The Enigma of Philip Ben Jakimos

Author(s): Jonathan J. Price

Source: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte , 1991, Bd. 40, H. 1 (1991), pp. 77-94
Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4436178

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte

This content downloaded from

155.210.235.134 on Fri, 04 Nov 2022 16:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE ENIGMA OF PHILIP BEN JAKIMOS

In Memoriam Menahem Stem

Jewish aristocrats of the first century C. E. are true rebels again. The
historian Josephus (himself an aristocrat and reformed revolutionary) tried to
obscure the fact, and his massive if defective cover-up has achieved considera-
ble success. But scholarship, mostly recent, has corrected much of Josephus'
mendacious and distorted record by reconstructing the Jewish aristocracy's
heavy involvement in and (in some cases) leadership of the rebellion against
Rome in 66.' This trend is encouraging for both Josephan studies and our
general understanding of resistance within the Roman Empire.
Yet not every Jewish aristocrat joined the revolution, nor does a distin-
guished rebel hide behind every contradiction and implausibility. Enthusiasm
for the theme, enhanced perhaps by exasperation with the biased historian,
should not carry the search for aristocratic rebels beyond careful limits. Philip
ben Jakimos ('KetI0log), officer2 of Agrippa II, may be rescued from a tangle
of contradictions and confusions in Vita and BJ with his loyalty to the Jewish
king and Rome intact.3 He behaved strangely but never betrayed his patrons.
He failed in his missions to suppress rebellion, first in Jerusalem and then in

1 S. J. D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian
(1979), rightly drawing notice to the relatively neglected but excellent article by H. Drexler,
"Untersuchungen zu Josephus und zur Geschichte des jiudischen Aufstandes 66-70", Klio 19
n.F. 1 (1925), 277-312; and now M. Goodman, The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the
Jewish Revolt against Rome A. D. 66-70(1987), with more bibliography. The efforts of Y. Baer to
dismiss Josephus' record as almost completely fabricated and to find a united Jewish front
against Rome, ultimately failed: "Jerusalem in the Time of the Great Revolt", Zion 36 (1971),
127-90 (Hebrew).
2 He is called itcapXog at Vita 46, Ttpamqy6; at BJ 2.421, and cTTpato7n86&pXg at Vita 407
and BJ 2.556. Perhaps, if we count his appointment as (Tparrqy6g as a special assignment, Philip
may be called "prefect", since Etapxog is a general term for prefect and CTpTaToi56ip6X-; is
praefectus castrorum; see H. J. Mason, Greek Termsfor Roman Institutions (1974), sv. each term,
and 138-40 and 155ff. Yet very little is known about the structure and organization of Agrippa's
army. Philip may have had no single title, or if he did, Josephus may not have known what it
was. In any case, he clearly was entrusted with important military and diplomatic missions and
could lead troops.
3 This conclusion conflicts with the major discussions of Philip, which are: Cohen, 160-9, the
best treatment which, while giving up on the central puzzle, solves many smaller and important
problems; Drexler, 306-12; A. Baerwald, Josephus in Galilaa (1877), 36-41; A. Schlatter, Kleine-
re Schriften zu Flavius Josephus (repr. 1970), 24-35. Baerwald (36) says that Philip's activities in
Gamala present "the greatest difficulties in the entire Vita."

Historia, Band XUJI (1991) ?) Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart

This content downloaded from

155.210.235.134 on Fri, 04 Nov 2022 16:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
78 JONATHAN J. PRICE

Galilee; the revolution defeated him. Certain details of Philip's career may
never be known, but careful inspection of the ragged accounts will recover the
outlines as well as illuminate features of Josephus' historiographical technique
- digressions, partial disclosure of information, confined narrative focus,
chronological rearrangement and sheer carelessness - that are still imperfectly
understood.

II

Josephus is our only source for Philip, and a meager one: a few incidental
mentions in AJ and BJ, ampler but bizarre details in digressions in Vita,
nothing more.4 Thus an historian's ancillary interest or afterthought, not a full
and coherent record, nor should it be treated as such. Josephus did not write a
"Philip narrative" as he did a Jotapata-siege narrative or Temple-burning
narrative. The information on Philip, including Vita's unusual stories, appears
erratically, not in any rational or convenient order. While data about Philip is
insufficient to reconstruct a full history of his actions, Josephus provides about
as much detail as is needed for the purposes of the digressions in which Philip
appears, e.g., at Vita 46ff. to explain why Gamala was at first loyal to Rome,
and at Vita 179ff. to explain a reference in his conversation with Justus. We
need not subscribe to the modern suspicion that the fragmentary nature and
scattered locations of the evidence reveal an attempt by Josephus to hide
something about Philip.5 On the contrary, information on Philip was transmit-
ted incidentally and in digressions generated by other concerns.
The scattered, contradictory details may first be assembled and summarized
for convenience:
At AJ 17.30-1, closing a digression on the Babylonian Jews in Batanea,
Josephus attributes to Philip, grandson of the founder of that community,
both military skill and unsurpassed virtue, and continues: "thus there were
trusting friendship and unfailing goodwill between him and King Agrippa. He
was the one who would train any army the king maintained and lead it out

4 AJ 17.29-31; BJ 2.421 and 556, 4.81; Vita 46-61 (cf. BJ 2.481-3), 177-88, 407-9.
Baerwald, loc. cit. Cohen (168) worries about an obscure ulterior motive behind "the
extraordinary amount of detail", and, following R. Laqueur, conjectures that Josephus drew on a
history he had written of Agrippa's kingdom (now lost). But this hypothesis rests on a tenuous
foundation at best, and the amount of detail transmitted about Philip is not "extraordinary" at
all, even for a peripheral character. In fact, the lack of detail and carelessness in its transmission
have caused the entire problem. Laqueur unfairly suspects every detail in Vita that does not
connect directly with Josephus' life; see, e.g., his discussion of the Philip passages, Derjjudische
Historiker Flavius Josephus (1920, repr. 1970), 42-50. Furthermore, we should not rule out that
Josephus, like other major ancient historians and some modern scholars, often wrote simply to
communicate the results of his research, however inconclusive.

This content downloaded from

155.210.235.134 on Fri, 04 Nov 2022 16:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Enigma of Philip Ben Jakimos 79

wherever it had to go." Philip was Agrippa's most reliable, perhaps highest-
ranking army officer.6
In BJ, Philip does only two things: he enters Jerusalem and leaves it. He
was sent to the capital by Agrippa II with 2,000 cavalry to help the "peace
party" in its violent struggle with the revolutionaries who controlled the
Temple and Lower City (2.421-2).7 Philip arrived probably the 6th or 7th of
Loos (= Av).8 His name next appears (2.556) in the brief list of Jewish
aristocrats who fled Jerusalem to the Syrian governor, Cestius Gallus, after
Cestius' astonishing defeat by the Jews on 8 Dios (= Marheshvan); Josephus
says Cestius sent the refugees, at their suggestion (6tiubcGatvt;9),9 to Nero in
Greece. That was three months after Philip's arrival, which Josephus does not
cross-reference. Only a reader with a particular interest in Philip would notice
him in BJ or wonder what he was doing in Jerusalem during those three
months. It was a dangerous time in the capital: distinguished Jews were
hunted down and murdered; two Roman garrisons were massacred, one in
violation of treaty; the leader of the sicarii was killed and his faction expelled;
archives were burnt (BJ 2.422-56). If Philip stayed through this, he felt sure of
his own safety. That Philip did stay is the most natural understanding of an
incidental record of arrival and departure dates with nothing in between.'"
This conclusion, however, contradicts Vita's strange and relatively compli-
cated stories about Philip, although he remains peripheral to the main narra-
tive. First, in a survey of the major political centers of Galilee - Sepphoris,
Tiberias, Gischala, Gamala - as a prelude to his own arrival, Josephus digres-
ses to show how Gamala originally remained loyal to Rome (46-61). Philip
was a key player, for (contradicting BJ) he was there in Galilee. Vita says he
had escaped from the besieged palace in Jerusalem (the siege began perhaps
three weeks after Philip arrived), remained in the city four days under the

