Josephus, Pilate and Paul - Its Just a Matter of Time (Part 1)

• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4
• Part 5
• Part 6

On the Chronology of Paul and the Identity of Jesus

By Laura Knight-Jadczyk
May 2016
Source: https://www.academia.edu/25105062/Josephus_Pilate_and_Paul_Its_Just_a_Matter_of_Time

Introduction

The study of Paul, the most important figure of early Christianity, has taken on an all-new importance in recent years due to
the development of new critical methods. As more research, utilizing those methods, indicates that the search for a historical
Jesus of Nazareth, as depicted in the gospels, only leads to negative returns, the focus has turned to Paul. The realization is
growing that Paul invented what we know as Christianity today.[1] Perhaps “invented” is too strong a word, since he had a full
field of inspiration all around him in the abundant and varied theological speculations of his time.[2] While it appears that
“Christian churches” – ecclesia populated by individuals following something referred to as Chrestus (Latin) or Chrestos
(Greek)[3] – existed even before Paul, Paul’s writings influenced those organizations and ultimately became foundational for a
particular variation of early Christianity. But that, in itself, poses the important question: If, in the end, we find that there is no
“Jesus of Nazareth” – which seems certain – what then are we to make of what Paul was claiming about the Cross of Christ?
How and why did Paul come to see a man on a cross as a symbol of triumph over evil powers and principalities?
In order to get a full grip on who Paul was and what he was thinking and doing with such passionate conviction and intensity,
we need to dispense with any reference to the later invention of Jesus of Nazareth. The gospels are late documents, probably
written in the early to mid second century, close to 100 years after the events they claim to narrate. We need to concentrate
on the fact that something moved Paul powerfully and we might want to know what it was. Situating him in an accurate
historical context might be helpful in trying to figure out what it was that he was actually saying. And what he was saying may
be of paramount importance to Christians and non-Christians alike.

In trying to sort out the problem of Paul, we must also reject the use of Acts, the second-century "historical novel" that
presents itself as a history of Christianity after Jesus, following the careers of Christianity’s two most famous apostles, Peter
and Paul. As Richard Pervo has made abundantly clear in his detailed studies,[4] it is no such thing. The author picked out
some authentic names and events from texts extant in his time and wrote his novel around them, with the purpose of
presenting the image that everyone got along in the early church. They didn’t, as we’ll see. Acts is not a historical document,
but the letters of Paul are. However, even reading them with the genuine history of the time firmly in mind can be
problematical, since the conflicts between pagans and Christians often led to wars of words, particularly words written down.

The history of the destruction and redaction of texts is appalling. Still, Paul’s letters might help us if we take some care.[5]
The only historian whose works have survived to give us a detailed picture of the times in which Paul lived and worked is Titus
Flavius Josephus, who lived ca. 37–100 AD, placing his work about one generation after Paul, who is said to have been active
in the late 30s through to the 50s or 60s AD.[6] The problem here has to do with using Josephus as a historical source – both
from the point of view of the modern researcher and from the point of view of the ancient authors of the gospels and Acts,
who could not know that much of what Josephus wrote was embellished or falsified.

Despite problems of editorial redaction and transmission of the text, his first work, The Wars of the Jews, published in the late
70s AD, is probably more reliable than his later work, The Antiquities of the Jews, published in the mid 90s, since it was written
with Imperial support. Of course, this support strongly suggests that many representations were skewed in favor of the
Flavians, Josephus’ patrons and the rulers of Rome during his time. At the same time, Josephus was hiding or disguising many
of his own doings, effectively writing Jewish and Imperial apology simultaneously; the end result is a so-called history that
must be handled very carefully. The most reliable reports would be those items that were generally known to the Greekspeaking/reading public, but one must keep in mind that even those can be “spun”, and Josephus was definitely spinning and
blowing smoke everywhere while still trying to establish himself in the eyes of his readers as a truthful historian.

Josephus’ second work, The Antiquities of the Jews, is even more problematical: personal and Jewish apologetics on steroids.
Historian Harold Attridge calls it “propagandistic history”, which included a loose paraphrase of the Hebrew Scriptures with
the aim of presenting Jewish history as “relevant, comprehensible and attractive in a new environment.”[7]
As for his autobiography, The Life of Josephus, which serves as a self-congratulatory conclusion to Antiquities, it is closer to
auto-hagiography, though it may include valuable clues and insights, and a reasonable sequence of events even if heavily
spin-doctored. At the end of Antiquities, where he introduces his Life, he has the chutzpah to say he is one of only two or
three Jews to have mastered the “national traditions”.[8]

[NOTE: On the next two sentences, Price says: “I think Strauss comments on it. Following him, I believe I mentioned it
somewhere.”]

I am amazed that I have yet to encounter a serious discussion of the obvious parallels between a number of gospel pericopes
and incidents in the Life of Josephus. The most striking is his claim to have been so precocious as to discourse with doctors of
the law at the age of fourteen. Naturally, when Jesus did it, he was even younger: twelve. Like the gospels of Luke and
Matthew, Josephus’ Life begins with his illustrious ancestry – a standard feature of ancient biography. His career focuses on
Galilee, moving to Jerusalem with a stop in Capernaum. He recounts a shipwreck similar to that described in Acts, and a scene
that is startling when compared to the “Sermon on the Mount/Plain”. Overall and in general, the tone of the Life of Flavius
Josephus can be found infused into the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

But it is not just the life of Josephus that finds echoes in the gospels; much of the life and words of Paul is creatively
interwoven there as well. Any rational historical approach would recognize influence flowing from Josephus and Paul toward
the later gospels and Acts, but that isn’t what happens in biblical studies. Biblical scholars tend to give the story told in the
gospels and Acts a privileged position, the assumption being that they are histories and not myths, fables or historical fiction.
However, if the gospel writers and the author of Acts utilized Josephus to compose their alleged histories – along with other
texts and techniques[9] – we find ourselves already on a double layer of shifting sand. We must take great care to try to
crosscheck anything we accept as factual when we use Josephus as our historical source, realizing that efforts would have
been made to bring the texts into some sort of harmony.

This realization leads us to reject any use of Acts or the gospels as historical checks. Pervo makes this evident in his analysis of
the speech put into the mouth of the Jewish Pharisee Gamaliel in Acts. Gamaliel mentions Judas and Theudas, two Jewish
rebels discussed by Josephus in The Antiquities of the Jews. The author of Acts was rather careless in his use of Josephus, who
mentions Theudas first, and Judas second. While the author of Acts also mentions them in this order, he does so in such a way
as to imply that they acted in that chronological order, but it is clear in Josephus that Judas came first historically and was
brought up as a digression. This reversed order was carried over into Acts due to carelessness and reveals the novelizing
activities – and one of the sources – of its author. Further studies by Michael D. Goulder, Thomas L. Brodie and D. R.
MacDonald reveal other sources used in the composition of the gospels and Acts.[10] It seems that creating a religious
“history” was quite an industry in the second century and the writers were using anything and everything at hand to do it. All
of this makes a good, critical examination of the Pauline texts even more crucial for the understanding of the origins of
Christianity as we know it.

Since Paul’s letters are arguably the earliest Christian historical documents, we should utilize them conscientiously and
effectively. However, using the letters of Paul can be problematical, as the work of Baur, Knox, Lüdemann, Trobisch, Price,
Tyson, BeDuhn, Campbell, and others reveal.[11] There are still debates over which of the letters are authentic, whether
editorial insertions and deletions have been made, and where they have been made. Many scholars have rejected several of
the letters attributed to Paul as later forgeries, basing their judgments partly on theological and organizational developments
that they believe occurred subsequent to Paul’s career. Nevertheless, setting aside the theological, Christological, and
redactional problems that have invaded the letters to some extent, we can still consider the many of the letters attributed to
Paul to be the earliest Christian literature and witness extant. Thus, they are crucial to solving the problems of the historicity
of Jesus and early Christian chronology.

[NOTE: Price says on the above: “Given what you just said about them, you need to justify any remaining confidence in the
epistles.]”

This study began because I was mainly concerned with a particular problem of chronology. I think that situating Paul
accurately within real history will go a long way toward helping us understand what he was thinking and doing. However, as
the work progressed, it became much more than that, because so many threads were entangled in that problem of
chronology that they simply demanded unraveling.

Despite strenuous efforts, scholars have been unable to firmly anchor them to particular times and places using only their
own internal evidence. John Knox was the first to attempt making a chronology for Paul using only Paul’s letters as sources,
but practically all scholars then and since have resorted to using data from Acts and the gospels to anchor their chronology.
The result is that they all date Paul’s “conversion” from 31 to 34 AD – soon after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus – and Paul’s
last visit to Jerusalem, upon which he is about to commence in his last letter Romans, 22–25 years later, in the 50s.[12]
Although Paul does mention a few things that may be linked to actual historical events or personages, he does so without
tying any of these remarks to an externally verifiable historical date or personage. In one place only does he mention a
historically anchored person, King Aretas IV of Nabataea, the Arab state south and east of Judaea. He says Aretas’ governor in
Damascus was pursuing him, and that he escaped by being lowered from the city’s walls in a basket. It has also been
suggested that “The Man of Sin” of 2 Thessalonians – one of the letters whose authenticity is questioned, unfairly in my view
– was the emperor Gaius, better known as Caligula (12–41 AD), who planned to erect a statue of himself in the Temple of
Jerusalem in the year or so before he was assassinated. If that is the case, then that can give a fairly secure date for the text
of 2 Thessalonians of no earlier than around 39/40 AD.[13] If authentic, Paul could have been writing this letter as early as the
time that the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher Philo was in Rome on his embassy to Emperor Gaius. Tagging 40 AD as the
earliest possible time of 2 Thessalonians helps only a little, however, because there are apparently quite a few years of
Pauline activity before and after the penning of that epistle; the question is, how many years in either direction?[14] And
while Campbell anchors the letter to 40 AD, it could have been written later.

Pauline scholar Douglas Campbell has done a thorough job of analyzing the letters for chronological clues, with the interesting
result that several letters whose authenticity has been widely questioned and rejected, achieve rehabilitation as authentic,
including 2 Thessalonians.[15] Using only the letters’ internal evidence, Campbell concludes that 10 of the 13 letters included
in the New Testament are authentic and places them in this chronological order: 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, Laodiceans
(known as Ephesians in our NT), Colossians, Philemon, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians and Romans.
(Reading New Testament texts in proper chronological order is an interesting exercise, highly recommended, and gives one a
better feeling for the flow and development of ideas.)

