As a historian and writer, I rely on many sources both old and new in my unending attempt to understand the first-century Roman world. Among the most valuable primary sources for this period is the Jewish historian Josephus. All modern historians of this period rely on at least two of his essential works: the Antiquities of the Jews, which tells the story of Judaism from Creation until the time of Josephus; and the Jewish War, which documents the Jewish revolt against Roman oppression that lasted from 66 CE to 73 CE when all the rebels were finally defeated.

The Jewish War is particularly useful for understanding the revolt that resulted in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple in the year 70. Josephus was part of that revolt until he turned his back on his countrymen and defected to the other side, later fawning over the might and bright future of the Roman general Vespasian.

In my studies, I frequently consult Josephus’s two important works. But I must confess that I have never completely read, from cover to cover, either composition. They are voluminous publications: Antiquities consists of twenty “books” while War takes up seven. I thought that I basically knew what was in them and that I had read all of the key passages. So you can imagine my surprise when, while conducting research for a forthcoming book, I stumbled on the following lines.

To set the stage, Josephus was describing a situation early in the revolt when the Zealot party had taken charge of Jerusalem. John, son of Levi, hailing from the town of Gischala in Galilee, was their leader. According to Josephus, who had no love for the rebels (as you might imagine), John had become tyrannical and brutal. He wrote:

“The people of Jerusalem found…the Zealots inside [i.e., the walls of the city] more oppressive…Among the Zealots the Galilean contingent took the invention and blatant practice of new atrocities to unrivalled extremes. It was they who had elevated John [of Gischala] to power, and from the autocratic position he had won with their help he rewarded them with the license to do whatever any of them wanted. Looting was their passion, and they could never get enough of it; they loved ransacking wealthy houses; they murdered and raped women for amusement; and they boozed away the proceeds of their bloodstained spoils.” (Jewish War 4.558-560; trans. Martin Hammond)

Again, we need to remember that Josephus had no love for the revolutionaries he wrote about, therefore he is prone to exaggeration. But he was in a position to learn firsthand what was going on within the walls as citizens of the city found ways to escape and report what was taking place. With every political movement there are well-meaning advocates and, in their wake, abusers who take advantage of opportunities created by chaos. Many of these Galileans began as brigands; they belonged to raider groups and other bandit organizations. Their motives were hardly pure.

But it is with the next passage that I was prompted to write this post. It is one I had to read several times to make sure I was reading it correctly.

“Sated with all this, and with no one to stop them, they [i.e., the Galilean wing of the Zealot party] went all effeminate, doing up their hair, wearing women’s clothes, drenching themselves in scent, and applying eyeliner to make themselves pretty. And it was not just the adoption of female dress: they also played the female role in sex, and their total depravity had them inventing new and utterly obscene modes of intercourse. They treated the city as a brothel and wallowed in it, polluting every part of it with their contamination. They may have feminized their faces, but they kept the hands of killers; they would come mincing up to anyone in the street, then suddenly turn warrior, whip out a sword from under their fancy colored cloaks, and run them through.” (JW 4.561-564)

Keeping in mind Josephus’s tendency to exaggerate, what information did he rely upon when he wrote this passage? He took up much space citing many specifics which would hardly have been necessary if he simply wanted to heap insults on the Zealots. Did this really take place among the Galilean bandits and brigands, revolutionaries and warriors?

One thing to keep in mind is that Josephus wrote to a Roman readership. The Jewish War was written decades after the events it describes. Having been granted an estate in Rome in which to retire, he composed his two major works in an effort to rehabilitate the Jewish people in the eyes of a Roman readership following the disastrous and costly revolt. He clearly tried to put the blame for the revolt on the most heinous actors from among the unwitting people, innocent pawns or dupes victimized by the rebel leadership’s greedy and brutal scheming. Another thing to bear in mind is the concept of gender and sex among pagans in the Roman world.

Most people know that same-gender sex was tolerated in the Roman world, with the (apparent) exception of Judaism. Jewish writers living among pagans frequently cited idolatry as the Gentiles’ primary sin which led to all sorts of depravity including sexual sins. But Roman writers viewed sex as a free man’s prerogative to impose himself upon anyone he chose: women, men, boys. What Roman society would not tolerate was a free man allowing himself to be used sexually by someone of an inferior social class. A free man allowing himself to be penetrated by a social inferior was grounds for civil, social, economic, and even corporal remedy. Free men acting effeminately was received no better – to be a free man was the highest position in society next to a god. To forfeit one’s masculinity was social suicide.

It may have been this that Josephus had in mind when castigating the Galilean Zealots (Josephus himself was commander of the Galilean resistance until he defected). He may have been heaping as much abuse on them as he could muster, debasing them in a way he knew would elicit negative reactions from Roman readers. It may be that at least a kernel of truth lies in the hiding of weapons underneath innocent-looking clothing which could be used at a moment’s notice. The so-called Sicarii carried sica, or daggers, beneath their mantles to be drawn out the instant an attack was warranted.

Nevertheless, we are forced to consider whether any of Josephus’s accusations in this passage are historically true. It seems incredible given the lack of Jewish literature on the subject of Jewish homosexuality or transgender dressing in the second temple period. The body of Jewish writing from this period is quite explicit when castigating Jews for various sins perceived to have led to Israel’s troubles. But sexual sins are not among them. At this point, we can only note this oddity in Josephus’s compelling story of a people desperate for freedom attempting to liberate themselves from Roman oppression.