6 On Philip's title, see above, n. 2. A. Pelletier, Flavius Josephe, Guerre de Juifs II (1980), 221,
mistakenly asserts that the passage refers to Agrippa I.
7 Before the Jews fought their rebellion against the Romans they fought each other. Civil war
broke out in Jerusalem in summer 66 when the sagan of the Temple, Eleazar son of the high
priest Ananias, stopped sacrifices by foreigners, in effect rejecting the emperor's daily sacrifices
(BJ 2.409ff.). Eleazar, priests and other rebels, with firm control of the Temple Mount, prepared
to defend their revolution even against Jewish opponents, who then appealed to Florus and
Agrippa for help; Florus ignored them and Agrippa sent Philip.
8 Counting chronological indications backwards - BJ 2.430, 425, 424, 422 - yields 6 Loos if
Philip began fighting the day after he arrived and Josephus left no days out. The wood-carrying
festival referred to at 2.425 as falling on 14 Av (Loos) is placed by rabbinic sources on 15 Av;
Meg. Taan. for 15 Av and M. Taan. 4.5, 8, and see E. Schiurer, The History of the Jewish People in
the Age ofJesus Christ II, revv. and edd. G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Black (1979), 273 n. 61. This
standard reference work will be referred to here as Schurer-Vermes-Millar.
9 Schlatter (26) proposed 68ctcTax;.
10 BJ 4.81 also mentions Philip: the only survivors from Gamala in 67 were two women,
daughters of Philip's sister.

This content downloaded from

155.210.235.134 on Fri, 04 Nov 2022 16:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
80 JONATHAN J. PRICE

protection of Babylonian relatives th

in a wig, fled to "one of his towns" in Galilee, near Gamala, where he
summoned "some of those under his command." Philip fell ill and sent a letter
to Agrippa through Varus (BJ 2.481: Noarus), who ruled the kingdom while
the king visited Cestius in Beirut (BJ 2.481: Antioch). Varus felt threatened,
and he nourished besides a grand and bloody scheme to take over the
kingdom; he was encouraged by the Syrians in Caesarea Philippi and by false
rumors against Agrippa. Varus killed Philip's messenger on false charges and
dealt with a second in the same manner. He started killing Jews in Caesarea
"to ingratiate himself with the Syrians in Caesarea", and then he tried to enlist
the support of the Trachonitans through a cruel deception by which he killed
69 distinguished Jews from Ecbatana and a commission of 12 others from
Caesarea, who had appeared before him on a mission of peace. The reader
should remember that Varus was a Jew. The rest of the Jews in Ecbatana,
fearing for their lives, fled to the stronghold Gamala, at which point Philip
entered the fortress and was greeted by the people's pleas to lead them out to
war against Varus and the Syrians. Philip put out the fire." Agrippa, apprised
of Varus' new plans to massacre all the Jews of Caesarea, replaced him with
the trustworthy Aequus Modius. "Philip held the fortress Gamala and the
surrounding area, which remained loyal to the Romans" (61).
The sequel arrives in a second digression, without reference to the first
(179-86). This digression is a flashback,'2 naturally if awkwardly inserted,
required by the incidental mention of Philip immediately preceding (177).
Moreover, Philip is not the sole focus of the digression, since his activities lead
into an account of the revolution in Gamala, in which he had an indirect role
at most. Here is what is said: Philip's old friend Modius sent the impounded
letters to Agrippa, who summoned Philip to Beirut (date not recorded). In
Beirut with Agrippa and the Romans, Philip easily defended himself against
false rumors (for which Varus might have been the ultimate source, c. 50) that
he had rebelled against Rome. Then Agrippa, apparently perceiving the true
sentiment prevailing in Gamala, sent Philip back there with cavalry "to get all
his relations out of there and re-establish the Babylonians (Jews) back in
Batanea", and to prevent revolution in the area. This plan was necessary: the
outraged Batanean Jews as well as other elements in the fortress were ready to
fight. Philip promptly carried out his orders. His second arrival in and depar-

11 With words that sound much like Agrippa's to the incensed population of Jerusalem, as
Cohen points out, 165 n. 201.
12 The events of 179ff. preceded Aequus Modius' attack on Gamala (114), since c. 177 quite
explicitly states that the insurrection followed Philip's departure (and cf. 184-5; on a confusion
between 177 and 185, see below); perhaps Modius instead of Philip was sent because by this time
Philip was on his way to Nero. The whole matter is not so uncertain as Cohen thinks (166).
Further, Cohen mistakenly asserts that Vita 184 "does not say when or why Philip left Gamala";
it says why but not when.

This content downloaded from

155.210.235.134 on Fri, 04 Nov 2022 16:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Enigma of Philip Ben Jakimos 81

ture from Gamala are assumed, not recorded, because they are irrelevant to
the purpose of the digression.'3 What Agrippa feared, happened sometime
after Philip's final departure. Revolutionaries gained control in a violent
overthrow (precisely of whom involves contradictory evidence, see below) and
turned the city to rebellion against Agrippa and Rome. Among the slain were
some of Philip's relatives, who obviously had resisted his efforts to remove
them to safety.
Finally, Josephus records near the end of Vita (407-9) that Vespasian, on
his arrival in Tyre in the spring of 67, dismissed the Tyrians' slanderous
charges that Agrippa and Philip had betrayed Rome. He advised Agrippa to
send Philip to Rome "to give an account to Nero of what had happened", i.e.,
recent developments.'4 Philip went but returned without seeing Nero, who was
preoccupied with other problems.

III

Obvious inconsistencies, both between Vita and BJ and within Vita, as well
as other errors and contradictions, have led scholars to suspect foul play.
Suspicions are fueled by the strange (read: improbable, therefore fabricated)
accounts in Vita, as well as by the rumors of the time, although reported freely
by Josephus, that Philip had betrayed Rome. Inconsistencies and improbabili-
ties are regular features of Josephus' writings; they often indicate cover-up of
inconvenient facts. Often, but not always, and not in this case: Philip had
nothing to hide. Moreover, in all the confused and contradictory evidence
about Philip, there is only one deliberate lie, which had little to do with Philip
himself and was not intended for his protection. The rumors against Philip
were malicious and untrue, belied by his actions. Philip did indeed behave
unpredictably and unroutinely, but this must not be explained away, simply
explained. Finally, as has already been suggested, we will see that the one
deliberate lie and the inadvertent inconsistencies provide insight into Jose-
phus' historical methods and compositional techniques.

