life 1-9, 198; Apion 1.29-36, 54; 2.185-87). In rhetorical flight he will even claim that only other nations need to consult experts, for all Judeans know their laws intimately (Apion 2.177-78; cf. Barclay ad loc. in BJP 10). Still, he occasionally admits that a few priests are conspicuous as towering authorities, most especially his good self (Ant. 20.262-66; Life 9).Since Josephus was apparently present in Jerusalem at this time, and part of these discussions (Life 21), it is entirely possible, if unprovable, that he is thinking of himself in mentioning these experts—also adding an air of mystery for his Roman audience. For their sake he might also be suggesting a parallel with Etruscan experts in Rome. The Etruscans held the paradoxical position of being not precisely Roman, but having crucial functions in Roman public cult as haruspices and perhaps as interpreters of the Sibylline Oracles (cf. Beard, North, and Price 1998: 1.24, 101-2; 2.175-78). This is a remarkably apt choice of diction (ἀλλογενής) for these experts in Judean tradition. It is the only appearance of this word in Josephus: although the sense would be obvious to any Greek speaker, the word is attested almost exclusively in Judean (and Christian) circles: 47 times in the LXX—where it often translates ‮בן נכר‬‎ or ‮זר‬‎ (e.g., Exod 12:43; 29:33; Lev 22:10, 13)—including apocrypha; 4 times in Philo; Luke 17:18; Jos. Asen. 4.12; then in Justin and later Christian and Jewish authors. It is not found in Greek authors except Plutarch (Mor. [Carn. 2] 997e) and the epitome of the obscure grammarian, Diogenianus. See the note at 2.407. The textual variants reveal a fascinating problem. MSS PAM, followed by Niese, have “bandit elements” (λῃστρικοί), whereas L1VRC, M’s margin, Latin, and Hegesippus all read “(priestly) ministers, attendants” (λειτουργοί), which is followed by Thackeray in LCL, Pelletier, Vitucci, and M-B. Earlier attestation (in the Latin) thus favors the latter, though it does not certainly appear elsewhere in Josephus; it is a variant at Ant. 13.55. The former term is doubly unexpected: first, because of the troublesome logical connection between bandits and the temple priests; second, because Josephus hardly ever uses the adjective λῃστρικός as a masculine plural substantive (though see 2.264 and note). These problems mean, however, that “bandit-types” is easier to understand as the original term, modified by later copyists (as in M’s margin) because of its incomprehensibility.Three further considerations support this view. First, the distance between revolutionary priests and bandits is not far in Josephus’ world of language (see the note to “bandit bloc” at 1.11). Second, in his later parallel to this episode (Life 21) Josephus will explicitly mention Manaem (Menachem) as leader of the bandit element. So it seems likely that he was thinking of “bandits” and rebellious priests together at this point (cf. 2.433 below). Finally, the sentence structure here, with its emphatic distinction between the rebellious priests and both the identity and the situation of the group next mentioned, suggests that they were quite different. Reading προσίεσαν (from προσίημι) with MSS PAVR, followed by Niese and M-B, rather than “joining in, coming to [the elders’] support” (προσῄεσαν, from πρόσειμι), agreeing with the Latin procedebant and followed by Thackeray, Vitucci, and Pelletier. Whichever word is read, the meaning is obscure, and dependent in part on the problematic subject (see “bandit-types” and note). The sentence could mean: temple servants or bandits were not allowing access (to the temple); temple servants or bandits did not come to the aid of the elders (so Thackeray, Vitucci, Pelletier); temple servants did not attend to their duties (so Whiston); or temple servants did not appear (so M-B). But all of those explanations require a good deal of supplementation.The route to a simpler approach may lie in the observation that this verb predicated of the second subject closely matches the one predicated of the first group—in tense, form (with προσ- prefixes), and meaning—suggesting a certain parallelism. The meaning may be, then, that just as the rebel priests would not pay heed, so also the “bandit-types” (i.e., militant demagogues such as Manaem) would not agree either. With these two influential groups rejecting the direction of the senior priests, the foundation for war was laid. The verb ἐνσκευάζω occurs 9 times in Josephus, but only in War 1-6. Before his time it appears rarely (notably Aristophanes, Acharn. 384, 436, 1096; Xenophon, Cyr. 8.5.11; Plato, Crito 53d), but 5 times in Philo (Sacr. 28; Ebr. 7; Somn. 2.182; Flacc. 40; Legat. 94), then commonly in Plutarch, Dio, Lucian, and contemporaries. Again we see Josephus using language that was in vogue at his time, with Philo as a significant precursor. The repetition of this programmatic phrase from 2.409, now with articles for each noun, creates an inclusio: it is now clearer, with the recalcitrance of the priests and of the “bandits,” why this became the foundation of the war.

See the note to this key word at 1.10. J. Price (2003) finds in Josephus a confusion of usage reflecting a conflicted attitude to the war. He argues (2003: 11-19) that for Thucydides and subsequent Greek authors through Josephus’ time, στάσις was the condition of city or state facing internal conflict or factionalism, from the perspective of a detached outside observer, the insiders all being partisans. Although Josephus begins War with this normal meaning, as he describes Hasmonean factionalism (1.31), Price contends that here and in other passages dealing with the first year of the war (especially 2.434, 437) Josephus uses the term in a new and problematic way, as the project of only one group, such that it can be said to have a leader: στάσις then amounts to uprising or sedition rather than factionalism (which must have at least two leaders). Josephus is now a fully involved reporter, pinning blame on only a few extremists (it is their στάσις) who stand over against the populace and the good leaders. For Price (2003: 20-21), this “instability” of usage betrays Josephus’ underlying knowledge that the war was not after all a matter of serious internal conflict, as he misleadingly claims, but a largely unified uprising against Rome. This analysis in turn supports Price’s earlier argument that Josephus has attempted to conceal the reality that prominent members of the aristocracy led the nation in a bid for independence (Price 1992: 32-33; cf. Goodman 1987: 167-68).Although Price claims that the Thucydidean script followed by Josephus should not have allowed him to present στάσις as external to Jerusalem’s leaders (2003: 14-15), and that Josephus adopts this meaning only in relation to the war’s first year, the major example of στάσις in Antiquities—the rebellion of Korah against Moses (Ant. 4.12-66, 76)—closely matches War’s usage. That is, Korah’s actions create a civil strife needing resolution: Korah is the one who both generates and leads the στάσις (4.12-15. NB: Feldman in BJP 3 translates both “sedition” and “civil strife,” from one sentence to the next). Moses is plainly not a partisan in that στάσις, which cannot therefore be described as factionalism; Moses and God deliver the people from this strife by removing the instigator (4.12-13). The στάσις under Archelaus in War 2.10-11 seems to fall into the same category: the ethnarch-designate is not a factionalist when he tries to suppress the “civil strife.” These examples are in accord with Plutarch’s contemporary Precepts of Statecraft, which sees the statesman as standing above and outside στάσις, while making every effort to prevent or cure it (Mor. 815b, c-f): “he must not create storms himself, and yet he must not abandon [the state] when such storms descend; but when [the state] is reeling and endangered, he must come to its aid, his frankness of speech being just like a sacred anchor heaved over into the greatest [depths, perils].”Acknowledging Josephus’ (or other writers’) debts to Thucydides does not require understanding War’s language such that shifts in usage imply “misreadings” of the master. Plato already explores various nuances of the term στάσις (see note at 1.10). For Josephus and many of his contemporaries (cf. Rowe and Schofield 2005: 18-20), this term indicates above all the opposite of concord (ὁμόνοια). Josephus regularly contrasts these two terms: 1.460; 4.369; 5.72, 441; 6.215 (note especially the last). It is difficult to imagine that a Greek-speaking audience would have found anything odd or conflicted in his usage. Here we have a stunning example of Josephus’ lexical proclivities. In his entire corpus, the adjective δυσκαθαίρετος occurs only here and in the next sentence, illustrating his tendency to re-use a word quickly and then drop it. The meager attestation of the word outside of his corpus equally fits the pattern: before him it appears only in Philo (Leg. 1.86; Mos. 1.9), but then his contemporary Plutarch has it (Mor. [Garr.] 511c; cf. Pollux, Onom. 1.171; Zenobius, Epit. 6.52). After the 2nd century it disappears for nearly a millennium. See the note to “danger” at 2.414. Naturally, the Romans would hold the Judean leadership responsible for an act of rebellion that emanated from the temple and its public ceremonies, which should be in their control. To persuade the Romans otherwise will require embassies. See the note to this distinctive Josephan phrase at 2.73. Although the Ananias in question is presumably the former high priest, just mentioned as Eleazar’s father (2.409; cf. 2.243), which would explain why the son was chosen to lead this important mission, Simon—bearer of the most commonly attested name in Judea (Hachlili 2005: 200)—appears only here. If he is a brother of both Ananus and Eleazar, the former and current temple commandants, who rejects one brother’s interest in challenging Rome, Josephus does not pause to explain it. The last we heard of Florus (2.407) he was in Caesarea. Agrippa II had sent some Jerusalem leaders to him, to make new arrangements for the collection of tribute. This is the first occurrence of ἐπίσημος in War 2 (cf. 2.448, 585), though the word appears 53 times in Josephus (62 including cognates); it is a functional equivalent of several other terms for members of the élite (see the note to “powerful [men]” at 2.239). This is a fascinating collection of names from the same family: Hebrew, Greek, and Idumean. That Josephus mentions their being part of (rather than leading) the delegation suggests that he has other reasons to mention them here. It fits with his common practice to anticipate, with incidental notices, more significant actions later. In this case, the audience will later learn (2.556-58) that Costobar and Saul are brothers, that all 3 men will be trapped in the Herodian palace after their return with royal troops (cf. 2.421, 430-37), and that Antipas—a member of the royal family, at some point placed in charge of the public treasury—would ultimately die at rebel hands (cf. 4.140-41), whereas after Cestius’ defeat at Beit-Horon Costobar and Saul will flee Jerusalem to join his forces. Ant. 20.214 adds the surprising information (though characteristic of the differences between the major works) that before 66 CE, while Albinus was procurator, Costobar and Saul behaved as lawless men, in spite of the royal lineage that brought them favor in the public eye, and operated gangs of thugs who engaged in violent robbery. Exactly how they are related is unclear, but Kokkinos (1998: 201-5) makes plausible proposals: Costobar and Saul might be the grandsons of Herod’s sister Salome and Costobar (inherently likely because of the name—and, I would add, the common practice of papponymy [Hachlili 2005: 201-2]), their parents being Antipater (III) and the older Berenice (b. ca. 31 BCE). If so, they might have been born as late as the first decade CE, which would still make them near 60 at the time of these events, somewhat older than King Agrippa II, who is only about 38. This Antipas, though of royal blood (War 4.140), is entirely obscure: Kokkinos (1998: 161 n. 29, 202) conjectures that he might be the son of Phasael II (b. 47/46 BCE) or of Antipas the tetrarch, or a different descendant of the brothers’ father. The king is in his own kingdom to the N/NE, perhaps in Caesarea Philippi (2.407).

See the note to “up” at 2.16. The verb ἐπικόπτω appears only here and at 4.168 in Josephus. It is lightly attested in literature before his time (perhaps a dozen cases), but more heavily used from Plutarch (3 occurrences) onward. See the notes at 1.10; 4.18. See the note in the previous sentence (2.418): a brief inclusio. There the situation was already uncontainable by the leaders; here it threatens absolute uncontainability.

This is the only occurrence in Josephus of the famous neuter singular εὐαγγέλιον, normally rendered “gospel” in early Christian contexts, though here it lacks the article that usually accompanies it in those texts (which also renders it something of a technical term of Paul’s communities). It occurs in the plural at 4.618, 656, both times in the context of adulation for Vespasian at his rise to imperial power, reflecting earlier use in imperial propaganda. The cognate verb is more common (twice in War, 9 times in Antiquities). Greek ἐξάπτειν τὸν πόλεμον. Florus’ resolve to promote war is an established theme: 2.282-83, 296. At 2.293, 343 Josephus has Florus “fan the flames of war” and at 2.318 the procurator “re-ignites” trouble. The phrase used here will reappear at 2.650 of the Judeans who have ignited war, and Josephus will use that phrase symmetrically in Life at 105 and 321. The phrase is not attested before Josephus and so (given this frequency) counts as distinctive, though it appears in his contemporary Plutarch (Mor. [Vit. dec. orat.] 840a, 848b) and later authors (Appian, Bell. civ. 5.1.10).

I.e., the Romans. The client king’s difficult position between his people and his patrons, characteristic of the statesman under Roman rule (see Plutarch’s Advice to the Statesman), was spelled out before his great speech, at 2.337-38; see the notes there. See the note at 2.400, where Agrippa articulated these concerns in his speech. See the note to “interest either” at 2.343. By using the cognate verb here, Josephus again attributes to the king a cold calculation concerning his personal advantage, in amongst his more statesman-like reflections. The cavalry were thus drawn from the 3 contiguous regions E of the Golan (Gaulanitis) and Lake Kinneret, listed here from S to N (i.e., outward from Josephus’ Judean perspective). This was part of Agrippa’s territory (see note to “kingdom” at 2.407) and it had a reputation for martial valor, especially in horsemanship. Trachonitis (“rough land”) was a natural haven for bandits and had a long-standing reputation for harassing both Syria and Judea. According to Ant. 17.23-30, near the end of his life King Herod settled 600 Judean immigrants, expert horsemen-archers from Babylonia led by one Zamaris, in Batanea to help keep the trouble out of Judea (see the note to “Iacimus” at Life 46 in BJP 9). Evidently, as these areas became politically integrated in the intervening decades the special skills were never lost, but young cavalrymen could be recruited from all 3 areas. See further the note to “Iacimus” in this section. Although this Darius appears only here, his name is not surprising for a descendant of a family that had immigrated from Babylonia: it had been the name of several Persian and later Parthian kings, in particular of the king who authorized the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s temple (Ant. 11.30-34, 63-67). Philip hardly appears by name in War (again only at 2.556), though he is in the background of the following story; Life (46-61, 177-80, 407-9) gives him much more space, though the new information largely contradicts War’s account (Drexler 1925: 306-12)—in keeping with the generally contradictory nature of the War/Antiquities-Life parallels. Philip is introduced in Ant. 17.30-31 as a grandson of Zamaris (see note to “Trachonites” in this section; cf. Laqueur 1920: 42-45) and as a man of great physical strength and moral character, whom King Agrippa II trusted to train and lead his armies. Because Philip and his forces will escape from the insurgents in Jerusalem (War 2.437), leaving the Roman auxiliary garrison to be slaughtered (2.250-54), accusations arose to the effect that he had betrayed the Romans to his Judean compatriots (Life 50, 182, 407). Although some scholars have found those accusations plausible, in keeping with their general suspicion that Josephus has minimized the depth and breadth of anti-Roman activity among Judean élites (Drexler 1925: 306-12; Cohen 1979: 160-69), the whole context of Philip’s employment, mission, and loyalty to Agrippa speak against this, and the charges themselves are easy to explain under the circumstances (with J. Price 1991: 82-90). Although the specific roles of these men are not given in their titles, we may assume that Philip as στρατηγός had higher rank and greater responsibility than Darius as ἱππάρχης, which was the case also where these titles were more political than military: in the Achaean League of Polybius’ time, these titles represented the highest and second-highest offices, respectively.

This paragraph provides a concentrated sample of the balanced μέν . . . δέ contrasts favored by Greek narrative generally and by Josephus’ War in particular: after establishing the two sides (422), he makes 3 such comparisons before concluding. For this standard pairing in War, see the notes to “powerful [men]” at 2.239 and “chief priests” at 2.243. The phrase ἀγαπάω εἰρήνην is distinctive of War (also at 2.650; 4.418), though it has both a Greek (Seven Sages, Sent. [Mullach] p. 216 l. 45: “Love peace!”) and a biblical (LXX Zech 8:19; cf. Philo, Conf. 41) precedent. This area of W Jerusalem was dominated by the Herodian Palace along the W wall, the homes of wealthier priests and other élites (some uncovered by archaeologists working in the modern Jewish Quarter), and the Hasmonean Palace on its E ridge, looking across the Tyropean Valley to the temple, to which it was connected by a bridge: see the topographical notes at 2.344. Although the topography of the city will become important for Josephus’ descriptions of the coming internal conflict, as different factions monopolize different sectors (e.g., 5.11, 252; cf. 6.363, 374), he mainly keeps his language generic as here: his audience will have understood that cities—including Rome—normally had upper and lower parts, with the temple of the civic deity, the main fortress, and the homes of the wealthy on the higher elevations.Josephus later describes Jerusalem in some detail, in preparation for the final conflicts (5.136-247). There he mentions two hills, in addition to the gradually expanded temple mount: the higher one creating the Upper City, the other—i.e., the Ophel (see next note)—hosting on its slopes the congested, tiered housing of the Lower City (5.136-137). The general plan of 1st-century Jerusalem may be easily viewed courtesy of the miniature reconstruction at the Holyland Hotel in Jerusalem’s Bayit ve-Gan neighborhood.It was indeed crucial for the aristocrats to retain the Upper City, which hosted their property and records. Once they lose it to the rebels (2.426-27), the latter quickly turn to burning and looting that property. Although much Lower-City housing was apparently on the large, gentle slope rising to the E/SE of the Upper City, at 5.137-41 Josephus indicates that the narrower Ophel hill (now connected with the City of David) was the base of the Lower City, divided from the Upper by the Tyropean valley. Given this picture, it becomes clear that in Josephus’ description the rebels held Jerusalem’s E hill entirely (temple, Ophel, Lower City), whereas the aristocrats and royal troops held the W hill. He does not clarify who controlled the large amount of housing on the low SE slopes of the W hill, though we should perhaps understand this too as aristocratic territory for the present. I.e., the massive temple platform built by King Herod (see 1.401-2 and the notes to “shrine” at 1.10, “permitted” at 2.341, and “inner temple” at 2.411), elaborately walled and colonnaded, with limited access points that could be controlled with relative ease: this is why it will remain as the next-to-last holdout (other than fortified parts of the Upper City) against the Roman assault: 6.149, 228, 238-40, 214-87.That the priest-led rebel faction held the temple at this point presents famous problems because of Josephus’ later claim (Life 20-22; see discussion ad loc. in BJP 9) that he himself retreated into the temple compound, and did not emerge until Menachem was dead (2.448)—to hold talks with the chief priests and leading Pharisees outside the temple and try to dissuade the rebels. Although a number of scholars have considered it possible to extract from this contradiction an inadvertent confession from Josephus that he was actually part of Eleazar’s priestly-rebel faction (Cohen 1979: 187, 194; Goodman 1987: 159; Price 1992: 42-3 n. 130; Krieger 1994: 227-29; Vogel 1999: 69-70), the entire chronology is so thoroughly confused, by the comprehensive disagreements between War and Antiquities-Life (see Appendix C in BJP 9), that proposed solutions to one problem in isolation are difficult to credit. It is much simpler to attribute these ubiquitous differences to narrative compression, immediate rhetorical interests and variation, and poor memory. Further, incidental evidence (2.628 cf. 451)—i.e., not a deliberately formulated apologetic statement—indicates that members of Eleazar’s group vigorously opposed Josephus in Galilee (Krieger [1994: 267], e.g., must therefore speculate about a split within Eleazar’s faction).

All 9 occurrences of this word in Josephus, for stones especially suited for firing, are in War 1-5. The word ἑκηβόλος appears not to have a precise meaning, since it sometimes refers to an instrument (Ant. 4.91; Aelian, Tact. 2.8; Arrian, Tact. 3.3; 15.1), sometimes to a type of soldier such as a marksman (Plutarch, Luc. 28; War 3.151?). But the general sense is clear: someone or something that shoots arrows or rocks from a distance.Polybius (13.3.1-4), using this term, longed for more ancient times when generals forswore both treachery and battles conducted from afar, agreeing to settle matters only in close-quarter combat. By Josephus’ time, however, the use of catapults and slings of all kinds, along with archers, was common (cf. Marsden 1969, 1971). Or “projectiles” (τὰ βέλη); see the note to “projectiles” at 2.48. Or simply, “the two directions, sides, quarters.” Although it is conceivable that Josephus means an exchange between the temple mount and the Upper City, the high W walls of the temple platform make that unlikely. Since he understands the Ophel hill S of the temple as the base of the Lower City (see notes at 2.422), he seems to envisage a lobbing of projectiles from the two summits, against the other. See the note to this key word at 1.10. See the note to “brazenness” at 2.108. Or “experience” (though one could more easily see the expertise resulting from experience). This is a typical Josephan contrast, which he will apply to the Judeans and Romans at 5.306 using the same categories (τόλμα vs. ἐμπειρία). Earlier authors had coupled these traits rather than opposing them, since experience generates “confidence” (Thucydides 5.7.2; Polybius 1.47.1; Diodorus 1.73.9), but it was natural enough to attribute them to contending forces that proved a match for each other because each had only one of these qualities (cf. Plutarch, Mor. [Alex. fort. virt.] 343a). Josephus frequently contrasts Judean daring with Roman discipline and order, which amounts to much the same thing (3.161, 452, 479; 4.424; 5.285, 306).

One may doubt whether the royal cavalry had formulated just this motive, since it is characteristically Josephan and this collocation (μιαίνω τὸν ναόν) is not found in other writers: in Josephus it appears at 1.39; 6.95; Ant. 7.92; 10.37; 11.297, 300. More generally, pollution of the sacred precincts is a key theme of War (e.g., 4.201, 215; 5.10, 402; 6.110), where the “pollution” word-group appears 36 times. See the notes to “pollutes” at 2.132 and “polluted” at 2.210. This is the first clear connection of the insurgents in Jerusalem with the fateful pollution of the temple. See the note to this key word at 1.10. This was not simply to acquire more territory, but chiefly in order to control the base of the royal relatives, chief priests, and other wealthy élites: see 2.426-28. This seems to imply that the parties fought through the sabbath, fulfilling Agrippa’s prediction at 2.392 (see note to “seventh [days]”). This is the adjective used substantively at 2.55; see the note to “large numbers” there. The use of εἴκω here and in 2.426 creates an inclusio. This is about to change, as balance between the sides is upset with rebel reinforcements (2.425).

Josephus offers a precise timeline here (cf. also 2.430), suggesting his close personal involvement with the events, though we cannot verify the dates. This was a minor but important festival, as long as the temple stood. As Josephus is about to indicate, Lev 6:12-13 required that the fire on the sacrificial altar never go out, with the priests adding wood each morning (cf. b. Pes. 65b, Zeb. 35a). Fulfilling this commandment required a periodic wood-gathering exercise. M-B (see note ad loc.) observe that the Gibeonites first appear in the role of wood-gatherers for the “house of God”—the tabernacle (Josh 9:21-23). Later, Neh 10:34 (MT and LXX 10:35; cf. 13:30-31) describes the post-exilic decision to divide responsibility for wood-gathering among ancestral houses of priests, Levites, and the people, at appointed times of the year. M. Taan. 4.5 lists 9 such times, 5 of which fall in Ab (July-August, which Josephus problematically equates with Macedonian Loos; cf. 2.430 and notes). Of the 5 wood-gathering days in Ab, the cited mishnah makes Ab 15 the most important, on which not only one family but also the priests, Levites, and many others bring wood to the temple. The Fasting Scroll (Megillat Ta‘anit V: Ab) mentions Ab 15 alone as the time of wood-carrying, on which mourning is prohibited. (One must wonder whether this reflects a perspective, no longer available to us, that saw the events Josephus describes here quite differently.) This approximates the date that Josephus has in view, though there is a curious gap of 1 day, since he puts this festival on Ab 14 (cf. 2.430; cf. Schürer-Vermes 2.273). If the practice of m. Taan. 4.5 was already followed (see previous note), and something like it seems implied by Neh 10:34-35, then Josephus is misleading here, though perhaps for the sake of simplicity. Different groups brought wood on different days. It may be fair to say that “everyone” (or their representatives) brought wood at one of the appointed times, or to present the main day in Ab a day for everyone. This was the great altar that stood before the Holy Place, on which animals of various kinds were sacrificed each day (Exod 20:24; 27:1). According to War 5.225 it was a large square structure nearly 7 m (22.5 ft) high. The Mishnah (Mid. 3.1-4) gives smaller dimensions. So Lev 6:12-13; see note to “Wood-carrying.” This explanation again assumes that Josephus’ (Roman) audience has no knowledge of biblical prescriptions or practices in the Jerusalem temple. This is the only occurrence of the adjective ἄσβεστον (cf. English “asbestos”) in Josephus. This exclusion begins to fulfill the predicition of the elders at 2.416. Or “taking in.” By using προσλαμβάνω here and again at 2.427 (of large numbers of debtors), Josephus draws a picture according to which a priestly coterie around Eleazar, the most determined core of the insurgency (2.409-10), makes calculating alliances with others to expand their numbers—a familiar tactic in modern war and insurgency. First they admit these generally violent men, with no known political principle (see the note to “sicarii” at 2.255); soon they contrive to swell their support with the ranks of debtors seeking relief. See the note to “number” at 2.427. See the note at 2.254. As there, Josephus transliterates a Latin term that he expects his audience to recognize (i.e., he does not need to explain that a sica is a dagger), while briefly reminding them why these people were called this. It is a puzzle, and Josephus nowhere explains, who called these Judean “knife-men” by this Latin name; see the note to “sicarii” at 2.254. Here Josephus uses ξίφος, which should apply to a sword of normal size, though he introduced the sicarii by stressing that they carried “small daggers” (2.255; see notes there) and he will re-use the diminutive noun ξιφίδιον at the fuller explanation in Ant. 20.186. It appears, then, that this is a quick and less careful reminder to the audience of what he has already said. I.e., the lower folds of tunics or robes (cf. 2.255), where a dagger could be unobtrusively concealed. Although ἀσθενής λαός could be understood as the infirm population, there is no connection between the sick and wood-collection for the altar, and the parallel at 6.259 (λαὸς ἀσθενὴς καὶ ἄνοπλος)—to which this may be a symmetrical counterpart, since the phrase appears only in these places in Josephus—settles the matter: an overwhelmed and helpless people (in the latter passage facing the invading legions) was unable to prevent the cut-throats from entering the temple along with them as the gates were opened. The phrasing seems exclusively biblical and early Christian, and given Josephus’ general interest in Jeremiah (cf. Cohen 1982a) the parallel at LXX Jer 6:21 might be particularly germane. The term λαός is relatively rare in War (39 occurrences, against 233 in Antiquities) and is a term of implicit respect for the lay population; see the note to “citizenry” at 2.1. Josephus has used precisely the same phrase (θαρραλεώτερον ἥπτοντο τῆς ἐπιχειρήσεως) at 1.651, with the same Attic spelling of the adjective, as always in War (also 3.155; 4.10, 120; and Ant. 13.197; 14.442), though he uses the koine form at Ant. 2.341; 5.65; 13.407; Apion 1.99. Since these are the only two attested instances of the phrase in ancient literature, the consistency of the author’s hand (irrespective of varying source material) seems evident.

They had always lacked, relatively, in daring (2.423); now they are outmatched in number, which presumably neutralizes their superior discipline and expertise. Josephus completes the inclusio with εἴκω begun at 2.425. See the note at 2.49.

Although τὰ ἀρχεῖα can refer to several kinds of public buildings, the context here indicates offices of public records, which we would expect to find around the agora of the Upper City (see “Market” at 2.305); cf. 7.55-61 for comparable sites in Antioch, also burned down by debtors who similarly hoped to be relieved of their obligations; also Life 38 for Galilee. Thus, Josephus is describing ordinary human behavior in such cases, not suggesting a particular class-based motive for this war (pace Kreissig 1969, 1970; Faulkner 2004). Egyptian papyri preserve a number of contracts from this time, between individuals and groups. They typically specify the period of the loan (often a year or less), the rate of interest (often reaching 12% annually), the form of the loan and its repayment (type of coin and/or payment in kind), guarantees for repayment and consequences of default, and clear identification of the persons involved (e.g., CPJ 20, 23, 25, 26, 149, 411, 413, 414, 488). In Rome the same arrangements would be handled by a stipulatio (cf. Johnston 1999: 84-86; in general Andreau 1999). See the note to this verb at 2.425. Josephus presents the determined insurgent core as manipulating the populace with predictable demagogic devices to secure their support. Although economic factors might have been significant in the origin of the war (as class struggle: so Kreissig 1969, 1970; Faulkner 2004), that is not how Josephus presents matters, and this evidence does not have the straightforward historical value sometimes placed upon it—e.g., by Brunt (1990: 285): “In 66 revolutionaries at Jerusalem burned down the record office . . . . Thus they did not rely solely on men’s religious sentiments.” In the same place Brunt seems to misread Josephus at 7.260, as if he were describing class struggle as a disease plaguing Judea from 6 CE. (The disease, as always [cf. 1.4], must be civil strife, of which what follows are only examples. Josephus has just emphasized [7.256-58] that the people were deceived into joining the revolt by its leaders. They did not pursue it—in Josephus—for economic reasons.) Rather, Josephus constructs this as a clever ploy by the younger élite rebels to involve the oppressed masses—present in every part of the empire—by burning their debt records. We should not assume that these debtors were the utterly destitute, who probably would not have qualified for loans. Loans were often taken for the purpose of beginning or expanding a small-business venture (see the papyri in the note to “money” at 2.427); these people might well have included small traders, artisans, and shop-keepers. The translation tries to capture Josephus’ contrast between ἀπόροι and εὐπόροι (cf. Aristotle Pol. 1279b: oligarchy functions in the interest of the well-heeled, democracy in the interest of the deprived or moneyless). The word γραμματοφυλακεῖον appears only here and at Ant. 8.55 in Josephus; it is unattested before his time, but appears in his contemporary Plutarch (Mor. [Cur.] 520b) and in the 2nd-century Soranus (Vit. Hipp. 3, 4). Though occasionally attested before his time (Homer, Il. 12.441; Euripides, Troi. 1262; Herodotus 8.33; Thucydides 4.115.2; Polybius 1.48.8), the phrase ἐνίημι (τὸ) πῦρ is characteristic of Josephus: he uses it 15 times, 9 of these in War 1-7.

See the note at 2.58. The phrase νεῦρα τῆς πόλεως may have been a rhetorical cliché: cf. the 4th-century BCE orator Demades (Frag. 124) and Josephus’ contemporary Plutarch (Phil. 16.9; cf. Libanius, Decl. 17.1.83). For this standard pairing in War, see the notes to “powerful [men]” at 2.239 and “chief priests” at 2.243. For a description of such multi-function underground passages (ὑπόνομοι) in coastal Caesarea, see Ant. 15.340. In War Jerusalem’s tunnels have figured in the resistance to Herod’s capture of Jerusalem (1.350) and they will become important, in a symmetrical reversal of the present passage, as final hideouts of the chief rebel leaders in the Upper City fleeing the Roman occupation (6.370, 429, 433; 7.26, 35, 215)—at 6.402 with the same verb (καταδύω) and noun. Underground passages also appear as hiding places at Iotapata (2.336) and Masada (399, 404). If we consider that Josephus’ family must have resided in the Upper City (cf. 5.533, 544), if they were present at this time it is interesting to ponder where they—and he—went, if indeed he was not among the young rebel priests.It is remarkable that the only other attestations of this phrase in literature, though both relevant, come from the 2nd cent. CE: Appian speaking of the younger Marius, who dropped into a tunnel and took his own life [Bell. civ. 1.10.94]; Polyaenus describing how Lachares hid in tunnels for several days after the capture of Thebes, until he could escape to Delphi.

The Herodian palace, occupying the W side of the Upper City was the highest and best fortified site in that area; it had been used as a residence by the procurators when they visited Jerusalem. See the note to “royal grounds” at 2.301. See the notes at 2.243, 409. The name of the Judahite king Hezekiah (‮חזקיה‬‎) is the least frequently attested male name of the 18 listed by Hachlili 2005: 200. This brother of the former high priest appears in Josephus only here and at the mention of his death below (2.441). The mission was led by the brothers Costobar and Saul with their relative Antipas (2.418).

See the note at 2.425. Given Josephus’ equation of Macedonian Lous with Judean Ab (Ant. 4.84; see the note to “Artemisius” at 2.284): July-August. This was the main base of the auxiliary garrison kept in Jerusalem; see the note at 2.328. It implies a considerable growth in the rebels’ strength that, whereas an outraged mob had only been able to cut off access to the fortress (2.330-31), they are now in a position to besiege and capture it in an astonishingly short period. Josephus’ matter-of-fact description here leaves us in the dark as to how this feat was accomplished.

Presumably, for the 4 walls, though this would imply a truly large force. Or simply “for a bolt, running away.” Greek ἐκδρομή is characteristic of War 2-7, which host 19 of its 20 occurrences in Josephus (this is the first). The word is rarely attested before Josephus ([Hippocrates], Sem. 57; Thucydides 4.127.2; Xenophon, Hell. 3.2.4; Theophrastus, Caus. plant. 2.1.3; Onasander 41.1), but appears routinely from his time onward (e.g., in Plutarch [11 times], Arrian, Polyaenus, Aristides, Appian, Cassius Dio). This is another example of his apparently fashionable language. This tactical situation closely resembles that of 2.329 (the same verb is used), where the inferior force has the advantage of protected elevation to inflict serious damage. See the note to this phrase at 2.55. Here is a clear example of the rhetorical use of “bandit” (cf. 1.10). As far as the audience knows, these bandits might include nameless militants keen on war (2.408, though they have gone to Masada), the priestly core led by Eleazar (2.409-10), some violent men admitted to their ranks (2.425), and especially the large numbers of the relatively poor, recently relieved of their debts (2.427).

See the note to this key term at 1.10. This sentence is another classically balanced assessment, sharing a verb between μέν . . . δέ clauses, of the sort that fills 2.422-24; the motives in question are stock attributions (could those in the Herodian palace really exhaust their food supply within such a short period?) with little specific historical value.

See the notes on Judas, who led a rebellion at the introduction of direct Roman rule in 6 CE, at 2.118. The following reminder, like that concerning the sicarii (2.425), shows Josephus’ constant attention to his audience’s knowledge base. If this Menachem (‮מנחם‬‎—the 11th most frequently attested male name in the period [Hachlili 2005: 200], though rarely found otherwise in Josephus: Ant. 15.373-78) was indeed Judas’ son, then two other sons who lost their lives in the mid-40s to a governor’s justice (Ant. 20.102), Jacob and Simon, must have been his brothers; and he must have been relatively old for this kind of activity 20 years hence. Indeed, a man who seems to be his nephew (Eleazar son of Ya‘ir; see 2.447 and notes) is active as a vigorous leader at the same time as he. Menachem appears only briefly in War (until 2.441) and in Life (21 [also as the head of “bandits”], 46-47). “The one called” is elaborated in Ant. 18.4, 23 [cf. 20.102], according to which Judas was actually from Gamala in the Golan, though he was known as the “Galilean.” The pejorative label “sophist” is applied to Judas at 2.118 (see the note there), and 7.253 will remind the audience of his persuasive abilities. The superlative adjective δεινότατος might well, in the context of sophistry, refer to his ability in the “forceful” rhetorical style (Demetrius, Eloc. esp. 240-59; Lausberg 1998: 421-22, 475). Otherwise, the adjective occupies roughly the space of French terrible, moving between English “awful” and “awesome” (see the notes at Life 100, 101 in BJP 9). P. Sulpicius Quirinius (cos. ord. 12 BCE, CIL VI 17130) was appointed legatus Augusti pro praetore for Syria in 6 CE. Since this passage and 7.253 (also dating Judas to Quirinius’ arrival in Syria) show that Josephus knows about the legate, and Ant. 17.355; 18.1-2, 26, 29; 20.102 gives him a famous and critical role in Judean affairs at this time (cf. Luke 2:2), it is strange indeed that Josephus did not mention him when he described Judea’s incorporation into the empire and Judas’ revolt (2.117); see the notes to “province” and “procurator” there. The phrase is taken over from 2.118, which Josephus may have before him: “[if they were going to] tolerate mortal masters after God.” Although Josephus uses the same phrase (οἱ γνώριμοι) that has appeared in bk. 2 absolutely for “the notables” (2.178, 193, 233, 240, 270, 318, 322, 410, 411)—among Judeans, Samarians, or Pharisees—these same words (lit. “those who are known”) can also mean, where the context requires it (e.g., 1.78, 649), one’s own friends or acquaintances. The last we heard (2.408; see note there), nameless Judean warmongers had made a rush on Masada and somehow seized it from the Roman garrison, installing their own guards. This group apparently comprised sicarii led by Manaem’s relative Eleazar son of Ya‘ir; see the note to “war in motion” there. The verb ἀναχωρέω might mean that he “went back” to Masada (if, e.g., his group had gone there at 2.408, but the audience would have no way of knowing this). The normal meaning in military contexts was simply that of withdrawal.

The language in this episode is suspiciously similar to that used of the bandit Ezekias in the revolt of 4 BCE (2.56): he also broke open the armory (here τοῦ βασιλέως ὁπλοθήκην ἀναρρήξας; there ἀναρρήγνυσιν τὰς βασιλικὰς ὁπλοθήκας) of King Herod (at Sepphoris), armed his followers (here καθοπλίσας; there ὁπλίσας), and with this strong bodyguard began to behave as a king. We must apparently assume either that Menachem’s group were on friendly terms with the group that had recently taken Masada from the Romans (2.408) or that they are the same group. See the note at 2.431. Bandits and commoners are similarly contrasted at 2.253. Since they are all fully armed, the distinction is not entirely clear; we must assume that at least to Josephus’ mind the “bandits” had greater experience and/or determination. See note to this word at 2.262. Menachem has equipped himself with such an intimidating bodyguard, typical of the tyrant-king, that he has no trouble imposing himself as leader of the rebellion in Jerusalem. Cf. 2.61 for another comparison of a rebel leader with a king, on the basis of his having surrounded himself with compliant “generals” and fighters. See the notes to this key word (στάσις) at 1.10 and esp. 2.418.

Such machines and instruments would greatly assist in filling moats, undermining walls, and applying large battering rams—all with the crucial element of protection for the soldiers using them, in the form of shields and panels (cf. Vitruvius, De arch. 10.13-15); this protection near the walls is especially what Menachem lacks. The Romans had mastered the production of all such devices, and this passage in part looks ahead to 2.546, 553, when the dread prospect that their engines will fall into Judean hands is realized in the rout of Cestius. See the note at 2.48. The Romans, by contrast, had both machines to protect them (see note to “implements” in this section) and a famous protective drill called the testudo, for ad hoc protection from flying objects (see 2.537). The compound verb ἀνακρημνίζω is unattested outside this passage in ancient Greek literature. Other writers almost always use the κατα- prefix, in keeping with the root sense of throwing or hurling down; it is not surprising, therefore, that the form with ἀνα- does not otherwise appear. (For the unprefixed form, which is also rare, see the note to “flinging themselves” at 2.49.)

This is the only occurrence of στήριγμα in Josephus. Before his time it is rarely attested (Euripides, Iph. aul. 617; Trag. adesp., frag. 427 [Nauck]; Apion, Frag. Hom. 74.237.16 [Ludwich]) outside the LXX, which has it some 18 times (including the Maccabean literature and Tobit) and Philo (Somn. 158). The word is found 4 times in Plutarch, dozens of times in Galen and later. This disheartening discovery of a second wall, when attackers had been on the verge of exuberant celebration at destroying the main one, anticipates an important episode (prompting a speech by Titus) in the later Roman assault on Jerusalem: 6.23-32.

See the note to this key word (στάσις) at 2.418. All 3 occurrences of the adjective ὑπόσπονδος in War come in this part of bk. 2; all have to do with the (ostensibly) safe departure of a Roman or royal garrison in the face of siege by Judean irregulars; the next occurrence directly recalls this one, and the last is connected by the garrison’s understandable concern for their security (2.450; cf. 2.486). Or natives (ἐπιχώριοι): presumably, the Judean soldiers in contrast to the Syrian and Samarian soldiers of the Roman auxiliaries.

Lit. “right hands.” Josephus makes a play on the verb ὑπολαμβάνω in this sentence, using it in two distinct senses (also “seized”). Presumably, since they have already asked and the insurgents have made clear their intention to isolate the “Romans.” The narrator’s insight into the auxiliary garrison’s thinking anticipates the outcome of the story (2.450-53): the Judean rebels will indeed, fatefully, break their pledge of security.

These 3 mighty towers will be the only ones left by Titus (7.2-3), as a demonstration of what Roman manliness had overcome in capturing Jerusalem; cf. 1.418; 5.134, 144, 147, 161-69 [detailed description]; Ant. 17.257. Hippicus was a 12 m (37 ft) square structure that rose to about 37 m (120 ft), though only the lower 14 m (45 ft) was solid cut stone (the upper sections comprising a water reservoir, decorative vault, and turrets with parapets). Phasael was a solid cube of 18 m (60 ft) topped by high colonnades with an inner tower containing luxurious apartments; the whole reached some 41 m (135 ft). Whereas these reached the approximate height of modern 12-story buildings, Mariamme was significantly smaller, though still imposing: it had a solid cube of 9.1 m (30 ft) as its base, with its extremely luxurious apartments and parapets reaching 25.1 m (82.5 ft) in total. It is no surprise that the garrison fled to these massive towers as a last refuge.

Otherwise often translated “destroy(ed)”; see the note at 2.11. See the note to “Artemisius” at 2.284: in Josephus’ scheme this equates to Elul 6, in August-September.

Thus: Gorpiaeus (Elul) 7. See the notes at 2.243, 409; recently mentioned at 2.429. At 5.180-81 Josephus will describe the lush gardens of Herod’s palace, drawing attention to the deep canals that bordered the picturesque walkways, with cloisters and groves all around. See the note to this programmatic term at 2.56. See the note at 2.429, his only other appearance in Josephus. See the note to this key word at 1.10. Following Niese (with Thackeray and M-B), after Naber, in reading περισχόντες, as suggested by Latin circumsidentes, rather than ἐπισχόντες (“standing facing [the towers]”) with the MSS. Either is possible.

The closest precedent is “unbearable tyranny” in Dionysius, Ant. rom. 4.70.2. On “tyrants” as a key category in War see the note at 1.10.

This is the group with a priestly core, led by the temple commandant (2.409-10), as the following narrative assumes. See the notes to “slavery” at 2.209 and “freedom” at 2.259—bedrock themes of War. Holwerda’s emendation to δημίῳ (“executioner”—so Niese, Thackeray, Vitucci, Pelletier), rather than the δήμῳ (assembled populace, citizenry, democratic body) of all the MSS (cf. Lat. populari suo, with M-B: “Mann aus dem Volk”), might have to do with the usually positive sense of δῆμος in Josephus, in contrast to his much more common and disparaging “rabble, mob, horde” (πλῆθος). But here the reading in the MSS yields a tolerable sense: the young priests have initiated the movement to rebellion by halting the sacrifices. Now a populist tyrant figure has come along and dominated their efforts by overwhelming force. The priestly group has decided that their freedom (in Roman times, the call for “freedom” often came from a threatened aristocracy) would be curtailed at least as much now by Menachem and his uppity commoners as it had been by Rome. Note the distinct reference to class later in the sentence. In making the point that asserting freedom from Rome and its abusive governors makes them unwilling to tolerate domestic tyrants, the young priests around Eleazar anticipate crucial programmatic statements in the heart of the work: 4.177-78, 394. See the note to “slavery” at 2.209.

See the notes to this phrase at 2.341, 360. Or “a pompous figure”; MSS PA have the adverbial form, though the adjective σοβαρός works well enough here and is found in the bulk of MSS and the Latin translation. The adjective also sets up the contrast with the humiliated condition (ταπεινῶς) in which Manaem would soon be found, trying to evade capture (2.448); that contrast is also found at 6.395—the 2nd of only 4 occurrences of σοβαρός in Josephus. Both passages thus reflect the tragic and Polybian “reversal of fortune” ([τυχῆς] μεταβολή) motif, specifically mentioned at 6.395 (cf. 1.615), that runs through War; see the note to “upheaval” at 1.5. The connection between tyrants (2.442 on Manaem, 2.447 on his nephew Eleazar) and kings is close, in ancient thinking generally and in Josephus, especially in War 2: 2.60-61, 104, and 2.1-111 as a block (on Archelaus and the royal pretenders in Judea). See also the note to “tyrants” at 1.10. This is the first appearance of ζηλωτής, a word that will occur 55 times in War, though only 4 other times in Josephus’ works combined. Ordinarily meaning “imitator, devoted disciple” (as 2.564; Ant. 12.71; Life 11), in War it takes on a technical meaning, especially in bk. 4, which hosts most of its occurrences, for a named group with a clear leadership: “those called Zealots” (2.651; 4.197, 216, 224; 5.3, 5, 7; 7.268) will be responsible with the Idumeans for the fateful murder of the chief priests Ananus and Jesus. Since the non-technical meaning is present in Josephus, and possibly holds also for the next occurrence (2.564), whereas Josephus will pointedly introduce the group name at 2.651, it seems best to understand this passage according to that non-technical usage. Further, it seems that the Zealots (who remained in Jerusalem) were distinct from the followers of Eleazar and Manaem (who went to Masada), and that to label the latter group Zealots (in the group sense) would introduce an unnecessary complication into the understanding of Josephus’ narrative. Cf. Zeitlin 1965, 1967; Smith 1971; Black 1974; Hengel 1989: passim and 380-404.

See the note at 2.443: those with Eleazar son of Ya‘ir. This label can only remind the audience of Manaem’s lineage: he has recently been introduced as the son of the sophist Judas (2.433; cf. 2.118 and note). Or “brought down, overthrown, put out of the way”; possibly “liquidated, terminated, neutralized.” Although Josephus and other ancient authors normally use καταλύω with respect to the termination or dissolution of a government, power, system, law, or tradition (1.19, 34; 2.393, 449, 531; 4.258, 348; Ant. 2.348; 3.42; 4.310; 10.30, 74, 11.335; 12.1, 364; 13.408; 15.281; 17.246; 20.81), here and at 2.593 in War 2 (also 1.160, 210, 214, 232; 4.394, 493, 573) he employs it of a human being. Since all the men in question are leaders, we might understand this as a metonymy for the person’s regime (being brought to an end), though in several cases—e.g., here and at 2.593—the hoped- for “dissolution” is immediate and physical, at least in part a euphemism for killing. After finishing the story (with Menachem’s death), Josephus will reiterate this important point at 2.449.

The phrase πρὸς ὀλίγον here is a surprisingly distinctive trait of Josephus’ style: he uses it 24 times, throughout War 1-6, Antiquities, and Life. Before his time, it appears rarely and not in the main historical authors who provide his models (Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius, Diodorus, Strabo); Dionysius has it twice (4.62.1; 5.34.4), but both times qualifying καιρόν. Some such qualification is normal (commonly χρόνον) also in the heaviest user of the phrase before Josephus, Philo, who has it 15 times (9 qualifying one of these nouns). Josephus, by contrast, uses the phrase absolutely in 23 of his 24 cases (except Ant. 13.224). Plutarch has the phrase once only (Mor. [Cons. Apoll.] 116a), Dio Chrysostom 6 times. We expect either ὀλίγον alone, with an adverbial function, or ἐπ’ ὀλίγον, which is more common (found in Herodotus, Polybius, Diodorus, and Strabo, and 4 times in Josephus). The parallel construction at 2.357 (πρὸς μοῖραν ὀλίγην, likewise in a martial context) raises the possibility that Josephus means “held out against a small group [but could not withstand the entire populace].” Yet the other 23 examples of the phrase show that it has to do with time. The pair “search and slaughter” (ἔρευνα, φόνος) is distinctively Josephan; it reappears at 4.560; Ant. 19.126 (a passage on Caligula’s death, widely thought to have been borrowed from Roman sources).

According to 7.399-400, the refugees on Masada led by Eleazar numbered 967 (960 of whom died there), including women and children. If that number were accurate and if the males had a wife and 2 or more children (though 1 surviving woman had 5 children: 7.399), the number of fighters might have been 200 or fewer. Although Josephus does not mention their taking wives and children at this point, that was normal and necessary practice in situations of lethal civil conflict, in which vulnerable family members became targets or hostages. At 7.253 Eleazar will be reintroduced as a descendant (ἀπόγονος) of the sophist Judas the Galilean (2.118), just as Manaem has been described as that Judas’ son (2.433). We cannot assume that Josephus clearly understood the family relationships in question. If he did, the simplest reconstruction would have Manaem and Ya‘ir as brothers, both sons of Judas (along with Jacob [James] and Simon, killed in the 40s according to Ant. 20.102), in which case Eleazar b. Ya‘ir would be Manaem’s nephew. See the note to “tyrants” at 1.10. Josephus clearly anticipates the Masada story of bk. 7 (7.253, 275-97, 320-88), showing again that the final volume must have been part of his original plan while writing even this part of War (see Introduction).

The Ophel (‮האפל‬‎) was the small plateau just S of the temple compound on the E spur of Jerusalem, leading up from the City of David, where in biblical times the temple attendants had lived (Neh 3:26-27; 11:21; 2 Chron 27:3; 33:14). Josephus will mention it again in his descriptions of Jerusalem and the final Roman attack (5.145, 254; 6.354). This was for Josephus the base of the Lower City (see note to “Lower City” at 2.422). See the note to “imposing [figure],” to which this is the contrast (a reversal of fortune), at 2.444. This is the only occurrence of ὑπολανθάνω in Josephus. Greek πολλαῖς αἰκισάμενοι βασάνοις. The closely related roots of the participle and noun seldom occur together in non-Judean authors (Dionysius, Ant. rom. 3.73.4; 5.51.3, 77.6; 6.7.3; Plutarch, Phil. 21.2), though they are commonly juxtaposed in the Hasmonean literature (2 Macc 7.13; 4 Macc 6.9; 7.2; 11.1; 12.13; 13.27; 14.1; 15.9), Philo (Abr. 104; Spec. 2.94; Prob. 25; Flacc. 84, 96), and Josephus (also War 3.321; 4.329; 5.450; Ant. 10.115; 12.255; 13.5; 16.389). See the note to this noun at 2.41. The adjective ἐπισημότατος might suggest that Absalom was of a distinguished family, something that Josephus can easily admit even of his enemies (cf. 2.628; Life 189-92), though it might mean simply that he was a conspicuous lieutenant to Manaem. This character appears only here in Josephus, who suitably introduces him.

Since this paragraph stresses the point already made before Josephus finished the story of Manaem’s death (2.445), he must have considered it important: the ostensible participation of the entire populace at this point was not a sign of massive involvement in the civil war, but rather the attempt of the people to bring a quick end to the civil strife. Such readings of the popular mind are notoriously perilous, and the historian must ask how Josephus could know this. See the note to “redress” at 2.449. See the note to this key word at 1.10. At 2.445 those who have done away with Manaem are identified as the group around Eleazar son of Ananias, who had begun the war with a determined stance by refusing to accept foreign sacrifice, against the strong admonitions of more senior leaders (2.409-10); cf. also 2.450.

Greek τοῦ δήμου τοῖς στρατιώταις ἀνεῖναι τὴν πολιορκίαν παρακαλοῦντος presents a number of difficulties. Although παρακαλέω takes an accusative object, Thackeray reads the dative “soldiers” as object of the verb, in keeping with the expected logic of the sentence: “the civilians urgently entreated the [sc. Judean] soldiers to abandon the siege.” But this would create a problem in addition to that of case, for στρατιώται appears more than 300 times in Josephus, and dozens of times in War 2, but otherwise indicates members of a regular, trained force. Only from 2.578 will he begin to use it of Judean forces, because they have then undergone proper training (cf. 2.620, 634, 645). At the same time, the populace plainly cannot be appealing to the trapped Roman garrison, to raise the siege. This problem no doubt explains the confusion in MS C and the correction offered in V: στασιασταῖς (which would solve the logical, but not the grammatical, problem); cf. Drexler’s puzzlement (1925: 279).Both problems may be (imperfectly) solved if we understand the dative to refer to the interest of the besieged soldiers. Pelletier offers that the populace pleaded before [or in sight of] the soldiers (auprès des militaires) for an end to the siege. M-B propose that the people demanded from the rebels that they raise the siege of the soldiers (man möchte die Belagerung der römischen Soldaten aufheben); Whiston similarly, “that they would stop besieging the soldiers.” Although these convey the general sense, as translations they force the language. Smyth notes (§1483), however, that the dative may be used with verbs of “depriving, warding off, and the like”—as here—to indicate the party to be relieved (cf. Xenophon, Cyr. 7.1.44). The sense would be, then, “the raising of the siege from [though lit. for] the soldiers,” for their benefit. At any rate, Josephus emphasizes that the ordinary people are appalled by the rebels’ treatment of the garrison. This is a patrician Latin family name (nomen gentilicium)—cf. Livy 5.11.4 (for the year 401 BCE)—in contrast to the cognomina that Josephus normally gives for military commanders and officials (2.16, 54, 63, 169). The name has ironic possibilities: e.g., the Latin translation throughout gives Mutilius, “of the mutilated” (though the Latin Ps-Hegesippus keeps Metilius), which might be intended humorously by the Christian translator given the officer’s imminent circumcision and the common Greco-Roman view of that operation as mutilation. Or again, the Greek word μέτηλυς means “one who passes from one place to another”—also apt (cf. Latin muto) in view of Metilius’ adoption of foreign ways (“proselytism”). Greek ἔπαρχος (Latin praefectus) was the standard rank of a cohort commander, as Metilius was. See the notes to “Sebastenes” at 2.52, “cohort” at 2.224, and “prefects” at 2.269. The shamefulness of this request, and the unlikelihood of its being honored in any case, have already been declared by the narrator (2.438), with the same adjective in the preceding sentence (2.437). Although this is normal procedure for a military surrender, here it serves to set up the conditions of the slaughter (2.452).

Since the Romans have withdrawn to the high towers (2.439), though ἀναπέμπω might also mean “sent back” in view of the response here. The father’s name is Greek, recalling the kings of Bithynia (and the city of Nicomedia founded by Nicomedes I in the mid-3rd cent. BCE), whereas the son’s is Hebrew. Latin War changes the father’s Greek name to Nicodemus (possibly under the influence of John 3:1-9; 7:50; 19:39). That form creates a curious parallel with rabbinic literature, which several times mentions a wealthy man of Jerusalem in this period named Nakdimon ben Gorion (possibly the father of this Gorion): b. Ketub. 65a-b, 66b, 67a; Git. 56a; Avod. Zar. 25a; for other Gorions see m. Shab. 1.4; Qid. 4.14; b. Bab. Mez. 86b; Shab. 33b. The son’s name would live on, not only among these rabbis but famously with modern Israel’s first prime minister: David ben Gurion. There are only two other Gorions mentioned in Josephus, however: at 2.563 Joseph son of Gorion (brother to this man?) joins Ananus II as supreme commander of the war for a short time; at 4.159 Gorion son of Joseph (the commander’s son?) joins Simon son of Gamaliel in leading popular indignation, on the side of Ananus, against the Zealots’ choice of their own high priest. Possibly a nickname of uncertain meaning, or “the Sadducee.” Ilan and Price (1993-94: 195) point out that the apparently indeclinable form Σαδούκι does not meet our expectation of a genitive for the patronymic “son of.” (I would add that this and the parallel at 2.628 provide the only examples of the -ούκι form in Josephus.) Behind this puzzling form they see a Hebrew ‮בן צדוקי‬‎, which they understand as “probably” signifying a Sadducee. Problems: (a) since ‮צדוקי‬‎ alone would explain the Greek, it is unclear why ‮בן‬‎ is necessary; (b) Josephus knew Hebrew well, but did not call this man a Sadducee in Greek, and the single δ keeps the word far from his Greek Σαδδουκαῖος; and (c) this identification would prevent the identification of the same man at 2.628, in the delegation episode, with the parallel Ananias of Life 197 (described there as a non-priestly Pharisee). Ilan and Price acknowledge most of this, but propose that Josephus has accidentally carried over the names from here to 2.628, so that the real Ananias of the delegation episode was the Pharisee of Life. That is a difficult prospect (see notes to 2.628). These two men reappear at 2.628, where the latter is joined by his brother Simon in a delegation comprising 4 of Jerusalem’s “eminent men,” arranged by John of Gischala to oust Josephus from his Galilean command. They and their colleagues are described there as capable speakers, indicating a high level of rhetorical education; such eminence would suit their membership here in the faction led by the distinguished priest and temple commandant, Eleazar son of Ananias (2.409-10). Ilan and Price (1993-94: 191-95), however, propose that Josephus was mistaken in carrying over the names from this episode to 2.628. On the possible historical significance of the fact that these members of Eleazar’s faction should also be prominent in the war-time government of Ananus II, Josephus’ own supreme commander (2.562-63), see the scholars mentioned in the note to “temple” at 2.422. Lit. “right hand.” Oaths (ὅρκοι) were extremely important in ancient life, as the divine personification of Horkos (Horcus) son of Eris (Strife), punisher of oath-breakers, attests (Hesiod, Op. 804). The word itself implies both the oath and the precious thing by which the oath is sworn. Josephus relates several instances of elaborate oaths being sworn (Ant. 1.212, 323-24; 2.3, 253, 372-73; 5.15.26 etc.) and emphasizes their absolutely binding nature even where they seem to impose untenable circumstances on the swearer (e.g., 5.169-74); they often result in a “pact” as here (Ant. 5.55; 6.253; 7.111; 8.388). Yet Josephus displays a marked ambivalence about oath-making, and many of his characters proceed to violate their commitments: see the note to “false oath” at 2.135. “Down” from the towers of Herod’s palace to which the garrison had withdrawn for safety (2.439).

See the note to this key term at 1.10. The literal sense of ἐπιχειρέω happens to work here, though the sense might be the more common metaphorical one: “none made an attempt/attack on them.” Or “compact, covenant, contract”: i.e., the terms agreed to by oath in 2.450-51. Since συνθήκας is plural, it might better be understood as “articles of agreement” (as 2.397); but at its next occurrence in the same sentence (2.452) that phrase would be too cumbersome for translation. The word is the same as that used for “treaties” sworn between states, which like oaths in general (see the note at 2.451) were taken very seriously (cf. Polybius 3.26.1-7).

Some scholars (e.g., Hengel 1989: 367 n. 264) propose that the Fasting Scroll (Megillat Ta‘anit) celebrates this event at Meg. Ta‘an. 14 (i.e., the 2nd entry under group VI: Elul), dating it to Elul 17 (Julian calendar August 26, 66 CE). This is doubtful, however, since the entry says plainly that on this day “the Romans evacuated Judah and Jerusalem” (Zeitlin 1919-20: 241). This vague statement hardly fits the story of the massacre, as Zeitlin observes (1919-20: 266); nor, however, does it easily match the earlier evacuation of Agrippa’s cavalry force (2.437), which is his proposal (1919-20: 267-68). See the note to “oaths” at 2.451. The truce agreement (2.450) or pact (452) was that the garrison would lay down their weapons in exchange for oaths of assurance that their lives would then be spared (2.451).

For this phrase, see the note at 2.30. Cohen (1979: 250-51) raises the question whether Metilius was subsequently murdered, or falsely reported in Rome as murdered, to explain Suetonius’ reference to a commander killed by the Jerusalem rebels (Vesp. 4.5). Although we cannot know, it seems that if Josephus had known of such a murder it would have enhanced his portrait of the rebels’ faithlessness to report it. Ἰουδαΐζω is a rare verb, occurring in Josephus only here and a few sentences later (2.463); elsewhere before about 200 CE: LXX Esth 8:17 (the only biblical case: of Persians Judaizing to avoid persecution or murder); Alexander Polyhistor, ap. Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.22.5; Gal 2:14; Plutarch, Cic. 7.6; Ignatius, Magn. 10; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.15.89. The biblical story of Persians Judaizing to avoid death may have provided an ironic model for Josephus’ choice of diction. On the form of the verb, see the note to “Romanizing” at 2.562 below; Mason 2007c. There is nothing particularly “religious” about the movement in question (contra e.g. Hengel 1989: 143, 198). In each case of its use outside Christian texts, this verb (like its formal parallels) has to do with adopting foreign ways: the laws, customs, and constitution of another people.The story does not claim that Eleazar’s group demanded Judaizing or circumcision; but whether they required it or Metilius ingeniously hit upon the idea himself, it was plainly the only way that he could be saved. Such adoption of Judean law and identity under duress is presented by our narrator as repugnant, here and elsewhere. At Life 113 he will claim that when his Galilean associates demanded the conversion of wealthy Trachonitans who had come to join their cause, he indignantly rejected the demand on the principle that such choices must be freely made. Similarly he applauds the conversion and circumcision of the Adiabenian prince Izates, who had every reason not to take the step (Ant. 20.38, 48-9, 85), and of Azizus the husband of Drusilla, though he excoriates the lustful Felix for failing to pursue the same course in marrying a Judean princess (20.139, 143). In other contexts, to be sure, Josephus can celebrate without criticism the Hasmonean conquests of neighboring territories, with the concomitant requirement that the subjugated populace Judaize or depart from the land (Ant. 13.282, 284, 288, 299-300, 319). Given the rebels’ debts to Hasmonean inspiration (Farmer 1956; Hengel 1989; cf. Introduction), it may be that they considered it consistent with Judean tradition to demand that anyone living in their territories Judaize. In War, however, Josephus makes a systematic attempt to reclaim the Hasmonean heritage for a more worldly approach to politics. For discussion of the issues, see Cohen 1987; Feldman 1993: 324-26. Chapman (2005: 293-96) contrasts Metilius’ effort to save his life, after losing all his soldiers, with Josephus’ bid to Vespasian and Titus, after losing his forces (3.393-97)—similar stories in these respects, though she notes that Josephus does not allow Metilius to become a sympathetic figure. See further the following note. This is the only mention of circumcision in War; see previous note. Much scholarly discussion has attended the questions: (a) whether and to what extent there was a recognizable group of Judean “sympathizers” in the Roman East, often understood as the “God-fearers” (θεοσεβεῖς, οἱ φοβούμενοι τὸν θεόν) of the NT’s Acts and various inscriptions (cf. Siegert 1973; Kraabel 1981; overviews in Overman 1988; Feldman 1993: 177-413; Koch 2006), and (b) whether Judeans of the time recognized something akin to conversion or Judean identity without the necessity of male circumcision—a discussion partly driven by the need to understand early Christian phenomena (e.g., McEleney 1974; Collins 1985; Cohen 1987; Segal 1990: 99-101). Both this passage and the sequel (2.463) imply that it was possible, and a well known phenomenon (even if Judean law did not recognize the category), to Judaize in significant and recognizable ways without going as far as circumcision.The very word (περιτομή: “cutting off/around”), which could also apply to the severing of other items and body parts (and so was qualified with τῶν αἰδοίων [“of the genitals”] in cases of ambiguity), implied to Greeks and Romans bodily mutilation; circumcision was one of many deformities that excluded one from participation in the Olympic Games (Balsdon 1979: 231; Dover 1989: 125-27; Feldman 1993: 153-58; e.g., Aristophanes, Ach. 155-61; Strabo, Geog. 16.4.9; Horace, Serm. 1.9.69-71; Catullus 47.4; Petronius 102.14; Martial 11.94; Tacitus, Hist. 5.5; Juvenal 5.14.96-106). These references also show that circumcision, though practiced by some others, had by the 1st century CE come to be regarded as a quintessentially Judean rite. Prior to the Maccabean revolt, élite Judean Hellenizers had famously undergone a procedure (“epispasm”) to undo the appearance of circumcision, for the purpose of exercising naked in the gymnasium (1 Macc 1:11; Josephus, Ant. 12.241). Once again (see previous note), these rebels may have seen themselves as latter-day Hasmoneans, not merely preserving circumcision but aggressively demanding it of those who lived among them. Metilius’ circumcision would be immediately visible at the baths of Sebaste or Caesarea (a daily ritual for Romans), making his shame clear to fellow-bathers.For the story of Izates’ conversion to Judaism, see Ant. 20.34-48. This observation, rhetorically powerful in highlighting imminent calamity for the Judeans, does not quite work as either logic or history. Logic: although the Romans lost only a few (auxiliaries), the Judeans lost none at all. Josephus appears to begin on mundane arithmetical track (calculating losses against total resources) and then to jump to a metaphysical track (impending doom). History: Roman leaders would assuredly not consider the loss of the Jerusalem garrison “light,” even though they had vast forces remaining elsewhere. Josephus recognizes this when he has the Judeans despair at the Romans’ likely vengeance (2.455). Issues of honor, prestige, and reputation were paramount (cf. Lendon 1997; Mattern 1999: 4-6, 162-210). Josephus himself will relate that this very episode threatened to become a large issue for Vespasian, when the Tyrians accused King Agrippa II of having been responsible for the garrison’s slaughter, by ordering his prefect Philip to depart with his forces (2.421, 437). Vespasian dismissed the charge against Agrippa, but had him send Philip to Nero to render an account (Life 407-9). Clearly, the loss of this garrison to the rebels was extremely serious.Josephus may have omitted any reference to Rome’s desire for revenge here because he wanted to sublimate the discussion (and again, remove the destruction of Jerusalem from Roman credit): it will be the Judean God who brings revenge on the rebels for their heinous behavior in breaking oaths. One can certainly understand Josephus’ point in reverse and with hindsight: although it might have seemed a Judean victory, the rebels did not realize that it portended destruction for the Judeans; by comparison, it was a trivial loss for the Romans. The adjective occurs only here in Josephus. Although the phrase ἄπλετος δύναμις seems a likely cliché, it happens to be attested before Josephus only in Philo (Prov. frag. 2.71). Josephus’ choice of the rare, doubly prefixed verb ἀπαναλίσκω highlights the strategic calculation he posits; but see the note to “light” in this section. Niese follows MSS PAL and the Latin in reading a genitive here (M-B agree): “it seemed a prologue of the Judeans’ capture.” Thackeray and Pelletier follow MSS MVRC in reading a dative as translated. This would match the earlier dative “To [the] Romans,” as one would expect in a μέν . . . δέ construction. To be sure, the awkward genitive is the lectio difficilior, to be preferred under some circumstances. What seems to clinch the case here is the immediate sequel (2.455): those who later began a public mourning require an antecedent, which can only be provided here; they are the Judeans for whom the episode portended capture. Although this is the only occurrence of προοίμιον with this spelling in Josephus, his use of both the cognate verb (War 2.89 above) and the tragic spelling of the noun (Ant. 18.221) are similarly metaphorical, of coming disaster or terror. Josephus keeps the audience looking ahead to the work’s main subject, which may also have been its original title (cf. 1.10 and note; 2.276, 394).

See the note to “irremediable suffering “ at 2.233. For “irremediable” and “pollution” in proximity, see Sophocles, Oed. tyr. 96. Josephus employs the verb φύρω only in War and Life (138), though he uses the lengthened form φυράω, of general “mixing,” in Antiquities. The shorter form has the primary senses of “wetting” (as Life 138) or “mixing, mingling” (as War 1.382; 6.75), and only by extension the meaning of soiling, contaminating, or defiling. After this passage, Josephus will confine his usage to bk. 6, where he will use the verb 4 times, 3 of these in conjunction with “blood (shed)” or “carnage” as here (6.4, 126, 372). Pollution (μίασμα) is a major theme in Josephus’ works: it is the pollution of the temple by bloodshed that brings divine punishment in the final purging at Roman hands (see Introduction). Cognates appear some 36 times in War (see notes at 2.132, 210, 424), though this noun occurs in War only here and at 2.473; 6.48, 110. The whole semantic field, which enhances the tragic character of War, would have been well familiar to Josephus’ Greek-speaking audience. Although some sources of pollution were unavoidable functions of life (as in Judean law)—contact with birth, death, and bodily fluids—and there was provision for routine expiation of these, sources of pollution that were difficult to expiate and likely to bring divine punishment were avoidable bloodshed and sacrilege, both of which are present here. Perhaps the most famous example is Sophocles’ Oedipus the King, which opens with Thebes facing plague, drought, and infertility (Oed. tyr. 15-30) because of serious pollution (97), which turns out to have been filial murder. Or “miraculous, heaven-sent, supernatural, ghostly, spooky.” Josephus uses the adjective δαιμόνιος (as here), the noun δαίμων, and the neuter substantive τὸ δαιμόνιον liberally throughout War: 37 times (through all 7 books), against only 18 occurrences in Antiquities (clustered in 6.166-214, concerning Saul’s “demons,” and 8.45-48 concerning Solomon’s cures), 1 in Life (402), and 1 in Apion (2.263). The present phrase anticipates fulfillment a couple of sentences later, at 2.457—the only other instance in War 2.Although context can give the word-group the connotation of evil or oppressive spirits, as in the Antiquities passages above (and War 1.556 concerning Herod), δαίμων refers neutrally to the ghosts or shades of the dead, or to other spiritual beings (War 1.521, 556, 599, 607, 628; 6.47). In a fascinating passage explaining the properties of a plant that grows near Machaerus, Josephus elaborates: “for what are called ‘demons’ (τὰ καλούμενα δαιμόνια)—these are spirits of worthless [or evil] persons who enter into and kill the living, if assistance is not at hand—this [root] quickly drives out, if it is merely applied to those who are ill” (7.185). This passage, ignored in most studies of afterlife in Josephus (e.g., Sievers 1998; Elledge 2006), has important implications for Josephus’ and Judean “demonology” (on which see Deines 2003). But this special definition, which incidentally implies Judean expertise in exorcism (cf. Ant. 8.44-49), applies only to the neuter plural δαιμόνια or to singular forms governed by such a context. Normally τὸ δαιμόνιον indicates the whole category of the other-worldly or supernatural, sometimes presented in an either/or contrast with “the human [sphere]” (τὸ ἀνθρώπινον): War 1.373, 376; 6.429 (cf. 7.158-59); Isocrates, Panath. 169; Mem. 1.1.9, 12; Aeschines, Ctes. 133; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 3.7.4, 23.20; 8.56.1. See especially Socrates’ discussion in Plato, Apol. 27c-e. Hence “other-worldly” here.Two points related to War’s usage deserve special attention. First, Josephus attributes a number of important events and situations in War to this mysterious, numinous category: Herod’s miraculous escape from a falling building (1.331); Josephus’ ability to find safety in a cave at besieged Iotapata (3.341); Titus’ soldiers’ being overtaken by a supernatural determination before the conflict (3.485; cf. 5.502); Vespasian’s enjoyment of superhuman courage (4.34); a miraculous wind that turned against the Judeans (4.76); Titus’ direction by some uncanny impulse to return to Judea from Greece (4.501); Vespasian’s support by some other-worldly provision or foreknowledge (4.622); supernatural help for the Judeans of times long past, by contrast with those now fighting Rome (5.377); most famously, the supernatural impulse that led a Roman soldier to thrust a flaming piece of wood into the main temple shrine (6.252); omens of Jerusalem’s destruction (6.297, 303); the gift of supernatural foreknowledge to Vespasian in planning to suppress the Batavian revolt (7.82); and the divine assistance to the Romans at Masada (7.318).Second, with remarkable frequency—as in the present passage—Josephus combines a reference to these supernatural forces with a qualifying “some, a certain” (τις): War 1.331, 628; 3.341; 4.217; 5.502; 6.59, 252, 296; 7.120; Ant. 6.166; 13.317, 415; 16.210; Life 402; Apion 2.263. Although such usage has occasional parallels in classical Greek literature (Homer, Il. 4.31; Herodotus 7.18.13; Xenophon, Mem. 1.3.5; Equ. 11.13; Demosthenes, Olynth. 2.1; Phil. 3.54; Fals. leg. 256; Exord. 39.2; Aeschines, Ctes. 117; Aristotle, Eth. eud. 1214a; Mir. ausc. 846b; Mund. 391a; Rhet. 1398a; LXX Ps 95:5; Bar 4:7), the almost formulaic frequency in Josephus appears to require an explanation other than coincidence. It might have something to do with the programmatic statement of Socrates in Plato, Apol. 31c-d, attributing his gadfly activity to “something divine and other-worldly that comes to me” (cf. Phaedo 99c), or it might reflect what seems to be a general increase in this construction among Hellenistic authors (Diodorus 1.90.3; 11.14.4, 63.2; 15.58.4; 24.12.2; 32.18.1; 38/9.19.1; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 1.23.1, 56.4, 79.7; 2.31.3; 6.10.1; 9.38.2; 12.10.2; Strabo, Geog. 5.2.9; Philo, Mos. 1.276; Plutarch, Rom. 28.3; Num. 4.3; 5.3; Per. 34.4; Fab. 17.5; Aem. 34.8; Marcell. 17.5; Mar. 21.8; Luc. 7.26; Mor. 161c;236d; 582b/588c [on the genius of Socrates]; 772b; 999e). It is not improbable that Socrates’ famous claim helped suggest the later usage. In Josephus μήνιμα appears only here and at Ant. 16.188 (to describe God’s wrath toward Herod for opening the tomb of David). It is a serious, programmatic rage, reminiscent of Achilles’ infamous μῆνις, which opens the Iliad (Il. 1.1). Here πενθέω. Mourning is part of a primary thematic cluster supporting this work’s tragic ethos; see the note to “mourn over” at 1.9. In War (also 2.649; 6.98; 7.145) and Life (212) Josephus always predicates κατήφεια of the city, the populace, or the mob. See the note at 2.275. It appears from what follows that justice would be exacted, as the reasonable folk knew, by God as much as by the Romans. See the note to this key term at 1.10.

This is one of only 4 occurrences of the σαββατ- root in War; in this work he prefers to speak of the “seventh [day]”; see the note at 2.147. Perhaps Josephus uses the word here to give local color, stressing the awareness of the Jerusalem population that the militants had violated their own sacred day. Josephus has chosen the mot juste. On the one hand, ἐκεχειρία is also the term he will use (cf. Philo, Spec. 2.69; Virt. 122) for divine rest from labor on the seventh day, which generated the sabbath practice in view here (Ant. 1.33). But this was a metaphorical use of the term, the primary application of which was to armistices or truces, in the brutal atmosphere of classical Greece (cf. Bederman 2001: 252-53; for an “anarchic” contextualization, Eckstein 2006), during such pan-Hellenic festivals as the Olympic Games (cf. the note to “armistice” at 2.389, with relevant passages cited; also 3.72): touring truce-bearers proclaimed the temporary cessation of hostilities (Dio, Or. 77/78.142). In view of the actual violence committed here, the term is no longer simply metaphorical. The rebels have thus fulfilled, in an extreme way, Agrippa’s prediction (2.392-93) that sabbath violations will bring their ruin. Josephus has managed to connect in one episode bloodshed, oath-breaking, and sacrilege—all the most heinous forms of “pollution”; see the note to this word at 2.455.

Possibly “from a heaven-sent provision, providence.” Other translators (Whiston, Thackeray, Pelletier, M-B) take it as a straightforward reference to (divine) Providence, but the point seems to be that, since the Caesarean slaughter of Judeans began at precisely the hour in which the Roman garrison was slaughtered in Judea, and the Caesareans cannot have known about the latter by normal means, it was as if they had an uncanny foreknowledge. As for this-worldly explanations: Josephus has already given abundant evidence of Judean-Syrian (“Greek”) conflict in Caesarea (2.266-70, 284-93), explicitly blaming it for the generation of the war (2.284-85).For the adjective “other-worldly” see the note at the only other occurrence in bk. 2 (2.455), which prepares for this one. Josephus uses the phrase δαιμόνιος πρόνοια 5 times, though only in War (1.82; 4.622; 7.82, 318; cf. Ant. 13.314 for something similar). In all cases but the first, he constructs it with preceding ὡς, ὡσπερ (as here), or καθάπερ: “as if/as though.” Before his time the phrase seems attested only in Diodorus (1.90.3; 11.14.4); Diodorus (3.5.1; cf. 16.92.2) and Dionysius (Ant. rom. 3.14.2; 4.26.2; 10.10.2) use the similar phrase ἡ τοῦ δαιμονίου πρόνοια. So we may consider Josephus’ phrase distinctive of War and, given its distribution, a marker of the unity between War 1-6 and bk. 7.The noun πρόνοια is important in Josephus’ lexicon, occurring 159 times (about 118 of these in Antiquities; on the centrality of the theme in that work, see Attridge 1976: 67-107). Its meaning shades from “foreknowledge” and “providence” (providentia) to “forethought” and “watchful care”; therefore, when predicated of human leaders, “provision” (see Mason in BJP 9 ad Life 15, 62). For the statesman’s effort to imitate divine πρόνοια see Dio Chrysostom, Or. 3.51. This figure is generally considered a standard Josephan inflation (though not by Levine 1975b: 8-9). Kloppenborg (2000: 245) gives cogent reasons for estimating Caesarea’s entire mixed population at around 15-18,000 for the city proper, perhaps 50% more including the areas immediately beyond the walls. But the Judeans were reportedly a minority (2.266): about 10,000 might be a plausible figure for the Judean population of greater Caesarea. Or “were sacrificed, slaughtered, had their throats cut.” See the note at 2.30. In these contexts of mass slaughter in confined spaces (also 2.468, 561) Josephus indicates at 2.471 that the massacre may have been accomplished by spear-throwing. This notice greatly complicates efforts to reconstruct events. In this narrative, the Caesarean massacre sets off Judean reprisals (2.458-60), which lead in turn to massacres throughout the region, prompting the Batanean Judeans to request a defensive force from Noarus—but their delegation is killed by the viceroy (2.482). According to Life, Varus (here “Noarus”) first killed many of the Judeans to please the “Syrians” there (§ 53), then sent 12 of the leading Judeans of Caesarea on a mission to Batanea (§ 55), and was eventually removed by Agrippa II because he was thought to be planning the massacre of Caesarea’s Judeans on a single day (§ 61). Yet Varus’/Noarus’ plot and removal cannot have happened before the massacre mentioned here, because (in War) this massacre is the basis for the events that lead to Agrippa’s departure for Antioch (2.481) and Noarus’ appointment as acting governor. But if Caesarea’s Judeans are destroyed now, as War claims, then Life’s account of Varus’ efforts to destroy them would make no sense. We should very much like to have Florus’ account of this episode. Josephus has already portrayed a shift from neutral peace-keeping to siding with the non-Judeans in Caesarea (2.292) and, in general, a desire to provoke Judeans at every opportunity (2.288, 293, 296, 298, 308, 318). This is the only occurrence of νεώριον (here plural) in Josephus.

The verb ἐξαγριόω is most often used of Herod and members of his family, then of various Romans, in the final volumes of Antiquities, as they are tragically turned savage by circumstances (1.473, 526; Ant. 15.148, 164, 216, 282; 18.226; 19.142, 160, 175). It is characteristic diction in Philo (15 occurrences) and Josephus (16), whereas it is attested only 23 times in all of Greek literature before them, the 6 occurrences in Diodorus representing the next highest count among previous authors. This could mean adjacent to the villages, to Syria, or to the Judeans; the 3 senses overlap here. The cities are in 4 clusters: the first 5 form the E perimeter of Perea; the next 3 are further N, near the Sea of Galilee (Kinneret); then Josephus turns to 3 on the W side of Galilee; and the final group of 4 moves from inland Sebaste to the main coastal cities W of Judea. The first two groups include most cities of the Decapolis.In 63 BCE Pompey had granted many Syrian cities their freedom, producing a symbolic group called the “Ten Cities” (Decapolis), although the identity of the places in question was uncertain even in the 70s CE, as Pliny observes while giving his list (Nat. 5.74): Damascus (replaced by Eusebius with Abila; Onom. 32.16), Philadelphia, Rephana, Scythopolis, Gadara, Hippos, Dium, Pella, Gerasa [or Galasa], and Canatha; cf. the note to “Ten Cities” at Life 341 in BJP 9.Many of these cities have been named by Josephus as places conquered or destroyed by the Hasmoneans, which Pompey rebuilt as needed and freed or made subject to the Romans in Syria (War 1.156; Ant. 14.75); several were later given to Herod by Augustus (1.396-97), sometimes to the outrage of the local Greek inhabitants (e.g., Ant. 15.351-58); three (Galilean Gaba, Perean Esebonitis, and coastal Caesarea) are listed together in Ant. 15.293-94 as places built and fortified by Herod as bulwarks against his disaffected Judean population (15.292). So the potential for Greek-Judean conflict here had old roots. According to Life 42, 331-42, 410, raids on the Decapolis (i.e., on their dependent villages) had been conducted by some Tiberians led by Justus of Tiberias (who does not appear in War), among others, though it is difficult to be certain whether these are the same raids. The long list of places attacked recalls the later Hasmonean expansionist campaigns. It cannot be taken at face value as a series of spontaneous attacks on virtually all the border areas of Judea, by ordinary citizens (no matter how zealous), against large cities built on defensible sites—many of them far from the Judean heartland. It seems that in many cases Josephus must have in mind actions against the outlying interests or possessions of these cities.This list of places attacked by Judeans opens a characteristic inclusio, which will be completed when most of the same cities reciprocally turn against their own Judean inhabitants (2.477-80). Mod. Amman, Jordan (bibl. Rabbah). It has appeared only sporadically in War as basically hostile territory belonging to Nabatean Arabs (1.60 [cf. Ant. 13.235], 129, 380). At 3.46-47 Josephus will identify the city, along with Esebonitis (below), as marking the E extremity of Perea and the beginning of Arabia. The only other reference in Josephus is an important one: the opening sentences of Ant. 20 (1-5) describe a serious outbreak of hostilities in the mid-40s. Some Judeans of Perea, exasperated by the behavior of “belligerent men” from the Philadelphian village of Zia (emended from a puzzling mia) in their midst, attacked the larger city in retaliation, without consulting either their own leaders or the Roman governor Fadus. He, in anger at this independent revenge, punished their leaders, executing one named Hannibal—the curious name itself possibly suggesting ingrained serious anti-Roman sentiment among some Judeans of the region. It may be that the raids now being described were also against such Philadelphian holdings as Zia rather than against the city itself, on the analogy of Tyre’s, Gadara’s, and Hippos’ village possessions. Mod. Hishban, 22 km (13.5 miles) SW of Philadelphia, a slightly shorter distance E of the NE corner of the Dead Sea; biblical Heshbon, mentioned dozens of times (Num 21:25-34; Deut 1:4; 2:24-30; 3:2-6; Josh 12:2-5) as the former stronghold of King Sihon of the Amorites; conquered by the Israelites during Moses’ lifetime, before they crossed the Jordan into Canaan. Not far from the Tobiad redoubt of ‘Araq el-Emir (Ant. 12.233), and in Judean hands after the conquests of Alexander Janneus (Ant. 13.397), it was reportedly rebuilt and garrisoned by Herod as a defense against his own population, matched in this respect by Galilean Gaba/Hippeon (Ant. 15.294). Although it presumably passed to Antipas in the settlement after Herod’s death, we have no clear indication of that; War 3.47 observes that it was one of the Greek cities (with Philadelphia and Gerasa) that marked the end of Judean Perea. Thus Josephus’ list goes S after Philadelphia, then to turn steadly N/NW until Scythopolis. Mod. Jerash, Jordan, is among the best known of the Decapolis cities as a result of extensive excavations begun in 1925. Gerasa sat in the mirror position E of the Jordan River to Samaria-Sebaste on the W side, at the same latitude and the same distance (32 km [20 miles]) from the river, straddling the Chrysorhoas River (“Golden Stream,” tributary of the Jabbok/Zarka). It was built on a cluster of small hills enclosed by much larger hills to the W, N, and E, about 35 km (22 miles) N of Philadelphia. Although most of the uncovered structures date from the 2nd century CE and later, which was the period of its greatest prosperity (two Hadrianic arches, cardo with N and S decumanus, two theaters [the S theater from Domitian’s time], a small hippodrome S of the city [approximate seating 15,000], temple to Zeus with large plaza, temple to Artemis, macellum [food market], hundreds of inscriptions and coins), Gerasa had long been a center of Hellenistic culture.The city’s most famous son was the Pythagorean Nicomachus, author of an enormously influential Introduction to Arithmetic and also a Handbook of Music, who may have been a younger contemporary of Josephus (ca. 60-120 CE?). See e.g., A. H. M. Jones 1928; Kraeling 1938; Browning 1982; Khouri 1986; Zayadine 1986; Watts and Watts 1992; Uscatescu and Martín-Bueno 1997; Kennedy 2007. Gerasa (surprisingly called “Essa” at Ant. 13.393; cf. War 1.104) was reportedly taken by Alexander Janneus, and it was while besieging a Gerasene town that he died (13.398). It is of particular interest that Simon bar Giora, ultimately one of the two principal leaders of the revolt (see note at 2.521), is said by Josephus to be a native of a Gerasa (which we should understand as this one, though the preceding paragraphs [4.486-89] describe Vespasian’s campaign against a Gerasa that seems to be a corruption of Gezer or the like; see Bergmeier 1998)—apparently the son of a convert there (4.503). Finally, it is possible that Gerasa or a nearby town of Essa (if that is not another name for the site) was the home of at least one figure named an Essaeus by Josephus; it is even possible that all Essaei (Essenes) had an original connection with the place. See the notes to “Essaeus” at 2.113, 567. Another Decapolis city, Pella was less than 5 km (3 miles) E of the Jordan, and so quite close (12 km, 7.5 miles) to the next-named Scythopolis to the W of the river; Josephus makes Pella the N border of Judean Perea (3.47). It was one of the Decapolis cities captured by Alexander Janneus, who singled it out for destruction because its inhabitants “would not accept going over to the customs of the Judeans” (Ant. 13.397; cf. War 1.104). This no doubt grounded a tradition of Greek-Judean hostility. Like other Hasmonean conquests, it was detached and freed by Pompey in 63 BCE (War 1.156; Ant. 14.75). See McNicoll 1982; Smith and Day 1989; Sheedy, Garson et al. 2001. According to a much-discussed later Christian tradition (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.5.2-3; Epiphanius, Pan. 29.7.7-8; 30.2.7; Mens. 15), at about the time of Josephus’ narrative (just before the outbreak of war) Christian communities in Judea left for Pella; for critical discussion see Lüdemann 1980. Sitting in the center of the small plain that marks the first opening of the S-N Jordan-Valley route into the Great Plain (Jezreel Valley) to the NW, the site that would become Scythopolis was populated from very early times. Acquiring the name “polis of the Scythians” (the significance is unclear) at some point soon after Alexander the Great’s conquest, it remained a Greek stronghold until John Hyrcanus and his sons captured it near the end of his reign (d. 104 BCE; 1.65-66), possibly with the help of betrayal from within (Ant. 13.277, 280). It was among the cities liberated from Judean control by Pompey in 63 BCE (War 1.156), to become the only Decapolis city W of the Jordan. It reportedly needed repopulating and restoring after the brief rebellion of Aristobulus’ son Alexander—or perhaps after earlier devastations (1.166).At any rate, Josephus describes it as the greatest city of the Decapolis (3.446). It must have had a large territory, for he makes the territories of Scythopolis, Gadara, and Hippos define the SE limits of Galilee. Scythopolis’ location made it, along with the western villages of Gadara and Hippos, a relatively easy target for Judean raiders, especially those based in Tiberias (cf. Life 42, 341, 410) about 32 km (20 miles) to the N. That proximity might help to account for both the ferocity of the Judean attacks on Scythopolis and also the presence of a large Judean population in the city—Josephus claims more than 13,000 at 2.468, many tens of thousands at Life 26. Even the former number seems high—to face the coming massacre (2.466-76). As Josephus repeatedly explains while narrating older history (Ant. 5.83; 6.374; 12.348; 13.188), the site known among Judeans as Bethesana or Bethsan (‮בית שאן‬‎, “house of She’an”) is called Scythopolis by the Greeks; Pliny (Nat. 5.74) connects the site with Liber-Dionysus, claiming that the God buried his nurse-nymph Nysa there and that the city formerly carried her name.Scythopolis was extensively excavated throughout the 20th century. Although most of the impressive structures (large theater, temples, baths, sculptures, streets) are from the 2nd century CE and later, enough remains from the 1st century to support literary evidence that it was a vibrant Greek city at Josephus’ time; see Appendix A in BJP 9.

Mod. Umm Qeis. See Appendix A in BJP 9. A famous center of Greek culture on a high plateau overlooking the Yarmuk River to the N, Gadara produced renowned figures associated with Cynic philosophy: the poet-satirists Menippus (early 2nd cent. BCE) and Meleager (1st cent. BCE), and later Oenomaus (early 2nd cent. CE). Gadara was taken and partially destroyed, it seems, by Alexander Janneus (War 1.86), then freed and rebuilt by Pompey (1.155) before being given by Augustus to Herod (1.396). The Judean king’s rule brought repeated but ineffective protests from the Greek citizens (Ant. 15.351, 354, 356, 358): they were not returned to Roman administration until after his death (Ant. 17.320; War 2.97). Since Gadara sat on a ridge 378 m (1,240 ft) above sea level and nearly 600 m (1,970 ft) above Lake Kinneret, attacking it was no simple prospect; Alexander Janneus reportedly needed a siege of 10 months (Ant. 13.356). If these are the same attacks as those described in Life 42, 341-42, 410—the only ones mentioned in that work when Decapolis residents complain to Vespasian—then they seem to have been against the vulnerable dependent villages of Gadara, not against the city itself (cf. Tyrian Kadasa, rather than Tyre itself). The history of Hippos (“horse,” because of its saddle-like profile, a small city overlooking Lake Kinneret from the E, N of the Yarmuk River) is similar to that of Gadara (previous note) 14 km to the SE: Hippos too was made a free city by Pompey (1.56), later given to Herod (1.396). Returned to Syria after his death (2.97), it found its villages subject to raids by the Judeans of Tiberias—possibly the incident(s) mentioned here. One such vulnerable possession might have been Hippos’ harbor on the lake below, though Josephus (Life 42, 341-42, 410) has Tiberians attacking villages lying in between the chora of Tiberias and that of Scythopolis (35 km [21.75 miles] to the S on the W side of the Jordan). See the note at 2.168. Of all the sites mentioned in this paragraph, this is the odd one out because: (a) it is not a city, but a vague descriptor including potentially the entire Golan, which hosted the towns of Iulias, Gamala, and Seleuceia, among others; (b) it was territory subject to the Judean King Agrippa (2.247), and lacked Greek cities like those of the Decapolis, except perhaps Iulias; (c) the whole region features extremely difficult terrain, far from the Judeans’ bases; and (d) Josephus mentions no reprisals against Judeans in this area, in contrast to most of the other cities they attacked (2.477-78). It may well be, then, that he has in mind small raids on villages at the edges of the Golan, in conjunction with attacks on the territory of Hippos. Perhaps substituting for a reprisal is the later story of Noarus’ execution of the 70 from Batanea in Agrippa’s absence (2.481-83). This is biblical Kedesh of Naphtali, designated a city of refuge (Josh 21:32; cf. 12:22; 15:23) and later captured with other northern towns by Tiglath-Pileser of Assyria (1 Kgs 15:29). Of contemporary Tyre, the ancient Phoenician trading capital (see note at 2.239), Josephus will claim that its residents were the bitterest enemies of the Judeans in the region (Apion 1.70). Tyre’s dependent territories extended deep into the interior, so far as to form the northern boundary of Upper Galilee (3.39-40). Kadasa illustrates that broad reach, as it was 35 km (22 miles) inland from coastal Tyre as the crow flies (and over difficult terrain with no direct road connecting), only 10 km (6 miles) NE of the Judean town of Gischala. At 4.105 Josephus will describe Kadasa: “It is a sturdy interior village of the Tyrians, perpetually at war (driven by hatred) with the Galileans, finding in its throng of residents and its solidity resources for its conflict with the nation.” The MSS reveal uncertainty about the spelling, offering also Kasada and Kedasa. See the note at 2.67. Josephus’ description has moved to the Greek cities W of Galilee. The MSS show confusion over the name, several offering “Gabala” and one even “Gaia.” Although the site is not yet certainly identified (see Appendix A to BJP 9), Josephus is clear about its approximate location—4 km (2.5 miles) from Besara (Beit-Shearim; Life 118) on the SW edge of Galilee (War 3.35), somewhere along the meeting point of Galilee with the Plain of Acco-Ptolemais (Life 115-17)— and about its founding by King Herod along with Esebonitis (2.485 above) as a base for his cavalry, against the prospect of rebellion from his own people (Ant. 15.294), and the town’s continuing loyalty to Roman-Herodian forces (Life 115-18). All of these conditions help to explain its appeal as a target for these Judean raiders. See the note at 2.16. This casual mention is remarkable given the city’s pivotal role in these very events. According to Josephus, the effort by wealthy and numerous Judeans to remake the city as theirs (2.266) and to buy up land for their communal use (2.285) ignited a serious conflict with the “Greek” residents, which was then fanned by the unscrupulous governor Florus. Now, the massacre of more than 20,000 Judeans there has ignited these Judean raids on all the Greek cities (2.457), in which Caesarea is only one of many targets.

See the notes to “Sebastenes” at 2.52, to “Samaria” at 2.69, and to “Sebaste” at 2.97. This city, refounded by Herod, has been a traditional source of aggravation to the Judeans, not least because of its role as a major recruiting ground for the auxiliary forces that the Romans use to control the province. See the note concerning this old and profitable coastal city (bibl. Ashkelon of the Philistines; Josh 13:3; Judg 1:18; 1 Sam 6:17 etc.) at 2.98, and especially Appendix A to BJP 1a. Philo, writing in the 40s CE about an advisor to Gaius Caligula named Apelles, who had ties to Ascalon, remarks that “the Ascalonites have a truceless and irreconcilable hostility to the Judean residents of the sacred territory on whose borders they live” (Legat. 205). Josephus will likewise claim that the Judeans had always harbored a hatred for Ascalon (3.10). It will no doubt be in part because of the violent response of the Ascalonites to the present attack (cf. 2.477) that the Judeans who defeat Cestius will select Ascalon as their first target thereafter—an effort, however, that will end in a disastrous rout costing more than 10,000 Judean lives (3.9-28). This is the only occurrence of πυρπολέω in War, though it appears 7 times in Josephus’ other works. With the surrounding areas, this southern coastal city was conquered by the Hasmonean Alexander Janneus (1.87; Ant. 13.357), rebuilt by Gabinius (1.164), and presented to Herod by Augustus (1.396); Herod renamed it in honor of Agrippa (1.87, 416), though as we see here the original name ultimately prevailed. Although it is unclear whether this city was given to Archelaus or immediately returned to Syria after Herod’s death, it ended up as a Syrian city again. Anthedon and Gaza are also mentioned together by Pliny (Nat. 5.68), though he mistakenly places Anthedon inland, whereas Gaza was slightly inland from the coast and Anthedon, a little further N, lay directly on the shore. A very old Philistine trading port (e.g., Gen 10:19; Josh 10:41; Jer 47:5; Herodotus [Cadytis] 2.159.2; 3.5.2) at the S end of the Mediterranean coast; see the note at 2.97. The former strength of the city is shown by the difficulty faced by Alexander the Great in capturing it—after a 2-month siege (Ant. 11.325; Diodorus 17.48.7). More than two centuries later, Alexander Janneus had to besiege it for a year to take it, only then with the aid of internal betrayal (1.87; Ant. 13.358-61). Josephus admires the remarkable courage of the Gazans facing destruction from Alexander’s Hasmonean forces, remarking that many burned down their own houses in order to keep them from the enemy. Gaza was among the coastal cities freed from Judean rule by Pompey (1.156; Ant. 14.76). Rebuilt under Gabinius (Ant. 14.88), it passed to Herod by grant of Augustus (War 1.396) and returned to Roman Syria in the settlement after his death (2.97).

Cf. Eleazar son of Ya‘ir at 7.367: there was not a city in Syria that did not do away with its Judean residents (though he ignores the context here of prior Judean attacks, and Josephus’ exceptions at 2.497), and Agrippa II’s recent prediction (2.398-99) that Judean rebellion would certainly mean the massacre of Judeans in many other cities. Or “slaughter, cut the throats of.” See the note at 2.457. Understanding πρότερον as an adjective modifying μῖσος (cf. Latin vetus odium) rather than as an adverb modifying “butcher,” since there is little evidence of earlier massacres in Syria, which would surely have led to earlier emigration, but much (in the narrative) to suggest long-standing tensions. Evidently, in view of the Judean raiding parties just described (2.458-60).

See the note at 2.170. Possibly imperfect “was being divided” (with MSS AM and Latin); the other MSS have the pluperfect as rendered here. This (στρατόπεδον) is Josephus’ normal word for military or legionary camps. Although his language is cryptic in this passage, he seems to mean that within each Syrian city the Judeans and non-Judeans now separated and tried to protect themselves, each from the other. If so, the Judean minorities, as distinct from the raiding parties (2.458-60), clearly suffered the greater losses (2.463). Josephus appears to indicate, then, extreme violence from both the Syrian and the Judean sides within these cities (as also in the next clause). Given that the Judean residents suffered disproportionate losses, if he means that the Judeans’ safety consisted in preparing adequate defenses, that would not explain why the other (Syrian) side had anything to fear, or to anticipate and prevent. His meaning is not clear: he may have fallen back on balanced clauses, implying mutual harm, for the sake of art rather than clarity.

The scene and the language recall the horrors described at 2.256, with the appearance of the sicarii in Jerusalem. Although throughout this sentence Josephus uses masculine ἕκαστοι, and so cannot grammatically be assuming (feminine) πόλεις as subject, in repeating the idea of “each” and “several” he seems to have in view the various city populations of Syria (assuming δῆμοι or similar). Or simply “thinking,” depending on whether this contrasts mainly with what goes before (although the one camp thought they had destroyed the other, Judaizers remained) or with what comes after (although they considered it fitting in the circumstances to rid themselves of Judeans, they could not bring themselves to kill Judaizers among their own). Or “bundled off.” This is the same verb (ἀποσκευάζω) that Josephus has used in the sense of “off-loading” responsibility at 2.73. Here it becomes another euphemism for killing, a sense he will employ soon again (2.478). For suspicion of the Judeans in Damascus (that they might attack the locals after their defeat of Cestius), see 2.560. See the note to this verb at 2.454. It is noteworthy that Josephus manages to use it twice in such proximity, yet nowhere else in his 30 volumes, a typical feature of his style (see Introduction). In this case the re-use is purposeful, for he has elaborately connected the massacre of Judeans with the Judeans’ unjust massacre of the Roman garrison in Jerusalem (2.455-57). In both cases “Judaizers” are spared: by the Judeans, because of the cynical welcome they gave to a (forced) convert; by the Syrians because the Judaizers, though deeply suspect, were not wholly alien. Perhaps, then, these Judaizers had not proceeded “all the way to circumcision” as Metilius had (2.454). On the vast number of Damascene women who had allegedly embraced Judean law in some unclear way, see 2.560. Greek οὔτε ἀνελεῖν τις προχείρως ὑπέμενεν. The adverb appears only here in Josephus (though the cognate adjective appears 4 times). Possibly “tainted” (μεμιγμένον), perhaps with sexual connotations, since the verb is a common euphemism for sexual relations—suggesting a metaphorical miscegenation or contamination. For Judaizing as a mixing or confusion of incompatible traditions, producing an uncertain status, see Epictetus in Arrian, Diatr. 2.9.19-21.

Josephus’ tragic-emotive language (ἐπὶ τὰς σφαγὰς τῶν διαφόρων) could be understood as either (called out) “for the various acts of butchery of foes” (see the note to “butchery” at 2.197) or “against the throats [i.e., slaughter-points] of foes.” For the latter see “slaughter” at 2.619, with note. Although παράταξις often means “formation, forming up, marshaling, battle line,” Josephus tends to use it for the battle or engagement itself: 1.45, 95, 102, 191, 336, 341, 342; 2.464, 470 (see the note to “that engagement” at Life 341 in BJP 9). Of the 43 occurrences in his corpus, 32 are in War. Josephus’ balanced chiasm has an epigrammatic quality: [ἔνδοξός τε ἦν] ὁ πλεῖστα κερδάνας ὡς κατισχύσας πλειόνων.

Josephus often juxtaposes the elderly with infants, usually in combination with someone’s lack of pity, mercy, or compassion for them, as a way of heightening the tragic force of the narrative (cf. 2.496; 3.201; 4.82; 5.430, 433; for a misplaced pity for elders, women, and infants, involving Saul and the Amalekites, see Ant. 6.133-38, 260-62). A programmatic term (sing. συμφορά), enhancing the tragic tone, in War and especially in bk. 2; see the notes at 1.9; 2.286. It appears again soon (2.467). The text has several possibilities; the interpreter faces a number of uncertainties. MSS PAML have [τὴν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀπειλουμένοις] ἀνάστασιν (“uprising against the things or people being threatened, terrified” [passive] or “against those who were forbidding with threats” [middle]). The other MSS (VRC) have μετάστασιν (“removal, upheaval, change against . . .”). All modern editors (Niese, Thackeray, Pelletier, Vitucci, M-B), however, forego both of these to follow Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 2.26.2) with ἀνάτασιν (“tension, straining” or “holding out, threat” against or over the people or things being threatened). One reason to prefer Eusebius’ reading is that it matches a pattern in Josephus: killing was bad, but even worse was a resulting psychological state (fear, dread, or tension; cf. 2.256; 7.104). Moreover, Josephus may use a similar collocation at 1.214 (ἀπειλῇ καὶ ἀνατάσει), where ἀνατάσει has the support of MS C and the Latin, though PAMLVR and Hegesippus prefer ἀναστάσει there also. That example highlights the fact that, as the relatively unfamiliar word, ἀνάτασις has the advantage of being easiest to understand as the original—i.e., as a difficulty left by Josephus and changed by later copyists to something more familiar; it is more difficult to imagine why they would subsitute something difficult for a familiar and simple term. The best option, then, seems to be something like the translation here. But since ἀνάτασις can also mean a “threat” (i.e., what is extended, held out), the sense might also be “the threat because of what was being threatened” in a redundant formulation.

Lit. “while running down into/against” (κατατρέχοντες δὲ εἰς). Possibly “while overrunning Scythopolis,” though that usage normally has the object in the genitive. See 2.458, where the Judeans ravage Scythopolis. Or “experienced,” assuming that the verb is πειράω, though it might conceivably be πείρω, in which case they “cleaved through” Judean enemies. That language would recall Homer (Il. 24.8; Od. 8.183). Possibly “in that place” (MSS MVRC παρ’ ἐκείνη). This word (συγγένεια) is cognate to “relative-slaughter” at 2.471 and “blood-relations” at 2.472. Of the 9 occurrences of ὁμόσε in Josephus, all occur in the classical cliché used here: ὁμόσε χωρέω (or ἴασι at Ant. 18.324, with χωρέω in the same sentence). Josephus’ Eleazar son of Ya‘ir will express great indignation at this alignment with “the Greeks” against the Judeans (7.364-65)—in spite of having confessed to killing compatriots himself (7.332). Josephus will express similar outrage at Life 26 (“sacrilegious to us”; see BJP 9 and note). Note also War’s repeated condemnation of killing fellow-Judeans, an activity closely connected with the stasis theme (1.10), at 1.659; 3.391; 6.109.

As often in War, Josephus makes a neuter substantive from an adjective: τὸ λίαν πρόθυμον. A programmatic term (συμφορά), enhancing the tragic tone, in War and in bk. 2; see the notes at 1.9; 2.286. It has recently been used (2.465). See the note to “rebellion” at 2.39. The fear is, then, that the Judeans inside, from feelings of guilt about their alignment with the Scythopolitans, would turn against them at night and betray the city to the Judean attackers. They would then justify themselves to the outside Judeans by claiming that they had appeared to support the Scythopolitans only in order to inflict serious damage. Josephus substantivizes the neuter adjective with article (τὸ . . . πιστόν). See further “loyalty” and note at 2.476. Greek ἀλλοεθνής occurs only here in War, though 7 times in Antiquities. It is not found in Josephus’ classical models or contemporaries (Plutarch, Dio), but appears among other ethnographical or “minority” writers: fragments of Berosus, Hecataeus, Megasthenes; 2 Macc 4:6; 13 times each in Diodorus and Dionysius; Strabo (2.1.31; 11.2.2; 14.2.28); Philo (Spec. 3.29; Legat. 183). Since this is a Greek city, the sense is probably “sacred grove”: a hallowed precinct devoted to a God. This is the usual meaning of ἄλσος, also in Josephus. At 1.422-43 King Herod has donated these important features of a polis to several cities in the region; perhaps the one at Scythopolis was also his donation. For the offensiveness of such places to Judeans, see Ant. 4.192; 8.318, 336; 10.52. (For more neutral senses: 8.138; 16.142.) If this is the meaning of the word, the Judeans’ test of loyalty is not simply that they remove themselves from mingling in the city, to preclude a fifth-column revolt, but that they must be willing to stay in a place devoted to the Scythopolitans’ Gods, but alien and offensive to their own law and tradition.

Contrast the ongoing suspicion that Josephus attributes to the non-Judeans (2.463, 466, 560). Although the verb δελεάζω is found occasionally in classical authors (e.g., 1-3 times each in Herodotus, Isocrates, Xenophon, Demosthenes, Polybius, Diodorus, Dionysius, Strabo), nearly half (31) of its 68 attestations before Josephus (who has it 7 times) come in Philo. This is another example of Josephus’ “Philonic” language—or, since Plutarch will use it 13 times, of Philo’s marking a new trend. The situation is similar for the cognate noun, on which see the note at 2.54. Or “slaughtered, cut the throats of.” See the note at 2.457. Life 26: “many myriads” (literally “tens of thousands,” though often simply “thousands”). The phrase διαρπάζω κτήσεις is characteristic (cf. 2.494, 509; 4.488; 6.202; Ant. 20.113; Life 77) of Josephus. Before his time it is attested only in Diodorus, who uses it a remarkable 15 times in the preserved sections. This provides strong evidence for Diodorus’ influence on Josephus.Having expressed indignation at the Scythopolitan-Judeans’ initial support for their fellow-citizens, Eleazar son of Ya‘ir at Masada (7.365-66) will denounce what happened to them as payment for their misplaced loyalty (or trust).

The following story, told in tragic terms, concentrates many themes of the entire War: shedding the blood of compatriots (as the rebels will later do in Jerusalem) is the most dreadful form of pollution, which can only lead to literal (as at Masada) or virtual (as in Jerusalem) self-destruction. Such general moralizing seems detached from the particular story at hand, for Josephus does not appear to be suggesting that the Judeans of Scythopolis should have assisted their compatriots in destroying the city, or opposed the Scythopolitans earlier and faced death. The tragic ethos, indeed, seems to preclude the simple assessment of right and wrong. Perhaps it is only Simon’s particularly energetic battles against Judean compatriots that mark him for retribution on a heroic scale (below). This (πάθος) is one of many terms introduced in Josephus’ prologue (1.9, 11 [“feelings”], 27 [“sufferings” and calamities]; see notes) that create a tragic tone for the work. In this story Josephus uses it to create a characteristic inclusio: it is also the second-last word (in plural) at 2.476. This is the same litotes (οὐκ ἀσήμων) that Josephus uses of his own ancestry in Life 1. This cliché (ῥώμῃ σώματος), found elsewhere in Josephus (7.232, 384; Ant. 4.298; 17.273), turns up occasionally in earlier authors; it is most conspicuous by far in Diodorus (33 occurrences). See the note to “brazenness” (the same Greek word) at 2.108. At Ant. 4.298, Josephus’ Moses makes these (πάντων τῶν ῥώμῃ σωμάτων καὶ ψυχῆς εὐτολμίᾳ) the qualifications for military service, glossing the Bible’s exclusion (Deut 20:8) of the “faint-hearted”; see Feldman’s note ad loc. in BJP 3.

Given that War has the adverb ὁσημέραι only 7 times, its reappearance a few sentences below (2.489), the only other instance in bk. 2, shows again Josephus’ tendency to cluster his use of certain words. See the note to “deciding factor in war” at 2.52. See the note to “battle” at 2.464. Simon appears at first as a sort of Homeric hero, like Ajax, fighting best in front of the line (Il. 11.569-71), but he will end up tragically slaughtering his own children, like the Heracles of Euripides’ play, and then himself, like the Ajax of Sophocles’ play.

The artificial expression συγγενικός φόνος (unattested elsewhere) reflects the strangeness of the phenomenon. It is a particularly heinous form of the “Judean slaughter” predicted by Agrippa II for the Greek cities at 2.391; see note there. The adjective is cognate to “shared ancestry” at 2.466 and “blood-relations” at 2.472. See 2.467. This is the only explicit notice we receive of the method by which large numbers of Judeans were “slaughtered, sacrificed, butchered” in confined spaces (2.457, 461, 561). The scene, with thousands being killed by spears at a single event, is difficult to imagine in practical terms. (How many assailants were necessary? At what range? Where were they positioned?) See the note at 2.218. The adverb ἐκπαθῶς (which picks up the headword “suffering” at 2.469 and links with the cognate verb “suffering” that follows) occurs only here in Josephus; it is scarcely attested otherwise (before him only in Teles, Pen. plout. 35; after him, a few times in the 2nd-3rd centuries). The main user of the cognate adjective (cf. Ant. 15.28; 16.208) is Polybius (1.1.6, 7.8; 4.58.1; 8.9.4; 16.23.5), who is likely Josephus’ inspiration for this, as for much else. The adjective is only significantly attested otherwise from Josephus’ time onward (Plutarch, Appian, Athenaeus).

This is the second example (see the note to “suffered” at 2.333) of War’s frequent juxtaposition of doing (or committing) and suffering (δράω + πάσχω)—the same thing that one perpetrated (in tragic reversal or “poetic justice”) or its consequence. Although the Greek MSS all have καθ’ ὑμῶν, which is printed by Niese and M-B and given a possible translation here (perhaps a difficult “against you” or possibly “from your side”), its awkward sense and its omission by the Latin and Hegesippus lead Thackeray and Pelletier to omit it. What follows in this sentence is very uncertain, because of textual difficulties compounded by interpretative problems. MSS PA have οἵ, whereas MLVRC (reflected in Latin and Hegesippus) offer ὅτι (“because”), which however seems easier to explain as a later effort at improvement. One’s choice here governs what precedes and what follows. The relative pronoun should look back to “Scythopolitans,” but since it cannot easily do that, something like the bracketed phrase (as in Thackeray, LCL) must be supplied. MSS PA, in keeping with the relative pronoun “who” reading (see previous note), have this verb as plural; strangely, so does L. The others, which read “because,” in which case Simon is speaking of only his behavior, accordingly have a singular verb. See the note to “loyalty” at 2.476. Although the Greek has only πρὸς αὐτούς, without identifying the person (and so it would otherwise be read as 3rd person), Latin and Hegesippus have vos and vobis (“you”), respectively; something of the sort is necessary for the sense. See “relative-slaughter” and note in the preceding section. This phrase (εἰς ἔσχατα) is bracketed in Niese’s text because it is not found in two of the better MSS (PA), and M has it in the singular. The singular form of the verb (“let me die”) has by far the better attestation (MSS PAMVRC, Hegesippus moriar). Only MS L gives a misspelled (as present indicative) plural. That variation apparently leads Niese and Thackeray to favor it as the more difficult reading, which would also fit best with “to/for those” at the beginning of the sentence. If the text should be plural, it refers to the other Scythopolitan Judeans dying all around Simon, and perhaps anticipates the deaths of his family (2.475); the rest of the sentence then also needs to be plural (as Niese and Thackeray). Although I have followed the plural reading, I do so without confidence. I.e., from the divine, because of pollution caused by bloodshed. This is the only occurrence of ἐναγής in War (cf. 4.163 for a cognate noun; the adjective is also at Ant. 7.208; 9.226). One of the archetypes of such pollution acquired through killing one’s kin, involving this adjective, was the Athenian Megacles’ murder of the would-be tyrant Cylon’s followers in the 7th cent. BCE, though they had claimed the sanctuary of an altar. Herodotus 1.61 relates that the Athenian aristocrat Pisistratus would not produce children with his wife, the great-granddaughter of Megacles, because of the belief that her (Alcmeonid) family remained “under a curse”; cf. Herodotus 5.70; Thucydides 1.126. This speech clearly anticipates the first part of Eleazar’s speech at Masada: after confessing the wrongs madly committed against compatriots, he recommends self-destruction as the only way out (7.332-33).

See “under a curse” in this section and the notes to pollution language, which is central to War’s narrative, at 2.132, 210, 424; to this noun at 2.455. Lit. “at my butchery” (or “sacrifice, slaughter, slaying”); the language is vivid and shocking, with strong cultic-sacrificial connotations. See the notes to “butchery” at 2.197 and “butchered” at 2.30; further, 2.476. See the note to “enemy” in the preceding section: a similar logic drives Eleazar’s speech at Masada, as he wishes to prevent the Romans from taking any credit for killing his comrades (7.332-36).

Pity and fear were identified by Aristotle (cf. Poet. 1449b.27; 1452.38; 1453a.3, 5, 1453b.12) as the hallmarks of tragedy; such language here and at 2.476 enhances War’s tragic ethos. Note the programmatic use of “pity” at War 1.10 and the note to “compassion” at 1.12. This jolting combination of opposite emotions (ἐλεοῦσιν ἅμα καὶ τεθυμωμένοις), evoking utter helplessness, anticipates the same construction at 2.549 below.

Josephus uses litotes (“not unwilling”). The murder-suicide scene with one’s own family members, especially women and children (see the note at 2.192), anticipates War’s final tragic act at Masada (7.362, 380-93).

See the note to this phrase at 2.344. The Greek (εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ σφαγὴν ἐβάπτισεν τὸ ξίφος) is shocking, with the vividness of the verb βαπτίζω, which normally (cf. the next occurrence, 2.556) refers to the immersion or sinking of something in water or another liquid. This baptism in blood might is highly resonant, given the language of sacrifice around it. Perhaps it serves as a kind of atonement; for death as atonement in rabbinic thought, see Schechter 1961: 304-10. See the note to this charged language at 2.197. See the note just above, at 2.474. See the note to this characteristic Josephan phrase at 2.268. This is the first appearance of a characteristic phrase in War, ψυχῆς παράστημα (also 2.580, 588; 4.34, 193; 6.13, 62, 81), equivalent to ψυχῆς παράστασις (cf. the chiasm at 2.580). Before Josephus, Diodorus is the heaviest attested user of this language—likewise alternating the synonyms (1.17.2; 117.11.4, 21.2; 33.16.2; 37.21.1; cf. Dionysius, Dem. 22). Or “faithfulness toward, trust in” (πρὸς ἀλλοφύλους πίστις). At 2.467 the Scythopolitans have demanded a proof of Judean trustworthiness, on the same root (τὸ . . . πιστόν). At 2.472 Simon has ironically protested his demonstrated good will (εὔνοια) toward these foreigners. At 7.365 Eleazar ben Ya‘ir will take the same ironic tone, citing both qualities: “[the Judeans’] good will and loyalty towards those people certainly benefited them!” That summary statement incidentally helps to confirm the compositional unity of War. Josephus thus completes the inclusio begun with this word in the introduction to Simon’s story at 2.469 (see note there).

See the note to this word at 2.51. Apparently the remaining cities of Syria (as 2.478), though in the next paragraph Josephus will indicate important exceptions. Possibly he means “the cities, other than Scythopolis (just described), that had been targets of the Judean raids.” All the cities mentioned here were named as Judean targets—the Tyrians indirectly via their possession of Kadasa—following the Caesarean massacre (2.458-60). Josephus has thus created a ring composition, around the central story of Simon in Scythopolis (also one of the cities first attacked), to tell now of the cities’ revenge against their internal Judean populations. See the note to “Ascalon” at 2.98. Ascalon was one of the Greek cities attacked and burned by the Judeans; see 2.459. See the note to “Ptolemais” at 2.67. Ptolemais was attacked by the Judeans at 2.459. See the note to “detainees” at 2.4. Josephus uses litotes (“not a few”).

At 2.459 the Judeans have struck at the Tyrian possession of Kadasa. This is one of Josephus’ rarer euphemisms for killing; see the note at 2.242. See the note to this phrase, which will now appear more frequently (2.490, 509, 521, 535, 541), at 2.55. Possibly “more, many, the majority”: the MSS give slightly different readings. See the note to this word at 2.4. These two are mentioned together as Judean targets (possibly, however, it was their dependent villages that suffered) at 2.459. See the note at 2.463: another euphemism for killing. See the notes at 2.238, 267. Or “the more fearful.” This is an important explanation, suggesting that the Syrian cities, after being attacked by Judean groups from outside (2.458-59), mainly acted with a degree of restraint: they executed internal Judeans who seemed hostile, but incarcerated those who seemed to be no threat. This fits a well-documented pattern of the internment of aliens during times of conflict (e.g., in Britain, Canada, the U.S., and Australia during the world wars). Josephus will have Eleazar son of Ya‘ir ignore such qualifications when he declares (7.367): “For you know that, of the cities in Syria, there is not one that did not do away with its resident Judeans, though [those Judeans] were more hostile to us than to the Romans!” Although here Josephus appears to align the cities in groups, somewhat artificially, according to their hatred or dread of Judeans, at 2.461 he has more artfully combined the two emotions among and within the same cities. This is the first of 4 occurrences of τὸ Ἰουδαϊκόν in this section (also 2.487, 492, 495). As Schwartz (2005: 76) observes, the expression refers to the Judeans as an ethnic or national group (cf. 1.88, 93), particularly as a minority community in non-Judean cities (cf. 2.105). The form is rare in Antiquities, occurring only in experimental “Thucydidean” passages of Ant. 17-19 (17.41; 18.83). Schwartz does not observe that the context of reprisals within Greek cities here invites such a usage, and that the particular form (neuter substantive formed from the adjective or participle) is typical of War’s style (esp. in the prologue; cf. 1.4-5), which considerations appear to work against his proposal that Josephus’ usage changes (to a more “religious” conception) in his later works.

These 3 cities, in contrast to those mentioned in the preceding paragraph (see note to “cities” at 2.477), were very far from Judea and presumably this is a reason why they and their possessions had not been targets of the Judean raids (2.458-60). Apamea and Antioch both sat on the Orontes River in the far N of the Syrian province. Apameans do not otherwise appear in War, though their city has been mentioned in 1.216-19. Although the Antiochenes are said to be calm at this point, Josephus will later report at length a serious campaign against their Judean population, initiated soon after Vespasian’s arrival in the region—by a renegade Judean anxious to prove his bona fides—and culminating with an unsuccessful appeal to Titus after the war that the Judeans of Antioch be expelled (7.41-62, 100-111). Sidon (see note at 2.101), some 40 km (25 miles) further up the coast from Tyre (itself already beyond the reach of Judean raids), was a large city deep inside the Syrian province. See the note to “settle” (the same verb) at 2.124. This construction is similar, also contextually, to “stood quite ready” at 2.463. For the two options, see 2.477. For the latter word see the note to “detainees” at 2.4. This notice incidentally confirms what Josephus has emphasized: that the other Syrian cities acted against their Judean populations largely from a fear of internal collaboration with external Judean attackers (2.458-61, 463). The cities named here were too large and remote to have such serious worries (though see the case of Antioch at 7.41-62). See the note to this distinctive Josephan phrase at 2.151. See the note to this keyword at 1.12. In the case of Antioch (7.41-65) Josephus will again stress that the Judean population was entirely peaceful, though maliciously accused by a traitor and then because of a fire in the city.

The Gerasenes are thus anomalous: although among the cities ravaged by the Judean raiders (2.458), they are the only ones to emphatically reject retaliation. Although one might be tempted to speculate about an ancestral connection with Essenes (see note to Essaeus at 2.113), we have no evidence whatsoever of either the historical Gerasenes’ mindset or what Josephus might have had in mind in making this exception. MSS PMV appear confused, along with the corrections of AL, in offering the genitive plural of either “hill” (ὄρος), which is plausible, or “whey, curd” (ὀρός), which is not. Latin and ps-Hegesippan fines confirms MSS RC in reading ὅρων from ὅρος (“border, boundary”).

Or “sovereignty, jurisdiction” (βασιλεία). For Agrippa’s territories see 2.223, 247, 252 with notes. The following story, in an entirely different context—the fallout from Philip b. Iacimus’ survival of his mission to Jerusalem (cf. 2.421, 556), which is passed over in War—and with significantly different details, will be elaborated at Life 48-61; see the following notes. Josephus here anticipates 2.499-502: Cestius’ decision to take the field against restive Judeans, evidently after consultation with King Agrippa, who contributes units to the Roman force. Contrast Life 49, where the king and Berenice have gone to meet Cestius at Berytus (Beirut), providing the occasion for Varus’ (here Noarus’) misdeeds. See the note at 2.334. Whereas War (also 2.483) names him thus (Νόαρος) here, Life gives him the Latinate moniker “Varus” (Οὔαρος; cf. War 2.247); on this and other differences, see the notes at Life 48-52 in BJP 9. Although Josephus does not make a connection with the tetrarch “Varus” of 2.247 above, it appears that he is the same person. So: Noarus/Varus inherited the tetrarchy of Iturea, around Mt. Lebanon, that had been given by Gaius Caligula to his father “King” Soaemus in 38 CE (Tacitus, Ann. 12.23; Dio 59.12.2; cf. Life 52); he governed it from the latter’s death in 49 CE, until Claudius gave it to Agrippa II in 53 CE (War 2.247). This background explains both Agrippa’s willingness to entrust Noarus with administrative responsibilities during his absence and the man’s alleged openness to contemplate treachery against Agrippa, on the basis of his own frustrated royal claims (so Life 48-52). Since Josephus has not mentioned this king before, he either assumes audience knowledge or includes a detail of no value, perhaps for local color. Noarus (see previous note) was son and heir of the Soaemus who had been tetrarch of Libanus (Mt. Lebanon) in Iturea, d. 49 CE; this is the Soaemus with whom Josephus connects Varus (Noarus) in the parallel passage at Life 52, and he may be the figure in view here (so M-B). Although that ruler was not technically a “king,” Tacitus (Ann. 12.23) calls him rex; so this label is not decisive. It is possible, however, that Josephus has in mind here the living Soaemus, King of Emesa (so Thackeray in LCL), a territory not far N of Libanus. This king is soon to play a significant role as a war-time ally of Rome and King Agrippa (see 2.501 and note; 3.68), and so might make a better candidate for the object of Agrippa’s favor in preserving Noarus (2.483)—if he too was Noarus’ relative. Josephus may also have confused the names or deliberately obfuscated an insignificant point.

Heir of biblical Bashan, E/NE of the Golan (Gaulanitis), Batanea was the region in which King Herod had settled Judeans from Babylonia as a bulwark against bandits in the rugged territory of Trachonitis further N/NE (Ant. 17.23-31). These talented soldiers have been led by Philip ben Iacimus’ grandfather and father, from the time of Herod to that of Agrippa II. According to the Life parallel (48-61), Varus’ mistreatment of the Bataneans was connected with his attempt to undermine Philip, one of King Agrippa’s military mainstays. Life 54-57 has Varus dispatch 12 Judean elders from Caesarea to Batanean Ecbatana, mischievously instructing them to send 70 of their leading men to defend themselves against charges of revolt against Agrippa. Although unattested in other ancient Greek literature, this pair of virtues appears in the language of Josephus himself at Life 191-92, 278. See the note to this key word (15 of 16 occurrences in Josephus are in War’s 7 volumes) at 1.4. I.e., given the attacks on Judean communities nearby, described in the preceding paragraphs. This is a completely different motive from that alleged at Life 56-57: to defend their community against charges of rebellion. That the motive given here fits this context so well illustrates Josephus’ breath-taking freedom to reconfigure the narrative according to present needs.

According to Life 57, by contrast: Varus himself led a royal force to meet the delegates as they approached Caesarea, killed both the Caesarean delegates and the Batanean principal men, and proceeded towards Batanea. Josephus’ Greek employs hyperbaton to build a sense of outrage. Although Life 57 also has Varus’ force kill all the men, Life 58 has one escape to Ecbatana and warn the community to flee to the fortress-town of Gamala in the Golan. Or “destroying”; see the note at 2.11. See the note at 2.295: the only other occurrence of φιλαργυρία in Josephus. Since the noun is already an obvious vice, easily attributed to enemies (e.g., Polybius 18.55.1; 29.8.10; 29.9.12), it does not normally need an adjective describing excess—and so this collocation is unattested in other authors. In this case, the money motive may simply be a device for sparing Josephus the description of a much more complicated situation, such as the coup attempt (through the removal of Philip ben Iacimus’ support group) described in Life 49-61. I.e., the Judean people (ἔθνος). See the note to this phrase at 2.15. This is the last occurrence of παρανομέω in bk. 2. Life 61 alleges that Agrippa discovered instead that Varus was planning to do away with the Judeans of Caesarea “in a single day”; but in this version (2.457 above) the Judean community of Caesarea has already been destroyed. Josephus thus creates an inclusio, neatly concluding the brief episode that began with a reference to Soaemus (2.481); see the note there. Josephus appears to mean either that Agrippa does not wish to offend his ally Soaemus, the King of Emesa, which seems inherently more likely, or possibly that he takes pity on Noarus because of his father Soaemus and his loss of the father’s territory. Life 61 has Agrippa replace Varus with one Aequus Modius (Lit. “fair measure”).

See the note to this key word at 1.10. At 1.417 (cf. Ant. 16.143) Josephus has illustrated King Herod’s filial piety by noting his construction of this walled fortress, which excelled in both strength and beauty, in honor of his mother Cyprus, of distinguished Nabatean lineage (on whom see 1.181; Ant. 14.121; the name was often found thereafter among Herodian women). Josephus’ construction (“Although . . .”) seems to acknowledge the more famous island-province. See the note to “from above” (same word) at 2.47. See the note at 2.257. Or “cut the guards’ throats.” See the notes at 2.30 and 2.197. All 15 occurrences of καταρρίπτω in Josephus are in War 1-6. This is a high concentration, since the compound verb has only 15 attestations in all Greek literature before Josephus (absent from Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius, Dionysius); Diodorus accounts for a third of those earlier occurrences, and Plutarch has the word only once. For these formidable defenses, see 1.417.

Cf. Appendix A to BJP 1a. Machaerus, mentioned only here in War 2, was a remarkable natural fortress of a mountain, only about 6.5 km (4 miles) E of the Dead Sea, inland from coastal Callirhoe to its NW, but towering some 1100 m (3600 ft) above the lake. In 7.163-209 Josephus will describe the site in some detail, including a history of its occupation and fortification (by Alexander Janneus and later Herod), as context for his account of its capture by Lucilius Bassus in 72 CE. After Herod’s death, the site had become part of Antipas’ tetrarchy—and the reported location of John the Baptist’s execution (Ant. 18.119).

The verb εὐλαβέομαι appears only here in War, though several times later in Josephus. This caution has been amply justified in the narrative by the events described at 2.437, 450-52; cf. the case of Cyprus in 2.484. This is the last of 3 uses of this adjective, all in close proximity, in War; see the note at 2.437. This is a fateful moment, creating a strong center of Judean resistance (along with Masada) until its siege and capture in 72 CE by Lucilius Bassus: 7.190-209.

See the notes to this major city at 2.309 and 385. For the Judean (normally “Jewish”) community in Alexandria, see Stuart Jones 1926; Bell 1941; Wolfson 1944; Tcherikover, CPJ (1957) 1.1-111; Kasher 1985; Mélèze-Modrzejewski 1995: 161-83; Barclay 1996: 19-216; Alston 1997; Honigman 1997; Gruen 2002: 54-83, and relevant sections of Harris and Ruffini 2004. See the notes to this keyword at 1.10 and 2.418: this is another example of στάσις being led by one party only (thus, neither factionalism nor sedition). The ongoing nature of the civil strife in Alexandria, reiterated by Josephus at 2.489 (also Apion 2.32, 70) and echoed by Philo (Legat. 120, 170 [Gaius’ advisor Helicon is said to have been reared in it from the cradle]), is doubted by Gruen (2002: 54-83), who contends that the troubles of 38 CE and immediately following were an aberration from the “predominantly positive” experience of Judeans in Alexandria, and that this conflict in 66 “need not reflect any long-standing enmity” (2002: 83). The difference of perspective may not by its nature be susceptible of resolution: it is entirely possible for minority communities to be doing well in many respects and still feel vulnerable, or on the other hand for numerous incidents of civil strife and violence, which might seem terrifying to outsiders, to leave some urban residents unmoved and still feeling entirely secure. Or “the people from the region, locals” (ἐπιχώριοι). See the note at 2.478. Alexander the Great (356-323 BCE), who founded Alexandria in 332/31 BCE before returning N to cross the Euphrates and pursue his famous eastern campaigns. At Apion 2.35-37, 42-43 Josephus will assert even more vigorously that Alexander settled Judeans in his city, mentioning letters from Alexander in support (2.35, 37, 42, 72). There is some tension, however, with his claim at Ant. 12.8 that it was Ptolemy I Soter who, in capturing Jerusalem and taking many captives, used Judeans as garrison soldiers throughout Egypt and settled others in the capital, making them “equal citizens” with the Macedonians there (see note to “equal footing” in this section). But there Josephus is closely following Ps-Aristeas 13, which makes the same claim for Ptolemy I and relates (§ 9) that Ptolemy II released more than 100,000 Judean slaves. Since Alexander-related legends and fictional documents apparently abounded in Josephus’ time (cf. the story at Ant. 11.329-39), one may easily imagine that Josephus simply believed (without evidence) that the great king had settled Judeans in the city and written letters to that effect. Judeans are reliably attested in Alexandria, by epitaphs (some in Aramaic and Hebrew), from the “early Ptolemaic” period; cf. Horbury and Noy 1992: nos. 1-8. For full critical discussion see Barclay 1996: 27-34 and BJP 10 ad Apion 2.35-43. The superlative προθυμοτάτοις . . . Ἰουδαίοις could mean that Alexander allegedly chose the most energetic Judeans or (perhaps more likely) that he chose the Judeans because they were as a group the most spirited in relation to others. Such a campaign by Alexander, using Judeans against Egyptians, is unattested outside Josephus. But the traditional hostility he alleges between the two peoples—evidenced by texts from the biblical Exodus through Philo (e.g., Legat. 162-70) and the Wisdom of Solomon (12-13) in addition to his Apion (e.g., 1.70, 223-27; 2.137-43)—along with the stereotypical Roman prejudice against Egypt from the time of Marc Antony, would no doubt have made the scenario of Judeans eagerly assisting Alexander, if Josephus had heard of this in traditional stories, both plausible to him and worth mentioning here. The language here (τὸ γέρας ἔδωκεν) anticipates Apion 2.42, where Alexander rewards the Judeans for their manly virtue and loyalty; it also supports basic themes in War (see Introduction). See the note to “settle” at 2.124 (μετοικέω): the sense is of “living alongside”—as a foreign or alien resident. The troublesome text might conceivably reflect copyists’ awareness of conflicting evidence for Judean status in Alexandria (see following note), or perhaps their (Christian) animosity toward the notion. MSS PA have forms of a non-word, ἰσουμοῖρα. Latin has ius urbis aequale. MSS MLVRC, followed by Naber, offer ἰσοτιμία (“equal honor, status”). Although that reads well, it would not explain the garbled reading of MSS PA—honored by Niese’s printing of an obelized ἴσου μοίρας—which is perhaps why Destinon conjectured ἰσομοιρία (“equal share”). Although this would be that word’s only occurrence in Josephus, it is otherwise well attested (e.g., Thucydides 7.75.6; Xenophon, Cyr, 2.2.21, 22; Aristotle, Mund. 396b; Ath. pol. 12.3; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 7.19.2, 28.3; 8.72.3; Plutarch, Thes. 24.2; Dion 38.5; Mor. [Apopth. Lac.] 226e); it is followed by Thackeray (LCL), M-B, Vitucci, and Pelletier. By itself, however, ἰσομοιρία does not have a political, much less a technical sense (contrast the also problematic but clearer ἰσοπολιτεία, on which see the note to “theirs” at 2.266); the context must clarify a political sense (as here and Plutarch, Dion 38.5), though the claim remains vague. Although Josephus can distinguish Greeks from Macedonians in Alexandria (Apion 2.70), he seems confused about the significance of the latter term (see the note later in this section). The “Greeks” here are the normally gymnasium-educated citizens of Alexandria. Cf. 7.44, where Josephus gives the Judeans of the 3rd major city of the empire, Antioch, an equal share (ἐξ ἴσου τῆς πόλεως τοῖς Ἕλλησι μετέχειν).The question of Judean political status in Alexandria has been the subject of careful analysis and debate (see e.g. the works cited in the note to “Alexandreia” at 2.487); it is tied up with larger debates about Alexandrian citizenship generally, in connection with ambiguous terminology used by the sources (Ἀλεξανδρεύς, ἀστοί/ἀσταί, πολίται), the precise relationship between the gymnasium/ephebate and Alexandrian citizenship, the rhetorical tendencies of both literary sources and some papyri, and the problem of the lines between cultural and political-citizenship claims. On all these matters, see Delia 1991.For our purposes, the main points are now clear enough. Both Greek officials and Roman authorities were exercised to define and limit the citizen body of Alexandria, not least because citizens were exempt from the poll tax. Acquisition of citizenship was normally only by inheritance from citizen parents, and one’s credentials were subject to scrutiny upon reaching the age of majority (viz. 14); enrollment in tribe (phyla) and deme, the mark and proof of citizenship, followed at 18. Citizenship grants, which would have required either imperial beneficence or a vote of the entire citizenry, were rare: Apion (cf. Apion 2.28-32, with commentary by Barclay in BJP 10) is the only known Egyptian to have received the grant (cf. Tcherikover in CPJ 1.59-62; Delia 1991: 30-62).Philo insists that “we are Alexandrians” (Legat. 194) and his embassy to Gaius hopes to clarify Judean “citizenship” (Legat. 349), though both terms could be understood as distinct from citizenship in the Greek polis. Josephus obfuscates the matter, whether intentionally or through faulty understanding, with his insistence on Judean equality (as here): at Ant. 14.188, where a bronze stele in the city authorized by Julius Caesar is supposed to declare that Judeans are “citizens in Alexandreia”; in Apion 2.32-42, where he implies that Judeans are “Alexandrians” with a citizenship like that of Apion’s own; and at Ant. 19.280-85, where he purports to cite Claudius referring to something like equality of citizenship (ἴσης πολιτείας). Apropos of the last, we fortunately have a papyrus copy of Claudius’ letter (CPJ 153), in which the princeps tartly declares that although the Judeans enjoy much that is their own, even “an abundance of all good things,” they reside in Alexandria as a city that is not theirs; they have no right to intrude into games presided over by gymnasium officials.The general situation therefore seems clear: Judeans were not Alexandrian citizens, though citizenship might have been possible for individuals from élite families of long residence who satisfied the requirements (cf. some members of Philo’s family, and the Helenos papyrus [CPJ 151]; cf. Wolfson 1944). Judeans whose families had long lived in Alexandria, however, belonged to a prominent community that enjoyed the free exercise of its own communal laws and traditions. They were represented at first by an ethnarch and then, when one of these died in 10-12 CE, by a gerousia (Philo, Flacc. 74).

This is the standard term (οἱ διάδοχοι) for Alexander’s successors in the various parts of his empire, who contended with each other either for the entire empire (at first) or for larger shares of it, though here the Ptolemaic dynasty based in Alexandria are the successors in view. See the note to “Alexander” for relevant actions by Ptolemy I and II. Elaborated at 2.495 as “what is called the Delta” (cf. note there). See Barclay’s note to “waves” at Apion 2.33 in BJP 10, where Josephus cites Apion’s claim that the Judeans had settled “along a harborless shore.” Philo, a life-long resident of the city, is our crucial source for the 1st century CE, and he claims (Flacc. 55) that the Judeans lived throughout the city’s 5 sectors, but so prominently in 2 of them that these were known as “Judean.” Alston (1997: 170) adduces funerary evidence for the general intermingling of Judeans with the rest of the population. See further the note to “Delta” at 2.495. This is a term that War has used only of the Essenes thus far; see the note at 2.137. Josephus uses the verb ἐπιμίσγω only here. Earlier relevant usage, concerning the spread of Egyptian customs to the Judeans (ironically there including circumcision), includes Herodotus 2.104.4 (also 1.185.7; 2.151.2). It is also ironic that the famous Boule papyrus from Alexandria (CPJ 150, 20-19 BCE) requests a council from Augustus precisely so that the Alexandrians might preserve their citizen body and the ephebate free of contamination from the uncultured and unschooled (thus un-Greek). See the note to “used the title of” at 2.27. Cf. Apion 2.36: the Judeans’ tribe has “the title ‘the Macedonians,’” and Ant. 12.8 (Judeans had “equal rights” with the Macedonians). This appears to be another case of Josephus’ misunderstanding of Alexandrian realia—along with the rights affirmed by Julius Caesar (in this section) and possibly even the nature of the “Delta” (2.495). Although the city had been founded by Macedonians in the 4th century BCE, “Macedonian” seems to have had no currency as a political, cultural, or tribal division in Josephus’ time. Since we do know that military units in various jurisdictions were sometimes called “Macedonian” (War 5.460-65, where a joke is made on the difference between the Macedonian name and the sad reality of a unit; cf. also the honorary use of “Thracian” for military units), and papyri reveal Judeans in Alexandria in the late 1st century BCE identifying themselves “Macedonians” (CPJ 142-43), the best explanation of Josephus’ claim appears to be that some Judeans (had) belonged to such a prestigious military unit, but Josephus misunderstood the title as a mark of distinction for all his compatriots in the city. Cf. Tcherikover in CPJ 1.14-15; Delia 1991: 31 n. 115; Barclay ad Apion 2.35-36 in BJP 10. In 30 BCE, under Octavian (later Augustus): following the defeat of Antony and Cleopatra at Actium in 31 and their deaths in Alexandria. This must be Julius Caesar, who lent his name via Augustus to later principes, among whom it became a title after Nero (cf. Suetonius’ biographies, which begin with Caesar; Matyszak 2006). Josephus tends to see him, rather than (Caesar) Augustus, as the founder of the monarchical system in Rome (cf. Ant. 19.172-75, 184, 187-88). We can be nearly certain of Josephus’ meaning here because at Ant. 14.188 he says explicitly that Julius Caesar set up a bronze stele in Alexandria declaring Judean citizenship there, and at Apion 2.37 he speaks of a monument in Alexandria confirming (unspecified) rights given Judeans by “Caesar the Great” (a term shown by Ant. 14.160 and Apion 2.61 [maximus Caesar, as distinct from Caesar Augustus] to indicate the dictator).Josephus may well have in mind the story he has told at 1.190-94 of the extraordinary support rendered to the Caesarian cause in Egypt by Herod’s father Antipater, with a Judean force and the support of the high priest Hyrcanus, which also persuaded the Judeans of Leontopolis to join Caesar (cf. the note to “Delta” at 2.495). Apparently Josephus thinks that during his Alexandrian stay in 47 BCE Caesar issued the decree of Ant. 14.188, in gratitude for this Judean support. Critics nowadays generally agree, however, that Josephus has confused Caesar with his adopted son Augustus, for whom the name Caesar was still crucial (esp. before 27 BCE), and under whom Alexandrian-Judean rights were more likely to have been established by Rome (whereas Egypt was not yet a Roman possession in Caesar’s time). A survey of issues and review of scolarship are in Pucci ben Zeev 1998: 26-31; cf. Barclay ad Apion 2.37 in BJP 10. The same claim (rights granted by Alexander or “the kings,” restated when Alexandria fell under Rome, preserved by successive Roman rulers) is made in Josephus’ version of Claudius’ letter (Ant. 19.280-85) and at Apion 2.35-38.

See the note to this word at 2.232. See the note to “ongoing civil strife” at 2.487. This noteworthy even-handedness of the authorities recalls the actions of the forces under Felix during the first stages of the conflict in Caesarea (2.267-70): though predisposed against the Judeans, according to Josephus they arrested and punished the ringleaders on both sides, though this only aggravated the strife. See the note to this phrase (Greek adverb) at 2.470. See the note to “provoked” at 2.8. Given that Josephus uses μᾶλλον only 18 times in all of War 2, it is striking that he re-uses it in a similar construction in the next sentence here (cf. 304-5 for a similar re-use).

Apparently meaning: in neighboring Judea (as the preceding paragraphs have described), especially in the Greek cities there. Apparently: the Alexandrians. This (μᾶλλον + ἐξάπτω) is a collocation that Josephus will use again at Ant. 5.249; 13.36; 15.420; 18.67; 20.184; Life 298. Although often employed from Galen onward, especially from John Chrysostom, it is barely attested before Josephus’ time (Theophrastus, Hist. plant. 5.9.7; Nicolaus, Frag. 101 line 704 [Müller]). Perhaps this usage was inspired by Nicolaus, though Josephus does not use the passage in which he has the phrase. This is a full citizen assembly in the Alexandrian amphitheater (2.490, 492). This and the similar description of an anti-Judean assembly in the theater of Antioch (7.47) represent the only occurrences of ἐκκλησιάζω in War. It appears 7 times in Antiquities, but in post-Hasmonean times only of Greek or Roman assemblies in a theater or agora (Ant. 17.161; 19.158; cf. 4.302; 6.56; 8.277; 10.93; 12.316). Since Josephus does not explain the purpose of this embassy we are left to infer that, like previous Alexandrian embassies in the 1st century CE (Philo, Legat. 349-72; CPJ 155-56; cf. 157 [Acts of the Alexandrian Martyrs]), it was planning an appeal to the emperor concerning the conflict with the Judeans just mentioned. Rather than trying to send their own counter-embassy as before, however (perhaps out of fear that it will do more harm than good, given the situation in Judea), the Judeans apparently try to interfere with the Alexandrians’ plans. See the note to this phrase at 2.55. See the note to this formulaic phrase in War 2 at 2.170. Josephus gives no clear indication of the Judean intruders’ aims. Were they trying to assert their own “Alexandrian” identity by claiming a say in the sending of this embassy? From his language (whose relationship to historical events remains unclear), the motive seems to be disruptive. Ironically, on any reading this behavior comes close to what Claudius forbids the Judeans to do (P. Lond. 1912, col. V. line 92): “not to intrude themselves [μηδὲ ἐπισπαίειν as generally emended] into the games presided over by gymnasiarchs and kosmetai”—i.e., into activities open only to the gymnasium-educated and Alexandrian citizens. The action and the violent response to it both fit with the kinds of tensions we see in Philo, the papyri, and the Acts of the Alexandrian Martyrs.

All Greek MSS have a form of διαφθείρω (“dispose of”), which implies a contrast between those who died in the confusion of trying to get away and the 3 who were captured and deliberately burned alive—as Whiston read it in the 1730s. On the strength of the Latin dissipati sunt, however, Naber (followed by Niese and other modern editors) conjectured that the verb was rather the similarly formed διασπείρω (here passive: “were scattered”), producing instead a contrast between those who died and those who survived by fleeing (being scattered). Although this solution would yield a clearer sense, the Latin does not seem to provide a strong enough basis for rejecting the unanimous (and difficilior) Greek witness; it could be explained by the desire of its author for the more natural contrast. A larger number of deaths may also provide a better explanation for the Judean community’s immediate and forceful response. See the note at 2.58. More than half of the 25 occurrences of the dramatic verb καταφλέγω in Josephus are in War 2. This is the first of 3 in rapid succession (2.492, 494), with 2 more following soon after (2.505, 509).

See the note at 2.478. See the notes at 2.58, 491. The adjective αὔτανδρος is a Hellenistic construction, which is first used with any regularity (after some fragmentary attestation) by Polybius, who has it 13 times. He or Diodorus (22 occurrences) is the most likely inspiration for Josephus, who uses it 7 times (War 1.368; 3.293; 4.243, 302, 604; Ant. 14.275—enough to show that it is not a source vestige). If only 3 Judeans had been killed (see the note to “escape” at 2.491), the word may be included to suggest that the Judean response was excessive. Even if many had been killed, it was apparently somehow extreme: Josephus makes it the response of “factious . . . revolutionaries” (2.493-94), with whom the governor tries unsuccessfully to reason. The former prefect of Judea and the famous scion of a prominent Judean-Alexandrian family. See 2.220 and notes.

See the note to this verb at 2.345, its only other occurrence in War 2 (where it introduces Agrippa II’s great speech). See the note at 2.8. This is Josephus’ standard language for the élite group of any city or nation; see the note to “powerful [men]” at 2.239. The phrase can also refer to a prominent figure’s friends (see the note to “acquaintances” at 2.433). See the note at 2.316. See the note at 2.91. This is the only occurrence of the compound verb καταχλευάζω in Josephus, and it is rarely attested otherwise, before his time only in Dionysius (Comp. verb. 25). The simple verb is much more common. If not calling him Tiberius Alexander, Josephus otherwise calls the prefect by his Greek cognomen, Alexander (2.220, 223, 309, 497; 4.617; 6.242; Ant. 20.100-103). The shift here appears to be for the sake of variety.

See the note at 2.407. A programmatic term (συμφορά) in War and in bk. 2, enhancing the tragic tone; see the notes at 1.9; 2.286. This entire progression of response, from sending negotiators to unleashing the military, closely resembles the situation faced by Archelaus in Jerusalem at the opening of this book (2.8-12); even the vocabulary is very similar. These were the legiones III Cyrenaica and XXII Deiotariana; see the note to “two legions” at 2.387. The descendants of both will be used in the suppression of the Bar Kochba revolt (132-135 CE), during or after which the latter appears to have faced destruction or disbandment (Parker 1992: 162-63). So MSS PAM, whereas LVRC and Latin both have 5,000—about the size of another legion. But the contrast with “legions of Romans” suggests auxiliary forces. If the figure of 2,000 is correct, this would be the equivalent of about 4 standard cohorts. In Roman parlance this is N Africa, from Egypt to the Straits of Gibraltar; see the note at 2.115. Legio III Augusta was the only legion in Africa during this period, based in Ammaedara (mod. Tunisia); see notes to 2.383. This (ὄλεθρος) is a late addition to Josephus’ lexicon of disaster, though he will use it often in the sequel (15 times in War 2-7, 44 times in Antiquities-Life). See the note to this characteristic Josephan phrase at 2.468. See the notes at 2.58, 491.

For the phrase “what is called the Delta,” see also Herodotus 2.13.9; Polybius 3.49.7 (with reference to the Nile Delta), either of whom Josephus may be deliberately echoing. Since Philo explains that the city had 5 sectors, named after the first letters of the alphabet (hence there was a Delta sector), scholars have naturally accepted Josephus’ word that the Delta sector was the Judeans’ base in Alexandria. Yet there are two problems. (a) A papyrus that incidentally mentions the Delta sector (BGU 4.1151)—making no connection with Judeans—appears to locate it to the W of the city (Fraser 1972: 2.109-10 n. 270), whereas Josephus (or at least Apion, whom he does not challenge on this point) apparently understands the Judean base to be on the E side (Apion 2.33, 36 with Barclay ad loc. in BJP 10). (b) In the very passage where Philo mentions the 5 sectors (Flacc. 55), he foregoes the opportunity to highlight the Delta sector or mention any Judean associations with it, rather insisting that two sectors are distinctively Judean and that his compatriots are actually dispersed throughout the whole city.I would point out further that Josephus does not speak here of a Delta sector or quarter, as Philo does. His language is vaguer. It may be no more than a curious coincidence that he uses the very same expression, “what is called the Delta” (τὸ καλούμενον Δέλτα), in a different but related context. At Ant. 14.133 (par. War 1.191) he has just related the shift toward Julius Caesar of many petty rulers in the E, including the high priest Hyrcanus and Herod’s father Antipater, after the death of Pompey (48 BCE). When Mithradates of Pergamum tries to join Antipater in Egypt, Antipater assists him in getting past a defiant Ascalon; and when the Judeans of Leontopolis also then attempt to halt this expedition, Antipater persuades them (with letters from the high priest) to join the Caesarian cause (14.127-32). Now, “after he [Mithridates] had gone all around what is called the Delta (τὸ καλούμενον Δέλτα), he engaged the enemy near what is called the ‘Judeans’ Camp’” (περὶ τὸ καλούμενον Ἰουδαίων στρατόπεδον; 14.133).This association between an ancient Judean settlement in Egypt and “what is called the Delta”—i.e., here the Nile Delta, which is how “Delta” is consistently used in connection with Egypt outside of Josephus (e.g., Herodotus 2.13.9, 15.2, 11; Plato, Tim. 21e; Theophrastus, Hist. plant. 1.9.5; Polybius 3.49.7; Strabo 1.2.23 et passim)—might conceivably explain the origin of his association of Judeans with “what is called the Delta.”This episode of Antipater’s military support for Caesar appears to have occupied a fixed place in his thinking, from War (1.191) to Antiquities (14.133, 188) and Apion (2.32-37). It appears to be the basis for his firmly held but apparently mistaken notion that Caesar established citizen rights for Judeans in Alexandria (in return for precisely this help). Although he had spent some time in the city (Life 415), we have noted his apparent confusion about inscriptions from “Caesar” and about the alleged Macedonian tribe to which Judean citizens belong (see notes at 2.488). Since he is the only one to connect Alexandrian Judeans with “what is called the Delta,” and it is a problematic connection, and his language here is exactly that of Ant. 14.133, it seems plausible that he has also confused the second-hand story of an old Judean base in the (Nile) Delta with the Delta sector of Alexandria—if only as a momentary slip of the mind by word association, which he failed to correct. See the note at 2.478. Although I normally translate Greek litotes as a strong positive to avoid the ambiguity of an English double negative, here the emphatic form makes the meaning clear. The adverb ἀναιμωτί is Homeric (Il. 17.363, 497; Od. 18.149; 24.532), but rarely attested between Homer and Philo’s 6 occurrences (viz., Apollonius of Rhodes, Arg. 2.986; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 6.51.3), though it appears 6 times in War 1-6 (also Ant. 19.115) and plentifully from Josephus’ time onward. Once again he seems to be using language that has recently come into vogue. This innate military know-how of untrained men fits with Josephus’ portrait of Judeans throughout War; see Introduction. MSS PAL have the aorist participle of ἐκκλίνω, which Josephus can use in battle contexts for “giving way, yielding, falling out (of order), escape”: 1.306; 3.208. MVRC have simple κλίνω (“turn something aside, cause it to lean”). But Niese prints Bekker’s conjectural emendation based on ἐγκλίνω, which is followed by other modern editors. For a similar use of ἐγκλίνω in battle conditions, see 5.288. See the note at 2.11. See the note to this characteristic adverb at 2.328.

See the note to this newly introduced word at 2.494. It is typical of Josephus’ style that he will re-use this word (παντοῖος) a few sentences later in a completely different context (2.504: “of all sorts”)—the only occurrences in War 2. Or “flat area” (ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ), as distinct from the built-up residential area. See the note at 2.227. This is the only occurrence of the doubly compound verb προδιαρπάζω in Josephus. It is not attested in literature before him; after him, only in Cassius Dio (37.14.3) and occasionally in Byzantine authors. It is another example of highly compact, artful diction in this narrative. Killing, plundering (with raping), and then burning was the normal sequence—the only one that made military sense—for Roman soldiers destroying a city, and for other ancient armies: Polybius 10.15.4-16.9; Livy 29.20.6-7; Ziolkowski 1993. The same will happen on a larger scale to Jerusalem (e.g., 6.352-55; note 6.363 on the disappointment concerning plunder). For this tragic language, see the note at 2.474. Cf. 2.465: young and old, along with women, are the stock foci of pity during a siege. See the notes to “women and children” at 2.192 and to “children and women” at 2.237.

In his speech at Masada, Eleazar son of Ya‘ir, who further inflates the already large numbers given in bk. 2 for his rhetorical purposes, remarks that according to report the number of Judeans in Egypt who died under torture at this time “exceeded perhaps 60,000” (7.369). The city probably had more than 500,000 residents in total, with as many as 180,000 Judeans there (Delia 1988: 287-88). Still, either number of victims is difficult to conceive of (though not demonstrably wrong) on practical grounds. That there was a horrendous massacre seems likely from its impact on this narrative, which would otherwise be subject to disproof in Josephus’ Rome. See the note to this formulaic language at 2.30. This is the first of 6 occurrences of ἱκετηρία in Josephus, all in War. His usage is normally metaphorical, as here: the word literally indicates the palm branches, woven with white thread, that served as the symbol of supplication when held up and waved. That literal meaning will appear at 2.637 below. The prefect, Tiberius Iulius Alexander (2.492, 494). This is the only occurrence of κατοικτείρω in War (see “compassion” at 1.12 for the important semantic group), though Josephus uses the verb several times in Antiquities.

Literally “nod” (νεῦμα), though the term is used of field signals generally, such as the lowering of an arm or even a trumpet blast (3.15, 89; 6.256; cf. 2.173). Although Josephus’ audiences lacked the resources to track them, this noun and the next (see next note) afford us some insight into his tendencies. This immediate response by the soldiers anticipates 3.15 and especially 3.89, the digression on the Roman army in which Josephus asserts that the legions respond instantly to signals. But in the only remaining occurrence of the term (6.256), Titus is made to look foolish as he yells and waves his arms in futility (trying to prevent the temple’s burning), while his soldiers either cannot or will not—because of their rage—listen to him. Josephus thus elaborately sets up the image of invincible Roman discipline, partly in order to undermine it and favorably compare Judean martial virtues. This (τὸ πειθήνιον) is another substantivized neuter adjective serving as a noun, typical of War but unattested otherwise before the early 3rd-cent. CE historian Herodian (2.20.2). Since there are only 4 occurrences in Josephus, all in War (2.300, 498; 3.104; 5.121), for the knowing reader this anticipates the next one, in Josephus’ glowing description of the legions’ allegedly unswerving obedience (3.104). But the final occurrence in War (5.121) undermines that portrait, showing a Titus who is furious at his legions’ disobedience and citing Judean obedience to their commanders as a counter-example. See, similarly, the previous note. Here Josephus’ rhetoric aims to highlight the Alexandrians’ lack of self-control. The elegant, doubly compound adjective δυσανάκλητος occurs only here in Josephus. Attested before his time only in a fragment of the minor (3rd-cent. BCE) medical writer Erasistratus (frag. 253 [Garofalo]), it appears nonetheless in Josephus’ contemporary, Plutarch (Thes. 24.1; Mor. [Adul. amic.] 74e), and several 2nd-century and later authors, though it remains rare. Once again his War appears to be at the height of lexical fashion. Alexandrian and especially Egyptian hatred of the Judeans has been clearly asserted as a premise for this episode (see the note to “ongoing civil strife” at 2.487) and it will remain a constant theme until it is fully developed in the Apion, which is configured as a response to Egyptian-Alexandrian slanders: 1.70, 223-27; 2.1-2. The image, sharpened by contrast to the disciplined legionaries, is of dogs or other animals governed by instinct rather than reason or self-control.

Whether Josephus uses the μὲν . . . δέ construction to do more than create a segue back to Syria and Judea—e.g., whether he also means to compound Judean suffering everywhere by now describing Cestius’ campaign—is unclear. See the note to this recently emphasized keyword at 2.469. See the note at 2.315. This is the only other occurrence of the construction in Josephus; the juxtaposition of πάθος (“suffering”) confirms the growing sense of impending doom. Or “having been drawn into hostilities.” The passive voice of ἐκπολεμόω (active: “provoke, incite to conflict, war; make an enemy”) emphasizes the suffering of the Judeans at the moment. It is not clear whether this reflection on the Judean situation should belong to the thought of Cestius (he could see that Judeans were the common ingredient in conflicts throughout Syria and intended to punish them for being drawn in, or something of the sort) or to the narrator (Josephus is summarizing for his audience that the Judeans in the Syrian cities as in Alexandria had been pushed into the position of “enemy” through no fault of their own; Cestius did not understand this, but only saw conflicts that needed ending).

Since the legionary camps were not in Antioch itself, but distributed to the N, E, and S, Josephus is simplifying what must have been a considerable logistical effort orchestrated by Cestius from the provincial capital. See Rey-Coquais 1978: 67-71 and the following notes. Cf. the similar list of legionary and allied soldiers gathered by the Syrian governor Varus in 4 BCE for a campaign against rebellious Judeans after Herod’s death (2.67) and that collected for the war itself (3.66-69). In this case (and probably in bk. 3), the impressive list of military resources at the Romans’ command serves to heighten the disaster that they faced at the hands of the Judeans, in keeping with War’s purpose of correcting disparaging accounts of the Judean side (1.1-8). Legio XII Fulminata was based in Raphanea (so War 7.18), at least from 62 to 69 CE (Rey-Coquais 1978: 67). It was recovering from a recent and terrible disgrace in the Armenian campaign of 63 CE: under the inept supreme command of Caesennius Paetus (see further 2.510), the 4th and the 12th had to beat a disgraceful retreat from the Parthian Vologeses, earning the contempt of Corbulo (Tacitus, Ann. 15.7-17); they were reportedly so depleted and dispirited that Corbulo sent them back to Syria and refused to use them in the remainder of his campaign (15.26).As the southern-most of the Syrian legions—a mere 25 miles (40 km) NW of Emesa, which contributed allied forces to the campaign (2.501)—Legio XII was at this point perhaps easiest to muster, 3 years after the Armenian debacle and at full strength for a Judean campaign. A legion’s potential strength was approximately 5,400, and Josephus’ language suggests that the 12th had been fully replenished. These vexillationes amounted to 4 cohorts from each legion (a total of 24 centuries). The separation of cohorts from a legion for specific duties was common practice. Aside from XII Fulminata, the legions based in Syria at this time (see Tacitus, Ann. 4.5 for the basic disposition in Tiberius’ time, though Corbulo’s campaigns had caused temporary shifts in the late 50s and 60s) were III Gallica (soon to depart for Moesia), VI Ferrata (possibly now at Raphanea with the 12th), and the renowned X Fretensis at Zeugma, in the NE of the province on the Euphrates (cf. Rey-Coquais 1978: 67-71; Dabrowa 1986, 1993, 1996). See the notes to “cohort” at 2.11 and “Sebastenes” at 2.52. These 6 cohorts matched the entire auxiliary forces of Judea (3,000 to 3,500 men), though in this case they appear to have been raised from Syria. Since that province hosted about 21,000 legionary soldiers, we would expect close to the same number of auxiliaries. We do not have a clear picture of the number, size, and location of auxiliary forces in Syria at this time, though two diplomas from 88 CE indicate the presence of at least 19 infantry cohorts and 8 cavalry wings (Butcher 2003: 412): so at least about 14,000 troops, possibly 2-3,000 more. See the note to the same phrase at 2.67 (under Varus) and to “cavalry” at 2.235. These would probably be auxiliary units numbering about 500 each, each under the command of a Roman praefectus alae—a prestigious position for young equestrians who had already commanded infantry cohorts and served as legionary tribunes (Parker 1992: 188-90; Webster 1979: 112-13). The Roman auxiliary configuration of 3,000 infantry (6 x 500) plus 2,000 cavalry (4 x 500) thus matches more or less precisely the forces contributed by the next two allied kings. The Greek sentence here is long and complex, ending only at the end of § 501, with the contributions from Agrippa and Soaemus included before the conclusion that Cestius advanced to Ptolemais. Since the sentence must be divided in English, I have brought that clause forward.For Ptolemais see the notes at 2.68 and especially 2.187-88. Since 54 CE, the city has been a Roman colonia; cf. Millar 1990. At 2.477 Josephus has included this city among those that massacred their Judean inhabitants—2,000 in that case. The same 3 kings will also provide allied forces, though strangely fewer in number, to the major campaign of Vespasian and Titus (3.68). This is Antiochus IV, king by Claudius’ grant of Commagene (ca. 41 CE), the mountainous region N of the province of Syria (in S Turkey, N of the Euphrates), between Cilicia to the W and Armenia to the E (Ant. 19.273-76), with Samosata on the Euphrates as its principal city. Like other client kings in the area, Antiochus had close relations with the Herodians; his son would marry the daughter of Agrippa I (sister of Agrippa II), Mariamme (Ant. 19.355). Although Antiochus remained a loyal ally of the Romans and duly contributed to the war effort (cf. 3.68; esp. 5.460-65), one of the moving “reversals of fortune” charted by Josephus in War involves this king’s eventual removal from his kingdom by the Syrian governor (Caesennius Paetus), in 72-73 CE, on false charges of having entered an alliance with Parthia against Rome (7.219-243). The total of 5,000 from each these client kings roughly matched the 5,000+ Syrian auxiliaries and the strength of the 12th legion. Martial archery, especially on horseback, was a famous specialty of the Parthians and of peoples originating from Parthia or Mesopotamia; cf. Herod’s employment of Zamaris’ force of 500 mounted archers from Babylonia (Ant. 17.23-31). Since infantry soldiers or horsemen who were also accomplished archers presented a much more serious threat to their enemies, being able to strike with accuracy from a distance, Josephus often pauses to mention separately the number of archers (e.g., at 3.68). This is the Judean king Agrippa II, a prominent figure in the narrative thus far, last mentioned at 2.481-83 (as having gone to confer with Cestius in Antioch). The Latin offers 1,000 (mille), though with no evident basis.

According to Ant. 20.158, Soaemus (not to be confused with the father of the Noarus recently mentioned, tetrarch of Libanus; 2.481, 483; cf. Life 52) was the brother of Azizus, king of Emesa. When Azizus, who had undergone circumcision in order to marry the Herodian Drusilla (sister of Agrippa II; 20.139), died in 54 CE, his kingdom went to Soaemus. Emesa (mod. Homs) was a small independent kingdom in Syria, N of Iturea on the Orontes River near its source. Soaemus will be a significant ally of Rome in the war (3.68), and will later join in the campaign of Caesennius Paetus to oust King Antiochus from Commagene (7.219-26). The simplest reading is that the “majority” represent the other two thirds: the infantry. This would also match Soaemus’ contribution to Vespasian’s force (3.68): 2,000 infantry archers and 1,000 cavalry. The awkwardness of dividing 4,000 in the same way no doubt explains the variant “3,000” in MS V.

Presumably: from the cities of Syria, the Decapolis, and the coastal region, mentioned in the preceding paragraphs as sites of serious conflict with their Judean inhabitants. Berytians are specifically mentioned at 2.506. Or “experience” (ἐμπειρία). For the rare compound verb, see the note to “refills itself” at 2.190. As a Judean king with wide experience in the area, Agrippa would be able to advise on the most suitable approaches for military strikes and the likely tactics of the enemy given the terrain. This pointed reference to expert intelligence makes the following terrain-related catastrophes suffered by Cestius’ forces all the more shocking. Greek τῶν συμφερόντων [ἐξηγούμενος] could have several meanings because of ambiguity in the verbs: “in charge of, leading, interpreting, or figuring out” and “what would benefit the army, the care of the troops, what would be advantageous, what would happen (eventualities), or the assistance efforts”—as here. The last possibility might mean that Agrippa, still under 40 years of age, was in charge of all the supporting allied forces.

Josephus often applies this adjective (καρτερός)—“solid, steadfast, secure, tough”, an admirable trait also of men (see the note to “endurance” at 2.138)—to cities (War 1.321; 2.511; 3.111, 157, 290, 302; 4.412; Ant. 2.250; 3.304; 4.171; 5.5, 72; 8.306, 383; 10.136; 13.16, 202; 15.297; Life 327). His re-use of this phrase after just a few sentences (2.511) is typical of his tendency to use words or phrases in clusters. Although the Greek MSS, Latin, and Hegesippus agree on Zabulon, we follow Niese’s conjecture: the description fits precisely Josephus’ descriptions elsewhere of Chabulon (mod. Kabul) in the foothills of W Galilee next to the Plain of Acco-Ptolemais, about 14 km SE of Ptolemais, and marking the W extremity of Lower Galilee (3.38; Life 213, 227, 234). The site served for some time as a base for Josephus in his defense of Galilee against Roman forces based in Ptolemais. An early scribal misreading or “correction” of serifed X for Z (to match biblical Zebulun) is easy to imagine. The phrase ἣ καλεῖται ἀνδρῶν, found in all the MSS, though not in Hegesippus, has caused commentators much difficulty. Niese printed it but suspected a corruption; Thackeray reads καλεῖται with “Chaboulon,” dropping the relative pronoun and the genitive noun on the hypothesis that the latter was read in from the next line (which also has ἀνδρῶν), though this would not explain well the deliberate look of the whole phrase. Pelletier offers “La Salle,” following Schalit’s proposal (Namenwörterbuch 1968 ad Ζαβουλών) that Josephus wrote not the genitive plural but the rarely attested singular ἀνδρών (“men’s apartment,” by extension “banquet-hall”), noting the large Herodian ἀνδρῶνες described by Josephus at 5.177 (cf. Ant. 15.199; 16.164 variants). This ingenious solution may be correct, though it remains a problem whether an audience would likely have caught the meaning. On the other hand, a town nick-named “Men’s Town” or similar (even if the name were invented by Josephus) would suit the context, given its stalwart nature. On the theme of manliness in Josephus’ War, see the Introduction and Mason 2007d. I.e., from the Judean ethnos, a point made also at Josephus’ other references to Chabulon’s location (3.38; Life 213, 227, 234). Josephus will repeat this unusual usage at 2.510.

Josephus appears to intend humorous irony: the City of Men was now deserted of men, who had fled in fear. Note the very similar language at 2.515 below, though with a different point and context. Chabulon was in the foothills of Galilee, which lay to the E. See the note to “various forms” at 2.496: a relatively rare word re-used within a few sentences. These are the 3 major cities of the Phoenician coast, moving N from Judea; Tyre sits only about 45 km (28 miles) N of Ptolemais. Capturing, plundering (at the general’s signal), and burning were the normal consequences for rebellious towns that fell into Roman hands; see the note to “carnage” at 2.70.

This is the only occurrence of the neuter-participle construction τὸ προσπῖπτον in Josephus, though he often uses the compound verb. For the construction with πᾶν, see Aristotle, Ep. 4.16; Polybius 10.46.2; otherwise, Isocrates, Fil. Jas. 10; Plato, Tim. 45c. See the note at 2.58. See the note to “carnage” at 2.70. These must be only the small villages in the immediate vicinity of Chabulon, since at 2.510 Cestius will dispatch a general with an army to deal with Galilee as a whole.

Although it had been more than 80 years since Marcus Agrippa’s foundation of Berytus as a Roman colonia (see the note to “Berytus” at 2.67), it is easy to imagine that the veterans’ ethos of the city would particularly energize feelings of auxiliaries levied there against the rebelling Judeans. Note the similar structure at 2.541 below. Or “destroyed”; see the note at 2.11. Perhaps we should understand that these vulnerable soldiers included largely inexperienced recruits levied from the cities (2.502), who were motivated chiefly by animus against the Judeans.

Although this is the first occurrence of ἀναζεύγνυμι in War 2, and only the second in War (cf. 1.357), Josephus will use it again in rapid succession at 2.513, 540. It seems part of his distinctive lexicon; see the note at Life 44 in BJP 9. The procurator’s headquarters (cf. 2.16 and note), where serious and programmatic conflicts have broken out, leading to the current conflict (2.266-92, 457). Caesarea would be a 2-day march from Ptolemais with an army, about 61.5 km (38 miles). On marching distances, see Gilliver 1999: 49-53. The major Judean port after it was given to Herod by Octavian; see the note at 2.97. Cestius thus sends part of the army nearly twice as far down the coast as his stop at Caesarea (another 51.5 km, 32 miles): 2 days’ further march at reasonable speed or conceivably a forced march of one day for a small tactical unit. As the context indicates, he hopes for a surprise attack to secure these two port cities (presumably, to block escape as well as additional recruiting or resupply from abroad) before moving inland to Galilee and Judea. Since the verb is plural, whereas the antecedent “city” is singular, and the Latin has oppidani as subject, Destinon conjectured that οἱ ἔνδον dropped out in transmission. It would be no great surprise, however, if Josephus treated “city” (representing citizens) as a plural subject here. Or “the approach” (ἡ ἔφοδος). Given the immediate sequel, in which they do wait for the remaining army, we should apparently assume that the advance force believed the Joppans had detected their approach. It is not clear, however, that Cestius himself goes to Joppa.

Cestius appears thus far as a formidable tactician, using not only surprise but an unexpected approach from the sea by part of his force to surround the people of Joppa. See the note to “carnage” at 2.70; the pattern is set at 2.505 and repeated at 2.509.

Such a number, unusually specific (not rounded to the thousand), would presumably represent Joppa’s entire population. See the note to “a district of theirs” at 2.291. Josephus portrays this elusive area of Narbata as a Judean enclave of villages in the foothills of NW Samaria, some 12 km (7.5 miles) SE of Caesarea. Josephus evidently uses the word loosely, since 3.54-55 describes 11 administrative toparchies (cf. Pliny, Nat. 5.70), not including this one. This is the reading of MSS PAL Latin; although MVRC read ἐπαρχία (“province”), that would be yet more problematic. See also the following note. The only other occurrence of ὅμορος in War describes the toparchy of Acrabeta, sharing a border with Judea (2.235). If Josephus imagined these two Judean enclaves in Samaria as a pair, that might explain his transference of the term “toparchy” from Acrabeta to Narbata; see previous note. See the note to this word at 2.55. For Cestius’ considerable cavalry assets, see 2.500-1. I.e., with speed on horseback, they cut down trees and grain crops, laying waste to the land; for the expression cf. Thucydides 1.81.6; 2.21.2-3, 55.1, 56.4, 57.2, 73.2, 74.1; 3.88.4; 5.14.3, 31.3; Isocrates, Big. 13; Pac. 100; Plato, Resp. 471c. Or “destroyed”; see the note at 2.11. See the note to this characteristic Josephan phrase at 2.468. See the note at 2.58. This is the pattern of Roman military behavior in this context (2.505, 508); see the note to “carnage” at 2.70.

Although A. Caesennius Gallus is named again in War only at 3.31 (a retrospective glance at this same campaign), the audience might easily make inferences about his ability as commander from the performance of his 12th Legion, which will be central to the following story. Caesennius came from a favored senatorial family in Rome: his father or perhaps uncle, L. Iunius Caesennius Paetus, had been ordinary consul in 61 CE under Nero, and married a Flavia Sabina (ILS 995), perhaps Vespasian’s niece, in the early 70s (Townend 1961: 59; cf. Syme 1958: 595 n. 5); another L. Iunius Caesennius Paetus, apparently another son (Carroll 1979: 198), would be suffect consul probably in 79 CE (Gallivan 1981: 189; PIR2 C 168, 173, 174). The father had incurred Nero’s displeasure as governor of Cappadocia for reckless handling of the 4th and 12th legions (see next note); he was removed from command of the Armenian campaign in 63 CE (Tacitus, Ann. 15.6-28), but would find favor again as Vespasian’s relative and as legatus to Syria in 72-73 CE, where yet again he appears to have engaged in reckless behavior—now toward the client royals of Commagene (War 7.59, 219-38). Cf. Garzetti 1966.The man in question here (PIR2 C 170) would go on to govern Cappadocia-Galatia in 80-82 CE (Sherk 1951: 39-40; Syme 1977: 39 n. 11). This implies that he had risen to the consulship in the meantime, though if so his dates in that office are unknown. At any rate, Josephus’ mention of this younger Caesennius in connection with Legio XII Fulminata would certainly have caught the attention of an élite Roman audience in the 70s. For the cognomen Gallus, see the note at 2.280. See the note at 2.500. Cf. 2.503, where Josephus also speaks of the Judean “nation” (ἔθνος) in Galilee.

See the note to this phrase at 2.503 above. At 3.33-34 Josephus elaborates on the situation and strategic importance of Sepphoris. See the note to this important city, the effective capital of Galilee now, at 2.56. For Sepphoris’ peaceful disposition (and the hostility this reportedly engendered among some other Galileans) see also Life 30, with the note to “Sepphorites” in BJP 9 and Life 39. Both the coinage of the city, which styled itself as “City of Peace” and Neronias (until Nero’s death in 68), and the archaeology from the time of the war attest to its commitment to peace with Rome. Cf. Meshorer 1982: 2.167-69 and Meyers 2002. By contrast, a much earlier Syrian legate had attacked and burned Sepphoris, also marching from Ptolemais, as his first effort to quash the revolt that broke out on Herod’s death in 4 BCE (2.68), because a leading rebel had based himself there (2.56). In the narrative, this “good advice” is easily intelligible as a lesson learned 70 years before. For “factious” see the note at 2.91; for the collocation with “bandit,” 2.235. Mt. Asamon (Atzmon) sits directly across the Beit-Netofa valley from Sepphoris, 7.5 km (4.67 miles) to the N, in front of Josephus’ chosen fortress town of Iotapata (the next hill N). Asamon is indeed the highest point in the region, at about 550 m (1800 ft), and is accurately described as the most central mountain in Galilee. It was a natural choice for local rebels.

Cf. Gichon 1981: 49-50, for discussion of the maneuvers involved, with illustrations. It seems that the Judeans had simply seized the slopes of Mt. Atzmon facing the plain and within striking distance of the advancing Romans. Gallus, while maintaining pressure on the front, sent a detachment around the enemy’s flank, to approach them from the higher elevation behind. In this scenario, Gallus bears some blame for walking into such an obviously disadvantageous battle; but the Judeans reveal a complete lack of experience in selecting a position so short-sightedly. I.e., the infantry who have climbed up behind the Judean rebels. Josephus uses τροπή only twice in War 2, and in close proximity (also 2.541). This illustrates his tendency to cluster uses of many words and phrases. As educated audiences knew, the cavalry would remain in the flat plain, where they had the clear advantage over foot-soldiers; see the note to “plain” at 2.12.

At 2.507 it seemed that both Cestius and Caesennius Gallus remained based in Caesarea, notwithstanding the following suggestion that the rest of the army joined the units that had gone ahead to Joppa. Although Josephus’ contrastive sentence structure might suggest that Caesennius Gallus and the 12th legion were not part of Cestius’ force, later passages make it clear that the 12th remained the principal component of that army and its catastrophe (5.41; 7.18). This was an important site at the crossroads of the inland N-S route from Caesarea to Lydda (cf. 2.515) and S, or E to Jerusalem via Beit Horon, and the W-E route from coastal Apollonia to Gophna and on to Jerusalem from the N. It was about 45 km (28 miles) march from Caesarea, conceivable as a single day’s forced march for an unencumbered unit in a hurry (which the context may suggest), but more likely 2 days’ march for an army in normal conditions; see Gilliver 1999: 49-53.Refounded by Herod, and named in honor of his father Antipater (War 1.417), approximately on the site of biblical Aphek (see the later note in this sentence) and Hellenistic Pegae (“springs”), the city marked the nexus of Judea, Samaria, and the coastal plain. It achieved fame primarily through its mention in the NT Acts (23:22-23) as a stop on Paul’s journey from Jerusalem to Caesarea, and the transition-point from hostile Judean territory. For the archaeology, see Appendix A to BJP 1a. Translating Greek litotes: “a force of not a few.” Migdal Aphek (Aphek Turris) was a village (mod. Mejdel Yaba) a short distance E of Antipatris.

See the note to this formulaic phrase in Josephus at 2.77. The sentence recalls, also in its diction, the Judean flight before Varus in 4 BCE (2.72).

See the note to this important site at 2.242. Note the very similar phrasing at 2.504. Since these are the only two passages in Josephus that contain this verb with “empty” or “deserted” of “men”, this is another example of his tendency to cluster phrases in proximity and not use them again. I.e., Booths or Tabernacles (Sukkot), in September/October. This is the only reference to the festival by this name in War (cf. Ant. 4.209; 8.100, 123, 225; 11.77, 154; 13.46, 241, 372; 15.50). The name σκηνοπηγία is taken from LXX Deut 16:16 (cf. John 7:2), for Hebrew ‮חג הסכות‬‎. This is the week-long autumnal harvest festival beginning on Tishri 15, soon after Yom Kippur. It required Israelites to live in booths, recalling the period in the wilderness en route to the promised land (Lev 23:33-43; Deut 16:13-16; Ezra 3:4; Neh 8:14-17). It seems likely, given Agrippa’s presence as adviser on local matters (2.502), that Cestius pressed his advance partly in order to catch the Judeans while they were distracted by this major festival.

Or “destroyed”; see the note at 2.11. See the note to this important site—comprising two towns, respectively at the upper and lower ends of a steep and difficult pass—at 2.228; for Cestius’ disastrous return via the same route, see 2.542-56 below. This is the first of 3 occurrences of the verb στρατοπεδεύω in close proximity (also 2.528, 530), whereas it appears elsewhere in bk. 2 only at 2.44. Gabaon (Gibeon, el-Jib): about 9 km or 5.6 miles from Upper Beit Horon, about over half-way along the road from there to Jerusalem. Cestius will return here in retreat from Jerusalem and Mt. Scopus (2.544). It is about 32 km (20 miles) from Lydda: a difficult day’s march for an army, given the challenge of the Beit-Horon pass just mentioned (see Gilliver 1999: 49-53 on marching distances). As Josephus’ language everywhere emphasizes, Cestius was determined to move at the greatest possible speed and deprive the enemy of time to prepare.Gibeon was famous from the Bible: its Hivite inhabitants reportedly arranged a deceitful treaty with Joshua, who made them woodcutters and water-carriers for the Israelites (Josh 9:3-6, 16-27).

When this was is far from clear, though a decision on the matter affects one’s reading of the sequel (2.521). Bar-Kochva (1976: 18) imagines that the Judeans’ strike was more or less immediate upon the army’s arrival at Gabaon, while the rear was still ascending Beit-Horon (2.521), but this is difficult to square with Josephus’ narrative, which implies that a camp was established before the first contact (2.516). Gichon (1981: 53) has Cestius camping overnight at Gabao and the Judeans planning an ambush for the next day, which occurred “possibly not later than the early morning hours of the second day of Cestius’ advance into the mountains.” That makes sense of this passage, though it still leaves problems for Simon’s attack on the rearguard “ascending at Beit-Horon” (2.521: see further the notes there). See the note to this word at 2.400. The adjective ἄτακτος here usually implies a contrast with τεταγμένος (Xenophon, Mem. 3.1.7; Cyr. 1.4.22, 6.35; Plato, Leg. 780d; Hippocrates, Humor. 9; Demosthenes, Aristog. 1.15; Aristotle, Cael. 280a; Probl. 920b; Theophrastus, Hist. plant. 1.8.3; Polybius 38.6.4; Plutarch, Mor. 5a; 416c), thus: “disordered, random, unformed, in disarray, unsettled” over against “ordered, arranged, positioned, formed up, arrayed, settled.” Josephus mainly uses the privative adjective in military contexts, to indicate a disorderly force (War 1.382; 2.517; 3.113; 4.231; 6.255; Ant. 15.150-52). The most obvious contrast is with the precisely ordered Roman legions and auxiliaries (cf. esp. 3.70-109). See also the note to “irregular exercises” at 2.649. “But” is not in MSS PAL, which are often the best, though Niese regards as probable the MSS readings that have it. Even if Josephus omitted it, something like it seems necessary. Josephus continues War’s pattern of using “seventh [day],” adding “sabbath” for local color and variation of diction. See the note to “seventh days” at 2.147. This is an ominous notice, recalling Agrippa’s admonition at 2.392-93 that either sabbath observance will hinder a war or its violation will bring divine punishment. The construction is another of War’s articular neuter participles: τὸ [μάλιστα παρ’ αὐτοῖς] θρησκευόμενον occurs only here in Josephus, and is otherwise attested only in the undated History of Alexander (1.32.2), before the Byzantine chroniclers.

This is the first of 5 occurrences of ἐκσείω in Josephus, all in War (2.544; 3.246; 4.431; 6.28). The compound is rarely attested before him (Herodotus 4.64; Aristophanes, Ach. 344; Polybius 6.44.6; Diodorus 18.66.5—all possible models), though it becomes popular among his younger contemporaries (Plutarch, Timol. 15.6; Ant. 14.5; 60.4; 79.6; Mor. [Virt. sent.] 78b; [Quaest. conv.] 713a; Epictetus in Arrian, Diatr. 1.26.11; 4.9.10, 13.22; Lucian, Tim. 43). It is another example of War’s use of newly fashionable diction and (in the next occurrence, 2.544) of Josephus’ tendency to re-use phrases in close proximity. Or “with such a rush, charge” (ὁρμή). Unlike most of War’s later battle accounts, this one gives no clear picture of the location, terrain, or type of encounter. Were the Romans attacked in their camp at Gibeon, on the march to Jerusalem in an ambush, or in a set battle of some sort? Or (as elsewhere) “getting rid of them, disposing of them” (ἀναιρέω): Josephus’ preferred euphemism for killing.

This was precisely the function of cavalry “wings”: support of the infantry column in trouble, or harrying and rapidly pursuing a retreating enemy (Webster 1979: 145-47; Gilliver 1999: 110-12). The double compound ἐκπεριέρχομαι occurs in War only here and a few paragraphs later (2.565); see the note to “bamboozled” there. At the only other occurrence of the neuter participial phrase τὸ κάμνον in his corpus, a few paragraphs below (2.579), Josephus the general will train his army in the very same principle. In this early encounter Josephus is laying the ground for one of War’s main themes: in contrast to existing accounts that belittle the Judean effort, he will show how tough his compatriots proved to be (cf. 1.4-12 and Introduction).

The superlative γενναιότατοι probably connotes here “most courageous, capable” (as at 4.51, 427), though its root meaning connected with noble origin might also come into play with these particular men, who all apparently belong to the élite. Monobazus II, the current Adiabenian king (ruled ca. 58 to mid-70s CE?), was the son of Monobazus Bazeus (ruled 20-30 CE?), husband of Queen Helena; Monobazus II was thus the brother and successor of Izates (ruled ca. 34-58 CE; Ant. 20.18, 24-26, 93-96). Like his mother and brother, he had reportedly adopted Judean laws (Ant. 20.75). See the notes to “Adiabene” and “war” at 2.388 and 389, respectively. The narrative thus refutes Agrippa’s confident prediction that Adiabenian royalty (now embracing Judean law and culture) would refuse participation in the war. At Ant. 20.71 Josephus claims that Izates had sent 5 young sons to be educated in Jerusalem, and it is antecedently probable that he, their rough contemporary (b. 37-38 CE) in the same city, knew them personally. These men, named only here, might well be Izates’ sons (nephews of the king) and also among the determined Adiabenian royals eventually captured by Titus (6.356-57; cf. 4.567; 5.474). This figure bears a well attested Roman cognomen (cf. Suetonius, Aug. 11), meaning “black, dark” (probably a reference to beard color; cf. Rufus, Fulvus) and implying Roman citizenship (Kajanto 1982: 64, 228). That status would explain his inclusion with Adiabenian royalty and the apparently distinguished Silas (next note). Later chosen as a regional commander in the war against Rome (2.566) alongside Josephus, Niger will play a prominent and valiant role in the narrative (3.11, 20, 25, 27-28), before being killed by the radical wing after their murder of the chief priests Ananus and Jesus (4.359-64). For Perea, see the note at 2.57 and the fuller description at 3.44-47: it was the region across the Jordan River, W of Philadelphia (mod. Amman), that was administratively part of Judea. Agrippa II had been given the city of Perean Iulias and its related villages by Nero in 54 CE (2.252; Ant. 20.159). This man is apparently one of the “Babylonian Judeans” settled by Herod in Batanea (Ant. 17.23-31). Indeed, another Silas had been a close friend, aide, and military commander under Agrippa I (Ant. 18.204; 19.299, 317-25, 353), and the Babylonian connection would make good sense in this regard, given the similar careers of the family of Zamaris, especially Philip son of Iacimus (see the note at 2.421). His inclusion with Adiabenian royalty and Niger suggests that Silas was much more than an ordinary soldier; Agrippa may have felt his loss very keenly. (For other élite deserters from Agrippa’s territories, not necessarily Judeans, see Life 112-13.) At any rate, Silas will briefly rise to a command position in the Judean forces (3.11), but will die in an early assault on Ascalon (3.19). On the name, see the note to a different Silas at 2.616 below.

The following is a peculiarly artful sentence; the balance between “frontward” and “rearward,” matching “Judeans” and “Romans,” seems forced. There is also a curious coincidence of language with 2.90 (“maul” and “from the front”). Josephus does not elaborate, but in general it is clear that the Judean guerrillas could not face Roman forces directly in open battle. Hence, having accomplished what they could in guerrilla strikes, they returned to their stronghold of Jerusalem. To Jerusalem, which the fighters had left in mid-festival (2.517). The literary artificiality of this construction is highlighted by Josephus’ deliberate use of κατόπιν: all 3 occurrences in War 2 are between here and 2.543 a few sentences below (including 2.537). Such clustering of diction is characteristic of his style. This is the first mention of a major figure in War; he becomes from 4.353 onward. Simon was reportedly the son of a convert (so giora) and still a young man at this time, perhaps from the famous Decapolis city of Gerasa (4.503), though his home town may be a different site in Judea by the same name—since the “Gerasa” of 4.486-90, shortly before the mention of Simon’s home, cannot be the Decapolis city (see M-B ad loc.; Schürer-Vermes 2.150; Schalit 1968: Γέρασα; Bergmeier 1998: 77-78). Simon and John of Gischala will ultimately lead the two main factions in Jerusalem (5.11, 21, 105, 248-55; 7.263-66), constituting themselves the principal “tyrants” envisaged by Josephus at 1.10. Simon will be ignominiously captured (7.26-35) and later executed in the Flavian triumph, as the chief culprit of the war (7.154). The two men also find mention in what remains of Tacitus’ account (Hist. 5.12), which might have been influenced by Josephus’ War. War 2 will end with a series of anticipatory notices, including a passage that looks ahead to the emergence of Simon as a tyrant (2.652-54). The story is confusing for two reasons: (a) Cestius’ (main?) force has already ascended through Beit-Horon (2.516) and set up camp at Gabaon (Gibeon), about 9 km further along the road (2.516), before the conflict just described; (b) the verb ἄνειμι could mean either that the Romans were going up to Beit-Horon (the common usage in Josephus: 1.134; 2.318; 3.268, 343; 5.22) or that they were going back there (cf. Ant. 16.86), and the preposition ἐπί with accusative would oblige either sense (“going up on to” or “going back in the direction of, towards”). These uncertainties suggest two ways of understanding the text.(a) Having fought at Gabaon and forced the Judeans back to Jerusalem, this Roman force returned on the road towards Beit-Horon (i.e., “returning towards” rather than “ascending at”), which was also the road towards their camp at Gabaon. Josephus mentions Beit-Horon, perhaps, to keep the notorious pass in the audience’s mind in preparation for the disaster at 2.546-55. This would make sense of the present sentence: although the Judeans cannot mount a frontal attack on the Romans, once the latter turn back Simon’s guerrillas can attack their rear. This would anticipate precisely what happens at 2.540-43. But it is not the most natural reading of either verb or preposition (cf. Ant. 17.259; 18.126); the army clearly did not return to Beit-Horon at this point.(b) The attack was on the Roman rearguard as it was still ascending Beit-Horon, part of the same force that had already reached Gabaon, but perhaps 9 km (nearly 6 miles) behind it. A column on the march, if confined to a single road, 4 abreast, required several km of road (e.g., 30,000 infantry in close ranks, with 1 m from one man’s back to the next, would require 7.5 km; 6 abreast [War 3.124] required 5 km. A force including hundreds of cavalry, separation between units, and a baggage train, such as this one, would have been much longer still; cf. Gilliver 1999: 46-48). Bar-Kochva (1976: 18) and Gichon (1981: 52-55) both propose that this column length explains the possibility of a frontal attack on the force already at Gabaon (or beyond) and an attack from the rear at the Beit-Horon pass.But Josephus claims that Cestius’ force had established a camp at Gabaon (2.518). Bar-Kochva downplays Josephus’ narrative here to posit an attack “launched simultaneously” at the head (Gabaon) and rear (Beit Horon) of the same column, which he estimates at 8 km in length (1976: 18). Gichon (1981: 52-53), taking the narrative more seriously, assumes that Cestius must have broken with the normal order of march, perhaps out of disdain for the enemy: in the many descriptions we have, from Polybius to Josephus (War 3.115-26; cf. Gilliver 1999: 38-46), the baggage is part of the continuous column, carefully protected by substantial forces. If the rearguard had still to ascend Beit-Horon when the main force was encamped at Gabaon, then these components were separated by many kilometers, with the rear dangerously exposed.But even if Cestius and his legionary commanders indulged in such bizarre behavior, it is a further problem to imagine how Simon and his band could have learned of the proximity of the Roman force (the narrative suggests: at Gabaon) and managed to get from Jerusalem to the rear of the column as it ascended Beit-Horon without taking the main road, which was of course occupied by oncoming legionaries. By the time they had gathered a force and reached Beit Horon (by difficult trails through the hills?), surely the force would have passed by.Another possibility is that this is a flashback to Simon’s activity before the head of the column reached Gabaon, and not a description of what happened later or simultaneously, as the language implies. On any reading, Josephus has not been clear. We must remember that Josephus often compresses events to the point of distortion for purely narrative reasons. The preceding notes in this volume dealing with parallel accounts in Antiquities or Life show that he regularly changes details, and often transforms major elements in the retelling. We have no reason to assume, and good reason to doubt, that he felt more committed to the events as they happened than to pursuing a good story, for a Roman audience with no knowledge of Judean geography. This word (οὐραγία) appears only here in Josephus, though he uses the masculine form (of rearguard soldiers) at 3.126; 5.49; classical use of that form appears limited to Xenophon, Cyr. 2.3.22; 3.3.40; Anab. 4.3.26, 29. Unattested in classical Greek, feminine οὐραγία was a favorite of Polybius (who has it 25 times) and of the tactical writers Onasander (6) and Polyaenus (19). It also appears occasionally in the LXX (Deut 25:18; Josh 10:19) and Philo (quoting Deuteronomy at Ebr. 24 and Migr. 144). The biblical passages refer, respectively, to the cursed Amalekites’ attack on Israel from the rear, while they were exhaustedly fleeing Egypt, and to Joshua’s command to attack the rear of the fleeing Midianite kings. Although it is tempting to see Josephus imagining Simon as a despicable Amalekite (for his own pleasure; most of the audience would not recognize the parallel), the passage from Joshua would make such a connection difficult. See the note to “large numbers” at 2.55. I.e., the pack animals that accompanied a Roman army on the march (cf. 3.125). This capture cannot have been comprehensive, since later in the narrative the legions will still need to get rid of their considerable baggage and many pack animals in retreat (2.544, 546, 553). Still, it seems clear that Cestius did not come prepared for a long campaign (Goldsworthy 1996: 87-90), and any significant loss in such an early engagement would pose serious problems. Apparently Jerusalem again: the rebels are storing up the captured supplies in what is becoming their fortress city.

Although the sense is not clear, it seems that Josephus means at Gabaon (Gibeon), 10 km (ca. 6 miles) N/NW of Jerusalem, where Cestius has set up camp (2.516) and from where perhaps he will strike again to chase the rebels into Jerusalem (2.527). Note the parallel with his 3-day delay at Scopus (2.528). Cf. the next sentence: the hills around Jerusalem were in the hands of the rebels. The Judeans will be, however, quickly chased back to Jerusalem (2.527) once Cestius brings his 30,000-strong force toward Jerusalem. Thackeray (in LCL), Pelletier, and M-B all take the construction οὐκ ἠρεμήσοντες ἀρξαμένων τῶν Ῥωμαίων ὁδεύειν as conditional (“should the Romans begin to move,” “falls die Römer zum Weitermarsch aufbrechen sollten”). That is possible, and allowed by my translation, though the Romans are already on the move.

Agrippa is presumably still in the company of Cestius at Gabaon (2.502, 516). See the note to this characteristic phrase at 2.43. Judean occupation (περιέχω) of the hills will be reprised at 2.550. Josephus has used the same construction at 2.411, as a prelude to oratory; see the note there. The logic is slightly awkward: Where, among those in determined opposition (τῶν ἐναντιωθέντων), was the unsympathetic element to be found? Either the narrator anticipates the king’s success in detaching some from the rebel cause, or the text may be faulty, or it is a minor slip on the part of Josephus. The Latin (si qui aduersarentur), “if some were opposed,” seems to read the quoted Greek phrase as a genitive absolute (rather than as partitive), and this inspired Destinon’s emendation of τῶν to τινῶν: “if (only) some stood in opposition,” Agrippa would lead those who did not agree with them to break away. Nor is it clear from the sequel (2.526) whether there had always been a disaffected group among the rebels or whether they only became disaffected over the maltreatment of Agrippa’s emissaries.

See the notes to “powerful [men]” at 2.239 and “notables” at 2.243. Known only from this story, Borcius (variant Borcaeus) has a name that is neither Greek nor Latin. The first syllable may represent the Aramaic bar (as Βορζοχορίας in Horbury and Noy 1992: 216 #127), though it closely resembles a form of the Hebrew word “lightning, brilliance, or sheen” (‮ברק‬‎), which would be very similar to the name of his colleague Phoebus: a bright pair indeed! Meaning “pure, bright, radiant” in Greek, this was a famous ancient epithet of the God Apollo (Homer, Il. 1.43). This figure is unknown outside the present passage, but he matches our expectation that Agrippa’s court included well-educated Greeks and some Roman citizens (cf. Life 32-33, 356). Phoebus and derivatives are amply attested Greek personal names (Solin 2003: 302-303), also among slaves in Rome (Solin 1996: 270-72). Lit. “non-slip.” The trustworthiness of pledges is a central issue in the narrative after the bad faith of the rebels themselves at 2.437-38, 450-53. The formulaic phrase ῥίπτω + τὰ ὅπλα is Polybian (4.69.7, 71.11; 18.23.4, 26.5, 26.12), used several times in later historians (Diodorus 36.4.3; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 4.51.4; 5.42.2; 6.82.3; 8.17.6; 11.8.2; 12.13.4; Strabo 5.4.11), and especially favored by Josephus (War 2.613; Ant. 12.343; 20.123; Life 166, 371).

It seems from the context, concerning pledges (2.524), that the term ἄδεια here must have its most common sense of “safe conduct, indemnity, amnesty.” See the notes to “amnesty” at 2.55 and “freedom from fear” at 2.238. Nevertheless, the text has a play on the δει- (“fear”) root: the rebels are anxious that the populace will reject them in hopes of living “without fear.” It is tempting to read this as freedom from fear of the rebel leaders, since that would match a continuing and potent strain of irony in War (e.g., 2.264, 443, and the note to “freedom” at 2.259). Although that may be a secondary resonance of the word, however, the primary sense is apparently about the posited amnesty. See the note to this key word at 1.10. Killing ambassadors, messengers, or heralds, who were sacrosanct even in times of the harshest conflicts, was a patently heinous crime; cf. Bederman 2001: 106-110.

Or “destroyed”; see the note at 2.11. Illustrating his tendency to re-use words and phrases in close proximity and then drop them, Josephus will use the collocation “hitting, with stones, drive” a few sentences below, at 2.534—and not otherwise. Since both stones and sticks were plentiful around the outskirts of Jerusalem, the image seems to be of weapons of opportunity used to injure and harass but not deliberately to kill.

This observation anticipates the much-elaborated theme later in War, that internal dissension or civil strife (a fundamental theme: 1.10) creates a God-send for an attacking enemy: 4.397; 5.18-30, 248-57. Note especially the debate that Vespasian holds with his generals about using the Judeans’ internal strife either as an opportunity to strike or as a reason to delay, while the opposition destroy themselves (4.366-77). Presumably these are the Judean irregulars who have occupied the hills to protect the access routes to Jerusalem (2.522-23).

See the note at 2.516. This is the first mention of a site that will play a significant role in Titus’ later campaign (5.67-68, 106-108; Ant. 11.239). As Josephus explains in these later passages, the Greek name Scopus (Heb. ‮הר הצופים‬‎) has to do with the breath-taking view over Jerusalem that this hill provides from the NE. Modern home of the Hebrew University, Scopus forms the northern component of the Mt. of Olives ridge, which runs parallel to Jerusalem on the E across the Kidron Valley. Since the elevation of Scopus is about 825 m (2,700 ft), in contrast to Jerusalem’s E hill at approx. 740 m (2,430 ft)—on the level of Herod’s temple mount (now the haram es-sharif)—with a valley in between them, and since it could be reached with relative ease by the Roman road from the N, it and the Mt. of Olives (at 883 m [2900 ft]) provided logical bases and observation posts for invading armies. About 1.4 km (0.87 miles). Josephus will give the same accurate distance at 5.67-68. Given the rebels’ inability to face the Romans frontally (5.214, 521), and the sheer intimidation generated by an army of 30,000 regular soldiers with thousands more in support (2.500-501), all amassed in full view on the heights above Jerusalem (cf. Titus’ hope, when displaying his forces, at 5.348-55), and given his knowledge of deep dissension among the Jerusalemites (2.526-27), the narrative character Cestius has every reason to expect a quick capitulation. Lit.: “that something would be quickly conceded, surrendered”—perhaps written thus to create a word play: τάχα τι παρὰ τῶν ἔνδον ἐνδοθήσεσθαι προσδοκῶν. The concern for a secure grain supply was fundamental to Roman military thinking; see the note to “legion” at 2.63. It would have been particularly important now that Cestius has lost a significant part of his baggage train. See the note to “Artemisius” at 2.284: this is the end of Tishri (September-October), with the autumnal new year, Yom Kippur, and the Feast of Booths (2.516) recently completed. It is the time when Jerusalem, after 6 months of often cloudless skies and warmth, begins to turn wet and cold.

The adjective ἔμφρουρος is attested only about a dozen times before Josephus; he has it only here and at 2.654. See the note to this key word at 1.10. Roman orderliness (εὐταξία) is a consistent theme in War: 1.22, 143; 3.85, 467, 488; 4.635; 5.285, 353; 6.22. Josephus will try to train his Judean soldiers to emulate it (2.580); at 2.151 he also claims such orderliness as a marked Essene trait. The “temple” is the massive Herodian precinct, raised and lined with colonnades, not merely the sacred buildings themselves (see note at 2.1). The “interior” appears to be the oldest part of the city, Upper and Lower, within its first and “nearly impregnable” wall (5.142).It was precisely this vulnerability of the new areas, which had spilled out to the N and NW (the only contiguous, more or less level ground available) of the ancient city, that had led Agrippa I to begin building a “third wall” for Jerusalem; see 2.218 and note (cf. 5.147-55). Although he did not complete that project, the rebels will learn from Cestius’ easy advance here (and Florus’ earlier assaults: 2.328): in anticipation of Titus’ army they will hastily erect a high (if relatively flimsy) wall on Agrippa’s foundations (5.155).

