The Little Menorah That Didn't, #4

Toward A Unified Theory Of Hanukka Candle Lighting And An Accurate Dating Of The "Miracle Of Oil"

As we have seen, the "Miracle of Oil" often given as the reason for Hanukka candle lighting did not take place. It is a later myth with no historical basis. So, why this myth? Where and when did it come from?

As Hasmoneans became Hellenized, they celebrated the Roman holiday of Saturnalia, centered around the winter solstice. Observance of this pagan holiday seems to have eventually spread throughout most of the Jewish community.

Saturnalia's  7 day candle lighting often coincided with part of Hanukka. This may have caused the populace to confuse the two celebrations, much in the way many American Jews in our times had "Hanukka bushes." The story of the "miracle of oil" was probably added by the rabbis to give a Jewish "spin" to the lighting, by moving the custom to the 8 days of Hanukka and giving it a new reason – the "miracle of oil."

But the beginning of the custom should be properly attributed to the Hasmonean's victory celebration and the rededication of the Temple. The first celebratory year may have included 8 days of candle lighting, and it is highly probable that the custom continued, at least in in Priestly families, after that. As the populace became more Hellenized, the practice was merged with Saturnalia and broadened throughout the Jewish community.

If the original Hanukka did have 8 days of candle lighting (again, not based on the "miracle of oil" myth), and if the custom continued after that, gradually merging with Saturnalia, the addition of the oil myth would have helped to remove pagan influence while at the same time supplanting the core of the Hanukka miracle, the military victory, with a myth that emphasizes God's role and downplays man's – a winning proposition for the rabbis.

This may be further demonstrated by the rabbinic ban on studying Maccabees 1 & 2, Jewish books that document the Hasmonean victory, the rededication of the Temple, and the continuing war against the Greeks. The ban was probably first instituted during the late Herodian or early Roman period and reissued after the failure of the Bar Kokhba revolt.  It would not have had much effect at its first issuance, because the rabbis were few in number and had little influence.

I suspect the ban therefore did not take hold and was largely forgotten by the time of the first revolt against Rome and the Destruction of the Temple. This may be seen by reviewing Josephus's account of the Hasmonean victory, which seems to be based in part on 1 & 2 Maccabees. Josephus, who wrote after the Destruction and before Bar Kokhba, was a student of the rabbis and considered himself to be a Pharisee. Again, he knows nothing about the oil myth. But he does know the details of the military victory and the celebration that followed. He also knows the holiday's common name – Lights – apparently a reflection of the common custom to light candles.

I believe this indicates the ban on 1 & 2 Maccabees was not reinstituted until after the Bar Kokhba revolt failed, when the rabbis needed to quiet anything that might promote or endorse revolution against Rome. It would have been then, not long after the death of Josephus, that the oil myth was first widely taught.

It's purpose would then have been several-fold: To lessen the role of the now disgraced and Hellenized Maccabees, who in their end had also became close to the hated Saducees; to emphasize God's role in the victory; to remove pagan elements (Saturnalia) that had crept into the holiday's observance; to shift focus away from a victorious war in which the rabbis did not prominently participate; to shift focus from a failed, disastrous war in which the rabbis did prominently participate; and to dampen down any further attempt to revolt against Rome. This may also be seen by the Talmud's lingering memories of a reason underlying Hanukka candle lighting other than the "miracle of oil," and the complete lack of any mention of that same "miracle" in the Mishna or other early rabbinic texts.

In short, while the creation of the oil myth may possibly be dated to the early Roman period, the widespread propagation of that myth most likely began at or just before the beginning of the redaction of the Mishna. Two hundred years later, at the time of the beginning of the redaction of the Talmud, the myth had become an accepted "truth" (even though the rabbis could find no written source for that "truth") – in large part because the rabbis themselves had successfully banned 1 & 2 Maccabees and Josephus 200-plus-years earlier.

And so the "Miracle of Oil" became the focus of Hanukka, as we see to this day.

Comments

[Paul]

I have always suspected that the miracle of the SH-M-N was a good *drush* on the victory of the h-SH-M-N-a-y-m

[Paul]

I have always suspected that the miracle of the SH-M-N was a good *drush* on the victory of the h-SH-M-N-a-y-m

[Shmarya]

Maybe! Good chapp!

[Jath]

beis chashmonai

I had related it in my mind with chashman ,
used later in hebrew for bishop .

[Ploni]

Paul very good, this is one I never heard in all my 46 years as a Jews. What an asmachta.