13 Vita 177 is no evidence, for this passage may refer to Philip's "first", i.e., documented
departure.
7 ZtcpjVCCCV lt1.twCtL (Diktnitov eiL 'P4Iv 6(ptovtCt k6yov Ntpovvt Atpi TWV iipcty-
jitvwv (408). This does not mean (contrary to all translations and commentaries I have seen)
that Philip reported just on his own actions. Cf. BJ 2.558, where Saul and Costobar were sent by
Cestius to report on the war to Nero (Philip is wrongly included in this group, see section V
below). As Fergus Millar has pointed out to me, not a Roman governor but a king does the
sending, so Philip is not going for a trial or hearing, and he can return without even having seen
the emperor. Philip had first-hand knowledge of events; he may have been carrying a letter.
Kings routinely sent emissaries to the emperors and often went themselves, see D. Braund,
Rome and the Friendly King (1984), 55-73; on letter-carrying, F. Millar, 7he Emperor in the
Roman World (31 B.C. -A.D. 337)(1977), 215-16; but I can find no exact parallel to this instance
(which does not mean that there is none to be found). In any case, Philip is not compromised by
his dispatch to Nero, unless the reader is predisposed to such an interpretation.

This content downloaded from

155.210.235.134 on Fri, 04 Nov 2022 16:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
82 JONATHAN J. PRICE

IV

The most crucial problem, a group of four related contradictions between

BJ and Vita, concerns the timing, route and circumstances of Philip's move-
ments:
a) In Vita, Philip escapes from Jerusalem near the beginning of Gorpiaios
and remains in Galilee; in BJ, he leaves the city after 8 Dios, two months
after Vita's date.
b) According to Vita, Philip was in dire peril in Jerusalem and he barely
escaped, first the palace (napitc 66actv, c. 46) and then the city (he wore a
disguise); BJ mentions no danger to Philip and portrays his later departure
as voluntary, implying that he was safe until then.
c) BJ 2.556-8 says Cestius sent Philip to Nero in Greece; Vita 407-9 says
Agrippa II, on Vespasian's suggestion, sent Philip to Nero in Rome under
entirely different circumstances.
d) BJ briefly relates the Varus episode - central in Vita's evidence on Philip
- without reference to Philip.
The easiest apparent solution to the conflicting dates of Philip's departure
from Jerusalem is blocked by an impossibility: accepting both dates - i.e.,
Philip left on Vita's date, returned at some unspecified time and then left again
on BJ's date - creates an irreconcilable conflict between BJ's report that Philip
fled to Cestius, who sent him to Nero, and Vita's that Agrippa/Vespasian sent
Philip to the emperor from Tyre at a much later date." Thus one date or the
other is right, or neither. Wo sent Philip is the key; and it was Agrippa.
Clearly "Philip was Agrippa's man"'6 and would be sent directly by his own
king (Rome's loyal client), not a Roman general or govemor. Moreover,
Josephus, an important client of the Flavians, would not invent an action in
which Vespasian participated, unless he had a good reason, and there is none
here: Vespasian had nothing to gain by the report nor anything to lose if it had
been omitted. Philip's benefit from such a false report is similarly hard to
imagine. On the other hand, Josephus did have a very good reason in BJ to
transpose the date of Philip's departure from Jerusalem and to fabricate an
action by Cestius (as I will explain below, section V), who was less important
and had long been dead when Josephus wrote BJ.'7 Thus, with Vespasian's
presence as a firm anchor, the chronology of Vita 407-9 must be correct as

15 Goodman 161 proposes accepting both dates. He realizes the obstacle and, disputing Cohen,
claims (162 n. 9) that BJ 2.556-8 does not say Cestius sent Philip, but he offers no explanation for
this highly unnatural reading.
16 Cohen, 162. 1 don't agree with Cohen's second reason for preferring Vita.
17 Tac., Hist. 5.10.1 and PIR II' no. 691. On BJ's date, see M. Stern, "Josephus and the Roman
Empire as Reflected in The Jewish Wad', in Josephus, Judaism, and Chnistianit; edd. L. H.
Feldman and G. Hata (1987) 78 nn. 8 and 9; this was one of the last essays Prof. Stern published
before his brutal murder in Jerusalem.

This content downloaded from

155.210.235.134 on Fri, 04 Nov 2022 16:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Enigma of Philip Ben Jakimos 83

well: Philip went to Nero soon after Vespasian arrived in the spring of 67. He
was with Agrippa when the king greeted Vespasian and offered troops in
Antioch, and he marched south with Agrippa and the Roman forces to Tyre,
whence he was dispatched to the emperor.'8

A final, most important reason to disbelieve that Cestius sent Philip to Nero
sometime in Dios: accepting BJ's half-sentence report would require rejecting
the whole of Vita's relatively detailed account of Philip's activities in Galilee -
i.e., Philip was never there, or any place other than Jerusalem, for according to
BJ, Cestius sent Philip and colleagues to Nero as soon as they emerged from
Jerusalem.19 Vita's account of Philip in Galilee is indeed unusual, but I have
difficulty seeing why Josephus would have invented such elaborate fiction, if
such it is, solely to cover up Philip's alleged pro-revolutionary sentiment when
a clearer, saner, less fantastic story would have accomplished the purpose
more efficiently and convincingly. Moreover, the sheer abundance and vivid-
ness of the detail argues for authenticity at least in the general outline:20 the
degree of falsification and fabrication would be beyond Josephus' habit (and
in my opinion, ability): all the circumstances of Philip's imperiled departure
from Jerusalem, the complicated episode with Varus, his appearance before
Agrippa, his mission to Gamala on Agrippa's orders, the scene with Vespasian
in Tyre. True, we should not always prefer the more capacious and graphic as
genuine, nor be seduced by sheer quantity. But in this case, Josephus had no
reason to narrate an entirely fictitious event at such length when so little was at
stake: not his own or his patrons' reputation, nor even a major theme of Vita.
Philip is peripheral, even in Vita; almost all information about him appears in
digressions or incidentally (see above). If Vita's purpose, as Cohen et al.
suggest, was to hide Philip's revolutionary activity in Gamala, why not leave it
out altogether, as in BJ? Finally, Vita names too many people able to refute
the story, including Vespasian, whom again Josephus would not involve in
bald lies unless for strong apologetic reasons, absent here.

Moreover, Agrippa, if unpopular and not entirely effective in his own

realm, could nonetheless judge his own interest astutely; he enjoyed the full

18 BJ 3.8, 29 and Vita 407. Drexler (310- 1) noticed that Philip's whereabouts are unaccounted
for during the winter of 66/7 and assumes he was engaged in the rebellion in Gamala. No such
drastic conclusion is required: Philip was naturally with Agrippa, to whom he returned after his
failed mission to Gamala. Philip is at the king's side, presumably voluntarily, when Vespasian
arrives. That Philip stayed with Agrippa through the winter explains his complete absence from
the accounts in both BJ and Vita of Josephus' organization and defense of the Galilee. Drexler's
reasons for doubting this are not convincing.
19 This point is not fully appreciated by scholars who want to accept RJ's date or both.
20 Sensed by Cohen, 164, who says that Philip's wig "does not appear invented" but does not
state why not. That detail was witnessed by fewer people than other details which Cohen
contests (e.g., Philip's sickness, or his letters to Agrippa through Varus and then Modius).