Campbell also constructs a relative chronology of all the events Paul mentions about his life, which he anchors using the two
references to datable people: King Aretas IV (late 36 AD) and Emperor Gaius (40 AD). The following is Campbell’s Pauline
timeline:

• · Early/mid-34: Paul’s apostolic commission, near Damascus
• · Early 34—mid-36: Activity in Damascus and Arabia
• · Late 36: Escape from Damascus, first visit to Jerusalem to meet the “pillars” of the church, 2.x years after
• commission[16]
• · 37–42: Activity in Syria and Cilicia, missions to Macedonia and Achaia, 1&2 Thess. written
• · Ca. 43–49: Missions to Illyricum and Galatia, many sufferings
• · Late 49/early 50: Antioch incident, second visit to Jerusalem 13.x years after first visit[17]
• · Mid-50: Mission to Asia, imprisonment (possibly in Apamea), Laod./Col./Phlm. written, founding visit to Ephesus
• · Spring 51: 1 Cor. written, “super-apostles” visit Corinth, Asian crisis, departure from Ephesus to Macedonia
• · Ca. summer 51: Travels through Macedonia, 2 Cor. written, visit to Corinth
• · Fall 51—winter 51–52: Enemies arrive at Corinth, Gal. written, imprisonment and capital trial, Phil. written, release
• from prison
• · Spring 52: Rom. written, departure (for Jerusalem)

Campbell’s arguments dealing with authenticity and relative chronology are meticulous, acute, and mostly convincing, and
they deserve a careful reading. His overall sequence of events is sound, but there is one major weakness: Campbell’s use of
Josephus as his historical source and yardstick regarding King Aretas IV, which he uses to establish his second chronological
hook in 36 AD.

[NOTE: Price adds: “I think a much bigger problem is his retreat to apologetics! The whole thing’s circular if he starts by
assuming all the letters are authentic. Does he say why Baur (much less Van Manen) is wrong?”]

In Antiquities, Josephus tells a story that takes place in the context of 36 AD. It concerns a border dispute between Aretas and
Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee and Perea, which bordered Nabatea. The reason Josephus supplies for the resulting war is
that Antipas had divorced his wife, who happened to be Aretas’ daughter, so he could marry someone else.[18] Josephus says
that Aretas was ultimately victorious over Antipas. Defeated, Antipas called on emperor Tiberius for help, and Tiberius sent for
the Roman governor of Syria, Vitellius, to come to Antipas’ aid.

Vitellius had just been on an important mission dealing with a hostile leader, Artabanus of Parthia (in the east, modern Iran).
Josephus tells us that Herod Antipas hosted the critical meeting between the Parthians and Rome, and Vitellius was successful
in reaching a deal with Artabanus. But, Josephus continues, Herod Antipas upstaged Vitellius by telling the news to the
emperor first. So, later, when Tiberius called on Vitellius to aid Antipas, Vitellius held a grudge. Luckily for him, Tiberius died
before Vitellius could join the battle. So Vitellius sent his troops to their quarters and took a trip to Jerusalem instead.
Campbell decides that the only time Aretas could have ruled Damascus was during this short interlude in the affairs of Rome
versus the Parthians. The border dispute involved the region containing Damascus, so Campbell concludes that Aretas
probably took over many cities there, including Damascus. Paul, in his letter, says his escape from Aretas’ governor in
Damascus happened 2–3 years after his commission, so using Josephus allows Campbell to place Paul’s commission in 34 AD.
But if we can show that the relevant data from Josephus is unreliable, this will free up the Pauline timeline considerably. If we
retain as our only anchor the composition of 2 Thessalonians in 40 AD, we realize that this could have been written at any
point in the 13–14 years between Paul’s two visits to Jerusalem. The question is, of course, why does this matter?

It matters a great deal because the larger, overarching problem that scholars have is the need to fit the Pauline timeline into
some sort of Jesus timeline, and it is standard that everyone accepts that Jesus was “crucified under Pontius Pilate” – it’s part
of the creed, even. Jesus had to have been crucified under Pilate before Paul’s “conversion” and the beginning of his ministry.
But the conversion can’t be too late because of the Aretas problem, which couldn’t have occurred later than around 39 or 40
AD, when Aretas died. Since Paul escaped from Damascus 2–3 years after his “divine commission”, the latest date for that
commission would have to be at least 2–3 years before Aretas’ death – somewhere before 36–38 AD – because we have to get
Paul out there in the mission field before the writing of 2 Thessalonians in 39/40. If we completely ignore the “Jesus crucified
under Pontius Pilate” as traditionally dated, and if the only rough anchor we have is 2 Thessalonians, the start of Paul’s career
could have been anywhere between 23 and 38 AD.

[19]

Jesus allegedly started his career in 29 AD (in the 15th year of Tiberius, according to the gospel of Luke). The date of his alleged
crucifixion is disputed: anywhere between 29 and 33 AD. So if Paul began his career before or during these years, that would
create a serious problem for the accepted “Jesus timeline”. He would have been “converted to Jesus” before Jesus’ death!
Even by Campbell’s fairly standard date of Paul’s commission – 34 AD – there’s barely time for Jesus to be cold in his grave (or
not) and for any kind of messianic movement to form around him, much less for Paul to be persecuting said movement. It’s
not impossible, but if the standard chronology isn’t true, then our ideas about the historical processes taking place in these
years may be giving us a very distorted picture of what actually happened. If the crucifixion as such did not happen, or if it
happened much earlier, it forces us to rethink this pivotal period of Christian history.

There are two major problems in sorting out the early Christian chronology: the first is the dating of the governor of
Damascus’ pursuit of Paul. Relevant to this, but not crucial to argument one way or the other, is the historicity of the Aretas–
Antipas engagement. Whether or not that little war happened is actually irrelevant, because, as I’ll show, we cannot firmly fix
the date based on Josephus or any other text: Paul’s basket case could have happened at any time between 9 BC and 40 AD,
the period of the rule of Aretas. That realization unpegs Paul from a definite time window, but that is all.

The second problem is more severe: the timing of the governorship of Pontius Pilate, which is used to date Jesus. I will argue
that this was much earlier than tradition holds and that the tradition of the later time period being allotted to Pilate was
created and texts were manipulated to support it. Placing Pilate earlier in time opens up the possibility that Paul’s timeline –
including his adventure in Damascus – could have happened earlier as well. An earlier date for Pilate – and thus a Jesus
character too – means there is time for the development of a following of some sort, time for Paul to persecute that
following, and time for Paul to have his commission experience, evangelize widely, write 2 Thessalonians during the reign of
Caligula, and more. Further, I will suggest and argue a solution to the Suetonius passage about rioting Jews in Rome and how
that may be the earliest, authentic historical reference to the activities of Paul.

Solving these problem by re-dating the governorship of Pontius Pilate has multiple and far-reaching ramifications for all of
early Christian “history”. It also frees Paul from the entanglements of the gospels’ “Jesus of Nazareth”, whom Paul had clearly
never heard of, and allows us to explore the possibilities of whom Paul actually was talking about and why.[20]

This book has three main sections. In the first, I examine the Aretas problem with emphasis on the fact that we cannot rely on
Josephus for the historicity of this event. Making this clear requires a discussion of the Artabanus problem which ran in the
background of the tale told by Josephus. Then, in the second part, I take up the issue of Pilate and a chronology for his
presence in Judea. This will require a review of some significant events beginning with the death of Herod the Great, moving
forward to the alleged time of Pilate. Finally, in part three, I return to Paul and explore his life and ideas and then tie it all
together.

Josephus and the Aretas–Antipas Problem

Josephus

Titus Flavius Josephus, circa 37–100 AD, was a Jewish/Roman historian whose most well-known work is The Wars of the Jews,
published in the late 70s AD. He was a politically savvy apologist for the Jews and the Roman Imperial Dynasty of the Flavians,
writing Imperial propaganda after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

One of Josephus' main tasks was to create a spin-doctored history of the Jewish rebellion against Rome to compete with what
was being told by his political rival Justus of Tiberias, of whom we know next to nothing save that his version of events places
Josephus smack in the middle of all the ills of Galilee. Considering the questionable nature of almost every piece of
biographical data Josephus reveals, Justus was probably on the right track. Josephus glosses over both the atrocities
committed by the Romans, and the seditious Jewish rebellion, of which he was a part until his ultimate betrayal against his
rebel compatriots and his defection to the Romans.

The necessity of a revisionist account of the Jewish War with Rome should be apparent. Roman political philosophy and policy
always attempted to seek equilibrium and peaceful coexistence as far as possible. The most important thing to the Romans
was tax money. Dead people cannot pay taxes. Rebels are even worse, because they are alive and not paying their taxes.
Palestine was to Rome a small part of a larger area of the world that was a source of wealth to the elite. A troublesome little
province was the last thing they wanted. What they needed was a convincing narrative to feed the Diaspora Jews to keep
them quiet about Rome having to practically wipe out their people due to a pesky rebellion. This narrative would have to be
sufficiently Judaized to be acceptable, and all explanations would need to be couched in language that appealed to the
Diaspora. That would include many references to the Law, to God, and blaming everything on innovators and rebels – the
“lone gunmen” of the time. Josephus consistently presents the rebellion as the work of a bunch of extremists, not as a
rebellion by practically the whole “Jewish nation”.

[NOTE: Price adds: “So Josephus was doing the same thing Brandon said Mark was doing! “Nothing to worry about from us
Jews/Christians!””]

The Flavians needed Josephus because he was sufficiently morally flexible to betray his colleagues and even his entire people,
he was well educated, and he knew who was who in Palestine. They probably cared little for his self-promoting propaganda,
found in copious digressions throughout everything he penned. At best it was in and of itself amusing to the Roman elite, who
perhaps saw Josephus as both useful and entertaining, with his thrilling tales of derring-do in the rough and barbaric life of a
frontier people like the Jews of Palestine. And Josephus clearly understood that his comfortable life depended on his
maintaining his story to the bitter end.

On the Life of Josephus’ influences, Josephus scholar Steve Mason writes: “Josephus offers an autobiography that has many
parallels with the social prejudices of Cicero, the military exploits and virtues of [Julius] Caesar, and the stratagems of his
Roman contemporary Frontinus.”[21] Coming after his thoroughly Roman-inspired treatise on the Jewish constitution,
Antiquities, Josephus turns to a discussion of his own character in his Life, on the model of the ideal aristocratic public figure:
a patron genuinely concerned for his clients’ welfare, constantly hounded by jealous, power-hungry enemies. It says
something about the size of his ego that he offers his own life “as the final exhibit in his presentation of the Judean
constitution.”[22] As Mason puts it:

Almost every single paragraph in the Life ¼ confirms with no hint of subtlety either his virtues or his opponents’ vices. This is clearest
in such summary statements as these: “79 I used to take them along in the trial of cases, and I used to render verdicts in accord with
their opinion, being determined not to pervert justice through haste, and to remain pure of any material profit in these matters. 80 I
was now living my thirtieth year or so. At that age, even if one puts aside illicit yearnings, especially in a position of great authority it is
hard to escape the accusations that come from envy. But I preserved every woman unmolested, and disdained all gifts as unnecessary;
I did not even accept the tithes, which were due to me as a priest, from those who brought them.” Since these moral lessons are clear,
whereas the history is thoroughly obfuscated, we should conclude that Josephus’ intention has little to do with history and everything
to do with his character.[23]

He ends his Life with these words: “And this is the account of the actions of my whole life; and let others judge of my
character by them as they please ¼”[24] We have, and it’s not very flattering.

