Josephus Accuracy (cont)
"Further Use of the Commentaries
Having in Section A noted archaeological data drawn from the commentaries, and in Section B, data which should probably be ascribed to military reports, geographical details and population statistics, two further types of evidence ascribed to the commentaries have now to be discussed, namely information relating to Roman military deployment throughout the empire and to military exploits and their dates.
The speech of Agrippa II (War II, 345 ff.) has been studied thoroughly and von Domaszewski has found confirmation of
17 A. von Domaszewski, 'Die Dislokation des r”mischen Heeres im Jahre 66 n. Ch., Rheinisches Museum N.F. 47 (1892), pp. 207-218.
18 G. Ricciotti, Flavio Giuseppe II Turin, 3 1963, pp. 264-71 (after Lindner).
the account it provides of the disposition of the Roman army.17 Recently, is has been claimed that this text does not reflect the situation in A.D. 66 but rather that of around A.D. 75,18 which would indicate ? as we would in any case have assumed ? that Josephus relied on commentaries dating not only from the period of the Great War but also on later commentaries found by him in the imperial archives.
Detailed reports on the activities of the Roman army and its various units appear at several other points in Josephus' works, for instance in his description of Titus's march from Alexandria to Caesarea (War IV, 658-663), and in the listing, which bears the stamp of an actual military document, of Cestius' forces and their composition (War II, 499-503). Josephus can scarcely have invented such matters or recorded them from memory, his own or another's. But the commentaries were not the source for "great" events alone. Many of the battle annals, even their minor details, smack of military field reports. An example is the account of the physique, looks, etc., of Sabinus the Syrian soldier who scaled the wall (War VI, 54-67). It has the sound of a story told by military scribes, a tale on the basis of which medals were awarded.
On Josephus' Accuracy
Was Josephus always correct? Certainly not. His inaccuracies range from vagueness to blatant exaggeration. Shaye Cohen
19 S. J. D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, his Vita and Development as a Historian, Leiden 1979, p. 233.
20 Idem, ibid., index s.v. Josephus (p, 276).
21 Idem, ibid., pp. 33-34.
22 Cf. O. Betz, in A. Oppenheimer - U. Rappaport - M. Stern (eds.), Jerusalem in the Second Temple Perios, Abraham Schalit Memorial Volume, Jerusalem 1980, p. 84 (Hebrew).
23 W. F. Albright, JOR 22 (1931-32), p. 411.
24 L. H. Vincent - A. M. StŠve, J‚rusalem de l'Ancien Testament I Paris 1954, p. 145, n.1.
25 Idem, ibid., p. 144, n.2.
26 The author wishes to express his thanks to Dr. A. Eran and Professor M. Stern for their valuable suggestions.
accuses him of "inveterate sloppiness".19 The index to Cohen's book goes so far as actually to include entries for "exaggeration", "inconsistency and sloppiness" and "corrupt transmission of names and numbers".20 Indeed, even if it is accepted that copyists were responsible for not a few of his mistakes (some of which have been hinted at already), it still cannot be denied that he was by nature somewhat negligent.21 The list of scholars who have deprecated his errors is long22 but suffice it to mention here the accusations of tow eminent archaeologists alone, since archaeology is the central theme of the present discussion. Albright remarks on "how inaccurate Josephus generally was in details . . ."23 Vincent goes even further. "Il serait superflu", he maintains, "d'accentuer de nouveau la futilite de toute evaluation fondee sur les chiffres de Josephe."24 However, a remark on the previous page, to the effect that a particular item of information is an "excellente approsimation",25 reflects the reaction typical of scholars investigating Josephus' data.
This duality of sharp criticism alongside fulsome appreciation has consistently accompanied the scholarly treatment of Josephus' works. It has not been our intention here to prove that he is always exact of correct in every statement, but to show that his data are in many instances accurate, and that they stem from reliable sources to which he had access from the very beginning of his literary career."
Sam ,black is not always black or white, white. We have many gray areas whereby we have to ascertain what is truth by depending on the Holy Spirit when there are no historical records to confirm a fact given by first century writers like Josephus. Please remember, there is not a conspiracy in every statement and truth can be found if you are willing to look for it.
James
|