Josephus delays his geographical description of this area (opposite Antonia to the N of the temple) until 5.149-51, where he paints a word picture of the entire city before the final siege; cf. the note to “Betheza” at 2.328 above. Nothing else is known of this market, though we may surmise from its location in the New City (not in the temple compound) that it existed chiefly for the private market in building materials, rather than for sacred use; cf. Jeremias 1969: 50. See the note at 2.344: this was the higher, W hill of Jerusalem, on which sat the Herodian and Hasmonean palaces, as well as the homes of the wealthier citizens (including chief priests). It was enclosed along its N edge by the “first wall,” which joined the bridge over the Tyropean Valley at what we know as Wilson’s Arch to enter the temple compound (5.145; see 2.344 and notes). It seems from Josephus’ language here (“to/at the Upper City,” “opposite the palace”) and from 2.533-35 (where Cestius is offered admission to the city proper) that the Roman forces remain outside the Upper City and its wall. Cestius thus follows a familiar pattern for Roman commanders; cf. Florus’ route at 2.328-29, which ended at the camp inside the Herodian palace (on which, see 2.301). Here Cestius must camp “opposite” the palace, perhaps in the open Upper Market area described at 2.305 (inside mod. Jaffa Gate), immediately outside the oldest (“first”) wall of the city.

Being already past the second wall and outside the Upper City, Cestius’ forces were effortlessly in a position that Titus’ army would achieve only after a long siege and much bloodshed: the latter will be roughly in Cestius’ position again only at 5.237, and then they will be contending with large and intransigent rebel forces, including Idumeans and John of Gischala’s Galileans. Josephus’ point (made in retrospect) thus appears to be that Cestius had only to make a focused assault against the relatively thin opposition that existed at this time, since he had easily dominated so much of the city already. This is the first of 3 such claims by Josephus: Cestius might also have gained the city by accepting open gates (2.533-34) or by pressing the siege a bit longer (2.539)—but he did not. The claim is of course impossible to prove. Unless Cestius had conducted a wholesale massacre, destroying the city and razing its walls (which he was in no position to do at this point). It is far from clear that the later Judean and Idumean reinforcements would have abandoned the contest for Jerusalem. At any rate, the wall facing Cestius was a huge obstacle (2.535; 5.142), and its capture would later tax the 10th Legion to the maximum (5.468). This is the standard equivalent of praefectus castrorum (H. J. Mason 1974: 87), the senior officer with ultimate responsibility for maintaining the camp, and for logistics when on the march, including the conduct of sieges. This was an extremely important, senior position open to men of equestrian status with long experience as soldiers and centurions; appointed by the princeps, they provided the highest level of professional expertise in the legion, and as 3rd in command sometimes had to assume leadership in the absence of the senatorial legionary legatus (cf. 6.238, though legionary command in Egypt had unique aspects). Part of their brief was to keep a watchful eye on the senatorial commanders, in loyalty to the princeps (Parker 1992: 192-96; Le Bohec 1994: 39). This role and his standing as most senior soldier and siege director, or perhaps as commander of the 6th legion’s force in Jerusalem (cf. 2.544), would have made Priscus’ advice difficult for a commander such as Cestius to ignore. This is an apt name for a powerful man urging extreme caution: “despotic + old-fashioned.” Kajanto (1982: 30) includes Priscus among the 18 Latin cognomina that occur with extremely high frequency (in this case, 1269 attestations). This may well be the same figure as the Priscus (commander of the legio VI vexillation) who dies in Cestius’ retreat below at 2.544. See the note to this descriptive term (for a “prefect”) at 2.291. Gichon (1981: 55) notes that cavalry officers had good reason to demur, since their troops would be of very limited use in narrow city streets. MS L has δεκασθέντες (“having been bribed”—a verb not used elsewhere in Josephus), and is followed by Niese, Thackeray (LCL), Pelletier, and M-B. But MSS PAMVRC read δελεασθέντες, and the Latin offers a corresponding corrupti. The overwhelming MSS support for the latter, and the fact that Josephus uses this verb 7 other times (5 in War, and 1 recently: 2.468), speak strongly in its favor. Finally, δελεασθέντες enjoys the preference that should be given to the more difficult reading (lectio difficilior), since it is easy to imagine a scribe changing “enticed with money” to the simpler “bribed with money”; harder to imagine the reverse. This notice comes as a surprise, since after providing the narrative focus for nearly a quarter of bk. 2 (2.177-420), Florus has disappeared from the scene. This alleged bribery is his final act; he will be mentioned again only at 2.558 (in Cestius’ thoughts). We left him in his Caesarean provincial headquarters, determined to fan the flames of war (2.420) and maliciously imprisoning the Judeans of Caesarea who tried to flee the massacre there (2.457).Is he here a deus ex machina, to explain Cestius’ withdrawal? Bribery by enemies is a convenient narrative device (cf. Life 189-96). Without dismissing it out of hand, one can also imagine mundane reasons why Cestius’ senior counselor, an officer with long experience and now responsible for siege logistics, might have advised the legate against an assault on the heavily fortified eastern hill, with the mighty temple compound behind, when Cestius’ forces apparently did not come prepared for a siege (see below).

For the adjective, see the note to “irremediable suffering” at 2.233. The noun συμφορά is programmatic, enhancing the tragic tone, in War and in bk. 2; see the notes at 1.9; 2.286.

See the note to “common folk” at 2.253; it is the same Greek word. Josephus’ emphasis cannot be on commonness as distinct from élite status, but must be on (alleged) normal citizenship in distinction from the determination to rebel. See the note to “powerful [men]” at 2.239. This is the only appearance of this figure in Josephus. His name and his father’s are so common that it is impossible to identify him beyond Josephus’ remark that he belonged to the city’s élite.

This is the only occurrence of διαμέλλω in War (cf. Ant. 14.352; 17.86; 19.80). It means literally that Cestius “kept being about to . . . (but did not).” If the tense were imperfect we should say that he “kept dithering.” Since it is aorist, we may take it that Josephus wants to highlight the very brief moment when the shouts of those on the wall might have been effective, before they were thrown off. The verb ὑπεροράω can mean either simply “overlook” or “look down upon, disdain, treat with contempt.” It is difficult to see why Cestius would look with contempt on an offer to enter the city, much easier to see him consumed by anger and not grasping the significance of what was being yelled until it was too late. Josephus gives an entirely plausible motive (cf. 5.318-30, where Titus should have been more suspicious). See the note to this key word at 1.10. Although we do not know the precise height of the wall at various points, it was certainly high enough to cause serious injury to those thrown down from it, even perhaps from steps ascending to the parapet. The image is of extreme cruelty. This clause is nearly identical to that at 2.526, the similarity illustrating Josephus’ tendency to re-use similar language in close proximity. That the residences of Ananus and his friends were anywhere near the area of the wall, thus in the Upper City, confirms their status among the city’s wealthy élite. I.e., with projectiles such as arrows and stones. Ancient audiences would expect city walls to have towers. Josephus claims at 5.158 that this first wall alone supported 60 massive towers. Most translators (Whiston, Thackeray, Pelletier, M-B) take ἀποπειράομαι here as a practical equivalent of ἀποπειράζω (“make an attempt on”). Although that makes sense in anticipation of the next sentence (2.535), it restricts the object of attack to Romans outside the wall. But the middle voice may also share the sense of the passive, “subject [X] to trial, put to the test,” which Josephus has used in recent paragraphs (2.411, 523; cf. 2.4). Given the actions of Ananus’ group just described, to which the rebels’ actions are a response, it is possible that Josephus also has in mind further attempts to use the summit of the wall from the inside, to offer surrender to the Romans.

See the note to this phrase at 2.55. The definite article suggests that Cestius takes the soldiers chosen from the legions other than the 12th, though not necessarily the total of 6,000 (2.500). These come mostly from allied forces; cf. 2.500-501. This language about the temple’s N side is almost formulaic in War (1.118, 145; 2.44; 5.352); see the note at 2.44. This was the side on which the fortress Antonia stood, now partly destroyed, and the scene of earlier violence (2.328-31, 430).

See the note to “projectiles” at 2.48.

The verb ἐξερείδω occurs only here in Josephus and is otherwise extremely rare (Dioscorides, Mat. med. 1.69.4; Lucian, Pod. 55). Polybius (8.4.6; 16.11.5; the rare cognate noun at 6.23.5) is his most likely inspiration. See the note to this phrase at 2.521. Although mentioned only here by Josephus, the χελώνη or “overhead cover” (by joined-up shield) was a famous military maneuver (Polybius 9.41.1; 10.31.8 [Macedonian military uses]; Aeneas Tacticus 32.11; Onasander 20). It came to be associated particularly with the Roman legions (as the testudo) because of their perfection of the movement to afford protection on all sides. Livy (44.8) and Cassius Dio (49.30-31) give a fuller description of the Roman forms; cf. Parker 1992: 256; Gilliver 1999: 134-36. The formation is pictured on Trajan’s and Marcus Aurelius’ columns (plates in Gilliver 1999: 136; Goldsworthy 2003: 194): it was a symbol of the legions’ extraordinary discipline under direct fire. See the note to “projectiles” at 2.48. This verb (περιολισθάνω) is barely attested before Josephus (Hippocrates, Prisc. 22; Artic. 47; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 14.10.3; Philo, Conf. 38), though War has it 3 times (also 3.173, 386) and it becomes popular with Josephus’ contemporary Plutarch (7 occurrences) and into the 2nd century. As often, War seems to ride a crest of fashionable diction, anticipated by Philo. Although Niese and Thackeray (with MSS PA) read ὑπέσυρον, the normal sense of that verb in the active voice (“drag down”) does not suit the context nearly as well as Josephus’ standard verb for “undermining” (2.435-36; 4.63, 79; 5.153, 469; 6.27-28, 71, 222), ὑπώρυσσον (here 3rd pl. imperfect), which is given by MSS MLVRC and reasonably followed by M-B. Exactly where this gate stood, or how Cestius could have expected to break through the northern approach to the temple with its massive foundation stones, in a very short time and without any (mentioned) elaborate siege equipment, is far from clear. Contrast the strenuous efforts required by Titus’ much larger and better-equipped army at a later stage (e.g., 5.466-72; cf. Gichon 1981: 56).

See the note to this key word at 1.10. For would-be tyrants “running away” from the polis—a shameful picture, and not the behavior of statesmen such as Josephus (cf. 2.556-58)—see also 2.447. See the notes at 2.156, 273. Josephus characteristically re-uses the word in the next sentence. This construction seems to imply that courageous people never did manage to reach the walls and invite Cestius in (or the siege would have been unnecessary). It was their intention to do so, and they made some headway, but only to the extent that the frightened rebel leaders became temporarily less vigilant.

See the note to “terminated” at 2.531. See the note in the previous sentence. That God has (been) turned away from Jerusalem and its temple, and now using the Romans to achieve his will, was clearly anticipated by Josephus’ Agrippa in his deliberative speech (2.390). This editorial observation by Josephus is the first in a long series of such judgments throughout the rest of the book: 3.293, 351; 4.366, 370; 5.19, 39, 278, 343, 367-68, 378, 396; 6.38, 101, 110, 299, 371, 399, 433; 7.34, 319.

Although Josephus uses ἀπόγνωσις only twice in War 2, the other instance follows after a few sentences (2.549). By this typical clustering of terms, Josephus highlights in this case the abrupt reversal of fortune, for it will soon be the legions who are in despair. Presumably, their alleged eagerness to open the gates to him (2.538). The clause καταγνοὺς ἐπ’ οὐδεμιᾷ πληγῇ τῶν ἐλπίδων is rather elliptical, given the range of nuances of the participial verb (he “formed an opinion of the hopes”), the lack of clarity as to who owns the hopes (the Judeans, or his?), and uncertainty as to whether the “blow” was something that had not been struck or not been received by Cestius. Greek παράλογος, here in superlative adverbial form (as also 1.373; hardly attested before Josephus, though found several times in the 2nd cent. CE and later), means essentially “beyond calculation or rationality.” This leads to different emphases in usage: from “unexpected, surprising,” perhaps wondrously so (Ant. 2.339; 3.18; 4.127; 6.282; 7.157), to “strange, weird, odd, bizarre, unreasonable, irrational” (1.373; Ant. 1.13). In this context there seems no need to choose (as perhaps at War 5.114, 291; 7.195): “very strangely and surprisingly.” Unexpectedness is featured in the next sentence.

Appearing only 8 times in War, τροπή occurs twice in bk. 2 in close proximity: cf. 2.512. For an earlier recovery of Judean courage at Cestius’ departure (from Galilee), with ensuing slaughter (of Syrian auxiliaries), see 2.506. Note the proximity of this, the only other occurrence of ἀναθαρσέω in War 2. The double compound ἐπεκτρέχω (only in MS P, but preferable as the more difficult reading) is hardly attested before Josephus (Xenophon, Hell. 4.4.17; 6.2.17; Philo, Leg. 2.100), though he has it 4 times (all in War: 1.253; 3.267; 7.197) and it becomes common in the 2nd cent. CE (Plutarch, Pausanias, Arrian, esp. Cassius Dio). This is another example of his using newly fashionable language, anticipated by Philo. Here is an especially clear case of Josephus’ tendency to cluster vocabulary: he uses ὕστατος only 17 times in his entire 30-volume corpus, but 3 of those occurrences (all those in War 2) come here, in the next sentence, and a few sentences later (2.547), though the context changes. See the note at 2.11. The verb διαφθείρω is particularly frequent in this episode: 2.541, 542, 544, 546, 557. See the note to this phrase, recently used often (2.478, 490, 509, 521, 535), at 2.55.

See the note at 2.69. This verb stresses now the provisional nature of his stay. See the note at 2.528. Lit. “called the enemy to himself, summoned the enemy.” I.e., by abandoning not only the siege on Jerusalem’s N wall, but also his forward base on Scopus, Cestius clearly signaled to the Judeans that he was in retreat. See the note to this phrase in the preceding sentence. This is the only occurrence of ἀκοντίζω in War (but Ant. 10.134; 13.61; 14.401). The compound with κατά (“shoot down with a spear”) is common (12 occurrences in War).

Or “did not dare.” The picture that Josephus presents here of legionary fear already undermines by anticipation his glowing (therefore partly ironic) account of the legions’ perfect discipline and unflappable courage (3.74, 98-100, 105-107). See the note to this phrase at 2.521. See the notes at 2.43, 253. This verb (ἔγκειμαι) has the same root as the one rendered “concentrating their force on” in the previous sentence, but with a different prefix. This is a paradoxical picture, since Polybius (18.28-32) had famously assessed the great advantage of the Roman formation (over the Macedonian phalanx, reflecting on the Battle of Cynescephalae in 197 BCE) to be its complete flexibility: “For every Roman [soldier], as soon as he is armed, will strike according to need; he adapts himself indifferently to every terrain and occasion, and to every sudden appearance” (18.32.10). In Josephus, however, the legions often appear as a rigid and inflexible force over against courageous and effective Judean guerrillas. Josephus omits a conjunction or coordinating syntax (asyndeton), perhaps for effect.

See the note to “shaken them out” at 2.518. Since column discipline was the hallmark of the legions (Goldsworthy 1996: 176-247), this was a very ominous development. At 2.531 we met a camp prefect, one of Cestius’ most senior advisors, named Tyrannius Priscus. Praefecti castrorum were 3rd in rank within a legion, though we do not know the legion to which Tyrannius belonged. Since, however, the Legio VI Ferrata had contributed a vexillation of 2,000 men (2.500), one of the legion’s senior officers must have been in command: a tribune or camp prefect. Given that this Priscus is described as commander of that legion’s detachment, he might well have been also camp prefect of Legio VI. Although Priscus is a common name (see 2.531), the long odds of finding two men with this name among the few most senior officers in Cestius’ army support the identity of the two, though we cannot be certain. One of the 8 most senior officers of a 5,400-strong legion (with the legate, camp prefect, and 5 other tribunes—of either senatorial or equestrian rank) or the commander of a 1,000-strong auxiliary cohort; see notes at 2.11, 244, 335. The cognomen Longinus (meaning “tall”) was common, with some 200 attestations in masculine and feminine forms across social ranks (Kajanto 1982: 231). This figure, otherwise unknown, may have commanded one of the legionary vexillations, or perhaps a double-strength auxiliary cohort. See the note to “wings of cavalry” at 2.67. This may well be the auxiliary cavalry prefect Iucundus who had been based in Caesarea at the time of the earlier conflict, who had tried to restore order (cf. 2.291 and note). As narrated at 2.516; see the note to “fifty stadia” there. But see 2.521, where Cestius has already lost large parts of the baggage train to Simon’s group; 2.546, where he will deliberately jettison much more (while keeping dozens of animals for the artillery); and 2.553, where the Judeans will capture all of that. If this is not simply rhetorical exaggeration, we must imagine that Cestius came with considerable long-term food, clothing, and building supplies, to be able to lose so much.

See the note at 2.287. Josephus will re-use ἀμαχανέω at 2.548, illustrating his tendency to cluster unusual diction (the verb appears only 11 times in his corpus). The (literal) “resourcelessness” of a senior Roman commander and presumably his surviving generals was the absolute antithesis of the Roman military and political ethos. This phrase (πάντα τὰ κύκλῳ [μεστὰ Ἰουδαίων]) will be reprised at 2.550.

Or “manage, deal with”: Josephus re-uses χράομαι from near the end of the preceding sentence (“deal with”), but now in a different sense. Or “tighter, more focused, more intense.” Although Josephus uses the adjective σύντονος only 9 times in his corpus, the only other occurrence in War 2 comes a few sentences below (2.553), illustrating his tendency to cluster vocabulary. Or “holding the army back.” The compound verb ἀνθέλκω is attested only a dozen times in all of Greek literature (Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle, Chrysippus, Diodorus, Dionysius) before Philo, who uses it a remarkable 7 times; Josephus has it twice (also 1.23 in War’s prologue), and it becomes more common in Plutarch, Galen, Lucian, and later writers. His use of this verb thus fits a general pattern: Philonic language that is becoming increasingly popular. See the note at 2.541. See the note to “projectiles” at 2.48, and next note. See 2.553 for a fuller description. On the varieties of Roman imperial artillery, see Marsden 1969 (esp. 174-98), 1971; Bishop and Coulston 2006, esp. 88-90. The two main kinds of engines would be torsion-driven stone- (or shot-) throwers (ballistae) and bolt-firers (catapultae), varying considerably in size. Cf. 3.166-68 below, where these machines appear in Vespasian’s arsenal, the ballistae throwing shot weighing a talent (26-38 kg [60-80 lbs]). Although Cestius’ artillery would likely have been more modest, given his rapid deployment and limited aims, the projectiles in question would still have been stone shot and bolts or arrows of some description. Vitruvius describes both kinds of engines (distinguishing machines from instruments) in bk. 10 of his (late 1st cent. BCE) De architectura. See Diodorus 20.48 for the story of their invention in the succession wars following Alexander’s death.In the 4th century CE Vegetius (2.25) would specify that each legion carried 55 catapults and 10 stone-launchers, and this happens to fit the numbers given by Josephus for Vespasian at 3.166 (as Thackeray also notes). If Cestius had brought the 12th legion’s full artillery and some from the vexillations, there may have been 100 or so pieces with his force. Captured Roman artillery was valuable indeed for the Judeans, who had no means of producing such engines (cf. 2.435, where Menachem faces precisely this lack in trying to besiege Jerusalem). Their construction required technical expertise, machined materials, and specialized workshops, as a glance at Vitruvius’ chapters on these machines in De arch. 10 reveals (cf. Marsden 1969: 175-88). But this fear on the part of the Romans will be fully realized at 2.553, when the Judeans do indeed capture their equipment. Josephus builds suspense, or tragic irony (since the audience knows the conclusion), by mentioning the prospect here. About 9 km (5.6 miles) further along the road from Gabaon. This is a tiring beginning to what will be a terrible day. Going in this direction, the force will first reach the upper town, before the 3.3-km descent to the lower town. See the note to this fateful site at 2.228.

This is the only occurrence of εὐρυχωρία in War (but Ant. 2.220; 15.347; 19.223). Bar-Kochva (1976: 19) notes that this accurately describes the road as it passes between the hills of Upper Beit-Horon on the right and (mod.) Sheikh Abu Shusha on the left, perhaps even beginning from “Hill 665,” about 0.75 km (0.5 miles) before that point, where the road is confined between the hill on the right and a steep ravine on the left. Reading τὰ στενὰ καὶ τὴν κατάβασιν (so MSS PAL and Latin) with Niese and other editors. Bar-Kochva (1976: 19 n. 23) argues for τὴν κατὰ τὰ στενὰ κατάβασιν (with the generally inferior MSS MVRC), mistakenly attributing this to the better MSS. He points out that the steepest descent is beyond and down from the narrow pass between Upper Beit Horon and Sheikh Abu Shusa: “the descent under the narrows.” He may be quite right about the tactical dispositions in question, but in trying to explain the variant readings we must prefer the one that has both better attestation and the virtue of being difficilior. Even if Josephus had expert knowledge of the site, we cannot assume that he always intended to be precise for his Roman audience: he might well have lumped the narrow pass and the descent together as the problem faced by the retreating force, as indeed he seems to have done. This exit route would be either the foothills after Lower Beit-Horon or, at least, the more gentle and less constricted descent after the dog-leg in the road turns N/NW toward that town. Bar-Kochva (1976: 19) suggests that a blockade of trees and rocks would effectively bar the narrow road. This is the 3rd and final occurrence of a somewhat rare adjective in Josephus within a few sentences; see the note at 2.541. Bearing in mind the considerable length of the marching column, over several kilometers (see the note to Bethora at 2.521), we must look for a site well E of Upper Beit-Horon. Bar Kochva (1981: 20) makes a plausible case for a shorter interval than the whole column would require on the premise that the Judeans let the lighter vanguard pass unmolested, and launched the attack at the pass only when the heavily armed legionary column had arrived. This would put the rear only about 3 km behind, between hills 665 and 726, where there are indeed a couple of steep ravines beside the road. See the previous note for a plausible location (somewhat E of Beit-Horon). Bar-Kochva (1976: 19) proposes that the Judeans had taken the hill of Abu Shusha at the bend in the road that marked the beginning of the descent. They thus dominated the road both to the E (where it sat between them and the Upper Beit-Horon hill) and to the N and W as it began the steep descent, with the steep wadi to the N. The hill would be a very effective site from which to fire arrows or hurl stones on a column descending with difficulty (backs to the rebels) toward the W. And the relatively long exposure to the road from one hilltop might justify the language about the rebels’ being lined up or strung out above the neck (or narrowest part) of the road. See the note to “projectiles” at 2.48.

See the note at the recent occurrence of this verb (2.545). See the note to this unusual word at 2.388. Though it occurs only here in War (but Ant. 5.52, 139, 169; 6.213; 12.402), the adjective ἐπισφαλής (here comparative) is particularly well chosen. Josephus’ use of it with “predicament” makes it metaphorical, but its literal sense of slipperiness or insecure footing also applies here. Greek οὔτε γὰρ ἐν τάξει κατὰ τῆς ὁδοῦ βαδίζειν could mean either that, unlike the infantry, the cavalry could not walk down the road in column (What to do with their horses? [But nor could they use their horses to advantage in this terrain]) or that, being higher and more conspicuous targets, they were getting hit more easily, and the reactions of their horses made it impossible to remain in order. On Bar-Kochva’s reconstruction (1976: 19-20): they could not possibly turn around and go up the narrow descent, into the approaching column, much less ride up the Abu Shusha hill. At 3.16, the only other occurrence of ἱππάσιμος in Josephus (note again his clustering tendency), terrain that is horse-friendly will be described as open plain—a point he makes often (cf. 2.12 and note).

Josephus pairs κρημνοί and φάραγγες a number of times (also 3.158; 4.8; 5.141) while describing impassable terrain. Since in these pairings the two words mean distinct things—crags above the steep valleys below—, Josephus’ usage supports Bar-Kochva’s reading (1976: 19), based on the topography of Beit-Horon, that the Romans faced either crags above them or ravines below (into which they fell): this way crags, that way ravines. This is the cognate noun of the verb (participle) “stumped” at 2.545, 548. Josephus continues to drive home the absence of the legions’ storied resourcefulness. The vocabulary of tragedy (here οἰμωγή, ὀδυρμοί) provides one of War’s rich thematic veins, introduced already in the prologue. See the notes to “mourn over” and “calamities” at 1.9, “misfortunes” and “feeling” at 1.11, and “unfortunate things” and “lamentations” at 1.12. See the note at 2.540: the rapid re-use of this word (its only occurrences in bk. 2; cf. the cognate verb at 2.551) draws attention to the reversal of Roman fortunes. This word (ἐγκέλευσμα) is attested only once in Greek literature before Josephus (Xenophon, Cyn. 6.25), and after him only in the 12th-century commentator on Homer, Eustathius (Comm. Il. 3.137, 915), though it is used by Cicero to spice one of his Latin letters to Atticus (6.1.8), and so must have been known in the most literate circles. Josephus will use it again in the Roman narrative at Ant. 19.110 (providing further evidence that he wrote that story). This arresting combination of two opposite emotions (χαιρόντων ἅμα καὶ τεθυμωμένων) was anticipated at 2.474 (see note to “enraged” there).

See the note to this phrase at 2.373. This is presumably Lower Beit-Horon, at least for those near the front of the Roman column; see the note at 2.228. Josephus’ language here (Ἰουδαῖοι δὲ πάντα τὰ κύκλῳ περισχόντες) reprises phrases from 2.523 and 2.545. Presumably, the main road leading further W from Lower Beit-Horon.

Or “give up on.” This is the cognate verb to the noun used at 2.540, 549: see the notes there. Apparently Cestius assumes that the Judeans will continue to confront him in the next phase, even if he does not know that they are guarding the exit routes. Since Cestius cannot change the route, with thousands of soldiers along, he will try to make his progress invisible (see next sentence). δρασμὸν ἐβουλεύετο. This Herodotean phrase (5.124; 8.4, 18, 75, 97, 100), attested otherwise before Josephus only once in Philo (Fug. 14), is characteristic of War (1.286, 537; 3.93 [of Josephus himself]; 4.101). Josephus appears to ride the crest of fashion again (anticipated by Philo), for the phrase appears in Plutarch (quoting Herodotus, Mor. [Her. mal.] 867b, e), Appian (Mithr. 328), Lucian (Herc. 3; Char. 21; Sat. 35), and Aristides (Panath. [Dindorf] p. 140). Given a force of some 30,000, not counting “large numbers” of new auxiliaries, which Cestius had at the beginning (2.500-502), this would be 1 guard for every 75 men, roughly one per century (formally comprising 80). That makes sense in view of the normal transmission of signals (see the note to “camps” in this section). This is the only occurrence of εὔψυχος in War (though Ant. has it 10 times). These would be the flat upper stories of houses, accessible by staircases, not tiled and sloped roofs in the modern western sense; cf. 4.28; Ant. 6.49; 13.140. Or “watch-words” (προστάξας ἀναβοᾶν τὰ σημεῖα τῶν ἐν τοῖς στρατοπέδοις φυλάκων). At 3.86-87 Josephus will describe the Roman camp at night, claiming that even then nothing is done without orders conveyed by signals: the hours for sleep and for the guards’ shifts (τούς τε ὕπνους αὐτοῖς καὶ τὰς φυλακὰς) are given by the trumpets’ signals (σάλπιγγες προσημαίνουσιν). He goes on to say that these signals are conveyed from the legionary commander down to the century level (3.87). See the note to “400” earlier in this section. Using a relatively few men to give the enemy the impression of a vastly larger force was a familiar stratagem (Caesar in Bell. gall. 7.45; Josephus below at 2.635-37; cf. Life 163-66). It is not entirely clear how Cestius’ large force managed this undetected, if the Judeans were closely guarding that very road (as 2.550), unless we should understand that the ruse involving the watchword-shouting should have lulled the Judeans into not watching the road after all. I.e., 6 km (3.75 miles). This distance would bring Cestius into the much gentler edge of the coastal plain, approximately at the junction of two main roads (one leading to Ammaus to the SW, one to Lydda via Modein to the W/NW—the one he took).

These are the 400 guards at 2.551.

Josephus uses litotes. This is the first mention of the feared siege tower (ἑλέπολις), which will turn up often—albeit only in Roman hands—in the subsequent narrative (3.121, 226, 230; 5.275-81, etc.): at 3.121, mules will carry these (perhaps in sections) with Vespasian’s column as it enters Judea. For the employment of these machines, which were built partly to give attackers platforms above the city walls for more effective targeting (cf. Marsden 1969: 105-8), see 5.299; 6.23, 26, 221, 393.The invention of this device, along with many other siege engines, was attributed to Demetrius the Besieger (Poliorcetes) in approx. 307 BCE, as he sought ways to take the city of Salamis on Cyprus (Diodorus 20.48.2-3). In Diodorus the structure appears as a massive 9-story affair of about 41 m (135 ft) height and 21.3 m (68 ft) length on the ground, on wheels about 7.5 m (24 ft) high, with battering rams and ballistae arranged on various levels. Plutarch (Dem. 21), however, associating it first with Demetrius’ attack on Rhodes, trims the height by nearly a third. Clearly, the height and specific uses of such a structure could vary according to need. Josephus gives only ὀξυβελεῖς, which was standard shorthand for καταπέλται ὀξυβελεῖς, the main alternative to which were [καταπέλται] λιθοβόλα (Marsden 1969: 1 nn. 1-2), which launched stones. Given that καταπέλται could describe either the stone- or the bolt-throwers—whereas Latin catapultae generally indicated the latter (in contrast to ballistae)—it is curious that Josephus uses the distinctive formulaic phrase [τούς] τε ὀξυβελεῖς καὶ καταπέλτας καὶ λιθοβόλα to describe Roman artillery in general (3.80; 5.14, 263; 6.121). Since that collocation is attested beforehand only in the famous passage on Demetrius Poliorcetes in Diodorus (20.48.1), there seems to be a good chance that Josephus found it there; it occurs again only in Appian (Ib. 401; Lib. 375). This is an ironic reprise of 2.548, where Cestius had been profoundly concerned to keep the machines and instruments secure, precisely so that they did not fall into Judean hands. At 2.564 Josephus claims that the goods (or money) taken from Cestius were in the hands of Eleazar son of Simon. At 5.267 Simon son of Gioras will bring the engines that his group had taken from Cestius; this may refer mainly to the incident at 2.521.

See the note at 2.513: Cestius is retracing his steps toward Antioch via Caesarea. Greek μετὰ παιάνων—the only occurrence of the noun in Josephus. The term, which takes its name from being addressed in celebration to Paean-Apollo, is absent from Judean literature—as a Judean activity (at 2 Macc 15:25 it is Nicanor’s army that sings them; similarly Philo, Legat. 96, 110; Flac. 121). Josephus did not need to use this word, for he could have had the Judean soldiers singing hymns or psalms. At the story level, his language drives home the remarkable reversal: it was the Greek and Roman soldiers who should have been singing paeans; the Judeans have unexpectedly taken this role. If there is any point in pressing the story for historical realism, perhaps the Judeans were singing a sarcastic paean. See the note at 2.400.

This figure approximates the strength of a legion fully staffed. Clearly the 12th Legion suffered the most devastating losses (cf. 5.41), and it seems to have been the one that lost its eagle (Suetonius, Vesp. 4.5). But the casualty figure (if accurate) includes soldiers from a wide range of units, including allied forces, and may indeed represent the total losses on the Roman side from all phases of the campaign. So MSS PL (followed by Niese, Thackeray, Vitucci, and M-B). MSS AMVRC read “380.” The higher figure happens to reach the size of a full auxiliary cavalry wing (ala), comprising 16 turmae of 30-32 each (cf. Le Bohec 1994: 26); this could mean that an entire wing was destroyed or that a copyist raised the number for that purpose, or that Josephus did so. See the note to “Artemisius” at 2.284: this is apparently Marcheshvan 8 (October-November). For imperium, see the note at 1.3. Nero’s 12th year, counting by date of accession (dies imperii), was from October 13, 65 CE, to October 12, 66 CE. This should therefore be Nero’s 13th year, if most scholars are correct in dating the outbreak of the revolt to spring/summer 66 CE. But Kokkinos (1998: 368-95) offers a number of arguments for redating the outbreak to 65 CE, considering the reference to May-June (Artemisius) of Nero’s 12th year at 2.284 (see the note to “Nero’s imperium” there) an error for his 11th year (spring, 65 CE), and regarding the present date as the accurate one: October-November of 65, thus near the beginning of Nero’s 12th year. A significant problem with the revised chronology is that these events connect with Nero’s trip to Achaea, which is normally dated to the autumn of 66 (2.558 with notes).

A programmatic term (συμφορά), enhancing the tragic tone of War and bk. 2; see the notes at 1.9; 2.286. This (ἡ Κεστίου συμφορά) or the related ἡ Κεστίου πταῖσμα may have become a cliché in Josephus’ circles, both Roman and Judean, matching the earlier clades Variana (“Varian disaster”); see the note to “Cestius” at 1.21. See 2.243 and the note to “powerful [men]” at 2.239 for the use of such labels. One of only 8 occurrences of βαπτίζω in War, this one comes not long after the other one in bk. 2 (2.476), where it has been used in a completely different context. The colorful verb ἀπονήχομαι appears only here in Josephus; it is very rare before his time (Polybius 16.3.14—exactly this context of swimming away from a sinking ship), but becomes popular in the 2nd century (Plutarch, Publ. 16.8; 19.2; Caes. 49.7; Mor. [Tranq.] 476a; [Vit. aer.] 831e; Arrian, Alex. 2.20.9, 22.5; Hist. ind. 23.3; Polyaenus, Strat. 4.7.4; Lucian, Tox. 6, 20, 21; Athenaeus, Deipn. 7.48 [Kaibel]; Aelian, Nat. anim. 1.5; 8.3, 19; 17.17). This description is distinctly pejorative. This is clear from the context, in which Costobar and Saul, who fled the polis, are immediately contrasted with their relative Antipas, who was above such self-serving flight, and then with Josephus and his colleagues, who threw in their lot with the city, the land, and its people. The language derives its force from the well-worn image of the “ship of state,” with the skilled helmsman steering it (see note to “storm” at 2.396). Josephus’ contemporary Plutarch makes clear the expectation that the helmsman belongs with the ship, especially in times of crisis and even when the state’s problems are not of his own making (Mor. [Praec.] 815c-e): “he must not create storms himself, but he must also not abscond when they descend; he must not stir up the polis and make it falter, but when it is faltering and in danger he must help, just as a sacred anchor. . .” Above all, he must “not remove himself from the terrors facing the land. . . ; but, even if he had no share in the failings of the masses, he must assume the risks on their behalf.” The masses are not able to handle the ship by themselves (cf. Polybius 6.44.4-6), whereas the aristocratic leader exists for this purpose.Given Josephus’ evident disdain for those who fled the city in its time of need, the vivid and disparaging image (by no means “trite” as J. Price proposes), and the well-established context for the statesman-helmsman’s primary duty to the polis, it is difficult to follow those scholars who imagine Josephus here giving positive value to aristocratic defection from the city as part of his putative apologetic program, to claim that aristocrats generally supported Rome and opposed the war (J. Price 1992: 38-40; McLaren 1998: 95, 102; cf. Goodman 1987: 163). That these men were called “distinguished” at their introduction (2.418) says nothing about Josephus’ view of their character; it has to do with irrefragable social status. Clearly, those who stayed to lead the people (Josephus, Ananus, and others) are the ones worthy of praise in this narrative. See the note to these grandsons of King Herod at 2.418, where they were dispatched to King Agrippa to seek military assistance, which then arrived under the leadership of Philip son of Iacimus. In contrast to the Life, which discusses his activities at length, War has mentioned this commander of Agrippa’s forces by name only at 2.421 above (see the note there), though he has remained present in the background; hence the need to identify him again. This reminder of Philip’s mission from Agrippa also serves to distinguish him from Costobar and Saul, who are presented as abandoning their own city, whereas he was fleeing a city that had rejected his help. We do not hear what has become of his 2,000 cavalry or their commander Darius (2.421), but perhaps we should assume that they served as an escort for the 3 men back to Syria, Philip as commander standing for his army also. Although he was introduced at 2.421 as “general,” the title here is used of Philip also at Life 407; see the note ad loc. in BJP 9. “Camp prefect” is perhaps best suited to his role after arriving in Jerusalem, where his royal cavalry were to protect the non-insurgent populace and the Roman auxiliary garrison of 500-1,000 (2.428-32). Since his troops were able to leave, whereas the Roman garrison that had taken refuge in the Herodian palace was slaughtered (2.20-54), the accusation naturally arose that Philip had sided with his Judean compatriots and betrayed the Romans (cf. Life 50, 182, 407 with notes in BJP 9). The predictability of such charges, especially the conspiracy theory connecting such a betrayal with an anti-Roman gambit by King Agrippa II (Life 407), are so readily explained by the circumstances that they cannot serve as compelling evidence of actual conspiracy (agreeing with J. Price 1991, contra Drexler 1925: 306-12; Cohen 1979: 160-69). Life’s story is fundamentally different from these brief notices in War. There (Life 46-47) Philip flees the Herodian palace only to face further threats from Manaem’s insurgents (who here have given him safe passage: 2.437); Philip hides out with some relatives in Jerusalem for (only) 4 days before making his escape, by wearing a disguise, to some villages near Gamala in the Golan. There is no room in the later account—which Josephus might well have learned subsequently from the history by Justus of Tiberias (Life 40, 336), Philip’s relative by marriage (Life 178)—for Costobar and Saul, or their long stay in Jerusalem after the fall of the garrison (to accommodate Cestius’ campaign and its failure). In that account there is also no possibility of their heading as a group from Jerusalem to Cestius. Each of these incompatible stories has its own internal logic, which Josephus has apparently generated to make sense of whatever scraps of information he possessed. Although it is tempting to look for a specific agenda in Life’s reworking of the Philip story, virtually all of the parallel material in War and Life is similarly irreconcilable at key points, and any posited agenda leaves major problems unresolved.

Antipas is mentioned with Costobar and Saul at 2.418. They all visit Agrippa and apparently all return with Philip to help fight the insurgents, in spite of their advanced age (ca. 60). See 2.429: though unnamed there, these were the men who had made the embassy to Agrippa, who had recently taken refuge in the Herodian palace, though Costobar and Saul have now left. The siege: 2.431, 437-39, 450-56. The meaning seems to be that whereas Costobar and Saul “fled from the city” to Cestius (Philip being in a different category as Agrippa’s officer, sent from elsewhere), their companion Antipas courageously refused to do so, threw in his fortunes with the city as the statesman should, and paid the ultimate price. It seems not to mean that Antipas disdained escape from the Herodian palace with the others (2.437), for the narrative insists that only the Roman garrison remained after the departure of the royal contingent (2.438), and the Romans were all killed except Metilius (2.450-53). See the note at 2.541. See the note to this key word at 1.10. The story is told at 4.140: according to the narrative Antipas has recovered standing and position in the city by then, but falls victim to a purge of royals and other wealthy citizens.

This is the last reference to Cestius Gallus’ activities in War: he disappears suddenly after having dominated the narrative for a long period. He will be mentioned several more times, but only in the memory of this rout (3.9, 133, 414; 5.41, 267, 302; 6.338, 422; 7.18). Josephus will also report Nero’s disparagement of Cestius’ generalship, without naming him, at 3.1-2. Cestius apparently died at about the time of Vespasian’s arrival in early 67: Tacitus wonders whether, now close to 70 perhaps, Cestius died for normal reasons or from disgust and loathing at his failure (ubi fato aut taedio; Hist. 5.10). Nero had departed Rome in September of 66 for a long-planned tour of Greece, during which he would play at the artistic festivals and hope to win laurels (Suetonius, Nero 22-25); during that tour he famously declared the freedom of Achaea—the whole province (ILS 8794)—an act that would soon be reversed by Vespasian. Nero returned abruptly at the end of 67, reaching Rome after delaying for some months in other Italian cities (Malitz 2005: 88-96). He is in Greece now, therefore, and he will still be there when he hears of Cestius’ defeat and sends Vespasian and Titus to deal with the Judean conflict (War 3.1-8); this passage anticipates that one.According to Life 407-9, it was months later than this episode in November/December of 66—namely, when Vespasian arrived in Tyre to prepare his invasion of Judea (early spring, 67 CE; cf. War 3.29, which does not however mention a stop in Tyre)—that Vespasian rather than Nero heard the complaint against Philip (and Agrippa), and it was Vespasian who required the king to dispatch Philip personally to Nero in Rome; once there, however, Philip was unable to see Nero because of the “civil war” and so returned to the king. That very different scenario allows for Philip’s pacification of Gamala after fleeing Jerusalem (Life 46-61), but it creates other chronological problems: from late 66 through 67, Nero was indeed in Greece (as correctly here; cf. Bradley 1978; Malitz 2005: 88-89, 96-97; Dio 68.8.2, 68.19-20), whereas the Roman civil war did not begin until the revolt of Vindex in April 68 CE—notwithstanding earlier reports of threats. This political use of ἀνάγκη to describe circumstances that limit a statesman’s freedom to act (cf. the note to “advantageous” at 2.346) was well established by Josephus’ time (Polybius 16.20.2; 18.4.2, 11.8-9; 20.10.14-15; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 2.35.3; 3.12.3; 9.9.1; Comp. verb. 18.73; cf. Eckstein 1995: 199-201). The term may also have strong tragic overtones, relevant for War and possibly here, connoting the necessity by which people act even as they move inexorably toward their fated ends. The question of who bears responsibility for the war is a preoccupation of bk. 2: Florus is consistently the chief culprit (2.296, 455, 532). At 2.404, 418 we have seen Judeans urgently trying to deflect blame (nefariously engineered by Florus) from themselves to him. Here Cestius, given his obvious failure both to prevent strife and to suppress it, joins the blame game. Within a few months of the debacle, Cestius will have died (see the note at 2.280). This entire analysis of Cestius’ psychology, depending on the factuality of the dispatch itself, appears to be invented from whole cloth for narrative reasons. Josephus had no evident way of knowing Cestius’ thoughts, and the entirely different account in Life (see previous notes) puts it in serious doubt. At Ant. 17.154 Josephus combines the cognate noun for this verb (κουφίζω) with this noun (κίνδυνος), though the phrase seems otherwise unattested in literature.

Although the city has appeared nearly a dozen times in bk. 1, this is the first reference to Damascus in bk. 2. The oldest continuously inhabited city in the world (today), its site was attractive for obvious reasons: the oasis of the Baradas (Chrysorhoas) River and the large fertile plain created by its run-off to the E of the city. All evidence indicates that the city, home of King Herod’s immensely learned courtier Nicolaus a century before these events, was a bastion of Greek culture. At the time of this episode, a temple to Zeus Damascenus was being built in the heart of the city. With the dimensions of the grand temenos roughly 380 by 310 m (1,247 x 1,017 ft), this was comparable in size to Herod’s rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, though a different shape (Millar 1993: 310-14). Damascus had occasionally fallen under Nabatean Arab control in the 1st centuries BCE and CE, but by 63 CE (before this episode) it was again under Roman administration as part of Syria (Butcher 2003: 43, 96-98, 114). See the note at 2.51.

At the only other mention of gymnasia in War (1.422), the audience has learned that King Herod donated them, along with theaters and temples, to several Greek cities, including Damascus. So this very facility had been built by the famous Judean king, and this is a complete reversal of his efforts to establish friendly relations with Greek cities of the east. Every Greek city had a gymnasium: “the chief corner-stone of the educational system” (Marrou 1956: 104). Dedicated to the local Gods, it was a place of education for male teenagers (roughly 15-17 years old), their passport to civic participation, as well as a venue for exercise and a sort of club for adult citizens. Those at Priene and Pergamum are fairly well preserved. On the size of the facility, see the note to “10,500” at 2.561. See the note at 2.259. Josephus’ Eleazar son of Ya‘ir will charge (7.238) that the Damascenes did not even invent a reasonable pretext. In the narrative here, the massacre of Judeans at Caesarea (2.457), itself caused by long-standing conflicts there and perhaps connected with the murder of the Roman garrison in Jerusalem, has led Judean raiding parties to attack the Syrian, Decapolis, and coastal cities (2.458-60). The Syrians responded (2.461-65), often by killing their Judean populations (2.477-80), events exacerbated by the Judean attack on Scythopolis and its aftermath (2.466-77). So the logic here appears to be that the Damascenes had first interned their Judean residents, out of suspicion that they would support outside Judean raids on the city, and they now massacre this group in response to the destruction of Cestius’ army. On interest in Judean culture and worship, see the notes to “Judaize” and “circumcision” at 2.454. At 7.45 Josephus will claim, consistently if remarkably, that the Judeans of Syria “by constantly bringing a large number of Greeks over to their devotional practices, made them in a certain sense a part of themselves.” In that case, women are not singled out. In the final paragraphs of the Apion (2.282-86) he will insist that attraction to Judean law has spread far and wide, even among the masses. Evidence is discussed at length, from very different perspectives, in Feldman (1993: 177-446) and Goodman 1994, summarily in Mason 1996: 187-93. For the attraction of élite women to Judean law, both historically and rhetorically, see Matthews 2001.

I.e., in the gymnasium. This may mean both that the Judeans were an easier target in such crowded quarters and that, since they were thus confined, the deed could be done without the perpetrators’ wives learning of it. Or “slaughtered, sacrificed, cut the throats of.” See the similar phrasing (in relation to Caesarea) and note at 2.457. To hold thousands of people (if the story is plausible), the gymnasium at Damascus must have had a very large internal courtyard: 10,000 people would fill a modern football field if standing in ranks at twice the density of soldiers in close order. Later recalling this event, Eleazar son of Ya‘ir will claim 18,000 victims (7.368), though Josephus may deliberately have him exaggerate for rhetorical purposes—he also spells out “women and children”—what was already horrible enough. Life 27 also recalls this massacre. Both of those later recollections group this episode with the earlier Syrian massacres (2.461-86), whereas Josephus here isolates the Damascene episode as a response to the defeat of Cestius—showing again the freedom he feels as a creative author. See the notes to “amnesty” at 2.55 and “freedom from fear” at 2.238. The adverb could mean that they conducted the massacre confidently (without fear) or that they committed such a heinous act with a license or amnesty, because of deep hostility to the Judeans on the part of the Roman authorities.

This is the only occurrence of ῥωμαΐζω in Josephus, and the first attestation in Greek literature, though from now on the verb begins to be used heavily by others: Dio Chrysostom (Or. 37.4), Appian (Annib. 177-78; Lib. 304-5; Mac. 7.1; Illyr. 40; Mithr. 5, 107, 109, 182; Bell. civ. 1.5.41; 2.13.91), Philostratus (Vit. Apoll. 5.36), Cassius Dio (50.6.4; 51.1.5). Once again (see Introduction) Josephus stands at the beginning of a trend.In form the verb belongs to a class that had gained prominence during the Persian and then Peloponnesian wars, half a millennium earlier: μηδίζω, περσίζω, λακωνίζω, ἀττικίζω—indicating political alignment with another (normally greater) city or power, usually a forced choice for weaker states in times of crisis (e.g., “Atticize or Laconize?”); cf. Thucydides 3.61.2; Xenophon, Hell. 6.3.14. Even if it was unavoidable, the identification with foreign states implied by the verb carried less-than-noble connotations. In the 2nd century BCE the author of 2 Maccabees ironically adjusted ἑλληνίζω, which had meant simply “to express oneself in Greek” and its condition Ἑλληνισμός for the same purpose: to indicate the shameful adoption of a Greek cultural program by Judean élites, to which he contrasted (with another neologism) the noble counter-measure of Ἰουδαϊσμός—the ongoing condition of the verb ἰουδαΐζω (cf. Mason 2007c). The appearance of ῥωμαΐζω in Josephus and his later Greek contemporaries may result from their reappropriation of the older Greek style that marked this period.We should not assume that the existence of a “Romanizing” group implies a simple polarization, such that Ananus, Josephus, and the others were anti-Roman. Josephus’ model Polybius claims that such a polarization was asserted in relation to Achaea, before the Roman senate, by the troublesome and deceptive sycophant Callicrates. He was pro-Roman, and presented everyone who did not share his views as anti-Roman (24.8-10; 30.13.2-11). Polybius himself, however, presents much more complicated scenarios: each Greek city or league had its “pro-Roman” elements—usually disliked by the masses (24.9.5)—but they were an extreme. Everyone else debated how best to deal with the reality of Roman power. Callicrates was a Romanizer. Whereas Aristaenus and Philopoemen differed significantly from each other on the best approach to Rome, neither could be called pro-Roman, even though they agreed on the need for at least limited cooperation with Rome (24.11-13). Polybius admires both men, because they both offered reasoned arguments based upon the advantage of Achaea. So also in Josephus’ Jerusalem, his views and those of the leaders he respects are nuanced, not “pro-Roman”—even though they recognize the practical need for ultimate cooperation with the great power (e.g., 2.651; 3.135-37; 4.316-20). For this familiar pair of alternatives, see the note to “force” at 2.8. That is, the large temple precinct (τὸ ἱερόν) covering the whole platform built by King Herod, not the inner shrine complex (ὁ ναός). See the note to “shrine” at 1.10. The significance of “more” is unclear, since this appears to be a new and methodical exercise in selecting commanders, which does not assume continuity on the basis of previous command (cf. Eleazar in 2.564). This passage, with much of what follows, has generated vast scholarly discussion because of its conflict with Life (26-29), which has Josephus and two priestly colleagues chosen to visit Galilee, not to prepare for war but to calm the restive areas in Galilee, disarming the militants and waiting to see what the Romans would do after Cestius’ debacle (e.g., Luther 1910: 16-17; Drexler 1925: 299-302; Laqueur 1920: 103-4; Thackeray 1929: 10-11; Shutt 1961: 3, 37-41). Although the two accounts are not strictly contradictory on this matter (there are related contradictions), they create quite different impressions. See the fuller discussion throughout BJP 9.

For the name Yosep, see the note at 2.74. At 2.451 Josephus has mentioned a Gorion son of Nicomedes, as one of those who offered a deceitful pledge of safe passage to the Roman garrison; but that person may be from a different family (see the note there). At 4.159 a Gorion son of Josephus will appear, speaking for Ananus II (with Simon son of Gamaliel) against the Zealots. It is inherently likely that these two men are connected, either by a simple confusion of names in the MS tradition (so Drexler 1925: 299-300) or as father and son. The last-named seems identical also with the distinguished victim of the Zealots (Gourion) at 4.358, killed for envy of his wealth and authority, and because of his frankness of speech; Josephus speaks highly of his free mind and love of the people.It is a puzzle that, although this Joseph is named as one of the two supreme commanders here, he quickly fades from view. It is rather Jesus (son of Gamaliel or Gamalas) who appears as joint commander with Ananus in the later narrative (4.238, 248-50), as also throughout in Life (193). Josephus does not explain the shift, though it is not hard to conjecture reasons in times of war (death or injury, crises requiring his attention, a change of mind). See the note to his father at 2.240. Ananus II will remain a central figure in War: he will prepare Jerusalem for war (2.648-54); his eventual murder along with his colleague Jesus, and Josephus’ encomium on the pair, will provide the fulcrum of the entire War at 4.314-25 (see Introduction). Cf. 4.151, 160-62, 193-238. Son of the high priest Ananus I—in office during the first period of direct Roman rule (6-15 CE) and so an eminent figure, influential also through his 5 sons who attained the high priesthood in the decades before 70 CE (Ant. 20.198)—Ananus II served briefly as high priest in 62 CE, when he presided over the death of James, brother of Jesus of Nazareth. Josephus’ later account of that episode (Ant. 20.173-203) is scathing, denouncing the high priest’s Sadducean propensity to savagery in punishments. In Life (193-96, 216, 309), however, Josephus appears once again basically respectful, though he regrets that even this upright former high priest was susceptible to bribery by John of Gischala. Josephus’ chosen term αὐτοκράτορες was the standard Greek equivalent of Latin imperatores, and its other 21 occurrences in War all refer to Roman generals/emperors. Josephus apparently intended such associations here for the benefit of his Roman audience. Jerusalem already had strong walls in various configurations, those around the temple, the Antonia, and Herod’s palace being particularly solid and high. Agrippa I had begun a grand wall that would have included the vulnerable newer areas, but died before its completion; Josephus remarks that, had he completed it, the Romans would have a much harder task (cf. 2.218-19 and note to “wall” there). At 5.155 Josephus will note that Jerusalem’s defenders did hurriedly raise that wall to a height of some 37 ft (12 m). This passage apparently indicates the beginning of that effort.

It is typical of Josephus’ narrative art that he now returns to an episode already related (2.554), to draw out a new element—Eleazar’s prominence in it. This is the first certain mention of a man who will become an important leader for a time, by breaking away from John of Gischala’s Zealots (5.5-7, 12, 21). The two factions will eventually reunite against Simon son of Gioras (5.99-105, 250-51). Eleazar may, however, be mentioned already at 4.225 (in view of 5.5), as the most effective and influential member of the Zealots and as a priest (confirming the significant priestly leadership of the rebel movement[s]), even though “son of Gion” has the best MS support (PAL Latin; the others have “son of Simon”) and is preferable as the “more difficult reading.” The story is in 5.554 above. See the note to “treasury of God” at 2.50. This was evidently the temple treasury, and Eleazar’s use of its funds appears to imply Josephus’ criticism. This claim offers an indirect challenge to the common view that anyone involved in the defense of Judea, such as Josephus, must have been an enthusiastic supporter of the rebellion (e.g., Luther 1910: 7; Laqueur 1970 [1920]: 258-59; Drexler 1925: 299; Cohen 1979: 152-54 [but 183]; Goodman 1987: 167; Price 1992: 32; Mader 2000: 1-18). Josephus claims that some of the most zealous rebels (at least Simon here) were excluded on moral grounds, whereas those placed in supreme command, with whom Josephus himself was allied, were more evenly tempered and hoped to find a peaceful solution (Ananus: cf. 2.64-51; 4.318-25). Whether this analysis may be discarded as mere post factum rationalization remains to be seen: it happens to accord with principles developed already by Polybius and evident in Plutarch’s essay on Political Precepts. It is difficult to imagine how Josephus could have absorbed such a complex thought structure in the short period between the war and his time of writing in the early 70s. See the note to “tyrants” at 1.10—a fundamental theme of War. Or “the Zealots under him” as the later group name: see the note at 2.444. Although the specific group of “those called Zealots” will be clearly indicated only at 2.651 and later, and the Greek word has a common generic meaning (as at Life 11 of Josephus’ relationship to Bannus), the deliberate construction here (“the ζηλωταί under him” rather than simply “his”) and the fact that Eleazar will be named among the Zealot leaders (4.225), before creating a splinter group (5.5-7), suggest that Josephus has the specific group in mind here. Since he has not yet explained the distinction to his audience, however, and the generic meaning of the word also yields a tolerable sense, my translation continues to evoke the sense that an audience would most likely have understood. Having “spear-bearers” is a frequent concomitant of tyrannical aspiration; see the note to this word at 2.262.

See the references in the note to his name at 2.564. I.e., what was plundered from Cestius (as 2.554, 564). See the note to this word at 2.261 (here in the cognate verb). Josephus uses the doubly compound verb ἐκπεριέρχομαι only here and at 2.519 (recently) in War, though 11 times in Antiquities. In all other cases but Ant. 16.190 the sense is literal. Here it is metaphorical and might be rendered in American English “he made an end run around” or “danced around” the populace. This is distinctive Josephan language: before his 13 occurrences, it is attested only 8 times in all Greek literature, chiefly in fragments of Phylarchus, Megasthenes, and Nicolaus after the astronomer Autolycus; Polybius has it once (10.31.3).

See the note at 2.43. With close ties to Judea from the Hasmonean period onward (1.68; Ant. 13.254-58), cemented by the family of Herod, which originated there, the Idumeans will become major players in the main phases of the war: 4.224-36, 270-326, 345-53, 566-70; 5.248-49, 290, 358; 6.148, 378-81; 7.267. “Different”: separate from the supreme commanders in Jerusalem, presumably, though possibly distinct from the commander already in place, Niger. This man is otherwise unknown. The person with the similar name at 2.599 is excluded by his being a member of the Tiberian council. Josephus emphasizes the class distinction: the Judeans were wise enough at first to choose the most eminent men to conduct the conflict: all men of the highest possible breeding and character, irrespective of their personal views on the war. It is understood that they will be most committed to the wisest political solution. This name makes little sense as it stands (Νέος, “young, new”), because it is Greek, and because no high priest is attested with this name, though we have a more or less complete list for this period. Either for this reason or because nothing stood in the text, the Latin and Ps-Hegesippus (the earliest witnesses to the text) omit this name. Hudson emends it to “Ananias” (Ἀνανίου). Pelletier (ad loc.) mentions Ant. 20.197-99, which uses the terms “older” and “younger” of the two high priests named “Ananus,” and wonders whether the “young” here might have been an appellation for Eleazar’s father Ananias here, likewise to distinguish him from an older namesake. That seems unlikely, however, since one would normally use the comparative, as in the analogy. At any rate, some emendation seems necessary.If Josephus wrote a father’s name here then Ananias is the best possibility (Thackeray in LCL, Pelletier, M-B), and if that conjecture were correct then this Eleazar would be the temple commandant who initiated the serious movement to war at 2.409-10. That would raise interesting but currently insoluble questions, since that man has consistently appeared as opposing the older chief priests and their allies. But a war-time government must often combine varied and otherwise contradictory figures.If this Eleazar were simply the son of the current high priest (and the name Neos does not belong at all), with the Latin translations, Eleazar’s father would be Matthias son of Theophilus (Ant. 20.223). See the note to this figure at 2.520, his first appearance. Niger is partly comparable to the Eleazar just mentioned: although he played a distinguished role in the defeat of Cestius (2.520), he must be subordinated to the supreme high-priestly commanders. He is different from Eleazar, however, in that he will meet a noble end in the story: like Ananus and Jesus, even he will be done in by the radical warmongers, in spite of his courageous deeds on their behalf (3.11, 20, 25, 27-28—which Josephus as narrator tragically admires), allegedly out of fear because of his bravery. On their heads he will invoke, as he dies, the programmatic drought, plague, civil war, and factionalism that will indeed come to pass (4.359-64). See the notes at 2.43, 57. This is a striking accommodation to Josephus’ audience: he must explain why Niger was called the Perean while also explaining which Perea (in distinction from several Pereas in Greece—lit. “the area across X”) was meant.

Or: “they took great care over” (litotes). At 3.54 Josephus will explain that Jerusalem is sui generis, standing above the other toparchies as the head stands above the body. The following sites correspond largely to the list of 11 toparchies, or administrative districts, at 3.54-55. Missing are Pella, En Gedi, and Herodium, for understandable reasons: they are in the opposite direction from the Roman advance (from the N and W). This Joseph (an extremely common name, as was his father’s; see the note to “Yosep” at 2.74) is otherwise unknown. The ancient oasis city and toparchic center at the W edge of the Jordan River valley, NE of Jerusalem; see the note at 2.57. Control of this site would block a major artery from the N and give access to the Dead Sea region with its countless possibilities for refuge. Manasseh (‮מנשה‬‎) is not among the commonly attested names of the period. This may be in part because of its checkered history: on the one hand, Manasseh was the first-born son of the patriarch Joseph in Egypt, whose posterity—the “half-tribe” W of the Jordan—came to be included among the 12 tribes of Israel (Gen 41:51; 46:20; 48:5-20); but just as famously, Manasseh was a Judahite king who reversed his father Hezekiah’s monotheistic reforms (2 Kgs 21:1-17; 23:26, notwithstanding the revisionist note of repentance at 2 Chron 33:13). This figure appears only here. Since Josephus uses Ἐσσαῖος for the singular form of “Essene” (1.78; 2.113; Ant. 17.346) and remarks that the group known to his audience as Ἐσσηνοί (plural; Ant. 15.371-72) are called by the Judeans Ἐσσαῖοι, most scholars (e.g., Whiston, Thackeray in LCL, Pelletier) have understandably assumed that John was an Essene. The form would also serve, however, for a native of Essa (Ant. 13.393), which M-B seem to favor by translating Essäer (cf. Schalit 1968: s.v.). The latter option has in its favor that men were normally identified either by their father or by their place of origin, as indeed all the others in this paragraph are. This is especially clear at John’s next appearance (War 3.11), where he is named alongside Niger the Perean and Silas the Babylonian. By contrast, when Josephus introduces someone as a Pharisee, Sadducee, or Essene, he usually explains that a school affiliation is in view (1.78; 2.113; Ant. 13.293; 17.346; 20.199; Life 191, 197), though Ant. 15.3, 370 are somewhat comparable to this formulation.Since Essa appears in Josephus as another name for the Decapolis city of Gerasa (Ant. 13.393; cf. War 1.104), this reading might create a coincidental parallel with Simon son of Giora, a major leader in the later revolt who came from Gerasa (4.503). See 2.98 and note: toparchies, equivalent to “cleruchies” (3.54-55; cf. Pliny, Nat. 5.70), were Judean administrative districts, of which there were 11. Thamna (Timnah: Gen 38:12-14; Josh 15:10-57) was a natural and longstanding regional center, on the principal road SE from Caesarea via Antipatris (Aphek)—the course chosen by Vespasian (4.443)—and possibly on a minor N-S route (see the note to “Arous” at 2.69), a toparchic center mentioned in 3.55 and Pliny, Nat. 5.70. With the addition of two other toparchies and the coastal site of Joppa (following), John has been entrusted with the major swath of the Judean heartland in the coastal plain WNW of Jerusalem, strategically crucial for blocking a Roman advance by all the standard routes. As J. Schwartz observes (1991: 72), of the sites under his command Thamna was best suited for John’s headquarters because it would be least exposed to heavy Roman onslaughts. But see 4.443-44: the entire region falls quickly to Vespasian. This is the only occurrence of προσκληρόομαι in Josephus. It is a distinctively Philonic compound verb, occurring a remarkable 31 times in his corpus (e.g., Cher. 77; Sacr. 6, 7, 119; Plant. 61; Conf. 111; Div. 278; Dec. 108; Spec. 3.178; Legat. 68)—remarkable because it is attested only once before Philo (Diodorus 3.18.2), once in Josephus’ contemporary Plutarch (Mor. [Quaest.] 738d), and rarely after that, from the 3rd century. We see again the Philonic quality of Josephus’ diction. Lod, a toparchic center (3.54-55) near the W extremity of Judea proper; see the note at 2.242. Controlling this site alone, given its location at the primary junction of W Judea’s coastal plain (shephelah; cf. J. Schwartz 1991: 23-24), would prevent Roman access by the normal routes to Jerusalem: that used by Cestius (2.516), via Beit-Horon and Gibeon, and the more southerly route via Ammaus. But Judean control of all these areas collapsed quickly after Vespasian’s arrival (4.130, 444). Although Joppa (Yafo, Jaffa, just S of mod. Tel Aviv) was not a toparchic center, Josephus will mention it alongside that list because it serves as “leader” of its surrounding region (3.56). As a port city (now completely overshadowed by Caesarea to the N; Joppa seems to have remained Judean), it had strategic value: those possessing it could hope to harass both military traffic on the coastal road from N or S and enemy shipping between Alexandria and Caesarea or Antioch (as indeed happens at 3.414-27). This was a toparchic center (3.54-55) on one of the main W-E roads from coastal Joppa to Jerusalem; see the note at 2.63.

Gophna (mod. Jifna) sat about about 20 km (12.5 miles) N of Jerusalem, on the road from Shechem/Neapolis (Nablus) in Samaria—the route taken by Titus (5.50)—where it joined the route coming SE from Caesarea and Antipatris. It was another strategically important site and a toparchic center, mentioned by Josephus as second to Jerusalem (3.55). Vespasian will leave this region along with Acrabatene until he has taken the coastal plain (4.444), but he seems to encounter little difficulty (4.551). It will have a Roman garrison by the time Titus resumes the campaign (5.50), and will serve as a sanctuary for high-profile Judean deserters (6.115-118). At the SE extremity of Samaria, bordering Judea proper; see the note at 2.235. This John (among the commonest names of the time) appears only here in Josephus. He may be another son of Ananias the high priest, in addition to Ananus and Eleazar (see 2.243 and note). That would explain his high status, but not Josephus’ omission of the information here. Josephus frequently switches to the present tense to highlight the main action; here the present serves as a subtle way of highlighting his own role, which he mentions last with apparent humility. Already in the prologue (1.22) Josephus anticipated his forthcoming description of the two Galilees (3.35-44), which is crucial for setting the scene of his main activities as general. He mentions the division again at 2.573, accommodating his audience by referring to “what is called Lower Galilee.” Thus our author introduces himself for the first time into the narrative, in which he will now play a significant role. See also his personal remarks in the prologue (esp. 1.1-17) and, for his ancestry, Life 1.1-6 with commentary in BJP 9. Until this point Josephus has seldom used the 1st person singular pronoun—in occasional editorial musings: 2.151, 156, 191, though not in reference to himself as character—and in the sequel it will remain rare: once in bk. 2 (quoting his own speech at 2.605), 9 times in bk. 3, 7 times in bk. 4, 7 times in bk. 5, 19 times in bk. 6, not at all in bk. 7, almost all of which concern his thoughts as narrator. He will refer to his character most often in the 3rd person, as here—30 times in the remainder of bk. 2, some 54 times in bk. 3. Cf. Caesar’s famous 3rd-person self-references in his 7- (later 8-) volume history, The Gallic War. Gamala (named for its camel-back ridge between two hills), in the Golan to the E of Lake Kinneret, was introduced in 1.105 as a resistant fortress taken by Alexander Janneus, and mentioned again as one of the sites rebuilt by the Roman Gabinius ca. 56 BCE (1.166). It is now part of King Agrippa II’s territory (2.247; 3.56), which Josephus as rebel commander will nonetheless claim, along with Agrippa’s cities of Tiberias and Tarichea in Galilee. Josephus will describe the site in detail at 4.2-10, just before its capture by Vespasian. See the note to “Ioudas” at 2.118 and Life 46-61—where Josephus first investigates the situation in Gamala on his arrival in Galilee—along with the notes to the latter passage and archaeological information in BJP 9. But whereas Philip son of Iacimus is described in the Life passages as keeping Gamala loyal to King Agrippa and the Romans, at Life 185-86 Josephus reports that Gamala defected from them and sought assistance from him—extra forces and fortification of the walls—both of which requests he granted. See further 2.575 and note. The reasons for this strength are explained at 4.2-10.

The distinction (προθυμία ἢ σύνεσις) is not attested as a cliché. It implies a wry view of Josephus’ colleagues: some had more enthusiasm than military cleverness; for others, the case was reversed. Cf. Life 30-61, where Josephus describes his first task in Galilee as understanding the situation and the people’s moods in the various locales. This is a remarkable statement, since the “other respects” in which he might fail would include losing in his theater of the war. Yet Josephus’ sentiments accord with the value system articulated in authors from Polybius to Plutarch: one’s first and main responsibility as a statesman is to identify with the people in one’s care, and to do the best for them in the circumstances; outcomes are not within one’s control (in keeping with Stoic views): Polybius 24.11-13; Plutarch, Mor. [Praec.] 799b-801c; 815c-e. Josephus’ character contrasts the same verbs in his speech at 5.390.

See the note at 2.239. Life 79 gives this episode a different look. There Josephus, having arrived to find a restive population, takes 70 of the Galilean leading men with him “on a pretext of friendship” as hostages to the people’s loyalty. He presents himself there as making the rounds to hear cases, as a governor would, with this group of 70 in attendance as his traveling companions. Although he defers to their judgement, this is a clever ploy to keep them and the people loyal. Josephus here omits the description of his first ploy in Life (77-78), which involved neutralizing the militants (“bandits”) already in Galilee by extracting from the populace protection money, to keep them out of the towns and cities unless called for. See BJP 9 ad loc. This distinction between the élite and the masses, and the different means for winning over each group, is a consistent feature of Josephus’ narrative world; cf. 2.193, 199, 241-43. I.e., people known and trusted by the locals. This is classic imperial strategy, followed also by the Romans (as by some predecessors and many followers). In the ideal world of the Mishnah (Sanh. 1.5-6; 2.4) the court of 71 constituted the Great Sanhedrin (‮סנהדרין גדולה‬‎), which alone could decide various weighty matters, e.g.: judging a false prophet, a high priest, or a tribe, or declaring war. This principle was based on Moses’ precedent in gathering 70 elders to support him (Num 11:16). Or, more technically: “magistrates, chiefs, archons” (ἄρχοντες). See the note to “magistrates” at 2.216. Archons, in various numbers and configurations, were chief magistrates of several Greek cities.

The 7 in each city do not appear in Life 79. Their function is puzzling, since each town, certainly a city such as Tiberias (cf. Life 69 and notes in BJP 9), already had its own local leadership, and this arrangement lacks the motive of either keeping the leadership nearby (as with the 70) or exercising personal control (since the 7 would be local men and not easily accountable for trivial matters). The system does have an attractive symmetry, however, and that may be sufficient explanation (as literary creation) of its appearance here. M. Sanh. 1.4 has murder trials judged before a sanhedrin of 23.

Although this perception might simply reflect hindsight, it did not require prophetic abilities, since the Romans were based in Antioch to the N, and generals from Quintilius Varus (2.68) to Cestius Gallus (2.503-6, 510-12) had first attacked Galilee. The parallel summary passage in Life (186-88) comes later in the narrative, relative to Josephus’ Galilean command, after he has already related much concerning some of these walls: Gischala (70-72), Tiberias and Tarichea (142-44), and Gamala (47-61, 114, 186). There it is his account of building Gamala’s walls, in response to a request after the town revolts from Agrippa, that leads him to summarize the similar achievements elsewhere. But those individual stories, along with their later parallels in the present work, are enough to show that this opening summary is a literary construction: it misleadingly implies that after setting up an internal administrative-legal system Josephus immediately and systematically turned his attention to fortifying the towns, though in fact each case must have arisen from particular circumstances.In the list of fortifications here, Sigoph, Sepph, Sepphoris, and Gischala pose particular problems, the first 3 being absent from the Life parallel (see following notes). Missing here, in contrast to Life’s list, are the Cave of Arbela, though it is alluded to in his reference to the caves, Sogane in Lower Galilee (but see “Sigoph”), and the peculiar Komos, which is apparently a MS problem. Some of the same places are represented differently in the Greek of the two narratives, and the MSS of both texts are full of difficulties, representing either the scribes’ bafflement or their attempt to “correct” the text (see BJP 9 and notes ad loc.). For all the parallel cases, the reader is referred to BJP 9, the notes to §§ 186-89, and Appendix A in that volume, especially the section of the appendix entitled “The Walled Towns of Josephus.” Mod. Yodefat. This naturally defended, keyhole-shaped hill, recently excavated (see BJP 9 as previous note), will play a central role in bk. 3 as the place of Josephus’ last stand and surrender (3.141-339). In Life (§ 234) we learn that the town was friendly to Josephus when he was challenged by the delegation from Jerusalem, offering him a safe redoubt. Its location was excellent, protected from the Beit Netofa valley by Mt. Atzmon, but still easily reachable, with lines of escape to E and W: close enough to the valley that Josephus would know what was happening there, and close to many villages in his charge, yet far enough from Tiberias and Tarichea on Lake Kinneret, with which he had a difficult relationship. Excavations at Iotapata have made it a showcase for Josephus’ “accuracy” (on a par with Gamala in this respect): an assault ramp against the wall, sections of casemate wall filled in with boulders and house rooms strengthened with soil infilling from the time of the war—as ballista balls and arrowheads reveal (see Aviam 2002). This is Galilean Beer-Sheva, just N of Kefar Hananiah at the E end of the Beit-Kerem valley, cited by Josephus later (War 3.39) as marking the N extremity of Lower Galilee. This and the parallel at Life 188 are the only references to the site in Josephus, usually identified as the village of Salameh on the W bank of the Zalmon River. Called Capharath at Life 188, this appears to be the village of Kefar Ata: it is mentioned by Josephus only here and in the parallel. Iapha is generally identified with the village of Yaphi’a (Japhia), about 1.85 miles (nearly 3 km) SW of Nazareth, N of Wadi Kishon. For the MS difficulties at Life 188, see BJP 9 and notes there. This name does not appear in the Life parallel. Since these sites are said to be in Lower Galilee, and War misses Sogane in that region (Life 188), and they begin with the same consonants, it is widely held that they are the same place: the modern village of Sakhnin (Sachnin). This is Josephus’ name for Mt. Tabor, roughly in the center of the range of hills in Lower Galilee occupying the SW quadrant of a circle centered in Lake Kinneret. The summit does not seem to have been normally inhabited, but it served as a natural place of refuge in times of conflict (cf. already 1.177). Josephus will mention his building of Tabor’s walls again (3 miles’ worth, he claims in a gross exaggeration) as he describes the capture of the site by Vespasian’s general Placidus (4.54-61). He also claims there that he had stored water and grain on the mountain in preparation for a siege. Tarichea, 30 stadia (3.75 m., 6 km) N of Tiberias around the middle of the W shore of Lake Kinneret, will provide Josephus’ main base in the lake area and a frequent refuge from the more overtly troublesome city of Tiberias—dynamics that Life will explore in some detail. Even War’s narrative, however, exposes the problems with including these two cities in this simple and seemingly systematic list of fortifications. At 2.606-610 (cf. Life 141-44) Josephus will describe how his efforts to return captured plunder to King Agrippa II put him in danger of his life, for betraying the rebel cause. As a stratagem only, he claimed that in fact he was preserving the money for building up the walls of Tarichea (the place where he was) and, when the Tiberians and other visitors objected, he assured them that he would build walls for them also. Evidently, both places will still be in need of fortification at that point. Josephus must be referring to the Cave(s) of Arbela, one of the few sites from Life 187-88 omitted in this list. Near the shoreline N of Tiberias, these caves had a long history as hiding places for rebels of all kinds: from the Seleucid general Bacchides (Ant. 12.421) and from a young Herod (War 1.304-6; Ant. 14.415). I.e., the Kinneret or Sea of Galilee. At 2.568 Josephus has just implied that there were two Galilees (cf. 1.22) and all of this builds expectation for the full description of the region near the beginning of the next book (3.35-44). Life 188: Acharabe. The site in question appears to comprise the cliffs facing the Arab village of Akhbara in Upper Galilee (see Appendix A to BJP 9). The closest match to this name, which does not appear in the Life parallel, seems to be Safad (Tzefat, Tsefat), later famous for Kabbalah among other things, about 7.75 miles (12.5 km) into the hills NW of Lake Kinneret. See Appendix A in BJP 9. No fortifications have been found from this period, but the city was heavily built over in the Middle Ages. Iamnia according to Life 188, the site has been probably identified as Khirbet Iamnit, N of Safad (Tzefat); see Appendix A to BJP 9. This site (Meroth at 3.40, where it problematically marks the W extremity of Upper Galilee; Ameroth at Life 188, except MS R, which also has Meroth) is now identified as the former Arab village of Maruss in Upper Galilee, 1.5 km S of Qasion ([Qazyon]; see Appendix A to BJP 9). Earlier scholarship had identified Meroth with Meiron, 5 km W of Safad (Tzefat) above the Wadi Meiron (Meyers, Meyers, and Strange 1974: 4); though that site is significantly further W, it would still be hard to square with Josephus’ location at 3.40.

I.e., the Golan Heights, occupying the NE quadrant of a circle centered in Lake Kinneret (Gennesar). The parallel passage concerning fortified sites (Life 187) reports the defection of the Golan from King Agrippa II, whose territory the region had been (2.243; Ant. 20.138). But that summary comes much later in the story of Josephus’ command, after the activities of Philip b. Iacimus in Gamala, the first Tiberian revolt, and various intrigues from John of Gischala. That parallel highlights the artificiality of the summary here. Note further that Josephus’ just-announced commission (2.568) included only Gamala, of the Gaulanite towns. He includes Seleuceia and Sogane here, although according to Life they did not join the revolt until much later, and the next we hear of them in War (4.4), Josephus remarks that their loyalty to Agrippa had been secured “at the beginning of the revolt” (unlike that of Gamala). Josephus’ later descriptions of the whole region in War (3.37, 56) continue to describe it as Agrippa’s territory. Many cities of this name were founded across the former Seleucid empire. Josephus relates that Alexander Janneus had destroyed an earlier settlement here (1.105; Ant. 13.393). The identification of the site remains uncertain (Appendix A to BJP 9), although Seluqiyeh, which preserves the name—some 18 km (11 miles) NE of the Jordan River’s entry point to the Kinneret Lake, 16 km from Bethsaida—is the leading candidate. The site is not yet certainly identified. In spite of Josephus’ location of it in Upper Gaulanitis (4.2), many scholars prefer the village of Yehudiyye in Lower Golan; archaeologists have found there remains of a 2-m (6-ft) wide wall of uncertain date. Siyar es-Sujan in Upper Golan is another possibility (see Appendix A to BJP 9). But see the note to “Gaulanitis” in this section on the rebel status of Sogane. This is the only site outside of Galilee (in the Golan) given to Josephus according to 2.568; see the notes there. In the Life parallel (§ 185-86), after serious factional blood-letting the people of Gamala defect from King Agrippa II and appeal to Josephus for a garrison, and for help in raising their walls. He sends both. Gamala is often considered one of two showcases (the other is Iotapata) for Josephus’ accuracy, since archaeology has turned up a hastily reinforced and thoroughly breached defensive wall from the time of the war, with hundreds of arrowheads and ballista balls in the area (cf. Syon 2002). Located in W-central Lower Galilee, in the gentle hills S of the Beit-Netofa valley, Sepphoris was the chief city of the region at this time; see the note at 2.56. The same collocation “allowed . . . of their own accord” occurs at 2.134 (of the Essenes). Or “rebuild.” For variety, it seems, Josephus uses a very rare word for building up (or again): ἀναδέμω. Since it is hardly used by other authors (Memnon, Frag. 25 [Müller]), though Philo has it twice (Agr. 113, 157) and Josephus has used it 3 times in War 1 (1.201, 265, 425—not elsewhere), we can see again (a) the lexical unity of his work and (b) his “Philonic” language. This is a puzzling claim. In his digression against Justus (Life 346-47) Josephus will claim that the Sepphorites fooled him into building a wall for them as they awaited a garrison from the Roman legate (see the next note). This is, however, suspiciously like the complaint he makes about Tiberias (Life 155-56): they too tricked him into building a wall, as they waited for a troop from King Agrippa to secure them against Josephus and the Galileans. It is difficult to reconcile that story in Life (concerning Sepphoris) with the account here. Most likely, Josephus is simply, in his “brilliant general” voice, taking credit for something that had little or nothing to do with him (cf. the case of Gischala in the next sentence), viz.: the independent strengthening of the city walls by the Sepphorites for protection against their fellow Judeans. This claim poses a notorious problem. At 2.511 Sepphoris has already capitulated to Cestius Gallus’ general Gallus on his first approach (cf. Life 30, 38, 104), just as it had capitulated quickly to the young Herod, who used it as his base for pacifying Galilee (1.304). Although it had provided a base in 4 BCE for Judas the son of Ezekias (2.56), Varus’ ruthless punishment seems to have removed any such further activity (2.68). The evidence from the 60s CE seems clear: the locally minted coins (in 68 CE honoring Vespasian and declaring itself “Neronias,” a “city of peace”; Meshorer 1982: 2.167-69) and other archaeological indicators (especially the intentionally filled-in fort complex; Meyers 2002) confirm the general portrait in Josephus that Sepphoris opted early and decisively for loyalty to Rome. Life 30 claims that Sepphoris was under attack from the non-urban population (“the Galileans”) precisely because of its firm pledge of loyalty to Rome, and the city’s determined support for Rome proved a constant problem for Josephus as commander of Galilee—as also for his rivals; cf. Life 39, 104-11 (the Sepphorites hire mercenaries to keep Josephus out), 124, 232, 346, 373-80, 394 (they request and eventually receive a garrison from Cestius Gallus), 411.This alleged eagerness for war might be understood in various ways, e.g.: (a) as a pragmatic claim by the city—reflecting a specific historical moment—to keep Josephus away while the Sepphorites continued to plead for a Roman garrison; (b) as Josephus’ ad hoc literary invention here, though inconsistent with his larger narrative, to explain why he was not involved in fortifying this major city (alone); or (c) as some sort of irony, though that seems highly unlikely. I.e., they did not need to receive an order to proceed with war preparations. But see the previous note.

I.e., both are being walled by the people themselves, though at Josephus’ alleged direction. The critical reader might rather conclude that they are similar in having nothing to do with Josephus, though he claims credit for them. Gush Halav (mod. El-Jish) was the largest Judean center of Upper Galilee in Josephus’ day. It was the home of Josephus’ determined rival, John (next note). It has not yet been excavated (see Appendix A to BJP 9 for surface finds). For its eventual fall to Titus, see 4.92-130. For the name Ioannes, see the note at 2.287 (a different character). This reading of the father’s name (Λήιος [in MSS PA and the preferred reading, though we find attempted corrections in other MSS and their margins], perhaps related to λήιον [field] or λεία [plunder]) changes in the Life parallels (§§ 43, 122, 189) to Ληουείς, which suggests the name of the patriarch Levi (Λεύις) and the tribe of Levites (Ληουίται). Since Josephus has recently disparaged the Levites there (Ant. 20.216-18), he may be wishing to associate John with them; alternatively, John was in fact known as the son of Levi, or a Levite, and Josephus wishes to give a different impression here. At any rate, this is a typically casual first mention of someone who will become central to the main narrative. John’s prominence begins a few sentences below, with Josephus’ unprecedented character assault at 2.585-94. See the notes there. This claim is repeated at 2.590 below, where Josephus continues to portray John as under his control. But the parallels at Life 43-45, 70-72, 189 seem impossible to reconcile. There John first appears as flatly opposed to any notion of revolt. When Gischala is overrun by people from Gadara, Aganea, and Tyre (or Kedasa), then sacked and burned, John arms his fellow-citizens, rebuilds the city, and fortifies its walls for future protection. That description is presented as part of what Josephus first learned as he gathered intelligence upon his arrival in the region, apparently while based at Sepphoris (Life 30-31, 61-64); it had nothing to do with any orders from him. When John reportedly asks Josephus for permission to use the imperial grain supplies scored in Galilee for this purpose, Josephus claims that he refused permission, though John was allowed to proceed by Josephus’ two bribed colleagues. Accordingly, when Josephus comes to list his fortifications in Life 187-88, though he has a motive to inflate his achievements, he cannot include Gischala. Immediately after that list of Josephus’ fortifications, in fact, comes his indignant claim that John independently fortified Gischala as a function of his hatred for Josephus (Life 189; cf. 71-72). Part of John’s fortification wall may have been found in the surface finds at Gischala (see Appendix A to BJP 9). These might include digging ditches and tunnels (cf. 4.9), and providing protected shooting points, as well as stockpiling stores. The compound verb συμπονέω occurs only here in Josephus. Josephus’ personal participation in fortifying Gischala, where he seems by his own admission never to have been tolerated, let alone welcome (see the previous notes in this section, also Life 101-3, 122-23, 189), stretches the imagination; it might just have been possible in the episodes covered by Life 70-78 (during Josephus’ earliest visit to the site, where he “dismissed” his two colleagues), but even that is unlikely in view of Life 71, 189.

Cf. 2.583 (where 60,000+ are said to be well trained). Both figures are virtually impossible. They would account for most of the “young men” in all of Judea at the time (given a population of perhaps 1,000,000 and allowing for women, children, and senior men), and the larger one would represent an army equivalent to about 20 legions—nearly the empire-wide Roman deployment. Since this number is also significantly larger than the Canadian Armed Forces (with some 20,000 active duty soldiers, 70,000 personnel in all), contemplating Josephus’ training regime for so many recruits boggles the mind—and indeed seems to cause him despair at 2.577. The Life uses a more life-like scale. Josephus notes there (§§ 212-13) that he had gradually (cf. §§ 90, 118) acquired a force of about 3,000, roughly the same number as his rival John of Gischala (§§ 95, 233, 371; see below on Ioannes), to which Josephus then added some 5,000 conscripts as a condition of his remaining in Galilee—presumably, to control the largest force in the region. Although Josephus uses the compound verb κατασκευάζω some 221 times, the rare double compound ἐγκατασκευάζω occurs only here, as a middle participle. Both the significance of the prefix (“preparing in”) and the object of the participle (preparing or training: the weapons, the soldiers, himself?) are unclear. I take the accusative relative pronoun “whom” to serve both the finite verb and the participle. Since Josephus has not mentioned a collection of old weapons in War, his precise meaning is unclear. Life 28-29 claims, to be sure, that his original mission had been to disarm a Galilean populace whose bandits and revolutionaries were well equipped with weapons, but he and his colleagues soon realize that disarmament is out of the question and opt instead to buy off the militants (§§ 77-78). Perhaps he is not referring to any specific weapons, but simply indicating that a collection of old weapons was made for this purpose.

This Attic adjective (ἀήττητος), with only about two dozen attestations before Philo, occurs only here in Josephus. Philo has it 26 times, after which it remains common (e.g., Plutarch has some 63 occurrences). As with other adjectives of this form, one is unsure whether the author intends a simple description of the past (they are unbeaten) or also potential (they are unbeatable), and both may be in view (cf. 3.106-7). The 6 occurrences of εὐπείθεια in Josephus and the cognate adjective (below in this sentence), all in War (also 3.15, 479; 5.122, 127), have to do with this distinctive Roman trait. The word is not much attested before Josephus; his contemporary Plutarch uses it conspicuously of the Spartans (Lyc. 4.2; 7.3; 16.5; 30.4; Comp. Lyc. Num. 3.6; Ages. 2.1; cf. Mor. [Praec. 817a]; Xenophon, Lac. 2.14). On the Roman legionaries’ putative ready obedience (with other vocabulary), see further 3.88, 92, 102-6 and the following note. This precise phrase reappears in Josephus’ coming description of military training (3.70-109; cf. 3.102). There too (3.105-7) he will claim that the perfect discipline of the Roman army accounts for the success of their empire. That parallel raises questions, however, about Josephus’ sincerity and the possibility of irony. The uncontrollability of legionary soldiers when they moved in to sack a conquered city was no secret (cf. Ziolkowski 1993). More specifically, at 3.98-100, 106-7 Josephus will claim a level of legionary discipline and a history of never having been beaten (even by bad fortune), that do not accord with either the past (cf. the first two volumes of Polybius and the notorious losses under Crassus in 53 BCE at Carrhae, as of Varus in 9 CE at Kalkriese in the Teutoburg Forest) or the story that he is about to tell of legionaries’ behavior during the Judean war (e.g., 5.115-21; 6.12, 29-32, 78-9, 89, 152-56, 190). It seems that he deliberately exaggerates the legions’ effectiveness partly in order to enhance the image of his own Judean compatriots, who had such considerable success against them, partly in order to undermine the legions’ invincible image. The Greek is not entirely clear, and translators offer various paraphrastic clarifications. In context the sense appears to be that Josephus, now allegedly with 100,000 young recruits, gave up as futile his personal efforts to train them all (for that required both his instruction and his personal supervision of their practice) and took a leaf from the Romans—leaving the training to his officers. This was no doubt wise! This is the cognate adjective of the noun rendered “prompt obedience” in this section. At 3.87-88 Josephus will outline the Roman command structure: the soldiery look to the centurions, who turn to the tribunes, who look to the most senior officers, and all await the signal from the supreme commander (legate). This comparative adjective (ῥωμαϊκώτερος), which appears only here in Josephus, is unattested in literature before his time and appears with extreme rarity in late antiquity. The simple adjective is much more common. Greek ταξίαρχοι has no fixed meaning in Josephus (see note to “heads for each detail” at Life 242 in BJP 9), or at least its meaning depends upon the sense of τάξις, which is extremely flexible: see the note to “subversive” at 2.224. In War it seems to mean most often “senior officers” (1.369, 461, 491, 673; 3.83, 87; 5.121).Josephus’ solution to the problem of managing large numbers of people recalls that adopted by Moses on the advice of his father-in-law Jethro: to lighten his administrative burden by appointing subordinate officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens (Exod 18:13-22). The parallel is especially significant because in Josephus’ own reworking of that story he transforms Moses’ move into a military reorganization, with the officers’ ranks expanded to match Roman positions (Ant. 3.71-72; cf. BJP 3 and comments by Feldman ad loc.). Cf. also his Solomon at Ant. 7.368. Even if these models were in Josephus’ mind, they would no doubt have been too complicated for him to explain here.

Lit. “leaders of 10,” which seems to be the meaning here, though there was considerable flexibility in the actual functions of rank (see the note to “cavalrymen” at 2.298). Josephus seems to mean the term literally (“leader of 100”), though the rank had greater flexibility, and in Rome normally indicated one in charge of 80; see the note at 2.380. MSS PAML and the Latin omit “centurions”; notwithstanding the weight of these MSS and the principle of favoring the more difficult reading (since the fuller list so clearly accommodates this projection to 3.87-88), all modern editions include the centurions here. Again, Josephus appears to mean the term literally (“leader of 1,000”), though in practical application the rank had considerable flexibility (see notes to “tribune(s)” at 2.11, 244, 335). Josephus chooses a fairly rare adjective (ἁδρός: thick, stout, bulky), which he uses—both times in the comparative—here and at 4.401. Josephus’ terminology is vague. In military contexts he normally uses τάγμα, the noun here, for a legion, whereas here it is simply a “bulkier division” (than 1,000-strong). Most problematically, his mimicking of the Roman military structure does not account for its practical complications, especially the cohort (of 480 or 800; cf. a modern battalion, or division in British Commonwealth armies) as the effective tactical unit; Josephus has no commanders of 500, etc. Perhaps his vagueness reflects the fanciful nature of his numbers.

Possibly “transmission of watchwords” (σημείων παραδόσεις): cf. 3.88; Ant. 19.187. Cf. the orderly Roman retreats described at 3.88. For the Roman use of the trumpet in battle, see esp. 4.20; 6.69; also 3.86, 89-91. Cf. the brisk Roman wheeling motions at 3.105. Although κέρας means essentially “horn” and, especially in the Judean context it might indicate signals for wheeling given by a musical horn, Josephus consistently uses it in War—also precisely in contexts of wheeling movements—of cavalry wings (1.191-92, 306; 3.300). Especially because of its repetition of τὸ κάμνον, which occurs only there and here, this passage recalls Cestius’ use of the cavalry in precisely such a manner at 2.519. This is the only occurrence of συμπαθέω in War (cf. Ant. 6.341; 16.404).

This description of Josephus’ military preparations is replete with language that he has used of the philosophical schools, especially the Essenes (1.119-66); this parallel highlights the close relationship between martial (and Spartan) and moral-philosophical values in ancient thought. See the following notes and those to the Essene passage above (2.119-61). Greek παράστασιν ψυχῆς, equivalent to ψυχῆς παράστημα later in this sentence, is characteristic language in War, anticipated mainly by Diodorus; see the note at 2.476. Notice the chiasm in this section (2.580): soul, body; body, soul. Greek καρτερία was also the goal of Essene training and a hallmark of the Judean character in general; see the note at 2.138. Various MSS include συνεχῶς (“constantly”) somewhere in this sentence. Or “training, drilling.” The only other occurrences of the verb ἀσκέω (cognate to ἄσκησις; cf. “asceticism”) in War 2 sit as bookends to the description of the philosophical schools, at 2.119, 166 (there transitive: “cultivate”); cf. the cognate noun at 2.150. See the note at 2.529: Roman orderliness is a prominent theme of the work, though Josephus emphasizes (e.g., 2.151) that the Judean Essenes also master this trait. See the note to this characteristic phrase at 2.268. Note also 2.476, where the characteristic next phrase is paired with it (confirming Josephus’ authorial control). See the earlier note to “soul” in this sentence. Josephus has created a chiasm (soul, body; body, soul), suited to the high plane of the discourse here. See the note to this phrase at 2.373: the language recalls Agrippa’s speech. See the note at 2.360, also in Agrippa’s speech.

See the note at 2.464. These crimes of armed soldiers against vulnerable populations were well known; cf. the appeal of John the Baptist at Luke 3:14. Josephus will re-use the adjective “familiar” (συνήθης) in this sentence: see “closest friends.” For the distinction between these two, see the note to the latter at 2.142: these rules for Josephus’ soldiers are conspicuously close to the Essenes’ 12 oaths. Beyond the common moral principle that one should not cheat the fellow-citizenry (τὸ ὁμόφυλον), this comment taps a deeper vein in War: the more radical rebels constantly victimized and abused their fellows, while the Romans were comparatively generous toward them (cf. 1.10, 27). This is not necessarily praise of the Romans: the contrast draws its force from the widely shared dismay at Roman abuses. The phrase κέρδος οἰκεῖον, though occasionally attested before Josephus (Theognis, El. 1.46; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 2.63.3; 3.6.4; Memnon, Frag. 59 [Müller]), appears much more characteristically in his works (1.202; Ant. 15.288; 17.270; 18.8, 294). Probably to but possibly by one’s most intimate friends. As he often does, Josephus re-uses a word in a new way: here the adjective from “usual [or familiar, customary] crimes” earlier in this sentence (συνήθης) now as an absolute superlative, clearly indicating persons.

MSS VRC and Latin omit “all” and MSS AM place it differently, which might mean that it was added at some point; it does not seem necessary to the general sense. Here we have another entrée into Josephus’ distinctive language. For the word “conscience” he prefers the articular neuter perfect participle of σύνοιδα (τὸ συνειδὸς; 1.452, 496; 3.500; Ant. 2.25, 52; 3.13, 319; 4.286; 13.316; 16.100-102; Apion 2.218) to the noun (ἡ συνείδησις; 4.189, 193; Ant. 16.103, 212). This usage is rarely attested before his time; indeed it seems to be found clearly only in Demosthenes (Cor. 110) and Philo (Post. 59; Deus 128; Conf. 121; Fug. 159; Ios. 47, 68), though some of his contemporaries show the same turn: Plutarch, Mor. [Num. vind.] 554f, 556a; Epictetus in Arrian, Diatr. 3.22.94 [“Instead of weapons and thugs, the conscience of the Cynic confers authority”]; Appian, Bell. civ. 2.11.72. This is a remarkable philosophical interlude, on several levels: τοὺς δὲ οἴκοθεν φαύλους οὐ μόνον τοῖς ἐπιοῦσιν ἐχθροῖς ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ θεῷ χρῆσθαι πολεμίῳ. It appears that Josephus has been reading Philo, whose language is conspicuously and uniquely close (QE frag. 32 [Petit]): “The one who cohabits with evil carries destruction within, for he has a housemate that is an enemy plotting against him. For the conscience of the sordid person is a sufficient retribution, presenting the soul with timidity—from within the house, [but] as if from a blow” (Ἐντὸς φέρει τὸν ὄλεθρον ὁ τῇ κακίᾳ συζῶν, ἐπεὶ σύνοικον ἔχει τὸν ἐπίβουλον καὶ πολέμιον. Ἱκανὴ γὰρ πρὸς τιμωρίαν ἡ τοῦ φαύλου συνείδησις, οἴκοθεν ὡς ἐκ πληγῆς δειλίαν προτείνουσα τῇ ψυχῇ). Philo’s extended metaphor would better explain Josephus’ “house” language, though it is not difficult to understand on its own. Josephus has an ongoing interest in such reflections on the timidity and risk produced by bad consciences, giving them also to his namesake Joseph (Ant. 2.25, 52) and to Moses (Ant. 3.13, 319; 4.286).

Or “whipped into shape, banged together” (συγκροτέω), used conspicuously of John of Gischala at 2.588, the only two occurrences in bk. 2 (of 17 in Josephus, mostly in military contexts); see note there. We are presumably to infer that about a third of the original recruit intake (2.576) did not pass muster. MSS VRC Latin have 250, with the words in reverse order. The number seems very small against the size of the infantry, though it would not be easy to raise a large force of capable cavalry from Galilean villages (even allowing for the fantastic numbers otherwise here). These soldiers for hire are a curious presence, and may be a private joke. According to Life, all the bandits and rebels of Galilee essentially became mercenaries when Josephus realized that he could not disarm them; he exacted local funds to pay them off, so that they would stay away from the population centers but remain at his disposal (77-78). Mercenaries were widely regarded as the most reliable troops while being paid (since they were loyal to their paymaster), though Polybius is very critical of reliance upon them in adversity (e.g., 1.70.3-7; 11.13.1-7; 34.14.4). At Life 90, 92 Josephus has a bodyguard of 200.

Or “feeding.” The mercenaries obviously have a secure line of support already, and their complement is filled by contract. The rest of the army depends for both recruits and sustenance on the good will of the populace. There is a rough parallel with Polybius’ idealistic description (10.16.1-4) of the Roman legions’ taking a town, according to which no more than half engage in the violence, the other half remaining—but for protection, not foraging. Greek συμπορισμός occurs only here in Josephus. It is attested before his time, remarkably, only in Dionysius (Ant. rom. 13.9.2), and after his time only in a 12th-century author. The simple form (without prefix) is much more common elsewhere; it will appear at 2.603. Josephus’ villagers appear extremely wise concerning military matters. Although the specific organizational measures used by the early Roman imperial army is still a matter of much discussion (see Roth 1991: e.g., 280-94), it is clear that Roman generals—notably Julius Caesar—gave constant thought to their logistical needs and especially grain supply. See the note to “legions” at 2.63. I.e., those sending it out to the combat troops. On the crucial importance of a grain supply in military planning, see the note to “legions” at 2.63. Greek ἀντιχορηγέω occurs only here in Josephus and is barely attested—in Greek orators—before him (Demosthenes, Mid. 59, 62; [Andocides], Alc. 20, 42). Plutarch seems to quote the first Ps.-Andocides passage (Alc. 16.5), but it is used by the 2nd-cent. CE Alexander (Fig. 24). This is a characteristic chiasm: weapons, work with grain; work with grain, weapons.

Thackeray (LCL ad loc.) notes a striking parallel between the following description and Sallust’s moral assessment of the senator L. Sergius Catilina (Bell. Cat. 5), whose conspiracy (64-62 BCE) was famous in Josephus’ Rome: Animus audax, subdolus, varius, cuius rei lubet simulator ac dissimulator. . . . Vastus animus inmoderata, incredibilia, nimis alta semper cupiebat. . . . lubido maxuma invaserat rei publicae capiundae; neque id quibus modis adsequeretur, dum sibi regnum pararet, quicquam pensi habebat. Agitabatur magis magisque in dies animus ferox inopia rei familiaris. “His mind was bold, subtle, and flexible, capable of pretending or dissembling whatever he wished. . . . His insatiable ambition was always pursuing objects that were extravagant, romantic, and unattainable. . . He was overcome by an extreme desire to seize the commonwealth, and he did not care, as long as he secured power for himself, about the means by which he might achieve it. His violent spirit was spurred on each day by the dwindling of his family’s wealth.” Greek παρανίστημι occurs only here in Josephus; it seems elsewhere unattested in Greek literature. This is the first occurrence of ἐπίβουλος in War 2. With narrative emphasis, its 3 remaining occurrences in the brief remaining space (2.615, 620, 622) will all concern John. He is the schemer. See the note at 2.575. See the note at 2.575. Since the audience could not know this father, Josephus’ sentence structure seems calculated mainly to enhance the grand narrative entrance (next note). Especially considering that Josephus has already mentioned John (2.575; see notes there), this is a conspicuously grand entrance, leading to the relentless and savage assault on his character in the following sentences. This assault may represent Josephus’ attempt to strengthen the bond with his Roman audience. They likely know who John is already, given that he has been displayed in the triumph and is now held in some sort of perpetual custody (War 6.433-34; 7.118): Tacitus mentions him (mistakenly giving him Simon’s patronymic) as one of the three, ultimately two, Judean rebel generals (Hist. 5.12). In a work devoted largely to undermining Roman preconceptions (see Introduction and 1.1-16), Josephus might be expected to seize upon any opportunity to blacken someone whom he and his audience both freely despise.Life introduces John quite differently, however (§§ 43-44). Perhaps John has died in the meantime; at least, Josephus can there afford a more rounded portrait. In Life John appears at first as an opponent of rebellion, a moderate not unlike Josephus. Only gradually does he become radicalized, after an attack on his native Gischala by neighboring Greeks (§ 45). Josephus will portray him there as a close friend of a distinguished member of the Jerusalem council, Simon son of Gamaliel (§§ 189-92). The common scholarly view, that Josephus was forced to concede John’s good connections in Life by the rival account by the latter’s friend Justus of Tiberias (§§ 87-8) may have some validity. But virtually every parallel story in War and Life is told differently in the later work, and many of the differences cannot be traced to Justus’ challenge. See further “swath” at 2.587 below, with note. Or “shiftiest.” All 15 occurrences of the adjective πανοῦργος (“ready for—i.e., willing to stoop to—anything”) in Josephus come in War 1-6, 8 in bk. 1; only John receives the superlative (as also at 2.591). Superlative of δόλιος, which Josephus will make John’s chief character trait at 4.208 (though he has it only 5 times in the corpus). He has also used the collocation “slippery and crafty” at 2.278, of Gessius Florus. Before his time it is attested only in a vice list from Aristotle, preserved by Origen (Jer. hom. 17.1). Plural of πονήρευμα, a noun that appears only here in Josephus and is rarely attested before him (Demosthenes, Aristog. 60; Fals. leg. 357; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 6.84.4), though it turns up increasingly among 2nd-century authors (3 times in Aristides alone). It seems to be a newly popular form. The root sense of πένης is that one must labor for one’s daily living: John, although later infamous, is presented as not belonging to Josephus’ élite-statesman echelon, someone who could attend to political and intellectual life on the basis of landed or invested wealth. His alleged financial and moral embarrassment are of one piece. See, however, 2.590 (“a lack of resources was holding him back”) and notes. Although the correlation between poverty and moral defect is not dwelt upon by Josephus, he stresses the complementary dynamism: that virtue is rewarded with prosperity and happiness (Ant. 1.14, 20, 113; 2.7, 198; 4.114, 164; 11.90; 18.339). Notwithstanding philosophical challenges advocating the simple life (i.e., a voluntary simplicity), it was axiomatic in Greco-Roman and Near Eastern society that the great were also the good (in Rome, the honestiores): cf. Aristophanes, Plut. 29 and Job 1:1-2:10 for the problem of exceptions to the rule. It is not only that bad behavior is punished by poverty, but also that those in dire poverty seem much more likely to enagage in crime to secure life’s necessities (e.g., Xenophon, Hier. 4.10), and simply: poverty must be connected with bad character.

Or “deception” (ἀπάτη); see note to “trickery” at 2.106. This elaboration may be invited by Josephus’ recognition that he himself constantly indulges in deception, even relishing it (as at 2.610-11; but cf. 2.615, where John is the trickster). Deception of the populace was part of the statesman’s art at times (Plutarch, Mor. [Praec.] 813f, 848b: statesmen as “actors”; cf. “pretender” in the next clause), and tricking one’s enemies during war was a constant need for the general (e.g., Frontinus, Stratagems, passim). Deception of one’s closest friends, associates, and peers, however, was apparently beyond the pale. Greek ὑποκριτὴς φιλανθρωπίας; cf. Plutarch, Mor. [Lib. educ. 13b]: ὑποκριταὶ φιλίας. This is the only occurrence of ὑποκριτής in Josephus, though he uses the cognate noun ὑπόκρισις 8 times (War 1.628, 630; Ant. 1.211; 2.160; 13.220; 14.286; 15.204; 16.216) and the verb ὑποκρίνομαι 25 times. From debated origins (e.g., Page 1956), this noun came to mean “actor” or “orator” in the classical and Hellenistic periods (e.g., Plato, Ion 532d, 536a; Resp. 373b, 395a; Demosthenes, Cor. 262; still Plutarch, Mor. [Glor. Ath.] 345e, 348e; [Quaest. conv.] 623b; Lys. 23.4). In Josephus’ use of this word and its cognates (not directly concerned with the stage), we see the beginnings of the same metaphorical and moral sense of the term, which would lead to its great popularity in late antiquity, whence English “hypocrite,” and which we find in some texts contemporary with Josephus: Plutarch (first reference above); Matt 7:5; 23:13, 15, 23; Luke 6:42. Although Josephus often speaks of kindness in general (28 times in the corpus), there is not much φιλανθρωπία in War: only the pretense to it here and a Roman claim to it at 6.333. It is a sign of Josephus’ rhetorical flexibility that, although he gives John the superlative φονικώτατος here (used of the emperor Gaius at Ant. 19.201), at 4.564 he will claim that Simon is comparatively more bloodthirsty than John (cf. 6.229). Although similar phrases appear once or twice in several earlier authors, Josephus’ 10 uses mark δι’ ἐλπίδα κέρδους as his distinctive language (1.202; 2.346; 6.383; Ant. 14.157; 17.269, 282; 18.7, 176; Life 325).

It seems that Josephus offers 2.590-92 below as examples of this nefarious activity. The single use of the adjective μονότροπος in Josephus (at 5.441; 7.324 adverbially) and its rarity before his time invite consideration of intended nuances. Adverbially and etymologically it means “in only one way,” and this corresponds to the sense of its opposite πολύτροπος (“in many ways, many-sidedly”), which occurs 9 times in Josephus. The context here, however, suggests at least aloneness—given the contrast with the many who joined Josephus—and this might also imply friendlessness (as at Plutarch, Mor. [San.] 135b; [Frat.] 479c; cf. Euripides, Andr. 281 on the young loner Paris). See the note at 2.108. Namely, when the troublemaker John is later besieged by the Romans in his native town he flees by night to Jerusalem (4.92-120). There he gathers a group of youthful followers and launches a bid for power against the other rebel leaders (as he had against Josephus in Galilee; see the following paragraphs). After allegedly betraying Ananus to the Idumeans, who then murder the distinguished chief priest (4.314-25), John becomes one of the two leaders of the revolt, before being forced to surrender (6.433-34) and become an exhibit in the Roman triumph (cf. also 7.263-64).

Precisely the same phrase was used of Pseudalexander at 2.110; see the note there. John thus has the same criteria for selection, with the same language, as both Josephus and the Romans in recruiting legionaries (2.580; see notes there). Or “experience” (ἐμπειρία). Or “banged, whipped together.” Josephus’ conspicuous use of the same verb as for his own activity (2.583; see note there), along with similar phrases about the attributes of recruits (see previous note), strengthens the comparison between himself and John, in spite of the chasm between them in character and size of forces. He will portray John in what follows as a dangerous opponent. This notice is surprising, but consistent. It is surprising because Josephus nowhere explains who these Tyrian refugees or fugitives were. Further, Tyre and its villages (notably Tyrian Kadasa lying about 10 km. [6 miles] NE of Gischala) were apparently hostile to Gischala, and vice versa (War 2.429 with note; 4.105; Life 44). At 3.39-40 Josephus explains that a band of Tyrian villages formed the northern edge of Upper Galilee; so John would have easy access to these people. It is consistent, however, that Josephus gives John a following of loyal Tyrian refugees, who remained with him even when all others fled. In the other passages there are more than 400: 2,000 at War 2.625 (assuming that “Syrian” should be understood as “Tyrian”) and 1,500 at Life 372 (from the mother-city of Tyre itself, a difficult 35 km NW of Gischala).It is not clear how Josephus wishes these literary characters to be understood, much less what historical reality they may have had. They do not seem to be Judeans because he labels them foreigners (ξένοι; Life 372), though that later remark is not decisive; they might be Judean sympathizers who felt vulnerable after the massacres of Judeans throughout Syria (2.461-65). Or they might simply be non-Judeans disaffected enough with general conditions under Rome to join the Judean revolt (cf. Life 112-13 for other non-Judeans who join the fight), or mercenaries. It may be significant that Tyrian coinage is well represented in the surface finds at Gischala; see Appendix A to BJP 9.

See the note to this verb (“mauling it”) at 2.90; in War 2 only Josephus tends to use it metaphorically of tyrants (also 2.652). Or “the many” (οἱ πολλοί), reflecting Josephus’ aristocratic posture.

Possibly “keen to make war,” though the sense given in the translation seems more likely in context. This is the only occurrence in Josephus of the fairly rare desiderative verb σρτατηγιάω (Xenophon, Anab. 1.33; Demosthenes, Fals. leg. 295; Dionysius, Ep. Pomp. 3.9; Strabo 4.6.7; 7.4.3; Philo, Abr. 221; Plutarch, Caes. 62.4). This expression (ἔνδεια χρημάτων), though not common in Josephus, occurs more frequently in his work (also 1.631; Ant. 12.294) than elsewhere; other writers use it no more than once (Xenophon, Ath. pol. 1.5; Plato, Hipp. Maj. 283d; Antisthenes, Frag. 117; Demosthenes, Olynth. 3.20). John’s poverty was alleged at 2.585; see the note there. This is nearly the reverse of the portrait in Life 43-46, 189-91, according to which John was evidently prosperous at the outset, a well-connected principal man of Gischala, who only gradually came (note “suddenly” at § 70) to challenge Josephus for leadership. See the notes to “name” at 2.585 and “swath” at 2.587, also to BJP 9 (ad loc.). With 23 occurrences of this adjective (here substantivized, τὸ δραστήριον), Josephus is among its heavy users, a group that begins with Dionysius (22) and includes Philo (10), Plutarch (29), and Galen (32). The rough parallel in Life (122), at a later point relative to events, will elaborate that John was not happy when he saw everything going according to Josephus’ plan, and that Josephus was showing good will to his supporters but was a terror to his enemies. Possibly “rebuilding” [Gischala], if this is to be connected with the story described in Life 44-46, according to which John had to rebuild the city and its walls after a sack by neighboring Syrian-Greeks. But see the note to “directed” at 2.575 for the difficulty of reconciling this account with that later version. Life 71-73 emphatically denies that John persuaded Josephus; it alleges rather that he bribed Josephus’ colleagues (invisible in War) to secure their permission. The only possible light we receive is from Life 71-73 (see comments in BJP 9), which alleges that John asked to confiscate the imperial granaries throughout Galilee—no doubt established both for Roman military logistics and in case of famine. Josephus refused because he wished to reserve the grain either for the Romans or for his own use, a plausible pair of options if he took the same approach as he gives to Ananus, of hoping for a resolution but being willing to fight honorably if necessary (War 4.320). Life does not indicate that John took advantage of the wealthy. To guess at Josephus’ thinking (opaque to his audience), one might combine the stories by imagining that John sold Life’s grain to War’s rich people at an unscrupulous profit, in keeping with the next scheme. But Josephus evidently feels no need to explain the matter here, content with the charge that the poor John defrauded the wealthy.

Or “bit of staging” (σκηνή; cf. 2.251); the language fits with “pretender” (i.e., actor) at 2.587. This is quite different from the parallel (Life 74), according to which the Judeans of Caesarea Philippi alone, confined by a military order, appeal to John for help in providing pure olive oil (see BJP 9 with notes there). Here, instead, Josephus makes it John’s initiative to supply all the Judeans of Syria, and he presents it entirely as a ruse on John’s part, his language implying that there was no such need to buy from a compatriot; perhaps, indeed, John is taking advantage of the vulnerability of the Syrian Judeans, who have faced mass murder at the hands of their gentile neighbors (2.461-80).For Josephus (cf. 2.458-60), “Syria” can include the province proper, headquartered in Antioch and including Damascus, as well as the Greek cities of the Decapolis, the coastal cities, and any other areas not properly in Judea; at 2.266 the non-Judeans of Caesarea are “Syrians.” Josephus has recently described the Judean populations of Syria in some detail (2.461-480), though giving the impression that many or most had been killed. Whatever historical incident lies behind the present story might have something to do with Josephus’ account at Ant. 12.119-20, according to which the Antiochenes attempted, during the Judean revolt, to halt the special compensation that local Judeans received if they chose not to use the oil provided in the gymnasium; but the Syrian governor Mucianus (not yet in place here) insisted on maintaining the practice. It might be that Judean Syrians were indeed finding it difficult to get oil at this time, and John in a nationalistic spirit sought to help them. Whether he did, and whether he extracted an unseemly profit, we cannot presently know. See further the note to “oil” at 2.123. Olive oil was fundamental to ordinary life throughout the Mediterranean world. See the note at 2.123—on the Essene refusal to use cosmetic oil. Although Josephus presents this as a con on John’s part, at Ant. 12.120 he states plainly that the Judeans of Antioch “did not want to use foreign olive oil.” Goodman (1990: 239-43) argues persuasively that this was a matter of instinct rather than actual purity law, which is why the restriction was undone by the rabbis (m. ‘Avod. zar. 2.6). Since John is based in one of the northern-most Judean communities, Gischala, he is perhaps looking to the border area with Syria just a few km to the N.

For Tyre, see the notes at 2.239, 459. This remark seems to be added for a bit of local color, since the audience would well understand the values of Attic currency about to be mentioned. Four drachmas (= a tetradrachma) were equivalent to one Tyrian shekel, which seems to have been John’s currency; the half-shekel (= didrachma) was the tax paid annually by Judeans for the upkeep of the Jerusalem temple. Tyrian coins were of particularly high silver content and so were required for temple use. Meshorer (2001: 73-78) argues that from 19 BCE, following a revolt in 20 BCE, Tyre had lost its privilege of minting silver coins (a privilege carefully monitored by Rome), and the Tyrian shekel was minted by Herod in Jerusalem. Thus the silver coins of the revolt period, with their new dating system (“Year 1” counting from 66 CE rather than 126 BCE), the proclamation “Jerusalem (rather than Tyre) the Holy,” and the change of imagery, would represent an act of defiance in light of the rupture with the Greek cities and the local Roman authorities in 66 CE. This would explain inter alia why the Tyrian coinage ceases in 66 CE, when the Jerusalem revolt coinage begins. For rough values, see the note to “talents” at 2.50. These were large, two-handled jars (the name comes from the double handle) with a narrow neck, used for transporting and storing liquids, especially wine and oil. As a measure, the ἁμφορεύς was roughly 9 imperial gallons (US 10.8 gallons; about 50 liters). So, 7/8 of each sale was profit (875% of John’s investment). At Life 74 Josephus gives a different calculation, but it amounts to roughly the same profit. This adjective (ἐλαιοφόρος) appears only here in Josephus, and it is rarely attested elsewhere (Euripides, Herc. 1178; Theophrastus, Caus. plant. 2.4.4; Hist. plant. 8.2.8; Diodorus 4.17.4; 20.8.4; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 1.37.2; then in late antiquity and Middle Ages). See the notes to “countless horde,” a distinctive Josephan phrase, at 2.43, 253. I.e., Josephus. John’s sharp business practice recalls that of the Aeduan warlord Dumnorix, who reportedly (Caesar, Bell. gall. 1.18) monopolized the local customs and taxes in order to create a large fund for his resistance against Rome.

See the note at 2.445. This optative construction (εἰ καταλύσειεν) opens an inclusio that ends with the cognate noun at the end of 2.594. The rough parallel at Life 122 has John “supposing that my success portended his elimination,” upon which realization John gives way to immoderate envy and consequent actions. Josephus has not yet called John’s men “bandits,” and this label illustrates the rhetorical flexibility of his usage. At 2.588 he had spelled out John’s great care in choosing recruits of physical and mental ability, mostly from Tyrian regions, though at 2.589 he has described their behavior in bandit-like ways. This section on John’s ruthless calculation, that general mayhem will give him a chance to unseat Josephus, has no parallel in Life. In the corresponding passage there (§§ 122-25, just before the robbery by Dabarittan youths as below), John’s envy of Josephus leads him rather to try to attract the major Galilean cities (Tiberias, Sepphoris, and Gabara) to his cause. Note the chiasm: John’s response if Josephus does A, whereas if Josephus does B, John’s response.

Possibly the incipient “commonwealth, state” (τὰ πράγματα), in view of the hoped-for independence, on the analogy of Latin res (publica); see the note to “republic” at 2.168. The charge of betraying (παραδίδωμι here; προδότης) the Judeans or Jerusalem to the Romans will be a constant presence in War (3.354, 359; 4.146, 228, 254, 257, 281, 347; 5.439; cf. Life 129, 132-35, 416), used mischievously (Josephus claims) by rebel forces to justify the removal of leaders they find uncongenial. See the note at 2.259. This (πρὸς κατάλυσιν) completes the inclusio begun with the cognate verb at 2.593.

Life 126-44 places this complex of events, one of the reasonably stable elements between the two accounts and apparently cherished by him as an illustration of his generalship, after the major revolt in Tiberias engineered by John of Gischala (Life 87-103), though that revolt comes later here (2.614-25). See the note to “youths”—a significant factor in raising tension levels in Judea according to War—at 2.225. The form here (νεανίσκοι), however, is used sparingly in War. This is the last of 10 occurrences (8 of these in bk. 1), whereas Ant. 1-19 hosts 72 occurrences, and Life, 3. This is the Plain of Esdraelon or Jezreel Valley, which runs from the SE, at the Jordan River around Scythopolis, to the NW, reaching the Mediterranean between Mt. Carmel and Ptolemais after passing through a bottleneck at Carmel’s E end, before opening into the Plain of Acco. Life 115-16 claims that Aebutius the decurion and a cavalry squadron, based in Gaba in the W bottleneck, had been entrusted with guarding the Plain for royal and Roman traffic. This small village (here ἀπὸ Δεβαρίθθων), mentioned otherwise by Josephus only at Life 126, 318 (Δαβάριττα, Δαβαριττηνοί)—symmetrically positioned in that later work—was well situated as a base for guerrilla activity in the Great Plain. At Life 318 Josephus situates it both in the Plain and at the S limits of Galilee. The biblical site of Daverat or Daberath, known for its pasture lands (Josh 19:12; 21:18; 1 Chron 6:72), Dabaritta lay at the W foot of Mt. Tabor. Although it could be said to lie on the Plain, it was still in a somewhat protected area (with Givat Moreh to the S), slightly removed and sheltered from the central Plain. Neither in Life nor here, to be sure, does Josephus claim that the operation was conducted at Dabaritta, but only that this was the youths’ home town. Or “bailiff, administrator.” See the notes to “procurator” at 2.14 and “Syria” at 2.16. This Greek-named figure appears only here and in the Life parallel. At Life 126, however, the first of many small differences between the accounts will be that the victim is Ptolemy’s wife, accompanied by a mounted security detail. One might easily suppose that Josephus has adjusted the story there to make the youths seem more daring or reprehensible and himself even more gallant, though the many other changes can have no such explanation. Either he had War’s story before him and simply decided to tell it differently or he did not consult his earlier version, relying on memory, perhaps on rough notes, and a flair for story-telling. An audience would no doubt imagine that such a high-ranking traveler with so much valuable baggage would have an escort and something of a baggage train. The Judean king with territories to the N/NE; see the note at 2.220. Agrippa has been absent from his territories for quite a while, having left them in the charge of Noarus (2.481), whom he later removed (2.483), and then accompanying Cestius Gallus in his failed campaign (2.502). He has mysteriously faded from the narrative, since we last saw him unsuccessfully negotiating with the Jerusalem rebels (2.525-26). Sister of King Agrippa II. See the note at 2.227. Life 126 claims that Ptolemy’s wife was traveling with the baggage from the territory of Agrippa and Berenice to that governed by the Romans. If that vague notice has any historical value, it may be that Agrippa’s agents feared the loss of this wealth (e.g., in Tiberias or in the Golan) to rebel forces, and so it was being conveyed to more secure Roman sites. Life 127 has the wife escorted by 4 baggage mules bearing much clothing. Here there is a litotes (“not a small amount”). Life 127 has rather a stash of silver (ἀργυρίου σταθμός), which suggests unformed blocks (cf. Life 68, 296). Life 127: 500 gold pieces. If these were coins, as seems likely, they would be in the denomination of the Roman aureus (the only gold available), each worth 25 (silver) denarii. Each aureus would represent roughly a month’s wages for a laborer. See Schürer-Vermes 2.62-67.

Life 126-28 omits this curious (and nefarious) initial intention, rather portraying it as natural that the youths would bring their plunder to the rebel general Josephus. It is only when they do not immediately get their share that they begin to dispute his motives (§§ 129-30). Here, however, the youths have discerned Josephus’ intentions in advance (2.598), and this apparently leads them first to try to dispose of the plunder themselves. Why they would then bring it to Josephus, when their attempts failed, remains unclear, unless we should surmise that they were forced to do so because the affair had since become known—and this is the point of the notice that they were unable to launder the goods secretly. See the notes at 2.252, 573. About 6 km (3.75 miles) N of Tiberias along the W shore of Lake Kinneret, this was Josephus’ main base in E Galilee, with Tiberias proving more difficult to control (esp. 2.632-46).

Josephus does not explain τὸ βίαιον. Was Ptolemy (or were his unmentioned bodyguards) killed or assaulted? One would assume so. Life 127 says that Ptolemy’s wife was forced to flee. At any rate, Life 127-28 does not include such condemnation from Josephus. He explains more matter-of-factly that the youthful robbers were expecting to receive a share and so were naturally disappointed. Life 128-30 introduces an additional step. Josephus (lying) first tells the youths that he will personally keep the stolen goods to use their proceeds for the walls of Jerusalem. Only when they have left does he hand the goods to two of King Agrippa’s closest friends (for conveyance to the king); that action is part of the secret dealing, and the king’s friends are threatened with death if they should mention it to anyone. See the previous note. Life 131 has Josephus hand the goods in secret to two men, “Dassion and Iannaeus the son of Levis,” whose main qualification is that they are friends of King Agrippa who can be trusted to get the goods to him secretly and quickly. Here, by contrast, “Annaeus” is chosen because he is the leading man of Tarichea. He apparently has the public responsibility of holding the material in safety, until Josephus can secretly get it to Agrippa.It is likely that Annaeus is the same person as Life’s Iannaeus; this name appears only here, and (given that War also omits the Hebrew name Iannaeus for the Hasmonean king Alexander [1.85-106; contrast Ant. 13.320]) it might well be adjusted for the sake of Josephus’ Roman audience, to sound like the familiar Latin nomen Annius (cf. 4.487-88; Ant. 18.32-33; 19.18-20). See the note at 2.239. I.e., Agrippa II and Berenice. See the note to Annaeus: it appears from Life 131 that in that story Josephus has already dispatched the goods to Agrippa via the king’s two friends.

Or even “cop a share.” The informal translation reflects Josephus’ τυχεῖν: they were missing their main chance. See the note to “first considered” at 2.25: this is the last of 4 occurrences of this verb, which Josephus uses only in War 2. According to Life 129-30, by contrast, the youths had brought the goods to Josephus in good faith, and only fastened on this explanation once he failed to give them their share. Life 129 omits this close indication of time, leaving the impression that the youths may have taken some days to reach the villagers with their news; accordingly, the attack on Josephus’ home there appears to come in the late evening (Life 136), whereas here it follows at first light, after this antecedently implausible overnight tour of villages by the youths (2.598). Life 129 indicates the villages around Tiberias to the S: perhaps partly because they are more densely situated, partly because of greater animosity to Josephus in Tiberias itself. See the note to “betray their affairs” at 2.594. Josephus uses the Attic form (ἕως) almost consistently, 13 times in the Atticizing War and 16 times in total. Only at Ant. 8.414 does he use the Ionic and common Greek ἠώς. Lit. “10 myriads.” If it is impossible that Josephus should have recruited 100,000 young Galileans (see the note to “young men” at 2.576), it is a fortiori unthinkable that another 100,000 (or even the same)—nearly twice the capacity of Rome’s Colosseum or a modern sports stadium, perhaps the entire population of Jerusalem at the time—could have gathered against him at Tarichea, much less in the hippodrome there (see the note in 2.599). In this case, dividing by 100 might produce a plausible (though still large) figure. Although it is true that “myriads” by itself can have a general sense (“a large number”), his addition of the “10” shows that he is aiming at a specific number.Life 132 both avoids this large figure and implies a more realistic scene: the Taricheans persuade Josephus’ élite bodyguard and soldiers (perhaps in the range of 200; see note to “person” at 2.583) to abandon him—an alarming enough admission—and their presence at the hippodrome is considered decisive, whereas they would be trivial in the presence of 100,000.

No remains of Tarichea’s hippodrome have yet been found; see Appendix A to BJP 9. But since the hippodrome of the large showcase-city, Caesarea, could hold only about 10,000 (see Appendix A to this volume), that of Tarichea—so close to the main city of Tiberias (see the note on Tiberias’ stadium at 2.618)—must have been smaller. Josephus is partial to this colorful verb (κράζω) in War, using it 12 times (only 3 in Antiquities); see the note at 2.176. Greek καταλεύειν. The less vivid reading of MSS PA (καταλύειν, “eliminate, destroy”) seems easy enough to understand as a careless default to a frequently used term in Josephus. It seems harder to explain “to stone” as a scribal emendation. Strangely, John has no role in the parallel story in Life, in spite of Josephus’ having recently said that John had won the support of Tiberias (§§ 122-24): Jesus son of Sapphias is the central figure there. This (παροξύνω) is a favorite term in Josephus. See note to “provoked” at 2.8. As in the Life parallels, the MS tradition here shows confusion over the father’s name (also Samphia, Sappha, Aphia, Taffan). This man, the son, will appear as a bold and determined rebel leader in the early stages of the Galilean campaign and the battle for Tarichea (to which he will flee from Tiberias): 3.450-52, 457, 467, 498. In Life Josephus introduces him twice: first as a factional leader of (allegedly) sailors and thugs (§ 66), then as council-president as here (§ 134). His fate is unknown.Iesous’ putative character (wretched, trouble-maker, sedition-fomenter, revolutionary) and role as provocateur are considerably elaborated at Life 134-36: taking a copy of the laws as a stage prop, he whips up anti-Josephan fervor with a patent non sequitur. It is his rousing speech that drives the mob, which he personally leads, to rush against Josephus’ home. As Schürer-Vermes (2.179-80; cf. A. H. M. Jones 1971: 275-76) show, Tiberias had a typical Hellenistic constitution with a council (βουλή: Life 64, 169, 284, 300, 313, 381), a council president or ἄρχων (Life 134, 271, 278, 294, 300), a board of 10 (Life 33, 69, 168, 296), and various magistracies (Ant. 18.149). According to War 2.641 below, the council numbered 600—possibly an inflation, given that councils of major Greek cities typically numbered 400 or 500.

At 2.583 Josephus has claimed a bodyguard of 600, though Life 90, 92 give him a more realistic 200. Life 132 claims quite differently that Josephus’ military guard had been persuaded to desert him and join the opposition. Life 137 emphatically has only one man, named Simon, remain behind. In War’s version there are striking echoes of Nero’s final hours: the young emperor too was alarmingly deserted in his moment of peril by his bodyguard and all but four attendants (War 4.493; Suetonius, Nero 48); but Josephus will successfully employ the stratagems that Nero only imagined. See further note to “clothes” in the next section. Life 136 elaborates that Josephus had turned in for the night because of fatigue (not for ordinary sleep, therefore apparently earlier than usual), and since he was not expecting trouble. Life thus implies that the assembly of the mob took place in the late evening, rather than around daybreak as here (2.598), where Josephus has not yet woken up in the morning. Accordingly, Life omits War’s notice (2.598) that the youths had visited the villages overnight. In Life 137, it is Simon who awakens Josephus. This notice fulfills the expectation of burning at 2.599.

Nero’s four advisers reportedly advised him, similarly, to flee the indignities that threatened him if he remained near the city (Suetonius, Nero 49). According to Life 137, Simon advises Josephus to die nobly as a general, by taking his own life rather than being killed—or forced to kill himself—by enemies. In place of this self-congratulation for a courage that his four colleagues lack, Life 137-38 has the sole (and courageous) companion Simon advise Josephus to take his own life rather than leave himself to the crowd’s tender mercies. In place of the following list of adjustments to his appearance, Life 137-38 has Josephus simply entrust his affairs to God, dress in black, and suspend the sword as he goes out to meet the crowd. War’s stratagems for winning over the hostile populace, as follows, recall the reportedly genuine grief and pleading of the chief priests and notables at 2.316, 322. For Josephus’ audience they might also recall devices used or imagined by Nero, according to later reports, when he faced a lethal revolt against his own rule (from the Praetorian Guard, Senate, and western legions). Suetonius has him tear his clothes (Nero 42), ponder a trip to Gaul, where he would break out in tears before the rebels until they changed their minds (43), then consider addressing the Roman people from the rostra, dressed all in black (as at Life 138), and beg their forgiveness for his misdeeds until he persuaded them (47). Greek καταπασάμενος δὲ τῆς κεφαλῆς κόνιν. It is uncertain whether the verb should indeed be καταπάσσω (“sprinkle”), as most MSS and as translated here, or καταμάω (“heap”) as in MS L, the 10th-cent. Suda lexicon (endorsed by Niese), and the episode containing the closest parallel to these activities in the earlier narrative (2.322). Sprinkling, especially of ashes (a possible meaning of κόνις in contexts of fire—so possibly here) on one’s head, was part of the biblical symbolism of mourning and/or repentance (LXX Job 2:12; Esther 4:1; Jer 6:26; 2 Macc 10:25). For the possible significance of the other verb, see note to “head[s]” at 2.322. The sequence is slightly awkward, given that Josephus presumably needed his hands, now tied behind his back, in order to fasten on the sword (cf. Life 172, with note in BJP 9). Further, the meaning and function of the last word in the clause (τὸ ἴδιον ξίφος ἐπιδήσας τῷ τένοντι) is a puzzle. The Greek participle translated “the ridge” means something that is stretched or extended; when referring to body parts, it usually indicates tendons or sinews (cf. Ant. 4.221). It can also refer to a mountain ridge, as in the only other occurrence in Josephus (War 4.5). Modern translators (LCL, Pelletier, M-B) take it to mean Josephus’ neck. This must be influenced by the parallel at Life 138, where Josephus plainly says that he suspended the sword from his neck (τὸ ξίφος ἀπαρτησάμενος ἐκ τοῦ αὐχένος). But given the many other disparities between these accounts (e.g., whether four associates remained or only Simon), it seems hazardous to explain one story by means of the other. Although Josephus might mean his outstretched neck, it is also reasonable to take the dative as instrumental—indicating the ridge or edge of the sword by which he held it. It might be safer for him to tie the sword by its middle, if he intends to fall prostrate, than by its handle (in which case the point is liable to stick in the ground and drive the handle into his body). In either case, the point of the gesture in combination with the preceding one is to render his weapon inaccessible: he comes in peace. This (προπηδάω) is a favorite verb in War, rarely used before Josephus; see the note to “plunged ahead” at 2.47. It seems from what follows (2.604) that by this movement Josephus has put himself in a humiliating posture, prostrate or facing downward. It is not clear, however, where the following exchanges took place, whether in a confrontation of the advancing mob or back in the hippodrome. Life 138 has Josephus reach the hippodrome by taking a route that avoids the advancing mob and only then falling prostrate and crying.

See the note to this key term at 1.12. Greek τῶν οἰκείως ἐχόντων could mean Josephus’ family, his domestic entourage, his close friends, or (as the context suggests here) those with close links to Tarichea. According to the narrative (2.598), this would be the vast bulk of the 100,000, most of whom have been drawn in from surrounding areas by the youths. By contrast, Life 138 makes Josephus an object of pity before all. Therefore Life lacks a parallel to the following expression of disgruntlement. See the note at 2.397 and (to “pact”) at 2.452.

Possibly “they added to their grievances” (perhaps: his anticipated confession would only compound their anger), in keeping with the common MSS reading προσειλήφεσαν. Following Niese and other modern editors, Ι have translated Bekker’s emendation, προειλήφεσαν. In Life 139 Josephus actually makes a preliminary quasi-confession, that he had done wrong (as they would see it). The mob is willing to hear him out in the expectation that after his full confession they will be justified in killing him. This is the final reference in bk. 2 to a central tragic theme of the work: pity works constantly along with fear (the hallmark of tragedy; cf. Aristotle, Poet. 1449b.27; 1452.38; 1453a.3, 5, 1453b.12). See the notes to the programmatic language of the prologue, to “pity” at 1.10 and “compassion” at 1.12.

All 3 of the other occurrences of ταπείνωσις in Josephus have to do with the humiliation of Egypt, for which Moses was reportedly born (Ant. 2.234, 238, 255). This double compound, προπαρασκευή, seems unattested in literature before Josephus (who has it also at Ant. 15.346), except in the Hippocratic corpus (Diaet. morb. 7.50). It appears a number of times in Soranus, Phrynichus, Galen, and other 2nd-cent. CE authors. (The cognate verb, a favorite of Galen’s, has occasional classical and Hellenistic attestation.) Greek στρατήγημα (“general’s behavior”), meaning the ruses and deceptions expected of generals (on Josephus as “general,” see 2.562, 566, 569), as illustrated by Julius Caesar and others. Josephus’ contemporary Sex. Iulius Frontinus compiled a manual of such behaviors. Although Frontinus writes in Latin, he borrows the Greek term for the theme of his work (Strat. 1.1) and defines στρατηγήματα as skills displayed by generals (sollertia ducum facta). Cicero also seems to prefer the Greek word, for which the Latin has only the adjective imperatorium (Nat. d. 3.6.15). For Josephus’ other general’s tricks in War, see 2.630; 3.171-76, 186-92; in Life 148, 163, 169, 265, 379. Here is a stunning example of Josephus’ “Philonic” diction. The verb τεχνιτεύω is hardly attested in literature before Philo (Dionysius, Isa. 4), who has it 21 times: it is his characteristic language. Josephus uses it 3 times (also 4.422; Ant. 5.307), though after him it disappears for a century or more. In War’s context this plan (κατ’ ἀλλήλων στασιάσαι) is ironic, for it taps a deep vein in the larger work. As author, Josephus fundamentally blames the downfall of Jerusalem on στάσις (1.10) and he observes several times that this infighting made things easier for the Romans (3.495; 4.366-76; 5.30-34).With its different scene, Life 140 adds that Josephus urgently had to set the crowd in the hippodrome at odds with each other, before the armed troops that had gone to his house returned. The Greek text is awkward here without a finite verb to anchor the participle ὁμολογήσων, and a lacuna is posited by Destinon and Niese; MS C provides ὑπισχνεῖτο, which I follow for convenience—admitting that one can place little confidence in this option. This offer picks up the demand at 2.602, and appears to be a blatant lie, though celebrated by Josephus as a necessary ruse.

It is another side of Josephus’ complete flexibility in speech-writing that this version of his remarks has little connection to, and no verbal overlap with, the version he will give at Life 141-42. There he begins with a profession of his willingness to die, if he must, then proceeds to dilate on the welcome that Tarichea has given foreigners (who have come to join the cause of rebellion), and finally offers to build Tarichea’s walls on that deserving basis. Here, by contrast, the straight denial of his (rightly understood) plans is followed by a clever effort to set Taricheans and Tiberians against each other by fabricating claims about the latter. This had been precisely Josephus’ intention (2.597); he advertises his deception.

This casual observation, which must have been valid within the framework of this episode, undercuts Josephus’ claim at 2.573, that after recruiting an army he systematically set about walling the cities of Galilee, including Tarichea and Tiberias. Josephus presents this as a mischievous claim on his part, deliberately concocted in order to dissolve his opposition into factions (2.604).

This promise is not made in the Life parallel, perhaps in part because Josephus no longer has the goods; it seems that he has actually sent them back to Agrippa (Life 131). Of course, Josephus does not expect a demand to honor the promise anyway. The MSS, but especially the editors, show some unhappiness with the wording here because one expects a contrast: “If this does not seem right . . . ; but if I did reason well, don’t punish your benefactor!” Reinach, Pelletier, and Thackeray read the text just this way, transposing “not” from protasis to apodosis. They were encouraged by Hudson, who proposed either dropping it from the first clause or conjecturing the opposite adverb (thus “If I did not reason badly” [εἰ μὴ κακῶς for καλῶς]). M-B leave the text as it is, but read the latter clause as “punish only your benefactor.” There seems to be no serious problem, however, with reading the given text as a slight elaboration of what goes before: “If you don’t agree, I’ll bring out the goods; if I did not reason well, punish me!” The direct invitation to punish or abuse is not absolute but dependent on Josephus’ open promise to build walls for the city. Note the parallel at Ant. 13.401-6, where the widowed Queen Alexandra invites the Pharisees to abuse the corpse of her hated husband after promising them great power in her new government. (They decide to give him a splendid funeral.)

MS P, against the majority and Latin, has Josephus change his normal spelling (Ταριχεᾶται) here—as at Life 143, 162—, writing Ταριχεῶται instead. This rare verb (ἀνευφημέω) counts as distinctive Josephan vocabulary, hardly attested before his time in literature (Euripides, Or. 1335; Sophocles, Trach. 783; Plato, Phaed. 60a), though War has it 3 times (also 4.113, 117). It will become more popular in the 2nd century (Nicomachus, Theol. arith. 22; Achilles Tatius, Leuc. Clit. 3.5.6; Chariton, Call. 7.3.11; Herodian, Exc. Marc. 6.4.1; Aelian, Var. hist. 12.1). Thus Josephus has achieved his goal (2.604, 606). Although Life 143 also sees the Taricheans (and their resident outsiders) at odds with outsiders after Josephus’ speech, he does not use his speech there to create dissension: it arises spontaneously from his clever promise to the Taricheans, not matched by a commitment to the others; Josephus quickly remedies the problem by promising walls also for Tiberias (§ 144). Here he does not explicitly promise Tiberians a wall, but he will make a general promise to others (2.609)—after they have fought each other for a while and he is able to reconcile them, having successfully deflected anger from himself. This appears to be a substantial inflation. According to best estimates, the Roman headquarters city of coastal Caesarea had a population of no more than 20,000, with about 25% more outside the city walls; see the note to “population” at 2.266. If even Antipas’ former capital Tiberias could not have been as large, its near neighbor Tarichea was surely smaller.

See the note at 2.182. Life 144: “I would construct walls also for Tiberias and the other cities of theirs that needed them.” Explicit mention of Tiberias is missing here, perhaps because mischievously suspecting that city was the main point of Josephus’ tactic in the first place (2.606). See the note at 2.8. This traditional call to abandon internal strife for unity against a common enemy (i.e., Rome and Agrippa; cf. 2.638) is part of the ruse—to deflect anger against Josephus himself.

Greek τῶν ἠπατημένων (by Josephus). The same phrase is used at 2.261; see the note there and to “trickery” at 2.106. This is a remarkably clear statement of his willingness to use deception against his own populace for valuable ends (and saving his own life). Josephus’ flexibility is evident here: whereas deception, guile, and trickery on the part of others have been roundly condemned (2.106, 249, 259, 261, 586), he celebrates his own Odysseus-like capacity to deceive—in the interests of his assumed virtue. If Josephus’ ruse were so successful, it is not clear why the mob were still enraged, except perhaps to connect the literary episodes. Contrast Life 144: everyone comes to trust him and so they disperse to their homes. He opts there to give the next episode a new beginning. This observation opens an inclusio, to be closed at 2.613 when these men abandon their weapons. Life 144 by contrast considers the matter settled, and Josephus simply returns home with 20 soldiers as escort and no mob in pursuit; there the next episode arises from new instigations. It would perhaps be more convenient if Josephus took a different route from the mob’s, as he claims to have done in reaching the hippodrome at Life 138.

Here these are the 2,000 armed malcontents left over from the previous episode; at Life 145, a new round of instigation produces 600 armed soldiers, who came to set fire to Josephus’ house. Greek ἀπάτη, cognate to “tricked” in the previous sentence. See the note there and to “trickery” at 2.106. This dramatically important word (θόρυβος) is usually metaphorical, in which case I translate as “disorder”; see note at 1.4. According to Life 146, Josephus invites the mob to send in people to receive the goods (from the Dabarittans’ robbery) and so calm the popular rage.

See the notes at 2.193 and to “powerful [men]” at 2.239. According to 2.599, this move against Josephus has been led by the Tiberian council-president Iesous, and it stands to reason that other Tiberian councilors would be involved, as they will be in the revolt soon to come (2.632-34, 638-41). Or “magistrates, councilors” (ἄρχοντες); see the note to “magistrates” at 2.216. Perhaps because of the impression of barbarity that this story might well create, with the leading Tiberians as Josephus’ victims, Life 147 has the mob send in only one man: their most audacious and courageous representative. Josephus presupposes a large domus-like house with many rooms and an upper open story, seconded from a wealthy person (see the note to “lying back” at Life 222 in BJP 9). This phrase (εἰς τὸ μυχαίτατον τῆς οἰκίας) is remarkably formulaic in Josephus: it occurs precisely as here at 5.427 (except the plural “houses”) and Ant. 7.229, and with structures other than houses at War 3.27; Ant. 8.311. This is remarkable for at least 3 reasons: (a) this superlative is the only form of the adjective μύχιος (which already means “in-most,” and so rarely needs a superlative) that Josephus uses; (b) this form of the superlative is irregular, one of several possibilities, and very rare (attested before him only in Aristotle, Mund. 393a; Strabo 7a.1.20); and yet (c) not only does Josephus use this rare superlative exclusively, but he repeats the formulaic phrase above (unattested elsewhere) several times, through both of his major works, showing clearly the same authorial hand in different kinds of narrative, albeit using different sources and at different points in his life. Since houses in the region—whether single- or multi-family complexes—were typically built around a central courtyard, that courtyard was itself “the innermost part of the house.” When Josephus bars the entryway to it, he appears to be saying (since it is not as if the 2,000 are in the courtyard) that this is where the leaders are being held for their punishment. That would make a certain sense: it was the largest area (and easiest to clean after the coming bloodshed). Life 147 has Josephus first whip his victim and then order him to cut off his own hand, which he must then hang from his neck (an awkward image). This is the only occurrence of δικαιολογέομαι in War, though it appears 5 times in Antiquities. It is a distinctively Polybian term (e.g., 3.21.1, 6; 20.9.9; 24.11.7; 30.17.1). He accounts for 11 of the 24 attestations before Josephus.

If the scenario described in the preceding notes is accurate, these doors are not those to the central courtyard (he has not mentioned doors there), but rather those to the outside of the entire house complex, where the crowd has been kept waiting. This completes the inclusio begun at 2.610 with the deliberate mention of their weapons. For the phrase, see the note at 2.524.

The following story of a revolt in Tiberias engineered by John of Gischala (2.614-25) suggests the impossibility of reconstructing Josephus’ career from the conflicting accounts in War and Life. In the later work, although the parallel story (§§ 85-103) is verbally quite close to this one at several points, its location is entirely different. Instead of being a second plot by John, after his involvement with the spoils of the Dabarittans’ robbery (here), there it comes before the robbery (Life 126). And whereas here John’s failure will lead to the loss of his followers (2.625) and an appeal to Jerusalem against Josephus (2.626), in Life John retains his followers and vigorous public activity for most of the remaining narrative, losing the followers only near the end (Life 372)—long after the delegation from Jerusalem that he requested (Life 189-98) has come and gone. That success (εὐπραγία) or good fortune (εὐτυχία) provoke envy (φθόνος) was a commonplace of rhetoric and popular morality (Pindar, Pyth. 7; Isocrates, Pac. 124; Aristotle, Rhet. 1386b, 1387b; Top. 109b; Eth. eud. 1221a: “Envy consists in being annoyed at prosperity more often than one ought to be [φθονερὸς δὲ τῷ λυπεῖσθαι ἐπὶ πλείοσιν εὐπραγίαις], for the envious are annoyed by the prosperity even of those who deserve to prosper”; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 3.42.1; Philo, Somn. 1.223; Jos. 5; Appian, Lib. 495), and it is a basic component of Josephus’ rhetorical arsenal: “It is impossible in success (εὐπραγία) to avoid envy (φθόνος)” (War 1.208; cf. 1.72, 84, 463, 633-34; 2.82, 181; 4.393; 5.97; cf. 1.67, Ant. 2.27, 201; 4.14; 6.59, 193; 10.212, 250, 256; 13.288, 402; 15.130, 349; 16.248; 18.240-41; 20.21; Life 80, 85, 122, 204, 423; Apion 1.213). Since this verb appears only here in Josephus, though he could have used many for the preparation of a plot, and since the phrase ἤρτυσεν ἐπιβουλὴν seems to be attested before him only at Herodotus 1.12, where it refers to the notorious plot of the Lydian king’s wife and Gyges against the king, he may well intend an allusion to that famous story. The first, here in War, was John’s effort to whip up the masses in Tarichea against Josephus for not handing over the goods captured by the Dabarittan youths from Agrippa’s official (2.599). Life has a completely different order: the equivalent to the following episode there (§§ 85-103) happens there before the robbery by the Dabarittan youths (§§ 126-48) just recounted here—an episode in which John has no role there. See the note to “dissembled” at 2.293. Josephus makes John a specialist in pretense (2.587-89, 591, 617). See the note at 2.128: this is the language for a supplicant, often used of addresses to God. The reference is to Hammat, just S of Tiberias (cf. Ant. 18.36-37), where some 17 natural hot springs (at ca. 600 C) continue to attract spa customers. Although Life presents this story in a completely different place relative to Josephus’ career (see note to “second plot” in this section), the language for this plot is so close to that in Life 85 as to suggest borrowing in the later version. Greek θεραπεία opens an inclusio, which will close at 2.617—with a different sense of the word.

This justification perhaps makes better sense at Life 86, where the Dabarittan affair has not yet occurred and John has not exploited it as here against Josephus (2.599), though in both cases Josephus has had ample reason to suspect John (here 2.590-94). He appears to claim here a kind of clementia, a willingness to forgive and forget, that he will attribute systematically to Titus in the later narrative (4.101-6; 5.329; 6.12, 29-32, 78-9, 152-56, 190, 228, 353, 356)—whereas he himself will remain duly suspicious and wily. Life 86 elaborates: “I wrote to those entrusted by me with the administration of Tiberias, each by name.” Both passages are initially puzzling inasmuch as (a) the leadership of Tiberias appears generally opposed to him (2.599), all the more after his violent treatment of their representatives (2.612-13), and (b) he has not yet indicated any measures to administer the city through his own agents, though Life 69 has indicated his alliance with a faction led by one Capella (see BJP 9 and notes). We soon learn (2.616), however, that Josephus has appointed Silas to “guard” (or “watch”) Tiberias in his absence. This pair (ξενία καὶ τὰ ἐπιτήδεια) is somewhat formulaic in Josephus—alone among extant writers (cf. Ant. 1.181; 14.131; 15.199). In its preceding 23 appearances in War 2, this favorite verb (διαφθείρω) has usually meant (physically) “destroy, ruin, or dispose of” (i.e., kill); see the note to “destroyed” at 2.11. Here he gives it a moral sense. Greek ἀπάται, cognate to “tricked” at 2.610 and “tricks” at 2.611. See the note to “trickery” at 2.106. See the notes to this verb at 1.5; 2.55. Life 87 emphasizes by contrast the bad character of those who defected: those delighting in change, sedition, revolution, and upheaval. In the corresponding passage (Life 88) we learn that John easily persuaded the influential Justus of Tiberias and his father Pistus, unmentioned in War but important to the later work, to follow him rather than Josephus.

Josephus’ lieutenant will appear also at Life 89, 272. His name offers interesting possibilities. Greek Σίλας might be understood as representing the Roman cognomen Sila (taken from the forest of the Bruttii), which had many cognate forms (Kajanto 1982: 237). The name appears in the NT, and comparison of Paul’s letters (Silvanus at 1 Thess 1.1; 2 Thess 1.1) with Acts (Silas at 15:22, 27, 32; 16:19, etc.) suggests that Silas could abbreviate Silvanus, one of several related cognomina based on silva (woods) or Silvanus (the god of forests; Kajanto 1982: 91, 155, 213-14, 310). If it were Roman, we might imagine that Silas was one of the Tiberian élite along with other bearers of Latin names (cf. Life 32-33 with notes in BJP 9). A complication is the appearance elsewhere in Josephus of Silases from the E, such as the Babylonian (2.520; 3.11, 19), suggesting that the Greek form also represented an Aramaic name (cf. Ant. 14.40; 18.204; 19.299, 317-25, 353). Life 89 calls Silas Josephus’ “general,” though his command of the city on behalf of Josephus is evidently tenuous. The expression κατὰ τάχος, only here in War 2, was not common among ancient authors. Though it was used 11 times by Herodotus, it must count as a Thucydideanism (with 44 occurrences); it is later attested chiefly in Polybius (8 times), Diodorus (33), Dionysius (6), and Josephus’ War (10). Curiously, Josephus uses it only in War (bks. 1, 2, 4, 7). This notice would not make good sense to someone who knew Galilean geography. As far as the audience knows, Josephus is still in Tarichea, the scene of the previous episode (2.599-613), but that lies only about 6 km (3.75 m.) from Tiberias, about an hour’s walk, and would not require strenuous travel through the night. Life 86, by contrast, incidentally notes that Josephus was staying at the Galilean village of Cana (apparently Kh. Qanah, on the N edge of the Beth Netofa valley, more than 20 km [12.5 miles] from Tiberias, depending on the route) when he authorized John’s trip to Tiberias. This location would make much better sense of both his ignorance of John’s activity there, until he received a report from his agent, and his long overnight trip. Life 90 has Josephus travel “through the entire night” with 200 men. See the note to “daybreak” at 2.598. Here the cognate term is ἑωθινός, which Josephus uses only in War (also 3.251, 319; 4.63).

Many of Tiberias’ élite appear inclined from the start to oppose Josephus (2.612); now they have been actively won over to John’s faction. See the note to “affecting” at 2.614 (this pretense reinforces the inclusio in this paragraph); for the different verb here see the note to “pretend” at 2.587. Greek κλινήρης seems to be attested in literature before Josephus only in Philo (Spec. 3.106); Josephus has it otherwise only at Ant. 8.236. From his time onward it becomes much more common (Plutarch, Pyr. 11.4; Arat. 34.6; Mor. [Sen. resp.] 797c; [Clement of Rome], Hom. 5.2.3; Soranus, Gyn. 1.46.3; Herodian, Part. 67; Athenaeus, Deipn. 12.80 [Kaibel]). See the note at 2.2. This is the attentiveness or care (cf. Latin cura) due to a more powerful person or a god. The occurrence of θεραπεία here completes the inclusio begun with this word, but in a very different sense, at 2.614. Life 91 tells a different story: John comes out to greet Josephus in a troubled frame of mind and, realizing that he is in danger, quickly returns home. It appears that Josephus is most interested here in the inclusio created by the fake illnesses at the beginning and end of this paragraph.

The stadium of Tiberias was speculatively located by Lämmer (1976: 43-54) about halfway between Tiberius and Beth-Maon to the NW. Salvage excavations in 2002 led by Moshe Hartal on the grounds of the Galei Kinneret Hotel, in this general location, which uncovered a large section of a curved wall (from a structure of some 39 m [128 ft] diameter at the curved end, perhaps of standard stadium length [200 m.]), appear to represent this structure. Though the discovery was widely reported in newspapers in 2002, it does not yet seem to have been the subject of an official report. Bernett (2007: 228-36) plausibly connects the stadium of Tiberias with the hippodrome of nearby Tarichea as effectively part of one entertainment complex. The argument of Lämmer and Bernett that these facilities must imply the presence of Kaiserspiele in Tiberias, albeit without cultic or iconic enhancement (Bernett 2007: 235), is more difficult. If one could hold games without cultic apparatus, why the need to connect them with cult at all? Life 92-93 gives more space to the opening of Josephus’ speech: dismissal of his bodyguard, request from the mob for a speech, and his initial appeals about not defecting so quickly. Only when he is in rhetorical flight there do John’s men appear. See the note at 2.8. Life 95 has John send in the most trustworthy of his “thousands” of soldiers.

See the note to this characteristic Josephan phrase at 2.173. See the note to this distinctive language of War at 2.132. In Life 94 it is rather Josephus’ attendants who interrupt his speech to draw his attention to the arrival of John’s men. Or “for the butchery, sacrifice” (see the note to “butchered” at 2.30). Josephus poeticizes the drama, using “iron [blade]” (σίδηρος) rather than the prosaic “sword” and the highly resonant σφαγή—with connotations of innocent sacrifice amply developed in this volume—rather than simply having someone about to strike his neck. He will use the same vivid conjunction of words, which seems unattested in earlier authors, at 3.385, to describe his near-death experience at Iotapata. The particular service performed by the friendly Tiberian named Herod at Life 96 is that he leads Josephus to the lake (cf. § 304, where he must reach the lake by an alleyway). Given the lakeside location of Tiberias and its stadium, War’s account (implying immediate access) seems more plausible, though Life may simply be suggesting that Josephus could not leave the stadium structure by the obvious routes. This is the only occurrence of δημηγορέω in War. Of 5 others, one is at the parallel to this story, Life 92, which again suggests that he consulted this text when writing the later one. About 3 m (nearly 10 ft), and therefore in keeping with Josephus’ many other athletic feats in this episode (see next note). It was common for Greek stadiums to use natural hills or earthen banks for at least part of the seating (cf. Lämmer 1976: 45-46). Life 92 (cf. 96), by contrast, positions Josephus on a high, man-made stadium wall. This is the only occurrence of βουνός in War, though it appears 7 times in Ant. 1-9. There it normally indicates a fairly substantial hill, whereas here (as at Ant. 9.128) a mound or bank is in view. Herodotus discusses the word twice, once using it as a Greek equivalent for a Libyan term (4.192) and once citing it as the name given by Cyreneans to a hilly region of their country (4.199). There is a great deal of leaping, charging, and plunging in Josephus’ self-description (many on the πηδάω root as here), as he illustrates his athletic prowess. See the note to “charged ahead” at 2.601. Greek παρορμέω occurs only here in Josephus and very rare elsewhere (Philo Mech., Parasc. 95 [Thevenot]; Plutarch, Cim. 12.5—supporting a supposition of earlier fragments). On this point, remarkably, War and Life 96 nearly agree: the men are there named as Iacob (the bodyguard) and Herod (a helpful Tiberian). This is a puzzling notice because the following narrative leaves Josephus’ whereabouts uncertain, even when the people begin flocking to see him (2.622-23), until 2.634 where he turns at Tarichea. Life is more attentive to these details, and at § 96 has him reasonably flee from Tiberias’ stadium via the lake N to Tarichea (as also at the mirror event in Life 304).

This (πόλεμος ἐμφύλιος) is the first occurrence in bk. 2 (cf. 1.216) of a phrase that will become important in the central section of War (4.131, 375, 441, 495, 545 [these last of Rome]; 5.19; 6.343; cf. 2.638 below; Ant. 7.20, 22; 14.283; 16.189; 19.184 [of Rome]; Life 100, 265, 409), as a more descriptive alternative to the Leitmotif στάσις (1.10: “civil strife”), which can also be qualified by ἐμφύλιος; see the note to “civil war” at Life 100 in BJP 9. The Greek phrase appears to be of Polybian origin (1.65.2, 71.5, 7; 2.18.4; 6.46.9; 30.11.5); it is used often by Diodorus (11 times, sometimes perhaps via Posidonius), Dionysius (20 times), and Philo (11 times), as by Josephus (19 times) and Plutarch (35 times); Appian uses it 7 times in his Civil War. The term corresponds to Latin bellum domesticum or bellum civile, which were in wide use (cf. the works by Caesar and Appian, as well as Lucan’s Pharsalia) because they were perceived as representing the most serious threat to Rome in this period. This is characteristic Josephan language; see the note at 2.354. The “few” in question are apparently John of Gischala and his followers, who have reportedly initiated the Tiberian revolt from envy; see the note to this word at 2.614. Greek παραναλώσῃ τὴν πόλιν. The verb παραναλίσκω occurs in Josephus only in War (also 3.188; 4.119; 5.561); cf. 2.638 (“expend . . . beforehand”) for a cognate. Although the city here is Tiberias, the observation that emotion leading to civil strife can result in the destruction of a city is a crucial theme in War, especially in relationship to Jerusalem (cf. 1.9-12). See the note to this word at 2.351.

This language of orchestrating or contriving a plot (συσκευάζω + ἐπιβουλή) is distinctively Josephan. It seems not to be attested in literature before him, though he uses the collocation several times in different works (Ant. 16.324; Life 110, 225). Since Life 96 has Josephus in Tarichea at this point, that narrative claims that it was the Taricheans who first became enraged against their Tiberian neighbors and then stirred up anger in the rest of Galilee (§ 97). As 2.585. But Life 101 has John leave for Gischala only after the following move against him from the Galilean masses, at which he becomes afraid.

See the note to this formulaic phrase at 2.170. On the problem of such numbers, see the note to “100,000 young men” at 2.576. The doubly compound verb συγκαταφλέγω is rare outside Josephus, and late (Dionysius, Ant. rom. 14.2.2; Philo, Flacc. 69; Plutarch, Mor. [Virt. inf.] 499c; Lucian, Nigr. 30; Appian, Illyr. 61; Bell. civ. 2.3.21), though he has it 3 times (also War 1.50; 6.280). So MSS PAML. Or simply “city” (πόλιν rather than πατρίδα) as in MSS VRC and followed by Thackeray, M-B, Vitucci, and Pelletier. Since, however, it is much easier to explain VRC’s reading as a later scribal adjustment (for Tiberias was not John’s home town), we should prefer the more difficult reading, all the more because it is found in generally better MSS. In that case the language is sarcastic, receiving its point from the phrase “that had welcomed him”—ὑποδέχομαι suggesting “harboring a stranger, providing refuge,” or similar. Perhaps also because John’s actual home town of Gischala was so far away and inaccessible, the Galileans were only too happy to attack the many who had defected from Josephus in John’s adopted home of Tiberias. At Life 99, the angry Galileans along with Josephus’ own friends counsel him to take Tiberias by storm, raze it, and sell its women and children into slavery.

Julius Caesar’s renowned clemency toward enemies (recalled by inter alios Suetonius, Jul. 74-75: inhibere maluit quam vindicare; cf. Coulter 1931), the theme of a temple dedicated to him (Dio 44.6), is matched by Josephus’ repeated protestations of such an inclination, especially in Life, to avoid civil war and bloodshed: Life 80-84, 99-103, 174, 244, 259, 369.At Life 100, 102-3, Josephus’ mere insistence that matters with John be settled without bloodshed suffices to calm the masses. He cannot there pursue the strategy described here of identifying John’s followers and requiring them to abandon him, because John must remain a central figure in that narrative; Josephus will only be able to do what is described here near the end of Life (§§ 370-72), after a great deal more nefarious activity on John’s part.

This artful verb (συναφίστημι) was favored by Thucydides (1.57.1, 57.5, 59.2, 104.2, 115.5; 3.47.2, 69.6; 4.88.2) and Diodorus (1.68.3; 2.26.2; 14.17.3; 15.66.4; 16.17.4; 18.40.2; 19.46.3, 47.2; 36.2.4), who account for 17 of the 23 attestations before the 6 in Josephus (also 1.474; 2.645; 4.647; Ant. 17.319; Apion 1.271). In the similar story at Life 370 Josephus gives John’s followers 20 days to consider their futures. See the note at 2.58. This threatened barbarity does not appear at Life 370, where only burning homes and plundering property are envisaged.

The similar story at Life 371 has 4,000. Puzzlingly, Josephus has said (2.588; see note there) that John began with 400 refugees from Tyre and its villages. The parallel at Life 372 will give him about 1,500 refugees from the city of Tyre itself; so at least that number is close to this one. Although the MSS here show no demurrals, evidently Josephus is talking about the same group (Tyrians). If so, either he himself refers to them as both Tyrians and Syrians or an early copyist’s error has created the difference. Whereas John’s loss of followers and reduction to surreptitious activity leads here to the delegation episode, in Life (a) the Tiberian revolt just described (Life 85-103) does not result in John’s loss of followers; (b) the delegation affair is completely decoupled from that first Tiberian revolt and occupies the middle part of the book (beginning only at Life 189); and so (c) therefore the delegation affair cannot be a consequence of John’s loss of followers and withdrawal to clandestine activities. There he loses his followers only at §§ 371-72.

It is remarkable that the following story of the delegation sent from Jerusalem to oust Josephus should receive so little attention here (2.626-31), whereas in Life it occupies the heart of the work (§§ 189-335), that it should be presented as the consequence of John’s massive loss of followers (which does not happen until Life 372), and that the details of the embassy should be so different in the two works. On all these problems see the introductory essay to Life in BJP 9. According to Life 189-90, out of hatred John sent his brother Simon along with one Jonathan son of Sisenna (a Roman name) and an armed escort of 100 to Simon son of Gamaliel, a prominent Pharisee in Jerusalem, to effect Josephus’ removal. At § 193, Simon tells the high priest Ananus that Josephus’ influence and power need to be restrained. The phrase ὅσον οὐδέπω is rarely attested before Josephus (Heraclides, Frag. 140 [Wehrli]; Menander, Asp. 113). Philo has it twice (Sacr. 135; Mos. 1.32), but Josephus uses it much more frequently (3.261; 4.96, 539; 5.33; Ant. 4.160; 5.340), apparently reflecting a new fashion in the late 1st century CE (cf. Plutarch, Per. 29.1; Alc. 14.4; Alex. 26.5; Mor. [Suav. sec. Epic.] 1103d; Ignatius, Ep. 2.8.2; Lucian, Ver. hist. 1.8; Icar. 22; Merc. 31; Marcus Aurelius, Med. 4.3.4; 5.33.1; 7.70.1; 10.11.1). See the note to “tyrants” at 1.10. See the note at 2.400.

The referent is unclear: these accusations? Facts? See the next note. This appears to mean that the populace of Jerusalem was not concerned about Josephus. At Life 194, similarly, the high priest Ananus rebuffs Simon’s initial bid to have Josephus removed on the ground that many chief priests and also the mob (the common people) support Josephus. See the note to “magistrates” at 2.216. In contrast with Life 193-96, which claims that Simon son of Gamaliel instructed John’s brother Simon to bribe Ananus and Jesus, the leading former high priests, to send the delegation. Scholars generally hold that Life’s admission of the high status of Josephus’ opponents was forced on him by the rival work by Justus of Tiberias (since Luther 1910). Although that is possible, the extreme brevity of War’s account seems enough to explain the difference: in giving the entire episode only a couple of paragraphs it is reasonable that Josephus would omit names (while still acknowledging that leaders and officials were involved). See the note to this word at 2.614. At Life 200 the Jerusalem leaders send a mercenary force of 600, led by a Galilean named Jesus, up to John with the delegation. These proceedings recall the Roman civil wars, and the Senate’s declaration of Julius Caesar or later Marc Antony, each a powerful Roman general and governor, a public enemy (hostis). Josephus’ generalship was established at 2.562, 568.

Life 199-201 claims that the leaders gave these four men 40,000 pieces of silver (drachmas, apparently), a mercenary escort of 600, 300 members of the citizen body, and the 100 armed soldiers accompanying John’s brother: 1,000 altogether. The father’s Greek name (“law-related, legal [scholar], lawyer”) occurs only here in Josephus. In the gospel of Luke (7:30; 10:25; 11:45-52; 14:3; cf. Tit. 3:9, 13) the formulaic plural indicates a group closely connected with the Pharisees. The son’s Hebrew name, Yoezer, takes the form Yozar (or Ioazar) in Life (29, 197 [emended], 324-25, 332); if the same person is in question, Josephus appears to have changed his mind about how best to represent in Greek the name ‮יועזר‬‎ (1 Chron 12:6-7 and common among the rabbis; cf. Ilan and Price 1993-94: 192). At Life 197 (see discussion in BJP 9), the Yoezer named as a member of the delegation is identified as both a priest and a Pharisee. Possibly “son of Sadok,” a nickname of uncertain meaning, or “the Sadducee.” See the note at 2.451. Unless Ilan and Price (1993-94) are correct in proposing a mistaken transference of names on Josephus’ part, this man has already appeared with Ioudas as a prominent member of Eleazar son of Ananias’ faction, which would seem to confirm the general picture of hostility between Josephus and that group. For the Pharisaic Ananias of Life, charged with “vile and wretched” activities, see Life 290-91; cf. 316, 332. Ananias and Judas were introduced at 2.451 as two of the three men chosen from the faction of Eleazar son of Ananias to offer assurances of safe passage to the besieged Roman garrison in Jerusalem—just before those soldiers were slaughtered. Since Josephus does not point out this connection, and we discover it only by careful comparison, one might take this as incidental evidence that he really was opposed to, and by, the radical rebel movement, especially by Eleazar’s faction, whose members here try to remove him. Alternatively, since the Life parallel (§§ 195-98) has the delegation sent by Ananus II, Josephus’ own commander, one might suspect that Eleazar’s faction were part of the same leadership group that had sponsored Josephus, which must now have turned against him.In any case, with the names of Simon and Ioudas we meet a substantial conflict with Life 197-98, which identifies the remaining two members of the delegation as Ionathes (Jonathan), a non-priestly Pharisee, and Simon, from a chief-priestly family. Given that Josephus there portrays Jonathan as the head of the delegation, with whom he is in constant interaction, and who tries to harm him on several occasions (Life 199, 216-17, 226, 228-32, 236, 245-46, 249-52, 254-67, 271-73, 277-89, 297-302), it is more than strange that here, in place of Jonathan, he should instead name two sons of Jonathan. If we wished to save him by assuming that Jonathan was another name for Jonathan’s son Judas, we would face the problem that this Simon cannot be the one in Life because that Simon belongs to a different family from Jonathan’s. Josephus has thus presented this important story from his own career in completely different terms in his two works, leaving us no apparent leverage for uncovering the truth.Ilan and Price (1993-94) propose that the presence in Josephus’ preparatory notes of the common names Ananias and Jonathan in both the delegation story and the Roman garrison episode at 2.451 led him to conflate the two very different episodes, mistakenly transferring the names from 2.451 to this event. Although that solution is conceivable, it is difficult to imagine that Josephus would not have remembered such an important complex of events from his war-time career (especially the names of his chief opponents). Further, the hypothesis does not deal with the comprehensive differences between War 2 and Life in chronology and setting, in which the delegation episode is pivotal (see Appendix C to BJP 9). The problem of incompatible names and identities appears to be no different (so, not separately solvable) from those larger difficulties. This notice fits with Josephus’ assumption, visible everywhere in his corpus, about statesman’s need to be able to speak convincingly (cf. Plutarch, Mor. [Praec.] 801a-804c): see the note to “as follows” at 2.344. Life 196-98, by contrast, elaborates several items of comparison between Josephus and the delegation, which the Jerusalem leaders think should lead the Galileans to prefer the delegation: the four of them (against only one of him) were at least as accomplished in the laws, and two of them were priests. See the note to “give an account” at 2.244. Similarly Life 202: if Josephus put down his weapons, they were to take him alive; if he resisted, they were to kill him without qualms.

According to Life 204, Josephus’ father passed along a full report to him, having received the news from none other than Jesus son of Gamalas, one of the two former high priests leading the war cabinet. In that story Josephus’ father also implores him to return home. Life 195-96 also stresses that the deal was secretly arranged, though in that account the truth had reached Josephus via his father (see previous note). This is the only occurrence of προφυλάσσω in Josephus. A remarkable statement, since this includes the two main cities of Galilee and two other important centers. According to Life 230-35, these delegates met with massive resistance from the villages of Galilee, whose indignant residents were steadfastly loyal to Josephus; Sepphoris gives them a hearing, without rejecting Josephus (§ 232); only Gabara and Gischala are friendly to the newcomers, by virtue of their prior allegiance to John of Gischala (§ 235). Sepphoris’ shifts, at least, should presumably be understood as pragmatic, since the city’s basic anti-war disposition seems well attested; see the note to “eager for war” at 2.574.

On the word, see the note at 2.604. The maneuvers in question occupy a considerable part of the Life narrative (§§ 216-332) and so defy quick summarization. This extremely compact statement shows the extent to which Josephus can select and manipulate his material, for more than half of Life (189-335) is devoted to Josephus’ dealings with these delegates from Jerusalem.

The translation expresses Josephus’ litotes: they “were not moderately indignant.” According to Life 332, Josephus, after arresting the delegation members, sent them back to Jerusalem with travel money and an escort.

This notice corresponds roughly to the situation near the end of Life (372), after the failure of the delegation from Jerusalem (cf. 332), although the episodes that follow here occur there much earlier (§§ 155-74), before the delegation’s arrival from Jerusalem. See the previous note: Life will provide a completely different and irreconcilable arrangement of these episodes. Tiberias was, as far as Roman administration was concerned, a territory belonging to Agrippa II (2.252). Although it lies within Josephus’ assumed purview as rebel general, and his rival John has tried to lead the city away (2.573, 599, 614-25), the council here asserts its loyalty to the king and asks for help. The parallel (Life 155-58) adds considerable detail: the Tiberians duplicitously demand that Josephus fufill his pledge to build their walls, while at the same time they request a garrison from King Agrippa to protect them against Josephus. While he is engaged in this building project, on the third day he makes a trip to nearby Tarichea and is informed en route of the defection. Josephus as author cannot use the same scenario here, because he has not pledged to build Tiberias’ walls (cf. 2.608-9), and indeed he gives the impression that he has already built them (2.573).

See the note to this verb at 2.406 (its only other appearance in Josephus). This account appears to be a somewhat cryptic précis of the one elaborated at Life 157. There he explains that the appearance of Roman cavalry nearby gave the false impression that the requested troops from King Agrippa had arrived, and this emboldened the populace to denounce Josephus and praise their benefector the king. Life 158 mentions only an outpouring of praise for the king and slanders against Josephus.

See the note to “rebellion” at 2.39. All MSS read thus, with L clarifying “The defection of these,” but Thackeray follows the corrected MS R in changing τῶν to τῷ: “The (or ‘this’) defection was immediately reported to him at Tarichea.” Pelletier’s Greek follows Thackeray, but his translation agrees with the one here; M-B agree with the translation here and the text assumed. Since the common MS reading is intelligible, and preferable as the more difficult one, it seems the better choice. This is the first we learn of Josephus’ whereabouts after 2.619, which left him in the middle of the lake after his escape from Tiberias (see the note there). According to Life 157, Josephus was en route to Tarichea from Tiberias. This notice, absent from the Life parallel, fits with Josephus’ stronger emphasis here on his excellent generalship; see 2.584 and cf. 2.63 and note to “grain.” Life 159-62 offers a much fuller account of these deliberations, which in both works serve to highlight his impossible situation—so as to throw his clever solution into starker relief. There, Josephus has already dimissed his soldiers, except for 7, to their homes for the approaching sabbath (no mention of foraging). He was at a loss about what to do, since the Friday was nearly over, and he could not recall his troops even if he had wanted to, since they could not fight on the next day. Nor were the Taricheans and their resident aliens a sufficient force to take Tiberias, and the delay involved in assembling them would likely mean that the royal troops would already have arrived and prevented his attack anyway. Josephus implicitly contrasts his lawful behavior with that of the radical rebels, who freely violate the sabbath; see the notes at 2.146 (cf. 2.392). Similarly Life 161 (see the notes ad loc. in BJP 9): “Nor, if it [the force] arrived, could it have taken up weapons into the following day, because the laws prevented us—even if some extreme necessity should seem to impose itself.”

Life 163: Josephus posts his most trusted friends at the gates. Josephus uses the noun σκέμμα 4 times, only in War (cf. 1.486, 500; 4.209). It is rarely attested before his time—Plato, Aristotle, Posidonius, and several medical writers (the Hippocratic corpus, Hippias, and Diocles) have it a few times each, usually in the sense of a problem or object of speculation, but no earlier historians. From Josephus’ time it is used much more often (e.g., Plutarch, Mor. [Def. orac.] 412d; [Virt. mor.] 447f; Lucian, Eun. 8; Jupp. 17; Herm. 1; dozens of occurrences in Galen). He seems to be using newly fashionable language. The double compound προεξαγγέλλω occurs only here in Josephus and is exceedingly rare otherwise (before Josephus only at Demosthenes, Fals. leg. 248). I.e., the Tiberians. Life 163 has Josephus assemble all the heads of households and order each to launch a boat, though it gives no number for the fleet assembled. So MSS MLVRC and Latin, against “330” in PA. Life 165 merely reports that the Tiberians would see the lake full of boats. Life 163 has each boat occupied only by the household head and a helmsman or pilot. See the note to this distinctive phrase in War at 2.18.

Or “unanchored, suspended” (μετέωρος). Although boats would normally come close enough to shore to secure themselves, he makes a point of keeping them out on the deep water so that their contents cannot be seen. This is one of the few small points of agreement with the parallel in Life (161, 164), where the rationale is that Josephus had sent the rest home for sabbath. Here, by contrast, the implied rationale appears to be that the other soldiers were away foraging (2.634). All MSS read ἀνόπλους, as translated. Destinon conjectures the opposite (ἐνόπλους: “armed”), in light of the Life parallel (§ 164) and the sequel here (War 2.642), in which Josephus orders one of these men to cut off a man’s hand; this conjecture is followed by Thackeray, Pelletier, Vitucci, and M-B. But the sequel does not require that the soldiers were armed (since the guard might have found a sword with the man himself) and the Life parallel cannot be trusted to interpret War. The unanimous MS reading is the more difficult one, and on that basis should be accepted; it is also intelligible in the story as Josephus’ effort to highlight his vulnerable and brave maneuver. In Life 165-67, by contrast, the Tiberians first see the lake full of boats and repent, calling on Josephus for mercy; only then, after telling the others to drop anchor in the deeper water, does he take one boat and approach more closely. Here it seems that he offers his own boat, with 7 soldiers as crew, as an example of the rest.

This minor scenic detail seems calculated to remind the audience that it was Josephus who had built the walls from which his enemies have been slandering him (2.606); cf. “the one who had walled it” in the next sentence. This has become something of a refrain, the hallmark of Josephus’ mastery of his enemies without (much) bloodshed: cf. 2.613, 625. See the note to “supplications” at 2.497. Here alone in War, given the accompanying verb of shaking, Josephus appears to intend with κατασείοντες ἱκετηρίας the literal olive branches used for signaling an appeal for mercy. The same phrase (φείσασθαι τῆς πόλεως) appears in the Life parallel (166) and at Life 328, in connection with Life’s later (duplicated?) Tiberian revolt, though the preceding verb is different in each case. That these are the only occurrences of the phrase in Josephus suggests that Josephus had some sort of written notes as he composed these Tiberian episodes; at least, that he had War before him as he wrote Life.

This first topic of censure, absent from the Life parallel, fits conspicuously well with War’s Leitmotif of civil strife; see the note at 1.10 and more specifically (on doing the Romans’ work for them) 4.366-76; 5.24.The adjective εὐκταῖος (here superlative and substantivized) is another example of Josephus’ “Philonic” diction. Before Philo it appears mainly in playwrights (Aeschylus, Ag. 1387; Sept. 723, 841; Suppl. 631; Euripides, Or. 214; Med. 169; Iph. Taur. 213; Sophocles, Trach. 239; Aristophanes, Av. 1060; Lycophron, Alex. 1091), rarely in philosophers (Plato, Leg. 906b) or historians (Diodorus 11.11.4; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 6.50.1, 79.1). But it turns up 8 times in quite different contexts throughout Philo (Opif. 103; Spec. 2.154; 4.147; Arithm. frag. 62a; Legat. 288; Virt. 114, 176; Praem. 136) and Josephus has it 6 times in different places (also 7.22, 65; Ant. 1.292; 7.165, 249). I.e., Josephus. See 2.573 for the generic claim that he set about fortifying Tiberias and Tarichea along with other cities in his charge, and 2.606-609 for the seemingly contradictory account of how he came to do this: as the unplanned result of a ruse gone awry. In this case ἀπολογέομαι approximates the English cognate “apologize for.” Although the verb βεβαιόω might have to do with securing the city, the issue here seems to be confirming its relationship with Josephus.

According to Life 168, Josephus himself demanded that the citizens produce their 10 foremost men as a condition of assuaging his anger. The 10 in question, since they are the first instalment of the entire council, appear to be Tiberias’ executive subcommittee, mentioned at Life 32-33, 68-69: the δεκάπρωτοι. It seems from Life, then, that even Josephus’ closest associates in the city—among them the Roman citizen Iulius Capella—had supported this move to confirm loyalty to Agrippa II and Rome (see the passages cited with notes in BJP 9). Life 168: they are taken to Josephus’ base in Tarichea. Life 169 compresses this explanation.

See the note at 2.397: a favorite term in this part of War 2.

See the note at 2.635. See the note at 2.180. This notice joins with others (cf. Life 64 with notes in BJP 9) to confirm that Tiberias had the institutions of a Greek city: a large council with a president, a board of 10, and various magistracies; cf. A. H. M. Jones 1971: 275-76; Schürer-Vermes 2.179-80. A. H. M. Jones (1940: 164-65) notes that the central Greek institution of the council typically comprised about 500 citizens, elected by lot, who served for a year. So this was a very large council for a city of Tiberias’ size. Without specifying the size of the council, Life 169 reports that Josephus captured its members as well as an equivalent number (“no fewer”) of the city’s principal men. Josephus has established this city, about an hour’s walk N of Tiberias, as his most congenial base in E Galilee (2.596, 634).

See the note to “rebellion” at 2.39. This action of the mob creates problems for understanding the narrative logic. According to 2.632, the Tiberians’ defection consisted in the city’s attempt to realign itself with King Agrippa II (and Rome) against Josephus, and he has accordingly punished the residents by removing 2,600 of their leading men, including the city’s 600-person council, which must have been responsible for such a decision about the city’s political loyalties. It defies logic, then, that a single man should be the real culprit and, especially, that he should still be present—not among even the largest conceivable swath of “leading men.”Further, the man’s convenient Greek name (Κλειτός, “Mr. Famous, Notorious”), surprising in someone who must be rather low in social status, which appears only here in Josephus and seems not otherwise attested among Greeks or Judeans (e.g., Horbury and Noy 1992; Noy 1993, 1995; Solin 1996, 2003), arouses the suspicion that Josephus is portraying typical mob activity here for chiefly literary purposes. The masses try to defend themselves from the likely wrath of an offended general by identifying a scapegoat (“kept appealing . . . that his rage be fixed on him”). Life 170 describes Cleitus in clichés as “a bold and reckless youth,” which seems further to disqualify him from the leading role in Tiberias’ defection and suggests that Josephus is there trying to offer further reasons for the crowd’s targeting of him. At any rate, the main function of the episode seems clear from its ending (2.644-45): to glorify Josephus’ prowess as a general and his ability to instill fear even from afar. Life 171: Josephus considered it impious to kill a compatriot, but still saw the need of discipline. Or “Levis” (Ληουίς); there is considerable variation among the MSS. See the note at Life 43 in BJP 9. Life 171, parallel to this story, seems to spell the name Ληουείς, though the MS problems make judgments uncertain. I.e., one of the 7 bodyguards with Josephus in his boat (2.636). Out of the boat, apparently; see the next sentence. Cutting off hands was apparently a common punishment in Josephus’ Galilee: in the parallel to War 2.612 (Life 147) he orders a Tarichean trouble-maker to cut off his left hand and hang it from his neck; at Life 177 he reports that the Galileans had severed the hand of Iustus of Tiberias’ brother, charging him with forgery. It was an old near-eastern punishment, as the 18th-cent. BCE Code of Hammurabi shows (195: “If a son strikes his father, they shall cut off his hand”). In biblical law, the cutting off of hands is restricted to a rare and specific offense (Deut 25:12, but Exod 21:24). Examples of hand-severing post mortem, for symbolic reasons (War 3.378; cf. 2 Sam 4:12), or in the heat of battle (War 3.527; cf. Herodotus 6.91.2, 114.1; Xenophon, Cyr. 7.47), are more common.

Josephus’ choice of the relatively rare verb σχετλιάζω (cf. 5.325; 7.341; Ant. 5.170) must be deliberate, perhaps to leave open the possibility that Cleitus mistook one emotion for another (see next note). The construction leaves it an open question whether what Cleitus saw represented the reality, or whether his accurate perception of Josephus’ animated frustration over the soldier’s refusal was misread as an impression that Josephus himself would come and do the job—a prospect for which Josephus provides no other evidence, and which works against his insistence that the whole matter was settled by deception; hence the stipulation that Cleitus himself remove his hand. Life 172 rather has this remarkable story: attempting to shield the cowardice of his own soldier from the Tiberian crowd assembled on the shore, Josephus calls out to Cleitus and demands that he cut off both of his own hands, lest he suffer a worse punishment (even though the soldier had been initially instructed to remove only one of the man’s hands). When Cleitus begs for mercy, Josephus can now magnanimously leave him the right hand; he need only sever the left. Here by contrast, terrified that Josephus will personally come and remove both hands, the man obviates any such command by anticipating Josephus and begging to keep one.

Or “gestured”; see the note to “gesture” at 2.498. The underlying point of this entire ruse appears to be that Josephus was in no position—as his reluctant soldier made clear—to go ashore in Tiberias and exact any sort of retribution, even to chop off this man’s hands. He offers it as a sign of great generalship that he was able to intimidate thousands of Tiberians nonetheless by his clever manipulation of impressions. Cf. the next sentence, the comment about empty ships at 2.645, and the parallel at Life 174: the Tiberians finally realized that he had employed “generalship” against them, and they were awestruck.

See note to this word at 2.262. This renewed defection “after a few days” lacks a parallel in Life. There is a further major revolt, engineered by the delegation from Jerusalem with the aid of John and Justus (Life 271-335), but they have already been dispensed with here in War (2.632). See the following notes. The parallel at Life 373-80 (like the final Tiberian revolt there, impossible to reconcile with War’s chronology) has the Sepphorites, who consistently opt for loyalty toward Rome and Agrippa II (Life 30, 124), requesting a Roman garrison from Syria to protect them from the rebellion and its regional leader Josephus (Life 373). Josephus there describes his taking Sepphoris by storm with a Galilean force, which then shows its long-standing hatred for the city by burning and looting it (375-77). When Josephus is unable to restrain them, he decides to spread the rumor that the Roman force is nearby, which prompts them to flee quickly, leaving behind the plunder they had taken (378-80); and so Sepphoris was spared (!) by Josephus’ generalship. At Life 333-35 (the closest parallel), the rhetoric is different. There Josephus’ soldiers have plundered the city without command (as was to be expected of soldiers). When the weary populace pledges loyalty to him, however, they beg Josephus to return whatever can be recovered from this plunder. He orders his soldiers to bring everything out into the open so that it can be returned. They generally fail to comply, though he gives an example of his own virtue: when he saw a soldier wearing an expensive coat, taken from the plunder, he ordered him and anyone in the same situation to return this property.

See the note to “Sepphorites” at 2.645. This deliberate plan is impossible in the closest Life parallel (333-35), since the plundering had happened spontaneously; see the notes to “thoroughly plunder” and “Sepphorites” at 2.645.

See note to this word at 1.4.

See the note to this important figure at 2.563. See the note at 2.239: one of Josephus’ several terms for the élite class. Possibly “those who were not devoted to the Romans.” Greek [τῶν δύνατων] ὅσοι μὴ τὰ Ῥωμαίων ἐφρόνουν may be read in two senses. Generally, this construction of the verb with τὰ + genitive of X indicates “being wise concerning matters of X” (LSJ, s.v. I.1). Translators of Josephus tend, however, to read it as if the verb were completed with a dative of interest, perhaps under the influence of ῥωμαΐζω in 2.562 above (see the note there), to indicate those who were not partisans of Rome (so Thackeray in LCL, “pro-Romans”; M-B, “römisch gesinnt”; Pelletier, “pour les Romains”). A further question is whether we should understand the group in question as Ananus’ own constituency (thus: he and his group were not wise concerning Rome, or pro-Romans) or whether the τε . . . καί construction implies a distinction between his personal aims and the views of others he led. Complicating both interpretations are the next three sentences (2.649-51), in which the narrator’s value judgments appear to come forward: “the respectable” people, or “lovers of peace,” are greatly distressed by the activities of those, led by Ananus, who are preparing for war. But in the third sentence (2.651), Ananus is described as hoping to steer the masses away from war—a point elaborated in his eulogy at 4.320-24.Scholars have often understood the present remark as Josephus’ unintentional admission that Ananus championed the rebel or anti-Roman cause (over against the “moderates” or peace party); they regard Josephus’ claims about the former high priest’s real intentions as obfuscations aimed at concealing the role of the ruling class in prosecuting the conflict (Cohen 1979: 183-86; Goodman 1987: 167; Price 1992: 188 n. 13). Yet Josephus does not attempt to disguise Ananus’ preparations for war, either here or in the obituary, just as he does not camouflage his own activities as general. In both cases he praises the skillful execution of military plans under élite Judean leadership. Further, trying to locate each leader in either a “pro-” or “anti-Roman” camp does not accord well with ancient discussions of responses to Roman rule. Polybius’ master text (see Introduction) charts a range of responses that combine some degree of resistance with a realistic accommodation to “the circumstances” or “necessity.” E.g., the Epirot Cephalus at the time of the Third Macedonian War (Polybius 15.10-16), although his preferred policy reportedly involved limited cooperation with Rome while praying that war would never come, was compelled by circumstances to join the ill-fated King Perseus against Rome.As Josephus’ contemporaries Plutarch and Dio also indicate, it was rarely a matter of leaders being simply pro- or anti-Roman. Against that background, Josephus’ Ananus appears as a familiar type: caught in a time of crisis and trying to manage conditions in the safest way possible. In view of popular sentiment, Ananus has little choice but to prepare for war. Josephus’ τε . . . καί construction thus invites a distinction between Ananus and the others: this man, who was indeed wise about the Romans and foresaw the outcome (2.651; 4.320-24), was of necessity allied with compatriots who did not grasp the situation. (I am speaking of understanding the story, not of the underlying historical reality.) See the notes to 2.546 for the ballistae and catapultae in question. It is noteworthy that Josephus mentions these along with the existing wall as items being made ready, refitted, or repaired (ἐπισκευάζω, not constructed), in contrast to the arrowheads and armor being forged (next sentence). This might suggest that the former group were among the artillery engines captured from Cestius’ legionary army (2.553).

See the note to “projectiles” at 2.48. The precise nuance of the phrase πρὸς ἀτάκτοις δὲ γυμνασίαις is unclear: on the one hand, Josephus emphasizes Ananus’ coordinated preparations for war; on the other hand, the disorder or clamor in the city. See the note to “disarray” at 2.517. The adjective ἄτακτος (or cognate adverb) occurs near θόρυβος, as here, at War 4.231; 6.255. Granted the basic sense of lacking order, the sense here could range from “lazy, indolent, undisciplined,” perhaps befitting the youth in question (who may have caused havoc in the city with their slight military training, but without an accompanying discipline) to a more neutral “irregular,” describing the kind of force (in contrast to such highly trained standing armies as the legions and auxiliaries). Elsewhere translated “disorder,” though that does not seem to have the right nuance here, since Josephus appears to respect Ananus’ orderly preparation for war (cf. also 4.320-24). See the note to “disorder,” a key word in War, at 1.4. See the note at 2.275. This is another programmatic term (συμφορά) in War and in bk. 2; see the notes at 1.9; 2.286. This is the last of 18 occurrences in bk. 2 alone.

Or “acts of divination,” “superstitions,” “inspired events.” Greek θειασμός occurs only here and at 2.259 in Josephus. The adjective δύσφημος, quite rare before Josephus (e.g., Euripides, Andr. 1144; Apollonius of Rhodes, Arg. 1.1137; Strabo 3.2.12), occurs only here in his corpus. See the note to this distinctive phrase at 2.422. See the note to this Josephan phrase at 2.420. Or “as they pleased, to please themselves” (πρὸς ἡδονήν). This notice evidently anticipates the same phrase at 6.315 (somewhat symmetrically), which concludes a list of 7 signs (τέρατα, σημεῖα) and two oracles (6.288-314) that were either disdained by the rebels or interpreted as they wished. Josephus offers examples there: when a temple gate opened spontaneously, some understood it as God’s opening of the gate of blessings, whereas the learned recognized a bad omen (6.293-95); an oracle indicated that someone from Judea would rule the world, predicting Vespasian’s rise, whereas the rebels (implausibly) took it as encouragment (6.312-13). That passage in turn finds a striking parallel in Tacitus (Hist. 5.13), who not only relates the disagreement about the predicted ruler from the East but also observes that “the common people, as is the way of human ambition, interpreted such grand destinies for their own favor” (sibi tantam fatorum magnitudinem interpretati).

See the note to this key word at 1.10. Greek κάμψαι πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον. This is classic statesman-language; see the note to “advantage” in Agrippa’s speech at 2.346. According to Plutarch (Mor. [Praec.] 800d-e), the statesman’s task is to win the trust of the people and then to train their character, “leading them gently toward the better course (πρὸς τὸ βέλτιον)”; cf. 815b. As often, Josephus creates suspense. Ananus’ murder will not be recounted until 4.314-25, which provides the narrative fulcrum at approximately War’s half-way point (by book).

On the border of Judea proper and Samaria; see the note at 2.235. Simon has been briefly introduced as a leader of those who attacked Cestius’ forces on their approach to Jerusalem (2.521; see the note there). He will become a principal leader of the revolt, known also to Tacitus (Hist. 5.12), from the middle of bk. 4. See the note at 2.407. For the type of man and the plunder motive, see 2.57. Reading ἐσπάρασσεν with MSS VRC and Niese, Thackeray, Pelletier, and M-B. Although the important MSS PAML (and Latin) support ἐτάρασσεν (“disturbed, upset [the houses of the rich]”), the close parallel at 1.338 to the construction translated speaks in its favor. For an earlier attack on the houses of the wealthy élite, see 2.265. Although the simple verb αἰκίζω is common enough in Josephus, the emphatic compound καταικίζω occurs only here in his corpus and is otherwise rare (e.g., Homer, Od. 16.290; 19.9; Herodas, Mim. 5.12; Diodorus 18.47.3; 20.54.7; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 3.73.4; Philo, Jos. 22; 4 Macc 6:3; 11:1; 12:13; Plutarch, Mor. [Cons. Apoll.] 117f). Josephus’ association of Simon with the tyranny anticipated in the prologue (1.10; see note there) will now become routine: 4.564, 573; 5.11, 169; 6.227, 326; 7.32, 265.

See 2.408, 433, 447 with notes. The “bandits” who have recently gone to Masada include the tyrant Manaem, to arm himself for conflicts in Jerusalem (2.433-34), and his followers, among them the future tyrant of Masada, Eleazar ben Ya‘ir, who went there just before Manaem’s capture and murder in Jerusalem (2.447-48). Ananus is killed at 4.314-25; others follow soon (4.326-44, 357-65). Simon is mentioned again at 4.353, but fully reintroduced at 4.503-4, in preparation for his methodical assault upon Jerusalem, and entry into the city as tyrant (4.503-44, 556-84). The verb συλληίζομαι seems to be attested only here in all Greek literature before the 12th century.

Φλαυίου Ἰωσήπου ἱστορία Ἰουδαϊκοῦ πολέμου πρὸς Ῥωμαίους βιβλίον γ.

Φλαυίου Ἰωσήπου ἱστορία Ἰουδαϊκοῦ πολέμου πρὸς Ῥωμαίους βιβλίον δ.

Ca. 1 July 67 ce. In spite of Josephus’ (echoing the Flavian) claim that his subject is the greatest war ever (1.1–2), it is difficult to find in War a moment at which a national revolt began, especially one affecting Galilee. His narrative even seems to undermine any such picture. War 2 describes various incidents in Jerusalem, Caesarea, and Judea that generated conflict between Judeans and the procurator’s auxiliary army (see bjp 1b). Still Jerusalem’s leaders continue to look to the emperor, his legate in Syria, and the Herodian King Agrippa ii for redress, as they have always done, usually with success (2.280–81, 333–34, 342–43). Only some factions—priests led by Eleazar son of Ananias (2.443) and others by Manaem (Menachem) son of Judas (2.433)—harden their stance as a result of the incidents with Florus and the auxiliary, deciding that the usual channels are no longer capable of protecting them. Although Josephus gives full play to their legitimate grievances, as fellow-Judeans are suffering without effective recourse, Jerusalem’s leaders vehemently oppose these groups in the knowledge that violent responses will only exacerbate the problem (2.409–414). The militants manage to banish King Agrippa and refuse entry to the legate Cestius, while the populace and its leaders still desire peace (2.523–34). As for Galilee, War presents Josephus as a general sent to train a large army there, to defend against the expected Roman onslaught from the N toward Jerusalem (2.568–84), but his alleged army vanishes even before Vespasian’s legions set foot in Galilee (3.129). Life 28–29 offers a basically different account: Josephus goes to Galilee with two colleagues to ensure that the region is not taking up arms against Rome out of sympathy with Jerusalem’s struggles. Vespasian’s arrival in the Roman colony city of Ptolemais sees the region pre-emptively submit (Sepphoris as regional capital along with Agrippa’s Tiberias and Tarichea). Josephus thus gives no impression of a national revolt against Rome anchored in Galilee either. His formulation here (Ὅσοι δὲ μετὰ τὴν Ἰωταπάτων ἅλωσιν Γαλιλαῖοι Ῥωμαίων ἀφεστήκεσαν), though usually translated in keeping with the common assumption of a revolt against Rome’s empire (Thackeray lcl: “Such Galilaeans as after the fall of Jotapata still remained in revolt from Rome now”; H-G: “The defeat at Tarichaeae brought the surrender of those Galilaeans who had still remained in revolt from Rome”), might indicate Galileans who rebelled not against Rome as such, but against the Romans’ presence in Galilee, who were particularly aggrieved by the unfair destruction of Iotapata. They were not part of a national revolt against the empire, but just as the unfair treatment of Iotapata sparked a revolt in solidarity at nearby Iapha (3.289), so it did elsewhere, though Vespasian still considered his work in Galilee done by around 1 July of 67 (3.409–13). Vespasian’s capture of Tarichea (Migdal), which Titus leads, was the closing episode of Book 3 (3.457–542). This town, along with Tiberias, had been given to King Agrippa a decade earlier. Groups that had reason to oppose the king, along with others fleeing Vespasian’s forces in the W, had gathered in Tiberias and then moved to Tarichea (3.457). Their capture left little room for refuge, except for Gischala in the northern hills or Mt. Itabyrion (Tabor) in the Jezreel valley—or Gamala in the Golan Heights E of the Kinneret, also in Agrippa ii’s territory. Since Vespasian thought that he controlled Galilee with the fall of Iotapata around 1 July 67 (3.409, 443–44), the sense appears to be not that Tarichea’s fall allowed the Romans to take the rest of Galilee, but that it concluded their activity in Galilee except for remote Gischala and Mt. Tabor, which are minor sites to be mopped up. The chiasm introduces an example of each: natural fortress | city || Gischala | Tabor / Gamala. Gischala has appeared in 2.575, 585, 621 as the home of Josephus’ nemesis Ioannes (John), strongman of this remote town, which remained outside Josephus’ control (2.629). But he managed to confine John there, cowering in fear (2.632). That is the last we have heard of Gischala (it does not appear in Book 3), so the reader infers that Vespasian was not concerned with the site or with John. This impression is confirmed by his dispatch of Titus now with a modest cavalry force, on a brief inspection of northern sites, while Vespasian takes the legions to winter quarters (4.87–88). It is conceivable that Josephus, who is now Vespasian’s captive, suggested the visit to his old enemy’s town, which Titus is expected to be able to handle with 1,000 cavalrymen. Mt. Itabyrion (Tabor) has appeared at 1.177 as a reference point in a last-ditch battle between the Hasmonean Alexander and the Roman governor Gabinius (50s bce), then mentioned at 2.573 as one of the Galilean sites allegedly fortified by Josephus. The difference in language here (Gischala [the site] vs. “those who had seized” Tabor) is explained at 4.54, where the phrase reoccurs: the Judeans of concern on Tabor are a “mob” that has recently arrived, possibly fleeing from Tarichea (i.e., opting for Tabor over Gamala). They are distinct from the few residents of the mountaintop (4.57). The Romans thus have no quarrel with the latter, though in wartime they must have control of the mountaintop and so expel them (4.61). See further 4.54–61 with notes.

For many decades from the 19th cent., this notice supported the mutually reinforcing error that located Gamala at Hippos (Qal’at el-Ḥusn), which was first excavated as Gamala, and Tarichea next to Sennabris at the S end of the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee). For the interconnection of these locations in research, see Guttman 1993; Syon and Yavor 2010: 4–12; Mason 2016a: 395–401. Gamala first appears in War at 1.105 as a “strong fortress” taken by Alexander Janneus. At 2.568 it is among Josephus’ responsibilities, though it lies beyond Galilee, as northern “general.” It is said to be the “strongest city” of the region, which he fortifies along with Seleucia and Sogane in the Golan (2.574). Syon (2014: 6) notes archaeological finds suggesting that Gamala had a special connection with Judeans from Babylonia ever since Hasmonean times: perhaps as a secure pilgrimage stopover on the route to Jerusalem, and as a site known to the fighters Herod settled in Batanea and Trachonitis, from whom Philip ben Iacimus was descended. Life 46–61 tells a complicated story of the town’s relationship with Agrippa ii: a refuge temporarily opposed to him, but won back to loyalty by Philip. Gamala turns against Agrippa again, however, and requests reinforcement from Josephus (Life 185–86). For the archaeology, see Appendix A in bjp 9 with Berlin 2006; Syon and Yavor 2008, 2010. Lit. “an allotment [or grant] of Agrippa” (τῆς δ᾿ Ἀγρίππα λήξεως αὕτη); the noun occurs only here in Josephus. According to War 2.247, Claudius first granted Agrippa ii the small kingdom of Chalcis in Lebanon, then (in 53 ce according to Ant. 20.138) a larger one comprising the former tetrarchy of his uncle Philip (Trachonitis, Batanea, and Gaulanitis) plus choice regions in southern Lebanon and W and N of Damascus. Nero would add Tiberias and Tarichea on the W shore of the Kinneret, and Ioulias with its villages N of the lake (Ant. 20.159; Life 38). On Agrippa’s role and territory, see further 4.14 and note. (M. Iulius) Agrippa ii, great-grandson of Herod the Great and son of Agrippa i, whose kingdom lay mainly N and E of the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee), is about 39 years old in the story time; see Kokkinos 1998: 318–41. Born and raised in Rome (where his father had helped Claudius come to power) and enjoying close ties with high Roman officials, the Judean elite of Alexandria, and Jerusalem’s priest-led elite, Agrippa ii had a natural position of symbolic national-ethnos leadership, beyond his formal kingdom, and often stayed in his Jerusalem palace across from the Temple Mount, as did his sister Berenice. Agrippa was thus a central figure in War 2 (cf. bjp 1b), where in close cooperation with the legate Cestius Gallus he engaged in tireless efforts to head off the growing antipathy toward Gessius Florus in Jerusalem and despair at Rome’s lack of protection. In an extended and important passage, Agrippa makes a brilliant speech on the folly of turning these local frustrations against Rome itself, but he is promptly driven out of the city for his useless verbiage and inability to protect the population (2.337–407). When he returns with Cestius Gallus in the autumn of 66, he does not dare to negotiate personally with disaffected elements in Jerusalem, but sends trusted emissaries, whom they brutally attack (2.523–26). War 3 has mentioned the king’s presence with a force of 3,000 alongside Vespasian (3.39, 68), and his territories, but has left him mostly in the background. The identification of both sites remains uncertain; see bjp 9: 95 nn. 814–815 and Appendix A. Josephus appears to mean, though his language is confusing, both Gamala and Sogane (with Seleucia). This recalls the description of Galilee’s water bodies near the end of Book 3 (3.506–15), in which Lake Semechonitis with its marshes and pools (3.515) is one stop on the southward path of the Jordan River, N of Lake Gennesar (Kinneret). Known in the Bible (Josh 11:5, 7) as “the waters of Merom” and in the Jerusalem Talmud (y. B. Bat. 5.1 [Guggenheimer 2008: 615]) as the “Sea of Samkho,” its Arabic and later-Hebrew name of Ḥuleh (or Ḥula) is more famous. Drained by the new State of Israel by 1957 (Por et al. 1986), because it had become a swamp infested with malarial mosquitoes, this wetland has since been partially reflooded to preserve the ecosystem.