As for Josephus’ reliability as a historian, like many ancient writers, he took liberties:
¼ the Life is filled with apparently gratuitous contradictions of the War. It seems rather that Josephus expects the same trusting
audience that he had for the Antiquities, who are prepared to accept what he says without careful investigation.[25]
After opening his Life by claiming to have royal and priestly blood, like a good Jewish/Roman aristocrat, he tells his readers
they can verify it for themselves in the priestly registers. He neglects to mention that these documents were long-since
destroyed when the Temple was burnt to the ground over two decades earlier. Mason comments: “One might easily infer that
he does not expect readers with much knowledge of things Judean, who could be critical of his logical leaps.”[26]
Not only is he inconsistent and self-contradictory when it comes to details like names, dates, numbers, places, and sequences
of events, but he also plays fast and loose with his “historical characters”. Commenting on the instances where Josephus
counters charges from his enemies that he was a tyrant,[27] Mason argues that “knowing these to be stock charges against
political figures, he crafts them for his opponents, just as he creates plausible speeches even for opponents in the War, to
create a plausible narrative.”[28] Or was he simply protesting too much, as when he insists that he didn’t “betray his
country”?[29] Maybe it was both.

Other scholars are more blunt with their criticism. Robert Eisler calls him “the conceited historian”, a “vain braggart”, a
“swindler”, a liar, a cheat and a war profiteer;[30] Josephus was “well acquainted with the great art of flattering those who
might be useful to him”, shameless (he took part in “questioning” Jewish captives), “most anxious to whitewash himself”,
“insincere and unreliable”, “a client and parasite of the Emperor”.[31]

The general tone of Josephus' autobiography is that of a man incapable of performing his duties to any consistent degree
while demonstrating his total inability to accept responsibility for his failures.[32] He doesn’t even compare to the great men
of history, say Alexander or Caesar. He commanded no loyalty among his men or subjects; they were constantly trying to kill
him, to betray him, or to get him removed from office. All his misfortunes are due to the calumnies and seditions of agitators
and innovators who were just too stupid or too evil to see what a fantastically wonderful leader he really was; which is to say
he was not, as none among his subjects ever seems to have perceived this greatness he constantly attempted to project. The
duping delight[33] he exhibits when recounting the clever way he persuaded his companions to kill themselves so that he
could escape is utterly repellant.

One of the most obvious lies of Josephus is that of the precocious child and his three years of study with the Pharisees,
Sadducees, and Essenes.

Moreover, when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to learning; on which
account the high priests and principal men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the
accurate understanding of points of the law; and when I was about sixteen years old, I had a mind to make trial of the several sects
that were among us. These sects are three:—The first is that of the Pharisees, the second that of the Sadducees, and the third that of
the Essenes, as we have frequently told you; for I thought that by this means I might, choose the best, if I were once acquainted with
them all; so I contented myself with hard fare, and underwent great difficulties and went through them all.
Nor did I content myself with these trials only; but when I was informed that one, whose name was Bannus,[34] lived in the desert,
and used no other clothing than grew upon trees, and had no other food than what grew of its own accord, and bathed himself in cold
water frequently, both by night and by day, in order to preserve his chastity, I imitated him in those things and continued with him
three years.[35]

If we are to trust Josephus' account of his childhood, he was something akin to a religious Doogie Hauser, M.D. While that
makes good fare for television, and fiction in general, it flies in the face of human psychology. It wouldn't matter how smart he
was; no self-respecting High Priest would kowtow to a 14-year-old kid. Such things are common tropes in fiction, and a bit of
embellishment is to be expected, but "the high priests and principal men of the city" visiting a teenager frequently is simply
intellectually insulting.

According to the Alexandrian Jewish writer Philo (ca. 25 BC–50 AD), the Essene sect was supposed to be comprised of "men
indeed already inclining towards old age."[36] Even if they were interested in accepting a very young man (unlikely), in order
to participate in any meaningful way a person would have to join the community, thus placing all of their wealth into the
common purse.[37] According to Josephus himself in Wars,

[38] they required three full years or preparation before entry into the school. It is unlikely that Josephus had any real acquaintance with them or their customs, as is attested by his many ambiguous descriptions of them. What he does say seems borrowed whole cloth from either Philo’s account or common knowledge of the time.

To whatever degree he investigated the Pharisees or Sadducees, it can't have been thorough, as he claims to have spent all of
his three years with Bannus, whom he doesn't properly place as belonging to any of the three groups. I suppose this would be
equivalent to having a job applicant claim to have pursued a certain degree at university and simultaneously admitting he
spent the same span of time as a roadie for the Grateful Dead. Even if we admit to a possible translation error – perhaps he
didn't spend those 3 years with "him" but with "them" – Josephus keeps it all fairly ambiguous and non-committal, the mark
of any good con man.