This content downloaded from

155.210.235.134 on Fri, 04 Nov 2022 16:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 84 JONATHANJ. PRICE

confidence and support of the emperors;21 and his trust in Philip did not
waver. The king himself was above suspicion; this much at least is certain.
Any doubts about the king's loyalties derive from doubts about Philip.22
During the war Agrippa remained firmly pro-Roman in both rhetoric and
action and helped the Roman armies against the rebellious Jews, providing
troops and advice.23 Slanderous rumors were perpetrated against even him
(Vita 407, cf. 52), but Vespasian, who would have known the facts and whose
opinion mattered, did not question the king's sentiments or loyalties, nor has
any modem writer produced a good reason for doing so. Vespasian in fact
increased Agrippa's realm after the war.24

Agfippa depended on Philip. We should remember the passing remark at

AJ 17.31 that Philip "would train any army the king maintained and lead it out
wherever it had to go." With no apparent hesitation, Agrippa first sent Philip
with an armed force to fight the revolutionaries in Jerusalem, then kept him in
Gamala to dampen revolutionary fervor,25 then (after presenting him to the
Romans) sent him back to Gamala, again with an armed force, to contain the
revolution. Philip failed in each mission: he was compelled to flee Jerusalem
when the revolution overwhelmed that city, and despite his efforts in Gamala
revolution erupted there after his departure; at least two of Philip's relatives,
whom obviously he was unable to persuade to flee, were killed after he left.26

21 On Agrippa's career: RE vol. X, 146-50 (lulius 54); PIR IV2 n.132; Schurer-Vermes-Millar
I, 471-83; Th. Frankfort, "Le royaume d'Agrippa II et son annexion par Domitien", Hommages
d Albert Grenier II, ed. M. Renard (1962), 659-72. In inscriptions Agrippa is Philokaisar and
Philorhomaios (OGIS 419, 420, etc., see PIR2, loc. cit., probably ILS 8957). He was educated in
Rome. Claudius granted him a kingdom and Nero enlarged it (Schiirer-Vermes-Millar I, 472-3);
Nero called on him to help counter a Parthian threat (Tac. Ann. 13.7.1). The grand anti-war
speech Josephus composed for him (BJ 2.345-401) indicates Agrippa's true sentiments.
22 See Cohen, 168, and Baerwald, loc. cit.
23 BJ 2.500-2, 523-4; 3.29, 68; 4.14; Tac. Hist. 5.1.2. Even before the arrival of Vespasian,
Agrippa worked against the revolution in the Galilee: Vita 114, 381 and 398; his dispatch of
Aequus Modius and Philip to Gamala is another example (BJ 4.10: a seven-month siege). Vita
185 says the rebellion in Gamala was against Agrippa "so that through these actions they might
seize their freedom" (cf. 37-9). Vespasian helping Agrippa: 3.443, 461, 540-1.
24 Photius, FGrH 734 T 2 and Cohen 142-3. Agrippa accompanied Titus to Rome to congratu-
late Galba: BJ 4.498, Tac. Hist. 2.81.5. Attacks on Agrippa after the war impugned his personal
life, not his loyalty to Rome; see D. R. Schwartz, "KaT& T oTov T6v Katp6v: Josephus' source on
Agrippa II", JQR 72 (1982), 241-68.
25 Vita 61: Philip stayed there because Agrippa desired it and went back when called.
26 Vita 177 and 186, and see section VI below. Two of Philip's nieces survived in Gamala until
the end of the siege (BJ 4.81), but this does not implicate Philip or cast doubt on the report that
his other relatives were murdered (pace Cohen, who mistakenly states that Philip's sister was
there as well). The women's sex and powerlessness, if not revolutionary sentiment, saved them.
Even in Jerusalem, the slaughter was not indiscriminate: the parents of the historian Josephus,
after all, survived in the besieged city long after Josephus defected (BJ 5.533, 544); his brother
was probably also there (Vita 419). Philip's nieces may indeed have been revolutionaries, but this
would prove nothing about Philip since revolution was not always a family affair (cf. the
anti-war high priest Ananias and his rebel-leader son Eleazar in BJ It).

This content downloaded from

155.210.235.134 on Fri, 04 Nov 2022 16:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Enigma of Philip Ben Jakimos 85

His movements are hardly those of a revolutionary

his still-peaceful, familiar base near Gamala, and as the revolution broke there
he headed back to Agrippa himself, hardly a safe or natural place for even an
uncertain revolutionary. Thus, in Philip's earliest and latest - and undisputed
- recorded actions, he is in the pro-Roman camp or with the Romans them-
selves;27 in between, he is twice sent with royal troops to the revolutionary
centers Jerusalem and Gamala (also undisputed), and the revolutionaries in
both places reject him. Those suspecting Philip of revolution and Josephus of
cover-up must explain: when exactly did Philip become a revolutionary, and
when and why did he change his mind? No point in the entire sequence seems
to fit. How could Agrippa have so misjudged Philip as to send him twice with
troops into the heart of rebellion? And why did Philip, if he was a revolution-
ary, abandon the cause at moments of its greatest success and return to his
philo-Roman king? The reasons for casting Philip as a rebel grow thinner as
the focus of inspection sharpens.

Some of Philip's actions in Vita are indeed exceedingly strange. Why did he
flee directly not to Gamala but to a small unnamed village nearby? Is not his
illness more convenient than real? Why did he write letters and then send
them to Varus instead of Agrippa himself? Is not Varus' behavior too brutal,
exaggerated? What is the source for the rumors that Philip had joined the
revolution, and could they not be true? And so forth. Some of these questions
do have answers, as I will suggest. Yet the historian must at times resist the
desire for an unnaturally smooth, unwrinkled account of routine and predic-
table events. Regular pattering in human behavior should not serve as the
final test of truth. Unusual behavior must always be questioned and rigorously
examined, but not deafly refused admission. Events in Philip's career unfold-
ed unpredictably (and ultimately, unsuccessfully) in 66-67; we should be
satisfied with this.

Philip arrived in Jerusalem with 2,000 cavalry on perhaps the 6th or the 7th
of Loos (= Av).28 In the next eight days of continuous fighting (through 14
Loos), the revolutionaries, who were infiltrated by the sicarii gained the upper
hand; they were able to push the royal troops and their supporters back into
Herod's palace on the western edge of the city, although some eminent Jews,
with perhaps personal reasons to fear the rebels, escaped to hide in Jerusa-
lem's famous network of underground passages (BJ 2.422-9). On 15 Loos the
rebels attacked fortress Antonia on the northwestern corner of the Temple
Mount; on the 17th they captured it and massacred the Roman garrison inside

27 A parallel to Josephus' life is misleading. Unlike Philip, Josephus began his career as a
revolutionary and remained one until he was captured by the Romans.
28 Above, n. 8.