" In the days of Shimeon the Just, a similar miracle had been observed, when the Western Lamp (one of the seven lamps of the Menorah) always burned beyond the natural time (Yoma 39 A), and this had served as "a testimony to all the world that the Shechinah resided in Israel" (Shabbos 22 B). Now,for eight days, all the lamps had burned. Without the presence of the Shechinah, the Sanctuary was to them a body without life; for the
sole purpose of this institution had been stated at its beginning: "They shall make for me a Sanctuary and I shall dwell in their midst" (Shmos25:8). They decreed, on the following year, that the eight days of Hannukah be observed every year as a time of thanksgiving and praise to G-d, of which the most prominent feature was the Hannukah lights.The genuine tradition of Israel, preserved in the Oral Law, explains the true nature of the Hannuaka celebration. "What is Hannukah? (Rashi: For which miracle is it instituted?"). The Sages taught. ... A miracle took place and they kindled the Menorah from it (from the vessel of oil) for eight days" (Shabbos 21b). The miracle of the lights was the central cause of celebration: for the battles were by no means finished, for soon afterward the power went over to the Hellenisers entirely, after the death of Judah the Maccabbee, and the worst part of the Shmad commenced, followed by 25 years of war. It is thus clear that the celebration of Hannukah was not because
of any victory, but because of their rejoicing at the demonstration of the Shechinah in their midst. The episode of the miracle of Hannukah "was not permitted to be written" (Yoma 29 A). It is certain that none of the Sages ever mentioned the book of the Hasmoneans (the book of the Maccabbees); and this book has not been in the hands of our nation throughout the past two millenia. It was illegal for loyal Jews to have any public writings other than the Scriptures. All secular narratives were forbidden as "outside books" (Sefarim Hitzonim) (Sanhedrin 90 A), and no sacred writing other than the 24 books of the Scriptures was permitted. It was forbidden to write even prayer-books (Shabbos 115 B), and there is no mention of a written Mishnah or Talmud until the days of the Rabbanan Savorai, after the last of the Amoraim. All historical narrative was contained in the Oral Tradition in the form of carefully-memorized Baraisas, of which a number are found in the Talmud and other compilations, such as Seder Olam and Midrashim; but, like all the Oral Tradition, this had been forbidden to put into writing. Even Josephus states: "We do not possess an unlimited number of books among us ... but only the books of the Scriptures" (Contra Apion I, 8), and he states: "Every one is not permitted of his own accord to be a writer" (ibid. I, 7). Josephus wrote his own books not for the Jews (vid. Jos. Vita 76). The book of Hasmoneans (including II Hasmoneans) was therefore certainly not composed by any of the Sages or their disciples (who were always the majority of the nation, as testified even by Josephus—Antiq XIII, 10,5; 10,6). The narrative of the book of Hasmoneans concludes soon after the period of Jochanan Hyrcanus (I Hasmoneans 17:25). Since it goes no further, it obviously was composed at that time (for if it were merely a chronicle of the Syrian wars, it did not need to include the history of Jochanan Hyrcanus). This demonstrates that it was written under the regime of the Sadduccee-Hasmonean rulers, of whom Jochanan Hyrcanus was the first; and the writer was under their dominion. Because the Sadduccee regime of Jochanan Hyrcanus forbade the practice of all Rabbinic laws and inflicted punishment (in some instances death) upon those who observed these laws (Antiq.XIII, 10, 6), the writer was careful to omit any mention of the Rabbinical law of kindling the Hannukah lamp. He could therefore make no mention of the miracle of the Menorah which the entire nation knew as the occasion for this Rabbinical law. The practice of Hannukah was not repressed, although it was a Rabbinical edict, for it was the memorial of the glory of the Hasmonean family and the sole justification of their authority. Josephus, who followed the Sadduccee chronicles throughout, also omitted the miracle of the Menorah; but he could not brush off the fact that the entire nation kindled the Hannukah lamps, and he therefore mentions the festival called "Lights" (Antiq XII 7,7). He gives a lame explanation: "I suppose the reason (for this name of Lights) was because this liberty beyond our hopes appeared to us" (ibid.). Despite the attempts of the Sadduccees to suppress the fame of the miracle of the Menorah and the practice of the Mitzvah, the Sages and the nation made every attempt to publicize this miracle; and the universal practice of the people was to kindle the Hannukah lamps at the gates of their homes, in the public thoroughfare (Shabbos 22A; Bava Kama 62B). "

[Shmarya]

Most of what you write is foolishness.

Again, let us be clear:

1. The Mishna does not mention the "miracle of Oil." Neither does any other rabbinic text until the Talmid, more than 600 years after the Hasmonean victory.

2. NO contemporeneous Jewish texts mention the "miracle."

3. NO contemporeneous non-Jewish texts mention the "miracle."

4. There is NO evidence that the Sadducees forbade publicizing the "miracle."

5. You base your argument on your conjecture about 1 Maccabees but do NOT mention that 2 Maccabees also does not mention the "miracle," and it was written by a different Jewish writer at a slightly different time.

6. You do NOT mention that NO Jewish source from outside the Land of Israel mentions this "miracle," although they do mention the military victory, the rededication, and the institution of Hallel.

7. Again, the first mention of the "miracle of oil" was more than 600 years AFTER the supposed miracle took place.

8. Your answer to all of these points is that it is all one giant Sadducee-induced conspiracy theory. And that, my friend, is completely insane.

[Nachum]

There are similar theories about Purim, by the way.

It should be pointed out that many of the Temple dedication stories- Moshe in the Mishkan, Shlomo in the First Bayis, Ezra in the Second (and maybe Chizkiya at a rededication of the First) have miracles involving fire coming from heaven. It's only logical that a rededication of the Second would have a similar story.