Ca. 6 × 12 km, 3.75 × 7.5 mi (cf. bjp 9: 57 n.340), significantly smaller than Josephus’ dimensions (8 × 28 km)—themselves too long and narrow—for the Kinneret at 3.506. Length in ancient geography referred most often to E-W dimensions (e.g., War 3.38–39, 57)—looking out from Greece or Rome on a world imagined to be much longer (hence W-E longitude) than it was wide (hence N-S latitude); cf. Bunbury 1879: 1.160, 267, 397; Roller 2015: 156–62. But with a particular geographical feature, such as a lake or a building, the longer dimension (here N-S) was naturally considered its length: cf. War 3.506; 4.482; Ant. 3.108, 115. It seems that Josephus’ dimensions for Ḥuleh are again too generous, especially for the length (cf. the map in Por et al. 1986: 123), although it is unclear how much farther N (in later marshes) the ancient lake extended. All mss and the Latin translation read Daphne. The Dutch scholar Adriaan Reland (Hadriani Relandi 1714: 1.263) suggested the emendation here, a difference of one letter in Greek from Dan(e) (ΔΑΦΝΗ / ΔΑΝΗ). The following description of the site matches Josephus’ descriptions of Dan, biblical Israel’s northern-most city (Ant. 5.178; 8.226–28)—by the Little Jordan River, hosting a temple with a golden cow. Every other occurrence of “Daphne” as a place-name in Josephus refers to the very famous location of Daphne near Antioch (War 1.243, 328; Ant. 14.325, 451; 17.24; Downey 1961: 62–73; De Giorgi 2018: 133–62). Given the similar appearance and sound of the two words in Greek, it is easy to imagine that an early scribe substituted the famous name, although it cannot be ruled out that the site of Dan had also acquired the name Daphne. For the physical geography of Dan, see Por et al. 1986; for the archaeology, Biran 1994 and Davis 2013 (featuring excavations of A. Biran and D. Ilan, with bibliography). Greek τὸν μικρὸν καλούμενον Ἰόρδανον, anticipating Ant. 8.226; cf. ἐλαχύς Ἰορδάνης at Ant. 5.178—both concerning Dan. This is presumably the Dan River (Baedeker 1876: 382; Davis 2013: 17 n. 5), the most constant of the 3 main sources of the Jordan (Por et al. 1986), the others being the Ḥaṣbani or Snir River, originating in Lebanon, and the Banias (Hermon) River, originating in the once-mighty spring in the Cave of Pan. The Dan River is fed by underground springs emerging vigorously on the W side of Tel Dan, site of the ancient city. War has made no mention of such a temple, but Ant. 8.225–29 (cf. 1 Kgs 12:25–33) relates that the first king of the new northern kingdom of Israel, Jeroboam, built small temples in Bethel and Dan as alternatives to Jerusalem (now an enemy polis) for his subjects, and placed a golden heifer (δαμάλεις χρυσᾶς with lxx, for mt’s golden calf) in each structure.

Lit.: “right [hands].” Although the right hand was held to signify strength in antiquity, taking the lead in killing or extended in speech-making—uses also well illustrated in Josephus—especially in War he uses the word (often with “give” or “extend,” sometimes with “trust” or “safety” added as 4.61) as shorthand for offering the assurance of safe surrender (War 1.27, 312; 2.64, 438, 451, 524; 3.31, 314, 334, 344, 382, 455–57, 500; 4.94–96, 417; 5.111, 322–25, 373; 6.318–20, 345, 356, 378, 433; Ant. 2.80; 6.25; 8.387; 14.430; Life 30, 370; cognates at Ant. 2.123; 15.378). This usage is noteworthy because (i) it is not common in classical literature (but Homer, Il. 2.341) and (ii) at Ant. 18.326–34, a narrative set in the Parthian world, Josephus describes it as an eastern custom: “which works to create confidence in one’s interlocutors—a hugely important gesture with all those barbarians.” Justin’s Epitome of Pompeius Trogus (11.15.13) likewise attributes the custom to eastern kings, while describing the death of Darius in the 4th cent. bce (Yardley and Heckel 1997: 55–56). It may be significant, therefore, that the clearest examples in Greek literature outside Josephus are set in the East: Xenophon, Anab. 2.4.1; 7.3.1; 1 Macc. 11.62, 66; 13.45, 50; 2 Macc. 4.34; 11.26; 12.11; 13.22; 14.19. Finally, throughout War and Life Josephus highlights the predictable suspicion—including his own—about whether such proffered terms can be trusted or are a ruse to capture enemies, apparently suggesting that (even when he offers assurances) one would be foolish to take them at face value (Mason 2019a: 52–53). Or “defection, secession, withdrawal” (ὑπὸ τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς ἀποστάσεως). See note to “rebellion” at 2.39, a key word in War (36 occurrences + 44 of cognate verb ἀφίστημι), in bjp 1b. Thackeray lcl (“early in the revolt”) and H-G (“early stages of the revolt”) assume with most others that there was a national revolt against Rome. So H-G 436: “Finds of rebel coinage minted at Gamala confirm that the city was a stronghold of the revolt.” See, however, Syon (2014b: 120–22) for different readings of the few crude coins produced at Gamala, where no Jerusalem wartime issues appear, and Arbel (2014: 233–38) for the argument that these assert the town’s independence from Agrippa. The assumption of a single coordinated war in Galilee is hard to square with Josephus’ account or archaeology (Mason 2016a: 335–401). War does not clarify which rebellion is in view here, but implies that it was against King Agrippa, for reasons particular to this region. At War 3.409–13, 443–46, Vespasian considers his intended Galilean campaign finished, with the fall of Iotapata around 1 July 67. He sends his army to quarters—coastal Caesarea with Scythopolis as overflow—as he enjoys a vacation and offers thanksgiving in Caesarea Philippi, Agrippa’s northern capital. When Agrippa tells him about unrest in his new territories of Tiberias and Tarichea, Vespasian recalls the army to help. Agrippa’s territory had not been on Vespasian’s itinerary. He took over from Cestius, legate of Syria, the task of suppressing trouble from Jerusalem. Life 45–61 offers more detail about distinctly anti-Agrippa unrest in the Golan, which had different causes from that in the lakeside towns (31–43). In the Golan and adjacent areas, the king’s Iturean lieutenant Varus/Noarus exploited Agrippa’s absence in late June–August 66 (the king was in Berytus to confer with Cestius about Jerusalem) to move against his nemesis, the highly placed Babylonian-Judean Philip ben Iacimus, a semi-autonomous warlord and trusted aide of the Herodian dynasty, whose ancestors Herod had settled in Batanea as a police force (Ant. 17.23–31). The Iturean nobleman felt that his royal line had been eclipsed by these Judeans. So as soon as he became viceroy, with Agrippa gone and Philip sent by the king to Jerusalem, he moved to kill the leaders of the Judean clan, also starting a rumor that Philip had defected to the Jerusalem rebels. Suddenly endangered by Varus’ plot, and assuming that Varus is acting on the king’s authority for some reason (Ant. 17.28 hints at longstanding tensions, perhaps over tax status between the king and the Babylonian Judeans), the vulnerable Judeans rush to Gamala as the safest refuge in the region (Life 58). Philip also heads there in August, after escaping Jerusalem, and quickly reconciles his clan to Agrippa, assuring them that the king does not support Varus (Life 61; chronology in Mason 2016a: 301–309). Meanwhile, the king learns of Varus’ scheme and, in outrage (before he learns of Philip’s survival and enduring loyalty), replaces him with Modius Aequus, a seconded Roman commander. Assuming that that Gamala has defected from him, in a minor tragic play, he sends Modius to besiege it (Life 114). When Modius and Philip, who happen to be old friends, discover each other at Gamala, Philip’s news finally reaches the king, who ends the siege immediately and arranges for the safe conduct of the Judean clans back to their homes. This background might suggest that early July 66 (when Agrippa dispatches Philip and consults with Cestius, leaving Varus in charge) is the “beginning of the rebellion,” given that Josephus mentions a 7-month siege by Agrippa in this connection (see 4.10 and notes). If so, however, Josephus’ claim that Gamala remained defiant until now compresses a changing story. In Life, after Philip’s clan leave, long before Vespasian’s arrival (October 67 ce), local youths residing in Gamala coerce the town’s elders to stand against the king again, and they kill Babylonian-Judeans still present—apparently, regular residents not among the refugees, but likewise loyal to the king (Life 183–86 with 177). That could be the beginning of a defection from the king, which Josephus has in mind here, for that is the context in which he himself claims to have built or restored Gamala’s walls—after the siege by Modius, however, presumably with a view to potential further conflict with the king. If there was a 7-month siege from about September 66 (note at 4.10), this later turn against Agrippa could have begun only in about March/April 67. Life 187 says explicitly that at this time “the Gaulanitis region defects from the king” (ἀφίσταται δὲ τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ ἡ Γαυλανῖτις χώρα). A third alternative is that the defection in question is yet more recent and a direct outgrowth of the conflicts in Tiberias and Tarichea, which end Book 3. Perhaps they generate yet another influx of refugees to Gamala (and Tabor), while Vespasian is helping Agrippa in the autumn of 67. War’s audiences in Rome, for whom Josephus has to be broadly intelligible, would have no knowledge of the yet-unwritten Life’s extensive back-story, and could only follow the clues Josephus gives them. In War (above), as far as they know the anti-Agrippa unrest has begun in Tiberias and spread to Tarichea. After Vespasian calms those towns, Gamala remains the only problem site in the king’s domains. It would be an easy inference for Josephus’ audiences, though it is not spelled out, that just as Tiberias and Tarichea received refugees with grievances against the king (3.542), the few who manage to escape from Vespasian’s recent pacification of those towns move on to Gamala as their last hope (see “refugees” and note at 4.10). This picture seems confirmed by the conclusion of the Gamala episode (4.83), which says that “the rebellion began” (τῆς ἀποστάσεως ἀρξαμένης) there on 24 Gorpieus (Elul). That would be about 2 weeks after Tarichea’s submission to Vespasian (8 Gorpieus) and just 4 weeks before Gamala’s fall on 23 Hyperberetaeus (Tishrei). See notes at 4.63, 83. Four of War’s 11 occurrences of δυσχωρία appear in this passage concerning Gamala (also 4.6, 22, 43). At 3.016 Josephus includes harsh terrain among obstacles that never deter Rome’s legions from victory, whereas at 4.22, 43 this very problem undoes Vespasian’s legionary force for a time. Josephus has given a similar description of Iotapata (3.158–60), the site of his major stand (and arrest) as a general, in a passage that anticipates much of the vocabulary here: κρημνός, φάραγξ, ὀλίγος, ἄπειρος, βάθος, τειχίζω, ὀχυρότης, λήγω. Although the sites’ positions are structurally similar—steep ravines on three sides, with blocked access on the other—and Josephus remarked that Iotapata’s ravines were unfathomably deep (3.158), he now says that Gamala’s summit is higher in relation to the valley floor and with steeper angles. Indeed, Gamala’s ridge towers between 150 (492 ft) and 230 m (755 ft) above the adjacent river valleys, each one down a steady slope. Yodefat’s summit is 419 m (1375 ft) asl, but the surrounding valley floor is ca. 300 m (984 ft). Its steep ascents (E, S, W) rise an abrupt 50+ m (164+ ft) from the valleys, but the remaining 70 m (230 ft) come from a much gentler northward rise along the spoon-handle shape below the summit. Yodefat’s N summit is only 20–30 m (66–99 ft) above the wide and shallow valley, where the Romans approached after dominating the N summits opposite. Josephus’ repeated comparison with Iotapata (also 4.10) highlights two points. (i) These are the only significant sites where Vespasian’s army mounts a sustained siege and assault in the north (archaeology supports that picture; Mason 2016a: 28–29, 154, 586–87). (ii) The contrast is self-serving, for Gamala has a much more advantageous defensive position than the town he had to defend, and its residents rely on this (4.10), and yet Gamala falls more rapidly—because it lacks Josephus’ generalship.

Lit. “neck, throat” (αὐχήν), the first of several body images in the passage. Translating as “neck” would complicate the dominant camel metaphor, according which the face is toward the W and the tail connects the ridge to the mountain in the E (4.5–6, 13). The modern pass, or saddle between the plateau and the Gamala ridge, includes much infill from the Roman siege (4.13) and thus provides no clear sense of the landscape before Vespasian’s arrival (Syon and Yavor 2010: 13). This part of the Golan Plateau slopes gently from 500 m (1640 ft) asl to 410 m (1345 ft) at the visitor center and parking lot where the trail begins (the “craggy pass”) to the archaeological site, about 11o m (361 ft) lower. The plateau hosts numerous dolmens, burial monuments made of rock from pre-Judean habitation. Lit. “tendon, sinew” (τένων); see note to “pass” above. The Gamala ridge is about 800 m (2625 ft) long, with one striking, rocky peak (the single “hump” of a dromedary or Arabian camel) at 330 m (1083 ft) asl toward the W, and an eastern one at 299 m (981 ft) asl, marking the end of the ridge with a round tower: Syon and Yavor 2010: 13. Josephus’ meaning (or what his audience might have imagined) is not perfectly clear, but this eminence (ὑπεροχή) appears to be still the higher ground of the Golan plateau, from which the ridge extends. The detail of Josephus’ description was crucial to the correct identification of Gamala (with Es-Salam) by Itzhaki Gal in 1968, soon after Israelis gained access to the Golan Heights (1967). See Syon and Yavor 2010: 7–8. Cognates of ἀκρίβεια (here ἐξακριβόω) are frequent and thematic in Josephus (139 occurrences) and in War (30). He claims superior precision or accuracy for his historical researches (War 1.2, 6, 9, 17, 22, 26; 7.454; Ant. 1.14, 17; Life 9, 27; Apion 1.15, 18, 29, 32, 53, 67), as for his interpretation of Judean scripture, while rubbishing others’ efforts. Here Josephus appears to be joking, if only privately. See next note. I.e., in saying G rather than K, if not also with the vowels. In Semitic languages, from which the word originates, the initial consonant is pronounced G or J: gamal and gamla are Hebrew and Aramaic for camel; Modern Standard Arabic is jamal. Josephus flatters his Greek-speaking audience, as though he were holding Gaulanite locals accountable for a Greek pronunciation of the Semitic word. In Ant. 1.121–29, by contrast, he will make a point of the Greeks’ corruption of Semitic names, a stance that fits his general disparagement of contemporary Greeks (e.g., War 1.13–16; Apion 1.1–28). The first part of the phrase τὸ τρανὸν τῆς κλήσεως (“clarity in the nomenclature”) substantivizes the rare adjective τρανής, by Josephus’ time often rather τρανός (cf. the comparative at Ant. 12.81). Of the 50 attestations before his time, 26 are in Philo. This is further evidence that the 2 most famous Judean authors in Greek shared a linguistic culture, possibly also of the Alexandrian author’s influence on Josephus’ diction. See indices to bjp 1b and throughout the present volume.

“Hardly passable” at 4.52, as the story there requires. The Gamala ridge stands between two river valleys, now called the Gamla gorge or canyon to the N (flowing SSW) and the Daliyot to the S (flowing WSW). The ridge is about 280/290 m (919/952 ft) rising to 330 m (1083 ft) asl at its highest point (the hump). Both streams descend rapidly in the valley floor beneath the ridge, from about 180 to 100 m (591 to 330 ft) asl, as they flow toward the Kinneret (–212 m asl) 12 km (7.5 mi) to the W. Josephus reverses metaphors: the neck in 4.5 (“pass”) has become the camel’s tail (οὐρά), elsewhere in Josephus the literal animal part (Ant. 3.228; 5.295; 6.182). See note at 4.4. In the “craggy pass” at 4.5: an inclusio. Of War’s 8 uses of δύσβατος, not a common adjective in ancient historiography (Xenophon 6 occurrences, Polybius 16), 3 fall in the Gamala story (also 4.52, 74), and 3 concern Iotapata (3.118. 141, 191). Such a surely unconscious use of language highlights the connection between the two sites in Josephus’ thinking, which he makes explicit at 4.1, 4, 10. Cf. 3.159 for a similar structure in the description of Iotapata. At 4.13, the Tenth Legion fills this trench in preparation for the assault.

This vivid picture of Gamala’s housing arrangement is crucial for the coming story, at 4.23. The verb (κρημνίζω) in this participle is rare, attested before Josephus only in 2 Macc 6.10, Diodorus 9.19.1, and the grammarian Aristophanes. See note to “flinging themselves” in bjp 1b at 2.49. It is fairly common with the prefix κατα-, but extremely rare with the double prefix at 4.65 in the same Gamala: see note to “bank” there. Approaching from the E one sees the ridge, including the camel hump, as one abrupt peak. The SE slope hosted the inhabited town, which was built up in both the E and the W. The soft chalk ground was terraced for construction, but the buildings were constructed of strong local basalt (Syon and Yavor 2010: 13).

More precisely SE. Josephus’ repetition of εἰς ἄπειρον ὕψος at 4.74 (cf. 1.405 re: Panium), in the climactic moment, helps to create the feeling of a coherent ring composition. Possibly “citadel”: ἄκρα τῆς πόλεως. Josephus most often uses ἄκρα to mean a built citadel (War 1.39; Ant. 12.133, 138, 252; 13.42, 51, 182, 215; War 4.172 equates ἄκρα with φρούριον), but it can also mean simply “high point” (Ant. 15.397). In his coming description of Jerusalem, he claims that the mother-city’s western hill was known as “fortress” and the eastern hill, though lower, as ἄκρα—the hill itself and not a structure (5.137, 139, 253). Both seem to have been popular terms for the fortress-like nature of the city (cf. 4.172). The two senses converge at Gamala because the high point of any settlement (ἀκρόπολις) was also the natural place for a built citadel and could be synonymous with it. A high hill could have that protective function, however, whether or not it hosted such a structure. A round tower has been found at Gamala, where the eastern wall meets the northern ridge (Appendix A, bjp 9; Syon and Yavor 2010: 17–18), but that is not the highest point of the ridge. The tower mentioned at 4.63 appears as a new feature in the story, not assumed here. I do not translate ἄκρα as “citadel” because of the story’s conclusion (4.70–83), where ἄκρα reappears twice (4.71, 82) and seems to be equated with the rocky, inaccessible peak (κορυφή, 4.72, 74): apparently the camel “hump,” a rocky crest ca. 40 m (132 ft) higher than the main ridge, to which Gamalans precariously cling before the end. This latter noun κορυφή appears regularly (4.23, 34, 44, cf. 55) for the peak, beyond which is a sharp drop, and this feature of Gamala is crucial for the story’s climax (4.79–80). ὑπὲρ αὐτήν: on the other (N) side of, over the crest. The NW-facing slope is far steeper and was not suitable for housing. All the mss read thus and this makes sense in view of the topography. Decades before the site of Gamala was identified, however, and assuming that Gamala was at Hippos, with its flatter summit and hillsides below, Niese was followed by Thackeray lcl in emending to “below” (ὑπό). Toward what is now called the Gamla Stream (Naḥal Gamla), a slope too steep for housing construction. No such spring has yet been found. See Syon and Yavor 2010: 9 for discussion.

One of several thematic δυσ-words in the Gamala episode, δυσμήχανος is hapax in Josephus and extremely rare elsewhere. It is attested before him only in an uncertain fragment of Eratosthenes, and next in Oppian’s late-2nd cent. poem on fishing. Josephus recalls here. Only the E side, facing the sole line of access (i.e., the craggy pass = tail, 4.5–6), needed a wall. Archaeology has revealed that the wartime wall was formed by linking up and also fortifying (e.g., W3 in Building 1700) the eastern walls of existing buildings, with casemate constructions filled in during the siege by Agrippa’s commander Modius (note to “rebellion” at 4.4) and perhaps strengthened before Vespasian’s arrival. See Syon and Yavor 2010: 13–112; Appendix A in bjp 9. These become important escape routes at 4.52. The Tenth Legion must fill these in (4.13). In War, outside of the Hasmonean conquest of Gamala (1.105), the site has been mentioned only as part of Josephus’ portfolio as general (2.568) and as a site he fortified (2.574) along with Seleucia and Sogane. If he fortified these sites, it must have been in the winter of 66–67, when he still had freedom of movement before Vespasian’s arrival the next spring. Life 185–87 provides a context. After an initial rupture with Agrippa had been healed by Philip son of Iacimus, he and other Babylonian Judeans having entered the site for safety, and after Philip had departed with his clan, a certain Joseph son of Yair with other young men forced the elders of the town to break with the king and take up arms. These elders wrote to Josephus requesting both more men and stronger fortification. His response (“I did not dispute either of the items they requested,” 186) is a typically ambiguous accommodation, short of explicitly endorsing the coup.

See the note to “Iotapata” at 4.4 for Josephus’ comparison of Gamala with the site of his generalship. In contrast to Josephus’ obviously disdainful expressions for militants (insurgents, revolutionaries, bandits, tyrants), μάχιμοι is both more neutral and vaguer as to motive: “those capable of fighting, fit for fighting, ready or eager to fight, disputatious.” Those who fought at Iotapata were not, in Josephus’ narrative, revolutionaries eager to fight; Placidus attacked their town and they defended it (3.110–14). The parallel at 4.53 (τοῖς μάχεσθαι δυναμένοις) confirms that Josephus is describing those who are physically capable of defending their town, irrespective of motive. He uses this adjective and its verb 74 times in War (already at 4.53, 63, 137), the cognate noun μάχη (usually “battle”) 100 times. Niese assumes a lacuna in the text—οὐδὲ πλείονας ὑπελάμβανον * πεπλήρωτο γὰρ ἡ πόλις διὰ τὴν ὀχυρότητα συμφυγόντων—presumably because of the lack of a clear object for ὑπολαμβάνω (“take up”), a verb that occurs often in Josephus (200+) but nearly always in the abstract sense “suppose” (take up a notion), and because the 4th-cent. Latin translator read it thus (non putabant). The Latin version’s completion of Josephus’ thought (plures esse hostes: apparently meaning that they did not reckon an enemy’s numerical advantage superior to their natural advantage) is not in the extant Greek. Whiston followed the Latin, whereas Thackeray lcl, M-B, and Pelletier avoid positing a lacuna by understanding ὑπολαμβάνω in the rarer (cf. Apion 1.247, quoting Manetho) sense of “admit” (i.e., take up/in new members). This would fit with the sequel: they would not admit new people, for the site was already full. The translation above is a compromise. It seems most likely that Josephus is referring to the residents’ thoughts (with Latin, Whiston; as in 4.19, 26), but we should try to connect Josephus’ language with what follows if possible. It is not unusual for him to write an elliptical statement, as the brackets throughout this translation show. The built area of Gamala was about 14–16 ha (35–40 acres) and could perhaps have housed 5,000 (Syon and Yavor 2010: 9, 13), hardly the 9,000+ indicated at 4.80. Josephus is fond of the compound verb συμφεύγω, using it 42 times. Other authors use it rarely except Polybius (18 times), Diodorus Siculus (46), and in the 2nd century ce Arrian (32) and Appian (41). This pattern suggests that Polybius’ use (likely much more extensive, as we have only fragments) recommended it to many admirers, including Josephus. The συμ- prefix does not always mean running together. It can suggest finding refuge in/with a place (lsj). Who were these refugees? Josephus appears to compress different episodes. The siege of the next sentence, by Agrippa’s officer Modius of the Babylonian Judeans of Philip’s clan (preceding notes), finished about a year before Vespasian’s arrival (autumn 67). In War, the present episode is part of the extra campaign undertaken by Vespasian for Agrippa (3.443–46), and so the refugees are assumed to come from Agrippa’s other territories (anti-royal survivors of Tiberias, Tarichea, and elsewhere). They were not involved in Agrippa’s earlier siege, unknown to War’s audiences until this mention, but fled to Gamala as their last available redoubt. This is confirmed by 4.83, which says that the present rebellion (against Agrippa) began on 24 Gorpieus, two weeks after the submission of Tarichea (3.542) and just 4 weeks before Gamala fell. On this scenario, the refugees from Tiberias, Tarichea, and other sites in Agrippa’s territory join the anti-Agrippa consensus that has re-formed in Gamala after Agrippa’s siege and the departure of most of Philip’s clan (Life 185–86), because of the site’s remoteness and defensive properties. We should not assume that all such militants are Judeans. Book 3 ends by describing the refugees to Tiberias, then Tarichea, as “from Trachonitis, Gaulanitis, Hippos, and Gadara” (3.542), the last two being cities of the Decapolis. Although this might conceivably refer to Judean minorities who fled their home cities, Life 112–13 describes foreign noblemen from Agrippa’s territories who cross into Galilee to fight Agrippa i. Moreover, at Life 142 Josephus calls Tarichea “this city, so hospitable toward foreigners … who have left behind their native places and made common cause with our fortune.” Life 372 speaks of 1,500 “foreigners from the metropolis of Tyre” who joined John of Gischala. If those who control the lake-centered business of Tiberias are upset at having recently become Agrippa’s possession, it easy to imagine that their grievances are shared by foreigners residing in Agrippa’s territories. We cannot be sure. It is not clear whether the cause indicated by παρό turns on the site’s packed refugee population or its strength (the reason for the influx, most recently mentioned), or both. The conjunction compresses the relatively rare παρ’ ὅ (e.g., Aristotle, Soph. elench. 175a, 179b; Chrysippus fragments), though the two forms may be indistinguishable in some mss. Of the first 102 occurrences of the phrase παρὸ καί in the tlg, a striking 85 are in Philo of Alexandria, who has a further 10 cases of παρό without καί and also παρ’ ὅ (Prob. 154; Aet. mund. 63). Of the 8 occurrences of παρό (always with καί) in Josephus, 7 are in War and 3 in Book 4. He has παρ’ ὅ, always with καί, only in War (3.52, 99; 6.182). This is another noteworthy parallel between Philo’s language and that of Josephus’ War (cf. bjp 1b: 68 n. 361; 70 nn. 651, 660). See note at 4.2. See the note to “rebellion” at 4.4. This was presumably no more a fully encircling siege than Vespasian’s effort will be (below), but rather a blockade of the only plausible access route to the NE. Such a blockade by a local commander could involve rotating guard-units of cavalry to monitor and starve the site, rather than a large settled force requiring complex logistics. If Josephus does not exaggerate—7 months is hard to square with Life’s indications that Modius was sent to besiege the town but Philip sent a letter to him as soon as he discovered his presence and this, after correspondence with the king, ended it (114, 180–84)—the “siege” had to begin after Agrippa’s expulsion from Jerusalem (June 66) and dispatch of Philip there (early July), Varus’ interim governance and plot (July–August), Philip’s flight and arrival in Gamala (August), Varus’ removal and Modius’ arrival (August–September?); cf. Mason 2016a: 302. A 7-month siege would then have run until late March/early April 67: around the time of the Flavians’ arrival in Ptolemais and first actions in W Galilee, as Josephus was ending his struggle with John of Gischala and, on Vespasian’s arrival, fled to the temporary safety of Agrippa’s Tiberias (3.131).

The reference is to Hammat, 15 minutes’ walk S of Tiberias, where 17 natural hot springs (at ca. 60 deg. C) continue to attract visitors today (Dothan 1983). This natural spa was used long before Herod Antipas founded Tiberias (19/20 ce), by building the city over a cemetery to take advantage of the famed springs (Ant. 18.36–37). War has not named the site until now, but at 2.614 Josephus did mention John’s pretext for visiting Tiberias: to make use of its therapeutic baths (cf. Life 85–87). These were famous enough to be noticed by Pliny the Elder (Nat. 5.71: Tiberiade aquis calidis salubri) and well known to the rabbis, after Tiberias became the center of Torah study (b. Šabb. 40a–b. 147a; Pesaḥ. 8b, 41a; Ḥul. 8a, 106a). Note b. Meg. 6a: “Ḥammat is Tiberias. And why is it called Ḥammat? On account of the hot springs [Ḥammē] of Tiberias.” The phrase πρὸ τῆς Τιβεριάδος could mean: “in front of (before),” “farther (along the road),” “guarding (protecting, covering, in behalf of),” “at,” or “off of,” even conceivably (this is unlikely given the geographical context) “prior to” Tiberias (lsj). This passage has been used to support Pliny’s location of Tarichea at the S end of the lake (Nat. 5.71)—a location widely accepted (though challenged by Wilson 1877) until the 1920s, which Kokkinos (2010) attempts to restore. He connects this note with War 3.462, which says that after subduing Tiberias for Agrippa, when its troublemakers fled to Tarichea, Vespasian “moved farther along and camped between it [Tiberias] and Tarichea” (Ἔπειτα προελθὼν αὐτῆς τε μεταξὺ καὶ Ταριχεῶν στρατοπεδεύεται), and closer to Tarichea. Assuming that the present notice (4.11) refers to the same camp as 3.462, Kokkinos concludes that Vespasian’s camp “between Tiberias and Tarichea” = his camp at Hammat, which would put Tarichea still farther S. This case requires a number of further premisses, however, that are open to doubt (cf. Mason 2016a: 395–401). For the campaign against Agrippa’s cities, Vespasian reassembled his forces at Scythopolis, S of Tiberias, according to Josephus because it was “the largest [city] of the Decapolis and a neighbor to Tiberias” (War 3.446)—no mention of Tarichea lying between them. After approaching Tiberias from the S and subduing it, Vespasian “goes farther” and makes camp near Tarichea, where the trouble-makers have fled. Since Hammat was part of Tiberias, S of the main town, Vespasian’s movements are hard to explain if Tarichea lay at the S end of the lake. Already camped S of Tiberias to confront that city, he would be barely moving, or moving N, to face a Tarichea to his S. In any case, the two references to his camping sites should not be identified without further ado. Vespasian camped his army in countless places. After subduing Tarichea, he returns from that operation (and its temporary camp) to Tiberias, to execute judgment on Agrippa’s rebels (3.537–41). War 4.11 therefore presents new information, in keeping with the general’s concern for refreshing his troops after exertion (cf. 3.411–13; 4.88–89, 373, 661). When the operations in Tiberias and Tarichea are finished, evidently, he withdraws his forces to Tiberias and camps them by the Hammat spa (Albright 1921–1922: 40; Bloom 2010: 136), a place better suited to recreation than to war-fighting. As long as refugees from Agrippa remain active, he could not send his soldiers back to the winter quarters from which he has already recalled them (coastal Caesarea, with Scythopolis as overflow, 3.412). Rather, when the new rebellion against Agrippa erupts at Gamala, he follows through with his promised aid there (secondarily at Tabor) by moving his refreshed army from Hammat.

Although it was common in Greek to use οἷος τέ + εἰμί (+ accusative) to mean something like “X is/was in a position to do Y [the infinitive],” or “X succeeded in doing Y,” Josephus uses the phrase much more formulaically than most in the form (οὐχ) οἷός τε ἦν (0r οἷοί τε ἦσαν)—some 28 times. Here and at 4.590 the phrase is negative; at 4.107, 641 it is positive. In contrast to Iotapata with its 3-deep human encircling wall (3.144–47) or Jerusalem (5.499–511), Machaerus (known archaeologically), and Masada (7.275), where Roman commanders erected encircling walls with guard stations at intervals. Gamala’s terrain apparently did not make either tactic feasible, although they were not beyond Roman capability if Gamala had justified such deliberate preparation. This notice anticipates 4.52, where residents are able to escape for this reason. This is the first example of a word-pair that Josephus uses frequently (21 times) in War 4: φρουρά and φρουρός (here)—half of the 42 appearing in War. Where possible, to make it clear that these terms are reappearing and to distinguish from overlapping φυλακῇ (as earlier in this sentence: “guard”) and cognates, I translate them respectively as “sentry-post / watch” and “sentry.” For this mountain (the Golan Plateau), from which Gamala’s ridge extends by a “craggy pass,” see 4.5.

War 3 has given a developing picture of Vespasian’s army. (i) 3.7–8: Nero sends him from Achea to “take command of the armies in Syria” (Tacitus, Ann. 4.5: iii Gallica, vi Ferrata, x Fretensis, xii Fulminata). Thus far, it seems that Vespasian is to replace the failed Cestius Gallus as legate in Syria, except that Vespasian dispatches Titus to bring xv Apollinaris from Alexandria. He also plans to use the forces of allied kings, as the legate Cestius had done (2.499–502). (ii) 3.29–34: Crossing the Hellespont in early 67, Vespasian quickly reaches Antioch, the Syrian capital, where allied kings including Agrippa join him. They quickly move on to the veterans’ colony of Ptolemais (Acco), next to Galilee on the coast, where polis leaders from the region (including Sepphoris) travel to welcome them. Titus makes unusually good time, after crossing the Mediterranean in winter, and joins them there with the Fifteenth (3.64). (iii) 3.64–69 gives the decisive summary of Vespasian’s total force. It is now clear that he is not Cestius’ replacement as legate in Syria. He takes only the x Fretensis plus auxiliaries from Syria and Josephus will incidentally note that (C. Licinius) Mucianus becomes imperial legate in Syria soon after Vespasian’s arrival (4.32, 621). Vespasian later refers to his particular mandate: to suppress Judean unrest (3.443–45). He first assumes that this will be only in the Judean districts of Syria governed directly by Rome, but when he has done that Agrippa secures his aid in quashing opposition to his rule. It seems therefore that Vespasian’s command is a special one, analogous to that of Corbulo a few years earlier (Tacitus, Ann. 15.25.3): he may take whatever military forces he needs, even though another ex-consul is legate of Syria. Vespasian has picked up v Macedonica along with x Fretensis from Syria and Titus’ xv Apollinaris, and these 3 legions, reportedly totaling 18,000, anchor a 60,000-strong force. The remainder comprises: 23 auxiliary infantry cohorts from Syria (the 5 based in Caesarea plus 18 from the N), some of 1,000 men, some of 600 + 120 cavalry; 6 cavalry wings (perhaps 480 each) from Syria’s auxiliary; 3,000 soldiers each under the kings of Commagene (Antiochus), NE Judea (Agrippa ii), and Emesa (mod. Homs: King Sohemus), plus 1,500 from the Nabatean king Malichus. Josephus’ nearly exclusive emphasis on the legions, here and throughout War 3–6, suggests that they do the crucial military work, while auxiliaries and allies are in supporting roles: garrison, logistical, and policing duties. At Gamala, with a population of no more than ca. 5,000 and difficult terrain around, an on-site army of 60,000 is inconceivable as soldiers would be in each other’s way, especially once inside the breach. Agrippa is present with some portion of his force (4.14) partly because this is his territory, which Vespasian is helping him recover after it seceded from him—for causes not directly related to the disturbances in Jerusalem and Caesarea. War has described legionary training and camp procedures in some detail (3.69–109), with an emphasis on the legions’ care in constructing temporary walled camps everywhere they stop (3.76–84). See the note at 4.6. On the assumption that the army has to level and raise the ground for an assault, with embankments reaching the eastern walls, this statement prepares for the activities about to be described. Legio xv Apollinaris was regularly based in Pannonia, south of the central Danube (mod. E Austria and W Hungary and parts of other states). Corbulo had called it up under the command of Marius Celsus (Tacitus, Ann. 15.25.3), and used it along with the Fifth to rectify (new governor of Cappadocia) Caesennius Paetus’ debacle with the Fourth and Twelfth against the Parthian Vologeses (62 ce). Corbulo’s genius produced a major accord with the Parthians (concerning Armenia) for Nero in 63, lavishly celebrated in Rome in 66 (Ann. 15.26.2). After release from Corbulo’s service in the autumn of 66 (he would soon be recalled by Nero to end his life), the Fifteenth moved to winter quarters in Alexandria. They had not been there long when Titus arrived to take command and march them to southern Syria, around his 27th birthday (30 Dec. 66). Titus had reached the lowest senatorial magistracy (quaestor, Suetonius, Tit. 4.3), but apparently not the praetorship that was the usual prerequisite for command of a legion, which had a qualifying age of 29 (Talbert 1984: 16–23; Jones 1984: 20–22). He was thus about the same age as L. Annius Vinicianus had been when his father-in-law Corbulo gave him unusual command of the Fifth in 63 ce (Tacitus, Ann. 15.28.3). So far, the Fifteenth has been prominent in the assault on Josephus’ Iotapata, where Titus personally led some of its soldiers as the first in (3.323–28). The legion reprises this derring-do at Gamala, when a few of its soldiers undermine the tower mentioned here, terrify the populace, and create an opening for the assault in Titus’ absence, then wait for his arrival to make the final push (4.62–70). See Ritterling 1924: 2.1747–52. When Titus later assumes overall command of the siege of Jerusalem in 70, he gives command of the Fifteenth to Titus Phrygius (6.237). Though infrequently mentioned hereafter, its soldiers perform creditably enough that Titus will invite them (with the Fifth) to share his regional celebrations after Jerusalem’s fall (7.19), though not the triumph in Rome in June 71. He sends them back to Pannonia just before embarking for Rome (7.117). Following Destinon’s alert emendation ΕΧΟΥ (ἔχου) in place of the ΕΦ ΟΥ (ἐφ᾿ οὗ) found in all mss, which would have left the clause verbless. The Latin translator apparently felt compelled to unite the work of the Fifteenth and Fifth with one verb (operabatur) against the middle of the city. The emendation gains plausibility because it has the verb χόω (“cover, fill with earth”) match the Tenth’s “filling up” (ἀναπληρόω) in the same sentence, a correspondence found at War 1.145, and note the similar phrasing at 1.100; 5.139. See Syon 2002: 139 and Syon and Yavor 2010: 17–18 for this tower, the base of which has been reconstructed on the modern site. It was freestanding, without foundation or integration with the walls, and built of end-t0-end headers. Its ground level is 25 m (82 ft) above the connecting pass to the plateau, and so was the highest point encountered by Romans from that side. Syon (2002: 139) describes the ground below the tower as “the only logical choice for Vespasian to build a siege ramp.” This tower will become crucial to the story, when members of Titus’ Fifteenth undermine it in darkness and put the guards to flight, marking the beginning of the final assault (4.62–69). But it was not, as Josephus’ language suggests, the highest point of the ridge: the hump farther W is 31 m (102 ft) higher. Legio v Macedonica was called from its regular base in Moesia, neighboring Pannonia S of the eastern Danube (mod. Serbia and Bulgaria with parts of other states), by Caesennius Paetus. He left it in Cappadocia as he led the Fourth and Twelfth into a disastrous campaign against the Parthians over Armenia (Tacitus, Ann. 15.6.3, 9.2). Corbulo put the Fifth under his young son-in-law Annius Vinicianus, as part of the force (with the Fifteenth) that exacted the peace settlement with Parthia in 63 (15.26.2, 28.3). Vespasian has collected this legion en route to Syria, from an uncertain location, and placed it under Sex. Vettulenus Cerealis. Until this point in the story it has appeared among the legions unsettled by Josephus’ brilliant generalship at Iotapata (3.234), then apparently as the main force that Cerealis used to seize Mt. Gerizim and kill a group of Samarians, disparaged by Josephus, who took advantage of the general turmoil to create a disturbance (3.307–15). The legion will perform well enough in the siege of Jerusalem, still under Cerealis, that Titus will invite it (with the Fifteenth) to share his celebrations (7.19), dismissing it to Moesia when he returns to Rome in 71 (7.117). Vespasian appoints its commander Cerealis the first legate of the new praetorian province of Judea, with the Tenth Legion as his garrison army (7.5, 163). See Ritterling 1924: 2.1573–75; Mason 2016a: 313–15. One might have guessed from Josephus’ description (since the Romans did not occupy Gamala’s ridge), as archaeology confirms, that this is the vertical middle: from top to bottom down the E side. Thus, the N end and middle of the E wall were the two places suitable for embankments. Since there was no point trying to attack from the steep southern slope, the Tenth spent its time leveling the ground. War 3.65 calls the Fifth and Tenth “the most distinguished” legions. The relationship between Legio x Fretensis and the Tenth established by Julius Caesar in the civil war with Pompey, which distinguished itself in Spain, Gaul, Britain, and elsewhere, is unclear. Ritterling (1924: 2.1671) and Dando-Collins (2002) see this Syrian Tenth as a continuator of Caesar’s legion, partly because of the shared bull symbol, and Dando-Collins even breaks with a near-consensus that the Syrian Tenth was officially known as Fretensis (2002: 285–86—a nickname only, he proposes). More commonly, scholars follow T. Mommsen’s proposal that the Tenth Fretensis in Syria was raised by Octavian (later Augustus), perhaps in tribute to Caesar’s Tenth or even using some men from it, but for which the inaugural battle was in 36 bce against Sextus Pompey at the Straits of Messina (known as Fretum Siculum; hence fretensis): Parker 1928: 268; Webster 1985: 105; Keppie 1998: 110, 116, 119, 123, 180; Dabrowa 2000: 317–18. In any case, for 6 or 7 decades before Vespasian’s arrival, this Tenth was already a mainstay of Syria’s garrison, likely stationed at Zeugma by the Euphrates and relied on by Corbulo to hold the frontier as he campaigned with other legions. This is the only legion Vespasian takes from Syria, placing it under M. Ulpianus Traianus, whom he and Titus would later conspicuously reward with an early consulship (72), the legateship of Syria (73–74), and the proconsulship of Asia (79–80). The future emperor Trajan was this commander’s son, and he too apparently saw service as a young man in Syria (Pliny, Paneg. 14.1). Titus would later give command of the Tenth to A. Larcius Lepidus Sulpicianus (War 6.237), a new man in the senate who seems not to have reached the praetorship beforehand (Baldwin Bowsky 1987). The Tenth was rewarded for outstanding service by becoming the sole garrison (until ca. 117) of the new province of Judea, where its presence is well attested in stamped bricks and tiles (Arubas and Goldfus 2005). A vague indication, but presumably including the defensive trench across the pass (saddle) at 4.6 and Josephus’ added ditches and mines (4.9). J. Roth (1995: 94; 1999: 112) stresses that, although legions requisitioned labor for other purposes, fortifications and siege constructions were their tasks alone.

This is Agrippa’s (see note at 4.2) first personal appearance since Vespasian’s arrival in the region. He is bold enough to attempt a personal parley perhaps because this is “his” town, the aim of the siege being its restoration to loyalty to him. But the hazards become immediately clear. Although he and his force will remain alongside Vespasian and later Titus (4.498; 5.47), Agrippa will not attempt such direct negotiations again; Josephus will do so, partly under compulsion, and likewise suffer the consequences (5.261, 361, 541). Such an invitation makes perfect sense at this point. In War, Roman forces under all commanders follow a similar pattern of offering alternating sticks and carrots. They approach a site carefully, display their overwhelming force, and hope for an early surrender (2.504–5, 508–9, 516; 3.145–57, 452–98; 5.52–53, 261, 491–501, 540–51). If that does not happen, they quickly erect siege-works and may give one or more further chances (in Jerusalem many more), depending on the defenses of the site. They seek to minimize risks to their own soldiers, of fighting in confined foreign spaces with desperate men who know the terrain well. If the besieged are defiant and even wound Rome’s messengers, the Romans gradually intensify the attack to show that they have complete control of the situation, and proceed as far as destruction if necessary. These devices were of the “shepherd’s sling” kind—not the modern western slingshot, with elastic material between forked branches—used with a circular wind-up to create powerful momentum. Slingers (σφενδονῆται) appear only in War 3–4 in Josephus, though with some frequency (3.151, 168, 211, 219, 256, 285; 4.583). Skill in using a strap to shoot stones long distances with accuracy is a specialty of allied forces (Arab and Syrian), complementing the same units’ archers, neither of these skills being a legionary capability. Judeans raised in the countryside would likely have comparable skill with slings, having grown up using them to drive predators from their sheep or crops. From surviving statuary, art, and literary accounts (Aldrete 1999: 44–84), we may assume that Agrippa—as orator and presumed leader of his audience—extended his right arm to make the speech, thus exposing his elbow. The slinger may have aimed at the larger target of his torso or head.

Greek ὑπὸ τῶν οἰκείων suggests a bodyguard of perhaps dozens or more. It is hard to imagine that Agrippa had his reported 3,000-strong force (3.68) present at Gamala—along with Vespasian’s 3 legions and 35,000 others.

Perhaps only “rude” (cf. 2.166), but War uses αγριο—words more thematically of the beast-like, irrational and sub-human wildness or rebel types (3.44; 4.425; 5.34, 85). Or “beneficial, expedient, in their interest.” This innocent-seeming phrase (τῶν συμφερόντων αὐτοῖς σύμβουλον) is full of narrative meaning. (i) Agrippa has given the most important speech in War so far (2.345–409), which is structured as an inclusio (2.346, 401) on this very theme: see note to “advantageous” in bjp 1b: 270. (ii) Josephus’ literate audience would know that one of the author’s main literary inspirations, Thucydides, had programmatically contrasted the advantageous (τὸ ξυµφέρον) with the just or right (τὸ δίκαιον), allowing characters to argue that, in issues between states of disparate power, justice must take a back seat to advantage. Polybius, another of Josephus’ models, and Josephus’ younger contemporary Plutarch both tended to contrast the honorable (τὸ καλόν) with the advantageous. Whereas Philopoemen combined both, by resisting Rome but yielding when necessary, Aristaenus expressed a position closer to Agrippa’s speech: “There were, he said, two objectives in all governance, the honorable and the advantageous (τό τε καλὸν καὶ τὸ συµφέρον). For those who are able to gain power, holding out for it is the absolutely right policy, but those without power must take refuge in securing some advantage. To fail in achieving both is the surest sign of folly” (Polybius 24.12.2). Whatever grievances the rebels may have, Agrippa consistently argues, their desire for honor, justice, and freedom—all very noble—must nevertheless deal with the reality of overwhelming Roman power, and with the legions now poised to attack the town, they must salvage what advantage they can. The phrase ὠμότητος ὑπερβολή reoccurs at War 6.373; Ant. 9.231; 13.383; 18.44, the collocation at War 1.35, 97; 2.250, 340. This qualifies as distinctive Josephan language, therefore, though it is another case (see examples in bjp 1b) of possible inspiration by Diodorus Siculus (20.72.4; 33.14.3, 5; 34/35.29.1) and/or Philo (Agric. 154; Spec. 4.201). This report on the thoughts of the Roman soldiers is characteristic of Josephus in both its omniscient voice (he knows the range of motives in large groups, which follow a convenient rhetorical structure; cf. War 6.170; Ant. 13.171–73) and its substance. In substance the remark taps deep themes in War: that Rome and its leaders wished Judeans no harm, but Judean in-fighting (stasis) has dragged the Romans in (1.9–12; 4.366–76); that this process has brutalized many Judeans in their dealings with each other (4.326–65, 377–88; Books 5 and 6 passim); and that Roman legionaries often fear Judean fighters (Mason 2016a: 101–106).

Cf. Roth 1995 on the remarkable speed with which the legions worked. An unstated consideration was logistical (Roth 1999). In difficult terrain with a large force, which needed constant resupply—a very different situation from that outside Iotapata, near the Beit-Netofa Valley and with abundant supplies nearby—Vespasian was motivated to compel a surrender from Agrippa’s awkward town as quickly as possible. As the next sentence suggests (4.19), these torsion-driven siege-assault engines were of 2 main kinds: those that hurled sharpened bolts (καταπέλτης, ὀξυβελής) and those that fired round rocks (πετροβόλος, λιθοβόλος). Josephus matches up the terms differently, usually in a rock + bolt pair (3.167, 173, 240; 4.583; 5.296; 359; 7.309) but sometimes naming 3 (3.80, 243; 5.14, 263; 6.121), in part because the words could refer both to the engines and to their ammunition. Of the 4 terms above, only πετροβόλος occurs outside War (Ant. 9.221; 14.62) in Josephus. At 5.529 he makes the remarkable claim that Judeans besieged in Jerusalem captured from Titus’ army (in 70), and gradually learned how to use, 300 bolt-throwing and 40 rock-throwing engines. The 4th-cent. ce writer Vegetius (Epit. 2.25) claims that older legions, before his time, each carried 55 catapults (his carrobalistae, earlier catapultae: bolt-firers) and 10 stone-launchers (his onagri, earlier ballistae). Marsden (1969: 179) suggests that in the early Empire there was likely 1 catapult per century (of 80 men), which would make 60 per legion, and 1 ballista per cohort (of ca. 480), or 10 per legion. Describing Vespasian’s assault on Iotapata (3.166–68), Josephus says the Romans had 160 engines in total, a figure that roughly matches Vegetius’ figures for 3 legions (Marsden 1969: 180). He adds that the machines fired rocks weighing a talent (26–38 kg, 60–80 lbs), a claim vividly illustrated at 5.270–72 in a Jerusalem episode. The firing rocks discovered at Iotapata are much smaller: from large orange to grapefruit size and weighing between 0.6 to 2 kg (1–5 lbs: Aviam 2008: 2077–78)—although Roman machines could indeed fire shot up to 40 kg (Marsden 1969: 81–83). At Masada, archaeologists found that the vast majority of incoming ballista stones were 0.6 to 3 kg, but a couple weighed 13.5 kg (30 lbs), and one 22 kg (50 lbs): Holley 1994: 349–63. The smaller ammunition suggests anti-personnel use, to keep defenders off the walls (to prevent harassment of the ramp-builders), rather than an effort to damage structural walls, against which rams were used. The presence of a few much larger rocks at Masada raises the possibility that some of these were also fired into Gamala (cf. 4.75). At Gamala, ca. 2,000 of the small rocks, cut on site from the local basalt, have been found (photograph in Syon and Yavor 2010: 29, 52), along with 100 catapult bolts and 1,600 arrowheads (the majority of the last having likely been gathered up for re-use), with concentrations around the E wall and also in a pile ca. 300 m (nearly 1,000 ft) E of the wall, where the machines were located. They furnish grim testimony to the rain of death before the legionary assault (Syon 2002: 139–46; Atkinson 2007: 360–62). A model of a 1st-cent. ballista stands at Gamala today. On Roman artillery of the period see Marsden 1969: 174–98, 1971; Bishop and Coulston 2006: 88–90.

Rendering οἱ δὲ περὶ τὸν Χάρητα καὶ Ἰώσηπον. When only one person is named, I render this common construction in Josephus “X’s group” (e.g., 4.203, 215–16). These men have not yet appeared in War, and this description creates one of many onomastic puzzles in Josephus (cf. Ilan and Price 1993–1994). According to Life 185–86 (cf. 177), after the withdrawal of Philip and his Babylonian-Judean clan from Gamala (182–84) one Yosep “son of the midwife” (so the mss), or son of Yair (see note in bjp 9: 94), led the town’s youth in compelling the leading men to revolt against the king again: those they could not coerce they killed. Some Babylonian-Judeans must have remained as residents after Philip’s departure, because this was also a turn against them. Perplexingly, of Josephus’ 2 examples of such Babylonian-Judeans who were imperiled by the other residents, one is Chares (the other Iesous [Jesus]) and this Chares is described as a relative of both Philip and Iesous (177). So, Josephus twice mentions Chares as a leading man of Gamala, but in Life he is an illustrative victim of the anti-Agrippa rebels led by Yosep, whereas here in War Chares and Yosep lead the rebellion against Agrippa. Yosep reappears by name only to die while trying to flee at 4.66. Chares likewise reappears only at 4.68, where he dies of fright in the prelude to Titus’ assault, but we learn there of a preceding illness. We infer (also from the Life passages above) that Yosep was somewhat younger. Although it is possible that two different characters named Chares came to play such different roles at Gamala, since we do not see them both at the same time we must also reckon with the possibility that Josephus has confused names and/or that he feels free to construct his subplots with exemplary characters bearing suitable names for a good story, irrespective of the versions he tells elsewhere. Or “overwhelmed, overcome, panicked” (passive of καταπλήσσω). As events show: see note to “Hyperbereteus” at 4.63. For water and provisions lasting or not (here ὕδατι καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐπιτηδείοις μὴ διαρκούμενοι), see also 1.286 (Masada); 3.342 (Iotapata); 7.26 (Jerusalem).

Or “Having prodded, encouraged them,” lit.: “knocked from the side.” See the note to this rare compound (παρακροτέω), distinctively favored by Josephus (more than a dozen times in War, but attested only once before), at 2.264 in bjp 1b. See note to “engines forward” at 4.17. Josephus assumes the reader’s understanding, from general knowledge or from passages such as War 3.166–68, 240, that the “engines” were of these two kinds, hurling sharpened bolts and rounded rocks, respectively. Apparently, they came down from the walls, where they could not withstand the barrage of incoming projectiles, and sought protection in buildings.

Syon (2002: 140–41; cf. Syon and Yavor 2010: 22) notes the general view that, whereas Josephus here speaks of 3 breach points, archaeology reveals only one principal breach. A great deal of ammunition was also concentrated here (including ca. 300 arrowheads and 300 ballista stones), though Josephus’ 2 other sites might be smaller, quickly repaired breaches. Nothing Josephus says here requires us to think of 3 breach points, however. He describes rams being applied to the wall, but possibly at one target area from three directions (τριχόθεν)—using a rare Greek word, of which he is the first known user, though its meaning is clear. When he uses it elsewhere (War 3.227; 5.270), he describes 3 sources of movement with one result. That does not settle his meaning here, to be sure. Other possible suggestions of multiple breach points are: (i) at 4.21, if τὰς πρώτας εἰσόδους meant “first entrance-points” (unlikely); (ii) at 4.30, τὰς ἐξόδους (with definite article), during the Romans’ retreat, could mean the existing openings in the wall, but c0rresponding to εἰσόδους and given the need to find outlets, could mean that the article suggests desperate improvisation—with ladders, climbing, and jumps to safety, or battering new openings, if the original breach point was blocked—for individuals to find the possible ways out; (iii) at 4.51, where the defenders concentrate their finest fighters at “the parts of the wall that had been broken through” (τὰ παραρρηχθέντα τοῦ τείχους), the less capable remainder behind “the parts that were still standing” (τὰ μένοντα). This implies 2 or more broken sections of the wall. But it is a vague statement, driving home the desperate situation of the defenders, who lacked excellent fighters to concentrate at openings. It could be Josephus’ deliberate, formal exaggeration; cf. 4.66, where the singular is used (of Joseph’s attempted escape over τὸ παρερρηγμένον τοῦ τείχους). He might mean that the Romans who so desperately fled the first engagement, though they entered through one breach, had managed to create more exit points. In short: Josephus’ vague language does not clearly indicate the number of entry breaches, but tends to indicate one. Or “shook the wall through” (διασείουσι μὲν τὸ τεῖχος). Josephus uses the same phrase at 3.221 of Iotapata, but there it does not mean that the wall has fallen (3.222), whereas here it does. Below the synagogue-meeting hall at Building 1700 (Syon 2010: 22–23) is a large opening almost to ground level, with scaling hook, nails (possibly from ladders), and ammunition found all around. Syon (2002: 140–41) points out that the Romans seem to have known that this was among the weakest sections of wall: just 0.7 m, loosely reinforced to 2 m (6 ft 6 in), whereas the next section down was a solid 4 m (13 ft) thick. Lit., “what had been thrown down” (τῶν ἐρειφθέντων). In the Gamala episode Josephus re-uses ἐρείπω (“throw down”) with the κατα prefix (“collapse”: 4.24, 31, 65) in alternation with ῥήγνυμι compounds (“break, tear”: 4.20, 51, 66). See the note to “clashed violently” in this section, to strengthen the picture of destruction. Pace Syon (2002: 140), this expression need not suggest multiple breach points. The plural might refer only to the rubble-creating stones at one spot, since the narrative seems to assume that the defenders could cope with the first ones through it, but were soon overwhelmed by numbers. The Romans had no instrument comparable to modern 3-valve trumpets. According to Vegetius’ 4th-cent. Epitome of Roman military science 2.22 (Milner 1996), legions had 3 signaling instruments (tuba, cornu, and bucina), with distinctive functions. When they stormed city walls, needing maximum psychological terror to mitigate their danger, they sounded all of them, supplemented with continual shouting. At 3.5 Vegetius describes each instrument, although he (or a late-antique scribe: Meucci 1989) seems to confuse the material of the cornu and bucina. The tuba was a straight (ca. 1.5 m, 5 ft) bronze instrument, flared at the end, as seen in films of fanfare salutes to royalty. The cornu was a large G-shaped bronze instrument (pace Vegetius), while the bucina was small and apparently made of animal horn. Vegetius (Epit. 3.12), noting that the greater danger in the first assault of a siege faces the attackers, gives that as a reason why they attempt to create panic “in a confused uproar of trumpets and men” (Milner 1996: 127). Notice the speed with which the assault has proceeded (explicit at 5.17). Even if only vexillations from the legions are used alongside Agrippa’s force and some auxiliaries (below), the thousands of soldiers present need little time to clear the walls from remote firing positions, bring their rams to the wall, and break into the town. Cf. Roth 1995. Whether Vespasian should have moved so quickly, without sufficient deliberation concerning the terrain inside, is another question; Josephus will be frankly critical on this point (4.43, 70). Of the first 15 attestations of this odd word (ἐπαλαλάζω), 7 are in Diodorus Siculus (e.g., 13.46.2, 55.6, 99.1) and 3 in Josephus (als0 3.265; 6.174), suggesting Diodorus’ influence, though the others are possible: Aeschylus (Sept. 497, 93), Xenophon (Cyr. 7.1.26), and Dionysius (Ant. rom. 8.66.2). Arrian’s histories have it 10 times, Plutarch once. The simple form ἀλαλάζω is much more common, also in Josephus (6 times, mainly in Antiquitites). Both verbalize the war cry ἀλαλαί (Aristophanes, Av. 952, 1763; Lys. 1291; Euripides, Hel. 1344; Xenophon, Ages. 2.10), the paean of victorious joy associated with the cult of Apollo, or alternatively imitation of the owl sound associated with Athena; cf. 2.554 and note in bjp 1b. The word seems to have passed into the modern French and German hunters’ call, the halali. Lit., “shattered, broke in pieces” (συνερρήγνυντο). See the note to “ruins” in this sentence; these verbs of breaking and throwing down work in tandem. War uses unadorned ῥήγνυμι (“break, tear”) sparely, but exploits many prepositions for vivid description of battle scenes: often συν as here, but also ανα, δια, εκ, προς, απο, περι, παρα (κατα in Antiquities). In the Gamala episode, παραρρήγνυμι (“breaking through” laterally) is used of the walls at 4.51, 66. The walls are both broken through and thrown down, creating ruins.

Josephus’ phrase τὰς πρώτας εἰσόδους could refer to either the first places or acts of entry. Since the thrust of the sentence is chronological rather than spatial, I opt for the latter. Stoutly or resolutely (καρτερῶς) fending off attacks for a time, but ultimately in a losing struggle, is a trope in Josephus (War 1.45, 366; 3.14; 5.304, 346; 6.245; 7.91).

With 17 uses, 15 of these in War, against only 45 earlier attestations, Josephus counts as a heavy user of the compound verb συνωθέω. This is striking because he has the simple verb ὠθέω (push) only 20 times, though it is vastly more popular in other literature. The frightful predicament of being corralled or penned (συνωθέω) with a mass of others, in narrow streets with nowhere to flee, is a recurring scene in Josephus: War 1.352, 383; 2.227; 4.312; 6.257; Ant. 14.480; 20.111. See the note at 4.4: Josephus returns constantly to his thematic characterization of Gamala as a natural fortress with harsh terrain.

Here κορυφή (cf. 4.34, 44, 55, 72 in the Gamala episode) may be synonymous or interchangeable with ἄκρα (τῆς πόλεως) at 4.8, 71, 73, 79, 82 (at Gamala), since both mean “apex, highest point.” Since Josephus uses different words, however, and since κορυφή can suggest “crown, crest, tip”—hence perhaps the “camel hump” that rises from Gamala’s ridge—I translate ἄκρα as “summit” and κορυφή as “peak.” This double compound (διεκπαίω) is distinctive in Josephus’ War. Of the tlg’s first 19 occurrences, 11 are in War (already again in this episode at 4.66), but the word does not appear in his later works. Before War, it is barely attested among extant authors—once each in Dionysius, Strabo, and Philo—and otherwise in fragments. I.e., because of the steep terrain, the rooftops were accessible from the street or by jumping down from a higher house. See 4.7, where Josephus has described the steep construction, with one house seeming to be on top of the next.

At this point the story becomes difficult to match with the reality of the site. The flat roofs of the houses would have been framed in wood, perhaps covered with other material, and it is easy to imagine that they collapsed from the weight of legionaries, leaving the soldiers injured, disoriented, and trapped. But Josephus’ picture of stone-walled buildings collapsing, in a domino-effect down the slope, leaving an enormous amount of rubble and dust below, is more difficult. Although the site has not been occupied since 67 ce, archaeologists have found the lower structures of buildings up the slope, made of local basalt, intact (Syon and Yavor 2010).

Josephus uses διαφθείρω (“waste, ruin, dispatch, destroy”) frequently—99 times in War, about a third of those (30) in the present volume, 290 times in his corpus, usually as one of several euphemisms for killing (but 4.93), alongside the still more frequent ἀναιρέω (“do away with,” 450 times), the plain-spoken (ἀπο)κτείνω (“kill,” 474 times) and gory ἀποσφάζω (“butcher,” 59 times). Such euphemisms for killing were common in tragedians, orators, and historians of war among others: Herodotus has this verb 85 times, Thucydides 152, Polybius 143. At 4.36, after providing examples, Josephus will restate the point. A common phrase (ὑπ᾿ ἀμηχανίας) in Josephus, especially in War where it evokes battle-scene confusion (2.49, 549; 3.527; 4.72, 312; 5.28; 6.196), though it is attested only 7 times in earlier texts (including Philo, Aet. 128). The noun appears 15 times in War, where it helps to elicit audience fear and pity by identification with the characters’ distress: e.g., 1.150; 3.18, 271, 527; 4.312; 5.11, 28; 6.180, 196, 259. Note especially 4.72, near the horrifying conclusion of this Gamala episode. Another distinctive word: συνιζάνω. Josephus uses it 5 times (also War 7.314; Ant. 4.51; 5.238; 15.391—in very different contexts, so not from his sources), but before his time it is spottily attested: mainly in the medical-scientific writers Aristotle (3), Theophrastus (3), Erasistratus (2), and Strabo (2), as later Galen (30). This 3-sided predicament arising from “utter helplessness” recalls War 2.49 and 549.

The cooperation or alliance of God (here συνεργία θεοῦ, elsewhere συμμαχία)—with faithful Judeans (5.377, 389), falsely assumed by militants (2.390; 6.99), temporarily with the Romans (3.484; 4.366; 7.319)—is an often ironic theme in War. Here the Gamalans suppose that God is their ally because of momentary success, but their judgment is premature. Josephus is not writing systematic theology, however. In the vein of classical historiography, War gives a wide berth to luck or fortune in war, with unexpected reversals beyond anyone’s control (as 4.40, 49–50, 76). In Antiquities, divine cooperation/alliance is a more propositional theme, connected with fidelity to the divine will and natural-Mosaic law: Ant. 1.268; 2.241, 278, 334; 3.45, 302; 4.2, 296; 5.98; 6.189; 9.15–16, 55, 359; 10.24; 12.285; cf. 19.233. Apparently meaning primarily: they ignored the disaster of their collapsing houses for the benefit of seeing Romans die in them. There is a textual uncertainty here (the only occurrence of the rare καί τοι in War), leaving it unclear how the accusative objects fit together. Although the simple verb ὀλισθάνω (“slip, slide”) is common (5 times in Antiquities), the compound κατολισθάνω here (also at War 6.259) is rare. Of the 9 cases attested before Josephus’ 2 (2 in fragments, 1 of uncertain date), 3 are in Strabo.

Cf. 5.174, 267–78, where Josephus distinguishes these small, easily carried and slung stones (χερμάδες) from rocks and ballista ammunition, which require skill in using engines. I.e., weaponry. About half of War’s 32 occurrences of σίδηρος refer to iron in general (plating, sheets, tools), but in the others as here (1.271; 2.619; 3.385, 425; 5.102, 494, 516; 6.23, 47–49) it is a metonym for “swords” and similar weapons, a usage paralleled still in modern times: a gun may be called a “shooting iron” (cf. “packing iron” for carrying a gun). The first of 5 occurrences of δυσθανατέω in War 4–6 (only): 4.257; 5.365. 515; 6.90. The compound verb is hardly attested before Josephus (Herodotus 9.72; Plato, Resp. 46b; Theophrastus, Hist. plant. 3.10), though Philo’s Life of Moses has it 3 times (1.123; 2.211, 250)—a possible inspiration.

Attackers’ ignorance of urban layouts in which they become trapped—a serious problem in antiquity, which modern armies devote much time to preventing—is a recurring scene of peril in Josephus: for the Romans in Jerusalem at 6.139, 190, for Josephus and his troops in Sepphoris at Life 396. Cf. 6.75–76, in the fight for Jerusalem’s Antonia fortress: “in the skirmish it was impossible to determine who was fighting on which side (περὶ τὴν συμβολὴν ἄκριτον ἦν ὁποτέρωθεν ἕκαστοι μάχοιντο), the men being jammed together and mixed up in the tight passages.” At 6.136–41, concerning the near-final Roman assaults on the temple, Josephus evokes the fear and confusion of a battle in which Judeans and Romans were killing many of their own (the Judeans worse off for not having a password and being linked behind shields). Josephus penned the only attested cases (Eusebius later quoting him) of the form ἀνειλοῦντο, here and again at 5.110, 513, of ἀνειλημένους at 1.148 (in any case or number, aside from Oribasius, Coll. med. 49.23.9 in the 4th cent.), and of ἀνείλειτο at 1.443. These all appear to be forms of the rare verb ἀνειλέω (= ἀνείλλω, ἀνίλλω), meaning “roll up, crowd together,” in the passive “be confined, penned, crowded together” (lsj). The elusive verb’s paradigm is not well attested, however, since Josephus provides the only examples of those tenses. All these apparent examples of ἀνείλλω in Josephus are puzzling. (i) It is odd that he should have so many cases of this rare verb. (ii) The usual senses of ἀνείλλω do not fit all the contexts in Josephus particularly well. Here: “not recognizing each other, the soldiers were crowded together and died”? At 5.513, in a similar scene, bloated youths in besieged Jerusalem “ἀνειλοῦντο in the market places and collapsed wherever their suffering might consume them” (κατὰ τὰς ἀγορὰς ἀνειλοῦντο καὶ κατέπιπτον ὅπῃ τινὰ τὸ πάθος καταλαμβάνοι), a context that seems to require “stagger” or the like. (iii) On this reading the Gamalan enemy, which has been vigorous, mysteriously disappears as Romans merely crowd together and fall. Assuming that Josephus must have intended ἀνειλέω because of the contracted vowel, lexicographers (ccfj s.v.; Thackeray-Marcus s.v.) have proposed a sense for ἀνείλλω in his works that is not found in lsj: “reel, roam, stagger, be bewildered.” Hence the translations of the present passage: Thackeray lcl, “in their bewilderment [they] fell foul of each other”; Pelletier, ils tournaient en rond: M-B, gerieten sie aneinander. This looks like the best solution and so it appears in the translation above. It is nevertheless tantalizing to note that these forms overlap significantly with irregular aorist forms of ἀναιρέω (“pick up, remove, do away with, kill”; e.g., Homer, Il. 13.296; Euripides, Ion 269; Herodotus 2.134.4; 7.190), one of Josephus’ favorite verbs (218 occurrences in War, usually meaning “kill”); cf. τοὺς ἀνελόντας (those who killed) at 4.47 in this episode. The tlg shows more than 4,800 possible occurrences of ἀνείλλω, but the vast majority are actually from ἀναιρέω: ἀνείλετο could be imperfect middle-passive of ἀνείλλω or aorist middle of ἀναιρέω; ἀνείλοντο could be from either. The vast majority of the ambiguous cases according to the tlg sorting algorithm (e.g., Thucydides’ 15 examples) are from ἀναιρέω. Just 1 example in Thucydides is from ἀνείλλω (7.81.4: ἀνειληθέντες, aorist passive participle) but there the form is unambiguous—and not seen again for 1,000 years. In view of the similarity of their paradigms, Josephus’ fondness for ἀναιρέω, that verb’s very wide range of senses (e.g., pick up, take away, kill, ordain, answer, cancel), the oddity that he should re-use unusual ἀνείλλω with a new meaning, and the context here (failure of recognition leading to death suggests killing each other), it is tempting to ask whether he intended a form of ἀναιρέω.

This could, but need not, mean that the Romans breached the wall in more than one place. See the note to “three directions” at 4.20.

Or “terrible passion”: δεινὸν γάρ τι πάθος αὐτὸν εἰσῄει. As the 6 occurrences in the prologue (1.6, 9, 11, 22, 27) suggest, and 172 occurrences throughout the work confirm, πάθος and its cognate πάσχω form a leitmotif in War. In Josephus as in other ancient literature, these words move between two distinct senses in English: suffering (usually harm inflicted) and emotion or passion (suffering of the mind, a subjective response to externals). In many contexts, as often in War, the two senses cannot be cleanly distinguished (cf. Mason 2020): Josephus re-uses the same word within a sentence or two (cf. 4.54) stressing one or the other sense. Ancient philosophers agreed, Stoics most famously, that passions (which by definition come and go) need to be kept in check by reason and are unstable foundations for thought or action. Acting from passion is at sharp odds with Vespasian’s own admonition to his soldiers (4.44–45). But Josephus makes explicit room for his own πάθη over Jerusalem’s fall—both suffering and resulting grief—as a motive, indeed as his unique qualification for writing (1.9–11; cf. 5.20, 32). It is doubtful that he expects his audience to chastise the present emperor Vespasian for acting from deep emotion for his troops, although the general’s tactical inattentiveness in the same sentence might leave room for question. Compare this (ἐν λήθῃ τοῦ κατ᾿ αὐτὸν ἀσφαλοῦς) with 4.44–45, where he chastises his soldiers for ignoring their security. Commanders have the freedom to risk their lives to spare their forces (as Titus will), while demanding that their soldiers exercise caution. Josephus uses ἀσφαλής (around 250 occurrences of cognate forms) and σωτηρία cognates (262 noun and adjective, 193 verb, not counting σωτήρ, which has other uses) often, and with overlapping meanings. The former group (lit., “non-slipping”) usually has the nuance of the secure conditions or grounds for combat: to fight with as little risk as possible. The latter also means “safety,” but usually with the nuance of preservation, survival, rescue, or deliverance (i.e., being saved). Contrasting both is σφαλερός (“slippery, precarious, perilous”), which Josephus has considerably more often (18 times) than any known predecessor or contemporary. Josephus manages to compliment the exceptional courage of the man who is emperor as he writes while, between the lines, raising a question about his situational awareness and tactical smarts, having rushed into a disastrous assault that Titus will need to save (4.70: note Titus’ rage at the setback in his absence). See Mason 2019a. The double compound ἐγκαταλείπω, found often in the Athenian orators along with Thucydides (11), Polybius (23), Diodorus (35), and Dionysius (26), scores of times in the lxx for עזב (“abandon, forsake”), is characteristic of Josephus (34 occurrences). The passive voice here anticipates 4.39, where the soldiers blame themselves for having left Vespasian in the lurch (active voice) in their rush to safety. But the preceding phrases in the sentence make clear that Vespasian’s plight—his determination to remain and his exposed position at the top of the hill—is due to his passion and inattentiveness, even if the soldiers feel bad on reflection for having left the city without him.

C. Licinius Mucianus (cos. suff. 64, 70, 72, likely born in the early 20s ce; cf. de Kleijn 2009: 315) was sent by Nero as legatus augusti pro praetore in Syria to replace Cestius Gallus (who may have died in post) in early 67—soon after Vespasian arrived with the special mandate to settle Judean unrest. The man holding this office would normally be directly responsible for Judea, as Cestius and his predecessors were, but with Vespasian’s special mandate for Judean affairs, Mucianus’ portfolio was curtailed. He will become crucial in Vespasian’s rise to power, taking a leading role in persuading (or forcing) Vespasian to accept the call to power, once Vitellius is emperor (mid-69 ce). He will be sent (with vi Ferrata from Syria and vexillations from Vespasian’s legions) to fight Vitellius. Though Antonius Primus reaches Rome first, Mucianus outranks him and on his arrival in Rome takes over as protector of Vespasian’s young son Domitian, holding the city in the months between Vitellius’ defeat (December 69) and Vespasian’s arrival in the autumn of 70 (4.605, 621–24, 632, 654). Josephus does not explain who Mucianus is, presumably because he is so famous in Flavian Rome (see Dabrowa 1998: 58–59). As Josephus explains elsewhere (4.495–96), he will not elaborate on the Roman civil war because the events are “tedious [or very familiar] to everyone, and they have been written up by many Greeks as well as Romans.” Tacitus provides more information, beginning with a general character sketch of Mucianus (Hist. 1.10), then another that contrasts him with Vespasian (2.5). Most important for the present passage is Hist. 2.5–6, which says (i) that Vespasian and Mucianus were competitors as long as they were Nero’s legates, with similar-sized armies in neighboring provinces; (ii) that Nero’s death (June 68) led them to find shared interests and plan a joint bid for power (not after Vitellius’ rise nearly a year later, as Josephus); and (iii) that Titus was the principal agent of their conciliation, “by nature and skill alike being so constituted as to win over even someone of Mucianus’ character” (Hist. 2.5; cf. 2.79). What character is that? Nicols (1978: 57) suggests that Titus’ absence from Josephus’ narrative of Vespasian’s activity in early 68 was due to the young man’s constant shuttle diplomacy between his father and Mucianus. Morgan (2006: 174–75) infers from Tacitus’ language that Mucianus was “gay” (cf. Vespasian’s private remark in Suetonius, Vesp. 13: “At least I’m a man”), suggests that this is why young Titus was such an effective intermediary, and proposes that the initial conflict was over authority: Vespasian’s provincia allowed him to take whatever he needed from Syria, which naturally made Mucianus defensive when he arrived to govern the prestigious province, which Vespasian was free to exploit. Titus’ meeting with Mucianus here, soon after his arrival and 9 months before Nero’s death (6 before the revolt of Vindex in Gaul), raises the possibility that conspiratorial moves began earlier than even Tacitus claims (Hist. 2.5: Nero’s death highlighted their common interests). But it may simply be that Vespasian recognizes the need for good relations with Syria’s disgruntled new legate and tries to mollify him. Especially if Mucianus happened to be nearby (in Berytus or Ptolemais) on a circuit, it would be prudent to dispatch Titus as a sign of respect in the interest of good relations. See further 4.70. Josephus usually assumes with other 1st-cent. authors that Judea was an ethnic zone—viz., the hinterland of world-famous Jerusalem—within the large province of Syria, which extended to the frontier with Egypt. Hence, towns as far south as Gaza are assumed to be in Syria, and their non-Judean populations are Syrians: see Eck 2007: 1–54; Labbé 2012; Mason 2016a: 239–45 (review of primary sources and research). War 2.117 has misled scholars by stating that Judea was marked off as its own province, although War still assumes, as Antiquities explicitly states (17.355; 18.1–2), that Judea is part of Syria and the responsibility of the legate in Antioch, whenever it is not under a monarch in Jerusalem—2.22, 52, 80, 91, 185–203, 239–44, 266, 268, 333, 458–62; 7.253. In 2.458–68, accordingly, Judeans retaliate for the massacre in coastal Caesarea by attacking cities from Gaza and Anthedon via Samaria to the Decapolis and Tyrian possessions, which are all in Syria. In the present passage, Josephus may be remaining consistent with 2.117 or, by analogy with 2.280 (the legate Cestius is away “in Syria,” though he is also responsible for Jerusalem), using “Syria” in a narrower sense for northern Syria, where the provincial capital sits and the legions are dispersed. Tacitus’ portrait of Judea and Syria as distinct provinces in the time of Vespasian and Mucianus (Hist. 1.76; 2.4), may be his retrojection of the post-70 situation, or it may mean that the consular Vespasian effectively created a new provincia (in the original sense of “portfolio, mandate”) in the south, without a territorial or administrative apparatus—Vespasian being free to use whatever forces he needed from Syria and elsewhere to deal with the Judean problem. For Vespasian’s “province” see Nicols 1978: 113–24, who argues that he was in fact legate of Syria for some months in 67, between the death of Cestius Gallus and the arrival of Mucianus.

See note at 4.31. For the neat rhetorical pair, ἀσφαλές and πρέπον (only here in Josephus, but 2.207; Ant. 15.106: “neither right nor safe”), see Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 4.72.3 and Philo, Legat. 42. Turning his back and running would be neither physically safe nor remotely fitting for a commander. See Suetonius, Vesp. 1–4 and Levick 1999. From a wealthy but undistinguished equestrian family, Vespasian was largely raised by his grandmother and initially lacked the ambition to try for senatorial status, his older brother T. Flavius Sabinus being the first in the family to achieve it. After he eventually joined that elite group, his main achievements were in military command: in Thrace, Germany, and especially Britain, where as commander of Legio ii Augusta in Claudius’ invasion of 43 ce he reportedly fought 30 battles and reduced 20 towns plus an island. But in the years 51–59 he lost imperial favor as a result of Agrippina’s influence on Claudius, and again after his term as Proconsul of Africa under Nero (62–63 ce) he seems to have faced financial struggles (Levick 1999: 24). According to War 3.3–4, it was Vespasian’s combination of military reliability and lack of social-political credentials (which would have made him a threat) that uniquely qualified him in Nero’s eyes for the Judean campaign. Or “masculine prowess” (ἀρετή), again at 4.43, 46 in this episode. For the semantic range, see Roller 2001: 22–26; Sarsila 2006; McDonnell 2006; Miller and Christesen 2012; Balmaceda 2017. Josephus uses this word often (ca. 290 times), in Antiquities usually in keeping with that work’s programmatic virtue-vice contrast, hence in the philosophical sense of moral virtue (1.6, 20, 23). In War’s 39 examples, by contrast, the martial context often comes to the fore, preserving the original Greek sense (shared with Latin virtus: masculinity) of mental toughness and physical prowess in the face of possibly life-threatening challenge, seen as typical of male athletes and soldiers (1.193, 271, 322; 3.71, 347, 479, 504; 4.here and 617; 5.127, 314, 483 etc.). In the plural, ἀρετή often means the exploits demonstrating such prowess (War 2.381; 3.2, 380; 5.127; 6.39, 134; 7.12; cf. Ant. 2.7; 3.87; 4.140, 184; 7.307 [ἀρεταί conquer foreign lands and peoples], 317). Masculine control and power (imperium) were central themes of Roman elite society and they underlie Josephus’ War, which opens with his complaint that Roman historians of the conflict vilify and humiliate the Judeans (1.1–8). Josephus, in sharp contrast, presents his people as supremely courageous and contemptuous of death, and man-for-man superior to legionaries (e.g., 3.207)—who rely on training in formations and excellent equipment (Mason 2007b, 2016a: 101–106). Josephus will later present even the fighters loyal to his enemies, John and Simon, as typically courageous Judeans, making his over-the-top portrait of John of Gischala’s followers as wholly feminized that much more striking (4.561–63). Josephus means this (ἔνθους) literally: the condition of being divinely possessed, hence overtaken by another spirit and out of one’s own mind, ecstatic (cf. 6.260; Ant. 15.240)—except that Vespasian only seemed to be in that state. The sole other occurrence of the adjective in War is in the previous volume (3.353), referring to Josephus’ actual inspiration: to understand ancient prophecies through recent dreams. This compound verb (συνασπίζω) is rare. Of the 17 attestations before Josephus, it appears mainly in Polybius (4) and Diodorus (6); Josephus also has it 6 times, 5 throughout War (again at 4.243) and at Ant. 5.50. For the elements of a full kit (including helmet, body armor, shield, spear, sword, dagger) see Webster 1985: 121–31; Goldsworthy 2003: 118–35. Several mss (L1VRC) omit “and” and have “full kit” in the dative case, suggesting that Vespasian joins his shield with their armor arrays to protect their bodies. That could suggest the famous Roman “tortoise-shell” (testudo) maneuver (so Atkinson 2007: 363). By text-critical criteria, however, that variant seems best explained by copyists’ puzzlement at Vespasian’s desire to protect (rather than use) their weapon arrays. Several considerations make it unlikely that Josephus meant to suggest a testudo formation here. (i) He explicitly names the testudo maneuver at 2.537 (χελώνη; see note in bjp 1b: 371), and at 3.270 describes it plainly. He knows the maneuver and seems keen to mention it when he can, but does not do so here. (ii) The verb here (συνασπίζω), though it does appear in connection with the testudo at 3.270 (in 271), has a broader range of meanings (e.g., at War 1.36; 4.243; Ant. 5.50). (iii) Whereas the testudo creates complete coverage (front, overhead, and sides) for a unit, at 6.139 συνασπίζω refers to the contiguity of shields during a Roman charge, stressing force unity over Judean dispersal and not a protective tactic. (iv) Here the verb is used of Vespasian alone, and the focus is on his valor, suggesting the sense (lsj) that he, by some superhuman drive, not as a matter of training, bravely found a way to step forward and shield his soldiers. (v) The testudo requires lateral space, whereas Josephus has stressed the narrowness of Gamala’s passageways and lack of room for maneuver. (vi) Vespasian’s concern to protect both the bodies of his more vulnerable soldiers and their whole weapon arrays (τὰς πανοπλίας) makes sense. For legionary armor and weapons to fall into enemy hands was both a disgrace and a danger—as at 4.27. For the disgrace of abandoning weapons in battle, potentially meriting capital punishment but certainly ruined reputation, see Polybius 6.37.10–13.

See note at 4.23. If this is the dromedary “hump” on the hill, Vespasian’s men have moved through the whole town and the Judeans have seized the small, rocky outcrop as a place from which to shoot down with impunity. A characteristic verb (ὑποπτήσσω) in War. Before Josephus it is attested only 12 times (Homer 1, tragedians 4, Xenophon 3, Philo 3). War has it 5 times (also 1.341; 5.53, 110, 318), the distribution showing Josephus’ control of sources. War uses δαιµόνιος a remarkable 30 times—as again in the climax of this episode (4.76 via δαίμων at 4.41)—as a thematic word: 1.69, 82, 84, 331, 347, 370, 373, 376, 613; 2.455, 457; 3.341, 485; 4.217, 501, 622, 649; 5.377, 502; 6.59. 252, 296, 303, 429; 7.82, 120, 159, 185, 318. The italicized references are significant narrative turning points. The adjective δαιµόνιος is Josephus’ typical non-explanation of uncanny or eerie events, which are implicitly providential: decisive moments happen “by (some) other-worldly provision”—sometimes with τι, keeping the language deliberately vague and cosmopolitan. His τὸ δαιµόνιον usually suggests Providence or God, not the realm of semi-divine daemones as in other writers (only at 7.185 does the plural neuter refer to demons), and remains a vague indicator for events beyond human understanding. In the Gamala story, given its disastrous outcome, this urging from a higher power suggests the notoriously mischievous goddess Fortuna/Τύχη, personification of luck (cf. 4.40–41 with notes). The τὸ δαιµόνιον formulation supports War’s τύχη theme (see 4.40–41 in this passage) but with a stronger hint of divine control. The much longer Antiquities has only 12 occurrences of δαιµόνιος, normally following the lxx in referring to malign spirits or demons (e.g., 6.166–68; 8.45–48), or reprising War’s usage without its thematization (13.314; 16.76–77; 19.60). War also has the more vivid δαίμων, usually a more particular spirit, ghost of the deceased, or God (as 4.41), 7 times, Antiquities 9 times. Diodorus with 60 and Dionysius with 90 occurrences of the adjective—often also substantivized as τὸ δαιμόνιον—are Josephus’ most obvious historiographical precursors. Or “determination/courage of mind.” This language is both characteristic and distinctive of Josephus’ War, παράστηµα being absent from his later works but occurring 16 times in War, often as here with ψυχῆς (also 2.476, 580, 588; 4.193; 6.13, 62, 81), which is equivalent to ψυχῆς παράστασις (cf. the chiasm at 2.580). Even without ψυχή, the same sense of courage or fortitude is there (War 1.59; 2.198; 3.175; 5.324; 6.51). Before Josephus, Diodorus is the heaviest known user of this phrasing, and he likewise alternates the synonyms (1.17.2; 117.11.4, 21.2; 33.16.2; 37.21.1). The precise phrase here (παράστημα τῆς ψυχῆς) occurs twice more in War: once of Judeans amazing Roman soldiers (6.13) and once the reverse (6.62). Before Josephus, Dionysius has this phrase (Dem. 22).

Another word (ἀτονώτερος) showing War’s compositional unity, in spite of the work’s varied sources. Although the adjective ἄτονος is attested only 20 times in all Greek literature before Josephus, he uses it 6 times, only in War (throughout all periods) and always as a comparative (1.203, 501; 3.114; 4.35; 5.500; 6.18).

Reprising 4.25, after the preceding vivid personal examples of the struggle. Although “battle” seems the most suitable translation of μάχη in most cases, it is cognate to μάχιμος and μάχομαι, which occur frequently in these paragraphs but are better translated as “fighter, fight” (see note at 4.10). Aebutius was the name (nomen gentilicium) of a well-known Roman clan or family group (gens), the middle and most stable and important of the 3 names held by a Roman citizen. Roman naming conventions were in flux during this period: see Salway 1994. A decurion (δεκαδάρχης; cf. Mason 1974: 33) was normally an officer commanding a squadron (turma) of 30–32 allied or auxiliary (not legionary) cavalry, 16 squadrons constituting a “wing” (ala) of ca. 480 horsemen under a prefect. (Coastal Caesarea apparently hosted 1 cavalry wing and 5 infantry cohorts: War 2.58, 63, 74, 169, 236; 3.66.) Typically, Roman officers with legionary experience commanded auxiliary forces and those of allied kings (Le Bohec 1994: 26, 46). It appears from Life 115–20 that the same Roman-named Aebutius was initially in Agrippa’s forces, now seconded to Vespasian’s service, and that his remit was larger than that of an ordinary decurion. See next note but one. Or “worked, wrought, fashioned” (ἐργάζομαι). It is characteristic of all Josephus’ writings that he recognizes courage and military prowess on all sides (as World War ii commanders did of their opponents), even among his domestic enemies during the siege of Jerusalem (War 6–7). Josephus pays Aebutius the respect of a former enemy. Months before Vespasian’s arrival in Galilee, Agrippa’s wing-prefect Neapolitanus was tasked (in consultation with the legate of Syria Cestius Gallus, after his disastrous visit to Jerusalem in October 66) with protecting the Roman colony of Ptolemais from Judean assault. Neapolitanus views aggression as the best defense, and attacks enemies of Agrippa in Tiberias (Life 121). Aebutius’ mission is to control the Jezreel Valley, with 100 cavalrymen based in a village at the end of Ptolemais’ territory (115). Josephus’ admiration seems to come in part from an episode that Life relates in some detail: Aebutius’ attempt to lure Josephus’ larger but exclusively infantry force to the plain, where the cavalry could overrun them. Josephus claims to have won this battle of wits, forcing Aebutius to lose in an engagement on ground advantageous rather to Josephus (117), after which Josephus keeps him in check through superior generalship (120). In War, Aebutius has appeared only incidentally, when Vespasian sends him and the legionary tribune Placidus with 1,000 cavalry—confirming the decurion’s unusual status—as an advance guard to prevent Josephus’ escape from Iotapata (War 3.144). Even that brief mention praises the man’s shrewdness and skill, with no justification given, evidence of Josephus’ personal knowledge of Agrippa’s valued officer (no longer connected with Agrippa here). We can only speculate about contacts between Josephus and Aebutius at Gamala, if our author was with the Roman camp.

Centurion was the crucial officer rank for tactical command, shared by all 3 of the force types constituting Vespasian’s army—legions, Syrian auxiliary, allied king’s armies. The centurion typically commanded 80 soldiers, on the model of the legion (Cheesman 1914: 27–28). An auxiliary or allied centurion might be a legionary soldier seeking rapid promotion in the legions, the centurions of which were often recruited from legionaries who had served as auxilia centurions and decurions (assuming Roman citizenship). See Cheesman 1914: 38; Webster 1985: 145–50; Le Bohec 1994: 26, 46. This centurion is otherwise unknown. Gallus was a common Latin cognomen—the third in the traditional Roman name sequence, which by the late first century was becoming the crucial individual marker, displacing the praenomen-nomen combination (Salway 1994). Josephus’ War has a Caesennius and a Cestius Gallus. Quintilian (Inst. 7.9.2) uses gallus to illustrate ambiguity, when a single word has diverse meanings: a rooster, a proper name, a person from Gaul, or a castrated priest of Cybele. Dean’s observation (1916: 76) that gallus (cock) and aquila (eagle) were the only birds’ names—in contrast to a wide range from quadrupeds—suitable for soldiers’ cognomina raises the possibility that these were what later grammarians distinguished as agnomina (personal nicknames, rather than inherited). Kajanto (1982: 45, 48, 51), however, makes a good case that this is a well-known parental cognomen from the time of Gaul’s inclusion in the empire. Yet this man appears to be a Syrian (below), albeit with Roman citizenship. Josephus usually follows the writerly principle of using personal incidents to make general situations more vivid. This episode contrasts with Aebutius’ death not only in providing a rare example of “Roman” survival over against widespread death, but also in tone: a tale of daring that Josephus has heard in the Roman camp. These 11 soldiers, instead of jumping onto roofs as most did, had the presence of mind to (somehow) conceal themselves inside a house that did not collapse. Whether Josephus intends a moral, rather than merely an entertaining or perhaps tragic story, is unclear.

The Slavonic version (Leeming and Leeming 2003: 396) explains that the men hid under benches, though the 18 soldiers involved in that version make such a scene farcical. This reads as an afterthought: Josephus retells a camp story about this daring centurion overhearing an enemy conversation and making the speakers pay in blood. But now he must explain to his literary audience how a Roman centurion understood the local language in Gamala. Being Syrians, he suggests, they caught the sense of the Aramaic discussion. Leaving aside the plausibility of that claim, given the possible dialects of Aramaic (Beyer 1986: 34–43, esp. 38: “the approximately three million Aramaeans of Palestine and western Syria could always understand each other”), we might ask what kind of soldiers these all-Syrian soldiers were. If legionaries, they would have belonged to the Tenth Legion (note above), which had been settled in Syria for generations: then they were most likely sons of auxiliary soldiers, whose fathers’ citizenship grant on retirement made them eligible to enlist in the legion (see Scheidel 2007; Phang 2002). The report that they were all Syrians might rather suggest that they came from Agrippa’s army, as Aebutius did, or from an auxiliary cohort, whether based in Caesarea (called Syrians at War 2.266; cf. 458; Ant. 20.173) or from the N. Or “cut all their throats”: a vivid verb (ἀποσφάττω, ἀποσφάζω) used of animal slaughter, rarely by classical historians (Xenophon 13) but 55 times by Diodorus. Possibly under his inspiration, Josephus has it 59 times, mainly in War (38). See the note to “butchered” at 2.30 in bjp 1b.

With ἀθυμοῦσαν τὴν στρατιὰν here, Josephus opens a triple-threaded inclusio (see notes to “setbacks” and “consoling them” in this sentence), which ends in 4.46–47 with a reprise of the other two terms. In this case the ring-composition ends in 4.50 with the Judeans of Gamala unnerved and the Romans infuriated after Vespasian’s speech and Titus’ return. Or “out of its mind at the blunders” (ἀνοίᾳ πταισμάτων). Josephus is a conspicuous user of πταῖσμα, accounting for 24 of the first 63 known uses (tlg). Before him, the main users of this word are Demosthenes (5), Diodorus (9), Dionysius (8), and Philo (5). It is the typically Hellenistic (not classical Greek) result-noun of the verb πταίω (“trip, stumble, fall, fail”—literally at 5.127), usually in a fight or struggle of some kind, such as a wrestling match. As a result, πταῖσμα can highlight either the subject’s misstep, error, fault, or blunder (cf. Ant. 7.130: David’s “terrible blunder” with Bathsheba—no mere slip) or the resulting failure (hiccup, mistake, debacle)—sometimes then in the plural with no emphasis on personal blame. Josephus uses πταῖσμα most formulaically of Cestius Gallus’ expedition to Jerusalem (ca. October 66), which not only failed of its purpose but provided the occasion for the massacre of his legion, which in turn generated the war by motivating Nero to send Vespasian with a special mandate: War 1.21 (τοῖς Κεστίου πταίσμασι); 3.1 (Nero on τὰ κατὰ τὴν Ἰουδαίαν πταίσματα, referring to Cestius); 5.41 (τὸ πάλαι σὺν Κεστίῳ πταῖσαν δωδέκατον [τάγμα]); Life 24 (τὸ Κεστίου πταῖσμα). Since Josephus repeatedly blames Cestius for withdrawing from the city when he could have ended things quickly, in this case one might speak of a blunder with personal blame. The translation above is more neutral because the coming sentences provide various possibilities. Here, the point is about getting past generic failures. At 4.40, Fortune is responsible for the reversal; at 4.43, Gamala’s harsh terrain; at 4.44–45, it is the army’s tactical error—which suspiciously resembles that of the commander (4.31–34), although Vespasian goes carefully unblamed. This instance opens an inclusio (also with “consolation” at 4.47 and “dispirited” at 4.50), in which πταῖσμα is a key word—at 4.46 via 4.42 and a flashback at 4.69, accounting for 4 of War’s 14 occurrences. Unlike Cestius’ setback, which has disastrous results for the whole conflict, this one is quickly reversed by Vespasian’s Romans with their determination and skill. Another thematic word (συμφορά) in War, where it occurs 90 times, 4 in the prologue (1.9. 11, 22, 27), and it is closely linked with πάθος and other terms for suffering and disaster (Mason 2020). Given that the preceding volume has shown Roman soldiers in considerable distress, and requiring Vespasian’s encouragement after setbacks, the harshest of these dealt by Josephus (3.175–76, 207–208, 222–39, 271–81, 471–84), this must be an ironic claim about the legions’ misplaced self-belief—comparable to Vespasian’s coming denial of prowess to the Judeans (4.43) in spite of the plain facts. This is not the last time that legionaries will feel ashamed at having fled from Judean fighters: 5.483. See 4.31 and the note to the same word there. It seems, however, that the soldiers realize only after barely escaping the city with their own lives that Vespasian has remained inside, and so feel guilty: they did not cause his predicament or knowingly abandon him. This recalls 4.31 with the same language, except that there he was not “alone” but with “very few”. Indeed, that story depended on the presence of soldiers, to illustrate Vespasian’s selfless care for them. The reference to consolation helps to open an inclusio (see also “setbacks” and note in this sentence), which closes with his advice about consolation in 4.47. Vespasian has already had to “console the army” (same τὴν στρατιὰν + παραμυθέομαι) at 3.283, after they faced huge losses in a savage attack of scalding oil and a rain of projectiles as they slid down the siege ramp, from Josephus’ defenders at Iotapata. There, Vespasian’s setbacks are caused by the brilliant tactician Josephus, whereas here he pointedly denies the Gamalans any credit.

See the note to “restrained yourselves” at 4.44. For having abandoned him: see notes to “exposed” at 4.31, 39. In the clause ὡς μηδὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν μέμφεσθαι δοκοίη here, τὴν ἀρχὴν intensifies the negation (lsj, Thackeray-Marcus, s.v.): “not at all, not a hint/trace/beginning of it.” Vespasian avoids referring to his recent peril because he wants to encourage the soldiers and not deepen their feeling of guilt for having left him. That seems an ironic observation from Josephus, however. (i) Vespasian does quickly turn to criticism, Josephus even using the same verb “blame” (albeit in the optative: μέμψαιτο, 4.44). (ii) What he blames them for—losing situational awareness and pressing up the hill until they found themselves “amid the dangers”—is precisely what Josephus described Vespasian doing (4.31). (iii) Although Josephus portrays the soldiers as blaming themselves for abandoning their general (4.39), at 4.31 his peril is apparently not their fault. His inattention leads him up the hill. In view of this context, Josephus’ remark that Vespasian suppressed any reference to himself might make him seem slightly devious. He alone is responsible for this assault, and he led it into the deadly trap. Titus, on returning, will be outraged at the botched operation (4.70). See the note to “valor” (or masculine prowess) at 4.33, a central theme of this section (here: the adverb ἀνδρείως) and of War, and note the contrast with softness at 4.43. The commonness (τὰ κοινά) of what has happened could refer the lot of all soldiers or to the peril that Vespasian has shared. Either way, it deflects any suggestion that this particular operation was botched or rashly pursued by their commander. The language of Fortune’s “common” dealing with both sides may also be influenced by Demosthenes; see the note to “abrupt” at 4.42. Although Josephus’ audience could not know this, we may have a clue to his intention in the fact that the only other occurrence of this phrase (πολέμου φύσις) in his works will come at Ant. 7.144, where King David attributes the death of Uriah, which he notoriously arranged to remove the husband of his lover, as just part of common human life and due to “the nature of war,” in which sometimes your side and sometimes the others gain the upper hand—repeating Vespasian’s self-protecting analysis here. The adverb ἀναιμωτί is Homeric (Il. 17.363, 497; Od. 18.149), but avoided by classical historians. Dionysius (Ant. rom. 6.51.3) has it once. Of the 14 tlg attestations before Josephus’ 7 cases (in this volume again at 4.415, 529, also Ant. 19.116, suggesting his authorial control of that “Roman” volume), 6 are in 5 works by Philo. It is thus another characteristic term in War that is either influenced by Philo or reflects their shared literary culture. These generic abstractions continue to divert attention from the planning of this particular assault, all the more because it is patently false that victories cannot be achieved without bloodshed: Rome’s conquests of Greece, Asia Minor, and Syria came largely without violence. The point could be Fortune’s brief abandonment of the Romans just now or the expectation of her imminent return, or simply a general comment. Reversals of fortune touch the deepest thematic stratum of War (the word-group appears 78 times) and Greco-Roman culture at many points: war, politics, literature, and philosophy. Fortune can appear as a blind factor of “chance” or “luck” in life, as a mischievous quasi-intelligence with personality that seems almost determined to undo people (especially generals) at their moment of success, or as the goddess Τύχη/Fortuna (daughter of Aphrodite), needing propitiation for the future and gratitude for past survival. She was revered in many eastern cities as a polis deity, frequently identified with Isis of Egypt. The varied senses are difficult to separate, as they converge in the assumption that everything outside human control belongs to “fortune” (whether or not an intelligence is behind it)—capitalized here because of the personal qualities implied and mention of the goddess in 4.41. In War, fortune has brought about Rome’s rise to power (5.367; 7.203)—and the elevation of Vespasian (4.622) and Titus (5.88; 6.57, 413), even though Josephus discounts fortune when he is crediting Roman military skill, which can prove superior even to fortune (3.71, 100, 106; 7.7). Fortune is inscrutable, however. She temporarily aids Antiochus iv against the Hasmoneans (1.45). The Judean rebels experience fortune’s favor (3.9; 4.238, 243; 5.78, 120–22; 7.7) even though their cause is doomed. Fortune takes revenge on King Herod for his prosperity (εὐπραγία; 1.431, cf. 1.665; 2.184, 213, 250; cf. 6.63, 66, 173). Josephus appears to have coined the phrase ἐξυβρίζω τὴν τύχην (to “outrage fortune”) to describe persons who foolishly take success for granted—and soon fall (2.184 [Gaius], 250 [Nero]; 5.120 [the Judean fighters]). Sometimes, but not systematically, he links fortune with God, providence, and/or fate (1.390; 2.184–86; 3.144, 354, 391; 4.622; 6.399–400, 411–13). The most reliable traits of fortune are, however, mutability and abrupt reversal. War’s prologue emphasizes this (μεταβολή; 1.5, 23) by highlighting Jerusalem’s recent reversal of fortune (1.11–12; cf. 6.408), also with the negative terms ἀτύχημα and δυστύχημα (1.11–12). The Hasmonean Antigonus experiences fortune-reversal (τύχης … μεταβολή, 1.353) early on. King Herod cautions his troops (1.374): “For among mankind neither misfortune nor indeed its opposite is stable, but one should see fortune exchanging one side for the other” (ἔστιν ἰδεῖν ἐπαμειβομένην εἰς ἑκάτερα τὴν τύχην). Cf. 2.360; 3.354. This all recalls Polybius, who sees fortune as always making new things (πολλὰ … καινοποιοῦσα) and interposing herself (ἐναγονιζομένη, 1.4.5). He therefore stresses “the importance of distrusting fortune, and especially in times of success” (1.35.2). After seeing fortune’s role in turning Hasdrubal from defiant enemy to pleading suppliant (38.20.1–10), Scipio confides his fear that this glorious moment would one day be matched by Rome’s doom (38.21.1), a reflection Polybius commends because one must realize at the moment of triumph the extreme slipperiness (ἐπισφάλεια) of fortune. On fortune in Polybius see e.g.: Shorey 1921; Walbank 1972: 60–65; Eckstein 1995: 254–71. Niese’s printed text (following mss pam1) has δαπανᾷ δ᾿ ἡ τύχη τι καὶ παρίσταται (“fortune consumes/destroys something and also stands alongside/supports”). In place of the first verb, other mss (vrc) have the adjective παλίμπους (“again-foot, i.e., going back, returning”). That Josephus wrote something like the latter is suggested by the 4th-cent. Latin (iterumque habeat fortuna regressum) and the Slavonic (Leeming and Leeming 2003: 396. “Fortune is not stable but goes back and forth”). Niese’s recommendation on this basis (παλίμπους δ᾿ ἡ τύχη τι καὶ παρίσταται) is followed by Thackeray lcl and Pelletier but not M-B. If the emendation is correct, Josephus gives Vespasian a learned allusion, for παλίμπους (“return-footed,” a sort of boomerang effect) appears earlier in extant literature only in a work attributed to the Alexandrian poet Lycophron (Alex. 126, 893). The undated fragments known as tragica adespota (Kannicht et al. 1971: fr. 279u*) couple the adjective with τύχη as subject. Finally, the Greek Anthology (5.163) has an epigram of Meleager of Gadara (early 1st cent. bce) that has παλίμπους στεῖχε with the meaning “walk your way back” or “retrace your steps.” Because that epigram has the somewhat rare word (δυσύποιστος), attested elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 15.208), Thackeray lcl proposed that this was a flashy enhancement by a literary assistant who knew Meleager’s work, something Josephus could not have contributed. But the literary-assistant theory lacks any solid foundation (Rajak 2002: 233–36), so we should indeed reckon with a Josephus who was eager to impress and adventurous in reading. Finally, if this whole speech has been influenced by an exordium of Demosthenes, which seems highly likely (see note to “abrupt” at 4.42), παρίσταται may recall Fortune’s changing παρουσία (“presence, visitation”) there.

Like its English descendant, Greek μυριάς can mean either a large number of undetermined size or 10,000. Most often Josephus intends the former. We can be sure that he means the number only when he qualifies it, e.g. with a multiplier or something else to indicate size. War 3.337 puts the death toll at Iotapata alone at 40,000. This is historically implausible: Aviam estimates a regular population of 2,000 at most, possibly swelled in crisis to a maximum of 7,000 (Aviam 2008: 2078). But inside the story world of Josephus, the Romans could claim to have killed tens of thousands. Or “spirit” (τῷ δαίμονι), apparently meaning the goddess Fortune, just mentioned. See the note to “other-worldly” at 4.34. I.e., Fortune could have demanded any price in changing her favor from one side to the other.

Or “tasteless.” The adjective ἀπειρόκαλος (lit. “no experience of the good/beautiful/honorable”) is rare and only here in Josephus, but suitably high-brow for the point being made (if not best suited to Vespasian). Of the 14 attestations before Josephus (tlg), 2 are in Demosthenes, 3 in Dionysius, and 2 in Philo (Sacr. 32; Prov. fr. 2.46), confirming Josephus’ shared literary culture with Philo and the Hellenistic historians. Plutarch (7) and Lucian (10) will use the word more often. War gives two examples of Judeans being foolishly elated by their successes, with this language (ἐπαίρεσθαι ταῖς εὐπραγίαις)—before their fortunes are reversed: 3.9; 5.342. See the note to “Fortune” at 4.40. See note to “valor” at 4.33. After Aesop’s 25 uses of the rare καταπτήσσω, Philo is its main attested user (12) before Josephus’ 4 (also 1.373; 5.102; Ant. 11.96), a distribution that tends to confirm both his authorial control of disparate material and his sharing of a lexical bank with Philo. Or “slips, errors, blunders” (ἐν τοῖς πταίσμασιν). See note at 4.39, announcing the theme of this section. “Abrupt reversal” was a cliché in various fields, including medicine, but Josephus’ (Vespasian’s) language here (ὀξεῖα γὰρ ἐν ἀμφοτέροις ἡ μεταβολή), concerning fortune, is close enough to a line in Demosthenes (Ex. 39.2: τὰ μὲν γὰρ τῆς τύχης ὀξείας ἔχει τὰς μεταβολὰς καὶ κοινὰς ἀμφοτέροις τὰς παρουσίας, “for things pertaining to fortune come with reversals and visits to one side or the other equally”) to suggest deliberate allusion. This line comes in a collection of carefully crafted speech introductions (proems) that the great orator kept on hand, this one to console Athens after some unspecified setback. Such manipulable set-pieces were ripe for use in rhetorical education, and may have filtered down to Josephus. Several other terms in Demosthenes’ 20-line proem (ἀθύμως, συμφέρον, οὔθ’ ὑμῶν ἄξιόν, τι δαιμόνιον, κοινὰς) anticipate Vespasian’s appeal and strengthen the case for borrowing. Notice, e.g., the parallel between Vespasian’s reference to this unworthy setback (τῷ παρ᾿ ἀξίαν πταίσματι) and Demosthenes on a reversal unworthy of you (οὔθ’ ὑμῶν ἄξιόν). The overall idea in Demosthenes, as in Josephus, is that some losses are unavoidable as payment to fortune, but the very slipperiness of fortune can work in our favor if the other side becomes elated while we resolve to do better. Diodorus has 3 strikingly similar constellations of words (13.21.5; 18.42.1; 31.18.2), suggesting that he too reworked Demosthenes’ proem. Alternatively, or additionally, given their agreements elsewhere it is possible that Diodorus influenced Josephus. Or “restrained.” Although Josephus most often uses νήφω of literal sobriety in relation to wine (5.229; cf. Ant. 6.306; 11.42), and elation might lead to drunkenness, he seems here to refer to discipline and caution as at 2.225. Or “cheerful, tranquil” (δι᾿ εὐθυμίας). Cheerfulness in adversity is most famously a Stoic theme, found repeatedly in Seneca (e.g., On Tranquility of Soul), Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius. Stoicism has often been seen as a warrior’s philosophy, also in modern times (Sherman 2005). But imperturbability and facing pain or death with equanimity were virtues common in ancient philosophy and culture, from Plato and his Socrates (facing death)—and the Spartan image—to the Pyrrhonists and Epicurus. Josephus’ Vespasian does not link these to conspicuously Stoic thought. Remarkably, Josephus provides the first attestation of this evocative verb (ἀναπαλαίω), and only here; it will appear again only in Porphyry (late 3rd cent.) before becoming popular in Byzantine and medieval texts. It fits perfectly with the σφάλματα and πταίσματα that frame the speech (see note to “setbacks” at 4.39)—both terms fitting a wrestler’s fault or mis-step—as well as the pervasive assumption of Fortune’s slippery-footedness. Josephus varies his diction: σφάλματα is interchangeable with πταίσματα in the previous sentence, though leaning in the direction of understandable “slip-up” rather than blunder. This moralizing is very similar, also in vocabulary, to Titus’ speech to his troops outside Tarichea at 3.478–79, although there the Judeans are said to model the emotional approach to battle, as Vespasian will also say at 4.45.

As the ongoing contrast with masculine valor assumes, softness (or delicateness) was generally associated with women, sometimes therefore used as a euphemism for passive homosexual roles (1 Cor 6:9). See note at 4.33. The widespread Roman denial of valor to Judeans in the recent conflict, in the accounts circulating in Flavian Rome, is Josephus’ explicit reason for writing War (1.2–8; cf. Nero at 3.1–2). Demonstrating that valor is therefore one of Josephus’ primary themes, over against the sentiment he attributes to Vespasian here (Mason 2016a: 101–106, 121–30). Clearly, this is not a work of Flavian propaganda. The verbs πλεονεκτέω and διαμαρτάνω form a contrasting pair. The former sometimes retains, as here, the original connotation of unjustified gain or overreaching, which breaks with the mere chance, “win some, lose some” logic of fortune’s favors, with which Vespasian began. As often, discussion of fortune’s role immediately raises the question of skill, prowess, or “virtue” and its rewards. Vespasian slides into that domain by contrasting undeserved Judean gains (from the harsh terrain) with the legions’ “falling badly short,” and in an “unworthy” manner, because they failed to execute proper tactics. The relationship between fortune and skill/prowess—a version of the fate / determinism vs. free will or nature/nature debates—was and remains a subject of vigorous debate. Most often the ancients asserted both. Polybius, though famously attributing Rome’s rise to fortune (1.4.1, 4), could also reject the idea that fortune rather than skill brought Rome’s victory (1.63.9; 10.2.5, 5.8, 7.3, 9.2–3); cf. Walbank 1972: 60–65; Eckstein 1995: 254–71. Dionysius (Ant. rom. 1.7.2; 2.17.3) remarked that only critics of Rome credited her rise to fortune or luck. Plutarch’s essay On the Fortune of the Romans gave fortune the upper hand, while seeing the two as collaborating. See the note at 4.4 to this Gamalan theme: δυσχωρία.

Using the optative voice, Vespasian tactfully shifts from general ruminations on bad luck or Fortune’s mischief in war-fighting generally to the tactical mistakes made by his men (without mentioning his own). Greek τὸ ἀταμίευτον is striking diction (lit. “not subject to quartermaster stores”) that suggests influence from Philo. Before Josephus’ 5 occurrences (War 4–6 and Ant. 19, in a volume often thought to depend on Roman sources), the adjective is attested 11 times in Philo, but before him only in a fragment of Aeschylus and once in Aristotle (Gen. anim. 788a). After Philo and Josephus, the word disappears outside the works of grammarians and assorted Byzantine authors. This and many other examples of Philo-Josephus distinctiveness suggest influence from Philo or a shared literary culture. Josephus occasionally picks up a word that he rarely uses otherwise, and re-uses it within a short space in a different sense before dropping it (bjp 9: lii). War has 11 occurrences of ὑποστέλλω, 5 of these in Book 1. The only 2 occurrences in Book 4 are here and earlier in this paragraph (4.40), where the (middle voice) reference was to suppression of a thought, rather than physical restraint as here. See note at 4.23. Vespasian’s description of inattentiveness and its result (κατὰ κορυφὴν ἱσταμένοις τοῖς κινδύνοις) paradoxically recalls Josephus’ portrait of Vespasian’s plight in 4.31–34: μέσοις ἐγκαταλείπεται τοῖς κινδύνοις… ὑφίσταται δὲ κατὰ κορυφήν. Or “induced, called out, challenged, invited” (προκαλέω). See the successful implementation of this tactic by Placidus (a better general than Vespasian?) at 4.58, in the Mt. Tabor interlude. Josephus’ contemporary Frontinus’ book of Stratagems (2.36; 3.1–10) emphasizes the need to choose the site of battle on favorable ground, so as to control it. The theme comes up often in Josephus’ works, most obviously in confrontations between cavalry and infantry (e.g., Life 116–20, 397). In this episode see further 4.77. The phrase ἐπειγόμενοι περὶ νίκης is Homeric (Il. 23.436, 496), used twice in the chariot race that formed part of the funeral games for Patroclus, in which obsession with victory led to various kinds of malfeasance. It was a famous scene in antiquity: Plutarch ironically stages a brief competition between Homer and Hesiod, in which Hesiod reworks Homer’s line—and wins the prize (Sept. sap. conv. 154a). Josephus’ ἐπὶ τὴν νίκην ἐπειγόμενοι here, the next closest attestation (tlg), seems a deliberate allusion, the point being again that obsession with victory leads to thoughtlessness. Verb and noun reappear in a different formulation in Ant. 7.250 (straining to bring news of victory). This recalls the description of Vespasian in 4.31. See note there.

The adjective ἀπερίσκεπτος (“without having looked around”) is Thucydidean (4.108.4; 6.65.1), first appearing in critical comments about the Spartans. After Thucydides, aside from fragments of Chrysippus and Anaxicrates, the word comes to life in Philo, who has it a remarkable 9 times. The other occurrence in Josephus comes when Titus makes a very similar remark (5.316): “a charge without situational awareness is madness.” After Josephus, the word rapidly fades from view. Although Josephus might have taken the word from Thucydides, it seems another example of shared literary culture with, if not influence from, the Alexandrian Judean Philo. Or “by experience and order/discipline” (ἐμπειρίᾳ καὶ τάξει). Vespasian is recalling Titus’ phrase in his exhortation to his troops outside Tarichea near the end of the previous volume (3.475): our expertise/experience and order/tactics/discipline (τῆς ἡμετέρας ἐμπειρίας καὶ τάξεως). Cf. Vegetius, Epit. 3.12 on sieges: attackers try to overwhelm the besieged with terror at the first assault. If that fails, as the besieged show themselves strong enough to resist (as here), the (more vulnerable) attackers having lost their chance at crushing intimidation, it becomes a battle of relative “energy and skill.” This is an ironic remark in several respects. (i) Since Greek βάρβαρος (here the adjective βαρβαρικός) meant primarily “non-Greek,” the category initially included Romans. In their early encounters, Roman leaders were in turn suspicious of Greeks and their ways, as threats to Roman tradition (mos maiorum), though partial to Spartans and agreeing with some Greek philosophers’ critiques of society (Wardman 2002; important nuances in Gruen 1992: 52–83). Still in the early Empire, Romans liked to ridicule present-day Greeks (Balsdon 1979: 30–58), while the Greek revival we call the Second Sophistic positioned itself to an extent over against the imperial power, for example eschewing Latin loan words in favor of pure Greek. By the 1st cent. ce, elite Romans had fully absorbed Greek literary and polis culture, and saw “barbarians” as peoples outside of this Greco-Roman amalgam, as this remark suggests. Aelius Aristides (Or. 26.63) sees the Roman vs. non-Roman divide as having supplanted Greek vs. barbarian, but still uses the traditional split, leaving Rome as a special case (26.11, 14, 41, 96, 100; cf. Swain 1996: 279). (ii) In using “Greek or barbarian” to mean the whole world (War 5.17; 6.199; Ant. 1.107; 4.12; 8.284; 11.299; 15.136; 16.177; 18.20; Apion 1.58, 201; 2.282), while also pointedly distancing Judeans from Greek culture (War 1.13–16; Ant. 1.121–29; 20.262–65; Apion 1.1–28) and opposing Judeans and Greeks (War 1.17, 94; 2.266–67, 490; 7.50; Apion 1.1, 72, 75), Josephus appears to include Judeans among barbarians—as superior to Greeks. This is suggested by his note that he wrote an earlier draft of War in Aramaic for “barbarians” including Judeans (War 1.6–8), and becomes clearest in the Apion, where Judeans are among the barbarian peoples who keep better records than Greeks (Apion 1.28–29). (iii) In this Greek-barbarian/Judean bifurcation, it is not clear where Josephus places Romans. But one could easily infer that he groups them with Judeans, both as barbarians who are superior to Greeks. At least, his main criticisms of Greeks do not usually touch Romans, and many of the Judean virtues he highlights (simplicity of speech, frankness, exercise for military fitness rather than display, modesty, fatherly control, devotion to tradition) parallel old-school Roman self-understanding (Barclay bjp 10: xliv, xlviii, 362–69). (iv) Barbarians can also appear, however, in the narrator’s or another Judean’s voice, as violent, greedy, fickle, and faithless: War 1.255, 258, 261–64, 268, 274, 322; 5.560; 7.86, 94; Ant. 2.263; 12.222; 14.341–43, 347, 440–42, 445; 15.130; 18.47–9; 19.120. Different rhetorical situations, for both Romans and Judeans, call for different alignments. Or “mastered, taken in hand,” reading κρατοῦνται as passive (with Thackeray lcl, Pelletier, M-B) rather than middle (“support themselves by”: Whiston). This contrast between Roman and Judean ways of fighting is thematic in War. Vespasian here recaps thoughts that Josephus as author gives Titus before Tarichea (3.472–84), where he spells out the contrast more fully: Judeans, granted their daring and contempt of death, are undisciplined and inexperienced in war (ἀσύντακτοί τε καὶ πολέμων ἄπειροι), a mere “crowd that should not be called an army,” in contrast to our expertise/experience and order/tactics/discipline (τῆς ἡμετέρας ἐμπειρίας καὶ τάξεως; 3.475). Titus continues (3.479): Judeans are led by mere emotions of daring, boldness, and despair, whereas Romans are driven by valor, resolve, and inherent excellence. Josephus gives two perspectives on the same phenomenon, however. For the Romans, the Judeans are desperate, fighting of necessity and driven to reckless acts: “nothing is stronger than despair” (War 3.209; cf. 3.149, 153, 204, 207–10, 271; 5.488; 6.152, 219). Cf. 6.79: “the Judeans overwhelmed the Romans’ expertise with their rage.” The legions must not emulate them, even if such recklessness produces short-term wins. From the Judean perspective, which Josephus to some extent promotes while acknowledging the other, without any of the legions’ advantages in training, resources, or organization, Judeans are individually tougher, more tenacious, and more resilient (War 1.7–8; 4.89–90; 5.315–16; 6.11–18, 42–44). Romans function well only en masse, using the group maneuvers in which they are trained for facing another army (2.542–44; 3.70–109). Individual Judeans can unnerve even groups of them, however (6.169–76).

See note at 4.33. This is the only attestation of προσαθυμέω in all Greek literature (tlg). Josephus artfully builds opposite verbs from the same root (θυμοῦσθαι μᾶλλον ἢ προσαθυμεῖν), a contrast that English cannot well capture. The second verb seems to be his coinage for this purpose, perhaps because the far more common ἀθυμέω (7 in War) suggested a more general situation of dismay, rather than a point of deflation. Josephus is partial to pairing fury with an opposite emotion, whether as simultaneous emotions in the same person (pity at 2.474, joy at 2.549) or here as opposed alternatives. Josephus completes the inclusio begun at 4.39: see the note to “setbacks” there; for “unworthy” (or unbecoming), see the note to “abrupt” at 4.42.

This phrase (τὴν δ᾿ ἀρίστην … παραμυθίαν) completes the artful inclusio opened by the cognate verb at 4.39: Vespasian’s effort to console ends with the rousing call the best consolation is the one they create in individual combat. Lit., those who suffered loss or lost their lives: active participle of ἀπόλλυμι (not: were lost, destroyed). Josephus’ familiar ἀναιρέω, unusually her without an explicit object; see the note to “staggered about” at 4.29.

Among others who are first into the fight and last out are bold young Eleazar at Machaerus, whom Josephus appears to admire for his courage, though it costs him dearly (War 7.196–97).

Or “restored, refreshed”; lit., “picked up.” This is a fascinating twist on a phrase (ἀναλαμβάνω τὴν στρατιὰν /δύναμιν) that was formulaic in ancient literature, for a commander’s moving his army from A to B, a sense usually found in Josephus also (War 3.146; Ant. 8.364, 381, 411; 9.31; 12.315, 367; 13.207; 14.48; Life 395). In War 4, however, in keeping with this work’s growing interest in military motivation, Josephus uses the same phrase of a commander’s refreshment or restoration of his army in place, by a speech or some other means (cf. War 4.373, 661). For the collocation, cf. Ant. 10.28.

Or “of terms, assurances”; lit., “hopes of a right [side/hand]” (δεξιᾶς ἐλπίδας). See note at 4.4. Just as he innovates with his frequent use of this metonymy, Josephus is the first known user of the phrase with “hope,” which he has recently used at 3.500 (non-combatants in Tarichea hope for assurances from Titus, but are cut down) and will repeat soon (4.58) in the Mt. Tabor interlude. Military logic has usually held that towns violently resisting an army forfeit hope of surrender terms and must be crushed as enemies. Rome followed the same logic, but only (in principle) as long as resistance held out, as Vergil’s famous line put it (Aen. 6.851–53): “to spare the vanquished and crush the proud.” Otherwise, Rome prided itself on building and sustaining its empire through diplomacy and consensus (Livy 30.42 with Ando 2000, Eckstein 2006), while having sufficient forces ready to destroy any challenge. Whereas defiant Iotapata and Gamala were destroyed, accordingly, most of Galilee’s population centers (Sepphoris, Agrippa’s Tiberias and Tarichea, later Gischala) were spared; near-empty villages were burned for display violence. Cf. 6.351–53, 356–57: Jerusalem’s “tyrants” John and Simon, citing an oath never to seek terms of surrender, ask for generous terms (to flee with their families to the desert). Titus offers them surrender instead and, when they refuse, demands that they fight: these are the only options. Pleas from others to be allowed to surrender, though he is exasperated that they have held out for so long, he accepts. Josephus does not necessarily agree, therefore, with the rebel logic that they have gone too far for surrender, though he presents that belief as a motive for their resolve to fight on. A situation anticipated in 4.18. The logic is not that escape was prevented by lack of necessities, but rather that they needed to flee because resources were exhausted, but could not. This phrase (δεινῶς ἠθύμουν) reverses the opening premise, that the Roman soldiers were unnerved (4.39). Vespasian’s speech has “consoled” them to overcome the “setback,” terms repeated in 4.46–47. Their dejection has passed from Romans to Judeans. This phrase will reappear at 6.94, describing the Jerusalemites’ feeling when the daily sacrifice in the temple finally ceases. Less literally: their courage had failed them (ταῖς ψυχαῖς ἀναπεπτώκεσαν). For similar phrases see Ant. 6.24, 329; 8.256, 282. This is characteristically Josephan language, though shared with and possibly taken from Philo (Ebr. 122; Ios. 114; Mos. 1.182). The only other attestation of this collocation is in Polybius (20.4.6), who might also have inspired Josephus.

The word σωτηρία is common in classical literature across genres (Herodotus 10, Thucydides 37, Euripides 48, Sophocles 8, Isocrates 55, Xenophon 37, Plato 81, Demosthenes 93, Polybius 84, Diodorus 137, Dionysius 61, and Philo 87). Still, Josephus’ 247 occurrences mark it as a staple of his lexicon—along with a number of cognates—whether he is discussing the safety furnished by the best laws, moments of preservation in his own career, or the phases of the war with Rome. Like other classical authors, he thus uses the word for concrete “safety, deliverance, preservation, rescue,” in contrast to the long-term rescue envisaged in the Bible or the spiritual “salvation” that ancient Christians expected. Even they shifted the sense gradually: in the earliest known Christian text, Christ the “rescuer” is awaited to literally evacuate his followers into the air to preserve them from a doomed world below (1 Thess 1:10; 5:8), whereas “salvation” will be come more spiritual in later times. The 85 cases in War’s tragic story often refer to imperiled safety, or to a lost or minuscule chance of rescue / preservation. See notes to “three directions” for number of breaches implied by τὰ παραρρηχθέντα τοῦ τείχους here, and to “clashed violently” (for the verb) at 4.20. The contrast with “parts still in place” (τὰ μένοντα) suggests multiple breaches, but the story is vague about when these were created.

Since the second assault will come by stealth, with the undermining of the hilltop tower (4.64–70), we should understand ἐπιρρωννύντων τὰ χώματα καὶ πάλιν πειρωμένων προσβολῆς as a unity: taking preliminary steps and testing the best spots for the next attack, rather than actually attempting that attack. “Impassable” (φάραγγας ἀβάτους) at 4.6, adjusted to δυσβάτων φαράγγων here to make escape possible. See note to the adjective at 4.6. At 4.12 Josephus anticipated this, mentioning Vespasian’s inability to post guards in the steep gorges. At 4.9 Josephus took credit for building the tunnels as part of the site’s fortification.

Josephus consistently admires those who show courage and resourcefulness, even in hopeless situations or when he considers their political programs or actions disastrous (e.g., 2.469–76; 7.190–209). Here, the pathetic situation of those who would not risk trying to escape from fear of capture, who thus doomed themselves in the starving town, runs against his apparent support for such proverbs as “fortune favors the brave/strong” (Vergil, Aen. 10.284; Terence, Phorm. 203). Contrast his descriptions of the daring resourcefulness shown by Judeans at Machaerus (7.190–209) with the passive submission—and much talking—at Masada (7.304–401). Passive of the verb translated “eliminate” when in the active voice; see note at 4.25. Or “privation, want.” The word ἔνδεια by itself means “lack” of something. Elsewhere Josephus adds “of food, water, resources” etc. (1.662; 2.432, 590; 3.181). Here the context shows that food is the issue. Here τοῖς μάχεσθαι δυναμένοις = τὸ μάχιμον at 4.62. This notice anticipates besieged Jerusalem, where all scraps of food will be collected in a violent manner by armed men (e.g., 5.435).

See note to “affecting him” at 4.31: a central motif of this work. The word πάρεργον has the sense of something small alongside a major operation. At 1.344 Herod left the siege of Jerusalem in 37 bce to marry Mariamme in Samaria: a πάρεργον. Since the present little episode could have awaited the end of the Gamala story, the narrative effect of diversion to create suspense must be deliberate. It is characteristic of Josephus (Mason 2016a: 417–18). Indeed, this episode recalls War 3.307–15, where Josephus breaks away from the tightening siege of Iotapata to describe small events at nearby Iapha and Mt. Gerizim in Samaria. There, when alleged thousands of Samarians declare hostile intentions, although Samaria is otherwise pacified and filled with garrisons (perhaps in response to the Roman presence), Vespasian sends the legate of the Fifth Legion, Sex. Cerealis Vettulenus, with 600 cavalry plus 3,000 infantry. Cerealis will not climb that mountain either, but the hottest part of summer is approaching, so he uses his infantry as a human wall around the mountain base. Some die of thirst and others come down and surrender to avoid that fate. Convinced of the weakened state of those who remain, he then ascends the mountain, offers assurances of safety (how did Josephus know?), and when these are reportedly rejected, kills everyone up there. As with Tiberias, Tarichea, and Gamala, Josephus (eventually, 4.61) distinguishes regular inhabitants from interlopers who have taken over the town, perhaps in this case anti-Agrippa refugees from the lakeside towns. See note to 2.573 at bjp 1b: 387. Tabor (Tavor) appears a dozen times in the Bible. The lxx transliterates about half of the occurrences (Θαβωρ), rendering the others variously (Χασελωθαιθ, Josh 19:12; Γαιθβωρ, Josh 19:22; Θαχχια, 1 Chron 6.62), and τὸ Ἰταβύριον (Jer 26:18; Hos 5:1). Josephus uses only the last form, 10 times, though it is unknown in Greek or Latin texts before the Christian authors (from Eusebius) who knew his works. Polybius (5.70.6–12) called it τὸ Ἀταβύριον, using the same name as that of the highest peak on Rhodes (today Mt. Attavyros, 1,215 m / 4,000 ft asl), where Greek myth had the King of Crete build a temple to Zeus, with the result that Atabyrion became an epithet of Zeus in Rhodes and the Rhodian colony of Agrigentum, Sicily (Diodorus 5.59.2 with Pindar, Ol. 7.87; Polybius 9.27.7). It was natural that the similar-sounding name (if it did not come from Greek influence) led Ptolemaic and then Seleucid conquerors to identify Tavor, the highest peak in the Jezreel Valley, with Zeus Atabyrios. The site was important during the Crusades, in battles between Christian and Muslim forces. Identified in some traditions as the site of Jesus’ “transfiguration” or metamorphosis (Mark 9:2–3), the large summit now hosts several churches and monasteries. Mentioned already at 2.188, 232 (called “of Samaria”), 595; 3.39 (partial description), 59, this is the Plain of Esdraelon or Jezreel Valley, though at 4.455 Josephus will use the same term for the Jordan Valley, and at Life 202 for the Beit-Netofa Valley (otherwise for the Jezreel: Life 126, 318). Although Mt. Tabor rises distinctly from the plain, as a great flattened cone or dome, it hugs the N edge of the Jezreel Valley, with a number of smaller hills on its N side. It therefore marks the S edge of Galilee proper (Life 318), with Dabaritta / Daverat situated down its W slope. Scythopolis lies more than 20 km (12 mi) SSE across the valley from Galilee. See further note at 4.87.

Roughly 3.75 mi / 6 km. By modern reckoning that would put the summit at aircraft cruising altitude. It has a somewhat rounded summit, which reaches 567 m (1,860 ft) asl, ca. 450 m (1,475 ft) above the surrounding plain—Josephus knew nothing of such measurements, of course. Having personally climbed the mountain, he is presumably referring to climbing distance: today a 5-km walk. Moreover, he seems to use “30 stadia” for about an hour’s distance by foot (Mason 2016a: 591–94). Polybius (5.70.6) gives half Josephus’ figure (15 stadia). But even if Josephus was inspired by his account of Antiochus’ ambush at the same site (n. 239), he would have (over-)corrected the figure from hard personal experience. Ca. 5.2 km, 3.23 mi. Since he links the measurement with the wall, Josephus seems to have the walled perimeter in view. No remains of his wall have been identified, but the current perimeter is not that far off his figure: about 18 stadia, ca. 6 in length. The summit is spacious, with a modern 2-km hiking trail around it.

In this case the author Josephus, who has introduced himself (after the 1st-person proem, 1.1–3) as a narrative character in the 3rd person (2.568), with the patronymic “of Matthias” because his name Joseph(us) is so common. Contrast the Life, in which he uses only the 1st person. In spite of its 1st-person references to the narrator’s judgments (2.151, 156, 191; 5.20, 552, 566; 6.373), War generally preserves this Caesar-like 3rd-person mode of self-reference. Cf. Glas 2020. At 2.573 Josephus includes Itabyrion among the places he immediately fortified as general of Galilee, because he knew that the Romans would attack the N first. At Life 188 it appears last among the sites he eventually fortified. But since (i) both War and Life give much more complicated accounts of how some of these walls came to be built, for example at Tiberias and Tarichea (Life 142–44) in the course of his struggle with John; (ii) he has just said in Life’s version (Life 186) that he built walls for Gamala in response to a request from the town when it turned against Agrippa, and (iii) Life completely changes the picture of a general sent to fortify the N against the Roman advance, we have reason to doubt that Tabor was walled as a part of Josephus’ planned, regional defensive initiative. I.e., the few regular inhabitants (or at least those who had lived there some months) as distinct from the recent arrivals mentioned at 4.54, 61, the latter being Vespasian’s and Placidus’ main concern. Josephus’ language points in 2 directions. On the one hand, the 2 datives with χορηγούμενος (“supplied”) indicate that the verb is passive (rather than middle). Josephus is explaining how he could build such a long wall so quickly: because he had sufficient water plus materials from below for his work. On the other hand, since he is fortifying the site to make it defensible, we naturally infer that the material and water were to enable residents to live there safely. If they had relied on rainwater, they must have had reservoirs (cisterns) of some kind, and Josephus would be saying that he created a more secure supply, anticipating a siege, by having water brought up. This accords with Life 188, which says that Josephus made sure to supply the sites he fortified, of which Itabyrion is the last mentioned, with “much grain and weapons for their security.” Nevertheless, the locals will leave when their water is exhausted (4.61)—perhaps because the large group of militants has used it up before being ousted by Placidus.

One of Josephus’ most characteristic words (πλῆθος). Its 918 occurrences in his corpus (345 in War) make him one of the word’s heaviest users in raw numbers, second only to Dionysius (1,011 occurrences in extant texts). When used of people (as most often, especially τὸ πλῆθος), it is a collective singular with dehumanizing force, as its occasional use for a mass of inanimate material shows (4.17, 34). When Josephus wishes to be more respectful, he can use other terms: ὁ δῆμος and cognates (“the populace”: 328, of which 157 in War), ὁ λαός (“the people”: 282, only 40 in War), and especially τὸ ἔθνος (“the nation,” 396 times, 91 in War). None of these but ὁ λαός (it seems: mainly found in Ant. 1–13) applies exclusively to Judeans. Whereas members of the elite are either named as individuals or mentioned with plural group names that highlight their status (“first, best, most powerful”), our aristocratic author regards τὸ πλῆθος as a lumpen mass, deserving alternately sympathy, pity, and contempt. It predictably follows instinct or impulse rather than refined judgment, and so is highly susceptible to demagogues and roused emotions. The word appears too frequently to receive comment at each occurrence, but the reader should be aware that it appears throughout the translation as “horde, throng, mass, rabble, mob, or number [if not referring to people].” Reading ἐπὶ τοῦτο as causal—i.e., they gathered there because of Josephus’ defensive provisions—but perhaps meaning simply “upon this mountain” (Whiston). One of the most familiar Roman characters in Josephus, Placidus belies his common cognomen “tranquil, calm” (Kajanto 1965: 262). War introduces him after Vespasian’s arrival at Ptolemais (3.59). He is a legionary tribune, one of 6 in a legion or 5 among the experienced soldiers (the 6th a young gentleman of about 20). He first commands the advance garrison that Vespasian dispatches to Sepphoris at the city’s request, with 6,000 infantry and 1,000 cavalry, with which he roams across Lower Galilee at will (3.59–63; Life 411). When he realizes that his intended victims are taking refuge in Josephus’ well-fortified towns, he decides to destroy the strongest, Iotapata, mainly to enhance his personal glory with Vespasian, but is humiliated there (3.111–14). After Josephus enters Iotapata, Vespasian (now on the scene) sends Placidus again to prepare a siege before his arrival (3.144), and he will be one of the first to enter the town with Titus (3.325). His humiliation at Iotapata, given his influence with Vespasian, may be the main reason it is targeted for destruction. After Tabor here, Placidus makes his final appearance in the brutal subjugation of Perea’s towns and villages, where his cavalry drives innocent residents to mass death in the Jordan River (4.419–39). Josephus’ Life gives him continued prominence. There we learn that he was already a tribune under Cestius Gallus, apparently belonging to Syria’s Tenth Legion (since this was the Syria-based legion seconded by Vespasian). Before Vespasian’s arrival and after Cestius’ loss of much of his force in the ambush at Beit-Horon, Cestius had sent Placidus to guard the area around Ptolemais and to attack nearby Galilean sites (Life 213–15). It would make eminent sense for Vespasian to choose Placidus for the Galilean garrison a few months later, given his knowledge of the terrain. Josephus claims that his own excellent generalship had kept Placidus in check. Their personal rivalry, there and later at Iotapata, and his description of Placidus’ behavior elsewhere suggest that he disliked the man, even if he respects his cunning in handling those he dislikes more. Nothing is known of Placidus outside of Josephus’ works, though he must have been a significant figure in Vespasian’s regime; perhaps he accompanied the new emperor to Rome in the autumn of 70 ce, if he did not already join Mucianus’ army intending to fight against Vitellius’ forces in 69. See notes to “cavalry” at 2.52, 67 in bjp 1b. Unlike the mounted contingent of 120 that each legion had for scouting and communication (War 3.96, 120), these were specialist auxiliary horse units or those furnished by allied kings, numbering roughly 500 and usually commanded at this time by a Roman prefect, seconded from the legions (praefectus alae; cf. Arrian, Tact. 18; Webster 1985: 145–46; Keppie 1998: 182–84; Gilliver 1999: 25). Cavalry figures in War are thus usually divisible by “wings” of 500 (2.421, 500; 3.59, 68, 144, 289, 299). For certain operations, however (3.310, 470), Vespasian sends an enhanced ala of 600—quickly supplemented in the latter case by 400 to make 1,000 (3.485). See further 4.87. The lower rank of the commander and the smaller force suggest that Vespasian viewed Tabor as less of a challenge than Mt. Gerizim earlier (War 3.307–15), or perhaps only that he was closer by with reinforcements if needed. With significant combat experience, Josephus shows an abiding interest in the tactical uses of cavalry and infantry—non-legionary cavalry serving as rapid-response forces on distant targets, police and crowd control in cities, and especially dominating open plains, a task that included chasing down refugees (for these, larger auxiliary and allied units, often with horse-mounted archery as a specialty). Infantry (with archers and ballista operators) were required for operations in hilly terrain and narrow passes, siege work, assaults on fixed sites, hand-to-hand combat, and intimidation en masse. See e.g., War 2.12, 55, 236, 421, 512; 3.278–79; 4.423; 5.305; Life 115–16, 384–397 with Frontinus, Strat. 2.9, 11, 18. In this episode, the fact that Placidus’ force is one of cavalry is germane to the story and outcome (4.60).

Before the modern access road there used to be 4,500 steps: https://www.touristisrael.com/mount-tabor/8130 (accessed 22 Sept. 2019). Baedeker (1876: 364) gives 42 minutes for the ascent on horseback, up sometimes narrow paths. An active siege (with assault on the walls) was out of the question, and a passive siege (building a wall below) was presumably too laborious for the benefit in this case; far better if the refugees could be coaxed to come down. See note at 4.44. Placidus does what Vespasian tells the soldiers at Gamala they should have done, rather than being drawn up the hill to unsafe ground (as he had been!). I.e., the recent refugees who have taken over the site, as at 4.54, 61. See note to this characteristic Josephan phrase at 4.50.

This double-compound verb (ἀντεπιβουλεύω) is Thucydidean (1.33.4; 3.12.3; 6.87.5). That Josephus is the next attested user (here and at Ant. 18.215, of Gaius Caligula’s scheming) suggests his direct knowledge of the master historian (see Introduction in bjp 1a), which literate audiences might be expected to notice in such passages. See note to “cavalry” at 4.57. The unusual construction here (ἵνα ἀφυλάκτῳ προσπέσωσιν) may allude to a similar passage in Herodotus 9.116.3, concerning the Greek siege of Sestus, where a Persian deceiver had made a base (ἀφυλάκτῳ [but some mss read ἀφύκτως] … αὐτῷ ἐπέπεσον).

The substantivized adjective πανοῦργον anticipates Placidus’ pretending (ὑποκρίνομαι) to retreat. War stands out for its 15 occurrences of πανοῦργος (lit., “capable of anything [without scruples],” hence “cunning, deceptive”), a word more familiar in tragedy, comedy, and philosophy than historiography. Herodotus, Thucydides, or Xenophon lack it, but it appears occasionally in Polybius (5), Diodorus (4), and Dionysius (2). It is missing from Josephus’ later works. Although it can have a negative sense—as a basic character trait of Herod’s son Antipater (1.453, 468) or Josephus’ enemy John (2.585, 591)—Josephus can boast of his capacity for it when needed, as when he confounded Vespasian at Iotapata (3.176: τὸ πανοῦργον τοῦ στρατηγήματος). Or “flight, escape” (φυγὴν ὑπεκρίνετο). This mode of ambush was well known and much discussed in antiquity (Polybius 1.40; Frontinus, Strat. 2.4; Onasander, Strat. 2.1; Chatzelis and Harris 2017: 111). Josephus claims to have used it against troops of King Agrippa ii (Life 400–402). Byzantine tacticians considered it so obvious that no intelligent commander could fall for it, unless the enemy general made it wholly convincing by shedding equipment in the pretended flight (Dennis 1985: 120–21; 305; Chatzelis and Harris 2017: 44). See next note. In modern times, the tactic of the lure has had mixed success, with sometimes disastrous results in Vietnam, first for the French (at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, a position deep in the enemy’s rear, hoping to force the Viet Minh to commit most of their army to an assault that would expose them to destruction) and then for the Americans in the 1960s under Gen. Westmoreland, who used combat units to draw out Viet Cong forces for annihilation by the U.S. Air Force. Placidus’ tactic is suspiciously similar to the “ambush and stratagem” used by Antiochus iii to dislodge the Ptolemaic garrison from the very same site, Mt. Tabor, in the Fourth Syrian War (ca. 218 bce), according to Polybius (5.70.7–9), and there are striking parallels of language between the two accounts. Both attacking generals find Tabor’s ascent too steep (both accounts give distances in stadia with cognate noun and verb). Antiochus coaxes (same verb: προκαλέω) those above to come down. When the garrison descends and, emboldened, chases his forces a sufficient distance along the plain (ἐπί πολύ… in both accounts), he makes a sudden turn and kills many (Josephus: “most”). Though not mentioned in Cohen 1982 or Eckstein 1990, this parallel supports their arguments for Josephus’s knowledge of Polybius (see Introduction in bjp 1a). The close parallel raises the question, however, whether Josephus knew what happened at Tabor in 67 ce or refashioned Polybius’ good story for his purposes—or even reworked the famous account expecting his audience’s admiring recognition. Lit., “blocked from the way back [or way up]” (εἴργει τῆς ἀνόδου).

As the following story of John and his followers in Gischala (4.84–120) illustrates, even those who had no involvement in Jerusalem’s travails (with Florus and the auxiliary) but ran afoul of King Agrippa and then Vespasian’s forces in Galilee for local reasons, found the mother-city Jerusalem the last option, once the remoter sites of Galilee and Golan (Gamala, Tabor, Gischala) were unavailable. See notes to “assurances” at 4.50, 58. Here πίστεις, elsewhere amplified as πίστεις περὶ σωτηρίας (“assurances concerning safety,” 3.334, 345) or in a collocation with “extending the right hand” (3.31, 4.96, 417; 6.345).

Comparative of παράβολος: those who “put themselves out there, expose themselves to danger, are eager to fight.” Before Josephus’ 10 uses (7 throughout War), the adjective was used most often by Polybius (24 times in a fragmentary text) and Diodorus (17). Like a number of Josephus’ terms for daring or boldness (see note to “brazen acts” at 4.90), it can take the negative connotation of “reckless,” as the adverb at 4.123. Josephus likes this compound verb (διαλανθάνω) of deception, using it 18 times against Thucydides’ 2, Xenophon’s and Polybius’ 3 each, Diodorus’ 5, and Dionysius’ 4. See note at 4.53. This sentence recapitulates 4.53, after the tension-building digression of 4.54–61 on Tabor, bringing the audience back to the dreadful scene at Gamala before the end.

Or “those fit to fight,” a generic abstraction from the more concrete “the ones capable of fighting” in 4.53; see note at 4.10. This neuter substantive built on the adjective (τὸ μάχιμον), used elsewhere by Josephus (3.62, 111; 5.248; Ant. 3.49; 5.165), is first attested in Herodotus (2.141, 66) and Thucydides (3.94.4; 6.23.1). This Macedonian month corresponds in Josephus’ works to the Judean lunar month of Tishrei. See note to “Artemesius” in War 2.284 in bjp 1b: 231–32; Mason 2016a: 378. In 67 ce, to judge from lunar charts, the month began on 27 September (Julian calendar), putting the 22nd on 17 October (although the new moon had to be seen and reported, possibly delaying the start of the month by a day or two). According to War 3.542, in a brief flashback, Vespasian had captured the troublesome element of Tarichea on 8 Gorpieus (= Elul). In the intervening 6 weeks, Vespasian has (i) marched the culprits of Tarichea to Tiberias and meted out punishments, (ii) camped his army by the Hammat springs of Tiberias for an unspecified period (4.1), (iii) marched them to Gamala, (iv) set up camp and built embankments, (v) made a botched assault, and (vi) rested the troops and prepared a new siege and assault. At 4.83 Josephus confirms the end-date and remarks that Gamala “started its rebellion” on the 24th of the preceding month. This leaves 4 weeks maximum—if Vespasian could respond instantly to the news of trouble and appear outside Gamala—but more likely only about 2 weeks at the site. Josephus’ language of a “siege” withstood suggests a long period, but in 2.535–41 he has used the same language of Cestius Gallus’ brief (5-day?) effort to gain entry to Jerusalem, quickly abandoned, which involved no building of siege works or use of siege engines. Here, in 4.18 it is clear that supplies inside the town were already exhausted before the Romans came to the wall, and so the population could not withstand an extended siege. A compressed schedule in historical reality would explain the fast-moving story line, and it would have made sense for Vespasian, given: the lateness of the calendar date (he needed to return troops to winter quarters before the worst weather); the nature of the operation as his final favor for Agrippa after Tiberias and Tarichea; and the undesirability of taking time in mid-October to arrange secure logistical lines for such a remote site. Likely, much of his force was engaged in foraging, for an operation he expected to be quick (having sent Titus away after Tarichea), while a relative few were to overrun the town. Josephus has used the same phrase (περὶ τὴν ἑωθινὴν φυλακὴν) at the fall of Iotapata’s wall (3.251). Perhaps it is mere coincidence that its first known use is in Polybius, at the moment that Celtic auxiliary betrayed the legions they fought alongside (3.67.2); it appears also in Dionysius, Ant. rom. 3.56.1. The Romans divided daylight and night-time into 12 hours each, with the length of an hour varying according to season. For night-time security, the army kept a strict system of 4 × 3-hour watches (vigiliae). The beginning of each watch, usually timed with water-clocks, was announced by trumpet (also War 3.86). Severe penalties faced a soldier who fell asleep at his sentry post or wandered from it (Polybius 6.35–38). Polybius’ note that “most of the night had passed” when the morning watch came (re: the Celtic treachery above) confirms that it was the 4th night watch, which began in the dark (as here: 4.64) and ended with dawn. For “early morning” as still dark, see also John 20:1. The legions’ care with night watches was so well known that in War 2.551–52, Cestius Gallus used it create a ruse to escape from Beit-Horon (as Judeans waited to attack his force at dawn). He had courageous soldiers call out the watch signals all night, while the main army quietly fled—suspiciously imitating the Roman commander Sulla, more than a century earlier, and the Theban Epaminondas centuries before that (Frontinus, Strat. 1.5.17; 3.11.5). At 4.13 Josephus prepares for this climax by explaining that the Fifteenth was building embankments at the NE sector, below the tower.

I.e., still dark. See the note to “watch” in 4.63. Or “pried loose.” The verb (ἐκκυλίνδω) is Homeric (Il. 6.42; 23.394) and attested spottily (9 times, in no historian) between Homer and Josephus’ 2 occurrences—the other in a similar context (legionaries undermining Jerusalem’s northern temple gate) at 6.222. Or “strongest stones” (κραταιοτάτους … λίθους), clearly in the foundation. Archaeology (Syon and Yavor 2010: 17–18) has shown Josephus’ account to be partly plausible; see note to “highest point” at 4.13. The lower courses of this round tower (L1600, an incomplete circle), perhaps dating from the early 1st cent. bce, show that it was built directly on the hill surface, an excellent lookout spot to the E but with no underground foundation, and separate from the much later wartime wall that would reach up to it. Since the tower’s longest header stones measure 0.8 m (2.6 ft), it is conceivable that individual soldiers might somehow pry them loose. How 3 men managed to shift 5 of them simultaneously in the dark, so that the whole structure fell at once and all 3 leapt away in the same instant, is a different kind of problem—but a great story. Josephus is the first attested user of the rare compound ὑποπηδάω, which occurs only here in his works and not again until the early 3rd cent. Slightly more common is προπηδάω, which occurs only 9 times before Josephus uses it 21 times in War (and Ant. 20.177); see note to “plunged ahead” in bjp 1b: 32. Both compounds suggest a desperate (imprudent or courageous) jump or plunge, but here the forward motion is precluded, hence ὑπ–. The 3 daring soldiers leap down (their embankment, presumably) and away from the crash. How they manage that is unclear (see previous note).

For μετὰ μεγίστου ψόφου—a phrase unattested in other ancient literature—see also 5.470; 6.64. The imposing double-compound, συγκατακρημνίζω (see 4.7 for the root verb), which accounts for the entire phrase from “were hurled,” is attested only once in Philo (Conf. 20), whose coinage it may be—allegorizing the Tower of Babel story—and here in Josephus. This is one of the more impressive confirmations (see indices to this volume and bjp 1b) of Josephus’ acquaintance with Philo. For the κατακρημνίζω in the active voice, see the climax of the story at 4.79.

See note to “out through” at 4.23: a characteristic verb in War. The Romans were not inside the wall at this point; the Gamalans met their doom once they managed to get out. See note at 4.25: one of Josephus’ characteristic verbs. One of 2 town leaders and organizers of the rebellion against Agrippa mentioned at 4.18 and not since. Here singular: τὸ παρερρηγμένον τοῦ τείχους. See the notes to “three directions,” “ruins,” and “clashed violently” at 4.20, on Josephus’ verbs and the number of breaches, as well as the plural of the same phrase at 4.51.

Lit. “running in all directions” (διαδρομή, hapax in Josephus). Given War’s large palette of words denoting fear, anxiety, panic, terror, and alarm, it is striking that Josephus uses this rare noun (πτοία)—apparently in the unusual form πτόα (ms L)—only here and at 4.528 in War (also Ant. 19.138, 214, a volume often credited to his sources, and Apion 1.290, paraphrasing Chaeremon). Of the first 27 occurrences registered by the tlg, Josephus and Philo (Det. 110; Congr. 81; Dec. 145; Spec. 2.189; Praem. 148) account for 5 each. Before them, the only significant user is Polybius (4). As often, we find a word in Josephus that he may have taken from an older model, Polybius, but that also suggests a shared literary culture with Judeans in Alexandria. A rare compound verb (εἰσπαίω), found only 5 times before Josephus, mainly in tragedy (Euripides, Orest. 1315; Rhes. 560; Sophocles, Oed. tyr. 1252), and hardly thereafter, though he has it also at 4.309.

The other town leader and organizer of the rebellion against Agrippa, mentioned at 4.18 and not since. Of just 13 attestations of νοσηλεύω before Josephus (he has it again at Ant. 15.246), 3 are in Philo (Her. 297; Ios. 23; in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.11.13), confirming their shared linguistic culture.

The 4th and final occurrence of πταῖσμα in the Gamala story (see note at 4.39), in which it thematizes Roman struggle and recovery. Outside of this episode, it occurs 10 times in the rest of War and a further 10 in all the rest of Josephus. I.e., the next day. See note to “Hyperbereteus” at 4.63. In tactical terms, the Romans keep doing the wrong thing for the situation. They should have delayed the first assault, which the townsfolk knew was coming, to plan it effectively. Having now taken the time to carefully plan a second assault, and surprised the enemy by not entering through the former breach but by stealth at night, it makes little sense to wait a day, as if this were the lesson taught by the first failure. The lesson should have been to delay before the assault on the tower, which they should have exploited with an immediate and overwhelming invasion. It is conceivable that the plan should be understood as highly sophisticated: to sow terror in the population for an extra day in the absolute confidence of easy victory at any time, but that does not seem to match any lesson learned the first time.

We last saw Titus in action at Tarichea, where he killed the anti-Agrippa culprits (and many others) before relenting (3.501–503). Vespasian chased and killed those who fled onto the lake, capturing them on 8 Gorpieus, 6 weeks before the end at Gamala (4.63, 83). At some point in the interim, Vespasian sent Titus to meet with Mucianus, legate of Syria (see 4.32 and note). Roman governors spent much of their time visiting the major poleis of their province. The capital of Syria was Antioch, 425 km / 264 mi from Tarichea, or about 8–10 days’ travel by steady horseback or carriage in each direction, ca. 2 weeks’ marching in each direction. A day’s march was not a fixed distance. Practically, it had to be confined to 5–6 hours in many circumstances, to allow for breaking camp and the 2–3 hours needed to establish a camp, eat, and attend to daily administration. Distances would change with the number of daylight hours, the terrain, and the degree of urgency, and whether there was a settled billet station to occupy or a camp to be constructed. Vegetius (Epit. 9) reports that soldiers in training in summer had to march 20 Roman miles (29.6 km, 18.4 mi) in 5 hours at normal pace, 24 rmi at double time. But that was a training standard for fair weather. Given the encumbrances and seasonal and terrain challenges facing actual armies on the march, and given known distances actually covered and established stations, an estimate of 24–32 km (15–20 mi) per day is a fair estimate through much of the year, though armies could move faster in emergencies. There is no reason to assume that Titus and Mucianus met in Antioch, however. Cestius Gallus meets Agrippa at Berytus (Life 49), just a third of the distance from Galilee, and Mucianus himself visits Berytus and perhaps coastal Caesarea later in the story; they would have been part of his province had Vespasian not been present (War 4.588, 603–605, 620–21). Titus’ visit may have been motivated by Vespasian’s knowledge that the neighboring legate was nearby, possibly at Ptolemais. The genitive noun is the result-form of the verb: τῆς πληγῆς ἣν παρ᾿ αὐτὸν ἐπλήγησαν. Although Josephus has no need to press the point, whereas he does emphasize Vespasian’s personal bravery and effective consolation of the army, Titus’ rage is evidently about his father’s disastrous assault, which he thinks he can remedy with a small picked force. See, on Josephus’ portraits of the Flavians, Mason 2019a. Josephus’ usual interest in providing figures (different from accuracy) leads to the general assumption that a number has dropped out of the mss here, though that is not certain. Two hundred mounted soldiers wielding swords over a pedestrian population in Gamala’s confined passages would undoubtedly dominate and terrify the population, especially when backed up by any number of professional infantry. But see 4.73. Curiously, after all his details about breaking through the wall and undermining the tower, Josephus does not explain where Titus’ force entered. His use of cavalry and the recent undermining of the tower (4.64–65, 69) might suggest that he was now free to bring his horsemen up over the embankment and down into the town from the NE corner or part-way along the ridge, rather than entering through the small and heavily guarded breach. That could also explain why the guards were again surprised by their “silent” entry. But the situation is not clear. It is not even certain that the cavalrymen were mounted (rather than being chosen for their trustworthiness or skill), but we assume so, given the distinction from infantry.

The collocation εἰς (or ἐπὶ) ὅπλα χωρεῖν was used often by Diodorus (4 times) and especially Dionysius (11 in Ant. rom.), after Euripides, Bacch. 758, before Josephus picked it up as a formula (War 2.517 [cf. 1.77; 2.212]; Ant. 5.103, 150; 17.242; 20.3, 120; Life 31, 391). Or “entry, ingress” (εἰσβολή), re-used at 4.78 to recall the whole army’s earlier assault. The compound verb ἐπισύρω is attested only 17 times before Josephus (Xenophon 1, Demosthenes 1, Polybius 3, Dionysius 1, Philo 1). Josephus has it 3 times, all in this volume and the next (4.586; 5.387). See note at 4.8. This might suggest that Titus had entered at a lower point, perhaps through the earlier breach, though he might have come in through the NE (by the fallen tower) and down the E-most street, sending townsfolk running to the W height, from which some would jump. The artful phrase ἀνέφευγον μετὰ κωκυτοῦ καὶ βοῆς recalls Euripides, Suppl. 721 (βοὴ δὲ καὶ κωκυτὸς ἦν ἀνὰ πτόλιν), where a messenger describes the mayhem of battle when Athens attacked Thebes on behalf of Argos. Josephus uses κωκυτός (“shriek”), a word known mainly from Greek myth and tragedy (Homer, Aeschylus, Euripides, Sophocles; cf. Plato, Phaed. 113c on Hades and what the poets call the River of Shrieks / Wails), 6 times, remarkably all in War 3–4 (3.202, 262; 4.110, 260, 309). It is absent from the major historians or Philo, but was used by the more tragically accommodating Dionysius, Ant. rom. 8.54.1: “the women all together cried out a piercing and prolonged shriek” (ἀνεβόησαν ἅμα πᾶσαι κωκυτὸν ὀξὺν καὶ μακρόν). The verb ὑπαντιάζω counts as distinctive Josephan language. It appears 40 times throughout his whole corpus. Before him, it is attested only 29 times in all Greek literature, 11 of those occurrences in Philo. Pindar (4), Aeschylus (3), Herodotus (1), and Xenophon (3) are possible influences, but the shared diction with Philo, here as often, makes his influence more likely. Lit., “unceasingly.” Josephus has used the same phrase, ἀδιαλείπτως ἔπιπτον, to describe the Romans’ ability to pick off Judeans from the wall of Iotapata (3.241).

See note at 4.23 and to “summit” in 4.8. Here κορυφή: apparently the dromedary “hump” as distinct from the main ridge. See note at 4.25. See note at 4.12. A key word (φονεύω) in War, cognates of which appear 129 times. The verb is closely linked to and used interchangeably with ἀποσφάζω (“cut the throats,” “butcher,” 38 times in War). These are among the more vivid terms in Josephus’ ample lexicon of killing; see note to “butchered them all” at 4.38. The verb ἐπικλύζω (“flood over, drench, drown”) is uncommon but favored by Diodorus (14 times) and Philo of Alexandria (25 times). Normally, it is used of water (Ant. 1.78, 96, 101, 114), metaphorically of an army or Roman power. Josephus has it 8 times, but in War he innovates with the gory image of drenching by blood (here and at 2.497; 4.313).

To say the least, this is not plausible: if Vespasian’s “entire force” means the army of 60,000 described at 3.64–69. In literary terms, however, the story parallels the preceding one at Tarichea, which would be remembered alongside Gamala as Titus’ signal victories before Jerusalem (Suetonius, Tit. 4.3). Vespasian is present for both, but allows his 27-year-old son to gain confidence by commanding a cavalry group of some hundreds, in ultimately safe operations (even if Titus must learn to deal with fear), with Vespasian standing by to mop up with the main force, however large. nb: With Gischala (4.84), after the present success, Vespasian feels confident enough to leave Titus alone with 1,000 cavalry as he takes the main army away to winter quarters. That Suetonius could not include Gischala among Titus’ early successes is telling of the debacle described (if embellished) by Josephus. Just as at 4.20 Vespasian could not have led more than some hundreds (max. 2,000?) through the breach in Gamala’s wall—we imagine that much of his army has taken garrison duties around Galilee or is now providing background support for the assault on Gamala—so his “entire force” must be a vague or merely exaggerated reference to the units assigned to this mission. Cf. 3.503–505: Vespasian, having sent Titus with a picked force to suppress Tarichea (3.470–71), follows his success with a mopping-up operation using the larger army. Vespasian’s ability to block those fleeing to the summit with infantry might suggest that he entered at the NE corner by the fallen tower. It is not clear.

See note at 4.23. Josephus has used this distinctive collocation (πετρώδης καὶ δύσβατος) at 1.368 and (of the approach to Iotapata) 3.141. For the latter adjective, thematic in the Gamala story, see note at 4.6. Repeating a phrase from the opening description (4.8), thus helping the sense of ring composition. Lit., “filled with depth.” See next note. Intensive scribal activity in the mss at this sentence confirms the general opinion that something is missing. Ms L and marginal readings in P and M insert a form of πλῆθος: a clump or mass (mob) of people clings to the peak. L has this instead of “depth” (ΠΛΗΘΟΥΣ over ΒΑΘΟΥΣ; Thackeray lcl wonders about ΠΑΘΟΥΣ, “filled with suffering / tragedy”): the sides of the peak were filled with people rather than depth. It is an arresting and more plausible image, especially in light of what follows at 4.77. A further difficulty is the uncertain relationship between ΚΑΤΕΓΕΜΕΝ (“filled with”) and ΚΑΤΕΤΕΜΝΟΝ (“cut by”), which look similar and are perhaps redundant. Text-critical principle (cf. Pelletier and M-B) favors the more difficult, less corrected, and simpler reading: full of depth, surrounded (and perhaps cut) by cliffs.

Cf. 3.165: another parallel with the Iotapata story, in which defending Judeans “let loose / discharge” (ἐπαφίημι—a word favored by Josephus) boulders from the walls on legionaries below. The present passage has the only occurrence in Josephus of a verb that is rare in all 3 of its forms (cf. note to “rolled out” at 4.65): κατακυλίω, κατακυλίνδω, and κατακυλινδέω. He is the first known user of the last form (and only here). He has the first form once, in a similar context at the siege of Jerusalem (6.60, and note the Roman assault from “some other-worldly impulse” at 6.59). As for the boulders being rolled down (πέτρας κατακυλινδοῦντες): in combat scenes we think more readily of “stones” (πέτροι) fired by ballistae or slings (1.147; 3.167, 173, 240; 4.19; 6.309; 7.309). Josephus’ language here describes larger rocks, which must have been sufficiently round to roll. Where did they come from? At Masada, where the vast majority of incoming stones found by archaeologists weigh no more than 3 kg (6.6 lbs), one weighs 22 kg (50 lbs). In addition, piles of much larger rocks, weighing on average 45 kg (100 lbs) and evidently for rolling down the slopes, were found (Yadin 1966: 156, 162–63; Ben-Tor 2009: 242–43). Since the legions had machines capable of launching such boulders (see War 5.270–72 and note to “engines forward” at 4.17), if the scene Josephus describes occurred the possibilities seem to be: (i) that the residents were using rocks that had been fired in, possibly of 20–30 kg weight, although they have not yet been found at the site; (ii) they themselves had earlier fashioned spherical rocks and kept them at the summit for such an occasion; or (iii) they found a few natural rocks that were sufficiently round to roll down—and Josephus exaggerates what happened occasionally as a mass tactic. Rolling rocks down such a peak, where they could go in any direction, seems unlikely to have been effective, however, unless it occurred en masse. This neat but rare adjective (δυσέφικτος), attested mainly in Polybius (2), Diodorus (6), and Philo (2; note the impressive list of δυσ-words at Sacr. 32) before Josephus’ time, appears in his corpus elsewhere only in the Iotapata story, with roles reversed (3.287), helping to cement the lexical bond between these episodes. This word (ὕψος) is rendered “height” in the preceding sentence, the translation adjusted here to avoid the implication that Judeans were taller than Romans.

See note at 4.34. Syon (2014a:16) on the easterly winds, funneled by the gorge, as experienced by modern archaeologists: “Sporadic blasts of these winds can stop one from breathing, blow clouds of dust and make airborne almost anything that is not tied down or made of stone.” Nevertheless, the striking parallel with the Masada story, in which the strong wind suddenly reversed itself against the Judeans, “by other-worldly provision” (7.318) as here, requires us to consider artful literary aspects of the story. Perhaps the Gamala experience, which Josephus witnessed at some distance, helped him write the Masada narrative, the events behind which occurred while he was in Rome. The phrase πρὸς ἀπώλειαν, sometimes with demonstrative pronoun as here (αὐτῶν), is characteristic of Josephus. Earlier attestations, continuing a pattern frequently noted in the commentary, are mainly in Diodorus (4 times) and Philo (Mos. 1.146). Josephus has it 9 times: with pronoun as here at War 5.363; 6.442, without at 3.293; 4.364; 5.424; Ant. 11.262, 278, 279 (all in the Esther story). The verb παρασύρω was not common. Of the first 29 tlg attestations before Josephus (also 6.61; Ant. 6.363), 3 are in Aesop, 9 in Diodorus, 3 in Strabo, and 5 in Philo. A few others have it once.

Josephus’ ὑπόκρημνος, emphasizing steepness with the preposition, occurs only here in his corpus and elsewhere only once in Diodorus and 3 times in Strabo before him, not again until the 10th century. See note to “stable [ground]” at 4.44. Apparently because the head-on gale is blinding them, not because of distance.

Although the double compound ἐπαναβαίνω is not difficult, it is rare (only 23 attestations before Josephus 7 in Aristotle and Theophrastus). Demetrius, Eloc. 270 uses it once, artfully, in describing literary climax, each statement climbing ever higher. Josephus has it 3 times (also War 3.314, 380). See note to this word at 4.47, where Vespasian calls for vengeance on behalf of the lost, instilling fury in the soldiers. Vengeance for the loss of brothers-in-arms or even for the defeat of different units has always motivated soldiers, and commanders both encourage and channel it for specific aims, while trying to prevent irrational expressions. In Book 3, the siege of Iotapata occurred at least partly because of Placidus’ humiliation there (3.110–14, 141–44), and just after Vespasian permitted his soldiers to furiously sack Gabara (apparently otherwise innocent, devoid of fighters) in vengeance for the loss of Cestius’ legion outside Jerusalem months earlier (3.132–33). In the debacle led by Vespasian: 4.17–38.

Or “safety, preservation, deliverance.” See note at 4.51. Despairing of rescue (ἀπογινώσκω with σωτηρία) is a reoccurring and characteristic phrase in Josephus: War 1.658; 4.360; 5.480, 499; 6.171; Ant. 2.140; 2.333, 336; 3.297; 13.99—note the consistent authorial hand in material of divergent provenance. It is attested before him only 44 times, and 37 of these are in Polybius (7), Diodorus (25), and Philo (5), also possible influences. The verb suggests helplessness from lack of knowledge (of a remedy), aporia, being at a complete loss. Having no “hope of rescue” (4.312, 338) amounts to the same thing. This is the simpler compound, active voice (κατακρημνίζω), of the double-compound and nearly unique verb at 4.65 (see note to “down the bank”). Cf. 4.6 and “deepest ravine” at 4.8—down the steeper, northern slope from the ridge. See also note to “5,000” at 4.80. It is possible that this refers to 4.9, where vaguely mentions his digging ditches or trenches to enhance the site’s inaccessibility—in the rebellion against Agrippa in late 66/early 67, months before the Flavians’ arrival. See note at 4.8 and to “peak” at 4.23. Here perhaps he uses the words interchangeably.

In Antiquities (1.80; 7.1; 8.289; 9.183) Josephus occasionally begins sentences with συνέβη, perhaps recalling biblical וַיְהִ֗י, although the lxx formulaically renders that καὶ ἐγένετο (avoided by Josephus). War seems to use this construction to highlight moments of solemnity, unexpected congruence, great suffering, or fortune’s reversals: 1.226; 2.206; 3.312; 4.147, 354, 429; 5.25, 289; 7.55; cf. Life 245. Among historians before Josephus, the phrase is found mainly in Polybius (15 times) and Diodorus (18), whereas he has it 23 times, as well as many times with καί or γοῦν. Or (especially political) “imprudence, foolhardiness, irresponsibility, impulsiveness, madness” (ἀπόνοια). See note to “madness” at 2.265 in bjp 1b: 215. This becomes a thematic term from here onward in War: 22 of its 25 occurrences, mainly encapsulating the flight from reason, moderation, and/or shame that lead to Jerusalem’s destruction, in tandem with the self-destructive civil strife that is beginning to congeal (in this volume: 4.127, 241, 261, 362, 571). Theophrastus’ 3rd-cent. bce collection of 30 negative character traits (Characters) defines ἀπόνοια as tolerance of what is shameful in word and deed, and immodest behavior in general. First attested in Thucydides (1.82.4; 7.67.4) in the sense of tactical “desperation,” it became a scattershot weapon—political “recklessness, utter carelessness, lack of prudence or strategy”—in the rhetoric of Athenian orators (Demosthenes 9 times, e.g. Cor. 249; esp. Aristog. 1.32–35; cf. Hyperides, Dem. frag. 3.7; Dinarchus, Dem. 82, 104—the last two accuse Demosthenes of being demented). Demosthenes anticipates Josephus’ language in writing (Aristog. 32), “The reckless [irresponsible etc.] person has completely let himself go, and any rescue [deliverance] from reasoning. If he should be rescued at all, he is rescued by something quite unexpected and unfathomable.” Polybius uses the word in this sense (1.70.5, 82.1; 2.35.2, 47.4; 9.39.1; 13.4.4; 16.32.1; 21.34.12; 30.3.2; 33.10.6), and later Hellenistic historians pick up the word (11 times each in Dionysius and Diodorus; cf. 6 times in Poseidonius fragments). Josephus uses ἀπόνοια more programmatically and more frequently than his extant predecessors or contemporaries. See note at 4.38, here without prefix, and to “murdered” at 4.72. The tragic scenario of men killing their children and wives along with themselves recalls the episode of Simon of Scythopolis (War 2.469–76) and anticipates Masada (7.331–36, 389–98), although the alleged number vastly exceeds either (Masada: 960). At Gamala, the figure of 9,000 remaining at this point, 5.000 killing themselves, seems far too high because: (i) Josephus’ numbers are usually much exaggerated (often by a factor of 10); (ii) 5,000 seems to have been the town’s regular capacity (Syon 2014a: 9); (iii) although it had swelled with refugees (4.10), most of those have in the meantime fled or been killed (4.20–22, 26, 62, 65–67); and (iv) the highest peak, from which a plunge could likely cause death, was not only difficult to reach; it could accommodate at most a “few score” (Syon 2014a: 17). There is no reason to doubt (though we cannot prove) that some desperate residents fled the advancing Romans and, running out of ground, leapt from the peak. A well-attested modern case of a similar act was in July 1944, when about 1,000 men, women, and children on Saipan Island fled advancing U.S. forces until, having run out of ground, they jumped from Marpi Point (61 m, 200 ft-high). See Rottman 2002: 376–380. nb: The impossibility of Vespasian’s bringing his reported 60,000 strong army to Gamala is highlighted by the fact that the U.S. invasion force for that 19 × 9 km (12 × 5.6 mi) island, in a major battle of World War ii, was only slightly larger (ca. 70,000). In terms of Josephus’ themes, a basic difference between Gamala and Masada is that Judeans here fight relentlessly, against impossible odds (and have temporary success), and only jump when physically chased, whereas on Masada Eleazar makes long speeches to persuade his people for collective suicide, with no attempt to fight. It is the literal dead end of his unrealistic program.

In this, too, the story anticipates that of Masada’s end (7.399), where 2 women—one a relative of an eminent figure—along with 5 children conceal themselves (same verb: λανθάνω) and live to tell the tale. In both cases, especially Masada, the historian might suspect that Josephus needed and therefore created survivors to give credibility to his account of what happened inside, though at Gamala he was presumably present in the Roman camp. No more is heard of these women, but Josephus’ identification of them presents puzzles. As we have seen (notes to “these” at 4.2 and “rebellion” at 4.4), Philip appears in Life as doggedly loyal to Agrippa, and instrumental in restoring Gamala’s fidelity to him after the debacle under Noarus/Varus. Philip departs Gamala with his Babylonian-Judean clan (Life 182–84) in late 66, about a year before this latest rebellion against Agrippa. Since Josephus also describes a serious conflict between the normal residents of Gamala and the Babylonian-Judean visitors (177–78, 185–86), which results in the murder of (some of) Philip’s relatives, it is puzzling that many months later, after a still more intense turn against Agrippa and the arrival of the king’s enemies from elsewhere, Philip’s nieces should be in the town. One possibility is that they have married local men, perhaps during the earlier long stay, and so remained when others of their clan left; now their husbands—joining the defection from Agrippa or merely trapped in their native town—have been killed in the fighting. We seem to hear of a brother of Philip at Life 178, married to the sister of Iustus of Tiberias, a leader of that city who plays a prominent role in Life but is absent from War. We know nothing of Philip’s sister, but if they represent the 3rd generation from a patriarch supported by Herod ca. 10 bce (dates uncertain), whose son flourished from perhaps 10/20 to 50 ce, then Philip and his sister would likely be in their 30s or 40s by now, with children of marriageable teen age. An intriguing character in any historical reconstruction of the war’s origins. Ant. 17.23–31 explains that King Herod settled Philip’s Babylonian-Judean grandfather Zamaris (who had first moved near Antioch with 500 horse-mounted archers) in Batanea to protect Trachonitis, giving him a free hand as a local strong man. Eventually, Zamaris died and his son Iacimus succeeded him, and when he died the Greek-named Philip took over this role. These men remained in service to the Herodians, down to Agrippa ii, with a considerable measure of independence—even maintaining a somewhat separate army. War introduces Philip at 2.421 (see note in bjp 1b: 321), when Agrippa sends him at the head of a rapid-reaction force of 2,000 cavalry (August 66) to assist Jerusalem’s leaders against their emboldened militants (who massacre the auxiliary garrison but release Philip’s Judean force); then at 2.556, which says that Philip fled Jerusalem after Cestius’ rebuff (October 66) to meet the legate farther N (bjp 1b: 378–79). The latter passage contradicts Life 46–61, 177–80, 407–409, which provide a fuller description of Philip’s activities; see notes to “these” at 4.2 and “rebellion” at 4.4 above. The present reintroduction of Philip neither assumes nor requires Life’s later information. It fits with War’s brief notices about Philip’s eminence and trusted role with Agrippa, which are all that War’s audiences know. On Philip, see Price 1991. Agrippa ii: see 4.2, 4, 10, 14 with notes. Reading στραταρχήσαντος with mss mvrc rather than τετραρχήσαντος (“served as tetrarch”) in mss pal and the Latin. The latter seems to come from scribal confusion with Philip son of King Herod, the famous tetrarch over much of Agrippa ii’s later territory. It is less likely that scribes found it problematic that Philip ben Iacimus’ family members would still be at rebel Gamala, and so “corrected” the text. The former reading fits with War 2.421, where Philip is introduced as Agrippa’s στρατηγός (cf. στρατοπεδάρχης at 2.556; Life 407).

See note to “slingers” at 4.14: a vividly violent image. Cf. the 2 women survivors of Masada’s mass self-immolation, at 7.399.

See note to Hyperbereteus at 4.63, the 23rd being ca. 18 October 67 (Julian calendar). Since the new moon of Elul-Gorpieus was on 28 August in 67, the 24th was about 20 September. For this as the date of the latest “rebellion/defection” from Agrippa, see note at 4.4.

Lying off the NE slope of Mt. Meron on Upper Galilee, 5 km (3 mi) from the Lebanese border today, El-Jish (Gush Halav in rabbinic literature) is a Maronite Christian and Greek Catholic town in Israel. It slopes gradually about 50 m (160 ft) to the NW from Lake Dalton above on the SE. The ancient site lay just to the E and included upper and lower parts. Surface surveys yielded a considerable amount of Hellenistic-Roman small finds (pottery shards and coins), but the structures are from the 3rd (including a synagogue) to the 6th centuries; see E. M. Meyers abd. No walls have been found, suggesting that any 1st-cent. fortification was negligible. Josephus’ account assumes that, though remote, the site would have quickly capitulated to Titus’ 1,000 cavalry if it had come to that. Josephus has a clear structure for these 3 leftovers from Book 3, and anticipates Gischala at 4.1. On his possible reasons for leaving them until Book 4—most obviously to track John’s story (as famed lead tyrant of Jerusalem) from Gischala to the mother-polis—see Mason 2016a: 379–80. Although Gischala has been named 5 times earlier (2.575, 585, 621, 629, 632), especially at 2.629 as a city hostile to Josephus in his conflict with John, he has not described it. That is unusual for scenes of conflict in War, as we have with Gamala and Tabor above or other sites earlier. Possible explanations include: (i) that he had never been to Gischala; (ii) that it was not impressive by natural situation or fortifications as Gamala, Tabor, Iotapata, and Jerusalem were; and (iii) that his story has little to do with its topography or negligible fortification. Although the diminutive πολίχνη had a clear enough meaning, it was rarely used (Hesiod 1, Thucydides 1, Callimachus 1). The standouts are Dionysius (4) and especially Strabo (40). Josephus has it 15 times, however, all in War and mostly (9 of 15) in Book 4, often in a pair with κώμη (“village”: 1.334; 3.134, 430; 4.438, 442). On War’s possible debts to Strabo, see Shahar 2004. Josephus uses πολίχνη for the obscure Idumean village Chaalis (3.20), Gischala (4.84), En-Gedi (4.402), significant settlements in the Transjordan (4.438), Hebron (4.529), and famed Egyptian Tanis (4.660). This frequent but imprecise use suggests that he had the word in his head while composing Book 4, but lost interest in Books 5 through 7 (and Antiquities-Life). An artful adjective (ἀχείρωτος), only here in Josephus and barely attested earlier (e.g., Thucydides 6.10.5; Sophocles, Oed. col. 698; Diodorus 5.15.5; 18.24.2; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 19.6.2; Philo, Prob. 149). There is no corresponding noun without the privative, and so the inclusio ends with a form of ἁλίσκομαι (“take, conquer”) at 4.120, with Gischala as the last Flavian concern in Galilee. See note to “mob” at 4.57. This phrase (εἰρηνικὰ φρονέω) is characteristic of War (also 2.302; 3.30, 458, 120; 5.110; 6.344), though unattested before him except in Philo, Ios. 166. It does not appear in Josephus’ later writings. The phrase does not signify a recognizable “peace party” in a unified war against Rome, but rather takes its meaning from the particular situation. Here it opens an inclusio, for the conclusion of the Gischala episode (4.120) will repeat the phrase in confirming this distinction between the peaceful majority and non-native troublemakers who find it in their personal interest to prevent peace (cf. crucially 4.97). That model reoccurs programmatically in War: not in Josephus’ Iotapata, significantly, but in Tiberias (3.448, 459–59), Tarichea (3.463, 492–93), Gamala (less clear, but War 4.10 with Life 185–86), and especially Jerusalem, overrun by “tyrants” and militants from elsewhere, after the murder of its native leaders and the flight of most leading citizens (2.302–304, 332, 341, 422, 533–34; 4.89, 387–91; 6.344). See on this passage Miller 2001: 458. This rare double-compound verb (παρεισφθείρομαι) appears again at 4.136, then disappears from surviving literature until the 4th century. It furnishes a clear case of Philonic influence (i.e., from Philo or a shared literary culture), since he is the only attested user before Josephus (Agr. 15; Spec. 4.33; Legat. 166, 200). The phrase λῃστρικν τάγμα, only here in Josephus, is equivalent to λῃστρικὸν στῖφος (3.450; Ant. 8.204; Life 21) or simply τὸ λῃστρικόν at 1.11 (programmatically), 4.406 (after the murder of Jerusalem’s leaders), and 6.370 concluding the prologue’s theme (the tyrants and the bandit element with them)—τάγμα being standard Greek for a Roman legion (among other groups). Since Josephus has been using the word for a legion (4.13, 63) and will continue to do so (4.87), this seems to be a deliberate contrast with the measly and motley Judean-bandit “legion” of Gischala. “Bandit” language is characteristic of War, with 71 occurrences of the word group. Although the banditry he describes undoubtedly had a foundation in the behavior of the groups in question—without a regular polis home, living outside the law (Rajak 2002: 85, 123, 132, 144)—Josephus readily uses the word-group for political opponents. This made sense in antiquity (other ancient writers did it too) because banditry was not a matter of class conflict, but in a vertically oriented society, strong men who found themselves outside the presently accepted power hierarchies had their own circles of clients (Shaw 1984, 1993, 1995). See the note to “chief bandit” at 2.56 in bjp 1b. As one of War’s main “tyrants,” John naturally has “bandit” followers, and they will soon bring about the tyrant-bandit domination of Jerusalem. Who were these “bandits” and what motivated them? In Life 43–45, John erects a wall for his native Gischala, not against Rome but because residents of Tyre, Gadara, and Sogane have attacked and burned his town. The attackers may have seen this as payback for recent and unprovoked Judean raids on them: according to War 2.459, Judeans attacked sites throughout S Syria in retaliation for the massacre of Judeans in coastal Caesarea, and their targets included “Kadasa of the Tyrians” along with Gadara and Hippos. nb: Life 42 has leaders of Judean Tiberias likewise raiding and burning villages belonging to Gadara and Hippos, in the same period of growing regional unrest. But in Life, John tries urgently to dispel any sentiments among his followers that would connect these local conflicts with anti-Roman sentiment. It therefore seems likely, in spite of Josephus’ hostile language here, that John was not initially motivated by anti-Roman feelings. Cf. Rappaport 2013. Rather, leaders of neighboring towns have aired their grievances about Judean attacks, and Vespasian and Titus have given them a sympathetic hearing. Already on his arrival at Ptolemais, Vespasian was sufficiently persuaded by Decapolis representatives to condemn Justus, a prominent councilman from Tiberias, for burning neighboring property (Life 410; cf. 42). As John’s former rival for power and status in Galilee, Josephus is quick to portray him and his armed followers as “bandits,” implying an anti-Roman orientation. But that is hard to square with other evidence. Moreover, it seems that John has expanded his following to include refugees from across S Syria (Judean and perhaps foreign); see War 2.625 and note to “Tyrians” at 4.105 below. The distinction between bandits and citizenry here (next note) and the language of infection suggest that outsiders play a significant role in his entourage. Such newcomers might have taken up arms defensively, alongside townsfolk in Gischala, attracting Josephus’ label “bandit contingent.” Or “of the body politic” (τοῦ πολιτικοῦ); see note at 4.243. Since Josephus often calls any significant settlement, including Gischala, a πόλις (4.92–97, 103–104), it is natural to refer to the town’s constituent body thus. No formal citizenship is necessarily in view, but long-time residents would know each other and naturally take positions of leadership, remaining easily distinguishable from the recent arrivals just mentioned: those rallying to John’s protective strength from elsewhere. Or “caught the same plague.” Although Thucydides uses νόσος for the literal plague that overtook Athens (2.47.3, 49.6 etc.), in a time of war, many ancient authors used the word as a metaphor of political disease: bloody civil strife. So Plato (Resp. 5.470c): “When it is like this, that Greeks take action against Greeks, we shall declare that by nature we [Greeks] are friends, but in such a case as this Greece is ill (νόσειν) and troubled by sedition” (στάσιάζειν).” Metaphors of political disease were common in Rome (in general, Lintott 1968, 1982; Keitel 1984: 320 and n. 32; Sallust, Bell. cat. 36.5; Tacitus, Ann. 1.43.4; Hist. 1.26.1). Since War has συννοσέω 3 times (also 3.4; 4.407), whereas it is attested only 11 times earlier (Euripides 4, Hippocratic corpus 3 [literal], Aristotle 1, Dionysius 1, Philo 2 [Legat. 16, 356]), and outside of Plutarch’s 9 occurrences remains chiefly a medical term, the metaphor counts as characteristic language in War, picking up the proem’s motif of civil strife as a plague (1.4; 2.264; 4.376; 7.260, 437).

This verb (ἐνάγω) is an example of a simple word that is difficult to translate consistently in War 4. Sometimes, as here, it has the clear sense of “leading one in” to a decision by deception (as 4.126, 525). But elsewhere a sincere effort to convince is in view (4.410), 4.636 being an artfully ambiguous case with Caecina’s defection to Vespasian. See the notes to “rebellion” at 2.39 (bjp 1b) and 4.4 above. Or “whipped them into shape.” Josephus’ language here (λῃστρικοῦ τάγματος … ἐνῆγε δὲ τούτους εἰς τὴν ἀπόστασιν καὶ συνεκρότει … γόης ἀνὴρ) closely resembles that at 2.264: οἱ γὰρ γόητες καὶ λῃστρικοὶ συναχθέντες πολλοὺς εἰς ἀπόστασιν ἐνῆγον καὶ πρὸς ἐλευθερίαν παρεκρότουν (see bjp 1b with notes). The verb συγκροτέω here (lit. “knock together,” hence “beat into shape, forge / weld as a unit, train”) is more common in literature, however, than his more distinctive παρακροτέω in the earlier passage (see note to “cajoling” at 4.19). The prefixes indicate different kinds of stimulus, from “prodding” or “rattling” to a more vigorous “training” as a unit. For John as a military trainer see 2.588, where he selects only the super-fit and welds them into an effective force; cf. Josephus’ use of the same verb for his training of an army at 2.583 and note to “welded together” ad loc. in bjp 1b. Of the first 103 occurrences of συγκροτέω in the tlg, nearly half (47) are in Philo, suggesting as often a shared literary culture with Josephus or his inspiration for Josephus’ 17 uses of this verb. John was well known in Josephus’ Rome as one of the two generals punished for the war, apparently serving perpetual incarceration at Josephus’ time of writing (War 6.434; Tacitus, Hist. 5.12). As Josephus’ arch-enemy in Galilee, he has been introduced twice: at 2.575 and 2.585–89 (see bjp 1b). The second passage is a sustained attack on his character, recalling Sallust’s description of the renegade senator L. Sergius Catilina (Bell. cat. 5; cf. Thackeray lcl ad loc.). This reintroduction, after John’s absence from War 3, uses different vocabulary to make the same points about his character. Josephus will restate them yet again at 4.208–209; cf. 389, 564, not letting audiences forget his disparagement. Life (43–45, 189–92) presents a rather different initial picture of John, although he likewise ends up there as Josephus’ malicious opponent. Even his patronym changes there from War’s Λήιος (related to λήιον, ﬁeld) to Λευίς (= Levite or son of Levi; Life 122). See the note to “enchanter” at 2.261 in bjp 1b and War 2.565 (of Zealot founder Eleazar son of Simon). The phrase γόης ἀνήρ reappears at War 5.317 (Castor); Ant. 20.297 (Theudas). Though part of Josephus’ repertoire of abuse, he uses γόης mainly for those who persuade with fine-sounding language, reflecting the root sense of one who howls out enchantments (γοάω), thus a wizard or sorcerer. Justus of Tiberias allegedly makes a bad case sound good through verbal wizardry and trickery (γοητείᾳ καὶ ἀπάτῃ, Life 40), in a passage echoing Plato’s portrayal of sophists as enchanters (Soph. 234c, 235a, 241b; Euthyd. 288b; Pol. 291c, 303c; Gorg. 483e); later authors likewise use the word of political mischief-makers, often pairing it with language of deceit and trickery: Demosthenes, Cor. 276; Polybius 4.20.5; esp. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 11.25.4; Is. 4; Thuc. 6–7; Strabo, Geog. 7.3.11; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 2.19; cf. 32.11, 39, 77/78.34. Philo interprets Deut 13:1–6 such that one who uses ostensibly inspired speech to lead people to worship other gods “is an enchanter, not a prophet” (Spec. 1.315). Lit. “colorful. many-colored in character,” but meaning “shifty, dishonest.” The same phrase (ποικιλώτατος τὸ ἦθος) is used of Herod’s son Antipater at 1.468, a small confirmation that Josephus did not merely copy source material for the Herod story. In the 6th cent. bce Theognis (El. 1.213, 1071) had used the phrase to recommend adapting one’s posture to that of friends, for such wisdom is “better than even great virtue.” Perhaps in conscious challenge, Plato used the phrase to contrast a chameleon-like character with a stable one concerned with truth (Resp. 605a; Leg. 704d). Philo, a reader of Plato and one of the few other users of the phrase (Prob. 155; Legat. 59), might have inspired Josephus. in Rome, Sallust had memorably attributed to Catilina “a mind that was bold, clever, and shifty” (animus audax, subdolus, varius), language that Plutarch roughly captures in describing Catilina (Cic. 10.3) as “a man who was bold, megalomaniacal, and shifty in character” (ἄνδρα τολμητὴν καὶ μεγαλοπράγμονα καὶ ποικίλον τὸ ἦθος). Josephus makes the adjective superlative for John, as he does for Antipater. The adjective δεινός is difficult to translate because it can convey all aspects of “awe-inspiring,” both good and bad, thus “terrible, awful, awesome.” Although it is tempting to supply a negative translation, Josephus is quite capable of recognizing his enemies’ virtues and talents, even when they are employed for unworthy ends. Cf. his introduction of John at 2.585–89, which credits his persuasive ability and talent in recruiting fine soldiers. Josephus uses the same adjective there (2.586): “Though ready to lie, he was formidable at conveying trustworthiness for the things he had lied about, regarding as a virtue his trickery—and the use of this against those dearest to him.” I.e., he was ruthless in fulfilling his ambitions. Cf. Sallust on Catlilina (Bell. cat. 5.6–7): “he was seized by a consuming lust to take control of the republic (lubido maxuma … rei publicae capiundae). How he would achieve this did not concern him in the slightest, as long as it provided him with the rule (neque id quibus modis adsequeretur, dum sibi regnum pararet, quicquam pensi habebat).” See the note to 2.585 in bjp 1b. Given the similarity of subject matter, the fame of Thucydides, and Josephus’ echoes of him elsewhere, it seems possible that his vocabulary here means to evoke the Athenian’s description of civil war in Corcyra, which was caused by a lust for power (Thucydides 3.82.8): παντὶ δὲ τρόπῳ ἀγωνιζόμενοι ἀλλήλων περιγίγνεσθαι ἐτόλμησάν τε τὰ δεινότατα ἐπεξῇσάν τε τὰς τιμωρίας…. In War 1.4–5, Josephus programmatically claims that many in Rome and Judea were elated by the disturbances around the time of Nero’s death, in the hope of improving their position or acquisitions. Compare the alleged love of war at Life 24 and contrast the (proper and sound) love of peace at 2.422, 650; 4.418. Since the prologue (1.5: πολλοὺς μὲν βασιλειᾶν ὁ καιρὸς ἀνέπειθεν), Josephus has assumed the trope (cf. Sallust, Bell. cat. 2.2 [Cyrus and Greek poleis made lust for domination into a cause of war (lubidinem dominandi causam belli)]; 37.3) that some people seek or exploit political turmoil for their advantage, with no concern for the political community. This is the telltale trait of the “tyrants” he rails against, including John (1.10–11, 27; cf. Ant. 5.234, 339; Herodotus 3.80). See previous note. John’s Galileans remain his support base in the pursuit of δυναστεία at 4.559 (also the word here: “supreme power”), which sets the scene for the new tyrant Simon’s bid for δυναστεία at 4.576, and for Eleazar ben Simon’s at 5.5. In War, each of the “tyrants” in Jerusalem is seeking supreme power to the catastrophic detriment of the community.

Or “agents of civil strife” (στασιώδεις), a synonym for the much more common στασιαστής (4.410 and note). Before Josephus, this word appears once or twice only in each of Demosthenes, Xenophon, Aristotle, Polybius, Poseidonius, Chrysippus, Dionysius, and Philo, whereas he has it 16 times. Along with στασιαστής, it is thus part of his characteristic vocabulary. All but 3 occurrences are in War, where civil strife (στάσις) is a key term; see the notes to “civil strife” and “insurgents” at 1.10 and to “insurgents” at Life 17 in bjp 9. These are conveniently indistinct terms, evoking the broad category of political “troublemakers” familiar to his audience (cf. Latin seditiosus). Or “right away, perhaps, probably,” reading ταχ᾽ ἄν with ms L (Niese’s recommendation, with Thackeray lcl, Pelletier, M-B), rather than τυχόν with the other mss, because the context requires a subjunctive sense unrealized: the populace was not able to make peace overtures because of the bandit gang’s presence. The contrast reflects a well-known pattern in ancient literature and modern history, assumed also by Josephus (Mason 2016a: 127–28). When a powerful commander enters a region, leaders of nearby poleis go to meet him, to confirm their loyalty and friendship, and to assure themselves proactively of his protection and favor (2.297, 318–25, 335–36; 3.30–31; Ant. 16.14; 18.120–21; Life 410). Waiting for an army on campaign (or a powerful leader with escort) to come to them, unsure of their posture and likely to assume their hostility if in doubt, was never sensible. If the Gischalans have failed to reach out to Vespasian so far, that may be the simple reason for this visit by Titus. It is also possible that Josephus, the Flavians’ prisoner and one of their interpreters, has recommended a call on his old enemy. Vespasian does not seem at all concerned by a threat in Gischala, however, sending the inexperienced Titus on his first lone operation, without backup as he leads the main army away to winter quarters, in spite of Titus’ patchy record so far (3.289–306, 470–505, 522–31).

See note to “cavalrymen” at 4.57. Unlike the enhanced wing of 600 used by Placidus at Tabor or Titus earlier, Titus here takes a more typical 2 wings of about 500, each presumably with its own prefect—possibly Agrippa’s in this case, for ease of communication with the locals. Titus’ force configuration suggests something about his intentions. Gischala was a comfortable day’s journey on horseback (30–36 km [18–22 mi], depending on the route) from Gamala. With no infantry, siege equipment, engineers, or logistical planning, Titus apparently expects to receive Gischala’s immediate surrender, upon seeing a cavalry force at least as large as the town’s likely population, which is ready to storm the town if necessary (4.92). Although he might have succeeded with the enhanced wing of 600, perhaps experience had taught him that an extra 400 men insured him against the unexpected (cf. 3.470–71, 485). Apparently we should understand that the town would have submitted readily, had John not tricked him. Josephus’ implication that John’s submission in Gischala should have been the work of an afternoon, but turned into a major debacle affecting Jerusalem’s fate (where John will soon be tyrant), fuels the powerful sense of tragedy in War. See note at 4.54. As Josephus will explain when he comes to narrate Judea’s ancient past (Ant. 5.83; 6.374; 12.348; 13.188), the site known among Judeans as Bethesana or Bethsan (בית שאן: “house of She’an,” Arab. Beisan) had come to be called Scythopolis (“polis of the Scythians,” possibly after a 7th-cent. bce Scythian invasion; Thackeray lcl). Pliny (Nat. 5.74) connects the city with Liber-Dionysus, claiming that this god buried his nurse-nymph Nysa there and so the city had previously borne her name. The site, which dates to at least 4000 bce, was extensively excavated from the late 20th cent. (Mazar 2008; Mazor et al. 2015; Mazor and Atrash 2015). A spectacular archaeological park is the result, with the impressive acropolis containing remains from Egyptian rule a millennium before the Greeks. The theater, temples, baths, sculptures, agora, and streets now visible below mainly date from the 2nd cent. ce and later, but enough remains from earlier times to support Josephus’ remark that this was the greatest city of the Decapolis in his time, and a suitable base for 1 or 2 legions (3.412, 446) to billet; see Appendix A in bjp 9. We do not know whether he had visited Gerasa and other cities, for comparison. Scythopolis had been a Ptolemaic and Seleucid stronghold before John Hyrcanus (d. 104 bce) and his sons captured it near the end of his reign (1.65–66), possibly with help from within (Ant. 13.277, 280). It was among the poleis freed from Judean control by Pompey in 63 bce (War 1.156), when it reportedly needed repopulating, after the brief rebellion of Aristobulus’ son Alexander or perhaps because of earlier devastations (1.166). Josephus gives an idea of the size of its hinterland when he remarks that the territories of Scythopolis, Gadara, and Hippos formed the SE limits of Galilee. When regional hostilities developed, Scythopolis’ location made it, along with the villages belonging to Gadara and Hippos, a target for Judean raiders from Tiberias (Life 42, 341, 410), about 32 km (20 miles) N. Scythopolis also hosted a substantial Judean minority population (Fuks 1982): Josephus claims more than 13,000, the number allegedly massacred after the ambush of Cestius (2.466–76), tens of thousands at Life 26. A tenth of the lower figure seems plausible.

In 3.412–13, Josephus explains that Vespasian chose coastal Caesarea for his army’s winter quarters because it was well-equipped for that role. This makes sense given that (i) it was the local seat of Roman administration, (ii) it was already the home of the auxiliary army, (iii) it was a large and very Roman polis with all the accoutrements of entertainment facilities to the imperial cult. (iv) Caesarea was also the logical place from which to launch his Judean campaign the next spring, cordoning off and subduing Jerusalem. The city had an estimated population of 20–22,000 before the soldiers arrived. Since all 3 legions would nearly double the population and overburden resources (the auxiliary and allied forces presumably returned to their own bases), Vespasian sends only v Macedonica and x Fretensis there, Titus’ xv Apollinaris to Scythopolis, a similarly large and prosperous non-Judean polis with a Judean minority (previous notes). At 3.446, Vespasian dispatches Titus (from Caesarea Philippi by Panium) to recall v and x from Caesarea as he goes to Scythopolis to a rendezvous with xv there. Now, with Titus on the special mission to Gischala, Vespasian leads xv and v to Caesarea (Titus will join him after Gischala, 4.130), directing Trajan with the Tenth to Scythopolis—a rotation perhaps for the sake of morale, if Scythopolis was considered an inferior billet, or perhaps he wished to leave the Tenth closest to the N for now as his most trustworthy legion in case of further trouble. Such continuous exertion had not been planned by Vespasian. With the nearly instant quiescence of Galilee in the spring of 67, aside from the resistance at Iotapata and Iapha, he sent his army to “winter quarters” when summer had barely begun, in early July (3.409–13). After soon recalling them to deal with Agrippa’s towns in the late summer and early autumn (3.446–47), he had just begun to rest them at Hammat-Tiberias when Gamala demanded attention (4.11). Even without constant combat, this was an unusually long time to keep soldiers in the field and temporary (sometimes daily) camps, constantly adapting to logistical needs and food/water supplies. Vespasian knew the importance of rest in a secure place, restoration, and morale-building ahead of the main contest in the Judean hills. Surprisingly, although the verb εὐθηνέω was widely used and readily intelligible, εὐθηνία here (which Josephus uses only in War: 3.42, 50 [of Galilee and Samaria]; 4.463 [Jericho]; 6.216 [pre-war Jerusalem]) was favored by Judean authors. It is not found in other Greek historians. Of the first 51 occurrences in the tlg, 12 are in the lxx (for שָׂבָע) and 28 in Philo—another sign that Philo and Josephus shared a literary culture. At 3.413 Josephus explains Vespasian’s choice of these 2 cities as winter quarters by mentioning their pleasant climates (oddly, since the “suffocatingly hot” summer in each place had just begun, though presumably he anticipates the mild winter). Both cities were substantially larger than Tiberias or Sepphoris (populations ca. 20,000), well developed, and vibrant examples of a Greco-Roman civic life that would have been congenial to the legionaries. Both have been intensively excavated: see previous notes and Porath, Holum, and Raban 2008. Or “spirit.” Josephus uses Thucydides’ articular neuter τὸ πρόθυμον (Thucydides 3.82.8; 4.85.4; 6.69.3), which is otherwise rare (twice in Dionysius, once in Strabo), 9 times. All 3 occurrences in War fall in Book 4 (also 4.198, 621). Not surprisingly in a war monograph, αγων-cognates appear 42 times in War, in various senses related to struggle: military contest, contending, suffering agony or anguish, athletic contests in games. In this paragraph, such words appear 3 times (also “anguish”), highlighting a root theme of the work: the conquest of Jerusalem was no easy matter as the Flavian-hack propagandists in Rome are derisively claiming; it required supreme effort even for Rome’s might to suppress Judean manhood—and would have done so even without Jerusalem’s massive walls (1.2, 7–8; 5.315–16; 6.11–18, 33, 42–44, 129–92); cf. Mason 2016a: 101–106.