Josephus of course is making use of common social and heroic tropes, in line with Roman expectations of a highbrow
aristocrat. That would be fine, if it was fiction. We don't mind if the Odyssey presents tropes – that's to be expected. But
when a historian fills his autobiography with them, we have to wonder where the truth lies.
At 26 years of age, Josephus allegedly traveled to Rome, to secure the release of some priests imprisoned by the procurator of
Judea, Felix:
Accordingly I came to Rome, though it were through a great number of hazards, by sea; for, as our ship was drowned in the Adriatic
Sea, we that were in it, being about six hundred in number swam for our lives all the night; when, upon the first appearance of the day,
and upon our sight of a ship of Cyrene, I and some others, eighty in all, by God's providence, prevented the rest, and were taken up
into the other ship: and when I had thus escaped, and was come to Dicearchia, which the Italians call Puteoli, I became acquainted
with Aliturius, an actor of plays, and much beloved by Nero, but a Jew by birth; and through his interest became known to Poppea,
Caesar's wife; and took care, as soon as possible, to entreat her to procure that the priests might be set at liberty; and when, besides
this favor, I had obtained many presents from Poppea, I returned home again.[39]
Quelle surprise – a shipwreck! Josephus doesn't disappoint. The only heroic trope he doesn't seem to make use of is the
"abduction by pirates", but perhaps that one had gone out of style by his day. Don't forget Caesar's wife Poppea and her
"many presents." I'll leave off before the discussion gets too prurient, but let us add kissing and telling to his list of sins.
Later in his Life, Josephus fights a battle against the royal troops:
And I had performed great things that day, if a certain fate had not been my hindrance; for the horse on which I rode, and upon whose
back I fought, fell into a quagmire, and threw me on the ground; and I was bruised on my wrist, and carried into a village named
Cepharnome, or Capernaum. When my soldiers heard of this, they were afraid I had been worse hurt than I was; and so they did not go
on with their pursuit any further, but returned in very great concern for me. I therefore sent for the physicians, and while I was under
their hands, I continued feverish that day; and as the physicians directed, I was that night removed to Taricheae.[40]
What a brave soldier! He even makes a point of saying that the physician directed him to a town 10 kilometers from the
battle. Oh, he had a doctor’s note, did he? Mason’s translation says that Josephus “suffered a fracture of the bones in the flat
part of [his] hand”. Even then, the story reads more like an excuse for deserting the battlefield. He wouldn’t have been the
first aristocratic “military leader” to save his own skin by abandoning his troops. The fact that his troops “did not go on with
their pursuit any further” doesn’t really suggest concern for Josephus, but rather a disinclination to be doing what he ordered
them to do. Right there we see that Josephus was definitely a rebel leader, one of those brigands, innovators, tyrants that he
so detests when talking about the revolt against Rome.
Mason sums Josephus up:
When ¼ Josephus portrays himself as a precocious intellect and youthful devotee of philosophy, a priest serving in the temple, a wise
statesman and governor, a judge, a champion swimmer and wrestler, an expert builder, a brave and resourceful general, and finally an
industrious writer of history and autobiography, he is only embodying the aristocrat’s role in the world.[41]
But he fails at every turn. In trying to present himself as part of the aristocratic crowd, he uses the only plausible events from
his life that he can, but it falls flat. His claimed ancestry is dubious at best. And his military career as a rebel “general”? Eisler
sums that up nicely:
… he himself … did not have the faintest notion of the elements of strategy, in spite of his assertions to the contrary. He even has to
admit that he did not manage to arm his troops adequately and that he did not have the time to drill his men, important facts which
explain the easy victory of the Roman troops, inferior in numbers though they were to the army of patriots. The final paragraph [of
Wars 2.20.8 (584)] is clearly intended to parry the accusation that he merely plundered the country with this armed rabble.
[42]
Josephus is a consummate liar and a con man. He is a shameless self-promoter, but is so deluded that he routinely indicts
himself for sadism, cowardice, and incompetence. He is quite possibly the most unsuccessful administrator to have ever held
political office. He is an indiscreet braggart, and ultimately he is a traitor to his people and their government. Not only is he a
traitor; he manages to brag about the favors and wealth given to him by the Roman Emperors as a reward for going “Benedict
Arnold” and defecting to the enemy. Such an immoral and flippant coward fast approaches Cicero-like proportions of duplicity
and pusillanimity (but that’s a subject for another time!).
Can we trust a man who plays so fast and loose with history? Shall we hang any critical point of history on someone who tells
such puerile and pointless lies? No, we can’t. Every claim he makes should be checked, when possible, with the accounts of
other, more reliable historians, and with the archaeological record. When those aren’t available, we should be skeptical to the
maximum extent allowed by historiography!
Aretas
King Aretas IV of Nabataea was a historical person; there are coins and inscriptions proving his existence. He is the bestdocumented Nabataean ruler; 80% of surviving Nabataean coins were minted during his reign, which lasted from roughly 9 BC
to 40 AD. The title that appears for this whole half a century is “Lover of His People”. This was a bold choice: most client kings
of Rome used titles such as “Lover of Caesar” or “Lover of Rome”. Nabataean art, architecture, pottery and script all
developed during his reign. His merchants were active across the Empire, and his administration and military were thoroughly
Hellenized and Romanized.[43] He wasn’t a lightweight.
While he didn’t merit a personal mention of his name by the Roman historian Tacitus, Tacitus did make a reference to “the
Arabs” that most likely included Aretas, as well as to a feast given by the king of the Arabs/Nabataeans, who was certainly
Aretas. The main literary source for Aretas’ life is Josephus, who tells us that he was the most powerful neighbor of Judea.
Things were apparently loose enough that he could take part in political affairs by virtue of the fact that there was much
intermarriage between his house and the Herodian house ruling Judea.
Josephus relates three main events involving Aretas: how he became king,[44] his involvement in the Roman governor Varus’
war against the Jews after Herod the Great’s death,[45] and his war against Antipas.[46] He tells us that Aretas was not on
particularly good terms with Rome and it was only with great hesitation that Augustus recognized him as king and didn’t send
the army to depose him. But that “attitude” could be Josephus’ spin. What Josephus apparently couldn’t deny was that Aretas
was acknowledged by Augustus and took part in the expedition of Varus against the Jews around 4 BC, putting his
considerable army at the disposal of the Roman general. In Roman terms, that would definitely win friends and influence
people. Like Herod the Great, the archaeology suggests Aretas was a successful and prosperous client king of Rome.
The only other written source for Aretas is the reference by Paul in 2 Corinthians 11:32–3:
In Damascus, the governor [ethnarch] under King Aretas guarded the city of Damascus in order to seize me, but I was let down in a
basket through a window in the wall, and escaped from his hands.
Douglas Campbell avers that this could only have taken place during a brief window when Aretas might have been ruler of
Damascus as a result of a little war between him and Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (which shared a border
with Nabataea). Campbell summarizes his argument:
1. We know that at some point Aretas IV controlled Damascus (a city bordering, if not in, the region of the Decapolis)
through a governor (called an “ethnarch”).
2. This is also quite consistent with Nabataean political aims.
3. This is unattested, however, and largely impossible during the reign of Philip over the Decapolis, that is, up to 34 C.E.
4. This is also unattested, and highly unlikely, during the reign of Agrippa, which extended from 37 C.E. past the death of
Aretas himself.
5. We know, moreover, that in late 36 C.E. Aretas launched a successful military strike against Antipas, ruler of Galilee
6. This strike seems to have involved the Decapolis, as a telltale comment by Josephus concerning Gamala suggests; a
region currently only under indirect Roman control.
7. This was a particularly well-calculated strike on Aretas’s part because the Syrian governor was involved at the time in
securing the eastern frontier against the Parthian threat by stabilizing its network of client kingdoms, pursuing this
aim in a highly conciliatory fashion, and he was also bitterly aggrieved with Antipas. Hence, far from exciting Roman
hostility, this action probably anticipated meeting with Vitellius’s approval, and indeed seems initially to have done so.
8. It is therefore most likely that Aretas’s control over Damascus coincided with his successful defeat of Antipas and
probable annexation of the Decapolis region as a whole.[47]
I don’t have any issue with points 1 and 2, but the rest are highly questionable since reliance is placed on Josephus for his
certitude. To show why, we need to understand more about Damascus before and after Paul’s time, the politics of the time,
and what we really know and don’t know based on our sources.
Who Ruled Damascus?
We know that Aretas died in 39 or 40 AD, based on coins and inscriptions from the time. He came into power around 9 BC. We
also know that a previous king of Nabataea, Aretas III, had ruled Damascus from 84–72 BC (coins attest to his control for these
years), at which point Armenia took it over, occupying the city for approximately 2 years, after which it “maintained a
precarious independent presence”[48] until the Roman general Pompey occupied the city in 64/63 BC.
Coins minted in Damascus depict the Roman emperors Augustus, Tiberius (up to 34 AD), and Nero (starting in 62/63 AD),
implying Roman influence of some sort, but we don’t know who was directly ruling the city during those times. The period
with no numismatic evidence (34–63 AD) doesn’t necessarily imply anything significant. It could indicate a change in rule or
simply that no new coins were minted there in those years.
Explicit mention of rule over Damascus doesn’t enter the historical record again until 106 AD, when it came under Roman
control as a city of the province of Syria, suggesting that it was not under direct Roman rule previously. Interestingly, Rome
took over Nabataea at the same time, which became the Roman province of Arabia.
There are references to the region south of Damascus: the Decapolis, located between Syria in the north and Nabataea to the
south. To the east was impassable desert, so travel and trade were focused along the “King’s Highway”, running north from
Nabataea, through the Decapolis, to Damascus. The Decapolis cities were a group of semi-autonomous city-states nominally
under Roman protection since Pompey’s reorganization of Syria, and in some way administered by the Syrian governor. Like
Damascus, it is not so clear who directly controlled them at various times.
Pliny and Ptolemy both include Damascus as one of the Decapolis cities.[49] However, Pliny notes that when he was writing in
the 70s AD there was confusion as to which cities exactly made up the “Ten Cities” – different writers gave different lists.
Eusebius, a later church writer, doesn’t include Damascus in his list. Nor does Josephus himself.[50] So it’s hard to even know
Damascus’ status in the Decapolis with any certainty.
Josephus makes several references to Damascus in Wars,
[51] in the last of which Herod the Great is described as bestowing
benefits on foreign cities, that is, not within his kingdom:
And when he had built so much, he showed the greatness of his soul to no small number of foreign cities. He built palaces for exercise
at Tripoli, and Damascus, and Ptolemais; he built a wall about Byblus, as also large rooms, and cloisters, and temples, and marketplaces at Berytus and Tyre, with theatres at Sidon and Damascus. He also built aqueducts for those Laodiceans who lived by the seaside; and for those of Ascalon he built baths and costly fountains, as also cloisters round a court, that were admirable both for their
workmanship and largeness. Moreover, he dedicated groves and meadows to some people; nay, not a few cities there were who had
lands of his donation, as if they were parts of his own kingdom.[52]
Further, according to Josephus, two cities of the Decapolis, Gadara and Hippos, were annexed to Herod the Great’s territory
by Augustus,[53] then handed over to Syria after Herod’s death in 4 BC.[54] At the same time, the region between Damascus
and the rest of the Decapolis cities was given to Herod’s son, Philip, which he ruled until his death in 33/34 AD. These regions
– Trachonitis, Batanea, Aurantitis, and Gaulanitis – had been gifted originally to Herod by Augustus in about 23 BC.[55] They
passed on to Agrippa I in 37 AD, after the death of Tiberius.[56]
There are two items of interest to note about this shuffling around of territories. First, indeed two cities of the Decapolis were
apparently given to Syria, but the region separating them from their alleged “brother” Damascus was given to Philip, then
Agrippa I. So they were ruled at a distance, with territories separating them from their ruling province (kind of like how the
United States includes Alaska, which borders Canada, but not any of the contiguous states). If Damascus was under the rule of
Nabataea, a similar situation would apply: the rule of a city separated from one’s contiguous territory; but Campbell uses this
geographical separation as a reason against the idea that Nabataea could have ruled Damascus. But as Campbell himself
observes, “the imperial allocation of territory was not always that convenient or even rational”,[57] and this is a case in point.
Even Gaza, far to the southwest, was apparently put under Syrian control with regions between under the rule of various
other persons at different times.
So when Campbell says in points 3 and 4 that Nabataean control of Damascus was impossible before 34 AD (when Philip ruled
the Decapolis region) and after 37 AD (when Agrippa I ruled it), he doesn’t have any real evidence, nor is the line of force of
the available evidence in his favor. Assuming Aretas did control Damascus in 36–37 AD, Campbell concedes that “[Emperor]
Gaius might conceivably have left Aretas in possession of Damascus alone [when Agrippa I acquired the Decapolis region], but