[Shmarya]

"" In the days of Shimeon the Just, a similar miracle had been observed, when the Western Lamp (one of the seven lamps of the Menorah) always burned beyond the natural time (Yoma 39 A), and this had served as "a testimony to all the world that the Shechinah resided in Israel" (Shabbos 22 B).

Perhaps you would like to explain the Talmud's confusion as to who Shimon HaTzaddik really was. The information it gives for him does not fit with the records we have. In fact, the Talmud seems to have combined the lives of four different men into one.

But I'm sure your haredi/hasidic/Chabad rabbis never taught you that, even though Rishonim mention the problem and propose differing solutions.

Sue your teachers.

[Shmarya]

Here is Josephus, the KOHAIN who served in the Temple and was a Pharisee, writing about "Shimon HaTzaddik," except "Shimon HaTzzadik" is not the name of the actual High Priest he's writing about. Why? Because the "Shimon HaTzaddik" the Talmud writes about seems to be a fictional composite character of rabbinic legend that post dates Josephus:

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/ant11.html

CHAPTER 8.

CONCERNING SANBALLAT AND MANASSEH, AND THE TEMPLE WHICH THEY BUILT ON MOUNT GERIZZIM; AS ALSO HOW ALEXANDER MADE HIS ENTRY INTO THE CITY JERUSALEM, AND WHAT BENEFITS HE BESTOWED ON THE JEWS.

1. ABOUT this time it was that Philip, king of Macedon, was treacherously assaulted and slain at Egae by Pausanias, the son of Cerastes, who was derived from the family of Oreste, and his son Alexander succeeded him in the kingdom; who, passing over the Hellespont, overcame the generals of Darius's army in a battle fought at Granicum. So he marched over Lydia, and subdued Ionia, and overran Caria, and fell upon the places of Pamphylia, as has been related elsewhere.

2. But the elders of Jerusalem being very uneasy that the brother of Jaddua the high priest, though married to a foreigner, should be a partner with him in the high priesthood, quarreled with him; for they esteemed this man’s marriage a step to such as should be desirous of transgressing about the marriage of [strange] wives, and that this would be the beginning of a mutual society with foreigners, although the offense of some about marriages, and their having married wives that were not of their own country, had been an occasion of their former captivity, and of the miseries they then underwent; so they commanded Manasseh to divorce his wife, or not to approach the altar, the high priest himself joining with the people in their indignation against his brother, and driving him away from the altar. Whereupon Manasseh came to his father-in-law, Sanballat, and told him, that although he loved his daughter Nicaso, yet was he not willing to be deprived of his sacerdotal dignity on her account, which was the principal dignity in their nation, and always continued in the same family. And then Sanballat promised him not only to preserve to him the honor of his priesthood, but to procure for him the power and dignity of a high priest, and would make him governor of all the places he himself now ruled, if he would keep his daughter for his wife. He also told him further, that he would build him a temple like that at Jerusalem, upon Mount Gerizzini, which is the highest of all the mountains that are in Samaria; and he promised that he would do this with the approbation of Darius the king. Manasseh was elevated with these promises, and staid with Sanballat, upon a supposal that he should gain a high priesthood, as bestowed on him by Darius, for it happened that Sanballat was then in years. But there was now a great disturbance among the people of Jerusalem, because many of those priests and Levites were entangled in such matches; for they all revolted to Manasseh, and Sanballat afforded them money, and divided among them land for tillage, and habitations also, and all this in order every way to gratify his son-in-law.

3. About this time it was that Darius heard how Alexander had passed over the Hellespont, and had beaten his lieutenants in the battle at Granicum, and was proceeding further; whereupon he gathered together an army of horse and foot, and determined that he would meet the Macedonians before they should assault and conquer all Asia. So he passed over the river Euphrates, and came over Taurus, the Cilician mountain, and at Issus of Cilicia he waited for the enemy, as ready there to give him battle. Upon which Sanballat was glad that Darius was come down; and told Manasseh that he would suddenly perform his promises to him, and this as soon as ever Darius should come back, after he had beaten his enemies; for not he only, but all those that were in Asia also, were persuaded that the Macedonians would not so much as come to a battle with the Persians, on account of their multitude. But the event proved otherwise than they expected; for the king joined battle with the Macedonians, and was beaten, and lost a great part of his army. His mother also, and his wife and children, were taken captives, and he fled into Persia. So Alexander came into Syria, and took Damascus; and when he had obtained Sidon, he besieged Tyre, when he sent all epistle to the Jewish high priest, to send him some auxiliaries, and to supply his army with provisions; and that what presents he formerly sent to Darius, he would now send to him, and choose the friendship of the Macedonians, and that he should never repent of so doing. But the high priest answered the messengers, that he had given his oath to Darius not to bear arms against him; and he said that he would not transgress this while Darius was in the land of the living. Upon hearing this answer, Alexander was very angry; and though he determined not to leave Tyre, which was just ready to be taken, yet as soon as he had taken it, he threatened that he would make an expedition against the Jewish high priest, and through him teach all men to whom they must keep their oaths. So when he had, with a good deal of pains during the siege, taken Tyre, and had settled its affairs, he came to the city of Gaza, and besieged both the city and him that was governor of the garrison, whose name was Babemeses.