I.e., “very considerable labor” (litotes). The phrase (οὐ ὀλίγον πόνον) was not common. It was used by Thucydides (7.70.8) in a passage that Dionysius (Thuc. 26) quoted extensively as an example of that historian’s eloquence, which is “worthy of imitation” (27). It seems likely that Josephus intends a deliberate allusion. At Ant. 12.14, he uses it again, of the prospect of translating the Bible into Greek. This double compound (προανέχω as participle) is distinctively Josephan. Thucydides has it once (7.34.2). After only 1 further attestation in an astrological fragment, Josephus has the word 7 times; it will disappear again until Libanius in the 4th cent. Cf. 4.409, where the phrase indicates Jerusalem’s relation to Judea. See also “mother-city” and note at 4.123. “Royal city” is an intriguing phrase in this period. Jerusalem was traditionally that, under the later Hasmoneans, King Herod, Archelaus (ca. 104 bce to 6 ce), and Agrippa i (41–44 ce), and much earlier under David / Solomon and the kings of Judah. Since Agrippa’s death in 44 ce (as from 6 to 41 ce), however, Jerusalem has been under direct Roman rule within the province of Syria (Ant. 18.1–2), with the prefect-procurator and auxiliary army in Caesarea controlling security and external relations while the chief priests and other notables, with the help of King Agrippa ii (who is permitted to appoint the high priest: Ant. 20.196–97; cf. 15–16) responsible for internal affairs. Josephus may be thinking of the city’s long tradition, or be assuming that the Romans were planning to restore Agrippa ii to rule from a Jerusalem capital, or merely be stretching the point of Agrippa’s close relationship to the city, where he spends a good deal of time in his palace and has significant responsibilities, though it is not his capital; Caesarea Philippi is that (War 3.443–44). For Judeans from elsewhere streaming into Jerusalem, reversing the flow of Jerusalem’s own native population outward (2.556; 4.377–80), see 4.130–39, 241. “From the war” is a telling remark about their motivation. Judeans from the countryside newly occupied by Vespasian’s forces flee for the provisional safety of Jerusalem’s walls. Some may have the intention of making a stand against Rome in combat, but that is an unnecessary and implausible general motive. The influx reportedly includes some who have been radicalized (as we might say), who quickly attack Jerusalem’s nobility (4.140–46), though we do not know precisely why. The alleged reason, that those elites had entered talks with Roman leaders about surrender, is plausible enough, though it is not clear how their attackers would confidently know that. But even this does not necessarily mean that such aggressors hope to fight Roman legions. The killers might rather be acting from the fear that their last place of refuge will fall into Roman hands, especially if they have done anything that might be construed as uncooperative, such that they fear punishment. For most refugees, the simplest explanation of motive is that, when confronted with occupation of their towns by foreign soldiers and seeing compatriot militants harming their own people, fear and confusion drive them to hope for some kind of collective solution inside Jerusalem’s walls, in consultation with the nation’s trusted leaders. Remaining in exposed villages and vulnerable to marauding soldiers with uncertain intentions would be an unsettling prospect. Every modern war likewise witnesses the flight of civilians from invading foreign troops (unless the troops in question arrive to drive out a more hated occupying force).

Jerusalem’s fortress-like nature was remarked on by outsiders, though sometimes as putative evidence of Judean xenophobia (Tacitus, Hist. 5.11–12). It is a theme throughout War, with quite a different sense: at once proud and tragic. John will ironically declare, upon arriving in the mother-city, that its walls are impregnable to Roman engines (4.127). Josephus’ lengthy description of Jerusalem as context for the siege and its internal horrors pays particular attention to the city’s impregnable walls, stones, and towers (5.136–214, 247), as does his first speech outside the walls (5.362–74). The walls mark the stopping point for Vespasian, who otherwise faces no resistance worth mentioning in Judea, and rides right up to the walls in spring 69 (4.551; cf. 5.54–57, 106). He can go no farther, however, without a carefully planned siege and assault. Josephus insists (contradicting the message of the Flavian triumph, 7.143) that the Romans were finally able to breach Jerusalem’s oldest walls only with divine aid, which was rendered because Judeans had polluted the sacred spaces (4.318; 6.409–13). The noun ἀγωνία is cognate to “contests” at 4.88, 91. Its only other occurrence in War is at 3.238, where Titus is in anguish about his father’s injury outside Iotapata. This case illustrates War’s deliberately balanced claim (1.1–3) that fear and anxiety were at least as much on the Roman as the Judean side, against the post-war image of a one-sided rout. The use of οὐ + article + present participle of τυγχάνω in litotes to mean not the trivial, passing, or ordinary kind (hence: considerable) is occasionally found in other authors (e.g., Demosthenes, C. Zenoth. 3; Diodorus 3.53.3; 4.11.1; 5.10.1; Strabo, Geog. 4.3.2; 16.2.36; Philo, Opif. 136; Somn. 2.187; Agr. 50) but reoccurs in Josephus’ Antiquities: 1.343; 2.120; 6.292; 7.44; 15.33, 380. For the collocation see also 3.22. Both words (τὰ φρονήματα … καὶ τὰς τόλμας) can have highly positive (“spirit, determination, resolution, pride; daring”) and strongly disapproving (“arrogance, presumption; audacity”) senses, depending on context. Here, although Vespasian is the enemy commander and might be presumed to view the enemy with hostility, Josephus as narrator presents Judeans as a formidable match. As often when he is reporting Roman views of Judeans, his language seems deliberately open to different senses, that of the Judean and that of the foreigner (cf. 2.174, 230 with notes in bjp 1b). Cognates of the second noun (τόλμα) are conspicuous in War’s lexicon (130 times; note the alleged lack of εὐτολμία, or ἀτολμία, at Masada; 7.342, 357). Although the particular moral color changes with context, and he often sounds critical of a brazenness that shows a lack of dignity or self-control, it is not always possible to distinguish that from what he considers a proper quality of men (“spirit, courage, boldness”), most visible in younger males (cf. 4.133), which is worth mentioning whether or not he approves of the individual’s motives or imagines a good outcome from them. See note to “brazenness” at 2.108 in bjp 1b. This view is recapitulated in Josephus’ own voice at 6.13. Josephus uses δυσμεταχείριστος one other time, when Pompey (Jerusalem’s real Roman conqueror) surveys Jerusalem’s defenses and finds them intimidating (1.141). Although the adjective’s meaning is clear, it is attested only 7 times before Josephus’ 2 uses.

See note at 4.88 and the conclusion of the Galilee chapter at 4.120: Galilee is a “preliminary exercise” for Jerusalem.

This clever compound verb (προσιππάζομαι) is attested only in Josephus (and only here) in all ancient Greek literature, except Polyaenus, Strat. 4.6.6, a century later. Or “by direct assault” (ἐξ ἐφόδου τὴν πόλιν ἑλεῖν)—as Lucius Annius will do at a certain Gerasa (4.487) and Cerealis at Idumean Caphethra (4.552), in distinction from Charabin, which has a solid wall and would require a siege if it did not open its gates (4.552–53). Lit. (εὐπετής), “a lucky/good fall, roll [of dice],” opposite of “a hard slog/climb,” hence metaphorically: “a doddle, like falling off a log, pushing on an open door, easy.” The word is hapax in Josephus. See note at 4.57. See note at 4.25. Josephus accounts for 13 of the first 55 tlg attestations of ἀνέδην, all falling jin War except Apion 2.273. The adverb is used significantly but less often by Plato (4), Polybius (5), Diodorus (8), Strabo (4), and Philo (4). Or “fed up with slaughter, carnage” (κόρος ἤδη φόνων). See note at 4.72. The statement is bitterly paradoxical, given that people normally take their fill of food or similar pleasures. The similar expressions at 4.135, 561, used of men whom Josephus disdains as greedy for blood or wantonness, leaves this passage ambiguous in relation to Titus’ character: Was he keen to kill, but then had enough, or opposed to killing? Although always capable of pity, especially at Iapha, Tarichea, and Gamala, Titus has killed Judeans of all ages and dispositions without restraint (3.304, 500–502; 4.70–72, 78). The first occurrence in this volume of οἶκτος and cognates, which appear 45 times in War, after being thematically introduced in the prologue (1.12) alongside other tragic vocabulary related to compassion, sorrow, and lamentation (see notes in bjp 1a). Homer has οἶκτος twice, then Aeschylus (8), Euripides (37), and Sophocles (9). Such emotions were not usually considered the province of historiography, and historians use the word less often: Herodotus 3, Thucydides 7, Xenophon 0, Polybius 1, Diodorus 7, (the rhetorical historian) Dionysius 28, but Josephus 47 (22 in War). Josephus uses ἀκρίτως elsewhere only at 1.246. Before his time, the main user of the word in this sense (aside from the Hippocratic corpus with the different meaning of “indistinct, undecided”) is his inspiration Polybius, who has it 9 times. It is also in 1 Maccabees (2), Diodorus (4), Dionysius (1), and Philo (3). See 4.84 for the distinction between the town’s regular population of farmers and the militant interlopers. It serves the ring composition of the episode that in 4.118–19 Josephus re-uses the verb “lose along with” (συναπόλλυμι) with a full explication of Titus’ view. There, he dares not try to distinguish innocent from guilty because it is better to spare a guilty person than to kill an innocent one.

Walled towns had gates as the only entrances. That these men stand defiantly on the wall, with the gates shut, rather than opening them to Titus as he expects (and as the regular residents will do in 4.112–13), explains his assumption of a hostile posture in what follows. I.e., of the “bandit troop” (4.84), which was infecting others with its disease. This is an example of Josephus’ playing with different senses of words. At 4.25, 92 he uses διαφθείρω (“ruin, waste, rot”) in the sense of “eliminate, destroy, kill,” at 4.53, 62 for “wasting away” from hunger. Here he uses the same verb (perfect passive participle) of moral rot or corruption. Presumably the reference here is to the sites recently subjugated in Galilee and the Golan, rather than to imperial conquests in general, as the former should carry weight with this audience.

The chief example here might be Iotapata, since Gamala took more than one assault, unless Josephus has scripted some rhetorical misdirection for Titus. The others were not brought down. See note at 4.4. For the word, see note at 4.31. Such cities would include Sepphoris, Tiberias, and Tarichea. This contrast in Roman behavior, toward those who submit and those who resist, again recalls Vergil, Aen. 6.851–53: “spare the vanquished and crush the proud.” See the note to “assurances” at 4.50. Because the word used for “assurances” is “right [hand]s,” the extending has both a literal and a figurative sense: extending the right hand (4.50), as it were, to secure agreement (cf. our handshake). Or “self-regard, insolence, obstinacy” (αὐθαδεία). See 4.96 (“arrogant captives”) for the completion of the thought.

Josephus reintroduces a central theme in War, which becomes more complex and multi-faceted as the narrative progresses. What does political freedom mean, or what is its optimal form, in the context of the foreign powers to which Judea has been subject for centuries? Likewise, what kinds of “slavery”—under remote foreign or proximate native rulers—are tolerable? See notes to “self-government” at 2.22, “voluntary slavery” at 2.209, and “freedom” at 2.259, along with the first major set-piece speech, by King Agrippa ii (2.345–401), in bjp 1b. Or “understandable by others” (συγγνωστός), a paradoxical statement, since the adjective would normally go with some violation or excess, as in Josephus’ other uses (Ant. 7.285; 9.231), and signify the speaker’s understanding that people make mistakes. Freedom was a universal value, but in ancient Realpolitik could only be asserted with due respect for power and the constraints it imposed. The effect here is: “How cute that you talk about ‘freedom’ in your situation. We all love freedom. But smarten up and take note of your plight!” This adjective is unattested in other ancient historians. Euripides is the first known and main user (10 times) before Josephus, though Philo has it 4 times (Ios. 53, 150; Spec. 3.122; Virt. 127)—another sign of their shared literary culture. A surprisingly rare word (ἐπιμονή) before Josephus’s 4 uses, with Philo accounting for 11 of the first 31 attestations—suggesting a shared literary culture. Others have it occasionally: Thucydides 1, Polybius 2 (in astronomical remarks), Geminus the astronomer 6, Strabo 1. The word was known as a figure of speech: going beyond mere facts to stay on the subject and elaborate (Demetrius, Eloc. 280). The Thucydidean (5.97–103) and Polybian (36.5.2–3) logic recalls Agrippa’s great speech in Book 2: There was a time when fighting to preserve liberty was proper and plausible, but that time is long past; the Romans have now conquered everyone, including those much stronger than you. There is nothing noble about resisting now, on your tiny patch, and merely inviting destruction: 2.355–56, 361–62, 378, 380.

See note to “safety-pledges” at 4.4. Josephus often pairs δεξιά and πίστις (e.g., 3.31, 334, 391; 4.417; 6.345). The indiscriminate slaughter raised as a possibility to be avoided at 4.92, ἀφειδής (“unsparing”) here reinforcing the privatives ἀνέδην (“without a care”) and ἀκρίτως (“indiscriminately”) there. The point is that no terms or exemptions would be possible; everyone would die. For the words vs. weapons contrast, see also 4.237. This is another formulation of Josephus’ thematic contrast between coercion or compulsion and persuasion (βία [or ἀνάγκη] ἢ πειθώ). Cf. 2.8, 199, 562–63; 3.203; Ant. 4.17; 17.10; Life 42, 370. It was a trope in Greek rhetoric (see note to “force” at 2.8 in bjp 1b). Herodotus relates that when the Athenian Themistocles demanded funds from the Andrians, he said he was accompanied by two gods: Persuasion and Compulsion (8.111). Isocrates (Phil. 10) advised Philip ii of Macedon to use persuasion against Greeks, force against barbarians. Plato’s Laws thematizes the tension between persuasion and force as mechanisms of government in the ideal polis: Leg. 683b, 711b–c, 718a–c, 721e–722c, 742e, 790b, 890a–d, 927b, 949d–950a, 962d–963e. Josephus is the first significant user of the phrase ὅσον οὐδέπω, which is attested only 3 times in earlier extant texts: Menander, Asp. 113; Philo, Agr. 135; Mos. 1.32—an example of their shared diction. Josephus’ 8 occurrences (War and Antiquities) mark the beginning of a trend that continues in Plutarch, Lucian, Galen, and Marcus Aurelius. Reading παιζόμενον with corrected ms L, Latin, Thackeray lcl, and other translators, rather than πιεζόμενον (“pressed, stifled”) in the other mss. It is hard to imagine that Titus’ cavalry force brought engines along, or that they expected a siege. If not, Titus is implicitly (emptily?) threatening a return visit with legionary infantry, though they have gone to winter quarters. Note, however, his first observation (4.84) that his cavalry could easily overrun the town in a straight charge—without a siege (cf. 4.552–53), presumably forcing the gates or surmounting the town’s flimsy wall (cf. 4.488, 552, 554). Perhaps: “Galileans alone” (μόνοι Γαλιλαῖοι), as corrected ms L and Whiston, but not generally followed. The reading adopted here fits with 4.93, which has the Gischalans alone resisting. Since the claim does not square with events at Iotapata, Iapha, and Gamala, the adopted reading makes Titus’ rhetoric deliberately misleading. The alternative, however, would misleadingly present Galilee as a whole as intransigent (whereas Sepphoris, Tiberias, Tarichea, Tabor, and most smaller sites quickly submitted and were spared). Or “self-regarding, obstinate”—not the freedom-fighters they imagine themselves to be. See note to “circumstances” at 4.95. The punchline “arrogant captives” (αὐθάδεις αἰχμάλωτοι) recalls “arrogant slave” (αὐθάδης δοῦλός), in the same argument by Josephus’ Agrippa (2.356). The adjective was not very common: 55 of the first 111 attestations are in Dionysius of Halicarnassus.

The agriculture-oriented townsfolk (τῶν … δημοτικῶν; 4.84, 86: τὸ δημοτικόν; 4.113, 115: ὁ δῆμος), as distinct from the “bandit troop.” Of the 12 occurrences of this double-compound verb (προδιαλαμβάνω) before Josephus, who uses it only here, 1 is in Thucydides (7.73.2) and 9 in Polybius. This confirms his debts to these historians. See note to “bandit troop” at 4.84. Lit. (as 4.462; Ant. 8.101; 18.45), “for the drink-offerings” (ἐπὶ τὰς σπονδὰς). The pouring of libations was such an established component of peace treaties that the word came to stand for the treaties, as 2.389; 3.130, 139; Ant. 1.313; 12.154, 249, 381; 13.242. As they are free to do, finally, at 4.113.

War 4 uses ἀγαπάω, which normally refers to warm personal relationships, or by extension to devotion to truth or peace (1.30; 2.141, 650), in unusual ways: love of war (4.85), here of proposals (4.98), later of personal safety (4.142) or equality (4.319), suggesting Josephus’ experimentation with colorful expression. A classically resonant pair (ἢ πείσειν ἢ συναναγκάσειν). Herodotus (8.111) portrays the Athenians demanding tribute from the island of Andros with the claim that they have 2 powerful gods alongside: Persuasion and Force (Πειθώ and Ἀναγκαίη)—to which the Andrians reply that unfortunately their gods are Poverty and Impotence, so they cannot pay. Josephus has the pair also at War 2.8, 199, 562–63; 3.203; Ant. 4.17; 17.10; Life 42, 370. See the note to “force” at 2.8 in bjp 1b.

I.e., the sabbath (shabbat), the sanctity of which is clear already from the Creation story (Gen 2:2–2) and which became an essential part of Judean law (Exod 16:23–29; 20:8–11), famous also (if misunderstood) among non-Judeans. Various tractates in the Mishnah, in addition to the dedicated one called Shabbat, elaborate norms for sabbath observance. Like other days in the Judean calendar, the sabbath ran from sunset to sunset, in this case from Friday to Saturday. The principle of making a fence around Torah (i.e., not coming close to violation, m. Avot 1.1) probably meant that sabbath, though beginning just before sunset, ended after twilight when it was fairly dark (as the 16th-cent. Shulchan Aruch [Orach Hayim 293,2] would spell out). This creates a puzzle for understanding John’s and Titus’ logic. If Titus arrived on Saturday afternoon in late October (with sunset around 6:00 pm)—“that particular day” was a sabbath—he could have waited a few hours before accepting John’s surrender after sundown. It would make little sense for him to go away overnight when sabbath was already finished. If Titus arrived from Gischala on Friday afternoon, with sabbath about to begin, his returning on Saturday morning would not solve the problem because it would be the middle of the sabbath. Only the first of these makes any sense: Titus arrived on Saturday and either was too impatient to wait for sundown or he did not wish to work in the dark, so preferred to deal with John on Sunday morning. According to astronomical tables, 23 Hyperbereteus (= Tishrei) in 67, when Gamala reportedly fell, would have been 18 October, a Sunday, meaning that in any case the sabbath had already passed when he reached Gischala. This does not help us much, to be sure, given uncertainties in matching the lived calendar with astronomical data and given our ignorance of when exactly Titus left Gamala or how long the trip took. It seems unlikely that Vespasian left for winter quarters, Titus organized 1,000 cavalry, and they reached Gischala on the very day that Gamala fell, so that Titus reached Gischala the same day. Nevertheless, Josephus’ demonstrable narrative freedom (e.g., in any comparison of War 2 with Life) leaves open the possibility that he has fabricated the sabbath-day encounter for various rhetorical purposes: to highlight good Judean laws, John’s shameless perfidy, and Titus’ nearly unbelievable charity. The verb χαρίζομαι (“doing a favor” from a position of strength), repeated in 4.102, indicates that Titus is the one who should grant the favor. John, as a Judean, would follow his nation’s laws anyway. At War 1.146 (cf. Ant. 14.61–63), Josephus claims that in Pompey’s assault on Jerusalem (63 bce) he used sabbaths to rapidly build assault ramps, but not to attack the Judeans, because he knew that they would defend themselves from direct assault, but not otherwise confront their enemies on a sabbath. At 2.392 Agrippa ii uses the obligation of sabbath rest as one argument among many for not pursuing revolt against Rome, citing Pompey’s example to show the Judeans’ military limitations. According to 1 Macc 2.29–41, because sabbath observance had led to the deaths of many Judeans during the persecution by Antiochus iv (167 bce), as Seleucid officers chose sabbaths for their harshest attacks, the Hasmoneans led the people in deciding that Judeans would defend themselves from direct assault on a sabbath. This was in keeping with the rabbinic principle that saving a life (פקוח נפש) takes priority over other covenant obligations, including sabbath (b. Yoma 84–85).

Or “were well aware” (litotes). A sarcastic remark by Josephus (for John), writing in Rome, where sabbath observance was among the most famous (and criticized) of Judean customs: Ovid, Ars am. 1.75–76, 413–16; Horace, Sat. 1.9.67–72; Strabo, Geog. 16.2.41; Tacitus, Hist. 4.11–18; Juvenal, Sat. 5.14.105–106. Josephus uses the feminine form of the adjective ἀργός, from ἀεργός (“no work”). When he introduces sabbath law in his paraphrase of the Bible (Ant. 3.91–94), he will promise to explain in a later work the philosophy behind it. Either that work on Judean customs and their reasons was not written or it was lost, or it morphed into the so-called Against Apion, which however has only brief elaborations on sabbath (2.175, 282). References to sabbaths in War include 2.147, 289, 517 (Judeans in Jerusalem abandon sabbath observance to face Cestius’ advancing legion); 4.582 (trumpets in the temple announce the beginning and end of abstinence from work); 5.230. At 7.53 the agitation of a defecting Judean in Antioch leads to the city’s temporary outlawing of sabbath observance. The feminine pronoun could refer to either the cycle (ἡ τῆς ἑβδομάδος περίοδος) or the not working (ἀργὴ πάντων). Although each ethnos was assumed to have its own customs, applicable only to members, Greeks and Romans recognized a universal obligation of piety, which included not violating other peoples’ customs or the sanctity of their temples. As Josephus puts it, “Wise people should show great care in remaining faithful to their domestic laws related to piety, and not abuse those of others” (Apion 2.144).

Astonishingly, Titus will not take even this elementary precaution assumed by his enemy John (4.104). Since the real John could not have known that Titus would be so lax, his plan for escape is historically suspect and again we must wonder about Josephus’ level of creativity in this episode. Josephus presents John’s observation with extreme compactness (ἐξὸν περιστρατοπεδεύσαντα παραφυλάξαι), in which περιστρατοπεδεύω is a technical-sounding military word, appearing again at 5.388. Before Josephus it is found only in Xenophon (6), Polybius (9), Diodorus (25), with 1 appearance each in the orator Lycurgus, Dionysius, and Strabo.

This (τὰ πάτρια ἔθη) is a set phrase, appearing 20 times throughout Josephus’ corpus, often used more or less interchangeably (as here, 4.99 and next sentence) with the ancestral laws (οἱ πάτριοι νόμοι, 36 times) or ordinances (τὰ πάτρια νόμιμα, 4 times). These are generic terms for the laws and customs of any ethnos; it was understood that each nation must be loyal to its ancestral ways. See Mason 1991: 97–106; Schröder 1996. John’s claim here ironically (because it is not his real motive) anticipates Josephus’ programmatic claim in Antiquities (1.14, 20): that those who follow the Judean laws prosper in all things, whereas those who transgress them fail. Thackeray notes Dindorf’s emendation of πρέπει to an infinitive to maintain the indirect speech, but notes that speeches often switch to direct address for the punchline. The verb (χαρίζομαι) rendered “have regard for” at 4.99, forming an inclusio. Although the general idea (“You are kindly saving us; so you should allow respect for our laws”) is clear, translators construe the sentence differently because of the dative in the middle of the sentence and the subject of the infinitive τηρεῖν (πρέπει δὲ τῷ παρὰ προσδοκίαν εἰρήνην χαριζομένῳ τοῖς σωζομένοις τηρεῖν καὶ τοὺς νόμους). Who or what is being preserved, and who is to observe the laws? Whiston: “it would be a right thing for him, who designed to grant them peace, without their expectation of such a favor, to preserve the laws of those they saved inviolable.” Thackeray lcl: “it would be becoming in the gracious bestower of an unexpected peace to preserve the laws as well as the lives of his beneficiaries” (taking the dative to indicate accompaniment). H-G similarly: “and when peace was an unexpected offer, it would be a further generosity to preserve their laws as well as their lives.” These are possible grammatically, but they create the oddity that Titus should be expected to observe Judean laws. With M-B, therefore (Außerdem stehe es dem, der wider Erwarten den Frieden gewähre wolle, wohl an, den so Geretteten die Beachtung ihrer Gesetze zu ermöglichen), I suppose a double completion of χαριζομένῳ: Titus is already granting them peace; it is only fitting that he also grant them the possibility of observing their laws.

Although the statement (τοιούτοις ἐσοφίζετο τὸν Τίτον) should not be construed as openly critical of Titus, given that divine responsibility is emphasized here, and later Titus’ humanity (4.118–20), it is hardly sycophantic praise of the young Flavian heir. Titus does not even take the precaution that John takes for granted, of camping outside the walls with an overnight watch, but instead travels far out of view—perhaps for a more comfortable billet. And it is hard to imagine Josephus’ wily Vespasian being fooled by John in the first place, or abandoning the site overnight. This highlights Josephus’ very different portraits of the two men, whom he does not lionize as heroes of some kind, but humanizes each in a unique way. This is arguably the most striking instance of Josephus’ theme of Titus’ “simplicity” (or gullibility, 5.319), which goes with his legendary Caesar-like “clemency.” Titus can also show cold-hearted brutality (5.289, 449), and as Praetorian Prefect in coming years will be known for cruelty and arrogance (Suetonius, Tit. 6–7). The Roman triumph and coins celebrating Jerusalem’s fall did not suggest that he was such an accommodating fellow. Josephus’ portraits of each member of the imperial family (at his time of writing) are complex and deserve close attention. Cf. Yavetz 1975; Mason 2019a. Or “preservation.” See note at 4.51. Or “left isolated.” It is unclear whether Josephus wrote ἐγκαταλειφθῆναι, the passive infinitive of ἐγκαταλείπω (“desert, leave exposed / in the lurch,” as at 4.31, 39) with mss PA1LV2 and the Latin translation (ne … solus destitueretur) or ἐγκαταληφθῆναι, that of ἐγκαταλαμβάνω (“catch, apprehend, take in hand”) with the other mss (avrcm). Did John fear arrest as such or, in the taking of the city, his isolation from his posse and hence vulnerability? The same textual confusion appears at 4.554 below. The verb ἐγκαταλαμβάνω is Thucydidean (9 cases) and uncommon thereafter (Xenophon 1, Hippocratic corpus 4, Athenian orators 8, Aristotle 2 or 3) until Diodorus (7), Dionysius (8), and Philo (7), before Josephus’ possible 7 possible uses. But most of these examples show possible confusion with forms of the more common ἐγκαταλείπω (443 attestations before Josephus’ 30 or so).

This construction (θεοῦ δ’ ἦν ἔργον ἄρα), introducing divine supervision of human affairs in a gently reasonable way—God was orchestrating these events, to purge his temple—is typical of Josephus’ Judean perspective even in War, before he makes these themes explicit in Ant. 1.14, 20. Cf. 2.186; 3.293; 4.573; 6.110, 250; 7.329, 358; Ant. 18.306; 2048. Here we see the most likely reason for the inclusion of Gischala’s submission in Book 4: John’s move from his home town to become one of the 3 (eventually 2) main “tyrants” leading the stasis that would result in Jerusalem’s fall (cf. 1.9–12). Josephus gives another reminder at 4.115 before the main story of John in Jerusalem from 4.121, immediately after this episode. By using a simpler form of the verb at 4.101 (στρατοπεδεύω rather than περιστρατοπεδεύω), Josephus highlights Titus’ failure to take the obvious precaution of perimeter defense. Mss differ considerably on the Greek spelling (Nisese here: Κύδασα), suggesting that copyists had little confidence. Josephus himself apparently used different spellings at 2.459 (Κάδασα) and Ant. 9.325 (Κύδισσα). This is biblical Kedesh (קֶדֶשׁ), a prominent site in Joshua and Judges after being given to the tribe of Naphtali (Josh 20:7; 21:32; Judg 4:6–11). For the archaeology, see Berlin and Herbert 2008. The site now sits uninhabited on Israel’s border with Lebanon, about 13 km (8 mi) NE of Gischala, and some 35 km (21 mi) SE of Tyre. Titus thus takes his cavalry a good hour’s ride away, apparently in search of comfortable lodging rather than having to camp outside Gischala, not worried that John might be dissembling.

The hinterland of the ancient Phoenician trading city of Tyre, which had given its name to Syria (Tsurayya), formerly extended to Egypt. In Josephus’ time, it still stretched E and SE across the N of Galilee to Mt Hermon (S Lebanon today), and so included Kedesh. According to Apion 1.70, notwithstanding close cooperation during the biblical period (Ant. 7.56; 8.50, 76), Tyrians harbored the greatest animosity of any Phoenicians toward Judeans. Several Roman edicts protecting Judean minority rights were addressed to Tyre (Ant. 14.197, 288, 290, 297–98, 305, 314, 319). Curiously, Life 372 claims that John himself had about 1,500 foreign soldiers from the mother-polis of Tyre, perhaps implying mercenaries. The difficulty of conceiving that is compounded by War’s claim (2.625) that some 2,000 “refugees” from Syria had joined John. The closeness of Tyrian and Syrian suggests that John was actually joined by refugees, Judean and possibly some gentile (Life 112), from various towns of S Syria to achieve mass for the conflict with those towns (see 4.84 and notes), and that a textual adjustment made them Tyrians. At 2.459, when Judeans attack many sites in S Syria, in retaliation for the massacre of Judeans in Caesarea, their targets include “Kadasa of the Tyrians,” along with Gadara and Hippos. This suggests that local or regional conflicts—not opposition to the idea of Rome’s empire, but rather frustration at the inability of Roman power to protect from immediate lethal threats—propelled Judeans into conflict with the great power, when these disturbances required its intervention, and Nero’s procurator endorsed the non-Judean story. Josephus uses similar language (here διὰ μίσους ἀεὶ …) for Ascalon’s relationship to Jerusalem (3.10) and Caesarea’s majority against its Judean minority (7.363). See note to “mob” at 4.57. Although there are no clear remains of habitation in the early Roman period, building structures and pottery from the preceding centuries reveal Kedesh to have been a prosperous and substantial town (Berlin and Herbert 2008). See notes at 4.84: according to Life 43–45, John takes up arms as part of his conflict with Tyre, to which Kedesh belongs, and other neighboring towns (not against Rome)—much as other Judean towns in Galilee faced conflicts with Decapolis neighbors in 66 ce if not earlier.

Josephus’ emphatic language (οὐδεμίαν περὶ τῇ πόλει Ῥωμαίων ἑώρα φυλακήν), suggesting John’s surprise, drives home the point that even if John’s craftiness (4.103, 116) about the sabbath had deceived a trusting Titus, as a skilful commander he could easily have pitched camp outside the gates to prevent escape. An intriguing description (οὐ μόνον τοὺς περὶ αὐτὸν ὁπλίτας ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἀργοτέρων συχνούς): John takes armed soldiers and apparently non-militant men (plus families), leaving the bulk of the ordinary folk with some “revolutionaries” (4.117–20)—rather than neatly taking the militants and leaving the farming community. If the story reflects real events, it may be that: (i) as elsewhere (in Perea and the Judean countryside), people who previously had no quarrel with the Romans nevertheless fled as soldiers came near, from a general fear of peril; (ii) some Gischalans who had felt a duty to act (or defend) against neighboring towns were unwilling to make such a disruptive move with their families; and/or (iii) The “armed soldiers around John” formed a tighter and more loyal vigilante group, perhaps as leading Gischalans, than others who had fled to Gischala as a temporarily safe Judean town after violence in larger cities where they were minorities, but had no interest in removal to Jerusalem.

Ca. 4 km, 2.5 mi. See note to the negative form of this phrase at 4.12. There was little call for this double-compound verb (συνεξάγω), which is hapax in Josephus and is attested before him only in Herodotus (1), Plato (1), Aristotle (2), and Theophrastus (5). Plutarch finds 5 uses for it, though it becomes rare thereafter. This is a rare verb (κατασπέρχω, “goad, prod on”) and only here in Josephus. Of 7 attestations in earlier literature (Thucydides, Aristophanes, Apollonius of Rhodes: 1 each), 4 are in Nicander’s obscure 2nd cent. bce book on Poisonous Animals. See note to this term (ὀλόφυρσις) at 1.12 in bjp 1a. These are the sort of scenes that Polybius (2.26.6–9) denounced in Phylarchus’ history, as better suited to tragedy than history: “the tears and lamentations of both men and women being led off [to slavery]—all together with children and aged parents…. His chosen procedure is unworthy and womanly…. It is certainly not the business of a writer to use history to thrill his readers with such wondrous tales.” Josephus unashamedly departs from his distinguished precursor (and partial inspiration) in this respect. He uses a battery of tragic terms thematically, in the prologue (cf. 1.10–12 and notes) and throughout.

Hence the desperate scramble to push ahead (4.109).

The adjective ἀνοδία is only here in Josephus. Before his time only 3 authors use it much: Polybius (9), Diodorus (3), Strabo (4), and Philo (20), following a common pattern of precursors that suggests Philo’s influence in particular, especially with unusual vocabulary. Josephus’ 6 uses of λεωφόρος (lit.: “people-carrier”) again show striking overlaps with Philo’s diction. Of the first 53 attestations, 34 are in Philo, and in this form, whereas the 1 or 2 cases per earlier author are mostly in the classical form λαοφόρος. This looks like Philo’s influence on Josephus. Which road was this? Of the 3 main possibilities (W to the coast and S, straight S through Samaria, and along the Jordan Valley), the first 2 are less likely because of the substantial presence of Roman troops (legions at Scythopolis and Caesarea, garrisons throughout Galilee and Samaria), in addition to the age-old hostilities among neighbors that had always made the route through Samaria dangerous; see Life 269 with notes in bjp 9. Ant. 20.118 implies that Galileans customarily traveled to festivals via Samaria, whereas Life 269 (see bjp 9 with notes) elaborates that those who had to reach Jerusalem urgently went via Samaria, a journey that could be completed in 3 days (from Lower Galilee). But this was dangerous (cf. Luke 9:51–6) and an armed escort was advisable (Life 190, 200–201, 268, 316). The gospels independently confirm that the longer route along the Jordan Valley and then up into the Judean hills past Jericho was taken by many pilgrims, including Jesus (Mark 10:46; 11:1; cf. Luke 17:11; but John 4:4). In any case, John and his party had first to reach Lower Galilee (for Samaria) or the Kinneret Lake from Gischala. If the latter, they needed to head either E and then S or S (to Bersabe) and then E, via the Beit-ha-Kerem valley road and Chorazin to the lake—itself a day’s journey. The first 1 km from Gischala (in high elevations) would presumably have been the hardest, in the black of an ancient night and having had little time to prepare. A caravan of thousands (or hundreds or dozens) in late October, with families, would have been likely to attract attention. Even after they reached the valley road, they had to avoid the Tenth Legion camp at Scythopolis, 23 km (13 mi) S of the lake (4.87).

It seems that some women and children are being trampled, even to death, in the crush described. Or “pathetic, lamentable” (οἰκτρός); see note at 4.92. Although ἱκετεύω (“supplicate, put oneself in the position of a supplicant, beseech a greater power”) was a well-known verb, used often in Homeric epic, tragedy, oratory, and elsewhere, Josephus’ 100 instances far exceed the rate of use in other authors. See note to “shriek and shout” at 4.71.

This fairly rare noun (παρακέλευσμα) is hapax in Josephus. It is attested earlier only in Euripides (3), Plato (5), Diodorus (3), and Dionysius (2), after Josephus not until Cassius Dio (1) in the 3rd century. In Josephus’ narrative, this appears as one of John’s many empty boasts and claims. Apparently, he wants cold-heartedly to keep his male following for Jerusalem, where any prospect of revenge for family members captured in Galilee evaporates. The 2 most famous elements of fitness and a natural pair to mention, e.g.: Xenophon, Cyr. 1.2.12; 4.3.17; Plato, Prot. 320d.

See note to “Seven” at 4.99: presumably Sunday morning.

The lack of such a reception at the start (4.84) has caused the ensuing problems. Or “garrison, guard,” referring to the bandit troop of 4.84. See note at 4.12. Paradoxically, the episode will end with Titus installing a Roman garrison—both φρουρά (4.120). This a subtle example of Josephus’ theme that Roman rule is a lighter yoke than that of Judean rebels.

Lit. “innovators, changers”; see note at 2.8 in bjp 1b. This fixed phase (οἱ νεωτερίζοντες) is one of War’s distinctive expressions for those allegedly fomenting revolt (1.202; 2.8, 407, 410, 417, 494, 652; 3.108, 447; 4.120; 7.4), after the more Thucydidean formulation τὸ νεωτερίζον at 1.4 (“the revolutionary element or bloc”: again at 3.463; 4.133). Josephus’ usage may have been inspired by Thucydides 1.97.1; 3.72.1, possibly supported by Plato, Leg. 798c; Isocrates, Antid. 121; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 5.55.3, 59.1; Diodorus 12.7.1; 13.47.8; Philo, Spec. 4.127; Flacc. 48; Somn. 1.103. Cf. 4 Macc 3.21 (traditionally attributed to Josephus). But no other writer formulizes the label as he does, and only in War. Much like his “bandits” and “insurgents,” or our “terrorists,” the label obviates curiosity about the people’s motives by ascribing the innate character trait of seeking violent innovation (cf. Sallust, Bell. cat. 37.1–5), though these motives are implausible for this group at Gischala (see 4.84 and notes). It is surprising to find “revolutionaries” still present, but see note to “troop” at 4.84.

Josephus likes this participial phrase (ἐν δευτέρῳ θέμενος …), using it also at 1.43, 100, 150, 2.466; Ant. 2.128, though it is not attested before him. Philo has the closest parallels (Mos. 2.47; Legat. 278). It reoccurs in Christian authors from the 4th cent. ce. Although the point about having escaped and ending up in Jerusalem makes sense, the tenses are telescoped, since the journey from Gischala to Jerusalem must have required at least a few days; it was not accomplished overnight (see note to “road” at 4.109). Josephus favors the compound verb περιελαύνω, using it 9 times (twice more in this volume: 4.423, 556). It is earlier attested in Herodotus (3) and Thucydides (1), but mainly Xenophon (14), Polybius (8), and Dionysius (4). This volume also features παρελαύνω (“drive/ride past”) and especially συνελαύνω (“herd together,” 4.433, 515, 567; 21 times in his corpus). These figures, like many in Josephus, touch the limits of plausibility if divided by 10. The prosperous modern town has a population of ca. 3,000. The ancient population must have been smaller and the larger part, even some “revolutionaries,” reportedly remained behind.

Or “troubled, grieved, vexed, gutted” (ἤχθετο). Like many authors, Josephus uses ἔχθω (“hate”) only as a 3rd-person passive for such psychological upset (cf. Homer, Il. 11.274, 400), in War only elsewhere at 2.318. The σόφισμα at 4.103, though Josephus uses that noun only in his later works. Here: ἀπάτη. Notwithstanding all Titus’ virtues, Josephus drives home that John outwitted him and Titus could not remedy the failure, which would soon be fateful for Jerusalem. See note at 4.25. In the phrase (ἱκανὸν δὲ ἀστοχήσαντι) τῷ θυμῷ παραμύθιον, the reversal of consonants in the last two words matches an emotional reversal. Begun in 4.113, but Titus refuses to engage until he has heard about John.

Or “custom” (νόμῳ καταλήψεως), though Josephus normally uses νόμος in the stronger sense of law as a partner to custom. This is not a written law. Given that towns had walls for defensive purposes, it was a longstanding custom of victors in many cultures to make a clear distinction when conquering: spare towns that welcomed them by opening their gates, a crucial part of allowing them to keep all their possessions as their own (4.94), but tear down the walls of those that resisted, as a mark of the attacker’s power and to show that the disgraced town is not trusted with walls (cf. Livy 38.34 on Sparta’s walls on defeat by Acheans). On Roman suspicion of Jerusalem’s formidable walls even in peacetime see Tacitus, Hist. 5.12 with War 5.152; Ant. 19.326–27. Titus will order the walls of Jerusalem razed, leaving 3 towers as a monument to his victory (War 7.1). At Gischala, he seems caught between the two practices. He is warmly welcomed by the people, but their leader John has caused him considerable grief. Since he is about to garrison the town, as ordinary life continues, it makes sense to leave the wall basically intact.

The prospect of the innocent (ἀναίτιοι) and guilty (αἴτιοι) suffering the same things reoccurs in War as part of its tragic ethos: 4.543; 5.104, 355. It reappears in Antiquities’ portrait of Herod as a tyrant (16.246; 17.174). Here, more specifically, it recalls Titus’ alleged concern (after becoming sated with slaughter at Iotapata, Iapha, Tarichea, and Gamala) at 4.92. For the phrase οἰκεῖα μίση see also Ant. 13.43; 16.311. When authorities are using emergency measures to execute targeted groups, it is a god-sent opportunity for malicious prosecution: to remove one’s enemies or mitigate one’s own danger by implicating others in whatever is being punished. The phenomenon, though best known today from the Soviet and Nazi societies (Gellately 1988; Fitzpatrick 1996), was well familiar in Rome. When emperors launched purges against conspirators real and imagined, informers multiplied (Rutledge 2001). As the new legate of Pontus-Bithynia with a mandate to punish Christians, Pliny the Younger was supported by Emperor Trajan in guarding against such invidious accusation, especially anonymous tips (Ep. 10.96–97). Or “in suspense” (μετέωρος): never able to relax from fear that they might suffer punishment. Being in suspense from fear reoccurs: of the Flavians (4.502) and Judeans (7.62).

See the similar phrase at Ant. 8.301. Although Josephus has the artful compound παραναλίσκω 4 times, only in War (also 2.620; 3.188; 5.561), it is attested only 5 times in earlier extant literature: Demosthenes (2), lxx Numbers (1), and Diodorus (2). This adjective (ἀδιόρθωτος) fits a pattern for unusual diction in War 4. It is only here in Josephus, and its 7 prior attestations include Demosthenes (1), Diodorus (1), Dionysius (1), Strabo (1), and Philo (Sacr. 32), though Plutarch (6) and Dio Chrysostom (1) both have it.

See notes at 4.12 and 1.113: the replacement of a deleterious guard with a responsible one. I.e., those “revolutionaries/bandits” who had not left with John. See note at 4.114. Recalling the opening sentence of the episode (4.84) in an inclusio: the majority of Gischalans, who were farmers. Josephus thus closes the panel opened at 4.1–2, in which Gischala and Tabor alone remained untaken in Galilee, along with Gamala across the lake. The narrative has treated them in reverse order. Cf. 1.8 for Josephus’ programmatic remark on the sweat expended by the Flavians in Jerusalem, as proof of the challenge they faced, against widespread disdain for the Judean enemy in Rome. Contrast his acid remark on Claudius’ triumph for Britain, which came without imperial sweat (3.5)—experienced only by Claudius’ general, Vespasian. In Galilee proper, however, Josephus has not documented very much Roman sweat: not at Gischala or Tabor, nor Agrippa’s Tiberias nor Tarichea. The only real struggle faced by the Flavians in Galilee was at Iotapata, because of the formidable defense by Josephus. Cf. 4.89–91 on Vespasian’s conscious preparation for the challenge of Jerusalem. Josephus never lets the reader forget, by increasingly frequent reminders (4.61, 89, 104, 106, 115), that War’s focus is the fall of Jerusalem and its causes: in the tyranny and stasis that developed from 67 to 70 ce (1.9–12). We are rapidly approaching the heart of the story: Books 4–6. All 3 occurrences of προγυμνάζω in Josephus (participle here) fall in War 4. Vespasian’s “preliminary exercises” are matched by those of the Judeans in Jerusalem (4.241) and, darkly, those of Simon bar Giora (practicing his violence toward compatriots) before he enters the mother-city (4.513).

City populations also pour forth also at 2.105; 7.69; 7.101. Josephus favors the compound verb ἀναπυνθάνομαι (“cross-examine”), using it 6 times, though it is sparsely attested before him: Herodotus (4), Aristophanes (2), Xenophon (2), Plato (2), Parthenius (2), Philo (1). Homer, Aesop, and the historians (among others) frequently used the un-prefixed πυνθάνομαι (“learn by inquiry”), which Josephus has 222 times. See note at 4.39. This seems to be Josephus’ narrative perspective (they were calamities), perhaps assumed by the Jerusalem populace at first. John, however, transforms the facts into a picture of hope and his own success.

Josephus speaks of ἄσθμα only here and at Ant. 17.169, of Herod’s last days. Their hot breath was presumably more visible than felt. Close to 1 November in Jerusalem (not in the summer), it is plausible that one’s unusually heated breath would be noticeable in the cold air. For similar, quasi-Hippocratic analysis of stress, see Philo, Flacc. 176; Legat. 186, 243. Bragging (ἀλαζονεία, here the verb) in spite of realities that threaten the nation is, according to Josephus, a trait of Judea’s rebels led by John: 6.364, 395. For the sound principle of fighting from secure ground, see 4.44 and note (with 4.31). In Josephus’ presentation, however, John dissembles by appealing to this principle only to disguise his self-serving motives.

See note to “intrepid ones” at 4.62. This is the adverb. See note to “small town” at 4.84. The verb (ταμιεύεσθαι) suggests storing, accounting for, rationing, and careful distribution, as in a military depot (cf. the Essenes at 2.125). Josephus must have written this with savage irony, given what he and his literary audience know. (i) He has devoted much of War 3 to describing his own life-hazarding exploits, though a priest from Jerusalem, defending the weak and small Galilean town of Iotapata. (ii) It was axiomatic in antiquity that one should defend one’s hometown and relatives, as John had earlier done, but now he has abandoned many of the town’s families. (iii) Josephus sees the problem in Jerusalem (of tyranny and stasis) as resulting from the removal or flight of its established leaders and the assumption of power by rival outsiders, who ensure only its destruction. For Jerusalem as Judean μητρόπολις, see also 2.400, 421, 517, 626; 4.123, 181, 228, 234, 239, 243, 245, 258, 267–68, 274, 279, 288, 346–49. The word appears often in War 4 because Galileans and especially Idumeans feature. Although a distinct ἔθνος in his vocabulary, since the Hasmonean expansion the Idumeans have also been Judeans in a sense (War 2.96, 566; 3.55; 4.223, 231, 240), and therefore share a mother-city. Here John contrasts his home-town, far away in Galilee, with the mother-city’s higher claim on his devotion. According to the categories of ancient social-political discourse, an ethnos (unless agrarian or nomadic) was assumed to have a mother- or mētro-polis. It was the most concentrated expression of the nation’s ethos, where its distinctive calendar, festivals, citizenship, civic structure, and laws prevailed, and where the national gods were (or God was) worshiped in the traditional way. Strabo names many familiar mother-poleis: 1.2.33 (Sidon or Tyre of the Phoenicians, 16.2.22, noting their rivalry); 7.4.4 (Bosporian Panticapaeus); 9.31, 4.1 (Opountian Opus); 10.4.6 (a writer is derided for supposing the Dorian mētropolis Doris to be a colony of the Thessalians), 4.7 (Cretan Cnossus); 11.11.1–3 (Bactrian Bactra); 12.2.7 (Cappadocian Cilicians’ Mazaka: τὰ Μάζακα ἡ μητρόπολις τοῦ ἔθνους); 16.2.10 (the Macedonians’ Pella, honorary mētropolis), 2.28 (Judea’s Jerusalem), 4.21 (Nabataea’s Petra). Josephus gives very similar indications: War 3.29 (Seleucid and Syrian Antioch); Ant. 1.127 (Cilician Tarsus); 4.82 (Arabian Petra); 6.71 (Galadene Jabesh); 7.123 (Ammonite Rabbat); 10.269, 11.159 (Persian Susa); 11.160 (the Judeans’ Jerusalem), 340 (the Samarians’ Shechem); Life 372 (Tyre of the Tyrians). Latin workarounds such as urbs urbium eventually yielded to transliteration of Greek metropolis (sha Hadr. 14.1). “Mother-city” had 2 main senses: the place where an ethnos originated, from which colonies of emigrants sprang up near and far, or the primary polis of a region—a status often contested and changing (Mason 2016b: 107, 114–16, 126–27, 139–40). For Jerusalem as Judean mother-polis in both senses, see esp. War 7.375 (ἡ τοῦ παντὸς Ἰουδαίων γένους μητρόπολις) and Philo, Legat. 281 (Agrippa cautioning Gaius about installing a statue): “the mother-city not only of the single territory Judea, but of very many more, because of the colonies that it sent out at various times, into neighboring parts of Egypt, Phoenicia, the rest of Syria but especially the part called Coele, and then more distant Pamphylia, Cilicia….” Moreover, the distinctive character of each ἔθνος was assumed to have been shaped by the unique nature of its homeland and founding events. Thus, even when describing long-established expatriate communities, writers explained a people in relation to its homeland, formative experiences, and resulting laws and customs (Diodorus [following Poseidonius] 33–34.1; Strabo 16.2.34–37, 40, 46; Tacitus, Hist. 5.2–12; Numenius in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.8.1–2; Celsus in Origen, C. Cels. 1.16–31; 5.25–26). This is another reason to prefer transliterating Ioudaios as “Judean” (rather than “Jew”), to pair with “Judea” as transliteration of Ioudaia, the territory of famed mother-city Jerusalem.

The phrase ἔνθα δὴ … (“hereupon,” “so from here”) is a verbal tic of some authors (Herodotus has it 9 times, Xenophon 62, Diodorus 24, Dionysius 11), whereas others avoid it or nearly do (Thucydides 0, Polybius 3, Philo 0). Josephus favors it only in War, which has 19 of his 22 examples. Josephus, with 5 occurrences (also Antiquities: 12.357; 15.103, 372, 409), and Plutarch with 6, are the biggest users of the compound verb παραδηλόω. Before Josephus it is attested only 8 times: 1 in Demosthenes, 2 in Philo, 1 in Strabo. The prefix suggests something less than, or besides, clear explanation of the main story: a grudging confession or incidental mention. Tactical withdrawal in ordered ranks was a proper and respected move in combat (Onasander. Strat. 27). John is claiming this, according to Josephus, when in fact he has just come from a desperate and disorganized scramble. The same word (δρασμός) is rendered “dash” at 4.109.

Greek litotes: “no moderate, measured” (οὐ μετρία). Confusion seizes a populace (here: σύγχυσις οὐ μετρία κατέσχε τὸν δῆμον) also at 2.294 and at 4.129 below. Cf. 4.144, 204, 301, 528 where panic. distress, and fright are forces that take hold of people. Presumably: if the Romans showed such concern about families fleeing a small town, they were not going to neglect Jerusalem.

I.e., felt no shame. Josephus uses “blush” (ἐρυθριάω) only here, but Philo has it more often (22 times) than any other ancient author. Moreover, he nearly always uses it, as Josephus here, with a negation and moral judgment: “X did not blush to Y.” Once again we find Josephus sharing Philo’s lexicon. Cf. 4.121: a large group had allegedly formed around each of his men. “Inciting with hopes” (ἐνάγω + ἐλπίς) is characteristic language in War (also 2.128; 6.264; 7.80), not attested elsewhere or in Josephus’ other writings.

See note at 2.26 in bjp 1b. This compound verb (κατειρωνεύομαι), which adds the nuance of condescension to John’s speech, is attested only 5 times in surviving texts before Josephus (Aesop 3, Aeschines 1, Philo 1), though he has it 6 times. Plutarch follows with 19 instances. Indeed, various compounds of εἰρων-, the root of English “irony,” are relatively common in War (1.84, 209; 2.26, 29, 153, 298; 4.127, 152, 279, 334, 340, 342; 5.531; 7.270; cf. Ant. 15.279, 374; Life 367), supporting the work’s ethos of tragic irony: Judean “tyrants” regularly mislead people by their deceptions and false confidence. This language overlaps with terms for “ﬁgured speech” (built on the σχῆµα- root: 2.29, 259, 603; 4.154, 265, 336, 340) or pretense, such as εὐσχημόνως just above (4.124). See Mason 2005a. Although Socrates’ pretended ignorance had lent εἰρωνεία a certain charm when it was used of his efforts to get at the truth, the self-effacing man being opposite of the ἀλαζών or know-it-all, in general the word had the negative senses we associate with obfuscation and dissembling. In his Characters, the Aristotelian Theophrastus makes εἰρωνεία the first of a list of bad character traits, defining it as making false claims of ignorance, or of not having seen or heard something, and making a false promise to find out the truth. The dissembler praises to their face those he snipes at behind their back. He peddles impressions that he knows to be false. The Stoic Chrysippus likewise describes τὸ εἰρωνεύεσθαι as the behavior of the low-life, and unworthy of free and earnest men (in Arius Didymus, fragment in Mullach vol. 2 p. 82 col. 2). Josephus here makes dissimulation a character trait of John and the Disciples faction he comes to lead: see the noun at 4.152 and simple verb at 4.334, 340, 342 (and the dissembling accusation that Ananus and Jesus are the dissemblers at 4.279). Having just arrived from first-hand contact with Roman forces, John claims the unique knowledge of a veteran to dispel the worries (proper, according to Josephus) about their capabilities, manufacturing a false account that serves his interest in gaining power in Jerusalem. Those who doubt him can be dismissed as lacking his experience. Ironic language still. Josephus uses πτερόν (plural) only in this passage (cf. πτέρυξ at Ant. 6.289; 8.72–73). This was the closest Greek equivalent of Latin ala in the latter’s literal sense of a bird’s wing, but the same Latin word was used for the military formation called a wing (because used in the flank), usually of cavalry in this period. Greek πτερόν did not have that metaphorical use, however. When Josephus speaks of cavalry wings and their commanders, as he often does (1.305, 2.67, 236, 500, 544; 3.12 [notice the distinction from an infantry cohort], 66, 97; 6.68, 172; 7.5, 225), he consistently uses the similar-looking and customary Greek word ἴλη (ἱππέων). But his Roman audiences would presumably notice the word-play in John’s derisive dismissal of even winged Romans, as Roman alae will play a crucial role (6.68) in gaining access to Jerusalem. John’s fabrications contradict everything Josephus has narrated about the Flavians’ Galilean operations. The region had basically capitulated and welcomed Vespasian while he was still in Ptolemais (3.30 with Life 410). Only special circumstances in Iotapata caused him any delay before he declared victory by around 1 July 67 and sent the army to winter quarters (3.412–13, 443). The later operations, resumed in late summer at the request of Agrippa, had been brief affairs requiring no sieges at all, except Gamala, where the Romans almost immediately breached the wall (4.17–20). In Josephus’ account, John is energetically lying to create a power-base in Jerusalem. On Jerusalem’s impenetrable walls as a theme in War, see note to “walls” at 4.90.

See note at 2.225 in bjp 1b. Young hot-heads feature significantly in much ancient literature: Thucydides 1.42.1, 72.1, 80.1; 2.8.1, 11.1, 20.2, 21.2; 6.18.6; on Polybius, Eckstein 1990: 192–94; Aristotle, Rhet. 2.12.3–16 (1389a–b); Eyben 1993: 1–66. In Josephus, impulsive youths play a major role in the war’s origins, countering the wisdom of elders (cf. 1.117; 2.286, 290, 303, 346, 409); so too Ant. 1.53; 4.131–44; 6.33–34; 8.209; Life 12, 36, 80, 126–29. See in general Rajak 2002: 93; Mader 2000: 69–72. The double-compound προσδιαφθείρω is attested only 5 times—1 each in Sophocles, Isocrates, Hippocrates, Dionysius, and Philo—before Josephus uses it 3 times (also 4.405; Ant. 9.130, showing his authorial control over very different kinds of material). This phrase (τῶν δὲ σωφρονούντων καὶ γηραιῶν) opens an inclusio, which Josephus will close with roughly the same phrase in reverse at 4.133. Mourning (πενθέω: 8 times in War, 19 in Antiquities; 30 times in classical tragedians, but rare in classical historiography [Herodotus 3, Thucydides 0, Xenophon 1, Polybius 0], though it becomes more common in Diodorus and Dionysius [18 times]) supports War’s tragic ethos of lamentation and dirge, introduced in the proem (1.10–12). Cf. 2.455, 649 with similar language: the reasonable/moderate people, contrasted with reckless youth, mourn because they see in advance what will become of the city.

See note to “mob” at 4.57. Another rare and artful double compound (προδιΐστημι), found only here in Josephus, in 1 earlier fragment and once each in 4 later authors to the end of the Middle Ages. This is the first restatement in Book 4 of War’s most basic theme (1.10; see note in bjp 1a and at 2.418 in bjp 1b): internal civil strife (στάσις [οἰκεία]) in the mother-city will be the real cause of Jerusalem’s fall—the event being endlessly celebrated in Josephus’ Rome as the signal Flavian victory (Mason 2019a). Josephus uses the noun 71 times in War, not counting cognates; it remains a potent theme in his later narratives of earlier times (157 uses in his corpus, negligible only in the Apion, which stresses the harmony of Judea’s constitution). Unlike its English heir stasis (“steady state,” even in political use), Greek στάσις (“standing”) could mean a fixed position, but in political contexts it was shorthand for “rising, faction, disturbance.” There were three main possibilities: (i) personally oriented factions within a council or senate or the elite, (ii) larger political divisions throughout the whole populace (both of these corresponding to Latin bellum civile / domesticum), or (iii) or a rising (Latin seditio) of the masses—albeit led by members of the elite (“demagogues” according to opponents)—against the powerful, whether within a national group or the nation against a greater imperial power or both. In any form, στάσις was a dreaded evil, opposite to the unity of mind and purpose (ὁμόνοια) needed for a state to function. The classic ancient description of στάσις in action is Thucydides 3.82–4 (at Corcyra), and scholars often trace Josephus’ theme exclusively to him. Granted Josephus’ occasional verbal reminiscences of the master historian, στάσις was a more pervasive political issue, not least among Josephus’ contemporaries. Cf. Herodotus 1.59.3, 60.2, 150.1; 3.82.3; 5.28.1; 6.109.5; Isocrates Paneg. 4.79, 114, 174; Plato, Resp. 5.470c–d; Leg. 1.628c, 629c–d; Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 5.2–3; 13.1; Pol. 1265b; Diodorus 9.11.1; 11.72.2, 76.6, 86.3, 87.5; Plutarch, Praec. ger. rei publ. 813a, 823f–825b; Dio Chrysostom, 1 Regn. 1.82; Pausanias, Descr. 3.2.7; 4.18.3. Scholarly literature includes Lintott 1982, 1993; Gehrke 1985; Henderson 1998; Price 2001; on Josephus, Rajak 2002: 91–94; Feldman 1998: 140–48; Mader 2000: 55–103.

Although we expect this sentence to explain how civil strife in Jerusalem was generated (given “for”), instead it describes Vespasian’s consolidation of 2 coastal sites, with 4.131 picking up the opening notice about civil strife. It seems that 4.130 awkwardly reflects Josephus’ realization that he should mention the larger military scene before continuing with his moral-political point. The entire paragraph seems hastily constructed. Coastal Caesarea, until now seat of the procurator and home of the auxiliary units and local administration, is the natural staging post for Vespasian’s campaign in Judea proper, focused on Jerusalem (4.87–91). With his 1,000 cavalrymen, minus the garrison he has left in Gischala (4.120), Titus arrives in the main winter quarters, apparently in early November 67, just as his father has left for a quick operation. Vespasian personally, with a special force in support. This appears to be an urgent early winter operation, begun even before Titus reaches winter quarters. Vespasian may be using (elements of) the Fifth and Fifteenth Legions, quartered in Caesarea, as the Tenth is settling at Scythopolis for the winter (4.87), but the rapidity of the operation down the coastal road suggests rather allied/auxiliary cavalry units of 500 (or 480). Vespasian will now disappear for half of War 4. When he reappears, after much has happened in Jerusalem, he is still in his Caesarean winter quarters. He will venture out briefly again at the end of winter (4.366, 410, 413, 419, 440), with another picked force, before moving the main army from Caesarea to Antipatris to begin the Judean (highland) campaign, at the onset of spring in 68 (4.443). Iamneia (Yavneh) was ca. 80 km (50 mi) straight down the coastal road from Caesarea, past Joppa (Yafo, already destroyed and garrisoned: 3.414–32), veering inland about 8 km (5 mi) from its small port and due W of Jerusalem. Azotus (Ashdod) was a further 15 km (9 mi) S along the road. Following common military logic, summarized below at 4.413, Vespasian had to prepare for his main campaign against Jerusalem and its highland hinterland by securing any peripheral sites that might compromise the main operation. These 2 sites were not expected to present problems (hence the quick visit), and they do not. See note at 4.12. Famous as the first home of the post-70 rabbinic movement, Iamneia (Yavneh) seems to have been mainly Judean in 67 ce, though the population was mixed. It had been a Hellenistic city with other gods, and an enemy of Jerusalem, in the 2nd cent. bce (1 Macc. 5.55–62; 2 Macc. 12.8, 40; cf. Kletter and Ziffer 2008). Josephus includes it among the Hasmoneans’ conquests, but also among cities that Pompey returned “to their proper/native/legitimate” populations in the 60s/50s bce (Ant. 13.215; 14.75; cf. War 1.156–57, 166). Iamneia became a valuable revenue source for Herod, then for his sister Salome and Augustus’ wife Livia (War 1.98, 167). Josephus implies (War 3.56) and Philo states (Legat. 200) that the 1st-cent. population was predominantly Judean, Philo suggesting even that foreigners were “snuck in.” But what he recognizes as a mixed (µιγάδες) population is necessary for his story about Gaius Caligula’s statue. The emperor’s plan came about because the “foreign residents” found an opportunity to aggravate their Judean neighbours: building an altar to the emperor, where Judeans would see it and likely knock it down, so they could report the insult to the imperial agent in Iamneia (note). Back in Rome, an Egyptian adviser and one from nearby Ascalon stoke the emperor’s fury, leading him to order his statue erected in Jerusalem’s temple (Legat. 201–206). Azotus has a similar profile to Iamneia: a Philistine and then Persian-Hellenistic city captured by the Hasmoneans but removed by Pompey and Gabinius, restored to the native populations, and given by Herod to Salome in his will (same passages in Josephus above). Azotus appears rarely in Josephus, and archaeology throws little light on its population in this period (Kogan-Zehavi 2008). Josephus’ description assumes that each city had at least a sizable Judean population, which might potentially have been problematic but readily accepted Vespasian’s terms of safe surrender. See note to “assurances” at 4.50.

See note to this thematic phrase (πόλεµος ἐµφύλιος), apparently inspired by Polybius, at 2.620 in bjp 1b. At 1.216 (and Life 409) it is paired as here with ταραχή, at 4.545 with στάσις. The phrase becomes important in Book 4 (4.375, 441, 495, 545), not least because of Josephus’ crucial parallel between Judean and Roman civil war (as Ant. 19.184). See also 5.19; 6.343; Ant. 7.20, 22; 14.283; 16.189; Life 100, 265, 409. As this passage shows, it is a functional equivalent to the work’s Leitmotif of “civil strife” (στάσις at 4.129, 133; cf. 1.10), which can also be qualiﬁed by “internecine” (ἐµφύλιος; see Life 100 in bjp 9). Josephus uses the phrase in part to vary his language. Polybius had made the phrase popular (1.65.2, 71.5, 7; 2.18.4; 6.46.9; 24.3.1; 30.11.5), though frequent use by Diodorus (11), Dionysius (20), and Philo (11) may also have influenced Josephus. He has it 19 times, Plutarch 35, Appian 7 in his later Civil War. It corresponds to the equally dreaded Latin terms bellum domesticum and bellum civile. See note to “Hierosolyma” at 4.129. This language, stressing the trouble throughout Judea’s countryside (4.129, 134), does not seem to fit submissive Iamneia and Azotus. Yet it attributes the civil strife to the stimulus of Roman forces attacking (4.131: taking a breath from Roman assaults), and War has so far placed Vespasian’s army only at those 2 cities. We seem to have an unusually (not uniquely) awkward transition, then, with Josephus looking ahead to a situation that perhaps began in his mind with the first Roman forays, among Judeans in Iamneia and Azotus who did not happily submit, and would soon spread inland. Longing for peace (ἐπιθυμέω εἰρήνης) was something of a cliché, found in Thucydides, Isocrates, Andocides, Xenophon, Demosthenes, Aeschines, Polybius, Diodorus, and Dionysius, before Josephus uses it 3 times, though only in War (also 2.338; 3.448). His contrast here is artful. Both verbs connote strong desire, but passion for war—ἐράω (τοῦ πολέμου)—suggests a self-serving passion and is more obviously sexual, whereas ἐπιθυμέω (εἰρήνης) applies to a wider range of objects including the political, philosophical, and noble. Possibly an allusion to the Clash of the Titans in Hesiod, Theog. 636 (ἔρις χαλεπή): intense and with no end in sight.

Josephus’ nominalization of this adjective (τὸ φιλόνεικον), though typical of Thucydidean style, is rare: Dionysius, Ant. rom. 6.66.2; Thuc. 2.28; Philo, Migr. 27; Spec. 1.273. Josephus uses it also at War 2.267; Ant. 15.237. Discord in society’s most crucial unit, the family, spreading to distrust of compatriots, was a dreadful prospect in antiquity, evoked in Hesiod’s description of the fifth age of humanity (Works and Days 170–95); cf. Mark 13:12; Matt 10:35–36. The verb here (ὁμονοέω) and cognate noun were the understood opposites of civil strife (στάσις), emphasized in these paragraphs (cf. Rowe and Schoﬁeld 2005: 18–20). Greek ὁµόνοια is a significant contrapuntal theme in War (1.460; 2.345, 467; 3.496; 4.369; 5.72, 278; esp. 6.215), as the proper and normal Judean alternative to the division that brought war with Rome; cf. Apion 2.179, 283. This is a striking example of Josephus’ affinity with Philo. He uses a rare verb (ἀφηνιάζω) that means “bristling at / rejecting the reins,” used literally of unbroken or defiant horses, though Strabo uses it for populations that continue to balk at Roman rule (Geog. 17.3.25). The other 34 attestations before Josephus are all in Philo, who obviously liked the word and applied it in many ways. Josephus’ use of it, only here and at 4.389, seems strained, for he uses it of breaking away from a group, rather than from a greater power or rider. It might have been more apt in Agrippa’s speech on submission to the Empire, or in passages concerning rebel groups’ defiance of Jerusalem authorities. The verb in this participle (τοὺς τὰ αὐτὰ προαιρουμένους) carries the root of “faction”: a path chosen, in this case before the natural bonds of comity. Josephus uses increasingly military language: ἀντιτάσσω (forming bands to define themselves against others) here prepares for συντάσσω (forming into like-minded companies for banditry) at 4.134. Greek κατὰ πλῆθος, an expression favored mainly by Dionysius (20 times) before Josephus’ 6 occurrences. I usually render the noun as “mob, rabble, mass, horde.” See note at 4.57.

See note at 4.129. See note to “revolutionaries” at 4.114. See note to “brazen actions” at 4.90. The association of youths with daring was standard in ancient literature: : young men are associated with impulsive daring without reflection, especially in reacting to threats (see note to “youths” at 4.129). Josephus has the first attested pairing of the abstract nouns (νεότης καὶ τόλμα), here. Cf. his variations in 4.503; 7.196; Ant. 2.140; 4.154, 262; 5.188; 10.47; 17.157; 19.300; 20.199; Life 80, 170. The same verb that Josephus has just coupled with “peace” among the old and prudent (4.131). This reference to the old and prudent closes the inclusio opened at 4.128 (switching “prudent” from participle to adjective): γηραιῶν καὶ σωφρόνων.

Or “centuries.” See note to “century” at 2.61 in bjp 1b, possibly also the sense of λόχος intended here, though the word (originally suggesting “ambush-unit”) also appears as interchangeable with στῖφος (“unit, band, swarm”). See note to “bandit contingent” at 4.84. This is the abstract noun. The image is of local strong men becoming arch-bandits (leading outlaw micro-societies) throughout the Judean highlands. Notably, their chief opponents remain compatriot Judeans rather than Romans, whom they lack the resources (or rapid mobility or explosives of modern guerrilla fighters) to confront. Josephus uses similar language at 2.264–65; there, Judean militants attack wealthier compatriots throughout the countryside, loot their houses, and burn the villages. A natural pair (ὠμότης + παρανομία), also at 1.35, 107; 7.262; Apion 1.264. In keeping with a common pattern, before Josephus’ time this collocation is found only in Polybius (4), Diodorus (5), Dionysius (1), and Philo (2), all texts that may have influenced him, or reflect a shared literary culture. Plutarch has it 3 times. Josephus is a conspicuous user of παρανομία (62 times). In classical historiography, rhetoric, and philosophy it appears a few (up to 6) times in various writers, but Polybius has it 42 times, Diodorus 78, Dionysius 30, Philo 21. I translate the plural as “crimes.” A surprising remark if in the narrator’s voice, since Josephus, while not avoiding occasional scenes of Roman brutality, thematizes their mild treatment of those who do not defy them (next note). In light of the next sentence, perhaps we should understand this as the perspective of those who felt threatened by the arrival of the legions, members of which no doubt wreaked havoc from time to time, but whose mere presence on the edges of Judea was menacing. Josephus distinguishes, in a realistic way (cf. Japanese fears of American soldiers in World War ii; Hughes 2010), between the perceptions of the invaded—if they surrendered, Romans would rape and kill their women and children, and torture them (3.201–202; 4.71, 79; 7.380–82, 386, cf. 393)—and the actual behavior of Roman forces most of the time. A recurring verb (πορθέω: 27 of 41 occurrences in Josephus, especially in Books 2, 4, and 5) in War’s lexicon of ruin and destruction—with different perpetrators (Judean and Roman) and different locations (Jerusalem and Rome). See 4.80 for a similar paradox. From the proem’s contrast between the Judean tyrants’ savagery toward compatriots and the Romans’ inclination to spare a foreign nation (1.22), following on his claim that domestic tyrants brought down the temple, not the Romans who tried to save it (1.9–12), Josephus returns regularly to the theme: 2.259, 264, 443, 562 (with notes in bjp 1b); 4.177–78, 236–344 (exchanges between Jerusalem’s leaders and Idumeans about who is enslaving and who standing for freedom), 394; 7.255; cf. Life 42. His political point is that, while the Judean militants claim to act from a rejection of slavery, they are in fact happy with it—as long as they are the masters. To judge from later centuries, it is not an implausible claim that those with a burning vision for revolt would bring a more severe expectation of discipline and loyalty than those who were happy with the status quo. Revolutions all but require intolerance of those lacking solidarity and prescribed “virtue” (Brinton 1965; cf. Robespierre in 1794). Nor is it implausible that the Romans, whose main interest was in peace and revenue, had less reason than militant leaders to treat Judeans harshly.

See 4.130 (and note at 4.12): these appear to be the Roman guard-posts that Vespasian had left, explicitly in Azotus and Iamneia but apparently along the edges (at least) of Judea, unless the guards in those two cities had some notional responsibility for affairs “throughout the countryside.” For μῖσος τοῦ ἔθνους on the part of some Romans, see also 3.133; 6.214 (exacerbated by word of Maria’s cannibalism). These 2 reasons for not intervening make perfect sense, given that Vespasian was not a regular governor of Judea, whose task was to keep the peace and resolve conflicts. He had brought an army with the specific mandate of suppressing anti-Roman violence (3.3, 445). If Judeans were harming each other, he (or his soldiers) had little evident reason to intervene, at the risk of harm to themselves—as he will soon explain to his generals (4.366–71). Although the meaning of this Homeric compound (προσαμύνω, Il. 2.238; 5.139; 16.509) is clear, it found no use—except in a quotation of Homer and a fragment of Aristotle—before Josephus employed it 7 times in War (only), suggesting a deliberate allusion to the great poet in the decidedly un-heroic attitude of the soldiers. The concessive afterthought makes one wonder whether Josephus had heard of an example or two of small Roman assistance, or whether this is merely a saving clause. Just described in 4.134. Although the 2nd-cent. grammarian Aelius Herodian will use ἀρχιλῃστής as an example of word manipulation (Pros. cath. [Lentz 1965: vol. 3.1 p. 82] and Orth. [3.2 p. 545]), Josephus is the first known user, with 12 examples: 6 in War (also 1.204; 2.56 [see note in bjp 1b], 253, 275; 5.30), 6 in Antiquities-Life. Since Herodian knew and cited Josephus on other matters, it is possible that the Judean author coined this compound, the equivalent of λῄσταρχος in Diodorus (33.1.5) and λῃστάρχης in Plutarch (Crass. 22.3). If Josephus coined it, he may have been influenced by ἀρχιπειράτης, rarely attested in surviving Greek but evidently older than its first appearance in Diodorus (20.97), because the somewhat cumbrous Latin archipirata (Quintilian, Inst. 9.4.64) is relatively well attested from Cicero onward (Verr. 2.5.64–79 frequently; Dom. 24; Off. 2.40; cf. Livy 37.11.6; Petronius 101.5). Or he may have been influenced by Latin dux or princeps latronum, especially by Cicero’s bitter account of Marc Antony when defeated by Hirtius: “with few followers, under cover of night, and frightened to death, that leader and chief of robbers fled” (Phil. 14.27; cf. Fam. 10.14.1; Ep. Brut. 13.2.5). The description fits Josephus’ account of John’s flight from Gischala. Before the tactician Aelian, Josephus’ 18 cases of σύνταγμα, 14 in War, make him the biggest user. Whereas τάγμα is his normal word for a legion or similarly disciplined body (also for the Essenes), σύνταγμα has the sense of something contrived or thrown together, such as a personal small army, often but not always with a negative tinge, as at 1.74, 110, 495, 568; 4.509, 513, 558. Although brought together only here (πονηρίας στῖφος), both nouns are typical of Josephus’ contemptuous, stock language for “insurgents, tyrants, bandits, revolutionaries,” etc. Of his 42 uses of στῖφος, 29 are in War, sometimes for scoundrels or bandits (2.358, 275; 3.450), but the word signifies any closely arrayed mass of people, including military units. For “wretchedness” (42 cases in War), another staple of Josephus’ lexicon, see notes to “worthless” at 2.156 and “sorry [individual]” at 2.273 in bjp 1b. In this volume I render the cognate adjective πονηρός, when not modifying a noun, as “contemptible” (see 4.179). See note to this rare, Philonic, double compound at 4.84, its only other occurrence in Josephus, and note the similar discourse of disease.

The adjective ἀστρατήγητος is attested only in Plato or Ps-Plato (and in a different sense: Alc. 2.142a) before Josephus, who has it only in War (also 2.234; 3.477; 5.122), and it remains rare thereafter. In its other appearances in War, all 4 passages are disparaging and effectively mean “ungoverned, uncontrolled, uncoordinated,” in reference to Judean fighters. Here the sense rather appears to be that Jerusalem was not controlled by a general, as though at war (restricting ingress and egress); it was a free and open city, a circumstance that now created problems. The double negation, in this rare adverb (ἀπαρατηρήτως) and the equally rare adjective preceding, packs a rhetorical punch. Josephus elsewhere expresses admiration for the well-regulated city kept apart and pure, in the vein of Plato’s Laws (Mason 2019b): cf. Apion 1.60; 2.214, 234, 276–77, 220–22, 258. Even as he admires Jerusalem’s openness to all Judeans from elsewhere, he observes—knowing that outsiders will soon murder the city’s leaders—that this turned out to be a great weakness.

Josephus revives his nautical imagery—a boat capsizing and sinking—from 2.556. After the ambush of Cestius, many fled Jerusalem as a ship beginning to sink. See note this key theme at 4.129. That famine and starvation rendered the city impotent for a longer siege, as a military matter regardless of moral causes (though these are his main interest), is a point Josephus restates at 5.26. See notes to fighting terms at 4.10, 63. See note at 4.57. A surprisingly pragmatic observation in a passage dealing with moral abstractions, especially from an author programmatically opposed to fighting Rome. Josephus now seems to suggest that Jerusalem’s noble fighters might have won, if they had been able to use the city’s resources. But the remark fits with his themes of Judean toughness (1.2–8) and the impregnable character of the mother-city, as well as his pragmatic perspective as a combatant himself. At 4.53 he has observed that Gamala did manage to reserve its food for fighters, a necessity of war that left non-combatants starving. As for Jerusalem: while deploring the civil strife that created lethal factions and forced the Romans to intervene (5.442–45), at 4.375 he repeats that Jerusalem would have mounted a much more effective defense (with better weapons and armor) if the civil strife had not prevented it. At 5.5–28 he considerably elaborates the point made here about squandering Jerusalem’s resources. By then, the only native faction in Jerusalem—the small priestly group led by Eleazar son of Simon—has withdrawn to the inner temple. John and his Zealots occupy the temple courts, Simon the Upper and Lower City. As these two groups led by outsiders constantly assault each other, they burn the other’s grain supply, thus destroying “what would have sufficed for them through several years of siege. For the city fell by famine, which would have been virtually impossible, had they themselves not generated this problem” (5.25–26). The rare Thucydidean double-compound there (προπαρασκευάζω) has the same root as the much rarer verb here: ἐπικατασκευάζω. The point is slightly different (idle incomers here, thoughtless militants there), but related. Josephus appears to think that Jerusalem, if called upon to defend itself for noble reasons, would have had the walls, resources, and fighters to hold out even against Rome’ legions. But that was not the nature of this war. Instead, ill considered civil strife prompted by Gessius Florus’ humiliations attracted Roman punishment, leading to pollution of sacred spaces with compatriot blood, and finally cannibalized itself, destroying physical and material resources, and leaving the city without moral, physical, or divine hope. Josephus is only the second attested user of this artful verb (ἐπικατασκευάζω), after Xenophon (Vect. 4.5), and he has it only here. See note at 4.129. In the opening prospectus (1.27), Josephus promises to “discriminate among the sufferings and calamities of the populace: how much they were afflicted by the war, how much by the civil strife, and how much by the famine.” This triad (πόλεμος, στάσις, λιμός) may be inspired by Xenophon, Hell. 1.4.10, its only attestation earlier, but only his War thematizes it. It recurs at 4.361 (the dying Niger calls down “famine and pestilence, in addition to the war and the internecine strife” on his Judean murderers); 5.522; 6.13 (Romans discover that Judeans can overcome all 3); 6.205 (wealthy Maria laments these 3 conditions in besieged Jerusalem and provides a compact exegesis to her infant, before killing it for food); 6.216 (Titus rails at Judeans for preferring these 3 calamities to their salutary opposites). Related passages: 6.40, 367–69, 399, 405, 421, 430. Here Josephus appears to say that war was coming in any case, after the ambush of Cestius, but these many migrants to Jerusalem produced the civil strife and famine that lost the city.

See note at 4.84. Josephus uses similar expressions—bad men X omitted no form of Y—a number of times, though otherwise with παραλείπω as the verb for “neglect, omit,” rather than παρίημι as here: 2.277, 306; 5.35; 7.269; cf. Ant. 10.37; 20.254.

See note to “brazen acts” at 4.90. A truly recherché word (λωποδυσία), first attested in Josephus (only here) and rare in later texts. Clement of Alexandria ca. 200 ce and Eusebius after 300, who both knew Josephus’ works, are the next known users. The word choice is all the stranger because (i) its literal meaning suggests dressing in another’s cloak, and so—unless it alludes to a text no longer extant—the audience would need to stop and think (Why did Josephus not use one of many common words for assault, theft, plundering, etc.?), and (ii) this abstract noun is plural, like the preceding one. Translations vary widely (Whiston [cf. M-B]: “plunderings”; Thackeray lcl: “highway robberies”; Rogers: “looting”; Pelletier: “vols de vêtements”). My translation borrows from H-G. See note at 4.72. Although their meaning was clear, neither λαθραῖος nor the cognate adverb λαθραίως (here) was commonly used before Josephus, though he has them 6 times, only in War. The biggest earlier users of the adverb are the tragedians (6 times) and the tragically inflected historian Diodorus (7), along with 5 occurrences in the Hippocratic corpus and 6 in the tactician Aeneas, of 47 before Josephus. The first 10 occurrences of the adjective are in classical tragedians, 3 more in the Hellenistic tragedian Lycophron, 4 in Polybius, 2 in Diodorus, and 1 each in Strabo and Philo (of just 38 attestations before Josephus). This suggests that Josephus’ use of the word group in War only, sprinkling 3 of the 6 instances in Book 4, helps to evoke a tragic atmosphere. A double example of Josephus’ routine deployment of the “rule of three,” where one triad is countered by another (cf. 6.205, 215), though in this case, curiously, the 1st and 2nd terms of the 2nd triad swap places in relation to those of the 1st triad.

Kokkinos (1998: 161 n. 29, 202) proposes that this elusive Antipas might be the son of either Herod’s nephew Phasael ii (b. 47/46 bce) or Herod’s son Antipas the tetrarch. He first appears at 2.418 (see bjp 1b), among Jerusalem’s powerful and distinguished men and connected by ancestry (same Greek terms used) to King Agrippa ii. Realizing that they cannot contain the civil strife recently begun by the young priests who follow Eleazar ben Ananias, these (not so) powerful men send separate delegations to Gessius Florus and King Agrippa, pleading for their help (August 66 ce). Antipas goes to Agrippa, with the brothers Costobar and Saul, and the king immediately dispatches a cavalry force of 2,000 under Philip son of Iacimus (2.421). According to 2.429, 556–58, the delegation returns to Jerusalem with Agrippa’s force, which soon finds itself imperilled. Permitted by Jerusalem’s insurgents to leave the besieged Herodian palace with Agrippa’s troop (2.437) before the massacre of the auxiliary garrison (2.450–55), Saul, Costobar, and Philip then flee to Cestius in N Syria (contrast Life on Philip’s activities; see notes at 4.2, 4, 81 above), who sends the brothers on to Nero. Antipas had refused to leave Jerusalem, however. In the intervening year, to judge from the present passage (it is now late 67 ce), Antipas has won sufficient trust from the rebel priests to become treasurer—whether he has changed his views and allegiances or they simply need someone of his stature for the role. At 2.557 Josephus promises to tell the story of his death, but his confinement here is the last we hear of him, although the coming paragraph describes the murders of many in custody, which perhaps assumes his death (4.145–46). This is one of innumerable hanging threads in War. Most strikingly, we hear only incidentally (and separately) of Josephus’ father’s (5.533) and mother’s incarceration (5.419, 444–45), and never learn what became of them. See note to “treasury of God” at 2.50 in bjp 1b. Josephus uses 4 phrases to describe what appears to be the same, temple-based treasury (the plural used here appearing interchangeably with the singular): “the treasury of God” (ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ θησαυρὸς), 2.50, 331; Ant. 7.367, 69;8.95, 258; 9.170, 202; “the sacred treasury” (ὁ ἱερὸς θησαυρός), 2.175, 293; 5.187; “the public treasury” as here (ὁ δηµόσιος θησαυρός), 2.564; 4.140; 5.518; and “the treasury-chamber” (τὸ γαζοφυλάκιον, γαζαφυλακεῖον), 5.200; 6.282; Ant. 9.164; 11.119, 126; 13.429; 19.294). The principal sources of revenue were the half-shekel or didrachma temple tax paid by Judeans in both the Roman and Parthian empires for upkeep of the sanctuary (Exod 30:11–16; Cicero, Flac. 66–69; Philo, Spec. 1.76–78; Legat. 216, 312; War 7.218; Ant. 18.311–13; Tacitus, Hist. 5.5; Matt 17:24–27), possibly with special subventions for special projects (War 5.187), as well as votive offerings and donations, from Judeans or foreigners, including potentates (War 2.412–17; Schürer-Vermes 2.270–74). The Mishnah tractate Sheqalim, albeit from a later perspective, is devoted to the issue of collecting and disbursing such funds. Like other temples, the one in Jerusalem served as a place of safe deposit (Jeremias 1969: 55–6). It remains unclear to what extent the temple’s funds were kept in separate accounts for temple use, civic projects (2.175, 564; 4.141; 5.518), and private savings. In spite of the notionally untouchable status of sacred sites, the thousands of talents famously kept there were a tempting target for leaders and strong men, Judean or foreign, for operating funds, civic projects, imperial needs, or in payment of defaults in tribute: 1.32, 179 [1.152–53]; 2.175, 293 (cf. 403), 331; 5.187; Ant. 10.111, 144, 149, 233, 175; 11.10, 14; 12.49–50; 14.105; Apion 2.80–83. Josephus appears to include Titus when he describes the Flavians’ plunder of even the most sacred, and priestly, accoutrements (6.82, 387–391; 7.148–152), in sharp contrast to Jerusalem’s first Roman conqueror, Pompey, who had piously left the treasure untouched (War 1.152–53; Ant. 14.73).

All 3 names appear only here in Josephus or other ancient texts. Ληουίας looks like a form of Ληουίς (Life 42, 131, 171, 189), or Levi (presumably connected with the Levite tribe, Ληουῖται), the name of John’s father in that work. But the different form of that name in War (Λήιος 2.575, 585; 4.85), which might be related to agriculture or plunder in Greek, cautions us about the underlying name of this person, especially as mss pal give variant forms with medial β. Syphas and Aregetes both look vaguely Greek, but they are otherwise unattested and they gave copyists a field day. For Syphas, mss mvr have an 0-vowel in the first syllable, whereas Latin versions begin the name with F. His patronymic changes in mss lmvrc to begin with R, the last 5 of these also replacing t with l as 3rd consonant. Although we cannot identify these people (Josephus’ Roman audiences could not either: he provides brief identifications), their names remind us of how little we know about day-to-day life in Jerusalem and personalities then familiar to residents. This (προύχειν δοκοῦντας) is a characteristic, formulaic phrase in Josephus’ War (1.85, 114; 3.452; 4.159; 5.249). Although found in Diodorus (2.40.4; cf. 1.30.1) and Dionysius (6.35.1), it is not so clear or formulaic there. Demosthenes (Arist. 109; Ep. 3.11) anticipates Josephus most clearly, though not yet with his absolute formulation. A puzzling remark since the story has so emphatically moved (as the next sentence confirms) from the countryside into the city, and Josephus has used precisely the same phrase (κατὰ τὴν χώραν) 3 times, of that pre-city context (4.129, 134–35, 138). If Josephus did not lose focus or misspeak, perhaps he means χώρα in a narrower sense here: previously of the larger Judean territory affected by Vespasian’s operation down the coastal plain, here meaning only the hinterland surrounding walled Jerusalem, where one would expect some wealthy families to live.

Panic takes hold (κατάπληξις εἶχε) also at 1.98, 381; Ant. 5.63. Clichéd though this sounds, Josephus is the first known author to use this formulation, with panic as subject of the verb (contrast Thucydides 8.66.2). See notes to “safety” at 4.51 and “loved” at 4.98. The point seems to be that, whereas in normal life people show love to family and friends (the usual referent of ἀγαπάω), the influx of violent outsiders here forces Jerusalemites to discard natural affections, to become preoccupied with personal survival. Recall 4.132, where the bonds of familial affection are broken. Josephus is beginning to create the chilling picture of a Hobbesian state of nature (as we might say) in Jerusalem that will dominate Books 4 to 6.

Or “restraints, bonds, fetters” (τὰ δεσμά). On security in strategy and tactics, see 4.31, 44 and notes. Although long-term detention of individuals was not unknown in the Graeco-Roman world, there were no prisons or penitentiaries in the modern sense. Normal practice was to detain those convicted of crimes until trial, sometimes with family and friends permitted to visit and feed them. The trial would result in acquittal and release or corporal and/or capital punishment. Individuals of high rank or special concern, such as the future King Agrippa i or John of Gischala after Jerusalem’s fall (War 6.434), might be exiled from their homeland or confined (cf. Josephus’ father at 5.533): Agrippa, chained to a centurion at an imperial palace, still dressed in purple, with some freedom to wander the grounds, access to baths, and decent food (Ant. 18.188–204, 224–37). Inside walled Jerusalem, those who detained members of the elite would have been expected either to release them or to punish them, but punishment required a charge.

Another exotic compound (ὀλίγανδρος) of obvious meaning but extremely rare occurrence: only here in Josephus and attested before him just once in an obscure text, not to appear again until a 10th-century quotation of his War. The attributed thought anticipates Machiavelli (Prince 3): men ought to be treated well or completely crushed, because they will avenge themselves for smaller injuries. The Disciples’ fear of retaliation by the men of the leaders’ households turns out to be an ironic setup. At 4.168 Ananus will accuse these men of failing to utter a word in protest. The phrase οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ … is favored by Josephus, who has it 32 times. This is the first occurrence in War (cf. 4.429), but it will proliferate in Book 7 (7.15, 78, 174, 182, 273, 346, 351) before its 21 occurrences throughout Antiquities and 2 in Apion. In earlier literature it appears mainly in rhetoric (Isocrates, Demosthenes), and is not found in epic, tragedy, Herodotus, Thucydides, or Xenophon. Plato has it only 3 times. But Polybius uses it 79 times, and Diodorus 45, though Dionysius only 10, Philo 15, Plutarch 240, though Dio Chrysostom only 5. Or “transgression”; see note at 4.134.

The logic is not clear to this point. Would the families of the incarcerated and the populace not be more outraged by murder than by imprisonment? The point seems to lie in what comes next. Confinement was a temporary measure while awaiting conviction or release. If they fabricate charges of high crimes, they can execute their prisoners with full legal cover (for plotting betrayal and surrender in time of war). See note at 4.72. The elaboration of John’s name presents puzzles: Δορκάδος οὗτος ἐκαλεῖτο παῖς κατὰ τὴν ἐπιχώριον γλῶσσαν. English translations (Whiston, Thackeray lcl, Williamson, Rogers, H-G) simply call John the “son of Dorcas,” transliterating the Greek name, whereas Pelletier and M-B translate the phrase, with Fench and German equivalents of “gazelle-son.” These different choices result from the difficulty of reconciling the 2 parts of the sentence: “was called X” and “according to the local language.” (i) Although the Atticizing War minimizes the use of non-Greek names, Josephus does provide Hebrew names on occasion (e.g., 2.628, 451), and so could presumably have given a Hebrew, truly local name if he had wished. (ii) He cannot mean “father was called in the vernacular Dorcas” (Williamson), because Greek (hence Dorcas) was not vernacular in Jerusalem. (iii) He did not need to add anything about the local language, for Greek-speaking audiences, after Dorcas—unless he meant not Dorcas but a local equivalent, which he chose not to transliterate as it would be meaningless. (iv) We expect a man to be identified as his father’s son, but Dorcas is a feminine name (cf. Acts 9:36; Lucian, Dial. meretr. 9). The French and German translators avoid these problems by understanding Josephus to suggest an equivalent Hebrew word for Greek dorcas, gazelle. The Greek common noun—derived from “have bright eyes”—referred to various animals of the deer family. This was not a scientific category, and the specific meaning varied by region (lsj s.v.): in Greece, the European roe-deer; in descriptions of Syria and Africa, more likely the antelope genus gazelle (cf. Herodotus 4.192, with different spelling). The lxx thus translates the Hebrew Bible’s צְבִי (“gazelle”) as δορκάς—which it often pairs with, but distinguishes from, אַיָּל (“deer”: e.g., Deut 12:15, 22; 14:5; 15:22; 1 Kgs 5:3). To complicate matters, in the Bible צְבִי often has an honorific metaphorical sense, because of the gazelle’s grace and speed, thus: “beauty, glory, choiceness, sweetness,” or even “hope” (e.g., Isa 4:2; 13:9; 24:16: 28:1, 4; Jer 3:19; Ezek 7:20; 20:15; 25:9). When the Hebrew Bible uses the word in these senses, the lxx must find alternatives to δορκάς, which would not have the same effect on Greek-speaking audiences. The Bible’s high estimation of the gazelle leads to its use of the word for valiant fighters (1 Chron 12:9; cf. 1 Sam 1:19; 2:18). In Hebrew and Aramaic, moreover, “son of X” (‪בן‬, בר) is one way of describing a person’s qualities (in the nt: son of peace, of thunder, of consolation; Luke 10:6; Mark 3:17; Acts 4:36). In the 1st cent. ce, צבי appears as a personal name on documents, though צִבְיָא is also attested (halot s.v.); the post-biblical Aramaic equivalent was טביתא (Tabitha: cf. Luke 9:36). These considerations make it plausible that either this John’s father was named Tzvi/Tsvi or, perhaps more likely, John himself bore the cognomen “gazelle-like.” If Josephus had Hebrew Tzvi in mind, his explanation may be vague because (i) it was difficult to represent in Greek—he will give Σαβιά for king Yehoash’s mother (Ant. 9.157), following lxx 2 Chron 24:1, but there was no masculine Greek equivalent—whereas (ii) Greek Dorcas would neither meet the need for a patronymic nor convey the Hebrew connotations of צְבִי. He thus resorted to saying this Ioannes was known as “the son of a gazelle/deer” but in the local language, which had antecedents unfamiliar to his audience. See note at 4.38.

This is the only occurrence of παρανόμημα in War, though it will reappear 3 times in Ant. 5–8. The pattern of prior attestation is familiar: of the 37 attestations before Josephus, 8 are in Diodorus and 14 (about 40%) in Philo, after 2 or 3 in Thucydides and Polybius among others. Josephus shares typically Philonic language. Josephus is the first known user of the compound verb ἀποψεύδομαι, which is attested only 4 times after him (though once in Plutarch) in all Greek literature. The middle voice suggests that it is intransitive (“cheat”); see next note. Or “justification” (πρόφασις). See note to “justification” at War 2.285 in bjp 1b and Villalba i Varneda 1986: 1–63. Some important mss (pam) have “pretexts” and add ἀναπλάσσω (“invent, manufacture”), understanding the previous middle verb as intransitive (“they cheated”) and needing a transitive verb with similar meaning to govern the object. The other mss and Latin translation omit this addition. Thucydides’ indications of causes (distinguishing αἰτίαι from προφάσεις), especially his paradoxical statement at 1.23.5–6 concerning “the truest πρόφασις” (Luce 1997: 83–84), surprising because a πρόφασις is most often a mere “pretext” (as Thucydides 1.126), have attracted much interest. It seems that he was inﬂuenced by medical usage, in which αἰτία (the term often used for a real cause in history) represented one’s constitutional disposition toward disease, whereas πρόφασις (construed from προφαίνω) meant the externally visible indicators (cf. Pearson 1952, 1972; Hornblower 1991: 64–65; Rood 1998: 208–210 and n. 9; Pelling 2000: 83–92; Price 2001: 345–46). Josephus, however, appears to owe more to Polybius’ treatment of causation (3.6–9; 22.18.6–11), which Walbank (1972: note ad 3.6.3) understands as a departure from Thucydides. Polybius distinguishes underlying causes (αἰτίαι), beginnings (ἀρχαί), and pretexts or justiﬁcations alleged by rivals (προφάσεις), whether these are true or false (cf. Luce 1997: 133–35; Shahar 2004: 144–45). Polybius’ theory of causation is crucial for his project of writing a “pragmatic history” for statesmen, enabling them to deal with reversals of fortune. Understanding causes enables politicians to separate what is in their control from what is outside it (viz., fortune). Although Josephus can use αἰτίαι and προφάσεις more or less interchangeably (Ant. 2.145), he more typically contrasts them (pointedly at Ant. 7.285, 324), using πρόφασις to mean “alleged cause, pretext, pretended reason,” or even “evasion, subterfuge.” For historiographically programmatic ἀρχαί in Josephus, outside the present sentence, see War 1.18, 30; Ant. 1.6, 7, 27; 20.261. The serious charge that Jerusalem’s established leaders are in secret negotiations with the Flavians will furnish the pretext for their murder (4.218, 226, 245–52, 279–81). Although Josephus presents at least this formulation as a damnable lie, promoted by John of Gischala for self-serving reasons, both his narratives and antecedent conditions make it plausible that leaders would seek terms, to preclude a devastating conflict. In Galilee, John allegedly accused Josephus of intending to betray the region to Vespasian (2.594)—a pretext to gain power, allegedly, though Josephus fully admits that he knew the war could not be won (3.135–36), and that his own commander, Ananus, hoped to reach terms (2.650–51). At 4.413–16, the Perean capital sends secret emissaries to Vespasian (“from a desire for peace and for the sake of [preserving] their property”); when their appeal results in Vespasian’s visit to their city, unreconciled elements of the population murder the leaders deemed responsible for such “betrayal.” The charge is plausible, then, although of course those involved would not see it as betrayal. Both War (e.g., 4.319–22) and Life (22) present Judean leaders, including Josephus, walking a fine line: trying to retain the people’s trust and preserve the nation’s dignity while making every effort to spare the country and people from devastation by securing peace with Rome. At War 4.375, 412, likewise, prominent citizens escape Jerusalem and plead with Vespasian to save it from domestic tyrants. This is the same sort of political tightrope we find in other Greek authors writing under Roman rule: Polybius, Plutarch (e.g., Advice to the Statesman), and Dio Chrysostom (Eckstein 1995; Swain 1996). It seems a priori likely (i) that Jerusalem’s leaders, who have worked hard to prevent anti-Roman agitation in response to Florus’ humiliations, are hoping to reach terms with Vespasian, and (ii) that they are desperate to keep any such negotiations hidden, indignantly denying them while showing enthusiastic sympathy for the people’s grievances against Rome—not least to preserve their own lives. They share the people’s feelings of grievance (especially against Nero’s latest procurators, the auxiliary, and emboldened neighbors), but consider it futile to oppose Rome’s legions. Or “common/public freedom” (τῆς κοινῆς ἐλευθερίας). In political use, κοινός overlaps with res publica: the vibrant, autonomous polis, the citizens of which guide its affairs. With this highly resonant language, Josephus sets the stage for War’s pivotal episode, in the middle of this volume: a set-piece debating duel between the chief priests Ananus and Jesus, on the one side, and the Idumeans (summoned by the Zealot/Disciple faction) arrayed outside Jerusalem’s walls, on the other, over who champions Jerusalem’s freedom and who are the tyrants opposing that freedom (4.236–82). The theme of “freedom vs. tyranny and slavery” has been amply grounded in earlier passages (1.9–12; 2.22, 80, 91442–43, 262, 442–43) and it will remain until Eleazar at Masada prescribes self-immolation as the final way to achieve freedom from slavery (7.323–88). See note at 4.95. See note at 4.90. Or “patrons and rescuers/preservers” (εὐεργέται καὶ σωτῆρες). These titles had been standard epithets of Ptolemaic and Seleucid kings: Ptolemy (iii, viii) Euergetes, Ptolemy i and ix Soter, and Antiochus i Soter. Literary attestation of the pair before Josephus follows the familiar pattern: Demosthenes (1), Polybius (4), Diodorus (3), Dionysius (1), Philo (10), Strabo (1); cf. Plutarch (5). It is matched in Latin, though less frequently, by (con)seruator liberatorque (Cicero, Phil. 2.31; Livy 34.50.9). Josephus has the pair 8 times (also 1.530; 3.459; 7.71; Ant. 11.278; 12.261), even claiming to have been hailed with this phrase himself, by Galilean followers (Life 244, 259)—a happy coincidence. Unless they were being ironic, it is unlikely that nationalist migrants from the Judean countryside described themselves in the language of the world of the Greek polis, which had no obvious equivalents in Hebrew or Aramaic.

See note at 4.80. See this collocation at 2.300. See note at 4.80. Greek τὰς χειροτονίας τῶν ἀρχιερέων. Cf. Ant. 3.192, where the appointment (χειροτονία: only occurrence in War) of the first high priest, Aaron, is by God, and Ant. 20.15, where emperor Claudius gives the terrestrial privilege of appointing high priests (τὴν τῶν ἀρχιερέων χειροτονίαν) to Herod of Chalcis. Although the plural of ἀρχιερεύς normally refers to chief priests, the context of appointment requires the sense of successive high priests. The sentence appears broken, perhaps reflecting Josephus’ calculated outrage over this issue.

Priests were the subset of the tribe of Levi descended from the first (priest and) high priest, Aaron. The Pentateuch suggests the first two successions from Aaron, via his oldest son Eleazar and grandson Phineas (Num 25:13), whereas the later narrative charts a switch from Eleazar’s progeny to Aaron’s younger son Ithamar’s, then back to Eleazar’s because of sin (1 Sam 2:35). 1 Chron 24:1–19 claims that King David himself arranged the priestly succession. He and his high priests Zadok and Abiathar cast lots to create 24 ancestral houses of priests (בֵית־אָבוֹת, οἴκους πατριῶν), 16 of Eleazar and 8 of Ithamar, that would serve in the temple. Josephus includes the passage in his biblical paraphrase (Ant. 7.365–66), splicing it into the main narrative from 1 Kings. He glosses over centuries of historical contingency by saying that the system continues “until this day,” and explains that each course or family line (there πατριά) serves from one sabbath to the next (8 days). He omits the list of 24 names, perhaps as unappealing for Greek readers, but in Life 1–3 is quick to name his own course, Yehoiarib, as first and best. Although Zadok’s historical origins are obscure, his presence dominates the biblical narrative and, in spite of conflicting traditions about the post-Exilic period, the “Zadokite” line was believed to hold the high priesthood until around 170 bce (G. W. Ramsey abd). The turmoil that generated the Hasmonean revolt replaced it, however, with the Hasmonean priestly family from Modein in the countryside (cf. 1 and 2 Maccabees). Because Qumran Scrolls highlight priests who are “sons of Zadok” (e.g., 1QS 5.1–4), the group(s) connected with them (often considered Essenes) are often thought to have originated from opposition to the Hasmoneans (but Baumgarten 1997). Whether Zadokite or Hasmonean, until King Herod the high priesthood remained a lifetime hereditary appointment. Herod changed this dramatically (Ant. 20.247–50). After terminating the Hasmonean line, he chose high priests from a wide range of Jerusalemite and foreign priestly families, limiting their terms from a single day to more than a decade. Josephus remarks that Herod appointed men who were mere priests of no distinction (Ant. 20.247: τισιν ἀσήμοις καὶ μόνον ἐξ ἱερέων οὖσιν), agreeing with his language here. He wryly notes that the 107 years from Herod to Titus saw 28 high priests, of 83 in all Judean history: the first 13 covered 612 years, the next 18, 466.5 years (Ant. 20.227–32). After Herod, the appointment of high priests fell to one of the king’s descendants, the imperial legate in Syria, or the prefect in Caesarea. They continued his practice of replacing high priests as desired, with the result that many ex-high priests (anchors of the “chief priests”) were present in Jerusalem. Two main families, of Boethus and Ananus/Annas, and two minor ones, of Phiabi and Caminthus, now dominated the pool from which candidates were drawn (Smallwood 1962; Schürer-Vermes 2.227–36). Josephus shows a keen interest in high-priestly succession (Ant. 20.224–51, 261; Apion 1.29, 32, 36, 54; 2.184–87, 194). He is proud of his claim to priestly status (War 1.1–3; 3.352; Life 80, 198, 204; Apion 1.54), which he says is either based upon or much enhanced by a Hasmonean connection (Life 1–6, with Ant. 16.187), though that link is difficult to reconstruct (Rajak 2002: 14–25) and Hasmonean scions had long faded from prominence. However that may be, his family enjoyed status and close connections with chief priests of the 60s (War 5.419; Life 204). In the present passage, Josephus vents his indignation at a non-traditional high-priestly appointment, but remains vague about the nature of the infraction, given the many changes and possibilities in the past century. Josephus will later portray the high-priestly succession, as though it were singular from the time of Moses (Ant. 20.261; cf. Apion 1.31), in a simple, idealized model. Here, as in the restatement at 4.153, it seems that the reality of multiple family lines, from the time of Herod, forces him to use “successions.” Josephus’ language (ἀσήμους καὶ ἀγενεῖς) reflects his aristocratic perspective. He speaks of his class, including his own family (Life 1; War 5.419), with the litotes “not undistinguished” (οὐκ ἄσημος: War 1.241; 2.469; 5.6; 6.81; Ant. 16.243, 301). Rebel elements he disparages, as here, as drawn from the undistinguished (5.100). War 6.169 is a rare paradox: an undistinguished Judean of great merit. Philo’s 16 and Josephus’ 20 uses of ἀσέβημα make them the heaviest early users of the word; cf. Demosthenes (8), extant Polybius (13), and Diodorus (9) The sense cannot be that they chose known collaborators, since at 4.155 they will choose the high priest “by chance/fortune,” casting lots, but rather that any undistinguished person they elevated would be grateful and pliant.

A modern-sounding observation on human nature comparable to that made today about politicians indebted to lobbyists and other special interests: if you owe your elevation to them, you will feel obligated to do their bidding.

A curious word (λογοποιία), attested before Josephus only in the Characters by Aristotle’s successor Theophrastus (319 bce)—his 8th bad character type: the man who claims to know things (and tells them to others) that have no foundation—and a fragment from Nicolaus. Josephus has it 3 times: also at 1.482; 4.387. It does not appear again until the grammarian Aelius Herodian, who know Josephus’ works, only because he discusses this kind of multi-vowel word-ending. This fairly rare compound verb (συγκρούω), which reoccurs in Josephus only at 4.263, is attested before him (47 times) mainly in rhetorical writing: in historical narrative: Dionysius’ rhetorical works (8) and Demetrius on style (6), earlier in Isocrates (1) and Demosthenes (2). It makes an occasional appearance in historical writing (Thucydides, Polybius, and Diodorus—2 each). Josephus might have been inspired by Thucydides (1.44.2) in the famous passage that describes the Athenians, after hearing appeals from both Corinth and Corcyra, agreeing to help the latter defensively while consciously causing friction between the parties to weaken them. Josephus is partial to the phrase οἱ ἐν τέλει for those in office, using it 32 times throughout his narratives. Before his time it is found far less frequently—Herodotus (4), Thucydides (10), Polybius (1), Diodorus (2), Dionysius (16); cf. Plutarch (16)—except in Philo, whose comparable corpus also has it 32 times. As will soon become clear (4.151, 158), those hindering them are chief priests Ananus ii and Jesus son of Gamalas along with the prominent laymen (some Pharisees) Joseph son of Gorion and Symeon (or Simon) son of Gamaliel; cf. already 2.411, 562. Josephus does not explain what internal disputes these men may have had. He can perhaps rely on the audience assumption that prominent figures always have some issues of disagreement, and on his own knowledge (cf. Ant. 13.297–98; 18.17) that the Sadducean chief priests would have disagreed with prominent Pharisees on many matters, even as they united to lead the city in crisis. He accuses the “bandits” of sowing discord by playing up these differences, a form of psychological warfare (“divide and conquer”) still much used in military and political campaigns. Josephus is the first known user of this evocative double-compound (ὑπερεμπίπλημι), which he has also at 1.624 and 5.549. It is not attested again until Arrian (once) and, especially, Galen the physician. Virtually the same phrase (εἰς ἀνθρώπους … ἀδικημάτων) reoccurs with the same cluster of ideas—pollution of the divine sanctuary by compatriot bloodshed complementing injustice—at 4.382, following the intruders’ murdering spree, which will remove Ananus, Jesus, Gorion, and other esteemed Jerusalem leaders. “Piety toward God and justice toward humanity” was a standard way of expressing the totality of human obligation, in Greek oratory as in the Bible (Micah 6:8). The Hellenistic historians Diodorus and Dionysius take over the pair, but Josephus thematizes it more consistently: as the criterion for the good and bad kings of Israel/Judah, the Essenes (War 2.139), John the Baptist (Ant. 18.117), and others; cf. Mason 1991: 85–90 and the note to “humanity” at War 2.139 in bjp 1b. His formulation here shows the “bandits” violating the most basic of human obligations, committing injustice toward other people and impiety toward God. Insolence (or “affront, insult, outrage”: ὕβρις) appears frequently across ancient genres (epic, oratory, philosophy, ethics), though it is most familiar to us as the behavior of tragic protagonists, leading to their downfall. Insolence toward God, also a common ancient concept, becomes a recurring phrase in Antiquities: 1.113; 3.311; 5.200, 255; 6.61; 8.253, 277; 9.154; 10.241. Toward the Deity (τὸ θεῖον), as here, it is less frequent but synonymous: Ant. 4.206; 8.316. See previous note. Josephus uses the neutral variation (τὸ θεῖον) for God mainly in Antiquities (ca. 130 occurrences, against only 17 in War). This powerful statement, as we move toward War’s central panel in the middle of Book 4, inaugurates an important tragic theme in War: the pollution (here μιαίνω, cognate μίασμα) of the temple precinct or holy place by compatriot bloodshed, which will require its purging by fire. The theme is anticipated at 2.424, 455 (see notes in bjp 1b). Subsequent references in this volume follow quickly: 4.201, 215, 242, 323, 562; 5.10, 377, 380, 382, 402; 6.95, 110, 127. For context see Mason 2013. Josephus usually distinguishes between the larger temple compound or temenos (τὸ ἱερόν) and the central shrine or holy place, containing the Court of Women, the altars, and the Holy of Holies (ὁ ναός). He also speaks often of τὸ ἅγιον, as here in the neuter singular (4.151, 159; 5.394; 6.95, 99; Ant. 12.413; cf. 16.115) or more often in the plural (τὰ ἅγια: 2.341, 400, 539; 4.162, 171, 173, 182, 183, 191, 201, 242, 323; 5.7, 397, 406, 412; 6.104, 120, 124, 128, 165). At 5.194 he appears to identify the singular with the space restricted for Judeans inside the balustrade warning to foreigners: the inner courtyard but not the central shrine, which had its own walls (5.193–98). While some passages seem to identify the holy place with the inner structure (1.26; 5.394; 6.260; perhaps 6.73), others suggest the whole compound (5.207). Since Josephus appears to use the singular and vaguer plural interchangeably, it seems safest to understand not a particular area but the area in Jerusalem set aside for sacred purposes: the sanctuary.

See note at 4.57. Since his father Ananus was high priest from 6 to 15 ce, and Ananus ii has had 4 brothers serve in the office between 15 and 44 ce (Smallwood 1962: 32), we might have guessed that he would be in his 60s by 68 ce, unless he was born much later than his brothers, perhaps to a younger mother. Ananus ii not only provides a foil for the bandits just described; he is War’s most prominent example, aside from Josephus, of political prudence. This notice begins the movement toward his murder in War’s narrative fulcrum (4.314–25), after which everything unravels in stasis, famine, and destruction. Josephus has incidentally mentioned the man’s father Ananus i, son of Seth (high priest 6–15 ce; cf. Ant. 20.197–98), and brother Jonathan as a former high priest (37 ce) who represented Judea before Claudius in the early 50s, returning to become the first prominent victim of sicarii knife crime (2.240–43, 256). The present Ananus’ term as high priest was so brief that it does not appear in War: in the gap of 3 months between Festus’ death in post and the arrival of Albinus (War 2.271–72). The standard dating of that transition is 62 ce (Schürer-Vermes, 1.465–66 n. 42), although Kokkinos (1998: 385) argues for 59/60. War introduces him only at 2.563, as co-commander of Judean preparations for conflict with Rome after the ambush of Cestius. At the end of that volume (2.648–54) Josephus offers a remarkable anticipation of what is coming, which skips Book 3 but takes shape now: Ananus and others led Jerusalem’s preparations, pleasing militants while terrifying the reasonable and peace-loving majority, while divine omens added to the anxiety. Ananus walks a line between visible preparation for conflict and quietly nurturing the hope that he can steer “those called Zealots/Disciples” to a more beneficial course—but he will succumb to their violence. Josephus will elaborate that picture of the man in his encomium after the murder (4.318–25). In the short term, Ananus is able to remove Simon bar Giora, a militant on the Judean frontier, driving him to Masada. All this prepares for Book 4, when Ananus’ murder will fatefully liberate Simon, eventually to enter Jerusalem. Ant. 20.197–203 does describe Ananus’ brief term as high priest. It relates that, “daring by disposition and extraordinarily bold,” as a Sadducee and therefore harsh in punishment, Ananus exploited his appointment following Festus’ death—with no procurator in Caesarea—to execute a number of Judeans for law-breaking, among them Jacob (James) the brother of the Jesus known as Christ. Outrage from the more lenient-minded and those reputed to be precise in legal interpretation (likely Pharisees and their supporters) led Agrippa ii to replace Ananus. Although the Antiquities passages appear critical and hard to square with War’s insistence on Ananus’ prudence, Josephus himself celebrates the law’s strictness, including its prescriptions for capital punishment (Mason 2019b). Though disagreeing with Sadducean views on some points, he can also show sympathy for fellow-aristocrats from this school, who are usually constrained by the more lenient Pharisees’ influence (Ant. 13.297–98; 18.17). Josephus may think that Ananus learned prudence from his improper behavior years earlier, or that the prudence he admires relates mainly to relations with Rome. That Josephus did not intend lethal criticism in Antiquities 20 is also suggested by his ongoing respect for Ananus in Life (193–96, 216, 309)—granted his regret that this admirable leader, who appointed him to Galilee, was susceptible to bribery by Pharisees. Prudence is likewise a quality of older males in its only other occurrences in War (2.570; 4.133). See note to “Ananus” above. Josephus again anticipates the elaborate story of Ananus’ murder, the heart of this volume (4.314–25). The walled inner temple (ναός) containing the altars and Holy of Holies; see note to “sanctuary” at 4.150. Josephus has not explained how these vaguely defined troublemakers and “bandits”—the crowd animated by John of Gischala’s arrival (4.121) and joined by waves of migrants from the countryside (4.135, 138)—gained access to the inner temple. The answer seems to be that their core in Jerusalem was formed by the activist priests around the temple commandant Eleazar son of Ananias (2.408–17). See notes in bjp 1b. By 2.422–29 this “insurgent element” led by dissident priests has control of the temple, which they never lose throughout War (cf. 4.196–207). Note the telling remark at 4.157: “the other priests” looked on in horror, betraying Josephus’ assumption that this was a priest-led group. Its form, size, and leadership evolve hazily in the background of his narrative, however, as Eleazar son of Simon (2.564–65) and another prominent priest turn out to be leaders of the Zealots/Disciples (4.225 with 5.5), before and after breaking with John of Gischala’s co-optation of the same group, still ahead in this volume (4.208–23). The temple’s fortress-like properties were widely observed, with different interpretations. Tacitus had heard that the temple resembled a citadel (Hist. 5.12). Josephus emphasizes the strength of the city’s walls (cf. Strabo, Geog. 16.2.40; Pliny, Nat. 5.72) and remarks that the temple was like a fortress over that strong city, the Antonia in turn protecting it (5.245). Ananus takes a different tone, however, when in his coming speech to the populace he laments the militants’ transformation of the temple into a fortress (4.172). Cf. our narrator’s observation at 6.121 about the inner temple’s having become a fortress, surrounded by the outer court as a battlefield full of corpses. During Titus’ war-council (6.240), some generals point out that although it would be impious to attack a temple, this one has become a fighting fortress. I.e., the people recognize the wise leadership of Ananus and so would attack these bandits—create disturbances dangerous to them—if they had not scandalously found protection in the city’s holiest precinct. Few ancient authors had occasion to use τυραννεῖον. Josephus’ War accounts for the 7th and 8th (War 5.169) tlg attestations, though Plutarch has the word 6 times. Before Josephus, most occurrences are in Strabo (Geog. 12.6.3; 13.1.67; 16.2.37), the last referring to the Hasmoneans in a back-handed compliment: although they made Jerusalem a seat of regional tyranny, they respected it as a holy place. See also Diodorus 16.70.4. Tyranny is a central theme in War (73 occurrences of cognate words), as also but differently in Antiquities (62), there in relation to the long view of Judean and world politics. War’s prologue (1.10–11, 27–28) shows τύραννοι to be Josephus’ term for those who foment stasis by opposing Jerusalem’s regular aristocratic leadership in the interest of personal power, masking their motives with the appealing slogan of “freedom.” Examples are sprinkled throughout War 2 (see notes at 2.84–85, 262, 442, 447–48, 626, 652 in bjp 1b), but only from now on, in Book 4 (4.158, 166, 172, 178, 208 etc.) do the principal tyrants of Josephus’ narrative, whom he holds responsible for Jerusalem’s later fall, take distinct shape: John of Gischala, Eleazar son of Simon, and Simon bar Giora, plus Eleazar at Masada. This casual but devastating remark about the Disciples’ use of the sacred precinct as a base of tyranny is thus programmatic.

All 4 occurrences of εἰρωνεία in War fall in Book 4 (also 4.279, 340, 342), with 1 of the 3 occurrences of the simple cognate verb (4.334), highlighting the tragic character of this narrative section: militants deceive the people while accusing the leaders of deceptive schemes. See note to “dissembling” in relation to John of Gischala at 4.127. Josephus is the first attested user of the extremely rare verb παρακίρναμαι. He has it only here, and it does not appear again until the 4th century. A Byzantine lexicographer, Hesychius, explains that it means “be mixed in with.” One copyist of L suggested παρακρίνομαι instead (“drawn up beside”), though it is not much better attested before Josephus (twice in Herodotus), and he does not otherwise use it.

I.e., one might expect groups that recently entered the city to be cautious in relation to established rulers. But having created panic through their extreme violence (so Josephus), these men want to see how far they can go. See note to “designated” at 4.148. The serving high priest in 68 ce, appointed in the traditional way, is not indicated in War. Ant. 20.213 relates that Jesus son of Gamaliel, Ananus’ colleague in the coming narrative, was appointed before the arrival of Gessius Florus (20.215), and that Agrippa ii replaced him with Matthias son of Theophilus, who was in office when the conflict with Rome erupted (20.223). If Matthias’ father was the Theophilus who served from 37–41 (Ant. 18.123), Matthias would be a grandson of Ananus i (Smallwood 1962: 15). If he remains alive, Matthias will not have taken kindly to a usurper chosen by lots. We do not know what became of him, however. War incidentally mentions “the chief priest Matthias” as the respected figure who admits Simon bar Giora into Jerusalem, to combat the Disciples and their high priest (4.574). A modern reader with knowledge of Ant. 20 would assume that the Matthias in question is the son of Theophilus. But a later passage (5.527–31) calls Matthias “the son of Boethus” and “from among the chief priests.” There, Simon becomes contemptuous of him and has him brutally killed along with 3 of his sons. Finally, at 6.113–14, after a speech by Josephus, various members of the elite escape to the Romans, including both high priests and sons of high priests (6.114: ἀρχιερεῖς μὲν … υἱοὶ δὲ ἀρχιερέων). The former group apparently includes known former high priests, naming Joseph (Cabi, Ant. 20.196) and Jesus (son of Damneus, Ant. 20.203), the latter group 4 “sons of Matthias” and 1 son of “a different Matthias”—clarified as the one who survived the execution of his 3 brothers and father by Simon bar Giora. If the unnamed high priest at the outbreak of war, whom Phanni usurps, is Matthias son of Theophilus as Ant. 20.223 indicates, it appears that the Matthias of 4.574, who facilitates Simon’s arrival, is not the high priest of 66 mentioned in Ant. 20 but a member of a different high priestly clan, a descendant of Boethus, who perhaps did not reach the high priesthood himself. On election by lot, see note to “hand-elected” (Essene leaders) at 2.123 in bjp 1b. Democracies either chose leaders in elections (as in the Roman Republic) or left their election to sortition, the casting of lots (Aristotle, Ath. pol. 54.3; Pol. 1294, 1301; Lucian, Nav. 29; Plutarch, Flam. 16.6). The latter practice, associated with 5th–4th cent. bce Athens, assumed the equality in principle of all those eligible for office (as in modern jury selection or military conscription, before disqualifications). The practical effect was to nullify factionalism, political debts, and demagoguery, all of which plague elections based on choice, still today: candidates for election will try to sway voters by fair means and foul. The obvious downside of sortition is the likely lack of experience, planning, or even competence among those chosen, though practitioners of this method might invoke fate, or divine providence, as the superhuman judge of worth (Acts 1:26; cf. Luijendijk and Klingshirn 2019). Since the appointment of high priests had fallen to Rome’s appointees in Judea (governors or native royals), who made their selection from a small group of families traditionally considered eligible, it is easy to imagine groups disaffected with this privileged group replacing the whole apparatus with election by lot. These rebels may have wished to prove to Jerusalemites that they were not installing their favorite in place of the traditional appointee, by leaving the choice to God. If they did use lots, as he claims, Josephus’ complaint that they chose their own high priests would not make sense. His outrage and repeated insistence that certain families alone were eligible for the supreme office match his emphatic preference for aristocracy, against all democratic challenge (Ant. 4.223; 5.135; 6.36, 84; 11.111), for which he presumably expects a degree of sympathy among his Roman audience. See notes to 4.147–48.

Or “screen, pretense, cloak, show” (πρόσχημα). See note to “designated” at 4.148. Although the high priest was not appointed by lot, the selection of ancestral lines eligible to produce a high priest had been determined in this way (1 Chron 24:1–19). Indeed, lots had been used for crucial decisions in the Bible, from the allotment of territories to the 12 tribes (Josh 18:1–10; Ant. 5.80–88) to the choice of Israel’s first king: the tribe, the family, and Saul the individual (lxx 1 Sam 10:20–21; Ant. 6.60–62). Thackeray lcl notes that this section reflects “imperfect editorial revision,” as Josephus reverts to the seemingly finished point in 4.147–148, which he will only explain properly in 4.155–57. If we look for reasons apart from mere carelessness or distraction, Josephus’ personal, social, and political investment in the priestly regime in which he had been raised, hence his emotional investment, might help to explain the disjointedness and repetition. Greek τοῦ βεβαιοτέρου νόμου κατάλυσις, though Niese considers νόμου suspect because not found in one ms version. The noun κατάλυσις can refer to any kind of “breakdown, dissolution, end,” ranging in application from lodging at the end of a day’s travel to one’s death, or the removal of a tyrant. Josephus uses it a number of times in relation to the dissolution of ancestral customs (4.157, 398; Ant. 16.1; 18.55) or laws (4.224; Ant. 19.301), which would explain why a copyist might have added νόμου if Josephus had not written it. That 9 of War’s 16 occurrences occur in Book 4, 3 in a cluster here (also 4.157–58), shows this volume’s focus on the decay that overtook both Jerusalem and Rome (cf. 4.495, 655, concerning the desired “undoing” of Vitellius) in 68–69 ce. The adjective βέβαιος (here comparative) is a favorite of Josephus, who has it 73 times. The few conspicuous users before him are Thucydides (50), Plato (42), Demosthenes (28), Aristotle (48), Diodorus (31), Dionysius (83), and Philo (109); cf. Plutarch (171). Greek τέχνη πρὸς δυναστείαν. Although he can use τέχνη to mean an admirable skill or art (2.129; 7.134, 146, 438; Ant. 2.203; 8.69), Josephus often uses it as here for cunning stratagems (1.499; 2.257; Ant. 1.162; 2.209, 286; 4.47; 9.82; 13.205; 17.67), especially in contexts of political power. For supreme power, see note at 4.85. Or “magistracies”: offices of state in the polis. War’s 93 occurrences of ἀρχή are nearly all singular, meaning either “beginning” or “rule, empire, government.” For the plural in the context of government see also 1.285; 4.630. But see the next sentence: they choose the high priest “by chance,” by lot. In Ant. 4.12–53 Josephus will devote much space to explaining how the high priesthood was first established, following the biblical story but embellishing it considerably. His main point is that God chose Aaron and God’s choice is irrefragable. The wealthy Levite Korah’s objections to this appointment, a protest that Josephus makes out to be one of the greatest civil conflicts ever, are allowed to sound very plausible (4.20): the appointment should have been subject to a public, democratic vote (cf. Thoma 1989: 213–14). Josephus has Korah accuse Moses of the very charges that Josephus here lays against the “bandits,” and with similar vocabulary: Moses acts as a “tyrant,” violating the laws and using “craftiness” in a “plot” to enslave the populace and secure his own power by appointing his kin (4.16–17, 22).

Since the name is otherwise unknown, the mss copyists had a field day: P reading thus, A with erasure marks on the final letters, mvr preferring ἐνιακεὶμ, L and C making other adjustments to the ending. But the Latin and Ps-Hegesippus (both 4th cent.: eniachin, eniachim) support P. The mvr alternative has encouraged scholars to conjecture Iakim, the 12th course named in 1 Chronicles (24:12). Thoma (1989: 213–14) argues on this assumption—calling the group Zealots and attributing to them “radical Jewish eschatological expectations”—that this high priest comes from a “first-rank clan” of the Zadokites, and that Josephus, proud of his Hasmonean and non-Zadokite priestly heritage (Life 1–3), is implicitly rubbishing the Zadokites. That is a subtle argument, which his Roman audience could not have detected, and hard to square with Ant. 7.365–66 (note to “designated” at 4.148). Thackeray lcl rejects the Iakim identification, though on the dubious ground that φυλή (“tribe,” next note) was a subset of the πατριά (“course”) and not to be confused with it. But at 7.365 the φυλή is the tribe of Levi, of which the priestly courses are subsets: φυλή is therefore not a stable category. Since Josephus mentions the name only to show his competence, not because he expects his audience to understand, it is possible that he has the priestly course of Iakim in mind, perhaps then based in the countryside. See next note. Given Josephus’ repeated point about the rebels’ disdain for high-priestly families, μίαν τῶν ἀρχιερατικῶν φυλήν comes as a surprise. It would make more sense if they had chosen another priestly clan (cf. the Hasmoneans). That is what we see in the 4th-cent. Latin translation (sacratarum) and the mss vr. Either these writers “corrected” what they read, in which case “the more difficult reading” of the others (paml) would be more original, or the “high”-priestly variant crept into the post-Latin mss through careless copying. The mss offer slight variants (φαννίτης, φάνι, φαννίας, Latin: fani) to Φαννί in P. A figure of great significance, as the last high priest in Judea until today. In spite of Josephus’ mockery here, when proudly listing the unbroken line of 83 high priests from Aaron at the end of Antiquities he does not hesitate to name this figure as the last of the line (Ant. 20.227), noting that he—now called Phanasus—was “designated high priest by the insurgents during the war” and (Φανάσου τοῦ κατὰ τὸν πόλεμον ὑπὸ τῶν στασιαστῶν ἀρχιερέως ἀναδειχθέντος). Curiously, given his high status (acknowledged by Josephus), we do not hear what became of him during the war. Dérenbourg (1867: 269 and n. 2) assembled rabbinic texts (esp. Sifra, Emor parasha 2 to Lev. 21.10) that refer to the same figure: Hebrew name Pinchas, a stone-mason of humble origin, elected high priest by lot, who married the daughter of a prominent Pharisee. Rajak (2002: 132–33), who sees in Phanni the Aramaic ending of the name, uses these texts to expose Josephus’ glaring bias against a respected figure. Dates are a problem of course, but certainly the rabbinic texts suggest that there was much more to Pinchas that Josephus allows here, perhaps that he represented deep popular disgruntlement with the ineffectiveness of chief-priestly circles in protecting the people, though the elite were at least as vulnerable as others to the procurator’s and auxiliary’s malfeasance (2.305–14). Another display of local expertise, a name meaningless to Josephus’ Roman audience and only here in ancient literature. Again, ms copyists took various guesses with the strange name, dropping initial A or medial I; the Latin has (ex uico) aphathas. In an Atticizing work that uses few Semitic names, Josephus may name the village only to mock the non-urban, obscure origin of the man: his distance from Josephus’ Jerusalem elite. Dérenbourg (1867: 269 n. 2) notes the rabbinic variants for Pinchas’ place of origin as Ḥavtah (חבתה), Hafta (הפתא), or Eftah (אפתה). Possibly “took up their lawlessness next (in succession),” reading διαδεξόμενος with mss vr and M margin rather than διαδείξας. See note at 4.134. I.e., the small group of elite Jerusalem families that had occupied the post since King Herod’s time; Smallwood 1962. The insulting character trait (ἀγροικία) is meant to highlight Pinchas’ country-bumpkin origin (cf. English “boor” from Dutch boer, farmer): rusticity, lack of sophistication or urbanity, coarseness. Josephus has it only here and at Ant. 7.182. Lit., “what ever it was.” The rhetorical phrase τί ποτ᾿ + form of εἰμί was most common with the present indicative ἐστίν (as Ant. 15.278). Here Josephus has the imperfect, whereas a few times in Antiquities he uses the sensible but rare optative εἴη (might be: Ant. 2.82; 11.289; 14.292, only 4 attestations before Josephus). While accusing the rebels of playing games, Josephus is indulging in retrospective literary humor at the rebels’ expense.

Or “mask”: ancient actors, who were all male, wore expressive masks on stage. Verbal agreement (here ὥσπερ ἐπὶ σκηνῆς ἀλλοτρίῳ κατεκόσμουν προσωπείῳ) suggests that Josephus is influenced by Philo’s Against Flaccus 20, a scenario made more plausible by Josephus’ many distinctive similarities with Philo. Philo portrays the desperate Roman Prefect as allowing himself to be manipulated by Alexandria’s anti-Judean leaders, who give him “a disguise/mask, as though on a stage, for the sake of cover” (ὡς ἐπὶ σκηνῆς προσωπεῖον ἕνεκα προσχήματος). They leave him only the title of rule as they control his actions. At Ant. 6.264, Josephus uses similar language again but in reverse, to describe men (like Saul) who acquire actual power: they put aside their moral ways as though they were “masks worn on a stage” to indulge untrammelled desires. Although Josephus can refer to the dress of serving priests as sacred (5.228), he normally uses the phrase, signifying great solemnity, of the high priest’s special garments (1.437; 4.324). Josephus elaborately describes the expensive blue and gold garments and head-dress of the high priest with their cosmic significance in Ant. 3.159–87. He later traces the issue of control of the high priest’s brilliant attire. John Hyrcanus reportedly began the practice of storing the vestments in the fortress beside the temple. Herod rebuilt it as the Antonia and continued the practice, now with the added motive of stifling anti-monarchical sentiment reposed in the high priest. A week before each major festival, the high priest would take control of the vestments in a ceremony and purify them before using and returning them (Ant. 18.90–94). After Herod’s death and Archelaus’ removal (6 ce), as the post-Herodian auxiliary garrison rotating in from Caesarea showed hostility to the Judeans, this custom became odious to Jerusalemites. The priestly elite began to lobby legates and emperors for the return of the vestments to their control. The legate Vitellius was the first to achieve this, having acquired Tiberius’ consent, in. 36/37 ce (Ant. 15.403–405; 18.90), and, after Claudius initially reversed that decision, a further appeal led him to confirm it in the early 40s (Ant. 20.10–14). The special occasions on which the high priest had important duties (for which the sacred vestments had formerly been returned to his care; previous note) were the major festivals of Passover, Shavuot/Pentecost, and Sukkot/Tabernacles, but especially Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), in which he alone entered the Holy of Holies (Ant. 18.94). The scenario of a poor illiterate suddenly put in a position of aristocratic, royal, or elite power (and dress) has long been a staple of comedic fiction in literature (e.g., Mark Twain’s The Prince and the Pauper) and film. Rajak (2002: 133 n. 78) notes an ancient parallel in Diodorus 17.47 (correcting her 17.74). To illustrate reversals of fortune, Diodorus relates that Alexander the Great removed the king of Tyre [it must have been Sidon] because of his Persian allegiance, and invited his aide Hephaestion to name a replacement from the local hosts he had encountered. Hephaestion’s first choice declined because, though wealthy and prominent, he had no royal blood. That man nominated a royal who had fallen into extreme poverty, located him fetching water for hire and dressed in rags, then dressed him in the royal cloak with corresponding bling and presented him in the agora, to universal acclaim. Although Josephus has an equal interest in reversals of fortune, his animus here prevents him from seeing Phanni as any kind of positive example.

See note at 4.148. Greek χλεύη is rarely attested (9 times) before Philo’s 26 occurrences and then Josephus’ 7. This is another example of their shared literary culture or influence. See note to “shrine of God” at 4.151: Josephus has not explained that migrants from the Judean countryside, who may include a number of priests, are supported by the dissident priests who control the inner temple. Oddly, Josephus is the first attested user of the rare compound ἐπιθεάομαι, and he has it only here; its next one-off appearances are in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. For a similar expression see Plato, Leg. 685a, 690d. Although Josephus’ War has a sizable lexicon for lament and mourning, this is his only use of καταστένω (“sigh/groan in lament”). All 12 attestations before Josephus are in the tragedians Euripides (10) and Sophocles (2); the verb will not occur again until the 5th century. A literate audience in Rome might well have recognized the tragic connotation. The simple verb στένω (“moan, groan, grieve”; see 4.331) is much more common, though overwhelmingly in Homer and the tragedians, and left alone by historians—except Polybius (2), Diodorus (2), Dionysius (3). See note to “undoing of established law” at 4.154.

This statement anticipates Ananus’ coming speech, in which he mockingly accuses the populace precisely of tolerating the rebels’ outrages (4.171), before deploying brilliant rhetoric as a spur to vigorous action (4.193–95). Although Josephus backs Judea’s priest-led aristocracy as the best kind of government, he shows a keen awareness (cf. Plutarch’s Advice to the Statesman) of the need to keep the “rabble” supportive. Because persuasive “tyrants” and demagogues (War 4.126; Ant. 4.14, 20; Life 37–42), but also Pharisees, whose legislative agenda has massive popular support (Ant. 13.197–98; 18.17), are dangerous to the public good, aristocrats must be vigilant in maintaining public support, as Ananus and Jesus manage to do—until their murder leaves the populace without strong leaders, at the mercy of the tyrants. Effective oratory is crucially important in winning this battle (Mason 2011–2012). See note to “brazen acts” at 4.90. Whereas until the previous sentence (4.154–57) it has been the Disciples who aim at the undoing or dismantling (κατάλυσις) of the respected foundations of Judean society, Josephus now uses the same word for the popular wish, soon to be led by Ananus and Jesus, to undo the tyranny. At 4.363, the death of the Perean Niger lightens the Disciples’ fear of undoing—a reminder that Josephus relates very little of what was happening, and mentions only a few representative figures. For the theme of tyranny in War, see note to “tyrants’ home” at 4.151. The phrase ἐπὶ τυραννίδος κατάλυσιν is resonant from classical history, especially the Athenians’ overthrow of the violent, Sparta-backed Thirty Tyrants—dominated by Critias—in 404–403 bce (Xenophon, Hellenica Bk. 2). The phrase recalls Polybius, one of Josephus’ inspirations. In the 6th book of his Histories he describes an ongoing cycle of governing forms. Monarchy, inevitably degenerating into tyranny, is dissolved by the emergence of public-spirited aristocracy (6.4.8)—Josephus’ preferred government.

See note at 4.141. The clear distinction here between those who had earned reputations and become leaders among the people, on the one hand, and the chief-priestly circle (leaders by hereditary caste), on the other, suggests that the former include Pharisees, whose most prominent figures have taken positions of leadership alongside the Sadducean high priests in Jerusalem’s councils. That guess is confirmed by the prominence of Gorion and Gamaliel in Pharisaic circles. Cf. War 2.411; Acts 5:33–39; and the following notes. War 2.653 names Yosep son of Gorion as one of two leaders in Jerusalem, alongside the former high priest Ananus, preparing for Roman retaliation after the ambush of Cestius’ legion (see note in bjp 1b). It is natural to wonder (with Drexler 1925: 299–300) whether the names have been reversed, by Josephus himself—notoriously loose with names—or by copyists, though the mss show no variants. Moreover, this man appears to be the Γουρίων who will be executed at 4.356–58. Josephus there charges that the Disciples, after the Idumeans abandoned them, went on a killing spree against those they envied for the noble ancestry or feared for their courage—anyone who might cause them problems. They execute Gorion for all these reasons: he has achieved preeminence (same verb) by both merit and family, is committed to the common good (there “democracy”), and is outspoken in defense of freedom. If Josephus (or a copyist) has not created two men from one, it seems most likely that Yosep son of Gorion—a leading Pharisee (?)—has faded from the scene between autumn 66 and the winter of 67/68 (here), and his son Yosep has taken his place alongside the chief priests to face down the militants. The name Gorion appears in rabbinic literature, mainly in the person of Nakdimon b. Gorion, who flourished around the time of the war—his daughter encountering Yohanan b. Zakkai afterward (b. Ket. 65a–66b; ʿAbod. Zar. 25a). This is intriguing because War 2.451 mentions a Gorion of Nicomedes, a peculiar combination (Greek-named father, Hebrew-named son) suggesting identity, and the d/m reversal (Nakdimon to Nicomedes) would not be linguistically surprising. The attraction of the name “Ben Gurion” in early modern Zionism, adopted famously by Israel’s first Prime Minister (originally Grün), was probably not a recerché homage to War 2.653 or this passage (Segev 2019: 207–208 makes a case). It seems rather to have resulted from the confusion of that Joseph b. Gorion in War 2 with the author of the hugely popular Hebrew Sefer Yosippon, an adaptation of the Christian Pseudo-Hegesippus and taken as Josephus’ original: a more nationalistic War than our present Greek text (Goodman 2019: 115–18). A figure of huge importance in Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition. Rabban Shimʿon b. Gamaliel appears more than 100 times in the Mishnah, he and his father more than 1,000 times in the Babylonian Talmud. The father, Rabban Gamaliel, son of the renowned Hillel, appears in Acts 5:33–38 as a leading Pharisee in the 30s, dissenting from the hard stance taken by the Sadducean high priest and his group against followers of Christ. See m. Avot 1.12–18, where the line Hillel-Gamaliel-Shimʿon is singled out for its wisdom, before a jump of one century: Shimʿon is known for his prudence, Torah study, and desire for peace. As he does with many Hebrew names (cf. Gorion in the preceding note), Josephus represents Shimʿon in Greek differently: here Συμεών (1 of only 3 occurrences in Josephus); in Life 190–96, which calls him a prominent Pharisee, as Σίμων (Josephus’ usual form for the Hebrew name, nearly 200 occurrences). Simon appears in Life 191–92 as the scion of “a very illustrious family” in Jerusalem, and as personally gifted with practical and political intelligence. Because he is John of Gischala’s close friend, however, John’s brother turns him against Josephus and allegedly bribes the rest of the leadership to dispatch a 4-man delegation with armed escort to remove Josephus from Galilee, killing him if necessary (Life 193–203). This incident may be one source of Josephus’ hostility to the Pharisees, for he stresses their ability to stymie the hereditary elite in governing Judea (War 1.110–12; Ant. 13.297–98, 400–404; 18.17; Mason 1991: passim). See note at 4.19. An ἐκκλησία was a standard political institution of the Greek polis, a body specifically “called out” or assembled (as the accusative adjective ἀθρόους indicates here) for political purposes, though these purposes differed with the form of each polis (see Pausanias, Description of Greece). Whereas in Athenian democracy—with parallels in the late Roman Republic—male citizen assemblies elected magistrates and gave a final up-or-down vote on legislation prepared by a council of some hundreds, Josephus presents Moses as gathering an assembly (εἰς ἐκκλησίαν ἀθροίζει τὸ πλῆθος, Ant. 3.300; cf. 3.84, 292) to hear and obey God’s word. Popular assemblies with deliberative power are there rejected (3.306–307; 4.22–24). Given practical constraints, only a minority of any citizen populace could attend most assemblies. We have no evidence that Jerusalem had an ἐκκλησία even to approve legislation, let alone to debate it. But wise leaders in virtually any form of government called assemblies from time to time (note the plural here), at least to inform and persuade their people of the excellence of their leaders and their policies, in order to keep them favorably disposed and prevent unrest. The point of the distinction between public assemblies and private encounters is not clarified, but may reflect Josephus’ assumption that Pharisees had access to the people in a way that the (mainly Sadducean) chief-priests Ananus and Jesus did not. Cf. 1.110–14; 2.162–66; Ant. 13.288, 297–98; 17.41–44; 18.17; Life 189–96. Or “corrupters, rapists, destroyers.” The rare noun λυμεών has tragic and also vividly sexual connotations. It is first attested in Euripides (3), Sophocles (2), and Lycophron (2), then appears in Isocrates (2), Xenophon (1), 4 Maccabees (twice in 18.8), Diodorus (2), Dionysius (3), and Philo (5), before Josephus’ 3 occurrences. Josephus’ potent political application, to corrupters (i.e., rapists) of the polis or of ancestral custom, is best matched in the authors closest to his time above. Dionysius quotes Isocrates (Isocr. 14) to criticize the overdoing of contrasts, which is relevant because he gives the opposite of a λυμεών as a “savior, rescuer” (σωτήρ) of the state. Philo’s examples (e.g., pairing λυμεών with “murderer” in denouncing Caligula, Legat. 89, 92, 191) are in Special Laws, Embassy to Gaius, and Against Flaccus, the works (with Life of Moses) with the closest parallels to Josephus. The cognate verb λυμαίνομαι (12 times in Josephus) had a wider application and is found commonly in historians and orators, often used for those who despoil cities, laws, the countryside, and so on. See note to “despoilers” at 2.280 in bjp 1b. See note at 4.95. Freedom is a central motif in all of Josephus’ works, and War describes a struggle, reminiscent of that in Polybius, about what real freedom means, or how maximal freedom can be sustained under foreign rule. See note at 4.150. Greek τῶν μιαιφόνων, repeated at 4.163 but otherwise in Josephus only at Ant. 7.207, where King David is said to be murder-polluted. Before Josephus, the word μιαιφόνος is found mainly in Homer (4) and the tragedians (18), rarely in historians: Herodotus (2), Diodorus (3); cf. 2 Macc 4.38; 12.6. It powerfully evokes a tragic situation. See note to “polluted feet” at 4.150.

It is standard to render ἀρχιερεύς (362 occurrences in Josephus, 67 in War) “high priest” in the singular, but “chief priests” when the plural is used (indicating the larger group of male descendants of Ananus i, Boethus, Phiabi, and Camithus). In some cases, however, as here it seems clear that Josephus is referring to former high priests. This is the first appearance of this important former high priest. Jesus will soon give a major speech in an effort to keep armed Idumeans, summoned to assist the Disciples, out of Jerusalem (4.238–70), shortly before he dies alongside Ananus at their hands (4.314–17). Josephus describes him as next in seniority to Ananus, and the latter man’s inferior in honor but estimable nevertheless (4.238, 322). Ant. 20.213, 223 relates that this Jesus held the high priesthood for a time before and after Gessius Florus’ arrival, ca. 64–65 ce, before being replaced by Matthias in 66. The most intriguing reference to Jesus is at Life 204 (with 193): this Jesus informs Josephus’ 60-year-old father Matthias in Jerusalem about the council’s plan to bring him back from Galilee dead or alive, upon which the father alerts his son. Josephus remarks that Jesus was his “friend and close associate,” whereas John of Gischala was “an old friend and associate” of the Pharisee Simon b. Gamaliel. John would temporarily win this contest for influence—allegedly by using Simon to bribe the chief priests. Rabbinic literature knows Yehoshua b. Gamala (= Jesus son of Gamalas) as a major reformer of childhood education in Judea, who required that pupils from 6 or 7 enter school with proper teachers and not depend on their fathers for education (b. B. Bat. 21a). The Mishnah (Yeb. 6.4) says that the king (presumably Agrippa ii) appointed Yehoshua high priest after the latter had married Martha, from the high-priestly family (“daughter”) of Boethus (Baythos); the gemara adds (b. Yom. 18a; Yeb. 61a) that she paid a sum to “Yannai” (Agrippa). See note at 4.151. Ananus ii is the most prominent figure of the priestly establishment in Jerusalem. His approaching murder, in the middle of this volume, provides the narrative fulcrum and sends Jerusalem on the path to destruction. Although the simple verb ὀνειδίζω is common in Greek literature from Homer onward, and Josephus has it 31 times, he is the first clearly attested user of the compound κατονειδίζω (with a textually uncertain passage in Dionysius, Ant. rom. 11.42.4), which he has 4 times, all in War 2 (182, 609, 638) and here. This form adds to the air of unusual diction in this solemn passage. The definite article in ἐν ταῖς συνόδοις suggests that these are the “assemblies” just mentioned, perhaps the only venue in which the chief priests, as distinct from Pharisees, could reach ordinary people. Or “dullness, inability to understand and react” (νώθεια). This is another extremely rare word in this section, only here in Josephus and attested before him only in Plato (Theaet. 195c; Phaedr. 235d), both times referring to Socrates’ ironically claimed dullness. If Josephus expects audiences to catch the allusion, he may have chosen this word for its gentle challenge to those who are on the same side. It becomes more popular in the 2nd century: in Plutarch (3), Lucian (2), Aelius Herodian (2), Arisitides (2), Pollux (4), Marcus Aurelius (1). Josephus is anticipating the central theme of Ananus’ coming speech—the people’s excessive forbearance, which will feature such verbs as: “tolerate” ([ἀνα]φέρω, 4.171, 178–79), “put up with” (ἀνέχω, 4.165, 178), “dither, delay” (ὑπερτίθημι, 4.187), “neglect” (ἀμέλεια, 4.187), and “suffer” (πάσχω, 4.174, 180, 185), as well as the adjective “care-worn” (τλήμων, 4.174), to contrast the energetic measures that the situation requires. See notes to “devotees” at 2.444 and to “Zealots” at 2.564, 651 in bjp 1b and Excursus following this sentence.

The verb (ζηλόω: “emulate, devote oneself to, be a disciple of, strive to be like”) is cognate to the noun ζηλωτής. See note at 4.161 for both. Greek ὑπερβαλλόμενοι draws out the rivalry that ζηλόω suggests: applying all their energy and surpassing norms. The phrase (ἐπ᾿ ἀγαθοῖς ἐπιτηδεύμασιν) and the contrast (τὰ κάκιστα) recall the straightforward good-vs.-bad polis ethics of Plato (Leg. 742c, 781b, 831d; Resp. 489c, 495b) and Aristotle (Pol. 1333a); cf. Isocrates, Antid. 142; Xenophon, Cyr. 7.5.86; Diodorus 23.15.1; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 6.85.2. In Ant. 1.114, Josephus recasts Balaam’s oracle in Numbers 24, which the Bible had framed in terms of divine favor and divinely appointed rule from Jacob and Israel, in similar language. On freedom see 1.9–12; 2.22, 80, 91442–43, 262, 442–43; 4.95, 146, 159, 175, 178, 185, 228, 234, 245–46, 272–73, 319, etc. Gen 26:14 (Philistines envy Isaac’s wealth); 30:1 (Rachel envies Leah’s fertility); 37:1 (Joseph’s brothers envy him); Num 5:12–31 (a man overcome by jealousy when he suspects his wife of adultery).

See note to “assemblies” at 4.159. Josephus does not indicate where this assembly was held. Although the factions of Menachem and Eleazar had earlier seized much of Jerusalem, we should apparently understand from 2.647–51; 4.135 that Ananus and his group had reasserted control over the whole city until the Disciples and their lot-elected high priest hunkered in the central temple compound (4.150)—the prompt for Ananus’ indignant effort to oust them. His most likely gathering-place, it seems, from which he could repeatedly glance over at the temple (4.162, 173) and speak of it as above the audience’s heads and over the ridge (4.189), would seem to be the slope of the western hill—home to the chief priests and wealthier citizens—across from the imposing temple structure, the compound’s walls now occupied by armed men. The western slope is where Agrippa ii reportedly addressed the indignant people (2.344 with notes in bjp 1b). Alternatives might be the Upper Market (2.301–305 [Florus addresses the people], 315–17; 5.137) or the Court of Nations outside the temple, the latter less well suited to the indications mentioned. See note at 4.72. This side-remark by the narrator, reflecting the people’s reasons for not acting against the Disciples, is shared by Ananus, in spite of his call for action, as Josephus will explain in reading the high priest’s thoughts at the conclusion of his speech (4.193–94); this notice anticipates that other perspective. See note at 4.160. The speech of Ananus ii bears a striking resemblance to the briefer oration by Vespasian at Gamala in this volume (4.40–48). In both cases, the speaker is confronting a loss of heart among his audience in the face of a fearsome enemy. He artfully combines general encouragement with criticism and challenge. Each oration begins with an explicit or oblique reference to the speaker’s own courage, proceeds with an analysis of the enemy and possible reasons for fear, evokes the spirit of righteous vengeance for injuries caused by that enemy, and concludes with the speaker’s pledge to be in the forefront of the fight. This speech in particular recalls Demosthenes’ Third Philippic (ca. 341 bce), in which the great Athenian orator tries with immediate but not ultimate success to rouse the citizens against Philip ii of Macedon’s overrunning of Hellas. Demosthenes was well known and praised among the Romans (Cicero, Brut. 35; Or. Brut. 23, 26), including Josephus’ contemporary Quintilian (Inst. 10.1.76). So it is not implausible that Josephus has the model work in mind. On ancient speeches and their role in historiography, see bjp 1b: 265–68; on Josephus’ orations, Runnalls 1997; for detailed analysis of this one, Runnalls 1971: 95–120. Josephus’ Ananus follows the pattern of a deliberative speech, which according to Cicero (Part. 13) should focus on persuasion and emotion (ad fidem et ad motum), with relatively brief elaboration of detail concerning a future course of action. Most ancient speeches reveal something of the 4-part structure used in judicial cases, in which the middle two parts aim at persuasion by argument, the first and last at rousing emotion (Part. 27). It is easy to see the 4 parts in Ananus’ oration, though the precise transition points are debatable (a possible 5th part, amplificatio or particularly forceful appeal, complicates matters because it can appear at any point): the personal introduction or exordium (4.163–65; Runnalls 1971: 163–171]); background of the case or narratio (4.166–76; Runnalls 1971: 172–75); logical argument, proof, or probatio (4.177–184; Runnalls 1971: 176–84); and emotional conclusion or peroratio (4.186–92; Runnalls 1971: 185–92). The opening and closing are indeed personal and emotional (cf. 2.402–405, where Agrippa breaks down in tears). Using Demetrius’ On Style 38–114 as a reference, Runnalls shows in detail that Ananus’ speech has the hallmarks of the “elevated” or “grand” style: contrasting short statements, punchy questions, and piled-up periods; long syllables; unusual diction; concentrations of compound forms; repetition of thematic words; asyndeton, assonance, and elliptical concision (aposiopesis). The modern reader might see parallels with Winston Churchill’s 1940 speeches, when the Nazi threat to Britain seemed unstoppable and many wished to sue for peace terms. Churchill combined an uplifting vision of victory, if sufficient resolve and all resources could be mustered (cf. 4.174, 185–90), with honorable defeat and destruction if it came to that (cf. 4.164, 191).

This opening declaration (ἦ καλόν γε … ἦν ἐμοὶ τεθνάναι) is reprised in the conclusion (4.191: καλὸν δέ … ἀποθνήσκειν), with the crucial difference that Ananus has shifted from positing his singular death here to persuading his audience of the nobility of a collective death, if necessary, for the sanctuary. The temple (or its predecessors) as “God’s House” (בית אלהים) is a standard biblical expression, outside the Pentateuch (Judg 18:31; 2 Sam 12:20; Isa 2:2; Ezra 5:2, 13; Ps 41:5; 1 Chr 26:27), also in post-biblical literature (Jud. 9.1; Tob. 14.4). Josephus has ὁ οἶκος τοῦ θεοῦ again at 4.281; 6.104. Or “pollutions.” This, the only occurrence in Josephus of a word common in Greek literature (ἄγος), notably in tragedy (Aeschylus 14, Euripides 22, Sophocles 19), though he has the cognate ἐναγής at 2.472; Ant. 7.208; 9.226. Both words are absent from the Greek Bible and apocrypha (Philo has 19 and 10 occurrences), and add tragic resonances to Josephus’ narrative. Effectively, “undefiled and holy” (for the collocation ἄβατος and ἅγιος, see 5.219; 6.122; Ant. 3.125), since holiness meant separateness from everyday life, an area reserved for the purified, the priests, and the high priest in narrowing zones. See note at 4.159. The narrator and his Ananus speak the same language.

Ananus’ reference to the special garments he once wore is more than a metonymy for the high priest’s office. At 5.231–36 Josephus will describe the special nature of these clothes, and Ant. 3.159–78 provides a detailed account laced with cosmic symbolism and quasi-magical properties (Pena 2020). I.e., that of Judean high priest. This is the first attested occurrence of σεβάσμιος, an adjective equivalent to the far more common Σεβαστός, which Josephus reserves (as most authors do, but Dionysius, Ant. rom. 2.75.3) for the name or title of Augustus. Josephus uses the alternative adjective several times, in different kinds of material—showing his authorial stamp on the corpus (War 5.17; Ant. 3.88; 18.277, 349). After War it is attested once or twice in Clement of Rome, Plutarch, Appian, Lucian and other authors. No ancient audience could fail to hear the echo of Augustus here, and the hint that the Judean high priest was a counterpart to the Roman emperor, who was also high priest (pontifex maximus). An ironic, self-deprecating remark as the next sentences show. Loving or clinging to one’s own life goes against Josephus’ thematic portrait of Judean masculine virtue, which holds death in contempt. See note to “controlled” at 4.45. The phrase (here εὐκλεῆ θάνατον) reoccurs, with Ananus’ colleague Jesus expressing much the same sentiment, at 4.250, the only 2 occurrences in Josephus. It is lightly attested before him: outside of fragments of the tragedian Aeschylus (2) in Xenophon, Ages. 10.3; the orators Lysias (Ep. 23) and Lycurgus (Leoc. 49); Diodorus (16.7); and Philo (Sacr. 125; Legat. 192), any of which may have influenced Josephus. For the general concept of noble death, see van Henten and Avemarie 2002; van Henten 2012. Aged Ananus rousing himself for a fight that will bring him a glorious death recalls Philopoemen, two centuries earlier, in Polybius’ moral vision (see Eckstein 1995: 32–36). Josephus unknowingly ensured that Ananus’ death would indeed be remembered as glorious, by describing and eulogizing it (4.314–25) in a work that would be famous for millennia. The twin ideas of contempt for death, which people fear unless schooled in fearlessness, and dying nobly or valiantly, were widespread aspirations in ancient philosophical and historical literature. See van Henten and Avemarie 2002; van Henten 2012. “Desert” meaning here a place not of sand dunes but of solitude, far from a city. The irony continues: I am in a city surrounded by men, but if no one else will stand with me I shall offer my life as though I were in a remote place. For the phrase ψυχὴν ἐπιδίδωμι see also 2.201. It is otherwise found mainly in Judean and Christian literature (Ben Sira 6.32; 38.34; Philo, Mos. 1.301), though once in Cassius Dio (52.14.1).

See note at 4.39. See notes at 4.31, 39. On the close connection between calamity (συμφορά: 210 times in Josephus, 90 in War) and suffering (πάθος: 208, 96), root themes of this work and sometimes used interchangeably (War 1.9–11), see Mason 2020. The remedy is a massed stand against the Disciples (see note at 4.160), who have occupied the temple heights. This accusation of being less than men by tolerating abuse that even animals would not accept (4.174) runs through Ananus’ speech; it taps the root theme in War of Judean masculine virtue (1.4–8; Mason 2016a: 101–106). The rhetoric recalls Paul’s indignant charge against Corinthian followers who are turning to other leaders: “You tolerate it if someone enslaves you, if someone consumes you, if someone takes advantage of you, if someone exalts himself, if someone slaps you in the face! I guess it is our dishonor that we were too weak [to do that]” (2 Cor 11:20–21), though Demosthenes’ Third Philippic is a possible inspiration. A rare compound form (ἐπιστένω), used by Josephus only here and in the prologue (1.11: groaning over the fate of the homeland). The word had tragic resonances. Of the 9 attestations before Josephus, two are in tragedians (Euripides, Med. 929; Sophocles, Trach. 947; cf. Hesiod, Theog. 679). All of the other attestations before Josephus are in Philo (6 quite different works), making this another striking example of their shared vocabulary. Plutarch then has it 4 times, but it remains rare. Josephus is a relatively heavy user of the Homeric adverb ἀναφανδά, with 6 occurrences. It is attested only 40 times before him, 7 of these in Dionysius. War’s 3 occurrences are all in this volume: also 4.224, 292. See note at 4.72 for the word and 4.143–46 for the events referred to.

See note to this key theme at 4.151 and next note. This is a watershed: the first reference in War to the tyrants anticipated in the prologue (1.10, 11, 24, 27, 28), whom Josephus holds responsible for Jerusalem’s fall, after mention of their tyrant-base in the temple at 4.151. “Tyrant” (τύραννος) appears 45 times in War, all cognates together 72 times. The 8 occurrences in the double-length Book 1 do not involve Judeans (except abstractly 1.202). The 14 in Book 2 include retrospective accusations against Herod and Archelaus (2.84, 88), a denunciation of tyranny by emperor Claudius (2.208), accusations of tyranny against Gessius Florus (2.276) and Josephus (2.262), and brief anticipations of the tyranny of Eleazar at Masada, unrelated to Jerusalem (2.447), of Eleazar ben Simon, founder of the Disciples (2.564), and of Simon bar Giora (2.652). Of the remaining 5 references, 2 refer to the ephemeral tyrants Menachem (2.442, 448) and the Egyptian pseudoprophet (2.262), and in 2 cases Josephus uses the tyrant simile for anonymous Judeans under Albinus (2.275–76). War 3 makes no mention of tyrants or tyranny. In other words, the prologue’s emphasis on the tyrants who caused Jerusalem’s destruction looks ahead to Book 4 and beyond, and this reference to the Disciples (whom John will come to lead) as tyrants decisively picks up the potent theme. A high priest, the rightful leader of the people, admonishes them not to accept this new and ominous tyranny (cf. 4.178). Most of War’s tyrant-words (45) come after the murder of Ananus and Jesus in the middle of this volume, and refer to the growing personal struggle for control between John and Simon (cf. 4.564–66), who foment the ‘internal stasis’ that brings Jerusalem down (1.10). These 4 words translate ἀνεξικακία, a rare and clever compound. This is Josephus’ 3rd and last use (also 1.501, 624—illustrating the coherence of his corpus) of a word attested only 3 or 4 times before him (notably Wis. 2.19). In this passage, it captures in a word the central theme of the speech: see note to “lethargy” at 4.160.

The speech’s main argument is a fine ancient example of paralyzing incrementalism: threats that appear minor or distant are not dealt with; by the time they are a clear and present danger it is too late. The idea is famous from, among other texts, the versification of ideas in Pastor Martin Niemöller’s mea culpa speeches after World War ii (Marcuse 2016): “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out….” Similar thoughts were expressed by other Germans after the war (Mayer 2017 [1955]: 166–73: “But then it was too late”), and such thinking became central to post-war reflection in Britain on the widespread desire for the “appeasement of Europe” during the 1930s. Only in hindsight was it clear to most people that German rearmament could have been stopped without massive loss of life by early intervention; there was no appetite for it at the time. The most famous ancient example (see note to “spoke” at 4.162) is Demosthenes’ Third Philippic, which tries to rouse the Athenians against the tyrant Philip ii of Macedon while there is still hope of containing him before he takes Athens. Demosthenes includes a list of Philip’s enormities to date (9.32–39), much as Ananus will here, and likewise calls his people to do their honorable duty (9.4–5, 24–25, 28, 74–75).

I usually translate this common word in War (ὁρμή, 79 occurrences) as “charge,” as at 4.34, 44–45. That use for a mass military assault does not work here. Reading τῶν συγγενῶν with all the mss (and M-B). Because this reads a bit oddly, and the antecedent text repeatedly stresses the elite nature of the victims (4.139–41), as does the sequel (4.181: ἀνελόντων τὴν τῆς μητροπόλεως εὐγένειαν), Destinon (followed by Thackeray lcl and Pelletier) conjectured that Josephus actually wrote ΤΩΝ ΕΥΓΕΝΩΝ, “the nobles,” which later scribes all “corrected” to ΤΩΝ ϹΥΓΓΕΝΩΝ (“the relatives”). That is possible, but since 4.144 highlights the expectation that men of the household would come to their defense, “family members” makes tolerable sense. Recalling 4.139–43, which gives examples. See note to this word at 2.295 in bjp 1b. See 4.135–39. Or “sinners, offenders,” hence “obnoxious, loathsome” people. The adjective ἀλιτήριος is rarely attested before Josephus: one occurrence each in Thucydides and Polybius, 2–3 in various orators, 4 in 2 Maccabees. Josephus’ 12 uses (4 in Ant. 1–11) are distinctive, and 7 are in War 4–7, 4 in this volume (cf. 4.245, 264, 384). In this section of his work, the plural adjective becomes a fixed expression equivalent to the more frequent οἱ πονηροί (“the contemptible, worthless, wretched, wicked, scoundrels”; see note to “worthless” at 2.156 in bjp 1b); see also “profane” at 4.171 and “irreverent” at 4.190. Recalling 4.134; see note on this word. Cf. 4.144: the Disciples feared keeping the nobles imprisoned precisely because their households were not lacking men to take revenge. Ananus’ charge now is that these men failed even to do what the Disciples expected.

To help create a rhetorical ladder, this part of the speech unpacks 4.139–42, describing the arrest and incarceration of prominent men, now revisiting each element. Josephus is the first attested user of the odd-looking privative compound ἀκαταιτίατος, but he has it 6 times, all in War and mainly in Book 4. Its distribution in narrative remarks (1.494; 2.304) and speeches by Ananus (4.169), Jesus (4.259, 266), and Simon (4.280) demonstrates his authorial control over the work. It is not from a source. It will be a central complaint of Ananus’ group that John and the Disciples attack their chief-priestly enemies without due process, without bringing charges they would need to justify.

So 4.145. The phrase ζῷον ἄλογον (reoccurring at 6.197; Ant. 10.262; Apion 1.224; 2.213, 271) was formulaic in Greek literature. Like colloquial English “dumb,” the adjective means “lacking speech and/or reason.” Conspicuous users to Josephus’ time were the Stoics Chrysippus (26) and Poseidonius (10), in surviving fragments, then Philo (38) and Plutarch (14). Ancient writers disagreed vehemently about whether animals had or lacked reason and a capacity for justice. Aristotle and the Stoics denied them these traits and this was the prevailing view, supported by Philo and Josephus. Plutarch, however, devoted three essays to challenging the common view (see Sorabji 1993; Newmyer 1979, 1999). Two of Philo’s essays preserved only in Armenian, The Alexander or On the Reasoning Faculty of Animals (see Terian) and On Providence, show him in debate with his nephew, the highly successful Judean-Roman official Tiberius Julius Alexander, on just this question. In the former work, Alexander defends at length his eccentric view of animal reason and justice. Animal sacrifice required in principle that faultless specimens be offered to the gods (Exod 12:5; 29:1; Lev 1:3, 10: 3:1, 6; 4:3 etc.; qualifications in Ekroth 2014: 332–33). Josephus’ Ananus bitterly compares the sacrifice of some of Jerusalem’s nobles at the hands of the Disciples. A common phrase (ἀφίημι + φωνή), in Josephus (10 other occurrences) and elsewhere. A rhetorical elaboration of 4.143–45 and relatively rare example of the word’s literal sense (cf. the metonymic use at 4.4, 50, 94, 96).

Cf. 4.258 for a metaphorical trampling upon the laws. The verb here (πατέω) is both literal (ordinary walking, wandering) and metaphorical (treating the site with contempt by walking through it without regard for its holiness); cf. 4.262. Whiston converts the exhortations to questions (“Will you bear …?”), assuming Ananus’ lack of sarcasm and expecting a negative answer. This translation takes Ananus’ challenges to be harshly sarcastic: the Jerusalemites have offered their backs or clenched hands as supports while the criminals climbed the rungs in this ladder of iniquity. M-B see the image as laying down the steps, Pelletier as placing the steps under their feet, H-G as paving steps for them. See note at 4.90: an ongoing theme in relation to the relatively youthful rebels. Or “impious” (ἀνόσιος), interchangeable with “the irreverent [men]” (οἱ δυσσεβεῖς) at 4.190. A sarcastic conclusion to the argument (μὴ βαρύνεσθε τὴν ὑπεροχήν: “don’t be oppressed [at] the top”), though the sense of the verb is unclear. H-G take it as metaphorical: “don’t blame them” at this point; Pelletier: don’t be overwhelmed by their excesses now. The translation here takes it more literally: those who have provided their backs for the rest should not buckle as the criminals reach the peak of their criminal actions. See note to “the undoing of established law” (cognate noun) at 4.154.

A rhetorical exaggeration (if referring to the temple) in light of 5.207–45, according to which the temple compound is indeed a strong point towering above the city, but the Antonia (abutting the NW corner) is the strongest fortress. Since 2.430, in any case, the armed group led the chief priest Eleazar son of Ananias, which apparently becomes the Disciples faction, has also controlled the Antonia. I.e., it has fallen to the Disciples’ control. See 4.151 and note to “fortress.” This use of the temple will remain from here on, and be raised in Titus’ famous council of war as an argument (rejected by Titus) for its destruction: if the Judeans climb the temple’s sturdy walls to fight, then it is “a fortress and no longer a temple” (6.240). The generally weaker mss vlrc have ἔχοντες (“having”), which seems oddly bland. The Latin translation omits a verb in this position (“with such a tyranny …”). The usually promising mss pa seem to misfire with ἑλόντες (“having taken”), perhaps a simple misreading of the text (Χ to Λ), whereas M has a plausible if “corrective” ὁρῶντες (“having seen”). Although ἐπιτειχίζω (“ensconce”) is well attested in Thucydides, Xenophon, and others, Philo accounts for 26 of the first 57 attestations. This is noteworthy because of the other Philonic diction in War, which hosts all 5 occurrences of the verb in Josephus. The language about ensconcing a tyranny may come, however, from the Fourth Philippic (8), attributed to Demosthenes, a respectful forgery in the opinion of most scholars, which accuses Philip of having “ensconced a tyranny” in Euboea against Athens (a parallel noted by Thackeray lcl). On tyranny, see notes to “tyrants’ home” at 4.151 and “tyrants” at 4.166. Josephus will use the colorful verb θάλπω (lit. “heat”; fig. “warmly console”—Ant. 7.343) several times (4.221, 432; 5.546; 6.370). It is found before him mainly in Homer, the tragedians, the Hippocratic corpus, and specialized poets (Herodas, Nicander), but in no historian or in Philo. The artful compound here (προσθάλπω), however, appears in this passage alone, in extant Greek literature before the 5th cent. ce.

Or “how the commonwealth/republic stands.” Josephus uses πράγμα 381 times, 81 times in War, usually in the plural (τὰ πράγματα) as here, most often meaning either “affairs of state” or the state itself. It is the standard Greek equivalent of Latin res publica: “public affairs” being the literal meaning of “the republic” (e.g., Ant. 18.124; 19.173): Polybius 4.62.4; 5.93.4; 6.54.3–4; 10.17.15; 28.6.5–6; 38.15.2; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 2.10.1; 4.8.1, 26.1, 77.1; Augustus, rg 1.2. Josephus often uses it to speak of governance or public affairs in the (ideally) aristocratic Judean state: War 1.19, 273; 2.594; 4.492; Ant. 1.114. Or “show mercy, pity, commiserate” (ἐλεέω). Along with related words for deep emotions of pity, lamentation, and mourning, this word group is a recurring part of War’s tragic lexicon; cf. 1.10–12 with notes in bjp 1a. Aristotle famously identified pity (or commiseration) and fear (ἔλεος καὶ φόβος) as the crucial attributes of tragedy: Poet. 1449b.27; 1452.38; 1453a.3, 5, 1453b.12. Josephus’ Ananus here taps another pervasive theme in War, introduced in the prologue (1.10, 27) and about to be elaborated (4.180–84): the Romans, granted all the faults of their temporary officials and the indignities of foreign rule, care more about their Judean possession than do the internal agitators who proclaim “freedom” from Rome’s alleged oppression, who are willing to kill compatriots and destroy the national heritage in their obsession with their outlook and power.

The superlative of τλήμων sounds another tragic note. Absent from preserved historians except Xenophon (4 times) and a fragment of Nicolaus, this adjective’s first 200+ attestations are nearly all in Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, and Lycophron. It can have a range of senses, from patience (one of Odysseus’ traits) to abused wretchedness from long suffering. Josephus will use it again only of Jerusalem (5.19; 6.109). A synonym (here θηρίον) for “dumb animals” see note at 4.170. Cf. Diodorus 34/35.2.10, describing how the inhuman treatment of Sicilian slaves by their masters turned them into animals (ἀποθηριόω) full of rage, and Philo (Prob. 40): the man who “owns” a lion knows that his ownership of such a proud and strong beast is an illusion: he dare not look at it in threatening manner. Josephus has an abiding interest in the human-beast contrast throughout War, especially in Book 4 (2.377; 3.385; 4.262, 324, 425, 540), to make vivid the inhuman conditions created by the war, which turned previously civilized people into animals (5.4, 85). See note at 4.39. For this image of setting before one’s eyes (πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν) calamity, destruction, or deliverance, cf. 3.261; 5.418; Life 17; Ant. 2.238; 11.231; 20.123. Without using this phrase, Josephus’ Eleazar at Masada achieves the same effect by having his hearers visualise (βλέπω, ὁράω) the supposed outrages that Romans would inflict on their families, as a spur to self-immolation (7.382, 385). On visualization and spectacle in War see Chapman 1998, 2005. Josephus uses a similar metaphor, of using calamity as a sharpening tool to whet the passions, at 6.234. Before Josephus, only Xenophon is known to have spoken about sharpening / whetting souls to face the enemy. Since he does so repeatedly (Mem. 3.3.7; Cyr. 1.2.10, 6.41; 2.1.11, 20), he is Josephus’ most likely inspiration; see previous note.

On the complexity of the πάθη in War, partly because of the close relationship between sufferings and feelings, see Mason 2020. Here, the feelings seem related to the sufferings (with cognate verb) mentioned in the preceding sentence. This is the only occurrence of the superlative “most natural” (φυσικώτατος) in Josephus, a point worth mentioning because Philo of Alexandria accounts for 29 of 43 earlier attestations, though he does not use the adjective to speak of emotions. This happy phrase, which nearly rhymes (ἐλευθερίας ἐπιθυμία) is first attested in Josephus, though the rhetorician Libanius will use it a couple of times in the 4th cent. ce (Or. 44.4; Decl. 13.1.40). These two paragraphs focus a root thematic cluster in War: the true meaning of political “freedom” vs. its demagogic manipulation and false hopes. Josephus’ Disciples, like many predecessors in the Greco-Roman world, proclaim freedom as a cover for personal power, to the severe detriment of their political community. See note at 4.95 and notes to “voluntary slavery” at 2.209 and “freedom” at 2.259, along with the set-piece speech by King Agrippa ii (2.345–401), in bjp 1b. Note also the “irrational hope for freedom” at 2.346 and notes. Both compounds appear only here in Josephus and are scarcely attested elsewhere: φιλόδουλος earlier only in Philo, Leg. 3.194, and φιλοδέσποτος in Theognis, Herodotus, and Diodorus; Philo accounts for 10 of the 13 non-fragmentary attestations before Josephus. These are further examples of diction that Josephus notably shares with Philo. This appeal to the ancestors, for inspiration to fight for freedom and autonomy, is paradoxical given the character of Josephus’ later speech outside Jerusalem’s walls, in which he argues that the nation has never succeeded when it resorted to arms, but only when it entrusted its fate to God (War 5.375–419). The same paradox is present in Agrippa’s speech (2.345–401), which extols the ancestors for their brave wars, yet calls for peaceful submission to Rome now. Both there and here, Josephus resolves the tension (here at 4.179) by saying that Judeans had a chance to ward off Roman rule, but Fortune did not allow it. Since it is futile to oppose Fortune (5.88, 122, 367), and one can only try to manage its twists and turns with disciplined resolve (Polybius; see note at 4.40), acceptance of Rome’s current rule is necessary—certainly preferable to a domestic tyranny based on delusional hopes of “liberation” from the foreigner.

It is striking that when Josephus thinks of Judean history, or characterizes it in broad strokes, he tends to highlight the frequency of its wars. Presumably, this is connected with his emphasis on masculine courage as the signal Judean virtue (War 1.17; Ant. 1.6). See note to “self-government” at 2.22 in bjp 1b. This (αὐτονομία) is tied up with the notion of freedom (ἐλευθερία) in the Greek thought that Josephus has made his own: the question of how to maintain the highest degree of self-regulation without foreign interference, under imperial rule, is the question of political freedom. According to Josephus, at least in retrospective reflection, this is best achieved by cooperation with the ruling power, no matter how humiliating at certain moments, for that power happily leaves internal affairs to native aristocrats. Those who advocate throwing off the ruling power appeal to base popular instincts for their aggrandizement. Their program can only end in the complete loss of freedom, and the path toward that destruction is under their “tyranny,” with the nation’s laws in abeyance and its traditional leaders in peril. See note at 4.85. Both empires were undefeatable in their day, like Rome now, but (Ananus somewhat vaguely claims) the Judeans’ ancestors stood up to them with honor, protecting their self-governance. These two cases do not support Ananus’ implication that they are examples of “many and great wars.” The Judeans’ ancestors had famously lost their autonomy to neo-Assyrians under Sargon ii (722 bce) and neo-Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar (586 bce), then to Ptolemies (ca. 300 bce) and Seleucids (ca. 200 bce) before the Romans (63 bce). In Josephus as in contemporary literature, “Medes” is a term for Persians, the historic enemies of classical Hellas (see note to 1.13 in bjp 1a). The Medes flourished only from 612 to 550 bce, after they ended the neo-Assyrian kingdom and before they were defeated by Cyrus the Persian (550 bce), who proceeded to conquer the ne0-Babylonians (539 bce), incorporating Media in his empire and using Median generals. Judah had no known contacts or conflicts with the Medes as such. Josephus’ Ananus chooses two famously great powers that had dealings with Judah / Judea, but did not (need to) engage it in military conflict. This ignores the many incidents from the 10th to the 6th centuries bce in which Egypt effectively controlled Jerusalem by alliance or intimidation. Egypt and Persia have in common that they were powerful realms from which the Judeans’ ancestors fled to security in their homeland: in the Exodus and return from Exile, respectively. In the case of the Exodus (Exod 12–14), Ananus implies that war was involved, though in the Bible the conflict is between the Egyptians and God (cf. Josephus in War 5.382–83: the Exodus occurred “without bloodshed”). As for the Persians, King Cyrus’ release of the Judahites to their homeland, beginning in the 530s bce, earned him the title of God’s “anointed” (Ezra 1:1–7; Isa 44:28; 45:1). The most plausible conflict between Judeans and Persians, from which Judeans were saved (though again by divine intervention rather than war), which Josephus might be bending to Ananus’ point here, is in the story of Esther (as H-G, 440). There, in the time of the 5th-cent. bce Persian King Ahasuerus (Xerxes), Judeans are saved from a plot by his minister, Haman.

Josephus’ Ananus distinguishes two issues: the ancient wars for freedom were one thing, and they should now inspire a fight for freedom against Judean tyrants. Conflict with Rome is different, foolish, and not comparable to those honorable ancient wars. These two words (λυσιτελὴς καὶ σύμφορος) are closely related in sense. See note to “interest either” at 2.343 and to “advantageous” at 2.346 (in the speech of Agrippa ii) in bjp 1b. Both evoke the Thucydidean contrast (e.g., 5.85–113; 6.85.3) between what is just or right in the abstract and what is advantageous for survival, which more powerful states determine on the basis of their interests and weaker states must adapt. Josephus’ Ananus does not raise the question of justice, a pointless distraction now that Fortune has given Rome supreme power. The only relevant criterion for political behavior is advantage to the political community. Although Ananus says that he will not explore that issue, his verdict seems clear: conflict with Rome is not to Judea’s advantage. But he quickly turns to pursue the rebel mantra of freedom, the motive alleged for risking war with Rome for the supposed benefit of Judeans. See note to “pretext” at 4.146.

Creating a contrast with 4.175, where Ananus has just advocated an honorable and plausible fight for freedom—against local tyrants. See notes to “freedom” at 4.95, 175. A nod to Josephus’ consistent view (developed in Agrippa’s speech in Book 2 and 5.367) that it is no shame to yield to those whom God and Fortune have given supreme power, as even formerly powerful nations do. It is shameful, however, to yield to domestic tyrants. The world here, or inhabited earth (οἰκουμένη), is alleged to be under effective Roman mastery even if much of it lies beyond their sphere of direct power or empire: cf. 2.380, 388, 390; cf. Strabo, Geog. 17.3.24. At 5.88 Josephus will use the same phrase in the singular for Titus, by that point the son of the emperor; by Josephus’ time of writing, he is Vespasian’s virtual co-regent. The clearest attestation elsewhere is in Alexander Polyhistor, who uses it of God in his version of the story of Moses’ call (Holladay 1.217). See note at 4.166.

I.e., foreigners: here Romans. Lit. “once” (ἅπαξ), meaning not on one occasion (as English “once” would suggest, and the sense in 4.180), but decisively, in one blow. See note to “Fortune” at 4.40. In the passage 2.348–57, Josephus’ Agrippa argues that there was a time to stand up and fight for freedom. But that time is long past: the Judeans’ much stronger ancestors, who were much better warriors and possessed an army, could not stop Rome. To fight those whom Fortune has put in power shows not a love of freedom but only a truculent objection to the “slave” status shared by all nations in the Mediterranean basin. The phrase τοῖς οἰκείοις … πονηροῖς recalls the programmatic statement at 1.10: domestic factional strife (στάσις οἰκεία)—nb: not the original conflict itself, a series of intelligible responses to provocation and fear—caused Jerusalem’s destruction. For the adjective πονηροί, here referring to those who perpetuate the civil strife, see note to “worthless” at 2.156 in bjp 1b. From the literal sense of “weighed down, oppressed,” the word acquired the metaphorical sense “wearisome, grievous,” hence “wretched, base, rotten, useless, knavish, villainous, deplorable, detestable, loathsome.” Especially in Christian texts it is often rendered “evil, wicked,” but Josephus does not impute cosmic sin to people. He uses this language for those he deems utterly devoid of (mainly political) virtue and civic responsibility. This instance marks the half-way point in War’s 32 uses of the adjective, which is especially prominent in Book 4 (9 of 32 cases). The play between true freedom and that achieved only by “voluntary slavery” to domestic tyrants is a theme of classical historiography, since at least Thucydides, and central to Josephus’ War. See note to “freedom” at 4.95.

Or: “captured my imagination, drew my attention, possessed my thought” (ἐπέστρεψε τὴν διάνοιαν). The verb (in κἂν ἁλῶμεν) is charged with meaning. Josephus uses the cognate noun (ἡ ἅλωσις [τῆς πόλεως]) so routinely in War as shorthand for the dramatic climax (1.10, 28; 2.276, 394, 454; 4.318; 5.3, 398, 411; 6.73, 80, 98, 109, 270, 315, 370, 373, 441) that several later writers would call the work Περὶ ἁλώσεως (“Concerning the Capture”): Origen, Fr. Lam. 105, 109; Fr. Pss. 73.5; Jerome, Comm. Isa. 64; Theodoret, Quaest. 111; Ps–Justin, Quaest. 462D; Procopius, Comm. Isa. 1837. Some Greek mss (mlnvc) also give the work this title. This tradition may have suggested Pseudo-Hegesippus’ title for his 4th-cent. Latin adaptation: De excidio urbis Hierosolymitanae. At 5.3, Josephus remarks that he has shown in detail how the Disciples came to be responsible for “the capture of the city”; our passage is an early phase in that account. A pointedly ironic statement by a character in the story, since nothing was better known to Josephus’ audiences in Rome, as he presented this story, than Titus’ destruction of Jerusalem. The Romans’ treatment of captured fighters will be severe enough (6.382–86, 414–34), but that lies 2.5 years in the future, after the long siege. Much of the city’s population flees (from the tyrants) before then, finding safety under Roman protection. See note to “pity on us” at 4.173 and, on the thematic contrast between Roman pity and native savagery (e.g., 1.9–12, 27; 4.397; 5.19, 28, 256–57, 318–30, 348–55, 359–61, 456, 519; 6.128–30, 214–16, 228), the Introduction in bjp 1a.

The expression is found in Herodotus (3.14.38) and Philo (Legat. 187), the latter perhaps being Josephus’ inspiration. He uses it again at 5.429 and Ant. 4.195, all cases reinforcing the tragic mood. For foreign gifts and offerings displayed around the temple courtyard, including those from Roman officials, see 1.357, where the Roman Sossius dedicates a golden crown to the newly captured temple, and the notes to “treasury of God” at 2.50 and “accept no gift” at 2.409 in bjp 1b, along with 5.562–63 (“the kings of the Romans always honored and added furnishings to the temple”); Jeremias 1969: 58–77; Schürer-Vermes 2.312–13. Both verb and noun (σκῦλα σεσυληκότων) suggest first of all the arms of fallen enemies (lsj s.v.; cf. War 2.554). Josephus may have chosen these words to suggest that the Disciples have effectively disarmed the holy city by violating its protected spaces and esteemed priestly leaders, from within the walls. For “mother-city,” see note at 4.123. This phrase (ἀνελόντων τὴν τῆς μητροπόλεως εὐγένειαν) could have two different senses: the noble status of our mother-city having been destroyed, and the murdered men are an added charge (Whiston); or the “nobility” means the murdered nobles (H-G). The singular form of εὐγένεια and its most common use in Josephus favor the former, whereas the context of murdered nobles and the verb (Josephus’ standard euphemism for killing) favor the latter. Although the abstract singular noun for men is unusual, 4.357 does something similar. See note at 4.72. An ironic observation. The character Ananus has some justification, in story time (68 ce), for asserting that a Roman military conquest would not entail pollution of the temple. War has emphasized Roman respect for the sacred precinct. Pompey briefly advanced into the Holy of Holies during his conquest (63 bce), but quickly withdrew and touched nothing of the extraordinary gold vessels or the 2,000 talents stored there, but ordered the immediate consecration of the site and resumption of sacred activities (1.152–53; cf. Ant. 14.72–73, stressing his piety and virtue). A generation later, albeit after King Herod diverted his army’s demand for war-booty, the general Sossius kept his legionaries at bay and even gave a costly gift to the temple (1.357). Antiquities (16.14) relates that Augustus’ lieutenant Marcus Agrippa funded a huge sacrifice in Jerusalem. Likewise, Cestius Gallus’ tribune Neapolitanus prostrates himself in reverence (War 2.341, 66 ce), and Agrippa’s speech implies that gift-giving and obeisance had been normal for Romans (2.414). Nevertheless, Pompey’s campaign involved plenty of killing, including that of priests performing the services (1.148–51), and recently the Roman procurator Gessius Florus has raided the temple treasury and killed even high-ranking Jerusalemites who objected (2.293–308). The main irony lies, however, in the fact that Josephus’ audiences in Rome know that the current imperial family bases its claim to military glory on having destroyed the Judean mother-city with its rebel population (survivors exhibited in the triumph) and that it has brought the temple’s sacred objects to Rome (7.139–62).

Mention of Romans not stepping beyond their limits makes one think of the 1.5 m (5 ft) balustrade that warned foreigners, in Greek and Latin, not to go farther on pain of death (War 5.193–94; 6.124–25). Remarkably, two examples of the Greek inscription have survived. One found in 1871 (cij 2.1400) is nearly complete, and is in the Istanbul Archaeology Museum. The other, a fragment from the middle section, found in 1935 (ogis 2.598), is kept in the Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem. The immediate context here, however, in which the commoners’ area is contrasted with that of the priests, and other passages in which he contrasts βέβηλοι with priests (5.18; 6.271), might suggest that Josephus is thinking of the parts of the temple open only to priests in contrast to those for common Judeans (though Ant. 3.181 assigns 2 of 3 parts of the Tabernacle to the priests “as a common and shared space,” the 3rd to God alone). Josephus need not have worried about consistency, in addressing Roman audiences. His distinction between common and sacred-priestly parts of the temple compound would be sufficiently understood by any ancient auditor. A rare combination of adjective and noun. Josephus writes much more often of “ancestral customs” (ca. 28 times). At Ant. 14.213 he combines the adjectives, however: τοῖς πατρίοις ἔθεσι καὶ ἱεροῖς χρῆσθαι. Cf. the similar language, anticipating and then realizing the Disciples’ pollution, at 2.400 (speech of Agrippa ii) and 5.7 (the Disciples have seized and armed the innermost space of the temple). Or “dreadful shivers”; cf. 1.524; 5.378; 6.3, 213, 405. Josephus uses φρίσσω, a word found before him mainly in Homer and Hesiod, the tragedians, medical texts, and Aristotle (4 times in Philo) only in War, as also cognate φρίκη at 5.565; 6.123, 210; φρικτός at 2.133; 5.345, 438; 6.199; φρικώδης at 2.139; 3.353; 4.286; 6.2, 83 (though this adjective spreads to Ant. 13.414; 19.344; Life 275). The word-group supports War’s tragic ethos.

This triad of birthplace, laws and customs, and ethnic identity was broadly assumed in ancient texts from at least Herodotus onward: Diodorus (following Poseidonius) 33–34.1; Strabo, Geog. 16.2.34–37; Tacitus, Hist. 5.2–5; Celsus in Origen, C. Cels. 5.25. Josephus everywhere assumes the same tight connection for Judeans. No matter where they live, they are identified (also by their ethnic designation) with their place of origin and its distinctive customs. Cf. Apion 1.179–82 and Antiquities 1–11, which explores the origin and laws of all Judeans. See Mason 2007a. This is the only occurrence of the double compound ἐμπεριπατέω in Josephus. This is noteworthy because, of the 24 occurrences before Josephus, 8 are in the lxx (including post-biblical Wisdom of Solomon), 14 are in Philo, and 1 is in the nt (1 Cor 6:16) citing the Bible. Where the Greek follows the Hebrew closely, the verb represents the hitpael stem of הלך (walk). The hitpael is intensive and has a reflexive sense: hence “move about in [a space].” Although Plutarch will use the word 3 times, as double compounds become more popular from the late 1st cent., it seems likely that Josephus knows the word from the Greek Bible and/or Philo. Josephus will re-use the identical string of words (here: θερμὰς ἔτι τὰς χεῖρας ἐξ ὁμοφύλων ἔχοντας φόνων), changing only the case of the participle, at 6.122. Since the image of hot hands is unattested in earlier literature, we have evidence of here of his care with words, reworking an effective phrase after a couple of volumes. Or “internecine slaughter.” The scandal of compatriot murder or carnage (see note at 4.72) is a theme and formulaic expression (ὁμόφυλος φόνος) in War: 2.210 (in Rome); 3.391; 5.381; 6.4, 109, 122; cf. Ant. 17.285. This formulation is unique to Josephus in surviving literature.

The first of 3 occurrences of the phrase ἔξωθεν πόλεμος in War (only). The later passages make a similar point, e.g. 5.28: “Older men and women, at a complete loss in the midst of their internal miseries, prayed for the Romans and eagerly awaited the external war, for freedom from internal miseries.” The phrase is earlier attested in Plato (Leg. 628a–629e; cf. Polybius 11.25.4), though mainly in Dionysius (Ant. rom. 6.1.1, 27.3; 9.37.1; 10.33.2; 11.7.2). Particular diction aside, the contrast between proper war, in which the political community unites against an external threat, and internal or civil war (στάσις or πόλεμος ἐμφύλιος), which is inherently shameful and self-destructive, pervaded ancient texts (War 1.216; 2.620, 638; 4.131, 367, 375, 441, 495, 545; 5.19; 6.343; 7.66, 157). Whereas most ancients considered Thucydides the gold standard of the historian, Dionysius preferred Herodotus, partly because he recounted external wars of Hellas against Persia whereas Thucydides plumbed the sordid depths of internal Greek conflicts (Dionysius, Thuc. 1–3, 21, 50–51). See note to “strife” at 1.10 in bjp 1a, where Josephus establishes the root theme that Jerusalem’s catastrophe in 70, though Titus effected it, was due to domestic strife (στάσις οἰκεα). This refers more precisely to the struggles of the “tyrants” (1.11) John, the Eleazars, and Simon, in their struggles with each other and already here, with the established leaders of Jerusalem, contending for personal power. See note at 4.179. Or “mild, moderate, decent.” See note at 2.87 in bjp 1b. The µέτριος word-group, famous from Aristotle’s advocacy of the middle way (e.g., Eth. nic. 1119a; Pol. 1313a, 1314e, 1315b) and important to Polybius in articulating the way of the statesman (e.g., 20.2–3; cf. Eckstein 1995: 28–83, 118–60), is also basic to Josephus’ political vocabulary. Cognates appear 31 times in War at important junctures, 102 times in his corpus. The only occurrence of ἔτυμος in Josephus. Plato’s Socrates was famous for insisting that words (e.g., justice, art or skill, love) be used with their true meanings, though he rarely used this adjective to make the point (Phaedr. 260e). Or “the commonwealth.” See note at 4.173. This (βεβαιωτὰς τῶν νόμων) sounds like a formulaic phrase but it is first attested in Josephus. Indeed, the noun βεβαιωτής is found only 23 times before his 4 uses of it (also 1.669; 2.35; Ant. 1.304). His main predecessors are Polybius (2), Dionysius (7), and Philo (3), all possible influences. Although this could sound like flattery of the imperial power, it is a plausible reflection from Josephus’ point of view. The empire required its governors to keep a small footprint in the provinces and work closely with local aristocrats, who managed internal matters (Stevenson 1949: 34–35; Lintott 1993: 54–69; Swain 1996: 227–29; Lendon 1997: 194–236; on the ruling consensus, Ando 2000: 73–276; overview in Burton 2002: 423–39; full elaboration in Meyer-Zwiffelhoffer 2002; Harland 2006; Revell 2009: 40–79). In the case of Judea, the senatorial governor and his armies were weeks away in the northern half of Syria. The equestrian or imperial freedman stationed in Caesarea with the Judean portfolio normally maintained the peace and permitted Jerusalem’s leaders, in conjunction with members of the Herodian royal dynasty, to follow their distinctive laws. Josephus does not hide or deny the malfeasance of Nero’s men Albinus and Gessius Florus in this role, but emphasizes throughout the cooperative good will of the man serving as senatorial legate. By contrast, it is a well-known feature of native resistance or revolutionary movements that their leaders may impose a harsher regime on their compatriots than the imperial power had done (e.g., the French Revolution, resistance movements during and after the world wars), including violence against “traitors” and “collaborators,” because of the pressing need for solidarity if their project is to have a chance of success.

Josephus has this adjective (ἐξώλης) 5 times, though before his time it is mainly used by comic writers (Aristophanes 4, Menander 7) and orators (Demosthenes 5, Aeschines 2) in their characterizations of people, not in historians (but Herodotus 7.9). I.e., in 4.138–61 Josephus has described the establishment of the Disciples’ tyranny in Jerusalem and the terror they created among the populace, before they gathered in assembly to hear Ananus (4.162). Cf. 4.174 on the private calamities suffered by the audience. As in 4.191, Ananus repeats the thought of the pervious English sentence in different words. Whereas the preceding paragraphs have been designed to whip up his audience’s indignation, he now relents, with implicit self-deprecation and respect for them, conceding that they must have felt indignant all along, as their coming out to hear him speak confirms. But they were stymied by 3 considerations (the Disciples’ youth, number, and secure position), which Ananus finally addresses. There is a parallel here with the speech of Agrippa (2.345–401), in which the king mainly ridicules the folly of going to war with Rome, although his audience has asked him for a delegation to Nero to confirm that they had no intention of going to war and only asked him to help with Florus’ removal. When the audience reminds him of this, after his emotionally exhausting oration (2.402–403), he sympathetically counsels them to await Florus’ replacement. In both cases, Josephus takes the opportunity—perhaps with a wink at the audience—to display his speech-making ability on a grand moral theme (the folly of war, the need to oppose internal tyrants) before settling down to the immediate practical question.

Or “overwhelmed, struck down, panicked”; see note at 4.18. Or number. See note to “mob” at 4.57. See note to “brazen acts” at 4.90. I.e., the Disciples control the inner temple, with its strong walls and elevated observation and shooting points. See 4.172 and notes.

See note at 4.179.

See note to “brazen acts” at 4.90. Cf. 4.172. Along with the strength of the temple walls, Josephus is referring to their height. See note to “elevation” at 4.189.

The word συνείδησις, with its interior psychological interest, is absent from surviving mainstream classical literature (Homer, Hesiod, the tragedians, the early historians, Plato, Aristotle), turning up only on the margins, rarely, and in Hellenistic historiography: Seven Sages (1), Aesop (1), Isocrates (1), Hippocratic corpus (1), Democritus (1), comic Menander (4), Chrysippus (1), Diodorus (2), and Dionysius (5). Most of the other 37 attestations before Josephus are in the New Testament (30); see also lxx Ecclesiastes (1), Wisdom of Solomon (1), Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (1), and Philo (4). After Josephus the word becomes common in Christian literature. The 2 occurrences in War (cf. Ant. 16.103, 212) are within a short space, here and 4.193—in Ananus’ voice first, then immediately afterward in the narrator’s—confirming Josephus’ control of the whole. Throughout War, he gives considerable attention to the psychology and morale of those involved in war on all sides. Here, his Ananus tries to inspire a popular uprising with the hope that it will bring the rebels to their proper minds, restraining them from their murderous program, though at 4.193 he reflects inwardly in the opposite direction. Josephus has the relatively rare πλεονέκτημα 6 times (Also War 3.477; 4.359; 5.143; Ant. 4.98; Life 116). It first appears in Xenophon (3 times), then in Demosthenes’ speeches (11), but not in older literature or historiography, only once or twice in Plato, Aristotle, and Polybius. The heavy users before Josephus are Dionysius (19), Strabo (13), and Philo (12). Plutarch uses it just once (Crass. 17.6). As Josephus later explains, the temple proper (the second enclosure, if seen from the perspective of the large Court of Nations, the ναός), sat on a foundation of 14 steps (perhaps 4 m, 10 ft) above the esplanade (5.194–97). A 10-cubit (4.5 m, 15 ft) terrace surrounded at the top of these stairs framed the main temple structure. Each of the 9 gates into the inner temple was, in addition, at the top of 5 steps (5.197). Another 15 steps led up from the Court of Women to the space for purified Judean males, reached via the Sanctuary Gate (5.205). Another 12 steps led from there to the Holy Place (5.206), the façade of which was a reported 100 cubits (45 m, 150 ft) high—about the height of an 11- to 13-story office building. The walls around the Court of Women were allegedly 40 cubits high (18.3 m, 60 ft), those around the most sacred area reaching about twice as high. Although it is not clear what these measurements mean or how accurate they are, those who occupied the temple had an enormous advantage over those outside, in both the thick gated walls and the elevation from which to observe, shoot, and defend. See the consequences at 4.203–207.

See note at 4.150. Greek βέλος can refer to any missile approaching at speed. Although it most often indicates arrows, javelins, or sharpened bolts fired from torsion-machines, it could include other fired objects. So it seems best to use a neutral translation. Synonymous with “offensive [men]” at 4.168 and “profane [men]” at 4.171. This is a sly comment, written by Josephus for Ananus, given that precisely this has happened to the defenders at Gamala (4.75–76) and something similar will occur at Masada (7.317–19). There is poetic justice in Josephus language: these men would be taken down (καταλύω, perf. passive), just as they tried to undo the ancestral laws and customs (4.171; cognate noun at 4.154).

Ananus introduces his concluding thought, about dying if necessary before seeing the holy places defiled, with καλὸν δέ. This forms an inclusio with the speech’s opening words and thoughts (ἦ καλόν γε) at 4.163. Josephus re-uses the phrase (τοῖς ἱεροῖς πυλῶσι) a few sentences later (4.205), the only other occurrence of the noun-adjective pair in his works, as he mediates Ananus’ thoughts: refraining from an attack against these gates even though the Disciples have withdrawn behind them. The gates appear to be those giving access to the inner temple, including the Court of Women. This walled complex had 9 double-door gates around the outside (4 on each of the S and N walls, one on the E end): see Figures 2 and 3; 5.184–205; cf. m. Mid. 1.4–2.5. These outer 9 were made of wood covered in gold and silver, a project funded by the wealthy Alexander of Alexandria, brother of Philo and father of Tiberius Julius Alexander. A 10th gate, which Josephus appears to situate just outside the Holy Place at the top of a staircase, between the Court of Women and the inner temple, was massive and cast in rare Corinthian bronze (5.201–205). There are problems reconciling all the evidence in Josephus (including his claim that priests went with their wives past the Corinthian Gate, Ant. 15.418) and that of the rabbis, on which see the discussion and a proposed solution in Schwartz 1991b. An artful expression (ψυχή + προΐημι), only here in Josephus and attested earlier only in Dionysius (Ant. rom. 7.6.5; 10.15.4) and Philo (Alleg. interp. 3.72), all in contexts of the worthiness of the cause for which one might forfeit one’s life. In light of the foregoing speech, the idea may be that Jerusalem’s men have so far refrained from confronting the Disciples because their own families were not threatened—a cause for which surely all men would rise to physical conflict. Will they not now risk their lives for the sake of God, if not their families?

This natural-seeming pair—supportive intentions backed by physical assistance (γνώμη + χείρ)—reappears twice in this volume (4.214, 392), otherwise only at Ant. 19.182 (the killer of Gaius Caligula brought freedom by matching counsel with action)—a passage often thought to be copied from Josephus’ Roman sources (Wiseman 2013: xv. 76). The next occurrence (4.214) is important because John of Gischala will use the same words (in reverse) to convince Ananus of his loyalty—a barefaced lie. But in the final case (4.392), Josephus as narrator uses the phrase of John’s prowess. Ananus seems to adopt the wise position of Vespasian that one should only engage in combat after due precautions for security (4.31, 44–45 with notes). See note to “spoke” at 4.162: this concluding pledge of self-sacrifice resembles Vespasian’s at 4.48.

See note at 4.19. See note at 4.160. See note to “the undoing of better-established law” at 4.154. This extremely rare cognate adjective (δυσκατάλυτος)—again at War 4.352, but before Josephus only attested in Strabo (Geog. 14.1.28), then twice later in all ancient Greek—plays on the recent cognate verb καταλύω (4.171, 190): those who seek to take down the holy places and laws must themselves be undone (4.258, 348), but it will be hard. Josephus re-uses the word just translated as “mob” (πλῆθος), shifting from his use of the term for the ordinary folk to speak of the great mass of men recruited by the Disciples. See note at 4.57. See note to this characteristic phrase at 4.34. See note at 4.189. See note to “manufactured” at 4.36. See further 4.199, 221, a recurring point: the Disciples had to prevail, for they knew the harsh retribution they would face otherwise. As elsewhere, Josephus shows a deep concern for human motivation, here for fighting on in a hopeless cause: they (feel that they) cannot surrender because what they have already done makes them liable to a horrible death after expected torture. Recall that Josephus himself would not risk surrender to Vespasian at Iotapata (3.346: “He reasoned from the likelihood that he would have to suffer for the things he had wrought”). The same holds for John in relation to Titus (4.103–104) and Eleazar in relation to Silva at Masada (7.324). When the alternative is likely death designed by others, men will persevere in combat on their terms, even if they are likely to die. Cf. Diodorus 27.17.3: “If death lies in store for them whether they flee or fight, death with honor [i.e., in battle] will seem to them preferable to death and disgrace.” In World War ii, it was widely believed that the Axis powers had to fight on because they expected harsh judgement for their atrocities if they lost (hence the German attempt to eradicate traces of the Holocaust). Even on the Allied side, Gen. Curtis LeMay, who led the incendiary bombing that killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians, remarked that if the Allies lost he would be tried as a war criminal (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/bomb-us-officials, accessed 27 May 2020). If Josephus’ Ananus is not contemplating killing all the Disciples, he may be implying that their consciences could still be turned to repentance by quick action of the citizens against them, while acknowledging that they will be difficult to dislodge because their consciences are so damaged. This translation (agreeing with M-B) follows the mss: οὐ γὰρ ἐνδώσειν αὐτοὺς εἰς ἐσχάτην συγγνώμην ἐφ᾿ οἷς ἔδρασαν ἐλπίσαντας. A possible alternative reading of this text, that they were not going to give themselves up (now), because they were putting their hope in a later, ultimate pardon from the Romans, might be supported by the astonishing request of Simon and John when Jerusalem is in flames (6.326: “excited by the hope of pardon”), but it would be hard to understand here as an elaboration of (“for”) the rebels’ damaged consciences and tenacity in fighting. H-G avoid the problem with a diplomatic translation: “with no hope of pardon for their crimes they were likely to hold out to the bitter end.” Thackeray lcl and Pelletier follow conjectural emendations that make the logical connections easier. First, inspired by the 15th-cent. codex Vossianus, they change εἰς ἐσχάτην from an adjective modifying συγγνώμην (“ultimate pardon”) t0 a freestanding εἰς ἔσχατον (“to the end”). Second, aided by the strikingly similar phrase at 5.354, they follow Destinon’s proposal to change the verb from “hope” to its opposite, “despair” (ἀπελπίσαντας). With these changes, they read the sentence: “Having despaired of pardon for what they had done, they would not give themselves up to the end.” Since the “more difficult reading” yields a tolerable sense, I have followed it: they were not going to give themselves up on the basis of hoping for (having hoped for) a pardon.