we have no evidence for this.”[58] We have no evidence for Campbell’s suggestion either, just a possible window of
opportunity provided by a dubious story from Josephus that contains no explicit mention of Damascus. It could very well be
that Aretas controlled Damascus even while other cities of the Decapolis were ruled by others, and the evidence appears to
point in that direction.
But let’s assume Campbell is correct that Damascus wasn’t ruled by Aretas before Philip’s death in 33/34 and after 37 AD,
when Agrippa I was given control of the territories by Emperor Gaius. The next governor of Syria, L. Vitellius, didn’t arrive until
35 AD, and the previous governor died in 33 AD.[59] Josephus tells us that the Decapolis region was governed in trust by Syria
during this time. As Campbell notes, “It is therefore quite plausible that the actual administration of the area was undertaken
locally by trusted client kings”.[60] Could Damascus have been a part of this arrangement? If Aretas was not ruler of
Damascus before or after, could this provide a possible window of temporary rule for Aretas, i.e. 33–35 AD?
Campbell observes, “Aretas IV is never directly attested to elsewhere as being in charge of Damascus”. Similarly, “it is as
difficult to find a period when the region around Damascus was controlled by the Nabataean king as it is to find one when he
controlled the actual city”.[61] This is true, but it is also true that there doesn’t seem to be any direct, explicit reference to
anyone else ruling Damascus for the period in question, either.
Given the large Nabataean demographics of the Decapolis region (including Damascus), Damascus previously having been
ruled by Nabataea, and Damascus’ importance and attractiveness to Nabataea in terms of trade, it might make sense to posit
some strong influence or control over the city. But what was the exact nature of this control?
What Is an Ethnarch
Josephus uses the word some 22 times to refer to a Jewish official. So do the books of Maccabees (3 times), and Nicolaus of
Damascus, once (fragment 136: “He gave Archelaus the title of ethnarch, and promised that if he proved himself worthy, he
would soon make him king. He appointed the other brothers, Philippus and Antipas, to be tetrarchs.”) Aside from these, the
word is only used 7 other times in pre-2nd-century sources. And the exact form or function of the title is anything but clear.
So, for example, we have Strabo: “The Romans, as far as they were able, corrected, as I have said, many abuses, and
established an orderly government, by appointing vice-governors, nomarchs, and ethnarchs, whose business it was to
superintend affairs of minor importance.”[62]
According to Josephus, Strabo called the leader of the Jewish community in Alexandria “ethnarch”,[63] but Philo, an
Alexandrian himself, called him “genarch”.[64] Elsewhere, Philo (and others) refers to an ethnarch in generic terms as simply
the founder or leader of a tribe or nation.
[65] That’s it. Some have suggested the ethnarch mentioned by Paul was only the
leader of the Nabataean community in Damascus, a “trade consul” of sorts, similar to the Jewish ethnarch in Alexandria.
(Nabataea had trade colonies in other Decapolis cities, e.g. Gerasa, and Damascus probably had a Nabataean quarter.)[66]
Campbell rejects this idea because the degree of influence and power of the ethnarch mentioned by Paul implies total control
over the security apparatus of the city, not merely control over one section of the city. But can we really make that
assumption?
As Campbell says elsewhere in his paper, “one cannot rule out the possibility of large bribes”.[67] We simply don’t know
enough about the local contingencies to reconstruct what happened with any degree of certainty. Who’s to say that, by saying
“Ethnarch of Damascus under Aretas”, Paul wasn’t saying something of the equivalent of what could be said about certain
leaders today, e.g. a reference to Ukraine’s Poroshenko as “President of Ukraine under Obama”, thus implying a known but
officially unacknowledged power relationship? Could Aretas have “bought” the ethnarch of Damascus? Or could a local
chieftain of the Natabaean community have “bought” the higher-ups in order to sniff out Paul for whatever reason?
Altogether, these uncertainties – the social and political status of Damascus, the exact function or role of an “ethnarch”, the
nature of relations between Syria and Nabataea, the status of the Decapolis – don’t help Campbell’s theory. Even if the war
between Aretas and Antipas took place, there is still no evidence that a takeover of Damascus took place. At the most it
provides a plausible window of opportunity, but only if it happened, and only if Aretas wasn’t already controlling the city.
Using the same evidence Campbell uses from Josephus, one could simply argue that Aretas already controlled Damascus and
waged a war with Antipas to acquire more of the Decapolis cities. But did that war even happen?
Aretas, Antipas and John the Baptist
According to the Gospel of Matthew (14:3–5) and the Gospel of Luke (3:18–20), John the Baptist opposed the proposed
marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias, which resulted in John’s execution. Josephus says that John the Baptist was executed
because he was acquiring too much political clout among the masses and then says that it was because of the execution of
John that God brought punishment on Antipas by making him lose the war between him and Aretas, which apparently began
over a territorial dispute.
In Josephus, the marriage between Antipas and Herodias occurred just prior to the 36/37 AD war between Aretas and Antipas.
This creates a very serious problem for the New Testament. For John to oppose the marriage, he would have to be alive.[68]
But the NT also claims that John the Baptist was executed at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. Both claims cannot be correct. If
Josephus is right, Jesus’ ministry would then have to be dated later than 36/37, creating an impossible chronological conflict.
How could Jesus begin his ministry that late, be executed even later, and then have Paul in a Damascus ruled by Aretas when
Aretas died in 40 AD? Plus, how to have a somewhat developed Jerusalem church for Paul to be persecuting? Thus, again, we
see why we simply cannot use the gospels or Acts in any historical or chronological way.
The story in Josephus informs us that the daughter of Aretas was married to Herod Antipas, one of the heirs of Herod the
Great. At some point, she discovered that Antipas was planning on divorcing her in order to marry his brother’s wife,
Herodias. Herodias was (at the time of this plan) married to Herod II, the son of Herod the Great and Mariamne II. There are a
few problems with the story, which follows this summary paragraph:
About this time it was that Philip, Herod's brother, departed this life, in the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius [i.e. late 33 to 34
AD], after he had been tetrarch of Trachonitis and Gaulanitis, and of the nation of the Bataneans also, thirty-seven years [i.e. since 4/3
BC]. He had showed himself a person of moderation and quietness in the conduct of his life and government; he constantly lived in that
country which was subject to him; ¼ He died at Julias; and when he was carried to that monument which he had already erected for
himself beforehand, he was buried with great pomp. His principality Tiberius took, [for he left no sons behind him,] and added it to the
province of Syria, but gave order that the tributes which arose from it should be collected, and laid up in his tetrarchy.[69]
This Philip was Philip the Tetrarch, the son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem, who was one of his several wives.
Philip was a half-brother of Herod Antipas and Herod Archelaus (whose mother was Herod’s previous wife, Malthace), and of
Herod II (mother: Mariamne). Philip was married to his niece, Salome, the daughter of Herodias and Herod II. This Salome
appears in the NT in connection with the execution of John the Baptist, and both Mark and Matthew wrote that “Philip” was
her father.
Right away we have a problem. Josephus says that Herodias was married to Herod II (son of Herod and Mariamne). Their
daughter, Salome, married Philip. But the gospel of Mark says that Herodias, whose dancing daughter (unnamed but widely
assumed to be Salome – some Greek manuscripts name her as Herodias) demands the beheading of John the Baptist, was
married to “Philip”. This has led some NT scholars to propose that Herod II was actually also called Philip. Nikos Kokkinos, in
his book The Herodian Dynasty, argues that Josephus got it wrong: that Herodias was married to Philip, not Herod II, and that
Antipas pursued the marriage with Herodias after Philip’s death in 33/34 AD in order to acquire his territories.
If Kokkinos is correct in taking the value of the gospels over Josephus here, a shaky proposition at best, Philip, the husband
that Herodias wanted to divorce, would have died in 33/34 AD as described above, before the proposed marriage with
Antipas, which would have eliminated the ultimate need for her to divorce him. However, in the next chapter of Antiquities,
Josephus explicitly mentions that Herodias “divorced herself from her husband while he was alive”.[70] It is just as possible, if
not more probable, that the gospels are wrong and perhaps even based on a misreading of Josephus. As Steve Mason puts it,
“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).”[71]
So the alleged problems that arose between Aretas and Herod Antipas must have occurred around this time (i.e. between
Philip’s death in 33/34 AD and Aretas’ in 40 AD). According to Campbell, the resulting mini-war between them would have
resulted in Aretas’ temporary rule over Damascus. That means that Campbell has to constrain his dating of Paul’s story about
being let down in a basket to escape the governor of King Aretas to that period, which makes it very close to the alleged time
of the crucifixion. Placing Paul’s flight from Damascus in late 36 AD would mean that Paul’s call to be an apostle happened
somewhere between late 33 AD and mid 34 AD. The crucifixion allegedly occurred somewhere in 29–33 AD, leaving a period
of anywhere from less than a year to perhaps five years for these events (visions of the risen Jesus, growth of the Jerusalem
church, Paul’s persecution of said church, etc.). Five years might be doable, but less than a year is way too tight. Also, as we’ve
seen above, for all we know, Aretas could have been in control of Damascus for the entire period.
Now, let’s look at the story that follows on from the above passage about the modest, fair and quiet Philip, brother of Antipas:
About this time[72] Aretas (the king of Arabia Petrea) and Herod [Antipas] had a quarrel on the account following: Herod the tetrarch
had married the daughter of Aretas, and had lived with her a great while; but when he was once at Rome, he lodged with Herod [II],
who was his brother indeed, but not by the same mother; for this Herod was the son of the high priest Simon’s daughter.
However, he fell in love with Herodias, this last Herod's wife, who was the daughter of Aristobulus their brother, and the sister of
Agrippa the Great.[73] This man ventured to talk to her about a marriage between them; which address when she admitted, an
agreement was made for her to change her habitation, and come to him as soon as he should return from Rome; one article of this
marriage also was this, that he should divorce Aretas's daughter.
So Antipas, when he had made this agreement, sailed to Rome; but when he had done there the business he went about, and was
returned again, his wife having discovered the agreement he had made with Herodias, and having learned it before he had notice of her
knowledge of the whole design, she desired him to send her to Machaerus, which is a place in the borders of the dominions of Aretas
and Herod,[74] without informing him of any of her intentions.
Accordingly Herod sent her thither, as thinking his wife had not perceived anything; now she had sent a good while before to
Machaerus, which was subject to her father and so all things necessary for her journey were made ready for her by the general of
Aretas's army; and by that means she soon came into Arabia, under the conduct of the several generals, who carried her from one to
another successively; and she soon came to her father, and told him of Herod's intentions.[75]
Note that Josephus says that Machaerus was “subject to her father”, i.e. Aretas. Elsewhere, he says that the fortress was
passed to Herod Antipas on the death of Herod the Great (supposed to have been in 4 BC), and then passed to Agrippa I after
Antipas’ deposition and banishment in 39 AD, until 44 AD, at which point it came under Roman control. Josephus’ other
references to it include:
· Wars 1.8.2 (162): “Machaerus, that lay upon the mountains of Arabia.”
· 1.16.6 (317), where, apparently, Machaerus is the name of one of the generals of the Romans under Ventidius Bassus,
a protégé of Julius Caesar who later followed Antony.[76]
· 3.3.3 (46–7): “Now the length of Perea is from Machaerus to Pella, and its breadth from Philadelphia to Jordan; its
northern parts are bounded by Pella, as we have already said, as well as its Western with Jordan; the land of Moab is
its southern border, and its eastern limits reach to Arabia, and Silbonitis, and besides to Philadelphene and Gerasa.”
This places Machaerus within the southern borders of Perea (which border Aretas’ Nabataea to the south and east of
those borders.)
· 7.6.2 (172), where it is noted that “it lay so near to Arabia”.
The point is, it is unlikely that Machaerus was subject to Aretas unless he had laid claim to it suddenly. A border dispute in a
different region, at the very northern tip of the Decapolis, was the true cause of the alleged set-to, as may be discerned in the
next sentence:
So Aretas made this the first occasion of his enmity between him and Herod, who had also some quarrel with him about their limits at
the country of Gamalitis. So they raised armies on both sides, and prepared for war, and sent their generals to fight instead of
themselves; and when they had joined battle, all Herod's army was destroyed by the treachery of some fugitives, who, though they
were of the tetrarchy of Philip, joined with Aretas's army. So Herod wrote about these affairs to Tiberius, who being very angry at the
attempt made by Aretas, wrote to Vitellius to make war upon him, and either to take him alive, and bring him to him in bonds, or to kill
him, and send him his head. This was the charge that Tiberius gave to the president of Syria.[77]
This Vitellius, “president of Syria” during the reign of Tiberius, is rather problematic, as we will discover further on, so keep
him in mind. It is curious that the penultimate sentence of the above passage contains “send him his head”, considering all the
ink (and paint) that has been spilled over the head of John the Baptist, who immediately enters, stage left:
Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he
did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue,