4. But Sanballat thought he had now gotten a proper opportunity to make his attempt, so he renounced Darius, and taking with him seven thousand of his own subjects, he came to Alexander; and finding him beginning the siege of Tyre, he said to him, that he delivered up to him these men, who came out of places under his dominion, and did gladly accept of him for his lord instead of Darius. So when Alexander had received him kindly, Sanballat thereupon took courage, and spake to him about his present affair. He told him that he had a son-in-law, Manasseh, who was brother to the high priest Jaddua; and that there were many others of his own nation, now with him, that were desirous to have a temple in the places subject to him; that it would be for the king's advantage to have the strength of the Jews divided into two parts, lest when the nation is of one mind, and united, upon any attempt for innovation, it prove troublesome to kings, as it had formerly proved to the kings of Assyria. Whereupon Alexander gave Sanballat leave so to do, who used the utmost diligence, and built the temple, and made Manasseh the priest, and deemed it a great reward that his daughter's children should have that dignity; but when the seven months of the siege of Tyre were over, and the two months of the siege of Gaza, Sanballat died. Now Alexander, when he had taken Gaza, made haste to go up to Jerusalem; and Jaddua the high priest, when he heard that, was in an agony, and under terror, as not knowing how he should meet the Macedonians, since the king was displeased at his foregoing disobedience. He therefore ordained that the people should make supplications, and should join with him in offering sacrifice to God, whom he besought to protect that nation, and to deliver them from the perils that were coming upon them; whereupon God warned him in a dream, which came upon him after he had offered sacrifice, that he should take courage, and adorn the city, and open the gates; that the rest should appear in white garments, but that he and the priests should meet the king in the habits proper to their order, without the dread of any ill consequences, which the providence of God would prevent. Upon which, when he rose from his sleep, he greatly rejoiced, and declared to all the warning he had received from God. According to which dream he acted entirely, and so waited for the coming of the king.

5. And when he understood that he was not far from the city, he went out in procession, with the priests and the multitude of the citizens. The procession was venerable, and the manner of it different from that of other nations. It reached to a place called Sapha, which name, translated into Greek, signifies a prospect, for you have thence a prospect both of Jerusalem and of the temple. And when the Phoenicians and the Chaldeans that followed him thought they should have liberty to plunder the city, and torment the high priest to death, which the king's displeasure fairly promised them, the very reverse of it happened; for Alexander, when he saw the multitude at a distance, in white garments, while the priests stood clothed with fine linen, and the high priest in purple and scarlet clothing, with his mitre on his head, having the golden plate whereon the name of God was engraved, he approached by himself, and adored that name, and first saluted the high priest. The Jews also did all together, with one voice, salute Alexander, and encompass him about; whereupon the kings of Syria and the rest were surprised at what Alexander had done, and supposed him disordered in his mind. However, Parmenio alone went up to him, and asked him how it came to pass that, when all others adored him, he should adore the high priest of the Jews? To whom he replied, "I did not adore him, but that God who hath honored him with his high priesthood; for I saw this very person in a dream, in this very habit, when I was at Dios in Macedonia, who, when I was considering with myself how I might obtain the dominion of Asia, exhorted me to make no delay, but boldly to pass over the sea thither, for that he would conduct my army, and would give me the dominion over the Persians; whence it is that, having seen no other in that habit, and now seeing this person in it, and remembering that vision, and the exhortation which I had in my dream, I believe that I bring this army under the Divine conduct, and shall therewith conquer Darius, and destroy the power of the Persians, and that all things will succeed according to what is in my own mind." And when he had said this to Parmenio, and had given the high priest his right hand, the priests ran along by him, and he came into the city. And when he went up into the temple, he offered sacrifice to God, according to the high priest's direction, and magnificently treated both the high priest and the priests. And when the Book of Daniel was showed him (23) wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended. And as he was then glad, he dismissed the multitude for the present; but the next day he called them to him, and bid them ask what favors they pleased of him; whereupon the high priest desired that they might enjoy the laws of their forefathers, and might pay no tribute on the seventh year. He granted all they desired. And when they entreared him that he would permit the Jews in Babylon and Media to enjoy their own laws also, he willingly promised to do hereafter what they desired. And when he said to the multitude, that if any of them would enlist themselves in his army, on this condition, that they should continue under the laws of their forefathers, and live according to them, he was willing to take them with him, many were ready to accompany him in his wars.

6. So when Alexander had thus settled matters at Jerusalem, he led his army into the neighboring cities; and when all the inhabitants to whom he came received him with great kindness, the Samaritans, who had then Shechem for their metropolis, (a city situate at Mount Gerizzim, and inhabited by apostates of the Jewish nation,) seeing that Alexander had so greatly honored the Jews, determined to profess themselves Jews; for such is the disposition of the Samaritans, as we have already elsewhere declared, that when the Jews are in adversity, they deny that they are of kin to them, and then they confess the truth; but when they perceive that some good fortune hath befallen them, they immediately pretend to have communion with them, saying that they belong to them, and derive their genealogy from the posterity of Joseph, Ephraim, and Manasseh. Accordingly, they made their address to the king with splendor, and showed great alacrity in meeting him at a little distance from Jerusalem. And when Alexander had commended them, the Shechemites approached to him, taking with them the troops that Sanballat had sent him, and they desired that he would come to their city, and do honor to their temple also; to whom he promised, that when he returned he would come to them. And when they petitioned that he would remit the tribute of the seventh year to them, because they did but sow thereon, he asked who they were that made such a petition; and when they said that they were Hebrews, but had the name of Sidonians, living at Shechem, he asked them again whether they were Jews; and when they said they were not Jews, "It was to the Jews," said he, "that I granted that privilege; however, when I return, and am thoroughly informed by you of this matter, I will do what I shall think proper." And in this manner he took leave of the Shechenlites; but ordered that the troops of Sanballat should follow him into Egypt, because there he designed to give them lands, which he did a little after in Thebais, when he ordered them to guard that country.