At 4.294 Josephus will attribute the same motive (suffer whatever comes rather than stand by and watch) to the Disciples. See note there. Or “the commonwealth.” See note at 4.173. This collocation (τὰ πράγματα συγχύσει) reoccurs at 4.339. It is another example of diction attested before Josephus only in Dionyius (Ant. rom. 4.24.4) and Philo (Conf. 183; Prov. 2.1).

Josephus is illustrating the power of rhetoric, a minor theme throughout his works (Mason 2011–2012). Before Ananus’ speech, Jerusalem’s males were humiliated and overawed; now, because of his stirring words, they are eager to face danger. This pattern reoccurs until Eleazar’s speech at Masada: men who were recently crying at the prospect of death (7.338–40) will not let him even finish his stirring oration, each running forward as though possessed to kill their families and themselves (7.389). These examples also show the danger of rhetoric and the reason for Josephus’ suspicion of it (Ant. 4.14; 20.264; Life 40), though good leaders must be capable of powerful oratory. The compound verb προκινδυνεύω is characteristic of War 1–6 (12 occurrences). The 62 attestations before Josephus occur in just a few authors, mainly: Thucydides (2), Isocrates (6), Xenophon (4), Demosthenes (2), Polybius (19), Diodorus (7), Dionysius (10), and Philo (2)—the standard profile for Josephus’ influences. Plutarch has it 19 times. Outside War Josephus uses it only at Ant. 19.183, in a passage often thought to be copied from Josephus’ Roman source (see note to “my hand” at 4.192).

The two verbs (καταλέγω, συντάσσω) have broad connotations in military contexts: first “laying down” the foundation of the army by selection, recruitment, enlistment, and logistic preparation, then drawing up, arranging, ordering, drilling, or putting into order the men chosen. Josephus everywhere shows his awareness of the need for civilians to undergo hard training if they are to fight; cf. 2.583 (his own efforts) and 2.588 (John of Gischala’s). Evidently, the Disciples have received such training as units. See note at 4.160. Josephus has not mentioned these blabbers (οἱ ἀγγέλλοντες). The notice and the plural sit awkwardly with what is coming at 4.208–223, where he explains as an afterthought that John of Gischala ingratiated himself with Ananus as a kind of lieutenant and treacherously passed on his plans to the Disciples, and holds him singularly responsible for Ananus’ inability to prevail. Who, then, were these other informers? Each of the remaining sentences in this sentence is formulaic in Josephus, characteristic of his favored diction. For “provoked” (passive of παροξύνω) see note at 2.8 in bjp 1b. Distinctive Josephan language (προπηδάω). See note to “plunged ahead” at 2.47 in bjp 1b. A characteristic term in this narrative (ἀθρόος). See note at 2.12 in bjp 1b. Josephus is about to contrast the Disciples’ military discipline with the inexperience of Ananus’ people (4.197). Or “centuries, platoons, squads, bands, teams”; see note at 4.134 and to “century” at 2.61 in bjp 1b. Cf. 2.264–65, where the Disciples’ precursors (“enchanters, bandit-types”) formed into companies to terrorize the neighboring populations in the late 50s. Josephus has the distinctive phrase κατὰ λόχους 10 times throughout War (only). The 17 attestations of the phrase before him are in Thucydides (1), Xenophon (2), Polybius (1), Diodorus (1), Dionysius (10), Asclepiodotus (1), and Philo (Mos. 1.331)—a typical profile of his possible influences. Although “spare no one” (οὐδενὸς ἐφείδοντο) sounds like a cliché, it is more common in Josephus (7 times) than other authors: cf. War 4.310; 6.352; Ant. 9.133; 10.162. At 4.310, the Disciples’ Idumean allies show the same trait. Similar phrases appear rarely before Josephus (e.g., Herodotus 9.39.2; Plato, Phileb. 16a; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 8.28.2).

I.e., those of τὸ δημοτικόν whom Ananus has just chosen and begun organizing for combat. See note at 4.160. See note to “mob” at 4.57. Or “forged, whipped into shape, welded together.” See note at 4.85, where John of Gischala (among others) appears as the chief trainer of would-be rebels.

Or “spirit.” See note at 4.88. Josephus uses the same phrase (previously attested only in Polybius 13.2.1) at Ant. 5.214. I.e., Ananus’ new recruits. See note to “brazen acts” at 4.90. I.e., the Disciples. A neat inversion. Josephus has just said that the popular army surpassed the Disciples in mass (πλήθει μὲν ὑπερέχον; 4.197); he now uses the same verb to nullify that seeming advantage (τόλμαν παντὸς πλήθους ὑπερέχουσαν).

Or simply uninhabited / deserted (ἀοίκητος), if the residents fled from fear. See note to “bandit contingent” at 4.84 and note the synonymous parallel with “the Disciples.” This priest-led faction, occupying the temple as a fortress (4.151, 172), have made themselves an outlaw society, outside Judean law and custom, under illicit rulers (4.157–57). John of Gischala, who had first assembled the bandit contingent at Gischala, will rise in the coming paragraphs to dominate Jerusalem’s bandit-tyrant faction of Disciples. See note at 4.160. Josephus repeats the inherently plausible human motive he had claimed at 4.193: having crossed a threshold of criminality, the Disciples could not yield as they risked dire punishment. See notes there.

Josephus more often speaks of fervor or spirit (θυμός) serving as general in driving an army (3.15, 153; 6.257), an apparent coinage of his made without moral judgment but merely as an observation, as here. He may choose the more neutral “passions” (πάθη) here because the feelings differ on the two sides. On passions, see note to “affecting him” at 4.31. The verb συρρήγνυμι is a favorite of Josephus. Though attested only 23 times in Greek literature before him (a quarter of these in the Hippocratic corpus, once each in Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides, Aristotle, Polybius, Strabo), it appears 12 times in War and twice in Antiquities. This compound verb (διακοντίζομαι) appears before Josephus only in Xenophon (Cyr. 1.4.4) and Theophrastus (Char. 27.13), both times paired with διατοξεύω (“compete in archery”), which is absent from Josephus. But Josephus uses the rare first verb again at 5.312, with πόρρωθεν (“from afar”) as here. As the next sentences explain (4.201–204), the Disciples make forays into city (cf. 4.196) and then retreat to the security of the temple walls. Presumably, when one side felt overwhelmed and turned in retreat. Since the Disciples are better armed (with swords) and have the more secure refuge (in the temple walls), we might assume that this fate affects the popular army more. See note at 4.92.

The first of several references in War to the assumed responsibility of “the relatives” (οἱ προσήκοντες) to attend to injured people and bury the dead (cf. 4.331, 383; 5.514, 568; Ant. 7.229), an act of filial piety assumed throughout the ancient world (cf. Sophocles, Antigone), but often left tragically unfulfilled or impiously prevented by the tyrants-bandits-Disciples and their violent kind. See note at 4.160. Since it was proper for one’s relatives to take care of the injured and dead (previous note), this remark implies a rupture in the order of things. The Disciples have broken natural ties of affection, place, and governance. Many are not from Jerusalem (4.135–47; John of Gischala will soon lead them). Their presence as membra disiecta in the city epitomizes Josephus’ larger theme of civil strife (stasis) and imminent political dissolution. This is in addition to Josephus’ main point here: that their chosen fortress is the sacred precinct of the temple, which they pollute. A paradoxical expression (τὸ θεῖον ἔδαφος), since ground is the most universal and mundane part of the cosmos, the opposite of sacred (“set apart”). Perhaps the point is that the Disciples are treating as ordinary ground what is in fact divine. A possible parallel is Exod 3:5, where Moses discovers that the ground on which he stands has become holy (אַדְמַת־קֹ֖דֶשׁ; lxx γῆ ἁγία). This rare compound verb (καθαιμάσσω, “sprinkle with blood”) has tragic overtones. It is attested before Josephus only in tragedies, especially those of Euripides (Aeschylus, Eum. 450; Euripides, Andr. 588; Hec. 1126; Or. 1527; Iph. Aul. 311), in a fragment of Dioscurides, and once in Plato (Phaedr. 254e), the last possibly inspiring Josephus’ second use of it (Ant. 8.417). On War’s tragic lexicon in general, see Chapman 1998; Mason 2013, 2016a: 114–21. Josephus again taps the most profound thematic veins of this work: compatriot murder resulting from civil discord and resulting in the pollution of the holy places, which will require purging—a thematic cluster that will be explored in ever greater depth through Books 4 to 6. See 4.150 and notes there.

See note at 4.199. Or simply “dominate”: their confident sorties allowed them to move about (περίειμι) at will, showing their (temporary) command of the field. Cf. 4.46 on the need for a fighting force to be infuriated or full of spirit / fervor, as the opposite of being unnerved. The valuable 10th-cent. ms P omits the change of focus to the popular fighters, however, so that those who violently block retreat are the Disciples. Given the change of subject in the other mss, and the ongoing contrast between the groups in 4.203, P seems to reflect the scribe’s puzzlement at Josephus’ attribution of such harsh actions to the fighters under Ananus. Those behind created an ad hoc barrier to any wishing to flee. In Soviet forces from 1941 to 1944. Stalin ordered special companies to work behind forward units, blocking (and if necessary, arresting or shooting) retreating soldiers. By some western estimates they killed 13,500 of their own in the horrifying siege of Stalingrad, 200,000 in the war as a whole (Roberts 2009: 183; Burleigh 2010: 348–49, 360), doing much to stiffen the fighters’ resolve. That Josephus would attribute such tactics to the leader he so clearly favors, Ananus, supports his realistic view of human affairs and foibles. But this is a purely tactical question; contrast his implied strictures against the tyrants for preventing citizens from leaving Jerusalem (4.564–65; 5.27–38). Cf. 4.200: those who turned in flight were vulnerable to the swords of the other side. The blocking units forced them to remain in place or face their own violence, doing what was necessary to create a solid front. Or “no place to return /withdraw to” (ἀναχώρησις). I.e., the numerically superior force, lacking the Disciples’ united fervor and discipline, could use their numbers to effect only by the iron resolve of their leaders to prevent flight when the more skilled Disciples attacked them.

This appears to be the walled temple structure (see note to “elevation” at 4.189), including the Court of Women (cf. next sentence), in the middle of Herod’s extensive Court of the Nations. See note to “Chares and Yosep” at 4.18. Josephus likes this double-compound verb (συνεισπίπτω). It is attested only 23 times before him, nearly always in historians (Herodotus 3, Thucydides 2, Xenophon and Polybius 4 each, Diodorus 7, Dionysius 5). He uses it 8 times: 7 in War and 4 of these in Book 4 (also 4.429, 568, 642).

Although a mechanical comparison with Josephus’ language in describing the temple at 5.193–94 would suggest that the first enclosure was the whole esplanade (Court of Nations / Gentiles), surrounded by porticoes, and the “second” enclosure that of the temple in its centre, the two contexts are different. The fact that Ananus’ force was able to rush into the structure before the Disciples closed the gates, and that he resolved to halt before the “sacred gates,” indicate that he has entered the Court of Women, by at least 1 of the 3 gates around the E end of the inner temple structure leading to that area (5.198–99).

See note to this phrase at 4.191. There, however, Josephus seems to use it in the broader sense of the gates to the entire (central) temple structure, for Ananus could not know (in the story) that he would find himself in the first enclosure. Here, already inside the Court of Women, he declines to attack the gates leading to the most holy part of the sanctuary—5.207: “the shrine itself, lying at the center, the holy temple” (αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ ναὸς κατὰ μέσον κείμενος, τὸ ἅγιον ἱερόν), comprising the Holy Place and Holy of Holies (5.226). There was an intermediate court, above the Court of Women but outside the most holy, 2-part structure, where the altar and laver stood. This was subdivided by a low stone divider (0.5 m, 1.5 ft.), separating pure Judean males from the working priests (5.226). See note to “elevation” at 4.189. The walls around the inner sanctuary towered even above the Court of Women, where Ananus’ force appears to be. The adjective ἀθέμιτος (ἀθέμιστος in Homer, Herodotus, and occasional others, the verse form) was well known because of its use in Homer and Euripides (Ion 1093; Phoen. 612), but not much used, especially not in historiography. After occasional occurrences in Xenophon (3) and Polybius (2: referring to the heroes or a refused sacrifice), it appears in 2 Maccabees (3), 3 Maccabees (1), Dionysius (5), and the nt (2) before Josephus uses it 10 times—8 in War, 1 each in Life and Apion, never in Antiquities. It is not a substitute for the various phrases he uses to express what was “contrary to laws,” then, but has rather a tragic and numinous connotation. That explains why War uses it relatively often. See note at 4.57. Although the compound verb προαγνεύω was readily intelligible, this is its first appearance in surviving Greek literature, and only one in Josephus. It will rarely appear again (cf. Epictetus, Diatr. 3.21.14; Porphyry, Abst. 2.44; Themistius, Const. 52a), outside the magical papyri. Josephus refers to the terrace outside the Holy Place and around the altar, which were open only to Judean males who had undergone thorough purification (5.226–227). Cf. Ant. 8.96 on Solomon’s temple: only those of the people who were distinguished in level of purification and law-observance could enter the sanctuary.

See note to “lot” at 4.154. It is not likely a coincidence that 6,000, though hard to imagine as a number of guards for the porticoes in Jerusalem, is the number Josephus assigns to a Roman legion (10 cohorts of 600: 3.65–69); cf. his own alleged army of 60,000, post-training, and bodyguard of 600 (2.583). It seems to be a default figure for military forces or casualities in his mind (1.95, 130, 163, 332, 346; 3.59, 540; 4.115; 5.250; 6.283; Ant. 13.373, 377, 379; 14.33; 17.42). These colonnades, a crucial part of Herod’s renovation of the Second Temple (1.401), were high shaded porches. But where exactly? Both the outer temple esplanade and inner temple, base of the Disciples, had colonnades with roofs. Those of the inner temple were formed by rows of columns, some around the large square storage rooms. Josephus describes the columns inside the Court of Women, part of the inner temple, as beautiful and enormous (5.200). Access to these portico roofs was via staircases of some sort inside the inner temple (Schwartz and Peleg 2011). We most naturally translate ἐπὶ ταῖς στοαῖς here as “on the colonnades” with H-G (cf. ἐπὶ τῇ στοᾷ at the next reference to this guard force, becoming lax: 4.298). But the Disciples control the roofs of the cloisters in the inner temple, reached from within; they have just used these heights to fire projectiles outward on Ananus’ force in the larger temple compound (4.205). It is difficult to imagine how rotating shifts of Ananus’ guards could attain those positions (via ladders?) without being repulsed. Whiston and M-B place the guards “in” the cloisters, though this is even more problematic if those of the inner temple are imagined. Another possible translation, if the inner temple is in view, is “against, as a check on, to guard” the colonnades (Thackeray, Pelletier, Rogers). I.e., the Disciples are using the inner temple’s colonnade roof, so Ananus’ men keep it under constant surveillance, perhaps firing occasional arrows up to clear it of fighters. Josephus implies at 4.298 that, once Ananus’ men control egress by the gates of the inner temple, the Disciples can leave only by rappeling over the walls. Otherwise they were confined within. If Ananus’ men watching those heights from the ground outside, however, they can hardly be said to be keeping the Disciples under close watch. The best solution seems to be that, albeit without clarifying the matter, Josephus envisions the guards as stationed on the broad rooftop of the outer colonnade around the temple esplanade. At Ant. 17.259 he describes Judeans fending off a Roman force (after Herod’s death) as getting up “on the colonnades that used to enclose the outer court of the temple.” These heights have been used by auxiliary forces based in the Antonia fortress to monitor activities in the temple, especially during festivals (War 2.224; Ant. 20.192). From the description of the temple at 5.190–98, the relative positions of those standing on the inner and outer colonnades are admittedly not clear: the height of the inner temple soars to 40 cubits (20 m, 65 ft, with 25-cubit columns inside), whereas the columns of the outer court are said to be 25 cubits (12.5 m, 41 ft). But then 5.200 says that the columns of the inner temple were not inferior to those of the outer except in size: i.e., they were not as high as the outer colonnade. Likewise, Ant. 20.192 relates that the priests’ erection of a wall to block Agrippa i’s view from his palace into the temple, from the W slope, also blocked the view of soldiers on the W colonnade; hence Claudius’ order for its removal. This implies that the soldiers on the outer colonnade roof had until then been able to observe activity in the inner temple, as Ananus’ guards now monitor the Disciples. Most reconstructions of the 1st-cent. temple (e.g., that of the Israel Museum in Jerusalem) interpret Josephus’ description to mean that only the central Holy Place was 40 cubits high. They make the columns of the outer courtyard higher than those of the inner shrine, which makes the best sense of the passages just mentioned. A sizable pediment above the outer columns also adds to the height of the walkable roof above them. On these assumptions, men stationed along the W side of the outer colonnade, or indeed on the E colonnade, could have maintained the constant surveillance that Josephus repeatedly mentions as an aggravation (4.219–20, 228, 253, 272, 277–78, 295, 302). Finally, since the Tyropoeon Valley loomed beneath the W portico, his later remark that Ananus’ men “hurled themselves down into the city” to pitiable deaths (4.312; cf. 6.188–89) fits this scenario best.

Or “the magistrates, high office-holders.” The singular ἀξίωμα (“dignity, worthiness”) is common in ancient literature and in Josephus (91 occurrences), but this plural construction ([πολλοὶ δὲ τῶν] ἐν ἀξιώμασιν) is rare. Something close appears in Diodorus 15.86.1; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 7.26.4, 54.4, 66.4 and Josephus, Ant. 12.175, 187. The hesitant expression (ὑπὸ τῶν ἄρχειν δοκούντων) may reflect the wartime conditions, in which many of the usual leaders had been killed, the rebels have appointed a high priest, and the former high priest Ananus has informally assumed leadership with some others. Cf. Paul’s phrases τοῖς δοκοῦσιν, τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι, and οἱ δοκοῦντες στῦλοι εἶναι, which are skeptical of attributed status (“those of repute don’t concern me at all”), in Gal 2:1–9. See 4.12 and note for the terminology. Avoiding compulsory military duties by hiring a substitute was a practice as old as the 18th-cent. bce Code of Hammurabi, which outlawed it, though it evidently continued (Postgate 1992: 242–43). We must wonder why Josephus pauses to explain the practice here. Perhaps the aristocrat and proud general (Books 2–3) is in part trying to explain how John of Gischala and his force were eventually able to overwhelm Ananus’ force (from 4.208)—because the “best” men were not always with Ananus.

Josephus’ introduction of John illustrates a perennial problem for narrative historians: if they tried to relate many things that happened at a given moment (everything being out of the question), they would need to fragment their accounts. More common practice then and now (cf. Bryson 2013), which Josephus also prefers, is to tell one coherent story and then return to another, although this requires returning to an earlier point. In Book 4, this comes at the cost of chronological clarity, most obviously in relation to Vespasian’s activities, which are absent from the first half, even though he remained active. Following Josephus’ narrative of Ananus’ activities to this point, we could never have guessed that John was Ananus’ companion. Josephus defers mention of him, perhaps, to focus attention on this singularly important character, also known to the Roman audience, now. This (διαδιδράσκω) is the verb Josephus had used of John’s disgraceful flight (4.111). When their wives and children plead for John’s men to wait for them, John demands that they ignore the pleas and “save themselves,” with the result that they “were scattered,” according to their capacity for speed. Once in Jerusalem, the deceitful John presents this as though he had outmaneuvered the Romans, though his wiser hearers understand that it was a desperate bolt (4.124: δρασμός). Or “mind” (ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ περιφέρων). The story of John’s flight from his home town of Gischala to Jerusalem, by means of a trick played on Titus, is related at length (presumably because of John’s importance in War) in 4.84–130. See note to “craftiest” at 2.585 in bjp 1b. The closest parallel expression seems to be in Philo, Conf. 107, speaking of the good and bad models or archetypes that men carry around in their souls. For Josephus’ thematization of tyranny and tyrants, see notes at 4.151 and 166. This is Josephus’ 3rd summary verdict on John’s character. The second came earlier in this volume (4.85), and Josephus here recalls its 2 main charges: deceitfulness (here δολιώτατος, there γόης ἀνὴρ καὶ ποικιλώτατος) and love of power or tyranny (here δεινὸν ἔρωτα τυραννίδος, there ἀγαπᾶν τὸν πόλεμον εἰς δυναστείας). The first summary (2.585–87) comes after Josephus’ introduction of the character John in Galilee (2.575) and it is the most elaborate and excoriating of all. The reprises in Book 4 draw from it. I.e., while not yet being among the Disciples, John is remotely directing their planning by feeding them crucial intelligence.

See note to “pretender” at 2.586 in bjp 1b. From the root sense of “make a reply / answer,” the verb became associated with the lines of actors on stage, playing a part. From this came the application to pretense and hypocrisy: saying things that disguise true intentions, though this sense does not inhere in the verb. For Josephus, pretense is the hallmark of John’s character; cf. 2.614, 617. Greek τὰ τοῦ δήμου φρονεῖν ὑποκρινόμενος. Josephus may have had this crucial episode in view in his first characterization of John, at 2.586 (“a pretender to kindness / benevolence,” ὑποκριτὴς φιλανθρωπίας). See previous note. Cf. 4.206–207. He would thus be acquainted with all the shift-crews in the rotation. See note at 4.160. See note to “scheme” at 2.635 in bjp 1b. Josephus is using newly fashionable language (σκέµµα, here and at 1.486, 500; 2.635). It is lightly attested before his time and not in historical works, but soon becomes more frequent (Plutarch, Lucian, Galen)—newly fashionable diction? Lit., “well considered.” For the collocation of καλῶς and βουλεύω see also Ant. 4.24.

Like many authors, Josephus can use the past perfect participle οἱ προεστηκότες (here accusative) as a fixed expression for the élite class of any city, equivalent to οἱ δυνατοί (the powerful), οἱ γνώριµοι (the notables), οἱ πρῶτοι (the principal or ﬁrst men), οἱ ἐπίσηµοι (the distinguished), οἱ ἐπιφανέστατοι (the most illustrious, eminent), and οἱ ἄρχοντες (the leaders, magistrates). With this formulation, the particular group over which the leaders have authority is often specified, as here. The phrase is relatively uncommon in War, only here and at 4.251, relatively more common later (Ant. 5.111, 307; 10.71; 11.331; 12.108; Life 168, 194; Apion 2.158).

The neuter substantive from an adjective, τὸ φιλότιμον, an alternative to the more obvious abstract noun φιλοτιμία (10 occurrences, all in War), is found occasionally in other writers (Euripides 2, Plato 1, Aristotle 1, Polybius 2, Dionysius 2, Strabo 2), but Josephus’ 6 uses—3 in each history—show a growing taste for this construction at his time, confirmed by the 22 occurrences in Plutarch. Given that all flattery is unreasonable in moral-philosophical terms, Josephus’ phrase διὰ γὰρ τὰς ἀλόγους κολακείας suggests something egregious, more than typical deference toward a powerful person. One of only 2 occurrences of ἔμφασις in Josephus (cf. 2.281 and note in bjp 1b). Whereas it often refers, in other writers, to the rhetorical device of embedding clues for an audience to pick up, here John’s actions do the talking in spite of his words.

Josephus is distinctly partial to this compound verb (ἀποσκευάζω), using it 19 times, 13 in War, though it is attested only 10 times in earlier literature (Polybius 2, Diodorus 2, Dionysius 1, Philo 2). See note at 2.73 in bjp 1b. A paradoxical remark: δυνατὸν ἐκ πονηρίας. Ancient writers, including Josephus (e.g., War 1.31, 181, 188, 218, 231, 276; 2.199, 239. 243), routinely speak of “the powerful” in a given polis as one of several equivalents for the notables, the eminent, the first men, or the leaders (see note to “leaders” at 4.210). Their families have risen to the top in status and wealth over centuries; they live in the expensive part of the city and follow an aristocratic code of leadership. John, by contrast, recently arrived from remote Gischala, has made himself powerful in Jerusalem and impossible to dislodge, not from any virtue but because of his contemptible behavior, which includes surrounding himself with influential (and armed) protectors. Josephus uses the litotes found here (οὐ τῶν ἀσήμων, more often οὐκ ἄσημος: “not [of the] undistinguished”) 5 times in War (1.241; 2.469; 5.6, 419), also in Ant. 16.243, 301; Life 1 (of himself). The phrase is readily intelligible but was not used often by others: Euripides and Sophocles (3 each), Dionysius (6), and Philo (4) are all plausible influences on Josephus. A sarcastic metaphor (ὑποζώννυμι). The verb normally anticipates a piece of clothing fixed for battle or a sword fastened to one’s middle for protection (Ant. 19.55, 85; Life 293). At 2.275, as here, he portrays a troublesome popular leader “girding” himself with a posse of armed stooges. Reading οὐ τῶν ἀσήμων ὑπεζωσμένον τε πολλοὺς τῶν συνεδρευόντων τοῖς ὅπλοις with the valued mss pa (followed by Niese and M-B), rather than τοῖς ὅλοις with mss ML1VRC and the Latin translation (followed by Thackeray lcl, Pelletier, and the translation of H-G). The others translate to the effect: “others who sat in the general council.” Josephus’ 4 other uses of συνεδρεύω refer to sitting in a council (synedrion; Ant. 13.364; 16.244; 17.90, 93), and it easy to imagine that, since John has been collaborating with Ananus, several prominent men of the provisional council are said to support John. But do they support him by weighing in during council meetings on “general affairs” or by carrying weapons? If we reason that the former is the more obvious or diplomatic scenario, then the principle of preferring the more awkward reading would favor the weapons. Moreover, War’s only other use of “gird under” (ὑποζώννυμι, see above), at 2.275, describes arch-bandits who surround themselves with armed associates. It is even possible that Josephus intends a military-metaphorical use of συνεδρεύω (cf. the 1st cent. bce Asclepiodotus, Tact. 3.6), for the metaphor of laying an ambush or conspiring to fight, rather than sitting in council. The assumption here, which may seem quaint to modern readers, is that an oath invokes divine guarantors who will ensure that the costly pledge is realized or that the oath-breaker faces retribution. Oaths were thus connected with (self-) curse (cf. Sommerstein and Torrance 2014: 1–47). A central theme of tragedy is the necessity that follows either fulfilling a terrifying commitment (Agamemnon’s sacrifice of daughter Iphigeneia, resulting from an oath to Artemis as a condition of reaching Troy) or breaking an oath. As the divine personiﬁcation of Horkos (Horcus)—punisher of oath-breakers—indicates (Hesiod, Op. 804), oaths (ὅρκοι) were awesome undertakings in principle. Josephus relates several instances of elaborate oaths (Ant. 1.212, 323–24; 2.3, 253, 372–73; 5.15.26 etc.) and emphasizes their binding nature, even where they impose unwelcome duties on the swearer (e.g., 5.169–74); they often result in a “pact” as here (Ant. 5.55; 6.253; 7.111; 8.388). Yet Josephus also displays a marked ambivalence about oath-making, and describes characters who violate their solemn commitments (most egregiously, 2.451–53). It therefore seems that those who use oaths to guarantee their word are actually the least trustworthy (War 1.260 [Parthians]; 2.451–53 [the Judean rebels]; Ant. 1.323 [Laban]; Life 101–2, 275 [John of Gischala, “oath-breaker”]). In Ant. 3.92, Moses thus restricts oath-taking to the most important matters. Josephus’ Essenes reportedly consider oath-taking worse than oath-breaking, at least in ordinary affairs, because one who resorts to a divine guarantee must not be trustworthy (War 2.135), though even these men swear awesome oaths upon entering the community (2.139–42). Cf. Jesus’ proscription of oath-taking (Matt 5:33–37). Oaths of good will (εὔνοια) appear otherwise in Ant. 6.276; 8.386; 15.265, 368; 17.58.

In this context: the Disciples. Josephus is elaborately setting up John’s violation of his oath at 4.216. This double-compound (συγκαταλύω) seems chosen for its Thucydidean resonances: at 8.68.1, 4 the Athenian uses it twice to describe the plan of oligarchs to destroy the century-old democracy (i.e., τὸν δῆμον) in 411 bce. Subsequent authors likewise use the verb in political contexts, for the dissolution of constitutions, democratic rule, or tyrannies, as in Josephus’ only other use of it: of the Disciples’ terror (led by John) and violation of Judean law (4.382). This may be an ironic allusion to Thucydides, therefore, to speak of a man who swears allegiance to the populace while being set on the dissolution of its constitution. Josephus artfully has John use the same solemn formula (in reverse) that Ananus had used near the end of his speech, for the high priest’s genuine commitment to the popular struggle (4.192; see note to “hand” there), and that Josephus as narrator will use of John at 4.392.

For the construction, see note to “Chares and Yosep” at 4.18. There are echoes here of John’s promise to Titus at Gischala (4.98–102) that he fully accepted the need for surrender, after the sabbath. His professed “love” of Titus’ terms led the Roman commander to an absurd level of trust. Sent in because the Disciples have made a fortress of the temple (4.151, 196, 201). See note at 4.160. There is tragic humor in the irony that Ananus’ group would send the very man who has been betraying them to the Disciples as their emissary to seek terms with the group (imagine Britain sending a civil servant who had been spying for Beijing as ambassador to China). Greek διάλυσις (here plural) has a range of senses: separation into parts, disbanding, dissolution (as 2.157; Ant. 17.249), resolving or resolution, undoing, and therefore in a secondary sense the settling, accommodation, or amelioration by removal of debts or hostilities. Josephus nearly always uses the word in this last, elsewhere least frequent sense, as here and at 4.219, 256 (cf. 1.428 and the verb at 4.249); Ant. 14.86; 15.155; 17.17, 47, 232. Both the plural and the preposition in Josephus’ phrase περὶ διαλύσεων read oddly, and that is likely why ms v “corrects” to the singular, and why mss pavrc have a singular in the sequel (again in 4.219), while mss amrvlc have ὑπέρ (“for the sake of”) as preposition. I.e., fellow-Judeans. This need not imply that it would be acceptable for foreigners to die there, though perhaps the prospect of necessary bloodshed to defend from foreign attack is allowed. In any case, compatriot murder remains throughout War the most heinous violation of sanctity; see next note. Violent death in the temple and resulting pollution are two sides of the same coin; the most heinous and dreaded pollution is caused by compatriot murder in the sacred precincts: see 4.201–206 and notes.

Inside the temple compound, which the Disciples have made their headquarters (4.151, 196, 201, 206, 215). Using a verb of appearing or standing with εἰς μέσους as here (καταστὰς εἰς μέσους), is characteristic of Josephus. The surprising use of εἰς with the anarthrous accusative plural μέσους to mean “in(to) the midst” is found earlier (Aristophanes, Pax 882; Polybius 1.56.9; Diodorus 3 times; Dionysius 9; Strabo 1), but is not common. Josephus’ 15 occurrences (3 in War; 9 in Ant. 3–19; 3 in Life) stand out. For the construction, see note to “Chares and Yosep” at 4.18. Cf. 4.209. Josephus has not mentioned the dangers this involved. While it is not implausible that furtive visits to the Disciples in the temple did involve risk, Josephus’ general portrayal of John allows the audience to suppose that he was now exaggerating to save his own life and power (with the aid of external forces).

ἀναρρίπτω κίνδυνον (lsj: ἀναρρίπτω) was a familiar metaphor from dicing (cf. κύβον ἀναρριπτεῖν at Ant. 18.298, otherwise mainly in comic authors): literally “throwing a risk.” It is attested before Josephus only in Herodotus 7.50; Thucydides 4.85.4, 95.2; 6.13.1 and then 5 times in Dionysius; after Josephus, in Plutarch (6 times) and others. Its appearance in Ant. 18, concerning very different material, is a small indication of Josephus’ authorial consistency. See note at 4.34. Although βοήθεια means “help” of any kind, it often refers specifically to “auxiliary [i.e., assisting] forces,” whether formal or informal (Thucydides 4.8.2; Xenophon, Hell. 7.1.20), and this is its usual meaning in War—clearest at 3.12, 59. Here the imagined alternative is heavenly, but even John realizes that heavenly aid for his kind is rather a gamble, knowing that he is evil (so Josephus), and so he prefers a military force. Or, if a military force can come to their aid, from his perspective that will count as other-worldly help, effectively a miracle. Josephus uses βοήθεια interchangeably with ἐπικουρία, as a comparison of 4.220 (τινα παρὰ τῶν ἔξωθεν ἐπικουρίαν), 4.224 (ἔξωθεν βοήθειαν), and 4.227 (τὰς ἔξωθεν ἐπικουρίας) shows—all referring to the same “help, assistance.” The latter noun, too, often refers to auxiliary forces (Aeschylus, Suppl. 721; Herodotus 5.63.3; Thucydides 7.59.1). Josephus appears to be varying his diction, as one should, to avoid tedium.

Josephus uses πρέσβυς here, but πρεσβευτής for the same function (emissary, liaison) in 4.215, 219. Since the words are interchangeable in this use, he seems only to be varying his diction. Josephus is beginning to elaborate the accusation (cf. 4.226–28) that will bring the death of Ananus and Jesus in the middle of this volume. Cf. 4.336 where, after their demise, the nobleman Zacharias will be executed on the same charge of having secretly negotiated surrender with Vespasian. These rare references to Vespasian, the central protagonist in Book 3, remind audiences that his story has been put on hold as Josephus explores the internal situation in Jerusalem. We last saw Vespasian at 4.130. Having left Galilee for coastal Caesarea (autumn 67 ce) while Titus dealt with Gischala (4.88), he has moved quickly to fortify near-coastal Iamneia and Ascalon, then returned to Caesarea, even as the leaders of many southern cities have offered their submission in return for his pledges of security. That general context makes it historically plausible that some of Jerusalem’s leaders are indeed engaged in such negotiations too. Josephus will not resume Vespasian’s action in this volume until past the half-way point, at 4.366. Cf. 4.146 and note to “surrender of Jerusalem” and previous note here. Josephus has presented this recurring charge as a concoction by rebels, the Disciples, and John, though it is inherently plausible. Cf. Life 290–91, where Ananias of Jerusalem calls a public day of fasting in Tiberias, during which everyone must put aside their weapons, so that he can seize Josephus unarmed. Although the precise meaning of ἁγνεία (“purity, purification”) in this context is unclear, one could never have too much purity, and authorized leaders are able to ordain special days for fasting or purification. The word appears mainly in Josephus’ summaries of Judean laws (Ant. 3.78, 152, 224, 273, 276; 19.221; Apion 1.199, 282; 2.198, 203) and descriptions of the Essenes with their extreme attention to purity (War 2.129, 138, 159; Ant. 18.19, cf. 117; Life 11). Sacrifice (in a Jerusalem context) and immersion are the practices most closely connected with purification. Purification is a requirement for all those entering the temple (War 1.26; Ant. 8.96), and it seems that people generally err on the side of ensuring their purity. Perhaps “involving them” (κατ᾿ αὐτῶν), though the stronger sense of the phrase as translated here (with M-B, Pelletier) has been reinforced by its use in the past couple of sentences (4.216 twice; cf. 4.185, 190). Appearing 91 times in his works (114 with cognate verb), 22 (24) in War, θρησκεία is a distinctive key term in Josephus. It hardly occurs outside of earlier Judean or Christian Greek (Dionysius, Ant. rom. 2.63.2; Strabo 10.3.23; Plutarch and Lucian have it once each; cf. 4 Macc 5.7, 13; Wis 14.18, 27; Philo, Det. 21.2; Fug. 41.4; Spec. 1.315; Legat. 232, 298; James 1:26–7; Col. 2:18). Although it has become the word for “religion” in modern Greek, in Josephus’ environment it had much more to do with temple-related or cultic worship. See Schwartz 2014: 91–100; Mason 2016b, 169–74; Barton and Boyarin 2016: 155–214. Or “engage, mix it up.” The verb συμμίγνυμι has two special senses: intimate sexual relations or military engagement. Josephus’ 8 occurrences all have the latter sense.

Effectively a siege. See note at 4.12. The noun φρουρά here is cognate to the verb following in 4.220, 253. This is the first occurrence of παρατάσσω (here middle voice) in Book 4, where it appears relatively often (also 4.347, 443, 514, 633, 642): 6 of War’s 14 occurrences. Instead of the classic sense of armies forming battle lines, however, these passages usually have a pathetic, tragic, and inglorious sense of lethal conflict among parties (sometimes irregular forces or civilians as here) that should not be fighting each other—in civil war. Divine providence or provision (πρόνοια τοῦ θεοῦ) will become a basic theme of Antiquities-Life (1.14, 20 with 1.327, 346; 2.8, 24, 60, 174; 10.260, 278, 280; Life 15). There it refers to God’s watchful care over, and reward or punishment of humanity, depending on whether they follow or violate divine laws (Attridge 1976). In War, however, the phrase is used more ambiguously, often of characters who mistakenly or presumptuously believe that providence favors them, or at least the issue is not clear (1.593; 3.28, 144, 391; this passage; 4.366, 622; 7.28). Only at War 7.453 does Josephus anticipate Antiquities with a seemingly earnest, unironic statement of God’s intervention to punish the wicked. Paradoxically, War uses the more ironic-sounding “otherworldly / spirit-world provision” (δαιμόνιος πρόνοια; δαιμόνιος appears 24 times in War, only 3 times and differently in Ant. 6–13) when the narrator’s authoritative voice refers to intervention from above, indicating the source of aid more coyly indicated and not making a moral purpose explicit (1.82; 2.457; 4.622; 7.82, 318). Josephus compounds his urbane coyness by supplying ὡς, ὡσπερ, or καθάπερ (“as though, just as if”); see note to “other-worldly foreknowledge” at 2.457 in bjp 1b. I.e., another emissary would have bluffed and stalled to allow Ananus time to prepare his force. John alone is willing to leak Ananus’ plans, so that the Disciples can prevent a surprise attack. A reference to 4.215; see note. Reading ἀνύποπτος (here comparative) with ms L. This is a rare adjective, appearing only 22 times before Josephus in extant Greek literature—Thucydides (1), Xenophon (2), Demosthenes (1), Aeneas (2), Polybius (3), Diodorus (2), Dionysius (2), Philo (2)—though he has it 10 times. The other mss all read something like “unarmed”: ἀνοπλοτέροις pa, ἀνόπλοις mrc, ἀόπλοις V. But the Latin translation (nihil suspicantes … subito) and Josephus’ comfort with the adjective make ἀνύποπτος more likely.

See note at 4.110. See note at 4.219. The implied dichotomy is between speech (always highly suspect because easily falsified) and action: trust words (security pledges) or trust your own strength. See note to “help” at 4.217; here τινα παρὰ τῶν ἔξωθεν ἐπικουρίαν. This is the beginning of John’s increasingly clear but never explicit proposal that they seek help from the Idumeans (4.224, 227–28).

As far as we can tell from extant literature, Josephus originated the appealing image of “warming oneself” with hope, in a brutally cold world. See 4.431, where he repeats it, and 4.171, where he conjures a compound verb to make a similar point. For the general themes, see “hope of assurances” and note at 4.50, along with note to “until the end” at 4.193. Josephus elaborates plausibly on the psychology of the rebel fighter: having committed crimes (as his enemies view them), he knows that he has no prospect of safe surrender and so must fight to the end, even though he would personally prefer to cease hostilities, his rebel actions having lost their first thrills and realism having set in. See note at 4.90. See note to the verb at 4.193. The Disciples’ inability to reverse course, because of the damage they have done and their fear of retribution, is becoming thematic in War. Josephus uses μετανοέω relatively often, accounting for 20% (45) of the first 246 occurrences in the tlg. Philo has 25 (about 10%), the nt has 34. The profile of the cognate noun μετάνοια is similar. Philo has 31 (37%) of the first 83 occurrences, and Josephus has 30 (20%)—the nt accounts for 22—of the first 150. The close link between perpetrating (δράω) and suffering (πάσχω) here is found nearly 20 times in Josephus and frequently in ancient moral tragedy, philosophy, and history. Most obviously, as here, perpetrators have victims who must suffer what the protagonists dish out, but this cannot continue. Ultimately, when roles are reversed, perpetrators will suffer at least as much.

Josephus continues to drive home his points by varying synonymous terms: τοὺς δεδρακότας in 4.221 has become τῶν ἀδικησάντων, and τοῖς ἀδικηθεῖσι substitutes for τοὺς παθόντας. Another example of synonymous variation: μετανοέω (“change one’s point of view”) in 4.221 becomes a μεταμέλεια (“change of heart”) in 4.222. All 6 of Josephus’ uses of the latter noun fall in War 1–6. Indeed, the harsh revenge of those who have suffered injury is a theme in classical literature and attested elsewhere in Josephus: 2.349; Ant. 11.281; 13.381; 16.298 (cf. Thucydides 1.43.4; 4.98.2; Xenophon, Mem. 2.1.14; Plato, Leg. 737d; Polybius 4.26.4; Philo, Abr. 213; Mos. 1.40, 111).

See note to “destroyed” at 4.25; this is a variant translation of the same frequent verb. Reprising 4.144 (cf. 168). The initial reason given for the militants to kill their enemies, rather than merely abuse and incarcerate them, was that the men of the family would rise up to fight as long as they lived. The point here seems to be that killing them exacerbated the problem: the number of relatives ready for vengeance, should the Disciples surrender to Ananus, has grown larger and fiercer. This language has become a theme in War 4, of the rebel groups that become the Disciples. See note to “undoing of established law” at 4.154, also 157. This first reference to law-courts since the time of Herod (1.538, 618) introduces a series of examples of precisely this behavior on the part of the Disciples: 4.258, 334, 338. Or “be merciful, feel pity.” See note to this tragic term at 4.173. The compound verb διαγανακτέω (participle here) seems newly fashionable, for Josephus’ 3 uses (also 4.270, 592), all in War 4, are followed by 6 in Plutarch, whereas before Josephus it is barely attested: aside from a few fragments in Demosthenes, Aph. 1.63; Diodorus 7.13.1; 14.1.1; Parthenius 24.2.

The verb δειδίσσομαι (“causing alarm”), only here in War (also Ant. 15.103), is rare in literature before Josephus. After Homer, who has it 8 times, it appears only 31 times in that interval, and fully half of these occurrences (16) are in Dionysius. See note to “help” at 4.217. See note to “open” at 4.165 for this rare adverb. Though used only 3 times by Josephus (also 5.213; Ant. 1.24), αἰνίσσομαι was a favorite word of Philo, who accounts for more than a third of its 217 attestations before Josephus: 79 over against 1–3 occurrences in most authors (14 in Plato, 12 in Aristotle). Cognate to “enigma,” it suggests enigmatic speech. Josephus’ remark about John’s hesitancy to be explicit assumes that calling upon the Idumeans was a daring move, because they had a reputation for martial toughness, indeed roughness, and so it is a frightful prospect to welcome them en masse and in arms into a city. Nor would the Idumeans naturally have thought to come to Jerusalem, their “mother-city” too, massed in arms. See next note. The Disciples are a small faction, Josephus stresses, who could not survive against the populace as a whole without such powerful external assistance. The crucial role that Idumeans will play in War (Appelbaum 2009; Mason 2016a: 461–63) begins here. As a people with a strong martial tradition and with weapons, horses, and commanders in place, they will be the Disciples’ indispensable strong arm in executing the established leaders of Jerusalem—though ironically, once animated and having turned hostile toward the Disciples, they will later support Simon, sustaining the civil war through the siege by Titus. Their presence contributes to Josephus’ picture of Jerusalem’s deepening predicament as one led and sustained by outsiders—John of Gischala with his Galileans, Simon of Gerasa with a horde from the countryside, villagers who flock to the city, Idumeans, and even Adiabenian royals—though the initial impetus came from a few disaffected priests. In Josephus’ final assessment of culprits in Jerusalem’s destruction (War 7.259–74), after describing sicarii, then John and Simon, he will put Idumeans in the spotlight: “But the insanity of the Idumeans outstripped even the recklessness of those fellows. For these filthiest of men, after butchering the chief priests, so that no particle of piety toward God was protected, cut to pieces everything that still remained of a political structure and introduced utter lawlessness everywhere.” Idumea was the Greek and Latin name for biblical Edom, south of Jerusalem’s hinterland of Judea, which had its own ancestral cult, gods (esp. Qos, later identified with Apollo), and priesthood. Some evidence for their traditions comes from Idumean communities that had settled in Egypt by the late second cent. bce: Rappaport 1969; Fraser 1972: 1. 280–81; Thompson Crawford 1984; Thompson 1988: 99–105; Honigman 2003. The frontiers of Idumea are vague in Josephus. At 3.51–55 he includes Idumea as one toparchy of Judea, and appears to give Arad (“Yarda”), 16 km (10 mi) W of Masada, as the southern limit of the whole. To judge from 4.515 and 522, the N frontier between Judea and Idumea was in the zone (a 2-hour walk) between Judean Tekoa and Idumean Alurus (Hulhul, N of Hebron). To this point in War, Josephus has described Idumea as a region conquered by John Hyrcanus and absorbed into greater Judea (1.63; cf. Ant. 13.254–58), homeland of King Herod’s powerful father (1.123) and place of retreat for Herod (1.263–68). After Herod’s death, Idumea appears variously as a distinct ethnos or as part of Judea (2.96, 566; 3.55). As a crucial and loyal component of Herod’s army, Idumeans join Galileans and other Judeans in protest when the king’s property and the temple precincts are raided by a Roman procurator after the king’s death in 4 bce (2.43). Apparently as a consequence of the new situation after their champion Herod, however, they withdraw from Judean politics, leaving Archelaus’ client army and the post-6 ce auxiliary forces to be recruited chiefly from Samarians and Caesareans—Jerusalem’s bitter enemies (2.52). Seemingly alienated from Herod’s successors (2.57, 76–79), the Idumeans continue cultivating their martial traditions in isolation from Judea, even though Jerusalem is now their cult center. According to Ant. 20.5, in confirmation of their difference, they have been a regular target of Judean strong men (there Tholomy in the mid-40s ce) in border conflicts. For reasons unknown, they remain strikingly aloof from the suffering of Jerusalem in 66–67. Josephus thus implies that John’s recommendation of an appeal to Idumeans here is a daring gambit, not an obvious move. He must concoct a lie to persuade them that the mother-city and temple are in imminent peril from former high priests. Idumea and the Idumeans might otherwise have been vaguely known to informed audiences in Flavian Rome (Strabo, Geog. 16.2.34, 40; Pliny, Nat. 5.67–70; Claudius Ptolemaeus, Geog. 5.16.4), as closely connected with Judea and Judeans (Martial 2.2.5; 20.50.1; Aelian, Nat. anim. 6.17; Ammonius, Adfin. voc., “Ioudaios kai Idoumaios”). One of the most striking 180-degree changes from Josephus’ War to Antiquities is that in the later work he, in the authoritative voice of the narrator, will describe Ananus in language he presents here as absurd and fabricated. As was typical of Sadducees, who were savage in their punishments (περὶ τὰς κρίσεις ὠμοὶ; cf. Ant. 13.293–95), Ananus will there exploit the absence of a procurator to execute a number of his enemies, including Jesus of Nazareth’s brother James, without due process (20.199–200). Here he uses the cognate noun. This difference illustrates a core principle of ancient rhetoric: the need to adapt one’s evidence and narrative to the situation, in this case to the themes of each history.

It is a famous problem that the first leader of the Disciples that Josephus names (here), according to the best mss (pal and Latin) Eleazar son of Gion (conceivably after Hebrew Gichon, the name of the spring outside Jerusalem, but seemingly unattested for persons), immediately disappears from the story, and without explanation Josephus later names the group’s leader and founder as Eleazar son of Simon (5.5–7, 12, 21, 99–105, 250–51), who has been separately introduced as a dangerously effective militant leader (2.564). Some mss (mvrc) avoid the problem by calling this Eleazar “of Simon.” To accept that reading, however, we must suppose that the other scribes misconstrued Josephus’ original ϹΙΜΩΝΟϹ as ΓΙΩΝΟϹ, which is possible but less plausible than the reverse: we would expect a puzzled copyist to default to the more familiar name (“of Simon”). Whereas Whiston, Thackeray, Pelletier, Rogers, and H-G (cf. Hengel 1989: 64) suppose that Josephus wrote “Simon,” principles of textual criticism—viz., we should prefer the reading of the usually best mss and the one that, because more problematic (lectio difficilior), best explains the alternatives as efforts to remove problems—favor “Gion” (with M-B). It is a problem that this Eleazar is quietly replaced by Eleazar b. Simon, but disappearing figures abound in War. The next man named, Zacharias, also evaporates without further mention, as has the possible founder of the Disciple movement, the temple commandant and son of a high priest, Eleazar son of Ananias (2.409); cf. Joseph son of Gorion (2.563, a leader alongside Ananus), Gorion son of Joseph (4.159; cf. 356–58 with different spelling), and Symeon son of Gamaliel (4.159), an important Pharisee of the time (Life 190, 309). Messy though it seems, we must reckon with the possibility that different priests named Eleazar led the same group, or different elements that Josephus vaguely lumps together as one group (“Disciples”) at different times. After all, Eleazar is the 4th most common male name attested in this period (Ilan 2002: 56). The collocation δοκέω + πιθανός appears only here in War, but several times in Antiquities (7.119; 8.418; 11.232; 15.49), in spite of varying sources. There are rough parallels in a few authors, with other words intervening or a focus on the persuasiveness of facts (Plato, Pol. 287d; Crat. 399e; Aristotle, Rhet. 1400a). Dionysius (Ant. rom. 6.28.1, 83.2; 12.4.2) comes closest to anticipating Josephus’ formulation. Josephus elsewhere pairs νοέω and πράσσω: to contrast thought and action (Ant. 4.41; 6.265) or observe that an aged Joshua could no longer do what he thought necessary (5.90). This brief note of seeming respect for Eleazar’s abilities, although Josephus as narrator holds him in contempt, is typical of his efforts at rounded portraiture. He will likewise concede the bravery of rebel fighters during the siege (4.503; 6.89–90). His attempt at a historian’s balance, giving even the Devil his due, are most obvious in Antiquities: Samson and Solomon (5.317; 8.211); Saul loses divine favor (6.166, 378) but remains a paradigm of manliness (6.344–50); Aristobulus kills his brother, but has an admirable temperament (13.318–19); Alexander Janneus is a brutal dictator but also a victim (13.380–83); Alexandra Salome brought the collapse of the Hasmonean house but “kept the nation at peace” (13.430–32); Gaius Caligula was a monster, but a good orator (19.208–209). Simon son of Gamaliel organized the opposition to Josephus in Galilee, but was a man of foresight and practical wisdom (Life 189–92). This Greek patronym (“fine on both sides”) is odd for a Judean priest, and the mss show confusion: some omitting the m and one correction reversing consonants to produce Phalek. M-B (2.1, 216 n. 59) point out that b. Git. 56a names a Zachariah son of Abqolos as one who (from the rabbinic perspective) caused the destruction of the temple. This may be the same man. The Hebrew transliteration, however, suggests that if he had a Greek name it would have been εὔκολος (“good-natured, easily led”), a typically ironic agnomen for a fiercely independent person. The parallel is intriguing, but it would not explain why Josephus calls him by the fuller Greek name. This Zacharias disappears from his narrative immediately, along with Eleazar b. Gion, after this mention. Moreover, the Talmudic story of how that Zachariah came to cause the temple’s destruction is far from historical plausibility and would not mesh with Josephus’ detailed account. A dishonored dinner guest takes revenge by “going to the emperor” and telling him the Judeans are in revolt; the emperor sends a sacrificial animal to the temple, in the care of his informant, to show good will; the resentful informant damages the animal en route to make it ineligible for sacrifice; many rabbis want either to offer it anyway, to prevent war, or to execute the courier with the same goal; Zachariah, holding a deciding vote, rejects both the sacrifice and the murder of the one who damaged it, as contrary to law; the war begins and “Caesar Nero” comes to attack Jerusalem; the rabbis blame Zachariah for the war because of his rigidity. None of these details accords with Josephus, and some are impossible. This emphasis, along with the introduction of Eleazar as a prominent priest with a circle of priestly followers (2.409) and Josephus’ repeated stress that the Disciples make the temple their fortress, is hard to square with the common view (Goodman 1987: 20–21, 167–68; Price 1992: 32–33, 186–87) that Josephus writes War to exculpate his priestly-aristocratic class from responsibility for the war’s origins, but carelessly leaves abundant evidence to the contrary. It is easier to read these clear statements as part of his intended narrative of internal conflict among Jerusalem’s leaders.

See notes to “surrender of Jerusalem” at 4.146 and “Vespasian” at 4.218. In spite of Josephus’ insistence that the charge of negotiating with Rome was a damnable lie, it is inherently plausible that there was truth in it, or at least that the Disciples genuinely believed it. Perhaps the added lie here is the twist that the leaders not only want to capitulate, but that their motive is personal power—an inversion of what Josephus considers the obvious truth that Ananus’ group represent the city’s proper leadership, whereas John and his kind are willing to risk the city for their personal power, in accord with his general picture of rebels and troublemakers (cf. 2.56–57, 262; 4.85; Life 36, 41). See note to “penned them in” at 4.22, a characteristic term in War, unusually metaphorical here. The phrase καιρὸς ὀξύς (here with adjective preceding “so”), lit. a “sharp / abrupt occasion,” only here in Josephus, was a common expression for a moment of straitened circumstance or crisis. It appears once or twice in Xenophon, Plato, Polybius, Diodorus, Dionysius, and Demetrius, 3 times in Philo, 4 in the Hippocratic corpus, 5 in Josephus’ contemporary Onasander, 5 in Plutarch, 15 in Galen.

A striking example of Josephus’ re-use of a word in a completely different sense before dropping it (Shutt 1961:74–75; Mason 2001: lii; note to “restrained yourselves” at 4.44). Josephus has the adjective σύντομος only 4 times: near the beginning (1.587) and ending of War (7.42), and twice in this paragraph near the middle of the work. In this first instance, the substantivized τὸ σύντομον τῆς ἐπιβουλῆς refers to the rapid progress of a plot, which leaves no time for counter-measures. In the very next sentence, Josephus uses the same adjective for a brief letter. See note to “help” at 4.217.

See note at 4.224. See note to “rapidity of the plot.” Josephus re-uses the same adjective in a different sense. The two occurrences are causally connected: the letter must be brief because of the rapid progress of the plot. See note at 4.123. A key theme in War, the true meaning of “freedom” bitterly contested and accounting for the civil strife in responding to humiliations by Rome’s officials and hostile neighbors. See notes at 4.95, 146, 175. See 4.206–207.

Or “preservation, survival, being saved, salvation” (σωτηρία); see note to “safety” at 4.51. Philo (Spec. 4.173) anticipates the image of time (χρόνος) as judge with this verb (βραβεύω). Josephus does not make clear, within the world of the story, why the Idumeans would be persuaded to defend Jerusalem against Roman legions. Perhaps the logic is rather that the Idumeans can prevent the Jerusalem leaders from inviting the Romans in, and in that way postpone Roman intervention for some time. But this makes little sense in the larger context: Vespasian’s arrival with 60,000 troops precisely to deal, ultimately, with the problems emanating from Jerusalem. Since the audience knows (from Flavian propaganda) what became of Jerusalem, this effort to secure Idumean help against the threat of Roman domination can only appear as tragic. Josephus uses ἄγγελος 65 times in his corpus, 15 of these in War. Although the word is famous from its transliteration “angel,” this is derived from a common context in the lxx and early Christian texts. The word generally (as here) means “messenger.” This is Josephus’ most common meaning, though War occasionally (War 2.400; 5.388), and the biblical paraphrase (Ant. 1–11) often, though still not always, refers to a messenger “from God,” an angel. I.e., the brief letter could only convey the official invitation with a succinct reason. There was no time for elaborate written explanation, which the couriers could give. Given the vagaries of written communication in antiquity, which lacked a postal service for ordinary folk, who depended on acquaintances travelling, letters were often brief and pointed, taking advantage of a soon-disappearing opportunity. Those preserved at Oxyrhynchus include many brief notes, while Paul’s much more elaborate letters are also the most famous examples of oral reports accompanying written communication (e.g., 1 Cor 1:11 with 7:1). If the courier shared a relationship with author and recipient, such a person could be expected to fill in considerably more information than the letter contained (cf. Life 223–25 for Josephus’ exploitation of this situation).

In contrast to the usual connotation of the frequently occurring τόλμα word-group (“brazenness”), δραστήριος suggests a more commendable boldness, associated with energy and effectiveness. Josephus thus uses the word of himself (2.590; 4.624) and others he admires (1.283; 7.196). This does not mean that it indicates moral approval (he also uses it of John at 4.392). As here, he distinguishes efficacious people from others. Although found in Thucydides (2 times) and Euripides (4 in extant texts), the adjective becomes prominent with Dionysius (22 times) and Philo (10)—all possible influences on Josephus—then Plutarch (29) and Galen (32). The 23 occurrences in Josephus make him a heavy user. Or “fleetness of feet.” Although ὠκύτης ποδῶν sounds like a cliché, it is attested before Josephus only in Euripides, Bacch. 1090, and Philo, Agr. 115. Josephus uses it again at Ant. 7.14.

See note at 4.224. This programmatic character-assessment undergirds everything that follows in War concerning the Idumeans: an undisciplined and war-like ethnos, distinct from Judeans in some ways (cf. 4.310: “savage and murderous by nature”), though following Judean law and regarding Jerusalem as their shared mother-polis (4.278–91). This episode explains their fateful presence in Jerusalem, which is not an obvious move to defend their city from a real threat. In Josephus’ telling, they would not have come if they had not been baited by a lie concocted to arouse their (alleged) bellicose reflex. Josephus’ charged and vague description is not much help for the historian. If the Idumeans had been so reflexively warlike, they had plenty of opportunity before this appeal devised by John—in the outrages committed by Albinus and Gessius Florus from 64 to 66, and during the preparations to defend the region—to make their presence felt. If they were only now enticed to rise to the mother-city’s defense, we might suppose that they would not normally have involved themselves in Jerusalem’s fights because they harbored deep resentments against Jerusalem or some Judeans, for being treated as second-class citizens (cf. Ant. 20.5 and Simon below, 4.515), or that they had no wish to antagonize Rome—but were willing to enter an in-house Judean dispute of the kind alleged by the Disciples, to put their thumb on the scale for those defending the temple from supposed traitors. Perhaps they planned a quick expedition to achieve this: remove the declared threat and return home, leaving Jerusalem to different (still priest-led) leaders. Or “turbulent.” See note at 2.75 in bjp 1b. This adjective (θορυβώδης) appears in Josephus elsewhere only at Ant. 4.36. In earlier literature it appears most often in medical, physiological, and scientiﬁc contexts (Hippocrates, Prisc. med. 10; Morb. pop. 5.1.95; 7.1.121; Ep. 19; Aristotle, Hist. anim. 632b; Strabo, Geog. 11.3.3), though it can be applied to politics (Plato, Tim. 42d; Leg. 671a; Polybius 29.11.2) and this application becomes popular from Josephus’ time: Plutarch, Cam. 27.3; 33.6; Cor. 17.4; Flam. 10.6; Luc. 32.3; Ag. 13.4; Lucian, Ver. hist. 2.5; Pseudol. 16; Merc. cond. 24; Arrian, Anab. 1.25.6; Cyneg. 7.3. See 4.245 for the cognate verb used of the Idumeans outside Jerusalem. See note to “Idumeans” at 4.224. This is a good example (cf. 4.556) of the in-between nature of the Idumeans. Although they became (= joined the ethnos of) Judeans when John Hyrcanus forced them to observe Judean law and their males to undergo circumcision, they remain a separate ethnos with distinctive ancestral traditions (cf. Strabo, Geog. 16.2.2; Josephus, Ant. 9.188; Apion 2.112–14; Aelius Herodian, Pros. cath. 3.1; 133; Peri orth. 3.2: 496 [Lentz]). This observation highlights the point that although in the prevailing simple scheme each person was assumed to belong to one ethnos (cf. modern nationality), everyone knew that ethnos was not a scientific category: there were derivative ethnē and hyphenated identities were entirely possible, most obviously in the case of provincials loyal to their own people who also enjoyed Roman citizenship (Cicero, Leg. 2.5), but also in the case of Judean Alexandrians or royal Adiabenians who became Judeans (Ant. 20.17–96; Apion 2.38–42; Mason 2016b: 202–204). Cf. 4.278–81, where the Idumean commander Simon describes the Idumeans’ relationship with Judeans: they are closely related kin who share common ancestral customs and are willing to fight against any who would betray the shared ancestral heritage, even as they sit outside Jerusalem, excluded as a distinct people. Lit. “movements,” but often used as here for political change. See note at 1.4. Of 16 occurrences of κίνημα in Josephus, 15 are in War. Polybius often uses the word in this political sense (cf. 2.19.1, 22.9, 39.2; 3.9.8; 4.23.1, 53.8), and he may have been Josephus’ inspiration. Both owe something to Thucydides, who used the cognate κίνησις programmatically in his Peloponnesian War (1.1.2). See Price 2001: 207–73. The word rendered “hankering for” (μετέωρος, lit. “suspended” [in the air]) means unable to relax or settle down, whether from fear (see note to “unsettled” at 4.118) or from anticipation, as here. Or “upheaval, change, mutation.” In the prologue (1.5) Josephus denounces those who “craved upheaval” (ἤρα μεταβολῆς) in Rome after Nero; cf. Life 87, where John of Gischala is said to be habitually inclined to reversals / upheavals and to enjoy factional strife (πρὸς μεταβολὰς ἐπιτηδείως ἔχοντες καὶ στάσεσι χαίροντες). On the larger themes of fortune’s constant reversals in life, see 4.40–42 with notes. Effectively “without needing persuasion” or “from themselves, spontaneously” (αὐτόθεν)—because of their alleged eagerness to fight. I.e., the eagerness that motivates most people to gather for happy celebrations the Idumeans reserve for conflict and fighting.

Cf. 4.227–28: the Disciples are convinced that Ananus’ group is about to move against them, leaving no time for outside help to reach them. Neither man is otherwise known. Hananiah (חנניה) is the 7th most popular male name attested in the Hellenistic-early Roman period (Ilan 2002: 56). A standard expression (ἐλλείπω negated + προθυμία) found in Aeschylus, Prom. vinc. 340; Xenophon, Cyr. 4.5.49; Cyn. 2.1; Plato, Tim. 20c; Polybius 4.72.6; Diodorus 13.45.8; and Dionysius, Ant. rom. 4.82.5 before Josephus—all possible influences. He has the phrase again at 6.72.

A telling remark for both narrative and historical reasons. In the narrative, Josephus implies that the Idumeans are shocked because they could never have guessed this situation from the reality: the Disciples’ letter is a fabrication. Historically, it is puzzling that Idumeans (who visited Jerusalem and the temple otherwise at will) saw no need to involve themselves in Jerusalem’s problems with Roman officials and their Samarian-Caesarean auxiliary forces, or that they knew nothing of the growing internal strife facing Jerusalem’s leaders in the preceding years. See note at 4.231.

Aside from a famous line in Herodotus (3.25) about Cambyses, the adjective ἐμμανής does not appear in historians before Diodorus (2) and Dionysius (1). It is more at home in tragedy and comedy. Josephus uses it again at 7.57 and Ant. 9.98. See notes at 4.95, 175. See note at 4.123.

Or “organized as [a force of] 20,000.” Thus 1 commander for each 5,000, roughly the complement of a Roman legion. The Greek patronym is attested only in Josephus (also 5.249; 6.92, 148, 380). It might reflect the name of a biblical scribe, Shavsha (1 Chron 18:16), or preserve the name of the Babylonian city of Susa. The construction here, in which the first name alone lacks a patronym and the last two are deliberate additions, as if to a pair, has prompted a number of scholars (including the editor Niese) to conjecture that Josephus made both Ioannes and Jacob sons of Sosas. All the later mentions of Sosas (above) are in connection with Jacob alone, but Ioannes is felled early, by the arrow of an Arab marksman supporting the Roman siege (5.290). In a brief obituary Josephus credits him with both physical and intellectual distinction. Jacob becomes a crucial general on the Judean side, fighting with bravery during the siege (6.92, 148), though when he finally attempts a parley with Titus, when no hope remains, he is arrested by Simon bar Giora (6.380). Nearly every ms has a unique form (Thacius, Thacaeus, Thacuius, Clatha, Cathla), indicating scribal confusion about the strange patronym. The last two are evidently influenced by later references to the same Idumean commander as Simon son of “Cathlas” or similar (4.270; 5.249; 6.148). For the possible meaning of this name (“killing, wall”) see Ilan 2002: 435. This Simon will be the eloquent spokesman for the 20,000-strong Idumean army outside Jerusalem (4.271–82). Scribal confusion about the patronym produces variants in the form of the name—Clausoth, Clusoth, Cusoth—and puzzlement over the lack of a genitive case ending (supplied by ms C). The underlying Aramaic refers to a turban or other head-gear (Ilan 2002: 436). Although Phineas (Heb. פינחס) is not attested among the most popular names of the period, the biblical figure (Num 25:1–13), son of the high priest Eleazar the son of Aaron, acquired fame by running his spear through an Israelite and his Moabite woman, in fulfillment of God’s command. The Bible says that Phineas’ “jealous act” (‪קִנֵּא‬, 25:13) became the arm of divine jealousy for Israel’s fidelity (‪בְּקִנְאָתִֽי‬, 25:11). He thus became a model of militant action in defense of divine requirements, not least for the Hasmoneans, whose court recorder portrayed him as utterly devoted to the Law (ἐζήλωσεν τῷ νόμῳ, 1 Macc 2.26; ἐν τῷ ζηλῶσαι ζῆλον, 2:54). The lxx rendering of Hebrew qana-words with Greek zēl-cognates, with 1 Maccabees’ programmatic restatement of the connection, has led scholars to conclude that this is the origin of the group name usually rendered “Zealots” (“Disciples” in this translation, to avoid the inherently negative sense of that English term); see Farmer 1956: 177–86; Hengel 1989: 146–376. This Phineas does not resurface in War.

See note at 4.12. An intriguing notice, given that Ananus had set up a very close watch on all the escape routes from the temple (4.206–207) and it will require the intervention of Fate, putting the sentries to sleep, for a few Disciples to escape as far as opening a gate to the Idumean army (4.298). No mere closing of the gates, as the sequel shows. At 4.298–300, it will take a concerted effort by the Disciples, during a severe storm, to saw through the heavy bars that secure the gates from the inside, creating quite a din in the process, as they apparently lack the means to remove the securing bolts.

The phrase καθ’ ἅπαν is rare, used (of the body) in the Hippocratic corpus and Aristotle, and later Galen with broader application. Josephus’ War, uniquely in ancient literature (before the 5th century), has instead the contracted adverb καθάπαν, 5 times (also 1.411; 3.182; 5.227; 6.29). The rare compound verb ἐκπολεμέω has a peculiar appearance map before Josephus, whose 6 occurrences (the others are in Antiquities 4–18 and Apion 2.134) follow just 21 earlier attestations. Of these, 2 are in Thucydides (6.77.2, 91.5), 1 in Polybius (30.23.1), and 2 in Strabo (Geog. 7.5.6; 10.4.9). But the vast majority are in the lxx (as one rendering of לחם): Exod 1:10; Deut 20:10, 19; Josh 9:2; 10:4; 22:12; 23:3, 10; Jdg 9:52; 10:9; Judith 5:20; 1 Macc 4.28; 15.31. Any of these passages may have suggested the verb to Josephus. See note to this thematic contrast (force, compulsion, weapons vs. words or persuasion) at 4.96.

Or “chief priests”; see note at 4.160. Several former high priests remain in the city, however (6.114). The former high priest introduced at 4.160; see note there. Especially because his Roman audience has no clear idea of the city’s layout, at least before the elaborate description in 5.136–247 (itself not clear on this point), Josephus has no reason to explain which tower is in view. He later claims that the outermost wall enclosing the N half of the city had 90 towers, the middle wall 14, and the oldest wall (around the S half) 60: cf. 5.158. It emerges from 4.292, 302, 305 that the Idumeans are on the opposite side of the city from the temple, hence on the W or NW, or possibly the SW. See especially 4.283, where Ananus and Jesus realize that they are trapped between enemies to the W (Idumeans) and the E (Disciples in the temple): “two directions.” The most likely tower, then, is one along the city’s W wall from which one could address crowds outside, viz.: Psephinus, at the expanded city’s NW corner (5.159), or the highest tower (Phasael) adorning Herod’s former palace, at the NW corner of the oldest wall (south of modern Jaffa Gate). That imposing tower would later become the base for Simon bar Giora: 5.169. It seems that 4.300 further narrows these options by relating that the Idumeans are assembled across from a gate. That appears to be the city’s main W gate (by today’s Jaffa Gate) near the Phasael tower. See the similar expression at 3.393. Although only here in Josephus, marvelling or wondering at fortune (or at fortune’s reversals), θαυμάσαι τὴν τύχην, was a trope in classical tragedy and historiography: Euripides, Alc. 1130; Med. 268; Sophocles, Oed. tyr. 776; esp. Diodorus 8.10.3; 12.62.6; 17.47.6; 18.59.4; 31.11.2; cf. Plutarch, Pel. 25.1. The most famous passage in ancient historiography is Polybius’ introduction (1.1–4, esp. 1.4.1), which presents the work of fortune in creating Rome’s empire as astonishing: τὸ θαυμάσιον. See notes at 2.156 in bjp 1b (“worthless”) and at 4.179, for this stock expression in Josephus. This elaborate speech (to 4.238–69), given to Ananus’ colleague Jesus perhaps for variation, matches that of Ananus in its high literary level, a point especially obvious in its concentrated use of rare and artful diction; see note to “spoke” at 4.162. The speech of the Idumean leader Simon in response (4.172–82) is both far shorter and simpler in diction and sentence structure, suiting the military character of the speaker.

Josephus is the first known user of the superlative of this adjective (also at 1.632), itself fairly rare (ἐξώλης), with only 47 attestations in earlier literature, many of these in the orators Demosthenes, Aeschines, and Dinarchus (8), and the comic poets Aristophanes and Menander (11). It means something like “wasted, ruined,” and when applied to persons “morally bankrupt, pernicious.” See note at 4.123: a word about to be used frequently (4.243, 245, 258, 267–68, 274, 279, 288; cf. 4.346–47), in the duelling arguments of the former high priest Jesus and the Idumean commander Simon concerning Idumean and Judean stakes in Jerusalem. A point about to be elaborated at 4.243. War has βάρβαρος (always plural) 16, Josephus’ whole corpus 45 times. His frequent use of the formulaic contrast between Greeks (Hellenes) and barbarians, to speak of the whole world (1.3; 5.17; 6.199; Ant. 1.107; 4.12; 8.284; 15.136, 18.20; Apion 1.58, 116, 161, 201; 2.282), suggests that he can include Judeans and possibly Romans among barbarians, a point confirmed by his description of the (largely Judean) recipients of his Aramaic account as barbarians at 1.3 and at 1.6: “Parthians and Babylonians, the most remote of the Arabs, our own [Judean] trans-Euphrates compatriot bloc, and Adiabenians.” Likewise, in Apion 1.6–72, esp. 1.58 (cf. 1.161; 2.148), Josephus proudly associates Judeans with barbarians, while demolishing the notion that Greek historians are the only trustworthy sources for ancient history. Romans share some of the Judeans’ apparent liabilities (e.g., not being maritimers) vis-à-vis arrogant Greeks (Apion 1.60–68). Although Greeks first used βάρβαροι for non-Greeks, including Romans, by Josephus’ time the Roman élite were fluently educated in Greek and had adopted the Greek view of others as barbarians (cf. War 4.45–6; 5.560; Ant. 14.187–88). Jesus’ use of the word here, however, is most easily understood as positioning Judea’s Jerusalem over against eastern (now Parthian) barbarians, on the formerly Greek and now Roman side of the Persian-Parthian (Greek-barbarian) divide. At 4.243, he will substitute “foreigners” for barbarians, confirming that Idumeans would have been expected to rally against easterners invading the holy city. Cf. Paul’s geographical use of the contrast in Rom 1:13–14, apparently suggesting that his move from the Greek East (including Judea) to the Latin West will take him from Greeks to barbarians. Finally, Josephus’ Jesus may be winking at Josephus’ literary audience in Rome, given the high-level Greek of the speech, which is clearly not that of a barbarian.

Given the narrator Josephus’ forceful description of the Idumeans as bellicose thugs (4.231), his character Jesus is plainly flattering them by attributing good intentions (cf. “good will”). He will continue in the same vein, praising their good order and military bearing, at 4.243. If the men who had summoned such fine soldiers had only been as good, rather than bloodthirsty criminals, he supposedly would have been happy for the Idumeans to enter—a piece of rhetorical mischief in a good cause. This kinship of manners (τρόπων συγγένεια) might refer only to the artificial argumentative point that if the 2 parties had shared the same behavior, Jesus would not be surprised by the Idumeans’ presence, but here it seems to suggest the deeper, real connection in “ways of worship” between Judeans and Idumeans in the mother-city: they do share a familial relationship, and so the Idumeans should rather be on the side of Jerusalem’s proper leaders; see note to “Idumeans” at 4.224 and further 4.244. Cf. Ant. 5.100–102, where the same language about a familial relationship appears in connection with Israelite tribes, in apparent conflict over proper ways of worship.

The pair τὰ θύματα καὶ καθάρματα appears only here, in Josephus and other surviving literature. The first term refers to sacrifices, acts of sacrifices, or sacrificial animals, the second to what is left after purification or sacrifice, hence: refuse, offscouring, detritus. But θύματα seems an odd word for this purpose, and the 4th-cent. Latin translation ludibria (“wanton, scoffing, derisive behavior”) has prompted scholarly ingenuity in imagining another Greek term that might have been misread by Greek copyists: φθάρματα (“corrupted things,” Naber; cf. 5.443, a rare word first attested in Josephus, in a similar context); ἀθύρματα (“playthings, toys, frivolities,” Hudson; cf. Ant. 12.212); λύματα (“dirty washing water, offscouring,” Lowth; used of excrement at 5.550). Mss pal read “of the whole city” (πόλεως), whereas mvrc have χώρας as translated here, supported by the Latin (rusticae plebis). Although the text-critical principles of favoring the more difficult reading and usually superior mss would support pal, the whole thrust of 2.241 (came from cities and villages into the holy city) seems to preclude “the whole city” as the source of their actions. An extremely rare compound verb (κατασωτεύομαι), first attested in Josephus and only here in his corpus, not found again before Origen in the 3rd cent. On the use of rare diction, see general note to “spoke” at 4.162. Or “lack of prudence, lack of self-control.” See note to this thematic term at 4.80. Apparently referring to the influx of refugees and bandit-types of all description from the Judean countryside to Jerusalem, elaborated in 4.131–42. The double compound verb παρεισρέω appears only here in Josephus and rarely otherwise. Of the 3 attestations before him in extant literature, 2 are in Philo (Somn. 211; Spec. 1.325), who may be his inspiration; otherwise Aristotle, Part. anim. 664b. That Plutarch independently has the verb 6 times, however, may suggest that it is newly fashionable, as other compounds, from the end of the 1st cent. ce. On the use of rare diction, see general note to “spoke” at 4.162. Another rare word (λεληθότως), only here in War but 5 times in Antiquities. It is hardly attested before Diodorus uses it 5 times, Dionysius 6 times, and Strabo once. Of the 15 occurrences in literature before Josephus, 2 are in 2 Maccabees, and 2 Macc 8.1 uses a similar phrase (παρεισπορευόμενοι λεληθότως) of the Hasmonean infiltration of villages. It would be ironic if Josephus had this passage, concerning his national heroes, in mind while condemning the Disciples’ followers—since the Disciples arguably took inspiration from the Hasmoneans (Farmer 1956; Hengel 1989; see Excursus above). One of Josephus’ terms for Jerusalem, which he features already, anachronistically, in Moses’ legislation: 2.397; Ant. 4.70, 205, 209, 218, 227; 20.118; Apion 1.282.

See note to “bandit contingent” at 4.84. Josephus is the first attested user of ἀβέβηλος, and he has it only here (though Plutarch uses it 4 times, suggesting that it is newly fashionable). Rare diction elevates the style of the speech; see general note to “spoke” at 4.162. This is the sole surviving case of the compound verb ἐμμεθύσκομαι in ancient and medieval Greek literature; on the use of rare diction, see general note to “spoke” at 4.162. Referring to events narrated in 4.138–46. The image of insatiable stomachs (εἰς τὰς ἀπλήστους γαστέρας), only here in Josephus, is most fully attested before him in Philo, who may be his inspiration: Leg. 3.148; Agr. 36; Fug. 31; Somn. 2.147; Prov. 2.18. Given that “spoils” (τὰ σκῦλα) normally refers to war booty, in particular weapons and armor taken from the dead, one would incline to take the verb καταναλίσκω in the sense of “expend, exhaust” rather than in its other meaning of “consume, devour.” But the completion of the sentence with “insatiable stomachs” confirms the image of food consumption, which is awkward with the spoils of the dead, and perhaps all the more violent for that.

Or “adornment, array, order” of the weapons. For the collocation κόσμος and ὅπλα see also 1.76; Ant. 13.308. See notes at 4.123 and 239, the latter opening the inclusio that this instance closes. Although this phrase (κοινὸν βουλευτήριον) occurs only here in Josephus, War has assumed without explanation that Ananus and his (changing) group constitute some kind of leadership council, flexibly planning an optimal response to the Romans’ expected arrival in force after the ambush of Cestius’ legion at Beit-Horon (2.500–555), if not in retaliation for the earlier murder of the auxiliary garrison in Jerusalem (2.430–65). Those who had pursued Cestius reportedly established this council of generals (2.562–68), the leaders of which—Gorion and Ananus in Jerusalem—however prefer to find a peaceful solution, even as they prepare to defend as well as possible against the Roman onslaught. Faced with managing the whole spectrum of popular feeling, they hope gradually to persuade the more bellicose elements to find a safe way out of the crisis (2.648–51). Josephus, one of the “generals” chosen and assigned to Galilee, presents his character as sharing Ananus’ views: knowing that war with Rome is futile but doing his duty to protect his people as far as possible (3.135–36). In War, various militant groups pose a threat to Ananus’ moderate inclinations. They have by now crystallized in the priest-led Disciples movement anticipated at 2.651. Cf. the oblique reference to this council, infiltrated by John’s followers, at 4.213. Josephus’ later Life speaks more routinely of Jerusalem’s early wartime leadership as a body, there called τὸ κοινόν and led by chief priests, including Ananus and Jesus, as well as prominent Pharisees, such as Simon b. Gamaliel. This is the crisis-management government that sends Josephus with 2 others to Galilee, is persuaded by John to seek his removal, and yet finally authorizes his continuing role there (Life 65, 72, 190, 267, 309, 341, 393). Foreigners here replace barbarians at the beginning of the paragraph, 4.239—apparently for mere variation. More than a quarter of the first 60 attestations of ἐπήρεια (15) are in Josephus. A third of those before him (12) are in Philo, who may be his inspiration. On fortune as a central theme in War, see note at 4.40. For Idumeans as an ethnos distinct from Judeans, see note to their name at 4.224. The adjective αὔτανδρος is barely attested before Polybius uses it 13 times, followed by Diodorus (22), Dionysius (2), Strabo (1), and Philo (2). Josephus’ 7 occurrences (6 in War, soon again at 4.302) are most likely inspired by Polybius and (given other commonalities) Diodorus. See note to this rare verb (συνασπίζω), favored by Josephus, at 4.33. The adjective λογάς most often refers to “picked” or “select” soldiers. Its first 25 attestations (of only 41 before Josephus) are mainly in Herodotus (10), Thucydides (13), and Euripides (2) in this sense: the cream of the Greeks or Athenians, etc. Josephus’ other occurrence (Ant. 14.476) is also in that vein. His only use in War, here, seems to drip with sarcasm. For the adjective, see note at 4.179.

See note at 4.33. By now a stock term in War, epitomized by the Disciples. See notes to “bandit contingent” at 4.84 and to “bandits” at 4.199. After a period of unity, when Jerusalem’s populace heard the newly arrived John (4.121), Josephus has used “the populace” (ὁ δῆμος) as shorthand for the majority population: reasonable and moderate, if naturally slow to action (4.129, 142) until spurred on by Ananus, Jesus, and prominent Pharisees (4.147, 151, 153, 158, 160, 165); they have come to vigorously oppose “bandits” and their epitome, the Disciples (4.196, 201, 209–10, 223, 227–28). “Family-related” confirms Josephus’ portrait of the Idumeans as a distinct ethnos from the Judeans but closely related because of their shared mother-city and temple.

The intention to betray Jerusalem to the Romans is precisely the accusation that John supposedly concocted against Ananus’ group in order to persuade the Idumeans to come to the Disciples’ aid: 2.226. On the plausibility of the charge, in spite of Josephus, see notes to “surrender of Jerusalem” at 4.146 and “Vespasian” at 4.21. This is the cognate verb of the adjective at 4.231, where the Idumeans are authoritatively characterized as disturbance-prone. See note there. Josephus alertly explains to his literary audience how Jesus knows what Josephus has shared only with them, about the Idumeans’ motives and the secret messages sent to them, which within the story world Jesus would otherwise have no way of knowing, this being his first encounter with the Idumeans. Reprising 4.234—what the Idumeans had said among themselves before marching to Jerusalem. See note at 4.168. See note at 4.90.

Appearing only in War (6 times) in Josephus’ corpus, φιλελεύθερος is a pregnant term. He will soon use it in earnest of two prominent victims of the Idumeans and Disciples, Ananus (4.319) and Zacharias (4.335), cases that highlight Jesus’ rhetorical artifice here in attributing the quality to Idumeans. Josephus also has the word twice in speeches concerning the Judeans’ noble ancestors (2.356; 5.365). Of the 9 attestations before Josephus in extant literature (not counting fragments), 3 are in Polybius, 4 in Diodorus, 1 in Dionysius, and 1 in Philo (Prob. 143); any or all of these may have inspired his use. Jesus continues his flattery of Idumean virtue (cf. 4.240), in spite of the narrator’s authoritative claim about the nation’s lust for conflict (4.231). Or “turned savage.” The verb ἐξαγριόω is characteristic of Josephus (16 occurrences) and of Philo before him (15). It is attested only 23 times in all known Greek literature before them, 6 of these times in Diodorus. Strikingly, Josephus uses it most often of Herod and later Roman rulers, in material frequently said to have been copied unchanged from sources (1.473, 526; Ant. 15.148, 164, 216, 282; 18.226; 19.142, 160, 175). Its presence here and at 2.458, as well as in those passages, rather shows that it is part of Josephus’ lexicon. Josephus’ 5 uses of λογοποιέω (“write speeches”) fall in the first 40 attestations of the verb. Although it is found in Thucydides (1) and Polybius (3), the main users are orators (Isocrates [5], Andocides [2], Lysias [2], Demosthenes [3]) and Plato (4). Reading ποθουμένης with mss V, C, and an erasure in A (also Niese, Thackeray, and others). Mss PMV1R and the Latin read πορθουμένης (“the being-destroyed freedom”).

In spite of his flattery of the Idumeans, Jesus implicitly criticizes them for not having realized that the people who invited them, John and the Disciples, are reprobates, whereas they are opposing former high priests and acknowledged leaders. Jesus uses another rare adjective (ἐπίπλαστος), attested only 5 times in literature outside fragments before Josephus: Aesop’s fables and the Hippocratic corpus. Josephus has used it also at 1.627. See note to “commonwealth” at 4.173 (cf. Latin res publica, here strengthened with κοινῶν [πραγμάτων]). This is another twist on the common popular-philosophical distinction between speech, which is easy, and deeds or actions, which require commitment and reflect one’s true values (Seneca, Ep. 20.2; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 70.3; Epictetus in Arrian, Diatr. 3.26.8–23). See note to “actions” at 2.26 in bjp 1b. By “common public affairs / events” Jesus apparently means, in the story, what Josephus has related and should be common knowledge: the arrival of John and others from outside Jerusalem, enabling the Disciples group to engage in brutality, robbery, and murder—actions vigorously opposed by Ananus, Jesus, and the “populace.”

See note to “suffering,” a key term in War, at 4.31. Josephus’ Jesus continues to lace his oration with rare diction: προσπωλέω (“sell in addition [to everything else]”) is attested only here in all ancient Greek literature. I.e., John’s charge of secret consultation with Vespasian and conspiracy to surrender imputes dishonor. Jesus opens, however, by assuming his personal honor (rather than disputing any concrete evidence) and dismissing such an accusation as beneath his dignity. He would never disgrace himself by pleading with Rome’s commanders from a position of weakness. This is an argument from probability, plausibility, or verisimilitude (adj. εἰκός) in relation to the character or social standing of the accused. See Cicero, De or. 2.182; Kennedy 1994: 24–25, 103; and an application in, e.g., Cicero, Flac. 25. An elegant and fairly rare adjective (ἀπόρθητος), used by Josephus also at 1.165; Ant. 8.114; 13.200, and attested before him only 49 times, nearly half of those in Diodorus (9), Dionysius (2), and Strabo (10), otherwise occasionally, e.g.: Homer (1), Aeschylus (1), Euripides (2), Herodotus (2), Polybius (1). It is not clear what Josephus means by implying that the area surrounding Jerusalem has been ravaged. Thus far in the narrative we have read little of this. After mentioning Vespasian’s departure to coastal Caesarea after Gamala’s capture (4.88–90), Josephus pursues John’s career in an unbroken sequence from Gischala to his arrival in Jerusalem and gradual integration with the Disciples, who then invite the Idumeans. He has briefly mentioned Vespasian’s forays inland from Caesarea to Iamneia and Azotus (Ashdod), but will pick up the thread of Vespasian’s activities—starting out from Caesarea in the spring of 68—only from 4.366, 410, 413, 419, 440 (anticipations), and especially 4.443. It is unclear, therefore, how much of this activity has transpired while the story of Jerusalem’s internal affairs has been unfolding, or what the Roman presence “nearby” and the ravaging of sites refers to. We gain a clearer picture in the latter half of the volume.

See note to the cognate noun (“settlements”) at 4.215. An ironic remark, since according to 2.651 and 4.320–23 Ananus and Jesus both wanted peace and hoped for a settlement with Rome. Here Jesus obliquely mentions such a group, while insisting that he (like Ananus) is committed to the war effort even if that means death. The audience would perhaps assume, as with any speech, that Jesus is not authentically speaking his mind but rather saying what the situation demands to this group of Idumeans. War 3 has told the story of Galilee’s rapid capitulation, by about 1 July 67 (3.409, 443–44), although Vespasian has returned to the field to deal with Agrippa’s restive cities (3.457–542) and new concerns in Tabor and Gischala (4.1–120). Josephus claims that these later sites required “considerable sweat,” serving as a training exercise for Jerusalem (4.120), whereas Galilee as a whole had submitted with Sepphoris and Agrippa’s cities before Vespasian set foot in the territory (3.29–30, 59), and only his own presence as general at Iotapata gave Vespasian a problem. Given the contextual clues, Josephus’ audience would have no reason to suppose that Jesus thinks that Galilee should have resisted Vespasian or that this would have won the Roman commander’s respect, making Jerusalem’s capitulation now more honorable. Rather, Josephus’ Jesus acknowledges the hopelessness of Judean (including Galilean) resistance to Rome. He more likely means, then, that the glaring proof of this weakness until now has shown the Romans that they have nothing to fear, and this makes the Disciples’ accusation of secret negotiations with Vespasian implausible on grounds of honor: you cannot negotiate from a position of such glaring weakness. It would have been more honorable to capitulate from the start, along with the rest of the country. Having held out until now, however, according to Jesus they are reluctantly obliged to fight. This is not necessarily so in practical terms, of course, and Jesus may be exaggerating the honor code to deflect the accusation. There seems no reason why Ananus and Jesus would not have been secretly negotiating with the Roman commander for a safe submission of the city, with Vespasian’s understanding of the political challenges. The seeming contradiction in Josephus’ portrait of Ananus and Jesus’ motives reflects ancient values that come through most clearly in Polybius. In the Third Punic War, he remarks, the Carthaginians could have gone in either of two opposite but equally honorable directions: surrender to Rome or a fight to the last man—but not both. In first surrendering and then fighting, they acted from emotion and not sound thinking (36.7.3–5; Eckstein 1995: 218). Polybius praises as “manly and statesmanlike” the advice of Mago, who had advocated either all-out fighting, before the surrender and loss of leading men, or graciously observing surrender when offered. So, it was moral to fight against Rome while resistance was plausible, but foolish to do so after one had no chance of success. Neither fighting Rome nor submitting is an absolute good or a matter of ideology. Polybius criticizes Greek and Macedonian leaders for having failed to pursue their wars against Rome with the necessary skill and intelligence (Eckstein 1995: 214–15). This outlook seems to fit well with Josephus’ portraits of Ananus and Jesus: If we had reason and capacity to fight honorably, we should do that. Otherwise, we should reach honorable terms. If terms are impossible and we must go down, then that too we shall do honorably. This is one version of the common theme of “death before dishonor” (here αἰσχύνη, “shame”). The closest verbal parallel in Josephus is at Ant. 15.13: Herod’s brother Phasael, unable to bear the “shame of imprisonment” and preferring the kind of death with glory (τὸν μετὰ δόξης … θάνατον), takes his own life in captivity. Before Josephus, the clearest examples of this word group in contrast are in Diodorus (10.21.4; 19.72.8; 27.17.3); cf. Philo, Spec. 3.54. The logic of military honor and shame here is severe (and possibly artificial): recognize from the start that you cannot challenge a greater power and honorably seek terms, as Galilee and the Decapolis and Samaria did upon Vespasian’s arrival at Ptolemais (3.29–30; Life 410–11), or quickly rectify a rash move toward resistance while the greater force is still far away, or now that your moment for honorable surrender has passed, prepare to fight to the death—because to seek terms only when they are near and threatening violent defeat is a dishonourable confession of the weakness. Imperial Japan during the Second World War illustrated a similar mindset from the Allied point of view, by initiating a war with the much more powerful U.S. (out of desperation and to secure a strong hand) and then feeling compelled by honor to see it through to the bitter end, for two years after Japan’s prospects had vanished.

See note to the only other occurrence of this phrase in Josephus, at 4.164, in a speech by Jesus’ colleague Ananus. Ironically, this very speech by Jesus that ensures Jesus’ death, made glorious by Josephus’ account of it, at the hands of his present Idumean audience (4.316) and not Romans. Cf. Josephus on Ananus: “he put peace-making above everything else,” but if the Judeans could not reach a settlement with Rome, he resolved that they would distinguish themselves by skilful warfare (4.320). The “aristocratic ethos” underlying Josephus’–Ananus’–Jesus’ values is explored by Eckstein (1995: 28–55) in relation to Polybius, using Philopoemen as a model: choose your battles, do not enter conflict impulsively, seek the welfare of the polis, but once committed to war-fighting, abandon attachment to life and prefer a glorious death over shameful living.

Josephus’ Jesus shifts from the ad hominem plausibility argument (4.239–50) to a kind of forensic cross-examination (4.251–57): What evidence are you relying on? How could our accusers know what they charge? See note at 4.210.

Jesus apparently intends not synonymous parallelism, but to press the only two possibilities for a messenger to inform Vespasian of the wish to surrender (“betrayal”): either a friend (φίλος) from the peer group or, at least, a slave or other member of the leaders’ households (οἰκέτης). Lit. “with their having become possessive of letters”: an artful combination of the verb γίνομαι with the adjective ἐγκρατής, which Josephus uses 17 times (4 in War). Though not found in Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides, Aristotle, or Philo, this rhetorically clever phrase was used a few times by Isocrates (3), Xenophon (6), Plato (3), Demosthenes (7), and Menander (6), among others, before Polybius used it 51 times in the surviving sections, then Diodorus (35) and Dionysius (26). This Polybian tradition of historiography is Josephus’ most likely inspiration.

Josephus uses the standard term (πολίτης) for the registered citizen of a polis such as Alexandria, Antioch, or Rome, or the Greco-Syrian Decapolis and coastal cities of Palestine. Citizenship of such poleis was carefully vetted (usually requiring citizen parents), guarded (with institutions such as the ephebate and gymnasium, and roles in civic administration, open to citizens only), and privileged (e.g., with tax concessions not available to resident minorities, not to mention slaves). Citizenship was thus a major identity-marker and often a source of anxiety for non-citizens, especially those who shared much the citizen culture from long residency (e.g. Delia 1991; Pucci ben Zeev 1998; Revell 2009; Ritter 2015). Although Josephus routinely calls Jerusalem a polis and writes his longest work, Antiquities, about its politeia (citizenship rules or constitution), it is not clear what if any formal procedures Jerusalem, mother-polis of all Judeans everywhere, had for determining membership of the polis. There must have been some unintrusive way of knowing who was a Judean and who was not, for only Judeans could pass the exclusionary balustrade of Herod’s temple; see note to “commoners” at 4.182. But what those procedures were and how Judean identity related to polis membership in Jerusalem remain unclear. See note to “mother-city” at 4.123. A lack of clarity about this in the 1st cent. may explain why Josephus rarely uses πολίτης in War: only 11 times and half of these not pertaining to Jerusalemites (1.157; 2.482; 7.52, 120, 356). Indeed, he appears to speak of Jerusalemites as citizens only when there is a question of their mistreatment by some ruler or tyrant, for rhetorical effect (1.355; 2.89; this passage; 6.306; 7.32; 7.263). His more common term for the city’s ordinary residents is “the populace” (ὁ δῆμος, οἱ δημοτικοί): 1.10, 27, 37, 98, 107…; 2.42, 85, 262, 274, 278, 280, 294, 297, 302, 304…; 4.121, 125, 129, 140, 142, 144, 147, 151, 153, 158, 160, etc. Antiquities is much more expansive in using πολίτης, with 64 occurrences. Nearly half, however, are in Books 14, concerning the citizens of other places and the rights of Judeans as non-citizens, and 19, concerning the citizens of Rome. Nearly a quarter are in the biblical paraphrase (Books 1–11) and Hasmonean narrative (Bo0k 13). But Josephus speaks easily of Moses, Joshua, and their “fellow-citizens” long before David took Jerusalem (1.121; 2.101; 4.134; 5.51, 54, 247, 265, 342; 6.75), which suggests that he views Jerusalem as what became the mother-polis of Judeans everywhere, the ethnos. Josephus has the rare double compound συναναστρέφω 3 times (also 5.58; Ant. 20.206), perhaps reflecting a new interest in such forms; Plutarch has it 5 times. It is attested only 12 times (including fragments) before Josephus, however, and Diodorus is the only historian to use it (3.58.3; 28.8.2). See 4.203–207 for their confinement to the temple (but 4.236). See note at 4.139, for the suggestion of tragic connotations. I.e., although the Disciples cannot enter even the city (πόλις), they profess to know about secret emissaries travelling the countryside in secret (χώρα).

See 4.90 for the phrase, a favorite of Josephus. According to 4.196–207, Ananus’ scratch army quickly had the Disciples on the ropes, trapped and closely guarded in the temple, Ananus having not pursued them further only on grounds of piety. That is why John and the Disciples have summoned the Idumeans to help.

Or “was absent from.” Another artful and rare verb (ἀποστατέω), appearing only here in Josephus. Of the 38 attestations in literature before him, 8 are in the tragedians Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides (another 10 are in fragments of Aeschylus), 3 in Xenophon, 6 in Plato, 6 in Greek Bible and apocrypha, 3 in Philo—all possible influences. Apparently meaning the ad hoc meeting allegedly called by the leaders, not a standing political institution; see note to “assemblies” at 4.159. Jesus implies that John must be lying because, if the public assembly had voted for terms with Vespasian, word would have reached the Idumeans in the open, not by a secret messenger sent from John’s Disciples.

Presumably, to Vespasian. If the city had voted for terms, they would have sent official emissaries to make arrangements with him. If so, Jesus insists, the Disciples making the charge should know who they were. See note at 2.123 in bjp 1b with note to “appointed by lot” at 4.153.

See note to “having difficulty dying” at 4.27, where δυσθανατέω refers to badly wounded men who remain alive in agony. Here Josephus’ Jesus uses it more figuratively, perhaps in the dual sense that the Disciples are dead men walking, who have no way out without the Idumeans, and that they have no taste for dying, in spite of committing heinous crimes that would obviously merit retribution. This is a rare compound verb favored by Josephus, appearing 5 times, all in War 4–6. After just 49 attestations in Greek literature (especially Demosthenes’ speeches, 13 times), Josephus has διακρούω 10 times, 9 in War, always in the middle voice: “drive away from oneself [what is coming].” See 4.254 and notes. The context of Jesus’ speech is that Ananus’ group have the Disciples penned in the temple under close surveillance, and could destroy them at any time—if the Idumeans can be kept from aiding them. Jesus briefly returns to a plausibility argument based on character (see note to “Romans” at 4.248)—the Disciples are the sort of people who betray, whereas the former chief priests are not. This conveniently overlooks, again, the particular situation, in which it is hardly implausible that established civic leaders would discuss terms of capitulation with the Roman commander.

Josephus’ Jesus makes his second major shift: after a plausibility argument concerning the character of the people involved (4.239–50) and then a cross-examination of the alleged evidence against his group (4.251–57), finally to the practical choices facing the Idumeans, given that they are in any case present in arms (4.258–69). Whom will they support? This incidental phrase (τὸ μὲν δικαιότατον) anticipates Josephus’ comment as narrator at 4.362. The nature of justice (τὸ δίκαιον, δικαιοσύνη)—especially, whether it was (a) variable, a function of each nation’s ancestral traditions, or (b) only whatever the powerful said was just, or (c) whether there was a deeper, true or natural justice and, if so, whether such a concept of justice had any prospect of realization—was a basic problem in political philosophy. It was taken up in different ways by Plato and the sophists (e.g., Republic, Gorgias, Protagoras), Thucydides (discussions of justice vs. power), and the orators. Josephus invests deeply in the theme, with δίκαιος cognates appearing 433 times in his works, 55 in War. He makes justice toward others and piety toward God the encapsulation of Moses’ laws (Ant. 1.72 [negated]; 7.338, 341, 356, 374, 384; 8.280; 9:16; 9.236; 12.43; 12.56). The first two oaths taken by his beloved Essenes (War 2.139) commit them to these virtues. His John the Baptist (Ant. 18.116–19) is a Socratic figure who demands piety and justice above all, and willingly dies for fearlessly advocating justice (then is avenged by God). Josephus’ nemesis John of Gischala is a rotten counter-example, who callously disregards both justice and piety (War 7.263). See note at 4.123. This double-compound verb (συνεξαιρέω) is attested only 18 times before Josephus, but in texts that might have influenced him (Herodotus, Thucydides, Euripides [3], Xenophon, Polybius, Dionysius, and Strabo). He has it 5 times, including again just below at 4.264. See note to “tyranny” at 4.151 and to “tyrants” at 156. See note to “undoing of better-established law” at 4.154 and re-use at 4.171. See 4.223 for the same string of accusations—undoing, laws, law-courts—but there in a brief speech by John of Gischala, allegedly acknowledging the crimes of his group. The correspondence in language confirms Josephus’ responsibility for all the speeches in his works. See 4.171 for Ananus’ charge that the Disciples are trampling (πατέω) the holy places, literally and figuratively, also 4.262. Cf. Diodorus 34/35.2.14 on the slave revolt in Sicily: the slaves kill the wealthy (and cruel) Damophilus, running him through with a sword before the verdict of the people is given.

See note to this distinctively Josephan adjective at 4.169. Cf. 4.134, 169. See note to “destroyed” at 4.25; this is a variant translation of the same frequent verb. See 4.138–46 for the main description of this activity. Although the market-place is not mentioned there, 4.139 stresses that the arrests were made “in the open, during the day,” and the agora would be a natural setting for that. Josephus is the first known writer to use the compound verb προαικίζομαι, at 2.306 (of Florus’ crucifixion of distinguished Jerusalemites after first torturing them) and here, only. It reappears in antiquity only in Eusebius (Dem. ev. 10.1.10). After 7 occurrences in classical tragedy (Aeschylus and Euripides), ἱκεσία appears mainly in Diodorus (11), Dionysius (9), Philo (25), Josephus (19 times), the Christian author Clement (6), the philosopher Heraclitus (3), and Plutarch (13) through the end of the 1st cent. ce. The Attic spelling ἱκετεία is partly in different authors (Thucydides 3, Antiphon 2, Isocrates 3, Plato 5), but also mixed in the same writers: Diodorus (2), Dionysius (7), Philo (6). Josephus uses ἱκετεία exclusively (20 times) in Antiquities-Life and only ἱκεσία in War, though it also appears 10 times in Ant. 1–15.

Lit. “It is permissible / acceptable for you” (ἔξεστιν δ̓ ὑμῖν), opening an inclusio of 3 options open to the Idumeans, the last of which (4.268) is marked by the same verb. Or “convention [or custom] of war.” See note at 2.90 in bjp 1b. The phrase πολέµου νόµος is well attested elsewhere, but Josephus is its biggest known user with 15 occurrences. His War gives enough examples to indicate the range of meaning: 3.363 (by the law of war one should die only by a conqueror’s hand in battle); this passage (the Idumeans may enter Jerusalem, but not as conquerors—not according to conditions of war); 4.388 (an ancient prophecy that the temple will burn by a law of war); 5.332 (Titus’ right to sack the city by the law of war); 6.239 (in Titus’ consilium, his commanders argue that the temple should burn by right of war); 6.346, 353 (Titus remarks that he formerly showed clemency, in spite of the law of war). See also Ant. 1.315; 6.69; 9.58; 12.274; 14.304; 15.157. The phrase thus has 3 main senses: (a) a set of norms that justify in mortal conﬂict what would otherwise be unacceptable (note Laban’s complaint about this category-confusion in Ant. 1.315); (b) a set of minimal constraints on killing (e.g., respecting heralds), even in extreme circumstances; and (c) “the way things normally go in war,” without moral evaluation. The rough Latin equivalent, ius belli, has a conspicuous position in the opening of Livy’s history (Aeneas was spared at Troy in spite of the “law of war”, 1.1.1; cf. 26.31.2; Sallust, Bell. iug. 91.7; Quintilian, Inst. or. 5.10.114), and this may have inﬂuenced Josephus’ usage, writing in Rome. See 4.139 with 168. See note at 4.38. The only occurrence in Josephus of a verb (μελανειμονέω) of which he is only the 4th attested user. Wearing dark or colorless clothes while mourning (sometimes hair-cloth [sackcloth] covered in ash: Isa 58:5; Esth 4:1–4; Dan 9:3) was common throughout the Mediterranean. In his speech against Vatinius (56 bce), Cicero accused him of a blunder in wearing black to a funeral banquet: “With so many thousand people at table and with the master of ceremonies himself, Q. Arrius, all in white, you took to the temple of Castor in mourning clothes, with C. Fibulus and your other bad spirits in funeral dress” (Vat. 31). Apparently, Roman custom was to wear dark clothes for mourning but to change into white for the 9th-day banquet, which involved a visit to the temple of Castor. For analysis, see Levison 2002: 255–6; generally on mourning clothes, Olson 2017: 91–104. For this tragic terminology, see note to “shriek and shout” at 4.71. Greek θρῆνος, a term reminiscent of Jeremiah (lxx 7:29; 9:9, 17; 31:15 with Lam 1:1) and War’s lament theme (see note to “mourn over” at 1.9). Josephus’ audience would not know the biblical references, but the Greek words were familiar and associated with funerals and grieving. See 4.171 and note.

See 2.251 in bjp 1b: a metaphor suggesting a ship (especially the ship of state) foundering when an incompetent helmsman runs the vessel aground, heedless of the environment: Plato, Pol. 296e, 297e–299c, 302a; Resp. 341c–d; Plutarch, Phil. 17.3–4; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 48.14. The verb ἐξοκέλλω is first attested in Aeschylus (4 times), then occasionally in a few authors before Philo uses it 9 times. He may be the inspiration for Josephus’ 5 occurrences. See note at 4.80. See note at 4.84. See note to “brazen acts” at 4.90. The movement of “bandits” from countryside and other Judean cities to Jerusalem was described in 4.131–39. A striking image of the Judean mother-city as the place that represents all Judeans (the ethnos) to the world. This is borne out by the tendency of outside observers to describe and explain Judeans in relation to their homeland Jerusalem (e.g., Stern, glajj nos. v [Hecataeus]; x [Manetho]; xvii [Agatharchides]; xxxiv [Cicero]; xcii [Tacitus]; xcii [Cassius Dio]).

Cf. 4.151 for the temple’s becoming a “tyrants’ home.” See note at 2.360 in bjp 1b for the verb: whereas politically the world makes obeisance to Rome, Jesus suggests, Jerusalem has enjoyed that honor for its God. See 2.409–13 for an anticipation of Jesus’ argument. When the temple commandant Eleazar’s group refuse gifts and sacrifices from foreigners, the city’s leaders complain that openness to outsiders is crucial to Judean standing in the world. Or “inhabited earth” (οἰκουμένη): not the Roman Empire only, but the Parthian and vaguely known others to the E; see note at 4.178. The former high priest makes a contrast between the many foreigners who visit the temple and make obeisance and the vast number who do not visit but still honor the temple for what they hear by report (ἀκοῇ) about it; cf. Tacitus, Hist. 5.5 for Tacitus’ favorable contrast of Judean worship and conception of God with the Egyptian. Josephus writes these words for Jesus here (δ̓ ὑπὸ τῆς οἰκουμένης προσκυνούμενος χῶρος καὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ περάτων γῆς ἀλλοφύλοις ἀκοῇ τετιμημένος), but at 5.17 he will use the same distinctive language in his narrator’s voice: “many sped from the limits of the earth in connection with place, renowned and holy to all humanity” (πολλοὶ σπεύσαντες ἀπὸ γῆς περάτων περὶ τὸν διώνυμον καὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις χῶρον ἅγιον), and offered sacrifices. Cf. 4.171 and 258 for rebels trampling sacred laws and the temple. Here Josephus compounds the verb (καταπατέω) for added force, as at 4.386. I.e., the Disciples. For the word, see 4.174 and note. For rebels as wild beasts, see 4.540 (Simon) and 5.85. Diodorus describes the Sicilian slaves becoming beasts as a result of their harsh treatment (34/35.2.10), showing more sympathy perhaps than Josephus has for Jerusalem’s rebels, who seem innately beastly. Possibly “born here,” except that J0sephus does not necessarily mean that they were born “animals”; they may have become such in the city. In any case, his contrast is with foreigners who revere and protect Jerusalem’s holy place. That contrast is programmatic in War, announced already in the prologue (1.10–12). Cf. 4.173, 181.

The colorfully abusive verb νεανιεύομαι is rare; Josephus has it again at Ant. 15.54. Before him it is attested only 26 times, especially in orators (9), Plato (3), Stoic fragments (3), Dionysius (2), Philo (6), and Strabo (1), though Plutarch will favor it (16 times). Philo’s use may have suggested the word to Josephus. Josephus conspicuously favors this noun (ἀπόγνωσις), accounting for 36 of its first 60 attestations. See note to this rare compound verb at 4.150, its only other occurrence in Josephus. In keeping with the prevailing Greek lexical bank (cf. Mason 2016b: 97–174), Josephus presents Judeans as an ethnos distributed far and wide from its mother-polis Jerusalem but also with other Judean poleis in the region, each with a citizen populace (δῆμος, here “populace”). This image underlies narrative of 4.131–37; cf. the geographical description in 3.51–58. Not only is this verb (στρατολογέω) rare, but its distribution pattern suggests influence from Diodorus. Of the 14 attestations before Josephus’ 7 uses (4 in War, 3 in Ant. 2–8), 12 of these in extant literature (rather than fragments), 10 are in Diodorus. Otherwise it appears once in Dionysius (Ant. rom. 7.24.1) and in the nt (2 Tim 2:4). Josephus’ 8 other occurrences of σπλάγχνα (1.81, 84, 635; 2.612; 5.385, 560; 6.204; Ant. 15.239) are, with the partial exception of 6.204, vivid references to literal internal organs.

In 4.258, with “tyrants” varied here as “deviants.” See note at 4.258. See note to this characteristic language at 4.168. Josephus often resorts the language of trickery (ἀπάτη and cognate verb) for political deceit or demagoguery (2.259, 261), and John of Gischala, now leader of the Disciples, has been its arch-practitioner (2.586, 610, 616; 4.116). See note to “brazen acts” at 4.90. Jesus continues trying to use the power of suggestion: the Idumeans can be the city’s and nation’s avengers against the Disciples—though his effort fails. The distribution of this adjective (τιμωρός) is noteworthy: 19 of the first 94 occurrences in classical tragedy, 6 in Herodotus (absent from Thucydides and Xenophon), 11 in orators, only 2 in Polybius and 1 in Diodorus, but 16 in the rhetorical-tragic historian Dionysius, 7 in Philo, and 7 in Josephus.

See 4.270 below for the Idumeans’ understandable response to this reasonable-sounding request (θεμένοις τὰ ὅπλα). Or “capacity, form, guise” (σχήματι συγγενῶν). Josephus’ frequent use of the first noun—63 occurrences (cf. Homer 0, Herodotus 1, Thucydides 2, Xenophon 22, Polybius 20, Diodorus 34, Dionysius 218, Philo 77), though Plato (152) and Aristotle (590) feature it—often in the sense of mere appearance in ironic situations (see esp. 4.336, 340 below), suggests that Jesus is not speaking in earnest here, but introducing a question about the true affinity of the Idumean and Judean ethnē; cf. 4.224, 228, 231, 326 (“people”). See notes to “Idumeans” at 4.223 and to “manners” at 4.240. Josephus presents the Idumeans as an ethnos related to the Judeans as kin, but still distinct from them in some ways. I.e., you came as allies of the Disciples and we have asked you to be their enemies. If this volte face is too much, because you still think their appeal might have merit, then adopt the neutral role of (unarmed) judges. Josephus’ Jesus delivers a rhetorical masterpiece full of sweet reason and apparent sympathy for his auditors, seeming to box them in.

A reference to 4.259; see note to this distinctive adjective at 4.169. The Disciples allowed no word to be spoken in defence of the innocent and distinguished men they killed. The Idumeans should consider it more than just to serve as impartial judges now, hearing both sides and rendering a fair verdict. Jesus’ point is surely not that the Disciples would describe their activities as he does (polluting violations of law), but rather that they do them openly and without hesitation (seeing this as necessary to thwart traitors). The noun (ἄφιξις) literally means “departure” but in context is often used for “arrival” or both. Josephus shows a taste for the word, using it 41 times. It is not common elsewhere (Herodotus 11, Polybius 1), but Dionysius (21) and Philo (17) anticipate Josephus. Jesus drives home the point that the Disciples have given their victims no fair hearing; the Idumeans, in offering the Disciples that much, when their crimes are obvious, would be giving them much more than they deserve or have allowed others.

This compound verb (συναγανακτέω) has a typical profile for unusual compounds: of the mere 21 attestations before Josephus, who has it 3 times (also 1.533; Ant. 11.309), 4 are in Polybius, 3 in Diodorus, 7 in Dionysius, 1 in Strabo; 4 are in fragments of Menander and Fabius Pictor. A thematic keyword in War; see note to singular at 4.39. Of the Disciples. I.e., the options are to enter the city with weapons to assist Ananus’ group, or without them to serve as impartial judges. Since they may not enter in arms to assist the Disciples, the only possibility other than returning home, which Jesus is too diplomatic to demand (cf. 4.285 on the shame of returning home without having done anything), is to keep their weapons but remain outside as guards. Jesus gives the appearance of extreme reasonableness by considering every sensible option—if the Idumeans will be reasonable in return (but 4.283). See note to this crucial word at 4.123.

This is the charge, dismissed as a lie by Josephus, on which John and the Disciples have persuaded the Idumeans to involve themselves in Jerusalem’s affairs: see 4.146, 217–18, 226–28. Closing the inclusio begun at 4.260; see note to the same phrase there. Another very rare compound. The vastly more common verb for uncovering, which Josephus has 4 times, is ἀποκαλύπτω. Here, however, he chooses διακαλύπτω, which he also has 4 times, all in War (also 1.606; 3.438; 6.210). But these are only the 7th to 10th known attestations, and the preceding 6 are in Demosthenes, a fragment of Anaximenes, Dionysius, and Philo (3). See note at 4.123 and especially 4.234: the Idumeans were motivated to march on Jerusalem by concern for the freedom of the mother-polis they share with the Judean ethnos. Another rare compound verb (προσοικέω), only here in Josephus: Dionysius (7) and Strabo (3) account for 10 of the 26 the attested occurrences before Josephus, which begin with Thucydides (3) and Isocrates (2).

More rare vocabulary. Josephus has 4 of the first 26 attestations of εὔγνωμος, which is absent from preceding historians except Diodorus (twice), though Plutarch will have 8 instances. See note at 4.184. A rare and resonant adjective (κλεῖθρον), only here in Josephus and absent from historians before him except Xenophon (1) and Diodorus (7 times). Although it could be used in tactical contexts (Aeneas Tacticus 11.3; 20.4), its earlier use is overwhelmingly in classical tragedy (31 of the first 34 attestations). Cf. 4.236, where Ananus has ordered the city gates locked ahead of the Idumeans’ arrival.

Josephus implicitly commends himself—a humorous touch—for having composed such a compelling speech (as any ancient audience would realize) for the former high priest, which was entirely wasted on the Idumeans at the time (and so is not necessary to advance the action), but sits here in all its glory for the appreciation of his literary audience. This fits with Josephus’ portrait of the Idumeans as a bellicose and disorderly nation (4.231); Jesus’ elegant rhetoric is wasted on them. See note to this rare compound verb (used by Josephus 3 times in War 4, but only in this volume) at 4.223, and cf. note to “share our indignation” (different prefix) at 4.267. Cf. 4.265, reprising θεμένοις τὰ ὅπλα as πρὸς ἀπόθεσιν τῶν ὅπλων. Like most armies until today, Roman forces took a harsh stance toward a soldier’s loss of weapons or armor, without which the fighting man is useless. Such loss was most likely to result, if not from extreme carelessness in camp, from the far greater shame of either flight from battle or capture. Josephus relates that a cavalryman who lost his horse was executed at Titus’ order (6.155). And when an infantryman escapes imminent death, though having been blindfolded and cuffed with a Judean sword above his head, Josephus considers it a sign of Titus’ extraordinary clemency that he does not execute him—for having been captured. Titus’ clemency means, however, expelling him from the legion—a disgrace worse than death (6.358–62; cf. Polybius 6.37.4). Although Jesus’ invitation to put down weapons may sound reasonable in its context, from a diplomat, Josephus skilfully evokes the equally understandable reaction of a proud force in arms, and does not condemn the Idumeans for responding as they would.

With mss vrc, the Latin translation, Whiston, and Pelletier. Niese, Thackeray, and M-B, prefer P’s Caatha. Ms M has Clatha, which tends to support (as a common transpositional error) the reading here. Presumably, this is the Simon named as a general at 4.235. Though he is there called “son of Thaceus,” according to the best mss, the readings there that come closest to those here being easiest to explain as attempts at harmonization, Josephus is notoriously inconsistent in rendering Hebrew or Aramaic names in Greek. Josephus likes this word (ἐπήκοος), accounting for 20 of its first 66 attestations (7 are in Philo) and using it throughout War 3–7 and Ant. 1–14. Plato is the next heaviest user (12), then Xenophon (4) after Philo. Aside from 1 occurrence in Dionysius it is lacking in other historians. Or “chief priests”; see note at 4.160. Cf. 4.238: now confirming that Ananus and Jesus (at least) are together in the tower, Psephinus or more likely Phasael, facing Idumeans below. In any such scenario, they have the advantage in being heard, whereas a man on the ground below and surrounded by hundreds of others would have needed to choose his position carefully to be audible.

The 2nd of 3 occurrences of πρόμαχος in Josephus (also 3.270; 5.88), a Homeric word (first 40 attestations) that rarely appears in historiography: 1 in Xenophon, 1 in Diodorus, and 6 in Dionysius. “Freedom” has been the watchword and declared motive of the rebel forebears of the Disciples, including John (4.95, 146, 178, 228, 234, 245), whereas Ananus’ group see them as destroying the city’s freedom: subjecting it to tyrants in the short run and ultimately to Roman retribution (4.159, 175, 185, 246; cf. 319). See 4.201–227 for the Disciples’ gradual confinement in the temple by Ananus’ citizen army, the cause of their appeal to the Idumeans for help (4.228). Taken by itself, it is unclear in this phrase whether Simon means that the Judean ethnos includes Idumeans or that the Idumeans are an ethnos with a close family relation to the Judeans. Preceding (note to “Idumeans” at 4.224 with 4.231) and soon following (4.278) remarks favor the latter—though Josephus need not be perfectly consistent, given the elasticity of ethnos in ancient usage.

A sarcastic remark: convinced that Ananus’ group were trying invite the Romans in, Simon imagines them cravenly decorating the gates for the foreign army, which they have locked against their kindred ethnos of Idumeans. Cf. 4.238, the point here being that Ananus and Jesus did not admit the kindred Idumeans into Jerusalem, to talk with them respectfully, but kept them outside at a distance. Jesus has not used either phrase: the first is the narrator’s remark at 4.270; the second summarizes the view of Ananus’ group (see note to “freedom” at 4.272).

Throwing back Jesus’ proposal at 4.265. You flatter us with the offer that we serve as judges, but contradict this by refusing to trust us with the protection of the mother-city with our weapons. We see through your flattery: you want only to suborn us. See note at 4.123. So Ananus at 4.169 and Jesus—“uncharged” amounting to the same thing—at 4.259, 266. It is again not clear whether Simon speaks as an observer of what Ananus’ group have done to the Judean nation, distinct from the Idumean, or whether he includes Idumeans as part of it. See notes at 4.272, to “Idumeans” at 4.224 and to “nation” at 4.231. I.e., with the shame of betraying one’s city to an enemy force: 4.146, 226, 245. That betrayal would indeed be shameful is confirmed by Jesus’ vehemence in rejecting the accusation, insisting that he had long passed the point of seeking honorable terms with Rome; now he was committed to war (4.245–50).

See note at 4.218. Josephus consistently emphasizes the worldwide reach of the temple, as in 2.409–417; see notes in bjp 1b. An ironic and apparently disingenuous claim, since it was the priestly forerunners of the Disciples, led by Eleazar son of Ananias, who closed the city and temple to foreigners, against the vehement protests of the senior priests and Pharisees, who insisted that it had always been open to non-Judeans (2.409–412). See notes in bjp 1b. Ananus’ group have not closed the city to foreigners, of course, but only to the Idumeans, and only insofar as they have come to assist the Disciples against them.

See note at 4.38. Josephus’ ironic anticipation, in their emphatic denial, of what the Idumeans will actually do once they enter the city (4.305–45), having been duped by the Disciples and John. Already 4.281 gives a clearer indication, in their sincere voice, of their undisguised murderous intentions. Cf. 4.234, 245: the Idumeans were successfully lured, Josephus concedes, by the supposed mission of protecting Jerusalem’s freedom.

Cf. 4.272: the Disciples. I.e., not persuasive at all. Simon’s sarcasm about Jesus’ claim to represent Jerusalem’s true interests is relentless.

See note at 4.12. Or “for the republic, commonwealth” (cf. Latin res publica, here strengthened with κοινῶν [πραγμάτων] as at 4.249). See note at 4.173 with further examples at 4.184, 194. By using the plural, when only the Idumean ethnos is involved, Simon makes the issue abstract: a contrast between how Ananus’ group treat foreign and kindred nations. For the Idumeans as a closely related but distinct ethnos to the Judeans, see note to “Idumeans” at 4.224 and “nation” at 4.231 with 4.240, 44. I.e., to lay down their weapons: 4.265 with 4.270. The authoritative voice of the narrator has already charged John of Gischala (4.85) and the Disciples (4.154) with seeking supreme power (δυναστεία), also averring that they accuse Ananus’ group of treating with the Romans only in order to secure their grip on power (4.224). Tyranny is a central theme of War (1.10–11, 24, 27–28), and Josephus as narrator leaves no doubt as to who the real tyrants are. See notes to “tyrants’ home” at 4.151 and “tyrants” at 4.166. Still, by having Simon make a plausible-sounding case for the tyranny of the Ananus-Jesus group he enhances the air of tragedy. Idumeans act with determination on the strength of their supposedly certain knowledge of what Josephus’ literary audience knows to be false.

See notes to “dissembling” at 4.127, where the authoritative voice of the narrator makes dissimulation John of Gischala’s main character trait, and to “dissimulation” (the noun here) at 4.152. Here, Josephus’ audience must know that Ananus’ group are not dissembling, even if they can see how, tragically, the Idumeans would think so. The only occurrence in all Josephus of ἐναντιότης, a favorite Aristotelian word, also found in Philo 10 times. See notes at 4.173 and 247. Josephus again highlights the popular philosophical distinction between words and visible actions (cf. latter note). The language (τῶν πατρίων ἱερῶν) stresses that it is temple worship that unites Idumeans and Judeans. See similar phrases at Ant. 1.316; 14.213, 227, 242, 245; 16.169 (most of these are decrees guaranteeing Judeans the right to observe their ancestral rites). Further sarcasm: the obvious fact is that Ananus and Jesus are behaving as “tyrants” in keeping the Idumeans out.

As at 4.272: John and the Disciples. Referring to Jesus’ claim at 4.259, but changing ἄνδρας … ἀκαταιτιάτους τῶν ἐπιφανῶν there for a synonymous ἄνδρας ἐπισήμους καὶ ἀκαταιτιάτους here. Although the Disciples have attacked some distinguished persons already (4.139–42), the wholesale purge of nobles is yet to come (4.301, 315–16, 326–44). This is the only attestation before the 7th century ce of the double-compound verb προαποκόπτω. The meaning is clear, but it is a contrived word. The image is of the betrayal project as a dangerous political body with its vital parts (τὰ καιριώτατα τῆς προδοσίας μέρη) thus far permitted to thrive.

A common name for the main sanctuary, the temple proper; see note at 4.163. Or “fight proactively for” (προπολεμέω). Josephus uses the compound verb only here and at Ant. 2.247. The meaning “serve as guard” is suggested by the slight record of earlier use, in which Plato (5) and Aristotle (8) figure most significantly, before occasional attestations in Polybius (1), Diodorus (2), Dionysius (4), Philo (4), and Strabo (1). Plato (Resp. 423a, 429b) sees this corps of defenders, no matter how small, as what makes a city great and brave. See note to “Idumeans” at 4.224 and “nation” at 4.231 for the ambiguous position of the Idumeans in relation to Judeans: a different ethnos, at least in some contexts, that nevertheless shares the Judean “mother-city” as a result of their assimilation to Judean laws under John Hyrcanus.

Thus far, Simon’s plan agrees with Jesus’ third option (4.267–68). Only the intent is different: not to monitor the roads and see that the charge of negotiating with Vespasian is false, but to provide a constant threat to Jesus and Ananus, until they capitulate to the Disciples’ point of view—or Roman forces leave the region (or perhaps attack the city, the Idumeans implausibly offering themselves as defenders outside the walls). In the story world of Josephus, no such offers have been made or entertained; this is the core of the betrayal claim that he insists is a slanderous lie (4.146, 217–18, 226–28). The Idumeans continue to play their tragic role, having come to Jerusalem only because of their firm conviction that the claim is true. The verb μεταβάλλω here is a favorite of Josephus, appearing 72 times in his works and cognate to his key thematic term μεταβολή, which he has 84 times (thematically at 1.5, 23). Reversals are most often those of inscrutable fortune (see 4.40–42 and notes), but wise people ought also to reverse their thinking to accommodate fortune’s twists. Simon artfully concludes with the watchword (here the neuter plural adjective: ἐλεύθερα) of the Disciples and their predecessors: freedom, opposed to perceived “tyranny.” See notes at 4.95, 145. But each side views the other, Josephus acknowledges, as tyrannical: their own side promises true freedom.

Or as litotes: “a very unreasonable.” See note at 4.184. I.e., the Ananus-Jesus group faces the Disciples occupying the temple to their E and the Idumeans to the W/NW of the city.

See note at 4.90. See note to “insolence toward the Deity” at 4.150. The scene here illustrates Aristotle’s famous definition of ὕβρις (Rhet. 1378b) as “doing or saying something that brings shame / disgrace to the sufferer,” for no reason but to experience the pleasure of humiliating others to feel superior—not as retribution. From the Idumeans’ perspective, this is how they see Jesus’ group treating them. Josephus enriches his narrative by inviting his literary audience to feel some of the “bad” group’s emotions and reasoning. The letter sent by the Disciples to the Idumeans (4.228–29) described their establishment of a “fortress” in the temple area as a bulwark against Ananus’ apparently individual or small-group attempts to parley with the Romans. This could encourage the Idumeans to think that their arrival in massed force (20,000: 4.235) would allow them to enter the city without difficulty. Their surprise and frustration recall that of Cestius Gallus in 2.499–541. Having arrived with a much larger professional army, and supposing that he will quickly link up with the city’s leaders, whom he and his companion Agrippa ii know, to isolate and punish the troublemakers, Cestius is likewise flummoxed to discover the city gates barred. He stays in place for a few days, combining appeals and displays of power with desultory attempts on the walls, at the beginning of bad weather, then withdraws. Both scenes imply that the sealing of the few openings in Jerusalem’s walls (only accessible from the N, NW, and W), even by a relatively small group within, is an effective means of defense in the short term. The main difference is that Cestius is blocked by Josephus’ bad guys, while the Idumeans are kept outside by men he admires. See note at 4.221.

I.e., the shame of having completely failed (ἡ δὲ αἰδὼς τοῦ τέλεον ἀπράκτους) in the project on which they had so confidently embarked (4.233–35). See note at 4.222. As there, Josephus uses μεταμέλεια as a synonym for μετανοέω: “changing their minds” in 4.221.

Given that these events follow John’s arrival, after fleeing Gischala in about October 67 (4.106–27), and Vespasian’s move to an established base in coastal Caesarea, from which he has already been active in securing nearby cities (4.130) before his spring campaign, the story time seems to be ca. January or February 68, when Jerusalem and Judea can experience severe storms. Something of a cliché: Herodotus 4.50; 8.12; Polybius 11.24.9; Diodorus 16.80.3. Only here in Josephus, μύκημα (“groan, roar”) is rarely attested before him (16 times), e.g.: in classical tragedy (2), Aristotle (2), fragments of Poseidonius (2), Diodorus (1), and Dionysius (3). The adjective ἐξαίσιος is lit. “outside the norm, what is destined,” so “enormous, weird, extraordinary, gigantic, inauspicious, monstrous, grotesque, ominous,” depending on context. All 5 occurrences in Josephus are in War 2–6; cf. 2.315; 5.75, 277; 6.60 (“enormous boulder”). Before Josephus, the word is favoured by few authors, especially lxx Job (9) and Diodorus (25).

This adjective (πρόδηλος), which Josephus has 10 times throughout War, 6 in Book 7 (5 in Antiquities–Life), was a favorite of Polybius, who accounts for one quarter of the 165 attestations before him. Various translations of τὸ κατάστημα τῶν ὅλων συγκεχυμένον are possible, and “the universe” here means “all that is” rather than any modern scientific notion. A rare example of apocalyptic-sounding imagery in Josephus, much more at home in other genres, which however project such heavenly signs into the mythical past, in explanation of the world’s condition (as the clash between Titans and the Olympians in Hesiod, Theog. 685–715), or into the future as markers of coming cosmic upheaval: Joel 2:30–31 (mt 3:3–4); Test. Mos. 10.4–6; Or. sib. 8.170–212; Mark 13:24–25; Acts 2:20. See previous note. Although σύμπτωμα (in οὐχὶ μικροῦ τις ἂν εἰκάσαι συμπτώματος τὰ τέρατα), lit. “falling together,” could refer to any event or occurrence, the litotes (“no small” = “great”) and mention of ruin here suggest a literal “collapse.” The noun is common elsewhere, and favored by Polybius among others (43 occurrences), but in Josephus it appears only here in War and at Ant. 3.267; 15.144.

Since two opinions follow, Josephus apparently means that their views are two sides of the same coin: the observation that God is with Ananus and Jesus. See note at 4.123. Josephus’ Roman audience would have immediately understood the scandal of trying to enter the city in arms, given the traditional exclusion of weapons from Rome’s pomerium (sacred boundary). The image of God’s serving as general seems peculiar to Josephus (also 4.370 [ironic inversion]; 5.386; Ant. 4.184; 5.214), though something similar appears at the beginning of Aeschylus’ Eumenides (24), where Dionysus-Bromius is said to have been a general. A mistaken view (τὸν θεὸν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν στρατηγεῖν), as the next sentence begins to say and 4.297 will make explicit (see note there): in fact, Fate has taken over as general (στρατηγούσης τῆς εἱμαρμένης), and she is not working for them.

Only here in Josephus, στοχαστής is clear in meaning (the agent noun of στοχάζομαι: “aim at, have a go at, try to figure out”) but hardly attested before him: once in lxx Isa 3:2, with judge, prophet, elder, company commander, in 4 different works by Philo (e.g., Opif. 45; Spec. 1.61; Praem. 46), Josephus’ most likely inspiration, and once in excerpts from the geographer Agatharchides. Another hapax legomenon in Josephus (see previous note) rarely attested earlier: the compound verb καταμαντεύομαι appears twice in the Hippocratic corpus and once each in Demosthenes, Aristotle, Polybius, Diodorus, Parthenius, Onasander, and Asclepiades. The combination of this rare verb with the preceding noun creates another artful touch. Such reversals of fortune constitute a basic theme in tragedy, in Polybius’ Histories, and in Josephus’ War. See note to “upheaval” at 1.5 in bjp 1a and, in bjp 1b, notes to “reversal of circumstances” at 2.113 and the “doing / suffering” contrast at 2.333 and 472.

Reading συσπειραθέντες with ms L, Niese, and other modern editors. This would be the only occurrence of συσπειράω (“contract, form up tightly, wrap up”) in Josephus, and it is a rare verb (14 earlier attestations, 5 in Xenophon), who uses it for close military formations. The reading συστραφέντες in mss pamvr (cf. Latin cateruatim densetis [corporibus], “their bodies in densely packed companies”) is not much different in meaning (passive of συστρέφω: “form [soldiers] in a compact body”), but is much more common generally and also used by Josephus 14 times, 6 of these the aorist participle as here; cf. 2.495; 3.302 for similar uses. The former reading seems preferable on text-critical grounds, with the latter understood as a change the more familiar, though there is not much in it. Modern military commanders are keenly aware of the dangers of heat loss in cold and wet environments, and plan carefully to mitigate them: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a571324.pdf, accessed 21 August 2020. Josephus quietly displays his awareness of military fieldcraft. Another unusual compound verb (συμφράσσω), only here in War (also Ant. 13.96; 19.226—a passage widely but implausibly thought to be copied directly from a Roman source). Before Josephus the verb is attested only 40 times, mainly in Aristotle (5), Polybius (4), and Diodorus (10). The type of shield indicated here (θυρεός) took its name from a “door” (θύρα). Rectangular in shape (though convex) like the Roman knee-to-shoulder scutum, unlike a round shield (ἀσπίς), it was easily linked with others. Although he was far away in Caesarea during these events, Josephus suggests that the Idumeans used the famous testudo (tortoise-shell, χελώνη) tactic, begun by Hellenistic armies and perfected by the legions: Polybius 9.41.1; 10.31.8 (Macedonian); Aeneas Tacticus 32.11; Onasander, Strat. 20; Livy 44.8; Cassius Dio 49.30–31 (Roman adaptations); cf. Parker 1928: 256; Gilliver 1999: 134–36. Josephus shows an ongoing interest in the tactic: 2.533–39 (Cestius’ legionaries outside Jerusalem’s walls); 3.270–75 (legionaries outside Iotapata defend against his assault from above).

See note at 4.160. A vivid verb (βασανίζω) meaning “doggedly examine or inquire,” and by extension in ancient contexts to torture (cf. 1.485, 527, 529, 577, 584, 586, 590). This description of inner torment on behalf of others is a surprising admission of noble sentiment, in men Josephus portrays as self-obsessed power-seekers. He elaborates on the emotion in 4.294.

Lit.: “hotter ones.” Josephus assumes the audience’s assumption that he is speaking of younger Disciples. See notes to “youths” at 2.286 in bjp 1b and at 4.128 in this volume. For him, as for Thucydides, Polybius, and others, young men typically show reckless over-confidence. See 4.206 and note to “colonnade” at 4.298 below. These are the alleged thousands of Ananus’ men closely surveilling the roofs of the inner-temple cloisters, apparently, for Disciples to leave over the walls. See note to “open” at 4.165. This is the third and last appearance of an unusual adverb in War. See note at 4.300 for the gate in question, apparently the main W entrance.

In keeping with 4.196–97: the scratch force of volunteer citizens raised by Ananus lacks weapons and is untrained. This double-compound adjective (δυσσύνακτος) appears only here in all extant ancient and medieval Greek literature. Taken with the other rare diction of the preceding sentences, it would seem to present Josephus to his audiences as something of a wordsmith. Assuming 4.206–207: the Disciples had to overpower the guards on duty and then to worry about the thousands of others who were to relieve them at the next shift. These would be dispersed in their homes, not congregated in the city’s public areas and ready to rush to the temple, because of the storm. The compound verb κατειλέω is not well attested before Josephus, who has it 3 times (also 3.296; Ant. 14.470), but it does appear 18 times in Herodotus and 3 in Xenophon.

Josephus’ Disciples reprise the determination of their adversary Ananus at 4.194—in the same language (there: πᾶν ὁτιοῦν παθεῖν προῃρεῖτο μᾶλλον ἢ περιιδεῖν ἐν τοιαύτῃ … ; here: πᾶν ὁτιοῦν παθεῖν ἢ περιιδεῖν τοσοῦτον πλῆθος …). The Idumeans, in turn, will resolve not to indulge themselves and turn a blind eye to their imperiled hosts (4.302). Josephus, reading the thoughts of the young Disciples from scores of km away, elaborates on the Disciples’ deep concern for the Idumeans indicated at 4.291. For the verb, see note at 4.25.

Josephus is a relatively heavy user of συνετός, here comparative, with 24 occurrences—most (15) in his biblical paraphrase. He may be influenced by the Greek Bible, which uses the word often (36 + 15 in ben Sira) as a translation of חכם. Thucydides (13), Euripides (17), and Aristotle (15) are the other notable users. As it happens, the wise are mistaken here, at least with respect to the prospects at issue. See note to 4.12 for the terminology. According to 4.206–207, implausibly, this was an above-legion strength force of 6,000 guarding the cloister-roof of the central temple structure. From 4.236–37, 269 it appears that Ananus and his group have taken all possible measures to bar access to the Idumeans; they guard the gates and walls closely.

As indeed the narrator has authoritatively reported at 4.209: Ananus would visit the guard-posts day and night, talking to his men.

This reality (στρατηγούσης τῆς εἱμαρμένης), authoritatively observed by the narrator, smashes the initial hope of Ananus’ group (4.288) that God has assumed the generalship in their behalf, by sending a devastating storm against the Idumeans (τὸν θεὸν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν στρατηγεῖν). Although it often functions as a noun, εἱµαρµένη is the perfect participle of μείρομαι (“take / receive one’s due”), with the result that the word means both “what is allotted / fated” and “fate” or “destiny.” Fate as an agent (ἡ εἱµαρµένη) does not appear in Herodotus, Thucydides, the tragedians, or Diodorus, and figures only 3 times in Polybius, 5 in Dionysius, once in Strabo (Plutarch has 101 occurrences). Before Josephus, the word / concept was used mostly by philosophers: pre-Socratics, Plato, and especially the Stoics. Cicero’s On Fate (De fato) is a rare surviving essay of many that circulated under that name (by Xenocrates, Epicurus, Chrysippus, Poseidonius, and Philopator among others). The 20 occurrences of εἱµαρµένη in Josephus qualify him as a heavy user. About a third (7) of his cases fall in his brief descriptions of Judean philosophical schools (see 2.119–66 and note at 2.162 in bjp 1b); cf. Moore 1921; Mason 1991: 133–42; Wächter 1969; Martin 1981; Klawans 2012. Otherwise, Fate appears most often in War (9 times, 3 in Antiquities, 1 in Apion) at signal moments, as here. In the 6 occurrences connected with temple’s destruction (as in the philosophical-school uses), Fate is either another name for God or a power emanating from God, an aspect of God. Thus, God sentenced the temple to ﬂames and then the fated day arrived—for there is no escape from Fate (6.250, 267). At 6.108 Josephus chastises himself for trying to save the rebels, whom God has condemned, thus in spite of Fate. He marvels at Fate’s precision in choosing the date of the temple’s destruction (6.268). It is both divine providence and a “certain just fate” that gives Vespasian hegemony (4.622; cf. Ant. 19.347). In this case, however, Fate seems much more like (a) Fortune, inasmuch as it intervenes unpredictably in human affairs (see note at 4.40 and to “short” at 4.43), or (b) a quasi-independent deity (note to “gates” in next sentence). Whereas Ananus and Jesus (and presumably the author Josephus) assume God’s favor for their just behavior, Fate seems to work independently and amorally to effect the tragic outcome now in train. None of this is systematic theology, of course. Josephus leaves unresolved, as most writers wisely do, large questions about the relations among fate, the gods, and free will. See note at 4.25. Anticipating the slaughter that the Idumeans are about to carry out, 4.305–44.

Night’s advancing (νύξ + προκόπτω) may have been a cliché, but it is found only here in Josephus, as in Paul, Rom 11:13 and later Christian authors quoting Paul; also Chariton, Call. 2.4.3. This is the only occurrence in Josephus of the rare compound verb ἐπακμάζω, attested before him only in Dionysius (5 times, rhetorical writings only), Strabo (1), and especially Philo (9 times in 7 works). See 4.206 and note. It seems most likely that Ananus’ men are surveilling the Disciples and inner temple from higher positions on the outer temple colonnade, W and E of the inner temple. If the inner temple’s few gates were easily blocked, the only escape route would be via rope over the walls. Perhaps, then, this is how they escape when Fate puts the sentries watching them to sleep. nb: this is the only occurrence of κοiμίζω (“put to sleep”) in Josephus. Fate here looks like Athena in Homer’s Odyssey, who suggests plans and tactics (Od. 2.267, 396; 5.427; 15.9; 16.233, 282), instils bravery in some (1.319; 8.7; 14.216), causes people to sleep (1.364; 5.491; 16.451; 19.604), and changes the weather (15.292). The Romans used strong saws for cutting and trimming stone and metal: see Wright 1985: 337–79; Wright 2000–2009 passim. Hacksaws, similar to modern varieties in shape, had been known for centuries; internet sites show examples of one with a dog-leg handle (Wroxeter) and another with a C- or bow-frame (Landesmuseum Zürich). Or “bolts on the gates”—here the outer city gates (cf. 4.300). It was normal for wooden gates to be reinforced and secured with bolts and bars. At 6.293 Josephus will claim that the massive E gate of the inner temple complex required 20 men to open and close it, and that it had massive bolts fixing it into the stone pavement when closed. At Ant. 6.273; 9.230 he mentions city gates in biblical times that had bolts for shutting them firmly against enemies. At 4.236 Ananus’ group have shut Jerusalem’s gates against the arriving Idumeans, apparently with more than usual security, whether by adding bars and bolts or by locking the normal ones in place and removing any simple way of shifting them to open the gates. Only the application of saws to these bars will do the job.

Having divided the Disciples in two groups, Josephus does not explain whether the hot-heads or the wise ran to the gates, since Fate’s intervention has obviated the question.

See note to “escaped notice” (same verb) at 4.62. See note to “tower opposite them” at 4.238. It appears that the Idumeans have been camped outside what is now the vicinity of the Jaffa Gate, the main entrance on the W side with relatively direct access to the temple, albeit after first traversing the Upper City and internal Tyropoeon Valley.

One of many details that Josephus, a prisoner of the Romans in Caesarea, could not have known from observation and doubtfully from reports. This looks like free dramatic composition. Wherever the sword was worn, it was normal to wield it with the right hand. Surviving reliefs show legionaries of the period normally wearing it on the right side, where it could be easily drawn without interference from the large shield on the left arm, but centurions, some cavalrymen and auxiliaries, and perhaps higher-ranking legionary officers with it on the left: Goldsworthy 2003: 134 and photos passim. It is unclear whether the Idumeans personally knew some of the Disciples, from previous visits to Jerusalem, or they simply figured out from the situation who was opening the gates for them.

See note at 4.25. See note at 4.243. Josephus has a deep and consistent interest in the psychological states and motives of his main actors. Although he had no way of knowing these by direct experience or conversation, they are a prominent feature of War. See note at 4.12. See note at 4.294. See note to “inciting” at 2.412. Josephus uses a rare compound verb (ἐπισείω, also at 1.215: “to shake at, provoke”) in relation to a personified danger.

Those of Ananus’ citizen army guarding the Disciples in the inner temple. The only occurrence of the rare compound verb προκινέω in Josephus. It is found before him only in Xenophon (3) and the Hippocratic corpus (4). Still standard coup tactics: seize vital points first (today, army headquarters, government centers, and broadcasting stations) before the populace knows what is happening, rather than create a general turmoil. The Idumeans will make the Disciples’ control of Jerusalem a fait accompli.

Another rare and vivid compound verb (ἀποφράσσω), used 14 times by Josephus but found before him mainly in medical use, in the Hippocratic corpus (18 times)—otherwise 1 or 2 occurrences in various writers. See 4.188–89 and note to “elevation” there. Josephus assumes throughout that the inner temple sat higher than the esplanade, which he also calls the lower temple court (5.190–200). If Ananus’ thousands concentrated on blocking the routes into the inner temple via its few gates, they could cause the Idumeans great difficulty in reaching the Disciples within.

The compound verb συνδοκέω, only here and at 4.629 in Josephus, is artful and unusual. Before him, Xenophon (16) and Plato (71) account for most occurrences in surviving texts. See note to “routes up” at 4.304. Coming from the W, the Idumeans would first go down and then up again to the temple mount and inner temple. Given the coming reference to the inner temple (next sentence, see note) as the Disciples’ base, τὸ ἱερόν here seems to mean here the temple esplanade on Jerusalem’s E hill as distinct from the city to the W. Or “awaiting the outcome of [their arrival].” Josephus uses a fancy verb, καραδοκέω, for the first of 6 times in War, plus 4 in Antiquities. Before him it is attested mainly in the tragedian Euripides (9), the supposedly non-tragic Polybius (32), and Diodorus (25). For collocation with μετέωρος see Polybius 8.20.8 and Diodorus 11.42.6. See note to “unsettled” (same adjective) at 4.118. See note to “sanctuary” at 4.150 and “house of God” at 4.163. Josephus usually distinguishes τὸ ἱερόν as the whole temple compound, including the large Court of Nations, from the separately walled and gated inner or proper temple, either co-extensive with or housing the shrine, sanctuary, holy place, or house of God. At 5.6–7 Josephus will describe Eleazar’s Disciple faction taking this “inner courtyard” of the shrine from John of Gischala, and at 5.104 will make his only other reference to “the inner temple,” when John’s faction take it back.

See 4.206 and note to “colonnades.” It seems that we should imagine (Josephus’ Roman audience could have had at best a hazy picture) Ananus’ guard force as distributed both on the outer colonnade, the “watch-brigade,” and besieging the Disciples from positions outside the gates of the inner temple in the Court of Nations. Perhaps the latter are the people Josephus has in mind, bivouacked closest the gates from which the Disciples burst out. See previous note. This is another artful compound: Josephus is the first attested user of προκοιτέω (“camp, keep watch in front of”; also at 6.68); it does not reappear before Cassius Dio in the 3rd cent. ce. Or “cut the throats of …” Josephus is partial to this vivid verb for killing; see note at 4.38. The double compound διανίστημι is hardly visible in classical literature (but Thucydides 4.128.5) or historiography. Polybius, Diodorus, and later Plutarch have it 7 times each, Philo 10. Josephus’ 11 uses fit the growing popularity of such forms.

Or “dominate”; see note at 4.202. See note at 4.71.

An original wordplay, combining the literal throwing down of weapons with the metaphorical surrender of the soul. Throughout this volume Josephus has confirmed his view that the soul (or mental disposition, resolve) is crucial to success in warfare. See notes at 4.34, 174, 193. When the Gamalans realized they could not escape Vespasian’s noose, Josephus describes them as withdrawing in their souls (4.49). Lit. “wails.” This tragic term (οἰμωγή) is rare in historians (but 18 times in Dionysius). It appears 23 times in Josephus, its 12 occurrences in War supporting the work’s tragic ethos. See note at 2.6 in bjp 1b. Josephus is the heaviest known user of σκέπω (“give shade, cover”), with 4 occurrences in War and one in Antiquities. The few occurrences in Polybius (2), Diodorus (2), or Dionysius (1) may have suggested the word to him. The 6 occurrences in Plutarch and 4 in Arrian suggest that it was becoming more popular at his time. Josephus makes good on his promise of even-handedness (1.1–8). He can recognize virtue, especially death-defying bravery, even among his enemies, compatriot and foreign. See note to “valor” at 4.33. His recognition is striking here because he often criticizes young men for their rashness.

Josephus’ 24 occurrences of κραυγή are spread throughout War 2–6 only: a vivid term for the scenes of turmoil that characterize the work, to which the Essene community provides a foil (see note at 2.132). Another word in the characteristic tragic lexicon of War, occurring 90 times. See notes at 1.9 in bjp 1b and 4.39 in this volume. As Josephus nears the central panel of the work, he clusters these thematic key words together to reinforce the themes announced in the prologue. The tragic turning point is the murder of Ananus and Jesus just below. This screaming would especially effective if done by men positioned on the W colonnade of the temple compound, yelling toward the city (see 4.206). See note to this most unusual, tragic verb at 4.67. One can easily imagine the shock of the populace that the Idumeans had already traversed the city and linked up with the Disciples to command the entire temple esplanade and its heights over the city, having broken out of the inner temple where Ananus had confined them, and having defeated the best of Ananus’ men. The situation of the populace would seem hopeless. See note to this tragic and thematic word-group at 2.339 in bjp 1b, and to “mourn over” at 1.9 in bjp 1a. Greek ἀργὰ δ ̓ ἀντεβόων καὶ ἀντωλοφύροντο. The compound verb ἀντιβοάω has only 6 attestations before Josephus’ 2 uses (also 3.92), 2 in Thucydides and 1 in Xenophon. He is the only attested user of ἀντολοφύρομαι before the 11th century. His combination of these verbs, which were quite intelligible but rare compounds or neologisms, presumably struck his audience as clever. See note to “shout and shriek” at 4.71.

Josephus is among the few ancient writers who use the compound verb ἐπαλαλάζω (3 times, all in War: see note to “war cry” at 4.20). But he is the first to use the double compound here, συνεπαλαλάζω, which will surface again only in the 10th cent. He continues to find artful words in this crucial passage of War. A reminder of Josephus’ introductory description at 4.231: “a turbulent and disorderly nation, hankering after commotion and upheavals,” now stressing their murderous nature in view of what is about to happen. See note at 4.196, of the Disciples. This language implies inhuman violence, taking no account of age, sex, or disposition among one’s victims. Cf. 2.496; 3.329; 6.283–84—all describe Roman soldiers’ lack of distinction when executing vengeance, sometimes in spite of orders. Maltreated from their perspective, in being (a) humiliatingly barred from entry to their mother-city (4.271–85) and (b) left exposed to the elements during a ferocious winter storm (4.286, 290).

See note at 4.110. By putting in the mouths of the Idumeans’ victims the same language (of συγγένεια) the Idumeans had used in appealing for entry to Jerusalem (4.240, 244, esp. 265 with 274), Josephus makes their deafness to such pleas (though not their savagery) understandable. This was another appeal that the Idumeans had made in seeking admission to the city (4.275, 280–81), which fell on deaf ears. Again, Josephus makes understandable their refusal to hear such a plea now. Josephus re-uses a phrase from 2.475 (cf. 4.563), which is not attested before him although Plutarch has similar phrases (Crass. 25.13; Pomp. 79.3; Alex. 16.11; Brut. 17.4).

See notes to “safety” and “rescue” at 4.51, 79. Finding security either by flight to a place of refuge (φυγῆς τόπος) or by being rescued in place (σωτηρία) was a logical pair, spelled out by Josephus at 3.424 in relation to the Judeans of Joppa: ἦν δ’ οὔτε φυγῆς τόπος οὔτε μένουσιν σωτηρία—they could not go, but they could not stay. Although similar expressions occasionally appear elsewhere (Diodorus 1.30.7), this was apparently not a cliché. More commonly, one wrote of finding security (σωτηρία) in flight. War, however, is a story of tragic hopelessness: there is no escape. The phrase ἐλπὶς σωτηρίας (“hope of safety, rescue, deliverance”) is found occasionally in Thucydides (1.65.1 plus 4), Euripides (5), Sophocles (1), Isocrates (5), Xenophon (4), Lysias (4), the Hippocratic corpus (8), Demosthenes (6), Lycurgus (2), Dinarchus (3), Menander (2), Diodorus (10), Dionysius (7 [5 in Roman Antiquities]), and Philo (5). Josephus’ model Polybius stands out, with 20 occurrences. The phrase is also characteristic of Josephus, occurring 16 times in War, increasingly as the story develops (and negated), 10 times in Antiquities. See note to this characteristic compound verb in War at 4.22. I.e., the onslaught forced Ananus’ men out of the positions they had been occupying as sentries watching the temple. The compound verb ἐκβιάζω, only here in War and 4 times in Ant. 1–16, was not classical. It occurs in Sophocles once, then in Aristotle (1), Theophrastus (4), Greek Bible and apocrypha (5), Polybius (9), Diodorus (9), Dionysius (5), and Philo (4) before Josephus. The Idumeans and Disciples now mixed together (4.306), the former providing crucial energy for the slaughter (4.310). See note this characteristic phrase at 4.25. The scenario of being trapped on the outer temple colonnade (cf. 4.206) and ending one’s life by hurling oneself down from that great height, is anticipated in 2.49 (Romans burn colonnade and trap Judeans above) and reprised in 6.180–81 (Judeans burn colonnade and trap Romans). Here, Judeans and Idumeans trap compatriots led by Ananus, creating the core of the civil strife (stasis) that pervades War. Josephus enhances the work’s symmetry by using forms of the unusual verb κρημνίζω (here κατακρημνίζω) in all 3 settings; on the verb, see note to “tumbling look” at 4.7 and “bank” at 4.65. Since the present example falls in War’s middle panel, we seem to see a deliberate structuring intention. See note to this tragic theme-word in War at 4.92. The unusual phrase ἔμοιγε δοκεῖν appears to be distinctively characteristic of Josephus’ War, which has it 5 times (2.151, 479; 3.302; 6.4 plus the more common ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ at 5.552 and ἔμοι γε δοκεῖ at Ant. 6.346); see note at 2.151 in bjp 1b. To be sure, the mss are not consistent, with at least pamv favoring the finite verb in general, or mvrc at 6.4 (but vrc giving the infinitive at 5.552!). The presence of the strange infinitive in some mss leads text critics to consider it (the more difficult reading, hence easier to explain as the one that attracted ameliorating changes) more likely original. Whether Josephus means that certain death from the plunge was worse than taking one’s chances by facing the enemy (with survival theoretically possible), or rather that jumping from a great height was more gruesome than dying by enemy swords, is unclear.

I.e., the temple esplanade including the Court of Nations, surrounded by the large colonnade on which many of Ananus’ guards were apparently stationed. Contrast the “inner temple” (4.305; see note), where the Disciples had been based. This is the first of 9 occurrences of τὸ ἔξωθεν ἱερόν in his works, and the other passages confirm this meaning: 6.151, 220, 244, 283, 324; Ant. 8.97; 14.77; 20.192. See note to this gory image, characteristic of War, at 4.72. The proximity of ἐπικλύζω and ὑπ ̓ ἀμηχανίας there and here confirms that Josephus gravitated toward certain dramatic word clusters. Also because he did not witness the events, he had to be more concerned with writing appropriately than with describing the scene precisely. Although the number is far too high for the city’s likely population of ca. 20,000 (Geva 2014; cf. Mason 2016a: 438–39), in Josephus’ story world it is plausible, given that Ananus has put 6,000 on guard duty per shift (4.206), and other citizens would have been caught in the fray.

Recalling, in the same language, what the Idumeans were persuaded not to do when they first entered the city (4.302, 305).

Josephus has παρανάλωμα here and at 5.16. It is an exceedingly rare compound, attested before him only in a fragment of (4th-cent. bce) Demades and twice in Philo: Flac. 12; Legat. 369, these “historical” works being the most likely source of inspiration for Josephus. See note at 4.160. In this case, again, the plural clearly refers to these two former high priests, Ananus and Jesus, who are targeted, captured, and executed (cf. 4.160, 238, 271)—rather than chief priests as a group. The latter remain intact for a surprisingly long time (4.572; 6.114).

See note to “destroyed” at 4.25; this is a variant translation of the same frequent verb. Given the long build-up to the murders and the moving follow-up, to what turns out to the dramatic pivot of the work, this brief and bland notice is remarkably spare. Plutarch will enjoy using this compound verb (ἐπισκώπτω): 34 times, though exclusively in his biographies. Since Appian will also use it fairly often (13 times), Josephus’ 4 uses (also 1.479; 6.174; Apion 1.208) seem to mark a new popularity. It is attested before him only 31 times, mainly in Xenophon (8 occurrences), though also in Plato (1), Aristotle (4), Polybius (2), and Dionysius (1), and fragments of Antiphon and others. Anticipating 4.319. Note Josephus’ remarks on good will to this point (4.213, 216, 240): John of Gischala feigns good will toward Ananus and the populace, though his allegiance is to the Disciples, and the Idumeans have not arrived with good will toward the populace, shared by Ananus’ group. Whether the Idumean-Disciple executioners had any such thought, Josephus presents them as viewing Ananus as foolish in his affection for the citizens of Jerusalem, whereas they seek personal power. See notes to “power” at 4.85 and “tyrants’ home” at 4.151. I.e., the carefully argued speech above, admonishing the Idumeans outside the walls: 4.237–70.

The scenario of leaving enemy corpses unburied would have evoked, for ancient audiences, Sophocles’ tragedy Antigone, which revolves around the insistence of Antigone on providing some sort of burial for her brother Polyneices, against the order of Creon, King of Thebes (Sophocles, Ant. 21–39), and Euripides’ Suppliants on the same theme (Euripides, Suppl. 54–62). These plays are particularly relevant because they explore the conflict between the pragmatic need to submit to absolute power (as Ismene counsels Antigone) and adherence to a higher natural law of filial piety. Leaving bodies unburied was widely seen as a scandal; cf. Thucydides 7.75.3 (Athenians forced to leave comrades unburied at Syracuse). Why this should be called impiety, rather than injustice toward the people involved, becomes clear at 4.382 below: the Deity (represented by the Sun) is defiled by having to look upon death. Josephus is presumably thinking of Deut 21:22–23, which requires burial of exposed criminals before sunset, and Josh 8:29; 10:27 (cf. War 3.377; John 19:31 on Jesus’ burial), which demand the burial even of enemies. His later summaries of Judean law and custom stress that every corpse, even of an executed criminal or a fallen enemy, is entitled to its piece of ground (Ant. 4.265–66; Apion 2.211–12). The scandal of unburied corpses reoccurs in various forms throughout War (1.594; 2.327, 465; 3.377). The refusal of the Disciples and followers of John and later Simon to allow corpses to be buried encapsulates their heinous lawlessness (4.360; 5.512–18; 5.568); in an Antigone-like inversion of natural law, they even make burying the dead a capital crime (4.330–36; 5.531–32). See note at 2.75 in bjp 1b. Although the Hasmonean Alexander Janneus reportedly crucified his enemies (1.97, 113), this humiliating and excruciating punishment had no place in Judean criminal law, from the Bible to the rabbinic corpus. The Romans, adapting it from others, made it famous with their mass crucifixions and, especially, in the execution of Jesus of Nazareth. Josephus mentions the punishment a few times (e.g., 2.75, 253, 308; 5.449–51), and proudly relates that he was able to rescue some acquaintances from crosses after Jerusalem’s fall (Life 420–21; 2 of the 3 died). Here he claims that Judeans took down even nondescript criminals and political rebels punished by Roman authorities (audiences in Rome would understand) for proper burial. He may be further suggesting that Judeans in the Jerusalem area had an agreement with Roman authorities about this in deference to their laws. For it appears, from patchy evidence, that (a) otherwise crucified bodies were often left to decompose and be eaten by birds, as an example to others, and even guarded against removal, although (b) in many cases, and normally in later law, friends and families could secure a body for burial. See Chapman 2008; Cook 2011. Josephus’ implication that Judeans regularly removed the crucified for burial suggests a blanket privilege, though perhaps obtaining only in Judea proper, seemingly at odds with Philo’s remark that bodies could normally be retrieved in Alexandria only on the emperor’s birthday (Flac. 83). In any case, it was an outrage, obvious to any ancient reader, that innocent men of the highest standing should be murdered at all and, if murdered, left unburied. Josephus has καταδίκη only here and incidentally at Ant. 17.338. It is lightly attested before him, e.g.: Thucydides 2, Demosthenes 6, Polybius 1, Diodorus 5, especially Dionysius 11, Philo 2, Acts 1, but Plutarch has it 37 times.

The capture of the city is the overriding theme of War, so much so that the work was often known by a form of this name; see note to “captured” at 4.180. It is clear from 4.320–21 that Josephus means this in practical, not merely symbolic or spiritual, terms: Ananus would have saved the city, either by a negotiated peace or by indomitable resistance. He was the last hope. This remark forms an inclusio with 4.151: “he might well have preserved the city if he had escaped the hands of the plotters.” Ananus ii had briefly served as high priest in 62 ce (possibly 59/60). Now he has stepped forward with Jesus as the leader of reasonable thinking in Jerusalem’s crisis; see note at 4.151. Or “rescue, security.” See note to “safety” at 4.51. At Apion 2.159 Josephus will use similar language of Moses, who, just when he had reached the pinnacle of power and could have degenerated into tyranny, committed himself to the σωτηρία (safety, preservation) of the people, his chief duty as their leader (ἡγεμών). In both cases, Josephus sees the leader as somehow chosen by the people, which appears to mean that they eagerly cooperated with his leadership when offered, not that they freely selected him. Or “with throats cut”; cf. 4.38. The word-count feature of Accordance indicates that War 4 (Niese text) contains 17,624 words, in which case the halfway point comes at 8,812 words, which falls in the next sentence. Granted that Josephus did not likely count words (though see Ant. 20.267), it is remarkable how close to the center of Book 4, hence of War as a whole, is this pivotal scene of murder of Ananus and Jesus. See Introduction in bjp 1a. Or “republic, commonwealth.” See note at 4.173: Josephus uses the standard Greek equivalent of Latin res publica. See note to the verb at 4.25. A potent remark. It is not only that those living in Jerusalem have lost their civic apparatus, but rather Judeans (Ioudaioi) everywhere are on the way to losing their ethno-political home. To understand this, we need to bear in mind ancient assumptions about the connection of a people (ethnos), no matter where its members live as migrant minorities, with its mother-city, the home of its political life and laws (see note to this term at 4.123). Josephus illustrates this nexus in many ways, e.g. at 7.43–62, 100–111 (Judeans of Antioch cannot be expelled because their own land is in ruins).

The pair σεμνός + δίκαιος (here superlative) was natural and it appears occasionally among the orators (Isocrates, Or. 12.249; Lysias, And. 14; Demosthenes, Fals. leg. 272; Aristocr. 64). Cf. Xenophon, Mem. 3.5.20 and Polybius, who denies these virtues to the historian Timaeus (8.11.4). Like many orators, Josephus favors the “rule of 3.” If we read the first term of this triad (εὐγενεία … ἀξία … τιμή) as “nobility,” in keeping with Josephus’ most common usage (see note to “mother-city” at 4.181), the qualities overlap considerably. I render εὐγενεία as “noble birth” in this case, however, because this literal sense of the word suits Ananus ii, son of the first century’s most influential high priest (see note to “chief priests” at 4.151). The adjective ἰσότιμος is not classical. After a brief appearance in the Hippocratic corpus, it is well represented only in Dionysius’ Roman Antiquities (6 times) and especially Philo’s works (35 times), Josephus’ most likely influences, before he uses the word 5 times (here substantivized with a neuter article), Plutarch’s 9 uses and Lucian’s 11 suggest that the word was entering general circulation around this time. Given their proximity, Josephus’ only other uses of the word (4.389, 393) suggest a deliberate contrast with John and his fickle followers: unlike Ananus, such tyrants cannot bear the thought of equal honor with others. The few examples of this unusual adverb (ἐκτόπως) before Josephus, who has it only here and at 2.136 (on the Essenes) follow a typical pattern: Hippocratic corpus, Aristotle, Menander, Polybius (1 each), Diodorus and Dionysius (2 each), Philo (4). Plutarch (1) and Lucian (2) will also use it. Josephus continues to employ unusual diction artfully. See note to this rare word at 4.246, where Jesus uses it sarcastically of the Idumeans. The contrast with Ananus here and noble Zacharias soon (4.335), genuine friends of freedom, seems calculated. Cf. 4.358, where Josephus’ encomium for slain Gorion includes a similar remark. The immediate context in War, the larger context of Josephus’ corpus, and prevailing usage of the late 1st cent. ce all indicate that Josephus refers not to democracy as a form of government favored by Ananus, but rather to an attitude that respects both the citizenry and the laws enacted to protect them. In the immediate context, any prospect that the populace could govern themselves is absurd. The chief-priestly aristocrat Ananus, having declined to flee Jerusalem with many of the upper class after the ambush of Cestius (2.556), rousing the idle populace to action, forming them into an army, and giving them a disciplined structure (4.151, 160, 162–207). Josephus’ oeuvre makes clear that “aristocracy” anchored in the hereditary priesthood is the only form of governance acceptable to God, and the one enshrined in Moses’ constitution (Ant. 4.184–87, 223; 6.36, 83–85; 11.111; 14.91; 19.178; Mason 2012). The persuasive-seeming speeches by Korah (4.11–34) and Zimri (4.126–58), advocating the participatory self-governance of free citizens, are contrary to God’s evident choice of Moses, Aaron, and subsequent high priests to protect the laws. As in other Greek literature of the period (cf. Plutarch, Prae. ger. reip. 5, 21), “democracy” here seems to mean government for the benefit of the populace, not by them (Swain 1996: 173, 281). Accordingly, Roman aristocratic government under the leadership of the consuls (Ant. 19.162, 173, 187; cf. 19.178) is also called democracy.

On interests and advantage see note to “advantageous” at 4.177. Since λυσιτελέω (being in one’s interest) or its adjective overlaps in meaning with seeking what is advantageous (τὸ συμφέρον; cf. 4.177 and Polybius 22.8.6–7), the crucial distinction here is between what is privately (τῶν ἰδίων) and what is publicly (κοινῇ) advantageous. Dionysius (Ant. rom. 5.10.2; 11.9.3) makes the same contrast in similar language. War’s Ananus is thus the negative image of the tyrant, a thematically destructive force in War, who seeks power for himself and is willing to sacrifice the common good for his purposes (see 4.151 and note to “tyrants’ home”). Ananus rather embodies the principles described in Plutarch’s nearly contemporary Advice to the Statesman. Contrast, however, the same Ananus’ image in Ant. 20.197–203. Of Josephus’ 6 uses of προσκοπέω, 4 fall in War 2 (2.35, 31, 257, 396; also Ant. 18.381) and refer to pondering a problem in advance. These few instances still make Josephus a heavy user of this rare compound, which is attested only 21 times before him (Thucydides 3, Euripides 4, Sophocles 1, Xenophon 2, Anaximenes 1, Theophrastus 2, Menander 6, Dionysius 2). See the note to “skill” in this sentence. Josephus does not explain the necessity: simply to prepare Jerusalem for a Roman attack, to feign support for military action in order to retain popular support, or to save face (for example). See note at 4.249. The adverb δεξιῶς is another simple but surprisingly rare adverb. Josephus’ 8 instances (the other 7 in Ant. 1–19) account for a 5th of the first 40 attestations in the tlg. Before him the main users are Aristophanes (5), Diodorus (6), and Dionysius (5). It does not appear in the classical historians or Polybius. Josephus’ claim that Ananus and his elite group never wanted war but prepared for it nevertheless recalls his comments on this ostensible leader of war preparations at 2.648–51; it also fits with the two-track policy followed by leading aristocrats according to Josephus’ Life (22). See notes at 4.146, 164. The bifurcation between preparing for war and wanting peace has struck modern historians as a post-factum whitewash of Josephus’ class: we fought Rome, yes, but we never wanted war! This reading assumes that if the chief-priest-led elite had not desired war, they would not have made such preparations, and their actions speak louder than Josephus’ words (Goodman 1987: 167; Price 1992: 32–33, 187; McLaren 1998: 203, 233; 2003). One might ask, however, whether this view does not presuppose modern conditions of free speech in democratic societies, where authenticity and truth-telling are prized and notionally demanded of politicians (if rarely seen). History, ancient and modern, is filled with examples of leaders who truly did not want war but saw no alternative, whether from fear of removal or assassination, from principled determination to remain in harmony with the popular will, from fear of not striking a bellicose enemy first, or to save face. In studying the ancient world, we must take particular account of the imperative to act honorably: more than any particular course of action (fighting or not fighting, accommodation or resistance), what mattered was the way in which leaders conducted themselves (cf. Eckstein 1995). Plutarch’s Advice to the Statesman assumes that political leaders are more inclined toward peace than the impetuous populace, for they have a clearer picture of the consequences of conflict. But this does not mean that they can simply declare their sincere views, or abandon their people. They must try to win them over to the more salutary course, which usually means pretending to agree with them at first. This is what Josephus’ Ananus does—whether or not the historical Ananus did so.

Although καθόλου (δ’) εἰπεῖν sounds like a cliché, and Josephus will use it again at 5.390 (in his character’s speech), it is attested mainly in Aristotle’s work (6 times in Topics, 3 in the Rhetoric, and at Part. anim. 697b) and that of his student Theophrastus (4 times). Musonius Rufus has it once (Ep. 1.1) and Plutarch twice in the Moralia: Pyth. orac. 397c; Sera 559e. See note at 4.249. See note to “forcefulness with words” (re: the orator supporting Antipas in the succession struggle after Herod’s death) at 2.21 and 2.26 (re: Antipater the nephew of Herod, against Archelaus) in bjp 1b. For similar expressions (here: δεινὸς γὰρ ἦν εἰπεῖν τε καὶ πεῖσαι τὸν δῆμον), see 1.453; Ant. 4.14; 14.324. This is not a throwaway line: the speech that Josephus presents from (i.e., that he wrote for) Ananus, 2.163–92, meets the criteria of the “forceful” subset of the “elevated” or grand style, as distinct from simple or medium-level speech, outlined by Demetrius’ On Style; see note to “spoke” at 4.162. For Josephus, however, being an expert communicator was no index of moral probity; demagogues could be dangerously effective speakers (Ant. 4.14; Life 40; Mason 2011–2012). I.e., those impeding the established leadership, seeking peace, which Josephus credits to Ananus’ chief-priestly and Pharisee-led group: from the militants under Menachem and the priestly faction led by Eleazar son of Ananias (2.407–19) to the Disciples recently allied with John of Gischala (4.160–61, 209). Or “a long delay / attrition, a very wearing experience, a hard slog” (πλείστην … τριβήν). Literally meaning “rubbing,” τριβή usually has a metaphorical sense, with various nuances: wearing down, spending time, attrition, frustrating delay. Few others use the noun as liberally as Josephus: Plato (for whom it is practice or experience) has it 10 times, Polybius 21, and Dionysius 11. In Josephus’ 12 examples it usually means “delay,” which could fit here (cf. Latin mora), though the adjective might suggest a harrowing experience. A reminder of the chasm between ancient and modern categories. Although Ananus was a former high priest, with no known military training or experience, the militants in Jerusalem who had rebuffed and then attacked Cestius’ legion chose him along with the prominent Pharisee Joseph son of Gorion as “supreme commanders” (αὐτοκράτορες). They in turn chose such “generals” as the young and likewise untrained Josephus to prepare regional defences against the expected Roman onslaught (2.562–69). Ananus has been acting as Jerusalem’s general, overseeing the production of weapons and armor (2.648–64), and more recently recruiting a citizen army to defeat the Disciples (4.206–207).

Another rare and vivid compound verb (παραζεύγνυμι), only here and at Ant. 8.134 (of adjacent buildings), which Josephus presumably chose for effect. But what effect? Before him, it appears most relevantly in Euripides, Ion 22 and fragments of other plays, in one of Demosthenes’ multi-purpose introductions (Exord. 55.2), of one Athenian political leader constraining another, and in Judith 10.17, Diodorus (3 times), and Dionysius (once). Diodorus’ final reference (18.39.7) resembles Demosthenes’: one commander is yoked to another to prevent either man’s unbridled ambition. Josephus may be suggesting, then, that Jesus had been yoked to Ananus by other influential persons as a check on his designs, or that Jesus, lacking Ananus’ qualities, was something of a brake on him, or simply that Jesus happened to be his current co-leader (after Joseph son of Gorion, previous note). A surprisingly “faint-praise” compliment in a eulogy, especially because in Josephus’ later writings Ananus’ integrity comes with a question mark (Ant. 20.197–203; Life 195–203), whereas Jesus, though at times corrupted with Ananus, appears as an old friend of Josephus and his father, who warns Josephus of a plot (led by Ananus, at the instigation of John and leading Pharisees) to remove him from Galilee (Life 204).

Note similar phrasing, about God’s condemning or passing sentence, at 5.559 and, with οἶμαι as here, at Ant. 8.216. See note on this basic theme of War, to “polluted feet” at 4.150. Cf. the thematic summary at 5.19, where Josephus interrupts his narrative to address Jerusalem in the second person (before half-apologizing for such an interruption of emotion, 5.20): “O miserable city, what have you suffered in such a measure [as the harrowing civil strife] from the Romans, who came in to purify with fire (πυρὶ καθαροῦντες) your internecine hatreds?” This in turn recalls 1.10: Titus and the Romans brought fire to the temple involuntarily, as a consequence of civil strife. The verb here is the rarer compound ἐκκαθαίρω, to purify completely or purge. The noun φιλοστοργία (“very tender affection”) is best attested from Xenophon (Cyr. 1.4.3) onward, mainly in Polybius (4), 2 and 4 Maccabees (3), Diodorus (10), Philo (6), and Josephus (10)—Josephus thus being a relatively heavy user. The cognate verb φιλοστοργέω, here as a participle, is much rarer: only 4 attestations in surviving literature (and 3 in fragments) before this lone occurrence in Josephus: Plato, Leg. 927a; Polybius 5.74.5; Diodorus 19.33.2; 31.19.3, none of which looks promising as inspiration for Josephus. He is using artful language.

Ananus for a few months in 62 or 59/60 (see note at 4.151), Jesus for a longer period in 64–66 ce (note at 4.160). Josephus would have been absent from Jerusalem for most of Jesus’ time in office (Life 13–16). See note at 4.164. This is Josephus’ only use of the phrase (τῆς κοσμικῆς θρησκείας). The adjective could have several meanings: “adorned, fashionable, ordered, worldly.” The noun is characteristic of Josephus (see note at 4.218), however, and his emphasis on Jerusalem’s temple as a place of worship, even for foreigners, in the next sentence as elsewhere (e.g., 2.409–417; 4.275; 5.17–18), suggests that the adjective means “worldwide, universal.” Josephus uses προσκυνέω more often (98 times) than most authors, perhaps influenced by the lxx, which has it nearly 200 times, usually rendering biblical שחה. Usually, Josephus speaks of people, including foreigners, making obeisance to God in the temple (e.g., 1.73; 2.341, 414, 444; recently 4.262—see note). He can also speak of the world’s offering obeisance to Rome (2.360, 366, 380), of prostrating oneself before a king (Ant. 6.302, 334; 7.2, 114, 187), and at Ant. 11.331–33 he describes Alexander the Great’s move from receiving obeisance to making obeisance to the Judean high priest. Although public nakedness was humiliating in any case, and dying without the dignity of covering was to die as an animal, the particular force of Josephus’ remark here comes from his contrast with the most meaningful covering in the world—the high-priestly robe—recently worn by each man. See note at 4.174 for the word. War’s tragic air and the recent evocation of Sophocles’ Antigone (see note to “unburied” at 4.317) make it likely that the phrase “fodder for dogs” alludes to the same work. In Sophocles, Ant. 988–1032 (the phrase is at 1017), the prophet Teiresias explains to King Creon that he can no longer offer sacrifice because the altars have been tainted by birds and dogs who have eaten the unburied corpse of Polyneices, a scandalous violation of cosmic order. Josephus’ audience in Rome would understand as well as Judeans that if sacrifices, supposed to be the vehicle of peace with the divine (pax deorum), lost their efficacy the results would be dire, in Josephus’ Jerusalem as in Creon’s Thebes. Cf. Creon’s order at Sophocles, Ant. 169–74.

All 9 occurrences of στενάζω in Josephus are in War 1–5, strengthening the tragic feel of this work (see next note). Before him it is absent from classical historiography or Polybius and best represented in the tragedians Aeschylus (4), Euripides (24), Sophocles (7), and Lycophron (6) as well as the lxx (27). Diodorus and Dionysius have it once each, Philo 9 times. Plutarch uses it liberally (22 times), especially in his Lives. See note to cognate noun (“lamentations”) at 4.107. This personification of Virtue and Vice/Evil (Aretē vs. Kakia [or Cacia]), unique in Josephus, recalls the contest between them for Heracles’ devotion, an old story recalled via Prodicus in Xenophon, Mem. 2.1.21 and Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 6.10.

See note at 4.160. Or “the citizenry.” The Greek statement (τῶν Ἰδουμαίων τὸ πλῆθος τὸν λαὸν … ἐπιόντες ἔσφαζον) is more forceful than a translation can easily convey. The Idumeans, described as a common mob (πλῆθος: 345 times in War, often for the common people, generally for impersonal masses or numbers), attack “the people” (ὁ λαός). The latter term appears only 39 times in War (this is the first occurrence in Book 4) and consistently refers to Judeans as a corporate body, in general or in one locale (e.g., 1.20. 55, 70, 122, 153; 2.1, 226; 5.36, 185). Josephus has indicated that the uncouth Idumeans, although they follow Judean customs and worship, remain a distinct ethnos (see notes at 4.224, 231). Here they are the enemy of the Judean people, assisted by the Disciples—themselves renegades from Judean law and custom. For the comparison of Judeans with a “herd of animals” (ὥσπερ ἀνοσίων ζῴων ἀγέλην) see 4.170, though there the qualifier is “irrational, mute.” The adjective here Josephus has earlier used of the Disciples (cf. 4.171, 260). It does not appear in the Greek Bible (translating Hebrew), but the application to animals presumably suggests the unclean (ἀκάθαρτος) animals listed in Deuteronomy 14. Ineligible for eating, let alone for sacrifice, they could be killed in any manner.

Although the sense would be easily decipherable, εἰκαῖος is an uncommon adjective, rarely found (mainly in fragments) before Polybius’ 4 uses. It is favoured by Philo, who has it 15 times before Josephus’ 8 (all in War). See note to “destroyed” at 4.25; this is a variant translation of the same frequent verb. Cf. 4.333: Josephus implausibly claims that 12,000 fell in this category. This (ἀναίρεσις) is the far less common (11 times in War) cognate of Josephus’ favored euphemism for killing (ἀναιρέω), which appears so often (218 times in War) that I have not supplied notes; it usually appears as “take out, do / make away with, remove, dispose of” or similar. Josephus may intend a word-play by juxtaposing differently prefixed forms of the same root in the middle voice: ὑπερτίθημι (ὑπερτίθεμαι, hold over) in the hope that they will προστίθημι (προστίθεμαι, side with).

The widely read Xenophon, in Const. Lac. 9.6, helped to make famous the Spartans’ preference for death (προαιρέω + θάνατος, as here) before dishonor. Cf. War 1.311 (death before captivity). See note at 4.179.

The pair of tortures here (μαστιγόω, στρεβλόω) might have been inspired by Isocrates in Trapez. 15 (a standard pair for torturing slaves as witnesses), Plato in Resp. 361e (Glaucon’s proposal, reminiscent of Job, for distinguishing the truly just and unjust, irrespective of appearance), or ps-Demosthenes in Syntax. 14. In Josephus’ corpus, the passage recalls 2.152, on Essene endurance of torture and death during the war against Rome (it is not spelled out that Romans were the torturers, though that seems the natural reading), and anticipates Apion 1.43; 2.219, 232–34, 271–72, 277, where he repeatedly cites Judean courage in the face of torture and death as proof of the national character with its unique fidelity to its ancestral laws. The second verb means literally “twist, strain,” but in contexts of torture assumes an instrument such as a wheel or rack (cf. lsj s.v.), on which limbs and joints are twisted and stretched by torsion until dislocated (cf. Tacitus, Ann. 15.57). In the Roman world as in other cultures before and since, decapitation by the sword—quick and therefore honorable—was reserved for citizens or the higher class (later formally honestiores), whereas lower orders, foreigners, and slaves died after various kinds of torture: crucifixion, drowning in a sack, burning, or as prey for animals. See Mommsen 1899: 907–931; Jones 1972: 108–109; Robinson 2007: 106.

A reminder (cf. 4.139) that the Disciples and their brutal supporters from the countryside were brazen enough to seize their victims in daylight. Perhaps night-time disposal of the corpses is meant to suggest caution in managing their image. Appearing as a factory of death would presumably encourage the city folk to flee or resist. Although the Disciples and Idumeans have fanned out through the city in their killing spree (4.314, 318, 326–27), the confinement of young nobles (4.327) and use of torture instruments (4.329) implies a headquarters for the killing of the young nobles. From 4.336 it appears that they continue to use a room in the temple precinct, though not necessarily in the inner temple. Hence the need to cast out the dead to make room for more, though Josephus’ figure for those killed in this way (12,000) would require the entire temple esplanade. See note at 2.4 in bjp 1b. In the absence of modern penitentiary systems, ancient authorities normally kept a person in chains while awaiting a decision about corporal or capital punishment, though persons of political importance might be kept chained for indefinite periods, with friends permitted to bring food and care (cf. Agrippa i in Ant. 18.109–204, 228–37).

See note to “secretly” at 4.139, for the possible tragic connotations. This rare compound (περίσκεψις) appears only here in Josephus’ corpus, before him mainly in Philo (5 times, including Legat. 259). Strabo has it once (Geog. 4.4.2), but otherwise it turns up only in fragments of Aeschylus (1), Chrysippus (2), Poseidonius (3), and Arius Didymus (1). Philo seems, as often, his most likely inspiration. See note to “groaning” at 4.325. There the verb is στενάζω, a synonym of the rarer στένω here (the only occurrence in War, though it appears in Ant. 6.290; 7.234). Like the other form, the present form is found chiefly in classical tragedy: Aeschylus 29, Euripides 65, Sophocles 18, Lycophron 8. Homer has it 6 times, Aesop 8, Aristophanes 5, the Hippocratic corpus and Demosthenes 4 each. Polybius is the first historian to use it, sparingly (2), followed by Diodorus (2) and Dionysius (3). Philo is partial to the word (24 times). This is one typical profile for precursors to unusual vocabulary in Josephus: the tragedians, Hellenistic historians, and Philo. He may use this form for variation, having recently used στενάζω.

See note to this tragic language at 4.128. Dual nouns, old-fashioned by the late 1st cent. ce, are rare in Josephus (7 in Antiquities). All 4 in War refer to hands (here with the dative χεροῖν; cf. 3.72; 5.73; 6.361). Not only do these examples nod toward the fashionable Atticizing of his time (see Introduction in bjp 1a), but they may evoke classical tragedy, since 129 of the first 130 occurrences of this dative dual come in Aeschylus, Euripides, and Sophocles, and rarely in other writers (Plato 2, Aristotle 1, Polybius 4) before Josephus. Strangely, these classical tragedians have the accusative dual, which is much more widely attested elsewhere (Homer, Xenophon, Plato) only once (Euripides, Andr. 115). Josephus apparently continues his allusions to Sophocles’ Antigone (see notes to “relatives” at 4.201, “unburied” at 4.317, and “beasts” at 4.324). For the daring night-time sprinkling of dust on the bodies of Thebes’ enemies, especially Polyneices, see Sophocles, Ant. 203–209, 215–19 (though not a proper burial, it is “enough for the ghost’s peace”), 245–57, 342. See note at 4.62 for rare prior usage of this adjective. Josephus might have intended a negative sense: “reckless” (as adverb at 4.123).

See notes to “8,500 dead” at 4.313 and to the verb at 4.25. Both numbers look grossly inflated, in a city with a realistically estimated population of ca. 20,000 (Geva 2014). To have 12,000 young aristocrats would require a city the size of Rome. Whereas we can usually divide Josephus’ figures by 10 to reach historical plausibility, in this case division by 20 would still be doubtfully high (600), by 100 perhaps more likely. Perhaps he means to suggest to his Roman audience that indeed Jerusalem was a city of comparable size.

A striking example of Philonic diction in Josephus. Of just 6 attestations of the compound verb διαμισέω before Josephus (who has it elsewhere only at War 1.123), 5 are in Philo (Sobr. 23; Migr. 20; Abr. 137; Spec. 3.167; Legat. 167). The other is in Aristotle, Pol. 1274a, a passage that coincidentally describes Solon’s establishment of law-courts. Reading ἀνέδην with mss pamc. Josephus uses this adverb 12 times, all in War and usually in conjunction with verbs of killing and destruction. Mss lvr have ἀναίδην, here as in several of the other cases, though it would seem to be a much later defective form of the adverb, rather than the accusative form of the adjective “shameless.” See note to “without a care” at 4.92, where there is a similar constellation of terms: Titus’ soldiers have been killing indiscriminately, but Titus has had his fill and so decides not to overrun Gischala, with the fateful result that John can escape to Jerusalem. See note at 4.72. Or “began to make a show of.” See note at 4.127: dissimulation is John’s leading character trait, which he now shares with the Disciples (4.340, 342), and a relatively prominent theme in Josephus’ corpus generally. The simple middle verb εἰρωνεύομαι here is attested only 30 times before Josephus, who has it 4 times (also War 1.209; 2.298; Life 367). Nearly half of the earlier occurrences are in Plato, Gorgias, and Aristotle in relation to Socrates. The orators Demosthenes, Anaximenes, and Dinarchus have it 6 times among them. Dionysius is the first historian to use it, twice in his Roman Antiquities, twice in his rhetorical study of Demosthenes. Or “court-rooms and judgments / verdicts.” Contrast Aristotle, Pol. 1274a, which expresses appreciation for Solon’s having established law-courts with juries chosen by lot. Such language should not lead us to imagine modern-style courts. Athens, which provided a model for many poleis, used courts with hundreds of citizen jurors, in large enclosed spaces around the agora or on the Pnyx hill in the open. Rome had complex and changing methods of selecting often 3 to 5 dozen jurors (Mommsen 1899: 213–21). In Rome as in the provinces it was common for magistrates to try cases with the advice of a substantial consilium, a practice also found in Judea (War 2.25; Ant. 14.168–76; cf. 17.229–30). In the capital, trials were generally held in public, but could also occur in camera. Places of execution varied likewise: the forum, Mars Hill, or the place of a crime (Mommsen 1899: 913–14). The clearest indications of legal process in Jerusalem come in the Mishnah tractate Sanhedrin, though it was compiled in the early 3rd cent. ce and does not always agree with indications in the first-century texts of Josephus and the gospels (Schürer-Vermes 2.199–36). In any case, Josephus’ point is that the Disciple-Idumean trials are sham affairs, conducted with no regard for justice or due process. The modern historian might well imagine the other side’s case: that they began with extra-judicial executions in the first moment of crisis, but now wish to restore judicial procedures to establish credibility.

Reading Βάρεις with mss P and A (V and R differently accented as masculine plural of the adjective βαρύς [“weighty, heavy”], which makes little sense). The Greek name is puzzling, also as the translation of an Aramaic name beginning with bar (“son of”). Mss V, R, and L as well as a marginal note in M have βαρούχου or βαρισκαίου. The latter could perhaps be a corruption of “Son of Ezekiel” or “of Isaac.” The vr reading “son of Baruch” suggests other links. The biblical prophet Zechariah is called either the son of Berechiah, son of Iddo (Zech 1:1), or himself the direct son of Iddo (Ezra 5:1; 6:14), interpreters favoring the former. nt Matthew complicates matters by having Jesus name a “Zechariah son of Berechiah,” “whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar” (Matt 23:35), as the last of the Pharisees’ / scribes / Judeans’ righteous victims in a list beginning with Abel, the Bible’s first murder victim (Gen 4:8), though the parallel in Luke 11.48–51 lacks Matthew’s patronymic. If Matthew and Luke draw from a lost sayings source (Q), as many scholars think, that source must have lacked identification beyond the personal name. If Matthew is Luke’s source, the later author rejects Matthew’s identification. Q’s and Luke’s Zechariah would presumably have been the son of Jehoiada. He is a significant priest in 2 Chronicles, who speaks prophetically against King Joash (whom his father helped install) and as a result is murdered in the temple court (2 Chron 24:20–22). Although the story time of this murder is the late 9th cent. bce, it does not appear in 2 Kings (the centuries-earlier account of that period) but only in 2 Chronicles (3rd cent. bce)—hence near the end of the Bible in its later rabbinic structure. Some scholars have posited that Matthew already knew this biblical structure and meant to have Jesus encapsulate all the murders of the righteous in the biblical canon, from Genesis to 2 Chronicles, rather than in historical time (dissenting discussion in Evans 2002; McDonald 2007: 203–210). The name Zechariah invited confusion and exegetical manipulation. J. Wright and J. F. Watson (abd) count 30 Zechariahs in the Bible, especially in Chronicles, whose author favored the name and might even have invented examples. Then there is John the Baptist’s priestly father Zechariah in Luke 1. Given that the death of Jehoiada’s son matches the gospels’ description of the murder of Zechariah, scholars have long supposed that Matthew supplied the biblical prophet Zechariah’s patronymic Berechiah to the priestly prophet of 2 Chronicles (son of Jehoiada), whether from confusion or in a deliberate act of creative exegesis. Julius Wellhausen, however, doubting that Matthew would have the biblically literate Jesus use a 9th-cent. bce murder as the endpoint of prophetic murders (1905: 88) and that 2 Chronicles was known as the end of the canon in Jesus’ time, came to argue (1911: 118–23) that the gospels must be referring to the present episode in Josephus: the murder of Zechariah son of Baris (or Baruch) in the temple precinct. Matthew’s Jesus would then be indicating a historical (not biblical) endpoint in the line of murders, which occurred shortly before the time of Matthew’s composition, in connection with Jerusalem’s destruction (so too Trebolle Barrera 2002: 131; McDonald 2007: 205 n. 61). Since, however, the gospels unmistakably place Jesus’ crucifixion a generation earlier than this murder in Josephus, and the hypothetical Q—if it is the source—must have taken shape well before the Judean War, and above all since Josephus here makes Zechariah’s murder the first of Disciples’ sham trials, with several others to follow (4.358–65), Wellhausen’s proposal creates more problems than it solves. See the discussion in Kalimi 2009: 249–51. Confusion (or deliberate conflation) of Zechariahs was to increase yet further after the 1st century. The late 2nd-cent. ce Protevangelium [or Gospel] of James (23) has King Herod’s officers shed the “innocent blood” of John the Baptist’s priestly father Zecharias in the temple forecourt. This makes 3 innocent Zechariahs murdered in the temple court. That text in turn would become hugely influential, its Syriac translation possibly influencing the Qur’an’s identification of John the Baptist’s father as a slain prophet. This (ἐπιφανέστατος, superlative of ἐπιφανής) is one of Josephus’ many interchangeable terms for the notables, the most powerful, or the first-ranked men (e.g. at War 2.243, the only other occurrence in this work). An artfully Atticising expression: τὸ λίαν τἀνδρὸς μισοπόνηρον καὶ φιλελεύθερον. Josephus contrasts two unusual adjectives: μισοπόνηρος καὶ φιλελεύθερος. On the relative frequency of the latter in War, see note at 4.246. The former is a bit more common, though Philo accounts for 24 (half) of 47 attestations before Josephus, who has it otherwise at Ant. 13.275. Its prehistory fits a familiar profile, appearing before Philo and Josephus in, inter alia, the orators Demosthenes and Aeschines (3), Polybius (1), Diodorus (1), and Dionysius (6). For Josephus’ stock adjective (normally used without noun) “contemptible,” see note at 4.179. The phrase gives one of War’s 10 examples—33 in the corpus—of Atticizing crasis (τἀνδρός), which Josephus uses more consistently than του ἀνδρός (only at 3.143 in War, 14 times in Antiquities and Life 41) with its hiatus. Seizing the substance (οὐσία) of the wealthy (πλούσιοι) is a tyrant move (Ant. 19.131 [Gaius Cailgula]; cf. Ant. 5.338–39; 6.40–42 [kings]; 17.307 [Herod]). This is the sole attestation in Greek literature of the clever double-compound verb προσαποσκευάζομαι. Josephus is, however, partial to the simple compound, minus the first prefix; see note at 4.213. See note to “undoing of established law” at 4.154.

As distinct from voluntary action. Josephus uses ἐξ ἐπιτάγματος 3 times, all in War (cf. 1.473; 2.139). He may have seen it in the 3 main attestations before his time (Demosthenes, Fals. 185; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 8.36.4; Philo, Somn. 1.191). Demosthenes’ speech, which contrasts the free operation of Athens’ courts with authoritarian rule by order, seems the most likely of these options. But his usage of the term may be coincidental. The larger temple court (τὸ ἱερόν) built by Herod. The Disciples had been confined to the temple proper before the Idumeans burst in to free them (4.151, 196, 201, 206, 215, 228, 253, 261, 280, 298, 300), but now control the whole esplanade and city (4.305, 313). See note at 2.253 in bjp 1b. Greek συγκαλοῦσι μὲν ἐξ ἐπιτάγματος ἑβδομήκοντα τῶν ἐν τέλει δημοτῶν. The number 70 is resonant. In Num 11:16, God instructs Moses to gather 70 men from among the “elders of the people and their officials” (זִקְנֵ֥י הָעָ֖ם וְשֹׁטְרָ֑יו), rendered by the lxx as πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν. M. Sanh. 1.4–6 specifies courts of 23 for most cases, including capital punishment, but a Great Sanhedrin of 71 to decide weighty matters. Josephus himself claims, describing his administration of Galilee, that he established a travelling body of 70 respected men to help him try major cases, with courts of 7 remaining in each town to handle small disputes (War 2.570–71; cf. Life 79). The phrase ἐν τέλει (32 times in Josephus, 10 of these in War) is formulaic for those holding a magistracy, office, or political rank; see note at 4.150. See note at 4.265. Cf. Ant. 6.264–68, where King Saul drifts into tyranny, discarding his concern for justice like an actor’s mask on the stage. See notes at 4.173, 318. According to Josephus, this was already John of Gischala’s fabricated charge against Josephus in Galilee (2.594). In spite of the plausibility that members of the elite secretly sought terms with the Romans, Josephus consistently presents this charge as a fabrication of the Disciples against Jerusalem’s proper leaders, a contrived pretext to justify their coup: see 4.146, 218, 226–29, 245–57, 268.

Or “cross-examination” (ἔλεγχος). Josephus clusters 3 standard courtroom terms: ἦν δὲ οὔτ’ ἔλεγχός τις τῶν κατηγορουμένων οὔτε τεκμήριον. Their use is illustrated by a passage by the Athenian speech-writer Antiphon (Tetr. 1.4.10), who brings all 3 together in the plea of a defendant: “The one accusing me has been proven untrustworthy, and there is no cross-examination [testing]” (ὅ τε γὰρ καταμαρτυρῶν μου ἄπιστος ἐλήλεγκται ὤν, ὅ τε ἔλεγχος οὐκ ἔστι). That defendant’s complaint could also apply to Zarcharias here: “All the things I’ve been charged with having proven unpersuasive, it is not the case that if I am freed no criminals will be chargeable in future, but rather than if I am convicted, no defense is adequate for those who are persecuted.” The Disciples’ equation of truth with persuasion thus represents the kind of oratory criticised by good people, according to his contemporary Quintilian (Inst. 2.16.1–6), attributed to the classical sophists and practised often since: they can make the worse case appear the better one, free the guilty, and convict the innocent in cynical disregard of truth or justice.

See note to this increasingly characteristic phrase at 4.312. The word ἐνέδρα (“sitting in wait”) means both a literal military ambush and a metaphorical trap created by plotters, where an innocent pretext is given to capture someone. Josephus returns to this behavior often (War 2.54, 430–56; Ant. 20.160–61; Life 216, 246–47, 294–302), and is not above congratulating himself on having done similar things (without the word)—for noble reasons (Life 145–48). The phrase τοῦ ζῆν ἀπόγνωσις (otherwise attested only in Dionysius, Ant. rom. 9.21.5 before the 4th cent. ce) will reoccur at Ant. 19.199, in a passage on the death of Gaius often thought to be copied from a Roman source. Josephus more typically writes about σωτηρίας ἀπόγνωσις (“despair of deliverance / rescue”; War 1.232; 3.149, 153, 204; 5.488; 6.4; Ant. 14.427), a phrase he uniquely favors (Philo [Mos. 1.104, 201; Flac. 75] and the grammarian Aristonicus [Sign. Il. 1.60] are the only known precursors). But he has just mentioned Zacharias’ lack of hope for σωτηρία and so varies his diction. Josephus uses litotes (οὐκ ἀπαρρησίαστον) for effect: “he made his despair of living no [occasion] of not-frank-speech.” The adjective ἀπαρρησίαστος appears only here in Josephus and is rare before him, though found among the usual precursors: a fragment of Theophrastus; Polybius 22.12.2, 3; a fragment of Poseidonius; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 19.18.3; Philo, Praem. 124. For the importance that ancient philosophers of all stripes (most radically the Cynics) attached to fearless candor (παρῥησία), in contrast to the normal obsequious ﬂattery of those in power (cf. War 1.2–3), see note at War 2.276 in bjp 1b. The compound verb διαχλευάζω counts as a Josephan term, though he uses it only 3 times (also War 2.281; Ant. 15.220—very different kinds of material), because before him it appears only in possibly spurious texts of Plato and Demosthenes, 4 times in Polybius (a likely inspiration for Josephus), a fragment of Alexander Polyhistor, a fragment of Philo (Quaest. Gen. 2 fr. 71a), and Acts 2:13. Zacharias’ bold ridicule (διαχλευάζω) soon leads to the Disciples’ jeering at (ἐπιχλευάζω) his corpse (4.343). The only appearance in Josephus of an expression (διὰ βραχέων) well known in classical historiography, philosophy, and rhetoric. Josephus might have included this note as an indictment of the Disciples’ flim-flam (cf. Socrates in Plato, Prot. 336a); in contrast to their sophistry, Zacharias speaks truthfully, frankly, and briefly as a man should. Cf. Mason 2011–2012. Or “freed, discharged himself.” This is further standard courtroom vocabulary, though also informally used (ἀπολύω + αἰτία), as commonly in Josephus (War 1.539; 2.92; Ant. 12.263; 13.56; 15.359; 16.131; 17.293; 20.215). The verb here sets up the Disciples’ cold word-play on cognate ἀπόλυσις (acquittal = release) from 4.342–43. Josephus continues to use formulaic courtroom terminology (αἰτίας ἐπιφέρω), though the phrase could also be used of informal accusations. Josephus has it a dozen times.

The audience is well aware of these παρανομίαι, a conspicuous term in Josephus (see note to “lawlessness” at 4.134), as they have been spelled out in detail by the narrator (4.131–61, 310–338) and by Ananus (4.163–92) and Jesus (4.239–69). Josephus uses forms of ὀλοφύρομαι (introduced programmatically at 1.9)—here κατολοφύρομαι—11 times in War (see “lamentations” at 4.309, 325), contributing to the work’s tragic ethos. Or “the republic, commonwealth,” the res publica (see note at 4.173). “Confusion of public affairs” cements the connection between Zacharias and Ananus (cf. 4.194).

See note at 4.160. Josephus may have thought that he coined the paradoxical compound ἀποκρατέω (“out-control, out-master”), which appears only here in his works and before him, in a different sense (“surpass, out-big”), only in Herodotus (1.50.1, 75.1). I.e., from an impulse to kill the conscripted judges. At 4.344, however, they will let them go after only striking them with the handle-ends of their swords. As in 4.336: the Disciples have created an elaborate play, in which they join the judges in a show of justice, to gain public confidence, after their earlier indiscriminate killing. See notes at 4.127, 151, 259, 334 for this prominent theme (εἰρωνεία and cognates) in War 4. Or “danger.” What might seem a throwaway remark (πειράσαι θέλοντες τοὺς δικαστάς, εἰ παρὰ τὸν αὐτῶν κίνδυνον μνησθήσονται τοῦ δικαίου) taps a deep vein in Greco-Roman discourse and in Josephus’ works; see note at 4.258. For doing the right thing in spite of personal dangers, see also Ant. 18.199 (τὸ ἐμὸν κινδύνοις παραβαλλόμενος δίκαιον) with Thucydides 5.90 (Melians in dialogue).

Still another formulaic judicial expression (φέρω + ψῆφος)—as Ant. 2.163; 3.96; 10.60, 91—meaning literally “throw the pebble” (= counter, marker, hence: vote). The perfect infinitive here seems to point to the situation after Zacharias’ death and the judges’ reputation for either having survived by condemning him or sharing his honor in death. Effectively, “accept responsibility.” The moral use of this phrase (λαβεῖν τὴν ἐπιγραφήν), which is only here in Josephus—i.e., taking either responsibility or credit for something—seems to come from Polybius (1.31.4; 6.57.7; 38.8.3). Dionysius (Ant. rom. 5.35.3; 9.60.8) uses the phrase, but in the sense of literally receiving an honorary inscription, usually in a temple, for some achievement. See note at 4.327.