This content downloaded from

155.210.235.134 on Fri, 04 Nov 2022 16:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 86 JONATHAN J. PRICE

(BJ 2.430).29 Then they turned to Herod's palace, where Philip and his troops,
together with a small Roman force, were trapped. The rebels pressed the siege
with great energy, forcing the besieged to request a truce, which was granted
on 6 Gorpiaios (= Elul), but only to the royal troops and the natives ;30 the
Romans sought final refuge in the three near-impregnable towers adjoining
the palace. The next day, two eminent Jews who had gone into hiding after
their release from the palace, the high priest Ananias and his brother Ezechias,
were caught and killed by the rebels (BJ 2.431-41).
The timing and circumstances of Philip's departure from the besieged
palace must unfortunately remain obscure because of compression in Vita
46-7: Philip may have escaped from the palace before the rebels granted safe
passage to his troops, or he may have emerged under the truce of 6 Gorpiaios
and immediately gone into hiding. In either case, Philip knew he had to leave
Jerusalem altogether, since he should have had little hope of surviving without
his troops, who had been defeated and had not all fled to the palace with him.
He surely knew about the Jews who had sensed danger and avoided the
palace altogether (BJ 2.428); and the murders of a high priest and his brother
after their release would have convinced Philip, if he needed convincing, that
he had to flee. After he left the palace, Philip hid in the city for four days,
protected by "some of his Babylonian relatives",3' and fled on the fifth. Thus,
even by the most extreme rendering of Vita's chronology, he was not in the
city when the Roman garrison was treacherously slain on 17 Gorpiaios. The
fate of his troops is unknown. Presumably some were killed fighting; others
might have left with him, although not enough for him to assert himself in
Galilee; others may have stayed and joined the revolution.32
Chronology must remain vague and intractable, but the peril Philip faced in
Jerusalem was real. He was an obvious target as UTpaTrly6g of the king's
troops sent to fight the revolutionaries, and Josephus says explicitly that the
sicani sought to eliminate him (Vita 46) as they had already eliminated other
prominent opponents. If Philip tried to press revolutionary credentials, Jeru-
salem's revolutionaries remained unconvinced; and they must have been
satisfied with their reasons, for other conspicuous but less powerful oppo-

29 These were troops the procurator Florus had left when forced to evacuate the city (BJ
2.331-2); the rest of the troops were besieged with the royalists in Herod's palace.
30 &6vOt Tols PIatXLKo1g Kai Tots tittX(opioL; (BI 2.437). Eventually the Romans were
granted free passage and then treacherously murdered on 17 Gorpiaios: BJ 2.450-6 and Meg.
Taan. for 17 Elul.
31 Could these have included some of the troops he brought with him? After all, part of the
force was from Batanea (BJ 2.421). If so, then these troops either escaped from the palace with
Philip or never had gone in. See the comment of P. Kohout ad BJ 2.556, Flavius Josephus'
Judischer Kneg(1901). Philip as aCTparry6 had a certain Darius as his [nff6pXi%; Darius is not
heard of again. Schlatter's suggestion (26) that the revolutionary Silas (BJ 2.520, 3.11, 19) was one
of Philip's relatives is unfounded; the only connection is that they were both Babylonians.
32 Cohen, 165 n. 200 and Schlatter, 27.

This content downloaded from

155.210.235.134 on Fri, 04 Nov 2022 16:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Enigma of Philip Ben Jakimos 87

nents, such as Saul, Costobar and Antipas - the three-man commission that
had requested troops from Agrippa in the first place - were allowed to stay
unharmed.33 Thus Philip did not pose or act as a rebel but failed in his
assignment to suppress the revolution.
Rumors slandering Philip as a revolutionary (Vita 50, 182, 407) were
probably invented later (and certainly not by the revolutionaries who sought
his blood!), but even if they followed Philip to Jerusalem they meant nothing
to the rebels who tried to hunt him down there; nor to Agrippa, who twice sent
him with royal troops to contain the revolution; nor to Vespasian, who
arranged Philip's mission to Nero to report on recent developments ;34 nor to
Josephus, our nervous source.35 Nor should we pay any heed. False and
libellous rumors and reports were part of the turbulent political life in Galilee
in that period.36 There was even one repeated in Gamala (Vita 59) which
asserted that the Syrians of Caesarea Philippi had assassinated Agrippa!
Varus fabricated and used to advantage the rumor that Philip fought against
the Romans in Jerusalem.37 Similar stories about Philip probably had inde-
pendent origins but were invented for the same purpose: to assail the unassai-
lable, to compromise those Jews whom the Romans could trust the most. The
Jews' enemies in Tyre maligned not only Philip but the unimpeachable Agrip-
pa with charges of revolution, but the sober Vespasian disbelieved the stories
and rebuked the Tyrians (see above). In numerous other, less fortunate places,
Gentiles killed Jews out of fear and hatred, often accusing them of disloyalty
and even rebellion.38

33 BJ 2.429 [cf. 418], 556-7; 4.140. Antipas was a relative of Agrippa.

34 See above, n. 14.
35 When Josephus feels compelled to report something contrary to his theme, he builds
protections; e.g., BJ 4.161 and 5.562-6, where he provides strong interpretive guides to his
quotations of the rebels' justifications for their actions. No such efforts are exerted here:
Josephus reports the rumors about Philip without undue caution or apparent worry they will be
believed.
36 In addition to the ones discussed here, BJ 2.594, 598, 626; Vita 132, 149, 245 (cf. 256-8, 261),
284f.; and of course Josephus' rivalry with Justus of Tiberias involved charges and counter-char-
ges of which at least some were false, see Vita 340ff.
37 Vita 50; for other undeniably false rumors, see Vita 52 and 55 (both Varus' creations). Cf. Y.
Dan, "Josephus Flavius and Justus of Tiberias", in Josephus Flavius: Historian of Eretz-Israel in
the Hellenistic-Roman Period, ed. U. Rappaport (1982), 72. n. 27 (Hebrew). Drexler (308-9)
suspects the chronology of the rumors and Philip's actions after leaving Jerusalem, but one
cannot know when and by whom the false reports about Philip were invented, nor surely does
Josephus report all the rumors that circulated.
38 BJ 2.457-98 and 559-61, Vita 24-7, and see in general I. L. Levine. 'The Jewish-Greek
Conflict in First Century Caesarea", JJS25 (1974), 381-97; U. Rappaport, "On the Factors
Leading to the Great Revolt Against Rome", Cathedra 8 (1978), 42-6; id., "Jewish-Pagan
Relations and the Revolt against Rome in 66-70 C. E.", in The Jerusalem Cathedra I, ed. L. I.
Levine (1981), 81-95; id., 'The Land Issue as a Factor in lnter-Ethnic Relations in Eretz-Israel
During the Second Temple Period", in Man and Land in Eretz-Israel in Antiquity, edd. A. Kas-
her et al. (1986), 80-86 (Hebrew); for -an extreme view, J. Klausner, In the Days of the Second
Temple (1954), 63-6 (Hebrew).

