1. Josephus and the Great Jewish Revolt
I doubt if Pilkin and I would have become mates had it not been for the Josephus Flavius trial staged by TA.1 in 1950. Although the War of Independence was by then long over, Israel had not fully recovered from its economic and social effects. Commodities were scarce, prices were high and the black market was booming. One of the objectives of Israeli schools of that period was to turn its pupils into good citizens. Nobody was held in greater contempt than a traitor to the struggle for the survival of the two years old nation.
A pedagogical tool used in this effort was the holding of historical trials of all those who had been untrue to the cause of the Jewish struggle for survival. Benedictus Spinoza, sad to tell, was one of the many victims. The prime target, though, was Josephus Flavius, held universally in contempt for his alleged betrayal of the Jewish struggle against the yoke of the Roman empire in the first century A.D.
Josephus Flavius – Joseph ben Matityahu in Hebrew – was the heir of a cosmopolitan and hence assimilated family of priests. Little is known about his early years except that he obtained a liberal education. In his mid-twenties, he travelled to Rome to plead the cause of some zealots who had been sent for trial by Felix, the then procurator of Judea. Josephus secured an introduction to Nero Caesar’s wife, the promiscuous Popea, and persuaded her, by means of a bribe, to secure the dismissal of the charges.
Josephus then spent a number of happy years in the metropolis of the world. On his return to Jerusalem, he discovered that the small protectorate was getting ready to raise the banner of revolt. He was sent to the Galilee by the conservative members of the Grand Sanhedrin, with instructions to nip the movement in the bud.
Josephus relates in his autobiography how he attempted to carry out his mission but was overtaken by the tide. In the event, he found himself at the head of the liberation movement in the hilly north. He was given the task of fortifying and defending the township of Jodefet (Jotapata in Latin), an important centre of the rebels.
Was Josephus blinded by the enthusiasm of the hour? Did his inner traditional though suppressed Jewish self get the better of his sophisticated and elegant veneer? Views differ. His conversion, though, did little to save the cause: the outcome was clear from the outset. True to tradition, a Roman army marched down from Antioch and, grinding slowly but steadily, quenched the rebellion mercilessly. The crucial chapter in the Galilee took place when the walls of Jodefet, manned by Josephus’ corps, came tumbling down. Scourging and crucifixion were amongst the punishments meted out to the freedom fighters caught alive.
Those who managed to escape joined comrades defending lesser towns. Josephus and some of his men were trapped in a cave. When tribunes of the Roman army offered them their lives, Josephus was tempted. His comrades refused. After a vehement argument, the group agreed to commit communal suicide, drawing lots to determine the order of the executions. Josephus was one of the last caught. Reverting to his original design, he persuaded the other survivor to surrender together with him.
Initially, Josephus was put in chains and was to be sent to Rome for punishment. Never at a loss, he insisted such a plan was wasteful because the Roman commander, Flavius Vaspasian, was soon to succeed to the throne upon Nero’s death. Sceptical yet gratified, Vaspasian relented. When the prediction came true, he granted the fugitive a pardon and, eventually, adopted him into his own family.
After the fall Jerusalem, which was razed to the ground by Vaspasian’s son, Titus, Josephus proceeded to Rome. During the long reign of the Flavians, he composed two major historical works: ‘The Wars of the Jews and the Romans’ and ‘Antiquities of the Jews’. In defence of his defection, he pleaded a dream in which a divine voice prompted him to record the history of the Jewish revolt.
It has to be conceded that his book on the subject remains the main source of that sad chapter in human sufferings. But this achievement did little to cleanse his tarnished image. European and Jewish historians alike have dubbed him a coward and traitor. Many of them overlooked the basic fact that historical treatises – except Josephus’ tomes – were laconic on the subject.