Josephus’ use of ἀπόλυσις here, picking up Zacharias’ self-acquittal with the cognate verb (4.338) and the 70 judges’ concurrence (4.341), prepares for the Disciples’ dark humor in 4.343, playing on death as ultimate “discharge, release.” Josephus uses a characteristic phrase (ἤρθη βοή), as at 6.86; Ant. 12.98; 19.249 (in a passage often attributed to a Roman source), not found before him except (attenuated) in Philo, Legat. 272. Or “indignation.” This is characteristic diction (ἀγανάκτησις) in War, where all 16 of Josephus’ examples occur. See note to the cognate verb “provoked” at 2.8 in bjp 1b and the growing irritation Josephus describes in 2.42, 170, 175, 293. No extant author uses the word nearly as often (Thucydides 1, Plato 3, Demosthenes 1, Philo 5, Plutarch 1), except Dionysius (15). See note at 4.340.

See 4.336 and note: presumably, the large Herodian temple court or esplanade. This common expression (ἐν μέσῳ [τῷ ἱερῷ]) means not a geometric center but simply “in the middle of things, in the fray.” Josephus might have had the inner temple compound in mind, but he wrote nothing to clarify this. See note to this frequent euphemism for “kill” (99 times in War), interchangeable with ἀναιρέω (cf. noun: “elimination” at 4.341), attached to “destroy” at 4.25. See note to his name at 4.335 for the strange afterlife of this episode. This verb (ἐπιχλευάζω) is a good example of Philonic vocabulary in Josephus’ War. It appears only here in Josephus, and 6 of the 7 earlier attestations are in 5 of Philo’s works, including the Embassy to Gaius (123), among the most likely Philonic texts to have influenced Josephus. Josephus ascribes to the Disciples a dark word-play humor. For the adjective βέβαιος (here comparative), favored by Josephus, see note to “better-established law” at 4.154. Zacharias has already acquitted himself (ἀπολύω middle) of all charges at 4.338. The judges have joined in this just acquittal (ἀπόλυσις, 4.341–42). But because the legal process is a sham, a mere cover for the Disciples to kill Zacharias, they proceed to pass and execute their verdict regardless. Now ἀπόλυσις has the more general sense of “release, deliverance”: Zacharias’ acquittal from a capital charge by sincere judges results in his more certain “release”—from life. Josephus appears to have in mind the Kidron Valley and the ejection of Zacharias’ body from the esplanade via the eastern gate, though he has no reason to explain this to a Roman audience. The valleys to the S (Hinnom) or W (Tyropoeon) would have required considerably more effort. The Kidron Valley has historically been a place of burial. Though lacking any clear picture of Jerusalem, his audience would know that the temple was constructed on a hill. War 1.401 is not as clear about this as the elaborate description at 5.184–237 (though still without diagrams), which emphasizes the steepness of the valleys around both city and temple.

Given the indications since 4.336, and especially ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱεροῦ in this sentence, it seems that Josephus has in mind the Herodian temple esplanade, enclosed by large colonnades on all sides and by the inner temple to the W (5.184–92). Although it is possible that he is thinking of the inner temple enclosure (5.38), the contrast between enclosure and polis suggests that he still means the larger platform. With swords drawn (cf. 4.340, 343), but apparently striking with the hilts: making a point without using the business end. Most translators assume single-edged blades, as on modern sabers or other backsword types (or Greek μάχαιρα: large knife, dagger), and so take ἀπεστραμμένοις τοῖς ξίφεσι τύπτοντες to mean that they struck mit der flachen Klinge des Schwertes (M-B), à coup de plat d’épée (Pelletier), “with the backs of their swords” (Thackeray lcl), or “with the flat of their swords” (H-G). But military swords of the time—the older Greek ξίφος (Josephus uses this generic term), the legionary gladius hispaniensis, and the longer cavalry / auxiliary σπάθη—were 2-sided thrusting and slashing weapons, used to behead and remove limbs as well as for armor penetration (Webster 1985: 12; Campbell 1994: 5–6, 16; Goldsworthy 2003: 55, 66, 111, 133–34, 138, 205, 209; Hoyos 2007: 69–72; Cagniart 2007: 89–90). Presumably, Judeans in Jerusalem (War 2.648–49) had forged comparable weapons. In any case, the Greek says that the swords, not their sharp edges, were turned away. See note at 4.229. Cf. Liddell Hart (1941: 298): “A strategist should think in terms of paralysing, not of killing. Even on the lower plane of warfare, a man killed is merely one man less, whereas a man unnerved is a highly infectious carrier of fear, capable of spreading an epidemic of panic.” Josephus again taps a major theme of War: the Disciples and Idumeans, who claim to be fighting for freedom from (remote and tolerable) slavery to Rome, use this pretext to enslave—in an immediate and encompassing way—their compatriots. See the freedom / slavery / tyranny language at 4.95, 146, 175, 178 with notes.

Given Josephus’ portrayal of the Idumeans’ uncouth blood-lust and driving role in the murders (4.231, 310, 314, 326, 334), this regret comes as a surprise. It is at least a damning indictment of the Disciples, if they supposedly perpetrate crimes that even barbaric Idumeans cannot stomach. The basic sense of Τοῖς δὲ Ἰδουμαίοις ἤδη τῆς παρουσίας μετέμελε καὶ προσίστατο τὰ πραττόμενα is clear, the precise constructions not so much. lsj gives no dictionary form μεταμελέω (1st person active), but only the middle / passive μεταμέλομαι (“regret, be sorry”) or the 3rd-pers. μεταμέλει. The latter usually has an understood impersonal subject, meaning “it repents me, rues me” (cf. English “it pains me,” “It grieves me …”), normally taking a dative object as the effective subject, for the one experiencing the regret. So one might read (Thackeray lcl): “The Idumaeans now began to regret that they had come, taking offence at these proceedings.” M-B rework the sentence so that the Idumeans regret having come because what had happened offended them. But since both verbs are 3rd pers. sing. imperfect, the second (passive of προσίστημι) means “cause offense to” with a dative object (lsj), and there is a suitable subject for both in the neuter τὰ πραττόμενα, we might read: “the events now caused regret for having come and offense to the Idumeans.” The 3rd person rarely takes a nominative subject (lsj). Ant. 19.142 is Josephus’ other example of the impersonal 3rd person transitive. Ant. 1.299 has the infinitive. War 1.287 and Ant. 6.145 have the middle verb with personal subject. Copyists show uncertainty. Ms V gives the aorist of μεταβάλλω for the first verb, albeit awkwardly with the genitive τῆς παρουσίας, and mss pl have a puzzling προΐστατο (“take charge, be in front”) for the second.

A puzzling notice. The unnamed informant’s viewpoint sounds rather like something from the Ananus-Jesus camp, as a clever way of dividing their opposition: implausibly flatter the Idumeans while placing all blame on the Disciples. The only hint of accommodation to a Disciples’ perspective is the remark that Ananus has already faced “retribution” for barring the Idumeans’ entry. No faithful member of the Disciples could have described his group’s behavior in such criminal terms. This leaves the possibility (if we assume a coherent narrative) of irony. Given that the Idumeans have been consistently described as animal-like and bloodthirsty by nature, Josephus may be suggesting that the Disciples exploited this predictable quality (4.231–32, 270, 281, 284, 310) and Idumean gullibility, only in order to remove their enemies in Jerusalem. Their major goals now achieved, the Disciples have concocted a plan according to which one of their members explains this “truth” to the Idumeans: they should go home now, ostensibly to protect themselves from the taint of the Disciples’ crimes but in reality because the Disciples want a freer hand, now relieved of carping allies (as at 4.355). The Idumeans have expressed no such carping yet, though perhaps 4.345 is meant to catch the audience up on their grumbling about being there on false pretenses. It may also be that criticism of the Disciples has come from prominent Judeans in Jerusalem whom the Idumeans have protected, such as Gorion and Niger (4.358–59), given that the Disciples murder them as soon as the Idumeans leave. See especially 4.363, which identifies Niger as the most worrisome critic of the Disciples. Instead of trying to confront their stronger force, on this reading, the scheming Disciples pretend to tolerate the discontent, sure that the Idumeans will be gullible enough to be persuaded to leave and be free of “guilt,” leaving the Disciples free to kill critics the Idumeans had protected. The other main alternative is that Josephus is being inconsistent and superficial as a narrator, failing to smooth out logical inconsistencies. Plenty of evidence could be adduced for this, though at the same time we see abundant evidence of his careful word choices and narrative sculpting. The informant’s speech is a pastiche of claims by Ananus, Jesus, and Josephus (in their language), strengthening the possibility of irony (see previous note). Josephus does not explain—something his audiences might ask a few times in War—how he knows what is said in private situations. The pregnant double compound συμπαρανομέω appears only here in Josephus and is otherwise unattested in ancient literature. The first prefix, not easily translatable, begins to skew the impression of the preceding narrative by suggesting the crimes the Idumeans regret were the Disciples’ responsibility, in which the Idumeans merely joined. Or “went through in order” (διεξῄει). For μητρόπολις, see note at 4.123. The word comes up repeatedly in this context (4.347, 249) because the relationship between Jerusalem and the Idumeans, a distinct ethnos but sharing the mother-polis’ customs and worship, is at issue. The Greek of the following speech is in indirect discourse. The rogue Disciple must have addressed the Idumeans directly, but Josephus follows a common practice by putting the internal (Idumean) audience of his story in the 3rd person, using strings of infinitives with accusative subjects to convey the finite verbs that the speaker would have used. Since this is impossible to reproduce in English, and the sense is of an intimate secret discussion, I have rendered it in direct discourse. The reader should therefore bear in mind that, whereas the Greek uses 3rd person pronouns for both Idumeans and Disciples, I have changed the former to 2nd person but kept the latter as the speaker would have done in referring to the Disciples.

See note at 4.219. Ms L instead: “you are here.” This is the charge that Josephus has consistently put in the mouths of John and the Disciples, while also dismissing it (most vigorously via Jesus) as baseless: War 4.146, 217–18, 226–28, 244–68, 272–82, 336–37. See note at 2.209. Another point reiterated by narrator and leading characters until now: see 4.151 and notes with 4.158, 166, 172, 178, 208, 258.

This encapsulates Jesus’ reasoning when he barred the Idumeans’ access, unless they had come to root out or honestly investigate the Disciples (4.265). A biting use of κοινωνία (33 times in Josephus), which for Josephus normally suggests association of like with like or partnership for a common purpose (Ant. 4.228; 11.307)—as it was among Christians a favorite term for spiritual bonding (e.g., 1 Cor 1:9; 2 Cor 13:3; Acts 2:34). Greek ἐμφύλιος φόνος, only here in Josephus but attested elsewhere (once or twice each in Ephorus, Asclepiades, Hecataeus, Polybius, Poseidonius, Dionysius, and Philo). Diodorus favors the phrase (6 occurrences). Josephus’ more characteristic and distinctive phrase is “compatriot murder” (ὁμόφυλος φόνος; see 4.183 and note), though he often (9 times) uses the well known ἐμφύλιος πόλεμος. Ms V thus “corrects” to ὁμοφύλου φόνου. Josephus will use the same phrase (χορηγέω + ἰσχύς) when Vespasian’s commanders decide that he must bid for imperial power (4.597–98): they will provide the muscle, with 3 legions, and then be joined by others. At Ant. 2.272 Josephus uses the same phrase but in a different sense (working wonders). Cf. 1 Pet 4:11 for still a different sense of similar vocabulary. Reprising language often used of the Disciples’ “undoing”: 4.154 (established law), 171 (holy places), 223, 258 (law courts). Here the object is all-encompassing and summary: καταλύουσι τὰ πάτρια, an expression he uses several times with the adjective nominalized as here (1.34; 2.393; Ant. 15.281; 16.35; 20.81), and sometimes modifying worship (Ant. 12.63), customs (Ant. 16.1), or laws (Ant. 19.301). The collocation (usually with the adjective modifying laws, constitution, or aristocracy, is found in several earlier authors (e.g., Thucydides 8.76.6; Isocrates, Paneg. 55; Areop. 30; Panath. 169; Polybius 2.47.3; 4.81.14; 4 Macc 5.33; Diodorus 7 times, Dionysius 5 times; Philo, Praem. 170; Flac. 52).

Recalling 4.236–70. It is curious that Ananus should be singled out as the one who barred the Idumeans’ entry and paid with his life. Although he did order the gates closed (4.236), Josephus gave the grand speech excluding the Idumeans, which infuriated them (4.269–85), to Jesus (4.238–70). Jesus died alongside Ananus (4.315–16)—as the Idumeans know, because they killed both. Josephus’ rogue Disciple reflects the narrator’s assumption (4.236, 238, 322) that Ananus was plainly in charge. A manifest exaggeration, which contradicts the preceding account from the ingress of the Idumeans (4.310–16, 326–30) in two respects. First, it is the furious Idumeans who have been doing most of the killing; they are hardly conscience-stricken bystanders. Second, they have killed large numbers of Jerusalemites, but over several days and leaving many (apparently the majority) to mourn. Many common citizens remain to become victims or flee the city in Books 5 and 6. These contradictions make the question of the rogue Disciple’s aims (in Josephus’ construction) even more puzzling, unless it is an ironic exercise by the Disciples (see note to “Disciples” at 4.346). Josephus uses the fixed phrase ὀλίγου δεῖν (“to want/lack but little” = virtually all) 8 times, all in War. After Herodotus (7.10c) it appears before him mainly among orators (Isocrates 4, Lysias 2, Demosthenes 6, Aeschines 1), but occasionally elsewhere (Xenophon 3, Plato 2, Aristotle 2, Theophrastus 2, Philo 3). It is markedly favored by the rhetorical historian Dionysius (40) and by Plutarch (49) and later Galen (124) and Lucian (20). Josephus thus appears to use a newly fashionable, cultured expression.

The cognates μετανοέω and μετάνοια were well understood (“change mind, repent”) but were not common in classical historiography: Thucydides has 1 occurrence, Xenophon 2, Polybius 9. The lxx has 31 occurrences, including post-biblical texts, for different Hebrew verbs but most often נחם (“regret, relent, relieve”). With the Hellenistic historians (Diodorus 29, Dionyius 8) and Philo (76), the word group becomes more popular, and the nt makes extensive use of it (63). Josephus’ 75 occurrences mark him as a heavy investor in the concepts of regret, reconsideration, and change of mind. Again (see note to “single night” at 4.349), however, this picture of remorseful Idumeans watching Disciples’ barbarities is sharply at odds with the preceding story. I.e., among the Disciples. Perhaps because savagery (ὠμότης) is hardly qualified by being moderate, Josephus is the only known ancient writer to add the superfluous ἄμετρος. The rogue Disciple claims that the Idumeans have been used. Although the Disciples owe their rescue from Ananus’ citizen army to the Idumeans, they have allegedly ignored the favor by engaging in barbarities that embarrass their southern allies. The audience could not have guessed this from the story, given the Idumeans’ leading role in the barbarities, until Josephus’ surprising claim about their regret (4.345).

I.e., your Idumean eyes. Josephus uses the unusual word ὄμμα for “eye” 12 times in War, with increasing frequency in the later volumes, but only once in Antiquities (15.101: Herod contemplating the murder of Cleopatra). Of the 1,437 occurrences before Josephus, the vast majority are in epic and poetic texts, with significant exceptions (Xenophon 30, Plato 58, Hippocratic corpus 72, Aristotle 177, Euclid 300+ writing on light and optics; Diodorus 14, Dionysius 9, Philo 66). The phrase ἐν ὄμμασι here, however, is found before him mainly in the tragedians (Aeschylus 2, Euripides 4, Sophocles 2) and other poets (Pindar 1, Apollonius of Rhodes 3), though Diodorus has it twice and Plutarch will use it 6 times. Given that Josephus reserves the noun for a few contexts in War and uses the phrase only here and in another scene of an outrage (War 2.312), one must suspect that he chooses this phrase to enhance War’s tragic feel. A curious remark, again, given that the Idumeans have been named as the chief perpetrators of large-scale murder (4.310, 314, 326), unless the speech is ironic (4.346). Reversing the negatives of the Greek: μέχρις ἂν μήτε κωλύῃ τις μήτε χωρίζηται τῶν δρωμένων.

I.e., since the two long-standing accusations by John and the Disciples against Ananus’ group (see note to “chief priests” at 4.347) have proven baseless. Repeating a point made by Ananus at 4.193, with the same rare adjective (δυσκατάλυτος). See note there. The rogue Disciple continues to reprise charged language from the earlier narrative. Cf. “ensconced tyranny” at 4.172, recalling Demosthenes’ Philippics, and 4.85, 154 for John’s and the Disciples’ desire for supreme power (δυναστεία)—an accusation turned against Ananus and his group at 4.226, 278. Note the concentric structure typical of many speeches in Josephus (e.g., of Vespasian and Ananus in this volume). The main points were made in the opening lines: there was no betrayal, so you should cut your losses and leave (4.347–48). The middle panel diverts to potentially lingering grievances and dispenses with their justification before returning to the original points in an A-B-A construction. See note to the cognate noun at 4.348. The verb φενακίζω (“to play the cheat”), only here and at 7.439 in Josephus, is not found in classical historiography. Of the 100 attestations before him, most are in orators (Isocrates 5, Demosthenes 54), though Aristophanes has 5, Dionysius 12, and Philo 11 occurrences (Plutarch 10).

Josephus may be reinforcing the Idumeans’ gullibility and vulnerability to Disciples’ scheming, or portraying them as alert opportunists. Although they have perpetrated the most heinous acts in Jerusalem, they seize upon this opportunity to wash their hands of such crimes, leaving the Disciples to shoulder all the blame. This implausibly high number of those still in detention, presumably males who have abandoned their families in Jerusalem, highlights the extreme exaggeration of the rogue Disciple’s claim that his group have already killed virtually the whole populace (4.349). Given the large-scale program of torture and murder described at 4.326–30, in which the dead were removed nightly to make space in the cells for new detainees, one would need to imagine that about 2,000 were being arrested every few days, an impossible figure in a city that could not have held many more than 20,000 (Geva 2014). Quite a bit later (nearly a quarter of the volume). Josephus has mentioned Simon’s earlier activities in Book 2 (2.521, harassing Cestius’ legion on its way to Jerusalem; 2.652–54, attacking and mutilating the bodies of wealthy Judeans in Acrabetene, who flees to Masada to escape capture by Ananus, then ravages Idumea, a would-be tyrant). He will reintroduce him in 4.503–44, 566–84, interweaving the civil strife that Simon brought to a head in Jerusalem with that in Rome (69 ce), quelled by Vespasian. Those later passages say nothing clear about these 2,000 refugees from Jerusalem, but they do describe how an Idumean commander named Jacob (perhaps the son of Sosas who has been in Jerusalem) joins Simon’s cause on the promise of a high position with him (4.521). Our narrator uses the language of the rogue Disciple’s recommendation (4.352). Josephus’ audience would have every right to think that the Idumeans now leave Jerusalem en masse, just as they arrived: 20,000 men under 4 commanders: Ioannes and Jacob the son of Sosas, Simon son of Cathlas / Thaceus, and Phineas son of Clusoth. Below at 4.566, however, Josephus matter-of-factly mentions the Idumeans in Jerusalem who revolt from John’s leadership, helping to create the unrest that will lead to Simon’s admission. After Simon gains entry he will have 5,000 Idumean soldiers under 10 commanders (5.248–49), among whom the aforementioned Jacob and Simon are prominent. Given that in the following narrative a commander named Jacob in Idumea will pledge loyalty to Simon in exchange for a high position with him (4.520–28), and that Jacob son of Sosas appears as one of Simon’s key commanders (5.249), it seems that Jacob and Simon b. Cathlas indeed abandoned the Disciples and went back to Idumea, later to return with Simon bar Giora as the Disciples’ enemies. The ones who remained in Jerusalem to break with John remain something of a mystery. However that may be, Simon’s 5,000 Idumeans will again be a crucial component of his fighting force when Titus besieges the city in 70, under their own generals (5.290, 358; 6.92, 148, 378–81 [378: they were “a major part of the war”]). When the commander Ioannes is killed (with Jacob and Simon, 3 of the original 4 commanders who entered Jerusalem at the Disciples’ invitation), all the Judean fighters are demoralized (5.289–90). Those later indications expose the highly literary character of the present passage. By having “the Idumeans” leave in disgust, apparently en masse, Josephus completes his frame for the earlier account of their entry to Jerusalem (4.228–302) so as to highlight their most infamous deed: the murder of Ananus and Jesus. That episode falls in the middle of War (in the middle of Book 4 of 7) and furnishes the fulcrum of the narrative, after which the untrammeled civil strife unfolds (see Introduction to this volume).

See previous note. This typical psychological-motivational observation would make little sense if the audience knew that a large of Idumeans remained (previous notes). Cf. the similar construction at 6.29–31. Here, one would have expected the populace to see that the Disciples remain in place as an imminent threat to their lives (whereas they indulge in relief before realizing this), and expected the Disciples to have been dispirited by the loss of crucial allies (whereas they allegedly feel stronger). Josephus’ 15 uses of ἀναθαρσέω mark it is a favored term (Plutarch has it 21 times). It is mainly found before him in historical narrative (Thucydides 6, Xenophon 2, Polybius 11, Diodorus 5, Dionysius 2). See note to the word at 4.221. Assuming that Disciples and Idumeans remained a united enemy, the populace naively (but briefly) saw the latter’s departure as a sign that all their adversaries had given up.

See note at 4.160. An example of “Philonic” vocabulary (δυσωπέω) in Josephus. The verb is rare (Xenophon 2 times, Plato 3, Aristotle 1, Polybius 1, Dionysius 3) before Philo uses it 18 times, in a wide variety of his writings. Josephus then has it 9 times, in material from a variety of sources, showing his authorial control (War 1.136, 276; 3.385; 5.15, 333; Ant. 12.159, 300; 16.255). Again (see notes throughout the rogue Disciple’s speech above), this remark by the narrator is at odds with the preceding narrative, which presents the Idumeans as eager killers driven by blood-lust. This suggests that the speech is an ironic move by the Disciples (cf. their enlisting the 70 judges against Zacharias).

This action-noun (μέλλησις) is another rare word favored by Josephus, who has it 9 times. Before him, it is found mainly in Thucydides (11), Dionysius (9), and Philo (9), though Demosthenes, Plato, and Aristotle have it once each. Plutarch’s 35 examples suggest that it was becoming more fashionable. An action-noun (σκέψις) found mainly in philosophical texts (Plato 68 times, Aristotle 112, Theophrastus 10, Philo 23), and giving its name to the ancient philosophical tradition of skepticism associated with Pyrrho, Sextus Empiricus, and others, though part of several philosophical traditions. Meaning “having a close look, investigating,” the word implied also suspension of judgment and delay—a remarkable image for the allegedly bellicose Idumeans. Josephus uses the word 5 times in War 1–6, and 3 times in very different material in Antiquities (3.190; 16.381; 19.22). These terms imply, in keeping with the previous sentence but in opposition to the preceding narrative, that the Idumeans had put a brake on the Disciples’ murderous program, with their alleged doubts and delays. Perhaps Josephus intends 4.345 as a signal that, in spite of their bloodthirsty impulses, behind the scenes they have been challenging the Disciples. Even still, the motive seems odd. When the Kingdom of Italy deserted the Axis and reached terms with the Allies in early September 1943, the Wehrmacht was both annoyed (at having to deploy in Italy) and relieved of an ally viewed as hesitant and sometimes critical. The Wehrmacht could then take matters in its own hands with ruthless efficiency. Josephus’ implication of a similar dynamic here is puzzling because the roles have been reversed: the Idumeans have been the Disciples’ indispensably ruthless military arm. One explanation, again (cf. 4.358–59, 363), though Josephus does not make it explicit, might be that the Idumeans, though not complaining much themselves, had protected the Disciples’ most dangerous, respected critics: Gorion and Niger. This clever turn of phrase (τάχιον καὶ τῆς ἐπινοίας) is distinctive of Josephus and War: cf. 3.84, 228; 4.618. Although ἐπίνοια can mean general “thought” or a “notion,” the context here assumes the sense of a directed thought, intention, or design. The Disciples hatch a murderous plan with astonishing speed, and execute “the plan” even more quickly.

Although simple and cognate to a ubiquitous noun (φόνος, 68 in War, 139 in Josephus), the verb φονάω is rare outside of Sophocles (4 occurrences) and Philo, who has it 28 times in a range of essays. Josephus has 9 cases, 8 in War. It is another example of “Philonic” vocabulary in War. Unusually but not uniquely (e.g., 4.181), Josephus uses the abstract qualitative nouns ἀνδρεία and εὐγένεια for the people who embody them, as the following clauses make clear. Josephus has used λυμαίνομαι (a common but forceful term in historiography and oratory, among other genres) 3 times in rapid succession to speak of Roman procurators’ despoiling of the Judean countryside and whole populations (2.258, 271, 278), where Florus crowns the group as λυμεών (cognate known), chief despoiler or devastator (2.280). In this volume he transfers the noun to the tyrannical Disciples (4.159). Later appearances of the word in Josephus have the same sense: despoiling, devastating, or laying waste the countryside or larger groups or objects (4.534; 5.388; 6.8; 7.251), or ravaging truth or harmony (Ant. 1.4; 3.135; 12.256; Apion 1.249). Here the verb implies the torture and murder of individuals. Throughout his works Josephus shows a strong interest in human motives, though usually ascribing them where he has no way of knowing. Along with ubiquitous fear, envy or the grudging of success is prominent in this repertoire. It frequently affects Hasmonean rulers (1.67, 72, 77, 184), Herod and his descendants (1.208, 210, 633; 2.82, 181), and Josephus himself (2.614, 620, 627; cf. Life 80, 122, 423)—John of Gischala being Josephus’ chief envier. Thackeray lcl and Pelletier see a chiasm in ἐπ’ ἀνδρείαν τε καὶ εὐγένειαν ἐφόνων, τὴν μὲν φθόνῳ λυμαινόμενοι, τὸ δὲ γενναῖον δέει. The Disciples attack the brave | noble || from envy | from fear. M-B, however, take this as a serial exposition on the ground that that the final term (τὸ γενναῖον) matches the second (εὐγένειαν): the Disciples envy the courageous and fear those of noble birth. This argument sounds plausible, but Pelletier justifies his chiasmic interpretation with the claim that τὸ γενναῖον refers to the moral excellence of the brave, not to their birth. As it happens, other occurrences of the adjective (e.g., of Nimrod at Ant. 1.113: τολμηρὸς δὲ καὶ κατὰ χεῖρα γενναῖος) in Josephus, which number 55, and especially of this neuter phrase (War 3.479; 6.36; Ant. 1.178; Apion 2.235), require the meaning “courage, fortitude, generosity, excellence” or the like. It also seems more plausible (though it could be argued the other way) that the Disciples, led by young priests and based in the temple, would envy higher nobles and fear the physical threat of courageous commoners. Critics agree that the two examples following, Gourion and Niger, represent for Josephus high birth and masculine bravery, respectively. See note at 4.31: the secure base of their struggle. Josephus uses the same favored verb (καταλείπω) as in 4.355 (“forsaken”), but in a different sense: “left remaining.” The principle is familiar in modern times from Soviet, Nazi, and petty-dictator behavior, but it was already well established in the Roman world. Namely, emperors, with eastern monarchs such as Herod, removed potential threats (anyone thought capable of ruling, capax imperii), especially those of prestigious families (e.g., C. Rubellius Plautus), including the ruler’s family members and famous military commanders (e.g., Domitius Corbulo). Josephus dwells on the strangeness of Izates’ behavior in Adiabene, after his adoption of Judean law, in refusing to execute his relatives as was expected of new monarchs (Ant. 20.28–37).

Gorion (two Greek spellings of Semitic name are not unusual for Josephus) has been introduced in 4.158–59 as one of 4 leaders to champion the popular move to “undo” the new tyranny being established in the temple by the Disciples; see notes there. Although Josephus does not say so, perhaps because of his reservations about the Pharisees (Mason 1991), Gorion appears to be one of their eminent members, enjoying popular support (along with Symeon son of Gamaliel; cf. 2.411). They work alongside the chief priests Ananus and Jesus to quash the Disciples. The Disciples have already used the Idumeans to kill Ananus and Jesus (4.314–18). That Gorion has faded from the story until his reappearance here—as a crucial leader—reminds us how much was been happening in real life that Josephus could not relate, even though he knows of it. The point is even more striking in the case of Symeon son of Gamaliel, given his fame in Judean tradition; he is the only one of the 4 men whose activities and death Josephus omits, possibly from personal animosity (cf. Life 189–98). Josephus will soon use the same phrase (ἀξιώματι καὶ γένει προύχων / τῆς πόλεως πρῶτος), of the brutally handled Dolesus, leading man in the capital city of Perea (4.416). It is somewhat formulaic though not frequent in classical authors (Isocrates, Aeg. 7; Aristotle, Ath. const. 35.4; Rhet. 1386a; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 8.39.2; Philo, Virt. 191) as in Josephus: Ant. 9.3; 15.51; 19.251. See note at 4.319 (re: his colleague Ananus): not government by the populace, but for their benefit and safety. Cf. 4.159 and note there: Gorion is introduced as calling on the populace to punish the violators of freedom. See notes at 2.276 in bjp 1b and 4.338 above (re: Zacharias): frank speech is a hallmark of the superior person, although and because it requires a rare freedom from fear or even contempt of death. See note to “advantages” at 4.189.

Niger’s absence from the recent narrative reminds us how much Josephus knew but chose not to mention. The Latin-named Niger (black, or black-beard?) may have been a Roman citizen, hence from an eminent family. Perea was a name for various regions “across” a body of water or the like. In the Judean context, it refers to the strip of territory E of the Jordan (in modern Jordan) with a large Judean population since at least the Hasmonean expansion, early 1st cent. bce. Lying S of the Decapolis poleis and N of Nabatea (War 3.44–47), with an E boundary on the line of the territories belonging to Gerasa and Philadelphia (Amman), the area had been part of Herod’s kingdom and then passed to his son Antipas from 4 bce to 39 ce (War 2.295). After 44 it was part of the region governed by the procurator based in Caesarea (2.247), but in the early 50s Nero granted 2 towns in Perea to Agrippa ii (2.252). Niger first appears among the victors in the ambush of Cestius and his legion (2.519; see note in bjp 1b), then as apparently a governor of Idumea ordered to submit to the “generals” placed over the territory at the same time as Josephus (2.566), then as a valiant commander in the Judeans’ early assaults against regional enemies (3.11, 20, 25, 27–28). Given that back story and the surprised outrage that Josephus describes in this paragraph, it seems that Niger was not aligned with Ananus, Jesus, Gorion, and Symeon, but on the contrary was a local hero for his bravery in actually confronting Roman legionary and auxiliary forces. Why do the Disciples move against Niger now, in the story or imagined real conditions? Josephus’ claim that they fear popular leaders of proven courage may have something to it, if Niger has championed the people against the abuses of Florus and the auxiliary but remained aloof from the temple-based Disciples. He served as governor of Idumea before the war preparations (2.566) and, when repulsed by Roman-led cavalry from Ascalon in an attempted assault, retreated to the small Idumean village of Horvat Tsalit (Josephus: Challis, Chaalis)—excavated a decade ago by Ben-Gurion University’s Haim Goldfus and Peter Fabian (3.20). When Niger barely survives the second failed assault on Ascalon (in the unidentified village Bel-zedek, possibly also in Idumea), all Judeans are reportedly overjoyed, feeling that the divinely spared Niger “would be their general for the coming struggles” (3.28). Given countless analogies from modern revolutionary and insurgent forces, it is possible that the Disciples viewed all such influential men who were not aligned with them as threats. It may be no coincidence that Niger is executed immediately after the Idumeans’ departure: perhaps the Roman audience would remember his association with Idumea and assume that Idumeans had protected him. He would thus be a hugely popular hero, with friends among the dangerous Idumeans, whom the Disciples have supposedly contrived to expel from Jerusalem. The plural in ἐν τοῖς πρὸς Ῥωμαίους πολέμοις is unexpected, because Josephus normally stresses that he is writing the definitive account of one war, the greatest ever (War 1.1). Of 267 occurrences of πόλεμος in War, this is the only one that speaks of multiple wars against Rome in which a single contemporary could have participated (as distinct from past wars). To be sure, the word itself can indicate a “clash” or “conflict” smaller than a war, depending on context, but that is a departure from Josephus’ normal usage. In Niger’s case, the “clashes with Romans” mentioned by Josephus might be: his participation in the daring frontal assault on Cestius’ legion as it approached Jerusalem (2.518–20); his assistance to the two “generals” appointed to prepare Idumea for Roman reprisal after the Cestius expedition (2.566, though no clashes are mentioned here); and his prominence in the two unsuccessful assaults against Ascalon, protected by an infantry cohort and cavalry wing officered by Romans. Josephus calls these forces “Roman,” though they were presumably part of the auxiliary garrison. In the first assault Niger is one of 3 generals, “at the peak in skill and intelligence” (3.11), and the only general to survive after an alleged 10,000 Judeans fall (3.20–21). The dauntless Niger rouses them to a second assault, with horribly similar results, though Josephus credits him with acts of valor protecting the retreat (3.25). Whereas the Disciples are based in the temple (4.336, 343), Niger apparently lives among the populace in the wealthy Upper City to the W. The Disciples are perhaps dragging him out of the W gate (rather than back to the temple). Or “scars” or “still-open wounds,” as in the only other occurrence of ὠτειλή in Josephus (Ant. 18.174). This is a Homeric word (first 14 attestations, and another 25 in Aristonicus’ commentary on Homer), rarely found otherwise except in the Hippocratic medical corpus (10). Josephus has not mentioned Niger’s wounds in his accounts of the man’s exploits (previous note), but given the huge casualty numbers and his bare escapes, it is not surprising that he carries wounds. The grammarian Ptolemy (Diff. voc. s.v.) distinguishes ὠτειλή and the more common τραῦμα, as injuries caused by swords, from πληγή, as a blow from the hand.

Although Josephus has no reason to explain the topography to his audience in Rome, this sounds more like a hustle to the W gate (modern Jaffa Gate area) than a return to the temple and the E gate to the Kidron Valley, from which Zacharias was discarded (4.343). See note to this characteristic phrase at 4.79. See note at 4.110. Josephus introduces the scandal, also for his Roman audience, of the Disciples’ leaving corpses unburied at 4.317 (see notes) and elaborates at 4.330–36 (cf. 5.531–32). In the story, Niger’s knowledge of this outrage seems the best explanation of his plea for burial, which would otherwise have been assumed even by an executed criminal. This compound verb (προαπειλέω), only here in Josephus, is truly rare. It is attested before him only in fragments of the classical orator Lysias and once in his contemporary Onasander (14.3), not again before a case in the 2nd century and several in the 4th. Cf. 4.332, where even the sprinkling of some dust or ash, Antigone-like, on the Disciples’ victims would bring the death penalty.

Death by sword seems most likely (cf. 4.344). The verb ἐπαράομαι is not common in historians. Herodotus has it once when speaking of the Persians (3.75.3), but it is mainly if rarely found, outside of 4 appearances in Plato’s Laws, in tragedy (Euripides 1, Sophocles 2), and in political oratory (Antiphon 1, Isocrates 1, Demosthenes 6, Aeschines 3). The lxx has it once (1 Kgs 11:27). Closer to Josephus’ time, Diodorus has 1, Dionysius 2, and Philo 1 cases. Josephus 10 occurrences (War 1.480; 6.46; 7.113; Ant. 4.50, 157; 6.117, 276; 9.64; 18.346) are therefore conspicuous, though Plutarch’s 14 and Appian’s 8 might suggest that it was becoming en vogue in historical writing. Niger’s curse is bitterly ironic, given Josephus’ remark (4.359) that he has suffered many wounds fighting against the Romans; now the Romans must become his avengers. That the Romans attack and destroy Jerusalem as agents of divine purgation is a deep thematic root in War; see 1.10; 4.323; 5.19, 444; 6.110, 409–13. I.e., civil strife, as the next sentence rewords it (στασιάσαντες). This triad of ills (λιμόν τε καὶ λοιμὸν ἐπὶ τῷ πολέμῳ) plus civil strife (στάσις) is thematic in War, with different parts of it variously emphasized. The λιμός-λoiμός (famine-plague) pair appears in Hesiod (Op. 242), Herodotus (7.171; 8.115), Thucydides (2.54.3), and others. In War’s prologue (1.27), Josephus programmatically promises to separate out war, civil strife, and famine as causes of events, a triad that echoes Xenophon, Hell. 1.4.9 (cf. Dio Chrysostom, Or. 11.79). It has appeared at 4.137 (the flood of rebels into Jerusalem brought, as here, “in addition to the war, sedition and famine”). It will come up again at 5.522; 6.13 (Romans discover that the Judeans can overcome sedition, famine, and war, among other evils); 6.205 (Mary laments the war, civil strife, and famine facing her infant before killing it for food); 6.216 (Titus rails at the Judeans for willfully preferring these 3 calamities). See also 6.40 (civil strife, famine, and siege), 367–69, 399, 405, 421, 430 and detailed distinctions in 5.511–15 (famine) and 5.515–18 (bandits); also 5.342–48, 370–74, 418, 454 (juxtaposing war and famine); 5.424–38; 6.1 (sedition and famine). Cf. also 4.397 below, where the 3 greatest evils in the polis are said to be war, tyranny, and civil strife.

A paradoxical statement, inasmuch as one thinks of God as the unconditioned initiator, unmoved by human pressure. Josephus is no theologian, but he may mean, given the next clause, that in any case God (as enforcer of justice) saw to the retribution. See note at 2.258, to the central theme of justice in Josephus’ works. Or “madness, lack of self-control.” See note at 4.80. More than a taste is coming, as Books 5 and 6 are largely devoted to the horrors caused by the civil strife (cf. 5.2–38 for the opening scenes of desperation). See note at 4.129 on this root theme of War. This is the cognate verb as aorist participle: στασιάσαντες.

At 4.158–59, two lay leaders (Gorion and Symeon) and two chief priests (Ananus and Jesus) steer the popular demand to “undo” the Disciples’ tyranny. Although Niger was not part of this foursome, and may well have opposed them as the most effective anti-Roman fighter, after removing at least 3 of those 4 (Symeon’s fate remains unknown) the Disciples’ disposal of Niger as another potential rival clears the deck of strong opponents. Or “the citizenry” (τοῦ λαοῦ); see note at 4.312. See note at 4.146.

The next sentence confirms the meaning: old enemies from peacetime, presumably before 66 ce. Now holding power, the Disciples take the opportunity to remove such people, even though they have not recently obstructed them in Josephus’ account—a scenario often repeated with the rise of tyrannical regimes. Herod would destroy the men who had once brought him to trial (Ant. 14.168–74). Josephus’ 13 uses of προσκρούω (4 others in War 1–7) make him the heaviest user of the term, which is not found in any extant historian before him except the rhetorically inclined Dionysius (once in his history, 3 times in the possibly non-Dionysian Art of Rhetoric). Plutarch has it 39 times (half each in biographies and moralia), suggesting its new popularity at the end of the 1st cent. ce. The verb had mainly been used by orators (Demosthenes 16 times, Aeschines 2, Dinarchus 1) and philosophers (Plato 2, Aristotle 7, fragments of Epicurus, Clearchus). Or “haughty, superior” (ὑπερήφανος). It is absurd that the Disciples should feel offended by (and make capital crimes of) everyday moral failings, when they have been on a killing spree. This is one of 8 appearances in Josephus. Two nt texts (Rom 1:18; 2 Tim 3:2) include the adjective in lists of repugnant traits alongside pride, boastfulness, insolence, God-hating, love of money, trouble-seeking, etc. Nearly absent from classical historiography (but Xenophon, Mem. 1.2.16), it is more commonly found in orators (Isocrates 3, Demosthenes 4, Aeschines 1) and philosophers (Plato 4, Aristotle 3, Ariston 6), occasionally elsewhere as in the comic Menander (3). But Polybius has it 8 times, Diodorus 32, Dionysius 12, and Plutarch 38. Before Josephus, the lxx has 41 examples, mainly in wisdom literature and apocryphal books. See notes at 2.276 in bjp 1b, 4.338 (re: Zacharias), and 4.358 concerning Gorion, whose frank speech is said to have doomed him. All 3 examples involve, tellingly, citizens whom the Disciples would care about as near peers and therefore threats. His main point seems to be that with such people the Disciples had no principled reasons for persecution, nothing their victims could predict; they simply wanted them gone.

Josephus abandons the Disciples’ pretend language about courts and justice, to terms with broader and more interpersonal connotations: τιμωρία (vengeance, retribution) for ἐγκλήματα (complaints, accusations). This category, though Josephus implies that it is negligible, may have included most of the population in an ancient city. Writing for others of his literate and financially comfortable class, he does not notice the poor except as a block (as at 4.379). As for diction, this contrast between the superlatives of μέγας and μέτριος is surprising, since the latter means “middling, measured, moderate, reasonable.” Why not use the more common (though not in Josephus) contrast between the greatest and the tiniest (μέγιστος vs. ἐλάχιστος, from μικρός)? Perhaps Josephus’ tendency to convey “great, considerable” (= μέγας) by negating μέτριος in litotes leads him to use these words as opposites. Elsewhere (Ant. 11.54) Josephus uses the phrase σφόδρα ταπεινός ironically, of the Persian King Darius who (Zerubbabel argues) completely humiliates himself, as all men must, to please his wife. The dabbling moral philosopher cannot resist a reflection on the reasons one might be so insignificant: in most cases from birth in a poor family, but possibly because bad luck has reduced the person. More typically, Josephus ascribes the success of his characters to some combination of ancestry and personal achievement (understood to be possible only with good fortune): 4.140. 358, 416.

Vespasian’s army, though it has made forays to consolidate Azotus and Iamneia, remains headquartered at coastal Caesarea in the spring of 68 ce: see 4.88, 130, 218 with notes above, with 4.366, 410, 413, 419, 440, 4.443 below. At least the ex-praetor legates (fellow-senators), perhaps also some experienced tribunes, of the legions v Macedonica, x Fretensis, and xv Apollinaris, which constitute the core of Vespasian’s army, strengthened by allied and many auxiliary units (3.64–69); cf. 6.237–38 (of Titus). The location of the allied kings, including Agrippa ii, is not clear. If nearby, they might have joined some consultations as local experts. See note to this key term at 4.129. Lit. “from Hermes / Mercury” (ἕρμαιον), a particularly appropriate sentiment for Romans (cf. 1.127). As the god who was constantly on the move and crossing boundaries, Hermes was associated with unexpected luck. Cf. the Homeric Hymn to Hermes, line 3: “luck-bringing messenger.” At 5.248–49 Josephus will use the same phrase (κύριος τῶν ὅλων) of Simon bar Giora, who has absorbed 5,000 Idumean soldiers under 10 commanders into his army, making 15,000 in total. Cf. the different nuance of δεσπότης τῶν ὅλων at 1.207 (King Herod); 2.36 (Augustus); Ant. 4.46 (God); 17.244 (Augustus). One of Josephus’ most noteworthy departures from the lxx is that even in Antiquities he does not use κύριος as a substantive for the divine name (yhwh). Because the lxx does, it uses the word (including apocrypha) nearly 8,300 times. Except where he quotes the priest Onias (Ant. 13.68, quoting Isaiah) and the prayer of Izates (20.90—still not following biblical usage, but elaborating God’s exalted primary status), Josephus uses κύριος (55 times in the corpus) in the common Greek way as an adjective: authority-having, owning, legitimate, supreme, masterful, valid, etc., from which the secondary substantive use (“owner, guardian, responsible one”) derives. This mainly adjectival function suggests his comparative (“more authoritative, legitimate, valid”: War 2.20, 32; Ant. 4.149, 309; 17.244; 20.41; Apion 1.19) and superlative (“primary, supreme”: War 4.406; Apion 2.177) uses. See note at 4.219 for the unstable, sometimes ironic use of this phrase in War. Here it is not clear whether the commanders are using a synonym for “gift of Hermes” above, or whether they see this as Judean terminology that they are appropriating for their side: the Judean God must be with them now. God’s alliance is a minor theme in War. The Judean rebels, although they assume divine help because they see themselves as defenders of the temple and holy city, are repeatedly said to be forfeiting this alliance (2.391; 5,377, 459; 6.99–100; cf. 5.401), while the Roman commanders now have it (Titus at 3.484; 5.389; cf. 5.367). Cf. the perceived, passing “cooperation of God” at 4.26.

See note to “internecine war” at 4.131. See note at 4.221. Although not nearly as frequent as στάσις (“civil strife”), ὁμόνοια (“harmony, unity”) and its cognate verb ὁμονοέω, used here (together 41 times in Josephus, 24 in War), represent its desirable opposite (see 1.460; 4.369; 5.441; 6.215; Ant. 14.58). The phrase ὀξεῖα ῥοπή (“sharp / abrupt weight / turn of the scale / decisive factor”) seems to be Josephus’ coinage. He has it also at 3.396; 5.88. The chance that Vespasian’s commanders said any of the foregoing, in Josephus’ characteristic language, is effectively nil. Nevertheless, their military logic is sound. A principal aim of strategists, ancient and modern (in “psy-ops”), is to create conflict among the enemy (Mason 2016a: 173, 188–89). To strike quickly, while the enemy are hostile to each other and are not presenting a united front, makes perfect sense.

Josephus’ (undeserved) reputation as a flatterer of the Flavians should not lead us to assume that he admires Vespasian’s counsel. Undoubtedly, Vespasian echoes Josephus’ theme that Jerusalem fell because of civil strife (see 4.221 and previous notes here) and reinforces his picture of Roman risk-aversion (see note to “fullest capacity” at 4.369): the commanders prepare with extreme caution for conflict on their terms, when they are sure to prevail. Cf. Titus at 5.495: while it is “not befitting” a Roman army to remain inactive, it is entirely superfluous to attack an enemy that is already tearing itself apart. But this was not the view expressed in the Flavian triumph, coin messaging, and architectural program (Mason 2017a). As strategy, these principles are open to debate, for just the reasons that Vespasian’s commanders give. Hitting them when they are weakest, before they gather strength and possible unity, is also a rational choice. Cf. 6.40–44, where Titus argues that the Romans must not wait for the Judeans to crumble from faction, famine, and fortune, but must attack them and inflict a decisive defeat. Another unusual word (γλίχομαι) that Josephus gives Vespasian. He has it 9 times in diverse material throughout War and Ant. 6–17. In earlier literature, however, Philo is by far the heaviest user (and possibly Josephus’ inspiration), accounting for 39 of the first 100 attestations. Others use it rarely: Herodotus 4, Thucydides 1, Isocrates 7, Aristophanes 3, Plato 5, Demosthenes 5, Aristotle 6, Dionysius 7. Or “as though in a theater” (ὥσπερ ἐν θεάτρῳ)—i.e., on display. The Greek noun means literally “a place for viewing / spectacle,” and could be used of facilities other than the simple semi-circular theatre with a stage, but also of amphitheaters (Cassius Dio 43.22.3) or other entertainment venues (see Dodge 2007 on the fluidity of terminology, even in inscriptions). Josephus has a thematic interest in spectacle (cf. Chapman 1998, 2005), in some cases to serve the requirements of vivid narration, in others (as here) to drive home the quasi-Platonic distinction between mere impression and reality (cf. the 70 judges, as though on a stage, at 4.336). In principle, the 4 main Roman entertainment structures had distinct primary functions (Dodge 2007: 31): the theater for dramatic performance, stadium (of ca. 200 m length) for athletic competition, circus for horse or chariot races, and amphitheater (large oval completely surrounded by seating, as the Colosseum) for gladiatorial games. In practice, such buildings were multifunctional. It is not clear, therefore, whether Josephus refers to dramatic plays in a theater proper—which would not depict violence on stage—or, what seems more likely, some other kind of martial contest, by gladiators but perhaps in recreated battle (as with naval battles offered as spectacles, or triumphal displays of battles won). For the word (here τἀσφαλές) see note at 4.31. This conversion of the adjective into a noun by crasis (with the article and neuter form) is not common. Aside from an example of the superlative in Menander (Sent. 1.650), it is found only 3 times in extant literature—all in Dionysius (Ant. rom. 7.17.3, 45.2; 8.31.2)—before Josephus’ 5 examples. This is the first, soon followed by 4.376 (still Vespasian); then Ant. 5.19; 17.67, 218. It will remain unusual until the 4th cent. ce. The two neighboring examples in War seem to be an affectation that Josephus creates for Vespasian alone. The 3 cases in Antiquities (all genitive) are in the narrator’s voice. Thus far, Josephus’ Vespasian continues his consistent view about the need for a secure approach to combat, recalling his chastisement of the soldiers at 4.44–45. Here he combines a concern to put what is practically advantageous and expedient (τὸ συμφέρον) before abstract questions of honor, reputation, or justice, a contrast most famously expressed by Thucydides (see note at 4.177), with his principle of risk-aversion in military strategy, which indeed characterizes the whole Flavian campaign (Mason 20161: 154, 171–75). An eminent modern strategist wrote (Liddell Hart 1941: 190): “Strategy … has for its purpose the reduction of ﬁghting to the slenderest possible proportions … [T]he perfection of strategy would, therefore, be to produce a decision without any serious ﬁghting.” In tactical maneuvers Vespasian and especially Titus can place themselves in vulnerable positions, but in their use of the army in Galilee, Judea, Perea, Jerusalem, and (Vespasian’s provincial legates) the desert fortresses, they move with great caution, after slow planning to establish secure supply lines, and try to intimidate the Judeans into submission. Their express concern is to minimize risk to the legions (e.g., 5.315–16).

See note at 4.367. This is an untested claim and, as Vespasian’s commanders might have retorted, a statement of faith. How does he know that the civil strife will continue until the Judeans waste themselves? They are in disarray now, and might unite at any moment, so it is best to strike now. Doing so will deprive them of the opportunity to prepare a united defense. It is true that Josephus portrays the Judean factions temporarily uniting two years later, after Titus begins the siege (planned by his father; 5.71–97), though as soon as that immediate attack is over, the factional violence returns (5.98); cf. 5.105, 248–57: “not even when the Romans were camped against the walls did the civil strife within abate” (5.255). Titus takes advantage of this disarray to attack (5.258), and Josephus is adamant that the civil strife fatally weakened Jerusalem’s capacity to defend itself (5.356–57; cf. 5.266, 276). When Titus begins the assault, again, the frantic factional leaders see the wisdom in unity (5.277–361) and have temporary successes because of that, but then the more profound civil strife is between the united militants and the common people, who long for peace (5.344–46, 423–45). They are still destroying each other (the militants the common people and each other; 5.527–40), and Titus relentlessly presses his assaults; the Romans are strengthened by the self-destruction inside the walls (5.519–21). This is the logic that Tacitus (Hist. 2.7) attributes to Vespasian when the Roman civil war between Otho and Vitellius takes shape. See note to this key thematic term at 4.129.

Vespasian ironically voices Josephus’ view that God is the commanding general of the Judeans (cf. 4.288; 5.386; Ant. 4.184; 5.214). See note at 4.288. That the Roman commander can now claim God’s generalship for his purposes is a result of the murderous Judean civil strife, which has forfeited the divine alliance with Judeans. Reading the adverb as πονητί. If that is correct, it is the only instance in Josephus. The word appears in Philo (Agr. 155), but before that only once or twice in Herodotus, Euripides, and a couple of fragments. Plutarch has it once, Lucian 3 times. Ms L has ἀκοντί, “involuntarily,” which is otherwise first attested (once) in Plutarch, Fab. 5.2.2. More plausibly, mss vrc read ἀκονιτί, “without the dust or dirt [of the arena]”—meaning effectively “without struggle,” but more colorfully put and in keeping with the theatrical imagery Vespasian is using. Josephus uses this adverb also at 1.304 and Ant. 17.185, and it has a typical Josephan pedigree (Thucydides 1, Xenophon 1, Demosthenes 3, Aeschines 1, Polybius 10, Diodorus 6, Dionysius 5, Philo 8). This reading is tempting, therefore, but it is also most easily explained as an improvement.

See note to this key term at 4.129. Greek θεατὰς μᾶλλον αὐτοὺς ἀποκαθῆσθαι τῶν κινδύνων in contrast to ἐν θεάτρῳ at 4.368. Vespasian’s commanders should remove themselves from the arena, where they wished to be, to the high bleachers of the amphitheater, watching others’ bloodletting from afar. This is the only example in Josephus of the Homeric (Il. 15.509; 23.267) expression χεῖρα μίσγειν (lit. “to mix hands”) for engaging in battle, a learned allusion (cf. Apollonius of Rhodes, Arg. 2.77; 4.400). The most conspicuous user of the colorful verb λυσσάω (“behave as though rabid”) before Josephus, who uses it 5 times in War only (also 2.213, 312; 5.4; 6.196), is Philo with 18 examples throughout his corpus. Otherwise, it makes occasional appearances in Sophocles (2), Herodotus (1), Plato (4), Aristotle (4), Polybius (4), and Diodorus (2). Philo looks like a possible inspiration, here as often. As with the rogue Disciple’s address to the Idumeans (from 4.346), Josephus presents Vespasian’s counsel in indirect discourse. With some other modern translators, I render the following section part as direct address (infinitives become finite, and some 3rd-person pronouns change to the second person), because English does not easily accommodate that Greek form.

Josephus finds the rare mot juste, only here in his corpus, in the comparative of ἕωλος: “day-old, out of date, coming too late.” The effect seems comparable to eating meat that dies naturally rather than after being hunted and killed: it seems wrong and is devoid of valor. A curious phrase (τὸ μετὰ ἡσυχίας κατόρθωμα), which seems to be Josephus’ innovation. It recalls the Chinese concept of wu-wei or “non-striving.” Vespasian appears much as Sun-tzu’s (5th-cent. bce) sage-commander, following such Taoist (non-Clausewitzian, arguably non-western) principles as “To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence … the worst policy is to attack cities. Attack cities only when there is no alternative” (ch. 3). Sun-tzu nevertheless advises, precisely to maximize advantage and minimize loss, “Strike the enemy when he is in disorder…. Avoid the enemy for the time being when he is stronger…. If they are united, try to sow dissension among them” (ch. 1). Josephus is fond of the opposite adjectives ἀσφαλής (75 times) and σφαλερός (18 times). This piece of apparent wisdom from Vespasian (εἰ δέ τις οἴεται τὴν δόξαν τῆς νίκης ἑωλοτέραν ἔσεσθαι δίχα μάχης, γνώτω τοῦ διὰ τῶν ὅπλων σφαλεροῦ τὸ μετὰ ἡσυχίας κατόρθωμα λυσιτελέστερον) is more or less contradicted by Titus later (5.495, 498): αὐτῷ δὲ τὸ μὲν ἀργεῖν καθόλου μετὰ τοσαύτης δυνάμεως οὐκ ἐδόκει πρέπειν καὶ τὸ μάχεσθαι περιττὸν πρὸς ἀλλήλων φθαρησομένοις … δεδιέναι τε μὴ τὴν δόξαν τοῦ κατορθώματος αὐτῷ τὸ μῆκος ἐλαττώσῃ τοῦ χρόνου· τούτῳ μὲν γὰρ εἶναι πᾶν ἀνύσιμον, πρὸς δὲ τῆς εὐκλείας τὸ τάχος (“It did not seem to him proper for such a large force to sit idle, though it was also superfluous to engage in battle with those who were going to kill each other…. And he was anxious that his reputation for success would be diminished by a considerable lapse of time. For although everything is accomplished in time, speed is of the essence for fame”). Cf. Sun-tzu ch. 2: “A speedy victory is the main object in war. If this is long in coming, weapons are blunted and morale depressed…. For there has never been a protracted war which benefited a country.” Did Titus not grasp his father’s message, or is Josephus presenting the men as rather different characters? Is Vespasian’s speech merely situational rhetoric, or ironic in some way (on Josephus’ part)?

Josephus’ Vespasian again turns moral philosopher. The cardinal virtues were usually formulated as justice (δικαισούνη), wisdom (φρόνησις), masculine courage (ἀνδρεία), and self-control (σωφροσύνη). But they were variously configured, sometimes with ὁσιότης (holiness) or εὐσέβεια (piety) added (e.g., Plato, Prot. 329c, 349b; Men. 78d; Euth. 12e; Phil. 39e). Whereas the commanders are preoccupied with entering the fray, so their soldiers can seek glory for their courage (here τῶν κατὰ χεῖρα λαμπρῶν), Josephus’ Vespasian corrals the other virtues under ἐγκράτεια (“restraint, self-control”) and σύνεσις (“intelligence, understanding, insight”) and puts them in the opposite scale. His claim is counter-intuitive, however, against Greco-Roman martial tradition and contradicted by Titus’ rousing speech for his demoralized troops, which praises death in battle as the most secure route to a glorious immortality (6.46–49). These continuous exertions (ἐκ τῶν συνεχῶν πόνων) have not been evident. Galilee welcomed Vespasian before he even entered the territory. Josephus claims to have given the legions a hard time at Iotapata, but that was over by 1 July 67 ce (see note to Iotapata at 4.1), after which the army went for rest and recreation. Vespasian recalled it in late summer to deal with King Agrippa’s restive territories, but these were without serious issue—except the siege of Gamala in the Golan, which caused the Romans considerable “sweat” and loss of life (4.36–45, 120). But that was finished by October 67, after which the army moved to winter quarters in Caesarea. At that point (4.87–91) Josephus portrayed Vespasian sending his army to rest from their continuous labor (τοῦ τε συνεχοῦς καμάτου). All that Vespasian has done with the army since then, that Josephus mentions, has involved securing Azotus and Iamneia (4.130), apparently without incident. Now in the late winter of early 68 (4.440, 443), there is no obvious reason why the army should need further recuperation. But robust for what? The logic of Vespasian’s case is that he will bring the army to occupy Jerusalem after its bellicose elements have nearly destroyed each other. This implies that he does not foresee a siege. Only a few authors use the participial adjective ἐρρωμένος, and they tend to use it often: Herodotus 1 and Thucydides 0, but Xenophon 24, Polybius 3, Plato 15, but Aristotle only 4, Hippocratic corpus 10, Diodorus 0 but Dionysius 12, Philo 30, Plutarch 40. Josephus’ 17 instances make him a notable user. As often, he may have been influenced by Philo, but the increasing use in Dionysius, Plutarch (and Appian and Galen) might indicate that the expression had become popular in the 1st cent. ce.

Josephus’ Vespasian makes a major shift in his case, nearly an inversion. Having just argued the (dubious) principle that glory in war is the same whether victory comes from enemy attrition or battle, he now seems to accept that glory in battle is desirable in principle, but this is not a suitable conflict for it. The remark is surprising, possibly hilarious for Josephus’ audiences in Flavian Rome, coming from Vespasian—given the extraordinary propaganda campaign he had launched (in the triumph, extension of the pomerium, a decade of changing coin series, commemorative arches from the Senate, fawning literature, and architecture such as the Flavian Amphitheater) to aggrandize his victory in Judea (Millar 2005; Mason 2017a), before Josephus’ War. The line could even be read as a harsh indictment of the ruler for turning “victory” over a civil war in Judea into the foundation of his rule.

Another unusual word (ἀσχολέω) given to Vespasian. Only here in War (also Ant. 7.341; 11.20), it turns up significantly only in a few authors (e.g., not in Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, classical tragedy or rhetoric, Plato, or Philo): Aesop 8, Aristotle 9, Polybius 2, but Diodorus 38—a possible inspiration for Josephus (Dionysius only 2). Plutarch has it 15 times. But even while Ananus lived, the Judeans were making armor and weapons, as well as strengthening the outer (3rd) wall: War 2.648–49. To be sure, only at 5.155 will the militants turn, in a fit of unity prompted by Titus’ arrival, to increasing the height of the wall that Agrippa i began (2.218 with note in bjp 1b). This is another puzzling remark. Whom would the rebels in Jerusalem look to for aid? Not most of their antagonistic neighbors along the coast, in the Decapolis, or in Samaria. They might look to Galilee, from which John has come with a force, to Idumea, which has allegedly sent 20,000, of which a good number remain, or to Judeans in the Parthian empire. Adiabenians (especially those of the royal family) resident in Jerusalem have been involved in anti-Roman agitation all along (2.520; cf. 6.357). Titus even remarks (6.343) that Judeans were sending embassies across the Euphrates seeking help. He dates this to Vespasian’s accession in 69, but there is no reason to think such efforts did not begin earlier, given his remark in the prologue that Judeans hoped that their compatriots across the Euphrates would rise up with them (1.5) and so the entire eastern empire was in the balance (1.4). See note to this thematic phrase at 4.131. Josephus gives Vespasian yet another fancy word (διχόνοια); this is its only appearance in War. Although Josephus will use it again (Ant. 18.374), it is barely attested before him: just 11 attestations (Plato 1, Aristotle 1, several fragments, and Philo, Dec. 9). The 2nd-cent. ce grammarian Julius Pollux mentions the word in 3 contexts, most relevantly (8.153) among many terms for civil strife. Another peculiar word (τραχηλίζω, passive, hapax in the corpus) Josephus gives to Vespasian. Philo, who accounts for 8 of the first 12 attestations, may have inspired him. Meaning “seize by the neck” (as in wrestling moves), the passive is not easy to translate, but it conveys physical vulnerability. See note to the word group at 4.92. That the Romans, even when victorious in war, treat the Judeans better than Judean tyrants do, a point elaborated by Ananus at 4.180–84, is thematic in War; cf. 1.9–12, 27; 4.397; 5.19, 28, 256–57, 318–30, 348–55, 359–61, 456, 519; 6.128–30, 214–16, 228. Since the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and its populace was neither hidden from the Roman population (e.g., in the triumph) nor concealed in Josephus’ later account (6.382–86, 414–34), this is a serious indictment of the Judean militants.

Again τἀσφαλές, which Josephus reserves for Vespasian; see 4.368 and note. The “internal disease” of civil strife (οῖς οἴκοι νοσοῦσιν) is a root theme of War; cf. ἐνόσει τὰ οἰκεῖα at 1.4, where Josephus compares the contemporary Roman civil war (from mid-68) with that in Judea. See note to the key term at 4.129. Vespasian makes a second decisive turn in his argument, now turning it 180 degrees. Until now, he has argued (a) that a victory without battle is equally estimable, so they should let the Judean civil war wipe out the enemy, and (b) glory from war is desirable, but this is not the occasion. Now, surprisingly, he expresses the concern that victory would be badly tainted if ascribed to civil war—the very goal he has been advocating (let the civil war take care of them). This appears to be a contradiction (if we strike them, our victory will be credited to the civil strife; I order you not to strike them and let the civil strife defeat them, so civil war will receive the credit), unless Vespasian has taken the position—implausible in Flavian Roman retrospect—that this conflict is so deeply civil that the Roman army can derive no glory from it in any case, whether he attacks or leaves them alone. This dilemma raises the possibility that Vespasian serves here as a mouthpiece for Josephus’ own inconsistency, sometimes lamenting (implicitly) that the Judeans have not reached their potential as a tough, masculine enemy because of their enervating civil strife, at other times confirming that the Romans won no real victory: they could never have conquered Jerusalem if the city had not consumed itself and its resources in civil conflict (2.218 with 5.153 [had Agrippa completed the outer wall, the city would have been unconquerable]; 4.137; 5.25–26: “For the city fell by famine, which would have been virtually impossible, had they themselves not generated this problem”). It was God alone who destroyed Jerusalem, to purge his holy city of pollution caused by compatriot murder (5.442–45, 565–66; 6.409–413).

Or “resolve” as translated at 4.172, 192, 214, and 392. These two sentences have a clear logical connection (the flow of refugees confirms Vespasian’s wisdom in delaying an assault on Jerusalem) but present historical puzzles. Josephus does not say that Vespasian’s private strategic decision not to attack reached those in Jerusalem (how could it?) and this prompted their exodus. But then we should assume that people had been arriving for some time before his consultation. That would make problematic the notion that refugees’ arrival proved the worth of Vespasian’s decision: it was already happening. If the Disciples had blocked all the exits of the walled city and beyond with sentry-posts (next sentence), evasion would suggest escape via other means, in particular underground tunnels. Such tunnels existed and would become a significant factor in Titus’ siege (1.348–50; 2.428; 5.498–99; 6.370–73, 429; 7.214–15; cf. Cassius Dio 65/ 66.4.5; cf. Bahat 1994).

See note to “sentries” at 4.12. Blocking egress from the walled city would be easier in principle (because of fuller control) than preventing ingress, by closing the few gates and preventing access to walls for rappelling or the like. Although Josephus will devote considerable space to the gates of the inner temple complex (5.198–214), he is far less clear about the gates in the city’s outer walls: the oldest wall from the W to S, then E, then N, or the “third wall” (scholars’ language) running from the W gate N, then E, then S to join the retaining wall on the E side of the temple. The gates in these walls are occasionally mentioned, especially those at the W entrance near today’s Jaffa Gate and S of there, the Gate of the Essenes (5.145–46 with, e.g., 1.142; 2.553; 4.236, 269, 273–78, 292, 299–300 [apparently a W gate], 360; 5.284 [a concealed gate by the Hippicus tower, perhaps the same as 5.304], 301 [gates in the outer N wall]; 336, 567 [a single gate sentry reports 115,880 corpses taken out!], 569 [600,000 dead taken out all gates]. Modern reconstructions of the city, tending to minimalism, show at least 1 gate along the N wall, 1 on the W around the Jaffa Gate, 1 to the SW (Essene?), 1 at the SE corner, and 1 out of the temple to the E. Given the possibility of evasion and the piles of bodies along the main roads, Josephus appears to suggest that Disciples had sentry-posts also outside the walled city to catch refugees who appeared on the roads. This verb (διαχράομαι) is yet another euphemism for killing, though like the others (“do away with, get rid of, eliminate, waste”) it also has other senses: “repeatedly use, use up, exhaust, treat, handle, or distribute / deal out.”

A biting indictment: the Disciples do not believe those who leave Jerusalem to be traitors, but are driven by innate violence (toward those who do not submit to their power) and greed, so use the betrayal lie as cover for their crimes. For the betrayal charge see: 4.146, 218, 228, 245–254, 279–81. A reader expecting consistency from Josephus will be puzzled that there are so many εὔποροι left in Jerusalem: only those with means get past the Disciples (though some evade them altogether), and large numbers escape each day, though he has claimed that nearly the whole populace was wiped out in a single night (4.349), after the Disciples (4.138–46, 357) and then the Idumeans already targeted the wealthy (4.313, 327, 335). They have since removed many thousands of young nobles (4.333) and, with Niger’s death, all significant threats to their control (4.363). Books 5 and 6 nonetheless reveal many wealthy and well-born still in the city (4.500, 571; 5.36), even after their kind again leave in droves (e.g., 6.113, 201). As with the Idumeans’ reported departure en masse above, one must take Josephus’ claims with a grain of salt. Josephus is the only known ancient writer to use the double compound ἐναποσφάττομαι, and he only here. Some copyists were doubtful: mss vrc drop the first prefix, leaving ἀποσφάζω. Although this form is distinctively common in Josephus (see note at 4.38), that easier reading—more easily explained as a scribal “correction”— favors the unusual variant here. Josephus rarely speaks of the poor as a group distinct from the populace, the mass, or the people. Ancient cities tended to comprise a small number of those considered well-born (ca. 2–5%), whose wealth came from land and so they had leisure for politics and other pursuits. At the bottom end were slaves (10–20% of many urban populations), who were not among the poor but were legal property. The vast majority of the population were separated by degrees according to success in their work: day laborers, tenant farmers, peddlers, artisans, small-scale merchants. A few might find enough financial success to boost their families into the lower echelon of the elite (in Rome, the equestrian class). Greek had several terms for the poor, not counting slaves. nt texts consistently (about 3 dozen times), except in one biblical quotation, use πτωχός (as in “Blessed are the poor …”): a “destitute person, a beggar,” often the ill or injured, widows and orphans. Writing from a different social perspective, Josephus mentions πτωχοί just once in his 30 volumes (War 5.570, re: the corpses of the destitute). The present passage has πένης (War 2.585 [re: John’s early financial woes]; 5.427, 447; 9 times in Ant. 1–14). It suggests one who struggles or labors to make a living, here therefore lacking funds for bribes. The more obvious opposite to the εὔποροι (who pay the bribes) would be ἄποροι, an adjective Josephus can also use for those without resources (War 2.427; 7.438), but that word has other senses according to context. His adjective here is more precise and vivid. The Disciples’ aims as reported are puzzling. One might expect them to be more concerned about prominent citizens reaching Vespasian; executing such influential figures might serve as a deterrent. Conversely, they might rather have welcomed the flight of the poor as the removal of mouths needing food. Josephus has already said (4.365) that the Disciples were not concerned with those at the bottom of the social scale. Letting them go would also encourage more to leave, so that limited supplies could go to motivated fighters. What did the Disciples gain by killing the poor? Further, if they were able to take what they needed from anyone by force, why did they value income from bribes rather than simply stopping the wealthy from fleeing? These problems vanish if we regard the account as mere slander. Josephus is claiming that the Disciples were happy to kill anyone just for the sake of it, unless their greed trumped their blood-lust.

See note to this (possibly Philonic) word at 4.109. In the immediate context this moving assessment makes sense, and fits with Josephus’ emphasis on the moral requirement of burial: see 4.317 (with notes) and 4.330–36 (cf. 5.531–32). But how could these people not have known the conditions that Josephus has so vividly portrayed (4.317, 324, 330–36), which he will stress again (5.512–18, 531–32, 568), even from the next sentence: that the Disciples did not permit burial of their victims?

See note at 4.261. Note the same expression in connection with Niger’s plea at 4.360.

See note at 4.154. In this volume Josephus characteristically speaks of the Disciples’ undoing (καταλύω) various aspects of Judean law and custom. Here he has the Thucydidean double compound (also in Lysias, Aeschines, Polybius, Diodorus, Dionysius, Strabo) συγκαταλύω; see also 4.214. Whereas in Thucydides (8.68.1, 4) it has the sense of “join in undoing,” the list of damages and the parallel with συμμιαίνω (“pollute”) in this sentence suggest “in addition to” the main action (undoing) of the verb. In classical Greek a “law of nature” would have sounded oxymoronic to some, because νόμος referred to local custom gradually codified in the laws of a particular ethnos or polis (polis opnion: ps-Plato, Min. 314c); cf. Pindar’s claim that “(ethnos) custom is king/lord of all,” cited by Herodotus (3.82.4) and Plutarch (Dem. 42.8). By contrast, φύσις was nature, which existed irrespective of human tradition (cf. “law of war” below, 4.388). The Sophists and Plato via Socrates debated whether justice was universal or merely part of custom (shaped by a state’s powerful men) and whether one ought to live by natural instinct or deferring to conventional νόμος (cf. Heinimann 1965; Mannsperger 1969: 215–19); cf. Gorgias and the pseudo-Platonic Minos. As νόμος came increasingly to mean written laws of a polis, however, it became increasingly possible (as already with Plato) to imagine an ideal legal system that would reflect true, natural justice rather than the conflicting and arbitrary laws of different cities. Cicero develops the issue at Leg. 1.16–18, arguing that good laws ought to reflect true justice and not mere custom. At the same time, as the sense of νόμος began to harden as “ordinance, legal principle” (more than “custom”) it became sensible to speak of a law of nature itself, referring not to polis laws that accord with nature but rather the principles of nature, or laws seen in nature (with Dionysius, Ant. rom. 3.10.2, 11.3: one polis controls another according to the law of nature; cf. 8.23.1–2, 34.1). It was a small step for Philo and Josephus to claim that Judean law fused the uniquely sublime law of the Judean ethnos with the universal truth and justice of nature. Moses’ constitution was not contingent on formative experiences as outsiders assumed. Josephus explains (Ant. 1.18–21) that Moses, before laying down his laws of human interaction, modeled his constitution on the principles of nature (hence began with the Creation story). His paraphrase of the Bible thus uses κατὰ φύσιν about a dozen times to indicate natural relations covered by Judean law. He has no fixed expression for “the law of nature,” but connects the 2 words or equivalents in several ways. Thus, the drive for survival is a strong natural law (3.370), as is the law common to animals and humans that the weak must yield to the strong (5.367). Likewise, Judean law permits only sexual relations that accord with nature (Apion 2.199). In the present passage, it is a law of nature that the dead belong beneath the earth. I.e., with the laws of Judea, not precisely from, but anchored and practiced in, Jerusalem. See previous note: Josephus anticipates Antiquities by aligning Judean law with natural law: both require burial. Although the meaning of συμμιαίνω is clear, Josephus is only the second attested user. The first appearance is in a passage of Manetho, ca. 300 bce, which Josephus claims to quote verbatim at Apion 1.241. On pollution and purification in Josephus, see Mason 2013. This is one form of Josephus’ characteristic way of summarizing the requirements of virtue: justice toward one another and piety toward God. The Disciples violate both. See 4.150 and notes, with 4.317. The verb μυδάω is rarely attested before Josephus (13 times in extant literature), mostly in mundane references to eyelids, gums, or rainstorms “creating dampness.” But Sophocles had used it as a vividly macabre way of describing the “oozing” of Polyneices’ corpse in the guard’s report (Ant. 410; cf. 1008 and the variant reading of Oedipus’ gouging his eyes out at Oed. tyr. 1278). Medical writers occasionally also employed this sense. Josephus has the verb a remarkable 3 times, only in War 3–5 (also 3.530; 5.519), and always in connection with oozing corpses. The tragic resonance is clear. Josephus plainly, if surprisingly for readers expecting Jewish orthodoxy, assumes that the Sun is an expression of the Deity or God. Contrast the biblical prohibition of sun worship, intensified by the Qumran Scrolls (Deut 17:2–5; Ezek 8:16–19; 11QTa 55.15–21). This is by no means an isolated remark in Josephus. Cf. 4.317, which speaks of corpses left unburied as rank impiety. At 2.128, under the heading of their view of the Deity, he remarks that his beloved Essenes pray to the Sun each morning as if pleading with him to rise, and at 2.148 explains that they cover up while defecating outdoors in order not to insult the rays of God. At 6.217, on hearing of Maria’s cannibalism, Titus vows to bury the city in rubble so that the Sun cannot look on it. In Ant. 1.282–83, God parallels his watching over the earth with the Sun’s: Abraham’s children “shall ﬁll all that the Sun beholds of earth and see … for it is I who am watching over all that you will do….” Josephus tends to describe Jerusalem’s sacred spaces and priestly attire in relation to the Sun (2.411 with Ant. 3.100, 115, 184; 4.305; 15.418). He agrees with Greco-Roman tradition in regarding the Sun as a Deity, or at least implies a strong connection. For background see 2.128 and note (at “prayers to him”) in bjp 1b.

Josephus unites two key words of War’s tragic lexicon, coupled at 1.9, 11, 22. 27 and thereafter (cf. 1.6): πάθος (here “feeling”) and συμφορά (“calamity”). On each term, see 4.31, 39, and for their conjunction in this volume 4.165 with note. Greek πάθος has a range that English cannot capture, from suffering injury, assault, famine, or the like to the sufferings of the mind (emotions or disturbed feelings) and emotions in general, including as here the salutary if unfortunate emotions that arise from fellow-feeling; see Mason 2020. Or “fellow-feeling, commiseration.” See note to “feel sorry for,” part of War’s tragic vocabulary, at 4.173. As in the concentration of themes in 1.10–12, ἔλεος here overlaps considerably with pity in the next sentence. See note at 4.92 for the word group; here οἰκτείρω. This verb appears 60 times in classical tragedy, but not much in historiography, which usually downplays emotion: Herodotus 4, Thucydides 0, Xenophon 13 (mainly in biography and moral texts; cf. Plutarch 38), Polybius 0, Diodorus 2, even Dionysius 10 times (in his history). Josephus’ 13 uses of the verb in War (and 7 throughout Antiquities) stand out.

Josephus will re-use the expression (δι’ ὑπερβολὴν δέους), not found before him, at Ant. 5.64. The adjective εὐδαίμων—“happy, prosperous, doing well, in good spirits, thriving”—here taps a major theme in both of Josephus’ histories; he uses the word-group more than other writers, about 149 times. At bottom, he is convinced that Judean law provides the best route to happiness, well-being, or prosperity (Ant. 1.14, 20). See notes to “happiness” at 1.11 in bjp 1a and “prosperity” at 2.86 in bjp 1b. Whereas modern readers might assume that torture is the worst kind of suffering possible, this remark confirms Josephus’ earlier remarks about the outrage of unburied death: those being tortured envied even that.

Or “institution.” Greek θεσμός was a common term in classical political discourse, including orator, and tragedy (Aeschylus 6, Euripides 2, Sophocles 6) though not in historiography (Herodotus 1, Thucydides 0, Xenophon 1, Polybius 0, Diodorus 1, Dionysius 1). Philo is by far the heaviest user (37 times). Josephus has the word only here in War, suiting the tragic atmosphere, and once in Antiquities (16.163). Cf. 4.171 and 258 for rebels trampling sacred laws and the temple. Here, as at 4.262 in relation to the temple, Josephus compounds the verb (καταπατέω) for added force. The only occurrence of τὰ θεῖα in War, though Ant. 1–12 has it 5 times. Before Josephus, it appears mainly in Euripides (5), Sophocles (3), Plato (29), Aristotle (8), Dionysius (20), especially Philo (39), and Strabo. Niese is followed by all modern editors in reading τοὺς τῶν προφητῶν χρησμοὺς. Most mss (pamvrc), however, have τοὺς τῶν προφητῶν θεσμοὺς (“the rulings of the prophets”). Only ms L and the 10th-cent. Constantinian Excerpts have χρησμοὺς. It is, moreover, surprising that Josephus would use χρησμός of the biblical prophets (he does not do so in his much more elaborate treatments of prophetic writings in Ant. 1–12 or Apion), because the word suggests an oracular response, such as visitors to the Delphic oracle received: an enigmatic, inspired utterance by someone possessed. Editors prefer Niese’s reading, nevertheless, because Josephus uses the same word on two further occasions in War when he speaks of ancient prophetic oracles ignored by rebel groups (6.109, 312), and because the Latin translation has responsi. If this was his word, and it should be preferred as the more difficult reading, it seems that Josephus is content, before he embarks on an exploration of Judean prophets’ compositions in his later works, to let War’s readers imagine mysterious (6.312: “ambiguous”) oracular responses from an exotic Judean past. Josephus’ oracles have in common that that they have never been found in scripture, at least as he presents them. If we focus on his meaning in communicating with his audiences in Rome, rather than what he might have had in mind, he might be evoking the elusive “fated conditions” connected with Troy’s destruction, 3 of which the Roman author Plautus’ Bacchides recalls from a long tradition (953–955): “I’ve heard that Ilium had three fates [fata] which would mark its end: if the statue was taken from the citadel; the second is the death of Troilus; the third, when the upper lintel of the Phrygian gate was split open,” fatefully admitting the Trojan horse (lcl, J. A. Barsby trans.). Such vague predictions would reoccur throughout later centuries: a 15th-century prophecy that universal peace would come when a Turkish Sultan lived side by side with a Pope (Tuchman 1984: 85) or a supposed Arab prediction that a prophet from the west would enter Jerusalem’s Golden Gate when Nile water reached Palestine (taken as fulfilled by Gen. Edmund Allenby as Allah an-Nabi, “prophet of God”; Bar-Yosef 2001: 98). Josephus uses προφητ- cognates 402 times, with remarkable consistency. Except when speaking of would-be (false) prophets of his time or quoting other authors, he uses this language for the ancient figures—until the 5th cent. bce (Apion 1.47–53)—who composed the Judean holy books, with the sole exception of the Hasmonean John Hyrcanus, who enjoyed the gift of prophecy in the 2nd cent. bce (War 1.69; Ant. 13.299). See Feldman 1990; Gray 1993; Mason 2019c. Or “fit for beggars, the homeless.” This appears to be an allusion to Plato, Resp. 364b, where Socrates ridicules the easy purifications of the rich without concern for true justice, as they look to vagabonds with recipes for atonement (ἀγύρται δὲ καὶ μάντεις ἐπὶ πλουσίων θύρας ἰόντες πείθουσιν). This is only the second attestation of the adjective ἀγυρτικός in ancient literature, and it is only here in Josephus. The other attestation, in Strabo (Geog. 10.3.23), is similar in referring to phoney claims to inspiration, perhaps also alluding to Plato.

Josephus does not use the simple verb θεσπίζω (unless ms C is correct in giving it here). Taken from the name Thespis (a Homeric adjective meaning “inspired”), the reputed founder of Greek drama (Aristophanes, Vesp. 1479) who gave his name to English “thespian” (actor), the simple verb first appears in Aeschylus, describing Cassandra’s utterances of coming catastrophe (Ag. 1211–1213; cf. Eum. 922 for brighter predictions). Euripides and Sophocles also use it in this way. Philo, however, accounts for half of the first 100 attestations. Josephus uses the compound verb προθεσπίζω here, and in a few other significant places (4.626, of his own prediction concerning Vespasian; 7.349; Ant. 10.79). It is rare. The prefix appears superfluous, but Philo (who has the prefixed form 5 times) may have inspired Josephus’ preference. Aeschylus has 1 example of this compound (Prom. 211), Dionysius 3, Strabo 2, and Plutarch 8. Josephus here anticipates the project of his later Antiquities, which holds that prophets wrote the Judean scripture, anchored in the constitution of Moses, and that it is uniquely efficacious in prescribing virtue, proscribing vice and imposing rewards and punishments (Ant. 1.14, 20 with 1.72; 2.69; 6.93; 18.13; cf. the Essenes at 2.156). See note at 4.160. Or “became worthy of the end-point of the prophecy …” (τὴν κατὰ τῆς πατρίδος προφητείαν τέλους ἠξίωσαν).

I.e., long ago, when the (biblical) prophecies were made. The Niese text follows the mss in reading ἀνδρῶν † ἔνθα τότε, the symbol indicating a textual puzzle, because the adverb ἔνθα (“[from, to] there, then”) does not seem to make sense with τότε. A clever conjectural emendation is ἐνθέων rather than ἔνθα, which would qualify the ancient men as “inspired.” That is plausible; it would match Josephus’ use of the adjective at 3.353 (of himself), though not at 4.33 (of Vespasian) or of the cognate verb at 6.260 (cf. Ant. 15.240). The mss reading seems conceivable, if Josephus meant to locate the prophets as “from there” (Jerusalem). See note to this characteristic Josephan phrase at 4.260. He will use it repeatedly in relation to Titus’ destruction of the temple (5.332; 6.239, 346, 353). The point here seems to be that, although Titus (as everyone in Rome now knows) will destroy the temple, by the right of a commander to do what is necessary in a just war, Josephus wants to stress that Titus’ military action unwittingly fulfills an ancient Judean prophecy. See 4.129 and note to this central theme of War. The “domestic hands” following here likewise recall “domestic civil strife” at 1.10. The precinct (τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ τέμενος) seems to be either the Herodian temple mount or the part of it within the balustrade, open only to Judeans (cf. Ant. 15.298). Josephus refers to the same saying at 6.109: the city would be taken when someone began with the murder of a compatriot (ὅταν ὁμοφύλου τις ἄρξῃ φόνου). At 6.312 he mentions another neglected oracle spelling doom. Although either might be his ad hoc invention (wishing to seem the exotic interpreter of ambiguous oracular utterances), the repeated reference to this oracle about civil strife suggests that it is not a passing fabrication but something concrete in his mind. Commentators concede that no known prophetic passage says what he indicates (e.g., Thackeray, H-G), and obviously Josephus frames it in his distinctive language (“civil strife, pollute, precinct”). Some (Pelletier citing early research and M-B) suggest that he refers to Dan 9:24–27, which mentions the destruction of the city and temple (9:26), though it says nothing about civil strife or murder as cause—the point that is crucial for Josephus. We must remember, however, that few people have ever shared the scholarly axiom that each text is its own world. If we consider how someone with a broad knowledge of scripture such as Josephus might think, several possibilities appear. The most famous passage threatening destruction and foreign occupation is Deut 28:15–69—the curses for failing to observe the covenant, which become the basis for his Ant. 1.14, 20. Just before that chapter, Deuteronomy gives striking down a neighbor as an example of a heinous act (27:24). Or at Ant. 5.151, Josephus interprets Deut 20:10, which requires that Israelites try to make peace with foreigners before embarking on war, as requiring a fortiori efforts to make peace with compatriots. At Ant. 10.78–79 (cf. 11.1) Josephus also says that the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel left predictions of the recent Roman destruction of Jerusalem. At Ant. 10.90–95, he relates that the people attempted to have Jeremiah killed—a case of civil strife and the beginning of murder. Finally, Jeremiah was credited with writing Lamentations, a searing presentation of Jerusalem’s and the temple’s devastation, which includes mention of desperate women cooking and eating their infants (Lam 4:11; cf. War 6.201–13). Although the book of Jeremiah dwells on idolatry as the main violation meriting punishment, it too includes rampant injustice as an offshoot and, in 7:4–6, speaks of shedding the blood of the innocent in the temple precinct. The prophet asks: “‘Has this house, which is called by name, bandits’ lair for you? Look, I am watching!’ says the Lord” (7:11). The image of a murderous “bandits’ lair” (מערת פרצים, lxx σπήλαιον λῃστῶν) in the temple fits too neatly with Josephus’ description of the Disciples as tyrants and bandits (λῃσταί) based in the temple to be coincidental. Given that Josephus views himself as a Jeremiah-like figure in War (Lindner 1972, Daube 1980), though too late to be a prophet, it seems no great stretch to imagine that he believed, especially after the temple burned, that the ancient prophets had predicted Jerusalem’s doom at foreign hands when Judeans murdered the innocent in the temple courts. See also Glas 2021. A rare and possibly telling concession from Josephus toward the Disciples. If it is not precisely a contradiction to say both that they scoffed at the prophets (4.386) and that they did not disbelieve them, the statements are in tension. The tension may be resolvable if we posit Josephus’ grudging awareness that the Disciples group did not disregard scripture but interpreted it in a way he disliked. Cf. 6.313, where he allows that Judeans expected a leader to arise from among them, whereas the real referent (he thought) was Vespasian. Claiming that the Disciples scoffed at the prophets might be akin to charging them with recklessness, injustice, and insolence in overthrowing the traditional high priesthood, by appointing an unworthy man to the office (4.148–50), whereas it seems more likely that they thought their actions more faithful than current elite practice to biblical prescriptions, and so chose a worthy man though not from the small circle that had controlled the office since Herod’s time. The image of the Disciples making themselves agents of prophetic warnings in spite of their knowledge of these warnings (but thinking they did not apply to them) is tragic, much in the way that Oedipus acts in a way that fulfils predictions he knows (Oed. tyr. 105–45), but in pledging himself to avert the doom they foresee he does not realize that they target him.

Although it appears once in a fragment of Aristotle, Josephus is the first extant author to use the rare verb τυραννιάω, here and again at 4.508—there of Simon bar Giora, the other major “tyrant” Josephus holds responsible for the fall of Jerusalem (1.10–11). On the theme, see note to “tyrants’ home” at 4.151. See note to this characteristic term at 4.179. See note to this favorite verb of Philo’s at 4.132, its only other occurrence in Josephus. The merger or coalition (a particular and non-pejorative use of σύνταγμα; see “gangs” at 4.135) in question is that between John, with the Galilean followers who fled with him from Gischala (4.106–20), and the priest-led Disciples (see 4.160 and note). John first won the trust of Ananus when he was leading the populace against the Disciples, but then betrayed him by throwing in his lot with them (4.208–23). Although this passage seems to suggest a separation from the Disciples (4.389–97), when Josephus returns to Jerusalem’s internal affairs (4.556–66) the whole force in Jerusalem will be described as John’s (4.566), his Galilean bloc (itself a σύνταγμα) having risen to supremacy among the Disciples (4.558). At 5.5–10 the coalition will briefly fracture again, when the Eleazar who founded the Disciples breaks from John’s leadership, creating a 3-way civil strife—the other part comprising Simon’s followers and Idumeans (5.11–21). But at 5.98–105 John defeats Eleazar and reunites the Disciples under his command. Cf. Tacitus, Hist. 5.12.

Or “competing for.” The phrase here (δῆλος ν μοναρχίας ντιποιούμενος) is a more elaborate restatement of “after tyranny” in 4.389. Although this is the only occurrence of the phrase with this genitive object, Josephus elsewhere speaks of straining for rule (Ant. 13.287), kingship (War 1.434; 2.60; Ant. 17.231), or freedom (War 2.365; 7.327, 410). The only occurrences of μοναρχία are here and at 4.393, also referring to John. At Ant. 11.217, the Persian king is informed that Judeans reject kings and hate monarchy. Though conceding that Judea has been under monarchic rule in the past (Ant. 20.229), Josephus emphasizes that one-person human rule is pointedly rejected by Moses and other prophets (Ant. 4.223; 6.36; Apion 2.164–65).

Or “some from fear, some from favor” (δέος and εὔνοια), two commonly contrasting motives in dealing with the powerful. Cf. 1.153 (Pompey achieved compliance by good will rather than by fear); 1.196 (the Hasmonean Antigonus alleges to Caesar that Hyrcanus and Antipater follow him not from good will but rather fear). For the adjective δεινός, see Life 100–101, where it used twice in opposite senses of “awe-inducing, terrible”: first, of bad things and then of oaths or vows. In the present passage, likewise, the word means “forceful, compelling” first, but in 4.393 (“awful”) “terrible, bad.” For Josephus’ ambivalent stance toward rhetoric (one style of which was considered δεινός), see Mason 2011–2012. Or “with trickery and language” (ἀπάτῃ καὶ λόγῳ προσαγαγέσθαι). Josephus’ second introduction of John (2.586) used similar language: “Though ready to lie, he was formidable at conveying trustworthiness for the things he had lied about, regarding as a virtue his guile [“trickery” in bjp 1b]—and the use of this against those dearest to him,” as well as the reprise in this volume (4.85). Cf. Ant. 6.286 for Josephus’ reflection on the possibilities of guile in rhetoric, and Life 40, concerning Justus of Tiberias, who “was rather good at manipulating the populace and at overcoming the better arguments of disputants by craftiness and a kind of guile through words” (ἦν γὰρ ἱκανὸς δημαγωγεῖν καὶ τῶν ἀντιλεγόντων τὰ βελτίω περιεῖναι γοητείᾳ καὶ ἀπάτῃ τῇ διὰ λόγων·). See note at 4.31. See note to this formulaic language at 4.90. Since Josephus is here explaining why some continue to follow John, before turning to those who break from him (4.393), the point seems not that John will be a scapegoat from whom they dissociate themselves, but rather that, instead of being exposed as individuals for their crimes (alleged by Josephus), if it comes to a trial they can claim they were only obeying the commander’s orders. Contrast those in 4.394 who see their best hope, if prosecuted, in having opposed John’s power-bid early.

See note at 4.230. See notes to this pair, which Josephus uses of Ananus and John in partly contrasting ways, at 4.192, 214. Whereas in the latter passage John deceitfully pledges these qualities in the service of Ananus (who possesses them and can recognize them in others), here the narrator simply concedes them to John. Or “bodyguards.” According to Diogenes Laertius (1.98), Ephorus and Aristotle claimed that Periander of Corinth (ca. 600 bce) “was the ﬁrst to have spear-bearers—and he transformed his ofﬁce into a tyranny and would not allow anyone who wanted to live in his city.” See note at 2.262 in bjp 1b; cf. Isocrates, Hel. enc. 37; Plato, Resp. 575b, 587c; Polybius 21.32c.4; Diodorus 9.4.2; 11.86.4; 17.50.3; 17.50.4; 4 Macc 6.1, 23; 8.13; 11.27; Plutarch, Pelop. 6.2; 26.4; Sert. 5.7; 14.3; Dion 14.3. Josephus describes Augustus presenting Herod with 400 Gauls as a bodyguard (War 1.397, 664, 672), but more often associates δορυφόροι, mockingly, with would-be tyrants (2.262, 275, 434; cf. 2.645 [self-parody?]).

The double compound ἀντικαθίστημι, which Josephus always uses as a plural participle for a group (also Ant. 17.289; 18.8), is found mainly in historians, with Herodotus (2), Thucydides (7), Xenophon (3), Polybius (2), Diodorus (5), Dionysius (3) accounting for 22 of 37 occurrences before Josephus. Josephus is characteristically occupied with psychological motives that he has no way of knowing. Parsing the motives of John’s followers and detractors, he adopts a pointed realism; in place of noble abstraction or the virtues that these people likely claimed for themselves, he sees only calculations of self-interest. For envy, or the begrudging of success, see note at 4.357. See note to “formidable” at 4.391—the same Greek word now used with a different nuance. This group reverses John’s assessment: he considers himself worthy of supreme honor, whereas they cannot abide his rejection of equal honor. The only occurrence of εὐλάβεια in War. Antiquities has 4 cases. The 10 examples in Diodorus and 20 each in Diodorus and Dionysius are each a large share of the preceding 150 attestations for a single author (one third together), and possible inspirations for Josephus. Recalling 4.390; see note.

See note to “undoing of a better-established law” at 4.154. Most often in this volume Josephus has spoken of John’s (and the Disciples’) undoing of ancestral laws; here his erstwhile colleagues turn against him. The text is uncertain and allows for different translations. Thackeray lcl reads: “for they could not expect easily to depose him when once in power, and thought that they would have an excuse for themselves if they opposed him at the outset” (emphasis added). Most mss read καθ ̓ αὑτῶν (Thackeray: “an excuse for themselves”). Ms A, however, has κατ’ αὐτῶν (“for / against them”), while ms L and the 10th-cent. Excerpts have καθ’ ἑαυτὸν (“for / against himself”), supported by the Latin translation’s in se. These differences create two related problems: whether the object is the defector group or John, and whether the action is for or—as κατά with genitive usually indicates—against them (or him). Thackeray’s translation (with Pelletier and H-G) has John’s detractors break with him so that in case of future prosecution they can claim that they opposed him from the start, creating an excuse for themselves. But this does not yield the most natural sense of καθ ̓ αὑτῶν (“against themselves”?) or “from the start”—since they have long been following John. Thackeray includes a note to the effect that ἀντιπρᾶξαι (“working against”) is usually preceded by a negation. If we conjecture a lost negation here, the meaning could be “that he would have a pretext against them if they had not opposed him at the outset” (emphasis added). I.e., John would be able to say that, since they had not opposed him from the start, they are culpable with him. But this reading requires conjecturing the lost negation. M-B and Rogers offer a 3rd possibility (“they knew that he would always hold their initial opposition against them,” emphasis added), which does not require this conjecture. I.e., had they stayed with John, they knew that he would always be suspicious of them, given their early—though heretofore unmentioned—opposition, and he would use that as a pretext for harming them. So they had to break away from him. My translation takes this option, though the matter is uncertain. Whatever Josephus meant, he is imputing to these unhappy Disciples a calculation about the best way to manage their obvious guilt in case of future prosecution. He craftily implies that they were beset by guilt, such that strategic calculations about who would be blamed—rather than belief in their righteousness—motivated their actions. Apparently meaning: wars they choose to fight as free men, rather than voluntarily assuming the condition of war-captives (under John) without even being captured. See notes to this key term in War at 4.31, 39, 165. Josephus’ War may be read as a complex meditation on the nature of political freedom. He otherwise invokes “voluntary slavery” (see 2.209 and note in bjp 1b with 2.264) to drive home the paradox that rebel groups, prosecuting war because of the actions of Rome’s officials, do not scruple to impose a far more oppressive tyranny in Jerusalem, arresting, robbing, torturing, and killing their compatriots. See 4.95 (note to “freedom”), 146, 175, 178, and 344 with notes. The phrase is Platonic (Sym. 184; cf. Philo, Ios. 219) but in a different sense—Plato speaking of love as a willing slavery. Josephus’ use of this rare compound verb (παραπόλλυμι), 5 times in all, may be due to Philo’s inspiration, for Philo accounts for half (13) of the 27 attestations before Josephus. Before Philo the main users were the comic writers Aristophanes, Dionysius, and Menander (mostly preserved in fragments). The comparison gets its force from the condition, long before Geneva Conventions or the like, that war-captives had no protections and could die on a whim of their captors without cause (cf. Josephus at 3.392–98; Life 416).

See note to this key thematic word (stasis: “civil strife”) at 4.129. I render it “factional strife” here because it is focused in one party to the larger civil strife. The compound ἀντιβασιλεύω appears only here in Greek literature before the 11th century. It seems to be Josephus’ clever coinage, possibly inspired by Dionysius’ hapax ἀντιβασιλεύς (Ant. rom. 9.69.1).

Although a fragment of Poseidonius has the cognate noun διακροβολισμός, the verb διακροβολίζομαι appears ancient Greek literature before this passage (it is only here in Josephus) only in the Greek philosopher Onasander’s work (ca. 49 ce) on the general’s tasks, Strat. 14.3, describing the sort of action that would permit capturing enemy soldiers. This is Josephus’ first use of the common verb ἐρίζω. In 2 of the remaining 3 occurrences in his work (5.402, 414) it again has to do with the contention among Judean armed factions; the other case involves Roman units competing for glory (6.142). Since Philo has 9 of the 16 examples of this rare compound verb (ἀντιφιλονεικέω), which Josephus uses 8 times (5 in War 1–6), Philo may be Josephus’ inspiration, though Polybius (the first attested user) and Diodorus have 2 cases each. This (alleged) preference of armed Judean factions for easy plunder of their unarmed compatriots, to fighting other armed men, lays the groundwork for the coming claims that the populace preferred Roman rule to local tyranny (4.397) and the raids of the sicarii on Masada against Judean En-Gedi (4.400).

The image of the polis as storm-tossed is as old as tragedy (Euripides, Suppl. 268; Sophocles, Oed. tyr. 101—the latter germane here because the city’s crisis is caused by murder). It fits with Plato’s image (Resp. 488c–e; cf. Polybius 6.44.4, 6), later developed by Plutarch among others, of the polis as a sea-going ship and the statesman as its helmsman, whose chief concern is to keep it from deadly storms and bring it safely to harbor (Prae. ger. reip. 801c, 803a, 807b, 812c; Phil. 17.3–4). Cf. 2.556, where many distinguished Judeans, following the Cestian calamity, “swam away from the city as though from a sinking ship”—abandoning their leadership responsibilities. See note to “storm” at War 2.386 in bjp 1b. As one would expect of an ancient (rhetorically conditioned) historian, the nature of “the greatest evil(s)” changes according to context in Josephus, from sleeping with one’s mother (Ant. 3.274) to the destruction of one’s family line (Ant. 8.302) to Tholomeus’ violence against Idumea (Ant. 20.5). Recently (War 4.371), Vespasian has declared civil strife, one of the 3 ills given here, the single greatest evil. Even when Josephus creates one of his triads of worst ills (see previous note), he can choose a different 3. At 4.361 above, the dying Niger calls down war, famine, and plague on the rebels, along with civil strife, though somewhat differently phrased (see note to “hands” there). The prologue thematizes tyranny (1.10–12), but Josephus promises there (1.27) to separate out war, civil strife, and famine as distinct causes of suffering. This triad will be the most consistent scheme, although at 6.40 the 3 ills will be civil strife, famine, and siege. Josephus continues to press his claim that Judeans suffered more grievously from compatriot tyrants than from the Roman administration they were rebelling against, before the Romans were catastrophically drawn into the siege of Jerusalem: see 1.9–12, 22. See 4.80, 134 and note there to “lighter [fate].” I.e., to Vespasian and his forces at coastal Caesarea. See 4.410–419, which means these deserters and the information they provide to Vespasian, allegedly motivating him to relieve the city of the “siege” by domestic tyrants. He makes a quick trip to Perea, however, before returning to Caesarea. See note to this key term at 4.51. Josephus restates one of War’s recurring propositions (see 4.375 and note to “attacked”): that domestic enemies were far more vicious than Rome.

Josephus’ technique of describing what seems a complete triad, but then adding a fourth as a seeming afterthought, has parallels with 2.253 (rural bandits), 254 (urban sicarii), and 258 (false prophets), plus the Egyptian hybrid (261). It anticipates Ant. 18.11 (vs. 23), though admittedly Ant. 18.9 already mentions the Fourth Philosophy. See note to “undoing of a better-established law” at 4.154 and the cognate verb at 4.394. Here, the prospect that the entire ethnos, the Judean people, might be destroyed is surely the most serious threat yet. The episode immediately following (inhabitants of Masada raiding En-Gedi) does not seem to justify the high stakes, unless Josephus means that divine punishment would follow. More likely, he is looking ahead to the general resurgence of banditry throughout Judea in 4.406–410, of which the Masada residents’ raids are a first stage.

Josephus’ audience may have heard of Masada even without his descriptions, given the strange victory of Flavius Silva, now back in Rome, over its inhabitants in 73 or 74 ce, which Josephus also describes. Strabo had dwelt on the burnt appearance of the Dead Sea’s W side (though he calls the lake Sirbonis), including Masada (Geog. 16.2.44). Josephus’ contemporary in or near Flavian Rome, Pliny the Elder, mentions Masada as the limit of Judea on the W side of that great lake (Nat. 5.73, ca. 77 ce). Josephus has introduced the site early in War 1, as a natural fortress on the SW quadrant of the Dead Sea, and mentioned it a few times in the Herodian narrative (1.237–38, 264–66, 293–94). It has played a role in the early phase of the war: the rebel faction of Menachem (apparently) seizes it from a Roman-auxiliary garrison and brings its stockpiled weapons to Jerusalem for defense against the auxiliary and other Judean factions there. Later, Josephus introduces Eleazar son of Yair, a relative of Menachem’s who escapes to Masada when his faction is crushed, and later still Simon son of Giora, whose temporary flight to Masada he anticipates (2.408, 433, 447, 653). Cf. 4.503–509 below, where he elaborates on that period, now in retrospect, describing Simon’s time on the rock before the death of Ananus (though this has already occurred: 4.316 above). These passages all anticipate Masada’s crowning role in War: the story of the collective self-destruction in 7.252–401, which assumes that most of the people who fled there (as in Simon’s case) were in families. For the archaeology and history see inter alia Zeitlin 1965, 1967; Yadin 1966; Roth 1995; Masada I–VIII; Reich 2001, 2003, 2007; Netzer and Stiebel 2008; Arubas and Goldfus 2008; Ben-Tor 2009; Mason 2016a: 514–75; Magness 2019. This description matches Josephus’ early remarks on the site, e.g. 1.267–74: during a Parthian invasion in support of their Hasmonean ally, Antigonus, Herod leaves his women and children on Masada, guarded by 800, as he departs on military-political business. That Masada was designed as a place of secure (royal) refuge, not as a fighting fortress, is important for understanding the aims of the families who fled there in 66 ce and following. They went not because they were zealous to fight Rome, but on the contrary they sought safety from Jerusalem’s factional strife, long before Roman retribution reached the city.

Josephus here looks back more than 1.5 years (to late 66 ce): at 2.408 unnamed Judeans eager for fighting charge on Masada, seize it by stealth (by access via unguarded paths? at night?) and kill the “Roman” (likely auxiliary) garrison, replacing it with their own guard. The group in question appears to be the faction of Menachem, because at 2.433–34 this group will head there to secure weapons (it must be in their hands), and because Menachem’s relative Eleazar (later master of the site) flees to Masada when his faction is defeated (2.447). Ms M includes “bandits” (λησταί) after sicarii; mss pa include it in the margin. This is the first mention of sicarii in War after their introduction at 2.254–57 and follow-up at 2.425 (see notes in bjp 1b). In the former passage, Josephus describes a blight of concealed-knife attacks in the late 50s ce in Jerusalem. People began taking advantage of dense crowds, especially at festivals, to stab enemies and walk away with impunity. This description makes sense of Josephus’ use of the familiar Latin label, for it fit the Roman crime of this name, which was grouped with clandestine poisoning and punishable under special legislation promulgated by Sulla (81 bce). Cicero’s Pro Cluentio and Pro Sestio are speeches defending clients charged under this law; cf. Quintilian, Inst. 10.1.12 with Cloud 1969; Rives 2006. Whereas that War passage presents the high priest Jonathan as the most notable victim of the new knife crime, Ant. 20.162–66, 185–88 portrays his murder as a distinct contract-killing, which inspired a rash of knife-crime, not yet called sicarii activity. Only later (20.186) does Antiquities introduce sicarii, claiming that such activity proliferated under Festus (τότε μάλιστα ἐπλήθυον). In the second passage in War 2, sicarii are again defined as violent people who conceal blades (or swords) in the folds of their clothes. This still accords with Roman usage. Sicarii do not appear as a defined group or political faction. In that passage (2.425–32) they support Eleazar son of Ananias’ priest-led rebel group against the senior priesthood, attacking residences of the wealthy and the record offices. This happens before Josephus introduces Menachem (2.433). But the present passage (4.400) gives the name sicarii to those who had occupied Masada, whom War 2 identified as Menachem’s faction (lethally opposed to Eleazar ben Ananias and his priest-led Disciples). After Menachem’s defeat by Eleazar’s faction and the survivors’ flight including Eleazar son of Yair, sicarii disappear from Jerusalem in Josephus’ narrative. They are not involved in fighting Romans, who do not arrive in Judea until 68 and besiege Jerusalem only in 70. We find sicarii still at Masada, eventually under the leadership of Eleazar son of Yair, at 4.516; 7.253–62, 275, 297, 311, and later in Alexandria and Cyrene (7.409–715, 437, 444)—no longer with any reference to concealed blades. It seems, then, that Josephus comes to favor the scare-word sicarii in the closing paragraphs of Book 7, for all disruptive and distasteful men. This recalls Cicero’s broader use of such language after he turns to prosecution: having defended men actually accused as sicarii, he now attacks his senatorial enemy Catiline as, if not himself a sicarius, then on intimate terms with such murderers (Cat. 2.7, 22; cf. Pis. 38). Josephus’ Roman audiences would have no reason to suppose that the Latin term (any more than “poisoners”) suggested ideological or factional commitment. Scholars have tended to lump sicarii with Zealots (here = Disciples), taking both to be defined anti-Roman groups. See for a partial corrective Brighton 2009 (1–22 on the history of scholarship) and Mason 2016a: 254–57, 541–45, 562. Although the point is disguised because in both passages Josephus is looking back to the time (late 66 to early 68 ce) before Ananus’ death, this description fits 4.504–507, which refers to the same period. When Simon bar Giora flees to Masada after a force from Ananus ii expels him from his marauding activities (apparently against Judeans) in Acrabetene (2.652–53; 4.504), he goes to Masada and, after a period of probation, is permitted to join the residents’ neighborhood raids. But he is soon frustrated by their timidity: “for they, accustomed to being in their fortress just as if it were an animal’s den, were anxious about straying far” (4.507). The present passage observes that they became bolder when they learned of the civil strife and tyranny in Jerusalem, which exploded after the murder of Ananus and Jesus (4.314–32). The later passage’s claim that Simon was unable to persuade them to bolder activities, and so deserted them when he heard of Ananus’ death (early in 68), agrees. If he had stayed, perhaps he would have found them kindred spirits in a new boldness. Both passages confirm, in any case, that families living on Masada needed fresh food and other materials from the surrounding villages, which their raiding parties would take by force if necessary.

As the next sentence implies, Masada’s residents were anxious about the Roman military but, perhaps more immediately, about the Jerusalem leaders checking their activities. See previous note: Ananus ii and his associates had commanded the countryside around Jerusalem until Vespasian’s Judean forays in early 68. Masada was beyond Ananus’ reach, but his forces could hem in the rock’s residents. Recalling Vespasian’s decision to stand fast in coastal Caesarea, 4.368–77. This recapitulates the entire preceding narrative, especially since the murders of Ananus and Jesus, 4.314–32. For the key thematic word “civil strife,” see note at 4.129, for “tyranny” the note to “tyrants’ home” at 4.151. Two of the best mss, pa, along with the 10th-cent. Excerpts, read νδροτέρων, which I translate. Niese is followed by most editors in preferring the ἀδροτέρων of mss vr. Although this yields a possible sense (“thicker, more swollen, stronger”) and has the advantage of being the more difficult reading, it is an odd adjective for Josephus to use in this context without reason. It is rare, mainly appearing in medical and scientific writers (though Diodorus uses it often for the stout military forces, not behaviour): Josephus has it elsewhere only at 2.578, in Diodorus’ more natural sense. By contrast, ἀνδρεῖος occurs 28 times in Josephus, and would go well with throwing off timidity. See note at 4.91.

I.e., Unleavened Bread, Josephus’ usual name for Passover (in 68 ce), because the Bible requires leaven to be removed from one’s house during the festival (Exod 12:7, 19; 13:7; 34:25; Deut 16:4). Josephus’ Atticizing War tends to avoid foreign words, but transliterates Aramaic πάσχα as a Judean term, glossed as “unleavened” and as a festival of abundant sacrifice, symmetrically at 2.10 and 6.423. Josephus’ main description of Passover, in Ant. 3.248–51 (cf. 5.20; 9.263–64; 10.70–71; 17.213–14; 18.29, 90; 20.106), distinguishes Passover from Unleavened Bread, but he normally identifies the two, as when he introduces this festival in War 2.10. See notes in bjp 1b, with Colautti 2002 and Siggelkow-Berner 2011, for the importance of Passover as a tragic reference point in War. Calculation from moon phases places 15 Nisan around 4 April in 68 ce. See note to “safety” at 4.51 (here the accusative plural of the cognate adjective: σωτήρια). See Exod 13:1–10. Educated Greek and Latin authors were aware that Judeans had come from Egypt, but inferred that they were therefore a derivative ethnos. Expelled (in most accounts) from their Egyptian home, they established a new ethnos based in Jerusalem, with new, anti-Egyptian laws (Herodotus 2.104.3; Manetho, glajj nos. 19–21; Ptolemy of Mendes, glajj no. 157a; Diodorus 40.3; Strabo, Geog. 16.2.34–40; Tacitus, Hist. 5.4–5). Josephus’ paradoxical formulation that they fled slavery in Egypt for their ancestral land reflects the biblical story, which Antiquities 1 will elaborate: Abraham had already settled the nation’s founders in Canaan-Palestine, centuries before Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt and gave them a comprehensive law based on the divine plan in nature. This notice about a flight from slavery is not necessary to explain the festival (Josephus does not mention it in most other places), but here serves the work’s tragic irony. The defining event in Judean history was that escape from foreign slavery, and yet precisely in the week they celebrate this freedom, Judeans in En-Gedi are massacred by compatriot tyrants. Thackeray’s note (lcl) proposes that much of En Gedi’s population would have been away in Jerusalem for the feast, to help explain how Masada’s raiders could have such an easy victory. But Josephus could easily have said that if it were so, and it is not clear that strife-torn Jerusalem would have been an inviting place for Passover celebrations at this time. If we wish to understand Josephus in light of his own cues, we rather notice that the raiders surprise, scatter, and drive out those who could have defended the town. See note to this characteristic verb at 4.62. See note at 4.84. En-Gedi is an oasis half-way down the ancient W shoreline of the Dead Sea, fed by a spring 200 m above the site, about 17 km (12 mi) N of Masada. It had been occupied since ancient times, with a settlement on the hill to the SW (Mazar 1993 for the first excavations; Hirschfeld 2008 for those of 1996–2002). Josephus renders Hebrew עין־גדי (“spring of Gad”) in various ways—here Ἐνγαδδί, elsewhere Ἐνγαδδαί, Ἐγγάδη, Ἐγγεδών—matching his general inconsistency in representing Semitic names. War has mentioned the site only as one of Judea’s 11 toparchies (3.54), without elaboration. There was a decent chance that a literate Roman audience had heard of it, though, because dates were treasured in Rome. The Elder Pliny, Josephus’ contemporary in Rome, mentions Engada as a site formerly known for its fertility and palm trees, recently destroyed in the war (Nat. 5.73). Pliny has a keen interest in date palms and gives the prize to Judea for its varieties, elsewhere citing the region’s fame (13.26, 44–49), though that passage does not name En-Gedi; cf. Theophrastus, Hist. plant. 2.6.2. Josephus will pause his biblical paraphrase, however, to identify En-Gedi as “the city that sits right beside Lake Asphaltites … ; in it are produced the finest date palm and balsam juice” (Ant. 9.7). The town’s fame was such that, two generations later, the physician Galen would go far out of his way to visit it. Galen reserves the label “finest” for bitumen from Asphaltites (valuable for healing wounds) and balsam juice from En-Gedi (Simp. med. temp. 12.171, 375; Symp. caus. 7.245; Comp. med. 13.536, 560; Pis. ther. 14.260; Antid. 14.60–62 [glajj nos. 380, 382, 386, 388, 389, 392]). He calls them Judean asphalt and opobalsam, and agrees with Josephus that the “Engadine” balsam trees are the finest (Antid. 1.4). For Galen to have heard of En-Gedi it must have been famous. At some point before the Bar Kokhba Revolt, it had become a special imperial possession (Lewis 1989: no. 11 lines 1, 13), and this may have been the case even before 70, though there is no clear evidence. Around Galen’s time, Aelius Herodian mentions it as a large village near Sodom (Pros. cath. 3.1.379).

Given Josephus’ general assumptions and the following reference to women and children left behind for killing, he seems to mean that En-Gedi’s men of fighting age and capability were surprised and, as they rushed out of their homes to defend the town, were isolated, perhaps captured, and expelled from the city—leaving the women and children vulnerable. Mss pavr read: ἐκόλασαν (“punished, chastised”). M-B favor this reading, in support of their effort (agreeing with J. Klausner) to seek a pious rationale for people Josephus disparages as bandits. Noting Josephus’ later claim that Masada was well supplied with century-old but still edible food from Herod’s time (7.296–97), they argue that the residents had no need to go raiding, and hypothesize that they attacked others, such as those at En-Gedi, because they saw them as traitors. Problems: (a) Josephus tells a story about raiding to get food, which is taken back to Masada. One can reject the story, but there is no point trying to remake it into something else. If it is a fabricated story, it needs no explanation and offers no warrants for such re-invention. (b) The passage in War 7 about preserved food is a note about something marvellous to amaze readers. Century-old food, especially for all the children at the site, was presumably grim fare. Fresh produce was needed and the fertile oasis of En-Gedi was a logical place to look. (c) It is far from clear that the residents of Masada, who had fled the violence of Jerusalem in 66 with their families had a cause. Had they wished to fight Rome, fleeing as far as possible to a secure fortress in the desert was not the obvious move. At 3.262 Josephus describes the females and children of Iotapata as the “idle, useless” part of the population, which he cannot assign to defense and must confine to their houses because of their demoralizing effect on the fighting men. Hirschfeld (2008: 1719) found archaeological “evidence of a fierce conflagration” in debris over dumped pottery and stones in the communal ritual bath, which he thought might have come from this attack. Josephus’ language suggests that the raiders were primarily interested in driving everyone out, perhaps to seize the food they had prepared for Passover. They did not pursue those who fled, but now their blood was up, killed women and children left in the town. In light of the next sentence, which suggests that the murders allowed the raiders to strip the houses, we might assume that the women and some children tried to protect family possessions. In any case, Josephus presents the affair as an atrocity. The number of 700 is, as usual, surprisingly high for a village of perhaps 1,000 (?), and suspiciously round. As often, one tenth would be a more credible figure, but still a frightful massacre.

Or “disfurnishing, stripping.” This extremely rare compound (ἐκσκευάζω) is inherently ironic, because the common verb σκευάζω (“furnish”) was associated with success, for ordinary folk struggling to equip a home. The raiders from Masada coldly kill their neighbors and seize in a moment what the victims have struggled to procure. This is the sole occurrence in Josephus. The verb is attested before him only in Demosthenes (C. Onet. 30) and Strabo (Geog. 15.3.9), and hardly after him. The standard translation of καρπός (here plural) is “fruit,” though the word encompasses grown foods: grains and cereals—whatever trees or plants produce. It does not refer to meat, however. That is significant because the heart of the Passover meal was a lamb sacrificed on the altar in Jerusalem (Exod 12:21–27; Deut 16:5–6; Ezra 6:19–20; 2 Chron 30:15–18). The assumption may be that, because the townsfolk could not visit Jerusalem for the sacrifices, they had prepared a Passover meal without meat (or leaven).

Lit. “not a few” (litotes). The meaning of ἑκασταχόθεν is obvious, but it turns up only here in Josephus. He seems to have been inspired by Thucydides, who has 2 of just 3 attested earlier cases (Thucydides 7.20.2, 21.1; cf. Xenophon, Hell. 3.4.3). See note to this compound verb at 4.128. As the next sentences show, Josephus claims that Masada’s raiders inspired residents of the surrounding settlements to join in the plundering of their own home towns.

Mss lc read: “Idumea’s.” Greek: τὰ ἄλλα τῆς Ἰουδαίας κλίματα. The last noun, meaning “sides, slopes, climbs,” is more colorful than “parts” or the like, and suggests the broken-up, hilly terrain of the region. See note to “bandit troop” at 4.84 for this thematic language in War. The primary organ (τὸ κυριώτατον), an unusual metaphorical use of this adjective (see note to “supreme authority” at 4.366), is Jerusalem (next sentence). This is not surprising in War’s larger context, but the reader might have assumed until now that Masada was the bandit center causing ills elsewhere. Josephus appears to assume the audience’s recollection that the group on Masada is there because of the bloody civil strife they had first fomented and then fled, in Jerusalem (2.408, 433, 447; 3.399–400). Josephus returns to what he has said in 4.401, before the excursus on Masada: the civil strife in Jerusalem as source of distress throughout the land. See note at 2.264 in bjp 1b. Before Josephus, most attestations of φλεγµαίνω (134 of 164) are in the Hippocratic corpus, others in medical-biological texts. Metaphorical use for political disease is Platonic (Tim. 84–87b; Resp. 372e; Leg. 691e; cf. Polybius 3; Plutarch, Lyc. 5.6; Num. 8.1; Fort. rom. 321c). Josephus has it 4 times, all in War and always in the political sense: 1.507; 2.264 (especially close to this passage), 290. For the thematic image of a political disease see 1.4; 3.3; 4.84, 376.

See note to this basic theme at 4.129. See note to this affecting term for Jerusalem, implying the care that all those who look to her as their source should show toward her, at 4.123. See note to this thematic language for Josephus’ enemies at 4.179. Josephus does not need to explain to his Roman audiences which villages or what precise movements are in view. They might know from general knowledge (as Pliny, Nat. 5.70–73) that Judea is largely a hilly desert punctuated by spring-fed towns and the great city of Jerusalem. Josephus emphasizes the region’s fertility (3.48–58), perhaps because Pliny’s picture of a dry wasteland was not appealing, but he finesses the issue by stressing that rainfall suffices for plant life (3.49). Nevertheless, Josephus has also made frequent reference to Judea’s desert (e.g., 1.355; 2.259, 262; 3.515; 4.164; cf. 5.1; 6.7).

Or, less literally but conveying the sense: “conspiring together” (συνόμνυμι). The compound verb is common in Thucydides (12 times) for joining a league, then turns up most often in Dionysius (16) before Josephus, who has it only here in War, but 6 times in later works. See notes at 4.134, 196. The language and verbal imagery here recall 4.131–36, in reverse. There, disturbances throughout the countryside feed the inflammation in Jerusalem, as arch-bandits and their followers join together and stream into the city. Now, with the resulting disease having festered and worked its evil in Jerusalem, Josephus claims that the mother-city’s inflammation breaks out through the rest of the territory. Although bandit language is a staple of War, λῃστήριον appears only here and at 1.398, though 11 times throughout Antiquities. A surprising phrase (προσέπιπτον ἱεροῖς καὶ πόλεσιν). War has ἱερόν 159 times, because the word normally means “temple” and Jerusalem’s temple is central. But in all the other cases except 1, the word is singular and comes with the definite article (even at 4.661, where it refers to the Temple of Zeus in Rome). As Josephus emphasizes throughout, before his brief description of an imitation in Egypt (7.431–33), Judeans have but one temple, which is the focus of his narrative. A possibly telling exception, at 7.144, comes in Josephus’ description of the Flavian triumph, which depicts on large tapestries fires consuming Judea’s temples (ἱεροῖς). We might understand this, along with many features of the triumphal procession, as mischievous misrepresentation by the Flavians of a land rich in temples, cities, and rivers, which they have supposedly conquered (Mason 2017a). See also 7.45, where votive offerings permitted in Antioch are said to adorn τὸ ἱερόν; commentators differ in understanding that as the local synagogue or the temple in Jerusalem. In the present passage, excluding “temples” as impossible, most scholars understand Josephus to refer to synagogues or prayer-houses (Thackeray lcl translating “temples” but glossing it a note). M-B, seeking a pious justification for the bandits, in spite of Josephus’ harsh denunciation, propose that synagogues contained images that offended the hardline “Zealots” (citing Life 65–67). But it is far from clear that 1st-cent. synagogues contained such images, and if our concern is what Josephus expected his Roman audience to understand, it is simpler to accept that he spoke (misleadingly) of temples. He would be amplifying his enemies’ crimes by accusing them of robbing temples—a disgrace in all ancient contexts—along with the cities that housed them. That they raided unnamed cities is already a historical problem: which ones? For the sake of momentary rhetoric, he would be anticipating the Flavians’ misrepresentation of Judea.

Josephus typically uses “charge” (ὁρμή) and cognates, here the verb, for military assaults (hence the reference to victims of war), in distinction from sneak attacks by bandits or robbers against individuals or small groups of their own people, who make off with loot from the victims. These bandits, by contrast, have linked up their gangs to become something like an army (if smaller), and so they indeed make proper charges against “cities,” though they still behave like bandits and do not face the challenges of a real army, which remains exposed in the field, dependent on vulnerable supply lines, and so on. Because they are locals, they can disappear into the desert caves they know—as bandits do. This is a difficult sentence in parts, though the central contrast is clear enough: between war-like conditions faced by victims as though a foreign army were fielded against them, which however would have afforded at least the possibility of defense and retaliation, and the tactics of the domestic “bandits,” who act like a marauding foreign army but cannot be squarely faced because they attack suddenly and disappear with the loot. This again relates to Josephus’ thematic contrast between relatively mild Romans and relentlessly violent home-grown tyrants: 4.181–85, 375, 397. I.e., the mother-city Jerusalem, reflecting Josephus’ assumption that it was the heart of Judea, and so its ructions had ramifications throughout the region. See note to the phrase (τῇ προανεχούσῃ πόλει) at 4.89.

Picking up the narrative from 4.366 and 377. Vespasian’s army remains headquartered at coastal Caesarea, receiving a steady flow of deserters from Jerusalem. It is inherently likely that representatives from Jerusalem who escaped the Disciples’ dragnet would have tried to meet Vespasian soon after his arrival in Caesarea in late 67, along with leaders of other Judean towns. See note to “delegation to him” at 4.414 below. These deserters play a significant role in the coming narrative. Vespasian (4.444) and his general Placidius (4.438) will install groups of these now homeless people, a natural elite group of proven loyalty, in the villages and towns around Judea and Perea, to form a secure ring that would keep the populations in check without needing to use Roman garrisons. Curiously, although War uses στασιαστής 70 times (only 4 times elsewhere, Ant. 14–20), far more than any other ancient author (the tlg has only 12 attestations before Josephus, mainly in Dionysius’ Roman Antiquities, his likely inspiration), it occurs almost exclusively in Books 2, 5, and 6; this is its only appearance in Book 4. A στασιαστής is an agent of civil strife (στάσις, cf. 1.10 for both together as leading theme of War) and so has the same vague and flexible usage. Josephus’ less frequent equivalents include στασιώτης, στασιώδης (just below in 4.414), στασιοποιός, and the plural participle οἱ στασιάζοντες. Recalling 4.377–79, where Josephus refers to evasion of the Disciples’ ruthless checkpoints at the city gates and/or on routes outward, but mainly claims that wealthier citizens could bribe their way past them; see notes there. Or “take vengeance for the city and rescue / save those….” These are thematic terms in War’s tragic narrative, where defense and rescue or safety (see note at 4.51 for the simple cognate noun) are usually futile hopes. The compound verb here, περισώζω, is rare in ancient literature, not frequent in any author before Josephus (Xenophon 7, Aristotle 2, Dionyius 2, Strabo 3, Philo 2, both in the Embassy to Gaius), who has it 17 times. Josephus’ phrasing highlights his view that the citizen populace of Jerusalem has been taken over and crushed by outsiders: those (including “bandit gangs”) from the countryside, John of Gischala and his Galileans, and Idumeans, who have wiped out most of the city’s natural leaders. The small faction of recalcitrant priests (who anchor the Disciples) have prevailed only because of this massive influx from outside. As those who are able to desert continue to do so, it makes sense that they ask Vespasian to help “the elements of the populace that were left,” even if the population may have remained constant or grown with newcomers. They refer to Jerusalemites.

Reported by the narrator Josephus as fact, this remark gives weight to the charge consistently levelled by the Disciples and their allies, but dismissed as a lie by Josephus, that the native leaders of the city had intended to make peace with Vespasian. See 4.146 and notes.

Josephus’ expression ὁ δὲ οἰκτείρων ἤδη τὰς συμφορὰς αὐτῶν marks a change from 4.366–76, where the intelligence brought by deserters persuades his generals that an immediate attack would be timely, but Vespasian convinces them that it is far better to let Jerusalem destroy itself. Whereas that was cast as a purely strategic decision, maximizing destruction of the enemy at minimum cost, Josephus now hooks the Roman commander, somewhat implausibly, into the thematic pity that his literary audience has been feeling all along; see notes at 4.92 and, for the verb as here, 4.384. For the thematic key-word “calamity,” see note at 4.39. I.e., Vespasian already begins planning to besiege Jerusalem, his main task, as the center of the disturbances that engulfed Cestius (3.1–9). It will require what looks like a siege. Josephus adds the narrator’s reflection, however, that in light of his foregoing account, it would in fact be liberating Jerusalem from internal siege by the tyrannical Disciples and their allies. At 4.280, the Idumean leader expresses his view that the Disciples, then trapped in the temple compound, are besieged by Ananus and his popular force; the Idumeans have come to aid those they see as victims of tyranny. Although Josephus has not used siege language for the reverse situation, it follows that when the Idumeans succeed in liberating the Disciples and destroying the city’s leadership, he would view it as under siege by those forces. Given that the Roman siege would occur only two years later and under Titus, the delay being caused by the Roman civil war following Nero’s death and not by facts on the ground in Judea, it is important for historical perspective to see that Vespasian had simple plans. After the immediate submission of most of Galilee in 67, from early 68 he planned a straightforward siege of the Judean capital, after securing supply lines and blocking any threats in the rear.

A double-compound verb designed to impress, προκαταστρέφω appears only here in Josephus. In all of ancient literature, it is otherwise attested only in Diogenes Laertius (2.138; 10.148), citing earlier philosophers. This phrase (τὰ λειπόμενα) for Judea outside Jerusalem highlights a central assumption of ancient thinking: that the civilized world comprised poleis, such as Jerusalem, and their attached hinterlands. What “remained” were all the smaller centers from Perea across the Jordan to the desert fortresses (not considered important now, 4.555) and the closer towns of Jericho and Ammaus. Josephus gives conflicting reasons for the march on Perea: the standard military logic of not beginning a siege when substantial elements of the enemy remained in the rear, which would have been enough, but then in the next sentence, responding to a request from Perea’s elite for a garrison. Josephus has not mentioned a capital of Perea, which he describes as rather a desert (3.44), although 2.168 notes Antipas’ construction of a new city of Ioulias in honor of Augustus’ widow (Livia, who took the name Iulia in 14 ce) on the site of Beit-Haram, Betharampha (Ant. 18.27–28; see below). Gadara is one of several names shared by a number of sites (cf. Gerasa at 4.503, Abila and Ioulias below)—baffling ms copyists and creating confusion for modern readers. E.g., at 3.131 the mss give forms of Gadara for a Galilean site near Iotapata, which scholarly conjecture restores to Gabara (i.e., Arabah). Here, however, the mss agree on Gadara. The famous Hellenistic-Syrian Gadara of the Decapolis (Umm Qais in mod. Jordan), built from dark basalt in the hills SE of the Kinneret Lake (Sea of Galilee), is the Gadara Josephus mentions most often, which informed audiences in Rome might know about because it had a certain fame. At 1.86, 155 it is badly damaged by the Hasmonean Alexander Janneus, then rebuilt by Pompey under the influence of his Greek freedman Demetrius, who was from Gadara. At 1.396; 2.97, 459; 3.37, 142, Josephus calls Gadara a Greek city or groups it with Decapolis Hippos and/or Scythopolis. The present site cannot plausibly be that famous Gadara. At 1.170, Josephus has named 5 Judean regional centers established by Gabinius in the 50s bce, and a “Gadara” (Γαδάροις in most mss) appears there alongside Jerusalem, Galilean Sepphoris, Jericho, and Amathus in Perea. The mss there show confusion, to be sure, with vr reading Γαδώροις and the Latin Doris. Thackeray (lcl, cf. M-B) proposed biblical Gezer (or Gazara, with a common z-d shift) for that site, W of Jerusalem toward the coast, whereas H-G prefer B. Kanael’s proposal of an Adorah there. For the present passage, H-G surprisingly favor Decapolis Gadara (“the reference is probably to the important city south-east of the Sea of Galilee,” though they allow that it may be farther S). It is difficult to see why Vespasian could have considered Decapolis Gadara, which was in any case far out of his way in Perea, a threat to his siege of Jerusalem, and that site would make what follows difficult to understand. The site is more plausibly identified (with Thackeray lcl, M-B, Pelletier) with mod. Salt (Es-Salt / Sult), 20 km (12 mi) E of the Jordan River and 22 km (nearly 14 mi) NW of Decapolis Philadelphia (Amman) as the crow flies. Salt was founded at what Conder and Kitchener (sep 237) called the “magnificent” spring of Ain Jeidur, which (if ancient) would explain the Greek name Gadara. The high and central location also suits a capital of Judean Perea. At nearly 1000 m asl, Salt has a commanding view to the W, where the terrain drops dramatically toward the Jordan Valley (here 300 m below sea level). The modern road (route 437), likely following an ancient route, heads SW along the Wadi Shaib / Wadi Nimrin to mod. South Shuna, which is the scene of the coming action (= Bethennabris below), thence to the area of the mod. Allenby / King Hussein Bridge toward Jericho across the river, which is the fleeing Judeans’ goal in the coming story. The strip of Judean territory E of the Jordan bounded by Nabatea to the S (past Machaerus) and Decapolis poleis territories to the N (Pella) and E (Gerasa, Philadelphia). See note to “Perean Niger” at 4.359. For “mother-city” see note at 4.123. Josephus attaches more famous Macedonian names to Hebrew lunar months (see note to “Hyperbereteus” at 4.63): Dystrus = Adar is the last month (doubled every few years to keep the lunar calendar in the proper seasons) before Xanthicus = Nisan. In the year 68, known moon phases put Adar / Dystrus from about 21 February to 21 March (depending on the new moon’s sighting), in which case the 4th fell around 25 February. (Nicols 1978: 55 follows an older system of aligning Josephus’ Macedonian month names with Roman solar months, such that 4 Dystrus was 4 March.) Vespasian’s expedition to Perea would thus have been from late February through early March. Since Passover fell in the middle of the following month (Nisan, March–April), but Josephus has already described the Passover raid on En-Gedi, the present story must be reverting to an earlier time—a necessary technique for narrators who want to coordinate simultaneous events.

See note at 4.86. This is one of Josephus’ deliberately vague terms for people he considers troublemakers, who oppose established leaders. Given varied motives for such restiveness—in Jerusalem, in places where Judeans were minorities (Caesarea, Scythopolis), and in Agrippa ii’s territories—we should not assume a single shared sentiment. Since Judean Perea was a satellite of Jerusalem, however, about 60 km (37 mi) to the E, it is entirely possible that some residents had felt solidarity with Jerusalem’s struggles and, with the Disciples in Jerusalem, were livid that the Gadara’s leaders would invite a Roman garrison to blockade Jerusalem from the E and garrison their town. This reaction need not reflect anti-Roman or anti-imperial views of longer standing. One of Josephus’ formulaic expressions (οἱ δυνατοί) for the ruling class of any town. See note to “men of distinction” at 4.213. If Vespasian led an expedition from his winter quarters to Perea even before the arrival of spring, in late February, the delegation from Gadara to Caesarea must have set out weeks before—not long (or immediately) after they had heard of his arrival in Caesarea in late 67. They may not have been alone. It would have made sense for any town officials to welcome a Roman legate on his arrival, to express good will and preclude potential confrontation. Cf. 3.30–34, where Josephus claims that Sepphoris’ leaders rushed to greet Vespasian and Agrippa when they arrived at Ptolemais, their northern base before entering Galilee. Life 410–11 makes it clear that many regional leaders came at the same time. Presumably the exercise was repeated when he reached Caesarea, with leaders of the coastal and Decapolis cities greeting him, though Josephus does not mention this. Some Jerusalemites were among those greeting him and requesting support (4.377). How these leaders made their money is unclear. But their city’s position as Judean capital in the region (mediating connections with Jerusalem, including pilgrimage and economic ties), the suitability of their location for E-W and N-S trade, and their command of the fertile valley E of the Jordan, 17 km (10 mi) to the W/SW, had some potential to generate wealth.

See note to this Philonic-Josephan adverb at 4.40.

The mss more or less agree on Δόλεσος, though L has [τὸν] δόλισσον. The name is otherwise unattested in Greek, and a Hebrew or Aramaic original is not obvious. Given the mangled way in which Semitic names can come into Greek, we cannot rule out a Hebrew original. It might be a corrupted form of Δολιχός (“long”), and it is not beyond imagination that Josephus fabricated a name for the unfortunate man, suggesting without writing Δολερός (“deceitful, treacherous”). See note at 4.358, where the same language is used of the Disciples’ victim Gourion in Jerusalem. Josephus has used the phrase before (1.97, 654), though it is previously unattested.

A formulaic phrase (μετ’ εὐφημίας) for the ritual of going out to welcome a Roman commander, in exchanges for pledges of safety for a town: 2.297, 511; 3.410, 459; Life 251 (this for Josephus). Similar scenes have played out throughout history, e.g. as European townsfolk lined up to greet German, French, British, or American armies passing through. See notes at 4.96 and (to “safety-pledges”) at 4.4. This is formulaic Josephan language. Gadara’s situation parallels that of Sepphoris when it welcomed Vespasian on behalf of Galilee, then received a garrison of infantry to protect the city and cavalry to dominate the countryside (3.33, 59), though the much smaller Gadara receives a garrison half the size. The ostensible threat here is from the small number of disaffected fugitives, whereas in Sepphoris it was possible attack from rural Galileans and the need to pacify the whole region. As a former commander, Josephus shows a consistent interest in the different roles of infantry (storming, occupation, defense, close and urban combat, intimidation en masse) and cavalry (rapid deployment, rounding up enemy soldiers fleeing the field, advance parties, blocking routes, and dominating plains and valleys). See note to “cavalrymen” with further references at 4.57. In Gadara, likewise, the infantry would provide ample protection within the city; the cavalry would conduct patrols of the surrounding countryside and chase down would-be attackers or perceived enemies trying to flee.

Josephus implies (with “for”) that the garrison was needed because the residents had pulled down their walls. But that would only make sense of the need to protect the city from the small number of rebels (see 4.415: the rebels were vastly outnumbered). Vespasian’s need to cover the rear in a siege of Jerusalem, and install garrisons to control the region (4.413), would not be affected by the absence of a wall.

The tribune Placidus has a recurring role in War and Life (see note at 4.57), though he fades from the scene once Vespasian leaves. The following episode, characteristic of the energetic initiative he shows everywhere, is his last in War. It is possible that the battle-hardened commander joined Mucianus’ army headed for Rome (below). See note to “cavalrymen” at 4.57. This was an auxiliary or allied (not legionary) “wing” (ala) of specialist cavalry. Cavalry wings are often in multiples of 500 (perhaps actually 480) in Josephus, as here, though sometimes enhanced to 600. Since Vespasian has 3 legions available (3.64–65), this force could represent 36 centuries from one or more legions. Or it might represent 6 smaller or 3 larger (or a mixture) auxiliary cohorts of the 18 he brought from Syria plus the 5 from Caesarea (cf. 3.66–67, though the numbers do not match those in that passage exactly). Josephus does not indicate how long Vespasian remained in Gadara, after entering on 4 Dystrus (ca. 25 February), or how long he took to return to his base in coastal Caesarea. Assuming 10 to 14 days all told would put him back in Caesarea between 4 and 10 March, in time to leave a week or so later (4.443: at the very beginning of spring) and be in Jericho 2 months later, on 3 Daesius (22–23 May, 4.449–50)—after considerable wandering and camp-building.

See note to “fugitives” at 4.417. Chasing down fugitives is a cavalry role, whereas the infantry presumably settled in as a garrison. As often with Semitic names, the mss offer minor variations; cf. ccfj 5.27. Generally identified with biblical Beit-Nimrah (בית־נמרה) E of the Jordan (Num 32:3, 36; Josh 13:27), the location was known until the mid-20th century as (Tell) Nimrin, where the Wadi Nimrin meets the Jordan Valley (cf. sep 237–38). The m-b shift in Josephus’ name for the site is paralleled in Latin forms of his Mabartha (4.449) and Somora (4.454). The location is mod. South Shuna (formerly Shunat Nimrin). A traveler proceeding S and then SW down the present Route 437 from Salt (Gadara) following the Wadi Shaib (Shueib) meets the town on the S side of the wadi, ca. 9 km (5.5 mi) E of the Allenby / King Hussein / Karameh Bridge. Glueck (1943: 11–12) concurs that this was the Roman-era site mentioned by Josephus, though he argues that Iron-Age biblical Beit-Nimrah was 1.5 km to the NE, N of the wadi, at Tell Bleibil.

See note at 4.57. Josephus is the first extant author to use the rare adverb εἰκαίως, and he has it only here. It is the mot juste because he is about to stress the imbalance between a group of young men randomly equipped and professional soldiers trained to fight in a panoply (4.424)—a futile gesture in spite of the Judeans’ bravery.

Of the 23 attestations of τεχνιτεύω before Josephus (1 in a fragment, 1 in Dionysius), 21 are spread across Philo’s extensive corpus. The verb is thus characteristically Philo’s, its appearance here another strong indication of Philonic influence on Josephus, who has it only in two other places (2.604; Ant. 5.307). Placidus has already proven a master of the “feigned retreat” (see 4.60 and note there), at Mt. Tabor. It was an ancient tactic, still today often used by a stronger force, to look vulnerable in order to lure the enemy to expose their forces for destruction.

Placidus follows textbook wisdom in not engaging the enemy until he has them on his preferred ground (e.g., Vegetius, Epit. 3.13). See note at 4.115. This compound verb (κατακοντίζω) is characteristic of Josephus, and before him only of Diodorus. Although it is used once by Herodotus, twice by Thucydides, 4 times by Xenophon, and once by Polybius, Diodorus has it 22 times before Josephus’ 14 (Plutarch only 5). The implied weapon is the κοντάριον (spear, javelin). The possessive distinguishes fugitives fleeing the battlefield in this engagement, chased down by the cavalry, from the fugitives from Gadara. Or the “massed, intertwined, compacted” groups of enemy fighters. See note to “fugitives” at 4.417 for Josephus’ interest in the distinct battlefield roles of infantry and cavalry.

A suggested nuance her for Josephus’ frequent τόλμα, “boldness, [usually otherwise] brazenness.” See note at 4.33. The word βέλος is vague: see note at 4.190. It could refer to objects fired by torsion-machines (sharpened bolts); see 4.17–19. In this context, coming from infantry and cavalry on the move and given the choice of verb in 4.423, the missiles in question seem to be javelins. Since the scene looks rather scattered, it is not clear what Josephus means by the line of battle here (φάλαγξ, or Roman ranks). For an impression of the possibilities with 6-deep legionaries see Goldsworthy 2003: 175–77.

Or “impaled.” This compound verb (περιπείρω) suggests the influence of Diodorus and / or Philo. Of the 15 attestations before Josephus’s 2 uses (also 3.296), 4 of which are in the undated Aesop’s Fables, and 1 in a fragment of the historian Aristides, 3 are in Diodorus and 4 in Philo (also 2 in Strabo). See note at 4.424. Here apparently meaning javelins (“spears” in 4.423). See note at 4.174. I.e., against swords. See 4.27 and note for the same metonymy. This (κατὰ στόμα) is a Homeric phrase: Il. 15.389; 16.345; 17.47; Od. 5.441. After a few appearances in tragedy, it turns up mainly in Diodorus (16 times) before Josephus’ 8 cases (6 in War). If these were legionaries, as seems likely, they used the short gladius, either the curved Mainz or the straight Pompeii type, both between 40 and 55 cm (16–22 in) in length. This was a versatile weapon, especially effective for thrusting through armor, though also for slashing from either side when needed (Goldsworthy 2003: 133). If the soldiers were not legionaries, they would likely have used the somewhat longer spatha sword. As the next paragraph shows, the dispersal was not yet their destruction, but the preparation for it.

The compound verb διακλείω was not common. Josephus has it 3 times in each of his main histories. It may be Polybius’ coinage, for his 12 occurrences are the first attestations, after which Diodorus has 5 and Dionysius 4 cases. I.e., Placidus needed to prevent the ad hoc rebel force, mainly recruited from Bethennabris, from finding security within the town’s walls. He wanted to isolate and destroy all those who were willing to fight him.

I.e., ordering his cavalry to ride in continuous circles, preventing most of the enemy from reaching the wall. This compound (παρελαύνω) is one of several from the same root featured in this volume and this Perea passage; see note to “rounded up” at 4.115. See note at 4.424. Josephus does not clarify whether the cavalry or infantry (or both) fired the missiles. Perhaps the cavalry’s main task was merely to maintain a barrier by continuous riding, presenting a ready target of massed fighters (and those trying to approach) for the infantry. Or “finest, noblest, most valiant.” See note to “bravely” at 4.429 below. This double-compound verb (διεκπίπτω), which Josephus has 9 times, is attested before him mainly in Diodorus (14 of 41 attestations), a possible inspiration. Its regular use in Plutarch (21 times) and later suggests, however, that it was becoming more popular along with other double compounds in the late 1st cent. ce.

Presumably gatekeepers positioned safely inside the walls, who could effectively keep the gates bolted shut. Cf. the case of Jerusalem at 4.236, 298–30. The suggestion seems to be that the locals of Bethennabris would have been happy to exclude the troublemakers from Gadara, who had recently invaded their village, if they had been the only ones fleeing Placidus. But the gatekeepers must keep the gates open somewhat to admit their own young men, though they realize that those from Gadara, whom Placidus was mainly after, will push in with them. Recalling (4.421) that the Gadarene refugees had compelled or enticed the young men of the village to join them: it was unthinkable to shut out their own young men when they might otherwise be killed.

See note at 4.203 for the unusual verb. This implies that the guards had left the gates partly open, to admit the Gadarene fighters with their own men, on foot. The Roman cavalrymen tried to charge in with them and almost succeeded. See note to this characteristic expression (οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ …) at 4.144. The lack of perfect clarity about the scene is reflected in the second scribal hand of ms R, which reads that they did not get ahead to close the gates. The Greek is not clear about who “overtook” (φθασάντων, genitive absolute) the cavalry to shut the gates. M-B and H-G leave the subject unstated, whereas Thackeray lcl, Pelletier, and Rogers assume that it was the guards (Rogers: “The guards forestalled them and shut the gates”). This is logical, since the guards inside (recently mentioned) were in the best position to shut the gates, and only they could bolt them shut. But they had tried to leave the gates open to admit fellow-Judeans. Moreover, several Greek verbs have the sense of “prevent, forestall, block, defend against,” whereas φθάνω (here) often suggests “arrive first, overtake, preclude.” This might suggest that Judean youths, who are the understood plural subject of the preceding genitive absolute, got ahead of the cavalry to block their entry, ensuring that the gates were tightly shut—perhaps by yelling at the guards to do so. That would be an act of brave self-sacrifice, though the Romans would soon break in. Such an effort by Judeans outside the wall to prevent Roman access might also best explain Placidus’ long struggle to reach and open the gate: the Judeans had deliberately locked themselves out to fight. Or “nobly, heroically, excellently.” That Josephus can use the same adjective of high praise (γενναῖος) for two groups whose outlook he disfavors, the young Judean fighters at 4.427 (superlative form) and Placidus’ violent army here (adverb), shows the even-handedness he promises in the prologue (1.9). As the following volumes will confirm, he can recognize courage, especially of the raw physical kind, even among those he considers political abominations. Apparently meaning, unless his soldiers scaled the walls, that Placidus was finally able to force the gates and enter. The hours-long struggle of Placidus’ professional army speaks volumes about the courage and tenacity of the randomly equipped and untrained young Judeans (a root theme of Josephus’ War: 1.1–8) who prevent his access for so long.

This collocation (διαρπάζω + ἐμπίμπρημι) is a cliché in Josephus, who uses it 15 times (below at 4.448, 649; cf. 2.440, 505). In earlier literature it appears once each in Thucydides (1.49.5) and Polybius (18.3.3), but as a recurring phrase only in Diodorus (4) and Dionysius (2).

Since Gadara, the source of the rebel group, could not have held more than perhaps 5–6,000, and the unreconciled had to flee because they were vastly outnumbered (4.415), and they recruited a force of young men from the much smaller village of Bethennabris (population 1,000?), they could not have numbered many more than 100 or 150, before their catastrophic losses in combat with Placidus—leaving a group numbering perhaps in the tens, historically speaking. As often in Josephus’ narrative, he gives the impression of magically growing numbers, to produce the death toll in 4.425–26. I.e., throughout Perea E of the Jordan River. Representative settlements mentioned at 4.438 are Abila, Ioulias, and Besimo. See note to this thematic keyword at 4.39. See note to “this” in the present sentence along with 4.425–26. Some tens of initial survivors create a mass of some 30,000 terrified villagers across Perea, from where exactly he does not say. Biblical Jericho (Heb. יריחו; Arab. Eriha), both the oldest more-or-less continuously inhabited (from ca. 10,000 bce) and the lowest city on earth (250–335 m [800–1,100 ft] below sea level), was according to the Bible the first Canaanite city W of the Jordan conquered by Joshua (Josh 2–6; Ant. 5). Fed by springs in the Judean desert and situated at the intersection of highways running N-S (from Scythopolis along the Jordan Valley) and E-W (from Judean Perea to the Jerusalem hills), the site begged for settlement. It was first settled by Natufians, the first agriculturalists and makers of beer. By the 1st cent. ce Jericho was famous in Rome for its date palms and balsam plants (cf. 1.361; Pliny, Nat. 5.70; 13.44). Josephus has mentioned it often in his Hasmonean and Herodian narratives (1.56, 120, 138, 170, 299–302, 323, 407, 417, 659, 666), e.g. demonstrating Marc Antony’s passionate enslavement to Cleopatra vii by his claim that the Roman took Jericho and other choice sites from King Herod for her; the shrewd Judean king then leased them back (War 1.361–63). Herod valued Jericho as a winter retreat from Jerusalem (it does not experience the capital’s harsh winter) and build 3 palaces there. The city was also his final retreat before dying in 4 bce. The gospels mention Jericho as the last major stop for pilgrims from Galilee travelling via the Jordan Valley, before they would ascend into the bandit-filled Judean hills toward Jerusalem (Matt 20:29–34; Luke 19:1–10). Sitting 10 km (6 mi) W of the Jordan River, its position mirrored that of Bethennabris on the E, via the route of the mod. Allenby (King Hussein) bridge. As one of the centers assigned a “general” after the ambush of Cestius, to prepare defenses in advance of the Romans’ arrival (2.567), Jericho was the nearest major Judean settlement (cf. 3.55) for Perean refugees. Those fleeing Gadara / Bethennabris could hope to find temporary safety among compatriots here, Jerusalem being too far away for such immediate relief. Jericho will also be Vespasian’s last major garrison site as he isolates Jerusalem from its Judean network (4.486–90). Cf. M. Sala, F. Bocquentin, and B. Wagemakers in Wagemakers 2014: 131–58.

See note to “hope of pardon” at 4.221 for what seems to be Josephus’ original image of warming hopes. See note at 4.51. The population and exact boundaries of Jericho in the 1st cent. ce are unknown (Netzer 1993, 2008), though it sat within the space of the modern town, which has a population under 20,000. Given that 20,000 is a common estimate for the mother-polis Jerusalem at this time (Geva 2014), 10–12,000 may be an upper limit for Jericho.

The 10 km (6 mi) between Bethennabris and the Jordan River was the E side of the flat Jordan Valley, ideal terrain for cavalry to overtake refugees on foot. In the flat, open landscape (see previous note), no one could escape from charging cavalry. The first of 3 occurrences of συνελαύνω in this volume (also 4.515, 567), a compound verb favoured by Josephus (see note to “rounded up” at 4.115 for 2 cognates). Josephus has this verb 21 times in his corpus, whereas it appears only 56 times in all Greek literature before him, e.g.: Homer (5), Theophrastus (4), Polybius (3), 2 Maccabees (3), Diodorus (5), Dionysius (1), Philo (5), Strabo (6). This notice lends plausible color to the story. Heavy rain is especially likely from November through February, and winter torrents do create flash flooding even in the desert in February. This episode may have occurred at the end of February (4.413), when the Jordan’s current (before its modern diminution, with a loss of perhaps 90% of its tributary water) would be extremely fast and heavy. This notice also sets up Josephus’ gruesome observation at 4.437 that the number of bodies in the river made it fordable in spite of the flooding and fast current. See note to the verb at 4.219. Presumably, the cavalry column turned from its advancing column to create a battle line facing the Judeans.

These are villagers of all ages and both sexes fleeing in terror from reports of a violent advancing army. Their flight alone has made them Placidus’ enemies apparently, but they have no motive or means to fight him, and can only spread themselves out along the bank. At 3.487, Titus’ cavalry does the same thing (παρεκτείνω themselves) so as to appear more numerous and intimidating. In the present context, the trapped villagers are more likely spreading out so as to present more difficult targets, to avoid being killed en masse. The Jordan River is not straight, with the kind of banks familiar from larger rivers. It constantly and abruptly reverses direction in 100–300 m stretches. The banks of the river itself therefore provided considerable space in principle, though it was likely overgrown as it is today, perhaps making it suitable for hiding and unsuited to cavalry attack. But the banks in question here might be away from the river, which would have had a much larger capacity in the 1st cent. ce and would have been surging with the winter torrents.

Lit. “by hands” (ἐν χερσὶν). Ms L has 10,300. As often in Josephus, division by 100 would produce a more plausible and still dreadful number (100–150 dead is a substantial massacre), in view of the size of the villages and the ability of people to flee so far. A tenth of his number seems to be a maximum. Ms L has “unwillingly” (ἀκουσίως) instead of the ἑκουσίως in the other mss. Both make sense: the majority reading distinguishing between those killed by the enemy and others who chose to jump into the current, ms L’s copyist reasoning that this was hardly a voluntary decision.

If Placidus was willing to take a large number of prisoners, one might wonder why he killed so many. Perhaps we should we understand the prisoners to be women and children. Apparently, the farmers and shepherds took some of their livestock with them as a means of survival. Or possibly Josephus refers to livestock captured from the abandoned villages.

Cf. 4.433 and the settlements mentioned in the next sentence (4.438), which seems an elaboration on this one: Josephus has in mind the E Jordan Valley of Perea. A macabre image. Josephus has created the impressive verbal picture (4.433) of a river made impassable by surging winter torrents. This new image of corpses being so plentiful that they choked up even that river-state so as to make it crossable, even as countless others were also swept downstream into the Dead Sea (even if they could not come close to “filling” that vast body of water), is chilling indeed. I.e., the Dead Sea (Heb. ים־המלח, “Salt Sea”). This is the only occurrence of the adjectival form Ἀσφαλτική (λίμνη) in Josephus or in extant Greek literature. Far more common are Ἀσφαλτίτης and Ἀσφαλτίτις (Josephus’ term otherwise, 14 times), and 2 mss (lc) as well as the Latin change it to the former of these. But the meaning would be clear to Josephus’ audience because of the lake’s fame (Diodorus 19.98–99; Pliny, Nat. 2.276; 5.70–73; 7.65). Josephus will soon offer a geographical digression on this renowned body of water (4.376–85). By delaying his account of the outcome, while showing off his local-expert knowledge as a native of Judea, something none of his competitors in Rome could manage (1.1–8), Josephus also creates suspense. Pliny mentions Lake Asphaltitis a few times as a reference point (Nat. 2.276; 5.70–73; 7.65), imagining it to be many times its actual size, sometimes calling it the “Lake of Judea” and marveling at the bitumen that gave it its name. See Beagon 1992: 79 and especially Murphy 2004: 113–27 on Pliny’s use of the Dead Sea as an emblem of destroyed Judea. Cf. Diodorus 19.98–99, who emphasizes the foulness of both the water and the air in the whole region. The Jordan River holds a Guinness world record (https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/114422-lowest-river, accessed 11 March 2021) for being the world’s lowest river. It descends more than 3,230 m (10,600 ft) from its points of origin around Mt. Hermon, over a 251 km (155 mi) course. That this descent made it a forceful and dangerous current, before modern states began diverting an estimated 90% of its natural intake, is clear from Lt. Lynch’s account of the perilous 1848 U.S. naval expedition down the river (Lynch 1849: e.g. 169, 173–74).

Six times in War (and only in War), Josephus writes of someone’s δεξιὰ τύχη, each time in the dative with the verb χράομαι: the person enjoys steady fortune (1.45, 430, 665; 5.78; 6.14). No author before Josephus attests this expression, though it turns up occasionally in later authors. The assumption seems to be that fortune is famously and by its nature unpredictable, unstable, and instantly reversible, all the more so in war (see note at 4.40). So it is a remarkable thing when someone enjoys a lucky streak, the adjective “right” suggesting firmness, steadiness, or confidence. The distribution of this original collocation in War, across material from very different sources, confirms Josephus’ control over his narrative: he does not merely copy source material. See note to “small town” at 4.84. These 3 names highlight the general problem with Josephus’ mention of places, as with Gadara—not the famous city of the Decapolis—in the preceding episode (see 4.413 and note). Abila (the mss show confusion: Amila, Abela, Adila) was also the name of a Decapolis polis (mod. Qailibah in N Jordan), which Polybius (5.70–71; 16.39.3 apud Josephus, Ant. 12.136) mentions along with Gadara (strongest city of the region) as a prize in Antiochus iii’s conquest of southern (Coele-) Syria, taking it from the Ptolemies in the Fifth Syrian War (202–195 bce). Abila was also the name of a town on the edge of the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, anchoring the tetrarchy of Abilene and associated with famous warlords Ptolemy, Lysanias, and Zenon during the 1st cent. bce and early 1st cent. ce (Ant. 19.275; 20.138). Neither of those suits an Abila in Judean Perea, though Josephus himself may have confused sites of the same name. At War 2.252 he reports that Nero gave Agrippa ii 4 poleis with their territories: Tiberias and Tarichea in Galilee, Abila and Ioulias in Perea. The latter 2 must be the sites he has in mind here. But the parallel in Ant. 20.138, 159 says that Claudius gave Agrippa Abila in Lebanon, Nero adding the 2 Galilean towns plus Ioulias (alone, with surrounding villages) in Perea. Josephus appears to have “corrected” himself, now thinking that N Abila was more likely. The Latin translation of War 2.252 even puts Ioulias in Iturea (Lebanon), to match an Abila in the N. The Abila here must be the one Josephus mentions at Ant. 4.176, where Moses last speaks on the E side of the Jordan, a place full of palm trees “where the city of Abila is now,” and at 5.4, which puts Abela 60 stadia (ca. 12 km, 7.5 mi) E of the Jordan. Josephus’ biblical paraphrase correlates this place with biblical Abel-Shittim (“meadow of the acacias”) or simply Shittim (Num 33:49; Josh 2:1; 3:1). Scholars agree that the site is in the region of el-Kefrein (Kafrayn) in mod. Jordan, but where exactly is debated. It is becoming increasingly difficult to identify ancient sites, or to match the modern landscape with the 1880s swp or even Glueck 1951; the population of the valley has grown 5-fold since the 1970s (Ibrahim 1976: 41). Abila was long thought to be either Tall el-Kefrein or Tall el-Hammam, both of these being large mounds at the edge of the Jordan Valley on the W side of the mod. King Hussein Bridge Road (cf. Conder in sep 140–41). They are about 13 km (8 mi) from the Jordan River, close to Josephus’ estimate of 60 stadia (7.5 km, 5 mi); he uses multiples of 10 stadia or 2 km. Glueck (1943: 13–18; 1951: 378–80) agrees that Tall el-Hammam is the site of biblical Abel-Shittim, but (as with Bethennabris) argues on the basis of archaeological finds that Roman-era Abila had migrated with the name ca. 3.5 km (2.1 mi) W of the biblical site to Khirbet Kefrein, a still-today uninhabited area in the large modern town immediately N of the Wadi Kefrein, as it is surrounded by graves (cf. sep 149). Ioulias: Ant. 18.27 relates that Herod Antipas (ruler of Galilee and Perea) walled a city called Betharamphtha (with some ms variation), where his father King Herod had already maintained royal residences (cf. War 2.59), and renamed it Ioulias in honor of Augustus’ wife. Since Livia became Iulia only when she was adopted into the gens Iulia on Augustus’ death in 14 ce, Antipas would have originally called the site Livias; it retained this older name in some Christian sources (Jones 1937: 275 and below). Antipas’ brother Philip made a similar move with the town of Bethsaida in his territory of the Lower Golan (Ant. 18.28). Pliny mentions delicious dates grown in Livias in Judea (Nat. 13.44). The name Betharamphtha and variants appear to preserve the biblical name Beit-Haram, a site said to be just E of the Jordan (Josh 13:27), via Aramaic Beth-Ramtha (so Eusebius, Onomasticon, who says that it is “now called Livias”). To complicate matters, later Christians were sure that Livias was biblical Abel-Shittim (cf. Abila above; Graves and Stripling 2011: 180–81), and Glueck (above) agreed that it was that biblical site. Glueck (1951: 394–95) was convinced that Tall Iktanu (Iktanwah), 2.7 km ESE of Tall er-Rameh, was biblical Beit-Haram. Conder (sep 238–39) agreed with many others in identifying Livias-Ioulias with Tall er-Rameh, 0.5 km S of Wadi Hisban (= Wadi er-Rameh), about 10 km (6 mi) NNE of the Dead Sea, roughly the same distance E of the Jordan River, and ca. 3.2 km (2 mi) S of Abila, just N of mod. Al-Rama and W of Al-Rawda. Graves and Stripling (2011), however, make detailed arguments—from the required size of the site (to have 14 dependent villages), water supply (remains of aqueducts), association with hot springs, precise distances, and archaeological remains—to support their view that the much more prominent site of Tall al-Hammam (named for its springs), was the center of Ioulias, 3 km (1.9 mi) ENE of Tall er-Rameh, but that Ioulias was a large enough city to encompass it. Besimo (Βησιμώ), the reading of ms A (preferred as most difficult), appears only here in ancient texts. Other mss add the final t (ms P) or th (lmvrc Lat) we would expect of a Hebrew feminine plural. Num 33:49 refers to a place called Beit-Hayeshimot (בית־הישׁמות) near Abel-Shittim (= Abila above)—the Israelites being spread out between the two towns—and situates it close to the lower Jordan on the E side (cf. Josh 12:3; 13:20; Ezek 12.9). The lxx offers inconsistent transliterations (Αισιμωθ, Ασιμωθ, Βαιθασιμωθ, Ασιμουθ), which roughly approximate ms variants in Josephus. His biblical paraphrase omits passages that mention the site, so we cannot see how else he might have rendered it. The name is preserved in the Jordanian tourist town of Swemeh (cf. Conder in sep 156) on the NE shore of the Dead Sea, about 10 km (6 mi) SW of Ioulias / Beit-Haram. The original Khirbet Swemeh is in the middle of this town, about 2 km inland from the shoreline. Glueck (1943: 23–26; 1951: 398–400) characteristically agreed that this was the site referred to by Josephus, but proposed that the biblical site that furnished the name was in the fertile foothills by a wadi nearly 5 km E of Kh. Swemeh. See note to “Asphaltic Lake” in 4.437. In summary: the capital Gadara (= Salt), on a line N of Araq (Iraq) el-Amir, home of the ancient Judean Tobiad aristocracy, and Heshbon (Hisban) formed the E frontier of Judean Perea, abutting the W hinterland of the polis Philadelphia-Ammon (now the vastly larger Jordanian capital, Amman). In Josephus’ story, dissenters from highland Gadara’s capitulation to Vespasian create unrest in the other Judean centers to the W, chiefly in the Jordan Valley. The Judean towns form an arc from Bethennabris via Abila and Ioulias to Besimo (S Shuna, Kefrein, Al-Rama, Swemeh), perhaps deriving their livelihood from farms in the valley. Refugees race toward Jericho across the river, terrified of a large Roman force allegedly on the rampage, with the hope of fording the river (or crossing a bridge) around the location of the mod. King Hussein or Allenby Bridge. Unable to cross as hoped, they are cut down in large numbers. With their towns of origin largely emptied, Placidus resettles these with Rome-friendly refugees from Jerusalem. The only deserters (οἱ αὐτόμολοι) mentioned thus far are those who escaped from Jerusalem to plead with Vespasian to liberate Jerusalem (4.410). Since they cannot return to their homes in Jerusalem and they have proven their loyalty to Rome, Placidus apparently decides to reserve professional soldiers for the garrison at the regional capital of Gadara, from which base the cavalry could patrol, installing these displaced Judeans in the towns. They might be expected to calm the populace in a way that the presence of a foreign garrison would not. Vespasian will use deserters in just the same way: see 4.442, 444.

Little explanation is needed because Placidus follows the procedure of his commander, Vespasian, when he chased down and massacred the rebels from King Agrippa ii’s lakeside cities on the Kinneret Lake (3.503–505, 522–31). Just as Masada marked the S frontier of Judea with Nabatea W of the Jordan, Machaerus (farther N, mod. Mukawer in Jordan) had that role on the E side (3.46). It is about 32 km (20 mi) S of Ioulias, 26 km (16 mi) from Besimo. About 6.7 km (4 mi) from the Dead Sea shore, it was a bit farther (8 km, 5 mi) from its port on the Dead Sea, the therapeutic springs of Callirhoe, sitting in one of the few flats before the steep rise of the Transjordanian Plateau. This is the first mention in Book 4 of the important desert fortress, famous as the place of John the Baptist’s execution according to Josephus (Ant. 18.119)—though not in the gospels. He mentions it in connection with Masada and to a lesser extent Herodium several times in Books 1 and 7. Cf. 4.555 below, where Vespasian will leave only these 3 fortresses untaken (as they will remain for several years) while he plans the siege of Jerusalem. Machaerus was developed as a refuge by the later Hasmoneans and then King Herod (War 1.161, 167, 171–72), after whom it fell within the Perean component of his son Antipas’ tetrarchy, where it became a flashpoint in Antipas’ conflict with the Nabatean king Aretas iv (Ant. 18.111). At War 2.485–86 Josephus claims that (in contrast to Masada, which refugees from Jerusalem seized by killing its Roman or auxiliary garrison), Judean residents of Machaerus persuaded the garrison to leave under a truce, after which they secured the hilltop. At 7.163–209 Josephus will provide an overview of the site’s earliest occupation and fortiﬁcation, as context for its capture by Lucilius Bassus in 72 or 73 ce. For the history and archaeology, see Vörös 2010, 2013, 2015, 2019 with Mason 2016a: 514–75.

Greek Γαλατία meant literally “the region of Gauls” (Γάλλοι), i.e., where Gauls or Celts (Κελτοί, Κελτικοί) lived. Cf. Caesar, Bell. gall. 1.1: “In their own language they are called Celts, in ours Gauls.” The homeland, largely co-extensive with modern France (Celtic tribes had come from the upper Danube centuries earlier and now also occupied much of Britain), which the Romans called Gallia in Latin, comprised 300 to 400 constituent nations (2.372; Plutarch, Caes. 15; Appian, Celt. 1.2) and was by far the richest of Rome’s western provinces (cf. Cicero, Font. 5; War 2.364, 272). Josephus, writing in Rome, provides the first attestation of Gallia in Greek, an alternative name for the region (War 2.111, 183; Ant. 18.252). Greek writers normally, however, spoke of Galatia even when they meant Gaul (as Polybius 2.19–24; 10.37.5; 18.11.1 as in Poseidonius and Diodorus), adding “eastern” or “in Asia” (Appian, Bell. civ. 2.202; 4.373), if the context did not make it obvious (Polybius 24.14.2; 30.30), when they referred to the region of Gallic settlement in Asia Minor (mod. W Turkey)—eventually the eastern Roman province of Galatia famous from the nt. In speaking of unrest (κίνημα) in Gaul at this point, Josephus begins to redeem his anticipatory notice in War’s prologue (1.5) that “the Gauls were becoming restive” (Γαλάται παρεκίνουν) just at the time of Judea’s most intense conflict with Rome. Although Gaul W of the Alps could still be referred to as a single territory (as it was for Caesar), Augustus had made 3 provinces from it for ease of management: Lugdunensis (capital Lugdunum, mod. Lyon), Aquitania (capital Mediolanum Santonum, mod. Saintes, later Burdigala [Bordeaux]), and Narbonensis (capital Narbo, mod. Narbonne). By Augustus’ time, these were well settled senatorial provinces with no legions needed. Reported to Vespasian. Vindex proclaimed his revolt around 15 March (next note). But Josephus’ following narrative (4.442–43) makes clear that Vespasian heard about it before Vindex publicly acted: while it was still winter, when he had just returned from Perea and before he set out for Judea at the very beginning of spring (ca. 20 March). Nicols (1978: 55) suggests that Vindex had sent one of his letters requesting support (next note) to Vespasian. Although that is possible, Josephus’ chronology of a brief return to Caesarea in early to mid-March, then hearing of the revolt before marching out again, does not require it. It is conceivable that he did not leave headquarters until early April (detaching 4.443’s constraint of winter and wait for spring from the news about Vindex), or that he was secretly informed via Mucianus or someone else in the last weeks of Vindex’s plot. As often, Josephus plants a seed of narrative anticipation for what will become crucial (4.491–98): the Roman civil war initiated by Vindex’s revolt. When Nero dies, this conflict in Rome will force Vespasian to suspend his Judean campaign for nearly 2 years. C. Iulius Vindex was a Roman senator of royal Gallic ancestry. In 68 ce, he was governor (Proconsul) of the senatorial province Gallia Lugdunensis, without legions. After watching the failed conspiracies of 65–67 and deploring Nero as an unworthy ruler, the exasperated Vindex wrote to neighboring governors, particularly imperial provinces with legions, calling for help with his overthrow. Reportedly, all the governors passed these treasonous invitations along to Nero, who was then in Greece, except S. Sulpicius Galba, legate in Hispania Terranconensis, who would later seize imperial power (4.491–98). Vindex mustered an irregular force close to 100,000 strong (hence Josephus’ reference to forces of local potentates) and proclaimed his revolt in mid-March 68 with an unsuccessful siege of his own capital, Lugdunum (Lyon), which resisted him out of loyalty to Nero. Hearing that the legate of neighboring Upper Germany, Verginius Rufus, had marched with some 20,000 legionaries and an equivalent number of auxiliaries against the wealthy town of Vesontio to suppress his revolt, Vindex rushed to its defense, although his force was vitiated by fear of combat with the legions. According to Dio (below), although Verginius and Vindex personally reached an agreement to move against Nero, the news of their rapprochement did not reach their armies and the legionary force destroyed the Gallic force, leading Vindex to take his own life in May 68. Verginius’ legions then wanted to proclaim him emperor but he declined. In the meantime (early April) Galba had accepted Vindex’s recommendation that he rise against Nero, ostensibly hoping to restore the republic and free it of all emperors (as “general” of Senate and People at first, not “Caesar” or Imperator). The forces that would soon lead to Nero’s condemnation and suicide were thus in motion. Cf. Suetonius, Ner. 40–41, 46; Galb. 9–11; Plutarch, Galb. 4–6 (cf. Tacitus, Hist. 1.16.12); Cassius Dio (epit.) 63.22–25; cf. Nicols 1978: 52–53; Murison 1993: 1–26; Wellesley 2000: 4–5; Morgan 2006: 18–28. I.e., Josephus can rely on his Roman audience’s knowledge of these events, which have recently and radically altered Rome and its government, but his remark reminds us today how much ancient writing has been lost. He and his audiences knew at least one full account of Vindex’s revolt that is lost to us, in addition to presumably countless oral reports. See previous note for the surviving sources on Vindex, which are considerably later. At 4.496 below, Josephus will likewise pass over the whole Roman civil war, skimming the high points to synchronize his Judean history with those events, which he describes as “familiar (or tedious, burdensome, well known) and written up by many Greek as well as Romans.”

Although we are two thirds of the way through War 4, this is the first of a dozen occurrences of ἡγεμονία in this volume. It becomes frequent only from here onward because it is the standard Greek equivalent of Roman imperium (Mason 1974: 51), and the last section of Book 4 is about the contest for imperium. The highly resonant Latin term is impossible to translate consistently (cf. Richardson 2008). “Empire,” though tempting, suggests to us a territory, which the Latin word did not immediately suggest, though territory was relevant; cf. Vergil’s famous phrase about Rome’s imperium sine fine (“imperium without end,” Aen. 1.279). Josephus evokes a similar image when he has King Agrippa ii say that Rome’s ἡγεμονία knows no bounds: it extends to the whole world and everyone under the sun (War 2.362, 379–80, 389), including those who do not actually live under Roman rule. Everyone acknowledges Rome’s ability to command and be obeyed: that is imperium. This may seem grandiose, given that the disturbances mainly involve Jerusalem. Otherwise, Vespasian has had a fairly easy time receiving the submission of Galilee, Judea, and Perea. But the remark connects with Josephus’ claim in the prologue (1.4) that Judea’s disturbances put the regions of the E in the balance, with some [presumably Parthians] nurturing hopes of their acquisition, others [Romans] fearing their loss. Curiously, Josephus never elaborates on these antecedently implausible stakes (Was there a serious prospect that Parthia would invade Syria again to assist Jerusalem?), but that does not invalidate his claim about people’s fears and hopes. He does remark that Nero worried about contagion from Judea’s revolt (3.2), and that some in Jerusalem contacted Judean compatriots in the Parthian empire to plead (unsuccessfully) for help (6.343). It is likely that Parthian leaders, whose connection with Jerusalem had been strengthened by the Adiabenian royal family’s embrace of Judean law (Ant. 20.17–96), watched events in Jerusalem with great interest. Josephus may have been a key informant for them as events unfolded (1.3). But it is hard to find evidence of, or a compelling motive for, any Parthian plan to invade Syria now, shortly after the elaborately celebrated accord between Nero and Vologeses in 66 ce (Rajak 2002: 181–84). As will become clear from 4.545 (see note there), Italy can mean basically Rome’s vast hinterland, hence the territory in which its civil wars play out. Contrast Vespasian’s reaction to the news of Nero’s death 2 months later, which will force him to suspend his campaign (4.491–98). Even Tacitus, who dates Vespasian’s imperial ambitions earlier than Josephus, ties them to Galba’s murder in January 69 (Hist. 2.1–7), not to the spring of 68. Josephus’ account does not necessarily suggest Vespasian’s personal loyalty to Nero, but his mandate lasted only as long as Nero lived. Josephus may mean that Vespasian would be in a better position to play a role in the civil wars (assuming Nero’s death or incapacity) if (a) the Jerusalem question were settled before the emperor’s removal, to Vespasian’s advantage, and (b) the legions in Syria were thus free for other action. At the simplest level, however, Josephus is presenting Vespasian as a loyal commander who wishes to remove any concerns about the East (perhaps of Parthian intervention) while the homeland faces its own turmoil.

Although summer heat and humidity around the Mediterranean might seem at least as debilitating as the region’s relatively mild winters, as India’s extreme summer heat drove the British to places of breezy refuge, the Roman army followed a basic plan of staying in established quarters (hiberna)—purpose-built or by way of city billets—through the winter months and undertaking its campaigns from spring to autumn (Goldsworthy 2003: 82–89). The rationale seemed to be that discipline, willpower, adequate water, shelter, and rest could enable soldiers to contend with heat under the region’s clear skies, whereas rain, cold, snow in higher elevations, and winter storms at sea, not least because they were unpredictable changes, impeded freedom of movement, reliability of supply or forage, and the hasty construction of accommodations that campaigning required. The simple contrast between winter in camp and campaigning season was elastic, however, adjusted always to location and urgency. Thus Vespasian had sent his troops to winter quarters around 1 July 67, when Galilee seemed quickly pacified and there were no urgent demands (3.409), but he recalled them again to assist Agrippa, for a campaign that would last well into October (3.443–45). In the narrative above, Vespasian has undertaken a simple and safe expedition in late February (4.413), accompanied by small measures in the vicinity of Caesarea, before beginning his proper campaign with the bloom of spring. See note to “small town,” a characteristic word in War 4, at 4.84. The next clauses divide these sites between the villages (tiny settlements of scores or hundreds) and “small towns” (πολίχναι) just mentioned. The term Josephus uses for their new status (τὰς ὑπηγμένας, perfect passive participle of ὑπάγω) does not imply that battles were needed for their submission. They have simply been taken in hand, or “yoked under” in territory now controlled by Vespasian. Since these do not include the sites about to be mentioned along the coast and Judean foothills, and since Vespasian had garrisoned pliant Samaria shortly after his arrival at Ptolemais (3.309), we assume that Josephus is referring to the Judean enclave of villages in N Samaria, called Narbatene and located by Josephus 60 stadia (12 km, 7.5 mi) from the non-Judean administrative-military center of Caesarea (2.291, 507–509). This may be the site called Arbatta 1 Macc 5.21–23, which has so far defied sure identification. Given that the distinction between “villages and small towns” (κώμας τε καὶ πολίχνας) immediately becomes one between villages and cities (μὲν κώμαις … δὲ πόλεσι), we must assume that Josephus is using πολίχνη, a diminutive of πόλις, loosely. Note his claim at 3.43 that Galilee was thick with villages (204 villages and cities according to Life 233) and no village had fewer than 15,000 inhabitants—close to Jerusalem’s actual estimated population of ca. 20,000 (Geva 2014). His terms are neither precise nor consistent. Although a decurion (δεκαδάρχης, equivalent to δεκάδαρχος, decurio) could be a member of the senate of a Roman colony (ordo decurionum), Josephus normally uses the word for military officers. But which ones? The best known decurion was a cavalry officer of high status in auxiliary or allied forces. His title came from a time when such men had led 10 cavalrymen, but by the 1st cent. ce a decurion was usually the commander of a turma (squadron) of 30–32 horsemen (Goldsworthy 2003: 215). He might rise from there to command an entire ala (wing) of 480, or an expanded wing of 960 (roughly 1,000). Centurions and decurions are thus often mentioned together as the chief infantry and cavalry officers, respectively, in auxiliary or allied forces. Both auxiliary posts were often taken by Roman legionaries as they progressed through the ranks (Campbell 1994: 33, 46, 50, 52 [concerning a decurion under Vespasian in Judea], 55–56, 92). The Roman-named decurion Aebutius, a cavalry commander of outstanding ability, who was apparently seconded by Vespasian from King Agrippa’s allied force and given command of 1,000 cavalry (War 3.144 with 448 [a different decurion]; Life 115–120), would fit the bill. Aebutius dies in the siege of Gamala (4.36). In this passage and elsewhere, however, Josephus appears to envisage decurions as infantry officers of lower rank than centurions, over 8–10 soldiers—the equivalent of a modern squad or fire-team leader of corporal rank. See 5.502–503 for an imagined legionary chain of command: private soldier | decurion | centurion | tribune | legionary legate | Titus, where the private soldier is answerable to his decurion, the decurion to his centurion, etc. See also 2.578, where Josephus claims to follow the Roman system in appointing over his recruits decurions, centurions, and tribunes. The present passage appears to assume, likewise, that a decurion is of lower rank than a centurion, in charge of a few men. Although no Latin rank of decurio is known from the legions, the squads of 8 men certainly are (Keppie 1984: 147; Goldsworthy 2003: 51, 54, 83–86). Members of such a contubernium shared a tent or a room in winter quarters, prepared meals and ate together, and carried among them the tools needed for basic operations. Perhaps Josephus uses δεκαδάρχης here in an informal and literal way for an ad hoc, specifically tasked leader of a contubernium, with no reference to the cavalry decurion or any legionary rank. Villages could be handled by an 8–10 soldier squad under a decurion, while “cities” required 80 men commanded by a centurion. His mention of “garrisons” indicates that the officers mentioned are stationed in each place with their troops. This verb (ἀνοικίζω), if it does not mean settling “up and away” (Thucydides 1.7; 58.2; 8.31.2; Josephus, Apion 1.60), suggests installing a new population or repopulating (Diodorus 16.90.1; 17.118.2; 28.12.1; Strabo, Geog. 8.6.25; 9.2.17, 42 [both refounding and on higher elevation]; 13.1.28, 42, 3.3, 4.6). Given Placidus’ practice in Perea (see 4.438 and note to “suitable”) and Josephus’ explicit comment at 4.444, he seems to be describing the repopulation of the destroyed cities with refugees from Jerusalem, whether in addition to or instead of the small military units just mentioned.

Josephus uses a metonym (ὑπὸ δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ ἔαρος: “at the beginning of blooming, flowering”), meaning not the calendrical date we think of (around 21 March) but more likely the time when Roman armies could move out from winter quarters, confident in their ability to forage grain and with predictable weather. Modern Israel and Palestine see grass and flowers especially from November to March, after the onset of winter rains, whereas flax and barley appear from March / April and wheat in late May (Lytton 2011: 24–27, 143–48). As it happens, allowing time for his expedition to Perea at the end of February, the time in question would have coincided with solar spring in mid- to late March. But we need not press his language for technical precision. A departure in the first week or two of April, late enough to have heard of Vindex’s revolt (4.440), might still be considered early spring, though Vespasian might also have been informed of the imminent revolt from prior intelligence as it was actually occurring in the W. The site of Antipatris was long thought to be at Kafr Seba (Kefar Sava in Israel), but since the 1880s (swp 2.258–63) it has been identified with confidence as what was Ras el-Ain (“head of the spring”: source of the Yarkon River) and the former nearby village of Mejdel Yaba. It took a few more years for these to be identified, in turn, with one of 4 biblical sites named Aphek: the one at the edge of the coastal plain (Josh 12:18; cf. Josephus, Ant. 8.381–83). War 2.513, describing Cestius Gallus’ expedition S of Galilee, puts “the tower of Aphek” hard by Antipatris. Sitting just E of the main N-S Roman highway, this remained a strategic location, where the Crusaders would also build a castle (Mirabel) and from where their Muslim rivals would challenge them. King Herod had renamed the site Antipatris to memorialize his father, Antipater (Ant. 16.143). The nt Book of Acts (23:31) mentions the city as a regular auxiliary garrison stop between Jerusalem and Caesarea. It was about 2 days’ march—48 km (29 mi)—from Caesarea (see note to “present” at 4.70). Depopulated in the war of 1948, Ras el-Ain and Mejdel Yaba became Rosh ha-Ayin and Neve-Aphek in Israel (Khalidi 1992: 396–97). Wrecking, plundering, and burning down villages, which were usually empty of all those able to flee before the legions’ advance, was Vespasian’s standard practice in Galilee (3.132–34), Perea (above), and Judea (see 4.446–48, 451, and summary at 4.487–89), as it had been for Cestius in the autumn of 66 (2.504–509)—actions that possibly fueled the sudden opposition Cestius faced in Jerusalem. Josephus’ language might suggest that it required 2 days for Vespasian to “settle” Antipatris, so that only on the 3rd day could his army ravage the surrounding area, implying significant resistance in Antipatris. But that is unexpected, given that elsewhere people have fled in advance and that Josephus mentions no fighting here. Cestius had simply marched into Antipatris, with a much smaller army, and used it as a regional base for attacking nearby Judean-occupied sites (2.513). And Acts 21:30–33 assumes that Antipatris was a secure base for auxiliary soldiers on the route between Caesarea and Jerusalem. In writing ἀναλαβὼν τὸ πλέον τῆς δυνάμεως ἤγαγεν ἀπὸ τῆς Καισαρείας ἐπὶ Ἀντιπατρίδος, ἔνθα δυσὶν ἡμέραις καταστησάμενος [Josephus uses καθίστημι 347 times, in a wide variety of ways] τὴν πόλιν τῇ τρίτῃ προῄει πορθῶν καὶ καίων τὰς πέριξ πάσας, therefore, Josephus may be focusing on the burning of the villages on the 3rd day after departure from Caesarea, and noting that it took the first two days to reach Antipatris and establish a provisional legionary base there—not suggesting that 2 days were needed to subdue Antipatris.

In the 50s bce, a few years after Pompey’s severe curtailment of Jerusalem’s regional power, the Roman Proconsul Gabinius established 5 equal “councils” (War 1.170; Ant. 14.91): Jerusalem, Jericho, Sepphoris in Galilee, a certain Gadara (the one in Perea, or Gezer in Judea?), and Amathus (apparently the one in N Perea). This recognized the post-Hasmonean spread of the Judean population while depriving Jerusalem of the power it had enjoyed for decades. Josephus claims that by the time of the war with Rome, more than a century later, Judea had 10 toparchies—an originally Ptolemaic (3rd-cent. bce) administrative category for a region anchored by a polis—in Judea proper, not counting Galilee and Perea. In addition to Jerusalem, which Josephus places above the others as mother-city (3.54–55), his 10 are Gophna, Acrabeta, Thamna, Lydda, Ammaus, Pella, Idumea, Engaddi, Herodium, and Jericho. “Idumea,” the only territory rather than town, presumably refers to the region anchored by Marisa / Beit-Guvrin and Adora. Josephus’ older contemporary in Rome, Pliny the Elder, provides a similar list (Nat. 5.70): Jericho, Ammaus, Lydda, Joppa, Acrebita, Gophanitica, Thamnitica, Bethleptephena, the hills where Jerusalem used to be (at his time of writing), and Herodium. Note that Pliny’s 10 include Jerusalem. Italics mark the differences between the lists. Especially because Josephus has an extra slot to use (removing Jerusalem from the 10), it is striking that he does not include the Judeans’ only acquired port, which Pliny has (Joppa), all the more because 2.567, which focuses on toparchies, puts the toparchy of Thamna as well as Lydda (another toparchy), Joppa, and Ammaus (a toparchic center) under a single general, Jericho under another, and Gophna and Acrabeta under another. If Josephus’ Idumea replaces Pliny’s Joppa and his Engaddi fills the extra slot created by Jerusalem’s exclusion, that leaves us to wonder whether his “Pella” is not another name for Pliny’s Bethleptephena. This guess is supported by his mention of Bethleptenpha (next sentence) as a toparchy. See note at 4.445. See note at 2.567 in bjp 1b, where John of Essa (or “the Essene”) was given Thamna with other centers to prepare for the Romans’ revenge attack after the ambush of Cestius Gallus. The site is biblical Timnah (Gen 38:12–14; Josh 15:10–57), a natural settlement site on the principal road SE from Caesarea via Antipatris (Aphek)—the course chosen by Vespasian (4.443)—and possibly at a junction with a minor N-S route. Its role as the center of a toparchy is confirmed at 3.55 and by Pliny, Nat. 5.70. The ancient names were lost as the site acquired the name of Aboud (Abud), today a village in the Palestinian Territories (West Bank) about 16 km (10 mi) due E of Ben Gurion Airport. Lydda (Heb. Lod), ca. 18 km (11 mi) down the road from Antipatris, about the same distance from Thamna (NE) and slightly less from Iamneia (SW) and Ammaus (SE), was established in the 6th cent. bce (Schwartz 1991a). In the Persian and Hellenistic periods (with much of the coastal region, it fell under Sidon’s control), it occupied a crucial junction on the main N-S road, and both of the main inland routes to Jerusalem (via Beit-Horon or Ammaus) departed from it. This prominence increased as the Romans upgraded roads for the sake of enhanced trade and military control. It was thus a natural place for the Syrian legate Quadratus to make a base (2.242) when he came S to investigate regional violence in the early 50s. Josephus claims that, after the ambush of Cestius (late 66), John of Essa was entrusted with preparing defenses here and in Thamna, Joppa, and Ammaus, ahead of the legions’ arrival to take revenge for the ambush of Cestius (2.567). Whatever John achieved in preparing such defenses vanished with Vespasian’s arrival in early 68. Iamneia—Heb. Yavne(h), Arab. Yebna(h) or Jibnah, Eng. Jamnia, just E of the mod. Israeli city—is most famous as the site where R. Yohanan b. Zakkai would gather learned men to re-codify Jewish practice (halakhah) after the loss of the temple. It sat just E of the uninhabitable sand dunes that separated it from the Mediterranean, 7.5 km (4.7 mi) away. As the shoreline offered no suitable harbor, its port was on a small promontory to the NW (Yavne-Yam, Minet-Rubin). nb: Schwartz (1991) makes a case that Lydda, rather than the famed Iamneia (Yavneh), was the main site of early rabbinic Judaism after Jerusalem’s destruction. Iamneia may have marked the W termination of a road almost due E to Jerusalem, 2 days’ march away (see note to “present” at 4.70), which was punctuated at the halfway point by Ammaus—another strategic location for Vespasian to control (below)—although it is not clear that such a road existed in the 1st cent. (tir does not show it). At any rate, this line from Iamneia to Thamna, with Lydda at the half-way point, was nearly straight at 45 degrees. Resettled with Rome-friendly refugees from Jerusalem and elsewhere, it provided a screen across the top left of the “box” Vespasian was creating with military garrisons (Adida—Ammaus—Bethletenpha forming the left side, Jericho on the right). Josephus’ account assumes that Judeans formed a majority in all these towns; many are Judean toparchies, whereas Vespasian has no need to secure nearby Azotus, Ascalon, Dor, or Samarian towns, which are reliably anti-Judean. But this does not mean that the garrisoned sites were exclusively Judean. Just as Caesarea and Decapolis towns had Judean minorities, Judean towns often had substantial Greco-Syrian minorities. Iamneia had not joined Archelaus’ ethnarchy of Judea on King Herod’s death, but was willed (along with anti-Judean Ascalon plus Azotus and Phasaelis) to his sister Salome because of its productive yield. Salome in turn willed these towns to Augustus’ wife Livia (Julia), and on her death they passed to the emperor Tiberius as imperial estates (War 2.98, 167). Ant. 18.158 names a financial agent of the emperor (procurator) with some soldiers under his command, who managed Iamneia’s imperial revenue, who had enough status to detain the future King Agrippa i, trying to sail from Gaza’s port (Anthedon) to Italy, because he owed a massive sum to the imperial treasury. A generation before Josephus, Philo describes Iamneia as “a polis in Judea with a teeming populace. The population is mixed: Judeans are the majority, but others, some foreigners from the nearby settlements, have sneakily settled there. These are alien residents in relation to the natives, in a certain sense, constantly making mischief and trying to undo some aspect of the ancestral Judean ways” (Legat. 200). Philo relates that Gaius Caligula’s notorious plan to install one or more statues in the Jerusalem temple was triggered by an incident in Iamneia, when Judeans demolished an altar that troublemakers among the minority population had provocatively erected, and the indignant emperor sought to teach the Judeans a lesson by requiring a statue in their mother-city (Legat. 201–204). Cf. Smallwood 1961: 31–6, 267–325; 1981: 174–80, 235–50, and Barrett 1989: 182–91. Like Placidus, Vespasian settles most sites with refugees from Jerusalem, rather than using precious legionary forces—except at Ammaus, a crucial position (as nearby mod. Latrun) controlling the main road. Although Josephus’ audiences could not have known this, and even he had no accurate maps, the 5 sites listed here roughly mirror the 5 that Placidus has settled E of the Jordan. Antipatris and Thamna farther inland correspond to Gadara and Bethennabris. Lydda, Iamneia, and Ammaus are on roughly the same latitudes as Abila, Ioulias, and Besimo. But the W sites have far greater strategic importance as choke-points on the major routes to Jerusalem. Vespasian is methodically isolating Jerusalem from the W as he has from the E, with a major forward base (Ammaus) just 1 day’s march from the capital. Ammaus has figured significantly in the earlier narrative; see note at 2.63 in bjp 1b. On the city’s continuing role when Titus resumes the campaign in 70, see 5.42, 67, 532; 6.229. Ammaus’ position was as strategically important as that of Jericho to the E of Jerusalem. That explains why these 2 places (cf. 4.450, 486) merited long-term legionary bases. Ammaus funnelled at least 2 and possibly 3 roads from the coastal plain (from the NW, W, and SW) into a single main road heading E into the Jerusalem hills; tir shows no direct Roman road between Ammaus and Iamneia to the W. One of Judea’s 11 regional or “toparchic” centers (3.54–55; cf. Pliny, Nat. 5.70), Ammaus lay still 32 km (20 mi) from the capital, roughly at the halfway point from the coast and a day’s march in either direction (see note to “present” at 4.70). It was a logical point for a base, easily reachable from all directions to the W, offering relatively easy resupply and quick escape. Just 5 km (3 mi) S of Modein, such considerations had long before made it an important site for the Hasmoneans under Judah Maccabee, who won an important victory there (1 Macc 1.38–4.1). Jonathan later fortified it along with Jericho, Thamna, Beit-Horon, and other places (9.47–50). Known as Amwas / Imwas / Emwas in Arabic, its strategic location made it a flashpoint in the 1948 Arab-Israeli wars along with nearby Latrun. Before the 1967 war the site was part of Jordan and part of its Latrun salient, where the 1949 Armistice line protruded Jordan’s West Bank into Israel. In the June war of 1967, therefore, Israel destroyed Imwas and nearby villages, eventually using the land for today’s Ayalon Canada Park.

An unusual use of μητρόπολις, not for Jerusalem as mother-city of all Judeans but for Ammaus as mother-city of its toparchy. Apparently meaning that instead of billeting soldiers throughout the town, Vespasian constructed a durable legionary camp next to the city (Goldsworthy 2003: 82–93) for the Fifth, as he will do at Jericho (4.486). This would facilitate both discipline and rapidity of mobilization. Perean Gadara (4.417–18) provides a possible contrast, where soldiers in remoter areas billet in the towns. The Legio v Macedonica, originally from Moesia, brought E to support conflicts with Parthia in N Syria in 62–63 ce, was taken up by Vespasian as one of the 3 legions (with x Fretensis and xv Apollinaris) that would anchor his ad hoc force with the mission of pacifying Judea. See note at 4.13. I.e., Vespasian turns directly S from Ammaus, a manageable day’s march of ca. 20 km (12 mi), albeit through hill country, to this important town. This form of the name is from ms A (with partial erasure); each of the others offers a slightly different version (Lat. bethlepton). The site, usually identified with the Tappuach of Josh 15:34, was preserved in the old Palestinian village of Beit-Nettif (= Bayt-Nattif), originally perhaps Lettif. It occupied a strategic position in the hills descending NW (20 km [12 mi]) of Hebron, SW (also 20 km) of Jerusalem, on the Roman road from Jerusalem to Beit-Guvrin (later Eleutheropolis), on a hilltop between two valleys with a commanding view to the W (swp 3.5, 24, 36, 52). In October 1948 that village was destroyed in the Arab-Israel war. The name is preserved by the kibbutz Netiv Ha-Lamed-He (“Netiv of the 35,” memorializing an ambushed Palmach convoy), S of Beit-Shemesh and just W of the 1949 Armistice Line (Khalidi 1992: 211–12). Given that Josephus mentions a Pella as Judean toparchic center at 3.54–55, but omits Bethleptenpha, whereas Pliny names Bethleptephenen as one of Judea’s toparchies (Nat. 5.70), and given that Josephus elsewhere calls Bethletenpha a toparchy (2.567), we conclude that “Pella” was a simpler alternative name (pe- for beit, -lla for letenpha) in his earlier geographical survey for Bethleptenpha, good enough for Roman audiences. Whether this was a customary usage we do not know. See note to “toparchy” at 4.444.

The location of the frontier between Judea and Idumea, a name possibly known to Roman audiences and closely connected with Judea (see note at 4.224), is unclear in Josephus but it seems to fall between Tekoa (a Judean town a little SW of Herodium) and Idumean Halhul (Alurus) a little N of Hebron. See note to “camp” at 4.445.

The 2 sites have not yet been securely identified; cf. 4.552, which mentions similar-sounding places in Idumea. Josephus elsewhere indicates that Marisa and Adora had formerly been Idumea’s principal cities. John Hyrcanus’ annexation of the region focused on, or consisted in, capturing them (War 1.63, 166; Ant. 8.246; 13.257, 296). Since Josephus calls the present sites villages but stresses their central importance, we might recall that the British in India kept their military bases near the cities of Bangalore and Secunderabad but in small towns nearby, so as to maintain control of their environment (Churchill 1930: 110). Josephus may be assuming that these 2 villages were near Idumea’s principal towns (why else choose 2 villages and these 2?), though he does not explain Vespasian’s logic. In the first case, mss pa have Βήταβριν (Latin Begabri), but mvrc have βήταριν. The latter form looks like Beitar (Bethar, Betar), later famous as the place of Bar Kokhba’s last stand against Roman forces in 135–136 ce. Now the Palestinian village of Battir (Bittir) near Mevo Beitar and Beitar Illit in Israel, 10 km (6 mi) SW of Jerusalem (cf. Eusebius: “a very secure fortress, situated not far from Jerusalem,” Hist. eccl. 4.63; Mor 2016: 214–17), Beitar does not however correspond to a village “in the very heart of Idumea.” The more likely form Βήταβριν suggests Beit-Guvrin, a village that grew up just N of Maresha (cf. Josh 15:44). It would become prominent after the Bar-Kokhba Revolt and ca. 200 be reborn as the Roman colony of Eleutheropolis, of which an amphitheater and other impressive remains can be seen. The original village lived on under centuries of Muslim rule as Beit-Jibrin, its population reaching some 2,500 in the mid-20th century. Its position on the front lines between Egyptian and Israeli forces in October 1948 led to its destruction (Khalidi 1992: 209–11). Mod. Israeli Beit-Guvrin sits just N of the old village, which is covered by the Beit-Guvrin-Maresha National Park. Although Josephus’ -ιν ending could be a feminine accusative for Betabris (nominative), the proposed identifications suggest rather the Aramaic plural ending. As for the second name, the form Καφάρτοβαν (as the editio princeps, Latin Cafartobran, and ms L’s φαρτόρβαν) makes better sense than the Greek-sounding καταφάρτοβαν of mss pacmrv, because the two parts, kefar and tova, are recognizable Hebrew: “village” and “good.” swp 1.215 identifies an Ain Toba N of the Kinneret, which seems to be the present Arab town of Tuba–Zangariyye. The most promising site in Idumea, in terms of name and location, seems to be the historic Arab village of Tuffuh, which Conder and Kitchener (swp 3.318) placed on the Roman route from Hebron to Maresha (Beit-Jibrin). Tuffuh is the present Arab village of Tapuah, 4 km (2.5 mi) NNE of ancient Adora (on the site of mod. Dura), 5.75 km (3.6 mi) WNW of ancient Hebron, so indeed in the heart of eastern Idumea.

These numbers are far too large for the populations of the villages themselves. Although this may be only Josephus’ normal exaggeration, his point may rather be that their new bases alongside the two major cities led to the soldiers’ killing on a large scale in the region. We are so far in the dark about the nature of this force: how much legionary or auxiliary or allied, and from which units. The 2 sites proposed for the villages in 4.447 sit 16.5 km (10.2 mi) apart, as the crow flies. Since they are close to Idumea’s two major cities, in the W and E, they would indeed have given Vespasian’s army control of central Idumea—without their having to storm or besiege the capitals.