both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water]
would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the
purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.
Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who
feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion (for they
seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and
not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was
sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Machaerus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the
Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to
him.[78]
Very odd. First we have the daughter of Aretas fleeing to the fortress of Machaerus, which was allegedly under the control of
her father, then we have a flashback to John the Baptist being sent there for execution because the fortress belongs to
Antipas. We have a demand to “send him his head” from Tiberius, followed immediately by the appearance of John the
Baptist. John gets executed, but it isn’t said how. This is a very funny business and one can almost see the pieces of the
gospels being picked up and pasted together from Josephus. Keep in mind that we are probably in the year 35/36 AD, which is
impossible for the Jesus of Nazareth timeline.
Lucius Vitellius and John the Baptist
Most of the information that is regularly repeated about Vitellius, mentioned above, actually comes from Josephus and
therefore, in my opinion, must be scrutinized carefully. According to Tacitus, there was a Lucius Vitellius, consul in the years
34, 43, and 47 AD, who was the father of the Vitellius who became emperor, briefly, in 69 AD.
Both Tacitus (Ann. 6.28) and Dio Cassius (58.24.1) confirm that, in the 20th year of Tiberius, 34 AD, the consuls were Lucius
Vitellius and Fabius Persicus.
[79] In the following year, 35 AD, Dio records the Parthian putsch for power, which was resisted
by local chieftains who sent to Tiberius to ask for a king from among their hostages at Rome to replace Artabanus.[80]
Tiberius sent Tiridates to take the throne, asking Mithridates of Iberia to invade Armenia, thus drawing Artabanus to leave
Parthia in order to assist his son there.
Tacitus notes that, in 35 AD, Tiberius put L. Vitellius in charge of sorting out the Artabanus/Tiridates/Mithridates business, as
Vitellius was governor of Syria, his proconsular assignment/reward.[81] We can assume that Vitellius headed out and the
events took place in 35–37 AD. However, of any upset with the Arabs or Aretas, the witnesses external to Josephus make no
mention and one can hardly imagine Tiberius being concerned with a border dispute between Aretas and Herod Antipas with
the Parthians on the warpath. Yet, regarding the Arabs, there is one tiny remark in Tacitus we may make note of:
Yet the withdrawal [of Tiridates to Mesopotamia] had every appearance of flight; and, a start having been made by the race of the
Arabs, the others left for their homes or for the camp of Artabanus, until Tiridates’ own return to Syria with a few men provided a
general redemption from the disgrace of desertion.
[82]
In short, it seems that in the years 35, 36 and possibly into 37 AD, while Vitellius was governor of Syria, the Arabs were
involved on the side of the Romans. Tacitus is talking about forces sent by King Aretas to support the Romans’ intention to
install Tiridates. In other words, the Arabs were somewhat occupied already and were unlikely to have been dallying about
with Antipas over a border dispute or a daughter scorned. We can only conclude that, for some reason, Josephus is novelizing
here. Compare the Tacitean statement about the presence of the Arab forces with the Romans in Syria above with Josephus’
historical fiction below:
So Vitellius prepared to make war with Aretas, having with him two legions of armed men; he also took with him all those of light
armature, and of the horsemen which belonged to them, and were drawn out of those kingdoms which were under the Romans, and
made haste for Petra, and came to Ptolemais. But as he was marching very busily, and leading his army through Judea, the principal
men met him, and desired that he would not thus march through their land; for that the laws of their country would not permit them
to overlook those images which were brought into it, of which there were a great many in their ensigns; so he was persuaded by what
they said, and changed that resolution of his which he had before taken in this matter. Whereupon he ordered the army to march
along the great plain, while he himself, with Herod the tetrarch and his friends, went up to Jerusalem to offer sacrifice to God, an
ancient festival of the Jews being then just approaching; and when he had been there, and been honorably entertained by the
multitude of the Jews, he made a stay there for three days, within which time he deprived Jonathan of the high priesthood, and gave it
to his brother Theophilus. But when on the fourth day letters came to him, which informed him of the death of Tiberius [March 16, 37
AD], he obliged the multitude to take an oath of fidelity to Caius [Caligula]; he also recalled his army, and made them every one go
home, and take their winter quarters there, since, upon the devolution of the empire upon Caius, he had not the like authority of
making this war which he had before.
It was also reported, that when Aretas heard of the coming of Vitellius to fight him, he said, upon his consulting the diviners, that it
was impossible that this army of Vitellius's could enter Petra; for that one of the rulers would die, either he that gave orders for the
war, or he that was marching at the other's desire, in order to be subservient to his will, or else he against whom this army is
prepared. So Vitellius truly retired to Antioch; but Agrippa, the son of Aristobulus, went up to Rome, a year before the death of
Tiberius, in order to treat of some affairs with the emperor, if he might be permitted so to do.[83]
I think anyone with two firing neurons can see what a load of nonsense the text above actually is and how it was developed
from the bare facts of the war between Tiridates and Artabanus to which the Arabs contributed troops in support of Rome.
One can hardly imagine Vitellius acceding to the request to send his troops around by another way because the fastidious
Jews couldn’t bear to look on the Roman standards, or even that he went off to feast with the “principal men of Judea” while
at the same time depriving their high priest of his office. Notice also how glibly Josephus gets him off the hook about a war
that never happened: he was no longer authorized, so he sent his soldiers into winter quarters. What is actually astonishing is
that any sensible individual with firing neurons has ever taken Josephus seriously.
However, we must consider the fact that the above text included the little tale of John the Baptist. Executing him allegedly
brought Antipas into misfortune, because Josephus’ god is stage-directing everything. Could this be a later Christian
interpolation? It doesn’t really feel that way to me. Josephus is the most astonishing apologetic embellisher and novelizer, so
it is entirely in keeping for him to have spun the above tale just so he could get Vitellius to worship in the Jewish temple and
show how friendly the relations between the Jews and Roman imperial family were. Further, from his own autobiography, as
already noted, we find Josephus having a relationship with a fellow who may very well be the prototype for John the Baptist.
In his Life of Josephus, he tells us that he tried out all the three main Jewish philosophies, those of the Pharisees, Sadducees,
and Essenes. Then he says:
Nor did I content myself with these trials only; but when I was informed that one, whose name was Bannus,[84] lived in the desert,
and used no other clothing than grew upon trees, and had no other food than what grew of its own accord, and bathed himself in cold
water frequently, both by night and by day, in order to preserve his chastity, I imitated him in those things and continued with him
three years.[85]
Josephus suggests that Herod Antipas executed John the Baptist for political reasons, fearing his popularity and rebellion,
while the gospel of Mark 6 gives a different but equally political reason: that he was executed because he protested against
Herod’s intention to divorce, then marry his brother’s wife. As we have already noted, this is impossible in the gospel timeline,
where John the Baptist was executed at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus while Josephus clearly dates it to the twentieth
year of Tiberius and the thirty-seventh year (and death) of Philip. Both claims cannot be correct, because Jesus could not have
begun his ministry that late, been executed even later, and still have Paul in Damascus before the death of Aretas in 40 AD.
Something is wrong here and I would like to know what.
The number 37 appears in three significant contexts in the works of Josephus. In Chapter 8 of Book 17 of Antiquities, the
death of Herod is announced:
When he had done these things, he died, the fifth day after he had caused Antipater to be slain; having reigned, since he had procured
Antigonus to be slain, thirty-four years; but since he had been declared king by the Romans, thirty-seven.
[86]
We will discover further on that this dating of the death of Herod is problematical, so it is curious that it is the first instance of
the use of this “code”.
At the beginning of Book 18, Josephus tells us:
¼ Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus's money, and when the taxings were come to a conclusion [6 AD], which were made in the
thirty-seventh year of Caesar's victory over Antony at Actium [2 September 31 BC] ¼[87]
The next mention is the one we are concerned with here, the death of Philip, who had been
… tetrarch of Trachonitis and Gaulanitis, and of the nation of the Bataneans also, thirty-seven years.[88]
Of course, Josephus uses many numbers throughout his works, some more than once. But to find the only three uses of this
particular number within such a relatively short string of text strikes me as odd. What we have are three events specifically
mentioning thirty-seven that are very important to Christian chronology. All three of them are involved in chronological
anomalies within the text, too, as we will see. What to make of it? I’ll be frank: I don’t know. I only know that it sets my BS
antenna to quivering and I suspect a later redactor was trying to fix things but only ended up making a muddle. Or, it is
possible that a redactor inserted the thirty-sevens as a sort of code to alert the reader that what was being discussed, or what
followed, just might be an interpolation or something that had been altered significantly.
[NOTE: The above on 37 doesn’t really fit here, but I can’t find a better spot for it¼ Also, deleted bits about Origen below.
Carrier shows that Origen was quoting Hegesippus, not Josephus.]
Coming back to John, the closest Josephus gets to discussing a John-the-Baptist type in Wars is a reference to “John the
Essene” in his description of the parceling out of governing authority during the early days of the rebellion against Rome
following the Jews’ destruction of the army of Cestius in 66 AD:
After this calamity had befallen Cestius, many of the most eminent of the Jews swam away from the city, as from a ship when it was
going to sink; Costobarus, therefore, and Saul, who were brethren, together with Philip, the son of Jacimus, who was the commander of
king Agrippa's forces, ran away from the city, and went to Cestius. … Cestius sent Saul and his friends, at their own desire, to Achaia, to
Nero, to inform him of the great distress they were in, and to lay the blame of their kindling the war upon Florus … In the meantime,
the people of Damascus, when they were informed of the destruction of the Romans, set about the slaughter of those Jews that were
among them … yet did they distrust their own wives, which were almost all of them addicted to the Jewish religion …
But as to those who had pursued after Cestius, when they were returned back to Jerusalem, they overbore some of those that favored
the Romans by violence, and some them persuaded [by entreaties] to join with them, and got together in great numbers in the temple,
and appointed a great many generals for the war. Joseph also, the son of Gorion, and Ananus the high priest, were chosen as
governors of all affairs within the city …
They also chose other generals for Idumea; Jesus, the son of Sapphias, one of the high priests; and Eleazar, the son of Ananias, the high
priest; they also enjoined Niger, the then governor of Idumea, who was of a family that belonged to Perea, beyond Jordan. … Joseph
the son of Simon was sent as general to Jericho, as was Manasseh to Perea, and John, the Essene, to the toparchy of Thamna; Lydda
was also added to his portion, and Joppa, and Emmaus. But John, the son of Matthias, was made governor of the toparchies of
Gophnitica and Acrabattene; as was Josephus, the son of Matthias, of both the Galilees. Gamala also, which was the strongest city in
those parts, was put under his command.[89]
We not only see several names that reappear in the gospels; we also find Josephus himself describing his own role in the
rebellion, as well as that of his brother, John. And, there is “John the Essene”. He comes back to John the Essene in Book 3,
Chapter 2:
Accordingly, they presently got together a great multitude of all their most hardy soldiers, and marched away for Ascalon. … This
excursion was led on by three men, who were the chief of them all, both for strength and sagacity; Niger, called the Persite, Silas of
Babylon, and besides them John the Essene.[90]
We learn of John the Essene’s fate rather soon:
… the fight lasted till the evening, till ten thousand men of the Jews' side lay dead, with two of their generals, John and Silas, and the
greater part of the remainder were wounded, with Niger, their remaining general, who fled away …[91]
There is another John who gets a lot of attention in Wars: John of Gischala who, apparently, is Josephus’ sworn enemy. He
was everything that Josephus was not: courageous, intelligent, a masterful leader, beloved by the people; Josephus loses no
opportunity to slander and defame the man. It could be said that most of Wars is devoted to this man who, according to
Josephus, became the vilest and most reprehensible of the rebel leaders with his hordes of zealots, and was almost singlehandedly responsible for the siege of Jerusalem because of his stubborn resistance against the Romans. John of Gischala was
an extraordinary figure and this shines through the text in spite of Josephus’ calumnies against him. You have to read the
entire text of Wars to get the full story of John, because it is essentially his story: John against the Romans. At the end, when
Jerusalem falls, he is taken captive and Titus takes him back to Rome, where he apparently ended his life in prison after being
marched in the Roman triumph. Josephus’ last mention of John:
They were the Sicarii who first began these transgressions, and first became barbarous towards those allied to them, and left no words