7. Now when Alexander was dead, the government was parted among his successors, but the temple upon Mount Gerizzim remained. And if any one were accused by those of Jerusalem of having eaten things common (24) or of having broken the sabbath, or of any other crime of the like nature, he fled away to the Shechemites, and said that he was accused unjustly. About this time it was that Jaddua the high priest died, and Onias his son took the high priesthood. This was the state of the affairs of the people of Jerusalem at this time.

U place a shtickel too much truck in Josephus!

" Josephus has misled the history-writers in the entire history of the war with the Romans, as he did in all his history. He
depicted Agrippa as a seeker of peace, and he described the people as unruly barbarians who thirsted for rebellion and war. He wrote under the close direction of Agrippa, as he admitted (Vita 65); for he was his close friend, and he also feared him because Agrippa had the ear of Titus. These writings, which have done immense injury to his people, are a history made-to-order for the Sadduccee-Herodian clique, for it was largely dictated by Agrippa; and it was also intended to please the Romans, for Josephus sent it to Titus for approval (ibid.).
He therefore omitted mention of the many leading Sages and their numerous academies, just as if they did not exist; for this work is not a Jewish history. It was solely because he wrote for the gentiles thai
he was able to make the laughable claim that his nation "freely acknowledges that I far exceed them in the learning belonging to Jews" (Antiq. XX, 11, 2), and that he prophesied to Vespasian that he was the new emperor (Wars III, 8, 9), instead of the leading Torah-Sage Rabban Jochanan ben Zakkai Gittin 56 B. The gentiles (& Scott)haver seized upon his writings with zest. and they applaud his sladers against his own people. Anyone familiar with the Talmud can see that Josephus omitted the outstanding Jewish personages and events, and that he wrote for the Romans and the Herodian-Ssdducee group against his people, and that no Jewish history is ro be gained by read-
ing his works trustingly.But his distorted picture of the events which led to the
Destruction has been the sole source accepted by all gentile and gentile-oriented inimical didloyal Jewish writers (like Scott).The truth is very different, and it is
available from the copious Torah-literature. Although Josephus managed to deceive the readers by means of omission, by distortion
and by biased explanations, and he concealed the truth by devious stratagems, yet his public facts are usually correct. It was not possible to pervert facts which everyone knew, and therefore if we overlook his distortions and wily explanations, and we assemble his statements in his various writings and correlate them, the real truth is often revealed. Josephus trusted that his readers would not understand (and justly so, as actually happened) to add together the facts scattered throughout his works. "

[Shmarya]

Fool!

1. Try reading here.

2. Try using your name. Anonymous comments are not allowed.

3. Try actually citing you alleged sources.

Josephus has been proved reliable by Archeaology and other disciplines, unlike the psudo-historical crap you shill for.

Now, follow the comment rules posted on the top left of this page or GO AWAY.

[Shmarya]

Link for #1 above.

[Shmarya]

Here's something from an actual expert, not a haredi or Christian apologist:

The Credibility of Josephus
by Magen Broshi
The Israel Museum, Jerusalem

Our knowledge of the last two centuries of the Second Commonwealth depends very substantially on the writings of Josephus. Matters such as his credibility, accuracy and sources are therefore foremost among the topics which should occupy scholarship.

Archaeological Data

The most obvious data for examination, it would seem to us, is archaeological material. In many instances, numerous details provided by Josephus can be checked, including architechural data, and their accuracy confirmed. Such precision, where it can be established, is surprising, especially since the information was set down in writing years after Josephus had left Palestine. In addition, it is clear that in some cases he is describing objects that he cannot possibly have seen, let alone measured. Thus he probably never visited Masada or set foot on its summit, so he cannot himself have measured its walls. For sixty years preceding the Great Revolt, the desert fortress was occupied by a Roman garrison and civilians were not normally allowed entry. Even so, he writes in War (VII, 286) that the walls of Masada were seven stadia, i.e., about 1300m. long.1 And so indeed they were.2 Similarly, he describes in War (I, 403) the walls of Samaria-Sebaste, built by Herod, as being twenty stadia long (3720m.). This figure also approximates to their length as unearthed.3

The perimeter of the walls of Jerusalem is said by Josephus (War V, 159) to extend to thirty-three stadia (6138m.), whereas in Avi-Yonah's reckoning they were 5550m. long; but this is a difference of merely 10%.4

Again, the harbour of Caesarea built by Herod has been studied meticulously by A. Raban and he finds that Josephus's account of it is by and large correct.5