Confirming Ammaus as Vespasian’s main forward operating position from the W, now settled by the Fifth Legion (4.444–45). Or Neapolis as one word (mss pamvrc). “New” was a common name for cities from Macedonia to Italy (cf. Acts 16:11 and mod. Naples, Italy). This name was current at Josephus’ time of writing, though not yet in the story time he describes. The region of Samaria had two ancient centers. The ancient city of Samaria, rebuilt by Herod as Sebaste in honor of Augustus (mod. Sebastiya), was the more central: a little W of center but about halfway N-S between Jenin and Qaryut or Kusra. The ancient Canaanite city of Shechem was toward the E and S of the region, just E of the valley between the high mountains Gerizim and Ebal, centered in Tell Balata, about 48 km (30 mi) N of Jerusalem as the crow flies, closer to 65 km (40 mi) by the winding road. The mountains were cult sites when (according to the biblical narrative) Rehoboam made Shechem, which had been occupied since the 5th millennium bce, the capital of his kingdom as it seceded from David’s united monarchy in Jerusalem in the 900s bce (1 Kgs 12:1). A later successor, Omri, would shift it to W-facing Shomron / Samaria (1 Kgs 16:21–24; cf. E. F. Campbell, G. van der Kooij, H. Taha, and M. H. van den Dries in Wagemakers 2014: 116–29). In the 400s bce, Samarians built a temple to yhwh atop Gerizim (Magen et al. 2004; Magen 2008). It flourished especially in the early 2nd cent. bce under Seleucid patronage (Dušek 2012) and remained a rival to Jerusalem until John Hyrcanus destroyed Shechem and the Gerizim sanctuary in ca. 112/11 bce (Mason 2016a: 230–32 for bibliography). That exacerbated the long-standing animosity between Judeans and Samarians (e.g., Luke 10:29–37; John 4:5–26; Josephus, War 2.232; Ant. 20.118; Life 190, 200–201, 268–69, 301; cf. Hjelm 2004). Vespasian renamed the city Flavia Neapolis in 72–73 ce, according to the year-date on coins of the new city (the British Museum has examples). This Flavian name has survived in mod. Nablus. Pliny the Elder (Nat. 5.69), who dedicated his work to Titus in 77 ce, also uses the new name. He remarks that the native name was Mamortha—an m-b switch known in other cross-language conversions (cf. Bombay / Mumbai, Burma / Myanmar, and Latin Sobara for Greek Somora at 4.454). He agrees with Josephus that this—not Shechem—was the name of the site preceding Neapolis, though Mabartha / Mamortha has left no other traces. Daesius is the Macedonian name Josephus uses for the Hebrew month Sivan (Mason 2016a: 414). In 68 ce, to calculate from the known moon phases, 2 Daesius was around 20–21 May. (Nicols 1978: 56, following a different calendar calculation, puts these events two weeks later.) This would make sense in view of the considerable activity Vespasian has undertaken since leaving Caesarea about 2 months earlier, perhaps early April (4.443): having settled Perea in February–March, now moving from NW Judea (Antipatris, Thamna) to W (Lydda, Iamneia, Ammaus), then S (Bethleptenpha) before Idumea (2 main centers), then back to Ammaus and N to consolidate Samaria. Allowing about a week for each of the named sites—to reach it with an army, pacify (perhaps burn) or garrison it, and leave—would easily create 2 months’ activity supervised by the top commander. But Vespasian still has significant activity ahead, establishing camps at Jericho, and further W and S sites, before returning to Caesarea to plan the siege of Jerusalem (4.486–91). Allowing 2–3 weeks for all that and the return to Caesarea, it must have been around mid-June (3rd or 4th week of Daesius) when he reached his coastal headquarters. Josephus’ later remark (4.491) that Vespasian was in Caesarea he heard about Nero’s death (perhaps 3–4 weeks after it happened in early June) would also fit: Josephus reaches Caesarea by late Daesius (mid-June) and plans a stay of perhaps a month for planning, but after some weeks he receives news of Nero’s death and halts his campaign. See 4.550 below, where Vespasian moves out from Caesarea on 5 Daesius. That is most likely late spring of 69 ce, after Vitellius’ victory over Otho, meaning that Vespasian remains in Caesarea for one year awaiting the outcome of the Roman civil war; see notes there. Josephus apparently knows the site from experience. At 1.134 (cf. Ant. 14.49), describing Pompey’s pursuit of the Hasmonean Aristobulus, he says that the Roman passed Pella (E of the Jordan) and Scythopolis (N of Samaria) before reaching Corea, where Judean territory begins for those approaching via the interior (rather than the safer route via the Jordan Valley). At Ant. 14.83 he uses Corea as a reference point for locating the Hasmonean fortress of Alexandrium (Sartaba or Sordbh Iskander), overlooking the Jordan Valley. The eminent 19th-cent. explorer E. Robinson thought that the Arab village of Kuruyut (or Qaryut) had a plausible name and location (swp: 2.288). Although it could be described as an interior transition from Samaria to Judea, it is 16 km (10 mi) W of Alexandrium. War 3.48 says, however, that Samaria extends (N-S) from Ginaea (mod. Jenin) on the edge of the Jezreel Valley in the N to the region of Acrabeta. Acrabetene, on the frontier between Samaria and Judea, was a zone of perpetual conflict; cf. 2.2235, 568, 652. Qaryut is 8 km (5 mi) SSW of Acraba, the town, which would put it just beyond the territory Acrabetene, again arguably at the beginning of Judea. But it is another 13.5 km (8.5 mi) SSW to the northernmost Judean toparchic center in this area: Gophna (Jifna). Qaryut sits between the latitudes of Antipatris and Thamna to the W and it is a manageable day’s march (15.2 km, 9.5 mi) due S of Neapolis, Vespasian’s previous stop. See note to “present” at 4.70. Then again, Qusra(h) is about 4 km (2.5 mi) E of Qaryut, adjacent to the modern SE road from Neapolis and just 5 km (3 mi) due S of Acraba, presumably just beyond Acrabetene—on a more direct line to Vespasian’s destination. Whereas 1.134 speaks of ascending from Samaria to Judea at Corea, Josephus writes here that Vespasian “descended into Corea.” Thackeray (lcl at 4.449) therefore confidently located the site at a Tell el-Mazar, but did not further identify that site or give a rationale. Google Earth shows a site of that name about 1 mi SW of mod. Fara’a el-Giftlik (Umm Huriyya) on the Wadi al-Fara’a in the Jordan Valley, 6 km (3.5 mi) NW of the disused mod. Damiya Bridge. This is also where tir locates Corea. M-B (at 1.134) agree and identify Corea with mod. Karawa (Qarawa), at the same wadi, and this sounds most likely. (At 4.449 M-B suggest that the name represents Hebrew qiryah, “town, city, zone,” which is less clear.) A Corea here would explain the reported proximity to Alexandrium (5 km, 3 mi away) and the descent into Corea. Josephus’ remark that it marks the transition from Samaria to Judea could make sense for one travelling south along the Jordan Valley, as was common from Galilee: one could ascend into Judea from there. tir shows a Roman road heading SE to this Corea and thence to the Jordan Valley.

See note at 4.431 and previous note. If Vespasian did camp at that valley site, he would have descended in a manageable march of ca. 22 km (13.5 mi), leaving a longer march of 30 km (18.6 mi), but this along the flat valley, to Jericho the next day. This M. Ulpius Traianus (29–90s ce), father of the future Emperor Trajan (reigned 98–117 ce), was born in the Roman province of Hispania Baetica. His marriage to Marcia, the sister of Titus’ second wife (married 63– 65 ce; Jones 1984: 19–21), was one indication of his close connection to Flavian circles. He would continue to flourish under Vespasian and Titus: suffect consul in 70, legate in Syria in 73–78/79, Proconsul of Asia in 79–80 (Dabrowa 1998: 64–68). Josephus has introduced this Trajan, now about 38 years of age (10 years older than Titus), as legate of the famed Legio x Fretensis, who sometimes undertakes special operations using segments of legions or cavalry (3.289, 458, 485; cf. 3.8, 65). Although the Tenth Legion will play a leading role in the siege of Jerusalem (cf. 5.41), Larcius Lepidus will then be its commander (6.237). So this is Trajan’s final appearance in War. See note to “close up” in 4.218. It is a surprise that the legionary legate, Trajan, has been conducting operations in Perea; the preceding narrative features the tribune Placidus as though he settled the entire region (4.419–31). Trajan’s other operations (previous note) make it unnecessary to assume that he had his Tenth Legion (or much of it) with him, all the more when we consider that Placidus reportedly dominated Perea with a legion and a wing of cavalry (4.419). Perhaps Trajan took a smaller force for some other purpose, such as consolidating the garrison in the capital Gadara, or he stayed in the background while his tribune handled most of the fighting.

Just past Jericho (heading S) was and is the main road up into the Judean hills, about 32 km (20 mi) to Jerusalem itself. The first 7 km (4.4 mi) rise about 400 m (1,300 ft), to Mitspe Yericho. The next 11 km (7 mi), to Maale Adumim, rise only about 170 m (557 ft). The final (7.5 km, 4.6 mi) stretch to Jerusalem nearly doubles the rise thus far, to close in on 800 m (2,500 ft) asl: a total rise of more than 1,000 m (3,280 ft) from Jericho. The “hills across from Jerusalem” could be anything E of the city, beginning with the Mount of Olives and Mt. Scopus. A famous episode in the gospels assumes that the hills between Jericho and Jerusalem were home to bandits preying on weary travellers (Luke 10.29–37).

The narrative of Vespasian’s military preparations for the siege of Jerusalem resumes at 4.486. The intervening 35 sections constitute an extended geographical digression on Jericho and the Dead Sea region. The pair ψιλός and ἄκαρπος here prepare for the 3 alpha-privatives in the next sentence, to drive home the absolute barrenness of the Judean desert. This is the first occurrence of the latter adjective in War, but Josephus will re-use it soon to describe both this landscape and the war’s effects on productive areas (4.474, 537; 5.383; 6.36). The former, though common and especially favored by Thucydides (48 of the first 55 attestations), appears only 3 times in War, 2 in Antiquities. The modern visitor is struck, as Josephus was, by the barrenness of the mountains above the lush green of Jericho. The conical brown hill that towers 300 m (1,000 ft) above, Jebel al-Quruntul, from the Crusaders’ Mons Quarantania (for “40” days), is the traditional site of Christ’s temptation by the Devil. This is the W ridge of the Jordan Rift Valley, which extends in changing form from the sources of the Jordan (at Mt. Hermon) in the N to the Gulf of Aqabah in the S. Josephus’ claim that it runs N to the “land of Scythopolis” makes good sense, however, given that the Judean-Samarian hills give way there to the Jezreel Valley before resuming S and W of the Kinneret.

See note at 4.87. A name (in the simple lxx form Σόδομα, from Heb. סדם) famous from the Bible; Josephus turns it into the regional name (cf. Samaritis) of Sodomitis. Gen 10:19, 13:10 present Sedom (Sodom) as the S limit of Canaanite territory in a well-watered plain, before the sin of the Sodomites (Gen 18–19) caused God to burn up the landscape and render it permanently barren (19:23–29). Thereafter, Sodom and Gomorrah became archetypes of sin and divine punishment (Deut 29:22; 32:32; Isa 1:7–10; 3:9; 13:19; 23:14; Jer 49:18; 50:40; Ezek 16:44–58), as in the gospels (Matt 10:15; 11:24). Josephus shows familiarity with the biblical stories already in War (4.483–85; 5.566), following the Bible’s indications that these 2 cities, with Zoar, lay at the S end of the Dead Sea. He elaborates considerably in Antiquities, reworking Gen 14 to make Sodom the capital of a prosperous pentapolis (as War 4.484) with 5 kings, attacked by Assyrians whom Abraham drove off (Ant. 1.171–78), and explaining the sin of the Sodomites as hatred of foreigners (1.194), a charge often levelled at Judeans, which comes to particular expression in their desire to molest the young divine messengers to Lot (1.200–202). Josephus will claim there to have seen the rock formation (“pillar of salt”), one of many in the eerie landscape today, that Lot’s wife became when she disobediently looked back to watch the devastation (1.203). Picking up clues in Gen 14, Josephus believes that the pestilential Asphaltitis Lake was part of the punishment. Formerly there was a large valley filled with lucrative bitumen pits, but these were drowned under the lake, which is why Asphaltitis has such a bituminous character (1.174). Strabo knew a similar story: Sodom was the mother-city of 13 settlements and underground eruptions made the lake consume everything except Sodom proper, though he notes that Eratosthenes said the opposite: that the lake receded from a much larger original (Geog. 16.2.44). Without naming Sodom, Tacitus (Hist. 5.7), possibly influenced by Josephus, knows the story that a once-fertile plain was struck by bolts from heaven and made barren. Early 19th-century explorers, the young priest Christopher Costigan (1835) and U.S. Navy Lt. William Lynch’s expedition (1848) were motivated in part by a search for Sodom and Gomorrah (Lynch 1849: 304–305, 310). One traditional site, preserved in Arab. Jebel Usdum, at the SW corner of the ancient lake, 13 km (nearly 8 mi) south of Ein Boqeq, retains the name of Mt. Sedom today. On the opposite side of the lake, however, the Jordanian town of Safi (identified by Byzantines with biblical Zoar) has a “Lot’s Cave” and remains of a monastery to St. Lot (at Deir Ain Abata). This location corresponds to the location of Lot’s Sanctuary on the 6th-cent. Madaba map, the former discovered only in 1986 (Politis 2011, 2012). The tomb of Lot (Lut) is located in Muslim tradition in Bani-Naim, 5 km (3 mi) E of Hebron. Josephus makes a verbal impact by using 3 privatives with the same number of syllables (granted different stress and length) in succession: ἀνώμαλον … ἀοίκητον … ἀγονίαν. The last word is rarely attested before Josephus and appears only here in his corpus; Philo accounts for 15 of the preceding 25 attestations, Aristotle for most of the others. The middle word appears 5 times in Josephus, but it is not common elsewhere. Diodorus has 20 of the first 85 attestations, Strabo 30 of the next 40: between those 2, 50 of 125 attestations before Josephus. Of the 141 occurrences of the 1st adjective before Josephus, the most conspicuous users are Aristotle (50), Philo (9), and Strabo (13), before his 5 occurrences, all in War.

I.e., the corresponding range on the E side of the Jordan River, enclosing the Wadi Araba, or Ghor. This cannot be the Ioulias recently mentioned (4.438) as close to Asphaltitis on the E side. At 2.168, however, Josephus has related that Herod’s long-ruling sons, Philip and Antipas, each named a city in honor of Augustus’ wife Livia (Tiberius’ mother), or so the context there implies, who acquired the gens name Iulia at that point—though Ant. 18.28 curiously claims that the honoree was Augustus’ daughter, banished by the emperor in 2 bce; see discussion in bjp 9: Appendix A. Antipas’ tribute city we have met above, in Perea at Beit-Haram (above). Philip’s was at the SW extremity of his territory, in “lower Gaulanitis” (Golan Heights) where the Jordan River enters the Kinneret Lake (War 3.515). Ant. 18.28 adds that Philip built the city by transforming a village named Bethsaida, on the shore of the Kinneret. This provides a link with the gospels, which name Bethsaida as a regular stop for Jesus, indeed on the lakeshore (Mark 6:45; 8:42) and grouped with Chorazin and Capernaum (Matt 11:20–24), known sites at the N end of the lake. For more than a century, scholars have debated whether Philip built right on the present shoreline (at the site called El-Araj) or at Et-Tell, an excavated mound 3 km (1.8 mi) inland, also whether the finds in each place are from the 1st cent., whether either place suits a prominent city, whether the shoreline was far N of its present line then, or whether the link between Ioulias and the old village is imprecise: the city was perhaps built on land formerly connected with the village. (It is curious that Josephus and Pliny, Nat. 5.71, speak only of Ioulias in the 70s, whereas the gospels mention only the village of Bethsaida, as though Ioulias were not there decades after its founding.) Notley 2007 reviews the evidence with skepticism about the now-prevailing acceptance of the inland site. It is understandable that Josephus extends the E range all the way to Ioulias because on the E there is no break (other than corresponding to the Scythopolis plain on the W). Indeed, the mountains continue to become the Golan Heights and extend well N of the lake, but Josephus is counting from the lakes’ ends. Σόμορα, following the usually preferable mss paml (vrc add an ρ), is otherwise unattested in relevant contexts (in lxx and church fathers related forms are used for Samaria [Shomron] or Mt. Tzemaraim). The Latin and Ps-Hegesippus have Sobara / Sobaros, illustrating the m-b switch with Mabartha at 4.449 (see note). Scholars have predictably conjectured either Gomorra (ΓΟΜΟΡΡΑ having become ϹΟΜΟΡΡΑ in early copying—possible, though one would expect Christian scribes to have been more familiar with Gomorrah) or Zōar, which would be harder to explain as a copying error but would fit with 4.482, where Josephus puts Zoar at the S end of the Dead Sea, adjacent to Sodom. nb: Josephus mentions Sodom 26 times, and Zoar twice, but Gomorrah never. Clearly, he has a site in the region S of the Dead Sea in view. See next note. The celebrated, stone-cut, desert capital of the nomadic Nabateans, “among the greatest spectacles of the ancient Near East” (Bowersock 1983: 3), still a major tourist attraction. The city of Petra, half-way between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqabah, is close to 100 km (60 mi) by road from the traditional site of Mt. Sodom or Zoar, far S of the sites Josephus refers to. Since, however, he describes Masada on the W side and Machaerus on the E as the last fortresses of Judea before Nabatean territory, he appears to mean not that the city of Petra is near, but that its vast desert territory is what lies beyond these sites. Strabo has a detailed account of Arabia and especially Petra (16.4, esp. 21), claiming that a close friend, a philosopher, spent time in the capital in the early 1st cent. ce, where he found excellent governance and many Romans visiting. M-B point to m. Sukk. 3.1, which speaks of the validity of palm fronds from the Iron Mountain (הר הברזל) for Sukkot. They suggest that the name comes from the dark basalt mountains in the area of Maʿin, SW of Madaba near the N end of the Dead Sea, which could look iron-like. But much of the Jordanian desert is basalt, particularly in the NE, with the main southern outcrops S of the Dead Sea approaching Aqabah (Ababsa 2013: 40–46, 47–59). Another possibility might be a mountain in the flinty (chert) hills S of the Dead Sea, which would suit Josephus’ indication of the direction toward Petra, or even beyond (the peak at Ras an-Naqab). Ancient Moab, frequently mentioned in the Bible, otherwise almost exclusively in Judean and later Christian authors (Philo 12, Josephus’ Ant. 46 times, 3 in War), was most famous as the homeland of Ruth (Ruth 1:1–6), who had embraced Israelite-Judean law, moved to Jerusalem, and thus become a progenitor of King David. Moab stretched indefinitely E of the Dead Sea. Thackeray (lcl) suggests that, since Josephus has already given the N-S extent of the E mountain range and given the use of the verb (μηκύνω) elsewhere, he is now speaking of the range’s W-E projection indefinitely into Moab.

Today the Jordan Valley, Wadi Araba, or N Ghor. Antiquities mentions a few places called the Great Plain (μέγα πεδίον), in connection with Babylon, Tyre, and other locations (Ant. 5.83, 178, 276; 8.36, 381; 10.213), but elsewhere in War (2.188, 232, 595; 3.39, 59) and Life (115, 126, 207, 318) the term refers to the Plain of Jezreel that runs between Scythopolis’ territory in the Jordan Valley and extends NW between Samaria and Galilee to Ptolemais on the Mediterranean. Ant. 4.100, however, links the Great Plain with the Jordan Valley, as this passage does. Although the mss are in basic agreement (with 1 n or 2; ms L has Δεναβρὶ, Latin Gennabra), editors concur that this must be the place called Ἔνναβρις in mss pal and Enabris in Latin, but something like Σενναβρὶς in mrvc, at 3.447. There, having recalled his legions from Caesarea and Scythopolis—the latter described as the large city of the Decapolis adjoining Tiberias’ territory—Vespasian gathers his 3 legions at Sennabris, 30 stadia (6 km, 3.75 mi, an hour’s walk) from Tiberias, to intimidate the latter as he approaches it from the S (4.460). The site thus corresponds with the old Arab village of Sinn en Nabrah (swp Sheet 6 Qi), now the Moshav Kinneret, just NNW of Beit-Yerach (=Kh. el-Karak). This is the ancient town built on the spot where the Jordan flows out of the Kinneret Lake; it used to be identified with Tarichea (mainly because of Pliny, Nat. 5.71; as swp 1.368), though the latter is now usually identified with Migdal-Magdala, the same distance N of Tiberias (Wilson 1877; Albright 1921–1922). Rabbinic literature also knew an ancient Sennabris (Tsinnabri) right beside Beit-Yerach (y. Meg. 2.2). Kokkinos (2010: 14–15) makes an original case for locating Sennabris NW of Tiberias; see in critique Mason 2016a: 398–400. Having described the W and E mountain ranges in incompatible ways (the W from Scythopolis to Sodom at the end of the Dead Sea, the E from Ioulias at the N end of the Kinneret), without explaining himself Josephus now offers 2 ways of imagining the Jordan Valley between the 2 ranges. This one, from Sennabris by the river’s exit from the Kinneret Lake and extending as far as the Dead Sea (διῆκον μέχρι τῆς Ἀσφαλτίτιδος), means clearly the valley between the lakes. But in 4.456, just below, he will say that this valley includes the 2 lakes (λίμνας τε ἔχει) of very different nature. Although the explicit and implicit pronouns imply that he is speaking of the same “it” throughout, the distance he gives (next note) corresponds to the second picture, including both lakes at their ancient capacity (the Dead Sea in particular having lost much of its ancient size). Whether to include the lakes as bookends to the Jordan Valley was not a given, but analogous to the debate found in rabbinic literature as to whether—for the halakhic question of where the river divides Eretz-Israel from foreign land—the Jordan ran from Mt Hermon, hence through one or both lakes plus Huleh to the N, or was assumed to sit only between the 2 major lakes (b. Bekh. 55a).

I.e., ca. 240 km (150 mi) by 24 km (15 mi), by his usual measure (roughly a stadion of 200 m, 8 stadia to an English mile, 5 to a km), in comparison with an actual crow’s-fly distance of ca. 224 km (139 mi) in length, and ca. 22 km (14 mi) at the widest points of the valley (in the S). Josephus’ numbers are as close as they could be (contrast his estimate of the Dead Sea’s length at 4.482), given the imprecision of stadia conversions, the difference between crow’s-fly and ground distance, and the fact that Josephus gives distances (except those below 10 stadia) in multiples of 10, for larger numbers favoring multiples of 30. The simplest explanation of this last preference is that he thinks in terms of hour-long walks, or parasangs, about 6 km or 3.75 mi (Mason 2016a: 591–94). Between the lakes, the distance is less than half of his figure in a straight line (ca. 105 km, 65 mi), though Lynch noted (1849: 265) that the Jordan runs at least 200 mi (320 km) because of its constant changes of direction. Pliny the Elder (Nat. 5.71–72) gives a remarkably accurate 16 Roman miles for the length of the Kinneret (23.7 × 9 km vs. the actual ca. 21.5 × 12 km), but his “over 100 [Roman] miles” in length for the Dead Sea and 75 rmi width were twice the length and more than 6 times the width of the real thing (Pliny 150 × 112 km vs. actual ca. 80 × 18 km). I.e., the river runs down the middle of the long valley. Pliny (Nat. 5.71) makes even more of the contrast between the opposite natures of the lake of Tiberias (Kinneret, Sea of Galilee) and the Asphaltitis (Dead Sea, Salt Sea).

This is Josephus’ only occurrence of ἐκπυρόω, though the cognate noun at Ant. 20.144 describes the eruption of Vesuvius (79 ce). Josephus’ adjective νοσώδης—rare outside medical-scientific writers: the Hippocratic corpus and Aristotle account for most of the first 100 attestations, and Galen will use it often, though Plato and Plutarch use it fairly often—matches Pliny’s nocent, describing the rotten air of the Dead Sea, which Essenes keep far away from (Nat. 5.73). Cf. Tacitus, Hist. 5.6: this lake tastes more rotten than the sea, and because of its disgusting smell it is harmful to those who live nearby (sapore corruptior, gravitate odoris accolis pestifer). Josephus uses the adjective only one more time, just below at 4.460, referring to the Jericho spring water before Elisha’s remedy. We see Josephus thinking up a good word, re-using it soon after in a related but different context, then leaving it.

Extreme heat being common in the Mediterranean basin, the ancients associated ocean breezes and revitalizing rain with comfortable living—and the bliss of afterlife (see 2.155 in bjp 1b on the Essene vision). The Jordan valley’s lack of either summer breezes or rainfall keeps the summer air stifling, Josephus observes, making the river indispensable for life. Cf. Tacitus, Hist. 5.6, on the lack of wind in the Dead Sea area. So famous were Judea’s date palms that many Flavian coins (legend: Iudaea capta) and other representations of their victory (e.g., the Haterii relief, a decorated cuirass) use this tree as an understood symbol of the place. Josephus may be assuming his Roman audience’s awareness of, which he then explains, the special quality of palm trees in the Jordan Valley and Jericho area. In Nat. 13.44–45, after discussing a wide range of palm trees and their dates, noting that some of the best are extremely rare, Pliny gives high praise to the dates of Judea and in particular those of Jericho, for being large, sweet, and juicy. An elite subset is the Nicolaus date, mentioned by Athenaeus (14.66) and named by the Emperor Augustus for his friend and biographer—King Herod’s aide—Nicolaus of Damascus, who reportedly sent him these large dates as presents. See Zohary 1982: 60–61; Duke 2008: 326–29; Musselman 2012: 48–50.

Josephus’ War deliberately contains little material concerning Judea’s ancient, biblical past (1.17–18); this is one of the few episodes, taken from 2 Kgs 2:19–22. S. Schwartz (1990: 24–44) and Tuval (2011; 2013: 113–28) argue from the rarity of such episodes, their divergences from the Bible, and the scholars’ perception that the biblical accounts would have served Josephus better, that his priestly education gave him no secure grasp of the Bible’s contents. He acquired this only in Rome, they propose, as he turned to write the Antiquities (completed in 93 ce), which includes a full paraphrase of scripture (Ant. 1–11). See Mason 2014, 2017b, for the argument that this passage, like the others in War, confirms Josephus’ ready knowledge of the Bible, scenes from which he freely reworks (as in Antiquities, where his knowledge is unquestioned) for present purposes. Presumably Ain es-Sultan, identified by E. Robinson as “Elisha’s Spring” in 1838 (1856: 1.554) and ever since a tourist site (see note to Hiericho at 4.431). It sits at the NW edge of the city, near the archaeological tell of most-ancient Jericho. The Greek word here (πηγή) has a broader meaning than “spring” in the narrow sense: it covers every kind of water source (e.g., of the Nile), well, or even stream. Whereas the biblical account begins by speaking of the nature of the water (2 Kgs 2:19) and then has Elisha treat its source (2 Kgs 2:21) to remedy the situation, Josephus highlights the source from the start. Josephus uses the pair δαψιλής τε καὶ … λιπαρωτάτη. The former adjective illustrates Josephus’ lexical overlap with Diodorus, who accounts for 51 of the 152 attestations before him. The flexible word—from “drunk” to “extravagant”—first appears in Herodotus (2) and thereafter rarely more than 2 or 3 times in a corpus. Polybius has it 10 times, as does Strabo. Josephus uses it 12 times throughout his corpus (e.g., Ant. 5.208; 7.160; 19.352), but 4 of the 12 are in this geographical digression (also 4.467, 469 twice); cf. 651, where it refers to Vitellius’ gluttony. The latter adjective (λιπαρός) is equally versatile: greasy, shiny, fatty, oily [e.g., of rhetoric: Ant. 2.45; 4.107], rich, lustrous, shiny, generous, hence happy, pleasant. Josephus uses it only 7 times, however, and this one of only 2 uses in War (at 1.403 also of fertile land). Josephus’ word for irrigation (ἀρδεία) is extremely rare, attested before him only twice (depending on the date of Aesop’s fables, which also have it twice), both in Strabo. Josephus has it here and again at the end of this episode, forming an inclusio (4.465). Another striking compound verb (ἀναβλύζω), attested only 20 times earlier (Aristotle 3, Poseidonius 3, Philo 3). Josephus will use it again at Ant. 3.83 for the water gushing from the rock under Moses. This casual remark, identifying Joshua as son of Nun and a military conqueror, with Jericho his first conquest W of the Jordan, shows Josephus’ familiarity with Josh 1–6. Ναυη is the lxx form of his father’s name, Nun. Ἑβραῖος appears more or less exclusively in biblical, Judean, and Christian texts: the Hebrew Bible has the underlying Hebrew term just 25 times; lxx 27, apocrypha 12, Judean authors cited by Alexander Polyhistor, Greek fragments of Jubilees, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs several times, Philo 63, nt 5, Sibylline Oracles. Josephus uses Ἑβραῖος 288 times, nearly all (282) in Antiquities and overwhelmingly (280) in the biblical paraphrase (Ant. 1–11): exceptions are 14.25, which recalls Abraham as father of the Hebrews, and 18.228, referring to the Hebrew language. Josephus is thus consistent elsewhere in using Ἑβραῖος for the Judeans’ pre-Exilic ancestors. This, the first of only 5 appearances in War, agrees in dating Joshua to the time when the Hebrews’ conquered Canaan. Two of the remaining 4 come in Josephus’ great speech recalling biblical times (5.381, 388). The 2 outliers are 5.160, which juxtaposes Arabia with “the territory of the Hebrews,” and 5.443, where the narrator accuses the rival rebel leaders Simon and John of disgracing the ancestral line (or race) of the Hebrews (τὸ γένος … τῶν Ἑβραίων). The latter is intelligible as potent rhetoric, summoning the ancient ancestry of the Judeans; the former can be understood as poetic license. As for “general” (στρατηγός), Josephus frequently refers to Moses as the Israelites’ founding general and prophet. As he nears the end of his life, Moses appoints Joshua his successor in both roles (Ant. 4.165), after which Josephus often calls Joshua a general (4.324, 329; 5.13, 117). Since this language is not from the Bible but shows Josephus’ preference, we can see him anticipating Antiquities here. Possibly meaning “won fair and square, by right of war.” Josephus uses δορίκτητος only here and at Ant. 4.160. It is otherwise rare, first appearing among historians once in Polybius (18.51.4), then more often in Diodorus (14) and Dionysius (7). The word is well-chosen, given Josh 6:21–24: “They exterminated everything in the city with the sword: man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and ass…. They burned down the city and everything in it” (jps trans.). Josephus does not minimize, but rather elaborates, the slaughter (Ant. 5.28–29). Josephus uses Χαναναῖος (72 times in Antiquities 1–9) consistently for the Canaanite inhabitants of the land west of the Jordan. Likewise, the Hebrew Bible’s 63 occurrences of כנעני mainly occur from Genesis to Judges (57), and refer to the land’s original inhabitants. War has Χαναναῖος only 3 times: here and in a passage (6.438–39) describing ancient kings of Jerusalem: Melchizedek, the Canaanite king and high priest in Salem in the days of Abraham, and King David, who later took the site from Canaanites. War’s Elisha passage thus agrees with the rest of Josephus’ corpus in reflecting his biblical knowledge, of the kind displayed in Antiquities.

Josephus’ curiously detached phrase, λόγος ἔχει, combines the scriptural knowledge he demonstrates with Judean oral tradition. He will use the same phrase near the beginning and near the end of Antiquities (1.95; 20.25), bookending that work on ancient Judean lore, in both cases referring to traditions about the location of Noah’s ark, which the Bible places vaguely on the “mountains of Ararat” (Gen 8:4). His account of the war in 66 to 74 is not the place for him to demonstrate his personal expertise in scripture (though he indicates it at 3.352) or to argue its veracity and authority, as he will do in Antiquities. Presenting himself as Rome’s unique expert in all things Judean (War 1.1–12), he can afford to pass along a story he knows from the Bible, elaborated by tradition and literary imagination, in a detached way. See likewise “They claim that …” (φασὶ δὲ ὡς) at 4.484 and similar phrases concerning Abraham at Hebron at 4.530–31: ὡς δέ φασιν οἱ ἐπιχώριοι, μυθεύουσι, λέγουσι. A curious word choice, for ἀπαμβλύνω usually has the sense of “blunt, dull, diminish” in literal or metaphorical contrast to sharpness (lsj). It is rare, too: just 20 attestations (1 or 2 each in Aeschylus, Herodotus, Plato, the Hippocratic corpus) before Josephus. In his other use (3.327) it relates to dim vision. lsj notes that the meaning Josephus implies for this verb would suit the equally rare compound ἀπαμβλίσκω (“cause miscarriage, produce abortive fruit”) better—though that word is not found before Plutarch. This is Josephus’ considerable (and typical) elaboration of the Bible’s spare remark (2 Kgs 2:19, jps trans.): “the water is bad and the land causes bereavement (וְהַמַּ֥יִם רָעִ֖ים וְהָאָ֥רֶץ מְשַׁכָּֽלֶת).” Although the qal form of the verb means “be bereaved” and might refer to the loss of a parent, the piel used here tends to mean the loss of children (bdb). That explains the lxx rendering with ἀτεκνόω (“causing childlessness”) as well as Josephus’ more specific γυναικῶν γονάς, which again suggests his knowledge of the Bible. See note at 4.457. The artful adjective φθαρτικός (“having the nature of the perishable”) appears only here in Josephus and is rare in earlier authors. Of 68 attestations, 54 are in Aristotle and his student Theophrastus. No earlier historians used the word, except Diodorus once; Philo has it twice. Josephus finds the mot juste for this context, which he uses only here: ἐξημερόω. It is rare before him, but found in the usual places of possible influence: Euripides has the first 2, then Theophrastus 7, Diodorus 18, Philo 4, and Strabo 2 of the 50 occurrences before Josephus. The rest are mostly scattered single occurrences. The first of these 2 adjectives is Josephus’ only use of ὑγιεινός, here in the superlative. The adjective γόνιμος (“fruitful, productive”) was used often by medical and scientific authors. Philo, whose lexicon often anticipates that of Josephus, has it 36 times. All 5 occurrences in Josephus fall in War 3–5, however, and 4 of these are comparative or superlative as here. The first 4 instances are also in geographical digressions, on Galilee and Judea; the 5th (5.442) is a sarcastic comment on the rebel leaders’ productiveness of miseries. It is hard to doubt that this passage belongs in his composition. Elisha son of Shaphat from Abel-Meholah. Josephus’ representation of Hebrew אלישע by Ἐλισσαῖος is distinctive. He has it 36 times, mainly in Antiquities 8–9, whereas the lxx (97 times) has the more Hebrew-looking Ελισαιε; so too Ben Sira 48.12. Luke 4:27 combines the Greek ending (as Josephus) with the single σ of the lxx. Ps-Aristeas (47–50) uses Josephus’ form, but for 3 members of the translation team, not the prophet. Mss vr with the Latin prefer a more biblical form, though Christian writers from the late 1st cent. ce adopt Josephus’ form. Following the Bible’s lead (1 Kgs 19:16–21; 2 Kgs 2:1–12), Antiquities will describe Elisha’s appointment as Elijah’s “student and attendant during the whole time that he lived,” after Elijah is instructed to appoint him his aide and successor (8.352–54), but both describe his career, in considerable detail, only from the time of Elijah’s elevation to heaven (in Ant. 9). Two of Antiquities’ departures from the Bible are striking. First, Josephus passes over the remarkable story of Elijah’s ascension to heaven in 2 Kgs 2, and this perhaps precludes an obituary, though Antiquities typically provides a moral assessment when a major figure dies. Second, therefore, we first see Elisha as an independent prophet when Antiquities (9.33) takes up the narrative in 2 Kgs 3.11. In spite of his later emphasis on Elisha’s “astonishing and incredible” deeds accomplished by “divine power,” which will give this prophet an illustrious memory (Ant. 9.182–83), in Elisha’s obituary, Josephus passes over the entire transition complex with Elisha’s first display of prophetic power—the story here, set in Jericho. His omission of Elijah’s ascension story may have any number of motives, e.g. not wishing to compromise the uniqueness of Moses’ ascension (Ant. 4.326; 5.1) or undermining the Christian story about Jesus (Acts 1). Omission of the Jericho episode is harder to explain. Josephus regularly rewrites War’s material in Antiquities. Perhaps he felt that he could not improve War’s account. At any rate, if he had come to know scripture only after completing War, such that everything biblical in War derived from misunderstood oral tradition (see note on 4.459), one might have expected him to include this impressive biblical episode in the Antiquities paraphrase. 2 Kgs 2:21: Elisha left his farm and “ministered to, became the attendant of” Elijah. Ant. 8.354: he was his “student and attendant.” See previous note.

Josephus replaces the Bible’s puzzling reference to prophets outside of Israel (next note) with a more familiar Greek virtue of hospitality toward strangers: ἐπιξενωθεὶς τοῖς κατὰ τὴν Ἱεριχοῦν, περισσὸν δή τι φιλοφρονησαμένων αὐτὸν τῶν ἀνθρώπων…. Josephus uses φιλοφρονέομαι (“treat with kindness”) rather more often (19 times) than any writer attested before him (cf. 3 in Philo). The Bible does not highlight such reciprocity for hospitality; Elisha performs a miracle in response to the desperate need for relief, as the first demonstration (after crossing the Jordan) of his new power. In 2 Kgs 2:15–22, some 50 “sons of the prophets” in Jericho make obeisance in recognition of a more powerful prophet, but they then insist on going to look for Elijah after he has plainly instructed them not to. When they return empty-handed, he remarks “I told you so.” Josephus crafts a more appealing encounter, fusing “the men of the town” who explain to him about the bad water and deadly land (2 Kgs 2:19) with the sons of the prophets to posit a warm welcome by the townsfolk (2 Kgs 2:15). Josephus has a thematic interest in hospitality and reciprocity (Ant. 1.164, 194–96, 200–201, 259, 136; 4.105; 6.342; Life 142) and reworks the biblical narrative elsewhere to highlight it. At Ant. 1.181, he introduces Melchizedek’s extraordinary hospitality toward Abraham’s army, with feasts and provisions, which allows him to say that Abraham gives Melchizedek a tenth of his military spoils in reciprocity, a point not clear in Gen 14:18–20. Josephus contrasts the momentary welcome that Elisha received with the benefit for the entire region that he offers in return, which will endure forever (αἰωνίῳ χάριτι). The Bible’s remark that (2 Kgs 2:22) the water has remained healthful “until this day, in accord with the prophet’s word” seems to be proof of the miracle, rather than making Josephus’ point about a disproportionate favor. Of the first 200 attestations of αἰώνιος (“everlasting”) in the tlg, 177 are in the lxx. The vast majority of the next 200 come from the pseudepigrapha, Philo, the New Testament, and Josephus. Although the word is not exclusively Judean and Christian, it is predominantly so. Josephus has this adjective 16 times, and its appearance here again recommends his authorship rather than a borrowing from some source (Schwartz in note at 4.459).

Josephus continues to speak of the originally baleful spring (πηγή) he has introduced (4.459, 460). The Bible, speaking otherwise only of the water (without location), says that Elisha applied his remedy to the water’s exit point (אֶל־מוֹצָ֣א הַמַּ֔יִם; lxx εἰς τὴν διέξοδον τῶν ὑδάτων). In 2 Kgs 2:20, the prophet asks that a new bowl (צְלֹחִ֣ית חֲדָשָׁ֔ה), or in the lxx a new small water jug (ὑδρίσκην καινὴν), be brought and that salt be placed “there” (presumably in it). Josephus drops the “new” to explain that it is a clay vessel full of salt (πλῆρες ἁλῶν ἀγγεῖον κεράμου), rather than the Bible’s salt only, that Elisha throws into the stream. All of Elisha’s further activities in this paragraph are elaborations of the biblical story. Extending a right hand toward heaven is a standard gesture of supplication in the Bible as in Josephus (1 Kgs 8:22, 54; 2 Chr 6:13; Neh 9:27–28; Lam 3:41; cf. 2 Macc 14.34; 15.21; 3 Macc 5.25; 4 Macc 4.11; Josephus, Ant. 11.143). That the prophet’s hand was that of a just man shows that Elisha’s gestures and words are not magical. He satisfies the moral requirement for access to divine favor, which Josephus often stresses (War 1.68–69; Ant. 1.21; 6.160, 265; 7.338, 341, 356, 374, 384; 8.121, 208, 300, 314, 394; 9.16, 236, 260; 10.50; 12.43; 13.299–300). Josephus is only the 2nd writer (after Aeschylus, Pers. 610) to use the artful adjective μειλικτήριος, which will not appear again for another half-millennium. Since he uses this rare word again in the speech by his character outside Jerusalem, in the next volume (5.385), we must credit it to his compositional art and not to a source. The mss show confusion about whether Elisha pours the libation on the ground (the reading adapted as κἀπὶ γῆς by Niese and other editors from a marginal note in ms A, followed here with uncertainty as the usual receptacle of a libation) or into the spring (καὶ πηγῆς pal, καὶ τῆ πηγῆ M, καὶ πηγῆ vrc, fontique Latin). The libation of wine or oil, a “drink offering” poured out on the ground or an altar (σπονδή, נסך), was a staple of both biblical (Gen 35:14; Exod 29:40; Lev 23:37) and Greco-Roman cultic observance. Since the problems are both unproductive land and bad water, somehow mixed with air (as the following shows), Elisha seems to be demonstratively soothing both heaven and earth while giving his directions, or making his requests. Josephus’ verb αἰτέω (here imperfect) is well chosen because it allows readers to decide whether the sense is supplicatory (a humble petition) or an authoritative demand. The latter could seem like magic, but that is precluded by Elisha’s expert manual operations (below). The former could seem like deference to nature deities, but Josephus comes close to treating the sun as an expression of God while keeping that view within Judean law and custom. Although such instructions to nature are not common in Judean literature, the figure of Honi (Onias) the Circle-Drawer in rabbinic literature (b. Ber. 19a; Taan. 19a, 23a) does this kind of thing, which is little different from the nearby biblical stories of Elijah’s mantle parting the Jordan River (2 Kgs 2:13–14) or the wonders wrought by the application of Moses’ staff or Aaron’s rod. Cf. Jesus’ commands to nature in the nt, Mark 4:39.

This fancy verb (ἐγκεράννυμι), suited to the solemn occasion, is attested only 20 times before Josephus (Homer, Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle, Chrysippus, Poseidonius, Dionysius 1–3 times each). He has used it at 1.324 (of mixed military units), his only other occurrence. Josephus accepted the ancient notion of 4 elements—earth, air, fire, and water—which he found represented in the four colours of the temple veil; he also accepted the reality and efficacy of the zodiac (War 5.312–14). He assumed that the heavenly realm above comprised two levels: the pure upper either (αἰθήρ), where souls dwell, and air (ἀήρ), the metier of mortals below. On ether see War 2.154; 6.47; on the importance of airs and their mixtures for life, see 3.516–19; 4.471; 7.298. Compare Solomon’s speech and prayer dedicating the first temple in Ant. 8. Solomon observes that God pervades heaven, air, earth, and sea, and even these hardly exhaust his presence (8.107). But still he prays from this one place on the earth into the air above this location (8.108) in the consoling knowledge that God is here too. Although God is in all, the king stands and “extends his right hand toward heaven,” just as Elisha here, to address God (8.111). See note to this unusual noun at 4.88. Thus, Elisha will undo the problem declared at 4.460: women have been unable to bear children. This is Josephus’ only use of γεννητικός. It is found mainly in scientific and medical writers (Hippocratic corpus, Aristotle, Theophrastus), but absent from earlier historians besides Diodorus (4 times). Philo favors it, with 29 instances.

Josephus elaborates the biblical author’s closing remark (2 Kgs 2:22)—“The water has continued to heal until this day, in accord with the word that Elisha spoke”—in a moralizing way that anticipates his thematic interpretation of all scripture in Antiquities (1.14, 20): those who practise justice and piety prosper, whereas those who do not fail. It suits Josephus’ portrait of Abraham and Solomon as pre-eminent philosopher-scientists (Ant. 1.154–57; 2.39–59, 205–53; 4.323–31; 8.42–49) and his beloved Essenes’ research into the therapeutic properties of stones and roots (War 2.136, 159), as indeed his view of Moses’ law as grounded in the laws of nature and creation (φυσιολογία, Ant. 1.18), that Elisha should supplement his piety by applying scientific expertise (προσχειρουργήσας ἐξ ἐπιστήμης) of some unexplained kind. Josephus appears concerned to exclude a magical interpretation of the story, which the Bible itself leaves possible: there, Elisha throws in the salt and speaks for God in declaring the spring healed (2 Kgs 2:21). Here, Elisha solicits the cooperation of heaven and earth but effects the changes by various (unstated) skillful interventions. Whereas the Bible says only that the bad environment had caused bereavement, Josephus has glossed this as a problem with women’s reproductive capacity (4.460), which Elisha will remedy (4.463). Here, if he intends ὀρφανία in its more particular sense (as at 1.556), of children bereft of parents, he has reversed the problem—not a contradiction but a different emphasis. More likely, given the “easy births” he next mentions, he seems to be using ὀρφανία in the broader sense of bereavement (lsj). The literal meaning of χορηγός, one who furnished a chorus for tragic performance (lsj), soon invited the metaphorical sense of one who reliably underwrote or furnished anything. This passage recalls War 2.131 and Ant. 6.342, where Josephus describes God as the χορηγός of all life and food. So the context here suggests, though εὐτεκνία could have the sense of happy or blessed birth, as likely at 5.545 (Josephus’ mother speaking).

See note at 4.459. With much the same curiosity as his Roman contemporary Pliny the Elder, Josephus spices his narrative with remarkable natural wonders: the wondrous glass-making sand near Ptolemais (War 2.189–91) or the lethal-to-touch but curative rue plant of Machaerus (7.178–85). He does not view these as “supernatural” interventions: they are natural marvels, from divine bounty. Josephus is justifiably amazed by the irrigational success of the spring at Jericho, and since it was also famous among his Roman audience, he drives home his Judean expertise by tracing it to the transformation achieved by one of his nation’s great prophets. He uses a biblical episode he knows well into an etiological explanation of this region’s famed fertility. This is the only occurrence in Josephus of a venerable classical adjective (νόστιμος, comparative). It appears 14 times in Homer, 4 in Aeschylus, 2 in Euripides, 4 in Theophrastus. But it is otherwise rare, absent from Plato, Aristotle, other historians (classical or Hellenistic), and Philo. It is a word to catch attention. The immediate comparison is probably with the Jordan, which Josephus has just said produces excellent fruit in the vicinity (4.458), but his vague language invites comparison also with the more renowned river that irrigates by inundation: Egypt’s Nile, famous as the nearly exclusive source of that country’s life (e.g., Strabo, Geog. 17.1–10; Pliny, Nat. 18.167–70; 21.87).

On the assumption that water was a precious resource, Josephus appears to be saying that elsewhere people exploit even minor springs in every way, stretching the slight yield to make it as “abundant” as possible, whereas the spring of Jericho oozes abundance, plenty, and ease of cultivation over a large area from a single small source.

Ca. 14 km (8.75 mi) by 4 km (2.5 mi). The “width” corresponds well to the N-S area of Jericho currently arable; the W-E zone is longer, but only ca. 2/3 of Josephus’ estimate. Or enclosed parks. Josephus’ word παράδεισος (cf. Paradise) has exotic eastern associations. After 16 appearances in Xenophon, who reserves it for the pleasure gardens of Persian rulers, and 6 in the naturalist Theophrastus, is mainly found in the Greek Bible and post-biblical Judean authors. Though Diodorus has it 11 times (with occasional mentions in Strabo, as later Plutarch and Arrian, for eastern climes), it is missing from other historians. Philo uses the word 69 times, mainly in biblical interpretation.

See note at end of 4.458 on the various dates of the region, including Augustus’ favorite: the “Nicolaus date.” For dates of the region, see Zohary 1982: 60–61. Just as grapes are traditionally tramped or stomped underfoot to prepare them for maceration, the process that creates wine, so too dates are crushed (both usually by mechanical means in modern times) to speed along the creation of date syrup, by mixing with water and then evaporating excess water. I am not aware of other references to the trampling of dates. Lit. “the rest,” in this case apparently meaning honey produced by bees. This part of Josephus’ passage resembles Herodotus’ description (1.193) of Mesopotamia (Assyria, Babylonia), where yields are spectacular and date-palms cover the whole plain, producing food-fiber, “wine,” and “honey.” Date syrup is still a popular honey substitute in the Middle East. It is often suggested that most of the Bible’s references to “honey” are to date syrup.

This casual-seeming remark uses another clever word: the Attic spelling of μελισσοτρόφος (Josephus μελιττοτρόφος), which he has only here, and which is attested before him only in Euripides, Troi. 800, where it is a characteristic of Salamis in Greece. Given War’s other allusions or possible debts to Euripides (e.g., notes at 4.20, 67, 71, 95, 111, 157, 159, 201, 205, 230, 305, 317, 322), and given that his Trojan Women is a prolonged lament over the fate of ruined Troy, it seems most likely that Josephus makes a conscious allusion to the tragedian. The physician Galen refers frequently (ca. 128 times) to the curative properties of balsam juice, or the “balm of Gilead” (cf. Duke 2008: 128–29). Because he associated the balsam chiefly with Palestinian Syria or Judea (especially En Gedi), along with the remarkable bitumen of the Dead Sea, Galen made an arduous journey to the Dead Sea in the early 160s ce: Galen, Simpl. med. temp. 7.245; 12.171, 375; Comp. med. 13.536, 560; Pis. ther. 14.260; Antid. 14.60–62 (glajj 380, 382, 386, 388, 389, 392, 393). Cf. Eusebius, Onom., “Engaddi,” tracing the finest balsam juice to En-Gedi, as Josephus will at Ant. 9.7; see note to “Engaddi” at 4.402. For a detailed description see Zohary 1982: 198–99, who mentions about 100 species of commiphora (balsamodendron), some of which are “gum-exuding” (199). Tacitus may partially depend on Josephus for his description of Judea, but he has independent information when he writes admiringly that the balsam is a shrub, the sap of which is used in medicines; but it should be released by stone or ceramic ware, because steel will cause the veins of the plant to shrivel up. Of the many kinds of cypress tree, an evergreen conifer, the kind that flourishes in Israel-Palestine—the current forests were mostly planted in the 20th cent., but there are older wild specimens—produces no edible fruit, but in addition to being used for construction and producing a valued perfume, has a range of medicinal purposes; see Duke 2008: 160–62. The same variety, which grows tall and straight to more than 30 m (100 ft), was and is well known in Italy (see Ovid, Met. 10.106), so would have been known to Josephus’ audiences. See Zohary 1982: 106–107; Musselman 2012: 46–47. The μυροβάλανος appears only here in Josephus and before him only in a work attributed to Aristotle (Plant. 829b), which says that it used to be a sweet tree but is commonly bitter. Otherwise it is mentioned mainly in discussions of cures, in the medical writers Dioscorides Pedanius and Galen. The first part of the Greek name indicates perfume, the second part (βάλανος) an acorn or a fruit with the same shape. This may be the “Jericho [Egyptian] balsam” (Balanites aegyptiaca), which Zohary (1982: 35) says often grows alongside the balm tree above. Duke (2008: 58–62) notes that monks at Jericho sell a gum derived from this shrub as the famous regional balm or balsam. Josephus will refer to divine places also at Ant. 1.284 (explaining the name Beth-El) and 2.267 (where Moses encountered the burning bush). Especially given the possible allusion to Herodotus at 4.468 (see notes), it is noteworthy that this phrase (τὰ σπανιώτατα καὶ κάλλιστα) is, in reverse order, one that Herodotus (3.116.3) uses for the remotest parts of the earth. However that may be, Josephus takes the opportunity to pause on the exotic allure of his homeland.

See note at 4.178. The adjective πολύχοος, only here in Josephus, is another term that seems to reflect Philo’s influence. Before Josephus, this rare word appears mainly in Aristotle (4) and his student Theophrastus (13), with single occurrences in the Hippocratic corpus, Alexander Polyhistor, and Philodemus. But Philo has it 7 times (across 7 works).

Reading εὔτονον with Niese, Thackeray lcl, and others, after the marginal notes in pam, whereas the mss have εὔγονον (“fertile, productive”). Although one would normally follow the mss when they yield a tolerable sense, the latter adjective is extremely rare and first attested from the 5th cent. ce, whereas the former is both common and found elsewhere in Josephus (War 2.593; 3.479; Ant. 10.194). This air / water balance reprises what Josephus as said at 4.462 concerning Elisha, and anticipates his account of Solomon, who founded cities in places of gentle air and abundant water (Ant. 8.153). The importance of airs and waters for human health and character was already clear in the Hippocratic text (ca. 400 bce?) Airs, Waters, and Places. This (ἰκμάς) is another unusual, quasi-scientific word. It appears mainly in the Hippocratic corpus (135 of the first 149 attestations), Aristotle (25), Theophrastus (16). The only earlier historian to use it is Diodorus (2), though Philo and Strabo have it 3 times each. Josephus has used it at 3.374, and will do again in Ant. 3.10. In summer. This is the only appearance—apart from one example in Theophrastus—of this artful adjective (περικαής) in the half-millennium between the Hippocratic corpus (9 examples) and Galen (25), then later medical writers.

The verb ἀντλέω appears only here in Josephus and is not otherwise common, with only 52 attestations before him. Another rare verb, the compound ἐξαιθριάζω appears all but exclusively in medical writers: the Hippocratic corpus, Dioscorides, and Galen. Josephus’ uses here and at 3.508 are only the 11th and 12th attestations in the tlg. Although the number of hapax legomena in Josephus’ description of Jericho might lead us to suspect a copied source, we found the same celebratory tone concerning regional uniqueness, some of the same unusual language (“exposed to air”), and even the same specific claim about quasi-magical water, which takes the opposite character of the environment, in his description of the area around Lake Gennesar, the Kinneret / Sea of Galilee (3.506–508). He seems rather to be trying to impress his audience with the vocabulary of an expert, even in geographical and botanical digressions. This the only occurrence of the adverb ἀνάπαλιν, a favorite of Aristotle and other philosopher-scientists, in Josephus.

This is the only occurrence of χλιαίνω in Josephus. It is another verb favored in the Hippocratic corpus (47) and Aristotle (5), though Philo has 3 examples and Strabo has 1. Josephus’ word (λινοῦς) is the one that the lxx uses for Hebrew בר or פשׁתים—“white linen” or “flax garments” according to bdb. The more common term for (fine) linen in the lxx is βύσσος (adjective βύσσινος), which renders שׁשׁ. Josephus also uses βύσσος / βύσσινος most often, especially when paraphrasing Leviticus on temple furnishings and priestly dress (Ant. 3, 8). Here the point is that ordinary linen, a light fabric suited to summer, could be worn year-round in Jericho.

See note to distances at 4.456. These multiples of 30 may indicate Josephus’ estimate of the number of hours’ walk involved: 5 to Jerusalem, 2 to the river. His estimate of 60 stadia to the Jordan fits with his claim in the earlier passage that the valley was 120 stadia wide and bisected by the Jordan. Josephus’ distance to the river equates to about 12 km (7.5 mi), which is not far off the modern distance of 10.25 km (6.3 mi) as the crow flies, especially when rounded to a multiple of 30 stadia. His 150 stadia up to Jerusalem comes to about 30 km (18.6 mi). This is very close to the likely road distance, which we do not know precisely. It must have taken somewhat longer to go up (Jerusalem is ca. 1,000 m higher in elevation than Jericho) than to descend to the valley. Perhaps Josephus split the difference to estimate the distance. Or perhaps the distance was well known to pilgrims, even marked on the road. There is a steady fall from ancient Jericho to the Jordan, from ca. 220 m to 380 m bsl. This is the first of 8 appearances of χθαμαλός in Josephus, all of which fall in the latter half of War. The word is Homeric (5 occurrences), but rare. Josephus is the heaviest ancient user. Strabo and Philo both have it 5 times. Josephus must mean that, once the traveller moves beyond the large irrigated area he has just described, the journey to river and lake is barren. Today, it is indeed a lunar-like landscape.

See note to “happy” at 4.385.

He said this at 4.456, introducing the whole Jordan Valley and its distinctive lakes. Although the mss agree on (genitive of) κουφότης, scholars who find “lightness” a strange word for the Dead Sea have suggested as emendations παχύτης (Hudson) or στυφότης (Destinon), both of which mean “density, thickness.” But Josephus is not speaking scientifically, and in this context appears to play up the marvellous effect that makes heavy objects light. Cf. Strabo (Geog. 16.2.42), who confusedly speaks of “Sirbonis” but clearly refers to Asphaltitis (by Masada, etc.): it is impossible for divers, for whoever wades in up to the navel is pushed to the surface.

Josephus’ use of ἱστορία here confirms that he is well aware of its original sense of “inquiry, investigation” in the pre-Socratics and in Herodotus (1.1 and throughout), who first applied the investigative method, as far as anyone knew, to studying the human past. Josephus assumes the same meaning of the word when he complains at 1.7 about Roman authors on the war, whose accounts have nothing “sound” in them: they do not result from investigation. Another rare verb (ἐπινήχομαι), which Josephus has only here and at 4.479 below. Philo hosts a third (6) of the just 19 possible occurrences before Josephus, though several of the others are in undatable and fragmentary works. Callimachus (3rd cent. bce) is the only other significant user, with 3 uses of the verb, 2 in his hymn to Delos. Whether or not Philo influenced Josephus, this is another example of their shared vocabulary.

Lynch (1849: 324) describes with awe the changing color of the Dead Sea at certain times, though not a predictable 3 colors each day.

Strabo (Geog. 16.2.42): asphalt is blown to the surface at irregular intervals.

Strabo (Geog. 16.2.42): people who live around the lake know that asphalt is rising when the soot that accompanies it begins to tarnish their metal wares. The asphalt is first liquified as it floats up, then becomes hard. The locals go out on the lake in rafts made of reeds and cut up as much as they can to haul it in. Of the 54 attestations of εὐτονία before Josephus, nearly a third (17) are in Philo; this is one of many examples of the two Judean authors’ shared vocabulary, and possible influence from the Alexandrian. Other significant users are the Stoic Chrysippus (9), speaking of a quality of the mind or soul (vigor, adaptability), the medical writer Discorides (4, likely after Josephus), and the engineers Philo (6) and Heron (3). A fairly rare verb (προσαρτάω), with just 63 attestations before Josephus, who has it again only at 5.234. This is the only occurrence of μήρυμα in Josephus, and it is rare otherwise. The 13 attestations before Josephus fall among just 4 authors, who were all specialist writers: experimental engineers (Philo 3, Heron 6), natural scientists (Nicander 2), or grammarians (Aristonicus 2). Josephus continues to display his knowledge of technical terms. How was the efficacy of this solvent discovered? “Menstrual blood is composed of three distinct body fluids: blood, vaginal fluid, and the cells and fluid of the late secretory phase of the uterine endometrial lining which is shed during menstruation” (Yang et al. 2012: 1082). The first proteomic analysis, published only in 2012, found that menstrual blood contained 385 distinct proteins, not found in venous blood or vaginal fluid (Yang et al. 2012: 1029), but did not comment on their value as solvents; so I can neither confirm nor deny. At 7.178–82, Josephus will claim that the same secretions are the only means of preventing the deadly (and anti-demonic) rue plant, which grows near Machaerus, from shrinking to avoid disturbance—after the application of which one must still devise a way to remove it that will not kill those involved. Strabo (Geog. 16.2.43) cites Poseidonius’ view that the locals are sorcerers, who purport to use incantations, along with the same fluids Josephus mentions, to detach the chunks of bitumen—though Strabo, in a scientific frame of mind, wonders whether urine might possess a chemically effective solvent. Tacitus (Hist. 5.6) has so many close parallels with Josephus that partial dependence looks likely. He says, in language very close to that of Josephus, that workers drag the bitumen into their boats, which are quickly filled because it is not easily cut off, something one can achieve only using cloths soaked in menstrual blood. Curiously, having made this confident statement, Tacitus attributes it to “old authors” (veteres auctores), immediately adding that those familiar with the places (gnari locorum) report instead that the bitumen is drawn onto the shoreline, where the sun dries it and leaves it to be cut as one would cut wood or stone.

Boats made of wood need waterproof sealing, but Strabo (Geog. 16.2.42) knows a tradition from Poseidonius that watercraft in this area had to be made from the abundant reeds, in the absence of tree wood. Bitumen would be all the more important for their construction. On these uses and others (decoration, cement, protecting plants in agriculture [Cato, Agric. 95], export to Egypt for mummification), see Nissenbaum 1993: 131–34. Pliny describes its use for boils, cataracts, eye inflammation, skin diseases, bleeding, aching teeth, diarrhea, rheumatism, fever, and torn muscles, as well as some gynecological ailments (Nissenbaum 1993: 132). Galen, who made an arduous trip to the Dead Sea to procure a supply, refers to asphalt scores of times in his works as part of a remedy, sometimes along with sulfur (e.g., Temp. 1.68.6; Simpl. med. 11.428.3; Comp. med. 12.741.9 [Kuhn]). Josephus’ 57 uses (29 in War) of φάρμακον stand out. The Hippocratic corpus has it hundreds of times, of course, but in general literature it is not so common. The most significant predecessors are Euripides (37 in a relatively small corpus), Plato (75), Aristotle (63), Diodorus (38), and Philo (30). Josephus uses the word both in its plain sense, as here, and metaphorically with a tragic tinge, likely influenced by Euripides, as at 4.573.

Ca. 72.5 mi (117 km). Pliny (Nat. 5.72) guesses 100 Roman miles (148 km). Robinson (1856: 1.509–10) recorded what he considered a precise measurement in mid-19th cent.—valuable because it antedated modern changes—of just 39 mi (63 km), while noting that the length varied by a mile or two according to season as the water rose and fell on the S flats. It is impossible to know the precise length in the 1st cent. But given that the Lisan (“tongue”), which now forms the lake’s S edge, used to be a peninsula (as it was for Lynch 1849: 268–69, 297), the lake’s length is usually measured from the Jordan’s entry point in the N to a line roughly from the S end of Mt Sedom on the W to the town of Safi (Sufieh on Lynch’s map, just S of the lake’s end), which is about 80 km or 50 mi (Nissenbaum 1993: 128). This makes Pliny’s guess nearly 200%, Josephus’ less than 150%, of the actual length. When he mentions Arabia without qualification, Josephus (with many ancient authors) usually means the nomadic Nabatean kingdom, which abuts Judea W of the Dead Sea and Perea (S of Machaerus) on the E side. This is the only appearance of Zoar in War, and it occurs only incidentally in Antiquities (13.397; 14.18), with inconsistent spelling. Here, only ms C and the Latin War show this form; mss paml introduce a β as 3rd letter. Eusebius mentions the varied spellings in his Onomasticon, and vaguely locates the settlement near Sodom (Klostermann 1966: 94.2; 150.20). The root story is in Gen 19:15–23, where Lot pleads with the divine messengers who are about to unleash punishment on Sodom to be allowed a rest stop in a small town nearby, rather than being forced to flee directly into the mountains, a trip that might kill him. This is the previously introduced town of Bela, one of the 5 in Sodomitis (Gen 14:8), renamed as Zoar (“little”) as the possible reason for its being spared. The story assumes that it is at the edge of the Dead Sea in the valley, and the Madaba map (6th cent.) locates it on the SE shore among palm trees, its firmly established traditional location by his time. That explains why Josephus would measure to it and why Muslim authors would so often refer to the city in that location, identifying it with superb dates (Le Strange 1890: 286–92). All of this puts the city near (just E of) present-day Safi in Jordan (Deir ‘Ain ‘Abata), where the traditional “caves of Lot” have been found (Politis 2011). Zoar also comes up several times in the Babatha Archive from the time of the Bar-Kokhba revolt, the letters placing her town of Moaza hard by (the seemingly more famous) Zoar. Esler (2017: 66–67) proposes that Moaza was the harbor of Zoar, right on the lakeshore. Ca. 30 km (18.75 mi). This is closer to reality than Josephus’ figure for the length, and far closer than Pliny’s range between 75 Roman miles (112 km) or 6 rmi (9 km) at the narrowest point (Nat. 5.72). Lynch (1849: 299) gave the width at the widest point (from En-Gedi in a direct line) as 9 mi (15 km). On present-day satellite maps it is ca. 16 km (10 mi).

See 4.453, 484 and notes. See note to this thematic key-word, there rendered “happy,” at 4.385. Cf. Gen 13:10: Lot observes that the entire region of the Jordan Valley and Dead Sea is flourishing—before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

This coy expression (φασὶ δὲ ὡς), like “Word has it …” at 4.460, allows Josephus to pass along biblical knowledge in a casual way, confirming his status as Judean expert without the detailed and systematic inquiry of his later Antiquities. At 5.566 Josephus will again refer to the “thunderbolts” that destroyed Sodom, in a polemical comparison with the rebel leaders in Jerusalem (which incidentally confirms his ready knowledge of the Bible), who are said to be even worse than the inhabitants of Sodom. The Bible does not portray God wielding thunderbolts, however. That is characteristic of Zeus or Jupiter (Homer, Il. 14.417; 15.117; 21.198, 401; Od. 5.131; 7.249 etc.). In the biblical story of Sodom, God dispatches sulfur and fire (Gen 19:24). In Josephus’ paraphrase of the Bible, nevertheless, he will regularly portray God as hurling thunderbolts: Ant. 2.343; 3.80; 5.60; 8.324. In his version of the Sodom story (Ant. 1.203), God shoots an incendiary arrow at the city (καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἐνσκήπτει βέλος εἰς τὴν πόλιν), a similar image. Soon after introducing the people of Sodom, in connection with Lot’s choice of the Dead Sea region for his home, the Bible states without explanation that they were bad people who displeased God (Gen 13:13). At Gen 14:10–12, Lot is captured by kings who defeat Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot’s uncle Abram defeats those kings in turn and rescues him (14:16). Then, in one of the Bible’s puzzling restrictions of divine omniscience, God sends angels to Sodom on a fact-finding mission to discover whether the terrible reports he has heard are true (Gen 18:20–21). After God promises Abram that he will not destroy Sodom if only 10 good men should be found there (18:32–33), the two young men (angels) go to stay with Lot, but all the men of the town surround his house and demand that the guests be handed over for sex. Lot offers his daughters instead. When the townsmen become indignant, the angels blind them while they lead Lot’s family out and God destroys all the cities of the plain, with sulfur (= brimstone) and fire from heaven (19:1–26). Although the sin of Sodom has traditionally been identified with male homosexual behavior, because of that final incident, the Bible presents the region as condemned long before, with the final incident appearing as an abuse of hospitality (also toward Lot himself, a recent migrant to the town, who must offer his own daughters to stave off the threat), a final and glaring confirmation of their wickedness. The lxx anticipates Josephus in calling them “impious” (Gen 18:23–25). Josephus’ later paraphrase of the biblical account (Ant. 1.194–204) elaborates in his typical moralizing way: the people of Sodom came to have a high opinion of themselves because of growing wealth. This led them to become insolent toward other people and impious toward God. They came to hate strangers and all their dealings with others were corrupted (Ant. 1.194). Josephus places no emphasis, either, on sexual deviance. He gives indictments of Sodom’s violation of primary ethical obligations—to the divine and toward humanity—as assumed in antiquity and throughout his works. At Ant. 1.203 Josephus recalls this account in War, confirming that he thought he was using his biblical knowledge already in this work. The usual translation of λείψανα τοῦ θείου πυρός is “remains of the divine fire” (Whiston, Thackeray lcl, M-B, Pelletier, Rogers, H-G [“fire from heaven”]), which is plausible because we readily take the adjective to mean “divine.” But the same neuter substantive θεῖον could mean either “deity” or “sulfur.” Since the Bible has God rain sulfur and fire on Sodom (Gen 19:24: καὶ κύριος ἔβρεξεν ἐπὶ Σοδομα καὶ Γομορρα θεῖον καὶ πῦρ), and since thunderbolts and sulfur went hand in hand (Aristotle, Probl. 937b [24.28–20]: hot springs and bathing pools are caused by sulfur and thunderbolts), such that divine thunderbolts were said to leave a smell of sulfur (θεῖον: Homer, Il. 14.415), it seems more likely that Josephus means to speak about a “fire of sulfur” than that he is calling the fire divine. Cf. War 3.228, where at Iotapata his character uses wood and bitumen with sulfur (using this word) to create a spreading fire in the Roman earthworks, and 7.189, referring to sulfur mines near the Dead Sea. Cf. Philo’s very similar summary (Mos. 2.56): “thunderbolts flowed from the heaven and burned up both the impious and their cities. Even to the present time, memorials of their inexpressible suffering are displayed in Syria: ruins, soot, sulfur, and smoke….” At Ant. 1.171 Josephus will speak rather of 5 “portions” of territory in Sodomitis, each ruled by a named “king.” He may have refrained from naming the cities to avoid burdening his audiences with odd-sounding Hebrew names. The Bible (Gen 14:2) each king to a city and names the 5: Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Seboiim, and Bela = Zoar. Josephus’ casual reference to the 5 cities comprising Sodomitis confirms his knowledge of the biblical account, even though he feels no need to name the sites. The location of the 5 cities intrigued 19th-cent. explorers. Because the Bible locates their battle against the Assyrians in the Valley of Siddim, which came to be covered by the Dead Sea (Gen 14:1–12), and perhaps because of Josephus’ apparent plan to explain the lake’s presence as a punishment (by covering) for the wayward cities (Ant. 1.174: he never does elaborate), Robinson (1841: 604–606) and Lynch (1849: 310, 329, 396) concluded that the cities now lay beneath the water of the lake’s southern basin. Robinson had been prepared to believe that the lake was generated by earthquakes caused by divine thunderbolts punishing the cities, but was forced to conclude from the streams entering the lake from the S that it had always been there. So he modified his view to see only the S basin enveloping the cities. Still another rare word (σποδιά) in this passage, attested only 43 times before Josephus. He has it again at Ant. 11.221. This is the only occurrence of the truly rare compound verb ἀναγεννάω in Josephus. Before him it appears only in a fragment of Philodemus (1st cent. bce) and in nt references to spiritual rebirth (1 Pet 1:3, 23). Another indication of Tacitus’ likely influence from Josephus is his inclusion of the same phenomenon in his brief sketch of the region (Hist. 5.7): they report (ferunt) that traces remain of great cities hit by lightning and incinerated (fulminum iactu arsisse). Whatever grows there matures in the usual form, but then blackens and disintegrates into ash (in cinerem vanescunt). This kind of fruit—Apples of Sodom, Dead Sea Apples—fascinated early explorers in Palestine. Robinson (1956 [1941]: 1.522–24) identified them with what Arabs called osher or asclepias gigantea v. procera. Growing on trees of 3–4 m (10–15 ft) height with a grey, cork-like bark, this fruit looks appealing, but “on being pressed or struck, it explodes with a puff, like a bladder or puffball, leaving in the hand only the shreds of the thin rind and a few fibres” (1.523); cf. Lynch 1849: 325–26, who agrees after surveying various other identifications.

Josephus’ chosen verb here (μυθεύω) is ironic. The root μυθ- suggests old tales likely to be false or exaggerated. Josephus uses it mainly for other nations’ stories, as in Homer (War 2.156; Ant. 1.15, 22; 19.92; Apion 1.25, 105, 229–30, 287; 2.120, 132, 256). In keeping with his phrases “word has it” and “they claim,” the Judean author adopts a non-committal attitude toward his own people’s stories of the ancient past (cf. 4.531 concerning Abraham), befitting a historian, which the Antiquities and Apion will show that he actually accepts. Since this is not the place to explain why, he takes a brief opportunity to mention some evidential proof. Unlike the Christian author of Hebrews (11:1), who in a paradoxical inversion makes trust (or faith) “the foundation of what is hoped for, a proof of things not seen,” in Greek empiricism and history (historia) trust rested on eyewitness inspection. This point is crucial for Josephus, the ultimate eyewitness to the events he describes (War 1.1–16), as for historians generally (Marincola 1997: 63–85,276–79, 281–82). Audiences should trust the historian who has seen with his own eyes. Cf. Galen’s critique of fideism in medicine and philosophy, which invokes Judeans and Christians as negative examples (Wilken 2003: 72–73).

Niese reads πανταχόθεν (“from all directions” as in 4.490, making an inclusio by repetition) with mss cl. I agree with Thackeray lcl in favoring πανταχόσε (“in every direction, to all sides”) with mss pamvr. Although this would be the only occurrence of this word in Josephus, whereas he uses the generally more common πανταχόθεν 44 times, Philo (who shares much vocabulary) accounts for nearly half (13) of the 28 attestations of πανταχόσε before Josephus. Since this word makes decent sense, is the “more difficult reading,” and enjoys the strongest ms support, it seems the best choice. See 4.450–52. Josephus has already reported that Vespasian, with the Tenth Legion’s commander Trajan on returning from Perea, has taken possession of a deserted Jericho. The sp (1946) shows a Haditha on the W edge of the shephelah, or E edge of the coastal plain, 5 km (3 mi) ENE of Lydda. It is about 36 km (22 mi), a full day’s march, from Jerusalem to the NW (see note to “present” at 4.70). It appears on Sheet 14 of the swp (as Haditheh), which describes it as “a considerable town” and identifies it with biblical Hadid (Ezra 2:33; Neh 7:37) and the Adida of 1 Macc 12.38. Adida sat about 2 km (1.4 mi) N of the Roman road from Lydda SE toward Beit-Horon and Jerusalem. This made it a convenient place to monitor access to Jerusalem from the NW, as the nearer garrison in Jericho did from the ENE. A nearly straight line from Adida to Bethletenpha, a fortified site ca. 30 km (18 mi) due S (4.445–48), is cut in half by Ammaus, base of the Fifth Legion on the main W-E road to Jerusalem, 15 km (9 mi) equidistant from both. A large camp at this Adida would thus help Vespasian to encircle the Judean heartland: Jericho blocking to the E, Alurus (Halhul) to the SW, and Gerasa (4.487) perhaps to the N. Khalidi (1992: 381) describes the town of 760 inhabitants just before its destruction by Israeli forces in July 1948. Nothing remains, though a moshav of the name was created in 1950 ca. 2 km to the NW. Or “unit, merged force” (see notes to “gangs” and “merger” at 4.135, 389). Scholars customarily distinguish between “allied” (i.e., contributed by kings who are Rome’s notional allies) and “auxiliary” (i.e., elements of the Roman military system recruited in the provinces from non-citizens to support the citizen legions). Cf. Tacitus, Hist. 2.4: Mucianus and Vespasian commanded 4 and 3 legions, respectively (then a description of each army’s character). In addition, each had auxiliary forces of cohorts and cavalry wings plus fleets, plus the armies of kings—the petty kings of Syria (Auxilia utrique cohortium et alarumque et classes regesque). Although Josephus’ Greek occasionally corresponds to this auxiliary / allied distinction, as at 5.42 (legions distinguished from αἵ … τῶν βασιλέων συμμαχίαι and συχνοὶ τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς Συρίας ἐπίκουροι συνῆλθον) and 4.598 (τὰς παρὰ τῶν βασιλέων συμμαχίας), he makes no consistent effort to distinguish συμμαχίαι from ἐπίκουροι. Both most often refer to “assistance” not part of Roman legionary forces. At 2.67 and 3.116 (cf. 3.68), forces contributed by kings are styled ἐπίκουροι. Instead of using distinct categories, Josephus tends to designate non-legionary units by origin and specialization: “cohorts” of infantry and/or cavalry are auxilia, whereas what we call allies he describes as units under kings, with varying special skills. See the description of Vespasian’s composite army at 3.64–69. Nevertheless, τοῦ Ῥωμαϊκοῦ καὶ συμμαχικοῦ συντάγματος here most naturally suggests a combination of Roman and allied (royal) forces.

Josephus gives us a praenomen and nomen that offer little help in identifying this figure, who appears only here in his writings. Lucius was among the most common of the dozen most frequently used praenomina (of only about 18 used at all). Of the many men attested bearing the names Lucius Annius, the one with the closest dates to this figure (pir 476) had been proconsul of Cyprus in 52 ce and would serve as suffect consul in 70 ce. This means that he was an ex-praetor in the 60s. But it is hard to find a place for an ex-praetor (eligible to be a legionary legate) in Vespasian’s army, since we know the names of his legionary commanders (Titus over the xv, Trajan the x, Cerealis the v). This Roman seems to be not at the highest level, therefore, but high enough to be entrusted with a significant expedition—thus perhaps a legionary tribune. Decapolis Gerasa, the spectacular site of Jerash (Jarash) in mod. Jordan, was the best known Gerasa in the 1st cent. ce, likely familiar to Josephus’ Roman audiences, and his other references to Gerasa (War 1.104; 2.458; 3.47) point to it. When Josephus mentions Gerasenes, likewise, he usually means people from Decapolis Gerasa: War 2.480; Ant. 13.398. But it is hard to imagine that Vespasian felt any need to attack Decapolis Gerasa, which was a Grec0-Syrian city, honouring regional gods identified with Zeus and Aphrodite (Kraeling 1938; Hoffman and Kerner 2002; Kennedy 2007). Although it had a Judean minority, Josephus has made clear that the Gerasenes treated them gently and even facilitated their safe departure after attacks by Judeans on the city in retaliation for the massacre of Judeans in Caesarea (2.480). It is hard to imagine that Vespasian would attack that Gerasa (or any Decapolis member) in an effort to cut off Jerusalem, or that if he wished to do so he would send a low-level subordinate against such a major city. Finally, the location of Decapolis Gerasa, 32 km (20 mi) E of the Jordan and far N of Jerusalem, makes it irrelevant to any effort to isolate the Judean capital. In seeking an alternative we must bear in mind that—just as Josephus uses Gadara for a city that is not Decapolis Gadara (4.413) and Pella for Bethletenpha rather than Decapolis Pella (4.445 note)—any town with the Semitic name Jarash or perhaps Gezer (by a common consonantal switch) could come into Greek as Gerasa. Candidates include: the Gezer or Gazara near the W edge of the shephelah (8 km, 5 mi WNW of Ammaus), the former Arab village of Jarash, ca. 20 km (12 mi) WSW of Jerusalem and just 4 km (2.5 mi) NNE of fortified Bethletenpha (destroyed by Israel in October 1948: swp 3.25, sheet 17 Ku; Khalidi 1992: 296–97; cf. War 4.445–46), and the still-present village of Jorish (Jurish, Jureish), 35 km (21.75 mi) NE of Jerusalem, on a hill just 3.25 km (2 mi) SW of Acrabeta (swp 2.386, sheet 15 Np). Any of these would also work as the birthplace of Simon bar Giora, a Gerasene (4.503), who raided Cestius’ advancing column from the W (2.521) and then spent much of his time attacking Acrabatene (2.652–53). From the perspective of Vespasian’s isolation strategy (4.490), the last might make the best sense as the only garrison placed to the N, S of already fortified (3.309) and pliant Samaria. Because Josephus avoids technical language here, we have no idea of the force involved. The μοῖρα of cavalry could be anything from an auxiliary squadron (turma) of 32 to a cohort of 480, 600, or 1,000, and the “large number” of soldiers could be anything from a century to a standard or double auxiliary cohort (480, sometimes 600 in Josephus, or 1,000), if not a legionary century or detachment of 2 or 3,000.

As distinct from a siege. See note at 4.92. Killing, plundering, raping, and burning was a normal sequence for Roman soldiers destroying a city, as for other ancient (and often modern) armies: Polybius 10.15.4–16.9; Livy 29.20.6–7; Ziolkowski 1993. Although it seems that the Gerasa ruined by Annius lay somewhere on the edge of Judea (see note at 4.487), this reference to apparently dependent villages suggests that Josephus accidentally or deliberately confuses this Gerasa with the famous Decapolis city. Either is possible. For what seems his own confusion of names, see e.g. the note to “Chares and Yosep” at 4.18. For possibly deliberate confusion, see “Gadara” and note at 4.413: since Josephus does not explain that this was not the more famous Gadara, we must wonder whether he is not happy for his audience to make a false connection.

Josephus is under no illusions about the brutality of Roman (or any other great power’s) way of war. Of their victims, those who are able to do so flee beforehand, while the weaker (mostly women, children, and the aged) are left to die without pity: 2.504–509; 3.110, 132–34; 4.430–34, 446–51; 6.259.

If this is meant as a summary of the preceding paragraphs, as it seems, Josephus cannot mean that egress and ingress to the walled city of Jerusalem were blocked, but rather that the city’s much larger territory (chōra), the upland region of Judea proper, was cut off. The fortified bases mostly lie 20–25 km (12–15 mi) from the walled city, a manageable day’s march but close enough to terrify the inhabitants (see note to “present” at 4.70). The psychological pressure would have been much intensified by knowledge that the surrounding Roman bases were supported by screens of cities led by Judeans who wished for Jerusalem to capitulate: across the NW (Iamneia—Ammaus—Thamna, 4.445) and to the E, Jericho’s large military garrison back-stopped by Rome-friendly Judeans throughout Perea (4.438). See note at 4.160. The Disciples’ vigilance in monitoring exits from Jerusalem to prevent defection, though in the past some of the wealthy have gotten past them, has become a crucial part of the story: 4.253, 377–83, 410. Note the inclusio with 4.483.

Josephus is mistaken, though such mistakes were common. Suetonius (Ner. 57.1) thinks that Nero died in his 32nd year, though he was just short of 30 and 6 months (Champlin 2003: 6), while Cassius Dio’s epitomizers (63.29.3) have him die in July, after a rule of 13 years and 8 months less two days (Zonarus) or 13 years and 10 months (John of Antioch). Nero was born on 15 December 37 ce (a near exact contemporary of Josephus), received imperial power on 13 October 54, and died on 9 or 11 June 68 (for the latter date: Murison 1993: 6; Champlin 2003: 5). So he ruled 13 years and 8 months minus 2–4 days. Niese proposed that Josephus wrote “13 years, 8 months, and 8 days,” which would still be wrong but explainable, as the result of the months dropping out in transition (from the repeated “8”) to leave only the “days.” But Josephus makes mistakes (as Tacitus and others do), and the mss all support this one.

Before Josephus, Philo uses ἐξυβρίζω more than any other surviving author, accounting for a quarter of the first 44 attestations. His usage may have suggested the rare compound verb to Josephus, who has the next 32 occurrences, 12 of these in War. In this work the verb often comes in formulaic expressions—as in the summary of scandal at the beginning of Nero’s reign (War 2.250): Ὅσα … ἐξύβρισεν εἰς τὴν τύχην; see note at 2.184 in bjp 1b and 5.120. The idea is that when fortune visits a ruler (usually), granting him power, the ruler fails to recognize it as fortune, becomes arrogant, and creates disaster. A related expression concerns the abuse of authority (ἐξύβρισεν εἰς τὴν ἐξουσίαν: 1.206; 2.140). That connects with the thought here: ὃν τρόπον εἰς τὴν ἀρχν ἐξύβρισεν. Although Josephus agrees with other Roman authors in presenting Nero as thoroughly contemptible, he will note in Ant. 20.154–58 that, of the many existing accounts of this emperor, those written by flatterers who profited from his reign balance those written from hostility. Suetonius reports that some in Rome continued to place fresh flowers on Nero’s grave and that in Parthia, with which he had reached the crucial settlement over Armenia, his loss was mourned for a long time, their king pleading with the Romans to honor Nero’s memory (Ner. 57). See note at 4.173. See note at 4.179. Nymphidius Sabinus (35–68 ce), a slightly older contemporary of Josephus, was the son of an imperial freedwoman, Nymphidia, and an unknown father. As Nero increasingly relied upon freedmen and equestrians in the mid-60s (and suspected or executed prominent senators), he gave Nymphidius joint command of Rome’s Praetonian Guard with Tigellinus (next note), after executing the latter’s colleague Faenius Rufus for links with the Pisonian conspiracy of 65. As Nero’s reign faltered and Galba became his likely successor, hoping to secure his own position Nymphidius promised the Guard a bonus of about 10 years’ pay, and the legions outside Rome a huge donative, in return for their support of the new ruler (Watson 1969: 108–14; Campbell 1984: 110, 165–76 with Plutarch, Galb. 2, 18; Tacitus, Hist. 1.5; Suetonius, Galb. 16; Cassius Dio 64.3–4). As Galba took months to reach Rome, however, and in the meantime was busy executing both his perceived enemies and Nero’s men, and appointed his own man as colleague to Nymphidius, the latter became fearful for his life. Before Galba’s arrival, therefore, he made an improbable bid for imperial power, claiming that his real father was Gaius Caligula and hoping for the support of his Praetorian Guard. Although his mother was known to have had an affair with that emperor, it reportedly happened after his birth, whereas his resemblance to a famous gladiator, Martianus, was thought to prove his real paternity. Nymphidius reportedly won the support of some senators, and even tried to show his suitability to succeed Nero by taking over the late emperor’s castrated freedman Sporus, stand-in bride for the deceased Poppea, as his companion (Plutarch, Galb. 9). None of this helped. Although the Guard toyed with giving him their support, they finally opted for the approaching old-Roman Galba and murdered Nymphidius, still only about 33 years of age, in October 68 (Plutarch, Galb. 13–15). C. Ofonius Tigellinus (10–69 ce), a generation older than Nymphidius (or Josephus), receives extensive coverage and characterization in Tacitus’ Annals (from 14.48.1, 62 ce). For Tacitus, Tigellinus as Praetorian Prefect was young Nero’s tutor and ally in immorality and a fierce inquisitor of those implicated in the Pisonian conspiracy (Ann. 14.51.2–3, 57.1, 60.3; 15.37.1, 50.3). The slippery climber then managed to ingratiate himself with Galba (Plutarch, Galb. 19). But when support in Rome abruptly shifted to Otho in early 69, and that emperor sent for Tigellinus in response to widespread demands for his punishment, the now exhausted and sickly man cut his own throat (Plutarch, Oth. 2).

By providing this level of detail, Josephus quietly assures his Roman audience that he knows their recent history as well as that of his own people. He could become its narrator, he implies, but he refrains because his subject is Judea. Cf. Suetonius, Ner. 47: Nero’s freedman Phaon offered the desperate emperor his villa near the 4th milestone out of Rome, out the Colline Gate on the opposite end of the city from the forum and imperial residence, between the Via Nomentana and Via Salaria (N / NNE of the city). Nero travelled in disguise with 4 companions, including Phaon, Epaphroditus, and his castrated companion (“wife”) Sporus. On 9 or 11 June, 68 (cf. Murison 1993: 6). For an account of Nero’s end that fuses the human drama with careful scholarship, see Champlin 2003: 1–35. It was news of the patrician Galba’s challenge with legions, rather than the far less threatening moves by Vindex, that terrified Nero and saw the rapid defection of his military forces and guards. After pondering a visit to Gaul to beg forgiveness before the armies and restore their trust, a similar effort in the Roman forum, an appeal to Parthia for help, and a vain request to appointed Prefect of Egypt so as to unburden Rome, Nero fled to the suburbs, eventually to his freedman’s villa. There he plunged a dagger into his throat with the aid of his freedman Epaphroditus (Suetonius, Ner. 50.4). See note to “Nymphidius,” the crucial figure in Nero’s downfall, at 4.492, and to Vindex and associates at 4.440: he took his own life when his revolt failed in May 68.

Josephus has recently mentioned this war, spurred by C. Iulius Vindex’s decision to revolt in the spring of 68, which is well familiar to his Roman audiences; see 4.440–41 and notes, Nicols 1978: 52–53 for a crisp summary; Murison 1993: 1–26 for more detail. Servius (at first Lucius Livius Ocella) Sulpicius Galba (24 Dec. 3 bce–15 Jan. 69 ce) came from a distinguished family (gens Sulpicia) that counted consuls in its past going back centuries. Augustus’ wife Livia (Iulia) reportedly left Galba a fortune of 50 million sesterces in her will (29 ce), when he was about 32, though the emperor Tiberius connived to block most of the payout (Suetonius, Galb. 5.2). Galba’s high status is evident from his elevation to the ordinary consulship already in 33 ce (at just 35). He had a distinguished career governing Aquitania, Upper Germany, and Africa, and as a senator, before retiring by about 50 ce—before Nero recalled him to serve as legate in Hispania Tarraconensis (from about 60 ce). Having made a bid for imperial power at the prompting of Vindex (4.440) and apparently from considerations of his own safety, once having been identified as capable of ruling, Galba was about 69 and quite infirm when he came to power (Suetonius, Galb. 21). While brutally removing perceived threats and consolidating support on his long and violent journey to Rome (Tacitus, Hist. 1.6: arriving in October 69 according to most scholars, already on 11 September according to del Castillo 2002), he saw the immediate need to appoint a vigorous successor, to help forestall a coup. His choice, the 30-year-old nobleman Licinianus Piso, was announced 5 days before both men were murdered in the Roman forum (15 January 69), 3 weeks after Galba’s 70th birthday, by soldiers loyal to Otho, who had lost his bid to be chosen as Galba’s successor. See Tacitus, Hist. Book 1, the lives of Galba by Plutarch and Suetonius, and Cassius Dio 63 (or 63–64); Murison 1993: 27–74; Wellesley 2000: 1–55; Morgan. 2006: 11–73. It is tempting to translate αὐτοκράτωρ as “emperor,” because this was one main label (along with Caesar, princeps, occasionally “king”) for the figure we call emperor. But that would be misleading insofar as it suggested an office into which a Roman ruler of this period was installed, as in a royal coronation. Rome, having overthrown its kings half a millennium earlier, vehemently opposed monarchy in principle and had constructed a complex system of counterbalanced powers (the dual consulship at the head of a series of magistracies, elected by popular vote and advised by the Senate) for its mode of governance (see Polybius Book 6 on the Roman constitution). After Julius Caesar’s emergency (then perpetual) dictatorship, rather than installing a formal monarchy Augustus welded together an assortment of traditional roles and titles (the innocuous tribunician power of veto and assembly being a particular dark horse), including priesthoods, that he held alone or in which he was the dominant partner, into supreme authority—without the odium of such a title or office. This de facto monarchy increasingly resembled kingship, and from the 2nd cent. ce Greek writers would not no longer hesitate much in calling the supreme ruler a βασιλεύς. Terms were still somewhat fluid in Josephus’ time. Nevertheless, Latin imperator was already reserved for the ruler (princeps), and Josephus’ Greek αὐτοκράτωρ mirrors Latin imperator almost exactly (Mason 1974: 117–20). I translate as imperator because this word cannot well be rendered in English. Traditionally used for a republican general, who was acclaimed with this title (cf. “commander-in-chief”) by troops in the field as a sign of massive respect after a successful campaign, perhaps justifying a coming triumph in Rome (if the Senate granted it), it was one of the important titles absorbed by Augustus and his successors. Just as triumphs had been available at senatorial discretion for victorious generals but passed exclusively to the emperor and his family, so too only they could be acclaimed imperator in the 1st cent. ce. Cf. 2.211 and note in bjp 1b. Writing in the early 3rd cent. ce, Cassius Dio (52.41.3–4) observes that the word has 2 senses—for a victorious general and as an honorary title for the supreme ruler, but he observes (52.40.2) that in his time, Romans are still using the word as a palatable euphemism for the distasteful “king.” Julius Caesar began the practice of taking imperator as his first name (Suetonius, Div. Iul. 76.1). It was easy for Augustus and Tiberius, who had prevailed in substantial conflicts, to follow suit. Suetonius (Claud. 12) considers it a sign of modesty that Claudius, who lacked any military accomplishments when he came to power, declined to take imperator as a first name. Nevertheless, if anyone could use the label it was the emperor. If soldiers in the field acclaimed their commander imperator, it implied rebellion against the current ruler. The commander’s acceptance of the acclamation (see Vespasian’s extreme hesitancy: 4.601–604) was treason. Such revolutionary acclamations, ending with Vespasian’s, occur several times in this volume (War 4.498, 546, 588, 592, 601, 605, 618, 623, 655). The gruesome story of Galba’s murder and beheading in the forum is told variously in Plutarch, Galb. 24–27; Tacitus, Hist. 1.27–41; Suetonius, Galb. 19–20. Josephus’ word choice (ταπεινοφροσύνη) is intriguing because outside his works—he has it only here—it is almost exclusively Christian, first attested in the nt (e.g., Phil 2:3; Eph 4:2; Acts 20:19) and then frequently. But for Christian authors it was the admirable quality of humility. Josephus plainly refers, however, to a defect on Galba’s part. In the only other non-Christian example of the period (Arrian, Diatr. 3.24.56), Epictetus likewise views it as a moral shortcoming, something like “being unduly downcast.” The particular issue Josephus alludes to, known from other authors, is that Galba refused to honor a desperate promise by Nymphidius to pay the guard a munificent bonus (see note at 4.492). The German legions, disappointed by Galba’s refusal to honor their role in his elevation, let alone to pay that promised donative, would soon shift their allegiance to A. Vitellius, a move that prompted old Galba to name a younger successor, which in turn generated the conflict with Otho (angry at not being chosen successor) that would lead to Galba’s murder. For imperator see earlier in this sentence. M. Salvius Otho (April 32–April 69 ce) came from a high-ranking family, his father being a close companion of the emperor Claudius, who enrolled him among the patricians. Otho himself became a friend and co-conspirator of Nero, who was a few years younger. Reportedly to facilitate the married emperor’s affair with Poppea Sabina, he himself married her—but in the process fell in love with her. Nero then forced him to divorce Poppea and sent the 26-year-old away to Lusitania (partly overlapping with mod. Portugal) in ca. 58 ce, an act for which Otho never forgave him (Suetonius, Oth. 3.1–2). After governing Lusitania with surprising competence, Otho supported the revolt of his far senior and neighboring governor Galba, in the spring of 68, and joined his long march to Rome. His unflinching support explains his anger when Galba chose Piso (note above) as heir, and Otho’s quick move to take advantage of the soldiers’ exasperation with Galba and remove him. Otho would hardly have time to enjoy his accession (mid-January), however. In mid-April 69, after the defeat of his army by Vitellius’ force at Bedriacum-Cremona, he took his own life. Suetonius’ father had served Otho as a legionary tribune, and passed along the observation that Otho did not think he could not have won, but rather felt shame at the loss of such good men until then, and took his life as the only way to prevent more bloodshed (Oth. 10–11). See in general Tacitus, Hist. 1.71–90; 2.11–52, the lives of Otho by Suetonius and Plutarch, and Cassius Dio 63–64 (or 64–65); Murison 1993: 75–142; Wellesley 2000: 56–89; Morgan 2006: 91–138.

Aulus Vitellius (September 15–December 69) came from a family of uncertain antiquity, but by the mid-1st century ce it had achieved great distinction thanks to his father, Lucius Vitellius, and 3 uncles, 2 of whom reached the consulship. His father was the star, holding the ordinary consulship first in 34 and then, after a stellar turn as imperial legate in Syria (where he did much to assist the Judeans: Josephus, Ant. 18.88–126), twice more as colleague of the emperor Claudius, who made him fellow-censor and entrusted him with the government while on his expedition to Britain in 43 ce. L. Vitellius was reportedly an obsequious flatterer of all those in power and anyone related to them (Suetonius, Vit. 2.4–5), though he must have had skills to support his high roles. The father’s eminence facilitated the son Aulus’ ordinary consulship at the young age of 33 (48 ce), and he became an older friend of Nero. All the sources, inevitably hostile and affected by Flavian disparagement (a crucial justification for Vespasian’s pursuit of civil war), agree on the son’s early and lasting reputation in Rome for luxury, gluttony, and undeserved advancement on his father’s coat-tails. By 69 ce, A. Vitellius had divorced his first wife, Petronia (in 51–52 ce), and by the mid-50s married Galeria Fundana, with whom he had a daughter, now in her teens, and a son aged 6, who would die at the hands of Vespasian’s general Mucianus (Murison 1993: 150–55). When Galba appointed him governor of Lower Germany toward the end of 68, it supposedly came as a surprise to everyone, hostile reporters claiming that Galba wanted to install someone who presented no threat (Suetonius, Vit. 7). Suetonius claims that Vitellius’ army, deeply unhappy with Galba, welcomed him as a commander in his prime from a famous family, but that Vitellius did not move until Galba’s murder, intending to take vengeance on Otho (Vit. 7–9). Tacitus (Hist. 1.52–70), by contrast, has him collaborating with his legionary commanders immediately after arriving in Lower Germany, albeit often too drunk and satiated to act (1.62). Murison (1979) shows that the plot against Galba must have been well underway among legionary legates in Germany before Galba’s arrival on 1 December, and that he was immediately co-opted as the revolt’s leader. Josephus refers to the victory of Vitellius’ generals, not Vitellius himself, because he was travelling in Gaul with a separate force when the decisive battle occurred at Bedriacum in mid-April 69. He was unaware of the outcome for several days (Tacitus, Hist. 2.57). Wellesley (2000: 201–203) explains the almost uniformly hostile tradition toward Vitellius on the ground that his revolt was “embarrassingly similar” to Vespasian’s, and so historians had to present Vitellius as unfit to rule, to justify Flavian success. Nevertheless, Wellesley’s own “dispassionate” view— Vitellius was “perhaps just capable of running the great family estate at Ariccia” (2005: 201)—is also that he was “unfit to govern.” See in general Tacitus, Hist. 1.51–70 and Books 2–3; Suetonius, Life of Vitellius; Cassius Dio 64 / 65; Murison 1993: 81–119, 143–56; Wellesley 2000: 90–203; Morgan 2006: 74–255. Josephus refers to a traumatic event in Roman history, the burning of the Temple of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitol hill around 19 December 69 (Wellesley 2000: 196–99)—something of a parallel to the destruction of Jerusalem’s temple as a result of civil war less than a year later. Tacitus’ lament over the one (Hist. 3.72) sounds remarkably like Josephus’ over the other. Vespasian’s brother (Sabinus) and son (Domitian) had taken refuge from Vitellius’ fighters (not the emperor himself, who was trying to abdicate and suing for peace), shortly before the arrival of Antonius’ Flavian army, which entered the city on 21 December. Josephus will elaborate the story in 4.645–49, though his version differs in significant ways from Tacitus’ fuller account in Hist. 3.65–75. M. Antonius Primus (birth and death dates uncertain, likely born in the 30s) seems to have come from a family in Tolosia (Toulouse), in Gaul (Suetonius, Vit. 17.2), that was either descended from or owed its citizenship to Marc Antony (d. 30 bce). As a crucial Flavian commander in the civil war, he will figure prominently in the following narrative (4.633–47). He was a senator, but younger and of lower rank than Mucianus (next note), who had held a consulship under Nero (64 ce). Antonius had likely held a praetorship, as he first appears (Tacitus, Hist. 2.86) in command of a legion raised by Galba in Spain: vii Galbiana, not its formal name (Ritterling 1924: 1629–31—it became vii Gemina), and Nero had expelled him from the Senate on charges of fraud (cf. Wellesley 2000: 129–30). After serving Galba until his death in January 69, Antonius was in command of the Seventh in Pannonia along the Danube, when the First Battle of Bedriacum saw Otho’s defeat (April 69): Antonius could not assist him. Then Vespasian began his bid for power against Vitellius. Joining the other commanders of Moesia and Pannonia in supporting Vespasian, Antonius shared his army’s impatience in waiting for Mucianus, the Flavian commander-in-chief, to arrive from Syria. Concerned that any delay would allow Vitellius to reinforce his defences in Italy, they set aside Vespasian’s orders and marched (Wellesley 2000: 132–33), Antonius first taking an auxiliary force to secure the route, with 5 now-Flavian legions following soon after. They clashed with a roughly equivalent Vitellian force in the Second Battle of Bedriacum (24 October 69). Antonius’ hard-won victory was the decisive factor in Vespasian’s rise to power. See further 4.645 for Antonius’ approach to Rome: 4.633–44. See note at 4.32. C. Licinius Mucianus (now ca. 45 years old?), Nero’s legate to the Province of Syria from early 67 (replacing Cestius Gallus), has been in post about 8 months. Initially hostile to Vespasian as his consular rival under Nero, Mucianus found common interest in planning with him and was apparently won over by young Titus’ mediation, to become a principal player in Vespasian’s rise to power. See further 4.654 for Mucianus’ arrival in Rome. See note to this crucial thematic phrase, used in both Roman and Judean contexts, at 4.131. For a recent overview of the civil war, see Weikert 2016: 35–48. Josephus will elaborate considerably on the conflict between Flavian and Vitellian forces: 4.630–55.

See previous note. Either Josephus had not yet thought of exploring Vespasian’s rise to power in the civil war with Vitellius, and changed his mind after a few paragraphs or, more likely, he is here focused on his immediately following narrative and does not yet want to distract from it with Roman affairs (cf. 1.23–24, even if added after the work’s completion, which anticipates the story of Vespasian’s rise). Or “tedious, wearisome, familiar.” Josephus has used the same phrase (ἐπειδὴ δι ̓ ὄχλου πᾶσίν ἐστιν) after a similar list of horrors concerning Nero at 2.250–51, to decline exploring that ruler’s extremely well-known reign. At Ant. 3.197–98, he will decline to discuss the variety of perfumes in the temple, not because they are well known but still so as not to be wearisome to readers (μὴ δι ̓ ὄχλου γένηται τοῖς ἐντυγχάνουσι). The adjectival phrase δι ̓ ὄχλου is first attested in Thucydides (1.73.2), where Athenian delegates to Sparta half-apologize for bringing up the familiar Persian wars—to remind the audience of what they owe Athens. The phrase does not appear often thereafter (once each in Euripides, Aristophanes, Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle, Dionysius) before Josephus’ 3 uses. Cf. Tacitus, Hist. 2.2, where by contrast Tacitus expects that a digression on a famous temple in Cyprus will not be wearisome (haud fuerit longum)—because it is about an exotic foreign locale. This observation reminds us how much of ancient writing has been lost, for the surviving accounts of these figures (Tacitus, Suetonius, Plutarch, Cassius Dio) are contemporary with or later than Josephus’ War. Plutarch’s extant Lives of Galba and Otho, with the lost Vitellius, are the earliest; Plutarch may have composed them while Josephus was nearby in Rome writing his War (Jones 1966: 71). There is reason to think that they were written to be sections of a single work, Lives of the Caesars by Plutarch, in perhaps 100,000 words (Stadter 2014: 56–57). They share source material with the later accounts by Tacitus and Suetonius, confirming that earlier histories were in circulation. Moreover, Josephus (War 1.1–8) and Tacitus (Hist. 2.101) both criticize writers of the Flavian period who exalted the ruling family while describing Vespasian’s rise to power. Those lost accounts must also have included significant material on the preceding civil war. Two main senses are possible: Josephus uses τὰ πράγματα here to refer to specifically Roman political affairs (as at 4.499 soon below), “the republic [res publica], the commonwealth, public affairs,” in which case he intends a balanced “both … and” with the coherence of his Judean history, or he is speaking simply of events, in which case both elements of the “both … and” refer to his Judean history. Josephus often uses τὰ πράγματα of Judeans and their public affairs; see note at 4.173. Although he writes a distinctly Judean history (1.1–3), however, from the start he has kept it linked with larger Roman affairs (1.4, 6–8, 17–29). I.e., to maintain the flow of his Judean history (cf. 2.251), not breaking it to explore events in Rome. This crisp summary also underpins the next paragraph (4.497–502), however, which explains Vespasian’s halting of his Judean campaign in response to the succession of Roman rulers—before Vitellius, whose accession will spur Vespasian’s bid for the throne (4.545–48, 585–663). Since that story will end this volume, perhaps Josephus does not consider it a rupture.

For historical perspective on the war, often misleadingly imagined as 5–8 years of intense conflict (66–73/74 ce), it is noteworthy that Vespasian arrived in the spring of 67, had settled Galilee by 1 July, and by mid-68 was contemplating his final operation, the subjugation of Jerusalem, even then after several months of rest and preparation without campaigning. Only his aid to King Agrippa (for unrest in Tiberias, Tarichea, Gamala) had disturbed him much, before a winter that saw Perea welcome him and most of Judea submit, as he received a steady stream of refugees from Jerusalem. In the story time here, a year after seeing the north subdued, he is ready to move against the mother-city. Although Jerusalem’s location requires logistical planning, he has every reason to think that it will capitulate that summer or early autumn—without the destruction of city or temple (or his being awarded a triumph)—if Nero remains in power. Jerusalem’s established leaders have been executed on the charge of treating with Rome. The city is volatile and vulnerable. Idumean fighters have left and Simon’s rag-tag force has not yet entered. Simon’s ability to gain entry in the spring of 69 suggests that Vespasian with his vastly larger, professional force, trained in siege warfare could have prevailed in 68 even if a siege had been necessary.

See note at 4.494. Presumably, Vespasian heard the news of Nero’s death (4.491) and Galba’s accession in the same report, since Nero’s suicide was a direct result of his having been declared enemy of the state in response to Galba’s rise and the defection of the Praetorian Guard: Suetonius, Ner. 42, 48–49. Morgan (2006: 176–77) suggests that Vespasian would have had to write to Galba for a new mandate when he first heard of his accession, in late June or early July. If so, he would have been unnerved by a lack of response, although that might only have been because Galba did not see the letter. It took him 4 months to consolidate his support in Spain and Gaul, executing Nero’s men and other hindrances before reaching Rome in September–October. Any anxieties felt by Vespasian would have been heightened by his reported suspicion (Suetonius, Galb. 23) that Galba had earlier dispatched assassins to kill him—not because he was a serious rival but simply because he was Nero’s general. Tacitus mentions this journey in 2 passages: Hist. 1.10 and 2.1. The former states that Titus’ trip, to pay the Flavians’ respects and confirm their allegiance (ad venerationem cultumque eius miserat), proves that the Flavians had no problem with Galba’s accession. The second says that the announced reasons were (a) to pay respects to Galba and (b) because Titus at 29 had passed from youth to an age suitable for political standing. Tacitus immediately ridicules the popular inference from this, that at Vespasian’s urging Titus was angling to become the aged Galba’s successor, as only an example of the common sport of imagining candidates for something before the winner is announced. But his own narrative, which then runs down the list of Titus’ remarkable qualities and the many omens of Flavian fortune, actually supports the suspicion he dismisses. King Agrippa ii is a major player in Book 2 (see bjp 1b) and reappears in Book 3 as Vespasian’s closest allied king (3.29. 56, 68), who asks for Vespasian’s help with unrest in his lakeside cities (from 3.443). That help spills over into the opening section of Book 4 (see note at 4.2), as Vespasian besieges Agrippa’s fortress town of Gamala (to 4.83). The king has been completely absent since then, however, and this cameo is his last appearance as a character in War. We assume that he was involved with Titus’ phase of the war, as he had been with Vespasian’s, but Josephus makes no mention of him after this trip to Rome. Perhaps he, having been injured at Gamala (4.14), sat out the rest of the Judean War in Rome? Or perhaps he quietly returned to his expanded dominions in the north (cf. 7.97). Not precisely the same reasons, as 4.500 shows, though both men would have needed to pay homage to the new emperor.

The only occurrence of περιπλέω in Josephus. It is particularly common before him in Herodotus (21 times), Thucydides (36), Diodorus (17), and Strabo (10). According to orbis, the shortest route from Caesarea to Rome in summer, requiring 40 days, was 2,820 km (1,752 mi) via Paphos in Cyprus, N of Rhodes, the Greek islands to Athens or Corinth (via slipway), then to Tarentum in Italy and overland to Rome. In winter the route actually is shorter—2,668 km (1,657 mi)—and required 35 days, apparently because W-bound ships could run straight across (rather than coasting as far as possible) from Caesarea to Cyprus and Cyprus to Rhodes. That shorter route was not, however, the fastest. In winter, this was 3,020 km (1,876 mi), which took an estimated 21.5 days: Paphos to the Asian coastline then Rhodes, Crete, and around Sicily, then straight N up the Italian peninsula to Rome. It was faster because it was largely under sail on open water. In summer, the fastest route had to stay closer to the coast and cross overland through Corinth, then pass through the Strait of Messina, hugging the Italian coast to Rome’s port in Ostia. orbis appears to assume that the year-long (etesian) prevailing winds in the E Mediterranean, from the NNW, lessened in winter when a strong easterly “levanter” could boost ships travelling W (Zecchetto and de Biasio 2007: 816, 821). Josephus’ account (supported by Tacitus) evidently does not make that assumption, but implies that winter travel required greater care—the contrary winds of summer now stronger and the water rougher—and avoidance of open sea. I.e., warships. The Roman world knew 2 main kinds of ship: military galley and merchant. The latter, privately owned, were by far the more common: smaller vessels powered by a combination of oar and sail, sea-going ships powered entirely by a large rectangular sail plus a couple of smaller triangular ones for control. These ships were at the mercy of wind patterns, which changed seasonally and daily but were broadly predictable. The ships were sturdy, double-planked, and equipped for stretches on the open sea (Davis 2009: 51–65). There were no passenger ships as such, but merchant ships might accept substantial numbers of paying passengers on the open deck. Acts 27 (nt) describes the apostle Paul’s trip from Caesarea to Rome: the centurion responsible for him finds a series of commercial vessels heading for Rome. After coasting first N along the Syrian coast, then W along Asian ports, they join an Alexandrian cargo vessel headed to Rome. Although they begin in summertime, they are unable to proceed past Cnidus on the SW tip of Asia, W or WNW, because powerful northerlies or northwesterlies have developed. So they follow the wind to Crete, planning to track the leeward S coast to its W port, to be ready for a bolt northward the following spring. When a strong NE wind prevents them from turning in to that port, however, they find themselves on the open sea before wrecking on Malta (Melita), due S of Sicily. They only survive by throwing cargo and rigging overboard (27:19, 38). Acts 27:37 claims there were 276 persons on board, of which only a dozen or so would have been crew. Larger sailing ships could reportedly carry 600 (cf. Life 15). By the 1st cent. ce, it seems that the upper length limit was about 55 m (ca. 180 ft), 14 m (46 ft) across, about a 4:1 ratio of length to beam, and a cargo capacity of ca. 1,200 tons, the ships making about 5 or 6 knots in the most favorable winds. See Casson 1959: 236–39; Davis 2009: 58–59; Beresford 2013: 18. The other main kind of ship, available only to Roman officials, was the much smaller, shallower, and lighter military galley. In the 1st cent. ce this was most likely the “3-rower” or trireme, named for its 3 banks of oarsmen who numbered 200 or so. Built for rapid travel, quick maneuver, and ramming (with a bronzed prow), it reached about 37 m (120 fit) × 5.5 m (18 ft), a ratio nearing 7:1, hence “long ship” even though merchant ships were longer. (nb: a modern destroyer typically has an 8:1 length-beam ratio, whereas large modern passenger ships often reach 9:1.) Since rowing provided the main power, the galley was not so completely at the mercy of winds, though changing currents certainly affected its ease of propulsion (Beresford 2013: 81). It had little space for supplies and none for accommodation, the available room being filled with artillery and other weaponry. Crews normally rowed between ports by day and disembarked overnight. These conditions gave warships a very different sailing itinerary from commercial vessels: they had to keep the coastline in sight even when fighting battles. See Starr 1941; Pitassi 2012: chs. 3–5. We should not assume that Titus and Agrippa made their entire trip in a warship. War 7.21–22 describes Vespasian’s trip to Rome from Alexandria (late summer 70). He took a merchantman to Rhodes, then changed to a trireme for greater speed through the Greek islands, finally sprinting from Corcyra (Corfu) to SE Italy and up the mainland to Rome. Although Josephus does not explain how Vespasian crossed Greece, since he stopped in all the poleis of the area it seems most likely that, like Titus and Agrippa, he put in at Cenchreae / Schoenus and crossed the isthmus (next note) to Lechaion in the Gulf of Corinth, travelling through the heartland. Puzzling over the notion of sailing through Achea (“the meaning … is obscure”), since it was a land-locked region before the modern canal, Thackeray (lcl) wonders whether there is a textual lacuna, which might be filled in thus: “‘while [they were going by land] through Achaea (for it was winter) [and the rest] were sailing round’ the Peloponnese.” Thus, Titus and Agrippa went overland while their military entourage sailed S of Greece. It is unnecessary to posit such an unusually large lacuna, however. Tacitus (Hist. 2.1, 4) provides independent evidence that Titus learned of Galba’s death at Corinth, the heart of Achea, and sailed back to Caesarea from there. The Greeks had constructed a famous portage system, an 8 km (5 mi) paved track, its path straddling the modern canal, between the Corinthian Gulf Lechaion (Lechaium) on the W and Cenchreae (or Schoenus) in the Saronic Gulf to the E. Hauling boats or galleys or perhaps commercial goods over this track saved much time in emergencies. The constraints of engineering and physics make it unlikely that the slipway was much used to portage large commercial ships (Pettigrew 2011), but the fit 200-strong rowing crews of triremes could drag their ships across. Polybius (4.19.7–9; 5.101.4) knows or even coins 2 verbs for this activity: διισθμίζω and ὑπερισθμίζω, “dragging across / over the isthmus.” Cf. Thucydides 8.7–8 and Strabo, Geog. 8.1.3, 2.1 (“where the ships are hauled overland from one sea to the other”—called the diolkos), 6.4. It is also conceivable that Titus and Agrippa left one warship in Schoenus and were planning to join another from Lechaion, for the journey W (rather than portaging the same ship), when they heard the news in Corinth. Josephus’ notice that they took a “long ship” by a circuitous route because it was winter assumes his audience’s understanding of such things. Pliny (Nat. 2.122–25) gives the extremes of the sailing season as 8 February to 11 November, and describes the wind patterns within each phase, though he notes that first pirates and later businessmen ignored these limitations. Winter sailing was possible (Davis 2009: 1–15, 32–50, 65–75). Vegetius (Epit. 4.39) has a much smaller window for safe sailing, 15 May to 14 September, with a 2-month band of high-risk travel on each end. Davis (2009: 65–76) and Beresford (2013) have shown that the common view of a virtual ban on winter sailing in antiquity is a misconception. As Leoni (2020: 685 n. 7) points out, Tacitus (Hist. 4.51.1) mentions several people—albeit with “an equal measure of boldness and good fortune”—who braved the winter sea of late December / early January (69/70 ce) to bring the news of Vitellius’ death to Vespasian in Alexandria. Winter travel comes up 4 times in Josephus’ Flavian story, to diverse effect. In 3.7–8, 64, Nero sends Vespasian E to Syria / Judea from Greece while it is winter (66/67 ce), and Titus crosses the Mediterranean to collect the Fifteenth Legion from Alexandria. Titus reportedly makes better speed than expected in winter, and the season is no impediment at all to Vespasian’s plans. In the present passage, likewise, winter travel (68/69 ce) in the opposite direction is at worst an inconvenience, no barrier to political necessity. These 2 passages make it all the more striking—along with the fact that it will not actually be winter in the story time—that at 4.591 Josephus cites Vespasian’s fear of winter travel as a key reason for failing to bid for imperial power. Finally, however, at 7.20 Josephus implausibly claims that Titus lingered in the E after Jerusalem’s fall because it “the winter [storm?] prevented him from sailing to Italy.” See 4.494 and notes on Galba’s murder. Tacitus (Hist. 2.1) elaborates that Titus heard the news while in Corinth. Since Galba died in Rome on 15 January, and news would likely have taken a week to reach Corinth, Titus could not have arrived much before then, which suggests that he had left Caesarea around 1 January at the earliest. He might have reached Corinth a week or two after the news had reached that city (and so left Caesarea later), while he was on board or in more distant ports, and only heard on his arrival. But if we assume that such important news would have travelled fast from Corinth, and he heard soon after the report reached that city, the last week of January seems the most plausible time for him to have been in Corinth and made his fateful decision to return to Vespasian. When Nero died on 9 or 11 June 68 (see note to “eight days” at 4.449), the military and Senate in Rome had already acclaimed Galba imperator, a couple of days earlier (Plutarch, Galb. 7.2). His coins suggest that he did not receive the full range of titles until he appeared before the Senate in Rome, in September or October (del Castillo 2002). Since Galba died on 15 January 69, in his 71st year (3 bce to 69 ce), Josephus’ 7 months and 7 days might be precisely correct. Josephus’ calculation is closer than that of Suetonius, at any rate, which puts Galba’s death in his 73rd year and in his 7th month (Galb. 23). See note to “events” at 4.496. Although it is tempting to render τὰ πράγματα the same way in each case, Josephus appears to change the sense in these two occurrences. See note at 4.441. As 4.497, 502 suggest, Josephus is greatly simplifying by presenting the rulers in order. According to Tacitus (see note at 4.495), the German legions had been contemplating a coup against Galba months before his death at Otho’s direction, and Vitellius quickly became their champion. There was no orderly succession of rulers, then, for Vitellius was contending against Otho from the start. This immediate conflict plays a large role in Titus’ decision to return to Vespasian when he hears of Galba’s death: the next ruler is not known with certainty (see note to “impulse” at 5.501).

I.e., a huge reversal of fortune for both Galba and whoever would emerge from the Otho-Vitellius contest. On War’s central reversal-of-fortune theme, see 4.40–42 and notes. As a foreign king, notionally a “friend and ally” but in reality a client of Rome’s imperium, Agrippa ii had no choice but to serve whoever Rome recognized as ruler. Since he could neither contest imperial power himself (contrast Vespasian) nor be a significant threat to the new ruler, in spite of his former loyalties, he had to go on to Rome. Turning back would risk offending the new man. Especially if Galba had sent assassins after Vespasian because he was Nero’s powerful general (Suetonius, Galb. 23), by contrast, Titus could not have had confidence in approaching Galba’s successor in Rome.

This is characteristic language in War: see note at 2.455 in bjp 1b. Josephus attributes a number of important events and situations to this mysterious, numinous (“heaven-sent,” “ghostly”) category: 1.331; 3.341, 485 (cf. 5.502); 4.34, 76, 622 (see notes in this volume); 5.377; 6.252, 297, 303; 7.82, 318. Tacitus (Hist. 2.1–2) gives a much fuller account, implausibly claiming to read Titus’ actual thoughts though in plausible ways: Tacitus learns at the same time, in Corinth, that Otho has risen to power and that Vitellius is contesting his claim. Titus is thus trapped “between hope and fear.” If he proceeds, he will receive no gratitude from a ruler (whether Otho or Vitellius) who knows that he set out to honor someone else (Galba or Otho). He might then become a hostage in Rome for Vespasian’s cooperation, or worse. If he returns to his father, he will certainly offend either Otho or Vitellius. But returning home would open up 2 possibilities not available if he proceeded to Rome: either Vespasian would opt to join one of the rivals before the outcome is known, in which case the father’s support would cancel the son’s offense, or Vespasian himself might decide to contend for power, in which case Titus would also be safe. So he turns back to consult his father. Tacitus adds a common view, from which he distances himself (Hist. 2.2), that Titus’ love for the 40-year-old Herodian princess Berenice drew him back to the region. Tacitus (Hist. 2.2–4) describes Titus coasting from Corinth among the islands to Rhodes and then E to Cyprus, pausing there to visit the famous temple of Paphian Venus, to which Tacitus provides a historical digression. Titus inspects its ancient treasures, consults its oracle about his voyage and then about his longer-term future, holds an interview with the priest (who predicts especially good fortune), and offers abundant sacrifices. On the strength of these many favorable indications, Titus then makes a direct run SE across open water from Cyprus to Caesarea—338 km (210 mi)—rather than taking the shortest route E to the coast and following it S.

Or “about supreme governance” (περὶ τῶν ὅλων ὄντες). Although Josephus has just mentioned Otho’s succession (4.499), which might be thought to bring clarity rather than suspense, Tacitus’ information about Vitellius’ plot against Galba even before Otho’s rise, the immediate conflict between Otho and Vitellius that followed (see 4.494), and Titus’ uncertainty about who would emerge victorious from their conflict, explains the Flavians’ suspense about supreme rule here. Vespasian does, however, duly administer the oaths of allegiance to Otho (Tacitus, Hist. 1.76; 2.6) and even to Vitellius (Hist. 2.73–74) in his army. See note at 4.441. Josephus will give Vespasian the same thought in response to news of Vitellius’ accession at 4.590.

Josephus’ programmatic coordination of the civil wars in Rome and Jerusalem (see already 1.4–5, 23) supports his undoing of the post-war image of Judeans as a nation that went to war against Rome (as the Flavian triumph, inscriptions, literature, and coins imply). Rather, Judeans are long-standing Roman allies with fine statesmen and noble traditions, just as the Romans, but they fell into civil war, just as the Romans (rather more seriously for the world) did and at the same time, and both conflicts arose from the same ingredients: Nero’s last desperate years and the impulsive or power-seeking reactions to his agents’ depredations: in Italy, Gaul, Spain, and Judea. See note to 4.353, where Josephus anticipates this reintroduction of Simon with a brief reference, when some 2,000 still-living victims of the Disciples in Jerusalem freed by disillusioned Idumeans are said to flock to Simon. Josephus has described Simon’s energetic militant activities at the outset of the conflict (2.521, harassing Cestius’ legion on its way to Jerusalem; 2.652–54, attacking and mutilating the bodies of wealthy Judeans in Acrabetene, a would-be tyrant who will flee to Masada and then turn on Idumea). Since giora is the Aramaic counterpart to Hebrew ger, the term used since biblical times for a foreign resident and rendered προσήλυτος (“one who has come over”) in lxx Greek, it is widely agreed that this fierce defender of Judean interests came from a new Judean family (Roth 1960: 53; Michel 1968: 403). Cf. the young Adiabenian royals, who also took prominent roles in the conflict, after leading members of their family embraced Judean law in the 30s and became deeply invested in Jerusalem’s issues (Ant. 20.17–96). Simon would make the Adiabenian palaces in Jerusalem his headquarters (5.252–53), as John had done before his arrival (4.567–69), possibly suggesting that all such outsiders were in league. Simon displayed the same convert’s energy as the young Adiabenians, but on a far grander scale. He rose to become one of the 2 principal commanders in Jerusalem’s resistance from the Roman point of view, and was ritually executed as enemy general in the triumph (7.153–54)—in contrast to the tolerant treatment of the young Adiabenian royals (6.356–57). We would assume that Josephus meant Decapolis Gerasa if he had not recently mentioned another Gerasa, quickly subdued by Vespasian and near Jerusalem (4.487; see note there), which cannot be the Decapolis city. This evidence forces us to remember that any village named Jerash / Garash or even perhaps Gesher or Gezer might have become Gerasa in Greek. It remains possible, however, that Simon’s father had come into contact with Judean ways while living in Decapolis Gerasa, which had a sizeable Judean minority, reportedly living in harmony with the majority population (2.479–80), and that after embracing Judean law he or his son Simon crossed the river to live in Judea. Indeed, 2.480 relates that the Gerasenes assisted those of their Judean minority who preferred to live in Judea after the city was attacked by Judean militants following the massacre of Judeans in Caesarea. Perhaps Simon was among them, and quickly made common cause with the attacking Judeans? We do not know their ages, but Josephus’ grudging allowance that John was a wealthy and prominent man in Galilee, with close friends among the established Jerusalem elite (Life 189–204), might suggest that he had reached middle age by the mid-60s, perhaps making him a decade or two older than Josephus, who was just 30 at the outbreak of the war. As for John’s cunning (πανουργία), Josephus consistently cites this as his distinguishing trait: War 2.585, 591; Life 74, and with different language War 2.85, 208. Each time that Josephus introduces John he stresses his craftiness, slipperiness, and tyrannical ambition. John’s gradual establishment of sole power in the city began with his flight from Gischala (4.106–30). He then turned traitor to Ananus and advised the Disciples to invite an Idumean force into the holy city (4.204–235). Finally, when John has sufficient power, he splits the Disciples and seizes the leadership of the most potent element, putting the entire remaining party under his control (4.389–97; cf. 4.458–59). See note at 4.90 for the connection of youth with brazenness. The phrase ἀλκὴ σώματος (strength of body / bodies) is a favorite of Josephus. Euripides has it twice (Hel. 1379; Rhes. 382). Diodorus has it 7 times, but usually with pleonastic ῥώμη added. Philo is the only other significant user of similar phrases (4), but Josephus has 11 examples of the collocation (2.268, 376, 476, 580; 6.55, 81, 331; Ant. 6.21; 17.239, 278), often making this a characteristic of Judeans.

For Acrabetene, see note to “Corea” at 4.449. Anchored by the (still present) town of Acraba, ca. 11 km (6.5 mi) SE of Nablus (Neapolis, Shechem), Acrabetene was the N-most Judean toparchy or regional center (2.568; 3.55), on the frontier with Samaria (3.48), and hence a zone of perpetual conflict. For some reason, Judean strong men including both Eleazar b. Deineus (2.235) and Simon (2.652–53) reportedly attacked the residents of Acrabetene itself, rather than merely using it as a base to attack Samaria. It may have been an unusually wealthy area, for Simon reportedly robbed the rich before torturing them. According to the later passage, as acknowledged leader in Jerusalem Ananus ii was able to send an armed force out to chase Simon from the area; that is when he fled to Masada. Josephus has reintroduced Masada at 4.399–405 as another ill faced by the nation, with the residents of Masada raiding nearby settlements (notoriously Judean En-Gedi) for fresh food. In Book 2 he described how unnamed militants first seized Masada from its Roman-auxiliary garrison (2.408) and then how Eleazar son of Yair, a relative of Menachem, first seized the stored weapons from Masada and then escaped to Masada when his militant faction was crushed in the intramural strife of the summer of 66 (2.433, 447), by the priest-led group that would become the Disciples. At the end of that volume, Josephus anticipates the present passage, with the despicable Simon joining the so-called sicarii on Masada for a time (2.653).

The elliptical expression ἦν αὐτοῖς δι’ ὑποψίας (missing a more explicit verb such as ἔχω or λαμβάνω—they held / took him in / with suspicion) is unusual, but it reoccurs at 5.114. Although this might sound as though Simon has a following of women (as Jesus in Luke 8:2–3 or the Christian visionary Montanus), we soon hear about his wife, who will be captured with a number of attendants, who likely include women (4.538–44). At 1.267, while contending for his kingdom, Herod put his “women” under secure guard on Masada, the women in question being his wife and members of his extended family. Putting these passages together, we might suppose that the strong man Simon followed Herod’s example, also followed by Eleazar b. Yair and his associates, in finding a place of safety for his women-folk (in ancient terms). Josephus’ account of Masada’s end and archaeology agree that Masada’s resident community from 66 to 74 mainly comprised families, with women, children, and perhaps the aged significantly outnumbering fighting-age men. This interesting observation, if not fabricated for Josephus’ audience (who do not know the site), suggests two possibilities: either Simon’s group were kept below the summit in the valley around Masada, perhaps near the W access ramp (e.g., where Flavius Silva would build the legionary camps 5–6 years later) or they were sequestered on a “lower” part of the summit, away from the main action. Although one could imagine that they were kept off the fortress altogether until they had proven themselves, Josephus’ description of their provisional refuge as τὸ κατωτέρω … φρούριον suggests a part of the fortress. Moreover, it would seem pointless for them to trek to the remote desert only to live in exposed tents below—rather like going to Herodium for safety but living in the open town below. So the second option seems more plausible. The roughly diamond-shaped summit of Masada is large: 634 m (2,080 ft) on its long axis and 306 m (1,004 ft) at the widest point, so about 8 ha (20 acres): see Netzer 1991; Netzer and Stiebel 2008; Ben-Tor 2009: 69–85. Although the summit looks level from below, the NW sector is noticeably higher than the rest, between the so-called western and northern palaces, to which the W ramp leads. That area hosts the concentration of storage and bath facilities, synagogue, and the cisterns below. The SW, S, SE, and E regions are relatively bare. The entire summit is fringed by casemate apartments, however, 70 of which have been found, of different sizes, many quite spacious. Perhaps, then, the existing inhabitants of Masada congregated in the NW sector, some living in subdivided and extended areas around the palaces and nearby casemates, whereas Simon’s group were given a distant apartment—several football fields away—on the lower SE perimeter.

A snide remark (διὰ συγγένειαν ἠθῶν), leaving the audience to understand that Josephus means that the existing residents and Simon’s group shared a lack of morals and extreme brutality toward even compatriots. Josephus is the only known author to use this double-compound verb: συμπρονομεύω. The simple verb νομεύω refers to grazing animals. It is rare outside Homer, Plato, and the idyll-composer Theocritus. The simple compound προνομεύω takes on the sense of devastating, ravaging, or plundering and is common in the Greek Bible, Polybius, and Dionysius, though Josephus has it only twice. He shows original creativity here in adding a prefix for “joining in” such acts. The parade example of such devastation of nearby land, before Simon’s arrival, has been the Passover raid on En-Gedi (4.400–405), which Josephus presents as only an egregious example (4.400–401). In 2.652, he anticipated that Simon would conduct raids from Masada in Idumea, a territory Judean enough to be covered by Judean generals—men otherwise unknown—in preparation for the Roman onslaught (2.566) and to play a decisive role in handing the Disciples control of the city by murdering their opponents, yet somewhat distinct in culture. The Idumeans’ entry into Jerusalem has provided the most compelling drama of this volume so far, resulting in the murder of the chief priests and many notables (4.228–353). Simon’s readiness to attack Idumeans, much elaborated below (4.511–37), albeit after he leaves Masada (2.652–53 puts his Idumean activity before Ananus’ death in a careless compression), is difficult to understand in terms of ethno-religious animosity, given their devotion to Jerusalem, though it may have to do with his profound conflict with the Disciples (4.514, 538–44, esp. 4.556–65), if he views the Idumeans as their principal or potential muscle.

Or “hole, lair.” This is the only occurrence of φωλεός in Josephus, though Philo accounts for 7 of the 45 previous attestations and may have suggested the word to him; cf. esp. Her. 238 and Spec. 162, which speak of reptiles straying from their holes only to find food. Whereas Simon has recently arrived and so views Masada as a temporary base, the other residents have lived there for nearly two years (since mid-66) and made it a home with their families. Although Josephus disparages all rebel groups in harsh terms, implausibly calling those who fled to Masada with their families sicarii, he reserves some respect for all those who display masculine courage, the paramount Judean trait, even among his political enemies (Mason 2016a: 101–106). His portrait of the bold and energetic (and horribly impious) Simon’s alleged view of those on Masada is deeply sarcastic: these self-proclaimed tough guys, who had no trouble overrunning their Judean compatriots in unarmed villages nearby, were afraid of any serious conflict that might endanger them.

The only other occurrence of τυραννιάω in Josephus came earlier in this volume, in a similar description of John of Gischala, who will soon become Simon’s chief rival in Jerusalem (4.389–90). Like Simon here, John there cannot tolerate being merely one fighter; his craving of sole rule (μοναρχία) leads him to break with the Disciples, though by 4.566–68 he and his Galileans will control that group. Both men are said to attract a following of “contemptibles,” scraping the bottom of the barrel. Note the inclusio: aspiring to great things matches vigor and boldness in 4.503. This is the work’s pivotal episode (War 4.314–25), both occupying the middle of War’s 7-volume structure and the narrative fulcrum, after which the city rapidly descends into violent factionalism. A vague description not likely plottable by Josephus’ audiences. In 4.451, 490, the hill country is clarified as that around Jerusalem. The reference to Ananus’ death might lead us to assume, since Ananus had controlled Jerusalem and its irregular Judean forces, that Josephus has this area in mind again. But Ananus exercised control over all Judea, and sent forces to drive Simon into Masada (2.653; 4.504). That Simon would leave Masada only on hearing of Ananus’ death need not imply, therefore, that he returned to the Jerusalem area. Since the focus of his attention (all the more if Acrabetene at 4.511 were Akrabbim) will soon be Idumea, the nearest hill country would be that on which Hebron sits. Masada is a mesa, but the surrounding plain is at or below sea level. The hill country of Hebron NW of Masada rises steeply to over 1,000 m (3,300 ft) asl. The region in between hosts countless caves (4.512) in the steep W-E wadis and would have placed Simon on the frontier of Idumea. Then again, 4.511–12 appears to locate Simon’s base in the Wadi Kelt / Qilt, which runs from Jerusalem (800 m / 2,500 ft asl) to near Jericho, ca. 9 km ENE of Jerusalem, an area of dramatic hills and cliffs. So perhaps that is the hill country Josephus has in mind, but does not explain. For slaves in Roman Judea (descendants of foreign captives, debt slaves, or those captured and sold by bandits) see the careful study by Hezser 2005. Slight resonances with Isa 61:1–2 (“The Lord’s Spirit … has anointed me to bring good news to the poor … release to the captives”; cf. Jesus’ appropriation in Luke 4:18) have tempted scholars to credit Simon with a sincere messianic self-consciousness, sometimes even a program of class revolution (Roth 1960; Michel 1968). If Simon had such a program, that cannot be deduced from this passage (Fuks 1985/88), which Josephus crafts as ridicule of the man’s chicanery. Like other would-be tyrants needing to amass followers, he adopts the expedient (still present in politics today, if more subtly) of promising things to potential followers (see Brunt 1977: 153 n. 12). At 2.422, 427–28, the wealthy temple captain Eleazar promises debt-relief by burning the archive house, as a cynical recruiting tool; at Life 38–40 Justus of Tiberias uses the same ruse. Cf. Plutarch’s description of Marius, who in his conflict with Sulla promised freedom to slaves if they would fight with him (Mar. 35.5; Sull. 9.5), and Polybius (38.11.9–10, 15.2–4, 7) on the Achean Dieus in the 140s bce, who does the same when in urgent need of a loyal force. The bonus for free persons who join him confirms that Simon has no plan to free slaves on principle. He needs able bodies. How did he fund the bonuses? Presumably, the slaves could be “freed” de facto by simply leaving their masters and joining his army; it does not seem likely that the Simon of Josephus’ narrative reimbursed their masters. He is about to say that some men of wealth and power backed Simon as a winner, however, which could explain the bonuses for free persons (4.510). See note at 4.179.

If Simon’s force was small enough to be accommodated in proximate caves in the Wadi Kelt (4.512–13), it cannot have been nearly as large as the “constant reinforcements” and control of the region suggests. But a determinedly aggressive small force, of dozens or hundreds, could certainly cause fear and do extensive damage outside walled cities. See note at 4.508: apparently meaning the Judean highlands. Everyone knew that Jerusalem’s hinterland was in the hills. See note to “lower” (a rare word) at 4.474, where the reference is to the city-less area between Jericho and the Dead Sea, which is not the meaning here. This vague indication may be chiefly rhetorical. The logic is clear enough: a small band of fighters takes refuge in hill country because it affords many opportunities for concealment, especially in caves such as those of the Wadi Kelt (4.512–13 and notes). Only a strong and confident force would present itself in the open plain, where they would be far more exposed and vulnerable to cavalry. But which lowlands might be in view here Josephus does not explain. The following reference to “cities” in which Simon was feared (4.510) is of no help because Jerusalem (ca. 800 m / 2,500 ft asl) could not be described as in the lowlands. Josephus often uses “cities” (poleis) loosely, however. He may be anticipating the sequel, where Simon intimidates Jerusalem itself (4.538–44, 556–65), or he may have nothing specific in view.

See previous note. It seems unlikely that Josephus intends to convey clear information. Especially in view of his liberal use of poleis, he may intend a general picture of Simon’s intimidating reach, with no particular sites in view. The verb φθείρω (“ruin, spoil, corrupt with bribes [cf. Life 73], destroy”) has many shades of meaning in Josephus. It was also commonly used for the moral ruin or seduction of women. Given the context here, in which otherwise decent men prove weak enough to fall for Simon’s strength, it seems that Josephus implies such an attack on their weak virtue: they have been seduced. Josephus anticipates the modern maxim: everyone loves a winner. The noun εὔροια appears only here in his works and seems carefully chosen for the occasion. After occasional use among philosophers, especially Stoics for the natural “flow [or course] of life,” Polybius was the first known historian to pick it up. In what may be considered a sort of Stoic history, highlighting the statesman’s need to deal with inscrutable external turns of fortune, he uses it 8 times, mainly of the flow of political affairs (τις εὔροια πραγμάτων, 2.44.2; 3.10.6, 15.1; 11.25.7, 29.1; 21.25.7). Given this profile (though Diodorus follows Polybius with 3 instances), Polybius is Josephus’ most likely influence. A reference to 4.508. Rendering Josephus’ litotes: “not a few.” At 4.515 Josephus gives him an astonishing 20,000 armed soldiers, at 4.534 an additional 40,000 followers. A sobering turn of events, given that these (οἱ δημοτικοί) are the good people of Jerusalem, who have supported Ananus and fled the violence of the Disciples, to Vespasian: 4.197, 202, 397. The support for Simon by some of them anticipates their welcoming of him as an antidote to John and the Disciples (4.571–74). Note Josephus’ apparent reluctance to describe Jerusalem’s residents as “citizens”; see note to this word at 4.253. Mss pa have a puzzling infinitive, πειθαρχεῖν, whereas mss mlvrc offer the even more puzzling noun πειθαρχία. Editors have conjectured that Josephus wrote the imperfect verb or participle, or that an auxiliary participle with the noun has dropped out. Josephus’ tone is sarcastic. Simon’s “fortress” and “storehouses” (in caves) elaborate the statement that some people foolishly regarded him as a king. Josephus positions himself against kingship as a governance model (connecting with Rome’s traditional detestation of kings), but nevertheless acknowledges good individual kings in his nation’s past. In War, though not Antiquities, King Herod appears in a generally brilliant light. Here, Simon joins the ranks of worthless men who have no claim to eminence and yet nurture royal pretensions; cf. 2.55–56, 61, 434, 564; 5.439; 7.29.

Given the prominence of Acrabetene on the Samarian frontier in Simon’s career (recently 4.504), we naturally assume that Josephus refers to the same place here. M-B (ad loc.), however, present J. N. Simchoni’s case for Maale Aqrabbim (Num 34:4; Josh 15:3; Judg 1:36) far to the S, SW of the Dead Sea. This was “one of the passes between the Arabah and the Wadi Fiqre and Kurnub,” usually identified with “Naqb eṣ-Ṣfar” (abd 1:141). In favor of the southern location is 1 Macc 5.3, where Judah Maccabee defeats Idumeans at Ακραβαττήνη, which must be far S. Robinson (1856: 2.120, 193–94) describes his own remarkable journey through Aqrabbim. It is inconvenient for this otherwise attractive identification, however, that Josephus refers to the toparchy Acrabetene, linking this area with Simon’s earlier activity in the more famous Acrabetene to the N. We cannot rule out a combination of faulty memory, a slip of the tongue, or a measure of deceptiveness on Josephus’ part. With Gadara (4.413) and Gerasa (4.487) above, after all, he gives the impression that he is speaking of the famous cities when that is highly unlikely. But since 4.511–12 seem to put Simon’s base in the Wadi Kelt, ENE of Jerusalem, there is no compelling reason to think that Josephus has anything other than the northern Acrabetene in view. Josephus’ description τήν τε Ἀκραβετηνὴν τοπαρχίαν καὶ τὰ μέχρι τῆς μεγάλης Ἰδουμαίας suggests the whole of Judea, from the N frontier with Samaria (the toparchy of Acrabatene) to the S frontier with Idumea, thus including the Judean uplands, hills, wadis, caves, and lowlands (Jordan Valley and shephelah). Josephus does not explain why Simon should have such a strong desire to overrun Idumea (4.515) after Jerusalem (4.513), but the context—immediately following his rebuff by Jerusalem’s Disciples in 4.514—might suggest that Simon saw the Idumeans as crucial (potential) allies of the Disciples. This would be understandable, since the Disciples had suborned the Idumeans to remove the city’s leaders and many troublesome nobles (4.228–353). Although they have supposedly left in disillusionment after discovering the Disciples’ true motives (4.353), some mysteriously remain attached to the Disciples as a crucial military force (4.566). In any case, given that the Disciples have taken over from Ananus ii as Simon’s fiercest enemy, if he cannot defeat them directly it might make sense for him to attack their most plausible future source of strength. He will neutralize the Idumeans or, better, co-opt them for himself. So mss pa and the “more difficult reading.” Ain (= Ein, En, Ayn) is Hebrew and Arabic for “spring.” Mss mlvrc have ναῒν, as do all the Greek mss for the same site at 4.517. That agreement and the familiarity of a place called Nain to Christian authors (from Luke 7:11–16)—a village in Galilee—make Nain more likely, however, to result from editing by Christian copyists. Since mss pa have Ἀὶ̈ν, and this is a Hebrew word and a likely name for a water source in the parched Judean hills, where one would establish a camp, and since the Latin text in both passages has Aia(m) with no initial N, we should favor Ain with Niese’s editio maior and the commentary ad loc in M-B, though not Thackeray lcl, H-G, or other translations. M-B also note the mention of an Ain in Josh 15:32; 19:7 in the vicinity of Hebron. That would fit other indications of Simon’s activity after his move from Masada, W of the Dead Sea and among the many caves in the wadis that feed the lake, here creating a base on the frontier of Idumea. Given the likely location of Simon in the Wadi Kelt (next sentence), however, it is more plausible to identify this Ain with Ein-Prat, 9 km (5.5 mi) NE of Jerusalem, 4 km (2.5 mi) NE of Anata (biblical Anathoth). This capacious perennial spring, which the British once channelled to Jerusalem during the Mandate, is now part of a tourist park with the nearby Pharan monastery (laura) in the Wadi Kelt caves; cf. https://www.parks.org.il/en/reserve-park/en-prat-nature-reserve. It would make sense for Simon to build a protective wall around his precious water source and exploit the nearby caves as hideouts, as Josephus describes. Josephus elsewhere describes the imposing natural and man-made fortresses used by real kings (Gamala, Tabor, Jerusalem, Herodium, Machaerus, and Masada). Although Simon has made himself a fearsome individual, his erection of wall around a nondescript desert location as an ersatz “fortress” (ὥσπερ φρουρίῳ πρὸς ἀσφάλειαν ἐχρῆτο) and his versions of royal treasuries (gained from plunder), in rough caves, make him a rather pathetic figure in Josephus’ portrait.

Josephus chooses a rare and artful verb (ἀνευρύνω), which he has elsewhere only at Ant. 3.175 (describing a figure in the high priest’s vestments). Before these 2 occurrences, it is attested only 10 times in Greek literature: 5 in the Hippocratic medical corpus, the opening of the entrance to the womb, and 3 times in Philo (Det. 100, Post. 50, 126), Josephus’ most likely influence; Philo speaks of widening channels and passageways. Although it is possible that Josephus has in mind only the enlargement of small cave openings, modern archaeology has shown that the caves of the Pharan Laura were actually hollowed out for use in the 1st cent. ce (Patrich 1985, 1986; Hirschfeld 1990). Mss pa have the text translated here (κατὰ δὲ φαραγγα προσαγορευομένην φέρεται), though the final word, which should be a place name, looks like a common Greek 3rd-person verb. Ms L has almost the same text, but instead of φαραγγα (“ravine”) at the beginning has κατὰ δὲ φαρὰν προσαγορευομένην φέρεται. Mss mvrc have φαρὰν (C: φαρὰ) followed by προσαγορευομένην φάραγγα, with the possible meaning “a ravine called Pharan” or the reverse, as suggested by the Latin translation (in) ualle (autem) quae appellatur faragga (faragata: Berlin codex), “a vale [lowland, valley] called Faragga.” This might suggest biblical Paran (Gen 21:15, 21; Num 13:3, 26; Deut 1:22), W of Idumea and S of Judea en route to the Sinai (Hamilton, abd 5:162), or a similar Hebrew name misread as the accusative of φάραγξ. M-B (ad loc.) more plausibly propose Wadi Fara(h), the upper (= W) tract of the Wadi Kelt / Qilt (see swp 2.225, sheet 18: Os/t, Sheet 12 N/On/o). See note to “Ain” in 4.511. The ancients knew the Wadi Kelt as Pharan; it is still known in Hebrew as Nahal (“stream, river”) Prat. The first desert monastery, created by connecting monks’ caves (a laura) and reportedly re-using the caves of bandits, filled with looted treasure (cf. Simon), dates from ca. 330 ce: the Pharan Laura of Chariton (Hirschfeld 1990). Fara(n) would become the seat of an important bishopric (Robinson 1856: 1.126, 439–41). This wadi is pock-marked with caves and would suit Josephus’ description of Simon’s place of concealment while planning for an assault on Jerusalem, just 9 km (5.5 mi) to the SW. Many scholars are now convinced that the “church cave” from Chariton’s monastery, near the base of the wadi, was originally Simon’s headquarters (Patrich 1985, 1986; Hirschfeld 1990: 433). Apparently, ἕτοιμα refers here to ready natural caves, which need no manual improvement. A distinctively Josephan word, ἐκδοχεῖον is unattested before him except insofar as Porphyry cites it from Democritus (4th cent. bce) and it is reconstructed in a papyrus fragment of Demetrius Lacon (2nd cent. bce). Josephus has the word 4 times in War (1.287; 3.186; 5.402) and once in Antiquities (14.391). He avoids the unprefixed form, which means the same thing and appears mainly from the 1st and 2nd centuries onward.

Possibly “centuries” are intended. See notes to “companies / company” at 4.134, 196 and to “century” at 2.61 in bjp 1b. At 4.515 Josephus gives Simon a force of 20,000 heavily armed fighters. Only 15 residential caves have been found in the area of the spring above the Pharan Laura, averaging 23.5 sq. m. (253 sq. ft.) in area and considered single monastic cells in the Byzantine period (Hirschfeld 1990: 430, 435), though each could sleep 6–10 men. Even if he also used other such caves farther along the wadi, Simon’s initial force was likely closer to the low hundreds than tens of thousands. See notes to this versatile noun, favored by Josephus, at 4.134 (“gangs”), 389 (“merger”), and 486 (“contingent”).

See note at 4.160. This is the group created by dissident younger priests, nourished by refugees from the countryside and now led by John from Gischala and his Galileans. They have evidently inherited the older priests’ (led by the late Ananus ii and Jesus) for Simon bar Giora, just described (4.504–508); cf. 2.653. The Disciples had needed a large Idumean force to overcome Ananus’ citizen force within the city, so it comes as a surprise that they can dispatch an expeditionary force. Ananus and his group of nobles are now gone, and John has control of the city, to be sure, but many Idumeans are also gone. The terrain between Jerusalem and Ein Fara is rather dramatic. The Disciples’ force would need to exit the city N or NE, get over or around Mt. Scopus, and then proceed down a dramatic drop of some 500 m (1,640 ft) via the sites of mod. Palestinian villages and the Israeli settlement of Almon. Since the Disciples take the initiative and Simon reacts to their approach, we surmise that he forms up against them on level terrain closer to his base. See note at 4.219. I.e., Jerusalem, from where they have come. Josephus’ language (συνελαύνει … εἰς τὴν πόλιν) and the next sentence suggest that Simon drives the surviving Disciples all the way back to Jerusalem’s walls. That would be an impressive feat, as the retreating enemy would always have the advantage of elevation, at least if they could halt long enough to fire back on their pursuers. It is possible, however, that by repelling the attack and killing a number of Disciples, Simon effectively drove them back into Jerusalem without the need to pursue them all the way: they had nowhere else to go in defeat and might have rushed to the mother-city’s walls of their own accord.

Although Simon’s force has reportedly grown rapidly beyond its base of slaves and the free poor (4.508–510), to include some wealthy men, and at least the original base may have been very fit from manual work, even intensive military preparation and experience in overrunning civilians by mass and terror would not prepare them for siege warfare outside Jerusalem, which would soon cause Titus’ 4-legion army long months of struggle. A peculiar notice (see previous note), given that as Josephus’ audience knows, Titus’ professional army will require months outside the walls (Books 5–6). It is hard to imagine that Simon imagined operations against the walls with his amateurs. Why Idumea would be a logical alternative to Jerusalem is not obvious (see 4.511 and note). Judean strong men have apparently been acting out against Idumeans for some time (cf. Ant. 20.5), perhaps from what Freud called the “narcissism of small differences” (cf. 4.224). The 10,000 Idumeans who responded to the Disciples’ appeal have reportedly left Jerusalem in disgust at the Disciples’ true character, and some of the men they freed while leaving have fled to join Simon (4.345–53). This might have disposed Idumeans to favor Simon, as later episodes possibly suggest (4.521–28). Still, a good number of Idumeans remain in Jerusalem supporting the Disciples for now, until they later decide to break from John’s tyranny and admit Simon (4.566), though Simon does not yet know that when he attacks Idumea. We cannot follow a single strategic or emotional logic here, whether he is acting from old grievances or anticipating what lies ahead and calculating lines of affinity. Perhaps the simple logic is that Simon needs to control this population, as either his enemies’ most plausible ally or his, however that control comes about. So he begins with the iron fist. The following narrative of Simon’s overrunning Idumea (4.535–36) assumes that the only (potential) resistance comes from Idumeans; Roman garrisons are nowhere in sight. This picture, as also the Idumean commanders’ freedom of movement (e.g., at 4.522), is hard to reconcile with Josephus’ earlier description of Vespasian’s taking control of the area and establishing garrisons in the spring of 68 (4.446–48). See M-B 2.1: 232 n. 186. Possible explanations, aside from carelessness or serious confusion on Josephus’ part, are: (a) all the following activity of Simon until his entry into Jerusalem antedates Vespasian’s moves in spring 68; (b) it all comes later, when the garrisons established early in 68 have been recalled or withdrawn to winter quarters in Caesarea (a possibility, to keep them from losing focus or becoming lethargic in a year-long watching post); or (c) Simon’s activity began before Vespasian’s first campaign and resumed before the Roman commander’s second expedition in early 69. Vespasian’s activity, so far recounted, occupies the period from about March to mid-June 68, when he returns to Cesaraea to plan the siege of Jerusalem (see 4.449–51, 486–91 and notes), and stops when he hears of Nero’s suicide in June. Simon may have become active as soon as he heard about the murder of Ananus in mid-winter (January?) of 67–68 (4.503–504). So there is time for at least some activity then. In favor of (a): It seems that Josephus has preferred to follow Vespasian’s activities for several months in a coherent narrative before turning to Simon’s. He may, then, be returning to an earlier time with Simon. The problem with putting all of Simon’s activity then is that Josephus presents a connected narrative of Simon’s success in Idumea, with the Disciples’ kidnapping his wife and his recovery of her (4.538–44), then breaks to survey contemporary events in Rome from January to April 69 (4.545–49) and Vespasian’s renewed march out from Caesarea with Cerealis in May 69 to consolidate the garrisons (4.550–555). That is all directly linked with Vespasian’s elevation to power in mid-69 (4.588). When Josephus returns to Simon’s renewed exploits after that diversion to Rome in early 69, after “having rescued his wife” (4.556), which activity leads the anti-Disciple elements in Jerusalem to admit him as an antidote to John (4.572–29), it therefore seems to be around Passover, apparently in 69 (4.577). Option (b), that all Simon’s activity in Idumea came months after Vespasian’s initial garrisoning of the region, is awkward because Josephus describes Vespasian’s (and Cerealis’) renewed activity in late spring 69 (4.550–555) before Simon’s renewed actions against “what remained of Idumea” (4.556). The best solution, given the vagueness and brevity of this final notice about this activity in Idumea, and given Josephus’ implication that the Romans were near Jerusalem just before Simon’s admission (4.558), appears to be (c). I.e., whatever Simon may have done immediately after leaving Masada in winter 67–68 was checked by Vespasian’s arrival in the region and establishment of garrisons in central Idumea. Simon’s main moves against Idumea and the kidnapping and freeing of his wife therefore occurred between the autumn of 68 and the spring of 69, while Vespasian was inactive and perhaps had recalled most of the garrisons. If Simon entered Jerusalem around 1 April 69 (mid-Xanthicus: 4.577), that would be more than a month before Vespasian resumed his consolidation of garrisons ahead of a siege, from 5 Daesius (mid-May, 4.550). There seems to have been no clear border between Judea and Idumea, but more of a frontier zone. At 1.63, John Hyrcanus’ conquest of Idumea focuses on Adora and Marisa (Maresha), 38–40 km SW of Jerusalem, though at 4.529 (with 4.552–54) Hebron features as an Idumean center and the first main site taken by Simon. When an Idumean general brings forward his army to parley with Simon, he comes as far as Alurus (4.522), mod. Hulhul (Halhul), about 2 hours’ walk S from Tekoa, where Simon bases himself as perhaps the last significant site in Judea (4.518). The frontier seems to have lain between these two. The trip to Tekoa from Ain by itself was near 30 km (18 mi), a demanding day’s march. The mustering of Idumean troops in response (next sentences) implies that Simon’s men camped for some time before the two forces engaged.

At 4.400–405, Josephus describes the residents of Masada as staying close by the rock fortress at first and becoming more adventurous‚ for example raiding En-Gedi at Passover of 68, once they realized that the Roman army (still at Caesarea) was not going to stop them. Vespasian leaves Caesarea only in late March / early April 68. At 4.504–508, however, we learn that Simon had fled to Masada because he was hounded by Ananus ii’s forces from Jerusalem. He became frustrated with the residents’ timidity because they limited themselves to local raids, and so he left Masada earlier than the previous episode, once he knew of Ananus’ death (sometime in winter 68–69). If the residents of Masada have been regularly raiding Idumea, as Simon now is, it seems that whereas he had felt constrained only by Ananus (acting boldly once the high priest was dead), Masada’s other residents (sicarii for Josephus) were more concerned about the Roman army, having expected they might be active—as they were in Perea—even in late winter. Surprised to find Vespasian inactive even through March and April, they have initiated more aggressive raids farther afield, presumably for food and goods beyond urgent necessity, in both En-Gedi and Idumea. As 4.515: apparently between Tekoa and Alurus-Halhul.

See note to “frontiers” at 4.515. It is hard to imagine, though not inconceivable, that Simon’s men headed back to Ain immediately following a day of battle: a 30-km (18-mi) or more trek from the battle site, well into the night. This is an indirect compliment to Simon. The Idumeans are a somewhat distinct ethnos with a well-established martial tradition, called in to assist the Disciples in Jerusalem. They arrive in well-ordered companies, fully equipped with weapons and armor, under capable military leaders (4.224, 228–35). That Simon’s scratch force of 20,000 (slaves and the free poor) can hold its ground against 25,000 of Idumea’s best is thus remarkable. See note at 4.511: his new base in the Wadi Kelt.

All the more in Greek, which continues the sentence here, Josephus’ language appears to suggest that both Tekoa and Herodium are part of “their (Idumean) territory.” But both are well N of the Idumean heartland (cf. 4.529), and rather in Jerusalem’s orbit, still part of Judea. It seems rather that this opening remark looks ahead to 4.520–29: the incident at Herodium frightened the Idumeans when they heard of it, leading some of them to capitulate to Simon, enabling him to sweep into Idumea with no opposition. Located at Khirbet Tuqu near the mod. Palestinian village of that name, 16 km (10 mi) S of Jerusalem, 5.4 km (3.3 mi) SW of Herodium. Josephus will later describe visiting Tekoa with Cerealis at Titus’ direction, to ascertain whether the terrain was suitable for a post-war Roman camp (Life 417–21). Because of its proximity to Jerusalem, and perhaps because it is at the edge of Judea’s workable land before the desert, Tekoa was a regular place of refuge (Jer 6:1). It appears occasionally in the Bible after David makes Jerusalem his capital (2 Sam 24:2, 4, 9; 23:26; 1 Chron 27:9; 2 Chron 11:5. Cf. 1 Macc 9:33); it was the birthplace of the 8th-cent. bce prophet Amos (Amos 1:1). Otherwise unknown. Eleazar was the 4th-most popular male name of the period (Ilan 2002: 56). First mentioned at 1.265 as a signal construction project and final resting place of Herod, by 3.55 Herodium has become one of Judea’s 10 toparchic centers outside Jerusalem. Josephus locates it (War 1.419) with rough accuracy 60 stadia (12 km, 7.5 mi, likely reckoning 2 hours’ walk) S of Jerusalem, here near Tekoa. The site is a marvel of Herod’s ambition as a builder: he took a small natural hill, built a multi-story cylindrical structure on it, containing apartments, storage facilities, and cisterns, a private theater, and mausoleum complex, with the top of the cylinder and 4 strong watch-towers (almost) on the cardinal compass-points, a monumental staircase (7 m [23 ft] wide) to the NE, then later filled in the sides to create an artificial, volocan0-like hill. Below the conical hill he built leisure facilities, including a large pool, that became a small town. See Netzer 1981, 2006: 179–201, 2018; Rozenberg and Mevorach 2013; Porat, Chachy, and Kalman 2015. By the 15th cent., the connection of the strikingly conical hill with King Herod had been lost except in monastic oral tradition. It was popularly known as Frank Hill in memory of the Crusaders. Robinson did much to confirm the proposals of others that this was Josephus’ Herodium (1856: 1.479–81; cf. swp 3.315–16). Still, the name remained fluid: Arab. Jebel Fureidis (a corruption of Herodes), or Tel Hordos on the British Mandate map (sp) of 1946. The opening sentence of Josephus’ paragraph seems to imply that Herodium’s guards are Idumean: Simon is going to charge into Idumean territory and therefore begins by trying to persuade (Idumean?) guards here to hand over this fortress (so H-G ad loc.). But other narrative indicators and geography work against that inference. That Simon should think that a lone emissary might persuade guards to hand the fortress over suggests that he did not consider them enemies, as the Idumeans still were, but fellow-Judeans who might know him (e.g., from his participation in the attack on Cestius, 2.521) and might have shared his antipathies toward Jerusalem’s chief-priestly leaders. Likewise, Josephus’ remark that Herodium, Machaerus, and Masada were in the hands of “the bandits” (4.555) suggests that the same people, rebels or refugees from Jerusalem, had control. Again, the end of this paragraph (4.520) implies a contrast between Herodium’s guards, who think nothing of tossing Simon’s impudent messenger to his death, and the Idumeans, who are beginning to dread Simon’s strength. This would be hard to understand if they are the same people. As for geography, Herodium is N of Tekoa’s latitude, both in Judea and some way from the Idumean territory that Simon has yet to attack (4.529), the northernmost settlement of which seems to be Alurus (4.522), N of Hebron. If Simon passed close to Herod’s old fortress en route from Ain to Tekoa, as is likely, he might well have thought that it could serve as the ideal base for his army between his two enemies—Disciples in Jerusalem to the N and Idumeans to the S—and sent a trusted messenger to negotiate with these other Judeans.

This appears to suggest that the guards welcomed Simon as a fellow-Judean fighter at first, before they realized that he was leading an anti-Disciple faction and so wanted them out. Given that the cylindrical structure rose a couple of stories above the presently visible conical hill, even if Eleazar were not thrown from the high E watchtower (Netzer 1981: 92) but only from the rim of the cylinder, he faced a deadly drop to the hill and down from there.

This (κατορρωδέω) is a rare compound. Herodotus is the first attested user and he favors the word (22 examples), but after him it is found mainly in Polybius (7 times) and Diodorus (2), aside from 2 fragments, before Josephus uses it here and at 3.157. It is absent from Plutarch and otherwise rare (note Onasander, Strat. 11.3) before the 4th cent. ce. The μὲν … δέ construction here seems intentionally paradoxical. Simon sends just one man to Herodium, and he is easily killed. One might assume that this would comfort the Idumeans, but they already fear Simon’s evident strength, perhaps reflected in his assumption that Herodium would readily capitulate to him (?). And they lack the protection enjoyed by the Disciples behind Jerusalem’s thick walls.

Although Josephus did not likely expect his audience to join these dots, one of the 4 Idumean commanders mentioned at 4.235 was Jacob son of Sosas. Since the present Jacob, also a commander, promises loyalty to Simon on the condition that he enjoy a top position with him (4.523), and Jacob son of Sosas will later be a top Idumean commander in Simon’s force (5.249), indeed a crucial factor in prolonging the siege for him (6.92, 148)—until he tries to negotiate the desertion of his army to Titus (6.380)—it seems most likely that this is Jacob son of Sosas. In that case, he was (with Simon son of Cathlas?) part of the Idumean exodus from Jerusalem in disgust at the Disciples (4.345–53). Or “lieutenant, deputy, aide” (ὑπηρέτης).

Jacob anticipates Alienus Caecina at 4.634–40 (4.635 for προδοσίαν ἐβουλεύετο, comparable to Jacob here: προδοσίαν ἐνθυμούμενος), who will try with less success to persuade Vitellius’ army to join the Flavian forces. Apparently, this was the northernmost substantial town in Idumean territory (see note to “frontiers” at 4.515). It is mod. Halhul / Hulhul, just over an hour’s walk (6.3 km, 3.9 mi) N of ancient Hebron and 2 hours’ walk (12 km, 7.5 mi) SW of Simon’s base in Tekoa. Presumably the 25,000 mentioned at 4.516. I use “expeditionary force” to distinguish this word (στράτευμα) from more common ways of saying “force” (δύναμις: 162 in War) or “army” (στρατιά: 113 in War). Although Josephus uses στράτευμα 70 times, only 9 occurrences are in War, the rest spread throughout Antiquities-Life. This is the only occurrence in War 4. The word was a favorite of Thucydides (103) and especially Xenophon (435).

It would have taken Jacob ca. 2 hours to reach Simon by foot, but his position as a commander and Josephus’ language (“charge, rush”) suggest that he was mounted, in which case he might have covered the distance in half an hour or so. The language is implicitly condemnatory, for devotion to one’s homeland and its defense was one of the most basic values of the ancient world, understood by all (Mason 2016b: 97–146, 206–18). Josephus’ criticism of Judean militants is not that they wished to defend the homeland, as they claimed in justification of their actions, against those who would “betray” Jerusalem (4.228, 245–47, 252, 257, 336–37, 347, 352). He saw himself as a brave defender of Judea, willing to put himself in harm’s way as general of Galilee. He rejects their conception of what such defense means: using the claim of fighting an abstract war for freedom as a cover for conducting a real, lethal war against fellow-citizens and the sacred ground of the mother-city. Oaths were serious undertakings in antiquity, with the expectation of condign retribution on defaulters; see note at 4.213. If this is Jacob son of Sosas, Simon seems to have honored his request: see note to “Jacob” at 4.521.

The collocation ἑστιάω φιλοφρόνως appears to Josephus’ innovation. He has it also at 1.456; Ant. 12.209. Josephus uses the rare adjective πολλαπλασίων, mainly used in Aristotle (28) and Euclid (118)—cf. Polybius 5, Diodorus 12—only here and at 2.285.

This move again anticipates Caecina’s defection. Realizing that he could never convince a massed body of troops, who are by nature primed to fight the enemy and not join it, in Josephus’ account (4.636–38) Caecina tries first to persuade his senior officers only. Tacitus (Hist. 3.12–13) has the same idea, but has Caecina work on a small number of common soldiers while the majority are away. This verb (ἐνάγω) is an example of a simple word that it is difficult to translate consistently in War 4. Sometimes, as here, it has the clear sense of “leading one in” to a decision by deception (as 4.85, 126). But elsewhere a sincere effort to convince is in view (4.410).

Josephus has not explained who these others are, but Jacob would have needed to persuade others in his circle—presumably with similar offers of status in Simon’s army—if the scheme were to work. With the army as a whole, no persuasion is needed, as Josephus understands from his periods of leadership. If the officers take off in apparent fright, the rest of the force will dissolve in a panic.

See note to this relatively rare word at 4.67.

See note to this characteristic adverb at 4.40. The adverb ἀδοκήτως is characteristic of Josephus. It is attested only 8 times before him, 5 of these in fragments (otherwise: Thucydides 2, Strabo 1, then Plutarch only 1), but he has it 7 times, 6 of these in War. The cognate adjective ἀδόκητος has a similar profile: rather more attestations before Josephus (36, but mostly in Thucydides [7], Euripides [12], and Dionysius [5]); Josephus then has 9 instances, 8 in War. So, he has 16 occurrences of the adjective and adverb, 14 of these in War, though they are found only 44 times in earlier extant Greek literature and fragments. The word-group is one small contribution to War’s theme of reversals of fortune. See note to “small town,” a favored term in War 4, at 4.84. Hebron (חֶבְרוֹן) is a crucially important site in the Bible and central to Judean tradition. The patriarch Abram son of Terah migrated from Chaldean Ur via a sojourn in Egypt (11:31–13:14) to settle in Canaan, choosing a site filled with terebinth trees at Mamre, “now” Hebron (also known as Kiryat-Arba): Gen 13:18 with 23:2, 19. In spite of Abraham’s proleptic residence there, Hebron remained its own petty kingdom until the Israelites attacked and seized it centuries later (Num 13:22; Josh 10:3, 5, 23, 36–39; 11:21). Joshua gave it to Caleb, who had been his faithful ally in reporting that Canaan was ripe for seizure (14:13). The city became important again when David established his throne there (1 Sam 30:26–31), before moving to Jerusalem after 7 years, and his son Absalom set up a rival kingdom there (2 Sam 15:7–10). Centuries later again, the Edomites (Idumeans) had extended their territory northward to include Hebron, and it was among the first sites Judaized by the Hasmoneans (1 Macc 5.65), already in the time of Judah Maccabee. By the story time here it is evidently an Idumean center again. Josephus will adjust his preferred form of the name in Antiquities to Νεβρών or Ναβρών, according to our mss.

This curiously distant way (ὡς δέ φασιν οἱ ἐπιχώριοι) of referring to a biblical episode that he fully accepts, as will become clear in Ant. 1.170, 186, matches Josephus’ habit in War, where his purpose is not yet to insist upon and prove their veracity, and he can relay his expert knowledge in a low-key way as just part of local color. See note to “Word has it” at 4.460 (also 4.484). Memphis, ca. 20 km (12 mi) S of mod. Cairo and the capital of Pharaohs from the Old Kingdom (from 2700 bce), became especially famous from the Fourth Dynasty (2613–2494 bce), which produced the first pyramids at Giza. Curiously, the Bible also makes a comparison with a famous Egyptian city, but Num 13:22 says that Hebron was 7 years older than Zoan (lxx: Tanis) in Egypt; cf. 4.660. That Josephus will mention only that biblical claim when he comes to his biblical paraphrase (Ant. 1.170) suggests that he is going by memory here, understandably confusing the more famous ancient Egyptian capital with Tanis and correcting himself when he later consults the Bible. On the rhetorical level, one-upmanship with Egypt is important to him because of the general impression among outsiders that Judeans were a derivative ethnos of the Egyptians (Strabo, Geog. 16.2.34; Tacitus, Hist. 5.4; Justin, Epit. 36.2.1–3.9). Among Josephus’ 10 other references to Memphis is an aside at Ant. 8.155, where he gives the interval between the Pharaoh Menes’ founding of Memphis and the reign of Solomon as 1,300 years. If he dated Solomon 1,000 years before his own time (which would be about right on the standard historical dating), that would neatly match with the 2,300 years he has in mind here for the age of Memphis. At War 6.269, however, he puts an extraordinarily precise 1,130 years, 7 months, and 15 days between Solomon’s building of the first temple and the destruction of the second in September 70 ce. That would date Solomon’s temple to ca. 1060 bce, and Memphis 2,460 years before Josephus. His chronologies are famously inconsistent, however; see Feldman’s lcl notes to Ant. 20.231–50, with its summary dates for all Judean history. Ant. 20.230 and Apion 2.19 give 612 years from the Exodus to Solomon’s temple, whereas Ant. 8.61 has 592, and the Bible itself (1 Kings 6:1) only 480. Ant 20.231–50 gives a few large year ranges: Solomon to the first temple’s end = 466.5 years; Babylonian Exile = 70 years; the rebuilt temple to the end of democracy (?) in Hasmonean times = 414 years; from Herod to the destruction of the temple = 107 years. Adding only these gives 1,057.5 years from Solomon to Titus, not counting perhaps 100 years in the Hasmonean-Herodian period. That would come close to the figure at 6.269, but his confident numbers seem to result more from a wish to seem authoritative than from any worked-out calculation that he sticks to.

On this detached expression (μυθεύουσι), see note to “Word has it” at 4.460 and “As the locals claim” in the preceding sentence. This is a story Josephus will also tell in Ant. 1.150–70. The ruins of this extremely old Sumerian city (from ca. 3800 bce) are now in S Iraq. They have been extensively excavated since the 19th century. This double compound (ἀπανάστασις) is rare. After a single appearance in Sophocles (Ant. 533), it appears again only in Dionysius (3 times) and Strabo (2) before Josephus’ 4 cases, then mainly from the 4th cent. From Ur in Chaldea, according to Gen 11:27 and Josephus, Ant. 1.151. On this detached expression (λέγουσι), see note to “Word has it” at 4.460 and similar phrases in these 2 sentences. Josephus greatly simplifies the biblical account, which he will later paraphrase. After Abraham’s visit to Egypt with Sarah, he settles at Mamre by Hebron (Gen 13:18; Ant. 1.186). He then migrates from there to Gerar in Palaestina (Gen 20:1; Ant. 1.207)—nearly halfway from Beersheva to Gaza (Tel Haror; Oren in abd 2.990)—where the Philistine king Abimelech is based. The king awards Abraham land there (Gen 21:31; Ant. 1.212). Sarah’s death prompts Abraham to buy land from Ephron the Hittite in Hebron for her burial (Gen 23:1; Ant. 1.237), at the site where he will later be buried by Isaac and Ishmael (Gen 25.7–11; Ant. 1.256). Isaac returns to Gerar and its vicinity, after being prevented by God from migrating to Egypt in a time of famine (Gen 26:1–6; Ant. 1.259). His son Jacob will wander far and long seeking a wife, especially to Harran in Mesopotamia (in mod. Turkey just N of the Syrian border on the Balikh River; Gen 29:1; Ant. 1.285). Jacob eventually returns to Hebron, where Isaac has settled in the meantime (Gen 35:27–28; 37:1; Ant. 1.335). So it is indeed from Jacob’s base in Hebron that his beloved son Joseph will be sold into slavery and end up in Egypt, where he rises to prominence and temporarily ensures the prosperity of his family, as his father and brothers eventually migrate there, fathering the Israelite nation that will be liberated by Moses centuries later—though Jacob is buried in Hebron (Gen 41:33–50:14; Ant. 1.87–197).

See note to “small town” at 4.84. Archaeologists agree that the superb architecture mentioned by Josephus was part of King Herod’s elaborate building program. It is curious that Josephus does not mention it. For possible explanations see Roller 1998: 162–64; Bernett 2007: 158–60. Marble was a typically Greek and Roman building material, which has not been confirmed for any of Herod’s large projects. Herod created the illusion of marble by using stucco over limestone: cf. Fischer and Stein 1994; Netzer 2006: 310; Marshak 2015: 212–15.

The pistacia terebinthus, or turpentine tree, is a small tree of the cashew family. It is quite different from an oak tree (a species of acorn-producing quercus). Musselman (2012: 104–106) points out that the Hebrew terms אֵלוֹן and אֵלָה, though they likely (“clearly”) intend only to describe a large tree and not to name a species, have traditionally been rendered as either oak or terebinth. This begins with the lxx, which however gives terebinth for אֵלָה only at Isa 1:30; 6:13. Most often the lxx renders both words as “oak” (δρῦς), and Josephus will do the same when telling the story of Abraham at Ant. 1.186, 196, though there (at Ant. 1.186) he also gives the tree a Greek mythical name (Ogyges). His “terebinth” here may, again, reflect the story as he knows it from memory, before his later consultation of the biblical text. Ca. 1.2 km (0.75 mi). Josephus’ distance does not match the 3 most relevant sites known in mod. Hebron. Some medieval traditions located the Oak of Mamre toward the W of mod. Hebron, on what is now the property of the Cathedral of the Holy Trinity, where an ancient (dead or nearly-dead) tree is propped up with poles. The most famous pilgrimage site is the Machpelah Cave, or Cave of the Patriarchs, 2.85 km (1.75 mi) SE from that old tree. That this cave was taken to be the burial place of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac, and Jacob already in antiquity is suggested by the apparently Herodian platform built over the cave (Jacobson 2000), the Haram al-Khalil, over which a Byzantine Church was built, later replaced by a mosque and since 1967 a synagogue as well. Impressive Herodian-like masonry has also been found at the third site, in the part of the city known as Nimra or Elonei-Mamre, or Haram Ramat al-Khalil, 3.4 km (2.1 mi) N of the Cave. Caldecott 1904 has early photographs of this last site, in support of his argument that this was the Ramah where Samuel built an altar (1 Sam 7:17) well before the construction of the temple. See note to “they say that” at 4.531. Here the expression is φασί. Various legends about Abraham’s tree evolved (Ginzberg 1913: 1.242, 302), though this one is otherwise unknown. Ant. 1.186 will express perhaps the same thought, for a cultured Greek audience, by saying that Abraham called the tree Ogyges, after a mythical primeval king of Boeotia, who lent his name to the adject ogygian, effectively meaning “primeval,” as in the ogygian flood: see lsj, “Ὠγύγιος.”

See notes to “maltreating” at 4.357 and to “devastators” at 4.159. According to 4.515 (cf. 4.510–11), Simon had gradually acquired a trained and equipped force of 20,000. That is an improbably high figure, and this new total of 60,000 mouths to feed is all the more unlikely.

This trait was noticed already when Josephus introduced Simon at 2.652, in his alleged mistreatment of the bodies, or persons, of his early victims in Acrabatene. The Latin translation does not render πρὸς τὸ γένος, though it is in all Greek mss, but speaks only of Simon’s undirected savagery and rage. As we have seen (4.224 and notes, as 4.556 below), Josephus describes Idumeans as a distinct ethnos from the Judeans, even though Jerusalem is their shared mother-city and cult center. The word γένος, though it has many uses—“class, kind, type, sort, group, genus, pedigree, ancestry, bloodline, family, roots, birth, race”—overlaps significantly with ἔθνος, pointing especially to the shared kinship (and resulting “kind”) thought to constitute an ethnos (see Jones 1996). Josephus never explains why some Judeans hated the Idumean “breed” so intently, when they could be summoned the Disciples to defend the mother-polis. But given the sometimes fierce conflicts among political parties and splinter groups, among similar-looking ethnic communities within a state, and among the thousands of Protestant denominations (cf. Freud: “the narcissism of small differences”), disdain for those considered not purely part of one’s own group should not surprise us. Those whose families became Judeans, as Simon’s family apparently did, might have been especially keen to prove their own bona fides by harassing others. In addition, the Disciples’ alliance with the Idumeans may have made them Simon’s enemy, even though many of them had abandoned the Disciples in disgust (4.515). On Idumea generally see 4.224. Josephus’ statement here is paradoxical because Idumea largely consisted of desert (Jer 9:25), though not as much as the adjoining Negev region to the S (then part of Nabatea). The name “Edom” suggests that the place was named for its “reddish” landscape. Granted that the terracing of the Hebron plateau and mild slopes in Roman times has been somewhat lost, the climate, rain patterns, and soil types will not have changed dramatically; the soil is thin or absent in the steeper slopes (Lods 1932: 34–36; Finkel 1986: 65). At 3.55, however, Josephus includes Idumea as a toparchy of Judea and, though he appears to put its S frontier at Arad (Iarda, 3.51, on a line with Beersheva farther W), which is very much in the desert, he insists (3.48–49) that this greater Judea, like Samaria, contains no desert but is all fertile soil, abundant rain, and sweet water. He may be exaggerating because in ancient thinking, a people’s place of origin shaped their ethnic character, and deserts were by definition uncivilized places. On a generous reading of the present passage, Josephus might mean that when Simon’s army devastated the Idumean cities and their immediate hinterlands, which contained the only repositories of water and irrigated land in the region, desert remained. But his elaboration (4.537 below) makes this interpretation difficult.

The blight of desert locusts, well known in antiquity (famously one of the 10 plagues visited on Egypt, Exod 10:4–19), remains today. The desert locusts in question, of the species S. gregaria of the family acrididae, are a kind of grasshopper that in its migratory phase grows large wings and can travel 150 km (90 mi) in a day, as densely packed as 150 million per sq. km and a typical swarm in the billions. In one day, they can eat the same as a human population of 32 million. The Desert Locust Information Service, a department of the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, calls the desert locust “the oldest and most feared of all migratory pests in the world” (https://www.climate-services.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/FAO_Case_Study.pdf, accessed 1 Sept. 2021). See also https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Locusts/locusts2.php, accessed 1 September 2021. See note to “desert” at 4.535.

Perhaps in keeping with 3.48–49, which has presented all Judea as fertile and lacking desert, Josephus implies here that Idumea had been highly fertile before Simon’s army trampled it or consumed its ample produce, rendering it barren. The region, which extends to Arad and Beersheva, has however been largely arid since antiquity. This does not mean that nothing grew. Olive trees and grape vines could both be cultivated in the gentler slopes of the plateau, and at least a hardy species of barley (hordeum bulbosum). Some wild grasses (as poa bulbosa) and woody plants favored by goats also endured. Josephus’ main point, that masses of trampling feet—human or other animal—would render soil unproductive, is plausible enough: Finkel 1986: 65.

Recalling 4.514, where the Disciples first felt anxiety at Simon’s rise. See note to the group at 4.160. Josephus accounts for one quarter (11) of the first 45 attestations of the double-compound verb ἀντιπαρατάσσομαι. His main predecessors are Thucydides (6), Xenophon (9), Menander (4), Diodorus (3), Dionysius (2), and Memnon (3). The Disciples have apparently learned from the episode at 4.514, having faced Simon in pitched battle (same verb with added prefix: [ἀντι]παρατάσσομαι) and suffered heavy losses. Given that his army has grown rapidly in the meantime, facing him in the open field again would be foolish. Josephus’ Greek (ἐν ταῖς παρόδοις) is vague, but suggests narrow passages away from main roads and in particular steep declines, which required an armed force to thin out, perhaps in single file, or a mounted escort to slow down. Dignitaries travelling on horseback or in a carriage on a straight road at speed would be much more hazardous to assault. Two prominent ambushes at known locations in Josephus are the that of Cestius Gallus’ legion in the pass at Beit-Horon (2.546–55; cf. 2.228 for another ambush near the site) and that of an official (or his wife) in the service of Agrippa ii and Berenice, by young men guarding Galilee near Dabaritta, where the Jezreel Valley meets lower Galilee’s hills (2.595; Life 126). Although neither of those locations is likely here, it is noteworthy that the present masters of Jerusalem, the Disciples, are able to send armed units into the Judean countryside just as their predecessors, the chief-priestly leaders (Ananus, Jesus, and associates), had done to harass Simon (2.652–53). Josephus’ language implies a large armed escort, as would suit the wife of a man who had made himself an enemy of both the chief-priestly leaders and the Disciples controlled by John in Jerusalem; cf. the armed escort for Agrippa’s official’s wife at Life 126.

Simon’s attachment to his “women”—perhaps his wife, mother- and sisters-in-law, unable to fend for themselves—was indicated by his move with them to Masada when he was being chased by Ananus’ men: 4.504–508. See note to this characteristic term at 4.110.

Or “pity” (ἔλεος). See note to this word at 4.384, to the cognate verb (“feel sorry for us”) at 4.173, and to “pity” at 4.92. Mention of these emotions, even their absence in Simon, reinforces War’s tragic ambience. Although Josephus generally deprecates women as fickle and untrustworthy (War 2.121 [see note in bjp 1b]; 4.562; Ant. 4.219; 17.352), as many of his contemporaries did, he can show sensitivity to women’s (and children’s) suffering both en masse (War 1.97; 2.192, 198, 307, 395, 400, 475; 3.113, 261; 4.71, 79; 6.351, 384; 7.228, 321, 362, 380, 382, 385, 386, 391, 393) and individually (War 6.201–205), and also credit certain women with unusual ability (Ant. 13.430). Here he assumes, as the Disciples also expected, that Simon’s proper response to the kidnapping of his wife should have been pity and concern for her wellbeing, and a willingness to do anything to get her back, on the same logic that Romans used in seeing that the sons of foreign kings were raised in Rome. No king would be such a beast as to assure his sons’ death by attacking Rome. Josephus’ image of Simon as precisely such a beast, who does not act in the expected way but calls the Disciples’ bluff, exposes at once their weak hand (they had no intention of harming his wife, and are afraid of him) and his own bestiality. He cares not at all for her, but is outraged at the insult to him. The scene recalls the famous scene that opens Homer’s Iliad, in which Achilles is incensed at losing his war-prize woman to King Agamemnon, who had to return his to the priest of Troy. The men’s honor, not the women’s well-being or wishes, is the only issue. At 3.385 Josephus compared himself, when being poked by the swords of compatriots at Iotapata who were demanding his suicide, with a beast that would shift its gaze to the last assailant. Simon’s bestial nature is more innate, something he shares with other rebels but to an extreme degree; see 4.174 and note.

On Jerusalem’s gates as impenetrable defences when shut, see 4.236, 298–300. Given that Simon is unable to slip his men into the gates when open, we should understand that these people were let out surreptitiously, perhaps before dawn, and Simon’s men discovered them outside. Or “herbs.” This abstract form (λαχανεία, “vegetableness”) is a truly rare word: only here in Josephus and attested before him only at lxx Deut 11:10, which contrasts life in Egypt (where vegetables had to be watered) with the promised land, watered by heavenly rain. The concrete noun λάχανον (“vegetable”) is common, though Josephus has it too only once: at 5.437 he claims that the agents of both John and Simon (now inside) would allow people to slip out to gather vegetables and grasses, but rob or kill them on their return. Josephus’ collocation of this noun and the following one, also rare, was presumably calculated to delight his audiences. In War 6.5–6, in a tragic tone Josephus will explain that the areas outside Jerusalem’s walls had been beautified with many trees and parks; two months into the Roman siege (ca. 1 June 70) they had been destroyed because of the legions’ need for wood. At this early point in 68/69, presumably, collecting firewood or vegetation would not have been difficult, at least in Simon’s absence. Of only 8 attestations of φρυγανισμός before Josephus, a word he uses only here, 2 are in Thucydides (7.4.6, 13.2), 2 in fragments of other writers, and 4 in various works by Philo (Mos. 2.213; Spec. 2.250; Prob. 33; Flac. 69)—another example of the convergence of diction in these Judean authors. The word is unusual because it refers to an action: “firewood-ing” or collecting dry wood (φρύγανον, a far more common noun). We might imagine that these laborers came with wagons to bring the wood and vegetables inside. Perhaps the Disciples deliberately sent only seniors to collect wood and herbs, unarmed, on the assumption that Simon would not be so heartless as to attack people who posed no conceivable threat. See note to this frequent euphemism for “kill” (διαφθείρω, 99 times in War), which is interchangeable with ἀναιρέω (“do away with, eliminate”), at 4.25. See note to this word at 4.342 and 2.652, where Simon mistreats the (apparently live) bodies of the wealthy Judeans of Acrabatene.

Cutting off hands to terrify adversaries was, to judge from Josephus’ works, a common tactic—in which he also indulged (War 2.612, 642; Life 147, 171–73, 177). As a legal punishment, the practice goes back at least to the 18th-cent. bce Law Code of Hammurabi (no. 195): https://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.asp, accessed 25 October 2021. Deut 25:12 reserves the punishment for the presumably extraordinary situation in which a wife whose husband is losing a fight, seeks to save him by grabbing the genitals of his opponent, though Exod 21:24 may suggest broader use. See Gleason 2001 on the social significance of the practice in ancient context. I.e., seeing their innocent and elderly compatriots return to Jerusalem with missing hands and blood-soaked arms, the population should blame John and the Disciples, for having seized Simon’s wife.

See note at 4.213 on the suspicion that attaches to oaths, often used by doubtful characters, though they are in principle binding commitments. That God sees all things is a fundamental tenet of Josephus’ works, especially clear in the Antiquities (1.14, 20: ὅτι πάντων πατήρ τε καὶ δεσπότης ὁ θεὸς ὢν καὶ πάντα ἐπιβλέπων; 20.277–79) and Apion (2.185). The word ἔφορος (“overseer”) for God is striking, however, and only here in Josephus. It was most familiar as the name of 5 annually elected senior officials in the Spartans’ unique political constitution (cf. Ant. 13.166). Cf. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 13.5.2, which speaks of gods and daemons as overseers of human affairs. Philo is Josephus’ most likely inspiration, for he often calls God the Overseer of all human affairs: Opif. 11; Leg. 3.171; Gig. 47; Mut. 39, 216; Abr. 104; Ios. 48; Mos. 1.36, 47; Spec. 4.200; Aet. 83; Flac. 21; Legat. 336. It is striking, puzzling, and perhaps intentionally ironic that Simon is able, with a scratch army of irregulars, to plausibly threaten to tear down Jerusalem’s walls, such that those inside are persuaded and capitulate to his demands, whereas a year later the city’s inhabitants (now including Simon and the Idumeans) hold out against legions of professional soldiers with powerful weapons and machines. This contrast, which Josephus does not explore, supports his (and a common ancient) view that internal strife, stasis, is the most devastating kind of war (1.10). It also implies, however, that Vespasian could have forced Jerusalem’s capitulation, without the city’s destruction, if he had besieged it as originally planned in the summer of 68—before Simon and the main Idumean force had entered. I.e., the same way Simon has dealt with residents he has encountered outside. Josephus makes similar charges against the Disciples and the Idumeans (4.196, 310): by nature they killed without regard for age or sex. Even soldiers in wartime were expected to distinguish between enemy combatants and civilian dependants—women, children, and the aged; the former expected to be killed, the latter more likely imprisoned and sold if not freed. The Romans make this distinction in normal circumstances (3.261, 304, 336; 4.115; 6.384; 7.208), though they can become ruthless killers if sufficiently provoked (2.496; perhaps 3.329; 6.2283–84). In failing to make such a distinction without reason, Simon in Josephus’ portrait behaves as a tyrant—or a savage animal—and not as a military commander; cf. Saul, when he displeased God in his vendetta against David (Ant. 6.260). That Simon should seal this heinous promise with an oath to God as Overseer of human actions makes the passage ironic and his actions outrageous.

Again, one of the great puzzles of Josephus’ War is that Simon with his unprofessional armed mob was able to intimidate those inside Jerusalem’s walls so easily, when Titus with several legions of professional soldiers would require a 6-month siege to subdue the city—albeit with Simon and his force inside. After a brief and typical diversion to Rome and back to Vespasian, keeping the story of the Roman civil war (above) warm ahead of Vespasian’s rise to power, Josephus will return to Simon’s murderous activities at 4.556.

In this pair (στάσις … καὶ πόλεμος ἐμφύλιος), the latter term is synonymous with the first, the most fundamental thematic word in War (see 1.10, 31 and notes in bjp 1a). For the former phrase see 4.129 and note, for the latter 4.131. Also programmatic is Josephus’ comparison of the scourge of civil war in Jerusalem and in Rome (cf. 1.4), a scheme that precludes the common Roman view that the Flavians defeated a primitive nation that made war against them. The entire Italian peninsula was by now, since the incorporation of the north (formerly Cisalpine Gaul) in 42 bce (see 4.441 and note to “Galatia” at 4.547 below), the hinterland of Rome and scene of Rome’s civil wars. So further 4.587, 591, 598, 632, 634, where “Italy” is another term for Rome and its territories.

See note at 4.494. Josephus has already sketched these crucial events of the civil war. See 4.494–99 and notes. Why repeat them? Given that he is now focused on the events of early 69 and in view of the chronological bridges (4.545, 550), he seems to be aligning the rough dates of events in Judea for his Roman audiences. This also allows him to reinforce his theme of comparing civil wars in Jerusalem and Rome. Surprisingly, Josephus is the first known writer to use the verb βασιλειάω, and since he has it as many as 4 times (War 1.5, 185; 2.55 and here), depending on the ms readings, it might even be his coinage. Copyists, confused by each instance, offered more familiar alternatives, here βασιλεύοντι (pa) or βασιλεῖ ὄντι (L): “being king.” But the sense does not work, and the more difficult reading should be preferred. Two grammarians of the 2nd cent. (Aelius Dionysius and Aelius Herodian) mention the verb in their fulsome discussions of possible word forms, but at least Herodian knew and used Josephus’ works. See 4.495 and notes.

It is curious that Josephus’ copyists had no idea of the correct name, with mss mvrc lacking the r and the Latin offering fretiacum. Bedriacum was on the site of mod. Calvatone, 110 km (67 mi) SE of Milan, 33 km (21 mi) E of Cremona. It gave its name to two decisive battles in the post-Neronian civil wars, which brought Vitellius and then Vespasian to power, though they might equally be called battles of Cremona, a day’s march to the W (here the Vitellian base), as the battles occurred between Cremona and Bedriacum (here the Othonian base). The decisive battle near Cremona seems to have occurred on 14 April, after 10 days of maneuver and skirmish between the cities (Murison 1993: 91–95). Josephus’ location of Bedriacum “in Galatia” is odd. A relatively trivial issue is that in Greek authors Galatia (“Gaul-land”) most often refers to the famous western Gaul of Caesar’s conquests (basically mod. France), as at 4.440, 494, though sometimes also the Roman province of Galatia in S Asia Minor, famous from Paul’s travels in the nt. The bigger problem is that the region Josephus refers to here, in N Italy, after being settled by Gallic (Celtic) tribes from the 4th cent. bce and a process of gradual Roman colonization and settlement, was from 81 to 42 bce incorporated as the Province of Cisalpine Gaul, separated from Italy by the Rubicon River. In 42 bce, however, Octavian oversaw its loss of provincial status and full incorporation into Italy, following the late Caesar’s wishes (Ewins 1955). Josephus may be showing off his knowledge that Bedriacum was in the old Gallic region, but that would not help to explain 4,634 below, concerning the second battle of Bedriacum / Cremona. Fabius Valens and A. Caecina Alienus were legionary legates in Lower and Upper Germany, commanding 1 Adiutrix and iiii Macedonica respectively (Ritterling 1924: 1379, 1554). When Vitellius arrived as Galba’s legate in Lower Germany and visited the troops around 1 December 68, he found many eager to revolt against Galba, with these commanders at their head. Valens reportedly nurtured a grudge because of Galba’s ingratitude for his support, young and ambitious Caecina because the stern ruler had prosecuted him for embezzlement. Tacitus introduces both men as exceptionally greedy and brazen (Hist. 1.52–53), later describing their hatred of each other and the hostility of each man’s army to the other (2.30, 92, 99). Plutarch portrays Caecina (Oth. 6.3–4) as un-Roman: massive, uncouth, off-putting, preferring Gallic trousers and long-sleeved shirt to Roman dress, and communicating by signs rather than articulate speech; his wife accompanied him on campaign, elaborately decked out on her own horse with an elite bodyguard. Valens appears as unusually rapacious. He led the German legions in acclaiming Vitellius imperator—effectively emperor-designate, already on 2 January 69, two weeks before Galba was murdered at Otho’s instigation (Wellesley 2000: 34–55). The mss often show confusion about Caecina’s name: κίναν in palvrc, κίυνα in M, cinna in Latin, only Ps-Hegesippus correctly caecina (as the editio princeps). Caecina would become a notorious figure in the Roman civil wars (cf. 4.634, 640, 644). He had already deserted Galba (who first appointed him legionary legate) for Vitellius, who gave him and Valens high honors in gratitude for their defeat of his rival Otho (Tacitus, Hist. 2.59.1, 70, 92), making them consuls and virtual co-rulers in September-October (2.92; 3.37). But while entrusted with fending off Vespasian’s challenge late in 69 he changed his allegiance yet again, in part from exasperation at having to hear Valens insist that he had saved Caecina, this time in spectacular fashion. He tried to bring his Vitellian forces to Vespasian, just as Lucilius Bassus had tried to bring over the fleet at Ravenna (Tacitus, Hist. 2.99–101; 3.9), and in this narrative Jacob the Idumean has brought his fighters over to Simon (4.521–28). Thrown in chains by his scandalized soldiers for this effort (Tacitus, Hist. 3.14), Caecina was liberated by Vespasian’s general Antonius Primus (Hist. 3.31) and reportedly rose to become Vespasian’s close friend (Cassius Dio 65/66.16.3)—until his participation in an alleged conspiracy against Vespasian led Titus as Praetorian Prefect to have him murdered (Suetonius, Tit. 6; Jones 1984: 91–93). The late 4th-cent. ce Epitome de Caesaribus (10.4) claims with extreme implausibility that Titus killed Caecina on suspicion of having raped his “wife,” the Judean princess Berenice. Although Josephus has often been called an ancient Benedict Arnold (the American officer who deserted to British lines in the War of Independence), Caecina and Bassus fit that model far better. Cf. the World War ii French Admiral François Darlan (who opposed the Nazis at first, then rose to eminence in the Nazi-friendly Vichy regime, then defected to the Allies, and was assassinated 6 weeks later, apparently for the first defection) and Italian Marshal Pietro Badoglio, who led the sudden reversal of the Italian military from Axis to Allied support in September 1943. These were, unlike Josephus (taken prisoner and held for two years), top-ranked officers rewarded with high positions after switching sides in a major conflict. When Vitellius decides to move against Otho in the spring of 69, while he lags far behind (Tacitus, Hist. 1.62: from sloth and drunkenness) he sends his commanders to Italy by different routes: Valens with an alleged 40,000 men from Lower Germany—Murison (1993: 85–86) cuts Tacitus’ figures in half—anchored by the Legio v Alaudae, attempts to win over Gaul (SW) to Vitellius’ cause en route and then crosses the Cottian Pass (mod. Montgenèvre) W of Turin; Caecina takes 30,000 (or half that number) from Upper Germany, anchored in the Legio xxi Rapax, follows a more direct route S from Germany via Helvetia (Switzerland), and crosses the Alps at the Great St. Bernard Pass, NW of Milan (Hist. 1.61). Caecina arrives first, therefore, and Otho’s army prevails in a series of conflicts (Tacitus, Hist. 2.11–31), but Valens’ arrival reverses the momentum, and this leads to Otho’s suicide (Hist. 2.31–49).

I.e., he killed himself. See note to “dealt with” at 4.378 for this euphemism. So Niese’s printed text. The mss have Brixemum, the Latin Brixenum, and Ps-Hegesippus Brixiae. The site is mod. Brescello, just S of the Po River and a day’s march—27 km (16.75 mi)—S of Bedriacum. See note to “present” at 4.70. Suetonius, whose father was an equestrian tribune in a Pannonian legion that came to support Otho (Legio xiii Gemina), relates that Otho, though quick to confront Vitellius’ forces against the advice of his generals (cf. Plutarch, Oth. 8–9), monitored the fighting from Brixellum rather than participating, and took his life even though his forces had every prospect of victory, with large reinforcements en route, because he could not stand being responsible for such an immense loss of Roman lives (Oth. 9). Tacitus (Hist. 2.33) criticises Otho’s decision to stifle his own inclination to fight, following the recommendation of his brother and Praetorian Prefect to withdraw to Brixellum. It meant that his bodyguard, who were the best soldiers and models for others, left the battlefield, while his soldiers, though deeply loyal, lost sight of the man they were fighting for. Plutarch (Oth. 5.3–6) adds that Otho’s troops were soft from lack of battle experience, and became undisciplined without the emperor present; he too sharply criticizes the decision to retreat to Brixellum (Oth. 10.1). This is about right. Otho took power with the death of Galba on 15 January and died on 16 April, 69 (Murison 1993: 81–93), calculating from Tacitus, Hist. 2.55.1. Josephus would be counting inclusively. Suetonius (Oth. 11.2) gives 94 days, which might be a calculation from Otho’s accession date to that of Vitellius (19 April: it took 2.5 days by fast messenger for news of Otho’s death to reach Rome); cf. Shotter 1993: 157. Cassius Dio (65.14.2) gives a round 90 days.

Valens and Caecina: 4.547. Josephus greatly compresses here. Only the difference between the aorist προσεχώρησε (“went over to” in one move) and the imperfect κατέβαινεν (“descended on” in a gradual or distributed sense) suggests the reality that Otho’s rule ended with his death on 16 April, whereas Vitellius—still far from Italy at the time—would not reach Rome until the end of June or early July 69 (Murison 1979: 194–97).

See note at 4.449: the Hebrew month Sivan. Since Josephus there has Vespasian still in the field on 2 Daesius in our year 68, before returning to Caesarea to plan the siege of Jerusalem, where he hears of Nero’s death and months later sends Titus to Galba (4.486, 491, 498), this cannot be in the same year. Although Josephus does not clarify the matter, we should conclude from the intervening Roman material that this new activity of Vespasian begins in the late spring of 69 ce. Vespasian has thus remained in Caesarea a full year, his campaign suspended to await the fallout from Nero’s death, and it will be almost another year before Titus undertakes the siege of Jerusalem. The chronological problem is missed by Thackeray (lcl), Pelletier, and M-B, who see 4.550 as continuing Vespasian’s activities in spring of 68, though H-G shift them to 69. That year, lunar Daesius began 10 days earlier (in relation to the Julian calendar) than in 68, putting 5 Daesius around 14–15 May. This is late in the spring for Vespasian to initiate military operations, which would normally begin at the onset of spring (4.443). The simplest explanation is that he decided to wait in Caesarea until the contest between Otho and Vitellius was over. When news of Otho’s suicide on 16 April and Vitellius’ rise to power reached him, after about 3 weeks, he no longer waited for a new mandate but was willing to act independently of Vitellius, in effect launching his own bid for power. This also means that Simon’s admission to Jerusalem in Xanthicus (March–April: 4.577) occurs before the new activity of Vespasian and Cerealis, in spite of Josephus’ narrative order. In the spring of 68 Vespasian has established arcs of garrisons (and presumably supply depots) about a day’s march E, SW, W, NW, and S of Jerusalem (4.410–39), isolating Judea proper; for a day’s march, see note to “present” at 4.70. Some of those garrisons, especially in Idumea (see note at 2.515) may have been withdrawn to winter quarters or depleted to skeleton crews. In any case, he will now tighten the noose with sites N and S of Jerusalem.

For Acrabetene, see notes at 4.504, 511, and to Corea at 4.449. It was the northernmost toparchy of Judea, on the frontier with Samaria, and the place where Simon had focused his operations before Ananus drove him to seclusion at Masada. Vespasian now consolidates the encirclement begun the previous spring (preceding note) by, first, establishing garrisons at intervals of an easy day’s march on the N-S road from Neapolis (Schechem): roughly 20 km (12 mi) away at Gophna (Jifna), and 40 km (24 mi) away at Acraba, 2 of Judea’s 10 toparchies aside from Jerusalem: cf. 2.568; 3.55. The adjectival endings on the names indicate the hinterlands of the two cities in question. Cerealis’ operations in Idumea will then seal off the southern approaches: 4.552–55. See note to this characteristic term in Book 4 at 4.84. Mss pal, considered a strong group, have βηθηγά, mss mvrc βαίθηλά, βηθηλά. There is little to choose between them on text-critical grounds, though the Latin uitherga or uithegra would add weight to the “more difficult” reading ending in –ηγά (printed by Niese), but modern translators all opt for the familiar name Bethel(a). Bethel (Beit-El, “house of God”) was a site of considerable importance in the Bible (Gen 12:8; 28:10–22; 35:7), a Canaanite cult site at a strategic geographic location and then for a time the sacrificial center of the Northern Kingdom of Israel (1 Kings 12:29–33). On the border between the territories of the tribes Benjamin and Ephraim, the site has long been identified with the small Arab village of Beitin / Baytin (Robinson 1856: 1.443; swp 2.283), 16.75 km (10.4 mi) N of Jerusalem, 4 km (2.5 mi) NE of mod. Ramallah. Livingston (1970, 1971, 1994) makes a strong case, however, for El-Bireh (al-Bira), now a NE suburb of Ramallah itself. This is the only reference in Josephus to a site called Ephraim, otherwise the tribal name identified more or less with the region of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. The Bible mentions a town by this name (2 Sam 13:23), as does the nt (John 11:54). The Bible also mentions an Ophrah (Josh 18:23; Judg 6:11; 1 Sam 13:17), and Robinson (1856: 1.447) identified all these names with et-Taiyibeh (or Taibe), 6.7 km (4.15 mi) NE of Beitin, or 8.85 km (5.5 mi) NE of El-Bireh (previous note). Other scholars have proposed distinctions among these sites, with Ephraim perhaps lying farther E in the same vicinity (Thompson, abd 2.256). Wherever exactly Bethel or Ephraim lay, Josephus is describing Vespasian’s installation of garrisons all around the northern approaches to Jerusalem. The verb ἱππάζομαι was not common. Initially meaning to drive horses in a chariot (Homer, Il. 23.426), it acquired the simpler meaning: “ride a horse” (lsj). It is absent from Thucydides, Polybius, Aristotle, Philo, and most others (Plato has it twice in Ion 540e), but Xenophon, who wrote a book on horsemanship, favored it (12 cases) and the Hippocratic Airs, Waters, Places has it 4 times in relation to alleged diseases affecting Scythians, attributed to extensive horse-riding. lxx Ezekiel 23:6 uses the verb to drive home the bitter satire of Samaria’s “whoring” after Assyria, whose young men came as “horsemen horse-riding on horses” (ἱππεῖς ἱππαζόμενοι ἐφ̓ ἵππων), for the less repetitive Hebrew כֻּלָּ֑ם פָּרָשִׁ֕ים רֹכְבֵ֖י סוּסִֽים. Josephus has the verb 3 times: also at 5.54 and Ant. 5.274. His passing remark μέχρι Ἱεροσολύμων ἱππάζετο (Thackeray lcl: “he then rode with his cavalry up to the walls of Jerusalem”; H-G: “he rode his cavalry right up to Jerusalem”) is remarkable for its historical implications. At the beginning of his spring campaign in 69, and so presumably at any time since the spring campaign of 68, Vespasian has the complete run of Judea outside Jerusalem’s walls. He can ride wherever he pleases with little fear of confrontation or ambush. This picture challenges two common views: (a) that an intensive shooting war endured from 66 to 70 ce in Judea, and (b) that the rebels in Jerusalem had a functioning independent “Jewish state” during those years (e.g., Goodman 2007: 14–15, 97, 331–32). Although ideal notions cannot be disproved, in concrete reality any such state was confined within the walls of Jerusalem—about 2/3 the size of Central Park in New York—and dominated by the Galilean John, his followers, Idumean fighters, and a dissident priestly faction, after they had assassinated many of the city’s established leaders. If Josephus’ repeated remarks about the abuse of residents by one or another armed faction (mainly outsiders) and about the extreme hazards of escaping the city (4.143–50, 305–14, 326–44, 354–66, 377–83, 395, 410, 564–65) have any historical value, many residents would have felt besieged rather than members of an independent state.