of reproach unsaid, and no works of perdition untried, in order to destroy those whom their contrivances affected. Yet did John
demonstrate by his actions that these Sicarii were more moderate than he was himself, for he not only slew all such as gave him good
counsel to do what was right, but treated them worst of all, as the most bitter enemies that he had among all the Citizens; nay, he
filled his entire country with ten thousand instances of wickedness, such as a man who was already hardened sufficiently in his impiety
towards God would naturally do; for the food was unlawful that was set upon his table, and he rejected those purifications that the law
of his country had ordained; so that it was no longer a wonder if he, who was so mad in his impiety towards God, did not observe any
rules of gentleness and common affection towards men.[92]
I wonder if John the Baptist was a composite character, in which Josephus combined aspects of other characters, and placed
in a convenient location in the narrative. Did Josephus exploit, or even create, the figure of John the Baptist for his narrative
needs and do to him what he would have liked to have seen done to John of Gischala? Perhaps, for Josephus, the destruction
of Jerusalem “came from God, that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John”, Gischala, not Baptist. Or, was
Josephus expressing his true feelings about, and agreement with, John of Gischala, whom he had to publicly defame in order
to stay alive? Josephus’ description of John the Baptist continued:
Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who
feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, [for they
seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,] thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and
not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late.
[93][J1]
What about John the Essene? Did he relate to John of Gischala, the leader of the zealots, in any way? What about Josephus’
beloved “Bannus”? If Josephus was novelizing John the Baptist, perhaps he retrojected his Bannus into the past to the
approximate time of his own birth. I also find it curious that John of Gischala was described, at the end, as being wicked in the
way that the Jews must have seen Paul: “the food was unlawful that was set upon his table, and he rejected those
purifications that the law of his country had ordained.”
In sum, I don’t think we can fully trust the historicity of Josephus’ account of John the Baptist. It may include any number of
influences: the account of James’ execution being blamed for the Jews’ defeat, details from the lives of John the Essene, John
of Gischala, or Bannus.
Coming back now to Vitellius, Josephus makes no mention of this little war between Aretas and Antipas in Wars, nor does he
even mention Lucius Vitellius, the governor of Syria, though he makes numerous references to Vitellius the son and temporary
emperor. The story of Aretas vs. Antipas is clearly made up, and most likely by Josephus himself to make an opportunity to
glorify Jewish and Roman relations, denigrate the Arabs, and serve a mysterious purpose in his little tale of John the Baptist.
I think we must decline to accept this story of Vitellius being sent to take the head of Aretas as factual, whoever wrote it, and
thus it offers us no possibility of utilizing it to date the time the apostle Paul was let down in a basket from the walls of
Damascus while fleeing from the agents of King Aretas, who Douglas Campbell assumes only had a narrow window of
rulership there while being in conflict with Antipas. Of more interest is the conflict of ownership of the fortress, Machaerus,
but that takes us away from the present topics.
As Campbell writes in his paper on the dating of Paul’s escape from Damascus, “One avenue for undermining this explanation
[i.e. dating Paul’s escape to a possible temporary takeover of Damascus by Aretas during the alleged war with Antipas] is to
criticize [Josephus’] veracity”.[94] And: “So unless Josephus’ account is a tissue of fabrications (but nevertheless neatly
stitched together¼), he ought to be followed.”[95] Well, yes. We must criticize Josephus’ veracity and point out that a lot of
his “history” recounted in Antiquities is a “tissue of lies”, including – particularly – this incident that persuades Campbell that
Josephus “ought to be followed.”
There’s one final problem with Campbell’s theory. In Josephus, the reason Aretas is able to defeat Antipas is because the
governor of Syria, Vitellius, delays bringing his aid to Antipas, aid he was instructed by Tiberius to provide; but then Tiberius
died in 37 AD, so Vitellius was off the hook. Elsewhere, Josephus provides the “character motivation” for Vitellius’ actions:
that Vitellius successfully negotiated an agreement with the Parthian leader Artabanus, with the help of Antipas, in 36 AD.
Antipas then upstaged Vitellius by reporting the success to Tiberius first.[96] This is supposed to explain why Vitellius was so
reluctant to come to Antipas’ aid when Aretas attacked: he held a grudge. So, it is here where the Artabanus issue comes to
the fore and it cannot be avoided.
The Artabanus Problem
Douglas Campbell writes about the alleged attack of Aretas on Antipas:
… the date of the successful attack by Aretas on Antipas and his territories opens the chronological window, so to speak, within which
Paul’s escape from Damascus can be anchored.
Several considerations allow us to date the invasion, and the opening of the window with reasonable precision to the year 36 CE. […]
In the same year as the invasion, Vitellius had presided over a great diplomatic triumph – a successful negotiation of peace with the
dreaded Parthian Empire currently gathering in strength under the leadership of the formidable Artabanus. Antipas had played a minor
role in these negotiations, having been charged with managing and financing them. However, he had also taken the liberty of writing to
the imperial court with a glowing account of their success prior to Vitellius’s own report being written and dispatched, and had thereby
upstaed Vitellius at the moment of his greatest political triumph (Jewish Antiquities 18.96-105). [97]
He offers a footnote to the above text as follows:
This important negotiation is also noted by Tacitus, Ann. 2.58 (although the year is far too early – 18 CE); Suetonius, Gaius Caligula
14.3 and Vitellius 2.4 (who locates the negotiation slightly more accurately during the reign of Gaius); and Cassius Dio 59.27.3–4 (who
also locates it during the reign of Gaius). Josephus is certainly correct, however, in placing it where he does, in 36 CE the last year of
Tiberius's reign. His intertwined chronologies of Pilate, Vitellius, and Antipas only make sense here, and yet here they make perfect
sense. More detail concerning this claim is provided by my 2002, esp. 293.[98]
I can only shake my head. Let’s take a look at Josephus’ version of the Artabanus story that persuades Campbell that Tacitus is
all mixed up.
Moreover, Tiberius sent a letter to Vitellius, and commanded him to make a league of friendship with Artabanus, the king of Parthia;
for while he was his enemy, he terrified him, because he had taken Armenia away from him, lest he should proceed further, and told
him he should not otherwise trust him than upon his giving him hostages, and especially his son Artabanus. Upon Tiberius's writing
thus to Vitellius, by the offer of great presents of money, he persuaded both the king of Iberia and the king of Albania to make no
delay, but to fight against Artabanus; and although they would not do it themselves, yet did they give the Scythians a passage through
their country, and opened the Caspian gates to them, and brought them upon Artabanus. So Armenia was again taken from the
Parthians, and the country of Parthia was filled with war, and the principal of their men were slain, and all things were in disorder
among them: the king's son also himself fell in these wars, together with many ten thousands of his army. Vitellius had also sent such
great sums of money to Artabanus's father's kinsmen and friends that he had almost procured him to be slain by the means of those
bribes which they had taken. And when Artabanus perceived that the plot laid against him was not to be avoided, because it was laid
by the principal men, and those a great many in number, and that it would certainly take effect,—when he had estimated the number
of those that were truly faithful to him, as also of those who were already corrupted, but were deceitful in the kindness they professed
to him, and were likely, upon trial, to go over to his enemies, he made his escape to the upper provinces, where he afterwards raised a
great army out of the Dahae and Sacre, and fought with his enemies, and retained his principality.
When Tiberius had heard of these things, he desired to have a league of friendship made between him and Artabanus; and when, upon
this invitation, he received the proposal kindly, Artabanus and Vitellius went to Euphrates, and as a bridge was laid over the river, they
each of them came with their guards about them, and met one another on the midst of the bridge. And when they had agreed upon
the terms of peace Herod, the tetrarch erected a rich tent on the midst of the passage, and made them a feast there. Artabanus also,
not long afterward, sent his son Darius as an hostage, with many presents, among which there was a man seven cubits tall, a Jew he
was by birth, and his name was Eleazar, who, for his tallness, was called a giant. After which Vitellius went to Antioch, and Artabanus to
Babylon; but Herod [the tetrarch] being desirous to give Caesar the first information that they had obtained hostages, sent posts with
letters, wherein he had accurately described all the particulars, and had left nothing for the consular Vitellius to inform him of. But
when Vitellius's letters were sent, and Caesar had let him know that he was acquainted with the affairs already, because Herod had
given him an account of them before, Vitellius was very much troubled at it; and supposing that he had been thereby a greater sufferer
than he really was, he kept up a secret anger upon this occasion, till he could be revenged on him, which he was after Caius had taken
the government.[99]
Aside from the implausibility of Josephus having access to the thoughts of Vitellius, we note that the “secret anger” seems to
reflect Josephus’ character more than that of Vitellius. It is completely juvenile though it is not impossible that it screens
and/or misinterprets a historical reality. So it seems that, in order to sort this out, we must take up the problem of Artabanus.
Suetonius mentions Artabanus first in his biography of Tiberius as follows:
¼ he was even attacked by Artabanus, king of the Parthians, who charged him in a letter with the murder of his kindred, with other
bloody deeds, and with shameless and dissolute living, counselling him to gratify the intense and just hatred of the citizens as soon as
possible by a voluntary death.[100]
There was no love lost between Artabanus and the Roman Emperor, so the idea of Tiberius wanting to make a pact with the
guy who has just told him to off himself is absurd. Then, in the biography of Caligula, Suetonius writes:
To this unbounded love of his [Caligula’s] citizens was added marked devotion from foreigners. Artabanus, for example, king of the
Parthians, who was always outspoken in his hatred and contempt for Tiberius, voluntarily sought Caligula's friendship and came to a
conference with the consular governor; then crossing the Euphrates, he paid homage to the Roman eagles and standards and to the
statues of the Caesars.[101]
For some inexplicable reason, between the time of Artabanus’ advice that Tiberius should kill himself, and the accession of
Caligula, something had changed; obviously, it wasn’t the office of emperor, but who occupied that office. The same event
was mentioned by Suetonius in his biography of Emperor Vitellius:
Lucius [Vitellius] attained the consulate and then was made governor of Syria, where with supreme diplomacy having not only induced
Artabanus, king of the Parthians, to hold a conference with him, but even to do obeisance to the standards of the legion.[102]
[NOTE: Below, I deleted “and having persuaded Artabanus out of his hatred toward the Roman emperor du jour who was
Caligula, not Tiberius”. Where does it say Vitellius is credited with persuading Artabanus out of his hatred of Caligula? From
the above, it looks like Artabanus just hated Tiberius, not Caligula, whose friendship he sought “voluntarily”. ]
Suetonius firmly dates this meeting between Artabanus and Vitellius to the reign of Caligula. We notice also that Vitellius is
credited with “supreme diplomacy”. But we notice that Campbell is determined to give Josephus priority of accuracy and says
about Suetonius that he “locates the negotiation slightly more accurately during the reign of Gaius [Caligula].” Suetonius hints
at other dealings with Artabanus in the excerpt from the biography of Caligula so we have to look a bit harder to find what it
might be. In his account of the death of Germanicus (Life of Caligula) we find:
Yet far greater and stronger tokens of regard were shown at the time of his [Germanicus’] death and immediately afterwards. On the
day when he passed away the temples were stoned and the altars of the gods thrown down, while some flung their household gods
into the street and cast out their newly born children. Even barbarian peoples, so they say, who were engaged in war with us or with
one another, unanimously consented to a truce, as if all in common had suffered a domestic tragedy. It is said that some princes put
off their beards and had their wives' heads shaved, as a token of the deepest mourning; that even the king of kings suspended his
exercise at hunting and the banquets with his grandees, which among the Parthians is a sign of public mourning.
[103]
So, it seems that at the time Germanicus died, 19 AD, the king of the Parthians was a lover of the Romans, but for some
reason, between that time and the death of Tiberius, eighteen years later, a whole lot of enmity had grown up between the
two heads of state. One wonders if it was because of the death of Germanicus that Artabanus came to hate Tiberius? The king
of the Parthians is also mentioned in the Life of Nero but in a context that is not really relevant to our topic. Just note that
Nero was, apparently, a great favorite among the Parthians too, according to Suetonius.
Dio Cassius (155–235 AD) mentions these events in retrospect during his account of the events of 40 AD, but does not date
them explicitly:
The case of Lucius Vitellius is in point. This man was neither of low birth nor lacking in intelligence, but, on the contrary, had made a
name for himself by his governorship of Syria. For, in addition to his other brilliant achievements during his term of office, he
forestalled Artabanus, who was planning an attack on that province also, since he had suffered no punishment for his invasion of
Armenia. He terrified the Parthian by coming upon him suddenly when he was already close to the Euphrates, and then induced him