This content downloaded from

155.210.235.134 on Fri, 04 Nov 2022 16:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
88 JONATHAN J. PRICE

Having fled Jerusalem for his life, P

only became more adamantly revoluti
failed in his mission. He fled to one of the villages ctaUTOt, his district (or
Thackeray: "under his jurisdiction"). This may mean that, in addition to his
military duties under Agrippa, Philip was in charge of the administration of
some division of Agrippa's kingdom here;39 more likely he was the major
landlord/landowner in that area; the terminology is not technical or clear.'
Why the small village instead of Gamala? Gamala may not have been in his
district; or it may have seemed too dangerous a place because, while it had not
yet suffered its internal convulsion, it harbored revolutionary elements; or
Philip may have had some other reason unknown even to Josephus; but
Josephus did not make it up. Philip lacked adequate protection when he
arrived, since few if any of his original troops were with him (see above). After
his harrowing experience in Jerusalem, his own safety must have been fore-
most on his mind; thus he sent for some of those Oni' au'ToD, either citizens or
troops, but nonetheless useful (Vita 47).4' Only then, surrounded by a loyal
force and compelled by the immediate crisis in Gamala, did he finally enter
the fortress to squelch rebellion (Vita 59). The area was at least still outwardly
loyal to Rome (Vita 61).

Before he entered Gamala, Philip fell ill. There is no reason to doubt this:
the illness is suspiciously convenient only to schemes later constructed by
scholars. While sick, Philip communicated with the king by letter, sent through
Agrippa's regent because that was the proper chain of command: he followed
the same procedure when Aequus Modius replaced Varus (Vita 180). Philip,
after recovering, then returned to Agrippa, who as we have seen sent him back
to Gamala with troops. Philip's efforts were defeated; for that reason alone
could Agrippa have felt disappointed.
Varus' behavior is astonishing and horrible.42 An ambitious man attacks his
own people to curry favor and build a power base among those who he thinks
will gain from an approaching conflict: cynical and brutal, yet (sadly) not

39On the extent of Agrippa's kingdom, see Schurer-Vermes-Millar 1, 472-3, 477-9, and
Frankfort, op. cit. On the organization and administration of Jewish territory, Schuirer-Vermes-
Millar II, 184-98; more comparative work needs to be done on this subject. In 66 Agrippa
possessed Gamala and surrounding territory (cf. BJ 4.2).
4 Sh. Applebaum thinks improbably that Philip "owned villages", see "Economic Life in
Palestine", in The Jewish People in the First Century 11 (1976), 643 n. 5 and 658. Vita 184 refers to
"subjects", but because of the unclear Greek they may be either Philip's or Agrippa's and in any
case are not natives of the place.
41 The word npocnrtaicwv suggests soldiers, perhaps part-time soldiers or reserves. There may
unfortunately be a gap at the end of Vita 47.
42 Cohen accepts the outline of his career, but is less certain about the Jews in Gamala and
Ecbatana: 'The only sure point here is that Gamala and its Babylonian immigrants evinced
sentiments hostile to Agrippa's lieutenant who had to be replaced" (165).

This content downloaded from

155.210.235.134 on Fri, 04 Nov 2022 16:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Enigma of Philip Ben Jakimos 89

unparalleled in the annals of history. Unfortunately we do not know what

happened to him after he was deposed.

If Vita is correct about Philip's early departure from Jerusalem and frustra-
ted activities in Galilee, whence BJ's error? The date for Philip's departure
from Jerusalem, the implication that Philip stayed in Jerusalem until after
Cestius' defeat, and the assertion that Cestius sent Philip to Nero, are all flat
wrong. Moreover, it may seem strange that in BJ Josephus records the murder
of Ananias and Ezechias in horror but does not mention the danger to Philip,
which could only have blackened the rebels' image further; nor does he use
Philip in BJ's account of Varus (Noarus). But Josephus was saving Philip for
another, more important purpose, and so committed errors and omissions that
did not directly contradict any other information contained in BJ.
Cestius' defeat was as unexpected as it was decisive, committing the Jewish
nation irrevocably to war. The first thing Josephus records after this important
Jewish victory is the flight of "many distinguished Jews" (-RoXXoi t6v rn-
pav6v 'Iou&idwv) from Jerusalem "as if from a sinking ship" (BJ 2.556). This
accords with one of BJ's main themes, that the Jewish elite struggled against
and finally abandoned the revolution, perforce leaving the nation to be ruined
by insane, impious rebels. But the tired simile should alert us: Josephus is
trying to hide an uncomfortable fact. For Josephus could only produce three
names: Costobar and Saul, two outstanding pro-Romans,43 and Philip. It is
unlike Josephus not to name Jewish aristocrats when he can,' especially in
service of one of the most sensitive themes of BJ. For even at risk to this theme,
Josephus later names many aristocrats who, it turns out, were quite active in
the rebellion and remained in the capital until a considerably late date; the
long list of names contradicts Josephus' earlier claim that all the Jewish elite
opposed war and abandoned the capital in 66, but the importance of identify-
ing the rebels' distinguished opponents (and victims) overrode that concern.45
No such danger of contradiction at BJ 2.556: an impressive list of Jewish
aristocrats fleeing to Cestius was all that was needed. But Josephus could
produce only a meager three names and a misleading simile. And one of those
names Philip's - was transposed to contribute his social and political

43 On the pair, see M. Stern, "Aspects of Jewish Society: The Priesthood and other Classes", in
The Jewish People in the First Century 1I, edd. S. Safrai and M. Stern (1976), 571 n. 5.
44 Josephus was in a position to notice; he was in the city and won a high position in the new
government (BJ 2.568).
45 See now Goodman, esp. Part II. Josephus identified with equal care the members of the
distinguished commissions sent to Florus and Agrippa to summon help against the rebels in
Jerusalem (BJ 2.418), and of the one sent to negotiate with the Romans trapped in Herod's
towers, eventually betrayed (2.451).

This content downloaded from

155.210.235.134 on Fri, 04 Nov 2022 16:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
90 JONATHAN J. PRICE

distinction, as well as his known pro-Roman loyalties, to the supposedly large

and distinguished company fleeing the rebellion. He used a similar technique
at BJ 6.114, where he included in a list of noble deserters the name of someone
who had fled earlier, although here he admitted what he was doing.' Thus
Josephus' "many" at BJ 2.556 shrivels to a paltry few. Most of the aristocracy,
as recent research has shown, joined and even led the rebellion.47 Thus Philip's
name was withheld from the account of the endangerment and murder of
Jewish dignitaries; he is also absent from BJ's account of Varus/Noarus ;48
and his presence in Antioch when Vespasian arrived49 and subsequent des-
patch from Tyre are left out. In this, the only deliberate and serious distortion
in the whole body of information on Philip, Josephus acted not so much to
protect Philip as to prop up a larger (and certainly fragile) theme, the rejection
of rebellion by all Jews whose opinions mattered.
Perhaps the lie discomfitted Josephus, for Philip's dispatch with the others
by Cestius is somewhat obscurely described: "Cestius sent Saul and his group,
at their suggestion, to Nero."5" Philip, a royal officer with more official
authority than either Saul or Costobar, would not naturally be referred to as
one of "Saul's group". One can only speculate, but Josephus may here have
tried to hedge his deliberate error, unable to continue the lie by attributing a
false action to a Roman governor.