Sex. Vettulenus Cerealis, or Cerialis (dates unknown), is legatus (ex-praetorian commander) of the Legio v Macedonica in Vespasian’s army in Judea (War 3.65), a role he will retain under Titus (5.41–2; 6.237). A military diploma dated 28 April 75 and an inscription dated 7 February 78 show that he went on to become Vespasian’s governor of the province of Moesia Inferior (pir 3.351). This is his first appearance in War 4. Earlier, Vespasian had sent him to subdue a Samarian uprising (3.310–15). Titus will leave him in command as Judea’s first provincial governor (with the Tenth Legion under his command), when Titus departs for Rome in 71 ce (7.163). Josephus will later describe how Titus ordered him to accompany Cerealis to Tekoa, to ascertain whether the terrain was suitable for a post-war Roman camp (Life 417–21). The cognomen Cerealis (“of Ceres,” goddess of agriculture) is attested also in Martial 10.48; 11.52. Since this is the sole appearance of ψευδοπολίχνιον in ancient Greek literature, its exact meaning is unclear, except that it looks pejorative—toward whom? Thackeray lcl offers an interpretative translation (emphasis added), which highlights the problem: “the petty town (as it falsely calls itself),”. If the issue is what the town calls itself, is Josephus’ point the diminutive ending: the residents adopt a false humility, whereas he considers it a proper city? In that case, Cerealis’ easy romp through it would be hard to understand. Or did the town falsely boast of being some kind of “city” at all, and Josephus’ is ridiculing such a claim? His own use of polis is so liberal as to cast doubt on that. Perhaps he is saying in a polemical moment that Cerealis’ easy capture of the town exploded any claim to significance at all, on the part of the residents. Or did the falsehood come not from the residents but from the town’s reputation, either in the local region or because of the general who conquered it? The contrast with strong-walled Capharabin and the extreme rarity of this word suggest that Josephus has found (or created) the mot juste to torpedo someone else’s claim. It seems likely that the sarcasm—whatever its purpose—would have offended Cerealis, if he came to know of it (cf. Apion 1.51)—if he had mentioned Caphethra among the “cities” he conquered in his Judean tour. Finally, perhaps Josephus is merely mocking the town itself for its lack of defenses, for showing no self-respect, in contrast to the next site, Charabin. Neither this site nor the next has been identified. For this one, Niese has Κάφεθρα following Hudson, while the mss show confusion: καφαιορα in L, χαφεθραμὶν in pamvrc, caphaeoran in Latin. The problems with identification are illustrated by Life 188 (see note in bjp 9), which mentions a Capharath and a Kōmos fortified by Josephus, whereas the War parallel (2.573) has Καφαρεκχώ in place of both; since kefar (Hebrew) and kōmos (Greek) both mean “village,” it seems that a single name (perhaps Kefar Ata) has somehow split in two. The name here, for a small settlement in Idumea, looks similar; the reversal of θ and ρ would not be surprising. See note at 4.92. Some towns, such as Gischala according to Titus, had weak enough defenses to be taken by direct assault, whereas those with sturdy walls and firmly shut gates might require sieges if the walls could not be quickly surmounted as at Cremona (4.642 with notes on Tacitus’ version). Like the previously named Idumean site, this one has not been confidently identified, but there are stronger possibilities. The mss again show confusion: χαραβιν in pamvr (differently accented), but χαφαραβειν in L and καφαραβὶν codex Berolinensis, Capharim in Latin. The presence of caphar (“village”) in some forms leads most scholars to think that the name began with Hebrew Kefar- (Thackeray lcl, M-B: Capharabis), or “village,” and the first 2 syllables were mangled in pamvr by copying. H-G more conservatively have Charabis, as we should prefer on text-critical grounds (the “more difficult reading” and the best attested in Greek and Latin). Their -is ending assumes that -ιν in the Greek mss marks the accusative, so the nominative ended in -is. But the Latin Capharim matches the plural masculine ending in Hebrew, which suggests that -in could represent an Aramaic plural, except that the Aramaic for “village” is כפרנא and the plural ‎כפרנין. Schalit (ccfj, s.v.), following the geographer Samuel Klein and in turn followed by M-B ad loc., suggests identification with the pre-1948 village of Khirbet el-Biss (with M-B taking the mss ending βιν as accusative, so nominative βις), 5.6 km (3.5 mi) E of Beit-Jibrin (see note to “Betabrin” at 4.447), swp sheet 21: Jv. They connect this place in turn with the Caphar-Bish mentioned in late rabbinic texts (e.g., y. Taan. 69a) as an angry village hostile to outsiders—and 1 of 3 “villages” with a population exceeding the number that left Egypt.

Josephus uses the same phrase (μεθ ̓ ἱκετηριῶν) at 2.573, there allowing the clash of final and initial vowels (hiatus) instead of contracting the preposition as here. The olive branch (ἱκετηρία) was the universally understood sign (cf. our white flag) of laying down weapons to ask for peace (Euripides, Iph. Aul. 1216; Herodotus 5.51.1; 7.141). This is normally done by an overmatched party in the role of supplicant; the stronger side is expected to honor the gesture of humiliation. At 2.497, 637 it seems that people literally wave olive branches. Elsewhere (and possibly at 2.573), the word appears to be metaphorical for such an appeal (3.203; 5.321). Josephus has the word only in War.

Recently captured by Simon (4.529). Josephus also emphasized the city’s great antiquity there: 4.530–33. Josephus did not say exactly this in 4.529–37, but mentioned Hebron as a significant center in Idumea. Or “apprehended.” See note at 4.103. Here we see the same uncertainty in the mss about whether Josephus wrote a form of ἐγκαταλείπω (ἐγκαταλειφθὲν, “left behind, left in the lurch,” with mss paml in this case and the Latin) or of ἐγκαταλαμβάνω (ἐγκαταληφθὲν, “catch, apprehend, take in hand.” with mss vrc). Here the context favors the former: one assumes that as elsewhere the fit young men have absconded, leaving those less capable of flight and possible fighting: 4.425, 421, 430, 489. Josephus uses the adverb ἡβηδόν only here and at 3.133, where it refers to Vespasian’s killing of Gabara’s residents. There Josephus adds that the Romans showed no mercy on account of age (cf. Simon above at 4.543). Even still it seems that women and children are excluded, but males from their mid-teens and older are targets. The word builds on ἥβη, which is found often in Homer and classical literature, though not in Josephus: the age at which boys reach full vigor (hence the ephebate) before manhood, though the specification of this age varies: 16 in Athens, 18 in Sparta (lsj s.v.). This adverb is rare. Herodotus has it twice, but its main users before Josephus are Diodorus (9), Dionysius (5), Philo (16), and Strabo (3), who often use it as Josephus does in contexts of killing, slaughtering, or doing away with people. Cerealis in the story thus follows a famous Roman “law of war”: towns that voluntarily surrender are taken intact and garrisoned (as Capharabin here), whereas those that resist (as Hebron) are demolished. Cf. Vergil, Aen. 6.853: “spare the defeated and crush the proud” (parcere subiectis et debellare superbos).

All 3 fortresses were introduced in Book 1. Herodium, just 12 km (7.5 mi) S of Jerusalem and 5 km (3 mi) SE of Bethlehem, was built by King Herod and became the site of his mausoleum; see 4.518 and note. Machaerus and Masada were Hasmonean desert fortresses on the frontier between Judea and Nabatea, respectively E and W of the Dead Sea, which King Herod redeveloped as places of royal refuge. After Archelaus’ banishment in 6 ce, when Judea was annexed to Syria and came under direct Roman administration (with the brief exception of King Agrippa i’s reign, 41–44 ce), all 3 sites hosted Roman-auxiliary guard-posts. In the turmoil of 66 ce, these were expelled or killed and replaced by Judean groups. It is not clear that the Judean groups acted in concert: at Machaerus it seems that the local Judean population expelled the guards on the summit, whereas Judeans from Jerusalem took Masada. All 3 sites have appeared in Book 4: Herodium at 4.518, Masada at 4.399, Machaerus at 4.439; see notes in each case. Only in Book 7, after the successful conclusion of the Judean War and the Flavian triumph in 71, will the second post-war governor of the new Province of Judea (71–73 ce), Sex. Lucilius Bassus (Eck 1970: 117–18), move to recover and garrison these fortresses. He quickly takes Herodium and then makes Machaerus his priority, because of its potential as a bandit site (7.163–70). When Bassus dies in office it is left to L. Flavius Silva Nonius Bassus to complete the plan by recovering Masada, most likely in 74 ce (7.752). Inasmuch as the Judean communities in the fortresses operated independently, outside Rome’s and also Jerusalem’s governance, they were by Roman definition “bandit” sites. Josephus uses bandit language far more liberally and rhetorically, however, than legal precision requires. See note to “bandit troop” at 4.84. The Judean War arose from the conflict between Jerusalem and Roman authority in the form of the locally recruited auxiliary army headquartered in coastal Caesarea, in 65–66 ce. The temple raids by Gessius Florus, in which he violently suppressed opposition, led to the diplomatic visits and embassies by the legate Cestius Gallus in spring–summer 66, the expulsion of Agrippa ii, his dispatch of an emergency cavalry force to the city, the massacre of the serving auxiliary garrison by an armed faction (with the reciprocal massacre of Judeans in Caesarea), and finally the exclusion and ambush of Cestius’ legion when he tried to made another reluctant expedition. Nero sent Vespasian to fix the situation in the Judean heartland (Mason 2016a). Jerusalem was thus always Vespasian’s main concern (4.88–91, 120), but he took a cautious noose-tightening approach, first assuring himself that Galilee and Perea were submissive and then establishing garrisons in rings around Judea—without significant resistance. nb: Sepphoris reportedly forbade its citizens to involve themselves in Jerusalem’s conflicts (Life 346), Judean minorities in regional cities often sided with their fellow-townsfolk against raiders from Jerusalem (War 2.466–78), and Idumea remained aloof from Jerusalem’s struggles until a pretext was found to get them involved (4.228–35).

Recalling 4.538–44. Josephus must be rewinding the clock by a couple of months for this part of the narrative. He has interrupted the story of Simon and Judea’s civil war to recall that in Rome, and followed the latter through until Vitellius’ accession and Vespasian’s reaction. At 4.550 he has spoken of Vespasian’s move out from Caesarea in early Daesius-Sivan (the second month after Xanthicus-Nisan), about a month after Otho’s loss to Vitellius (4.549). But at 4.577, below, the outcome of Simon’s conflict with the Disciples will be Simon’s entry into Jerusalem, in the month of Xanthicus (69 ce). Simon’s actions against Idumea apparently occurred, therefore, several months before Vespasian’s consolidation of Judea and Cerealis’ subjugation of Idumea. Simon’s new turn against Idumea and negotiations with ant-Disciple elements in Jerusalem would therefore be in Dystrus-Adar (February–March) or so, the month before Xanthicus-Nisan in 69 (less likely already in 68). Again, this notice assumes Simon’s freedom to act in Idumea, although in the story the region has been garrisoned by Vespasian (4.447–48) and now Cerealis (4.550–555). See notes to “Idumea” at 4.515 and “Xanthicus” at 4.577 below. It seems that this activity of Simon’s comes before Vespasian’s renewed operations in late spring 69. This may be the most striking—all the more because it is a casual remark—example of Josephus’ assumption that Idumeans are a distinct ethnos from Judeans, even though for nearly two centuries (since the Hasmonean John Hyrcanus) they have mainly followed Judean laws and are in a sense Judeans; see 4.224, 231, and notes. Josephus, a proud Judean and now a Roman citizen as he writes (War 1.1–8, Life 1–6, 423), has no difficulty expecting loyalty to one’s ethnos, while also recognizing what we might call hyphenated identities (cf. Apion 2.38–42, 144; cf. Cicero, Leg. 2.5): many people originated in one place (the fatherland) and acquired citizenship elsewhere. They have an absolute obligation, even to die, for the place that adopted them, though they still consider their place of origin a fatherland and hold it in high esteem. This puzzling notice about a mass movement of Idumeans (nearly the whole nation) into the walled city of Jerusalem is inherently implausible and has no sequel in the narrative. Elsewhere, as shortly below, Idumeans in Jerusalem are a distinct military group: invited in by the Disciples (4.224, 228), running riot against the city’s elite class (4.300–333), then abandoning their hosts in disgust (4.345–53), though some remain loyal until they break with John’s tyranny (4.566–71), adding crucial support for an appeal to Simon to enter the city, and finally appearing as a substantial corps of 10,000 men under their own commanders during the coming siege (5.248, 290, 358; 6.92, 148, 378–81). It is tempting to think that Josephus is confusedly indicating the moment at which Idumean fighters, having left Jerusalem, return to become a presence later. But that would make little sense of his language here or the larger picture. For Simon has won over the Idumean army with the help of the commander Jacob and his associates (4.521–28), and so he would not need to drive them into the walled city, to join John and the Disciples. Moreover, the Idumean soldiers who tire of John’s leadership (4.566 below) do not seem to be recent arrivals.

Josephus’ expression (κυκλωσάμενος αὖθις τὸ τεῖχος) should not be taken literally. Even Gamala had proven impossible to encircle, with its steep surrounding valleys (4.12), and encirclement was not necessary if all exits could be covered. In Simon’s previous effort to intimidate the city (5.540–41), it was enough for his men to monitor the half-dozen or so gates, and to assault anyone they found outside otherwise (perhaps leaving and entering by tunnels). True encirclement of Jerusalem, with its massive walls above steep valleys on three sides, with relief and supplies for all the units involved, would be a massive undertaking. Only after 2 frustrating months of siege with his army will Titus build an encircling wall to assist (5.499–501). Nevertheless, stationing armed units at all the gates might count as virtual “encircling.” Simon’s army thus takes up the positions it had occupied while the Disciples held his wife, and engages in the same violently intimidating behavior, though now apparently killing everyone who came out of the city (for food and firewood) rather than sending some back in without hands: 4.539–44. The same chronological problems arise here as in the earlier story, given Simon’s freedom to move between Idumea and Jerusalem. The best solution, again, seems to be that this happened before Vespasian renewed his campaign in May 69, after he learned of Otho’s death and Vitellius’ rise to power. Simon would then be active in late winter 69, before entering Jerusalem (4.577) in April.

Again we see Simon’s and the Idumeans’ apparent freedom of movement (4.503–15, 556) after Josephus has described Vespasian’s establishment of garrisons to the S of Jerusalem (4.443–51, 550–555). This is the only hint that the Romans are indeed nearby. Its vagueness is consonant with the hypothesis that Vespasian garrisoned the entire area in spring 68, including Idumea, but withdrew most of these posts after he suspended the war from June or July 68. Simon and the Idumeans would then have had some freedom of movement before the legions returned in May 69, though the residents of Jerusalem might still consider the Romans near and “outside” the inner band of Judean-Idumean activity, with perhaps some Roman garrisons (Jericho, Thamna, Lydda?) remaining in place. Since War 4.538 and 544 have made clear how terrified the Disciples are of Simon, we should perhaps understand this claim either as a passing bit of rhetoric with little substance (x was bad, y worse, and z worst of all: cf. 7.253–74) or in the sense that, though Simon was more fearsome, the Disciples’ control over the confined space of Jerusalem made them the more frightful reality inside; cf. 4.396 on the competition among Disciple factions to fleece the citizenry. The following description of John’s men (2.560–63) gives a hair-raising impression, however implausible it may be historically, of what it was like to live under John’s Galilean thugs in Jerusalem. John’s Galileans are presumably the men he had assembled in Gischala (not all Gischalans, but his partisans from across the region: bandits in Josephus’ language, 4.84–86). Many of John’s partisans would have been Josephus’ opponents in Galilee a year earlier (2.585–89). These Galileans have remained with John as the core of his support: first as a revered group who falsely boasted of having scared the legions (4.121–27). Gradually, John has wormed his way into the leadership of the Disciples (4.209–27), a position he holds in the following paragraphs (4.566–73). Josephus notes frictions among the Disciples’ leaders until John achieves supreme control, prompting first the Idumeans (4.353—though he had been instrumental in summoning them, 4.224) and then other detractors to flee the city (4.389–97). When still other Idumeans break from John, their dissent will be decisive in the move to invite Simon into Jerusalem, as the only potential antidote to John (4.566–577).

War consistently presents John as the worst type of leader: a would-be tyrant who seeks only his supreme power (δυναστεία) without regard for the well-being of Jerusalem or its populace (4.85; cf. 2.587). In order to persuade the Idumeans to come to Jerusalem and secure his power, he invented the lie that it was Ananus and his group who pursued δυναστεία (4.226, 278). The image of violent provincials indulging their every desire (πάντα ἐπιτρέπων δρᾶν ὧν ἕκαστος ἐπεθύμει) in a rich capital city creates a parallel with Vitellius’ German legions in Rome (τὰς ἐπιθυμίας μόλις κατεῖχον), below at 4.587.

Although the meaning of ἀπλήρωτος would have been obvious, this word was nowhere near as common as “insatiable” is in English. This is Josephus’ only example, and he may have chosen it for alliteration: πόθοι δ’ ἦσαν ἁρπαγῆς ἀπλήρωτοι. Dionysius (Ant. rom. 5.67.2) is the first extant writer to use it (otherwise in fragments of grammarians and orators), as a partial synonym of ἀόριστος (“unbounded”), speaking of the unbridled desires of the ignorant masses. But the main user before Josephus is Philo, who has ἀπλήρωτος 5 times—twice with ἐπιθυμία, cognate to the verb Josephus has just used (ἐπιθυμέω, 4.599)—in different works (Leg. 3.148; Sacr. 24; Ebr. 220; Mos. 2.185; Legat. 14). Here as often, Philo is Josephus’ likely inspiration. This (ἔρευνα) again seems to be Philonic diction. Of the first 71 attestations, well over half are in Philo (19) and Josephus (18). Euripides and Aristotle have 4 cases each, Dionysius 6, but even the prolific Plutarch has only 2 cases. Thucydides, Polybius, and Diodorus have none. Again, John’s Galileans anticipate Vitellius’ German soldiers in Rome, a few paragraphs below (4.587). Josephus has already accused other would-be tyrants and Simon of ransacking the homes of wealthy Judeans (2.264, 426–27, 652). In this respect they act much as the auxiliary soldiers whose raids on Jerusalem’s wealthy residents provoked the resistance that has become a war (2.305–308). This all feeds Josephus’ persistent theme: home-grown tyrants are worse than the foreigners they purport to fight for high-minded reasons. Again, Josephus presents Judean “tyrants,” acting under the banner of seeking freedom from Roman oppression, doing to their own people worse things than they attribute to the Romans. The prospect of violated wives and children will become a principal reason for the mass suicide at Masada (7.377, 382). Although Josephus occasionally mentions “violation, mistreatment” of women, and in a discussion of marriage laws assumes that captive women have been raped (War 7.334; Ant. 3.276; 13.292; Apion 1.35; 2.212), the contrast between his detailed descriptions of other physical violence and his indirect references to rape—though rape was and remains, with different levels of command complicity, part of all war (cf. Roberts 2013)—accords with ancient sensibilities (D’Huys 1987: 216). Diodorus, after commenting on the appalling ways in which men kill each other, adds a comment on the violation of women but refrains from elaborating on the ground that “none of our readers wants to hear every detail, when he knows full well what is involved.” Men who slaughter each other by day “do not in addition require someone to elaborate on what they did by night” (19.8.4–5).

Although we might incline to treat this blood (μεθ’ αἵματός τε τὰ συληθέντα κατέπινον) as a metaphor for the killing that accompanied plunder, the close parallel at 6.372, concerning the tyrants trying to survive in Jerusalem’s tunnels (εἴ τινος εὕροιεν τροφὴν ἁρπάζοντες αἵματι πεφυρμένην κατέπινον: “if they found food on someone, they robbed it and devoured it, soaked in blood”), suggests another sense. It is not that they were drinking blood as such, but seizing the food from others involved killing or injuring them with a blade. This would mean that the food had blood on it, but the attackers did not scruple to eat it nonetheless. Ingesting blood, however, was a serious and well known violation of Judean law: kosher meat must have all blood removed (Gen 9:4; Lev 1:15; 3:17; Deut 15:23). The verb ἐνθηλυπαθέω (ἐν [in, into] + θηλυ [female] + παθέω [suffer / undergo change]), only here in Josephus, appears to be his impressive coinage. No other ancient author uses it, aside from a 10th cent. quotation of Josephus. Feminization of the enemy was standard in ancient discourse (as modern), for women were held to be emotional and easily frightened. Athenian pottery visualized Greeks penetrating Persian victims (Ferris 2000: 7, 56–59, 97–150). Romans portrayed their defeated enemies as disheveled, violated women (Welch 2006: 11–12), the Parthians in particular as Peter Pan-like, effeminate lovers of luxury (Schneider 1998: 106–10). In their turn, the Parthians reportedly ridiculed the Roman commander Crassus, before executing him, as a woman (Plutarch, Crass. 32). Given the coins depicting Judea as a small woman beside a towering Roman in arms (e.g., British Museum: 1872,0709.473, 1952,0105.4, and R.10570), it seems likely that when Josephus refers to the relentless humiliation and denigration of Judeans in contemporary portraits of the war (War 1.7), this was part of it—and elicited his pronounced theme of Judean masculinity, courage, and contempt for death. Another hapax legomenon and apparent coinage of Josephus. The verb συνθετίζομαι has a clear enough sense (“put together, arrange, style”), particularly apt for a carefully arranged hairstyle unbecoming of a man, but it appears only here in Josephus and is unattested elsewhere. Cf. Philo, Sacr. 21 (with note to “gait” at 4.563), on the enticing figure of Pleasure: “the hair of her head carefully braided together” (τὰς τῆς κεφαλῆς τρίχας ἀναπεπλεγμένη). Josephus: γυναικείας ἐσθῆτας ἀναλαμβάνοντες. Philo (Sacr. 21) gives a vivid picture of what this means, anticipating Josephus (see note to “gait” at 4.563). Or “bathed in.” Josephus uses another rare and vivid verb, καταντλέω, attested only 14 times before him, 3 of these in Strabo. A rough contemporary, the medical writer Dioscorides Pedanius, uses it some 60 times for various cures. Philo’s μύρων εὐωδεστάτων ἀποπνέουσα at Sacr. 21 most clearly anticipates Josephus’ καταντλούμενοι δὲ μύροις, especially in light of their similar contexts; see note to “gait” at 4.563. Or “to look proper, look the part” (πρὸς εὐπρέπειαν). Cf. Xenophon, Cyr. 1.3.2, where the boy Cyrus is astonished to meet his grandfather, wearing eyeliner, rouge, and other typically Median adornments in contrast to Persian simplicity. The closest parallel to Josephus’ ὑπογράφοντες ὀφθαλμούς in context is, however, Philo, Sacr. 21 (ὑπογεγραμμένη τὴν ὄψιν); see note to “gait” at 4.563. Josephus describes what his Roman audiences would have recognized and ridiculed as the cinaedus, effeminatus, or mollis: the male who transgresses the (granted some personal differences of taste and style) clear sartorial distinctions between men and women: “the cinaedus was a man who wore loose colorful clothing, perfume and curled hair, who walked along with a mincing gait, and who was apt to be anally penetrated and enjoy it”—who might nevertheless enjoy heterosexual relations (Olson 2017: 136). Carter (2008: 125–26) follows Davidson (1997: 179) in seeing the cinaedus as more socially dangerous than a merely “effeminate man”: he was “an uncontrollable sex fiend,” a man with the “uncontrollable sexual desires” attributed to women. He suggests that the lightly clothed retiarus form of gladiator fit the type—a possible analogy with Josephus’ description of these bloodthirsty Galileans. The cinaedus was not homosexual as we understand the term, but he deliberately sought male as well as female notice. Careful attention to one’s appearance and scent (personal cultus, ornatus) was assumed to be women’s province (Shumka 2008). See in general Gleason 1995, 1999; Williams 2010. On the cosmetics and perfumes in question, which men were occasionally accused of wearing, see Olson 2017: 138–40. Contrast Josephus’ description of the Essenes, a hyper-masculine community that adopts simple dress, which they wear until ragged, and rejects all use of oils or grooming aids: War 2.123, 126.

Philo (Sacr. 21) associates the female figure of Pleasure’s decoration, κόσμος … γυναικεῖος, which beckons all men, with a prostitute who replaces genuine beauty with outer appearances to sell her wares. The alleged wantonness, emotionalism, and fickleness of women (here: πάθη γυναικῶν ἐμιμοῦντο καὶ δι’ ὑπερβολὴν ἀσελγείας) are abiding tropes in Josephus, and he is hardly alone among ancient (or many pre-1970s modern) authors in this regard. He explains his ideal Essenes’ embrace of bachelorhood by their wish “to protect themselves from the wanton ways of women, having been persuaded that none of them preserves her faithfulness to one man” (2.121). Josephus elsewhere speaks formulaically of ἀσελγείαι γυναικῶν with regard to such femmes fatales as Jezebel (Ant. 8.318), Cleopatra (Ant. 15.98), and Herod’s wife Mariamme (War 1.439). Cf. Philo, Mos. 1.305—a possible inspiration—and Dio Chrysostom, Or. 2.56. Although this view of women was widely shared among ancient elite males (Davidson 1997), other writers more often attributed the trait of wantonness or looseness (ἀσελγεία) to males in relation to women and drink; see note to “women” at War 2.121 in bjp 1b. For women’s alleged instability of affection and frivolity, see War 2.114–16 (with Ant. 17.352): “the customary saying, ‘women are faithless’ [ἄπιστα].” At Ant. 4.219, Moses rejects evidence from women for just these reasons; cf. 13.430–31; Apion 2.201. For women in Josephus, see further Mayer-Schärtel 1995; Ilan 1999: 85–125; Matthews 2001; Grünenfelder 2003. For women as faithless (ἄπιστα) see Euripides, Iph. taur. 1298; Plutarch, Lyc. 15.9; Apoph. Lac. 228b. Josephus comes unusually close (for him) to the limits of literary decorum. His text is uncertain, suggesting perhaps that he wrote something that scribes found indelicate. The Latin translates: obscenitate nimia nefarios coitus exigentes (“demanding obscenely excessive, illicit sexual intercourse”). Ms P adds ἀσωτίας (“profligate acts”), while lvrc add ἡδονὰς (“pleasures”). Yet another verb (ἐναλινδέομαι) that Josephus may have created: his is the first attestation and he has it only here. He has taken the verb ἀλινδέω (“to roll, make to roll”) and supplied a prefix of implication in the middle voice to create a vivid image of carousing or rolling about loosely, in a manner befitting a brothel and not the holy mother-city that hosts the temple of Judeans world-wide. Josephus has pulled out all the stops to portray John’s followers—his former enemies—in crafted diction that unsparingly mocks their assumed lack of Judean masculine values. Ancient writers had little occasion to use this word (πορνεῖον), except in ribald comedy (cf. Aristophanes, Vesp. 1283) or biting rhetoric (Aeschines, Tim. 124). Josephus will use it again only in Ant. 19.357, describing the shameful reactions in Caesarea to the death of King Agrippa i (44 ce). It is otherwise absent from historians before Cassius Dio (3rd cent. ce). Nearly all of the 20 occurrences before Josephus are in comedy or oratory, and most of them in fragments. The exception is the lxx translation of the prophet Ezekiel, which has the word 3 times in one chapter (Ezek 16:25, 31, 39), in a blistering attack on Jerusalem for “spreading her legs” to every passerby. The Lord charges that he had taken a bereft and unlovely Jerusalem and made her strong, but she now feels confident in her beauty, forsakes him, and plays the harlot. Whereas the Hebrew Bible charges Jerusalem with setting up a “height” or “mound” (‪רמה‬, גב), which might well refer to the high places on which sacrifices were made to foreign gods, the link between idolatry and prostitution led the lxx translators to render both words as “brothel.” There is an interesting (if not directly relevant) parallel to this connection in Latin fornix, which means “mound, arch, convex shape” but came to indicate a brothel located beneath one of Rome’s many arches; hence “fornicate” etc. (bdb on גב). Cf. the Latin Vulgate, which has aedificasti signum prostitutionis or lupanar in Ezekiel 16. Given his allusions to Jeremiah in War and his special attention to Ezekiel in Antiquities (Lindner 1972: 32–33), Josephus might have taken inspiration from the priest-prophet Ezekiel for this excoriating portrait of John’s behavior in holy Jerusalem. His Roman audiences would not need such background, however, to understand his charges (which he does not connect with idolatry or other prophetic concerns). On the central theme of pollution in War, see note to “polluted feet” at 4.150 and to “men” at 4.159, 163.

Yet another striking verb (γυναικίζω), clear in sense but nevertheless rare. Before Josephus, it is attested among extant texts only in Aristophanes, Thes. 268, the Hippocratic Airs, Waters, Places (22), and Polybius 32.15.7, as well as fragments of Demades and Nicolaus. Josephus appears to draw from Philo, Sacr. 20–21. In Josephus’ phrase θρυπτόμενοί τε τοῖς βαδίσμασιν, the verb and noun occur only here in his corpus, but distinctly recall Philo. The verb θρύπτω means “shatter, break in pieces”. In the middle / passive voice (as here) it acquired the moral sense of being enervated, weakened, dissipated, or broken up—in contrast to the simple, strong virtue of masculinity. Philo uses this sense most consistently: Sacr. 21; Det. 34; Plant. 159; Ebr. 22, 219; Mut. 84; Somn. 2.202; Decal. 122; Aet. 125. The noun βάδισμα (“gait, way of walking”) is attested only 10 times before this case in Josephus. Given that Philo accounts for 3 of the 10, that in 2 cases he also contrasts masculine with feminine gaits (Sacr. 21, 26), and especially that Sacr. 21 combines this verb and noun with other elements of Josephus’ picture, he seems Josephus’ most likely inspiration. In keeping with other moralizing literature (cf. Proverbs, Wisdom of Solomon 1–17), Philo imagines virtue and vice as 2 women competing for men’s devotion. Being drawn to Pleasure for her beauty, ease, and comfort, men hate Virtue because she is so difficult, making men feel perpetually at war with themselves. Philo goes on to describe Pleasure in vivid terms anticipating Josephus: the fancy dress, mincing gate, underlined eyes, and strong perfumes. See Gleason 1995 on the extraordinary attention paid by ancient observers to men’s deportment and gait, e.g. 62: “The dignified carriage of the leonine man had to be achieved with unfaltering assurance in public, before an audience whose sensibilities were finely tuned to detect bluffing or any deviations from ideal composure.” A woman could walk in short, shuffling, and loose-limbed uncertainty; men should stride forthrightly and uprightly yet showing self-restraint and self-control by a confidently measured (never hurried never frantic) pace. See also Aldrete 1999. Greek: ἀπὸ τῶν βεβαμμένων χλανιδίων, the only example in Josephus of the diminutive noun. Even the regular χλανίς, an upper shoulder-covering of fine wool, was a luxurious item for festive occasions, considered effeminate if worn in daily life (Plutarch, Alc. 23.4: Alcibiades rejects his former dress and perfumes to fit in with the rugged Spartans). Compare the frilly modern shirts that are acceptable in formal dress but not in daily or working life. The diminutive drives home the luxurious-feminine indulgence (Aristophanes, Lys. 1189). It is barely attested (10 times) before Josephus’ lone case. Traditional Roman norms of dress allowed males only a couple of bold and simple colors, especially scarlet and the expensive purple of the sea mollusk, colors related to blood with apotropaic effects, in military and high-ranking civilian dress (Edmondson and Keith 2008: 21–138; Olson 2017: 108, 136–49). Colors such as yellow and green were for women. Tacitus thus advised the orator to wear a rough, masculine toga rather than “the multi-colored dress of whores” (Orat. 26.1). Some philosophers affected the rough Spartan cloak (tribōn) as a sign of their distance from all feminine extravagance. The terror of concealed blades, which render communal trust impossible, plays a significant role in Josephus’ narratives. War 2.254–57 first describes this activity in the late 50s under the governor Felix, the passage that gives such murderers their Roman legal designation, sicarii. See note in bjp 1b at 2.254. There, Josephus describes the weapons as “small daggers” (µικρὰ ξιφίδια), though at 2.425 he uses the more generic ξίφος (“sword” of any size). At Ant. 20.186, he specifies that the daggers (ξιφίδια) in question were curved like the Roman (“Thracian”) sicae of gladiatorial combat. At Life 293, Josephus confesses that he himself adopted this tactic. Having been set up for an ambush by his mortal enemies, who have called a fast that requires everyone to attend unarmed, he tells his men to conceal blades under their garments, while he himself wears an armor plate and a sword strapped beneath his robe.

Reprising 4.558. Josephus continues constructing his picture of John and Simon as the principal “tyrants” of the war, which from a Roman perspective was indeed mainly Titus’ siege of Jerusalem. These were the two men best known to Roman audiences from that siege: the younger Simon ritually executed as enemy general in the Flavian triumph, John consigned to perpetual incarceration: War 6.434; 7.153–55; Tacitus, Hist. 5.12. See notes at 4.151, 166 with 6.351–53, 356–57. They are the tyrants, it turns out, whom Josephus holds chiefly responsible for Jerusalem’s fall in War’s prologue: 1.10, 11, 24, 27, 28.

The scenario of Jerusalem’s citizenry being trapped inside stout walls by Judean tyrants, who prevent them from fleeing to the Romans for safety—an inversion of the rebels’ justification as liberators from alleged Roman oppression—is reinforced and strengthened as War’s narrative develops from Book 4. Although the Roman siege in its broad sense has been in place since Vespasian’s arrival in Judea and rapid encirclement of Judea proper, and it will tighten considerably under Titus from Book 5, the important siege for Josephus’ Judeans is the one imposed by their own tyrants, who are locked in a civil war motivated by their obstinate quest for power. See 1.10; 4.377–83, 410, 438, 444, 490; cf. 577; 5.30, 327, 420–24, 439, 447, 453–55, 531, 543, 548, 551, 560–61; 6.116–21, 229, 286–87, 345, 366, 382–85.

Josephus accounts for nearly a third (8) of the first 27 attestations of διαστασιάζω, another third appearing in Dionyius of Halicarnassus, and the remainder mostly in Aristotle and Polybius (3 each). Josephus’ examples are nearly all in War (7), the other in Life 266, where the verb is cognate to the work’s profoundest theme: civil strife or stasis (see note at 4.129). I render “factional strife” here because the problem is within one party to the larger civil war. But see 4.345–53, where the Idumeans have departed en masse (under their 4 commanders) and the note to “homeward from Hierosolyma” at 4.353. It appears from the present passage that a significant rump force has remained with the Disciples, to defect now from John’s leadership, though Idumeans will later appear formed up under their commanders in alliance with Simon (5.249). Simon’s herding of the Idumean population into Jerusalem at 4.556–57 (see notes) does not seem relevant here, since Josephus is referring to an Idumean force that has hitherto supported John. Whereas Judeans might simply recoil at the savagery of John and his men, Josephus’ somewhat incongruous addition of envy (they hate his violence, but wish that they had the power to inflict it?) perhaps results from his earlier portraits of the Idumeans as a violent ethnos, which has wreaked havoc in Jerusalem with its ruthless murders (4.231–35, 310–18). It would make little sense now to present them as squeamish about killing, even though Josephus has also described the whole body of Idumeans as leaving in disgust at the violence created by the Disciples (4.345)—the idea there being, it seems, that although Idumeans are ever-ready to use their swords, they were duped into doing so on false pretenses.

At 5.250–51, Josephus gives the number of surviving Disciples as 2,400, not counting John’s 6,000 other followers. Nearly all of Josephus’ population numbers are implausibly high and should often be divided by 10, sometimes 100, for a realistic figure. See next note. Graptē is a Greek name, like Helena but unlike the male Adiabenian names Monobazus and Iza(tes); Marciak 2017: 322–23. She is an otherwise unknown member of the Adiabenian royal family. Given the locations of the other Adiabenian palaces (next note), it seems likely that Graptē’s was also on the prominent S approach to the temple mount, within a o.5 km (0.33 mi) of the grand staircase. Since the Idumeans are about to eject the Disciples from that place (2.568), it is not clear why they take them there first. Perhaps this palace (likely with strong walls and towers) was known to be John’s stronghold, and so was a logical place both for the Disciples to flee and for the Idumeans to concentrate them temporarily. Then the Idumeans think better of this, when they see the riches stored there and want them for themselves, so decide to move the Disciples on (4.160–72). Or perhaps, having broken with John because of his tyrannical behavior, evidenced by his amassing a private fortune for himself, they force the still-loyal Disciples to see the place for themselves before herding them back in their temple headquarters.

The royal family of Adiabene (likely orig. Ḥadyab; Marciak 2017: 313) play a noteworthy background role in Josephus’ two histories (Marciak 2014), though he focuses on them only in Ant. 20.17–96. There he relates how Queen Helena, sister and wife to King Monobazus i, followed by her younger son Izates ii (as written elsewhere, 38 times; here genitive Ἰζᾶ in most mss, though pa have Αἰζά and Latin Sizae), and finally her older son Monobazus ii, embrace Judean law, abandoning their ancestral traditions and thus incurring the potentially lethal wrath of Adiabenian nobles (20.76, 81). This shift of allegiance is closer to what we would call a change of citizenship than a “religious conversion” (language not then available). Confirming her adoption of foreign ways, the queen goes to visit her new homeland (20.49–53) and spends a fortune supplying Jerusalem with food during a famine. She builds monumental structures at the city’s N end (5.55, 147), including a world-famous burial chamber under three pyramids (20.92–96). When her son Izates comes to power, he sends his 5 sons to be educated in Jerusalem and learn its traditions and languages (20.71). It seems that these boys, now young men, are the Adiabenian royals take a prominent role in the early actions against the Roman legate in late 66 ce (War 2.520; cf. 2.388), though they are merely identified as relatives of the now-ruling King Monobazus ii. They are also apparently among the Adiabenian hostages Titus takes to Rome after the conflict (6.357). Queen Helena’s royal precinct was S of the city on the E hill (5.253). On circumstantial grounds, Ben-Ami and Tchekhanovets (2011) believe they found remains of it in the area of the Givati parking lot, about 300 m (1,000 ft) S of the temple mount, though the archaeology so far makes no clear connection with the queen. Josephus also mentions a palace belonging to the current Adiabenian king, Monobazus ii, E of the Siloam Pool in the S. His incidental mention of these two sites, merely as landmarks while he is describing areas of the city later held by John and Simon, highlights the extent of our ignorance about the structures in Jerusalem at this time. It is curious that Graptē should be described as related to the king Izates (ruled ca. 30–54 ce; Marciak 2017: 358), since Josephus correctly names Monobazus ii as Adiabenian king at the time of the revolt (2.520; 5.252–53). If Graptē was a relative of Izates i or ii, she was presumably also a relative of the present king, so why not describe her that way? Josephus’ choice of words might suggest that she was closer to Izates ii—or perhaps an aunt or grandmother (e.g., wife of Izates i [cf. War 5.147], therefore mother of Monobazus I and Helena?)—than to the present ruler. See note at 4.203 for the unusual verb. For the temple as the Disciples’ stronghold see 4.16–72.

Josephus’ account makes John out to be the embodiment of tyranny, the traits of which were well understood (Herodotus 3.80; Josephus, Ant. 5.234, 339). Though claiming to be a Judean champion against Roman oppression (4.121–27), and having wormed his way into leadership of the Disciples in the temple, he has been stashing private lucre in this palace, away from the eyes of his group. It is even possible that we should understand the Idumeans’ forcing the Disciples to visit this palace first as their way of exposing John’s luxurious tyranny to those who have remained his followers as the Idumeans have become fed up.

Josephus appears to mean that the Idumeans’ “concerted assault” (if that is the sense of συμβαλόντες, 4.567) encompassed only those Disciples who were already together, who were driven first to Graptē’s palace, then (back?) to the temple. Now, it appears, he is speaking of the many Disciples who have been living around the city and are not part of the preceding action: they also now flee to join their comrades in the temple, for safety in the face of the sudden Idumean threat. Having massed in their full complement (see previous note), the Disciples remaining under John find themselves in the best position for a counterstrike: against the Idumeans for having so suddenly moved against them, and against the populace because—in Josephus’ telling—they habitually mistreat them. “Lead them down” because the temple platform sat higher in elevation than the Upper and Lower Cities (4.189, 205, 304; 5.194–97).

The eagerness of Idumeans to fight is a theme of this volume and the reason for their presence in Jerusalem: John and the Disciples invited them in as the only force that could remove Jerusalem’s established leaders and the popular army under Ananus (4.224, 228, 231). Josephus’ observation about Idumean psychology matches that of soldiers ever since. They may feel better trained and equipped than the enemy, but they will be wary of a highly motivated, desperate enemy with nothing to lose, as such people take enormous risks to kill the enemy. The Imperial Japanese banzai charge (with bayonets fixed even on bamboo poles, the bandaged wounded following after the fit, against the overwhelming firepower of advancing U.S. forces) is one example, most famously the gyokusai charge on Saipan island, 7–8 July 1944. Although nearly all of the more than 4,000 Japanese attackers died in the attack, they terrified many American soldiers and inflicted some 900 casualties (killed and wounded) on their better resourced enemy; Goldberg 2007: 173–74. The martially skilled Idumeans have no fears in facing their Disciple hosts in open conflict (after all, the invitation to Jerusalem showed that the Idumeans were far superior fighters), but realize that such desperate men might engage in ambushes, night-time assassinations, or indeed arson. The double-compound verb παρεισδύνω, hapax in Josephus, is also rare elsewhere with only 16 attestations before him and a quarter of those in fragments. Philo (Spec. 3.88), again perhaps Josephus’ inspiration, uses this verb when speaking of impious men sneaking their way into a temple for asylum and the need to eject and execute them.

Given that some former high priests remain alive (6.114), Josephus might be referring to them rather than the larger chief-priestly circle (see 4.160 and note), except that the Matthias who facilitates Simon’s entry (4.574) does not seem to have held high-priestly office. The audience might reasonably assume that all the “chief priests” and the city’s elite have been wiped out by now—by the Idumeans (4.315, 327–33 [12,000 nobles killed]). A number of chief priests will remain, however, well into the next year’s siege, their number including former high priests (6.114–15). Their survival to this point suggests one or more of the following: Josephus’ description of the terror above was exaggerated; these men sided with the Disciples until a later period; or they found a way of reconciling their mental opposition to John and the Disciples with the appearance of support, for the sake of survival and/or hoping to steer them toward a safer path as Ananus had attempted to do (4.321), from a duty not to abandon Jerusalem. This sentence highlights the tragic irony of the story. The Idumeans, having been invited by the Disciples to remove the chief-priestly leaders and their citizen force, and having obliged their hosts without reservation in a killing spree directed against the priestly and other aristocrats of the city, now turn on the Disciples. There is poetic justice in their becoming the principal agent for making common cause with the surviving remnant of the chief-priestly circles they had tried to exterminate—and summoning Simon, the most dangerous tyrant of all (already 4.576). The literary effect is a downward spiral of futility and doom. Once the proper leaders (the wise and moderate Ananus, Jesus, and Gorion among others, who truly loved the city and its people) have been removed, things can only go from bad to worse, each desperate remedy only intensifying the sense of catastrophe.

This construction (θεὸς δὲ ἄρα [τὰς γνώμας αὐτῶν εἰς κακὸν ἔτρεψε]), indicating divine supervision of human affairs in anticipation of the full development of that theme in Antiquities, is characteristic of Josephus and War. See note to “work of God” at 4.104. The phrase (τὸ πρὸς σωτηρίαν φάρμακον) has tragic associations. It is how the blind prophet Teiresias described the awful cure for the curse on Thebes in Euripides’ Phoenician Women (893): sacrificing King Creon’s young son. See note to “medicines” at 4.481. Simon is apparently still installed just outside the walls of Jerusalem (4.564). So the messengers do not have far to go to welcome him inside. The universal sign of supplication, especially vis-à-vis a stronger military force; see 4.553 and note. It is not clear whether Josephus here means a literal welcome with olive branches or whether he is speaking metaphorically, of the absurdity of actually welcoming such a savage tyrant, whom they had so long tried to keep out, into the holy city. This is a decisive moment in the narrative, with the second main tyrant about to join the first, John, thus embedding the civil strife (stasis) that will cause Jerusalem’s destruction (1.10–11). Both men have regularly been called tyrants (4.558, 564 and notes). From now on they will be locked in head-on conflict within the confines of Jerusalem’s walls.

Although the verb περαίνω has abundant classical attestation (hundreds of occurrences in Aristotle alone), it fades from usage in the Hellenistic period (Polybius 4, Diodorus 1, Strabo 2, Philo 5) before returning to popularity with Plutarch (130 cases; the Atticizing Dionysius has it 24 times). This is its only appearance in War, though Ant. 16–19 provide 4 instances. Possibly “high priest” (cf. 4.160 and note), depending on his identity. This Matthias is an elusive figure. Near the end of Ant. 20 Josephus remarks that the serving high priest when the war began (in our 66 ce) was Matthias son of Theophilus (20.223). That man’s father, Theophilus, appears to be the one to whom L. Vitellius (legate in Syria) gave the high priesthood in 37 ce, taking it from his brother Jonathan (Ant. 18.123). When Josephus mentions that King Agrippa i replaced that Theophilus with another high priest (ca. 41 ce), he remarks that Theophilus was a son of Ananus (Annas) i, the hugely influential high priest from 6 to 15 ce (Ant. 18.26, 34), during the first years of Judea’s incorporation into Syria. Josephus elsewhere notes that Ananus had 5 sons who would reach the high priesthood (20.198). That number would include Theophilus, which means that the Matthias of 66, a son of Theophilus and Ananus in the two preceding generations, came from a highly distinguished family. But that Matthias, the serving high priest as the revolt began to take shape in 66, is no longer high priest in 69 ce. Josephus has recounted (4.155–57) the Disciples’ scandalous appointment of a non-traditional high priest (Phanni), whom he will nevertheless reluctantly recognize in Ant. 20.227 as the last holder of the office, counting him as the 83rd from Aaron. See note to “lot” at 4.153. Is the present Matthias the former high priest of 66? It would seem not, for Josephus will later relate that Simon turned on the Matthias who had arranged his entry into Jerusalem (this man), forcing him to watch while 3 of his sons were killed before his eyes before executing him. This Matthias is, however, the son of Boethus and “from among the chief priests”—indicating the other main line of high priests alongside descendants of Ananus i (5.527–31); cf. Smallwood 1962: 15–16. Josephus also says there that Matthias had 4 sons, but the 4th avoided execution by having escaped to Titus beforehand (5.530). Finally, at 6.113–14, after a speech by Josephus, various members of the elite escape to the Romans, including both high priests and sons of high priests (6.114: ἀρχιερεῖς μὲν … υἱοὶ δὲ ἀρχιερέων). The first group includes known former serving high priests, Joseph Cabi and Jesus son of Damneus, the second 4 “sons of Matthias” and 1 son of “a different Matthias”. The remaining son of the Matthias killed by Simon is among those who now flee to Titus after Josephus’ speech; he only ran away after his father’s murder—presumably not to Titus but into hiding in Jerusalem. Evidently, Josephus is confused about the particulars. But at least he seems to know two contemporary men named Matthias among the chief priests, both from distinguished families, one (who served in 66) a son of Theophilus and grandson of Ananus i, the other (here) who admitted Simon but would die with 3 sons at Simon’s hands, the exact fate of the fourth son misremembered (Smallwood 1962: 15 n. 2). Since this Matthias is not mentioned by Josephus in Ant. 20, it seems that he did not attain the high priesthood but remained a prominent scion of Boethus. Simon, installed outside one of the gates (4.564), was presumably expected not to kill such a recognizable member of the city’s elite, who may have been carrying actual olive branches. Cf. 4.537–38, 540–44, 564. The anti-Disciple (and anti-John) coalition in the city thus comprises: remaining Idumeans, until recently crucial to the Disciples’ strength; the surviving chief priests, who remain prime targets of the Disciples-Idumeans coalition, and have survived until now either by concealment of themselves or by genuinely supporting the Disciples until now; and the many people who feel vulnerable to the Disciples and have been trying unsuccessfully to flee (4.559–65). Recalling the depredations of 4.560.

Or “Savior and Guardian,” a highly sarcastic σωτὴρ … καὶ κηδεμών. The more usual pair in literature and inscriptions is “savior and benefactor” (σωτὴρ καὶ εὐεργέτης)—8 times in Josephus (1.530; 3.459; 4.146; 7.71; Ant. 11.278; 12.261; Life 244, 259)—titles often sincerely bestowed on one who rescues a city and provides funds for its renewal (cf. Polybius 9.36.5; 18.13.10; cil 1.728). The adjustment here (as in Plutarch, Cato min. 64.1) emphasizes the more urgent need of a Guardian / Protector against John.

The man brought in to check John’s characteristic drive for untrammelled δυναστεία (4.85, 559) thus turns out to be a duplicate (ἐσκόπει τὰ περὶ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ δυναστείας)—John squared—rather than a remedy. This notice entrenches the picture of Simon as a tyrant and anticipates 5.527–33, where he will turn on Matthias and those who invited him and have them executed, no longer trusting their loyalty (perhaps with good reason, since they invited him not from admiration but as the only remedy for John).

Xanthicus, the Macedonian name corresponding to Hebrew Nisan (see note to “Hyperbereteus” at 4.63), which in 69 ce ran from 11 March to 9 April, comes 2 months before Daesius (Sivan: early May to early June in 69). Therefore, in spite of Josephus’ narrative arrangement, Simon’s entry into Jerusalem comes about 6 weeks before Vespasian sets out from Caesarea in early Daesius (4.550 above). His effort to align contemporary events in Rome and Jerusalem with Vespasian’s activities often creates puzzles. His indication of the war’s 3rd year is also not as clear as it sounds. He claims elsewhere that the war began in Artemisius-Iyyar (April–May) of Nero’s 12th year in power, which ended on 12 October 66 (2.284 with Ant. 20.257; see note in bjp 1b), which would date the massacres in Caesarea and Jerusalem and defeat of Cestius’ legion from May to early October 66 (2.430–555). If the trigger events occurred in late spring or summer 66, the Passover season of the war’s 3rd year (here) would be at the end of that 3rd year, counting years not by any calendar but by the events that initiated “war” in late spring of our 66. If Josephus were dating the war from Vespasian’s arrival in early 67 (cf. War 7.46: “when war was declared”), Xanthicus of 69 would fall in the beginning of the 3rd year. A less likely option would reckon by Roman (solar) calendar years beginning in January 67, the year of Vespasian’s arrival. That too would put spring of the war’s 3rd year in 69. It seems most likely, however that Josephus is translating his familiar Judean calendar in a simple conversion to Macedonian names. There was no universal calendar in this period, but each polis and people followed its own (Bickerman 1980 [1968]; Samuel 1972; Hannah 2005; Stern 2012). According to Ant. 1.81, Moses’ law begins the calendar of sacred festivals in Xanthicus-Nisan but preserves “the primary/original arrangement”—apparently the autumnal new year indicated by the Mishna (m. rh 1.1), Jewish New Year today—for business and trade. Dating the war from Hyperbereteus-Tishrei (autumn) 66 would leave Xanthicus 69 half-way through the war’s 3rd year. But other calculations are possible. To accommodate the 5 years of silver coins now dated to the war (the “revolt coins”), scholars must begin from a calendar-year starting in Xanthicus-Nisan 66, to provide for a shortened 5th year (with fewer coins) running to Gorpieus Elul, the beginning of September in 70 (Mason 2016a: 475). That scheme, which is often taken to be official because of the coins, would make Xanthicus of 69 the beginning of the 4th year, and so require that Simon entered Jerusalem in Xanthicus of 68 (see note to “Idumea” at 4.515), long before other parts of the story here. So too would Kokkinos’ proposal for redating the outbreak of war (1998: 386–95). Noting that Josephus dates Cestius’ defeat to 8 Dius-Marheshvan and Nero’s 12th year (ending 12 October 66), Kokkinos argues that this date fell too late in 66 (by my calculation, ca. 15 October) to be part of Nero’s 12th year, and so must have been the 8 Dius after 13 October 65, near the beginning of Nero’s 12th year (ca. 24 October in 65 by my reckoning). That would push the earlier events recounted by Josephus (Florus’ violent raids, Agrippa ii’s expulsion from the city, the massacre of the garrison) back into Nero’s 11th year. On that reckoning, Josephus was misled by remembering a fixed “Nero’s 12th-year” date for Cestius’ notorious defeat and put everything that led to this also in Nero’s 12th year. If the war began in late spring 65, then its 4th year began in late spring 68, putting Xanthicus-Nisan 68 near the end of its 3rd year. These calculations would thus date Simon’s entry into Jerusalem around Passover 68, compressing his activity in Idumea (and the kidnapping and restoration of his wife) into the period between the murder of Ananus in winter 67–68 and the following spring, before Vespasian garrisoned Judea. That solution seems plausible in many respects, but would be hard to reconcile with Josephus’ chronological indications for Simon’s activity, according to which he enters Jerusalem around the time of Vitellius’ rise to power (April 69). Josephus, of course, had no knowledge of the scholarly calendar for dating the coins (which might reflect only the scheme adopted by the temple moneyers for reasons not known), and Kokkinos’ beginning of the war in 65 has not found wide support. Given how close 15 October was to 13 October, and given Josephus’ presence in Jerusalem throughout those early events as well as his knowledge of Roman imperial years and repeated assertion that the early events fell in Nero’s 12th year, most experts find it easier to suppose that his calculation of the date of Cestius’ defeat was off by a couple of days: it actually fell right at the beginning of Nero’s 13th year. See note this artful phrase ([Ἱεροσολύμων] ἐγκρατὴς γίνεται) at 4.252. According to War 4.515, 534, Simon had gathered 20,000 armed soldiers plus 40,000 other followers outside Jerusalem, not counting the Idumean army under its own commanders (4.521–28). At 5.248–49, Josephus will say that Simon commanded 15,000 armed soldiers in total: 10,000 of his own under 50 officers (companies of 200?) and 5,000 Idumeans under 10 commanders (of 500-strong cohorts). It is not clear how the various constituents of his following—Idumeans already inside (formerly under John) and outside, the army he raised from scratch, and other willing followers—factor in such numbers. Apparently recalling 4.568: the Disciples had been living throughout the city before the defecting Idumeans rounded them up and drove them into, or they took refuge in, the temple mount.

See note to “Jerusalem” at 4.574: the populace in general is alleged to be disaffected with John and the Disciples because of their extreme harassment, plunder, and murder. The magnificent temple colonnades (στοαί), which Herod had built when he comprehensively renovated the Second Temple, play a substantial role in the scenes described in War after Josephus mentions first mentions them (1.401). They had become a crucial means of crowd control by the auxiliary army, especially during feasts when the esplanade was crowded with pilgrims. The patrolling soldiers could watch from the colonnade roofs above. An early and vivid sign of protest was the Judeans’ temporary destruction of the connection between the Antonia fortress and the outer colonnade, which they quickly repaired (2.330–31, 403–405). Cf. 2.48–49, 224–26; 5.243–45; 6.165–92; Ant. 20.106–107. After the auxiliary is expelled, Ananus’ group take over these vantage points to surveil the Disciples in the inner temple (4.206, 298). Now the Disciples themselves control them (cf. 5.22), and their exclusive access to these heights around the perimeter of their base gives them formidable control over access from any direction.

Josephus, well aware of tactical issues from experience, has mentioned the Disciples’ elevation even when they occupied the inner temple, when Ananus and his citizen army could still reach the temple mount (4.189). Now, the Disciples occupy the entire temple compound, hence the porticoes facing the New City to the N, the Upper City to the W, and the Lower City to the S (as well as the Kidron Valley E). See 5.184–247. This suggests (in Josephus’ telling) that the Disciples valued accuracy of close targeting and the ability to bring lethal downward force on their targets over being able to lob projectiles across the city, and that the main reason for adding towers (next sentence) was to enhance targeting with force rather than mere distance.

With the initial velocity of their projectiles limited by mechanical means (no gunpowder or rocket fuel), the reach of the Disciples’ missiles was very restricted. The flatter the trajectory of a missile, the more dangerous it is (destroying anything en route to the target), whereas a non-explosive missile fired high will hit only what is directly beneath it as it falls. We have no clear idea of how powerful the firing engines available to the Disciples were. If they had Roman-engineered, torque-driven artillery, they might be able to fire 0.5 km, clear across the city to the W gate, at an angle of around 45 degrees (Marsden 1969: 174–98; Bishop and Coulston 2006: 88–90). But this would prevent effective targeting or the application of destructive high speed, whether at a low angle (for maximum destructive power) or on a specific target (the latter the reason for the elevation of pitchers’ mounds in baseball). Whether for increased distance (Stewart 2012; Belgacem 2016), velocity at a low angle, or to give spotters a better vantage point on their targets, elevating the firing point was highly advantageous. See 6.192. This NE site would allow the Disciples to strike, accurately and forcefully, anyone approaching from the N (New City) or E (via the Kidron Valley)—as long as they were visible and not already huddled against the walls. Although the Disciples appear to have control of the Antonia fortress, on the NW corner of the temple mount (2.536; 4.206, 298; 5.304), which seems to have projected N into the New City (2.330; 5.243–44), Josephus mentions no firing site on its battlements. Perhaps that is because it was too obvious, already high enough for commanding views and firing points without the need for additional towers.

See note at 2.344 in bjp 1b. This is a location of interest to Josephus. It was evidently a large park or garden on the E slope of the Upper City as it fell toward the Tyropoeon Valley, facing the temple mount to the E. King Agrippa ii gave his major speech to the gathered populace there, addressing them from the Hasmonean palace above the park. Josephus will mention the xystus again several times, at 5.144 as the terminus of the W-E wall that extended from the Hippicus Tower of Herod’s palace (near present Jaffa Gate) to the xystus and council house, from where a bridge across the valley over the present Wilson’s Arch met the western colonnade of the temple platform. Cf. 6.191 (“the [temple] gates that led to the xystus”) and 6.377. At 6.325, Titus will address rebels in the city by taking up a position where there were gates “above the xystus” and a bridge connecting the temple to the Upper City. This appears, then, to be the location of the Disciples’ missile tower. From there they could visually target assembled crowds or even small groups in transit. Thus positioned somewhere on the Royal Portico, it seems. Where there was space for a tower there is unclear (cf. Ant. 15.392–96), but it would provide an excellent vantage and firing point over the Ophel and Lower City.

Josephus uses another unusual word: παστοφόριον. The word is intelligible insofar as it means “a place for παστοφόροι,” bearers of (a) παστός. But what is that? Literally indicating something “powdered or sprinkled,” it could nevertheless refer to a bridal chamber or, as in a rare occurrence of παστοφόροι (Diodorus 1.29.4), a small shrine carried by Egyptian priests in procession. The context here would presumably suggest to Josephus’ Roman audiences a room for unexplained temple supplies. Exotic terms would be expected of someone writing about foreign places (as Diodorus) and presumably audiences could let such occasional terms pass, as we do with unfamiliar English terms. But did Josephus have a specific place in mind? Occurring only here in War (and in Ant. 11.147), παστοφόριον is attested before him exclusively in Judean literature: the Greek Bible (Isa 22:15; Jer 42:4; Ezek 40:17, 38; 1 Chron 9:26; 23:28: 26:16; 28:12; 2 Chron 31:11), the apocryphal 1 Esdras (8:58; 9:1), and 1 Maccabees (4:38, 57). It seems in these passages to refer to a temple chamber or store-room, rendering Hebrew לשׁכה. After Josephus it will appear only in 4th-cent. and later Christian authors, for the room in a church housing the objects used in worship (the sacristy). Perhaps Josephus recalled the word from the Greek Bible and expected his audience to understand that it was a quasi-technical term. An astonishing find in the excavations SW of the temple mount after 1967 was an inscription in well-cut Hebrew letters, now in the Israel Museum, reading “to the place [lit. house] of the trumpeting to announce.” It seems likely that this fragment of inscribed stone fell into the valley below the monumental staircase at Robinson’s Arch from the spot Josephus refers to (Levine 2002: 229). I.e., the onset and completion of the sabbath (shabbat), which began on Friday evening and ended on Saturday evening. See note at 4.99.

Josephus often mentions, with different names, these two main types of artillery: the kind that hurls rocks (ballista) of various sizes and the kind that fires sharpened bolts or arrows (catapulta). See note to “engines forward” at 4.17. How the Disciples secured such precision-made, torsion-driven devices, if they did, is not clear. At 2.546, 553 Josephus has described the legate Cestius Gallus’ order to keep those carried by the legion out of enemy hands as his army flees Judea—and the panicked soldiers’ disregard of his order. At 5.267–68, Simon bar Giora will try to use the artillery that his men took from Cestius (cf. 2.521) and from the fortress Antonia. Josephus remarks that Simon’s men could not do this without the help of deserters from the Roman side (cf. Cassius Dio 65/66.5.4). At 5.359 Josephus mentions an astonishing 300 bolt-throwers and 40 stone-throwers in the now competent hands of Simon, John, and the Idumeans, aimed at Titus’ Roman force. Josephus knows this 4-part assault formation from his own experience. All of the other 6 occurrences of the pair “archers and slingers” (τοξότης + σφενδονήτης) in his corpus occur in Book 3, where Josephus is defending Galilee (3.151, 168, 211, 219, 256, 285). Vespasian constructs towers outside Iotapata to give his soldiers a clear view for firing their rocks and bolts, and for their archers and slingers. Needless to say, the latter were most useful for taking out individuals, whereas the heavy sharpened bolts and rocks could attack structures and groups.

See note to this characteristic phrase (ἔνθα δὴ …) in War at 4.124. The verb μαλακίζομαι (10 times in Josephus, only 50 earlier attestations: 9 in Thucydides, 5 in Xenophon) has decidedly negative connotations for males, especially in War’s military contexts: weakness, softness, even effeminacy. See 4.43, where Vespasian rallies his soldiers after a setback at Judean hands: it is not that you are soft and they valorous (cf. 5.300, 311). Here Josephus is apparently trying to be even-handed: any force, especially Simon’s motley civilian army, would wither under such bombardment, but still they held their ground. Apparently, much farther than they would have gone without the added elevation of the high towers: the distance being an advantage in addition to that of close targeting for assassination. The sense may be that Simon’s men naturally withdrew to what they considered a safe distance but the extra reach of the devices surprised them.

Again, Josephus’ effort to keep Judean and Roman events coordinated produces a misleading compression. If Simon enters Jerusalem in Xathnicus-Nisan (ending 9 April), and Vitellius enters Rome in mid-June or even early July (see note to “force” at 4.549), nearly 3 months separate the arrivals of these two tyrants in the respective cities.

Vitellius took about 6 months, from his acceptance of acclamation as imperator by the German legions at the beginning of January until the end of June or early July, to reach Rome with his army, though he had been proclaimed imperator and princeps by the Senate on 19 April, once they received word of Otho’s death (following the first battle of Bedriacum / Cremona) on 16 April: Murison 1979: 194–97; 1993: 91–119. See note to this unusual verb at 4.71. Vitellius had marched to Rome from the 2 German provinces, via S Gaul with 4 full legions (i Italica, v Alaudae, xxi Rapax, xxii Primigenia) and large vexillations from 4 others (i Germanica, iiii Macedonica, xv Primigenia, xvi Gallica), plus 8,000 men drawn from 3 legions in Britain (ii Augusta, ix Hispana, xx Valeria Victrix) and 34 auxiliary cohorts (Tacitus, Hist. 1.61 with 2.89). Nicols (1978: 158) calculates 75,000 in total, an even more skeptical Murison (1993: 85) about 66,000. It is not clear which group Josephus dismisses as the horde that accompanied the soldiery (ἅμα τῷ στρατιωτικῷ πολὺ πλῆθος ἐπισυρόμενος ἕτερον). The next sentences imply that they are armed too, but not Romans as in the legions (most of these perhaps Germans with Roman citizenship recruited in the province). By longstanding and grave (albeit changeable) tradition, Roman commanders lost their authority to command (imperium) when they crossed Rome’s sacred boundary (pomerium), and armed soldiers had to remain outside. The camp of the Praetorian Guard was therefore built outside the city walls, and the traditional site for military training, the recruiting of legions in republican times, or convening the militarily organized comitia centuriata, was the Field of Mars (Campus Martius) just N of the city. See Koortbojian 2020. That symbolic boundary also defined the space where auspices could be taken and within which only Roman gods could be worshiped (Oliver 1932). Marked out at intervals by embedded cut stones (cippi) that could stand nearly 2 m (over 6 ft) high, the pomerium was not identical with the city walls and had no defensive value; it was occasionally expanded (as by Claudius and Vespasian), notionally reflecting the expansion of Rome’s imperial territory (see Armellini 2021 on the recent discovery of a Claudian cippus). Rome was normally free of armed soldiers (previous note). The scene described by Josephus recalls the horrors of civil war under Sulla, who brazenly entered Rome with 6 legions (over 30,000 soldiers) to defeat Marius in 88 bce (Plutarch, Sull. 9), and under Julius Caesar, whose second dictatorship (from 48 bce) permitted him to exercise military command within the pomerium (Koortbojian 2020: 22–25). The added scandal of Vitellius’ army is that it contains thousands of non-citizen auxiliary soldiers recruited in Germany and Gaul of varied ethnicity (Tacitus, Hist. 2.89), whom Josephus can present as ignorant of Rome’s wealth and standards of civilization.

A colorful exaggeration, making vivid the contrast between the provincial lives of these soldiers and Rome’s riches. Of the first 30 attestations of περιλάμπω, Philo (with 11) and Josephus (with 5) account for more than half. Philo is Josephus’ most likely inspiration for this characteristic verb. This image of violent provincials indulging their every desire (τὰς ἐπιθυμίας μόλις κατεῖχον) in a capital helps Josephus to parallel Vitellius’ German legions in Rome with John’s Galileans in Jerusalem (πάντα ἐπιτρέπων δρᾶν ὧν ἕκαστος ἐπεθύμει) at 4.559. This picture of insatiable greed, robbery of the wealthy, and cold-blooded murder of those who stood in the way will dominate Josephus’ portrait of the militant factions in Books 5 and 6, but it is already clear in this volume’s portraits of the Disciples, Idumeans, and followers of Simon, as of people he calls “bandits” in general: 4.133–46, 162, 168, 260, 401–409, 560–65.

See note at 4.494. This appears to be a doublet caused by narrative compression. In 4.545–50 Josephus describes the Roman civil war and Otho’s death (16 April 69), which brought Vitellius to Rome. Thus, Vespasian seems to have departed from Caesarea ca. mid-May 69. Since that was a month after Vitellius’ accession, it makes sense as Vespasian’s reaction: whereas he was willing to serve under Galba, and waited to see whether the Flavian-friendly Otho would prevail over Vitellius, when he heard of the latter’s accession he no longer felt it necessary to await orders. It cannot be that after further weeks or months of campaigning around Judea, he learned of Vitellius’ rise only now on returning to Caesarea (ca. 1 July?). It is possible that he returned to Caesarea in mid- to late July and indeed heard about the arrival of Vitellius’ German legions in the capital, and that Vitellius’ presence in Rome, confirming his hold on power, hardened Vespasian’s animosity.

Cf. the centurion in the gospels (Luke 7:8): “I am also a man ranked under authority, having soldiers below me in turn.” Vespasian was willing to serve Galba, who came to power with a degree of legitimacy after Nero’s suicide (someone had to rule, and he was a powerful nobleman), but he has waited out the contest between Otho and Vitellius. Now that Vitellius (who initially rose against Galba) has prevailed, Vitellius apparently considers the civil war over. It was the western empire’s response to Nero’s last years and Galba’s rise, and exhausted itself with Otho’s suicide in April 69. Now that he has n0 known enemies left, Vitellius’ coins energetically proclaim harmony, concord, and the consensus of the Roman people and their armies. Cf. coins in the British Museum: bm R.6585 (aureus), bm 2011,4133.1 (silver), and bm 1872,0709.466, 1950,1006.972, 1964,0401.4, R.10275 (bronzes). As Tacitus (1.2 [who mentions three distinct civil wars]; 2.74 [Vespasian contemplates war]) and Suetonius (Vesp. 7.1: suscepto … ciuili bello) recognize, Vespasian was contemplating a new civil war, launched from the East. Since initiating civil war (as distinct from ending it as Augustus had done) was considered reprehensible, Flavian propaganda portrayed Vitellius as not merely incompetent but on the verge of destroying the empire, while it made righteous Flavian success in a “foreign” (Judean) war the basis of their claim to power. The picture is that, while grasping western governors were shamefully contending for power, Vespasian was fighting Rome’s foreign enemies on behalf of the whole people. Only he, therefore, had the moral and military standing to set the empire on a safe course again. On various aspects of Flavian ideology see Boyle and Dominik 2003; Zissos 2016. The verb καταμαίνομαι is extremely rare. Philo, Flac. 170—a repentant Flaccus admits his mad designs against the Judeans—is the first attestation, this passage in Josephus the next. Philo is Josephus’ likely influence; he will use the verb again only of John of Gischala’s impiety and injustice (7.264), confirming the link in his thinking between the Judean and Roman tyrants of 69 ce. Or “as though a desert” (ὡς ἐρήμου). The idea seems to be: as though the Roman imperium were barren of no traditions or values, up for grabs because no one cares and able to be molded by any usurper.

See note to this key thematic word at 4.31. See note to this formulaic expression at 5.12 (“not able to”). Josephus uses an extremely rare double-compound here (προσευσχολέω). This is the first attestation in Greek literature. Though he uses it again at Ant. 4.591, it will not appear thereafter until the 10th cent. Cf. Tacitus (Hist. 1.79): “with minds focused on the civil war, external [wars] were regarded without concern,” an observation that prompts him to comment on those that took advantage of Rome’s crisis to encroach on imperial frontiers.

The distance by ship from Caesarea to Rome was daunting, ca. 2,740–3,070 km (1,700–1,900 mi), depending on the sea route taken and requiring 3–4 weeks (fastest in winter according to orbis). But Vespasian, his officers, and his legions were in Judea because these trips were possible in all seasons. On fortune’s unpredictability and tendency toward reversal, a central theme in War as in Polybius’ history (one of Josephus’ models), see note at 4.40. The most obvious reversal of fortune on a long journey, especially if one had a military force to preclude assault, was shipwreck. This was common enough that Paul claims to have experienced it 3 times, once being in the water overnight (2 Cor 11:25), even before his famous catastrophe at sea (Acts 27). Josephus’ pre-war journey to Rome faced similar travails (Life 15–16; see notes in bjp 9). But since fortune’s reversals at sea were part of life, it is odd that Josephus would make them a reason for this brave commander not to act. Vespasian’s real concern, in Josephus’ narrative, is his preference for the safety of private life. Given the fates of Nero, Galba, and Otho in the past year or so, that was entirely reasonable, though it does little to support a heroic image. See note at 4.499: April to September was reckoned the safest period for sailing, with a 2-month band before and after for riskier but still common trips. Sailing in November to January was possible, though riskier and undertaken when the need was urgent. It was by no means unthinkable. Titus and Agrippa had sailed in the heart of winter of 68–69 to greet Galba as emperor (4.499). When Nero commissioned Vespasian for the Judean campaign, it had been winter. He hastened overland without delay or evident concern, even as he sent Titus by sea to collect the Fifteenth Legion from Alexandria and march it into Syria (3.8, 64). The puzzle here is that, whether we date the present episode to the spring of 69 (4.577) or to the arrival of Vitellius’ troops in Rome ca. 1 July (4.585), it is either the beginning or the heart of the best sailing weather, and nowhere near winter. Contrast the resolve of Vitellius’ German troops, who begin their bold move in early January (Tacitus, Hist. 1.62): “Neither winter nor delaying for a coward’s peace can stop us. We must invade Italy and occupy the city. In cases of civil conflict, in which deeds take priority over deliberations, nothing is safer than haste.” They did not face sea travel, to be sure, but a winter march through mud and rain and the snow-covered Alps was also a daunting and dangerous prospect (Hist. 1.70). H-G save Vespasian’s honor by explaining (ad loc.) that “presumably it would take months to organize troops to invade Italy, and he could not envisage setting off before the late autumn.” But this would not explain (a) Vespasian’s separate concerns about distance and the tricks Fortune could play in such a long trip, (b) the several examples of sailing in winter when necessary, (c) why Vespasian’s fury should be stifled in the summer (he could at least begin planning an expedition the following spring), or especially (d) the fact that Flavian armies will in fact be in Italy, without their main commander, by autumn 69. In Josephus’ account, the decisive question is neither geography nor calendar season but Vespasian’s reluctant frame of mind, plagued by fear (4.602). His resolve to remain a private citizen falters only when he faces the more immediate danger of blades at his neck (4.601–604, 631–33). Having then decided that there was no way out but through, he springs into action—seemingly forgetting the hazards of “winter” travel, distance, or Fortune’s tricks, though he will personally remain aloof. Mucianus will take the army overland, reportedly to avoid sailing in the alleged “peak of winter” (4.632)—in August / September. This is the only occurrence of σφαδᾴζω in Josephus. It is a vivid word for the extreme stress that a bucking horse causes its rider: chafing, unease, restlessness, excitement. Although its first attestations are in the famous tragedians (Aeschylus 1, Euripides 2, Sophocles 1), and it turns up once each in Xenophon and Polybius, of only 27 attestations before Josephus more than half (15) are in Philo, his most likely influence.

Especially when taken with 4.601 below, the phrase καθ ̓ ἑταιρίαν here suggests informal—and therefore unguarded, open—talk among fellow-soldiers, i.e. when not under the discipline and decorum that obtained on duty. Or “upheaval, change, mutation” (μεταβολή). This is not usually a positive term in Josephus, if the upheaval is engineered by mortals (as distinct from Fortune, Fate, or God), because it means turmoil or revolution. Like Polybius (with 76 occurrences of the noun), he most often uses the word to refer to fortune’s inscrutable reversals, which are a part of life that both statesmen and generals must prepare for; see 4.40–42. Leaders need to find ways of handling unpleasant changes, as wise Judeans do by recognizing God’s ultimate control, and not add to the turmoil by losing their heads. It is hard to see virtue in this portrait of Vespasian’s troops. They appear simply envious of what they consider lesser armies from the West having successfully launched a coup and enriched themselves. Vespasian’s men, citing their superiority, demand their share even if this means further upheavals or reversals rocking the empire. It is easier to read this as inter-service ridicule (today especially common among combat infantry toward air forces, navies, and logistical corps) than as a sober assessment of relative risk. Contrast Suetonius, Vesp. 6.4—Vitellius motivated his German troops by promising them a safer and more secure service (securiorem mollioremque militiam) in the East—and Tacitus, Hist. 5.1: many ambitious Romans and Italians volunteered for service with Titus in order to win his confidence before he returned to high office, evidently not expecting their lives to be in great peril. The relative safety of the Judean campaign as a path to glory, comprising mainly the burning of empty villages and killing defenceless stragglers, resulted in part from the risk-averse tactics adopted by Vespasian and Titus (Mason 2016a: passim)—in spite of the later Flavian claim, taken over by Josephus for his own reasons, that this was the greatest conflict ever (War 1.1–8). Vitellius’ forces, in contrast to Vespasian’s, had fought fierce and costly battles against legions of comparable training, the death toll at Bedriacum-Cremona (April 69) being so high that Otho took his own life so as to end the bloodshed among fellow-Romans (Tacitus, Hist. 2.46–51; Suetonius, Oth. 9–11). Dio’s figure of 80,000 dead (63/64.10.3) must be a considerable exaggeration, exceeding Murison’s estimate (1993: 86) of the total number of forces in play. But the carnage was huge, likely far greater than Roman losses in Vespasian’s plodding Sitzkrieg chasing Judean irregulars, who never faced legions in pitched battle. The highest Roman casualties in Judea before the siege of Jerusalem apparently occurred before Vespasian arrived, in the events that brought him to the region: the massacre of Jerusalem’s auxiliary garrison and the ambush of Cestius Gallus’ Twelfth Legion (2.450–54, 555). See note at 4.494. Or “bribes.” The reference is to the mainly western armies that have put Galba, Otho, and now Vitellius in power, in rapid succession. The phrase “in hope of profits” (πρὸς ἐλπίδα λημμάτων) recalls Josephus’ programmatic remark in the prologue (1.5), anticipating these Roman civil wars and this passage, that “the military were enamored of reversal in hope of profits” (τὰ στρατιωτικὰ δὲ ἤρα μεταβολῆς ἐλπίδι λημμάτων). The parallel is strengthened by the rarity of λῆμμα in Josephus: only here and at 1.289 outside the prologue in War. Josephus assumes common knowledge in Rome that new emperors kept their armies (particularly the Praetorians nearby) loyal with large bonuses. Plutarch (Galb. 1.6) remarks likewise that the upheavals of 69 were caused less by the ambition of the top men than by the avarice of the soldiery. Greed from change might be satisfied straightforwardly by an imperial donative, as was promised on Galba’s behalf by the renegate Praetorian Prefect Nymphidius. But since a huge promise could be impossible to honor, as it was for Galba (Plutarch, Galb. 2; Suetonius, Galb. 16; Tacitus, Hist. 1.5), the prizes might rather come from the pillaging of a rich city such as Cremona, as for Antonius Primus’ army in October 69 (Tacitus, Hist. 3.30–34).

Since these men had been in Judea only 2 years, they may be speaking of their whole time in hard service, possibly going back 10 or 20 years.

I.e., Vespasian’s care for his army, which Josephus has confirmed throughout this volume in his provision of ample rest and not subjecting them to needless danger: 3.411–13; 4.11, 88–89, 373, 661.

This would be a doubtful (if typical) boast if they had in mind only their service in Judea; see note to “rumor of war” at 4.592. All of Vespasian’s legions had seen service under Caesennius Paetus and/or Corbulo, or been entrusted with holding the Euphrates on the frontier with Parthia (see notes at 4.13). They might well have seen themselves as the empire’s crucial defenders against Rome’s most serious potential enemy to the East. I.e., Vespasian’s soldiers boast that they could take Vitellius’ legions in a fight.

Vitellius attracts the only two occurrences (cf. 4.652) of the noun λαγνεία in Josephus. This is a sexually graphic word (“semen, male intercourse”) used metaphorically for reckless power-lust. Aside from the Hippocratic (23) and Aristotelian corpora (9), which account for most examples before Josephus, the significant users are Xenophon (6) and Philo (13, plus 6 uses of the rare adjective λάγνος). Given Philo’s moralising use of the term (Opif. 97; Her. 109; Somn. 1.88 esp. 2.147; Abr. 133; Legat. 14) and his extensive parallels with Josephus’ diction, he is a likely influence. Tyranny is a highly charged theme in War; see note to “tyrant’s home” at 4.151 and War 1.10 with commentary in bjp 1a. Although τύραννος began life as a neutral term for a strong ruler, it came to be seen as a degenerate form of benevolent kingship or monarchy. The distinguishing characteristics of a tyrant are lawlessness, brutality if needed, and the pursuit of personal power without concern for the common welfare. Thus at 2.86, the late King Herod is accused of having been no true king but rather the most savage tyrant (οὐ βασιλέα λέγοντες ἀλλὰ τῶν πώποτε τυραννησάντων ὠμότατον ἐνηνοχέναι τύραννον). Cf. Polybius 9.23.2; 21.34.1; 4 Macc 4.25; 7.27; 9.30; 18.20. The virtues of the ideal sole ruler, free of tyranny, shine hopefully through Seneca’s On Clemency (for Nero) and Pliny’s Panegyric (for Trajan). The mss read ὑπεροχάς (“prominence[s], eminence[s], towering status”) and the Latin translation supports that with praestantiam (“excellence”). The Greek noun could nearly make sense: after mentioning Vespasian’s excellence, Josephus’ soldiers mean that having a truly outstanding ruler is the best recipe for peace. But this noun has more to do with conspicuousness, excess, or simply being on top than with moral excellence. Moreover, the sentence includes the adjective γνησίους (“lawful, natural, legitimate …”), which suggests heirs, and that suits the emphasis on Titus and Domitian, over against Vitellius’ childlessness. For these reasons, Niese (followed by most editors) prints Bekker’s conjecture of διαδοχάς (“succession lines”), though the sentence remains awkward: Josephus uses the masculine accusative form of the adjective rather than the feminine γνησίας. A curious turn of phrase for Romans, accepting that—in spite of Rome’s principled rejection of kingship, which Josephus supports (Ant. 6.35–42), and the aim of emperors from at least Augustus to Claudius to stress their republican virtues—Rome’s emperors were de facto kings, or like them in requiring heirs to the throne. The soldiers’ claim also flies in the face of a central critique of hereditary succession, voiced by Josephus (Ant. 6.33–34), that children are not like their parents, and so even a virtuous ruler is unlikely to have an equally virtuous successor. Josephus usually calls emperors by some other name, the equivalent of imperator, ruler, or master. Kings are easterners such as Herod and his sons and Rome’s regional allies. But it was not uncommon for easterners to call emperors kings, and by the second century it was common (Ps-Aristides, On Kingship; Cassius Dio 52.14–40, advising monarchy “without the odium that attaches to the name ‘king’”). The soldiers do not quite call the emperor a king, but make his position analogous in terms of succession: on that issue, see Mason 2009a, 2012.

Born 17 November 9 ce (Suetonius, Vesp. 2.1), Vespasian is now 59. He has commanded the Legio ii Augusta in Britain, achieving great success for Claudius (42–47 ce), held the consulship (52), and been proconsul of Africa (62–63) before the Judean campaign (Levick 1999: xx). Born 30 December 39 ce (Suetonius, Tit. 1), Titus is now 29. His military achievements before Judea, sometimes exaggerated by Flavian tradition, were as a military tribune en route to a senatorial career, in Upper Germany and Britain, in the late 50s or early 60s (Jones 1984: 14–17).

Vespasian’s current army (69 ce) is the one he began with on arrival in Judea 2 years earlier: see note to “legions” at 4.13. The main summary is at 3.64–69: he has the legions v Macedonica, x Fretensis, and xv Apollinaris, plus 23 auxiliary infantry cohorts from Syria (the 5 based in Caesarea plus 18 from the N), some of 1,000 men, some of 600 + 120 cavalry; 6 cavalry wings (perhaps 480 each) also from Syria’s auxiliary; 3,000 soldiers each from the kings of Commagene (Antiochus), NE Judaea (Agrippa ii), and Emesa (mod. Homs: King Sohemus), and 1,500 from the Nabatean king, Malichus. The most promising legions E of Rome who would not be beholden to Vitellius are those in Syria under Vespasian’s fellow-plotter Mucianus (iii Gallica, iiii Scythica, vi Ferrata, xii Fulminata), the 2 outside Alexandria, Egypt (iii Cyrenaica, xxii Deiotariana), which will declare early for Vespasian under the Prefect Tiberius Iulius Alexander, those on the Danube that had supported Otho but were unable to save him from Vitellius at Bedriacum-Cremona in April 69 (iii Gallica, vii Claudia pia fidelis, viii Augusta), and those otherwise sympathetic to Vespasian over Vitellius (Legio vii Galbiana, commanded by Antonius Primus, and xiii Gemina, defeated at Bedriacum). See Tacitus Hist. 2.85–86 with Morgan 2006: 294–99. These already amount to 14 legions, nearly half of the 30 in the whole empire, therefore a highly promising hand. See further note to “Pannonia” at 4.619 below. Mss pal read συνετηρήσαμεν, which (as a first-person plural aorist) would both break the pattern of indirect speech (not impossible) and yield an unexpected sense (“closely observed”?). Mss mvrc have the future infinitive of συνέργω, which both maintains the indirect speech and yields a better sense. The mistaken verb reappears in its expected sense at 4.600 (“stood with him as protectors”).

Josephus’ decision not to name these eminent Flavians and his casual mention of them later (4.645–46) respect his Flavian audience’s intelligence, in not spelling out what is obvious. Contrast his habitual naming and brief identification of figures in Judea. Vespasian’s older brother took their tax-collector / money-lender father’s name, T. Flavius Sabinus, as Titus would take Vespasian’s. Sabinus’ career is not nearly as well attested as Vespasian’s. Dio (60.20.3) incidentally mentions that he supported Vespasian in Britain in 43 ce. Levick (1999: 22) proposes: quaestor in 34, praetor in 37 (which made him eligible to command a legion in Britain), consul in 47, provincial legate to Moesia from 53 to 60; Prefect of the City of Rome from 61 to 69. Tacitus’ obituary (Hist. 3.75) credits him with 35 years of service to Rome (beginning with his quaestorship in 34 ce), with 7 years governing Moesia and with 12 years as Prefect of the City, which Levick’s overview treats as a mistake. Since one had to be at least 25 to serve as quaestor (Talbert 1984: 17–18), Sabinus must have been born no later than 9 ce, and since that was Vespasian’s birth year, his own birth must have been in 8 ce or earlier. Plebeians such as he were usually given a first consulship in the age range of 38 to 42 (Talbert 1984: 20–21), which suggests a birth year of 5–8 ce. This would put Sabinius in his early 60s during 69 ce. Tacitus mentions his advanced age and weakness (Hist. 3.65, 70). Nicols (1978: 26–30), however, shifts the consulship and governorship 3 years earlier and thus accommodates Tacitus’ claim that he served 12 years as Prefect of the City. Noting Tacitus’ remark that Otho’s soldiers reinstated Sabinus, who had been Nero’s appointment as Urban Prefect, after a hiatus for Galba’s man (Hist. 1.46), Nicols breaks the 12 years as Urban Prefect into 3 terms. He has Vespasian’s brother born in 3 ce, member of the pre-senatorial XXvir in 21, legionary tribune (laticlavius) in 23–26, quaestor in 28, aedile or tribune of the plebs in 31, praetor in 33, legionary legate in 35–38, commanding a force with Vespasian in Britain 42–43 ce, consul in 44, governor of Moesia in 50–56, then Prefect of the City i in 56–58, ii in 61–68 (until Galba), and iii in 69. “Another” after Titus. This is Domitian (T. Flavius Domitianus), b. 24 October 51, now aged 18. Vespasian left him in Rome when he departed Greece under Nero’s commission for the Judean campaign in early 67. Domitian will have by far the longest reign of the Flavians, from the day after Titus’ death on 13 September 81 to his own assassination on 18 September 96. In marked contrast to his older brother and father, he hardly appears in Josephus’ works. This is War’s first reference to him and his first mention by name is at 4.646 (cf. 649, 654). Outside of the possibly sarcastic presentation of his alleged display of raw power in Gaul (7.85–88) and mention of his presence at the triumph (7.152), or the use of his name as a reference point for other events (Ant. 20.267; Life 429), the emperor under whom Josephus spent most of his life in Rome remains largely invisible. Cf. Southern 1997. In both Greece and Rome, the ages 15/16 to 18/19 were crucial for young elite males in establishing networks among other future leading citizens, and for becoming proficient in the classical literature and rhetorical training that suited one for public life (Marrou 1956: 338–39, 381–90, 396–87; Bonner 1977: 137; cf. Josephus’ parallel experience in Judea, Life 10–12). Already the donning of the citizen’s toga of manhood (virilis) at 15/16 involved a large party—a bar Mitzva magnified—with a family sacrifice and procession of friends to the Capitol (Valerius Maximus 5.4.4; Pliny. Ep. 1.9). Domitian received an elite education (Jones 1992: 12–14). Since his father and his brother were absent during the last years of his education, he lived in the conspicuous home of his famous uncle, the Urban Prefect. Being a son of Rome’s greatest active general (after Corbulo’s demise) and living in the home of the Urban Prefect could only help to place him at the peak of Rome’s youthful social pyramid. Suetonius (Dom. 1.2) relates that in the Vitellian assault on the Capitol, he fled to the home of a fellow-student, whose mother saved his life by effective concealment when a thorough search was made for him. Domitian must have been a major influencer among Rome’s youngest elite, and this would be a promising sign for a new regime hoping for a secure hold on power. Josephus is referring to Sabinus’ office as Praefectus Urbi, granted by Nero and retained more or less through Vitellius’ reign (see note to “brother” at 4.599). Galba replaced Sabinus with his own man (Tacitus, Ann. 1.14), but Otho restored him. As the only office that allowed a senator (here an ex-consul) some command of troops in Italy, the post carried considerable prestige. Tacitus sketches the history of the office: a creation of kings, adapted by consuls to leave someone in charge when they were absent. From Augustus onward, the post grew in prestige as the Prefect became responsible for keeping order in the city. Augustus established 3 urban cohorts (cohorts urbanae) of initially 500 for the purpose, reporting to the Urban Prefect (Suetonius, Aug. 49.1). They were numbered x, xi, and xii, to continue the series after the i–ix cohorts of the Praetorian Guard, which he also established as imperial bodyguard; cf. Freis 1967, Nippel 1995, and Ricci 2011. Under Vitellius, the consul Valens reportedly rebuilt both the Guard (to 16 cohorts of 1,000) and the urban cohorts (to 4 units of 1,000), after Vitellius cashiered a large part of Otho’s Guard on grounds of doubtful loyalty: Tacitus, Hist. 2.67, 93. Though the urban cohorts lacked the Praetorian Guard’s compensation or cachet, they were housed in the Praetorian Camp and enjoyed better conditions than legionary soldiers. In speaking of Sabinus’ importance to a Flavian bid for power, Josephus presumably has in view the potential influence of the Urban Prefect in shifting support for a ruler, though this would be a dangerous move if the Praetorians were differently minded. The urban cohorts are apparently part of Sabinus’ small force’s futile effort to defend him on the Capitol (4.645).

For the verb see note to “collaborate” in 4.598. Modern readers might wonder why it would not be preferable (for peace and for Vespasian’s honor) if the Senate made an “objective” choice of ruler, given Vespasian’s compelling merits. But Josephus is presenting soldier-talk, not political theorizing. In a year when Rome’s western armies have engineered the rise of their leaders—Galba, Otho, Vitellius—in succession, the legionaries of the East would consider it shameful if their man should be appointed by the Senate without their having shown their mettle in advancing him. They are (here) thinking more of their honor than Vespasian’s.

A rare compound verb favored by Josephus (see note at 4.19). See note at 4.494. This was a treasonous act, a virtual proclamation of rebellion by Vespasian’s army.

This appears rather differently in Tacitus. On the one hand, he observes that Vespasian’s capacity to serve as emperor was not clear until he was in the job, for being emperor improved him (Hist. 1.10, 50). On the other hand, he claims (Hist. 2.4–7) that from the moment that they heard of Galba’s assassination (15 January 69), with Otho and Vitellius contending for power, Vespasian and Mucianus knew that their combined 7 legions (later 9: Hist. 2.76) gave credibility to a bid for power by Vespasian. Titus, who would become a crucial factor in bringing them together, was thinking of his father’s possible accession from the moment he heard of Galba’s death (Hist. 2.1) So they began to act in concert at least then, if not already from Nero’s death. They decided, however, to let Otho and Vitellius fight it out, with typical Flavian caution (cf. Josephus, War 4.368–76). One of the two would die in the contest, leaving the other weakened by his victory and ripe for defeat. This conspiracy was 4–5 months earlier than the present episode (May–June 69) in Josephus. Even still, Tacitus agrees that when the moment of exasperation with Vitellius came, Vespasian remained hesitant and had to be pushed—by his co-conspirator Mucianus—to take the lead (Hist. 2.73–78). Tacitus presents Vespasian’s hesitancy as more balanced (Hist. 2.74–75): although eager to take on Vitellius and recognizing the strength of his own forces, he sees that anyone seeking power must go all the way and either achieve success or face destruction, in contrast to private life, which affords degrees of success and failure. Vespasian would also be hazarding the lives of his two sons. And his main fear in Tacitus is not the opposing armies but rather an assassin. Tacitus makes no mention of winter travel, which would not suit his account that these conversations occurred well before Tiberius Alexander acclaimed Vespasian emperor in Alexandria on 1 July (Hist. 2.79), so presumably by early June.

The scene is strikingly similar to Josephus’ experience in the cave at Iotapata (3.358–61, 383–86). When he intends to surrender to the Romans, bearing a divine message, his comrades point swords at his neck. They allow him a philosophical discourse on the evils of suicide, remarkably, but then begin charging at him with their blades. The charge is very similar: Josephus’ men, like Vespasian’s officers, accuse him of trying to spare his life rather than doing what is worthy, honorable, or noble. They will kill him if he does not make the right choice. The striking difference is in the two men’s responses. Josephus, sure that their sense of honor has been distorted, takes command of the situation and by exercising his general’s magnetism, stares down each assailant, causing some to drop their weapons—before his brilliant tactic of lot-drawing. Vespasian, by contrast, allows his men to dictate what they deem honorable behavior, in spite of his profound objection.

This confirms a character trait of Vespasian that Josephus has suggested earlier. At 3.532–40, he puts on trial those who were involved in rebellious activities in Agrippa’s Tarichea. He cannot stomach either killing them all in front of the townspeople or letting them leave town (on a promise of freedom) and killing them out of sight. But his officers persuade him that he ought to swallow his scruples and choose expediency over piety. It is not clear that Vespasian would have been delighted by either portrait in Josephus.

See note at 4.494. Although Vespasian has been acclaimed by his soldiers, he has only accepted this highly dangerous elevation after being threatened if he chose otherwise (previous sentence). Josephus implies here that Mucianus, the legatus augusti (governor) of Syria, was present in coastal Caesarea. But that does not fit with the rest of the story. Vespasian will leave Caesarea, scene of the soldiers’ acclamation, for Berytus at 4.620, and proceed from there to Mucianus’ capital of Antioch (4.630), 2 weeks’ march to the N. According to Josephus, Mucianus also comes to Berytus, reporting to Vespasian (as though he had not recently seen him) the overwhelming support throughout his province. That implies that Mucianus was not in Caesarea. Either Josephus is confused or Mucianus’ urging while he was in Caesarea should be understood as coming via letters or envoys. For Mucianus see notes at 4.32, 495. In Tacitus’ account, he is the decisive voice persuading Vespasian to step forward as imperator. There, however, the two have been plotting together since at least the death of Galba (Hist. 2.4–7). Although Mucianus has a more prestigious province (Syria with 4 legions) than Vespasian’s recently created mission (with 3 legions drawn from elsewhere), Tacitus explains that Mucianus held a number of long conversations with Vespasian and then gave a public speech, at a location between their provinces (Hist. 2.76–77), calling Vespasian to the duty of imperial power. Mucianus makes the Tacitean argument that it is no longer safe for Vespasian to do otherwise, because whoever is in power will view his success, his prestige, and the loyalty of his army as a threat to them. And he has the military strength to seize power. Finally, in John-the-Baptist like self-abnegation, Mucianus declares that he will not compete for power himself. Vespasian has the skill, support, character, and heirs to do the job. The icing on the cake of his proposal is that Vespasian need not even take the field. Mucianus, perhaps a dozen years his junior, will run the risks of battle to put Vespasian in power. After this exhortation and Vespasian’s acceptance, they part to their provinces to prepare, while without their connivance Tiberius Iulius Alexander in Egypt leads his 2 legions in an oath of allegiance to Vespasian (Hist. 2.77–78). This is a revealing formulation, supporting Josephus’ emphasis on Vespasian’s risk-aversion. To be imperator was by definition to be a conquering general, taking the lead against the enemy in battle (as the soldiers here expect). Vespasian, however, proposes that the best way to win power is to secure Alexandria and the Egyptian grain-supply, and to use this indirect “force” to bring down Vitellius. Only at 4.631–32 will Vespasian see the need to march on Rome, but even then he entrusts the campaign to Mucianus, the very man who persuaded him to be imperator. Although Egypt was an increasingly important source of grain for Rome since its annexation in 30 bce, Josephus exaggerates when he implies that a grain embargo by Vespasian would have brought down Vitellius. There were too many variables between that stimulus and that outcome. This looks more like a justification for Vespasian’s preference to remain far from Italy’s perils. At 2.381–83 (see bjp 1b with notes), Josephus has Agrippa ii discourse on the power that the North African provinces without Egypt could hold over Rome if they wished to do so, since they furnish 8 months of the capital’s grain supply. Even in that simplistic scheme Egypt provides only the other 4 months (2.386). Rickman 1980 is a fascinating study of the enormous real-life challenge of supplying Rome’s need for grain, emphasizing the practical difficulty of the route from Alexandria in contrast to that from Africa to the W (1980: 266–67). Garnsey 1988 explores in depth the question of planning in relation to crisis and ongoing risk at different periods. Garnsey and Saller (2014: 109–114) estimate that Rome’s population of over 1 million (about 30% slaves) required ca. 200,000 tonnes of grain per year, given wheat’s caloric yield and the requirements of daily subsistence. This enormous demand was met by private merchants from Italy, Sardinia, Spain, Gaul, and the eastern provinces as well as North Africa and Egypt, Sicily being particularly important until the late republic (Rickman 1980: 263; Paul 1990; Erdkamp 2005: 206–58). Cf. still Aristides, Rom. 12: “Your farms are Egypt, Sicily, and the civilized part of Africa.” Egyptian grain was a significant part of Rome’s supply, but hardly an on-off switch for seizing power in Rome. Rickman (1980: 263) notes Augustus’ reluctance to entrust the grain supply to one man, fearing such a person’s power over the city, a worry already expressed by the Senate during the civil war (Garnsey 1988: 202 with Cassius Dio 45.1.17), but a general controlling just one foreign supply region would not have such power.

The epitome of Dio (65/66.9.2a) says that Vespasian made it a priority to restore order in Egypt after the civil war and early opposition to him, then immediately got the grain supply moving again. Murison (1999: 148) sees no contradiction: Vespasian had planned to choke the grain supply to conquer Rome, but on hearing that Flavian forces had prevailed he started it. The whole prospect of taking power in Rome by starving the city into submission seems problematic (previous note), however, especially for such a cautious and pragmatic man as Vespasian. In speaking of ἐπὶ Ῥώμης τὸ πλῆθος (cf. feeding τὸ κατὰ τὴν Ῥώμην πλῆθος, 2.383), or the Roman vulgus, Josephus appears to refer to the famous grain dole (frumentatio), begun in 58/57 bce under Pompey (Garnsey 1988: 214–17) as a staple for Rome’s urban poor. Rome’s monthly grain dole for the poor, each handout sufficing for 2 persons and given to male citizens 10 years old and above, was scaled back by Augustus from 320,000 to 250,000 and finally 200,000 (rg 15). For a calculation of the resulting needs by weight, see Rickman 1980: 263; Garnsey and Saller 2014: 109–114. The Alexandrian legions were iii Cyrenaica and xxii Deiotariana (Tacitus, Ann. 4.5 for 23 ce; Parker 1928: 119, 140, 145); they would remain there until Trajan’s reign.

On the pervasive theme of fortune (or Fortune) in War see 4.40–42. It was common to observe not only that fortune was constantly shifting, but that its ways could never be seen or delineated: it was inscrutable (ἄδηλος). Josephus will say the same at 5.46; 7.115. In the pseudo-Platonic Definitions (s.v.), fortune is even defined as the movement from the inscrutable to the inscrutable and the “cause of other-worldly action” (Τύχη φορὰ ἐξ ἀδήλου εἰς ἄδηλον, καὶ ἡ ἐκ τοῦ αὐτομάτου αἰτία δαιμονίας πράξεως.). Cf. Antiphon 5.6; Aristotle, Met. 1065a (“fortune is inscrutable to human reasoning”); Chrysippus in svf 2.966–967 (as Aristotle, but here cited as a Stoic view); Polybius 35.2.14. The image of a bulwark (πρόβλημα) against fortune would make no sense if fortune were simply identified with God (see earlier notes). Josephus is writing here in a more Polybian vein, according to which fortune is constantly playing tricks and undermining intentions. Like Polybius’ Romans, who have prepared to withstand fortune’s turns with their constitution, their military prowess, and their resolve not to be beaten by reversals (Book 6)—it is the purpose of history to help statesmen survive fortune’s turns (Polybius 1.1.2)—Vespasian wants to create the most secure position possible because of fortune’s unpredictable ways. Except for the world-famous harbor of Alexandria (4.612). Josephus’ Agrippa has anticipated these remarks in similar language at 2.384–85.

Mod. Aswan, Egypt. Appearing only here and at 4.610 (see also Elephantine in 4.611) in Josephus, the ancient garrison town of Syene sat about 13 km (8.4 mi) N of the site of the modern Aswan High Dam, built in the 1970s to manage Nile inundations. Syene was known to literate ancients as the Egyptian frontier with Ethiopia: Herodotus 2.28.2; lxx Ezek 29:10; 30:6, 16; Strabo, Geog. 1.2.25, 32; 2.1.20, 2.2, 5.7, 12, 35–37; 17.1.2–4, 48–54; Pliny, Nat. 2.183–84. According to Pliny, the ancients noted that the sun cast no shadow there at the summer solstice: it is indeed close to the Tropic of Cancer. Strabo (17.1.12) reports that 3 auxiliary cohorts (likely 1,500 to 2,500 men) were stationed at Syene to protect the Egyptian frontier. An exaggeration. Though it appears only here in Josephus, Coptus (mod. Qift) like Syene was known to the ancients as a strategic location in Egypt: Theophrastus, Hist. plant. 4.71.1; Strabo, Geog. 16.4.24; 17.1.44–45. It sat in an eastward bulge of the Nile flood plain, making it the easternmost settlement in Egypt proper (the flood plain) near the Red Sea, though still 143 km (89 mi, ca. 4 days’ journey) from the modern port of Qaseer (Qoseir), ancient Myos Hormos.

On this name (τὸ Αἰγύπτιον πέλαγος), for the part of the Mediterranean N of Egypt where the Nile Delta empties, see Herodotus 2.113.4; Diodorus 1.31.2; 15.42.1; Strabo, Geog. 1.2.24, 28, 3.17; 2.5.18, 20, 24; 10.4.2; 14.6.1; 16.1.1, 2.1; 17.1.4, 23.

The N-S measurement. For Syene, see 4.608. Pelusium marked the outlet of the easternmost branch of the Nile, soon to be a crucial stop in Titus’ march toward Syria; see 4.659–63. Josephus’ distance = ca. 400 km (250 mi). Even the crow’s-fly distance is far greater, however—ca. 762 km (473 mi)—and the Nile route would be closer to 1005 km (624 mi). The W-E measurement. Plinthinē was a small town near the far end of Lake Mareotis (just N of Taposiris). Josephus may be repeating Herodotus’ distance. Herodotus (2.6.3) gives 60 schoenoi from Plinthinē to Lake Serbonis, almost immediately E of Pelusium (though he makes Mons Casius, another day’s march, the measuring point on the lake). If an Egyptian schoenus was 60 stadia, Josephus’ 3,600 stadia would agree with in imagined Egypt’s W-E dimension as 720 km (450 mi). The real distance is considerably less, however: in a roughly straight line, ca. 300 km (185 mi); in a coastal boat trip around the outflows of the Nile ca. 350 km (220 mi). Strabo (Geog. 17.1.24) remarks that the Egyptian schoenus is a wildly unstable measurement, varying from 25 to 60 or 120 stadia according to region.

This is the only reference in Josephus to a site of enormous importance for biblical studies. Elephantine is an island (1.2 km long, 0.4 km wide) in the Nile River next to Syene / Aswan. So it is curious that Josephus mentions the island here (showing off?) rather than the city as above. An American collector’s chance discovery of papyri from an antiquities dealer in 1893 sparked an intensive search for more, with German and then French archaeologists competing. The scrolls that were found provided stunning evidence of a Judean garrison on the island in the late 5th cent. bce, when Egypt was under Persian rule. The Judeans had a temple to Yahweh (Yahu), authorized by Jerusalem, but made accommodations to local cultures. See Silberman 1985 for a fascinating overview of the political tensions created by the finds; Vincent 1937; Porten 1968; Kaiser 1974; Bickerman 1988; Porten and Farber 1996; Rodziewicz et al. 2005; van der Toorn 2019.

“Even at peace”: Josephus presents Alexandria as a secure place from which Vespasian could launch a new civil war to launch his bid for power. This is the only occurrence in Josephus of the rare compound δυσπρόσιτος. Of only 12 attestations before Josephus, 7 are in Diodorus. Diodorus’ use of the word concerning Egypt, explaining why an Egyptian was confident to resist Persia (15.42.1), suggests that Diodorus might have been Josephus’ inspiration. The entrance to Alexandria’s main harbor was indeed made hazardous by hidden reefs. There seem to have been two marked channels through them: Lebov 2014: fig. 8. Strabo (Geog. 17.1.6–10) gives a fuller account of Alexandria’s harbor. He sounds much like Josephus in describing the dangerous entrance to the Great Harbor, between the Pharos tower and the promontories jutting out from the mainland with submerged rocks all around (17.1.6, 9), but he also mentions the “Welcome Back” (Eunostus) Harbor to the W, which Josephus ignores, though it too seems to have had a number of reefs. Separated by the 1.4 km (Heptastadium) causeway from the mainland to Pharos Island, with openings under bridges permitting boats to cross (17.1.6, 10), this side was apparently less hazardous to enter. Josephus consistently stresses the inaccessibility of Alexandria’s harbor, the port of Egypt, in support of his claims about Egypt’s strength; cf. 2.386 (Egypt is “harborless”). Alexandria’s harbor was world-renowned, however, for its excellence and busyness: a crucial hub in the world economy and by no means leading to isolation (Strabo, Geog. 17.1.13; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 32.36).

I.e., moles. This is Josephus’ only use of the rare adjective χειρόκμητος, and Philo accounts for 2/3 (22) of the 37 attestations before him, and is his most likely inspiration. At 4.614 Josephus will use the more familiar synonym χειροποίητος. The word σκέλος (“leg”) had various metaphorical uses, most famously for the “long walls” connecting Athens with its harbor, but as in English “leg” could be used for various trailing or supporting structures. Josephus apparently refers to the artificial moles created with Rome’s innovative hydraulic concrete, which used volcanic ash from Puteoli (pozzolana), could set underwater, and thus created highly durable structures (as also at Herodian Caesarea’s port of Sebastos). See Oleson et al. 2004; https://www.ancientportsantiques.com/ancient-port-structures/vitruvius (accessed 1 Nov. 2021). In addition to the massive Heptastadium causeway linking Alexandria with Pharos island, underwater archaeology since 1992 has exposed a number of breakwaters and piers in the E harbor, creating several basins within it. Sea level has risen an estimated 7.5 m (25 ft) or more since antiquity: Belov 2014 fig. 1. Josephus mentions Pharos otherwise only when describing the shape of Herod’s Phasael tower, at the N end of his Jerusalem palace (5.169; Ant. 16.144), so renowned was the Pharos lighthouse (and he can boast implicitly of having actually seen it). The island was known to Homer and other ancient Greeks (Od. 4.355; cf. Thucydides 1.104.1), though the fullest description is in Strabo, Geog. 17.1.6. Although the lighthouse, at the extreme end of E end island, would come to be called one of the “7 wonders of the ancient world,” no ancient source has such a list that includes Pharos or its lighthouse, before the late 6th cent. ce (Jordan 2002: 1–18). This is the first of Josephus’ 3 uses of the extremely rare compound ἐκπυρσεύω (5.169, also of the Pharos tower, and 7.317). Before him it is attested only in Diodorus 11.64.3, and it appears twice more before the 4th cent. Ca. 60 km (37 mi) offshore. This is not far off plausible reality. The website https://astronavigationdemystified.com/756-2/ (accessed 27 July 2021) provides a formula for calculating visibility at sea and uses the Pharos lighthouse as an example. Assuming a height of 120 m (394 ft) for the light source and an observer height of 4 m (13 ft), and leaving aside distorting atmospheric conditions, it calculates from a Pythagorean formula that the tower was visible from 46.19 km (29 mi). If the lighthouse were 20 m (65 ft) taller than that—medieval accounts give an impossible 1,000 cubits or 457 m (Trethewey 2019: 37–38)—visibility would increase to 49.3 km (30.6 mi). And since a powerful light could also be seen or detected over the horizon by its diffused light, and/or by the smoke from a large beacon-fire, Josephus’ figure is (for once) not a gross exaggeration. Josephus reverses the standard logic for a lighthouse (as in Strabo, Geog. 17.1.6): to provide a clear target for sailors on an otherwise indistinct horizon. He understands it as a signal them not to come here, leaving them to dock in some unknown and dark place, which sounds rather more hazardous.

See note to “manufactured legs” in 4.613. Josephus uses another very rare verb (ἐκτραχύνω), perhaps to suggest his technical expertise. His use of it here (hapax in his corpus) is only the 7th known attestation. Since Philo accounts for 3 of these (2 in the Embassy to Gaius, which Josephus likely knew: 268, 302), Philo seems as often his likely inspiration, though Strabo has the other 2 cases outside of a fragment of Heraclides. The prevailing winds were also a factor: 75% of the time in summer NW etesian winds, at cross purposes with entering from the NE, about 15% of the time NE winds: Lebov 2014.

Ca. 6 km (3.75 mi), a standard figure for multiples of distance in Josephus (Mason 2016a: 591–95), perhaps deduced from an hour’s walk (= a Persian parasang) rather than by measurement. The distance agrees with Josephus’ estimate of Alexandria’s breadth (its depth 10 stadia or 2 km, 1.25 mi) in Agrippa’s speech at 2.386. Cf. Strabo, Geog. 17.1.13: Alexandria was “the world’s greatest emporium.”

See, however, 4.605, 631, and 656 with notes. Josephus’ insistence that Vespasian acted reasonably (εἰκότως) suggests potential criticism of this strategy. Josephus develops an ambiguous and perhaps ironic picture, assuring his audience that it made perfect sense for Vespasian to bring down Vitellius remotely from Alexandria, even though his soldiers had acclaimed him imperator in the expectation that he would lead them against Vitellius, and even though Vespasian admittedly sees Rome as a more urgent and decisive task than Alexandria (4.631). While overtly lauding Vespasian’s sagacity, Josephus leaves enough between the lines (e.g., Vespasian does not sail for Rome at the earliest opportunity, and stays clear of the danger) for skeptics to wonder about the Roman commander’s willingness to face risk. It was common to speak of Egypt and Alexandria, by far the most prominent of Egypt’s Greek cities (the old city of Naucratis plus Ptolemais), because of the city’s independent prestige and exclusive citizenship, which was unavailable to most Egyptians. See Delia 1991; Capponi 2005: 65–81. See note at 2.220 in bjp 1b. Tiberius Iulius Alexander’s name might well have been known to Josephus’ Roman audience (cf. Barzanò 1988). He was born into the most prominent Judean family of Alexandria, some of whose members enjoyed Roman citizenship as he did. His father (Tiberius Iulius?) Alexander was a wealthy official (alabarch), apparently responsible for tax assessment; cf. Ant. 20.100. The father paid for massive gold and silver plates to cover 9 of Jerusalem’s temple gates (War 5.201–206) and loaned the young spendthrift Agrippa i the massive sum of 200,000 drachmas (Ant. 18.159–60). The father was reportedly an old friend of the emperor Claudius and financial agent to the emperor’s influential mother Antonia (Ant. 19.276). The alabarch’s brother Philo was a renowned intellectual, teacher, and also political representative of the Judean expatriate community (Ant. 18.259). Tiberius Alexander’s younger brother, Marcus Iulius Alexander, had been connected by marriage to Judea’s royal (Herodian) family: he briefly married Agrippa ii’s sister Berenice (Ant. 19.276–77), though she would remarry by age 16 (Ant. 19.354). Josephus’ notice that Tiberius Alexander “did not continue in the ancestral customs” (Ant. 20.100) is too easily taken as evidence of “apostasy from Judaism.” The statement is comparative and relative: his wealthy father was more overtly concerned with law and custom. Although Tiberius Alexander’s versatile political-military career suggests that he would not have been able to keep sabbaths or a kosher diet, we simply do not know how common that was among expatriate Judeans, much less what his private values were or how he viewed his sense of Judean belonging. Tiberius Alexander took up the equestrian prefecture for Judea (based in Caesarea) about age 31 under Claudius, in 46–48 ce (War 2.220). This might suggest that Claudius, who was reportedly also furious over anti-Judean outbreaks in both Alexandria (38–39) and in Caesarea after his friend Agrippa i’s premature death in 44 ce, deliberately chose a Judean to administer the region from Caesarea. Alexander then became regional administrator (ἐπιστρατηγός) of the Egyptian Thebaid. When Domitius Corbulo entered Parthian territory to escort the Armenian king Tiridates to Rome for coronation, Alexander, a “distinguished Roman knight” according to Tacitus—was serving as his “minister of war” (Ann. 15.28). By 66 ce, he had reached the most prestigious position open to an equestrian: the prefecture of Egypt (War 2.309), which he held for 4 years (66–70 ce). Soon after taking up that post, he used his legions (iii Cyrenaica and xxii Deiotariana) and other forces to suppress a riot for which he held the Judeans of Alexandria responsible; many died (War 2.490–98). Within 4 weeks of Nero’s death in June 68, he published a lengthy edict reassuring the populace of his good intentions and hopes for the future under Galba (ogis 669; et in Sherk 1988: no. 80), and he seems to have recognized both Otho and Vitellius in turn, with similar alacrity (Turner 1954: 61). But his enduring fame comes from the present episode: his early support of Vespasian. In early 70, now an experienced man in his mid-50s, he will return to Judea as Titus’ “most esteemed friend for loyalty and wisdom” (War 5.45), somewhat in loco parentis for Vespasian, it seems (5.45; ogis 586). Although he does not appear often in the siege narrative, he will participate in Titus’ council deliberating the fate of the temple (6.237, 242). Soon after the Flavian triumph, he will apparently (this is not certain) be granted another equestrian plum in Rome: one of the two prefectures of the Praetorian Guard, with the enormous honor of serving alongside Titus (P. Hibeh 215; Turner 1954: 62–64; context in Brunt 1975). Although the trope of the reluctant candidate, who seeks no power for himself but is drafted by others, has been around since antiquity and remains effective today, Josephus’ account of Vespasian’s reluctance and timidity, though the Roman burns with passive aggression toward Vitellius, yielding to the soldiers’ demand that he “man up” only at sword-point (4.589–604), is an extreme and dubious example of the trope (Mason 2018, 2019a). This sentence is a quiet dagger thrust at the heart of Flavian self-representation. Nicols (1978: 72–73) suggests that Josephus has altered the facts to suit regime propaganda, but his account rather contradicts it; see Lindner 1972: 83–84. The Flavians, whose forces would defeat Vitellius only on 20 December, 69, boldly backdated Vespasian’s rise to imperial power (dies imperii) to 1 July. This rested on the claim that Tiberius Alexander made the decisive move in swinging the eastern empire for Vespasian. His independent action began the chain-reaction of support, buttressed by the legions of Judea, who acclaimed Vespasian on 3 July. So Tacitus, Hist. 2.74, 79: “The transfer of imperial power to Vespasian began in Alexandria” on 1 July, and that is why they celebrated the day. Likewise Suetonius, Vesp. 6.1: in spite of favorable omens, Vespasian made no move until prompted “by the chance favor of men unknown to him and not around him.” In Suetonius’ version, Tiberius Alexander acted because he heard of the Moesian legions’ turn to Vespasian. Only on 11 July, when they knew of both the Alexandrian and Danubian acclamations, did the legions in Judea feel the confidence to acclaim their own commander imperator. Josephus’ account of an acclamation first by Vespasian’s proud soldiers in Judea and Vespasian’s use of that base to solicit the further support of the Prefect of Egypt, with the Danubian legions in turn following their lead, is entirely plausible in historical, psychological, and strategic terms but flatly contradicts the Flavian logic of Vespasian’s reluctant to Fortune’s call from men far away. A scenario in which everything begins with his own troops, who may be expected to be his supporters, is not nearly as impressive.

Cf. 2.606: iii Cyrenaica and xxii Deiotariana. On the power of ancient oaths, see 4.213 and note. Roman legionaries publicly swore (and annually renewed) a sacred and binding oath of allegiance to the current princeps (emperor) and his family, from which they were released only on discharge: see Tacitus, Hist. 1.12.1; Birley 2007: 385; Stoll 2007: 455–57. This pledge of loyalty to Vespasian, who was yet far from Rome and 6 months away from senatorial recognition as princeps, cements the colossal act of treason in which Tiberius Alexander and all Vespasian’s supporters are engaged in July 69. I.e., soldiers in the neighboring province of Egypt have heard of Vespasian’s success in Judea (since 67). They may also welcome his style of generalship, particularly his refusal to place his soldiers at risk if he can achieve his aims by intimidation and remote pressure.

Josephus is not as clear as he might have been about the subject of the sentence. Tiberius Alexander is the subject of the preceding sentence and so we would normally take “he” (ὁ) here as a pronoun for Alexander. Most translators (Thackeray lcl, M-B, Pelletier, H-G, Rogers) take it this way: Alexander has just been made Vespasian’s “associate” and given a crucial role in preparing his coup (“matters pertaining to the rule”), so he immediately sets about preparing for Vespasian’s arrival in Alexandria. Pelletier spells out what Josephus does not—‘Alexandre, désormais chargé de responsabilités concernant l’autorité impériale, procéda aux préparatifs de l’arrivée de Vespasian’—and makes the next sentence a new paragraph with a focus on Vespasian. But part-way through the preceding sentence, Josephus has shifted focus to Vespasian and his generalship. Further, the language about being entrusted with the rule or matters pertaining to it (καὶ ὁ μὲν πεπιστευμένος ἤδη τὰ περὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν) might suit Vespasian better than the Prefect of Egypt. Finally, the next pronoun (ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ) must refer to Vespasian, not Alexander. So the whole men … de construction could also be read as pertaining to Vespasian: while he was taking initiatives and laying plans to prepare for the rule with which he had been entrusted (by his army), rumors about his acclamation as imperator outpaced his planning. This interpretation seems to underlie Whiston’s rendering: “Accordingly Vespasian, looking upon himself as already intrusted with the government, got all things ready for his journey [to Rome].” Although I favor the more common reading nevertheless, given the main subject of 4.617, I have left the translation open. See note at 4.494. For this characteristic phrase in War (τάχιον δ’ ἐπινοίας), albeit without the article, see note at 4.356. If we had this passage alone, we might understand the phrase as a gnomic or abstract observation: rumors travel so fast, in the blink of an eye, they move before one can formulate a thought. But the other examples and the choice of this noun, which shades toward “directed thought, design,” suggest that Josephus has in mind an actual plan, which is outpaced by rumors about Vespasian: these rumors lead to celebration and sacrifice (next sentence) even before his planned assertion of power is in place. Again (see note to “rule” in this sentence), it is unclear whose plan is in question. If Vespasian’s, that would favor rendering the preceding clauses with him as subject. The second of 3 occurrences of εὐαγγέλιον in Josephus (cf. 2.420), all of which fall in War and the last of which follows shortly (4.656), with the same sense as this one: both are plural (εὐαγγέλια). Of the nearly 22,200 occurrences in the tlg, the overwhelming majority (nearly 22,000) are in Christian texts. The phrase τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, which apparently began as a key-word of Paul’s mission in that form (“The Gospel, Announcement”), soon became associated with Christian teaching in general (Mason 2009b: 283–328), and that explains the later popularity of the term. In Homer (Od. 14.152, 166), singular εὐαγγέλιον means a reward for good news. The few occurrences in other authors (Aristophanes, Eq. 647, 656; Plut. 765; Isocrates, Areop. 10; Xenophon, Hell. 1.6.37; 4.3.14; Aeschines, Ctes. 60; Menander, Peric. 993; Diodorus Siculus 15.74.2; lxx 2 Sam 4:10) are usually plural and mean “good reports / news,” as in Josephus, though at 2.420 he refers to a terrible (δεινόν) bit of news that Gessius Florus perversely welcomed as a good report (εὐαγγέλιον). Remarkably, because before him it is found only in the lxx of 2 Sam (18:20, 22, 25, 27) and 2 Kgs 7:9, as perhaps Or. sib. 1.382 (depending on date), Josephus also has 1 case of the feminine singular εὐαγγελία (Ant. 18.229). With most translators, taking the pronoun in ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ to refer to Vespasian. Rogers translates “sacrifices offered on account of it”—i.e., on account of the good news (εὐαγγέλια), but the antecedent noun is plural. Moreover, offering sacrifice ὑπὲρ x is a formulaic way of referring to sacrifice offered in someone’s interest, in or on their behalf, for their defense or protection (Xenophon, Hell. 3.3.4; Lysias, And. 4.4; Diodorus 4.82.2; 5.72.1; Plutarch, Aristid. 19.6; Alex. 41.6; Dem. 11.1). This is a common construction in Philo (9 times, e.g. for the emperor, Legat. 232, 355) and Josephus (19 times). Cf. especially the sacrifices offered in behalf of the emperor and Rome (for their well-being) at 2.409, 416; cf. Latin pro eis continua sacrificia at Apion 2.77 (the Greek is lacking).

Μυσία, not to be confused with the NW region of Asia Minor, was the Greek name for Latin Moesia (Plutarch, Oth. 8.4), the province S of the Danube in the region of Serbia and Bulgaria, S of the Danube. Tacitus (Hist. 2.85–86) puts this after the Berytus conference (next sentence). He says that Moesia’s 3 legions (iii Gallica, vii Claudia pia fidelis, viii Augusta; cf. Morgan 2006: 294–99) initiated the move because the last 2 had been en route to support Otho when they learned of his defeat at Bedriacum. Otho might well have prevailed if he had waited for all these forces. After displaying their disenchantment with the new emperor in unmistakable ways, they decided their best hope of protection from Vitellius was to join Vespasian’s cause. Their eagerness found support in Antonius Primus, energetic legate of the Legio vii Galbiana in Pannonia, who had his own reasons to become Vespasian’s champion, and brought along the province’s Legio xiii Gemina (defeated by Vitellian forces at Bedriacum). All the eastern legions were reportedly offended by the gruff arrogance of soldiers from Vitellius’ German forces that had joined their ranks (Tacitus, Hist. 2.74).

The site of mod. Beirut, Lebanon. Tacitus (Hist. 2.81) locates the decisive war-planning meeting here in mid-July 69. Josephus implies that everything until this point has occurred in Vespasian’s headquarters city, Caesarea. That is where Vespasian accepted acclamation by his officers and men (4.604). Mucianus is an additional voice of encouragement (4.605), perhaps communicating his thoughts to Vespasian by letter. Tacitus, by contrast, features the legate of Syria as the main force in persuading Vespasian (Hist. 2.75–78), but not at Caesarea. For at the end of acclamation episode in Tacitus, Vespasian returns to Caesarea and Mucianus to Antioch (Hist. 2.78). We must imagine an unspecified location between N Syria and Caesarea. Berytus would be a likely spot, though Tacitus mentions that city only in connection with the coming council to plan the war (Hist. 2.81). In his story of Vespasian’s acclamation, he mentions Mt. Carmel (at mod. Haifa, Israel) as a convenient site between Judea and Syria (2.78), but only while listing several “old omens” (vetera omina) that Vespasian calls to mind during the meeting with Mucianus, one of which occurred on Carmel. Namely, when Vespasian was once offering sacrifice at that mountain temple, the priest Basilides foretold his great success (cf. Suetonius, Vesp. 5.6). This “ambiguous” oracle immediately (statim) then began rumors at the time, but only now—at the time of this later meeting with Mucianus (tunc)—when Vespasian’s eligibility to rule is obvious, does the oracle’s meaning become clear. Nothing, therefore, places Tacitus’ acclamation meeting with Mucianus on Mt. Carmel, and it seems an implausible place for them to have met: a temple site high on a mountain, most of the way from Antioch to Caesarea. Some historians nevertheless locate Tacitus’ episode on Mt. Carmel, presumably because it is mentioned retrospectively (Morgan 2006: 182). Gold crowns, as distinct from diadems (the cloth signifying kingship, tied at the back of the head), were recognized as costly and meaningful gifts for a variety of purposes. Titus awarded them to some of his soldiers after the siege of Jerusalem (7.14); people gave them as offerings to the temple (1.357; 7.135); and rulers could receive them from supporters (Cassius at 1.231; the deceased Herod at 1.671). Tacitus (Hist. 2.81) elaborates. Along with the local kings Sohemus of Emesa (mod. Homs in Syria) and Antiochus of Commagene (centered in Samosata in SE Turkey, today underwater near the Atatürk Dam), the Judean King Agrippa ii and apparently his sister Berenice, Titus’ later lover, have come from Rome by sea, escaping Vitellius’ notice.

Mucianus is the imperial legate to Syria: see 4.32.

Given that the compound verb συννεύω is rare (21 attestations before Josephus, largely in fragments; he has it also at 3.419 and Ant. 18.228), and given the similarity with Polybius’ only use of the verb (3.32.7), which also concern’s Fortune’s constellation of events toward a single end, Josephus may be nodding to that passage. See note to this non-explanation of uncanny events, characteristic of War, at 4.34. Or “Destiny”; see note at 4.297. “Just Fate” (δικαία τις εἱμαρμένη) is not an obvious collocation, which may explain τις (“some” such mysterious force). If the participle had the literal sense of what is fated for each person, one could speak of a just lot (cf. “just deserts”), on the assumption that not all fates or lots appear just; those that do therefore attract comment. At 1.628, Herod laments his “unjust fate” (τὴν ἄδικον εἱμαρμένην; cf. Dio Chrysostom [Favorinus?], Or. 37.37). In this case, however, Fate is an active subject, somehow related to God, and so it is doubly paradoxical to say that this Fate is just, raising the possibility that such a governing power (God, nature, reason) could be unjust.

Tacitus (Hist. 2.78) and Suetonius (Vesp. 5.2–7) list some of these old omens (some going back to childhood), Suetonius including Josephus’ prediction among them. An oak tree on the family estate sprouted a branch at significant moments in his life. A large cypress tree on his property spontaneously fell and then regrew. A stray dog dropped a human hand at his feet while he ate. An ox threw off its yoke and presented itself in his house. He had a dream connected with Nero’s bad tooth. And then there was the oracle on Mt. Carmel. In Rome, further, Nero reportedly had a dream in which he was told to take a sacred chariot to the home of Vespasian. A statue of Julius Caesar turned itself to face the East. And before the battle that brought Vitellius to power, two eagles had been seen fighting (signifying Otho and Vitellius). After one was victorious, a 3rd came from the East and defeated him. Josephus’ remarks to Vespasian at 3.401–403 are usually called his “prediction” of Vespasian’s rise. The alleged shamelessness of the event came to be seen as decisive proof of his unprincipled “defection” to the Flavians (Rajak 2002: 185–91, for discussion and partial corrective). Although Thackeray (lcl) translates 3.402 as “You will be Caesar, Vespasian, you will be emperor,” the Greek is in the present tense: “You are Caesar … and imperator.” The present passage confirms that Josephus’ words themselves were not predictive. Vespasian marvels in retrospect that Josephus dared to address him as imperator while Nero was in power—a treasonous act. When legionary commanders declare Galba, Otho, or Vitellius (or Vespasian) imperator, it is a statement of revolt and not prophecy: they are declaring that their commander, rather than the current ruler, should be emperor. Josephus’ boldness in saying this a year before Nero’s death has now finally been realized in the armies’ acclamation of Vespasian, which is like Josephus’ expression but carries far more weight. Still, Vespasian has been acclaimed only by supporters: Josephus, Vespasian’s armies, and the legions under Tiberius Alexander (4.601–604, 616–18). Rome has yet to agree. This construction of the text has implications for debates about Josephus’ self-image as “prophet” and the mechanism by which his “prophecy” came to be (pace Gray 1993: 35–79)—a shrewd guess, scriptural interpretation, or ex eventu fabrication. Josephus’ report of his address may be understood in part as the life-saving device Vespasian perceived it to be (3.403). The Judean had already risked his life at sea and in a risky diplomatic mission to Nero’s court (Life 13–16). When Vespasian decides to send him back to Rome in chains (3.398), therefore, it would make sense for the quick-thinking prisoner to plead that Vespasian keep him there (3.387), and to flatter the hardened commander nearing 60 that he is the real imperator, not the effete artist who is not yet 30 in Rome. This would be little different from the disgusted Parthian Tiridates’ remark to Corbulo a year earlier: he and not Nero was a real commander (Cassius Dio 63/64.6.4). To be sure, Josephus claims to have surrendered as a result of revelatory experiences (3.350–51), but he is notably vague about the content: God had shown him from ambiguous texts what was coming for Judeans and “matters relating to the Roman kings” (3.351). There seems to be a lacuna at 3.400–401 leading to the puzzling line: “Are the successors after Nero until you remaining?” Although that fragment might suggest a clear prediction of succession between Nero to Vespasian, the passage might make better sense as an avowed trickster’s combination of sincere claims to special insight, which only he knew or believed, with a life-saving presence of mind (granted him by God).

Rajak (2002: 187) notes the tension between one reading of this—Vespasian’s shock at learning that Josephus was still a prisoner—and Apion 1.48–49, which says that Vespasian and Titus required the prisoner Josephus’ constant attendance on them. But this passage (ἐξεπέπληκτο δὲ τὸν ἄνδρα δεσμώτην ἔτι ὄντα παρ ̓ αὐτῷ) does not say that Vespasian only now learned of Josephus’ imprisonment; the final phrase (“with / by him”) suggests the opposite. Even according to 3.408, Vespasian was keeping his eye on the prisoner Josephus and his welfare. The present passage might mean that, once Vespasian saw his chance at supreme rule becoming probable, he was struck by the impropriety of keeping in chains this man who had long before addressed him as imperator and who was constantly by his side. It suddenly dawned on him that Josephus, who had anticipated his rise so long ago, was still in chains. Cf. 4.621: Mucianus is the governor (legatus augusti pro praetore) in Syria, now Vespasian’s co-conspirator in plotting the war against Vitellius. Josephus makes the Flavians’ “sweat” in Judea a basic theme of his War (1.7–8; cf. 4.89–90), challenging Roman accounts that made light of Judean resistance. Galilee and the Golan were the Flavians’ exhausting “preliminary exercise” (προγυμνάζω) before Jerusalem, again said to cause Vespasian and his commanders much “sweat” (4.120). That was mainly because of Josephus’ masterly generalship at Iotapata, when the rest of Galilee (outside King Agrippa’s territories) had capitulated. At 3.141–42, Josephus claims that Vespasian set his sights on Iotapata because the Judeans’ greatest general had gone there; so, once he took Josephus he would have conquered virtually “all Judea.” Josephus’ day-by-day account (in places) of how he wrong-footed Vespasian during those weeks, creating alternatively panic and despair among the Roman legions, and much prolonging what otherwise would have been an easy conquest, occupies much of Book 3 (3.29–69, 110–408).

Recalling 3.403: Vespasian did not trust this address but saw it as Josephus’ device to save his life. Cf. Suetonius, Vit. 17, where Vitellius vainly tries to save his life by claiming to have something vitally important to tell Vespasian. Cf. Tacitus, Hist. 1.10: various indications of Vespasian’s rise to power, long before the event, were believed only when this twist of fortune was realized.

As the context shows: released from his chains, not into the wild. Outside of his display-case turn as Galilee’s general (2.566–646; 3.29–69, 110–408), the character Josephus appears infrequently in the background of War. But it is clear that he remains alongside Vespasian and Titus, on call to do as they order, especially in negotiating with his compatriots in the native language (5.114, 261, 325–26, 361–420, 533, 541–47; 6.93–111, 118–29, 365; 7.747–50). These incidental notices agree with Josephus’ later reflections (Apion 1.48–49, 51) on his post-release activities: going to Alexandria with the Flavians and being “sent” from there with Titus to the siege of Jerusalem as intermediary, translator, and source of local intelligence.

I.e., if Vespasian would reward even a foreign general, a fortiori he would show great favor to his Roman subordinates. Josephus characteristically, in a somewhat Tacitean way if less penetratingly, never loses sight of the baser human motives. Titus, perhaps in reality something of a friend to Josephus (Yavetz 1975), stands out for his thoughtfulness toward the author.

Den Hollander (2014: 69–85) draws from a range of scattered evidence to draw a vivid picture of the generally miserable plight of a chained prisoner, granted variations in particular circumstances. The custom is elsewhere unattested, though not implausible. Den Hollander (2014: 84–86) shows that the underlying idea is not strange: an emperor (here designate) could restore any individual’s status to that of a free person, sometimes with a visible proof of some kind. He also notes that the stigma of captivity lingered for Josephus: Suetonius (Vesp. 5) and Cassius Dio (65.1.4) knew of him precisely as a captive come to Rome.

Of the various kinds of ax one could describe in Greek—e.g., ἀξίνη (Latin ascia) with diminutive ἀξινάριον at 2.137, ἀξινίδιον 2.148, also σκαλίς there, for various kinds of hatchet or possibly trowel used by Essenes—the word πέλεκυς here properly refers to a symmetrical double-headed ax or battle-ax. But we need not press Josephus’ language to indicate a very specific tool. The more common and useful military tool (dolabra) was double-sided, but with an ax or adz on one side and a pick on the other: a mattock or pick-ax. That is entirely possible here (see Bishop and Coulston 2006: 117–18). This is difficult to square with 3.403–408, according to which Vespasian at first dismissed what Josephus said as a trick to ensure survival, but then came gradually to believe him as he saw confirming indications of his ascent to power and found that other Judean prisoners verified Josephus’ reliability. For that reason, already then and long before releasing him from chains, Vespasian began to look out for his wellbeing. One might explain the earlier passage as a compression of what was coming, but the order is different.

Contrast Tacitus (Hist. 2.82): while organizing war production in the stalwart towns of N Syria, Vespasian handed out prefectures and senatorial rank to his friends. Tacitus (Hist. 2.81) puts all this in a supreme council (consilium de summa rerum) to plan Vespasian’s coup in Berytus, which Mucianus and all the princes and military commanders in the region attend. Although historians incline to prefer Tacitus because of the considerable detail he adds, Josephus was personally present and should have known what transpired. It is of course always possible that he forgot or confused details, or simply chose to change the story.

Josephus intensifies the paradox that the bold, usurping imperator—though now fully admitting the greater importance of attending to Rome in contrast to his preoccupation with Alexandria (4.605–18)—will nevertheless head to Alexandria (4.656), sending Mucianus (who first urged him to march on Rome, 4.605) on the perilous expedition to Rome.

Tacitus (Hist. 2.83) says that Mucianus’ army comprised the Legio vi Ferrata plus 13,000 veterans, noting that it was a small force (ca. 18,000) but should suffice. Mucianus will leave the Sixth in Moesia (Hist. 3.46), however, when the Dacian tribes (of mod. Romania N of the Danube and in Moesia), in the absence of their usual legionary garrison (which Antonius Primus had led to Italy), begin serious disturbances. Only in War 5.40–44 does Josephus explain, while describing Titus’ army for the siege of Jerusalem, that Vespasian had sent vexillations from each of his legions in Judea (v, x, xv) with Mucianus, possibly including part of the unfortunate xii Fulminata. Josephus’ claim that 5,000 legionaries from Alexandria and the Euphrates frontier made up these deficiencies in Titus’ 4 legions suggests that the vexillations were ca. 1–1,500 soldiers each (e.g., 2 × 1,000 + 2 × 1,500). The separate mention of cavalry suggests not the small cavalry unit (of ca. 120; War 3.120) that accompanied each legion for special duties, but rather trained auxiliary or allied mounted squadrons. Tacitus (Hist. 2.83) makes no mention of winter as a motive for Mucianus’ overland route. It would be strange in his narrative, where Mucianus clearly begins his march soon after the Berytus conference in July. He was presumably on the march by mid-August. Tacitus offers more plausible motives for the overland route: securing the major cities of Asia and Greece so as to avoid encirclement by Vitellian forces arriving by sea behind him; securing Dyrrhachium (mod. Durrës, Albania) so as to blockade Italian ports from the E; and, recognizing that his army was small, magnifying its menace by rumor proliferating with a slow approach—psychological warfare. This last seems to have played a large role in Vespasian’s long and slow approach to Jerusalem: let terror do as much of the work as possible. I.e., departing Syria overland via Asia Minor (mod. W Turkey). Looking E-W, Cappadocia and Phrygia were 2 large inland regions of this territory. Whereas Cappadocia was a province, Phrygia was the famous easternmost region of the province of Asia. Mention of these two regions indicates that Mucianus marched in a fairly direct line overland, heading WNW toward the Hellespont rather than visiting the pleasant S or SW coastal regions. Major roads ran up from Tarsus in the SE to Ancyra, then W via Nicomedia and the Via Egnatia across Greece.

I.e., Moesia; see note at 4.619. This is compression to the point of error. See note at 4.495: Antonius Primus commanded the Legio vii Galbiana in Pannonia, not Moesia. He eventually led all the legions of Pannonia and Moesia, including iii Cyrenaica from Moesia, the one Josephus mentions, but also vii Claudia and viii Augusta from Moesia plus vii Galbiana / Gemina and xiii Gemina from Pannonia, later joined by xi Claudia from Dalmatia (Parker 1928: 142), into battle against Vitellius, not waiting for Mucianus to reach Pannonia (Tacitus, Hist. 3.2–3; Cassius Dio 64/65.9.3). But he left his province with no legions, initially taking auxiliary cohorts featuring cavalry for the sake of speed (Hist. 3.6)—discarding the orders of cautious Vespasian and Mucianus, who wanted the entire Flavian army massed for the main assault. The legions from Moesia and Pannonia gradually joined him at Verona, the Flavian base, over the next days (Hist. 3.7–10). Josephus’ isolation of the Third Legion may reflect its prominence in this campaign. Tacitus has Antonius’ address to iii Gallica, exhorting them to live up to their old reputation (Hist. 3.84); cf. Ritterling 1924: 1517. He notes that iii Gallica was the first Moesian legion to desert Vitellius for Vespasian (Hist. 2.91) and that, as “all authors agree,” a soldier from the Third was the first man inside Cremona’s walls (Hist. 3.29). Further, Josephus may be magnifying the Flavian victory or Antonius’ prowess by suggesting that he had just one legion to face the Vitellian army. See note at 4.219.

See note at 4.547. The mss continue to show confusion over the name: κικίλλιον in pam, κικίλιον in lvr, cecinam or cecinium in Latin, correctly caecinam in Ps-Hegesippus, καικίνναν in the editio princeps. Originally Galba’s disgruntled legionary legate, commanding iiii Macedonica in Upper Germany, Caecina Alienus threw his support behind Vitellius’ challenge to Otho and brought an alleged ca. 30,000 troops (15–16,000 per Murison 1993: 85–86), anchored by xxi Rapax, to the first Battle of Bedriacum / Cremona in April 69. Since that victory, Vitellius has placed enormous trust in Caecina and Valens, awarding them the consulship with virtual co-emperor powers (Tacitus, Hist. 2.92; 3.31). According to 4.643, 30,200 soldiers, a force comparable to that on the Flavian side or slightly larger. Vitellius had marched to Rome with 4 full legions (i Italica, v Alaudae, xxi Rapax, xxii Primigenia) and large vexillations from 4 others (i Germanica, iiii Macedonica, xv Primigenia, xvi Gallica), plus 8,000 men drawn from 3 legions in Britain (ii Augusta, ix Hispana, xx Valeria Victrix) and 34 auxiliary cohorts (Tacitus, Hist. 1.61 with 2.89). Nicols (1978: 158) calculates 75,000 in total, an even more skeptical Murison (1993: 85) about 66,000. To meet the Flavians here, Caecina has taken from Rome 4 legions whole (i Italica, xxi Rapax, v Alaudae, xxii Primigenia) plus vexillations of i Germanica, iv, xv, and xvi, along with the 8,000 from Britain (Tacitus, Hist. 2.57, 100; Wellesley 2000: 102). This leaves Vitellius and his other consul Valens with the equivalent of 2 legions (4 minus vexillations), plus an unknown number of auxiliaries, plus 20,ooo in the 16 cohorts of the Praetorian Guard (1,000 each) and 4 urban cohorts (1,000 each): Tacitus, Hist. 2.93. Nicols observes (1978: 159) that Vitellius’ creation of 16,000 prestigious and highly paid Guard positions (a whole new Praetorian Guard because of the doubtful loyalty of its predecessors) and 2,000 new slots in the Urban Cohorts (doubling the size of each) might have exacerbated the problem of leadership and morale in the legions that Tacitus reflects, for the new posts with better conditions and high esteem in Rome would have siphoned off the best military talent, away from the fight at Cremona. See 4.545–49 with notes. Caecina is one of the serving consuls, with Valens, in October 69 (Tacitus, Hist. 3.31). According to Tacitus (Hist. 2.100), Caecina—planning treachery from the start—never confronts Antonius. He sends his legions on to occupy Cremona (i Italica and xxi Rapax) and Hostilia (presumably xxii Primigenia plus the 7 half-legions, including 3 from Britain), respectively W and E of Bedriacum, while he himself diverts to Padua, well E of Hostilia, to plan a safe desertion, with v Alaudae as his main force (Hist. 3.14). He travels via Ravenna to confer with Prefect of the Fleet Lucilius Bassus (soon to govern Judea and die in post after capturing Machaerus), who is likewise planning to change sides. Caecina eventually establishes his camp between Hostilia and some marshes on the Tartarus (Tartaro) river to the E (Tacitus, Hist. 3.12). For this confusing notice (evidently referring to what had been the province of Cisalpine Gaul more than a century earlier), see note at 6.547. From Rome to Cremona was (depending on route) ca. 425 km (265 mi), requiring about 2 weeks’ marching in normal conditions (see note to “present” at 4.70). This might have been cut by a couple of days for the emergency, but Tacitus (Hist. 2.99) conveys no sense that Caecina or his army were eager to fight. Whereas the preceding statement might be intelligible as a show-off reference to the Gallic history of this region and its former status as a separate province (Gallia Cisalpina)—though it had been deeply Romanized by the 40s bce (Ewins 1955)—this one is difficult to grasp. Cremona and Bedriacum were much closer to the arc of the Alps that created the N border of Cisalpine Gaul (from Bedriacum: 43 km, 27 mi) than they were to the Rubicon River (from Bedriacum: ca. 200 km, 120 mi), which had divided the old province from Italy.

Cf. Jacob the Idumean at 4.521, who ponders (and follows through with) betrayal of his country to Simon bar Giora. This does not speak well of Caecina, who in Josephus’ narrative has a full army against Antonius’ mere legion (4.633–34). In Tacitus’ fuller account, Caecina’s doubts arise while he is still in Rome, under the influence of Vespasian’s older brother Sabinus (Prefect of the City) and another Flavian mediator who has assured him that Vespasian will welcome him. So Caecina leaves Rome to meet the Flavian forces with defection in mind. Vitellius wants to send both consuls to the fight, but Valens is recuperating from illness. When Caecina leaves Rome with the German forces, they reportedly drag their feet and their weapons, with no enthusiasm for fighting this eager and motivated enemy (Hist. 2.99).

A legion had 6 tribunes and 60 centurions. That would be a sizable audience even if Caecina had only the Fifth Legion with him as Tacitus indicates. If he had his entire army of 7.5 legions at Cremona, it would be an audience of ca. 450. See note at 4.85.

Or “force, power, energy.” The contrast between ὄνομα and δύναμις is one expression of the Platonic distinction (Resp. 514a–517c) between appearance and reality, between what we can see (and name) and the true essence. See especially Crat. 394a–b, where these words are used. The contrast appears a few times in Josephus, sometimes with this language: 1.110 (Alexandra Salome had the title but not the power of queen); 1.209 (Hyrcanus likewise, as king); 1.561 (Antipater pleads with his father Herod not to leave him the mere title of king without the force); 2.208 (Claudius promises to be content with the title of ruler without personal power, governing through senatorial consultation); cf. War 1.648; Ant. 17.41; 19; 332; Apion 1.18, 67; Cassius Dio 36.11. The epitome of Dio (64/65.10.1–3) has a similarly simplified account: Caecina reaches Cremona and realizes that his soldiers are out of shape after months of luxurious living; they have little chance against Antonius’ eager, fit, and disciplined army. When the latter sends him conciliatory notes, therefore, Caecina readily accepts and persuades his soldiers (for the moment). Tacitus (Hist. 3.12–13) gives Caecina a different logic, to match the more complicated movements in his account and his long-term plan to change sides (see note to “Antonius” at 4.634). He waits until he has heard that Bassus has defected with the fleet at Ravenna, then sends most of his soldiers and senior officers away from headquarters (between Hostilia and the River Tartarus, with v Alaudae) on details. With a largely empty camp, he summons the remaining centurions and some common soldiers (contrast Josephus’ tribunes and centurions) and persuades this biddable group that the fleet’s revolt makes their position untenable, given the loss of supplies; nor they can rely on Rome [i.e., Vitellius], or the western provinces, which are turning to Vespasian (cf. Hist. 3.44). Casting aspersions on Vitellius, he quickly administers the oath of allegiance to Vespasian, and the obliging soldiers replace Vitellius’ name on their standards with Vespasian’s—before the majority of the army returns and discovers the treachery.

Antonius may have held such sentiments at the time, but they were not objective facts. Vitellius, as ruling emperor with a strong base of loyalty in the city and its newly expanded cohorts (20,000 men) as in his many legions and among the ruling elite, was not so obviously inferior to Vespasian’s challenge—unless people wished to think so. The immediate repentance and fear of Caecina’s soldiers (Josephus, Dio) or the indignant resolve of his larger army (Tacitus) suggest that poor leadership, most visible in the defections of Caecina and Bassus, and the Vitellian legions’ insistence on fighting at night after a tiring march, led to the Vitellians’ defeat.

The epitome of Cassius Dio (64/65.10–11) agrees with Josephus about the night-time repentance, adding that after the soldiers’ returned to loyalty to Vitellius, an eclipse created a blood moon with terrifying colors. Although such an omen might as well have indicated Vitellius’ doom, they take it as a sign to fight for Vitellius to the end. Morgan (2006: 201) points out that according to astronomical tables a lunar eclipse actually occurred on 18 October, 69, at 9:50 pm local time. The date and time happen to fit Tacitus’ account, which dates the arrival in Rome of the news of Vitellius’ defeat to 31 October (Hist. 3.37). For the nasa record of eclipses see https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEcat5/LE0001-0100.html, accessed 3 August 2021. For this word-group, conspicuously favored by Josephus (and Philo), see notes at 4.221, 354. The epitome of Dio matches Josephus’ account here (64/65.10.4): as soon as the soldiers reach their tents and have time to contemplate what they have done, they change their minds, swear renewed allegiance to Vitellius, and detain Caecina. Again, Tacitus gives these events a different complexion. Rather than having the same men change their minds, he portrays the majority of proud soldiers from Germany hearing of the betrayal by the small group Caecina persuaded, and immediately reacting with outrage that they who have won such illustrious victories in battle should surrender without fighting, their actions on the battlefield now dictated by a miserable fleet of their inferiors (under Bassus at Ravenna). There it is the stalwart majority of the army that asserts its loyalty to Vitellius. The ms variants at 4.634 continue. This notice would make little sense in Tacitus’ version, where the senior officers appear to have been absent from the defection and therefore take the lead in Caecina’s removal, confinement, and transfer to Cremona.

Tacitus, Hist. 3.14: the main body of soldiers, in Caecina’s camp E of Hostilia, choose the legate and camp prefect of Legio v Alaudae as their leaders: Fabius Fabullus and Cassius Longus. After confining Caecina, they destroy a bridge over the river where they are (Tartarus?), kill the crews of 3 galleys that have put in at their site from Ravenna, though the crews happen to know nothing of Bassus’ defection, and head W via Hostilia, the next Vitellian camp, eventually to join i Italica and xxi Rapax at Cremona. Thus, Cremona ends up as the site of Caecina’s imprisonment and the Vitellians’ last stand, but Josephus has compressed the events to such a degree that he tells a different story from Tacitus’ far more elaborate account. Antonius Primus at 4.495, 633–34, Antonius at 639, 643, 645, 650, 654. Josephus characteristically varies the form of name, choosing Primus here and again at 4.642, 647—intermingling the two. Josephus (4.634) has placed Antonius vaguely “near Cremona.” According to Tacitus, his base has been at Verona, 82 km (51 mi) ENE of Cremona as the crow flies. With the Vitellians’ withdrawal W to Cremona, however, Antonius marches his force the 60 km (37 mi) SW to Bedriacum, in 2 full days, ca. 33 km (21 mi) or a full day’s march E of Cremona (Hist. 3.15). Apparently, ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀποστάντας here means the rebels against Caecina after his defection, another clue that Josephus does not regard the defection itself as moral failure, for being a “rebel” (against the fated movement of history in Vespasian, Antonius, and Caecina), in Josephus’ lexicon, would be as troublesome as Caecina’s “betrayal” of the contemptible Vitellius.

See note at 4.219. Josephus’ narrative implies (4.633–34) that Antonius has only iii Gallica and a substantial cavalry against the 2 Vitellian legions in Cremona, whereas Tacitus indicates that he has 6 legions in Bedriacum plus a large number of auxiliary cohorts and cavalry. Tacitus (Hist. 3.15) describes him settling the legions in Bedriacum as a secure base, then sending auxiliary cohorts to the outskirts of Cremona to get a sense of the potential for looting, while he advances a third of the way to Cremona with 4,000 cavalry to protect these scouts. Antonius more or less repeats Placidus’ maneuver outside Bethennabris across the Jordan, using the cavalry to prevent the fleeing enemy from getting inside the town’s walls, then having the infantry cut down the exposed fighters: 4.422–30. Tacitus tells the story of Cremona differently (Hist. 3.16–18). When Antonius hears that the Vitellians are advancing from Cremona, an eager Flavian officer rushes against them with a cavalry detachment, but is driven back when a larger Vitellian force appears. Antonius advances toward Cremona through the afternoon and finds that 2 Vitellian legions have come out nearly 4 miles. Antonius breaks their lines with his cohorts and cavalry, but it is now late in the day and his men are exhausted, with many injured, so he pulls back on the road between the 2 cities to bivouac. That evening the legions just settled in Bedriacum catch up with his force and urge him to attack at night, being sure of a surprise victory and untold spoils, whereas if they wait for daylight the city will seek terms and they will be deprived. Antonius gives a speech, fatefully promising them their plunder, but insisting that a night attack inside a strange city is too hazardous (Hist. 3.19–20). His troops are on the verge of mutiny when they hear that the other Vitellian legions from Hostilia and E have arrived and are ready for battle. The Vitellians now have 8 full legions plus 3 half-legions from Britain. Antonius positions 1 legion on the road to face the adversary and 2 on each side for a broad front, with auxiliaries on the flanks and the cavalry beside and behind them. The armies meet in the 3rd hour of darkness (ca. 9:00 pm) and chaotic fighting lasts the entire night, the Flavians with the bright moon behind them enjoying better visibility. Dio (64/65.13) claims that the women of Cremona bring food out to the Vitellians who, because they know many of the “enemy” Flavian Roman soldiers from past service (this highlighting the absurdity of civil war), offer the Flavians their leftovers and joke as though they were members of rival units in the same army. The Flavians prevail, in part because the custom of iii Gallica (from Syria) of loudly greeting the rising sun in the E leads the rest of the army to think that Mucianus’ force has arrived, which boosts their morale (Tacitus, Hist. 3.24–25; Dio 64/65.14). When the Flavians reach Cremona, they must still penetrate its walls. The troops’ impatience for plunder overwhelms the commanders’ caution and they find ways in (Tacitus, Hist. 3.26–30). See note at 4.203 for this unusual verb.

Tacitus (Hist. 3.31–33) presents the 4-day sack of Cremona as a stain on Antonius’ reputation, which the commander much regrets, though partly blaming it on the different ethnicities and moral habits of his units. As 40,000 soldiers (not counting the still less disciplined camp followers) burst into the city, rape, murder, and kidnapping for the slave market accompany the mere plundering of valuables, with stronger soldiers killing even their weaker comrades to increase their haul. It is a lawless free-for-all. A rare point of intersection between Tacitus and Josephus is the former’s note (Hist. 3.30; cf. 32) that many outsiders happen to be present in Cremona because it is market time, and they also fall victim to the Flavians; their presence had greatly increased the city’s wealth. Though the number is possible, Vitellius’ “entire army” is an exaggeration, since (a) the survivors of the defeated Vitellian legions and those on the approaches to Rome are substantial enough to be reorganized and sent elsewhere (Tacitus, Hist. 3.35, 63) and (b) Vitellius still has a navy (Bassus having been replaced) plus a 2-legion+ force in Rome (4 legions minus Caecina’s vexillations), while Antonius fears additional call-ups from Britain and Germany (Tacitus, Hist. 3.15). Tacitus (Hist. 3.60) has Antonius concede that the remainder of Vitellius’ army will be dangerous, if left with no option but to fight. Vitellius also has the 20,000 trained men under arms in Rome in the Praetorian Guard and urban cohorts: Tacitus, Hist. 2.93. Nevertheless, the bloodshed at Cremona was shocking. Dio (64/65.15.2) claims 50,000 casualties in the battle and city massacres combined. I.e., Moesia; see note at 4.619.

The ms variants at 4.634 continue. According to Tacitus (Hist. 3.31) the Vitellian senior officers, in preparing their surrender to Flavian forces, free Caecina and beg him, as their former commander who has already defected, to plead their cause, but he arrogantly disavows them. Yet, when he proudly marches out in his consul’s dress before the Flavian soldiers, with lictors before him, they abuse him mercilessly. They would happily have killed him on the spot, had not Antonius intervened to send him to Vespasian. Barnes (2005: 137) proposes that “no writer with any political awareness at all would have condemned Caecina openly in this way while he was still an imperial favourite,” and that since Caecina fell from favor and was executed by Titus only at the end of Vespasian’s reign, in 78 or 79 (Suetonius, Tit. 6.2; Cassius Dio 65/66.16.3–4), this consideration supports a date for War after 79. Such criteria are not so clear, however. Jones (1966: 71), for example, questions Ronald Syme’s dating of Plutarch’s Otho after 79 on the strength of its unflattering portrait of Caecina, pointing to this (assumed to be pre-79) passage in Josephus to show that Caecina could have been so criticized before his downfall. Barnes’ argument is difficult because Josephus’ description of Caecina’s actions is of betrayal. His calling it betrayal and then stressing that nevertheless Vespasian overlooked it agrees with his generally Machiavellian portrait of Vespasian (Mason 2017a, 2018, 2019a). Although Herod’s situation was different, Josephus implies no criticism of Herod when the king visits Octavian after Antony’s defeat and, though an avowed friend of Antony who would happily have fought Octavian, asks the latter now to accept him as a faithful client (1.390). Octavian agrees and awards Herod high honors. That was not betrayal, in Josephus’ discourse, but a wise and proper adaptation to the reversals of Fortune. Caecina could not have made the same plea, to be sure: he had joined Vitellius only because of his pre-existing wish to see Galba gone; he never became Vitellius’ friend. Still, it is not clear why Josephus would have considered unmentionable Caecina’s betrayal of Vitellius, which had sealed Vespasian’s victory and was duly rewarded by an emperor who understood precisely the betrayal it represented. If Vespasian celebrated this betrayal, as the Allies in World War ii celebrated the reversals of Adm. Darlan and Marshal Badoglio, why should Josephus not describe it? Even Tacitus (Hist. 2.86) remarks that Caecina and Valens did something good for the res publica; his only qualification is that they could not have justified this as virtue, since they had already betrayed Galba.

See note to “brother” at 4.599. This is the first named mention in War of Vespasian’s older brother, as of Domitian his son in the next sentence, Josephus’ Flavian-Roman audience knowing perfectly well whom he referred to earlier. Tacitus (Hist. 3.64–65) is more nuanced: Flavian supporters in Rome encourage him to boldness, as Vitellius has “only a few cohorts” remaining. But Sabinus feels too old and weak to take strong action, and is suspected by some of deliberately undermining his brother’s rise, though Tacitus attributes his hesitancy to his non-confrontational nature, citing his frequent conversations with (and continued loyalty to) Vitellius to secure a peaceful transfer of power—both men thinking of the well-being of the city and its residents. Tacitus, Hist. 3.66–69: Vitellius, on hearing of his forces’ defeats, forgets that he is princeps and immediately understands the need to surrender and relocate, above all to save his family and 6-year-old son. Trusting assurances of safety from Antonius, Mucianus, and Sabinus, he tries to hand over the symbols of power to a new consul and move to his brother’s private house. But his avid supporters block the way, demand that he assert his authority, and force him back to the now-deserted palace. Sabinus, pleased to know that Vitellius is abdicating, gathers most senators, equestrians, and military leaders in his large home on the Quirinal hill, ordering the tribunes of the urban cohorts to maintain order. But as he leaves his home with an entourage, he is attacked by supporters of Vitellius and flees with his family—summoning Domitian to join them—in the sacred precinct of the Capitoline hill. He has a “mixed armed force” (mixto milite), presumably including members of the urban cohorts and some of the Praetorian Guard. The epitome of Dio (64/65.17) mentions Sabinus among a party led by the consuls Atticus and Simplex and others “who had the same view,” which headed to Vitellius on the Palatine, apparently in daytime, to persuade him to abdicate (as he had sometimes offered in his rapidly changing moods). Prevented from meeting him and being mishandled by Vitellius’ Gallic sentries, they now flee to the security of the Capitolium. Josephus has Sabinus “seize” the site at night, apparently with the paramilitary night-time fire-watch (cohortes vigilum) established by Augustus: 7 cohorts of perhaps 1,000 but more likely 560 (with a vexillation of 160 at Ostia), under an equestrian prefect, which live in their own barracks and are paid from the public treasury (Cassius Dio 55.26.4). Creating a fine-grained historical picture of these cohorts has proven elusive: Baillie Reynolds 1926; Rainbird 1986. The Capitolium was the WNW hill of Rome’s storied 7, overlooking the Forum Romanum. The part that was within the Servian walls and the sacred boundary (pomerium) comprised two peaks (SSW and NNE) with a saddle between them. On the SSW end was Rome’s most important temple, to Iuppiter Optimus Maximus (Jupiter Best and Greatest), along with 2 smaller temples and a sacred esplanade. The cliffside below was the Tarpeian Rock, where in republican times enemies of the state would be thrown to their deaths. At the NNE end was the Arx (“citadel”), crowned by the temple of Juno Moneta, where the metals for coinage were stored. In the saddle between, directly overlooking the Temple of Concordia in the Forum below (where the Capitoline Museum stands today), was the Tabularium. This housed the state records and archives. One plausible location of the Gemonian Stairs, at the top of which Sabinus and Vitellius were killed or maimed according to other versions of the present story, was from the Tabularium down to the Tullian prison below the Arx.

18-year-old Domitian was first mentioned, without being named, at 4.599 (see notes). Perhaps Josephus’ note on the familial connection should be read not as information about that, but rather to explain why Domitian would join Sabinus: as his brother’s son, he naturally joined the group. See notes at 4.599.

Sabinus was an unlikely “rebel.” He had loyally served Vitellius as Urban Prefect for 8 months, as he had served Nero and Otho. Vespasian initiated a civil war in the summer of 69, but there was no clear sign in Rome, other than expected bonds of blood, that his brother would join him, before Antonius Primus’ victory in December. Tacitus says that those who rebelled with Sabinus—or rather, who supported Sabinus and the Flavians once it seemed clear that Vitellius was abdicating—included the leading senators (including the consuls), most equestrians, and all of the urban cohorts and fire-watchmen (Hist. 3.69). Vitellius’ concern that this impressive group was suddenly arrayed against him would be understandable. See note to “entire force” at 4.634. Unlike the local units that have gone over to Sabinus, Vitellius has the equivalent of 2 legions and an unknown number of auxiliary cohorts to support him steadfastly. See note at 4.645. Both parts of this sentence contradict Tacitus’ account. Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dio all present Vitellius as utterly lacking in Stoic or Roman virtue: a man given to impulse, immediate gratification in food and drink (e.g., Tacitus, Hist. 1.62; 2.31), and unable to control either his gluttony or his soldiers’ violent impulses. But in those accounts he does not have a savage nature. On 18 December (Hist. 3.67–71) he is moved chiefly by concern for his young son, wife, and his own safety, seeing retirement to private life under an agreement with Flavius Sabinus as the best course. When Sabinus has to flee from Vitellian soldiers to the Capitol, Vespasian’s brother sends a messenger to Vitellius to ask why he did not retire as promised. Vitellius, truly disturbed at the plight of his Urban Prefect and friend, replies that he can no longer control his soldiers. Tacitus adds that he is no longer imperator (one whose commands are obeyed) but rather a cause of war and powerless to control anyone (3.70).

See 4.634, 647: the force that Vitellius had brought from Germany (not the local forces, with stronger allegiance to the Senate and Sabinus) championed his cause at the end.

For this characteristic Josephan adjective (δαιµόνιος) see note at 4.34. Josephus’ audience may already know the story that Suetonius would relate (Dom. 1.2): young Domitian hid overnight with the temple guardian, then the next day dressed as a priest of Isis to blend in with an Isiac procession across the Tiber, there reaching safety with a school-friend’s family. Tacitus (Hist. 3.74) does not mention Isis, but credits a freedman with the clever idea of dressing him in a linen robe (worn by priests of Isis), to mix into a procession of priests. The temple of Isis was only 500 m N (550 yds) N of the Temple of Jupiter, though beyond the pomerium. Tacitus thinks, however, that Domitian fled to the home of one of his father’s clients just S of the Capitol (near the Velabrum). Tacitus adds that Domitian later erected a chapel to Jupiter the Preserver where the temple custodian’s room had been, and later a temple to that god, which featured a statue of Jupiter with Domitian in his lap. Josephus was not the only one who considered the young man’s escape miraculous. Whereas Suetonius does not say what became of Sabinus, and Dio’s epitome (64/65.17.3) relates only that he was arrested, Tacitus dilates on his death and adds a moving obituary (Hist. 3.74–75). In keeping with this historian’s rather sympathetic portrait of Vitellius at the end, he stresses that Vitellius was not responsible for Sabinus’ death. The soldiers who captured him (and the consul Atticus) brought him in heavy chains to Vitellius, who regarded him in a kindly way and tried to persuade the mob to desist. They forced him to go away, however, as they turned to killing and beheading Sabinus. Vitellius was able to save his consul Atticus. All sources agree that the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus burned in the conflict between Vitellian and Flavian forces (19 December 69), but Josephus’ attribution of blame to Vitellius’ plundering-and-burning troops is not shared. Suetonius (Vit. 15.3) places blame on Vitellius, though only as one order during his days of vacillation, and one that he immediately regrets. Dio’s epitome (64/65.17.3) says that the Flavian party had established a defensive position, but “when the Capitol precincts were set on fire” (passive voice), this allowed the Vitellian force to advance. Tacitus complicates the picture (Hist. 3.70–71). Advancing Vitellian soldiers, he says, lacking artillery to force the gates, use firebrands to burn their way into the compound. But then, as the attackers climb on residential rooftops to reach the summit, the Flavian defenders (according to most accounts, he notes) set fires to repel them. Tacitus’ lament over the burning of Rome’s historic temple, as the result of civil war and no foreign conquest (Hist. 3.72), is strikingly similar to Josephus’ thematic remarks in the same vein (e.g., War 1.10–12). Vespasian will make it a priority to rebuild the Capitoline Temple to Jupiter on new foundations, laid already on 21 June 70 (months before he arrived) and laced with gold and silver (Tacitus, Hist. 4.53).

Tacitus, Hist. 3.82: approaching from the Mulvian (Milvian) Bridge, 5 km (3 mi) N of the Capitol, Antonius sends his army by 3 routes: down the Tiber (in boats?), along the Via Flaminia (NW entry), and along the Via Salaria (NE entry, close to the Praetorian barracks). Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius all ignore the role of Q. Petilius Cerealis, a prominent senator and relative of Vespasian’s, whom Cassius Dio (64/65.18) makes a co-commander of Flavian troops along with Antonius. In his account, Cerealis is first to arrive at Rome’s gates, with a cavalry force, but is turned back—alive, on account of Vitellius’ mildness.

Cf. Tacitus on Valens, shortly before his capture by the Flavians (Hist. 3.41): “He had violence and money and, as fortune abandoned him, a last-stand lust” (novissima libido). Josephus’ vivid picture of a tyrannical, louche Vitellius emerging from the Palatine imperial residence reflects a general image of the man’s character in surviving texts (no doubt influenced by Flavian propaganda), but not the other surviving accounts of his last days; see previous notes. They all present him as in some degree, with Tacitus offering the most empathic version, vacillating between abdication and—at the insistence of supporters—a fight to the end. According to the other accounts, Vitellius ends up in the deserted palace only after first trying to flee to the safety of family residences. Once in the palace he tries to hide in abject fear (no banqueting), but is discovered and dragged out to an ignominious death (Tacitus, Hist. 3.84). Suetonius (Vit. 16–17) claims that he barricaded himself in the porter’s lodge, with a dog on the outside of the door and couch and mattress pressed to the inside, and that when marauding soldiers accidentally discovered him they did not immediately recognize him. Dio (64/65.20.1–2) says that he donned a filthy old shirt and hid himself from the soldiers in a room where guard-dogs were kept, and so was bitten and bleeding when the soldiers found him.

Here all accounts converge, albeit with different details. According to Suetonius (Vit. 17), when Vitellius was recognized he tried to save his life by claiming to have vital information for Vespasian (cf. Josephus at Iotapata). This ruse being ignored, he was dragged half-naked through the forum, his huge belly an object of scorn as he was pelted with feces. Soldiers prevented him from looking down by grabbing his hair and keeping daggers at his chin. At the top of the Gemonian Steps—see note to “Capitolium by night” at 4.645—he was viciously tortured before being dragged by a hook to the Tiber. Dio (64/65.20–21) and Tacitus (Hist. 3.84–85) have much the same story, both adding that at some point a German soldier broke through to strike him, whether from anger at his failure or from loyalty, hoping to kill him before the inevitable torture. Although Josephus may be misleading about the month and day (3rd note below), his calculation is precise: from Otho’s death on 16 April (though Vitellius was confirmed by the Senate on the 19th) to 20 December. Even well-informed Roman authors were often mistaken about dates. Cassius Dio (64/65.22.1) claims that Vitellius ruled for a year less 10 days, but correctly (most agree) reports that he lived 54 years and 89 days—until early in his 55th year—which would put his birthday on 22 September, 15 ce. But Tacitus remarks that he had nearly completed 57 years (Hist. 3.86), and Suetonius (Vit. 18.1) that he was in his 57th year. See note at 4.496: Vitellius attracts the only two occurrences (cf. 4.652) of the vividly sexual noun λαγνεία (“semen”) in Josephus. In a related vein, the epitome of Cassius Dio writes (64/65.7.3): “not all the money in the whole world [spent on lavish meals and obscenely extravagant living] would be sufficient for him,” and (4.1) “not even Nero’s Golden House could satisfy Vitellius.” Josephus’ λαγνεία overlaps in sense with Latin libido, which Tacitus uses of Vitellius at Hist. 2.62 (and of Otho at 1.30, quoting Licinianus Piso).

Cf. Cassius Dio 64/65.19.3: as many as 50,000 died in and around Rome.

The other sources agree on 2o December 69 as the date of Vitellius’ end. Josephus is thus mistaken if he follows his usual practice of matching Macedonian with Hebrew lunar months (see note to “Hyperbereteus” at 4.63). Apelleus was Kislev. If in 69 it began at the early end of the drift in relation to the solar calendar (before the intercalary month Adar ii), around 3 November, Josephus’ date would be ca. 5 November 69. His notice at 4.652 about Vitellius’ time in power (with 4.499 and 548 for Galba and Otho), viz. 8 months and 5 days, nevertheless agrees precisely with a death date of 20 December: cf. Tacitus (Hist. 3.67, 70.1: Vitellius learned of Antonius’ proximity and died 2 days later) and Suetonius (Vit. 15–17: he died 2 days after learning Antonius was near). Apelleus must here, exceptionally, be aligned with the Tyrian calendar (Nicols 1978: 47; Levick 1999: 41). At 4.632 (see notes), Vespasian sent Mucianus with a large force from Syria overland to Italy. Although he set off before Antonius Primus, Mucianus had a longer trip and paused in Moesia to leave his main legion (vi Ferrata) there to handle security. Antonius was supposed to wait for him with the legions of Pannonia and Moesia (Tacitus, Hist. 2.83; 3.46). Vespasian had tasked Mucianus to lead the Flavian army against Vitellius, so he was much annoyed at Antonius’ premature expedition (Tacitus, Hist. 3.52–53; Morgan 2006: 182–89). Since Mucianus’ army (with vexillations from the legions in Judea, War 5.40–44) could march direct from Moesia to Rome, without needing to battle Vitellius’ forces on the way, he nearly caught up with Antonius in the capital. According to Tacitus (Hist. 4.2–11), Mucianus did not arrive until Rome had been in Antonius’ hands for several days. The Senate had already convened to grant Vespasian imperial powers (in the extant lex de imperio Vespasiani: cil 6.930; Hellems 1902: 3–6; Sherk 1988 no. 82), Vespasian and Titus the consulships (Hist. 4.4), Domitian a praetorship with temporary consular power, and Antonius an honorary consular status (i.e., insignia). The Flavians’ enemies had been punished, and various disputes had already erupted in the Senate. Mucianus tries to own the victory while he is still some days away, offending the Senate by this haughtiness, but as a matter of prudence they grant him the insignia of a triumph. On his arrival, ca. 25 December, Mucianus immediately replaces Antonius as supreme ruler in Vespasian’s place (Hist. 4.11) and begins executing perceived rivals or threats. Tacitus claims that Mucianus continued to fear Antonius’ popular support as the year 70 opened, and sent the latter’s legion (vii Galbiana) out of Rome to reduce the threat to himself (Hist. 4.39, 68). Mucianus, as an ex-consul and imperial legate in one of the empire’s most prestigious provinces, Syria, clearly outranks Antonius Primus, an ex-praetor and legionary legate who was likely a decade younger (see 4.495 and notes). As soon as Mucianus arrives in Rome, it is his right and role—also as Vespasian’s associate and chosen commander—to assume control. Josephus’ notice that he reins in Antonius’ ill-disciplined, emotionally driven soldiers reflects Flavian judgments of the two men in retrospect. Although he lived well into Domitian’s reign, Antonius Primus apparently never attained the consulship, although his defeat of Vitellian forces had been crucial to Flavian success, whereas Mucianus would enjoy two more turns as consul. Given his massive services to Vespasian, Antonius’ actions after the victory must have cancelled his virtues in Vespasian’s view (cf. Tacitus, Hist. 3.79)—at least as Vespasian framed them, with the hostile Mucianus now advising him (Hist. 4.80). Antonius’ delay in marching on Rome had resulted in the death of Vespasian’s older brother Sabinus (Tacitus, Hist. 3.74) and the burning of the Capitol. Tacitus (Hist. 3.75) claims that Mucianus was nevertheless quietly relieved by the death of Vespasian’s brother, for it removed his strongest potential rival in the new government. However that may be, it was easy for Mucianus to accuse Antonius of having temporized in order to keep his options open (Caecina-like), even pondering a bolt to Vitellius and high status in the latter’s government if he seemed likely to stay in power (Tacitus, Hist. 3.78; cf. 4.39). Likewise Tacitus, Hist. 4.1: Antonius’ forces pursued their enemies with implacable hatred and casually dispatched anyone who got in their way while they searched for those enemies, especially targeting any young and tall men. The bloodbath extended even to temples. Or “governor” (ἡγεμών). The new emperor’s son is unlikely to have needed or received such endorsement from Mucianus. According to Tacitus, on the very day of Vitellius’ murder (20 December) Domitian accepted the Flavian military’s acclamation as Caesar (Hist. 3.86) and promptly took over the imperial residence, immediately enjoying the pleasures of being the imperial spawn (Hist. 4.2). On 1 January, he was confirmed by the Senate in the office of praetor—at 18, far below the normal age of 30 (Talbert 1984: 17–18). As for Mucianus, the experienced ex-consul held virtual imperial power, without the name, in Vespasian’s stead (Tacitus, Hist. 4.11). If Domitian dared anything on his own initiative, it was more likely at the instigation of his friends or his own power-lust than with Mucianus’ encouragement (Hist. 4.39). This issue of Domitian’s ambition would come to a head with the Gallic Revolt in early 70. Mucianus felt obliged to lead the army, but was reluctant to leave Rome without a governor. He immediately excluded Domitian on account of his immaturity, and in deciding to take him along to Gaul (with 8 legions) was motivated by his need to keep an eye on him (Hist. 4.68). We have no clear indication of when Vespasian reached Rome (Levick 1999: xxi “autumn” in 70). Murison (1999: 148–49) walks through the various factors (e.g., the expedition to Gaul after the dedication of the new temple’s foundations on 21 June [Tacitus, Hist. 4.53], that expedition itself, Vespasian’s departure from Alexandria before hearing the outcome in Jerusalem, so around 1 September, the prevailing winds, his circuitous route on several ships requiring ca. 2 months) to conclude that Vespasian reached the Italian shore around 1 November and Rome ca. 2 weeks after that. His mid-November date is about a month later than the other estimates he canvasses.

This happy scene, which serves the Flavian image as saviors of the empire, hardly fits with Josephus’ (4.654) or Tacitus’ (Hist. 4.1) descriptions of the terror in Rome that followed the Flavian forces’ arrival.

It seems that Josephus was with Vespasian and Titus on the trip to Alexandreia (Apion 1.48). This notice continues a paradoxical and ambiguous thread in his narrative. At 4.605, Mucianus and Vespasian’s subordinates urge him to accept the role of imperator and lead their army against Vitellius. Vespasian, however, decides that the linchpin of imperial rule is Alexandria, Egypt’s gateway, and that he can bring down Vitellius by controlling that lever (4.606). That passage already strengthens doubts about Vespasian’s wish to act as imperator, but by 4.631 he is said to realize that Alexandria is in hand (under Tiberius Alexander), whereas Rome is the Schwerpunkt for his bid—and so he sends Mucianus while he himself still heads to Alexandria, for the better part of a year. The epitome of Dio (65/66.8–9) portrays the Alexandrians as intensely hostile to Vespasian. Expecting a reward from the new ruler for their alacrity in supporting him, they find instead a miserly commander who introduces new taxes and revives old ones with a vengeance. He would have punished them for their aggressive taunts had not Titus intervened to mollify his anger. Suetonius (Vesp. 7) and Tacitus (Hist. 4.81–82) tell of omens in Egypt, however, especially at the temple of Serapis, that help to elevate Vespasian’s image from ordinary man to emperor during his stay there. See note at 4.618. Cf. Tacitus, Hist. 4.51: even the Parthian king Vologeses, recently reconciled with Rome under Nero (and Corbulo), sends envoys with congratulations and the offer of 40,000 (famously outstanding) horsemen for Vespasian’s campaigns. The offer is ironic, since the Parthian empire was itself notoriously riven by internal conflict. Vespasian declines the offer, oddly stressing that the empire is now at peace and piously suggesting that the envoys take their offer to the Roman Senate. Rome’s population is generally estimated at about 1 million, at least two thirds free and 10–30% slave, in addition to tens of thousands of resident foreigners, though some scholars would halve that number (Noy 2000: 15–18; Garnsey and Saller 2014: 109). For such a figure to be possible, many residents must have lived well outside the later Aurelian walls, presumably along the main roads. In a careful and much-cited study of Alexandria’s population, Delia (1988) finds 600,000 to be the upper limit, half of these in citizen families, as many as 180,000 of the rest Judeans, and the remainder slaves and foreign residents. The next largest city was Antioch, which Strabo (16.2.5) thought not much smaller than Antioch; cf. Downey 1958. A fragmentary text reflecting the crowds’ acclamation at the hippodrome, thanking Tiberius Alexander and hailing Vespasian as son of Ammon, god Caesar, and Lord Augustus, has been preserved: cpj 2.418a; et in Sherk 1988: no. 81.

Although this sounds like simple reasoning, its logic depends on the premise that the empire needed saving. The Flavian slant is obvious if one considers that at least Galba and Vitellius (if we bracket Otho’s reign as mired in conflict from beginning to end) might equally have thought that they had rescued the empire and confirmed its leadership, before Vespasian launched this new civil war against Vitellius. Josephus’ many departures from Flavian propaganda in the service of his own Judean themes (e.g., Mason 2005a, 2017a, 2018, 2019a) prevent us from seeing him as a mouthpiece of the regime in many respects. But in his dark portrait of Vitellius and the need for a Flavian remedy he closely reflects the regime’s outlook. As 4.555 has made clear, the Flavians are not concerned with the “bandit” communities of Herodium, Machaerus, and Masada, which successive governors will recover from 71 to 74 ce. Jerusalem is Vespasian’s primary objective. Describing Jerusalem as what is “left” is paradoxical, nevertheless, precisely because the Judean mother-city and its environs were the source of unrest (riots against Florus, massacre of garrison, rebuff of Cestius) that had brought Vespasian to Judea in the first place, to take over the suppression of strife there from Cestius Gallus. Caution and the leisure to create psychological terror with a large, well-protected army in country have led Vespasian to slow-walk the isolation of Jerusalem: consolidating Galilee and Samaria in the spring of 67 and broadly encircling Jerusalem in spring 68, before Nero’s death stops him for a year, then tightening the cordon in late spring 69, upon news of Vitellius’ accession. From this perspective, Jerusalem is what remains.

Cf. Tacitus, Hist. 4.71: later in the year 70 Vespasian was still waiting for summer winds and stable seas. Unlike 4.591 above (see notes), where the setting is mid-summer, Vespasian’s concern about winter sailing here makes better sense. It is now ca. early January in 70 (he has just heard about his forces’ victory in Rome ca. 20 December), which was the worst time to sail—though not impossible. Titus and Agrippa sailed at this time in the previous year to greet Galba (see 4.499–500). Tacitus mentions that envoys from Rome to Alexandria and the grain ships that Vespasian dispatched to Rome made winter sailings at this time (Hist. 4.51–52). In any case, Vespasian will not sail at the first opportunity in the spring of 70, but will reach Rome only in October or November 70 (Levick 1999: xxi; Murison 1999: 148–50). He would have had time to conduct the siege of Jerusalem, which appears to have concluded around 1 September in 70, and might have ended sooner under his command (Mason 2016a: 439). But the Roman civil war had shown how perilous it was for a new princeps in Rome, and Vespasian’s delay is easier to understand in terms of the caution that marked his entire, reluctant bid for empire (4.602–603; cf. Tacitus, Hist. 2.64–65). Cf. Cassius Dio 64/65.8.3: “Vespasian was never inclined to be rash, and he hesitated very much about involving himself in such troublous affairs” (trans. E. Cary, lcl). Tacitus (Hist. 4.51), curiously, links Vespasian’s choice of Titus for Jerusalem with disturbing reports from Rome about Domitian’s overweening ambition and lack of discipline: “therefore (igitur) he handed over the most capable part of the army to Titus, to prosecute what remained of the Judean war.” One would think that Titus’ 12-year advantage in age and daily experience of the Judean conflict over the past 3 years would have made him the only plausible candidate, with no obvious place for Domitian, as Hist. 5.1 implies. The earlier note in Tacitus may reflect the general hostility toward Domitian after his fall in 96, with a gratuitous dig at his character that was not actually part of Vespasian’s calculation in early 70. The select force, according to 5.43–44, comprises 2,000 troops from Egypt’s legions, presumably 1,000 each from iii Cyrenaica and xxii Deiotariana, to help fill the gap in Vespasian’s Judean force created by Mucianus’ expedition to Italy. According to Dio (65.66.2a), Vespasian expected that Titus would rapidly conclude the capture of Jerusalem—an interesting reflection of his perception of the difficulty involved—and accompany him to Rome. When he tired of waiting, he set off for Rome on his own. If Vespasian had any such thought, which would be very different from Josephus’ claim that Vespasian left Titus to handle to Jerusalem because he wanted to leave for Rome as quickly as possible (but did not), it would seem to confirm that Vespasian saw Jerusalem as a relatively minor operation, which he could have handled himself but did not need to. He would be generously giving his son a next-level military challenge in a series of increasing responsibilities: Iapha (3.298–306), Tarichea (3.470–505), and Gischala (4.87–120—completing the pacification of Galilee), while remaining close enough to assist him in an emergency. It would suit this plan if he gave his son the honor of taking the submission of Jerusalem, when Vespasian had already done everything to make that submission inevitable (Tacitus, Hist. 2.4, 78).

It seems from Apion 1.48 that Josephus accompanied Titus on this journey back to Judea. This “Victory City” abutted Alexandria ca. 4 km (2.5 mi) to the N. Strabo (Geog. 17.1.10) gives a distance of 30 stadia (6 km, 3.75 mi) but still includes it as a suburb of Alexandria, although it has its own amphitheatre, stadium, and games at 4-year intervals. He explains that Augustus named the site as a memorial of his victory over Antony and Cleopatra (30 bce). It was not the only Nicopolis founded to commemorate that crucial victory; cf. Strabo, Geog. 7.7.5–6; 10.2.2 (for Actium). I.e., military galleys: see 4.499 and notes. It was common for galleys to serve as troop transports, though the conditions for the transportees were tough: the crammed deck-space made no provision for sleeping. Quinquiremes, with 5 banks of oars, could carry about 250 troops (Pitassi 2012: 107–108). If Titus used either triremes or smaller river vessels (Liburnian monoremes of only 15 m [50 ft] length) for these transits along the Nile branches and canals, his 2,000 legionaries (note to “select force” in preceding sentence) must have required between 20 and 50 vessels, the latter especially if they brought much equipment. The Nile Delta was formed by the fork of the Nile around Heliopolis, into 7 main branches (Strabo, Geog. 17.1.18; Pliny. Nat. 5.64) plus a number of smaller ones fanning out towards the Mediterranean (here the Egyptian Sea). The outer rim of the Delta comprised many lakes and marshy areas, though usually enclosed by a strip of land. Alexandria was built on such a strip, with Lake Mareotis behind it inland. The westernmost branch of the Nile was the Canopic in the W, emptying by Canopus 15 km (9.3 mi) NE of Alexandria; the easternmost was the Pelusiac, emptying past Pelusium. To travel due E across the Delta, crossing all of the Nile’s branches, Titus had to take a canal from Nicopolis to join the Canopic Nile at Schedia, then sail “up” (SE inland), then join the Butic / Boutikos canal to sail E (ba 74 with Schiestl 2021), then march E to Pelusium. See previous note. By the late 2nd cent., according to Ptolemy (Geog. 4.4.2), the W-E canal ran all the way to Pelusium. In 70 ce, however, it apparently ran only as far as Thmuis, forcing Titus to debark and march along the route of the later Hadrianic extension to Pelusium. This passage in Josephus is one of only 2 ancient literary sources for the canal (implicitly); the other is in Ptolemy above. Schiestl (2021: 34–36) proposes that the W part may have been a recent Flavian construction, built primarily for strategic purposes—to move troops rapidly and safely during winter when sea sailing became hazardous—and that it would have been usable only in late autumn and winter. Nomes were the traditional provinces of Egypt: 22 in Upper Egypt, 20 in Lower. The city of Mendes (mod. Tell al-Roba, el-Ruba), on a minor branch of the Nile, was the Greek name for Djedet, long the capital of united Egypt and known to Greek and Roman authors since Herodotus (2.42, 46) as a cult-site for the worship of the goat-god of that name, whom he equates with Pan. Strabo elaborates on Herodotus’ claim that goats mate with women here (Geog. 17.1.19–20), whereas Diodorus (1.84) emphasizes their mating with their own kind; cf. Plutarch, Is. Os. 380e). Pliny mentions Mendes for its treasured perfume (Nat. 13.4–8, 17), which was presumably not goat-related. In early Roman times, the city of Thmuis (Tell el-Timai, by Kafr el-Amir Abd Allah) emerged about 1 km to the S of Mendes, displacing it as a settlement. Josephus may be the first author to mention Thmuis, depending on the date of Or. sib. 5.86, but it then appears in Lucian (Rhet. praec. 24) and others.

See note to this favored word in Book 4 at 4.84. He has used it of everything from the tiny Idumean village Chaalis (3.20) to Gischala (4.84), En-Gedi (4.402), substantial settlements in the Transjordan (4.438), and Hebron (4.529). The capital of the Tanite nome (still mod. Tanis), E of the Mendesian, was familiar to other authors (Strabo, Geog. 17.1.20, 41; cf. Josephus, Ant. 1.120). The lxx translators equated it with biblical Tsoan / Zoan (Isa 19:11, 13; Ps. 78:12, 43). Or “station.” Most often (e.g., Ant. 1.61; 3.144; 5.33), Josephus uses the versatile noun σταθμός (a “standing”) for a weight or something weighed in a balance. But the word could refer to a pillar or post, a homestead, or a military or other station, depot, or established overnight stop on established routes. See Ant. 14.441, where the 2nd σταθμός from Samosata equates to 2 days’ marching distance, and 16.183, where Herod covers 7 stations en route to Arabia in a 3-day forced march. At War 3.447 Vespasian pitches camp 30 stadia from Tiberias, at “a certain σταθμός” that was visible from the city. I translate “stop” rather than “station” because in Josephus’ account Titus does not stop at every otherwise-known station. This is Heracleapolis Parva (Mikra), in contrast to the more famous Heracleapolis Magna (mod. Ehanasia / Ihnasiya, Egypt), which lay about 240 km (150 mi) to the S. The Heracleapolis on Titus’ itinerary, probably identified with Tell Bilim, is just one third of the way along the 64-km (40-mi) route from Tanis to Pelusium. The uninhabited modern site, surrounded by intensely farmed plots, has mounds from both dynastic (with temple) and Roman times, which were lightly excavated in salvage operations in 2000–2002 (Spencer 2002). The location, suggesting a march of ca. 21 km (12 mi) to reach it and double that distance on to Pelusium, is a reminder that Romans (and merchants) could not always create evenly spaced marching stations, but had to adapt to the terrain. Strabo (Geog. 17.1.21) relates that Pelusium (likely a creation of Greek mercenaries in the 5th cent. bce or so: Figueras 1985–1988: 56) was surrounded by marshes and difficult to reach from either Judea and Phoenicia or Nabatean Arabia. Its walled settlement was set back 4 km (2.5 mi) from the sea and had a circuit of 4 km. The enclosed city was therefore ca. 1 sq. km. The difficulty of the onward journey into Syria may be one reason why Titus rested his troops here. Pelusium would fade in importance by the late Middle Ages, and the creation of the Suez Canal in the 1860s, joining the Mediterranean at the new Port Said to the NW of old Pelusium, completely altered the structure of the eastern waterways, making it irrelevant. It is now Tell el-Farama, a deserted site of interest mainly for its abundant ancient ruins. Schiestl (2021: 34) points out that the 3 legs of Titus’ journey to Pelusium were very different in length: to Tanis, reportedly the first encampment, about 200 km (124 mi), from there to Heracleapolis about 28 km (17.4 mi), and 37 km (23 mi) from there to Pelusium. The last 2 are in the normal range of a day’s march, but it is not plausible that Titus’ men made it from Nicopolis to Tanis without sleep. From disembarkation at Thmuis to Tanis (36 km, 24.5 mi) was by itself a very long day’s march.

Titus was following a well-travelled route with established stations, not spontaneously bivouacking. Since the time of Alexander, the “Sirbonitic Road” along the sandbar N of Lake Serbonis had displaced the older “Way of Horus”—roughly the modern Highway 40—south of that lake (Figueras 1985–1988 and Paprocki 2019: 97–107). The Sirbonitic Road is variously attested: Polybius 5.80.2 (Ptolemy iv travelling to the Battle of Raphia in 217 bce), Strabo’s description of the stops from Palestine to Egypt (Geog. 16.2.28–33), Pliny Nat. 5.68, and itineraries of the 2nd cent. ce and later. The early 4th-cent. itinerary of Theophanes of Hermopolis, from Nicopolis to Antioch (and back to Hermopolis), would be even more valuable than it is, given its numbered stations, mile counts, and even travelling expenses, if it had been closer to Titus’ date and the author had not been part of a mounted group making much faster times than Titus’ force could manage (Matthews 2006: 67). Still, it helpfully mentions the stations that he may have bypassed. Between Pelusium and Casium, Strabo mentions Gerra and the Camp of Chabrias, possibly connecting them. (Chabrias was an Athenian general of the mid 300s bce, who joined the Spartan Agesilaus in supporting Egypt’s revolt against Persia; Diodorus 15.29.1, 92.3). Josephus’ contemporary Pliny (Nat. 5.68) names Pelusium, Camp of Chabrias, Mt. Casius (where there is a temple of Zeus), then Ostracina, which at 65 Roman miles [96 km = 60 mi] from Pelusium (about right) marks Egypt’s frontier with Arabia, Idumea, and Palestine. One of the stations between Pelusium and Mt. Casius that Josephus does not mention may solve a puzzle. Polybius (5.80.1–2) observes that Ptolemy iv marched for 4 days from Pelusium to a spot 10 km (6 mi) from Raphia (162 km, 101 mi), for the famous Battle of Raphia (217 bce). If we take 32 km (20 mi) per day as the upper limit of a standard marching rate, that would require 5 days, and the 96 km (60 mi) from Pelusium to Ostracina would require 3 days, rather than Josephus’ 2. The distance from Pelusium to Casium (al-Qals) is ca. 55 km (34 mi), the better part of 2 day’s march, and the first part was notoriously difficult going. Diodorus dilates on this (1.30.4–9; 20.73.3) and claims that Artaxerxes, en route to his invasion of Egypt (343 bce), lost part of his army in this area (16.46.4). Josephus’ language (καὶ προελθὼν σταθμὸν ἕνα διὰ τῆς ἐρήμου πρὸς τῷ τοῦ Κασίου Διὸς ἱερῷ στρατοπεδεύεται) is usually taken to mean that Titus proceeded for one day’s march and then made camp (at the end of that day) at Casium. But the oddity of this expression—he otherwise uses σταθμός in this passage for an established rest stops—and the extraordinary length of the march over treacherous terrain suggest another possibility: that Titus made an unnamed stop at Gerra / Camp of Chambrias (the σταθμός referred to) on the slog through this wilderness, before making a proper camp at Mons Casius. Mons Casius (or Casium, mod. al-Qals), not to be confused with a site of the same name in N Syria, was a 70-m (230-ft) high hill on the sandbar on the Sirbonitic Road (Paprocki 2019: 101–107). Unlike the modern lagoon there, the ancient lake ran only from Casium E to Ostracina; from Pelusium to Casium was soft ground of some kind but not a lake (Paprocki 2019: 139 n. 56). In some versions of a Greek myth, the 100-headed god Typho(n), source of storms and a divine king of Egypt before his ouster by Horus, was cast out of heaven by Zeus and buried under this Mt. Casius (cf. Herodotus 3.5.3 with Asheri et al. 2007: 404). Strabo (Geog. 16.2.33) describes Mt. Casius as a sandy hill bearing a temple of Zeus, near the place where Pompey was murdered on landing in Egypt (in 48 bce) and where the Roman’s tomb now lies. Mod. Bir El-Abd, Egypt, at the E end of Lake Serbonis, then a well-known stop on the Sirbonitic Road (previous notes). Polybius (5.80.2) likewise comments that the whole area around Lake Serbonis was waterless—i.e., lacking potable water.

The strange name (Ῥινοκούρουρα: “cut-off noses”) was connected with traditions that variously-identified prisoners in Egypt had their noses detached as punishment for something, before being exiled to this prison colony (Diodorus 1.60.2–5; Strabo, Geog. 16.2.31). Site of the seaside resort city of El-Arish in mod. Egypt, it sits roughly at the halfway point of the 80-km (50-mi) route from Ostracina to Raphia (mod. Rafah at the entry to the Gaza strip): ca. 40 km (25 mi) marching each day, but now along a straight and firm road. Josephus has changed his counting method. He has just said that Pelusium was Titus’ 3rd stop, which should make Mons Casius and Ostracina the 4th and 5th. He appears to have restarted the count from Mons Casius (rather than Nicopolis, where Titus began). Perhaps, without clarifying it for his audience, he thought it only sensible to begin a new count at Pelusium: either counting exclusively, such that Mons Casius was the 1st stop thereafter or, with Herodotus (2.6.1, 158.4), viewing Mons Casius as the transition point and first stop from Egypt to Syria. The 4th stop at Rapheia and 5th at Gaza recall Polybius’ description (5.80.2–3) of Antiochus’ 4th stop at Rapheia from Pelusium. This incidental notice fits with considerable evidence elsewhere (especially Ant. 17.354; 18.1–2), in spite of the impression created by War 2.117–18, that Judea became an independent province in 6 ce, in fact Judea was then annexed to Syria, which is why the legate to Syria (Quirinius at the time of the annexation, L. Vitellius in the 30s, Quadratus in the 50s, and Cestius Gallus in the 60s) considered Jerusalem an important part of his portfolio; discussion in Mason 2016a: 239–45.

From Rapheia to Gaza was a regular if long day’s march of ca. 33 km (21 mi). As the last significant settlement (Rapheia / Rafah had been a trading post) before the desert leading to Egypt, Gaza had been a prominent Canaanite, Hyksos, and Egyptian-ruled city in the 2nd millennium bce (cf. Ant. 1.136; 5.304: Samson at this Philistine city). After harsh visitations from Alexander the Great (Ant. 11.325) and later the Hasmoneans, it proudly proclaimed its independence when Pompey removed it from Jerusalem’s control in 63 bce (13.95; 14.76), though King Herod received the city for a time (15.217, 254). Augustus took it from Archelaus and returned it to the Province of Syria (Ant. 17.320). For centuries thereafter Gaza was a major stop on the highway to Egypt, featuring temples to Zeus, Apollo, and other gods. A gymnasium, hippodrome, and theater enhanced the feel of a cosmopolitan center (Filiu 2014: 3–11). Ancient Ashkelon, inhabited from ca. 5000 bce, had been a major Philistine center along with Gaza (Ant. 5.128). Philo mentions travelling through Ascalon (“a city of Syria on the sea”) on his journey from Alexandria to Jerusalem (Prov. 2.64). Having rebuffed Hasmonean control, Ascalon remained a serious antagonist to Judea and was the first place that Judean militants attacked after the ambush of Cestius Gallus’ legionary force at Beit-Horon (War 3.9–28). Hosting a Roman (auxiliary?) garrison of some size, the city repelled the Judeans. From Gaza to Ascalon (the site of ancient Ashkelon) was ca. 20 km (12 mi), a light day’s march. For Iamneia see notes at 4.130, 444. When Herod died, Augustus presented the coastal poleis of Ascalon, Azotus, and Iamneia, along with Phasaelis in the Jordan valley, to the late king’s sister Salome (War 2.98). Salome’s will in turn bequeathed them to Augustus’ wife Livia (War 2.167). When she died, they passed to her son, the emperor Tiberius, and he dispatched a financial agent to supervise revenue (Ant. 18.158). From Ascalon to Iamneia Port was ca. 32 km (20 mi), but to the inland city on the main road N only 24 km (15 mi)—a standard marching day. Ioppa (Yafa, Yafo, Jaffa, Joppa) occupies a strategic position on the coast because the hill it occupies near the shoreline offers a small port and a commanding view. Ps-Scylax (Per. 105–106) and Strabo (Geog. 16.2.28) mention the city’s fame in Greek myth, as the place where Perseus rescued Andromeda, daughter of an Ethiopian king, from the sea-monster who had chained her to rocks. The Hasmonean Jonathan, seeking a port for Judea, reportedly installed a garrison there (1 Macc 10.75–76; 12.33–34; Ant. 13.180), and later Simon, in a campaign led by Jonathan son of Absalom, expelled the other inhabitants (1 Macc 13.11, 43–48; Josephus, War 1.50; Ant. 13.215). Although Pompey removed it from Judea, it soon returned to the Judeans as their port (Ant. 14.205), to the distaste of Strabo (passage above). From inland Iamneia to Ioppa was ca. 22 km (14 mi), an easy day’s march. Coastal Caesarea, its magnificent artificial harbour built by Herod in honor of Augustus, had become the seat of Roman administration and headquarters of the Prefect with his auxiliary forces. It was the obvious place for Titus to rendezvous before the siege of Jerusalem. See notes at 4.88, 130 and to 2.16, 297 (“Strato’s Tower”) in bjp 1b. The 52 km (32.3 mi) march from Joppa to Caesarea was double or more the previous days’ marches. We must wonder whether Titus did not stop at Apollonia (mod. Herzliya), about 16 km (10 mi) along the way, and Josephus neglected to mention it. See 5.40–49. When Titus marches out of Caesarea, he will have the legions his father had commanded (v Macedonica, x Fretensis, and xv Apollinaris), minus the vexillations that went with Mucianus to Italy, plus xii Fulminata, recovering from its demolition under Cestius, compensatory vexillations of 2,000 from Egypt, and 3,000 from iiii Scythica and vi Ferrata in Syria, stationed on the Euphrates. This legionary force of ca. 20,000 was presumably supported by an equivalent number of auxiliary forces from Syria (cf. 3.65–69), as in Vespasian’s force though not explicitly mentioned for Titus. Josephus notes that it was supplemented by unspecified units contributed by allied kings (typically 2–3,000 each), as under Vespasian, an unknown number of mercenaries (monitored by the legions), and various camp servants. Tiberius Alexander, now about 56 years old, has left the prefecture of Egypt to serve as Titus’ executive officer. Tacitus (Hist. 5.1) adds some detail mentioning 20 “allied” infantry cohorts (sociae cohortes: we must wonder whether auxiliaries are meant, since he lists the allied kings’ forces separately), 8 of cavalry, units supplied by King Sohemus of Emesa, the Judean Agrippa, and Antiochus of Commagene, a large number of Arabs (who long nursed a hatred typical of neighbors), plus a number of volunteers from Rome and Italy looking for a chance to impress the imperial scion.

Φλαυίου Ἰωσήπου ἱστορία Ἰουδαϊκοῦ πολέμου πρὸς Ῥωμαίους βιβλίον ε.

Φλαυίου Ἰωσήπου ἱστορία Ἰουδαϊκοῦ πολέμου πρὸς Ῥωμαίους βιβλίον [στιγμα].

Φλαυίου Ἰωσήπου ἱστορία Ἰουδαϊκοῦ πολέμου πρὸς Ῥωμαίους βιβλίον ζ.