to come to a conference, compelled him to sacrifice to the images of Augustus and Gaius, and made a peace with him that was
advantageous to the Romans, even securing his sons as hostages. This Vitellius, now, was summoned by Gaius to be put to death.
The complaint against him was the same as the Parthians had against their king when they expelled him; for jealousy made him the
object of hatred, and fear the object of plots. Gaius, of course, hated all who were stronger than himself, and he was suspicious of all
who were successful, feeling sure that they would attack him. Yet Vitellius managed to save his life.
[104][J2]
Again we are told that Vitellius achieved a diplomatic coup and it wasn’t in the time of Tiberius. Despite the testimony of
these less contentious historians, Campbell notes that Dio “also locates it during the reign of Gaius” and then goes on to make
the completely astonishing claim: “Josephus is certainly correct, however, in placing it where he does, in 36 CE the last year of
Tiberius's reign. His intertwined chronologies of Pilate, Vitellius, and Antipas only make sense here, and yet here they make
perfect sense. ” I guess the better the con-artist, the happier the mark is to be conned. But when the con is passed on, who
gets the duping delight?
Coming back to Campbell’s footnote, where he says initially: “This important negotiation is also noted by Tacitus, Ann. 2.58
(although the year is far too early – 18 CE)”, I have to point out that this is completely disingenuous.
Tacitus gives a rather detailed account of the Artabanus saga starting in 16 AD when legates from the Parthian chiefs came to
Rome to fetch Vonones, the eldest son of the newly deceased Parthian king Phraates, who had been sent to Augustus as
hostage to be brought up in the Imperial court. Apparently, once he got to Parthia, the people there decided they didn’t like
him because his ways were too Romanized. This is where Artabanus first enters the picture, twenty years before Vitellius was
sent to bring him to heel. He was of Parthian royal blood also, but had grown up among the Dahae, probably a Scythian tribe.
He took control of the kingdom, and Vonones and his band fled to Armenia, which was a hotbed of rebellion and unrest. They
were kingless at that moment, so Vonones the refugee was put on the throne.
Shortly thereafter, Artabanus started saber-rattling against Vonones and the Armenians didn’t want to support a war, so
Vonones was taken into protective custody by the governor of Syria, Creticus Silanus (Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus Silanus,
cos. 7 AD). Tacitus says that it was this disruption out in the East that Tiberius used as an excuse to take Germanicus away
from his faithful legions and install him in new provinces where he was not so well known.[105]
In the following year, 17 AD, Tiberius removed Creticus Silanus from Syria “because he was connected to Germanicus by
marriage”, and installed Cn. Piso, described as “termperamentally violent and a stranger to compliance”.[106] Piso and
Germanicus finally met at Cyrrus (modern day Northern Syria), the winter camp of the Tenth Legion. They hated each other.
And this is where we also find our Aretas mentioned, though not by name:
After this, Piso was rarely on [Germanicus] Caesar’s tribunal and, on the few occasions when he sat by him, was glowering and openly
dissenting. And during a party at the residence of the Nabataeans’ king, when golden crowns of considerable weight were offered to
Caesar and Agrippina, and lighter ones to Piso and the rest, his [Piso’s] voice was heard saying that the banquet was being given for the
son of the Roman princeps, not that of the Parthian king; and at the same time he flung away his crown …
During these events, legates came from the king of the Parthians, Artabanus. He had sent them to recall the treaty of friendship, and
he desired the pledges to be renewed, he said, and as a concession to Germanicus’ honor he would advance to the bank of the
Euphrates; meanwhile he was asking that Vonones should not be kept in Syria nor use messengers from nearby to draw the aristocrats
of the various races into discord. To this Germanicus replied handsomely concerning the alliance of Romans and Parthians, and with
decorum and modesty concerning the arrival of the king and his courting of himself. Vonones was removed to Pompeiopolis, a
maritime city in Cilicia: this was not only a concession to the plea of Artabanus, but an insult for Piso, by whom he [Vonones] was
extremely favored on account of the very many duties and gifts with which he had bound Plancina [Piso’s wife] to himself.[107]
In the above account, it seems obvious that there was mutual respect between Germanicus and Artabanus and it was
Germanicus who acted diplomatically toward the Parthian king, engaging his friendship and acceding to his request. We also
notice that this was an event where the two met at the river in 18 AD for the renewal of pledges, but it wasn’t Vitellius
meeting Artabanus – it was Germanicus. This apparent friendship might explain why Artabanus conceived so great a hatred for
Tiberius after the death of Germanicus. It was widely thought that Tiberius was implicated in the poisoning of his
nephew/adopted son and we have already read how the “king of kings” mourned the death of his friend.
In AD 19, Germanicus traveled to Egypt for a Nile cruise. While he was absent, things started going south.
During the same period Vonones, whose removal to Cilicia I have recalled, after bringing his guards tried to flee to the Armenians and
thence to … his kinsman, the king of the Scythians. … So it was on the bank of the river that he was bound by Vibius Fronto, prefect of
the cavalry; then Remmius, a senior soldier who had been assigned to the king’s guard previously, transfixed him with a sword as if in
anger. … As for Germanicus, on retiring from Egypt he realized that everything which he had ordered in the cases of the legions and
cities had been annulled or changed to the opposite. Hence weighty insults for Piso … Next Piso decided to leave Syria … but was
detained by Germanicus’ adverse health …[108]
We skip the death of Germanicus later in 19 AD and jump forward to 35 AD where Artabanus appears again in the Annals of
Tacitus, disingenuously omitted by Campbell:
With C. Cestius and M. Servilius as consuls, Parthian nobles came to the City without the knowledge of King Artabanus. (His dread of
Germanicus meant that he had been loyal to the Romans and fair toward his own; but later he adopted haughtiness toward us and
savagery toward his compatriots, relying on the successful wars which he had waged against surrounding nations, despising Tiberius’
old age as defenseless, and being greedy for Armenia, where on the decease of King Artaxias he installed Arsaces, the eldest of his own
children; and as an additional insult sending men to demand back the treasure left by Vonones in Syria and Cilicia. At the same time he
resorted to foolish boasting and to threats, bragging of the old boundaries of the Persians and Macedonians and that he would invade
the lands once possessed by Cyrus and later by Alexander.)[109]
This is about 16 years after the initial Tacitean discussion of Artabanus and his treaty with Germanicus at the Euphrates River.
There is some reflection here of what Suetonius recorded about the hate mail Artabanus allegedly sent to Tiberius. Tacitus
does mention the respect that Artabanus had for Germanicus, but ascribes it to fear of the latter’s military prowess, not his
diplomatic skills. In any event, at this point, the Parthian nobles came to ask for a king to replace Artabanus; they wanted
another of the sons of Phraates, who was also named Phraates. This son (who probably learned from the mistakes of
Vonones) was able to shed his Roman ways, but he died from disease in Syria before he was put on the Parthian throne. In
other words, what was going on here was meddling by Tiberius in the affairs of the Parthians, not seeking a rapprochement.
Tiberius, not to be denied his power of picking kings (and certainly aiming to aggravate Artabanus), selected Tiridates, who
was of the same family and also related to Mithridates, sent him out east, and ordered Vitellius to be in charge of the
preparations to wipe out Artabanus and put the new king on the throne. There was a lot of to-ing and fro-ing of a warlike
nature, which Tacitus describes in some detail, and far more reliably than Josephus, and then Artabanus was rejected by his
own people, becoming a fugitive. It is at this point that Vitellius has the famous meeting at the banks of the river and the
offering of sacrifices to seal the deal.
But, with Artabanus a fugitive and the minds of his compatriots turning toward a new king, Vitellius urged Tiridates to capitalize on his
preparations and led the hard core of his legions and allies to the bank of the Euphrates. During their sacrifices – since the one was
offering the suovetaurilia[110] in the Roman manner, the other had decorated a horse for placating the stream – locals announced
that without any violent rain the Euphrates was rising of its own accord to an inordinate level and at the same time was coiling circles
of white spray in the shape of a diadem – an augury of a favorable crossing. …
When a bridge had been made of ships and the army sent across, the first to arrive in the camp with many thousands of cavalry was
Ornospades, at one time an exile and a not inglorious adjuvant of Tiberius when he was finishing off the Dalmation war, and for that
reason presented with Roman citizenship; … Vitellius, deeming that a show of Roman arms had been adequate, warned Tiridates and
his chief: the former should remember Phraates his grandfather and his foster-father Caesar and the fine qualities in each of them; the
latter should observe compliance toward their king, respect toward ourselves, and each his own honor and loyalty. Thereupon he
retired with his legions to Syria.
These achievements of two seasons I linked together to provide some mental respite from domestic afflictions.[111]
And so, we are at the end of the year 36 AD – two seasons’ events being recounted in Tacitus exactly in the time period where
Josephus has Vitellius in Judea involved in an “Artabanus Saga”, though it is the end of same, not a treaty with him. In the
above account, there is a big meeting and sacrifice at the river, but not a single mention of Herod Antipas and his influence on
the negotiations that Josephus described with such delight. It seems to me that Tacitus’ detailed account is far more credible.
We can note that there are certain elements that appear in both Josephus’ account and Tacitus, though the usual blowing of
smoke appears in the former. Josephus says Tiberius was afraid and that is why he sent Vitellius to make peace, while Tacitus
says that Artabanus thought he could take advantage of an old man and Vitellius went to give him his comeuppance. Now,
which does the knowledgeable reader think is most likely? The main difference is that the account of the meeting at the river,
the sacrifices, and who was involved has changed. And of course, Josephus has a Jewish hero in the scene for good measure
instead of the mention of the Dalmatian hero, Ornospades.[112]
We find confirmation in Philo that Vitellius went to Jerusalem after his successful conclusion of the Artabanus adventure in 37
AD: "When Gaius assumed the imperial power we were the first people in all Syria to congratulate him, Vitellius at that time
being in our city, from whom you [Petronius] received the government as his successor …"[113]
[NOTE: Deleted much of the below paragraph, because Dio and Suetonius date it to Gaius, in 39AD, not 49AD.]
Tacitus also mentions a third encounter with the Parthians of a similar sort dated to 49 AD.[114] In this later Vitellius affair,
during the reign of Claudius, we find a mention of the king of the Arabs, Acbarus, who apparently was on good enough terms
with Rome to provide support, though Tacitus does suggest that the Arabs were fickle in coming through on their military
commitments and at the first possibility would withdraw and head for home, recalling their actions at the time of the 35/36
AD interaction.
To recap: Tacitus places negotiations between Germanicus and Artabanus early in the reign of Tiberius (18 AD). Josephus,
Suetonius and Dio don’t mention the earlier Artabanus appearance; only the later one involving Vitellius. Josephus novelizes
the events that occurred late in the reign of Tiberius (36 AD), and Suetonius discusses the similar event that occurred in the
reign of Caligula (39 AD). Tacitus also discusses Vitellius’ later actions in Syria and against Artabanus in some detail. However,
his narrative ends with Artabanus a fugitive, no grand negotiations, though there was a great meeting and sacrifice at the
river, the boats over which the army crossed, and a significant portent. These are obviously separate events – the early truce
between Germanicus and Artabanus, then a later one while Vitellius was still governor of Syria and involving Tiridates – and
the earlier truce with Artabanus (18 AD) was later attributed to Vitellius in some sort of conflation of the different, but slightly
similar, contexts. Josephus was novelizing freely and in full apologetic mode, including Antipas (whom he characterizes as
being on very friendly terms with Tiberius) as a key player in the negotiations, thus also providing character motivation to his
Vitellius vis-à-vis his refusal to help Antipas. In response to Campbell’s duped delight – “His intertwined chronologies of Pilate,
Vitellius, and Antipas only make sense here, and yet here they make perfect sense” – let me just say it only “works” because
Josephus makes it work and needs it to work in order to satisfy his narrative demands!
We notice also from Tacitus that in the time of Tiberius, Germanicus attended “a party at the residence of the Nabataeans’
king”, i.e. Aretas. Later, a king of the Arabs showed up in an allied context with Vitellius, so the overall tenor is that it is
extremely unlikely that the Romans were sent to get the head of Aretas. It’s almost certain that Tacitus would have
mentioned something like that with all the details he gives. The fact that Roman-Nabataean relations were so friendly at the
time of Germanicus, and then, after Tiberius, during the reign of Gaius, would suggest that they remained so until (and after)
the death of Aretas who, we must remember, in 36 AD was quite an old man. With such amicable relations, it is altogether
likely that Damascus was, indeed, ruled by Aretas throughout that time.
We will leave Damascus in the hands of Aretas between 9 BC and 40 AD and not try to lock Paul into that cramped time
window of the alleged conflict between Aretas and Herod Antipas over Herodias. We simply don’t know enough about
Damascus proper during the time to make any sort of determination and what we do know about various events of the times
from more reliable historians, contrasted with the apologetic nonsense Josephus often writes, inclines one to dismiss the
breathlessly gossipy soap opera elements of his “history”.