VI

The remaining contradictions in the data reveal not a devious or dishonest

purpose but carelessness and an excessively narrow narrative focus:
a) The two lists of victims of Gamala's revolution, in the most common
reading of each passage, do not match: at Vita 177-8, they are Philip's relative
Chares and Chares' brother Jesus, who was also Justus' sister's husband; at
Vita 186, Chares, one of his relatives Jesus, and an unnamed brother of
Justus.5'

46 Cf. RJ 5.530; a slight contradiction (Matthias' son fled before Matthias' death as opposed to
afterwards, as 6.114 states) does not affect the argument here.
47 See Goodman and Cohen, opp. ciat. More remains to be said on this subject.
48 But contra Cohen 164-5, BJ's compressed account of Varus/Noarus' actions does not
contradict Vita's in any other way.
49 Inferred from BJ 3.30: Agrippa met Vespasian there gzta itaii; r1g i5ia; icaxiog. On the
problem of reconstructing Vespasian's march from BJ and Vita, see W. Weber, Josephus and
Vespasian (1921), 92ff., and Schiatter's reservations, 29ff.
SO KtatLo; & toiS itepi 16OukOV 6~ic6)CVTas &V6EEgEV ... np6; Ntpova (2.558).
51 Vita 177: 5EcRutiLvqoKov 6TL ... &VtXOLEV X6pTa, ouyYeving 5' iv o6tos Tot 00LLt7EOU,
Kcd d) 'hIac0oOv T6V &&8XFPv ai)ToO, 6v6pcC X5 &6EX(PI; '1oi)5TOU, 6FLoDpp6vO; KoX&Lcstcv
(adopting Naber's emendation 6go(pp6vo; for the unlikely aoxpp6vo; or cyebppovog of the
manuscripts). Vita 186: KTUNVOUOL 61 Kati X4cplla KaL gET' ctuTOO uLvcz T6V uyycV6)V 'liaoOIv
Kai '1o0TtoU &t tot TtPcptLxw dc8uXp6v &sVctXov.

This content downloaded from

155.210.235.134 on Fri, 04 Nov 2022 16:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Enigma of Philip Ben Jakimos 91

b) Vita 407-9, relating Philip's mission to Nero, seems to contain a chrono-

logical error.
c) BJ calls Varus Noarus and places Agrippa in Antioch instead of Beirut
(BJ 2.481-3, comp. Vita 46-61).
d) Vita 177 reports that after Philip left, the Gamalitans rebelled "against
the Babylonians", but Vita 185 says the insurrection was against "Gamala's
leaders" (tolt tv hF5tcakXc ipcrotg), who were not Babylonians.
The confusion of names between Vita 177-8 and Vita 186 (contradiction [aD
cannot be completely resolved. Yet the Greek is unclear in each passage and
by slight reinterpretation some continuity can be restored. Josephus was no
master of the language.52 In Vita 178, the antecedent of a'-ov is uncertain; it
seems at first sight to be Chares, but if it is Philip, then the list is: 1) Chares,
Philip's relative (cmyycVig;), and 2) Jesus, Philip's brother and Justus' brother-
in-law. This would fit better with Vita 186, where the list includes: 1) Chares
(no relation to Philip specified), and 2) Jesus, Chares' relative (ovuyycvti),
which identification of course is true if Jesus is Philip's brother and Chares is
Philip's cuyyc v#g; thus one contradiction can be removed, even if it leaves an
odd cross-reference. Furthermore, the third person in the list at Vita 186 is
ambiguous: is it another unnamed person, Justus' brother? Or is it further
identification of Jesus, i.e., was he Chares' relative and Justus' brother? If the
latter, then all problems would be solved except Justus' exact relation to Jesus,
brother or brother-in-law.53 Finally, the word KO%6OEtCaV in Vita 178 has been
understood to mean "they killed", but I can find no clear parallel in classical
literature or even in Josephus ;S4 the word means "they punished". This would
be the best solution, for Vita 177-78 would mean that the rebels in Gamala
killed Chares and punished a certain Jesus, and Vita 186 would say, without
contradiction, that they killed Chares, a different Jesus55 and possibly a third.
These are all just possibilities, none having the absolute claim; nothing else
is known about these men Chares, Jesus and the possibly unnamed third. But
we may firmly rule out any sinister tampering or deliberate obfuscation. In
c. 186 Josephus refers his readers back to his first list at c. 177 (Ka k(;g ir1
itpo6%toev), so he assumed nothing was wrong and he was unafraid of being

52 H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus: The Man and the Historian (1929, repr. 1967), 102ff.
53 Vita 177 also says that the "Galileans" cut off the hands of Justus' brother, but that was a
separate incident and I do not think it is responsible for the confusion between Vita 177-8 and
186. Justus' brother in Vita 186 can be either the same one - i.e., he went to Gamala after his
maiming - or a different one. It should be noted that in place of &66SXp6v most MSS read
66cX(pi'v, retained by Niese; the codex Ambrosianus has -o- above the -'i-, adopted by Dindorf,
Nieber, Thackeray, et al. But I doubt that the entire confusion resulted from a huge manuscript
muddle.
54 K. Rengstorf s conjecture that the word may mean "execute" at BJ 6.350 is not a persuasive
or the most natural reading, A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus II (1975), 513.
55 Jesus (Joshua) was of course a common name. A. Schalit lists 19 in Namenwdrterbuch zu
Flavius Josephus(1968).

This content downloaded from

155.210.235.134 on Fri, 04 Nov 2022 16:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 92 JONATHAN J. PRICE

caught in any irregularity. Moreover, there seems to be no reason for the

contradiction; on the contrary, the information given at 186 (no matter how
the Greek is straightened out), if true, would have had greater effect in 177
because there the exact relationships to Justus are crucial to the point. Nor
does the contradiction impugn the truthfulness of the rest of the narrative in
any way since these men, whoever they were, are not mentioned again.56 Thus:
a careless mistake, nothing more. Sloppiness is a consistent feature of Jose-
phus' writing.57

Carelessness and inattention also explain an error in Vita 408-9 which no

one seems to have noticed (contradiction [b]). Josephus says Philip was sent to
Nero in Rome, then returned without an interview because Nero was "in
extremities because of the disturbances that had broken out and the civil war."
If the person (Vespasian) and date (early 67) are right, Nero was neither in
Rome nor preoccupied with civil disorders. The emperor was in Greece,
where his only preoccupations for most or all of 67 were artistic.58 It is
impossible to know why Nero could not see Philip. The beclouded Vinician
conspiracy was discovered at Beneventum before Nero left for Greece, and his
freedman Helios did not arrive with news of further disturbances at Rome
until probably the end of that year. The whole problem in Vita must have
resulted from haste and confusion, perhaps Josephus' excessive concern with