2. An Informal Planning Session over Pita Falafel
TA.1’s historical trial of Josephus was meant to follow what had, by then, become a well established precedent amongst Israeli secondary schools. Three pupils renowned for their orthodoxy and nationalism, including fair Shosh who had written an epic essay on the heroism of the Great Revolt, were constituted judges. Pilkin, who was considered a fine orator and a sound performer, was to lead the prosecution. Difficulties arose when the Principal sought to nominate an attorney for the defence: nobody wanted to plead the cause of a Quisling. After some wranglings, I agreed to assume the role. Having studied Josephus’ extant writings, I concluded he had been misunderstood.
A few weeks before the trial, Pilkin and I held an informal conference on a bench in Rothschild Boulevard over a Pita Falafel. Initially, Pilkin was too engrossed in his repast to concentrate on more mundane matters. Eventually, he smacked his lips, smiled with satisfaction and came to the point.
“Look here, Bushi, we don’t want to spend too much time on this trial? Last term I bombed out in the algebra test and your performance in chemistry …”
“ … the less said the better,” I muttered in disgust. “For the life of me, I can’t see why they force ‘humanists’ to take at least one science subject! What use is a science subject going to be to one of us?”
“Ours not to question!” Pilkin replied but nodded sympathetically. “I suppose these topics are meant to broaden our horizons; give us a balance!”
“I have enough trouble with Arabic without all this nonsense about chemistry. If you hadn’t lent me your notes when I was sick last month, I would’ve bombed the test in Arabic too!”
“You lose a lot of time when you get these bouts of Asthma. All the more reason to economise on the time spent on this trial. So why not agree to … streamline?”
“We can try. What are your main accusations against Josephus?”
“We’ll ‘indict’ him for poor military leadership, cowardice, assimilation, unreliability as historian and, of course, treason.”
“My main concern is the last. The others involve a value judgment; and they are minor when compared with treason. For instance, Herodotus was not only the father of history but also the father of lies. And I don’t find our modern historians reliable. And why not drop this ‘assimilated’ Jew business. Most educated Jews of that period were assimilated.”
“A question of degree!” Pilkin tried to sound firm.
“True. But we know little about Josephus’ ‘status’ and affiliations prior to the Great Revolt. So if you leave that bit out, you can reduce your team by one witness. It’ll save a lot of time on preparation.”
“All right then,” Pilkin nodded. “So I’ll call only four witnesses. And you?”
“I won’t call witnesses. I’ll make my points by cross-examining yours.”
3. Issues of Procedure
Pilkin’s eyes popped wide open. For a few moments he gazed at me in disbelief. Based on his experiences in TA.1 and in debating clubs, he had formed the belief that all controversial issues had to be resolved by logical arguments based on written texts. He had no appreciation of the procedural devices used in courts and by committees of enquiry.
“Is the method you have in mind OK?” he asked at long last.
“Done all the times in real courts!”
“Shosh tells me you watch trials from time to time! So do you want to become a lawyer?” Pilkin let his disapproval show.
“Maybe. You see, I dropped into our District Court last year, when we had a break between these two silly maths and physics exams in Jaffa Street. The cases I heard were exciting!”
“Rape trials?” Like all adolescents, Pilkin was interested in everything smacking of sex.
“No! One was a running down case and the other an industrial accident. In both cases the defendants called no witnesses. Their lawyers broke the chaps who sued: the ‘plaintiffs’ in legal jargon, by subjecting them to awkward questions!”
“Not very nice!”
“Perhaps. But it was very efficient!”
“But in our trial, shouldn’t we stick to the Talmudic procedure?”
“But, honestly, Pilkin,” I protested, “what do we really know about Talmudic procedure except a lot of clichés!”
“True,” agreed Pilkin sadly. “But, Bushi, I know nothing about modern courtroom procedure!”
“Can’t say I know much. Still, we can watch a few trials together and get the basics. For the rest we can improvise.”
“But court trials must be boring! I’ve no wish to become a lawyer or liar!”
“But you want to become an actor!”
“Precisely!”
“Some lawyers are real showmen, Pilkin. One moment they are purring kittens only to turn into roaring lions when it suits them!”
“Sounds interesting,” Pilkin reflected. “OK – let’s do it!”