Masada

At Masada, too, the description of the northern palace (which Josephus calls the western palace, War VII, 286) matches the remains as discovered.6 The same my be said of the width of the wall, eight cubits, which is close to 4 m. (War VII, 286).7 On the other hand, the historian alludes to thirty-seven towers on the walls of Masada (War VII, 287), whereas only twenty-seven were identified during the excavations. Either the excavators were unable to recognize all the towers, or Josephus's work contains a textual error, which may possibly be the fault of a copyist.8

Further perusal of Josephus would undoubtedly reveal additional instances of similar archaeological data.9

Other data

Caesarea

In Josephus's War, much of the data can be proved accurate and much of the rest reliably assumed to be so. They cannot always be ascribed simply to keen observation (cf. Masada) or to an exemplary memory (cf. The dates of minor military events). Thus in regard to geographical data, which can be checked exactly, the distances he gives are very often quite right. Jerusalem is said to lie 150 stadia from Jericho (about 30 km), and Jericho 60 stadia (some 12 km) from the Jordan (War IV, 474).10 The distance between Jerusalem and Herodium is described as 60 stadia (about 12, km, War I, 265); from Jerusalem to Gibeon, 50 stadia (10 km, War II, 516); and to Gibeah of Saul, 30 stadia (about 6 km, War V, 51). All these figures are reasonably accurate.

Another type of data concerning numbers of people cannot readily be verified but seems nevertheless reliable. Josephus' tendency grossly to exaggerate population figures is well known. Thus the inhabitants of Galilee are reckoned at more than three million (War VI, 420). Josephus himself sensed that these numbers were incredible. Yet he outdoes even himself in His estimate, in the last cited passage, that in the census carried out under Cestius celebrants at the Passover sacrifices amounted to more than two million seven hundred thousand. At the same time this very same Josephus also gives modest round numbers likely to be quite correct. His information relating to the defenders of Jerusalem (War V, 248) is an example of such reasonableness, namely that Simon son of Giora led ten thousand warriors and five thousand Idumeans, that John of Gischala commanded six thousand warriors, and that tow thousand for hundred Zealots also joined him, and that the total involved was twenty-three thousand four hundred men. Another seemingly reliable figure is that of the ninety-seven thousand captive taken by the Romans in Jerusalem (War VI, 420). These numbers stand out among inflated figures such as that of the corpses removed through one of the gates during the fifty days between May 1 and June A.D. 20, viz., one hundred and fifteen thousand eight hundred and eighty (War V, 567: dates according to Niese). This precise number may appear credible but is in fact quite impossible.11

The Source of Josephus' Accurate Data:

The Commentaries

Undoubtedly, the source of much of Josephus's accurate data was the Roman imperial commentaries, the hupomnemata, specifically mentioned by him three times in his later works. Thus he answers Justus' accusations with the words: "Neither were you a combatant nor have you perused the commentaries of Caesar, as is abundantly proved by your contradictory account" (Life, 358). Similarly against Justus he maintains: "This is no unsupported assertion of my own. The facts are recorded in the commentaries of the Emperor Vespian" (Life 342). Finally, we read: "Even if, as they (Josephus' critics) assert, they have read the commentaries of the imperial commanders, they at any rate had no first-hand acquaintance with our position in the opposite camp" (Against Apion, 56). Josephus does not actually state that he has read the Commentaries but he clearly made direct use of them. Moreover, as will be seen later, he drew material from them for his own writings, especially War, his earliest book. What were these commentaries? According to one of the two principle schools of thought concerning them, the latest proponent of which is Bardon, they were memoirs written by Vespasian. Bardon admits that no such work is mentioned by the Roman historians, and expresses surprise that Vespasian should have shown any inclination for writing or found the time for it; but almost every emperor between Augustus and Nero did write memoirs.12 The other school is of the opinion that the commentaries were field reports of military commanders, in draft form or slightly edited.13

The second view seems preferable, primarily because, as already noted by von Gutschmid, in the proemium to War Josephus castigates the available history books, an action unthinkable of a work by his patron, Vespasian, had figured among them.14

Those who subscribe to the first theory suggest as another solution that the emperor's books was not published until after Josephus had completed writing War.15 But on the basis of the evidence already given here, there can be little doubt that he had them before him whilst working on the book. Moreover, the commentaries appear to have been used mainly during the composition of War; he seems to have resorted to them much less frequently, and possibly not at all, in his later works.16 But why does he not mention the commentaries in War? We share the opinion of those who believe that he avoided referring to them because he wished to emphasize his own status as an eye-witness. He wished to impress on his readers that he was no mere compiler relying on the evidence of others. "The industrious writer is not one who merely remodels the scheme and arrangement of another's work, but one who uses fresh materials and makes the framework of the history his own" (War I, 15). He can hardly be expected to have admitted using the works of others after a statement such as this. It should be noted also that it is in his later writings that Josephus mentions the assistance he received in composing his Greek text, although it would surely have been in his first book that he would have most needed such help.

Further Use of the Commentaries

Having in Section A noted archaeological data drawn from the commentaries, and in Section B, data which should probably be ascribed to military reports, geographical details and population statistics, two further types of evidence ascribed to the commentaries have now to be discussed, namely information relating to Roman military deployment throughout the empire and to military exploits and their dates.

The speech of Agrippa II (War II, 345 ff.) has been studied thoroughly and von Domaszewski has found confirmation of the account it provides of the disposition of the Roman army.17 Recently, is has been claimed that this text does not reflect the situation in A.D. 66 but rather that of around A.D. 75,18 which would indicate – as we would in any case have assumed – that Josephus relied on commentaries dating not only from the period of the Great War but also on later commentaries found by him in the imperial archives.

Detailed reports on the activities of the Roman army and its various units appear at several other points in Josephus' works, for instance in his description of Titus's march from Alexandria to Caesarea (War IV, 658-663), and in the listing, which bears the stamp of an actual military document, of Cestius' forces and their composition (War II, 499-503). Josephus can scarcely have invented such matters or recorded them from memory, his own or another's. But the commentaries were not the source for "great" events alone. Many of the battle annals, even their minor details, smack of military field reports. An example is the account of the physique, looks, etc., of Sabinus the Syrian soldier who scaled the wall (War VI, 54-67). It has the sound of a story told by military scribes, a tale on the basis of which medals were awarded.

On Josephus' Accuracy

Was Josephus always correct? Certainly not. His inaccuracies range from vagueness to blatant exaggeration. Shaye Cohen accuses him of "inveterate sloppiness".19 The index to Cohen's book goes so far as actually to include entries for "exaggeration", "inconsistency and sloppiness" and "corrupt transmission of names and numbers".20 Indeed, even if it is accepted that copyists were responsible for not a few of his mistakes (some of which have been hinted at already), it still cannot be denied that he was by nature somewhat negligent.21 The list of scholars who have deprecated his errors is long22 but suffice it to mention here the accusations of tow eminent archaeologists alone, since archaeology is the central theme of the present discussion. Albright remarks on "how inaccurate Josephus generally was in details . . ."23 Vincent goes even further. "Il serait superflu", he maintains, "d'accentuer de nouveau la futilite de toute evaluation fondee sur les chiffres de Josephe."24 However, a remark on the previous page, to the effect that a particular item of information is an "excellente approsimation",25 reflects the reaction typical of scholars investigating Josephus' data.

This duality of sharp criticism alongside fulsome appreciation has consistently accompanied the scholarly treatment of Josephus' works. It has not been our intention here to prove that he is always exact of correct in every statement, but to show that his data are in many instances accurate, and that they stem from reliable sources to which he had access from the very beginning of his literary career.26

__________________________

1 It is not exactly clear to which stadium Josephus refers; in his day several standards were in use. See H. Prell, Die Stadienmasse des Klassischen Hochschule Dresden 6 (1956/57) Heft 3, pp. 549-563. If however Grafman's contention is correct that the Herodian foot measured 31 cm, the stadium in this case could well equl 186m (i.e. 600X31cm). See R. Grafman, Herod's Foot and Robinson's Arch, IEJ 20 (1970) pp. 60-66. It would then correspond with the standard Roman stadioum (according to Prell, above, 185.6m), which agrees with our conclusion.
2Y. Yadin, "The Excavations of Masada - 1963/64 Preliminary Report", IEJ 15 (1965), p. 69 and note 45; see also the remarks of M. Avi-Yonah, "The Archaeological Survey of Masada, 1955-1956", IEJ 7 (1957), pp. 52-54.

3From the plan published by the excavators it can be computed that the length of the wall measured some 3500m. See also J. W. Crowfoot et. al., The Buildings at Samaria, London 1942, pp. 39-40 and pl. I.
4 M. Avi-Yonah, Sepher Yerushalaim I, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv 1956, p. 319 (Hebrew).
5 A. Raban has made an extensive survey of Caesarea's harbour. The results, to be published soon in Qadmoniot XIV, 3-4 (1981), confirm the basic description of Josephus.
6 Cf. Avi-Yonah, ibid. (supra, note 2), 99. 51ff.
7 Cf. Yadin, ibid. (supra, note 2), p. 69, note 47.
8 Idem, ibid., p. 70.
9 The description of Machaerus (War Vii, 164-189) is quite accurate. Cf. V. Corbo, Liber Annuus 28 (1978), pp. 224-226. There is good reason to believe that this too is based on the commentaries (see below).

10H. St. J. Thackeray (in his translation in the Loeb Library, note b to this passage) is wrong in trying to correct Josephus' figures.
11 On the population of Jerusalem see my paper 'La population de l'ancienne Jérusalem', Revue biblique 82 (1975), pp. 5-14.
12 Henry Bardon, Les empereurs et les lettres latines d'Auguste á Hadrian, Paris 2 1968, pp. 271-272. W. Weber is basically close to the first school. He was of the opinion that Josephus made use of a Flavian composition - a composition not written by the emperor (Vespasian or Titus) but an official record based on crude field reports. Cf. Josephus und Vespasian. Untersuchungen zu dem jüdischen Krieg des Flavius Josephus, Berlin 1921, passim.
13 H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus, the Man and the Historian, New York 1929, pp. 38-40. There is no point in enumerating all the holders of this theory but see R. J. H. Shutt, Studies in Josephus, London 1961, pp. 26-29.
14 A. von Gutschmid, Kleine Schriften 4, Leipzig 1893, p. 346.
15 E. Schurer - G. Vermes - F. Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ I, Edinburgh 1973, p. 33.
16 A useful study dealing inter alia with the history of research is H. Lindner, Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus in BJ, Leiden 1972.
17 A. von Domaszewski, 'Die Dislokation des römischen Heeres im Jahre 66 n. Ch., Rheinisches Museum N.F. 47 (1892), pp. 207-218.
18 G. Ricciotti, Flavio Giuseppe II Turin, 3 1963, pp. 264-71 (after Lindner).
19 S. J. D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, his Vita and Development as a Historian, Leiden 1979, p. 233.
20 Idem, ibid., index s.v. Josephus (p, 276).
21 Idem, ibid., pp. 33-34.
22 Cf. O. Betz, in A. Oppenheimer - U. Rappaport - M. Stern (eds.), Jerusalem in the Second Temple Perios, Abraham Schalit Memorial Volume, Jerusalem 1980, p. 84 (Hebrew).
23 W. F. Albright, JOR 22 (1931-32), p. 411.
24 L. H. Vincent - A. M. Stève, Jérusalem de l'Ancien Testament I Paris 1954, p. 145, n.1.
25 Idem, ibid., p. 144, n.2.
26 The author wishes to express his thanks to Dr. A. Eran and Professor M. Stern for their valuable suggestions.

This article first appeared in Journal of Jewish Studies: Essays in Honor of Yigael Yadin in 1982 by the Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies.

[TCP]

A little less ad hominems please, Scott!

As already stated Josephus' "public facts are usually correct. It was not possible to pervert facts which everyone knew..."

It's the spin & worse that he put on those facts to please his Sadducee & Roman patrons.

Just like the spin Broshi, as member of the board of directors of the "Peace Research Foundation" (ie pro-Palestinian)
http://www.peaceresearchfoundation.org/default.asp?str_string=Who%20We%20Are~Board%20Members~none
all historians and even archaeologists (+ geologists, palaeontologists etc) have agendas to which they will mightly spin, and worse, the facts.

[Shmarya]

Oooooo! Of course, I get it! If Broshi wants peace and coexistence, his views on Josephus are treife! Of course! Why, that makes soooooooooooooo much sense!

Process:

NOBODY, ANYWHERE, KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT A "MIRACLE OF OIL" UNTIL, AT THE EARLIEST, 150 YEARS ***AFTER*** THE 1ST HANUKKA.

Of course, you claim, it was SECRET knowledge shared only by a few insiders until it was "safe" to reveal it.

So therefore you must contend the tens of thousands of people who were there at the 1st Hanukka all conspired to keep that secret for a couple of hundred years, that the hundreds of thousands of Jews in the diaspora who were informed of the events of the 1st Hanukka by the Maccabees also joined that conspiracy even though the threat that supposedly motivated it did not exist for them, and that NO MEMORY OF THAT CONSPIRACY SURVIVED AND WAS RECORDED AFTER IT WAS "SAFE" TO REVEAL IT. This strains not only credibility, but sanity.

[Saruk]

There is such a thing as emunas chachomim and shlomei emunei Yisroel. "To the man who has that emunah, there are no questions. To the man who hasn't got it, there are no answers!" (Chazon Ish). Conspiracies of silence are not unknown eg the absence of Yisrael in the Egyptian records. Of course, Scott uses that to deny the Exodus. Just like he denies that there was a creatio ex nihilo, that a Nochosh once walked and spoke Hebrew, that an ass once spoke Hebrew, that the sea split for Moses, that the Creator spoke from a mountain, that 3 million people lived 40 years in a desert eating bread from heaven, that the sun stopped for Yehoshua, that 300 men defeated 135,000, that the sun reversed itself for Chiziya etc etc. If the "minor" nes of Hannukah so strains Scott's sanity, then these bigger nissim must've really driven him to an unrecoverable insanity!

[Neo-Conservaguy]

"ust like he denies that there was a creatio ex nihilo, that a Nochosh once walked and spoke Hebrew, that an ass once spoke Hebrew..."

I don't know about speaking Hebrew, but I think you've proved an ass can write English.

[TCP]

It seems as though Shmarya is not Orthodox, not Moderdox, not Masorti, not Conservative, not Liberal, not Reform, not Atheist, not Tzeduki, not neo-Frankist (see http://www.donmeh-west.com/ ), not neo-Essene (see http://essenesjewishandreal.blogspot.com/ ), not quite Karaite. Nor is he on the madreigoh of Apikores just yet. So What exactly is he?

[Shmarya]

This comment was left on a much newer post. I'm reposting it here on the request of the commenter:

Shmarya wrote that maybe it never happened, and I contributed classnotes from a lecture I attended by Rabbi Adam Mintz. Rabbi Mintz quoted an Israeli Professor, Vered Noam of Tel Aviv University. I just came across the article she published, from which article I presume he quoted. You can find it in the Hebrew Union College Annual 73:191-226 (2002) and it's titled "The Miracle of the Cruise of Oil--The Metamorphosis of a Legend."