56 Chares, a rebel leader in Gamala, appears at BJ 4.18 and 68. Yet, as Cohen (167) suggested,
this was a different Chares.
57 Cohen, index, s.v. "Josephus, inconsistency and sloppiness." Cohen rightly hunts for a
purpose behind every contradiction, but sometimes there is none to be found; for untendentious
contradictions in Josephus, see also T. Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and his Society (1983),
165-6. Cf. A. Schalit's excellent observation on the Vita 177-8/186 problem: "Far diese auffalli-
gen Abweichungen ist nur eine Erklarung moglich: Es ist dies offenbar die uibliche Nachlassig-
keit, der wir bei Josephus nur zu oft begegnen, die diese Abweichungen verschuldet hat.
Josephus arbeitete offenbar so gedankenlos, daB er sich nicht einmal die Miuhe nahm, die
eigenen, kaum wenige Zeilen zuruckliegenden Angaben uber einen und denselben Gegenstand
einzusehen"; "Josephus und Justus: Studien zur Vita des Josephus", Klio 26 n.F. 8 (1932), 81 n. 1.
58 Departure from Rome in September 66: Dio 66.8 and Acta Fratrum Anralium for 25 Sept.,
see E. M. Smallwood, Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Gaius, Claudius and Nero (1967),
no. 26; arrival back in Rome by 1 January 68: Suetonius, Nero 50. See K. Bradley, 'The
Chronology of Nero's Visit to Greece, A. D. 66/67", Latomus 37 (1978), 61-72, whose earlier
dating for Nero's departure from Rome (August 66) is unimportant here; also RE Suppl. III
389ff. On the Vinician conspiracy, M. T. Griffin, Nero: 7he End of a Dynasty (1984), 177ff.
Schlatter, 24-5, perhaps sensing the problem, assumes implausibly that Philip was sent to Rome
late in 67 and returned after Nero's death; but Vita 408 makes clear that Philip was sent from
Tyre during Vespasian's stop there, which was in spring 67. L. Haefli, Flavius Josephus' Lebens-
beschreibung(1925) wrongly dates Vita 409 to the year 68. It is true that BJ 2.558 says Philip was
sent to Nero in Greece, but this alone is not stronger than the arguments against the passage.
The only other possibility is that the apparent mistake in Vita is right and everything else is
wrong, i.e., Philip was indeed sent by Agrippa/Vespasian to Nero in Rome but a year later, at the
beginning of 68, returning without an audience for the reason Josephus gives. I reject this
possibility, however, for it would require Josephus to have falsified on a large scale, especially
dates and events directly affecting Vespasian, for no clear purpose. The mistake is a mistake.

This content downloaded from

155.210.235.134 on Fri, 04 Nov 2022 16:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Enigma of Philip Ben Jakimos 93

the circumstances by which his patron became emperor: just as at the begin-
ning of BJ, where in a highly compressed passage Josephus similarly pre-dates
disturbances in the empire, not to hide any unpleasant fact but at worst to
enhance his theme of discord.59 Perhaps, at most, Josephus tried in Vita 408-9
to cover up his lack of knowledge - either of the reasons why Nero did not see
Philip or, if Philip did see the emperor, of the outcome of the meeting; but
more likely, Josephus was simply careless.
Sloppy research and writing will also explain BJ's confusion of Varus'
name and Agrippa's whereabouts (contradiction [c]). Unfortunately there are
no external controls. But again, it is difficult to imagine what Josephus would
have gained by lying in either account. BJ's is compressed and hurried,l thus
perhaps less reliable, especially in light of the probability that the Varus
named at BJ 2.247 is the same man.6' The discrepancy resulted from sloppi-
ness.62 Josephus lacked the skill consistently to harmonize and coordinate
detail that remained on the periphery of his attention.
A different feature of Josephus' writing is revealed by the last contradiction
(d).63 Were Babylonians or Gamala's leaders the target of the insurrection?
The answer is both. The "Babylonians" were those who had fled to Gamala in
outrage at Varus and later defied Philip's efforts to return them to Batanea.
Despite their proclamations and actions, they were not all accepted by Gama-
la's revolutionaries as true to the cause. Just as in Jerusalem later, the new,
more extreme and violent leaders in Gamala deposed, killed or cowed into
submission all involved with the previous regime - whether the involvement
was direct or indirect, actual or ideological. Naturally the extremists attacked
the town's former leaders: "'They applied force to some and killed those who
did not agree with their views" (Vita 185; cf. BJ 2.562). The "Babylonians"
were tainted by their association with Philip, loyal lieutenant of the anti-revo-
lutionary Agrippa II; above all those related to Philip and also to Justus, who
advocated peace,64 appeared suspicious and not quite pure. These individuals
might have been thought to have shown sufficient revolutionary commitment
by not leaving earlier with Philip, who was obeying Agrippa II's orders. But
the new more extreme leaders obviously did not trust them.

59 RJ 1.4, and see Y. Simhoni's relevant comments ad loc. in Yoseph ben Matitiyahu, Toledot
Milhemet ha-Yehudim in ha-Romaim (1968).
60 It does not even mention that one of the commission of 70 escaped Varus' brutal hands.
61 See Schurer-Vermes-Millar I, 570.
62 On Varus/Noarus, see Cohen 7 n. 16 and Haefli, 81-2. Reasons offered for Josephus'
deliberately misreporting Agrippa's whereabouts are too fine and subtle to have influenced
Josephus' readers, see Cohen 163 n. 193.
63 See Schalit, 82-3.
64 Cohen 133-35; also T. Rajak, "Justus of Tiberias", CQ n.s. 23 (1973), 345-68, and now
"Josephus and Justus of Tiberias", in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, edd. L. H. Feldman
and G. Hata (1987), 81-94; she thinks that Justus was playing a "double game".

This content downloaded from

155.210.235.134 on Fri, 04 Nov 2022 16:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
94 JONATHAN J. PRICE

When Josephus in Vita 177 is trying

the rebellion, he refers to the coup d'etat in Gamala "against Babylonians"
because Justus' relative was a Babylonian; a rebellion "against Babylonians",
although only partly true, made the point most forcefully. The full story,
which would have been tedious and rhetorically irrelevant in Josephus' re-
marks to Justus, the historian duly relates immediately following. Thus, pro-
minent Babylonians were among the targets of the revolutionaries, but not, as
one would conclude from Josephus' remarks to Justus, the only targets. Jose-
phus gives such information as is needed in context and provides a fuller
account (a kind of correction) afterwards. Hence not outright falsehood but
selective emphasis, adjustments not fabrication to meet immediate needs.

VII

All of the information about Philip contains one lie, meant not to obscure
subversive behavior by Philip but to serve a different, specific purpose in BJ.
The other errors and contradictions in the data derive from the fact that
Josephus never devoted to Philip close and full attention but used him for
larger themes. He felt no need to defend his assumption that Philip remained
loyal to Agrippa and Rome; for this assumption was true. The inconsistencies
illustrate Josephus' lack of control over detail in a large framework, and his
characteristically immediate and narrow focus on present narrative concerns.
The example of Philip should also warn us against over-confident asser-
tions from incomplete evidence in Josephus. We must be prepared simply to
concede ignorance. Trying always to make sense only of what remains neg-
lects the problem of gaps, omissions, transpositions. What if we had only BJ?
Most readers would readily conclude that Philip remained in Jerusalem the
entire three months from the civil war to Cestius' defeat. The reasons within
BJ to doubt 2.556, which I have pointed out, might have seemed less compel-
ling without the glaring contradictions with Vita. This case should make
Josephus' readers even more alert for other cases with even slighter intrinsic
reasons for doubt and no extrinsic control.65

Middlebury College, Vermont Jonathan J. Price

65 wish to acknowledge financial assistance from the American Philosop

the Ada Howe Kent Fund at Middlebury College. I would also like to than
Daniel R. Schwartz for reading and commenting on the manuscript; errors
are mine.

This content downloaded from

155.210.235.134 on Fri, 04 Nov 2022 16:59:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms